Skip to main content

Full text of "Holocaust denial"

See other formats



Kenneth S. Stern 

The American Jewish Committee 
New York 

Kenneth S. Stern is program specialist on anti-Semitism and extremism for the 
American Jewish Committee. 

The American Jewish Committee protects the rights and freedoms of Jews the world 
over; combats bigotry and anti-Semitism and promotes human rights for alt; works 
for the security of Israel and deepened understanding between Americans and Israe- 
lis; advocates public policy positions rooted in American democratic values and the 
perspectives of the Jewish heritage: and enhances the creative vitality of the Jewish 
people. Founded in 1906, it is the pioneer human-relations agency in the United 

Copyright © 1993 The American Jewish Committee® 
All rights reserved 

Library of Congress catalog number 93-070665 
ISBN 0-87495-102-X 

First printing April 1993 
Second printing June 1993 
Third printing July 1994 

This publication is dedicated to the memory of Zachariah Shuster, 
who gave 40 years of extraordinary service to the cause of world 
Jewry, human rights, and Jewish-Christian understanding. He 
opened AJC's European office in 1948, helping thousands of Holo- 
caust survivors, and, later, North African Jews fleeing anti-Semi- 
tism, rebuild their lives. On behalf of the AJC, he had a hand in 
establishing the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against 
Germany, the passage of Nostra Aela^e— which marked a turning 
point in Catholic attitudes toward Jews — and the publication of 
German textbooks containing accurate information about Jews, 
Judaism, anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust. In the early 1950s, 
Zachariah Shuster was one of the first to speak out about the plight 
of Soviet Jewry. It is appropriate that this book — one of the first to 
target Holocaust denial—be dedicated to him. 





The beginnings of Holocaust denial 6 

What do they say to deny the Holocaust? 8 



In the classroom, on the campus 10 

Radio and television 14 

Libraries and courts 15 

The political process 18 

In the separationist American black community 19 

Religious groups ^1 

Relativism 22 


Europe ^^ 

Germany 2' 

Britain 30 

France ^^ 

Austria ^^ 

Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, Spain 36 

Romania 38 

Ukraine 38 


Former Yugoslavia 39 

Hungary 40 

Poland 40 

Slovakia 40 

Russia 40 

South America 42 

Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, Mexico, Peru 42 

South Africa 44 

Australia and New Zealand 44 

Canada 46 

Japan 48 

Arab Nations and Groups 49 

Target Israel 52 

Left Wing 53 

Should denial of the Holocaust be a criminal offense? 56 


Exposing Holocaust deniers 58 
Claim: Hitler did not order, and did not know about, the 

extermination of the Jews 62 
Claim: That the crematoria could not have accommodated the 

number of corpses necessary 65 
Claim: That only a few hundred thousand Jews died during 
World War II, these the victims of hunger, typhus, etc.; that the 

figure of 6 milHon exterminated is fiction 66 

Claim: That the Nuremberg trials were a fraud 68 

Claim: That the Survivors' recollections are unreliable 70 
Claim: That neither Churchill nor Eisenhower, in their memoirs, 

mention either gas chambers or a genocide program. 71 

Claim: That Auschwitz was not a death camp 71 

Claim: That Anne Frank's diary was a fraud 79 



Holocaust studies 82 
Planning ahead for a world without witnesses: Holocaust denial in 

the next century 84 








NOTES 153 

INDEX 183 



I became interested in Holocaust denial when I saw history repeat- 
ing itself. Whenever I asked friends what they thought of those who 
claim the Holocaust was a hoax, they'd laugh. "Who believes these 
nut cases?" they'd ask. "There's so much evidence about the Holo- 
caust, why worry?" 

I remembered similar reactions to the United Nations' equation 
of Zionism with racism in 1975. "No one will take this seriously," 
many said. They were wrong. In only a few years, the Zionism = 
racism canard found its way into dictionaries, law books, even 
placards in parades. Jews were told on many college campuses, 
including some U.S. campuses, that because they were Jews they 
were Zionists, and because they were Zionists they were racists. 
Even after the UN repealed the resolution in 1991, this slander 
remains a justification for anti-Semitism in many parts of the world. 

The history of anti-Semitism emblazons one truth above ail 
others: lies that promote Jew-hatred must never be ignored. Holo- 
caust denial, though ridiculed today, has the attributes to become 
a potent form of anti-Semitism. 

This book is divided into five parts. The introduction traces 
what denial is, and who is behind it. The first chapter examines 
denial in the United States; the second looks at denial worldwide. 
The third chapter debunks the deniers' specific claims. The last 


chapter offers a framework for combating denial and anti-Semitism 
in the generations to come. 

I hope this book persuades the reader of two things: one, that 
Holocaust denial must be taken seriously; two, that combating it 
cannot be a matter of Holocaust education alone. Holocaust denial 
is not about historical truth. It is about anti-Jewish hatred as part 
of a political agenda—and must be confronted as such. 

This book's release coincides with the opening of the Holocaust 
Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. The Memorial may 
become a focus for the deniers, who will now have a symbolic 
address to target their neo-Nazi views. This publication is intended 
not only to suggest how to combat Holocaust denial, but also to 
increase awareness of the Museum's lesson: that genocide is always 
possible if people are complacent about hatred. 

Kenneth S. Stern 

Program Specialist, Anti-Semitism and Extremism 

American Jewish Committee 




"How many Jews were gassed?" the protestors repeated over and 
over, as they marched in front of NBC headquarters in New York. 
"None!" they yelled. "Stop the hoax!" 

Reporters interviewed the demonstrators. 

"Why are you opposed to NBC showing the film Holocaust?" 
one reporter asked. 

"Because," a protestor explained, the movie is "a Zionist at- 
tempt to further instill a guilt complex in the minds of the American 
people so that we will fail to analyze our Middle East policy objec- 
tively, and thus not question the billions of American tax dollars 
squandered on Israeh military supplies." 

"But didn't the Nuremberg trials prove the existence of the 
Holocaust?" the reporter asked. 

"No," the protestor explained, "no responsible historian today 
considers the Nuremberg trials as anything but a 'kangaroo court' 
conducted by the victors." 

"But weren't Jews persecuted in Germany?" the reporter chal- 

"While discrimination against Jews did exist in Germany," the 
demonstrator admitted, "the official objective of the German gov- 
ernment was to encourage the emigration of Jews, not extermina- 

This bizarre protest occurred on September 9, 1979.' Thirteen 

years later, it was Jews who had to demonstrate in front of another 
media giant. In 1992 the Sunday Times of London hired one of the 
world's leading Holocaust deniers, David Irving, to translate the 
diaries of Joseph Goebbels — for a fee of $150,000.^ 

The 1990s are witnessing a steady growth of Holocaust denial 
worldwide. Who believes such nonsense — that the Holocaust never 
occurred? Today, one in ten Italians do.^ Fifteen years ago, Holo- 
caust denial was the stuff of cut-and-paste hate literature and neo- 
Nazi catalogs. Today, it is promoted in the political process, the 
media, and the university, even in the United States. In 1986 the 
Institute for Historical Review (an anti-Semitic organization cre- 
ated to promote Holocaust denial) testified before Congress about 
Holocaust curricula in public schools." In 1992, two Republican 
presidential candidates endorsed Holocaust denial, one (David 
Duke) fully, one (Patrick Buchanan) partially. Throughout the 
1980s and into the 1990s deniers have been invited guests on scores 
of radio and television programs. Holocaust-denying ads have been 
printed in many college newspapers. 

Denial, or "revisionism,"^ as the deniers cynically call it, plays 
on classical anti-Semitic stereotypes: Jewish conspiracy and Jewish 
control of the media. It is unabashedly anti-Israel. It is well orga- 
nized. And it exploits a true historical phenomenon: history is 
always reexamined by later generations, especially histories of wars, 
since the victors do indeed put their "spin" on events. 

What "spin" do the Holocaust deniers put on World War II? 
One that, like any crazy dogma, is internally consistent, entirely 
self-supporting, and rejects any challenge as conspiratorially in- 
spired. Its adherents are zealous because they believe they have 
discovered a societally suppressed "truth." Root such a dogma in 
a well-financed pro-Nazi and anti- Jewish ideology and anything 
becomes possible, especially as Holocaust denial is presented as 
noble intellectual inquiry, not as attack on Jews or as the "spin" 
modem-day Nazis would prefer. 

"What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or dehber- 
ately killed six million Jews?" the Institute for Historical Review 
asks in a widely circulated question-and-answer leaflet about the 
Holocaust (now translated into German, Italian and Spanish).^ 
"None," the sheet proclaims. "The only evidence is the testimony 
of individual 'survivors.' This testimony is contradictory, and few 

'survivors' claim to have witnessed any gassing. There is no hard 
evidence whatsoever: no mounds of ashes, no crematoria capable of 
doing the job, no piles of clothes, no human soap, no lamp shades 
made of human skin, no records, no credible demographic statis- 

"Why did the Germans intern Jews in concentration camps?" 
the leaflet asks. It answers: "Because the Germans considered Jews 
a direct threat to their national sovereignty and survival, and be- 
cause Jews were overwhelmingly represented in Communist subver- 

Question: "How many Jews died in the concentration camps?" 
Answer: "About 300,000." 

Question: "How did they die?" Answer: "Mainly from recur- 
ring typhus epidemics that ravaged war-torn Europe during the 
period. Also from starvation and lack of medical attention toward 
the end of the war when virtually all road and rail transportation 
had been bombed out by the Allies." 

Since no extermination camps were on German soil (which is 
true), the deniers paint Dachau, a concentration camp in Germany, 
as a relatively pleasurable place.' 

What was Auschwitz then, located in Poland? Answer: "A 
large-scale manufacturing complex . . . and its inmates were used as 
a work force." 

What about gas chambers? There weren't any, the sheet says: 
"Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was extensively modified after 
the war and a mortuary was reconstructed to look like a large 'gas 
chamber.' After America's leading expert on gas chamber construc- 
tion and design, Fred Leuchter, examined this and other alleged 
Auschwitz gassing facilities, he stated that it was an 'absurdity' to 
claim that they were . . . used for executions." 

Deniers argue that all the confessions at Nuremberg were false, 
the result of torture; that gassing was only for delousing; that if 
gassing had been the policy, a gas other than Zykion-B" would have 
been used; that the crematoria could not have operated quickly 
enough to account for all the dead; that pictures of the dead were 
of people who had died of typhus, or, as the IHR's question-and- 
answer sheet proclaims, "piles of German women and children 
killed in Allied bombing raids who have been passed off as dead 

Deniers, of course, argue that Nazi Gennany in general, and 
Hitler in particular, weren't so bad. Question: "What was the main 
provision of the German 'Nuremberg laws of 1935'? " Answer: 
"Laws against intermarriage and sexual relations between Germans 
and Jews, similar to laws existing in Israel today." Question: "Were 
there any American precedents for the Nuremberg Laws?" Answer: 
''Many states in the U.S.A. had laws preventing intermarriage and 
sexual relations between persons of different races long before the 
Nazis." Question: "What evidence is there that Hitler knew of the 
ongoing Jewish extermination." Answer: "None." 

Through lies, distortions, and half-truths, hard-core deniers re- 
paint a world where Nazis are the victims and Jews are the villains. 
It IS, literally, history turned on its head. And it is a revised history 
that is very attractive: it rejects any need to feel bad about geno- 
cide—in fact, if you feel bad about genocide, you're a sap. 

That's why, when Josef Schwammberger, a Nazi war criminal 
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Jews, was sentenced to life 
imprisonment in Germany on May 18, 1992, protestors not only 
demanded Schwammberger's release, but also decried "the lie that 
only one country was guilty for the war." 

The danger of denial is that one need not be a neo-Nazi to 
imbibe the anti-Semitism of this poisonous nectar. This is especially 
true for young people, for whom the 1930s and 1940s are the stale 
history of their grandparents' youth. Put yourself into an eighteen- 
year-old's frame of mind. Who is to say Nazism was so bad? After 
all, it wasn't a fringe movement. In one of the greatest industrial 
powers of all time, millions followed this doctrine. And, of course, 
maybe some Jews were exterminated, but who is to say that Jews 
haven't exaggerated the details for their own purposes? This alleged 
Holocaust occurred during a war. CiviHans always die during wars. 
It wasn't only Jews that were killed. Who knows what happened 
anyway? It's old history, so why does it matter? 

In the United States during the 1991-92 academic year, a denier 
named Bradley Smith offered Holocaust-denying ads to college 
newspapers. A few ran them. Most didn't. Holocaust "revision- 
ism," as Smith called it, was roundly ridiculed, as if someone 
wanted to recast the experience of slavery as a myth, stating with 
a straight face that the slave ships were actually pleasure boats.' But 
the slavery-Holocaust comparison is not valid. People may dimin- 

ish the horror of slavery, but no one would deny it— the institution 
was even written into the U.S. Constitution (slaves were to be 
counted as three-fifths of a human being). Nor does one need to 
know the names of the slave ships, or the ports of entry, or the 
points of origin, or the names of the plantation owners, or the 
diaries of the times, or the horrors of the Middle Passage, to know 
that slavery occurred. Holocaust deniers exploit the fact that the 
Holocaust occurred during a war, and that German leadership tried 
to hide evidence of its guilt. Like defense lawyers freed from any 
rule of evidence, deniers distort or invent or ignore "facts" to 
"prove" their thesis (that the Holocaust never occurred) or to cre- 
ate the impression that the Holocaust is a topic to be debated. There 
are "revisionists" and "exterminationists." Two sides to every 
story. You don't want to debate? That's suppression of free speech, 
they say — as well as evidence that you have something to hide. 

With years of practice, millions of dollars to spend, and an 
increasingly large collection of material, the deniers are here to stay. 
They are especially targeting the young with anti-Semitic hate 
cloaked — -as William McPherson, writing in the Washington Post, 
correctly calls it^"in the garb of reason." And make no mistake 
about it — to the unknowing, the minutiae of Holocaust denial ap- 
pear reasonable. It is anti-Semitism masquerading as objective 
scholarly inquiry. 

Who is behind it? Where did it start? What is its agenda? How 
does it differ in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, East- 
ern Europe? Why does it have support from both the Left and the 
Right? How does it relate to classical anti-Semitism? How does it 
fit into anti-Israel propaganda? Why have some seen this as legiti- 
mate debate rather than hate or fiction? In the United States, what 
are the First Amendment implications? How have institutions 
(media, talk radio, colleges, politicians) dealt with denial? How 
should they? What will happen when there are no more survivors 
and liberators, when new generations are further removed from the 
Holocaust? How are genocides remembered or misremembered 
anyway? Are there historical lessons to suggest how to combat 
denial? What do these lessons say about community interaction, 
about the abihty of groups with "competing genocides" to work 
together? How successful has education been as an antidote for 
Holocaust denial? Can hateful fiction be fought with historical 

truth? Or should hate be the primary target? 

If those questions are troubling and difficult to answer, consider 
this one: What if the post- World War II decline in anti-Semitism — 
as proved by attitudinal surveys, polls, and the opening of previ- 
ously barred doors to Jews — is partly a reaction to the Holocaust? 
If this theory is true, then does the passage of time, let alone the 
attempt to deny the Holocaust, mean that our children and grand- 
children will live in a more anti-Semitic world? 

The Beginnings of Holocaust Denial 

Holocaust denial began before the Holocaust ended. 

"In 1944," explains Gerry Gable,'" editor of the London-based 
antifascist monthly Searchlight, "people who were SS, who were 
propagandists, who were involved in the camp system, knew they 
lost the war, and left Germany. Sweden was one of the places they 
went. Some went to the Arab states, and into some South American 
countries. There they began to work for the readjustment of his- 
tory. Holocaust denial material first appeared very very early after 
the war." 

One of the earliest European Holocaust deniers was Paul Rass- 
inier, a French concentration camp survivor. A former socialist and 
anarchist, he first blamed the kapos for the suffering in the camps, 
then used every inconsistency he could find in statements about the 
Holocaust to cast doubt on both the Nazi intention to kill Jews and 
the numbers of Jews killed. His book, published in French as Le 
Monsonge d'Ulysse in 1949, was translated into English after his 
death in 1967. It is still widely promoted by neo-Nazis around the 

Americans added to the early denial literature. Harry Elmer 
Barnes, an isolationist, was best known for his writings whitewash- 
ing the German role in World War L in 1962, in a pamphlet called 
Blasting the Historical Blackout, Barnes claimed that Germans who 
were expelled from Poland and Czechoslovakia after World War II 
suffered a fate "obviously far more hideous and prolonged than 
those of the Jews said to have been exterminated in great numbers 
by the Nazis." According to Holocaust scholar Lucy Dawidowicz, 
Barnes had "already doubted that the Third Reich had committed 
any atrocities or murder" by 1962." In 1966, he published "Revi- 

sionism: A Key to Peace," in which he claimed that "it is almost 
alarmingly easy to demonstrate that the atrocities of the Allies in 
the same period were more numerous as to victims and were carried 
out for the most part by methods more brutal and painful than 
alleged extermination in gas ovens. "'^ 

By the late 1960s, both Barnes and Rassinier had died. A new 
crop of deniers replaced them. David Hoggan wrote The Myth of 
the Six Million,'^ published by Noontide Press, part of the network 
of anti-Semitic enterprises associated with America's leading anti- 
Semite, Willis Carto'" and his Liberty Lobby.*^ This work at- 
tempted to disprove the German eyewitness reports of the Holo- 
caust, and otherwise rebut the evidence of the murder of European 
Jewry. "^ 

Denial Mterature was first noticed outside the neo-Nazi crowd in 
1976, when Dr. Arthur R. Butz, an American professor at North- 
western University (who still teaches electrical engineering there), 
wrote The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. Butz admitted that Jews 
were persecuted, but denied they were exterminated. Any chambers 
were for delousing, he charged. "Jews," he insisted, "should be 
elated to discover that large numbers of their people were not 
deliberately destroyed." People who had never heard of Holocaust 
denial learned of it through the controversy surrounding Butz, 
whose right of academic freedom was supported by Northwestem's 

Holocaust denial was launched as a serious enterprise by profes- 
sional anti-Semites in 1979. Willis Carto, apparently not satisfied to 
promote denial through his other anti-Semitic outlets, opened the 
Institute for Historical Review. 

Carlo, according to Gerry Gable, is "a life-long anti-Semite." 
Carto and his colleagues "got a bit of money from the Middle East, 
and elsewhere, and started to recreate history. They give themselves 
spectacular titles. The Institute of This. The Institute of That. Pro- 
fessor this. Professor that. And you look at some of their professor- 
ships, and they've got nothing to do with the subjects they're writ- 
ing about." 

In 1979 the Institute had its first annual conference. Deniers 
from around the world attended, and exposed American white 
supremacists and neo-Nazis to this new idea. David Duke, then a 
Ku Klux Klan leader, attended an IHR meeting. He was apparently 

so enthralled that a 1980 edition of his Klan paper, the Crusader, 
was dubbed a "Special Holocaust Edition." "Germans and South- 
erners are invariably portrayed unfavorably by the Jewish-domi- 
nated media . . . Photographs ... of alleged gas chamber victims 
were fakes," he wrote. Another Nazi leader, Frank Colin, head of 
the National Socialist Party of America, also enthusiastically em- 
braced this further ideological justification for his anti-Semitism. 
"There was no Holocaust," Colin said, "but they deserve one— and 
will get it."'« 

Holocaust denial was attractive to the far right anti-Semitic 
crowd because it validated their belief that Jews were evil and 
conspiratorial. By ignoring all the facts and witnesses that belie 
denial. Holocaust denial can be given an air of truth, especially if 
this "truth" is written by people with Ph.D.'s. That is why Carte's 
lie-tank collected professors and began pubhshing the Journal of 
Historical Review, designed to look like any other academic jour- 
nal. Today, the IHR churns out not only scholarly looking jour- 
nals, but also audio and videotapes of its conferences.*" IHR mate- 
rial—including books and pamphlets^is sent all over the world. 
The IHR is the spine of the international Holocaust denial move- 
ment, and, according to Leonard Zeskind,^" research director of the 
Center for Democratic Renewal, the IHR's influence now is only a 
fraction of what it will be. "It is getting a $10 million bequest from 
one of the heirs of Thomas Edison," Zeskind notes, "solely for the 
purpose of promoting Holocaust denial."^' 

What Do They Say to Deny the Holocaust? 

The worst mistake any rational person can make is to think that 
since Holocaust denial is so irrational, it must appear irrational to 
others. It doesn't.^ Read any Holocaust denial article that avoids 
overt Jew-hatred, and the arguments appear logical, internally con- 
sistent, and reasonable. French professor Robert Faurisson, for 
example, denies the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz by 
writing about the characteristics of the gas used to kill Jews— 
Zyklon-B. He argues that Zyklon-B is an eftective killer that sticks 
to surfaces. How, he asks, could such a powerful, combustible, and 
explosive gas have been used, when the testimony about the camp 
suggests that no special equipment was used to take the dead bodies 

out, that there would have been poisoned air pockets between 
corpses, that the people who removed the bodies smoked while 
doing so, and that the removal of corpses was said to be immediate 
when, even with the best technology, it would have required nearly 
a day to ventilate a gas chamber? 

Fred Leuchter, a self-proclaimed and self-taught "expert" on 
gas chambers, is the newest darling of the denial clan. He says he 
examined buildings in Auschwitz-Birkenau and Maidanek which 
would have contained chemical residue from the gas chambers if 
any Zyklon-B had been used, and found none.^^ 

Others point to statistics of Jewish population before and after 
the war. For example, in a booklet titled Auschwitz: Truth or Lie, 
by Thies Christophersen, the number of Jews in 1938 is given as 
15,688,259 — source, the American Jewish Committee; and 18,700,- 
000 in 1948— source, a New York Times article- How could there 
have been a Holocaust if there were 3 million more Jews after the 
war than before? 

Each professional denier has developed an "expertise." For the 
British David Irving, for example, it is the rehabilitation of Hitler. 
Regardless of their prime focus, however, most deniers come back 
to a central theme: that the indictment of Nazism as an unequivo- 
cally evil episode in human history is simplistic and in error. There 
are, after all, two sides to every story. After wars, the victors always 
write the history. Certainly, there must have been atrocities by both 
sides. Why are the Germans the only ones talked about? What 
about Allied bombing of German cities— Dresden, for example? 

To those who did not live through the events, the recasting of 
World War 11 may seem reasonable, especially if it is punctuated 
with stories that paint Churchill and Roosevelt as conspirators 
secretly plotting to pull poor Germany into a war it did not want. 
Evil becomes diluted in relativity. If one beheves in a relativized 
history, then anyone who points to an aspect of the same history, 
such as Nazi anti-Semitism, as unabashed evil becomes suspect. 
Jews, then, who knew nothing but unabashed evil during World 
War II, are double victims of the Holocaust. 

Chapter 1 

Holocaust Denial in the United 


Holocaust denial, although widely ridiculed, has appeared in many 
American institutions. In the classroom. On the campus. In politics. 
In Hbraries. On computers. On radio and television. It has not 
always been responded to well. The Institute for Historical Review 
and its fellow deniers know that if they target their message wisely 
and widely, they will have some success; and where they don't, the 
controversy they create will be success enough. 

In the Classroom, on the Campus 

In 1987, in Aurora, Colorado, public high school teacher Dorothy 
Groteluschen told her students that the Holocaust was really a 
"holohoax,"' and distributed copies of an article entitled "Swin- 
dlers of the Crematoria."^ She was disciplined. She sued. The 
school district settled, paying her $3,850.^ 

In 1990, in Winnetka, Illinois, a couple removed their daughter 
from her junior high school classes when the Holocaust was stud- 
ied. Holocaust study was mandated by Illinois law. The parents 
complained that the curriculum was the product of a "demented 
mind," namely Jewish propagandists who wanted the world to 
learn "gross distortions and myths" about the Holocaust. In sup- 
port of their decision, the girl's parents quoted The Hoax of the 
Twentieth Century by Arthur Butz."* 


In 1990, Donald Hiner taught a Western Civilization 101 class 
at Indiana-Purdue University, He said the Holocaust was a 
"myth"; that "the worst thing about Hitler is that without him, 
there would not be an Israel"; and that "If the Holocaust really 
occurred, you wouldn't have 2.5 million in Israel getting repara- 
tions." Considered a "good" teacher by students and administra- 
tion alike, Hiner's Holocaust denial went unnoticed for more than 
half the academic year, until one student taped a lecture and 
brought it to a dean's attention.* 

Other teachers have also used Holocaust-denying material. 
Some have been caught. Richard Countess, for example, was 
stopped from teaching a course using Arthur Butz's work at the 
University of Alabama. But others claim to be using the material 
without objection. One teacher from South Carolina, signing only 
his initials, wrote in the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) 
Newsletter that his students were "captivated" by Holocaust denial. 
"Many students in ray class have asked if I will meet them away 
from school during the summer just to talk," he wrote, "and I have 

Certainly, there are no school districts in the United States 
mandating or encouraging the teaching of Holocaust denial. But 
some teachers are, in fact, teaching it, others are writing it, and the 
issue, once discovered, becomes one with which academics have 
trouble. The deniers intentionally cloak the controversy they create 
in the garb of academic freedom and the discovery of knowledge 
through debate. 

Consider the controversy surrounding Arthur Butz's publica- 
tion of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century in 1976. Butz's claim of 
academic freedom was supported by the Northwestern faculty. 
Butz had tenure, which was held to be inviolate regardless of what 
crazy, hateful theories he believed. (Butz, of course, was an associ- 
ate professor of electrical engineering and computer science, not of 
history.) The faculty was on one side. On the other were Jewish 
alumni and contributors, outraged that their funds went partly to 
pay Butz's salary. They threatened to withhold their contributions. 

Although the administration disapproved of Butz's views — and 
urged the history department to hold a series of lectures to tell the 
truth about the 6 million Jews who had been murdered — it "just 
didn't get it" about Holocaust denial. Holocaust scholar Lucy Da- 


widowicz, who was asked to give one of the lectures, wrote that she 
"argued in private with some members of the faculty and the ad- 
ministration that the university's response was inadequate, for it 
seemed to me that they regarded the affair merely as an unfortunate 
incident affecting Jewish sensibilities. In fact, in their public state- 
ments the university's president and provost had treated the Butz 
scandal as a Jewish family sorrow. . . . No one at this great center 
of learning seemed to regard Butz's absurdities as an offense against 
historical truth, a matter supposedly of concern to an intellectual 
and academic community."' 

When Holocaust denial appears in an academic institution, 
Jews invariably are the most concerned and most visible in response 
to the outrage. Rarely has either the hate inherent in Holocaust 
denial or its intellectual dishonesty been fully appreciated by non- 
Jews. Old adages like "there are two sides to every story," or 
demands to "debate the facts," are everywhere to be heard. By 
demanding "open debate," the deniers obscure the truth that schol- 
ars debate the Holocaust's facts and lessons all the time — just not 
with neo-Nazis. The deniers want to poison that debate with their 
carefully crafted fiction, knowing that their charges of coverup and 
conspiracy are so farfetched that, by their very nature, they cannot 
easily be refuted. 

Making Holocaust denial seem not so outrageous is the self- 
appointed task of Bradley Smith, who is both the media project 
director for the Institute for Historical Review, and the head of 
something he calls the Committee for Open Debate about the Holo- 
caust. In the early 1990s, he submitted Holocaust-denying ads (see 
appendix A) to college and university newspapers, with some de- 
gree of success.^ For many, he was able to confuse the issue with one 
of free speech. Why, after all, should his point of view be rejected? 
Didn't newspapers have a responsibility to present all sides? What 
is it, he asked, about the Holocaust alone that gets people so upset 
if questions are raised? No other aspect of human history, he ar- 
gued, is "off limits" for debate.'' 

His approach, appealing to the First Amendment, confused the 
naive by disguising his design. Every aspect of human experience 
should be studied — and perhaps none more so than the history of 
human indulgence in hate and genocide. There have been thou- 
sands of books written about the Holocaust. Scholars worldwide 


are studying it. Some "truths" about the Holocaust have been 
challenged. Many believed gas chambers had been used at Da- 
chau—they were not. Many believed Jews had been made into 
soap^historians now refute that claim. *•* But these revisions of 
history were made by scholars— people who have real credentials, 
no anti-Semitic agenda, and who look at piles of dead bodies and 
human hair and children's shoes, mounds of documents and confes- 
sions and eyewitness accounts, and ask "What does this all mean?" 
rather than "How can I twist this evidence to cast doubt about the 
Holocaust?" Scholars are not people whose works are promoted 
with ads asking readers to look "at the guilt, and the gelt,"" or 
whose material — hke Bradley Smith's or David Irving's — can be 
purchased from the same catalogs that market Hitler's best 
speeches of 1933, the marching songs of the Waffen SS, the Proto- 
cols of the Elders ofZion, and books on eugenics (which try to prove 
that blacks are biologically inferior to whites). Just as no newspaper 
that pretends to know the difference between fact and fiction would 
print an ad for the "true" black experience in the American South 
printed by the Ku Klux Klan, no self-respecting newspaper should 
print Holocaust-denying ads. (In fact, the American Historical As- 
sociation issued a statement deploring "the publicly reported at- 
tempts to deny the fact of the Holocaust. No serious historian 
questions that the Holocaust took place. "'^) 

Many who do not recognize Holocaust denial as neatly dressed 
anti-Semitism also miscomprehend the First Amendment. If Smith 
were promoting the "virtues" of child molestation, no student 
newspaper would accept his advertisement, or give credence to his 
argument that the question was not being fairly "debated." 

When Smith first offered his ads, the American Jewish Commit- 
tee wrote to every college and university president in the United 
States, documenting Smith's relationship with the anti-Semitic In- 
stitute for Historical Review (see appendix B) and pointing out that 
"the First Amendment does not require a newspaper to accept 
every ad any more than the right of Americans accused of crime to 
a lawyer obligates all lawyers to take every client." 

Smith, and others like him, will continue pushing Holocaust 
denial and picking First Amendment fights to draw attention to 
themselves and to paint their agenda as a reasonable one. How 
institutions such as universities and the media react is critical— as 


well as whether real historians speak out to denounce these neo- 
Nazi impostors.*^ 

Institutional leadership must debunk the deniers' First Amend- 
ment claims. University presidents, chairs of departments, members 
of the boards of trustees and others must stress that while deniers 
unquestionably have the right to speak, to print their own newspa- 
pers, and to produce their own radio shows, the First Amendment 
does not obligate anyone else to give them a forum. These leaders 
must also denounce the hatred, bigotry, and historical pollution 
that is the handiwork of deniers who pose as historians. An institu- 
tion amplifies and legitimizes anti-Semitism either by accepting an 
ad (thereby saying that Holocaust denial is worthy of some respect), 
or by appearing indifferent to this injection of hatred. Either way, 
people are hurt. AJC encouraged university leaders to use their own 
free speech rights to denounce this form of anti-Semitism.'" 

Radio and Television 

Before Bradley Smith offered ads to college newspapers, he targeted 
talk radio,'^ both directly and through deceit. For example, during 
the Persian Gulf War in 1991, he sent circulars to radio stations 
advertising himself as an expert on war-crimes trials— an issue con- 
cerning Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. A few minutes into an 
interview, however. Smith mentioned how the Nuremberg trial 
actually didn't work. From there, he was off on his agenda of 
Holocaust denial. 

Various talk-show hosts, most prominently Barry Farber, re- 
fused to give Smith air time. Smith retaliated with nasty cards about 
Farber sent to people in the medium. Other talk show hosts, sensing 
a controversial topic, accepted Smith's request to appear. 

In the spring of 1990, the American Jewish Committee pub- 
lished a report. Hate on Talk Radio, that exposed the Liberty 
Lobby, the Institute for Historical Review, and Bradley Smith's 
attempts to promote Holocaust denial through talk radio. By 
Smith's own account, after the release of the AJC report only nine 
of 900 invitations he sent to stations resulted in on-air interviews.^^ 
Nonetheless, Smith knows that radio and television want spicy 
topics to drive up ratings, and Holocaust denial will certainly gener- 
ate heat. 


Smith also knows that he and his cohorts have a reservoir of 
facts, half-facts, quarter-facts, and outright lies to counter any 
talk-show host — for what radio personality can spend hundreds of 
hours researching the deniers' reasonable-sounding lies? Smith also 
knows that the people who can expose him are in a quandary: If 
they do not appear with him, his lies are unchallenged; and, worse, 
if they confront him, Smith's credibility is enhanced— there is now 
a "debate" between "opposing theories," something he craves. 

Programs where the "fact" of the Holocaust is debated are 
macabre things. Deniers appear reasonable with their minutiae, 
while survivors who try to debunk the hate are abused for the 
emotion in their voices. Listening to one of these programs makes 
one wonder what an eighteen-year-old might think — -Is there some- 
thing to this debate? Does this old history really matter? Either way, 
the deniers win. 

Most major Jewish organizations will not debate a Nazi or a 
member of the Ku Klux Klan, nor will they debate whether the 
Holocaust was fact or fiction — any more than a black leader would 
dignify a KKK member with a debate about whether slavery ex- 
isted, and if it did, whether it was a good thing. As Michael Harri- 
son, one of the nation's leading talk-show hosts and publisher of 
the trade journal Talkers, notes, most people in the industry are of 
"goodwill." Once they understand the pernicious motive of Holo- 
caust deniers — that these folks are not just quirky members of 
another "flat-earth society"— they will not provide them a forum. 
Of course, there are still opportunists. And the deniers know that 
even people of goodwill may not understand their hateful agenda 
until after a program is aired — if then. For example, in 1992, on 
Yom HaShoah, the day of Holocaust remembrance, the Montel 
Williams television talk show devoted an hour to the claims of 
Holocaust deniers, who were debated by survivors and an author. 
(See appendix C.) 

Libraries and Courts 

In 1984, the California Library Association planned to provide an 
exhibition booth to David McCalden, a Holocaust denier. The 
American Jewish Committee and the Simon Wiesenthal Center 
objected, as did other groups and individuals. McCalden was disin- 


vited. He sued, daiming that his civil rights were violated. After 
years of litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 
granted McCalden's widow (McCalden died, and his widow was 
given the right to press his case) the opportunity to have a trial on 
his claims. The Supreme Court declined to review that decision in 
1992. AJC and the Wiesenthal Center insisted that they did not 
violate McCalden's rights, and were prepared to fight the case. 
Fortunately, McCalden's widow withdrew the suit. However, one 
wonders what chilling effect such litigation would have had on 
other groups or individuals that don't see fighting bigotry as their 
mission. Holocaust deniers may continue to sue those who oppose 
their message, since litigation also attracts the media attention they 

It has not only been through orchestrated media events and 
litigation that libraries are encountering Holocaust denial. In Wich- 
ita, Kansas, a lawyer asked the public hbrary to buy Arthur Butz's 
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and Wilhelm Staeglich's Ausch- 
witz Myth. By a vote of 7-4, the hbrary board refused." 

Deniers in New Jersey, California, and elsewhere repeatedly 
place Holocaust-denying literature into books about the Holo- 
caust. And many libraries, not knowing the bigoted nature of some 
books with titles referring to the Holocaust, have put denial litera- 
ture on their shelves and in bibliographies alongside credible schol- 
arship. For example, in 1981, the public library in Cherry Hill, New 
Jersey, took part in a community project to construct a "Hving 
monument" to the victims of the Holocaust. The library submitted 
a list of books it wanted to buy. Among them were Arthur Butz's 
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and David Hoggan's The Myth 
of the Six MiUion. 

One of IHR's earliest self-confessed "gimmicks" was a crass 
$50,000 award for "proving" the Holocaust. Most of the Jewish 
community declined to dignify the offer with a response, for good 
reason. First, the IHR would have control over the "judges," who 
could all be deniers. Second, legally, an offeror of a reward would 
have the right to structure his or her offer in any way he or she liked, 
thereby making a court challenge difficult. Third, the IHR would 
get the free publicity and credibility its offer was designed to attract. 
And, fourth, the Holocaust was a proven fact, at Nuremberg and 
elsewhere, through overwhelming evidence. There was no need to 


enter the trap of what the IHR termed its "#1 gimmick. "^^ (Simon 
Wiesenthal staked a claim to the IHR's corollary oifer of $25,000 
for proof that the Diary of Anne Frank was legitimate. The IHR, 
however, refused Wiesenthal's request that both sides find and 
accept a former California Supreme Court justice to review the 
evidence- Wiesenthal withdrew his claim.) 

Mel Mermelstein, a survivor whose family had been killed in the 
Holocaust, took up the challenge. He submitted eyewitness ac- 
counts, documents, photographs, and histories to the IHR. When 
he heard nothing in response, he sued— and was tormented by the 
deniers for his efforts. (David McCalden, IHR director at the time, 
wrote to Mermelstein: "I notice that you go under two names, 
Mermelstein and Memmelstein. Having two names would indicate 
to me you have been gassed at least twice, possibly also receiving 
[sic] double pensions for your execution."'^) 

On October 9, 1981, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge 
Thomas T. Johnson ruled that the Holocaust "is not reasonably 
subject to dispute. . . . The court does take judicial notice that Jews 
were gassed to death in Poland in Auschwitz in the summer of 1944 
[when Mermelstein's family was there]." Mermelstein was awarded 
damages of $90,000, and the IHR was ordered to apologize?" 

Mermelstein, quoted in the Washington Post.^^ said, "I feel re- 
lieved. But I wonder why I should feel that way, because it is an 
established fact."^ 

Mermelstein's principled and courageous action against the 
IHR, and the AJC's defense against David McCalden, are not the 
only times Holocaust denial has entered American courts. When 
White Aryan Resistance leader Tom Metzger was tried in Califor- 
nia for burning a cross, his defense attorney submitted a question 
for potential jurors: "A belief held by some people in this country 
is that there was no deliberate and systematic killing of Jews by the 
Nazis during the 1930s and World War II. Do you agree or disagree 
with this belief, and why?"" Courtrooms, in some ways the best 
place to debunk the deniers because rules of evidence require proof 
of facts, are also troublesome venues. Legal cases will turn on issues 
beyond the facts of the Holocaust; and the deniers will gain the 
publicity they crave. 


The Political Process 

In 1991, over 700,000 Louisianians voted for former KKK wizard 
David Duke as governor, despite his full-fledged Holocaust denial. 
He won a majority of the white vote on his agenda designed to 
make whites feel good about hating minorities. Duke not only was 
caught selling Mein Kampf and Holocaust denial material right 
before the campaign, he made no secret of his belief that the Holo- 
caust was fiction. Would so many have voted for him if he proudly 
proclaimed that the earth was flat? 

Patrick Buchanan, hke Duke, was also a Republican presiden- 
tial candidate in 1992. Buchanan had challenged the fact that Jews 
were gassed at Trebiinka, basing his view on a 1987 story about 
trapped children who survived a Washington, D.C., tunnel par- 
tially contaminated with diesel fumes.^'* Buchanan, a nationally 
known columnist, is trying to become a major Republican party 
power, and future presidential nominee. His views, flirting around 
the edges of Holocaust denial (he also wrote of the "so-called 
Holocaust Survivor Syndrome," and the "group fantasies of mar- 
tyrdom and heroics"), have not disqualified him. In fact, he was a 
highhghted speaker at the 1992 Republican National Convention. 

That candidates who are known for their anti-Semitic expres- 
sions should find Holocaust denial attractive is not surprising. The 
troubling thing is that when Holocaust denial has appeared in 
national politics, it has been seen as quirkiness, not hatred— and 
not even quirkiness sufficient to disqualify someone from office. 
(President Bush castigated Duke for denying the Holocaust, but 
not Buchanan.) While no one from a major party has campaigned 
on a platform of Holocaust denial,^^ the votes of millions of Ameri- 
cans say that this form of anti-Semitism is no big deal. If a candi- 
date is attractive for other reasons, denial of a recent major histori- 
cal tragedy involving Jews will be overlooked rather than seen as 
an irreparable character defect. One wonders if Duke would have 
been equally attractive had he believed that Elvis was alive, that 
the moon landing had been staged, or that he had been Shirley 
MacLaine in a prior life. 

Elizabeth Rickey ,^*i a college instructor and a former member of 
the Republican State Committee in Louisiana who has devoted 
years to combating David Duke, said: "When I learned about 


David Duke's views on the Holocaust, my first reaction was to be 
stunned that there was this school of thought that says there's 
different historical perspectives on the Holocaust. What I found 
from reading Duke's writings is that David Duke believes that the 
'Jewish press,' as he calls it, and Hollywood created this myth of the 
Holocaust. So we have someone who was a very serious candidate 
for public office believing this. How seriously should we take this? 
I found that there's not much of an immune system among young 
people today, they don't have any historical background. So when 
someone comes along and says this, that appeals to a certain preju- 
dice that may be existing in them anyway, they tend to pick it up 
and go with it. I saw what the insidious effect of David Duke's 
candidacy was. People that followed him got introduced to this 
concept, and believed it, because they believed in David Duke. And 
they had no real education in the Holocaust to counter that." 

The fact that hundreds of thousands of people voted for David 
Duke and Patrick Buchanan, despite the two men's dabbling in 
Holocaust denial, proves that a candidate can be viable in the 1990s 
in America despite his or her anti-Semitism. 

Holocaust Denial in the Separationist American Black Community 

Holocaust denial is not the stuff of white supremacists alone. In 
1992, a Los Angeles conference was scheduled by a black activist 
named Robert Brock. Speakers were to include Leonard Jeffries, 
the former chair of the Afro- American Studies Department at the 
City College of New York, known for his anti-Semitism," and 
representatives of the Institute for Historical Review. Jeffries did 
not appear and later said that he did not subscribe to Holocaust 
denial, pointing out that black soldiers had been among the libera- 
tors of concentration camps. ^^ However, other notable figures on 
the anti-Semitic fringe of the black community have been spreading 
out-and-out Holocaust denial. 

The Final Call is the newspaper of Louis Farrakhan and the 
Nation of Islam.^^ It regularly features anti-Semitic tirades, some 
focusing on the Holocaust. For example, Abdul Allah Muhammad 
wrote in the June 1991 edition that a memorial at Auschwitz had 
been removed because "the four million extermination victims cited 
on the stone was a blatant he. The Auschwitz Museum now puts the 


number of Jews executed there at 950,000, at least three million less 
than previously cited. But the most astute Jewish mathematicians 
will ignore plain facts, continue to bellow the six-million holocaust 
lie and to condemn anyone who insists upon being intelligent 
enough to subtract three from six." 

Farrakhan, who once called Hitler a "great man," also claimed 
that "The Zionists made a deal with Adolf Hitler. "^^ Denier Arthur 
Butz was an invited speaker at the Nation of Islam's Saviour's Day 
celebration in 1985. 

Followers of Farrakhan have used the Holocaust as a way to 
vent their anti-Semitism. Not only is the Holocaust diminished as 
an historical event in order to claim greater victimization for slav- 
ery and the slave trade; slavery is blamed on Jews,^' and the history 
of the Holocaust twisted beyond recognition. The Nation of Islam's 
Khallid Abdul Muhammad, the keynote speaker at a program 
entitled "The African Holocaust" at P.S. 258 in Brooklyn in 1991, 
said, "Nobody wants to talk about what the Jews did. They are 
always talking about what Hitler did to the Jews, but what did the 
Jews do to Hitler?"^^ 

Even though it is used in the fringes of the African-American 
community, Jew-hatred has been an effective tool of demagogues 
such as Louis Farrakhan. Other haters, including Jeffries and the 
Reverend Al Sharpton (who called Jews "diamond merchants" in 
the midst of the Crown Heights riots) have not adopted Holocaust 
denial. Jeffries has stressed the black role in liberating concentra- 
tion camps; Sharpton, recalling Jesse Owens, notes what Hitler 
would have done to blacks if he had had the opportunity. What 
happened to Jews during the World War 11 is understandably not 
the greatest concern to a community that has its own painful experi- 
ence with genocide. Nevertheless, the possibility that Holocaust 
denial could take root in part of the black community exists. The 
IHR folks would like nothing better than to see Holocaust denial 
spread anywhere it can. Sooner or later the IHR will point out to 
a Leonard Jeffries that one can still believe black soldiers bearing 
witness to the human skeletons of Dachau while believing that there 
were no gas chambers— the concentration camps hberated by 
Americans were on German soil; the extermination camps, on Pol- 
ish soil, were liberated by the Russians. 


Religious Groups 

Holocaust denial fits neatly within the classical anti-Semitism of 
some fringe religious groups. Since the IHR promoters also traffic 
in general anti-Semitica, it is to be expected that they would share 
their pet idea with others similarly predisposed. For example, in 
May 1990, a thirty- two-page edition of the tabloid Christian 
News — referred to by IHR as a publication "which exercises great 
influence among Americans true to the traditional Lutheran 
faith" — was entirely devoted to Holocaust denial, complete with 
reprints of IHR material. 

That some see religious justification for this newest form of 
anti-Semitism should not be surprising. Much of the old-line anti- 
Semitic, pro-Nazi propaganda had a religious tinge. It was the 
Catholic priest Father Coughlin in the 1930s who preached Jew 
hatred on radio with religious fervor. That strain of Jew hatred has 
its contemporary followers. In the 1990s, David Duke refitted his 
anti-Semitic, antiminority beliefs into the cloak of a "born-again" 
convert. Patrick Buchanan— who hked the values of the "old 
church," (i.e., before it had taken strides to cleanse the anti-Semi- 
tism from its hturgy)— -preaches about a "religious war" in Amer- 

Many hard-line hate group members today identify with one of 
the Identity churches, which preach that Jews are the offspring of 
Satan, and that blacks are biologically inferior to whites. A part of 
their gospel is that the Holocaust did not happen. 

While these are fringe behefs, we should not forget that anti- 
Semitism has a religious grounding. As Elizabeth Rickey noted 
while watching hundreds of thousands of religious Louisianans 
gravitate toward David Duke, "there was a certain animosity to- 
ward Jewish people that I didn't realize was there. So if I would 
confront someone who is considering voting for Duke, and say, but 
look, he believes all this kookie stuff" about the Holocaust, they'd 
dismiss my objection because they associate Jews with being behind 
big government, liberalism, the media. There's animosity there — in 
fact, flat out prejudice." 



Closely related to the dangers of outright Holocaust denial is Holo- 
caust relativism. Relativists acknowledge that the Holocaust occur- 
red, but trivialize what can be learned from it by obscuring its 
unique universal importance. 

For example, when the U.S. Holocaust Memorial in Washing- 
ton, D.C. was being estabhshed in 1983, the national president of 
the German American National Congress wrote that the "Capitol 
of the United States should not be utilized to memorialize events 
that happened elsewhere involving other people. If such a Holo- 
caust Memorial is to be built, let it be done in Israel with the tax 
money of their citizens." (In fact, even though some public funds 
will support the Memorial's operation, the museum and its contents 
are funded privately.) 

It is inevitable that a German American group might fear how 
Germany would be portrayed at a Holocaust Memorial. But ethnic 
pride and concern are not the only motivation for relativism. 

In April 1992, in Spartanburg, South Carolina, Mayor Bob 
Rowell "downplayed" a proclamation remembering the victims of 
the Holocaust, according to the Washington Post, because the city 
was attempting to attract a BMW plant. Rowell, who had two 
uncles who died fighting in World War II, said that the proclama- 
tion had been adopted at the urging of the U.S. Holocaust Memo- 
rial Council "well before BMW surfaced. ... I feel the timing was 
not appropriate to publicize it because it might be misunderstood." 
His decision was supported by the rabbi of the only temple in 
Spartanburg. "We want BMW to come here, and we wouldn't want 
to hurt the chances for the sake of the whole community," the rabbi 

Even Pope John Paul II, who has worked to improve Catholic- 
Jewish relations, unwittingly relativized the Holocaust when he 
linked it to his opposition on abortion in Poland. Others, with more 
pernicious intent, have diminished the term as well. In 1991, the 
New York State Education Department's plan for teaching history 
included a revision of the word "holocaust" into a generic term, one 
that should no longer apply solely to the Nazi extermination. 

The Holocaust has also been relativized through symbols from 
leaders. When President Reagan went to Bitburg, and laid a wreath 


at a cemetery that included SS men, he diminished the horror of 
what the SS was and did. The generation that survived the Holo- 
caust beheves two things: that the Nazi genocide represents the 
quintessential horror of what humans can do to each other, and 
that the human family must learn the lessons of the Holocaust if 
people are to survive in a nuclear age. The lessons are not learned 
if the Holocaust is denied. Neither are they learned if the Holocaust 
is seen as unimportant, something that we can put behind us, 
forget, see excuses for, give lip service to, or compromise for tempo- 
rary political considerations. 

Nationahsm is a relativizing factor too. Recent history- — and 
perhaps most especially German history in this century— has been 
driven in large part by the ideology of nationalism. The nation-state 
is the identity framework that keeps modern society together. The 
French believe it is something special, or better, to be French; 
Americans believe it is something special, or better, to be American; 
and Germans believe^sometimes with a vengeance — that it is spe- 
cial, or better, to be German. 

A strong nationahst feeling and feelings of national shame for 
acts of genocide are sentiments that can coexist, but the natural 
tendency is for one to repel the other. To Germans, which is the 
more comfortable image; Chancellor Willy Brandt, in 1970, on his 
knees before the Warsaw Ghetto Memorial, or Chancellor Kohl 
with President Reagan fifteen years later, laying a wreath at Bit- 
burg? The former image says mea culpa. The latter says, time to get 
beyond the past and focus on today. 

The need to get beyond the past creates a climate open to 
Holocaust denial and its cousin, Holocaust relativism. Nazism loses 
its unique evil. It is easier to feel good about being German if the 
German experience with Nazism was only a chapter in a larger, 
longer, more general human horror, rather than the quintessential 
pohticai evil. Sure Hitler killed, but so did Stalin. Sure the Nazis 
organized pohticai power to exterminate those they did not like. So 
did the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. 

Holocaust education might provide some brake on the outright 
denial of the Holocaust, but it cannot dissolve the inevitable histori- 
cal tendency to diminish it. Today's diminution can become the 
next generation's denial, or if not denial, at least irrelevancy. 

Immediately after World War II in North America, Western 


Europe, and elsewhere in the democratic world, the attitudinal 
levels of anti-Semitism dropped, and doors previously barred to 
Jews were opened. This change was partly a reaction to the Holo- 
caust, the logical endpoint of anti-Semitism. If the Holocaust is 
denied, relativized, recedes from memory with the passing of gener- 
ations, or simply becomes more of an academic phenomenon than 
an emotional one, the result may be the same: a braking force 
against the two-thousand-year world tradition of anti-Semitism 
will be diminished. To be effective in combating Holocaust denial 
and anti-Semitism, the question, then, is not only what we can do 
about neo-Nazi deniers, but also how we can insure that the Holo- 
caust's braking force is strengthened, or at least replaced with other 
societal forces that will check tomorrow's anti-Semitism? Is the 
answer historical or political? And is the answer the same in the 
United States as it is elsewhere? Holocaust denial. Holocaust rela- 
tivism, and the effects of the passage of time on the memory of the 
Holocaust are not an American phenomenon alone — they are 
becoming a worldwide problem, even in areas that have no Jews. 



1979 was a banner year for deniers in the United States. The Insti- 
tute for Historical Review was launched, and held its first confer- 

In 1979 a Holocaust denial conference was also held in Kassel 
Germany, organized by the European Society for Free Speech. It 
helped promote Holocaust denial into a growth industry. In little 
more than a decade since, denial has become what Gerry Gable, 
editor of the British magazine Searchlight, calls the "ideological 
glue" that keeps the newly emerging neo-Nazi and fascist move- 
ments throughout Europe together. 

Historian Deborah Lipstadt notes: "As you're getting more 
right-wing groups, it is going to get even worse. You'll have more 
and more groups looking for someone to blame as the economy 
gets worse. So you blame the foreigners, you blame the Turks, 
eventually, you're going to get to the Jews. And eventually you're 
going to have to deal with the Holocaust, because the Holocaust is 
the reason the Jews get 'special dispensation.' "' 

It is too early to tell how Holocaust denial will fit into the 
changing patterns of postcommunist Europe. As Leonard Zeskind 
of the Center for Democratic Renewal points out, "You're going to 
have the confluence of all sorts of forces. In Poland, for example. 


you have Polish nationahsm, which was opposed to Nazism. You 
have PoUsh anti-Semitism, which collaborated with Nazism. You 
have all those tendencies which were alive 50 years ago reemerge 
and contend for influence today. That's different in each country."^ 

As the 1990s witness the first great political realignment of 
Europe following the cold war, the postwar communist era will be 
reexamined by the newly emerging countries. But the revision of 
history will not stop there: World War II will be looked at anew. 
Recasting the war years will not be a matter of abstract academic 
inquiry alone. World War II was the last era before the communist 
domination of Eastern Europe. It will be mined by politicians for 
ideological images of national identity and sovereignty, images that 
reject the official history imposed by the communists, images that 
will treat the fascist governments of many of these states as the last 
true patriotic regimes.^ 

Part of this historical reorientation will focus on the Holocaust 
and Jews, and even if unaided by the professional Holocaust deni- 
ers, the prospects are troubling. Generations of Eastern Europeans 
were never taught the truth about the Nazi genocide of Jews. They 
have little way to know, or reason to care, that the symbols of 
sovereignty reclaimed from a precommunist era drip Jewish blood. 
In this crucible of skewed history and social upheaval, the potential 
exists for what Zeskind calls "the reemergence of the demonization 
of the Jews. And if the Jews are demons, then they must have made 
up this hoax about the Holocaust." 

The IHR understands its market well, and is targeting Europe — 
including Eastern Europe— knowing that it is easier to make fas- 
cists look good if the Holocaust is seen as hoax, especially in socie- 
ties with a tradition of anti-Semitism. As Mark Weber, the editor 
of the Journal of Historical Review, recently said, "Anyone who 
does not understand the importance of historical revisionism, or the 
relationship between pohtical freedom and historical awareness, 
should look to the full-scale historical revisionism that has swept 
across eastern Europe. . . ."'' II is easy to replace one lie with 
another, especially when, as Leonard Zeskind points out, the IHR 
is planning to spend millions of dollars spreading Holocaust denial 
in Europe. 

The sad irony is that while the deniers till fertile soil in the 
former communist countries of Eastern Europe, scholars are dig- 


ging through the archives, finding that the number of Jews killed 
may need revising upward. Newly released documents suggest that 
the Nazis herded more Soviet Jews into ghettos than previously 
thought — in Homel, Byelorussia, for example, experts previously 
thought there had been only one Jewish ghetto; new documents 
show there were four separate ghettos. Once collected, the Jews 
were killed by local police hired for that purpose/ 


The greatest irony of Holocaust denial is in Germany. While the 
German government is tracking down and prosecuting the last 
Nazi war criminals, some Germans born two generations after the 
war are protesting these proceedings, claiming that they are based 
on "lies" about the Holocaust. 

For many years the Institute for Historical Review has been 
translating denial materia! and sending it to Germany.^ Today the 
IHR has an eager market: there are thousands of neo-Nazi skin- 
heads in Germany who are making the political structure respond 
to their antiforeigner xenophobic agenda— an agenda that includes 
Holocaust denial as an ideological cornerstone.'' 

The deniers' interest in Germany" is not accidental. Most pro- 
fessional deniers are fascinated with things German, especially 
Nazis. David Irving reportedly visited Hitler's mountain retreat in 
Bavaria over thirty years ago, considering it a shrine. Wilhs Carlo 
has pubhshed and promoted mounds of material glorifying Hitler 
and the Nazis. Building on this fascination, deniers want to remake 
the history of the Nazis into something positive. They seek to 
relativize the evil— to say, "Sure the Germans did some bad things 
in World War 11, but so did everyone else." Knowing human na- 
ture, and the power of national pride in modern ideology, the 
deniers believe their message will resonate with new generations of 
Germans who want to shed guilt feehngs over a depressing past. It 
is no coincidence that Spotlight (the weekly newspaper of Carlo's 
Liberty Lobby) writes, "There is now talk of erecting a monument 
in Dresden, Germany, to the hundreds of thousands of civiUans 
mass murdered there by Royal Air Force and U.S. carpet bombing 
attacks on the undefended city during the last days of World War 
jj „9 What greater relief than to learn that the past was not as 


dismal as was believed, or that the myth of a shameful past was 
created by people to whom you are still paying reparations? 

The deniers are very effective at targeting, and excising, German 
guilt. Imagine yourself an eighleen-year-old German reading a 
snippet from Dealing in Hate: The Development of Anti-German 
Propaganda, by Dr. Michael F. Connors, published by the Institute 
for Historical Review. It is history as one would want it to be: 

At the heart of the conviction that German World War II 
atrocities were quantitatively and quahtatively without paral- 
lel in the annals of human experience is the as yet unverified 
allegation that, in the pursuit of a macabre "Final Solution," 
6,000,000 Jews were cold-bloodedly murdered in gas cham- 
bers and before Einsatzkommando firing squads. The "evi- 
dence" presented in support of this charge to date has not been 
more persuasive than that used to substantiate the gruesome 
stories of German atrocity horrors spelled out in the long since 
discredited Bryce Report of 1915. 

Neither the proceedings at Nuremberg in 1946 nor those 
associated with the . . . trial of Adolf Eichmann were such as 
to inspire the confidence of the impartial investigator. Like- 
wise, the frenetic efforts of some academic scholars to prove 
the charge have fallen quite flat. But even if one should assume 
the worst to be true and, from the welter of conflicting numeri- 
cal estimates as to the number of Jewish fatalities, accept the 
largest, 6,000,000, as undoubtedly correct, the number of vic- 
tims of these German atrocities would still fall far short of the 
number of German, Japanese, and Italian non-combatants 
who perished at Allied hands as the result of mass population 
expulsions, saturation bombing of civilian centers, post-war 
deprivation, and Soviet massacres and political liquidations. 

The simple fact then is that there is every reason to believe 
that a final accounting must exculpate Germany of any unique 
inhumanity in the waging of World War II, just as revisionist 
scholarship has exonerated her of sole or even primary guilt 
for the war itself. 

The American Ku Klux Klan^ — which also promotes Holocaust 
denial — is active in Germany. Having established three chapters by 
mid-1992,**' the KKK is working with other foreign groups that also 


see neo-Nazism as the wave of the German future. These groups are 
not spreading hatred m Germany on a lark: as of August 1992, 
there were over 40,000 Germans belonging to neo-Nazi groups. 
These groups believe in Holocaust denial. 

As part of their plan to help bring about a Fourth Reich, KKK 
organizers, Canadian skinheads, and British far-right extremists are 
working to make the memory of the Third Reich more "politically 
correct." In 1991 they marched in the German town of Bayreuth to 
honor the memory of the late Nazi, Rudolf Hess. The march "drew 
people from at least seven European countries," the New York 
Times reported." A 1992 rally in Bonn on the anniversary of Hess's 
death drew 2,000, despite the illegality of the gathering. Anti-Se- 
mitic banners and illegal Nazi emblems and salutes were all promi- 
nently on view.'^ On August 31, 1992, in the midst of violent ram- 
pages in Germany against immigrants, a Holocaust memorial in 
Bonn was bombed.'^ Attacks on other Jewish sites followed. Con- 
centration camps at Ravensbruck and Sachsenhausen were fire- 
bombed. Swastikas were painted on a memorial for Nazi death 
camp victims."* 

Holocaust-denying material is increasingly visible in Germany. 
An ad from a German Holocaust-denying group, the JG Burg 
Society, as well as an interview with an Arab denier, appeared on 
April 30, 1991 in two advertising weeklies, Miinchner Anzeiger and 
Trabant Anzeiger. 

In addition to the outright deniers, there are those who relati- 
vize the Nazi genocide. After the documentary Shoah was shown, 
MP Dr. A. Dregger suggested that a common commemoration be 
built — ^for both the victims and the perpetrators. German historian 
Ernst Nolte wrote: "The SS personnel in the death camps (the most 
ruthless among the sadistic murderers) could also in a way be 
considered the victims of the Nazi crimes. "^^ 

It is no surprise that David Irving's book Hiller\s War became 
a best-seller in Germany. According to Gill Seidel in The Holocaust 
Denial: Antisemitism. Racism and the New Right, "It is not difficult 
to explain its appeal. The argument of the book may be summed up 
as: Tf only the Fiihrer had known about the murder of the Jews, he 
would have stopped it.' For . . . Germans who do not want to face 
up to the past, it was easy to be persuaded that if Hitler did not 
know, then neither did the person in the street."'^ 


To make matters worse, the newest German editions of living's 
The War Path and Hitler's War (Fiihrer and Reichskanzler: Adolf 
Hitler 1933-1945) lack his previous references to Auschwitz and 
Treblinka as "extermination camps."'' Irving's works are still avail- 
able despite his conviction and fine of $6,000 in May 1992 for 
"disparaging the memory of the dead.""* 

According to an American Jewish Committee poll, 58 percent of 
Germans agree that "it is time to put the memory of the Holocaust 
behind us," and 39 percent agree that "Jews are exploiting the 
Holocaust for their own purposes."'^ That is fertile ground for 
Holocaust denial, especially in a country where young neo-Nazi 
Holocaust deniers have become a serious terror force.^" 

For many years, the American Jewish Committee has worked 
with the German government and many German foundations to 
include Holocaust education in schools. And while these educa- 
tional efforts must continue and be expanded, they are certainly no 
panacea. Arthur Fischer, a psychologist from Frankfurt, studied 
German youth who were taken lo former concentration camps to 
increase their awareness of the Holocaust. If students were not 
prepared properly, he concluded, the visit could be counterproduc- 
tive. Some derived "pleasure from the horrors." Others were 
"disappointed" because they didn't see "real gas chambers."^' 

The German government has also been accused of "indiffer- 
ence" to the memorials at camps in the former East Germany. A 
plaque at the slave-labor camp at Dora-Nordhausen, for example, 
still makes no mention of the thousands of Jews who died there, but 
notes the "victims from Arab states." Dora had only one known 
inmate of Arab origin— a French soldier whose roots were from 
Morocco. ^^ 


Britain has had a long history of coping with Holocaust denial. In 
the 1970s Richard Harwood wrote Did Six Million Really Die? 
Harwood was later revealed to be Richard Verrall, once deputy 
chairman of the right-wing National Front.^^ But Britain's main 
contributor to Holocaust denial has been David Irving, who, de- 
spite his lack of a college degree, is both prolific and polished. 
Irving, who described himself as a "mild fascist" as early as the 


1950s, has made a career out of writing books rehabilitating Hitler 
and the Nazis at the expense of the Allies and the Jews. 

Irving's works, unlike those of many other deniers, have been 
published by major houses. Viking Press in the United States pub- 
lished his Hitler's War. Irving has written books about many as- 
pects of World War II, including a history of the Luftwaffe. His The 
Destruction of Dresden fits well into the deniers' attempt to relati- 
vize what they haven't yet figured out how to deny. Irving, like 
other deniers, claims that Allied war crimes were of the same mag- 
nitude as Germany's. ^'' 

In Hitler's War Irving claims that Hitler did not order, and did 
not know about, any extermination of Jews until 1943 or 1944, and 
that the "incontrovertible evidence is that Hitler ordered on No- 
vember 30, 1941, that there was to be 'no Uquidation' of the Jews." 
According to Irving, it was Heinrich Himmler who was responsible 
for the extermination of Jews; Hitler only wanted Jews relocated, 
once the war was over.^^ 

For nearly four decades, Irving has been what Gerry Gable of 
Searchlight terms the "soft-core" promoter of Holocaust denial. 
"In that stage he was smart," Gable notes, "because what he was 
trying to do was to say to the new generation 'Hitler was no worse 
than Napoleon. Everybody gave Napoleon a bad write-up, but 
when you put it into perspective, the man forged a modern Europe, 
and forged certain democratic legal systems. Code Napoleon and 
all these things. Well,' Irving says, 'give it another 30 years and 
people will view Hitler in the same way.' And this is what he does 
with the book. So he says Roosevelt was a pohtical cuckold. That 
Eisenhower was a womanizer. That Churchill was a drunk. That 
they were all corrupt. That Stalin was a mass murderer— which is 
true. So what made Hitler the exception? And this is what they try 
to sell to people. "^^ 

Irving is now active in the hard-core world of neo-Nazis, speak- 
ing to rallies of deniers in Europe and North America. He claims 
to have been converted^' to hard-core Holocaust denial by Fred 
Leuchter, a man with a B.A. in history masquerading as an engi- 
neer, whose ridiculed "report" on gas chambers is a major compo- 
nent of the contemporary Holocaust deniers' arsenal. 

Despite his efforts to paint himself as a respectable historian, 
Irving has never been a serious scholar, and has always flirted with 


hard-core denial. As Phillip Rubenstein notes, well before Irving 
embraced Leuchter, "he was happy to state that Anne Frank's 
diary was a fake. He withdrew only after a successful lawsuit by 
Otto Frank— Anne's father^forced him to do so."^^ 

In 1989 Irving printed The Leuchter Report through his Focal 
Point Publications. Subtitled with hateful "wit," Auschwitz: The 
End of the Line, Irving wrote, on the inside cover: 

The lid cannot be kept on the facts for much longer as copies 
of this edition of "The Leuchter Report" are being distributed 
free, not just to all media newsdesks. Members of ParHament 
and the like, but to the heads of the History, Chemistry, 
Physics, and Engineering departments, the hbraries and junior 
common rooms of every university in the United Kingdom. 

In a House of Commons motion on June 20, 1989, Members of 
Parliament said; 

This House ... is appalled by the allegation by Nazi propa- 
gandist and longtime Hitler apologist, David Irving, that "the 
infamous gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka^^ and Maida- 
nek did not exist. . . ." 

Among like-minded hsteners, Irving airs his anti-Semitism with 
full venom, while claiming that "There is a whole string of docu- 
ments showing Hitler putting out his hand to protect the Jews."^** 
Irving has spoken regularly in Germany, despite being fined 10,000 
deutsch marks for his comments in Munich right after Hitler's 
birthday in 1990, where he informed 800 listeners that Auschwitz's 
gas chambers "were erected by the Poles after the Second World 
War." In court on these charges, Irving told the judge that the 
Holocaust was "a blood lie which has been told against Germany 
for 50 years."^^ 

Interviewed in Italy in 1992, from where he was deporttd before 
he could speak at a neo-Nazi rally, Irving not only denied the gas 
chambers, but also spoke kindly of Goering and Goebbels, who 
"did everything they could before the war so that the Jews them- 
selves would leave Germany. "^^ 

Speaking in Atlanta in 1986, Irving said that "historians have a 
blindness when it comes to the Holocaust" because, like Tay-Sachs 
disease,^^ it is a "Jewish disease which causes blindness." Irving also 


bemoaned the "powerful forces in the media [which] are subverting 
the traditional values of white men," and gleefully mispronounced 
the name of Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel as "weasel," whom he 
called a "media celebrity" and a "professional survivor." 

"The Jews," Irving says, "are very foolish not to abandon the 
gas chamber theory while they still have time." He predicts an 
increase in anti-Semitism because Jews "have exploited people with 
the gas chamber legend."^ Irving is also vehemently anti-Israel. "In 
ten years," he says, "Israel will cease to exist and the Jews will have 
to return to Europe." 

Despite Irving's Holocaust denial, in 1992 the Sunday Times of 
London contracted with him to translate Goebbels's diary. Irving's 
works are still available in libraries and bookstores, and are used in 
academe along with credible scholarship, even though he is now 
barred (because of his Holocaust denial) in Canada, Germany, 
Austria and Italy. 


France has had a growth industry in Holocaust denial since the end 
of World War fl. Paul Rassinier, an early denier, insisted that "The 
drama of the European Jews consists not in the fact that six milhon 
of them were annihilated, but rather in the fact that the Jews claim 
that this happened."" 

His mantle was admirably adopted by Robert Faurisson, a 
former associate professor of contemporary literature at the Uni- 
versity of Lyon. Faurisson has published prolifically, claiming that 
the Holocaust was a "lie" and that the gas chambers did not exist. 

"This is my conclusion:" Faurisson wrote in 1979, in the French 
paper Le Monde, "the number of Jews destroyed by the Nazis is 
zero. The genocide against the Jews never happened."^^ 

"The heart of Faurisson's argument," writes Werner Cohn, 
professor emeritus of sociology at the University of British Co- 
lumbia, "is based on his assertion that Jewish witnesses to the 
Holocaust are simply Hars and that they are liars because they are 

Faurisson is not the only Frenchman promoting Holocaust 
denial. In 1985 Henri Roques received a doctorate from the Univer- 
sity of Nantes for his thesis, which argued that Auschwitz had no 


gas chambers. In 1986 the French minister of higher education 
invalidated the thesis. Like Faurisson, Roques is now associated 
with IHR. 

French printing houses also churn out Holocaust-denying ma- 
terial. One, known as La Vieille Taupe (The Old Mole), a left-wing'^ 
enterprise, sends literature across Europe. ^^ A right-wing publica- 
tion firm named Ogmios (which is said to have financial support 
from Iran'*") also prints Holocaust-denial Hterature. These two 
presses, which agree on little else, have collaborated on a new 
publication called Annates d'histoire revisionniste^^ Both presses 
have printed Faurisson.''^ 

In 1990, France passed a law against "criminal revisionism." 
Faurisson was charged under that provision after a September 1990 
magazine interview^^ in which he said the Nazis had no extermina- 
tion plan, and that there were no gas chambers. Tried in Paris in 
late March 1991, Faurisson again proclaimed the Holocaust "a lie 
of history." He was convicted. The court fined him the equivalent 
of $20,000, but it also "denounced the very law under which he was 
found guilty of a misdemeanor." According to the Jewish Tele- 
graphic Agency,"" "the Paris Court of Justice further astounded 
observers by offering a gratuitous critique of the Nuremberg war 
crimes court." 

Holocaust denial in France has also been aided by Bernard 
Notin, an instructor at Lyon University. In a prestigious scientific 
magazine he wrote that "[the gas chambers are] a figment of popu- 
lar imagination without any historic basis. ""^ His suspension for 
Holocaust denial was later overturned by the Ministry of National 
Education.'^ However, another denier's sentence was upheld. Alain 
Guionnet, editor of the monthly Revision, was sentenced to three 
months in jail and fined approximately $13,500. His publication 
had referred to the "hoax or myth of genocide against the Jews." 
(It has also reprinted excerpts from The Protocols of the Elders of 

Holocaust denial has received its largest boost from the leader 
of the right-wing, xenophobic, racist National Party, Jean-Marie 
Le Pen.'^ In a 1987 interview, Le Pen was asked about Roques and 
Faurisson. He replied: "I do not say the gas chambers did not exist. 
I could not see them . . . But I think this is a minute detail of Second 
World War history." Later, when challenged about these remarks, 


Le Pen said, "Yes, it is a minute detail of the war. Are you telling 
me that this is the revealed truth everyone has to believe? I say that 
there are historians debating those issues." 

In 1988, Le Pen further derided the Holocaust when he made a 
pun on the name of a minister, Michel Durafour, calling him 
"Durafour Crematorie," meaning crematorium oven. According to 
Robert Wistrich, "The journals and newspapers of [Le Pen's] Front 
National and the radical Right like Present, National Hedo, Minute 
or Choc du Mois support [Holocaust denial].""^ 

French students are being exposed to Holocaust denial. Two 
young neo-Nazi college graduates — Fabrice Robert and Pier Gaii- 
zerre — were tried in Paris in 1991 after they had pasted posters 
stating "Faurisson is right: Gas chambers = rubbish" in schools in 
Nice. Their civil rights were suspended for five years, and they were 
fined $6,000. The court, however, denied the prosecutor's request 
that the sentence be posted in the locations where the students had 
pasted their material.^ 

On April 10, 1992, a French appellate court upheld convictions 
of two engineers, Vincent Reynouard and Remi Pontier, for dis- 
tributing literature denying the existence of gas chambers. Reyno- 
uard was convicted again on June 11, 1992 for distributing a leaflet 
entitled In Prison for Telling the Truth, and fined for sending Holo- 
caust-denying leaflets to secondary school students.^' 

Meanwhile, a new quarterly. Revue d'histoirie revisionniste, has 
appeared. Directed by Henri Roques, with editorial assistance from 
Robert Faurisson, the journal also translates IHR material into 


Since World War II, Austria's "official version" of history was that 
it was a victim of Hitler's Germany, not an active partner with the 

Jennifer Golub, an expert on anti-Semitism at the American 
Jewish Committee, wrote^^ that the Austrians "mythologized" their 
World War 11 experience, and that "until 1986 that denial of guilt 
corresponded with a taboo against public expressions of anti-Semi- 

The myth and the taboo were shattered that year, when Kurt 


Waldheim's role in war crimes came to light, and public expressions 
of anti-Semitism became commonplace. Despite the revelations (or 
perhaps because of them and the feeling that a national hero was 
being attacked by outsiders), Waldheim was elected president. ^^ 

Austria also has its own homegrown Holocaust-denying pub- 
lishers. A "notorious" Nazi named Walter Ochensberger printed a 
magazine entitled Sieg (Victory) which claimed that the gas cham- 
bers never existed. Ochensberger was tried and acquitted. He 
boasted that henceforth "nobody can be convicted for questioning 
the existence of gas chambers for the mass extermination of human 
beings in German concentration camps and for declaring this view 
publicly."^ Two other publications. Halt! and Gack. also deny the 
Holocaust. These target school children." 

According to a 1991 survey conducted by the Gallup organiza- 
tion for the American Jewish Committee, 39 percent of Austrians 
believed that "Jews have caused much harm in the course of his- 
tory." Thirty-seven percent agreed that "Jews exert too much in- 
fluence on world events." Nineteen percent believed "it would be 
better for Austria not to have Jews in the country." 

These answers demonstrate that 20 to 40 percent of Austrians 
hold hard-core anti-Semitic beliefs. But between one-third and one- 
half expressed negative attitudes on the Holocaust, attitudes that 
make them ripe for the propaganda of Holocaust deniers. Accord- 
ing to the AJC survey, 43 percent of Austrians believe that "the 
Israelis basically treat the Palestinians no differently than the Ger- 
mans treated the Jews"; 48 percent maintain that, "We, Austrians, 
too, lost the war in 1945"; 32 percent believed that "Jews are 
exploiting the National Socialist Holocaust for their own pur- 
poses"; and 53 percent agree "it is time to put the memory of the 
Holocaust behind us."^^ 

Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, Spain 

Holocaust denial has appeared in other parts of western Europe as 

Revisionistische Bihlotheek (Revisionist Library), a Flemish-lan- 
guage revisionist quarterly, frequently uses translated material 
from the Journal of Historical Review.^'^ The Beligium far-right also 


spouts Holocaust denial as a propaganda theme. In March 1991, a 
deniers' conference was held in Brussels.^^ 

A radio station in Sweden called Radio Islam (headed by 
Ahmed Rami) has broadcast Holocaust denial since the 1980s.^* 
Pamphlets by Ditleib Felderer, made to appear as if written by a 
young girl, were widely distributed in Sweden. They "contained 
sketches of children surrounding the text. It asked Auschwitz mu- 
seum authorities to explain why they are trying to convince children 
that their displays are true. A flyer invited readers to send a lock of 
human or animal hair to the camp museum so that it would have 
some authentic hair for its displays."^ 

A Swiss history teacher and university lecturer, Mariette Pas- 
choud — who is also a captain in the women's auxiliary of the Swiss 
army and a Swiss military judge— has spoken on behalf of Henri 
Roques, the Frenchman whose doctoral thesis denied the existence 
of gas chambers. According to the New York Times. "Mrs. Pas- 
choud has declared that although she does not deny the existence 
of Nazi camps, she believes there is no proof that their victims were 
killed by the use of gas. "^' 

Swiss leaflets denying the Holocaust appear regularly. Eidge- 
noss (Swiss Citizen) is a monthly frequently sporting articles ex- 
coriating "Jewish propaganda lies" regarding the Holocaust. 
Memopress. a press service, also spouts Holocaust denial. It has a 
run of 40,000 copies.^^ 

Ditlieb Felderer's The Diary of Anne Frank: A Hoax? has been 
translated into ItaHan, and published by Edizioni All'Insegna del 
Veltro, which L'Espresso has dubbed "a neo-Nazi publishing 
house."" Not only David Irving's work, but David Irving himself 
has been in Rome. Although he was deported, he was interviewed 
in the magazine section of La Repubblica, during which he denied 
the existence of the gas chambers, claiming that "the Germans were 
extremely precise" and thus documents proving the chambers 
should exist. Asked about the documents showing huge orders of 
Zyklon-B for Auschwitz, Irving commented: "We cannot exclude 
that this was used in the crematoria where bodies were incinerated. 
Not for gas chambers."^ 

Italy has a plethora of outlets printing Holocaust denial, among 
them Edizioni All'Insegna del Veltro, La Sfinge, La Sentinella d'l- 


talia, Orion, II Candida, and Avanguardia.^^ According to a 1992 
poll, 9.5 percent of Italians believe that the Holocaust never occur- 
red and 42 percent said Jews "should stop posing as victims of the 

An ultra-right-wing Spanish group named Cedade has dis- 
tributed stickers in Barcelona, claiming that "The Holocaust is a 
lie."*^ A bulletin entitled Revi-Info is published by CentTO de Estu- 
dios Revisionista "Orientaciones" (C.E.R.O).^ David Irving and 
Ernst Ziindel have traveled to Spain, promoting Holocaust denial.^^ 

Holocaust-denying literature and material have also appeared 
in Denmark, Greece, The Irish Republic, the Netherlands, and 


On July 2, 1991, Romanian-bom Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie 
Wiesel spoke in lasi, Romania, at a commemoration of a 1941 
pogrom by the Romanian Army that killed 8,000 Jews. The Jews 
had been rounded up, then machine gunned and bayoneted. 

WieseFs speech was interrupted by a woman in the front row 
who shouted "It's a lie! The Jews didn't die. We won't allow 
Romanians to be insulted by foreigners in their own country.'"' 

Romania has rehabilitated Marshal Ion Antonescu, its leader 
during World War II, an ally of Hitler, who was executed as a war 

Before the end of communism, it had been a crime in Romania 
to possess Western books about the Holocaust." 


The Institute for Historical Review Newsletter #87, May 1992, 
noted, under the heading "REVISIONISM IN UKRAINE": 

Along with the collapse of Communism in the former Soviet 
Union has come a drastic reassessment of twentieth century 
history. Nowhere has this process been more profound than in 
[the] newly free republic of Ukraine, where Soviet tyranny 
claimed millions of hves. One remarkable expression of the 
new Revisionist outlook has been the erection of monuments 


and plaques honoring the memory of tens of thousands of 
Ukrainian volunteers who fought against Soviet Communism 
during the Second World War in the ranks of the Waffen SS, 
the German-led pan-European combat force. Such memorials 
have already been erected in the Ukrainian cities of Lvov, 
Tamopol and Ivana Frankovska. . . . 

Meanwhile, more than 50,000 Ukrainians who were un- 
justly convicted of crimes under the Communist regime have 
been granted "rehabilitations" on the basis of the Ukrainian 
republic's April 1991 Amnesty Law. . . . Some of these 
rehabilitations may have been granted to Ukrainians who 
were convicted of mistreating Jews during the Second World 

Former Yugoslavia 

As Leonard Zeskind, research director of the Center for Demo- 
cratic Renewal, notes: "In Croatia, the Tudjman regime has 
rehabilitated Nazism. Croatia was a Nazi puppet state. Croatian 
nationahsm was primarily a creature of the Nazis. Germany was 
the first country to rush to recognize Croatia. And, significantly, 
that was the first independent foreign policy venture that Germany 
undertook outside of the NATO consensus." 

The postcommunist leader of Croatia, Franjo Tudjman, is a 
Holocaust denier. In his 500~page Bespuca—Povjesne Zbiljnosti 
(Wastelands— Historical Truth), he wrote: 

The estimated loss of up to six million [Jewish] dead is founded 
too much on both emotional, biased testimonies and on exag- 
gerated data in the postwar reckonings of war crimes and 
squaring of accounts with the defeated. ... In the mid-'80s, 
world Jewry still has the need to recall its "holocaust" by 
trying to prevent the election of the former U.N. Secretary 
General Kurt Waldheim as president of Austria! 

Tudjman, who at least acknowledges that the Jews were per- 
secuted during World War II, suggests that Jews would have been 
better off if Germany had won, thus allowing what he termed a 
"territorial solution" to the problem, making eastern Poland a 
"reservation." He has also said, "The Jewish people soon afterward 


became so brutal and conducted a genocidal policy towards the 
Palestinians that they can rightly be defined as Judeo-Nazis."" 


According to the Institute of Jewish Affair's 1992 World Report on 
anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial in Hungary is "a regular theme of 
the anti-Semitic press, with other right-wing journals justifying 
[denial hterature] as part of a 'scholarly discussion.' "'* 


As in other parts of Eastern Europe, the official history according 
to the communist regime in Poland highlighted the Nazis as villains 
but ignored the Jews as victims. That perspective on Jews did not 
end with the fall of communism. 

The 1992 World Report notes "insensitivity to the uniqueness of 
the Jewish fate under Nazi occupation is widespread. . .There has 
also been a tendency to minimize references to the Jewishness of the 
victims of the Holocaust and to put a Polish and Catholic mark on 
the commemoration of the victims of Nazism." 


Former President Havel of Czechoslovakia was one of the most 
articulate voices against anti-Semitism to emerge from the post- 
communist ahgnments in Eastern Europe. With the breakup of the 
country into two, other voices will be better heard.'*' Leonard Zes- 
kind noted, "When Slovakia exerts its drive toward sovereignty, 
Tiso (the head of the Nazi puppet state) becomes resurrected. In 
order for Tiso to be resurrected, there has to be a rewrite of the role 
of that regime."'" 


Russia has had a lengthy tradition of anti-Semitism. From the 
pogroms under the czars to Stalin's doctors' plot to masterminding 
of the "Zionism-equals-racism" resolution, to the anti-Semitic 
threats of Pamyat, Jew-hatred has been a part of Russian culture. 


It is too early to teli whether Holocaust denial will take root there, 

In Russia, as well as in the countries that became Soviet satel- 
htes after World War II, history was dictated by the official party 
line. Nazism was the fault of the capitahst West. The greatest 
horror of the war was the massive number of Russians killed by the 
fascists. That Jews were targeted as the special victims of the Nazis 
was not mentioned. In fact, when Jews were mentioned, they were 
frequently called "Zionists" and accused of collaborating with the 

Holocaust denial existed under the former Soviet system. Ac- 
cording to scholar Randolph L. Braham, "the leading Soviet 'his- 
torical revisionist,' Lev Korneyev . . . not only questioned the 
number of Jewish victims, but also suggested, in the vein of his 
Western neo-Nazi colleagues, that the Holocaust, itself, was a 
'myth of Zionist propaganda.' "''* 

Holocaust denial is also part of the post-Soviet landscape. Au- 
thor Robert Wistrich notes that Konstantin Smirnov-Ostashvili, 
the Pamyat leader who disrupted a Moscow Writers' Club meeting 
with anti-Semitic shouts, "holds Jews 'responsible for the mass 
genocide of the Russian people,' [and] denies that the Jewish Holo- 
caust took place."™ 

With the collapse of communism, right-wing anti-Semitic 
groups such as Pamyat are a fact of life. Like their neo-Nazi cousins 
in the West, they berate Jews for all the evils of history, from the 
killing of Christ to the horrors of Bolshevism. Pointing to the 
number of Jews in the development of communism (Marx, Trotsky, 
etc.), they conclude that the fascists weren't so bad. After all, they 
opposed the "Communistic Jews" and tried to protect their own 
nationals. Braham notes that "leaders such as Marshal Ion An- 
tonescu, Miklos Horthy, Ante Pavelic and Josef Tiso [are being 

In this view, the fascists are not so evil, and the Jewish Holo- 
caust not so significant. That does not bode weU, especially in a part 
of the world where there have been few statements of leaders, and 
few monuments, books, or other memorials that depict Jews as the 
primary target of the Nazis. 

Gerry Gable, editor of Searchlight, has "monitored a publica- 
tion of what used to be the Soviet Writers Union, which is I think 


now the All-Russian Writers Union. From time to time there's been 
anti-Semitism on their pages. But there's also been, from time to 
time, a strong antifascist line. But now there are interviews with 
British, French, and Belgian fascists. There are interviews with 
ayatollahs from Iran. And there are lengthy quotes from the Proto- 
cols. And this sells 100,000 copies per issue. It's extremely well 
written. There are crude, prewar, Der Sturmer-typQ drawings to go 
with the text. And the line is being trundled out that the czar was 
murdered by Steckioff, who was a Jew, on the order of the Bol- 
sheviks, who were, in the main, Jews. And these people have de- 
stroyed Mother Russia, and destroyed the church — and we have to 
restore this." 

There is also a problem in leaping from unvarnished Jew-hatred 
to unbridled Holocaust denial in Russia. As Gable notes, "We're 
back into the argument, what do we do about the collaborators in 
the Second World War? Because the Nazis not only killed a lot of 
Jews, they killed a lot of Russians as well, and a lot of Byelorus- 
sians, and Ukrainians, and people in the Baltic states. So they're in 
a bit of a jam, because even some people that are anti-Semitic will 
say, 'But yeah, hang on a moment. My family, and the whole 
village, were butchered by collaborators working with the SS. Are 
you asking us to accept that as being okay?' But in some of this 
stuff, it goes as far as saying, 'Oh nobody collaborated. These were 
Jewish agents working to destroy the nation.' I mean some of this 
is really paranoid, crazy, crazy stuff. It's paranoia with a huge 'P.' " 

The slaughter of so many Russians by the Nazis may make 
Holocaust denial harder to digest today. But what about in future 
generations, for whom the horrors of World War II will be more 

South America: Argentina. Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, Mexico, Peru 

One of the earliest pieces of Holocaust denial was Mit Goebbels bis 
zun Ende, published in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1949/1950. 
According to Yehuda Bauer, author Wilhelm von Oven — an SS 
officer who worked with Goebbels— "denies any knowledge of 
crematoria or the murder of Jews, in spite of the unequivocal refer- 
ences by Goebbels himself in his diaries to the crimes being perpe- 


trated against the Jews."^'* (In 1976, the book was repubhshed in 
Germany under the title Finale Furioso.^^) 

A book, author unknown, appeared on newstands in some 
Argentine cities in the early 1970s. Its title was The Just Fight of the 
Nazis Against Communism and Judaism. Heinz Roth published a 
book in Argentina in 1974; Porque nos mienten? O acaso Hitler tenia 
Razon? (Why Do They Lie to Us? Perhaps Hitler Was Right?) And 
in July 1991, the far-right paper Patria Argentina printed an article 
by Walter Beveraggi Allende that claimed "the 'holocaust' is a fib 
for the stupid and credulous.""^ 

Holocaust-denying material was an early industry in Brazil as 
well. Yehuda Bauer notes that "from 1965, cheap publications 
appeared in German, claiming, for example, that the number of 
Jewish victuns totaled 200,000."^^ Today most Brazilian denial Ht- 
erature is authored by Siegried Ellwanger, a wealthy industrialist, 
who writes under the name S. E. Castan. Ellwanger's press, Editora 
Revisao, has given Holocaust-denying books to politicians as 

Chilean Miguel Serrano is a former ambassador to India. He 
is also an author of many anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denying 
books. In 1989 he wrote the introduction for Fin de Una Mentira: 
Camaras de Gas: Holocaust- Inf or me Leuchter—d. translation of 
Leuchter's report. ^^ 

In Venezuela, the use of the swastika and other Nazi symbols 
has become widespread as fashion accessories. Neo-Nazi groups 
are more active than in the past. And, as part of this new activity, 
"revisionist magazines and books have appeared, as well as Adolf 
Hitler's Mein Kampf" according to the Jewish Telegraphic 
Agency. ^^ 

The Institute for Historical Review began distribution of Holo- 
caust-denying literature in selected Mexican venues in November 
1991. One target was the German School in Mexico City.^' 

Holocaust-denying literature has also been printed in Peru by a 
predominantly young neo-Nazi group: the Tercios Nacional Social- 
ists de la Nueva Castilla (National Socialist Corps of the New 
Castille). The group is apparently made up of "wealthy youngsters" 
who "operate on a small scale within institutions of higher educa- 


South Africa 

According to Yehuda Bauer, "In South Africa, the deniers of the 
Holocaust were sued for libel, and the court ruled against the 
renewed allegations denying the Holocaust."^^ 

On February 25, 1992, Dr. C. Zaverdinos, a member of the 
Faculty of Science at the University of Natal, published a letter in 
the newspaper Nata} Witness, lauding the work of Irving, Roques, 
Leuchter, Faurisson, Verrall and others, and complaining that "the 
public [is] kept in perpetual ignorance of the fact that there is a 
debate on the Holocaust,"^ 

Both pro-Arab Muslim publications and Die Afrikaner, the 
organ of the far-right Reconstituted National Party, publish Holo- 
caust-denying articles/' 

Even a government official has apparently embraced Holocaust 
denial. Louis F. Strofberg, identified as a member of the House of 
Assembly in Cape Town, had a letter pubhshed in the IHR Newslet- 
ter, in which he lauds IHR as a "hero of the truth unsurpassed in 
our times," and proclaims that "victory will be ours."^^ 

Australia and New Zealand 

As long ago as 1980, Lucy Dawidowicz commented on the effect of 
Holocaust-denying hterature in Australia: 

In Australia Butz's book had a profound and unhinging eifect 
on John Bennett, a Melbourne lawyer, for many years secre- 
tary of the regional Council for Civil Liberties. Converted by 
Butz, Bennett distributed about 200 copies of the book and 
thousands of copies of Faurisson 's articles to persons in Aus- 
tralian public life. Early in 1979, Bennett began to speak of the 
murder of the European Jews as a "gigantic lie" created by 
"Zionist Holocaust propaganda" to make people support Is- 
rael. Several of his sensational letters-to-the-editor were pub- 
lished in leading Australian papers. The subsequent uproar 
soon brought about his dismissal from the Council for Civil 

In February 1990, Howard Sattler, a top-rated radio broad- 
caster in Perth, interviewed American Fred Leuchter. Leuchter told 


the radio audience that Jews died from "malnutrition," and that 
Zyklon-B gas was used only for "disinfecting bed linens, delous- 
ing." Sattler commented that Leuchter had "been over there and 
had a look" at the extermination camps and determined that they 
"could not have been used as gas chambers. . . . The story we just 
covered relates to the so-called Holocaust."** 

According to Jeremy Jones, the honorary secretary of the Exec- 
utive Council of Australian Jewry, in the months before Sattler 
interviewed Leuchter, "virtually every Australian journalist con- 
centrating on political, cultural, legal or historical affairs has re- 
ported receiving unsolicited copies of a 16-page version of 'The 
Leuchter Report,' with a cover letter from John Bennett, Aus- 
tralia's only prominent 'Holocaust Revisionist.' "^^ 

In October 1990, the far-right anti-Semitic group Australian 
League of Rights held its annual convention in Sydney. Nigel Jack- 
son, a teacher at a well respected Melbourne high school, gave the 
keynote address. Jackson called the Holocaust "a Jewish myth 
perpetrated to extort money and sympathy from the West."^^ 

Holocaust-denying books and speakers are making their way 
through Australia and New Zealand with increased frequency. 
David Irving has spoken in both countries. And belief that the 
Holocaust is "hoax" does not disqualify one for public service. 

Dr. Anice Morsey, a leader of the Australian Arab community, 

. . . Zionism fabricated and convinced the world with [a story] 
that there was mass killing of the Jews in furnaces and gas 
chambers, and even convinced the world that Germany alone 
killed six milhon Jews, while the truth is that those Jews who 
were killed numbered only 600,000 and they were not killed in 
the gas chambers as was suggested, but they were killed in the 
conquest's battles or because they participated in the fifth 
column and they worked as spies in Germany, Poland and 
France. . . . Zionism convinced the whole world of a disaster 
that did not occur, and sought to gain the sympathy of the 
world . . . they placed the world in a position of self-defence 
and feeling of guilt to such an extent that the Israeli state 
drains ofP^ from the new Germany materialistically .^* 


After this article appeared, Dr. Morsey was appointed an ethnic 
affairs commissioner by the Victoria government. 


Canada has had two dramatic trials involving Holocaust denial 
which have raised awareness about denial, as well as questions 
about the wisdom o^ providing deniers a trial's free publicity. 

Ernst Christof Friedrick Zundel is a one-man neo-Nazi propa- 
ganda machine. He markets material flattering to the Third Reich 
and to Hitler. Co-author of The Hitler We Loved and Why, Zundel 
has referred to Hitler as the "Abraham Lincoln of Germany. . . . 
This humble, totally dedicated savior. . . . We still love him." 

Zundel mailed his wares— including crass racist and anti-Se- 
mitic pamphlets and publications denying the Holocaust — 
throughout Canada, United States, and Germany. His operation 
was stopped in 1985, when he was charged and later convicted for 
publishing "false news." His sentence was fifteen months incarcera- 
tion and probation for three years. 

Ziindel's conviction was overturned in 1987, and he was retried. 
A veritable "who's who" of Holocaust deniers testified on his be- 
half, including David Irving, Bradley Smith, Ditlieb Felderer, and 
Fred Leuchter. It was on behalf of Ziindel's defense that Leuchter 
had gone to Europe and concocted his "Leuchter Report." (The 
judge ruled that Leuchter lacked credentials or training to make 
conclusions about Auschwitz's gas chambers.) 

The Canadian prosecutor put the case in perspective when he 
asked the jury: "What is the major stumbling block to the rehabili- 
tation of the Nazis?" The prosecutor answered: "[I]t is the Holo- 
caust. So long as the greatest inhumanity man has ever done to man 
exists as a historically accepted fact in the minds of men, the Nazis 
can never be rehabilitated. He must get rid of it. So he published a 
pamphlet replete with lies."'*^ 

Ziindel was convicted, and sentenced to nine months in jail. 

Another celebrated case involved James Keegstra, the mayor of 
the small town of Eckville, Alberta. Keegstra was also a popular 
school teacher. His social studies classes off'ered classic anti-Semi- 
tism of the historic Jewish-conspiracy type, updated with Holo- 
caust denial. 


After years of teaching anti-Semitism as truth, Keegstra was 
removed from his post, prosecuted, and convicted of "promoting 
hate," an offense under section 281 of the Criminal Code.**" The 
appellate courts upheld the constitutionality of this statute, but 
returned the case to the court below to resolve other issues, involv- 
ing jury selection. Keegstra was tried again, convicted, and sen- 
tenced to a $3,000 fine in the summer of 1992.'°^ 

Also in the summer of 1992, the Canadian Supreme Court 
overturned Zundel's conviction, ruling that the statute against 
speading "false news" was unconstitutional.'"^ Zundel held a press 
conference, during which he reiterated his Holocaust-denying 
views. The Canadian Jewish Congress videotaped Ziindel, and, 
along with other Jewish groups, has been pressing for a renewed 
prosecution under the "promoting hatred" statute that Keegstra 
was convicted of violating."*^ 

These two trials"*^ raised difficult questions for prosecutors and 
Jewish community professionals. As in many European countries, 
Canada has no "First Amendment," although free speech is pro- 
tected within certain limits. The laws allowing the prosecution of 
Keegstra and Ziindel had problems. Laws prohibiting promotion 
of hatred against groups and printing "false news" can never be 
fully precise. They allow a defendant great latitude to put on a 
defense, allowing him to use the courtroom stage to spread his hate. 

An analysis of the first Zundel prosecution, Hate on Trial, by 
Gabriel Weimann and Conrad Winn, suggests that the publicity 
generated by the court proceedings did not materially alter people's 
views about the events of World War II— although some of the 
reporting was unnerving, treating the deniers' claims with respect. 
The Jewish community generally applauded these prosecutions, 
although the disproportion between the large cost of repeated trials 
and appeals, and the small sentences that were imposed, made some 
pause. On the other hand, the publicity generated by the trials also 
exposed other disturbing evidence of Holocaust denial which might 
otherwise have remained hidden— including comments of public 
officials who agreed with the deniers.'"^ Another outcome, of 
course, was that Keegstra was exposed and removed from his job. 

While those working against anti-Semitism weigh the gains and 
losses from prosecuting Holocaust deniers, the deniers themselves 
will inevitably call their failures successes, and extract every ounce 


of legitimacy they can from the trials. Having extensive practice in 
rewriting the most cataclysmic event of the twentieth century, it is 
an easy task for them to recast a few weeks in a courtroom. The 
Institute for Historical Review, for example, promotes The Holo- 
caust on Trial: The Case of Ernst Ziindel, by Robert Lenski, a 
544-page book allegedly documenting the "breakthrough testi- 
mony by Fred Leuchter, Robert Faurisson, David Irving, Mark 
Weber, Udo Walendy, Ditleib Felderer, J.G. Burg, and many 
more," as well as the "relentless . . . cross-examining [of] Extermina- 
tionist cover-up artists." 

Canada remains a favored location for the well-traveled group 
that purveys Holocaust denial. David Irving, after appearances at 
the IHR's annual International Revisionist Conferences, routinely 
traveled around Canada, where his speeches were noted in the 
press. In 1991 in Regina he called the Holocaust "a major fraud. 
. . . There were no gas chambers. They were fakes and frauds." 
Although now barred from Canada because of his May 1992 con- 
viction in Germany for Holocaust denial, Irving sneaked into the 
country later that year and spoke. His message was protested by 
many Canadians, including Monna Zentner, a 55-year-old profes- 
sor of sociology. Immediately after the protest, Zentner's house 
burned in a suspicious fire.**^ 


Japan is a homogeneous society with almost no Jews, but books on 
Jews, including anti-Semitic books, sell well. The Protocols of the 
Elders of Zion is more easily obtained in Japan than in any other 
major industrialized nation.'"" 

One of the best known anti-Semitic writers is Masami Uno, who 
praises Hitler, sees a "Jewish peril," blames Jews for the economic 
problems of the entire world, and oifers lectures on the "lies"^*^ in 
Anne Frank's diary. He also claims that the Holocaust is Jewish 

Uno, however, is not alone. On February 7, 1992, Keiichiro 
Kobori, a professor at the University of Tokyo, pubUshed an article 
praising the work of the Institute for Historical Review in Sankei, 
a daily paper with a circulation of two million. 

The IHR is targeting Japan for its "revisionist" material, which 


not only denies the Holocaust, but also rewrites World War II to 
make Britain and the Allies the evildoers and the Axis powers the 
victims. In 1991, "President" publishers of Tokyo issued a Japanese 
translation of an IHR book: F.D.R.: My Exploited Father-In-Law. 
by Curtis B. Dall. 

Deniers also diminish the Holocaust by comparisons to the 
racist internment of Japanese- Americans during World War II. As 
David McCalden told the Los Angeles Times in 1981, " 'There is a 
grain of truth in many Holocaust accusations. . . . Tens of thou- 
sands of Jews did die' from famine, typhoid fever, riots and expo- 
sure to freezing temperatures . . . Persons of Japanese ancestry who 
were confined in California camps during World War II might have 
suffered the same fate if the United States had 'been bombed, 
invaded and blockaded from Canada to Mexico.' " 

Not surprisingly, the IHR's yearly conference has had speakers 
from Japan. Albert Kawachi, a Japanese professor who wrote Why 
I Survived the A-Bomb, spoke to the 1990 IHR meeting, paying 
"tribute to IHR and Revisionism for offering his nation a potential 
for escape from one-sided materiahsm and return to authentic Jap- 
anese values [since] he placed the roots of Japan's current crisis of 
soul on the American imposition of unilateral Japanese guilt for the 
East Asian and Pacific War.""" 

Arab Nations and Groups 

Holocaust denial has long fascinated certain folk in the Arab world. 
Saudi Arabian money helped publish two of the earliest Holocaust- 
denying works.'" Well before the United Nations equated Zionism 
with racism, Gamal Baroodi, the Saudi Arabian representative to 
the United Nations, claimed that the Holocaust never occurred."^ 
Yehuda Bauer reports that "As early as 1974, a book entitled Adolf 
Hitler, BergrUnder Israel written by Karl Hunecke, appeared in 
Switzerland. Apparently written by an Arab, the publication was 
certainly supported by Arab funds. In 1975, a book by Ahmad 
Hussein, Palestine My Homeland, was published, which also in- 
cluded the claim that the Holocaust never occurred.""^ And in 
1977, when New York City decided to introduce study of the Holo- 
caust into its curriculum. Dr. M. T. Mehdi, president of the Ameri- 
can-Arab Relations Committee, denounced the decision as "an 


attempt by the Zionists to use the city educational system for their 
evil propaganda purposes."'"* 

In recent years the PLO has taken up the call of Holocaust 
denial with vigor."^ In an April 20, 1990 story in the Jewish Week. 
Daniel Santacruz wrote: 

According to a series of magazine articles published by the 
Palestine Liberation Organization, the Nazi concentration 
camps were more humane than Israeli prisons are today. The 
publication also claimed that the camps did not have the 
technical capacity to burn miUions of bodies. 

Concentration camps had sanitary conditions "of much 
higher standards" than Israeh prisons, wrote Dr. Khaled el- 
Shamali about his recent visit to the Dresden and Sachsen- 
hausen concentration camps, in the Palestinian weekly El Isti- 
glal (Independence). He added that the Israel prisons are 
"worse than those fit for animals." 

The scientist, said to be an expert in intense heat stoves and 
a member of several scientific associations in Arab countries, 
wrote: "Jews are complaining of their treatment by the Ge- 
stapo whereas the truth is they were served healthy food as 
proven by the dining rooms observed there." 

The articles, "How Did Zionist Propaganda Cloud Science 
and Mind? A First Quiet Travel Through the Climate of 
Fear," and "Burning of the Jews in the Nazi Chambers is the 
Lie of the 20th Century in Order to Legitimize the New Na- 
zism," appeared in the December 13 and Dec. 20 1989 issues 
of the publication. . . . The weekly was founded ... by PLO 
Chairman Yasir Arafat and is regarded as the main news 
organ for Palestinians inside and outside the territories. Its 
editor is Luai Abdo, reportedly a top PLO figure in the West 
Bank. . . . Abdo wrote in the preface to Shamali's Dec. 13 
article that the study is "worthy of reading, eloquently de- 
scribed and supported by scientific arguments of the folly of 
Zionist propaganda concerning the alleged Holocaust." 

Because the stoves where Nazis burned the corpses were 
"very primitive" and belonged to the "Middle Ages," by no 
means could milUons be incinerated, Shamah said in his sec- 
ond piece. In the same article he said that Israeh soldiers 


"undergo fascist education more extreme than the Nazis," and 
that the world must "combat Zionism because it is more dan- 
gerous to human civihzation than the Nazis." 

Later in 1990, the Los Angeles Times reported: "PLO ARTI- 
Red Crescent Society, published, last July, an article which cites 
Revisionist scholarship in challenging what author Ream Arnouf 
cails'thelieof the existence of the gas chambers.' . . . Arnouf writes: 
'Faurisson described the lie about the gas chambers as a historical 
deception, which allowed large scale extortion, which benefited 
Israel and international Zionism at the expense of the German 
people but not its leaders and the whole of the Palestinian peo- 
ple.' '"'^ 

Holocaust denial by Arab groups is a fascinating phenomenon. 
The Nazis' anti-Jewish policy attracted Arab leaders to the Third 
Reich during World War IL Arab propagandists have for many 
years promoted the lie that the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians 
what the Nazis did to the Jews. Additionally, pro-PLO publications 
try to delegitimize the state of Israel by ignoring the Jewish histori- 
cal presence and cultural and religious ties to the land of Israel. 
Intrinsically linked with this historical rewriting is the claim that 
Israel only exists because the world felt sorry for Jews after the Nazi 
Holocaust— a crime that Arabs did not commit, and thus should 
not have to "pay" for."'' 

Holocaust denial should be a growth industry in Arab coun- 
tries, with the help of the Institute for Historical Review and the 
Arab deniers they have promoted. As Newsletter #76 of the IHR 
(November 1990) noted, "As to the future [there is] a major initia- 
tive by Ahmed Rami. . . . [T]he former Moroccan tank officer, who 
has extensive ties throughout the Arab world, is working with Arab 
intellectuals and leaders to begin serious study of Holocaust Revi- 
sionism in the Arab countries.""** Rami, as well as Abdel-Majid 
Trab Zemzemi of Tunisia, has ties to the Institute for Historical 
Review."' Apparently, for the PLO and other Arab leaders, the 
propaganda potential of Holocaust denial has become manifest, 
despite the need to reframe the claim that it was only because of the 
Nazi Holocaust that Israel was created. Now, Jews are to be further 
vilified for making up the existence of the Holocaust itself. As 


Robert Faurrison told attefidees of the IHR's Tenth Conference, 
"Arab and Islamic intellectuals . . . have begun a serious study of 
the case of Holocaust Revisionism and its impUcations for the 
Muslim world." 

According to the 1992 Anti-Semitism World Report of the Insti- 
tute of Jewish Aifairs, Holocaust-denying articles have also ap- 
peared in Algeria and Egypt. ^^^ 

Target: Israel 

Even in the non-Arab literature of Holocaust denial, hatred for 
Israel appears prominently. That fact should convince the naive 
that mere "historical inquiry" is not the goal. Israel was not created 
until 1948, three years after the end of World War II. If somehow 
World War II was greatly misinterpreted, as the deniers claim, that 
would have little to do with a subsequent event — the founding of a 
Jewish state. 

Deniers, however, integrally link Holocaust denial with anti- 
Israel propaganda, for if the Holocaust is a "hoax," as they suggest, 
then one of the justifications for a Jewish state is undermined.'^' 
Holocaust denial not only attacks Jewish history, its inherent anti- 
Zionism also targets the Jewish present and the Jewish future. 
Historian Deborah Lipstadt believes "The anti-Israel component is 
the key. This is where they really come around to their contempo- 
rary claims. This is absolutely central to their argument. In some 
respects, all Holocaust denial is a means of trying to deny the 
legitimacy of the state of Israel. The troubling thing is that it is 
going to prove very appealing to people who are inclined toward 
anti-Semitism. And those people are going to be exactly the ones 
who are going to fall prey to this kind of stuff." 

When Israel is mentioned, many deniers can barely hide their 
crass anti-Semitism. Their hterature asks questions such as "Is the 
Old Testament the basic plan for the foreign policy of a modem 
nation?"'^^ IHR conferences—especially the earlier ones — have 
been orgies of classical anti-Semitism. For example, at the 1982 
conference Palestinian Sami Hadawi said, "Begin says that a Jew 
will not bow down to anyone other than God — but does he know 
who God is?" The keynote speaker that year was Dr. Martin Lar- 
son, who said, "The Bible clearly depicts two Gods. On the one 


hand there is Jehovah — -the God of the Old Testament — a God of 
hate, cruehy and caprice. On the other there is the New Testament 
God of love. These two Gods cannot be reconciled. Jehovah is not 
the God of Jesus Christ." If his point was not clear enough, Larson 
also quoted Harry Barnes: "Israel is Murder, Incorporated, raised 
to the level of a state.'"" 

An IHR Newsletter in 1982 said: "Because of the myth of the 
'holocaust'— this idea— you, dear American, have been maneu- 
vered into footing the entire bill for naked Israeli aggression and 
pre-meditated genocide. . . . ISRAEL GETS AWAY WITH MUR- 

Arthur Butz, in an IHR Journal article entitled "The Interna- 
tional 'Holocaust' Controversy," wrote that "Israel is always in 
trouble, and will be in trouble as long as it exists as a Jewish state." 

Israel plays such a prominent role in Holocaust denial because 
it is inextricably linked with the deniers' anti-Semitism. The Holo- 
caust-as-hoax belief is rooted in the idea of a world Jewish conspir- 
acy. Israel, of course, would have to be a key part of any such 
conspiracy. That Israel is being paid reparations by Germany for 
theHolocaustisseennotasproof of the Holocaust but as a motive 
for creation of a Holocaust "myth." 

The IHR is actively promoting Holocaust denial to Israel's 
enemies.'^'* Even where deniers cannot agree among themselves, 
they can agree on hatred of Jews and Israel. When David 
McCalden separated from Willis Carte and started his Truth Mis- 
sions, one of his earliest fliers spoke not about World War II, but 
Israel, highlighting the "truth" of the United Nations' equation of 
Zionism with racism. 

Left Wing 

The principal ideological connection between right-wing neo-Nazis 
promoting Holocaust denial and those who do the same on the left 
is hatred of Israel. 

Noam Chomsky, one of the great intellectual heroes of the far 
left, wrote in support of French Holocaust denier Robert Fauris- 
son.'^^ Chomsky's piece was pubhshed as an introduction to Fauris- 


son's Treatise in Defense Against Those Who Accuse Me of Falsify- 
ing History. '^^ 

Across the globe, the far left can be counted on to criticize the 
KKK or neo-Nazis at any opportunity. But if the PLO, rather than 
the Aryan Nations, spouts Holocaust denial, the far left is con- 
spicuously silent. 

Perhaps the greatest contribution of the far left to the denial of 
the Holocaust has been its relativizing and diminishing the horrors 
of the Nazis as a strategic tool to better attack Israel. 

Israel-bashing was part of the "pohtically correct" dogma of the 
far left long before the first Israeh settlements in the West Bank, or 
its incursion into Lebanon, or the right-wing governments of^ 
Menachim Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. The anti-imperialist far left 
that was born in opposition to the Vietnam War viewed Israel as a 
tool of "American imperialism," to be opposed. Coupled with the 
embrace of the PLO, which touted itself as a "revolutionary" move- 
ment ahgned with "people of color," Marxist parties such as the 
Socialist Workers Party and the Revolutionary Communist Party, 
as well as independent Marxist groups like the collective that pub- 
lished the far left's premier paper in America, The Guardian, be- 
came vehemently anti-Israel. 

Theoretically, unfair attacks on Israel need not diminish the 
Holocaust. But the diminution of the Holocaust becomes inevitable 
when, for the last twenty years, the far-left press has gleefully 
compared IsraeUs to Nazis, and the treatment of Palestinians to the 
treatment of Jews in the death camps. Rather than target specific 
Israeli policies, practices, or programs as they might with a govern- 
ment that was otherwise ''politically correct" (e.g., Nicaragua's 
Sandinistas) or simply disliked as capitalist (the United States, 
Britain), polemicists on the far left continually diminish the horrors 
of Nazism by claiming that the Israelis are doing what the Nazis 

The far left also trivializes the Holocaust in another way. Start- 
ing with a commendable proposition— that many genocides 
throughout history have been ignored based on who the victims 
were — it has become "politically correct" to see all genocides'^' as 
"holocausts" and all "holocausts" as indistinguishable. Certainly, 
the mass killings and deportations of Armenians, American Indi- 
ans, Cambodians, and black slaves were deplorable events that 


need to be studied, remembered, mourned, and learned from. So 
too are the other killings also referred to as "holocausts" in the 
far-left press (e.g., East Timorese, Vietnamese, etc., mentioned in 
Edward Herman's "Politically Correct Holocausts," Z Magazine, 
April 1992). All of these testimonies to human horror share much 
in common— a state killed or dehumanized people of another race 
or rehgion. But the Holocaust was unique in that a modern state — 
not to aid its war effort, but despite the hampering of that effort — 
committed genocide. The killing of American Indians, or the hor- 
rors of the slave trade, or the targeting of Armenian Christians by 
Turkish Muslims during World War I, were all done to benefit the 
majority population, usually economically. But in Germany the 
Nazis' "Final Solution" was a hindrance to their war effort — and 
may have cost them victory. And whereas millions of black slaves, 
and Indians, and Armenians, and Cambodians, died horribly, it 
was never the policy of the criminal state to target every member of 
the group that could be rounded up. Only those who were "in the 
way," or otherwise deemed "worthwhile" killing, were murdered. 
And although those otherwise "worthwhile" killing throughout 
history often included women and children, it was the Nazis alone 
who aspired to obliterate the presence of a people— Jews and Jew- 
ish culture and Jewish history — from the planet. Americans did not 
kill anyone they could find who had one Indian grandparent, the 
Turks did not kill anyone they could find who had one Armenian 
grandparent, and the world did not kill anyone who had one Afri- 
can grandparent. The Nazis, however, felt a holy mission to target 
anyone who had a trace of what they called Jewish blood. Nazi 
Storm Troopers had a song: "Wenn das Judenblut vora Messer 
spritzt, dan gehts nochmal so gut" ("And when Jew blood spurts 
from the knife, things will go twice as well").'^'* 

This is not to diminish for a second the horrors of genocide, or 
to label one victimized group any more worthy of compassion than 
another. But those who, like many on the far left, want to reclassify 
genocides by the skin color of the victim, or call them all identical, 
create their own brand of Holocaust denial by obliterating any 
understanding of the unique aspects of the Holocaust in human 
history. It was what the Nazis did, and not that it was done primar- 
ily to Jews, that makes the Holocaust a singular tragedy. 

Holocaust denial on the far left also expresses itself in another 


way. Lenni Brenner, himself a Jew, is anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic. 
"Just as there were no good Nazis," he said, "there are no good 
Zionists."^^^ Despite Brenner's left credentials, his writings have 
been promoted and sold by the IHR. This is not incidental. There 
is an intellectual strain on the far left magnetically akin to basic 
tenets of the far right. Speakers from both extremes spoke to their 
opposite numbers during the Persian Gulf War in similar tones, 
agreeing that the war was only being waged to help Israel. 

For both Marxist and right-wing isolationist,^^** the general soci- 
etal baseline of anti-Semitism, coupled with a shared dislike of 
Israel, make Holocaust denial, or at least Holocaust relativism, an 
easily digestible philosophy. 

Should Denial of the Holocaust Be a Criminal Offense? 

Ditferent societies have diiferent histories, cultures, and means of 
addressing hateful speech. There is no one "correct" way to apply 
law to Holocaust denial. What may be logical in one society may 
be ridiculous in another. 

The United States is unique in its First Amendment constitu- 
tional guarantees. Non-Americans may be astounded to learn that 
Americans can print or say anything they want, as long as their 
utterances are not "fighting words," threats against the life of the 
president, or a few other carefully guarded expressions. 

Other countries, with other traditions and without constitution- 
ally enshrined guarantees of free speech, criminalize certain expres- 
sions. After World War II, displays of the swastika and similar 
exhibitions were outlawed in Germany. Germany today also out- 
laws Holocaust denial. Other countries, such as France and the 
Netherlands, have used court cases to curtail the dissemination of 
Holocaust-denying Uterature.'^' Laws, however, are never an entire 
answer to any social problem, including anti-Semitism and Holo- 
caust denial. Laws to combat expressions of hate are also particu- 
larly difficult to enforce, as the Canadian experience in the Ziindel 
and Keesglra trials attests. Laws also create paradoxes. If a prose- 
cution is not brought because a conviction may be hard to secure, 
people may believe that the authorities are condoning illegal expres- 
sion. And because people see prosecution as what the authorities 
are "supposed" to do about hatred, other necessary governmental 


responses, such as education and community-relations work, may 
be ignored. 

Stephen Roth, writing in "Denial of the Holocaust: A Criminal 
Offense?"'^^ describes how a denier "boasted" that it was now legal 
to deny the gas chambers after he was acquitted for making such 
statements in Austria. The Austrian Constitutional Law of May 8, 
1945, prohibits "activities ... in a National Socialist spirit," and 
prescribes a minimum punishment of five years imprisonment. 
Roth notes that the provision has "two shortcomings." First, the 
language is imprecise as to what it outlaws. Second, the punishment 
is so severe that judges — especially the lay judges who sit on such 
cases— would rather acquit than impose the mandatory minimum 

The Jewish community has requested that the !aw be changed 
to increase the possibility of conviction. "Considering that this 
involves an amendment to a Constitutional Law, and having regard 
also to the mood of the Austrian populace, the chances of success 
are not very great," Roth concludes. 

Laws, then, are insufficient to combat Holocaust denial, which 
is no more exclusively a legal question than it is exclusively a 
cultural, political, or historical question. An effective strategy re- 
quires a multifaceted approach. 


Exposing Holocaust Deniers 

Holocaust deniers crave legitimacy above all else. As long as they 
are seen as neo-Nazi hacks, and not scholars, their task is harder. 

Part of their strategy is to repaint the entire portrait of World 
War 11, rather than focus exclusively on the extermination of Jews. 
By doing so, the IHR crowd has attracted others whose names they 
exploit. Pulitzer prize-winning author John Toland spoke at the 
Tenth International Revisionist Conference in 1990. Thereafter the 
IHR has been promoting his works on Japan. 

The Institute for Historical Review also tries to portray itself as 
legitimate by quoting denunciations from real scholars as praise. 
For example, IHR promotes a book entitled The Dissolution of 
Eastern European Jewry by Walter N. Sanding which purports to 
prove that "there were never 'six million' Jews under the control of 
the Germans at any time, and that only ihe presumption of a higher 
Jewish population-growth rate than actually existed in Europe dur- 
ing the twentieth century, combined with the overcounting of Jews 
in countries from which they emigrated and their undercounting in 
countries to which they immigrated, has allowed the 'six million 
exterminated' story to claim a demographic justification." A leaflet 
promoting the book quoted professors and Jewish sources: 


"The danger of this book (and those that will doubtlessly 
follow) is its clever veneer of scholarship. The bibhography is 
international in scope and the text has the panache of objectiv- 
ity. Not one in a thousand undergraduates could find fault 
with it."— ^Professor Henry Huttenbach of the City College of 
New York. 

"This book makes a great parade of statistics to show that 
whatever diminution in the population of the European Jews 
took place during World War II was only part of a long-term 
demographic 'dissolution,' exacerbated by the rough treat- 
ment accorded Jews by the Soviet Union."— Gordon Mork, in 

By quoting their (Jewish) critics, IHR tries to create the illusion 
of legitimate debate. 

But there should be no debate between fact and fiction. The 
deniers' claims can and must be debunked— not with debate, but 
with expose. 

First, Jews, historians, and others of goodwill have to make 
clear why we will not debate deniers. Second, we have to expose the 
disingenuousness of the deniers' insistence on debate. Professional 
deniers are not Holocaust scholars, but anti-Semitic impostors with 
a neo-Nazi political agenda burdened by what Gerry Gable terms 
a "moral albatross around their neck of enormous proportions. 
And that's the Holocaust. All the other things, they can argue 
Hitler's a good anti-Communist, they can argue he made the trains 
run on time, but when it comes to a state writing into its statute 
book, into its law, the Nuremberg laws, the laws based on race and 
eugenics and so on, and the creation of an extermination program 
that killed milhons of people in the camps, you've got something 
they're stuck with." It is important that people know that deniers 
want to rehabihtate Nazism and create a new world order based on 
the Third Reich. In order for there to be an honest debate, both 
sides have to be committed to honest historical inquiry. The deni- 
ers' agenda is easily exposed: their literature is produced by Nazis 
who sell glowing biographies of Hitler, tapes of Nazi marches, the 
enthusiasts' edition of Me in Kampf, and The Protocols of the Elders 
ofZion} Just as a parent would not take a child to a doctor whose 


hero was Dr. Mengele — the Nazi who experimented on twins^one 
should not get one's history from people who think the Third Reich 
had it right. 

There is much vahdity to Deborah Lipstadt's comment that 
"We need not waste time or effort answering the deniers' conten- 
tions. It would be never-ending to respond to arguments posed by 
those who freely falsify findings, quote out of context, and simply 
dismiss reams of testimony. Unlike true scholars, they have little if 
any respect for data or evidence. Their commitment is to an ideol- 
ogy and their 'findings' are shaped to support it."^ 

Deniers also insist upon "debate" on unfair terms. As Deborah 
Lipstadt says, they cite, or miscite, specific factoids about events 
fifty years ago that require knowledge to refute. One need not be an 
expert historian on any issue to believe, with confidence, that cer- 
tain events occurred, the Holocaust among them. Yet, if one relies 
on belief, the deniers will claim that the conviction is false, based on 
faith rather than knowledge. Once one admits that he or she cannot 
debunk the deniers' "facts," the deniers move in for the kill. Belief 
in the Holocaust is then no different from belief in Santa Claus or 
the Easter Bunny. In fact, belief in the Holocaust is more suspect- 
it is a rehgiously grounded, politically correct "official truth." "Of- 
ficial truths," such as the "official" story of the attack in the Gulf 
of Tonkin, or for some the "official" story of the John F. Kennedy 
assassination, are always to be viewed skeptically. 

Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune describes the dilemma well. 
"Ignore the revisionists," he argues, "and their pronouncements 
float in the air unchallenged. Answer them in general but refuse to 
debate head-to-head, as mainstream historians and Jewish groups 
have, and you risk seeming afraid of confrontation. Respond to 
their allegations one by one and you appear to dignify the argu- 
ments, perhaps making it seem to the uninformed as though the 
existence of the Holocaust is a question serious people consider 
seriously, when, in fact, the revisionists have failed to make their 
case with virtually every active scholar in the field. "^ 

As the long list of publications at the end of this study (see 
Appendix D) suggests. Holocaust denial is a growth industry. Yet 
most people around the world will not learn of Holocaust denial 
through the denying hterature; they will learn of it through the 
media. (For example, Canadian newspapers, during the Ziindel 


trial, had headlines: "No gas chambers in Nazi Germany, expert 
witness testifies"; "Women Happy at Auschwitz, Trial Told [sub- 
heading; "Guards respectful, ex-soldier says"]; "Auschwitz Called 
Fake" [subheading "Nazi Camp Had 'Pool, Ballroom' "]; "Lawyer 
Challenges Crematoria Theory."'') Those who have written well 
and extensively about denial, such as religion writer Jim Davis of 
the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel, suggest that the lies should be 
directly rebutted. "We journalists are only as good as our sources," 
he said.^ "If the American Jewish Committee and others had not 
done hard and fast research on this, 1 would have been only left 
with how they portray themselves." 

When the first director of the IHR, David McCalden, was lying 
about his identity, calling himself Lewis Brandon, he was inter- 
viewed by the San Francisco Examiner. "He was asked if the thou- 
sands of books written on the Holocaust could all be mistaken," the 
article reported. " T'm afraid,' Brandon said, 'i have to say most of 
this literature is fake.' " 

To believe deniers, one has also to believe — as McCalden did — 
that historians worldwide have faked history. That is a hard nut for 
even the most cynical to swallow. Obviously, historians have not 
conspired to fake history — but because the deniers have, their 
methods can and must be exposed. 

What the Klarsfeid Foundation did in its expose of Fred 
Leuchter,^ and what Deborah Lipstadt has done in her book Deny- 
ing the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (New 
York: Free Press, 1993) are important contributions to a type of 
scholarship that is frequently overlooked: setting the historical re- 
cord straight by debunking both the deniers' claims to be serious 
historians and their historical claims. As Leonard Zeskind notes, 
there is a need to "take on directly some of the mythomania of the 
Holocaust deniers. That is critical for the period 20 years hence. 
There must be, on the record, a rebuttal of essentially these histori- 
cal slanders. The funding of that kind of work, and the actual 
production of that type of work is critical. That's not getting done, 
for the most part." 

The deniers' claims are not difficult to expose. In fact, by expos- 
ing their methods, we can further illustrate their neo-Nazi agenda: 


Claim: Hitler Did Not Order, and Did Not Know about the 
Extermination of Jews 

ANSWER: Deniers note that there is no single signed document by 
which Hitler ordered the Holocaust. From this they contend that if 
any extermination took place, Hitler did not know about it, rather 
than the more logical explanations: that he was not foolish enough 
to sign such a damning document, or if he was so foolish, one has 
not been found. Deniers also do not acknowledge that a job so 
massive as the destruction of the Jews would by necessity require 
the knowledge and approval of the Nazi head of state— what histo- 
rian would claim that President Johnson's failure to sign a formal 
declaration of war against Vietnam meant he was unaware of that 

Professor Robert G. L. Waite of Williams College, in calling 
David Irving's work (which advances the "the fiihrer didn't know" 
thesis) "a calumny both on the victims of Hitler's terror and on 
historical scholarship," noted that "no one but Hitler had the au- 
thority to give the orders to murder more than six milhon people in 
the midst of war." 

Aside from Hitler's warrant for genocide neatly laid out for all 
to see in Mein Kampf, deniers conveniently "forget" that he spoke 
about the need to exterminate the Jews.' 

On January 30, 1939, for example. Hitler gave his famous 
Reichstag speech. 

During the time of my struggle for power it was in the first 
instance the Jewish race which received my prophecies with 
laughter when I said that 1 would one day take over the 
leadership of the States, and with it that of the whole nation, 
and that I would then among other things settle the Jewish 
problem. Their laughter was uproarious, but 1 think that for 
some time now they have been laughing on the other side of 
their face. Today I will once more be a prophet: If the interna- 
tional Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed 
in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the 
result will not be the bolshevisation of the earth, and thus the 
victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in 


In a two-hour meeting with his confidant Alfred Rosenberg in 
April 1941, Hitler outlined the plans for that prophecy, something 
that Rosenberg did not "want to write down, but will never for- 

In a pubhc speech on February 24, 1943, Hitler spoke about the 
extermination of European Jewry. He compared the need to exter- 
minate the Jews with having "exterminated a bacterium because we 
do not want in the end to be infected by the bacterium and die of 
it."'** On June 19, 1943, Hitler ordered Himmler to press forward 
radically with the "evacuation" of the Jews — a term used, and 
understood, as a euphemism for extermination. Referring to this 
order, Himmler spoke to a group of generals in May 1944, telling 
them that he had "uncompromisingly" solved the Jewish "prob- 
lem." He added: "You can imagine how I felt, executing this sol- 
dierly order issued to me, but I immediately complied and carried 
it out to the best of my convictions." In another speech, to SS 
generals in Posen, Poland, on October 4, 1943, Himmler was 
equally clear. 'The Jewish race is being exterminated," he said. 
"It's our programme, and we're doing it. . . . We had the moral 
right, we had the duty towards our people, to destroy this people 
that wanted to destroy us."" Himmler also told his SS audience 
that while "we can talk about it quite openly here ... we must never 
talk about it publicly. ... I mean the evacuation of the Jews, the 
extermination of the Jewish people . . . You know what it means to 
see 100 corpses piled up, or 500 or 1,000. . . . This is an unwritten, 
never to be written, glorious page of our history."'^ 

That "evacuation" meant "extermination" is unquestionable 
from German documents. "The result to date of this 'resetUement 
action,' " wrote SS Major Francke-Griksch in a 1943 report on 
Auschwitz, "[is] 500,000 Jews. The present capacity of the 'resettle- 
ment action' furnaces: 10,000 in 24 hours. "'^ 

Deniers like David Irving perpetually harp on the fact that there 
was no single extermination order signed by Hitler, as if that proves 
something.'" Sybil Milton, a historian at the U.S. Holocaust Memo- 
rial Museum in Washington, D.C., notes that "Hitler did initial the 
Euthanasia Order of 1939, which ordered the deaths of deformed 
and mentally ill patients. The resulting questions from medical and 
law officials . . . convinced him to sign no more orders that explicitly 


mentioned killing— a decision reflected in the fifteen-page blueprint 
for the Final Solution produced at the Wannsee conference which 
contained carefully sanitized language. Instead, from 1941 on, 
Himmler and his assistant Adolf Eichmann filed frequent reports 
with Hitler on the progress of the Holocaust. And the remark 'it is 
the Fiihrer's wish' came to have the force of law."'^ 

Detailed reports were made about the numbers killed by murder 
squads that hunted Jews and others. '^ The efficiency of these opera- 
tions was described by the Nazis. For instance, Herman Graebe, a 
German engineer, detailed the killing of Jews in the Ukraine town 
of Dubno: 

The people who had got off the trucks— men, women, and 
children of afl ages— had to undress upon the order of an SS 
man, who carried a riding or dog whip. An old woman with 
snow-white hair was holding a one-year-old child in her arms 
and singing to it and tickling it. The child was cooing with 
delight. The parents were looking on with tears in their eyes. 
The father was holding the hand of a boy about ten years old 
and speaking to him softly: the boy was fighting his tears. The 
father pointed to the sky, stroked his head and seemed to 
explain something to him. 

At that moment the SS man at the pit shouted something 
to his comrade. The latter counted off about twenty persons 
and instructed them to go behind the earth mound. . . . 

I walked around the mound and found myself confronted 
by a tremendous grave. People were closely wedged together 
and lying on top of each other so that only their heads were 
visible. Nearly all had blood running over their shoulders 
from their heads. Some of the people were still moving. Some 
were hfting their arms and turning their heads to show that 
they were still alive. The pit was already two-thirds full. I 
estimated that it contained about a thousand people. 1 looked 
for the man who did the shooting. He was an SS man, who sat 
at the edge of the narrow end of the pit, his feet dangling into 
the pit. He had a tommy gun on his knees and was smoking 
a cigarette. 

The people, completely naked, went down some steps and 
clambered over the heads of the people lying there to the place 


to which the SS man directed them. They lay down in front of 
the dead or wounded people; some caressed those who were 
still alive and spoke to them in a low voice. Then I heard a 
series of shots. I looked into that pit and saw that the bodies 
were twitching or the heads lying motionless on top of the 
bodies that lay beneath them. . . . The next batch was ap- 
proaching already. ... I swear before God that this is the 
absolute truth.*' 

Claim: That the Crematoria Could Not Have Accommodated the 
Number of Corpses Necessary 

ANSWER: The deniers, as they have with the gas chambers, ad- 
vance reasonable sounding theories that are scientifically unsound. 
As Holocaust scholar Yehuda Bauer noted; "An article by Prof. 
Reinhard K. Buchner of California State University in San Diego 
. . . argues that since an incinerator in any American crematorium 
can cremate one body in five hours, and in Auschwitz there were 
fifty-two incinerators, it was impossible to have cremated six mil- 
lion Jews. Buchner estimates that there were 100,000 victims in 
Auschwitz and that the total number of victims could have reached 
219,000. In fact, the incinerators in Auschwitz were built to cremate 
nine corpses per hour. There were forty-six ovens, and, at peak 
times, fifty-two, which were in operation ten to twelve hours per 
day. Thus there was a potential possibility of cremating 4,043,520 
corpses during the two years the incinerators were operational 
... In addition to Auschwitz, there were other extermination 
camps, such as Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmno, Majdanek 
and Mauthausen (where the inmates were worked to death), and 
approximately one and a half milHon Jews were shot to death by the 

In 1944, when Hungarian Jews were being shipped to Birkenau 
faster than the crematoria could accommodate the corpses, "the 
dead bodies were burned in open pits."'^ 


Claim: That Only a Few Hundred Thousand Jews Died During 
World War 11, These the Victims of Hunger, Thyphus, Etc.; That 
the Figure of 6 Million Exterminated is Fiction 

ANSWER: The deniers who tout demographic studies do so decep- 
tively. In "Auschwitz: Truth or Lie," by Thies Christophersen, the 
number of Jews in 1938 is given as 15,688,259— source, the Ameri- 
can Jewish Committee; and 18,700,000 in 1948— source, a New 
York Times article. The contention is that if there were three million 
more Jews after the war than before, how could six million have 
been killed? 

The 1938 American Jewish Year Book — where the American 
Jewish Committee publishes these data when available— had no 
precise data for 1938. However, the 1939 Year Book gave the world 
Jewish population as 16,633,675. The 1948 Year Book listed world 
Jewry at 11,373,350. That, of course, was not mentioned by Chris- 

The Nuremberg trials, based on evidence presented by Justice 
Jackson (on leave from the U.S. Supreme Court), put the figure of 
Jews who died during World War 11 as 5,700,000. According to 
scholar Lucy Dawidowicz in a 1977 memo for the American Jewish 
Committee, "the round number of 6,000,000 has subsequently been 
the generally accepted assumption, arrived at by various estimates 
of Jewish pre-war and post-war populations in the different coun- 
tries and confirmed by various German documents and witnesses 
before the International Military Tribunal." 

One of these documents (Nuremberg Document PS 2738) is an 
affidavit from SS Major Dr. Wilheim Hoettl, quoting Adolf Eich- 
mann as having told him, at the end of August 1944, that "approxi- 
mately four million Jews had been killed in the various extermina- 
tion camps, while an additional two million met death in other 
ways, the majority of which were shot by operation squads of the 
Security Police during the Russian campaign.""^ 

The Anglo American Committee of Inquiry, in an April 20, 
1946, report, put the number of European Jews missing as 5,721,- 

Some reputable estimates put the figure between four and five 
million (Enghsh historian Gerald Reitlinger, in his The Final Solu- 
tion, published in 1953 and revised in 1968); some between five and 


six million (Martin Gilbert, a fellow of Merton College, Oxford, in 
his Recent History Atlas— 1870 to the Present Day, printed in 1969); 
some between six and seven million (Dr. Helmut Krausnick, former 
director of the Munich Institute, in his 1956 publication Zur Zahl 
de Judischen Opfer des Nationalsozialismus). 

As Reitiinger wrote: "Constant repetition of [the six million 
figure] has already given anti-Semitic circles . . . the opportunity to 
discredit the whole ghastly story and its lessons. I believe that it 
does not make the guilt . . . any less if the figure of six million turns 
out to be an overestimate ... it was still the most systematic 
extermination of race in human history. ... As a German, Walter 
Dirks, has written: 'It is shameful that there should be Germans 
who see a mitigating circumstance in reducing the sum from six 
milhon to two milhon.' " 

For scholars, the chore of trying to pin down the actual number 
of Jews and other killed by the Nazis continues. New sources of 
information, such as documents that are bound to be found in the 
former Soviet Union, will shed light. Most reputable scholars still 
hold to the six milhon figure as probably the best estimate — the 
numbers killed in some camps is lowered, in others increased. Deni- 
ers seize on every reduction to prove their thesis, and ignore ail the 

Another tactic used by the deniers, but with decreasing fre- 
quency since the death of David McCalden (this was his piece of 
denial "expertise"), pointed to survivors finding each other after 
many years. Clipped from the mainstream presses, the stories were 
usually about close relatives who had been separated at a camp, 
both presuming the other had died, until some freak event brought 
them together. For others, these stories of separation and discovery 
were heartwarming. For McCalden, these were evidence that mil- 
Hons of Jews presumed dead were merely misplaced. 

Jim Davis, religion reporter for the Sun Sentinel, noted that if, 
as the deniers suggest, the six million figure is "irresponsible exag- 
geration," then "a wide range of researchers have agreed to exag- 
gerate together [including] historians, a 1946 commission of the 
United Nations, and even German schoolbooks."^** Peter Hayes, 
associate professor of history and German at Northwestern, asks: 
"Is it plausible that so great and longstanding a conspiracy of 
repression could really have functioned? That no genuine scholar 


would have long since emerged to blow the whistle on it, if it had? 
That everybody with a Ph.D. active in the field— German, Ameri- 
can, Canadian, British, Israeli, etc. — is in on it together?" Not only 
historians, but six million people who were supposed to have been 
killed, but who in fact survived, would have to be part of the plot. 

Michael Allen, the director of the Holocaust Awareness Insti- 
tute at the University of Denver, notes that "the figure 6 milhon 
came from the Germans' own documents. The Germans kept me- 
ticulous records of who was sent where . . . and who was sent to the 
gas chambers. A lot of people starved, but it was only the Jews and 
a few others who were singled out for mass execution." 

The Nazis, of course, did not document every death. Those who 
arrived dead in the railcars, or who were directed in the "wrong" 
line were frequently unregistered. As Shelly Shapiro, director of 
Holocaust Survivors and Friends in Pursuit of Justice, notes, some 
historians "counted trains, and by knowing who got on, who regis- 
tered for transport, where the trains arrived, and what percentage 
were unregistered at the camps, they could compute deaths. The 
Nazis also usually did not count dead babies."^' 

Among the Nazi documents that support the six million figure 
is a report from Himmler to Hitler showing 363,211 Jews killed in 
the last quarter of 1942 alone, and a report from SS statistician 
Richard Korherr^^ documenting the murder of 2.5 milhon Jews as 
of March 31, 1943. The documents even detail how seriously the 
Nazis took the minutiae of their genocide. A 1942 report from SS 
Dr. Becker described how the gas van drivers should press on the 
accelerator, so that "death comes faster and the prisoners fall asleep 

Claim: That the Nuremberg Trails Were a Fraud 

Answer: The Nuremberg trials, conducted after World War II, were 
indeed a "victors' " court. Reams of testimony and memoranda 
documented the war crimes of the Nazis, including their genocide 
against Jews and others. As Hans Frank, governor general of occu- 
pied Poland for Hitler, said during the proceedings, "A thousand 
years will pass, but the German guilt will not be repealed."^ The 
trials documented the Nazi genocide machine. For example, Rudolf 
Hoess described to British investigators on March 1 6, 1 946, how he 


"personally arranged on orders received from Himmler in May 
1941, the gassing of two million persons between June- July 1941 
and the end of 1943, during which time I was Commandant of 

It is precisely because the Nuremberg trials were so exhaustive 
in their documenting of the crimes of the Nazis that the deniers 
have to discredit them in order to pursue their claim. Their strategy 
rests on the assumption— a correct one— that few people beyond 
the participants and a handful of scholars know the exact details of 
the trials. 

First, the deniers claim that the trials should be discredited 
because they were conducted by the victors, who were not inter- 
ested in justice but in propaganda. Never mentioned, of course, is 
that the Nazis committed unspeakable crimes, and the world did 
indeed need to punish those responsible for mass murder. Also not 
mentioned is that the trials were conducted with safeguards for due 
process — defendants were allowed a defense, with the aid of coun- 

Second, deniers point to inconsistencies inevitable in any court 
proceeding, let alone one documenting crimes against milhons of 
people during a multiyear war, and use them to paint a picture of 
a fraud. 

Third, the deniers suggest that the confessions of the Nazis were 
tainted or the result of torture. 

For those disinclined to immerse themselves in the voluminous 
record of the trials to refute the deniers, there is one simple observa- 
tion that will suffice: the Nazis were allowed a defense, with defense 
counsel. If the Nazi "plan and design ... to annihilate the Jewish 
people," as Robert Jackson, the chief U.S. prosecutor termed it, did 
not exist, none of the defendants would have admitted to it. The 
defense of choice was "i was only following orders." A defense of 
"it didn't happen" would have been untenable because the proof of 
the Holocaust was overwhelming. But even if one indulges the 
deniers' assertions, why wouldn't every Nazi accused of a crime 
against humanity not have defended himself with a complete de- 
fense that "It may have happened, but i did not know about it, and 
took no part in it," rather than a partial defense that admits per- 
sonal action in the extermination of Jews, but seeks mitigation for 
"following orders"? No petty criminal would admit guilt unless 


caught red-handed; certainly, no one accused of crimes against 
humanity would admit their actions unless overwhelming proof left 
them no choice.^* 

Like all people who fabricate, Holocaust deniers end up con- 
tradicting themselves. On one hand, they paint the trials as so eager 
to blame Nazis for crimes they did not commit, any evidence was 
used. Yet Paul Rassinier, in his The Drama of the European Jews, 
noted in refutation of a Polish Jewish refugee named Rafael Lem- 
kin^^that "The Tribunal at Nuremberg even refused to admit [Lem- 
kin's] impossible forgery into evidence." 

Claim: That the Survivors' Recollections Are Unreliable 

Answer: There are literally thousands upon thousands of testimo- 
nies about the Holocaust collected in Holocaust museums and oral 
history libraries all over the world. Only a hard-core anti-Semite 
who believes in magical conspiratorial witchlike powers of Jews 
would believe that all these eyewitnesses would be in on a conspir- 
acy. No person of goodwill could believe that thousands of people 
would be merely "mistaken" about such important months and 
years of their hves. And it is not only the Jewish survivors who 
would have to be mistaken: it is the liberators as well. 

The survivors not only are living proof of the scope and details 
of the Holocaust, they are doubly dangerous to the deniers because 
they can discredit many of the deniers directly. For example, Thies 
Christophersen, a Wehrmacht officer who was stationed at one of 
the camps in the Auschwitz complex, wrote a booklet entitled Die 
Auschwitz Liige, in which he claimed that Auschwitz was not a 
death factory. (The stench of burning bodies, he claimed, were not 
from crematoria, but "a horse-shoeing shop and the stench of the 
burned horse hooves was not pleasant."") Four Auschwitz survi- 
vors who worked under Christophersen have signed affidavits. "If 
you are not going to work more," Christophersen told them, "I 
shall dispatch you through the chimney. "^^ Of course, deniers 
around the world still use Christophersen 's work. 

Another example is that of Arthur Butz's The Hoax of the 
Twentieth Century.^'' A large part of Butz's argument is that the 
survivors' testimonies presented at Nuremberg were unbelievable. 
He "exposed" a book by Rudolf Vrba^^^an escapee from Ausch- 


witz — claiming thai Vrba was never a prisoner there, as proved by 
the absence of his name in the official camp record. "The story of 
this person is not credible," Butz deduced, "[in] this way, lies about 
Auschwitz are born." 

Vrba's real name was Walter Rosenberg. After his escape, he 
secured documents in the name of Rudolf Vrba, which he con- 
tinued to use, not mentioning this fact in his book Ich Kann Nicht 
Vergehen. Vrba wrote to Butz, explaining his name, proving it with 
documents. Butz did not alter his assertion.^' His book has ap- 
peared in at least forty countries, and has sold over a milhon 
copies. ^^ 

Claim: That Neither Churchill Nor Eisenhower, in Their Memoirs, 
Mention Either Gas Chambers or a Genocide Program 

ANSWER: As the deniers well know, the death camps were not on 
German soil, but in eastern Poland. The American and British 
forces did not capture eastern Poland — the Russians did. Eisen- 
hower, however, visited a concentration camp near Gotha, and 
wrote about the atrocities he witnessed in a April 15, 1945, letter to 
General George Marshal.^^ 

Claim: That Auschwitz^" Was Not a Death Camp 

ANSWER: The deniers quote Fred Leuchter, who supposedly went 
to Auschwitz, examined the camp,^^ and concluded that it had 
never had gas chambers. Leuchter, they will claim, was even certi- 
fied as an expert witness at the trial of Ernst Zundel in Canada in 

What they don't say is that Leuchter's report was not accepted 
in that trial, the court ruling that he lacked sufficient credentials to 
admit his findings into evidence. "[Leuchter] is not a graduate 
engineer," the court said, "he's got a B.A. [in history]."^^ (In June 
1991, Leuchter admitted in court that he had misrepresented him- 
self as "an engineer able to consult in areas of engineering concern- 
ing execution technology," in violation of Massachusetts criminal 

French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac made thirteen visits to 
Auschwitz, and having analyzed the camp plans, work crew slips. 


poison gas specifications, and photographs, concluded that the 
camp was built for mass murder. After Leuchter wrote his "re- 
port," Pressac wrote a rebuttal, concluding that Leuchter both 
ignored sound scientific practice and plain evidence that showed 
that gassings took place.^"* 

Leuchter's claims were so extensive and absurd and touted as 
credible by deniers,'^ a book was written to refute him. Truth Pre- 
vails: Demolishing Holocaust Denial— The End of "The Leuchter 
Report, " was pubhshed in 1990 by the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation 
and Holocaust Survivors and Friends in Pursuit of Justice. It takes 
Leuchter's "science" step by step, and exposes it and him as fraud.'" 

The refutation notes that Leuchter took brick and cement sam- 
ples (illegally) from ruins that had been exposed to the elements 
since 1945, hardly scientific practice since cyanide is soluble in 
water, and the rubble he collected may or may not have been 
residue from the gas chambers (the SS blew up Crematorium II in 
January, 1945)."' 

Leuchter claims that he found concentrations of cyanide residue 
150 to 1000 times greater from material he identifies as from delous- 
ing chambers than that from the gas chambers — and since the same 
gas, Zyklon~B, was used for both, the latter (supposedly used to kill 
thousands of people daily), rather than the former, should have the 
greater residue— in fact, should have been tainted blue given the 
staining properties of the gas. Pressac patiently explains that, even 
ignoring Leuchter's illegal removal of samples and poor scientific 
procedures, the discrepancy and lack of blue stain proves, rather 
than refutes, the existence of gas chambers. 

Pressac wrote: 

A hydrocyanic gas concentration of 0.3 g/m' [grams per 
cubic meter]— a lethal dose— is immediately fatal to a man, 
while kiUing lice requires a concentration of 5 g/m^ for a 
period of at least two hours. Maintaining that concentration 
(5 g/m^) for six hours will kill all insects. . . . The dose used at 
Birkenau was lethal 40-70 times over (12-20 g/m^), which 
infallibly killed a thousand persons in less than 5 minutes. 

Afterwards, the place was aired out . . . The HCN was in 
physical contact with the gas chamber walls for no more than 
ten minutes a day at a temperature of about 30 degrees Cel- 


sius. In the deiousing chambers, a minimum concentration of 
5 g/m^ was used over the course of several daily cycles, the 
length of which varied accordiag to the amount of time chosen 
for the period of contact. This cyanide saturation for 12 to 18 
hours a day was strengthened by the heat the stoves in the 
room emitted, providing a temperature of 30 degrees Celsius. 
The walls were impregnated with hot HCN for at least 12 
hours a day, which would induce the formation of a stain: 
Prussian Blue, or potassio ferric ferrocyanide of varying com- 
position depending on the conditions in which it was obtained. 
. . . The appearance of blue walls in the delousing gas cham- 
bers now allows us to distinguish them visually from the homi- 
cidal chambers, where this phenomenon did not occur, in an 
empirical but absolutely certain manner. Without heat induc- 
tion of long continuance, the cyanide doses, as high as they 
were, were not in contact with the walls of the homicidal 
installations long enough to provoke the reaction to an appre- 
ciable—that is to say visible — degree. 

Faurisson and Leuchter concurrently propound incoher- 
ences concerning the Zyclon-B delousing chambers. The first 
one is that Faurisson alleges that the homicidal gas chambers 
were too primitive to be used by the SS without endangering 
themselves, in light of the highly secure American execution 
gas chambers. But since delousing buildings and homicidal 
chambers were built on the same design, differing only in 
operating process, one wonders how he manages to accept the 
delousing chambers whereas he ferociously denies all reality of 
the homicidal ones. 

As for the second incoherency, Leuchter is the guilty party. 
Faurisson confirms, according to Leuchter's "judgment," that 
the gas chambers at Maidenak could not have been homicidal 
either. I, having visited Maidenak, knew that three areas using 
Zyclon-B had walls of a particularly intense blue. I naively 
thought that if Leuchter admitted Birkenaus' BW 5a was a 
delousing gas chamber, Leuchter at least had to admit by his 
own erroneous blue wall theory that three premises suspected 
at Maidenak could be homicidal, since there were blue areas 
all over the wall. Against all evidence, Leuchter denied their 


Faurisson was annoyed by the "infintessimal" cyanide 
traces found in the former gas chambers of the Auschwitz- 
Birkenau crematoriums, since he was expecting a completely 
negative result, conforming to his "vision." He draws upon 
one of the most often-used lies in explanation: The minute 
traces come from the fact that the "morgues" were sometimes 
disinfected with Zyclon-B. (The term "morgues" in the 
crematorium blueprints denotes ground level rooms to be used 
ostensibly for this purpose, but which were transformed into 
homicidal gas chambers. Faurisson only accepts their former 
state.) Hydrocyanic acid is used first and foremost to extermi- 
nate such vermin as insect pests and rodents. Classified as an 
insecticide and vermin killer, it has no bactericide or germicide 
properties for use as an antiseptic. Places and things are disin- 
fected with various kinds of antiseptics: solid (lime, lime chlo- 
ride), liquid (bleach, cresol), gas (formaldehyde, sulfur anhy- 
dride). To remove lice from clothing required either an 
insecticide, or dry steam disinfecting in an autoclave. But a 
morgue is not disinfected with an insecticide or vermin killer 
iike hydrocyanic acid, as Faurisson foolishly claims, which 
would be as much use as a poultice on a wooden leg. Leuchter, 
who claims to be scientifically trained, whereas Faurisson is 
not, similarly used this stupidity in his report. 

The discrepancy between the recorded cyanide ration in 
the delousing chambers and the ration in the gas chambers, 
the latter being lower, allowed the deniers to impose their 
"terrible" line of questioning. But these results actually con- 
form to our current knowledge of history. If Faurisson and 
Ixuchter had been willing to compile their information more 
carefully, they would have understood, rather than raving that 
they had "unmasked the great hoax." . . . 

Leuchter, like Faurisson and others, also claimed that Zyklon-B 
could not have been used, because the gas is combustible. Once the 
chamber doors were opened, there would have been explosions. 

Pressac— who flirted with Holocaust denial until he researched 
the question himself — ridicules the "explosion" theory. He writes 
that the gas's "flammability limits in air are from 5.6% (minimum) 
to 40% (maximum) in volume (6%-41% according to Du Pont). 


This signifies that upon contact with a flame there is an explosion 
if the concentration of hydrocyanic acid in air comprises between 
67.2 g/m' and 480 g/m.^ Below 67.2 g/m^ there is no risk. . . . The 
SS used doses of 5 g/m^ in delousing and 12-20 g/m^ in killing,"^ 
well under the 67.2 g/m^ threshold.'"*^ 

Another favorite claim of those who cite Leuchter is that the 
people who dropped the Zyklon-B into the chambers would have 
died if the gas chambers existed. The deniers fail to note that the 
Nazis took procautions, that they used gas masks, and that so many 
people were crowded into the chambers, that a tremendous volimie 
of air was displaced. 

At the trial of Ernst Zundel in Canada, Leuchter was asked the 
following questions by the prosecutor, Mr. Pearson, and gave the 
following answers: 

Q: So this stuff" you told us about people on the roof who 
dropped the gas down and how they would be committing 
suicide, it would take a matter of minutes before the gas got 
to them, wouldn't it? 

A: Unquestionably. 

Q: So, if they closed the vent and got off the roof, there 
would be nothing to concern them, would there? 

A: If they got off" the roof But at some point they have to 
do an inspection to determine whether the parties are de- 

Q: They send in the Sonderkommandos to do that, sir, and 
they don't care what happens to them. 

A: Right, all right. 

Q: So, if someone's on the roof with a gas mask, you agree 
that they've got all kinds of time to get off" the roof after 
they've closed the vent? 

A: Perhaps. 

Q: Right. And in a room that has 2,000 people squeezed 
into 2,500 square feet, would you agree that the amount of air 
in that room is going to be displaced by the people? 

A: Unquestionably.** 

Perry Broad, a Rottenfuhrer in the Kommandatur at Auschwitz, 
described the process as follows: 


Q: Will you tell us what you learned on the subject of 
exterminations while you were employed at Auschwitz? 

A: In May 1942, 1 heard at that time only as a rumour that 
gassing on a bigger scale had been done in the concentration 
camp at Auschwitz. At that time I had not seen it myself. In 
July 1942, I was in the neighbourhood of the Truppentivier 
about 40 to 45 kilometres from the crematorium of Auschwitz, 
and there I saw for the first time a gassing action. 

Q: What gas was used? 

A: At that time I did not know, but I saw that several 
people with gasmasks were working on the roof of the 
crematorium and that they opened with hammers tins. 

Q: Where did you see this, in Auschwitz or Birkenau? 

A: At that time, 1942, it was in Auschwitz. 

Q: Was this crematorium what was known as the old 

A: Yes, it was. 

Q: Will you tell us what you saw in connection with exter- 
minations at the old crematorium? 

A: The installation at the crematorium was the following. 
The roof was plain, and there were six holes of the diameter 
often centimetres. Through these holes, after the tins had been 
opened, the gas was poured in. 

Q: How many people were they putting in at a time in the 
old crematorium? 

A: At the time when I observed it, there were about 300 or 
400 or there might have been even 500. 

Q: How long did the gassing take to finish the 500 off? 

A: One could hear the screaming of the people who were 
killed in the crematorium for about two or three minutes. 

Q: Did you later get to know more about the gassing 

A: Yes, later on I got to know the name of that particular 
gas, it was Zyklon. 

Q: Did you ever see any gassings at the new crematoriums 
at Birkenau? 

A: Yes. 

Q: How many gas crematoriums were there at Birkenau? 

A: There were four crematoriums at Birkenau. 


Q: How many people a day were they gassing at Birkenau? 

A: In the months of March and April 1944 about 10,000. 

Q: Per day? 

A: Yes, per day. 

Q: Who were the men who actually did the gassing? What 
type of man was that in the camp? 

A: They were called disinfectors. 

Q: Win you tell us about these disinfectors shortly? 

A: They were under the orders of the doctor and their 
duties comprised, apart from killing human beings, also the 
disinfection and the delousing of the internees' clothes. 

Q: How was that delousing and disinfection of the clothes 
carried out? 

A: In airtight rooms. The clothing was dealt with in the 
same way as the human beings. 

Q: Will you look at this extract from this report and tell me 
if you know anything about it? Who wrote that report, which 
is set out there in inverted commas? 

A: I myself. 

Q: The disinfectors are at work . . . with an iron rod and 
hammer they open a couple of harmless looking tin boxes, the 
directions read Cyclon [sic] vermin destroyer. Warning, Poi- 
sonous. The boxes are filled with small pellets which look like 
blue peas. As soon as the box is opened the contents are 
shaken out through an aperture in the roof. Then another box 
is emptied in the next aperture, and so on. And in each case 
the cover is carefully replaced on the aperture . . . Cyclon 
works quickly, it consists of a cyanic acid compound in a 
modified form. When the pellets are shaken out of the box 
they give off prussic acid gas (Blausauregas). . . . After about 
two minutes the shrieks die down and change to a low moan- 
ing. Most of the men have already lost consciousness. After a 
further two minutes ... it is all over. Deadly quiet reigns. 
. . . The corpses are piled together, their mouths stretched 
open. ... It is difficult to heave the interlaced corpses out of 
the chamber as the gas is stiffening all their limbs. Is that based 
on your experience?*^ 

A: Yes. 


Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz, said: 

The "final solution" of the Jewish question meant the 
complete extennination of ah Jews in Europe. ... It took 
from three to fifteen minutes to kill people in the death cham- 
ber ^ 

The deniers perpetrate fraud regarding Auschwitz by ignoring 
historical documents, using fallacious scientific assumptions,"'' and 
distorting what the documents do and do not say. Robert Fauris- 
son's claim that Auschwitz had no gas chambers, for example, relies 
in part on the diary of Johann-Paul Kremer, an SS doctor. 
Kremer's diary for October 18, 1942 read: "This Sunday morning 
in a cold and humid weather I was present at the 1 1th special action 
(Dutch). Atrocious scenes with three women who begged us to let 
them live." 

Faurisson claims that a "special action" was not the selection of 
who would go to the gas chamber and who would not. Rather, he 
claims it was a division of the healthy from the sick who, suffering 
during a typhus epidemic, were executed. Faurisson wrote that the 
three women were shot. He attached a footnote, citing prison rec- 

What Faurisson did not mention was that there were 1,710 
people in the convoy Kremer noted in his diary. Only 116 were 
brought into camp. The rest were the subject of the "special ac- 
tion," the eleventh of fourteen that Dr. Kremer would participate 

What about Faurisson's claim that the three women mentioned 
in Kremer's diary were shot? The diary said nothing about their 
fate. Rather, Faurisson referred to Kremer's testimony during a 
war crimes trial in Poland. The good doctor testified: "Three Dutch 
women did not want to go into the gas chamber and begged to have 
their lives spared. They were young women, in good health, but in 
spite of that their prayer was not granted and the SS who were 
participating in the action shot them on the spot." 

Faurisson used the doctor's testimony to supply the fate of the 
three women, but ignored the doctor's testimony about the exis- 
tence of the gas chambers.'^ 


Claim: That Anne Frank's Diary Was a Fraud 

ANSWER: Anne Frank's diary detailed a young girl's feelings and 
family travails while hiding from the Gestapo in an Amsterdam 
attic (the deniers admit that the Nazis discriminated against Jews). 
Anne Frank in hiding was hardly a witness to the events at Ausch- 
witz and Treblinka. Why, then, do the deniers put so much energy 
into the claim that the diary was a fraud? 

There are two reasons. One is the power of this young girl's 
prose. Her words have touched generations of schoolchildren 
around the world, proving the moral horror of Nazism, something 
the deniers would prefer the world forget. 

More importantly, the deniers question Anne Frank's diary 
because their anti-Semitic attitudes compel them to. Intellectually, 
one could believe that the world was mistaken about what hap- 
pened to the Jews of Europe without believing that there was a 
purposeful conspiracy to hoodwink everyone. For the deniers, 
however, the claim of Jewish conspiracy is an integral part of their 
anti-Semitic delusions. If Jews somehow magically conspired to 
create what the deniers call a "Holohoax," then wouldn't the semi- 
nal piece of Holocaust-era literature have to be fake? The claim that 
the diary is a fraud is both a natural outgrowth of the denier's own 
anti-Semitism, and a part of the effort to promote the old anti- 
Semitic canard of "Jewish conspiracy," Jews having demon-like 
power to make the world believe a lie. 

The seminal "work" attempting to prove the falsity of the diary 
was the Swedish Ditlieb Felderer's Anne Frank's Diary: A Hoax. It 
is referred to extensively by the deniers around the world today. 
Felderer's gross anti-Semitism is not. For example: 

All the way back in antiquity the Zionists have peddled their 
ware, a disease far worse than the leprous plague.''^ In this way 
they have brought havoc, confusion, butcheries, cruelties and 
death to millions of innocent people. Wherever they have 
tread — crime, corruption, perversion and pornography has 
come. Whoever has aligned himself with them has finally 
become the victim of their crime and succumbed to their sa- 
tanism. The Zion-racists continue on to our present day to 
whore their race merchandise, often under the guise of equal- 
ity, brotherhood and democracy. In truth, their form of 'de- 


mocracy' is no other thing but a chronic state of demo- 
cracy — a rule by incarnated demons.^" 

From such an "objective" historian comes the following 
"proof that the diary was a fraud: 

(1) That it made no sense for Anne Frank, after her capture, to 
be sent to Bergen-Belsen through Auschwitz-Birkenau and Wester- 
bork. "How anyone," Felderer wrote, "in a tune of full-scale war, 
where transportation and food supplies are severely hampered, can 
proceed in this manner to 'exterminate' people is beyond our com- 

(2) That two pieces of Anne Frank's handwriting are dissimilar, 
one more adult, the other more childlike. 

(3) That a child of her age could not have had the sexual feelings 
she describes, and thus the diary must have been written by a 

These claims are easily refutable. First, Dutch Jews were rou- 
tinely sent to Westerbork for "sorting." And what Felderer finds so 
mysterious — that the Nazis sacrificed the efficiency of their war 
effort to kill Jews — is what made Nazism so uniquely horrible. 
Killing Jews was a mission beyond all others. 

Second, one handwriting sample was script, the other print. 
And if, as Felderer claims, a sample of her more child-like writing 
with her signature had a later date affixed to it, the obvious explana- 
tion is that she signed an earlier piece of writing. Her affixation of 
a signature to an earlier document was entirely consistent with her 
personality and her predicament: she was, after all, trying to pre- 
serve a part of herself on paper, knowing that at any time the Nazis 
might discover her. 

The third claim is the most bizarre. Child development experts, 
as well as anyone who has ever known children of Anne Frank's 
age, know that the thoughts she expressed were honest and natu- 
ral^in fact, that is part of the reason why her diary is such compel- 
ling reading for young adolescents. 

Added to Felderer's claim^' is another, which was mentioned 
during the trial of Ernst Zundel in Canada. As Gabriel Weimann 
and Conrad Winn wrote in Hate on Trial,^^ "When a student 
pointed to The Diary of Anne Frank as evidence [of the Holocaust], 
Ziindel insisted that it was a fraud. Zundel claimed that West 


German forensic experts had proved that it was written in 1951 and 
in ballpoint pen, a postwar invention. Hence, Anne had to have 
survived the war. Ziindel did not explain how the diary could have 
been written in 1951 in view of the fact that it was first published 
in 1947. Nor did he attempt to explain away the considerable 
documentary evidence that the fifteen year old girl was shipped to 
her death in 1944." 

Recently, the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation 
produced a 714-page book, proving that the diary was not a for- 
gery. The deniers, however, will continue their false claims. These 
lies do not die, and will have to be exposed repeatedly. Anne 
Frank's diary was first proved authentic in court in 1961, when 
Anne' father Otto sued a teacher who claimed the diary was a 

Chapter 4 
Long-Term Battle Against 

Holocaust denial is a problem with many dimensions. It is part 
anti-Semitism, part antihistory, part antiauthority, part antidemoc- 
racy. Like ail forms of hatred, and all ideologies that promote or 
apologize for fascism, it must not be dismissed as either something 
"silly" or as something to be combated with platitudes or incanta- 
tions of "the truth." It must be fought as hatred, as ignorance, and 
as ideology. Those who dismiss Holocaust denial as the stuff of 
flat-earth types forget a simple historical fact: all bigotry and anti- 
Semitism is palpably absurd. People throughout history have ac- 
cepted these absurdities as empowering truth. The painstaking ef- 
fort to debunk the deniers' agenda and their claims, as outlined in 
Chapter 3, is only a small part of what we must do. 

Holocaust Studies 

Some, but not all, American school systems mandate study of the 
Holocaust. They all must. 

Sometimes, when Holocaust study has been proposed, some 
groups have objected, claiming that Holocaust curriculum will pro- 
mote anti-German attitudes, or that the travaiJs of one group 
should not be showcased above others.' But Holocaust study need 
not promote anti-German prejudice, and its importance is not that 
one group was the primary victim, but that it is the most powerful 


example of a state pursuing genocide as a glorious mission. 

In teaching the Holocaust, students must learn the lessons not 
as dry history but as something relevant today. Elizabeth Rickey 
says, "Eighty percent of my students had never heard of the Holo- 
caust.^ The reaction I get is 'how long are we going to have to hear 
about it?' It's the same as those who say, 'we gave blacks the right 
to vote in '65, what more do they want?' Education, to be meaning- 
ful, has to start bridging the gap between history and a person's 
own experience." Almost every heritage has experienced mass mur- 
der. The Holocaust, if taught properly, should make every student 
connect not only with a larger human lesson, but also his or her 
background. If the Holocaust is presented only as a horrible thing 
that happened to Jews in the mid-twentieth century, non-Jewish 
students will not be able to see themselves in the lessons. Without 
such personal identification, the unique horror Jews suffered during 
the Holocaust cannot be grasped. 

Some believe that by simply learning about events, those events 
will not be repeated. That belief is well-intentioned fantasy. History 
teaches that genocide, bigotry, racism and intolerance are an ines- 
capable part of the human story; that there are baser instincts and 
societal patterns at work that cannot be transformed with simple 
knowledge of important facts alone. Hate, at its most frightening, 
is not perceived as hate of other but love of self. Nazis needed Jews 
to make themselves feel good about being "Aryans." White racists 
need blacks to make themselves feel superior. If all we demand is 
accurate memory of past genocide as a complete prophylaxis 
against future genocide, we create our own historical denial by 
ignoring a self-evident truth: it is not memory alone, but also social, 
cultural, political and economic forces that have to be changed in 
order to effect the human indulgence in hate, genocide and anti- 
Semitism. Teaching about these forces should be part of Holocaust 

Because Holocaust education (in this broader context) is essen- 
tial, it cannot be simply an add-on to the social studies curriculum, 
or a lesson learned during visits to museums, no matter how well 
presented. It must be part of a larger commitment of schools to 
teach youngsters "communal literacy," how to live in a society 
where everyone does not look the same or share the same religion 
or background. 


Teaching about hatred must be designed to touch students in- 
delibly. Years ago an elementary school teacher taught a simple 
lesson on prejudice. She divided the class into blue-eyed and brown- 
eyed children. One day the blue-eyed children were told they were — 
and were treated as— superior. The next day, it was the brown-eyed 
children's turn to be better than their neighbors. That powerful 
lesson of bigotry was easily learned, because the students experi- 
enced how easy it was to feel superior, how tormenting it was to feel 
inferior, and how easily discrimination and prejudice work. Teach- 
ing of the Holocaust must take place in a system that is committed 
to inoculating children against the all forms of the disease of human 
hate. Otherwise, the lesson is sim.ply one of increasingly stale events 
that caused one group suffering. 

To make Holocaust studies more relevant and to combat 
today's anti-Semites, the curriculum must mention that there are 
people who deny the Holocaust, and expose them for the haters, 
bigots, and Nazi-lovers that they are. And while Holocaust educa- 
tion has to be designed to be compelling to future generations, 
today we can still utilize survivors and liberators to give a human 
dimension to genocide, people who can say "this is what happened 
to me and my family" and "this is what I saw." There are programs 
of survivors and /or of liberators who speak to young people today 
and tell their stories in American classrooms. And there are organi- 
zations, such as the Oral History Library of the American Jewish 
Committee and Facing History and Ourselves in Boston, that are 
collecting these histories. They should be fully used. 

Planning Ahead for a World Without Witnesses: Holocaust Denial 
in the Next Century 

Holocaust denial is already the glue that holds various anti-Semitic 
factions together, and is a dogma that provides ideological incen- 
tives to feel good about Jew-hatred.^ In the next century, the Holo- 
caust-denying industry will continue to market its hateful lies in the 
United States, Europe, Canada and elsewhere. 

The venues for Holocaust denial will also expand with changes 
in technology. In addition to rallies, conferences, ads on campuses, 
and radio programs, the deniers have already begun to target cable 
stations and interactive computer bulletin boards, such as 

CompuServe, Prodigy, Internet and USENET. Tom MarceUus, the 
director of the Institute for Historical Review, has promoted the 
use of computer bulletin boards as an easy way to reach millions of 
"readers" worldwide. According to Marcellus, by early 1992 over 
500 Holocaust-denying messages had been posted on the General 
Electric bulletin board named GEnie.'^ 

Regardless of what avenues new technologies will offer for anti- 
Semitism, our human immune system against bigotry is still defi- 
cient. Assuming that there is no quantum change in the human 
capacity to organize ideologies around hate. Holocaust denial may 
be to the beginning of the twenty-first century what the Protocols 
of the Elders ofZion was to the beginning of the 20th century—an 
intellectual warrant for anti-Semitism. But it has the potential to 
become even more dangerous for three reasons. 

First, to accept the Protocols as true, one had to posit an evil 
little Jewish group that met secretly, and somehow had the power 
to control the destiny of the world. The Holocaust as hoax is, 
inherently, a more believable delusion, especially once all the wit- 
nesses to it are gone. Historical events are always viewed from 
differing perspectives. The claims of picture forgeries, of diary 
hoaxes, of chemical disproof of the gas chambers, of kangaroo 
courts and forced confessions, are all small, digestible lies that, 
added together, make the big lie palatable. One need not believe in 
a Jewish "Hoiohoax" conspiracy to end up at that point. But if the 
occurrence of the Holocaust is an open question, then the idea of 
a Jewish conspiracy becomes inevitable. 

Holocaust denial both feeds into and benefits from the tradi- 
tional modern stereotype that the "Jews control the media." As 
Charles A. Weber wrote in his book, The "Holocaust"— 120 Ques- 
tions and Answers, "the extermination thesis . . . derived from 
Zionist sources." And as he wrote for the 1982 issue of IHR's 
Journal, "As a result of heavy Jewish influence in the American 
news media . . . few typical American political figures would dare 
to question the 'Holocaust.' " The inevitable anti-Semitic conclu- 
sion of Holocaust denial unfolds like a prosecutor's dream: the 
"crime" is the conspiracy, the "motive" is money for Israel, the 
"opportunity" is control of the media. 

Second, the transference of classical anti-Semitism into political 
anti-Zionism ("Israel" is substituted for "Jew" as the object of 


hate) allows further fuel for those who would not otherwise be 
enamored with Holocaust denial. Like the "Zionism is racism" 
canard, Holocaust denial provides a reason for disliking the mere 
existence of Israel. 

Third, and most important, histories of genocide have always 
been purposefully misremembered, especially when those genocides 
have occurred during wartime. Even other victims of genocide have 
contributed to this phenomenon. 

Take Armenians, for example.^ With less sophistication than 
the Germans, but with the similar intent of organizing state ma- 
chinery for the killing of a people, the Turkish government victim- 
ized Armenians. Beginning on the night of April 24, 1915, first the 
Turks came for the community leaders, and then the males, who 
were told they would be deported. Many were marched a distance, 
then summarily shot. Others had their feet beaten until they burst. 
Or had horseshoes nailed to their feet. Or had their eyebrows and 
beards extracted one hair at a time. Or had their finger and toe nails 
ripped off. Or had their flesh pulled off with pincers. Or had their 
skin burned with red-hot rods. Or had boiling liquid poured into 
their wounds. Or were crucified or hung in public squares. 

Then came the Armenian women and children and old men. 
They were marched into the desert and massacred along the way, 
for example: 70,000 at Res-ul-Ain; 50,000 at Intilh; 200,000 at 
Deir-ex-Zor. According to Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. ambassa- 
dor to Turkey at the time, many Armenians were killed with "clubs, 
hammers, axes, scythes, spades and saws." The Turkish officials 
"boasted" that these methods were "more economical, since they 
did not involve the waste of powder and shell." 

Turkish interior minister Taaiat Pasha proclaimed that "all the 
Armenians— women, children, invalids — must be eliminated." 
Deportation was the most effective method. 1 8,000 Armenians were 
marched out of Kharput and Sivas. Only 350 survived. 1,900 Ar- 
menians were marched out of Erzerum. Only 1 1 reached their desti- 

The government of Turkey, only decades before the government 
of Germany, had plotted to kill a people. The effort was docu- 
mented by many, including U.S. Ambassador Morgenthau. The 
Turkish government did not hide its intent. Its excuse was that 
Armenians could not be trusted in Turkey's World War I effort. 


Armenians were to be exterminated, and not only the disloyal ones 
because, as Taalat Pasha explained, "those who were innocent 
today might be guilty tomorrow." 

Even though population figures are not entirely precise, it is 
possible that half the Armenian population was murdered. Perhaps 
as many as 1.5 miUion Armenians were killed.*^ 

Nearly eighty years ago, the Turkish officials then in power took 
credit for this genocide. The current Turkish government denies 
history. It says it never happened, or seeks to excuse the massacres 
as a consequence of war. The rest of the world, for its own reasons, 
allows this denial to go unchallenged. 

In 1982 an International Conference on the Holocaust and 
Genocide was held in Tel Aviv. The Armenian genocide was on the 
agenda. The Turkish government warned that the topic should not 
be included, and mentioned, threateningly, the well-being of Turk- 
ish Jews. Turkey has been historically the most hospitable Muslim 
country to Jews. The threats were taken seriously. The Israeh gov- 
ernment tried to abort the conference, and encouraged scholars to 
stay away. The conference was held nevertheless, and the Armenian 
genocide was discussed.^ The Turkish government also raised the 
specter of harm to Turkish Jews in 1990, when many American 
Jewish groups were considering whether to support a congressional 
commemoration of the Armenian genocide. Academics have also 
been used to give a veneer of legitimacy to the denial of the Ar- 
menian genocide. Sixty-nine academics signed a New York Times 
ad in 1985, protesting a proposed day of remembrance for the 
victims of the Armenian genocide. According to Professor Peter 
Sourian, most of these academics "apparently benefitfed] directly or 
indirectly from Turkish largess."^ 

Jews, like Armenians, were seen as a hostile minority during 
wartime. Because the genocide occurred during a war, the exact 
number of victims is not precisely ascertainable. Diiferences be- 
tween scholarly estimates are used to suggest that "estimates" of 
the deniers are no less believable. Jews, hke Armenians, were 
painted as having a reason for exaggerating claims (and thus the 
scholarship of those most likely to care was dismissed). 

Adolf Hitler, in a speech to his military commanders on August 
22, 1939, reportedly asked, "Who still talks nowadays of the exter- 
mination of the Armenians?" That the Armenian genocide is now 


considered a topic for debate, or as something to be discounted as 
old history, does not bode well for the those who would oppose 
Holocaust denial. 

Or take another example: American Indians — the clearest an- 
swer to those who say what happened in Germany was peculiarly 
German, that "it" could never happen here. "It" did. 

America, for all its celebration of diversity, has one great divi- 
sion beyond all others: those who came to the United States from 
other parts of the world and the indigenous population. For the 
needs of expansion, the government organized to push Indians out 
of the way and, whenever that became inconvenient, to kill them. 

Indians, like the Armenians, were marched until they died. 
Cherokees were forced to leave their ancestral home in the South- 
east, and were marched to Oklahoma in the dead of winter. One out 
of four died. It was called the "Trail of Tears." 

Americans built an ideology around dehumanizing Indians in 
order to gain support for policies designed to kill them. "Savages," 
Americans called them. Colonel John M. Chivington, asked why 
Indian babies had to be targeted for death as well, explained, mat- 
ter-of-factly, "nits make lice." Killing Indians was an effective poht- 
ical strategy. Cherokees, Seminoles, Chickasaws, Choctaws and 
Creeks referred to one soldier as "Sharp Knife." Sharp Knife was 
responsible for the murder of thousands of Indian people, including 
women and children. The American people elected Sharp Knife — 
Andrew Jackson — president of the United States. A sentiment so 
old as to be irrelevant? William Janklow won the governorship of 
South Dakota in the 1970s after advocating dealing with certain 
Indians in that state by "put[ting] a bullet in their heads."^ 

Unhke the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide, there is no 
political movement afoot to deny the killing of Indians. That is 
why, a century after the killing ended, the Indian genocide is so 
instructive. Even though there is general acknowledgment that In- 
dians were targeted and killed, the memory of that killing has 
always been recast for then-current social and political needs. On 
some basic level, it is impossible for any society that indulged in 
genocide to fully comprehend what a horrid act it committed. It is 
as if an otherwise good-hearted person had to look in a mirror, see 
him or herself as a murderer, then go on about his or her affairs. It 
is easier to let the mind refract what one sees than fundamentally 

to reexamine who one is. Perhaps that is why, the kilhng acknowl- 
edged, nineteenth century Indians still tend to be pictured as lesser 
human beings — either as evil savages or as noble savages. That 
ideological dehumanization of Indian people, so necessary to com- 
mit genocide a century ago, has its effects on America today. Rac- 
ism against Indian people is so entrenched that people discount it 
and the pain it causes its victims. For example, America still em- 
ploys Indian caricatures as mascots for sports teams (who would 
accept the "Washington Blackskins" or the "Kansas City Rab- 
bis"?), coupled with trivializations of Indian religious symbols 
(chicken feathers as mock eagle feathers — what would the Jewish 
reaction be to a foam toy used as part of a crowd-pleasing chant, 
the "torah scroll"? What would the Catholic reaction be to a mas- 
cot prancing along with 50-yard line with a foam cross, the symbol 
of the "St. Louis Pontiffs"?) Think what it feels hke to be an Indian 
child, learning that his ancestors were "discovered" by Columbus, 
whereas Chinese people were "visited" by Marco Polo. 

Certainly, there are fundamental distinctions between what 
happened to Indians in America, Armenians in Turkey, and Jews 
in Europe. Neither of the prior two genocides reflected a state 
policy of hunting down every victim it could find that was as 
aggressive and efficient as the Nazi's. For example, there was no 
attempt to eradicate even those who had one grandparent with 
either Indian or Armenian blood. And despite Pasha's remarks 
about the need to eliminate all Armenians, not all Armenian 
women were targeted for death— some were forced into marriages 
with Turks — illustrating a different "blood" concept than the Nazis 
had of Jews, But the special efficiency and scope and quintessential 
evil of the Nazi Holocaust should not be used to lose sight of the 
fact that it fit into a pattern of genocides— something most peoples, 
in one form or another, have experienced. And if you think that 
Americans' treatment of Indians was somehow an exception to that 
human pattern, remember how black people came to America, how 
many millions died in the slave trade, especially in the Middle 

Do we know better today? Consider the murder of millions of 
Cambodians during the late 1970s to early i980s. The world knew. 
It recognized the images. Just as Indians and Armenians were 
marched until they died, and as Jews were herded onto cattle cars. 

whole cities were marched to rendezvous with death— their crime 
not race but the preception that they could not become true enough 
believers in the Khmer Rouge's political religion because they had 
been exposed to a measure of knowledge. 

We've progressed since then? Look at Bosnia in 1993. The 
images are the same. "Ethnic cleansing." Organized mass slaughter. 
Organized mass rape. Baby killing. The world knows. This, too, is 
a world that remembers the lessons of the Holocaust, but is too 
self-interested, or too slow, to act as if it does. Memory alone is not 
a defense against genocide, for either participants or observers. 

Huey Long once said that if fascism came to America, it would 
be called Americanism. That, essentially, is how the ideology of 
genocide works. There is some recognition that something that gets 
the blood boiling is going on, but the mistreatment of other human 
beings is easily justified. Armenians have to be killed as state policy 
because they (who are also nonbelievers) hurt the war effort. Indi- 
ans have to be killed as state policy because they (who are also 
nonbelievers) are savages, and are in the way of our plans. Jews 
have to be killed as state policy because they (who are also non- 
behevers) are degenerate and evil and leechlike. 

Once the genocide is over, what happens? The realization that 
the state has organized, with the population's support, to kill other 
people based on bigotry has to be made acceptable somehow. The 
Turkish government ultimately decided to deny the truth, knowing 
that the Armenians have no state of their own, no apparatus to fight 
the historical denial. Americans continued holding onto the 19th 
century images of Indians, or repainting those images into the 
"noble savage" concept. They have never fully comprehended how 
their predecessors organized a government to kill a people simply 
because they were in the way of economic expansion.'" 

The West Germans after World War O did something abso- 
lutely unique, remarkable and commendable. They went out of 
their way to incorporate leaching about the Holocaust in their 
society. With the help of groups such as the American Jewish 
Committee and the Adenauer Foundation, many West Germans 
learned about the genocidal policies of Nazism, and the extermina- 
tion of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and pohtical dissidents. 

In East Germany, there was no Holocaust education. The offi- 
cial Communist party line was all that mattered — that the Soviet 


people and other Marxists were the victims of Nazism. Shortly after 
reunification, the American Jewish Committee conducted a public 
opinion poll in Germany. Forty-five percent of West Germans and 
20 percent of East Germans agreed with the statement "Jews are 
exploiting the Holocaust for their own purposes." Sixty-five per- 
cent of West Germans and 44 percent of East Germans agreed that 
"it is time to put the memory of the Holocaust behind us." Fifty- 
seven percent of West Germans and 40 percent of East Germans 
agreed that Israel had no special claim on Germany, that "Israel is 
a state like any other." 

While some of the difference in reaction between former East 
and West Germans might be explained by the easterners' desire to 
reject the official Communist "truth," the results are inherently 
disturbing. Most Germans have troubling attitudes on the Holo- 
caust, with the more disquieting attitudes coming from the West, 
which had programs and curricula and leaders' speeches on the 
subject. In Germany, at least, people who learned about the true 
horror of Nazism were more likely to think that the Holocaust was 
not so important; those who grew up without a Holocaust curricu- 
limi had less troublesome attitudes. 

To be fair, more polling is necessary. The West German pro- 
gram for teaching about the Holocaust could also have been bet- 
ter." And since the German government commendably created a 
taboo against public expressions of anti-Semitism, one has to won- 
der what the effect of privatizing the expressions has been. Never- 
theless, there is an inevitable question: Is there a negative correla- 
tion between teaching about the Holocaust and an understanding 
of the importance of the Holocaust? If so, what does this say for 
Holocaust education as an answer to Holocaust denial? Could it be 
that the capacity of humans to grasp and internalize the lessons of 
genocide is inherently limited? That the horrors are too gross to 
accept as truth? If so, what should we be doing? 

The Holocaust is a unique experience in human horror, and the 
logical endpoint of anti-Semitism. Yet Jews make a mistake when 
they see anti-Semitism as something sui generis in human experi- 
ence, and combat it as such. Anti-Semitism is a form of human 
bigotry. It may be the most pernicious. Certainly the longest-last- 
ing. Certainly the most adaptable to different political needs in 
different cultures over time. Certainly among the most deadly, and 


the most religiously fueled. But it exists as a strain of a virus called 
human hate. By focusing on anti-Semitism alone, we ignore all 
other strains of hate, and allow them to grow. Anti-Semitism flour- 
ishes best in a climate of hate. Only by building institutions that 
confront all forms of hatred can anti-Semitism be combated. Want 
an example? Just look at college campuses in the United States 
today. Bias incidents against all groups are increasing. If a univer- 
sity has no antibigotry hotline, no victims services, no response 
plan; if it does not survey its climate of intergroup relations, or send 
messages that it cares about bigotry against women, gays, Ameri- 
can Indians, blacks, Asians, everyone, the programs and policies 
and offices and messages needed to fight anti-Semitism on campus 
will be lacking as well.'^ 

But just as anti-Semitism cannot be tackled effectively without 
recognizing it as a subset of human hatred, the effort to call the 
Holocaust a hoax should not be seen as sui generis either. Even 
without the catalyst of neo-Nazis and other Jew-haters, Holocaust 
denial or diminution efforts are inevitable. "Never again" is a noble 
thought, and an excellent goal, but the importance and emotional 
punch of historical events always recede with time, even if they are 
remembered as tragic. World War I is recalled today as the epitome 
of cruelty in warfare, but it had a larger significance for those who 
lived through it. The bubonic plagues are still remembered as an 
extreme human suffering, but their emotional impact today is quite 
different from that in the 14th century, during which two-thirds of 
the population succumbed in some areas. 

Today some deny the Holocaust as a vehicle for attacking Jews 
or Jewish interests. A century from now, there will be new vehicles 
for anti-Semitism. And although it will be of great importance 
whether our great-grandchildren believe that Auschwitz was a 
death camp rather than the locus of the "great Jewish Hoax," the 
QYQXits of Auschwitz, so long before their birth, will inevitably be 
understood differently than it is by the generations that were 
touched by it. What Jewish child today knows all the details of the 
Inquisition or the destruction of the Temple?'^ What do non-Jewish 
children know of these cataclysmic anti-Semitic events? 

What will be relevant to our great-grandchildren is that they will 
live in a world where the machinery of state will still have the ability 

to organize its power behind an ideology of hate and to implement 
that pohcy through genocide. Governments have, throughout his- 
tory, made the hatred of others a tool of power. They will continue 
to do so, regardless of what people believe about the Holocaust. 

While the memory of the Holocaust is still fresh, while the evil 
intent of the deniers is most clear, ii: is time to take action. 

Certainly as noted above. Holocaust education, speakers, 
memorials, museums, movies, article, books, are all essential— but 
not sufficient. If the study of those who deny the Holocaust (or the 
Armenian genocide, or who trivialize the kiUing of Indians) teaches 
anything, it is that bigotry skews, and is stronger than, accurate 
memory. The process is psychological as well as an historical and 
ideological. Dr. Walter Reich, a psychiatrist who taught at Yale, 
wrote: "The Holocaust was carried out by a nation that was among 
the most civilized on the planet. The urge to deny it is, in some 
primitive sense, in all of us; We would all like to forget how fright- 
fully weak are the safeguards, both psychological and cultural, that 
protect us from our worst impulses." 

If "Never again" is to mean anything in a world that sees 
genocides anew each decade, it is essential that groups who under- 
stand and remember their own experiences with genocide push 
together for more than remembrance — for policies in all our key 
institutions and government bodies that will reduce the likelihood 
of intergroup hatred today, and genocides tomorrow. 

Peter Sourian, writing about the denial of the Armenian geno- 
cide, could not do so without alluding to the Holocaust. "It is true," 
he wrote, "that each crime is unique and each victim is unique. To 
the degree that it understands these dynamics, humanity is better 
able to develop in positive ways.""* 

Yosef Goell, an Israeli journalist, wrote: 

There is an important lesson to be learned here. As victims of 
the most horrible planned mass slaughter in human history, 
we the Jewish people, and its state, Israel, have a legitimate 
claim on the sympathy of the world. But it is essential, in 
demanding the world's sympathy for our own tragedy, that we 
openly recognize the tragedy of other peoples, and that we 
acknowledge that we have not been the sole victims of orga- 


nized mass slaughter in this horrible century in human history. 
The Armenians preceded us, and the Cambodians followed 

There is an impediment for groups with so much in common to 
work together to prevent the recurring horror of genocide. Too 
often the victims of one genocide are reluctant to acknowledge 
other genocides, as if by doing so they would diminish the signifi- 
cance of their own. In the Jewish community, for example, there has 
been some hesitation to recall the killing of Gypsies, Poles, Ukraini- 
ans, homosexuals and others by the Nazis, on the understandable 
belief that if the Holocaust is seen only as an example of man's 
inhumanity to man, then the centrality of Jew-hatred to Nazism— 
indeed, the existence of anti-Semitism — is diminished, if not forgot- 

But it is essential that groups work together to acknowledge and 
build upon the legions of examples of state sponsored genocide. By 
focusing only on one's own tragedies, strategies, lessons, and power 
are lost. Holocaust denial is not just about historical truth any more 
than the claim that Jews poison wells, or killed Christ, or commit 
ritual murder, or secretly run the world are about truth. As Judge 
Hadassah Ben Itto, president of the International Association of 
Jewish Lawyers and Jurist, said, "They don't replace each other, 
these lies; the list becomes longer all the time."'^ Truth is only a 
partial answer to lies, especially because these are not simple lies, 
but lies fueled by hate, with an ideological purpose — lies that have 
the potential to fuel deadly acts. 

Holocaust denial is, in reality, not about the Holocaust. It is 
about politics, ideology and power. It must be combated pohtically. 
President Reagan went to Bitburg and blurred the distinction be- 
tween the victims of the Nazis and the Nazi victimizers. As time 
goes on symbols associated with the Holocaust may become politi- 
cal footballs — the balance between who is harmed and who is 
helped by any poUtical gesture will shift as those directly harmed die 
out. Groups, today, in Europe and elsewhere, are actively encour- 
aging attacks on the symbols of the Holocaust while reclaiming the 
symbols of Nazism. These groups could care less about historical 
truth. The neo-Nazis are not marching in Germany because they 
want another view of history in textbooks; they want influence. 


Neatly displayed exhibits in museums and twenty pages of cur- 
riculum in high school are important — but they do not challenge 
the politics of what is going on. In order to have a chance at 
diminishing Holocaust denial, our focus has to be not only on the 
lies but also on the political agenda of the promoters of the lies. 

Leonard Zeskind, research director of the Center for Demo- 
cratic Renewal, is precise when he comments: 

You oppose the Holocaust deniers with a political movement 
that contests the hate movement, of which these guys are the 
glue, contests them on all their issues. There's a tendency to 
treat this as sort of an isolated and isolatable issue, primarily 
of Jewish concern, and not related to other issues related to 
democracy. I think that you have to oppose your political and 
social movement to their political and social movement. . . . 
All this will be decided by pohtics. I don't want to minimize 
the importance of establishing the historical record. But, ulti- 
mately, what will matter in 50 years is the relative poHtical 
strengths of folk for whom Nazism is anathema, versus folks 
for whom Nazism represented a period of national sovereignty 
and national growth. It may be possible that in 20 years the 
Germans would regard Hitler as the last person to run an 
unoccupied regime. It may be possible in 20 years, or five 
years, or next year, for the Slovaks to regard Tiso as the 
person who ran the last sovereign government of Slovakia. It's 
possible in Russia for people to come to the conclusion that 
communism is Jewish, and therefore their trials and travails 
under the communist regime were due to the power and im- 
pact of the Jews. Now, if that's all the case, what that points 
to is the need for not just sort of this namby pamby lets-all-get- 
along stuff, I think it points to the need for real political 
alhances, real political power that can hold up for the long 
haul. And the caveat on that, I think that the tide is running 
in the direction away from us. 

Zeskind is right. A large part of the effort must be political. 
Democratic institutions are the only ones that have had any success 
combating hatred. They are also the only ones that hold any prom- 
ise for adopting a mission that goes beyond the primitive when it 
comes to tackling bigotry against all groups. 


It is no surprise that those who espouse Holocaust denial are 
also antidemocratic. Deniers do not deny in a political vacuum. On 
the right they are, like David Duke and Willis Carte, supporters of 
fascism. On the left, they are opponents of what they call "bour- 
geois democracy." Even those who dabble with denial— like Pa- 
trick Buchanan— have conceptual problems with democracy as a 
form of government designed to protect minorities from overbear- 
ing majorities. Plurahsm^ — a system that sees diiferences as con- 
tributing to the strength, beauty, and cohesiveness of the whole — is 
a frightening concept to deniers of all political stripes. 

It should be a matter of faith— but it is not — that one way to 
fight Holocaust denial is to combat the larger pohtical agenda of 
those who use denial as ideology. This is especially true in Europe. 
In the cataclysmic restructuring following the collapse of commu- 
nism, hatred, xenophobia, and a nostalgic attraction toward fas- 
cism are emerging. Who today would discount the possibility of 
right-wing anti-Semitic groups gaining significant power in more 
than one European country before the end of the twentieth century? 
Anti-Semitism, and of course Holocaust denial, could become an 
officially endorsed, or at least an officially ignored, ideology. It is 
imperative that Jews and others who cherish freedom and democ- 
racy do all they can to combat a real possibility: multiple European 
societies in which full-scale bigotry is again released. The European 
New Right must be combated at the United Nations and at every 
other appropriate venue. It is not enough for people of goodwill to 
celebrate the end of communism with nice-sounding words about a 
new democratic Europe. Not all problematic governments are suc- 
ceeded by democracies, as the recent history of Yugoslavia and Iran 
amply demonstrate. Holocaust denial must been seen as a danger 
to all those who cherish freedom. How well can fledging democ- 
racies with massive social and economic challenges survive if the 
symbols of fascism (which imply government sanctioning of the old 
hatreds) are restored? 

The political nature of this problem must be made clear to the 
American people and the U.S. government. Fighting the nascent 
forces of fascism in Europe is not simply a matter of fostering 
foreign democracy, or of learning lessons missed fifty years earlier. 
It is about forces that shape our world today. Growing anti-Semi- 


tism and fascism abroad — there are now more than 1,000 anti- 
Semitic organizations in Europe alone'"'— cannot be good for 

Even if we do not agree with the complete agenda of the current 
European organizations that have a mission to fight fascism— such 
as some of the mainstream left-wing "antifascist" groups— we 
should be more active in helping them.'^ We should be supporting 
particular projects of these groups that work with the thousands of 
young neo-Nazis across Europe today, telling them, in the words of 
Gerry Gable, "that the people who are trying to recruit you are 
no-goodniks, not because they killed 6 milhon Jews and 4 milhon 
others, but because today, in 1996 or the year 2000, they are no 
bloody good. Because they don't offer you anything." If postcom- 
munist Europe develops a significant minority that has a neofascist 
flavor. Holocaust denial as ideological glue (rather than as histori- 
cal ilHteracy), and consequently anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, 
can only find fertile ground. 

We live in a generation where, for the first time, some anti- 
Semitic lies have been effectively combated. The foundation of 
rehgious anti-Semitism on which Nazism flourished was painfully 
obvious to church leaders after World War 11. Liturgy was revised. 
In 1975 the he that Zionism was racism was endorsed by the United 
Nations. Sixteen years later, through political power and political 
change, the lie was repudiated. 

Perhaps future historians will find the years after the Holocaust 
to have been a relatively "golden age," where anti-Semitic attitudes 
and expressions were diminished by remembrance of the horrors of 
the Holocaust. They may also conclude that that relatively good 
state diminished as the memory of, and lessons drawn from, the 
Holocaust fade. They may also bemoan the fact that Jews did not 
take advantage of the "quiet times" to build better structural barri- 
ers against future anti-Semitism. While the times were quiet for 
anti-Semitism, there were still screaming signs that hatred can 
become state policy, without an adequate world response— Cam- 
bodia, Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, the former Soviet Union. 

If this theory is reasonable — that memory of the Holocaust 
caused a temporary pause on the world's reliance on anti-Semi- 
tism — then those alive during the "golden age" must push for 

societal changes that will both reduce anti-Semitic attitudes in the 
long run and enhance society's commitment to combat all forms of 
hate. This means that Jews, and Jewish organizations, should not 
merely be running around documenting what the most anti-Semitic 
do (although that is important); we must insist that our institutions 
see combating bigotry and anti-Semitism as a mission, a mission 
that requires lasting plans and structures. As long as we are satisfied 
to live in a society where politicians have no interest in combating 
bigotry in politics because bigotry works; where the media, rather 
than condemning bigotry, promotes it because it sells; and where a 
college student is taught at orientation what to do about a bad meal 
or a leaky faucet, but not an incident of hate, hate^ncluding 
Holocaust denial— has an open field. 

No place in the world — including the United States — has a 
mission to empower its institutions to become effective combaters 
of intergroup hatred. We have armies for defense, schools for teach- 
ing, sanitation services for garbage. Our tax dollars are spent for 
road repair, tree trimming on highways, environmental clean-up. 
But more people throughout the history of the world have been 
harmed by intergroup hatred than by any other malady. No one 
would be satisfied with a school system that did not bother to teach 
children math or reading, because these are seen as essential skills 
for productive citizenship. Skills to reject intergroup hatred are just 
as essential to acquire. But we don't even have a vocabulary to 
speak about "communal literacy," let alone a societal mission to 
craft tools for our institutions to promote it. Would we rely on the 
goodwill, availabUty, and unregulated expertise of nonprofit groups 
to teach our children, defend our shores, and repair our roads? As 
long as we're satisfied to do that about bigotry, all forms of hatred, 
including anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, will continue to poi- 
son human relations. 

We can, and we must, combat Holocaust denial as falsehood, as 
hatred, and as a form of politics. If we want to be effective, rather 
than just feel righteous or "correct," we have to have a sophis- 
ticated strategy. We have to work with other groups, building 
common lessons from the human tragedy of genocide. We have to 
exert pohtical power, demanding that our institutions develop ef- 
fective means to combat intergroup hatred. We must make demand 


that government create incentives for local institutions to fight 
bigotry on a day-in, day-out, unremarkable basis. Memory, or 
logic, or knowledge, or goodwill, by themselves, cannot conquer 
societal hate. Holocaust deniers count on that. 


The Contemporary Issue 

No subject enrages campus Thought Police more than Holocaust 
Revisionism. We debate every other great historical issue as a mat- 
ter of course, but influential pressure groups with private agendas 
have made the Holocaust an exception. Elitist dogma manipulated 
by special interest groups corrupts everything in academia. Stu- 
dents should be encouraged to investigate the Holocaust story the 
same way they are encouraged to investigate every other historical 
event. This isn't a radical point of view. The premises for it were 
■worked out centuries ago during a little something called the En- 

The Historical Issue 

Revisionists agree with establishment historians that the German 
National Sociahst State singled out the Jewish people for special 
and cruel treatment. In addition to viewing Jews in the framework 
of traditional anti-Semitism, the Nazis also saw them as being an 
influential force behind international communism. During the Sec- 
ond World War, Jews were considered to be enemies of the State 
and a potential danger to the war effort, much like the Japanese 
were viewed in this country. Consequently, Jews were stripped of 


their rights, forced to live in ghettos, conscripted for labor, deprived 
of their property, deported from the countries of their birth and 
otherwise mistreated. Many tragically perished in the maelstrom. 

Revisionists part company with establishment historians in that 
Revisionists deny that the German State had a policy to extermi- 
nate the Jewish people (or anyone else) by putting them to death in 
gas chambers or by killing them through abuse or neglect. Revi- 
sionists also maintain that the figure of 6 million Jewish deaths is 
an irresponsible exaggeration, and that no execution gas chambers 
existed in any camp in Europe which was under German control. 
Fumigation gas chambers did exist to delouse clothing and equip- 
ment to prevent disease at the camps. It is from this life-saving 
procedure that the myth of extermination gas chambers emerged. 

Revisionists generally hold that the Allied governments decided 
to carry their wartime "black propaganda" of German monstrosity 
over into the postwar period. This was done for essentially three 
reasons. First, they felt it necessary to continue to justify the great 
sacrifices that were made in fighting two world wars. A second 
reason was that they wanted to divert attention from and to justify 
their own particularly brutal crimes against humanity which, apart 
from Soviet atrocities, involved massive incendiary bombings of the 
civilian populations of German and Japanese cities. The third and 
perhaps most important reason was that they needed justification 
for the postwar arrangements which, among other things, involved 
the annexation of large parts of Germany into Poland. These terri- 
tories were not disputed borderlands but included huge parts of 
Germany proper. The millions of Germans living in these regions 
were to be dispossessed of their property and brutally expelled from 
their homelands. Many hundreds of thousands were to perish in the 
process. A similar fate was to befall the Sudeten Germans. 

During the war and in the postwar era as well, Zionist organiza- 
tions were deeply involved in creating and promulgating anti-Ger- 
man hate propaganda. There is little doubt that their purpose was 
to drum up world sympathy and pohtical and financial support for 
Jewish causes, especially for the formation of the State of Israel. 
Today, while the pohtical benefits of the Holocaust story have 
largely dissipated, the story still plays an important role in the 
ambitions of Zionists and others in the Jewish community. It is the 
leaders of these political and propaganda organizations who con- 


tinue to work to sustain the Holocaust legend and the myth of 
German monstrosity during the Second World War. 

For those who believe that the Nuremberg Trials revealed the 
truth about German war crimes, it is a bracing shock to discover 
that the then Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Harlan Fiske 
Stone, described the Nuremberg court as "a high-class lynching 
party for Germans". 

The Photographs 

We've all seen "The Photographs." Endlessly, Newsreel photos 
taken by U.S. and British photographers at the liberation of the 
German camps, and especially the awful scenes at Dachau, Buchen- 
wald and Bergen-Belsen. Those films are typically presented in a 
way in which it is either stated or implied that the scenes resulted 
from deliberate policies on the part of the Germans. The photo- 
graphs are real. The uses to which they have been put are base. 

There was no German policy at any of those camps to deliber- 
ately kill the internees. In the last months of the war, while Soviet 
arms were advancing on Germany from the east, the British and 
U.S. air armies were destroying every major city in Germany with 
saturation bombing. Transportation, the food distribution system 
and medical and sanitation services all broke down. That was the 
purpose of the Allied bombing, which has been described as the 
most barbarous form of warfare in Europe since the Mongol inva- 

Milhons of refugees fleeing the Soviet armies were pouring into 
Germany. The camps still under German control were over- 
whelmed with internees from the east. By early 1945 the inmate 
population was swept by malnutrition and by epidemics of typhus, 
typhoid, dysentery and chronic diarrhea. Even the mortuary sys- 
tems broke down. When the press entered the camps with British 
and U.S. soldiers, they found the results of all that. They took "The 

Still, at camps such as Buchenwaid, Dachau and Bergen-Belsen 
tens of thousands of relatively healthy internees were hberated. 
They were there in the camps when "The Photographs" were taken. 
There are newsreels of these internees walking through the camp 
streets laughing and talking. Others picture exuberant internees 


throwing their caps in the air and cheering their hberators. It is only 
natural to ask why you haven't seen those particular films and 
photos while you've seen the others scores and even hundreds of 


Spokesmen for the Holocaust Lobby like to assure us that there are 
"tons" of captured German documents which prove the Jewish 
genocide. When challenged on this, however, they can produce only 
a handful of documents, the authenticity or interpretation of which 
is always highly questionable. If pressed for reliable documenta- 
tion, the Lobby will then reverse itself and claim that the Germans 
destroyed all the relevant documents to hide their evil deeds, or it 
will make the absurd claim that the Germans used a simplistic code 
language or whispered verbal orders for mass murder into each 
others' ears. 

The truth appears to be, with regard to the alleged extermina- 
tion of the European Jews, that there was no order, no plan, no 
budget, no weapon (that is, no so-called execution gas chamber) 
and no victim (that is, not a single autopsied body at any camp has 
been shown to have been gassed). 

Eyewitness Testimony 

As documentary "proofs" for the mass-murder of the European 
Jews faU by the wayside, Holocaust historians depend increasingly 
on "eyewitness" testimonies to support their theories. Many of 
these testimonies are ludicrously unreliable. History is filled with 
stories of masses of people claiming to be eyewitnesses to every- 
thing from witchcraft to flying saucers. 

During and after the war there were "eyewitnesses" to mass 
murder in gas chambers at Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, Dachau 
and other camps in Germany proper. Today, virtually all recog- 
nized scholars dismiss this eyewitness testimony as false and agree 
that there were no extermination gas chambers in any camp in 
Germany proper. 

Estabhshment historians, however, still claim that extermina- 
tion gas chambers existed at Auschwitz and at other camps in 


Poland. The eyewitness testimony and the evidence for this claim is, 
in reality, quahtatively no different than the false testimony and 
evidence for the alleged gas chambers at the camps in Germany 

During the war crimes trials many "eyewitnesses" testified that 
Germans made soap out of hmnan fat and lamp shades from 
human skin. Allied prosecutors even produced evidence to support 
those charges. Today, scholars agree that the testimony was false 
and the evidence fraudulent. 

With regard to confessions by Germans at the war crimes trials, 
it is now well documented that many were obtained through coer- 
cion, intimidation and even physical torture. 


British historian David Irving, perhaps the most widely read histo- 
rian writing in Enghsh, has called the Auschwitz death-camp story 
a "sinking ship" and states that there were "no gas chambers at 
Auschwitz . . ." 

The Auschwitz State Museum has recently revised its half-cen- 
tury-old claim that 4 million humans were murdered there. The 
Museum now says maybe it was 1 milhon. But what documentary 
proof does the Museum provide to document the 1 milhon figure? 
None. Revisionist want to know where those 3 milhon souls have 
been the last 45 years. Were they part of the fabled Six Milhon? 

The Leuchter Report contains the results of the first-ever foren- 
sic examination of the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz. The 
Report is the work of America's leading execution hardware expert, 
Fred A. Leuchter. It concludes that no mass gassings ever did or 
ever could have taken place there in the so-called gas chambers. 
Fred Leuchter has called for an international commission of scien- 
tists, engineers and historians to investigate the Auschwitz gas 
chamber rumor. 

Those who promote the Holocaust story are unable to explain 
why, during the war and postwar periods, the most prominent and 
powerful men of the time failed to mention gas chambers and the 
genocide of the Jews. When asked why this is so, the promoters 
reply with the absurd answer that those people did not realize the 
enormity of what had happened. 


But is certain that if there had been "killing factories" in Poland 
murdering millions of civilians, then men such as Roosevelt, Tru- 
man, Churchill, Eisenhower and many others would have known 
about it and would have often and unambiguously mentioned it. 
They didn't! The promoters admit that only a tiny group of in- 
dividuals believed the story at the time — many of whom worked for 
Jewish propaganda agencies. The rise of the Holocaust story reads 
more like the success story of a PR campaign than anything else. 

Winston Churchill wrote the six volumes of his monumental 
work. The Second World War, without mentioning a program of 
mass-murder and genocide. Maybe it slipped his mind. Dwight D. 
Eisenhower in his memoir Crusade In Europe, also failed to men- 
tion gas chambers. Was the weapon used to murder millions of 
Jews unworthy of a passing reference? Was our future president 
being insensitive to Jews? 

Political Correctness and Holocaust Revisionism 

Many people, when they first hear Holocaust Revisionist argu- 
ments, find themselves bewildered. The arguments appear to make 
sense but "How is it possible?" The whole world beheves the Holo- 
caust story. It is just not plausible that so great a conspiracy to 
suppress the truth could have functioned for half a century. 

To understand how it could very well have happened, one needs 
only to reflect on the intellectual and political orthodoxies of medie- 
val Europe, or those of Nazi Germany or the Communist-bloc 
countries. In all of these societies the great majority of scholars were 
caught up in the existing political culture. Committed to a prevail- 
ing ideology and its interpretation of reality, these scholars and 
intellectuals felt it was their right, and even their duty, to protect 
every aspect of that ideology. They did so by oppressing the evil 
dissidents who expressed "oifensive" or "dangerous" ideas. In 
every one of those societies, scholars became Thought Police. 

In our own society, in the debate over the question of political 
correctness, there are those who deliberately attempt to trivialize 
the issues. They claim that there is no real problem with freedom of 
speech on our campuses, and that all that is involved with PC are 
a few rules which would defend minorities from those who would 
hurt their feelings. There is, of course, a deeper and more serious 


aspect to the problem. On American campuses today there is a wide 
range of ideas and viewpoints that are forbidden to be discussed 
openly. Even obvious facts and realities, when they are politically 
unacceptable, are denied and suppressed. One can learn much 
about the psychology and methodology of Thought Police by 
watching how they react when just one of their taboos is broken 
and Holocaust Revisionism is given a public forum. 

First they express outrage that such offensive and dangerous 
ideas were allowed to be expressed publicly. They avoid answering 
or debating these ideas, claiming that to do so would give them a 
forum and legitimacy. Then they make vicious personal attacks 
against the Revisionist heretic, calling him dirty poUtical names 
such as "anti-Semite, "racist" or "neo-Nazi," and they even suggest 
that he is a potential mass murderer. They publicly accuse the 
Revisionist of lying, but they don't allow the heretic to hear the 
specific charge or to face his accusers so that he can answer this 

Next, the Thought Pohce set out to destroy the transgressor 
professionally and financially by "getting" him at his job or con- 
cocting a lawsuit against him. The courts are sometimes used to 
attack Revisionism. The Holocausters often deceptively claim that 
Revisionist scholarship has been proven false during a trial. The 
fact is that Revisionist arguments have never been evaluated or 
judged by the courts. 

Moreover, the Holocausters accuse Revisionists of being hate 
filled people who are promoting a doctrine of hatred. But Revision- 
ism is a scholarly process, not a doctrine or an ideology. If the 
Holocaust promoters really want to expose hatred, they should 
take a second look at their own doctrines, and a long look at 
themselves in the mirror. Anyone on campus who invites a Revi- 
sionist to speak is himself attacked as being insensitive. When a 
Revisionist does speak on campus he is often times shouted down 
and threatened. If he has books or other printed materials with him 
they might be "confiscated." All this goes on while the majority of 
faculty and university administrators sit dumbly by, allowing pohti- 
cal activists to determine what can be said and what can be read on 
their campus. 

Finally, the Thought Pohce try to "straighten out" that segment 


of academia or the media that allowed the Revisionists a forum in 
the first place. 

It can be an instructive intellectual exercise to identify taboo 
subjects other than Holocaust Revisionism, which would evoke 
comparable responses from Thought Police on our campuses. 

Recently, some administrators in academia have held that uni- 
versity administrations should take actions to rid the campus of 
ideas which are disruptive to the university. This is a very danger- 
ous position for administrators to take. It is an open invitation to 
tyranny. It means that any militant group with "troops at the 
ready" can rid the campus of ideas it opposes and then impose its 
own orthodoxy. The cowardly administrator finds it much easier 
and safer to rid the campus of controversial ideas than to face down 
a group of screaming and snarling militants. But it is the duty of 
university administrators to insure that the university remains a 
free marketplace of ideas. When ideas cause disruptions, it is the 
disrupters who must be subdued, not the ideas. 


The influence of Holocaust Revisionism is growing steadily both 
here and abroad. In the United States, Revisionism was launched 
in earnest in 1977 with the publication of the book The Hoax of the 
Twentieth Century by Arthur R. Butz. Professor Butz teaches elec- 
trical engineering and computer sciences at Northwestern Univer- 
sity in Evanston, Illinois. 

Those who take up the Revisionist cause represent a wide spec- 
trum of political and philosophical positions. They are certainly not 
the scoundrels, liars and demons the Holocaust Lobby tried to 
make them out to be. The fact is, there are no demons in the real 
world. People are at their worst when they begin to see their oppo- 
nents as an embodiment of evil, and then begin to demonize them. 
Such people are preparing to do something simply awful to their 
opponents. Their logic is that you an do anything you want to a 

But whatever the demonizers attempt, they are going to fail. 
Growing numbers of Revisionist sympathizers and supporters as- 
sure us that the poHtical forces that promote and defend the Holo- 


caust story as it stands today are going to have to accept the role 
that Revisionist scholarship is playing in revising Holocaust history 
and freeing it of fraud and falsehood. That's what scholars do. 
Scholars must not promote the censorship of ideas, and they must 
not attempt to oppress others who reach conclusions which differ 
from their own. 

CODOH is a member of the National Coahtion Against Censor- 
ship (NCAC), the National Association for College Activities 
(NACA), and the Free Press Association. CODOH has no affilia- 
tion whatever with any pohtical organization or group. 

CODOH speakers are available to address student organizations 
and other appropriate groups about the Holocaust controversy. 
For information contact: Bradley R. Smith 

Committee for Open Debate 
on the Holocaust 


AJC Letter to College and 
University Presidents about 

Dear University or College President: 

I write to alert you of an anti-Semitic ad that may be offered to your 
college newspapers from Bradley Smith, who purports to represent 
an organization known as the Committee for Open Debate on the 

The ad, which has been printed in a few university papers, and 
which has been rejected by many others, suggests that the Holo- 
caust is a hoax. The "Holocaust as hoax" idea is the standard view 
of neo-Nazi groups around the world today — that diabolical Jews 
have created this "great lie" in order to milk the world for sympa- 
thy. The concept is the latest addendum to the hateful conspiracies 
by Jews hypothesized in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. 

It is not surprising, therefore, that Mr. Smith is also associated 
with the anti-Semitic Institute for Historical Review (a Liberty 
Lobby offshoot). Before targeting universities, Mr. Smith geared 
his message to talk radio programs and neo-Nazi mailing lists (see 

Some student editors have decided to run the ad on a misguided 
understanding of the First Amendment, or a belief that the ad is not 
offensive. Mr. Smith has an absolute right under the Constitution 
to spread whatever lies and hate he wants. But the First Amend- 
ment does not require a newspaper to accept every ad any more 


than the right of Americans accused of crime to a lawyer obligates 
all lawyers to take every client. 

The ad that calls the existence of the Holocaust into question is 
just as offensive as one that would question the existence of slavery, 
or advocate hate toward any group. The acceptance of such an ad 
not only tarnishes a newspaper's reputation for distinguishing be- 
tween racist fiction and controversial debate, it also disrupts the 
harmony of the campus and causes palpable pain to Jewish stu- 

As part of our national program targeting bigotry on campus, 
the American Jewish Committee has met with over 100 university 
and college presidents around the country detailing plans to com- 
bat prejudice and improve intergroup relations One of the most 

important aspects of any anti-bigotry plan is the role of the presi- 
dent. The president must be visible, strong, and unequivocal in both 
upholding free speech rights and denouncing bigotry. 

I respectfully suggest you contact the editor(s) of your student 
paper(s) to alert them to the possibility of the ad, and to advise 
them to exercise their First Amendment rights by refusing to run an 
ad for hate. 

Very truly yours, 
Kenneth S. Stem 


A0:9 Sara DiClioci: StL^TTESCG THE ICON Of 


Am SoumJtriiiiOilic film: "DRESDEN^ THE A5H 


AUI Im Bcsaa ind Danili Muan: SOUTH 


AMI Dt. ho Onuooin: TITO'S C0.MML7JISM: A 


A043 Ed D«c:im.. Jr.: 5E-;5rT[VnT TRAINING 




AIM5 Bluiln Smth. Tom Mj.-Hiluj. W.A. 

Mi.t Wttfr. « il.: DISCUSSION ON THE 


J« £^ji* liuiraaind Hnniosa: Canfi'iia!^l9S7 
ADM Tni 0'£--i';: AUSTIN A?P; A VOICE FOR 

AMI Cdcjiiroitit Otj Enir. Hcmi: THE EVLNT5 
OF M.Y ZO. 19« 

A0;0 Di. R, Camir Licj: IMPOSED GLILT^ 
AOTl Dr. Mi.-S A. Lanin^r. Rjbt;: Counlci; 

AiT:: Prai. ix^. fiariacc: HOLOCAU-ST RF-T- 

AUTJ Atif^a: Znfiam A 0;S;-t.A.N-.^Mt5JC\N-S 
AII75 3radl:v Sci[!i/P!cr^." TaLK-JHOW" ANEC- 
DOTES AiVD Talks FEaTLRINC. i*iil:i Dro. 
Mirt Wcic:. lur;:: Ncaic: (Ijt Errir Ziimdcll, Fni: 
B<rj {for CacTs: Crictr), and Tec Ma^rilui 
AW] Mirt *— :,Tcd O'Kk.'i: I>TS0DL'CTI0N 
AMD Dl, Isi-.r. Couoltsj o. Biiy Firi!: 
AilAO MJii: '■"^s" Rcniianiira Tctlsv 

AOR F,R3r.'a3UBmin!cii:TKEVISi0N0FDR.M, 


AOU Prof A:iony Kubri: THE MORCENTKAU 





MtS Li Ct:, ¥iia Mi*o: TK0LGiTT5 ON TH"E 



AOM Vic-Jr MrihKli: THE GA A>tl THE "MAK- 


AI117 Firi U-:ctoi THE ^HKL^■G OF WE 


AOM Dind loiri; CHURCHILL .AND U,S. E.-m(Y 






Ami Pro RaBc.t FiuiJsDi RECENT 

Am: fcrarac3fmiir:D£.\UANIUK Case UPDATE, 

Other Esciiiis AaiSo Tepa 

*Mnn fp jjo f ^ T ■ *r '; ' fXL£',R W AR (pm wo) 

vn Bfadlri Sniri oa WMCA 
An Biadlti Smiiti oa KHSL 





All of the fono"^nj lidMS lit availablt in 
Amtncan VHS {U.S. and Canada). Bcj fociMl is 
no long:r suppliid. Those vidras iniLcicd bj' 1 ^ 
(chccfc) mart ar; o/jfl avaiUhIt in 
Eurapfan/ Australian PAL lonnai for an iddiiional 
SIQ.OO. Annrican VHS (also Inoi-n as 
VHS/NTSC) "in noi play an vid" niadiincs 
d:iisitd foi dst P.AL foraal- Son:; of ih;« vidrei 
do io( include En^isli laitgiji|t iutiitlu. so pkiiJ 
read [he dsicriptinni 10 kiio* "hit w uptct. or 
diop us a now if yoii're Eioi sure. 

Lmq Dcsrdlt. IHB-tiAuivc vida-lK-.-jr: lapci ji t: 
Gntral'i bomt In SpJio. A3 ooipjlsir:;: Jnd amiin! 
m«:ioii of the hisioiY- ptiilowph}' ir.i [iJrali of &! 
unpETCtdciiri, iII-«oluEiLHr, pjfl-Eutcccia ^p'-i-'-B ^^- 
of •hicii he was ont of lit ttan illi:!i:;ou! mtmiitri, 
Preriuiooally oiicduiibnl Etsrali In-:>liiLon, Soicd 
fair, picur: laii. V^.X 

DitTTjsI by D.W, GrilSift. ^'ah Lilliia CiiU. Htar; B, 
Willlijn, Mm Mjnh. P;:tia?i iJic M" .'moui atai 
liL-5. Gnffittt'i jiaisi Bim, J pjnnraM ;ion™i oft^J 
dvil wir li !tr5 ftom the Soioh. Wiii J 19M soimii 
pralgjut by D.W, GrilfiUi |iS= onit etnjni lita 
imiriir* wih GrtRili). Siioi film iih muiic iiort, 
cucTKi projcoiDn ipetd. Ttu i^dti l! Irom Ihf moir 
complp-e prini Lio"n to can. IT! miniiia. (2 cauran) 

von HITLER: FEBRUARY ims, 1933. The tiacic 
for Gcrauny wu noi yet dtddd *lic3 Adolf Hide, iht 
i]e-.«ly appaiuted Cbmctllor. mic in d:: Bf:!iD Spord 
Piljc: 10 ddiicr "hat *ai pnhapi it: aon imfronani 
iptri of hii oiEt. CuM^or fci orjj on: »e;l:. di! 
Ccraan lodcr nood baidc I tabic mnaunded by 
waichfu! SA and S5 ao. Fairf "idi c-jcal i^pcomins 
dcioni on .Vin:!i 5. Hid:r displayed the hiil. a'-nomc 
chiriimi of bit iprllbindin^ otauiy to ernidemo bb 
polliicil aama and aiaa fail jubilasi andtcice. and 
Ibe nuDiani lisleniai on latt-D duDushoi;! Germany, to 
Bippon Ihc Naccnal SotiiTal Party. Th: Fuehnr. 
inL^ut:d by Miniiler Iiwf Goebbds ~a il[o>^ in an 
oHpnal Naiiotial SodaiiB Pjity ristion film. BiW. iO 
miamo. lound wiib Ea^b i[ib[itl&. S^.DO -^ 
shon Bmi about Qle in Germany ber*ee:[ dte Wotld 
Wan, Yesltrday and Today 11 a cutnparijiii of the pto- 
jpeiiiy under Nmon^al Socialism cnnpaied with tbe 

despair and moril duireu of 1^'eimar Germanr. f^u-ee 
I'e-j/ny-lioC**/-. in ariy wort of N3 Smmatiai. 
Ihis fcjiuic Fus.^lighu Kens ol HilJcT'l ^icedlo and esl- 
orful ralliei af the peiiod. Honor qf Work u nintoilj 
vjihout eamctenury, Tbii rare Ulni dc::]ondiaEej the ;ay 
of the GenniD >orbef after yean of Weimar unnaploy- 
meni, Berofiing an Amy on the nishl of March 7ih, 
193* a thrill alirai i"ata ih: pticefiiil. ile^j aldtci 
at a bameb juii on of [he Rhine. Thit it not a drill 
The loldicn art beinj led Eo libenie [he Rhierland from 
ex Freadt. I short fQmi. BIW, 60 minuis. «wA wih 
Ea^sb icibotten citcdlent mua] qiialfcy, 160.00 ^ 
Cemtaa venioa of [he Polish conniet "hicb preopitaced 
[he Setani. World Wjr, ShD-n n the pcwd^ie 
bombardrnent of [he ^le^n [Q^n of Beuifaea by Poliib 
inillety: the peneoidon of ethnic Ccrnuns by Fdn in 
the ConidDr; the Waffim 5S atpcl to. die Poii Office in 
Daniis: lirsah lonia: the naval bambatdinEnt of a 
Poliih fon by die warrtiip Sclila^ii-Hiiliiriii; ±t 
fe.'ocioiti land balds of Radom and Kuuto^ and cipi of 
Adolf Hitler ai [he front. cDnfertini »ldi hii iEAc-ali a:d 
relaiinE widi the Gemizo tnJops. Here ctptuted oa En 
adtebinhofdielejeodaiyfl/ri;*™;. BiW. M minurei. 
IDund with En^ish lubddes. S6Q.0Q ^ 
CintpaJED) A foreign lan^jage Blm for Atislajtds 
Drjrsrhe (German emigres) prtjdoced by the NS Gove:^- 
EtienL This a the Ger:nan vtewpoint of «har happened 
during die *ar with Poland. B&VV, ]7 minutes. Id 
Entfib. S-ti.M ^ 

VOIJ SIECIM BESTINfVktiiry Id Tbe Welti Or:e 
of hji[ori"'s Fullest "tctories is depicted in this dccjr;:-- 
tar/ of the lii led BlicXriij i Holland, France end 
Be-fcm, .Aiuht-.::; bai^e foot;!:, hodi Geraia and ap- 
ffired .Alliri fooijs;. ii cpcbinid :o lak: diii on: of tbe 
most tpKanlar *ir fpnu t-.i; mide. Bade sce^ies, of.en 
fikied ir die peril of die amenoan'i Uf:. hi^lishi thii 
ftant line thriller' aenal cjmba[ between a Hcrtik:! dl 
and 1 hapless Brtish Spitljre: French [anii dash wiih 
German pa:::e--s: and infantrymen bra^e a bail of 
machicejjn fire [0 uiault die formidable Vllfnot Line. 
FiLm scare by Herten Wtnd[. BiW, sound 'ith Eijiish 
s[:bt[[les. picture qualiEf lood. sound i^uality «a-'iei. I2[? 

VOU THE SOVIET PARADISE A umqi!: jlca:: af 
hie inside Ul: So-iet Union, unrri'^rjd bj So'ie: 
censnn, depicnng "hat life "as rally 111:: after 20 ye^T 
of Communist rule. The "iKcbri peaunls and "Orkn 
star-ins and the doecairi dmrcies. piins on:: 
evidmc: of die an[i,Chnscaii pogroms, form a dis^ 
pcai: of die So«et patidb:, BiW. 14 minma, loicd 
widi Enjlbh subuile!. a fc" juiripi ocsii in die otipcni 
German loundL'acl:, S3a,00 ^ 
VOIT THE BALTIC TRACEDV Firteen ihon ntes 
and ne^srerb mrmbld from Amtrian. Cctrj-i. 
Lu-.-ian and Sunt; louites. 1:11 Ih: tiafc slor? of Lania. 
Udiuania and Estonia from die fan 15i(W», ln«ided 
by die 5o>i:: Union "m I»i0. diae countries bream: ih: 
scene of »ffl: of di: Screen fi^ntrnj of die Sannd World 
War »htn (krman troops bcjan dieir oflerjivc in 
"Opt:idon Birbaioisa" in 1911. Sold out by &: 
Ajnencms and di: En^Jish [0 Stalin at Yalta, the pli^hl 
of the Baltic Stata is an Indic-jneni againsi tbe sdectt^e 
human ri(hu policiia of dioit njunrda and a He- 
warning of the irsnlls of those misapplid The 
video leads oil 'idi ,Hr lo/no which shms ho- this 
proud nadon '-ss »ld out 10 die Soviets by iraitois: dien 
a series of (jerman ne-ireeis depicting die olfeniive on 
die Enslera Irunt- Sovie; atrociaes aiiinu B^oc dviEar.s 
pcipetnied by Inith NKVD membcri; vidot air and 
land baltlH; Elionian Wallcn 5S members, batdtnj for 
Wcsiem avilitltion ai Nlrva; and the Army Group 
Courland which repulsed six 5o<iei oflensi^'es and wai 

Innilulr for Hatorial Rrvit" 1991 Calalo? 



Aias Li, Cn. HiiJn Ntiii: THOUOHTS ON THE 

MU Vkior Mudioo: THE CIA AND TDE -MAK- 
Aon Fml Lfjchitr THE MAKING OF THE 

LEuarrss report. 







AMI Pro. Robcn Fiutruoa; RECENT 



ASm icroiMflraa[:DE.MJA.ViUK CASE UPDATE. 



Othrr t^ddni AuJia lope, O.ii aih 



AM Noira aocibr; THE MIDDLE E.-\ST CRISIS 

-rTSTi BnilltT Sn-Jtti on WMCA "J 
/aITTT Brad!!? Soitii on IStSL / 

AOJS-i'S iirtdi(lJni'QiiacK= iiul. pIZ.OT for Ks of 


AOIO Miri; Wtbc: Rrnjioaina Toiliy 

AMI Mil!: Wiin.'Tcd 0'K=!t; INTRODUCTION 



A!00 GtH.vlAN.VWr.MA-lCK=SVol, I 





A:i13 GERMA.'J navy .marches Vol. I 

a:ii6 gesmam navy marches Vol. n 



A;i19 t^VALLESlE .\HHCHES Vol, I 




Afl of the foUowms vidtoi lie avail^ls in 
Amcrion VHS pj,S. and Canada), B«ia formal ii 
no loDjei iupponed, Tboic ridtos indkaled bj a 
^ (chcci) nurk arc also a»iiUble in 
Europon/Auaraliin PAL formal foe an addjlional 
J 10.00. Amcncan VHS (alio known as 
VHS/^(TSQ inii not play on video machine: 
dcsiincil for die PAL format. Sorne of llic» videos 
da ant indude Eng&h lanpagc sublides, io pleue 
mil [he deKripdon: Ui tnow »hat \0 eipeci. or 
diDp lU 1 Doie if Kou'rc nor sure. 

Leon Dcji^t iHl-cicluMii ndn-kttorc lipn! a ihc 
OnuMl'i hone m Siwn. Ad luupolopik anil aamat 
memoir of Ox hiiioi?, philoiaiihr ind idoh of Ihe 
nnpieeiieaol. iH^olimicer. pm-E-jtotian lijluini force 
of wtiich be 'U one of Ite mail illuurioiu mratlKn. 
ProToiionjUf o>(!iiabbd Eniliili mnilaim. Souod 
(ood. picrare te. Si^.DO 

Dircsed bJ D.W. Griffiili. Willi Uiliin Ciib. HinrT B. 
WiiUill. M>e Mint. Pcrhj[n die bob lafflouj riteil 
fiEin_ Grif^ib'i jmini !ilni» i panoranrie pmink of die 
eivil .11 ai lea ^n the Somh. WiiU ] 19)11 sxad 
prokirje by D-^. CiiltiUi pc oolr euGin| Ss 
inin'icw niih CriiEitil- Sicai film "iiti muiic rare. 
Carres proicnian fferf. Tha venion il from the oon 
compis: prim bra-n lo eun. I7i minmeL (2 ouattil 

VOil HITLER: flflaUARY lOm. H33. The hstls 
toi Ce.-a2n< -u nol jel teded ■•ben Adnlf Hitler, the 
oeaiy ippoimed COunedlor, nne in Ilie Beriin ^oni 
pjlic; [D ddi*er *hiJ *ai pctupl die mmt iniflonanl 
jpesii of Ki are::. OimcdiDr lai ooli one •cS, lie 
Cerrajpi leader laod ieodc i Hilt nirrainiW 'SJ 
•jichfd SA and K raea, Ficed ■m.'l crao'il opojmin} 
e!eaioni on Mira I. Hiiler disslijed die M.. aaanx 
chzriima of hi: ^fEEbtndinJ oraiory [o condenin Eiii 
pt^iicd ncaia 4r,d eihaix bii iubiiam iidierxe, lod 
Uir miHioiis Giieni:! 3n radio d^^JU|^,out Cenninj. id 
fflppur. Ihe Niiii;;;jl Soddiu Pa.":?. The Fuebr::. 
inuoducrd by .Mi.issiK loie! GoeiStli ii iHo»n in on 
orisiffiil Na-jonil Suciiiii Put;" rimion film. Hi*. JO 
miffliin. lound »iih Eajliib iubdiln. SW.OO ^ 
ihon Slmi iboui H; in Ge:™i:v bH^en da World 
Win. fnWTiim; Wc.vtiacocfirfljoofrticpm- 
iperii.v node: NaKaii Sociafiin conspired ■Hih Ihe 
despair ind inoni -iiir^i of Waoiir Germany. Vtrir 
JteT afAdofHiirt. in altf "ork si MS filmirjlin!. 
Ihil feaiure hislmt*:^ iciinfl of Hider'j jpeechs and rxA- 
orSii nffies of the period, /fenor ^ B*ort ii limilHy 
niihoui (DCGicmi-.'. Tliii ore film dcTionMiaia diejoi 
of die Ciraan «jrie: ificr ?en of Weiriaf unempkiy- 
menr. Jfranrrfrj J.i Arm^ on Ihe mS--J of Marib Tm. 
1936 J ihnll alarsi i-ilei Ihe ;Ka;:=::i!y ileepin? widieri 
11 ] buiiAi 'pi sa: jf [he Rliine. Thii ii noi J drSt^ 
The wlditfs arc tct3{ led ra !ft:e:3i: lb; Bhincimd flora 
Ihe Fmrfi. J iho!-. Stois. BiW. S) minuM. lound Jriih 
Eil!i!h utbiilln. t^K-Leni viiml t;calii7. SM.OO -- 
VOIJ CER.MA.V" I:iY,UION OF ?0L.4.ND Tlii il d» 
Geman 'tninn of d: Foliih conflict »nich prtdpiQied 
Ihe Ssond Worid Wit, Shown ii die peaitEc: 
borr^nrdmenr of die SiieiEan town of Beuthen by Poliih 
inilleT; die pcne:;lTOii of ethnic Gemini hji Polo in 
Che Comto: die Wjjja 5S anitl on ihe pon OITice in 
Din^;: lirc^iT sorjei: the na-al bombirdrncat of a 
PoliiS fon 'aj Ih: warship Scl!la-";!-Ha!iuia: die 
ferotiqm land banla of Sadora ind; and dip] of 
Adnlf Hider it Ihi t.-sni. eonfernhj "iih hii jinenli and 
reia.iin( lith die Gsr^in iroopi. Her; apmrri on film 
ii Ihe hinb of the :^::da.7 eUctni;. BJW. eO minula. 
lEnraS nidi Eifr"! itlnidej. 560.00 ^ 
Canpii(nl A fbrip bng^r- 'il"' <<" ■^"'"^ 
DrJOtkr (Gerain -■aisrn) ptodacd iy the NS Cowsa- 
ment. Thii ij Ihe OerKan rie»tioini nf -hat happened 
durini Iti "ar "idi Poland. BiW, 37 minuia, is 
Eaifcb. Wl.OO - 

of hiaarj'i irealeil vicarifl 'a depicEd in thb dotumeti- 
tMy <rf fte HI «di 3li;^iu^ of Hrfland, Franc: and 
Beijiim. Audustfc hattle loolap. h«h Cennin and ap- 
Dired H^ied fooia^. il combined IQ maie diii one of the 
mou ipKacnIjiMranieiermafc, Baltic icesei. ofia 

filmed 1! the peril of die tamenniia'i lire. Bipii^ni diii 
fronE line dutOer: lerial comtui teii^en a Heinle! Ill 
ind a hapleu Bniiih Spiilire: Fre^eh lanki claU imh 
Gennan panim: and iofanirymen brl^e ■ hail of 
madiineiun fire in luaiili die fot^iiiaMe MajMi Line. 
Film Kore by Huben Windt, SiW. lound mia Eniiitl 
nliuilei. pinare qiiilii7 load, uicd qmliiy nria. 120 
mimits. UOJU ^ 

VSli THE SOVIET PARADISE A unique picure of 
life inside die Smiet Union, unrairainni by Soviet 
eenion. depicang ohai life wai reiili like aAer S> yem 
of CommuniH rale. Tie wieiched peaanQ and •orken 
iurvin{ ind the detecmed dlurdles. fi>in3 mule 
evideK! of die amiChiiBian pDJfami. form a diimal 
picture d( die Sana pindlie. BIW, Kminura. lound 
mh En^'i Bibddci. i fe- jnmpi ocrar in tfie otijinil 
Gtman wundinck. IJO.OO -- 

¥017 THE BALTIC TRACEDt F.:i::a ihor: Sci 
and nr'iretii aiiisibled from ,*r.^-nr. Ger^aa. 
Lanii-. acd So-iet lourea. tell the ::!?; iior; of Lai"!. 
Lutiua-nia and Einiciia from the ye^T IWl--}. In-aSri 
hi di: So™; Union in I9J0. these s:i;ni::es tetJ^j ih: 
Kent of iom; of die Betceit Bihuns of ±: Seiond Morjl 
War "hen Ctruan troops bejs:: thrr oilerji--! in 
"Operaann Ba.^aroia" in [^t. Soii out a; d:: 
Ame-iani and the Ei^ah 10 Stalin i; ya!:i. the ;iit" 
of the B3:;i( Saia ii m indirjnent i.itsii ±: >t!rr_''e 
human ^is^-l jo^cies irf diose iOn-'-.s acid a Beni 
•imins of ihc raulu of ihoH »iu::.;ii pi\i',s. Tm 
lideo toil od ^ith .1(» tann: "s.:.: ibO"i ho» this 
proud nation "is told oul UI die 5o' eu by traitor;, disi 
1 icriB of Ce.-oian ne^nrtell depicir.; -Jie altt!.s.--e an 
die Euaa from: So-iK iiraciues liir.ii Baiiic aiiliirj 
perprjairf hy le-ilh NKVD memfc^.-;. >iole=I «.- and 
land Siitlcs; Eaoniin WaiTen S5 mer.:^-!, batl&i for 
Woiera civiliiuion at Narvi and ±: Am,'- Group 
CoarlraJ *hidi repulsed iti So>ici oiTerjivel and •!! 
Bnde.^lri in die -Ir. An EnjIishTii-rjied. S"efeh- 
aade Gbi of '"Openiion lC=!hi';l."' the forcbie 
repilrjlior of Balfic men uj certain ii^ii in ihe jsilap of 
Ihe U.S.S-R. FoiBy. U/ Hotirit!!. 7.::tii^ b; Kent;/ 
Fonda, eumines li/e in i Weil Cir^a cur.; for 
^s0aced Baidc ddrens uni^c to icfjr: 10 the." hor::a 
for fear of die CommuniiQ. Thri fiim. ititod of 
ciictirni -Jie So-iei Union, il nihe: In ajirfojtiie xia 
ID die BuHerini of diese bra-e prop:;. mi.i( of -hon 
late: found lefup in die U.S. 13 sejnerm. Bi\v. |aS 
minuies. sound -idi En^ah mboilei. 139.00 - >o- 
179.110 -- 

Ibtce So«it jtmiQ toUided •«h a Ceman fo^.-t "hich 
■as launchini in 0"n oflemive eai:^a.-3. Cwrured in 
hrcadiialini deiail il lite niaised So>iei aiiacl and its 
repulsion by German. Romanian. Iniiin and Hunjaran 
troopi, Bonhcn biintel a foresl frilel *«h So'ie". cnio. 
B German pjnan and infantry ad-ar.-: -ilh die wcpoR 
of screa^inj Siutas. Blaanj lar.t dueli. irtiller; 

T7r* iVoonnde Press mmi Cmalof 

Video Tapei 


(reprinted with permission of 

Man's Voice. Montel Williams's show April 30th . . . 

Montel Williams. No matter how many times we see the foot- 
age, it shocks us. During the Holocaust an estimated 6 milhon Jews 
died under the regime of Adolf Hitler. They died from starvation, 
disease, and gassing. But there are some who say that these pictures 
are not real, that much of what is known about the Holocaust is 
fiction and not fact. One person who questions the existence of the 
Holocaust is Mr. Mark Weber. 

Mark is a Holocaust revisionist. He is the editor and spokesman 
for the Institute for Historical Review. And also joining us is Mr. 
David Cole, another revisionist. He is a member of the Committee 
for Open Debate on the Holocaust. David was recently under the 
attack, or under attack, by members of the Jewish Defense League 
while he was speaking on the subject, because David is Jewish. 

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here. We appreciate 
your coming, [applause] 

We have all seen the specials, the news clips, the footage. Every- 
one around the world believes that the Holocaust took place. Why 
do you think it didn't? 

Mark Weber. Well, Montel, ifs very important to understand 
that no one says that those pictures are not real as you indicate at 
the beginning of the program. The pictures are very real, they're 
very horrible, they're very tragic, and we've all seen them. We've all 


heard that 6 million Jews died in the second World War during the 
Holocaust. But it's very important to understand what these pic- 
tures show and what they don't show. The people, these pictures 
were taken at the Belson, Bergen-Belson concentration camp at the 
end of the war by the British when they liberated the camp. The 
people shown in these pictures, and it's a very, very terrible pictures, 
nobody denies that, nobody says it didn't happen, nobody says it's 
not true. These people were victims of starvation and disease, they 
died in the last weeks of the war. They died in the last weeks of the 
war, as, in fact, indirect victims of the war. British doctors who were 
at the camp themselves at the time the camp was Hberated, and 
many inmates who were at the camp there and elsewhere, have also 
confirmed the conditions at Belsen, although certainly not a coun- 
try club, were relatively good until the final weeks and months of 
the war. And that was because, in the final weeks and months of the 
war, aU of Germany, all of Europe was in complete chaos. All the 
railroads were ruined, it was impossible to supply food, it was 
impossible to supply water. And particularly at Bergen Belson, 
thousands and thousands and thousands of Jews were evacuated 
from camps further to the east because the Soviets were coming in. 
And sent into this and other camps which were enormously over- 
crowded, and these people died in large numbers by disease and 
starvation. But if the policy of the Germany government had been 
to exterminate these people, they would not have, they would have 
long since been dead, and these pictures would not have been taken. 
In fact, the German government policy during the war was a very 
grim one. It was a very harsh one and so forth. As I said, again, no 
one denies those pictures. But those people were not victims of a 
program or policy of extermination. And that's what Holocaust 
revisionists say. 

Montel Williams. Well, let's go back a little bit in history, so we 
can kind of bring everybody up to speed. Because 1 asked for a 
history lesson myself. Fve done some reading on World War II and 
knew a few things. But just, 1933 was when Hitler became the 
fiihrer, 1933 was also when Dachau opened, 1938 Hitler entered 
Vienna, making it part of the Third Reich, 1939 Germany invades 
Poland. We go on, in 1940 the Nazis invade Holland, Belgium, 
France, Luxembourg. In 1941 they invade Russia; 1941 the first 
death camp was opened; and 1942 the final solution was discussed 


openly. And thai finaJ solution was a solution that included the 
extennination of the Jews. Is that not correct? 

Mark Weber. You've raised a lot of very, very good points. 
There was, we know from German documents, we know from 
German officials during the war, they did talk about something they 
called the final solution to the Jewish question. There are German 
documents that talk about this. But in this thousands, millions, tons 
of German documents seized at the end of the war that deal with 
Jewish policy, there is not a single document, not a single piece of 
paper which talks about or confirms or even discusses an extermi- 
nation policy. 

Montel Williams. Yeah, but Mark, but wait. Hitler also knew 
that if, let's say he didn't win this war, and someone ever found a 
document that stated that, life would be real tough for him and 
everyone else. 

Mark Weber. We know, we have German documents which 
show exactly what the policy was. And these documents are in fact, 
very, very important. What the German officials meant by the final 
solution policy was, before the end of 1941, was a policy of forced 
or, forced expulsion from Europe by forced emigration if necessary 
and need be. After 1941 and in 1942, this policy changed to one of 
forced, of deporting Jews, uprooting them and sending them to the 
east. And that meant first to ghettos and camps in Poland; and then 
later, throughout the war, they were sent to the occupied Soviet 
territories. That's what the German officials during the war said 
and meant by this final solution of the Jewish question. 

Now at Nuremberg, this, of course this whole issue came up at 
Nuremberg. All of the German defendants at the big Nuremberg 
trial, 1945, 1946, all said that they had no knowledge during the war 
of any extermination program — 

Montel Williams. Wait a minute, if I had been a German, if I 
had been a German guard at one of the camps, Dachau, Auschwitz, 
and somebody said, "Did you participate in the murder of a milhon 
people?" I would have said, "No, it was you. The homeboy did it. 
It wasn't me." And I would have said, "No, I never saw this 
before." I would have lied and said anything I could have said to 
prove that I wasn't involved. 

Mark Weber. That's very reasonable. But what these . . . had to 
say, is also consistent from the documents that we have and what 


we know about. And it's also consistent with everything we know 
about the policy from many other sources. 

Montel Williams. Well now David, I mean, I would think that 
there are enough older Jewish people in this country, people who 
are survivors, people whose families lived through the Holocaust, 
who would right now be willing to do exactly what happened here 
a couple of weeks ago, and that's attack you. Because you are 
Jewish. And to step forward and say this would be like myself 
stepping forward and saying that the United States government 
never brought slaves to this country. 

David Cole. But now if you were to say that, couldn't people 
then make a case to show that there was, in fact, slavery? I am not 
trying to aggravate anyone, anybody, but I know that I am gravely 
aggravating people, to the point where they will actually physically 
come up and attack me. But I think it raises many interesting issues, 
specifically the role of truth in society. What happens when you 
have eyewitnesses and yet you have other evidence, physical evi- 
dence, forensic evidence, the evidence of documents, and inter- 
cepted transmissions. 

You make a point, Montel. You make a grave assumption, a 
leap of faith when you say, well the reason we don't have these 
documents showing, where the Germans discuss what they did, is 
because Hitler didn't want them around, I guess, had them burned 
or something, because he knew that it would get him in trouble. 
But, that's making an assumption. Now other people might say, 
"We don't have the documents because there aren't any. Because 
they never existed." 

Montel Williams. But what about all the things that you hear 
about gas chambers and all those things. The mass graves, graves 
with, with thousands— 

David Cole. Well now no one doubts, no one doubts mass 
graves, no one doubts that there were bodies in this camp. But let 
me just for the record state, I don't doubt that it was an incredibly 
horrible thing that happened to the Jews of Europe. Something that 
should not be thought of in any lighter sense specifically because we 
doubt that there were gas chambers. These people were taken out 
of their villages, split up from their families and put into camps and 
made to work as forced labor and this is a horrible situation. And 
people died from disease and starvation and just plain being 


worked to death. It is not that we are trying to sugarcoat what 
happened. But it's been many years after the fact and it's time that 
we brought the fact in, parallel to the actual history of what hap- 

Montel Williams. Yes ma'am. 

Question. The fact stili remains, yes, that 6 million Jews were 
killed. And whether or not the documentation shows that it was the 
intent to completely get rid of Jews, it, it doesn't matter whether or 
not the intent was there. Because it happened. Six million Jews were 
murdered, [applause] 

Montel Williams. ... for both David and Mark, that's a very 
important issue. Because both of you dispute the fact that 6 milhon 
Jews died. 

David Cole. If I could make a point, now she said the fact that 
6 milhon Jews died. However, in 1988 the Auschwitz, the site of 
Auschwitz, where people can go and tour the gas chambers, they 
lowered their figure from 4 million dead to 1 million dead. So that 
was 3 milhon taken out of the equation over night. Where did these 
3 million go? Were they never there in the first place? Were they in 
the camps and did they survive? And if you can lose 3 million 
people over night, whose to say that 1 milhon remaining figure is 
not also wrong? 

Montel Williams. Now let me ask you this question. Weren't so 
many figures ascertained after the fact because they went back and 
did censuses after? 

Mark Weber. The source of the famous 6 milhon figure is an 
affidavit by one of the, by somebody who was brought in at the 
Nuremberg trial in 1945^6. Even Raoul Hilberg, who is consid- 
ered one of the major figures in the Holocaust, Holocaust histori- 
ans, professor at the University of Vermont. He concedes himself 
that the 6 million figure is based upon crude calculations, it is only 
highly dubious. And he says we must re-examine this whole ques- 
tion of 6 million. 

Look, it's very interesting, Montel. People have heard over and 
over about 6 million Jews dying in Europe during the Second 
World War. How many people in this audience know how many 
Germans died during the Second World War? How many Ameri- 
cans died during the Second World War? How many Chinese died 
during the Second World War? In America, as time goes by, the 


more time passes, the more there's emphasis on the fate of one 
particular people during the Second World War, almost to the 
exclusion of everyone else. 

Montel Williams. Now that is, Mark, that is — 

Mark Weber. Let me make another point. I mean, right now in 
Washington, D.C., a federal government agency, a taxpayer funded 
agency of the federal government, the United States Holocaust 
Memorial Council is organizing and building an enormous museum 
in Washington, D.C. There is no comparable museum in Washing- 
ton, D.C. to the victims of slavery. There is no comparable museum 
in Washington, D.C. to the fate of the Indians, or any other people. 
But there is an enormous museum being built, under U.S., federal 
government auspices, the fate of only one particular people in one 
other place. 

How many Chinese died during the Second World War? Ac- 
cording to the Encyclopedia Britannica the number of civilians, 
Chinese civihans alone, who died during the Second World War is 
more than 20 million. Over 20 milhon. Who knows it? Who even 

Montel Williams. Are we saying that therefore we should not 
believe what happened to the Jewish people because these other 
things were admitted? Or should we stop and say that we believe 
what happened? 

Mark Weber. Montel, it's right and proper to memorialize the 
dead. The dead of all wars, the dead of ail genocide or all mistreat- 
ment, whatever it happens to be. But what is not right, is to take the 
fate of one particular people, and in effect, make a kind of pohtical 
football out of ii. 

David Cole. 1 would like to also interject, speaking as a Jew, the 
Holocaust is an extremely important thing, especially to American 
and Israeli Jews, because most American Jews tend to be secular- 
ized, and the Holocaust and the shared history of persecution has 
tended to take the place of the religion of Jews. Now I'm Jewish, 
I'm also an atheist. I don't buy many things, I don't buy concepts 
of mysticism, spirituality and especially myths. And I have read 
both sides of the issue extensively, and I'm not looking to hurt 
anybody but I do have to say, from my own point of view, that the 
evidence saying thai there were no gas chambers is a lot stronger 
than any of the evidence that can be presented saying there was. 

Montel Williams. Well let's stop there and take a break. And 
when we come back, we'll find out, like David said, is it myth or is 
it truth? We'll find out when we come back, [applause, commercial] 

We're talking about the Holocaust and whether or not it hap- 
pened or it didn't happen. You had a question, sir. 

Question. This is a remark to Dave's earlier statements. He said 
that they weren't really being prosecuted, persecuted. My point is, 
they were, the Jews were selected specifically to be annihilated. I 
think that's more important, and the fact that they were selectively 
chosen out of various groups to be annihilated. And secondly, I do 
have to agree with you to a degree that, what happened in Cam- 
bodia with Khmer Rouge wasn't played up as much as the issue of 
the Jews. But that still doesn't lessen the fact that the Holocaust 

Montel Williams. And you both say that it didn't occur. 

Mark Weber. Montel, we don't say the Holocaust didn't occur. 
That's really too simphstic. You know the Holocaust — 

Montel Williams. Well what is a revisionist then? Okay, then 
make it simple enough . . . Mark, before you go. Because you're 
talking a httle heady, I want you to make sure everybody can 
understand what it is you're talking about. What is it that a revi- 
sionist wants there to be shown in history? 

Mark Weher. Revisionists say three essential things: we say first 
and foremost there was no policy or program to exterminate the 
Jews of Europe during the Second World War. Okay, so the — 

Montel Williams. Stop right there for a second. Don't go too 
quick. Which refutes exactly what the gentleman just asked you, 
because he said that the policy was, they were picked out and 
isolated to be annihilated. 

Mark Weher. That's certainly true. 

Montel Williams. You're saying that's not true? 

Mark Weber. They were, they were selectively persecuted, they 
were picked out, they were put in ghettos, they were put in camps, 
they were a victim group. But there was not a policy or program to 
exterminate them. 

Montel Williams. Wait a minute, wail. I want you, you're get- 
ting ready to run real quick, and I want to slow you down so we can 
get every point out of what you're saying. 

So if they were selected individually as a group, to be put into 


ghettos and to be starved to death, what was the key? Whether or 
not it was a gas chamber or not, they were starved to death. 

Mark Weber. No, no, no. Montel, look, I mean during the 
Second World War, as you well know, as everyone in California, I 
think, knows, the west coast Japanese were also selected, they were 
rounded up, they were — 

Montel Williams. They were fed. 

Mark Weber. Sure, well, yes. Europe was not, Europe during 
the Second World War was not the United States during the Second 
World War. There was a lot of food in the United States, there were 
peace, essentially peacetime conditions. War didn't come here. Cer- 
tainly the Japanese were not treated anywhere near as bad as the 
Jews. But the point is simply that they were selectively persecuted, 
and that's true. That was certainly true with the Jews. 

David Cole. And I just want to also, I . . . say that I'd like to call 
you on what you said, "so what if there were no gas chambers, if 
they were starved to death." Hey if you, if we even make that much 
of a point, we've refuted a lot of what is in the history books that 
say there are gas chambers. Now, if ail of a sudden the story is going 
to change and it's that the genocide was through starving them to 
death, well that makes a great big difference because then all that 
you've read in your history has been wrong. We're not prepared to 
deviate at all from the facts that are presented to us. And if the facts 
were ever to show that they were starved to death, we would reflect 

Montel Williams. Okay now the second point, you said there 
were three points. That was the first point. 

Mark Weber. Right. 

Montel Williams. Second. 

Mark Weber. The second point, Montel, is that we dispute the 
claims made over and over about gas chambers and gassings. 
That's the weapon of extermination, supposedly. It's very impor- 
tant to realize in this context that the Holocaust story, the gassing 
story has changed dramatically over the years. At the big Nurem- 
berg trial of 1945-46, it was claimed that people were gassed at 
Dachau, at Buchenwald, and at various camps in Germany proper 
as well. Right after the war it was claimed, not that people were 
gassed at Auschwitz, but that they were electrocuted to death. 


Montel Williams. And then later we found out that all the gas 
chambers were in Poland. Give me the third point. 

Mark Weber. The point is that the evidence for supposedly 
gassing in some camps has just been done away with. It's a maybe. 

Montel Williams. All right. 

Mark Weber. Okay the third point is, we say that no, no, 
nothing like 6 million Jews in Europe died during the Second World 
War. And it's very important in this . . . also to realize that every, 
the Jew, every Jewish person in the Second World War who died of 
whatever cause, is considered "a victim of the Holocaust." That is, 
Jews who died even in Alhed bombing attacks, Jews who died for 
whatever reason were considered victims of the Holocaust. 

Montel Williams. So you're saying all 6 million is a compilation 
figure of every Jewish person who died during the war? 

Mark Weber. Look, even a number of prominent Holocaust 
historians have conceded the 6 million figure is essentially symbolic 
in nature. It's repeated over and over, and it's not necessarily. All 
sorts of other things can change, and the 6 million figure will stay 
the same. 

Montel Williams. Okay. Yes ma'am. 

Question. Weii I have two things to say. First of all, a death is 
a death. These people have died. I don't understand why you want 
to [applause]. What do you have to gain by questioning the facts in 
history? What is it, what's your purpose in all of this? 

Montel Williams. Is what, let me ask this question. Is knowing 
the truth about what happened in your past important to you? 

Question. Well to me, death is death. They have all died there. 
It was hurtful to many people. Why is, we have to question whether 
somebody set forth to gas chamber people or whatever? What do 
you have to gain? 

David Cole. But you see, that is a philosophically based ques- 
tion, not a factual question. We know that there were camps we had 
for the Japanese. What if somebody came along and said we then 
cut up the Japanese and fed them to crocodiles. It is important for 
us to know what did happen and didn't happen. And if you're not 
interested in truth in history, fine. To some of us who are interested 
in what really happened, in the use of truth, the governmental use 
of truth, how truth can be changed, how truth can be altered, that 


does matter. A death is a death of course. But if we say the German 
people set up gas chambers, you ought to be willing to prove it and 
ready to prove it. 

Montel Williams. But now wait, before you even jump in Mark 
Weber. David, but isn't it very important, also to know, that if, if 
the plan was, if the plan was to annihilate a race of people, if that 
was the plan, genocide of a race of people, does it then matter if 
there were gas chambers or if it was starvation? This lady is making 
a very interesting point. The point is death is death, and they set out 
to kill people. 

David Cole. Maybe it's a fine line. I'm not arguing it with you, 
that maybe it's a fine line. But then why do we get all the flack when 
we then try to deny that there were gas chambers based on the facts 
available? If it is such a fine line, if it just don't matter at all, then 
we ought to be able to say, well here's some evidence showing that 
there are no gas chambers. And everybody would say, oh fine. But 
it was death, and we would say sure, it was death. All the same. And 
all the same thing about the idea of there being a final solution. 
Show us the evidence that there was the idea of a genocide of all the 
Jews. And if you show it to us, and if it passes at least my own 
personal skepticism when looking at things, then I will be the first 
person to say "I'm David the dunce. Just kick me out of the 
studio." But I want to see the evidence first. 

Montel Williams. Yes sir. 

Question. Two questions. 

Montel Williams. Make it one, because we've got to go to break. 

Question. Okay. How many Jews did the Germans have their 
hands on during the war that they could have exterminated, 

Mark Weber. That's a very good question. You know, I believe 
that the total number of Jews in Europe who died under German 
control or access control during the Second World War is probably 
in the neighborhood of a milhon, a milhon and a half. I don't think 
that it, that the Germans even had under their control 6 milhon 
Jews during the Second World War. This is confirmed, I think, by 
a report that was issued by the International Labor Office in, and 
by various, there's a number of reasons why I say that. 

Montel Williams. Okay, we have to take a break. But when we 
come back, we're going to meet some survivors of the Holocaust, 


and they'll tell us what they saw. And whether or not what they're 
saying, both Mark and David, is true or false. We'll be back in just 
a second, [commercial] 

We've been talking about the Holocaust with revisionist Mark 
Weber and Mr. David Cole. But joining us right now are Dr. 
Michael Thaler. Michael is the president of the Holocaust Center of 
Northern California. Michael is also a survivor who lost more than 
60 members of his family in the Holocaust. Also joining us are 
Ernest and Anna Hollander. They are both survivors, Anna's entire 
family was wiped out in Auschwitz. 

Now, before we even go any further in the discussion, Ernest, 
could you take us back to that day in 1944, when your family 
arrived at Auschwitz? 

Ernest Hollander. Yeah, sure. First of all, I'd Hke to make an 
opening statement. That I watched before on the television, the 
revisionists, what they said, and I feel it's completely wrong, com- 
pletely not true. Because I've been there, and I saw what happened. 
And I came tonight with pain and agony to tell you all these stories. 
But I also feel very bad, I feel sorry for these people, who after 50 
years, still claiming there was not a Holocaust. They try to hide 
behind the truth. 

Montel Williams. Well why don't you tell us some of the truth, 
Ernest. Let us know what the — 

Ernest Hollander. This is the truth. In 1939, when Hitler occu- 
pied Czechoslovakia, the part of, where I lived, the Carpathian 
mountains, they give to the Hungarian government. And as they 
took over the government, right away they fired every Jew, from 
state, city and county jobs. A Jew couldn't hold anywhere a job, a 
government job. Well it didn't go too long where they started 
taking all their properties. And before the year was over, we have 
to wear yellow stars. Jews couldn't get out on the street any more 
regular. Just certain times, shopping, stuff like that. 

In 1942, they said that every Jew have to have a Hungarian 
citizenship papers. Now we had close to three-quarters of a million 
Jews living in the Carpathian mountains. More than half didn't 
have Hungarian citizenship papers. We were lucky, my father was 
born under Austrian-Hungarian regime, and were able to get our 
citizenship papers. 


Montel Williams. That's before the war. I want you to bring us 
up. . . . during the war, 1942. 

Ernest Hollander. That was 1941, end of 41. 

Montel Williams. Okay, end of 41. But bring us up to the point 
where, we know the historical things that took place. But we need 
to know whether or not the Holocaust, itself, took place. What 
happened in 1944? What did you see with your own eyes when you 
arrived at Auschwitz? 

Ernest Hollander. In 1944, I had eight brothers and sisters, 4 
brothers, 4 sisters. My father and mother, we arrived finally to 
Auschwitz, where right away they took away my mother and three 
little sisters and they killed them. They killed them in the crematori- 
ums, in the gas chambers. The rest of the family went to work, to 
labor camps, where my father was working in a railroad station, 
and working in a saw mill where he cut off his left arm. The blade 
somehow cut his hand, they put him against the wall, they shot him 
right away. They never kept somebody in the camp if he couldn't 
earn his piece of bread and little hot soup. 

Montel Williams. Now when you say they took your mother 
and your three younger sisters away, right there on the spot, and 
they took them away to the gas chamber, right? This was in Ausch- 
witz. How do you know that that's exactly where they took them 
to the gas chamber? 

Ernest Hollander. Because we stayed two days in Auschwitz, 
and some people who worked in the crematoriums, some people 
who worked in the gas chambers, they tell us. That they saw all 
these people who Dr. Mengele, the angel of death, send them to the 
labs, they went straight into the gas chambers, and into the 

Montel Williams. Now, Dr. Thaler, you know a lot, I mean a lot 
about the history of the Holocaust. You've heard what both these 
gentlemen have to say. Do you think that they're right? Or is it, is 
it even worth the discussion that we're having today? 

Michael Thaler. Well, I think that the discussion today is merely 
to allow those people, the vast majority, of course, who don't really 
know what happened, an opportunity to really find out what the 
truth is. And what you just heard is a tissue of lies. It's basically a 
combination of half truths, fantasy, and downright falsehood. And 
you know, I can begin taking it apart very easily. 


Montel Williams. Let's start from the very beginning. The claim 
is that there were no gas chambers. 

Michael Thaler. Right. 

Montel Williams. There was no plan to annihilate the Jews. 
Start with the gas chambers, and tell me why that's not true. 

Michael Thaler. All right. Well, I'll start with the most recent 
evidence, though it's been 50 years. The most recent evidence pro- 
duced by the young historians in Germany, German historians 
working with German evidence, German documents, have shown 
in the last five years that the entire program, including the gas 
chambers, originated from a program which they, the Nazis called, 
the euthanasia program, which is typical of the terminology that 
they used. They always inverted the real meaning. 

Euthanasia, you know, is going to be an initiative on the Cali- 
fornia ballot on euthanasia, and euthanasia literally means mercy 
killing. And the way we talk about euthanasia, it means at the 
request and at the desire of the patient, when they want to end their 
life, okay? The Nazis used that term just the opposite, to kill people, 
to murder, to mass murder, people whom they no longer desired to 
be ahve, because they were useless to them, they couldn't work, they 
were blind, they were deaf. They even killed soldiers who came back 
from the front on this program. Now — 

Montel Williams. But that, we get that. But that doesn't tell me 
about gas chambers. 

Michael Thaler. Okay. Well— 

Montel Williams. Tell me about gas chambers. 

Michael Thaler. Okay. In order to institute this program, 
throughout Germany there were installations set up with gas cham- 
bers, which were disguised as shower rooms, in places hke Hada- 
mar, Grafeneck, Brandenburg, Sonnerstein, Hartheim, and so on, 
where they developed this entire program where they took up to 
80,000 German children and people who were, as I said, useless to 
the Reich, and simply gassed them with the excuse of taking them 
to the showers, and then cremated them. And by 1941, August 
1941, there was such an outcry in Germany from the bishops and 
from mistakes that they made by sending two urns to one family, 
you know for one child, that they terminated the program. 

And at that point, they took the staff of this entire program, 
took them to the killing camps, Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka, and 


many of those people became the commanders and the leading 
people both in the construction of the gas chambers and in the use 
of the gas chambers. They also had experimented with the Zy~ 
klon-B gasses during that euthanasia program. And so^ 

Mantel Williams. There is physical proof of that^ 

Michael Thaler. There is physical evidence, and there is also 
strong documentation brought out by the German historians them- 
selves, and this was the beginning of that program, which was then 
later applied to the destruction of the Jews. 

Montel Williams. Yes sir. 

Question. I just, want to comment and question directed to you 
two on the end. It seems like you're running around— 

Montel Williams. Mark and David Cole. 

Question. Mark and David, you seem like you're running 
around in two ways. One, the gas chambers, you say that prove it, 
there weren't any. Well Inside the Third Reich proves, um talks 
about it. There are personal experiences that talk about it, that 
should be enough. And that they have proof of them being there. 
Second, is that you say 6 million, that's, well maybe it's less, or 
whatever. Maybe it is, maybe it was a million, so what? That's a 
million people. I mean that's a lot. [applause] 

Montel Williams. Go ahead, David Cole. 

David Cole. We are not trying to downplay the seriousness that 
anybody died. But you just said, for example, we ought to have 
enough evidence. That's enough, case closed, that's enough. Forget 
about your questions. And let me say one thing, and let me present 
something to yon. How, for example, do you come back at the two 
forensic studies that have been done, at the supposed gas chambers 
buildings at Auschwitz and Majdanek, which prove forensically, 
and the first one was conducted by a man from Boston named Fred 
Leuchter. Fred Leuchter had built execution equipment for Ameri- 
can prisons, and he was very good at it, and he was recommended 
for that job. But the second forensic report was done by the people 
who run Auschwitz, the people who run the Auschwitz museum, 
and it proves that there could not have been cyanide gassings in 
those chambers. How do you come back at that? 

Montel Williams. All right, we'll find out how we come back to 
that as soon as we take a break. We'll take a break, we'll be back 
right after this. 


[film footage— Germany] 

We've been talking about the Holocaust with revisionists and 
survivors. And for both Mark and David, if we were to presuppose 
that the Holocaust did not take place, and we were to presuppose 
that there were no gas chambers, there were no mass burials and no 
mass gassings, then what we are saying is that someone had a 
conspiracy to mislead the entire world. Why, for 50 years, would 
Jewish people want to have conspired to mislead the entire world? 

David Cole. You see, now, you're reading something into that. 
You're saying they want to conspire. If, in fact, this was a conspir- 
acy, propaganda set up, written by people, presented by people it 
was the Soviet government, the British government, and the Ameri- 
can government at Nuremberg after the war. The reason that this 
thing, because most war propaganda ends up dying "x" number of 
years after the actual war. One of the reasons, however, that this 
particular issue has grown in importance since the war, is because 
the Jewish people have taken it as a very personal issue. It is very 
important in Israel, it was very important to the founding of Israel. 
This does not make them conspirators, it doesn't make them bad 
people at all. It's an issue that they take very personally. And in the 
Western world, Jews are usually very successful. And I'm speaking 
as a Jew. And I'm not trying to say that they in any way do anything 
wrong to become successful. But what matters to Jews can often 
times be reflected in Western society. If you were to go to Asia, 
though, this, the Jewish Holocaust wouldn't matter one way or 
another. Because there are not all that many Jews left in any posi- 
tions of influence in a country like Cambodia. 

Montei Williams. Dr. Thaler, you wait. Dr. Thaler is like churn- 
ing in his seat. What, what did you want to say? 

Michael Thaler. Well, first of all, I think it's already false to call 
these people revisionists. As the Department of History in Duke, 
the, all the professors of history in Duke wrote in response to one 
of their ads in the campus newspaper, "These people are not revi- 
sionists. They don't revise. They are deniers. They're basically de- 
nying the truth. Rather than revising the truth." [applause] 

Montei Williams. And Dr. Thaler, let me ask, I'm going to let 
you finish your point. But then there is also the point that they are 
questioning the history. And we know for a fact, let me finish my 
point, we know for a fact, that history in this country, and the 


books that we see in this country, is written incorrectly in a number 
of ways, [applause cheers] ... go ahead. 

Michael Thaler. But every single point where he gets close to the 
actual data, the actual information, the actual fact, it's falsehood. 
For instance, this issue about this man Leuchter, Fred or Frank 
Leuchter, Jr., who I just heard quoted as a foremost engineer, you 
know, with gas chambers — 

David Cole. I didn't say the word engineer. 

Michael Thaler. Okay. He, you noticed this— 

David Cole. I know why you didn't. But Fred Leuchter might 
not have been a licensed engineer, but did he not have the job of 
building gas chambers and other execution equipment for major 
American prisons? Was he not profiled on Prime Time Live and the 
Atlantic Monthly? 

Michael Thaler. He had nothing to do— 

David Cole. As an expert. 

Michael Thaler. He had nothing to do, no. 

Montel Williams. But David let him finish. 

Michael Thaler. As a matter of fact, this is a lie. The fact is the 
man masqueraded as an engineer, a builder of these chambers, and 
then he was arraigned in Massachusetts for practicing engineering 
without a license. He's not registered as an engineer. The only 
scientific training he ever had was a B.A. in history. He was hired 
by another — 

Montel Williams. Okay, so wait, wait, wait. Okay, okay. So Dr. 
Thaler we've refuted the fact that this man had . . . qualifications. 

Michael Thaler. Okay. The question boils down whether there 
was Zyklon-B gas used or not. So, in 1988, for a fee of $35,000 he 
went to Birkenau and he scraped the walls and he did some hocus- 
pocus, and he came out 50 years later with the statement that there 
was no gas. And the court in Canada, in which this was tried, threw 
it out and declared him a non-expert. 

Montel Williams. Wait a second sir, we can't hear you up there. 

Michael Thaler. Okay? This is a matter of record. 

Montel Williams. All right. Dr. Thaler, jtist stop there for a 
second. Ma'am you've been trying to get in, go ahead. 

Anna Hollander. I am the hving proof of this. I was age of 13 
when they took me to Auschwitz with my family. I'm the only one 
who survived. And I was invited not too far from the gas chamber. 


And we knew exactly then, they brought in Jews, and they burned 
them. We smelled, we breathed that air, we smelled that air, and we 
knew, we used to say to each other, you see, they are burning the 
Jews. I was not too far from the crematorium. 

Montel WiUiams. When it happened? 

Anna Hollander. When it happened, and I was 13 years of age 
at that time. My whole family was wiped out. 

Montel Williams. Yes, sir, yes. 

Question. The Holocaust is big business. Because Germany is so 
far, has given the Jews, I think, at least $200 billion. So it's big 
business. Some of you are still getting $1,000 a month, and a lot of 
people don't know this. And then, people don't realize who brought 
the slaves to America. They were Jewish ships, [applause] 

Montel Williams. Wait, wait, wait a minute, that's a whole 
'nother thing. Let's take a break. Because with the issue that we're 
talking about today is, whether or not there was Holocaust. We'll 
talk about slavery and who brought them here later. We'll be back 
after this, [commercial] 

We've been talking about the Holocaust with revisionists and 
survivors. And you wanted to make a statement. 

Question. Yes, I'd like to ask a question that's specific in nature, 
directed towards David, over there. We have all seen the pictures 
that were shown just recently, before the show, of the gas chambers, 
of the metal gates and everything like that. If you say there were no 
gas chambers, what were those specific pictures? 

David Cole. The pictures of what? Now we saw pictures of a 
mass grave, we saw pictures of dead bodies, and we saw pictures of 
a crematorium. Did you see pictures of a gas chamber? Because I 
think you were smoking something before the show. We did not see 
any pictures of gas chambers. 

Montel WiUiams. Wait, wait, wait, David. We don't have to 
accuse the guy of being on drugs. But he saw what I have seen in 
several specials across the country. And in those specials they 
showed me the same . . . 

David Cole. But I specifically made the point earlier, no one 
doubts that there is a building, for example, that you can go to look 
at Auschwitz and take the tour of and say well here's the gas 
chamber. They also will tell you something like when the Jews died 
they all died pressed up against the door. However the door to the 


so-called chamber opens in. Now the Germans are not stupid peo- 
ple. And if they were going to build a room where hundreds of 
people would die pressed up against the door, don't you think they 
would make the door to open out? [applause] 

Montel Williams. Okay. Let him finish his question. 

Ernest Hollander. Mr. Montel, I'm sitting on pins and needles. 
I must answer the question. He said there was no Holocaust, there 
was no crematoriums and no gas chambers. Now, he said there was 
no gas chambers. Eichman's right hand, who the notorious Eich- 
mann was the master builder of Auschwitz, of the crematoriums, 
and the gas chambers, his right hand, he had figured out that to kill 
a Jew cost three-quarters of a cent. Then they came out with the 
Zyklon gas that it cost only a half a cent. So they saved a penny, 
a quarter of a cent by mass killing. And he felt so bad about it, that 
he smuggled out some papers to the Swedish government. And the 
Germans had, very good, very good bookkeeping. 

Montel Williams. But you see, Ernest. If these are things, these 
are points when we go through this, and historically, wait a second 
Dr. Thaler. When we go through this historically, there's no way 
for us to know what he was thinking, whether he smuggled this or 
that. The only thing that we can know is, whether or not there is 
fact. And let this gentlemen ask, finish his question, he's going to 
finish it very quickly. 

Question. What were the metal chambers that we saw with the 
metal gates coming out, and the dead bodies inside all burnt up? 

David Cole. Well now there were crematoria there, and they did 
cremate bodies. And we feel, for example, that the building at 
Auschwitz that you go through, that is said to be the gas chamber, 
was in fact, the morgue. And you can actually see where walls have 
been knocked down, where they used to be separating the place into 
different rooms. 

One other real quick thing, if I may. A point about this Zy- 
klon-B gas that I'd like to make. Now the nature of the Zyklon-B 
is very important. The Germans said the Zyklon-B was there to 
disinfect prisoners and their clothes, to try and cut down on the 
typhoid epidemic, which we all admit was going on in the camps. 
If this gas were there, not io do that, but to kill Jews, how come 
there was just as much gas in the camps that were never set to 
function as execution camps, as there are in camps like Auschwitz, 


and camps that were supposedly meant to function as execution 

Monte! Williams. Dr. Thaler, why don't you answer that. 

Michael Thaler. Look, it's absurd. This whole discussion is 
crazy. We can't come in with the mountains of documentation and 
eye witness reports and case records that clearly establish the truth 
of what went on with the gas chambers and with the killing squads. 
I just want to state that my name is Michael Thaler, and I am 
willing to mortgage my home and put up $50,000 to anyone who 
comes in with acceptable evidence, acceptable by scholarly histo- 
rian standards, that there was no gas chambers. Okay? End of 
discussion. I'm not going to continue this with these people. 

Mantel Williams. All right. Yes sir. 

Question. Yes, I have a comment. 

Mantel Williams. Make it very quick, because we gotta go to 

Qiiestion. First of all, I have the greatest sympathy for all inno- 
cent people who die in war. But the Jewish experience is not unique. 
I happen to be of Ukrainian descent, and 7 million of my people 
were murdered. And a disproportionate number of the perpetrators 
of these crimes in the Ukraine, the Ukrainian famine happen to be 
Jews. Trotsky, Beria, Dzerzhinsky, and I'd like to know when I'm 
going to get my reparations for my murdered relatives? 

Mantel Williams. That's also another issue. We'll take a break 
and we'll answer that when we come back. We'll take a break, 

You had a question, sir. 

Question. Yes. I am a Holocaust survivor, and I'm the only one 
left from a family of seven, i would like to reply to the gentlemen 
that said the Ukrainians, 7 million Ukrainians were killed. The 
Ukrainians were the biggest collaborators with the Germans. They 
were hired and worked in the concentration camps to help extermi- 
nate the Jews. 

Mantel Williams. Well that's all, do me a favor. Let's not go 
back and forth from one . . . let's answer the question about the 
Holocaust. You were there — 

Question. I also, I also vv'ould hke to tell you, that the lady made 
a remark, my wife, she was 14 years old when she and her mother 
were taken to Auschwitz. And when her mother was ill and she 


couldn't work any longer, they took her to the crematorium and 
burned her. Now these are facts. And my wife is alive, and she is 
here and she has told me those things. 

Mantel Williams. They burned her, they burned her alive? 

Question. They burned her, they burned her, that's right. 

Montel Williams. Because she could not work? 

Question. Because she could not work. She was too weak to 

Montel Williams. I think, before you go, and I say this, David, 
this is the point. And this is a Jewish gentlemen, you are Jewish. 
Here's a man who has lived his whole life knowing, having these 
feelings, knowing what took place in his Hfe. I have to ask you this, 
because it's coming, to me, do you dislike yourself because you are 
Jewish and you have turned the other way? 

David Cole. Now see that's just plain silly. Two things real 
quick. First as an atheist, and people all over the world everyday 
claim to see God, I am also willing, therefore, to believe that people 
can mislead themselves very easily. But secondly, I would also like 
to say, that I want people to understand what my peculiar position 
is. Which is: I hear eyewitnesses and then I hear other forensic and 
factual evidence. What am I supposed to do? Would you like me 
then to just jump to the conclusion, go along with the flow? What 
if everybody did that about every subject? I have serious questions 
that I would like to be addressed. No one has yet addressed my 
question about Zyklon-B gas. No one has yet addressed my ques- 
tion about— 

Montel Williams. Because you're also asking an audience that's 
not authorities on Zyklon-B gas. Go ahead Anna. 

David Cole. Well they should be. 

Anna Hollander. I want to tell David one thing. He should have 
been where I was. He would have seen what life was all about, 
[applause] How we was^we used to get up every morning, 3 o'- 
clock in the morning, they used to put us in a line. And they used 
to call us, they used to pick from each day from us to go to those 
gas chambers. Day by day. We lived with that, we dreamt with that, 
and we slept with that. 

Question. Well I'd hke to ask the revisionists, I've heard that 
you don't believe that there were gas chambers. Do you believe that 


genocide did indeed take place? And what exactly is your definition 
of genocide? 

Mark Weber. If you mean by genocide, the kind of treatment 
that was meted out to the American Indians or the blacks, then 
there was genocide. And there was a policy kind of genocide against 
the Jews in Europe during the Second World War. I would say yes. 
But the Holocaust is defined rather differently. It's defined as the 
systematic extermination of 6 million Jews. I do not think that there 
is evidence for that. The word Holocaust itself is a more or less 
modem creation. It wasn't used during the war, it wasn't talked 
about at Nuremberg, it didn't come into popular usage until the 
1960s or '70s. 

Montel Williams. Go ahead. Dr. Thaler. 

Michael Thaler. I just want to straighten out a few things, okay, 
from our own personal experience. Again, I am not prepared to 
discuss this here with these gentlemen who are frauds. The point I 
am making now is this. I want to make one point: first of all there 
were 7 milhon Jews just in the area of Poland and Russia alone. 
There were fewer than 1 million Jews in the rest of Europe. So when 
the Germans occupied Poland and part of Russia, they were stuck 
with all these miUions of Jews. The majority of those Jews never got 
to concentration camps. 

I heard a glib reference to ghettos. Well I came from one of 
those ghettos. I came from a ghetto, and by the way there were 
hundreds of ghettos, not just one or two. I came from one of those 
ghettos in the Ukraine. And we started out with 1 1 ,000 people in 
1941, when the Red Army came back in 1944, there were 306 left. 
Nobody went to concentration camps, we were taken out and shot 
and I myself watched the last 2,500 Jews of my town machine 
gunned to death. . . . 

Montel Williams. We've got to take a break. Dr. Thaler. You 
know, you saw it. We'll be back in just a second, [commercial] 

We've been talking about the Holocaust with revisionists and 
survivors. Anna, you wanted to make one final point. 

Ann Hollander, Yeah, I would like to make one point. I came 
here for one reason. To tell the world that this Holocaust happened, 
and I'm a proof, I'm a hving proof. I'm here to tell you that never 
again. We should watch out for another Holocaust to whom it ever 


happened, it should never happen. No race, no human should let, 
have to kill people. 

Montel Williams. We are, we gotta go, join us again on the next 
Montel Williams show, [applause] 


Booklets, and Pamphlets, and of 
Articles from the Journal of 

















BURG, J.G. (a/k/a Joseph Ginsburg), ANNE FRANK— DAS TAGE- 


BURG, J.G. (a/k/a Joseph Ginsburg), HOLOCAUST DES 

BURG, J.G. (a/k/a Joseph Ginsburg), MAIDANEK IN ALLE EWIG- 

BURG, J.G. (a/k/a Joseph Ginsburg), NS-VERBRECHEN: PRO- 

BURG, J.G. (a/k/a Joseph Ginsburg), SCHULD UND SCHICKSAL 

BURG, J.G. (a/k/a Joseph Ginsburg), SUNDENBOCKE 

BURG, J.G. (a/k/a Joseph Ginsburg), TERROR UND TERROR 






CHOMSKY, Noam, Introduction to Faurisson's TREATISE IN DE- 





Claude, MONTEIL, Vincent, TRISTANI, Jean-Louis, INTOLERABLE 













THROUGH THE CLIMATE OF FEAR," E! Istiglal (Independence) 


WEISEL (pamphlet) 



















HARWOOD, Richard, (true name VERRALL, Richard) DID SIX MIL- 

HARWOOD, Richard, (true name VERRALL, Richard) NUREM- 










REVISIONISM (booklet) 

















SIONISM (pamphlet) 

TICS I93I-1941 








FACTS VS. LIES (pamphlet) 


PLO see EL-SHAMALI and ARNOUF (El Istiglal is a PLO Magazine, 
as is the publication of the Palestine Red Crescent Society) 













TRUTH" (hafiet) 









SERRANO, Miguel, (Introduction to) FIN DE UNA MENTIRA: 




STAEGLICH, Wilhelm, and Udo Walendy, NS-BEWALTIGUNG: 
















CHAMBER LEGEND (pamphlet) 


VON OVEN, Wilheim, MIT GOEBBELS BIS ZUM ENDE (republished 
as FINALE FURIOSO in Germany) 





























ADAMS, Henry M., "David Irving, Goring: A Biography," JHR, Vol. 9 

ATELIER, Robert, "Stephen Green, Taking Sides: America's Secret Re- 
lations With A Militant Israel," JHR, Vol. 7 #3. 

BARNES, Harry Elmer, "The Public Stake in Revisionism," JHR, Vol. 1 


BARNES, Harry Elmer, "Winston Spencer Churchill: a Tribute," JHR, 

Vol. 1 #2. 


BECK, Philip, "The Burning of Saint Malo," JHR, Vol. 2 #4. 

BENNETT, John, "In the Matter of Robert Faurisson," JHR, Vol. 1 #2. 

BENNETT, John, "Orwell's 1984: Was Orwell Right?," JHR, Vol. 6 #1. 

BENNETT, John, "The Holocaust Debate," JHR, Vol. 2 #1. 

BENSON, Ivor, "Iran: Some Angles on the Islamic Revolution," JHR, 
Vol. 9 #2. 

BENSON, Ivor, "Russia 1917-1918: A Key to the Riddle of an Age of 
Conflict", JHR, Vol. 10 #3. 

BENSON, Ivor, "The Siege of South Africa," JHR, Vol. 7 #1. 

BERG, Friedrich P., "The Diesel Gas Chambers: Myth Within A Myth," 
JHR, Vol. 5 #1. 

BERG, Friedrich P., "The German Delousing Chambers," JHR, Vol. 7 


BERG, Friedrich P., "Typhus and the Jews," JHR, Vol. 8 #4. 

BERKIS, Alexander V., "Soviet Russia's Persecution of Latvia, 1918 to 
the Present," JHR, Vol. 8 #1. 

BLACK, Robert C, "PoUtics, Prejudice and Procedure: The Impeach- 
ment Trial of Andrew Johnson," JHR, Vol. 7 #2. 

BRANDON, Lewis (true name McCALDEN, DAVID), "The Big Lie 
Technique in the Sandbox," JHR, Vol. 2 #1. 

BRANDON, Lewis {true name McCALDEN, DAVID), "The Mendacity 
of Zion," JHR, Vol. 1 #2. 

BRAUN, Karl Otto, "American Policy Toward Europe: The Fateful 
Change," JHR, Vol. 5 #s 2,3,4. 

BUCHNER, Reinhard K., "The Problem of Cremator Hours and incin- 
eration Time," JHR, Vol. 2 #3. 

BUTZ, Arthur, "Letters to the 'New Statesman,' " JHR, Vol. 1 #2. 
BUTZ, Arthur, "The Faurisson Affair," JHR, Vol. 1 #4. 
BUTZ, Arthur, "The International 'Holocaust' Controversy," JHR, Vol. 

BUTZ, Arthur, "Jack Eisner, "The Survivor; Moshe Mizrahi, Director, 
War and Love," JHR, Vol. 7 #4. 

CARTO, WilHs A. "Toward History," JHR, Vol. 5 #1. 

CHAPMAN, Robert J., "A Challenge to Thought Control: The Histori- 
ography of Leon Degrelle," JHR, Vol. 6 #2. 

CHOMSKY, Noam, "AH Denials of Free Speech Undercut a Democratic 
Society," JHR, Vol. 7 #1. 


CHRISTOPHERSEN, Thies, "Reflections on Auschwitz and West Ger- 
man Justice," JHR, Vol. 6 #1. 

CLIVE, Robert, "Robert E. Herzstein, Roosevelt and Hitler," JHR, Vol. 
10 #3. 

CLIVE, Robert, Alfred M. de Zayas, "The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bu- 
reau," JHR, Vol. 10 #2. 
COBDEN, John, "Lessons from Dachau," JHR, Vol. 9 #4. 

COUNTESS, Robert H., "Thomas Franklin, An American in Exile: The 
Story of Arthur Rudolph," JHR, Vol. 8 #2. 

DESJARDINS, Dan, "Critique of John S. Conway's Review of Walter 
Sanning's Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, from The International 
History Review, August, 1985," JHR, Vol. 7 #3. 

DIBERT, A., "Our EstabHshed Religion," JHR, Vol. 10 #2. 

DICKSON, Sam, "Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln," JHR, Vol. 
7 #3. 

EKNES, Enrique Ayant, "Crematoriums II and III of Birkenau: A Criti- 
cal Study," JHR, Vol. 8 #3. 

FAURISSON, Robert, "A Challenge to David Irving," JHR, Vol. 5 #s 

FAURISSON, Robert, "A Revised Preface to Auschwitz: A Judge Looks 
at the Evidence," JHR, Vol. 10 #2. 

FAURISSON, Robert, "Auschwitz: Technique & Operation of the Gas 
Chambers - Part I," JHR, Vol. II #1. 

FAURISSON, Robert, "Claude Lanzmann, Shoah (The Film)," JHR, 
Vol. 8#1. 

FAURISSON, Robert, "Confessions of SS Men who were at Auschwitz," 
JHR, Vol. 2 #2. 

FAURISSON, Robert, "How the British Obtained the Confessions of 
Rudolf Hoss," JHR, Vol. 7 #4. 

FAURISSON, Robert, "Letters to the 'New Statesman,' " JHR, Vol. 1 


FAURISSON, Robert, "My Life as a Revisionist (September 1983 to 

September 1987)," JHR, Vol. 9 #1. 

FAURISSON, Robert, "Response to a Paper Historian," JHR, Vol. 7 


FAURISSON, Robert, "Revisionism On Trial: Developments in France, 

1979-1983," JHR, Vol. 6 #2. 


FAURISSON, Robert, "The Gas Chambers of Auschwitz Appear to be 
Inconceivable," JHR, Vol. 2 #4. 

FAURISSON, Robert, "The Gas Chambers: Truth or Lie?" JHR, Vol. 2 


FAURISSON, Robert, "The Mechanics of Gassing," JHR, Vol. 1 #i. 

FAURISSON, Robert, "The Problem of the Gas Chambers," JHR, Vol. 


FAURISSON, Robert, "The Zunde! Trials (1985 and 1988)," JHR, Vol. 

8 #4. 

FAURRISON, Robert, "A Dry Chronicle of the Purge," JHR, Vol. 12, 


FELDERER, Ditlieb, "Auschwitz Notebook," JHR, Vol. 1 #1. 

FELDERER, Ditlieb, "Auschwitz Notebook," JHR, Vol. 1 #2. 

FELDERER, Ditlieb, "Auschwitz Notebook," JHR, Vol 1 #3. 

FELDERER, Ditlieb, "Auschwitz Notebook," JHR, Vol. 1 #4. 

FELDERER, Ditlieb, and HARWOOD, Richard, "Human Soap," JHR, 
Vol. 1 #2. 

FITZGIBBON, Louis, "Hidden Aspects of the Katyn Massacre," JHR, 
Vol. 1 #L 

FITZGIBBON, Louis, "Khatyn—Another Hoax," JHR, Vol. 1 #3. 

FRANZ-WILLING, Georg, "Henry M. and Robin K. Adams, Rebel 
Patriot: A Biography of Franz von Papen," JHR, Vol. 8 #1. 

FRANZ-WILLING, Georg, "The Origins of the Second World War," 
JHR, Vol. 1 #\. 

FRIEDRICH, Leonhard, "Buchenwald and After," JHR, Vol. 2 #1. 

GLEASON, K.C., "The Holocaust and the Failure of AUied and Jewish 
Responses," JHR, Vol. 5 #s 2,3,4. 

GRIMSTAD, William, "Autopsying the Communist Cadaver," JHR, 
Vol. 10 #1. 

GRIMSTAD, William, "Livia Rokach, Israel's Sacred Terrorism," JHR, 
Vol. 9 #2. 

GRIMSTAD, WiUiam, "Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, The Occuh Roots of 
Nazism," JHR, Vol. II #1. 

GRIMSTAD, William, "Roy Davies (Prod, by British Broadcasting 
Corp.)., Sacrifice at Pear! Harbor," JHR, Vol. 10 #1. 

GRUBACH, Paul, "A Critique of the Charge of Anti-Semitism: The 
Moral and Political Legitimacy of Criticizing Jewry," JHR, Vol. 8 #2. 


GRUBACH, Paul, "Jonathan Kaufman, Broken Alliance: The Turbulent 
Times Between Blacks and Jews in America," JHR, Vol. 10 #1. 

GRUBACH, Paul, "Michael Curtis, Antisemitism in the Contemporary 
World," JHR, Vol. 9 #2. 

HALL, Robert A., Jr., "C. Paul Vincent, The Politics of Hunger: The 
Allied Blocade of Germany, 1915-1919," JHR, Vol. 7 #2. 

HALL, Robert A., Jr., "Cario Mattogno, II Rapporto Gerstein: Ana- 
tomia di un Falso," JHR, Vol. 7 #. 

HALL, Robert A., Jr., "Deceptive Linguistic Structures in the Phrase 
'The Holocaust,' JHR, Vol. 7 #4. 

HALL, Robert A., Jr., "The Persecution of P.G. Wodehouse," JHR, Vol. 
7 #3. 

HALOW, Joseph, "Innocent in Dachau: The Trial and Punishment of 
Franz Kofler et al.," JHR, Vol. 9 #4. 

HANSEN, Desmond, "The Enigma of Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia)," 
JHR, Vol. 2 #3. 

HARWOOD, Richard (true name VERRALL, Richard) and FELD- 
ERER, Ditlieb, "Human Soap," JHR, Vol 1 #2. 

HASEGAWA, Michiko, "A Postwar View of the Greater East Asia 
War," JHR, Vol. 6 #4. 

HATTENHAUER, Darryl, "Ronald Reagan's Political and Cultural 
World View," JHR, Vol. 5, #s 2,3,4. 

HAWKINS, James, "Felipe Fernandez- Armesto, The Spanish Armada," 
JHR, Vol. 10 #3. 

HEIDE, Hans von der, "From the Allied Camps to the Revisionist 
Camp," JHR, Vol. 10 #2. 

HESSELTINE, William B., "Atrocities, Then and Now," JHR, Vol. 9 


HOFFMAN, Michael A., II, "The Psychology and Epistemology of 

'Holocaust' Newspeak," JHR, Vol. 6 #4. 

HOGGAN, David L., "Plato's Dialectic v. Hegel and Marx: An Evalua- 
tion of Five Revolutions," JHR, Vol. 6 #1. 

HUMMEL, Jeffrey Rogers, "Not Just Japanese Americans: The Untold 
Story of U.S. Repression During The Good War,' " JHR, Vol. 7 #3. 

IRVING, David, "Churchill and U.S. Entry into World War II," JHR, 
Vol. 9 #3. 

IRVING, David, "Hitler's War: An IntToduction to the New Edition," 
JHR, Vol. 10 #4. 


IRVING, David, "On Contemporary History and Historiography," JHR, 
Vol. 5 #s 2,3,4. 

IRVING, David, "The Trail of the Desert Fox: Rommel Revised," JHR, 

Vol. 10 #4. 

JACKSON, Thomas, "Akira Kochi, Why I Survived the A-Bomb," JHR, 
Vol. 10 #1. 

JOHN, Robert, "Behind the Balfour Declaration: Britain's Great War 
Pledge To Lord Rothschild," JHR, Vol. 6 #4. 

JOHNSON, Edward, "Grace Halsell, Prophecy and Politics: Militant 
Evangelists on the Road to Nuclear War," JHR, Vol. 7 #4. 

JORDAN, Rudolf, "Hitler, the Unemployed and Autarky," JHR, Vol. 5 


KANOLD, Otto, with WEBER, Mark, "Letter From Berlin," JHR, Vol. 

1 #2. 

KEHL, Horsl, "Holocaust Parmacology vs. Scientific Pharmacology," 
JHR, Vol. 2#1. 

KONKIN, Samuel Edward ill, "J.N. Westwood, 'Russia Against Japan, 
1904-05: A New Look at the Russo-Japanese War,' " JHR, Vol. 7 #3. 

KONKIN, Samuel Edward ill, "Palestine: Liberty and Justice," JHR, 
Vol. I #4. 

KONKIN, Samuel Edward Hi, "Paul Buble, Marxism in the United 
States: Remapping the History of the American Left," JHR, Vol. 8 #2. 

KUBEK, Prof Anthony, "The Morgenthau Plan and the Problem of 
Policy Perversion," JHR, Vol. 9 #3. 

KUESTERS, Elisabeth, "Encountering the Revisionists," JHR, Vol. 5 #s 


LANDWEHR, Richard, "The European Volunteer Movement in World 
War II," JHR, Vol. 2 #!. 

LANG, Clarence R., "Imposed German Guilt: The Stuttgart Declaration 
of 1945," JHR, Vol. 8#1. 

LANG, Clarence R., "Friedrich Gollert Warschau unter Deutscher Herr- 
schaft," JHR, Vol. 7 #4. 

LANG, Clarence R., "Red Cross Humanitarianism In Greece, 1940-45," 
JHR, Vol 9 #1. 

LARSON, Martin A., "An Update on the Dead Sea Scrolls," JHR, Vol. 


LASKA, Werner, "A U.S. Prison Guard's Story," JHR, Vol. 10 #2. 


LAWSON, Richard, "National Socialism and Early British Sociahsm," 
JHR, Vol. 1 #4. 

LEUCHTER, Fred A., & Faurisson, Robert, "The Second Leuchter Re- 
port," JHR, Vol. 10 #3. 

LEUCHTER, Fred A., "The Leuchter Report: The How and the Why," 
JHR, Vol. 9 #2. 

LEUCHTER, Fred A., "Witch Hunt in Boston," JHR, Vol. 10 #4. 

LILIENTHAL, Alfred M., "Zionism and American Jews," JHR, Vol. 2 


LINDBERGH, Charles A., "Hideki Tojo's Prison Diary - War and Peace: 
Two Historic Speeches," JHR, Vol. 12 #1. 

LUTTON, Charles, "Review Article - Stalin's War: Victims and Accom- 
plices," JHR, Vol. 5 #11. 

LUTTON, Charles C, "The Miracle of Dunkirk Reconsidered," JHR, 
Vol. 2 #4. 

LUTTON, Charles C, "Death From On High," JHR, Vol. 1 #3. 

MARCHETTI, Victor, "Propaganda and Disinformation: How the CIA 
Manufactures History," JHR, Vol. 9 #3. 

MARTIN, James J., "Raphael Lemkin and the Invention of 'Genocide,' " 

JHR, Vol. 2 #1. 

MARTIN, James J., "A Good War It Wasn't," JHR, Vol. 10 #1. 

MARTIN, James J., "Beyond Year Zero: The Pursuit of Peace Through 
War," JHR, Vol. 5, #s 2,3,4. 

MARTIN, James J., "Knightley, Philip, 'The Second Oldest Profession: 
Spies and Spying in the Twentieth Century,' JHR, Vol. 8 #3. 

MARTIN, James J., "Other Days, Other Ways: American Book Censor- 
ship 1918-1945," JHR, Vol. 10 #2. 

MARTIN, James J., "The Pro-Red Orchestra Starts Tuning Up in the 
U.S.A. 1941," JHR, Vol. 6 #3. 

MATTOGNO, Carlo, "Auschwilz: A Case of Plagiarism," JHR, Vol. W 


MATTOGNO, Carlo, "Jean Claude Pressac and the War Refugee Board 

Report," JHR, Vol. 10 #4. 

MATTOGNO, Carlo, "The First Gassing at Auschwitz; Genesis of a 
Myth," JHR, Vol. 9 #2. 

MATTOGNO, Carlo, "The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews: Part 
II," JHR, Vol. 8 #3. 


MATTOGNO, Carlo, "The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews: Part 
I," JHR, Vol. 8 #2. 

MATTOGNO, Carlo, "Two False Testimonies from Auschwitz," JHR, 
Vol. 10 #1. 

MERRIAM, Ray, "The Malmedy Massacre and Trial," JHR, Vol. 2 #2. 

MERSON, Martin, "On the Treadmill to Truth," JHR, Vol. 8 #2. 

MIKI, Hideo, "Thoughts on the Military History of the Occupation of 
Japan," JHR, Vol. 9 #2. 

MOROX, Valentyn, "NationaUsm and Genocide: The Origin of the Arti- 
ficial Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine," JHR, Vol. 6 #2. 

NORDLING, Carl O., "The Jewish Establishment under Nazi Threat 
and Domination 1938-1945," JHR, Vol. 10 #2. 

O'KEEFE, Theodore J., "Alan Abrams, Special Treatment: The Untold 
Story of Hitler's Third Race," JHR, Vol. 7 #1. 

O'KEEFE, Theodore J., "Claude Lanzmann, Shoah (The Book)," JHR, 
Vol. 8 #1. 

O'KEEFE, Theodore J., "Sara Nomberg-Przytyk, Auschwitz: True Tales 
from a Grotesque Land," JHR, Vol. 7 #3. 

O'KEEFE, Theodore J., "Why Holocaust Revisionism?," JHR, Vol. 12, 


O'KEEFE, Theodore J., "Bradley R. Smith, Confessions of a Holocaust 

Revisionist," JHR, Vol. 8 #1. 

O'KEEFE, Theodore J., "A Secret Report by Jan Karski," JHR, Vol. 7 


O'KEEFE, Theodore J., "Carlos W. Porter, 'Made in Russia: The Holo- 
caust,' " JHR, Vol. 9 #1. 

O'KEEFE, Theodore J., "Irving on Churchill," JHR, Vol. 7 #4. 

OPPENHEIMER, Peter H., "From the Spanish Civil War to the Fall of 
France: Luftwaffe Lessons Learned and Apphed," JHR, Vol. 7 #2. 

OPPENHEIMER, Peter H., "The Sudentendeutsche Landsmannschaft," 
JHR, Vol. 7 #3. 

OTTEN, Herman, "Christianity, Truth and Fantasy: The Holocaust, His- 
torical Revisionism and Christians Today," JHR, Vol. 9 #3. 

PEEL, Peter H., "The Great Brown Scare: The Amerika-Deutscher Bund 
in the Thirties and the Hounding of Fritz JuHus Kuhn," JHR, Vol. 7 #4. 

PONSONBY, Aurther, "The Corpse Factory," JHR, Vol. 1 #2. 

POULLADA, Major, "Nordhausen-Dora Case," JHR, Vol. II #1. 


RASSINIER, Paul, "Rassinier to the 'Nation,' " JHR, Vol. 2 #4. 

REILLY, Janet, "Art Spiegelman, Maus: A Survivor's TaJe," JHR, Vol. 

7 #4. 

REMER, Otto Ernst, "My Role in Berlin on July 20, 1944," JHR, Vol. 


RIES, John M., "Big Business and the Rise of Hitler," JHR, Vol. 8 #3. 

RIES, John M., "Evan Burr Buckey, HilJer's Hometown: Linz, Austria, 
1908-1945," JHR, Vol. 9 #3. 

RIES, John M., "Francis R. Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine 
Question," JHR, Vol. 8, #3. 

RIES, John M., "Luc Rosenzweig and Bernard Cohen, Waldheim," JHR, 
Vol. 8 #2. 

RIES, John M., "Rudy Koshar, Social Life, Local Politics, and Nazism: 
Marburg, 1880-1935," JHR, Vol. 9 #1. 

RIGGENBACH, Jeff, "W.J. West, Editor, Orwell: The War Commen- 
taries," JHR, Vol. 7 #3. 

RONNETT, Alexander E. MD, BRADESCU, Faust, Ph.D., "The Le- 
gionary Movement in Romania," JHR, Vol. 7 #2. 

ROQUES, Henri, "From the Gerstein Affair to the Roques Affair," JHR, 
Vol. 8 #1. 

ROW, Robert, "Sir Oswald Mosley: Briton, Fascist, European," JHR, 
Vol. 5 #s 2,3,4. 

SANNING, Walter N., "Soviet Scorched-Earth Warfare," JHR, Vol. 6 


SELESHKO, M., "Vinnytsia— the Katyn of Ukraine," JHR, Vol. 1 #4. 

SMITH, Bradley R., "Shoah: Abramham Bomba, the Barber," JHR, Vol. 

7 #2. 

SMITH, Dennis Nayland, "Ernst Topitsch, Stahn's War: A Radical New 
Theory of the Origins of the Second World War," JHR, Vol. 8 #2. 

STAEGLICH, Wilheim, "Der Auschwitz Mythos: A Book and Its Fate," 
JHR, Vol. #1. 

STAEGLICH, Wilheim, "West German Justice and the So-Ca!led Na- 
tional Socialist Violent Crimes," JHR, Vol. 2 #3. 

STAEGLICH, Wilheim, "Historians Wrangle over the Destruction of 
European Jewry," JHR, Vol. 7 #2. 

STEIN, Howard F., "The Holocaust and the Myth of the Past as His- 
tory," JHR, Vol. 1 #4. 


STIMELY, Keith, "A Bibliography of Works on and Relating to Oswald 
Mosley and British Fascism," JHR, Vol. 5 #s 2,3,4. 

STRANG, John P., "Richard Drinnon, Keeper of Concentration Camps: 
Dillon S. Meyer and American Racism," JHR, Vol. 8 #2. 

TAYLOR, Samuel, "The Challenge of 'Multiculturalism' In How Ameri- 
cans View the Past and the Future," JHR, Vol. 12, #2. 

THOMPSON, H. Keith, "John Phillips, It Happened in Our Lifetime," 
JHR, Vol. 7 #3. 

THOMPSON, H. Keith, "Otto Ernst Remer, Verschworung and Verrat 
urn Hitier: Urteil des Frontsoldaten," JHR, Vol. 8 #1. 

THOMPSON, H. Keith, "Robert Harris, Selling Hitler," JHR, Vol. 7 #4. 

TOLAND, John, "Living History," JHR, Vol. 2 #1. 

TONNINGEN, Florence S. Rest van, "For Holland and for Europe: The 
Life and Death of Dr. M.M. Rost van Tonningen," JHR, Vol. 9 #4. 

VERRALL, Richard (a/k/a HARWOOD, Richard), "Letters to the 
'New Statesman,' " JHR, Vol. 1 #2. 

WAINWRIGHT, Peter, "Fire in the Reichstag," JHR, Vol. 2 #2. 

WALENDY, Udo, "The Fake Photograph Problem," JHR, Vol. 1 #1. 

WARD, Arthur S. "John Keegan, The Second World War," JHR, Vol. 

10 #3. 

WARD, Arthur S., "Miron Dolot, Execution by Hunger: The Hidden 
Holocaust," JHR, Vol. 7 #2. 

WARD, Arthur S., "Patrick Beesiy, Room 40: British Naval Intelli- 
gence," JHR, Vol. 7#1. 

WARD, Arthur S., James Bacque, "Other Losses," JHR, Vol. 10 #2. 

WEBER, Charles E., "Ingrid Weckert, Feuerzeichen: Die Reichskristall- 
nacht: Anstifter und Brandstifter-Opfer und Nutziniesser," JHR, Vol- 8 


WEBER, Mark, "An Open Letter to the Rev. Mark Herbener," JHR, 
Vol. 8 #2. 

WEBER, Mark, "Buchenwald: Legend and ReaUty," JHR, Vol. 7 #4. 

WEBER, Mark, "Hitler's Declaration of War Against the United States," 
JHR, Vol. 8 #4. 

WEBER, Mark, "Joseph Sobran and Historical Revisionism," JHR, Vol. 

7 #3. 

WEBER, Mark, "My Role in the Zundel Trial," JHR, Vol. 9 #4. 
WEBER, Mark, "Reviewing a Year of Progress," JHR, Vol. 10 #4. 


WEBER, Mark, "Roosevelt's Secret Map Speech," JHR, Vol. 6 #1. 

WEBER, Mark, "Simon Wiesenthal: Bogus Nazi Hunter," JHR, Vol. 9 


WEBER, Mark, "Tell-tale Documents & Photos from Auschwitz," JHR, 

Vol. II #1. 

WEBER, Mark, "The Boer War Remembered," JHR, Vol. 1 #3. 

WEBER, Mark, "The Civil War Concentration Camps," JHR, Vol. 2 #2. 

WEBER, Mark, "The Japanese Camps in California," JHR, Vol. 2 #1. 

WEBER, Mark, "The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust," JHR, Vol. 

12, #2. 

WEBER, Mark, and ALLEN, Andrew, "Treblinka," JHR, Vol. 12, #2. 

WECKERT, Ingrid, "Crystal Night 1938: The Great Anti-German Spec- 
tacle," JHR, Vol 6 #2. 

WESSERLE, Andreas, "Bombs on Britain," JHR, Vol. 2 #4. 

WESSERLE, Andreas, "Allied War Crime Trials," JHR, Vol. 2 #2. 

WESSERLE, Andreas, "Death and Rebirth: European Political Observa- 
tions," JHR, Vol. 7 #4. 

WHISKER, James B., "Karl Marx: Anti-Semite," JHR, Vol. 5 #1. 

WIKOFF, Jack, "John W. Dower, War Without Mercy: Race and Power 
in the Pacific War," JHR, Vol. 7 #4. 

WIKOFF, Jack, "Hollywood Goes to War: How Politics, Profits & Prop- 
aganda Shaped World War II Movies," JHR, Vol. 8 #1. 

WIKOFF, Jack, "Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews 
Invented Hollywood," JHR, Vol. 9 #2. 

WIKOFF, Jack, "Sam Keen, Faces of the Enemy," JHR, Vol. 10 #4. 

WIKOFF, Jack, "Heckling Hitler: Caricatures of the Third Reich," JHR, 
Vol. 8 #2. 

WILLIAMS, Robert H., "The End of the Romanoffs," JHR, Vol. 10 #2. 

YOCKEY, Francis Parker, "On Propaganda in America," JHR, Vol. iO 


ZIECHMANN, W.K. v U., "John D. Treadway, The Falcon and the 

Eagle: Montenegro and Austria, 1908-1914," JHR, Vol. 7 #2. 



1. This protest was briefly mentioned in the mainstream media, and high- 
lighted in the far-right anti-Semitic press. It was not the only demonstration 
against the film, however. 

For example, on June 18, 1979, a group called Concerned Parents of German 
Descent protested in front of the West German consulate in Toronto, Canada. 
Holding placards stating "ZIONIST EXTORTION" and "STOP ANTI-GER- 
MAN HATE," the group not only targeted the film Holocaust, but also suggested 
that the West German government was an illegal entity established by the Allies 
as part of a plot by Zionists to extort money from the German people in reparation 
for a Holocaust that never occurred. 

The anti-Semitic groups did more than write and protest about the movie — 
they conducted a write-in campaign to NBC stations, urging them to refrain from 
airing the "Zionist propaganda film," as it was neither "entertainment" nor "in the 
public interest," and as the Holocaust was "fiction," according to James Warner's 
Christian Defense League. "Over 300,000 gentile Americans died fighting for 
JEWISH RIGHTS," according to a letter Warner sent all NBC affiliates in Janu- 
ary 1978. Writing that "it is a well known fact that CBS, NBC and ABC are owned 
and operated by Zionist Jews," Warner threatened that "CDL members in your 
community will also make sure LOCAL advertisers become aware of the pro- 
Zionist one sided stand of any station airing this program. A number of CDL 
members have also indicated their willingness to picket any station carrying this 
PROPAGANDA movie." (NBC answered Warner in a letter dated February 8, 
1978. "We cannot help but regard [your] claims as anti-Semitic," the letter read. 
"Your threats to oppose the renewal of license of the stations carrying the program 
need not be dignified with comment." Thereafter, Warner advertised in the March 


6, 1978, Spotlight for "Christian Attorneys . . . needed to file eomplaints against 
NBC affiliate stations airing 'Holocaust' propaganda film.") 

Some protesters were people who held important positions. Gerald Domi- 
trovic, a member of the Human Relations Board of Manhattan, Kansas, com- 
plained that the film Holocaust grossly misrepresented the number of Jews killed 
by the Nazis. He was asked to resign because of this statement and subsequent 
racist statements concerning blacks. 

2. Center for Democratic Renewal Weekly Update. July 13, 1992; JTA, July 8, 
1992, p. 4. 

3. JTA, Nov. 2, 1992, p. 2, quoting poll conducted by Demoskopea and 
published in L'Espresso. See also New York Times. Nov. 5, 1992. 

4. See IHR Newsletter #44, January 1987. "IHR CONFRONTS CON- 
GRESS," the article reads, noting JHR's "official testimony to the Elementary, 
Secondary and Vocational Education subcommittee of the Education and Labor 
Committee of the House of Representatives on May 6 [1986, re] H. Con. Res. 

5. According to William H. Chafe, chairman of the history department at 
Duke University, "Scholarly revisionism is not concerned with the actuality of 
events, but only with interpretations of their causes and consequences" (quoted in 
the Chronicle of Higher Education 38 [Dec. U, 1991]: 10). For example, a revision- 
ist student of the Civil War might claim that some generally unappreciated societal 
forces helped determine the war's course in a certain manner. If someone claimed 
that the Civil War did not take place at all, but was rather a hoax, he or she would 
be a denier, not a revisionist. 

6. IHR Newsletter #74, July/ August 1990. Many right-wing anti-Semitic 
publications routinely promote Holocaust denial among their litany of anti-Se- 
mitic vitriol. James Warner's Christian Defense League and Ed Field's The Truth 
at Last (formerly the Thunderbolt) are two of the most prolific producers of denial 
material. But compared to the IHR, both pale in quality, quantity, and subterfuge; 
only the IHR tries to hide its overt joy at hating Jews. 

7. Deniers also exploit the fact that some people erroneously believe that 
Dachau was an extermination camp rather than a concentration camp. When 
Dachau was liberated, many GIs were shown a gas chamber, and told that people 
were killed there. Historians believe that that chamber was not used. If witnesses 
could be wrong about what they saw in one camp, the deniers argue, why not in 
the others? Deniers ignore the fact that the same scholars who determined that 
Dachau had no active gas chambers determined that Auschwitz and others in 
Poland did. As historian Deborah Lipstadt notes: "In the early 60s, scholars who 
studied the Holocaust put the lie to that notion. They said 'This is not true. There 
may have been a gas chamber there, but it was never used to annihilate thousands 
of people.' The point to be made, the one that I make very strongly all the time, 
was, sure there were mistakes, and are mistakes even today, in certain aspects of 
Holocaust research — and that's why we're all studying it, that why we're all trying 
to understand better, what happened. To get a better handle on it" (interview with 
Deborah Lipstadt, 1992). (Quotes from Lipstadt throughout this book, unless 
noted otherwise, are from this interview.) 


8. Some deniers (such as engineer William B. Lindsey, who has spoken at 
annual conferences of the Institute for Historical Review) claim not only that no 
one was ever killed by Zyklon-B, but that the Nazis used the gas to save Jews. 
"Survivors," Lindsey said, "who recaJl the fumigation chambers as deadly gas 
chambers probably have the pesticide to thank for the fact that they Uvcd to tell 
the tale." 

9. One Holocaust denier, Michael A. Hoffman 11, has taken on the issue of 
slavery. Hoffman, who was once associated with Willis Carto and the Institute for 
Historical Review, now publishes a newsletter called the Researcher under the 
imprint Wiswell Ruffin House. His book. They Were White and They Were 
Slaves— The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America, treats 
such topics as "A Holocaust Against the White Poor," "White Slaves Treated 
Worse than Blacks," and "Dutch Jews and the White Slave Trade." 

10. Quotes from Gerry Gable throughout this book are from an interview the 
author conducted with him in 1992. 

11. According to Dawidowicz, in the i960s "even the neo-Nazis in Germany 
were circumspect . . . not daring lo deny the facts of mass murder altogether but 
simply minimizing them" {Lucy Dawidoviicz, "Lies About the Holocaust," Com- 
mentary. December 1980). 

12. Ibid. 

13. According lo Dawidowicz, Hoggan's work also appeared in Germany in 
I96I- An American, Hoggan's work had first been a "Harvard doctoral disserta- 
tion done in 1948, but it was revised, expanded, and Nazified in the ensuing years" 
(Dawidowicz, "Lies About the Holocaust"). 

14. David McCalden, a leading Holocaust denier who worked with Carto to 
establish the IHR, said, "Carto wants a national socialist dictatorship in the 
United States" {Los Angeles Times. May 3, 1981). Carto wrote that "Hitler's 
defeat was the defeat of Europe. And of America" (see Linda Gordon Kuzmack, 
The Hate Business: Anti-Semitism in America [New York: Franklin Watts, 1993]). 

15. The Liberty Lobby is America's largest anti-Semitic organization. It pub- 
lishes a weekly paper. Spotlight, with a circulation of approximately 100,000. 

16. Lucy S. Dawidowicz, in one of the first major articles about Holocaust 
denial, demonstrated the technique frequently used by deniers to distort history 
through half truths and quotes taken out of context. In "Lies About the Holo- 
caust," she used The Myth of the Six Million as an example: "Benedikt Kautsky, 
an Austrian socialist, had been interned in Buchenwald and was later a slave 
laborer in Auschwitz. In his memoirs, Teufel und Verdammie, Kautsky wrote: 

I should now like briefly to refer to the gas chambers. Though I did not see 
them myself, they have been described to me by so many trustworthy people 
that i have no hesitation in reproducing their testimony. 

The neo-Nazis cite Kautsky, with the appropriate bibliographical references in- 
cluding the correct page number, but falsify the passage so that he appears to 
corroborate their claim that there were no gas chambers." 

17. Dawidowicz wrote: "The first — and still the only — revisionist work on 


World War II by a reputable historian was AJ.P. Taylor's mischievous book, The 
Origins of the Second World War (1961). There Taylor argued that Hitler had not 
planned a general war, that the conflict, far from being premeditated, was 'a 
mistake, the result on both sides of diplomatic blunders' " ("Lies About the 

Years later Warren B. Morris, whose doctorate Dawidowicz termed "from 
Oklahoma State University on a minor 19th-century German diplomat," wrote 
The Revisionist Historians and German War Guilt. "Morris," Dawidowicz wrote, 
"set himself the task of determining who was right— the 'revisionists' or the 
'traditionalists' — on such matters as the Destruction of the European Jews, aspects 
of Hitler's foreign policy, and the legitimacy of the Nuremberg trials. 

"He rejected Butz et al., but noted that 'Even if the "revisionists" ' had failed 
'to prove their most important arguments,' he wrote, 'by forcing historians to 
reconsider their evaluation of Nazi policy toward Jews,' they have 'indeed done a 
very valuable service to scholarship.' 

". . . The June 1980 issue of the American Historical Review, the journal of the 
American Historical Association, the preeminent professional organization of 
American historians, published a respectful review of Morris' book" (ibid.). 

18. See Samuel Rabinove, "Skokie and the First Amendment," Keeping 
Posted. February 1979, p. 20. 

19. Other anti-Semitic groups are marketing similar material as well. For only 
$20, one can buy a "Holocaust Pack," described as follows: "This four (4) tape 
university level course is meant for beginners as well as the advanced student of 
this newly formed religion. Why did the holocaust figure start oif as twelve (12) 
million and then end up cut in half to six (6) million? Where did Hitler get the six 
(6) million to kill when he only had six hundred thousand (600,000) in his grasp? 
Where are the six (6) million skeletons buried? Where are all the ashes? If four (4) 
million were killed at Auschwitz, the remains should be buried nearby. Bones, 
ashes or something. The jews claimed in the Jewish Encyclopedia that there were 
some fifteen (15) million jews in 1938, and in 1947 they claimed they had upped 
their number to eighteen ( 1 8) million. IMPOSSIBLE! If Hitler killed six (6) million 
jews between 1938 & 1945 that means the jews would have had to give birth to nine 
(9) million babies in less than eight (8) years! And we are supposed to believe they 
did ail this while being worked to death and gassed all at the same time. Come on, 
give me a break. Hey I MAY LOOK TIRED. BUT I'M NOT ASLEEP. Send for 
your set today and lets settle this matter once and for all. " 

20. Quotes from Leonard Zeskind throughout are from an interview the au- 
thor conducted with him in 1992. 

21. Gerry Gable, editor oi Searchlight, notes that "Money doesn't seem to be 
a problem" for Holocaust deniers who are busy meeting with each other, and 
traveling all over the world. 

"I think the movements in Europe now are self-supporting," Gable says. 
"We're looking at something very carefully — the laundering of money that's re- 
ceived legally, and it's being laundered on to the more illicit groups. ... In 
Scandinavia, Germany, Poland, they're robbing, big ones. In Sweden, 6-7 million 
dollars worth in a year. Also lots of small robberies in what was East Germany, 


Poland, all the East European area, racketeering, skinheads trading ecstasy and 
LSD and this kind of stuff." 

22. Historian Debrorah Lipstadt comments: "When I first started to work on 
this, people would look at me like i said I was working on flat earth theorists. We 
thought it would go away. Give it a little time, and it will go away. It hasn't gone 
away, and it's not going to go away. And I think we have to understand that. I 
don't think we have to run out and panic, and say, oh my God, the sky is falling. 
But we have to recognize that it is a very real thing, and that it's aiming at the 
college campus, because these are young and susceptible kids." 

23. In a second report, Leuchter claims to have visited Dachau, Mauthausen 
and Hartheim Castle. Denying the gas chambers at Hartheim Castle, Leuchter 
targets the Nazi "euthanasia" program, which was a first lest of the Nazi gassing 
of people, in this case the mentally handicapped, who were deemed unworthy of 

Chapter 1 

1. The Denver Post of March 10, 1991 reported: "Dorothy Groteluschen was 
an English teacher. She was giving a lesson on the placement of adjective clauses, 
and read from a textbook that said: 'The photographs that she [Margaret Bourke 
White] took near the end of the war of the Nazi prison camp at Buchenwald serve 
as a grim memorial to the victims of the Holocaust.' 

"Court documents say Groteluschen told students, 'Now there is a reminder 
of the Holocaust even in the grammar book,' adding that there is historical 
disagreement about the Holocaust. 'Some say Holocaust, some say holohoax.' 

". . . Her defense was 1 have for years automatically exposed my students to 
the other side of controversial issues, such as evolution and abortion. . . . p"he 
Holocaust is] a taboo topic, and I did not realize how taboo the topic was . . . No 
reputable historian today is going to say that nothing happened. . . . What the 
argument is over is the six million deaths.' " 

2. "Swindlers of the Crematoria" argued that "Some of the propaganda 
claims devoted to supporting the 6 million figure, which is not provable from any 
reliable source, are absurd. . . . The truth is more Hkely that the Jews said to have 
been exterminated, and truthfully no longer to be found in central Europe . . . 
found new homes for themselves in Israel and especially in the United States." 

3. Groteluschen was initially reprimanded by the district for her expressions, 
which were termed "highly offensive to Jews and to others and are not adequately 
supported by fact." She was also removed from her job as department head. In 
1988, however, an arbitrator ruled that she should be reinstated and given back 
pay. The Aurora Board of Education rejected that ruling, but ultimately settled. 
According to news reports the district was more concerned with the cost of 
Htigation than holding to principle. The Institute for Historical Review com- 
mented: "Within two weeks [after the complaint] the boys in the white yarmulkes 
were riding to the rescue" (IHR Newsleiter, April 1991). 

4. The Jewish Advocate reported, on Jan. 18, 1991: "As of January 1, Illinois 


law mandates the teaching of the Holocaust in the public schools. Although some 
other states, notably New Jersey, have vigorously encouraged Holocaust educa- 
tion where teachers volunteered, Illinois became the first to mandate it. 

"The law reads in part: 'Holocaust Study. Every public elementary school and 
high school shall include in its curriculum a unit of instruction studying the events 
of the Nazi atrocities of 1933 to 1945. This period in world history is known as the 
Holocaust, during which 6,000,000 Jews and miUions of non-Jews were exter- 
minated. The studying of this material is a reaffirmation of the commitment of free 
peoples from all nations to never again permit the occurrence of another Holo- 

"... A father and mother have ordered their daughter, a good student, not 
to attend class while Night [Elie Wiesers classic book about the Holocaust] is being 

taught and discussed The parents — and those who back them — have sent more 

than 6,000 letters to the parents of the school district, all communications-media 
outlets, public officials of community and state, and teachers — calling the Holo- 
caust a 'myth.' They charge the school and the teachers with 'poHtical intimida- 
tion' in 'perpetuating a fraudulent tale' of gas chambers and other horrors, since 
'it can be adequately demonstrated that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz." 

"The parents charge the Holocaust story was Allied war propaganda, 'per- 
petuated by the Jews' after the war." 

5. "Holocaust Revisionism Scandal Unfolds at Indiana University," JTA, 
Feb. 23, 1990, p. 1. See also Deborah E. Lipstadt, "Deniers, Relativists, and 
Pseudo-Scholarship," Dimensions 6 (1991): 6. 

6. IHR Newsletter #81, July/August 1991, p. 8. Even some nonprofcssors 
have been distributing Holocaust-denying material. At the University of Texas, 
James Braezeealc, a physician at the student health center for over a quarter of a 
century, has been distributing the IHR's Journal of Historical Review (IHR News- 
letter #88, July/August 1992). 

7. Dawidowicz, "Lies About the Holocaust," p. 34. As Yale psychiatrist 
Walter Reich wrote in the May 3, 1981, Washington Post. "If the revisionist are 
successful in rendering the Holocaust just another matter of debate, then no piece 
of history is safe ... all human experience is conveniently subject to ideological 
interpretation or wishful negation, and we become nothing more than what we 

8. Actually, an uproar about Holocaust denial had occurred in campus pa- 
pers before Smith targeted them. As Jerry Stanley notes in Midstream, April 1988, 
pp. 22-23, "In December, 1984, Joe Fields, a self-proclaimed anti-Zionist at 
Harbor College, endorsed the Holocaust-as-myth idea in the Harbor College 
Hawk, triggering a vote of censure from the trustees and dismissal of the newspa- 
per's faculty advisor." 

Campus papers that ran Smith's ad either as an ad or in editorial fonn 
included Duke, Cornell, Howard, Michigan, Northwestern, and Rutgers. Among 
those who declined to run the ad were UCLA, Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, Brown, 
University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Wisconsin. (Howard refused to 
ran a second ad after being informed of Smith's real purposes.) 

This ad campaign was not the first for the deniers. The Institute for Historical 


Review submitted an advertisement for one of its books in the Winter 1984 edition 
of the German Quarterly, the periodica! of the American Association of Teachers 
of German. The AATG's executive council thereafter passed a resolution rejecting 
"material that is anti-Semitic or that can be construed as an apology for Nazism," 
and tightened its procedures for accepting advertisements. 

The IHR has also used its prestigious-sounding name and slick-looking Jour- 
nal of Historical Review to trick other historical associations into giving IHR their 
mailing lists. In 1983, both the American Historical Association and Central 
European History (a journal published at Emory University) mistakenly allowed 
the IHR access to their mailing lists, as had the Journal of Modern History and the 
University of Chicago Press two years earlier. (The Organization of American 
Historians also provided the IHR with its mailing list in 1980. Unlike the other 
associations, OAH apparently did not regret doing so, believing that it should not 
censor its mailing lists, that its members could tell truth from fiction, and that it 
would be a service for hs members to see this "trash." As one member wrote in 
the OAH Newsletter. 8:2 [1980]: "The JHR arrived shortly after the end of my class 
[on the Christian Resistance in Nazi Germany] and 1 circulated it to members of 
the class as proof that the Holocaust revisionist movement is alive and well. 
[Earlier the class had found it hard to believe that there were people who denied 
the Holocaust happened.] I think it was important for my students to know about 
and to know the flaws in the JHR logic") 

9. Interestingly, there seems to be internal disagreement among some revi- 
sionists, who are not willing to "debate" their differences of opinion. Michael 
Holfman, who used to work with the Institute for Historical Review, and now 
publishes his own Researcher, wrote: " 'Holocaust' revisionists have refused to 
debate Charles Provan of the Christian News. 1 was astonished when Friedrich P. 
Berg, the distinguished engineer and revisionist technical expert, announced that 
he would not debate Provan unless he made "two small" grammatical concessions 
to Berg. 

"I first became curious about revisionist claims and indignant toward the 
official line, when I learned that orthodox historians refused to debate the revision- 
ists. What do they fear? What are they trying to hide? Refusal to debate suggests 
a lack of confidence in one's ability to win a free debate. All of these thoughts went 
through my mind all the time and frankly they also come up when one learns that 
a leading revisionist and member of the IHR Advisory Board refused to debate 
unless his learned opponent concedes in advance that he doesn't understand the 
English language! 

"For years the IHR was spoiUng for a debate with all comers. Most recently 
they challenged attorney Alan Dershowitz and made much of his refusal. Yet 
nothing is being made of Fritz Berg's refusal to debate Charles Provan. 

"I have studied Provan's research on the gas vans at some length and while 
I am not a t«;hnical expert, in lieu of what might have been a very cogent debate 
rejoinder from Fritz Berg, I am compelled to state that as a result of Provan's 
work, I believe . . . that the Jews were very likely exterminated at Treblinka and 
Chebnno, though I continued to doubt that Auschwitz and the centers in the "Old 
Reich" were anything more than labor camps. 


"Revisionists have a golden opportunity in Charles Provan. They can debate 
him in their own forums and either defeat his propositions or incorporate those 
that are valid, thus strengthening their position; or they may proceed as they have, 
very much like their opponents in the functionalist and intentionalist schools of 
'Holocaust' historiography, jealously guarding an inflexibly fixed turf against 
revision, a process which disqualifies them as revisionists" {Researcher 3 [1992]). 

10. Yehuda Bauer, the head of Hebrew University's Holocaust history de- 
partment, has said that the technology for making soap from human fat was not 
known during World War II, but that rumors of Nazis making soap were wide- 
spread, and had even been circulated during World War I, regarding British 
troops. Bauer said that the Nazis were not displeased that the camp inmates 
believed the soap story. 

Professor Raoul Hilberg noted that "There were all kinds of rumors" that 
turned out to be untrue, including one that Jews were given deadly injections 
before deportation, or were killed by electrocution, or were gassed in trains. 

Hilberg has also said that in Gdansk, Poland, a receipe for rendering soap and 
pictures of people cut into pieces were found at the Slutthof camp, "but we don't 
know that the bodies were of Jews, or that the pictures and the recipe went 
together" {JTA, Apr. 24, 1990, p. 4). 

1 1 . From an Institute for Historical Review flier for Bill Grimstad's The Six 
Million Reconsidered. 

12. Chronicle of Higher Education 38 (Jan. 8, 1992): 6. 

13. At Duke University, where the Chronicle published Smith's ad, all the 
members of the Duke history department joined in running another ad, stating: 
"The Chronicle editors make a serious error when they confuse Holocaust deniers 
with historical revisionists. Whatever one thinks of the right of The Chronicle to 
accept this advertisement, as historians we deplore this effort to use the language 
of 'scholarship' to distort and obliterate an event which to our everlasting shame 
did occur. We urge all members of the Duke community to treat such advertise- 
ments with the contempt they deserve." 

14. College newspapKjrs are, and should be, editorially independent entities. 
Yet they speak in the "name" of a university. It is essential that if a paper prints 
something hateful, other voices on campus, especially the leadership, must also be 
heard, and heard forcefully. When the University of Georgia's The Red and Black 
ran Bradley Smith's ad. President Charles B. Knapp issued a statement that was 
widely disseminated. "The First Amendment," the statement read in part, "guar- 
anteed the editors' right to accept the ad: it also guaranteed their right to reject it. 
This ad, so full of misstatement of fact, is deeply offensive to the victims of the 
Holocaust and to the University of Georgia community. The Holocaust is as 
indisputable an historical fact as World War II. The acceptance and publication 
of this ad purveying such blatant falsehood has brought unnecessary pain and 
suflering to the Holocaust victims, their families and all caring people." 

Another effective response is lo hold a university-sponsored ceremony, such 
as a name-reading of Holocaust victims. 9,000 names were read at Northwestern 
University on Holocaust Remembrance Day in 1991. 150 volunteers read the 
names between 8 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. 


15. Deniers have targeted American talk-radio programs since 1979. Lucy 
Dawidowicz wrote: "While I was writing this article, a man associated with the 
Larry King radio show, a national network program, called to ask if I would 
debate with Faurisson. When I replied indignantly that Faurisson should not be 
provided with a platform for his monomania, the man mildly inquired why I was 
against discussing 'controversial' matters on the radio. I in turn asked him if he 
thought the murder of the European Jews was a 'controversial' matter. Had it not 
been established to his satisfaction as a historical fact? 'I don't know,' he answered. 
'I wasn't around at the time' " ("Lies About the Holocaust"). 

16. This was AJC's second successful effort to counter bigotry, including 
Holocaust denial, on the airwaves. In 1987 the AJC monitored local radio stations 
through its membership in over 30 chapters. 

17. IHR Newsletter. April 1991. Also, in 1992, David Wayfied of Tisbury, 
Massachusetts, sued the town for raising his property taxes, which, he claimed, 
was due in part to retaliation for his efforts to have the local library add Holocaust- 
denying books to its collection (Spotlight. Aug, 17, 1992, p. 28). 

18. Journal of Historical Review. Apr. 16, 1981, supplement. 

19. Jerry Stanley, "History on Trial," Midstream, April 1988, p. 23. 

20. Ron Csillag, "Witness for the Defense: The Neo-Nazis Were Saying the 
Holocaust Was a Hoax. Mel Mermelstein Set Them Straight," Inside, Winter 
1989, p. 127. See also Mei Mermelstein, By Bread Alone— The Story of A-4685 
(Huntington Beach, Cal.: Auschwitz Study Group, 1979). 

21. Oct. 10, 1981, p. A3. 

22. Mermelstein also sued the Swedish Holocaust denier Ditlieb Fclderer for 
the emotional distress suffered from Felderer's claim that Mermelstein "was ped- 
dling the exterminationist hoax." A Los Angeles jury awarded Mermelstein $5.2 
miUion in damages {New York Times. Jan. 18, 1986, p. 11). 

23. JTA, Aug. IJ, 1991. 

24. Buchanan wrote: "The problem is— diese! engines do not emit enough 
carbon monoxide to kill anybody. In 1988, 97 kids, trapped 400 feet underground 
in a Washington, D.C. tunnel while two iocomotives spewed diesel exhaust in the 
car, emerged unharmed after 45 minutes. Demjanjuk's weapon of mass murder 
cannot kill." 

"The problem is," wrote Mark Lasswell in GQ about Buchanan's claim, 
"diesel engines don't need to emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody; they 
emit more than enough nitrogen and carbon dioxide to kill with great efficiency. 
The net effect is the same because of a lack of oxygen." And as the New Republic 
pointed out, "carbon monoxide emitted by diesel engines is sufficient to asphyxiate 
people when they are crammed by the hundreds into thirteen-foot chambers. 
. . . Suffocation at Treblinka took as much as half an hour; Buchanan's comparison 
only proves that the children he describes had sufficient oxygen to survive whatever 
length of lime they were Irapped in the tunnel." 

Buchanan has written about Hitler: "Though Hitler was indeed racist and 
anli-Semilic to the core, a man who without compunction committed murder and 
genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in the Great 
War, a political organizer of the first rank, a leader steeped in the history of 


Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised 
him. But Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius 
was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness mas- 
querading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his 
path." See Kenneth Stern, Backgrounder: Patrick Joseph Buchanan (New York: 
American Jewish Committee, 1990). 

25. The American Party, founded by Alabama governor George Wallace for 
his presidential run in 1968, ran Tom Anderson for president in 1972. Anderson 
"repeatedly denied that Hitler exterminated six million Jews during the Holo- 
caust," according to Linda Gordon Kuzmack, The Hate Business: Anti-Semitism 
in America (New York: Frankhn Watts, 1993). 

26. Quotes from Elizabeth Rickey throughout arc from an interview the 
author conducted with her in 1992. 

27. Jeffries had given a speech in Albany, New York, in 1991, in which he 
accused Jews of "control over the movies," which they used to "put together a 
system of destruction of black people," and as the driving force behind the African 
slave trade. See Kenneth Stern, Dr. Jeffries and the Anti-Semitic Branch of the 
Afrocentrism Movement (New York: American Jewish Committee, 1991). 

28. Black soldiers— who were segregated in the military — took part in the 
liberation of some camps. As the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 
notes, "African American GIs were present at and/or immediately after the libera- 
tion of Buchenwald concentration camp. These soldiers were reconnaissance and 
intelligence troops who were attached to the 1 83rd Engineer Combat Battalion. 
On the basis of documentary evidence in the National Archives, we can also say 
with certainty that [the] 761st Tank Battalion — an all-black unit — was involved in 
the liberation of Giinskirchcn, a subcamp of the Mauthausen concentration 
camp." US Holocaust Memorial Museum Statement of Evidence: Black Libera- 
tors, November 6, 1992. 

"Liberators" is a military designation given to divisions (and the units at- 
tached thereto) that entered camps within the hrsl 48 hours. Other black .soldiers 
were in the camps in the days following liberation, and were also part of the 
liberation process (most camps were actually hberated when the guards fled at the 
sound of artillery and soldiers in the distance). Unfortunately, some controversy 
threatens to detract from the heroics of the all-black units. The documentary film 
Liberators claimed that the 761st entered Dachau and Buchenwald, an assertion 
that some members of the unit and experts refute. Both veterans and survivors 

insist upon accuracy in relating their stories -inaccuracies, such as these, only 

serve as grist for the propaganda mills of the deniers. 

29. Sec Kenneth Stern, Farrakhan and Jews in the 1990s (New York: Ameri- 
can Jewish Comrailtce, 1992). 

30. Chicago Sun Times, 1984. 

31. The Nation of Islam has published a sophisticated piece of hate entitled 
The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. See Stern, Farrakhan and Jews 
in the 1990s. 

32. Amsterdam News, Dec. 28, 1991. 


Chapter 2 

L QuotesfromDeborahLipstadt are from an interview the author conducted 
with her in 1992. 

2. Quotes from Zeskind throughout are from an interview the author con- 
ducted with him in 1992. 

3. One exception to the trend is in Bulgaria. Even though Bulgaria was 
aligned with Nazi Germany, King Boris III was able to save Bulgaria's Jews from 
deportation to the death camps. The postwar communist government took credit 
for the rescue of Bulgaria's Jews. New publications are giving credit where it is due: 
to King Boris III. Sec Antisemitism: World Report 1992 (London: Institute of 
Jewish Affairs, 1992), p. 45. 

4. Quoted in institute for Historical Review pamphlet advertising 10th con- 

5. Allyn Fischer, "How Many Died? Glasnot May Reveal Holocaust Secrets 
as Israeli Researchers Comb Soviet Files," Jewish Week, Dec. 8, 1989, p. 3. 

6. According to the September 1982 IHR Newsletter, a German-language 
edition of a Spotlight report was translated by the IHR, and 40,000 copies were 
shipped to Germany. Tom Marcellus, IHR's director, when asked about the IHR's 
purpose in so doing, "replied thai it appears that [Germany] would be a good 
market for revisionist material." 

7. Holocaust-denying material can be found in neo-Nazi publications such as 
Nationalzeituug, Neue Nation, Jirnge Freiheit. and Hisloriche Tatsachen {Antisemit- 
ism: World Report 7992, p. 19). 

8. In March 1992, a "European Revisionist Conference" was scheduled for 
Munich. According to Spotlight, the anti-Semitic weekly of the Liberty Lobby, 
"First the government cancelled the event. Then ... it was suddenly OK again. But 
the museum where the conference was to take place broke its contract . . . Organiz- 
ers were, however, able to obtain permission to hold a rally outside the museum." 
Speakers included the American Mark Weber of the institute for Historical Re- 
view, the British David Irving, the French Robert Faurisson, and the American 
Fred Leuchtcr, who called the Munich police "very cooperative." According to 
Spotlight, the poHce "allowed the rally to continue for some two hours, breaking 
it up only after a few 'skinheads' showed up on one side of the crowd and began 
trading insults with a few protestors on the other side." 

9. Spotlight, June 15, 1992. The article, "Britain Honors Genocidal Bomber," 
notes that the British erected a statue to Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris. Anti- 
British animus is a mainstay of many deniers. 

10. JTA, Aug. 18, 1992, p. 4. 

11. New York Times, Nov. 3, 1 99 1, p. 16. 

12. JTA, Aug. 18, 1992, p. 4. 

13. JTA, Sept. 1, 1992, p. 4. 

14. New York Times. Oct. 25, 1992, p. 12. 

15. Erich Kulka, "Another Face of Anti-Semitism: Denying the Shoah," p. 
24. Noite also has written, "Was not possibly the class murder of the Bolsheviks 
the predecessor of the racial murders?'^ (ibid.) 


16. Gill Seidel, The Holocaust Denial: Antisemitism, Racism and the New 
Right (Leeds: Beyond The Pale Collective, 1986), pp. 122-123. 

17. IHR Newsletter #69, November 1989, p. 3. The IHR Newsletter of June/ 
July 1992 claims that all references to extermination camps were deleted from the 
latest edition of /f(7/er J War. Michael HoflFman's /fejearcfte/-, however, claims that 
some references were left in, but notes that Irving's recent speeches claim that there 
were no extermination camps {Researcher 3:12 [1992]: 5). 

18. IHR Newsletter #88, July/August 1992, p. 3. 

19. See David A. Jodice, United Germany and Jewish Concerns: Attitudes 
Toward Jews. Israel, and the Holocaust (New York: American Jewish Committee, 

20. Attacks by neo-Nazis on immigrants are becoming commonplace in Ger- 
many. The British publication Searchlight has monitored the neo-Nazis carefully. 
Below is an excerpt from Searchlight's June 1992 issue, pp. 15-16, detailing neo- 
Nazi activities for April 1992: 

I April, DACHAU. A howling mob of fascist Repubhkaner members 
try physically to disrupt a visit by Polish president Lech Walesa to the site 
of the former Nazi concentration camp. 

3 April, ERFURT. Marauding Nazi skinheads bum out car belonging 
to Vietnamese. POTSDAM. A fascist gang severely beats a Cuban in full 
view of passers-by. JENA. Fascists wreck car belonging to a Libyan tourist. 
On the same evening, 20 Nazis board a train and attack passengers. A 
20-year-old woman is seriously injured. 

4 April, DRESDEN. 1 ,000 Nazis, carrying Imperial war flags and giving 
Hitler salutes, march through the city centre after painting swastikas on the 
Lenin monument. . . . The march is loudly applauded by by-standers. The 
march breaks assurances given last year by Dresden mayor Wagner to the 
Jewish community that no further Nazi marches would be allowed. 

6 April, STRUVENBERG in Brandenburg. Police find the body of a 
35-year-old Bulgarian asylum seeker. His throat has been cut. He had 
disappeared on 27 March. On the same day Nazis launched three attacks on 
foreigners in town. 

7 April, BONN. Death threats against Liberal politicians Burkhard 
Hirsch and Gerhardt Baum, addressed to "the Jews Baum and Hirsch." 

8 April, BERLIN. Nazi skinheads seriously injure a 54-year-old man 
who dared to argue with them. FRANKFURT AN DER ODER. Fifty 
neo-Nazis, giving Nazi salutes and chanting "Heil Hitler," "Poles out," and 
"Germany for the Germans," demonstrate at German-Polish frontier cross- 

II April, TREUENBRIETZEN, [former] East Berlin. Fifteen racists 
blitz refugee hostel, smashing windows and entry door as well as damaging 
a car. FRANKFURT AN DER ORDER. Fascists attack leftist youths in 
Mikado youth club. 

12 April, BERLIN. Nazi boncheads run riot in [former] East Berlin, 

hurling beer bottles at passersby and police. Three policemen injured. 

14 April, BERLIN. Racist youths attack and badly injure three foreign- 
ers at [former] East Berlin's Warschauer Bru S-bahn station. WER- 
NIGERODE. Monument to anti-fascist resistance fighters daubed and 

17 April, BERLIN. Nazi youths board S-bahn train and set upon Leba- 
nese refugee, assault hira and try to hurl him out of the moving train. 

18 April, WITTENBERG. Nazi skins rampage through Wittenberg, 
armed with baseball bats and axes and smashing the windows of a local pub. 
Six guests injured. GREIBEN. Shouting Nazi slogans, 40 fascist youths 
storm pub which had refused them entry and wound three guests. HAL- 
BERSTADT. Memorial to Jewish victims of Nazism daubed with swastikas 
and Reich eagles and badly damaged by neo-Nazis only a week after being 
unveiled. SCHWERIN. Nazis assault a Russian army officer and two rela- 
tives, one a pregnant woman. 

19 April. SCHWERIN. Neo-Nazis run riot in local community of Jamel, 
prompting mayor Fritz Kalf to call for a local mihtia to be built for self- 
defense against fascists. He is denounced by the Meckleburg-West Pomer- 
ania Interior Minister "for taking the law into his hands." Police arc now 
investigating him for possession of a shotgun. 

20 April, DRESDEN. Sixty neo-Nazis arrested when about to stage a 
Hitler-birthday celebration in public. GRANSEE. Nazi skins and other 
Nazi youths, wielding axes and clubs, launch violent attacks on several local 
pubs. ORANIENBURG. Nazi skin troop marches through town, attacking 
young people. QUEDLINBURG. More than 100 Nazis attack passers-by 
and smash pub windows. Later they march through the town centre with 
swastika flags. MAGDEBURG. Neo-Nazis try lo storm squatter house. 
BERLIN. Nazi arrested as he throws bag of excrement over memorial to 
Jews in city's Tiergarten area. 

22 April, BERLIN. Fascist bomb attack on Turkish cemetery in the 
city's Tempelhof district. One person hghtly injured. 

24 April, BERLIN. Nguyen Van Tu, a 29~year-old Vietnamese guest- 
worker, dies after being stabbed by a racist in a crowded market place as 
people look on. The killer, a 21-ycar-old bonehead, is later arrested. 

25 April, WERNIGERODE. More than 500 Nazi skins lay siege to 
house owned by autonome groups. Several people injured as autonomes 
fight back. 

26 April, ESSEN. A refugee centre goes up in flames in racist arson 
attack. BERLIN. The historic Jewish cemetery in Weissensee is desecrated. 
More than 55 gravestones smashed. 

28 April, BAUTZEN. Thirty-strong Nazi stormtroop wrecks and tries 
to set fire to "red-light" club after owner refuses lo pay protection money. 

21. JTA, June 19, 1992, p. 3. 

22. JTA, Aug. 24, 1992, p. 3. 


23. Both the National Front and the more significant neo-Nazi British Na- 
tional Party promote Holocaust denial. The BNP prints and distributes a publica- 
tion entitled Holocaust News. 

24. Interestingly, his Convoy PQ17, which claimed that the destruction by 
German U-boats of British ships bound for the Soviet Union was the fault of a 
"scatter" order by a Royal Navy captain resulted in a libel suit. The captain was 
awarded damages. 

25. Despite the fact that historians have never accepted Irving's theories, he 
was provided respectful and thoughtful criticism. Philip Rubenstein notes that 
"serious historians Alan Bullock, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Eberdard Jackel and Mar- 
tin Broszat all reviewed the book — and all dismissed its methods and conclusions. 
Gerald Fleming wrote Hitler and the Final Solution, an exhaustive repudiation of 
Irving's theory. And a panel of distinguished Germans discussed (and hai^hly 
criticized) the book on German national television." Phihp Rubenstein, "'The 
Leuchter Report' in the United Kingdom," printed in Shelly Shapiro et al., eds.. 
Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust Denial— The End of "The Leuchter Report " 
(New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1991), p. 86. 

26. Quotes from Gable throughout are from an interview the author con- 
ducted with him in 1992. 

27. See IHR Newsletter #76, November 1990, p. 4. 

28. Rubenstein, "Leuchter Report in the United Kingdom." 

29. Even denier Michael Hoffman, who believes that Auschwitz was a myth, 
admits that "Jews were very Hkely exterminated at Treblinka and Chelmno" 
{Researcher yM[mi\. 5). 

30. Michael Winograd, "Elie Wiesel Ridiculed," Southern Israelite. Oct. 24, 

31. Searchlight. June 1992, p. 17. 

32. JTA, July 22, 1992, p. 3. The JTA story also notes that the journahst for 
the Italian magazine who interviewed Irving was Jewish, and that Irving said that 
"if he had known she [the journalist] was Jewish he would not have agreed to be 
interviewed by her." 

33. A genetic disease associated with Ashkenazi Jews. 

34. London Jewish Chronicle, Jan. 17, 1991, p. 1. 

35. Kulka, "Another Face of Anti-Semitism," p. 18. 

36. Ibid. 

37. Werner Cohn, The Hidden Alliances of Noam Chomsky (New York: 
Americans for a Safe Israel, 1988), p. 4. 

38. Paul Bennan explains how Karl Marx took this phrase from Hegel, who 
in turn borrowed it from Shakespeare. It means "the underground process of 
revolution": "our old friend, our old mole who knows how to work underground 
in order to appear suddenly: the revolution" (Paul L. Herman, "Gas Chamber 
Games: Crackpot Histor>' and the Right to Lie," Village Voice. June 10-16, 1991, 
pp. L 42). 

39. For example, a questionnaire asking whether people believed that Ger- 
mans made soap out of Auschwitz victims was mailed to families in Belgium 
("Neo-Nazi Questionnaire," JTA, May 31, 1987). 


40. See Cohn, Hidden Alliances, p. 3, referring to L'Express, Sept. 4, 1987. 

41. Ibid 

42. Pierre Guillaume, the force behind "The Old Mole," was "forced to close 
down his Revisionist bookstore in Paris after weeks of attacks and demonstrations 
by Jewish protestors," claims the IHR Newsletter #88, July/August 1992, p. 5. 

43. The interview appeared in what the JTA terms "the far right-wing 
monthly Le Choc du Mois (Shock of the Month), a magazine linked to Jean-Marie 
Le Pen's extreme rightist National Front" (JTA, Apr. 19, 1991). 

44. JTA, Apr. 19, 1991. 

45. Quoted in "Revisionist Historian Suspended for One Year from Lyon 
University," JTA, July 20, 1990. 

46. "Revisionist Professor Restored to Job," Washington Jewish Week, Mar. 
21, 1991. 

47. "Editor Is First in France to Receive Jail Term for Anti-Semitic Writ- 
ings," JTA, May 20, 1990. p. 4. 

48. Le Pen, who received nearly 20 percent of the vote in some parts of 
France, once "earned a living by selling German marching songs, tapes, videos, 
and such," notes Searchlight editor Gerry Gable. Gable also says that Le Pen's 
picture can be found on posters in many parts of France today. 

49. Wistrich notes that Le Pen and these publications also "systematically 
attack Jewish politicians or journalists (the 'Judeo-cosraopolitan mediocratie'), 
insinuate dual loyalties at every opportunity and use the languague of the pre-war 
fascist Right" (Robert S. Wistrich, Anti-Semitism: The Longest Hatred [New 
York: Pantheon Books, 1991], p. 139). 

50. JTA, June 29, 1992; !HR Newsletter #88, July/August 1992, p. 5. 

51. IHR Newsletter #88, July/August 1992, p. 5. 

52. Jennifer Goiub, Austrian Attitudes Toward Jews. Israel and the Holocaust 
(New York: American Jewish Committee, 1992). 

53. Sec Stephen J. Roth. "Denial of the Holocaust: A Criminal Offense?" 
Patterns of Prejudice 23 (Summer 1989): 42. 

54. Ibid. 

55. Antisemitism: World Report 1992. p. 4. 

56. Sec Fritz Karmasin, Austrian Attitudes Toward Jews, Israel, and the Holo- 
caust (New York: American Jewish Committee, 1992). 

57. IHR Newsletter #1A, July/August 1990, p. 3. 

58. Antisemitism: World Report 1992. p. 6. 

59. On Oct. 3, 1992, Radio Islam announced that it would cease operating. 
The announcement came two days after a Stockholm jury found that anti-Semi- 
tism had been broadcast. There is some speculation that the decision to close the 
station (in operation since 1986) was intended to avoid a court order mandating 
closure, so that the station could be reopened at a later date. See Searchlight. 
November 1992, p. 22. 

60. Gabriel Weimann and Conrad Winn, Hate on Trial (Oakville. Ont.: Mo- 
saic Press, 1986). p. 25. 

61. "2 French Rightists Barred by Swiss," New York Times, Dec. 7, 1986, p. 


62. Antixemitism: World Report 1992. p. 34. 

63. IHR Newsletter #74, July/ August 1990. 

64. JTA, July 22, 1992, p. 3. 

65. Anllsemitism: World Report 1992. p. 25. 

66. JTA, Nov. 2, 1992, p. 2, quoting poll conducted by Demoskopea and 
published in L'Espresso. See also New York Times. Nov. 5, 1992. 

67. London Jewish Chronicle. Jan. 8, 1988. 

68. IHR Newsletter #74, July/August 1990. 

69. Arttisemitism: World Report 1992, p. 29. 

70. Ihid, pp. 8, 21, 22, 26 and 27. See also JTA. Nov. 6, 1992, regarding a 
Dutch court's order that a Belgian publisher cease distributing Holocaust-denying 
material in the Netherlands. 

71. New York Times. July 3, 1991, p. A8. 

72. Randolph L. Braham, "A Changing Landscape of Memory: Eastern 
Europe and Ihc U.S.S.R," Dimensions 6:1 (1991): 21. 

73. Sec "Revisionism in Croatia: Croatia's President Rejects 'Six Million' 
Story," JHR 12 (1992): 240. See also the New Republic. Nov. 25, 1991, pp. 16, 18; 
Die Presse (Vienna), Jan. 28, 1992. Holocaust denial in the form of rehabilitating 
Nazis is occuring in the other parts of the former Yugoslavia as well. More than 
10,000 copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have been distributed in 
Bosnia, and excerpts from the Protocols have been printed in Tribuna. a paf^r 
targeted to the youth of Slovenia {Searchlight, June 1992, p. 21). The printing of 
the Protocols is directly related to the agenda of outright Holocaust denial. Holo- 
caust denial is a fitting addendum to the paranoid Jew-hatred of the Protocols. 

74. Anlisemitism: World Report 1992, p. 49. The Protocols are also a hot item 
in Hungary- Margaret Thatcher, the former British prime minister, asked British 
companies to give new.sprint to newly independent Hungary. "When it arrived," 
Searchlight editor Gerry Gable recalls, "somebody wrote to us and said, 'the gift 
has arrived, it's in the printing works, and they're printing the Protocols'. And we 
got to Downing Street, and they intervened and stopped it." 

75. Anlisemitism: World Report 1992. p. 53. 

76. Poiitika, a Prague weekly with a circulation of 2,000, regularly prints 
Holocaust-denying material (Antisemilism: World Report J992. p. 46). 

77. See also Zora Butorova and Martin Butora, Wariness Toward Jews and 
"Postcommunist Panic" in Slovakia (New York: American Jewish Committee, 

78. Braham, "A Changing Landscape of Memory: Eastern Europe and the 
U.S.S.R," p. 16. 

79. Wistrich, Anti-Semitism, p. 188. 

80. Yehuda Bauer, " 'Revisionism' — The Repudiation of the Holocaust and 
Its Historical Significance." in Yisrael Gutman and Gideon Greif, eds.. The Histo- 
riography of the Holocaust Period (Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 1988). 

81. Kulka, "Another Face of Anti-Serai tism," p. 20. 

82. Anlisemitism: World Report 1992, p. 117. 

83. Bauer, " 'Revisionism.' " p. 699. 

84. Antisemitism: World Report J992, p. 121. 


85. Ibid., p. 122. 

86. JTA, June 16, 1992. 

87. Antisemitism: World Report 1992, p. 124. 

88. Ibid, p. 126. 

89. Bauer, " 'Revisionism,' " p. 702. 

90. IHR Newsletter #88, July/August 1992, p. 6. 

91. Antisemitism: World Report 1992, p. 89. 

92. IHR Newsletter #90, November 1992. 

93. Dawidowicz, "Lies About the Holocaust," p. 35. 

94. "Air Time Given Revisionist Outrages Australian Jews," Feb. 26, 1990, 
p. 4. 

95. Shelly Shapiro, "An Investigation," in Shapiro et al.. Truth Prevails, p. 25. 
Shapiro also notes that "Bennett runs a liny organization called the Australian 
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which was formed after he was expelled from the 
mainstream rights group, the Victoria Council for Civil Liberties (VCCL) for 
repeating an ti- Holocaust lies on VCCL letterhead." 

96- JTA, Oct. 9, 1990. For an analysis of Holocaust denial in Australia, sec 
Paul L. Gardiner, "Profile: The League of Rights in Australia," Without Prejudice 
(Australian Institute of Jewish Affairs) 3 (June 1991): 46-48. 

97. In the original. Dr. Mersey used the Arabic term for "sucking blood." 

98. AnNahar, Nov. 8, 1982, quoted in Jeremy Jones, "Holocaust Revisionism 
in Australia," Without Prejudice (Australian Institute of Jewish Affairs) 4 (Decem- 
ber 1991): 53. 

99. Weimann and Winn, Hate on Trial, p. 26. 

100. See David Bercson and Douglas Wetheimer, A Trust Betrayed: The 
Keegstra Affair (Toronto: Doubleday Canada Limited, 1985), p. 172. 

101. Gil Kezwer, "Keegstra Is Found Guilty Again of Hatemongering 
Against Jews," JTA, July 13, 1992, p. 3. According to Bemie Farber, acting 
national director of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Keegstra has appealed this 
latest conviction, but not on constitutional grounds. See also Patrick Nagle, 
"Keegstra Threatens Another Appeal," Calgary Herald, July 11, 1992, p. B5- 

102. Bram D. Eisenthal, "Canadian High Court Strikes Down Law Banning 
Revisionist Material," JTA, Aug. 28, 1992, p. 1. 

103. See Sean Fine, "No 'Open Season' for Zundel, Jewish Congress Says," 
Globe and Mad. Aug. 29, 1 992, p. A9; Peter Small, "Jewish Groups Demand New 
Criminal Charges Be Laid Over 'Falsehoods,' " Toronto Star, Aug. 28, 1992, p. 
A16; Patricia Chisholm, "Justice: The Right to Lie— The Supreme Court Acquits 
Ernst Zundel," MacLeans. Sept. 7, 1992; Paul Lungen, "CJC Seeks New 
Charges," Canadian Jewish News, Sept. 3, 1992, p. 1. 

104. There have been attempts to prosecute other Canadian Holocaust deni- 
ers as well. Malcolm Ross, another teacher, also published material denying the 
Holocaust. Because his book, Weh of Deceit, was not generally available, the 
prosecutors decided not to proceed with a case. 

105. For example, Stephen Stiles, a member of government from the Conserv- 

ative Party, was quoted in the press as saying that he was unaware of any "evi- 
dence" proving the persecution of Jews during the World War II. See Bercuson 
and Wetheimer, A Trust Betrayed, p. 140. 

!06. Irving was deported, and is now barred from Canada permanently 
{"Anti-Nazi Activist's Home Damaged by Suspicious Fire," JTA, Nov. 11, 1992 
p. 3.; JTA, Nov. 16, 1992, p. 4). 

107. Jennifer Golub, Japanese Attitudes Toward Jews (New York: American 
Jewish Committee, 1992). 

108. Uno was set to deliver a scries of seminars on this topic, as well as on 
"Jewish 'Responsibility' for the Persian Gulf War," until the Pacific Rim Institute 
of the American Jewish Committee intervened, and the lectures were canceled 
(Tom Tugend, "Japanese Righteous Gentile Honored in Native Land for Saving 
Thousands," JTA, Aug. 14, 1992, p. 3). 

109. Golub, Japanese Attitudes, p. 6.; see also Tugend, "Japanese Righteous 
Gentile Honored." 

110. IHR Newsletter #76, November 1990, p. 4. 

111. William Grimstad's Anti-Zion and The Six Million Reconsidered. See 
Antisemitism: World Report 1992, p. 83. 

1 12. Baroodi also claimed that the diary of Anne Frank was a fraud, and used 
as sources both Richard Harwood's (true name Richard Verrall) Did Six Million 
Really Die? and Theis Christophersens's Die Auschwitz Litge (Kulka, "Another 
Face of Anti-Semitism," p. 22; see also Bauer, " 'Revisionism,' " p. 702). 

113. Ibid. p. 703. 

114. New York Times, Oct. 8, 1977. 

1 15. One of the earliest Palestinian references to Holocaust denial occurred at 
the United Nations. "In 1972," wrote Teressa Hendry approvingly in the Decem- 
ber 1978 edition of the National Educator, "with httle attendant publicity, a 
Palestinian Arab addressed the UN, charging that the Zionists financed Adolf 
Hitler and 'invented the big lie of the extermination of the six million Jews in 
Europe,' who were 'still very much alive,' he averred, in order to 'blackmail 
Germany for more than $18 billion in compensation.' He also asserted: 'The world 
Zionist propaganda machine keeps reminding the Gentiles of their responsibility 
for the alleged extermination of the six million Jews and suppresses the truth that 
was published in several Jewish periodicals, that Hitler was a Jew.' " 

116. Los Angeles Times, Dec. 16, 1990. See also Jeremy Jones, "Holocaust 
Revisionism in Australia," p. 56- 

1 17. F'or many years the IHR, like its cousin, the Liberty Lobby, has tried to 
ingratiate itself with the Arab world. While refusing to call what happened to Jews 
in World War [I genocide, it liberally promotes the term to describe Israeli treat- 
ment of Palestinians. At the IHR's Third Revisionist Conference, Issah Nakhleh, 
described as "chairman of the Palestine-Arab Committee," was a hlghhghted 
speaker about "Zionist genocide." An IHR article noting the criticism of the 
Palestinian Red Crescent Society for printing Holocaust denial wondered if the 
Red Crescent would be expelled from the ICRC, thus allowing Israel "to strafe 
those Palestinian ambulances which roll up to collect the latest dead and wounded 
Arab youngsters on the West Bank and Gaza strip?" An IHR pamphlet advertis- 


ing its tenth conference quotes Faurisson as saying: "Of course I am ready to go 
to jail. 1 don't mind. I am sure that I will convert first the guards, and then the 
prisoners, because seventy per cent of them are Arabs." 

118. In IHR Newsletter #81, July/August 1991, an American resident of 
Saudi Arabia (identified only as "R.K.") wrote the IHR that "I am well aware of 
the role that myth, propaganda and the falsification of history have played in our 
disastrous policy towards Israel and the Arabs. Mainstream historians and jour- 
nalists have given us such a bizarre version of recent Near East history that it is 
not difficult to believe that their statements about the Second World War are 
similarly full of distortions." 

119. The IHR Newsletter #88, July/ August, 1992, touts both speakers at the 
deniers' 1992 conference as "manifesting the IHR's growing international out- 
reach." Zemzemi was described as a scholar, historian, and author who was expert 
in "Pan-Islamic resistance to Western and Zionist-fostered nationalism." 

120. Antisemitism: World Report 1992. pp. 74, 76. 

121. in fact, when a young college student was sentenced in France for 
posting Holocaust-denying material at colleges and universities in Nice, he ex- 
plained the he was anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian (JTA, June 29, 1992). 

122. Undated letter from Thomas J. Marcellus on IHR stationary to "Dear 
History Enthusiast." 

123. See Spotlight, Sept. 27. 1982, pp. 12-13. 

124. IHR Newsletter #74, July/August 1990 notes: "Tear-gassing Christian 
clergymen and Arab infants, opening fire on the yacht of Jordan's King Hussein, 
defacing Jewish gravestones in a calculated attempt (a la Carpentras in France) by 
provocateurs to inspire further murderous fury against Arabs, imposing nugatory 
sentences on free-lance Arab-killers: these and similar acts, it becomes clear, are 
not aberrations but standard products of the mentality which rules Israel today. 
The Israelis, the quintessential Holocaust survivors and principal beneficiaries of 
the Holocaust lie, are rapidly becoming world pariahs, as more and more the 
Zionist leadership and rank and file come to embody the synthetic "Nazi" arche- 
type—brutal, arrogant, reckless — whicli they have so long imputed to their ene- 
mies. Furthermore, the publication, at long last, of a Holocaust Revisionist study 
("Burning of the Jews in the Nazi Chambers [sic] is the Lie of the Twentieth 
Century") in an official PLO magazine, El-Istiglal (13 and 20 December, 1989), 
demonstrates that the Palestinians, and thus the Arab and Islamic world, are at 
long last arming themselves against the most potent propaganda weapon in their 
oppressors' arsenal." 

125. Chomsky claimed that his association with Faurisson was merely to 
promote the right to "free speech." But he did more than that. He circulated a 
petition caUing Faurisson a "respected" professor, who performs "extensive inde- 
pendent historical research" leading to "findings." In his introduction to Fauris- 
son's book, Chomsky wrote: "One can ask whether Faurisson is truly an anti- 
Semite or a Nazi. As I have said, I do not know his work very well. But from what 
I have read, in large part because of the nature of the attacks made against him, 
1 do not see proof that would lead to such conclusions. 1 find no credible proof in 
the documents, published text or private correspondence, that I have read concern- 


ing him. As far as I can judge, Faurisson is sort of a relatively apolitical liberal" 
(quoted in Paul Bennan, "Gas Chamber Games," Village Voice, 26 [June 10-16, 
1981]: 1,37). 

126. Chomsky, interestingly, wrote to discredit evidence of another geno- 
cide — that in Cambodia. As William Shawcross documents in his The Quality of 
Mercy: Cambodia, Holocaust and Modern Conscience (New York: Simon and 
Schuster, 1984), p. 55, Chomsky "fervently and frequently" dismissed claims of the 
Cambodian genocide as anti-Khmer Rouge "propaganda" from the "western 

127. Nobel Prize winner Ehe Wiesel, in referring to the horror of Serbian 
camps in 1992, called them "concentration camps," and, according to the Jewish 
Telegraphic Agency, "criticized the use of the words 'genocide' and 'Holocaust' to 
describe the 'ethnic cleansing' campaign being mounted by the Serbs in Bosnia" 
(JTA, Aug. 31, 1992, p. 3). 

128. Jeffrey Yitzhak Santis, Questions Often Asked About the Holocaust 
(pamphlet), p. 2. 

129. Brenner also writes frequently for the Amsterdam News, a New York 
publication targeted to African Americans. This paper, which promotes the anti- 
Semitic Rev. Al Sharpton, and defends the anti-Semitic CCNY professor Leonard 
Jeffries, used Brenner to diminish the claim that there is any serious anti-Semitism 
in the United States today. 

130. As Paul Berman notes in his excellent "Gas Chamber Games," the strain 
of isolationism that a Harry Elmer Barnes produced (most recently echoed in the 
right-wing anti-interventionist protests regarding Iraq) was easily compatible with 
Holocaust denial: The Germans weren't so bad, weren't worth fighting— see, there 
really was no Holocaust, we should have stayed out. 

Berman believes a similar delusion occurs on the left. "Historical materialism 
and Marxist philosophy suddenly seem useless for explaining the awful turn his- 
tory has taken in various genocidal corners of the globe," Berman writes. "[Some] 
have resolved all philosophical difficulties raised by the existence of genocidal 
insanity by declaring genocide to be a false rumor. . . . With a single stroke all 
theoretical problems disappear. Irrational genocide makes the Marxist notion of 
historical progress look ridiculous?— it must not exist. Gas chambers are an af- 
front to the materiaUst logic of Marx and Engels?--they must be a lie. Bad 
news? — poof!" 

131. In the first use of a new European Community regulation allowing 
residents of one member state to sue residents of another, a Dutch court prohibited 
Siegfried Verbeke, a Belgian publisher, from distributing his Holocaust-denying 
pamphlets in the Netherlands (JTA, Nov. 6, 1992). 

132. Patterns of Prejudice 23 (Summer 

1. Someofthelesscarefuideniersspout anti-Semitic rantings that can be used 
to expose them. For example, the late David McCalden, once director of the IHR 


and then head of his own "Truth Missions," wrote the following about a visit he 
paid to the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies in Los Angeles 
(quoted from the anti-Semitic journal Inslauration): "A sign on the door requires 
that all male visitors wear a yarmulka out of respect for the six million. A bin of 
yarmulkas by the door reminds me of those photographs of piles of shoes and 
eyeglasses from Auschwitz (Or was it Lublin? Or was it Birkenau?) 1 have seen the 
same pictures with various captions- photographs which prove that the original 
wearers of said shoe/eyeglasses were gassed, burned, or disappeared without 
leaving so much as a smidgen of ash or bone for forensic scientists to examine. 

"I enter yarmulkaless. Fourteen years of Presbyterian aversion to idolatry and 
icons have left their mark. I wait for some Orthodox rabbi in a long black coat, 
black hat and 'dread locks' to challenge me. Fortunately, there is no rabbi, and 1 
have free access to roam the displays. Everything seems pretty standard. There are 
the usual photos of deportations and camp liberations; a large wall map showing 
all the camp sites; some oil paintings by survivors. It's all so slick that a profes- 
sional exhibition company must have been engaged to lay on the display. The 
photos and captions are quite artsy, some hanging in midair like merchandise 
descriptions in a department store showcase. The lighting is subdued. 

"I pick up a phone and listen to a tape of liiramlcr's rambhng speech at Posen 
on October 4, 1943. An interpreter is superimposed to translate it into English. The 
speech abounds in phrases like 'extermination of the Jews,' but I couldn't make 
head nor tail of it. 

"Over now to a display case in the middle of the room. Besides a few camp 
artifacts such as stamps, passports, IDs, the case contains a most incongruous 
object: a tattered lampshade which appears Lo be made of parchment with ink 
etchings of rural, bucolic scenes. Could this be . . . ? 1 had always been under the 
impression that the 'lampshade' and 'soap' allegations were Soviet canards. 

"Curiously, the lampshade appears to have been added to the showcase after 
the professional exhibition people had done their best — or worst. It just doesn't fit 
in with the other aesthetically arranged objects d'art. While all the other items have 
a permanent description plate, the lampshade has a plain typed slogan on a 
pressure-sensitive label. It reads: 'The Nazis even made lampshades out of human 
life itself.' Does this mean that the lampshade is really made out of human skin? 

"A junior rabbi in a thrcc-piccc suit who is hovering nearby explains that it 
is a replica. If it had been genuine, it would have had lo have been buried with the 
recitation of the Kaddish, the prayer for the Jewish dead. No, he couldn't tell 
where it came from. . . . 

"Leaving the subterranean world of the Exterminationists, ! step out into the 
smoggy haze of a Los Angeles Sunday afternoon. The acidic air out here tastes better 
than the Hassidic air down there — and there isn't a rchgious artifact in sight!" 

2. Deborah E. Lipstadt, "Deniers, Relativists, and Pseudo-Scholarship," Di- 
mensions (Anti-Defamation League) 6:1 (1991): 8. 

3. Eric Zom, "NU Is Wrestling Slippery Problem," Chicago Tribune, May 7, 
1991, p. 1. 

4. Gabriel Weimann and Conrad Winn, Hate on Trial (Oakvillc, Ont.: Mo- 
saic Press, 1986), p. 24. 


5. This quotation is from an interview the author conducted with Jim Davis 
in 1992. 

6. See, infra, pp. 71-78 and correponding citations to Pressac's and others' 
refutations of Leuchter's claims about Auschwitz. 

7. Hitler advocated extermination of the Jews before he wrote Mein Kampf 
In a letter of Sept. 16, 1919, Hitler wrote that his type of anti-Semitism would go 
beyond pogroms; it would wipe out the Jews "root and branch" (C. C. Aronsfeld, 
"The Big-Lie Historians: Rewriting the Holocaust," Australia/ Israel Review, 
April, p. 26). In Mein Kampf, he even wrote of gassing Jews: "If at the beginning 
of the War and during the war, twelve or iifteen thousand of these Hebrew 
corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds 
of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of milhons 
at the front would not have been in vain." For analysis of Hitler's attitudes toward 
Jews, see Lucy S. Dawidowiez, The War Against the Jews 1933-1945 (New York: 
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975). 

8. Quoted in Robert S. Wislrich, Anti-Semiiism: The Longest Hatred (New 
York: Pantheon Books, 1991), p. 74. 

9. Judith Bolton, "Holocaust Revisionism: Editing the Past," Congress 
Monthly. July/August 1992, p. 9. 

10. Quoted in Wistrich, Anti-Semitism, pp. 75-76. 

11. Jim Davis, "Revisionist Arguments," Sun-Sentinel. Apr. 26, 1992, p. 4E. 

12. Quoted in Dorothy Rabinowitz, About the Holoeaust: What We Know and 
How We Know It (New York; American Jewish Committee, 1980), p. 39. 

13. David Germain, "They Say It Never Happened," Syracuse Herald-Jour- 
nal, May 14, 1990, p. 5. (Germain notes: "Prcssac claims that the actual figures by 
1943 were only half those in Franck-Griksch's report. He concludes that Ausch- 
witz guards inflated the figures to make the camp appear more efficient at killing 

14. Alan Bulloek, a British historian, writing in the New York Review of 
Books, noted: "This [the lack of a Hitler-signed death warrant for Jews] is hardly 
surprising considering the monstrosity of the crimes being committed, the massa- 
cre of several million people. Elaborate precautions were taken to confine knowl- 
edge of the facts to as small a circle as possible, denials were issued which Mr. 
Irving himself characterizes as 'the purest humbug,' and the ghastly reality was 
camouflaged by a series of euphemisms . . . which were employed even between 
those who knew what was taking place." 

15. Davis, "Revisionist Arguments," p. 4E. The Final Solution was the topic 
of a meeting coordinating various parts of the German government — SS and high 
state officials — at Wannsce, a Berlin suburb, on Jan. 20, 1942. For details, see 
Rabinowitz, About the Holocaust, p. 14. Rabinowitz also notes that "The minutes 
of the Wannsee Conference appear in German in Robert M. W. Kcmpner, Eich- 
mann und Komplizen (Ziirieh, 1961). pp. 133-147. A translation in Dawidowicz. 
Holocaust Reader, pp. 73 82." 

16. Helmut Krausnick, a German historian, studied the records of the Ein~ 


satzkommando and Einsatzgruppen. which were Nazi murder squads that killed 
people beyond those herded into the gas chambers. He wrote: "From 15 August 
1941 the Einsatzkommando (according to its own 'general report') was also shoot- 
ing Jewish children almost daily: for instance, in the operation carried out in 
Moletai and Utena on 29 August 1941, '1,460 Jewish children' were put to death 
in addition to 582 Jewish men and 1,731 Jewish women. Under the heading 
'Executions up to 1 February 1942/ ... the following figures were given: commu- 
nists, 1,064; guerrillas, only 56; mentally unsound, 653; Poles, 44; Russian prison- 
ers-of-war, 28; gypsies, 5; Armenians, 1 ; Jews, 1 36,42 1 ! These figures were reported 
by Einsatzgruppe A, which had already executed 229,052 Jews. Einsaizgruppe B 
reported 45,467 shootings by 14 November 1941; Einsatzgruppe C, 95,000 by the 
beginning of December 1941; and Einsatzgruppe D, 92,000 by 8 April 1942. To 
these figures must be added a further 363,211 shootings carried out during the 
months August to November, 1942 in the Ukraine, South Russia, and the province 
of Bialystock, as reported to Hitler by Himmler himself (quoted in Martin Perry, 
"Denying the Holocaust: History as Myth and Delusion," Encore American & 
Worldwide News Service. September 1981). 

17. Perry, "Denying the Holocaust" p. 32 

18. Kulka, "Another Face of Anti-Semitism," p. 19. 

19. According to the Jerusalem Post (International Edition), May 16, 1978; 
"In a sworn statement made in Nuremberg on November 26, 1945, by Dr. Wilhelm 
Hoettl, a slurmbannfuehrer (major) in the SS who was head of a department of 
German intelligence in Budapest. . . . Hoettl stated that he had met Adolf Eich- 
mann in his Budapest flat in August 1944. Eichmann was in a pessimistic mood, 
as he had become convinced that the Germans were about to lose the war and that 
he would be sought by the Allies as a major war criminal, because he had 'millions 
of Jews on his conscience' 

"Eichmann told me that a short time previously he had made a report to SS 
chief Heinrich Himmler, who wanted to know the exact number of Jews killed. 
... In the various extermination camps about four million Jews had been killed, 
Eichmann said, and another two million were killed In other ways, mainly through 
shooting by the Einstazkommandos during the Russian campaign," Hoettl said. 

"But Eichmann said Himmler had not been satisfied with the report, because 
he believed that, according to his own information, the number of Jews murdered 
must have exceeded six million." 

20. Sun-Sentinel. Apr. 26, 1992, p. 4E. 

21. Quotation from an interview author conducted with Shelly Shapiro in 

22. Reprinted in Serge Klarsfeld, The Holocaust and the Neo-Nazi Mythoma- 
nia (New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1978), p. 145. 

23. Quoted in ICulka, "Another Face of Anti-Semitism," p. 15. 

24. Rudolf Hoess, The Autobiography of Rudolf Hoess. tr. Constantine Fitz- 
gibbon (London: Pan Books, 1959), p. 15. 

25. Deniers offer the lame suggestion that "High ranking defendants were 


cynicaliy assured that by Voluntarily' accepting all responsibility themselves they 
would thereby protect their former subordinates from prosecution" (Mark Weber, 
"The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust," JHR 12 [1992]). 

26. Lemkin has been credited for pursuing the enactment of the Genocide 
Convention in the United States. 

27. Kulka, "Another Face of Anti-Semitism," p. 19. 

28. Ibid. 

29. See Bradley F. Smith (not to be confused with the Holocaust denier 
Bradley R. Smith], "Two Alibis for the inhumanities — A.R. Butz's The Hoax of 
the 20th Century and David Irving's Hitler's War, " German Studies Review, Oct. 
1978, p. 327. 

30. See Rudolf Vrba and Alan Beslic, / Cannot Forgive (New York: Bantham, 

31. Ibid, p. 21. 

32. Ibid 

33. Davis, "Revisionist Arguments." 

34. Auschwitz was not the only death camp. Why has it drawn the major 
focus of the deniers? Erich Kulka olTers a theory: "Why was Auschwitz chosen? 
Jews had been similarly killed by gas in five other death camps! All traces of 
annihilation installations in Chelmno, Belzec, Treblinka, and Sobibor had been 
destroyed in time by the Nazis and are all but forgotten. The area of Auschwitz, 
however, with its undeniably recognizable ruins of four crematoria and gas cham- 
bers in Birkenau, together with the original crematorium in the main camp in 
Auschwitz, have been included in the State Museum Oswiecim Brzezinka with its 
damning documents and displayed proofs. The most shocking of all are the shoes 
of thousands of babies and children suflbcated by the Zyklon B gas. Millions of 
tourists from all over the world visit them daily, see them and prove wrong 
revisionists, neo-fascists and terrorists of all shades and ways. Auschwitz has 
become an indestructible undeniable evidence and answer to all who try to clear 
Hitler and his helpers. The revisionists however are stepping up their fraudulent 
campaigns against the mass murder by gas in Auschwitz and spreading lies all over 
the world" (Kulka, "Another Face of Anti-Semitism," p. 26). 

35. The camp was obviously not in the same condition as it was during World 
War II. As Erich Kulka notes: "One of the four crematoria in Birkenau with three 
gas chambers was destroyed by the prisoners during the insurrection on October 
7, 1944. The three remaining crematoria with gas chambers were destroyed by 
dynamite by the SS immediately before the evacuation in January, 1945. The ruins 
of the underground gas chambers are apparent until today" ("Another Face of 
Anti-Semitism," p. 19). 

36. See Arthur Goodman, "Leuchtcr: Exposed and Discredited by The 
Court," in Shelly Shapiro et al., eds.. Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust 
Denial — The End of "The Leuchter Report" (New York: Bcatc Klarsfeld Founda- 
tion, 1990), p. 78. and Charles R. Allen, Jr., "The Role of the Media in the 
Leuchter Matter," ibid., p. 114. 37. See "Execution 'Engineer' Settles Criminal 
Case," A^c'iv York Times. June 13, 1991; "Jewish Groups Hail Revisionist's Conces- 
sion," Jewish Exponent, June 21, 1991. According to the Consent Decree itself, 


filed in Commonwealth of Massachusetts V. Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.. Leuchter not only 
admitted that he had never been registered as a professional engineer, he agreed 
for the life of the decree not to use the title engineer, nor to "provide engineering 
opinions, specifically but not limited to piis Leuchter report]." 

38. See Jean-Claude Pressac, "The Deficiencies and Inconsistencies of 'The 
Leuchter Report,' " Shapiro, Truth Prevails, p. 31. See also Davis, "Revisionist 
Arguments"; "Death Machine Builder Under Scrutiny for Nazi Gas Report," 
Boston Globe. Oct. 1, 1990, p. 13. 

39. Shelly Shapiro, in a conversation with the author, notes that the book was 
published after "the Leuchter Report was used in the defense of a Nazi war 
criminal in Canada. An Atlantic Monthly article had described Leuchter as an 
expert in gas chambers, and a judge permitted his report to be read into the record 
of the trial." 

40. The book also destroys Leuchter's claims to be an expert, and notes that 
his "research" was paid for by Ernst Ziindel — the Canadian Holocaust denier who 
hired Leuchler to disprove the existence of gas chambers. Goodman ("Leuchter: 
Exposed," ibid., pp. 77-^78, citing trial records at 8962, 8972, 9072, 8973) quotes 
Leuchter's questioning under oath at the trial of Ernst Zundel: 

Q: What formal education have you had? 

A: I've had physics on the college level. 

Q: All right. Do you consider yourself a physicist? 

A: 1 do not. 

Asked about his training in chemistry, Leuchter said; 

A: I had basic chemistry on the college level. 

Q: Basic chemistry on the college level? 

A: Yes. I am certainly not a chemisl. 

Q: Have you done any university level work in toxicology? 

A: No, I have not. 

Q: Do you consider yourself a toxicologist? 

A: I do not. 

Q: Are you a professional engineer? 

A: I am. I have been functioning as such for the last 24 years. 

Q: What degree in engineering do you have? 

A: i have a Bachelor of Arts. 

Q: How do you function as an engineer if you don't have an engineering 


A: Well, I would question what an engineering degree is. 

Judge Thomas did not allow Leuchter to express opinions as to the existence 
of the gas chambers, finding his competence to come to such conclusions wholly 
inadequate. See also David Bernstein, "Demolishing the Leuchter Lie," Australian 
Institute of Jewish Affairs Briefing no. 3, April 1991. 

41. See Pressac, "Deficiencies," p. 41. 

42. As Bernstein points out ("Demolishing the Leuchter Lie"), "Lice, Pressec 
points out, have a much higher resistance to hydrocyanic acid (HCN) than do 


humans. Thus a HCN concentration of 0.3 g/m' will kill a man instantaneously, 
while a much higher concentration (5.0 g/m') has to be maintained for at least two 
hours and usually as long as six hours to be certain of eradicating lice. The dose 
used to exterminate humans at Birkenau varied between 12-20 g/m^ (that is, 40-70 
times over the lethal concentration). This infallibly killed 1,000 people in less than 
five minutes, after which the chambers were ventilated and the cadavers removed. 
At the most, Pressac notes, the walls in the extermination chambers were in contact 
with the gas for no more than JO minutes a day. In the delousing sheds, on the other 
hand, a minimum concentration of 5 g/m^ was used— but this remained in contact 
with the walls for up to 18 hours a day for up to two years. Lt is this long-term 
saturation over the course of several years which accounts for (he relatively high 
concentration of cyanide in the samples from the delousing chambers, while the 
very brief exposure of the extermination chambers to the gas accounts for the 
negligible traces found from those chambers." (Bernstein relies on Pressac, "The 
Deficiencies," ibid., p. 36.) 

43- Pressac, "Deficiencies," p. 45. 

44. Quoted in Arthur Goodman, "Leuchter: Exposed and Discredited by the 
Court," in Shapiro, Truth Prevails, p. 82 (citing trial record at 9254). 

45. H. L. Silets, "Facts Written in Blood: The Zyklon B Trial of Bruno 
Tesch," in Shapiro, Truth Prevails, pp. 100-102. This article also quotes the 
Nuremberg testimony of Wilhelm Bahr, identified as "an ex-medical orderly and 
Unterscharfurher at Neuengamme concentration camp, who himself used Zy- 
klon-B to gas two hundred prisoners of war: 

Q: Is it correct that you have gassed 200 Russian prisoners of war with 

Blausauregas [Zyklon-B]? 

A: Yes, on orders. 

Q: Where did you do that? 

A: In Neuengamme. 

Q: On whose orders? 

A: The local doctor. Dr. Von Bergmann. 

Q: With what gas? 

A: With prussic acid. 

Q: How long did the Russians take to die? 

A: I don't know; I only obeyed orders. 

Q: How long did it take to gas the Russians? 

A: I returned after two hours and they were all dead. 

Q: For what purpose did you go away? 

A: That was during lunch hour. 

Q: You left for your lunch and came back afterwards? 

A: Yes. 

Q: Were they dead when you came back afterwards? 

A: Yes 

Q: Did you look at their bodies? 

A: Yes, because 1 had to load Ihera. 


Q: Why did you apply the gas to the Russians? 

A: I only had orders lo pour the gas in and I do not know anything more 

about it {ibid., p. 99). 

46. Perry, "Denying the Holocaust," p. 28. 

47. As Dr. Turid Karin Epstein wrote {in Gannett Westchester Newspapers. 
July 9, 1983): "[Holocaust deniers try to prove] scientifically, the mass extermina- 
tion of Jews by gas was impossible. The 'proof listed, without direct quotation 
even, is a German language technical magazine from 1933! Is it not an insult to 
German technical ingenuity to assume that they made progress, if one can call it 
that, in ten years?" 

48. See extensive examination in Paul L. Berman, "Gas Chamber Games: 
Crackpot History and the Right to Lie," Village Voice, June 10-16, 1981, pp. 1, 

49. As Ian Barnes and Vivienne R.P. Barnes point out, "This phrase has been 
lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf [Jews' activities] 'a pestilence worse than Black 
Death.' " See "A 'Revisionist Historian' Manipulates Anne Frank's Diary," Pat- 
terns of Prejudice 15 (1981). 

50. Bible Researcher, no. 106 (1979): I. 

51. Other deniers, including Richard Harwood, Arthur Butz, Robert Fauris- 
son, and Alfred Lilienthal have also touched on the claim that Anne Frank's diary 
was a fraud. The IHR, however, promotes Felderer's work as the only "published 
work devoting itself exclusively to this trickery." 

52. P. 19. 

53. Patterns of Prejudice. Radical Round Up, p. 36. "On the basis of expert 
literary and graphological opinion accepted by the court [the teacher Otto Frank 
had sued] made three statements: (1) he completely retracted; (2) he offered apolo- 
gies; (3) he declared himself 'convinced of the genuineness of the Diary' " {ibid., 
p. 37). 

Chapter 4 

1. Regarding the Holocaust Museum, the national president of the German 
American National Congress wrote to President Reagan on Mar. 23, 1983, as 
follows: "I request this project be stopped. ... At a time when so many of our 
fellow citizens are out of work ... it does not seem proper to spend millions of tax 
dollars on these types of endeavors. . . . Further, this sets an alarming precedent 
for the use of federal tax money and buildings to perpetuate other dark moments 
in the history of each ethnic group that constitutes this great land. To cluster them 
all around Washington, D.C. would make our Capitol a veritable museum of 
horrors. . . . If such a Holocaust Museum is to be built, let it be done in Israel with 
the tax money of their citizens." 

Sometimes, as in the Illinois case mentioned in chapter 3, deniers object. 
Sometimes, the opponents raise all these issues — for example, George Pape, presi- 


dent of the German- American Committee, objected to the New York City Board 
of Education's 1977 proposal for such a curricuium, stating "there is no real proof 
that the Holocaust actually did happen" (New York Times, Nov. 9, 1977). 

2. Raoul Hilberg once spoke at a high school where some students surveyed 
thought the "Holocaust" was "A Jewish holiday" (cited, approvingly, in the 
Christian Vanguard, January 1978, p. 8). 

3. As Leonard Zeskind of the Center for Democratic Renewal notes: "What 
the white supremacists, the neo-Nazi Klan type movement in the United States 
needs, requires, is some founding set of idea that will hold the various organiza- 
tions together, serve as an ideological glue that would bind a Klan group that 
marches through the street and an Identity Church that holds bible camps and 
organizes around electoral issues and a skinhead group with their skinhead music 
and streetfighling. What will provide the glue that will hold these groups together? 
Increasingly, historical denial holds all these different type groups together, and 
helps mold them into a single movement." 

4. A sample: "The Holocaust itself is really an edifice, a monument, so to 
speak, to the naive gullibility of the world in which even the most outrageous 
survivors' tales and falsest testimonies are totally beheved without the slightest 
doubt or criticism" (from Mitchell Bard, "The Future of Anti-Semitism," Near 
East Report. June 15, 1992, p. 116). 

5. For material on the Armenian genocide, see Richard G. Hovannisian, ed.. 
The Armenian Genocide in Perspective (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 
1986) and Henry Morgenthau, Ambassador Morgenthau 's Story (Plandome, N.Y.: 
New Age Publishers, 1984). 

6. See Vahe Oshagan, "The Impact of the Genocide on West Armenian 
Letters," in Hovannisian, ed., Armenian Genocide, p. 169. As with the Holocaust, 
the exact number of Armenians who were killed is not precisely attainable. As Leo 
Kuper notes in his "The Turkish Genocide of Armenians, 1915-1917," in ibid. p. 
52, Richard Hovannisian puts the total population of Armenians in Turkey as 
between 1.5 and 2 million, while "the American Committee for Armenian and 
Syrian Relief [provides] a prewar Armenian population of 1 .8 million. [Michael J. 
Arlen] writes that it is possible to say, not precisely but with a general respect for 
accuracy and plausibility, that in the course of the 1915-1916 massacres and 
deportations close of one milhon Armenians— more than half the Armenian popu- 
lation of Turkey — disappeared.' " 

Robert Melson, in "Provocation or Nationalism; A Critical Inquiry Into The 
Armenian Genocide of 1915," ibid., pp. 64-66, puts the figure of Armenians killed 
as approximately one million, which would be either "nearly half or "more than 
half of the population, depending on which population figures are used. 

7. See Hovannisian, Armenian Genocide, pp. 5, 13. 

8. Peter Sourian, "In This Genocide the Victims' Voices are Drowned Out," 
Newsday. April 23, 1990, p. 48. 

9. See Kenneth Stern, Loud Hawk: The United States vs. the American Indian 
Movement (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994.) 


10. There was much to celebrate in the 500th anniversary of Columbus's trip 
to the New World. He did not "discover" America— there were people here when 
he arrived who, more correctly, "discovered" him. 

11. Zohar Shavit, a professor of Jewish studies at Tel Aviv University, lived 
in West Germany between 1986 and 1988, and studied the textbooks and novels 
about World War II designed for 9- to 12-year-oIds. The books say "There was 
a very terrible war in which Germany suffered. ... It is Hitler who is to blame for 
the war; none of the Germans had anything to do with it . . . German children's 
literature doesn't deny the Holocaust, but it selectively banishes it from the con- 
sciousness. ... In the books, one gets the impression that the Nazis hijacked 
Germany from the Germans. The message is clear: Nazis were not human beings 
but demons thai did not have anything to do with humanity in general or Germany 
in particular." 

12. The American Jewish Committee has met with over 100 university and 
college presidents, outlining the findings of its publication, Kenneth S. Stern, 
Bigotry on Campus (New York: American Jewish Committee, 1990). 

13. In fact, as time goes on, the Holocaust deniers will need do nothing, for 
by trying to debate the "facts" of the Holocaust, they may be doing themselves a 
disservice; that is, drawing attention to something that most people are ignorant 

14. Sourian, "In this Genocide." 

15. Yoself Goell, "The Tragedies of Other People: Israel and the Turkish 
Attempt to Play Down the Armenia Holocaust," Jerusalem Post, Oct. 26, 1989, p. 

16. The Effort to Repeal Resolution 3379. ed. Kenneth S. Stem (New York: 
American Jewish Committee 1991), p. 41. As Marvin Perry, an assistant professor 
of history at Baruch College, noted in an early article on Holocaust denial: 

Jews have always been astonished at the utterly bizarre content of anti- 
Semitic myths; they have found it incomprehensible that to their tormentors 
these myths were unassailable truths. If Nazis, with immense dedication and 
mora! indifference, could drive Jews into gas chambers believing that they 
were purging the world of an evil race of conspirators, we should not be too 
surprised that their spiritual descendants, with equal conviction and mean- 
ness of spirit, believe that the Jews fabricated a tale of mass murder (Marvin 
Perry, "Denying the Holocaust: History as Myth and Delusion," Encore 
American & Worldwide News. September 1981, p, 32). 

17. "Anniversary of U.N. Repeal marked," JTA, Dec. 17, 1992, p. 2, quoting 
Israeli ambassador Gad Yaacobi. 

18. Many historians have suggested that Hitler could have been more effec- 
tively opposed in the 1930s if the world had helped the anti-fascist forces during 
the Spanish Civil War. 



In writing this book, I discovered that there are only a handful 
of real experts on Holocaust denial, and fortunately for me, they 
were all friendly people generous with their time and help. 

Deborah Lipstadt, Leonard Zeskind, Gerry Gable, EUzabeth 
Rickey, Alex Gross, Jim Davis, Shelly Shapiro, and Justus Rosen- 
berg consented to lengthy interviews, freely sharing their insights 
and the fruits of their research. Shelly was especially helpful, going 
over the manuscript with a dedication and clarity that markedly 
improved the final product. 

Thanks also to Mel Mermelstein for seeing something of value 
in this work, and to Susan Jerison, Michael Harrison, Bernie 
Father, Sybil Milton, Peter Sourian, and Marjorie Dobkin for 
helping in their areas of expertise. 

This book would not have been possible without the encourage- 
ment of my colleagues at the American Jewish Committe, the pa- 
tience of my wife, Margie, or the joyous disposition of our infant 
son, Daniel. 




Abdo, Luai, 50 

Abortion, 22 

Academic freedom. See Free speecii 

Adenauer Foundation, 90 

Adolf Hitler, Begriinder Israel, 49 

Advertisements. See Colleges 

African Americans 

genocide of during slavery, 5, 54-55. 89 
Algeria, 52 
Allen, Michael, 68 
Allende, Waiter Beveraggi, 43 
All-Russian Writers Union, 41 
American-Arab Relations Committee, 49 
American Historical Association, 13 
American imperialism, 54 
American Indians 

genocide of, 54-55, 88-90. 93 
American Jewish Committee (AJC), 9, 
1 1. 13-16, 17. 30, 35, 36. 61, 66, 84, 
American Jewish Year Book. 66 
Anglo American Committee of Inquiry. 

Annals d'Hisiaire Revisionniste, 34 
Anne Frank 's Diary: A Hoax, 79 
Anti-Indian prejudice, 88-90 

anti-Zionism as, 85-86 

as absurdity, 82 

as declining in aftermath of Holocaust, 
6. 23-24, 97 

as a form of human bigotry, 91-92 
as fostered by Holocaust denial, 4 
as motive of deniers, 2, 46-47, 52, 53, 

comparing Jews and /or Israel to 

Nazis, 39,49-51,54, 56 
demonization of Jews, 26, 79, 95 
in dismissing scholarship by Jews, 

future of, 6, 24, 83-86, 91-92, 95-98 
implications if centrality of Jew-hatred 

to Nazism blurred, 94 
Jews as "fifth column," 45 
Jewish conspiracy, claims of, 2, 8, 46, 

48, 53. 79, 85 
Jewish control of media, Hollywood, 

Jewish propaganda, claims of 2, 19, 

37,41,44,48,49, 85 
Jewish responsibility for communism, 

claimof, 41,62, 95 
Jewish responsibility for world's 

economic problems, claim of, 48 
Polish, 26 
posing as "scholarly" inquiry, 5, 40, 

stereotypes associated with, 2, 21, 85, 

Anti-Semitiim World Report — J992. See 

Institute for Jewish Affairs 
Anti-Zionism. See Zionism. 
Antonescu, Ion, 38, 41 


Arab groups (See also Rami, Ahmed; 
Radio Islam; Morsey, Anice) 
Holocaust denial promoted by, 37, 
44, 45, 49-52 
Arab states 
as destination for earliest deniers, 6 
plaque noting victims of Nazism from, 

promoting Holocaust denial, 49-52 
Arafat, Yasir, 50 

Holocaust denial in, 43 

genocide of, 54-55, 86-90, 93, 94 
Amouf, Ream, 5! 
Aryan Nations, 54 
Attitudinal surveys about the Holocaust 

and denial. See Holocaust 
Auschwitz, 3, 8, 17, 19-20, 30, 32, 33-34, 

37, 65, 69, 70-78, 79, 80, 92 
Auschwitz Myth. 16 
Auschwitz: Truth or Lie. 9, 66 

Holocaust denial in, 44-45 
Australian League of Rights, 45 
barring David Irving in, 33 
Holocaust denial in, 35-36 
law regulating "activities in National 
Socialist spirit," 56-57 
Austrian Constitutional Law, 57 
Avanguardia. 38 

Baltic states 
as victims of Nazis, 42 

Barcelona, 38 

Barnes, Harry Elmer, 6-7, 53 

Baroodi, Gamal, 49 

Bauer, Yehuda, 43, 49, 65 

Bayreuth, 29 

Becker, Dr., 68 

Begin, Menachim, 52, 54 

Holocaust denial in, 36-37 
Belgian fascists quoted in Russian 
press, 42 

Belzec, 65 

Ben Itlo. Hadassah, 94 

Bennett. John, 44, 45 

Bergen-Belsen, 80 

Bespuca^-Povjeme Zbiljnosli. 39 

Birkcnau, 65, 72, 76-77, 80 
Bitburg, 22-23, 94 
Blacks. See African Americans 
Blasting the Historical Blackout. See 

Barnes, Harry Elmer 
BMW, 22 

Bolshevism. See Communism 
Bonn, 29 
Bosnia, 90, 97 

Brandon, Lewis. See McCalden, David 
Brandt, WiUy, 23 
Braham, Randolph L., 41 

Holocaust denial in, 43 
Brenner, Lenni, 56 
far-right political parties in, 29, 42 
Holocaust denial in, 30-33 
House of Commons motion re David 
Irving, 32 
Broad, Perry, 75-76 
Brock, Robert, 19 
Brussels, 37 
Bryce Report, 28 
Bubonic plagues, 92 
Buchanan, Patrick, 2, 18-19, 21, 96 
Buchner, Reinhard K,, 65 
Bulletin Boards. See Computer Bulletin 

Burg, J.G., 48; See also JG Burg Society 
Burning of the Jews in the Nazi Chambers 
is the Lie of the 20th Century in 
Order to Legilimize the New Nazism, 
Bush, George, 18 
Butz, Arthur R., 7, 10, 11, 16, 20, 44, 53, 

as victims of Nazis, 42 

Cable television. See Television 
California Library Association, 15-16 
California State University, 65 
Cambodia, 23 

genocide of, 23, 54-55, 89-90, 94, 97 

barring David Irving. 33 

Holocaust denial in. 46-48, 56 

newspaper headlines, 60-61 

skinheads in, 29 


Canadian Jewish Congress, 47 

Canadian Supreme Court, 47 

Cape Town, 44 

Carlo, Willis, 7, 8, 27, 53, 96 

Castan, S.E. See Eilwanger, Siegried 

Cedade, 38 

Center for Democratic Renewal, 8, 25, 

Centra de Estudios Revisionista 

Orientaciones (C.E.JtO). 38 
Chelmno, 65 
Cherokees, 88 
Chicago Tribune. 60 
Chickasaws, 88 

as objects of genocide, 87, 88, 90 

Holocaust denial literature targeting, 

taught Holocaust denial, 10-12, 35, 45 

Holocaust denial in, 43 
Chivington, John M., 88 
Choc du Mots, 35 
Choctaws, 88 
Chomsky, Noam, 53-54 
Christian News, 21 
Christophersen, Thies, 9, 66, 70 
Churchill, Winston, 9, 31,71 
City College of New York, 19, 59 
Cohn, Werner, 33 
Cold war 

realignment of Europe after, 26 
Colin, Frank, 8 
Collaborators, 42 

advertisements in campus newspapers, 
4-5. 12-14 

bias incidents in, 92 

experience with Holocaust denial, 4-5, 
1 1-14, 33-35, 84 
Columbus, Christopher, 89 
Committee for Open Debate about the 

Holocaust, 12 
Communal literacy, 83-84 
Coimnunism, 3, 26, 38, 39, 40, 41, 91 
CompuServe, 85 
Computer bulletin boards, 85 
Concentration camps 

firebombed. 29 

mentioned in denial material, 3 
Connors, Michael F., 28 

Coughlin, Father, 21 
Council for Civil Liberties, 44 
Countess, Richard, 1 1 

Holocaust denial in, 15-17, 46-48 

fining David Irving, 30 

See also Crime of Holocaust Denial 
Creeks, 88 

questioning of existence/capacity of, 3, 
50, 61, 65 

Nazi documents showing capacity of, 
Crime of Holocaust denial, 34, 35, 

46-48, 56-57 
Criminal Code Section 281, 47 

Holocaust denial in, 39 

mass murder in, 97 
Crusader. 8 
Czechoslovakia, 40 

Dachau, 3, 13, 20 

Dall, Curtis B., 49 

Davis, Jim, 61, 67 

Dawidowicz, Lucy, 6, U-12, 44, 66 

Dealing in Hate: The Development of 

Anti-German Propaganda, 28 
Death camps. See Extermination camps 
Debate. See Free speech 
Deir-ex-Zor, 86 
Delousing. See Zyklon-B gas 
Democracy, 95-96 
Demographics. See Six million 
Denial of the Holocaust: A Criminal 

Offense?. 57 

Holocaust denial in, 38 
Denying the Holocaust: The Growing 

Assault on Truth and Memory, 61 
Der Sturmer, 42 
Destruction of Dresden, The. 31 
Diary of Anne Frank, The. 17, 32, 37, 48, 

Diary of Anne Frank: A Hoax?, The. 37 
Did Six Million Really Die?, 30 
Die Afrikaner, 44 
Die Auschwitz Liige, 70 
Dirks, Walter, 67 
Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry. 

The, 58-59 


Doctors' Plot, 40 

Dora-Nordhausen, 30 

Drama of the European Jews, The, 70 

Dregger, MP A., 29 

Dresden, 9, 27, 31, 50 

Dubno, 64 

Duke, David, 2, 7-8, 18-19, 21, 96 

Dutch Jews, 80 

Diirafour, Michel, 35 

East Germany, 90-91 
East Timorese 

mass killings of, 55 
Eastern Europe, 26, 38-42, 95-96 
Eckvillc, 46 
Edison, Thomas, 8 
Editora Revisao. 43 
Edizioni AU'Insegna Del Verro, 37 
Egypt, 52 

Eichmann, Adolf, 28, 63, 66 
Eidgenoss, 37 
Einsatzkommandos, 28 
Einsatzgruppen, 56 
Eisenhower, Dwight D., 3!, 71 
Elhliglal, 50 
El-Shammali, Khalcd, 50 
Ellwanger, Siegried, 43 
Erzerum, 86 
Ethnic cleansing, 90 

interest in by deniers, 13, 21 
Europe. See individual countries; See 

also Eastern Europe 
European Society for Free Speech, 25 
Euthanasia Order of 1939, 63 

as euphemism for extermination, 63 
Executive Council of Australian Jews, 45 
Extermination camps 

contrasted with concentration camps, 
3, 20, 71 

See also Auschwitz, Maidanek 

Facing History and Ourselves, 84 
"False News," 46^7 
Farber, Barry, 14 
Farrakhan, Louis, 19-20 
rehabilitation of pre-World War II 

fascist governments, 26, 38, 40, 

41^2. 82, 95, 96 

David Irving as self-described "mild 
fascist," 30 
Faurisson, Robert, 8, 33, 34, 35, 44, 48, 

51-52, 53-54, 73-74, 78 
F.D.R.: My Exploited Father-In- Law. 49 
Felderer, Ditleib, 37, 46, 48, 79-80 
Fin de Una Mentira: Camaras de Gas: 

Holocaust-Informe Leuchter, 43 
Final Call. 19-20 
Final Solution, 28, 55, 63-64, 78 
Final Solution, The, 66 
Finale Furioso. See Mit Goebhels bis zun 

First Amendment (to the U.S. 

Constitution). See Free Speech 
Fischer, Arthur, 30 
Focal Point Publications, 32 
Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel, 61, 67 

Holocaust denial in, 33-35 
French fascists quoted in Russian 

press, 42 
outlawing of Holocaust denial in, 56 
See also Faurisson, Robert; Rassinier, 
Francke-Griksch, SS Major, 63 
Frank, Anne. See Diary of Anne Frank 
Frank. Hans, 68 
Frank, Otto, 32, 81 
Free speech 
academic freedom debate regarding 

Butz, 7, 11-12 
claims of deniers, 4-5, 59 
debating deniers, problems of, 5, 15, 

in countries other than United States, 
46-48, 56-57 
Front National. See National Front 

Gable, Gerry, 6, 7, 25, 31, 41^2, 59, 97 
Gack. 36 
Gas chambers 
chamber at Dachau not used, 13, 20 
questioning existence of, 3, 9, 32, 
33-35, 36, 37, 44-45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 
60-61, 71-78, 85 
questioning of survivors' testimony 

regarding, 3 
See also Leuchter, Fred; Leuchter 
Report, The; Zyklon-B gas 
Gaiizerre, Pier, 35 


GEnie, 85 

comparison of Holocaust to other, 
54-55, 82-84, 86-98 

as language of denial material, 2, 43 
German American National Congress, 

German School, 43 

as location of concentration camps, 3 

as site of 1979 Holocaust denial 
conference, 25 

barring David Irving in, 33, 48 

comparison of civilians killed to Jews 
in Holocaust. 28 

Holocaust denial in, 25, 27-30 

nationalism in, 23 

neo-Nazi groups in, 29 

outlawing of Holocaust denial, 56 

outlawing of swastikas, 56 

President Reagan's visit to Bitburg, 
22-23, 94 

See also Nazi Germany 
Gestapo, 50 
Ghettos (Jewish), 27 
Gilbert, Martin, 67 
Goebbels, Joseph, 2, 32. 33, 42 
GoeU, Yosef, 93-94 
Goering, Hermann, 32 
Golub, Jennifer, 35 
Gotha, 71 

Graebe, Herman, 64 

Holocaust denial in, 38 
Groteluschen, Dorothy, 10 
Guardian, The, 54 
Guionnet, Alain, 34 

extermination of, 90, 94 

Hadawi, Sami, 52 

Hall!. 36 

Harrison, Michael, 15 

Harwood, Richard. See Verrall, Richard 

Hate on Talk Radio. 14 

Hate on Trial. 47, 80 

Havel, Vaclav, 40 

Hayes, Peter, 67-68 

Herman, Edward, 55 

Hess, Rudolf, 29 

High schools 

Holocaust denial taught in, 10 12, 45 
leaflets sent to, 35 
Himmler, Heinrich, 31, 63, 67. 68 69 
Hiner, Donald, 1 1 
belief that historians have conspired to 

fake history, 61, 67 
role of in combating denial, 13 
Hitler, Adolf 
admiration of by deniers, 13, 27, 46, 

claim that he did not know of 

extermination of Jews, 4, 62-65 
Euthanasia Order of 1939 initialed by, 

informed of progress of Holocaust, 64 
rehabilitation of by deniers, 9, 20, 23, 

29, 30, 31, 46, 59, 95 
Reichstag speech by, 62 
Speech of Aug. 22, 1939 by, 87 
Speech of Feb. 24. 1943 by, 63 
See also Mein Kampf 
Hitler S War. 29, 30, 31 
Hitler We Loved and Why. The. 46 
Hoax of the Twentieth Century. The. 7, 

10, 11, 16.44,70 
Hoettl, Wilhelm, 66 
Hoess. Rudolf, 68-69. 78 
Hoggan, David, 7, 16 

as generic lerm, 22, 54 
altitudes toward, 30, 36, 37, 90-91, 93 
education about, 30, 82-84, 93, 94 
long-term attitudes toward, 92 
Holocaust (liira), 1 
Holocaust Awareness Institute, 68 
Holocaust Denial: Anli-Semitisrti. Racism 

and the New Right. The. 29 
"Holocaust" — 120 Queslions and 

Answers. The. 85 
Holocaust Museums. See Holocaust 
(education about); 5ft' also United 
States Holocaust Memorial) 
Holocaust on Trial: The Case of Ernst 

Ziindel. The. 48 
Holocaust relativism. See Relativism 
Holocaust revisionism. See Revisionism 
Holocaust studies. See Holocaust 

(education about) 
Holocaust survivors. See Survivors 


Holocaust Survivors and Friends in 

Pursuit of Justice, 72 

as victims of Nazis, 90, 94 
Horthy, Miklos, 41 
How Did Zionist Propaganda Cloud 

Science and Mind? A First Quiet 

Travel Through the Climate of Fear, 

Human soap, 3 
Hunecke, Karl, 49 

Holocaust denial in, 40 
Hungarian Jews, 65 
Hussein, Ahmad, 49 
Hussein, Saddam, 14 
Huttenbach, Henry, 59 

lasi, 38 

Ich Kan Nicht Vergehen. 71 
Identity churches, 21 
// Candida. 38 

Independence. See El Isiiglal 
Indiana-Purdue University, 1 1 
In Prison for Telling the Truth. 35 
Inquisition, 92 

Institute for Historical Review (IHR), 
2-4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 
21,25,26,27,28, 34,35,43,44, 
47-^9, 51, 53, 56, 58, 85 
Institute for Historical Review Newsletter, 

Institute for Jewish Affairs, 40, 52 
Interactive computer bulletin boards. See 

Computer bulletin boards 
International Association of Jewish 

Lawyers and Jurists, 94 
International Conference on the 

Holocaust and Genocide (1982), 87 
International Revisionist Conferences, 

48,49, 51, 52,58 
Internet, 85 
Internment camps 

Japanese-Americans in, 49 
Intilli, 86 
Iran, 34, 96 
Irish Republic, The 

Holocaust denial in, 38 
Irving, David, 2, 9, !4, 27, 29-33, 37, 3K, 

44, 45, 46. 48, 62, 63 
Islam. See Religious groups 


of Harry Elmer Barnes, 6 

of far-right, 56 
Israel 1, 2, 4, 11, 33, 36, 45, 50-56, 

85-86; See also Zionism 

as language of denial material, 2, 37 

belief that Holocaust did not occur, 2 

comparisons of civilians killed to Jews 
in Holocaust, 28 

David Irving in, 32, 33, 37 

Holocaust denial in, 37 
Ivana Frankovska, 39 

Jackson, Andrew, 88 
Jackson, Robert, 66, 67 
Jackson, Nigel, 45 
Janklow, William, 88 

comparison of civihans killed to Jews 
in Holocaust, 28 

Holocaust denial in, 49-50 

in internment camps, 49 
Jeffries, Leonard, 19, 20 
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 34, 43 
Jewish Week, 50 
JG Burg Society, 29 
John Paul II, Pope, 22 
Johnson, Lyndon, 62 
Johnson, Thomas T., 17 
Jones, Jeremy. 45 
Journal of Historical Review. 8, 26, 36, 

"Judeo-Nazis," 39 
Just Fight of the Nazis Again/ 

Communism and Judaism, The. 43 

Kassel, 25 

Kawachi, Albert, 49 

Keegstra, James, 46-47, 56 

Kharput, 86 

Khmer Rouge, 23, 90 

Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 61, 72 

Kobori, Keiichiro, 48 

Kohl, Helmut, 23 

Korherr, Richard, 67 

Korneyev, Lev, 41 

Krausnick, Helmut, 67 


Kremer, Johann-Paul, 78 
K-U Klux KJan, 7-8, 28-29, 54 

La Repubblica, 37 

La SenlineHa cflialia. 37-38 

La Sfinge, 37 

La Vieille Taupe, 34 

Larson, Martin, 52-53 

Le Monde, 33 

Le Monsonge d'Ulysse. See Rassinier, Paul 

Le Pen, Jean-Marie, 34-35 

Lemkin, Rafael, 70 

Lenski, Robert, 48 

Leuchter, Fred, 3, 9, 31, 44^5, 46, 48, 

61, 71-75 
Leuchter Report, The. 32, 43, 45, 46, 

Left-wing denial of Holocaust, 34, 53-56 
L'Espresso, 37 
Liberators, 70 
Liberty Lobby, 7, 14, 27 

Holocaust denial in, 15-16 
Lipstadt, Deborah, 25, 52, 60, 61 
Long, Huey, 90 
Los Angeles Times, 49, 51 
Lvov, 39 
Luftwaffe, 31 

Maidanck, 9, 32, 65, 73 

Maidenak. See Maidanck 

Majdanek. See Maidanek 

Marcellus, Tom, 85 

Marshall, George, 71 

Marx, Karl, 41 

Marxism, 54, 56 

McCaldcn, David, 15-16, 17, 49, 53, 67 

McPherson, William, 5 

Mehdi, M.T., 49-50 

Mein Kampf, 18, 43, 59, 62 

Melbourne, 44, 45 

Memopress, H 

Mengele, Josef, 59-60 

Mermelstein, Mel, 17 

Merton College, 67 

Metzger, Tom, 17 


Holocaust denial in, 43 
Mexico City, 43 
Middle Passage, 5, 89 
Milton, Sybil, 63 

Minute, 35 

Mit Goebhels his zun Ende, 42-43 
Morgenthau, Henry, 86 
Mork, Gordon, 59 
Morocco, 51 
Morsey, Anice, 45-46 
Moscow Writers' Club, 41 
Muhammad, Abdul Allah, 19-20 
Muhammad, Khallid Abdul, 20 
Munchner Anzeiger, 29 
Munich Institute, 67 
Muslims. See Religious groups 
Myth of the Six Million. 7, 16 

Napoleon, 31 
Natal Witness. 44 
Nation of Islam, 19-20 
National Front, 30 
National Hedo, 35 
National Party, 34 
National Socialist Corps of the New 
Castilie. See Tercios Nacional 
Sociahsts de la Nueva Castilla 
National Socialist Party of America, 8 
Nationalism, 23, 26 
Nazi Germany 
attempt by deniers to rehabilitate, 4, 9, 

28, 46, 59, 60-61, 95 
deniers as neo-Nazi propagandists, 

13-14, 27, 37, 95 
emblems, current use of, 29 
fascination of Holocaust deniers in, 

13-14, 27, 59 
trivialization of by far left when 
attacking Israel, 54-55 
Nazi Storm Troopers, 55 
Nazi war criminals, 4, 27 
rehabilitated, 38-39, 40, 41 
See also Nuremberg trials 
Netherlands, The 
Holocaust denial in, 38 
outlawing of Holocaust denial in, 56 
Netherlands Institute for War 

Documentation, 81 
"Never again," 92, 93 
Newspapers. See Colleges; Canada; 

individual newspapers 
New Zealand 

Holocaust denial in, 45 
New York State Education Department, 


New York Times. 9, 29, 37, 66, 87 

Nolte, Erast, 29 

Noontide Press, 7 

North Atiantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO), 39 
Northwestern University, 7, 11-12, 


Holocaust denial in, 38 
Notin, Bernard, 34 

Number of Jews killed. See Six million 
Nuremberg Document PS 2738, 66 
Nuremberg laws, 4, 59 
Nuremberg trials, 1, 3, 28, 34, 66, 


Ochensberger, Walter, 36 

Ogmios, 34 

Oklahoma, 88 

Old Mole, The. See La Vieille Taupe 

Oral histories, 84 

Orion. 38 

Owens, Jesse, 20 

Oxford. See Merton CofJege 

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), 

50-51, 54 
Palestine My Homeland, 49 
Palestine Red Crescent Society, 51 
Palestinians, 39, 50-52 
Pasha, Taalat, 86-87 
Palria Argentia, 43 
Pamyat, 40, 41 
Paschoud, Mariette, 37 
Pavelic, Ante, 41 
Pearson, John, 75 
Persian Gulf War, 14, 56 
Perth, 44 

Holocaust denial in, 43 
Plague. See Bubonic plague 
Pluralism, 96 
PLO, See Palestine Liberation 


abortion, 22 

anti-Semitism in, 26 

as location of extermination camps, 3, 

Holocaust denial in, 25-26, 40 

nationalism in, 26 


mass murder of by Nazis, 94 
Political correctness, 54-55 
Politically Correct Holocausts. 55 
Political dissidents 

extermination of, 90 

American elections, 2, 18-19, 22 

anti-Zionism; see Zionism 

as arena to combat Holocaust denial 
in, 94-98 

bigotry as tool of, 93 

Holocaust/ genocide as symbol in, 22, 
88, 94, 96 

political agenda of deniers, xii, 27, 29, 

pohticians embracing denial, 2, 7-8, 
Polo. Marco, 89 
Pontier, Remi, 35 
Porque Nos Mienten? O Acaso Hitler 

Tenia Razon?, 59 
Posen, 63 
Present. 35 

President (publishers), 49 
Pressac, Jean-Claude, 71-74 
Prodigy, 85 

"Promoting Hate," 46-47 
Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The. 13, 

34, 42, 48, 59, 85 
Prusian Blue. See Zyklon-B gas 
Pulitzer Prize, 58 

Holocaust denial on in Sweden, 37 
Holocaust denial oti in United States 
14-15, 84 

Radio Islam, 37 

Rami. Ahmed, 37, 51 

Rape (as instrument of genocide), 90 

Rassinier, Paul, 6, 7, 33, 70 

Ravensbriick concentration camp, 29 

Reagan, Ronald, 22-23, 94 

Recent History Atlas— 1870 to the 
Present Day, 61 

Reconstituted National Party, 44 

Reich. Walter, 93 

Regina, 48 

Reitlinger, Gerald, 66-67 

Relativism, 22-23. 28, 53-56 

Religious groups, 21, 42, 44, 51-52, 87, 97 


Reparations, to Jews and Israel for 

Holocaust, 11, 25, 27, 45, 51, 53 
Res-ul-Ain, 86 
Revi-Info. 38 
Revision, 34 
Revisionism, as an incorrect term for 

Holocaust denial, 2 
Revisionism: A Key to Peace. See Barnes, 

Harry Elmer 
Revisionist Library. See Revisionist ische 

Revisionist ische Biblioilheek. 36 
Revoiutionary Communist Party, 54 
Revue d'hisloirie revisionniste, 35 
Reynouard, Vincent, 35 
Riclcey, Elizabetii, 18-19, 21, 83 
Riechstag speech, 62 
Robert, Fabrice, 35 

Holocaust denial in, 38 
Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 9, 31, 49 
Roques, Henri, 33-34, 35, 37, 44 
Rosenberg, Alfred, 63 
Rosenberg, Walter, 70-71 
Roth, Heinz, 43 
Roth, Stephen, 57 
Rowell, Bob, 22 
Royal Air Force, 27 
Rubenstein, PhiUip, 32 

future anti-Semitism in, 95 

Holocaust denial in, 40 

new documents about Holocaust in, 

as liberators of extermination camps, 
20, 71 

Sachsenhauseti concentration camp, 29, 

San Diego, 65 
San Francisco Examiner, 6 1 
Sanding, Walter N., 58 
Sankci, 48 

Santacruz, Daniel, 50 
Saltier, Howard, 44-45 
Saudi Arabia, 49 
Savages (American Indians termed as), 

Schwammberger, Josef, 4 
Scholars. See Historians 

Searchlight, 6,25, 31,41 

Seidel, GiU, 29 

Seminoles, 88 

Serbia, 97 

Serrano, Miguel, 43 

Shamir, Yitzhak, 54 

Sharp Knife. See Jackson, Andrew 

Sharpton, Al, 20 

Shoah (film), 29 

Shofar, 59 

Sieg. 36 

Simon Wiesenthal Center, 15-16 

Sivas, 86 

Six million 

questioning of number of Jewish 
deaths, 2, 9, 19-20, 28, 33, 39, 45, 
58-59, 66-68 

comparison with re^arch into 
Armenian deaths, 87 

deceptive quotation of statistics by 
deniers, 58-59, 66 

how six million figure computed, 66-68 
Skinheads, 27, 29 

denial of, 4 

blamed on Jews, 20 

See also African Americans 

Holocaust denial in, 40, 95 
Smirnov-Ostashvili, Konstantin, 41 
Smith, Bradley R., 4, 12-15, 46 
Soap. See Human soap 
Sobibor, 65 

Socialist Workers Party, 54 
Sonderkommandos, 75 
Sourian, Peter, 87, 93 
South Africa 

Holocaust denial in, 44 
South America 

as destination for earliest deniers, 6 

Holocaust denial in, 42-43 
South Dakota, 88 

post-cold war political images 
associated with, 26, 95 
Soviet Jews, 27 
Soviet Union 

comparison of civilians killed to Jews 
in Holocaust, 28 

mass murder in, 97 

See also Russia 


Soviet Writers Union, 4i 

Holocaust denial in, 37 

as language of denial material, 2 
"Special action," 78 
Sports teams names, 88 
Spotlight. 27 
admired by deniers, 13, 39 
commemorated at Bitburg, 23, 94 
participation in Holocaust, 63, 64-65, 

68, 78 
some deniers as former members of, 6, 

treated as victims, 29 
Stalin, Josef, 23, 31 
Staeglich, Wilhelm, 16 
Starvation, claim that Jews died of, 3, 

44-45, 49, 65-68 
Steckloff, 42 
Strofberg, Louis F., 44 
Sunday Times (London), 2, 33 
Sun Sentinel. See Fort Lauderdale Sun 

attacks on testimony of, 2-3, 18, 
as fashion accessories, 43 
outlawed, 56 

painted on memorial for victims of 
Holocaust, 29 
as destination for earliest deniers, 

Holocaust denial in, 37 
Swindlers of the Crematoria. 10 
Swiss Citizen. See Eidgenoss 

Holocaust denial in, 37 
Sydney, 45 

Talk radio. See Radio 

Talkers, 15 

Tarnopol, 39 

teaching Holocaust denial, 10-12 
See also Butz, Arthur; Colleges 

Tel Aviv, 87 

Television, 14-15, 84 


destruction of, 92 
Tercios Nacional Socialists de la Nueva 

Castilla, 43 
Tiso, Josef, 40, 41,95 
Toiand, John, 58 
Trabant Anzeiger. 29 
Trail of Tears, 88 
Treatise in Defense Against Those Who 

Accuse Me of Falsifying History. 54 
Treblinka, 18, 30, 32, 65, 79 
Trotsky, Leon, 41 
Truth Missions, 53 
Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust 

Denial—The End of "The Leuchler 

Report", 72 
Tudjman, Franjo. 39-40 
Tunisia, 51 
Turkey, 55, 86-90 
claim that Jews died of, 3, 49, 65-68 


Holocaust denial in, 38-39 

killing of Jews in, 64 

as victims of Nazis, 42, 94 
United Nations 

role in combating Holocaust denial, 96 
United Nations General Assembly 
Resolution 3379. See Zionism 
United States Holocaust Memorial 

Museum, xii, 22, 63 
Universities. See Colleges; individual 

University of Alabama, 1 1 
University of British Columbia, 33 
University of Denver, 68 
University of Lyon, 33, 34 
University of Nantes, 33 
University of Natal, 44 
University of Tokyo, 48 
Uno, Masami, 48 


Holocaust denial in, 43 
Verrall, Richard, 30, 44 

mass killing of, 55 
Viking Press, 31 


Von Oven, Wilhclm, 42 

Vrba, Rudolf. See Rosenberg, Waller 

Waffen SS. See SS 

Wanns^ conference, 63-64 
Waile, Robert G.L., 62 
Waldheira, Kurt, 35 36, 39 
Walendy, Udo, 48 
War Path, The. 30 
Warsaw Ghetto Memorial, 23 
Washington Post. 5, 17, 22 
Wastelands— Historical Truth. See 

Bespuca—Povjesne Zhiljnosti 
Weber, Charles A., S5 
Weber, Mark, 26, 48 
Wehrmacht, 70 
Weimann, Gabriel, 47, 80 
West Germany, 90 
Westerbork, 80 
White Aryan Resistance, 17 
Why Do They Lie to Us? Perhaps Hitler 

Was Right? See Porque Nos 

Mienten? O Acaso Hitler Tenia 

Why I Survived the A-Bomh, 49 
Wiesei, Elie, 33, 38 
Wiesenthal, Simon, 17 
Williams, Monlel, 15 
Williams College, 62 
Winn, Conrad, 47, 80 
Wistrich, Robert, 35, 41 
World Report on Anti-Semilism- 

See Institute of Jewish Affairs 

World War I, 6, 55, 86, 92 

World War TI 
effect of Holocaust denicrs on public 

attitudes toward, 47 
Holocaust deniers' attitudes toward, 2, 

6, 27, 28, 30, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 42, 

49, 53. 58 
Holocaust as occurring during, 9, 17, 

20, 22, 23, 35, 51, 52, 56, 68, 90, 97 

Xenophobia, 27, 34, 96 

Yale University, 93 

as example that not all political 
change is better, 96 

Holocaust denial in, 39 

Z Magazine, 55 

Zaverdinos, C, 44 

Zemzemi, Abdel-Majid Trab, 51 

Zentner, Monna, 48 

Zeskind, Leonard, 8, 25, 26, 39, 40, 61, 

Zionism, si, 1, 40, 41, 44, 45, 49-56, 79, 

85-86, 97 
Zorn, Eric, 50 
Ziindel, Ernst, 38, 46-48, 56, 60-61, 71, 

75, 80 
Zar Zahl de Judischen Opfer des 

Naiionalsozialismus, 67 
Zyklon-B giis, 3, 8-9, 37. 44-45,