Archive/File: orgs/australian/adelaide-institute/statement-of-raven Last-Modified: 1998/04/01 [Page 1] Jeremy Jones and members of the Committee of Management of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry on Behalf of those members of the Jewish community of Australia who are members of organisations affiliated to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry Complainant and Fredrick Toben on Behalf of the Adelaide Institute Respondent Witness Statement: Mr. Greg Raven, POBox 10545, Costa Mesa, CA 92627, USA 5 November 1997 My name is Greg Raven and I am a resident of Costa Mesa, California. I am the vice president of the Legion for the Survival of Freedom (LSF), Inc. a Texas corporation with its principal office in Costa Mesa, California. The LSF does business as the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) and as Noontide Press. I am the associate editor of the IHR Journal. The Journal re-examines historical issues in the light of new, suppressed, or ignored facts, in an attempt to provide proper historical context to often emotion-laden or politicized events of the past. It has been said that the goal of the IHR is to "bring history into accord with the facts". A large part of the research done by the IHR since its formation in 1978 deals with the Holocaust in general and various Holocaust claims in specific. On October 16, 1997, I received an electronic mail (e-mail) message from Dr. Fredrick Toben of the Adelaide Institute in Australia, which contained what purported to be a `witness statement' by Jeremy Sean Jones. In this witness statement, Jones makes several complaints about the material on Toben's Web site. While I am not familiar with the material on Toben's Wed site, many claims and statements made in Jones' witness statement are false or misleading. For the purposes of this Declaration, I am relying on the text of Jones' witness statement as supplied me by Dr. Toben. Perhaps the most egregious examples of Jones' deceptiveness can be found in Section 3.3 Holocaust Denial. Nowhere does Jones define either `Holocaust' or `Holocaust denial'. As a researcher of the Holocaust who does not accept the currently popular view of the Holocaust, I, too, have been labeled a `Holocaust denier', even though I do not deny the Holocaust. In my years of experience in this matter, I have found that `Holocaust denier' is a pejorative label applied to revisionists by opponents who have no substantive response to the facts uncovered by revisionists. [Page 2] In several countries, including Israel, France, Germany and Austria, `Holocaust denial' is against the law, and `deniers' have been punished with stiff fines and prison sentences. Some frantic Jewish community leaders are calling for similar government measures elsewhere against revisionists. In Canada, David Matas, Senior Counsel for the `League for Human Rights' of the Zionist B'nai B'rith organization, says: "The Holocaust was the murder of six million Jews, including two million children. Holocaust denial is a second murder of those same six million. First their lives were extinguished then their deaths. A person who denies the Holocaust becomes part of the crime of the Holocaust itself." Often overlooked in this controversy is the crucial question: Just what constitutes `Holocaust denial'? Should one be considered a `Holocaust denier' because he does not believe -- as Matas and others insist -- that six million Jews were killed during World War II? This figure was cited by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946. It found that "the policy pursued [by the German government] resulted in the killing of six million Jews, of which four million were killed in the extermination institutions. Yet if that is so, then several of the most prominent Holocaust historians could be regarded as `deniers', Professor Raul Hilberg, author of the standard reference work, `The Destruction of the European Jews', does not accept that six million Jews died. He puts the total of deaths (by all causes) at 5.1 million. Gerald Reitlinger, author of `The Final Solution', likewise did not accept the six million figure. He estimated the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million, but admitted that this was conjectural due to a lack of reliable information. Is someone a `Holocaust denier' if he says that the Nazis didn't use Jewish fat to make soap? After examining all the evidence (including an actual bar of soap supplied by the Soviets), the Nuremberg Tribunal declared in its Judgment that `n [sic] some instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap.' In 1990, though, Israel's official `Yad Vashem' Holocaust memorial agency `rewrote history' by admitting that the soap story was not true. "Historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat. When so many people deny the Holocaust ever happened, why give them something to use against the truth?", said Yad Vashem official Shmuel Krakowski. Even Deborah Lipstadt, an implacable foe of any revision of the received Holocaust story, who is cited by Jones in Section 3.3.1.b, has acknowledged that there is no evidence to support claims of soap made from bodies of Jews. Is someone a `Holocaust denier' if he does not accept that the January 1942 `Wannsee conference' of German bureaucrats was held to set or coordinate a program of systematic mass murder of Europe's Jews? If so, Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer must be wrong -- and a `Holocaust denier' -- because he has declared: "The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at". In Bauer's opinion, Wannsee was a meeting but "hardly a conference" and "little of what was said there was executed in detail." Is someone a `Holocaust denier' if he says that there was no order by Hitler to exterminate Europe's Jews? There was a time when the answer would have been yes. Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, for example, wrote in the 1961 edition of his study, `The Destruction of the European Jews', that there were two Hitler orders for the destruction of Europe's Jews: the first given in the spring of 1941, and [Page 3] the second shortly thereafter. But Hilberg removed mention of any such order from the revised, three-volume edition of his book published in 1985. As Holocaust historian Christopher Browning has noted: "In the new edition, all references in the text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the `Final Solution' have been systematically excised. Buried at the bottom of a single footnote stands the solitary reference: `Chronology and circumstances point to a Hitler decision before the summer ended'. In the new edition, `decisions were not made and orders were not given'. A lack of hard evidence for an extermination order by Hitler has contributed to a controversy that divides Holocaust historians into `intentionalists' and `functionalists'. The former contends that there was a premeditated extermination policy ordered by Hitler, while the latter holds that Germany's wartime `final solution' Jewish policy evolved at lower levels in response to circumstances. But the crucial point here is this: notwithstanding the capture of literally tones of German documents after the war, no one can point to documentary evidence of a wartime extermination order, plan or program. This was admitted by Professor Hilberg during his testimony in the 1985 trial in Toronto of German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zundel. So just what constitutes `Holocaust denial'? Surely a claim that most Auschwitz inmates died from disease and not systematic extermination in gas chambers would be `denial'. But perhaps not. Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer, a Princeton University professor, wrote in this 1988 study `Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The `Final Solution' in History: "From 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz, but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called `natural' causes than by `unnatural' ones." Even estimates of the number of people who died at Auschwitz -- allegedly the main extermination center -- are no longer clear cut. At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. Until 1990, a memorial plaque at Auschwitz read: `Four Million People Suffered and Died Here at the Hands of the Nazi Murderers Between the Years 1940 and 1945'. During a 1979 visit to the camp, Pope John Paul II stood before this memorial and blessed the four million victims. Is it `Holocaust denial' to dispute these four million deaths? Not today. In July 1990, the Polish government's Auschwitz State Museum, along with Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust center, conceded that the four million figure was a gross exaggeration, and references to it were accordingly removed from the Auschwitz monument. Israeli and Polish officials announced a tentative revised toll of 1.1 million Auschwitz dead. In 1993, French Holocaust researcher Jean-Claude Pressac, in a much-discussed book about Auschwitz, estimated that altogether about 775,000 died there during the war years. Professor Mayer acknowledges that the question of how many really died at Auschwitz remains open. In `Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?' he wrote (p. 366): "... Many questions remain open ... All in all, how many bodies were cremated at Auschwitz? How many died there all told? What was the national, religious, and ethnic breakdown in this commonwealth of victims? How many of them were condemned to die a `natural' death and how many were deliberately slaughtered? And what was the proportion of Jews among those murdered [Page 4] in cold blood among these gassed? We have simply no answers to these questions at this time." What about denying the existence of extermination `gas chambers'? Here too, Mayer makes a startling statement (on page 362 of his book): "Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable". While Mayer believes that such chambers did exist at Auschwitz, he points out that "most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity". One example of this might be the testimony of Rudolf Hoess, an SS officer who served as commandant of Auschwitz. In its Judgment, the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal quoted at length from his testimony to support its findings of extermination. It is now well established that Hoess' crucial testimony, as well as his so-called `confession' (which was also cited by the Nuremberg Tribunal), are not only false, but were obtained by beating the former commandant nearly to death. Hoess' wife and children were also threatened with death and deportation to Siberia. In his statement -- which would not be admissible today in any United States court of law -- Hoess claimed that exterminations were already underway at a camp called `Wolzek', at the time he was ordered to establish extermination facilities at Auschwitz. In fact, no such camp ever existed. He further claimed that during the time that he was commandant of Auschwitz, two and a half million people were exterminated there, and that a further half million died of disease. Today no reputable historian upholds these figures. Hoess was obviously willing to say anything, sign anything and do anything to stop the torture, and to try to save himself and his family. In his 1988 book, Professor Mayer calls for "excavations at the killing sites and in their immediate environs" to determine more about the gas chambers. In fact, such forensic studies have been made. The first was conducted in 1988 by an American execution equipment expert, Fred. A. Leuchter, Jr. He carried out an on- site forensics examination of the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek to determine if they could have been used to kill people as claimed. After a careful study of the alleged killing facilities, Leuchter concluded that the sites were not used, and could not have been used, as homicidal gas chambers. Further, an analysis of samples taken by Leuchter from the walls and floors of the alleged gas chambers showed either no or misuscule traces of cyanide compound, from the active ingredient of Zyklon-B, the pesticide allegedly used to murder Jews at Auschwitz. A confidential forensic examination (and subsequent report) commissioned by the Auschwitz State Museum and conducted by the Institute of Forensic Research in Krakow has confirmed Leuchter's finding that minimal or no traces of cyanide compound can be found in the sites alleged to have been gas chambers. The significance of this is evident when the results of the forensic examination of the alleged homicidal gas chambers are compared with the results of the examination of the Auschwitz disinfestation facilities, where Zyklon-B was used to delouse mattresses and clothing. Whereas only trace amounts of cyanide were found in the alleged homicidal gas chambers (when any such compounds are found at all), massive traces of cyanide were found in the walls and floor in the [Page 5] camp's delousing chambers. German chemist Germar Rudolf carried out a forensic study of his own. On the basis of his on-site examination and analysis of samples, the certified chemist and doctoral candidate concluded: "For chemical-technical reasons, the claimed mass gassings with hydocyanic acid in the alleged `gas chambers' in Auschwitz did not take place.; "... The supposed facilities for mass killing in Auschwitz and Birkenau were not suitable for this purpose ...". Finally, there is a study by Austrian engineer Walter Lueftl, a respected expert witness in numerous court cases, and former president of Austria's professional association of engineers. In a 1992 report he called the alleged mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers "technically impossible". So just what constitutes `Holocaust denial'? Those who advocate criminal persecution of `Holocaust deniers' seem to be still living in the world of 1946 where the Allied officials of the Nuremberg Tribunal have just pronounced their verdict. But the Tribunal's findings can no longer be assumed to be valid. Because it relied so heavily on such untrustworthy evidence as the Hoess testimony, some of its most critical findings are now discredited. For purposes of their own, powerful special interest groups desperately seek to keep substantive discussion of the Holocaust story taboo. But the truth cannot be suppressed forever: There is a very real and growing controversy about what actually happened to Europe's Jews during World War II. Let this issue be settled as all great historical controversies are resolved: through free inquiry and open debate in our journals, newspapers and classrooms. Because Jones does not specify passages from the Adelaide Institute Web site that he finds objectionable, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks against `deniers', it is difficult to understand what Jones is talking about, and impossible to respond substantively. Using Jones' method of quoting others in an attempt to show the defective nature of Holocaust revisionists, one could easily find dozens of quotes from people pointing out defects in Zionism, and in the conduct of the State of Israel. Zionism was condemned by the United Nations as being the equivalent of racism, and the state of Israel routinely practices discriminatory behavior, censors books and ideas, represses other human rights, and engages in warlike activities. It is well known that many Israeli leaders were members of terrorist organizations prior to coming to power. Does Jones lobby for the cessation of the very real transgressions, past and present, of the state of Israel with the same vigor that he pursues the curtailment of Dr. Toben's freedom of speech? In Section 3.3.1.a, Jones quotes Walter Reich as stating, "The primary motivation for most deniers is anti-Semitism". Although in my experience, this statement is false, it is more to the point that there are Holocaust revisionists from all walks of life, and every religious background, including Jewish. It is also worth noting that it is illogical to impute bad motives to those with whom you disagree, and that motives are completely beside the point at best. No one attempts to censor those who write positively about Jewish history or the state of Israel. In Section 3.3.1.i Jones claims that "Holocaust denial is, for the racist of today, as potent a weapon as charges of deicide and witchcraft in times past." This is a false statement that attempts to smear revisionism and silence revisionists by associating revisionism with racism and racists. It is equally true that the Israeli-built Uzi submachine gun is `as potent a weapon' for modern street gangs as the Thompson submachine gun was for Chicago gangster Al Capone. Yet, it would be ludicrous to call [Page 6] for the end of Israeli arms production, or the dissolution of the state of Israel, simply because criminals make use of this product. Likewise, Holocaust revisionism is a legitimate pursuit, practiced by Jewish and non-Jewish scholars alike. Revisionists cannot be held accountable for the uses to which their findings are put. If Jones feels revisionists are wrong, he should present facts that he believes support his position, so they may be evaluated. Concerning the matter of Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik regime in the Soviet Union, it has long been well known that Jews were over-represented in the Soviet hierarchy. This fact is neither anti-Semitic nor philo-Semitic: it simply is. Those who wish to avoid discussion of these facts and their consequences are guilty of perverting historical inquiry for ideological reasons. The linkage between Judaism and socialist movements has been written about for decades by prominent historians, including Winston Churchill. For example, award-winning Jewish author Norman F. Cantor, professor of history, sociology, and comparative literature at New York University, writes: "Half of the six members of the politburo that was the supreme government of Soviet Russia in 1920 were Jews. The first head of the Soviet secret police was Jewish. Jews were prominent in the leadership of the Communist party in Germany, Hungary, and Austria. In the 1920s close to half the members of the small and politically insignificant American Communist Party were Jewish. There was, therefore, an affinity between the Jews and not only market capitalism but also late nineteenth- century and early twentieth-century communism....  ... But also before the Russian Revolution in 1917, of the four communist giants, Marx was a German Jew, Luxemburg a Polish-German Jew, and Trotsky a Russian Jew. Even the fourth, V.I. Lenin, is suspected by some of having had a Jewish grandparent...." While not an expert on the `Talmud', I am aware of books that reproduce, from English-language translations of the `Talmud', passages that contain language and concepts that any decent person would find offensive. It is revealing that at no time does Jones disavow or even distance himself from these repugnant passages. In closing, it has been said that truth is hate only to those who hate the truth. The larger issue, however, is not whether the revisionist position is closer to the `truth' about the Second World War than that of the anti-revisionists. Freedom of speech aside, the larger issue is that there must be give and take on historical issues, in order that we may better arrive at an understanding of what actually happened. Without discussion and debate, only one side will be represented, and there will be no way of determining if that side is in fact accurate. Jones' request to silence Toben and others like him is an admission that his views on history cannot compete in the academic arena, and he therefore needs government intervention to maintain and promote a viewpoint for which he has no factual support, his vague and shopworn claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Greg Raven Footnotes 1. Globe and Mail, Toronto, Jan. 22, 1992 2. Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, IMT `blue series', Vol. 1, pp. 252-253. 3. IMT `blue series', Vol. 1, p. 252 4. Globe and Mail, Toronto, April 25, 1990; See also M. Weber, `Jewish Soap', The Journal of Historical Review, Summer, 1991 5. D. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The growing assault on truth and memory, New York, Toronto: Free Press, 1993, p.188. See also: C. Hitches, `Whose History Is It?', Vanity Fair, December 1993, p.117 6. Canadian Jewish News, Toronto, Jan. 30, 1992 7. See: Barbara Kulascka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die 8. `The Revised Hilberg', Simon Wiesenthal Annual, Vol. 3, 1986, p.294 9. Barbara Kulascka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die, Toronto, 1992), pp.24-25 10. A. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? The `Final Solution in History' Pantheon, 1988), p.365 11. IMT, `blue series', Vol. I, p. 47 (indictment); Nuremberg document 008-USSR; IMT, Vol. 39, pp. 241, 261 12. B. Kulascka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die, Toronto, 1992), p.441 13. Y. Bauer, `Fighting the Distortions', Jerusalem Post, Israel, Sept. 22, 1989; Auschwitz Deaths Reduced to a Million, Daily Telegraph, London, July 17, 1990; `Poland Reduces Auschwitz Death Toll Estimate to 1 Million,' The Washington Times, July 17, 1990 14. J.-C. Pressac, Les Cremetoires d'Auschwitz: La machinerie du meurtre de masse, Paris: CNRS, 1993). See also: R. Faurisson, `Jean-Claude Pressac's New Auschwitz Book', The Journal of Historical Review, Jan-Feb 1994, p. 24 15. IMT `blue series', Vol. I, pp. 252-252; Nuremberg document 3868-PS (USA-819), in IMT, Vol. 33, pp. 275-279 16. Rupert Butler, Legions of Death, England, 1983, pp. 235-237; C. Hitchens, `Whose History is It?', Vanity Fair, New York, Dec. 1993, p.117 17. See: R. Faurisson, `How the British Obtained the Confession of Rudolf Hoess,' The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1991 18. The complete text of this report is published in English in the Journal of Historical Review, Summer, 1991 19. G. Rudolf, Gutachten ueber die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindunger in den `Gaskammern' von Auschwitz, London: 1993. See: The Journal of Historical Review, Nov-Dec, 1993, pp.25- 26 20. The Lueftal Report, The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1992-93 21. W. Churchill, `Zionism versus Bolshevism: A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people,' Illustrated Sunday Herald, London, February 8, 1920. 22. N.F. Cantor, `The Sacred Chain: The history of the Jews,' New York: Harper Perennial, 1995, p.274 23. N. Cantor, p. 278 24. Benjamin H. Freedman, `Facts are Facts,' New York, 1954, pp. 27-45. See also: Elizabeth Dilling, `The Plot Against Christianity.'
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor