The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/v/van-handel.don/donvh.0695

From Sun Jun 11 10:40:21 PDT 1995
Article: 22076 of alt.revisionism
From: (DonVH)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Date: 8 Jun 1995 07:57:51 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <3r6ojv$>
References: <>
Reply-To: (DonVH)
NNTP-Posting-Host: asks" can you supply a citation for this
explanation? "  (re 74,000 "natural" deaths at Auschwitz)                 
                                        I have the following quote from an
article entitled, BATTLESHIP AUSCHWITZ by David Irving.  Irving says,     
        "The Russians released in September last year [1989?], September
21, the Auschwitz death books.  That was an ugly blow for the battleship
Auschwitz and its crew.  Because the Russians, by releasing the forty-six
death books of Auschwitz- which cover the years 1942 completely, 1943
almost completely, and 1944 incompletely- the Russians have revealed that
the set of Auschwitz death books, which they have released, now shows, a
total of 74,000 deaths.  74,000 deaths by all causes."  (JHR vol. X, No. 4
p. 500)                                                Of course - the
Auschwitz death books are incomplete.  In addition it is claimed that many
people died without being registered into the Auschwitz camp and therefore
were not included in the 74,000.                                          
                You many also check out an article entitled, THE NUMBER OF
VICTIMS by Franciszek Piper.  Piper writes, "When Soviet soldiers
liberated the camp in January 1945, they found documents that confirmed
only 100,000 deaths."  (Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp edited by
Gutman and Berenbaum p.61)  This article is by the way based on the
research carried out by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum which
concluded that "at least 1,100,000 persons were killed or died in the
camp"  (Ibid p.71)  This article is very interesting.                     
      Meanwhile on the revisionist side, Arthur Butz has also written
about this.  See his SOME THOUGHTS ON PRESSAC'S OPUS, Butz gives his
statistics from the International Tracing Service in Arolsoen.   I quote, 
                                          "45,575 recorded deaths in 1943,
and 36960 in 1943, with death books missing for 1940, 1941, 1944, and
January 1945....Another problem is the significance of the 69,000 deaths
recorded in the death certicificates of the (incomplete) "death books"
announced by the Soviets in 1989."  Butz goes on to do numerous
calculations in his article drawing comparisons with Dachau (which of
course, is generally viewed as a different type of camp from Auschwitz).  
                            I know I have more sources on this info.  I am
sure that there is at least one reference to the Soviet Death Books in
Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp.  When I locate them I will forward
them along.                              
* "Our highest insights must - and should - sound like folly and sometimes
like crimes" *                                                            

From Thu Jun 15 16:03:54 PDT 1995
Article: 22181 of alt.revisionism
From: (DonVH)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: BEETHOVEN : P.O.W.
Date: 14 Jun 1995 07:42:16 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <3rmhuo$>
Reply-To: (DonVH)

According to a recent article in U.S. News & World Report:                
                 In order to avoid destruction from British saturation
bombing, the Germans carefully packed valuable works from Berlin's
Prussian State Library into 505 crates and shipped them to the town of
Grussau for safekeeping.  The works included the original manuscripts of
Beethoven's Eighth and Ninth symphonies as well as numerous Mozart operas,
Bach cantatas, and writings of Goethe.                                    
                   As a result of the redrawing of borders in 1945, these
German treasures were now located deep into Poland.  The Poles discovering
their stash moved it to Krakow's Jagiellonian Library, where it remained
inaccessible to scholars during the bulk of the cold war.  Germany has
been trying desparately to get their cultural treasures returned. 
Negotiations resumed around May 1st of this year.  German authorities have
cited the Hague Convention of 1907 - which bars countries from keeping
cultural property as a result of war.  The Poles view their booty as
reparations from Germany.  A spokesman for the German foreign office said,
"These are key documents of German heritage, pieces of central importance
to study of our culture.  We are absolutely ready to hand back cultural
treasures in exchange."  It is clear that these manuscripts are no more
Polish property than the city of Danzig was after the First World War.
* "Our highest insights must - and should - sound like folly and sometimes
like crimes" *                                                            

From Thu Jun 15 16:03:56 PDT 1995
Article: 22182 of alt.revisionism
From: (DonVH)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Four or Three or ... or .... or ....
Date: 14 Jun 1995 07:46:21 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <3rmi6d$>
References: <>
Reply-To: (DonVH)

Mr. Baron - You forget Mr. Reitlinger's word from 1952 published in his
THE FINAL SOLUTION.  I quote ,"...the figure of four millions has become
ridiculous.  Unfortunately Russian arithmetic has blurred the stark and
inescapable facts that little less than a million human beings perished in
Auschwitz."  p.460.
* "Our highest insights must - and should - sound like folly and sometimes
like crimes" *                                                            

From Sat Jun 17 04:49:15 PDT 1995
Article: 22250 of alt.revisionism
From: (DonVH)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Date: 15 Jun 1995 07:13:11 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 371
Message-ID: <3rp4k7$>
Reply-To: (DonVH)

I have recently had the pleasure of  discussing matters of historical
revisionism with David Cole.  David has also gratiously responded to a
series of questions which I put forth 
to him with the specific purpose of being posted in this forum.  His
answers are at once, funny, angry, serious,and insightful, but above all,
honest.  He is critical of revisionists and exterminationists alike.  One
may disagree with David, but no one can claim that he is insincere.  David
has appeared on numerous television shows and is best know for his video,
“David Cole Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper.”  And now...without further
ado...David Cole...


Q:     How did you first become interested in Holocaust Revisionism?

COLE:     I was introduced to revisionism via a number of sources, ranging
>from  the late David McCalden (who was the first revisionist I ever met) to
a friend of mine whose father worked for the ADL.  By 1988 I was
interested not so much by revisionist literature, which I deemed to be
fairly weak in places, but instead by the almost total lack of reliable
sources (or in many cases the lack of  ANY sources) for the gas chamber /
genocide concept.  After reading the major mainstream Holocaust books, I
became aware that the evidence for the gas chamber / genocide concept was
extremely weak...which doesn’t mean that I dismissed the story entirely -
I just became aware that the evidence was weak.  What bothered me was that
the mainstream authors didn’t seem to mind making unsourced claims...nor
did they seem to mind that their various versions of events often
conflicted.  There didn’t actually seem to be one “version.”  Each book
made different claims about the “genocide plan” and the “gas chambers.”  I
thought that AT BEST this was sloppy historiography...after all, I had
been told since grade school that everything about the Holocaust had long
ago been ascertained beyond question.

So I thought I’d look into this issue myself.  In a way, you can say that
I was affected more by the books of the NON-revisionists.  This whole
subject just SCREAMED out for more research.  So I looked at my
cobweb-covered social calendar and figured “Hell, I got about ten or
twenty years to blow on research.”

Q:     What, in your opinion, was the fate of Europe’s Jews during the
Second World War?

COLE:     Ah, now isn’t that the question of the hour!  You know, after
about nine years of research,  I think I finally know the answer to that
question.  If I ever publish again (and I mean a book; I’ve never enjoyed
doing videos)  I’ll answer that in depth.  If any of you Internetters out
there are interested in the question of the fate of Europe’s Jews, just
take your time and pay attention to the evidence and, if you allow your
mind to stay clear, you’ll get to the truth - or, as I’m fond of saying,

Q:     For those who have not seen it, what would you say is the
importance of your film, “David Cole interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper” ?

COLE:     My video “David Cole Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper” was
important only in that it has yielded results.  Finally, last year, the
Auschwitz State Museum (ASM) began telling  people the truth about Krema
1.  Tourists are no longer told that they are stepping inside a “genuine”
gas chamber.  Now they are told that the interior was remodeled after the
war to LOOK LIKE the kind of gas chamber that is believed by the ASM to
have once been extant at the Auschwitz Main Camp (Pressac believes that
there was a gas chamber at the Main Camp, but his description of it
differs from the ASM’s, so it need to be pointed out that the Krema 1
which is presently on display is specifically the ASM’s version of the
Auschwitz Main Camp gas chamber).  As far as the Internet goes, I think it
should be pointed out that when my “Dr. Piper” video was first released,
it was held up to constant (and very immature) ridicule on the ‘net. 
“Cole’s lying,” it was said.  “Cole’s edited Dr. Piper’s comments to
misrepresent what he’s saying.”  I was called a liar and a fraud.  Now
that the ASM has changed its spiel to say openly exactly what Dr. Piper
told me, and what I reported in my video, the ‘net has grown oddly silent!
 No apologies from anyone, of course! (Not that I’m asking for any). 
There was one freak on the ‘net who told me I should “suck demon cocks in
Hell for all eternity” because of my Piper video.  Where’s this guy now? 
What does he have to say now?

You see, AT FIRST the line was “Cole’s lying about Krema 1 being
‘remodeled’ after the war.”  But now that this has been officially
admitted the line has changed to “sure it’s been remodeled, but so what?” 
This is a standard anti-revisionist tactic.  When a revisionist points
ANYTHING out, the first response is simply to DENY what he’s saying. 
“He’s lying.”  It doesn’t matter if it’s REALLY known whether he’s lying
or not.  It’s just STRATEGICALLY the best way to deal with revisionists. 
Just accuse them of lying.  THEN, if the thing that the revisionist was
pointing out becomes adopted as part of the standard Holocaust line, the
tactic CHANGES (out of necessity) to “sure the revisionist is right about
this ONE LITTLE TINY POINT - but it makes no difference - he’s still wrong
about everything else!”

This was the tactic with the Auschwitz swimming pool.  The first responses
were “there is no pool.”  Then, when it became clear that there WAS one,
it became “sure there is, but so what?  It’s an irrelevant point.”  The
same pattern occured with the delousing chambers.  First it was denied
that Zyklon was actually used for delousing in the cmaps.  Revisionists
were actually RIDICULED for saying so.  Then, after Pressac, it became
“okay, sure, there were delousing chambers - but so what?”  We see the
same pattern with the human soap, the Dachau “gas chamber,”  the reduction
of the Auschwitz death toll (something that revisionists were talking
about while Yehuda Bauer was still going through puberty), and many other
things.  The rule of thumb for those who “battle” revisionists : DENY
first.  Throw around the word “liar” like a football.  Then sit back and
hope that everyone believes you and the revisionist goes away or is put in
jail or beaten up.  But if the worst happens, and the revisionist is
proven right, just pretend that you ALWAYS knew the truth of what he’s
been saying, and make sure that everyone understands that the revisionist
is STILL a liar about “everything else”!

All I’m saying is this; it very well might be that the remodeling of Krema
1, the Auschwitz swimming pool, the human soap story, the reduced
Auschwitz death toll, the fake Dachau “gas chamber,” etc. etc. ARE INDEED
irrelevant to the debate over the existence of homicidal gas chambers, or
the existence of a genocide plan.  But you only do yourself a disservice
by AUTOMATICALLY DENYING the truthfulness of everything that proceeds from
the mouths of revisionists.  You should skip the first phase, the “liar”
phase, and go directly to the second one, the “it doesn’t matter” phase. 
Several months ago the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s magazine “Response”
published an article calling me a liar for saying that there was a
swimming pool at the Auschwitz Main Camp.  This is exactly the kind of
counterproductive strategy that “exterminationists” can’t seem to get
beyond.  We all know that there was a swimming pool.  We also understnad
that the presence of this pool IN NO WAY negates the possibility of
gassings at Auschwitz.  It’s totally irrelevant!  But there’s no reason to
LIE about anything.  Just be truthful.  Don’t scream “LIAR - THERE WAS NO
POOL.”  Just rationally explain “yes, there’s a pool, but at best it was
for the few favored Main Camp inmates - one of many perks available to
preferred inmates - but it is in no way representative of the experience
of rank and file inmates - especially Birkenau inmates.”

There, now, doesn’t that feel better!?  No need to lie.  Don’t
underestimate the capacity of your audience to take in seemingly
contradictory pieces of evidence.  If you can explain something clearly
enough, they’ll understand.  I was never lying about Krema 1.  Period.  My
interview with Piper has ALWAYS been available in its rough, unedited
version - just to show that there were no “creative” edits.  But that
never really mattered to most of you, now did it?

Q:     What do you consider to be the most compelling support for the
revisionist view of the “Holocaust” story?

COLE:     The most “compelling” evidence for the revisionist version is
the LACK of hard evidence presented by the “exterminationist” side, and
the questionable nature of most of the physical evidence.  Now, just
because the “exterminationists” don’t provide much hard evidence doesn’t
necessarily mean that there IS no hard evidence...the gas chamber and
genocide stories might indeed be true IN SPITE of the smugness and
laziness of the “exterminationists.”  Just because most of these people
are so sure of their own theory that they feel no need to really go out
and PROVE anything DOESN’T MEAN that they wouldn’t find any evidence if
they ever just get up off their fat asses and look.  I’ve come to really
respect Chris Browning.  His “Fateful Months” and “Path to Genocide” are
real attempts to look for evidence - and he’s not afraid to talk about the
many flaws and contradictions in the varous “exterminationist” schools of
thought about the “genocide” plan.  I think this is why so many others
refuse to break a sweat looking for evidence; they’re afraid of having to
say “we don’t know that yet.”  They have this scenario in their minds that
as soon as they acknowledge the gaps that still exist in Holocaust
history, within 24 hours Ernst Zundel will become dictator of the world! 
This sounds ridiculous but it’s true.  A lot of these guys have scared
themselves silly over the likes of Zundel.  In a way, they let Zundel
write their Holocaust books because it’s their fear of Zundel that
determines what they say and what they don’t.  Guys like Browning and Arno
Mayer have more of a respect for their audience.  They understand that
most people can handle knowing about still unanswered Holocaust questions
without getting the urge to put on jackboots and brown shirts.  Raul
Hilberg was candid, VERY candid, about what he didn’t know during his
stint as a witness in the first Zundel Trial.  I only wish he was as
candid in his books!

Q:     Have you encountered any anti-semitism from the revisionists that
you have met  around the world?

COLE:     Have I encountered anti-Semitism from revisionists?  That’s a
tricky one, because most of them are always on their best behavior when
I’m around.  The ones, and there are many, who believe in wacky Jewish
conspiracy theories or the supremacy of the “white race” rarely let me in
on the joke because they know that I won’t share those views.  I always
volunteer my views on such subjects as religion, race-mixing, conspiracy
theories, etc., just so there should be no confusion about where I stand
on those things.  Plus my best friend, who is black, is REALLY imposing -
this is a BIG guy who, by his sheer size, doesn’t exactly encourage candor
>from  white supremacists who might be in the same room.  Anytime he’s
around, my revisionist pals are either silent or trying to say something
complimentary about black people (like “I really love that Marcus Garvey”
or “you people are such great Christians”).  One time I was having dinner
with Mark Weber and his girlfriend.  As we were coming out of the
restaurant, a trendy, expensive West L.A. eatery, Weber was talking
animatedly about some very “conservative” subjects.  And who should come
walking up behind us, listening in, but the rapper Ice T, who, as many of
you would know, is as far left as Mark is far right.  I managed to change
the subject before the situation could become dangerous.  Still and all,
nowadays I wonder if I did the right thing.  It’s not that I wish Mark any
harm, it’s just that, well, the image of a revisionist historian getting
clobbered by a famous rapper...well, as Beavis and/or Butt-head might say,
“that would be cool.”

Q:     What difficulties has your position on the “Holocaust” resulted in
for you?

COLE:     My position has resulted in a plethora of “difficulties,” but
the majority of them I now realize were due to my own thoughtlessness,
impatience, pig-headedness, and my mishandling of several things that, if
handled better, would have resulted in life being a bit easier for me.  So
I’m not going to bitch about my “problems” because so many of them are
squarely of my own making.  I’m not a “victim,” with the exceptiions being
the times I’ve been beaten up (there’s no reason to do this to ANYONE, no
matter how much you disagree with their positions) and the times the media
has GROSSLY misrepresented my views.  And by that I don’t mean “negative
press.”  I mean the times they have manufactured quotes from me in order
to distort and falsify my positions.  Like when “60 Minutes” re-edited my
appearance on the “Montel Williams Show” by taking the scene when I’m
introduced at the beginning of the show - and I nod “yes” when Montel says
I’m Jewish, and placing that affirmative nod after a point later in the
show when Montel asks if the Holocaust is a “myth.”  So, the millions of
viewers who watch “60 Minutes,” saw Montel ask “Is it a myth?” - and then
they saw me nod in the affirmative.  The deceit is only obvious to the few
who have seen the actual video of the “Montel Williams” episode.  How can
this kind of media behavior be excused?  I’ve NEVER said that the
Holocaust is a “myth” or “hoax” or “lie.”  Yet to all of my family and
friends across the country (and to the MILLIONS of other people) who saw
“60 Minutes,” this was the unmistakable impression.  And of course we all
know that the great Mike Wallace wouldn’t lie, right?  “60 Minutes” caused
me a GREAT deal of pain and grief, and I think that this ranks with one of
those things that is NOT in any way my fault, because I’m more than
willing to defend (and defend PUBLICLY) any of my beliefs.  But I’m not
responsible for the gross and malicious behavior of some reporters and
producers who, frustrated with the fact that I don’t say what they would
LIKE me to say, bypass all boundaries of ethical behavior to “make” me say
the words they want to hear.

Q:     What is the nature of your disagreement with Robert Faurrison?

COLE:     My dispute with Robert Faurisson was outlined in my article in
Bradley Smith’s newsletter “Smith’s Report” #21, as well as in my 16 page
response to Faurisson and Henri Roques, which has been excerpted in
“Smith’s Report” and distributed widely by Bradley.  If you want the
details, you can post those items.  The bottom line, for those who don’t
want the gory details, is that Faurisson thinks I’m an agent for the
“Jewish conspiracy,” and that I’ve been sent to infiltrate and destroy his
precious revisionist “movement.”  And I think that Faurisson is a complete
fraud and liar masquerading as a historian...aman who’s spent years
misleading people and misrepresenting crucial evidence in order to support
his otherwise insupportable positions.  We each have our “cheering
sections.”  Faurisson has the support of all the other revisionists,
racists, and right-wingers who have long believed that I’m a
“conspirator,” and, as I’ve been finding out since my dispute with
Faurisson went public, I have the support of many honest researchers on
both sides of this issue who have tried to take Faurisson up on his empty
request for “open debate,” only to find out that Faurisson rarely if ever
makes himself available to defend ANY of his fraudulent positions, most of
which fall to shreds at the first hint of a critical question.

The response of the revisionist “community” to this dispute has persuaded
me to sever my ties with those few revisionists I ever had “ties” with. 
The response from Faurisson, Bradley Smith, Mark Weber, and Dr. Robert
Countess (among others) has been the same.  “How can you be so hard on
Faurisson,” they ask, “he’s suffered so badly at the hands of the French
government.  Have some compassion!”  This response really burns me up, not
only because it bypasses any discussion of the truth of my specific
complaints about Faurisson’s work, but even more because it comes from
people who have NEVER given an OUNCE of compassion to concentration camp
survivors, even though these people have suffered far more than Faurisson
EVER has.  To me, nothing is worse than a hypocrite.  Time and again these
revisionists have derided and mocked camp survivors, bragging that they
won’t soften their tone because of the suffering of these people.  Bradley
Smith, who called Mel Mermelstein a “fraud,” “vainglorious prevaricator,”
and “false tale-spinner,” and Elie Wiesel a man “not wrapped too tight,”
has lost the moral right to ask me to soften my tone on Faurisson because
“the poor man’s been through so much.”  Faurisson has been telling
revisionists that I’m some kind of villain for being so “hard” on such an
“oppressed” man as he.  But Faurisson, who took immense pleasure in
hounding Otto Frank until his dying day, and who was NEVER swayed by the
fact that Frank lost his entire family because of the Nazis, has NO RIGHT
to now ask for an immunity from criticism that he has always denied
others.  Faurisson is suffering?  Perhaps.  But he has it a thousand times
better than a Jew living under Nazism.  I refuse to have a double
standard.  People may not like me, but I never want it said that I’m not
fair.  I’ve criticized the testimony of survivors and mainstream Holocaust
scholars, and I’ll be damned if  I’m not going to be just as hard if not
harder on a fraud like Faurisson.  As I told Bradley in a recent letter,
my association with the revisionist “movement” was always conditional;  I
share very little or nothing in common with any of these people except for
a desire to probe the unanswered questions regarding the Holocaust.  The
minute I felt I could no longer trust the revisionists to be genuinely
interested in getting to the truth of the gas chamber / genocide story was
the minute I was out the door.  As far as I’m concerned now, I’m no more
in their “camp” than the “exterminationist” one.  This may sound foolish
to the smug anti-revisionists of the ‘net, who are probably bursting with
sarcastic laughter that I would have EVER really thought that the
revisionists had integrity.  But back in the real world, it must be
understood that both Mark Weber and David Irving are highly competent
World War Two historians - and this is something that even a master libel
artist like Michael Shermer (of the “Skeptic” and the “Donahue Show”) was
forced to admit (I’ll explain the “libel artist” comment: Shermer wrote in
his “Skeptic” article that he had evidence “from within my own ranks” that
I’m a “racist with a political agenda.”  However, in two subsequent
tape-recorded phone calls, one with me and one with a fellow “skeptic,”
Shermer admitted that this claim was patently false.  He even told his
“skeptic” supporter that the “racist” claim against me was “the most
misleading thing” in his article.  This fellow “skeptic” was outraged
enough to turn a copy of this conversation over to me.  Despite my pleas
to Shermer to print a retraction, it’s been a year so far and no
retraction.  Shermer is not concerned at all about correcting “the most
misleading thing” he wrote in his article.  Some “skeptic”)  Back to Weber
and Irving.  I’m not at all close to Irving, so I really can’t comment on
him.  But I CAN say that Mark Weber’s greatest flaw is that he seems to
concern himself more with the “movement” than with the integrity of his
own work.  He might have had a real shot at legitimacy as a historian, but
he’s blown it by sacrificing his integrity for “movement” concerns.  For
example, IHR sells the “Protocols of Zion.”  Weber freely acknowledges
(privately) that this book is a ridiculous fraud.  But he also admits that
it’s one of the consistently best selling books they have.  Weber would
like to drop it, but he’s afraid of losing support.

Q:     What are your plans for the future?

Right now I’m working on a fairly lengthy and time-consuming project. 
Mainly I’m still in the research phase.  I prefer that part.  I love doing
research.  I’m not so big on the “publicity” part.  I think that’s a major
misconception among people who follow the revisionist debate.  I’ve been a
part of most of the major media “adventures” (like “Montel Williams,”
“Phil Donahue,” “60 Minutes”  “The New Yorker,” etc.)  and I think some
people probably get the idea that I like doing that kind of stuff.  But
these people get a skewed perspective of my life.  At best they see maybe
two or three hours out of my entire year.  They don’t have a clue about
what I do with my roughly 16 or so waking hours each day.  I’m really only
in my element when I’m researching something.  I hate doing the talk
shows.  Since I declined to appear on “60 Minutes” I’ve gone cold turkey. 
No more media for a long time.  The worst part of the talk shows is,
you’re sitting in your dressing room or the green room, waiting to go on,
and you’re going over in your mind just WHAT you plan to say for the few
uninterrupted minutes of talk time you’ll be afforded on the show.  So
you’re going over your “best” material.  It’s like a comedian, about to go
on the “Tonight Show” for the first time, going over his “best” seven
minutes!  But history isn’t like that.  You can’t refine and edit the
entire Holocaust into seven minutes!  History is all about specifics,
details, and digression.  It’s an insult to the subject to demand a
“brief” digest.  Claude Lanzmann had the right idea; the longer the

But mabe my appearances on the talk shows have yielded some positive
results.  After all, didn’t the “Montel Williams” episode I did with Mark
Weber end up reuniting two long lost brothers, who each thought the other
had been gassed at Auschwitz?  And I think that my film clips from
Majdanek (which I showed on “Donahue”) might also have some positive
effects; I’ve been told by a “little bird” (a usually reliable little
bird) that there’s a chance that the Majdanek Museum might soon jettison
one or all of their “homicidal” gas chambers.  Last year, when I met with
Majdanek Museum Curator Tomasz Kranz, he seemed ready to do that with
their largest “homicidal” (actually delousing) gas chamber.  I’m not a
betting man, but I’d wager that, more than any concerns about historical
accuracy, the major concern of the Majdanek Museum is that without “gas
chambers” to view, no one would have any reason to travel to Lublin!

I wonder what the response will be on the ‘net if the Majdanek gas
chambers, which have been like a “pet project” of mine for the past three
years, are officially revised?  I mean, right now everyone calls me a

From Fri Jun 23 11:41:19 PDT 1995
Article: 22524 of alt.revisionism
From: (DonVH)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Bashing babies' heads
Date: 21 Jun 1995 21:23:16 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <3sagm4$>
References: <>
Reply-To: (DonVH)

The following is by Edgar L. Jones - an American Veteran of the Second
World War.  It was published in an article entitled, "One War is Enough"
in the Atlantic Monthly of February 1946.                                 
                "What kind of a war do civilians suppose we fought anyway?
 We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats,
killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off enemy wounded, tossed
the dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled the flesh
off the enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved
their bones into letter openers.  We topped off our saturation bombing and
burning of enemy civilians by dropping atomic bombs on two nearly
defenseless cities, thereby setting an all-time record for instantaneous
mass slaughter."                                                          
   "Whatever is done from love always occurs beyond good and evil " ... 

From Fri Jun 23 11:41:29 PDT 1995
Article: 22531 of alt.revisionism
From: (DonVH)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Bosnia & Nazis
Date: 21 Jun 1995 21:09:09 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <3safrl$>
References: <3s4gvq$>
Reply-To: (DonVH)

I don't believe that there is any support for the 1.5 million figure that
you postulate.  Note that widespread atrocities against Serbs were claimed
even in World War I.  On March 22, 1916, the London Daily Telegraph
printed the following article:                                 ATROCITIES
IN SERBIA                                                                 
                 700,000 VICTIMS                                          
                        ROME, Monday (6:45 p.m.)                          
                                                    The Governments of the
Allies have secured evidence and documents, which will shortly be
published, proving that Austria and Bulgaria have been guilty of horrible
crimes in Serbia, where the massacres committed were worse than those
perpetrated by Turkey in Armenia.                                         
                              The Italian government has today published
the testimony of two Italian prisoners who escaped from Austria through
Serbia, and took refuge in Romania.  What these two prisoners saw and
learned, however, was nothing compared with the evidence supplied by the
Serbians themselves, and communicated by M. Pasitch to the  Italian
Government and to the Pope.  According to reliable information, the
victims of the Austrians and Bulgarians exceeded 700,000.   Whole
districts, with towns and villages, have been depopulated by massacres. 
Women, children, and old men were shut up in churches by the Austrians,
and either stabbed with the bayonet or suffocated by means of asphyxiating
gas.  In one church in Belgrade 3,000 women, children, and old men were
thus suffocated.                                                          
                                                Serbian refugees, not on
oath, have stated that they were present at a distribution of bombs and
machines for producting asphyxiating gas to the Bulgarians by the Germans
and Austrians, who instructed the former how to utilize these instuments
to exterminated the Serbian population.  The Bulgarians used this method
at Nish, Pirot, Prizrend and Negotin, the inhabitants of which places died
of suffocation.  Similar means were employed by the Austrians in several
parts of Montenegro.                                                      
                                            The article reproduced above
was clearly  a manifestation of allied war propaganda.  I recommend a work
FIRST WORLD WAR.  This volume was originally published in 1928 and can be
found in most college libraries.                                          
            In regard to your question about Muslim SS divisions.  Muslims
served in the following divisions of the Waffen-SS:                       
                                            13th Waffen-Gebirgsdivison der
SS Handschar (Kroatische Nr. 1)  - This division was composed of Yugoslav
21st Waffen Gebirgsdivision der SS Skanderberg (Albanische Nr. 1) - This
division was composed of Albanian Muslims                                 
                      23rd Waffen Gebirgsdivision der SS Kama (Kroatische
Nr. 2) - This division was composed of Yugoslav Muslims
   "Whatever is done from love always occurs beyond good and evil " ... 

From Fri Jun 23 11:41:37 PDT 1995
Article: 22538 of alt.revisionism
From: (DonVH)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Paul Rassinier - Portrait of Courage
Date: 21 Jun 1995 20:27:42 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <3saddu$>
Reply-To: (DonVH)

There has been much interest in this forum over Paul Rassinier- Here is a
repost of some of the more important facts ....                           
                                  * * *  REVISIONIST PORTRAITS * * *
No. 1 - Paul Rassinier

INTRODUCTION- The Revisionist Portrait Series is intended to introduce
people to the works and lives of leading Revisionist scholars and authors.
 It will also serve as a database for revisionists and non-revisionists
alike to gain knowledge of the relevant biographical and bibliographical
information concerning each author.  Many of the authors discussed in this
series have been vilified, threatened, attacked, deported, and
incarcerated.  Unfortunately, these are the methods of the real deniers of

BACKGROUND- Paul Rassinier is known as the father of Holocaust
Revisionism.  Rassinier is an unlikely man to have earned such a title. 
Durining World War II, Rassinier was a highly decorated member of the
French Resistance.  In October of 1943 he was arrested by the Gestapo for
various activities including the smuggling of Jewish refugees over the
Franco-Swiss border.  Rassinier was sent to the concentration camp at
Buchenwald for his activities.  Later he would be moved to the camp known
as Dora where he would stay through the war’s end.

After the war, Rassinier returned to his native France and was elected to
the Assemblee Nationale.  He was awarded the highest decoration by the
French government for his involvement with the Resistance during the war. 
Rassinier, who was trained in history, set out after the war to document 
his experiences within the German concentration camp system.  The vivid
and accurate depictions of life at Buchenwald and Dora should be read by
any who are interested in the subject.  Rassinier paints the horrible
picture of the dead being brought from Dora to Buchenwald for cremation,
“Every day trucks brought full loads of dead bodies from Dora to be
cremated at Buchenwald, and it was from the prescence of these corpses
that the horrors of the camp were deduced.” (Holocaust Story and the Lies
of Ulysses p.38 hereafter HSLU)  Rassinier details the alarming death rate
at Buchenwald due to, “bad treatment, the poor and insufficient food, the
super human work, the lack of medicines, and ... pneumonia” (HSLU p.44)  

It was following the publication of Rassinier’s earliest works that he
realized that the war-time stories of other inmates were both popular and
terrible exagerations.  Rassinier wrote, “Then one day I realized that a
false picture of the German camps had been created and that the problem of
the concentration camps was a universal one, not just one that could be
disposed of by placing it on the doorstep of the National Socialists.  The
deportees-many of whom were Communists- had been largely responsible for
leading international political thinking to such an erroneous conclusion. 
I suddenly felt that by remaining silent I was an accomplice to a
dangerous influence.”(HSLU p.109)   Rassinier began to debunk and
deconstruct the works of his fellow inmates.  A tremendous effort was made
to debunk Raul Hilberg’s DESTRUCTION OF THE EUROPEAN JEWS.  Rassinier went
as far as to predict that in the future, Hilberg’s volume “will not be
spoken of at all, or if it is still mentioned, it will only be mentioned
in reference to something unworthy of notice except as an example of the
most scandalous aberrations of our times.” (HSLU p. 212)   

By now, Rassinier had become skeptical of the lurid gas chamber stories
which were being circulated.  He wrote, “In 1950, it was still too soon to
pronounce a definite judgment on the existence of gas chambers in the
camps; documents were wanting and those that existed were incomplete,
inexact, and obviously apocryhal or falsified.” (HSLU p.158)  With his
writing of THE DRAMA OF THE EUROPEAN JEWS, Rassinier would announce, “With
regard to gas chambers, the almost endless procession of false witnesses
and of falsified documents to which I have invited the reader’s attention
during this long study, proves, nevertheless, only one thing: never at any
moment did the responsible authorities of the Third Reich intend to order-
or in fact, order - the extermination of the Jews in this or any other
manner.  Did such exterminations take place without orders? This question
has haunted me for fifteen years.” (HSLU p.270)   Rassinier had determined
that no wide-spread gassings took place and that there was no policy to
exterminate the Jews of Europe.  He also provided revisionists with the
first real quantitative analysis of  Jewish wartime deaths.  His final
total put the range of Jewish deaths for the twelve years of Nazism
between  987,592 and 1,589,492. (HSLU p.389-90).  Even many years later,
Arthur Butz, the revisionist author who wrote, THE HOAX OF THE TWENTIETH
CENTURY accepted Rassinier’s analysis writing, “I will offer here no
definite estimate of Jewish losses.  However, I have no strong reason to
quarrel with Rassinier’s estimate.” (Hoax p.17)  Rassinier would later
become even more certain about the falsity of the gas chamber claims.  As
a result of his studies, he concluded in THE REAL EICHMANN TRIAL, “There
never were any gas chambers, nor any exterminations by that method at
Auschwitz-Birkenau.” (Real Eichmann Trial p.98)

By 1960, an important event occurred regarding Rassinier’s works, they
were discovered by Harry Elmer Barnes.   Barnes who was noted for his
revisionist writing regarding World War I, had been publishing numerous
works to show that similar situation existed at the conclusion of World
War II.  Rassinier’s works made a tremendous impact on Barnes.  Barnes
would mention Rassinier in his pamphlet, Revisionism and Brainwashing
commenting on “the discouragement and smearing of outsiders like the
distinguished French historian Paul Rassinier, who sought to expose the
exaggerations of the atrocity stories.” By the mid-1960’s Barnes had
completed having Rassinier’s works translated into English.  Barnes then
ran head-long into the American publishing industry’s self-imposed
censorship.  No publishing house was brave enough to publish Rassinier’s
works.  Barnes refused to be silenced.  He personally photocopied 40
copies of the typewritten English translations and distributed them to his
professional associates.    By 1978, thanks to the path-breaking work of
Harry Elmer Barnes, The Noontide Press was able to collect four of
works are now available in the fine Institute of Historical Review

Date of Birth- March 18, 1906
Place of Birth- Beaumont, France
Date of Death- July 29, 1967


Le Passage de la Ligne, 1948
Le Mensonge d’Ulysse, 1950
La Discours de la Derniere Chance (introductory essay to a doctrine of
Peace on the theme: “Neither Moscow nor Washington”) 1953
Candasse ou la huitieme peche capital, 1955
Le Parlement aux mains des banques, 1955
Ulysse trahi par les siens, 1960
L’Equivioque revolutionnaire, 1961
La Veritable Proces Eichmann ou Les Vainquiers incorrigibles, 1962
Le Drame des Juifs europeens, 1964
Les Responsables de la seconde guerre mondiale, 1967

Note: Le Passage de la ligne, Le Mensonge d’Ulysse, Ulysse trahi par les
siens, and Le Drame des Juifs europeens have been translated and published
in English as, The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses: A Study of the
German Concentration Camps and the Alleged Extermination of European
Jewry.  (Institute for Historical Review, P.O Box 2719, Newport Beach, CA
92659)  Also available from the IHR is the indispensible volume, The Real
Eichmann Trial or the Incorrigible Victors

   "Whatever is done from love always occurs beyond good and evil " ... 

From Fri Jun 23 11:41:42 PDT 1995
Article: 22542 of alt.revisionism
From: (DonVH)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: A Letter by Paul Rassinier
Date: 21 Jun 1995 20:48:06 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <3saek6$>
Reply-To: (DonVH)

Much interest has been expressed lately in the late Paul Rassinier. 
Following is a letter written by him shortly before his death.            
                                                 May 8, 1965              
Dear Sir,                                                                 
                                             Thank you for your letter of
May 3, 1965.                                                              
                                        No, I am not a supporter of
National Socialism: I am a socialist in the historical and doctrinal sense
of the word, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the interpretation
which is given to it at present by the leaders of parties, incorrectly
called socialist.  If, therefore, I do not support National Socialism,
this is simply a philosophical attitude: The Fuehrer-prinzip does not
attract me; I am not only a socialist, but also a democrat.  However, when
I correct the vulgar errors of the hysterical adversaries of Nazism, I do
so because, although I am a Frenchman, I am also a European: these vulgar
errors, committed with malice aforethought, have no other aim than to
exclude Germany from the community of European nations and to abort the
death of Europe, something that is impossible without Germany- or, indeed,
any other country on our continent.                                       
                                   In the twentieth century, the quarrel
between Germany and the other European nations is a resurrection of the
quarrel between the Armagnacs and the Brugundians or between the Guelphs
and the Ghubellines.  It is maintained at fever pitch by Bolshevism, which
is the modern version of Pan-Slavism, and it aims at the subversion of
Europe, a subversion against which Germany is our only shield.  In 1965,
the Slavs, who had been driven back by Charlemagne beyond the Vistual, are
50 kilometers from Hamburg.  If they can engineer the collapse of Germany,
they will, tomorrow, be in Brest and Bayonne.  The lies which the Press
pours out over Germany in a neverending stream must serve as their moral
It is my intention to wring from public opinion the admission that, in the
war of 1939-1945, Englishmen, Russians, Frenchmen, and Americans committed
crimes just as horrible and in just as great a number as those attributed
to the Germans - whose real crimes are, however, very much open to
dispute.  I also wish to have it conceded that it is immoral to
investigate merely German war criminals, especially when the criminal
nature of their behavior has been exaggerated, as has indeed been the
case.  I believe that, after a war, there should be a general amnesty for
all combatants because this is the only way to bring about an atmosphere
of peace between the nations, and to avoid future wars.  There is, of
course, the Communist danger, as well, which can only be  warded off by a
Europe, united in mutual and brotherly goodwill.                          
                                                That is my point of view:
it defines my intentions.  And it has, furthermore, the advantage of being
based on a search for historic truth, beyond the rancors of outmoded
                                                                   With my
best wishes,                                                              
                        Paul Rassinier                                    
                          [This letter originally appeared in The Journal
of Historical Review Vol. XII, No.1  Spring 1992.  ]                      
Reprinted by permission of The Journal of Historical Review, P.O. Box 2719
Newport Beach, CA  92659, United States of America.  Domestic subscription
rate: $40 per year, foreign rate: $50 per year.                           

From Sat Jun 24 16:36:27 PDT 1995
Article: 22612 of alt.revisionism
From: (DonVH)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re:  AUSROTTEN
Date: 24 Jun 1995 15:57:29 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <3shqn9$>
Reply-To: (DonVH)

Mr. Raven mentions Robert Wolfe's interpretation of "ausrottung."  The
following is excerpted from an article from the Associated Press.  It is
entitled, "HIMMLER SPEECH SHOWN AT ARCHIVES"                              
                                      "A stark reminder of the Holocaust -
a speech by Nazi SS leader Heinrich Himmler that refers to the
"extermination of the Jewish race" - went on display yesterday at the
National Archives.   The documents, including handwritten notes by
Himmler, are among the best evidence that exists to rebut claims that the
Holocaust is a myth, archives experts say....The National Archives exhibit
has three items - a page each of Himmler's handwritten notes, a typed
transcript from the speech and an official translation made for the
Nuremberg war crimes trials...  The German word Himmler uses that is
translated as "exterminaton" is "Ausrottung."  Wolfe, the archivist
expert, said a more precise translation would be "extirpation" or "tearing
up by the roots."  In his handwritten notes, Himmler used a euphemism -
"Judenevakuierung," or "evacuation of the Jews."                          
                                  By the way, the return of the question
of the use of this word, "Ausrottung" came when Mr. Roberts asked if it
was the word meaning "extermination" used in the Wannsee Protocol.  It was
not.  In the Wannsee Protocol there is no question of "Ausrottung" but
only of "Zuruckdrangung" (refoulement, expulsion).                        
                                       Some are quick to quote Cassell's
New German Dictionary on this issue.  I have referred to a copy from 1939.
 For Ausrottung is reads:                                           
"Ausrottung, f. extirpation."                                             
                             Of course, the word extirpation is not very
friendly either.    The difficulty is that the word is somewhat ambiguous
in its rendering.  It CAN mean exactly what the exterminationists have
always claimed.  It can also be interpreted to mean what the revisionists
claim.  No one doubts that the Jews of Europe and many other innocent
people were "uprooted" and moved across the continent. What did this word
mean within the rhetoric of the Nazi leadership, Himmler in particular?  
I think that it is unfortunate that each side in this "debate" claim
victory over this one word.            
   "Whatever is done from love always occurs beyond good and evil " ... 

From Sat Jun 24 21:17:52 PDT 1995
Article: 22617 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: AUSROTTEN
In-Reply-To:'s message of 24 Jun 1995 15:57:29 -0400
Sender: (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 23:17:45 GMT
Lines: 41

From: (DonVH)
>                             Of course, the word extirpation is not very
>friendly either.    The difficulty is that the word is somewhat ambiguous
>in its rendering.  It CAN mean exactly what the exterminationists have
>always claimed.  It can also be interpreted to mean what the revisionists
>claim.  No one doubts that the Jews of Europe and many other innocent
>people were "uprooted" and moved across the continent. What did this word
>mean within the rhetoric of the Nazi leadership, Himmler in particular?  
>I think that it is unfortunate that each side in this "debate" claim
>victory over this one word.            

Yes, well, all ambiguity was erased when the Nazis went ahead and
murdered several million people, as promised.

The idiotic thing about all this is that some here act as if there's
anything to seriously discuss with holocaust deniers. There isn't,
really. We just counter some of the more outrageous and fabricated
claims so they don't mislead the ignorant.

It's as if we found a note from OJ Simpson saying "I'm going to *get*
Nicole" and now we're arguing whether "get" might've meant "kill" or
not, surely ambiguous taken entirely out of context...BUT BY THE TIME

"Apart from that I gave orders that all men should stand as far away
as possible from van during the gassings, so that their health would
not be damaged by any escaping gases. I would like to take this
opportunity to draw your attention to the following: Some of the
Kommandos are using their own men to unload the vans after the
gassing. I have made commanders of the Sonderkommandos in question
aware of the enormous psychological and physical damage this work can
do to the men, if not immediately then at a later stage."

	Dr August Becker on 16 May 1942 to SS-Obersturmbannfuherer Rauff

        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    |          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD

From Tue Jun 27 06:34:10 PDT 1995
Article: 22749 of alt.revisionism
From: (DonVH)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Date: 26 Jun 1995 18:22:42 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <3snbvi$>
Reply-To: (DonVH)

A while back, I decided upon the idea of conducting interviews with
various Revisonist authors and activists with the plan to post the results
in alt.revisionism.  To date only David Cole and Greg Raven have responded
to my questions.  The Cole interview appeared a few weeks back. I thank
Mr. Raven for his time to answer the questions which I have asked.  
Raven, true to form, is brief and to the point.  Hopefully, this interview
will provide further insight into this particular revisionist for readers
>from  both sides of the debate.   Mr. Raven is best known as the Associate
Editor of the Journal of Historical Review, a revisionist periodical now
in its 15th year. 

Interview: Greg Raven

Q:      How were you first introduced to the topic of Historical

RAVEN:     I believe I saw an ad in The Spotlight, or I received an
invitation to join
in the mail. This would have been in 1979. I am a charter subscriber.

Q:      What events or information originally led you to become skeptical
of the
traditional “Holocaust” story?

RAVEN:     The revisionist arguments made sense, and I knew from studying
other topics
that that which is commonly known isn't always correct.

Q:      How do you counter the charge that the Institute for Historical
Review is
basically a racist, anti-semitic organization?

RAVEN:     I challenge anyone to find racist or anti-Semitic articles or
that have been put out by the IHR.

Q:      What do you consider the Institute for Historical Review’s

RAVEN:     Surviving all these years in the face of tremendous opposition.

Q:      Have you been persecuted or threatened for expressing your
opinions on the

RAVEN:     Some have tried working behind my back to get me fired from
previous jobs,
and of course I get some type of death threat almost every day.

Q:      What is your best estimate of the number of Jews who died by all
during the Second World War?

RAVEN:     Somewhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million.

Q:      Many people wonder if six million Jews were not killed during the
where are they.  What is your opinion?

RAVEN:     First we have to determine that there are Jews "missing." Only
then must we
look for them. From the demographic studies I have seen, there are not six
million Jews "missing."

Q:      What do you believe is the future of  Holocaust revisionism?

RAVEN:     I think there will come a day when all scholars finally
acknowledge the
revisionist position, at which time history books and text books will be
changed. However, for the forseeable future we will have those who believe
in the traditional Holocaust story, no matter what they are told.

Greg Raven (
The Institute for Historical Review can be reached at:
PO Box 2739
Newport Beach, CA 92659.

Or, come visit my Web page at:

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.