The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/judgment-08.01

Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Irving v. Penguin & Lipstadt: Judgment VIII-01
Organization: The Nizkor Project
Keywords: David Irving libel action Deborah Lipstadt

Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/judgment-08.01
Last-Modified: 2000/04/11


What is meant by the term "Holocaust denier"

8.1 The threshold question is whether Irving has denied the Holocaust
and, if so, in what terms and how comprehensively? Irving has at no time
sought to controvert the following facts:

(a) that the Nazis established concentration (as opposed to
extermination) camps throughout their territories;

(a) that from about June 1941 when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union
many thousands of Jews and others in the East were shot and killed by
Nazi soldiers;

(a) that from the end of 1941 onwards thousands of Jews were killed by
gassing in the Reinhard death camps.

Irving did, however, challenge the proposition that there was a
systematic programme, ordained at a high level, to exterminate European
Jewry. He denied that there was mass killing of hundreds of thousands of
Jews in gas chambers at Auschwitz.

8.2 That being in broad terms Irving's stance, it is necessary, in order
to decide whether he is justifiably described by Lipstadt as a
"Holocaust denier" to define precisely what is by that term. There has
been some debate between the parties as to its meaning. In ordinary
usage the word "holocaust" connotes complete destruction, especially of
a large number of persons and usually by fire. Irving claimed that the
term can be applied to the events of World War II as a whole. But I did
not understand him to dispute that it is generally understood to have a
narrower significance and that it is perceived to be specifically linked
to the fate of Jews during the Third Reich (and not just during the war

8.3 Evans argued that the term is generally understood to denote "the
attempt by Nazi Germany, led by Hitler, to exterminate the Jewish
population in Europe, which attempt succeeded to the extent of murdering
between 5 and 6 million Jews in a variety of ways, including mass
gassings in camps built for the purpose". It follows that a "Holocaust
denier" is someone who, for one reason or another or for a combination
of reasons, repudiates the notion that the above definition of the
Holocaust is apt to describe what was sought to be done to the European
Jews by the Nazis during World War 2. Evans testified that a
characteristic of Holocaust denial is that it involves a politically
motivated falsification of history.

8.4 In the opinion of Evans, the views expressed by Holocaust deniers
include the following:

     (i) that Jews were not killed in gas chambers or at least not on
     any significant scale;
     (ii) that the Nazis had no policy and made no systematic attempt to
     exterminate European Jewry and that such deaths as did occur were
     the consequence of individual excesses unauthorised at senior
     (iii) that the number of Jews murdered did not run into millions
     and that the true death toll was far lower;
     (iv) that the Holocaust is largely or entirely a myth invented
     during the war by Allied propagandists and sustained after the war
     by Jews in order to obtain financial support for the newly-created
     state of Israel.

8.5 According to Evans, whilst the expression of those views is typical,
Holocaust deniers do not necessarily subscribe to all of them and the
views of some deniers may be more extreme than others. Irving made the
point that it would be absurd to label a person a Holocaust denier
merely because he or she questions the number of Jews killed under the
Nazi regime.

The question whether the statements made by Irving qualify him as a
"Holocaust denier" in the above sense

The case for the Defendants

8.6 Evans considered that Irving's view of the Holocaust underwent a sea-
change at or about the time he read and was converted by the Leuchter
report on Auschitz. Evans noted (and Irving accepted) that in the 1991
edition of Hitler's War most of the references to the extermination of
the Jews, which had found a place in the 1977 edition, had been excised.
In the 1991 edition the liquidation programme is referred to as "a

8.7 The Defendants' case is that Irving is one of a small group of
writers who can properly be described as Holocaust deniers. The group
includes Paul Rassinier; Arthur Butz; Thies Christophersen; Wilhelm
Staglich; Ernst Zundel and Robert Faurisson. (I shall have to return to
a number of these individuals when I deal in Section X below with the
allegation that associates with right-wing extremists).

8.8 The way in which the Defendants seek to make good Lipstadt's
allegation that Irving is a Holocaust denier (and a dangerous one at
that) and that he fits well into the galere to which I have referred in
paragraph 8.7 above, is by citing what Irving has said and written on
the subject, principally from 1988 onwards. The Defendants contend that
Irving stands condemned at a denier out of his own mouth. It is their
case that on numerous occasions Irving has made statements which fall
within each of Evans's categories which are listed at paragraph 8.4

8.9 Amongst the assertions made by Irving which mark him out as a
Holocaust denier, Evans noted in particular the following: his claim
that the number who "died" in Auschwitz, "most of them from epidemics",
was 100,000; his claim made expressly or by implication that the Jews
had brought the Holocaust upon themselves; his assertion that that the
conduct of the Nazis in exterminating Jews could be excused by the fact
that they or their families had suffered in the Allied bombing raids;
the manner in which he dismissed the totality of the evidence of eye-
witnesses from Auschwitz as unreliable because it is the product of mass
hysteria; his claim, often repeated as will be seen, that the gas
chambers at Auschwitz are a lie invented by British intelligence; his
denunciation the diary of Ann Frank as a forgery or as a novel like Gone
With the Wind; his claim that the myth of the Holocaust is the product
of a well-financed campaign by Jewry to legitimise the substantial
payments made by Germany to the state of Israel since the war. This
claim has been made by Irving on several occasions including the launch
of the English edition of the Leuchter report. The Defendants contend
that Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier and that his denial flies in
the face of the totality of the evidence.

Irving's denial that he is a Holocaust denier

8.10 In paragraph 6(i) of his Reply Irving answered the claim that he is
a Holocaust denier in the following terms:

     "It is denied that the (Claimant) has denied the Holocaust; it is
     denied that the (Claimant) has denied that gas chambers were used
     by the Nazis as the principal means of carrying out that
     extermination; they may have used them on occasion on an
     experimental basis, which fact he does not deny".

Irving made clear that he is unaware of any authentic archival evidence
that Jews were systematically exterminated in any of the camps
identified by the Defendants in the particulars of justification. As has
already appeared, Irving has substantially modified his position since
appeared pleaded his statement of case.

8.11 Irving expressed his resentment of the passage in Evans's report
which described his alleged links with the Holocaust deniers mentioned
at paragraph 8.7 above. He dismissed that as guilt by association.
Irving testified that there was no truth in Evans's assertion that his
views about the Holocaust derive from Rassinier, described by Evans as
one of the earliest and most important Holocaust deniers. Although he
agreed he had contributed an Afterword to one of Rassinier's books,
Irving maintained that he had not read that book or any other by

8.12 Irving asserted that, at least until he came to prepare for this
case, he was not a Holocaust historian. He claimed that the topic bores
him. He submitted that his comments about the Holocaust should be judged
in the light of his lack of expertise. He did, however, agree that, when
appearing as an expert witness in the Canadian prosecution of Zundel, he
had answered questions about the Holocaust. He also accepted Moreover he
had to agree that he had told an audience in Toronto in 1988 that he had
been going round as many as forty archives relating to Auschwitz. He
accepted he had said that he was writing a book about Auschwitz.

8.13 Irving complained that anyone who analyses or questions the
evidence relating to the so-called Holocaust is automatically decried as
a Holocaust denier. That, he claimed, is all that he has ever done. He
tendered in evidence, as being a useful guide to what Holocaust denial
should mean, a somewhat polemical paper by Barabara Kulaszka, who was
one of the lawyers who represented Zundel at his trial in Canada in

8.14 Irving made the complaint that the passages relied on by the
Defendants in support of their contention that he is a Holocaust denier
omit the context, which often puts an entirely different complexion on
what he said. Irving argued that he cannot be termed a Holocaust denier
since he has always accepted that a very large number of Jews were shot
and killed by the Einsatzgruppen. Merely to question the accuracy of
their reports as to the numbers shot does not make him a Holocaust
denier. Irving pointed out that on one occasion in July 1995 he put the
number of deaths of Jews in the Holocaust as high as 4 million (although
he claimed that most of these deaths were due to epidemics). He argued
that he cannot therefore be described as a Holocaust denier. Irving
cited his biography of Goering as further evidence that he is not a
Holocaust denier. The index contains several references to the
extermination of the Jews which, argued Irving, indicates that the topic
is comprehensively dealt with.

The oral and written statements made by Irving which are relied on by
the Defendants for their contention that he is a Holocaust denier and
the evidence relied on by the Defendants for their assertion that
Irving's denials are false.

8.15 In order to evaluate the arguments which I have summarised above in
relation to the issue whether Irving is correctly described as a
Holocaust denier, it is necessary that I set out those extracts which
the Defendants have selected. But it is necessary also to consider
whether and, if so, to what extent what Irving has said and written is
consistent with or borne out by the available historical evidence. For,
as the Defendants accept, there can be no valid criticism of Irving for
denying that a particular event occurred unless it is shown that a
competent and conscientious historian would appreciate that such a
denial is to a greater or lesser extent contrary to the available
historical evidence.

8.16 The categories of publications and statements which, according to
the Defendants, establish Irving as a Holocaust denier are those
relating to:

(i) the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz or elsewhere;

(i) the existence of a systematic programme or policy of extermination
of Jews;

(ii) the number of Jews killed and

(iii) the assertion that the gas chambers were a propaganda lie invented
by the British

The existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz or elsewhere

Claims made by Irving

8. 17 The extracts relied on by the Defendants are as follows:

(i) Christchurch, New Zealand - 26 March 1986

Irving's stated position as at 1986 before he read the Leuchter report.

'Q: What is the proof about the gas chamber and how many Jews had been

Irving: I don't want to get into that's really an
unnecessary question. [P refers to Dachau and the dismantled gas
chamber..] ..which were just an invention of the American army. That is
the only gas chamber that was ever upon German soil. The gas chambers
which we all know about supposed to have existed on Polish soil, I
haven't investigated them, I don't intend to investigate them, I am too
valuable for that' (p40).

(i) Irving in evidence at the Zndel trial Toronto, 25 April 1988

'Irving: I have carried out no investigation in-depth in equivalent
depth of the Holocaust.

Q:But your mind changed?

Irving: My mind has now changed.

Q: You no longer believe it?

Irving: I have now begun to challenge that. I understand it is now a
subject open to debate.

Q: But your belief changed even though you didn't do any research, is
that what you are saying?

Irving: My belief has now changed because I understand that the whole of
the Holocaust mythology is, after all, open to doubt and certainly in
the course of what I have read in the last few days, in fact, in this
trial, I am now becoming more and more hardened in this view.

Q: As a result of what you've read in the last few days? [That is,

Irving: Indeed.'

(i) Irving's speech in Toronto, - 13 August 1988

[on the Vrba/Wetzlar report] '.The report that was issued, is a report
that may be familiar to some of you, allegedly written by two Slovak
Jews who'd been in Auschwitz, for two years, they'd escaped - how is not
related, they'd fled across the lines and been picked up by the Slovak
resistance movement and the Slovak resistance movement had then obtained
from them this very detailed report running to 25 or 30 pages of life at
Auschwitz' (p 13).

     '. So it is very interesting to try and find out where the report
     came from. It's a report by two Slovak Jews and yet in the records
     of the War Refugee Board there are only two versions of it. One in
     English, translated from a version in German. There's no Slovak
     report there at all, in the Czechoslovakian language... (page 14) .
     And the interesting thing that occurred to me was that when this
     report came out published by the War Refugee Board in 1944, in
     November, five months after it came out of Europe, two newspapers
     immediately challenged its authenticity and refused to publish it.
     The New York Times and the Washington Post. Not just any two
     newspapers, but the two most prestigious newspapers in the United
     States. Initially refused to publish this report or to comment on
     it because it looked too phoney to them.(page 15).A diabolical
     piece of propaganda issued by the Nazi Propaganda Ministry itself..
     And the other hypothesis that I advance is even more insidious -
     that we British did it. We concocted that report ourselves. Through
     one of our exiled Governments in London, the Benes regime or the
     Slovaks. And this is, again, not just a wild hypothesis that I toss
     at you after jut doing one month's work in the archives, this is in
     fact the result of work done by Paul Norris one of Zndel's men' (p

[on Marie Claude Vaillant Courturier] '. And here Judge Biddle writes in
brackets in his diary "all this I doubt". Why didn't he say it at the
time for heaven sake? But he just sat there with his face motionless,
because he's an American Judge, but in his private diary he writes "All
this I doubt". And so it goes on. The women being gassed, the children
being torn apart, their legs being torn of by SS officers and a touching
account of one baby, one child saying "Mummy how can I walk now this man
has torn my leg off"? [Laughter/comments] I mean how can you accept this
kind of thing' (p 18).

(i) Letters

Letter from Irving to Zitelmann 21 May 1989: 'It is clear to me that no
serious historian can now believe that Auschwitz, Treblinka, Majdanek
were Todesfabriken. All the expert and scientific (forensic) evidence is
to the contrary'.

Letter from Irving to Hugh Dykes MP 30 June 1989: '.if you persist in
believing in gas chambers, you are on a loser'.

(i) Leuchter Press Conference - 23 June 1989

'There was no equipment there for killing people en masse' (and hydrogen
cyanide is wonderful for killing lice, but not so good for killing
people, unless in colossal concentrations; the 'gas chambers' were
'routine designed crematoria') (p 15).

'I'm quite happy to nail my colours to the mast .. and say that to the
best of my knowledge, there is not one shower block in any of the
concentration or slave labour camps that turns out to have been some
kind of gas chamber . My testimony is that the forensic evidence
suggests that they [Jews] can't have been killed in gas chambers at
Auschwitz.' (p 34).

' The eye witness testimonies of the survivors of Auschwitz first of all
have been dismissed by eminent Jewish historians now as being largely
worthless.' (p 8)

(Irving was asked whether he accepted that there were death camps at
Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor and Chelmno.) 'Sadly, we're not in a position
to carry out forensic tests on those sites' (p 13).

Irving: 'Read the expertise which is in the Leuchter Report in your
hands. The expertise on how difficult it is to kill someone by cyanide.
More difficult than you and the Holocaust historians think' (p 14).

'I'm prepared to accept that local Nazis tried bizarre methods of
liquidating Jews, I'm quite prepared to accept that, and that they may
have experimented using gas trucks because I've seen one or two
documents in the archives implying that there was a rollover from the
use of those methods of killing.the same people who created the
euthanasia programme, and they may have tried to [unin] of killing Jews,
but it's a very inefficient way of killing people. The Germans
themselves had discovered this and there are much easier ways of killing
people' (pp 32-33).

(In answer to a question about Sobibor and Treblinka.)

'I think prima facie if they turned out to have been faked at Auschwitz
then it's equally likely that they'd turn out to be fake at the other
placed behind the Iron Curtain too' (p 35).

(Questioner points out there were no factories round Sobibor and
Treblinka, they were entirely death camps.)

Irving: 'No, have you never heard of internment camps?'

Q: 'Yes, but 300,000 people don't get interned and die of natural causes
in Treblinka as happened in summer 1943, I mean, it's not really

Irving: 'Well, I'd like to see your evidence for it..'

(i) Dresden - 13 February 1990 (no tape or transcript, but see Irving' s
speech at 10th IHR Conference as reported in JHR)

     '..the holocaust of Germans in Dresden really happened. That of the
     Jews in the gas chambers of Auschwitz is an invention. I am ashamed
     to be an Englishman.'

(i) Moers - 5th March 1990

'it is being shouted to the heavens that these things in Auschwitz and
probably in Majdanek, Treblinka too, and the other extermination camps,
so-called, in the East, are all only mock-ups' (p9).

'..there is one statement, one protocol about a man who maintained that
there was a one-man gas chamber. Incidentally, she sees that, this man
was, he had a very good imagination, he
said, there is a one-man gas chamber. So that is, just big enough to gas
one single victim. And it was transported around the countryside by two
peasants, like a sedan chair. And of course, there are problems with it:
how, if you please, do you get the victim to go into this one-man gas
chamber? Quite clearly: if I'm a victim wandering, around the Polish
countryside, and then suddenly I turn around and there's a one- man gas
chamber behind me, I'm going to get suspicious. Well, it was disguised
as a telephone box. That's what it says, in the witness statement. So
it's a one-man gas chamber, disguised as a telephone box - well, I'm
still suspicious. Here I am, I turn around, and suddenly there's a
telephone box where there wasn't one before. How are you going to get me
to climb into it? There is probably a telephone in it, which rings, and
the man [incomprehensible] waves and says "It's for you". It's
laughable, isn't it? It's well, you could describe it as a "free trip to
the other side". But it's in the archives. We can all laugh about it, in
this little intimate circle, but the other witness statements are
equally ridiculous. So, the witness statements are a case for the
psychiatrists' (p 16).

(i) Latvian Hall, Toronto - 8 November 1990

'..more people died on the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy's motor
car at Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chamber at Auschwitz
[applause]' (16).

(i) Calgary, Alberta - 29 September 1991

'..until 1988, I believed that there had been something like a
Holocaust. I believed that millions of people had been killed in
factories of death. I believed in the gas chamber. I believed in all the
paraphernalia of the modern Holocaust. But 1988, when I came to Canada
and gave evidence in the trial of Ernst Zndel, as an historian, I met
people who knew differently and could prove to me that that story was
just a legend. I changed my mind and I've now revised the Hitler book so
that all reference to Auschwitz and the gas chamber and the factories of
death have now been totally removed and eradicated' (p4).

'So they want to know who else have we invited, these journalists. And I
said, "Well, I'll tell you another class of people we are inviting,
we're inviting all the chemistry teachers at every public school in
Britain." "Chemistry teachers?" they say. And I say, "Yes, there's no
point inviting the history teachers or the politics teachers because
they're blinkered and closed minded. They all know about the Holocaust
because they've read about it and they seen War and Remembrance with
Robert Mitchum on television. They know it happened." But the chemistry
teachers are coming to hear Fred Leuchter speak and they'll see the
laboratory tests because we'll hand them out to them and the chemistry
teachers will go back to their Masters' Common Rooms and they will tell
the history teachers, and they'll be believed. So you can imagine that
this is causing, this has really set the cat among the pigeons in
Britain. And all the old stories are coming about, out again, about the
eye-witnesses and all the vilification is starting again. And how do you
explain the hundreds of thousands of eye-witnesses in Auschwitz? And I
say, "Well, the existence of hundred of thousands of eye-witnesses from
Auschwitz is in itself proof that there was no dedicated programme to
kill them all." And anyway, as for eye-witnesses I'm inclined to go
along with the Russian proverb, recently quoted by Julian Barnes, the
novelist in a novel that he published called 'Talking it Over'. And he
quotes the Russian proverb which is, "He lies like an eye-witness, he
lies like an eye-witness' (pp13-14).

'And I'm in deep trouble for saying this around the world, that the eye-
witnesses in Auschwitz who claim, like Eli Wiesel to have seen the
gassings going on and the subsequent cremations, that they are liars.
[page 14/15].He's a liar. And so are the other eye-witnesses in
Auschwitz who claim they saw gassings going on because there were no gas
chambers in Auschwitz, as the forensic tests show. And I've got into a
lot of trouble saying this. There's an arrest warrant out against me in
Austria for using those very words. I said, in Austria, which is the
criminal offence, when I was asked about the eye-witnesses, I said
"Well, I've been waiting for somebody to ask me about the eye-witnesses,
and to my mind the eye-witnesses to the gassings in Auschwitz are an
interesting case for the psychiatrists." I'm not implying that they've
got a mental problem, I'm implying that it's an interesting
psychological phenomenon that people over a period of years begin
kidding themselves that they have seen something. And the more they come
to have taken part in a traumatic experience themselves, the more they
are persuaded that they were right centre stage. They are the bride at
every  funeral and the corpse at every wedding, I think somebody once
said' (pp14-15).

'And there are so many survivors of Auschwitz now, in fact, that I get
very tasteless about all of this. I don't see any reason to be tasteful
about Auschwitz. It's baloney, it's a legend. Once we admit the fact
that it was a brutal slave labour camp and large numbers of people did
die, as large numbers of innocent people died elsewhere in the War, why
believe the rest of the baloney? I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that
more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at
Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz.[Laughter]
Oh, you think that's tasteless, how about this? There are so many
Auschwitz survivors going around, in fact the number increases as the
years go past, which is biologically very odd to say the least. Because
I'm going to form an Association of Auschwitz survivors, survivors of
the Holocaust and other liars, or the A-S-S-H-O-L-S. [Laughter]

(i) Bayerische Hof, Milton, Ontario - 5 October 1991

'.you've got to be tasteless because these people deserve all our
contempt' (p 17).

(i) Clarendon Club, London - 15 November 1991

'The biggest lie of the lot, the 'blood libel on the German people' as I
call it, is the lie that the Germans had factories of death with gas
chambers in which they liquidated millions of their opponents.' (p2)

(i) Chelsea Town Hall - 15 November 1991

'.Leuchter Report.shows quite clearly that according to chemical
analysis, which is an exact science.And if these samples yielded no
significant trace of cyanide whatsoever, then there has to be a
scientific reason for it. .. So Fred Leuchter is poison for the whole of
the Holocaust legend' (p4).

'.after Fred Leuchter did his truly epoch-making investigation of the
gas chambers at Auschwitz, the forensic laboratory tests which yielded
the extraordinary result which converted me, made me into a hard-core
disbeliever, the forensic laboratory tests which showed no significant
trace whatsoever of cyanide in rooms where apparently millions of people
had been gassed with cyanide..' (p6).

(i) 11th IHR Conference - 11 October 1992

'.. any historian can now confirm that nowhere in all the archives of
the world has yet been found one wartime document referring to a
Fuehrer's order to destroy the Jews, or for that matter, one wartime
document referring to gas chambers or gassings. If there's no wartime
document that says there was a Fuehrer order, if no wartime document
talks of gas chambers, then there has to be some explanation for that'

(i) The Search for Truth in History - Banned - 1993 (Irving's video for

'Where did the Holocaust legend come from? You note I don't say
Holocaust lie because to say that it's a lie implies first of all you
don't believe any of it, and parts of it have to be believed. To say
it's a lie also implies that it's a malicious lie, that people know it's
a lie and they've been spreading it knowingly as a lie for the last 50
years. I call it a Holocaust legend because then it has something like
the quality of a religion almost. You believe things because you've been
told it by people who seem reliable..It's a long chain of gullible
people who over the last 50 years have been told it and have believed it
because they had no reason not to believe it, and this is why the
Holocaust legend has survived until now because nobody has come forward
really with any kind of credibility and has rattled at the foundations
of that legend and said OK, prove it' (p 18).

'.The Holocaust legend is fizzling out. I said two years ago, it
probably only had two years left to survive. Probably I was wrong, it
probably has about another six months even now, but then it is finally
dead. World wide it is played out..' (p 27).

'I think probably the most significant piece of evidence is what we
British ourselves did in the war, we actually broke the code of the SS
and we began reading in 1942 the coded top secret messages of the
Commandant of Auschwitz reporting back to Berlin.. Nearly all the deaths
in Auschwitz said Hinsley were from epidemics and disease and I quote
Hinsley verbatim he said "there is no reference in the intercepts to any
gassing". Remember these are the top secret signals written in the top
secret code of the SS, so there can be no question of  Hoess writing
something for the benefit of historians after the war' (p21).

'you can work out for yourselves, ladies and gentlemen, how many
thousand tons of coke one needs for that. But we have the aerial
photographs, where one can't see a single mound of coke. And not only
that, but no railway, no railway siding leads to the crematorium, to
bring theses masses of coke, these huge masses of coke, thousands of
tons per day. No lorry convoys are to be seen, where the coke, under
circumstances, might have been delivered by lorry' (p 22).

'Now, I said that the eye witnesses are in fact a matter for
psychological examination I think. Psychiatric examination even. .but I
don't mean that in an offensive way. I wouldn't mind it if somebody said
about me that some of my statements need to be psychiatrically analysed
because the human being, the psyche, is a very complex instrument' (p 22-

'[an Auschwitz survivor] has probably been questioned by her friends and
neighbours and relatives for the last 50 years about Auschwitz and she
can't very well describe her everyday life as centring around the
peeling of potatoes or some other menial task. She knows that the people
who are questioning her about Auschwitz want to hear about the
crematoria and the gas chambers and after a time she describes the
crematoria and the gas chambers, because human pride demands that she
not have been in one of the other barracks, perhaps five miles away from
the crematorium but right next door to it. It's a matter of human pride
and we can't really begrudge these people for placing themselves and
their recollections so close to the event, so close to the heart of the
particular trauma. They're not dissimulating, they're not being
consciously mendacious' (p 23).

'The eye witness survivor testimony is very shaky. It's far too shaky on
which to base the condemnation of an entire nation, namely the German
nation, in my view, and I think probably any sober and independent Judge
would probably back me up on that' (p 24).

'The pictures have been analysed by independent aerial picture analysts.
They found nothing. These are the scientific methods. We have truth on
our side' (p 27).

'The aerial photographs don't only show how we have right, truth on our
side, but how the enemies have faked the pictures. Because you know the
American or Canadian or South African plane which took these pictures
[in] 1944 or 1945. [They] took not only the one picture, but a whole set
of pictures, every five seconds a picture. One sees how the buildings,
the people, the lorries etcetera, have moved in the five seconds. But
one also sees how the one picture published fifteen years ago by the CIA
at the behest of world Jewry, with the supposed holes in the roof of the
gas chamber where the cyanide was poured in, with the supposed lines of
people who queue to be gassed. If one looks at the surrounding pictures
then one suddenly notices that on these surrounding pictures the holes
are not present. And that the lines of people are not present. One sees
conclusively that the CIA has faked these photos, retouched them to the
benefit of world Jewry, who somehow wanted prove that the gas chambers
had existed' (p 28).

(i) Tampa Florida - 6 October 1995

'Eli Wiesel and the rest of them come up with these legends. The basic
part of the legend is 65,000 of these people were being cremated every
day.But by their greed they exposed themselves as liars. Because to
cremate 65,000 bodies a day you are going to need 30 or 40 kilograms of
coke for each cadaver. There is no way around that figure. It is a basic
law of the rather macabre thermodynamics of the crematorium business
that it takes 35 or 40 kilograms of coke or an equivalent amount of
other fuels available to cremate a cadaver' (p 11).

'I used to think that the world was full of a thousand survivors. I was
wrong. It is full of hundreds of thousands of survivors of the Holocaust
if not, in fact, millions by now. The numbers of survivors seems to grow
these passing years, it defies all laws of natural deceased and all
laws, now the number of survivors is growing. And I said isn't the
existence of so many survivors in itself an indicator, something
doesn't, it doesn't fit. If the Nazis had this dedicated programme to
exterminate the Jews, how come so many of you have survived, were the
Nazis sloppy or what? They let you out, they let you escape? It's a
basic question' (p 17).

'But tell me one thing", and this is why I'm going to get tasteless with
her, because you've got to get tasteless, "Mrs Altman, how much money
have you made out of that tattoo since 1945? [Laughter] How much money
have you coined for that bit of ink on your arm, which may indeed be
real tattooed ink? And I'll say this, "half a million dollars, three
quarters of a million for you alone." It must be in that order of
magnitude because think of the billions of dollars that have been sent
that way, billions' (p 17).

(i) Errol Morris film rushes - 8 November 1998

'..that's what converted me, when I read that in the report, in the
court room in Toronto, I became a hard core disbeliever. I thought,
well, whatever the Nazis are doing to the Jews, they were not killing
them on a conveyor belt system in gas chambers in Auschwitz, against
which has to be said that I've read the manuscript memoirs of two
commandants of Auschwitz.. [Hoess.and Almeyer (sic)].and they both refer
to people being gassed in Auschwitz, and this is a methodological
problem for a historian then. You have to look at that and say: well,
there's no trace of cyanide in the building, but you've got these
confessions by these Germans. How do you explain that? That is where you
enter a grey area; you don't know what the explanation is.I don't know
what the answer is.' (p9/51 - 10/19).

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.