The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: orgs/american/ihr/ihr.newsletter/ihr.0492n86


Archive/File: orgs/american/ihr/ihr.newsletter ihr.0492n86

From ubc-cs!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!ogicse!psgrain!m2xenix!agora!b-cpu!news Sun May 31 10:57:12 PDT 1992
Article: 620 of alt.revisionism
Xref: oneb misc.headlines:1933 alt.revisionism:620 talk.politics.misc:13645 talk.politics.mideast:6725 soc.misc:641
Path: oneb!ubc-cs!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!ogicse!psgrain!m2xenix!agora!b-cpu!news
From: ralphw@b-cpu.UUCP (Ralph Winston)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.revisionism,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,soc.misc,pdx.general
Subject: MORE MEDIA ATTENTION FOR IHR AND REVISIONISM, plus the 2 campus ads!
Message-ID: 
Date: 28 May 92 08:06:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: b-cpu.gate.BDXgLB1w164w
Organization: Banished CPU, +1(503) 232-6566
Lines: 1185


     Here's an article I think you will find informative and thought-
provoking.  Following it are the texts of Bradley R. Smith's now-well-
known controversial CODOH campus newspaper ad, which calls for open
debate on the Holocaust controversy, and an even newer ad.  Enjoy!


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


                        From the IHR NEWSLETTER,
                        April 1992 (Number 86):


              MORE MEDIA ATTENTION FOR IHR AND REVISIONISM

         Bradley Smith and IHR Featured on National Television
                    Campus Ad Campaign Goes Forward
                    Israel-First Lobby Strikes Back
            Anti-Revisionist Campaign of Bigotry Intensifies


     During the last several weeks, Holocaust Revisionism and the
Institute for Historical Review have continued to gain new and
unprecedented media attention.  In addition to important coverage in
newspapers across the country, national television has also been taking
note of the growing impact of Revisionism.  (For more about this trend,
see the reports in recent issues of the _IHR Newsletter_.)

                       Smith on CBS's "48 Hours"

     Perhaps most noteworthy was a television report about Bradley
Smith's campus ad campaign -- which included an interview with him --
that was broadcast nationwide February 26 on the CBS television
network's magazine-format program "48 Hours."

     Smith appeared in his capacity as director of the Committee for
Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH).  He is responsible for a full-
page CODOH statement that calls for free speech on the Holocaust issue.
Entitled "The Holocaust Controversy: The Case for Open Debate," it has
now appeared in ten student newspapers [transcriber's note: even more
now, 05/27/92] across the country, and has attracted considerable media
attention.

     Several minutes excerpted from a lengthy taped interview with
Smith, which was conducted in his home by CBS reporter Rita Braver,
were shown.  The segment also reported on the uproar that erupted at
Ohio State University following publication in the school's student
newspaper of Smith's CODOH statement.

     Although Smith -- who is also the IHR's media project director --
presented his views calmly and thoughtfully, and generally made a good
impression, the context in which the interview was presented inherently
encouraged the viewer prejudicially to reject Smith and Revisionism as
another alarming manifestation of dangerous hatemongering.

     Other segments in the hour-long program -- entitled "48 Hours on
Hate Street" and devoted to what host Dan Rather called a "rising tide
of hate in America" -- focused on Ku Klux Klan activists, African-
American militant Al Sharpton, and other "haters."

     At one point, a "48 Hours" announcer even tried to compare Bradley
Smith with Hitler!

     In fact, the only hatefulness to be seen in the entire segment
about Smith and Revisionism was expressed by a mob of Jewish students
who besieged the office of the Ohio State University student newspaper
to boisterously protest the decision to publish Smith's ad, and to
demand that the editor resign.

     But probably the program's most blatant bias was manifest in what
was NOT shown.

     As mentioned in the February _Newsletter_, the "48 Hours" camera
team responsible for this segment also filmed the violent meeting at
the University of California at Los Angeles, January 22, at which
Jewish Defense League thugs physically attacked Revisionist activist
David Cole.

     The powers that be at CBS news decided not to air even a second of
this outburst of REAL hatred.  Network officials apparently decided
that scenes of Zionist hoodlums beating a young Jewish Revisionist
would not "fit" with the image that CBS wanted to project to its many
viewers.

     In spite of its slanted portrayal, this "48 Hours" segment is, on
balance, yet another step forward.  Even a year or two ago, it would
have been almost unthinkable.

                         PBS "Frontline" Report

     The IHR and Holocaust Revisionism were also featured in an hour-
long television report broadcast nationwide March 3 on the Public
Broadcasting System network.  Hosted by former White House official
Hodding Carter, this "Frontline" public affairs report focused on the
life and political career of dissident Republican politician David
Duke.

     During the course of the broadcast, which unfortunately gave only
a superficial and distorted notion of what the IHR really is and stands
for, the front cover of the Fall 1991 issue of the IHR's quarterly
_Journal of Historical Review_ was shown.  Dr. Evelyn Rich, who has
attended several IHR conferences, was featured in a respectful
interview that made up a significant portion of the program.  After
attending the 1989 IHR conference, the British-born historian wrote of
the experience: "I found the whole thing absolutely fascinating.  It
pulled me in.  Intelligent, rational, objective people.  Where else
could you hear such interesting ideas put forward by such dedicated
people?"

                     CODOH Ad Campaign Moves Ahead

     Since our last report (in the February _IHR Newsletter_) on
Smith's CODOH ad campaign, his stirring full-page call for open debate
on the Holocaust issue has appeared in two more student newspapers: at
Washington University (St. Louis), February 18, and the University of
Georgia (Athens), March 9.

     In addition, the University of Washington student newspaper has
announced that while it declines to publish the CODOH statment as an
advertisement, it will publish it sometime during the next several
weeks as a guest commentary.  However, the paper, announces, it will do
so only after it first "publishes an article examining the ad's claims
and its backers."

     Wherever Smith's CODOH statment has appeared (since October) in
student newspapers around the country, there have been campus
demonstrations, protest statements by professors and students, and
indignant letters and editorials in the student newspaper.

     At Washington University, 30 persons staged a protest
demonstration outside the _Student Life_ offices to protest the
decision by the student paper's editors to publish the ad.  The
demonstrators met on February 17, one day before it actually appeared.
And one day later, about 200 persons gathered at a campus rally to
denounce Smith and his ad.

     A few days after that, _Student Life_ editor David Harris attacked
Bradley Smith personally in an ignorant and inflammatory "editor's
view" essay headlined "Put Smith at the top of enemies list."

     As we go to press, a similar uproar is developing at the
University of Georgia.

     Even where it has been turned down, heated discussion has been
generated over the question of whether or not to publish the ad.

     At Miami University (Oxford, Ohio), a February editorial in _The
Miami Student_ headlined "Printing lies is not our business," sought to
justify the paper's decision not to run the ad.  Specifically, the
editorial charged that Smith's "ad characterizes all evidence to the
contrary [that is, for the Holocaust story] as an attempt to 'drum up
world sympathy and political and financial support for Jewish causes'."

     This is a gross misrepresentation, if not an outright lie.  What
Smith actually wrote in the ad is this:

       During the war, and in the postwar era as well, Zionist
     organizations were deeply involved in creating and promulgating
     anti-German hate propaganda.  There is little doubt that their
     purpose was to drum up world sympathy and political and financial
     support for Jewish causes.

     Not a single person who objects to Smith's ad has confessed that
his OWN mind has been changed by reading it.  Everyone who objects to
it claims to see right through its supposed lies and distortions.  But,
say the would-be censors, the ad is nevertheless so dangerous that it
must be banned because others -- who are not quite so perceptive and
enlightened -- will be taken in by Smith's seductively persuasive
prose.

     In a topsy-turvy perversion of reality, those who call for free
speech on the Holocaust issue are often vehemently denounced and even
attacked as bigots and hate-mongers, while those who try to silence
Revisionists -- sometimes with violence -- are praised for their
tolerance and open-mindedness.

     During the last several weeks as well, the ongoing controversy
surrounding Smith's ad continues to generate a flurry of news reports
and commentary in general circulation daily newspapers.

     According to the editorial page editor of the _St. Petersburg
Times_, Bradley Smith is a "Nazi sympathizer."  In a self-righteous and
ignorant editorial, which also appeared as an opinion piece in _The
Seattle Times_ (Feb. 26) and the _Orange County Register_ (Feb. 19), he
wrote:

       Even our most politically correct universities and colleges are
     shrinking from a confrontation with real bigotry.  Holocaust
     denial now is considered a subject open to debate.  White
     extremists have bought advertising space in college newspapers to
     argue that six million Jews were not executed in Nazi Germany.

     Apart from its other falsehoods and distortions, one whopper
stands out: By no stretch of the imagination can Smith be considered
either a "Nazi sympathizer" or a "White extremist."

     A "news" report in the _Miami Herald_ (Feb. 19) began by
inaccurately telling readers that "if Bradley R. Smith is to be
believed, Adolf Hitler was a pretty ice guy and the Holocaust never
happened."  The article went on to report that the Simon Wiesenthal
Center is organizing a special "task force" to counter Smith's "false
advertising."  Perhaps the most prominent of this team, which will tour
campuses across the country, is former "Hogan's Heroes" television
actor Robert Clary, who was interned in Buchenwald during the war.

                             ADL Mobilizes

     The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith -- one of the world's
most powerful Zionist organizations -- is hard at work trying to offset
the impact of Smith's CODOH ad campaign.  Through its 30 regional
offices, the ADL's "campus affairs department" has been mobilizing
Hillel Jewish student centers and other campus groups for its
nationwide anti-Revisionist effort.  (ADL bulletin, _On The Frontline_,
February)

     As part of this undertaking, the ADL has developed its own full-
page anti-Revisionist "rebuttal" ad.  Denouncing what it calls "the
haters," this ad is to appear in student papers around the country.
For example, seven days after the publication of Smith's free speech
call in the student paper of Washington University, the ADL'S
"rebuttal" ad also appeared there.  It was published in conjunction
with the Hillel organization.  (_Student Life_, Feb. 25)

     Among its other violations of truth, the ADL statement falsely
asserted that the Institute for Historical Review "is a creation of
Liberty Lobby" of Washington, DC.  (Similarly, the February ADL
_Frontline_ bulletin falsely claims that CODOH is "an offshoot" of
Liberty Lobby.)

                  Israel Lobby's AIPAC Joins the Fray

     The powerful Israel-first lobby is also alarmed.  Israel's main
lobby organization, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), attacked Holocaust Revisionism in general, and the CODOH
campus ad in particular, in the January 27 issue of its widely-
circulated bulletin, _Near East Report_.

     With proven power to make or break politicians, AIPAC is feared on
Capitol Hill more than any other single lobby group.  AIPAC, which has
been a staunch apologist for the brutal anti-Palestinian policies of
the Begin and Shamir governments, has long recognized the importance of
the Holocaust propaganda weapon.  Some years ago, for example, during
an intense congressional debate on an issue critical to Israeli
interests, AIPAC distributed copies of _The Holocaust_, a melodramatic
paperback novel, to every member of Congress.

     In its bulletin, AIPAC criticized the _Washington Post_ for
editorially defending the right of campus student newspapers to run the
CODOH free speech ad.

     "The fact that such revisionist ads were allowed to appear in
student newspapers is yet another indication of the tolerance of anti-
Semitism that has evolved on many campuses," the AIPAC bulletin
continued.

     This is utter nonsense, of course.  As anyone who takes the time
to actually read the ad knows, Smith's call for open debate
specifically condemns the anti-Jewish policies of Hitler's regime.

                      More Support for Free Speech

     On a more positive note, the _St. Louis Post-Dispatch_ praised the
decision by the Washington University student newspaper to publish the
CODOH ad.  In an editorial, the influential daily expressed the sound
view that "the [student] newspaper's decision to print it strengthens
the cause of freedom of speech."

     Similarly, the student newspaper of Cleveland State University
editorially supported the decision of the Ohio State University paper
to publish the CODOH ad.  (_The Caldron_, Jan. 27).

                              Andy Rooney

     Veteran journalist Andy Rooney, who is perhaps best known for his
curmudgeonly commentaries on CBS television's weekly "60 Minutes"
program, took a swipe at the IHR in a syndicated column that appeared
in February in daily papers around the country.  He wrote:

       There is an organization in Los Angeles called the Institue for
     Historical Review that is seriously pressing the idea that the
     Holocaust never happened and that it is largely an invention of
     the Jews . . . When everyone who saw the Nazi concentration camps
     with his own eyes, as I did, is dead and gone, who can say for
     sure?

     It's difficult to tell if Rooney is merely ignorant about what
Revisionists really say, or if he has chosen to deliberately
misrepresent Revisionist scholarship.  As anyone even superficially
familiar with Holocaust Revisionism knows, every Revisionist readily
acknowledges the existence of the wartime German concentration camps.
Indeed, the recognized pioneer of Holocaust Revisionism, Paul
Rassinier, was himself an inmate of the Buchenwald and Dora camps.

                      Pat Buchanan and Revisionism

     Criticism of Holocaust Revisionism has figured in some of the more
vitriolic attacks that have been leveled in recent weeks against
conservative Republican presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan.  On a
number of occasions in recent years, the former White House official
and highly successful political commentator has expressed cautious
skepticism about aspects of the Holocaust extermination story.

     Perhaps the most explicit recent example of such anti-Revisionist
Buchanan-bashing has come in an opinion piece by public affairs
commentator John Leo.  In a grossly unfair attack against Buchanan that
appeared in the February 21 issue of _U.S. News & World Report_, Leo
sought to securely link Buchanan with Holocaust Revisionism:

       But Buchanan's most devastating comments have been about the
     Holocuast.  He says that the Nazis could not have used diesel
     engines to murder 850,000 Jews at Treblinka because diesel fumes
     just aren't toxic enough.  He says that Jews suffering from
     "Holocaust survivor syndrome" may be indulging in "group fantasies
     of martyrdom and heroics."

       This is more than routine Buchanan courseness about the
     Holocaust.  The term "group fantasies" and the argument that the
     Nazis couldn't have killed so many at Treblinka clearly plays to
     the emerging myth that there was no Holocaust at all.  A committee
     has been placing ads in college newspapers arguing that the Jews
     made up the story of the six million dead.  In effect, Buchanan is
     acting as a wedge to get this crazy fringe idea into the
     mainstream.  I find it extremely hard to believe that he doesn't
     know what he is doing.

                            Alan Dershowitz

     One of the most spiteful and bigoted enemies of both Pat Buchanan
and Historical Revisionism is Alan Dershowitz, the sharp-tongued
Harvard Law professor, best-selling author, and syndicated columnist.
In a column that appeared in early February in daily papers around the
country, "Chutzpah" Dershowitz raged against Holocaust Revisionism and
Revisionists.  (For more about Dershowitz and his recent anti-
Revisionist column, see Tom Marcellus' "Director's Corner" column in
this issue of the _Newsletter_.)

     Happily, no one need feel the slightest embarrassment over an
attack by Dershowitz -- a character whom even an official of the
American Jewish Committee has called an "unscrupulous and self-serving"
liar.

                           Toward the Future

     Things have now reached the point that just about every reasonably
educated American now knows that there are people "out there" who "say
that the Holocaust never happened."

     Revisionism is news because Revisionists are making news.  Our
efforts are clearly having a real impact, and we can no longer be
ignored.

     While media coverage of Holocaust Revisionism has admittedly been
mostly hostile and bigoted, this is to be expected.  Those who might be
discouraged by this should keep in mind that until quite recently,
Revisionism was all but ignored by the national media.

     Moreover, frantic efforts to portray Revisionists merely as
"haters" simply will not convince the growing numbers of thoughtful men
and women who have doubts about at least the more sensational Holocaust
claims.

     What is happening right now represents a new plateau of awareness
-- but by no means a final one.  The growing national media attention
and the on-going campus ad campaign are only a prologue of things to
come.  Plans are underway, for example, to launch a new media campaign
that promises to open an entire "second front."

     With your continued help, we will carry on the struggle for
historical truth, tolerance and awareness until final victory over the
forces of bigotry, cowardice and self-righteous ignorance.


_______________________________________________________________________

     If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of
civilization, it expects what never was and never will be . . . If we
are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the
responsibility of every American to be informed.
                                       -- Thomas Jefferson
_______________________________________________________________________


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


----------
Following are the CODOH campus newspaper ad (mentioned in the article
above) and the newer expose of the "Human soap" Holocaust myth, which I
have also transcribed and am including for completeness. -Ralph Winston
----------


                       THE HOLOCAUST CONTROVERSY:
                        The Case For Open Debate

                          By Bradley R. Smith


                         THE CONTEMPORARY ISSUE

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

                          THE HISTORICAL ISSUE

     Revisionists agree with establishment historians that the German
National Socialist State singled out the Jewish people for special and
cruel treatment.  In addition to viewing Jews in the framework of
traditional anti-Semitism, the Nazis also saw them as being an
influential force behind international communism.  During the Second
World War, Jews were considered to be enemies of the State and a
potential danger to the war effort, much like the Japanese were viewed
in this country.  Consequently, Jews were stripped of their rights,
forced to live in ghettos, conscripted for labor, deprived of their
property, deported from the countries of their birth and otherwise
mistreated.  Many tragically perished in the maelstrom.

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

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

     During the war, and in the postwar era as well, Zionist
organizations joined with the Allied Governments and became deeply
involved in creating and promulgating anti-German hate propaganda.
There is little doubt that their purpose was to drum up world sympathy
and political and financial support for Jewish causes, especially for
the formation of the State of Israel.  Today, while the political
benefits of the Holocaust story have largely dissipated for the others,
the story still plays an important role in the ambitions of Zionist and
other organizations in the Jewish community.  It is the leaders of
these political and propaganda organizations who continue to work to
sustain the orthodox Holocaust legend and the myth of German
monstrosity during the Second World War.

     Those who would claim that these interpretations are anti-Jewish
are reading into them something which simply is not there.
Revisionists do not claim that Jewish leaders or organizations did
anything in the war and postwar era which the Allied Governments
themselves did not do.

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

The Photographs

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

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

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

     Still, at camps such as Buchenwald, Dachau and Bergen-Belsen TENS
OF THOUSANDS of relatively healthy internees were liberated.  They were
there in the camps when "The Photographs" were taken.  There are
newsreels of those internees walking through the camp streets laughing
and talking.  Others picture exuberant internees throwing their caps in
the air and cheering their liberators.  It is only natural to ask why
you haven't seen those particular films and photos while you've seen
the others scores and even hundreds of times.

Documents

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

     With regard to the alleged genocide of the European Jews, all
available documentation indicates that there was no order for it, no
budget, no weapon (that is, no so-called execution gas chamber) and no
victim (that is, not a single autopsied body at any camp has been shown
to have been gassed).

Eyewitness Testimony

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

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

     Establishment historians, however, still claim that extermination
gas chambers existed at Auschwitz and at other camps in Poland.  The
eyewitness testimony and the evidence for this claim is, in reality,
qualitatively no different than the false testimony and evidence for
the alleged gas chambers at the camps in Germany proper.

     During the war crimes trials many "eyewitnesses" testified that
Germans made soap out of human fat and lamp shades from human skin.
Allied prosecutors even produced evidence to support these charges.
For decades, highly respected scholars at the most prestigious
universities in the Western world sanctioned these stories, leading us
to believe that they were "irrefutable truths."  But with time, many
such stories have become untenable, and in May 1990 Yehuda Bauer,
director of Holocaust studies at Hebrew University in Tel Aviv,
admitted that: "The Nazis never made soap from Jews . . ." (quoted in
The Jerusalem Post, International Edition, 5 May 1990, p. 6).  This is
only one recent example where an "irrefutable" Holocaust "truth" has
been exposed as a monstrous lie.

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

Auschwitz

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

     The Auschwitz State Museum has recently revised its half-century-
old claim that 4 million humans were murdered there.  The Museum now
says maybe it was 1 million.  But what proof does the Museum provide to
document the 1 million figure?  None!  The communist propagandists who
manage the museum have put on display piles of hair, boots and
eyeglasses, etc.  While such displays are effective propaganda devices,
they are worthless as historical documentation for "gassings" or a
program of "extermination."

     Meanwhile, Revisionists want to know where those 3 million souls
have been the last 45 years.  Were they part of the fabled Six Million?

     Those who promote the Holocaust story complain that "the whole
world" was indifferent to the genocide which allegedly was occurring in
German occupied Europe.  When asked why this was the case the promoters
usually respond by saying that it was due to some great moral flaw in
the nature of Western man.  At other times they make the absurd claim
that people did not realize the enormity of what was happening.  It is
true that the world responded with indifference.  How else should
people have responded to that which they did not believe, and which for
them was a non-event?

     It is certain that if there had been "killing factories" in Poland
murdering millions of civilians, then the Red Cross, the Pope,
humanitarian agencies, the Allied governments, neutral governments, and
prominent figures such as Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, Eisenhower and
many others would have known about it and would have often and
unambiguously mentioned it, and condemned it.  They didn't!  The
promoters admit that only a tiny group of individuals believed the
story at the time -- many of whom were connected with Jewish propaganda
agencies.  The rise of the Holocaust story reads more like the success
story of a PR campaign than anything else.

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

                         POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
                                  And
                         HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM

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

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

     In our own society, in the debate over the question of political
correctness, there are those who deliberately attempt to trivialize the
issues.  They claim that there is no real problem with freedom of
speech on our campuses, and that all that is involved with PC are a few
rules which would defend minorities from those who would hurt their
feelings.  There is, of course, a deeper and more serious aspect to the
problem.  On American campuses today there is a wide range of ideas and
viewpoints that are forbidden to be discussed openly.  Even obvious
facts and realities, when they are politically unacceptable, are denied
and suppressed.  One can learn much about the psychology and
methodology of Thought Police by watching how they react when just one
of their taboos is broken and Holocaust Revisionism is given a public
forum.

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

     The Holocausters accuse Revisionists of being hate filled people
who are promoting a doctrine of hatred.  But Revisionism is a scholarly
process, not a doctrine or ideology.  If the Holocaust promoters really
want to expose hatred, they should take a second look at their own
doctrines, and a long look at themselves in the mirror.

     Anyone on campus who invites a Revisionist to speak is himself
attacked as being insensitive.  When a Revisionist does speak on campus
he is oftentimes shouted down and threatened.  Campus libraries and
bookstores face intimidation when they consider handling Holocaust
revisionist materials.  All this goes on while the majority of faculty
and university administrators sit dumbly by, allowing political
activists to determine what can be said and what can be read on their
campus.

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

     Finally, the Thought Police try to "straighten out" that segment
of academia or the media that allowed the Revisionists a forum in the
first place.

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

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

                               CONCLUSION

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

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

     That logic will not succeed.

                              *    *    *

     For those wishing to verify the truthfullness of statements made
in this paper, you may want to contact experts who are prominent
authorities on these matters.  It's important to ask specific, concrete
questions on matters of fact and receive direct and unambiguous
answers.  Organizations such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Hillel and
the Anti-Defamation League are not scholarly institutions, but are
primarily political and propaganda organizations.

_______________________________________________________________________

     CODOH is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, the
National Association for College Activities (NACA), and the Free Press
Association.  CODOH has no affiliation whatever with any political
organization or group.
_______________________________________________________________________

     CODOH speakers are available to address student organizations and
other appropriate groups about the Holocaust controversy.  For
information contact:
                            Bradley R. Smith
                       Committee for Open Debate
                            on the Holocaust
                        Tel/Fax: (209) 733 2653
                     PO Box 3267  Visalia CA 93278
_______________________________________________________________________

     Send $3 for the latest issue of Smith's Report, the author's
newsletter.  You will also receive a packet of literature addressing
important questions you may have about Holocaust revisionism.
               Copies of this ad as a leaflet (postpaid):
                10 copies for $2.  *  50 copies for $5.
                   100 or more copies: 8 cents each.
_______________________________________________________________________

     Your contribution to CODOH will be used to disseminate the good
news of Holocaust Revisionism.  Our overhead is minimal.  Every
donation is welcome.  Anyone who makes a substantial contribution will
be offered the opportunity to monitor the specific use to which the
donation will be put.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


----------
     The following article appeared in the May, 1992 (#87) issue of the
_IHR Newsletter_.  At printing time, Bradley R. Smith had so far
submitted it as a paid advertisement to student newspapers at about a
dozen colleges and universities around the country.  I think you will
find this to be extremely revealing and thought-provoking.  Feel free
to copy and distribute this, if you so desire.  Long live Truth and
Freedom!

     On page 6 of this issue, the _Newsletter_ says of this article:

[...]

     "Care has been taken to make sure that there is nothing in the ad
text that can be cited as a pretext for rejecting it on the basis of
supposed untruthfulness or bigotry.

     "The full-page ad has been prepared in two versions: One is
designed for publication in larger "broadsheet" size newspapers, and a
second version, with a slightly abridged text, is meant for publication
in tabloid size newspapers.

     "The tabloid size version is printed in actual size on pages four
and five of this issue of the _Newsletter_.

     "We encourage readers to support this new outreach campaign.  For
a relatively modest amount of money and effort, you can personally
arrange for publication of this ad in your own local daily, weekly,
community or association paper.

     "Interested? Let us know, and we'll arrange to send you a "camera-
ready" copy of either version of the ad, which you can then take to any
newspaper advertising department for processing.

     "With your support, this new campaign can significantly further
the cause of historical truth and awareness."
----------


                  Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus...
                    The "Human Soap" Holocaust Myth


After years of stonewalling, both the _New York Times_ (December 21,
1991) and the _Washington Post_ (January 15, 1992) now editorially
acknowledge that it is both ethical and permissable to debate the
historical issues surrounding the Holocaust story.

     The nation's two premier newspapers thus reject statements by
officials of major Jewish organizations and of many American colleges
and universities, who are still not willing to admit that a First
Amendment issue is involved here, and that freedom of speech and
freedom of inquiry pertain even to the Holocaust controversy.

     On campus, the free speech issue is this: Should college students
be granted the rights of adults and allowed free access to Revisionist
scholarship on the Holocaust, or should students be treated as
children, protected from radical scholarship out of fear that with new
understanding they might help undermine a "politically correct" view of
contemporary history?

     For half a century now historians have told us that during World
War II the Nazis had a policy to exterminate the Jews of Europe, along
with homosexuals and Gypsies.  We are told that millions were "gassed"
at German camps such as Auschwitz and Treblinka.

     We have been told that the ghastly process of mass murder was also
carried out in Belzec, Buchenwald and Sobibor.  And aren't there
thousands of survivors who "escaped the gas ovens" and swear that all
this is true?

     And didn't the Nazis make lamp shades from human skin, and
manufacture soap from the fat of exterminated Jews?  Of course, you may
answer, everyone knows it.  After all, aren't such bars of "Jewish
soap" on display in museums in Israel and other countries?  How can
there be any doubt?

     "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," or "false in one thing, false
in everything," was a Roman legal principle.  If a witness may not be
believed in one thing, he should not be believed in anything.  This
principle is as valid today as it was two thousand years ago.

     With this in mind, I invite you to read the essay below, condensed
from an article by historian Mark Weber that originally appeared in the
Summer 1991 issue of _The Journal of Historical Review_.  I urge you to
consider whether any of the individuals or institutions that have
contributed to the perpetuation of the debasing "human soap" hoax
deserve to be believed about anything they say about the "Holocaust."

                                                -Bradley R. Smith

_______________________________________________________________________


                             "Jewish Soap"
                             By Mark Weber

NEARLY EVERYONE HAS HEARD that the Germans killed six million Jews in
Europe during the Second World War.  Television, motion pictures,
newspapers and magazines hammer away on this theme.

                          Revisionist Scholars

     In recent decades, though, more and more "Revisionist" historians
have been challenging the widely accepted extermination story.

     Revisionists do not "deny the Holocaust."  They acknowledge that
large numbers of Jews were stripped of their rights and property,
cruelly deported to horrible concentration camps and ghettos, and that
many hundreds of thousands of Jews died or were killed during the
Second World War.  At the same time, though, Revisionist scholars point
out that numerous Holocaust stories that were once accepted as true
have been quietly abandoned in recent years.

                             A Lurid Story

     One of the most lurid Holocaust claims is the story that the
Germans manufactured soap from the bodies of their victims.  Although
a similar charge during the First World War was exposed as a hoax
almost immediately afterwards, it was nevertheless revived and widely
believed during the Second.

     More important, this accusation was "proved" at the main Nuremberg
trial of 1945-1946, and has been authoritatively endorsed by numerous
historians in the decades since.  In recent years, though, as part of a
broad retreat from the most obviously untenable aspects of the
"orthodox" extermination story, Holocaust historians have grudgingly
conceded that the human soap tale is a wartime propaganda lie.

     In their retreat, though, these historians have tried to dismiss
the soap story as a mere wartime "rumor," neglecting to mention that
international Jewish organizations, and then Allied governments,
endorsed and sanctioned this libelous canard.

     Wartime rumors that the Germans were manufacturing soap from the
corpses of slaughtered Jews were based in part on the fact that soap
bars distributed by German authorities in Jewish ghettos and camps bore
the impressed initials "RIF," which many took to stand for "Rein
judisches Fett" or "Pure Jewish Fat."  (It did not seem to matter that
the letters were "RIF" and not "RJF.")  These rumors spread so widely
in 1941 and 1942 that by late 1942 German authorities in Poland and
Slovakia were expressing official concern about their impact.

     According to a Polish source quoted in a secret wartime U.S. Army
military intelligence report, for example, the Germans were operating a
"human soap factory" in 1941 at Turek, Poland.  "The Germans had
brought thousands of Polish teachers, priests and Jews there and after
extracting the blood serum from their bodies, had thrown them on large
pots and melted off grease to make soap," the intelligence report
added.

                             War Propaganda

     In spite of its inherently incredible character, the soap story
became an important feature of Allied war propaganda.  Rabbi Stephen S.
Wise, wartime head of both the World Jewish Congress and the American
Jewish Congress, publicly charged in November 1942 that Jewish corpses
were being "processed into such war-vital commodities as soap, fats and
fertilizer" by the Germans.  He further announced that the Germans were
"even exhuming the dead for the value of the corpses," and were paying
fifty marks for each body.

     In late 1942, the _Congress Weekly_, published by the American
Jewish Congress, editorialized that the Germans were turning Jews "by
scientific methods of dissolution into fertilizer, soap and glue."  An
article in the same issue reported that Jewish deportees from France
and Holland were being processed into "soap, glue and train oil" in at
least two special factories in Germany.  Typical of many other American
periodicals, the influential _New Republic_ reported in early 1943 that
the Germans were "using the bodies of their Jewish victims to make soap
and fertilizer in a factory at Siedlce."

     After the war the soap story was given important legitimacy at the
main Nuremberg trial.  L. N. Smirnov, Chief Counsellor of Justice for
the USSR, declared to the Tribunal:

     ...The same base, rationalized SS technical minds which created
     gas chambers and murder vans, began devising such methods of
     complete annihilation of human bodies, which would not only
     conceal the traces of their crimes, but also to serve in the
     manufacturing of certain products.  In the Danzig Anatomical
     Institute, semi-industrial experiments in the production of soap
     from human bodies and the tanning of human skin for industrial
     purposes were carried out.

     Smirnov quoted at length from an affidavit by Sigmund Mazur, an
Institute employee, which was accepted as Nuremberg exhibit USSR-197.
It alleged that Dr. Rudolf Spanner, the head of the Danzig Institute,
had ordered the production of soap from corpses in 1943.  According to
Mazur's affidavit, Dr. Spanner's operation was of interest to high-
ranking German officials.  Education Minister Bernhard Rust and Health
Leader Dr. Leonardo Conti, as well as professors from other medical
institutes, came to witness Spanner's efforts.  Mazur also claimed to
have used the "human soap" to wash himself and his laundry.

     A human soap "recipe," allegedly prepared by Dr. Spanner
(Nuremberg document USSR-196), was also presented.  Finally, a sample
of what was supposed to be a piece of "human soap" was submitted to the
Nuremberg Tribunal as exhibit USSR-393.

     In his closing address to the Tribunal, chief British prosecutor
Sir Hartley Shawcross echoed his Soviet colleague: "On occasion, even
the bodies of their [the Germans'] victims were used to make good the
wartime shortage of soap."  And in their final judgment, the Nuremberg
Tribunal judges found that "attempts were made to utilize the fat from
the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap."

     It is worth emphasizing here that the "evidence" presented at the
Nuremberg Tribunal for the bogus soap story was no less substantial
than the "evidence" presented for the claims of mass extermination in
"gas chambers."  At least in the former case, an actual sample of soap
supposedly made from corpses was submitted in evidence.

                        Witnesses and Historians

     After the war, supposed Holocaust victims were solemnly buried, in
the form of soap bars, in Jewish cemeteries.  In 1948, for example,
four such bars wrapped in a funeral shroud were ceremoniously buried
according to Jewish religious ritual at the Haifa cemetery in Israel.
Other bars of "Jewish soap" have been displayed as grim Holocaust
relics in Israel and other countries.

     Numerous Jews who lived in German ghettos and camps during the war
helped keep the soap story alive many years later.  Neese Godin, for
one, was transferred from a ghetto in Lithuania to the Stutthof
concentration camp in the spring of 1944.  In a 1983 interview, she
recalled her arrival there:

     That day they gave us a shower and a piece of soap.  After the war
     we found out the soap was made out of pure Jew fat, Rein Juden
     Fett, marked in the initials on the soap that I washed with.  For
     all I know sometimes maybe there was a little bit of my father's
     fat in that soap that I washed with.  How do you think I feel when
     I think about that?

     Mel Mermelstein, the former Auschwitz inmate who was featured in a
sensationalized April 1991 cable television movie "Never Forget,"
declared in a 1981 sworn deposition that he and other camp inmates used
soap bars made from human fat.  It was an "established fact," he
insisted, that the soap he washed with was made from Jewish bodies.

     Renowned "Nazi hunter" Simon Wiesenthal repeated the soap tale in
a series of articles published in 1946 in the Austrian Jewish community
paper _Der Neue Weg_.  In the first of these he wrote:

     During the last weeks of March the Romanian press reported an
     unusual piece of news: In the small Romanian city of Folticeni
     twenty boxes of soap were buried in the Jewish cemetery with full
     ceremony and complete funeral rites.  This soap had been found
     recently in a former German army depot.  On the boxes were the
     initials RIF, "Pure Jewish Fat."  These boxes were destined for
     the Waffen-SS.  The wrapping paper revealed with completely
     cynical objectivity that this soap was manufactured from Jewish
     bodies.  Surprisingly, the thorough Germans forgot to describe
     whether the soap was produced from children, girls, men or elderly
     persons.

     In another article he observed: "The production of soap from human
fat is so unbelievable that even some who were in concentration camps
find it difficult to comprehend."

     Over the years, numerous supposedly reputable historians have
promoted the durable soap story.  Journalist-historian William L.
Shirir, for example, repeated it in his best-selling work, _The Rise
and Fall of the Third Reich_.  Leading Soviet war propagandist Ilya
Ehrenburg wrote in his postwar memoir: "I have held in my hand a cake
of soap stamped with the legend 'pure Jewish soap', prepared from the
corpses of people who had been destroyed.  But there is no need to
speak of these things: thousands of books have been written about
them."

     A standard history studies textbook used in Canadian secondary
schools, _Canada: The Twentieth Century_, told students that Germans
"boiled" the corpses of their Jewish victims "to make soap."  _The
Anatomy of Nazism_, a booklet published and distributed by the Zionist
"Anti-Defamation League" of B'nai B'rith, stated: "The process of
brutalization did not end with the mass murders themselves.  Large
quantities of soap were manufactured from the corpses of those
murdered."

                        Acknowledging the Truth

     In spite of all the apparently impressive evidence, the charge
that the Germans manufactured soap from human beings is a falsehood, as
Holocaust historians are now belatedly acknowledging.  The "RIF" soap
bar initials that supposedly stood for "Pure Jewish Fat" actually
indicated nothing more sinister than "Reich Center for Industrial Fat
Provisioning" ("Reichsstelle fur Industrielle Fettversorgung"), a
German agency responsible for wartime production and distribution of
soap and washing products.  RIF soap was a poor quality substitute that
contained no fat at all, human or otherwise.

     Shortly after the war the public prosecutor's office of Flensburg,
Germany, began legal proceedings against Dr. Rudolf Spanner for his
alleged role in producing human soap at the Danzig Institute.  But
after an investigation the charge was quietly dropped.  In a January
1968 letter, the office stated that its inquiry had determined that no
soap from human corpses was made at the Danzig Institute during the
war.

                           Revising the Record

     More recently, Jewish historian Walter Laqueur "denied established
history" by acknowledging in his 1980 book, _The Terrible Secret_, that
the human soap story has no basis in reality.  Gitta Sereny, another
Jewish historian, noted in her book _Into That Darkness_: "The
universally accepted story that the corpses were used to make soap and
fertilizer is finally refuted by the generally very reliable
Ludwigsburg Central Authority for Investigation into Nazi Crimes."
Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of modern Jewish history, similarly
"rewrote history" when she confirmed in 1981: "The fact is that the
Nazis never used the bodies of Jews, or for that matter anyone else,
for the production of soap."

     In April 1990, professor Yehuda Bauer of Israel's Hebrew
University, regarded as a leading Holocaust historian, as well as
Shmuel Krakowski, archives director of Israel's Yad Veshem Holocaust
center, confirmed that the human soap story is not true.  Camp inmates
"were prepared to believe any horror stories about their persecutors,"
Bauer said.  At the same time, though, he blamed the legend on "the
Nazis."

     In fact, blame for the soap story lies rather with individuals
such as Simon Wiesenthal and Stephen Wise, organizations like the World
Jewish Congress, and the victorious Allied powers, none of whom has
ever apologized for promoting THIS vile falsehood.

     Why did Bauer and Krakowski decide that this was the appropriate
time to officially abandon the soap story?  Krakowski himself hinted
that a large part of the motivation for this "tactical retreat" was to
save what's left of the sinking Holocaust ship by throwing overboard
the most obvious falsehoods.  In the face of the growing Revisionist
challenge, more easily demonstrable falsehoods like the soap story have
become dangerous embarrassments because they raise doubts about the
entire Holocaust story.  As Krakowski put it: "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?"

     The bad faith of those making this calculated and belated
concession to truth is shown by their failure to note that the soap
myth was authoritatively "confirmed" at Nuremberg, and by their
unwillingness to deal with the implications of that confirmation for
the credibility of the Tribunal and other supposedly trustworthy
authorities in establishing other, more fundamental aspects of the
Holocaust story.

     The striking contrast between the prompt postwar disavowal by the
British government of the infamous "human soap" lie of the First World
War, and the way in which a similarly baseless propaganda story from
the Second World War was officially endorsed by the victorious Allied
powers and then authoritatively maintained for so many years not only
points up a dispiriting lack of integrity on the part of so many
Western historians, but suggests a general decline in Western ethical
standards during this century.

     The "human soap" story demonstrates anew the tremendous impact
that a wartime rumor, no matter how fantastic, can have once it has
taken hold, particularly when it is disseminated as a propaganda lie
by influential individuals and powerful organizations.  That so many
intelligent and otherwise thoughtful people could ever have seriously
believed that the Germans distributed bars of soap brazenly labeled
with letters indicating that they were manufactured from Jewish corpses
shows how readily even the most absurd Holocaust fables can be -- and
are -- accepted as fact.

     (Source references for all of the factual statements in the above
essay can be found in the notes section of the original full-length
article, published in the Summer 1991 issue of _The Journal of
Historical Review_.)
_______________________________________________________________________

A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL "Jewish Soap" article with source references, a
complete catalog of books and tapes, and four eight-panel leflets on
the Holocuast issue -- "Auschwitz: Facts and Myths", "The Liberation of
the Camps: Facts vs. Lies", "The Problem of the Gas Chambers", "The
Holocaust: Let's Hear Both Sides" -- are available for $2.00 from

                    Institute for Historical Review
                      1822 1/2 Newport Blvd., #191
                          Costa Mesa, CA 92627

     Essays and reviews about suppressed aspects of twentieth century
history appear regularly in the IHR's quarterly _Journal of Historical
Review_ (Subscription (in the U.S.): $40/year).

  SPEAKERS ARE AVAILABLE FOR LECTURES, DEBATES AND DISCUSSION GROUPS.
                      Write or phone for details.
_______________________________________________________________________

            This information provided as a public service by

                            Bradley R. Smith
           Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH)
                    P.O. Box 3267, Visalia, CA 93278
                        Tel./Fax: 209 - 733-2653


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


     I hope you found the above articles to be interesting and thought-
provoking.  Feel free to share it with other thoughtful and concerned
individuals.  Thank you,

                                Ralph Winston

-.-
Banished CPU supports FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  Currently no fees.
CALL: +1(503) 232-6566 (8N1, v.32/42bis) or +1(503) 232-5783 (8N1)
UUCP: Domain membership destroyed, so use: agora!b-cpu!@uunet.uu.net
Users of Banished CPU are solely responsible for their actions.



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.