Last week, I got a Priority Mail envelope from David Cole. It was sent
on June 12th, before he received my reply of June 10th, which I posted
to this forum.
Included in this envelope were: (1) a one-page cover letter from Mr.
Cole; (2) a clipping from the magazine _Spotlight_; (3) a photocopy of
one page of _Smith’s Report_ #23, a letters page, on which was a letter
from Carlos Whitlock Porter; and (4) another “open letter” from Mr.
Cole, this one only three pages long, and in response to Porter’s
letter. Note that Mr. Cole has sent (4) to _SR_ and expects that it
will be published therein shortly.
Again, I wait for authorization from Mr. Cole before sending to the net
the contents of his cover letter to me. Meanwhile, however, I am going
to send the rest of the envelope’s contents. Additionally, I’m going
to include the full text of the controversy which erupted in _Smith’s
Report_ #21, two months earlier, in which Faurisson stated “there is no
more problem with the alleged Struthof gas chamber,” thus sparking Mr.
Thus, this Usenet article is going to be quite a package: first the
Spotlight snippet (though it’s dated after both _Smith’s Report_s, it
doesn’t really belong with the rest of the documents). Then, the
controversy from _SR_ #21, then Porter’s reply in _SR_ #23, then Cole’s
three-page open letter to Porter. Each of these will be seperated by
a line with ten hyphens. As before, all “[sic]”s are mine. The
ellipses in various places are there in the original.
My reply to Mr. Cole, which I will fax to him in a few hours, follows
in a separate article.
_Spotlight_, 5 June 1995, p. 10.
Number 2; May 25, 1995
IHR UPDATE is a temporary and irregular feature for SPOTLIGHT readers
interested in facts surrounding the on-going controversy resulting from
the bizarre takeover of the Institute for Historical Review.
As if the IHR doesn’t have enough problems, with the steady loss of
circulation of its _Journal_, the defections of former research
director Ted O’Keefe and former director Tom Marcellus, now five
pillars of the IHR are bitterly feuding and hurling personal
recriminations. David Cole, who filmed the director of the Auschwitz
Musuem, Franciszek Piper, admitting that the so-called “gas chambers”
there were constructed after the war, has issued a 16-page diatribe
against French Professor Robert Faurisson, calling him anti-Semitic and
Another Faurisson foe is self-appointed “IHR director” Fritz Berg, who
despises Cole but has also attacked Faurisson, accusing him of
arrogance and claiming his research is ridden with errors. In addition
to Faurisson, Cole has also attacked one-time partner Bradley Smith and
Ernst Zundel as being mercenary. For his part, Faurisson accuses Cole
of being involved in a conspiracy to wreck holocaust revisionism.
Smith plans to publish a letter from Faurisson attacking Cole and rumor
has it that then Smith will abandon his newsletter.
In the meantime, Mark Weber, who took over Marcellus’ job after
Marcellus left, and Weber’s apotheosis, Andrew Allen, who monitors the
money pipeline from the Anti-Defamation League, have their hands full
looking for new lawyers. And, oh yes, Fritz Berg has also been
conspiring to fire Mark Weber as editor of the _Journal_, much to
Weber’s disgust and dismay, even though both are now in the soup
together. Plus, it also appears that many of the above — especially
Faurisson — are now mad at respected British revisionist David Irving
because Irving — in retrospect — has expressed reservations about the
bizarre IHR coup d’etat of October 15, 1993 (although, frankly,
Faurisson had been carping about Irving for years). And if you can
follow any of this, you win a free lifetime subscription to the IHR’s
_Journal_ — if another issue ever comes out, that is.
Smith’s Report, #21 (I believe), March 1995
FAURISSON AND COLE ON THE STRUTHOF “GAS CHAMBER”
What was it? How do they know? Why are they talking about it?
In SR (Winter 1995, p. 6-7), you reported the visit to the Struthof “gas
chamber” by David Cole and five other people. May I remind your readers
that this “gas chamber” is the only one which enjoyed a real _and
complete_ expertise ordered by the accusers of Germany?
On December 1, 1945, Professor Rene Fabre, Dean of the Pharmacology
Faculty in Paris, concluded that the room had no traces of hydrocyanic
acid and that the bodies of allegedly gassed inmates in August 1943,
kept in the morgue of a hospital in Strasbourg, had no traces of
hydrocyanic acid. The expert’s report, classified in the files of the
_Gendarmerie Militaire_, disappeared but, thanks to another piece of
evidence in those files, we know that such were the conclusions.
I discovered this in 1981 and mentioned it repeatedly in my books,
articles, videos and in trials. See, for example, “The Gas Chamber at
Struthof-Natzwieler [sic] (Alsace)” in The Journal of Historical Review
(Summer 1985, p. 150-151). I had visited and examined that “gas
chamber” for the first time in 1974. I published my photos and comments
in 1980. The “gas chamber” was then closed to visitors except, of
course, for the happy few with real or seemingly real “credentials.”
Since 1981 there is no more problem with the alleged Struthof gas
Professor Faurisson tells us “there is no more problem with the alleged
Struthof ‘gas chamber.'” I most sincerely beg to differ. First, it
should be pointed out that perhaps _Faurisson_ no longer has any belief
in gassings at Struthof, but the Struthof “gas chamber” _has not_ been
dropped from the historical record like the Dachau “gas chamber.” In
other words, maybe _revisionists_ no longer have any problem with it
but “exterminationists” certainly do. And revisionists should never
act like once _we_ are convinced of something, we should stop trying to
explain ourselves to others. Many revisionists no longer have any
“problem” with the _Auschwitz_ “gas chamber,” but that doesn’t
necessarily mean the rest of the world now feels the same way.
Unlike most other homicidal “gas chambers,” the Struthof chamber is not
claimed to have been used for inmates of the camp in which it was
situated (technically, the Struthof “gas chamber” lies outside the
Struthof camp). It is said to have been used only 3 or 4 times.
Briefly, the “official” story of the Struthof “gas chamber” is this: It
is claimed that SS Professor August Hirt, of the Institute of Anatomy
in Strasbourg, got the idea to assembly for himself a human skull
collection of “Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars.” After obtaining permission
from Berlin, Hirt had 87 Jews (30 women and 57 men) from Auschwitz
transported to the Struthof camp (which is located just outside
Strasbourg) where they were gassed in 3 or 4 batches in August of 1943.
Dr. Hirt provided the gas in the form of “salts,” and there is some
dispute over just what type of poison was used. The bodies were then
taken to the Strasbourg Institute of Anatomy (continued on page three)
where some of them were discovered still preserved when the Allies
entered Strasbourg. After the war, Struthof Commandant Josef Kramer
“confessed” to the gassings, although he didn’t seem to have a very
good grasp of just what type of “salts” were used. That secret may
have died with Professor Hirt, who, on June 2 1945, apparently decided
to start a human heart collection of his own with a bullet from his
It is agreed that the building in which the “gas chamber” was housed
was, before the war, a restaurant (when the area was a ski resort), and
the “gas chamber” room was a cold storage room for perishable food.
After the war started, and the Struthof camp was established, the room
was used as a tear gas chamber for training SS recruits in the use of
their gas masks. The room was supposedly “adapted” for homicidal
usage, but after 3 or 4 homicidal gassings, it was returned to its
Now, what evidence does Faurisson give us to “prove” that no homicidal
gassings ever took place at Struthof? He tells us of an “expertise”
that has “disappeared,” but, “thanks to another piece of evidence,” we
know what it said. He refers us to a “Journal of Historical Review”
article for more info. One would hope to find out in this article just
_what_ that other piece of evidence is that confirms the existence and
conclusions of the “expertise,” but sadly Faurisson refuses to
enlighten us. So what do we have? A report that has disappeared and a
revisionist who assures us that _he_ knows what the report said,
without feeling the need to provide us with any further evidence.
How would a _revisionist_ respond if an “exterminationist” acted this
way? Revisionists routinely dismiss documents when the originals have
vanished. We don’t accept “hearsay,” and we _certainly_ don’t take
exterminationists on their word when it comes to the contents of
documents. We are always demending _proof, proof, proof_! Faurisson and
others dismiss the Polish forensic report conducted at Auschwitz
_simply_ because it is not well documented. So what are we to make of
Faurisson’s “disappearing” forensic report for Struthof? Why are we so
willing to accept _that_ without any real documentation?
What’s more, _if_ the forensic report is genuine, is it relevant? _If_
the report truly found no traces of hydrocyanic acid in the walls of
the chamber, we need to ask _would_ there be any traces after only 3 or
4 gassings? (The coldness of the room, such an important factor
regarding Kremas 2 and 3 at Birkenau, is irrelevant here because it is
not Zyklon B that is said to have been used). If there were no traces
of hydrocyanic acid in the bodies found at the Institute of Anatomy in
1945, we must ask _would_ there still be traces after over two years?
And since we’re not sure just _what_ gas was used, did Professor Fabre
_know_ what to look for when he examined the bodies? Plus, I might be
mistaken, but the point of most autopsies is _not_ just to say what
someone _didn’t_ die from. Did Professor Fabre conclude what the cause
of death _was_? What did these young, fairly healthy looking corpses
die from? There are many unanswered questions.
But if Faurisson acts like an “exterminationist” in his presentation of
the evidence against gassings at Struthof, he really mimics the
opposition by leaving _out_ any evidence that might call his theory
into question. What Faurisson _doesn’t_ tell us is more important that
[sic] what he _does_.
What is the evidence _for_ gassings? Well, to start with, there is a
great deal of documentation about Professor Hirt’s “skull collection.”
There are letters and requests from Professor Hirt, including a
complete proposal for his skull collection idea (where Hirt makes it
clear that the Jews will be _murdered_ for their skulls, just in case
any revisionists are thinking that maybe the skulls came from victims
who died from “natural causes”).
There are letters to and from SS Standartenfuehrer Sievers, SS
Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt, SS Obersturbannfuehrer [sic] Eichmann,
and SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Berg. These letters cover the idea for the
skull collection, the assembling of the Jews to be sent from Auschwitz
to Struthof, and the attempted destruction of the collection at the
Allies approached Strasbourg. For me, there is no question that
Professor Hirt wanted his skull collection, asked permission which was
granted from Berlin, and that 87 Jews were sent from Auschwitz to
Struthof, which was _not_ a Jewish internment camp, and furthermore
that these 87 Jews (30 women and 57 men) “died” mysteriously all at the
same time (Commandant Kramer’s weekly report for the week of August, 14
1943 [sic] shows the death of 30 Jews. The next weekly report, 21
August, shows 57 Jewish deaths). Add that [sic] the bodies of young,
healthy looking Auschwitz inmates were found preserved at the Institute
of Anatomy at Strasbourg and you have something more than one grand
“coincidence.” And I’m basing this only on _documents_ (letters,
reports, pictures). There is also ample testimony about these events (I
always prefer building on documents and physical evidence, with
testimony as a last resort).
So if we establish that the Jews were sent to Struthof to be killed,
what evidence exists for gassing? We have two documents. One is a
letter from Professor Hirt to Berlin, dated July 14 1943, regarding the
“constitution of a collection” (Professor Hirt had already received
permission from Berlin for his skull collection). Hirt complains that
the gassing equipment (“das Material zur Vergasung”) is not in plpace,
asks that the necessary equipment be made available. A daily report of
building progress (signed by the Chief of the Struthof Works
Directorate) from August 3 1943 mentions work in the “Gasraum” and
“Gaskammer,” including ten hours of masonry work in the “Gaskammer.”
Thus we have a believable timeline: Hirt asks for the gassing
equipment July 14, the work report is dated August 3, and the Jews are
dead as of August 14.
I think there is a high probability that these Jews were gassed. I
think it is a fact that they were murdered in some way. Like other
times when the Nazis committed atrocities, there is ample documentary
evidence, _not_ destroyed or “covered-up,” unlike the completely
_un_-documented Auschwitz and Majdanek “gas chambers.”
Ironically, Hirt’s initial proposal for his collection called for the
Jews to be killed and heads to be severed at the location where the
Jews were detained, the heads then to be sent to Strasbourg. But in
the end the Jews were sent _from_ Auschwitz _to_ Struthof to be killed,
and, if they were gassed, this required the time consuming modification
of the tear gas chamber to serve this purpose.
If Auschwitz had such effective gas chambers, why was it necessary to
alter both Hirt’s initial proposal _and_ the tear gas room when it
certainly would have been easier to gas the Jews in the “gas chambers”
of Auschwitz? The danger of disease at Auschwitz is also discussed, as
the speedy transfer of the 87 doomed Jews from Auschwitz is urged
because of the danger of infectious diseases at that camp (letter from
Sievers to Eichmann June 21 1943).
As to the physical state of the Struthof “gas chamber,” I believ ethat
the gassing equipment on display now is indeed fraudulent. It would
have been next to impossible to effectively murder people with this
equipment. But if the French fabricated gassing equipment after
liberation, as the Soviets did at Auschwitz, this alone does _not_
preclude the possibility of _real_ gassing equipment having once been
there (just as the Soviet remodeling job at Krema 1 is not by itself
proof there never was a gas chamber in Krema 1).
According to the official story, after the homicidal gassings at
Struthof in August ’43, the room returned to its “normal” purpose as a
non-homicidal chamber. Since Hirt now had his beloved skulls, there
would be no need for any more homicidal gassings. It is logical that
the homicidal modifications would have been removed, as they were now
unnecessary _and_ would have interfered with the non-homicidal use of
I always had questions about the Struthof “gas chamber,” but after
seeing it in person and meeting with Jean-Claude Pressac (who does a
very good job in his book _The Struthof Album_ published by the
Klarsfeld Foundation) and seeing many of the original documents, I can
now speak with more certainty; this gas chamber may very well have
been used homicidally. It might turn out that Struthof is the only
Nazi camp to ever have had a homicidal gas chamber…but in any event,
the matter is far from closed, as Faurisson would have us believe. The
Struthof episode also stresses the need to continually question and
revise (if necessary) the work of other revisionists, no matter how
well-respected they might be.
I would be remiss if I didn’t bring up what Faurisson says about
Struthof in his widely distributed Institute for Historical Review
pamphlet “The Problem of the Gas Chambers.” He writes, “The slightest
amount of critical spirit will be sufficient to convince oneself that a
gassing in this small room, without any sealing whatever, would have
been a catastrophe for the executioner as well as for the people in the
vicinity,” and he asks rhetorically, “How did [Commandant Kramer]
ventilate the room before opening the rudimentary door, made from
Faurisson has no excuse for saying such things (or, I should say, if he
does have an excuse I’d be curious to hear it). Faurisson knows full
well that this room has an effective ventilation system. He knows that
the door was designed to be used in a (non-homicidal) gas chamber, and
was even fitted with a _gas admission pipe_ (still visible today).
Faurisson has seen all the relevant documents, and admits in his
aforementioned Journal of Historical Review article that this room was
a tear gas training room. Therefore, he knows that the room can be
effectively used with gas, can effectively be ventilated, and that the
door was made for that purpose.
Even more important is that Faurisson admits in his JHR article that
this room was _also_ used to test an antidote for phosgene gas!
Inmates were gassed with phosgene after taking an antidote, and in fact
several inmates died from these experiments (which Faurisson also
recognizes in his article). So Faurisson knows that this room was used
with _poison_ gas as well as tear gas and yet there was no “catastrophe
for the executioner as well as for the people in the vicinity” and the
ventilation system and “rudimentary” door worked just fine. Why he
raises the apparently false points he does is beyond me.
We revisionists are always quick to point out when some gas chamber
claim is illogical, but are we as quick to admit when logic is on the
side of the “exterminationists”? The Struthof tear gas training room
would certainly have been the logical choice for a limited number of
gassings, not only because the room was designed with gassing
procedures in mind, but also because it is located outside the camp
area, away from the inmates. Gassings could be carried out without
alerting the Struthof camp inmates, who were not destined for murder
and who would have been “eye-witnesses” to the crime.
In closing I’ll say that is it _not_ my job or desire to uphold _any_
dogma, whether “revisionist” or “exterminationist.” I do not seek to
“deny” gas chambers at all costs. I look at the available evidence and
honestly speak my mind. If I come across convincing evidence for
homicidal gassings, I will say so. You can all be assured of that.
Faurisson and I have clashed before. I’m sure we’ll clash again,
because our methods are radically different. It wouldn’t hurt all
revisionists to take a long look in the mirror today and ask if some of
us aren’t starting to resemble those we claim to be fighting against.
Smith’s Report, #23, May 1995
CARLOS PORTER on how to document collections of human skulls, document
gassings anywhere, and document documents:
I see that we are back in the land of “may have” that we once visited
with Charles Provan.
This story about Struthof and Joseph Kramer is the same old crap that
William L. Shirer dished up over 30 years ago. If Kramer’s
“confession” is supposed to mean anything, and if the “skull
collection” is supposed to be a reality, then why doesn’t somebody dig
up the documents (or the skulls) and show them to us? The evidence is
available; the only problem is that the transcript to the Belsen Trial
costs 35 cents a page to photocopy, and it is 3,000 pages long.
William L. Shirer’s reference to this story…is NMT 1, the Doctor’s
Trial, which is crazy, because Kramer was hanged in his own trial, the
I think I have shown that none of these trials prove anything, because
of the procedures used, and also because all defense evidence was
simply ignored. But if we are really going to get all this old garbage
hashed up again (“he gave me a bottle of salts….I think they were
salts of cyanide….”) then why not get the transcripts, write to the
National Archives for the documents, and show them to us?
The NMT trials are available on microfilm. The cost 200 bucks [sic].
If somebody can pay for David to go to France for 2 weeks, why can’t
somebody pay to get the transcripts to these two trials, and then we
can talk sensibly? For 1,500 bucks we can get an idea of what we are
The first question is, what is the source of a statement? Is it a
document, or is it oral testimony? If it is oral testimony, I want to
get it and read it, including the cross examination. If it is a
document, I want to know what kind of document it is. Is it an
“affadavit”? Is it a “copy”? Is it a “photocopy”? All authentic
documents ought to be cross-referenced in any case, so authentic
documents can be traced.
In any case, I want a photocopy of it so that I can see it, and I want
to know whether it is a photocopy of an original, or the photocopy of
another photocopy. I also want to know where the original is.
Otherwise, this kind of discussion is utterly useless.
I am not impressed by J.C. Pressac or the quotation of odd phrases like
_Gasraum_, _gaskammer_ [sic], _Material zur Vergasung_”, etc., because
J.C. Pressac’s whole book on the crematories at Auschwitz is based on
deliberate mistranslations of terms just like these. Pressac is a
con-man, the smartest literary con-man of the 20th century. I have
great respect for him — as a con-man. It’s an art form.
As I say, I don’t know anything about the Belsen case except this; the
transcript costs $1,200 plus shipping and insurance. The references
for it are: National Archives, Military Reference Branch, Suitland
(NNRMS), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Record Group 153, File
12-459: Trial of Joseph Kramer.
The reason it’s so expensive is that nobody wants to see it.
My article in “Smith’s Report” #21 basically touched upon two different
themes; whether or not there was a homicidal gas chamber at the
Struthof camp, and whether or not Professor Robert Faurisson has
knowingly misrepresented the facts concerning this chamber. I answered
both of these questions in the affirmative. Yet it’s mainly been my
comments about Faurisson that have spawned great controversy and
debate. Until now. Carlos Porter’s letter (“SR” #23) is the first
attempt to answer my contention that there were homicidal gassings at
Struthof. And with all due respect to Mr. Porter, I hope someone else
can do better.
In my article I tried to present as compelling a case as I could for
the execution by gas of 87 Jews at the Struthof camp in 1943. I felt
that this case could be made the way revisionists always insist that
such cases MUST be made: WITHOUT a dependence on “anecdotal” evidence,
like eyewitnesses or post-war confessions. Indeed, such things ARE
available to bolster the Struthof gas chamber case, but I purposely
chose NOT to rely on them because I felt that the case could be made
the “revisionist” way – with DOCUMENTS and PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
As I wrote in my article, there are documents aplenty covering the
REQUEST for Dr. Hirt’s skull collection, the APPROVAL and facilitation
of the collection, the request BY DR. HIRT for gassing material, the
WORK REPORT in the “gaskammer” following Dr. Hirt’s request, the
TRANSFER of 87 Jews from Auschwitz to Struthof (which was NOT a Jewish
internment camp), and the exit “by death” of every single one of these
Jews. THEN there are the documents covering the attempted destruction
of these bodies as the Allies approached in 1944, and the BODIES
THEMSELVES, some still identifiable via their circumcised members and
Auschwitz tattoos as being JEWS from AUSCHWITZ (one of these corpses
was even identified by name from his tattoo; Menachem Taffel, a Jew
So how does Carlos Porter respond? With a critique of any one of the
plethora of documents I mentioned? With a critique of my timeline of
events (1943: Hirt requests skulls = skull collection approved = Jews
assembled at Auschwitz = Jews sent to Struthof, to be accommodated for
a “short period” = Hirt requests materials for gassings = Struthof
works dept. does work on the “gaskammer” = Jews arrive at Struthof =
all Jews die at the same time = bodies shipped to Strasbourg Institute
of Anatomy = 1944: Dr. Brandt is informed that the corpses have yet to
be defleshed – Standartenfeuhrer [sic] Sievers asks what to do next in
fear that the Allies will find the bodies = it is decided that the
collection will be “dissolved” = Allies arrive to find several still
No. Porter ignores all that. HIS response is that after the war
Commandant Kramer gave a weak “confession.” This, apparently, is enough
to negate ALL that documentary evidence! I wholeheartedly agree that
the Allies botched the post-war investigation into what happened to the
Jews of Europe. Physical evidence was destroyed, confessions were
coerced, the “official story” was desired more than truth, and
defendants with valuable information were sometimes tortured (usually
in order to obtain the “official version,” not the truth), and then
these people were executed, depriving future historians of the ability
to re-question these important figures after the emotions of the war
had died down. But we mustn’t use botched Allied procedures as an
excuse to dismiss all charges of wrongdoing against the Nazi government
or against individual Nazis. If Kramer’s interrogation was mishandled,
that alone doesn’t mean that he was innocent of the charges (I’m
reminded of a recent case in L.A. where a convicted murderer was
released because his confession had been obtained illegally by the
police. Yet it is not believed that this man was still GUILTY, even
though his confession was justifiably tossed out. There was still enough
evidence to get a conviction). If Kramer wasn’t too forthcoming about
his role in the gassings, can we blame him, seeing the position he was
in? We have created a classic double-bind regarding confessions; if a
Nazi tells all in great detail, yapping nonstop like a Chatty Cathy
doll (Hoess et al), we say that THIS is evidence of a fake confession.
Yet now Kramer’s obfuscation and reluctance to talk is seen in the same
way. We’ve created a scenario whereby there is no possible response
from a Nazi that is not scoffed at as being part of an Allied
conspiracy. For my part, I can understand why Kramer wouldn’t want to
bare his soul about gassing Jews, but all the same I find his
“confession” a weak piece of evidence — AND IF THAT WAS ALL THERE WAS
to the Struthof gassing allegations, I’d consider all such allegations
unproven. Yet we have so much more! We have enough documentary
evidence that we can make the case INDEPENDENT of Kramer’s testimony.
Saying that Kramer’s testimony is unsatisfactory does not by itself
negate all the other evidence. In the case of Struthof, Pressac (in his
book “The Struthof Album”) has met the burden of proof that we
revisionists are always carping about. He’s published documents and
photos of physical evidence to make his case. Now the burden is on US
if we think that any of his evidence is false. The burden is on PORTER
if he feels that Pressac has published false documents. I’d be open to
any comments from Porter to this end.
I’ve often said “scratch any ‘revisionist’ hard enough and you’ll find
an ‘exterminationist’ underneath just crying to get out.” Some of
Porter’s comments seem to me to be proof of this. He condemns the
“human skull” story simply because it was in Shirer’s book. I just
don’t see the logic of his argument at all. Nor do I understand why
Porter criticizes Pressac’s “Auschwitz crematorium” book…If I’m not
mistaken, I was talking about Struthof, not Auschwitz. Porter writes “I
am not impressed by J.C. Pressac or the quotation of odd phrases like
“Gasraum, gaskammer, Material zur Vergasung, etc., because J.C.
Pressac’s whole book on the crematories at Auschwitz is based on
deliberate mistranslations of terms like these.” Is it me, or is Porter
indulging in non sequitur? It is not PRESSAC who uses terms like
“Material zur Vergasung”…it is DOCTOR AUGUST HIRT who uses this
phrase in his damning letter of July 14, 1943. Porter should concern
himself with what HIRT was talking about. Forget Pressac, forget me.
This is about August Hirt. Why was he asking for materials for gassing
regarding his “collection”? This is not about Pressac’s “crematorium”
Porter asks “if the ‘skull collection’ is supposed to be a reality, then
why doesn’t somebody dig up the documents (or the skulls) and show them
us us.” I truly wondered if Porter had really READ my article. What did
I talk about if not the DOCUMENTS and the BODIES? I did what he asked,
before he asked it!
I’m encountering a frighteningly familiar “exterminationist” argument
from many revisionists who have taken exception to my Struthof article.
These folks dismiss the Struthof gas chamber by simply saying that the
idea of a “mad doctor” collecting human skulls is “irrational” or
“unreal.” “The Germans just wouldn’t do something like that” I hear
time and again. This sounds strikingly like those “exterminationists”
who say that the idea of torture or faked confessions sounds unreal
because “the Allies just wouldn’t do that.” I’ve spent a great deal of
time during the past 5 years detailing various examples of Allied
wrongdoing. But need I remind any of you that the Nazis had a racist
state? That they ruthlessly killed men, women and children just because
of their race, religion or nationality? That they were so fanatical
about their racial worldview that they saw even Jewish CHILDREN as
enemies to be imprisoned? That various Nazi doctors abused
concentration camp inmates for medical experiments? In an environment
where even a cut-rate hack hatemonger like Streicher could become a
gauleiter, there should be no surprise that there were abuses aplenty.
Don’t talk to me about Nazi “character.” It doesn’t surprise me in the
least that Hirt’s “Jewish-Bolshevik skull collection” idea could have
been seen as a dynamite idea. I think that if there’s any one area in
which the “exterminationists” have met their burden of proof, it’s in
the documentation of the Nazi obsession with “racial science.” This has
always been a ppretty easy thing to prove. I’m surprised to hear words
of skepticism about the skull collection coming from the mouths of some
of the die-hard racists who cling to the revisionist “movement” like
burs [sic] on a wool sweater. With outfits like Liberty Bell and W.A.R.
still actually SELLING racial “science” books feature “scholarly”
studies of Jewish skulls, I’ve often had the impression that if some of
these die-hard racists even achieved any measure of power, they
themselves might consider obtaining such a collection!
Jamie McCarthy [email protected] [email protected]
http://www.kzoo.edu/~k044477/ (Page doesn`t exist) I speak only for myself.
From: [email protected] (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: David Cole’s Priority Mail envelope to me
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo MI 49006
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 17:26:05 GMT