Codoh Founder's Page

BOOKS & PLAYS

Shadow

Chapter Eight

Break His Bones:

The Private Life of A Holocaust Revisionist

Chapter Eight

 

No subject enrages the Thought Police on campus more than Holocaust revisionism. Students are encouraged to debate every other great historical question as a matter of course, but influential pressure groups with private agendas have made the Jewish Holocaust story an exception. I believe students should be encouraged to investigate the Holocaust controversy the same way they are encouraged to investigate every other historical controversy. This isn’t a radical point of view. The premises for it were worked out a while back during a little something called the Enlightenment.

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 country of their birth and otherwise mistreated. Many tragically perished in the maelstrom of World War II. In short, Jewish culture in Eastern Europe was destroyed during the Hitlerian regime.

Revisionists part company with establishment historians in that revisionists deny that the German State had a policy to exterminate the Jews of Europe, or any other peoples, by putting them to death in gassing chambers or by killing them through abuse or neglect. Revisionists 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 under German control. Fumigation gas chambers did exist to delouse clothing and equipment to prevent disease at the camps. It is very likely that this life-saving procedure contributed substantially to the myth of the homicidal gassing chambers.

Revisionists generally hold that the Allied governments decided to carry their wartime “black propaganda,” which accused Germans of committing uniquely monstrous crimes, over into the postwar period. This was done for essentially three reasons. First, the Allies felt it necessary to justify to their own people the great sacrifices that were made in fighting two world wars.

Secondly, the Allies wanted to divert attention from, and to justify, their own brutal crimes against humanity which, apart from Soviet atrocities, included the intentional slaughter of civilians through mass terror bombings of German and Japanese cities.

The third and perhaps most important reason was that the Allied governments 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 in the greatest program of ethnic cleansing in the history of the West. Many hundreds of thousands of these German civilians were to perish in the process. A similar fate was to befall the Sudeten Germans. One result was that more Germans died after World War II, during “peacetime,” than were killed during the war itself!

During the war, and in the postwar era as well, Zionist organizations joined with the Allied governments in creating and promulgating Germanophobic 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. One result was to morally legitimate the invasion and conquest of Palestine by European Jews, the brutal program of ethnic cleansing that followed, and the destruction of Palestinian culture at the hands of the Zionist regime.

Today, while the political benefits of the Jewish Holocaust story have largely dissipated for all others, the story still plays an important role in the ambitions of the Jewish State, and of Zionists and other organizations in the Jewish community. It is the leaders of these political and propaganda organizations who play the major role in continuing to promote the gas-chamber hoax and the myth of the unique monstrosity of Germans during the Second World War.

For those who still 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 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 these 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.

As the war ground toward a close, millions of refugees fleeing the Soviet armies in the east were pouring into Germany. The camps still under German control were over

whelmed with internees. By early 1945 a significant number of the inmate population was beginning to starve, and the camps were swept 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 these internees walking through the camp streets laughing and celebrating. Others picture exuberant internees throwing their caps in the air and cheering their liberators. It is only natural to ask why American media does not show these films and photos when they have shown the others thousands of times.

Spokespersons for the Holocaust Industry like to assure us that there are “tons” of captured German documents that prove the Germans murdered millions of Jews and others in “gas chambers” and “gas vans.” When challenged on this, however, they can produce only a handful of documents, the authenticity of which, or their interpretation, is always highly questionable. If pressed for reliable documentation, the Industry will then reverse itself and claim that the Germans destroyed all the relevant documents to cover up their deeds, or it will make the asinine claim that the Germans used a simplistic code language, or whispered verbal orders for mass murder into each other’s ears.

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

As documentary “proofs” for the mass murder of the European Jews fall by the wayside, the Industry depends increasingly on “eyewitness” 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 sexual union with the Devil to abductions by moon men in 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 these “eyewitness” testimonies as crude inventions, and agree that there were no extermination gas chambers in any camp in Germany proper.

Industry spokesmen still claim, however, that extermination gas chambers existed at Auschwitz and at other camps in Poland. Simply put, the eyewitness testimony, and the evidence for these claims, is qualitatively no different from the false testimony and false evidence for the alleged gas chambers at the camps in Germany proper.

During the war crimes trials “eyewitnesses” testified that Germans made soap out of human fat and lampshades and riding breeches from human skin. Allied, particularly Soviet, prosecutors even produced evidence to support these charges. For decades, highly respected scholars at the most prestigious universities sanctioned these sordid stories, leading us to believe that they were “irrefutable truths.” With time, 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…” (Jerusalem Post, International Edition, 5 May 1990, p. 6). This is only one example where an “irrefutable” Holocaust “truth” has been exposed as a stupid and vicious 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.

The Auschwitz State Museum recently revised its half-century-old claim that four million humans were murdered there. The Museum now says that maybe it was one million. How does the “proof” that the Museum has for the “one million” dead at Auschwitz differ from the “proof” it used to have that “four million” were exterminated at Auschwitz? There is no difference. The Communist propagandists who created the museum simply replaced the old “four-million” plaque, before which the Pope and an endless stream of world leaders had

prayed and grieved for 40 years, with the new “one-million” plaque. The Museum bosses did not change their displays of hair, boots, toothbrushes and eyeglasses, etc. Such displays are worthless as historical documentation for “gassings” or a program of “extermination,” but they remain effective propaganda devices that the Industry uses to impress children and fools.

Meanwhile, I have a couple questions for students to ask their professors about the three million (mostly Jews, of course) dead at Auschwitz who in fact we now know did not die there after all: Where were they all those years? How did they pass their time? Where are they now? And if three million exterminated Jews were found to not have been “exterminated” at Auschwitz, why are we still being lectured about the fabled “Six Million”? Do the people who drive the Holocaust Industry believe that students will never begin asking these simple questions?

Those in the Industry who promote the Jewish Holocaust story most feverishly complain that “the whole world” was indifferent to the “genocide” of the European Jews. When I ask why this was the case I am told that it was due to some great “moral flaw” in the nature of Western man (a moral flaw to which the Industry promoters themselves are exceptions). It is true, of course, that the world responded with indifference to the alleged genocide of the European Jews. How else should people have responded to that which they did not believe was happening?

It is certain, however, that if there had been “killing factories” in Poland murdering millions of civilians, the Red Cross, the Pope, humanitarian agencies of every sort, the Allied governments, neutral governments, and prominent figures such as Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, Stalin, Eisenhower and many others would have known about it. They would have spoken of it often, and unambiguously, and would have condemned it. But they didn’t! Those who speak for the Holocaust Industry admit that only a tiny band of select individuals believed the story at the time it was originally being floated. Simply put, nearly all these individuals were connected with Jewish propaganda agencies and other special-interest Jewish groups. The Holocaust story increasingly reads like the greatest, most successful PR campaign of the 20th century.

Winston Churchill wrote his monumental six-volume The Second World War without even mentioning the “genocide” of the Jews. Maybe it slipped his mind. Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his memoir Crusade in Europe, also failed to mention “gassing chambers.” Was the existence and use of the greatest murder weapon ever known to man, a weapon that the hated Nazis employed to consume millions of Jews and others, unworthy of even a passing reference? Was our future President insensitive to the murdered millions? Did Eisenhower not understand that special interest Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL) might expose him as being an anti-Semite? So far, no problem.

Many people, including campus and city newspaper editors, when they first hear the questions revisionists ask about the orthodox Holocaust story, find themselves bewildered. The questions appear to make sense, but they wonder: “How is it possible? The whole world believes the Jewish Holocaust story. How could such outrageous falsehoods be successfully promoted and the truth about them successfully suppressed for half a century? It’s just not plausible.”

To understand how it could very well have happened, these fearless journalists need only to reflect on the intellectual and political orthodoxies of medieval Europe, or those of Nazi Germany and the Communist-bloc countries. In all these societies the great majority of the professorial class, and in Nazi and Communist countries the journalists as well, were caught up in the existing political culture. Committed to a prevailing ideology and to its interpretation of reality, these professors and journalists felt it was their right, even their duty, to protect every aspect of that ideology. They did so by oppressing the “dissidents” who expressed “offensive” or “dangerous” ideas. In every one of these societies scholars and the professorial class generally became Thought Police, while a fearful and intimidated press kept its doubts to itself.

On American campuses today, faculty and administration attempt to write off the suppression and censorship of revisionist theory. They claim there is no problem with open .

debate on their campuses, only civilized rules that defend minorities from having their feelings hurt. In practice, however, no student (and no professor) is allowed to question any significant part of the Jewish Holocaust story without “permission” from the Holocaust Industry. One can learn much about the psychology and methodology of the Industry thought police by watching how it reacts when one of its taboos is broken, and revisionist ideas are allowed a public forum in a campus newspaper.

First, Industry agents will express outrage that such offensive and dangerous ideas have been allowed to be expressed publicly. They will contact the president of the University, key faculty members, and the editor of the student newspaper “suggesting” that it is a grave error to answer or debate any specific revisionist idea, claiming that to do so would give revisionism legitimacy. They make vicious personal attacks against the revisionist heretic, calling him dirty political names, and it may even be suggested that he is a potential mass murderer himself.

They publicly accuse the revisionist of lying, and charge the editors and advertising departments of the paper which prints a revisionist opinion piece, or runs a revisionist ad, with being tainted with all the worst qualities of the revisionist they published, though the editors are seldom revisionists themselves but are merely following their best instincts as journalists who take seriously the ideal of a free press.

Industry spokespersons accuse revisionists of promoting a doctrine of hatred. In fact, revisionism is not a doctrine or an ideology either one. It is a scholarly process. If those in the Industry really want to expose hatred, they should reflect on their own doctrines of exclusivity and special privilege, and the techniques they use to defend them. And then they should take a long look at their own faces in a mirror.

Any campus organization that invites a revisionist to speak will be attacked as being “insensitive” or “anti-Semitic.” Campus libraries and bookstores have to withstand the most brutal kind of intimidation and scorn if they shelve revisionist materials. This goes on while the overwhelming majority of faculty and university administrators remain silent, allowing political activists to determine what can be read and debated on their campus.

The Holocaust Industry often claims, deceptively, that revisionist theory has been proven false during a court trial. Revisionist theory has never been evaluated or judged by the courts, and in a free society it never should be. No man or woman committed to the ideal of intellectual freedom will agree that the State should have the right to disallow or limit a free exchange of ideas, or judge the truth of a historical theory.

Finally, the Holocaust Industry works to “straighten out” that segment of academia or the media that does allow revisionists a forum. 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. I urge that every one of those taboos be broken and exposed, along with those who promote them, to the light of day.

Some in academia hold that university administrations should suppress ideas that cause disruptions of campus routine. This is a very dangerous position for administrators to take. It is an open invitation to tyranny. It means that any well-financed, well-organized, influential political activist group like the Holocaust Industry can rid the campus of ideas it opposes – and then impose its own orthodoxy. Historically, the professorial class has always found it safer to suppress controversial ideas than to encourage intellectual freedom. It is no different today.

During the Nazi regime the professorial class (with rare exceptions) agreed to agree that Jews were a dangerous minority who should not be allowed to express themselves openly on university campuses. Today, under successive Democratic and Republican administrations, the professorial class has agreed to agree that Holocaust revisionists are a dangerous intellectual minority who should not be allowed to express themselves openly on the university campus. In times of strife you always know where the professorial class will stand.

In the 1960s I owned a bookstore on Hollywood Boulevard. One afternoon I was arrested and jailed, then tried and

convicted, for selling a book banned by the U.S. Government – Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer. My defense was that I did not choose to become a bookseller to aid the State in suppressing books. I argued that students had the inalienable right to read radical literary works.

More than forty years have passed but I see the ideal of intellectual liberty today as I saw it then. Today I argue that students have the right to read radical papers on the Jewish Holocaust story – and moreover to read what they want on any historical controversy whatever. I argue that they have the right to discuss openly what they read, without being humiliated by their professors, or libeled by special-interest ethnic groups. I argue that without intellectual freedom universities in the West are degraded to mere vocational schools.

Those of us who doubt some part of the orthodox story of the Jewish Holocaust are routinely demonized as bigots and worse. In real life, however, there are no demons. Those who serve the Holocaust Industry, including the professorial class and their lap dog journalists, are not demons. Those of us who are skeptical of the orthodox story are not demons. We are simply skeptics. The Holocaust story is a war story. Like every other war story, some of it’s true and some of it isn’t. Revisionist theory is skeptical and intends on separating the wheat from the chaff.

At the same time, it is true that there are those who do use revisionist scholarship as a weapon to attack Jews. The Holocaust Industry has chosen to demonize revisionist theory because of how a minority misuses it. Revisionists are on every side of the political and philosophical spectrum, from far left to far right and all the places in between. As for myself, when the Los Angles Times reviewed one of my plays (protesting U.S. nuclear arms policies), it was described as the work of a “libertarian anarchist.”

While the ideal of intellectual freedom has political and philosophical ramifications, it also has a spiritual one. It is wrong, and spiritually stupid, to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress intellectual freedom for others – and there are no other ways to suppress it – while encouraging it for yourself. Intellectual freedom promises the same thing to those who believe and to those who doubt. It promises the “light of day,” and the understanding and insight that can only be seen in that rare light. In the end, those who argue against intellectual freedom, against “light,” are, to use the language of the day, “spiritually challenged.”

End

 

 

 

Would you like to own the hard copy edition of Break His Bones?

This is the moment.

I’ll send it to you FREE (FREE!).

Get it here: NineBandedBooks

Share
Shadow
Shadow