Jimmy and the Jews

Former President Jimmy Carter has been taking all kinds of flak from the "major Jewish organizations" with regard to his latest book, Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. I haven't gotten around to reading the book yet (it's a bit beyond my budget right now, as I prepare my tax return), but I have read much of the criticisms leveled against the President, as well as the President's own defenses of the book published over the last few weeks.

Read more!

By hap, I received an e-mail from a colleague of mine about the book. He asked me:

Happy New year! And I hope this brief note finds you well.

I should start by confessing that I have not yet read Jimmy Carter's recen controversial volume on Israel and Palestine. I intend to do so. So perhaps my communication and question to you is premature.

But I recall your last email to me and others, where you indicate that you remain severely critical of Israel while insisting that many of us remain blind to anti-Semitism in our midst--be that manifest, latent, virtual, residual, insidious, thoughtless, or otherwise.

So I seek you counsel. What do you make of this controversy? Have you read the book? Is it just a weak effort? Tendentious? Is he being treated in some sense unfairly?

I responded thus:

I have not read the book, so it wouldn't be fair for me to comment on it, though I did read President Carter's most recent Op-Ed in the Times defending the book.

I don't think President Carter is wrong -- at least not to the extent that he presents the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Palestinian Territories (PTs -- and he does claim that this is the extent of his analysis). However, to use the term "apartheid" in his title was, not to insult the former President, stupid.

First of all, you have an entire wing of the anti-Zionist anti-Semites (who, as we have previously noted, do not always intersect) who are fond of calling Israel proper (Green Line border) an apartheid state. This is patently false, although a sort of de facto segregation exists in Israel, with even the "mixed cities" (Haifa, Akko, Tel-Aviv/Jaffa) remaining divided by religion and ethnicity. However, much of this segregation is either by choice (which has been the case among ethnic whites in the U.S. for years) or the outcome of the economic sitution in Israel (about 20 percent of the population lives in poverty -- an equally decriable situation in Israel is that Ashkenazi Jews remain an affluent elite, while the Sephardim and Mizrachi Jews remain an underclass, with Ethiopians below even that). And, of course, there are government policies that clearly favor Jews, including some land laws that many of us on the Jewish left have a big problem with.

All of that said, Israel does not practice apartheid. It is, in fact, the only nation in the world with an Arab population of 15 percent or more in which those Arabs can vote and be represented in the parliament. (France will soon reach that status as well.) This is incredibly embarrassing for anti-Zionists to admit, as well as, obviously, Arab leaders and the Arab street.

Back to Carter: He said his analysis of the situation was limited to the PTs. OK, fine. He says the key to peace is Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 cease-fire borders and separate Israeli and Palestinian states. I agree 100 percent with this position. He decries the situation in the PTs and calls it "apartheid." On this, I have to disagree.

As bad as it is (and it is godawful), the situation in the PTs is not apartheid. While it is true that Jews and Arabs are strenuously kept apart via the settlement system and blockades, etc., to call it apartheid is to make it equivalent to a fundamentally racist form of government, i.e., pre-1994 S. Africa.

Of course, there are some Jews living on the West Bank who are racist; it would be pointless to deny it. But the Revisionist Zionist program of West Bank settlement is not, on its face, a racist program. Yes, it is expansionist. Yes, it is unfair to the native population. But there is not an inherent supposition of the inferiority of the Arab people in the program. And that's where President Carter is wrong.

So it gets boiled down to a single word: Apartheid. Big mistake on the President's part.

As for President Carter himself, I would be hard-pressed in the absence of strong evidence to call a man, who distanced himself from the Southern Baptist Convention because of their stances on the ordination of women and gay rights, racist or anti-Semitic. I think he's an exemplary Christian in so far as he considers the question "What would Jesus do?" in his thoughts and words. No person like that could be an anti-Semite. It would just be too idiosyncratic.

Thus I find the dogpiling on the President to be distasteful, particularly when led by the likes of Foxman or Hier, who "represent organized Jewry" but have never represented the Jewish left and, thus, myself.

The only other thing I can comment on, and this is hearsay, so it's probably worthless, is that the President focuses much more on Israeli atrocities than Palestinian atrocities in his book. I don't know if this is true or not. If it's true, then it should be borne in mind that, when the Hamas-led Palestinian government allows the firing of missiles from Gaza, which is no longer occupied, into Israel proper, Israel has an absolutely just casus belli to attack Gaza in return. However, admittedly, the response is usually disproportionate. The real question
we're left with, then, is how to stop the cycle of violence. The election of Olmert was a step in the right direction, but the election of Hamas and the Lebanese government's inability to control Hezbollah have put peace negotiation on a far back burner.

That's extremely unfortunate, because the current situtation, if it continues, could lead to civil war in the PTs, Netanyahu back in office, or worse.

At the very least, I hope Israel is providing for Mahmoud Abbas's security. If not, he's a dead man.

Then, yesterday, I was sent a link to a story on how, allegedly, the President pleaded for leniency for an indicted SS war criminal back in 1987.

I quickly pointed out to my (other) colleague who sent me the link that this was being reported by the Israeli far right and no reputable news services were carrying it. However, at the same time, yet another colleague indicated that she knows Neal Sher, the principal source for the story, and that she trusted him.

So, this morning, early, I fired off another e-mail to my colleague (the first one):

If this is for real, it's truly shocking.

Fortunately, the story was "broken" by Arutz-Sheva, a far-right radio station in Israel that is very pro-settler. And so far, only Fox News (right of Mussolini), the New York Sun (neoconservative), and a few Jewish papers and wires in the U.S. and Canada are the only news sources outside of Israel to pick up the story, and *no* Israeli newspapers (or the Jewish Forward -- about as reputable as you can get for Jewish papers in the U.S.) have reported it at all.

So, it seems, this is more of the dogpile effect on Carter for his book.

At this writing, still no Israeli or American newspaper of any merit is carrying the story. So I'm still skeptical that Arutz-Sheva and Neal Sher have entirely told the truth on this one.

If they have not, then shame on them.

It’s hard to believe …

… that anyone can utter such pointless crap as denierbud (hereinafter “Bud”) does in episode # 6 of his One Third of the Holocaust video (You Tube version)

Read more!


Bud shows a model of a gas chamber building. He doesn’t reveal where he found this model, which happens to be the Rutherford model of the «new» gas chamber building at Belzec extermination camp, shown here and expressly stated on that page to be still unfinished. There’s a more detailed CAD Reconstruction of the gas chambers at Treblinka on the same site that features the Rutherford Belzec models, but Bud chose to refer to Rutherford’s unfinished model instead, without revealing where it could be found, maybe because it looks more «primitive» and thus suits itself better to Bud’s fussing.

This possible introductory exhibition of intellectual honesty is followed by a claim that reveals Bud’s ignorance at best, as he points out that at Treblinka alone 750,000 people died «in a building like this» over a period of «six months» (25 times as many as the student population of a large university with 30,000 students, he declares, apparently trying to reach a student audience with this pointless «perspective»). 750,000 is the maximum Treblinka death toll concluded upon by Raul Hilberg, whose work Bud refers to from episode 1 of his video onward. Bud obviously means the total death toll of Treblinka extermination camp, so «six months» are what he claims to have been the total duration of that camp’s killing operations. Actually, however, Treblinka started operating on 22 July 1942 and «processed» its last transports on 21 August 1943, i.e. 11 months later.

After thus showing once more how well he has studied the subject matter of his video clips, Bud claims that the building should «at least» have had a double door at the entrance. What this double door would have been good for he doesn’t explain, and it’s actually hard to understand why the entrance to the gas chamber building needed to have any door at all. For this entrance led to a corridor at the sides of which there were the gas chambers, into which the victims were coaxed, chased and pushed and in which they were then locked to be killed by engine exhaust. The entrance to the building didn’t need to have a door, it needed only be wide enough for the victims to move into the building at the required pace, and it needed to look as inviting and innocuous as possible in order to lure the victims into believing, or at least hoping, that they were really going to take a shower. How the latter purpose was achieved at Treblinka was described by several eyewitnesses, whose recollections are rendered here (emphases are mine):

5. Resemblance of building:
a) “...the gas chamber building was also made to resemble a bath house.” (Leleko Trial).
b) The building looked like an old-fashioned synagogue (Wiernik, Donat, p.161).
* Note: With these apparently conflicting descriptions, it is possible that the building was made to look like a "mikvah", a ritual Jewish bath house, deceiving the victims even more.
6. Colour of outer walls:
a) “.. its exterior covered with plaster and whitewashed (Leleko Trial).
b) Grey exterior walls (Wiernik model).
c) Solidly constructed of brick, faced with concrete (Suchomel, Tregenza, p.6).
7. Width of steps:
a) slightly wider than the entrance (Treblinka Trial map).
b) Remarkably wider than the entrance (Wiernik map).
8. Amount and position of flower pots / flowers:
a) “...up five wide steps * lined with flowerpots * (Donat, p.301).
b) Two pots at side of steps (Treblinka Trial map).
c) “Flowers grew right by in long boxes.” (Leleko Trial).
d) The most beautiful and variegated flowers were located at the entrance to the new gas chambers (Edited Donat, p. 48).
e) “There are blocks of green grass everywhere, beds of bright-coloured stone, sandy pathways, ashen grey and yellow.” (Edited Glazar, p.136).
f) Five concrete steps decorated with basketfuls of flowers led to the entrance (Chrowstowski, p.61).
9. Entrance appearance:
a) The entrance (on the north side) was closed only by a curtain *.
10. Finish of entrance:
a) “The entrance to the building was ornate and there were stucco mouldings” (Leleko Trial).
b) Plain and unadorned opening (Wiernik model).
11. Size of entrance opening:
a) Size of the curtain: “..it measured three by four metres, something like that." (Lindwasser, at the Eichmann Trial).
b) Same width as passage being about 2 m (Treblinka Trial map).
c) At least 3 m (scaled from the Wiernik map).
12. Colour of the curtain:
a) black (Donat, p.301).
b) dark red (Strawczynski, p. 49).
13. Position of Hebrew inscription "This is the Gateway to God – Righteous men will pass through":
a) On the curtain (Donat, p.301).
b) “Above the door there was a portal with the Star of David and the Hebrew inscription.” (Chrowstowski, p.61).
14. Star of David:
a) Position: “A gable over the entrance door bore a large Star of David.” (Arad p.119 and Wiernik model).
b) Made of copper (ARC correspondence with Rosenberg).
c) Made of yellow-painted metal * (Wiernik, at the Eichmann Trial).
d) Yellow colour (Wiernik model).
e) On the curtain (Lindwasser, at the Eichmann Trial).

So one of the aspects the SS considered important when designing the gas chamber building was its exterior appearance, particularly the exterior appearance of the entrance. The entrance was reached via stairs lined with pots containing beautiful flowers, it didn’t have a door but a curtain, and it featured an inscription in Hebrew on or above the curtain and a Star of David – all arrangements designed to sue the deportees’ fears and make them at least hope that they were actually entering a bath house, thus causing them to obediently budge rather than resist to the urging and physical force used to stuff them into the gas chambers. The smooth running of the operation of filling the gas chambers depended on these psychological factors, on a combination of confusion, fear and hope on the part of the victims, and the entrance of the building was made up so as to help these factors and not hamper them, which it would probably have had the victims been confronted with a double door, suggesting a building into which they were to be locked, rather than a friendly entrance lined with flowerpots and covered only by a curtain, suggesting an amenable place where they were going to take a shower. Yet Bud, the self-appointed genius of mass murder architecture, would have replaced all these useful, if not essential psychological subterfuges with a double door, the practical added-value of which he doesn’t even explain. Unfortunately for the people murdered at the Aktion Reinhard(t) (AR) camps, the men in charge of organizing the facilities and the process were not such numb nuts.

The changes to the gas chamber building’s features that our self-appointed genius of mass murder architecture suggests are the following:

a) No partitions insider the buildings, i.e. not several «bed-room sized» gas chambers, but merely two large gas chambers with no corridor in between, accessed through double doors;

b) Gas chambers on ground level, thus no stairway leading up to them;

c) A bigger building, «so that it could hold 2,000 people, which is the amount that would come into the camp at one transport».

Suggestion c) would merely have been unnecessary, as we shall see further below. As to a) and b), it’s a shame that Bud wasn’t a member of any team in charge of working out the layout and features of the gas chamber buildings at the AR camps, if only because his counterproductive wisecracking might have got him hell from the terrible SS-Sturmbannführer Christian Wirth, the man who developed the entire system of the extermination machine in these camps and whose rule over his subordinates was fearful with no way of challenge.

Let’s examine each of Bud’s design suggestions.

a) What was the reason for the gas chamber building having contained several smaller gas chambers instead of just one or two bigger ones? Obviously the consideration that packing the victims as tightly as possible into smaller rooms would cause them to die more quickly than they would in a larger room with more oxygen at their disposal, and that the subdivision of the total gassing space into several sub-units thus allowed for a more efficient use of that space, especially when it came to contingents not big enough to fill it up completely. Yitzhak Arad refers to these considerations on page 119 of his book Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. The Operation Reinhard Death Camps, where he writes the following about the «new» gas chambers of Treblinka:

Construction of the new gas chambers began in early September [1942]. The new building comprised ten gas chambers, each 4 x 8 meters, although according to some sources the new building included only six gas chambers. In place of the old chambers, which together covered 48 square meters, the ten new chambers had a combined area of 320 square meters (or 192 square meters if there were only six). The height of the new room was 2 meters – about 60 cm lower than the old ones. There had been instances in the old chambers in which little children had not been asphyxiated because the gas rose to the ceiling, and this was taken into account in planning the height of the ceilings in the new chambers. Lowering the ceiling also reduced the chambers’ total cubic volume, reduced the total gas requirement for killing the victims, and shortened asphyxiation time.[my emphasis – RM].

The most efficient relation between the number of a gas chamber’s occupants and that chamber’s cubic volume could more easily be achieved with more and smaller gas chambers than with less and bigger ones, in which optimal occupation would be more difficult to ascertain and not achievable at all where contingents of victims were smaller than the total gassing space available in the building. The relationship between the compacting of the victims and the efficiency of the gassing operation had already been realized by the Nazis in their mass killings with gas vans, as becomes apparent from the letter that Willi Just, a member of the automotive organization of the Security Police, sent on 5 June 1942 to SS-Obersturmbannführer Walter Rauff. The following quote is from an English translation of that letter available here; emphasis is mine:

The normal capacity of the vans is nine to ten per square meter [ = 10.8 sq. ft.]. The capacity of the larger special Saurer vans is not so great. The problem is not one of overloading but of off-road maneuverability on all terrains, which is severely diminished in this van. It would appear that a reduction in the cargo area is necessary. This can be achieved by shortening the compartment by about one meter. The problem cannot be solved by merely reducing the number of subjects treated, as has been done so far. For in this case a longer running time is required, as the empty space also needs to be filled with CO. On the contrary, were the cargo area smaller, but fully occupied, the operation would take considerably less time, because there would be no empty space.

The concern with avoiding empty space in order to speed up the gassing, which becomes apparent from this document and obviously motivated the subdivision of the AR camps’ gas chamber buildings into a number of gas chambers, seems to also have been present at Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration and extermination camp, where there was a partition of the underground gas chambers, mentioned by eyewitness Henryk Tauber:

At the end of 1943, the gas chamber was divided in two by a brick wall to make it possible to gas smaller transports. In the dividing wall there was a door identical to that between the corridor and the original gas chamber.

Smaller gas chambers may furthermore have had the advantage of allowing for faster ventilation of the gas after the victims were dead.

If, as the above sources show, it was advantageous to the SS to have more and smaller gas chambers in the AR camps’ gas chamber buildings rather than fewer and larger ones, then the logical arrangement of the former was the one that the evidence shows to have been applied, i.e. a corridor with the gas chambers on either side. An arrangement without a corridor and interconnecting partitions would have required the same number of doors and made for a more cumbersome and difficult to control process of filling the gas chambers with people. Bud’s objection to this arrangement is that guards positioned by the gas chamber doors in the corridor arrangement would have had to make room for the incoming victims. This objection is pointless, however, not only because the corridor was wide enough (see the already mentioned CAD reconstruction of the Treblinka gas chambers) but also and especially because there was no reason to post guards by the gas chamber doors, which were locked as soon as the victims had been urged and chased into the gas chambers. There is also no evidence, to my knowledge, of guards having been posted by the gas chamber doors. From the perspective of the victims’ psychology, which as we have seen was an important consideration, the corridor arrangement was also arguably more favorable to the intended impression of a bath house than an arrangement without a corridor and with interconnecting partitions would have been.

b) Why were the gas chambers not at ground level, as suggested by our self-appointed expert in mass murder architecture, but somewhat elevated above the ground so that the victims had to climb a stair to reach them? Bud could have recognized the reason for this arrangement from the very model he used to make his fuss, the Rutherford model of the «new» Belzec gas chamber building. This model shows that the huge doors at the outside of the gas chambers were opened by lifting them upwards and holding them in place with a beam, and that the bodies were evacuated onto concrete ramps somewhat higher than ground level. A better visualization of the arrangement at Treblinka is provided by this CAD drawing, which can be accessed from the above-mentioned CAD reconstruction of the Treblinka gas chambers; this CAD drawing shows a close-up of one of the concrete ramps. The advantage of these ramps is quite obvious: whether the bodies were taken to the mass graves in trolley cars, as was done at the beginning of the camp's operation, or whether they were carried to the mass graves on stretchers, as was done later, it was easier to load the corpses onto the trolley cars or the stretchers from a platform somewhat higher than ground level than to lift them up from the ground. As in the case of the gas chamber partitions and the corridor, Bud’s wisecracking suggestions would thus have eliminated an arrangement that was helpful to the killing and body disposal process. How the bodies were taken from the gas chambers to the mass graves at Treblinka is described as follows in the judgment at the first Düsseldorf Treblinka trial (my translation):

The transport of the corpses to the pits was at first carried out with the help of a trolley. However, as the inmates always had to move the trolley cars at a running pace and there often happened interruptions of the operation due to the trolley cars’ derailing, this system was soon abandoned. After the inmates had for a while been forced to carry the corpses to the pits by hand the transport eventually was carried out in such a way that respectively two inmates had to load one or two corpses onto a wooden stretcher and bring them at a running pace to the pits. There the corpses were unloaded and adequately placed [in the pits] by another detachment.

c) Bud’s suggestion to make the gas chamber building bigger «so that it could hold 2,000 people, which is the amount that would come into the camp at one transport» is something like running into an open door, insofar as the «new» gas chamber building at Treblinka had a capacity in this range or significantly higher.

As becomes apparent from the above-quoted excerpt from Arad’s book and the data underlying the above-mentioned CAD reconstruction of the Treblinka gas chambers, eyewitness information varies in what concerns both the number of gas chambers (6 or 10) and the area of each gas chamber (32 or 49 square meters). The total area of the gas chambers was thus 192 square meters at minimum and 490 square meters at maximum.

How many people could fit into this area?

As we have seen above, the capacity of the gas vans was stated in Just’s letter to Rauff of 5 June 1942 to be 9 to 10 persons per square meter – a plausible concentration considering that the international standard for crush load in mass transit is eight people per square meter of standing space, that passenger boarding on buses in China sometimes reaches 13 people per square meter in peak hours and that the people killed in the gas vans were largely women and children. Charles Provan experimentally proved that 703 people could fit into a room of 5 x 5 meters, 1.90 meters high, if more than half of them were children – and his test persons were well-fed middle class Americans, not undernourished Polish Jews worn out by years of ghetto existence. The possible density experimentally proven by Provan is 28 persons per square meter.

The maximum occupation of the «new» Treblinka gas chambers is given as 1,000 to 1,200 persons in 49 square meters by Yankiel Wiernik - a density of 20 to 24 persons per square meter, not implausible in the light of Provan’s above-mentioned experiment. A more conservative estimate by former SS-man Heinrich Matthes, quoted on page 121 of Arad’s book, points to an average of about 300 people per gas chamber, which assuming the lower range of the data about each gas chamber’s area (32 square meters) would mean about 9 persons per square meter – the lower range of density given in Just’s letter to Rauff of 5 June 1942 for the gas vans. Matthes mentioned 6 gas chambers, so according to his estimate the Treblinka gas chamber building could hold about 1,800 people at the same time. Arad assumes a somewhat higher, but also altogether plausible density. On page 120 he writes:

The new gas chambers could absorb a maximum of 2,300 people (six chambers) or 3,800 people (ten chambers), whereas the old could hold only 600.

The maximum density assumed by Arad is ca. 12 persons per square meter (380 per chamber, each chamber 32 square meters). This is less than the occasional peak hour occupation of Chinese buses.

So we can see that there was no need for Bud’s wisecracking advice to get the Treblinka gas chambers to the capacity he considers necessary.

The increased gas chamber capacity and the experience gained with the process did not mean easy going for the SS staff of Treblinka, however, for transports were often larger than 2,000 people and there were several transports to be processed in one day during the peak of killing operations at Treblinka. Arad, as above, quotes the respective statements of Treblinka commander Franz Stangl during his trial at Düsseldorf:

Regarding the question of what was the optimum amount of people gassed in one day, I can state: according to my estimation a transport of thirty freight cars with 3,000 people was liquidated in three hours. When the work lasted for about fourteen hours, 12,000 to 15,000 people were annihilated. There were many days that the work lasted from the early morning until the evening …

That was Treblinka, the one of the AR camps with the greatest influx and number of victims. Killing at the other two camps, Belzec and Sobibor, was less intensive, yet the capacity of the «new» gas chamber building erected at Belzec may have been similar to that of Treblinka. On pages 73 f. of his book, Arad writes the following in this respect:

The new building was 24 meters long and 10 meters wide. It had six gas chambers, each of them 4 x 8 meters. (According to other sources, the size of the new gas chambers was 4 x 5 meters each.) Towards the middle of July [1942], the new gas chambers were operational.
[…]
These new gas chambers could absorb over 2,000 people at a time, the capacity of a transport of about twenty-eight freight cars. Belzec was now ready to renew activity on an even larger scale.

The new gassing facility at Sobibor, on the other hand, was clearly smaller. Arad, page 123:

The new six-room gas chamber building had a corridor that ran through its center, and three rooms on either side. The entrance to each gas chamber was from the corridor. The three gas chambers were the same size as the existing one, 4 x 4 meters. The killing capacity of the new gas chambers was increased to nearly 1,300 people simultaneously. With the renewal of the extermination activities in Sobibor, in October 1942, the new gas chambers became operational.

The average maximum density assumed by Arad for the Sobibor gas chambers is a little higher than his above-quoted calculations for the Treblinka gas chamber building: 1,300 people in 96 square meters or ca. 14 people per square meter. Yet it is only slightly higher than the occasional peak hour occupation of Chinese buses and way below the possible density experimentally proved by Charles Provan for a gas chamber «population» consisting mostly of children, therefore not implausible.

Sobibor was the one of the three camps where the least number of people were killed and the job was thus «easiest» for the SS in this respect. By 31.12.1942, according to Höfle’s report to Heim of 11 January 1943, Treblinka had absorbed 713,555 people and Belzec 434,508. Sobibor, however, had «only» killed 101,370 human beings by that time.


Following the above-commented demonstration of his scholarship and expertise in gas chamber design, Bud treats his readers to a few more smart-ass remarks.

The first is the issue he takes with Raul Hilberg’s referring to the gas chamber buildings as «massive structures» on page 879 of The Destruction of the European Jews, as if the buildings’ non-compliance with Bud’s counterproductive design suggestions changed the fact that these buildings (one of which can be seen on this photograph from Treblinka deputy commander Kurt Franz’s private album) were massive structures made of brick and concrete.

The second is his pointing out Hilberg’s footnote on page 43 of the same page, according to which information about the gas chambers rests not on documentation, but on recollections of witnesses. Bud seems to think it’s a cardinal sin to reconstruct features of buildings based on eyewitness descriptions, or to use eyewitness testimonies at all. Someone should tell this arrogant ignoramus that eyewitness testimonies are as important a source of historical evidence as any other, and that the reason why there’s no documentation regarding the construction and features of the gas chamber buildings is that all documentation pertaining to the Aktion Reinhard(t) mass killings had been destroyed by the end of the undertaking, as pointed out by the head of the operation, Odilo Globocnik, in a letter to Himmler dated 5 January 1944:

There is one additional factor to be added to the total accounting of "Reinhardt" which is that the vouchers dealing with it must be destroyed as soon as possible after the data have already been destroyed by all other works concerned in this matter.

How well the buildings can nevertheless be historically reconstructed based on eyewitness descriptions and common sense is best shown by the CAD Reconstruction of the Treblinka gas chambers, referred to throughout this article.

The third smart-ass remark is Bud’s conjecture, after quoting Arad’s statement on page 119 of his book about the new gas chambers built in Belzec in June/July 1942 having served as a model in the other two camps, that the design of these buildings, allegedly oh-so-problematic (and actually quite intelligent, as demonstrated above) «is supposedly the culmination of a lot of testing and experience». Had Bud bothered to take a closer look at these camps’ initial gas chambers on the one hand and the «new» ones on the other, he might actually have noticed that, as becomes apparent from the CAD Reconstruction of the Treblinka gas chambers, essential construction features cleverly worked out to provide for speedy and efficient gassing and corpse removal – the subdivision of the gassing space into several smaller units, the corridor arrangement, the outside doors opening towards a ramp meant to facilitate the removal of the bodies to the burial pits – were already present in the «old» Treblinka gas chamber building. At Treblinka the «old» building had also been a brick building already, same at Sobibor (Arad, pages 31 and 42). Only at Belzec had the «old» gas chamber building been a wooden barracks, whereas the «new» building was made of what eyewitness Rudolf Reder described as «grey concrete» (Arad, page 73).


After putting the icing on this cake of nonsense with an imbecile «Hard to believe, isn’t it?» – remark, Bud seems to have thought that this clip was not yet long enough, so he added «Comparing Treblinka With the Population of San Francisco». Bud made the oh-so-keen discovery that the estimated population of San Francisco in 2003, about 750,000, is the same as the number of people «gassed in this building at Treblinka». Having presented this discovery, he then treats his audience to aerial views of a part of the beautiful city of San Francisco, which would be nicer to watch in a context less disgusting than Bud’s video filth. The message he intends to convey is that it is «hard to believe» (again that silly, meaningless phrase) that so large a number of people were gassed («ascended that 3 ½ foot wide stairway, went into the narrow hall and then went into one of the six bedroom-sized gas chambers»), then buried and later dug up and cremated on outdoor fires at Treblinka.

It’s hard to believe, for sure: over a period of 11 months, an occupying power’s forces transported three quarters of a million harmless and helpless inhabitants of an occupied nation to a place where they were bumped off at a rate of up to 15,000 per day, according to that place’s commandant Franz Stangl, quoted above. It’s as absurd and hard to believe as can be, as absurd and hard to believe as any large-scale, systematic mass murder throughout human history. However, absurd beyond comprehension though it was, this mass murder happened, as is proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a multitude of eyewitness testimonies and documents as well as by physical traces and demographic data. About 750,000 people, belonging to a despised ethnic group that racist fanatics wanted to remove from their domains, were collected at dozens of cities and towns in the Generalgouvernement and Bialystok General District, loaded onto cattle trains and transported to a place that all available eyewitness and documentary evidence shows to have been a site of systematic mass killing, and from which none but a few dozen escapees are known to have emerged alive. Evidence that these deportees were transported from that place to resettlement destinations should be plentiful if such resettlement had taken place, yet it is non-existent. And all that those who inanely challenge the evidence to this mass killing have got to offer by way of an explanation of these people’s fate are hollow, idiotic, express or implicit conspiracy theories, Bud's variant of which has been addressed by Andrew here.

So why do they keep on looking for trusting souls gullible enough to be impressed by their mendacious, transparent rhetoric?

I think the reason should be obvious to who has followed our debunking of Bud's video clips: they admire Nazi Germany and/or hate Jews, and they can't bear the brutal facts that utterly discredit their ideological articles of faith.

McNally 0 for 2: Swing and a Miss!

I took Patrick McNally to school a few months when he fancied himself Martin Luther and authored his idiotic 95 Theses on the Holocaust.

Now he's back with a shorter but equally stupid edition, which I found posted to Jonnie Hargis's Fuehrerbunker yesterday. Here's my updated shredding.

Read more!

>During World War II, 55 million people died, or were killed, or murdered. Among the 55 million, there were some Jews who died, were killed, or murdered, but nobody knows how many Jews died, were killed, or murdered.

Sure, we do. We know that, at the very least 4.2 million (Gerald Reitlinger's lowest estimate from his 1955 work The Final Solution) and, at the high end, slightly over 6 million (Wolfang Benz) were deliberately murdered during World War II.

>However, the quasi-official Zionist-Semitist definition of the Holocaust states that Germans murdered 6,000,000 defenseless Jews.

I am neither a Zionist nor a "Semitist" (whatever the hell is), but I believe that around 6 million Jews were murdered.

>This Holocaust story is world history`s most serious accusation of murder.

It is not an accusation of murder; it is an accusation of genocide. Murder is the taking of the life of a single human being. This is why if a person murders two people, s/he is charged with two counts of murder. Timothy McVeigh was charged with 168 counts of murder.

>Such a serious accusation requires serious proof and evidence, but the Zionist-Semitist holocaust accusers and promoters have not given any hard forensic evidence about two important issues in this murder case.

That's a lie, and you know it.

>1. What was the murder weapon?

There were several: Gas chambers, rifles, general privation, starvation, putting people unjustly into places where they then caught fatal diseases, etc. By the way, if you doubt this last point, then consider whether you would be charged with murder if a person you kidnapped died while they were in your custody because of the conditions that you kept them in.

>2. Where are the bodies or remains of the 6 million victims?

Many, many were cremated, but if you want to fly to Belarus, Ukraine, or Lithuania, you can see mass graves all over the countryside.

>The conclusion of my research and the assumption of this paper is that the Zionist-Semitist story can no longer be seen as an honest mistake but must be attacked and ridiculed as an irresponsibly vicious blood libel.

Against whom is this libel being leveled?

>The Iranian holocaust cartoon contest was an important beginning in ridiculing this major hoax of the Twentieth Century.

It was important to people that equate criticizing a prophet to making fun of genocide. Those people are, in my opinion, sick in the head.

>In my judgment, nothing more needs to be analyzed or researched concerning the holocaust. Everything anyone needs to know is available in the essays of Professor Robert Faurisson and the 21 volumes published by the currently imprisoned Germar Rudolf which can be purchased through the Internet.

That's quite a way to prevent "both sides" of the issue, Prof. McNally. I wonder whether you've ever read any of the refutations of these works, not to mention standard works on the Holocaust, such as those by Reitlinger, Hilberg, van Pelt, Dwork, and others.

>An important point about the Zionist-Semitist Holocaust story is that it looks very complicated but is in fact very simple. The Zionist-Semitist hoax is like the Enron embezzlement scheme: very complicated, convoluted, and contorted in the details but very straightforward in the overall scam, scheme, and shell game.

I'm sure you've made things quite simple for your readers -- they need it that way.

>One of the first serious attempts to do an on-site investigation of the much touted holocaust murder weapon was the report of Fred Leuchter who went to Auschwitz to investigate the supposed homicidal gas chambers He concluded that there were no gas chambers that could have murdered Jews. One would have expected Jews to be very happy to learn that there were no 8M, 6M, 4M, or even 1M [the current figure posted at Auschwitz] Jews gassed there. But quite the contrary! Zionists and Semitists destroyed Leuchter`s career and life because of his report.

Leuchter destroyed his own career by agreeing to being an expert witness for a neo-Nazi who was standing trial. There is no debating the fact that Ernst Zundel is a National Socialist because he has frequently stated such.

>Germar Rudolf also went to Auschwitz and confirmed Leuchter`s findings. Semitist Jews in Germany paid Rudolf back by having him expelled from his PhD program in chemistry, criminally prosecuted for thought crimes, and eventually had him deported back from the USA and imprisoned in Germany.

Rudolf's (and Leuchter's) findings have been refuted scientifically by Dr. Richard Green, who has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Stanford University and who has conducted postdoctoral research on cyanide.

By the way, can you demonstrate that it was "Jews" or "Semitists" that put Rudolf in jail?

>Robert Faurisson was almost beaten to death twice by cowardly Jewish thugs.

The beating of Faurisson was a terrible thing carried out by vigilantes. But it's notable that he's the only one to have been treated that way.

>Wolfgang Froelich, Fredrich Toben, George Thiel, and several others here in Teheran have also been prosecuted, persecuted, and imprisoned.

Toben was imprisoned because he went to a place where what he was doing and saying was against the law. He has never been imprisoned in Australia, his country of residence. I don't agree with the laws under which Froelich and Thiel were prosecuted. Many, many people that believe in the normative history of the Holocaust oppose such laws.

>Why do Zionist and Semitist Jews not welcome scientific investigations, forensic research, or even simple academic conferences about their Holocaust story?

I don't know about Zionists or "Semitists," but I can tell you that there are probably a couple dozen academic conferences on the Holocaust yearly in the U.S. alone.

>It seems that they have something to hide and something to fear from independent on-site forensic investigations and even any discussions they do not control.

I hear about this "independent" investigations often, but no one is ever able to tell me who these "independent" people would be. Can Dr. McNally?

>That is why they have criminalized any independent and critical discussion about the holocaust and have prevented any further on-site research.

This is just plain not true. What has been criminalized (wrongly) is denial of the Holocaust, and on-site research is allowed depending on the site in question.

>However, the Zionists and Semitists contradict themselves in their actions and criticisms of scientists and technicians like Germar Rudolf, Fred Leuchter, and Wolfgang Frohlich. It is certainly acceptable for the Zionist and Semitist Holocaust promoters to criticize the research methods, procedures, and findings of revisionists but these revisionists should then be permitted to repeat their research in order to improve their reports. But instead the Zionist and Semitist holocaustomaniacs refuse, go berserk, and imply, "All holocaust forensic research and critical comments are anti-Jewish hate speech."

Who has ever actually said such a stupid thing? Please quote someone.

>I wish to submit the following theses about the Holocaust story. These theses are based almost entirely on the writings of Robert Faurisson, Arthur Butz, and Germar Rudolf, all of whom are in no way responsible for my use of their valuable contributions to the unending fight for human freedom against racist and pseudo-religious bigotry, ignorance, and greed.

Wait a minute... Is this the same stuff I refuted a few months ago?

>Some Basic Theses on the Zionist-Semitist Holocaust Story and Its Evil Consequences!

>1. There is no forensic evidence whatsoever for the official Zionist-Semitist holocaust fable.

Patently false. The bottom line is that there is no forensic evidence that people like Prof. McNally will accept, but there are plenty of documents, eyewitnesses (perpetrators, bystanders, and survivors alike), and scientific studies (and, yes, the first two are forensic evidence -- all "forensic" means is that which goes toward proving a case in court)

>2. There logically cannot be any eyewitnesses for the holocaust. There can be eyewitnesses for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima because the bombing took place in one specific location and only took a few minutes. The so-called holocaust took place over several years and in many different locations, so that no one single person could have possibly eyewitnessed it.

Well, that's both begging the question, as well as a reductio ad absurdum. Of course no single person witnessed every event. Is there anyone who witnessed every battle of World War II? And, by extension, if there is not, did the war not happen?

>3. All so-called holocaust evidence is merely hearsay and unsubstantiated claims. Such flimsy stories are not enough to convict anyone of a parking violation in an unprejudiced court.

Eyewitnesses do not produce hearsay. Sixty-nine SS witnesses testified to the presence of gas chambers at Birkenau over the last sixty years. You can't make a blanket accusation of hearsay against them all.

>4. The holocaust affirmers and promoters jump from refuted accusations to new accusations awaiting refutation.

Can you offer even a single example?

>5. The holocaust is world history`s most serious accusation of murder.

See above.

>6. The Auschwitz Labor Camp had more amenities than the USA WW2 camps for Japanese Americans.

If you mean for the SS, then you are correctg.

>7. Elite Semitist Jews declared war on Germany in March, 1933. Therefore, Germany had good reason to regard Jewry as an alien and hostile minority. However, Germany waited eight years or so before starting to physically remove Jews to the East. On the contrary, the USA immediately segregated Japanese Americans into camps when war broke out between the Japanese and Americans.

Did the Jews of Germany declare war against the Nazis in 1933? No, they didn't. Some Zionist and other Jewish organizations did it on behalf of the Jews of Germany, and many German Jews advised against it. So did the Zionist community in Palestine at that time.

>8. Crematoria [gas ovens] are never used anywhere to kill people. They are used to burn the bodies of people who are already dead. There is nothing ominous about crematoria and there are many of them in Japanese cities today.

There is something ominous about 52 crematory muffles with a possible "processing" output that could murder the whole Auschwitz complex in six weeks, wouldn't you say?

>9. Auschwitz and all labor camps had insecticidal gas chambers.

Yes, they did.

>10. Insecticidal gas chambers saved Jewish lives.

As a side-effect, at best. They chambers were there to prevent the SS from getting sick.

>11. There were no homicidal gas chambers anywhere in German occupied territory. There are single-person homicidal gas chambers in some American prisons and the size and structure of these one-person chambers indicate the utter impossibility of homicidal gas chambers for dozens of people.

Charles Provan, himself a former "revisionist," disproved this idea, and it has since been disproved conclusively.

>12. Faurisson`s Challenge ["Show me or draw me a homicidal gas chamber!"] must be met.

Why? Does he make the laws?

>13. During WW2 there was a war going on. During wars people die and get killed.

You're a genius.

>14. If Hiroshima deaths were not murders, neither were Auschwitz deaths.

That's a non sequitur with no relation to the current issue (the Holocaust).

>15. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were real holocausts [killing by burning].

Sure they were. So what?

>16. The only real holocaust in Europe was against Germans in their firebombed cities.

That depends on your narrow definition of "holocaust."

>17. The worst war criminals [1941-1945] were the American Air Force fire bombing squadrons.

You don't know who bombed Dresden and most of the German cities, do you?

>18. There is better and more proof for the Trojan War than for the holocaust.

There is no proof of the Trojan War other than the Iliad, and there is even less evidence that a city named Troy or Ilium ever existed.

>19. Belief in the holocaust is epistemologically similar to belief in witches.

No, because witches don't exist. Hey, if you can beg the question, then why can't I?

>20. Belief in the holocaust is morally much worse than belief in witches.

Perhaps this is your estimation of what is evil or not evil. I'm not sure this is a statement of irrefutable truth.

>21. G. Rudolf`s Lectures on the Holocaust is the indispensable vademecum for students of the holocaust.

It is a pack of lies.

>22. The constant changes in the holocaust fable are due to revisionist pressure and not to any Zionist or Semitist honesty. Jews have abandoned the malicious "soap made from Jewish fat" and "lampshades from Jewish skin" blood libels. The whole holocaust story is exactly like the vicious soap and lampshades lies.

Please present a single example where the "story has changed" because of "revisionist" pressure.

>23. Only Zionist and Semitist obstinacy, greed, and mendacity maintain the Holocaust Lie.

What of non-Zionist, non-"Semitist" (whatever the hell that is) people like myself, who similarly make no money off of the Holocaust.

>24. The Auschwitz Labor Camp was much safer than the German cities being bombed.

If you were German, sure it was. If you were Jewish, it was not. Even the "official death toll" at Auschwitz according to the ICRC is higher than the number of bodies recovered after the bombing of Dresden.

>25. Giving false testimony must be a criminal and tort offense. ["Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor!"] The Modern European Enlightenment doctrine of free speech does not permit filthy unfounded blood libels.

An offense cannot be a tort and a criminal offense simultaneously. It is either one or the other. Furthermore, the Ninth Commandment only applies when one is under oath.

Furthermore, if you are going to put limits on free speech on this "blood libel," then how can you protest when people are imprisoned for denying the Holocaust? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

>26. The holocaust story is the Achilles heel of Jewish Power over Gentiles. If the Auschwitz Lie collapses, the holocaust collapses. If the hoaxoco$t collapses, Jewish Power collapses.

You have not shown a causal relationship, and, as such, your argument hear is worthless.

>27. Nazis wanted to deport Jews to somewhere. Zionists wanted Jews to be deported to somewhere. Nazis and Zionists cooperated to save Jews by getting them out of the war zone in Europe.

This is true to a very limited extent. The Ha'avara operated under this principle, but the "Blood for Trucks" deal that Adolf Eichmann attempted to broker fell apart.

>28. Russia and Western Europe have different railroad width gauges. Several camps were located at the railroad width gauge difference line. They were all transit camps and not death camps.

The problem with this argument is that by 1942, much of the rail gauging had been converted -- in fact, about 41,000 km of rail.

>29. Most Jewish deaths in the labor camps were the result of logistic problems caused by American bombings which destroyed the transportation networks. It was mainly for this reason that the Germans could not ship the lifesaving Zyklon B gas to the camps. Zyklon B saved Jewish lives by killing the lice that spread the typhus, the main killer in the camps and trenches of both World War I and II.

See above. If the Jews had never been in the camps, they wouldn't have died.

>30. If it is morally acceptable for Jews to deport Palestinians from their homeland, it was morally acceptable for Germans to deport Jews from a country not their homeland. This is called Torah tit-for-tat.

No, it's called tat-for-tit, because you have the order of events ass-backwards.

Jews were deported between 1938 and 1944. Palestinians were deported in 1948 and 1949.

Neither situation is morally acceptable.

>31. Both the Nuremberg Show Trials and Stalin`s Show Trials used lots of torture to get confessions.

Please name one provable example.

>32. The Nuremberg Show Trials were far worse than Stalin`s Show Trials because a whole people was condemned in perpetuity at Nuremberg. The false confessions that were tortured out of Germans were then foisted onto post-war Germany as part of its basic legal system, i.e. obvious lies were legislated into "obvious facts" which nobody can doubt or even question during a holocaust trial in a Germany, French, Czech, Dutch, Belgian, Italian, or Austrian court.

You're begging the question again w/r/t this "torture" issue. But the German people as a whole were not held responsible at Nuremberg. I don't recall 80 million defendants. I recall far fewer.

>33. An international and independent court must study the forensic aspects of the holocaust accusations of murder to acquit Gentiles [not just Germans] of the unfounded charge of first degree murder..

See above on the charge of "murder."

>34. Elite Jews claimed a 6,000,000 person holocaust during World War I. If you do not believe in the WWI hoaxocough, then why do you believe in the WWII hoaxoco$t? The evidence is basically the same.

Actually, no such thing was claimed. After World War I, an ad was run by a relief organization that claimed that six million Jews living in Eastern Europe were at risk of death thanks to the privations of the previous war, the Russian Civil War, and Spanish Flu.

>35. Finkelstein`s witty and informative The Holocaust Industry does not even touch on the holocaust as such but only on abuses of the official Zionist Semitist fable. However, the entire Holocaust blood libel itself is the worst possible abuse.

There is no point above as far as I can see.

>36. Elite Jews lie and then get angry when people do not believe their lies. The absolutely biggest Jewish lie is the holocaust. The holocaust fable is nothing but Jewish hate speech.

Why do you feel compelled to tack "Jewish" onto your nouns above?

>37. Jewish anti-Gentile lies are a clever defense tactic. Gentiles get so overwhelmed by Jewish lies that they do not see that Elite Jews are committing the very crimes they accuse Gentiles of. For example, Amnesty International [AI], the largely Jewish supposedly human rights organization, would not support David Irving when Semitist Jews in Austria had him arrested for holocaust denial. AI said that Irving was engaging in hate speech. On the contrary! Irving simple wanted to discuss Jewish hate speech. But in the world of zio-semitistic twistspeak, the only hate speech recognized is the refusal to accept Jewish hate speech.

Perhaps you can explain, then, why AI routinely reports on poor human rights conditions in the State of Israel.

>38. "Gentiles will stop telling truths about Jews when Jews stop telling lies about Gentiles." [Quote from a not to be identified German freedom fighter]

Without an attribution, the quote is worthless. You could have made it up yourself.

>39. Germans must institute a class action lawsuit against the holocaust jet-set plutocrats. The once proud German people have become enslaved by the Auschwitz Lie.

And what would they sue for, assuming that the majority of German people would want to press such a case (and the majority would not).

>40. Holocaust promoters and profiteers should be imprisoned. There are at least two reasons to incarcerate professional holocaustomaniacs: 1. they are guilty of criminal libel and embezzlement, 2. they would thereby be pressured to release all those that they have imprisoned.

See above: You are only willing to criminalize speech that you disagree with. You are a hypocrite.

>41. World Jewry has to pay back all money extorted via the Auschwitz Lie.

We'll get to that after the "trial" you mention is convened, OK?

>42. All UN member states should institute an anti-Holocaust loyalty oath for their citizens. No holocaust promoter can be trusted. As a minimum, the Annual United Nations Holocaust Day on January 27 must be immediately dropped.

Now loyalty oaths as well. You have no conception of freedom of conscience, do you?

>43. The Holocaust industry causes infinitely more harm than the tobacco industry. Public health warnings should be put on anything published by holocaust industrialists.

Tobacco kills a half million people in the U.S. alone. How many people are killed yearly by the "Holocaust story"?

>44. The Holocaust is elite Jewry`s cash cow, golden calf, and prize alibi for any and all of its crimes.

And you would know this how?

>45. The holocaust fable has replaced Christ`s Crucifixion and the birth of Israel has replaced Christ`s Resurrection as the basic religious beliefs in Euro-America. Holocaustianity has replaced Christianity and this new Church of the Holocaust has an Inquisition to enforce belief in its dogmas.

I take it you are Christian. That's nice. I like most Christians. I don't like you.

If you're wondering why I didn't respond to the previous post, it's because there is nothing to respond to.

>46. Israel can continue to exist but within the 1948 UN mandated borders.

The U.N. didn't mandate borders in 1948; they did so in 1947 -- borders that the Zionist movement accepted and the Arab League rejected. Israel's borders recognized by the U.N. are the 1949 cease-fire lines, now replaced partially with permanent borders with Jordan and Egypt.

>47. There cannot be any "one state solution" forcing Palestinians to live with racist Jews.

So you would confine the Palestinians to the West Bank and Gaza?

>48. The apart-hate Jew State [Judenstaat] must get rid of its worse than Nazi race laws and join the world community as a normal state in which citizenship is not acquired solely on the basis of a putative "sacred semen" [or biblical "holy seed"].

How about Pakistan? How about Japan? How about Germany, for that matter, that has a "law of return" for ethnic Germans?

Why are you singling out Israel?

>49. Israel sees the USA as its chief near-term enemy.

A statement without any backing might as well never have been made.

>50. Israel destroys the USA through its fifth column of traitors high in the American government and blackmails the USA into wars fought for the Jew State [Judenstaat]. These wars are bleeding America to death.

I don't suppose you've considered all that oil over there as a possible reason why Bush-43 rushed into war, do you?

By the way, "Judenstaat" doesn't translate as "Jew State." It translates as "Jews State." "Juden" is plural.

>51. Zionism must be recognized as [not even] a racism. Many years ago the United Nations had condemned Zionism as a racism. That was perhaps the only UN Resolution that Israel ever lived up to.

Please explain exactly how Zionism in all its form is racism.

>52. The "Clash of Civilizations" is just a scam used to cause wars against and among all humans.

I don't even know what you're talking about, much less its relevance here.

>53. Elite Jewry is defeating the West [both Black and White] with the holocaust lie and is simultaneously waging an anti-Islamic war using naïve Christians to fight and die for Israel.

See above.

>54. Jewry`s multi-front wars are very risky for ordinary Jews because some Gentiles might wake up.

Like you did? They'd be smarter asleep if they woke up like you.

>55. The War on Terrorism [really a "War on Common Sense"] is a scheme designed to get Whites and Christians to kill innocent Arabs and Muslims.

Perhaps, but you are aware that non-Christians have died on the front lines, are you not?

>A Footnote on Jewish Hate Speech

Oh, goodie.

>The Talmud contains lots of nasty racism, insulting epithets, and malicious lies. Perhaps today`s elite Jewry acquired their racism and mendacity largely from that dreadful book. At any rate, modern elite Jewry has perfected the art of successful lying by defaming those who refuse to believe their lies.

Everyone of you people is a Talmud expert. I love it.

>The best -but not the only- example is the malicious Holocaust blood libel. The scam works like this. Certainly, some Jews died during WW2, but nobody knows for sure how many died. Another basic question is how many of the Jews who died were killed or murdered. However, one scholar said, "During WW2 a war was going on." He referred to the obvious fact that wars are for killing people so one should expect that some Jews would die in a war their own leaders played a large part in starting.

See above.

>During and right after WW2, elite Jewry started with a much higher figure than 6M. Figures like 28M, 16M, or 10M were first suggested and only reduced when these astronomically high numbers were thought to be too implausible. Finally, the Jewish elite stopped at 6,000,000 and dogmatically clung to it. All the details and even other explanations can be found in Germar Rudolf`s Lectures on the Holocaust.

Can you provide a shred of evidence for any of your above three figures? The six million figure, by the way, wasn't even six million -- it was 5.7 million as reckoned by the Anglo-American Commission of Enquiry.

>The Auschwitz Lie pretty much got written in stone at the Nuremberg Show Trials where Soviet, American, and British prosecutors and persecutors tortured confessions out of defenseless Germans. The mendacious Nuremberg judgments gave the media carte blanche to spread the Auschwitz Lie through school textbooks, radio, TV, pseudo-scholarly reference works, institutes, anti-think tanks, synagogue, churches, etc.

You're repeating yourself. See above.

>Now it was very difficult for people to continue to believe wartime propaganda lies after the war ended, so elite Jewry began to accuse holocaust skeptics of "HATE SPEECH." In German they even coined a word, Volksverhetzung, which the innocent beginning student of German might think means "inciting the people" but actually means "inciting Gentiles to not believe the lies of the Jewish elite." However, elite Jews themselves are always inciting the ordinary Jews and Gentiles to believe their lies.

I don't think your German is very good. Mine is a hair above non-existent, which I think yours is.

The word Volksverhetzung was not coined after the Holocaust. The word had already meant "sedition."

>In brief, this is elite Jewry`s holocaust hate speech cycle:
>1. Jew elite tells the cosmic-sized Big Lie of the Holocaust.

Nothing like quoting Hitler to prove your point is always a smart move.

>2. Gentiles say, "Wait! Let us investigate that!"

Gentiles as a group, or certain Jew-hating Gentiles? Can you name three "revisionists" who aren't identifiably anti-Semitic?

>3. Jewish elite protests, "What? You question Jewish suffering and eyewitness testimonies? You are engaging in hate speech."

Even historiographers of the normative history of the Holocaust question eyewitness testimony. What world do you live in?

>4. The Jewish controlled media then proceed to silence and defame the hapless Gentile or Jew who refuses to accept the holocaust blood libel.

And so why haven't they silenced you?

>5. If the Gentile persists, Jewish thugs like Rabbi Kahane`s JDL [Jewish Defense League] send him mail-bombs or Jewish assisted lightening burns down his house. These Jewish thugs are almost always protected by their co-tribalists in the judicial system and the useless police never bother to seriously investigate the crime.

Other than the IHR arson case, can you cite other examples? Because if you can't, then you haven't established a pattern.

>6. If the holocaust skeptic persists, jewdiciaries bankrupt, deport, and imprison him.

So why hasn't this happened to you? Or Bradley Smith? Or Michael Santomauro? Or Jonnie Hargis? Or any other number of people who have stayed in their own countries where their speech about the Holocaust is protected (only twelve countries have criminalized Holocaust denial)?

>These six stages of the hate speech cycle of the Jewish elite can all be seen in the life of the great human rights fighters Ernst Zundel, Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, Georges Thiel, et multi alii. The basic assumption behind elite Jewry`s thinking is that elite Jews themselves could never be guilty of anything in their relations with Gentiles.

What exactly are these "elite Jews" guilty of?

I'm not impressed, Prof. McNally. Want to try for three?

Mark Dankof Interviews "ein Kämpfer für eine arische Rasse"

Mark Dankof hosts a radio program on the Republic Broadcast Network. I don't know much about Dankof, but I know a lot about his guest on December 29, Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review. During the interview, which you can find on the top of this page, Mark told some of his usual whoppers.

Let's fisk it, kids!

Read more!

Hour I

The discussion of the Holocaust begins about three-quarters into the first half of the show, when Weber speaks about laws against Holocaust denial.

[44:00] Let's get a few things straight here. First of all, you can go to jail in Poland for saying that the Soviets did not commit atrocities there. And you can now go to jail in France for denying the Armenian genocide of 1915. So it isn't just the Nazi Holocaust, although it is predominantly the Nazi Holocaust where such laws are in place to punish "dissidents." Second, these laws are not in place in "most of the countries, or many of the countries of Europe." There are laws against Holocaust denial in twelve European countries (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, and Switzerland; there are forty-five countries in Europe, if we include Turkey (which actually has laws enforcing the denial of the Armenian genocide, i.e., you can go to jail in Turkey for saying that the Turkish government killed a million Armenians during World War I). So, in reality, there are laws against Holocaust denial in a little over a quarter of Europe -- less, in fact, if we exclude France and Poland for the aforementioned reasons.

[44:30] "Remarks offensive to Jews" are not exclusively punishable in any of the aforementioned countries. Several countries have laws against group libel and/or inciting racial hatred (I believe Mr. Weber might have faced the latter charge in Germany in the mid-1970s -- he said the German phrase that is part of the title of this post when arrested in Munich distributing neo-Nazi propaganda), but these laws do not apply exclusively to Jews. They are applied regularly to Turks in Germany and North Africans in France.

[45:25] Ernst Zundel is not in prison. He is in jail. Prisons are where convicted prisoners go; jail is where people go during trial. Mr. Weber quickly glides over the fact that Zundel spent a year in detention in Canada, but he doesn't mention why. Zundel was held because the government of Canada wanted to determine whether he was a threat to their national security. Concluding that he was, they deported him to Germany. Among the reasons that Zundel was deported from Canada was his relationship with Tom Metzger, the leader of White Aryan Resistance, a neo-Nazi group operating out of Southern California. Metzger has been to jail more than once and lost a several million dollar civil-rights suit for incitement to murder in the case of a killing of an Ethiopian exchange student in Portland, Ore., in the 1980s. I'd say such associations, indeed friendships, are reason for concern on the part of the Canadian government. No country should be forced to accept immigrants that it believes may compromise their safety.

[46:00] Here Weber begins his "version" of the Holocaust with the "Jews . . . suffered terribly" line. But, he tells us, "a great deal about the Holocaust story has changed over the years." He says this as if it's some great revelation. Of course the historiography has changed. The first major study on the Holocaust was published in 1955. Much of it contains information that we now know is not true. This is to be expected in every field of history. The longer any event or series of events is studied, the more people are going to learn and the more precise and exact the historiography is going to become. Period.

Hour II

[2:55] David in California had called in before the end of the hour, and now Weber has the opportunity to respond. David had implicated that Weber was acting as a kind of Pied Piper, leading people down the wrong road. (He's correct, of course.) Weber's answer is that the Iraq War's principal cause is the benefit of the State of Israel. Is he not aware that Iraq sits on rather a large oil supply?

Let's put the question clearly: If the largest export of Kuwait were figs, would we have intervened militarily sixteen years ago when Iraq invaded Kuwait? And isn't the current war merely an extension of that earlier conflict?

I'm not going to say that Israeli security didn't play a role in the lead-up to this war. Instead, I'll point out what former CIA analyst Ray McGovern has said: It's a three-pronged assault on behalf of O (oil), I (Israel), and L (logistics, i.e., the location of future U.S. military bases in the region). Why does Weber focus solely on Israel? Because Weber hates Jews.

[4:15] Just as a side note, Mark Dankof is wrong about Orthodox Judaism. Religious Judaism does, in fact, place Israel and Jerusalem very particularly as being holier than other places in the world in the same way that Islam places that significance on Mecca and the Ka'aba in particular. Mr. Dankof is mistaking Zionism for a religious movement or as presenting itself as one.

[25:10] A man calls in about the IHR bombing a few decades ago and about the Mermelstein trial. He claims a "Jewish judge" (the judge's name was Thomas T. Johnson) took judicial notice of the Holocaust and ruled against the IHR.

Weber responds by saying that he wasn't part of the IHR at the time of the Mermelstein case (which he wasn't), but he also says that there was "not much the IHR could have done" to prevent the ruling. This is false.

The IHR and Mermelstein agreed to a summary judgment rather than a jury trial. Judicial notice was only taken after the judge had ruled for Mermelstein.

So what could the IHR have done? They could have taken the issue to a jury if they were so sure of their case. Oh, I'm sorry, I forget: The "Jewish judge" would have ruled against them anyway...

For more on the Mermelstein affair, visit Nizkor's section on the case.

[35:30] Asked directly by the same caller (before the break) to say whether or not the Nazis had death camps, Weber stumbles. For some reason, he won't answer this question this directly. Could it be because when he denies such camps existed he's lying and he knows he's lying?

Weber says that the six million figure is an exaggeration. It is not, at least not to any great extent. The number has been consistently verified by reputable historians and demographers going all the way back to the original Anglo-American Commission of Enquiry that established that over 5.7 million Jews had disappeared without a trace during World War II.

[39:00] Weber objects to use of the term "Holocaust denier." Why? Weber has all the hallmarks of Holocaust denial as identified by Justice Grey in Irving v. Lipstadt: He states that far fewer than six million Jews were killed; he denies that the Nazis employed gas chambers; he denies that there was any central Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe during World War II; and he believes the Holocaust is a "story" created to benefit the Zionist cause.

Mark Weber is the kind of Holocaust denier who affirms the famous line from Ecclesiastes: There is no new thing under the sun. He's been spinning the same crap for decades, and he just keeps going, no matter how many times he's proved wrong.

Sometimes pictures speak louder than words

One viewer of denierbud’s One Third of the Holocaust video (YouTube page) thought up an interesting way of commenting on the clips I addressed in this article, the ones in which denierbud idiotically claims that there was not enough space at Treblinka and Belzec to bury the bodies of the hundreds of thousands of people known to have been killed at each of these places.

The viewer in question, INFL4M35, addressed one aspect not focused in my above-mentioned article, though I referred to it in connection with Mattogno’s claims regarding the burial space at Belzec extermination camp and the Polish investigations of the Treblinka site: the fact that the bodies in these extermination camps’ mass graves were not all buried at the same time but over a period of months, and that the bodies in the lower layers of the mass graves can thus be expected to have lost much of their volume by the time the bodies in the upper layers were added, due to the effects of quicklime poured over each layer of bodies and/or of natural decomposition.

What INFL4M35 did was to illustrate the presumable development of the corpses’ volume as decomposition progressed, by linking to a video showing the decomposition of a piglet accidentally crushed by its mother, which is available on the Australian Museum website that I referred to in section 4.2 of my article Carlo Mattogno on Belzec Archaeological Research, where the influence of decomposition on the burning of the bodies is discussed.

As I mentioned there, decomposition takes longer underground than above ground. The times given in the decomposition video must probably be doubled to obtain the times it must have taken for the bodies in the mass graves of Treblinka and Belzec to go through the various stages of decomposition.

Notwithstanding this correction, INFL4M35 deserves praise for having recognized the important factor of the corpses’ volume loss due to decomposition, which further emphasizes the imbecility of denierbud’s claim that the available burial space was insufficient, and also for having expressed his comment to denierbud’s trash in this simple but instructive manner.

The other video on INFL4M35’s channel is also worth watching, and not unrelated to the subject insofar as it shows something that denierbud’s video filth also qualifies as: hate speech.