What is 'Holocaust denial'?
In recent years, more and more attention has been devoted to the supposed
danger of "Holocaust denial." Politicians, newspapers and television warn
about the growing influence of those who reject the Holocaust story that
some six million European Jews were systematically exterminated during the
Second World War, most of them in gas chambers.
In several countries, including Israel, France, Germany and Austria,
"Holocaust denial" is against the law, and "deniers" have been punished with
stiff fines and prison sentences. Some frantic Jewish community leaders are
calling for similar government measures in North America against so-called
"deniers." In Canada, David Matas, Senior Counsel for the "League for Human
Rights" of the Zionist B'nai B'rith organization, says: (note 1)
The Holocaust was the murder of six million Jews, including two million
children. Holocaust denial is a second murder of those same six million.
First their lives were extinguished; then their deaths. A person who denies
the Holocaust becomes part of the crime of the Holocaust itself.
Often overlooked in this controversy is the crucial question: Just what
constitutes "Holocaust denial"?
Should someone be considered a
"Holocaust denier" because he does not believe - as Matas and others insist
- that six million Jews were killed during World War II? This figure was
cited by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-1946. It
found that "the policy pursued [by the German government] resulted in the
killing of six million Jews, of which four million were killed in the
extermination institutions." (note 2)
Yet if that is so, then several of the most prominent Holocaust historians
could be regarded as "deniers." Professor Raul Hilberg, author of the
standard reference work, The Destruction of the European Jews, does not
accept that six million Jews died. He puts the total of deaths (from all
causes) at 5.1 million.
Gerald Reitlinger, author of The Final
Solution, likewise did not accept the six million figure. He estimated
the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million, but
admitted that this was conjectural due to a lack of reliable information.
Is someone a "Holocaust denier" if he
says that the Nazis didn't use Jewish fat to make soap? After examining all
the evidence (including an actual bar of soap supplied by the Soviets), the
Nuremberg Tribunal declared in its Judgment that "in some instances attempts
were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the
commercial manufacture of soap." (note 3)
In 1990, though, Israel's official "Yad Vashem" Holocaust memorial agency
"rewrote history" by admitting that the soap story was not true.
"Historians have concluded that soap was not
made from human fat. When so many people deny the Holocaust ever
happened, why give them something to use against the truth?," said Yad
Vashem official Shmuel Krakowski.
Is someone a "Holocaust denier" if he
does not accept that the January 1942 "Wannsee conference" of German
bureaucrats was held to set or coordinate a program of systematic mass
murder of Europe's Jews?
If so, Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda
Bauer must be wrong - and a "Holocaust denier" - because he recently
"The public still repeats, time after time,
the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was
In Bauer's opinion, Wannsee was a meeting but
"hardly a conference" and "little of what was said there was executed in
detail." (note 5)
Is someone a "Holocaust denier" if he
says that there was no order by Hitler to exterminate Europe's Jews? There
was a time when the answer would have been yes.
Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, for
example, wrote in the 1961 edition of his study, The Destruction of the
European Jews, that there were two Hitler orders for the destruction of
Europe's Jews: the first given in the spring of 1941, and the second shortly
thereafter. But Hilberg removed mention of any such order from the revised,
three-volume edition of his book published in 1985. (note 6)
As Holocaust historian Christopher Browning has
noted: (note 7)
In the new edition, all references in the
text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the "Final Solution" have
been systematically excised. Buried at the bottom of a single footnote
stands the solitary reference: "Chronology and circumstances point to a
Hitler decision before the summer ended." In the new edition, decisions
were not made and orders were not given.
A lack of hard evidence for an extermination
order by Hitler has contributed to a controversy that divides Holocaust
historians into "intentionalists" and "functionalists." The former contend
that there was a premeditated extermination policy ordered by Hitler, while
the latter hold that Germany's wartime "final solution" Jewish policy
evolved at lower levels in response to circumstances. But the crucial point
here is this: notwithstanding the capture of literally tons of German
documents after the war, no one can point to documentary evidence of a
wartime extermination order, plan or program.
This was admitted by Professor Hilberg during
his testimony in the 1985 trial in Toronto of German-Canadian publisher
Ernst Zuendel. (note 8)
So just what constitutes "Holocaust denial"? Surely a claim that most
Auschwitz inmates died from disease and not systematic extermination in gas
chambers would be "denial."
But perhaps not.
Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer, a
Princeton University professor, wrote in his 1988 study Why Did the Heavens
"The 'Final Solution" in History': . . .
From 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz, but probably overall, more
Jews were killed by so-called 'natural' causes than by 'unnatural'
ones." (note 9)
Even estimates of the number of people who died
at Auschwitz - allegedly the main extermination center - are no longer clear
cut. At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans
exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. (note 10) Until 1990, a
memorial plaque at Auschwitz read:
"Four Million People Suffered and Died Here
at the Hands of the Nazi Murderers Between the Years 1940 and 1945."
During a 1979 visit to the camp, Pope John Paul
II stood before this memorial and blessed the four million victims.
Is it "Holocaust denial" to dispute these four million deaths? Not today. In
July 1990, the Polish government's Auschwitz State Museum, along with
Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust center, conceded that the four million figure
was a gross exaggeration, and references to it were accordingly removed from
the Auschwitz monument. Israeli and Polish officials announced a tentative
revised toll of 1.1 million Auschwitz dead. (note 12)
In 1993, French Holocaust researcher
Jean-Claude Pressac, in a much-discussed book about Auschwitz, estimated
that altogether about 775,000 died there during the war years. (note 13)
Professor Mayer acknowledges that the question of how many really died in
Auschwitz remains open. In Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? he wrote (p.
. . . Many questions remain open . . . All
in all, how many bodies were cremated in Auschwitz? How many died there
all told? What was the national, religious, and ethnic breakdown in this
commonwealth of victims? How many of them were condemned to die a
'natural' death and how many were deliberately slaughtered? And what was
the proportion of Jews among those murdered in cold blood among these
gassed? We have simply no answers to these questions at this time.
What about denying the existence of extermination "gas chambers"? Here too,
Mayer makes a startling statement (on page 362 of his book): "Sources for
the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable." While Mayer
believes that such chambers did exist at Auschwitz, he points out that
most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and
executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and
This testimony must be screened carefully, since
it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity.
One example of this might be the testimony of Rudolf Höss, an SS
officer who served as commandant of Auschwitz. In its Judgment, the
Nuremberg International Military Tribunal quoted at length from his
testimony to support its findings of extermination. (note 14)
It is now well established that Höss' crucial testimony, as well as his
so-called "confession" (which was also cited by the Nuremberg Tribunal), are
not only false, but were obtained by beating the former commandant nearly to
death. (note 15) Höss' wife and children were also threatened with death and
deportation to Siberia.
In his statement - which would not be admissible
today in any United States court of law - Höss claimed the existence of an
extermination camp called "Wolzek." In fact, no such camp ever existed. He
further claimed that during the time that he was commandant of Auschwitz,
two and a half million people were exterminated there, and that a further
half million died of disease. (note 16) Today no reputable historian upholds
Höss was obviously willing to say anything, sign
anything and do anything to stop the torture, and to try to save himself and
In his 1988 book, Professor Mayer
calls for "excavations at the killing sites and in their immediate environs"
to determine more about the gas chambers. In fact, such forensic studies
have been made. The first was conducted in 1988 by American execution
equipment consultant, Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. He carried out an on-site
forensic examination of the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and
Majdanek to determine if they could have been used to kill people as
After a careful study of the alleged killing
facilities, Leuchter concluded that the sites were not used, and could not
have been used, as homicidal gas chambers. Furthermore, an analysis of
samples taken by Leuchter from the walls and floors of the alleged gas
chambers showed either no or minuscule traces of cyanide compound, from the
active ingredient of Zyklon B, the pesticide allegedly used to murder Jews
at Auschwitz. (note 17)
A confidential forensic examination (and subsequent report) commissioned by
the Auschwitz State Museum and conducted by Institute of Forensic Research
in Krakow has confirmed Leuchter's finding that minimal or no traces of
cyanide compound can be found in the sites alleged to have been gas
chambers. (note 18)
The significance of this is evident when the results of the forensic
examination of the alleged homicidal gas chambers are compared with the
results of the examination of the Auschwitz disinfestations facilities,
where Zyklon B was used to delouse mattresses and clothing. Whereas no or
only trace amounts of cyanide were found in the alleged homicidal gas
chambers, massive traces of cyanide were found in the walls and floor in the
camp's disinfestations delousing chambers.
Another forensic study has been carried out by German chemist Germar
Rudolf. On the basis of his on-site examination and analysis of samples,
the certified chemist and doctoral candidate concluded: "For
chemical-technical reasons, the claimed mass gassings with hydrocyanic acid
in the alleged 'gas chambers' in Auschwitz did not take place . . . The
supposed facilities for mass killing in Auschwitz and Birkenau were not
suitable for this purpose . . ." (note 19)
Finally, there is the study of Austrian engineer Walter Lueftl, a
respected expert witness in numerous court cases, and former president of
Austria's professional association of engineers. In a 1992 report he called
the alleged mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers "technically
impossible." (note 20)
So just what constitutes "Holocaust
denial"? Those who advocate criminal persecution of "Holocaust deniers" seem
to be still living in the world of 1946 where the Allied officials of the
Nuremberg Tribunal have just pronounced their verdict. But the Tribunal's
findings can no longer be assumed to be valid. Because it relied so heavily
on such untrustworthy evidence as the Höss testimony, some of its most
critical findings are now discredited.
For purposes of their own, powerful special interest groups desperately seek
to keep substantive discussion of the Holocaust story taboo. One of the ways
they do this is by purposely mischaracterizing revisionist scholars as
"deniers." But the truth can't be suppressed forever: There is a very real
and growing controversy about what actually happened to Europe's Jews during
World War II.
Let this issue be settled as all great historical controversies are
resolved: through free inquiry and open debate in our journals, newspapers
1. Globe and Mail (Toronto), Jan. 22, 1992.
2. Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military
Tribunal (IMT "blue series"), Vol. 22, p. 496.
3. IMT "blue series," Vol. 22, p. 496.
4. Globe and Mail (Toronto), April 25, 1990; See also: M. Weber, "Jewish
Soap," The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1991.
5. Canadian Jewish News (Toronto), Jan. 30, 1992.
6. See: Barbara Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die: Report of the
Evidence in the Canadian 'False News' Trial of Ernst Zndel (Toronto:
Samisdat, 1992), pp. 192, 300, 349.
7. "The Revised Hilberg," Simon Wiesenthal Annual, Vol. 3, 1986, p. 294.
8. B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (Toronto: 1992), pp.
9. A. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The 'Final Solution' in
History (Pantheon, 1988), p. 365.
10. Nuremberg document 008-USSR.; IMT "blue series," Vol. 39, pp. 241,
11. B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (Toronto: 1992), p.
12. Y. Bauer, "Fighting the Distortions," Jerusalem Post (Israel), Sept.
22, 1989; Auschwitz Deaths Reduced to a Million," Daily Telegraph
(London), July 17, 1990; "Poland Reduces Auschwitz Death Toll Estimate
to 1 Million," The Washington Times, July 17, 1990.
13. J.-C. Pressac, Les Cr¦metoires d'Auschwitz: La machinerie du meurtre
de masse (Paris: CNRS, 1993). See also: R. Faurisson, "Jean-Claude
Pressac's New Auschwitz Book," The Journal of Historical Review,
Jan.-Feb. 1994, p. 24.
14. IMT "blue series," Vol. 22, p. 485; Nuremberg document 3868-PS
(USA-819), in IMT "blue series," Vol. 33, pp. 275-279.
15. Rupert Butler, Legions of Death (England: 1983), pp. 235-237; C.
Hitchens, "Whose History is it?," Vanity Fair (New York), Dec. 1993, p.
16. See: R. Faurisson, "How the British Obtained the Confession of
Rudolf Hoess," The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87, pp.
17. A deluxe edition of The Leuchter Report is available from the IHR
for $20.00, plus $2.00 shipping.
18. The complete text of this report was published in English in The
Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1991.
19. G. Rudolf, Gutachten ueber die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von
Cyanidverbindungen in den 'Gaskammern' von Auschwitz (London: 1993).
See: The Journal of Historical Review, Nov.-Dec. 1993, pp. 25-26.
20. "The 'Lueftl Report'," The Journal of Historical Review, Winter
Back to Contents
Inside the Auschwitz 'Gas
by Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.
1988 was a very informative and likewise disturbing year. I was appalled to
learn that much of what I was taught in school about twentieth-century
history and World War II was a myth, if not a lie. I was first amazed; then
annoyed; then aware: the myth of the Holocaust was dead.
Like all American children born during and after World War II, I was taught
about the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis on the Jews. By the time I had
reached college, I had no reason to disbelieve any of my education, except
that I had some problems swallowing the numbers of decedents, said to total
some six million. But there it stopped. I believed in the Nazi genocide. I
had no reason to disbelieve.
Some 24 years later, a very believing engineer sat at his desk working one
snowy January afternoon in 1988, when the telephone rang.
This very believing engineer was about to
receive a very shocking history lesson, one which would cause him to
question that 50-year-old Holocaust lie and the application of that lie to
generations of children.
"Hello, this is Robert Faurisson" - and that
very believing engineer would believe no more.
I have for the past nine years worked with most, if not all, of the states
in the United States having capital punishment. I design and manufacture
execution equipment of all types, including electrocution systems, lethal
injection equipment, gallows and gas-chamber hardware.
I have consulted for, or supplied equipment to, most of the applicable
states and the federal government.
Because of my association with the states in this capacity, I was
recommended to the Zündel defense as a consultant on gas chambers by Warden
Bill Armontrout of the Missouri State Penitentiary.
After answering my telephone on that cold January afternoon, I met with Dr.
Robert Faurisson twice in Boston and, as a result of these meetings,
I was summoned to Toronto to meet with Ernst Zündel, attorney Douglas
Christie and the rest of Zündel's very able staff.
Dr. Robert Faurisson had postulated 13 years ago that a gas-chamber
specialist should be sought who could evaluate the alleged gas chambers in
Poland and report on their efficacy for execution purposes.
Valentine's Day weekend found me and Carolyn, my wife of two weeks, in
Toronto. Two days of lengthy meetings followed, during which I was shown
photos of the alleged German gas chambers in Poland, German documents and
Allied aerial photographs. My examination of this material led me to
question whether these alleged gas chambers were, in fact, execution
I was asked if I would go to Poland and
undertake a physical inspection and forensic analysis resulting in a written
evaluation of these alleged execution gas chambers, some at places I had
never even heard of.
After due consideration, I agreed and made plans to leave for Poland,
awaiting a time of minimal snow covering. I also stated that although the
photos and documents seemed to support the view that these places were,
indeed, not execution facilities, I would reserve final judgment until after
my examination and, if I determined that these facilities were, in fact, or
could have been, execution gas chambers, I would state this in my report.
The final report was to be utilized as evidence
in Ernst Zündel's defense in his pending criminal trial at Toronto, and I
had to be prepared to testify under oath.
Preparations for the trip required me to take sample bags, documentation
journals and tools. Because we were in a Communist country, I would have to
be careful with the tools. Very few tourists carry hammers, chisels, star
drills and tape measures while travelling. I hid them in the lining of my
valise and hoped for the best. Further, I had maps of Poland, Czechoslovakia
and Austria, in the event that we might have to make a hasty and unscheduled
And finally, I had gifts with which we bribed
the museum people to supply us with copies of documents from the Museum
I was fortunate to have a competent
and dependable party of professionals: my wife Carolyn, my general
assistant; Mr. Howard Miller, draftsman; Mr. Jürgen Neumann,
cinematographer; Mr. Tijudar Rudolf, interpreter. All knew that, if
caught, the Polish government would take a dim view of our activities and
purpose, let alone my removal of forensic samples from national shrines and
And the two ex officio members of our party, Mr. Ernst Zündel and Dr. Robert
Faurisson, who could not accompany us in person, but who nevertheless were
with us every step of the way in spirit.
On February 25, 1988, we left for
Poland. Neumann and Rudolf, the Canadian contingent, joined me and the
remainder of our team in Frankfurt.
We arrived at Cracow in the late afternoon and spent our first night at the
Hotel Orbis. We consumed the first of our three decent meals while in
Poland. The following day we drove to Oswiecim (Auschwitz). We arrived at
the Auschwitz hotel and were greeted by the smell of sulphur napthal
disinfectant, a smell I had not encountered for many years. The hotel is
apparently the old officers' quarters for the camp. We ate lunch at the
hotel dining room, a cafeteria style facility.
This was our first unidentifiable meal, starch
soup and sundries.
We made a reconnaissance tour of the camp, lasting into the dim light of the
Polish afternoon and several snow squalls, a common occurrence. We ate no
supper, in that we found no place to eat in Auschwitz after sundown our
Auschwitz and Birkenau
The following day we began our work
in the alleged gas chamber at the Auschwitz [camp] facility. Unfortunately,
we were unable to accomplish much due to constant interruptions by both
official and unofficial Sunday tours. Carolyn stood guard at one entrance
and Tijudar at the other, advising myself, Jürgen and Howard of their
It was too dangerous to take forensic samples
and tape, so we left for Birkenau [camp site] about noon.
At Birkenau we began a four-hour walk into the damp Polish cold and through
snow squalls so dense we could not see each other at a distance of a few
feet. Unfortunately, we did not expect to spend that much time walking
through the camp and, since vehicles are not permitted within the camp, we
left Carolyn behind in the car. Since we forgot to leave her the keys, she
nearly froze in the cold Polish afternoon.
We visited the barracks, crematories II, III, IV
and V, the sauna and the alleged burning pits. We took samples, documented
our activities on video tape and in still photos, and made scale drawings of
these facilities, carefully documenting the removal locations of all the
forensic samples. We had to break into the sauna building, since it was
At crematory II, I descended into the depths of the alleged gas chamber, a
wet, dank subterranean place not visited by man in almost 50 years, since
the building had been reduced to rubble, probably by a German military
demolition team. Fortunately, there were fewer guards and less pedestrian
traffic, making working conditions considerably better than they had been
earlier at Auschwitz.
Having been instructed by our empty stomachs of the evening before, we found
and ate at the restaurant at the bus station, the only legitimate restaurant
in Auschwitz. We returned to the Auschwitz hotel for the night.
The following day, Monday, we again began our work at Auschwitz [camp site],
the Sunday tours having subsided. We were able to get our samples, tapes and
documentation. We had, by this time, obtained blueprints of the alleged
gas-chamber facility and were able to follow the structural changes back to
the dates in question. We also verified the existence of the floor drain for
the periods of alleged gas chamber usage.
Upon completion at Auschwitz, we drove again to
Birkenau to take our control sample at delousing facility 1. Unfortunately,
the building was locked and again we had to break and enter in order to
access the delousing chamber. Again we ate at the bus station, and retired
early to the Auschwitz hotel.
Tuesday morning, while awaiting Tijudar's unsuccessful attempt to obtain a
can of Zyklon B, Jürgen and I made video tapes of locations within the camp.
We moved from the Auschwitz hotel to a hostel nearby, obtaining newly
vacated rooms. We ate at the bus station and retired early.
On Wednesday morning [the 24th] we ate a very enjoyable breakfast of ham,
cheese and bread (our second decent meal in Poland) and began our trip to
Lublin to see the Majdanek camp site.
After one final look in at Auschwitz, we set off
by car for Majdanek.
Several hours later, we arrived at Majdanek (Lublin), and visited the
museum, the reconstructed alleged gas chamber and the crematory. We finally
arrived at disinfection [buildings] 1 and 2, and examined the facilities. It
was extremely difficult to work, in that a guard made rounds every 10 or 15
minutes. The alleged gas chambers were blocked by gates and not accessible
for a detailed inspection by the general public.
It was necessary for me to trespass beyond these
gates in forbidden areas. Again Carolyn and Tijudar stood watch while I made
measurements and did a detailed examination in these areas. Once we were
caught short: I was forced to hurdle the gate, and was still in the air and
in mid-jump when the guard entered.
Fortunately, he was more interested in Jürgen
and his camera to see me before I touched ground.
The camp closed in early afternoon and the guard rather nastily told us to
leave. By three o'clock we were en route to Warsaw, a trip that would take
five hours through rain and snow. Our hotel reservation had been fouled up
but, fortunately, with the help of an embassy attaché, we were able to
secure rooms at another hotel.
We had our third edible meal in Poland that evening, and went to bed in
preparation for our trip home on Thursday. The following morning we had
breakfast and proceeded to the airport for our return trip.
We boarded the Polish airlines plane after clearing customs -- my suitcase
containing twenty pounds of the forbidden samples, fortunately none of which
were found. I did not breathe easy until we cleared the passport checkpoint
at Frankfurt. Our team split at Frankfurt for the return trips to the United
States and Canada, respectively.
After our return [on March 3], I delivered the
forensic samples to the test laboratory in Massachusetts. Upon receipt of
the test results, I prepared my report, combining my knowledge of gas
execution facilities and procedures with the research I had completed at
crematories and with retort manufacturers in the United States. With the
results of my research I believe you are all familiar.
Upon completion of my report I testified at Toronto - but that is another
The results published in the Leuchter Report are the important
thing. Categorically, none of the facilities examined at Auschwitz,
Birkenau or Lublin (Majdanek) could have supported, or in fact did
support, multiple executions utilizing hydrogen cyanide, carbon
monoxide or any other allegedly or factually lethal gas. Based upon
very generous maximum usage rates for all the alleged gas chambers,
totalling 1,693 persons per week, and assuming these facilities
could support gas executions, it would have required sixty-eight
(68) years to execute the alleged number of six millions of persons.
This must mean the Third Reich was in existence for some
seventy-five (75) years. Promoting these facilities as being capable
of effecting mass, multiple or even singular executions is both
ludicrous and insulting to every individual on this planet. Further,
those who do promote this mistruth are negligent and irresponsible
for not investigating these facilities earlier and ascertaining the
truth before indoctrinating the world with what may have become the
greatest propaganda ploy in history.
Of equal importance are Exterminationist errors relating to the
crematories. If these crematories, operated at a theoretical rate of
maximum output per day, without any down time and at a constant pace
(an impossible situation), and we accept the figure of at least six
million executed, the Third Reich lasted for at least forty-two (42)
years, since it would take thirty-five (35) years at an impossible
minimum to cremate these six million souls.
No one by any stretch of the imagination would allege (or even
believe) that the Third Reich ever lasted for seventy-five (75) or
even forty-two (42) years, yet they would have us believe that six
million souls were executed with equipment that could not possibly
have functioned, in less than one-seventh of the absolute minimum
time it could possibly have taken.
Forensic samples were taken from the visited sites. A control
sample was removed from delousing facility 1 at Birkenau. It was
postulated that because of the high iron content of the building
materials at these camps the presence of hydrogen cyanide gas would
result in a ferric-ferro-cyanide compound being formed, as evidenced
by the Prussian blue staining on the walls in the delousing
A detailed analysis of the 32 samples taken at the Auschwitz-Birkenau
complexes showed 1,050 mg/kg of cyanide and 6,170 mg/kg of iron.
Higher iron results were found at all of the alleged gas chambers
but no significant cyanide traces. This would be impossible if these
sites were exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas, because the alleged gas
chambers supposedly were exposed to much greater quantities of gas
than the delousing facility. Thus, chemical analysis supports the
fact that these facilities were never utilized as gas execution
Construction of these facilities shows that they were never used
as gas chambers. None of these facilities were sealed or gasketed.
No provision was ever made to prevent condensation of gas on the
walls, floor or ceiling. No provision ever existed to exhaust the
air-gas mixture from these buildings. No provision ever existed to
introduce or distribute the gas throughout the chamber. No
explosion-proof lighting existed and no attempt was ever made to
prevent gas from entering the crematories, even though the gas is
highly explosive. No attempt was made to protect operating personnel
from exposure to the gas or to protect other non-participating
persons from exposure. Specifically, at Auschwitz, a floor drain in
the alleged gas chamber was connected directly to the camp's storm
drain system. At Majdanek a depressed walkway around the alleged gas
chambers would have collected gas seepage and resulted in a death
trap for camp personnel. No exhaust stacks ever existed. Hydrogen
cyanide gas is an extremely dangerous and lethal gas, and nowhere
were there any provisions to effect any amount of safe handling. The
chambers were too small to accommodate more than a small fraction of
the alleged numbers. Plain and simple, these facilities could not
have operated as execution gas chambers.
After a thorough examination of the alleged execution facilities
in Poland and their associated crematories, the only conclusion that
can be arrived at by a rational, responsible person is the absurdity
of the notion that any of these facilities were ever capable of, or
were utilized as, execution gas chambers.
Back to Contents
by Mark Weber
One of the most lurid and slanderous Holocaust claims is the story that the
Germans manufactured soap from the bodies of their victims. Although a
similar charge during the First World War was exposed as a hoax almost
immediately afterwards, it was nevertheless revived and widely believed
during the Second.
More important, this accusation was "proved" at
the main Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946, and has been authoritatively endorsed
by numerous historians in the decades since. In recent years, though, as
part of a broad retreat from the most obviously untenable aspects of the
"orthodox" extermination story, Holocaust historians have grudgingly
conceded that the human soap tale is a wartime propaganda lie.
In their retreat, though, these historians have
tried to dismiss the soap story as a mere wartime "rumor," neglecting to
mention that international Jewish organizations and then Allied governments
endorsed and sanctioned this libelous canard.
Wartime rumors that the Germans were manufacturing soap from the corpses of
slaughtered Jews were based in part on the fact that soap bars distributed
by German authorities in Jewish ghettos and camps bore the impressed
initials "RIF," which many took to stand for "Rein juedisches Fett" or "Pure
Jewish Fat." (It did not seem to matter that the letters were "RIF" and not
"RJF.") These rumors spread so widely in 1941 and 1942 that by late 1942
German authorities in Poland and Slovakia were expressing official concern
about their impact.
According to a Polish source quoted in a secret wartime U.S. Army military
intelligence report, for example, the Germans were operating a "human soap
factory" in 1941 at Turek, Poland. "The Germans had brought thousands of
Polish teachers, priests and Jews there and after extracting the blood serum
from their bodies, had thrown them on large pots and melted off grease to
make soap," the intelligence report added.
Macabre "Jewish soap" jokes became popular in the ghettos and camps, and
many non-Jews on the outside came to believe the story. When trains loaded
with Jewish deportees stopped temporarily at rail stations, Poles reportedly
would gleefully shout at them: "Jews to soap!"
Even British prisoners of war interned at
Auschwitz in 1944 testified later about the wartime rumors that corpses of
gassing victims were being turned into soap there.
In spite of its inherently incredible character, the soap story became an
important feature of Jewish and Allied war propaganda. Rabbi Stephen S.
Wise, wartime head of both the World Jewish Congress and the American
Jewish Congress, publicly charged in November 1942 that Jewish corpses were
being "processed into such war-vital commodities as soap, fats and
fertilizer" by the Germans. He further announced that the Germans were "even
exhuming the dead for the value of the corpses," and were paying fifty marks
for each body.
In late 1942, the Congress Weekly, published by the American Jewish
Congress, editorialized that the Germans were turning Jews "by scientific
methods of dissolution into fertilizer, soap and glue." An article in the
same issue reported that Jewish deportees from France and Holland were being
processed into "soap, glue and train oil" in at least two special factories
in Germany. Typical of many other American periodicals, the influential New
Republic reported in early 1943 that the Germans were "using the bodies of
their Jewish victims to make soap and fertilizer in a factory at Siedlce."
During June and July 1943, two prominent representatives of the Moscow-based
"Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee" toured the United States and raised more
than two million dollars for the Soviet war effort at a series of mass
meetings. At each of these rallies, Soviet Jewish leader Solomon Mikhoels
showed the crowd a bar of soap that he said was made from Jewish corpses.
After the war the soap story was given important legitimacy at the main
Nuremberg trial. L. N. Smirnov, Chief Counsellor of Justice for the USSR,
declared to the Tribunal:
... The same base, rationalized SS technical
minds which created gas chambers and murder vans, began devising such
methods of complete annihilation of human bodies, which would not only
conceal the traces of their crimes, but also to serve in the
manufacturing of certain products. In the Danzig Anatomical Institute,
semi-industrial experiments in the production of soap from human bodies
and the tanning of human skin for industrial purposes were carried out.
Smirnov quoted at length from an affidavit by
Sigmund Mazur, an Institute employee, which was accepted as Nuremberg
It alleged that Dr. Rudolf Spanner, the
head of the Danzig Institute, had ordered the production of soap from
corpses in 1943. According to Mazur's affidavit, Dr. Spanner's operation was
of interest to high-ranking German officials. Education Minister Bernhard
Rust and Health Leader Dr. Leonardo Conti, as well as professors from other
medical institutes, came to witness Spanner's efforts. Mazur also claimed to
have used the "human soap" to wash himself and his laundry.
A human soap "recipe," allegedly prepared by Dr. Spanner (Nuremberg document
USSR-196), was also presented. Finally, a sample of what was supposed to be
a piece of "human soap" was submitted to the Nuremberg Tribunal as exhibit
In his closing address to the Tribunal, chief British prosecutor Sir Hartley
Shawcross echoed his Soviet colleague: "On occasion, even the bodies of
their victims were used to make good the wartime shortage of soap." And in
their final judgment, the Nuremberg Tribunal judges found that "attempts
were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the
commercial manufacture of soap."
It is worth emphasizing here that the "evidence" presented at the Nuremberg
Tribunal for the bogus soap story was no less substantial than the
"evidence" presented for the claims of mass extermination in "gas chambers."
At least in the former case, an actual sample of soap supposedly made from
corpses was submitted in evidence.
After the war, supposed Holocaust victims were solemnly buried, in the form
of soap bars, in Jewish cemeteries. In 1948, for example, four such bars
wrapped in a funeral shroud were ceremoniously buried according to Jewish
religious ritual at the Haifa cemetery in Israel. Other bars of "Jewish
soap" have been displayed as grim Holocaust relics at the Jewish Historical
Institute in Warsaw, the Stutthof Museum near Gdansk (Danzig), the Yivo
Institute in New York, the Holocaust Museum in Philadelphia, the Jewish
Holocaust Centre in Melbourne (Australia), and at various locations in
Numerous Jews who lived in German ghettos and camps during the war helped
keep the soap story alive many years later.
Ben Edelbaum, for example, wrote in his
1980 memoir Growing Up in the Holocaust:
Often with our rations in the ghettos, the
Germans had included a bar of soap branded with initials R.J.F. which
came to be known as "RIF" soap. It wasn't until the war had ended that
we learned the horrible truth about the bar of soap. Had we known in the
ghetto, every bar of "RIF" soap would have been accorded a sacred Jewish
funeral in the cemetery at Marysin. As it was, we were completely
oblivious to its origin and used the bones and flesh of our murdered
loved ones to wash our bodies.
Nesse Godin was transferred from a ghetto
in Lithuania to the Stutthof concentration camp in the spring of 1944. In a
1983 interview, she recalled her arrival there:
That day they gave us a shower and a piece
of soap. After the war we found out the soap was made out of pure Jew
fat, Rein Juden Fett, marked in the initials on the soap that I washed
with. For all I know sometimes maybe there was a little bit of my
father's fat in that soap that I washed with. How do you think I feel
when I think about that?
Mel Mermelstein, the former Auschwitz
inmate who was featured in the sensationalized April 1991 cable television
movie "Never Forget" (and who sued the Institute for Historical Review and
three other defendants for $11 million), declared in a 1981 sworn deposition
that he and other camp inmates used soap bars made from human fat.
It was an "established fact," he insisted, that
the soap he washed with was made from Jewish bodies.
Renowned "Nazi hunter" Simon Wiesenthal repeated the soap tale in a
series of articles published in 1946 in the Austrian Jewish community paper
Der Neue Weg.
In the first of these he wrote:
During the last weeks of March the Romanian
press reported an unusual piece of news: In the small Romanian city of
Folticeni twenty boxes of soap were buried in the Jewish cemetery with
full ceremony and complete funeral rites. This soap had been found
recently in a former German army depot. On the boxes were the initials
RIF, "Pure Jewish Fat." These boxes were destined for the Waffen-SS. The
wrapping paper revealed with completely cynical objectivity that this
soap was manufactured from Jewish bodies. Surprisingly, the thorough
Germans forgot to describe whether the soap was produced from children,
girls, men or elderly persons.
Wiesenthal went on:
After 1942 people in the General Government
[Poland] knew quite well what the RIF soap meant. The civilized world
may not believe the joy with which the Nazis and their women in the
General Government thought of this soap. In each piece of soap they saw
a Jew who had been magically put there, and had thus been prevented from
growing into a second Freud, Ehrlich or Einstein.
In another article he observed:
"The production of soap from human fat is so
unbelievable that even some who were in concentration camps find it
difficult to comprehend."
Over the years, numerous supposedly reputable
historians have promoted the durable soap story. Journalist-historian
William L. Shirer, for example, repeated it in his best-selling work,
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
Leading Soviet war propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg wrote in his postwar memoir:
"I have held in my hand a cake of soap stamped with the legend 'pure Jewish
soap', prepared from the corpses of people who had been destroyed. But there
is no need to speak of these things: thousands of books have been written
A standard history studies textbook used in Canadian secondary schools,
Canada: The Twentieth Century, told students that the Germans "boiled" the
corpses of their Jewish victims "to make soap."
The Anatomy of Nazism, a booklet published and
distributed by the Zionist "Anti-Defamation League" of B'nai B'rith,
"The process of brutalization did not end
with the mass murders themselves. Large quantities of soap were
manufactured from the corpses of those murdered."
A detailed 1981 work, Hitler's Death Camps,
repeated the soap story in lurid detail. While noting that "some historians
claim that the Nazi manufacture of soap from human fat is just a grim
rumor," author Konnilyn Feig nevertheless accepted the story because
"most East European camp scholars ... validate the soap stories, and other
kinds of bars made from humans are displayed in Eastern Europe -- I have
seen many over the years."
New York Rabbi Arthur Schneier repeated the tale at the opening
ceremony of the largest Holocaust meeting in history. In his invocation to
the "American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors," held in Washington
in April 1983, the Rabbi solemnly declared:
"We remember the bars of soap with the
initials RJF - Rein jdisches Fett, Pure Jewish Fat - made from the
bodies of our loved ones."
In spite of all the apparently impressive
evidence, the charge that the Germans manufactured soap from human beings is
a falsehood, as Holocaust historians are now belatedly acknowledging.
The "RIF" soap bar initials that supposedly
stood for "Pure Jewish Fat" actually indicated nothing more sinister than
"Reich Center for Industrial Fat Provisioning" ("Reichsstelle fr
Industrielle Fettversorgung"), a German agency responsible for wartime
production and distribution of soap and washing products. RIF soap was a
poor quality substitute that contained no fat at all, human or otherwise.
Shortly after the war the public prosecutor's office of Flensburg, Germany,
began legal proceedings against Dr. Rudolf Spanner for his alleged role in
producing human soap at the Danzig Institute. But after an investigation the
charge was quietly dropped. In a January 1968 letter, the office stated that
its inquiry had determined that no soap from human corpses was made at the
Danzig Institute during the war.
More recently, Jewish historian Walter Laqueur "denied established
history" by acknowledging in his 1980 book, The Terrible Secret, that
the human soap story has no basis in reality. Gitta Sereny, another
Jewish historian, noted in her book Into That Darkness:
"The universally accepted story that the
corpses were used to make soap and fertilizer is finally refuted by the
generally very reliable Ludwigsburg Central Authority for Investigation
into Nazi Crimes."
Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of modern
Jewish history, similarly "rewrote history" when she confirmed in 1981:
"The fact is that the Nazis never used the
bodies of Jews, or for that matter anyone else, for the production of
In April 1990, professor Yehuda Bauer of
Israel's Hebrew University, regarded as a leading Holocaust historian, as
well as Shmuel Krakowski, archives director of Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust
center, confirmed that the human soap story is not true. Camp inmates "were
prepared to believe any horror stories about their persecutors," Bauer said.
At the same time, though, he had the chutzpah to blame the legend on "the
In fact, blame for the soap story lies rather with individuals such as Simon
Wiesenthal and Stephen Wise, organizations like the World Jewish Congress,
and the victorious Allied powers, none of whom has ever apologized for
promoting this vile falsehood.
Why did Bauer and Krakowski decide that this was the appropriate time to
officially abandon the soap story? Krakowski himself hints that a large part
of the motivation for this "tactical retreat" has been to save what's left
of the sinking Holocaust ship by throwing overboard the most obvious
In the face of the growing Revisionist
challenge, easily demonstrable falsehoods like the soap story have become
dangerous embarrassments because they raise doubts about the entire
Holocaust legend. As Krakowski put it:
"Historians have concluded that soap was not
made from human fat. When so many people deny the Holocaust ever
happened, why give them something to use against the truth?"
The bad faith of those making this calculated
and belated concession to truth is shown by their failure to note that the
soap myth was authoritatively "confirmed" at Nuremberg, and by their
unwillingness to deal with the implications of that confirmation for the
credibility of the Tribunal and other supposedly trustworthy authorities in
establishing other, more fundamental aspects of the Holocaust story.
The striking contrast between the prompt postwar disavowal by the British
government of the infamous "human soap" lie of the First World War, and the
way in which a similarly baseless propaganda story from the Second World War
was officially endorsed by the victorious Allied powers and then
authoritatively maintained for so many years not only points up the
dispiriting lack of integrity on the part of so many Western historians, but
underscores the general decline in Western ethical standards during this
The "human soap" story demonstrates anew the tremendous impact that a
wartime rumor, no matter how fantastic, can have once it has taken hold,
particularly when it is disseminated as a propaganda lie by influential
individuals and powerful organizations.
That so many intelligent and otherwise
thoughtful people could ever have seriously believed that the Germans
distributed bars of soap brazenly labeled with letters indicating that they
were manufactured from Jewish corpses shows how readily even the most absurd
Holocaust fables can be - and are - accepted as fact.
Back to Contents
The US Holocaust Memorial Museum - A Costly and Dangerous Mistake
by Theodore J. O'Keefe
Hard by the Washington Monument, within clear view of the Jefferson
Memorial, an easy stroll down the Mall to the majestic Lincoln Memorial, has
arisen, on some of the most hallowed territory of the United States of
America, a costly and dangerous mistake.
On ground where no monument yet marks countless
sacrifices and unheralded achievements of Americans of all races and creeds
in the building and defense of this nation, sits today a massive and costly
edifice, devoted above all to a contentious and false version of the ordeal
in Europe, during World War II, of non-American members of a minority,
In the deceptive guise of tolerance, the United States Holocaust Memorial
Museum promotes a propaganda campaign, financed through the unwitting
largesse of the American taxpayer, in the interests of Israel and its
adherents in America.
How did the federal government allow the creation of such a monstrosity?
What is its meaning for American policy and for American values? And what
must the American people do to regain control of the land their servants in
Washington handed over to a foreign interest, and to establish an enterprise
thereon, whether a museum or otherwise, informed by and conducted according
to American principles and interests?
In the late 1970s, during the presidency of James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, a
propaganda campaign to promote the "Holocaust," the alleged systematic
slaughter of some six million Jews by the Germans during the Second World
War, was organized and carried out from Hollywood and New York.
As Benjamin Meed, an important
functionary of the Council that controls the Holocaust Museum, wrote in
1990: (note 1)
Almost a dozen years ago, a new phenomena
[sic] developed. The Holocaust was introduced into schools, colleges,
and universities. Television broadcast programs on the Holocaust and
millions of Americans watched them. Soon, Americans took great interest
in the lessons of the Holocaust, its uniqueness and its universal
Why the urgency of this campaign? Two factors
were paramount: first, the beginnings, more than three decades after the end
of the Second World War, of an objective, scholarly assessment of the facts
of the alleged German policy to exterminate European Jewry. (note 2)
Second, the need to justify Zionist theory and practice in the face of
unprecedented international resistance to Israeli intransigence (including
the famous UN General Assembly Resolution that equated Zionism with racism),
and to defend Israel's aggressive policy under the leadership of the former
terrorist, Prime Minister Menachem Begin. (note 3)
The US Holocaust Memorial Council
In 1978 President Carter, his administration beleaguered at home and abroad,
succumbed to pressure from the new "Holocaust" lobby (and thus America's
influential Israel-first minority) by creating, through executive order, the
President's Commission on the Holocaust.
Two years later, on October 7, 1987, Congress
passed - unanimously - a law establishing the United States Holocaust
Memorial Council, charged principally with constructing and overseeing the
"a permanent living memorial to the victims
of the holocaust" and with providing "for appropriate ways for the
Nation to commemorate the Days of Remembrance, as an annual, national,
civic commemoration of the Holocaust ..."
A priceless tract of public land was turned over
to the Council, and, after years of costly delay (during which the Council's
budget swelled from $2.5 million to over $18 million a year), the US
Holocaust Memorial Museum was finally completed and opened, to great media
fanfare, in April 1993.
A Sectarian, Alien Agenda
Besides soliciting tens of millions of dollars in tax-deductible donations
to finance the Holocaust Museum, the US Holocaust Memorial Council has
busied itself with promoting an agenda of unalloyed support for minority,
The membership of the Council, a US federal agency, has been overwhelmingly
Jewish since its founding in 1980. The Council's two different chairmen -
Elie Wiesel and Harvey Meyerhoff - have both been committed to the support
of the State of Israel, and the chairs of the Council's most important
committees have been likewise Jewish and Zionist.
The chief fund-raiser for the Holocaust Museum [and later Council Chairman],
Miles Lerman, was formerly American vice chairman for the State of Israel
Bonds Organization, promoting tax-free investment in a country which
receives by far the largest amount of US foreign aid per year. Working the
same wealthy Jewish-Americans he has long dealt with in his fund-raising for
Israel, Lerman has helped raise nearly $160 million in tax-deductible
The biggest donors have been rewarded by having
various components of the museum named for them (e.g. the Wexner Learning
Nor is erecting and operating the Museum the only function with which the
Holocaust Memorial Council has been charged. Another of its duties is to
commemorate the "Days of Remembrance for Victims of the Holocaust," which
Congress has raised to "an annual, national, civic commemoration of the
Holocaust." Like the Israeli Yom ha-Shoah ("Day of the Holocaust"), on which
they are based, the Days of Remembrance are dated according to the lunar
Hebrew calendar, and thus, like Passover or Chanukah, fluctuate from year to
year. These foreign days of lamentation are currently celebrated, under the
flag of the Republic, to prayers and chants in Hebrew, across the land in
governmental settings from the Capital Rotunda to city halls.
Need it be stated that no group of American victims of persecution, let
alone another foreign group, enjoys any such federally mandated and
tax-supported day, or days, of recognition?
Museum's One-Sided 'History'
Although the Council during its early
years made noises about recognizing the ordeals of non-Jews during the
Second World War, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum is relentlessly
While here and there are nods to non-Jewish
groups oppressed by the German National Socialists (although never to groups
victimized by Germany's enemies, above all by Stalin's USSR), the larger
holocaust of the Second World War, which claimed an estimated 75 to 80
million lives around the world, is ignored in preference to the Jewish
ordeal. Thus, to cite just one telling example, the Museum's "Life before
the Holocaust" exhibit refers strictly to Jewish life before the Holocaust.
Where, in fact, non-Jews figure in the Museum, they figure largely as
the Germans and their allies and
the Western allies, including America,
who refused to accept a large immigration before the war
the American political and military
leaders who refused to authorize costly bombing raids on the
Auschwitz "gas chambers"
The Museum's message that support for
Jews is the sole measure of decency during the Second World War leads to
anomalies which, in an American museum raised on ground hallowed to the
principles of liberty on which this republic is based, can only be called
That the victims of World War II atrocities by
the Allies - massacres such as the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden, the
atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Soviet slaughter of Polish
prisoners at Katyn, the mass rapes carried out by the Red Army at the war's
end - receive no mention is deplorable. But the Museum's treatment of the
armed forces which defended Stalin's savage Soviet tyranny is nothing short
Communists appear in this Museum only in the guise of "resistance fighters"
and "liberators." For example, the submachine gun and false papers of Samuel
Weissberg, a Communist Party member who rose to high rank in a Communist
guerrilla group in North France, are on honored display, no less precious a
relic in the Museum's permanent exhibit than the standard heaps of shoes and
hair. (note 6)
Even more unsettling is the honor given to Stalin's notorious Red Army,
which compiled a bloody and shameful record of atrocities across Europe
during, and after, the war.
As the US Holocaust Memorial Council's
newsletter fulsomely puts it,
"Flags will hang in the museum to honor the
millions of Soviet soldiers who drove Nazi forces westward and who were
the first allied forces to liberate and publicize the existence of the
In the words of Council chairman Meyerhoff,
these martial banners of the Red tyranny have a single association:
"Much more than simply wartime memorabilia,
these military artifacts are a significant contribution to memory, one
that will remind future generations of the pivotal role Soviet forces
played in defeating Nazism ..."
What must the millions of Americans originating
or descending from the European nations -- Russia, Ukraine, Belarus,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania,
Bulgaria, Yugoslavia -- for which the Red "military artifacts" symbolize
invasion, tyranny, oppression, and persecution of religion, think as they
see the fierce armies of their persecutors hailed as "liberators"?
Israel in the Museum
Just as one might guess from the
circumstance that the Museum's director, Jeshajahu Weinberg, and the head of
its "Learning Center," Yechiam Halevy, were brought in from Israel,
the Museum's treatment of the state of Israel is adulatory.
An emotive tribute to the founding of Israel is
an integral part of the exhibition. That the establishment of Israel, and
its expansion in subsequent wars, has meant colonial occupation and
oppression for millions of the land's native Palestinians, and dispossession
and exile for millions more, goes unmentioned -- another grotesquery in an
American museum supposed to instruct in the dangers of intolerance and
disregard of human rights.
As for the momentous collaboration between Hitler's German state and the
Zionist Jewish Agency in the 1930s, which through the Ha'avara Agreement
enabled the transfer of vital capital and the influx of tens of thousands of
highly skilled Jewish immigrants to Palestine - that is passed over in utter
silence. (note 8)
The Museum's skewed history is not simply a matter of one-sidedness and
omission. It has further committed itself to a fixed and final
interpretation of the surprisingly scanty and sometimes suspect evidence for
a German policy of annihilating European Jewry, largely in gas chambers, in
numbers approaching six million. This despite a considerable body of
research and scholarship that has arisen over past two decades in many
lands, and which contests, by academic means, the substance of the Holocaust
"extermination thesis." (note 9)
That the US Holocaust Memorial Council is aware of the work of revisionist
scholars is clear: the Council's literature is replete, not with substantive
refutations of revisionist scholarship, but with slander and polemic. To
cite one characteristic example, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
Newsletter of May 1992 featured a front-page attack on Holocaust revisionism
by Professor Deborah Lipstadt.
In this article, Lipstadt decried the
revisionists for producing material that looked scholarly, then lauded the
US Holocaust Memorial Museum as "among the most efficacious ways" of "combatting
this pernicious trend," while neglecting to specify a single error of
revisionist scholarship. (note 10)
While the US Holocaust Memorial Council recognizes that there is a
historical debate on the Holocaust, it takes official notice of the
dissenting position only to attack it.
That an American institution, supported by the
taxes of all Americans, should commit itself to inflexible historical
orthodoxy - in the service of a single American minority - is an intolerable
imposition on our First Amendment rights, as well as a mockery of the
Western, and American, ideal of objective scholarship.
A Center for Education?
Council Chairman Meyerhoff has stated:
"The Museum is primarily an educational
From the Council's own literature, however, it
is clear what Meyerhoff means by education.
the "role-playing" for children as well
as adults who visit the Museum (visitors issued "identity cards"
bearing the name and alleged fate of various Holocaust victims)
the high-tech computer and video
effects, and the recordings of speech and music that augment the
Museum's tendentiously described artifacts
the Museum's goal, as proclaimed by its
Zionist fund-raising chairman, Miles Lerman, of insuring that
"Children in Dubuque, families in Tucson, and schoolteachers in
Atlanta will learn the history and the lessons of Auschwitz as
thoroughly as they learn the history of their own communities"
...all these show that the US Holocaust Memorial
Museum is a propaganda enterprise that seeks to indoctrinate all Americans
in a uniquely and partisanly Jewish (and Zionist) version of not merely the
past, but the present and the future. (note 12)
The American Response
What is the American response to a
partisan museum constructed in a place solemnly consecrated to the heroes
and the values of our Republic, to be lavishly operated with taxpayer
dollars at a time when, even in our country's capital, thousands sleep
homeless in the shadow of our national monuments?
What is the American response to an ambitious
propaganda agenda that aims to impose a sectarian "Holocaust remembrance" in
schools where our children cannot pray, in town halls and federal buildings
from which the religious symbols of the majority are banned in the name of
freedom of worship?
Over two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of
money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is
sinful and tyrannical."
Nearly 150 years ago, Abraham Lincoln said:
"I insist, that if there is anything which
it is the duty of the whole people to never entrust to any hands but
their own, that thing is the preservation and perpetuity of their own
liberties and institutions."
The US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and the
Council that runs it, as agencies of the government in which the American
people is sovereign, must be removed from the special interest that now
The scope and purpose of the Museum must be expanded, from its present
one-sided emphasis on foreign Jewish sufferings, real and imagined, in
Europe during the 1930s and 1940s to a compassionate yet realistic concern
for all victims, but above all for American victims, of historic injustice.
The Museum must be made a place where Americans of every heritage, and
scholars of every viewpoint, may gather, educate, and be educated, without
accusation and in the absence of propaganda.
Until it is, the men and women who founded and
built and suffered and fought and died for America, of every race,
nationality and creed, will rest uneasy.
1. The United States Holocaust Memorial
Museum Newsletter (Washington, DC), August, 1990, "Survivors Play Major
Role in Establishing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum," p. 1. Meed is
president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors, and chairman
of the Council's Content and Days of Remembrance committees.
2. In 1976, Professor Arthur Butz's book The Hoax of the Twentieth
Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry
was first published in England; in November 1978 Professor Robert
Faurisson's article, "The Problem of the Gas Chambers," was published in
the Paris daily Le Monde. Professor Butz has commented on the
simultaneous and independent appearance of a variety of earlier academic
criticisms of the wartime propaganda version of Jewry's ordeal in "The
International Holocaust Controversy," The Journal of Historical Review,
Spring 1980, pp. 5-22.
3. By resolution of the United Nations General Assembly on Nov. 10,
1975, Zionism was condemned as "a form of racism and racial
4. Public Law 96-388, 1, Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1547.
5. Statements regarding the Museum's permanent exhibit, except where
otherwise noted, are derived from the floor plan and photographs in
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, a brochure published in 1991 by
6. U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Newsletter, "French Resistance
Fighter's Weapon Will Help Tell Story of Underground Movement," Sept.
1991, p. 4.
7. U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Newsletter, "Russian Embassy Presents
Flags of Liberating Units to Museum," Fall 1992, p. 6.
8. For the most complete account of relations between the Nazis and the
Zionists, see Francis Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine
Question, (Austin: Univ. of Texas, 1985). See also: M. Weber, "Zionism
and the Third Reich," The Journal of Historical Review, July-August
1993, pp. 29-37.
9. The most complete survey of Holocaust revisionist writings to date is
Carlo Mattogno's "The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews -- Part II,"
in The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1988, pp. 261-302.
10. U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Newsletter, May 1992, "Denying the
Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth," p. 6.
11. US Holocaust Memorial Museum Newsletter, Nov. 1991, "Wexner Family
Donates $5 Million to Fund Interactive Learning Center," p. 1.
12. The "identity cards" and other features of the Museum are described
in the brochure cited in note 5, above. Lerman's statement is in a
fund-raising letter mailed out by the Museum to potential Jewish
contributors in 1991.
13. From "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," 1779, in
Jefferson: Magnificent Populist, edited by Martin Larson, (Greenwich,
Conn.: Devin-Adair, 1981), p. 319.
14. "Speech at Peoria, Ill.," Oct. 16, 1854, in The American
Intellectual Tradition, Vol. 1, edited by David Hollinger and Charles
Capper (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1989), p. 382.
Back to Contents