From: vleppert@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Valerie Leppert)
Subject: Re: THE HOLOCAUST STORY:  HOW MUCH IS FALSE?  The Case for Open Debate
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:53:11 GMT

In article <gate.60TyiB1w164w@b-cpu.UUCP> ralphw@b-cpu.UUCP (Ralph Winston) writes:
>
>From _The Daily Northwestern_
>(Northwestern University's newspaper),
>Thursday, April 4, 1991:
>
>
>              THE HOLOCAUST STORY:  HOW MUCH IS FALSE?
>
>                      The Case for Open Debate



Much drivel to follow.  Perhaps you should have mentioned at the beginning
of this article that it was a paid advertisement and was in fact the paid
advertisement I mentioned in an earlier post.  I don't suppose you'll
publish the many letters to the editor about this advertisement that
appeared following its publication.  I also don't suppose you'll publish
the many rebuttals that followed or the petition that was signed campus
wide condemning revisionism.

I hereby apologize for the fact that my school newspaper published this
trash.  We're not all a bunch of wacko revisionists here, even if we do
have one on staff in the EE dept.  I won't mention his name, it would give
him too much personal gratification. (Why else publicize such a silly
view?) 

You have posted this article in such a way as to make it appear that it is
an objective account.  In other words, you have been intentionally
misleading.  You have provided a good example of the type of tricks
revisonists resort to in their anti-semitic fervour.

By the way, I particularly find amusing the comparison revisionists make
between the holocaust and their foreskins they lost in circumcision.  It
always boils down to something Fruedian, doesn't it?  Silly boys.

Valerie




















>
>
>The Contemporary Issue --
>
>     No subject enrages America's thought police more than Holocaust
>revisionism.  The politically correct line on the Holocaust story is,
>simply, it happened.  You don't debate "it."  You do debate every other
>historical event of course, but the Holocaust is an exception.  If
>someone does express doubt about some aspect of the Holocaust story,
>it's politically correct to respond with outrage, contempt and
>guilt-by-association tactics.  We used to call that behavior
>McCarthy-ite.  Now we say it's "progressive."
>
>     The Holocaust lobby claims that it is a social good when ideology
>replaces free inquiry, intimidation represses open debate, and when the
>ideals of the university itself are exchanged for intellectual taboos
>and not-so-secret political agendas.  Let's ask these people -- what
>makes such behavior a social good?  Who benefits?
>
>The Historical Issue --
>
>     For half a century it has been asserted that during World War II
>the German State had a policy to "exterminate" the Jews and other
>peoples of Europe in execution gas chambers.  This allegation was
>institutionalized at the great Nuremberg trial, led by the Soviets and
>the U.S.  While the proceedings at Nuremberg were politically correct,
>the evidence supports the then Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court,
>Harlan Fiske Stone, who called the Nuremberg court simply "a lynching
>party for Germans."
>
>     Mainline Holocaust historians are under considerable pressure from
>Revisionist scholarship to address the more blatant examples of
>Holocaust fraud and falsehood.  Increasingly, academics are committing
>themselves to publishing their own revisions of the orthodox Holocaust
>story.  The "re-writing" of the Holocaust story has begun in earnest.
>
>Auschwitz
>
>     Arno J. Mayer, chaired professor of European history at Princeton
>University, has written in his _Why the Heavens Did Not Darken_, that
>at Auschwitz more people died of "natural causes" than were killed. 
>Mayer is a Jew and himself a refugee from the Nazi regime.
>
>     British historian David Irving, perhaps the most widely read
>historian writing in English, has called the Auschwitz death-camp story
>a "sinking ship" and states that there were "no gas chambers at
>Auschwitz...."
>
>     Yehuda Bauer, Director of Holocaust Studies at Hebrew University
>in Jerusalem, states that it is "patently false" that 4 million Jews
>and others were killed at Auschwitz.
>
>     The Auschwitz State Museum has "revised" its half-century-old
>claim that 4-million humans were killed there.  The Museum now says
>maybe it was 1 million.  What documentary evidence does the Museum
>proffer for the 1 million figure?  None.  The 4 million number was
>engraved in stone at Auschwitz where it has been seen by millions of
>tourists.  What to do?  A workman was ordered to chisel out the 4
>million number.  Nothing to it, really.  History in the making.  But
>where have those 3 million souls been the last 45 years?  And why is no
>one celebrating?
>
>     _The Leuchter Report_ contains the results of the first-ever
>forensic examination of the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz.  The
>_Report_ is the work of Boston engineer Fred A. Leuchter.  It concludes
>that no mass gassings ever did or ever could have taken place in the
>so-called gas chambers.  The chemical analysis used in the _Report_ was
>performed by the Alpha Analytical Laboratories in Ashland MA.  Fred
>Leuchter has called for an international commission of scientists and
>historians to investigate the so-called gas chambers of Auschwitz.
>
>     Winston Churchill wrote his monumental six-volume history of World
>War II without mentioning the "gas chambers" or the "extermination" of
>the Jews.  Maybe it slipped his mind.  On the other hand, maybe not.
>
>     Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his memoir _Crusade in Europe_, also
>forgot to mention the "gas chambers."  Why wasn't the weapon used to
>murder 6 million Jews worthy of a passing reference?  Was our future
>president being "insensitive" to Jews?
>
>"The Photographs"
>
>     We've all seen "The Photographs."  Endlessly.  Newsreel photos
>taken by U.S. and British photographers at the liberation of the German
>camps, and especially the awful scenes at Dachau, Buchenwald and
>Bergen-Belsen.  We have seen them so many times over four decades we
>don't even have to ask what "they" are.  They're "The Photographs." 
>These documents are typically presented in a way where it is either
>stated or implied that the scenes resulted from deliberate policies on
>the part of the Germans.  The documents are real.  The uses to which
>they are put are base.
>
>     There was no German policy at any of those camps to deliberately
>kill the internees.  In the last months of the war Soviet armies were
>advancing on Germany from the east.  The British and U.S. air arms were
>destroying every major city in Germany with saturation bombing. 
>Transportation, the food distribution system and medical and sanitation
>services all broke down.  That was the purpose of the Allied bombing,
>which has been described as the most barbarous form of warfare in
>Europe since the Mongol invasions.  It was successful.
>
>     Millions of refugees fleeing the Soviet armies were pouring into
>Germany.  The camps still under German control were overwhelmed with
>internees from the eastern camps.  By early 1945 the inmate population
>was swept by malnutrition and by epidemics of typhus, typhoid,
>dysentery and chronic diarrhea.  Even the mortuary systems broke down. 
>When the press entered the camps with British and U.S. soldiers, they
>found the results of all that.  They took "The Photographs."
>
>     The Allied propaganda machine was laboring furiously to produce
>anti-German hate propaganda.  "The Photographs" became their most
>successful tools.  Today the same tools are still being used to
>"educate" Americans.
>
>     Still, at Buchenwald, Dachau and Bergen-Belsen TENS OF THOUSANDS
>of healthy internees were liberated.  They were there in the camps when
>"The Photographs" were taken.  There are newsreels of these internees
>walking through the camps laughing and talking.  Others show joyful,
>well-fed internees throwing their caps in the air and cheering their
>liberators.
>
>     You haven't seen those films and photographs, you say?  Why do you
>think that is?  Does it suggest to you questions about the camps that
>are not politically correct to ask?
>
>The Dachau "Gas Chambers"
>
>     In the first years after the war there was much eyewitness
>testimony about "mass gassings" at Dachau.  In his summing up for the
>prosecution at Nuremberg, Sir Hartley Shawcross, chief prosecutor for
>Great Britain, spoke of murder "conducted like some mass production
>industry in the gas chamber(s) of... Dachau...."
>
>     Today no responsible scholar attempts to claim that there were
>mass gassings at Dachau.  Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon
>Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, states simply: "There were no
>gas chambers at Dachau."
>
>The Jewish Soap Story
>
>     This ugly rumor has been repeated endlessly in our media and
>universities.  First Amendment scholar Nat Hentoff can write seriously
>that he has seen human soap made from the "tissues of murdered Jews"
>displayed on stone tablets in the Chamber of the Holocaust in
>Jerusalem.
>
>     Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer and Jewish-American historians like
>Raul Hilberg and Deborah Lipstadt all state that this anti-German hate
>story is untrue.  Lipstadt writes: "The Nazis never used the bodies of
>Jews, or for that matter anyone else, for the production of soap."
>
>"Eyewitness" Testimony
>
>     As documentary "proofs" for the mass-murder of the European Jews
>fall by the wayside, Holocaust historians depend increasingly on
>"eyewitness" testimonies to support their theories.  Many of these
>testimonies are ludicrously unreliable.
>
>     Shmuel Krakowski is archives director for Yad Veshem, which is the
>international center for Holocaust documentation in Jerusalem. 
>Krakowski states that more than 10,000 "eyewitness" testimonies about
>German atrocities against Jews have been shown to be false at Yad
>Veshem alone!
>
>"Human Skin" Lamp Shades
>
>     Uncounted Hollywood epics and "eyewitness" testimonies accuse
>Germans of skinning Jews to make lamp shades from their hides.
>
>     General Lucius D. Clay, Military Governor of the U.S. Occupation
>Zone of Germany (1947-49) discovered that the infamous "human skin"
>lamp shades found at Buchenwald were actually made of "goat" skin. 
>Which of your professors has denounced this cheap anti-German bigotry
>for what it is?
>
>The Free Inquiry Issue --
>
>     Students and professors alike should be free to investigate the
>Holocaust story in the same way they are free to examine every other
>historical event.  This is not a radical point of view.  The premises
>for it were worked out three centuries ago during a little something
>called the Enlightenment.  The tools used to arrive at historical
>understanding are useless without the rights of Free Inquiry and Open
>Debate.
>
>     We are told that it is "anti-Jewish" to question orthodox
>assertions about German criminality.  Yet we find that it is Jews
>themselves like Mayer, Bauer, Hier, Hilberg, Lipstadt and others who
>are beginning to challenge the establishment Holocaust story.  The
>charges of anti-Semitism are oftentimes, in fact, used merely to
>suppress Revisionist scholarship and the free exchange of ideas
>necessary to judge its merits.
>
>     Students should be encouraged to question who benefits from
>promoting false Holocaust stories on the one hand and using charges of
>"anti-Semitism" to suppress free inquiry into those stories on the
>other.
>
>     It is difficult to understand why the concept of Free Inquiry
>should be so alarming to those who manage our universities.  Free
>Inquiry makes no promise to Revisionism that it does not make to every
>other school of thought.  The promise of Free Inquiry is that it will
>demonstrate what is true and false in Revisionist scholarship at the
>same time that it does so for the orthodox Holocaust literature.
>
>     Free Inquiry does not follow a political or ideological line or it
>isn't free.  Free Inquiry is an equal-opportunity ideal.  Christian,
>Jew and Moslem, Black and White, professor and student and layman --
>it's there for everyone.  Free Inquiry holds out its arms to each one
>of us, urging us to embrace it, use it, exhaust it in our passion for
>understanding.
>
>     Understanding, however, unlike Free Inquiry, promises NOTHING. 
>That's why there are professors willing to denounce a scholar while
>refusing to exchange ideas with him.  They would rather see certain
>books suppressed than have to face the awful possibility of coming to
>understand something that they have committed their lives and their
>careers to not understanding.
>
>The Moral Issue --
>
>     When we suppress open debate on the Holocaust we promote bad
>history and undermine the traditionally humane values of the
>university.  Bad history replaces historical understanding with
>self-righteous nationalism both here and abroad.  It encourages us to
>scape-goat old enemies and to seek vengeance rather than
>reconciliation.  (It isn't easy, is it, to "reconcile" ourselves with a
>people that skins Jews and cooks them?)
>
>     The suppression of Free Inquiry into the Holocaust story corrupts
>public discourse, institutionalizes double standards of justice,
>legitimizes charges of guilt-by-association and a moral cowardice in
>facing our own limitations as individuals and as people.
>
>     Our refusal to allow critical examination of even the most bizarre
>accusations made against Germans encourages men and women to bear false
>witness, betray their chosen professions, and contributes to the
>vulgarization of Jewish suffering.
>
>     Enough is enough!
>
>                                - Bradley R. Smith
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>     This article [was] sponsored by the Committee for Open Debate on
>the Holocaust (CODOH).  If you would like to access revisionist
>scholarship on the Holocaust, or arrange a speaker to appear on your
>campus, call (209) 733-2653, or write CODOH   PO Box 3267   Visalia, CA
>93278.  (Member:  National Association Against Censorship; National
>Association for College Activities; Free Press Association.)
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>                                Ralph Winston
>
>-.-
>Banished CPU supports FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  Currently no fees.
>CALL:  +1(503) 232-6566 (8N1, v.32/42/bis) or +1(503) 232-5783 (8N1)
>UUCP:  Path (..twiki!b-cpu) "ELIMINATED" BY ZIONIST THOUGHT POLICE!!!
>Users of Banished CPU are solely responsible for their actions.


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy