new

66 Questions and Answers on the Holocaust
An early pamphlet published by the Institute for Historical Review

What proof exists that the Nazis killed six million Jews?
None. All we have is postwar testimony, mostly of individual “survivors.” This testimony is contradictory, and very few claim to have actually witnessed any “gassing.” There are no contemporaneous documents or hard evidence: no mounds of ashes, no crematories capable of disposing of millions of corpses, no “human soap,” no lamp shades made of human skin, and no credible demographic statistics.
What evidence exists that six million Jews were not killed by the Nazis?
Extensive forensic, demographic, analytical and comparative evidence demonstrates the impossibility of such a figure. The widely repeated “six million” figure is an irresponsible exaggeration.
Did Simon Wiesenthal state in writing that “there were no extermination camps on German soil”?
Yes. The famous “Nazi hunter” wrote this in Stars and Stripes, Jan. 24, 1993. He also claimed that “gassings” of Jews took place only in Poland.
If Dachau was in Germany, and even Wiesenthal says that it was not an extermination camp, why do many American veterans say it was an extermination camp?
After the Allies captured Dachau, many GIs and others were led through the camp and shown a building alleged to have been a “gas chamber.” The mass media widely, but falsely, continues to assert that Dachau was a “gassing” camp.
What about Auschwitz? Is there any proof that gas chambers were used to kill people there?
No. Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was modified after the war, and a room was reconstructed to look like a large “gas chamber.” After America’s leading expert on gas chamber construction and design, Fred Leuchter, examined this and other alleged Auschwitz gassing facilities, he stated that it was an “absurdity” to claim that they were, or could have been, used for executions.
If Auschwitz wasn’t a “death camp,” what was its true purpose?
It was an internment center and part of a large-scale manufacturing complex. Synthetic fuel was produced there, and its inmates were used as a workforce.
Who set up the first concentration camps?
During the Boer War (1899-1902), the British set up what they called “concentration camps” in South Africa to hold Afrikaner women and children. Approximately 30,000 died in these hell-holes, which were as terrible as German concentration camps of World War II.
How did German concentration camps differ from American “relocation” camps in which Japanese-Americans were interned during WWII?
The only significant difference was that the Germans interned persons on the basis of being real or suspected security threats to the German war effort, whereas the Roosevelt administration interned persons on the basis of race alone.
Why did the German government intern Jews in camps?
It considered Jews a direct threat to national security. (Jews were overwhelmingly represented in Communist subversion.) However, all suspected security risks – not just Jews – were in danger of internment.
What hostile measure did world Jewry undertake against Germany as early as 1933?
In March 1933, international Jewish organizations declared an international boycott of German goods.
Did the Jews of the world “declare war on Germany”?
Yes. Newspapers around the world reported this. A front-page headline in the London Daily Express (March 24, 1933), for example, announced “Judea Declares War on Germany.”
Was this before or after the “death camp” stories began?
This was years before the “death camp” stories, which began in 1941-1942.
What nation is credited with being the first to practice mass civilian bombing?
Britain — on May 11, 1940.
How many “gas chambers” to kill people were there at Auschwitz?
None.
How many Jews were living in the areas that came under German control during the war?
Fewer than six million.
If the Jews of Europe were not exterminated by the Nazis, what happened to them?
After the war millions of Jews were still alive in Europe. Hundreds of thousands (perhaps as many as one and a half million) had died of all causes during the war. Others had emigrated to Palestine, the United States, and other countries. Still more Jews left Europe after the war.
How many Jews fled or were evacuated to deep within the Soviet Union? More than two million fled or were evacuated by the Soviets in 1941-1942. These Jews thus never came under German control.
How many Jews emigrated from Europe prior to the war, thus putting them outside of German reach?
Perhaps a million (not including those absorbed by the USSR).
If Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, why did the commandant, Rudolf Hoess, confess that it was?
He was tortured by British military police, as one of his interrogators later admitted.
Is there any evidence of American, British and Soviet policy to torture German prisoners in order to exact “confessions” for use at the trials at Nuremberg and elsewhere?
Yes. Torture was extensively used to produce fraudulent “evidence” for the infamous Nuremberg trials, and in other postwar “war crimes” trials.
How does the Holocaust story benefit Jews today?
It helps protect Jews as a group from criticism. As a kind of secular religion, it provides an emotional bond between Jews and their leaders. It is a powerful tool in Jewish money-raising campaigns, and is used to justify US aid to Israel.
How does it benefit the State of Israel?
It justifies the billions of dollars in “reparations” Germany has paid to Israel and many individual “survivors.” It is used by the Zionist/Israeli lobby to dictate a pro-Israel American foreign policy in the Middle East, and to force American taxpayer aid to Israel, totalling billions of dollars per year.
How is it used by many Christian clergymen?
The Holocaust story is cited to justify the Old Testament notion of Jews as a holy and eternally persecuted “Chosen People.”
How did it benefit the Communists?
It diverted attention from Soviet war warmongering and atrocities before, during and after the Second World War.
How does it benefit Britain?
In much the same way it benefited the Soviet Union.
Is there any evidence that Hitler ordered mass extermination of Jews?
No.
What kind of gas was used in German wartime concentration camps? Hydrocyanic gas from “Zyklon B,” a commercial pesticide that was widely used throughout Europe.
For what purpose was “Zyklon B” manufactured?
It was a pesticide used to fumigate clothing and quarters to kill typhus-bearing lice and other pests.
Was this product suitable for mass extermination?
No. If the Nazis had intended to use poison gas to exterminate people, far more efficient products were available. Zyklon is a slow-acting fumigation agent.
How long does it take to ventilate an area after fumigation with Zyklon B? Normally about 20 hours. The whole procedure is very complicated and dangerous. Gas masks must be used, and only trained technicians are employed.
Auschwitz commandant Hoess said that his men would enter the “gas chambers” to remove bodies ten minutes after the victims had died. How do you explain this?
It can’t be explained because had they done so they would have suffered the same fate as the “gassing” victims.
Hoess said in his “confession” that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled bodies out of gas chambers, ten minutes after gassing. Isn’t Zyklon B explosive?
Yes. The Hoess confession is obviously false.
What was the exact procedure the Nazis allegedly used to exterminate Jews?
The stories range from dropping gas canisters into a crowded room from a hole in the ceiling, to piping gas through shower heads, to “steam chambers,” to “electrocution” machinery. Millions are alleged to have been killed in these ways.
How could a mass extermination program have been kept secret from those who were scheduled to be killed?
It couldn’t have been kept secret. The fact is that there were no mass gassings. The extermination stories originated as wartime atrocity propaganda.
If Jews scheduled for execution knew the fate in store for them, why did they go along with the Germans without resisting?
They didn’t fight back because they did not believe there was any intention to kill them.
About how many Jews died in the concentration camps?
Competent estimates range from about 300,000 to 500,000.
How did they die?
Mainly from recurring typhus epidemics that ravaged war-torn Europe during the war, as well as from starvation and lack of medical attention during the final months of the conflict, when virtually all road and rail transportation had been bombed out by the Allies.
What is typhus?
This disease always appears when many people are jammed together under unsanitary conditions. It is carried by lice that infest hair and clothes. Ironically, if the Germans had used more Zyklon B, more Jews might have survived the camps.
What is the difference if six million or 300,000 Jews died during the Second World War?
5,700,000.
Some Jewish “death camp” survivors say they saw bodies being dumped into pits and burned. How much fuel would have been required for this?
A great deal more than the Germans had access to, as there was a substantial fuel shortage during the war.
Can bodies be burned in pits?
No. It is impossible for human bodies to be totally consumed by flames in this manner because of lack of oxygen.
Holocaust historians claim that the Nazis were able to cremate bodies in about ten minutes. How long does it take to incinerate one body, according to professional crematory operators?
About an hour and a half, although the larger bones require further processing afterwards.
Why did the German concentration camps have crematory ovens?
To dispose efficiently and sanitarily of the corpses of those who had died.
Given a 100 percent duty cycle of all the crematories in all the camps in German-controlled territory, what is the maximum number of corpses it would have been possible to incinerate during the entire period such crematories were in operation?
About 430,600.
Can a crematory oven be operated 100 percent of the time?
No. Fifty percent of the time is a generous estimate (12 hours per day). Crematory ovens have to be cleaned thoroughly and regularly when in heavy operation.
How much ash is left from a cremated corpse?
After the bone is all ground down, about a shoe box full.
If six million people had been incinerated by the Nazis, what happened to the ashes?
That remains to be “explained.” Six million bodies would have produced many tons of ashes, yet there is no evidence of any large ash depositories.
Do Allied wartime aerial reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz (taken during the period when the “gas chambers” and crematoria were supposedly in full operation) show evidence of extermination?
No. In fact, these photographs do not even reveal a trace of the enormous amount of smoke that supposedly was constantly over the camp, nor do they show evidence of the “open pits” in which bodies were allegedly burned.
What was the main provision of the German “Nuremberg Laws” of 1935? They forbid marriage and sexual relations between Germans and Jews, similar to laws existing in Israel today.
Were there any American precedents for the Nuremberg Laws?
Years before Hitler’s Third Reich, most states in the USA had enacted laws prohibiting marriage between persons of different races.
What did the International Red Cross have to report with regard to the “Holocaust” question?
An official report on the visit of an IRC delegation to Auschwitz in September 1944 pointed out that internees were permitted to receive packages, and that rumors of gas chambers could not be verified.
What was the role of the Vatican during the time six million Jews were allegedly being exterminated?
If there had been an extermination plan, the Vatican would most certainly have been in a position to know about it. But because there was none, the Vatican had no reason to speak out against it, and didn’t.
What evidence is there that Hitler knew of an on-going Jewish extermination program?
None.
Did the Nazis and the Zionists collaborate?
As early as 1933, Hitler’s government signed an agreement with the Zionists permitting Jews to emigrate from Germany to Palestine, taking large amounts of capital with them.
How did Anne Frank die?
After surviving internment in Auschwitz, she succumbed to typhus in the Bergen-Belsen camp, just a few weeks before the end of the war.
Is the Anne Frank Diary genuine?
No. Evidence compiled by Dr. Robert Faurisson of France establishes that the famous diary is a literary hoax.
What about the familiar photographs and film footage taken in the liberated German camps showing piles of emaciated corpses? Are these faked?
Photographs can be faked, but it’s far easier merely to add a misleading caption to a photo or commentary to a piece of footage. Piles of emaciated corpses do not mean that these people were “gassed” or deliberately starved to death. Actually, these were tragic victims of raging epidemics or of starvation due to a lack of food in the camps toward the end of the war.
Who originated the term “genocide”?
Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jew, in a book published in 1944.
Are films such as “Schindler’s List” or “The Winds of War” documentaries?
No. Such films are fictional dramatizations loosely based on history. Unfortunately, all too many people accept them as accurate historical representations.
How many books have been published that refute some aspect of the standard “Holocaust” story?
Dozens. More are in production.
What happened when the Institute for Historical Review offered $50,000 to anyone who could prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz?
No proof was submitted as a claim on the reward, but the Institute was sued for $17 million by former Auschwitz inmate Mel Mermelstein, who claimed that the reward offer caused him to lose sleep and his business to suffer, and represented “injurious denial of established fact.”
What about the charge that those who question the Holocaust story are merely anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi?
This is a smear designed to draw attention away from facts and honest arguments. Scholars who refute Holocaust story claims are of all persuasions and ethnic-religious backgrounds (including Jewish). There is no correlation between “Holocaust” refutation and anti-Semitism or neo-Nazism. Increasing numbers of Jewish scholars openly admit the lack of evidence for key Holocaust claims.
What has happened to “revisionist” historians who have challenged the Holocaust story?
They have been subjected to smear campaigns, loss of academic positions, loss of pensions, destruction of their property and physical violence.
Has the Institute for Historical Review suffered any retaliation for its efforts to uphold the right of freedom of speech and academic freedom? The IHR had been bombed three times, and was completely destroyed on July 4, 1984, in a criminal arson attack. Numerous death threats by telephone have been received. Media coverage of the IHR has been overwhelmingly hostile.
Why is there so little publicity for the revisionist view?
Because for political reasons the Establishment does not want any in-depth discussion about the facts surrounding the Holocaust story.
Where can I get more information about the “other side” of the Holocaust story, as well as facts concerning other aspects of World War II historical revisionism?
http://holocausthandbooks.com/

In 1996 the Nizkor website attempted a point-by-point “refutation” of the Institute for Historical Review’s pamphlet ‘http://www.zundelsite.org/archive/basic_articles/incorrect.004.html’.

View the Nizkor Rebuttal here:http://www.nizkor.org/qar-complete.cgi

In response Ernst Zündel refuted each of Nizkor’s “rebuttals”
See:http://www.zundelsite.org/archive/english/debate/debatetoc.html

The great and the good of the “intelligentsia” assure us that all “educated” people accept Charles Darwin’s Evolution as a indisputable fact of science that is "not open for debate." Oh those superstitious "straw-men" bible-thumpers portrayed in the propaganda film Inherit the Wind may have a hard time accepting it, but even the slightest doubt can never be tolerated within the elite confines of the academic cool-kids club. Woodrow Wilson Warmonger of World War I fame, a former Princeton professor himself, put it this way:

“Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.”

And yet, neither Darwin, nor Wilson, nor the Communist ACLU Attorney Clarence Darrow (played by Spencer Tracy), nor any other “scientist” (bow your head in solemn reverence when you say that word) has ever adequately addressed the gaping holes of Darwin’s Dogma. The best rebuttal the "smart people" can muster consists of scorn, ridicule, charges of "stupidity" and even government force -- but never any true scientific substance. Many of these holes are blown wide-open in the book: “God vs Darwin: The Logical Supremacy of Intelligent Design Creationism” (by yours truly). But for this particular piece, let us focus on what is perhaps the single biggest flaw of all regarding trans-species “Evolution” – which should not be confused with minor variations / adaptations of existing characteristics already present in a gene pool (Darwin’s finches, peppered moths, stickleback fish, "super rats" etc.) We refer to this gaping hole as the “complex integration” of multiple parts that is found in all living organisms (even “simple” single-cell bacteria).

Darwin and his deluded devotees maintain that tiny “imperceptible” and "innumerable" blind and random mutations, favored by environmental circumstances, added up over very long periods of time to the point that an evolved species (such as us humans) became unrecognizable from our direct lineal “ancestors” (single-cell oceanic bacteria). Apart from the obvious fact that none of these transitions from millions of years ago were observable, how do the Evolutionists explain away the “complex integration” of our body parts? One part of any given creature could not have blindly “evolved” without so many other parts coming into existence at the exact same moment in time. How can hundreds or even thousands of complex parts -- functioning in sync with one another in a scientific symphony in which each component can only function if all the others are in place -- have “blindly” appeared, without intelligent guidance, one piece-of-the-puzzle at a time, over “millions of years?”

To better illustrate this problem, let’s have a closer look at the integration of the digestive system.

To start the digestive process, we need an oral cavity -- that is, a mouth to put the food in. The mouth needs teeth, both upper & lower sets, deeply anchored into our gums, which are attached to a jaw-bone, which is attached to a skull which is etc., etc., etc., Without all of this in place at the same time, the first step of the digestive process comes to a halt. But our gums and 32 perfectly-matching teeth alone, which come if different shapes and sizes for certain functions, won’t ensure survival. We still need saliva to begin the breaking down of the food, as well as the preservation of our teeth and the gums which hold them. And we also need mucous producing cells in the mouth to help form the saliva mix.

Remove any of those elements (oral cavity, teeth (upper & lower), gums, jaw-bone, salivary glands, mucous) and humans (and many other animals) never make it out of the box. Each of the elements is part of an integrated system in which one element cannot function, and serves no purpose, without all of the others already in place. Then of course there is the tongue – a complex multi-faceted organ in its own right, which is vital for chewing and swallowing food. In the back of the mouth, the tongue is anchored into the hyoid bone – which itself is anchored by various muscles and ligaments. Once swallowed, the pre-digested food passes through the pharynx (part of the throat) -- which is lined by more essential membranes and muscles – and moves down to the esophagus (food pipe).

Let’s review the pre-digestion process: oral cavity, teeth (upper & lower), gums, jaw bone, skull, saliva, mucous, tongue, hyoid bone, muscles, ligaments, pharynx, membranes, muscles, and esophagus. That’s 15 systems in all, each of them also highly complex, and each of them integrated with the other systems. Remove just one, and there can be no digestive system and hence, no species. Therefore, the elements of this grand orchestra had to have come into play at the same time – which ~~implies~~, no, proves deliberate design. But we’re just getting started.

1. Just the individual contents of the mouth alone form a complex integrated system in which each part is useless without all others in place. 2. Complex Integration: Remove just component, and the whole structure becomes non-viable. 3. For that reason alone (although there are many other flaws) Darwin's ridiculous paper gets an "F."

Moving right along, gravity and contraction (more muscles) push the mix into the stomach where digestive enzymes really begin to break down the food. To block these powerful enzymes from literally “eating” the stomach itself, membranes called b]gastric mucosa produce a protective coating of mucous which lines the stomach. How genius is that? On to the duodenum -- the first section of the small intestine which leads to the large intestine. Along the journey there are more enzymes produced by the pancreas. Then it is down to the colon, (there is an ascending colon, a descending colon and a sigmoid colon) rectum, anal canal and out the anus -- where Darwin's stinky work-of-fiction truly belongs. Assisting the expulsion of bodily waste is the diaphragm -- a sheet of internal skeletal muscle made up of no fewer than a dozen different parts. Though it is mainly part of the respiratory system, the diaphragm also generates the pressure needed for waste disposal.

Key contributions to the process are also rendered by the liver, the gall bladder, the spleen, the cecum, and many more muscles and many more glands to numerous to name. And holding those muscles in place are a complex system of more ligaments fastened to more bones which are fastened to other bones etc. etc. etc. As for the liquids that we ingest, that speaks to a whole other complex integrated system of complex integrated systems involving kidneys, renal arteries, renal veins, urinary tracts, collecting ducts, bladder, pelvis etc[/b. Of course, all of this digestion is pointless without blood-flow to carry the food's nutrients throughout the body – which means that even more complex systems had to have been be put in place at the same time: blood, veins, arteries, capillaries. But the nutrient-carrying blood can’t flow through the vascular system without a pump and an oxidation system already in place, right? You need a set of heart & lungs which are the basis of the cardio-pulminary system -- an incredibly complex integrated structure made up of countless essential components such as the -- (well, you get the point -- we can go on forever with this --)

So, let’s take it from the top, boys and girls. All of the following complex elements must come into place at the same time in order for digestion to work:

oral cavity, teeth, gums, jaw-bone, skull, saliva, mucous, tongue, hyoid bone, muscles, ligaments, pharynx, membranes, more muscles, and esophagus, more muscles, stomach, digestive enzymes, gastric mucosa, duodenum, small intestine, large intestine, more enzymes, pancreas, ascending colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon, rectum, anal canal, anus, diaphragm, liver, gall bladder, spleen, cecum, more muscles, more glands, more ligaments, more bones, kidneys, renal arteries, renal veins, urinary tracts, collecting ducts, bladder, pelvis, blood, veins, arteries, capillaries, cardio-pulminary system, a bunch of other intregrated items and systems too numerous to list here and a partridge in a pear tree!

Each necessary component "blindly" evolved and integrated with all the others by itself --- one at a time, without design? Ha ha ha. --- "Intelligent and educated," my foot!

This mind-boggling complexity, -- which cannot be reduced by even a single element lest the species cease to exist -- becomes even more integrated and more complicated when studied on a molecular level --- the complex "4-digit" DNA “computer coding” behind it all. The mere suggestion of these integrated systems blindly “evolving,” one component at a time, independent of one another, in an “imperceptible” manner over millions of years is absurd on its face. As a matter of fact, St. Charles Darwin himself, in a pathetically futile effort to explain away the “problem” that integrated parts posed for his theory, admitted that his idea sounded “absurd in the highest degree.”

From his Origin of the Species:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

After objecting to his own theory (so that he can control the debate), Darwin proceeds, in the very next paragraph, to lamely explain away the "absurdity" of attributing the integrated complexity of the eye to random evolution. But his "solution" to the problem amounts to nothing but a diversionary debating trick.

“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science."

Darwin is using an old lawyer's trick here. He states the objection, then casually explains it away by using a bizarre and totally irrelevant analogy to astronomy. He also adds a theatrical touch of Latin mumbo-jumbo to impress the easily-impressed. We're not talking about the sun and the earth and "Vox populi," Chuckie! The subject here is your admittedly "absurd"-sounding claim that the integrated complexity of organisms and body parts came about blindly, randomly, and one element at a time without any intelligence involved. Explain it for us!

Plato warned us to be on guard against the type of empty diversionary rhetoric that Darwin used to explain away the massive holes in his goofy theory of self-creating life coming blindly from non-life, and then putting its own integrated parts together.

Darwin continues:

"Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

More slick sophistry and silly semantics -- An "if", followed by another "if," then a "can be," then an "if further," then a "should be," and a "could be," then a "though," and finally a "should not be." If elephants could fly -- If I could live forever -- If dogs could speak. If, maybe, perhaps, and, though, coulda, woulda, shoulda, mighta, but, but but, if, if, if... This then is what the academic cool-kids club refers to as "science?" This non-observable and wild speculation about "numerous gradations" of the eye's integrated components amounts to pure rhetorical manipulation -- not true science. Read it again closely. Darwin totally dodges the question and explains NOTHING to solve the mystery of complex integration -- a mind-boggling phenomena that is observable in all living creatures and even "simple" single-cell organisms.

As it is with the many essential integrated systems of an automobile -- each one absolutely necessary for the car as a whole to function -- (engine, transmission, wheels, axle, spark plugs, gas tank, battery, hoses, belts, ignition, alternator, steering wheel, gear shift, accelerator, carburetor, braking system, drive shaft, oil, coolant / anti-freeze, transmission fluid, containers for fluid, radiator, chassis, pistons, nuts, bolts, welded parts, etc.) -- only the existence of an eternal designing force without origin, permeating and communicating through every living cell of existence, possessed of freakish intelligence and power, and far beyond our lowly human "pay grade" to ever fully comprehend, can adequately explain the complex integration of multiple systems that neither Darwin nor his sci-fi cult of diploma-decorated dick-heads have ever been able to, and never will be.

Can you?

1. The 20th Century discovery of DNA codes which program our physical traits makes Darwin's problem of explaining away integrated complexity a million times even more complex. 2. Imagine car parts blindly "evolving" one at a time and "randomly" integrating themselves during a billion-year tornado. That is essentially what "educated" evolutionists, without a shred of observable precedent, believe to have happened in the living world. 3. You may be a whiz at mathematics and rhetoric, professor. But you're as bloody frickin' stupid as you are crazy!