2. What evidence exists that six million Jews were not killed by the Nazis?

Ernst
Zündel Replies:

Rebuttal # 2

Reaching conclusions radically at variance with "conventional
wisdom" on the basis of available evidence can hardly be construed as
"proving a negative". One might as well contend that Galileo and
Copernicus were "proving a negative" with their revolutionary
observations about the solar system. Of course, they were doing no such thing.

...

..Galileo
and Copernicus

Let it also be said in passing that, contrary to Nizkor's childish reasoning, a
negative proposition cannot be proved - for reasons of logic. The very idea of
trying to do so is absurd. If Nizkor cannot understand this point, this is
perhaps due to the fact that their normal environment for discourse is
mud-slinging matches, not debates.

In any debate based on the rules of logic known to civilized man since the days
of Aristotle, Plato and Archimedes, the burden of proof is always on the side
postulating the positive, not on the side upholding the negative.

Indeed, the side upholding the negative need prove nothing: it can content
itself with merely poking holes in the arguments of its opponents.

But in fact, Revisionism has done substantially more than that!

Since we are still in the freshman mode, let's therefore start out with the
ABC, - i.e., with definitions as taken from a dictionary:

Forensic means: ". .
. relating to, or characteristic of, or used in courts of justice or
public debate. . . "

Demographic means: ".
. . the study of vital and social statistics, as of births, deaths,
disease etc. . . "

Analytical means: ".
. . the use of logic in separating into constituent parts or first
principles a hitherto unproved assertion. . . "

Comparative means: ".
. . pertaining to, resulting from, or making use of comparisons. . .
"

That is what Holocaust Revisionism does. Extensive forensic, demographic,
analytical and comparative evidence exists and is readily available to any
serious scholar. Most of it you can find in any good research library some is
stored and archived at the California-based
Institute for Historical Review. One does not even need a library card. On
the Internet websites like the Institute for
Historical Review, CODOH or the Zundelsite also store hundreds
of documents - free of charge to view and download.

There is no evidence in the rambling rebuttal submitted by Nizkor that Nizkor
ever visited the IHR or seriously and without prejudice studied their material,
or their sources.

A second treasure drove for "extensive forensic, demographic, analytical
and comparative evidence" can be found in the court transcripts of the two
Great Holocaust Trials in Toronto where Ernst Zündel was charged with
"spreading false news." Extensive pro- and anti-Holocaust testimony,
given under oath under the watchful eye of a
judge and jury, has been duly recorded - word for word! This testimony had been
tested in cross-examination by both sides! On the face of the earth, there is
no stronger evidence!

A condensed version of what was said at this trial under oath exists in the
(from a legal point of view) magnificently indexed and annotated work of
Barbara Kulaszka entitled: "Did Six
Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian "False
News" Trial of Ernst Zündel - 1988."

Additional groundbreaking Revisionist work has been done by the following
scholars and experts:

Professor Robert Faurisson
in France, an expert on ancient texts and documents

Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich
, a former German judge, who wrote "Der Auschwitz Mythos."

..

......Ernst Zundel with
Dr. Butz ..............Ernst Zundel with Joseph Ginzburg...Ditleib Felderer..

·  Dr. Arthur Butz , author of "The
Hoax of the Twentieth Century."

·  Dr. William Lindsey, former Chief
Research Chemist of DuPont of America

·  Joseph Ginzburg, eminent Jewish
Historian and author of numerous books critical of the "Holocaust,"
the Anne Frank commercial enterprise, Zionism etc.

·  Jürgen Graf, a brilliant
linguist who is fluent in 12 languages and the author of "Holocaust auf
dem Prüfstand der Geschichte," "Social and Political Impact of
the Holocaust Campaign in Europe," among many other works.

·  Dipl. Pol. Udo Walendy , an expert in
forged photographs, prolific writer on W.W. II related historical
topics and author of a monthly Revisionist publication in German called
"Historische Tatsachen."

.

Jewish Revisionist David Cole and Ernst Zundel . Germar Rudolf .

Germar Rudolf, a
German-trained chemical expert and author of a brilliant report verifying
and expanding on the Leuchter findings entitled "Das Rudolf Gutachten."

Dr. Walter
Lüftl, long-time president of the Austrian Chamber of Engineers and
a frequently consulted, court-approved expert. Author of the
"Lüftl Report" debunking gassing on scientific-technical
grounds.

John Ball ,
geologist and air photo interpreter. http://www.air-photo.com/

Ditlib Felderer of
Sweden, author of a book on the Diary of Anne Frank entitled "Otta
Frank - the Diary of Anne Frank" and researcher who investigated
every German concentration camp - Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdanek, Chelmno
and Treblinka and who has 30,000 slides to show for his resarch.

David Cole , a
young Jewish film maker who interviewed Dr. Franczesik Piper, head of the
Auschwitz Archives, and got him to admit on video tape that the so-called
gas chambers of Auschwitz foisted as "authentic" on gullible
droves of millions of tourists and visitors were built or re-built after
the war. David Cole, under threat of the Jewish Defence League has since
recanted. He
made films in Auschwitz with Ernst Zundel available from Samisdat
Publishers

And, of course,

Fred Leuchter's
four groundbreaking, detailed reports - and many, many more.

The
Historical "Leuchter Report"! - I

The
Historical "Leuchter Report"! - II

The
Historical "Leuchter Report"! - III

The
Historical "Leuchter Report"! - IV

ALSO: Available
in book form from Samisdat Publising

206 Carlton
Street - Toronto, Ontario, M5A 2L1 - CANADA

Holocaust Revisionism, for the publishing of which Ernst Zündel has
been persecuted and prosecuted for almost twenty years in Canada and in
Germany, involves the impartial critical study of evidence put forward by these
and many other individuals in the rejection of the claim that the National
Socialist government of Adolf Hitler had a policy and the necessary instrument
to deliberately exterminate some six million Jews during World War II - mainly
in homicidal gas chambers in concentration camps such as Auschwitz, Dachau,
Buchenwald etc.

For many of these Jewish and Allied claims of genocidal policies, Revisionists
have found the evidence to be non-credible, bizarre, fraudulent or entirely
absent.

Hundreds of thousands of additional pieces of evidence that six million Jews
did not die due to genocidal policies and actions are scattered around the
globe and are found and added to our already existing storehouse of knowledge
of this subject. In the submitted Nizkor document there is no evidence that
Nizkor has seriously tried to find them, or that Nizkor has even bothered to
look for any new evidence of its own.

Nizkor has merely regurgitated repulsive matter that millions had swallowed
already because of systematically induced guilt, i.e., psychological warfare
against the German people - a warfare ever more stepped up in media and in
governments because it facilitates collecting on a claim that is based on a clever
and diabolically political fraud.

This fraud, as stated before, had been initially concocted and served up by the
Psychological Warfare Department of the U.S., Britian and other occupation
armies after the war under the policy of "Re-Educating the Germans."
Two recent video films entitled "German Re-Education after 1945 / Part
1 & 2" and "Speeches by Herzog and Weizman" are
ample evidence of that.

In summary:

Contradictions and exaggerations in "Holocaust survivor" testimony
and other evidence have brought the entire "Genocide by Holocaust"
story into question. The collective evidence that has been found, so far, fails
to prove a deliberate German policy of extermination of the Jews, the existence
or use of homicidal gas chambers by the Germans to kill millions of people, or
the killing of six million Jews as a state policy.

The "Six Million" figure is very much open to question because of:

Lack of credible
scientific or forensic evidence in support of this contention

discovery of credible documentary
evidence to the contrary since W.W. II, and

the persistent and
unreasonable refusal of the Allied governments to allow independent
research into vital archives such as those at The International Tracing
Service run by the ICRC Arolsen, Germany, which house the most complete
records, some 14 million documents of the German concentration camp system
- including records of real crimes committed by those people for which a
great many - Jews and non-Jews alike! - were sent to concentration camps
by the Germans in the first place.

There are now available to the public partial but impressive and very
thought-provoking repositories and documents where serious scholars can go to
get updated, respectable, and internally consistent information. While all of the
nuggets are there, it will still take some digging and sifting, weighing and
analyzing of the information.

This is serious, scholarly work. To belabor an obvious point, it cannot be done
at a party with lampshades on your head, as Jamie McCarthy of Nizkor so
flippantly suggested.

What does that mean, translated for the common man with little interest in
scholastic endeavors? Here's what it means:

Let's say there was an accident where a drunk person in the dark of the night
rammed into a carful of people, resulting in some casualties - not just in his
own vehicle but in the car with which he collided.

It was a sad, sad night, but there's an aftermath of a financial, legal nature
involving fraud, deception and misuse of public trust because a great many more
people are claimed to have perished in that car accident than can be
documented.

Let's say that there is an insurance company, ordered at political bayonet
point to pay compensation to people in the first car but not to people in the
second car. In fact, although it looks as though the driver of the first car
was responsible for the accident in the first place, the driver of the second
car is blamed.

What might be the first step that any good insurance company would want to
check out in detail? The alcohol blood level of the drivers of both cars. Would
you not think that such a test should be done by an independent, impartial
authority or laboratory?

Now it gets interesting: The survivors in the first car, intent on collecting
their claims at the expense of people in the second car, move heaven and earth
to prevent the insurance investigators from checking. They have the power to
pass laws called "hate laws". They have the media to incite mob
action against the insurance company's investigation. They have the money to
bribe witnesses. They have the legal wherewithal to twist and change vital
testimony and to falsify affidavits. They even fabricate and magnify their own
"evidence" to fit the compensation claim - such as the claim that,
". . . well it wasn't just a car; it really was a train." Next thing
you know, the train has turned in airplane and then a fleet of airplanes.

Let's now assume that, even though the political pressure is
all-but-incapacitating for the besieged insurance company with a compelling
interest to find out what has really happened, its detectives manage to get
hold of a small vial of blood of the first driver of the first car and have it
tested in a lab that does not know the reason for which it is testing and has
no vested interest in the outcome.

Presto! - forensic evidence reveals that the dead driver's blood was high
enough to have caused the horrendous accident.

"Eureka!" shouts the insurance company and thinks the work is done.

But what if ten survivors of the first car now come forward, claiming to a
voice that the driver of their car was as sober as a stone?

Does that change the lab's findings? Whom would a reasonable person believe?
What might a judge decide? That such forensic evidence is
"inadmissible" - as in "judicial notice" because the
outcome is already a foregone conclusion? And that truth is not a defence?

Is that impartiality?

Not if you have a love for justice and for truth! You could involve another lab
if there are questions about the first lab's findings - but what
"survivors" with an interest in collecting the insurance money claim
does not "cut the mustard" when put against forensic scientific
labratory tested evidence.

That is it, in a nutshell! Forensic evidence put against anecdotal evidence!

But it gets ever more interesting. One of the questions, for example, that the
beleaguered insurance company now raises is that the numbers don't add up. That
many people claimed to have been "casualties" don't fit a car, a
train - not even an entire fleet of airplanes!

What if the opposition now comes up with hundreds of testimonials to prove
that, yes, they did! A thousand. A hundred thousand - all hoping to collect!

Does that change one iota what has been checked as thoroughly as possible and
scientifically verified forensically? Whom will a reasonable person believe -
the lab that did the work, or scores and scores of "survivors" who
wring their hands and shout "hate mongering"? If the lab's findings
are in question, an impartial third party could find another lab.

If you want to get to the bottom of our hypothetical accident, you can
re-check the blood. You can find out if we are talking car or train or
airplane.

That is and has been the Revisionist method for the past 50 years. A lie re-told
six million times does not become the truth by mere, incessant repetition.

Nor does it become truth by ever greater numbers of brainwashed uncritical,
uninformed adherents. In the Middle Ages, people believed the earth to be flat
and that witches had sex with the devil. The popularity of such bizarre beliefs
did not make that claim true, but it led to the tragic death of tens of
thousands of innocent young women!