Featured

Ernst Zündel replies to the 66-point “Nizkor Rebuttal”

In 1996 the Nizkor website attempted a point-by-point “refutation” of the Institute for Historical Review’s pamphlet ‘66 Questions and Answers on the Holocaust’.

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

In response Ernst Zündel refuted each of Nizkor’s “rebuttals”:

1. What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or deliberately killed six million Jews?

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

3. Did Simon Wiesenthal once state in writing that “there were no extermination camps on German soil”?

4. If Dachau was in Germany and even Simon Wiesenthal says that it was not an extermination camp, why do thousands of veterans in America say that it was an extermination camp?

5. Auschwitz was in Poland, not Germany. Is there any proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz?

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

7. Who set up the first concentration camps, and where and when?

8. How did German concentration camps differ from American relocation camps which interned Japanese, German- and Italian-Americans during World War II?

9. Why did the Germans intern Jews in concentration camps?

Question 10 and 11 are answered together:
10. What extensive measures did world Jewry undertake against Germany as early as 1933?
11. Did the Jews of the world “declare war on Germany”?

12. Was this before or after the rumors of the “death camps” began?

13. What nation is credited with being the first to practice mass civilian bombing?

14. How many gas chambers to kill people were there at Auschwitz?

Question 15, 16, 17 and 18 are treated in this section together:
15. How many Jews were in areas that came to be controlled by the Germans before the war?
16. If the Jews of Europe were not exterminated by the Nazis, what happened to them?
17. How many Jews fled to deep within the Soviet Union?
18. How many Jews emigrated prior to the war, thus being outside of German Reach?

Question 19 and 20 are treated in this section together:
19. If Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, why did the commandant, Rudolf Hoess, confess that it was?
20. Is there any evidence that it was American, British, French and Soviet policy to torture German prisoners in order to extract confessions before the trials at Nuremberg and elsewhere?

21. How does the “Holocaust” story benefit the Jews today?

22. How does the “Holocaust” benefit the state of Israel?

23. How does the “Holocaust” benefit many Christian clergymen?

24. How does the “Holocaust” benefit the Communists?

25. How does the “Holocaust” benefit Britain?

26. Is there any evidence that Hitler ordered a mass extermination of Jews?

27. What kind of gas was used by the Nazis in concentration camps?

28. For what purpose was, and is, this gas manufactured?

29. Why did they use this instead of a gas more suitable for mass extermination?

30. How long does it take to ventilate fully an area fumigated by Zyklon-B?

31. Auschwitz commandant Hoess said that his men would enter the gas chamber ten minutes after the Jews had died and remove them. How can you explain this?

32. Hoess said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after gassing. Isn’t Zyklon-B explosive?

33. What was the exact procedure the Nazis allegedly used to exterminate Jews?

Question 34-35 are treated in this section together:
34. How could such a mass program have been kept secret from Jews who were scheduled for extermination?
35. If Jews scheduled for execution knew the fate in store for them, why did they go to their death without fight or protest?

36. About how many Jews died in the concentration camps?

Question 37-38 are treated in this section together:
37. How did they die?
38. What is typhus?

39. What is the difference if six million or 300,000 Jews died during this awesome period?

40. Many survivors of the “death camps” say they saw bodies being piled up in pits and burned. How much gasoline would have to be used to perform this?

41. Can bodies be burned in pits?

42. “Holocaust” authors claim that the Nazis were able to cremate bodies in about 10 minutes. How long does it take to incinerate one body, according to professional crematory operators?

43. Why did the concentration camps have crematory ovens?

44. Given a 100 % duty cycle of all the crematoria 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 crematoria were in operation?

45. Can a crematory oven be operated 100 % of the time?

46. How much ash is left from a cremated corpse?

47. If six million people had been incinerated by the Nazis, what happened to the ashes?

48. Do Allied wartime photos of Auschwitz (during the time when the “gas chambers” and crematoria were supposed to be in full operation) reveal gas chambers?

49. What was the main provision of the German “Nuremberg laws” of 1935?

50. Were there any American precedents for the Nuremberg laws?

51. What did the International Red Cross have to report with regard to the “Holocaust” question?

52. What was the role of the Vatican during the time the six million Jews were alleged to have been exterminated?

53. What evidence is there that Hitler knew of the ongoing Jewish extermination?

54. Did the Nazis and the Zionists collaborate?

55. What caused Anne Frank’s death just several weeks before the end of the war?

56. Is the Anne Frank Diary genuine?

57. What about the numerous photographs and footage taken in the German concentration camps showing piles of emaciated corpses? Are these faked?

58. Who originated the term “genocide”?

59. Were films such as “Holocaust” and “The Winds of War” documentary films?

60. About how many books have been published which refute some aspect of the standard claims made about the “Holocaust”?

61. What happened when a historical institute offered $50,000 to anyone who could prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz?

62. What about the claim that those who question the “Holocaust” are anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi?

63. What happened to the historians who have questioned the “Holocaust” material?

64. Has the Institute for Historical Review suffered any retaliation for its efforts to uphold the right of freedom of speech and academic freedom?

65. Why is there so little publicity for your point of view?

66. Where can I get more information about the “other side” of the “Holocaust” story as well as facts concerning other areas of WWII Historical Revisionism?

Ernst Zündel: How it all started…

My name is Ernst Zündel. I am a Holocaust Revisionist. I dare to think and express forbidden thoughts.

More to the point, I want to know: “Did Six Million Really Die?”

Five words. One little question mark.

I am the cause of the first-time-ever censorship ban on the Net. I need not repeat details here. The German act of censorship – first CompuServe, then Telekom – brought forth a reaction the likes of which happens to dissidents only in Hollywood movies.

And all because of one small sentence followed by a question mark? I’m asking it again: “Did Six Million Really Die?”

Not many people ask the questions I have asked for a good part of my life – questions pertaining to the Holocaust. I didn’t until I was well into my twenties.

One day I decided I should.

I was like everybody else in my own postwar years in Germany. I was disgusted with my father’s generation whom I believed to have been monsters. Like practically all people on our planet, I used to believe in the standard, widely accepted notion that the government of National Socialist Germany, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, had attempted to kill the Jews by an act of state-decreed genocide. I was ashamed to be a German and turned to Canada.

Ernst Zündel as commercial artist, 1973

In the 1960’s, newly married to a French-Canadian woman and with a young family to support, I experienced my first doubts about some details of the Holocaust story. Further study, mostly at night, convinced me that many segments of the story were highly exaggerated, and the number of Jewish losses were wildly inflated.

As time went on, my soul was burning with one question: “Did Six Million Really Die?”

Soon I spoke and wrote about my doubts about some aspects of the Holocaust at public gatherings and private meetings to attentive audiences. I produced some fliers, handbills, posters and stickers. I did some radio interviews.

Then fate would have it that I published one small booklet someone else had written – a publication that had been an underground bestseller in 12 languages and had been sold in 18 countries. Its title was: “Did Six Million Really Die?”

It posed some pointed questions. I felt safe publishing it, since nowhere had this publication caused offense.

Not so in Canada.

A woman called Sabina Citron, who headed the Holocaust Remembrance Association of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, decided that she was offended. She laid a private criminal complaint under Canada’s ancient “False News” Law against me in November of 1983. This was a law used seven centuries ago against the British peasants who had offended kings by chanting limericks.

Next thing I knew, the government of Canada took over and started prosecuting me. The media was vociferous. The mob was mobilized. I was beaten and spat at on the way to court. My house was bombed in the middle of the night. I was convicted by two juries and lost some of my appeals. I went to prison more than once. My thriving graphic arts business was soon ruined. My marriage broke under the stress and ended in divorce. I was banned from traveling to the United States because I was before the courts of Canada.

Between trials and appeals the judges imposed what the “Globe and Mail” of Toronto called “. . . the most sweeping judicial gag order ever imposed on a Canadian resident,” thus depriving me of my freedom of speech for almost nine years. The German government refused to issue me a passport or travel document for over 6 years, forcing me into a form of Gulag existence without barbed wire. My bank accounts were seized. Huge early morning raids were taking place all over Germany against my supporters there.

Yet still, my soul was burning with the question: “Did Six Million Really Die?”

I was a German. Like any other human being on this earth, I loved my people and my country. I loved them more as I matured politically. Why was I not allowed to question my own people’s history? Just who was writing the script of what I should or should not ask?

On August 27, 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the ancient “False News” statute, under which I had been dragged through the courts for nine years and which cost me most of my fortune and the tax payers of Canada some $6 million, was unconstitutional.

I thought that surely now I had the right to ask: “Did Six Million Really Die?”

I asked. It hurt to ask – but I asked.

The public vilification in the media increased. Official persecution through arbitrary searches, seizures of books, mail etc., pointedly thorough customs and immigration inspections at the border, and police investigations by three different police forces and Canada’s spy agency, CSIS, followed.

I protested publicly and privately to every level of government. Writers organizations and Amnesty International turned deaf ears to my pleas. I appealed to the various human rights agencies and international bodies. No one helped. No one cared.

Politicians, columnists, and broadcasters agitated the public against me to the point when on May 7, 1995 an arsonist set my house on fire and nearly succeeded in burning it down. I have been told by tipsters he was paid $200 to do so.

Over 5,000 rare books, manuscripts, files and business records were destroyed by fire and water damage. Had I been home, I would have been killed.

Damaged inventory after the arson against the Zündel House in 1995

One week later a powerful parcel bomb was sent to me which, had I opened it, would have killed me and my staff.

It was becoming ever more clear to me that Canada, supposedly a fine democracy, did not allow my question.

Because of the persecution I experienced for expressing my unorthodox viewpoint on history, I decided with the help of some American friends to set up a world-wide web page in the USA, the last bastion of free speech. I quietly set about constructing my web page.

At first, I was more or less left alone and ignored.

Only when Nizkor, a Holocaust Promotion web site, challenged me to refute a lengthy, 170+ page, double-spaced document in rebuttal to one of my posts on the Zundelsite and I prepared to do so by heaving some documents onto my site, did it become clear that I was upsetting powerful interests the world over.

A ban by the German censors on my server was imposed. 1,500 web sites were inaccessible in Germany because of five small words, still followed by a question mark. Did Six Million Really Die?

But then the incredible happened! Under vicious political siege, my web site was cloning itself!

For an entire week, from Patagonia to the Northern Polar Regions, from China to the Cape of Good Hope, the click of the mouse was the roar of the lion that roared: “Hands off the Internet!”

A friend said that he felt the planet lurch.

Censorship busters materialized from nowhere and sprang up like mushrooms after rain. University students, computer buffs, Internet veterans and columnists all leaped to my defense. The phones kept ringing off the hooks. The fax machines went crazy. The mailman groaned under the load of conventional mail, and so much e-mail arrived that we were overwhelmed. Total strangers, who under normal circumstances would have never heard of me, much less supported me, spontaneously copied or mirrored my web site and e-mailed large portions of text files all over the world.

At the height of the controversy, at least 13 identified mirror web sites existed in the USA and, we were told, at least one in Australia.

An outcast had become an incast.

That miracle in cyberspace will be forever cyber-history. It was magnificent!

I am on record saying that freedom does not come for free. I of all people know that questions do not come for free. Doubting the Holocaust is against the law in Germany. In Europe, there are “hate laws,” and the Holocaust is entrenched dogma before which people genuflect.

There are 1300 state prosecutors all over Germany. I am undoubtedly registered as a “thought criminal” in every one of them and thus will be arrested, tried and convicted of thought crimes, should I ever step on German soil again. My 90-year-old mother passed away, and I was not allowed to see her to her grave.

The same fate – arrest, conviction and imprisonment for thought crimes – could befall the idealistic American Censorship Busters who gave my thoughts refuge when my web site was under attack. Most did not even like me, but they knew from healthy instinct that something had sprung for their jugular vein, and that it was time to stand tall and be counted. For a week, they were men who acted like men. They do not know this yet, but they, too, were committing “thought crimes”. All over Germany.

It is a chilling thing to have to tell those idealistic censorship busters that this one day of bedrock principle in cyberspace could cost them up to five years in a German prison. It is known to have happened before.

What price freedom? What price America?

66. Where can I get more information about the “other side” of the “Holocaust” story as well as facts concerning other areas of WWII Historical Revisionism?

Ernst Zündel Replies:
Rebuttal # 66

The answer to this question is simple. Go judge for yourself. There are now half a dozen wellrounded quality Revisionist websites available on the Net, along with hundreds of partial and overlapping ones. There is enough information out there to read up on for anybody with a curious and open mind. As long as the Internet exists in its present form, the time of censored information is over.

Revisionist truth needs no coercion. Revisionists do not go around beating up professors who disagree with them – as Jewish Tagar terrorists did to Professor Faurisson and others in France, or as has happened to my attorney in Germany, Jürgen Rieger.

Revisionists don’t send parcel bombs to people, as was done to me, or blow up cars, as was done to my young colleague, Francois Duprat, in France – killing him and crippling his wife for life.

Revisionists don’t burn the homes of Zionists and Communists down. They do not set bookstores on fire, as was done in France, or burn printing plants, as was done in England.

Revisionists do not destroy a life time’s worth of work by fire, as was done to me on May 7, 1995, when $400,000 damage was done to my house in the still unsolved arson attack in Toronto – where my files and library burned.

What, instead, do Revisionists do?

Revisionists offer to the world a new look at history. They simply ask good people to exercise their common sense – and decide for themselves what sounds true, plausible and right.

It has been a privilege to have been part of what Dr. Faurisson has called “…the great intellectual adventure at the end of the century.”

I herewith close what should have been a “debate” that turned into the first cyber war in history. That war is not yet over. It will take more than Revisionist searching to bring it to an end. Our duty is done, and we say we have won. We have searched far and wide, and we are satisfied that we have solved the Holocaust riddle.

We found that we were brainwashed, manipulated, used and abused by ruthless exploiters and deceivers. Our truth needs no coercion, no thought cops, no court verdicts. We have no need for Truth Enforcers!

To the extent we can, we will share freely what we have discovered. Whether you want to change your mind after studying our facts will be entirely up to you.

65. Why is there so little publicity for your point of view?

Ernst Zündel Replies:
Rebuttal # 65

I have already answered this question at length. Let me reply to Nizkor’s glib and arrogant assertion that Holocaust Denial – as they like to call it – is “absurd.”

It is not absurd at all to deny that which did not exist and did not take place. It is absurd to uphold that which did not exist and did not take place.

The Flat Earth argument applied by Nizkor to Revisionists is really rich – but typical. If Holocaust Revisionist claims were as absurd as those advanced by Flat Earth proponents, why would it not be necessary to pass stringent laws in almost all countries of the world against the claims of Flat Earth proponents?

When was the last time you have seen a law against Flat Earth Deniers?

The panic-stricken Zionist Lobby and beneficiaries of the Holocaust Free-Lunch Program are working hard around the globe to have ever stricter laws passed against anyone who dares to question their claims – and who dares to question the legitimacy of their lucrative extortion racket. Why do they find it necessary to charge people criminally, drag them before criminal courts and tribunals, fine them tens of thousands of dollars, or jail them for years – for not believing in a story that is so patently absurd?

Baloney!

Only people with a definite political financial agenda based on a monumental lie – composed of a series of collections of lies – have to be so afraid of truth coming out that when court decisions, fines and jail terms don’t deter the truth teller, they have to escalate the cost or price – and beat, bomb or burn the truth-telling Revisionist researcher out! What kind of people are these? Who would stoop so low and adopt such criminal tactics for merely not liking somebody else’s viewpoints?

These Holocaust Enforcers are afraid of the truth coming out because the historical truth will put an end to their undeserved fame and public esteem, unearned wealth and lofty positions in society with all the perks of power that have accrued to them.

That’s why they fight with the resolve and desperation of cornered criminals and con-men about to be “outed”!

64. Has the Institute for Historical Review suffered any retaliation for its efforts to uphold the right of freedom of speech and academic freedom?

Ernst Zündel Replies:
Rebuttal # 64

What hypocrites these people are at Nizkor!

As stated many times before in documents and ZGrams on the Zundelsite, B’nai Brith admitted in writing to a public official, Norm Gardner of Toronto, that they have “a close working relationship” with the violent Marxist Anti Racist Action bunch. There are plenty of references on the Zundelsite that document this fact. Think of a few appropriate key words – ARA, B’nai Brith and others come to mind – and activate the Zundelsite’s search engine.

63. What happened to the historians who have questioned the “Holocaust” material?

Ernst Zündel Replies:
Rebuttal # 63

Take a look at one Revisionist victim who dared to examine the Holocaust and had the courage to publish his findings:

That’s Dr. Faurisson! Here is what happened to him:

At least 10 times physically assaulted by Holocaust Enforcers; on several occasions nearly killed. Jaws broken. Teeth knocked out. Hospitalized for weeks. Persecuted mercilessly in endless legal battles.

Background and contribution: Known as the “Dean of the world-wide Revisionist movement” and principal teacher of Ernst Zündel, Dr. Faurisson first discovered the technical and architectural drawings of the Auschwitz morgues, the crematories and other installations. He was also the first to insist that only a U.S. gas chamber expert could unravel the technical impossibility of the Auschwitz “homicidal gassing” story – as falsely told to the public for over half a century.

Dr. Faurisson was Zündel’s mentor, advisor and trial witness in the 1984 preliminary hearings and in the 1985 and 1988 Great Holocaust Trials. He was slated as expert witness for the 1991 Munich trial of Ernst Zündel. (The prosecution dropped the Anne Frank Diary part of the charge in mid-trial after they learned that Dr. Faurisson was going to testify to that point.)

He was also slated as expert witness in the 1997 (and ongoing) Human Rights Tribunal hearings, but was disqualified on a whim.

Now take a look at the list of victims who have met with various degrees of physical and psychological violence as Revisionist victims of Zion!

Are these people dummies? Did Christ have a doctorate in Christianity? Marx in Marxism? Hitler in National Socialism? Who cares that Stäglich was “only” a judge, and Butz “only” an electrical engineer – that Dr. Faurisson was “only” a professor of literature and of ancient texts and documents, or that O’Keefe dropped out of Harvard! Can their research stand the acid test of truth or not? That’s the criterion. Nothing else matters.

Is a degree necessary to have a right to one’s opinions – or that one can’t think without one, putting two and two together?

Does Ken McVay, the burned-out rock musician, variety store restocking clerk and gas station attendant have more credentials than the men and women who are listed above and who have paid the price for having unpopular, politically incorrect opinions? Is the art dealer Reitlinger, or the liar Mermelstein, or the picture falsifier Wiesenthal, more qualified than Revisionist researchers who have put their very lives on the line – and who are doing it daily?

It is true I, Ernst Zundel, was “only” a lowly photo retoucher – but that’s how I can tell when an Auschwitz photo is faked!

What is this nonsense about only state-, society-, institution- or Jewish-approved people being allowed to comment or to publish and proselytize their views and findings? What kind of degree has Jamie McCarthy?

The Revisionist collection of historical amateurs and auto-didacts have investigated, analyzed, dissected, evaluated and looked with just ordinary common sense at the wild claims and fanciful tales of the Holocaust Inventors. They found it, crudely put. a crock of absolute doodoo – no more than the collective hallucinations of feverish minds and warped, overly fertile Zionist, agenda-driven brains who have massively lied for vast profit – for more than half a century!

The Jewish writer Samuel Gringanz had this to say already in the 1950s in his magazine “Jewish Social Studies” when he spoke of survivors’ memoirs and reports:

“. . . most of the memoirs and reports are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilletante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks and apologies. (page 65)

I rest my case. I could not have said it better myself.

Perhaps the odd affinity between the ARA and the Holocaust Lobby is best summarized in an excerpt from an Ernst Zundel affidavit subtitled “B’nai Brith’s Condoning and Support of Violence”:

25. In 1993, posters from a new, radical, violent group called “Anti-Racist Action” (hereinafter referred to as “ARA”) began appearing around downtown Toronto. These posters featured a photograph of my face in the cross-hairs of a rifle with the words: “Guru of hate – Ernst Zundel – Your days are numbered…” A second poster featured a smaller version of my face with the rifle cross-hairs superimposed over it with the words: “The one that got away…Not!…Stop Zundel.” A further poster titled “BORED?” gave directions to my home and directions on how to build a molotov cocktail. The ARA spray-painted slogans in the back of my property such as “Zundel Watch Your Back ARA”. Attached to this my affidavit as Exhibit A, pages 23-26, are copies of the posters which were posted by the hundreds in downtown Toronto in 1993 and 1994 at various times and a photograph of the spray-painted slogans.

26. A violent demonstration by ARA took place at my home during November, 1993 when my house was pelted with paint, eggs, chain links and excrement bombs. Only the presence and protection of massive numbers of Toronto police and a large plastic covering over the house prevented serious damage. Karen Mock of B’nai Brith excused the violence as being a result of the “frustration felt by many young people because of perceived law enforcement and government inaction.” This was reported in an article the Canadian Jewish News, Dec. 2, 1993, a copy of which I attach to this my affidavit as Exhibit A, pages 27 and 28, together with a copy of an article from the Globe & Mail, Nov. 25, 1993 covering the demonstration.

27. In 1994, B’nai Brith again entered the media with calls for my extradition to Germany after it became public that I had applied for Canadian citizenship. B’nai Brith took the position in a statement that I did not deserve to be a Canadian citizen. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, page 29, is a copy of an article from the Montreal Gazette dated July 28, 1994 referring to B’nai Brith’s statement.

28. In 1994, B’nai Brith called for “Holocaust denial” to be made a unique criminal offence. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, page 30, is a copy of an article from the Canadian Jewish News, October 27, 1994.

29. In a 1995 press conference announcing their annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents, B’nai Brith again severely criticized Canadian governments for failing to charge me with hate and again called for me to be charged. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, page 31, is a copy of articles from the Toronto Star and the Saturday Sun of March 4, 1995.

30. On May 7, 1995, an arsonist set fire to my home and caused massive damage to the front half of the house. The entire third floor was destroyed together with thousands of invaluable books and documents. I have no doubt that the hysteria whipped up by B’nai Brith contributed to the lynch-mob atmosphere of vigilantism and violence which permeated this period of time. Police were given a surveillance tape of the arsonist in action, but so far no arrests have been made. Attached to this my affidavit as Exhibit A, pages 32-34, is a copy of an article from the Toronto Star, May 8, 1995 reporting the fire and showing Toronto Mayor Barbara Hall watching it.

31. Shortly after the arson, on May 12, 1995, two ARA leaders, one of whom I identified as Ajith Aluthwatta, appeared outside of my house with two leaders of the Jewish Defence League (JDL): Meir Halevi, from the Canadian JDL and Irv Rubin from the United States JDL. The JDL has been classified by the FBI in the United States as a terrorist organization. The two men attempted to break into the boarding I had put up around the burnt-out house. I called the police who questioned them, checked their identities and let them go because they had caused only a “minor” mischief. Attached to this my affidavit as Exhibit A, pages 35, 36, are photographs of the police questioning the ARA and JDL leaders and a copy of an article describing the incident in NOW magazine, May 18-24, 1995.

32. Two weeks after the arson a pipe bomb was sent to my address in a suspicious package which I did not open. Police exploded the bomb later in a safe area and informed me that had the bomb exploded, it would have killed the person who opened the package and anyone within a 90 meter radius. Other groups were also targetted with pipe bombs during this period. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, pages 37, 38, is a copy of articles from the Toronto Sun, July 21, 27 1995 on the pipe bombs.

33. On March 14, 1996, B’nai Brith again called for me to be charged under the hate laws at a major press conference where it released its annual audit of anti-semitic activities. These comments were given nation-wide media coverage. I was again called a hate monger. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, page 39, is a copy of an article from the Toronto Star, March 15, 1996.

34. In November of1995, Sabina Citron, laid two further private criminal charges against me of conspiracy to incite hatred and defamatory libel of named Jewish individuals. Again, after a four month investigation by Hate Crimes unit investigators and senior Crown Attorneys expert in hate propaganda, the Crown intervened in the case and withdrew the charges on March 15, 1996.. On the steps of the courthouse after the charges were withdrawn Karen Mock of B’nai Brith angrily demanded some four feet from where I stood that new charges should be laid against me under the hate laws. I attempted to ask her if she had not heard what had happened inside the courtroom, where she had sat during the entire proceedings within two rows of me. She ignored me and continued shouting at the assembled press that I was a hate monger. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit B is a videotape of the Mock comments.

35. In June and July1996, B’nai Brith played a major role supporting an application by the violent ARA for a grant from Toronto’s Metro Council. Karen Mock of B’nai Brith made an impassioned speech to Metro Council for the grant to ARA which was carried on local cable TV. Both Mock and Kurz wrote letters to the Metro Council supporting the grant. Kurz wrote in his capacity as member of the Toronto Mayor’s Committee on Community and Race Relations. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, pages 40-42, are copies of the letters from Mock and Kurz to Metro Council supporting the ARA grant and the covering letter of Charles Smith, Metro Council Access and Equity Centre.

36. In fact, the Metro Toronto Hate Crimes unit sent information to Metro Council about ARA’s Internet Website which contained such words as “Fuck Authority” and “Fuck Hierarchy. Organize Horizontally Not Vertically. Fight and resist fascist asskissers of the corporate state – remember, Hitler was also elected to office – and who groomed Hitler? Racist anti-Semites…” Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A is a copy of the fax to Metro Council’s administrative office from the Metro Toronto Police Hate Crimes Unit. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, pages 43-47, is a copy of the five page fax from the Police Hate Crimes Unit to Metro Council.

37. In a fax to Toronto Metro Councillor Norm Gardner’s office, Sam Title of B’nai Brith wrote:

“Here’s the info you requested on ARA. Just so you are aware we have have (sic) worked with them before, and we presently have a very workable and amiable relationship with ARA…despite their ‘tactics.'”

Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, page 48, is a copy of the fax from B’nai Brith to George Berger of Councillor Norm Gardner’s office.

38. B’nai Brith supported and participated in the conference held by the ARA in June of 1996 called “Youth Against Hate.” Karen Mock appeared as a panelist in a seminar entitled “Anti-Fascist Strategies” along with B’nai Brith’s prominent member and counsel, Marvin Kurz, who in this instance represented the Toronto Mayor’s Committee on Race Relations, one of the complainants in this case. Sabina Citron, the other complainant in this case, also appeared as a panelist in a seminar entitled “Holocaust Survivors Speak Out.” Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, pages 49-52, is a copy of the ARA “Youth Against Hate” program identifying Mock, Kurz and Citron as panelists.

39. In ARA’s magazine “On the Prowl” from the fall of 1996, Karen Mock of B’nai Brith is pictured at the conference sitting under the logo of ARA which has been banned as a hate group logo from at least one Toronto school board. The article referred to me and Toronto Sun columnist Christie Blatchford as follows: “Racist media grandmongers, like Christie Blackbutt from the ill reputed Toronto Sun to Ernie ‘no neck’ Zunie, had to stop scratching their white asses and start lobbying to keep us from getting this money.” The article gave a “special fuck to that right wing shit-head Christie Blatchford of the Toronto Sun, who predicted that the conference would never happen!” The ARA article endorsed violence as a political means in its references to Mandela and Rabin. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, page 53, is a copy of the “On the Prowl” article.

40. ARA has been banned as a violent hate group by some school boards in Ontario. The Scarborough Board of Education banned the group from school property after consultation with Metro Toronto Police Hate Crimes Unit officers. The Board of Education described the group as a violent group known to the Toronto police. The Durham Board of Education has banned the ARA from its schools as a group whose tactics involve physical confrontation and extreme violence. The Wellington County Board of Education has banned the ARA from school property as a group whose “tactics involve physical confrontation and extreme violence that has lead to bodily injury and police intervention.” Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, pages 54-57, is a letter from the Scarborough Board of Education regarding ARA and the Durham Board of Education and Wellington Board of Education directives to all principals regarding the ARA.

41. Apart from the threatening posters and violent demonstrations in front of my house by the ARA, this organization has been implicated by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in the arson of my house in 1995. A Kitchener electronics businessman, Michael Rothe, was interviewed by two CSIS agents who identified themselves as such and showed identification badges. Their names were given as Angela and Peter. The interview was taped on a security camera in the store on February 7, 1996. The following transcript is as close as I have been able to come having listened to the tape closely:

ANGELA: Have you heard of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service? …

PETER: You can bet it’s real!…I’ll explain to you what we are first….We’re the political police. Angela and I are from the counter-terrorism branch…We are interested in the Heritage Front. …

PETER: In Toronto, Wolfgang has much trouble with a group that calls itself Anti-Racist Action, ARA. This is a collection of anarchists, Trotskyists, Stalinists.

ANGELA: One of the problems that we’ve also had with the ARA as Peter was describing is that they bomb and they firebombed, you know, Ernst Zundel, I’m sure you’ve heard about the problems he has and the various leaders of the so-called right wing groups have received firebombs.

PETER: So, we’re interested to know…were there threats ever made to you.

Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit B is a copy of the videotape which was given to me by Mr. Rothe.

42. On October 25, 1996, the ARA held a seven hour demonstration in front of my house after advertising the demonstration in posters plastered all over downtown Toronto which invited people to come to a “kosher barbecue” at my house. On the day of the demonstration, members of the ARA wore ski masks and held signs saying: “Burn Zundel down!”. They shouted: “Lock the Nazis in – burn the house down!”. Given the ARA’s Molotov cocktail poster and the arson of my home in 1995 and the comments of CSIS, these threats were not taken lightly by me. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, page 58, is a copy of the ARA poster.

43. Marvin Kurz, a professed supporter of the ARA and their conference, a member of and counsel for B’nai Brith and chair of its legal committee, is presently a member of the Toronto Mayor’s Committee on Community and Race Relations which is one of the complainants in this case. Kurz was the person who instigated the complaint and brought the matter on to the Mayor’s Committee agenda. It is highly improper that B’nai Brith be allowed to intervene in this case in these circumstances. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, page 59-60, is a copy of the Kurz memo to the Mayor’s Committee concerning bringing the present complaint against me before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

44. B’nai Brith has continued their vendetta against me and used its close and amiable relationsihp with the ARA even though it knows that publication of my views does not incite any hatred towards Jews. This was proven by a book financed by B’nai Brith entitled Hate on Trial which was published by Mosaic Press in 1986. In fact the book found that people became more sympathetic to the Jewish community as a result of the massive media coverage of my 1985 trial. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, pages 61-64, is a copy of the title page of Hate on Trial and relevant pages.

B’nai Brith’s Karen Mock and Marvin Kurz have hobnobbed with ARA leaders in broad daylight and attended their gatherings, even advised them on their website, sponsored them and endorsed them for grants of public money. They like those thugs a lot!

Whenever Karen Mock, Marvin Kurz, Sabina Citron or Sol Litman appear at court hearings, ARA gatherings, or Human Rights Tribunals, the ARA ruffians and JDL goons are never far behind. B’nai Brith, which helps underwrite Nizkor through one of its many tax-deductible fronts, is basically merely the Holocaust Enforcer without the clubs and gas cans. Instead of uzzis, they carry law degrees in their violin cases.

Moralizing by B’nai Brith and Nizkor is no substitute for moral conduct or behavior. So is the pot calling the kettle black?

And finally: Regarding my supposed “advocating” of censorship:

I make no apologies for saying that the semi-pornographic, historically false, sadomasochistic Spielberg film fantasy “Schindler’s List” should be banned from being shown in public cinemas in schools and on television. Why? Because it offends against existing laws on the books in most civilized countries against pornography, sado-masochism and the corruption of minors by such filth.

I did not make those laws. I am, however, a strong believer in obeying laws. Some countries have better laws than others.

Some countries like the Philippines, Malaysia and others did exactly that – they banned that piece of worthless trash and Zionist propaganda. And I say: Good for them!

62. What about the claim that those who question the “Holocaust” are anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi?

Ernst Zündel Replies:
Rebuttal # 62

Are all Revisionist “Nazis” or “Hitler apologists” – or is it acceptable and legitimate to question alleged facts of history without character assassination? Nizkor engages in the usual negative stereotyping and smear mongering method: guilt by innuendo and guilt by association.

Let’s look at some of the claims – and then let’s look at some of the unsavory characters who promote and have exploited the “Holocaust” and their possible motives.

For instance, in “The Seventh Million”, Israeli journalist tells in a footnote (page 183) that

“The Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, Yad Vashem, has received many letters from people asking about bars of soap left over from the war years. Some offered to contribute the soap to the museum, while others asked whether the soap ought to be properly buried. Yad Vashem always officially replies that the Nazis did not make soap out of Jews. . . Yad Vashem has concluded that Jews were not murdered for this purpose. Here, then, is the history of a myth.”

And yet, even as we write this, the Zundelsite is under attack by the Jewish Holocaust Lobby for having posted a “Jewish soap” debunking article on the Net!

Or take the story of Menahem Begin who got things commingled in his lying mind. I quote here again from Segev’s “Seventh Million”:

“Begin liked to say that his father had led a procession of five hundred {of Jewish resisters} and that the river had turned red with their blood. In fact, he did not know this for certain. His sister, Rachel Halperin, told his biographer, Eric Silver, that her brother’s version of the event was a “tall tale.” She believed that their father had been shot to death by a soldier. Their mother was murdered while being treated at a hospital. Begin claimed that both his parents had been murdered “before his eyes,” but in fact, he was no longer in the city when they were killed. He had made his escape in time.”

There are many other such stories – for instance, the person who claimed to have been “gassed” six times and lived to tell about it. http://members.aol.com/ihrgreg/nonsense/930805sixgassings.htm Or the woman who recently surfaced in the Seattle, Washington area who claimed that, in order to escape from “Nazis”, she had been befriended and subsequently nurtured by a pack of wolves. Not to mention the “33 Mermelstein lies” documented by the IHR and posted on their website.

Now let’s analyze the association of the Revisionists with Right Wing causes – and by the same token let us not overlook all the Holocaust Promoters, Inventors and Enforcers who have been, and still are, Israel Apologists, Israel Boosters and Israel Defenders. By their support, these people unapologetically endorse the theft, seizure, occupation and confiscation of the land of Palestine, dispossess the Palestinian people and, in operation after operation of ethnic cleansing, drive out the native Palestinians from their homesteads, bulldoze their houses, pave over their graveyards, wipe out refugee camps with massive artillery barrages, and destroy entire towns and cities by carpet bombing – such as was done to Beirut.

B’nai Brith-supported Nizkor is in no moral position to give other people moralistic finger-wagging lectures as to what they can think and with whom the can or may associate. Does Nizkor claim with a straight face that the unwashed, unkempt nose-and-earring equipped spiked-rooster-hair crowd with whom B’nai Brith claims a “close working relationship” is any more moral? Are the space cadets, the burned-out druggies of the ARA of better caliber than those right wingers mentioned with such gloating? Does Nizkor think that the violent enforcers of the gun-toting, gun smuggling, dope-trafficking, bomb building arsonists and convicted murderers and jail birds of the JDL and Tagar bunch – which Holocaust Enforcers have used repeatedly to terrorize people like myself, David Irving, Robert Faurisson and others – anything to write home about?

I do not know of a single Revisionist – or what Nizkor likes to call “Holocaust Denier” – who was ever convicted of a bombing and arson, or even a beating. That some Revisionists don’t like Jews, or even dislike and despise them, is in the light of the behavior of terrorists such as the JDL, TAGAR, and ARA not surprising. To take this even further – Israel is a pariah among nations with its organized, Israeli Supreme Court approved use of beatings, bone breakings, hoodings and other inhuman tortures. Israel’s behavior toward its Palestinian and Arab neighbors makes it hardly a role model decent people can aspire and look up to.

So what if Carto, Greg Raven and Ernst Zündel have something positive to say about Hitler and his regime? Are Nizkorites not fond of Communism? Has anybody ever fainted from studying some Hitler policies? What does Nizkor know of the man?

Nizkor and B’nai Brith have not yet been appointed or elevated to the position of official censor and judge as to what people may think or write, or with whom they may choose to associate.

Now to Chomsky:

Noam Chomsky is too clear a thinker with far too sound powers of deduction and reasoning not to see through the Holocaust scam. That Chomsky does not have the intellectual integrity or courage to call a spade a spade when it comes to the Holocaust topic is his problem.

Having read all kinds of stuff by Chomsky, I for one simply do not believe that the quotes Nizkor attributes to him are Chomsky’s honest opinions. A man of Chomsky’s intellect does not suddenly accept at face value and as gospel truth the most bizarre and obvious nonsense as fact. No man is that brilliant and that dumb at the same time.

We have a good word for that in German: “Zwecklügen.” Lies born of necessity.

In summary, the Holocaust is an accumulation of World War II propaganda lies whose end has finally come. You have seen it demolished right here in the answers to the 66 questions. The free ride of the parasites on the backs of the productive Germans is about to come to an end. The world is throwing the Zionist monkey off its back. The Arab countries are adopting Revisionist arguments as part of their foreign policy – and the handwriting for the Zionists is clearly on the wall! Nahum Goldman, that old fox and self-admitted prevaricator, warned the Jews about the misuse of the Holocaust way back in the 1970s and once again in 1981. Many writers have done so since. The latest I have seen was penned by Eliahu Salpeter in Ha’aretz, March 24, 1999:

“What is Jewish property? Who are its legitimate heirs? Is it advisable to keep extending the deadline for making these claims, thus adding on new claimants? Or are we approaching the point beyond which it is better to be wise than to be right? (…) The vast sums added every year to Jewish claims also expand the ranks of anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers. (…) It is hard to explain to non-Jews why the property of a Polish Christian who dies with no heirs belongs to his country, while the property of a Polish Jew in a similar situation should be handed over to some New York organization.”

I could not have said it better myself.

61. What happened when a historical institute offered $50,000 to anyone who could prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz?

Ernst Zündel Replies:
Rebuttal # 61

I can’t fathom myself why the IHR answered this question in this fashion. For those who are unfamiliar with the whole sordid story, here is what happened in the Mermelstein case, as later summarized in an IHR article – long but well worth reading:

Best Witness’: Mel Mermelstein, Auschwitz and the IHR

by Theodore J. O’Keefe

Fourteen years ago, over Labor Day weekend in 1979, the Institute for Historical Review held its very first conference at Northrop University in Los Angeles. At that time, the Institute announced its offer of a reward of 50,000 to the first person to prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz.

A little over a year later, in the spring of 1981, Mel Mermelstein, a southern California businessman and self-described Holocaust survivor, claimed that reward, and then sued the Institute for 17 million.

On October 9, 1981, in response to a motion by Mermelstein, Judge Thomas Johnson of the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles declared:

Under Evidence Code Section 452(h), this court does take judicial notice of the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944…. It is not reasonably subject to dispute, and it is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. It is simply a fact.

Because of the prejudicial effect of this action, the IHR decided not to proceed with the suit, and instead settled the matter by signing a formal letter of apology to Mermelstein on July 24, 1985, for the pain, anguish, and suffering he sustained relating to the

50,000 reward offer, and agreeing to pay him 90,000 to settle the case. (For details on the settlement, see “About the IHR/Mermelstein Settlement,” below.)

Encouraged by this success, Mermelstein later brought yet another suit for 11 million against the Institute charging malicious prosecution, defamation, conspiracy to inflict emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Yet on Thursday, September 19, 1991, in the Superior Court at Los Angeles, Mermelstein voluntarily dismissed most of his complaints. (Earlier that day, Judge Stephen Lachs had dismissed Mermelstein’s complaint of “malicious prosecution.”) This victory not only saved the Institute for Historical Review, but also substantially overturned the negative effects of the both the 1981 judicial notice and the 1985 settlement. (For more on this sweeping legal victory, see the October 1991 IHR Newsletter.)

The First Case

To appreciate the ramifications of this stunning reversal of fortunes, one must review the convoluted connection between Mermelstein and the IHR.

In the first (“reward”) case — and despite absurdities in his reward claim obvious to any knowledgeable student of Auschwitz — Mermelstein was able to mount an aggressive attack against the IHR in the courts. He was well armed with first-rate legal assistance, much of it donated, not to mention overwhelming approval and support from the political establishment, the mass media, and southern California’s influential Jewish community.

Meanwhile, the Institute had difficulty getting any legal counsel whatsoever, let alone the kind of skilled, dedicated, and fearless attorneys needed to withstand Mermelstein’s publicity juggernaut and his blitz in the courtrooms. Recall the hurricane of libel and slander from the press, coming at a time when what Alfred Lilienthal has called Holocaustomania was at high tide in America. In an atmosphere of constant smears against the IHR and Revisionism, every survivor hallucination (“Nazi ‘smiled’ as dog ate Jew,” to cite one headline of the day) gained instant currency in a corrupt media willing to accept such stories unquestionably and spread them as gospel.

Then recall the constant physical attacks that the enemies of truth and freedom aimed at IHR, its staff, and its supporters. In addition to harassment, including telephone threats, there was vandalism of IHR staff cars and homes, a physical beating of IHR founder Willis Carto, and attacks by gunfire and Molotov cocktail against the IHR office. Three separate firebombings culminated in the arson of July 4, 1984, which resulted in the total destruction of the IHR’s office and warehouse. Let us also not forget the role of local Zionist thugs in carrying out much of this intimidation: I refer to the goonwork of that gang led by the revolting Irving Rubin, the so-called national chairman of the Jewish Defense League — but whom I prefer to regard as the Grand Wizard, or, better, the Grand Dullard, of the Kosher Ku Klux Klan.

Judicial Notice

And so, with the help of high-priced lawyers, a corrupt media, and Jewish terrorists, Mermelstein seemingly laid to rest the historical issue by obtaining Judge Johnson’s ridiculous judicial notice. His lawyers went on to concoct a massive

17 million assault for breach of contract, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and so forth, until IHR had virtually no choice but to capitulate by settling out of court in preference to losing a potentially ruinous trial.

The frustrating thing for all informed and conscientious Revisionists was that the IHR’s researchers were aware from the beginning, thanks to the very affidavit Mermelstein presented to claim the

50,000 reward, that when he described watching his mother and sisters enter “gas chamber no. 5” through a tunnel, he was speaking of an impossibility, an absurdity that became even more absurd six months later, when, in sworn testimony, he said he’d seen them going down the stairs into the tunnel to the gas chamber. Why? Because even then it was well known to all students of Auschwitz that “gas chamber no. 5” — in fact, Auschwitz Krematorium building V — had no stairs descending from the outside, no tunnel, and no basement. It was entirely above ground!

As the IHR’s staff and supporters gathered more evidence, in the months and years of the first trial, they learned more. In Mermelstein’s own book, By Bread Alone, which offers a detailed account of the single night and day he spent at Birkenau (May 21-22, 1944), and which was published only two years before his sworn affidavit in application for the reward, Mermelstein wrote nothing of witnessing his mother and sisters enter any building at all, let alone any gas chamber — whether down the stairs, up the ladder, through the window, or down the chimney.

During the course of the long discovery phase, that is, the period in which the opposing parties gather evidence to support their case, researchers for the IHR, led by Louis A. Rollins, were able to gather much more information about what Mermelstein had said (or hadn’t said), and was still saying, about his experiences in wartime Europe.

Working from a mass of statements, either direct or reported, made by Mermelstein about his past life (paying particular attention to his time at Auschwitz and other camps), Rollins was able to compile a list of instances in which, it seemed to him, Mermelstein had either:

First, contradicted himself in his various statements on what he had seen or experienced during the Holocaust (for example, his several different accounts of how and where his father died), or; Second, made absurd claims about what had happened to him and others during the Holocaust — for example, witnessing a non-existent tunnel leading to the imaginary cellar of Krematorium 5, or being ordered to wash with soap made from dead Jews.

Contradictions and absurdities — Lou Rollins compiled 33 of them on a list that ran to eleven pages. But because of the judicial notice, all of this research went to naught. How, then, did it prove important in the second case?

The IHR Fights Back

It happened like this: In 1984 an independent writer and journalist by the name of Bradley Smith approached the Institute seeking funding for a newsletter; Smith had decided to take on the thankless task of alerting America’s journalists to the falsehood and fraud they were accepting and disseminating uncritically under the rubric of the Holocaust. Smith went on to publish some of the most flagrant instances of these claims in his newsletter Prima Facie, and not surprisingly, among the ripest contradictions and absurdities in the lore of the Holocaust were the testimony and statements of Mel Mermelstein, as researched by Lou Rollins and studied, with due diligence — remember that phrase, due diligence — by Bradley Smith.

Alas, Smith’s trumpet calls in Prima Facie went unheeded by our nation’s press corps. In July 1985 came the settlement and the triumph of Mermelstein, followed by his false gloating about how he had collected the reward, and his false claim, made during a radio broadcast from New York that August, that the IHR had signed the 1981 judicial notice, and thus accepted the “fact” of homicidal gassings of Jews at Auschwitz.

As had happened after the 1981 judicial notice, tributes and congratulations flowed in to the “survivor” from around the globe. How galling it was for Revisionists to see Mermelstein vaunt himself to the nation and the world as the man who proved the Holocaust, who had humbled IHR and the Revisionists!

Undaunted

In the wake of this bitter defeat, IHR had two tasks:

First, to explain the settlement to its subscribers and supporters around the world, to reassure them that IHR had accepted a compromise to avoid the expense and uncertainty of trial but — and in spite of what Mel Mermelstein and our other enemies were saying — had not abandoned its skepticism on the gas chambers, and had not accepted the judicial notice. Second, to show the flag, to proclaim our defiance, to fight back.

In the September 1986 issue of the IHR Newsletter (then editor) Bradley Smith took direct aim, not at the so-called Holocaust, not at every one of its survivors, but at that minority he firmly believed, on the basis of a reasonably careful (or “duly diligent”) study of the evidence, was actively engaged in spreading falsehoods about their experiences. Smith wrote of “the vainglorious prevaricators,” “the false-tale spinners who claim to speak for the survivor community,” and “such demonstrable frauds as Melvin Mermelstein and Elie Wiesel.” Smith’s good faith assertion that Mermelstein was a fraud was based on the previously mentioned list that Rollins had compiled for the first trial.

The sweet taste of victory had done nothing to mellow Mermelstein’s disposition, and when he learned of Smith’s short IHR Newsletter article, he sued for defamation.

The Second Case

After Mermelstein launched his second suit, the Institute, learning of his misrepresentation of the settlement of the reward case, filed a defamation suit of its own against Mermelstein in August 1986. The IHR never served this suit, and later voluntarily dismissed it. Thereupon Mermelstein sued the IHR for malicious prosecution, and with the help of his attorney, Jeffrey N. Mausner (formerly of the federal government’s “Nazi-hunting” Office of Special Investigations), concocted an 11 million suit for four causes of action: libel, malicious prosecution, conspiracy to inflict emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

This suit was brought against four defendants: the Legion for the Survival of Freedom, the non-profit corporation through which IHR functions; Liberty Lobby, the nationalist and populist institution based in Washington, DC; Willis Carto, founder of both IHR and the Liberty Lobby; and the southern California law firm of Robert Von Esch, Jr., which had defended Liberty Lobby in the reward case, and had filed the IHR’s defamation suit against Mermelstein in 1986.

Pre-trial Shenanigans

The lead-up to trial was both protracted and eventful. After hearing of the defamation suit against him, Mermelstein demanded that the Hartford Insurance Company, where he had his homeowner’s insurance, pay his legal costs. When Hartford refused, pointing out (reasonably enough) that Mermelstein had never been served, attorney Mausner represented the IHR’s suit as a big threat to Mermelstein. Mausner was able to intimidate Hartford with his client’s Holocaust-survivor status to the extent of securing

60 thousand for Mermelstein in a settlement, as well as obtaining very generous legal fees for himself. Apparently, Hartford was unaware that at this same time Mausner was maintaining in a California court that IHR’s suit was entirely groundless and frivolous.

In February 1989, a process server seeking Willis Carto on behalf of Mermelstein mistook the IHR’s former accountant, Robert Fenchel, for Carto at the Ninth Revisionist Conference at the Old World Shopping Center. That November, Judge John Zebrowski found that, in spite of the non-service, the IHR was delinquent in not notifying Mermelstein of his mistake: Zebrowski imposed sanctions of 3,000, which the Institute was obliged to pay before it could begin to defend itself.

This was followed by a number of unfavorable pretrial rulings: Mermelstein was allowed to add new legal theories to his libel suit, four years after it had been filed. The IHR was not allowed to make use of a California law which allows a newspaper to retract offending statements and thus avoid suit. The Institute’s motion for summary judgment on whether the Institute had probable cause to sue Mermelstein for libel (and thus defeat his malicious prosecution complaint) was rejected. Finally, in January 1991 Mermelstein succeeded in obtaining a second judicial notice of gassing at Auschwitz.

Nevertheless, not everything went Mermelstein’s way: two judges, both Jewish, who believed they might not be able to be impartial, did the decent thing and disqualified themselves.

The Best Defense

After nearly five years of pre-trial maneuvering and legal jousting, the trial at last loomed before us. The IHR was represented by William Hulsy of Irvine. Liberty Lobby’s attorney was Mark Lane, an experienced trial lawyer, a long-time fighter for civil rights, noted critic of the Warren Report, bestselling author, movie scriptwriter, and anti-Zionist Jew. Lane served as the defendants’ lead attorney, dealing primarily with the conspiracy complaint. Hulsy was responsible for combating the defamation charges, and for formulating the overall trial strategy.

They were assisted by Charles Purdy of San Diego, who also represented Liberty Lobby, and by Willis Carto, who defended himself. Finally, the Von Esches (primarily Mark Von Esch, son of Robert, Jr.) defended their firm, and were to concentrate on dealing with the malicious prosecution complaint.

William Hulsy had been recommended to us by John Schmitz, the former US Congressman and very good friend of Revisionism and IHR. A successful attorney with experience in more than 200 jury trials, Hulsy finally agreed to take our case in spite of warnings from friends and colleagues, and his own apprehensions about possible damage to his career.

Hulsy firmly believed that the case could be fought and won on its legal merits, and that to make the main issue the Holocaust — as Mermelstein’s attorneys were seeking to do — might very well result in an annihilating defeat. He decided to oppose the libel complaint by convincingly demonstrating to a jury, if possible, that everything Smith had written about Mermelstein was true. Failing that, he would show that Mermelstein was “a public figure,” who had thrust himself to the forefront of participation in a public controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved (his constitutional privilege, according to the ruling of the Supreme Court under Earl Warren, in the famous New York Times vs. Sullivan ruling of 1964). Hulsy would also seek to show that the question of Mermelstein’s credibility as an eyewitness to the gassings and the Holocaust was a matter of public concern; that Brad Smith had exercised “due diligence,” not reckless disregard for the truth, in his research for the offending article; that Brad’s description of Mel was not based on personal malice; and that the IHR’s Newsletter was not (as Mermelstein sought to argue) disseminated to the public at large, but was instead a periodical circulated to a limited readership that shared a specific interest in Revisionism. Establishing any or all of these things might suffice to defeat the libel complaint; failing that, to minimize damages.

Thanks to the evidence carefully compiled by Lou Rollins and others, we could show that what had appeared in the IHR Newsletter about Mermelstein was true. This alone should have been enough to defeat the libel complaint, but Hulsy believed that it might not be enough to convince a Los Angeles jury.

My Assignment

My first assignment was to demonstrate to Bill Hulsy that the IHR and revisionists were not “neo-Nazis” or cranky flat-earthers, but responsible researchers with a different viewpoint on modern history. After winning his confidence, he set me to work gathering, compiling and evaluating evidence to defend against Mermelstein’s libel complaint, based on Hulsy’s research and understanding of the law. Again and again, Hulsy stressed that he wanted evidence to win the trial, not to disprove the Holocaust. But I must confess that I cheated: I sought every bit of evidence I could lay my hands on about Mermelstein’s actual experiences during the Second World War, and what he’d said about them over the years.

Aided by numerous volunteers who worked not only in California but across the United States, and in Germany, Poland, and Israel, we searched for whatever we could find about Mermelstein and his family. This included evidence about his mental soundness (Mermelstein had admitted to being under the care of a psychiatrist); information as to his litigation with persons other than the IHR; newspaper reports quoting Mermelstein on his Auschwitz experiences; and, of course, wartime documents from Auschwitz and elsewhere that would disprove his claims about witnessing atrocities, above all the alleged gassing of his mother and sisters at Auschwitz in May 1944.

My first step was to nail down the existing evidence, much of it from the first trial: Mermelstein’s sworn statements in the form of transcribed depositions (of which there were eleven, running to some twelve hundred pages of close interrogation by IHR and Liberty Lobby lawyers), written responses to interrogatories, and the like; Mermelstein’s writings, above all his autobiographical account of his concentration camp experiences, By Bread Alone; and his public statements on his Holocaust years, reported in more than a hundred different newspaper and magazine articles, and on several recordings of presentations by Mermelstein at synagogues or seminars as well as on radio broadcasts.

Further evidence came from history and reference books, such as Jewish encyclopedias; public documents and records, including statements made by Mermelstein to authorities at the Auschwitz State Museum and the German consulate in Los Angeles; wartime documents from the German camps; and Mermelstein’s US Army medical records.

As this mass of paper and audiotape accumulated, I had to read and re-read, to analyze and evaluate, to extract and collate and tabulate the evidence that would serve our defense against Mermelstein’s complaint that he was libeled by the IHR’s description of him as “a vainglorious prevaricator,” “a false-tale spinner,” and “a demonstrable fraud.”

Contradictions and Absurdities

While Mermelstein was a rather difficult witness who had attempted (sometimes with success) to intimidate IHR attorneys during depositions by playing the Holocaust card, he was often boastful and extravagant, and provided many nuggets for analysis and comparison.

I began my compilation of contradictions and absurdities in Mermelstein’s Holocaust claims with the list that Lou Rollins had put together. With much more evidence and a great deal more time than was available to Rollins, I compiled a new list, longer and more thorough than his original, but including many of the discrepancies and exaggerations that he had caught years earlier.

This listing had to be not only exhaustive, but reasonable and persuasive. Citing mere slips of the tongue, or mistakes attributable to sloppy journalists, would not only have been poor scholarship, it wouldn’t have persuaded a jury.

Caught

In all, I discovered 30 absurdities, 22 contradictions, and a number of exaggerations. These examples went directly to the matter of Mermelstein as a “demonstrable fraud,” a “vainglorious prevaricator,” and a “false-tale spinner.”

Among the absurdities were the nonexistent subterranean tunnel to the above-ground crematory, the soap made from Jewish bodies, a claim that Auschwitz camp “kapos” were rewarded for every prisoner they killed, and that there was a railroad track leading from the crematory to a pond for dumping ashes.

Contradictions

Since the summer of 1980, Mermelstein has repeatedly stated that he saw his mother and sisters go into a gas chamber, or into tunnel leading to it, from a distance of “a stone’s throw away,” a distance of “40, 50 feet,” and that he watched the “gas chamber” building for “a couple of hours.” Remarkably, though, Mermelstein made no mention of witnessing any of this in any account available prior to 1980, including his supposedly autobiographical book, By Bread Alone.

This is nothing compared to his varying versions of the fate that befell his father. In a declaration given in November 1969 at the German consulate in Los Angeles, Mermelstein said his father died during “evacuation marches to Blechhammer from other camps.” According to the account given in By Bread Alone, though, Mermelstein’s father died in bed after working himself to death, trading food for cigarettes. In a May 1981 deposition, his father had died of overwork and exhaustion, while in a June 1985 deposition, he died of “exhaustion, cruelty, starvation, and beatings.” According to still other accounts given by Mel Mermelstein, his father was “gassed at Auschwitz.”

Mermelstein has given similarly contradictory accounts of what he did while interned at Auschwitz (between approximately May 21 and July 1, 1944). In a statement given in November 1969 at the German consulate in Los Angeles, he had “no occupation.” Similarly, in a May 1981 deposition, he declared that had done “practically nothing … just some detail work” and “no physical work.”

In February 1987, a dramatically different account of Mermelstein’s time in Auschwitz appeared. Ed Koch (who was then mayor of New York City) told of a meeting with Mermelstein during a tour of Auschwitz. Koch reported in a newspaper article that Mermelstein had told him: “I was part of the special detail which hauled the bodies from the gas chamber and took them to the crematoria.”

Exaggerations

In claiming that Auschwitz camp kapos would kill an inmate if “they didn’t like the shape of your nose,” Mermelstein seemed to suggest that his own nose was not unattractive. Survival could be just as cruel as death, Mel implied on another occasion, because the bread given to Auschwitz inmates (during the period when he claimed to have done “practically nothing”) was intended not for nourishment, but to kill inmates “as fast as they expected us to die.” At Buchenwald, Mermelstein would have us believe, he went swimming “in blood,” even though he and others had been transported to Buchenwald “only for one purpose” — to be disposed of in crematorium rather than “litter … the beautiful towns and cities with our bodies.”

Fortunately, Mermelstein and many others like him miraculously survived. One of these friends, Dr. Miklos Nyiszli (who wrote his own book about his stay entitled, Auschwitz: A Doctor’s Eyewitness Account), was a truly exceptional survivor. In a 1981 deposition, Mermelstein claimed that Dr. Nyiszli, whom he supposedly knew personally, would testify on Mermelstein’s behalf about the alleged crimes of Dr. Josef Mengele at Auschwitz. At that time, though, Nyiszli had been dead for more than 25 years.

The evidence we were able to collect about Mermelstein’s credibility not only persuaded our attorneys that this was a very unreliable witness, to say the least; it also, I believe, gave them additional confidence to challenge Mermelstein directly.

New Evidence

In addition to all the evidence cited above, we obtained yet another piece of potentially explosive evidence: a document that indicates that Mermelstein’s sisters may have been alive nearly five months after he insisted they were killed. This secret German document, dated October 12, 1944, lists 500 Jewish females who were being transported from Auschwitz to Altenburg (a sub-camp of Buchenwald). Among those listed are Edith and Magda Mermelstein, names identical to those of Mermelstein’s two sisters. This document is dated almost five months after the day in May 1944 when Mermelstein swears he saw them gassed. While the birth dates of Edith and Magda as typed on this document do not tally precisely with those given by Mermelstein for his two sisters in By Bread Alone, there is good reason to believe that the two women on the list were, in fact, his sisters.

Forewarned and Forearmed

From the volume of evidence we acquired, we learned two important things:

First, that Mermelstein is simply not a credible witness to gassings at Auschwitz, or to very much else involving concentration camps and the Holocaust. The contradictions, exaggerations, and absurdities lovingly noted and recorded by the IHR’s researchers amply demonstrate this, not merely to Revisionists and others skeptical of “survivor” testimony, but any knowledgeable, intelligent, and fair-minded person. Whether Mermelstein is fibbing, to others or to himself; whether he has forgotten; or whether whatever he did experience has so deranged his mind as to render him incapable of rationally recounting the facts, his testimony proves nothing about the existence of Nazi gas chambers or a policy to exterminate Jews. If anything, careful analysis of his statements indicates the opposite: that there were no Auschwitz gas chambers or German policy to exterminate the Jews. Second, there is no evidence that Mermelstein ever claimed to have witnessed the gassing of his mother and sisters until after he learned of the IHR’s reward offer. He apparently first claimed to have personally seen them enter a so-called gas chamber in letters attacking the IHR that appeared in newspapers in southern California and Israel in the summer of 1980.

Neither his book, By Bread Alone (published in 1979), nor a statement made for the Auschwitz State Museum in 1967 about his wartime experiences in the camp, nor a sworn affidavit given at the German consulate in Los Angeles in 1969 about crimes he had witnessed during his time at Auschwitz, contains a word about witnessing any gassing.

Similarly, there is no mention whatsoever of Mermelstein having witnessed the entry of his mother and sisters into a gas chamber, or anything like that, in any of the several detailed press accounts about his industrious activity as a lecturer, exhibitor of artifacts, and museum proprietor published prior to the 1979 reward offer.

The Trial

After several postponements in the first half of 1991, the trial was upon us. It followed a new Mermelstein media propaganda blitz, the centerpiece of which was the made-for-television movie Never Forget. This lurid and false account of the “reward case” was broadcast nationwide over the Turner cable television network in April 1991 (or just before the original trial date).

To make things more interesting, shortly before trial the Von Esches, on whose shoulders virtually our entire defense of the malicious prosecution complaint rested, threw in the towel and capitulated. After already enduring years of vituperation as agents of a worldwide Nazi cabal, they gave in to fear that their law practice would be ruined.

The Von Esches settled with a payment to Mermelstein of 100,000, and a craven — I’m sorry to say — apology agreeing that, yes, Jews had been gassed at Auschwitz, and that millions more had perished in Auschwitz and other camps at the hands of the Germans.

Then we got a break. We learned that the trial judge, Stephen Lachs, was Jewish, a member of the liberal American Civil Liberties Union, and the first avowed homosexual to serve as a judge in California history. As it happened, Lachs turned out to be a conscientious and impartial judge, despite the sensitive nature of the case and the blatant attempts by Mermelstein’s attorneys to appeal to his Jewish background.

The combination of Mark Lane’s trial savvy and Bill Hulsy’s careful strategy brought about, against all expectations (ours as well as theirs), an annihilating victory for the forces of historical truth and freedom of inquiry. The 49 pretrial motions crafted by Hulsy to withstand and counter Mermelstein’s case were like a mighty fortress protecting us and blocking the enemy’s advance. Thus, even to get to a jury trial, Mermelstein’s three lawyers — lead attorney Lawrence Heller, Peter Bersin, and Jeff Mausner — were forced to attack across legal mine fields, negotiate factual tank traps and concertina wire, dare procedural pill boxes and machine gun nests. The plaintiff’s legal assault was contained at the outset, suffering heavy casualties during the close-in combat over the pre-trial motions. When Mermelstein’s lawyers attempted a retreat it quickly turned into a rout. In the end, a downcast plaintiff and his (somewhat bedraggled) lawyers slunk from the courtroom, seemingly dazed by defeat.

Mermelstein Takes the Stand

This is not to say that Mel Mermelstein didn’t have his day in court. He and his counsel had unwisely declined to stipulate that he was a “public figure,” as we had tried to establish (mindful of the added protection against defamation suits by public figures provided by the Supreme Court in a landmark 1964 decision). He also contested our motion to sever the determination of that issue from the matters to be decided by the jury. (We had wanted Judge Lachs to rule on this.)

As a result, Mermelstein took the stand, allowing Mark Lane to examine him on the question of whether his activities qualified him as a public figure according to the standards of the court. Mermelstein attempted to argue that he was not a public figure, in spite of his admission on the stand that he is: a published author; the founder of the “Auschwitz Study Foundation”; the curator of a Holocaust museum (that was first a traveling Holocaust exhibition); the willing subject of scores of newspaper and magazine stories, radio and television interviews; an eager accumulator of plaudits and testimonials from state and local governments, and laurels from the likes of Israel’s late Prime Minister Menachem Begin; and a lecturer who has spoken, over nearly two decades, at numerous colleges, high schools, synagogues, and so forth, across the United States.

Lane led him carefully through each of these damaging admissions. Evidently Mermelstein had believed that he could represent himself as someone who had been dragged unwillingly into the public arena by the IHR (even though most of his various public activities started before he’d ever heard of the Institute).

After establishing Mermelstein as an author, curator, founder of a non-profit educational organization, political honoree, and media star over the airwaves and in print, Lane zeroed on Mermelstein’s activities as a lecturer. About how many lectures had he given on Auschwitz prior to 1985, Lane wanted to know. Here Mermelstein, uncommonly forthcoming so far, began to prevaricate. Despite ample testimony out of his own mouth and pen as to his numerous lectures over the years, testimony of which the defendants were very well aware, Mermelstein claimed that he had given only about as many talks as “the fingers on my hands.”

Thereupon Lane flourished a typed list, signed by Mermelstein, of more than 30 lectures given by him in a period of just 18 months in 1981-1982. Mermelstein tried to be crafty: he allowed that he might have lectured more than once at the same place — not the most effective answer, but one that later might defuse the issue for an inattentive jury.

At this point I recalled that in one of his depositions Mermelstein had estimated giving an average of 20 lectures a year on Auschwitz since 1967. I quickly found the statement in a deposition given in 1985. After a break for lunch, Mark Lane confronted Mermelstein with his own words, and then, using a pencil and pad to multiply 18 by 20 (a calculation equalling 360), Lane asked Mermelstein if he hadn’t just told the court that he had only given as many lectures as there are fingers on his hands. A vexed Mermelstein then blurted out, “I meant the fingers of my hands and feet!”

At that point, Judge Lachs was seen to roll his eyes heavenward. A few minutes later, Bersin rose to concede his client’s status as a public figure.

Judge Lachs Rules

Several days later, after carefully considering the text of Mermelstein’s characterization of the IHR’s 1985 settlement (which the plaintiff had made on a New York City radio broadcast shortly after that settlement), Judge Lachs declared that Mermelstein’s claim that IHR had “signed” the 1981 judicial notice of gassing at Auschwitz could indeed be interpreted by a reasonable man as defamatory. This meant, he ruled, that IHR had had probable cause to sue Mermelstein in 1986, and that thus he had no alternative but to grant the IHR’s motion for dismissal of Mermelstein’s malicious prosecution complaint.