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.
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.”
- 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.”
- 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
- Fred Leuchter’s four groundbreaking, detailed reports:
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., Britain 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.
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 car full 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!