Thursday, September 12, 2013

Abraham Foxman and the Syrian Gassings

Abraham Foxman, National Director
Anti-Defamation League
605 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10158-3560
(212) 885-7700,

12 September 2013

Dear Mr. Foxman:

With regard to the recent killings by chemical weapon s in Syria, either by the Syrian State or others, you have been quoted as saying: “Our people have been exterminated by the use of gas. We cannot stand by without a reaction when we see gas being used to kill others.”

I am going to take it as a given that you would argue that it is wrong to “exterminate” others, no matter what weapon is used to accomplish the deed.

This suggests a question of some significance that, so far as I know, you have not addressed.

Each year during Passover, while the rescue of the Jews from Egypt is celebrated, the other half of the story is routinely ignored. The half that tells us how God “exterminated” all the first-born of the Egyptians on that dreadful night when he “passed over” the doors of the Jews. Countless thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of first-born Egyptian babies, children, youths, mothers—all the first-born of all the mothers and fathers throughout the land of Egypt--murdered.

While Passover has been celebrated for some 3,000 years, as it was this year, I am unaware that you, Mr. Foxman, have ever expressed any note of sympathy, or expressed any other reaction, to the horrors of what the Egyptian mothers and their first-born, who in almost all cases were innocent of all wrong-doing, suffered on that terrible night of mass extermination. Am I wrong about this?

Does it make all the difference to you, Mr. Foxman, that the “weapon” used to exterminate the Egyptian first-born was not “gas?” Please tell me what I’m missing here.

Thank you,

Bradley Smith
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
POB 439016
San Ysidro, California  92413


Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Letter to the Chairperson of the HETI

Peter Cassells, Chairperson
Holocaust Education Trust Ireland
Clifton House
Lower Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin 2
Tel: +353 1 6690593

29 August 2013

Dear Chairperson Cassells-

First, congratulations on your election as new Chairperson of HETI.

In November 2010 the Holocaust Education Trust held a conference entitled International Conference on Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. Since I am what you refer to as a “denier," I wanted to attend.  So did several other people with, what is correctly called, Revisionist views. I thought I might contribute a small bit to people's understanding of Revisionism if I spoke in support of the necessity, in a free society, of an open exchange of ideas in an environment of good will from that perspective. I noted that as it stood, the program would be the standard "one-sided presentation of anti-Revisionist Conferences." Unfortunately, I was correct.  Not much new at the Conference, let alone allowing a Revisionist to speak!  However, there is always a chance for understanding and dialogue to be opened between people of good faith.  That is why I am writing to you and to HETI trustees.

There are only a handful of Revisionist scholars around the world so it is rather amazing that expressing Revisionist ideas is a felony in many countries.  Revisionists are regularly censored, black-listed, physically attacked and harassed. Our views are regularly distorted, our goals regularly misrepresented. Unfortunately, HETI played its own part in this ugly story during its 2010 conference.

HETI announces that it wants to promote "a positive understanding of tolerance and diversity." With that welcome concept it occurs to me that you might be willing to start with HETI itself and turn away from the outright censorship of the 2010 HETI conference.  HETI could sponsor a lecture on Revisionism which actually allowed a Revisionist to speak. Or HETI could post a statement about Revisionism and Intellectual Freedom on its website allowing us to present our view of some of the many issues that should be addressed with regard to the orthodox history of the Holocaust.  I believe many at the conference would find it interesting and informative to hear such questions aired and to follow the discussion that would follow. Why would they not?

Because the only information you might have about "deniers" (a simple “slur”) is from the 2010 HETI conference, I would like to clarify what Revisionism is.  In 2010 I wrote, "Although it is standard practice to defame Revisionists as “anti-Semites who claim the Holocaust is just Jewish propaganda,” that is not what we at CODOH argue. Briefly, we believe that much of that history that we are taught today has been influenced by Soviet, British and American wartime propaganda which exaggerated and exploited real tragedies for propaganda purposes. This concerns not just Jews but Slavs, Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses and, in some versions, Gays. It can be argued that there is considerable research that supports this point of view."

The enemies of tolerance and diversity are not always the same. Nor are their targets. Surely, however, one certain sign of bigotry expresses itself in the unwillingness to listen to the other, or to even allow the other to speak. I hope to hear back from HETI on a small plan to allow Revisionists to present information and a perspective that were censored at the 2010 HETI conference.

Yours for tolerance and diversity,

David Merlin
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, California
Tel:  209 682 5327


With the above letter to Chairperson Cassells, which we will have circulated to press in Ireland and throughout Great Britain, as well as to Holocaust Museums and centers nationwide in the U.S., we offer to improve the future image of HETI.

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Scrutinizing Gas

Something about gas is . . . creepy. Often, you can't see it. Supposedly, you can't run from it (not so, but it can be hard to tell which way to run). If it "gets" you, it doesn't leave visible marks, whether it kills you or not (again, effectively not true, but particularly on survivors, the outward signs disappear pretty quickly).

In this article in the National Review, the writer scrutinizes pictorial and other published evidence connected with the recent deaths of women, children, and old people in Syria, and his analysis is informative and persuasive. If scrutiny of this kind had been allowed during and immediately after the times when the Germans are said to have gassed millions of Jews during World War II, the stories about gas chambers would never have gotten off the ground.

But the victims in Syria were Arabs, so we can talk about it without fear of having our books banned and getting thrown into jail.

It makes all the difference in the world.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

100 Years of Selective Agitation

If the Anti-Defamation League now celebrating its hundredth anniversary were true to its sweeping name, it would long since have joined Paul Rassinier, Arthur Butz, Robert Faurisson and a host of others in opposing the Calumny of the Century against Germans. Hundreds of its victims were, like Leo Frank of the famous case that launched the ADL, hanged by lynch mobs wearing US, British, French and Soviet uniforms.

But slanders that serve agendas like Israel's and that of a powerful cabal of a minority of international Jewry live on, and on, and on. Thus, at the beginning of only the second century of ADL's eternal life, the organization "reinvents itself."

Wonder if they'll ever switch to a new victim, such as Muslims. Even if they do, they'll still hound Germans and Germany until neither exists anymore. But the ADL? It'll still exist.

Friday, August 23, 2013


Peter Black
Senior Historian
Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Tel: 202.479.9728

August 23, 2013

Dear Mr. Black:

On July 3, 2013 Mr. Bradley Smith wrote your office at the USHMM regarding the Rosenberg papers, asking, "Why do you not simply scan and post the documents publicly so that everyone who is interested in the matter can view and analyze them for themselves? Once that is completed, the papers can then be returned to the Rosenberg family, who appear to be the legal owners."

Because of the importance of the papers, it seemed a reasonable question. I note that the USHMM has not yet posted the documents but did add a webpage on the matter:
Your page claims that "The Museum is racing to rescue the evidence of the Holocaust."

Ok. That’s good. Now why don't you simply share that evidence with the public?

Unfortunately, the new webpage does not give any additional information on the relevant papers. Instead, its purpose appears to be to whitewash the actions of the man who filched the evidence from the Court, Robert Kempner. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's webpage on the Rosenberg Papers states,

"Dr. Robert M.W. Kempner was a German lawyer who fled Germany for the United States during the war. At the conclusion of the war, Kempner served as the deputy chief counsel and was the chief prosecutor in the ‘Ministries Case’ at the Nuremberg Trials. In this role, Kempner had access to seized Nazi documents in his official capacity as an employee of the U.S. government. At the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials, Kempner returned to the United States and lived in Lansdowne, Pa. Contrary to law and proper procedure, Kempner removed various documents, including the Rosenberg Diary, from U.S. government facilities in Nuremberg and retained them until his death in 1993.”

Your website says, "Kempner received permission from the Office of the Chief of Counsel of War Crimes to retain unclassified documents 'for purposes of writing, lecturing and study.’ “This appears to be contrary to all protocol regarding evidence collected in a criminal prosecution, and it is contradicted by the comments of the ICE itself. But the use of quotation marks implies that there was a written document authorizing Mr. Kempner's removal of documents. Was there? Please respond to this question. Was the Museum, or was it not, quoting a particular document?

If this document exists, it could also provide an insight into what other evidence Mr. Kempner took from the Court files. Your webpage admits: "He returned home with an unknown number of documents in his possession." We believe we know that Kempner destroyed evidence favorable to the defendants, specifically the important Schlegelberg Memo of March 1942. What other evidence did Kempner take? Why did he take it? The other "unknown number of documents" could be of even greater importance than the papers written by Rosenberg!

We at CODOH thank those at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's branch, Homeland Security Investigations, for saving the Rosenberg papers. We encourage them to continue with this important investigation of other stolen and destroyed evidence; not only the evidence taken by Mr. Kempner, but all documents and records improperly taken from the Court files.

In the meantime, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum should expeditiously scan and post the entire collection of the Rosenberg Papers and break the miasma of obscurity which has haunted these Papers for 70 years.


David Merlin,
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
Post Office Box 439016
San Ysidro, CA 92143

Telephone:  209 682 5327