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

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Interview with Chip Smith on Revisionism

First Published in Counter-Currents Publishing

by Greg Johnson

My interview with Chip Smith of Nine-Banded Books continues with a discussion on historical revisionism, particularly Holocaust revisionism, and the works of three of his authors, Bradley Smith, L. A. Rollins, and Samuel Crowell. 

What is your take on revisionism?

In an important sense, I think revisionism simply refers to the ongoing process of investigating and interpreting history. It’s like when we were kids and we learned that Pluto was the ninth planet from the sun. Now it’s just a rock, or a proto-planet, or whatever. Only I just read where they've discovered that Pluto has moons. Does that mean it will be promoted to planet status again? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Notwithstanding a few matters of seismically politicized controversy, where science is concerned most of us live with a tacit understanding that correction, or even upheaval, is part of the process, that new discoveries can supplement or overturn a given theoretical framework that’s been rehearsed in textbooks for decades or more. Once in a while this will manifest in a full-on paradigm shift, and most of us layfolk are yet resigned to adjust our understanding perforce, even if it takes a while. I still have fun arguing with people who believe that peptic ulcers are caused by stress.

When it comes to history, however, people feel a kind of personal investment in the fixed narrative. This fealty can be intensely partisan, and it often comes with deep cultural and emotional moorings, as was evidenced by the recent row over the discovery of the skeletal remains of King Richard III. Such sentiments may be understandable, but they are often at odds with the scholarly enterprise of history, which, like a proper scientific discipline, favors continual revision.

Of course, when most people think of historical revisionism, they have in mind something different. Rather than being rooted in disinterested investigation and interpretation, the kind of revisionism that typically arouses suspicion or hostility has a dissident character that tends—or seeks—not to merely supplement a standing historical narrative but to uproot and replace it with a radically different historical counter-narrative.

This has always been the sticking point with Zinn’s labor-centric alternative history of the United States, to cite one well-known and acceptably controversial example. There are countless other examples of “dissident” revisionism that we could mention without being kicked off the reservation: Windschuttle’s study of the Tasmanian genocide, Michelle Malkin’s defense of Japanese internment during the Second World War, David Graeber’s contrarian study of the roots of money and debt, as well in their general drift as works by Tom Woods, Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, and the granddaddy of American revisionism, Harry Elmer Barnes.

I think there’s also a meta-revisionist cast to the neoreactionary cultural critique that Mencius Moldbug keeps annotating, and I would say the same regarding Errol Morris’s investigative studies of iconic photojournalism.

In a similar sense, I would say that a nascent strain of dissident revisionism can be detected in a spate of recent books that question aspects of the “Good War” and the corresponding mythos of the “Greatest Generation.” Here I would mention Mary Louise Roberts’ What Soldiers Do, Charles Glass’s The Deserters, and, tracking back a bit further, Nicholson Baker’s Human Smoke (which I reviewed for Inconvenient History).

Properly understood, Holocaust revisionism—which I suspect is really what you’re asking about—draws on elements of positivist (or disinterested) historical revisionism along with more motivated (or dissident) currents. I find the subject fascinating not least because of the unique aura of taboo—and the very real threat of prosecution (and persecution)—that surrounds it, but also because it is one of very few areas I can think of where the intellectual substance of a body of scholarship exists at such stark remove from public understanding. I’m loath to even discuss the controversy on interpersonal terms because there are vast swaths of misapprehension and bad faith to be overcome before you even get to the point of rational disagreement. And there’s a very real possibility that you'll lose friends in the process.

So, with that much as backmatter, I guess I might offer my take on Holocaust revisionism in the following way.

First, I think it is well to note that the subject comes with a long pedigree; that is, for as long as the “court narrative” of Nazi atrocity has been codified, there have been scholars who have professed skepticism about certain elements of the orthodox account. ...

Friday, August 9, 2013

The Trial of Guenter Deckert

First Published in
Radical Press

The Trial of Guenter Deckert 

by Sylvia Stolz 

(English translation by Christine B. Miller)  

"A prison sentence will not force me into believing." 
~ Guenter Deckert

"When I have doubts I demand the right to express them ...They talk about tolerance, but mean the inquisition.  ... The hunt to find incorrect literature pretending to fight crime. For a short time people can be intimidated by the threat of punishment, but the brain continues to reason."

Thus spoke Guenter Deckert in his final comment at his sentencing February, 2012 in front of the state Mannheim. The report of his trial follows.

Since January 2, 2013 Guenter has been in prison on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. We accompanied him on his journey to prison and took leave of him at the Mannheim prison gate.

We expressed our thanks for his courage and his commitment to freedom, justice and truth. 

We will always remember that. The day will come when the Germans and other people will appreciate his zeal.

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Letter to Senior Historian Peter Black, USHMM

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

01 August 2013

Dear Mr. Black:

Mr. Johannes Pfaeffle forwarded to CODOH your answer to his request for the name, with proof, of one person gassed at Auschwitz-Birkenau. You gave the name Else Ury and wrote,

"We know that Else Ury went to Auschwitz-Birkenau, because her name appears on a transport list with more than 1100 others deported from Berlin to Auschwitz-Birkenau on January 12, 1943. We know that she did not survive selection upon arrival because her name does not appear in the prisoner registry."

You also wrote, "Else Ury was one of 1,196 German Jews deported from Berlin to Auschwitz on January 13, 1943.”

We at CODOH understand that you receive a great number of inquires ranging from simple to complex. We also believe that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has a duty to provide accurate information to the public. We would respectfully share our concerns with your answer regarding the fate of Else Ury.

The Yad Vashem lists Else Ury five times in their Central Database of Shoah Victims' names. Quote: "Else Ury was born in 1877. Prior to WWII she lived in Berlin, Germany. Else was murdered/perished in Auschwitz, Poland. This information is based on a List of murdered Jews from Germany found in Gedenkbuch - Opfer der Verfolgung der Juden unter der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft in Deutschland 1933-1945, Bundesarchiv (German National Archives), Koblenz 1986."

First, we note a conflict between your statement that “1196 German Jews (were) deported from Berlin to Auschwitz-Birkenau on January 12, 1943" and the report of Danuta Czech in Auschwitz Chronicle that a transport from Berlin arrived at Auschwitz on January 13, 1943 with one thousand (1,000) men, women and children on it. This suggests that 196 persons may have been taken off of the Auschwitz transport.

We also note that there were numerous transports of Jewish deportees from Berlin to Theresienstadt in 1943. These transports carried thousands of people and oftentimes included prominent older German Jews, like Else Ury. One such transport from Berlin went to Theresienstadt on January 12, 1943, the day that Else Ury was deported. It was transport I/80 and carried 105 people.

On another level, it appears that your claim that all people arriving at Auschwitz-Birkenau who were not entered into the Camp Registry were gassed has been shown to be incorrect. Specific examples are Anne Frank, her mother Edith, and sister Margot. They all arrived at Birkenau on September 5, 1944, were not registered into the camp and were not murdered. Instead, Anne and Margot lived in Birkenau and then were moved to Bergen-Belsen Camp, probably on October 28, 1944. Edith Frank was never registered at Auschwitz but died there in January 1945. This was not an uncommon pattern. There were clearly large numbers of unregistered detainees at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Danuta Czech writes, "The separate section of Camp B-IIe for unregistered male and female Jews, Camp B-IIc, and Section B-III (Mexico) are referred to in camp documents as the so-called 'Auschwitz II Transit Camp.' Female Jews without numbers are referred to in the camp records as "transit Jews." See: Auschwitz Chronicle, pg. 565

We also know that, starting in February 1943, Camp B-IIe became a Family camp, mainly for Roma but seemingly for other unregistered detainees. Danuta Czech writes: "By the end of 1943 a total of 18,736 men, women, and children are imprisoned here” [Camp B-IIe] Ibid. pg. 295. We also know that tens of thousands of detainees left Auschwitz. The Auschwitz State Museum website states: "About 135,000 Jews were transferred to other camps as part of the distribution of labor resources and the final liquidation of the camp." In fact, the figure of people who were transferred to other camps from Auschwitz may well be closer to 250,000.

These figures seem to eliminate any certainty that arrival at Auschwitz meant death, or that being unregistered meant being gassed. Also relative to your claim that Else Ury was murdered by gas at Auschwitz, it is worth noting that the crematorium buildings at Birkenau (which are alleged to have been gas chambers) were not completed until March 22, 1943—at the earliest.

Else Ury was a prominent and talented writer. It appears certain that she did not survive World War II and it appears she was deported from Berlin on January 12, 1943. For the reasons given above, we feel that it is improper for you to cite her as a "victim of the gas chambers."


David Merlin, CODOH
Post Office Box 439016
San Ysidro, CA  92143
209 682 5327

Swiss Court Sentences Frank Brunner to Jail for Revisionist Thought Crimes

Dear Mr. Smith:

Thanks for your mail.

On July 31, 2013, I was sentenced to 6 months prison with suspended sentence for 3 years. This means that during 3 years, if I do something wrong again, I’ll go to jail for those 6 months. And, according to the court, I shall not write anything about Israel, the Jewish lobby or the Jews, until the federal court of Switzerland has judged the case. After one and half months in jail, I was set free by the court at the end of the trial.

I was sentenced for discrimination (critics of the Jews and denial of the holocaust), calumny (my lawyer hadn't produced for the court any of the documentary evidence I wanted to show about the true nature of my reports, therefore I had nothing to support my plea and this was a kind of betrayal), obstruction of an official act (I had spit on the face of a prosecutor after she had ordered policemen to search me nude, without reason).

At court I said that I was sure that the revisionists are right about the holocaust and the gas chambers. I wanted to produce, among other evidence, the two headstones of Auschwitz, one that read 4 million victims and the other about 1,5 million victims. I also wished to provide reproductions of newspaper reports about the 6 million Jews between 1905 and 1938. I was unable to provide anything, thanks to my lawyer.

Another blunder of a previous lawyer had serious consequences for me. This lawyer told me that some of my writings about the Jews were unlawful because when someone writes "the Jews are this, the Jews do that", it means that you point to all Jews indiscriminately. This is discrimination according to the Swiss law. The lawyer told me that I should write instead "a big part of the Jews", and then my writings would be lawful. The point is to show that you don't throw all Jews into the same dump.

Therefore, I quickly imagined a "magic paragraph" in which I noticed the small minority of Jews who stand up against Israel and the Jewish lobby and themselves endure persecutions because of that. According to my previous lawyer, with this "magic paragraph" at the end of it, any of my writings would become lawful. Therefore I added this "magic paragraph" to all my writings and then I sent those corrected writings to my lawyer. He had to check them and, if he was satisfied, he had then to send them to the court. But it seems that he forgot to do it. My last lawyer said that when he checked the file at the court, my corrected writings weren't there and he had to bring them himself.

If this is confirmed, it means that neither the judge or the prosecutor had received a copy of my corrected writings when I believed that they had gotten them. I took for granted that my previous lawyer had sent those writings shortly after having gotten them from me. Therefore, since there was no reaction from the judge or the prosecutor about my corrected writings, I became confident that they were satisfied with my corrections and that the problem was over. If they had been unsatisfied, they would have written me and explained to me what was still wrong, or I would have thought so.

So, imagine my astonishment at court when the prosecutor and the judge said that my corrected writings were still unlawful, that I should have made additional corrections, and so on. If they had explained that to me a few months earlier, I could have fixed the issue before the trial. Instead, I was stigmatized as the guy who does not care about the law, who spit on the face of a prosecutor, who did only "cosmetic" changes to his unlawful writings. I was the nazi on duty willing to cause a new genocide. Fortunately, the prosecutor was there to protect the Jews from people like me.

The fact that I had been jailed just a month and half before the trial didn't help me either. There in prison I did not have even a copy of my file, and I did not have one in the court either. I had to work just with my memory. The case involved about 60 of my writings, so you can imagine.

Since English isn't my mother language, please correct the mistakes I have done in my report.



(Note: the language in Mr. Brunner’s letter has been lightly edited.)

Web Site (French Language):

Sunday, August 4, 2013

The Two Sides of Dershowitz's Mouth

Harvard legal scholar Alan Dershowitz has amassed for himself a formidable reputation as a pronouncer of learned views on legal matters, but his reputation for objectivity may not hold up so well under scrutiny.

He recently declaimed, as he seems to roughly annually, on the unlikelihood of Israeli atomic spy Jonathan Pollard's being able to repeat his crime if he is released from the life sentence he is currently serving for his crime. This hard-to-counter observation, he then deftly converts into an argument for Pollard's release from prison.

As for other persons accused of crimes that were not crimes in the places and at the times they were allegedly committed - say, a putative guard at a German concentration camp such as John Demjanjuk, Dershowitz displays no interest in the accused's ability to revisit his crimes upon a defenseless world. At the time Dershowitz lamented the portions of John Demjanjuk's life that he did not spend in jail for a "crime" in which he neither killed nor hurt anyone, Demjanjuk was 92 years old, and in possession of no capacity whatsoever to take part in any "Holocaust" real or imagined. But no mercy from the eminent oracle of justice for any person so charged, regardless of the quality of the evidence or the antiquity of the offenses.

Demjanjuk was accused - and acquitted - of guarding a camp in which Germany detained criminals, enemy agents, and perhaps racial undesirables during a war for its existence, some 70 years ago. Pollard willingly and under no duress conveyed secret information to a country other than the one (the US) he was employed by and was a citizen of, enabling this other country to develop weapons of mass destruction that have threatened its region in all the time since, up to and including now.

Dershowitz may see the cases as different, as indeed the charges and the quality and quantity of the proofs of them truly are. But the sides he comes down on between them are far better explained by his tribal loyalties than they are by any principles of law or justice.