Speech held during David Duke's Homecoming Convention
May 29, 2004, 3:30-4:30 pm

This is the manuscript of the planned speech. The actual speech deviated from that script.
To listen to the actual speech itself, please download this mp3 file.

Ladies and Gentlemen!

Germar Rudolf's "Rudolf Report," a verification of the "Leuchter Report" on the gas chambers of Auschwitz. This forensic expert repot resulted in massive persecution of its author in his native Germany.

Let me first express my gratitude to David Duke for having the opportunity to speak at this convention. My appearance here is anything but business as usual, and I am not referring here to the fact that I have been subjected to massive persecution in my country of origin, Germany, which still today makes it rather difficult for me to remain a free man. What I am referring to here are two factors which almost convinced me not to appear here.

The first is more of a sad story, because some co-revisionists told me: "Don't appear here. He has been convicted; he must have done something wrong." I in turn responded to this: Well, listen! What we know about David Duke's conviction comes from the media and from the courts, and as revisionists we all should know that you will never find the truth in media reports and in court sentences, of course. So I insisted on making up my own mind. Since I did not know him personally, I wanted to talk to him personally. And I am sure, and David Duke promised that, that he will eventually publish all his paper work and documents on the internet so that we all can find out for ourselves that he was really sentenced to jail unjustly.

What worried me more than this issue is my own legal status in this country. Because of a never ending series of police raids, book burnings, and criminal trials against me for my scientific writings in my native Germany, I applied for political asylum in the United States in late 2000. The case is still pending, and thus I need to watch with whom I associate. This is so because any political activity of mine that the authorities could interpret as a - quote - act of persecution - or a - quote - act of endorsing persecution - that is that I persecute somebody or endorse such persecution - any such act could lead to my losing my asylum case. The result would be that Mr. Ashcroft or his successor would deport me back to Germany, where I would face many years in prison.

Revisionist prisoner of conscience Ernst Zündel, here in a car of the INS while being deported to Canada into solitary confinement.

Of course, you might wonder how my appearance at this fine conference could possibly be interpreted as an "act of endorsing persecution". Looking over the northern border to Canada would give you the answer. Since February of 2003, a fellow revisionist and dear friend of mine, Ernst Zündel, is being held in solitary confinement there, awaiting his deportation to Germany, because the Canadian authorities consider him a threat to their national security. All the evidence they have for this is the - sometimes unfounded - claim that in the past Ernst Zündel associated in one way or another with various groups considered right-wing radical or extremist by the Canadian authorities.

Guilt by association is thus alive and kicking just north of the borders of this great country, and in the wake of 9/11 and the so-called Patriot Act, I have no doubt that the U.S. authorities would find a way to argue similarly if they get the chance.

I therefore want all of you to keep in mind the risk I am taking by speaking to you. Just consider the image some of you as individuals or the organizations you represent have in the media or with the authorities. Consider the cartoon-like distortion they draw of you as evil persons and organizations - and of course of me as well. They see the persons and organizations I associate with today as evil, and they might ultimate try to take advantage of this by claiming that I associate with groups that - in their eyes - endorse acts of persecution.

So why do I speak to you anyway, even if it could lead to the utter destruction of my social existence? Let me list some of my reasons:

  1. The concept of guilt by association is immoral and illegal in any state under the rule of law. If I would avoid associating with people I disagree with just because I fear legal disadvantages, I would endorse such immoral and illegal practices. It is therefore the duty of every citizen not to pay any attention to legal threats of punishment for associating with the - quote - wrong people - unquote.
  2. The only reason that I would accept for not talking to certain people would be that I myself have come to the conclusion that I would not want to associate with certain people holding certain views. The problem is, of course, how I could possibly know or find out, what views you guys have regarding certain political issues. In other words: in order to determine whether or not I want to talk to you, I would need to subject each and every one of you to a thorough political screening. And in order to be fair, I would have to apply this to every person I ever talk to: be it in this room, where I meet certain people I never saw before and might never see again thereafter, or for example in any subway train in Chicago, the passengers of which I might never see again either. Of course, such a procedure would not only be absurd, but also runs contrary to all customs of a free society and even more: it would be against the human right to privacy. I therefore refuse to collect intelligence information about any of my current or future listeners or partners in a debate.
  3. I myself was repeatedly the victim of guilt by association. Not just strangers, but even individuals I once considered to be friends and even relatives have refused in the past to deal with me because they were put under social pressure. Even though my so-called friends and relatives knew that the propaganda put out by Germany's media was wrong and distorted, they still caved in to the pressure. I therefore made it my policy not to be submissive to the demands of "political correctness", but to stand up for my principles; to decide for myself with whom I want to talk; and to make up my own mind about other people rather than let others tell me what I have to think about them.
  4. If I intended to bow to the pressures of governments which do not want me to talk about certain issues and not to associate with certain people, I could have stayed in Germany, served my sentence, and quit doing what I am doing. But I decided to go the other way, to boldly demand my right to speak about what ever I like and to whomever I like, without being held responsible for the views and actions of the other. I am not changing this attitude just because I am in the United States.
  5. Censorship is the biggest impediment historical revisionism encounters. How more self-defeating could I act than censoring myself on top of this by not speaking out when ever I get the chance?
  6. Last but not least, it is certainly true that I do not agree with certain views that some of you hold. But such disagreement, I might stress, is only too natural. It can be observed anywhere humans get together. But is that a reason not to talk to each other? Isn't one of the principles of this allegedly enlightened society that, if somebody holds a view considered to be wrong or even immoral, we do not shun this person but rather try to talk to him in an attempt to change his mind? So even if you all would hold views that were a total moral abomination: what exactly would be so bad about my talking to you in an attempt of changing your way of looking at revisionism?

However, as I said before: I do not know your views, and I do not even want to know, because it is none of my business to know each human being's views on all potentially controversial issues.

I apologize for this extended disclaimer, but considering my legal situation, I hope that you understand why I had to start my presentation with these remarks.

Although I am not here to find out about your views on certain issues, I understand that you all are here in order to find out about my views on certain controversial issues, which is, after all, one of the reasons why you went to great lengths and expense in order to be gathered here. So let me now get all of you in trouble by associating with me tonight/day.

In a phone call some two weeks ago, Mr. Duke told me what his conference would be all about: finding and discussing concepts on how to change the social and political situation in America. Knowing a little about David Duke should enable anybody to get an inkling of what he means by that. Let me therefore take this opportunity to first of all explain what revisionism is and what it is not.

Revisionism is not an ideology. It is a mere concept, a method. Revisionism is mainly about exactitude. Historical revisionism is about the attempt to make the writing of history more accurate, to bring it into accord with the facts.

As boring as it sounds, there is some dynamite in it, because what I just described is nothing else but the basic description of any historiography. Fact is, however, that many normal, or should I rather say mainstream historians do not abide by this rule when it comes to certain issues. The reason for that is very simple: It is called political power.

Book co-edited and published by the author and from which some of the thoughts and cartoons used here were taken.

Every political system and every society exerts pressure upon its historians to write history in a way that is favorable for it. Dictatorships might do it more bluntly and brutally than so-called republics, but the difference is only gradual. Historical revisionism is the force that resists and fights this pressure. Though in and of itself apolitical, historical revisionism thus has a profound political effect. Because it is always directed against the powers that be, it is always oppositional, if not outright revolutionary. However, I want all of you to keep this in mind: The power of revisionism lies in the fact that it is scientific, that it abstains from any attempt of becoming political. Because only unambiguous, factual statements backed-up with hard evidence and free of any personal attacks and biased interpretation have the power to potentially convince everybody.

Let me now get a little closer to my real topic: Holocaust revisionism. This is only a small subsection of revisionism, albeit certainly the most controversial one. Prof. Robert Faurisson once stated that Holocaust revisionism is the intellectual atom bomb in the hand of the poor and powerless. He also said that the main sufferers under Holocaust propaganda, and thus the main beneficiaries of Holocaust revisionism, are the German people - but not its leaders - as well as the Palestinian people in its entirety. I think, however, that both statements are not very helpful, as they do not really show the whole picture. Let me therefore draw a more complete picture by trying to describe first of all who the main beneficiaries of Holocaust propaganda are and why. I follow my own line of argument as laid out in a contribution to a commemorative booklet I published in January this year on behalf of Prof. Faurisson's 75th birthday. I divide the groups who massively benefit from the Holocaust myths into three groups:

  1. Zionists. This includes most, but not all Jews, but also many Christians who have an irrational adoration for Jews as God's Chosen People. There certainly are more Zionist Christians in the world than Zionist Jews, though Christians are usually not as fanatic as Jews. Why Zionists benefit from the Holocaust myth is obvious, as it gives Jews an aura of being morally unassailable, which is the pole position to gain control over other groups of people, as Prof. Norman Finkelstein as so nicely described in his book "The Holocaust Industry". Finally, most Zionist Christians are Zionist because they believe in the Holocaust, which turned the Jews as such and the modern Israeli State with them into religious icons.
  2. International capitalism has an interest in breaking down borders both politically/fiscally as well as culturally/ethnically, because every capitalist's profit rises if he can freely sell the same products everywhere in the world. The Holocaust is usually depicted as the logical outcome of rightwing ideologies (like National Socialism), as the ultimate result of nationalism and ethnic exclusivism: Thus, the Holocaust Myth is the perfect weapon to fight any kind of national (speak: rightwing) independence, autarky, and protectionism, any kind of cultural and ethnic identity and exclusivism.
  3. All ideologues claiming that all humans are equal - I call them egalitarians - have a wonder-weapon in the Holocaust myth, as it is the ultimate - quote - proof - unquote - of the absolute evil of any ideology, which distinguishes between subsets of humanity. With the Holocaust as an argument, everybody dissenting with egalitarian views can easily be silenced by putting him into context with the gas chambers:
  4. "We all know where ideologies end, which claim that people are not equal: they end in the gas chambers of Auschwitz."

    Thus, the ideology of egalitarianism, which is the driving force of leftist sociology and politics, becomes morally virtually unassailable. Although egalitarian ideologues are usually opposed to international capitalism, they effectively support each other, because the destruction of specific cultures and ethnic groups - identity against equality - is a goal of both ideologies. Leftist ideologies are also sometimes opposed to altruistic values, as soon as it is considered to be opposed to self-realization and emancipation, because altruism requires a feeling of identity with a distinguished group and self-sacrificial behavior in favor of this group - and consequently at least indirectly against other groups. International capitalism shares this intention to destroy identities and all ties to identifiable people, because the atomized consumer without identity, who has mere egoistic, materialistic, hedonistic so-called values, but no altruistic ideals anymore, can be manipulated very easily to a lemming-like behavior, easy prey for any advertising campaign.

Demographics show that the indigenous populations of Europe collapse as a result of a hedonistic pandemic, which is flooding that continent with an intensity that goes parallel with the intensity of Holocaust propaganda. In one hundred years, Europe will be depopulated of its original people, replaced by aliens mainly from Asia Minor and Africa. North America is facing a similar situation, but it may be seen as a mere 'reconquista' by mainly Mexican mestizos.

International capitalism brings the world to the brink of a worldwide ecologic exhaustion and economic collapse - and soon beyond - mainly driven by a progressive redistribution of wealth from poor to rich - both national and international - caused by a monetary system based on public debt and interest on interest. Social unrest, perhaps even revolution is unavoidable in the long run. A way out seems impossible, as it requires radical 'new' financial concepts, which had been successfully tested by... the unspeakable regime that is claimed to have invented the 'gas chambers.' So hush up everybody and keep running toward the cliffs!

In the meantime, Washington's Zionist lobby has started to wage an 'eternal' war in order to stabilize Israel, conquer Middle East petroleum sources, and support the crumbling international capitalist system's backbone - the U.S. Dollar - by pure force and violence. It will all be in vain, as nobody can evade the mathematical laws of exponential functions lurking behind public debt and a gigantic trade deficit.

World economy out of balance: For years now the U.S. loses 5% of its total national income to foreign countries, the main beneficiary of which is Germany.

So what is the role of Holocaust revisionism? It is true that Holocaust revisionism cannot resolve any of the pressing issues just mentioned. What Holocaust revisionism does, though, is to challenge the moral and cultural hegemony of the dominant ideologies of western societies, whose deficiencies are the reason for the misdevelopments just outlined. If Holocaust revisionism succeeds, the moral and cultural hegemony of egalitarianism, internationalism, and Zionism collapses, because competing concepts can no longer be vilified that easily, if at all, and because all those who took advantage of the holocaust for their political ends will face a situation where this will backfire if not even blow up right into their face.

Although Holocaust revisionism is neither left nor right, neither German nor Jewish, neither internationalistic nor patriotic, it is always on the side of those who are suppressed: be they Palestinians, Iraqis, German patriots, or any other group struggling to preserve their identity or even their mere existence. Tomorrow it could even be Jews, should their identity become threatened.

I understand that many of you are worried about the future of the cultural and ethnic European heritage of the United States. Although European Americans are neither a minority in this country nor are they suppressed, it is certainly true that those who insist on preserving a mainly European identity of this country and who argue against intermarriage, face massive opposition by the establishment. The reason for this is because such ideas oppose all three above-mentioned ideologies: internationalism, egalitarianism, and Zionism. As such, Holocaust revisionism can be helpful to you. But please be aware that Holocaust revisionism is no tool exclusively at your disposal. It is also a potential tool of many nations of this world in their struggle against economic exploitation by internationalist capitalism, the driving force of which is the United States. In addition, it is a potential tool of all other ethnic minorities in this country to preserve their heritage and resist attempts of assimilation. And last but not least: As an undermining force of the legitimacy of internationalism, Holocaust revisionism is also a potential tool to destroy the new empire called United States of America. This means in clear language: By using Holocaust revisionism to further any political goals, every American citizen saws on the branch of wealth he is sitting upon, because most of American wealth currently depends on economically and ecologically exploiting the world. When this kind of new imperialism stops, American wealth will stop as well, and massive hardship will result for the majority in this country, at least until America has been restructured to a fairer, more social, more altruistic society.

To close this section of my presentation, let me summarize by saying that Holocaust revisionism in itself is and must be apolitical. However, the potential political impact of Holocaust revisionism is global in scale and revolutionary in depth. This impact would not just to the benefit of just one certain group, but to the benefit of all those suffering under the powers that be, and this includes perhaps 95% of the entire world population, primarily in the third world, but also the poor and suppressed in the industrialized nations.

I say this here because for a political struggle everybody ought to keep the old Roman proverb in mind: divide et impera - dived and rule. If, however, you feel like you need to throw off the yoke of alien or hostile rulers, you need to apply the opposite principle: unita et libera - unite and liberate. You need to unite as many allies for your struggle against the powers that be as possible, otherwise you will not succeed to liberate yourself. Therefore, you need to find common ground with other groups that suffer under the current situation. I have shown how Holocaust revisionism can potentially gain the support of 95% of humanity - whites, yellows, reds, and blacks, American and foreign, Christian, Muslims, atheists, and even non-Zionist Jews. This way, we can win.

Now to the much harder question: How can Holocaust revisionism gain cultural hegemony in its field? My answer to this may surprise you, perhaps even upset you, but here it is: We can do precious little to achieve this, and if revisionism goes mainstream, it will not do this because of any of us. And here is why:

Two main characteristics of modern societies are:

  1. They are highly structured, with each member having highly specialized tasks.
  2. They are information societies, where the information is transported to a high degree by media controlled by the powers that be.

The effect of this is as follows:

To a) In a highly specialized society, the experts in a certain field determine what is perceived as true and what is not. Most people have no other choice than to rely on expert's advice, and rightly so. Therefore, as long as almost all western historians subscribe to the established mainstream version of the "Holocaust", the western world will assume that this is the "truth".

To b) Modern media, dominated by TV, in combination with sophisticated psychological techniques, lead to the insurmountable fact that the vast majority will always believe what the news will tell them. And there will never be a way for us to compete with those trillion-dollar heavy mass media. Each drop of information we bring to public attention will be drowned in an ocean of mainstream disinformation.

When David Duke asked me two weeks ago to present a handy summary of the most impressive and up-to-date arguments of revisionism, I thought to myself: why should I do this? The answer could be: either to convince you because you yourself aren't convinced, or in order to enable you to go out there and proselytize the world. However, my experience in many presentations I made before uninformed audiences is that I simply cannot convince a brainwashed crowd with scientific arguments presented in an hour or two, when they then simply go back home and expose themselves to twenty more years of uninterrupted massive Holocaust propaganda out of all channels of all media. My experience is also, that only some two to three percent of any group of people are capable of critical out-of-the-box thinking. The majority will always run with the crowd. And when it comes to the Holocaust, the crowd will run as the media tells them, and the media will report what the majority of historians writes.

So does that mean we are stuck for ever with this gigantic lie?

Nope, we are not. But the solution does not lie in us revisionists trying to convince ordinary people or by trying to make futile counter propaganda against the mass media. Of course, I keep trying this, too, because one never knows, and because it is also a necessary means of economic survival for me to have some customers who think I am right. However, I do not have the illusion that we revisionists ourselves will ever be able to turn this cart around. The solution lies somewhere else: In the only asset revisionism has:

And that is Exactitude.

If it is true that only those 2 to 3% of critical thinkers are promising candidates for our efforts, and if it is furthermore true that it is the experts to which the media and the crowd will listen, then we have to start with those 2-3% of critical historians. And there is only one thing that is capable of convincing a critical historian: being so highly accurate and superior in factual reporting of how it really was that they cannot help but to come around. And that is what I want to talk about now.

Over the last eight years I have heard over and over again that Holocaust revisionism has explored all that there is to explore, that all relevant arguments have been made, that everything the other side says has been refuted a thousand times, that there is nothing left to do but to get it out into the open.

Such a statement is both true and false. Even though it is true that some really convincing blockbuster arguments have been around for many years, if not decades, it is untrue to claim that everything has been explored and that all arguments of the other side have been refuted. I tend to the other extreme: When I started to get involved in revisionism in the early 1990s, I was struck by the lack of works that meet scholarly standards. Having gone through ten years of ivy league education in sciences, I thoroughly learned what a scholarly work is supposed to look like. Hardly any of the revisionist works I read in those years met that standard. And if the standard was met by an occasional work, the topic treated by it covered only a tiny area of the huge event called the Holocaust, which span an entire continent in distance, five years in time, and involved millions of individuals in hundreds of distinct places. How can anybody claim that a few monographs by a handful of authors could possibly cover the entire area?

It was not before the mid 1990s that research deserving the term scholarly started: Research that was conducted in numerous archives and locations all over Europe, but mainly in eastern Europe which had been inaccessible before. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of documents were and are being unearthed and analyzed. And it was not before 1998 that the first results of it were published in a series of papers and monographs that I have both the duty and the honor to bring to life in my bilingual publishing company. And I might say that we have only just begun the enormous work of writing a meticulously documented series of monographs and anthologies of what did and what did not happen during the war with Europe's Jews.

To give you just one example: Let us look into just one of the standard works on the Holocaust, Danuta Czech's "Kalendarium of Events of the Auschwitz Camp". The first edition of this work of some 900 pages was published in the 1960s. It is based upon thousands of documents and eyewitness statements purportedly proving mass extermination in Auschwitz. There has been nothing on the revisionist side to ever even address this work. So how can anybody claim we have refuted it, when we did not even address it? And that is exactly what is required in order to convince skeptical historians: a) refute the thesis of this and similar books and b) publish one that is so much more accurate, exact, and reliable that any critical historian has to change sides. We haven't done anything remotely like that yet. Since 2000, however, we are working on this gigantic task of addressing the Auschwitz camp with several authors, and I have invested tens of thousands of dollars into it, despite my own financial problems. The first results of this research have been presented to the public in several papers that I published in my magazines, and while doing this research, we were able to come up with a series of books on other camps as well, like Majdanek, Stutthof, Treblinka, Belzec, some of which you can find on my book table. All of these works are groundbreaking, in that they set standards of thorough historical research never seen before on either side of this debate. The huge two volume, 2000 plus page book on Auschwitz, however, that will stand at the end of this project and will rely on tens of thousands of original documents and on lots of forensic evidence, will be published in perhaps three years, if we are lucky. The reason for that is simple: Revisionism consists right now basically only of ONE full-time researcher. Yes, you heard me right: Just one person under six billion! And no, it is not me, since I am only a publisher! The reason for this is also simple to name: persecution. Most people who did some research at some point were driven into personal and economic ruin by persecution and prosecution, as was I.

Some results of our ongoing research efforts can be found in the books that I published recently, in case anybody is interested in it. It is written in a way to convince the skeptical expert historian, and I will show you now that this strategy works.

J. Hoffmann's "Stalin's War of Extermination": revisionism for beginners

Holocaust semi-revisionism by F. Meyer.

"Dissecting the Holocaust:" Holocaust revisionism gone mainstream

Quoting revisionist research in mainstream works has become unavoidable.

The first sign of that was a book published by German government historian Joachim Hoffmann in 1995 on the German-Soviet War between 1941 and 1945. Although its main focus is elsewhere, Hoffmann did discuss propaganda lies and exaggerations by the Soviets, and by so doing more accidentally then systematically stumbled over revisionist research which he dared to quote. I had the pleasure to publish the English translation of this work, and by so doing I managed to get an insight not only into the author's mind but also to learn what is going on in the circles of Germany's historians: first of all, not a few of them are genuinely afraid of German governmental persecution, but secondly, they are also aware of the fact that history as it is taught in Germany is hardly accurate. They might have only scratched the surface of lies, but they sure do smell the stench. Fear of persecution as well as lack of arguments hold them back still, though.

The second landmark I want to talk about is an article published in May 2002 by a leading editor of Germany's leading newsmagazine Der Spiegel, Fritjof Meyer. This article made many concessions to revisionism, of which I would like to list only a few:

This article resulted in an exchange between Meyer and the head of the research department of the Auschwitz Museum, Franscizek Piper. In Meyer's rebuttal of Piper's attack, he relies even more on revisionist arguments, quoting tens of documents that our diligent researchers unearthed and published over the last years - although Meyer does not mention them with a single word. This exchange with an analysis of all the concessions and errors made has been thoroughly documented in my journal The Revisionist.

Step three forward is a book by German mainstream historian Prof. Werner Maser that was published just this April. It has the title "Forgery, Fairytale, and Truth about Hitler and Stalin". Although I have not yet read the book which is on its way to me, a German publisher friend of mine told me already that Maser piggy backs on Meyer's courageous semi-revisionism and goes even one step further: He dares quoting my German language magazine, apologizing for doing so, needless to say, but he claims that this is a magazine which publishes so many relevant documents that he cannot but quote it.

See, here you have it: If you just provide enough exactitude and overwhelming scientific evidence, the critical ones within the community of historians will eventually come around. Slowly first, but they will come. And to be honest: I don't care if they make proper references to our works or not or if they even vilify us along the way, as long as they get the facts straight, that's all I am interested in for the time being.

What we can experience right now in Germany is the first phase of a reorientation, the preparatory phase of a historiographical revolution. And I am sure that it will spread, because I will dig my heels into the soil of this country in order to keep publishing in the new lingua franca so that the entire world can find out about the mother of all lies as created and abused by the powers that be!

So far I have talked almost exclusively about politics. However, since I do not want to disappoint those of you who expected to hear something about revisionism either, I will comply with David's wish to give you a guideline of how to approach the Holocaust issue when confronting others. And again it might not be what you expect, because I will not give you a handy summary of the most striking revisionist arguments on the Holocaust here. One reason why I will not do this is because I came to understand that most people who are confronted with a massive broadside of revisionist arguments react opposite to what we want: they consider us zealots at best and evil Nazis at worst. However, if you really want to have a nice handout with a very concise summary of arguments, you can get our flyer "The Holocaust Controversy" back at my book table for free, or if you want it more thoroughly, I recommend purchasing my book "Dissecting the Holocaust" instead.

As I mentioned before, I have some experience with various attempts to get people to become more critical about what they are being force-fed by media, politics, and educational institutions, and ultimately to listen to revisionist arguments. The most successful approach so far stays completely away from the Holocaust itself, but instead reports about events in 1900, the year when Holocaust propaganda started. Yes, you heard me right: 1900. Not 1941, not 1933, no, One Nine Zero Zero.

D. Heddesheimer's revolutionary work "The First Holocaust" on Jewish Holocaust Claims during and after World War One.

One example of post-Word War One holocaust propaganda.

Gas Chamber Propaganda 1916.
Click on picture to enlarge.

Gas Chamber Propaganda 1942.
Click on picture to enlarge.

Gas Chamber Propaganda 1991, twice.
Click on picture to enlarge.

What follows now I owe mainly to one of my authors, Don Heddesheimer, who researched everything I will talk about and whose book I had the honor to publish last year. Its title is "The First Holocaust. Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns with Holocaust Claims During and After World War One." The title itself explains a lot.

The question is basically the following: Since when do we know that Six Million Jews died during the Holocaust of World War Two? Just a few minutes ago I mentioned German mainstream Historian Hoffmann as the first to use Holocaust revisionist arguments. He also discovered that the Soviets used the Six Million Figure in their propaganda publications already as early as December 1944, at a time when nobody could possibly know the death toll yet. Heddesheimer has unearthed many articles mainly published in the New York Times between the End of World War One and 1927, which claim that at that time millions of Jews in Eastern Europe would face catastrophe by starvation and disease if they would not receive massive aid. Buzz words like Holocaust, Six Million, and extermination were all there. I have reproduced some sentences from the NYT articles on the cover of Heddesheimer's book. The most striking example, which is known already for quite a while, was published in the October 31 issue of the magazine The American Hebrew in 1919 by Martin H. Glynn, who had been governor of the State of New York at the end of World War One. In this article we read sentences like these:

"From across the sea, six million men and women call to us for help [...] six million human beings. [...] Six million men and women are dying [...] in the threatened holocaust of human life [...] six million famished men and women. Six million men and women are dying [...]"

Heddesheimer also proves that these claims were all fraudulent. He even shows that as early as 1900 Zionists claimed that six million suffering Jews in Europe would be a good argument for Zionism.

You see, Holocaust propaganda is much older than World War Two. To make people realize this is such an eye opener that after such a revelation most people will accept the possibility that things may have been made up.

Another series parallel to a century of almost uninterrupted Holocaust propaganda is that related to gas chambers. Let me show you two newspaper articles about this. The first one was published in the British Daily Telegraph on March 22, 1916, page 7, that is, in the middle of World War One. It reads:

"According to reliable information, the victims of the Austrians and Bulgarians exceeded 700,000. [...] Women, children, and old men were shut up in the churches by the Austrians, and either stabbed with bayonet or suffocated by means of asphyxiating gas."

It is today generally acknowledged that this was a propaganda lie created by the British. Now juxtapose this with an article that appeared in the very same London Daily Telegraph on June 25, 1942, p. 5, that is, five days before the Jewish owned and controlled New York Times reported about the alleged mass murder of Jews in German controlled Europe for the first time:

"GERMANS MURDER 700,000 JEWS IN POLAND.

TRAVELLING GAS CHAMBERS. [...]

More than 700,000 Polish Jews have been slaughtered by the Germans in the greatest massacre in world history. [...]"

Now, if you think that it is obviously that nobody would make such outrageous claims about what is going on in any country today, I have to teach you another quite astounding lesson: Let me bring up only two examples from a war that took place in 1991, almost 50 years after the second holocaust propaganda started. It is about America's first war against Iraq to drive Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. The New York based Jewish Press, then calling itself "The largest independent Anglo-Jewish weekly newspaper," wrote on its title page on February 21, 1991:

"IRAQIS HAVE GAS CHAMBERS FOR ALL JEWS"

Or take the front cover announcement of volume 12, number 1 (spring 1991), of Response, a periodical published by the Jewish Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles and distributed in 381,065 copies:

"GERMANS PRODUCE ZYKLON B IN IRAQ

(Iraq's German-made gas chamber)"

I hope that you get the idea: 1900, 1916, 1927, 1942, 1991...

In 1991, it was all invented, for sure, as were the later claims prior to America's second war against Iraq in 2003 that Iraq possessed or was about to possess weapons of mass destruction - the weapon of mass destruction called "Zyklon B" not being mentioned here, though. But as Israel's renowned newspaper Ha'aretz proudly proclaimed on April 7, 2003:[1]

"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history."

And just recently, on May 21, 2004, Senator Fritz Hollings has proudly proclaimed that of course this war was fought for Israel and for nothing else.[2] Because, as we all know, the Jews in Israel deserve preventive protection from annihilation by weapons of mass destruction - Zyklon B or not, invented or not...

With just these arguments at hand, put down in one small paper back book which doesn't even touch directly upon the hot topic of "The Holocaust," you can go out there and open people's mind, to make them see that maybe not quite all claims referring to events between 1941 and 1945 are completely true either. Maybe there is a chance after all that things were twisted, distorted, exaggerated, invented. And if they allow this possibility in their own minds, they are open-minded enough to read for themselves in our highly informative literature - which can all be accessed on the internet - so they can find out who has the better arguments.

I thank you for your attention.


Notes

[1]Ari Shavit, "White man's burden," Ha'aretz, April 7, 2003; www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279.
[2] http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/statements/2004521A35.html