Michael Santomauro (he’s our guy!) In "The Wall Street Journal"?
Published: 2011-12-01

This document is part of a periodical (Smith's Report).
Use this menu to find more documents that are part of this periodical.

Briefly, the offices of a satirical French weekly newspaper, Charlie Hebdo (Charlie Weekly) were firebombed the first week in November http://tinyurl.com/68sq7jy . Charlie, which has a history of publishing cartoons and other materials offensive to many Muslims, was scheduled to publish a special edition of the paper purporting to have Muhammad Himself as guest editor. In addition to the firebombing, Charlie’s website was hacked and replaced with an image of the Grand Mosque in Mecca and the words ”No God but Allah.”

These events led to an unusually public discussion in France about the issue of a free press. The prime minister, François Fillon, said: "Freedom of expression is an inalienable value of democracy and any incursion against press freedom must be condemned with the utmost force.” The interior minister, Claude Guéant, said: "You like or you don't like Charlie Hebdo, but it's a newspaper. Press freedom is sacrosanct for the French." François Hollande, the Socialist presidential candidate, told Le Monde newspaper the incident demonstrated that the struggle for press freedom and "respect of opinions" was a permanent battle, adding that "fundamentalism must be eradicated in all its forms". I was rather surprised to discover such sentiments in Paris, considering the French history with persecuting and jailing those who do not follow the State line on the H. story.

When a story on the Charlie incident was published in The Wall Street Journal, there were a number of online comments touching on the issue of a free press during which the question of a free press for Holocaust revisionism came up. Okay. It happens. But it seldom goes any further. There is no appetite in mainline journalism in America for discussing the right of the citizen to discuss revisionist arguments in public. This time something unlikely happened. Michael Santomauro, who runs the revisionist news service Reporter’s Notebook (http://tinyurl.com/7w9gtfk), entered the as-yet-unformed discussion to point out the, let’s say, hypocritical statements regarding a free press by French politicos. He received a thoughtful reply by one Alan Sherman. Here I will reproduce only the final paragraph of Sherman’s response to Santomauro.

“I don't know you, nor have I read your book. I just find it curious that Holocaust deniers (shall we say ‘skeptics’) will ply their trade as ‘legitimate discussion’, irrespective of the mountains of evidence recorded by the perpetrators who thought the world would thank them. Contrast this with the fictitious work above where there is not even a tiny fraction of the amount of written or photographic evidence. Not to mention no living eyewitnesses. Yet, nobody ever calls slavery into question.”

And here is where Santomauro posted in the comments section of The Wall Street Journal a 28-point outline of H. revisionist questions/arguments. I’m reprinting Santomauro’s 28 points here not because they will be new to you— to the contrary—but because this kind of exchange of ideas with regard to the H. story has been verboten in every segment of the American press for decades now. And yet here it is—on The Wall Street Journal’s website. The guys who are taking care of this section of the WSJ’s website know exactly what they are doing, and those who supervise the guys who are taking care of this section of the WSJ’s website know exactly what they are doing. This is nothing like an oversight. It is the result of a series of conscious decisions. Here then is a substantial part of what Michael Santomauro posted to the Wall Street Journal ‘s website:

Dear Alan Sherman:

Listed below are some of the "problems” I have with the Holocaust. Should these be cleared up, it would go a long way toward my accepting it – they are in no particular order.

1) Why did Elie Wiesel and countless other Jews survive the Holocaust if it was the intention of the Third Reich to eliminate every Jew they got their hands on? Elie was a prisoner for several years; other Jews survived even longer. Most of these "survivors" were ordinary people who did not have any unique expertise that the Germans could have exploited for their war effort. There was no logical reason for them to be kept alive. The very existence of more than a million survivors even today, some sixty years later, contradicts one of the basic components of the holocaust i.e. that the Germans had a policy to eliminate every Jew they got their hands on.

2) Why is there no mention of the Holocaust in Churchill's six-volume History of the Second World War or the wartime memoirs of either De Gaulle or Eisenhower or any of the other lesser luminaries who wrote about the Second World War? Keep in mind all these were written years after the war ended and thus after the holocaust had been allegedly proven by the Nuremberg Trials? With regard to the Holocaust, the silence of these “cognoscenti " is deafening!

3) What was an inmate infirmary (and a brothel) doing in Auschwitz if in fact it was a death camp?

4) Why would the Germans round up Jews from their far flung-empire, thereby tying up large numbers of personnel and rolling stock, while fighting a world war on two fronts to deliver people to "death camps" hundreds of miles away who were then executed upon arrival—wouldn't a bullet on the spot have appealed to the legendary German sense of efficiency?

5) Why after sixty years have historians been unable to come up with a single German document that points to a holocaust? Should we believe the likes of Raul Hilberg that in the place of written orders there was an "incredible meeting of the minds" by the literally tens of thousands of people who would have had to coordinate their actions in order to carry out an undertaking of this magnitude?

6) How come it is still insisted upon that six million Jews were killed when the official Jewish death toll at Auschwitz, the flagship of the Holocaust gulag, has been reduced from an immediate post war figure of 3 million, to a figure of somewhat less than one million? Why do many respond to this observation by saying, "what's the difference whether it's six million or one million". The answer is that the difference is five million. Another difference is that saying so can get you three years in an Austrian jail...just ask David Irving!

7) All of Germany's wartime codes were compromised including the one used to send daily reports from Auschwitz to Berlin. The transcripts of these messages make no mention of mass executions or even remotely suggest a genocidal program in progress. Furthermore it has been insisted that the Germans used a kind of euphemistic code when discussing their extermination program of the Jews e.g. final solution, special treatment, resettlement, etc. Why was it necessary for them to use such coded euphemisms when talking to one another unless they thought their codes had been cracked by the Allies?

8) The water table at Auschwitz lies a mere 18 inches below the surface, which makes claims of huge burning pits for the disposal of tens of thousands of victims untenable.

9) Initially claims were made that mass executions in homicidal gas chambers had taken place in camps located within the boundaries of the Old Reich e.g. Dachau, Bergen-Belsen. "Evidence" to that effect was every bit as compelling as what was offered for other camps, located in occupied Poland, yet without explanation in the early sixties we were told that this was not the case and that all the "death camps" were located in the East, e.g., Poland, outside (some would say conveniently) of the probing eyes of western scholars.

10) No one has been able to reconcile the eyewitness accounts that personnel entered the gas chambers after twenty minutes without any protective gear and the fact that Zyklon B was a "time release" fumigant that would have had a lethal capability for at least another twenty-four hours. And that even after twenty-four hours the corpses would have themselves remained sufficiently contaminated by the hydrogen cyanide gas that they would have had the capacity to kill anyone who touched them who was not wearing protective gear.

11) Why do we no longer hear claims that the Germans manufactured soap, lampshades and riding britches from the bodies of dead Jews - could it be that in the light of modern forensics and DNA knowledge these claims are totally untenable?

12) Why do we no longer hear claims that huge numbers of Jews were exterminated in massive steam chambers or electrocuted on special grids—"evidence" of this was presented at Nuremberg—evidence that sent men to the gallows.

13) Elie Wiesel has been described as "the Apostle of Remembrance" yet in his memoir, Night, which deals with his stay at Auschwitz he makes no mention of the now-infamous homicidal gas chambers. Isn't this a bit like one of the Gospels making no mention of the Cross?

14) Virtually every survivor who was examined at Auschwitz says that he or she was examined by the infamous Dr. Mengele.

15) According to survivor testimony, hundreds of thousands of Jews were executed at Treblinka and then buried in mass graves in the surrounding area. Why is it that extensive sonar probing of these burial grounds reveals that this alleged final resting place for Holocaust victims has remained undisturbed since at least the last ice age?

16) "Proofs" of the holocaust rest primarily on survivor testimony; there is little, if any, hard evidence. The best of this has been described by Jean-Claude Pressac as merely "criminal traces". Even Judge Gray, who presided at the Irving-Lipstadt Trial commented that he was surprised the evidence pointing to the Holocaust was "extremely thin". To paraphrase Arthur Butz, "a crime of this magnitude would have left a mountain of evidence" - where is it? There was more hard evidence against O.J. Simpson at his trial, and he was FOUND INNOCENT!

17) Why has Holocaust Revisionism been criminalized in at least eleven countries - what other historic truth needs the threat of prison or the destruction of one's career to maintain itself? Should someone be sent to prison for expressing skepticism about the official Chinese claim that they suffered thirty-five million dead in World War II.

18) Why do the court historians insist that "denying the Holocaust" is like denying slavery or saying the earth is flat when it is nothing of the sort? The leading Revisionists are first-rate scholars who hold advanced degrees from the world's leading universities. Is there anyone comparable among those who say the world is flat or that slavery never existed?

19) Promoters of the Holocaust have expressed concerns about the remembering the holocaust once the last survivors die. Why haven't Civil War historians expressed similar concerns since the last survivor of that conflict died in 1959?

20) Survivors of the holocaust have testified that smoke billowed from the crematoriums as they consumed the bodies of murdered victims - some eyewitnesses even claimed they could detect national origins by the color of the smoke. How can this be reconciled with the fact that properly operating crematoriums do not produce smoke of any color?

21) According to the official version of the holocaust hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were rounded up in mid-1944 and sent to Auschwitz where most were gassed immediately upon arrival and their bodies were disposed of by burning in huge open-air pits using railroad ties and gasoline. Why is it that there is no evidence of these huge funerary pyres in the high-resolution surveillance photos taken by Allied aircraft that were over flying the camp on a daily basis during this time period? Furthermore, why have no remains been found, since open-pit burning, even when gasoline is used, generates insufficient heat to totally consume a body?

22) All of the liberated camps were littered with corpses; is there a single autopsy report or any other forensic evidence that shows that even a single one of these deaths was a consequence of poison gas?

23) The death toll for the holocaust relies exclusively on population statistics provided by Jewish sources; has any independent demographic study been produced that shows that approximately six million Jews were "missing" at the end of the war?

24) Why do the wartime inspection reports of camps made by the International Red Cross contain no references to mass executions? It strains credulity that such monumental crimes could be hidden. The only explanations are that either these crimes were not occurring or that the Red Cross was complicit in a cover-up.

25) Why has there been no effort to respond to the Leuchter Report?

26) "The Holocaust was technologically possible because it happened ". Why is this intellectually bankrupt argument, which turns scholarship on its head, considered by the promoters of the holocaust as historical truth, considered a sufficient response to the mounting Revisionist evidence to the contrary?

27) What other historical truths rely to the extent that the holocaust does on so-called "eye witness" testimony—and why have none of these witnesses ever been cross examined?

28) According to the official version of the holocaust, the Jews remained ignorant of their fate until the very end, so skillful were their Nazis murderers in deceiving their victims. How can this ignorance be reconciled with the fact that the Jews have historically been as a group, the most literate and highly informed people on the planet with legendary access to the highest echelons of government?


Michael Santomauro

Publisher of Amazon's book that can't be sold in France, Debating the Holocaust by Thomas Dalton, Ph.D. http://tinyurl.com/7jr5e8g

[The above was not the end of it. I will add only a few lines of what Santomauro posted in the Comments section of the WSJ’s website.]

How many people know that at Nuremberg the Germans were accused of, along with killing about six million Jews:

  • vaporizing 20,000 Jews near Auschwitz with atomic energy;
  • killing 840,000 Russian POW's at Sachsenhausen concentration camp (in one month, with special pedal-driven brain-bashing machines, no less), then disposing of them in mobile [sic] crematoria;
  • torturing and killing Jewish prisoners to the tempo of a specially composed "Tango of Death" in Lvov;
  • steaming Jews to death like lobsters at Treblinka;
  • electrocuting them en masse at Belzec;
  • making not only lampshades and soap but also handbags, driving gloves, book bindings, saddles, riding breeches, gloves, house slippers, etc. from the remains of their victims;
  • killing prisoners and concentration camp inmates for everything from having armpit hair to soiled underclothing?

Additional information about this document
Property Value
Title: Michael Santomauro (he’s our guy!) In "The Wall Street Journal"?
Sources: Smith’s Report, no. 187, December 2011, pp. 10-13
  • Bradley Smith: introduction and comments
Published: 2011-12-01
First posted on CODOH: Dec. 11, 2015, 7:15 p.m.
Last revision:
Comments: Editor's comment: WHAT a piece of garbage! I’ve edited the print version extensively, including renumbering the points (#13 was omitted, reducing the count by 1). I further changed references to the Wall Street Journal to make it clear that this caper went down on the paper’s WEBSITE, not in the pages of the paper edition, nor in an article. This guy is a schlockmeister. WHY it contains no link to the article, with comments thread, I simply can’t image.
Appears In: