For Hossein Amiri

I have not yet met Hossein Amiri, who works at the Iranian press agency Mehr News, and have not read the manuscript of the book on the “Holocaust” and on revisionism that, as he tells me, he plans to have published soon by the Center for Palestine and Middle East Records and Strategic Studies ( Tehran ). Nonetheless, I have been able to carry on a correspondence with him that gives me the impression of an effective activist for historical revisionism, and I consider that in this quality he deserves the support of revisionists in the entire world. In the fight that we are waging against the myth of the alleged “Holocaust” of the Jews, researchers and activists from Iran or the Arab countries remain still so few that the advent amongst the revisionists of a man like Hossein Amiri is to be warmly welcomed indeed.

The myth of the “Holocaust” or “Shoah” is at the basis of the creation, in 1947-1948, of the State of Israel and has, with time, become that State's sword and shield. To combat this myth and its harmful effects, historical revisionism presents itself as the only possible recourse. As such, revisionism is the atomic weapon of the poor and weak against the Great Lie of the rich and mighty of this world. Without killing anyone, revisionism could undo, down to its foundations, one of the most dangerous historical lies of all time, that of the alleged genocide of the Jews of Europe (with its millions of “survivors”!) and that of the alleged Hitlerite gas chambers (which, in reality, never existed either at Auschwitz or anywhere else!).

From 1945 onwards, with the Second World War just ended, the Western European powers saw their colonies swiftly vanish. However it was precisely during this period that, paradoxically, two deviant phenomena, both born in 1948, in the very midst of that general decolonization, were seen to arise and gain strength: in South Africa, the institution of apartheid and, in the Middle East, the creation, through violence, of a racialist and colonialist territorial entity that styled itself a “Jewish State” and endowed itself with a “Jewish Army”.

South African apartheid provoked such a negative reaction on the part of what one may call the international community that it wound up disappearing. But the State of Israel, at its end, has maintained itself in the land of Palestine and is, today more than ever, financed and armed by the big Western powers, first and foremost Germany and the United States . It has even become a nuclear power.

The anomaly comprised by that brutal colonization of Palestine in the middle of a worldwide process of decolonization is easy to explain. In 1945, tricked by the Jewish and Zionist propaganda machine, the peoples of the Western world let themselves be convinced that, during the Second World War, Adolf Hitler had attempted to exterminate the Jews, and in a particularly atrocious, systematic manner. Hitler, apparently, had succeeded in having six million innocent Jews killed, notably in chemical slaughterhouses called “gas chambers”. Thus, in 1947, the reasoning of the members of the United Nations Organization, created in 1945, was somewhat as follows: 1) in the recent war, the Germans inflicted hardships upon the European Jews amounting to an unprecedented martyrdom; 2) it is therefore imperative to come to the aid of the survivors of that community; 3) it is fitting to compensate these people by all possible means; 4) for exceptional sufferings, an exceptional remedy: it is of course not normal to grant, albeit only in part, to one people a land belonging to another people but, for the Jews, who have suffered so much, an exception will be made, to the detriment Š of the Palestinians. (“Why not to the detriment of the European criminals?” wondered aloud the late British historian Arnold Toynbee, himself a believer in the “Holocaust”).

It is usually forbidden to grab hold of another's belongings, to chase a people out of its land through violence, to seek to enslave that people, to deny it the right to a State of its own, an army, a currency, to dictate its law and lock it up in Bantustans, keeping it in a prison whose barriers are a good deal higher and more forbidding than the “Berlin wall”. Nonetheless, that is what the Jews of the Diaspora, in defiance of the most basic rules and rights, have since 1948 managed to accomplish in Palestine . They have ignored all their promises to the UN to respect, in part, the Palestinians' rights and, afterwards, they have considered all the UN's calls to order null and void. Today, the Jews and the Zionists term whoever resists them with weapons a “terrorist”. Whoever speaks out against their colonialism is declared an “anti-Semite”. Finally, whoever proves that their “Holocaust” or “Shoah” is, in fact, but a myth is denounced as a “denier” or a “negationist”, prompted by the diabolical spirit of doubt.

“Terrorist”, “anti-Semite”, “denier” or “negationist”: these words stamp the mark of Cain on your forehead. But the duty of the historian or researcher is to go and see, up close, the reality hiding behind those insults. And the reality in question is that Jews and Zionists have been lying and continue to lie. Their alleged “Holocaust” is a historical lie, which is extraordinarily profitable for them and, from their point of view, must be safeguarded at all costs. In the light of this exorbitant lie and this swindle of near-planetary dimensions, the actions of both the Zionists, who have gone on robbing and killing the Palestinians, and the Diaspora Jews, who approve of Zionism and fund it, are all the graver.

Hitler did effectively try to expel the Jews from Europe . A good number of other countries before Germany , through the millennia and up to modern times, had wished to proceed with an expulsion of the Jews from their respective territories. On the motives for this quasi-universal rejection, the first page of Jewish writer Bernard Lazare's 1894 book Anti-Semitism: its history and causes is worthwhile reading. In a summing-up, he wrote that it was by their very own conduct, in every place and at every time, that the Jews, at first welcomed, in the long run brought on the natives' impatience and revolt.

Before and during the war, on numerous occasions and even as late as in April 1945, Hitler and the National Socialist leaders publicly proposed that the Allies take the Jews of Europe into their own countries. “Have them, these Jews you find so wonderful; we'll make a present of them to you. Why do you hesitate?”: the National Socialists put it in words clearly to that effect. Apart from a few rare cases, the Allies replied either with silence or refusal, for they knew perfectly well that Hitler was not at all going about exterminating the Jews. We have, for example, documentary proof that the senior Allied officials did not believe the madcap stories of gas chambers, a fact that explains why, either during or after the war, Churchill, De Gaulle, Eisenhower, Stalin, Benes and others of their station never spoke of those vaudeville-hall monstrosities. Hitler sought merely to achieve a “final territorial solution to the Jewish question”. The court historians systematically erase the cumbersome adjective “territorial”, preferring to speak only of a “final solution” and, thanks to this wrongful shortening of a phrase, let people understand that it was a matter of solving the Jewish question through a methodical extermination! Hitler, in reality, wanted to see a territory reserved for the Jews somewhere outside of Europe , but not in Palestine .

Still, in the face of the practical impossibility of ridding himself of a few million Jews or of finding them a territory during the war, he decided to pen a certain number of them (not all!) in concentration camps or labor camps, hopeful of resolving “the Jewish question” after the end of the conflict. Despite the efforts made by the camp administrators and physicians in the field of health and hygiene, dreadful epidemics, particularly of typhus, wreaked havoc there. It must be said that, for some generations, typhus had been endemically rife among the Jews of the East. In the last months of the war, especially under the effects of Anglo-American bombing raids and the steady incursion of Soviet troops, Germany lived through an apocalypse and, what with the paralysis of her industries and transport, everyone's lot worsened considerably.

When the Allies liberated the camps, they insistently photographed the dead and the dying and diffused the images throughout the world, whilst keeping to themselves their photographs showing crowds of internees who, in spite of all, had remained in good health. They filmed the crematory ovens as though the Germans had used them to kill people whereas those ovens had served to incinerate corpses, cremation being a more healthful and modern method than burial, especially in places where the risks of epidemics and contamination reigned. The Allies also showed disinfection gas chambers as if they had served to kill detainees whereas in reality they were used to disinfect clothing and, thus, to protect the health of all. They exhibited cans of an insecticide (Zyklon B) as if that product had been employed to asphyxiate humans whereas it served to kill lice, carriers of typhus.

They showed piles of hair, shoes, eyeglasses or clothes as if those objects had belonged to the “gassed” whereas it is well known that, in all of blockaded Europe at war, with the ensuing scarcity and shortages of nearly everything, the recovery for recycling of all possible substances was carried out, including that of human hair, which was used in the textile industry of the time; therefore it was normal that, both inside and outside of the camps, numerous storehouses or workshops should be found in which the authorities had been trying to recycle all those objects and materials. In other words, to sum up, what Germany , a modern nation, had undertaken in order to save people's lives and ensure her survival in a context of both war and a war economy, the Allies managed, by a clever propaganda, to present as an enterprise of the physical extermination of human beings. That propaganda knew how to exploit the old superstitions according to which the doctor, chemist and scholar are more or less hand in glove with the Devil.

As for Germany , completely flattened as she was, there was no course open but to submit to the conquerors' will. At the Nuremberg trial and in a hundred other such courtroom spectacles, she was prevented from freely making a case in her defense and, without any veritable evidence, without any veritable technical or scientific investigation, her conquerors pronounced her guilty of incredible outrages. She bowed before them, accused herself as well and, for sixty years, her leaders and her elites have never ceased practicing the self flagellation imposed on the great vanquished nation. Germany has no other choice. Today, if ever a senior German official were to come out and denounce the lie of the “Holocaust”, the resulting clamor of the Jews and the world media's indignation would take on such proportions that a boycott of Germany would be decreed, German equities would collapse in value and the country would head straight towards massive unemployment and ruin.

The revisionists have amply demonstrated that there never existed, nor could exist, a single order by Hitler to kill the Jews. We have proof that, even during the war, German soldiers or officers guilty of killing even just one Jewish man or woman could be brought to court martial, sentenced to death and shot, a fact which of course does not mean that, for example, caught in the heat of battle, notably in the face of snipers and partisans, German troops, like all other troops in the world, were not capable of committing excesses or outrages towards civilians. There did not exist in National Socialist Germany any order, directive, or instruction telling anyone to murder Jews. Nor did there exist any measures for the monitoring of the purported extermination project: no budget, no agency nor any official in charge of carrying out such a policy.

On January 20, 1942 , at the gathering called “Wannsee Conference”, fifteen German officials vaguely discussed for a few hours a program of expulsion of the Jews from the European domain and, provisionally, whilst awaiting the war's end, of putting to forced labor those among them, men and women, who were able to work. During the same meeting, there was envisaged a Jewish “renewal” somewhere outside of Europe after the war, with a “germinal cell” made up of the best elements, i.e. those Jews who would have survived the deportation and forced labor. Before the war, and still in the early stages thereof, the Germans had seriously considered as a solution the settling of European Jews on the island of Madagascar . In doing so they were taking up an idea that had been studied in 1937 by the Polish, French and British authorities, and even by the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, but, with the intensification of the conflict, they had to abandon that idea. As for the settling of European Jews in Palestine , they had ended up firmly opposing it. As late as in January 1944, during talks with the British, the German foreign office stated that, if the British would in fact agree to take in a convoy of 5,000 Jews comprised of children (85%) and accompanying adults (15%), it could only be on condition of accepting them definitively and of prohibiting their subsequent emigration to Palestine :

The Government of the Reich cannot take part in a maneuver aimed at allowing the Jews to chase the noble and valiant Palestinian people from their mother country, Palestine . These talks can continue only on condition that the British Government declare its readiness to accommodate the Jews in Great Britain and not in Palestine, and that it guarantee them the possibility to settle there definitively (reminder from von Thadden, of the German foreign office's Gruppe Inland II, Berlin, 29 April, 1944; document catalogued by the Allies under the number NG-1794 and reproduced in French by Henri Monneray, former assistant in the French delegation's office of prosecution at the Nuremberg trial, in his work La Persécution des juifs dans les Pays de l'Est, assemblage of documents, Paris, Editions du Centre [i.e., the Centre de documentation juive contemporaine], 1949, p. 169-170).

On January 18, 1945 Heinrich Himmler wrote in a personal note made after a meeting with Swiss president Jean-Marie Lusy, who served as intermediary with the Americans:

Once again I more precisely stated to him my view [on the Jews]. We put our Jews to work, including, of course, in heavy labor, such as road and canal construction, in mining operations, and as a result there has been a high death rate. Since negotiations began about improving the lot of the Jews, they have been assigned to normal work, although naturally they have to work, just like Germans, in the armaments industry. Our point of view on the Jewish question is this: we are not at all interested in the position taken by America and England regarding the Jews. One thing is clear: based on our decades of experience with them since the [first] world war, we do not want them in Germany or in the German living space, and in this matter we will not allow any discussion. If America wants them, we welcome that. It is not to be permitted – and for this a guarantee must be given – that the Jews whom we let out by way of Switzerland ever be transferred to Palestine . We know that the Arabs reject the Jews just as much as we Germans do and we will not permit the indecency [Unanständigkeit] of sending still more Jews to that poor nation already tormented by the Jews (original document, with Himmler's hand-written annotations, as reproduced by Werner Maser, Nürnberg, Tribunal der Sieger, Droemer Knaur, Munich-Zurich, 1979, p. 262-263).

In their common war against, on the one hand, the British and, on the other hand, Soviet communism, Adolf Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin Al Husseini, were allies. SS formations, such as the “Handschar” (scimitar) and “Skanderbeg” (the Albanian national hero) divisions, were either largely or wholly made up of Moslems and in various spots in Europe , beginning with France , Arabs had rallied to the German cause. In Iraq , Rashid Ali and, in India , Subhas Chandra Bose, founder of the Indian National Army, had also taken sides with Germany and against Britain .

Today, the Jewish and Zionist propaganda seeks to sully the names of those men as it sullies the rest of the world. It accuses the Allies of having remained indifferent to the calamitous fate of the Jews. It rebukes the neutrals for not having participated in the crusade against Germany . It accuses the Vatican . It accuses the International Committee of the Red Cross. It accuses the Jews who, during the war, belonged to the “Jewish Councils” maintaining relations with the Germans. It accuses the Zionists of the Stern Group who, in 1941, offered Germany a military alliance against Britain . It rebukes all those Zionists who had settled in Palestine , along with their press, for having, during the war, received with skepticism the rumors circulating about the massacres of Jews at Babi Yar or elsewhere and about the gas chambers. It accuses the entire world, or just about.

It is high time that an end were put to this flood of accusations, which stems from the myth of the “Holocaust”. Since the 1980s, important historians or other authors, some of whom of Jewish origin, have ended up realizing the solidness of the revisionist argumentation and, consequently, relinquishing entire sections of their belief in the “Holocaust” doctrine with its fake “gas chambers” and its alleged “six million victims”. In parallel manner, senior representatives of Zionism have little by little found themselves compelled to relinquish entire sections of their belief in the “Greater Israel” utopia. These two beliefs, these two myths, which amount to one and the same, will finish in the rubbish bins of history.

Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have put themselves at the forefront in the struggle against that double myth. It is not only Palestine and the Arabo-Moslem community that should be grateful to them but, as may be seen, the entire world, or just about.

© 4 February 2006