In Defense of Holocaust Revisionism

Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened And Why Do They Say It? by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman; forward by Arthur Hertzberg. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Clothbound, 312 pages, $27.50, Hb., ISBN 0-520-21612-1

In the annals of anti-revisionist literature, this book occupies an important position, for it is an ambitious attempt to refute the Holocaust revisionist thesis and establish the traditional view of the Holocaust on a scientific footing. Being favorably reviewed and commented upon, it stands as one of the most important responses to the growing Holocaust revisionist movement.[1]

In “A Revisionist Response to Shermerian Exterminationism, Part I: Why Does Michael Shermer Promote Weird Beliefs About the Holocaust?,” this writer critiqued the anti-revisionist ideas of Dr. Michael Shermer that appeared in his Why People Believe Weird Things (hereafter referred to as WPBWT).[2] To a significant extent Denying History (hereafter referred to as DH) is simply an expanded version of Shermer’s three chapters on Holocaust revisionism in WPBWT. Many of the latter’s fallacious arguments are simply repeated in DH. To refute and expose all of the falsehoods, fallacies, omissions, distortions, and incorrect statements in DH would take a book in itself. For this reason we shall concentrate only upon some of the tome’s more important claims and arguments.

This essay is designed to be read in conjunction with my critique of Shermer’s chapters on Holocaust revisionism in WPBWT, and also my other essay, “The Political Implications of Holocaust Revisionism.”[3] Since the latter deals with the alleged “racist” implications of Holocaust revisionism, nothing further will be said on this matter here.

All page numbers in the text refer to DH. For the sake of brevity, Shermer and Grobman are jointly referred to as S & G.

Michael Shermer and his editor at W.H. Freeman & Company, John Michel, were allowed to examine “A Revisionist Response to Shermerian Exterminationism, Part I…” prior to publication, and they were given ample time to correct any possible errors or falsehoods. Shermer never responded. Mr. Michel sent me a few hostile responses, but no error corrections. Dr. Shermer and his editor at University of California Press, Reed Malcolm, were allowed to examine this manuscript prior to publication, and were asked to correct any possible errors or false statements. Once again, they never responded.

This refusal on the part of a writer and his editors to respond to criticisms and correct errors should suggest to the reader that when it comes around to the Holocaust, the latter is viewed by these people as a dogmatic religion, and not a scientific hypothesis.

I

S & G begin by making the dubious claim they made an effort to ensure the Holocaust revisionist movement and its claims were accurately portrayed (p. 4).

If the authors were sincerely interested in creating a thoroughly accurate picture of revisionist responses to their anti-revisionist claims, they would have directed the reader to the videotape of and the article about the highly important debate between revisionist historian Mark Weber and Michael Shermer which took place on July 22, 1995.[4] Many of the arguments and claims made by Shermer—and refuted by Weber—were simply repeated in DH.

Although the force of circumstance compelled the authors to mention the videotape in passing, the reader is not told how to acquire it, which suggests they don’t want their readership to see it (p. 73). Important omissions like this should immediately cast suspicion on S & G’s motives and methodology.

Chapter 1, titled “Giving the Devil His Due,” employs a tactic that Shermer himself has condemned, the use of emotive language to cloud the reader’s sense of reason. Here, “the devil” refers to Holocaust revisionists. In WPBWT Shermer cautioned: “emotive words are used to provoke emotion and sometimes obscure rationality.”[5] He also stated that metaphors “can cloud thinking with emotion or steer us onto a side path.”[6]

Nevertheless, Holocaust theologian Shermer, an atheist/agnostic who rejects religion, employs religious imagery when it suits his purpose to demonize his opponents.

II

S & G attempt to prove the traditional view of the Holocaust through a “convergence of evidence,” an ensemble of written documents, eyewitness testimony, photographs, the ruins of the surviving camps themselves, and population demographics that supposedly points to only one conclusion. Namely, the Nazis planned to exterminate all the Jews, gas chambers were used to implement this plan, and approximately six million were murdered (p. 33).

Shermer was well aware of the serious flaw in this type of approach long before DH was published, thus highlighting his denial of real history. At the Weber-Shermer debate, Weber revealed that one could use a convergence of evidence to “prove” that inmates were gassed en masse at Dauchau concentration camp, where S & G have admitted there were no homicidal gassings (p. 112). In point of fact, the evidence used to “prove” homicidal gassings in the concentration camps in Poland is not really qualitatively different from the from the evidence used to “prove” the mythical gassings at Dauchau.[7] One could use a convergence of evidence (complete with eyewitness testimonies, expert reports, and an onsite, physical study of the murder weapon itself) to “prove” the Germans murdered prisoners in steam chambers at Treblinka. But it is now agreed no one was ever murdered in such a manner. That “convergence of evidence” is entirely false. Weber revealed the phony “steam chamber evidence” to Shermer at their oral debate, and this writer brought this to Shermer’s attention in a published letter in his own SKEPTIC magazine.[8]

All of the evidence which S & G use to allegedly “prove” the traditional version of the Holocaust is either very weak, questionable, equivocal, or downright worthless. Even the ardently anti-revisionist team of Deborah Lipstadt’s world-renowned Holocaust experts was forced to make important concessions in this direction at the famous Irving-Lipstadt libel trial.

In winter/spring of 2000, British historian David Irving sued Jewish historian Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books, in the High Court in London, claiming that he was libeled in her anti-revisionist tome, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. Lipstadt and company’s defense attorneys assembled a team of world-renowned Holocaust experts as part of their campaign to discredit Irving and validate Lipstadt’s claims. The presiding Judge, Charles Gray, was presented with the most powerful evidence and arguments in favor of the traditional view of the Holocaust. What did Judge Gray conclude?

In regard to the allegedly incriminating words and statements in Nazi documents that are employed to “prove” the Nazis had a policy to exterminate the Jews, Judge Gray concluded that many of these statements are of an equivocal nature and are capable of being interpreted in a manner consistent with Holocaust revisionist theory. He wrote: “A considerable number of the documents were scrutinized in an attempt to ascertain whether the words [ausrotten, vernichten, liquidieren, evakuieren, umsiedeln and abschieben] were being used or understood in a genocidal sense. Irving contended that most of the words are properly to be understood in a non-genocidal sense. Longerich [one of Lipstadt’s expert witnesses] agreed that most, if not all, of these words are capable of being used in a non-genocidal sense. For example, ausrotten [exterminate or uproot] can bear such anodyne meanings as ‘get rid of’ or ‘wipe out’ without connoting physical extermination. But he asserted that its usual and primary meaning is ‘exterminate’ or ‘kill off,’ especially when applied to people or to a group of people as opposed to, for example, a religion.”[9]

In a similar vein, Judge Gray also noted: “It is also accepted by [Lipstadt’s team of Holocaust experts] that in certain respects the documentary evidence, including the photographic evidence, is capable of more than one interpretation.”[10]

In regard to the evidence for mass genocide in the Nazi concentration camps, Justice Gray admitted: “What is the evidence for mass extermination of Jews at those camps? The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eyewitness and circumstantial evidence…”[11]

S & G mislead the reader by claiming that architectural blueprints, orders for Zyklon-B, and orders for building materials for gas chambers and crematoria can be used to “conclusively prove” the Nazis used gas chambers and crematoria for mass murder (p. 127). In regard to this evidence, Justice Gray, echoing Lipstadt’s team of Holocaust experts, admitted: “…contemporaneous documents, such as drawings, plans, correspondence with contractors and the like, yield little clear evidence of the existence of gas chambers designed to kill humans. Such isolated references to the use of gas as are to be found amongst these documents can be explained by the need to fumigate clothes so as to reduce the incidence of disease such as typhus. The quantities of Zyklon B [the gas allegedly used to commit mass murder] delivered to the camp may arguably be explained by the need to fumigate clothes and other objects.”[12]

In regard to the architectural plans, the Judge noted: “None of these drawings refers overtly to any part of the buildings being designed or intended to serve as gas chambers whether for fumigation or extermination purposes. In particular the drawings for [the supposed gas chamber of Krema II at Birkenau] make no provisions for ducts or chimneys by means of which Zyklon-B pellets might be inserted through the roof.”[13]

S & G also claim that the extant ruins of the Nazi concentration camps help to prove their case (p. 128). But as the British magistrate noted: “[Lipstadt’s team of Holocaust experts] accept that the physical evidence remaining at the site of Auschwitz provides little evidence to support the claim that gas chambers were operated there for genocidal purposes.”[14]

To be sure, Justice Gray does—like S & G—believe the evidence converges to the conclusion that the Nazis did have a policy to exterminate Jews, and they were killed in large numbers in the “Auschwitz gas chambers,” but he virtually admitted that the best evidence presented to him by a team of world renowned Holocaust experts is weak at best. The following example should illustrate to the reader how faulty S & G’s and Justice Gray’s “convergence of evidence” proof for the traditional view of the Holocaust really is.

In their article on Treblinka concentration camp, historian Mark Weber and attorney Andrew Allen collected six pieces of evidence that point to the conclusion that Jews and others were murdered in steam chambers at the site.[15] Let us list all of them.

According to an “eyewitness” account received in November 1942 in London from the Warsaw ghetto underground organization, Jews were supposedly exterminated in death rooms with “steam coming out of the numerous holes in the pipes.”[16] In 1943, the New York Times published more “eyewitness” testimony regarding the mass murder of Jews in the alleged Treblinka steam chambers. This account provided readers with essential details about the operation of these steam chambers.[17]

In The Black Book of Polish Jewry, a 1943 work sponsored by an array of respected dignitaries like Albert Einstein and Eleanor Roosevelt, the Treblinka steam story was again given in detail.[18] Another book, Lest We Forget, published in New York in 1943 by the World Jewish Congress, describes how Jews were steamed to death, and provides a diagram showing the location of the purported boiler room that produced the live steam.[19]

According to a 1944 “eyewitness” account compiled by the OSS, the principle US intelligence agency, Jews at Treblinka “were in general killed by steam and not by gas as had been first suspected.”[20]

In 1945, the Polish government “conclusively proved” the Germans operated these death chambers. They carried out “an onsite, expert examination of the steam chambers,” submitting an “expert report” to the Nuremberg Tribunal.[21]

Here we have a convergence of evidence from six sources. The eyewitness testimony is substantiated by the onsite investigation of the Polish authorities. (This convergence of evidence is even better than the ones that Judge Gray heard or that S & G present because it has an onsite, hands-on study that “proves” the existence of the steam chambers.) Therefore, the Germans must have murdered people in the steam chambers at Treblinka. Lo and behold, the pitfall of S & G’s methodology!

Historians now tell us that there were no steam chambers at Treblinka. The convergence of evidence that “proves” their existence is entirely false. Allegedly, Jews and others were murdered with carbon monoxide gas, generated from captured Russian diesel tank engines.[22] Neither S & G or Judge Gray can tell us why the convergence of evidence for the Treblinka steam chambers points to a false conclusion and the convergence of evidence for the Auschwitz gas chambers allegedly points to a true conclusion.

Since most of the evidence in the convergence of evidence for the Treblinka steam chambers is not qualitatively different from the evidence in the convergence of evidence for the Auschwitz gas chambers; and since the convergence of evidence for the Treblinka steam chambers leads to a false conclusion, isn’t it also possible that the convergence of evidence for the Auschwitz gas chambers also points to a false conclusion?

On page 32, S & G even admit that in order to prove a theory correct, the lines of evidence must converge on a single conclusion. If the evidence points to several possible conclusions, then nothing is proven. We have shown here how a convergence of evidence using the traditional evidence for the Holocaust can lead to a false conclusion. S & G never informed their readership how weak and questionable the evidence for the traditional view of the Holocaust really is. Instead, they deny real history and mislead the reader by drawing a different conclusion: “Coordinating blueprints, drawings, photographs, and documented eyewitness accounts to test the historical hypothesis that the Nazis used gas chambers and crematoria as part of the Final Solution, we use the evidence to demonstrate that the proof is in the convergence of evidence. All the evidence from these various sources points to this macabre conclusion…Our conclusion stands on the bedrock of scientific history (p. 172).”

In the light of what was previously noted, this conclusion is very dubious at best. S & G’s views, as we shall see, stand upon questionable inferences, equivocal data, fallacies, falsehoods, distortions, dubious eyewitness testimony and the omission of evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

III

The book contains blatantly false statements and significant omissions. Consider the following examples. They write: “Deniers stress what we do not know about the gas chambers and disregard eyewitness accounts, as well as photographs of the gas chambers in operation (p. 103).” There are no photographs of the “gas chambers” during an alleged mass gassing, and Shermer himself has pointed this out in WPBWT: “For obvious reasons, there are no photographs recording an actual Nazi gassing…”[23] And if such photographs do indeed exist, then why weren’t they published in DH?

Consider the discussion of Crematorium I (an alleged gas chamber) at Auschwitz I. They write: “David Cole, in his video documentary of his visit to Auschwitz, dramatically proclaims that he got the museum director to ‘confess’ that the gas chamber [in Crematorium I] was a reconstruction and thus a ‘lie’ thrust upon an unwitting public. We see this as classic denier hyperbole and ideological flag waving. No one at Auschwitz—from the guides to the director—denies that the gas chamber there is a reconstruction. A visitor only has to ask (p. 133).”

S & G fail to provide information (not even a footnote!) on how to acquire a copy of Cole’s videotape, “David Cole Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper,” so it can be seen how they distort reality. In the documentary Cole tells an Auschwitz guide named Alicia the alleged gas chamber of Crematorium I is a reconstruction. She disagrees, and says in broken English the “gas chamber” is in its original state, and the ceiling holes for the alleged introduction of Zyklon B are also original. She is clearly claiming the “gas chamber” is “original,” and not a reconstruction. Contrary to what S & G write, this is in fact a lie that was thrust upon an unwitting public.[24]

Nationalism, racism, and ethnocentrism, these authors claim, are among the factors that motivate people to deny or alter history (p. 243). Indeed, this may explain why they promoted the aforementioned falsehoods. Could their pro-Zionist sympathies have motivated them to engage in these acts of altering the historical record?

Consider S & G’s omission of relevant evidence in regard to the alleged gas chamber at Mauthausen concentration camp (pp. 168-172). Never do they mention the revisionist evidence that was revealed to them during their appearance on the Phil Donahue Show of March 14, 1994.[25] (Both S & G were present at the Phil Donahue Show debate. Shermer was a featured guest, and Grobman was backstage. See page 109.) The film footage of David Cole shows that this alleged gas chamber has a door that cannot be locked from the outside or the inside. The alleged victims could easily escape—thus suggesting the room was never designed as or used as a homicidal gas chamber. Indeed, S & G admit elsewhere that if the doors of a room cannot be locked, this is a reason to conclude the room was not a homicidal gas chamber for mass killing (p. 162).

They also claim that because the door had a peephole in it, this supposedly indicates the room was a homicidal gas chamber (p. 168). Peepholes in doors do not necessarily indicate criminal intent. Jean-Claude Pressac, referred to by S & G as an authority on the extermination camps (p. 131), notes that the doors for some non-homicidal delousing chambers were also equipped with peepholes.[26]

In their attempt to convince the reader that a particular room at Mauthausen was a homicidal gas chamber, they write: “It makes little sense to argue…that the adjoining gas chamber…was either a shower room or a delousing chamber. First, a shower and delousing chamber already existed at the front of the camp…; second, why would the Nazis have placed either a delousing room or a shower room next to a dissection room and crematorium? The gas chamber…has a ventilation system, fake showerheads, and a system of pipes…The pipes in the gas chamber appear to have been installed to heat the room to hasten the rapid evaporation of the hydrocyanic acid from the Zyklon B pellets. No other explanation for this room arrangement and all these artifacts is plausible other than that the room was used to gas people (p. 172).”

A standard reference work makes this point about the typhus disease: “The spread of typhus in communities results largely from the fact that infected lice tend to leave persons with high fever, and they evacuate the corpses of those who have died from the disease.”[27] Those who worked in the dissection room and crematorium would have been in close contact with any infected lice from the corpses. In addition, working with corpses can be unsanitary, even if there was no typhus epidemic. Ergo, it would make perfect sense to have those who worked with corpses, when finished, to go immediately into a shower room and wash themselves for general sanitary reasons and to help prevent the spread of diseases throughout the camp. To make the workers who handled corpses—diseased or otherwise–walk some distance to the far end of the camp to shower would have facilitated the spread of the infected lice and unsanitary conditions.

It would also make perfect sense to provide heat for the workers who utilized the showers during cold weather. After all, who wants to take a shower in a cold environment? Here we have a non-criminal explanation for the pipes that would supply heat.

In answer to S & G’s question—why would the Nazis have placed a delousing room next to a dissection room and crematorium?—it could be said that a delousing chamber may have been needed to fumigate the discarded clothes and belongings taken from the dead bodies that were worked on in the dissecting room and crematorium.

Contrary to what S & G claim, there is no evidence that there was a homicidal gas chamber at Mauthausen.

IV

On pp. 19-20, General Dwight Eisenhower’s April 13, 1945 visit to the Buchenwald concentration camp—during which he allegedly discovered “indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency”—is discussed. Eisenhower tells how he “visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that ‘the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda.’” The reader is left with the impression that Eisenhower found indisputable proof of a Nazi genocide of the Jews.

S & G’s unstated insinuation that Buchenwald is an encounter with the Jewish Holocaust is false. As the anti-revisionist historians Peter Novick and Richard Evans pointed out, the majority of those who perished at the camp or were lucky to be liberated were not Jewish.[28] Furthermore, the U.S. Army intelligence report of April 24, 1945, noted that a large number of the atrocities and murders were actually committed by Communist prisoners who were interned in the camp, while many other atrocities and murders were committed during Soviet-Communist control of the camp.[29]

In the aftermath of WWII, the victorious power elites encouraged the myth that Buchenwald was “an extermination camp complete with gas chambers.” However, today this is realized to be a myth, as even S & G admit, calling this false claim an “inaccuracy in survivors’ eyewitness accounts (p. 41).”

DH’s authors criticize pioneer revisionist scholar Paul Rassinier, a left-wing socialist and pacifist, for “his slide into revisionism and denial.” They write: “After the war Rassinier took notice of and offense at survivors’ inaccuracies in their eyewitness accounts of life at the camps, including the claim that there were gas chambers at Buchenwald. His slide into revisionism and denial came when he made the shift from interpreting these accounts as the normal confabulation and confusion that occurs in all eyewitness testimony, to speculating that these people might be deliberately lying (p. 41).”

The authors ignore the fact that Rassinier uncovered evidence that certain concentration camp survivors did in fact lie. French priest Jean-Paul Renard promoted the deliberate lie that he saw “homicidal gassings at Buchenwald.” When former Buchenwald inmate Rassinier pointed out to him that there were no homicidal gas chambers or murderous gassings in the camp, Renard replied: “Right, but that’s only a figure of speech…and since those things [Hitler gas chambers] existed somewhere, its not important.”[30]

Even the staunchly anti-revisionist, Jewish historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet pointed to a liar who claimed he saw “gas chambers” at Buchenwald. He cites the false testimony of “a Protestant theologian, Charles Hauter, who was deported to Buchenwald, never saw any gas chambers, and who went on to rave about them.”[31]

In short, there is no evidence the Germans intentionally committed mass genocide of the Jews at Buchenwald. For an excellent discussion complete with credible documentation of the mythology that surrounds the camp, I refer the reader to revisionist historian Mark Weber’s essay.[32] This should serve as a perfect antidote to Eisenhower and S & G’s misleading insinuations.

V

On pages 161-167, there is a discussion of the alleged homicidal gas chambers of Majdanek. Revisionist scholar Carlo Mattogno’s meticulous study of this subject is a perfect antidote to the claims of S & G, and I refer the reader to it.[33] A few miscellaneous comments, however, are called for.

In their attempt to prove that Majdanek was equipped with homicidal gas chambers, DH’s authors ask the rhetorical question: “Why else would the SS have built these new rooms that feature peepholes and locking doors, components not found in any delousing chamber (p. 163)?” This is 100% false.

Jean-Claude Pressac, described by S & G as an extermination camp expert (p. 131), showed that some non-homicidal Nazi delousing chambers do have peepholes and locking doors. In his Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, he provided a picture of one of them, along with this comment: “Gas-tight door of the [delousing] gas chamber, of conventional design…with its peephole and two locking bars, each of which fitted into a metal catch through which a threaded rod, bent to form a handle, was screwed, completely blocking the latch and ensuring that the door was tightly closed.”[34]

If S & G knew of this evidence and intentionally ignored it, they are liars; if they didn’t know of it, they are ignorant of the facts.

VI

One of the reasons that S & G condemn Holocaust revisionism is because “Embedded in the anti-Jewish agenda of Holocaust denial is a strong conspiratorial streak (p. 80).” This supposedly is an indication of irrational paranoia, as Jews, Communists and others “are seen [by revisionists] to be at work behind the scenes, deviously conspiring to implement their cabals (p. 81).”

Inasmuch as certain Jews, Communists and others have in fact purposely and covertly worked to attain their ends, saying so does not indicate any irrational paranoia. For example, there were in fact Communist inspired conspiracies that played a role at the Nuremberg trials and the development of the Holocaust legend, which S & G conveniently ignore. At Nuremberg the Soviet Communists hatched a conspiracy to pin the blame for the Katyn Forest massacre on the Germans. We now know the Soviet Communists were guilty of that crime.[35]

The post-war Polish government also concocted phony scientific reports, purporting to “prove” to the world that the Germans murdered people in “homicidal steam chambers” at Treblinka concentration camp.[36] Everyone now admits that there were no such murder devices at the camp.[37]

Consider the Jewish-Zionist Anti-Defamation League (ADL) conspiracy to deny freedom of speech to Liberty Lobby, one of the first anti-Zionist political organizations to promote Holocaust revisionism. At a meeting of the ADL in February 1974, its officials set in motion a conspiracy to remove Liberty Lobby’s radio program from the airwaves. Eventually, the show was taken off the air. There is ample documentation of the ADL’s behind-the-scenes, conspiratorial influence to have the radio program removed from the airwaves.[38]

Revisionist author Richard Harwood once wrote: “We assert that the ‘Holocaust’ lie was perpetrated by Zionist-Jewry’s stunning propaganda machine for the purpose of filling the minds of Gentile people the world over with such guilt feelings about the Jews that they would utter no protest when the Zionists robbed the Palestinians of their homeland with the utmost savagery (p. 80).”

S & G reject this claim, countering that: “It is one thing to debate the politics of the Arab-Israeli conflict over Palestine…; it is quite another to suggest that the Holocaust was invented by its victims in order to gain a moral high ground, particularly since the founding of the state of Israel was in the works decades before the Holocaust (p. 80).”

Once again, S & G distort the facts. Zionists did use stories of Nazi atrocities (real and imagined) against Jews during WWII to gain sympathy for the Zionist cause of creating a Jewish state. At a mass rally in Madison Square Garden in March 1943, Zionist activist and first president of Israel Chaim Weizmann was quoted as saying: “Two million Jews have already been exterminated…The democracies have a clear duty before them…Let them negotiate with Germany through the neutral countries concerning the possible release of the Jews in the occupied countries…Let the gates of Palestine be opened to all who can reach the shores of the Jewish homeland…”[39]

In May 1943, in an atmosphere of Nazi atrocity stories, Pierre van Passen claimed, “that the real reason many more Jews face death because Britain wants to keep the doors of Palestine shut to them.”[40]

Finally, even prominent Zionist activists admit that the “Holocaust” is an ideological weapon that serves Israeli-Zionist interests. “Jews and non-Jews have grown weary of the Holocaust,” Jewish activist and political commentator Mitchell Bard wrote. He continued: “There are important moral implications that follow from the premise that people are tired of confronting the apotheosis of evil. From the standpoint of U.S. Middle East policy, this ennui is dangerous because it undermines one of the bases on which American support for Israel is based.”[41]

Bard further stated: “Americans did not support the establishment of Israel solely to assuage their conscience over their failure to save European Jewry. This played a part, but there was a wider recognition that Jews required a haven from persecution and that a state in their ancestral homeland provided such a refuge.”

Bard then goes on to discuss a 1989 survey by the American Jewish Committee that found that Jews under 35 were less supportive of Israel than their elders. Bard believes this may indicate that Jews born after WWII do not have the same level of commitment to Israel as those who lived through the “Holocaust.” If this is true, Bard claims, “Americans who are committed to the moral character of our nation, and to Israel, have an obligation to mount a vigorous educational campaign [about the Holocaust] to guarantee that tomorrow’s leaders will have the same devotion to their country and the state of Israel that [some other American political leaders had].”[42]

So there you have it. A plain admission from a prominent Zionist the Holocaust ideology is to be used to garner Jewish and Gentile support for Israel.

VII

On pages 52-53, the authors attempt to prove that Herman Goring helped formulate and carry out an alleged plan to exterminate the Jews. They quote the following passages from David Irving’s biography of Goring to bolster their case.

“’Emigration was only one possibility that Goring foresaw. ‘The second is as follows,’ he said in November 1938, selecting his words with uncharacteristic care. ‘If at any foreseeable time in the future the German Reich finds itself in a foreign political conflict, then it is self-evident that we in Germany will address ourselves first and foremost to effecting a grand settling of scores against the Jews.’”

In response to this passage, S & G ask this rhetorical question: “Since Irving claims that emigration is all Nazis ever meant by ausrotten (extermination) and the Final Solution…then just what did Herman Goring mean here by the ‘second’ plan?”

Here the authors are drawing the false inference that Goring meant “extermination of the Jews” by the “second” plan. The documentary evidence clearly shows that Goring meant forcible deportation by the second plan.

In his famous letter to Reinhard Heydrich regarding the “Final Solution of the Jewish question,” dated July 31, 1941, Goring wrote: “As supplement to the task that was entrusted to you in the decree dated 24 January 1939, namely to solve the Jewish question by emigration and evacuation in a way which is most favorable in connection with the conditions prevailing at the time, I herewith commission you to carry out all preparations with regard to organizational, factual, and financial viewpoints for a total solution of the Jewish question in those territories under German influence [emphasis added].”[43]

VIII

On pages 130-132, S & G attempt to explain away the fact that the Zyklon- B gas traces are much, much greater in the Auschwitz delousing chambers (where no one was ever gassed) than in the Auschwitz “homicidal gas chambers” (where large numbers were supposedly gassed).

The authors claim: first, millions did not die in any one gas chamber; second, the chambers were never operated continuously, around the clock, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; third, “lice take much longer to succumb to Zyklon-B than humans do, who absorb it through their lungs and die in a matter of minutes (the delousing of clothing took twelve to eighteen hours). And minutes after the prisoners died, the gas was let out of the chambers (and the bodies removed), preventing the long-term buildup of residue in most cases (p. 131).”

Even if millions did not die in any one supposed gas chamber, the standard Holocaust story still insists that large numbers did die in each gas chamber. Allegedly, approximately 400,000 were gassed in Krematorium II, 350,000 in Krematorium III.[44] And it is still a part of the standard Holocaust history that the alleged gas chambers were in operation for long periods of time. Krematorium II allegedly functioned as a homicidal gas chamber from March 1943 to November 1944; Krematorium III was supposedly used in a similar fashion from June 1943 to November 1944.[45] Most importantly, S & G are claiming that the reason there was no long-term buildup of cyanide residue in the “gas chambers” is because the hydrogen cyanide gas (HCN) was in contact with the walls, pillars and ceilings for only very brief periods of time. This is clearly a fallacious line of reasoning. Because of the inefficient exhaust systems that were allegedly installed in the “gas chambers,” there would have been a large amount of HCN left after a mass gassing that would have permeated the brickwork.[46] However, even if we give the believers in the “Hitler gas chambers” the benefit of the doubt and assume A) the ventilation systems could reduce the amount of gas in the chambers to tolerable levels 20 to 30 minutes after a homicidal gassing (with only residual amounts of HCN remaining), and B) the chambers were washed down after the gassings with water,[47] the conditions would still have been conducive to the development of the long term buildup of cyanide residue.

As the authoritative Nuremberg document, NI-9921, makes clear, HCN is water-soluble and has extraordinarily great penetrating powers.[48] Robert Jan Van Pelt, an intellectual who commented favorably on DH, estimates that 350,000 people were killed in the alleged gas chamber of Crematorium I. At 2,000 people per gassing, that comes out to 175 gassings, or approximately 117 hours of the gas chamber being exposed to HCN.[49]

Since HCN has great penetrating powers, at least some of the gas would have penetrated far enough into the brickwork to escape being washed away after each gassing. Furthermore, HCN is water-soluble. After the hosing down, numerous water droplets, containing dissolved HCN (in addition to the natural moisture in the chamber which would have dissolved HCN), would have remained on the walls, floors and ceilings to react with the iron in the walls, ultimately leading to a cyanide residue buildup. Indeed, certified chemist Rudolf uncovered the case of a German church that had visible cyanide residue staining after only one fumigation with Zyklon B.[50] Considering all of the aforementioned, one is justified in concluding that the conditions would have been conducive for the long-term buildup of visible cyanide residue—if the structures were indeed used as homicidal gas chambers. S & G provide readers with a short discussion of Errol Morris’s documentary film, “Mr. Death,” about Fred Leuchter. Gas chamber expert Leuchter took forensic samples from an Auschwitz delousing chamber and the alleged gas chambers. Since a large amount iron cyanide compounds were found in the delousing chamber (where all parties agree that no one was gassed) while only miniscule amounts were found in the homicidal “gas chamber” samples, it was concluded that no gassings occurred in the alleged “gas chambers.”

In an attempt to refute Leuchter’s findings, S & G rely upon the claims made by Dr. James Roth, the chemist who analyzed Leuchter’s samples (pp. 257-258). He made this statement: “I don’t think the Leuchter results have any meaning. Hindsight being 20/20, the test was not the correct one to have been used for the analysis. [Leuchter] presented us with rock samples anywhere from the size of your thumb to half the size of your fist…You have to look at what happens to cyanide when it reacts with a wall. Where does it go? How far does it go? Cyanide is a surface reaction, it’s probably not going to penetrate more than 10 microns. A human hair is 100 microns in diameter. Crush this sample up. I have just diluted that sample ten thousand, a hundred thousand times. If you are gonna look for it you are going to look on the surface only. There’s no reason to go deep because it is not going to be there.”[51]

In other words, when the HCN was released into the “gas chamber,” it would have come in contact with the walls and then bonded with the iron in the brick only on the surface, forming an iron-cyanide complex. His theory implicitly assumes that the cyanide compounds would not migrate and diffuse throughout the brickwork.

The findings of certified chemist Germar Rudolf undermine Roth’s viewpoint. There are blue iron cyanide stains on the outside walls of the Auschwitz delousing facilities. Rudolf noted, “…the patchy characteristic [of the blue iron cyanide stains on the outside walls of the delousing facilities] shows clearly that soluble cyanide compounds have slowly migrated through the brickwork to the outside surface…”[52]

Even if we give Roth the benefit of the doubt and assume that the HCN would have bonded with the iron only on the surface of the “gas chamber” walls, the iron cyanide compounds would migrate and diffuse throughout the brickwork. Roth’s crucial claim that one looks for cyanide compounds only on the surface and not deep within the brick is untenable. Leuchter and associates are correct. One must look throughout the entire sample—not just on the surface—for iron cyanide compounds. Dr. Roth stands corrected. The Leuchter results do have meaning.

Furthermore, here we have another omission of evidence on the part of S & G. During the Phil Donahue Show debate between Shermer and revisionist Bradley Smith and former revisionist David Cole, film footage taken by David Cole was shown. The outside wall of a Birkenau delousing chamber was shown with large, highly conspicuous, deep blue cyanide staining. Here is empirical evidence that undermines Roth’s claim—and both S & G were aware of this.[53] The chemical products of the exposure to hydrogen cyanide are present on the inside and outside walls of the delousing chamber, thus undermining Roth’s claim that the gas would have penetrated only the surface of the bricks, and the resulting cyanide compounds are found only on the surface of the brick and not throughout the entire brick.

S & G make another false statement that can be disproved by the evidence they themselves saw on the Donahue show. They wrote: “…the bricks Leuchter examined had been exposed to nearly half a century of weather by the time he took his samples, so his results should come as no surprise (p. 257).” In other words, a half-century of exposure of the walls of the alleged gas chamber to wind, rain, snow, etc., would have washed all the cyanide residue out of the bricks. But the outside walls of the delousing chamber were exposed to the elements for a half a century, and the blue cyanide stains are still present. They did not weather away.[54]

IX

In their attempt to prove the Nazis had a plan to exterminate Jewry, S & G quote the pre-1941 grisly statements of Hitler, Himmler, and other top Nazi officials. What they don’t point out is that the top experts of the traditional view of Holocaust have conceded that prior to 1941 the Nazis had no plan to exterminate Jewry, and the Nazis were not speaking in a genocidal sense.

Holocaust historian Yahuda Bauer: “Certainly before 1941 they [the Nazis] did not envisage mass murder, as Himmler’s memorandum on the treatment of alien nationals of 25 May 1940, for instance, shows, because this says that the idea of a physical destruction of a nation is a Bolshevik concept unacceptable to Germans.”[55]

At the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial it was conceded by Lipstadt’s team of anti-revisionist Holocaust experts that prior to 1941 there was no Nazi policy to exterminate Jewry. Justice Gray noted: “It is common ground between the parties [Irving and Lipstadt’s team of Holocaust experts] that, until the latter part of 1941, the solution to the Jewish question which Hitler preferred was their mass deportation.”[56] The anti-revisionist experts at the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial further admitted: “…that in the 1930s Hitler should not be understood to have been speaking in a genocidal terms.”[57]

Hence, all of the pre-1941 Nazi statements that S & G quote as a part of their convergence of evidence to “prove” the existence of a Nazi policy to exterminate Jewry can no longer be used as such (pp. 186, 195). Let me give one example how the authors fallaciously use such quotes.

On page 195, they write: “David Irving makes it sound as if there was no smoking gun [for Hitler’s alleged plan to exterminate Jewry]. In fact, there is an entire battery of smoking guns. In Hitler’s speech of January 30, 1939, for example, he said: ‘Today I want to be a prophet once more: If international finance Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.’”

Accordingly, Hitler’s statement should be interpreted to mean that if there is another war, the Jews will be swept out of Europe by brutal means—but this is not the same as a policy to exterminate them en masse. This quote is not a part of any battery of smoking guns that allegedly “proves” that Hitler planned to exterminate Jewry. What Hitler meant is that the Jewish people would be removed from Europe by the most brutal means necessary—but this is much different from a plan to physically exterminate all the Jews in gas chambers.

In regard to this speech, that Hitler was not referring to any policy to exterminate Jewry was conceded at the Irving-Lipstadt trial. Justice Gray noted: “The evidence is incontrovertible (and Irving does not seek to dispute it) that Hitler was rabidly anti-Semitic from the earliest days. He spoke, in his famous speech of 30 January 1939 and on other occasions, in the most sinister and menacing terms of the fate that awaited Jews; they were a bacillus that had to be destroyed. The Defandants [Lipstadt’s team of Holocaust experts] do not suggest that in the 1930s Hitler should be understood to have been speaking in genocidal terms.”[58]

X

S & G wrote: “Deniers almost never attempt to disprove their claims and, instead, seek only confirmatory evidence (p. 251).” This describes the methodology of S & G, not revisionists. In Part I, it was demonstrated that Holocaust revisionism is a scientific theory, as it is potentially falsifiable.[59] S & G make no attempt in their published literature (WPBWT or DH) to disprove their Holocaust theories, nor do they suggest how they can be disproved. They only draw questionable inferences that support their theories and ignore evidence which contradict them. S & G’s attempt to prove that Hitler ordered the mass extermination of Jewry is an excellent case in point.

In regard to the absence of a written order from Hitler himself for the extermination of Jewry, S & G then do what they accuse revisionists of doing—rationalizing their way out of a jam (p. 117). S & G write: “In our opinion, one of the reasons there is no record of a written order by Hitler [ordering the extermination of Jewry] is that he once authorized in writing the euthanasia of handicapped patients and this fact came back to haunt him when the press ran critical stories about the euthanasia programs. Hitler, it appears, realized that such actions needed to be taken in secret, and certainly not ordered in writing. Furthermore, it seems that as a general principle Hitler preferred not to sign orders himself. There is no order signed by Hitler, for example, to start the war (p. 126).”

Again in another part of DH they admit that a signed document by Hitler ordering the Jews of Europe to be exterminated probably never existed (p. 202). After Hitler’s experience with public disquiet following the Euthanasia killings, “it seems doubtful that Hitler would have committed his signature to any similar document, such as one ordering the Final Solution. From then on any orders to kill people would probably have been verbal (p. 204).”

The empirical evidence undermines this rationalization. As far back as 1978 David Irving noted the weakness of this species of argument, as Hitler did in fact sign orders to kill people: “But why should Hitler have become so circumspect in [regard to issuing a written order for the extermination of European Jewry], since in contrast he had shown no compunction about personally signing a blanket order for the liquidation of tens of thousands of fellow Germans (the Euthanasia Programme); and his comparable orders for the liquidation of enemy prisoners (the Commando order), of Allied airmen (the Lynch Order) and Russian functionaries (the Commissar Order) are documented all the way from Fuhrer’s headquarters right down the line to the executioners? Jews did not rank any higher than any of these in popularity in Nazi Germany.”[60]

Furthermore, S & G ignore a convergence of evidence that supports the revisionist theory that Hitler never ordered the extermination of Jewry.

A document found after the war in the files of the Reich Ministry of Justice records Hitler’s thinking on the Jews. This spring of 1942, Nazi memorandum of State Secretary Franz Schlegelberger noted that Hitler’s Chief of Chancellery, Dr. Hans Lammers, had informed him: “…The Fuhrer has repeatedly declared to him [Lammers] that he wants to see the solution of the Jewish problem postponed until after the war.”[61] Once again on July 25, 1942, Hitler emphasized this determination to remove all Jews from Europe after the war: “After this war is over, I will rigorously hold to the view…that the Jews will have to leave and emigrate to Madagascar or some other Jewish national state.”[62]

Finally, there is the summary of Nazi Jewish policy, a memo from German official Martin Luther, dated August 21, 1942, which contains a most revealing passage. Under point number 8, it states: “On the occasion of a reception by the Reich Foreign Minister on 26 November 1941 the Bulgarian Foreign Popoff touched on the problem of according like treatment to the Jews of European nationalities and pointed out the difficulties that the Bulgarians had in the application of their Jewish laws to Jews of foreign nationality.”

“The Reich Foreign Minister answered that he thought this question brought up by Mr. Popoff not uninteresting. Even now he could say one thing to him, that at the end of the war all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was an unalterable decision of the Fuehrer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much.”[63]

S & G write: “The Holocaust deniers (conveniently) disregard any convergence of evidence; they pick out what suits their theory and ignore the rest (p. 34).” This charge boomerangs right back into their face. Here we have a convergence of evidence from three sources which shows that Hitler did not order the war time extermination of all of Jewry, as he expected them to be around at the war’s end and they would be required to leave Europe. But S & G simply ignored this convergence of evidence and then accused revisionists of the very sins they are guilty of. (Further on in this essay, the reader will be shown other Hitler quotes that also suggest there was no policy to exterminate the Jews.)

This convergence of evidence also undermines another of S & G’s arguments. On pp.53-55, they claim the following quotation made by Adolf Eichmann in his memoirs (written many years after the end of WWII) helps to “prove” that Hitler ordered the extermination of the Jews. Nazi official Reinhard Heydrich allegedly told Eichmann at the end of September or October 1941 that: “I [Heydrich] come from the Reichfuhrer [Heinrich Himmler]. He [Himmler] has received orders from [Hitler] for the physical destruction of the Jews (p. 54).”

Irving claimed that Eichmann had inserted this phrase in his manuscript so that if he were captured his defense would be that he was merely following orders (p. 54). S & G claim that Irving is simply attempting to rationalize away the evidence.

But the aforementioned convergence of documentary evidence suggests the Irving explanation may indeed be correct. Why would Hitler order the physical destruction of the Jews in 1941, and then change his mind in 1942, ordering that after the war is ended they will have to leave Europe? A reason for skepticism about Eichmann’s account is his wish to exculpate himself.

The aforementioned convergence of evidence strongly suggests that Hitler never ordered the wartime physical destruction of the Jews. In light of this solid documentary evidence, it is reasonable to assume that Eichmann may have added said passage into his memoirs sometime in the 1950s. Authentic and genuine war-time documentation is a much more reliable form of evidence than a memoir written many years after the fact and under pressure to alter the memoirs so as to help one escape retribution.

Finally, let us give S & G the benefit of the doubt and assume the Eichmann passage is 100% correct; Hitler did order the physical destruction of the Jews in 1941. The convergence of evidence just cited then shows that he changed his mind in 1942 and simply wanted them deported to a land outside Europe. This is further substantiated by what Hitler is recorded to have said on January 27, 1942, about three months after Eichmann was allegedly told of Hitler’s order for Jewry’s physical destruction: “The Jews must pack up and disappear from Europe. Let them go to Russia. Where the Jews are concerned, I’m devoid of all sense of pity.”[64]

Furthermore, with the use of the argument that the alleged plans to exterminate Jewry were top secret, the authors involve themselves with a self-contradiction. Once again, S & G speak: “In furthering their argument, deniers claim that if the Holocaust really happened, then it would have been widely known during the war. It would be obvious as, say, the D-Day landing. Plus, the Nazis would have discussed it among themselves, as they made their plans for mass, systematic murder.”

“But, we counter, the D-Day landing was not widely known until after the event began. For obvious reasons, D-Day was kept a secret. Might not a similar need for secrecy apply to the Holocaust? It was not something that was discussed on an everyday basis between fellow Nazis, as Albert Speer noted in his Spandau Diary (pp. 196-197).”

Yet, on page 196 they quote Hitler’s public speech in Munich, November 8, 1942, where his words have been translated as follows: “If Jewry should imagine that it could bring about an international world war to exterminate the European races, the result will not be the extermination of the European races, but the extermination of Jewry in Europe.”

So let’s get S & G’s scenario straight. Hitler and his top Nazis kept their alleged plans to exterminate Jewry secret. Hitler himself was fearful of signing any type of order for the extermination of the Jews, and he realized that such actions needed to be taken in secret, certainly never ordered in writing. Yet, simultaneously, Hitler was publicly announcing, in front of thousands in Munich, his plans for Jewry’s mass murder!!!

Here, S & G are caught in a paradox in which the alternatives actually cancel each other out, leaving them no means of escape from a dilemma. If the Nazis kept their alleged plans to exterminate Jewry a secret, then the public Nazi speeches they quoted cannot refer to any extermination program. However, if the speeches that they quoted from really are evidence of a Nazi plan to exterminate Jewry, then their claim that the Nazis kept their extermination plans a secret is false.

Contradictions and inconsistencies such as this are exactly what one should expect in a false theory.

S & G claim that revisionists “divorce their chosen details from the overall context (p. 34).” Once again, this accurately describes their methodology, not that of revisionists. Herewith.

Three days after the Wannsee Conference, January 23, 1942, S & G quote this statement made by Hitler to his associates: “The Jew must clear out of Europe. Otherwise no understanding will be possible between Europeans…I restrict myself to telling them they must go away. If they break their pipes on the journey, I can’t do anything about it. But if they refuse to go voluntarily, I see no other solution but extermination (p. 224).”

By failing to quote the rest of Hitler’s statements, they divorced their chosen details from the overall context, thus distorting what Hitler really meant. In the next paragraph, Hitler said: “A good three or four hundred years will go by before the Jews set foot again in Europe. They’ll return first of all as commercial travelers, then gradually they’ll become emboldened to settle here—the better to exploit us…”[65]

Hitler’s meaning is clear. He had no plans to physically exterminate all of the Jews, as he realized they would still be around hundreds of years from now. Yet, he clearly realized the brutality of his plans to rid Europe of the Jews; many would die as a result of his policies, and many of the ones that did not leave voluntarily would be shot or would die of disease or starvation. (All of this evidence is consistent with Holocaust revisionist theory.) A brutal and evil policy indeed, but it is not the same as a policy to exterminate all Jews in gas chambers, to make them disappear from the face of the earth.

XI

S & G claim the statements of Hans Frank, head of the Generalgouvernement of Nazi occupied Poland, proves the Nazis intended to exterminate the Jews.

On October 7, 1940, Frank stated in a speech to a Nazi assembly: “I could not eliminate [ausrotten] all lice and Jews in only one year. But in the course of time, and if you help me, this end will be attained (p. 186).”

S & G claim there is only one interpretation of this sentence: Frank was referring to the Nazi policy of exterminating lice and Jews. As shown previously in this essay, it is now generally agreed by all parties that prior to 1941 there was no Nazi plan to exterminate Jewry. (See Section IX.) What Frank must have been saying is: “I could not root out all lice and Jews in only one year. But in the course of time, and if you help me, this end will be attained.”

In WPBWT (p. 217) and DH (p. 189) Shermer speaks of the snapshot fallacy, taking a single quote or piece of evidence out of its historical context and then drawing false conclusions from this. This is exactly what S & G have done with the aforementioned Frank quote.

In addition, there is a contemporary piece of evidence that supports my interpretation of the Frank quote.

Rahavam Zeevi, Israel’s minister of Tourism, was recently quoted as saying: “They [the Palestinians living illegally in Israel] arrived here and are trying to become citizens because they want social security and welfare payments…We should get rid of the ones who are not Israeli citizens the same way you get rid of lice. We have to stop this cancer from spreading within us.”[66]

This quote from Zeevi undermines S & G’s argument. What the Zeevi quote shows is that one can refer to human beings as “lice” that “have to be eliminated” without literally meaning that said people are to be exterminated. In other words, Zeevi’s words cannot be interpreted in a literal manner; he didn’t mean the Israelis should physically exterminate the Palestinians. He simply meant he wants them deported. By the same token, Frank’s words cannot be understood in a literal manner. He simply meant that he wanted to deport the Jews in a brutal manner.

XII

S & G claim that a passage from the Wannasee Protocol offers further evidence the Nazis planned to exterminate the Jews. Penned by Adolf Eichmann, this document was the product of a Nazi conference held on January 20, 1942. S & G quote the following passage.

“The remnant [of the Jews] that eventually remains will require suitable treatment; because it will without doubt represent the most resistant part, it consists of a natural selection…that could, on its release, become the germ-cell of a new Jewish revival (p. 220).”

S & G believe that the statement—“The remnant that eventually remains will require suitable treatment.”—can only mean the Nazis planned to exterminate the Jews (p. 221).

The last statement in said passage undermines this interpretation. It clearly says the remnant of the Jews on its release could become the germ-cell of a new Jewish revival. As Dr. Robert Faurisson pointed out, this means the Germans intended to release (to liberate) those Jews who worked hard; they would constitute an elite, a germ cell of a new Jewish development. The Nazis realized that as a result of their policies many Jews would die from overwork and exhaustion. A brutal outlook indeed—but it is not the same as a plan to exterminate all the Jews.[67]

XIII

So why do Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman promote and defend the traditional view of the Holocaust, a distorted and fallacious ideology? Since S & G spend much time speculating about the motivations of revisionists, it is only fair that something be said about their motivations. What follows is a personal opinion subject to revision in the light of any new evidence that may be brought to my attention.

Alex Grobman, a Jewish-Zionist intellectual, was the founding editor-in-chief of the Simon Wiesenthal Annual, and he is passionately devoted to the interests of organized Jewry. Indeed, in DH’s “dedication” he refers admiringly to how his family’s “devotion and commitment to Hashem and the Jewish people have inspired him.” As left-wing Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein has pointed out, the Holocaust ideology is a key instrument of organized Jewish power and influence.[68] Is it any wonder that an ardent Zionist would seek to defend and promote it?

Like Jewish-Zionist intellectual Arthur Hertzberg who wrote the “Foreward,” Grobman may believe that by fighting against Holocaust revisionism, he is defending the “honor of the Jewish people (p. xiii).” He may also believe that by fighting against Holocaust revisionism, he is ensuring the safety and well being of the Jewish people, because the victory of Holocaust revisionism will supposedly lead to a worldwide outbreak of anti-Semitic violence and repression (p. 16).

Possibly, Grobman’s commitment to the Jewish people blinds him to the fact that it is the continuous promotion of Holocaust falsehoods, and the Jewish-Zionist exploitation of these falsehoods, is what really endangers Jews and poses a threat to their well being.

But what about the Gentile, Michael Shermer? Shermer has admitted that, in the past, in order to attain his goals he has accepted ideologies that he did not fully sincerely believe in. He noted in his How we Believe: The Search for God in the Age of Science that his past conversion to Christianity was not entirely sincere; he did it (in part) in order to win the affections of a woman. “My motives for converting,” Shermer wrote, “while sincere later, were not quite as pure at the time—my friend had a sister that I wanted to get to know better and I figured this might help.”[69]

Among the many possible reasons why Michael Shermer does not want his readership to view the Weber-Shermer debate videotape is because it provides evidence of his own insincerity. In DH, St. Michael the Archangel presents himself as a highly “moral” man who wants to make sure that his “righteous and good” Holocaust doctrine triumphs over the “evil” ideology of Holocaust revisionism.

In a very pious tone, S & G write: “Like most fringe groups, deniers [revisionists] may seem relatively small and relatively harmless, but remember the adage: For evil to triumph it only requires that the good do nothing. We cannot remain silent anymore. It is time to respond (p. 17).” At DH’s end they write: “We believe Holocaust denial is so dangerous and despicable—it is an attempt not just to deny a true past, but to deny a meaningful one (p. 256).”

Yet, at the Weber-Shermer debate where he was in front of a mostly revisionist audience, Shermer changed his tune and attempted to portray himself as a neutral, disinterested scholar who does not care one way or the other who wins the debate between “Holocaust denialists” and believers in the traditional view of the Holocaust. He said: “I have no particular stake, personally or professionally, in preserving any kind of aspect of the Holocaust story…It does not matter to me, personally…I don’t care what the outcome of the history being done on the Holocaust is…It doesn’t matter to me.”[70]

Even Gentiles can benefit by hitching their wagon onto the “Holocaust Industry,” as good fortune accrues to the “righteous Gentile” who promotes the Holocaust legend.[71] Indeed, California psychologist Kevin MacDonald has pointed out how in several historical cases gentiles were recruited into movements that serve Jewish interests and given highly visible roles in order to lessen the appearance the movement serves narrow sectarian Jewish interests. In return for his services, the “out-front” gentile is rewarded accordingly.[72]

Shermer admitted to this writer that he received six figure advances for his books, the only exception being DH, for which he received only a four figure advance.[73] However, the book was favorably commented upon by important people, thus putting him in good standing for future book contracts, speaking engagements and academic positions.[74]

Evidence consistent with the view that Michael Shermer has functioned as an “out-front” gentile is provided in DH. At the Phil Donahue Show Holocaust debate of March 14, 1994, Shermer “appeared on the show under the guidance of [Grobman], who provided numerous documents and photographs to be used in rebuttal (p. 109).” Why was Shermer a featured guest and Grobman backstage? At the time, Grobman had many more Holocaust related publications to his credit than Shermer did, and thus, would be considered to be the more knowledgeable Holocaust scholar. Why was not Grobman a featured guest instead of Shermer?

By promoting the Jewish-Zionist version of the Holocaust, Michael Shermer is possibly advancing his own career. Apparently, Truth is of a much lesser value.

Notes

© copyright 2001, Paul Grubach