Letters

ROBERT FAURISSON

Your editor mis-reads a handwritten note from Professor Faurisson.

Just received Smith’s Report #25 (August 1995) where you published an open letter of mine on my recent trial and on the court decision of June 13, 1995.

You made a frightening mistake. I never said “Nevertheless, I forced publication of the judgment in three newspapers at my own expense.” I have no power and no money to do such a thing. I simply meant that the Jewish lawyer had asked the court not only for a non-suspended jail sentence and for financial damages but also for a forced publication of the judgment in three newspapers at my expense.

As you know, it was a total failure for this lawyer.

He obtained nothing of what he asked. Our adversaries [whom he represented] did not appeal. [Pressac’s testimony] was for him a major disaster.

About David Cole’s text on the “highly likely” allegation that Jews were gassed at Struthof: Cole did not give us one word on Professor Rene Fabre’s testimony! Not one word on Pressac’s allusions to it in his Struthof Album!

MIROSLAV DRAGAN

We shouldn’t be too appalled by early 20th century racial “science” more than half a century after the fact because it had its place in the history of scientific trends.

Re David Cole’s comments on the Nazi interest in racial science: there were, are and will be fads in science. They are based on the evolving instruments of science. Astronomy became an instant fad when the telescope was invented, just as DNA phenotyping followed the development of chromatography and electrophoresis.

About 70 years ago immunohematolgy became a fad, especially in the Soviet Ukraine, when the major blood groups were discovered in Poland and elsewhere. Soon, many minor blood groups were discovered, and nationalities and tribes were statistically examined with regard to this genetic aspect. Complementing immunohematology, the inexpensive science of anthropometry was developed and anthropologists began to collect and measure skulls, record and collate blood groups with the color of eyes and hair.

Pathologists, and especially laryngologists (once micro surgery instruments were developed), began to examine horizontally and vertically sliced human heads. Even today researchers practice their microsurgical skills on slices of human skulls, while ophthalmologists switched from human eyes to those enucleated from pigs. Nevertheless, as new tools and approaches were developed, and as traditional views on “race” became politically incorrect, anthropometry and the study of variations between human groups was virtually abandoned.

This long introduction is an attempt to alert Mr. Cole to the fact that a skull collection which sounds Frankenstein-like today was nothing odd or gory during the first half of the XXth century, even in America.

Were the Struthof “specimens” gassed then? If so, it would not be a great sin during that time when Nazi legislation allowed euthanasia (which had been legalized earlier in seven other European countries) and particularly if the intended victims had earlier been condemned to death for other reasons. Even today, cadavers of virtually all condemned and hanged prisoners end up on the dissecting tables in the medical schools of Europe. The same was taking place in Germany where the Nazi regime was not skittish about issuing death sentences. Actually, it printed posters bragging about such executions.

I would like to see good physical proof that these unfortunate “specimens” at Struthof were gassed by the Germans as this would provide a valid, but still missing, kernel of truth about the legend of mass homicidal gassing of Jews during the WWII Holocaust.

But I doubt that reckless medical experiments were carried out with the knowledge of the Nazi leadership. Please find enclosed two letters to Himmler: 1) a three page letter from an Auschwitz physician, Professor C. Clauberg, requesting permission to carry out sterilization procedures on female prisoners and 2) a two page letter from the SS Surgeon General requesting eight young prisoners for experiments with treatment of infectious hepatitus. (Photocopies of these two letters, in the original German, will be supplied to those who ask for them—Ed.)

It can not be over stressed that this high Nazi official was asking for permission to experiment on eight young individuals who were already condemned to death (“Benoetigt wurden 8 zum Tode verurteilte Haftlinge, moglichtest jungeren . . . .”). Himmler gave his permission but in turn demanded that the results of the experiments be submitted to him for review. The two letters to Himmler were reproduced in facsimile in an exterminationist book, If Hitler Had Won by Tadeusz Kulakowski, (Warsaw, Poland, 1960) following page 135, berating “criminal” Nazi medical experiments!

Today, physicians who do experiments on prisoners in America do not request permission to do so from the director of the FBI or CIA and do not send them the results of such experiments. Prisoner’s “informed consent” and the Warden’s consent at places such as Attica (a federal penitentiary) suffices.

Mr. Cole’s review and critique of certain revisionist texts provides fresh insight and raises many questions for revisionists to ponder. Without such self-questioning, revisionists will not be able to convince others that they are interested in the truth, not merely in defending a point of view.

CHARLES PROVAN

Paul Rassinier, the “father” of revisionism, believed homicidal gassing chambers were probably used at Belzec. He came to this view after interviewing Dr. Wilhelm Pfannenstiel several years after the war. Pfannenstiel visited Belzec with SS officer Kurt Gerstein.

Holocaust Revisionists trace their origins back to Paul Rassinier, the French historian/writer; he is commonly referred to as “the Father of Revisionism”. Professor Robert Faurisson, described as the foremost Revisionist in the world, has even used the term “disciples of Paul Rassinier” as a synonym for “Revisionist”. (Journal of Historical Review. Vol. 1, #2, Summer, 1980, pg 104) Therefore, it was of great interest to this author to realize that Professor Faurisson repudiates and openly opposes what Paul Rassinier taught about the gas chambers.

According to Professor Robert Faurisson, “There was not a single ‘Gas Chamber’ in even one of the German concentration camps; that is the truth.” (“The Problem of the Gas Chambers”, by Robert Faurisson, appearing on pg 10 of Christian News. May 7, 1990)

This quote is in direct opposition to the following statement by Paul Rassinier: “…if I stubbornly questioned every line of every document and deposition upon which was based this monstrous indictment of which Germany was the victim and that if my examination of this evidence caused me to conclude that it was nothing but the crudest of fabrications, it would not allow me to claim that there never had been an extermination by gas. Moreover, I had never claimed that, but only had stated that I had never found any reliable evidence to support that contention.” (The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses. 1978, pg 281)

Paul Rassinier not only refused to say that there were no gassings of Jews during the Second World War—he went further: he affirmed the existence of homicidal Gas Chambers for killing Jews. In what Professor Arthur Butz calls Rassinier’s “final general work on the Jewish extermination problem”, Rassinier had this to say: “With regard to the gas chambers, the almost endless procession of false witnesses and of falsified documents to which I have invited the reader’s attention during this long study, proves, nevertheless, only one thing: never at any moment did the responsible authorities of the Third Reich intend to order—or in fact, order—the extermination of the Jews in this or any other manner. Did such exterminations take place without orders? This question has haunted me for fifteen years, and it is the Gerstein document, the worst and most immoral forgery of all, that indirectly put me in a position finally to answer it in a positive way.” (The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses, (The 1964 French original was translated into English and published in 1978, pg 270) Rassinier concluded in his 1964 study that homicidal gas chambers had indeed existed at the Belzec Camp in Poland.

Paul Rassinier had studied many different “testimonies” concerning the various gas chambers supposed to have been operated by the National Socialist regime of Germany, and had become convinced of their falsity. The testimony for which he reserved the most condemnation was the collection of manuscripts known as the “Gerstein Report”, which are the reminiscences of the SS Officer Kurt Gerstein. Gerstein wrote that during his visit to the Belzec gas chambers, he was accompanied by a Dr. Wilhelm Pfannenstiel. Rassinier’s interest was piqued by this reference. It was his policy to look up and interview anyone who claimed to be a gassing eyewitness: “For fifteen years, everytime that I heard of a witness anywhere, no matter where in the portion of Europe that was not occupied by the Soviets, who claimed to have himself been present at gas exterminations,

I immediately went to him to get his testimony. …I covered thousands and thousands of kilometers throughout Europe in this way.” (The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses, 1978, pg 271) This being the case, Rassinier was able to locate and visit, then correspond further with Dr. Wilhelm Pfannenstiel. After subjecting him to repeated questionings (narrated most interestingly in the above book on pgs 273-280), Paul Rassinier found Pfannenstiel’s testimony trustworthy, alone among all the claimed eyewitnesses of the gas chambers.

It was Pfannenstiel’s testimony that convinced Rassinier that gassings of Jews had taken place at the Belzec Camp during the war. Not as a deliberate policy of the government of Germany, but as a temporary activity of some renegade SS, notably SS General Odilo Globocnik.

This illustrates the fact that while Kurt Gerstein is enthusiastically attacked as a lunatic, the Revisionists in general treat Dr. Pfannenstiel with hesitancy and ambiguity. The problem which many Revisionists have had with Pfannenstiel is that while Gerstein’s overall account may be easily disbelieved upon superficial examination of several “wild” and even misleading statements in his testimony, the testimony of Dr. Wilhelm Pfannenstiel is quite reasonable, and easily believed. The respected Revisionist researcher, L.A. Rollins, has stated, “Thus, Pfannenstiel pretty much agreed with the revisionists about the Gerstein statement, but, nevertheless, claimed to have witnessed a gassing of Jews at Belzec. Thus far, revisionists have been content to attack the extremely dubious Gerstein statement, and have not seen fit to even mention the Pfannenstiel deposition, which appears to be somewhat more credible.” (Journal of Historical Review. 1983, pg 115, book review of Witness to the Holocaust).

Which makes the testimony of Dr. Pfannenstiel very important. For Professor Faurisson to oppose and repudiate the teachings of Paul Rassinier, he is forced to deal with Pfannenstiel’s accounts of the gas chambers at Belzec.

Realizing this, it was with great curiosity that I noticed this quote by Dr. Faurisson in the Journal of Historical Review (1986, Vol. 7, #1, p. 45): “As to what Dr. Pfannenstiel declared on several occasions to the German courts, here it is: 1) he treats Gerstein almost as a liar on several points; 2) he is extremely vague about the ‘gassing’ which he is supposed to have witnessed one day side by side with Gerstein; a ‘gassing’ with a Diesel engine, which is a curious way of gassing when we know the small amount of deadly carbon monoxide furnished by a system very rich in carbon dioxide. Pfannenstiel is supposed to have gone to find Rassinier in Paris? That is very often said, but I know nothing about it since the visitor refused to give his name. It could be. How many times has a Nazi, bound by his ‘confessions’ and compensated for them, served the good Exterminationist cause on command in respect to a Revisionist or hardened Nazi? … I was able to become acquainted with a short correspondence between Rassinier and Pfannenstiel. I propose to publish it one day in order to show how Pfannenstiel sought to evade Rassinier’s simple technical questions.”

In this short passage by Professor Faurisson, one may observe several incorrect and odd statements, as well as several assumptions with no proof. (Not counting, of course, his statements concerning the toxicity of Diesel exhaust, which I will reserve for a later time, perhaps when some Revisionist is willing to debate on the subject.)

1. Rassinier said in 1964 that his 1963 interchanges with Dr. Pfannenstiel had convinced him of the truthfulness of the gas chambers at Belzec. But Faurisson (23 years later) says that his examination of only a part of the 1963 Pfannenstiel/Rassinier correspondence demonstrates that Pfannenstiel was an untrustworthy witness (“…Pfannenstiel sought to evade Rassinier’s simple questions.”) Interestingly, Faurisson lists no proof, while Rassinier is full of details.

2. Professor Faurisson states that no one can prove that it was really Dr. Pfannenstiel who met Paul Rassinier as described in Rassinier’s book, because Rassinier’s mysterious visitor never even told Rassinier his name. This is not true. Rassinier himself was well aware of the identity of the eyewitness with whom he spoke: “He introduced himself and told me about the purpose of his visit, which he wanted kept absolutely confidential.” (The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses, pg 271) Further: “Then, all of those persons who know or who think that they know something about any event whatsoever concerning the war can come forward and can publicize it, without fear of being thrown into prison. Incidentally, I can add that if some day I could be sure that my interlocutor could be questioned without running this risk, I am authorized to make known his name. He will not run away, he told me, and this is another good point for him and his testimony, and for everyone it might be the beginning of a return to free discussion.” (Ibid, pg 283) When one compares the testimony about Belzec’s gassing in Rassinier’s book and correspondence, with the court testimony given by Dr. Wilhelm Pfannenstiel, it is unavoidable that Rassinier’s eyewitness was Pfannenstiel.

3. Dr. Faurisson, with no proof, insinuates that Dr. Pfannenstiel’s account is to be suspect because he might be serving his Exterminationist masters by visiting with Paul Rassinier and testifying of the gas chambers. In fact, Dr. Pfannenstiel told Paul Rassinier things that have horrified the Exterminationists ever since, such as:

a. Hitler had nothing to do with the gas chambers of Belzec, which was run by a rogue Nazi named Globocnik.

b. The Supreme SS Doctor, Ernst Grawitz, was shocked to find out about the murders of Jews at Belzec, and intervened with Heinrich Himmler to close the camp down.

c. The personnel at the death camp, including Captain Christian Wirth, begged Dr. Pfannenstiel to have them transferred from such a dreadful camp, as they could not leave without fear of being murdered.

d. The Jews at the Belzec camp played an active part in killing their co-Jews.

e. Kurt Gerstein, a hero to the Exterminationists (with two Exterminationist biographies written about him), was said by Pfannenstiel to be a psychopath and a liar.

f. The SS on the whole was a decent group.

Is it plausible that the Exterminationists wanted Pfannenstiel to say these things to Rassinier? I for one think not. Look what happened to David Irving’s career when he said in Hitler’s War that Hitler did not order the extermination of the Jews, attributing the many mass murders instead to Himmler. Did Irving please the Exterminationists?

Let me also point out that the Exterminationists, both before and after the Rassinier/Pfannenstiel talk, were very rough on Dr. Pfannenstiel. Far from his being a secret emissary of some Exterminationist conspiracy, in search of the approval of his secret lords, Pfannenstiel during his lifetime was hounded and attacked by those who affirmed the reality of the Nazi Extermination program against the Jews. At the end of WWII, he was accused of being a major war criminal by the United Nations. Held captive by the U.S. Army, he was harshly interrogated while being accused of lying. According to Friedrich Berg, “After the war he was interrogated every few years with regard to his visit to Belzec with Gerstein and on two occasions was prosecuted, the last trial being in April 1970 in Marburg.”

Since Pfannenstiel’s talks with Rassinier took place in the early 1960’s, it is obvious that the Exterminationists were not rewarding him in 1970 for lying to Rassinier in 1963.

Orest Slepokura

The Holocaust: a story for all seasons—if you keep to the script

You’ve probably heard of the Jerry Lewis movie (unreleased) “The Day The Clown Cried”—the object of derisive satire in a 1992 article in Spy magazine. Apparently, it is a black comedy about Auschwitz, with a lot of kitschy, goofy motifs. Seems, though, that Lewis thought that he was getting into the cinematic ring with heavyweights like Bergman by taking on a deadly serious topic.

The Jewish tragedy can be used as “artistic” fodder almost any which way, so long as you don’t alter the basic story line: 6 million, gas chambers, selections, etc. You can even use the “death camps as a backdrop to all manner of slapstick antics and whatnot without incurring the wrath of the Lobby. All that happened to JL was that a satirist at Spy wiped his feet on the comedian. No worse. No arsons, or beatings or pipe bombs. Stick to the basic story line and you’ll be OK.

CARL HOTTELET

A dedicated fan who (truly) respects my work as an activist comments on my writing, education and editorial judgement.

What you write about National Socialism and the Jews is deplorable, because you are, for practical purposes, worse than ignorant about the subject, since what you know isn’t so. When, and if, I next have a free hour, I’ll take up the theme more extensively.

And thanks for clearing up the tale of the 87 Skulls of Struthof. By Pressac out of, or via Klarsfeld. That’s like something by Elie Wiesel via Deborah Lipstadt. Doesn’t it appear that (David Cole) was in communication with Klarsfeld before he went to Struthof?

BILLY BLANKENSHIP

Just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, there’s more than one way to get the attention of student editors and the media.

Congratulations on your World Wide Web project. Its a great idea and should both spark and sustain controversy. I urge you to broaden it to include all kinds of categories, which should give it even greater vigor and life. Since you have already produced two volumes on “Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist,” why not a WWW “Confessions of a Revisionist among the Racists?” Both you and your ever so critical allies would have a real chance to sound off.

Is revisionism a racist political tool? If it is, do the racists have a case? Are there legitimate objections to racist revisionism? Or do the racists see the Holocaust issue in its true light? Whose interpretation of the Holocaust is more racist; that of the right wingers or that of the Zionists? Has an introspective and confessional Bradley Smith seen through the hoax of the Holocaust only to fall for an even bigger hoax? Wouldn’t such questions be a great way to get Campus Editors thinking? Isn’t this the path to real debate and true controversy?

Look deeply into your own conscience, Bradley. How can you demonstrate that all races are truly created equal? Is this a reasoned conclusion on your part or an a priori assumption? Mighten it even be a self protecting assumption you employ to avoid unpleasant questions regarding the choices you have made in your personal life? Are you “gassing” your mind with your faith in a cherished myth?

The Holocaust myth has been used to reinforce the myth of racial equality. Is this fact coincidental? Have the facts on racial differences been suppressed as ruthlessly as the facts on the Holocaust? Those who tell the truth about real racial differences are accused of “hatred” and “bigotry,” just as those who tell the truth about the Holocaust are so accused.

The “scientists” who preach the equality of all humans are overwhelmingly Jewish, as are the “historians” who preach the indisputability of the Holocaust. The similarity of pattern and the same cast of characters should raise questions in your mind. But it doesn’t. Why? Are you another Michael Shermer, skeptical but only within limits? Open your perspective, Bradley. The Holocaust is the Key to many mysteries, including, perhaps, your own.

KARIN WIKOFF

A tough woman lays it on the line about sensitive men writers (Letter)

I have to say what really struck me personally was Carto attacking you (see SR24) because you told the story of your daughter’s birth, like birth is something ugly to be hidden away and not discussed in polite company. Now that is sick if you ask me. As it happens, the tape cassette recording of you telling that story was my first real contact with you—sure, I had heard your name, but you weren’t a real person to me yet. Even my husband was fairly new to revisionism back then. I remember listening to that tape and being touched and amused by your story. Personally, I love birth stories, especially the happy ones, and you told yours from the point of view of an older father who had never expected to be a father with such candor and good feeling that it really was wonderful.

Your story was not “tasteless” nor “boring,” and to suggest that telling the story of the birth of a child is “mentally unbalanced” or even made you and “oddball” indicates a certain sick mindset on the part of your detractor. What a sad, sick world he comes from, in which birth is a tasteless and unfortunate necessity of life and men shouldn’t even speak about it, much less be subjected to being present at the event. I know I am sort of meandering here, but this one really riles me, and I just wanted you to know how much I enjoyed your story, how wonderful and healthy I think it is and how I am sure your life has been made that much richer by having been there, messy and “vulgar” as it may have been at the time.

I also think it is incredibly telling that a person would put you down because your wife cleans houses. Some people get to thinking that because they have money, anyone who doesn’t isn’t as good as they are, and that people who choose to work with their hands, either from necessity or by choice, are also to be looked down upon. An honest day’s work is an honest day’s work, and that is that.

You have my continued good wishes—keep up the excellent work, how and when you can, and don’t let the boneheads get you down too much.

LEWIS GUNTER

The working title for Bones suggests what it should not and does not suggest what it should.

Break His Bones carries the suggestion of anarchic violence or, at least, a crude wielding of the big stick over dissenting opinion. I am afraid that words of this kind are more likely to arouse antipathy than curiosity, as a title should. You’re idea for asking your readers for recommendations is excellent and I am sure (particularly after submitting an abstract) that you will receive good suggestions with which to fashion an outstanding title.