This document is part of the Smith's Report periodical.
Use this menu to find more documents that are part of this periodical.
Charles E. Weber. I was utterly astonished to find the statement on page 3 of SR: “SOR’s first issue will feature . . . the first full review of Daniel Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners by a revisionist publication anywhere.” My rather long review not only appeared in Christian News of 8 July, but all 13 pages of it have appeared in the Liberty Bell. I am astonished that you have missed these.
(So am I. But it’s all true. I hear that ginseng is good for the memory. I’ll look into it.)
Mark Hallet (e-mail) Before reading your material, and looking at some of the other revisionist Websites, I hadn't seriously questioned the validity of the “orthodox" view of the Holocaust. I had thought that the only people questioning the Holocaust were Neo-Nazis, KKK, skinheads, etc., out to promote a Zionist-dominated-one-world-government conspiracy theory. (To be fair, some of 'em are.) The fact that the Nazis and the KKK believe that something is fishy about the Holocaust doesn't prove or disprove its historical validity.
I try to keep an open mind, to always question the "conventional wisdom" on any topic. Your site certainly provides food for thought. Put me down as newly skeptical about the Holocaust, at least as it is typically promoted.
Kenneth Schmidt You may not have deliberately chosen the field of Holocaustophobia but this work will probably be the defining characteristic of your life.
(A reasonable assumption. Contemplating it makes me feel a little hollow.)
Carl Hottelet In SR15 & 16, Summer 1993, you write of your tour of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. You write a riveting story with wondrous poignancy about a photograph of a Jew holding a pretty girl child in his arms. The man looks apprehensively leftward out of the comer of his eye. The child, a part of her face under a “babushka,” her little body wrapped against the cold, looks unconcernedly in the same direction as she rests cozily in her father’s arms.
The father is a hapless fragment of humanity, caught up in whirlwind he could not control, could not comprehend. The photo transcends all politics, which appear particularly sordid in this context. It is disgusting to see how the Museum exploits it to further their racket.
You note the photographs had been taken from the “Bundesarchiv Koblenz,” the (German) Federal (Military) Archives that are kept in the city of Koblenz. This means the picture was taken by a German photographer, probably a member of a “Propagandakompanie,” i.e., combat reporters and photographers. We don’t know when the picture was taken, or where, or by whom—except that it must have been taken by a German. Why? It had no military, or tactical, or political, or another discernible significance. Why was it taken? Could it be that the German photographer was as caught up in the theme, in the compelling composition as you were by his rendition of it half a century later?
While you and I know nothing about this photograph, the Museum may well know all about it—including the fate of its subjects. You will remember that the “Berlin Document Center” was turned over by American politicians to Jews as their private presence and was for decades under their exclusive control. The German Military Records, deposited at Koblenz, were among their prime targets. If they got the photograph, as they did get it, they got with it all attendant and pertinent documents, which they have suppressed, as they have suppressed so much else.
The photograph could not have been taken for any reason but for its supra-national human appeal. The Germans could not have used it even for propaganda purposes, and didn’t. But the Museum does, insidiously, effectively, and will do so as long as the people who run it are around, as you know better than most.
Tim Trela (e-mail) I saw Simon Wiesenthal on TV the other day. He was talking about the horrible effect that the Internet is having on school kids searching for info on the Holocaust. I kept thinking to myself: What is he talking about? Then it dawned on me; you guys are shooting large holes in their story and they’re getting plenty worried.
Matt Giwer (e-mail) The belief structure of the holohuggers can be likened to those who believe in reincarnation. For example, someone claims to have been Napoleon. To the skeptic the simple way to deal with that is to find another person claiming to have been Napoleon and to laugh. But for the true believer, finding two people who claim to have been Napoleon merely deepens the mystery of reincarnation.
Additional information about this document
|Author(s):||Matt Giwer , Charles E. Weber , Carl Hottelet , et al.|
|Sources:||Smith's Report, no. 36, October 1996, p. 7|
|First posted on CODOH:||Sept. 26, 2015, 8:13 a.m.|