Editors:
A Catholic News Service release headlined "Remembering the Holocaust:
A scientific fact, a religious obligation" appeared in the February 13-26
edition of my issue of the The Florida Catholic newspaper.
The story did not define what the writers meant by "the Holocaust"
before it went on to denounce those who "denied" that event. Did
it mean deniers of the Nazi oppression of the Jews of Europe in general or
did it mean denial of some or all of the stories told about that event? We
don't know because the writer doesn't tell us. In the context of criticism
of Bishop Williamson which follows, it seems to mean a critic of details such
as the number of Jewish victims or the validity of "gas chamber"
claims which the article tells us Catholics have a religious obligation to
believe, lock, stock and barrel.
Yet much of the story's language of denunciation of "deniers" seems
to assume that they deny any oppression of the Jews. This is a false charge.
There also seems to be an assumption that all the "facts" surrounding
the popular image of the Holocaust have been established beyond question.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I don't know of any serious revisionist who questions that Jews were the victims
of Nazi oppression and mistreatment during World War II, or of policies to
drive them out of Europe or that many died from conditions in the camps, from
typhus and lack of supplies at the end of the war. By serious revisionists
I mean such as Prof. Arthur Butz, Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Robert Faurisson,
Jurgen Graf, Bradley Smith and others.
These revisionist researchers deal with the post war stories which now make
up the fabric of what is known as "the Holocaust", the details of
which stories which are replete with lies and exaggerations because of war-time
propaganda often traceable to Jewish hatred for the Nazi treatment of their
fellow Jews and allied revenge promotions such as took place in the Nuremberg
trials in which standards of jurisprudence were flouted in the production
of "evidence" which would never have been accepted in our courts.
Norman Finkelstein, a Jew who does not consider himself a revisionist, has
written that "Much of the literature on Hitler's Final Solution is worthless
as scholarship. Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense,
if not sheer fraud." Finkelstein, a meticulous scholar, has been rewarded
for his work by being driven out of his university positions by the Holocaust
Industry for daring to hold such views.
I doubt that the critics of revisionism have read any of the work of the serious
revisionists...or even know they exist. They are lumped together as evil "deniers",
of what? Not said. Their work is refused publication by mainstream publishers,
not reviewed by mainstream reviews and in general they are censored from public
awareness, except the smear label of "deniers". This is right out
of George Orwell's famous book, "1984".
The last thing the promoters of the canon of the Holocaust want is a serious
examination of the facts of the Holocaust so the works of serious critics
is ignored or is simply denounced wholesale; now apparently by high Catholic
officials, to their shame.
Obviously serious study of such a topic as "the Holocaust" should
not start by broadly denouncing every critic of details of the historic event
now known in popular discourse as "the Holocaust" since many of
those discrete detailed stories are now known to be incorrect since their
appearance in the aftermath of World War II. For one example of many, it was
once claimed that 4 million were killed at Auschwitz, "mostly Jews",
but in 1990 this number was "officially" reduced at Auschwitz to
1.5 million and is still going down in the views of certain promoters of the
original story, all without the claim of 6 million Jewish victims of the Nazi
oppression of the Jews being reduced by a single victim in the popular discourse.
"Six million" is repeated every day in the press and has apparently
been now officially approved by the Vatican. In fact, it was never an established
number as many Jewish writers have admitted and it stems back to undocumented
Soviet claims at Nuremberg.
As another example, the giant of the Holocaust promotions, Elie Wiesel, himself
a prisoner at Auschwitz, failed to mention the existence of any gas chambers
in the French first edition of his autobiographical tale about his time in
Auschwitz. He claimed that Jews were killed in open air "burning pits"
from which he was miraculously spared at the last moment. Realizing how badly
this reflected on the then current gas chamber stories he added some vague
hints of gas chambers in his second edition. Wiesel, when given the option,
also elected to flee Auschwitz with the murderous Nazis in the face of the
advancing Red Army together with his ill father who was being treated by those
same Germans, rather than wait for the liberating Reds.
Reexamination of historic events is to be expected in the normal course of
the post-event review of any vast and complicated matter of history such as
the events of World War II. But it seems that this is not to be allowed in
the case of "the Holocaust". In fact, those who dare question any
facet of the "official" dogma of the now sacred "Holocaust"
are condemned out of hand in the media and academia. No matter what their
motives, their evidence or the scholarship of their work they are brushed
aside as "deniers" or anti-Semites and destroyed professionally
without a hearing. Many examples can be given and the tactics are effective
in silencing critics who are usually frightened off by the charge of "anti-Semitism".
In Germany, France and other European countries, to raise any doubt about
the now official and sacred canon will cause the questioners to be fined and
jailed without the chance to demonstrate the correctness of their positions.
See the most recent case of Germar Rudolf, a qualified chemist, for a good
example. German lawyers who have defended these cases too vigorously have
been disbarred and even jailed. These Stalinist legal procedures are ignored
in our "free press", not otherwise criticized in our country nor,
by our Church.
Under these circumstances the claim that the historic event, "the Holocaust"
in general and in detail is a "scientific fact" is of course a nonsensical
statement but to say that "it", whatever is meant by that, must
be accepted as a "religious obligation" is outright wrong theology,
as if the Church demanded that Catholics must believe that Spain was responsible
for blowing up the battleship Maine.
This is getting ridiculous.
I recall the late Pope Paul VI saying that the smoke of Satan had entered
the Church. We are seeing his words confirmed in our time.
The article cites an official of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations
with the Jews as saying that the specific details of "the Holocaust"
[not just the general Nazi oppression of the Jews, although this is the sly
impression given] are proven by (1) testimony of survivors of the Nazi death
camps, (2) the remains of the camps themselves and (3) the meticulous records
kept by the Germans. Each of these statements is incorrect.
The appalling ignorance of this man is revealed in the research done by reputable
revisionist historians and others who have demonstrated that (1) the survivors
testimony is full of lies, conflicting stories and physical impossibilities;
(2) the "gas chamber" remains exhibit no use of the supposed Zyklon
B insecticide gas killing agent nor did the other claimed impossible execution
methods exist, claims mostly now quietly dropped by the promoters (electric
plates, atom bombs, diesel exhaust, etc.), and (3) the meticulous German records,
many now released from post-communist Russia, do not support the gas chamber
and other stories, nor, it is now conceded, are there any records of a "Hitler
Order" for gassing, no plans, etc. which cause the promoters to assert
that the whole scheme was implemented by the otherwise bureaucratic Germans
with a wink and a nod! But all this is buried because of the censorship of
revisionist scholarship and demonization of revisionists, now I'm sorry to
see joined in by my Church. Shame!
Perhaps the worst aspect of the story is the warning by a prominent Rabbi
that the Vatican had better get cracking on "Holocaust denial",
whatever is meant by that, lest Jews begin to doubt the Church's claim to
be opposed to anti-Semitism. How long are the highest personages in our Church
going to cringe in the upper room for fear of the Jews and tolerate this kind
of threat? Ask yourself if I will be accused of anti-Semitism for asking these
questions? If so, why? That smoke gets stronger by the day.
Albert Regan Doyle, Esq.
Florida