The Committee for Open Debate on the h0Ɩ0cαųst recently released a flyer containing basic facts about the h0Ɩ0h0αx which are suppressed by the Jєωιѕн establishment.

http://h0Ɩ0cαųsthandbooks.com/dl/FlyerLetterSize.pdf

Full Text of Flyer:

THE h0Ɩ0cαųst CONTROVERSY
The Case for Open Debate

THE CONTEMPORARY ISSUE

Is asking questions a crime? If you develop doubts about the
h0Ɩ0cαųst, isn’t the only way to get rid of these doubts by asking
questions? A lot of individuals and groups are enraged by those
who ask critical questions about the h0Ɩ0cαųst.

Every other historical issue is debated as a matter of course,
but influential pressure groups have made the h0Ɩ0cαųst story an
exception. Anyone should be encouraged to investigate critically
the h0Ɩ0cαųst narrative in the same way they are encouraged to
investigate every other historical event. This is not a radical point
of view. It is just plain reason.

THE HISTORICAL ISSUE

National Socialists saw Jєωs as being an influential force behind
international communism and finance. During World War II, Jєωs
were considered to be enemies of the German State and a po-
tential danger to its war efforts, much like the Germans, Italians,
and Japanese were viewed in the U.S. Consequently, Jєωs were
stripped of their rights, forced to live in ghettos, conscripted for
labor, deprived of their property, deported, and otherwise mis-
treated. Many tragically perished.

In contrast to establishment historians, revisionists claim that
the German State had NO policy to exterminate the Jєωιѕн people
(or anyone else) in homicidal gas chambers or by killing them
through abuse or neglect. Revisionists also maintain that the fig-
ure of six million Jєωιѕн deaths is an irresponsible exaggeration,
and that no execution gas chambers existed in any camp in Europe
which was under German control. Fumigation gas chambers, both
stationary and mobile, did exist to delouse clothing and equip-
ment in order to prevent disease at POW, labor, and concentra-
tion camps and at the fighting front. It is highly likely that it was
from this lifesaving procedure that the myth of extermination gas
chambers emerged.

Revisionists generally hold that the Allied governments, and
in particular the Soviets, decided to carry their wartime “black
propaganda” of German monstrosities over into the postwar pe-
riod. This was done for essentially three reasons. 1. The Allies felt
it necessary to continue to justify the great sacrifices that were
made in fighting two world wars. 2. The Allies wanted to divert
attention from their own crimes against humanity. Soviet atroci-
ties caused the death of millions in eastern and central Europe.
American and British saturation bombings causing over a million
civilians to be burned alive. 3. The Allies needed justification for
their postwar dismantling of German industry, a policy of starva-
tion causing the deaths of millions of Germans, and the annexa-
tion of large parts of Germany into Poland and the USSR (20% of
the entire German territory). Twelve million Germans were bru-
tally expelled. More than two millions perished.

Today, the h0Ɩ0cαųst story, which is perceived as a crime of
a right-wing regime, plays an important role for leftist-interna-
tionalist groups, for Zionist organizations, and for groups within
Jєωιѕн communities. It is the leaders of these political and propa-
ganda organizations who continue to work to sustain the orthodox
h0Ɩ0cαųst narrative and the myth of German monstrosity.

For those who believe that the Nuremberg Trials revealed the
truth about German war crimes, it is a terrible shock to discover
that then Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Harlan Fiske
Stone described the Nuremberg court as “a high-grade lynching
party for Germans.”

The Photographs

We’ve all seen “The Photographs,” especially the awful scenes at
Dachau, Buchenwald, and Bergen-Belsen camps. But even main-
stream historians admit that there was no German policy at any
of those camps to kill the internees. In the last months of the war,
while Soviet armies were invading Germany from the east, British
and U.S. bombers were destroying every major city in Germany
with saturation bombing. Transportation, the food distribution
system, medical, and sanitation services all broke down. That was
the purpose of these air raids, which was the most barbaric form
of warfare in Europe since the Mongol invasion.

Millions of refugees fleeing the Soviet armies were pouring
into central and western Germany. As a result of the ongoing war,
of starvation, and epidemics, millions of civilians were dying all
over Germany. The camps were not exempted from this tragedy.
By early 1945, these inmates suffered from malnutrition and epi-
demics like typhus and cholera, to which many succuмbed. When
the press entered the camps with British and U.S. soldiers, they
found the results of that. They took “The Photographs.”
Still, at camps such as Buchenwald, Dachau, and Bergen-
Belsen tens of thousands of relatively healthy internees were lib-
erated. They were there in the camps when “The Photographs”
were taken.

Docuмents

In response to challenges to show docuмents proving the Jєωιѕн
genocide, only a handful of docuмents are produced, the authen-
ticity or interpretation of which is highly questionable. If pressed
for clear evidence, it is claimed that the Germans destroyed the
docuмents to hide their evil deeds, or the absurd claim is made
that the Germans used code language, whispered verbal orders, or
conveyed orders through a meeting of minds.

All available evidence indicates that there was no order for a
mass murder of Jєωs, no plan, no budget, no weapon—that is, no gas
chamber—and no victim—that is, not a single autopsied body has
been shown to have been gassed.

Eyewitness Testimony

During medieval witch trials, many witnesses told about broom-
riding witches and the devil. Since most statements were made in-
dependently and without pressure, this was taken as evidence that
the stories must be true; material evidence was never produced.
“Common knowledge” and social pressure were the basis of these
tales, not the truth.

Today we again face “common knowledge” produced by 60
years of one-sided mass-media propaganda and massive social and
legal pressure. To support their theories, anti-revisionists depend al-
most exclusively on “eyewitness” testimony produced in this poi-
soned atmosphere.

During the war-crimes trials many “eyewitnesses” testifi ed that
Germans made soap out of human fat. For decades, highly respected
scholars sanctioned these stories. But in 1990, Yehuda Bauer, direc-
tor of h0Ɩ0cαųst studies at Hebrew University, Tel Aviv, admitted:
“The nαzιs never made soap from Jєωs...”

Bruno Baum, a former communist inmate in Auschwitz, was al-
lowed to brag in summer 1945 in a Soviet newspaper: “The whole
propaganda which started about Auschwitz abroad was initiated by
us [German communist inmates] with the help of our Polish com-
rades.” During several post-war trials it emerged that the testimonies
of witnesses from eastern Europe had been orchestrated by commu-
nist authorities.

The only two witnesses who were ever cross-examined had to
admit in 1985 that their accounts were not true: Arnold Friedman
confessed to never having experienced what he had claimed, and
Rudolf Vrba, one of the most famous Auschwitz witnesses, admitted
to having used poetic license to “embellish” his statements. Once
asked by a fellow survivor if all his claims were true, Vrba replied:
“I do not know. I was just an actor and I recited my text.”
During and after the war there were “eyewitnesses” to mass gas-
sings at Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, and other camps in
Germany proper. Today, virtually all recognized scholars dismiss
this testimony as false.

Establishment historians, however, still claim that mass gassings
happened at several camps in Poland. But the evidence for this is
of the same nature as that falsely claiming mass gassings in other
camps in Germany.

With regard to confessions by Germans at war-crimes trials, it
is now well docuмented that many of the earlier testimonies were
obtained through coercion, intimidation, and even physical torture,
just like during the medieval witch trials.

Auschwitz

In 1990, the Auschwitz State Museum revised the old propaganda
claim of four million murdered humans down to one million—based
not upon facts, but upon estimates! In 1994, a French scholar re-
duced this figure further down to less than 700,000, and in 2002,
another mainstream h0Ɩ0cαųst scholar reduced the Auschwitz death
toll to 500,000—again not based on facts, but on “estimates.”
The Auschwitz Museum has put on display piles of hair, boots,
and eyeglasses, etc., but there is neither evidence for the origin of
these items nor for the fate of their former owners. While such dis-
plays are effective propaganda, they are worthless as historical
evidence.

In a videotaped interview, the Auschwitz Museum authorities
admitted that the gas chamber shown to tourists is a “reconstruc-
tion,” again not based on facts, but only on eyewitness claims,
which contradict wartime docuмents. The museum guides, how-
ever, have told visitors for decades that all that they see is genu-
ine...

Whereas some mainstream scholars claim that the Auschwitz
crematories, whose morgues supposedly served as gas chambers,
were the “absolute center” in the “geography of atrocities,” other
mainstream scholars claim that the mass murder did not take place
in those crematories, but elsewhere. Revisionists, however, want
certainty, not speculations and estimates.

Majdanek

When the Soviets captured the Majdanek Camp near Lublin,
Poland, in 1944, they claimed that 2 million inmates were killed
there in seven gas chambers. Shortly after the war, Polish re-
searchers reduced the death toll to some 360,000. After the col-
lapse of the Soviet Union, that number went down to 235,000,
and in 2005, the Majdanek Museum reduced it further to 78,000,
with only a few of them being victims of now merely two gas
chambers. So what is with the other 1,922,000 victims and with
the other five gas chambers? Were they errors or lies? And why
should anyone believe what they tell us now? If they were so ter-
ribly wrong here, where else?

Jєωιѕн Population Losses during World War II

Two monographs were written on the question of Jєωιѕн losses
during World War II. The first concluded that some 300,000 per-
ished. The second claimed that some six million died. Whereas
the first book takes into consideration demographic changes of the
Jєωιѕн population in all countries, the second book compiles its
figures by simply subtracting the number of Jєωs alive in Europe
a few years after the war from those alive in Europe several years
before the war. It ignores that the Jєωιѕн population in America,
Israel, and other countries outside of Europe had increased by
almost six million in this period of time, as a result of a new
Exodus. Thus, those who had left Europe were simply declared
to be h0Ɩ0cαųst victims.

The Hidden Genocide

It is true that during WWII the world responded with indifference
to what happened to the Jєωs. But it is also certain that if there had
been “killing factories” in Poland murdering millions of civilians,
then the Red Cross, the pope, humanitarian agencies, the Allied
governments, neutral governments, and prominent figures such as
Roosevelt, de Gaulle, Truman, Churchill, Eisenhower, and many
others would have known about it and would have often and un-
ambiguously mentioned it, and condemned it. They did not! Not
even in their autobiographies and war memoirs!

Examples of Propaganda

Starting in the late 1800s, and climaxing during and after the
First(!) World War, mainly American Jєωιѕн organizations were
claiming that six million Jєωs(!) would suffer terribly in Eastern
Europe, even stating they were being exterminated in a h0Ɩ0cαųst.
With such propaganda, millions of dollars were raised in the U.S.,
which at the end were mainly used to support the Soviet revolu-
tion in Russia.

On 22 March 1916, that is during the First World War, the
British newspaper The Daily Telegraph published an article false-
ly claiming that the Germans had murdered 700,000 Serbs in gas
chambers. On 25 May 1942, that is during the Second World War,
the same newspaper reported that the Germans had murdered
700,000 Jєωs in Poland in gas chambers. In 1944, the British
Government asked the British media and churches to help spread
anti-German propaganda, which it had been putting out already
for a while, in order to distract from the atrocities it expected to
be committed by the Soviets as soon as they invaded Germany. In
its circular, the British government expressed its regret that, after
the exposure of WWI propaganda lies, greater efforts would be
necessary to make people believe it.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND REVISIONISM

Many people are bewildered when they first hear h0Ɩ0cαųst
revisionist arguments. The arguments appear to make sense, but
“How is it possible?” After all, the whole world believes the or-
thodox h0Ɩ0cαųst narrative. It’s just not plausible that the truth
could have been suppressed for so many decades.

To understand how it could have happened, one needs only
to reflect on the intellectual and political dogmas of medieval
Europe, of National Socialist Germany, or of the Communist-bloc
countries. In these societies, the great majority of scholars were
caught up in the existing political culture. Committed to a pre-
vailing ideology, these scholars and intellectuals felt it was their
right and duty to protect that ideology. They did so by oppressing
“evil” dissidents who expressed “offensive” or “dangerous” ideas.
In those societies, scholars became the “Thought Police.”

In our own society, in the debate over the question of political
correctness, there are those who deliberately attempt to trivialize
the issues. They claim that there is no real problem with freedom
of speech in our society, and that all that is involved with politi-
cal correctness are a few rules which allegedly protect minorities
from those who would otherwise hurt their feelings. There is, of
course, a more serious aspect to the problem. In American society
today, there is a wide range of ideas and viewpoints which the
mass media will not allow to be discussed openly. Even obvious
facts and realities, when they are politically unacceptable, are de-
nied and suppressed. One can learn much about the psychology
and methods of the Thought Police by watching how they react
when just one of their taboos is broken, and h0Ɩ0cαųst revision-
ism is given a public forum.

First they express outrage that such “offensive” and “danger-
ous” ideas were allowed to be expressed publicly. They avoid
answering or debating these ideas, claiming that to do so would
give the revisionists a forum and legitimacy. Then they make
vicious personal attacks against the revisionist heretics, calling
them political names such as “hater” or “denier,” even suggesting
that they are potential mass murderers. They publicly accuse the
revisionists of lying, but they don’t allow these dissidents to face
their accusers so that they can answer this slander.

Revisionists are frequently accused of being hate-filled peo-
ple who are promoting a doctrine of hatred. But revisionism is a
scholarly process, not a doctrine or an ideology. If the h0Ɩ0cαųst pro-
moters really want to expose hatred, they should take a second look
at their own doctrines, and a long look at themselves in the mirror.
Anyone who invites a revisionist to speak publicly is himself at-
tacked for being insensitive. When revisionists do speak publicly,
they are regularly shouted down and threatened. Libraries and book-
stores such as Amazon face threats and intimidation when they offer
h0Ɩ0cαųst revisionist materials. All this goes on while the majority
of library, media, college, and university administrators stand silently
by, allowing political activists to determine what can be said in the
media and read in libraries.

Next, the Thought Police set out to destroy the transgressor pro-
fessionally and financially by “getting” him at his job or concocting
a lawsuit against him. It is sometimes often deceptively claimed that
revisionist scholarship has been proven false during a trial, though
courts of law can never decide any scholarly debates; they can only
impose dogmas.

Finally, the Thought Police will inevitably “straighten out” that
segment of academia or the media that allowed the revisionists a fo-
rum in the first place.

Some administrators in academia hold that university administra-
tions should take action to rid the campus of ideas, which are disrup-
tive. This is an open invitation to tyranny. It means that any militant
group with “troops at the ready” can rid the campus of ideas it op-
poses. Timorous administrators might find it much easier and safer
to rid the campus of controversial ideas than to face down a group of
screaming militants. But it is the duty of university administrators to
insure that our universities remain a free marketplace of ideas. When
ideas cause disruptions, it is the disrupters who must be subdued, not
the ideas.

CONCLUSION

The influence of h0Ɩ0cαųst revisionism is growing steadily both here
and abroad. In the United States, revisionism was launched in earnest
in 1976 with the publication of the book The Hoax of the Twentieth
Century by Prof. Dr. Arthur R. Butz. It is now presented in many
university-style studies of serious scholarship. Those who take up
the revisionist cause represent a wide spectrum of political and philo-
sophical positions. They are certainly not the scoundrels, liars, and
demons the anti-revisionists try to make them out to be. The fact
is, there are no demons in the real world. People are at their worst
when they begin to see their opponents as an embodiment of evil,
and then begin to demonize them. Such people are quite prepared to
harm their opponents. The logic of their argument is that you can do
anything you want to a demon. We should not allow such a logic to
prevail.

Those wishing to verify the truthfulness of the statements made
here are invited to visit our website www.h0Ɩ0cαųstHandbooks.
com where you can watch thoroughly researched docuмentaries and
download free of charge most of our 40 meticulously docuмented
studies on various aspects of the h0Ɩ0cαųst.