A REVISIONIST RESPONSE TO SHERMERIAN EXTERMINATIONISM, PART I
Why does Michael Shermer promote weird beliefs about the Holocaust?
By Paul Grubach copyright 2000
Dr. Michael Shermer, founder and publisher of Skeptic Magazine and Adjunct Professor of History of Science at Occidental College (California), has emerged as a major opponent of Holocaust revisionism, the theory the traditional story of the Jewish tragedy of WWII contains lies and exaggerations. To date, his most important attempted refutations of Holocaust revisionism are three chapters in his Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of our Time (W.H. Freeman and Company, New York: 1997), and his most recent book, coauthored with Alex Grobman, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why do They Say it? (University of California Press, Los Angeles: 2000).
This writer has carried on a long and stormy email and regular mail correspondence with Dr. Shermer, spanning years, during which I was able to gain a better understanding of the man and his anti-revisionist viewpoints.
The following essay will be a refutation of many of the criticisms he levels against revisionists and revisionist historiography in Why People Believe Weird Things (hereafter referred to as WPBWT). It is important to note that it was widely and positively reviewed and was on the Los Angeles Times bestseller list as well as nominated as one of the top 100 books of 1997. Unless otherwise noted, all page numbers in the body of this essay refer to WPBWT. DENYING HISTORY will be reviewed by this author in a future article (Part II).
I. On July 22, 1995, two years prior to the publication of WPBWT, revisionist historian Mark Weber publicly debated Shermer on the Holocaust. But this pertinent piece of information is never mentioned by Shermer anywhere in the book. He writes, "there are...reasonable arguments for why we should not cover up, hide, suppress...someone else's belief system...(p186)." If this be so, then why did he fail to mention he crossed swords with Weber in a debate of immense importance, during which both sides-revisionist and exterminationist-were given a fair hearing?
I asked Dr. Shermer (by email) why didn't he discuss this debate in WPBWT. "It was not relevant to my analysis," he responded. This is false. As anyone can readily see from viewing The Holocaust in the Crossfire: The Weber-Shermer Holocaust Debate, Weber revealed a large amount of information that was directly relevant to his analysis.
Shermer claims, for example, that a "convergence of evidence" (an ensemble of eyewitness, documentary, and physical evidence which allegedly points to one conclusion) can be used to "prove" the Holocaust, as it is generally accepted, happened (pp.213-216). Weber revealed the pitfall of this type of approach. One could use a convergence of evidence to "prove" that inmates were gassed en masse at Dauchau-where it is now agreed that no one was ever gassed. In fact, the evidence presented at the Nuremberg trials for mythical gassings at Dauchau, noted Weber, is in some ways better than the evidence presented there for gassings at Auschwitz. How can Shermer possibly maintain this information is not relevant to his analysis?
Shermer admits "It is one thing to analyze the literature of deniers [revisionists] or to interview them face to face; it is quite another process to confront them in a public forum, where their skills at rhetoric and debate can trip up even seasoned scholars and historians." Indeed, this is probably one of the reasons why he never mentioned nor footnoted the videotape of the debate. Weber made Holocaust revisionism look too good and Shermer's Holocaust ideology severely deficient. Omissions like this should raise concern about the Occidental College professor's methods.
II. Shermer devotes much ink to his debate with revisionist Bradley Smith and former revisionist David Cole on the Phil Donahue show of March 14, 1994 (pp.175-181). He maintains the debate was chaotic, with neither side able to present their viewpoint in an adequate manner. Why would he give so much space to a debate in which neither side was adequately presented, and then ignore the aforementioned Weber-Shermer debate in which both sides were adequately presented? Could it be our "honest scholar" has something to hide?
Furthermore, the reader is simply given Shermer's version of events surrounding the Donahue affair. A more honest and objective discussion would have made the reader aware (with at least a footnote!) that David Cole's speech at the 12th Conference of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) dealt quite extensively with Cole's much different version of events. But this talk casts Michael Shermer in a very bad light, as it strongly suggests he is a duplicitous man who has serious doubts about the Holocaust ideology he so ardently popularizes.
Is this the reason why Cole's speech was never mentioned? Once again, this omission should tell the reader something about Shermer's methods. He has a tendency to omit (hide?) information that casts him in a bad light or which contradicts the theories he promotes.
III. Shermer harbors a hypocritical double standard in regard to the subject of "racist feeling." On pages 182-183, he discusses the case of world-renowned, Jewish memory expert and University of Washington psychology professor, Elizabeth Loftus. For considering the possibility that John Demjanjuk (the man accused of being "Ivan the Terrible, " the alleged sadistic Nazi concentration camp guard of Treblinka) may be innocent, she was accused by some of her fellow Jews of being a "traitor to her race." Indeed, Loftus reveals that she refused to testify in behalf of Demjanjuk at his trial in Israel because, in the ultimate choice between loyalty to one's people and loyalty to the search for truth and justice, she chose loyalty to her "Jewish race" as more important than justice for Demjanjuk. Nevertheless, Shermer writes: "I have great respect for Loftus and her work, and considerable regard for the courage it took to make such an honest and soul-searching confession."
In the same book however, he calls for the end of "racism" and the concept of race (pp.242-251). So let's get this straight. He wants to demolish the concept of "race" and "end racism." Yet, not only does he fail to criticize an intellectual who puts loyalty to her "Jewish race" above justice for John Demjanjuk and telling the truth at his trial, he expresses admiration for her!!! This hypocritical double standard in regard to Jewish issues is another consistent pattern with Shermer.
Many years ago French revisionist scholar Robert Faurisson made the following statement which summed up his thoughts about the alleged Jewish Holocaust: "The alleged Hitlerian gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which permitted a gigantic financial swindle whose chief beneficiaries have been the state of Israel and international Zionism, and whose main victims have been the German people and the Palestinian people as a whole (p.198)."
From this statement, Shermer infers that Dr. Faurisson harbors anti-Semitic feelings (p.198). In other words, the revisionist scholar is being accused of "bigotry and racism." This tells us more about Michael Shermer's hypocritical double standard than about the feelings of Faurisson.
In "An Open Letter to Holocaust Revisionists" Shermer states that "If you want to worry about a group trying to dominate the world with their religion, the Jews are the least of your worries, given their tiny numbers. The Muslims or Catholics should atop your list, if that is your criteria. And if its unevenly distributed money and power you are concerned about, you better look closely at such groups as the Church of Scientology or the Christian Fundamentalist Right."
In an email to this writer, Shermer again vented his negative opinions about Christians, Muslims and Scientologists: "...like I tell all revisionists, why don't you guys lay off the Jews and go pick on someone else. For God's sake the Muslims and Christians, in my opinion, have done far more damage than just about any other group I can think of (though the Scientologists are not far behind)."
Get the picture? It is morally acceptable for Shermer to vent negative opinions about Christians, Muslims and Scientologists; he does not accuse himself of harboring hateful, racist and bigoted feelings for these groups. Yet, when Faurisson makes critical statements of JUST international Zionism and Israel-and not all Jews-Shermer draws the inference that he harbors "hateful feelings" for Jews.
Furthermore, Shermer fails to differentiate between "hatred" and "moral outrage." There is no reason to believe that Dr. Faurisson harbors a hatred for all Jews. What he may feel is a totally normal and justifiable anger directed toward those Zionist groups that wrongfully spread damaging lies and use those lies to exploit others.
"Since I am not Jewish, " Shermer pointed out, " and the Skeptics Society is not affiliated with any Jewish organization, there is no way we can be accused of being biased in either direction." Clearly, this is misleading; he has a decidedly pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist bias.
IV. Shermer writes: "In 1980, IHR's [Institute For Historical Review's] promise to pay $50,000 for proof that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz made headlines. When Mel Mermelstein met this challenge, headlines and later a television movie detailed his collection of the award and an additional $40,000 for 'personal suffering' (p.191)." By failing to tell readers the rest of the story, he leaves them with the distorted impression that Mermelstein allegedly proved the existence of the Auschwitz gas chambers.
Shermer neglected to mention the judge in the case took "judicial notice" that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz, thus effectively preventing the IHR form mounting any realistic legal defense against Mermelstein. The IHR decided to pay the "Holocaust survivor" because they did not have the resources for an extended legal battle against such almost insurmountable odds.
Furthermore, on September 19, 1991, Mermelstein was obliged to drop what remained of his second suit against the IHR after a Los Angeles Superior Court judge dismissed a substantial portion of it.
V. The January/February 1994 issue of The Journal of Historical Review contains an article by Mark Weber concerning the all important role of Jewish Marxists in bringing Communism to power in Russia. In his critique of Weber's main point, Shermer writes: "This is a typical denier line of reasoning. Fact: The Communists killed the Romanovs and instigated the Bolshevik Revolution. Fact: Some of the leading Communists were Jewish. Conclusion: The Jews killed the Romanovs and caused the Bolshevik Revolution. By the same logic: Ted Bundy was Catholic. Ted Bundy was a serial killer. Catholics are serial killers (p.204)."
This is an excellent example of a "straw man" fallacy. Shermer created an implausible, simplistic, dishonest and false caricature of Weber's main point, struck it down, and then pretended that he refuted a much more profound viewpoint. In the article Weber made it perfectly clear that "all Jews" are not to blame for Communist oppression and atrocities. He opined "to blame 'the Jews' for the horrors of Communism seems no more justifiable than to blame 'white people' for Negro slavery, or 'the Germans' for the Second World War or the 'Holocaust.'"
Fellow IHR official Greg Raven made Weber's main idea clear. He opined that Weber's "point is that Jews play major roles in events in history, even though the historiography of those events do not reflect it." A most cogent observation. Even though Jewish Communists played a major role in bringing Communism to power in Russia, this is rarely revealed or discussed in our "politically correct" society.
VI. From pages 175-241, Shermer attempts to convince his readers that Holocaust revisionism is, in essence, a racist, right-wing, neo-Nazi movement.
Bradley Smith is a prominent revisionist spokesman and publisher who married a Mexican lady, and for numerous years prior to his involvement with the revisionist movement was a liberal free speech advocate-hardly the "right stuff" for a neo-Nazi Nordicist. Shermer made repeated references to Smith yet he conspicuously failed to mention this relevant biographical data.
In both instances in which he writes about the father of Holocaust revisionism (pp.190, 235), Frenchman Paul Rassinier, there is a failure to note the latter was a pacifist, former Communist and left-wing socialist who opposed the Nazis during WWII, and for his activities in the French Resistance was interned by the Germans in Nazi concentration camps.
On page 198-199 where he writes about Dr. Robert Faurisson, the fact that the courageous scholar is a life-long apolitical liberal who never had any sympathies with Nazism is conspicuously ignored.
Nowhere does Shermer discuss the oberservations of Jewish historian and opponent of Holocaust revisionism, Pierre Vidal-Naquet. He pointed out that at the core of revisionism in France is a left-wing revolutionary group, La Vielle Taupe.
In stark contrast to these glaring omissions, on p.209 Shermer writes about a small, insignificant group of neo-Nazi cranks in Lincoln, Nebraska, who are proponents of Holocacaust revisionism. In this context he writes that "The Holocaust denial movement has its extremes, and members of its lunatic fringe commonly hold neo-Nazi and white supremacist views." But why did he mention the extreme right-wing views of its fringes and fail to mention the left-wing and liberal viewpoints of some of its major proponents?
On page 205, "objective scholar" Shermer avers that "an early, classic example of conspiratorial thinking that influenced the modern [Holocaust revisionist] movement is Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politcs, written by Francis Parker Yockey..." This book "details the 'imperial' system modeled after Hitler's National Socialism in which democracy would whither away, elections would cease, etc."
There is no evidence to suggest this turgid tome ever had any significant effect on the mainstream and stalwarts of Holocaust revisionism. Can Shermer demonstrate, for example, the book influenced French revisionists Rassinier and Faurisson, Americans Arthur Butz and Bradley Smith, or German chemistry expert Germar Rudolf? Granted some of the book's ideas concerning the unity of European peoples and the defense of Western civilization influenced the thinking of IHR co-founder Willis Carto (as he wrote the book's "Introduction") and other revisionists, but to jump to the conclusion that its anti-democratic and totalitarian pronouncements influenced the entire revisionist movement is clearly fallacious.
When it suits Shermer's purpose he cites the opinions of Laird Wilcox, an expert on political extremism (p.206). Yet, he fails to note Wilcox's belief that only a minority (25%) of Holocaust revisionists are neo-Nazis, which means of course that 75% are not.
Shermer alleges that revisionists "pick out what supports their theory and dismiss and ignore the rest (p.214)." This statement speaks volumes about his own flawed methodology. All the evidence that clearly shows that Holocaust revisionists as a group represent a wide range of political opinion, from the Left to the Right, is ignored. Nonetheless, he prominently displays the extremist right-wing beliefs of the fringe element of the movement in order to get the reader to falsely believe that Holocaust revisionism is an offshoot of neo-Nazism.
What he is trying to accomplish, I believe, is very simple. If his readers end up believing that Holocaust revisionism is, in essence, a neo-Nazi movement, many will say, "Because Holocaust revisionism is a part of neo-Nazism, it must be false." This is an ad hominem line of "reasoning" which is logically fallacious but very psychologically appealing to large segments of the population. (The truth or falsity of a theory is independent of the political leanings of its proponents.)
The fact of the matter remains is that Holocaust revisionists cannot be politically stereotyped, as they represent a wide range of political opinion-leftist, liberal, conservative and rightist.
VII. Any critique of Shermer's work must incorporate an analysis of the method by which he attempts to prove there was a Nazi master plan to exterminate Europe's Jews, gas chambers were used to carry out this plan, and approximately six million were murdered. He calls it a "convergence of evidence" or a "consilience of inductions."
In his "An Open Letter to Holocaust Revisionists" of March 14, 1995, he gives a succinct definition of this method: "The study of evolution is a historical science. No single fossil proves evolution. But there is a consilience or convergence of evidence from paleontology, geology, botany, zoology, physiology, anatomy, etc., all of which leads to a proof of evolution. The same is true of the science of human history. No single 'fossil' of evidence proves a historical event, including the Holocaust. But there is a consilience of eyewitness testimony, letters, speeches, memos, orders, traces, blueprints, etc., that leads to a proof of the Holocaust. In my analysis I demonstrated how these 'fossils' converged to the conclusion that the Holocaust happened."
Shermer promotes an identical line of thought in WPBWT (pp.213-216). What is very interesting to note, however, is what Shermer wrote in his "Open Letter" of March 1995, but failed to include in WPBWT of 1997. He claimed in the "Open Letter": "In order to prove that the Holocaust did not happen, a revisionist...will have to show that the consilience of inductions method is either philosophically fallacious in general, or misinterpreted in the case of the Holocaust in particular."
We have already seen how historian Mark Weber exposed the fundamental flaw in Shermer's "convergence of evidence" approach. The evidence presented at the Nuremberg trials for mythical gassings at Dauchau is in some ways better than the evidence presented there for gassings at Auschwitz and elsewhere. No Holocaust historian can explain why Weber's convergence of evidence for "gassings at Dauchau" points to a false conclusion, yet Shermer's convergence of evidence for gassings at Auschwitz allegedly points to a true conclusion. This may be another hidden reason why Shermer fails to tell his readership of the Weber-Shermer debate videotape.
In a past issue of his SKEPTIC magazine, this writer revealed to Shermer the "convergence of evidence" regarding the alleged steam chambers of Treblinka, another example showing the pitfall of his methodology to which he never responded, nor did he mention it in WPBWT. In their article on the Treblinka concentration camp, historian Mark Weber and attorney Andrew Allen collected six pieces of data which point to the conclusion that Jews and others were murdered in the steam chambers at the site. 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." 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.
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. 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.
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."
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.
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 Shermer presents because it has an onsite, expert study that "proves" the existence of the steam chambers.) Therefore, the Germans must have murdered people in steam chambers at Treblinka. Lo and behold, the pitfalls of the Shermerian method!
Historians now tell us that there were no steam chambers at Treblinka. Allegedly, Jews and others were murdered with carbon monoxide gas, generated from old Russian diesel tank engines.
These two examples show that Shermer has misinterpreted the consilience of inductions method in regard to the "Holocaust." Indeed, in his latest Denying History, Shermer even admits 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 Shermerian convergence of evidence can lead to a false conclusion.
In addition, these examples satisfy Shermer's aforementioned criteria for proving "that the Holocaust did not happen." Will Shermer now admit this? Probably not, as he benefits from defending the Holocaust legend.
When using a convergence of evidence, each individual piece of evidence in the total ensemble of evidence must be legitimate, unequivocal and valid in and of itself. All relevant evidence must be considered, as no piece of evidence can be ignored. As we shall see, each piece of "evidence" which Shermer uses in his convergence of evidence to "prove" the Holocaust is either worthless, very unreliable, or equivocal and inconclusive (subject to a variety of interpretations). For example, the "eyewitness testimony for the gas chambers" can be shown to be false and notoriously unreliable, and revisionists to bolster their case can just as easily use the Nazi documents that he employs.
Furthermore, Shermer includes the pieces of data that support his theory, but consistently ignores what contradicts it. In this way, he has created a non-falsifiable theory that is self-perpetuating-exactly what the Holocaust lobby needs to keep the gas chamber legend alive.
VIII. Shermer begins his attempt to "prove the Holocaust" by claiming that Hitler and other top Nazis intended to exterminate the Jews. Running true to form, he ignores important documents that are inconsistent with this viewpoint.
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." 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."
Finally, there is the summary of Nazi Jewish policy, a memo from Martin Luther, dated August 21, 1942, which contains this most telling passage: "On the occasion of a reception by the Reich Foreign Minister on 26 November 1941 the Bulgarian Foreign Minister 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 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."
Hitler's statements are perfectly clear. The Jews will still be around when the war is over (as he had no plans to exterminate them en masse), and they will have to emigrate to a new land outside Europe. This convergence of evidence clearly supports the revisionist claim there was no wartime policy to exterminate the Jews, so Shermer simply ignored including it in his theoretical scheme.
"Strong bias can lead the observer to focus on supportive evidence while ignoring contradictory facts," this self-proclaimed objective skeptic has written. Thank you Michael Shermer for explaining why Michael Shermer ignores facts which contradicts his beliefs. We shall explore more of his biases in a moment.
In addition, his theory is plagued with glaring inconsistencies. On page 217, he approvingly quotes Albert Speer regarding Hitler's role in the alleged Holocaust: "I [Speer] don't suppose he [Hitler] had much to do with the technical aspects, but even the decision to proceed from shooting to gas chambers would have been his, for the simple reason, as I know too well, that no major decision could be made about anything without his approval." In the next sentence Shermer quotes historian Yisrael Gutman: "Hitler interfered in all main decisions with regard to the Jews."
A few sentences later Shermer contradicts himself by writing: "Whether or not there was a specific order from Hitler for the extermination of the Jews does not matter, then, because it did not need to be spelled out (p.217)."
See the incongruity? Shermer agreed with Speer that no major decision could be made without Hitler's approval, and that the decision to exterminate Jews in gas chambers would have to be made by Hitler himself and spelled out in detail. One paragraph later he contradicts himself by saying that whether or not there was a specific order from Hitler to exterminate the Jews does not matter, because it did not need to be spelled out.
Furthermore, Shermer's claim is inconsistent with the statements of the premier Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg. On page 225 Hilberg is quoted as saying: "But on the whole I would say that any kind of systematic shooting, particularly of young children or very old people, and any kind of gassing, required Hitler's order." But according to Shermer a specific order from Hitler demanding that women and children be gassed was not needed, because it did not need to be spelled out (p.217)
Contradictions and inconsistencies such as this are exactly what one should expect to see in a false theory.
IX. On pp.216-217, historian Shermer discusses Himmler's telephone note of November 30, 1941, where Hitler ordered that there was to be no liquidation of a transport of Jews. Of this matter he opines: "Moreover, for Hitler to veto an order for liquidation implies that liquidation was something that was ongoing (p.217)." Here, Shermer is inferring what he wants to infer, the very transgression that he attempts to pin on David Irving (p.223).
At the second trial of Ernst Zundel, Irving explained the significance of this memorandum along with others like them: "It is one of a series of documents showing Hitler intervening to try and stop mindless subordinates carrying out atrocities. There was another identical handwritten note by Himmler on April the 20th, 1942, reading in English: 'no annihilation of the Gypsies.'...But you don't see this kind of thing referred to...in the history books because they can't make it fit. They pretend these documents don't exist."
This is not a "post-hoc rationalization" (after the fact reasoning to justify contrary evidence), as Shermer would have us believe. It is simply showing that the document is wholly consistent with revisionist theory.
This also demonstrates the point about the pitfall of Shermer's convergence of evidence scheme. He uses equivocal evidence. This document is subject to different interpretations, as revisionists to support their viewpoint can also use it. (See point VII of this essay.)
X. On page 218 Shermer quotes Hitler's statements to the Hungarian Head of State, Horthy: "In Poland this state of affairs has been...cleared up: if the Jews there did not want to work, they were shot. If they could not work, they were treated like tuberculosis bacilli with which a healthy body may become infected. This is not cruel if one remembers that even innocent creatures of nature, such as hares and deer when infected, have to be killed so they cannot damage others. Why should the beasts that wanted to bring us Bolshevism be spared more than these innocents?"
Shermer claims that revisionists use "quotations out of context (p.212)" and "pick out what supports their theory and dismiss or ignore the rest (p.214)." Once again, this criticism boomerangs right back into Shermer's face. He conveniently failed to quote what Hitler told Horthy the previous day. Horthy protested; "But they [the Jews] can hardly be murdered or otherwise eliminated." Hitler responded: "There is no need for that."
The gist of what Hitler meant is twofold. First, the Nazis were not attempting to exterminate all the Jews of Europe. Second, as a direct result of certain Nazi policies, a considerable number of Jews would die of disease, starvation, shootings, hangings and overwork from forced labor. Let it suffice to say that revisionists such as David Irving and Bradley Smith have always emphasized the brutal side of the Third Reich.
XI. On pp.219-223, Shermer attempts to establish that Himmler also ordered and planned the extermination of the Jews. Once again, he fails to quote from documents that contradict his theory. In his writings, Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer has referred to one of these memoranda. He wrote: "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." This strongly suggests that Himmler in principle was opposed to the physical annihilation of whole races.
Undoubtedly though, Shermer will resort to the post-hoc rationalization that although Himmler opposed mass murder of the Jews before 1941, he later changed his mind and ended up aiding and abetting their genocide. Here, Shermer jumps from the frying pan into the fire, as another Himmler memorandum undermines this claim. The head of the SS camp administration office sent a directive dated Dec. 28, 1942, to Auschwitz and the other concentration camps. It sharply criticized the high death rate of inmates due to disease, and ordered "camp physicians must use all means at their disposal to significantly reduce the death rate in the various camps." Finally, the directive stressed "the Reichsfurhrer SS [Heinrich Himmler] has ordered that the death rate absolutely must be reduced."
Ordering that the death rate of all inmates, including Jews, must be reduced is inconsistent with Shermer's claim that Himmler was trying to wipe out the entire Jewish people.
XII. Shermer claims that certain German documents, which employ the term ausrotten, offer proof the Nazis had a policy to exterminate the Jews (pp.218-219). His hypothesis is that this German term always meant to "exterminate, extirpate, or destroy (p.218)," and when used by various Nazi officials, they were describing the policy to, literally, exterminate all Europe's Jews. David Irving advanced the rival, competing hypothesis that the word may mean this in the 1990s, but it meant something very different in the time of Adolf Hitler; the contemporaneous meaning of the term was "stamping or rooting out (p.218)."
In an attempt to prove the Nazis had a plan to exterminate all Europe's Jews, Shermer quotes the speech of Hans Frank, the governor of Nazi-occupied Poland and its highest authority, given to a Nazi assembly held on October 7, 1940: "I [Frank] could not 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.219)." According to Shermerian theory, he was saying: " I could not exterminate 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.219)."
The aforementioned Himmler memorandum undermines Shermer's theory and supports David Irving's. Once again, we quote Holocaust historian Yehuda 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."
Ergo, since there was no plan to exterminate the Jews when Frank spoke on 7 October 1940, he must have been saying: "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 reference to another Nazi official who employed the term ausrotten, Shermer asks a rhetorical question: "The same man is using the same word to discuss the same process for tuberculosis and Jews...What else could ausrotten have meant in these contexts except 'extermination' (p.219)?" What the Hans Frank example shows is that when ausrotten is used in conjunction with tuberculosis and Jews, it could very well mean, as David Irving says, that the Nazis were attempting to root out both (i.e., stamp out the disease and deport the Jews).
Furthermore, with the use of this 7 October 1940 Frank document, Shermer involves himself with another self-contradiction. On page 238 he alleges the Nazi leadership kept their plans to exterminate the Jews secret: "It was not something that was casually discussed even between fellow Nazis." Regarding this issue, Shermer approvingly quotes Albert Speer: "It would be wrong to imagine that the top men of the [Nazi] regime would have boasted of their crimes on the rare occasions when they met...In our personal dealings, nothing would ever be said about any sinister activities we [the Nazi leaders] might be up to (p.219)."
Yet, on the other hand, Shermer quotes speeches given by Hans Frank to a Nazi assembly, in which the latter allegedly discusses the supposed extermination of the Jews. So apparently the officials of the Third Reich did not keep their alleged extermination plans totally secret, and they did openly discuss said plans among themselves.
Shermer provides his readers with other evidence that undermines the theory the Nazis attempted to keep their alleged plans to exterminate the Jews a secret. On page 220 he reproduces the February 22, 1943, memorandum of Nazi official Rudolf Brandt. Shermer quotes this important sentence from it: "I [Brandt] am sending you [German official Ernst Kaltenbrunner] the outline of a press announcement concerning the accelerated Ausrottung of the Jews in occupied Europe (p.219)." Shermer interprets this as meaning: "I am sending you the outline of a press announcement concerning the accelerated extermination of the Jews of Europe."
Once again, Shermer contradicts Shermer. The Nazis allegedly kept their plans to exterminate the Jews a secret-but they also planned to announce it in the press!!
In some cases, what Shermer says in one part of his book is refuted by what he says in another part. For example, on p.197 he wrote that "...[David] Irving claims that emigration is all the Nazis ever meant by Ausrottung (extermination) and the Final Solution..."
This is falsified by what he writes on pp.218-219. Shermer admits that David Irving maintains that in the time of Adolf Hitler the term meant "stamping or rooting out." The Nazis used it to refer to such processes as "emasculation of the German people as a power factor." Or they used it to refer to the neutralization of enemy armies, either by physically eliminating them or by capturing them. In addition, the term could also refer to a forced deportation of the Jews, not just emigration.
XIII. On page 230 Shermer deals with the fact that different eyewitnesses give different figures for time of death by gassing in the Auschwitz "gas chambers." In this context he states: "Deniers point out that [Perry] Broad's total of four minutes for the process of [killing the victims in the gas chambers] is at odds with the statements of others, such as Commandant Hoess, who claim it was more like twenty minutes. Because of such discrepancies, deniers dismiss the account entirely. A dozen different accounts give a dozen different figures for time of death by gassing, so deniers believe no one was gassed at all. Does this make sense? Of course not. Obviously, the gassing process would take different amounts of time due to variations in conditions, including the temperature (the rate of hydrocyanic gas [HCN] evaporation from the pellets depends on air temperature), the number of people in the room, and the size of the room, and the amount of Zyklon B poured into the room-not to mention that each observer would perceive time differently."
Here we have another "straw man" fallacy. Shermer created an implausible, simplistic, dishonest and false caricature of a revisionist argument, struck it down, and then pretended that he refuted a much more profound viewpoint. The main reason that revisionists reject all these "eyewitnesses" claims as false is because they contradict known material facts and the physical properties of the alleged gassing agent, Zyklon B. Dr. Faurisson has made this point perfectly clear for years.
The safety and time factors involved in the supposed gassing of millions of people with Zyklon B pesticide render the "eyewitness descriptions" of this procedure as scientifically impossible. According to industrial documents NI-9098 and NI-9912 (both Nuremberg trial documents), the time required for the Zyklon gas to take effect ranges from 6 to 32 hours. (Shermer never informed his readers of this fact.) According to the prevailing Hitler gas chamber story (constructed mainly from "eyewitness" accounts), all of the gas chamber victims were dead within about five minutes after the introduction of the Zyklon B, although Rudolf Hoess (one of Shermer's important "eyewitnesses") claimed that death might take as long as fifteen minutes. Obviously, within the short time span of twenty minutes, the gas would not have reached the deadly concentration (in all parts of the gas chamber) that is necessary to kill all the victims.
Bodies packed tightly against the alleged "wire mesh columns" would have prevented efficient gas flow. The Zyklon crystals would have been tightly packed in the alleged "wire mesh columns," inhibiting the evaporation of the gas from the crystals. Also, if the "gassing" took place in the winter, fall or spring, the low temperatures would have inhibited the evaporation of the gas from the Zyklon crystals. And just as importantly, chemistry expert Germar Rudolf noted that at a temperature of 59F, in a highly humid environment, it is highly probable that the carrier substance would release not more than 10% of the HCN during the first five to ten minutes.
In the January 16, 1979, issue of Le Monde, Dr. Robert Faurisson wrote: "All the testimonies [of the alleged gassing procedure], regardless of how vague or conflicting they may be on other points, are in accord on at least this point: the team of workers would open the place [gas chamber] either 'immediately' or a 'little after' the deaths of the victims. It is my contention, that this point alone constitutes the touchstone of false testimony"
That is, according to the "eyewitnesses of the gas chambers," half an hour (at most) after the release of the gas all of the victims were dead. If this were so, the area would have been saturated with the deadly gas. The workers who allegedly entered the area to remove the corpses would have died from HCN poisoning. There is solid empirical evidence (which this writer sent to Shermer) supporting this claim. He apparently ignored it.
Shermer's convergence of evidence scheme for "proving" the "Holocaust" to a large extent depends upon eyewitness testimonies (pp.228-233). Since he has condemned the practice of choosing only that evidence which supports one's theory and ignoring the rest (p.214), he must include in his scheme one of the more important eyewitness testimonies of the "gas chambers," that of David Olere.
In Jean-Claude Pressac's Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, there are Olere's drawings of the "gas chambers" after the gassing of the victims allegedly occurred. In one drawing we see the workers (some are bare chested/shirtless) removing the corpses from the chambers after a mass gassing. In both sketches none of the workers are wearing any gas masks or special suits to protect them from the residual pockets of hydrogen cyanide that would inevitably have remained after a mass gassing. In fact, considering the inefficient type of exhaust systems that were allegedly installed, there would have been a large amount of HCN left after a mass gassing which would have poisoned anyone (by way of inhalation or through skin absorption) who was not wearing a gas mask or protective suit.
A recent tragic incident with HCN supports this claim. The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio) reported that 23 year-old Scott Dominguez descended into a tank that once held hydrogen cyanide (HCN), and later phosphoric acid, in order to clean it. When this unfortunate worker began chipping away at the chemical film and hosing it down with water, hydrogen cyanide gas was produced.
Just like the workers in Olere's drawings who supposedly removed the corpses from the "Hitler gas chambers" or the gold from the teeth of gassed victims, Mr. Dominguez was working without any safety equipment-no gas mask or protective suit. He was overcome and had to be carried away by emergency firefighters. This hapless man suffers from permanent brain damage because of his exposure to HCN.
This tragic episode strongly supports Dr. Faurisson's claim that those workers who allegedly removed the Jewish bodies from the Auschwitz "gas chambers" would have been overcome by HCN poisoning-another good reason to reject the Holocaust mass gassing story.
XIV. On pp.233-234, Shermer argues on the basis of questionable evidence there were four openings, present during the time in which the gas chambers were allegedly in operation, in the roof of Krema II, through which the SS men allegedly poured the Zyklon B pellets in order to murder their victims. This claim will be discussed in Part II.
However, for the sake of argument let us be very kind to Shermer and give him the benefit of the doubt. Assume for one moment that his photographic evidence is correct; there really were four holes in the roof of this alleged "gas chamber." Even if this be so, his statement-"The photographic evidence converges nicely with eyewitness accounts describing SS men pouring Zyklon B pellets through openings in the roof of the gas chamber (p.234)."-is misleading and duplicitous.
Regarding Shermer's own statements at the Weber-Shermer debate which pertain to this subject, The Journal of Hstorical Review noted: "Shermer also found problems with the 'gas chambers' at Auschwitz. As he noted, it is frequently and authoritatively alleged that Zyklon B was dumped into Auschwitz-Birkenau 'gas chambers' (at Kremas II and III) through ceiling-floor 'wire mesh columns.' However, Shermer said he was unable to find any on-site traces of these columns. 'I am skeptical of the wire mesh columns story, he said."
He never informed the readers of WPBWT of his skepticism. If the wire mesh columns story is false, then eyewitness accounts describing SS men pouring Zyklon pellets through openings in the roof of the gas chamber do not converge with all of the physical evidence. And if Shermer were an honest historian, he would have said so.
XV. In regard to evaluating the evidence relating to the "Holocaust," Shermer writes: "We must examine the evidence as part of a whole (p.216)." As we have seen, this is precisely what Shermer does not do. He further charges that revisionists "pick out what suits their theory and dismiss or ignore the rest (p.214)." This statement tells us more about Michael Shermer's methodology than revisionist methodology. All the evidence that clearly disproves Exterminationism is simply dismissed as "minor errors and inconsistencies here and there" which cannot be used to disprove Holocaust ideology (p.214). In this way, Shermer has created a closed system, impermeable to contrary evidence. His convergence of evidence hypothesis is non-falsifiable, and thus totally unscientific.
Shermer claims when he conferred with Dr. Faurisson in private at the 1995 IHR conference, the latter asked for "one proof, just one proof" that a Nazi gas chamber was used for mass murder (p.199). Shermer allegedly retorted, "What would you consider 'proof'?" Faurisson responded to Shermer's question in the Adelaide Institute Newsletter of Nov.1995.
Contrary to what Shermer says, Faurisson is correct in asking for just one single proof of the Nazi gas chambers. Shermer's claim, that this is an inappropriate question and only his convergence of evidence can prove the Nazi Holocaust, is not correct (pp.214-215).
From 1995 to 1996, Shermer and I were debating each other by email, during which time I responded to his question: What would constitute proof the Nazis used gas chambers for mass murder?
A. An authentic and genuine (no forgeries!) war-time German memorandum, dated between 1940 and 1945, from a top Third Reich leader like Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, etc., specifically ordering that Jews are to be murdered in gas chambers, would constitute proof. This would be the one proof that would destroy the revisionist claim that the Germans never intended to exterminate the Jews en masse in gas chambers. By the mere fact there is no such document suggests there was no plan to murder Jews in gas chambers.
B. Faurisson is right to ask people, "Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber." Thus, an authentic and genuine set of architectural diagrams of a homicidal gas chamber, dated between 1941 and 1945, which states specifically on them-"a gas chamber for mass murder of humans"-would constitute proof. Just as the engineering plans of the real gas chambers at American prisons can demonstrate how they function, so too should the alleged Nazi architectural plans demonstrate to scientists how they allegedly functioned to commit mass murder.
The Nazis were meticulous planners and record keepers. So once again, by the mere fact there is no such set of documents suggests the "Nazi gas chambers" never existed.
C. An authentic and genuine photo or movie of a mass gassing would be single proof of the gas chambers. Yet, Shermer claims to the contrary: "For obvious reasons, there are no photographs recording an actual Nazi gassing, and the difficulty with photographic evidence is that any photograph of activity at a camp cannot by itself prove anything, even if it has not been tampered with (p.234)." That is, revisionists will simply rationalize away the evidence.
There are photographs of other Nazi atrocities, such as shootings, hangings, and beatings. Why not of a mass gassing? Contrary to what Shermer writes, if the Nazis took the time to photograph other grisly killings, then it is logical to assume they would photograph the thousand people packed like sardines inside of a "gas chamber" at Treblinka or Auschwitz.
On page 232 there is the picture of an open pit burning of bodies of people who revisionists believe died from disease and other natural causes at Auschwitz. Shermer believes they were murdered in gas chambers. His caption states the picture "was secretly taken and smuggled out of the camp." If inmates or guards could secretly take pictures of allegedly murdered victims being burned and then smuggle the pictures out of the camp, presumably someone could get a photo of a mass gassing or of the pile of bodies inside the "gas chamber" after a mass gassing.
Contrary to what Shermer writes, a photo of a thousand dead bodies stacked like sardines in Krema II of Auschwitz-Birkenau could not be "explained away" or reconciled with revisionist theory. It would be proof the Nazis used the Krema for mass murder.
D. Regarding the forensic samples from the Auschwitz "gas chambers" in the manner of Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf, here is my claim. If the cyanide levels in samples from the alleged gas chambers were equal to or slightly less than the cyanide levels in samples from the delousing chambers, this would be solid evidence that the alleged gas chambers were in fact used to murder people with Zyklon B gas.
E. Attorney Douglas Christie was correct in asking Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg at the first Zundel trial for an authentic and genuine autopsy report which shows that someone was gassed with hydrogen cyanide. Such a report would be good evidence that the Nazis used at least some Zyklon B for mass murder.
According to Shermer himself, "Skepticism is a vital part of science, which I define as a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation (p.18)." In other words, for a theory to be considered as scientific it must be potentially falsifiable
One of the reasons that Holocaust revisionism is a good scientific theory is because, as shown here, it is potentially falsifiable. One of the many reasons why Shermer's convergence of evidence hypothesis is non-scientific and worthless is because it cannot be falsified.
Shermer proclaims: "The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did (p. 51)." If this were so, then it is up to Shermer to provide revisionists with a set of realistic criteria, which, if satisfied, would falsify his Holocaust beliefs. For years, by email and regular mail I challenged him to show me what revisionists would have to do to falsify his exterminationist beliefs. He consistently failed to respond.
One hopes that Dr. Shermer will now answer the following questions. What would falsify the claim the nazis intended to exterminate all of Europe's Jews? What would constitute proof that the nazi gas chambers never existed?
Shermer's persistent refusal to list realistic criteria that would falsify his Holocaust beliefs demonstrates his utter insecurity, his secret fear the Holocaust legend can be disproven.
XVI. So why does Michael Shermer promote weird beliefs about the Holocaust? When dealing with human motivation one can only speculate.
Dr. Shermer is described on WPBWT's dust jacket as a "champion of science and history [who] brilliantly exposes the all-too-human figures hiding behind the imposing curtain of myth and superstition." Jewish scientist Stephen Jay Gould describes Shermer in glowing terms, "...as head of one of America's leading skeptic organizations, and a powerful activist and essayist in the service of this operational form of reason." Continuing to pack on the accolades, Gould claims Shermer "is [imagine this!] an important figure in American life (p.x)."
In this context, what Shermer lists as a characteristic of a "cult" and its leader applies to himself and the Holocaust true believers who follow him: "Deceit: Recruits and followers are not told everything they should know about the leader and the group's inner circle, and particularly disconcerting flaws or potentially embarrassing events or circumstances are covered up (p.119)."
Shermer never informed his readers of his highly important, videotaped debate about the "Holocaust" with Mark Weber, during which the Great Guru of Skepticism did not fare so well; David Cole's critical speech of Shermer's behavior in regard to the Donahue show (or how one may acquire a recording of the speech); pertinent facts about Mel Mermelstein's lawsuit against the IHR; key pieces of evidence which shows that Holocaust revisionism cannot be classified as a neo-Nazi movement; evidence which undermines his convergence of evidence that allegedly "proves" the Holocaust; key WWII documents that contradict the claim that Hitler planned to exterminate world Jewry; evidence which suggests that Himmler did not intend to exterminate all of Europe's Jews; his own skepticism in regard to the wire mesh columns story; etc., etc.
Shermer has written: "All historians are biased. The question is, what is the quality of the bias and how was it arrived at?" As we have seen, Dr. Shermer is a very biased historian. Let us investigate the quality of his bias and how it was arrived at. After all, this is only fair. Shermer spends his time speculating about the alleged evil motivations and biases of revisionists. So what is good for the revisionist goose is good for the exterminationist gander.
Shermer admits that Holocaust revisionism is in the public consciousness, so it no longer makes sense to simply ignore it (pp.181, 186). Holocaust revisionism is no longer merely a "heresy," a "calumny" or a "lie." It is a dire threat to international Zionism's power and influence worldwide. The days are now past whey they could ignore it or deprive the public from hearing Revisionist viewpoints. It has reached the point where the Zionist elite has at least to pretend that it can be refuted. Consequently, an anti-revisionist intellectual cartel is needed, replete with a whole line of fallacies that will give the public the impression that Holocaust revisionism should be dismissed as "racist cant."
Enter Professor Shermer! As shown here his work is replete with fallacies, false statements, omissions, distortions and the like, but to the uniformed public who for the most part are unaware of all the revisionist evidence, it appears as a decisive refutation of Holocaust revisionism. This is precisely what the Holocaust lobby needs at this point, and Shermer has provided it.
Shermer claims he has "no vested interest in the status quo Holocaust story as it is normally understood. I [Shermer] am not Jewish; I have no Jewish relatives that I know of; and I do not know of anyone connected to my family in any way who lost someone in the Holocaust."
Shermer presented himself to this writer as a psychologically well-adjusted, rugged individualist who has no need for such things as a "group identity" with his European heritage. Yet, he defended Jewish-Zionist nationalist practices. Jews, so he argued, are justified in attempting to prevent intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews. Why? Because of their shrinking population.
In short, he is a perfect candidate for an "out-front" gentile for Jewish-Zionist interests.
One may wonder why prominent Jewish intellectuals like Stephen Jay Gould would elevate Dr. Shermer (a mediocre scholar) to such an important position in American life, why another prominent Jewish scientist like Jared Diamond would write glowing remarks about his books (see dust jacket of WPBWT), and why establishment publishers would promote Why People Weird Things, a work of questionable scholarship. The answer to this question will tell us something about how the mainstream intellectual establishment operates in the United States.
Shermer and his book attempt to debunk Creationism (Christian fundamentalism), Holocaust revisionism, alleged white racism, and even Afrocentrism (the latter being associated with Black American opposition to Zionism). These are four movements the mighty Jewish-Zionist power elite views as dire threats to their interests and power. As California psychologist Kevin MacDonald has pointed out, 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.
The reader should not misunderstand me. I am not saying "the Jews" secretly rule and dominate "a Gentile robot named Michael Shermer." What I am suggesting is a much more subtle possibility. There may be a marriage of convenience here. Shermer writes books and articles that service Jewish interests. The Jewish-Zionist establishment in turn showers the Occidental college professor with lucrative book contracts, acclaim and prestige. Indeed, Shermer admitted to this writer that he received six figure advances for his books, the only exception being DENYING HISTORY, for which he received only a four figure advance. However, the latter book was favorably commented upon by important people in important places, thus putting him in good standing for future book contracts, speaking engagements and academic positions.
Does this explain why Michael Shermer promotes such weird beliefs about the Holocaust?
|||For a laudatory biography of Dr. Shermer, see online: www.skeptic.com/director.html.|
|||The Holocaust Story in the Crossfire: The Weber-Shermer Holocaust Debate, quality VHS color video, $21.95 postpaid (CA sales tax $1.55), add $1.00 for foreign shipping, available from Institute for Historical Review, P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659.|
|||Email from Michael Shermer to Paul Grubach, May 31, 2000. Printout in possession of Paul Grubach.|
|||The Holocaust Story in the Crossfire: The Weber-Shermer Holocaust Debate. Also, see [Mark Weber], "Exchanging Views on the Holocaust: Debating the Undebatable: The Weber-Shermer Clash," The Journal of Historical Review, January/February 1996, p.30.|
|||Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why do They Say it? (University of California Press, 2000), p.109.|
|||David Cole's speech at the 12th International Revisionist Conference, My Adventure With Michael Shermer, audiotape A143, available from Institute for Historical Review, P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659 U.S.A.|
|||Michael Shermer, "An Open Letter to Holocaust Revisionists; In Response to W.D. Brockschmidt's 'Open Letter to Michael Shermer' in Newsletter of the Adelaide Institute, 27 January, 1995." March 14, 1995. A copy of this letter is in the possession of Paul Grubach.|
|||An email from Michael Shermer to Paul Grubach, April 24, 1996. Printout in the possession of Paul Grubach.|
|||Michael Shermer, "Holocaust Denial, Free Speech, and the Burden of Proof: An Update From the Publisher," Skeptic, Vol.2, No.3, p.13.|
|||Theodore J. O'Keefe, "Victory in Grueling Ten-Year-Long Legal Battle: 'Best Witness': Mel Mermelstein, Auschwitz and the IHR," The Journal of Historical Review, January/February 1994, pp.25-32; Shermer did note this in Shermer & Grobman, p.43.|
|||Theodore J. O'Keefe, "History and 'Memory': An Examination of the Evidence of 'Holocaust Witness' Mel Mermelstein," The Journal of Historical Review, July/August 1997, p.2.|
|||Mark Weber, "The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime," pp.4-14.|
|||Email from Greg Raven to Paul Grubach, June 16, 2000.|
|||See the biographical material of Paul Rassinier by various authors in Paul Rassinier, The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses: A Study of the German Concentration Camps and the Alleged Extermination of European Jewry (Institute for Historical Review, 1978).|
|||Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Assassins of Memory: Essays on Denial of the Holocaust (Columbia University Press, 1992), pp.116-120.|
|||Revisionist Letters, Spring 1989, p.8.|
|||Shermer, "An Open Letter to Holocaust Revisionists...".|
|||The Holocaust Story in the Crossfire: The Weber-Shermer Holocaust Debate; [Mark Weber], "Exchanging Views on the Holocaust: Debating the Undebatable: The Weber-Shermer Clash."|
|||Paul Grubach, "Not Sarcastic," Skeptic, Vol. 3, No.1, p.21.|
|||"Treblinka," The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1992, pp.134-135.|
|||"Likwidacja zydowskiej Warszwy, Treblinka," Biuleytn Zydowskiego Instytutu Historysznego (Warsaw), Jan.-June 1951, pp.93-100. Quoted in: Carlo Mattogno, "The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews," The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1988, pp.273-274, 295 (n.16).|
|||The New York Times, August 8, 1943, p.11.|
|||Jacob Apenszlak, ed., The Black Book of Polish Jewry (New York: 1943), pp.142-143.|
|||World Jewish Congress, Lest We Forget (New York: 1943), pp.4, 6-7.|
|||OSS document, April 13, 1944. National Archives (Washington, DC), Military Branch, Record Group 226 (OSS records), No.67231.|
|||Nuremberg Trial Document 3311-PS. IMT, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (IMT "blue series"/1947-1949), vol.32, pp.152-158; Also published in Carlos Whitlock Porter, Made in Russia: The Holocaust (Historical Review Press, 1988), pp.2-7|
|||See the statements of Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg in Barbara Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die?: Report of the Evidence in the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst Zundel (Samisdat: 1992), p.31.|
|||Shermer & Grobman, p.32.|
|||Nuremberg Document PS-4025; David Irving, Goering: A Biography (Morrow: 1989), p.349; A facsimile of this memorandum is reproduced in The Journal of Historical Review, March/April 2000, p.18.|
|||H. Picker, Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier (Stuttgart: 1976), p.456. This quote from Hitler is also mentioned in Gerald Reitlinger, The Final Solution: The Attempt to Exterminate the Jews of Europe 1939-1945 (Jacob Aronson, Inc.: 1987), p.78.|
|||Nuremberg Trial Document NG-2586; Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT), vol.13, pp.243-249. Also published in Arthur Butz, The Hoax oftThe Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry (Institute for Historical Review: 1976), pp.205-206, 208-210.|
|||Michael Shermer, "Holocaust Revisionism and Pseudo-History: Does It Warrant Serious Skepticism," Skeptic, vol.2, No.2, p.22.|
|||See Barbara Kulaszka's Did Six Million Really Die?: Report of the Evidence in the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst Zundel-1988, p.385.|
|||See Justice Gray's "Judgment" in the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial, online: www.focal.org/judg.html, paragraphs 5.204, 5.206.|
|||Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol.2, No.2, 1987, p.211.|
|||Nuremberg document PS-2171, Annex 2; NC&A red series, Vol.4, pp.833-834.|
|||Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol.2, No.2, 1987, p.211.|
|||See Justice Gray's "Judgment" in the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial, online: www.focal.org/judg.html, pargraph 6.107.|
|||A translation of Document NI-9912 is in Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (Beate Klarsfeld Foundation: 1989), pp.18-20.|
|||Ibid., p.16; Reitlinger, p.148.|
|||Ernst Gauss [Germar Rudolf], ed., Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of 'Truth' and 'Memory' (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2000), p.352.|
|||For an excellent discussion of the inadequacy of the ventilation systems of the alleged "gas chambers," see Diplom-Chemiker Germar Rudolf, "Critique of Chemical Claims made by Robert Jan van Pelt", sections A-6, C-5. Online: http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html|
|||The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio), December 19, 1999, p.30-A.|
|||See [Mark Weber], "Exchanging Views on the Holocaust...," p.32.|
|||For example, see Shermer & Grobman, p.183.|
|||For example, I sent him at least three copies of my open letter, "Revisionism and the Criterion of Falsifiability: An Open Challenge to Michael Shermer," August 23, 1999, in which I requested that he list a series of criteria which, if satisfied, would falsify his Exterminationist beliefs.|
|||Shermer, "Holocaust Revisionism And Pseudo-History...," p.22.|
|||Shermer, "An Open Letter to Holocaust Revisionists."|
|||Email from Michael Shermer to Paul Grubach, October 13, 2000. Printout in the possession of Paul Grubach.|
|||Email from Michael Shermer to Paul Grubach, April 24, 1996. Printout in the possession of Paul Grubach.|
|||Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: an Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Praeger: 1998), pp.3-4, passim.|
|||Email from Michael Shermer to Paul Grubach, May 13, 2000. Printout in the possession of Paul Grubach.|
|||See the book's dustjacket. For a sample of comments about Denying History, see online: www.amazon.com/exec/obiodos/ts/book-reviews/0520216121/t/0002-6221575-5968254#05202161215000.|