Holocaust Revisionism vs. Richard Evans,From January to April in the year 2000, one of the most important events in regard to the ongoing debate about the Jewish Holocaust took place in the British High Court in London. The libel case of English historian David Irving vs. Jewish American historian Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books, was heard by the British magistrate, Charles Gray. Irving charged that he was libeled when Lipstadt labeled him a “Holocaust denier” in her 1993 book, Denying the Holocaust.
Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trials, Richard J. Evans, New York, 2001By Paul Grubach
© copyright 2002
The author of Lying About Hitler, Richard Evans, testified as an expert witness on behalf of Lipstadt and Penguin Books. This book is a condensed and edited version of his 700-page report that he provided the court.
The following essay is Part II of my two-part review of Professor Evans’s tome. The reader is urged to view Part I, as Part II is a complement to the thoughts presented in Part I.1 All page numbers in the body of the text refer to Lying About Hitler.
The book is cluttered with errors, contradictions, omissions, distortions and misleading statements. Let’s begin with a simple example.
The California based Institute for Historical Review (IHR) is one of the world’s foremost organizations promoting Holocaust revisionism. Evans falsely claims that no staff member or member of the IHR’s Editorial Advisory Committee is “an established professional historian, academic or otherwise (p.141).”
One Committee member, Dr. James Martin, is a professional academic historian, although he is now retired. James J. Martin received his Ph.D. in History from the University of Michigan in 1949. He is the author of Men Against the State, American Liberalism and World Politics 1931-1941, Revisionist Viewpoints, The Saga of Hog Island, and The Man Who Invented 'Genocide'. His long teaching career included posts at Northern Illinois University (DeKalb), San Francisco State College, Deep Springs College, and Rampart College.2
The IHR’s current Director is Mark Weber. He studied history at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich (Germany), and Portland State University, from where he received a bachelor's degree in history (with high honors). He then did graduate work in history at Indiana University (Bloomington), where he served as a history instructor and received a master's degree in European history in 1977. In March 1988, he testified for five days in Toronto District Court as a recognized expert witness on Germany's wartime Jewish policy and the Holocaust issue.3
Evans could have easily checked these facts for himself. Was this an honest error… or was the Cambridge intellectual consciously distorting reality about Irving’s friends and associates, the revisionist historians at the IHR?
At the 1988 Canadian trial of Ernst Zündel, historian Irving told the court that there is no explicit reference to the extermination of the Jews of Europe in the January 20, 1942 Wannsee Conference minutes (where Holocaust historians claim the extermination of the Jews was allegedly planned). Irving suggests that this supports the revisionist theory that there was no plan or program to exterminate all of Jewry (pp.127-128).
Evans countered by writing that Adolf Eichmann (Head of the Jewish Office of the Gestapo, 1940-45) testified in 1961 “the talk of the Conference had all been of killing and liquidation, disguised in the minutes (written by Eichmann himself but checked over and amended by Heydrich) by euphemisms (pp.127-128).” In other words, while the Nazis secretly talked amongst themselves about the plan to exterminate all of the Jews, Nazi officials changed and manipulated the meeting’s minutes by inserting code words, camouflage language, and euphemisms in order to hide the Nazi plan to exterminate all of Jewry.
In Judge Gray’s Judgment we read how Evans and his colleagues criticized Irving for not informing his readership about the background and circumstances of a source he used. Developing this line of thought further, the British magistrate added: “Evans emphasized that it is essential for any historian to pay close attention to the background of any source he intends to quote so as to ensure that he is a reliable witness. He concluded that Irving deliberately suppressed the information as to [his source’s background], preferring instead to present him to the reader as an objective and trustworthy source, when to Irving’s knowledge he was nothing of the kind.4
Evans’s criticism of Irving boomerangs right back into the Cambridge Professor’s face. Evans did not pay close attention to the background and circumstances of Eichmann, and he presented the former Gestapo official to the reader as an objective and trustworthy source, when in point of fact Eichmann’s testimony should be looked upon with a healthy dose of skepticism, as Irving rightly does.
Israel had a stake in proving the “truth of the Holocaust,” as it is part of the ideological foundation of the Jewish state and an integral part of Jewish tradition. It would have raised suspicion in the minds of many to say, on the one hand, the extermination of the Jews was planned at the Wannsee Conference, and then on the other hand, to say that there is no explicit mention of the plan to exterminate the Jews in the minutes of said Conference. Thus, the Israelis had a vested interest in “encouraging” Eichmann to claim that the extermination of the Jews was planned at Wannsee, and the minutes were doctored to hide this.
Judge Gray noted that “Irving relied, in support of this argument that the topic of killing Jews was not discussed at Wannsee, on the statements to that effect made after the war by most of the participants. Longerich and Browning [Evans’s colleagues] both answered that there is nothing surprising or convincing about those denials: they were made during the Nuremberg trials and were plainly self-exculpatory.”5
Judge Gray noted that Evans was skeptical of the sources that Irving used to create his account of the infamous, anti-Jewish pogrom, the “Night of Broken Glass.” Why? “Another reason for skepticism about their accounts,” Evans claims, “is their wish to exculpate themselves.”6
A similar line of reasoning applies to Eichmann, a man over whom a death sentence hung, as he was in Israeli captivity at the time he made the statements that Evans uses. He certainly would be tempted to say whatever he thought might help him gain favor with his Israeli captors, and thus, to possibly escape a death sentence and attain a less harsh sentence. Was he trying to gain favor with the Israelis when he claimed the Nazis talked of exterminating the Jews at Wannsee and then doctored the minutes to hide this?
Irving pointed out that he might have made the incriminating statements out of a desire to please or perhaps was subject to some psychological impulse to incriminate himself. He suggested further that the ex-Gestapo official might have been suffering from sleep deprivation.7 Eichmann claimed that when he was seized in Buenos Aires, he was “tied up on a bed for a full week, then given an injection in [his] arm.”8 Could Eichmann’s testimony have been made under duress, or under the influence of a mind-altering drug? No one knows for certain.
But contrary to what Evans asserts, we must look with skepticism upon Eichmann’s claim that the mass murder of Jews was discussed at Wannsee, and the minutes were doctored to hide this. Eichmann’s testimony was made when he was under Israel’s control and subjected to all of the psychological stresses of captivity.
In addition, many years after the end of WWII Eichmann wrote a passage in his memoirs that Evans believes supports the theory that Hitler ordered the complete extermination of the Jewish people. Nazi official Reinhard Heydrich allegedly told Eichmann in July 1941 that: “I’ve [Heydrich] come from the Reichsfuhrer [Heinrich Himmler]. [Hitler] has given orders for the physical destruction of the Jews (p.248).”
Irving claimed that Eichmann had inserted this phrase in his manuscript so that if he was captured his defense would be that he was merely following orders (pp.248-249). Evans claims that Irving is simply trying to rationalize away the evidence that does not fit his views.
Here is another example of Evans’s double standard in regard to the evidence. When Irving put forth the perfectly plausible argument that Eichmann may have inserted false information into his manuscript in order to exculpate himself, he is, according to Evans, trying to “rationalize away the unfavorable evidence.” Yet, when Evans wants to discredit the sources employed by Irving, he claims that they may have made false statements in order to exculpate themselves.
On April 16 and 17 of 1943, there were meetings between Admiral Horthy, leader of Hungary’s right wing, authoritarian regime that was allied with Nazi Germany, and Hitler and Reich Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. The question of Hungary’s Jews was a major topic of discussion. Evans gives his portrayal of these meetings on pages 91-96, and also his criticisms of Irving’s portrayal of these meetings.
In the meeting on April 16, Horthy protested to Hitler: “He [Horthy] had done everything which one could decently undertake against the Jews, but one could surely not murder or kill them in some other way. [Hitler] replied that this was also not necessary. Hungary could accommodate the Jews in concentration camps just like Slovakia did (p.94).”
The minutes for the second day’s meeting on April 17 include the following ugly passage: “On Horthy’s retort, what should he [Horthy] do with the Jews then, after he had pretty well taken all means of living from them—he surely couldn’t beat them to death—the Reich Foreign Minister replied that the Jews must either be annihilated or taken to concentration camps. There was no other way (p.92).”
Hitler then added a brutal and barbaric statement of his own: “Where the Jews were left to themselves, as for example Poland, gruesome poverty and degeneracy had ruled. They were just pure parasites. One had fundamentally cleared up this state of affairs in Poland. If the Jews there didn’t want to work, they were shot. If they couldn’t work, they had to perish. They had to be treated like tuberculosis bacilli, from which a healthy body could be infected. That was not cruel, if one remembered that even innocent natural creatures like hares and deer had to be killed so that no harm was caused. Why should one spare the beasts who wanted to bring us Bolshevism more? Nations who did not rid themselves of Jews perished (p.93).”
In his Hitler's War, Irving listed the April 16 Horthy/Hitler exchange after the aforementioned April 17 quotes from Hitler and Ribbentrop.
Evans and the entire Lipstadt/Penguin defense team claim “these passages are significant in that they afford powerful evidence that Hitler knew of and approved the extermination of Jews. The flavour of Hitler’s remarks points towards an intention to exterminate the Hungarian Jews. It is difficult, say [Evans and the rest of Lipsatdt’s defense team], to visualize any other reason why the Nazis were so insistent to get their hands on Hungarian Jews.”9
Critiquing Irving’s use of the historical data, Evans claims that Irving’s transposition of the Horthy/Hitler exchange of April 16 to the meeting of April 17, in effect, minimizes the murderous significance of what Hitler said and intended.
By failing to give an accurate description of Irving’s arguments, and by failing to reveal to his reader all of Irving’s evidence, Evans distorted the historical record and, in effect, minimized the revisionist import of the April 16 and 17 meetings between Horthy and the top Nazis.
Evans failed to mention what Judge Gray included in the context of the debate about the Horthy/Hitler meetings of April 16 and 17 of 1943: “In this connection Irving, in order to rebut the claim that Hitler displayed a vindictive attitude towards the Jews on this (or any other occasion), drew attention to the willingness of Hitler on occasion to approve some merciful disposal for individual Jews or groups of Jews. Irving instanced the permission given by Hitler for 70,000 Jewish children to leave Romania and travel to Palestine.”10
Evans’s colleague and anti-Irving historian, Dr. Peter Longerich, “agreed that there were times when Hitler exempted certain Jews from deportation and extermination.”11
(In another part of his Judgement, Judge Gray pointed out what Evans failed to tell his readership in Lying About Hitler: “Evans agreed that Hitler undoubtedly on specific occasions did intervene on behalf of identified Jews or groups of Jews.”12)
But even more importantly, Irving emphasized what Hitler said at the April 16 meeting, namely, that there was to be no need to murder the Jews en masse, as they would be forced into concentration camps. In this vein, Judge Gray wrote: “Irving argued that the reason why Ribbentrop said what he did is that the Hungarian Jews were posing a security threat: what Ribbentrop was proposing was that, on that account, they should be sent to concentration camps; if they refused (but not otherwise) they would be shot.”13
Irving thus responded to Evans’s and company’s claim that “it is difficult to visualize any reason as to why the Nazis wanted to get their hands on Hungarian Jews, other than to exterminate them.” The Germans considered them a security threat, and thus, wanted to contain them in concentration camps.
Evans countered by saying Irving “is perverting and distorting the clear sense of what Ribbentrop said.”14
Evans perverted and distorted the clear sense of Irving’s defense by failing to bring to his reader’s attention the following important part of the maverick historian’s argument. As the British magistrate wrote: “As regards Hitler’s language, Irving drew attention to the fact that the internal record of the meeting kept by the Hungarians (as opposed to the official Nazi minute) made no mention of the deported Hungarian Jews being killed. There would have been no reason for the Hungarians to conceal the fact that they were to be killed, if that had been stated at the meeting to be the intention. If Hitler had said that the Nazis were proposing to kill the Hungarian Jews, one would expect, suggested Irving, the Hungarians’ internal record to include a protest at such barbarism.”15
By the mere fact that there is nothing in the Hungarian minutes about the deported Jews being murdered, or of a Nazi proposal to murder the Jews en masse, would tend to support Irving’s interpretation of the April 16 and 17 Horthy/Hitler meetings.
There is no mention of this important Irving argument in Lying About Hitler, and to this writer’s knowledge, Evans never provided an adequate explanation for this inconvenient fact. If the Hungarian Jews were murdered en masse in gas chambers or by other methods and the Hungarian leaders knew about it, or if the Nazis told Horthy that they planned to murder the Hungarian Jews en masse, then it is up to Evans to explain why there is nothing about this in the Hungarian records.
So, even though Irving did transpose the Horthy/Hitler exchange of April 16 to the meeting of April 17, this in no way destroys the validity of his viewpoint.
Here, it would be appropriate to repeat what I wrote in Part I, section I of this two-part review. Hitler had no plans to physically exterminate all of the Jews. Yet, he clearly realized the brutality of his plans to rid Europe of the Jews; many would die as a result of his policies, and many of the ones that did not leave voluntarily would be shot or would die of disease or starvation. (All of this evidence is consistent with Holocaust revisionist theory.) A brutal and evil policy indeed, but it is not the same as a policy to exterminate all Jews in gas chambers and by other means, to make them disappear from the face of the earth.
Ironically, this interpretation is supported by a passage in Joseph Goebbels’ diary of March 27, 1942, which Evans accepts as authentic and genuine: “We [Hitler and Goebbels] speak in conclusion about the Jewish question. Here [Hitler] remains, as before, unrelenting. The Jews must get out of Europe, if necessary, with the application of the most brutal means (p.89).”
These April 16 and 17, 1943 meetings between Horthy and the top Nazis also bring forth a serious inconsistency in Evans’s viewpoints. Evans claims that many times, in their personal correspondence and minutes, the Nazis camouflaged their plans to exterminate the Jews.
In personal correspondence between Hitler and Himmler, camouflaged terms were used to describe certain aspects of the alleged extermination of the Jews. In Evans’s words, “The Nazis generally used camouflaged terms when noting details of the extermination of the Jews at this time (p.91).” Allegedly, in the minutes of the Wannsee Conference, the Nazis disguised their talk of killing and liquidating the Jews in euphemistic terms (pp.127-128).
On July 25, 1942, Hitler said to his associates “After this war is over, I will hold to the view…that the Jews will have to leave and emigrate to Madagascar or some other Jewish national state.” Evans claimed that once again Hitler was using camouflaged language to describe his plan to exterminate the Jews.16
So let’s get this straight. In their personal correspondence and minutes, the top Nazis used euphemisms and camouflaged language to describe the mass extermination of the Jews. They were trying to keep this mass murder plan as secret as possible. Yet, when Ribbentrop and Hitler meet with the foreign leader Horthy, they openly declare their intention to murder the Jews en masse! If Hitler and Ribbentrop were willing to reveal to a foreign head of state their plan to exterminate all of the Jews, why would they use camouflage language and euphemistic terms amongst themselves to describe this same plan?
Professor Evans never offered any adequate explanation for this serious inconsistency in his theory. And, contradictions like this are exactly what one should expect from a false theory.
On page 115, Evans discusses Irving’s view of some German Security Service and Security Police task force reports filed by field commanders giving numbers of Jews shot by their forces on the Eastern Front. Irving does not trust the statistics that they contain, and suggested they may have been artificially inflated by Nazi commanders in the field.
Evans responds: “This of course was pure speculation, unsupported by any documentary evidence. This was characteristic of Irving’s methods of disposing of inconvenient documents (p.115).” Here, Evans is claiming that Irving invented a “convenient rationalization” to “explain away” evidence that does not fit his theories.
Again, on pages 126 and 128, Evans accuses Irving of resorting to “speculation and innuendo” and “wild speculation,” respectively.
During WWII, British intelligence services were secretly reading and decoding Nazi code messages from Auschwitz to Berlin. The official historian of British intelligence during WWII, the late Professor Sir Harry Hinsley, wrote that the British decrypts of German code messages from Auschwitz to Berlin do not mention anything about homicidal gas chambers. Irving correctly argued that, if homicidal gassings at Auschwitz ordered by the top Nazis in Berlin were actually taking place, there would have been some mention of them in these secret German messages.
Evans counters by claiming “the British decrypts of encoded radio messages sent from Auschwitz did not mention gassings, which was hardly surprising, given the Nazis’ policy of not mentioning the gas chambers explicitly in any of their communication with one another (p.116).”
This of course is pure speculation on Evans’s part, unsupported by any credible documentation, as there are no authentic and genuine wartime German documents (dated between 1941 and 1945) that instruct German officials: “It is hereby the policy of the Third Reich that no one shall explicitly mention the homicidal gas chambers in their personal or official communications. Always use code words, camouflage terms, and euphemisms to hide the existence of the homicidal gas chambers.”
The maverick British historian has noted that documents discovered in the former Soviet archives showed that Auschwitz prisoners were released to the outside world on completion of their sentence. Irving then concluded, “this was incompatible with [Auschwitz being] a top-secret mass extermination center (p.123).”
Evans disagrees; allegedly, this policy applied only “to registered prisoners, and only to a miniscule number of them (p.123).” In other words, the Germans had another secret policy. They registered on paper the prisoners that were to be used for slave labor, but the prisoners that were going to be gassed were not registered. Only a small portion of the registered prisoners were eligible for release, while the unregistered prisoners were all “murdered in the gas chambers.”
Evans added that prisoners sent to Auschwitz for extermination were not enrolled on the camp’s list of inmates, but were sent straight to the gas chambers (p.124).
Once again, this is pure speculation and innuendo on Evans’s part, unsupported by any credible documentation. There are no authentic and genuine German documents (dated between 1941 and 1945) stating: “Only prisoners fit for work will be registered on paper. Prisoners not fit for work will be gassed and will not be registered. No unregistered prisoner is eligible for release to the outside world; they will all be sent to the gas chambers.”
This is all characteristic of the Holocaust lobby’s method of disposing of inconvenient evidence. When confronted with facts and documents that undermine the theory that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate all of Jewry, mostly by way of homicidal gas chambers, by employing Evans’s rationalizations they can easily twist and contort any piece of contrary evidence and make it fit their theories. The traditional view of the Holocaust is thus unfalsifiable, and is elevated to the status of a dogmatic religious doctrine.
Consider this other serious inconsistency in Evans’s theory of the “Final Solution.” On page 104, he defines the “Holocaust” as the “systematic attempt to destroy all European Jewry.” On the following page, he again defines the Holocaust as the systematic Nazi attempt to “kill all the Jews of Europe.”
According to Judge Gray, from about October 25, 1941, Evans and his colleagues maintain “Hitler made repeated references to the extermination of the Jews and to doing away with them. On 16 November 1941 [Alfred] Rosenberg met Hitler and Himmler, who the next day…told Heydrich by telephone that he had discussed the…(doing away with) of the Jews. Two days later Rosenberg gave a confidential briefing to the press in which he spoke of the biological eradication of the whole of Jewry in Europe. From that date onwards according to the Defendants [Evans and his colleagues], Hitler’s pronouncements on the Jewish question, became more frequent and increasingly blunt [emphasis added].”17
So let’s get this straight. On the one hand, Hitler became increasingly open and frank about his plan to exterminate all of Europe’s Jews. He went so far to tell a foreign leader, Admiral Horthy, about it. He even stated it in speeches. He allowed Alfred Rosenberg to give confidential briefings to the press about the murderous intentions of National Socialism.
Yet, simultaneously, the German dictator and his top henchmen instituted this policy of using code words, camouflage language, and euphemisms to hide this murderous policy! Inconsistencies like this are exactly one should expect from a false theory.
One of the most interesting aspects of the Irving-Lipstadt trial was the debate about the famous "Schlegelberger document." This March 1942, memorandum of Nazi State Secretary Franz Schlegelberger reads as follows: “Reich Minister Lammers [Hitler’s top civil servant] informed me that [Hitler] had repeatedly explained to him that he wanted the solution of the Jewish Question put back until after the war. Accordingly the present discussions possess merely theoretical value in the opinion of Reich Minister Lammers. But he will be in all cases concerned that fundamental decisions are not reached by a surprise intervention from another agency without his knowledge (p.83).”
Irving argued that this document shows that Hitler had no plans to exterminate European Jewry; it is incompatible with the notion that he had ordered an urgent liquidation program. Evans provides his readers with one more fallacious argument in his attempt to discredit Irving’s interpretation of the Schlegelberger document. If the “[Nazi Final Solution] meant the deportation of the Jews to the East, then how could Hitler have repeatedly said he wanted it postponed, when he had ordered it in the previous autumn and knew that it was in full swing (p.85)?” In other words, the “Schlegelberger note” could not possibly mean that Hitler wanted the forced deportation of the Jews to be postponed, because it continued unabated.
If Professor Evans had made an objective study of the appropriate documents, he would have seen the fallacy in his reasoning.
In volume 13 of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT) publications, there is a discussion of Nazi Jewish policy. One part, NG-2586-J, a memo written by Nazi official Martin Luther, dated August 21, 1942, is a summary of this policy. Under point number 11, we read: “The intended deportations are a further step forward on the way of the total solution and are in respect to other countries [Hungary] very important. The deportation to the Government General is a temporary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern Territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given.”18 Viewing the Schlegelberger note in conjunction with this passage, one can rebut Evans by saying that the deportations of the Jews to the East are only a temporary measure. The Final solution to the Jewish question—that is, the decision as to where the Jews will finally and ultimately reside—will have to be postponed until the end of the war.
There is no contradiction in Irving’s interpretation of the “Schlegelberger note.”
On pages 124-125, with ambiguous verbiage Evans provides the reader with a vague and misleading discussion of the phony “homicidal gas chambers” at Dauchau concentration camp. Let’s examine one of his statements: “Not even Irving claimed that the evidence presented at [the Nuremberg war crimes trials] said that the gas chambers at Dauchau ever actually came into use (p.124).” If I understand him correctly, Evans is saying that the Nazis allegedly built a homicidal gas chamber at Dauchau, but it was never used to murder prisoners. Neither the Allies, nor anyone for that matter at the Nuremberg war crimes trials ever claimed the Dauchau gas chamber was used to commit mass murder. This is flatly false.
As revisionist historian Mark Weber pointed out, the chief British prosecutor, Sir Hartley Shawcross, in his closing address to the Nuremberg Tribunal claimed that the Dauchau gas chamber was used to murder inmates. He stated: “[…] murder [was] conducted like some mass production industry in the gas chambers and the ovens of Auschwitz, Dauchau, Treblinka, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Majdanek and Oranienburg.”19 Contrary to what Evans writes, Shawcross was in fact claiming the evidence presented at the Nuremberg war crimes trials said that the Dauchau gas chamber was used to commit mass murder.
The Czech prisoner Dr. Franz Blaha claimed at Nuremberg that the “Dachau gas chamber” was used to commit mass murder. On the subject of the Dachau camp, Blaha, in a sworn statement, affirmed:
“There were numerous executions by gas, executions by firearms, and by injections, in the camp. The gas chamber was finished in 1944, and I called Dr. Rascher to examine the first victim. Of the eight or nine persons in the chamber, three were still alive; the others seemed to be dead. Their eyes were red and their faces bloated. Numerous detainees were subsequently killed in the same manner.” 20
Thus, contrary to the “authoritative opinion” of Professor Evans, there was phony evidence presented at Nuremberg that falsely claimed that the Dauchau gas chamber was used to gas prisoners.
Are the errors of Richard Evans “honest errors,” or are they the end result of a conscious desire to blacken the reputation of David Irving and uphold the traditional view of the Holocaust? Perhaps Professor Evans will answer this question for us in the near future.
In the end, as most visitors to this site know, Justice Gray ruled against David Irving. But this was Pyrrhic victory for the Holocaust lobby, for Irving forced them to lay all of their cards on the table. The traditional view of the Holocaust, which contains so much myth, legend and some outright lies, is an ideological distortion whose days are truly numbered. Present and future historians who study the trial transcripts will come to see how weak and questionable the traditional view of the Holocaust really is.
Time and the dawn of a new age of reason will vindicate the revisionist view of the Holocaust. And also David Irving.
2. Online: http://www.ihr.org/other/authorbios.html. Scroll down to “James Martin.”
3. Online: http://www.ihr.org/other/authorbios.html. Scroll down to “Mark Weber.”
4. See Judge Charles Gray’s “Judgment” in the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial, online: http://www.focal.org/judg.html, paragraph 5.25.
5. Ibid, paragraph 6.120.
6. Ibid, paragraph 5.53.
7. Ibid, paragraph 6.128.
8. See Eichmann’s “Last Speech.” Printed in Paul Rassinier, THE REAL EICHMANN TRIAL or The Incorrigible Victors (Historical Review Press, 1976), p. 152.
9. Judge Charles Gray’s “Judgment,” paragraph 5.204.
10. Ibid, paragraph 5.209.
11. Ibid, paragraph 5.209.
12. Ibid, paragraph 5.142.
13. Ibid, paragraph 5.211.
14. Ibid, paragraph 5.211.
15. Ibid, paragraph5.213.
16. Ibid, paragraph 5.142.
17. Ibid, paragraph 6.82.
18. Nuremberg Trial Document NG-2586; NUREMBERG MILITARY TRIBUNAL (NMT), vol.13, pp.243-249. The document is also reprinted in Arthur Butz, THE HOAX OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY: THE CASE AGAINST THE PRESUMED EXTERMINATION OF EUROPEAN JEWRY (Institute for Historical Review, 1976), pp. 205-206, 208-210.
19. INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL, TRIAL OF THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL (henceforth IMT “blue series”), 42 volumes, Nuremberg 1947-1949; here: vol.19, p.434. The quote is also in Mark Weber’s essay in Ernst Gauss, ed., DISSECTING THE HOLOCAUST: THE GROWING CRITIQUE OF ‘TRUTH’ AND ‘MEMORY’ (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2000), p. 285.
20. IMT, vol. 5, p. 198 (PS-3249). Also quoted in the essay of revisionist scholar Carlo Mattogno. Online: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p261_Mattogno.html#ftn4.
Installed: 07/27/98, 1: 00 AM, PST