COMMENTS
ABOUT
DID SIX MILLION REALLY
DIE?
Dr. Kuang
Fann,
Professor of
Philosophy at York University of Canada,
formerly China: "The whole pamphlet . . .
obviously should be classified as a political
opinion . . ."
Ditlieb
Felderer,
Historical
Researcher, Writer, Sweden: ". . . the booklet
has proven to be more true as the years have
gone by, and it is exterminationists who are
coming now to start arguing like Harwood did
when the booklet was first published, so the
exterminationists are moving . . . toward the
booklet more and more."
Dr. Robert
Faurisson,
Expert of
Ancient Texts and Documents, Lyon University:
"The thesis of the book is that it's not true
that six million Jews died, and it is not true
that there was an extermination plan, and it is
not true that there were gas chambers. What I
find right is, first, the title. The title is
good. Did Six Million Really Die?" That's really
the problem . . . This man, Richard Harwood,
brought plenty of information for the layman in
'74. He said in '74 that there were no order(s)
from Hitler to exterminate the Jews. Three years
after, when David Irving said it, it was an
uproar, so it was really new and true. We know
it now in 1988 . . . this . . . was so important
that when it was published in France, the man
who distributed (it was) murdered . . .
Francoise Duprat. We don't know who exactly did
that, but the interesting point is, first, that
it has been done by people very clever in those
kind of bomb handling, and what was published in
the journal Le Monde after was interesting. This
murder was revindicated by a so-called "Memory
of Auschwitz" organization. It was justified by
a man called Patrick Chairoff - saying that
Francoise Duprat, in distributing this kind of
pamphlet, had taken a responsibility which
kills."
David
Irving,
British
Historian, author of over 30 books on WW II and
its aftermath: ". . . I read it with great
interest and I must say that I was surprised by
the quality of the arguments that it
represented. It has obvious flaws. It uses
sources that I personally would not use. In
fact, the entire body of sources is different.
This is based entirely on secondary literature,
books by other people, including some experts,
whereas I use no books. I use just the archives.
But independently, the author of this came to
conclusions and asked questions of a logical
nature which I had arrived at by an entirely
different route, so to speak. . . And if I was
to ask what is the value of a brochure like
this, I think it is that it provokes people to
ask questions, rather as my book on Hitler's War
provoked the historians. . . This is the kind of
value which I found this brochure to have. It
was asking proper questions on the basis of an
entirely different set of
sources."
Mark
Weber,
American
Historian, Author: "I believe that the thesis of
the booklet is accurate. . . that there was no
German policy or program to exterminate the Jews
during the Second World War. . . The booklet is
a journalistic or a polemic account that is
designed to convince people, and it does not
purport to be a work that can be held up to the
same standards of rigid scrutiny that a
scholarly work and a detailed work by someone
who is a historian normally would be. . its main
value lies in encouraging further discussion and
thought and debate on the subject it
raises."
Colin
Wilson,
well known
British author: ". . . I received in the post a
pamphlet. . . entitled Did Six Million Really
Die? I must admit that it has left me thoroughly
bewildered. What Harwood says, briefly, is that
Hitler had no reason to murder Jews when he
needed them for forced labor. . . it is worth
asking the question: Did the Nazis really
exterminate six million Jews? Or is this another
sign of the emotional historical distortion that
makes nearly all the books on Hitler so far
almost worthless?. . . Is there, then, any
reason why we should be afraid to dig down until
we get at the truth?"
WHAT'S
WRONG WITH DID SIX MILLION REALLY
DIE?
After 10 years of
wrangling, what follows is the essence of what
was found wrong with the pamphlet by the
prosecution witnesses. In italics are the
primary parts of the pamphlet disputed by the
prosecution followed by evidence given by expert
witnesses on both sides. 1. By 1939, the great
majority of German Jews had emigrated, all of
them with a sizeable proportion of their assets.
Never at any time had the Nazi leadership even
contemplated a policy of genocide towards them.
. . Had Hitler cherished any intention of
exterminating the Jews, it is inconceivable that
he would have allowed more than 800,000 to leave
Reich territory with the bulk of their wealth .
. . (p. 5,6)
Prosecution
historian Christopher Browning's opinion was
that slightly over half of German Jews
emigrated by 1939. Browning testified that
the figure 800,000 was an exaggeration; by
1941, the total of Jews who had left Germany,
Austria and the Protectorates was 530,000.
Because of measures taken against them, it
was false to say they left with a "sizeable
proportion" of their assets. Browning
admitted under cross-examination, however,
that he was not a demographer nor a
statistition and that any population
statistics concerning Jews could only be
estimates. He also admitted that he could not
give a precise percentage or even proportion
of their assets Jews left with. He only knew
that considerable efforts were made to
prevent property getting out.
2.
The founder of
political Zionism in the 19th century, Theodore
Herzl, in his work The Jewish State, had
originally conceived of Madagascar as a national
homeland for the Jews, and this possibility was
seriously studied by the Nazis. It had been a
main plank of the National Socialist party
platform before 1933 and was published by the
party in pamphlet form. (p.5)
Browning
testified it was not a plank of the Nazi
Party platform before 1933 that the Jews go
to Madagascar as a national homeland. The
first time a Nazi leader mentioned Madagascar
was 1938. The first time there was a plan for
madagascar was 1940.
3.
The fall of
France in 1940 enabled the German Government to
open serious negotiations with the French for
the transfer of European Jews to Madagascar. A
memorandum of August, 1942 from Luther,
Secretary-of-State in the German Foreign Office,
reveals that he had conducted these negotiations
between July and December 1940, when they were
terminated by the French. (p.7)
Browning
testified that there were no such
negotiations with the French. The Madagascar
Plan failed because of continuing British
control of the high seas.
4.
Reitlinger and
Poliakov both make the entirely unfounded
supposition that because the Madagascar Plan had
been shelved, the Germans must necessarily have
been thinking of "extermination". Only a month
later, however, on March 7th, 1942, Goebbels
wrote a memorandum in favour of the Madagascar
Plan as a "final solution" of the Jewish
question (Manvell and Frankl, Dr. Goebbels,
London, 1960, p. 165). In the meantime he
approved of the Jews being "concentrated in the
East". Later Goebbels memoranda also stress
deportation to the East (i.e. the
Government-General of Poland) and lay emphasis
on the need for compulsory labor there; once the
policy of evacuation to the East had been
inaugurated, the use of Jewish labor became a
fundamental part of the operation.
(p.7)
Browning
said that Goebbels did not write a
"memorandum", he wrote a "diary entry."
Goebbels did not lay emphasis on the need for
compulsory labor but said exactly the
opposite; for example, on March 27, 1942, he
wrote that 60% of the Jews will have to be
liquidated and 40% used for forced labor.
Browning admitted he had never checked the
authenticity of the original Goebbels diaries
but had accepted the commercial printed
version. Historian Weber testified there was
great doubt about the authenticity of the
entire Goebbels diaries because they were
typewritten. There was therefore no way to
verify their authenticity. The U.S.
Government itself indicated that it would
take no responsibility for the accuracy of
the diaries: the original clothbound edition
contained a U.S. Government statement that it
"neither warrants nor disclaims the
authenticity of the manuscript". Browning
relied on other documents such as the
Seraphim report to show that the Germans did
not put priority on using Jews for labor.
Historian Weber disagreed with this opinion.
In his view, the Jews were a valuable source
of labor for the Germans; Himmler himself
ordered that concentration camp inmates be
used as extensively as possible in war
production.
5.
Statistics
relating to Jewish populations are not
everywhere known in precise detail,
approximations for various countries differing
widely, and it is also unknown exactly how many
Jews were deported and interned at any one time
between the years 1939-1945. In general,
however, what reliable statistics there are,
especially those relating to emigration, are
sufficient to show that not a fraction of six
million Jews could have been exterminated.
(p.7)
Browning
testified that contemporary German
statistical studies showed that there were
enough Jews in Europe to exterminate 6
million of them. These studies were: (a) the
Burgdörfer Study (estimated that there
were about 10.72 million Jews in Europe); (b)
Madagascar Plan (4 million Jews under German
control in 1940); (c) Wannsee conference
protocol (11 million Jews). In Browning's
opinion, even the German studies done at the
time showed in the area of 10 million Jews
under German control in Europe. Therefore, 6
million could have been exterminated. He
admitted, again, that he was not a
demographer or a statistician and that the
problem of changing borders and the various
definitions of "Jew" made any conclusions in
this area difficult to the point that they
could only be estimates.
6.
According to
Chambers Encyclopaedia the total number of Jews
living in pre-war Europe was 6,500,000.
(p.7)
Chambers
Encyclopedia dealt only with the total number
of Jews living ont he continent of Europe
apart from Russia, not the total number
living in pre-war Europe as stated by the
pamphlet.
7.
In addition to
the German Jews, 220,000 of the total 280,000
Austrian Jews had emigrated by September, 1939,
while from March 1939 onwards the Institute for
Jewish Emigration in Prague had secured the
emigration of 260,000 Jews from former
Czechoslovakia. In all, only 360,000 Jews
remained in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia
after September 1939. (p.7,8)
These
numbers did not accord with the German
studies done at the time, Browning testified.
A comparison with the Wannsee Conference
protocol statistics showed that 360,000 Jews
had emigrated from Germany; 147,000 had
emigrated from Austria; 30,000 had emigrated
from the Protectorate. These figures were all
much lower than Harwood's figures.
8.
In addition to
these emigrants, we must also include the number
of Jews who fled to the Soviet Union after 1939,
and who were later evacuated beyond reach of the
German invaders. It will be shown below that the
majority of these, about 1,250,000, were
migrants from Poland. But apart from Poland,
Reitlinger admits that 300,000 other European
Jews slipped into Soviet territory between 1939
and 1941. This brings the total of Jewish
emigrants to the Soviet Union to about
1,550,000. (p.8)
Browning
testified that the reference to Reitlinger
was a mis-cite; Reitlinger said that 300,000
Polish Jews in total fled to the Soviet
Union, not "other European Jews" as stated by
Harwood. The figure of 1,250,000 given by
Harwood was therefore 5 times too
high.
9.
The 1931 Jewish
population census for Poland put the number of
Jews at 2,732,600 (Reitlinger, Die
Endlösung, p. 36). (p.8)
Hilberg
testified that this was wrong; in fact, the
figure of 2,732,600 came from a census taken
in the 1920s.
10.
When the Jewish
populations of Holland (140,000), Belgium
(40,000), Italy (50,000), Yugoslavia (55,000),
Hungary (380,000) and Roumania (725,000) are
included, the figure does not much exceed 3
million. (p.8)
These
statistics were not in accord with the Nazis'
own statistics, said Browning. For example,
the German statistics for 1942 listed the
Jewish population of Hungary at 743,800.
German records of the deportations from
Hungary showed more Jews were deported than
the number given by Harwood as the Jewish
population of Hungary.
11.
So far as is
known, the first accusation against the Germans
of the mass murder of Jews in war-time Europe
was made by the Polish Jew Rafael Lemkin in his
book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, published in
New York in 1943. (p.9)
The
first accusation of mass murder of the Jews
was made on December 17, 1942 by the Allies
in a Joint Declaration. Lemkin, as far as
Browning knew, never used the 6 million
figure in his book. Weber pointed out this
mistake made no difference to the substance
of the thesis of the pamphlet.
12.
Gerstein's
sister was congenitally insane and died by
euthenasia, which may well suggest a streak of
mental instability in Gerstein himself. . .
Gerstein's fantastic exaggerations have done
little but discredit the whole notion of mass
extermination. Indeed, Evangelical Bishop
Wilhelm Dibelius of Berlin denounced his
memoranda as "Untrustworthy"
(p.9)
It
was not Gerstein's sister, but his
sister-in-law, who was killed in the
euthenasia program. Dibelius in fact stated
that he was convinced of the trustworthiness
of Gerstein, the opposite of what Harwood had
written. However, Hilberg admitted that he
would not characterize Gerstein as being
totally rational and that there was no
question that he was capable of adding
imagination to fact. Browning acknowledged
there were "problems" with Gerstein's
testimony; his obvious exaggerations resulted
because he was "traumatized" by his
experiences, said Browning.
13.
It should be
emphasised straight away that there is not a
single document in existence which proves that
the Germans intended to, or carried out, the
deliberate murder of Jews. (p.10)
In
Browning's opinion, there were such
documents, including the Hans Frank diary,
the Wannsee Conference protocol, and the 1943
Posen speech of Himmler. Historian Robert
Faurisson pointed out that if these documents
"proved" the existence of a deliberate plan
to murder the Jews, there would be no debate
between the "functionalists" and
"intentionalists" in the Holocaust academic
circles. This debate in and of itself showed
that no proof of a deliberate plan existed.
Hilberg had testified in the 1985 Zündel
trial that there were two oral orders from
Hitler for the extermination of the Jews. He
denied that he had changed this view in his
then forthcoming second edition of his book
The Destruction of the European Jews, which
was to be published shortly thereafter. In
1988, Hilberg refused to testify at the
second Zündel trial, citing in a
confidential letter to the prosecutor that he
had "grave doubts" about testifying again;
'the defence,' he wrote, '. . . would . . .
make every attempt to entrap me by pointing
to any seeming contradiction, however trivial
the subject might be, between my earlier
testimony and an answer that I might give in
1988." Browning admitted in his testimony
that Hilberg had made a "significant" change
regarding the role of Hitler in the
decision-making process between his first
edition and the second edition, published in
1985. In an article entitled "The Revised
Hilberg", Browning wrote that in his second
edition, Hilberg had "systematically excised"
all references in the text to a Hitler
decision or a Hitler order for the "Final
Solution". In the new edition, wrote
Browning, "decisions were not made and orders
were not given".
14.
Attempts to find
"veiled allusions" to genocide in speeches like
that of Himmler's to his S.S.
Obergruppenführers at Posen in 1943 are
likewise quite hopeless. (p.11)
Browning
testified that the Posen speech contained
explicit references to exterminating the
Jews. Historian David Irving testified,
however, that those portions of the original
manuscript of the Posen speech which dealt
with "extermination" had been tampered with;
they were written in a different typescript
using different carbon paper and were
numbered in pencil. Irving also pointed out
that the Israelis had Himmler's private diary
but refused to allow any historians to have
access to it. If Himmler's diary supported
the "Holocaust", Irving said, the Israelis
would be the first to release it.
15.
Most incredible
of all, perhaps, was the fact that defence
lawyers at Nuremberg were not permitted to
cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
(p.12)
Hilberg
testified that defense lawyers were allowed
to cross-examine witnesses at Nuremberg.
Weber testified that many affidavits were
entered into evidence, however, upon which no
cross-examination was possible.
16.
The Soviet
charge that the Action Groups had wantonly
exterminated a million Jews during their
operations has been shown subsequently to be a
massive falsification. In fact, there had never
been the slightest statistical basis for the
figure. (p.14)
Browning
testified that on the basis of the
Einsatzgruppen reports and the works of other
historians that at least 1 million Jews were
killed by the Einsatztruppen. Historian Weber
testified, however, that in the major work on
the Einsatztruppen, Die Truppe des
Weltanschauungskrieges, the two authors
calculated that if all the figures in the
Einsatztruppen reports were added up, there
would be a total of 2.2 million Jewish dead.
The authors admitted this was impossible and
conceded that the Einsatztruppen report
figures were exaggerated. In Weber's opinion,
the figure of about 1 million was not
believable because it was known that the
great majority of Jews fled or were evacuated
from the eastern territories before the
German invasion in 1941.
17.
Thus between July and October 1942, over three
quarters of the Warsaw Ghetto's inhabitants were
peacefully evacuated and transported, supervised
by the Jewish police themselves. . . A total,
however, of 56,065 inhabitants were captured and
peacefully resettled in the area of the
Government-General. (p. 19)
Browning
stated that reports of the Warsaw Ghetto
clearing indicated it was done brutally and
not "peacefully" as alleged by Harwood. In
Browning's opinion, they were not resettled
but taken to Treblinka and Majdanek and
either gassed or shot. Historian Mark Weber
testified that the record as to what happened
to these Jews was still unclear. In Weber's
opinion, Treblinka and Majdanek were simply
concentration and/or transit camps.
18.
Of course, no
Jew would ever be found who claimed to have been
a member of this gruesome "special detachment",
so that the whole issue is left conveniently
unprovable. It is worth repeating that no
living, authentic eye-witness to these events
has ever been produced. (p.20)
One
of Browning's main differences with the
pamphlet was that it denied the existence of
the homcidal gas chambers for the purpose of
killing Jews. He testified Jews had come
forward claiming to be members of the
Sonderkommando, such as Filip Mueller, whose
accounts he found to be "moving". Browning
admitted under cross-examination, however,
that he had never seen a technical plan that
purported to be either a gas chamber or gas
van. He had never enquired about cremation
processes or how much heat or how long it
took to cremate a human body. Browning had
not looked at the aereal photographs taken by
the Allies of Auschwitz during the war except
for one on the wall of Yad Vashem. Neither
Browning nor Hilberg knew of any autopsy
report showing that any camp inmate was
killed by Zyklon B. Hilberg and Browning
visited the concentration camps only for the
purpose of looking at memorials or as members
of Holocaust Commissions. Witnesses Leuchter
and Roth gave evidence which showed that
samples taken from the walls and floor of the
alleged "gas chambers" at Auschwitz and
Birkenau showed either no traces or only
minute traces of cyanide, while the walls of
a known fumigation chamber at Birkenau which
had used Zyklon B had over 1000 times as much
traceable cyanide. In Leuchter's opinion, as
an expert in gas chamber technology, the
alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz,
Birkenau and Majdanek were incapable of being
used as gas chambers for the killing of human
beings because of their structure, including
such factors as lack of exhaust systems,
stacking and sealants. Ivan Lagace, a
cremation expert, testified that in modern
crematories it took a minimum of 1 1/2 hours
to cremate a human body in one retort; he
termed "ludicrous" the extermination claim
that over 4.400 bodies were cremated in 46
retorts at Birkenau per day. With respect to
the veracity of "eyewitness" testimony, Weber
testified that Yad Vashem had admitted that
over half of the "survivor" accounts on
record there were unreliable as many had "let
their imagination run away with them."
Historian Faurisson quoted from the Jewish
writer Michel de Bouard, who admitted in 1986
that "the record is rotten to the core" with
obstinately repeated "fantasies' and
inaccuracies.
19.
Of course, no
Jew would ever be found who claimed to have been
a member of this gruesome "special detachment",
so that the whole issue is left conveniently
unprovable. It is worth repeating that no
living, authentic eye-witness to these events
has ever been produced. (p.20)
Browning
believed Eichmann to be the highest central
figure in the plan to exterminate the Jews
who survived the war and testified. Eichmann
testified that Heydrich told him that Hitler
had ordered the extermination of the Jews of
Europe. Browning admitted, however, that
Eichmann had "more than a little trouble" in
sorting out events in his mind. In historian
Irving's opinion Eichmann was on trial and
under considerable physical and mental
coercion; such testimony did not advance
historical knowledge but polluted it.
20.
. . . only seven
years after its initial publication, a New York
Supreme Court case established that the book was
a hoax. . . It established that the Jewish
novelist Meyer Levin had written the dialogue of
the "diary" and was demanding payment for his
work in a court action against Otto Frank.
(p.21)
This
was not true; in fact Levin had sued for
payment for writing a play based on the diary
itself. Faurisson and Irving testified that
other proof existed, however, that the
diary's authenticity was suspect. Expert
examinations of the original diary by
graphologists and West German criminal
laboratories showed that one person had
written the diary and part of it was written
in ball-point pen ink, which only came into
use in the 1950s. Faurisson believed the
diary was written by Otto Frank, the father
of Anne Frank.
21.
As a result,
eastern camps in the Russian zone of occupation
such as Auschwitz and Treblinka gradually came
to the fore as horrific centres of extermination
(though no one was permitted to see them), and
this tendency has lasted to the present day.
(p.23)
Browning
testified that it was false to say no one was
permitted to see the camps in the Soviet
zone. He cited a New York Times article by
journalist W. Lawrence of a tour of Majdanek
given to journalists by the Soviets in 1944.
Browning admitted that the article had
significant errors regarding the numbers of
people who allegedly died there and how
Zyklon B worked. Historian Weber testified
that Western Allied investigators were not
allowed to investigate concentration camps in
the Soviet zone of occupation after the war.
The visit to Majdanek by newspaper reporters
was a guided tour by the Soviets for
propaganda purposes; it was not an
investigation by any specialized
person.
22.
Finally,
Professor Rassinier draws attention to an
important admission by Dr. Kubovy, director of
the World Centre of Contemporary Jewish
Documentation at Tel-Aviv, made in La Terre
Retrouvée, December 15th, 1960. Dr.
Kubovy recognised that not a single order for
extermination exists from Hitler, Himmler,
Heydrich or Goering (Le Drame des Juifs
européen, p. 31,
39).(p.29)
Browning
had never heard of Kubovy or the World Centre
of Contemporary Jewish Documentation. But
both Faurisson and Irving knew of Kubovy and
Irving had cited Kubovy's quote from La Terre
Retrouvee in his book, Hitler's War.
23.
However,
{Rassinier} regards such a figure as a maximum
limit, and refers to the lower estimate of
896,892 casualties in a study of the same
problem by the Jewish statistician Raul Hilberg.
(p.29)
Hilberg
testified that he was not a statistician and
had never given an estimate of 896,892. His
own calculation in fact was over 5 million.
Weber testified that Harwood had taken this
information from Paul Rassinier's boos; the
original mistake was therefore Rassinier's
and not Harwood's.
24.
... Professor
Rassinier concludes . . . that the number of
Jewish casualties during the Second World War
could not have exceeded 1,200,000, and he notes
that this has finally been accepted as valid by
the World Centre of Contemporary Jewish
Documentation at Paris. (p.29)
Hilberg
testified he had never heard of this Centre
or the figure cited by Harwood.
25.
RICHARD HARWOOD
is a writer and specialist in political and
diplomatic aspects of the Second World War. At
present he is with the University of London.
(p.30)
Historian
Weber testified that the author of the
pamphlet was a man named Richard Verrall, who
had used the pseudonym "Richard Harwood".
Verrall was a graduate of the University of
London with High Honours; he was a writer and
had a specialized interest in political and
diplomatic aspects of the Second World War.
Verrall relied upon secondary sources
published in the 1950s and 1960s in writing
the pamphlet, which was published in 1974.
Most errors made by the author were errors
originally made by Paul Rassinier, the
pioneer revisionist historian, whose works
Verrall had relied upon heavily.
|