Left, The cover of the International Red Cross Official Reports on the Holocaust. Revisionists point out that that the Red Cross, including a number of officials from the U.S., Britain, France, and Switzerland, inspected the German concentration camps (including Auschwitz) during the height of the holocaust. They interviewed thousands of prisoners and delivered thousands of packages to them. They were asked to investigate rumors of mass killings and gassings. After their investigation they reported back to the American government that they found no a trace of evidence of any mass killings, but they did say in their reports that they had found terrible loss of life from epidemics and lack of supplies caused by the war. Should this report of the Red Cross be deemed illegal because it questions the traditional story of the Holocaust
Why Do We Need Free Speech on the Holocaust?
Here is a letter that is typical of the type I receive from some Jews on my demand that we have free speech on the Holocaust. The obscenities against me were deleted but other than that the letter is complete. You will also find a thought-provoking response compiled by our staff. I must make it clear here that I do believe there were crimes against Jews in the Second World War on a massive scale. I do not deny what they call The Holocaust, but I firmly believe in Free Speech and the ultimate truth of history can come only from a free and open inquiry not by threatening and in fact, imprisoning academics! –David Duke
To Davidduke.com:
Are there really no limits to freedom of speech? If someone was to parade around naked outside, they would be arrested, right?
Freedom of speech has its limitations too. Besides, if David Duke is such a champion for freedom of speech, why isn’t he campaigning for other countries where freedom of speech is denied? Why is he only concerned about freedom of speech regarding this one issue? furthermore, why is he flying to Iran and lending credence to a government that has been one of the worst violators of human rights (read some of the articles about how many websites and newspapers are banned in Iran that don’t agree with the government). If I was to say the revolutionary war is a myth, and try speaking publicly that it was a conspiracy to give America credibility, would that be okay with you? — Israel B.
To Israel B.
Intellectual speech on an historical event is not the same as someone parading around outside naked.
In our response, We will not say that the Holocaust did not happen exactly as you and the mainstream authorities claim that it did. We will simply relate what the revisionist scholars say, and it will be up to you and other readers to judge whether their arguments have merit or even if they should be jailed for their opinions. For Doesn’t the world condemn the jailing of people for their political or historical opinions?
Historical or forensic research on controversial issues is considered normal about any other historical event and for any crime, even the murder of a single person. It is quite shocking to learn that there has been an almost complete absence of forensic evidence on what was supposedly the greatest mass murder of all time, the Holocaust with a capital “H.” At the Nuremberg tribunal that was intended by the victors to document and prove German murder, the autopsy records of not even a single victim’s remains were released. There were no plans, pictures, or forensic analysis of any of the alleged gas chambers presented. In every criminal prosecution of even one victim, forensic evidence of the cause of death, (proof that a murder occurred) and the murder weapon is absolutely essential.
We know exactly where the camps, the gas chambers and the burial grounds are, yet there is a shocking lack of forensic evidence. For instance, in the Nuremberg Trials that supposedly document the popular conception of the Holocaust it is claimed that fully one-third of the Holocaust victims, some 2,000,000 Jews were murdered in the three camps of Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec.
In the 11 months of trial, 22 volumes of transcripts of the Holocaust at Nuremberg, there is only 20 minutes of testimony on these three camps. Twenty minutes of testimony at Nuremberg on the supposed death of 2,000,000 people! And these twenty minutes offer not a scrap of any forensic or physical evidence. No, it is simply the anecdotal testimony of a handful of the surviving victims and a torture-induced confession of a Nazi health inspector, that on their face contain some impossible claims that even official Holocaust historians say are false. No cross examination was allowed for these witnesses.
In terms of these so-called eye-witness accounts, close inspection of them reveals many patently contradictory and illogical statements that violate the natural laws of physics and chemistry, such as the idea that diesel engines at Treblinka could kill rooms full of people in 5 or 10 minutes, when the fact is that diesel engines put out a fraction of the carbon monoxide of gas engines, and it is doubtful they could kill, even after 8 hours!
Inspection of the official story of the other two thirds of the Holocaust consists primarily of allegations at Auschwitz and the mass killings in the East. Those allegations also strain credibility in many points.
For instance, international teams of the Red Cross, with officials from America, England, France and Switzerland thoroughly inspected Auschwitz and the other eastern camps, gave out 1.1 million care packages to prisoners in the last two years of the war, and they interviewed thousands of Jewish inmates in the camps at the very time while thousands were supposedly murdered every day.
Official American Red Cross records show that the American government asked the Red Cross in early 1944 (at the alleged height of the Holocaust) to have its officials actively investigate the rumors of gassings and exterminations in the camps. The Red Cross thoroughly investigated the claims and reported back on November 22 of 1944 that they found no evidence of any mass extermination. They did say however that they encountered terrible shortages of food and medicine and horrific epidemics such as Typhus which they blamed primarily on the devastating conditions caused by the war.
Obvious questions arise in the revisionist’s mind. The International Red Cross, an unbiased, international organization composed of mostly members from anti-Nazi nations, with much experience in examining interment camps and P.O.W. camps, had the job of inspecting the concentration camps at the very time that the Holocaust allegedly occurred. They found absolutely no evidence of exterminations. Jewish authorities state that the International Red Cross failed spectacularly. Here is a direct quote from a USA Today article on the Red Cross issue:
In fact, in a Nov. 22, 1944, letter to U.S. State Department officials about the visit, the Red Cross said: “(We) had not been able to discover any trace of installations for exterminating civilian prisoners…”
In this case, the documents show, the Red Cross failed at every possible turn. Not only had Red Cross officials neglected to grasp the situation, but they then passed along bad information to the Allies.
Red Cross officials didn’t comprehend the true extent of the Nazis’ crimes…
“There is no doubt that the Red Cross let itself be used by the Nazis,” says Radu Ioanid, director of the Holocaust Survivors Registry at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
(USA Today, May 2, 1997, “Silent Witness.”)
Revisionists ask, “What authority on the truth of the Holocaust is better than inspection teams from mostly Allied nations looking at the camps at the same time the supposedly enormous Holocaust as taking place?
Furthermore, the revisionists say, it is reasonable to believe that the while the Nazis are committing this supposedly super-secret mass extermination program that they would permit the Red Cross to thoroughly inspect the camps from top to bottom. (Jewish groups even claim the Red Cross inspected the gas chambers themselves closely enough to suggest plumbing improvements.) Here’s a Jewish reporting of it from the article, Auschwitz-Birkenau, History of a Man-Made Hell.
The Red Cross inspected the shower facilities at Auschwitz-Birkenau and noticed that some of the fixtures were in need of repair, but they never suspected that the shower rooms were actually gas chambers with fake shower heads. The Red Cross report, Vol. III p. 594, stated the following about the facilities at Auschwitz: “Not only the washing places, but installations for baths, showers and laundry were inspected by the delegates. They had often to take action to have fixtures made less primitive, and to get them repaired or enlarged.” (From Auschwitz-Birkenau, History of a Man-Made Hell)
Would the Germans really let the Red Cross into the very execution chambers where you are supposedly executing hundreds of thousands of people? And, wouldn’t a true gas chamber for dispensing large quantities of deadly gas require an obviously dramatically different construction. In short, would the Germans really risk an international team of inspectors in the extermination centers?
In any prison or internment facility, word travels extremely fast among the population. If there were any mass gassings, every prisoner would have known about it almost immediately. If the Germans were really murdering hundreds of thousands of people in Auschwitz would they allow the Red Cross in the camps and interview thousands of inmates and staff about the conditions in the camp? Yet, the Red Cross stated clearly that it had no evidence of “…any trace of installations for exterminating civilian prisoners.”
After the massacre of Jenin, even months after they had a chance to bulldoze and wipe away most traces of its crimes, Israel still forbade any international inspection of the scene.
Is it not reasonable to suspect that Israel has something to hide?
Israel has not allowed any inspections of its chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons facilities, not even by the United States which has provided most of the money for these very programs.
Is it not reasonable that Israel has something to hide?
On the contrary, Iraq allowed international inspections for the presence of “weapons of mass destruction.” George Bush’s own appointed commission spent a billion dollars in determining that Iraq had indeed destroyed its weapons in 1992.
Iraq allowed inspections because they didn’t fear honest inspections because, as it turned out, they had nothing to hide.
Iran has allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to fully inspect its nuclear energy plants and programs.
Does not Iran’s permissions of complete inspections (as compared to Israel) suggest it has nothing to hide at those facilities?
The Soviet regime did not allow inspections of its concentration or P.O.W. camps. In fact, the Soviets, as proven by mainstream Soviet historians, murdered many more millions than alleged in the Holocaust.
Does not the fact that the Soviets did not allow inspections by the Red Cross suggest that they had much to hide?
The American commander in Europe in August of 1945, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, long after the end of the war and of any threat from Nazi Germany, forbid Red Cross inspections of the camps where the allies held a million and one-half Germans. By a stroke of the pen he changed their status from POWs who would enjoy the protections of the Geneva Convention to DEF (Defeated Enemy Forces), so they had no protection from torture or mistreatment forbidden by the Geneva Convention.
In addition to forbidding any Red Cross visits to the camps, Eisenhower even forbid the delivery of Red Cross food and medicine packages to them. Hundreds of thousands of Germans perished during that period. See James Bacque’s book, Other Losses.
Is not forbidding Red Cross inspections of Allied POW camps long after the war ended suspicious that the Allies had something to hide in terms of their treatment of German prisoners?
To repeat, the Germans allowed complete inspections of concentration camps, including Auschwitz as well as all POW camps by international teams. If they were in a huge program of human extermination would they really allow such inspections?
If the death toll in the camps was from lack of food, medicine and disease epidemics caused by the war, they would have no reluctance to welcome the Red Cross to inspect the camps and even offer assistance.
These are some simple, logical questions asked by revisionist scholars. Questions like these are precisely why the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal center promote putting people in prison for asking them. As you might be thinking, these questions are indeed very dangerous to the official story of the Holocaust.
The facts are clear, an international body that certainly including many member of American and British intelligence: the International Red Cross, did a formal investigation of allegations of German mass exterminations at the concentration camps. The German allowance of Red Cross inspections in the midst of the supposed Holocaust in itself must raise many powerful questions. The fact that these close inspections and investigation, along with interviews by Red Cross officials of thousands of Jewish prisoners and the camps’ staffs convinced them that no extermination was going on. The Red Cross officially reported its findings to the U.S. Government on November 22, 1944.
Many other reasonable questions have been asked by such as David Irving, a man who has in the past been praised by the leading historians of our time.
Irving and other questioners condemn genocide or any mistreatment of anyone. They just have a differing opinion on aspects of the historical events called the Holocaust. Political and intellectual thought and expression is obviously not the same as a naked man running around.
If someone can suppress historical research thought and expression simply because one does not agree with it, then the door is opened to complete repression of any dissent.
Secondly, you seem to contradict yourself by then saying that free speech should be promoted everywhere, such as in Iran. You are right.
You say Dr. David Duke should not be arguing for free speech on the Holocaust but instead be condemning lack of complete free speech in nations such as Iran.
Is it not ridiculous to condemn other nations for repression of free speech if our own nations nakedly repress free speech? Our first responsibility is to clean our own house before we criticize the dirt in other’s houses.
As to Iran, We keep reading in the media how Iran is a repressive country that does not allow free speech. Yet, we read every day of criticism of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad in some of the most important newspapers of the country. We saw the films on CNN gleefully showing a demonstration of some students against him at a university in Tehran. Where is the oppression you allege?
When Iran held the Holocaust Conference, the head of the 25,000 strong Jewish community held a press conference to condemn it. He was not carted off to jail. In fact Iran has protected the large Jewish community and they even have an elected Member of Parliament from the Jewish community.
Contrast that to Europe. If men and women held a conference in Germany, France or Austria that disputed even the smallest aspect of the official version of the Holocaust, they would be immediately carted off to prison. They would be punished as guilty even if they were later proven innocent, for they would sit in jail (bail is not allowed) for months before the trial and then face many years in prison if convicted of the slightest heresy on the new Holocaust religion.
The Right to be Heard in Defense of Oneself.
Jews have often been accused of massacres historically. The Old Testament, in the very words of Jewish scribes themselves, describes horrible genocide of numerous peoples, the murder of every man, woman, child and even the pets of their enemies. Jews have also been accused of what Abraham Foxman of the ADL calls “blood libel” the historical allegation that some hateful and extremist Jews kidnapped and sacrificed Christian children in a blood ritual. In fact, recently an Israeli professor, Ariel Toaff, who teaches at the Bar Illan University near Tel Aviv, wrote a book where he said the evidence was overwhelming that there were some instances where some extremist, anti-Gentile Jews in Middle Ages Italy did sacrifice Christian children.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/08/wjews08.xml
I am not here arguing the Israeli professor is right or wrong, for I am only defending freedom of speech here. My question to you is: Should Jews not be able to speak or write or research against the allegations of genocide in the Bible? Also, Should they be put into prison for simply defending themselves from the “blood libel” charge?
We believe Jews should be allowed to defend themselves because we believe in free speech. We believe all points of view should be heard or we can never arrive at the truth. We also believe that Germans or anyone else should be able to defend themselves with research, criticism, and legitimate questions about historical allegations against them.
Germans and all peoples should have the same right as Jews to contest allegations made against them.
As for your arguments about the American Revolutionary War are concerned, we don’t know of any historians, right or left, that say the war never occurred. And, no revisionist argues that the Second World War didn’t occur. No revisionist disputes that Jews were persecuted in the war, and put in concentration camps Nor do revisionists say that no Jews were killed or that crimes were committed against the Jewish people. They simply argue that the deaths are much fewer than alleged and that the vast majority of the deaths occurred because of the terrible effects of the war, lack of food, lack of medicine and the resulting disease epidemics. If the Jewish victims were far less in number and there was no program of intentional genocide against them, then the reality of the Holocaust is vastly different from the popular presentation.
It is not just revisionist professors and scholars who have these questions and opinions. A much respected Jewish historian at Princeton University, Professor Arno J. Mayer, pointed out that there are many questions about the Holocaust. Mayer, who lost close family in the Holocaust, writes the following in his book, Why Did Not the Heavens Darken?
Many questions remain open. . . . All in all, how many bodies were cremated in Auschwitz? How many died there all told? What was the national, religious, and ethnic breakdown in this commonwealth of victims? How many of them were condemned to die a “natural” death and how many were deliberately slaughtered. . . ? We have simply no answers to these questions at this time. (pg. 366)
From 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz, but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called “natural” causes than by “unnatural” ones. Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable. (pg. 365)
Should one of the most respected Jewish historians in the world be put into prison for saying the some of the same things as the revisionists say?
A good reason why we must have freedom of speech on the Holocaust is that without it people would not even know of the official Red Cross investigation and refutation of the Holocaust, an investigation done in the very camps themselves during the alleged Holocaust. Why should it be illegal to inform people of this amazing fact.
We believe in freedom of speech. You obviously don’t.
www.davidduke.com staff
We at David Duke take no position on this issue. People read this website from all over the world and we cannot break the law in regard to this matter. But one thing we can do is demand freedom of speech on the Holocaust and freedom for Ernst Zundel and Gemar Rudolf for daring to speak their conscience and tell the truth the best that they understand it. Someday the truth will prevail. We must all fight for fundamental rights that enable the truth to victory!
