Paper Calls For Fresh
Look At Holocaust
To Look Again
Dave's Diatribe - Unfair and Unbalanced

By David Mullenax
Augusta Free
Rarely in our society does a historical event play such an important role that it takes on a persona of its own, elevated beyond the scope of intellectual questioning. However, we must never lose sight of the role that history plays in shaping our beliefs, views and culture. History should always be placed in its proper perspective through unbiased examination.
The purpose of history is not the regurgitation of dates, facts and timelines, but is an instructor in understanding and enlightenment. History is the revealer of human behavior, the identity shaper of nations and a lighthouse to guide our paths towards the future.
Mark Weber of the Institute of Historical Review stated regarding history, "Any people that has a distorted sense of its own history is unable to know what to do. The best guide to the future is an understanding and a study of the past. When history is distorted, then any kind of rational, wise policies for the future become impossible."
With this in mind, to question the iconoclastic and preternatural status of the Holocaust becomes mandatory given its magnified position in American society. Its predominance has transcended the world over, indoctrinating those in an exclusively one-sided Jewish perspective. Many are completely unaware of the existence of other perspectives, perspectives of the historical revisionists that shatter this social dogma.
First, revisionists do not want to "revise" history, but are simply advocating that we look again at historical events in order to better understand them and apply their lessons. Specific to the Holocaust, they do not deny the existence of concentration camps or Jewish suffering under National Socialist Germany, but are quick to point out that many people suffered on both sides of World War II.
Where revisionists part company from mainstream historians is their skepticism of Nazi industrial complexes or formal plans specifically designed to exterminate the Jewish people.
So, to participate in the freedom of academic inquiry, let us look again at the Holocaust through the eyes of historical revisionists
Imagine for a moment that you read the following account printed in numerous Arabic newspapers and broadcast on Al-Jazeera:
"The Americans hate the Iraqi people. George W. Bush and his Republican Party have invaded Iraq to kill all Iraqis. Inside Abu Grahib prison, under the direction of President Bush and his Republican Party, the Americans are making lampshades out of Iraqi skin and soap from the fat of dead Iraqis. Outside the prison is a large building used to gas the Iraqi people. Millions have been gassed and cremated. There is a device that is used to electrocute and vaporize Iraqis without a trace of evidence."
Now, I'm willing to bet that every American would, at a minimum, read the account with a raised brow. In fact, most of us would play it off as Arabic propaganda. Yet, why do we not question the *same* accounts of the Holocaust?
Certainly, propaganda existed then as it does today. As Harry Elmer Barnes - regarded by many as the founder of historical revisionism - truthfully noted, "The tendency of governments to lie is most pronounced during times of war and conflict." This tendency was demonstrated a few years ago by Colin Powell at the United Nations when holding up photographs of buildings in Iraq that he claimed were weapons of mass-destruction factories, but were just buildings, after all.
Still, all of us have heard the testimonies of numerous Jewish concentration camp survivors and their stories of alleged Nazi atrocities, so, to eliminate redundancy, I will not quote them here. Yet the mere existence of millions of survivors would produce a shadow of doubt - one would hope - on the extermination theory. Unfortunately, the survivors who tell a completely *different* story of the concentration camps are seldom heard. They are often silenced like many historians who try to tell their stories for them. But their testimonies do exist.
For example, in The Toronto Star, Maria Vanherwaarden, an inmate of Aushcwitz in 1942, reported a Gypsy woman told her they would all be gassed in showers upon their arrival. When the train arrived, Maria and others were ordered to take a shower. Now, convinced of the Gypsy woman's claim, she felt the certainty of death. However, instead of gas pouring from the showerheads, there was only water. Maria testified of her experience in Toronto District Court in 1988, 43 years after her internment.
(In his autobiographical work 'Night', Nobel Peace Prize winner and former Auschwitz inmate, Elie Wiesel complained about the German regulations of three showers a day for all workers.)
Likewise, in the book Voices from the Holocaust, Marika Frank - a Jewish woman - testified of her complete unawareness of the existence of gas chambers or gassings during her internment at Auschwitz in 1944, a time when 25,000 per day were allegedly gassed.
A rational and reasonable person would observe that there are witnesses for and against the extermination theory. Because of this, both sides of the debate can't be right. Enter forensic science to clear the issue.
In 1988, Fred Leuchter Jr., an engineer by trade and noted capital-punishment expert - including a manufacturer of gas-chamber hardware - was commissioned for a detailed analysis of the concentration camps. Upon completion of his findings, he testified under oath in Toronto District Court.
Leuchter's testimony revealed that the 32 forensic samples taken from the concentration-camp facilities produced "no significant cyanide gas" traces. He concluded his examination by stating, "Chemical analysis supports the fact that these facilities were never utilized as gas execution facilities. After a thorough examination of the alleged execution facilities in Poland and their associated crematories, the only conclusion that can be arrived at by a rational, responsible person is the absurdity of the notion that any of these facilities were ever capable of, or were utilized as, execution gas chambers."
Likewise, Dr. William Lindsey, a chemist for DuPont, testified in 1985 after an on-site examination of three concentration camps, including Auschwitz, "I have come to the conclusion that no one was willfully or purposefully killed with Zyklon B [hydrocyanic acid gas] in this manner. I consider it absolutely impossible."
As the decades-old debate continues, it is becoming more apparent that the details of the Holocaust are essentially unimportant. In fact, as was recently told to me by an expert on the subject, the importance is its social and political influence. The Holocaust has risen to a ruling symbol of our culture because of Jewish political power. In other words, you can't understand one without understanding the other.
Yet one can easily conclude that Holocaust promotion (and more specifically, Jewish suffering) has produced a social psychosis - a psychological phenomenon - resulting in the elevation of the Jewish people to "special victim" status. It has created Holocaustism - inducing individuals to subconsciously, through constant reminding of the Holocaust and Jewish suffering, stay away from criticizing Israel or Jewry for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic.
This is exactly what the promotion was intended to achieve.
Many Americans are unaware of its subconscious effects on their own lives. This is demonstrated in a subtle exhibition of eloquence by Bradley Smith when lecturing at college universities. First, he reads a quote by Elie Wiesel - former Auschwitz inmate and recipient of the 1986 Nobel Peace prize - from the book Legends of our Time:
"Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German."
He then pauses allowing the audience to think about that statement. Then, he changes two words to show the effects of one-sided Jewish media perspectives and the influence it has over their hearts, minds and souls. The result is always stunned silence.
"Every Palestinian, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the Jew personifies and for what persists in the Jew."
Feel the difference?
President Bush is assisting the spread of this psychosis when he recently told the audience at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "The demonization of Israel ... can be a flimsy cover for anti-Semitism."
Dishonest statements such as this deter debate and questioning regarding Israel or organized Jewry.
However, it isn't just the Holocaust itself that has given rise to psychological Holocaustism. There are other institutions, mainly religious and political, that create a pro-Israeli or pro-Jewish atmosphere. For instance, America's "amen corner" is fanatical in its support of Israel and organized Jewry, often over the interests of their own country. And politicians of both parties exalt the state of Israel, frequently placating to Jewish interests.
In a remarkable illustration of the effects of Jewish power on American politicians, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay boasts of his pro-Israeli servitude on his Web site.
"We know our victory in the War on Terror depends on Israel's survival ... We hear your voice cry out in the desert, and we will never leave your side ... All free men and women must rally to the defense of Israel."
Even worse, in a small reminder to everyone of Jewish power in Washington, DeLay reverently displays on his site an image of the Israeli and American flag flying triumphantly together over the U.S. Capitol.
David Mullenax resides in Fishersville. His column, "Dave's Diatribe - Unfair and Unbalanced," appears every Friday in The Augusta Free Press.
What do you think? Share your thoughts on this story at$22320



This Site Served by TheHostPros