Monday, March 21, 2005

Message to Deborah Lipstadt

Ms. Lipstadt:

I have to confess, I am fairly new to the topic of Nazi era revisionism. At least, in so much as I have taken it the least bit seriously. I had been aware of the existence of such people as Ernst Z√ľndel and David Irving. I had dismissed them as prevaricators and extremists. Recently, however, in the context of discussions with others about the various events and locations involved in the Nazi epoch, I begand to seek detailed information about the evidence of what had actually happened. What I discovered where a lot of statements of conclusions conjoined with alleged evidence which was neither persuasive, nor substantial.

One particular realm in which the evidence of what actually did take place seems quite ambiguous, and in many cases, intentionally misinterpreted, is that of the documentary evidence. Originally, I had trusted the English language translations; having given them a cursory review using a German-English dictionary. After finding many of the aspects of physical evidence lacking in persuasiveness, I decided to return to the documentary evidence with a more critical focus.

I will add that, in the decade and a half between my first exposure to (and rejection of) Nazi era revisionism, and the time I recently returned to the topic, I have spent a great deal of time and effort investigating the etymologies of Germanic words.

What I discovered, upon returning to the allegedly incriminating documentation is that much of it makes more sense if it is read differently than the orthodox historian will have it. In conjuction with reading about the (lack of) investigation on the part of the post war IMTs, I noticed the complete absence of any direct physical evidence for many of the alleged crimes in question. At the time the conceptual model took its initial form, there was virtually no effort to examine the physical evidence, nor to preserve the most significant components such as ruins of the alleged homicidal gaschambers. Several decades later, and as a direct result of challenges by revisionists, orthodox historians supported limited forensic investigations for the first time. These investigations were, at best, inconclusive.

Many of the initially circulated stories of what happened in Nazi occupied Europe have been quietly dropped, but not put to rest in the collective public awareness. It is thus somewhat difficult to determine exactly what the orthodox historian even means by "The Holocaust". To the naive investigator, many of the preconceived notions are quickly debunked by a careful reading of discussions of such topics as human skin lampshades. Even in this case, the discussion is often formulated to force the reader to follow the footnotes to determine the evidence is indeed lacking.

At some point during this exercise, reasonable minds will conclude the subject of "The Holocaust" has not been treated objectively by mainstream historians. The result is that the investigator become suspicious of what he reads, and looks for clearly presented, definitive proofs of the allegations which he had previously accepted as foregone conclusions. If, with that skeptical mindset, he then reads something of the nature of your recent BBC article found here:, he will conclude that you are not being forthright and honest. Indeed, this article of yours is dishonest propaganda relying on the force of your credentials, as well as, the momentum of preconceived notions.

In conclusion, I will say, I do not know what happened 60 years ago in Nazi occupied Europe, and neither do you. The evidence for the existence of homicidal gaschambers used at Auschwitz is far less than convincing. Indeed, that which I have seen, is inconsistent. What is alleged to have happened is physically impossible.

No comments: