Scrapbookpages Blog

November 4, 2013

A working definition of the new rules regarding Holocaust denial and Holocaust distortion

A news article from Canada, which you can read in full here, clarifies the new rules regarding what you can say about the Holocaust without fear of going to prison for 5 years.

This quote is from the news article:

Forms of Holocaust denial also include blaming the Jews for either exaggerating or creating the Shoah for political or financial gain as if the Shoah itself was the result of a conspiracy plotted by the Jews. 

Are there any Holocaust survivors out there, exaggerating or writing books for financial gain?  No, of course not.  Elie Wiesel hasn’t made a penny off his exaggerated Holocaust claims. Neither has Eva Kor, nor Irene Zisblatt.

This quote is also from the news article:

Holocaust denial may include publicly denying or calling into doubt the use of principal mechanisms of destruction (such as gas chambers, mass shooting, starvation and torture) or the intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people.

Why would anyone ever doubt the gas chambers?  Every one of the gas chambers, used by the Nazis in the genocide of the Jews, was obviously a working gas chamber, air tight, with a 40 foot vent pipe on the roof, a means of heating the Zyklon-B pellets to 78.3 degrees, and a means of dropping the Zyklon-B pellets into the room — NOT!!!

You can see photos of the Nazi gas chambers on a previous blog post here.

Gas chamber in the main Auschwitz camp

Gas chamber in the main Auschwitz camp

The photo above shows a real gas chamber, and don’t you deny it, unless you want to go to prison for 5 years.

Note that the gas chamber is explosion proof, with no hot ovens next door — NOT!!!  Note the wooden door in the background, which made the room air tight — NOT!!!  Note the light fixtures, which are explosion proof — NOT!!! (The wooden door had been added when the room was converted into an air raid shelter by the Germans in 1943.)

This quote is from Fred Leuchter, a gas chamber expert, who says that the alleged gas chambers were not workable:

4. Construction [of the Nazi gas chambers]
Construction of these facilities shows that they were never used as gas chambers. None of these facilities were sealed or gasketed. No provision was ever made to prevent condensation of gas on the walls, floor or ceiling. No provision ever existed to exhaust the air-gas mixture from these buildings. No provision ever existed to introduce or distribute the gas throughout the chamber. No explosion-proof lighting existed and no attempt was ever made to prevent gas from entering the crematories, even though the gas is highly explosive. No attempt was made to protect operating personnel from exposure to the gas or to protect other non-participating persons from exposure. Specifically, at Auschwitz, a floor drain in the alleged gas chamber was connected directly to the camp’s storm drain system. At Majdanek a depressed walkway around the alleged gas chambers would have collected gas seepage and resulted in a death trap for camp personnel. No exhaust stacks ever existed. Hydrogen cyanide gas is an extremely dangerous and lethal gas, and nowhere were there any provisions to effect any amount of safe handling. The chambers were too small to accommodate more than a small fraction of the alleged numbers. Plain and simple, these facilities could not have operated as execution gas chambers.

Note that Leuchter mentioned “a floor drain in the alleged gas chamber.”  The floor drain was actually in another room, which had a door with a glass window in it, that was added to the Auschwitz gas chamber by the Soviet Union when they reconstructed the Auschwitz gas chamber. At the time that Leuchter examined the gas chamber, the staff at Auschwitz was claiming that the gas chamber was original. Tour guides were claiming that the gas chamber included the room that has the door with a glass window and the floor drain.

I blogged about the floor drain in the Auschwitz gas chamber here.

I was first called a “Holocaust denier” when I pointed out the floor drains in the Dachau gas chamber here.

This quote is at the beginning of the news article about Holocaust denial:

“A Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion” – The present definition is an expression of the awareness that Holocaust denial and distortion have to be challenged and denounced nationally and internationally and need examination at a global level. IHRA adopted the following working definition of holocaust denial and distortion:

Holocaust denial is discourse and propaganda that deny the historical reality and the extent of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and their accomplices during World War II, known as the Holocaust or the Shoah. Holocaust denial refers specifically to any attempt to claim that the Holocaust or Shoah did not take place.

So what does this mean?  At the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, where the Nazis were put on trial after the war, the Soviet Union claimed that 4 million people had been killed at Auschwitz, and 1.5 million were killed at Majdanek.  Now the ESTIMATE of the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz is 900,000, and the records at Majdanek show that 59,000 Jews died at Majdanek.  Which figures are we required to believe, under the new definition of Holocaust denial?

I am going to go with 4 million at Auschwitz and 1.5 million at Majdanek, because this adds up to 5.5 million, a figure that is close to the 6 million that is the required belief.    The figures of 900,000 and 59,000 add up to less than  1 million.  Where did the other 5 million Jews die?

This quote from the news article explains “Holocaust distortion,” the new form of Holocaust denial:

What is Holocaust distortion?

Distortion of the Holocaust refers to:

a. Intentional efforts to excuse or minimize the impact of the Holocaust or its principal elements, including collaborators and allies of Nazi Germany;

b. Gross minimization of the number of the victims of the Holocaust in contradiction to reliable sources;

c. Attempts to blame the Jews for causing their own genocide;

d. Statements that cast the Holocaust as a positive historical event. Those statements are not Holocaust denial but are closely connected to it as a radical form of anti-Semitism. They may suggest that the Holocaust did not go far enough in accomplishing its goal of “the Final Solution of the Jewish Question”;

e. Attempts to blur the responsibility for the establishment of concentration and death camps devised and operated by Nazi Germany by putting blame on other nations or ethnic groups.

The last definition is a tricky one: Is it a crime to say that America had internment camps for “enemies of the state”?  I would go with “Nazi Germany was the only country that put people in camps during Word War II.”  Definitely, I would go with saying that Italy had no camps, because that would “blur the responsibility for the establishment of concentration and death camps” by Nazi Germany.

In my opinion, the new definition of Holocaust denial needs some explicit details, regarding what we are required to believe.  For example, are we required to believe that the Nazis marched Jews out of the camps for the purpose of killing them by marching?

Are we required to believe that Ohrdruf, a sub-camp of Buchenwald, was a “holding camp” for prisoners waiting to be gassed in the gas chamber at Buchenwald?

Holocaust denial began when Paul Rassinier, “the father of Holocaust denial,” denied that there was a gas chamber at Buchenwald.  Do we have to go back to the days when it was required to believe that there was a gas chamber at Buchenwald?

To be on the safe side, I would go with a “gas chamber at Buchenwald.”  After all, Elie Wiesel, who claims that he was a prisoner at Buchenwald, although he has no Buchenwald ID number, says that he was saved from the gas chamber at Buchenwald, just in the nick of time.