David Irving sent this advice to Bishop Richard Williamson on what can safely be said about the Jewish Holocaust without fear of Prosecution
February 12, 2009
Reply: I am keeping out of this. My advice ... is to accept that there were organised mass killings from the spring of 1942 to October 1943 at Himmler's three sites on the Bug River -- Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec; there is much dispute over numbers and methods of killing, but he should not dispute that there were such killings.
As for numbers, he might add that the Polish (Krakow) trial of the main Auschwitz officials, which concluded in December 1947, found in these words: "The defendants were German camp guards or members of the German camp administration staff. Unheard-of atrocities against the camp inmates, particularly against female prisoners, were proved against them. Altogether nearly 300,000 people from the most different nations died in the Auschwitz concentration camp. The court sentenced 23 of the accused to death...."
You can see the newsreel in German reporting this on my website at "http://www.focal.org/wochenschau1948.avi". The text is at http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/controversies/deathroll/Wochenschau1948.html
In the so-called "Todesblock" (Block Smierci) of the Auschwitz-Stammlager, there is the following multilingual inscription: http://www.vho.org/D/ffh/Inschrift.jpg
"In der Zeit des Lagerbestehens ... kamen in Auschwitz und in anderen Lagern etwa 340 000 Personen ums Leben."[During the time the camp existed about 340,000 people lost their lives in Auschwitz and other camps]
His Excellency might add that the numbers involved are irrelevant: the killing of any innocent is a crime, in wartime or in peace. The real crime in WW2 and other wars is Innocenticide, killing innocents. The killing of Jews was a crime not because they were Jews, but because they were largely innocent Jews.
The Jews do not like this argument, as it might divert and dilute the cornucopia of global sympathy (and treasure) to the wrong victims, or to victims other than themselves. Though shalt have no other Holocaust than ours, that is their religion.
He might remark on the weak tendency of modern historians to write history in vacuo, with no regard for the passage of time or the context of these tragedies: e.g., the rising climate of brutality which makes all manner of counter-brutality that much easier; and the fact that the propaganda machines of all the warring governments were equally guilty of stirring up hatred of entire enemy populations. Modern historians write as though none of these factors operated, and they are not unique to World War II.
There is one real problem facing what Norman Finkelstein calls The Holocaust Industry. There is literally nothing original to be seen at the three Bug river sites; they are on the far side of Poland, and there is nothing to build a tourist industry around (I have visited them all). That is why they have constantly hyped Auschwitz, which was in my view a glorified slave labour camp with a high mortality rate from all causes (including, it must be said, a comparatively lower number of systematic killings of Jews in small buildings outside the perimeter, known as the White House and the Red House. The official guides are very reluctant to show these two buildings' remains to tourists.)
These killings are documented to my satisfaction. The forensic tables exhibited to the much-maligned Leuchter Report were the product of a reputable New England laboratory, and they satisfied me that in the buildings analysed by Fred Leuchter in 1988 there was no systematic cyanide-killing of Jews: the New England laboratory found no significant trace of the poison in the buildings. That is still my view.
The report was so devastating for the reputation of the money-spinning Auschwitz site that the crucifixion of Leuchter began the moment that his report was published in 1989. You see, unlike the Bug river sites, the so-called "Operation Reinhardt camps", at Auschwitz there are buildings and relics and remains to show to tourists, who bring much treasure and business to the Krakow region.
Auschwitz is not even mentioned in the well-known January 1943 Korherr statistical report to Himmler on the first ten years of the Final Solution; the Bug river camps are. The conformist Historians dare not say these things now, for reasons I have need to spell out.
© Focal Point 2009 write to David Irving