«$86&+:,7= /,(6 Germar Rudolf Carlo Mattogno $XVFKZLW] /LHV /HJHQGV /LHV DQG 3UHMXGLFHV RQ WKH +RORFDXVW &DVWOH +LOO 3XEOLVKHUV 32 %R[ 8FNILHOG 71 $: 8. 7KLUG HGLWLRQ -XO\ ...»
but in the meantime sign this confession and we can get you acquitted.’ Some still wouldn’t sign. «@ In another case, a bogus Catholic priest (actually an investigator) entered the cell of one of the defendants, heard his confession, gave him absolution, and then gave him a little friendly tip: ‘Sign whatever the investigators ask you to sign. It will get you your freedom. Even though it’s false, I can give you absolution now in advance for the lie you’d tell.’”
2U WDNH IRU D FKDQJH WKH PHWKRGV XVHG LQ FRPPXQLVW FRXQWULHV WR REWDLQ WHVWL
PRQLHV LQ ZDU FULPH WULDOV“One of the witnesses involved in the 1962 case stated that he was threatened by an investigator ‘with a pistol.’ A second witness testified that he had *HUPDQ PRQWKO\ PDJD]LQH Focus )HE *(50$5 58'2/) &$5/2 0$772*12 AUSCHWITZ LIES incriminated Niznansky ‘under psychological and physical duress.’ Jan Holbus, another witness for the prosecution back in 1962, declared during his interrogation in 2001 that he was threatened that he ‘will leave the room with his feet first,’ if he does not testify as the prosecution expects him to.”
$QG UHDG ZKDW D %ULWLVK -RXUQDOLVW IRXQG RXW DERXW %ULWDLQV WRUWXUH FHQWHUV LQ
CSDIC, a division of the War Office, operated interrogation centres around the world, including one known as the London Cage, located in one of London’s most exclusive neighbourhoods. Official documents discovered last month at the National Archives at Kew, south-west London, show that the London Cage was a secret torture centre where German prisoners who had been concealed from the Red Cross were beaten, deprived of sleep, and threatened with execution or with unnecessary surgery.
As horrific as conditions were at the London Cage, Bad Nenndorf was far worse. Last week, Foreign Office files which have remained closed for almost 60 years were opened after a request by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act. These papers, and others declassified earlier, lay bare the appalling suffering of many of the 372 men and 44 women who passed through the centre during the 22 months it operated before its closure in July 1947.
They detail the investigation carried out by a Scotland Yard detective, Inspector Tom Hayward, following the complaints of Major Morgan-Jones and Dr Jordan. Despite the precise and formal prose of the detective’s report to the military government, anger and revulsion leap from every page as he turns his spotlight on a place where prisoners were systematically beaten and exposed to extreme cold, where some were starved to death and, allegedly, tortured with instruments that his fellow countrymen had recovered from a Gestapo prison in Hamburg. Even today, the Foreign Office is refusing to release photographs taken of some of the “living skeletons” on their release.”
7RUWXUH ³D OLH´" :KR LV O\LQJ KHUH" $QG KRZ FDQ WHVWLPRQLHV REWDLQHG WKDW ZD\
EH DQ\WKLQJ HOVH EXW ³OXGLFURXVO\ XQUHOLDEOH"´
+DWHUV FDQQRW EH UHFRJQL]HG E\ WKH FRQWHQW RI WKHLU PHVVDJH EXW E\ WKHLU
VW\OH E\ WKHLU FKRLFH RI ZRUGV 7KH IRUHPRVW LQGLFDWRUV RI KDWH DUH KDWHIXO XQ
IRXQGHG H[SUHVVLRQV OLNH ³YLOH VWUDLJKWIDFHG IDEULFDWLRQV´ ³JURXS RI KDWHUV´,DQ &REDLQ ³7KH LQWHUURJDWLRQ FDPS WKDW WXUQHG SULVRQHUV LQWR OLYLQJ VNHOHWRQV´ The Guardian 'HF ZZZWKHJXDUGLDQFRPXNGHFVHFRQGZRUOGZDUWRSVWRULHV *(50$5 58'2/) &$5/2 0$772*12 AUSCHWITZ LIES
³D OLH´ ³LQVLGLRXV´ ³IDOVH GLVSDVVLRQDWH´ ³SVHXGRDFDGHPLF´ ³SVHXGRVFKRO
DUO\´ ³VPDOO EDQG RI SRLVRQRXV WKLQNHUV´ ³FUHHSLQJ LQVLQXDWLRQ´ 7KHUH \RXKDYH D KDWHU ± ZULWLQJ LQ WKH Washington Post 1H[W RQ P\ OLVW LV DQ DUWLFOH SXEOLVKHG LQ The New York Times “Bradley Smith is a Californian who acknowledges that the Nazis were cruel to Jews but who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. He has tried to expound his views in a 4,000-word essay submitted as an advertisement to several college newspapers – giving headaches and heartaches to student editors. In the process he gives the public some valuable, if unintended, lessons in the workings of a free press.
Many readers would blanch if they came upon Mr. Smith’s pseudo-scholarly tract. Yes, he concedes, Jews were mistreated by the Nazis, and ‘many tragically perished in the maelstrom.’ But the idea that Nazi Germany exterminated six million Jews, Mr. Smith contends, is an irresponsible exaggeration. Gas chambers? A myth. Those actually were ‘life-saving’ fumigation shelters to delouse clothing and prevent disease.
Should college editors risk appearing mercenary by taking money for publishing such trash? Should they risk playing censors to protect other young minds by refusing the ad? Is there some middle course, like printing the ad but with appraisals of its bizarre musings?
The dilemma is acute, just as it can be for commercial newspapers when confronted with ads that offend decency, patriotism or commonly accepted history. But the first lesson here is that it is their dilemma and not a First Amendment question. That great ordinance directs that Congress make no law abridging free expression. Government may not censor Mr. Smith and his fellow ‘Holocaust revisionists,’ no matter how intellectually barren their claims. Whether to publish their ads is something for the newspapers to decide.
The second lesson is that there’s probably no right answer to the question of how they should decide. College editors have come out in different ways.
Newspapers at Harvard, Yale, Brown and the University of California turned the ad down. Those at Cornell, Duke, Northwestern and Michigan printed it, sometimes citing free speech.
Perhaps the most creative response was that of the student editors at Rutgers University. The Daily Targum newspaper rejected the Holocaust tract as advertising but ran the text in its news columns, along with an editorial denunciation and comment by invited authors. The editors thus transformed revulsion into education.
The public does not usually require protection from bad ideas. Even so, initial instincts in favor of publication may sometimes yield to exceptions, against quackery, for instance, or on behalf of taste or fairness. The Times, ³8JO\,GHDV DQG 'HPRFUDF\´ New York Times -DQXDU\ *(50$5 58'2/) &$5/2 0$772*12 AUSCHWITZ LIES for instance, has from time to time refused advertisements – like one insisting that a politician killed in a plane crash had himself sabotaged the flight; that claim seemed unjustly unanswerable.
Denying the Holocaust may be monumentally more unjust. Yet to require that it be discussed only within approved limits may do an even greater injustice to the memory of its victims. To print or not to print? The diversity of responses from diverse editors demonstrates something more important than the answer. When there is free expression, even the ugliest ideas enrich democracy.” 7KHUH LV PXFK OHVV KDWH LQ WKHVH OLQHV WKDQ LQ WKRVH SULQWHG E\ WKH Washington
Post 7KH XVXDO PLVSODFHG DFFXVDWLRQ RI EHLQJ ³SVHXGRVFKRODUO\´ GHQLJUDWLQJ
GLVVHQWLQJ RSLQLRQV DV ³WUDVK´ RU PHUH ³EL]DUUH PXVLQJV´ LV DV EDG DV LW JHWV
0XFK ILQHU DUH WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO VOLSXSV RI WKLV DXWKRU )RU H[DPSOH ZK\ LV
WKHUH HYHQ D QHHG WR FRQVLGHU ZKHWKHU RU QRW WR ³SURWHFW RWKHU \RXQJ PLQGV´
IURP GLVVHQWLQJ KLVWRULFDO YLHZV" $QG ZK\ H[DFWO\ LV LW D ³FUHDWLYH UHVSRQVH´ WR
DGGUHVV UHYLVLRQLVW ZULWLQJV ZLWK ³HGLWRULDO GHQXQFLDWLRQ DQG FRPPHQW´" 'H
QXQFLDWLRQV DQG FRPPHQWV DUH QRW H[DFWO\ VFKRODUO\ UHIXWDWLRQV6XFK WROHUDQFH E\ WKH New York Times KRZHYHU GLG QRW ODVW YHU\ ORQJ $IWHU
%UDGOH\ 6PLWK KDG PDGH YDULRXV DGYHUWLVHPHQW FDPSDLJQV ZLWK DOWHUQDWLQJ VXFFHVV IRU PRUH WKDQ WHQ \HDUV WKH OHDGLQJ HGLWRUV RI WKH New York Times ILQDOO\
GHFLGHG WKDW WKH\ KDG HQRXJK RI LW 7KH\ FDPH WR WKH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW WKH )LUVW
$PHQGPHQW LV QRW D JRRG WKLQJ DIWHU DOO 7KH\ GHFLGHG WR WHDFK DOO VWXGHQW HGL
WRUV D OHVVRQ WKDW WKH\ KDG D PRUDO REOLJDWLRQ WR VXSSUHVV UHYLVLRQLVW GLVVHQW$UWKXU 6XO]EHUJHU SXEOLVKHU RI WKH New York Times DV ZHOO DV $EUDKDP )R[ PDQ 3UHVLGHQW RI WKH -HZLVK $QWL'HIDPDWLRQ /HDJXH WZR RI WKH PRVW LQIOX
HQWLDO PHQ LQ $PHULFDQ FXOWXUH DQG SROLWLFV MRLQHG WRJHWKHU LQ WR SHUVRQ
DOO\ SXW DQ HQG WR 6PLWKV ZRUN DW WKH XQLYHUVLWLHV 7KH $QWL'HIDPDWLRQ /HDJXHSURQRXQFHG “When a campus newspaper editor is asked to print an ad denying that the Holocaust took place – or calling for ‘open debate’ on the subject – can he or she say ‘no’ without compromising freedom of the press?
In the view of the ADL and The New York Times, the answer is yes. Both organizations have been disturbed by the continuing – and often successful – attempts by Holocaust deniers «@ to place advertisements and other materials in campus newspapers. Out of their common concern came an annual colloquium, ‘Extremism Targets the Campus Press: Balancing Freedom and Responsibility.’ ‘We seek to educate campus journalists,’ said ADL Campus Affairs/Higher Education Director Jeffrey Ross, ‘to balance freedom of the press with responsibility of the press when responding to hate submissions.’” ADL on the Frontline $QWL'HIDPDWLRQ /HDJXH VSHFLDO VXPPHU HGLWLRQ FI %UDGOH\ 6PLWK ³5HYLVLRQLVW 1RWHV´ The Revisionist SS *(50$5 58'2/) &$5/2 0$772*12 AUSCHWITZ LIES