Did Six Million Really Die:
Truth at Last - Exposed:
Foreword to the new edition
You have before you the most expensive little publication printed in the
English language in modern times.
Millions of words have been spoken and written about this publication as
a result of the two Zï¿½ndel Trials.
Many hours of television news reports were broadcast about the content
of this publication and the surrounding controversy and trial.
The Canadian government, its various branches like the police, the
Attorney General's office, the Canadian Department of Immigration, the
courts with staff, clerks, stenographers, court reporters and security
personnel spent millions of dollars for research, staff and courtroom
Ernst Zï¿½ndel, the man at the centre of this controversy, did not write
this booklet. He merely supplied the four words on the original cover,
stating "Truth at last exposed." He supplied the photos and news
clippings on the inside cover of the publication, plus one sentence
under his youthful photo on page two. He wrote and supplied the text on
page three headed: "To all Canadian Lawyers and Media representatives"
and signed it himself. That was his foreword to the publication.
Nothing whatsoever has been changed - not a single word of the text
which was written by an Englishman called Richard Harwood who, Zï¿½ndel
thought until his trial, was teaching at the University of London.
During the trial, the witness Mark Weber revealed the real name of the
author as the former honours student of the University of London,
Richard Verrall - alias Richard Harwood. Ernst Zï¿½ndel did not know
this at the time of publication.
The original English publishers did not permit Ernst Zï¿½ndel to change
a single line or sentence in the Canadian "publication," which is what
you now have in your hands. The Court records reveal that Ernst Zï¿½ndel
reluctantly agreed to this, adding only an order coupon on page 30, and
two pages of an afterword (or some closing remarks). This came as a
response to the article reproduced on the top right of page 31, which,
at the time, appeared in many Canadian newspapers from coast to coast.
Ernst Zï¿½ndel merely reprinted Did Six Million Really Die? by a
photo-offset method - an exact duplicate, plus the already mentioned
additions. In Court, he said he felt safe doing that because the
publication had already been translated into 12 languages, and was being
sold without any legal problems in 18 countries. The only exception was
South Africa, where the publication was forbidden at the instigation of
the Jewish lobby. A booklet entitled Six Million Did Die was also
published in South Africa; this booklet figured prominently in the
Zï¿½ndel trial in 1988.
Ernst Zï¿½ndel became a household word in Canada, beginning with his
1985 trial, which lasted seven weeks, and his marathon 1988 trial which
lasted for almost four months. The booklet made Ernst Zï¿½ndel and his
revisionist viewpoint famous across the globe.
The Zï¿½ndel case is now, for the second time in 10 years, before the
Supreme Court of Canada, because the defence feels that the False News
section of the Criminal Code in Canada, under which Ernst Zï¿½ndel was
charged and convicted twice, is unconstitutional, in that it offends
against Canada's "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" (a watered-down
version of the American Bill of Rights).
Ernst Zï¿½ndel now awaits the verdict of the highest court in the land -
will it be freedom, exoneration or jail?
You can be Judge and Jury! Read the booklet, and then ask yourself:
should a man be beaten, spat upon, terrorized, beset upon by frenzied
mobs, bombed and charged with a criminal offence, dragged through
lengthy court cases and terribly expensive legal costs, because of the
few errors, made by a writer ten years previous? What do you think? Was
this persecution of Ernst Zï¿½ndel, through prosecution by the state,
just to punish him for his beliefs? "Persons who would spread hate in
this community in order to foster right-wing beliefs which attack the
delicate balance of racial and social harmony in our community must be
punished" (Judge Thomas' very own words on the day he sentenced Ernst
Zï¿½ndel, Transcript 10575)
What do you think?
Did this German resident of Canada not do the natural thing by
attempting to answer all of the nasty accusations and smears about his
own people (in the media, on television, in school books etc.) by using
an Englishman's writings to rebut these often outrageous claims and
If somebody said similar things about your own ethnic group, would you
not want to respond?
You be the judge. Read this and pass it on.
TO ALL CANADIAN LAWYERS AND MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES:
This booklet is the type of material that the Attorney General of
British Columbia considers 'racist'. The Attorney General of Ontario, at
the behest of his B.C. colleague, is purportedly conducting an
investigation of Samisdat Publishers preparatory to the laying of a
criminal charge of "promoting hatred against an identifiable group."
Samisdat intends to use this opportunity, however, unwelcome, to test
the definition and hence, the validity of the so-called 'Hate Law'
section of the Canadian Criminal Code. What is now becoming clear to all
of us, even to those who enacted the so-called 'Hate Law', is that we
enacted not so much an instrument against hate as an instrument against
Canada was a civilised country before the passage of the 'Hate Law'. We
already had laws against the incitement to riot, to murder, to arson, to
the commission of assault and bodily harm. Our laws protected and still
protect every citizen from libel, slander and defamation. But the
outlawing of 'hate' does not thereby abolish feelings of hate, as we all
know. To prohibit expressions of hatred may even cause such feelings to
go unvented until they become explosive and take the form of violence.
Prior to the 'Hate Law', we Canadians behaved with mature composure when
encountering hateful expressions. We simply shunned the haters and left
them to spew out their ire, unsupported and alone. In most cases, a cold
dose of healthy public ridicule would quench the more volcanic
vituperators and reason would be restored. But something happened to us,
for as we have grown older as a country, we have become less mature and
less secure. Our passage of the 'Hate Law' was a grave reflection upon
ourselves. It revealed a sudden lose of confidence in our own wisdom and
judgement and in the wisdom and judgement of the great majority of
Canadian voters and citizens. Suddenly, we had to be protected from
ourselves and just as suddenly, we became refugees from freedom. No
democracy that so distrusts the majority can long remain a democracy; it
becomes a police state in the worst tradition of police states.
Unfortunately, only a few clearsighted and courageous individuals
protested the enactment of the 'Hate Law'. So thick were the clouds of
hysteria and half-truth over the matter that only these few perceived
the dangers inherent in a statute which could be used at the discretion
of a public official to suppress the freedom of enquiry and discussion
in regard to relevant public issues. Among these few protesters, I
proudly number myself, for I spoke out then and I speak out now, on
behalf of our basic freedom to act as thinking human beings.
As we stumble along the road to the 1984 of George Orwell, we sometimes
receive a taste of his dismal future-fantasy well ahead of schedule.
Pernicious 'thought-crime' legislation like the 'Hate Law' has brought
us 1984 already. It has not outlawed hate, but it has outlawed truth on
behalf of those predatory vested interests whose archenemy is truth!
This booklet has been sent to you free of charge as a public service.
After reading it, you are perfectly free to agree or to disagree with
its content. You may even ignore it and leave it unread. Truth has no
need of coercion. Those who choose to ignore the truth are not punished
by law--they punish themselves. We of Samisdat Publishers do not believe
that you should be forced to read something, any more than we believe
that you should be forced to read something, any more than we believe
that you should be forced not to read something. Obviously, we have much
more faith in your soundness of mind and good judgement than do the
enactors and enforcers of the 'Hate Law'! Whether you agree or disagree
with the facts presented in this booklet, we invite you to assist us in
reclaiming and safeguarding the freedoms we have all so long enjoyed,
until now, in Canada.
Help us remove this shameful stain of tyranny from our otherwise bright
and shining land. Help us strike the terrible sword of censorship from
the hands of those who would slay truth in pursuit of their dubious
aims. Without freedom of enquiry and freedom of access to information we
cannot have freedom of thought and without freedom of thought, we cannot
be a free people. The matter is urgent. Can you help us restore and
protect the freedom of all Canadians?
You can help decisively by sending your contribution to the Samisdat
Defense Fund. Legal fees are costly in the extreme. We anticipate daily
expenditures of $1,000.00 in attorneys' fees and in the reimbursement of
witnesses who must be flown in from Australia, Israel, Europe and from
both American continents. Whatever help you can provide will make 1984 a
much better year for your children and grandchildren-a year in which
freedom of thought will not be a memory, but a beautiful reality!
Ernst Zundel, Publisher
SAMISDAT PUBLISHERS LTD.
Of course, atrocity propaganda is nothing new. It has accompanied every
conflict of the 20th century and doubtless will continue to do so.
During the First World War, the Germans were actually accused of eating
Belgian babies, as well as delighting to throw them in the air and
transfix them on bayonets. The British also alleged that the German
forces were operating a "Corpse Factory", in which they boiled down the
bodies of their own dead in order to obtain glycerine and other
commodities, a calculated insult to the honour of an Imperial army.
After the war, however, came the retractions; indeed, a public statement
was made by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons apologising
for the insults to German honour, which were admitted to be war-time
No such statements have been made after the Second World War. In fact,
rather than diminish with the passage of years, the atrocity propaganda
concerning the German occupation, and in particular their treatment of
the Jews, has done nothing but increase its virulence, and elaborate its
catalogue of horrors. Gruesome paperback books with lurid covers
continue to roll from the presses, adding continuously to a growing
mythology of the concentration camps and especially to the story that no
less than Six Million Jews were exterminated in them. The ensuing pages
will reveal this claim to be the most colossal piece of fiction and the
most successful of deceptions; but here an attempt may be made to answer
an important question: What has rendered the atrocity stories of the
Second World War so uniquely different from those of the First? Why were
the latter retracted while the former are reiterated louder than ever?
Is it possible that the story of the Six Million Jews is serving a
political purpose, even that it is a form of political blackmail?
So far as the Jewish people themselves are concerned, the deception has
been an incalculable benefit. Every conceivable race and nationality had
its share of suffering in the Second World War, but none has so
successfully elaborated it and turned it to such great advantage. The
alleged extent of their persecution quickly aroused sympathy for the
Jewish national homeland they had sought for so long; after the War the
British Government did little to prevent Jewish emigration to Palestine
which they had declared illegal, and it was not long afterwards that the
Zionists wrested ftom the Government the land of Palestine and created
their haven from persecution, the State of Israel. Indeed, it is a
remarkable fact that the Jewish people emerged from the Second World War
as nothing less than a triumphant minority. Dr. Max Nussbaum, the former
chief rabbi of the Jewish community in Berlin, stated on April 11, 1953:
"The position the Jewish people occupy today in the world - despite the
enormous losses - is ten times stronger than what it was twenty years
ago." It should be added, if one is to be honest, that this strength has
been much consolidated financially by the supposed massacre of the Six
Million, undoubtedly the most profitable atrocity allegation of all
time. To date, the staggering figure of six thousand million pounds has
been paid out in compensation by the Federal Government of West Germany,
mostly to the State of Israel (which did not even exist during the
Second World War), as well as to individual Jewish claimants.
DISCOURAGEMENT OF NATIONALISM
In terms of political blackmail, however, the allegation that Six
Million Jews died during the Second World War has much more far-reaching
implications for the people of Britain and Europe than simply the
advantages it has gained for the Jewish nation. And here one comes to
the crux of the question: Why the Big Lie? What is its purpose? In the
first place, it has been used quite unscrupulously to discourage any
form of nationalism. Should the people of Britain or any other European
country attempt to assert their patriotism and preserve their national
integrity in an age when the very existence of nation-states is
threatened, they are immediately branded as "neo-Nazis". Because, of
course, Nazism was nationalism, and we all know what happened then - Six
Million Jews were exterminated! So long as the myth is perpetuated,
peoples everywhere will remain in bondage to it; the need for
international tolerance and understanding will be hammered home by the
United Nations until nationhood itself, the very guarantee of freedom,
A classic example of the use of the 'Six Million' as an anti-national
weapon appears in Manvell and Frankl's book, The Incomparable Crime
(London, 1967), which deals with 'Genocide in the Twentieth Century'.
Anyone with a pride in being British will be somewhat surprised by the
vicious attack made on the British Empire in this book. The authors
quote Pandit Nehru, who wrote the following while in a British prison in
India: "Since Hitler emerged from obscurity and became the Fï¿½hrer of
Germany, we have heard a great deal about racialism and the Nazi theory
of the "Herrenvolk" . . . But we in India have known racialism in all
its forms ever since the commencement of British rule. The whole
ideology of this rule was that of the "Herrenvolk" and the master race .
. . India as a nation and Indians as individuals were subjected to
insult, humiliation and contemptuous treatment. The English were an
imperial race, we were told, with the God-given right to govern us and
keep us in subjection; if we protested we were reminded of the 'tiger
qualities of an imperial race'." The authors Manvell and Frankl then go
on to make the point perfectly clear for us: "The white races of Europe
and America," they write, "have become used during centuries to
regarding themselves as a "Herrenvolk". The twentieth century, the
century of Auschwitz, has also achieved the first stage in the
recognition of multi-racial partnership" (ibid., p .14).
THE RACE PROBLEM SUPPRESSED
One could scarcely miss the object of this diatribe, with its insiduous
hint about "multi-racial partnership". Thus the accusation of the Six
Million is not only used to undermine the principle of nationhood and
national pride, but it threatens the survival of the Race itself. It is
wielded over the heads of the populace, rather as the threat of hellfire
and damnation was in the Middle Ages. Many countries of the Anglo-Saxon
world, notably Britain and America, are today facing the gravest danger
in their history, the danger posed by the alien races in their midst.
Unless something is done in Britain to halt the immigration and
assimilation of Africans and Asians into our country, we are faced in
the near future, quite apart from the bloodshed of racial conflict, with
the biological alteration and destruction of the British people as they
have existed here since the coming of the Saxons. In short, we are
threatened with the irrecoverable loss of our European culture and
racial heritage. But what happens if a man dares to speak of the race
problem, of its biological and political implications? He is branded as
that most heinous of creatures, a "racialist". And what is racialism:,of
course, but the very hallmark of the Nazi! They (so everyone is told,
anyway) murdered Six Million Jews because of racialism, so it must be a
very evil thing indeed. When Enoch Powell drew attention to the dangers
posed by coloured immigration into Britain in one of his early speeches,
a certain prominent Socialist raised the spectre of Dachau and Auschwitz
to silence his presumption.
Thus any rational discussion of the problems of Race and the effort to
preserve racial integrity is effectively discouraged. No one could have
anything but admiration for the way in which the Jews have sought to
preserve their race through so many centuries, and continue to do so
today. In this effort they have frankly been assisted by the story of
the Six .Million, which, almost like a religious myth, has stressed the
need for greater Jewish racial solidarity. Unfortunately, it has worked
in quite the opposite way for all other peoples, rendering them impotent
in the struggle for self-preservation.
The aim in the following pages is quite simply to tell the Truth. The
distinguished American historian Harry Elmer Barnes once wrote that "An
attempt to make a competent, objective and truthful investigation of the
extermination question . . . is surely the most precarious venture that
an historian or demographer could undertake today." In attempting this
precarious task, it is hoped to make some contribution, not only to
historical truth, but towards lifting the burden of a lie from our own
shoulders, so that we may freely confront the dangers which threaten us
Richard E. Harwood
1. GERMAN POLICY TOWARDS THE JEWS PRIOR TO THE WAR
Rightly or wrongly, the Germany of Adolf Hitler considered the Jews to
be a disloyal and avaricious element within the national community, as
well as a force of decadence in Germany's cultural life. This was held
to be particularly unhealthy since, during the Weimar period, the Jews
had risen to a position of remarkable strength and influence in the
nation, particularly in law, finance and the mass media, even though
they constituted only 5 per cent of the population. The fact that Karl
Marx was a Jew and that Jews such as Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht
were disproportionately prominent in the leadership of revolutionary
movements in Germany, also tended to convince the Nazis of the powerful
internationalist and Communist tendencies of the Jewish people
It is no part of the discussion here to argue whether the German
attitude to the Jews was right or not, or to judge whether its
legislative measures against them were just or unjust. Our concern is
simply with the fact that, believing of the Jews as they did, the Nazis'
solution to the problem was to deprive them of their influence within
the nation by various legislative acts, and most important of all, to
encounge their emigration from the country altogether. By 1939, the
great majority of German Jews had emigrated, all of them with a sizeable
proportion of their assets. Never at any time had the Nazi leadership
even contemplated a policy of genocide towards them.
JEWS CALLED EMIGRATION 'EXTERMINATION'
It is very significant, however, that certain Jews were quick to
interpret these policies of internal discrimination as equivalent to
extermination itself. A 1936 anti-German propaganda book by Leon
Feuchtwanger and others entitled Der Gelbe Fleck: Die Austrotung von
500,000 deutschen Juden (The Yellow Spot: The Extermination of 500,000
German Jews, Paris, 1936), presents a typical example. Despite its
baselessness in fact, the annihilation of the Jews is discussed from the
first pages - straightforward emigration being regarded as the physical
"extermination" of German Jewry. The Nazi concentration camps for
political prisoners are also seen as potential instruments of genocide,
and special reference is made to the 100 Jews still detained in Dachau
in 1936, of whom 60 had been there since 1933. A further example was the
sensational book by the German-Jewish Communist, Hans Beimler, called
Four Weeks in the Hands of Hitler's Hell-Hounds: The Nazi Murder Camp of
Dachau, which was published in New York as eady as 1933. Detained for
his Marxist affiliations, he claimed that Dachau was a death camp,
though by his own admission he was released after only a month there.
The present regime in East Germany now issues a Hans Beimler Award for
services to Communism.
The fact that anti-Nazi genocide propaganda was being disseminated at
this impossibly early date, therefore, by people biased on racial or
political grounds, should suggest extreme caution to the
independent-minded observer when approaching similar stories of the war
The encouragement of Jewish emigration should not be confused with the
purpose of concentration camps in pre-war Germany. These were used for
the detention of political opponents and subversives - principally
liberals, Social Democrats and Communists of all kinds, of whom a
proportion were Jews such as Hans Beimler. Unlike the millions enslaved
in the Soviet Union, the German concentration camp population was always
small; Reitinger admits that between 1934 and 1938 it seldom exceeded
20,000 throughout the whole of Germany, and the number of Jews was never
more than 3,000. (The S.S.: Alibi of a Nation, London, 1956, p. 253).
ZIONIST POLICY STUDIED
The Nazi view of Jewish emigration was not Iimited to a negative policy
of simple expulsion, but was formulated along the lines of modern
Zionism. The founder of political Zionism in the 19th century, Theodore
Herzl, in his work The Jewish State, had originally conceived of
Madagascar as a national homeland for the Jews, and this possibility was
seriously studied by the Nazis. It had been a main plank of the National
Socialist party platform before 1933 and was published by the party in
pamphlet form. This stated that the revival of Israel as a Jewish state
was much less acceptable since it would result in perpetual war and
disruption in the Arab world, which has indeed been the case. The
Germans were not original in proposing Jewish emigration to Madagascar;
the Polish Government had already considered the scheme in respect of
their own Jewish population, and in 1937 they sent the Michael Lepecki
expedition to Madagascar, accompanied by Jewish representatives, to
investigate the problems involved.
The first Nazi proposals for a Madagascar solution were made in
association with the Schacht Plan of 1938. On the advice of Goering,
Hitler agreed to send the President of the Reichsbank, Dr. Hjaimar
Schacht, to London for discussions with Jewish representatives Lord
Bearsted and Mr. Rublee of New York (cf. Reitlinger, The Final Solution,
London, 1953, p. 20). The plan was that German Jewish assets would be
frozen as security for an international loan to finance Jewish
emigration to Palestine, and Schacht reported on these negotiations to
Hitler at Berchtesgaden on January 2, 1939. The plan, which failed due
to British refusal to accept the financial terms, was first put forward
on November 12, 1938 at a conference convened by Goering, who revealed
that Hitler was already considering the emigration of Jews to a
settlement in Madagascar (ibid., p. 21). Later, in December, Ribbentrop
was told by M. Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Secretary, that the
French Government itself was planning the evacuation of 10,000 Jews to
Prior to the Schacht Palestine proposals of 1938, which were essentially
a protraction of discussions that had begun as early as 1935, numerous
attempts had been made to secure Jewish emigration to other European
nations, and these efforts culminated in the Evian Conference of July,
1938. However, by 1939 the scheme of Jewish emigration to Madagascar had
gained the most favour in German circles. It is true that in London
Helmuth Wohltat of the German Foreign Office discussed limited Jewish
emigration to Rhodesia and British Guiana as late as April 1939; but by
January 24th, when Goering wrote to Interior Minister Frick ordering the
creation of a Central Emigration Office for Jews, and commissioned
Heydrich of the Reich Security Head Office to solve the Jewish problem
"by means of emigration and evacuation", the Madagascar Plan was being
studied in earnest.
By 1939, the consistent efforts of the German Government to secure the
departure of Jews from the Reich had resulted in the emigration of
400,000 German Jews from a total population of about 600,000, and an
additional 480,000 emigrants from Austria and Czechoslovakia, which
constituted almost their entire Jewish populations. This was
accomplished through Offices of Jewish Emigration in Berlin, Vienna and
Prague established by Adolf Eichmann, the head of the Jewish
Investigation Office of the Gestapo. So eager were the Germans to secure
this emigration that Eichmann even established a training centre in
Austria, where young Jews could learn farming in anticipation of being
smuggled illegally to Palestine (Manvell & Frankl, S.S. and Gestapo, p.
60). Had Hitler cherished any intention of exterminating the Jews, it is
inconceivable that he would have allowed more than 800,000 to leave
Reich territory with the bulk of their wealth, much less considered
plans for their mass emigration to Palestine or Madagascar. What is
more, we shall see that the policy of emigration from Europe was still
under consideration well into the war period, notably the Madagascar
Plan, which Eichmann discussed in 1940 with French Colonial Office
experts after the defeat of France had made the surrender of the colony
a practical proposition.