( Part 1 of 9 )
Foreword to the new edition
You have before you the most expensive little publication printed inthe English language in modern times.
Millions of words have been spoken and written about this publication asa result of the two Zndel Trials.
Many hours of television news reports were broadcast about the content ofthis publication and the surrounding controversy and trial.
The Canadian government, its various branches like the police, the AttorneyGeneral's office, the Canadian Department of Immigration, the courts withstaff, clerks, stenographers, court reporters and security personnel spentmillions of dollars for research, staff and courtroom space.
Ernst Zndel, the man at the centre of this controversy, did not writethis booklet. He merely supplied the four words on the original cover, stating"Truth at last exposed." He supplied the photos and news clippingson the inside cover of the publication, plus one sentence under his youthfulphoto on page two. He wrote and supplied the text on page three headed:"To all Canadian Lawyers and Media representatives" and signedit himself. That was his foreword to the publication.
Nothing whatsoever has been changed - not a single word of the text whichwas written by an Englishman called Richard Harwood who, Zndel thoughtuntil 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 formerhonours student of the University of London, Richard Verrall - alias RichardHarwood. Ernst Zndel did not know this at the time of publication.
The original English publishers did not permit Ernst Zndel to changea single line or sentence in the Canadian "publication," whichis what you now have in your hands. The Court records reveal that ErnstZndel reluctantly agreed to this, adding only an order coupon on page30, and two pages of an afterword (or some closing remarks). This came asa 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. ErnstZndel merely reprinted Did Six Million Really Die? by a photo-offsetmethod - an exact duplicate, plus the already mentioned additions. In Court,he said he felt safe doing that because the publication had already beentranslated into 12 languages, and was being sold without any legal problemsin 18 countries. The only exception was South Africa, where the publicationwas forbidden at the instigation of the Jewish lobby. A booklet entitledSix Million Did Die was also published in South Africa; this booklet figuredprominently in the Zndel trial in 1988.
Ernst Zndel became a household word in Canada, beginning with his1985 trial, which lasted seven weeks, and his marathon 1988 trial whichlasted for almost four months. The booklet made Ernst Zndel and hisrevisionist viewpoint famous across the globe.
The Zndel case is now, for the second time in 10 years, before theSupreme Court of Canada, because the defence feels that the False News sectionof the Criminal Code in Canada, under which Ernst Zndel was chargedand convicted twice, is unconstitutional, in that it offends against Canada's"Charter of Rights and Freedoms" (a watered-down version of theAmerican Bill of Rights).
Ernst Zndel 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: shoulda man be beaten, spat upon, terrorized, beset upon by frenzied mobs, bombedand charged with a criminal offence, dragged through lengthy court casesand terribly expensive legal costs, because of the few errors, made by awriter ten years previous? What do you think? Was this persecution of ErnstZndel, through prosecution by the state, just to punish him for hisbeliefs? "Persons who would spread hate in this community in orderto foster right-wing beliefs which attack the delicate balance of racialand social harmony in our community must be punished" (Judge Thomas'very own words on the day he sentenced Ernst Zndel, Transcript 10575)
What do you think?
Did this German resident of Canada not do the natural thing by attemptingto answer all of the nasty accusations and smears about his own people (inthe media, on television, in school books etc.) by using an Englishman'swritings to rebut these often outrageous claims and charges?
If somebody said similar things about your own ethnic group, would you notwant 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 BritishColumbia considers 'racist'. The Attorney General of Ontario, at the behestof his B.C. colleague, is purportedly conducting an investigation of SamisdatPublishers preparatory to the laying of a criminal charge of "promotinghatred against an identifiable group."
Samisdat intends to use this opportunity, however, unwelcome, to test thedefinition and hence, the validity of the so-called 'Hate Law' section ofthe Canadian Criminal Code. What is now becoming clear to all of us, evento those who enacted the so-called 'Hate Law', is that we enacted not somuch an instrument against hate as an instrument against truth.
Canada was a civilised country before the passage of the 'Hate Law'. Wealready had laws against the incitement to riot, to murder, to arson, tothe commission of assault and bodily harm. Our laws protected and stillprotect every citizen from libel, slander and defamation. But the outlawingof 'hate' does not thereby abolish feelings of hate, as we all know. Toprohibit expressions of hatred may even cause such feelings to go unventeduntil they become explosive and take the form of violence. Prior to the'Hate Law', we Canadians behaved with mature composure when encounteringhateful expressions. We simply shunned the haters and left them to spewout their ire, unsupported and alone. In most cases, a cold dose of healthypublic ridicule would quench the more volcanic vituperators and reason wouldbe restored. But something happened to us, for as we have grown older asa 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 loseof confidence in our own wisdom and judgement and in the wisdom and judgementof the great majority of Canadian voters and citizens. Suddenly, we hadto be protected from ourselves and just as suddenly, we became refugeesfrom freedom. No democracy that so distrusts the majority can long remaina democracy; it becomes a police state in the worst tradition of policestates.
Unfortunately, only a few clearsighted and courageous individuals protestedthe enactment of the 'Hate Law'. So thick were the clouds of hysteria andhalf-truth over the matter that only these few perceived the dangers inherentin a statute which could be used at the discretion of a public officialto suppress the freedom of enquiry and discussion in regard to relevantpublic issues. Among these few protesters, I proudly number myself, forI spoke out then and I speak out now, on behalf of our basic freedom toact as thinking human beings.
As we stumble along the road to the 1984 of George Orwell, we sometimesreceive 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 predatoryvested interests whose archenemy is truth!
This booklet has been sent to you free of charge as a public service. Afterreading 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 punishthemselves. We of Samisdat Publishers do not believe that you should beforced to read something, any more than we believe that you should be forcedto read something, any more than we believe that you should be forced notto read something. Obviously, we have much more faith in your soundnessof mind and good judgement than do the enactors and enforcers of the 'HateLaw'! Whether you agree or disagree with the facts presented in this booklet,we invite you to assist us in reclaiming and safeguarding the freedoms wehave all so long enjoyed, until now, in Canada.
Help us remove this shameful stain of tyranny from our otherwise brightand shining land. Help us strike the terrible sword of censorship from thehands of those who would slay truth in pursuit of their dubious aims. Withoutfreedom of enquiry and freedom of access to information we cannot have freedomof thought and without freedom of thought, we cannot be a free people. Thematter is urgent. Can you help us restore and protect the freedom of allCanadians?
You can help decisively by sending your contribution to the Samisdat DefenseFund. Legal fees are costly in the extreme. We anticipate daily expendituresof $1,000.00 in attorneys' fees and in the reimbursement of witnesses whomust 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 yourchildren and grandchildren-a year in which freedom of thought will not bea memory, but a beautiful reality!
Ernst Zundel, Publisher
SAMISDAT PUBLISHERS LTD.
Of course, atrocity propaganda is nothing new. It has accompanied everyconflict of the 20th century and doubtless will continue to do so. Duringthe First World War, the Germans were actually accused of eating Belgianbabies, as well as delighting to throw them in the air and transfix themon bayonets. The British also alleged that the German forces were operatinga "Corpse Factory", in which they boiled down the bodies of theirown dead in order to obtain glycerine and other commodities, a calculatedinsult to the honour of an Imperial army. After the war, however, came theretractions; indeed, a public statement was made by the Foreign Secretaryin the House of Commons apologising for the insults to German honour, whichwere admitted to be war-time propaganda.
No such statements have been made after the Second World War. In fact, ratherthan diminish with the passage of years, the atrocity propaganda concerningthe German occupation, and in particular their treatment of the Jews, hasdone nothing but increase its virulence, and elaborate its catalogue ofhorrors. Gruesome paperback books with lurid covers continue to roll fromthe presses, adding continuously to a growing mythology of the concentrationcamps and especially to the story that no less than Six Million Jews wereexterminated in them. The ensuing pages will reveal this claim to be themost colossal piece of fiction and the most successful of deceptions; buthere an attempt may be made to answer an important question: What has renderedthe atrocity stories of the Second World War so uniquely different fromthose of the First? Why were the latter retracted while the former are reiteratedlouder than ever? Is it possible that the story of the Six Million Jewsis serving a political purpose, even that it is a form of political blackmail?
So far as the Jewish people themselves are concerned, the deception hasbeen an incalculable benefit. Every conceivable race and nationality hadits share of suffering in the Second World War, but none has so successfullyelaborated it and turned it to such great advantage. The alleged extentof their persecution quickly aroused sympathy for the Jewish national homelandthey had sought for so long; after the War the British Government did littleto prevent Jewish emigration to Palestine which they had declared illegal,and it was not long afterwards that the Zionists wrested ftom the Governmentthe land of Palestine and created their haven from persecution, the Stateof Israel. Indeed, it is a remarkable fact that the Jewish people emergedfrom 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 todayin the world - despite the enormous losses - is ten times stronger thanwhat it was twenty years ago." It should be added, if one is to behonest, that this strength has been much consolidated financially by thesupposed massacre of the Six Million, undoubtedly the most profitable atrocityallegation of all time. To date, the staggering figure of six thousand millionpounds has been paid out in compensation by the Federal Government of WestGermany, mostly to the State of Israel (which did not even exist duringthe Second World War), as well as to individual Jewish claimants.
DISCOURAGEMENT OF NATIONALISM
In terms of political blackmail, however, the allegation that Six MillionJews died during the Second World War has much more far-reaching implicationsfor the people of Britain and Europe than simply the advantages it has gainedfor the Jewish nation. And here one comes to the crux of the question: Whythe Big Lie? What is its purpose? In the first place, it has been used quiteunscrupulously to discourage any form of nationalism. Should the peopleof Britain or any other European country attempt to assert their patriotismand preserve their national integrity in an age when the very existenceof nation-states is threatened, they are immediately branded as "neo-Nazis".Because, of course, Nazism was nationalism, and we all know what happenedthen - Six Million Jews were exterminated! So long as the myth is perpetuated,peoples everywhere will remain in bondage to it; the need for internationaltolerance and understanding will be hammered home by the United Nationsuntil nationhood itself, the very guarantee of freedom, is abolished.
A classic example of the use of the 'Six Million' as an anti-national weaponappears in Manvell and Frankl's book, The Incomparable Crime (London, 1967),which deals with 'Genocide in the Twentieth Century'. Anyone with a pridein being British will be somewhat surprised by the vicious attack made onthe British Empire in this book. The authors quote Pandit Nehru, who wrotethe following while in a British prison in India: "Since Hitler emergedfrom obscurity and became the Fhrer of Germany, we have heard a greatdeal about racialism and the Nazi theory of the "Herrenvolk" .. . But we in India have known racialism in all its forms ever since thecommencement of British rule. The whole ideology of this rule was that ofthe "Herrenvolk" and the master race . . . India as a nation andIndians as individuals were subjected to insult, humiliation and contemptuoustreatment. The English were an imperial race, we were told, with the God-givenright to govern us and keep us in subjection; if we protested we were remindedof the 'tiger qualities of an imperial race'." The authors Manvelland Frankl then go on to make the point perfectly clear for us: "Thewhite races of Europe and America," they write, "have become usedduring centuries to regarding themselves as a "Herrenvolk". Thetwentieth century, the century of Auschwitz, has also achieved the firststage 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 insiduoushint about "multi-racial partnership". Thus the accusation ofthe Six Million is not only used to undermine the principle of nationhoodand national pride, but it threatens the survival of the Race itself. Itis wielded over the heads of the populace, rather as the threat of hellfireand damnation was in the Middle Ages. Many countries of the Anglo-Saxonworld, notably Britain and America, are today facing the gravest dangerin their history, the danger posed by the alien races in their midst. Unlesssomething is done in Britain to halt the immigration and assimilation ofAfricans and Asians into our country, we are faced in the near future, quiteapart from the bloodshed of racial conflict, with the biological alterationand destruction of the British people as they have existed here since thecoming of the Saxons. In short, we are threatened with the irrecoverableloss of our European culture and racial heritage. But what happens if aman dares to speak of the race problem, of its biological and politicalimplications? 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 attentionto the dangers posed by coloured immigration into Britain in one of hisearly speeches, a certain prominent Socialist raised the spectre of Dachauand Auschwitz to silence his presumption.
Thus any rational discussion of the problems of Race and the effort to preserveracial integrity is effectively discouraged. No one could have anythingbut admiration for the way in which the Jews have sought to preserve theirrace through so many centuries, and continue to do so today. In this effortthey have frankly been assisted by the story of the Six .Million, which,almost like a religious myth, has stressed the need for greater Jewish racialsolidarity. Unfortunately, it has worked in quite the opposite way for allother peoples, rendering them impotent in the struggle for self-preservation.
The aim in the following pages is quite simply to tell the Truth. The distinguishedAmerican historian Harry Elmer Barnes once wrote that "An attempt tomake a competent, objective and truthful investigation of the exterminationquestion . . . is surely the most precarious venture that an historian ordemographer could undertake today." In attempting this precarious task,it is hoped to make some contribution, not only to historical truth, buttowards lifting the burden of a lie from our own shoulders, so that we mayfreely confront the dangers which threaten us all.
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 bea disloyal and avaricious element within the national community, as wellas a force of decadence in Germany's cultural life. This was held to beparticularly unhealthy since, during the Weimar period, the Jews had risento a position of remarkable strength and influence in the nation, particularlyin law, finance and the mass media, even though they constituted only 5per cent of the population. The fact that Karl Marx was a Jew and that Jewssuch as Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht were disproportionately prominentin the leadership of revolutionary movements in Germany, also tended toconvince the Nazis of the powerful internationalist and Communist tendenciesof the Jewish people themselves.
It is no part of the discussion here to argue whether the German attitudeto the Jews was right or not, or to judge whether its legislative measuresagainst 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 wasto deprive them of their influence within the nation by various legislativeacts, and most important of all, to encounge their emigration from the countryaltogether. By 1939, the great majority of German Jews had emigrated, allof them with a sizeable proportion of their assets. Never at any time hadthe 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 interpretthese policies of internal discrimination as equivalent to exterminationitself. A 1936 anti-German propaganda book by Leon Feuchtwanger and othersentitled Der Gelbe Fleck: Die Austrotung von 500,000 deutschen Juden (TheYellow Spot: The Extermination of 500,000 German Jews, Paris, 1936), presentsa typical example. Despite its baselessness in fact, the annihilation ofthe Jews is discussed from the first pages - straightforward emigrationbeing regarded as the physical "extermination" of German Jewry.The Nazi concentration camps for political prisoners are also seen as potentialinstruments of genocide, and special reference is made to the 100 Jews stilldetained in Dachau in 1936, of whom 60 had been there since 1933. A furtherexample was the sensational book by the German-Jewish Communist, Hans Beimler,called Four Weeks in the Hands of Hitler's Hell-Hounds: The Nazi MurderCamp of Dachau, which was published in New York as eady as 1933. Detainedfor his Marxist affiliations, he claimed that Dachau was a death camp, thoughby his own admission he was released after only a month there. The presentregime in East Germany now issues a Hans Beimler Award for services to Communism.
The fact that anti-Nazi genocide propaganda was being disseminated at thisimpossibly early date, therefore, by people biased on racial or politicalgrounds, should suggest extreme caution to the independent-minded observerwhen approaching similar stories of the war period.
The encouragement of Jewish emigration should not be confused with the purposeof concentration camps in pre-war Germany. These were used for the detentionof political opponents and subversives - principally liberals, Social Democratsand Communists of all kinds, of whom a proportion were Jews such as HansBeimler. Unlike the millions enslaved in the Soviet Union, the German concentrationcamp population was always small; Reitinger admits that between 1934 and1938 it seldom exceeded 20,000 throughout the whole of Germany, and thenumber 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 policyof simple expulsion, but was formulated along the lines of modern Zionism.The founder of political Zionism in the 19th century, Theodore Herzl, inhis work The Jewish State, had originally conceived of Madagascar as a nationalhomeland for the Jews, and this possibility was seriously studied by theNazis. It had been a main plank of the National Socialist party platformbefore 1933 and was published by the party in pamphlet form. This statedthat the revival of Israel as a Jewish state was much less acceptable sinceit would result in perpetual war and disruption in the Arab world, whichhas indeed been the case. The Germans were not original in proposing Jewishemigration to Madagascar; the Polish Government had already considered thescheme in respect of their own Jewish population, and in 1937 they sentthe 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 associationwith the Schacht Plan of 1938. On the advice of Goering, Hitler agreed tosend the President of the Reichsbank, Dr. Hjaimar Schacht, to London fordiscussions with Jewish representatives Lord Bearsted and Mr. Rublee ofNew York (cf. Reitlinger, The Final Solution, London, 1953, p. 20). Theplan was that German Jewish assets would be frozen as security for an internationalloan to finance Jewish emigration to Palestine, and Schacht reported onthese negotiations to Hitler at Berchtesgaden on January 2, 1939. The plan,which failed due to British refusal to accept the financial terms, was firstput forward on November 12, 1938 at a conference convened by Goering, whorevealed that Hitler was already considering the emigration of Jews to asettlement in Madagascar (ibid., p. 21). Later, in December, Ribbentropwas told by M. Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Secretary, that the FrenchGovernment itself was planning the evacuation of 10,000 Jews to Madagascar.
Prior to the Schacht Palestine proposals of 1938, which were essentiallya protraction of discussions that had begun as early as 1935, numerous attemptshad been made to secure Jewish emigration to other European nations, andthese efforts culminated in the Evian Conference of July, 1938. However,by 1939 the scheme of Jewish emigration to Madagascar had gained the mostfavour in German circles. It is true that in London Helmuth Wohltat of theGerman Foreign Office discussed limited Jewish emigration to Rhodesia andBritish Guiana as late as April 1939; but by January 24th, when Goeringwrote to Interior Minister Frick ordering the creation of a Central EmigrationOffice for Jews, and commissioned Heydrich of the Reich Security Head Officeto 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 departureof Jews from the Reich had resulted in the emigration of 400,000 GermanJews from a total population of about 600,000, and an additional 480,000emigrants from Austria and Czechoslovakia, which constituted almost theirentire Jewish populations. This was accomplished through Offices of JewishEmigration in Berlin, Vienna and Prague established by Adolf Eichmann, thehead of the Jewish Investigation Office of the Gestapo. So eager were theGermans to secure this emigration that Eichmann even established a trainingcentre in Austria, where young Jews could learn farming in anticipationof being smuggled illegally to Palestine (Manvell & Frankl, S.S. and Gestapo,p. 60). Had Hitler cherished any intention of exterminating the Jews, itis inconceivable that he would have allowed more than 800,000 to leave Reichterritory with the bulk of their wealth, much less considered plans fortheir mass emigration to Palestine or Madagascar. What is more, we shallsee that the policy of emigration from Europe was still under considerationwell into the war period, notably the Madagascar Plan, which Eichmann discussedin 1940 with French Colonial Office experts after the defeat of France hadmade the surrender of the colony a practical proposition.
Continue to Part 2 http://www.lebensraum.org/english/harwood/Didsix02.html