A Jewish Revisionist’s Visit to Auschwitz
'We're Loud, We're Proud, and Best of All, We're Right!'David Cole
(Presented at the Eleventh IHR Conference, October 1992)
When I decided last September to take a well-deserved vacation, I thought, what better destination than Europe. After all, as a Revisionist I'd always felt it my duty to see the concentration camps in person. My girl-friend, though, said that she'd like to go to Europe to visit Euro-Disney, the new Disneyland theme park in France. So I thought for a while about where to go: Auschwitz or Euro-Disney. And as I looked around, and saw the miserable state of the world and this country, the political and social malaise and depression, I realized that if I did take a vacation, I wanted to go to a place as far away from reality as possible: a fantasy land of wondrous fairy tales. So, of course, I chose Auschwitz.
Now that I've gone through the Auschwitz main camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek, Mauthausen, and Dachau, I feel even more secure in my position as a Revisionist that there exists no convincing evidence that Jews or anyone else were taken en masse into gas chambers and killed by the Nazis at these camps. In fact, the remains that I inspected at the camp sites seem, in many different ways, to directly contradict these claims.
I returned to the United States with more than 25 hours of video footage from the camps. At Majdanek I uncovered obvious tampering with the buildings exhibited as gas chambers. This evidence was discovered when my attractive camerawoman busted a lock and got us into a room that is not open to tourists. There we were able to view several items in their original state, most notably the doors, which were clearly constructed to latch from both the outside and the inside.
David Cole was raised and educated in Los Angeles, where he lives and works. Because of his support for Holocaust Revisionism, he was assaulted during a meeting at the University of California at Los Angeles on January 22, 1992, by thugs of the Jewish Defense League, who hit him in the face and bloodied his nose. JDL leader Irv Rubin also tried to push Cole down a flight of stairs. In April 1992 he appeared — along with Journal editor Mark Weber — as a guest on the Montel Williams Show, a nationally syndicated television program, to present the Revisionist view of the Holocaust story.
The high point of my visit, though, was my interview with Dr. Franciszek Piper, Senior Curator of the Polish government’s Auschwitz State Museum. He has worked there for more than 26 years. On tape, he admits that the so-called gas chamber in Crematory Building (Krema) I, which is shown to half a million visitors a year as a genuine homicidal gas chamber, is in fact a reconstruction — even down to the holes cut into the ceiling. Piper also admits that walls were knocked down and bathroom facilities removed. He went on to tell us that the remains of the “white cottage,” supposed site of the first preliminary gassings at Birkenau, are also reconstructed. This was hardly news to me. Even a quick examination of the remains of the “white cottage” shows that the bricks are not connected in any way, but are simply laid on top of each other like children’s building blocks.
Piper has no problems with the Leuchter Report. He told me that he agrees with Leuchter’s findings regarding traces of ferro-ferric-cyanide in the walls of Crematory Buildings (Kremas) I, II and III. So what is his explanation for this lack of traces in the supposed homicidal gas chambers when, by contrast, there are significant traces in the non-homicidal delousing gas chambers? He told me that the amount of hydrogen cyanide (from Zyklon) supposedly used by the Germans to kill people — unlike the amount needed to kill lice in delousing chambers — was not enough to leave blue (ferro-ferric-cyanide) staining, or appreciable traces.
This argument has problems, though. For one thing, the supposed homicidal gas chambers at Majdanek (which in reality were non-homicidal delousing chambers) have abundant blue staining. So according to Piper’s “Holocaust logic,” gassing people in Auschwitz did not leave blue stains, but gassing people at Majdanek did. Talk about a Magic Kingdom! As we spoke, I half expected to see Piper’s nose grow as long as Pinocchio's!
The importance of Piper’s revelations is obvious. The burden of proof has now shifted decisively to the Exterminationist side. For example, Piper’s admission that the four holes in the ceiling of Crematory Building (Krema) I were put in after the war makes ludicrous the oft-repeated claim of Auschwitz tourists that “Now I've seen the gas chambers with my own two eyes.” Now that the often-made claims about Krema I in its present state are no longer valid, can the Exterminationists produce any evidence — a photograph, document, plan, or order — showing that the supposed gas chamber there was ever used to kill people as alleged? Most likely not, but what else is new? We've never been asked to accept the Holocaust story on anything but faith, and for me, that’s not good enough.
On the issue of the Holocaust — and perhaps uniquely on this issue — we are told: “Close the books, there will be no more learning, no more discussion, no more questions. Not only will no questions be tolerated, but anyone who dares to ask such questions will be slandered and viciously attacked.”
Now, as someone who believes that part of being human is to learn something new every day, I respond: “How dare you tell me there will be no more learning?” The establishment that maintains the Holocaust story on life support admits that there is no direct proof of homicidal gassings. No order, no document, no pictures, only “eyewitnesses.”
And what of these eyewitnesses? The Holocaust lobby insists that this is convincing evidence. But what kind of evidence is this? In some European countries, a person who denies the gas chambers can be jailed, fined, or physically attacked. He might lose his job, his standing in the community, maybe even his life. Something similar has happened in Canada. In the United States, he might be attacked and vilified. And if he says that he comes by his knowledge from first-hand experience — in other words from helping to run the camps during the war years — then he might easily find himself deported to Israel or eastern Europe, where he might be sentenced to death or at least stripped of his US citizenship and denied due process.
In other words, we only hear of eyewitnesses from one side because witnesses from the other side have been strong-armed into silence. This is governmental coercion of the worst kind, and on a worldwide scale no less. One kind of eyewitness is encouraged, the other kind is warned that his words might lead to deportation, imprisonment, loss of livelihood, property, and even life. Some great victory for the Holocaust lobby: The game has been fixed!
Let people speak! If for no one else, I demand this for my own sake. I want to know what happened during World War Two, and yet how can I if those who might have firsthand knowledge are told: “Speak only the official line, or suffer the consequences.” I insist on my human right to learn.
There are those who say, “Okay, so maybe the Holocaust is a bit exaggerated, but do we really want to destabilize society by openly talking about all this, possibly encouraging hostility against Jews?” This raises an important philosophical question: Do you believe mankind to be so inherently cruel and stupid that people must be lied to in order to make them behave? If so, then the lies you tell them are only a small bandage to cover up a much greater evil: Lack of confidence in mankind’s ability to handle the truth. And if you truly believe that people cannot handle the truth, but instead need a “Big Brother” to handle it for them, then surely democracy is the most dangerous thing on earth.
Of course, I understand that people can be cruel and stupid, but I also believe in the human ability to learn, and to grow with each new piece of knowledge. Rather than censor information that we subjectively perceive to be “dangerous,” we should teach our children to think critically, to remain open-minded, and to look for truth rather than cling to emotionally appealing falsehoods.
And that is just about all we can do: teach our children and hope for the best, realizing that people cannot be programmed like robots. Eighty years of failed Communism should have taught us that. To use the power of the state to force men to be what the state defines as “good” creates a world far more hellish than the one that is supposedly being prevented. I would rather live in a world where people are free to be cruel and stupid than one in which “goodness” is enforced at gun point.
Keep in mind also that truth, objective truth, does not need threats and intimidation to prevail. We Holocaust Revisionists are often likened to those who said that the earth was flat. But just the reverse is true: It is the other side that acts like a Holy Inquisition, institutionalizing one viewpoint and punishing heretics. Remember: We only accepted that the earth is round after the debate was opened. And since then, the round-earth adherents have not needed false news laws, hate crimes laws, and libel or slander laws to protect the truthfulness of their view. Likewise, all we ask is that the Holocaust story either stand or fall according to the evidence — or lack of it.
While we Holocaust Revisionists sit on a wealth of wonderfully heretical information, can we get it out to the general public? Can we “mainstream” Holocaust Revisionism before it’s too late, that is to say, before all those who have firsthand information of what really happened die off entirely?
As a Jew, it would be wrong for me not to mention the issue of Jewish influence. Influence is a very strange thing. People spend so much time and energy to acquire it, and then an equal amount of time and energy denying they have it. Jewish influence does exist. If it didn’t, why would billions of dollars be spent annually by Jewish lobbying groups? That money isn’t to pay for dance lessons for Senators and Congressmen, of course, it’s for influence. Jews must come to terms with the fact that they are not only a powerful and influential group, but have responsibilities that come with that — particularly the responsibility not to abuse power, or, more specifically, to avoid abusing people with that power.
It is a testament to the strength of Revisionist research and scholarship, and to Revisionist tenacity, that all the Jewish influence in the world has not erased this movement. Despite the best efforts of our most clever and determined adversaries, Revisionist books are still read, and the Institute for Historical Review continues to function.
But how much progress are we really making in getting our message to the public? Unfortunately, we've been making only tiny, pussycat steps. I am not a patient man. Every day, I fool myself into thinking that I can be patient — I can’t. I don’t want to be a guerrilla fighter of the political underground for the rest of my life. The time has come, indeed has never been better, to take Revisionist scholarship to the rest of the world, and if the powers that be try to stop us, we either go around them or, if necessary, we go right through them.
Two more years! That’s my new motto. In two years' time, Holocaust Revisionism should be in the mainstream, squarely in the public eye.
I am sure that we will eventually succeed in getting out our message. Information can be suppressed for just so long. But that’s not enough for me. It’s not enough that fellow Revisionists recognize Professor Faurisson’s scholarship for the brilliant work it is. I want it to be widely recognized as such, and in his lifetime!
So let’s make a concerted effort. Mindful of the recent Jewish New Year, I hereby make a Jewish New Year’s resolution: Two more years! No more sitting in the back of the ideological bus. We're loud, we're proud, and best of all, we're right!
From The Journal of Historical Review, March/April 1993 (Vol. 13, No. 2), page 11.