Discussion on Holocaust and War Crimes

If we were being liberal and generous, and said that of the 100,000 deaths

of which we have significant evidence, acceptable evidence from Auschwitz, say

three-quarters died a natural death.

By natural I mean typhus, epidemics, starvation, exhaustion,

worked to death, froze to death. If we say three-quarters died that kind of

death, and as many as one-quarter executed,

you come to a figure of

35,000 people who were murdered in Auschwitz by the Nazis in

the

entire four years of that camp's existence.

And I'm gonna show you a picture of not 25,000 people being murdered, but of

40,000 people being murdered, not in four years, but in the space of

20 minutes.

In Pforzheim.

Not Dresden or Hiroshima or Tokyo, but Pforzheim,

a little town none of you have

heard of. A little town in Germany, in Baden-Württemberg,

where they make jewelry

and watches.

Here's the town photographed from the air by a friend of mine, a British air

commodore, with his Kodachrome film camera during the

20 minutes in which

40,000 people are being burned alive.

One person in four in that town was, was killed, burned alive during that

air raid, 10 days after the air raid on Dresden,

and nobody's ever heard of it.

I think that it's proper to make this kind of comparison because if we're going to

analyze what we mean by war crimes, it wasn't their Jewishness that

made it a crime, that made their death a crime, it

was their innocence that made it

a crime. But they don't want us to know this.

This is why they've invented these words ever since about 1970.

I think probably I'm not wrong

believing that in about 1970, there was a meeting somewhere on the West

Coast where they called in the experts, the experts in

public relations, and the experts in advertising,

and the experts in promoting

ideas and mass marketing, and all the rest of it.

And they called in the experts to decide how they could market this notion

that the Jews had suffered a particular wrong, for which

they alone were entitled to compensation and compassion.

And the first idea they came up with, of course,

was inventing the word Holocaust.

Or not inventing it so much as hijacking it.

The word existed, but if you go back to the databases,

you will find that until

about 1972, that word Holocaust was not used to describe what happened to

the Jews. It's extraordinary. Looking back on it now, we see

that word's been used

ever since the 19th century to describe what... But it isn't.

It's a word that's only come to use that exclusively since about

1972. And I'm sure that if somebody wanted to have an interesting

PhD

dissertation, he could actually do a piece of

etymological research

on the use of that word to mean just that, and try and pinpoint when it first

emerged, when it was born, that notion.

That's the first word to look for. The second word to look for is a phrase,

really.

It's Holocaust denier. This came out about 10 or 15 years later.

When the revisionists started questioning the Holocaust, the

Holocaust phrase that had emerged in 1970, you notice the

capital H that it has? You notice the word the

that goes in front of

it? The Holocaust. It's the only one. It's unique.

It's very important that concept should be established for

reasons of, of high

finance, and for reasons of national strategy.

Only the Holocaust with a capital H because it is marketed like any other

product, like Tylenol with a capital T.

It's in a package, and you mustn't open it.

If anybody opens the package that's being offered, then he is a

criminal. He is committing some kind of blasphemy,

and he is worthy

of the nation's contempt, and he must be fined $22,000

here, thrown into prison there, or whatever else.

It's being marketed. And when the revisionists started questioning

this

word, Holocaust, and opening the package and saying,

"All right, I accept that

this happened, but that is going a bit too far." That's when they

already had their phrase ready to counter these questioners and called them

Holocaust deniers. And that's probably, I think, the most insidious and clever.

The denier has a ca- a, a small D, holocaust denier,

because it makes the person who questions the Holocaust some kind of jerk.

You've all seen on television the bulldozers and emaciated corpses.

And invariably I've found that when my name is mentioned on

television, and an interviewer says, as, uh, he said on the radio

this morning, "Mr. Irving denies that the Holocaust took place."

If it happens on the television, simultaneously they show the old newsreel

films of

bulldozers pushing bodies into pits, so that the instant knee-jerk reaction

of the viewer is, "Well, how can some person say this never

happened when we've

seen the evidence of our own eyes?"

Holocaust denier. We don't deny the Holocaust,

whatever it was.

We question what is meant by that word.

And having established what they mean by that word, we question whether they're

entitled to all their beliefs as far as that legend is concerned.

We're skeptics,

but you never hear us called skeptics. It's always deniers.

And the third word to look for in this marketing campaign is

genocide, as I mentioned earlier.

It's very important that the crime that was committed against them

is genocide and

nothing else.

If it was to be enlarged to embrace the concept which I

propose, namely the innocence of a person we think

said a crime and not their

Jewishness. It's not their race, in my view, that makes it a crime,

but their

innocence. If the crime became innocenticide,

a word which I

would invent,

killing of innocent people, that wouldn't suit the Jews at all.

So they have got in there first by promoting the notion of genocide being the

crime against humanity, and you hear that word promoted again and

again on whatever excuse. Most recently in court, of course,

in connection

with Bosnia and Rwanda. They trot out that word.

They say, "It was genocide in Bosnia, just like the Holocaust.

It was genocide in Rwanda, just like the Holocaust."

And you have to take your hats

off to these people because they are very clever about the way they keep on

bringing it back to their own case.

Because of course, if the notion of innocenticide

was to be adopted, they would

lose out massively. If it was the innocence of the victims

that made it the

offense and not the Jewishness, then all sorts of claimants would come

forward.

The people who suffered in Coventry.

The Japanese Americans who suffered in the American concentration camps in

1941. The Australian soldiers who suffered

building the Burma

Railway for the Japanese.

The citizens of Tokyo or Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

All these people could come forward and say, "I was burned alive.

I lost my entire family. I have suffered.

I demand compensation." And this would dilute the pot of

gold which is available to compensate for crimes committed in times of war.

And so the concept is focused very narrowly on those who can

claim to have suffered genocide.