Grubach explains 'holocaust' Revisionism in op-ed letter

[Hannover]

This is a news piece that is perfect for our forum. Paul Grubach has written many opinion articles on various aspects of the so called 'holocau$t', I'll post some links to them later.

One point which I wish Grubach would have made here is one of comparison. That being the Jews suffered proportionately less than other groups during the period....think Christians under judeo-centric Communism, think German civilians deliberately & illegally targeted by the Allies, think Japanese-American concentration camps, think Hiroshima, Nagasaki, on & on.

Have a look at his letter to the Oregon Daily Emerald, comments invited.

- Hannover

From the OREGON DAILY EMERALD

http://www.dailyemerald.com/vfeedback/f ... play_post&
Post_ID=bb2fda62f67ee7a1dead6a31dd6adea6

Posted 05/21/2003
I would like to take this opportunity to explain the Holocaust revisionist position to your readership, and to correct Deborah Lipstadt's distortions.

The traditional view of the fate of European Jewry during WWII, commonly known as the Holocaust, contains the following propositions. There was a Nazi plan to exterminate all the Jews; homicidal gas chambers were used to implement this plan; and approximately 6,000,000 were murdered.

Holocaust revisionists do not deny that atrocities were committed against
Jews during WWII. However, they contend there was no Nazi plan to exterminate world Jewry, the "Final Solution" being no more no less than their expulsion from Europe. The Nazis did incarcerate Jews in concentration camps, but there were no "gas chambers" for mass murder in them. And finally, the claim of 6,000,000 murdered Jews is an irresponsible exaggeration, as the number killed was far less.

One of the most important pieces of scientific evidence showing that the
"Auschwitz gas chambers" did not exist is the forensic study of the German chemistry expert, Germar Rudolf. You can read his entire expert report at
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html

Holocaust skeptics do admit that large numbers of Jews were shot by the German Army during their campaign to stamp out anti-German guerilla warfare and Communism on the Eastern Front. Certainly, many more were killed in anti-Jewish pogroms in Nazi-occupied areas. And finally, many Jews did die of starvation, disease, and exhaustion as a result of Nazi forced labor policies. The revisionist estimates of the total number of Jewish deaths from all causes ranges from 300,000 to 1,500,000. Contrary to the claims of Deborah Lipstadt, Holocaust revisionists do not deny that the Jews suffered a tragedy during WWII.

Deborah Lipstadt's traditional view of the Holocaust is an ideology in the
Marxist sense of the term--a distorted body of ideas, untrue in the main,
that is continually promoted because it serves the political, social and
psychological needs of a power elite. In this case, the Holocaust ideology
serves the goals and aspirations of the Jewish-Zionist establishment, the
power elite that Deborah Lipstadt so closely identifies with. As the Jewish
political scientist, Norman Finkelstein, has noted, through the deployment of the Holocaust ideology, "one of the world's most formidable military powers [Israel], with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a 'victim state,' and the most successful ethnic group in the United States [the Jews] has likewise acquired victim status. Considerable dividends accrue from this specious victimhood--in particular, immunity from criticism, however justified."

Paul Grubach
Holocaust revisionist historian

[Sailor]

One of the most important pieces of scientific evidence showing that the
"Auschwitz gas chambers" did not exist is the forensic study of the German chemistry expert, Germar Rudolf. You can read his entire expert report at
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html

It has to be pointed out that there are limitations to these forensic studies. These are explained in Section 8.4.6. “Limits of the Chemical Method” of Rudolf’s report.

Deborah Lipstadt's traditional view of the Holocaust is an ideology in the
Marxist sense of the term--a distorted body of ideas, untrue in the main,
that is continually promoted because it serves the political, social and
psychological needs of a power elite. In this case, the Holocaust ideology
serves the goals and aspirations of the Jewish-Zionist establishment, the
power elite that Deborah Lipstadt so closely identifies with.

Reading this makes one hot under the collar allright. It would have been nice if Grubach would have given some details here, some elaboration. He makes big general statements without telling us why this is so.

[Hannover]

Sailor stated:

It has to be pointed out that there are limitations to these forensic studies. These are explained in Section 8.4.6. “Limits of the Chemical Method” of Rudolf’s report.

However, Rudolf goes on to say:

Matters are different, however, when coming to conclusions based upon architectural and engineering questions. Because the structural fabric of some of the buildings under discussion has remained in its original condition, and due to the extensive documentation available about them, we are able to arrive at concrete statements, especially regarding the absence of alleged Zyklon B introduction holes in crematoria I, II, and III.

That factored in with the damning aerial photos, the impossible alleged cremation rates, lack of human remains, absurd & contradicting 'eyewitness' statements, lack of original documentation, the utter inefficiency of such a method, and the lack of any study that would negate The Rudolf Report renders the possibility of Rudolf being wrong as nil. In fact, that is basically what Rudolf is saying in his remarks on "Limits".

Sailor stated:

Reading this makes one hot under the collar allright. It would have been nice if Grubach would have given some details here, some elaboration. He makes big general statements without telling us why this is so.

My reading of the Grubach's explanation is different. While this is merely an short article in a newspaper, there is bountiful Revisionist work to support Grubach here. I thought he explained it quite well for the circumstances of the piece.

- Hannover