Israel Ambassador Speech On Holocaust Denial Before UN General Assembly Adopted Resolution – YouTube

Here is the video in which the Israeli Ambassador Gilad Erdan gave his speech before the UN on the topic of “Holocaust denial.” According to him, Holocaust denial” forms a very great threat; that the Holocaust occurred is according to this Ambassador a proven fact, but,

“Nevertheless, we now live in an era in which fiction becoming fact. And the Holocaust becoming a distant memory. And that this happens following the greatest crime in human history, now comes the greatest cover-up in human history. As the number of Holocaust survivors diminishes, Holocaust denial is growing at a terrifying fine speed. But this is not a new phenomenon; within mere decades after the Holocaust, perverse publications were already labeling the Holocaust a fabrication. “The six million swindle”, “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century”, and “The Drama of European Jewry” to name just a few. The Holocaust was still gaping wounds for humanity, was a gaping wound for humanity and already claims were being made that it was all a lie.” 

Israeli Ambassador Gilad Erdan: His Fear Of The Rise Of Holocaust Denial. 

The way Mr. Erdan delivered his speech at the UN, clearly shows his fear and anxiety about the increase in Holocaust denial. Let us be clear here now: it is a proven fact that the Jews suffered during this dark period of WW II. On the other hand, however, why were we never given the opportunity to compare the official version of the Holocaust with the alternative versions of the Holocaust by “Holocaust deniers”?

The Wise Words of Nicodemus the Pharisee: a Lesson For Us To Learn. 

Regarding the above, we come to mind the wise words that the Pharisee Nicodemus once said. The rest of the Pharisees were talking about Jesus Who according to them could not be their Messiah. So they had sent the Herodians (“officers”) to arrest Him and take Him before the Sanhedrin. But the Herodians returned empty-handed:

“Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. Nicodemus saith unto them ( he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them) Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. And every man went unto his own house.” (John 7:45-53 King James translation).

So without checking who Jesus was and what He said and did, the Pharisees already managed to come up with a prejudice about Him. But listen to what Nicodemus said: “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” And just as this was Nicodemus’ attitude towards Jesus, so should our attitude towards those “Holocaust deniers” be: first find out who they are and what they all have to say before you pass judgment on them! Those “Holocaust deniers”, however, were never given that opportunity; to Mr. Erdan and the many Jewish organizations we have here, these “deniers” were and are evil people who would only seek to belittle and deny the Holocaust.

“No Holes, No Gas Chambers.” 

Now, what has some of those “Holocaust deniers” to say about the Holocaust? Well, here is an interesting article about it, written by revisionist Carlo Mattogno. It is entitled “No Holes, No Gas Chambers.” codoh.com/library/document/no-holes-no-gas-chambers/en/ This is a rather scientific and extensive article but nevertheless, it is good to read it carefully. And so, whether we agree or disagree with the view of Mr. Mattogno, don’t immediately write him off as a “Holocaust denier.” 

Michael Santomauro And His View Of Critical Examination Of The Holocaust. 

And this brings us to Michael Santomauro. Mr. Santomauro has quite a few tough and critical questions to ask about refusing to critically examine the Holocaust:

“What Sort Of Truth Is It That Crushes The Freedom To Seek The Truth?” (by Michael Santomauro).

“I wish to express my outrage that the Holocaust, unlike any other historical event, is not subject to critical examination. Furthermore, I deplore the fact that many so-called democratic states have laws that criminalize an examination and understanding of the Holocaust. It is my position that the veracity of Holocaust assertions should be determined in the marketplace of scholarly discourse and not in our legislature’s bodies and courthouses. 

What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Is someone a “Holocaust denier” if he says that the Nazis did not make soap from the corpses of murdered Jews? After considering the evidence – including an actual bar of soap supplied by the Soviets – the Nuremberg Tribunal declared in its judgment that “in some instances, attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap.” In 1990 though, Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust center “rewrote history” by admitting that the soap story was not true. “Historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat. When so many people deny the Holocaust ever happened, why to give them something to use against the truth?”, said Yad Vashem official Shmuel Krakowski. Is someone a “Holocaust denier” if he does not accept that the January 1942 “Wansee Conference” of German bureaucrats was held to set or coordinate a program of systematic mass murder of Europe’s Jews? If so, Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer must be wrong – and a “Holocaust denier”- because he declared: “The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at.” In Bauer’s opinion, Wannsee was a meeting but “hardly a conference” and “little of what was said there was executed in detail.” Is someone a “Holocaust denier” if he says that there was no order by Hitler to exterminate Europe’s Jews? There was a time when the answer would have been yes. Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, for example, wrote in the 1961 edition of his study The Destruction of the European Jews, that there were two Hiter orders for the destruction of Europe’s Jews: the first given in the spring of 1941, and the second shortly thereafter. But Hilberg removed mention of any such order from the revised, three-volume edition of his book published in 1985. As Holocaust historian Christopher Browning has noted: “In the new edition, all references in the text of  Hitler decision or Hitler order for the ‘Final Solution’ have been systematically excised. Buried at the bottom of a single footnote stands the solitary reference: ‘Chronology and circumstances point to a Hiter decision before the summer ended.” In the new edition, decisions were not made and orders were not given.” A lack of hard evidence for an extermination order by Hitler has contributed to a controversy that divides Holocaust historians into “intentionalists” and “functionalists.” The former content that there was a premeditated extermination policy by Hitler, while the latter holds that Germany’s wartime “final solution” Jewish policy evolved at lower levels in response to circumstances. But the crucial point here is this: notwithstanding the capture of literally tons of German documents after the war, no one can point to evidence of a wartime policy extermination order, plan or program. This was admitted by Professor Hilberg during his testimony in the 1985 trial in Toronto of German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel.” Source: wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:Controversial_holocaust_historian_David_Irving_emails_Nov_2009 (bold print added)

Tuesday, July 17, 1998: The American Paper The Washington Times Comes With A Report About The Reduction Of The Number Of Deaths In Auschwitz From Four To One Million. 

And here we have a report from the American paper The Washington Times about the reduction of the number of deaths in Auschwitz from 4 to 1 million:

“LONDON – Poland has cut its estimate of the number of people killed by the Nazis in Auschwitz from 4 million to just over 1 million. The vast majority of the dead are now accepted to have been Jews, despite claims by the former Polish communist government that as many Poles perished in Hitler’s largest concentration camp. The revised Polish figures support claims by Israeli researchers that Poland’s former communist government exaggerated the numbers of victims by inflating the estimate of non-Jews who died. The new study could rekindle the controversy over the scale of Hitler’s “Final solution.” Shevach Weiss, a death camp survivor, and Labor Party member of the Israeli Parliament expressed disbelief at the revised estimates, saying: “It sounds shocking and strange.” But other Israeli experts said evidence to support the lower estimate had been mounting for some time. Auschwitz, 30 miles southwest of Krakow, was established in 1940 as a camp for political prisoners. It was later expanded with a huge extermination complex at nearby Birkenau, which included gas chambers and ovens. Franciszek Piper, director of the historical committee of the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum, said yesterday that, according to recent research, at least 1.3 million people were deported to the camp, of whom about 223.000 survived. The 1.1 million victims included 960.000 Jews, between 70.000 and 75.000 Poles, nearly all of the 23.000 gypsies sent to the camp, and 15.000 Soviet prisoners of war. Mr. Piper stressed that the figures are minimum estimates but said the total number of dead was unlikely to exceed 1.5 million. Shmuel Krakowsky, head of research at Israel’s Yad Vashem memorial for Jewish victims of the Holocaust, said the new Polish figures were correct. “The 4 million figure was let slip by Capt. Rudolf Hoess, the death camp’s Nazi commander. Some have bought it, but it was exaggerated.” Mr. Krakowsky accused Poland’s former communist government of perpetuating the false figure in an attempt to minimize the Holocaust and support claims that Auschwitz was not exclusively a Jewish death camp. He said that at most 300.000 non-Jews perished there. The latest Polish research is based on studies of prisoners’ personal numbers, transport documents, and data about Jewish Ghettoes. Plaques commemorating the death of 4 million were removed from the Auschwitz museum earlier this month. But the Polish authorities said accurate estimates of the number killed could only be made by studying German documents seized by the Soviet Union. But Moscow has refused to return the archives. According to Mr. Krakowsky, 5.860.000 Jews perished in the Holocaust, mostly in Auschwitz and five other Polish death camps. There were extermination camps in other occupied countries, including Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union.” Source: The Washington Times from Tuesday, July 17, 1998 Page A11 “Poland reduces Auschwitz death toll estimate to 1 million.” (bold print added)

Normally, the reduction in the number of Jewish victims is considered “Holocaust denial” by “Holocaust deniers.” With what we read here about the reduction in the number of Jewish victims (from 4 to 1 million), by the post-Communist Polish government, nobody seems to have had any problem with it! Why?

The Jewish Organizations’ Only “Argument”: A Lawsuit. 

Now, no one is going to look at whether those “Holocaust deniers” are speaking the truth (as they see it) or not. For these Jewish organizations, it is already clear in advance: it comes down to “antisemitism.” That what those “deniers” have to say is wrong; the judgment of those “deniers” is already established. They have just one “argument”: to start a lawsuit against them. It would, therefore, be best if both the Jewish organizations and the “deniers” (which are still left, because some of them have already died), would both play open cards: what actually happened during the Holocaust and what didn’t. It is also of great importance that the documentation of the “deniers” is compared with the eyewitness statements of Holocaust survivors and that veracity of both of them is tested. Because by reconciling this piece of history with the facts, we will undoubtedly go a little further. Because just launching a lawsuit against those who have just a different opinion about the Holocaust without any serious previous research being done into who they are and what they are doing, is completely wrong; in this way, many innocent people have been wrongly convicted for their dissent opinion in the past. And yes, that’s really a shame.

Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen.

WordPress.com logo

Je reageert onder je WordPress.com account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Twitter-afbeelding

Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s

Deze site gebruikt Akismet om spam te bestrijden. Ontdek hoe de data van je reactie verwerkt wordt.

%d bloggers liken dit:
close-alt close collapse comment ellipsis expand gallery heart lock menu next pinned previous reply search share star