Issue #173 | July 2010
"Holocaust" Debate in Hungary
A Prefatory Note
by Arthur Butz
In March 2010 the Hungarian parliament adopted an anti-revisionist law making it illegal to dispute the orthodox version of the “holocaust.” Hungarian nationalist and revisionist Otto Perge suggested a debate on the topic. One of the country’s most prominent “holocaust” scholars, Dr. Laszlo Karsai, accepted the challenge. Having learned this, our old friend Jürgen Graf contacted Mr. Perge and offered his assistance, which Perge accepted. Graf then sent Perge 17 questions for his opponent, in English. Dr. Perge translated them into Hungarian and had them published on a web site supportive of the nationalist Jobbik party (http://kuruc.info). Having read them, Dr. Karsai told Perge that he did not intend to answer these questions.
However Dr. Karsai attempted to refute the revisionist point of view by making 15 statements, which he sent to Otto Perge, who has a sound knowledge of the subject but is not a specialist. Perge translated these statements into English and forwarded them to Graf. As some of Karsai's arguments are often adduced by revisionism's adversaries, Graf took
Jürgen Graf
great care to answer them in detail. Beginning on 24 April, Graf's answers to the arguments were published on the kuruc.info web site, in both Hungarian and English.
One of Hungary’s best-known historians, Dr. Krisztian Ungvary, offered Dr. Karsai his help and prepared eight questions for Otto Perge. Perge is translating the eight questions into English. Graf intends to answer them when received, and the Hungarian translation will then be published on the above-mentioned web site.
Graf's detailed account of these developments is being continually posted on his web site (http://juergen-graf.vho.org), in English and German.
As for the Jobbik party, Jews showed consternation in April when it gained about 12% of the 386 seats in parliamentary elections, the Jerusalem Post bewailing that “the ruling Socialist Party was dethroned, falling from 190 to just 59 seats while its coalition partner, the Liberal Party, which enjoyed strong Jewish support, lost its parliamentary presence altogether.”
Let us hope that the new Hungarian anti-revisionist law is stillborn.
Hungarian Holocaust Debate:
Otto Perge vs. Dr. Laszlo Karsai
by Jürgen Graf
In March 2010 the Hungarian parliament adopted an anti-revisionist law making it illegal to dispute the orthodox version of the “holocaust.” At the same time, Hungarian nationalist and revisionist Otto Perge suggested a debate on the topic. One of the country’s most prominent “holocaust” scholars, Dr. Laszlo Karsai, accepted the challenge. Having learned this, I contacted Mr. Perge, who fortunately knows English (I neither read nor speak Hungarian) and offered him my assistance, which he accepted. Thereupon I sent him 17 questions for his opponent. Dr. Perge translated them into Hungarian and had them published on the website Kuruc.info. Having read them, Dr. Karsai told Perge that he did not intend to answer these questions, and it is indeed highly improbable that he will.
Questions to Dr. Laszlo Karsai
1) In August 1944, a few weeks after the liberation of the Majdanek concentration camp by the Red Army, a Polish-Soviet commission wrote an “expert report” about the camp in which they claimed that no fewer than 1.5 million prisoners had been murdered there.[1] This document was presented by the Soviets as evidence at
the Nuremberg trial.[2] As early as in 1948, Polish historian Zdzislaw Lukaszkiewicz reduced the Majdanek death toll to 360,000.[3] A further reduction took place in 1992 when Polish historian Czeslaw Rajca spoke of 235,000 victims.[4] Another 13 years later, in 2005, Thomas Kranz, director of the research department of the Majdanek museum, stated that 78,000 prisoners had perished in the camp.[5] For a comparison: In their 1998 book KL Majdanek: Eine historische und technische Studie the revisionist authors Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno came to the conclusion that approximately 42,200 people died at Majdanek.[6] So the new figure of the Majdanek museum is still higher by 35,800 than the revisionist one, but lower by 1,422,000 than the one claimed at Nuremberg and lower by 157,000 than the official figure of the Majdanek museum until 2005. – Any comment?
2) In its English-language edition, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported on 18 April 2004 that 687,000 Jews who had lived in the countries under German control during the Second World War were still alive at that moment. Consequently, there must have been several million Jews in the same countries in May 1945. How does this figure square with an extermination policy?
3) If the National Socialists had really intended to exterminate the Jews, almost no Jewish concentration camp inmates would have survived. But the “survivor reports” fill whole libraries. Many of these former Jewish prisoners had been transferred from one camp to the other without ever being exterminated. An extreme case is the Polish Jew Samuel Zylberstztain who survived ten camps: the “extermination camp” Majdanek, the “extermination camp” Auschwitz and eight “normal concentration camps” into the bargain.[7] The Austrian Socialist and Jew Benedikt Kautsky spent six years in the camps (Dachau, Buchenwald, Auschwitz, and again Buchenwald) before being liberated in spring 1945.[8] The Jew and anti-Nazi resistance fighter Arno Lustiger is “a survivor of the concentration and extermination camps” (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 27 April 1995). The newspaper did not reveal which “extermination camps” Lustiger had been interned in, but he cannot have been exterminated in any of them, because he was still very much alive in 1995. These examples can be multiplied. How does this square with the assertion that the aim of the German leadership was the physical annihilation of the Jews?
4) According to the “Holocaust” story, from spring 1942 at Auschwitz all Jews unable to work were gassed upon arrival without previous registration. If this assertion were true, no names of old Jews or Jewish children would figure in the Sterbebücher of Ausch-
===============
To read the rest of the July 2010 issue of Smith’s Report 173. (http://www.smithsreport.com)
Please consider contributing to this work. I can't do it without you.
Click here to donate.
