|
World War I Atrocity
Propaganda and the Holocaust:
Is There a Lesson Here?
By Paul Grubach
© copyright 2002
Editors Note: A copy of this article was sent
by the author to Dr. van Pelt prior to its publication
in The Revisionist
Dr. Robert Jan van Pelt,
a professor of architecture at the University of
Waterloo (Canada), has undoubtedly written one of
the most important anti-Holocaust revisionist tomes
ever penned.1 Revisionist academic Samuel Crowell
put his finger on the reasons as to why The
Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial
is such an important work:
“First, because this book represents the first
serious attempt to discuss the arguments of
revisionists, and second, because the arguments,
while incomplete, are thorough, handled with
civility, and touch upon the writings of a number
of [revisionist] authors, including Faurisson,
Butz, Staeglich, Rudolf, and even [Crowell].
Indeed, the only significant omission is Carlo
Mattogno, perhaps due to the fact that Mattogno’s
authoritative analyses of crematoria operation
are not easily refuted.”2
It is important that Holocaust revisionists provide
rebuttals to van Pelt’s anti-revisionist arguments.
This essay is the first of a series of proposed
articles that will address these arguments.
During the First World War, false anti-German
atrocity propaganda was utilized by the Allied leaders
to attain their goals, such as bolstering the morale
of the rank and file of the Allied nations.3
One of the most notorious pieces of anti-German
propaganda was the gruesome account of the “corpse
exploitation establishment” operated behind the
front lines by a German company. The “evil Germans”
supposedly used the corpses of their own fallen
soldiers for the manufacture of soap. Professor
van Pelt notes that the author of this piece of
lying propaganda was the Chief of Intelligence of
the British Army, Brigadier General J.V. Charteris.
Apparently, one of his aims was to turn the Chinese,
who revere the dead, against the Germans.4
U.S. Army Recruitment Poster from
World War I
A detailed account of the “corpse
exploitation establishment” appeared in the respected
British newspaper, The Times, on April
17, 1917. According to the story, trains full of
corpses arrived at a large factory. The bodies were
attached to hooks connected to an endless chain.
The article states:
“The bodies are transported on this endless
chain into a long, narrow compartment, where
they pass through a bath which disinfects them.
They then go through a drying chamber, and finally
are automatically carried into a digester or
great cauldron, in which they are dropped by
an apparatus which detaches them from the chain.
In the digester they remain from six to eight
hours, and are treated by steam, which breaks
them up while they are slowly stirred by the
machinery.”
The article continues:
“From this treatment result several products.
The fats are broken up into stearin, a form
of tallow, and oils, which require to be redistilled
before they can be used. The process of distillation
is carried out by boiling the oil with carbonate
of soda, and some of the by-products resulting
from this are used by German soap makers. The
oil distillery and refinery lie in the south-eastern
corner of the works. The refined oil is sent
out in small casks like those used for petroleum,
and is of yellowish brown color.”5
(The reader should note the meticulous detail!)
“It was a lie,” Dr. van Pelt emphasizes, “but
it was plausible, and it was not possible to completely
refute it during the [First World War].”6
In the years following the First World War, there
was an expose of these false atrocity stories, and
many of these legends were put to rest. “The overall
effect of the relentless exposure of the atrocity
stories was,” van Pelt claims, “a general resentment
of the public against those who had roused its passion,
inflamed its indignation, exploited its patriotism,
and desecrated its highest ideals by government-initiated
concealment, subterfuge, fraud, falsehood, and trickery.”7
One of van Pelt’s key arguments in the first
part of the book is as follows:
“There is no historical justification for judging
and dismissing the accounts of German atrocities
during the Second World War within the context
of the atrocity propaganda of the First World
War: the attitude of the public of 1939-1945
was radically different from that of twenty-five
years earlier, and it is clear that any attempt
to generate the kind of propaganda symbolized
by the notorious [corpse exploitation establishment]
would have merely generated mockery.”8
Indeed, “The long-term effect of stories that
told…of human bodies used as raw material for the
production of soap was that few were prepared to
be fooled once again by such a fabrication,” claims
the University of Waterloo intellectual.9
In summary, van Pelt is arguing that people of
the Western democracies were very much aware of
how they were fooled by anti-German propaganda in
WWI, and thus, would not be fooled by it again.
Ergo, the Allied powers of WWII had nothing to gain
and everything to lose by attempting to use false
atrocity stories to attain their ends. Any atrocity
claims made by the Allies had to be based upon facts,
because the masses retained a skeptical outlook.
In order to bolster his argument, van Pelt quotes
respected sources from the era of the Second World
War that were indeed skeptical of Nazi atrocity
stories precisely for these reasons.10
Professor van Pelt’s whole viewpoint is undermined
by the empirical facts. The Soviets, Zionists, Americans
and British in the Second World War did use false
propaganda claims to further their ends. In fact,
some of the Allied atrocity propaganda from the
First World War found its mirror image in anti-German
atrocity propaganda promoted by Zionist groups and
other Allied sources in the Second World War.
In the August 21, 1944 issue of Time,
there was the “first eyewitness description” of
the “Nazi extermination camp” at Maidanek concentration
camp in Poland. Professor van Pelt claims that in
spite of the climate of skepticism that surrounded
these “Hitler gas chamber” stories, the editors
of Time believed that they were indeed
true. Here is his description of the article: “The
editors of Time showed less hesitance
to accept facts for what they were. On August 21,
they had provided a first hand account of the ‘gigantic
murder plant,’ [at Maidanek] largely taken from
notes by Russian war correspondent Roman Karmen.”11
Dr. van Pelt committed a sin of omission. He
failed to mention the obvious false statements in
the article, perhaps knowing full well that to inform
the reader of the contents of entire article would
have undermined his entire argument.
Let us examine Time’s and Karmen’s
claims. The article reads:
“In the center of the camp stands a huge stone
building with a factory chimney—the world’s
biggest crematorium. The Germans attempted to
burn it but most of it still stands—a grim monument
to the Third Reich.”
“Groups of 100 people would be brought here
to be burned almost alive. They already had
been stripped and then chlorinated in
special gas chambers adjoining. The gas chambers
contained some 250 persons at one time. They
were closely packed…so that after they suffocated
they remained standing…The human cargoes were
dumped into a roaring furnace heated to 1,500
[degrees] Centigrade…[emphasis added].”
Further on “eyewitness” Karmen claims: “It is difficult
to believe it myself but my eyes cannot deceive
me. I see the human bones, lime barrels, chlorine
pipes and furnace machinery…[emphasis added].”12
The Holocaust lobby now claims that Maidanek
inmates were murdered with Zyklon B/hydrogen cyanide
and carbon monoxide, so the allegation that chlorine
gas was the killing agent is false.13
But even more importantly, consider Time's
and Karmen’s description of how the corpses of the
“murdered ones” were put to use: “The victims’ charred
bones and ashes were moved into an adjoining department
where an incredible process went on. These human
bones were mechanically pulverized, placed inside
large tin cans and shipped back to Germany for fertilizing
the fields.”14
This is false propaganda, as there is not one
iota of credible evidence to support it. To be sure,
the Holocaust lobby no longer claims that there
was a “fertilizer factory/corpse exploitation establishment”
at Maidanek, where human remains were processed,
canned, and then sent back to Germany to be used
as fertilizer. Yet, the reader should note how the
story is strikingly similar to the aforementioned
“corpse exploitation establishment” story of the
First World War that van Pelt admits to be a lie.
In the WWI version the corpses were utilized to
make soap; the WWII version claims the bodies were
used for fertilizer.
Here we have an excellent example of Soviet-Communist
propaganda that was simply accepted as fact and
repeated by a very respected American news source.
Like I said, Professor van Pelt failed to mention
the false claim about the fertilizer factory at
Maidanek, probably because it would have undermined
his line of argumentation.
At the risk of sounding redundant, let us repeat
and examine Professor van Pelt’s claims. He asserted
“the long-term effect of stories [from the First
World War] that told…of human bodies used as raw
material for the production of soap was that few
were prepared to be fooled once again by such a
fabrication.”15
An important study by revisionist historian Mark
Weber proves this claim false.16 He noted that the
wartime rumor that the Germans were manufacturing
soap from the corpses of slaughtered Jews was “spread
so widely in 1941 and 1942 that by late 1942 German
authorities in Poland and Slovakia were expressing
official concern about their impact.”17
Weber further pointed out that although a similar
charge during the First World War that the Germans
manufactured soap from corpses was exposed as a
hoax, “it was nevertheless revived and widely believed
during the Second. More important, this accusation
was ‘proven’ at the main Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946,
and has been authoritatively endorsed by numerous
historians in the decades since.”18
Weber went on to list Allied and Zionist sources
that were promoting the propaganda lie during the
Second World War that the Germans were manufacturing
soap from the bodies of their victims.
- A secret US Army military intelligence report
quoted a Polish source that alleged the Germans
were operating a “human soap factory” in 1941
in Turek, Poland.19
- In November of 1942 Rabbi Stephen S. Wise,
wartime head of both the World Jewish Congress
and the American Jewish Congress, publicly asserted
that the Germans were processing Jewish corpses
into soap, fats and fertilizer.20
- In late 1942, an American Jewish Congress
publication, Congress Weekly, claimed
the Nazis had two special factories in Germany
that processed soap, glue and train oil from
the bodies of Jewish deportees from France and
Holand.21
- The highly respected and influential American
publication, New Republic, reported
in 1943 that the Germans were “using the bodies
of their Jewish victims to make soap and fertilizer
in a factory at Siedlce.”22
- Finally, the myth the Germans manufactured
soap from the bodies of their victims was “authoritatively
proven” at the main Nuremberg Trial of 1945-1946.
In their final judgment, the Nuremberg Tribunal
judges found that “attempts were made to utilize
fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial
manufacture of soap.”23
Once again, we quote the key claim of Dr. van
Pelt:
“There is no historical justification for judging
and dismissing the accounts of German atrocities
during the Second World War within the context
of the atrocity propaganda of the First World
War: the attitude of the public of 1939-1945
was radically different from that of twenty-five
years earlier, and it is clear that any attempt
to generate the kind of propaganda symbolized
by the notorious [corpse exploitation establishment]
would have merely generated mockery.”24
In view of the evidence presented in this article
alone (there is more to come), van Pelt’s conclusion
must be rejected. The atrocity propaganda of the
First World War served as a model for the Allied
and Zionist atrocity propaganda of the Second World
War, and the attitude of the public was such that
people were conditioned to accept these wartime
propaganda lies as “the truth.” The masses have
a very short memory, and the lone voices that did
reject these atrocity stories of the Second World
War because they were so similar to the false atrocities
stories of the First World War were in the minority,
and they had little influence.
In the years following WWII, dignitaries, journalists,
writers, and influential groups promoted the canard
that the Germans manufactured soap from the bodies
of their victims.25 This propaganda did not generate
mockery, as van Pelt would have us believe. Quite
the contrary—as historian Weber points out:
“The ‘human soap’ story demonstrates anew the tremendous
impact that a wartime rumor, no matter how fantastic,
can have once it has taken hold, particularly when
it is disseminated as a propaganda lie by influential
individuals and powerful organizations.”26
It was only around the 1980s the Holocaust lobby
finally admitted that the Second World War “Jews-into-soap”
story is a myth.27
The “mass electrocution” myth further illustrates
the fact that Allied and Zionist sources did use
wartime propaganda lies in the Second World War
to attain their ends.
Belzec was a Nazi concentration camp located
in Eastern Poland. Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg
claimed that the first killing agent used there
was either bottled carbon monoxide or hydrogen cyanide.
Later, the camp was equipped with diesel motors,
and the Jews were murdered in “gas chambers” that
utilized the diesel exhaust.28 Although The
Case for Auschwitz deals mainly with Auschwitz
concentration camp, van Pelt has some very important
things to say about Belzec.
He wrote: “Fighting Hitler under the inspired
leadership of men such as Churchill and Roosevelt,
the Allies had no need for atrocity propaganda…Churchill
was able to mobilize a nation without the need to
engage in the very kind of all-too-easily dismissable
atrocity propaganda that the weak leaders of the
First World War found necessary to employ to bolster
morale.”29
This is false. The Allies did in fact use false,
unsubstantiated atrocity stories to attain their
ends. In December of 1942, the Inter-Allied Information
Committee (an agency of the governments of Australia,
Belgium, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Great Britain,
Greece, India, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, the Philipines, Poland, South Africa,
Yugoslavia, the Danish Legation in America, the
French National Committee, and the United States)
issued a statement in London in regard to the alleged
fate of Jews in German-held Europe. It was then
distributed in New York through the local office
of the United Nations Information Committee. The
document concluded: “The means employed in deporting
from the ghetto all those who survive murders and
shooting in the street exceeds all imagination.
In particular, children, old people and those too
weak for work are murdered. Actual data concerning
the fate of the deportees is not at hand, but the
news is available—irrefutable news—that places of
execution have been organized at Chelmo and Belzec,
where those who survive shootings are murdered en
masse by means of electrocution and gas.”30
Here, these Allied sources claimed they had irrefutable
evidence that Jews were murdered en masse by electrocution
at Belzec. We now know that this is false, as the
“mass-electrocution-of-Jews-story” is admitted by
van Pelt and the Holocaust lobby to be a myth.31
The Belzec electrocution myth further illustrates
another flaw in van Pelt’s methodology and beliefs.
As he points out, the Polish Fortnightly Review,
an English-language newspaper published by the Polish
government in exile during WWII, published a July
10, 1942 description of the alleged “electrocution
devices” whereby Jews “were murdered en masse at
Belzec.” It stated “the men go to a barracks on
the right, the women to a barracks situated on the
left, where they strip, ostensibly in readiness
for a bath. After they have undressed both groups
go to a third barracks where there is an electrified
plate, where the executions are carried out.”32
In an attempt to get the reader to believe that
these were just “honest errors” and not deliberate
propaganda lies, van Pelt resorts to this rationalization:
“In the summer of 1942, when the report was written,
no one who was part of the execution team had left
Belzec alive, and thus the description of the method
of killing was based largely on rumor.”33 In other
words, since no one escaped these alleged mass killings
alive to precisely describe the technology of mass
murder, false rumors developed as to the exact method
of killing. Nevertheless, the central event—the
mass killings of Jews—definitely took place.
According to a report that was printed in the
February 12, 1944 issue of The New York Times,
“eyewitnesses did in fact” escape these mass executions,
and they lived to “precisely describe” the “actual
method of mass murder”:
“A young Polish Jew who escaped from a mass
execution in Poland…repeated a story [told to
him by escapees who allegedly saw the electrocution
machinery at at Belzec]…Jews were forced naked
onto a metal platform operated as a hydraulic
elevator which lowered them into a huge vat
filled with water. They were electrocuted by
current through the water.”34
Dr. van Pelt can’t rationalize this one away.
Contrary to what he claims, here we have “eyewitnesses”
who “actually escaped a mass electrocution” and
lived to tell the story to another escapee of an
alleged atrocity, who then in turn gave a “precise
description” of the electrocution machinery at Belzec
to the world. This shows that pro-Allied media sources
in the US were in fact promoting invented atrocity
lies.
And there is more. Consider this “eyewitness”
account about the “electrocution chambers” at Belzec,
which was published in the “authoritative”
The Black Book: The Nazi Crimes Against the Jewish
People:
“The Belzec camp is built underground. It is
an electric crematorium. There are two halls
in the underground buildings. People were taken
out of the railway cars into the first hall.
Then they were led naked into the second hall.
Here the floor resembled an enormous plate.
When the crowd of men stood on it, the floor
sank deep into a pool of water. The moment the
men sank up to their necks, a powerful electric
current of millions of volts was passed through,
killing them all at once. The floor then rose
again, and a second electric current was passed
through the bodies, burning them until nothing
was left of the victims save a few ashes.”35
Keep in mind this is based upon an “eyewitness”
(or “eyewitnesses”) who “saw these mass electrocutions
with his (their) own two eyes.”
In order to “prove” the existence of “gas chambers,”
throughout the entire book van Pelt relies upon
a convergence of evidence—an ensemble of evidence
that supposedly points to only one conclusion. Namely,
the gas chambers existed. Here, I have shown a convergence
of evidence—one United Nations report and some eyewitness
accounts—that points to the false conclusion that
murders by electrocution occurred at Belzec.
Dr. van Pelt admits that the evidence to “prove”
that Jews were murdered en masse with diesel
exhaust at Belzec is sparse at best:
“The evidence [that Jews were murdered in gas
chambers at Belzec] is much less abundant [than
the evidence that Jews were murdered in gas
chambers at Auschwitz]. There are few eyewitnesses,
no confession that can compare to that given
by [Auschwitz commandant Rudolf] Hoss, no significant
remains, and few archival sources.”36
Since the “evidence” used to prove that Jews
were murdered en masse by electrocution devices
at Belzec is not really qualitatively different
from the “evidence” used to “prove” that Jews were
murdered in gas chambers at Belzec; and since the
“evidence” for mass murder by electrocution leads
to a false conclusion, isn’t it also possible that
the “evidence” for mass killings of Jews in gas
chambers at Belzec also leads to a false conclusion?
Holocaust historian van Pelt claims the “evidence”
leads one to the “moral certainty” that Jews were
murdered en masse in gas chambers at Belzec.37 In
light of what was pointed out in this essay, this
is a false conclusion.
Finally, in his book I can find no reference
to the fact that Nazi atrocity stories (real and
mythical) were used by Zionists during WWII to gain
sympathy for the cause of creating a Jewish state
in Palestine. At a mass rally in Madison Square
Garden in March 1943, the Zionist activist and first
president of Israel, Chaim Weizmann, was quoted
as saying:
“Two million Jews have already been exterminated…The
democracies have a clear duty before them…Let
them negotiate with Germany through the neutral
countries concerning the possible release of
the Jews in the occupied countries…Let the gates
of Palestine be opened to all who can reach
the shores of the Jewish homeland…”38
As van Pelt probably realizes but would not dare
publicly admit, the seeds of the current Middle
East crisis were nourished by the endless repetition
of these Nazi atrocity stories by pro-Zionist groups
and governments. There is a lesson in all of this
that we should consider. With war once again looming
upon the horizon in the Middle East, we are justified
in looking with skepticism upon the “official reasons”
given by the US government and mass media that are
used to “justify” the current proposed war plans.
Notes
1. Robert Jan van Pelt, THE CASE FOR AUSCHWITZ:
EVIDENCE FROM THE IRVING TRIAL (Indiana University
Press, 2002).
2. Online:
http://www.codoh.com/revisionist/review/tr12vanpelt.html
3. Robert Jan van Pelt, p.134.
4. Ibid, p.130.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid, p.134.
9. Ibid, p.131.
10. Ibid, pp.132-133.
11. Ibid, p.156.
12. TIME, August 21, 1944, p.36.
I am indebted to my good friend Terry Dumke for
bringing this issue of TIME to my attention.
13. Robert Jan van Pelt, p.157.
14. TIME, August 21, 1944, p.36.
15. Robert Jan van Pelt, p.131.
16. Mark Weber, “Jewish Soap,” The Journal
of Historical Review, Summer 1991, pp.217-227.
Online:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p217_Weber.html
17. Weber, p.217; Raul Hilberg, The Destruction
of the European Jews (New York: 1985), pp.966-967;
Walter Laquer, The Terrible Secret
(Boston: 1980), pp.54, 82, 145, 219; U.S. State
Department document 740.001.16 (from 1943), facsimile
in Encyclopedia Judaica (New York and Jerusalem:
1971), vol.13, pp.759-760; Bernard Wasserstein,
Britain and the Jews of Europe (London: 1979), p.169.
18. Weber, p.217. Online:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p217_Weber.html
19. Secret U.S. Army military intelligence report
No.50, April 27, 1945. National Archives, National
Records Center (Suitland, Maryland), RG 153 (JAG
Army), Box 497, Files 19-22, Books I and II, Entry
143.
20. “Wise Says Hitler Had Ordered 4,000, 000
million Jews Slain in 1942,” New York Herald-Tribune
(Associated Press), Nov. 25, 1942. pp.1, 5.; “2
Million Jews Slain by Nazis, Dr. Wise Avers,”
Chicago Daily Tribune, Nov. 25, 1942.;
New York Times, Nov.26, 1942, p.16.;
See also: Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of
the European Jews (1985), p.1118.
21. “The Spirit Will Triumph” (editorial), and
“Corpses for Hitler,” p.11, Congress Weekly
(New York: American Jewish Congress), Dec.
4, 1942.
22. New Republic, Jan.18, 1943,
p.65.
23. International Military Tribunal, Trial of
the Major War Criminals Before the International
Military Tribunal (IMT “blue series,” Nuremberg:
1947-1949, vol. 1, p.252. Facsimile reprint in:
Carlos Porter, Made in Russia: The Holocaust
(Historical Review Press, 1988), p.159.
24. Robert Jan van Pelt, p.134.
25. For the list of such people and groups with
appropriate documentation, see Weber, pp.219-222.
26. Ibid, p.223.
27. Ibid, pp.222-223.
28. Raul Hilberg, THE DESTRUCTION OF THE
EUROPEAN JEWS: Student Edition (Holmes and
Meier, 1985), p.229.
29. Robert Jan van Pelt, p.134.
30. THE NEW YORK TIMES, December
20, 1942, p.23.
31. Robert Jan van Pelt, p.145.
32. Ibid, p.145.
33. Ibid.
34. THE NEW YORK TIMES, February
12, 1944, p.6.
35. THE BLACK BOOK: THE NAZI CRIMES AGAINST
THE JEWISH PEOPLE (Nexus Press, 1974), p.313.
This edition is a reprint of the 1946 edition.
36. Robert Jan van Pelt, p.5.
37. Ibid.
38. THE NEW YORK TIMES, March 2,
1943, pp.1, 4.
|