On 22-Jul-2000, Lubomyr Prytulak wrote:|
To the editor:
Re: Jonathan Kay, "The Holocaust for Dummies," National Post, 22-Jul-2000, p. B8, reviewing Shermer and Grobman's book, "Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?"
The answer to the above question is that nobody denies the Holocaust. The evidence that the Germans particularly targetted Jews and succeeded in killing large numbers of them is indubitable. What so-called "Holocaust deniers" do deny is the truth of many of the Holocaust stories currently in circulation. Why do they do so? Because the evidence demands it. Consider the case of Treblinka, where 870,000 victims, mostly Jews, are said to have been killed.
At the trial of John Demjanjuk in Jerusalem beginning in February 1987 (which is where my interest in Treblinka originates) the first prosecution witness to take the stand was expert Yitzhak Arad, a Holocaust survivor himself, at that time head of Israel's Yad Vashem for the previous fifteen years, just finished writing his book, "Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka" — in short, the world's leading authority on Treblinka. Yitzhak Arad's testimony is a matter of public record, and my synopsis of it readily verifiable. Arad testified that of the 870,000 Treblinka bodies, not a single one had ever been found. Not a single bone fragment, not a single tooth, not a single tuft of hair. Not a single photograph of Treblinka taken either from the ground, or by Allied or Soviet reconnaissance from the air, not a single photograph of any building in Treblinka. No map of Treblinka. No blueprint of any Treblinka building. No evidence of ground disturbance where the vast burial pits were supposed to have been. No detectable remains of the Treblinka buildings or infrastructure.
Yitzhak Arad testified that the Germans burned the disinterred 870,000 bodies in outdoor fires, but did not explain what motive they would have had for doing so. That number of bodies is highly inculpatory, it is true, but at a conservative estimate of ten pounds of unburned bone, teeth, and ash left by each body, then 8.7 million pounds of human remains are equally inculpatory. If 870,000 human bodies are impossible to hide, so is a mountain of 8.7 million pounds of human remains impossible to hide. Why cut down entire forests to obtain the fuel to burn the bodies, when such burning brings no benefit? And where were those entire forests that were cut down? Where is the evidence of the tens of thousands of boxcar loads of wood that would have had to be brought to Treblinka to feed those fires?
So, then, here is at least one Holocaust story which does not quite ring true, and it is not the Holocaust story of a lone individual of questionable expertise, it is the Holocaust story backed by Yad Vashem and by the State of Israel. And it gets worse than that — according to the testimony of Yitzhak Arad, the death camps Belzec and Sobibor share with Treblinka the characteristic of having left behind not the least shred of forensic evidence.
What evidence of any kind is there for the existence of Treblinka, Sobibor, or Belzec? Yitzhak Arad testifies that there is only survivor testimony. But when we read that survivor testimony for ourselves, we find that it lacks credibility. To restrict our attention to the most prominent and most relied-upon Treblinka survivor — Jankiel Wiernik — and to a very few of the particulars of his story that lack credibility, we might mention the following: Wiernik stated that while escaping from Treblinka, he was shot in the shoulder by a pursuing guard who was just behind him, and that the bullet penetrated all his clothing, but stopped at his skin "leaving only a scratch." Wiernik stated that he saw a naked Jewish girl leap over a three-meter high barbed wire fence, then wrench the rifle out of the hands of a pursuing guard, and then shoot two other guards before she was overpowered. Wiernik stated that when gassing victims were buried without being given a chance to cool off first, "when the graves were opened on a scorchingly hot day, steam belched forth from them as if from a boiler." Wiernik stated that "the Germans threw some burning object into one of the opened graves just to see what would happen. Clouds of black smoke began to pour out at once and the fire thus started glimmered all day long." Wiernik stated that arms and legs would fall off bodies being dragged from gas chambers to burial pits if the dragging was delayed by a few days. Wiernik stated that whenever an airplane was heard overhead, the thousands of victims being piled up for cremation were concealed from view by covering them with foliage. Unfortunately for the Treblinka story, removing Wiernik from the list of credible survivors leaves no one of comparable stature to take his place.
And it is not merely that holes can be poked in the expert testimony of Yitzhak Arad or in the recollections of pre-eminent Treblinka survivor Jankiel Wiernik — in fact, most prominent Holocaust testimonies lack credibility. For example, who has a higher standing among Holocaust survivors than Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, and yet reading his autobiographical publications reveals that his recollections of Auschwitz feature as the method of execution not gas chambers as one would expect, but rather leaping into pits of fire. According to Wiesel, although the Germans were on the verge of murdering him the way they were murdering all the Jews at Auschwitz, they nevertheless allocated scarce resources to him — the use of a German surgeon and a German anesthetist, together with a week's stay in hospital, together with rations so generous that he was sending out leftovers to his father who was not in the Auschwitz hospital. Unfortunately, Wiesel cannot keep straight from one telling of the story to the next whether the genocidal Germans operated on the sole of his foot or on his knee. When offered the choice of accompanying the genocidal Germans as they abandoned Auschwitz, or remaining to be liberated by the approaching Soviets, Wiesel chose to accompany the genocidal Germans, and as he remains alive to this day, we may conclude that his trust was not misplaced.
I have brought my concerns to the attention of Yitzhak Arad in a series of nine letters, dated 05-Mar-1999 to 04-Nov-1999, but have received no reply. I have brought my concerns to the attention of Elie Wiesel in a series of eight letters dated 20-Dec-1994 to 23-Jun-1999, without having any of my substantive questions answered.
In short, my experience pushes me toward the conclusion that the real and tragic history of the Jewish Holocaust has been hijacked by Holocaust fabulists who have perverted it beyond recognition. Concerning Treblinka, the best bet is that horrible atrocities were committed there, but that the Holocaust fabulists have hyperbolized them to such a degree that they are forced today to claim that nothing is known of Treblinka rather than risk an investigation by means of which their hyperbolization would be discovered. The fabulists, then, are the enemies of truth, of history, of a genuine understanding of the Holocaust, of the Jewish people. I see no escape from agreeing with Israeli journalist Akiva Orr that the two greatest calamities to befall the Jewish people during the twentieth century were first the Holocaust, and second the false stories circulated about the Holocaust. Orr spoke of these false stories as a cancer for the Jewish people and for the State of Israel.
It is time that the National Post stopped feeding this cancer. It is time that the National Post began distinguishing between the interests of the Jewish people and the interests of the fabulists who are parasitizing the Jewish people. It is time that the National Post acknowledged that the predominant form of Holocaust denial in existence today is that practised by the Holocaust fabulists who deny the reality of the Holocaust and substitute in its place their own career-advancing fantasy.
Lubomyr Prytulak, Ph.D.
On 25-Jul-2000, Lubomyr Prytulak wrote:|
[email protected], [email protected]
I have provided you with strong reasons why the National Post should revise its position on the topic of Holocaust denial. Furthermore, I have shown you but the tip of the iceberg — I can cite ten times the amount of Holocaust disinformation that is currently in circulation than I did cite [above].
So, what is going to be the National Post's response? Is it going to be the response of a newspaper that is interested in winning Canadian readers by telling the truth at no matter what cost to political correctness, or is it going to be the response of a newspaper that is attempting to win readers by clinging to political correctness at no matter what cost to truth? Are you going to back the Jewish people, or do you prefer to back those who parasitize the Jewish people? Is your loyalty going to be to those who really suffered and really died, or to those who have built grand careers describing imaginary suffering and imaginary death? Do you care nothing for the destructive effect on Jewish credibility of continuing to propagate the lie of a handful of Jews for which the world will ultimately blame all Jews?
On 27-Jul-2000, Lubomyr Prytulak wrote:|
[email protected], [email protected]
Your silence leaves the impression that when you addressed the Canadian public on the subject of the Jewish holocaust, you wandered beyond your depth, and when a few facts were placed in front of you, you froze in terror.
Can you find nothing at all to say? Are you content to place the National Post on the side of the big lie, even though you know it to be untrue?
On 28-Jul-2000, Jonathan Kay wrote:|
If I have not convinced you, then I guess I have not done a good job of describing the book "Denying History." If you get a chance, please read it.
On 28-Jul-2000, Lubomyr Prytulak wrote:|
[email protected], [email protected]
It seems to me that you are side-stepping the issue.
The proposition that I have put before you is that most Holocaust stories are fabrications. I thought that I had demonstrated this convincingly in the cases of leading Jewish-holocaust authority Yitzhak Arad, leading Treblinka survivor Jankiel Wiernik, and leading Jewish-holocaust exponent Elie Wiesel. I am surprised that you express no interest in this evidence. It reflects poorly on the objectivity and impartiality of the National Post.
As I said [above], Arad, Wiernik, and Wiesel are just the tip of the iceberg. Allow me to show you more of that iceberg right now. Morley Safer and Simon Wiesenthal claimed before 30 million 60 Minutes viewers that in the few days prior to the German occupation of Lviv, Ukrainians in that city killed some five to six thousand Jews in what would have been the single biggest pogrom of WW II. I call this the Safer-Wiesenthal Calumny because there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate it in the historical record. I have written to pre-eminent Jewish-holocaust historian Raul Hilberg to see if he had any knowledge of this record-breaking pre-German Lviv pogrom, and he did not. Of course I have asked Safer and Wiesenthal on more than one occasion for substantiation of their story, but they have failed to provide any. Is this not yet another instance of Jewish-holocaust fabrication? Is the Safer-Wiesenthal Calumny not worth opposing on the pages of the National Post? If an audience of 30 million had been told that Jews had killed five to six thousand Palestinians in a single pogrom, and the accusation could not be supported by any evidence, would the National Post not leap forward to challenge the veracity of the story? Are you not personally concerned that irresponsible Jews are lowering Jewish credibility by broadcasting falsehoods?
A book such as Shermer and Grobman's which ignores the lack of credibility of the stories told by Arad, Wiernik, Wiesel, Safer, and Wiesenthal — and many others — is not worth reading. The world is deluged with this sort of Jewish-holocaust disinformation. I have seen a great deal of it, and I feel no need to see more.
I leave you with two further questions: Is the Jewish holocaust a question of faith, or of evidence? Is the National Post in the business of spreading faith, or of discussing evidence? Publishing my letter of 22-Jul-2000 [above] would suggest the latter.