Holocaust pressure groups shut down Japan's Marco Polo magazine

This special report provides background to the campaign by international Holocaust pressure groups to punish a major Japanese publisher for allowing an article questioning the Nazi gas chambers to appear in one of its magazines. The article, by physician Masanori Nishioka, appeared in the February 1995 issue of Marco Polo, a 250,000-circulation monthly aimed at Japanese males. Jewish-Zionist groups such as the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, instigated a boycott of Bungei Shunju advertisers, including Volkswagen, Mitsubishi, and Cartier. Within days, Bungei Shunju shut down Marco Polo. Soon thereafter, Marco Polo's successful and respected editor, Kazuyoshi Hanada, quit, as did the president of Bungei Shunju, Kengo Tanaka. (A full report can be found in an article in the March/April 1995 Journal of Historical Review.)

Throughout this controversy, the IHR played a key role in supplying material, information, and support for author Nishioka and other journalists.

Starting off this special report is a translation of the majority of the article that appeared in Marco Polo, including the introductory text by the publisher. Because of time constraints and language difficulties in translating from Japanese to English, the text shown here represents most, but not all, of the original article.

Following the translation is a sampling of press clippings that shows the world-wide uproar created by the appearance of this article. As you will see, for many weeks after the article's publication there was virtually no discussion of the substantive issues raised by Nishioka. Only much later, and only in the Japanese-language press, did some of Japan's monthly magazines attempt to respond on a factual basis.

As you will see, Nishioka's detractors accuse him of anti-Semitism, which shows that they either did not read his article or chose purposely to distort the truth. Nishioka is also accused of having written this article without having visited Auschwitz, which is also untrue, as evidenced by photos he took of Auschwitz (that appear in the original article), including one photo clearly showing that the "crematory chimney" at Auschwitz I is not connected to the "gas chamber" building.

As disappointing as it may seem to have "lost" such a battle in Japan, where it was hoped that there would be enough western influence to lend importance to the "Holocaust" issue, yet enough separation to allow the Japanese to be able to deal with the issue dispassionately, it is worth noting that the furor over this article is yet to be matched in the United States, where the media bombard the citizenry with "Holocaust"-related news and drama almost daily.

Weeks later, the Japanese media were still running articles about the Marco Polo controversy, and because of the extensive coverage, the English word "revisionism" has entered the Japanese language.

The following translation is offered as-is and without comment. The views expressed by Dr. Nishioka are not necessarily those of the Institute for Historical Review.

The Greatest Taboo of Postwar World History:
There Were No Nazi 'Gas Chambers'

by Masanori Nishioka

On January 27th, the Auschwitz concentration camp celebrates the 50th anniversary of its 'liberation.' However, here the greatest taboo of postwar history is hiding. In fact the 'Holocaust' -- the idea that Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis -- has begun to be the subject of serious doubt. There is no doubt that many Jews died tragically. Since the war, it has been shown that none of the concentration camps in the west had gas chambers. Only those in the East are now said to have had them. However, these gas chambers are not sealed properly. From a scientific point of view, the gas used could hardly have been adequate for large-scale killing. In fact, in Europe and the United States questions of this kind have generated considerable journalistic activity. Even a number of Jewish scholars themselves have doubts. Why is it that only Japan's mass media does not write about this problem? Astonishing history investigated single-handedly by a young physician!

The Jewish ritual sacrificial offering of a burnt animal was called a "holocaust." Later, after fearful stories that Nazi Germany had built gas chambers in concentration camps such as Auschwitz for systematic slaughter with poison gas followed by burning, the word was applied to "the Nazi slaughter of Jews." However, the theory that this Holocaust is a myth has now begun to spread like wildfire through Europe and America.

There is probably no one who would not be astonished to hear that this "poison gas slaughter," which has been talked about for nearly 50 years since the end of the war, is a fabrication. I myself was amazed when I first read this in English six years ago. I am only a doctor, but after stumbling upon this controversy by chance, I have sought out and read a variety of European and American materials on the subject. I have since reached the following convictions:

The "Holocaust" is a fabrication. There were no execution gas chambers in Auschwitz or in any other concentration camp. Today, what are displayed as "gas chambers" at the remains of the Auschwitz camp in Poland are a post-war fabrication by the Polish communist regime or by the Soviet Union, which controlled the country. Not once, neither at Auschwitz nor in any territory controlled by the Germans during the Second World War, was there "mass murder of Jews" in "gas chambers."

I will explain later the reasons for my convictions, but there are two things I would like to make clear. First, I have no intention of defending the Jewish policy pursued by Germany during the Second World War. Even if there was no "mass murder in gas chambers," it is a clear historical fact that Germany persecuted innocent Jews. I would like to make it clear that I am not someone who denies this.

Second, despite the rapidly growing number of people in America and Europe who doubt the story of the "Holocaust," Japanese newspapers and television do not report this -- effectively concealing this fact from the Japanese people. Recently there have been fragmentary reports on the controversy, but they have been accompanied by "commentary" to the effect that anyone who doubts the "Holocaust" is a "neo-Nazi" or on the "extreme right." The truth is completely different. Among those who doubt the "Holocaust" are many intellectuals and even Jews who take a clearly anti-Nazi position.

For example, Arno Mayer of Princeton University is a Jew who came to America as a child after being persecuted by Nazis. He is known even in Japan as a famous and highly respected historian. He is a "moderate," who does not go so far as to deny the existence of "gas chambers" themselves, but he has made the "surprising" claim that the majority of Jews were not killed in "gas chambers." This was reported in the June 15th, 1989 issue of the Japanese version of Newsweek.

A younger generation is represented by the Jewish-American video artist, David Cole. Despite his Jewishness, he has clearly stated that "the slaughter of Jews in gas chambers" is a myth. Some neo-Nazis probably do embrace "Holocaust denial" but it is worth noting that even a number of Jews have begun to say there was no "Holocaust."

In any case, you should forget everything that the Japanese newspapers and television are saying. Also, for the time being, forget "Schindler's List," since movies are not history.

I would like to tell you what really happened. I would like to summarize the conclusions of a variety of European and American investigations and discuss the evidence later. I think that readers will find this approach easier to understand.

  1. It is an undeniable fact that the Nazi regime engaged in unjust discrimination against Jews and persecuted them in a variety of ways. Also, after Germany plunged into war with the United States, persecution was stepped up against Jews within Germany proper and within the European nations controlled by Germany. All across Europe, a policy of confining Jews in concentration camps was initiated. On this point, the traditional accounts are largely correct.
  2. However, neither Hitler nor the Nazi leadership ever planned the "extermination" of Jews. The Nazi leadership's plan was to transfer the Jews from the concentration camps to "Eastern territories" within the Soviet Union after the war. They called this forcible resettlement plan the "final solution" (Endlösung) of the Jewish problem, and intended to implement it after defeating the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front.
  3. Concentration camps such as Auschwitz, which were built in Poland by Nazi Germany, were preliminary facilities for implementing the "final solution" of forcibly relocating the Jews after the Soviet Union was defeated and occupied. That is to say, the intention was to use the Jews in Auschwitz and other Polish concentration camps as a wartime labor force and then, after the war, forcibly to transfer the Jews to "Eastern territories" in such places as the Soviet Union. Consequently, "Jewish extermination" was never intended nor attempted by the German government: it would have been inconsistent with the government's plan.
  4. However, reverses on the Eastern Front made the "Jewish forcible transfer plan" unworkable. Moreover, in the confusion of the closing days of the war, sanitary conditions in the Jewish concentration camps deteriorated and there were explosive outbreaks of epidemics of diseases like typhus, in which many innocent Jews died.
  5. After the war, the Allies, who had photographed the bodies of Jews who had died of disease, claimed that these were the bodies of victims of "gas chambers."

Many readers will not readily believe this. That's natural. There is something wrong with someone who would believe it immediately. At first, I couldn't believe it myself. Like the reader, ever since I can remember, I have been taught over and over about those terrible "Auschwitz gas chambers" and until I happened by chance to learn the truth I had not once doubted the "mass murder in the gas chambers."

However, after learning that there is, in fact, a debate about the "Holocaust," I bought and read everything I could find on the subject, and reached the conclusion that the "Holocaust" is a myth.

Those who cast doubt on the Holocaust call themselves "Holocaust revisionists." I am just a doctor and did not major in history, but six years ago (1989) I learned by chance of revisionists and of their research, and I sent letters to a number of professors seeking their views. As a result, I learned that Japanese scholars, including professors at famous national universities, were utterly unable to refute revisionist claims. I could not help but wonder about the state of affairs within the Japanese academic community.

Also, in May of 1993 I got into a huge argument on the letters page of the English-language Mainichi Daily News, and that experience only confirmed my belief in the truth of revisionism.

Some alert readers may wonder if all "Holocaust revisionists" are "neo-Nazi" or individuals similar to that. There are groups among "neo-Nazis" who emphasize the fictitiousness of the "Holocaust." But "Holocaust revisionists" include individuals who are clearly anti-Nazi and Jews, in large number. It is, therefore, not accurate to categorize "Holocaust revisionists" as "neo-Nazis" or "anti-Semitic."

The best contradiction of this categorization is the fact that the historian who may well be called the first "Holocaust revisionist" was Paul Rassinier, a French university professor, who fought in the French resistance and was awarded a decoration by the French government after the war.

Rassinier was originally a geographer. His leftist politics led him to join the anti-Nazi resistance movement. He was, however, arrested by the Gestapo in Nazi-occupied France, and put in a concentration camp in western Germany. He even experienced the hardships of typhus in the closing days of the war.

Rassinier became the "founder" of "Holocaust revisionism" because although he had been interned in several concentration camps in western Germany due to his anti-Nazi activities during the war, he never saw a "gas chamber" in any of the camps.

To Rassinier's amazement, the Nuremberg Trial and the western media, however, began to say that "gas chambers" existed in those camps in Germany where Rassinier had been interned. So he began to point out that "there were no gas chambers in the concentration camps in Germany," his leftist politics notwithstanding.

The French mass-media, however, condemned him and ignored his testimony, although Rassinier had seen the German camps with his own eyes.

Rassinier continued to talk on this issue, to investigate. and to study Nazi camp policy as the whole. He died in 1960, his findings still widely ignored.

There were some who began to take up the question, "Did gas chambers really exist?" among them, some French intellectuals who were inspired by Rassinier, not by neo-Nazism.

Thus, "Holocaust revisionism" as an academic research was born not in Germany but in France after the Second World War. It is important that the first historian who threw doubt on "mass murder by gassing" had not been so-called "neo-Nazi" but a left-wing intellectual in France, who joined the resistance during the war and was even persecuted by the Nazis.

Today, we can see in the currently-accepted version of the "Holocaust" story responses to Rassinier's early work at correcting the historical record.

One such response is that Rassinier had been interned not in the Nazi concentration camps in Polish lands, such as Auschwitz or Majdanek, but camps in Germany. This was an extremely important point, as it represents an amazing alteration in the "official view." It happened in 1960, 15 years after the war ended, and effected the common-held view of all the concentration camps built within Germany's pre-war borders. This is a complex issue that deserves to be dealt with in detail.

Today, the so-called "accepted facts" about the "Holocaust" are as follows:

Nazi Germany built many camps in the German Reich and occupied Poland, and interned Jews, political criminals, gypsies, etc., in these camps. Such camps consisted of two types. One was the camps where Jews and others were simply interned and were forced to work, whereas the other were "extermination camps" where people were not only forced to work but also systematically killed in "gas chambers" found in the camps. The Auschwitz camp represents the latter category. Camps Nazis built within the pre-war borders of Germany were only the former type of camps that had no "gas chambers." "Extermination camps" with "gas chambers" were built only in occupied Poland, where six million Jews were systematically killed ...

Today's "accepted facts," however, are not the same as those publicized by the Allies right after the war. At that time, Allied occupational forces in Germany claimed that "gas chambers" had existed not only in such Polish camps as Auschwitz, but also in camps within the German Reich. In other words, immediately after the war, claims were made that were at variance with today's "accepted facts," which have themselves changed.

For example, there was a camp in a suburb of Munich called Dachau. The American forces, which liberated the camp in the closing period of the war, announced the discovery of a mass-murder "gas chamber" and released a photograph of it. It showed an American soldier staring at a black metal door. A warning in German is written on the door: Vorsicht! Gas! Lebensgefahr! Nicht öffnen! (Caution! Gas! Mortal danger! Do not open!) and there is even a death's head in white.

What sort of caption did the American forces supply for this photograph?

Gas chambers, conveniently located to the crematory, are examined by a soldier of the U.S. Seventh Army. These chambers were used by Nazi guards for killing prisoners of the infamous Dachau concentration camp.

Naturally, when a photograph of a metal door with a death's head and the word Gas! on it was released along with this "explanation," it was accepted as "fact" that there were mass-murder "gas chambers" at Dachau. And in fact, on the basis of survivor "eyewitness testimony" and this photograph released by the Americans, there was a time immediately after the war when the whole world believed that there were "gas chambers" at Dachau in which many Jews were killed.

However, it later became clear that the black door in the photograph was certainly the door of a "gas chamber" but not a gas chamber for killing people. The anticlimactic truth was that it was a gas chamber for disinfecting clothes contaminated by lice. In other words, in the closing days of the war, the sanitary conditions in the German concentration camps deteriorated markedly and outbreaks of eruptive typhus became a serious problem. As a countermeasure, the German military, which did not have DDT, used a hydrocyanic insecticide called Zyklon B to disinfect the clothes belonging to Jews and other camp inmates. (Several books have been written about this, including The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, by Arthur Butz (published by the Institute for Historical Review, 1976.)

It is no secret that a hydrocyanic insecticide called Zyklon B was manufactured, sold, and widely used in Germany to kill vermin, but according to "established fact," this Zyklon B was diverted for purposes of mass murder and was used to kill six million Jews.

I will explain later that it is impossible to use Zyklon B to kill people in large numbers. What I would like readers to understand at this point is the little-known fact that during and immediately after the war, the Americans and the British were conducting propaganda of this kind.

Does the reader recall the oil-drenched sea bird said to have been caught in the oil released by Iraq -- whose image was transmitted around the world during the Gulf War? That bird had nothing to do with "oil released by Iraq." It now clear that this was a phony image with a false caption that someone circulated for propaganda purposes, but that Gulf War bird was hardly the first case of media manipulation (see "Lies in Gulf Reports," by Aiji Kimura, Chobunsha Publishers, 1992). During the Second World War, it was not only Japan and Germany that strictly censored the news. American also had strict censorship of newspapers, magazines, radio, and movies. The Dachau trick photograph was possible because of that kind of censorship.

It is not just the "Dachau gas chamber." As the American and British forces advanced on Germany from the West and liberated concentration camps, a number of "gas chambers" were "discovered." These discoveries were reported and were spoken of for a time after the war. Why does no one talk about them anymore?

It happened on Aug. 26, 1960. Dr. Martin Broszat, a historian who was in a position to be a Second World War and "Holocaust" spokesman for the West German (Federal Republic) government, made a statement to the effect that the Nazis built "gas chambers" only in occupied Poland and that there were no "gas chambers" in Germany proper (Die Zeit, Aug. 26, 1960).

Dr. Broszat was head of the West German government's Institute for Contemporary History in Munich, which until that time had announced a great many "proofs" of the existence of "gas chambers," and was recognized as the organization that reflected the German government point of view on historical matters. It was Dr. Broszat himself, head of the Institute for Contemporary History, who suddenly denied the existence of what had been "fact" until the day before: "gas chambers" in Germany proper, in such places as Dachau and Buchenwald.

From that day forward, the "truth" of the "Holocaust" was "revised," and the "Dachau gas chamber" and the "Buchenwald gas chamber," which had "existed" until the day before, suddenly ceased to exist.

However, in his declaration, Dr. Broszat did not offer a single reason to explain this "revision of the truth."

Thus it is that the "accepted facts" we are taught today were "confirmed," but upon reflection this was nothing short of the complete acceptance -- at least for Germany proper -- of the claims made by Rassinier.

After Broszat's declaration the "accepted fact" was established throughout the world that Nazi "gas chambers" were built only in Poland, and in 1975 even the famous Jewish activist and Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal made a declaration confirming that there were no "gas chambers" in Germany proper.

Immediately after the war there was eyewitness "testimony" about the "Buchenwald gas chamber." There was eyewitness "testimony" about the "Dachau gas chamber." This testimony was even submitted to the Nuremberg tribunal, but if this "testimony" was truthful why did the people who supported the "accepted facts" withdraw their claims about "gas chambers" at Dachau and Buchenwald? There is only one answer.

It is because every bit of the "proof" and "testimony" that they had produced was false. Disturbing as it may be, this is the truth.

[ ... translation not available ...]

A woman named Maria Vanherwaarden was one of the people interned at Auschwitz. She is utterly unknown, but testimony she gave in Toronto in March 1988 is particularly interesting.

In 1942, she was interned in Auschwitz and in its neighboring concentration camp, Birkenau, but on the train to the camps, she was told by a gypsy woman that they would all be killed in "gas chambers." Naturally, she was very much afraid because of what she had heard from the Gypsy.

What is particularly interesting is what came later. According to her testimony, when they arrived at Auschwitz they were ordered to remove their clothes. She says they were then ordered into a windowless concrete room and told to take a shower. At this point the woman was in the greatest fear. This was because she had been told, by the Gypsy woman on the train that they would be killed in a "gas chamber." But what emerged from the showers above the woman's head was not gas but water.

What is one to make of this testimony? There is much similar testimony. For a half century following the end of the war it has been systematically ignored by those who claim the "gas chambers" existed. Testimony is nothing more than testimony. However, when there is contrary testimony with respect to something, is it fair not even to study or verify it, to cite "testimony" from only one side and not even consider the other side?

The interesting part of Vanherwaarden's testimony is the problem of where the Gypsy woman heard rumors about "gas chambers." There is now no way to know, but in this connection, the American historian Mark Weber has pointed out in "Myths and Truths About Auschwitz" that during the war, the Allies deliberately spread rumors about "gas chambers" in German-occupied Europe through leafleting and radio broadcasts.

In other words, during the war, the story of "gas chambers" was used as propaganda for purposes of psychological warfare. The "Holocaust" is nothing more than the transformation, without verification, of wartime "gas chambers" stories into "history."

It is an incontestable fact that in concentration camps such as Auschwitz there were outbreaks of typhus at the end of the war and many people died. The people who say there was a "Holocaust" do not dispute this point.

There is complete consistency between the records of German military doctors who were in charge of maintaining health standards in the Jewish concentration camps built by the Nazis, and the reports by American and British doctors on the health conditions of the liberated concentration camps in the Western part of Germany. There are detailed accounts of the severity of the typhus outbreaks in the concluding period of the war and immediately afterwards. There is simply no room for debate on this question (see, for example, J.E. Gordon, and others).

The question is how the Germans responded to these conditions. The German authorities wanted to keep the Jews as wartime labor and no evidence can be found that they deliberately let health conditions deteriorate.

For example, Heinrich Himmler who, within the German government was handling the Jewish problem, was concerned about the large number of Jewish deaths because of diseases like typhus, and even issued orders to the camp administrators to reduce the death rates. For example, an order sent to the Auschwitz camp on Dec. 28, 1942, from the overall concentration camp command reads as follows:

The camp doctors must supervise more often than in the past the nutrition of the prisoners and, in cooperation with the administration, submit improvement recommendations to the camp commandants.

These are not the words of Himmler himself, but this order refers to Himmler's own statement as follows:

... the death rate absolutely must be reduced.

Is this order compatible with the "genocide" about which we are told?

The German leaders probably issued orders like this at the time because Jewish labor was valuable. I do not think they were issued for "humanitarian" reasons.

Nevertheless, what one notices in the study of primary sources of this kind is that although the Nazi policy was barbaric, the image we have of the concentration camps from such things as "Schindler's List" is far removed from historical reality. Just as an example, in "Schindler's List," there is a shocking scene in which, one morning almost as a joke, a camp commander named Goeth shoots and kills a Jew from his veranda. This never happened.

How can we know? It is true that in concentration camps Jews and others could be given corporal punishment but permission had to be requested in advance, in writing. Moreover, that request had to be sent all the way to Berlin, and if this procedure were ignored German soldiers could be punished for violating military regulations.

These matters are discussed in Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, by Wilhelm Stäglich, who worked as a judge in West Germany after the war, and by the American historian, Theodore O'Keefe. There were even Germans who were punished with death.

So now do you understand? Even though the Nazi policy was unjust, there were Germans who were executed for mistreating Jews. If the German objective had been "extermination of the Jews," what need would there have been for punishment of this kind?

The oppression and discriminatory policies practiced by Nazi Germany against its Jewish citizens were clearly an affront to the principles of democracy, and everyone, including myself, would agree that its ultimate objective -- forcible relocation -- was unjust.

However, it is wrong therefore to insist that Germany did things it did not do, and it is clearly wrong to treat young, postwar Germans as perpetrators, and for governments to suppress discussion and investigation of the facts.

I was not able to go into the question in detail, but there is no basis whatsoever for the figure of six million victims. It has been pointed out that even at the height of German conquest there were not even four million Jews under German administration.

The Jews who lost their lives at Auschwitz and other concentration camps met a tragic fate. They were involuntarily sent to various concentration camps and in the confusion of the last stages of the war they died of diseases like typhus. The tragedy of their fate, like that of the Chinese who were persecuted by the Japanese army and like the victims of the atom bombs, are part of the greatest tragedy of our century and must not be forgotten by those of us living today. We who live in the present have no right to forget. But this means that there is an even greater need to seek out the truth and oppose falsehood.

I would like to dedicate this article to the souls of those Jews who, at Auschwitz and elsewhere, vanished like mist.