Saturday, April 26, 2008

Response to defamations following e-mail to David Irving

Here are my mail to the renown Shoa expert Professor Randolph L. Braham and his statement.




Mail to Professor Braham:
From: Shraga Elam
To: R._Braham
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:55 PM
Dear Prof. Braham,
I want to ask you a big favor which I hope will not cause you too much trouble. It would help me a lot. I need a statement, a kind of short Gutachten from you that I can use in a court suit.
You might know that I have been defamed again and again because I “dared” to write ONCE to the Holocaust denier David Irving. My aim was to try to convince him to stop denying the gassing of the Jews. I assumed that the main reason for his denial was because no written order by Hitler (Führerbefehl) for the gassing has ever been found, and as far as I know there is no proof that Hitler was even informed about the gassing (see e.g. the incident of the Korherr report that Himmler prevented Hitler's being informed about the industrial murder of Jews - http://www.ns-archiv.de/verfolgung/korherr/himmler-sipo.php +
The view that extermination on an industrial scale was impossible without Hitler's approval is common, albeit wrong, and has led some lunatics to conclude that there could not possibly have been any systematic murdering. I suspected that this line of reasoning was behind Irving’s transformation from a brilliant researcher (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E3D6153AF935A15755C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print)
into a Holocuast denier, and that I could convince him to abandon his hallucinatory theory if I provided him with a plausible alternative explanation for the lack of a “Führerbefehl.”
From my book “Hitlers Fälscher,” you might remember that I believe that behind the Jewish annihilation was a satanic blackmail plan of Himmler's. Many historians accept that Himmler tried to topple Hitler in 1944, and that he tried to use Hungary's Jews as bargaining chips to force the allies to negotiate a “Sonderfrieden” with him. I believe that the Europaplan from 1942 was for real and was part of the same scheme. Himmler would have had no problem convincing his subordinates that there was a “Führerbefehl.” They would not have needed to see it in writing. Hitler‘s position on the Jews was well known, so it was very possible that he ordered their extermination. My theory may be mistaken, but there is nothing morally wrong with it, as I’m not trying to whitewash Hitler. He was a criminal whether or not he authorized the gas chambers at Auschwitz. My grandparents were murdered by the Nazis before Auschwitz was founded.
On this background I wrote a short private e-mail to Irving on 15. April 2000. The letter was very condensed as it was not addressed to the broad public but to an expert acquainted with the issues. Not many people are aware of the fact that Irving is considered by several serious historians to be a brilliant researcher; only his denial stuff is rejected. Not many people are aware of the New York Times article from, June 26, 1999, Taking a Holocaust Skeptic Seriously By D.D. GUTTENPLAN,(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E3D6153AF935A15755C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print)
Irving replied to me in a friendly way, but he also published my e-mail without my permission, and I broke off contact with him. To be honest, in a way I regret not trying to continue the dialogue, but then I got the impression that he was crazier than I had thought and his publishing my e-mail was very irritating. Of course my private e-mail to him contained many statements to upset the uninformed. As I said, it was not meant for the broad public. Unhappily, since then my letter has been held against me again and again by people not acquainted with the issues. Finally, I decided to sue a well-known Jewish-German journalist, Henryk M. Broder, who wrote a defamatory article about me, accusing me of being Irving's friend and supporter.
Broder wrote:
Henryk M. Broder26.12.2006 03:33
Schwer vorzustellen, dass es irgendwo in Alabama ein paar Afro-Amerikaner geben könnte, die sich beim Ku-Klux-Klan anbiedern. Oder Sinti und Roma, die einen Leni-Riefenstahl-Fanklub gründen. Aber Juden, die mit Antisemiten und Nazis sympathisieren, die gibt es. Und zwar nicht erst seit ein paar Meschuggene nach Teheran gefahren sind, um sich dort mit Präsident Ahmadinedschad fotografieren zu lassen. 1933 wurde im Dritten Reich der „Deutsche Vortrupp – Gefolgschaft deutscher Juden“ gegründet, der sich aus jungen Menschen der Jugendbewegung zusammensetzte, die in der Hitlerjugend nicht gleichschaltbar waren. Soll heißen: Die draußen bleiben mußten obwohl sie gerne mitgemacht hätten, wenn die Nazis es ihnen erlaubt hätten. Zwei Jahre später, 1935, löste sich die koschere HJ-Truppe wieder auf. War es damals der tragikomische Wunsch, auf der richtigen Seite zu stehen, um verschont zu werden, so ist heute ein pathologischer Haß auf israel (und alles, was mit Israel zu tun hat) das treibende Motiv. Gibt man bei GOOGLE “Jews who hate Israel” ein, bekommt man 1.74o.ooo Einträge, darunter etliche sehr anschauliche Beispiele für das, was der k.u.k-Satiriker Alexander Roda Roda mit dem Satz gemeint hat: “Aus dem Antisemitismus könnte schon was werden, wenn sich nur die Juden seiner annehmen würden.” Deswegen hat heute jeder arische Antisemit ein paar jüdische Freunde, auf er sich gerne beruft und die er zum Beweis seiner eigenen Unschuld zitiert.
Sogar David Irving, der bekannteste europäische Antisemit und Holocaust-Leugner, hat jüdische Freunde - wenigstens einen. Es ist Shraga Elam, der am linken Limmat-Ufer weltberühmte “Friedensaktivist” und “Recherchierjournalist”.
Elam schreibt gerne Briefe. Unmittelbar nachdem Irving von einem Londonder Gericht als Judenhasser und Geschichtsfälscher abgeurteilt wurde, bekam er eine mail von Elam, die er gleich online stellte:
A Swiss Israeli journalist Shraga Elam writes:
I find it a real pity that a brilliant researcher like yourself got mixed up with this stuff of the so called “Auschwitz-denial,” because I agree with you completely that Hitler was no part of the project Auschwitz.
According to my theory, it was even part of a plan of Himmler against Hitler, just as is quiet good proven [sic] in the case of the destruction of the Hungarian Jewry in 1944.
I share generally your scepticism towards oral History and the manipulations of the priests of the “Holocaust-Religion,” still all the “proofs” against the gas chambers in Auschwitz are not convincing at all.
I reply:
Fascinating. Let us correspond more, particularly when the heat of the present ugliness is vorbei. In [sic] understand that you are an Israeli journalist? Some of my best friends are…
Fascinating, indeed, wie ein jüdischer Friedensaktivist sich als Proktologe bei einem Berufsantisemiten anschleimt: Hitler hatte vom “Projekt Auschwitz” keine Ahnung, Die Beweise für die Gaskammern in Auschwitz sind “nicht überzeugend”. Die Vernichtung der Juden war ein Komplott, das sich Himmler ausgedacht hatte - nicht gegen die Juden, sondern gegen Hitler. So weit, so gut. Noch besser ist nur Irvings Replik: “Some of my best friends are...”
Das also ist der große “Recherchierjournalist”, der bei jedem Anti-Israel-Auflauf dabei ist, sehr zur Freude seiner besten Freunde, die sich auf ihn berufen und ihn zitieren. Ein Psycho kommt selten allein. Derweil wartet David wieder auf Post von Shraga. Er hätte ihm wenigstens zur vorzeitigen Haftentlassung und der Heimkehr nach London gratulieren können. So was ist man doch einem Freund schuldig. Auch als “Friedensaktivist” und “Recherchierjournalist”, der am liebsten auf einem weißen Schimmel durch Auschwitz reitet und Beweise für ein Komplott von Himmler gegen Hitler sammelt.
Broder obviously has a problem with English. For example, in court he translated “Stuff like” as „Material“ and not es Zeug, Kram or Tinnef, which one can find even in an Internet dictionary (http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de/dings.cgi?lang=de&service=en-de&opterrors=0&optpro=0&query=Stuff&iservice=&comment=).
The correct translation into German is for me:
Wie schade, dass ein brillanter Forscher wie Sie mit diesem Krempel (Kram, Zeug - im Original “stuff“) der sogenannten “Auschwitz-Leugnerei“ in Verbindung geraten ist. Denn ich bin völlig mit Ihnen einverstanden, dass Hitler nicht Teil des Auschwitz-Projekts war.
Gemäss meiner Theorie, war dieses [Auschwitz-Projekt] sogar Teil von Himmlers Plan gegen Hitler, wie es im Fall der Vernichtung der ungarischen Juden von 1944 gut belegt ist.
Ich teile zwar generell Ihre Skepsis gegenüber der Oral History und den Manipulationen durch die Priester der “Holocaust-Religion“. Dennoch sind alle “Beweise“ gegen die Gaskammern in Auschwitz absolut nicht überzeugend.
Irvings Antwort:
Faszinierend. Lassen Sie uns mehr korrespondieren, vor allem wenn die Hitze der gegenwärtigen Hässlichkeit vorbei [im Original] ist. Ich verstehe, dass Sie ein israelischer Journalist sind? Manche meiner besten Freunde sind…
For people like Broder, the term “Holocaust Religion” is Neo-Nazi code for the claim that the Judeocide is a total invention. For people like me, it is a term of protest against exploiting the tragedy of the Nazi Judeocide for political purposes.
Broder did not even bother to read my article in the Berner Zeitung which was published the same day that I sent the letter to Irving (http://www.arendt-erhard.de/deutsch/palestina/Stimmen_Israel_juedische/shraga_elam_auschwitzleugner_attacke_unglaeubiger.htm ). I don‘t suffer from schizophrenia and I was completely aware of my own article as I was writing the letter to Irving. The letter is more politely phrased as I wanted to win him over. The article contains a more detailed explanation of my position. Possibly some of the phrasing in my letter to Irving was not well chosen, and my English is far from perfect. But this is no reason to distort it totally to invent a friendship between me and Irving and to accuse me of Holocaust Denial.
I don’t expect you to support my Himmler theory. I have no problem if you reject it partially or even totally. A recent description of the theory can be found here:
What I ask of you, if you agree, is a short statement that I can tender to the court and eventually publish on my blog, saying that although you may not agree with my theory, it is tenable on the available evidence. Saying that my position, as reflected in my letter to Irving and in the Berner Zeitung’s article, is not to be equated with Holocaust Denial, would be perfect for me.
Many thanks in advance and happy Pessach
Shraga Elam
------

No comments:

Post a Comment