Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Pretty weak if you ask me. They never really factually answer.
Its really laughable!
[Edited by Webmaster]
The Institute for Historical Review publicly offered a reward of $50,000 for verifiable "proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz." This reward was subsequently paid to an Auschwitz survivor who took the IHR to court.
Does anyone have any other information regarding this?
Professor Wolfgang Benz, the Anti-Anti-Semite
Wolfgang Benz is Professor of Studies in Anti-Semitism at the Technical University of Berlin. At several points in his chapter "'Revisionismus' in Deutschland" ["'Revisionism' in Germany"] he resorts to negligent or even deliberate disinformation. On p. 43, for example, he mentions that the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) , having offered a reward of $50,000 for proof of the existence of the National Socialist execution gas chambers, had been sentenced to paying the Auschwitz survivor Mel Mermelstein this sum as well as an additional $40,000 in damages. As proof he cites a book by Deborah E. Lipstadt, whose information is not, however, on pages 190ff., as Benz cites, but on pages 170ff. Mrs. Lipstadt writes (p. 174):
"Even before the Main Hearing, in the course of the various preliminary discussions, Judge Thomas T. Johnson ruled that the fact that Jews were gassed in Auschwitz would be judicially noticed; this 'is not reasonable subject to dispute', but 'is simply a fact'."
Benz suggests that the judicial notice which the American court took of the gas chambers permits the conclusion that these proceedings scientifically proved the existence of execution gas chambers, but in doing so he also misrepresents the facts as they are set out by Mrs. Lipstadt. In fact, after the Court's ruling the IHR's lawyers gave in without any presentation of evidence, hoping to avert greater financial loss.
Since the IHR again attacked Mel Mermelstein after this trial in another publication, he again sued the IHR, this time for 11 million dollars in damages. In the course of the 1991 trial the IHR was able to show with a great deal of evidence that Mermelstein was in fact a liar, so that this time it was Mermelstein who had to give in (September 19, 1991), which prompted a fairly strong media response at the time. Mermelstein's appeal was refused on October 28, 1991. This should suffice to demonstrate the value of any evidence submitted by Mermelstein in the capacity of survivor of the Auschwitz gas chambers. Benz does not mention this devastating defeat of Mermelstein's. Clearly Benz, though he pretends to work in an academically sound fashion, is not familiar with the primary sources, because otherwise the press reports of the time or the detailed accounts by the Institute for Historical Review would have made him more circumspect. Or perhaps he is aware of these sources, but deliberately keeps them from his readers. Benz only cites D. E. Lipstadt, who in turn, for whatever reasons, states incorrectly that the trial was still before the courts in May 1992. So it appears that Wolfgang Benz is not prepared to acknowledge his opponents' arguments; a clear sign of unscholarly work.
California Court Rejects Mermelstein's Appeal
In the latest round in the long-standing effort by Holocaust personality Mel Mermelstein to shut down the Institute for Historical Review, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Two) ruled on October 28, 1992, decisively in favor of the IHR and co-defendants.
The three judges -- Nott, Gates and Fukuto -- unanimously rejected Mermelstein's appeal of the dismissal, on September 19, 1991, by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Steven Lachs, of Mermelstein's complaint of malicious prosecution against IHR and its fellow defendants. (For more on the IHR's 1991 legal victory, see the IHR Newsletter, October 1991.)
Five days before its recent ruling, Mermelstein's lawyer had argued before the appeal court that Judge Lachs had erred in finding that the IHR and co-defant Willis Carto had probable cause to sue Mermelstein for libel.
However, IHR attorney William Hulsy's persuasive brief and oral arguments, as well as Judge Lachs' careful attention to the facts and the law in his decision to grant Hulsy's motions of non-suit and to dismiss Mermelstein's complaint, proved decisive. The ruling of the three appeals court judges was both unanimous and categorical.
As this issue of the Journal goes to press, Mermelstein still has an option or two remaining, including petitioning the California Supreme Court to review the appeals court's decision. But the weakness of Mermelstein's factual and legal arguments against Judge Lachs's 1991 ruling, and the clear disfavor in which malicious prosecution complaints are held by the judiciary, make any successful attempt by Mermelstein to salvage his case extremely unlikely.
So, while we have very reasonable grounds for optimism that the long, costly, and potentially ruinous legal struggle will in complete and final victory for the Institute, we'll wait to uncork the champagne until we receive the final word in the case.
"The film footage shown after the War was all specially manufactured as propaganda against the Nazis by the Allied forces; "
I dont think any Revisionist claims that !
Before the belated United States entry into World War Two, a series of movie shorts called Time Marches On was produced by Hollywood. They served their purpose too. A BBC television investigation ten years or so ago revealed that all of the scenes of Nazi brown shirts brutalizing Jews, forcing them to scrub pavements, etc., and of Japanese troops tossing Chinese children into the air on their bayonets, had been filmed with actors on the backlots of Hollywood.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests