Arthur R. Butz – The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century

Chapter 4:
Auschwitz
Structure of the Legend
We now consider the specific Auschwitz “extermination” story that we are offered.
The trials that generated the evidence on which the extermination claims are
based took place in a prostrate, starving Germany whose people were in no position
to do anything but that which the occupying powers wished. This was the political
reality of the situation. By the record, the “Zionist International” organized
the specific extermination claims that were made, which were given no credence
by high and knowledgeable Washington officials. The leading personality in setting
up the legal system of the war crimes trials was none other than the American
prosecutor at the IMT trial. At that trial the judges had previously expressed
themselves on the obvious guilt of the defendants, and the findings of the trial
were formal legal constraints on subsequent trials. The most important of the subsequent
trials were those organized by the arch-Zionist David Marcus, future hero
of Israel, and then head of the U.S. War Crimes Branch, an agency that had engaged
in torture of witnesses in connection with certain trials. The “honor” of the
states conducting the trials was committed to the thesis of extraordinary Nazi brutality.
Under such conditions it is difficult to see how one could fail to expect a
frame-up; this and the following chapter shows that the Auschwitz charges are
what one should expect.
It must first be asked: what is the essential attribute, the “trademark” of a hoax
on this scale No sane author of such a thing would present a story which is untrue
in every or in most details; ninety nine percent valid fact can be present in a
story whose major claim has no truth whatever to it and recognition of this leads
the author of the hoax to the maximally safe approach to his deed: distort the
meaning of valid facts.
This is the basic structure of the Auschwitz extermination legend. It is shown
here that every real fact contained in the story had (not could have had, but had) a
relatively routine significance, having nothing to do with exterminations of people.
Thus, those who claim extermination must advance a thesis involving a dual
interpretation of the facts, but by then the impartial reader, in consideration of
what has just been noted, should be on my side; the need for a dual interpretation
of fact, the trademark of the hoax, has emerged.
Another trademark, not so obvious at this point, will be suggested by the
analysis.
Also, facts which contradict the extermination claims will be noted, and for
129