Palästina           Irak           Iran           Das neue Imperium              Honestly Concerned Kritik         "The "best" of Broder"           Islamophobie           Glaube          Links für Verständigung          Schreibe Gegen Gewalt            Erhard Arendt

       

Das Palästina Portal -  Für einen gerechten  Frieden im Nahen Osten  -  einen freien + unabhängigen Palästinenserstaat - ein Israel in Grenzen

Das Palästina Portal

Israelische und
Jüdische Stimmen

ArchivTexte von
Shraga Elam


Zurück • Nach oben • Weiter
 

  



Shraga Elam response to defamations following e-mail to David Irving

 

 

Here is 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 +

 http://www.ns-archiv.de/verfolgung/korherr/korherr-begleitschreiben.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: http://web.archive.org/web/20070104221554/http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/e/

 Die Achse des Guten: Ein Freund, ein guter Freund… Schräg, schräger, Shraga

 

 

Shraga Elam: 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:

http://www.arendt-art.de/deutsch/palestina/Stimmen_Israel_juedische/shraga_elam_ss_vernichtungsplaene_gegen_juden_palaestina.htm .

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shraga Elam

My e-mail to David Irving from 15. April 2000:

 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.

 

 

 

oben
 

Mail           Links           Suchen            Kontakt            Vita             Impressum           Haftungsausschluss           Translate           englisch home             deutsch home