Deceit & Misrepresentation The Mayer Gambit
While Mayer's views are certainly controversial, as the
ADL
demonstrates, they in no way suggest denial. Nor, it must be
emphasized, does the ADL label him in in way, shape, or form as a Nazi,
antisemite, or Holocaust-denier.
Mayer is a true scholastic revisionist - he questions the
accepted version of Holocaust history with regard to the chronology of
decisions and motives of the actors, and suggests alternatives. He does
not, as those employing the "Mayer Gambit" suggest,
deny the event itself: the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews.
As the
ADL tells us, Mayer's revisionism consists of the fact that
he does not believe that the attempt was predetermined, but rather
a reaction to Nazi reversals during the Russian campaign. Mayer's
reaction to the attention he has received by those he calls the
"rejectionists" is provided by the ADL:
Mayer himself responded to this promotion of his work in the
October 15, 1989, issue of the Asbury Park Press, saying "the
rejectionists try to appropriate one or two sentences in a book
of 500 pages. And when you have friends like that, you don't
need any enemies. [They] poison the debate." [7]
For the denier, perhaps the most damning indictment of the
"Holocaust Myth" is this Mayer statement:
Obviously, they imply, since there are errors, contradictions, and
ambiguities, all evidence must be discarded.
What the denier doesn't want you to think about is the nature of
the errors, contradictions, and ambiguities.
One such contradiction is on the number of deaths. Since no
accurate record was kept of those selected for gassing immediately
on arrival at
Auschwitz, different people made different estimates.
The deniers would have you accept the assertion that the
conflicting estimates prove nothing is reliable - and therefore no
gassings occured!
Other errors or ambiguities might concern such trivial details
as the number of steps leading into a cellar, or the number of
doors in a particular room, but any police officer will tell you
that even witnesses to a simple traffic accidents can contradict
each other on such points.
Although all might agree that one driver
ran a red light at high speed, and caused the accident, they might
well disagree as to the color of his vehicle, or what might have
been said after the accident - they might, in fact, be completely
wrong with regard to all such details. The principles of denial
logic would, in such cases, demand that you conclude the driver who
ran the red light was not responsible, or that the accident did not
occur at all!
However, while the deniers invoking the Mayer Gambit would have you
believe that Mayer is at least skeptical of the entire gas chamber
claim, viewing his quotes in context makes it quite obvious that
this is completely untrue.
O'Keefe's review offers an interesting and damning example of
denial's contempt for the intelligence of its audience in the
sentences preceeding those quoted at the beginning of this section:
Another tactic (or failing) of Denying the Holocaust, is in
the matter, already adverted to, of omission -- omission of all
sorts of pertinent facts, arguments, writings, personages, and
attainments of Revisionist scholars. Lipstadt seems only half
aware of the compass of revisionist research and publication.
Her book contains no mention of such key Revisionist authors as
Wilhelm Stäglich,
Fritz Berg,
Carlo Mattogno and Enrique Aynat.[9]
Since Mr. O'Keefe has asserted that omission is a failing of
Lipstadt's work, we think it will be instructive to include Mayer's
comments as the closing portion of this article, complete and
within context. We leave it to the reader, when confronting the
Mayer Gambit, to decide who is committing a sin of ommission:
Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and
unreliable. Even though Hitler and the Nazis made no secret of
their war on the Jews, the SS operatives dutifully eliminated
all traces of their murderous activities and instruments. No
written orders for gassing have turned up thus far. The SS not
only destroyed most camp records, which were in any case
incomplete, but also razed nearly all killing and cremating
installations well before the arrival of Soviet troops.
Likewise, care was taken to dispose of the bones and ashes of
the victims.
Most of what is known is based on the deposition of Nazi
officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory
of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screend
carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of
great complexity. Diaries are rare, and so are authentic
documents about the making, transmission, and implementation of
the extermination policy. But additional evidence may still
come to light. Private journals and official papers are likely
to surface. Since
Auschwitz and
Majdanek, as well as the four
out-and-out killing centers, were liberated by the Red Army, the
Soviet archives may well yield significant clues and evidence
when they are opened. In addition, excavation at the killing
sites and in their immediate environs may also bring forth new
information.
In the meantime, there is no denying the many contradictions,
ambiguities, and errors in the existing sources. These cannot
be ignored, although it must be emphasized strongly that such
defects are altogether insufficient to put in question the use
of gas chambers in the mass murder of Jews at Auschwitz.
Much the same is true for the conflicting
estimates and extrapolations of the number of victims, since
there are no reliable statistics to work with. Just as the
fact of the Jewish ordeal at Auschwitz is not contingent on the
use of gas chambers, so the crime of gassing does not turn upon
the exact number of Jews gassed."[10] [Emphasis Nizkor's]
[
Previous |
Index| Notes ]
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
The Techniques of Holocaust Denial
"[T]here is no
denying the many contradictions, ambiguities, and errors in the
existing sources. These cannot be ignored...." [8]