World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Did Six Million Really Die?

Article Id: WHEBN0002149708
Reproduction Date:

Title: Did Six Million Really Die?  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Ernst Zündel, Holocaust denial, Leuchter report, Criticism of Holocaust denial, Did six million really die.jpg
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Did Six Million Really Die?

Did Six Million Really Die? by Richard Harwood (also known as Richard Verrall)

Did Six Million Really Die?[1] is a Holocaust denial pamphlet by British National Front member Richard Verrall, written under the pseudonym Richard E. Harwood and published by Ernst Zündel in 1974. The NF denied that Varrall was the author in a 1978 edition of World in Action.[2]

The pamphlet is significant because the Canadian government put Zündel on trial for publishing it. Zündel, in turn, hired Fred A. Leuchter to visit the Auschwitz and Majdanek concentration camps, to make the Leuchter report.[3] as part of Zündel's legal defense.[4]


  • The booklet 1
  • Supreme Court of Canada case 2
  • Royalties 3
  • International reactions 4
  • References 5

The booklet

In the work, Verrall doubts The Holocaust death toll, criticizing the claim which says that "no less than Six Million Jews exterminated" in concentration camps. The booklet targets various war crime trials, the best-known of these being the Nuremberg Trials and the Adolf Eichmann trial, criticizing their legal integrity and the standards of evidence presented, as well as the impartiality and objectivity of the judges.

Verrall also attempts to demonstrate in the book that censuses and population charts show that the European Jewish population figures do not allow for a figure of six million Jews to have been exterminated. He argues that the total Jewish population in Nazi-controlled Europe after emigrations and evacuations was "around three million".

He further argues that the scale of the Holocaust had been exaggerated by the Allies

  1. to hide their own guilt over such things as the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese cities, the air raids of predominantly civilian towns such as Dresden, and the Allies' own human-rights abuses
  2. and as a pretext for the establishment of the state of Israel, which he predicates on the commission of atrocities against the Palestinian population.

The booklet's aim is to argue that the history of the 'six million' holocaust is used to discourage any form of nationalism and is a danger to the preservation of the Anglo-Saxon race: "No one could have anything but admiration for the way in which the Jews have sought to preserve their race through so many centuries, and continue to do so today. In this effort they have frankly been assisted by the story of the Six Million, which, almost like a religious myth, has stressed the need for greater Jewish racial solidarity. Unfortunately, it has worked in quite the opposite way for all other peoples, rendering them impotent in the struggle for self-preservation."[5]

In writing his booklet, Verrall had used sources published in the 1950s and 1960s and most of the inaccuracies of his booklet were errors originally made by Paul Rassinier whose works Verrall had used extensively.[6]

Supreme Court of Canada case

The booklet was examined in two criminal trials in 1985 and 1988 in front of the Supreme Court of Canada, in order to decide if the publisher Zündel was guilty under the Criminal Code, section 181, of spreading false news. The 1988 trial judge concluded that the booklet "misrepresented the work of historians, misquoted witnesses, fabricated evidence, and cited non-existent authorities."

The Supreme Court did find that in the previous lower court trial, the jury were improperly instructed:

The jury was instructed that it was entitled to infer from the judge's instruction that because the Holocaust must be regarded as proven, the accused must have known it to be proven and must be taken to have published his pamphlet deliberately for personal motives, knowing the falsity of his assertion to the contrary. [...] The verdict flowed inevitably from the indisputable fact of the publication of the pamphlet, its contents' divergence from the accepted history of the Holocaust, and the public interest in maintaining racial and religious tolerance.[7]

However, in reviewing the proceedings of the lower court trial, the Supreme Court were convinced that the facts in the pamphlet were indeed false:

[During the previous trial] the appellant's allegations of fact in the pamphlet were divided into 85 extracts and rebutted one by one. The trial judge summarized this material at length for the jury but it will suffice here to point only to some of the more egregious examples. The pamphlet alleged that a memorandum from Joseph Goebbels revealed that the Final Solution was never more than a plan to evacuate Jews to Madagascar. It was shown that there was no such memorandum but that the reference was to Goebbels' diary entry of March 7, 1942. This diary extract was adduced and shown to state nothing of the kind. The Crown went on to point out that the entry for March 27, 1942 made clear that the Final Solution was, in fact, genocide: "Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole, it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated, whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor...."
The pamphlet alleges that no documentary evidence exists of the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews. The Crown adduced speeches by Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, made on October 4, 1943 to his troops in Posen in which he refers to the program of extermination of the Jews. Himmler stated: "I also want to talk to you, quite frankly, on a very grave matter. Among ourselves it should be mentioned quite frankly, and yet we will never speak of it publicly. [...] I mean the clearing out of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish race...."
The appellant argued that the term "exterminate" used in this passage really meant "deport". It was left to the jury to consider whether they accepted that this was a possible interpretation.
The Crown also adduced the December 9, 1942 entry in the diary of Hans Frank, Governor-General of occupied Poland's 'General Government' territory, describing the annihilation of 3.5 million Jews in the General Government and numerous documents adduced at the Nuremberg trials, including the daily reports of the Einsatzgruppen (action groups) enumerating the death tolls of Jews in the USSR. In a report to Hitler of December 20, 1942, Himmler indicates that the Einsatzgruppen had executed 363,211 Jews between August and November, 1942.
..The pamphlet alleged, purportedly relying on a Red Cross report, that all concentration camps were really humane work camps. Mr. Biedermann, a delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross, testified that the Red Cross Report pertained exclusively to prisoner of war camps as the Red Cross personnel had not been inside any camps in which civilians were detained. The Crown adduced evidence from Professor Hilberg that while some camps had labour facilities annexed to them, Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor and Chelmno were exclusively "killing factories" and that gas chambers were in operation at Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek. The numbers of Jews slaughtered was verifiable from railway records showing the payments per person made for transport to the camps. These numbers were compared with those having left the camps or who were found there after liberation.
On and on, the Crown showed that the appellant misrepresented the work of historians, misquoted witnesses, fabricated evidence, and cited non-existent authorities.[7]

Ultimately the Supreme Court concluded:

The conflict between the assertions made by the appellant and those made by orthodox Holocaust historians cannot be resolved through reasoned debate. Orthodox historians point to sources which support their theories; the appellant and other "revisionist" historians point to documents which do not exist or which do not say what they claim they do. The pamphlet Did Six Million Really Die? does not fit with received views of reality because it is not part of reality.[7]


Anthony Hancock re-published Did Six Million Really Die? and made a significant amount of money from doing so, to the point where he was sued for royalties in the High Court in 1982.[8]

International reactions

In 1985 and 1988 Verrall's publisher Ernst Zündel was tried in Canada on charges of "false news." He was found guilty and sentenced to 15 months in prison. On appeal his conviction was overturned by the Canadian Supreme Court's landmark decision R. v. Zündel, when it declared that the law under which he had been charged, reporting false news, was unconstitutional.[7][9]

Did Six Million Really Die was banned in Germany and South Africa.[10]


  1. ^ 
  2. ^ "World in Action - The Nazi Party (3rd July 1978)". Granada Television. Jly 1978. Retrieved 2012-04-11. 
  3. ^ 'Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian 'False News' Trial of Ernst Zundel - 198. Edited by Barbara Kulaszka. [1]
  4. ^ 'Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian 'False News' Trial of Ernst Zundel - 198. Edited by Barbara Kulaszka [2]
  5. ^ 'Did Six Million Really Die?' by Richard E. Harwood (AKA Verral). Introduction, pg4. AAARGH online edition, 2005
  6. ^ 'Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian 'False News' Trial of Ernst Ztindel - 198. Edited by Barbara Kulaszka. Page 491. [3]
  7. ^ a b c d Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM
  8. ^ R. Hill & A. Bell, The Other Face of Terror, London: Grafton, 1988, p. 228
  9. ^ Court decision from the 1992 examination of the book
  10. ^ Wyman, David S. & Rosenzveig, Charles H. The World Reacts to the Holocaust. Maryland: JHU Press. 1996. p.682.
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.