Zundel Videos

Ingrid's Veterans Today Articles


File Index

Copyright (c) 1999 - Ingrid A. Rimland

ZGram: Where Truth is Destiny and Destination!

December 11, 1999

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

So far, I have received three personal reviews of the Leuchter film, and if this keeps up and the film is shown in all major American cities, as planned, I will open a sub-section of the Zundelsite and list these reviews exactly as they are sent to me. All of you out there - keep watching the Arts/Entertainment section in your paper - and if at all possible, attend a showing and write me a report. What is happening is historical - and really exactly as predicted. Let us just hope and pray the film will not be scrapped by the terrified Holocaust Lobby.

The movie review of "Mr. Death" below was written by a Polish lady, an ardent Revisionist - however, a person who sees our struggle for truth about the Auschwitz story from her own country's point of view and her own people's history.

I know this woman to be a person of passion and conviction. She was the one who notified me of the Los Angeles showing of the film - and below is what she saw and felt as she took herself to the screening to see with her own eyes and feel with her own heart.

Re: Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.

Hello Ingrid and Russ and others on the list -

Ingrid. After I contacted you about the showing of "Mr. Death", I had no time to read the rest of Thursday's ZGram. I went to see the "documentary", expecting a serious film.

The flyer distributed at the Museum informs: "The Film Department of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art presents Spotlight on Errol Morris ... ... " The announcement in the December 3-9 of The Jewish Journal does not inform that it is the Museum that actually "presents" this film. I think it is highly improper for the Museum to be part of such a character assassination and I hope that persons hurt, primarily Fred A. Leuchter, will find grounds to sue this public institution.

Besides, where is "Art" in this movie ?

When I arrived at the theatre, about 7:10 p.m., there were very few seats left. I was surprised. The capacity of the theatre is about 600, I'd say. What do you think, Russ ? (I was going to check on the way out but forgot.) The audience, I now assume, were primarily invited members of the Museum. The generous applause at the appearance of Errol Morris leads me further to think that they were Errol Morris' film fans. They were not the regulars interested in holocaust matters.

I noticed only two familiar faces - you, Russ and George. George provided the only amusing moment when I recognized this "photographer" in shorts. Had George worn regular pants I would not have recognized him.

The movie was to deal with very serious subjects:

1. Fred Leuchter's concern for the manner of death of criminals sentenced for execution - criminals who already caused the deaths of other people. Fred expressed that if the state imposes death sentence, it should be performed as quickly and painlessly. I think this was a very human and logical concern, no matter how clumsily put across by Fred.

2. Ernst Zundel's book "Did Six Million Really Die ?" - were there gas chambers at Auschwitz ?

One has to be very vicious to make mockery of these subjects.

The movie started by blasting the audience's brain and blinding with strong lights by showing some useless electrical charges. I failed to see the purpose of such a beginning except, perhaps, that sound and light waves are damaging to the brain (as indeed, the audience soon exhibited) and such was the intention of Errol Morris.

From the beginning, Fred was shown as a bumbling fool, although he had some interesting, unusual information regarding executions and, apparently - was able to hold a job. His information was selected by Morris to go over as ridiculous, evoking laughter from the audience. It was the laughter at completely unfunny moments that sparked my anger.

Certainly at Auschwitz, Fred's gathering of evidence was completely unscientific, but what other course was available to him? To anybody? (When David Irving wanted access to the archives, he was denied.) Morris led him on - just to ridicule. I was pleased to see, however, that the Auschwitz Museum authorities don't seem to care that people are chipping at the ruins. Even the scenes at Auschwitz, at their "Holy of Holies" were designed to promote repeated laughter from the audience.

By the time the movie ended - I thought that its 96 minutes were way too long -I was outraged. Russ and George (I don't know who else who knows me was there) witnessed my fury. What perhaps infuriated me the most was the incessant ridicule of Fred, who by the end of the movie was reduced to a pathetic, human being, destroyed several times, only because he had the audacity to use his intelligence to question and his right to express his opinion, and the incessant intermixing of tragedy and (sick) humor.

When Morris gave me the opportunity, I stood up and said as loud as my voice could carry that he made a mockery of serious subjects; that I was shocked at the insensitivity of the audience - I turned to the audience and said: "You are disgusting, all of you!" - that many people died at Auschwitz horrible deaths; that of course Leuchter's evidence gathering was unscientific but where were the Jewish organizations 50 years ago to conduct proper investigation? I don't remember if I said anything else, my voice gave out because of emotions.

I felt that Morris was well prepared to talk and talk, to prevent questions. Russ' question - that this was not the only one film he made on this subject - was not fully answered. Morris did not say (did not allow to question) why he chose this particular version, (and) what was not shown publicly in the other versions.

Morris made a significant statement which I wrote down. He said that to him it "was clear that Fred was insane". Which means that he took advantage of a sick, "insane", handicapped person!

Some man in the front also asked why Jewish organizations have not conducted investigation. Morris answered that after so many years there is nothing left at Auschwitz. Nonsense! Forensic technology is so sophisticated that evidence can be gathered from hundreds, sometimes thousands of years earlier.

As all were leaving, a woman came up, said that she differed with me. I was interested and asked for us to step aside and talk. Unfortunately, another woman interrupted. She was a correspondent from The Jewish Journal, agreed with what I said and informed (me) that the Wiesenthal Center and ADL are very concerned at repercussions from this movie.

I would have liked to know what impressions people, disconnected from the subject, were left with. For me, the beaten-down Fred dominated and a reminder what terrible people the Jews are. I am not capable of being objective here. I am talking from the direction my emotions took me.

Fred reminded me that at the moment of death, control of body function ceases. There are "survivors" who claim that they had to clean the gas chamber after each gassing. In the movie, the floors are shown flat without any gutters in the floor for quick removal of wastes. I have never heard any details of how the chambers were cleaned, of any water outlets. For years, I was under the impression that the opening in the roof, through which the supposed pellets were thrown , was a small one and hermetically sealed. Here (unless I missed something) is a huge, irregular gaping hole through which a man can fit.

Sorry, Ingrid, I don't think that the revisionists have gained much by this film. Morris has managed to convolute. He has shown each person in as unflattering light as possible. He did not even allow for a thought to linger where he thought it was not to his advantage by quickly changing shots.

I think that for the general public, supportive flyers are needed. I think that the concerns of WC and ADL are because of general light-making by Morris (what an anti-Semite !) not revisionism. I would like to hear from others.

Phew, now I feel better!

Good night,


P.S. As an afterthought, I decided to copy most of the flyer to support what I said at the beginning that the L.A. County Museum should not have shown this movie.


"Evil is always construed as some form of doing good. We are always in some kind of delusional state about what our actions mean. I hope this movie becomes more effective if Fred emerges as more a person like you and me." -- Errol Morris

"What astonished me on first watching Mr. Death is that Errol barely draws attention to the crushing refutation in the film; it's never commented upon, even though it is the pivot of the film, I believe, the lens that places everything else in the film in perspective, a lens that permits Errol to engage in what might otherwise be a disturbingly intimate exploration of the mind of a Holocaust denier." -- excerpted from "Errol Morris and the Tricky Art of Holocaust Denial", by Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer, September 13, 1999.

"Engineer Fred A. Leuchter Jr., took on the 'humanitarian' mission of designing and repairing execution systems. He was consulted by death-penalty advocates and, in 1988, hired by Ernst Zundel, a neo-Nazi on trial for publishing Did Six Million Really Die? and The Hitler We Loved and Why. Zundel wanted Leuchter to conduct an investigation into the use of poison gas in Nazi concentration camps. Errol Morris comments, 'His mission was to go over and look at the 'facilities' at Auschwitz and Birkenau and take samples.... When the samples showed no significant residues of cyanide, Leuchter concluded that poison gas was not used there.... He wrote a report that became known as The Leuchter Report [that was] published, republished and distributed by many neo-Nazi organizations.... It is used as a staple item in Holocaust denial by people who claim that no Jews were killed with poison gas at Auschwitz'. Leuchter fully expected his involvement with Ernst Zundel to be the crowning achievement of his career, but instead it ruined him. Reopening the doors to this century's keystone atrocity, filmmaker Errol Morris bypasses a more obvious discourse on bigotry to examine instead the origins of evil in vanity and self-deception." -- program notes by Jason Byrne

By the way, this is a Lions Gate Film.


Thought for the Day - (sent to the Zundelsite by an East Coast attorney):

"'I'm sure Fred didn't see himself as an anti-semite...' says Mr. Morris , who is apparently having misgivings about his film because not every viewer is seeing Fred Leuchter as a bad guy.

Why does examining the 'gas chambers' make one an anti- semite? Obviously not the examination itself. If Fred had come up with evidence to back up the gassing stories we would never hear any twaddle about his 'anti- semitism' and he would not be a ruined man today. In fact, he'd probably be on many a dias receiving awards from the Holohuggers. Clearly it is because the results of his investigation cast doubt on the cornerstone of 'the Holocaust' dogma.

In other words, you're ok if you provide scientific evidence to support the story but you're a bum (anti- semite) if you don't. See also the case of Germar Rudolf, whose personal holocaust is just beginning because he too came up with the 'wrong' answer.

This is not acceptable in civilized discourse! In fact, it's just about the epitome of 'bias'! I guess we're not engaged in civilized discourse on the subject, right?

The comparison to the days of witches is compelling.

Back to Table of Contents of the Dec. 1999 ZGrams