Ernst Nielsen
[Ernst Nielsen was the eleventh witness called by the defence. He testified
on Tuesday, March 29, 1988.]
Ernst Nielsen developed an interest in the Holocaust in the early 1970s.
He first undertook some study of the subject at a university in 1975. (25-6787)
In 1977 he wrote to Albert Speer and arranged a meeting which took place
for one hour in Heidelberg, West Germany. Speer had been the minister responsible
for armaments and war production during the war. This meant he had been
involved with Auschwitz since Auschwitz was an industrial centre. Nielsen
asked Speer if there were gas chambers in Auschwitz. Speer replied that
the first time he learned about gas chambers was during the Nuremberg trials.
Nielsen met Zündel about a year later and told him about this meeting
with Speer during one of many conversations he had with Zündel about
the Holocaust story. (25-6787, 6788)
Nielsen had been employed as the technical director at the Toronto Planetarium
from 1967 to 1969. That year he transferred to the University of Toronto,
where he worked as a senior technologist in the Department of Chemistry
for several years. (25-6789)
In 1979 Nielsen audited a full-time credit course offered at the university
on the Holocaust. During one of the lectures, Professor Jacques Kornberg
stated that the order for the extermination of the Jews was made in 1942.
In a seminar following the lecture, Nielsen asked Kornberg for the source
of this statement. Kornberg replied that the premise of the course was
the fact that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis and if Nielsen couldn't
accept that, Kornberg didn't want him in the course. (25-6789, 6790, 6791,
6792)
Nielsen did not return to the course because of the threatening attitude
on the part of the other students. He feared he would have risked a bloody
nose had he showed up again. (25-6792) He spoke to Zündel about the
course and told him about the difficulties he had encountered. (25-6790)
In 1980, after obtaining the required papers, Nielsen enrolled as a
student in the same course with the intention of not asking questions,
just getting through the course to find out what was being taught by the
professor. Zündel approved of Nielsen taking the course; he saw it
as a test to find out how their attitude would stand up and to see how
the course was conducted. (25-6792, 6793)
In a seminar discussion on why Hitler declared war on the United States,
Nielsen offered a couple of explanations, one of which was that Hitler
had a streak of megalomania. It triggered a discussion with the course
professor, Michael R. Marrus, which became an argument. Nielsen felt Marrus
provoked him. Marrus told Nielsen he was out of the course and that he
did not want him back. (25-6793, 6794)
Nielsen reported this incident to the President of the university and
talked to Zündel about it. Zündel offered his assistance in planning
the steps Nielsen could take. Nielsen wrote about a dozen letters to the
President, the Dean of Arts and Science and to the Ombudsman. In addition,
he and Zündel collaborated in the writing of a letter dated November
10, 1980 to Professor William J. Callahan, Chairman of the Department of
History at the University of Toronto. The letter was signed by Nielsen.
(25-6794, 6795)
The letter read as follows:
Dear Professor Callahan:
In reply to your letter of October 31, 1980, I hereby appeal your decision
to have me expelled from the "Holocaust course" (History 398Y).
Your treatment of this matter is similar to the treatment I received last
year when I attended the same course as an auditor. This latter technicality
was used as the pretext for my expulsion from the course at that time.
This year, I am accused of questioning the professional qualifications
of the course instructor because I raised certain questions in regard to
the nature and background of the material taught in the course. Never did
I question the competence of the instructor, and any allegation on his
part that I did so must be viewed as an attempt to shift the direction
of our inquiries away from facts and issues and on to the subject of personalities,
which is the typical tactic of those who know themselves to be on weak
factual footing.
In view of the irregular nature of my difficulties as a student in this
course, despite my diligent participation, my research in the subject and
my conscientious enquiries after truth, I must at last conclude that I
am a victim of outright ethnic discrimination because I am German. My objections
to materials in this course which are not factual, but are Zionist incitements
to hatred of Germans - living, dead and yet unborn - are justified in that
some 90% of the required textbooks for History 398Y are the works of virulently
anti-German, Zionist fiction writers, not historians. In brief, these
books are nothing but hate literature. I am therefore entitled to exercise
my human rights, not only on behalf of the German community, but on behalf
of truth, just as we have seen in the case of the Chinese community which
has established a firm human rights precedent by combatting such discriminatory
deprivations of equality, justice and fair treatment. In this cause, I
have been assured of the backing of several local and international German
ethnic organizations, including The German-Jewish Historical Commission,
who deem this to be a test case.
Since this issue has ramifications outside the academic community, I
would like to draw your attention to the following points:
(1) In barring questions in regard to subject matter, is the University
of Toronto not guilty of complicity in the institution of indoctrination
instead of education?
(2) Is it not mandatory that any university worthy of the name practice
the virtues of academic enquiry and objectivity, of free discussion and
criticism, rather than pay mere lip service to these fundamental values?
(3) Is it not unwise to defend indoctrination with whatever pretexts
in a university?
(4) Is the University of Toronto aping the Soviet universities in banishing
freedom of thought and enquiry from its premises?
(5) Is the University of Toronto offering a course of history based
on independently verifiable facts, or is it seeking to inculcate a Zionist
dogma based upon hearsay, emotional propaganda and special-pleadings from
those who make handsome profits from their wails and lamentations?
(6) Where are the "documents" said to be in existence by Holocaust
Professors Kornberg, Marrus, et al.? Why are they unable or unwilling to
produce such documentary proof of the alleged extermination programme?
Where is the order for mass-extermination, plans for gas chambers, transport
provisions for the movement of millions, records of the mountainous coal
shipments necessary for the cremation of millions, the quantity and type
of gas allegedly used? Indeed, where are all these "documents"?
(7) Is the University of Toronto not betraying its public trust, its
use of public funds and facilities by imposing a Zionist brainwashing programme
upon its students on a no-questions-permitted basis?
(8) As a qualified historian, are you unable to recognise the fictional,
emotional, sensational hearsay depictions of alleged German atrocities
as inflated versions of the admitted lies disseminated against Germans
in the First World War?
(9) Is the University of Toronto not only betraying its public trust
as an institution of higher learning, which includes the development of
the students' critical reasoning abilities, but is it not also working
against Canadian unity by inciting Jewish students and others against Germans
and German-Canadians through the dissemination of this irresponsible and
inflammatory course material?
(10) Does the University not have a fundamental responsibility to the
majority interest in the context of a free and democratic society? Or is
the University a vehicle for the imposition of vested minority interests
over and above the interests of the majority?
The answers to these and other questions are not only for you to decide
upon, but the greater community as well. This case is of such importance
that I make the following urgent suggestions:
(1) That the "Holocaust Course" be expanded so as to include
actual documentation from such sources now widely available as the German
Foreign Office, the OSS CIA, Himmler's relevant departments, etc.
(2) That fictionalized "personal" and hearsay accounts be
omitted as unhistoric, because they serve only to cast emotional heat,
rather than factual light upon the subject. Propaganda cannot be permitted
to pose as "history", and what cannot be verified is unsuitable
for inclusion in such a history course, regardless of the religious fervour
of the proponent.
(3) That non-fictional works by writers critical of the holocaust legend
be included along with non-fictional works by holocaust proponents. Such
studies as those concluded by such recognized scientific authorities as
Doctors and Professors App, Faurisson, Dommerque, Butz, Stäglich,
Hollhüber, Richtofen and historians Felderer, Walendy, Irving, Diwald,
Burg, Harwood, et al. would serve to balance the views set forth by holocaust
proponents in order to enable the student to make up his own mind. In regard
to the inclusion of these researchers' works, I am willing to arrange a
conference with the Department of History so that these books may be examined
and I am also willing to arrange personal appearances of several of these
writers and historians at any meeting of qualified academicians. The University
of Toronto could take this opportunity to arrange a "Holocaust Symposium"
of speakers who could present to the student body both sides of this vital
issue.
(4) Since the holocaust legend is basically a charge of mass-murder
levelled against the German people collectively and for all time, regardless
of the individual German's age, actions or political affiliations, it is
only fair that teachers of the subject be selected as we of the western
civilized world select our own jury members. Racial, religious or personal
biases must be considered in the selection of persons to teach such a course.
It is therefore critically important in terms of objectivity that such
a teacher not be a member of any ethnic group or organization directly
concerned with the holocaust legend - in brief, that no teacher be a Jew
or a German, a Zionist or a Nazi. The university is no place for political
partisanship posing as scholarship, and what is permitted in the Soviet
Gulags is not fit for admission into the University of Toronto curriculum.
The public is paying educational taxes, not indoctrinational tribute. The
university is not being paid to discriminate against those who demand historical
accuracy in a history course.
Should the above suggestions be rejected or ignored by the University,
I shall consider taking action with the University of Toronto Student Council
to see that academic standards and the tradition of academic freedom are
adhered to. I further propose to take measures involving publicity so that
this issue may be drawn to the public's attention. As I am unsatisfied
by the official response to date, I expect to continue my attendance in
this course in which I am duly registered. As I have received threats from
Zionist-oriented students and faculty members, I hereby request that the
university authorities provide campus security personnel for my protection.
Should such protection not be forthcoming, I shall provide for my own through
the hiring of private, uniformed security guards.
Your early reply in the matter will be in your own interests as well
as mine, and in view of the importance of this issue, I am treating this
communication as an open letter which will be made available to representatives
of the media, government and educational organizations in Canada and elsewhere.
Sincerely yours,
E. Nielsen
Student of History
Nielsen testified that both he and Zündel came up with suggestions
and points which were then merged into the letter; it thus reflected the
agreed views of both. Question #6 reflected previous discussions between
them concerning the problems connected with the allegation that 6 or 4
million were gassed in Auschwitz alone. (25-6800 to 6802)
Nielsen knew from many hours of discussion with Zündel that he
was not only sincere in his views on the Holocaust but also knowledgeable.
Zündel had a wide store of information in his library, which Nielsen
had consulted. Zündel was one who looked at both sides of the issue;
that was why he could discuss the topic with anybody who wanted to discuss
it with him. (25-6806, 6813)
On cross-examination, Nielsen read the letter he had received from Professor
Callahan in reply, in which Callahan advised him that any appeal from his
decision should be sent to the Office of the Dean, Faculty of Arts and
Science, and further advising that Callahan had forwarded his letter to
that office. Nielsen testified that he never followed up the letter because
of health problems and high demands at work at the time. He simply did
not feel up to the stress. (25-6814)
Nielsen did not enter the course for the purpose of causing an upset.
He was anxious to find out about the Holocaust. It was at a time when he
was not too sure: was there anything or was there nothing? His previous
testimony that he and Zündel wanted to see if their "attitude
would stand up" meant their disbelief in the Holocaust. Both he and
Zündel agreed it would be a good idea for Nielsen to join the course
and find out what was being taught to the students. (25-6816)
At the time he signed the letter, Did Six Million Really Die? didn't
mean anything to him. He didn't know when Zündel published it. Some
of the books listed in the letter were provided by Zündel and some
by Nielsen. (25-6818)
Asked what local and international German ethnic organizations he was
referring to in the letter, Nielsen stated these included Concerned Parents
of German Descent and the German-Jewish Historical Commission. Nielsen
knew that Zündel was the spokesman for Concerned Parents of German
Descent. (25-6818, 6819)
Asked if denying the Holocaust was not the way that Zündel got
public attention, Nielsen testified that if one wanted to get an idea across,
one had to get public attention. "Have you heard of the two-by-four
you slam the horse with to get its attention? This is good practice. It's
practiced by both sides." Zündel would like to get the attention
of the media, why not?, asked Nielsen. "He would like to have a good
account of the court proceedings here but the media are mum about it...And
for good reason..."
At this point, Nielsen was cut off by Judge Thomas: "Well, you
can - there will be no more speeches from you." (25-6820, 6821) Thomas
dismissed Nielsen from the stand and refused to allow Christie to file
the letter written by Nielsen and Zündel as an exhibit.
 | The
concepts expressed in this document are protected by the basic human
right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States, reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court
as applying to the Internet content on June 26, 1997. |
 |
