• Like
  • Save
Review of the Holocaust, Global Vision.-ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN - Tehran International Conference-
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Review of the Holocaust, Global Vision.-ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN - Tehran International Conference-

on

  • 2,207 views

Review of the Holocaust, Global Vision.-ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN - Tehran International Conference-

Review of the Holocaust, Global Vision.-ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN - Tehran International Conference-

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,207
Views on SlideShare
2,206
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

https://duckduckgo.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Review of the Holocaust, Global Vision.-ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN - Tehran International Conference- Review of the Holocaust, Global Vision.-ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN - Tehran International Conference- Document Transcript

    • Teoría. Número 83 - 2007. “DEBEMOS ESTAR EXTRAORDINARIAMENTE CONTENTOS DE SABER QUE EL FUTURO ES ENTERAMENTE NUESTRO”. LA CONFERENCIA DE TEHERÁN SOBRE EL HOLOCAU$TO. Debido a su importancia, hemos colectado en este número algunas de lasponencias presentadas en la “Conferencia de Tehrán sobre el Holocausto”, celebradaen 2006. Se insta a los Camaradas que puedan hacerlo, a traducir el materialimportante al castellano para su más amplia difusión.Ejemplar público 1
    • ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN - Tehran International Conference "Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision 10-12 December 2006 ____________________________ Program Tuesday, 12 December 2006 Alexander Baron THE NAZI GAS CHAMBERS: Rumours, Lies And Reality – One Researcher’s ViewGood afternoon ladies and gentlemen, MrPresident, Honoured Guests,First of all, thank you for inviting me to this seminalconference. My name is Alexander Baron, and I amprobably something of an anomaly at a gathering ofthis nature. Although I have spent many thousands ofhours over the last eighteen years or so researchingin the British Library and other archives, I am not anacademic in the proper sense of the word. TechnicallyI am a journalist, but my efforts to earn a living bymeans of this dubious profession have been sporadicand largely unsuccessful.I first heard of the supposedly so difficult subject ofHolocaust Revisionism in the mid-seventies, but Ididn’t begin to take any sort of interest in it until theearly eighties when I began studying Revisionistliterature in earnest. It took me no time at all toconclude that the entire Holocaust story frombeginning to end was a gigantic concoction, pureAllied and Zionist propaganda, after all, wasn’t truththe first casualty of war? And wasn’t history writtenby the victors?
    • It took me several years more to realise that this wasa somewhat naïve view, and that lies are propagatednot just by the victors in any conflict. Although likeJewish power and Jewish mendacity generally, theHolocaust is and remains strictly off-limits toestablished and respectable scholars, quote unquote,and although explanations for anti-Semitism – realand imagined – are always rationalised in slavishlyphilo-Semitic terms, in the past few years a numberof attempts have been made by courageous scholars,some of them Jewish, to make a more balancedassessment. One of these scholars is ProfessorLindemann who in his book Esau’s Tears complainedthat many books on the Holocaust have beencharacterised by “disappointing intellectual standardsand doubtful conclusions”. (1)Commenting on a critically acclaimed book by anotherJewish scholar, Daniel Goldhagen, he says that itsthesis is far from original and that it represents thecase for the prosecution but that “a major problem isthat few serious historians would want to present acase for the defense” adding that “history shouldnot...be written in the same way that cases arepresented to a jury”. (2)A major criticism of Holocaust Revisionism is that itseeks to present only the case for the defence,another Jewish scholar, Professor Mayer has writtenthat Revisionists – to whom he refers as skeptics - are“outright negationists [who] mock the Jewish victimswith their one-sided sympathetic understanding forthe executioners” and that they are “ill-disguised anti-Semites and merchants of prejudice” whose “morallyreprehensible posture disqualifies them frommembership in the republic of free letters andscholarship”. (3)This is probably the most complimentary remark thatany mainstream scholar has ever made about theRevisionist Historians of the Holocaust; in addition tobeing denounced as anti-Semites, outright Nazis,bigots, racists, cranks, etc and ad nauseum,Revisionists have been subjected to intellectual, moraland most of all to legal persecution, and at times tonaked force and tyranny. On the few occasions whenour enemies have allowed us a platform and haven’tsubjected us either to tyranny or to the silenttreatment we have been subjected instead to ridicule,satire and gross misrepresentation. We have beencompared with Flat Earthers and other denudedcranks, but since the early 1990s in particular, and tosome extent before that, some of the enemies ofintellectual freedom seeing that the writing was onthe wall have found it necessary to confront, or to tryto confront the evidence and arguments we have
    • adduced. And almost exclusively these confrontationshave been retractions, climbdowns, admissions thatwe have all been lied to, and each and every one ofthem has been made without the slightest good graceor good will.Although to some extent Holocaust Revisionism canbe said to have begun during the Holocaust itself, andalthough pamphlets and books on the subject havebeen published since the end of the Second WorldWar, it would be true to say that the first thoroughlydocumented scientific study was The Hoax Of TheTwentieth Century, by Professor Arthur Butz, whichwas first published in 1976.In this book, the author makes an extremelyimportant point which is often overlooked even today.At the beginning of Chapter II, he writes “WhenGermany collapsed in the spring of 1945 it was after along Allied propaganda campaign which hadrepeatedly claimed that people, mainly Jews, werebeing systematically killed in German ‘camps’. Whenthe British captured the camp at Bergen-Belsen innorthern Germany they found a large number ofunburied bodies lying around the camp.”Film of Belsen - still photographs and video footage -was subsequently reproduced all over the world.Professor Butz continues: “It is, I believe, Belsenwhich has always constituted the effective, masspropaganda ‘proof’ of exterminations, and even todayyou will find such scenes occasionally waved aroundas ‘proof’. (4)This is something of an understatement, the terriblescenes that were found at Belsen and other campswere used, certainly in Britain, in a decades longcampaign to attack racists and those who opposeduncontrolled non-white immigration into the UK. Attimes the hysteria against racism and racists becamefever pitched, although curiously many of the samepeople who raged against the Nazis in our midst hadno compunction whatsoever in starting not one butthree wars against Iraq thereby causing death,destruction and suffering to the Iraqi people on ascale that had not been seen in Britain even at theheight of the Second World War.Returning to Professor Butz, he is correct of coursewhen he states that Belsen was used as a masspropaganda proof of the Holocaust – and of innateGerman wickedness – but he might have added thatthe scenes at Dachau were similarly used. He does infact make this point, and later in his book hereproduces a photograph of a delousing chamber used
    • at this camp which was captioned a gas chamber bythe US Army. (5)When I was researching the Holocaust in the 1990s Ifound original photographs in the archive of theprestigious Imperial War Museum which bore theimprint of this lying propaganda. Two publications inparticular spring to mind, one is a book which wasproduced in the immediate aftermath of the SecondWorld War. Lest We Forget was published inSeptember 1945 by the Daily Mail newspaper. In this,photographs of the gassed at Dachau – quoteunquote - and of the non-existent Dachau gaschamber are exhibited with the candid statement thatthey are to be used to re-educate the Germans.Now in all fairness, there was a great deal of genuineconfusion at this time about the nature of these gaschambers – real and imagined – and tabloidjournalists have never been the most reliable sourceof information about any subject, least of all war, (6)but in spite of media misrepresentations, the truthabout Dachau and Belsen did eventually come out, sothere was no excuse in 1963 when the Board ofDeputies of British Jews published a pamphlet calledLetters To My Daughter in which the same tiresomelies were repeated. And there was absolutely noexcuse a decade and a half later when the SouthAfrican Board of Deputies used exactly the samemiscaptioned photographs and outright lies in theirsuccessful campaign to make questioning theHolocaust a criminal offence in that country, which ifyou recall, was at that time ruled by a racistApartheid régime.Uncritical belief in the Holocaust in the West is an actof faith, of zealotry, even the most outrageous lies gounchallenged. My favourite piece of Holocaustnonsense is a story that appeared in the supposedlyprestigious New York Times newspaper in 1988.According to Holocaust survivor Morris Hubert, a mostremarkable menagerie existed in Buchenwald:“In the camp there was a cage with a bear and aneagle,” he said. “Every day, they would throw a Jewin there. The bear would tear him apart and the eaglewould pick at his bones.”“But that’s unbelievable,” whispered a visitor.“It is unbelievable,” said Mr. Hubert, “but ithappened.” (7)This story is prima facie ludicrous; that doesn’t meanit couldn’t have happened, of course, but as far as Iknow, it is a unique claim: there are no reports of thesame acts of barbarism from any other source. Hasanyone here heard of bears being kept in the Naziconcentration camps? And how would the Nazis or
    • anyone keep an eagle in the same cage as a bearwithout the bear tearing it to pieces? Perhaps it was aspecial breed of bear, a man-eating koala trained toperform this particular task?I don’t wish to sound uncharitable, or to mock theafflicted, but it would help if newspapers such as theNew York Times didn’t insult my intelligence, andyours, by endorsing such nonsense.When powerful Jewish organisations spread far lessincredible but still wilful lies about the non-existentDachau gas chambers, the silence is deafening, butwhen others attempt to expose such lies, they aredenounced as liars, bigots, hatemongers and ofcourse as anti-Semites. Indeed I am living proof ofthis. In 1995 and 1996 I published two editions of apamphlet called Why Britain’s Police Aren’t Worth AJewish Fingernail in which I exposed this particularversion of the lie. The “Jewish fingernail” is areference to the 1994 Hebron massacre; at thefuneral of the murderer, a Zionist Rabbi made theterrible statement that one million Arabs are notworth a Jewish fingernail. I thought that was anappropriate title. And I mailed out a large number ofthis publication to police stations. And what did thepolice do? They arrested me on suspicion of“incitement to racial hatred”. The charge waseventually dropped (8) probably because of theembarrassment my accusers would have faced in thecourtroom where the tables would have been turnedon them. It is though ironic is it not that lies whichbesmirch the German people are considered perfectlyacceptable while people who expose these lies arebranded bigots?No one summed up the religious fervour over theHolocaust better than your own charismatic President;speaking in December last year he pointed out that: “If someone were to deny the existence of God... orprophets and religion, they would not bother him.However, if someone were to deny the myth of theJews’ massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and thegovernments subservient to the Zionists tear theirlarynxes and scream against the person as much asthey can”.We have seen similar religious fervour over the issueof ritual murder. In Britain in the last century, threepeople were prosecuted for claiming Jews practisedritual murder. Arnold Leese together with his printerWalter Whitehead was put in the dock in the 1930s,and the Dowager Lady Birdwood was so indicted, triedand convicted in the 1990s. (9) Yet in recent yearsthere have been serious claims supported by seriousevidence that certain Africans have murdered children
    • for ritual purposes in England, the most notorious ofwhich was the case of ‘Adam’ – this being the namegiven to the torso of a young unidentified African boywhich was fished from the River Thames inSeptember 2001.Unless one accepts the dubious proposition that Jewsare morally superior to Africans, one must at leastconcede the possibility of Jewish ritual murder, anddiscuss it in rational rather than hysterical terms, butnobody ever does, least of all our spineless andcompliant academics. Just for the record I do notbelieve Jews are morally superior to Africans, and Iknow quite a lot of people who feel the same way.They are called Palestinians.Returning to the Holocaust proper, the claims of massextermination in homicidal gas chambers areextraordinary, and it is well attested thatextraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, yetwhen one lifts the veil of media hysteria, one findssuch proof sorely lacking. In this connection I can dono better than again quote the distinguished Jewishacademic Arno Mayer who writes that: “Sources forthe study of the gas chambers are at once rare andunreliable.” (10)Although he is of course a committed believer in theofficial version of the Holocaust, Professor Mayer’sbook is an excellent work; he is clearly unhappy withmany survivor testimonies, and does his level best toexamine the subject critically. Although as he pointsout, testimonies about the Nazi gas chambers arerare, there are some eyewitness testimonies, theproblem they all have is that where they are crediblethey do not support the Exterminationist position, andwhen they do support it, they are just not credible.We are particularly fortunate to have two suchstriking testimonies, both from Polish Jewesses, whichwere given at the main Belsen Trial in the immediateaftermath of the Second World War. The Belsen Trialconcerned atrocities – real and imagined – which werecommitted both at Belsen and at Auschwitz I. Many ofthose on trial, including Commandant Kramer, hadworked at both camps. The papers relating to thistrial are held by the Public Record Office – or theNational Archives as we are now to call it – in the WarOffice or WO series, (the predecessor of the Ministryof Defence).It is a stock charge by Revisionists that the trials heldby the Allies after the Second World War were showtrials; there is more than a grain of truth in this claim,but any honest person who reads the entire transcriptof the main Belsen Trial – as I have – will concludethat show trial or not, the defence team did not
    • simply go through the motions. The cross-examination of the accusers by the likes of MajorWinwood – who defended Kramer – was vigorous, andall but destroyed the prosecution’s case. Sometimesthough cross-examination is academic, because thetestimony of a witness is patently false, or evenpatently ludicrous in the light of the known facts of acase.The testimony of Holocaust survivor Sophia Litwinskafalls into the ludicrous category in the light of the lawsof physics, because she would have the court and theworld believe not that she had simply witnessed thewicked SS administering the Zyklon to a group of ill-fated Jews, but that she herself had actually beengassed, and was for some inexplicable reasondragged out of the gas chamber by an SS man just asthe darkness was about to overcome her.Litwinska’s testimony on the seventh day of the trial,September 24, 1945, can be found in WO235/13; atpage 169 of this document we find the following:She was asked: “When you reached the crematoriumwhat happened there?”And replied: “We left the trucks and were led into aroom which gave me the impression of a shower bath.There were towels hanging round and sprays, andeven mirrors.”She was then asked: “Were the doors closed?”And replied: “I cannot say; I have never thoughtwhen I was there I shall leave and be here present inthe court to speak about it.”“What happened next?”“There were tears; people were shouting at eachother; people were hitting each other. There werehealthy people; strong people; weak people; and sickpeople, and suddenly I saw fumes coming in througha window.”“What do you mean when you say window?”“On top, very small sort of window.”“What effect did this have on you?”“I had to cough very violently; tears were streamingout from my eyes, and I had a sort of feeling in mythroat as if I would be asphyxiated.”“What happened to other people around you?”
    • “I could not look even at the others because each ofus was only concentrated on what happened tohimself.”“What was the next thing that you remember?”“In that moment I heard my name called. I had notthe strength to answer it, but I raised my arm. Then Ifelt somebody take me and throw me out from thatroom.”Her rescuer was Franz Hoessler, who was in the dockat this trial. One might have thought this deathdefying act of remarkable courage would have earnedhim some sort of commendation at the very least.Instead, he was hanged.According to Litwinska, she had been sent to the gaschamber by mistake and was rescued because shewas married to a Gentile, although curiously herhusband, a Polish officer, had been arrested becausehe had married a Jewess, and was already dead.In the book INDUSTRIAL POISONS IN THE UNITEDSTATES, Harvard medic Alice Hamilton writes: “Theindiscriminate use of this very dangerous gas bypersons quite unfamiliar with it led to the accidentaldeath in Cleveland of four persons who inhaledhydrocyanic gas with which a restaurant under theirapartment was being fumigated.” (11)Hamilton gives the lethal dosage as .25 parts perthousand for men stood at rest for two minutes, and.375 parts per thousand for a minute and a halfwithout dizziness.The lethal dose is a mere 60mg minimum or .8 to1mg per kg of body weight. (12)One might ask how the laws of physics changedbetween the publication of Professor Hamilton’s bookin 1925 and the rescue of Litwinska less than twentyyears later.Can anyone give any credence whatsoever to theludicrous claim that as a large group of people isbeing gassed to death, an SS man opens the door,dives in, and whisks one of them out? The militarycourt which tried Franz Hoessler did, apparently.Litwinska was sent off to be gassed in a fairly smallgroup, but the conventional Holocaust wisdom is thatthese gassings were carried out on an industrial scale.The big question has to be how? How can hundreds ofpeople at a time be duped or coerced into entering agas chamber? On the pretext that they were toshower? And then the door is slammed, and the
    • Zyklon administered through a hole in the roof, orthrough the wall. It doesn’t work like that, the laws ofphysics won’t permit it. One has only to look at theprecautions that have to be taken when one individualis gassed with intent in a lethal execution chamber, ashas happened to convicted murderers on numerousoccasions in the United States.How do the Exterminationists explain this away? Theanswer is they don’t; they simply brand us anti-Semitic for even daring to ask the question.Curiously the question appears not to have beenasked in any meaningful sense until the courageousProfessor Faurisson published the results of hisresearches. I have to say I do not agree witheverything the Professor has written, especially withregard to Anne Frank, but when it comes to the gaschambers, he is spot on.One might have expected medical men to have takenan interest in the mechanics of this unique form ofmass murder, but their curiosity appears never tohave been aroused. I made a fairly detailed study ofall the major English language medical journalspublished immediately after the Second World War;they contain scant mention of Nazi crimes – real andimagined – and none at all about mass gassings.For those who remain skeptical about the Revisionistposition, or indeed for those who are skeptical of theperceived wisdom, I propose a solution. In somecountries, including Israel, a murderer who freelyadmits his crime is made to re-enact it. This was thecase with the November 1995 assassination of YitzhakRabin by the Zionist fanatic Yigal Amir. (13)As the Nazis freely admitted their crimes – so we aretold – why should not a re-enactment of a massgassing be ordered? Or a simulation? Nowadayscomputers can do wonderful things. There have beensimulations of the Kennedy assassination which dispelthe numerous ill-informed claims that Lee HarveyOswald was not the assassin; why not a simulation ofa couple of thousand Jews being marched into a gaschamber and exterminated with a lighter than air gasthat was dropped from the ceiling while the SS stoodaround drinking coffee and smoking Woodbines? If mytone sounds facetious I apologise not; the scenarioreally is that ludicrous.The other testimony of a survivor who survived anactual gassing was that of 28 year old Regina Bialek. Iam quoting here from a slightly more accessiblesource, the official book on the Belsen Trial. In thisbook we find her deposition, which reads thus:
    • “On 25th December, 1943, I was sick with typhusand was picked out at a selection made by DoctorsMengele and Tauber along with about 350 otherwomen. I was made to undress and taken by lorry toa gas chamber. There were seven gas chambers atAuschwitz. This particular one was underground andthe lorry was able to run down the slope and straightinto the chamber. Here we were tippedunceremoniously on the floor. The room was about 12yards square and small lights on the wall dimlyilluminated it. When the room was full a hissing soundwas heard coming from the centre point on the floorand gas came into the room. After what seemedabout ten minutes some of the victims began to bitetheir hands and foam at the mouth and blood issuedfrom their ears, eyes and mouth, and their faces wentblue. I suffered from all these symptoms, togetherwith a tight feeling at the throat. I was half consciouswhen my number was called out by Dr. Mengele and Iwas led from the chamber. I attributed my escape tothe fact that the daughter of a friend of mine who wasan Aryan and a doctor at Auschwitz had seen mebeing transported to the chamber and had told hermother, who immediately appealed to Dr. Mengele.Apparently he realized that as a political prisoner Iwas of more value alive than dead, and I wasreleased...I think that the time to kill a person in thisparticular gas chamber would be from 15 to 20minutes.” (14)Until his death in a drowning accident in Brazil in1979, Dr Mengele achieved notoriety as one of themost notorious Nazi war criminals at large; known asthe Angel of Death, he inspired a song and at leastone smash box office film, The Boys From Brazil. Arewe to believe Regina Bialek was saved from the gaschamber by the Angel of Death himself?Should we dismiss this testimony just because it isludicrous? It wouldn’t be half as ludicrous if thesewomen were the victims of medical experimentsrather than of attempted exterminations by Zyklon B.We know the Nazis conducted unethical medicalexperiments on what they regarded as the lowerelements and expendables of society, just as theBritish conducted such experiments on our ownservicemen in the 1950s. (15) It is possible thatLitwinska and Bialek were guinea pigs rather thanpotential genocide victims; the alternative is that theirstories were made up out of the whole cloth, certainlylies and perjury were rather commonplace at all theso-called war crimes trials; this fact was evenrecognised by the United Nations War CrimesCommission. In its 1947 report on the Belsen Trial,after paying lip service to the Nazi exterminationprogramme: “at least 2,500,000 human beings (or assome say 4,000,000) were done to death by being
    • poisoned in gas chambers [in Auschwitz]” (16) itpointed out that “From the evidence it appeared thatthe usual ground for inferring that people had beengassed was that they disappeared.” (17)People disappear all the time, especially during war-time; that doesn’t mean they have been gassed. Thereport sheds some light on how the evidence for thetrial – and by implication other such trials - wasgenerated. We are told that affidavits were preparedfrom statements taken by other people, mainly bypolice officers, then turned into affidavits by MajorSmallwood. And “the accused were never present orreally present when these accounts were beingmade.” It is not clear what not being really presentmeans, but it is obvious that these affidavits andwitness statements enjoyed a considerable amount ofcreative licence. (18)The rules of evidence at this – and related trials -were such that they allowed for the admission ofdocuments and statements “appearing on the face ofit to be authentic, provided the statement ordocument appears to the Court to be of assistance inproving or disproving the charge...” (19) Hearsayevidence was admitted both in affidavits and in thewitness box. (20)Now it is a fact that prosaic evidence given under oathcan be a tissue of lies, and that by the same tokenthe most scurrilous unsubstantiated rumours can betrue; one has only to compare President Clinton’scategorical denial “I did not have sex with thatwoman” with the sordid case of Monica Lewinsky’ssemen stained dress to realise this, but theadmittance of hearsay evidence at a criminal trialmakes a mockery of the process. Such evidencecannot be tested, and can only be prejudicial to theaccused.As well as generating ludicrous evidence of massgassings, the Belsen Trial gave the world the claim offour million dead in Auschwitz. This claim is likewisebased on hearsay.Ada Bimko (Bimko that is, not Bimbo) was a Jewishdoctor who was interned at Auschwitz for fifteenmonths before being transferred to Belsen.Asked by the prosecutor Colonel Backhouse if any ofthe prisoners kept records in respect of the operationof the alleged gas chambers, she replied: “Yes...Oneof those who took part...a man called Grzecks, toldme that others of those kommandos before havingbeen gassed had complete records of all thosetransports which did arrive and then eventually weredestroyed. This man Grzeck [sic] told me that others
    • who took part in these kommandos, and in fact hehimself, kept records and that the number of thoseJews who were destroyed in this gas chamber wouldbe about four million.” (21)That is in one gas chamber, one room, not in theentire camp. If you imagine a football stadium, thelargest football stadium you can think of, and imagineit filled again and again and again and again andagain, many, many, many times, then think of allthese people exterminated in one room, that shouldgive you an idea of just how ludicrous are theseclaims.I will return to the subject of gas chambers shortlywhen I will explain why I believe there were indeedsome homicidal gassings, but I think we haveestablished two things: i) that the stories aboutgassings are not as established as the Great Pyramid,if I may borrow an expression from Professor Butz,that many of them are based on wilful distortions andoutright lies; and ii) mass gassings did not happen,they just could not have been carried out the waythey were allegedly carried out. Gassing a thousandor even a hundred people in a gas chamber or anybuilding and doing so without endangering theoperators is a very different proposition from gassingone person under controlled conditions.I want now though to examine a few documentedfacts which are totally at odds with the claims of amass extermination programme. In particular I wantto discuss the way prisoners of war were treated bythe Nazis.On one occasion while I was pottering about in thelibrary of the Imperial War Museum I came across ThePrisoner Of War, a magazine published during theSecond World War by the Red Cross. Some of thearticles therein make extraordinary reading; Alliedservicemen in the Nazi camps staged boxing matches,some had the use of swimming pools, prisoners hadaccess to a wide range of educational classesincluding modern languages, economics and gasfitting (ironically). And they even took examinations.One article though struck me as absolutelyastonishing; the September 1942 issue reported thatone prisoner, Ronnie Wells, who was described as“the Bournemouth Speed Skating champion and stiltskater” had been allowed a very special privilegewhile interned in Poland the previous year. And Iquote: “the German authorities allowed him to buytwo pairs of skates and to go ten miles outside thecamp to practise on a large lake”.
    • This shows an astonishing lack of security, Britishprisoners of war were in effect treated as men ofhonour – give us your word as an English gentlemanthat you won’t do anything dastardly, Tommy, liketrying to escape – and all that, but if human beingsreally were being exterminated in those very camps,would British POWs, or indeed anyone, have beenallowed out of them at all? I think not.We find similar anomalies of security in the survivorliterature. In her book Prisoners Of Fear, the Gentiledoctor and former Auschwitz inmate Ella Lingens-Reiner reports matter of factly that prisoners wentoutside to the ponds on working parties someconsiderable distance from the camp, and that whilethey were breaking rocks or doing whateverconcentration camp inmates do around ponds, theirSS guards busied themselves with their fishing rods.(22)But perhaps the most remarkable account of life inAuschwitz comes from a British soldier named CharlesCoward. Coward’s story was related in a 1954 bookThe Password Is Courage, which went through no lessthan eight editions by 1988. (23) His story was evenmade into a tongue-in-cheek film starring DirkBogarde. Coward’s exploits earned him the sobriquetThe Count Of Auschwitz; he was captured at Calais in1940, and while lying badly wounded in a civilianhospital was awarded the Iron Cross by a Germangeneral in a bizarre mix up.An amusing aside here, between pages 48 & 49 of the1954 edition, 3rd Impression, is a photographcaptioned “Manacled, a British prisoner receives a RedCross parcel”. We can’t see the prisoner so have noidea if he is really British, however, the manacles onhis wrist appear to be floating in mid-air. Theycertainly give the impression of having beensuperimposed.During one of his myriad escape attempts, Cowardand the other escapee with whom he was capturedreceived a stern warning. They had been travelling onforged documents, posing as Bulgarian mine workers.After protesting: “All prisoners of war have the rightto try to escape,” his captor replied: “Say ‘sir’ whenyou address an officer. Prisoners may try to escape,however foolish that may be, but in disguisingthemselves as civilians and carrying forged identitypapers, they make themselves liable to be shot asspies.”Suffice it to say they were not shot but were sent to acastle at Ulm where they were said to have beenbadly beaten. Coward complained about his treatment
    • to the Commandant, who promised to look into itsaying “I apologise for the behaviour of the guard; inwar-time we cannot always employ the best of men inthe Wehrmacht.” You just cant get the staffnowadays, can you?When he and his fellow escapee were tried for tryingto escape, Coward told the officer in charge that hewould protest to the trustees of the GenevaConvention. He was thrown out and warned never tocross Herr Hauptmann’s path again!His biographers tell us “...Coward’s position wasunassailable. Try as they would, they could not stop aprisoner from getting in touch with Geneva...” (24)This is absolutely ridiculous. Two years later thesesame people who were quivering in their boots at thethought of some upstart British serviceman reportingthem to the Red Cross were supposed to beexterminating every Jew in Europe. Surely Cowardand his fellow escapee could have had an “accident”in custody, or been shot while trying to escape.Instead of being shot though, he was sent to a sugarfactory in Czechoslovakia. And put in charge of it!That didn’t last long though because he escapedagain. Well, he walked out of the gate, anyway, andeventually, at the end of 1943 he was transferred toAuschwitz.He was far from the only British POW in the camp, atChristmas the same year, several hundred of hisfellow Brits were set to work digging trenches and thelike at Monowitz, 3 miles from the main camp. Theyare said to have received heavy workers’ rationssupplemented by Red Cross food.Although this book is highly imaginative, it relates anincident which did undoubtedly happen, and whichagain is highly at odds with the alleged genocidalbehaviour of the camp hierarchy. A guard shot dead aBritish POW for disobeying an order and “the Germanguards let no one near until a doctor had beensummoned and pronounced the man dead.”The Nazis were perhaps the most bureaucraticadministration that ever existed anywhere at anytime,everything was done by the book and had to beapproved from above. One man is shot dead, andthey summon a doctor to ensure everything is inorder.Coward regarded this shooting as cold-bloodedmurder, he was so incensed that after reporting itindirectly to the British authorities – as one would do– he murdered a German spy in retaliation; thereseem to have been no repercussions for this. (25)
    • Later when he needed to have his eyes tested he waspermitted to go into nearby Berkenwald accompaniedby a solitary guard. On the bus he was abused by ayoung German woman. His escort seized the womanby the wrist and gave her a lecture on good mannersand the decent treatment of prisoners of war!Even though he had the run of the place, Coward wasnot happy with his working conditions, and threatenedto report IG Farben to the Red Cross. He complainedabout “the bad food here” and about “other things”,the other things being gassings to which came theresponse: “Gassings? Killings? You must be out ofyour mind. Don’t talk lightly of such things, MrCoward. It might be dangerous for you to make suchwild statements about the Government and thiscompany.” (26)Even worse, you might lose your beer ration!Yes, one of the complaints the Auschwitz personneldepartment received from the Red Cross concernedthe distribution of beer for the POWs. As the sayinggoes, you couldn’t make it up.That being said, what follows next provides I think aninteresting insight into how rumour mills work. Afterdemanding an interview with the Farbenadministrators Coward found himself face to face withseveral Farben and S.S. officials.Through an interpreter he asked: “Is it true thatthousands of civilian prisoners are being gassed andcremated?” There was silence for a moment, then a Farbenofficial laughed. Immediately all at the table werechuckling good-naturedly. “Utter nonsense...Acrematorium is necessary to serve such a large areaas this, in which many prisoners fall sick and die. It ishygienic, you must understand.”“What about the gassing of people who are alive?”“Fairy tales. Where a great number of workers aregathered together, one must expect the wildestrumours.”In her aforementioned book, Ella-Lingens Reinerreports a similar encounter with officialdom. After herarrest she told her Gestapo interrogator that she hadhelped Jews to escape because they were being sentto Poland to be killed; he replied: “You are completelycrazy! The people there are working in factories.” (27)Another Gentile doctor, Alexander Dering, hadobviously visited the same rumour mill; Dering was aPole; he was arrested in July 1940 and was sent to
    • Auschwitz the following month. He didn’t let on thathe was a doctor because he was afraid he would beexterminated; German policy was said to be tomurder all the intellectuals and professional classes.He worked as an orderly, but when the wicked Nazisfound out that he was a doctor, instead ofexterminating him they promoted him. Three yearslater he was in charge of the whole camp hospital.(28)I don’t dispute that there were rumours of gassings,but I would like to compare these rumours withanother rumour. One of the craziest so-calledconspiracy theories about AIDS is that it wasmanufactured by the US Government at the FortDetrick biological warfare center as part of a plot torid the United States of African-Americans. There is atleast one spurious memorandum in circulation to thateffect; it has all the authenticity of The Protocols OfThe Learned Elders Of Zion. At one time thisnonsense was apparently taken seriously by manyAmerican blacks. In reality we all of us pay lip serviceto all manner of rumours and scurrilous gossipeveryday of our lives. I doubt very much manydenizens of Nazi Germany and its satellites tookclaims of mass gassings anymore seriously than didthe average American Negro of the Fort Detrick AIDSnonsense.Returning to Ella Lingens-Reiner’s book, as with allsurvivor literature, one must learn to distinguishbetween what the witness claims to have seen andwhat he – or in this case she – actually experienced.She reports that after her arrest she was interrogated“in a fairly civilised manner” because “the period ofarbitrary, purposeless tortures for the sake ofpleasure was past”. (29) In other words, she wasn’ttortured but assumes other people in the sameposition were. Because that’s how the wicked Nazisbehave, isn’t it!?There can be little doubt though that many peoplebelieved they had seen or even visited gas chambers.The passage of time has if anything reinforced thispropaganda. When I first began reading Revisionistliterature in the early 80s I was asked by a left wingworkmate about the photographs we had seen of gaschambers; he was referring specifically to the Dachaugas chambers. When I told him these were in factdelousing chambers he shook his head and ridiculedme, yet that is precisely what they were, and we aretold nowadays that their presentation to the world ashomicidal gas chambers was a mistake. Somemistake!It is no doubt true though that some people withoveractive imaginations did contribute to this
    • nonsense. One such person was Ada Bimko, whom wehave already met. In her testimony at the Belsen Trialshe was asked “Have you ever been into one of thegas chambers?”She replied simply “Yes.”When prompted, she expanded in the following terms“In August 1944 [when she was working as a doctorat Auschwitz]...again a new crowd of those selectedfor the gas chamber had arrived, and as they weresick they came covered with a blanket. After two dayswe were told to fetch all those blankets from the gaschamber. I took the opportunity, as I always wantedto see with my own eyes this ill-famed gas chamber,and I went. I did go into this crematorium.” (30)It is clear from the above passage that what the gooddoctor refers to as a “gas chamber” was in reality nosuch thing.Another quite remarkable but little known testimonycan be found in a book by another female Auschwitzsurvivor.smoke over birkenau by Seweryna Szmaglewska waspublished in New York in 1947; in this book theauthor says that women would take a long, hot steambath then a cold shower and then they were sprayedwith “some evil-smelling liquid, with which theydisinfect your head”. This was clearly a precautionagainst typhus, which was rampant in theconcentration camp system. Then she goes on:“It had been announced that while the women tooktheir bath their clothes would be disinfected in the gaschamber and in a steam kettle. But actually it turnedout that the men working in the gas chambers couldnot catch up with their work. So we wait naked, in thebig, cold hall.”Gas chambers, she says, but clearly she does notmean homicidal gas chambers. “After an hour the first batch of gassed clothes isbrought.”Then a bit later she says that everything the womenin the hospital own is stripped from them and sent tothe gas chamber. She even gives a detaileddescription of the gassing of clothes and says that“Two rooms adjoin the gas chamber - one for thestorage of coal and coke, the other for the disinfectedclothes.”
    • On pages 174-7 of her book the author gives aremarkable description of a delousing. Clothes appearto have been deloused with Zyklon B in the open air.The women were deloused a thousand at a time, quitenaked. Nice work if you can get it.One thing which is striking about this book is that theinmates appear to have moved freely about the camp,and of course you will recall that some even went iceskating.There can be little doubt that the reports of massgassings based on the flimsiest of evidence coupledwith the myriad lies that have been and arecontinually parroted about the Holocaust to this daytaint the subject more than any other event inhistory. Much of the evidence for the existence of anextermination programme was generated at trialswhich were likewise tainted. In an earlier era, legaltribunals made findings of fact to the effect thatwomen had copulated with the Devil; in some waysthose judgments were less tainted; confessions werenot always extracted by torture, and denuded oldwomen with no fear of death sometimes provedcredible witnesses, more so than many of those triedby their vanquishers in the aftermath of the bloodiestwar in history.In the British courts, if a conviction is sufficientlytainted, it will be quashed by the Court of Appeal.Certainly if prosecution witnesses lie repeatedly underoath – as police officers often do – and if the forensicevidence is doubtful, non-existent, or evenimpossible, then the court will say enough, and theconviction will fail. It may be that the accused willnever be completely exonerated, but he will to allintents and purposes be considered innocent, andmay even be eligible for compensation.The historian though is not a jury, or a judge, and heis certainly not a tribunal of appeal. Unlike a judgewho may exclude evidence, which is consideredtainted or prejudicial, the historian, the honesthistorian, must consider all the evidence.There is an old apocryphal tale related many centuriesago by one of those clever Greek geezers namedAesop, I’m sure you’re all familiar with it, it’s knownas the boy who cried wolf. Throughout the ages, menand women of all races have cried wolf, ofteninnocently, but sometimes for self-aggrandisement,for some deeper motive, revenge perhaps, or even forthe sheer hell of it. I think it is fair to say that theJews have cried wolf more often than most, certainlysince the establishment of the State of Israel. Thewolf they claim to see is an anti-Semitic wolf; theyimagine anti-Semitism everywhere and in everyone.
    • Hillary Clinton, the most politically correct person inArkansas has been smeared as anti-Semitic, as hasGeorge Bush Senior, the singer Shirley Bassey, andthe son of Yehudi Menhuin.It is the punishment of a liar that he will not bebelieved; when he has lied so long and so persistentlyand so gratuitously, when the lies trip off his tonguewith such effortless guile, there comes a point whenwe, when the world, will say enough is enough, goaway and take your lies with you. This is the casewith the Holocaust, and I was just coming to thispoint, having endured decades of the same lies:having seen delousing chambers persistentlymisrepresented as gas chambers, having seenretouched, or outright faked photographs – of whichthere are many – having listened to the mostludicrous nonsense such as the story of the bear andthe eagle at Buchenwald, and seeing otherwisecynical people like journalists, pundits and evenpowerful politicians lap up these lies withoutexercising the slightest critical faculty, I had justabout had enough of the Holohoax. Then I took adeeper look at the case of Commandant Kramer, andI arrived at my current position regarding homicidalgas chambers.Kramer was sentenced to death and hanged forcrimes allegedly committed at Belsen and Auschwitz.He was defended at the Belsen Trial by the spiritedMajor Winwood, who by his own account met hisclient only two to three weeks before the start of theproceedings. Winwood’s papers – which nobody elsein the world appears to have read – are held by theImperial War Museum.Amongst them is a short dissertation on the BelsenTrial called Over Their Shoulder. As soon as I read it,something Winwood said in this paper struck me ascurious; after the indictment was drawn up againstKramer he expressed relief that he was not to becharged with crimes allegedly committed at theNatzweiller camp; this camp, also known as Struthof,is not to be confused with Stuthof. Kramer hadworked at Struthof too, and after his arrest he hadconfessed freely and voluntarily to the murders of 87Jews – 50 men and 37 women – who had beengassed for “medical purposes”.The thought that struck me was why was Kramer soworried about the Struthof charge when he didn’tappear worried at all about the Belsen and Auschwitzcharges? It’s a bit like Osama bin Laden beingarrested in New York and telling his lawyer he’s afraidhe’ll be deported as an illegal alien. And the answer Icame up with, and I stress this is only my answer, isthat Kramer’s confession to the Struthof murders was
    • bona fide; charges had been put to him, and he hadadmitted them, whereas he had not participated inmurder or brutalities at either Belsen or Auschwitz, atleast no more than prison guards of that era normallydid. In short, his conscience was clear, at least on themajor charges against him.A word now about the conditions the British, theAmericans and the Russians found in these camps. Itis all too easy for us today sitting in out centrallyheated living rooms in front of our computer screensto look at these scenes and recoil in horror, but whatwe must remember is that not only were theseconditions caused primarily by the chaotic situation ina Reich that was being battered on all sides, but thatprisoners – be they Jews, politicals or simply commoncriminals – are always at the bottom of the foodchain, and on top of that, that this was a differentera.Nowadays if a family or an individual doesn’t own arefrigerator, or a telephone, or a TV set, that family orperson is considered poor. How many families hadrefrigerators in the 1940s? Television was all butunknown, and although telephones had been aroundsince the previous century, people didn’t walk aroundwith them in their pockets as they do today.Conditions for ordinary working people were spartan,at times harsh, conditions for prisoners were evenmore so. Kramer was in charge of these camps, soultimately the responsibility fell on his shoulders, butthe question we should ask ourselves is had we beenin his position, would we have been any different? Isuggest that if we had been in charge of these campsmost of us would have ended up like him, in the dock,and then swinging on the end of a rope.Now, Struthof, Kramer made his confession to MajorJadin on July 26, 1945; curiously, in a book edited byself-styled Nazi hunter Serge Klarsfeld, the arch anti-Revisionist Jean-Claude Pressac states uncaterogicallythat the way in which Kramer claimed the gassingswere carried out “cannot be considered credible. Hewould have ended up gassing himself.”Kramer described a chemically impossible reaction“Because of the absurdity of this modus operandi andhis ignorance about the substances involved, somequite legitimate historical suspicion has weighed onthe procedure and on the very existence of the gaschamber at Struthof.” (31)The gassings were said to have been carried out onthree days (in the evening) in August 1943. Kramersaid he gassed a total of 80-85 individuals on 4 or 5different occasions, ie in total.
    • It is ironic that the Klarsfelds of all people cannot seethe absurdity of this claim. Small scale gassings wereimpossible – as described by Kramer – but massgassings, question them at your peril. Indeed inGermany as I am sure you know it is a criminaloffence even to suggest such gassings didn’t happen,not that they couldn’t have happened but simply thatthey didn’t happen.It is my considered opinion that whatever technicalmistakes Kramer made in this statement, he didindeed participate in these – by comparison – smallscale acts of mass murder at this particular camp.Clear as his conscience was on the major charges, hewas still a mass murderer; okay, he was only atechnician, he was only following orders, only doinghis job, as the saying goes, but the orders he followedwere clearly illegal. Jews were never outlaws in NaziGermany, and whatever deprivations they suffered inthe Hitler era, from his accession to power toSeptember 1939 and later, it was always a criminaloffence to murder Jews per se, and I am convincedthat however many people Hitler murdered in hisbombing campaign against Britain, a campaign thatwas murderous on both sides, however many Britishand other soldiers his troops killed on the battlefield,that neither he nor anyone at the top of the Nazihierarchy ordered the extermination of Jews in gaschambers.The gassings – i.e. the acts of murder – that werecarried out in Struthof, and very likely were carriedout on a small scale in other camps, wereunsanctioned acts which were punishable under Nazilaw.We know that the British in particular had anextremely competent and incredibly devious blackpropaganda department, the Special OperationsExecutive, and that this department under the controlof Sefton Delmer churned out atrocity propaganda bythe bucketload. It is my belief that the exterminationprogramme was a child of this British blackpropaganda, and that small scale acts of mass murder– if I may use that oxymoron – were magnified anddistorted out of all proportion, until like manysimilarly successful propaganda campaigns, it took ona life of its own; the witchcraft hysteria of an earlierage is a good example of this.In closing, I will say that it is important forRevisionists to face these facts; we must not fall intothe trap of Nazi apologetics, and we must certainlynot try to outdo the Zionist propaganda machine inguile and cunning; in the first instance, they are somuch more devious, sly and cunning than us that wemust be on a loser from the start. In the second
    • instance, unless we learn from the mistakes of thepast, we are doomed forever to repeat them. Theforeign policies of the United States, of the UnitedKingdom, and of nearly all the Western powerstowards the Middle East have been based onmisunderstandings, wilful distortions and at times themost outrageous lies for at least the past half century.Only by facing and exposing the lies, and the realcrimes of all the Western powers of those past eras,and of today, can we pave the way to a just andpeaceful world. Nowhere is this more important thanhere, for the people of the Middle East, and mostespecially at this time for the people of Iran.Notes And References(1) ESAU’S TEARS Modern Anti-Semitism and the Riseof the Jews, by Albert S. Lindemann, published byCambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1997), pageix.(2) Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, page x, (ibid).(3) Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? The “FinalSolution” in History, by Arno J. Mayer, published byVerso, London, (1990), pages 451-2.(4) The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century, by A.R. Butz,Second Edition, published by Historical Review Press,Brighton, Sussex, (1977), page 34.(5) Butz, Hoax Of The Twentieth Century, page 191,(ibid).(6) At that time the Daily Mail was a broadsheetnewspaper, and somewhat upmarket from today’sversion, but the point should be taken.(7) Time ‘Too Painful’ to Remember, by Aril Goldman,published in the New York Times, November 10,1988, (Late Edition), page A10.(8) No charges were in fact filed althoughsubsequently attempts were made to destroy me byother means.(9) The charges were a bit more complicated thanthat but basically all three were indicted primarilybecause they had endorsed claims of Jewish ritualmurder. Leese and his printer were convicted onlesser charges and fined; Whitehead paid the fine butLeese elected to martyr himself by serving a gaolsentence. On his release he published a thoroughlydocumented pamphlet on the subject. Unlike therabidly anti-Semitic Leese, the well-meaning butgullible Lady Birdwood published her self-financedpamphlets with the best of intentions; infamy was heronly reward.(10) Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?...,page 362, (ibid).(11) INDUSTRIAL POISONS IN THE UNITED STATES,by Alice Hamilton, published by Macmillan, New York,(1925), page 347.(12) Hamilton, Industrial Poisons In The UnitedStates, page 346, (ibid).
    • (13) Although he admitted killing Rabin, Amir actuallypleaded not guilty, a plea which understandably cutno ice with the court.(14) TRIAL OF JOSEF KRAMER AND FORTY-FOUROTHERS (The Belsen Trial), Edited by RaymondPhillips, Foreword by the Right. Hon. Lord Jowitt,published by William Hodge, London, (1949), page657.(15) In 1953, an RAF engineer named RonaldMaddison died after being subjected to sarin gastesting at Porton Down chemical warfare centre. Itwas not until November 2004 that an inquest juryreturned a verdict of unlawful killing; a previousinquest had returned a verdict of death bymisadventure.(16) LAW REPORTS OF TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALSSelected and prepared by THE UNITED NATIONS WARCRIMES COMMISSION VOLUME II THE BELSEN TRIAL,published by HMSO, London, (1947), page ix.(17) Belsen Law Report, (ibid), page 87.(18) Belsen Law Report, (ibid), page 96.(19) Belsen Law Report, (ibid), page 130-31.(20) Belsen Law Report, (ibid), page 138.(21) WO235/13, page 139.(22) PRISONERS OF FEAR, by Ella Lingens-Reiner,Doctor of Medicine and Law of the University ofVienna, With an Introduction by Arturo Barea,published by Victor Gollancz, London, (1948), page34.(23) The Password is Courage, by John Castle,published by Souvenir Press, London, (1954). 3rdImpression. [John Castle is the pseudonym of RonaldCharles Payne and John Williams Garrod]. This bookhas to be read to be believed, or perhaps not to bebelieved.(24) Castle, The Password Is Courage, pages 89-90,(ibid).(25) Castle, The Password Is Courage, pages 139-42,(ibid).(26) Castle, The Password Is Courage, page 160,(ibid).(26) Castle, The Password Is Courage, page 177,(ibid).(27) Lingens-Reiner, Prisoners Of Fear, page 3, (opcit).(28) Dr Dering’s story is related in the book AuschwitzIn England, which was written in the wake of the libelcase he brought against the Jewish author Leon Uris.After the War he was branded a war criminal but wassubsequently cleared; in reality he had been a leadingfigure in the Auschwitz underground resistance anddue to his position in the camp hierarchy haddoubtless been forced to make hard choices.(29) Lingens-Reiner, Prisoners Of Fear, page 4, (opcit).(30) WO235/13, page 138. This testimony was givenon the 5th day of the trial, September 21, 1945.
    • (31) THE STRUTHOF ALBUM...A photographicdocument, by Jean-Claude Pressac, Edited by SergeKlarsfeld, published by the Beate KlarsfeldFoundation, New York, (1985), page 5.Alexander Baron comments on the conference Top | Home ©-free 2006 Adelaide InstituteISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN - Tehran International Conference "Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision 10-12 December 2006 ____________________________ Program Tuesday, 12 December 2006 Jürgen GrafMaterial evidence, documentary evidence andeyewitness testimony in the “Holocaust”controversyNo one denies the persecution of the Jews during theSecond World War. Large parts of the Jewishpopulations in all countries controlled by NationalSocialist Germany were deported to concentrationcamps or ghettos in the East. In the ghettos, and even more so in the camps, themortality was at certain times appallingly high. Thiswas mainly due to disease, especially the dreadedspotted fever, which is spread by lice and which theGermans never managed to get under control. Theworst mortality figures for Auschwitz, the largestcamp, were registered during the second half of 1942,when an epidemic of spotted fever killed a large partof the camp’s population: between the 7th and the11th of September 1942, the daily death-rate was375[1]. In the western camps such as Dachau,Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen, where sanitaryconditions were better than in the east, mortality wasrelatively low until late 1944. But then, the situationdramatically worsened. According to the officialstatistics, of the 27,900 prisoners who died in Dachau
    • between 1940 and 1945, no fewer than 15,400perished in the first four months of 1945, more thanin the five preceding years[2]. When British and American troops liberated thewestern camps in April 1945, they found manythousands of corpses and walking skeletons. Thehorrific mortality during the last months of thesecamps’ operation was a direct result of generalGerman collapse, for which the Western Alliesthemselves were in part responsible; after all, theyhad systematically destroyed the Germaninfrastructure with their ruthless terror bombings. ABritish physician, Dr Russell Barton, who had spent amonth in the Bergen-Belsen camp, remarked in areport: “Visiting journalists interpreted the situationaccording to the needs of propaganda at home. […]German officers told me that it had been increasinglydifficult to transport food to the camp for somemonths. Anything that moved on the autobahns waslikely to be bombed. […] I became convinced,contrary to popular opinion, that there had neverbeen a policy of deliberate starvation. This wasconfirmed by the large number of well-fed inmates.[…] The major reason for the state at Belsen werediseases, gross overcrowding by central authority,lack of law and order in the huts, and inadequatesupplies of food, water and drugs.”[3] Up to the present day, the gruesome pictures takenthen by the allied journalists are regularly presentedby the media as proof of the “Holocaust”, althoughevery single historian agrees that they show thecorpses of people who had died from epidemics.(Incidentally, the majority of victims in most westerncamps were non-Jewish.) This tragedy, terrible as it was, is not what is calledthe “Holocaust”. According to the official version ofHistory, the Jews were not only persecuted, but alsosystematically exterminated by the German NationalSocialists in specially created “extermination camps”.Millions of Jews are said to have been horriblymurdered in homicidal gas chambers and, to a muchlesser extent, in gas vans. Moreover, the Germans areaccused of having shot more than a million Jews inthe occupied Soviet territories, For us revisionists, the homicidal gas chambers andgas vans are an invention of propaganda, just like“Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction”,which served as a pretext for the Anglo-Americaninvasion of Iraq in early 2003. The founder ofrevisionism, French resistance fighter Paul Rassinier,who had been an inmate of two concentration camps
    • himself, called the Jewish extermination story “themost macabre hoax of all time”. According to therevisionists, the Germans never planned toexterminate the Jews, and the traditional six millionfigure is an irresponsible exaggeration. (As a matterof fact, the wartime documents allow the conclusionthat about 300,000 Jews died in the Germanconcentration camps[4].) These three points – theextermination plan, the gas chambers and the sixmillion figure – are the pillars of the orthodox“Holocaust” story. As for the killings of Jews on theEastern front, the revisionists do not dispute thatmany Jews were shot, but they regard the figuresmentioned in the orthodox “Holocaust” literature aswildly exaggerated. Most of these shootings occurredas reprisals for attacks by the partisan movement, inwhich Jews were strongly represented. If the official version of history is true, then theGerman National Socialists did indeed perpetrate acrime of unprecedented magnitude, and the Jews’ fatewas truly unique in its cruelty, as the Jews incessantlyclaim. On the other hand, if we Revisionists are right,the Jews’ fate, while still deplorable, was by no meansunique: persecution of religious and ethnic minorities,mass deportations, high mortality in overcrowdedcamps, the killing of civilians – all this has happenedcountless times in history. In order to decide which side is right, we shall nowexamine the evidence. I will concentrate on thequestion of the homicidal gas chambers. If thesechemical slaughterhouses did not exist, then thewhole “Holocaust” story immediately collapses. In thiscase, there can have been no plan to exterminate theJews of Europe, because there was no murderweapon, and the six million figure becomes impossiblebecause the several millions of Jews who wereformerly alleged to have been gassed have to besubtracted from the sum of six million.2. The Hierarchy of EvidencePermit me a short digression. By means of two simpleexamples, I shall demonstrate that there exists agenerally recognized hierarchy of evidence. Let us assume that someone has found an oldmanuscript according to which at a certain place thereonce stood a large city unknown to history.Archaeologists perform excavations in the respectivearea, but find nothing. As it is impossible that a largecity should disappear without leaving the slightesttrace, the archaeologists will inevitably conclude thatthe claims made in the manuscript are false. Thisdoes not necessarily mean that the manuscript is aforgery: it may be authentic, but if this is the case, it
    • conveys not a historical fact, but a myth. Thisexample shows that material evidence is more reliablethan documentary evidence. A second example will demonstrate the superiorityof documentary evidence as compared to eyewitnesstestimony. Two witnesses accuse a person of havingcommitted a crime at a certain place and a certaintime. The defendant claims that at that moment hewas staying at a hotel 1000 miles away from thescene of the crime. The hotel register confirms hisstatement. Under these circumstances, the defendantwill doubtless be acquitted. The documentaryevidence – the hotel register – will be considered ofhigher value than the statements of the witnesses,who may either have erred in good faith ordeliberately lied in order to harm the defendant. Thus, we have established a hierarchy of evidence:the material evidence comes first, followed by thedocumentary evidence, while eyewitness testimony isthe most unreliable and thus the least valuableevidence. All this is perfectly known to every judgeand should also be known to every self-respectinghistorian.3. The evidence of the orthodox “Holocaust”historiansIf millions of Jews were indeed gassed, we shouldexpect to see an overwhelming volume of evidencefor this unique atrocity: indisputably genuinehomicidal gas chambers or at least blueprints of suchchambers, mass graves with victims’ remains andplenty of documentary evidence. Indeed, such a crimewould have required an elaborate organization, andthe idea that this organization could have functionedwithout written orders, or that the Germans couldhave managed to destroy every single incriminatingdocument before the end of the war, is highlyimplausible. But when we read the orthodox“Holocaust” literature attentively, we soon realize thatthe gas chamber claims are almost exclusively basedon eyewitness testimony. The most importantevidence, material evidence, is totally lacking. The so-called “homicidal gas chambers” which the touristsvisit at a few former camps were in reality morgues(such as the ones at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau) or delousing chambers (such as the ones atMajdanek). A technical analysis conclusively showsthat these alleged “homicidal gas chambers” could nothave functioned as such. But this is not my topic: it isan aspect that will be dealt with by another speaker. Although the orthodox historians often claim thatthere are mountains of documents corroborating the
    • extermination thesis, they can produce merely ahandful of documents, a careful examination of whichshows that they prove nothing of the kind. Fordecades, the protocol of the Wannsee conference waspresented as a key document. On January 20, 1942,high-ranking German functionaries had met at theWannsee villa near Berlin to discuss anti-Jewishmeasures; their discussions were subsequentlysummarized in a protocol. Some revisionist authorshave demonstrated that the authenticity of thisprotocol is highly dubious[5], but even if it is genuine,it constitutes no proof whatsoever of the “Holocaust”,since it does not contain a single word about anextermination policy or gas chambers. In 1992, Israeli“Holocaust” expert Yehuda Bauer candidly admittedthat “Wannsee” was “a silly story”[6]. Unfortunately,this “silly story” still figures in German schoolbooks. The last researcher to have made a halfway seriousattempt to produce documentary evidence for theexistence of homicidal gas chambers was the lateFrenchman Jean-Claude Pressac. In two books, whichappeared in 1989 and 1993 respectively[7], Pressacquoted documents of the Central Construction Officeof Auschwitz which contain references to gas-tightdoors, a gassing cellar, gas detectors etc. Now thesedocuments indeed furnish strong evidence for theexistence of gas chambers, but not necessarily ofhomicidal ones. All major camps including Auschwitzhad delousing chambers which primarily served fordestroying lice, the carriers of spotted fever, bymeans of Zyklon-B, a pesticide containing prussicacid. These delousing chambers were sometimesofficially called “gas chambers”; thus the title of abooklet published in 1943 was “Prussic acid gaschambers as an instrument in the fight againstspotted fever”.[8] In their answers to Pressac, Prof.Robert Faurisson[9] and other revisionist scholars[10]could demonstrate that all documents quoted byPressac can easily be interpreted as referring todelousing operations, so that they constitute noevidence for the gassing of human beings. Ten years ago, in September 1996, an anti-revisionist French historian, Jacques Baynac,conceded that there was no scientific evidence for theexistence of homicidal gas chambers; he wrote: “For the scientific historian a witness report doesnot constitute history. It is a part of history. And awitness report has not much weight; many witnessreports do not have any more weight if no soliddocument corroborates them. […] Either we abandonthe priority of the archives, and in this case, history isdisqualified as a science and must be reclassified asan art. Or we maintain the priority of the archives,and in this case we are forced to admit that the lack
    • of traces makes it impossible to furnish any directproof of the existence of the homicidal gaschambers.”[11] Having noted the absence of material anddocumentary evidence, one sees that the whole“Holocaust” story rests entirely upon the reports ofso-called eyewitnesses and the confessions of allegedperpetrators. This alone should be a reason for deepscepticism. As the American revisionist Prof. ArthurButz has aptly remarked, we need no eyewitnessreports or confessions to know that Dresden andHiroshima were actually bombed and destroyed[12]. Let us now take a look at these eyewitnessreports.4) The evolution of the eyewitness reports Starting in late 1941, Jewish organisations in theallied and neutral countries inundated the world withall kind of lurid stories about an ongoing“extermination” of the Jews in the territoriescontrolled by Germany. When reading these accounts,we note that they do not mesh with today’s version ofthe “Holocaust”. According to the latter, the Jewswere put to death with the pesticide Zyklon-B inAuschwitz, whereas in the so-called “easternextermination camps” of Belzec, Treblinka andSobibor, they were killed using the exhaust fumesfrom Diesel engines. But the stories told during thewar were different. Let us begin with the alleged “extermination camps”in eastern Poland. According to the rumours spreadby the Jewish organizations, the Jews were beingexterminated by means of electric current in theBelzec camp. In 1945, Jewish writer Stefan Szendedescribed the killing procedure in the following way[13]: “The death factory comprises an area approximately7 kilometres in diameter. […] The trains filled withJews entered the underground rooms of the executionfactory. […] The naked Jews were brought intogigantic halls. The floor was of metal and wassubmergible. The floors of these halls, with theirthousands of Jews, were sunk into a water basinwhich lay beneath – but only far enough so that thepeople on the metal plate were not entirely underwater. After a few moments all the Jews, thousandsof them, were dead. Then the metal plate was raisedout of the water. On it lay the corpses of themurdered victims. Another shock of electric currentwas sent through, and the metal plate became acrematory oven, white hot, until all the bodies wereburnt to ashes. […] Modern technology triumphed in
    • the Nazi system. The problem of how to exterminatemillions of people was solved.” A different version of the electric current murdersystem survived till after the war. In 1945, the Polishgovernment, in its official report on the Germancrimes in Poland, which was presented by the Sovietsat the Nuremberg trial, claimed that at Belzec theJews had been pushed into a building wherein astrong electric current passed through the floor[14]. Another no less grotesque version of the allegedmass murders at Belzec was supplied by a non-JewishPole, Jan Karski. According to him, the Jews werecrowded into trains the floors of which had beencovered by a thick layer of quicklime, which burnedthem to death whilst eating the flesh from theirbones[15]. Even more significant is the case of Treblinka, themost famous of the so-called “eastern exterminationcamps”. Some of the reports spread by the Jewishorganizations shortly after the camp was opened inJuly 1942 did indeed mention gas chambers, butnever spoke of a Diesel engine. One of these reportsdescribed a mobile gas chamber moving between themass graves[16], whilst another stated that theGermans used a gas with delayed effect allowing thevictims to leave the chamber and to walk to thegraves, whereupon they swooned and fell into thegraves[17]. However, the dominant version was that ofhot steam. In a long report dating from November 15,1942, the resistance movement of the Warsaw ghettoclaimed that at Treblinka no fewer than two millionJews had been murdered by means of hot steamwithin four months[18]. On 24 August 1944, after theRed Army had conquered the area around Treblinka,the story changed again: now a Soviet commissionstated in its report that the Germans had suffocatedthree million people by pumping the air out of thedeath chambers[19]. At that time, the atrocity-story mongers wereobviously not yet sure which of the three versionswould eventually prevail. In 1945, Jewish Sovietpropagandist Vasili Grossmann published a bookletcalled The Hell of Treblinka[20]; according to him, allthree methods – steam, gas and pumping of the airfrom the chambers – had been used simultaneously.At the Nuremberg trial, the Polish government chosethe steam version. On December 14, 1945, it issued adocument in which the extermination procedure wasdescribed as follows[21]: “All victims had to strip off their clothes and shoes,which were collected afterwards, whereupon allvictims, women and children first, were driven into
    • the death chambers. […] After being filled to capacity,the chambers were hermetically closed, and steamwas let in. In a few minutes, all was over.” As to the third of the alleged “Eastern exterminationcamps”, Sobibor, some witnesses said that the victimswere killed by means of chlorine[22], while otherspreferred to tell of a mysterious heavy blacksubstance coming down in swirls from openings in thedeath chambers’ ceilings[23]. The version now found in the official Holocaustliterature, to wit that the Jews were exterminated bymeans of exhaust fumes from a Diesel engine in allthree camps, triumphed as late as in 1947. As it wasutterly incredible that the Germans should have useda wide range of totally different killing methods incamps run by the same administration, the Polishauthorities chose the method which at first sightseemed the most likely one. But technically, theDiesel engine story does not make sense: since theexhausts of a Diesel engine contain high quantities ofoxygen, but only little carbon monoxide, such engineswould have been a very poor murder weapon indeed;any petrol-burning engine would have been ten timesmore efficient[24]. The origin of the Diesel story is to befound in the Gerstein report. Kurt Gerstein, a mentallyderanged SS officer who died mysteriously in Frenchcaptivity in July 1945, had confessed two monthsbefore his death that he had witnessed a massgassing at Belzec by means of a Diesel engine.Gerstein claimed that 700 to 800 Jews were crowdedinto a gas chamber of 25 square meters, which meansthat up to 32 people were standing in the space of asquare meter! According to him, between 20 and 25million people had been gassed. Although the absurdGerstein report has been totally demolished by twoRevisionist researchers, the Frenchman HenriRoques[25] and the Italian Carlo Mattogno[26], it is still acornerstone of the orthodox “Holocaust” story. As for Auschwitz, the evolution of the exterminationstory is hardly less revealing. According to the“Holocaust” literature, most of the victims were killedwith Zyklon-B in the subterranean morgues of theCrematoria II and III of Birkenau which had beentransformed into homicidal gas chambers. However,as Spanish researcher Enrique Aynat hasdemonstrated in an excellent study[27], during the warsome totally different stories were being told. Aynatexamined the reports which the Delegatura, anorganization representing the Polish government inexile, had written about the Auschwitz camp betweenOctober 1941 and July 1944. Thanks to the constantstream of prisoners who were released fromAuschwitz or transferred to other camps, the agentsof the Delegatura were extremely well informed about
    • what was going on in the camp. While they indeedclaimed mass murders at Auschwitz, not a single oneof the 32 reports mentioned Zyklon B as a murderweapon or the Crematoria of Birkenau as the place ofkilling. According to the reports, the victims were putto death in “electric baths” or by means of a so-called“pneumatic hammer”. In some of the reports, this“pneumatic hammer” was an air-gun, in others amobile ceiling crashing onto the heads of the inmatesin the death chambers. In some of the reports, gaschambers were indeed mentioned. However, thesegas chambers were not in the morgues of thecrematoria, but “huge halls with windows throughwhich the gas was thrown in”. Only in November 1944did the official Auschwitz version take shape. In thatmonth the War Refugee Board, a Washington-basedorganization led by the Jewish Secretary of theTreasury Henry Morgenthau, published the report oftwo young Slovakian Jews, Rudolf Vrba and AlfredWetzler, who had managed to flee from Auschwitz inApril 1944. In their report, the crematoria of Birkenauwere described as containing homicidal gas chambersin which the Jews were murdered with Zyklon-B[28].This was the birth of the official version of theAuschwitz myth[29]. For the orthodox historians, all this is terriblyembarrassing. Since all extermination methods savethe gas chambers have been relegated to the dustbinsof history, all witnesses who described mass murderby steam, electricity, quicklime, “pneumatichammers” etc. must necessarily have lied. Of course,the official historians are unable to explain why theeyewitness reports of gas chambers should be morecredible than the thoroughly discredited onesspecifying other slaughter methods. For this reason,they simply hush up these stories. In his immensethree-volume work The Destruction of the EuropeanJews, Raul Hilberg does not mention them at all, sothat it never occurs to the reader that the “Holocaust”story has undergone a fundamental change since theoriginal reports. Whereas Hilberg is at least decentenough not to resort to direct forgery, leading Israeli“Holocaust specialist” Yitzhak Arad does preciselythat. In his book about Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka,he summarizes the report of the resistance movementof the Warsaw ghetto of November 15, 1942, butshamelessly distorts the text by replacing theembarrassing “steam chambers” by “gaschambers”![30]5. Do the eyewitness reports corroborate orcontradict each other?Ill-informed opponents of revisionism often argue thatthe gas chamber witnesses cannot possibly have
    • invented the same stories independently from eachother. Therefore, these people argue, the gassingstory must essentially be true, even if the number ofvictims may have been exaggerated. This argument isfundamentally flawed because the witnesses do nottell the same stories, and their reports do not tallywith but rather blatantly contradict each other. Asimple example will suffice to illustrate this point[31]. In his book The Final Solution, which is stillconsidered a classic of “Holocaust” literature, British-Jewish historian Gerald Reitlinger describes thealleged homicidal gassings in Crematoria II and III ofAuschwitz-Birkenau[32]. His description is based onexcerpts of the declarations of three eyewitnesses:the Polish Jewess Ada Bimko, the Hungarian Jew DrMiklos Nyiszli and the Romanian Jew Dr CharlesSigismund Bendel. If you read only Reitlinger’s text,you will notice no contradictions; the three witnesses’accounts seem to complete each other. But as soonas you read the full text of their statements, thesituation radically changes. According to Ada Bimko,the “gas chamber” was connected with thecrematorium by a narrow-gauge railway. As a matterof fact, the alleged “gas chamber”, which was inreality nothing but an ordinary morgue, and thecrematoria ovens were situated on different floors ofthe building[33]. In other words: Ada Bimko had neverseen the interior of the crematory and can thereforenot have been a witness to any events taking placethere. Thanks to the preserved blueprints of thecrematoria, the dimensions of the morgues ofCrematoria II and III, which allegedly served as gaschambers, are known. These rooms were 30 metreslong, 7 metres wide and 2.4 metres high[34]. Accordingto the witness Nyiszli, who claimed to have worked inCrematorium II for several months, the length of the“gas chamber” was 200 metres[35]. No less surprisingis the description by the witness Bendel, who claimedthat the “gas chamber” was ten metres long, fourmetres wide and 1.6 metres high[36]. Incidentally, thelatter description means that the witness, except forsmall children and midgets, would have had to benddown inside the chamber. In other words, the threewitnesses not only blatantly contradict each other, buttheir descriptions are totally incompatible with thephysical realities of the building they speak about.The inevitable conclusion is that all three of themmust have lied. In other cases, the descriptions of the “gas chamberwitnesses” actually mesh, but contain the sametechnical and physical impossibilities. In my bookAuschwitz. Perpetrators’ confessions and eyewitnessreports of the Holocaust[37], I have summed up
    • numerous such impossibilities. Again, one examplewill be sufficient. Several witnesses claimed that inthe Auschwitz crematoria ovens, three bodies weresimultaneously burned in one muffle within 20minutes. In 1975, a group of British cremation expertsconducted a series of experiments in order toascertain the lowest possible duration of thecremation of an adult corpse. They came to theconclusion that the minimal duration was 63minutes[38]. Provided that at Auschwitz three corpsescould be simultaneously introduced into a muffle, theprocess of cremation would therefore have lastedabout three hours, which means that the timementioned by the witnesses is nine times too low. Of course, it is impossible that several witnesseshad invented such absurdities independently fromeach other: one witness repeated what another hadsaid or written. In many cases, these witnesses madetheir statements shortly after the war at the trials ofGermans accused of participation in the mass murderof Jews. These trials were organized by the victoriouspowers in order to establish that the “Holocaust” wasa historical fact, and as there was no documentary ormaterial evidence for homicidal gas chambers, thedeclarations of – mostly Jewish – formerconcentration camp inmates were the only basis ofthe accusation. That being the case, it is clear thatthe witnesses were thoroughly instructed before thetrials. As these former prisoners had indeed sufferedin the camps, they readily took advantage of theopportunity to incriminate their former oppressors byaccusing them of every imaginable atrocity. What the eyewitness reports are worth wasdramatically demonstrated by the case of FrankWalus. In 1974, “Nazi hunter” Simon Wiesenthal andhis gang accused US citizen Walus, a retired factoryworker of Polish descent, of mind-boggling atrocitiesin Poland during the Second World War. No fewerthan eleven Jewish liars testified under oath thatWalus had fiendishly tortured and murdered an oldwoman, a girl, several children and a cripple. Walusfinally managed to obtain documents from Germanywhich proved that he had not even been in Poland atthe time of the alleged events but was working on aBavarian farm[39]. Thus the prosecution’s casecollapsed, and Walus remained a free man till the endof his life. But thousands of other defendants who hadbeen incriminated by witnesses no better than theones who testified against Walus have been sent tothe gallows or have spent many years in jail.6. Three key witnesses
    • Let us now have a look at three key-witnesses of thealleged homicidal gassings at Auschwitz: Rudolf Vrba,Henryk Tauber and Filip Müller. As you will remember,Rudolf Vrba, who had escaped from Auschwitz in April1944, authored a report about the camp together withAlfred Wetzler. In this report, the two claimed that,when the first crematorium of Birkenau was opened inMarch 1943, the first gassing operation in the morgueof this crematorium was witnessed by some unnamedhigh officials from Berlin and that 8,000 Jews werekilled in this first gassing. (As the morgue had an areaof 210 square metres, this would mean that 38victims were standing in the space of one squaremetre.) In 1964, Vrba wrote a book entitled I cannotforgive[40] in which the story had changed somewhat.Inexplicably, he now claimed that the firstcrematorium had been opened in January 1943 andthat the gassing in question had been witnessed bySS chief Heinrich Himmler himself, although allhistorians agree that Himmler last visited Auschwitz inJuly 1942. On the other hand, Vrba now contentedhimself with 3,000 victims. In 1985, when German-born Canadian revisionist Ernst Zündel (who, togetherwith chemist Germar Rudolf, is now the mostprominent political prisoner of the Zionist puppetregime in Germany) was brought to trial in Torontofor spreading “false news”, Vrba was the star witnessof the prosecution. But the impostor was mercilesslycross-examined by Zündel’s lawyer DouglasChristie[41], who was constantly advised by RobertFaurisson throughout the whole trial, and finally hadto admit that he had never witnessed this allegedgassing, but simply repeated a story he had heardfrom others; he had used “poetic licence”, to quotehis own words. During his interrogation by Christie,the swindler insisted that he had personally seen150,000 French Jews disappear into the Crematoria,whereupon Christie pointed out that according toJewish historian Serge Klarsfeld only 75,721 Jews hadbeen deported from France during the whole war, andnot all of them to Auschwitz[42]. A second key witness of the “Holocaust” is HenrykTauber, a Polish Jew who had worked in one of thecrematoria. At the trial of Rudolf Höss, the firstcommandant of Auschwitz, a declaration written byTauber after his liberation was presented as evidenceby the prosecution[43]. He stated that, whenever anallied aeroplane approached the camp, he and hiscolleagues had shoved eight corpses into a muffle inorder to ensure that especially high flames shot fromthe chimney, thus calling the attention of the pilot tothe mass extermination going on in the camp. Apartfrom the fact that no flames shoot from the chimneyof a crematorium, the doors of the muffles wereexactly 60 cm high[44]. The average human body has a
    • vertical thickness of 20 cm, which means that it wouldhardly have been possible to shove three corpses intoa muffle, much less eight. Tauber further testified thatat Auschwitz fat corpses burned without fuel. Butsince about 65% of the human body is water, corpsesnever burn without fuel; thousands of energy-consuming crematoria all over the world testify to thisfact. Although Tauber’s statements are nothing butoutlandish nonsense, one Robert Jan van Pelt, whomsome people consider to be the leading expert onAuschwitz, takes this rubbish seriously and evenpraises Tauber as the most reliable witness of all[45]! Even more hare-brained than the testimony ofTauber is that of Filip Müller. Müller had been amember of the so-called “Sonderkommando” ofAuschwitz from spring 1942 till the end of the camp’soperation in January 1945. According to the legend,the members of the “Sonderkommando” had to workin the gas chambers and the crematoria. They wereliquidated every four months and replaced by others.This means that Müller must have miraculouslysurvived at least five liquidations. But this was not theonly miracle from which he benefited. In hisnauseating bestseller Sonderbehandlung, which hewrote 34 years after the war with the help of a ghost-writer, he related that he had had to undress thevictims who had just been killed by prussic acid in thegas chamber. Once, he found a piece of cake in thepocket of a victim and greedily devored it[46]. SinceMüller cannot possibly have worn a gas-mask wheneating this cake, we cannot but conclude that he wasresistant to prussic acid. In his masterwork, Müllerdescribes how he wanted to die in the gas chambertogether with the other victims, but then a group ofnaked Jewish women decided that he had to survivein order to inform the world of the horrors he hadwitnessed, so they seized him by his arms and pushedhim out of the gas chamber[47]. This pathological liar isthe favourite witness of Professor Raul Hilberg. In hisstandard work about the “Holocaust”, The Destructionof the European Jews[48], Hilberg quotes Filip Müllertwenty times as a witness of homicidal gassings atAuschwitz![49] That is the kind of stuff the “Holocaust”legend has been made from!VII. The confessions of the “perpetrators”After the war, the victors decided to transform therumours about German “death factories” into an“established historical fact”. In my view, there werethree main reasons for this. First of all, the victorswanted to brand the German nation with the mark ofCain in order to prevent a resurgence of Germannationalism. Secondly, they wanted to hush up theirown heinous crimes against humanity, such as the
    • brutal expulsion of over 12 million Eastern Germansfrom the land of their ancestors, the destruction ofthe city of Dresden where at least 250.000 – 300.000civilians were murdered without the slightest militarynecessity[50], or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima andNagasaki at a time when Japan was already preparedto surrender. In order to achieve this goal, they foundit convenient to charge the Germans with an atrocitythat made their own misdeeds look pale incomparison. Thirdly, the “Holocaust” story, which tookits present shape in the years after the war, served asa justification for the creation of the state of Israel,which was founded in 1948 with the blessing of boththe United States and the Soviet Union. At theNuremberg trial, where the victors hypocriticallyjudged the vanquished, applying law retrospectivelyand resorting to numerous other legal manipulations,the alleged extermination of the Jews was “proved”by statements of self-declared “eyewitnesses” and the“confessions” of German “perpetrators”. Theseconfessions were frequently extracted by torture. Themost famous case is that of the aforementionedRudolf Höss, first commandant of Auschwitz. After hiscapture by the British, Höss confessed in April 1946that no fewer than 2.5 million prisoners had beengassed at Auschwitz by the end of November 1943,whilst another 500,000 had perished from starvationand disease[51]. But according to Franciszek Piper, theleading historian of the Auschwitz museum, 1.3million prisoners were brought to Auschwitz duringthe period of the camp’s operation[52], and CarloMattogno has shown that even this figure is inflatedby at least 200,000[53]. Höss also declared to havevisited Belzec and Treblinka in 1941, although Belzecwas opened in March 1942 and Treblinka in July ofthat year. As British writer Rupert Butler described in1983 in his book Legions of Death, a team of Britishtorture specialists led by the Jewish sergeant BernardClarke had savagely beaten Höss for three daysbefore he finally signed his confession. It was inEnglish, a language he did not understand[54]! The fact that the authorities of the Federal Republicof Germany have always been anxious to go alongwith the “Holocaust” story may seemincomprehensible to the uninformed observer – whyshould these people charge their own nation withimaginary crimes? The answer to this question is thatthe so-called “democratic” system, having beenimposed on the western part of Germany, just as acommunist dictatorship was imposed on the easternpart, tried to legitimize itself in the eyes of thepopulation by proving the unprecedented cruelty ofNational Socialism. This was achieved by an endlessflood of trials where the defendants, who were usuallyaccused of having murdered Jews, were presented bythe media as beasts in human form; the authorities
    • forced countless school classes to attend these show-trials in order to incite them against the generation oftheir fathers, who had overwhelmingly supported theNational Socialist regime. Thus the trials played acrucial part in the re-education of the German nation.They served to conjure up retrospectively the desiredevidence of murder by the millions in “gas chambers”through eyewitness narratives and confessions byalleged culprits - evidence which historiography hasbeen unable to produce right down to the presentday, due to a total lack of pertinent documents andmaterial traces. In view of the eminent politicalsignificance of the trials, a former SS-man sitting inthe dock, who wanted a chance at an acquittal or atleast a relatively lenient sentence, could not disputethe extermination of the Jews; he could at most denyhis own personal guilt or, in case the witnessesincriminated him too much, claim that he had beenforced to obey orders. This strategy was oftensuccessful. A succinct example of this is furnished bythe case of former SS officer Josef Oberhauser, whohad been stationed in Belzec during the war and wasput on trial in Munich in 1965. In the dock, hereferred to the necessity of following orders, but didnot contest the gassings at Belzec, so once again, theWest German justice system could triumphantly pointout that the defendant had not denied the reality ofthe mass murders. Although Oberhauser was foundguilty of assisting in the collective murder of 300,000people, he nevertheless got off with an incredibly lightsentence of merely four and a half years’imprisonment[55]. Since he had been taken intoinvestigative custody in 1960, in 1965 his sentencewas considered served, and he was released shortlyafter the verdict. This example shows that the WestGerman justice system did not need to torture thedefendants to obtain the desired confessions. In 1977, Adalbert Rückerl, the former director ofthe office responsible for the prosecution of allegedwar criminals, wrote a book about the trials[56]. In thesecond edition of his classic work about theHolocaust, The Destruction of the European Jews,Raul Hilberg quotes Rückerl’s book as a source 41times. In other words: the German justice system has“proved” the “Holocaust” through trials where thedeclarations of perjured witnesses and the enforced orenticed confessions of alleged “perpetrators”constituted the only evidence, and orthodox“Holocaust” historians like Raul Hilberg have largelybased their findings on the verdicts given at thesetrials. And today, the same corrupt German justicesystem that had fabricated fake evidence for the“Holocaust” sends revisionists to jail without everexamining their arguments, declaring the “Holocaust”to be an obvious fact proved by the historians!
    • VIII What do the documents say?The German documents, which have survived in hugenumbers, prove that the Third Reich indeed wanted toget rid of the Jewish presence, but not by means ofextermination. Until 1941, Jewish emigration to non-European territories was strongly encouraged, butthen the war and the large number of Jews living inthe newly conquered territories made a continuationof this policy impossible, and the German leadershipinstead considered implementing what it called a“territorial final solution” (this expression occurs in aletter Reinhard Heydrich wrote to foreign ministerJoachim Ribbentrop on June 24th, 1940[57]). After thebig territorial gains of the Third Reich in the earlystages of the war against the Soviet Union, largenumbers of Jews were sent to the occupied territoriesin the east, the transit camps on the way beingBelzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, which in Jewish andAllied propaganda became “extermination camps”.Simultaneously, the Reich deported hundreds ofthousands of Jews to concentration camps in order toexploit their labour. As the extremely high mortality insome camps, which was mainly due to disease, butalso to poor food and clothing, detracted severelyfrom the deportees’ economic usefulness, the Germanleadership took measures to improve the situation.Let me quote excerpts from two documents whichdeal a devastating blow to the extermination claims.On December 28th, 1942, concentration campinspector Richard Glücks sent a circular to all campcommanders, making them personally responsible forkeeping the inmates in work-fit condition; he wrote: “The camp physicians are to pay greater attentionto the inmates’ rations than heretofore, and shallsubmit proposals for improvements to the campcommandant, in agreement with the administration.These improvements must not remain on paper only,but must be regularly verified by the camp physicians.Further, the camp physicians shall see to it thatworking conditions at the various work sites areimproved as much as possible. […] The ReichsführerSS [Heinrich Himmler] has ordered that mortalityabsolutely must decrease.”[58] In fact, this order did result in a very considerableimprovement of conditions in most camps, andmortality decreased by almost 80% within eightmonths[59]. On October 26th 1943, Oswald Pohl, chief of theMain Office of economic administration of the SS, senta directive to all camp commanders demandingincreased productivity; he stated:
    • “At the present time, inmate manpower is ofsignificance, and all measures of the commandants,leaders of the food supply service and doctors mustbe aimed at maintaining inmate health and ability towork. Not from false sentimentality, but ratherbecause they must contribute to the achievement of agreat victory of the German people, we musttherefore be alert to the well-being of the inmates. Ipropose as our first goal: not more than 10% of allinmates at a time may be unable to work due toillness. […] This requires: 1) proper and practical diet;2) proper and practical clothing; 3) making full use ofall natural means for preserving health; 4) avoidingall unnecessary strain and expenditure of energy notdirectly required for work; 5) productivity bonuses.”[60] Exactly eight days after this directive had beenissued, the Germans are said to have shot no fewerthan 42,000 Jews who had been working in thearmaments plants at Majdanek and two of its sub-camps! As usual, the reports of self-declared“eyewitnesses” and the confessions of “perpetrators”form the only basis of this claim[61]. This sort of thingdeserves to be greeted with roars of contemptuouslaughter. The objection that the Germans spared only thework-fit Jews and exterminated those who wereunable to work is categorically refuted by thedocuments from Auschwitz, which was supposedly thebiggest killing centre. Since 1990, the so-called“Sterbebücher” (death books) of Auschwitz, which,with some gaps, cover the period from August 1941to December 1943 – the ones for 1944 are missing –have been accessible to researchers. If, on arrival, thesick, the old and small children had been sent straightto the “gas chambers” without registration, as theorthodox historians claim, there would be no deathcertificates of persons over 60 or under 14. As amatter of fact, at least ten percent of the prisonerswho died at Auschwitz belonged to these two agecategories[62]. That old people and children weredeported at all is certainly shameful, even if thereason was not sadism, but rather a reluctance toseparate families. On the other hand, if the orthodoxhistorians were right, there would be no documentarytrace of these people at Auschwitz: all of them wouldhave been gassed on arrival. During the whole existence of the Auschwitz camp,the percentage of prisoners unfit to work was alwaysvery high. For example, on December 31st, 1943, thecamp population was 85,298, of whom no fewer than19,699, or 23%, belonged to that category[63]. Thesepeople too would have been sent to the “gaschambers” if the official historians were right. After
    • all, from a purely economic point of view they were“useless eaters”. All this is terribly embarrassing for the defenders ofthe “Holocaust” myth. No less embarrassing is theenormous wealth of documents about the medicaltreatment of both non-Jewish and Jewish prisoners atAuschwitz. This aspect will be dealt with in detail in astill unpublished book by Italian revisionist CarloMattogno in which a large amount of such documentswill be quoted. To mention but one example: astatistical survey compiled on July 27th, 1944 showsthat in the preceding two months 3,138 HungarianJews had been treated at the Auschwitz camp hospitalfor a wide range of diseases and that 1,426 of themhad undergone surgery[64]. During the very sameperiod, hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews aresaid to have been gassed at Auschwitz! Again, thisclaim, for which there is not a shred of documentaryor material evidence, is exclusively based on thedeclarations of Jewish “eyewitnesses” like RudolfVrba, Henryk Tauber, Filip Müller and otherprofessional swindlers. Speaking of medical surgery, aPolish historian, Henryk Swiebocki, reports that nofewer than 11,246 prisoners were operated on at thecamp hospital of Auschwitz between September 1942and February 1944[65]. Any further comment seemssuperfluous.IX ConclusionTo future generations, the “Holocaust” will indeedseem unique, but for other reasons than the Jewsclaim. These future generations will be at a loss toexplain how a history so utterly absurd was not onlyuniversally believed for many decades, but evendefended by the governments of so-called“democratic” states by rigid censorship and nakedterror. We are supposed to believe in a gigantic massmurder in chemical slaughterhouses which has left notraces at all: no homicidal gas chambers, noblueprints of such, no autopsy reports about even onesingle gassed prisoner, no mass graves, no ashes, nobones, no documents – nothing. The “Holocaust” issupposedly proved by legions of Jewish survivors,although every single survivor constitutes living proofthat, whilst the Germans certainly persecuted theJews, they did not exterminate them. In 1968, thePolish Historical Institute in Warsaw published thenarrative of one Samuel Zylbersztain, a Polish Jewwho had survived no fewer than ten camps: The“extermination camp” Treblinka, the “exterminationcamp” Majdanek, and eight “normal concentrationcamps” into the bargain[66]. Far from proving the“Holocaust”, such cases show that there was no“Holocaust”.
    • That said, the preposterous “Holocaust” story hadand still has dire political consequences. But for thishoax, the world would never have allowed theZionists to embark on their anachronistic colonialistenterprise in Palestine. But for this hoax, the state ofIsrael, which is the main cause of unrest in the MiddleEast, would not exist, and the Palestinians would nothave been robbed of their homeland. But for thishoax, the world would be a more secure and peacefulplace. __________________________[1] Jean-Claude Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz, Piper Verlag,Munich/Zurich 1994, p. 193.[2] Johann Neuhäusler, Wie war das im KZ Dachau?, Kuratorium fürSühnemal KZ Dachau, Dachau 1981, p. 27.[3] Robert Lenski, The Holocaust on Trial, Reporter Press, Decatur,Alabama 1990, p. 157 ff.[4] Jürgen Graf, “National Socialist Concentration Camps: Legend andReality”, in Germar Rudolf (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust, Theses &Dissertation Press, Chicago 2003, p. 297-300.[5] Roland Bohlinger and Johannes P. Ney, Zur Frage der Echtheit des“Wannsee-Protokolls”, Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle, Ingolstadt,1987.[6] The Canadian Jewish News, January 20, 1992.[7] Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the GasChambers, The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1989. – Jean-Claude Pressac, Les crématories d’Auschwitz, CNRS, Paris 1993.[8] F. Puntigam, H. Breymesser, E. Bernfus, Blausäuregaskammern zurFleckfieberabwehr, Sonderveröffentlichung des Reichsarbeitsblattes,Berlin 1943.[9] Robert Faurisson, “Bricolage et ‘gazouillages’ à Auschwitz et Birkenauselon J.C. Pressac”, Revue d’Histoire Révisionniste, 3 (1990/1991). –Robert Faurisson, Réponse à Jean-Claude Pressac, R.H.R., Colombes,France 1994.[10] Herbert Verbeke (ed.), Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten, Vrij HistorischOnderzoek, Berchem, Belgium 1995.[11] Jacques Baynac, “Comment les historiens délèguent à la justice latâche de faire taire les révisionnistes”, Nouveau Quotidien, Lausanne,September 2, 1996.[12] Arthur Butz, “Context and perspective in the ‘Holocaust’Controversy”, Journal of Historical Review, 4/1982.[13] Stefan Szende, Der letzte Jude aus Polen, Europa Verlag, Zurich1945, p. 290 ff.[14] Nuremberg document URSS-13, 93, p. 41 f.[15] Jan Karski, Story of a Secret State, Houghton Mifflin Company,Boston 1944, p. 339 f.[16] Krystyna Marczewska, Wladyslaw Wazniewski, “Treblinka w swietleAkt Delegatury Rzadu RP na Kraj”, Biuletyn Glowney Komisji BadaniaZbrodni Hitlerowskich w Polsce, Volume XIX, Warsaw 1968, p. 136 f.[17] Ibidem, p. 137 f.[18] Ibidem, p. 139-145.[19] Gosudarstvenny Arkhiv Rossiskoj Federatsii, Moscow, 7021-115-19,9, p. 108.[20] Vassili Grossmann, L’enfer de Treblinka, B. Arthaud, Grenoble andParis 1945.[21] Nuremberg document PS-3311.[22] Testimony of Zelda Metz, in: N. Blumenthal (ed.), Dokumenty imaterialy, Volume 1, Lodz, Poland 1946, p. 211.[23] Alexander Pechersky, “La rivolta di Sobibor”, in: Yuri Suhl, Ed essi siribellarono. Storia della resistenza ebraica contro il nazismo, Milan1969, p. 31.[24] Friedrich P. Berg, “Diesel Gas Chambers: Ideal for Torture, absurd forMurder”, in Germar Rudolf (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust, Theses &Dissertation Press, Chicago 2003, p. 435-470.[25] Henri Roques, The “Confessions” of Kurt Gerstein, Institute forHistorical Review, Costa Mesa, California 1989.[26] Carl Mattogno, Il rapporto Gerstein: Anatomia di un falso, Sentinellad’Italia, Monfalcone, Italy 1985.
    • [27] Enrique Aynat, Estudios sobre el “Holocausto”, García Hispán,Valencia 1994.[28] Executive Office of the President: War Refugee Board, Washington,German Extermination Camps – Auschwitz and Birkenau, November1944. [29] As for the development of the Auschwitz myth see Carlo Mattogno, “Auschwitz – 60 Jahre Propaganda”, Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsfoschung 2/2005.[30] Yitzhak Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: The Operation ReinhardDeath Camps, Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis1987, p. 354 f.[31] I am indebted for this example to Carlo Mattogno, “Leugnung derGeschichte? – Leugnung der Beweise”, Vierteljahreshefte für freieGeschichtsforschung 2004/2.[32] Gerald Reitlinger, The Final Solution, London 1953, p. 150 f.[33] Raymond Philipps, The trial of Josef Kremer and 44 others (TheBelsen Trial), William Hodge and Company, London/Glasgow/Edinburgh1946, p. 66-76.[34] Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the GasChambers, New York 1989, p. 286.[35] Miklos Nyiszli, Auschwitz. A doctor’s eyewitness account, New York1961, p. 44.[36] Nuremberg document NI-11593, p. 2 f.[37] Jürgen Graf, Auschwitz: Tätergeständnisse und Augenzeugen desHolocaust, Verlag Neue Visionen, Würenlos, Switzerland 1994.[38] “Factors which affect the process of cremation”. Annual CremationConference Report, Cremation Society of Britain, 1975, p. 81.[39] Mark Weber, “Simon Wiesenthal – bogus ‘Nazi hunter’”, Journal ofHistorical Review, No. 4, Winter 1989/1990.[40] Rudolf Vrba, I cannot forgive, Bantam Books, Toronto 1964.[41] Transcript of the First Zündel trial, Toronto, 7.1. 1985.[42] Serge Klarsfeld, Le Mémorial de la déportation des juifs de France,Paris 1978.[43] Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the GasChambers, New York 1989, p. 489 f.[44] Ibidem, p. 93 f.[45] Robert Jan van Pelt, The case for Auschwitz, Indiana UniversityPress, Bloomington 2002, p. 193, 204.[46] Filip Müller, Sonderbehandlung, Verlag Steinhausen, Frankfurt a.M.1979, p. 23 ff.[47] Ibidem, p. 179, 180.[48] Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, Holmes & Meyer,New York 1985.[49] Cf. Jürgen Graf, The Giant with Feet of Clay. Raul Hilberg and hisStandard Work on the “Holocaust”, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings2000. [50] In a letter dating from July 31th, 1992 the city administration of Dresden quoted a report by the Dresden police according to which 202.040 bodies had been found by March 20th, 1945. According to the letter, the real death toll amounted to 250.000-300.000. Some resarchers mention even higher figures.[51] Nuremberg document NO-3868 PS.[52] Franciszek Piper, Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz, VerlagStaatliches Museum in Oswiecim, 1993.[53] Carlo Mattogno, “Franciszek Piper und die Zahl der Opfer vonAuschwitz”, Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 1/2003.[54] Rupert Butler, Legions of Death, Arrow Books Limited, London 1983,p. 235 ff. – Robert Faurisson, “How the British obtained the confessionsof Rudolf Höss”, Journal of Historical Review, No. 4, Winter 1986/7.[55] Adalbert Rückerl, NS-Vernichtungslager im Spiegel deutscherStrafprozesse, Frankfurt/M 1977, p. 86.[56] Adalbert Rückerl, NS-Vernichtungslager im Spiegel deutscherStrafprozesse, Frankfurt/M 1977.[57] Nuremberg document T-173.[58] Nuremberg document NO-1523.[59] Nuremberg document PS-1469.[60] Archiwum Muzeum Stutthof, I-IB-8, p. 53.[61] Jürgen Graf und Carlo Mattogno, Concentration Camp Majdanek. AHistorical and Technical Study, Theses & Dissertation Press, Chicago2003, chapter 9.[62] Germar Rudolf, Vorlesungen über den Holocaust, Castle HillPublishers, Hastings 2005, p. 271-273.[63] Archiwum Glowney Komisji Badania Zbrodni przeciwko NarodowiPolskiemu, Warsaw, NTN, 134, p. 277 f.
    • [64] Gosudarstvenny Arkhiv Rossiskoj Federatsii, Moscow, 7021-108-21,32, p. 76.[65] Henryk Swiebocki, “Widerstand”, in: Auschwitz. Studien zurGeschichte des Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslagers, VerlagStaatliches Museum Auschwitz, 1999, p. 330.[66] Samuel Zylbersztain, “Pamietnik wieznia dziesieciu obozow”, in:Biuletyn Zydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego w Polsce, No. 68,Warsaw 1968, pp. 53-56. Top | Home ©-free 2006 Adelaide Institute ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN - Tehran International Conference "Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision 10-12 December 2006 ____________________________ Program Tuesday, 12 December 2006 Ugo Fabbri The “Risiera di San Sabba” Trial of 1976 Theatrical Staging for an Extermination - by Ugo Fabbri (Italy) The “Risiera di San Sabba” in Triesteoriginally was a rice-processing plant. In the wartimeyears of 1943-1945 the buildings, having beenabandoned, were used by the German army as apolice post for the clearance of prisoners of war and abase for anti-guerrilla troops. In 1965 the “Risiera” was declared an Italiannational monument by virtue of its being “the soleexample of Nazi lager in Italy”. The word “camp” ismisleading for the place consisted of a main five-storey building used as barracks for the German
    • troops. Around it were subsidiary buildings, that is,storehouses, garages, a cookhouse, a large room forprisoners in transit. On 16th February 1976 in the Trieste Assizesthere opened the trial of six German officers, amongstwhom colonel Dietrich Allers, a “Risiera” commander,charged, thirty years after the purported facts, withcrimes that German troops were said to havecommitted against the Communist partisans and theJewish community. According to the literary and official version,thousands of “innocent” prisoners belonging to thelocal Jewish community, along with partisans of Tito,were killed at the “Risiera” and burnt in acrematorium. A historical fraud so obvious that it iseasily exposed. The myth of the “Risiera” as the soleextermination camp in Italy originated as a diversioncreated by the partisans to draw public opinion awayfrom the crimes they themselves had committed atthe “foibe”, deep crevasses in the rocky land outsideTrieste. During the war they were the partisans’ killinggrounds for Italians and political opponents. Wherever a civilised juridical system exists thefacts are ascertained first and a judgement is madelater. In Italy, cradle of law but grave of justice, thetrend has been towards a reversal of tradition. The first non-official investigative actconcerning the “Risiera” dates from May 28th, 1964. Itis a letter that Dr Dettmer, member of the Hamburgcriminal court and investigating magistrate, sent toTrieste to get information about SS General OdiloGlobocnik. The Communist Party immediately gotwind of the affair and took control of it. One of itsexaminers was Albin Bubnic, a wartime inmate in theGerman lager and then Tito’s official representative inthe Venezia Giulia region. Dr Mario Stock of theJewish community actively assisted. A comparison of the various trial witnesses’statements gives a significant picture: on some pointsthere is a doubtful, repetitive matching with thepartisan fabrication, even in the mistakes. Anythinggoing the accusers’ way always found favourableground, with no attention being paid to testimoniesfavourable to the defendants. Four of the six defendants were dead.According to the code, the court should have removedtheir names from the indictment. However, at thepartisans’ request the Court reserved the right to take
    • its decision later; it was clear that it servedsomebody’s interests to keep ghosts on trial so as tothrow mud at their memory without fear of cross-examination. The only one who was eventually to sitin the dock was lieutenant Joseph Oberhauser, ajunior officer. In all Western lawcourts stands the maximnemo iudex in causa sua (no-one is judge in his owncase), that is, that the judge must guarantee that heis above the parties. In the “Risiera” trial this wasflouted. There is a strict procedure to guarantee theimpartiality of a jury, the members being drawn fromamong the citizenry and supposed to meet particularrequirements. One of the “Risiera” trial jurors, AdolfoRot, belonged to a partisan Yugoslav Communistfamily who had paid with their blood in the fightagainst the Germans. Owing to the losses his familysuffered during the war, Rot appeared the man mostsuitable to take personal revenge on the Germans,rather than guarantee them a fair trial. In anyEuropean country this circumstance alone would beenough to declare the nullity of the whole trial due topresumed bias. The above also applied to jurorAdriana Nicolini who as a young girl had seen hermaternal aunt (belonging to the Jewish community)arrested by the Germans, and said she had been inshock after it. All the partisans in charge of supervision ofreferences to alleged facts were connected either withthe “Resistance” or with the Jewish community. TheCourt should rather have appointed as its consultantshistorians who could guarantee impartiality. As to how the witnesses were treated, the caseof Mr Luciano Hesse, interpreter at the Germancommand, is emblematic. In spite of his being putunder pressure in an environment which poured onhim all its ethnic hatred, he always refused toacknowledge the existence of a crematory oven at the“Risiera”, and was thus convicted for perjury. When a criminal investigatory body does itswork, the scene of a crime is inspected immediately,or at least as soon as possible. However, theinvestigation into the mass-killings at the “Risiera”and the on-the-spot inspection were ordered onlyafter duly-guided workmen had planed the floors,thus doing away with traces that might lead to thetruth. The case for the existence of the crematoryoven and its use to burn corpses is groundless. A
    • simple technical consideration makes this fact appearforthright and conclusive. Despite whatever may bebelieved in Italy or elsewhere, the device had been arice-drying apparatus, not equipped with firebricks(unavoidable component for an oven), but with aninnocuous thermo-hydraulic mechanism, a boilersimilar to a common household heating plant. Itproduced an air jet of 30°C, that is, a temperaturelower than that of a hair drier and at which onecannot even cremate an ant. The idea that such aboiler could be turned into an ad hoc crematory ovenis a simple triumph of ignorance and bad faith. TheCourt must be rebuked for its total carelessnessconcerning the subject, which called for a forensicinspection. Since there was no objective matchingconfirmation, other than the interested party’sstatements, to prove the existence of a crematoryoven, as a cover-up it was said that, beforeabandoning Trieste, the Germans had dynamited it. Under Italian law ‘criminal liability is personal’and this to the extent that the Court of Assizes shouldhave fulfilled the duty of identifying the person whomthe defendant had allegedly killed, how, when, inwhat circumstances and why the defendant wouldhave sullied himself with the crime of which he wascharged. Nothing of all that was known at the“Risiera” trial: we do not even know the identity ofthe victims and we are not sure whether they actuallyexisted. The partisan fabrication supplied the Courtwith a list of 317 “victims”, drawn up by A. Bubnicand produced without any verification. Since it wasdifficult — for good reason — to make a long list ofthe names of persons actually deceased at the“Risiera”, the forgers included the names of missingsoldiers, criminals, spies, saboteurs, partisans alreadysentenced to death for various crimes by the Germanmilitary courts. Such “non-innocent” victims,according to the public prosecutor’s own statement,should have been excluded. In addition, Bubnic’s listcontains names stated twice, that is, in two languagesor else mentioned twice by mistake, the names ofseveral persons deceased elsewhere, of persons ofwhom nothing is unspecified, of persons killed by theYugoslavs and the Communists and not by theGermans, of Jews registered as having been deportedto the lagers, of partisans who died after the war’send. Moreover, it is highly significant that manyrelatives of persons in the list of victims were notadmitted as plaintiffs in the case, for the Stateauditing authority ascertained that those victims were
    • not “innocent”. Whereas the Trieste court had painteda thoroughly black picture, with thousands of innocent“Risiera” victims, the State auditors, having taken duecare in verifying the documents produced, threw outall “Risiera”-related claims, finding them manifestlygroundless. Liliana Picciotto Fargion, who works at theCentro di documentazione ebraica (Centre forcontemporary Jewish documentation) in Milan andcollaborates with Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, writes:“The following list is the outcome of a ten-year job. Itincludes only the ascertained deportees, either deador surviving”. The Centro, aided by other scholars,has classified each of the Jewish inmates at the“Risiera” as having been deported to the lagers. Thetrial judge, however, listed them amongst the victimsburnt in the alleged crematorium at the “Risiera”. Recently the vaults containing the bones, notashes, of 70 partisans shot at the rifle range near thevillage of Opicina 1944 were discovered at Sant’AnnaCemetery in Trieste. The find belies the Assize Court’sverdict stating that the bodies were incinerated in thecrematory oven at the Risiera di San Sabba. Theseremains – miraculously resuscitated from the chimney– lay bare the fraud of those who intrigued to put ahoax in the place of historical truth. On 2nd April 1944 a partisan bomb explodednear Opicina, killing several men of the German 188thdivision. In reprisal, the German military courtordered 70 captured partisans to be shot. They wereexecuted at the rifle range near Opicina, where aplaque recalls the tragic event. In 1976 the Court of Assizes in Trieste re-examined the case and ruled that the bodies of theshot partisans had been burnt in the “crematoryoven” at the Risiera di San Sabba, adding thatlieutenant Oberhauser – tried and sentenced inabsentia to life imprisonment – had “confessed” asmuch. The vaults, not cinerary urns, can be still seenat Sant’Anna cemetery, section XX, in the “sacred”area reserved for the partisans. Readily availablephotos show a plaque with the 70 names, and the cityauthorities gather there to commemorate the 70partisans. That is the triumph of historical truth. In recognizing as “innocent” victims personswho were in reality terrorists acting against thecivilian population, the court criminalized the anti-
    • guerrilla struggle by the Italian and German troops against Yugoslav and Communist partisan bands. The “Risiera” trial reproduced the Nuremberg trial thirty years later. Top | Home ©-free 2006 Adelaide Institute Islamic Republic of Iran National Anthem In celebration of the Iranian Presidents support of Revisionists ___________________________________ International Conference "Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision Tehran, 11-12 December 2006__________________________________________ THE ‘HOLOCAUST-Shoah’ in TIME & SPACE, not MEMORY The Alleged Murder Weapon: Homicidal Gas Chambers The Logistics Problem: UNDRESS-GAS- BURN Dr Fredrick Töben - Adelaide Institute, Australia www.adelaideinstitute.org ***
    • "How can anybody seriously believe that theHolocaust did NOT happen? Considering all thewitnesses, all these pictures, all the documents,how could all this be lies and forgeries? Andhow could anybody, who has his five sensestogether, believe that such a thing could bemade up? Thousands of historians and otherresearchers, hundreds of prosecutors, judges,and jurors - are they all wrong? Or did they allconspire in an incredible meeting of minds, aconsensus of mind-reading?""How can anybody seriously believe that theHolocaust DID happen? Considering all theabsurdities, impossibilities, contradictions, howcould all these witness tales ever be believed?And how could anybody, who has his five sensestogether, believe that such a thing could havehappened? Thousands of historians and otherresearchers, hundreds of prosecutors, judges,and jurors - have they all lost their minds? Orwere they all so brainwashed by wartimepropaganda or trembling in fear of the Jews thatthey did not dare to rock the boat?"Germar Rudolf, Epilogue, in: Mattogno, C &Graf, J: Treblinka. Extermination Camp orTransit Camp?. *** "The consequence of World War II did not create Zionism as an effective politicalmovement: they merely gave Zionism the world political victory it needed for the final stage of the takeover of Palestine. All the world powerhad fallen to the U.S. and the Soviet Union, bothof which were most friendly to the Zionist causeat this time. Under the circumstances, the Arab
    • position was hopeless, because it depended on the firmness and political independence of aBritain that was almost prostrate politically and economically." Professor Arthur Butz, in his 1979 classic: The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. ***We will not accept that Iran acquires nuclearweapons - we have learnt from the Holocaust todefend ourselves. Israeli PM Ehud Olmert, on NBC TVbefore meeting with US President Bush, Der Standard, 13November 2006 ______________1. Words of ThanksHonourable AttendeesWith deep gratitude I thank the President of theIslamic Republic of Iran, Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,for making all this here possible. It is the first time inRevisionist history that a truly international‘Holocaust’ conference has been held where generaland specific focus is on the claim that during WorldWar Two the Germans systematically exterminatedEuropean Jewry in homicidal gas chambers, inparticular at Auschwitz.I thank the Iranian people for having brought forth aleadership that is fearless of Jewish pressure, aleadership that courageously sets out to clarifyfundamental human values lost in most of thewestern ‘democratic and free world’ where such havebeen replaced by the outgrowth of internationalpredatory capitalism -excessive materialisticconsumer hedonism and militarism.
    • There are Revisionists, such as Germar Rudolf, JürgenGraf, Siegfried Verbeke, Ernst-Günter Kögel, HorstMahler, Ernst Zündel, among others, who cannotattend this conference because they are currentlylocked up in German prisons. Udo Walendy andGünter Deckert, who have both served prisonsentences for their Revisionist work, send theirregards to all. Gunter almost made it to theconference but the authorities withdrew his passport acouple of days before he was set to depart for Iran.Then there are a number of American Revisionistswho dare not come to Tehran for fear of USgovernment retaliation against their persons. We allknow what form it takes: personal defamatory,economic and professional attacks aimed atdiscrediting and destroying the person rather than thearguments they propound. Sometimes I ask myself, isthe United States of America, the land of the free,about to become a prison for Revisionists? If so,why?[1]2. INTRODUCTIONNo one can deny that during World War Two millionsof people tragically suffered and died - weredeliberately killed, and let me reassure you thatRevisionists are not in the business of denying theobvious tragic facts of any military conflict. However,where there has been made an allegation of murder,then any criminal investigation will, as a top priority,need to establish the cause of death. This means, asin all murder investigations, the first thing to look foris the murder weapon. In the Jewish case against theGermans, called the Holocaust - or as Jews now referto it Shoah - the mass murder weapon, amongothers, is alleged to have been homicidal gaschambers.
    • What Revisionists aim to do is to gain a balancedunderstanding of events, of sifting fact from fiction. Inthe world event that has become known as theHolocaust-Shoah there is an urgent need objectivelyto look at the claims made within its narrative. Why?Because the claims are of such horrendous naturethat they are beyond belief and distorting ourunderstanding of human nature. In other words, theclaims made against the Germans border onmadness.It is not good enough for researchers into this topic toassume the closed-minded attitude adopted, forexample, by professors Deborah Lipstadt and AlanDershowitz. Both academics maintain there is nodiscussion on this topic and that anyone who seekssuch a public discussion should be ridiculed andignored. Such a mindset reveals outright intellectualdishonesty and shows how morally bankrupt thesetwo individuals are. There is a raging discussion aboutthe Holocaust-Shoah controversy.What has occurred though, especially in the so-calledwestern democracies is that through subtle and directlegal, economic and social sanctions an open publicdiscussion has been successfully stifled, at all levelsof society, especially within places of learning, such asuniversities and schools.We need to be cautious in our stance against thismindset, lest we adopt its own parameters for ourown and become like them - closed minded. Hencemy guiding principle is expressed thus: Dont blamethe Jews, blame those that bend to their pressure. Allthat is needed to topple the Holocaust-Shoah lies isfor courageous and fearless people to stand up to thepressure that particular lobby groups exert onindividuals in an attempt to stifle the urgently neededpublic debate. [2]
    • It is not possible in the brief time available to presenta detailed report on an issue such as the alleged‘Holocaust-Shoah’ murder weapon, and so I needdrastically to limit myself to some basic physicalmatters that will show how absurd the gassing claimreally is.I wish to offer a brief overview of the homicidal gaschamber thesis as it applies to Auschwitz andTreblinka concentration camps, and with the help of amodel show that technically the claims made by so-called Holocaust-Shoah survivors and believers aboutthe mass gassings and burnings, are a physicalimpossibility.[3]2.1 The extermination claimIn the spring of 1945, long before Germany finallycollapsed , there had been an Allied propagandacampaign claiming that people, mainly Jews, werebeing killed in so-called extermination camps.Of the six alleged German extermination camps inPoland, Auschwitz-Birkenau[4] is the key to thewhole story because it is for this camp that mountainsof documentary evidence exists, while for the othershardly anything at all exists. Map of Europe
    • 3. The Auschwitz gassing story3.1 Setting the sceneAuschwitz I, Stammlager/base camp, was theadministrative centre, which had been a convertedand expanded military barracks complex belonging tothe Austrian Army before World War One, whileAuschwitz II, Birkenau, at the outset had beendesigned as a much larger camp intended for thespecific needs of the SS operations in the area.Auschwitz II performed the normal functions of aGerman concentration camp, housing inmates for thepurpose of exploiting their labour for the nearby-established large industrial complex. It was clearlythe main camp in terms of inmate accommodatingfunctions.If during World War Two a monstrous exterminationof many hundreds of thousands of people took placein gas chambers at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II, and
    • if the bodies of the victims were disposed of in thecremation facilities in those camps, then the murderweapon - the homicidal gas chambers - had anessential counterpart: the cremation ovens.3.2 Auschwitz-Birkenau Krema II: - physicalThere were four crematories at Birkenau, and inparticular Krema II and III still remain the principalsites where Germans allegedly implemented the ‘finalsolution’ of exterminating European Jews duringWorld War II. Here also the physical evidence of analleged homicidal gas chamber is the most extant.Interestingly, Krema II and III performed cremationfunctions similar to those performed in other typicalGerman labour camps where, however, it is notclaimed that exterminations took place.Map of Auschwitz District with industrial areasIt is alleged that during a three-month period, May toJuly 1944, about 436,000 Hungarian Jews were
    • gassed and cremated in Kremas II and III - 12,000Jews were allegedly gassed and cremated every day,and it is claimed there is available data and testimonyto support these assertions.Imagine organizing the physical gassing procedure for12,000 persons a day. It was a three-step procedure:1. From the railway ramp the Jews were herded intoKremas II and III mortuary where they undressed;2. From there they walked naked into the showerroom to be gassed;3. The bodies were then transported via a small flat-top lift upstairs into the room where the fivecrematory ovens were ready to burn the bodies, all12,000 of them.A quick calculation about the daily numbers gassedindicates that it is technically impossible to gas12,000 persons a day. Hence the urgent need toinvestigate such claims. Although a believer in thegassings, Dr Norman Finkelstein put it clearly: “Thechallenge today is to restore the Nazi Holocaust as arational subject of inquiry. Because Holocaustsurvivors are now revered as secular saints, onedoesn’t dare question them. Preposterous statementspass without comment.” [5]Revisionists need to have the freedom to researchthis matter without fear of having their livelihooddestroyed through legal persecution that also oftenends in an imposed prison sentence.3.3 The legal battle - factual evidence becomesirrelevantIt is a fact that in all courts where ‘Holocaust’ mattersare litigated, physical proof and the testing ofeyewitness evidence is not done. This is because in
    • the Ernst Zündel 1984/5 and 1988 Toronto ‘Holocaust’trial, expert witnesses, for example Professor RaulHilberg, could not support their claims under rigorouscross examination, as is the usual practice in acriminal matter where individuals are accused ofmurder. Hilberg stated that there was no Hitler FinalSolution Order, and that the alleged homicidal gaschambers had never been scientifically investigated.Parallel with the Zündel case in 1988 we saw aJerusalem court sentence Ivan Demjanjuk to death -but more of that later.This admission that Revisionists would win their courtcases if they had an opportunity to present their case,was a danger sign for ‘Holocaust’ believers, and sofrom 1988 onwards the legal persecution of‘Holocaust deniers focused on how to avoid proving incourt the physical claims made by so-calledsurvivors.This was done by diverting and subsumingHolocaust matters into the realm of racial hatred -an absurdity but an effective one.[7]Also, it must be remembered that any blocking ofenquiry by legal means has psychological implicationsfor alleged victims and perpetrators alike because theresult is ignorance about vital historical matters - andignorance cannot be good for any mind.There is nothing mysterious about Revisionism assuch because Revisionism is an heuristic method thatenables individuals to open themselves to, and toeffectively process new information impulses. Allthinking individuals are Revisionists.3.4 The Five Crematoria at Auschwitz I and II:Krema I-V
    • 3.41. Basic factsThe crematorium at Auschwitz I was equipped withthree double muffle ovens, i.e. each of the threecremation ovens had two compartments wherein abody could be placed. It was taken out of service in1943 when the new crematories at Auschwitz II werecommissioned. It was then converted into an air raidshelter for the SS guards. After the war it wasreconstructed by the Poles to make it look as if it hadbeen functioning as a homicidal gas chamber.It was claimed that about 15,000 Jews were gassed inKrema I. Up to 1996 this claim remained authentic,but then Holocaust historians, professors Robert Janvan Pelt and Deborah Dwork, stated that mass killingsin this crematorium never took place, and that thefacilities were restructured to symbolically representwhat was happening at Auschwitz II, Krema II inparticular.[6]
    • Auschwitz I mortuary: Krema I - next to the hospital- some Holocaust-Shoah believers still think it was a homicidal gaschamber3.42 A lesson from History - technological limitsWe must bear in mind that throughout historytechnology has not only provided means but has alsodictated limits. These technological limitations areabsolute, and if historical conclusions can be based onthem, they therefore become absolute too. Forexample, it would be quite easy to prove as genuineor a forgery a wartime diary that was written in ink. Ifan analysis of the ink was made and the resultshowed that the particular ink used to write the diarycame on to the market in only 1950,for example, thenwe can safely conclude the diary is a forgery.
    • Likewise with any of the Holocaust claims where anynumber of technical problems arise. Professor RobertFaurisson, Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf, amongothers,[8] investigated the use of Zyklon-B gas, asclaimed in the extermination theory. They concludedthat most, if not all, of the reported evidence takenfor granted by todays ‘Holocaust’ historians, must bedismissed on grounds of the technical properties ofthe insecticide gas - Zyklon-B.Another subject of a technical nature is the disposal ofthe alleged millions of corpses after prisoners hadsupposedly been gassed. NB.: It is not disputed thatprisoners were shot and otherwise killed.3.43 Practical/technical problems - Krema IITherefore, the practical and technical problem isbasically a simple one. If victims were gassed andcremated, cremation facilities must have dealt withthe proclaimed 6 million corpses. If one can calculatethe total number of theoretically possible cremationson a technological basis, and in accordance with therelevant historical data, one simultaneously arrives atthe maximum number of theoretically possible dead.For the present, the calculation shall be restricted tocremations in Krema II only, and the result willjustify such an approach.The term Extermination Camp as understood hererefers to Death Camps and Killing Centres as listedby Raul Hilberg.[9]It is interesting to note that Holocaust believer,Robert Jan van Pelt, uses a statement from formercamp commandant, Rudolf Höß, made at the 1947Krakow court hearing, that sheds light on the inherentproblem of continuous crematoria use:
    • “After eight or ten hours of operation the crematoriawere unfit for further use.”[10]The significance of his statement will becomeapparent when we look at the cremation problem.Also, what is often not mentioned by Holocaustbelievers when talking about Auschwitz is that thehydrogenation and other chemical industries set upat the Auschwitz industrial complex to producesynthetic rubber, among other things, werecontaminating the air with stenches. A number of so-called eyewitnesses stated they could smell thehomicidal gas chambers.[11]However, the crematoria’s ovens were built in such away that the fumes escaping through the chimneywere odourless, and no flames came out of thechimney, as many Holocaust survivors had reported.3.44 Operation of cremation ovens - Krema IIAssuming a daily operation time of nine hours, we getper oven with three muffles each containing a corpse,the burning of three bodies per hour. This means thatat Krema II one oven could cremate 9 x 3 corpses/h= 27 corpses per day. Thus, 27 x 5 ovens = 135corpses per day. Add to that Krema III, the mirrorimage of Krema II, and we have a total of 135 x 2 =270 corpses per day for Krema II and Krema IIIcombined.Krema IV and V with eight muffles each = 8 x 9 = 72x 2 is a total of 144 corpses per day.Therefore, in theory, we have Auschwitz IIs Krema IIto V cremating 270 + 144 = 414 corpses in total perday, providing of course that all four crematoriesworked continuously without breaking down orstopping for essential maintenance.
    • All crematories existed for a total of 2,367 days, butthe actual operation time was 1,164 days, and it ishighly unlikely that all of the ovens within the ovenroom were always in action.[12]Therefore, the stand-down time due to defects andrepairs or idle time was about 55%.Shortly after the end of the war, a Sovietinvestigating committee estimated and determined,without any further research, the figure of four milliondeaths at Auschwitz. Even though there were doubtsabout the accuracy of the estimates from the verybeginning, it became a dogma when the figure wasset in legal concrete through the staging of what wereessentially show trials.[13]3.45 Model Auschwitz-Birkenau -Krema IIModel of Auschwitz-Birkenau Krema II. It operated from 15March 1943 - October 1944 = 432 days. The tile-lining inside thethree muffles of each of the five ovens had a lifespan of 3,000cremations each, and after 45,000 cremations all muffle lininghad to be replaced. They were not replaced while Krema IIoperated indicating that the total number of cremations wasabout 45,000 cremations. Considering the other crematories and
    • we come very close to the figure of 135,000 victims died ofnatural courses in the camp and were cremated. On 21 February 2006 Australias ABC TV Lateline interviewed [14] Fredrick Töben before his March 2006 visit to Mashhad.Auschwitz II, Krema II model displayed at the HolocaustMuseum showing the logistic problem of removing the bodies -left, 2,000 undressing and waiting, right, 2,000 gassed andwaiting, while above right 2,000 cremations in the alleged gasovens.
    • Explaining the workings of Krema II at Mashhad in March 2006Lets recall: Krema V was used for the prisoners thatroutinely died in Auschwitz I, Auschwitz II and in anyof the 40 or so satellite camps, and whose corpseswere collected daily. Krema IV was beyond repair andtaken out of service, i.e. after being in service for only50 days for all of 1943.From May 15 to July 1944 about 12,000 mainlyHungarian prisoners in six trains arrived daily,approximately 400,000 prisoners in total. It was anawesome task: 12,000 daily arrivals had to be gassedand cremated mainly in Krema II and III. Rememberthat Krema II and III each had five ovens with 15muffles thus giving each Krema a capacity of 135corpses a day x 2 = 270 in total.The 12,000 arrivals were distributed to Krema II &III[15] which meant 6,000 gassings and cremationsfor each of the two crematories. However, the ovensin each Krema could only handle 135 corpses per day,so what happened to the remaining 5,865 persons foreach crematorium? They could not be gassed norcould they be cremated as long as the first batch ofgassed persons still occupied the gas chamber,something that would have taken about three
    • weeks. I need not mention the problem of the firstbatch of prisoners getting into the undressing roomwhere they had to wait for the gas chamber to becleared of the gassed prisoners.3.46 Air photos reveal no activity 31 May 1944 Air photo Auschwitz-Birkenau camp: Krema II & III mirror image – top right, Krema II, below Krema III. Colour photos of area in 2000
    • Some definitive air photos taken during that periodshow no unusual activity on the ground within thecamp area. There is no smoke, no fires, and nopeople getting off the trains, going through thatselection - to the right off to work, to the leftimmediate gassing - queuing up, waiting to enter theundressing room.[16]3. 5 Mortuary I, Krema II - problem withcremation timeThe alleged gas chamber, 210m2 in area, could holdbetween 2,000 – 3,000 victims as testified by RudolfHöß and others for one only gassing operation. But asthe cremation ovens could only manage 135 corpsesa day, it would have taken about three weeksuninterrupted operation to cremate all corpses piledup in the ‘gas chamber’.The Holocaust believers are aware of this numberproblem, and to overcome it they use for theircalculations a round-the-clock operation of the ovensand a tripling of the number of corpses per muffle –as well as a shortening of the duration of thecremation time. And still the numbers and theduration time does not add up!In March 2003 I watched my father’s cremation andcan attest that to this day the cremation of onecorpse in a modern computer-driven gas operatedoven, made in Sweden, takes between 70-80minutes. Also, human bones do not burn and need tobe removed and crushed - time-consuming work.Also, as did a number of Revisionists before me, in1997 and 1999 I entered Krema II, and proved tomyself that the roof of Krema II’s alleged ‘gaschamber’ has no gas induction holes through whichguards threw the Zyklon-B canisters containing thegas pellets.[17]
    • The railway track into Birkenau ending near Krema II & III wasconstructed only in May 1944. Before that, prisoners and goodshad to be unloaded at Auschwitz I. Also the infamous selection point: to the right - work; to the left - immediate gassing.- entering the alleged homicidal gas chamber through one of the alleged gas induction holes.
    • - inside the alleged homicidal gas chamber at Krema II where the concrete pillar turned out to be quite solid and not at all porous through which the gas seeped.3.6 The 1972 Vienna Auschwitz TrialFrom 18 January to 10 March 1972, former membersof the SS, Walter Dejaco and Fritz Ertl, the twoarchitects responsible for the design and constructionof the crematoria in Auschwitz II were put on trial inVienna, Austria. During the trial, an expert report onthe possible interpretation of the blueprints of thealleged gas chambers of Auschwitz II crematoria waspresented to the court. The expert report concludedthat the rooms in question could not have been gaschambers, nor could they have been converted intogas chambers. The defendants were acquitted on atechnicality, and afterwards the file "went missing",though a few Austrian lawyers have copies of thefile.[18]3.7 The Rudolf Report, 1993: Expert Report onChemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘GasChambers’ of AuschwitzElaborating on Fred Leuchters and Walter Lüftlsresearch, Germar Rudolf conducted research atAuschwitz II. He took masonry samples and had themtested for their cyanide contents at the renowned Max
    • Planck Institute, Stuttgart. The analytic resultsconfirmed earlier tests made of the samples: 1. Cyanide that reacts with masonry produces iron blue, a stain that is visible and stable for decades, if not for centuries. Weathering does not influence the cyanide concentration. This chemical process is still clearly visible on the outer walls of the Auschwitz II delousing chambers 5a/b where to this day a deep blue stain is visible, indicating there is still a high concentration of cyanide present. 2. In the delousing/disinfestation chambers considerable traces of cyanide were found together with the tell-tale blue discolouration of the walls. 3. The gas chambers walls where the alleged mass gassings occurred do not reveal any markedly higher concentration of cyanide remnants than found in any other randomly selected building.Rudolf concluded that the the presence of HCN-hydrogen cyanide - (mg per kg tested buildingsmaterial) is close to zero in the alleged gas chamberKrema II and 1,050 mg/kg CN in the delousing anddisinfections chambers where Zyklon-B was actuallyused for disinfections.The evidence is compelling: The formation of ironblue, visible by the deep blue colour on the walls andceilings can be seen in the delousing and disinfectionschamber 5a/b, but the blue colour is not present inthe alleged gas chambers.
    • Iron cyanides are quite stable and iron blue, orPrussian Blue, has been a commonly used bluepigment for over three centuries.[19]3.8 Unreliable Eyewitness ReportsA consideration of eye witness evidence suggestssuch evidence is highly unreliable. Most eye witnessesto mass gassings have been totally discreditedwhenever their evidence has been properly tested in acourt of law. The Hungarian pathologist at Auschwitz,Doctor Niyiszli, relates the following gassing story hewitnessed at Krema II:“The granulated substance fell in a lump to thebottom. The gas it produced escaped through theperforations, and within a few second filled theroom in which the deportees were stacked. (15person/m2) Within 5 minutes everybody was dead.For every convoy it was the same story. Red Crosscars brought the gas from the outside. There wasnever a stock of it in the crematorium. The precautionwas scandalous, but still more scandalous was the
    • fact that the gas was brought in a car bearing theinsignia of the Red Cross. In order to be certain oftheir business the two gas-butchers waited another 5minutes.”[20]It is almost ironic that witnesses who claimed theysaw prisoners gassed in only a matter of minuteswere ignorant of the fact that Zyklon-B gas pelletsrequire an extended period of time and a certaintemperature to start the process of exuding the gas.Thus when eye witnesses make absurd claims, theyare either ignorant of the physical facts, or they arelying.Germar Rudolf produced his definitive The RudolfReport wherein he scientifically proves that gassing inhomicidal gas chambers was not possible as claimedby witnesses, and as published in Holocaustliterature. For example Dr. Nyiszlis eyewitnesstestimony, is discredited because it would take 1-2hours for the deadly Zyklon-B gas to be released, andafter the gassing it would take some hours toventilate the chamber before the door can be safelyopened. 3.9 A sensation in May 2002Upholders of Holocaust horror stories always attempt tocounter what Revisionist researchers have to offer. Thelatest example of such expose appeared in ‘The Number ofVictims of Auschwitz, New Insights due to newFindings in the Archives’. Written by Fritjof Meyer,Editor-in-chief, Der Spiegel, and published in arelatively unknown specialist journal, Osteuropa.Zeitschrift für Gegenwartsfragen des Ostens, thearticle effectively de-commissions Auschwitz Krema IIas a homicidal gassing centre. All the chemicalanalysis work done by Leuchter, Rudolf, et al,suddenly becomes irrelevant as Meyer asserts that
    • the gassings occurred in two outlying farm houses,referred to as Bunker I and Bunker II.The title of the article is significant in that it claims -almost 60 years after the event - new archivaldiscoveries justify the authors conclusions. Thosenew discoveries are, of course, nothing new forRevisionists. The main points extracted from thearticle are:1. Soviet war propaganda generated the four milliondeath figure.2. The first Holocaust historian, Gerald Reitlinger,stated the one million death figure, but latestresearch indicates it should be half a million, of those350,000 were gassed.3. There were 313, 866 cremations at Auschwitz-Birkenau.4. The use of mortuaries as gas chambers inMarch/April 1943 failed because of ventilationproblems.5. The genocide occurred in two farmhouses, alsocalled Bunker I and Bunker II. 350,000 were gassedin Bunker II within a two-year period.[21]Yet again, here we have an example by a non-Revisionist historian attempting to keep ahead ofRevisionist exposure of the gigantic Holocaust lie - thestory keeps on changing.But as always, although the total Auschwitz deathfigure has been reduced from four million, then to 1-1.5 million, and now to half a million, the six milliondeath figure remains a constant. Why? Somethingjust doesnt add up.Meanwhile imprisoned German Revisionists cannothope to gain relief from their imprisonment becauseof the specific Holocaust law currently enforced inGermany. A judge will not consider this new Meyerinformation as relevant to the prosecution because
    • truth is no defence. The fact that the accused isbefore the court is proof enough of his guilt, and whatremains for the accused to do is to show contritionand remorse for his having dared to doubt theHolocaust. This will then influence the length of theimposed prison term - physical factual truths do notinfluence the judges decision.3.10 Religious significance of the Six Million After the 1988 Zündel trial the plaques, which Pope John Paul II blessed in 1979, noting 4 million dead were removed and a few years later replaced by plaques listing about 1.5 million, which Pope Benedict XVI has also now blessed. Pope John Paul II blesses the 4 Million number in 1979
    • Pope Benedict XVI blesses the 1.5 Million numberHowever, such reductions to not influence the overallSIX MILLION number that is never reduced because it has religious significance, as pointed out by Margaret Stucki in the book she authored as Ben Weintraub: The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism:Keystone of the New World Order.[22] - how prophecy fulfilment demands 6 million.4. Treblinka4.1 Brief historyTreblinka concentration camp consisted of two camps,Treblinka I, a labour camp, and Treblinka II, thealleged pure extermination camp located about 80km north-east of Warsaw, Poland. The camp model isscaled 1:250, and excludes the four hectare livingquarters situated at the northern boundary. InSeptember 1943 the camp was dismantled and turnedinto a farm. The model[23]was built on informationobtained from a number of sources, bearing in mindhow the gassing stories keep on changing, it maysafely be assumed that at least some of theinformation about this camp could have beenfabricated with hindsight so as to synchronize, tomatch, the claims made by survivors of other camp,such as Belzec.[24]
    • Noted German historian, Ernst Nolte, reminds us thatwe need constantly to bear in mind how any standard
    • Holocaust-Shoah literature omits all evidence likelyto be critical of the dogmatic and legally sanctionedversion of events.[25]Treblinka II was established in July 1942 andabandoned in September 1943, so it was operationalfor only 14 months. During this time, however, it isclaimed that in total about 870,000 persons weresend to Treblinka, mainly Jews from the WarsawGhetto. Witnesses testified that about two to threetrains arrived per day containing 6,000-7,000 personsin each train in 60 cattle wagons, an average of16,000 persons. They were all gassed, then buried inmass graves near the alleged gas chambers.Specifically, in a ten week period, from July 22 toOctober 1942, about 700,000 prisoners weremurdered in the three rooms of the so-called little gashouse, measuring 4m x 4m each, an area about thesize of a medium bedroom. A fourth room in thebuilding housed the Diesel engine taken from acaptured Russian tank.[26]Between 250-300 persons, an average of 275, wereforced into those rooms, i.e., 18 per m2. At onesitting a total of 825 died after 30-40 minutesexposure to the Diesel fumes, making it 58,330persons a week or 8,330 a day. The bodies were thencarried by stretcher for about 200 meters to the massgraves located in the south-east corner of the camp.According to eyewitness evidence, in matters of whatis alleged to have occurred in the concentrationcamps, German logic is always difficult to follow. Afterthe murder of about 700,000 persons it is said thatanother, much larger gas house was built in October1942, comprising 10 gas chambers measuring 8 m x4 m each room, 320 m2, with a capacity of 700persons per room or a total of 7,000 persons, i.e., 22
    • persons per m2.. All this, of course, also with oneonly Russian tank diesel motor. Both gas houses witha capacity of 320m2 plus 48 m2, a total of 368 m2were used to exterminate the remaining 170,000persons, an efficiency of 3.5 % between November 42and April 43. Hence, there was no need for the newand larger gashouse[27]Ten months after the gassings began in April 1943,the bodies were exhumed and cremated, all within122 days, just on four months for the purpose ofeliminating the evidence of the crime. The cremationwas done on two separate grills, made from railwaytracks, measuring 30m in length, 3m wide and about700 mm above ground.[28] - a similar excavator operating a drag line, such as this one, isalleged to have dug the huge pits for the hundreds of thousands of corpses at Treblinka - again a technical impossibility.
    • - excavation of buried corpses is quite labour intensive These two photos are from Dresden in February 1945 after the city was engulfed in a fire storm - the real HOLOCAUST of Germans. The Treblinka pyres were said to have been about 10 m high, if no wood was placed between the layers of bodies - again a physical/technical impossibility. With wood it wouldhave been 14 meters above ground. Such claims deflect from the crimes committed by the Allies against the German people - much like what we saw the coalition of the willing did in Iraq, and the Jews are doing to the Palestinians since they invaded Palestine.
    • 4.2 Official Investigations of the Treblinkacampsite in 1945 - nothing there!During November 1945, in preparation for theNürnberg trial - the International Military Tribunal,IMT - the Polish magistrate of the district court inSirdlce, guided by eyewitness testimony of the allegedatrocities committed, ordered an exploration of theformer Treblinka II camp. The Polish commissionattempted to unearth physical evidence of the allegedcrime because it did not trust the survivors’ stories,especially the claim that 3,500,000 were killed there.As with the Auschwitz claim this number was aninvention of Soviet war-time propaganda. The Jewishchairman of the Sirdlce District Court, Szlebzak,together with the help of about 30 labourers,personally supervised the forensic exploration andexcavation.Witnessing the investigations were four formerinmates of Treblinka: S. Rajzman, T. Crimberg, S.Friedman and M. Mittelberg. It was their task toindicate the location of the buildings, which theyclaimed they had seen operating for a whole year,
    • and which had been dismantled two years before thecommission began its work.4.21 A shot to the headSurvivors had stated that 50,000 people who wereunable to walk to the gas chambers were allegedlyexecuted by a shot to the head in the hospital pit.Forensic exploration found only a few small personalarticles belonging to the alleged shot victims, such asa few small foreign coins, but failed to find any humanbones or any of the 50,000, alleged execution bulletsor spent cartridges.Neither could it locate Treblinka’s two gas-houses, thelargest stone buildings in the district built in the two-hectare upper camp extermination area. Long anddeep trenches, running in a north-south direction,were dug but nothing was found.The polish judge even had the area surveyed, whichconfirmed that the total camp area was 13.45 ha,while Yitshak Arad had claimed it was 24 ha.[29]Thecommission judge, and also later Professor Faurisson,did find that the Poles bought additional land on thesouth site from local farmers to increase the area.The investigation report, signed by both judge andstate prosecutor, confirmed that no mass graves werefound nor any traces of foundations or buildings. Thejudge’s report became document URSS-344submitted by the Soviets to the IMT.Once again, as is so common with all the Holocauststories, on an original campsite the fabricated storyreceived a physical reality of its own so as to justifythe propaganda claim that over three million personswere gassed at Treblinka.[30]
    • 4.3 Eye-witness confusion - steaming orgassing?Shortly after the war Treblinka eyewitnesses testifiedthat Jews were killed by hot water steam, or pumpingout the air inside the room to create a vacuum, andeven describing a hot water boiler installation insidethe alleged gas chamber. For example, according to a1944 eyewitness account compiled by the OSS, theprinciple US intelligence agency, Jews at Treblinka"were in general killed by steam and not by gas ashad been at first suspected."[31] However, a realisticinterpretation is that because the walls and floors ofthose rooms were tiled, they could have been used fordisinfections and bathing purposes.[32]It is only later that the Holocaust literature changedthe murder weapon to a Diesel motor, therebyoffering a more convincing argument than the hotsteam thesis, thereby bringing it in line with theBelzec and Sobibro camps where Diesel exhaust wasalso claimed to be the murder weapon.At the main Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946, twoconflicting stories were given: steaming and gassing.Former Treblinka prisoner Samuel Rajzman testifiedthat Jews were killed there in gas chambers. Toconfuse matters still more, a few months earlierRajzman claimed that during the time he was inTreblinka, Jews were "suffocated to death" with amachine that pumped air out of death chambers tosuffocate the victimsAmerican prosecutors at the main Nuremberg trialsupported the steam story. As proof, a Polishgovernment report of December 5, 1945, wassubmitted as prosecution exhibit USA-293. Itcharged that Jews were killed at the camp "bysuffocating them in steam-filled chambers." Thisreport, which says nothing about poison gas killings,was published in the official Nuremberg trial record asdocument PS-3311, and an American prosecutorquoted from this report during his address to theTribunal on December 14, 1945.
    • The work of the American Diesel exhaust expert,Friedrich P Berg, clearly supports research thatpeople cannot be killed with Diesel exhaust fumes asclaimed by eyewitnesses.[33] Interestingly but notsurprisingly, although the Diesel engine story as toldby eye-witnesses is still propagated by Holocaustbelievers.[34]4.4 The burial and excavation problemAs incredible as the Diesel exhaust story sounds, itgets worse with the Düsseldorf courts finding aboutthe burial site of the 870,000 victims in the south-eastern corner of the camp. The mass graves, as seenon the scaled model, could only have accommodatedabout 200,000 bodies, but Holocaust historians claim870,000 bodies were buried there.The excavation story, first for body burial, then forexhumation, is physically impossible to carry out.German political scientist Udo Walendy puts theproblem into context when he reminds us thatsupposedly only a few people managed to perpetratethe extermination.[35]Treblinka is, in fact, the most fitting landmark formass killing levelled against Germans, a mirage of amulti-million genocide in gas chambers, of which notthe slightest documentary or material trace exists andabout which we would know nothing without thetestimony of a handful of eyewitnesses. As stated inmy introduction, that millions of people died andsuffered horribly during World War Two is, of course,irrefutable and cannot be denied.
    • John Demjanjuk4.5 Treblinka - legal significanceThe Ivan the terrible trial of John Demjanjuk inJerusalem was the final attempt to set the gassingstory into legal concrete - and it failed, but that is notfor want of trying by those who are obsessed withpersecuting so-called Nazi war criminals.The persecution of John Demjanjuk is not an isolatedcase but it is one that has been taken to the extremelimit of absurdity by holding the trial in Israel, acountry that did not even exist at the time the allegedcrime was committed. Earlier, of course, we hadduring the early 1960s the trial of Adolf Eichmann inJerusalem. Similar cases of persecuting formereastern Europeans who collaborated with theGermans during World War Two was also in vogue inwestern democracies during the early 1990s. Forexample in Australia such trials failed because eye-witness evidence was so unreliable and so obviouslyfabricated that judges could not continue with theprosecution.It is seriously different in the US where a powerfulZionist lobby has infiltrated the judiciary. This helps toexplain why the Demjanjuk persecution has lasted forover two decades, and why the United Statesauthorities complied with Jewish pressure anddeported from its territory to Germany both GermarRudolf and Ernst Zündel, the latter via Canada.John Demjanjuk was deported from the USA to Israelin 1986, and after a trial that saw one of his defencecounsels murdered and another blinded with acid, onApril 25, 1988 he was sentenced to death by aJerusalem court. Upon appeal it was found he was notIvan the terrible, and in September 1993 he wasreturned to the USA. But the persecution by US-basedJews of former Axis-members continues to this day.
    • Of course, the injustice is not compensated, andDemjanjuk has not been compensated for any of hissuffering, neither by Israel nor by the USA whichpermitted him to be extradited in the first place.Witness testimony turned out to be pure fabrication -imagine, witnesses stated that this Ukrainian campguard was standing outside the Treblinka gaschamber as the victims walked into it, cutting offwomens breasts in the process. Jürgen Graf andCarlo Mattogno extensively deal with this matter intheir 2004 book: Treblinka. Extermination Camp orTransit Camp?[36]Contrast this with the irrefutable suffering of themillions of people during the Second World War thatis fully documented, physically and in writing. Justconsider: go to Hiroshima, Dresden, Hamburg,Pforzheim, Stuttgart, et al, and you will still seephysical evidence of the ferocious battles thatengulfed the residents in those cities, and if you arelucky, you may still meet some of the survivors of thisreal Holocaust - while the gassing stories revealthemselves to be mere puffery.4.6 Richard Kreges Research - as yetunpublished5. Conclusion1. As stated in the introduction, it is not possible inthe available time to present a detailed report on anissue such as the alleged ‘Holocaust’ murder weapon.Yet even a limited discussion of the gassing claimsindicates the gassing stories to be mere puffery – theproduct of a feverish pathological mind filled with purehatred, mostly directed against Germans andanything German, and greed, and if not that, then
    • certainly the product of an appalling state ofignorance of natural and chemical processes.2. In my talk I tried to present a brief overview of thehomicidal gas chamber thesis as it applies toAuschwitz and Treblinka concentration camps, andwith the help of a model show that technically theclaims made by ‘Holocaust’ believers about the massgassings and burnings are a physical impossibility.3. This fact alone justifies the Iranian President DrMahmoud Ahmadinejads aim in holding theconference, to urge historians and scientists toinvestigate the whole Holocaust-Shoah matter in arational way without fear or favour. The urgency isthere because the Holocaust has distorted ourunderstanding of world history and brought injusticeand unimaginable suffering to the Palestinians.6. Footnotes[1] I would like to thank the many Revisionists around the world whohave supported my personal work at Adelaide Institute. There are toomany to list, but I mention from Australia Mrs Olga Scully, LilaMcIntosh, Mohammed Hegazi, Peter Rackemann, John Brown, JamesMcGregor, Peter Hartung of Australia Free Press, David Brockschmidt,and all the many Adelaide Institute supporters who have enabled me tocontinue this work full-time since 1994. A thank you to John Bennett ofthe Australian Civil Liberties Union who in 1979 lit the Revisionist torchin Australia by sending free copies of Arthur Butzs classic, The Hoax ofthe Twentieth Century, literally to hundreds of public figures. Later,during my 1999 imprisonment at Mannheim, John organized thedefence fund for me. Another thank you to courageous ChristopherSteele for launching the first expose of the Auschwitz gas-chambermyth at Adelaides Constitutional Museum in 1983, after havingreceived a copy of the Butz book from Werner Fischer. However, had itnot been for American Willis Cartos pioneering work in publishing in1969 The Myth of the Six Million, and founding in 1979 the Institute forHistorical Review in California on to whose editorial advisory boardCarto invited John Bennett, among others, we would not have been ableto view Revisionist work from almost a continuous half-centuryperspective. Needless to say that Frenchman Paul Rassinier was one ofa number of earlier Revisionists who in isolation did pioneering work,and I think of Dr Wilhelm Stäglich who symbolizes the solitary nature ofRevisionist work. Revisionists, in essence, are individuals who mostlywork alone, in some collaboration, but rarely in a mass movement. Forthat their thinking is way ahead of the prevailing orthodoxy, which haslittle tolerance when it comes to enduring personal discomfort whilepursuing an ideal, in this instance the search for truth in history.My special thanks go to Jupp, a retired construction engineer, and aformer member of the Australian Institute of Engineers, who built thescaled models of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau and at Treblinka concentration camps. Jupps models clearlyillustrate the factually absurd nature of the homicidal gassing claims.
    • [2] On 20 July 1994 Australias ABC TV Lateline 1994 program screenedThe Big Lie, wherein Holocaust matters were canvassed in somedetail by presenter Paul Barry and guests Dr Bill Leadbetter, GenocideStudies, Macquarie University, Sydney, and Professor Deborah Lipstadt,Emory University. Atlanta. Among other things Paul Barry canvassed thefollowing with Lipstadt:Paul Barry: "Just tell me briefly, how overwhelming, in your view, wellnot just in your view, how overwhelming is the evidence of theHolocaust?1. Deborah Lipstadt: Its so overwhelming that the facts are justbeyond belief and beyond question. We have in the United States alone... in the National Archives, 28,000 linear feet of files on the activities ofthe deniers, Im sorry, of the SS. So for the deniers to say that thisdidnt happen - but that documentation what the survivors provide isexceptionally important documentation, and the bystanders provideimportant documentation. The Poles who watched trains go into thecamps, day after day, and come out empty, full of people, and come outempty, who knew exactly what was going on. Our best witnesses, ourbest source, are the perpetrators. The documentation that they left us,lists of people who were killed. They left us plans for the gas chambers,and of course the perpetrators. The perpetrators say "I did it ininterviews, just saying I did it in trials. They say "I did it in interviewsand on other occasions and context.2. On Holocaust deniers: "[They] are a lunatic fringe. these peopleare consumed and motivated by hate. Truth doesnt enter into theirequation at all, its hate ...For me its not an issue of free speech {but}an issue of providing them a platform. When you have a denier - whatthey say is absolute rubbish - do you give them a forum, invite theminto your universities when what theyre saying is the equivalent of theearth is flat or Elvis Presley is alive and well, or there was no slavery.... [Will not debate them] I wont dignify them by making them soundlike an other side, that someone would sit and say, well, heres oneside, Deborah Lipstadt is a better debater but maybe theres some truthto what the other side said ... I can ridicule them easily. I can demolishwhat they said on the clip [Geoff Muirden] that there were no plans,that there are millions of survivors, the fact that there were survivorsmeans the Holocaust didnt happen implies everything the Nazis didthey accomplished. Well, the Nazis set out to win World War Two. Theylost the war, so ipso facto, they didnt accomplish everything theywanted. I wouldnt be afraid of taking them on, face to face. The reasonI dont is I dont want to dignify them as another side. You wouldnt asksomeone who is an astronomy expert to come in and debate whetherthe world is flat or whether the world is round ... the other reason isthat they lie, they pull things out of context."3. On gas chamber evidence: "The evidence is overwhelming. First ofall we have the plans, the architectural plans for converting thebuildings to gas chambers ... We have work orders from the firmbuilding the gas chambers in Auschwitz, to the suppliers "Please send usgas-tight doors, send us a door, we need to manufacture a door with apeep-hole. The deniers claim these were delousing chambers solely toget rid of the lice in the clothing. Why would you need a peep-hole, tosee when the clothes stopped moving? Send us a handle for a gas-tightdoor - all sorts of references which could only be used for gaschambers. And coming out of Moscow now, the archives in Moscow areeven more detailed. One of the reasons the Moscow archives has all thisinformation is that Auschwitz was liberated by the Russians and theypicked up the archives, and those archives have sat in Moscow for thepast years. I want to make another point that is equally important. Thedeniers like to say that all these things are forged. Theyll look at theseplans and say these are forged. The list of peoples, names, thousands ofnames killed, is all forgery. And then theyll go ahead and say, DavidIrving likes to do this, show me the one piece of paper that says "I,Adolf Hitler hereby order the extermination of the Jews", signed AdolfHitler, then Ill believe the Holocaust happened. Id like to ask them ifthe hoaxers, so-called hoaxers, and theyre the Jews, were able to forgeall this information with the help of the allies and planted it in thearchives, why dont they just forge that one piece of paper that says, "I,Adolf Hitler, hereby order the extermination of the Jews", and thatllsettle the argument. Clearly that piece of paper wont be found becausethats not how the Nazis operated. But again the fallacy of theirargument is really quite evident if you just think about it a little bit."4. On deniers a danger: "What Id like to say it that ... the deniers arenot a clear and present danger. Theyre a clear and future danger. Itswhen there people wont be around as I said earlier who said, "I sawthis. This is what happened to me", that itll be much easier to ply theirwares, and thats what theyre looking for a day down the road, which is
    • one reason they target the college campus to get the younger people,and there are people who are tenacious. They are haters, and haters,whether theyre hating Jews or hating racial minorities, or hatingwhatever, haters are tenacious in their hatred and truth is very fragile."Bill Leadbetter: The Holocaust deniers are ideologically motivated: i.They are antisemites; ii. They dont want to give Jews the morallegitimacy they get from being victims of the Holocaust; iii. Deniershave a political agenda - Nazism is a good thing but is negated by theHolocaust.Also featured in the introduction was a clip of Professor Robert Jan vanPelt showing the existence of air ventilation ducts for the gas chamber,something Fritjof Meyer expressly, and wisely, now discounts, i.e. eightyears later - see Footnote 21. The fact is that German law prescribedstrict regulations governing mortuaries and their ventilation systems.[3] Any Internet search engine will reveal the existence of extensivepropaganda material on Auschwitz, with German media outlets at theforefront linking any current political issue with the alleged Auschwitzextermination camp. For example, on 25 October 2006, the emailservice of the tagesschau.de ran an article about a Holocaust exhibitionat German railway stations, and how the Transport Minister, WolfgangTiefensee is conflicting with the Director of the DB - German Railways,Hartmut Mehdorn, who opposes such an exhibition. The Internetwebsite contains various links, including ‚Auschwitz: Das präzedenzloseVerbrechen’ – ‘Auschwitz, the crime without precedent’, where ispresented the usual unsubstantiated rubbish about Germany’s crueltyand ‘break with civilisation’. The Iranian president is also mentioned byname and as is usual in German and Zionist-controlled media outlets,his statements are distorted and falsified. For example, the Presidentdoes not deny the Holocaust as such, i.e. that the murder of Europe’sJews is a myth. He has asked this issue to be investigated becausethings have been mythologised. http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID6033194_REF1,00.html; the Revisionist Forum http://forum.codoh.com/ invitesindividuals to participate in a lively exchange of views, something thatHolocaust dogmatists such as Professor Deborah Lipstadt vehementlyoppose because for her there is no debate on the Holocaust. See DVDof her appearance on ABC TV Lateline, 20 July 1994.[4] The other camps are Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, Chelmno,Majdanek, and there is also the alleged auxiliary extermination campStutthoff, near Danzig in western Prussia.It is customary to refer to the Auschwitz Stammlager - base camp - asAuschwitz I, and to Auschwitz-Birkenau as Auschwitz II, while thereference to cremation facilities at Auschwitz I is referred to as Krema Iand for Auschwitz II, as Krema II, III, IV and V. Auschwitz-Monowitz isreferred to as Auschwitz III, where the Buna synthetic rubber plant wassituated.[ 5] Norman Finkelstein: The Holocaust Industry. Reflections on theExploitation of Jewish Suffering; also The New Statement, London,November 20, 2000. Finkestein is critical of the economic exploitation ofso-called Holocaust survivors who generally never received much fromthe massive reparation claims paid to world Jewish organisations, but hedoes not extend his criticism to the factuality of the actual 6 millionmurdered claim. Such a claim is simplistic and it does not amaze that ithas succeeded until the present. For example, the gassing claim beginswith a basic factual truth: Zyklon-B gas was used in concentrationcamps for disinfection purposes. From this fact the story begins to beexaggerated by recounting personal suffering of individuals - which isalso a fact, ending in distortions and wild imaginings and fabrications tooutright lying For example, deaths occurred in the camps, especiallyduring the final stages of the war when allied saturation bombingdestroyed Germanys supply lines. We know from the recent Iraqinvasion how devastating such bombing can be to destroying the fabricof social and economic order. The motto at the Auschwitz entrance -Arbeit Macht Frei-work liberates - has also been twisted and pervertedto support claims of cruelty, slave labour, sadistic murders and theGermans inhumanity towards its war-time prison populations. Theequivalent of this motto in English is idle hands invite the devil. Duringand post World War Two the USA, Australia and other countries had anextensive concentration camp program, the Rhein Wiesen in Germanycomes to mind here where the allies starved hundreds of thousands ofGerman soldiers to death. Naturally it is in the allies interest to deflect
    • from their crimes perpetrated upon the German people, and theHolocaust lies to this day serve to deflect from an analysis of suchcrimes. All means are used to hold on to these lies, for example thecurrent Revisionists before German courts cannot defend themselvesbecause of the legal principle of Offenkundigkeit - judicial notice,whereby the actual physical issues are not canvassed and tested fortruth-content in any trial. The Holocaust happened, and so matters donot have to be re-tested in court. In fact, doing such testing will merelyprove that an accused is an Überzeugungstäter - a convincedperpetrator, and any verdict in favour of the accused would then set aprecedent, which would have ramifications on those thousands of earliersuccessful prosecutions. The German legal system is indeed in a bind -and so now we witness it moving inexorably into decline as decisionsbecome more abstract and absurd, all for the sake of upholding theHolocaust lies.[6] Barbara Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die? Report on theEvidence in the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst Zündel, 1988,Samisdat Publishers, Toronto, 1992. Alan M Dershowitz: TheVanishing American Jew. In Search of Jewish Identity for the NextCentury. 1997 ISBN 0-316-18133-1. Dershowitz states quitespecifically that an actual investigation of eyewitness claims mustnot be aired in court because the 1988 Zündel trial showed theRevisionists would win the factual argument. Imagine, had we nothad the 1988 Zündel trial, then the four million Auschwitz deathstoll would still be on those 20 plaques at Auschwitz-Birkenau, whichwere removed and re-appeared some years later with the figure 1-1.5 million deaths.[7] Robert Jan van Pelt, Deborah Dwork: Auschwitz. From 1270 To ThePresent, 1996, state at p.363-64, that Krema I was merely a symbolicrepresentation of what actually happened at the Birkenau homicidal gaschambers, in effect de-commissioning Krema I as a homicidal gaschamber. During my 1997 and 1999 visit to Auschwitz, tourists werestill being told Auschwitz-Stammlager, Krema I, was a homicidal gaschamber. For statements that Krema I is still a gas chamber, see: 2.01Disparities in Hydrocyanic Compound Levels athttp://www.shamash.org/holocaust/denial/answers.txt.[8] Prof Arthur Butz, in his 1976 published classic - now 3rd edition byTDP, 2003 - The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, reasoned withoutvisiting the camp that Auschwitz was a labour and transit camp; TheLeuchter Report, 1988 and The Rudolf Report, 1993, confirm that noZyklon-B residual was to be found in the alleged homicidal gaschambers. But as in the Treblinka case below, the Jupp model shows,without a chemical analysis, that it was physically impossible to gas andcremate the number of bodies claimed by the orthodox Auschwitz story.Hence the reduction of alleged killed at Auschwitz after the 1988 ErnstZündel Toronto trial from four million to 1-1.5 million - but still theclaim persists that the total number Jews killed remains at six million!In her 1995 published book, The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism:Keystone of the New World Order, Margaret Stucki, writing under thepseudonym Ben Weintraub, explains how the 6 million is a magicKabbalistic number, which has incorporated the Holocaust intoJudaism, thereby giving it absolute religious significance. Unrelated, butperhaps of interest to those who are looking for overarching principlesin internationalist human endeavour, is the world quest to enshrineclimate change in law. A first analysis of such mindset is found in Smith,J and Shearman, D: Climate Change Litigation. Analysing the law,scientific evidence & impacts on the environment, health & property.Presidian, Adelaide, 2006.[9] Raul Hilberg: The Destruction of the European Jews, 1961. [10]
    • Robert Jan van Pelt, The Pelt Report, David Irvings Defamationaction against Deborah Lipstadt, London, 2000.[11] Former Adelaide resident now living in Melbourne, Australia,Holocaust survivor, Fred Steiner, in 1994 stated at a publicmeeting at the University of Adelaide: “I did not see the gaschambers, but I could smell them”. The huge industrial complexthat was Auschwitz generated smells, beginning with tannerysmells, and those generated by the large Buna synthetic rubberproduction facilities. Such eyewitness evidence as the above isworthless, and when such witnesses are advised they need more toprove their allegations that gassings occurred at Auschwitz, theyusually play on hurt feelings – and then the discussion isterminated, sometimes followed by a threat that ‘legal action willfollow this confrontation’ because the memory of the dead has beendefiled.[12] Carlo Mattogno & France Deana, Operation of the Crematoriaat Birkenau; total cremations - section 5.3[13]Soviet War Crimes report on Auschwitz IMT at Nuremberg 1945,document USSR-008.[14] Professor Reza Khaji responded to the allegation made in thenews item that Iranian universities are recruiting grounds for suicidebombers, and here is the email correspondence on the matter:Director of TelevisionAustralian Broadcasting CorporationABC Ultimo Centre700 Harris StreetUltimo 2007Network TV (02) 8333 1500Network TV Fax (02) 8333 3055Dear Sir or Madam,As a Professor of Political Science at the University of Ferdowsi inMashhad, Iran, I wish to hereby lodge an official complaint regardingthe broadcast of the Lateline program on Australian BroadcastingCorporation Television on the 21st February 2006. During this programit was stated in a story by the reporter Mr Tom Iggelton that He [DrToben] will be taking the model with him on what he describes as anacademic tour of Iran where he will be speaking at Universities recentlyaccused of being recruiting grounds for suicide bombers.We were only recently made aware of this statement from the transcriptat this website address:http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1575325.htmBoth staff and students feel very much insulted and offended to beslurred in this manner and request a written explanation from themanagement of the ABC to explain this officially published statement.On behalf of the University of Ferdowsi, and indeed all IranianUniversities, I would also request of you to disclose the source(s) onwhich this statement is based on to allow us to mount a defence againstsuch an accusation. We would appreciate your addressing this matter assoon as possible in order to have it resolved.Sincerely,Dr Reza KhajiFaculty of Political ScienceUniversity of FerdowsiMashhadIRAN---------------Dear Dr KahjiThank you for your email of 1 August 2006, regarding the Lateline storyabout the visit of Dr Toben to Iran.It is important to understand that the reference to "suicide bombers"being recruited from Iranian universities was made by Dr Toben himself.It is not the view of the ABC. The ABC has a responsibility to report
    • events in an accurate manner, and it has accurately reported the claimsof Dr Toben in this report.Dr Toben, as you may be aware, is a controversial academic who wasimprisoned in Germany in 1999 for denying the Holocaust.The reporting of his remarks are no different to the reporting of theviews of other notable and controversial figures whose ideas the ABCdoes not share. For example - remarks about Israel by PresidentMahmoud Ahmadinejad, also included in this report.The reporter, Tom Iggulden, has advised he would be very interested inany information you have regarding Mr Tobens visits to Iran and hisactivities while there. He said he would be particularly interested in anyvideo footage of his visit that you may be aware of so that we mightfollow Dr Tobins activities. Mr Iggulden has expressed a strong desireto challenge Dr Tobins claims in a follow-up story and, to that end, weare pleased that you are now in contact with the ABC to provide arebuttal of Dr Tobens allegations.Yours sincerelyKieran DoyleSenior Liaison OfficerAudience and Consumer Affairs [15]Adolf Eichmann’s memoirs and interrogation at the 1961Jerusalem Trail stated that about 12,000 Jews were sent to theAuschwitz gas chambers daily, Major Walsh, IMT III document3311 – PS. [16]US air force air photos surveillance: May 31, 1944 and August25, 1944. In John Ball, Air Photo Evidence, Ball Resource ServicesLtd. Delta/Canada, evidence is presented that proves how forgershad been at work on such photos to suggest there were gasinsertion holes in the roof of Krema I - and Krema II.[17] Germar Rudolf, The Rudolf Report, p. 113; section 5.4.1.2.8;Professor Robert Faurisson’s ‘No Holes, No Holocaust’ still remainsvalid. Interestingly, during my 8 and 10 November 1999 trial atMannheim, public prosecutor Hans-Heiko Klein mentioned "two gasinduction holes at Krema II". During my conversation with him inhis office just prior to my arrest on 8 April 1999 I had mentionedthat there was a new sign at Krema II where the four gas inductionholes had been placed in a single line at the edge of the roof.[18] Robert Jan van Pelt in The Pelt Report, op. cit. (note 66), p.135 n. 59: 20 Vr 3806/64 and 27 C Vr 3806/64). Austrianengineer, Walter Lüftl, of course also confirmed this in his LüftlReport - http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p391_Luftl.html .[19] Section 1.2, p 15, The Rudolf Report – cyanide gas continues toevaporate slowly from moist objects for hours and days, involving apermanent environmental hazard where sufficient ventilation cannot beassured. C.f. with Markiewicz, et al, Expert Opinion: An official Polishreport on the Auschwitz "gas chambers", in: Journal of HistoricalReview, 11(2), 1991. This report failed to discredit Rudolfs findings thatZyklon-B is not subject to weathering. Germar Rudolf was hunted allover the world and while together with his US wife visiting Immigrationat Chicago was arrested on 19 October 2005. Then on 14 November2005 he was deported by US officials to Germany where he wasimmediately sent to Stammheim Prison, Stuttgart, to serve the 14month sentence imposed on him in 1995 for the scientific conclusionshe had reached in his research, namely that gassing with Zyklon-Bunder the described circumstances is for scientific reasons and onaccount of laws of nature not possible. His new trial for publishingRevisionist material on the Internet began at Mannheim on 14November 2006.[20] Dr. M. Niyiszli the pathologist at Birkenau Krema II in his book:Jenseits der Menschlichkeit”. Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1992. Translation –Beyond Humanity. Also, Rudolf Report, section 4.5.9.[21] Fritjof Meyer, ‘The Number of Victims of Auschwitz. New Insightsdue to new Findings in the Archives’, Osteuropa, May 2002, ISSN 0030-
    • 6428 - translation by Markus Haverkamp,http://www.vho.org/GB/c/Meyer.html. An important excerpt follows:“In 1945 the Soviet investigative committee counted four million victimsof the National Socialist labour and extermination camp Auschwitz-Birkenau - a product of war propaganda. How many people indeed fellvictim to this unique mass murder could only be estimated up until now.The first Holocaust historian, Gerald Reitlinger reckoned one million, thelatest research estimates several hundred thousand less. Two newdocuments on the capacity of the crematoria now confirm the extantdocuments on the internments into the camp. With this, the dimensionsof this break with civilization at last move into the realm of theimaginable and thus only now become a convincing portent for futuregenerations."A key document, which gives information about the capacity of thecrematoria of Auschwitz-Birkenau, has now been found. Simultaneouslyto the length of time for which these were in use, a statement by RudolfHöß has come to light. In connection with the extant documents, whichhave to a large extent been ignored, concerning themselves with thosewho were interned into this camp, it is now possible to calculate moreaccurately how many people were murdered in Auschwitz. To indicate itin advance: Half a million fell victim to the genocide, 350,000 of thosewere gassed.“Of course the crematoria were not in service permanently, but oftenbroke down. The crematorium II, which had been taken into service on15 March 1943, was already damaged after nine days, and the repairwork only "neared completion" on 18 July. The repair of 20 oven doorsof the two big crematoria was ordered on 3 April 1944 and completedonly on 17 October. The chimney of crematorium III, which had been inworking order since 22 March, already showed cracks on 3 April andwas unusable by mid May. After the war, the commandant of the camp,Rudolf Höß, reported: "After a short while, Crematorium III totally brokedown and was later not at all used. IV [taken into service on 4 April1943, F. M.] had to be shut down repeatedly as the chimneys or ovenswere burnt out after a short time in service of four to six weeks"; thisgives a working time of 509 days for II, 462 days for II, only 50 daysfor III and 309 days for IV, thus 971 days in 15 muffles and 359 days in8 muffles.“Professor Van Pelt now delivers the second surprising piece ofinformation when he quotes a Höß statement made during cross-examination before the Cracow court in 1947: "After eight or ten hoursof operation the crematoria were unfit for further use. It was impossibleto operate them continuously."With the average value of this detail, i.e. nine hours daily operatingtime, we get with three bodies per muffle 18 cremations daily, inKremas I & II thus 270, together 540; in Kremas III & IV, 144 each,together 288, therefore a total of 828 per day. The conclusion is simple:during the 971 days of operation, 262 170 bodies in total could becremated in Kremas I & II; in Kremas III & IV in 359 days a total of 51696. This makes it a grand total of 313 866 corpses cremated atBirkenau.“I cannot enter into the details here that the extant written evidence,namely documents about a refit of Crematoria buildings which wereoriginally not for such a purpose into "gas cellars". Chutes (introductionholes) for throwing the gas in and gas as well as the relevant eyewitness statements, rather points towards attempts in March/April 1943to use the mortuaries for the mass murders, after the crematoria werecompleted in the early summer of 1943. This obviously failed, becausethe ventilation was counter-productive, and because the expected massof victims did not arrive in the following eleven months. The actuallyperpetrated genocide probably took place mainly in the two convertedfarmhouses outside the camp;“As far as the capacity is concerned, 350 000 people could have beengassed alone in the "Red House", or "Bunker II", within two years. Butnot necessarily meant actually killed. Even the establishment of thelarge crematories in 1943, the rate of murder sank dramatically withtheir being brought into service, for the period of one year due to anorder by Himmler, who terminated the supposed gas murders in theextermination camps along the German-Soviet demarcation line of1939: Belzec, Sobibôr and Treblinka.”Note Germar Rudolf’s response to Meyers article in: ‘CautiousMainstream Revisionism’, The Revisionist 1(1) (2003), pp. 23-30 -http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Rudolf23-30.html .[22] Ben Weintraub: The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism: Keystone of theNew World Order, Cosmos Publishing, 1995. Although resting on atranslation error, prophecy fulfillment demands 6 million fewer Jews will
    • return to the Promised Land, the maxim driving the Holocaustmythology.[23] When Jupp donated these models to Adelaide Institute, we passedthe first to the Iranian research institute, ASRA, Mashhad,http://www.asraco.com and after today I shall hand over the secondmodel to PSR, Tehran, so that this may assist its research students tograpple with ‘Holocaust’ matters. Jupp is a hobby model builder, and heused information obtained from current conventional ‘Holocaust’literature about the camps’ dimensions. I drew heavily upon hisengineering expertise and personal research when preparing today’smaterial, but I must stress that Jupp’s role in all this has been strictlylimited to his professional competence, as reflected in his researchfindings on Auschwitz and Treblinka camps. There is no inference to bemade that his work in any way denies the ‘Holocaust’ or Jewishpersecution during World War Two – that matter I take upon myself![24] Yankel Wiernik: One year in Treblinka, New York, 1945; GeneralJewish Workers Union of Poland; Document 3311 – PS, exhibit USA 293,IMT III, p. 567 to diesel Exhaust carbon monoxide. The generalnarrative is reproduced in Israel Gutmans (ed) Encyclopedia of theHolocaust, 4 vols, New York, 1990. The original map of Treblinkawas drawn from memory by Yankiel Wiernik in his testimony. Yearslater Yankiel Wiernik built the Treblinka model, exhibited in the GhettoFighters House Holocaust and Jewish Resistance Heritage Museum,Israel.[25] Nolte, Ernst, Streitpunkte, Propyläen, Berlin 1993, p. 309f.;First Treblinka Trial, September 3, 1965, of Kurt Franz and nineothers at the court of Assizes in Düsseldorf, AZ-LG Düsseldorf: II931638, p. 49 ff.; Second Treblinka Trial, December 22, 1970, ofFranz Stangl at the court of Assizes at Düsseldorf, pp. 111 ff., AZ-LG Düsseldorf, XI-148/69 S.[26] Yitshak Arad: Treblinka camp history; ARC website: Treblinka’sCamp History; Mattogno, C, Graf, J: Treblinka. Extermination Campor Transit Camp?, 2004. [27] The Düsseldorf Court verdict, 8 I ks 2/64, p. 88. [28] 27 Jerusalem District Court, Criminal Case 373/86; 700,000 isthe figure cited, for example, by the Institut für Zeitgeschichte; thehighest figure is given in World Jewish Congress et .al. (eds.), TheBlack Book - The Nazi Crime against the Jewish People, New York1946, reprint: Nexus Press, New York 1981, pp. 400ff.[29] ITM p. 198; the general massacre was to be performed bymeans of steam.[30] Auerbach, In the fields of Treblinka, note. 28, p. 70-72. Thejudge’s report became document URSS-344 at the Nuremberg trailsubmitted by the Soviets.[31] OSS, Jews were killed by steam, p.198, 14 December 1945,document 3311- PS, Exhibit USA 293.[32] The Düsseldorf Court verdict 8 I ks 2/64, p. 88, camp area 14ha, Zdzisław Łukaszkiewicz, ‘Obóz zagłady Treblinka’, in: BiuletynGłównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Niemieckich w Polsce, No. 1,Posen 1946, p. 133-144.[33] Berg, Friedrich P., The Diesel-Gas Chambers : Myth within aMyth, Journal of Historical Review, 5(1) 1984. "Although diesel
    • exhaust is relatively harmless, inhaling it is not a pleasantexperience. If diesel exhaust were introduced into a large meetingroom, it would not take very long before everyone present wouldfeel driven by an overwhelming desire to get out, regardless of howsafe he or she were convinced the exhaust really was. But theDiesel exhaust would have given them nothing worse than aheadache. For all their efforts they would have had an averageconcentration of less than 0.4% carbon monoxide and more than4% oxygen....".[34] See, among others, Eberhard Jäckel, Peter Longerich, Julius H Schoepps (eds), Enzyklopädie des Holocaust. Die Verfolgung und Ermordung der europäischen Juden, 3 vols., Berlin 1993.[35] Walendy, Udo: Historische Tatsachen No 12 Das Recht in dem wir leben, Vlotho, 1982, in: Mattogno, C, Graf, J: Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp, 2004, p. 44: "50 SS-men [incl. 120 Ukrainian Hilfstruppen and 600 Arbeitsjuden] manage,with the assistance of a tank engine, to kill approximately 700,000people within a year and remove all traces. That is 14,000 per SS-guard ... a total for all 50 of 2,000 per day ... these people still had time to pause for sadistic atrocities and continually invent newones... Neither attorneys nor experts, jurors, judges historians or newspaper writers have burdened themselves to worry about anyof the technical impossibilities that are becoming obvious here ...". [36] Ibid. In their book, Graf and Mattogno extensively and comprehensively deal with the camps "historical genesis, inner logic, and technical feasibility ... it is nothing more than an uninterrupted chain of absurdities.", but in a number of European countries such absurdities enjoy legal protection. I wonder how much of this kind of perverse thinking is a result of Talmudic thought patterns that, besides a profit motive, exude hatred and intolerance against anyone who is different, anyone who does not belong to the tribe that considers itself to be Gods chosen? 7. Information on persecution - of things to come? Anyone who wishes to begin a study of this topic is well advised to use any of the Internet search engines, locate Exterminationist and Revisionist websites, then sift through the mountains of material available, ranging from survivor testimony to legal reports and popular media coverage. Then it is advisable logically to employ ones common sense and fearlessly pursue the narratives for or against the extermination thesis. Although decommissioned as a homicidal gas chamber site, I would still advise anyone to visit Auschwitz because there the extermination story is still being told - for how much longer is not easy to assess. It must be noted that the Holocaust-Shoah story is told by individuals, such as professors Lipstadt and Dershowitz, in a way that when they describe the mindset of Holocaust deniers, then they are in fact describing their own mindset. They are the ones consumed by hatred and contempt for the truth - and this hatred is vicious.Interestingly, in 1993 a New Zealand academic who claims to be Jewish, Joel Hayward, wrote his honours MA thesis on Revisionism wherein he questioned the existence of the gas chambers. He sent me his original copy with the advice that I could use it in any way I liked - subsequently he denied this. I naturally copied it and handed one to each of our Adelaide Institutes associates. On 31 May 1996, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission - HREOC - received from Jeremy Jones, Executive Council of Australian Jewry, a letter dated 28 May 1996 wherein he lodged a complaint against Adelaide Institutes website, which had just been activated on 1 May 1996. On 10 April 1997 Race Discrimination Commissioner Zita Antonios referred the matter to a hearing because Jones refuses to conciliate. I was facing the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on allegedly operating a racist and antisemitic website, I submitted his thesis as evidence in defence. All hell broke
    • loose - my case stalled and would not progress, because my list of witnesses was dismissed as irrelevant, then the commissioner refused to confirm or deny whether truth was a defence in the proceedings,and finally I refused to attend any further hearings. On 5 October 2000 Commissioner Kath McEvoy handed down her decision, without making any reference to the Hayward thesis. Why not? By this time the Hayward thesis had been officially discredited. How? In 1999 I was imprisoned for seven months in Germanys Mannheim Prison where Ernst Zündel currently finds himself. After my return home, via a one-week stay in Tehran, Dr Hayward rang me in Adelaide and informed me of his troubles. He would be given the treatment in 2000 when Canterbury University held an enquiry into the granting ofhis degree. New Zealands Jews wanted the degree to be downgraded to a BA, not going as far as Germanys University of Göttingen went when in 1983 it revoked the doctorate of Judge Wilhelm Stäglich for his writing in 1979 The Auschwitz Myth - ironically using a law that Adolf Hitler introduced to safeguard academic standards. The Hayward enquiry condemned the thesis but did not downgrade it,thereby nominally supporting academic freedom. Hayward was crushed - he recanted and said "I stuffed up". In 2003 Canterbury University history lecturer, Canadian Dr Thomas Fudge, who has two PhDs, had been commissioned to write about the Hayward affair for hisdepartments History Now magazine. Again, all hell broke loose and the 500 copies were ordered destroyed - "the book-burning affair" - by department heads. At the end of 2003 Dr Fudge left New Zealand and went to America where his troubles began anew. As he stated in The Press interview of 23 April 2005, "My defence of Joel Hayward has been something that has created some consequences for me. Institutions, in my view, are scared to death of being associated with me because I guess they are afraid of being accused of having some sort of Holocaust-denier in their faculty." American academia is indeedin trouble. I received a request from Baylor University to hand over any information I had on the Fudge matter! Back to my troubles in Australia. On 30 March 2001, Jeremy Jones applied to the Federal Court to have the HREOC decision enforced - notacknowledging that I had indeed done more than the commissioner had asked me to do. I had not only removed the offending articles and passages, I had wiped the whole website and begun again. On 17September 2002 Justice Catherine Branson adopted the HREOC findingswithout my having contested the matter in court because I could not get legal representation, and without that it was foolish for me to go on participating in the proceedings. She found against me, and so for the second time I wiped the contents of Adelaide Institutes website andbegan again. Victorian Civil Liberties advocates decided I should appeal against the Branson decision, which was heard in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia on 19 May 2003, five days after my father died, and the decision dismissing the appeal was handed down on 27 June 2003. Much like in my German case, the first fact-finding stage is feared by lawyers, but at the appeal stage where it is a matter of law that is contested, there lawyers do not fear becoming involved in a matter. When I informed Justice Branson that I could not get legal representation, she scoffed at me and said that with my tertiaryqualifications I could easily read up matters at the university law library. And so for 2006 I enrolled myself at The University of Adelaide law faculty, where I again had the opportunity of meeting up with former HREOC commissioner Kath McEvoy, who is a senior lecturer there. Needless to say I did not pass her subject, Introduction to Australian Law! During my March 2006 Mashhad visit, an article written by Peter Kohn, Ire over Töbens Iran visit appeared on 3 March in the Australian Jewish News: Instead of preaching Holocaust denial in Iran, Adelaide revisionist DrFredrick Töben would do well to emulate David Irving, who has recanted his claims that the Shoah never happened, Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) president Grahame Leonard said this week. He was commenting on reports that Dr Töben, of the Adelaide Institute, was planning a trip to Iran to take part in a conference "on the Holocaust myth" being staged by the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The information on the Iran trip was posted on Dr Töbens website last weekend. Irving was sentenced to three years jailfor Holocaust denial in an Austrian court last week. Dr Töben was jailed in Germany in 1999 for spreading Holocaust denial. Meanwhile, theECAJ is preparing to file an action against German-born Dr Töben in theFederal Court, alleging contempt of the court over his continued posting of Holocaust-denial material on the website of his Adelaide Institute,
    • Leonard said. Dr Töben was ordered by the Federal Court to removeHolocaust-denial material from the site in a landmark ruling in 2002 butthe ECAJ claims he has since flouted the courts orders. Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Councils director of international and communityrelations Jeremy Jones says he believed Dr Töben "fits with the Iranian regimes contempt for history, truth and basic civilized norms of discourse". The above context clarifies the significance of the Tehran Holocaust Conference, and the following excerpts from a newspaper commentary highlights the fear of those for whom the Holocaust-Shoah is an undisputable historical fact, never to be discussed in open forum. Note how some wish to rescue the Holocaust-Shoah from public discussion by retaining control of any discussion by limiting discourse only to professional historians. However, it is this very fact of professional historians intellectual and moral cowardice that has enabled the Holocaust-Shoah lobby to turn the subject matter into a taboo topic. The peculiar persistence of Holocaust denialHolocaust denial flies in the face of overwhelming evidence. Yet,decades after the Nazis crimes, it continues -- and the president of Iran is merely its latest, and highest-profile, advocate. By Arthur Hirsch Sun reporterMay 21, 2006When a three-day conference in Tehran on the future of the Palestinians ended last month, the few hundred militant leaders and their backershad heard speeches condemning Israel and pledging support for Hamas - but not, as many anticipated, any experts challenging evidence of the Holocaust. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said hed stage a conference of Holocaust skeptics, right around the time he referred to the mass murder of European Jews during World War II as a "myth." Ahmadinejad may be the first president of a country to challenge theHolocaust, allying himself with an array of claims viewed among serious historians in much the same light as the case for a flat Earth. He seemed to soften that a bit during the April meeting, referring to his "serious doubt" that the Nazis killed 5 million to 6 million Jews. If the Iranian president does convene a conference challenging Holocaust evidence - a former Iranian foreign minister said it is still being planned - hell step into what scholars describe as a parallel universe, an arena of minutiae and semantic gamesmanship where the weight of historical evidence is never so great that it cannot be dismissed with a fine point, even if the point has been willfully or innocently misconstrued. [...]Deborah E. Lipstadt, who teaches modern Jewish and Holocaust studies at Emory University in Atlanta, published one of the early books on the phenomenon in 1993 only after overcoming strong impulses to ignore Irving and others, hoping they would go away. In Denying the Holocaust, she insists deniers are racist extremists who demand attention not for the merit of the ideas but "because of the fragility of reason and societys susceptibility of such farfetched notions. Many powerful movements have been founded by people living in similar irrational wonderlands, national socialism foremost among them." [...] The tendency to see the Holocaust as propaganda aiding Jewish causes has run through this form of extreme "revisionism" at least since the Frenchman Paul Rassinier published The Drama of European Jewry in 1964. The gas chambers, he said, were an invention of the "Zionist establishment." When Ahmadinejad threatens Israel in one breath and in the next callsthe Holocaust a "myth," he echoes a familiar song. How its playing, and what his remarks do for the cause of the likes of Irving, is hard to say. [IHRs Mark] Weber certainly does not seem enthusiastic about the remarks, saying Ahmadinejad is not a historian and should keep these thoughts to himself. Next to the Irving trial outcome, Lipstadt says Ahmadinejad is the deniers "worst nightmare ... I dont think it helps." Ahmadinejads intended audience is clearly not the worlds academic historians, but Lipstadt figures that his remarks do say something significant about the leader of a country that apparently has serious nuclear aspirations. "Some say hes crazy," says Lipstadt. "I say hes crazy like a fox." http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/ http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/nsindex.html http://www.oilempire.us/holocaust-denial.html
    • Lets hope the International Tehran Conference Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision, will impact on all those fearful people who bend to Jewish pressure, instead of standing up to it, as are Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Hans-Günter Kögel, Horst Mahler, Siegfried Verbeke, Walter Fröhlich, et al, who refuse to recant! Top | Home ©-free 2006 Adelaide InstituteTrue Premise produces True Conclusions ________________________ The Zionist Holocaust Story is a Hoax - The Tale of Two Holocaust Tales - Patrick H McNally The most interesting confrontation at the recent Teheran International Conference on the Holocaust was the shocking differences between two diametrically opposed Jewish Holocaust narratives. Six Neturei Karta rabbis from England, Austria, and the USA attended the Conference to present the views of their rabbinate. Their prophecy-based holocaust narrative is light-years away from the hatemongering profiteering libels, lies, and slanders peddled by their Zionist co-tribalists. All these rabbis would be immediately arrested for doubting the existence of homicidal gas chambers if they were to set foot in France. Recently a tenured French university professor, Bruno Gollisch, was suspended for five years for merely suggesting that the gas chambers could be discussed. The relevant French law is called the Fabulous-Gas Act. So it turns out that these rabbis are unquestionably full throttle, belch fire revisionists and opponents of the Zionist Holocaust hoax. The differences between the rabbis` prophecy-based holocaust narrative and the Zionists` profit-seeking Hoaxoco$t lie are so great that the one word "holocaust" should not be applied to these totally
    • opposed narratives. The differences between therabbinical religious narrative and secular Zionist blood libel do not just relate to the uses, misuses, andabuses of the Holocaust stories. Of course, the rabbiscorrectly see the core abuse of the Zionist hoax as the indispensable excuse to create the Zionist JewState[of Jews, by Jews, and for Jews] and the chief alibi to justify any and all crimes of elite Jewry inside and outside of Palestine.Quite apart from the Zionist abuses of their own verydifferent hoaxoco$t fairy tale, the central elements of the two narratives differ in the following ways: 1. The Zionists say that Hitler was the chief culprit,most responsible villain, and the main efficient cause. Recently when it turned out that nobody could find any documents whatsoever tracing responsibility to Hitler, the hoaxoco$ters had to revise their Hitler-lie. When Hitler could not be blamed, Daniel Goldhagen, Harvard`s heavyweight Holyhoax hatemonger, stepped into the breach to blame all the Germans whom he smeared as "Hitler`s willing executioners."However, Goldhagen himself is simply one of Alley the Weasel`s willing liars. The holyhoaxers really belong to the revision-of-the-month club as they are always changing their story under pressure from real researchers who then get smeared as "deniers." At any rate, for the Nerutei Karta Orthodox rabbis, Hitler is not the efficient cause but only one among many instrumental causes. Another important instrumental cause for the rabbis is the Zionists whoactively cooperated with Hitler to deport the Jews out of Europe. The Zionists wanted young and healthy Jewish cannon fodder to sic on against the native Palestinians and elderly Jews to serve as victims topromote post-war Zionist demands for the founding of their new JewState [of Jews, by Jews, and for Jews]. The Zionists are always the ultimate Volksverhetzer [inciters of hatred of other peoples]. 2. The Zionists are wedded to the preposterous nonsense of the homicidal gas chambers. They have been jibbering and jabbering away too many decadesto be able to gracefully and surreptitiously jettison the gas chamber fiction from their SS Holocaust. The Goldhagen ruse of shifting the blame onto rovingdeath squads of rabies-infected killer Krauts never got off the ground because his poison gas filled trial balloon immediately got shot full of holes. The Orthodox Rabbis could not care less about the homicidal gas chamber bologna. Their Chief Rabbi from England said, "What difference does it make if Jews died in gas chambers or from starving?" In Europe the Rabbi could not make such a statement without being arrested by Zionist holyhoaxotoxifiers and tarred and feathered by the jewsnews
    • 3. The zio-holyhoaxers are dogmatically committed to the “into the valley of gas chambers marched the 6,000,000” myth and to their unique branch of mathematics known as “holocaust arithmetic” in which [6,000,000 – 3,000,000 = 6,000,000].These Orthodox rabbis have a religious, metaphysical, and spiritual understanding of the Jewish deaths during World War II. They seem to contemptuously dismiss any and all bogus Zionist bean counting. 4. The zio-greed heads and hoaxoco$ters are veryinterested in money, money, and more money. Their shameless machinations have been hilariously documented in Norman Finkelsteins`s indispensable The Holocaust Industry. The way zio-holyhoaxershave milked their cash cow should be written up as a Harvard Business School case. The Orthodox rabbis not only do not demand moneybut will not ACCEPT any money for the deaths of their brethren in East Europe during the war which their Zionist co-tribalists played a big role in starting and promoting. 5. The zio-holocaustomaniacs have so successfully marketed their complaints that Edgar Man of Steel coined the phrase, “New Whine in Old Bottles.” Their bogus bull manure has replaced the Crucifixion of Christ as the central redemptive suffering in all ofhuman history. Their marketing campaign has created the Church of the Holocaust as a new slave cult ofwatered down Jewdayism for cattle goyim and secular Jews. But the zio-hoaxocoughers supreme triumph has to have been the UN inauguration of an annualInternational Holocaust Day on January 27. According to Israel Shamir, Israel has only fulfilled one UN resolution: the one that condemned Zionism as a racism. However, it could be objected that Zionism actually never attained the relatively high moral level of a racism and remained on the primitive level of a mere tribalism. However the rabbis have no interest in shoving theirHolocaust narrative down peoples` throats by using a Jewish Neo-Inquisition to prosecute, persecute, and pursue octogenarians and nonagenarians all over theface of the earth and even into villages and hamlets in South America, suburbs in the USA, and small towns in Europe. In fact, one rabbi stated that his group does not participate in Jewry-wide and secular celebrations but only commemorates the disappearance of their own particular community in Eastern Europe. 6. The Zionist hoaxoco$t is not only a shamelessshakedown and extortion racket but is an accusation of premeditated murder. Let us not use that phony and already worn out neologism, “genocide,” which
    • was coined by a zio-propagandist working on wartime black propaganda in Washington, D.C. in the early 1940s. The Zionists are not content with saying thatJews died or were killed. Their quasi-official definitionincludes the essentially different word, “murdered.” If someone dies or is killed, it can be a natural or accidental happening with nobody being guilty.Murder always involves guilt and the guilty party must pay some compensation. Enter the hapless Germansand the most to be pitied Palestinians as the first and most obvious victims of world historys filthiest blood libel, the hoaxocough. But the holyhoax is not onlythe BIGGEST of big lies but the mother of many other lies, e.g. the 9-11 Lie foisted on a brain dead American public with no knowledge of high school chemistry or physics. The 9-11 Lie in turn led to the made-by-Jews WMD lie and the depleted uranium nuclear poisoning and massacre of the Iraqi people. Perhaps Asia has not yet been severely affected by the hoaxoco$t lie, but the entire post-Christian worldhas been brain poisoned and the Muslim world literally poisoned, savagely attacked, and threatened by it.The next poisonous fruit of the zio-hoaxocough mightwell be an attack on Iran for….well, for what else, butholocaust denial. After all, the Islamic Republic of Irandid invite in the Nerutei Karta rabbis and gave them a hearty welcome and a forum where they couldpresent their views. In Iran the rabbis got more press coverage and TV time than they have been given in over 50 years in the “democratic and open free world.” In the 1940s and 50s people used to say right that 55,000,000 humans died in World War II including a few million Jews. Now the holocaustofried say that 6,000,000 Jews were murdered in a Holocaust along with a few million simple unchosen humans. Please! Let us all move onto solving some really important pan-human problems! ___________________________ Lets be clear: Orthodox Jews deeply pro-Zionist Shame on pretenders who attended Tehran conferenceBy Rabbi Barry Gelman, Houston Chronicle, December 18, 2006Last week the Chronicle ran a curious and disturbing picture of a Chassidic Jew embracing IranianPresident Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a conference of Holocaust deniers.
    • The picture has outraged Jews all over the world. That embrace represents a betrayal of Jewish sensitivitiesand a disgrace to the victims of the Holocaust. As therabbi in the picture appears to be ultraorthodox Jews, it is important to set the record straight as to what authentic Orthodox Judaism teaches on this issue.The rabbi belongs to a group called Neturei Karta that believes that Zionism is a heresy. They base theirviews on various Talmudic statements and the warpedtheological view that the Holocaust was a punishment from God brought about by the advent of political Zionism. In this groups view, only God can create a Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel. Anyhuman attempt to do so is viewed as a lack of faith in God. Furthermore, according to their view, the fact that Israel was established, in the main, by nonobservant Jews, forever taints the Zionist endeavor. As such, they believe that the state of Israel is illegitimate and should not exist.According to them, Israel belongs to the Palestinians. They attended the conference to show "solidarity" with an individual who shares their views. This view is a distortion of Jewish law as well as a misrepresentation of the sentiments of the vast majority of Orthodox and Ultraorthodox Jews.Judaism is profoundly Zionist. The Bible, Talmud and the daily prayer service are filled with references to Israel and Jerusalem. For ages, Jews living in exilehave longed to return to Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people. In order to back their claim that Zionism is heresy,the Neturei Karta quote isolated sources and interpretthem in ways contrary to most rabbinic authorities. It is a basic premise of Jewish legal theory that certain statements in the Talmud are legally binding (Jewish law) while others are categorized as aggadic (nonlegal) discussions. While important, the aggadic sections are not meant to be normative. This fringegroup is so alone in its view that all classic codifiers of Jewish law ignore its arguments. It is important to note this so readers are aware that this group in no way represents Orthodox Judaism.As far as the issue of showing a lack of faith in God in creating the Jewish state, the members of this groupadopt a patently anti-Jewish approach. Of course Jewshave always believed that God is the author of history and that he guides the destiny of every person. This, however, is not meant to be an excuse for passivity. Judaism teaches that human exertion to improve the world is not only appropriate, but also necessary. A sick patient is not meant to believe that going to a
    • doctor would deny Gods providence. In fact, if herefuses medical attention, he will have violated Jewish law. The fact is that most prominent Orthodox leaders have accepted and embraced Zionism. Among the Orthodox signers to Israels Declaration of Independence are the two leaders of the Ultra Orthodox Agudath Israel movement, Rabbi Yizchak Meir Levin and Rabbi Meir David Lowenstein, as well as Rabbi Kalman Kahana of Agudath Israels labor movement and Rabbis Wolfe Gold and Yehuda Leib Maimon, leaders of the religious Zionist Mizrachi movement. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, one of the most prominent American Orthodox leaders of the 20th century, not only embraced Zionism but also considered the establishment of the state of Israel a divine communication God was literally knocking onthe door of the Jewish people. The state of Israel was not to be viewed as heresy, but rather a joint endeavor between God and the Jewish people. This group has crossed the line by attending the Tehran conference and embracing the monster Ahmadinejad who blatantly says that he wishes to carry on where Hitler left off. Shame on them for betraying their own people. Shame on them for spurning God and his gift of the state of Israel. In my opinion, despite their dress and outward appearance, they have lost any right to call themselves Orthodox Jews. Perhaps we should even go further and declare about them what Maimonides has said: "The following individuals do not have a share in the world to come — those who separate themselves from the community. A person whoseparates himself from the community may be placed in this category even though he has not transgressed any sins. A person who separates himself from the congregation of Israel and does not take part in their hardships — but rather goes on his own path as if heis from another nation and not Israel — does not have a portion in the world to come." By abandoning the state of Israel and betraying the memory of the victims of the Holocaust, this group has indeed separated itself from the rest of the nation of Israel.Let there be no mistake about it: The vast majority of Jews, of all denominations, fully reject the religiousand theological views expressed by the Neturei Karta. Gelman, rabbi of United Orthodox Synagogues, is treasurer of the HoustonRabbinical Association and a member of the Board of the Houston Jewish Federation. Compare with this
    • _________________________ Nazi Holocaust in Context of Soviet Holosphage and Zionist HoloexaleipsisBy Joachim Martillo, Al-Jazeerah, December 19, 2006 A lot of the people attending the Iran HolocaustConference were unsavory (and most of the attendees identified in the news reports have little or noqualifications as genuine historians+), but ignoring or slighting the importance of the presence of representatives from the Orthodox Jewish Neturei Karta movement is a mistake. Before the government of the State of Israel foundways to enmesh and co-opt large numbers of religious Jews, anti-Zionist Jewish groups like Neturei Kartaused to represent the mainstream in religious Jewish thinking. The few remaining religious anti-Zionist Jewish organizations and communities have maintained their integrity by rejecting all Israeli government subsidization. Like Ahmedinejad and some Holocaust studies specialists, they are concerned that the Holocaust of popular discourse is misused to justify Israeli oppression of Palestinians and that common media representations of the Holocaust rarely correspond to the facts. Both Neturei Karta and Ahmedinejad have a point. Since the opening of Soviet and Eastern European archives to Western researchers, there has been a revolution in scholarly understanding of the beginnings and early history of the Soviet Union. Soviet mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansingbecomes for all intents and purposes an assembly line phenomenon long before Hitler took power in Germany. The Holocaust and German Nazism itself are only comprehensible in terms of Central and Eastern European fear of the Soviet Union and awareness of Soviet atrocities. Careful analysis of Soviet archival data shows that the Central and Eastern European popular identification of ethnicAshkenazim with the Soviet Union was quite rational, for Soviet ethnic Ashkenazim formed the quintessential Soviet class and generally filled theleading roles in planning and executing Soviet crimeslike the Great Starvation (Holodomor) in the Ukraine,collectivization, dekulakization, the mass shootings by the secret police, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.* Because the mentality of Soviet Ashkenazim andZionist Ashkenazim is so similar in many regards, it ishardly surprising that alienization, which made entire Soviet ethnic groups aliens in their own lands, has
    • strong similarities to the Zionist process of dispossessing, murdering, ethnic cleansing andgenociding the native population of historic Palestine.While the Eastern block data does in fact suggest that even the preeminent Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg may have overestimated Jewish mortality in the Holocaust, the new information is more importantbecause it indicates that much of the mass murder of Jews during WW2 was unjustified but very understandable reaction to or collective revenge on Jews for the part that a very large segment of the Eastern European and Russian Jewish populationplayed in the commission of Soviet mass murder andatrocities. By the 1940s a lot of Eastern European and oppressed Soviet ethnic groups were more than willing to kill Jews without any incitement from the Germans, and they did, and this killing probably represents approximately half the number of Jewish casualties from mass murder during WW2. We in America really do have to rethink and reviseour understanding of the Holocaust, and if we need toidentify an archetypal genocide to use as the measure of all other modern genocides, the Holoexaleipsis, which is the Great Erasure that includes the Palestinian Nakba or Catastrophe, provides the best model. It was planned in cold-blood by racist Eastern Europeans during the late 19th century, the first major mass murders and ethnic cleansing took place during 1947-8, and it continues to this day right before our eyes. The Holoexaleipsis includes wholesale demonization of Arabs and Muslims along with the erasure of whole fields of scholarship (including Jewish as well as Arabic and Islamic studies) so that they can be rewritten to justify Zionist and American depredations on the peoples of the Middle East. + St. Francis Xavier University Professor Shiraz Dossa was anexception. He presented a paper on the misuse of the Holocaust in the justification for the war on terror.* The totality of these Soviet crimes constitute the Soviet Holosphage, which is mass slaughter in the effort to fit the populations of the Russian Empire into a Marxist ideological framework by the crudest Procrustean means. Joachim Martillo, President , Telford Tools, Inc. Top | Home ©-free 2006 Adelaide InstituteDr Robert Faurisson and Rabbis Friedman and Cohen, they firmly believe in the Talmudic Holocaust logic, but were defeated by French rationalism.
    • Dr Robert Faurisson and Rabbis Friedman and Cohen, they firmly believe in the Talmudic Holocaust logic, but were defeated by French rationalism. AustraliaFreePress.org Professor Faurissons paper for Tehran Holocaust Conference 2006 (English version)Robert FAURISSON December 11, 2006To President Mahmoud AhmadinejadTo our prisoners of conscience Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Horst MahlerTo Arthur Butz, Fred Leuchter, Barbara Kulaszka, Ahmed Rami, Gerd Honsik, Heinz Koppe The Victories of RevisionismAbstractAt the Nuremberg trial (1945-1946), a tribunal of the victors accused a defeated Germanynotably 1) of having ordered and planned the physical extermination of the Jews of Europe; 2) of having, to that end, designed and used certain weapons of mass destruction, in particular those that it called “gas chambers”; 3) of having, essentially with those weapons but also through other means, caused the death of six million Jews.In support of that threefold accusation, regularly taken up over the past sixty years by all the
    • main communications media in the West, no proof capable of standing up to examination hasbeen produced. Professor Robert Faurisson concluded in 1980:“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the samehistorical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose mainbeneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are theGerman people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.”In 2006 he maintains that conclusion in full. In nearly sixty years, the revisionists, beginningwith the Frenchmen Maurice Bardèche and Paul Rassinier, have accumulated, from thehistorical and scientific point of view, an impressive series of victories over their opponents.Twenty examples of such victories, running from 1951 to today, are given here.Revisionism is not an ideology but a method inspired by the search for exactitude in matters ofhistory. Circumstances have seen to it that revisionism is also the great intellectual adventure ofthe present time.Born in 1929 of a French father and a Scottish mother, R. Faurisson taught classical letters (French,Latin, Greek) before specialising first in the analysis of modern and contemporary French literary textsand, finally, in the appraisal of texts and documents (literature, history, media). He was professor atthe Sorbonne and the University of Lyon. Because of his historical revisionist stands, he waseffectively forbidden from teaching. He has incurred many convictions in the law courts and hassuffered ten physical assaults. In France, access to the press, radio and television is barred to him, as itis to all revisionists. Amongst his works: Écrits révisionnistes (1974-1998), in four volumes (2ndedition, LV-2027 p.).Foreword The present summary has as its title “The Victories of Revisionism” and not “History of Revisionism”or “Arguments of the Revisionist Case”. It deals only with victories that our opponents have had to concede tous either explicitly or implicitly. Therefore one must not expect to find here a systematic mention of revisionistauthors, works or arguments. If still I had to recommend a short sample of revisionist readings, I should suggestthe prime work of reference that is The Hoax of the Twentieth Century / The Case Against the PresumedExtermination of European Jewry, published by Arthur Robert Butz in 1976. The book is masterful. In the thirtyyears of its existence no one has attempted the least refutation, so solidly is it built; I especially recommend the2003 edition, enhanced by five remarkable supplements. It would also be appropriate to read Fred Leuchter’sfamous study, An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau andMajdanek, Poland, particularly in the gilt cover edition issued by Samisdat Publishers in Toronto in 1988,containing, on page 42, the text of a letter of capital importance, dated May 14, 1988, on the utter absence ofopenings in the roofs of the alleged gas chambers of crematoria II and III at Auschwitz-Birkenau. F. Leuchterhas also produced three other reports on the gas chamber question. Not to be missed is German research chemistGermar Rudolf’s Lectures on the Holocaust / Controversial Issues Cross Examined, Theses & DissertationsPress (PO Box 257768, Chicago, IL 60625, USA), 2005, along with the same author’s impressive periodicalseries (more than thirty issues to date) that he has brought out under the title Vierteljahreshefte für freieGeschichtsforschung, not to mention his English language magazine The Revisionist and a fair number of other
    • publications. All told, the work done thus far by G. Rudolf (now aged 42 and imprisoned in Germany) amountsto a formidable scientific landmark. Finally, let us cite Canadian barrister Barbara Kulaszka’s opus magnumDid Six Million Really Die ? / Report of the Evidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel,1988, published in 1992; with its compact print it is equivalent to a volume of about a thousand pages in regularbook format. The text shows how, during Ernst Zündel’s two long trials in Toronto in 1985 and 1988, the otherside, when confronted with the revisionist argumentation, simply collapsed: a real Stalingrad for the orthodoxhistorians, beginning with the biggest of them all, Raul Hilberg. Essential studies have been written by theGermans Wilhelm Stäglich and Udo Walendy, the Italian Carlo Mattogno, the Spaniard Enrique Aynat Eknes,the Swiss Jürgen Graf and ten or so other authors. The 97 issues of The Journal of Historical Review (1980-2002), in good part due to the American Mark Weber, constitute a mine of information on all aspects ofrevisionist research. In France, Pierre Guillaume, Serge Thion, Henri Roques, Pierre Marais, VincentReynouard, Jean Plantin have picked up where Maurice Bardèche and Paul Rassinier left off. There are nowcountless revisionist-oriented publications and websites throughout the world, and this despite the prevailingcensorship and repression. Nonetheless the “Holocaust” remains the lone official religion of the entire West, a murderous religionif ever there was one. And one that continues to fool millions of good souls in the crudest ways: the display ofheaps of eyeglasses, hair, shoes or valises presented as “relics” of the “gassed”, faked or deceptively exploitedphotographs, texts of innocuous papers altered or purposely misinterpreted, endless proliferation of monuments,ceremonies, shows, the drumming of the Shoah into our heads as early as primary school, organised excursionsto the holy sites of alleged Jewish martyrdom and great show trials with their calls for lynch-law. *** President Ahmadinejad has used the right word: the alleged “Holocaust” of the Jews is a“myth”, that is, a belief maintained by credulity or ignorance. In France it is perfectly lawful toproclaim unbelief in God but it is forbidden to say that one does not believe in the “Holocaust”, orsimply that one has doubts about it. This prohibition of any kind of disputing became formal andofficial with the law of July 13, 1990. The said law was published in the Journal officiel de laRépublique française on the next day, that is, the 14th of July, day of commemoration of the Republicand of Freedom. It states that the punishment may run to as much as a year’s imprisonment and a fineof up to €45,000, but there may also be orders to pay damages and the considerable costs of judicialpublication. Relevant case law specifies that all this applies “even if [such disputing] is presented inveiled or dubitative form or by way of insinuation” (Code pénal, Paris, Dalloz, 2006, p. 2059). ThusFrance has but one official myth, that of the “Holocaust”, and knows but one form of blasphemy, thatwhich offends the “Holocaust”. On July 11, 2006 I personally was once more summoned to appear before a Paris court on thegrounds of that special law. The presiding judge, Nicolas Bonnal, had recently attended a trainingcourse on the means of cracking down on revisionism over the Internet, a course organised by theEuropean office of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, in Paris, under the auspices of the Conseilreprésentatif des institutions juives de France (CRIF) (Representative Council of Jewish Institutionsof France)! In a release triumphantly headed “The CRIF plays an active part in the training ofEuropean judges” this Jewish body, whose political force is exorbitant, was not afraid of announcingurbi et orbi that it listed Nicolas Bonnal amongst its pupils or trainees(www.crif.org/?page=articles_display/detail&aid=7222&artyd=2&stinfo=297.376.1467). And that is not all.At my trial, for good measure, the State prosecutrix happened to be a Jewess by the name of Anne deFontette; in the closing words of her talk requesting conviction and sentencing, she, althoughsupposedly speaking in the name of a secular State, called for the vengeance of “Yahweh, protector of
    • his chosen people” against “the lying lips” of Faurisson, guilty of having granted a telephone interviewof revisionist character to an Iranian radio and television station, Sahar 1. The findings of revisionist research The Germans of the Third Reich wanted to extirpate the Jews from Europe but not toexterminate them. They sought “a definitive — or final — territorial solution of the Jewish question”and not a “final solution” in the sense of any physical suppression (to want a “final solution ofunemployment” is not to desire the death of the unemployed). The Germans had concentration campsbut not “extermination camps” (an expression forged by Allied propaganda). They used disinfectiongas chambers operating notably with an insecticide called Zyklon-B (the active ingredient of whichwas hydrogen cyanide) but never had any homicidal gas chambers or homicidal gas vans. They usedcrematory ovens to incinerate corpses and not to throw living beings into them. After the war, thephotographs purportedly exposing “Nazi atrocities” showed us camp inmates who were eithersick, dying or dead, but not killed. What with the Allies’ blockade and their “area” bombing ofGermany, and the apocalypse experienced by the latter towards the end of a nearly six-year longconflict, famine and epidemics, notably of typhus, had ravaged the country and, in particular, thecamps in the western regions, overwhelmed by the arrivals en masse of detainees evacuated from thecamps in the East, and thus severely lacking in food, medicine and the Zyklon-B needed for protectionagainst typhus. In the butchery that is a war, people suffer. In a modern war, the belligerent nations’ civiliansat times suffer as much if not more than their soldiers. During the conflict that, from 1933 to 1945,pitted them against the Germans, the European Jews thus had occasion to suffer but infinitely less sothan they dare to assert with such a nerve. Certainly the Germans treated them as a hostile ordangerous minority (there were reasons for that), and against these people the Third Reich authoritieswere led to take, due to the war, more and more coercive police or military security measures. Incertain cases those measures amounted to placement in internment camps or indeed to deportation toconcentration or forced labour camps. Sometimes Jews were even executed for sabotage, spying,terrorism and, especially, for guerrilla activities in favour of the Allies, mainly on the Russian front,but not for the simple reason that they were Jewish. Never did Hitler order or permit the killing of aperson because of his or her race or religion. As for the figure of six million Jewish deaths, it is a pureinvention that has never been substantiated despite the efforts in that regard by the Yad VashemInstitute of Jerusalem. In the face of the formidable accusations thrown at a defeated Germany the revisionists havesaid to the accusers: 1) Show us one single document that, in your view, proves that Hitler or any other National- Socialist ordered and planned the physical extermination of the Jews; 2) Show us that weapon of mass destruction which, as alleged, was a gas chamber; show us a single one of them, at Auschwitz or elsewhere; and if, by chance, you claim that you cannot show us any because, according to you, the Germans destroyed the “murder weapon”, provide us at least with a technical drawing representing one of those slaughterhouses which, as you say, the Germans destroyed and explain to us how that weapon with such a fabulous killing performance had been able to work without bringing on the death of either those who ran it or their helpers;
    • 3) Explain to us how you have arrived at your figure of six million victims. However, in over sixty years, the Jewish or non-Jewish accusing historians have shownthemselves to be incapable of offering a response to these requests. Thus they have been accusingwithout any evidence. That is what is called slander. But there is something yet more serious: the revisionists have set forth a series of establishedfacts proving that the physical extermination, gas chambers and six million in question cannot haveexisted. 1) The first of these facts is that, for the entire duration of the war, millions of European Jewslived, plain for all to see, amidst the rest of the population, a good part of them being employed infactories by the Germans who were cruelly short of manpower, and those millions of Jews weretherefore not killed. Better still: the Germans stubbornly offered to hand over to the Allies, up to thelast months of the conflict, as many Jews as they might want on the express condition that they mustnot subsequently send them to Palestine; this proviso was made out of respect for “the noble andvaliant Arab people” of that region, already violently beset by Jewish colonists. 2) The second fact,which is carefully hidden from us, is that excesses which might be committed against Jews could wellbring on the severest sanctions: the killing of a single Jew or Jewess could get the perpetrator,although he be a German soldier, sentenced to death by court martial and shot. In other words, theJews under German rule continued to enjoy, if they observed the regulations in place, the protection ofpenal law, even in the face of the armed forces. 3) The third of these facts is that the alleged Nazi gaschambers of Auschwitz or elsewhere are quite simply inconceivable for obvious physical and chemicalreasons; never after the purported hydrogen cyanide gassing of hundreds or thousands of persons in aclosed space could others have soon entered in a veritable bath of that poison and proceeded to handleand remove so many corpses which, steeped with cyanide gas on both outside and inside, would havebecome untouchable. Hydrogen cyanide adheres firmly to surfaces; it penetrates even cement andbricks and is very difficult to remove from a room by ventilation; it penetrates the skin, it settles withinthe body, mixing with its fluids. In the United States it is precisely this poison that is used still today inan execution chamber to kill a condemned prisoner, but that precise chamber is of steel and glass andis equipped with machinery which is, of necessity, quite complex, calling for extraordinaryprecautions in its use; it is enough to see an American gas chamber designed for putting to death a loneindividual to realise that the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers, which supposedly served to kill crowdsof individuals, day after day, can neither have existed nor functioned. But then, as people will ask, what became of all those Jews concerning whom we revisionistshave concluded from our research that they were never killed? The answer is already there, rightbefore our eyes and within everyone’s grasp: a part of the Jewish population of Europe died, like tensof millions of non-Jews, due to the war and to hunger and disease, and another part plainly and simplysurvived the war in their millions. These latter fraudulently had themselves dubbed “miraculous”survivors. In 1945 the “survivors” and “miraculous escapees” were there to be counted by the millionand they spread throughout the world to fifty or so countries, beginning with Palestine. How could analleged decision of total physical extermination of the Jews have so engendered millions of“miraculous” Jewish survivors? With millions of “miraculous survivors” there is no longer anymiracle: it is a false miracle, a lie, a fraud. For my part, in 1980 I summed up, in a sentence of sixty French words, the findings producedby revisionist research:The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the samehistorical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose mainbeneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the
    • German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety. Today, in 2006, that is, twenty-six years later, I maintain that sentence in full. It had not beeninspired by any political or religious sympathy or antipathy whatsoever. It had its ground in certifiedfacts that had begun to be brought to light, on the one hand, by Maurice Bardèche in 1948 and 1950 inhis two books on the Nuremberg trial and, on the other hand, by Paul Rassinier who, also in 1950,published his Le Mensonge d’Ulysse (Ulysses’s Lie) (See The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses,Costa Mesa, California, Institute for Historical Review, 1990, XVIII-447 p.). From 1951 onwards,year after year, our adversaries, so rich, so mighty, so bent on practising all possible forms ofrepression against historical revisionism, have found themselves progressively forced to admit that weare right on the technical, scientific and historical levels. The victories achieved by Second WorldWar revisionism are many and significant, but, as must sadly be recognised, they still remain, in ourday, almost wholly unknown to the greater public. The mighty have done everything to conceal thesevictories from the world. That is understandable: their domination and sharing of the world betweenthem are in a way grounded in the religion of the alleged “Holocaust” of the Jews. Calling the“Holocaust” into question, publicly disclosing the extraordinary imposture of it all, pulling the masksoff the politicians, journalists, historians, academics and people of the churches, clans and coterieswho, for more than sixty years, have been preaching falsehoods whilst all the time casting anathemaon the unbelievers, amounts to a perilous adventure. But, as will be seen here, despite the repression,time seems in the end to be on the revisionists’ side. Examples of revisionist victories I shall recall here just twenty of these victories: 1) In 1951 the Jew Léon Poliakov, who had been part of the French delegation at theNuremberg trial (1945-1946), stated his conclusion that we had at our disposal an overabundance ofdocuments for all points of the history of the Third Reich, with the exception of one point alone: the“campaign to exterminate the Jews”. For this, he wrote, “No document remains, perhaps none hasever existed” (Bréviaire de la haine, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1974 [1951], p. 171; English version:Harvest of Hate, New York, Holocaust Library, 1979, revised and expanded edition).Remark: There is here an extraordinary concession to the revisionistcase. In effect, such a formidable criminal undertaking supposedlyconceived, ordered, organised and perpetrated by the Germans wouldhave necessitated an order, a plan, instructions, a budget, … Suchan undertaking, carried out over several years on a whole continentand generating the death of millions of victims, would have left aflood of documentary evidence. Consequently, if we are told thatthere perhaps has never existed any such documentary evidence, it isbecause the crime in question was not perpetrated. In the completeabsence of documents, the historian has no longer anything to do butkeep quiet. L. Poliakov made this concession in 1951, that is,fifty-five years ago. However, it must be noted that, from 1951 to
    • 2006, his successors have equally failed to find the leastdocumentary evidence. Occasionally, here and there, we havewitnessed attempts at making us believe in such or such discoverybut each time, as will be seen below, the “discoverers” and theirpublicists have had to drop their claim. 2) In 1960 Martin Broszat, a member of the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich,wrote: “Neither at Dachau, nor at Bergen-Belsen, nor at Buchenwald were any Jews or other detaineesgassed” (“Keine Vergasung in Dachau”, Die Zeit, August 19, 1960, p. 16).Remark: This sudden and unexplained concession is significant. Atthe Nuremberg trial the only homicidal gas chamber that theaccusation ventured to show in a film had been that of Dachau, andthe testimonies telling of alleged homicidal gassings in the threeabove-mentioned camps had been numerous. M. Broszat thus implicitlyacknowledged that those testimonies were false. He did not tell usin what respect they were false. Nor did he tell us in what respectother such testimonies relating, for example, to Auschwitz,Majdanek, Treblinka, Sobibor or Belzec should, for their part, go onbeing deemed reliable. In the 1980s, at Dachau, a sign indicated infive languages that the “gas chamber disguised as showers”, visitedby the tourists, was “never used” as such. The revisionists had thenasked in what respect the room could be termed a homicidal “gaschamber”, whereupon the Dachau Museum authorities took down the signand replaced it with another on which, in German and English, cannow be read: “Gas chamber. This was the center of potential massmurder. The room was disguised as ‘showers’ and equipped with fakeshower spouts to mislead the victims and prevent them from refusingto enter the room. During a period of 20 minutes up to 150 people ata time could be suffocated to death through prussic acid poison gas(Zyklon B).” One will note the words “potential” and “could”, thechoice of which attests to a fine bit of trickery: the informationspawns in visitors’ minds the idea that the said “gas chamber” waseffectively used for killing but, at the same time, it enables themuseum to retort to revisionists: “We haven’t expressly said thatthis gas chamber was used for killing; we’ve merely said that itcould be or could have been, at the time, used to kill a certainnumber of people”. To conclude, in 1960 M. Broszat, without anyexplanation, decreed in a simple letter that no one had been gassedat Dachau; thenceforth, the Dachau Museum authorities, quiteembarrassed, have tried, by means of assorted deceitful ploysvarying over time, to fool their visitors into believing that, inthis room that looks like showers (and for good reason, since thatis what it was), people had well and truly been gassed. 3) In 1968 the Jewish historian Olga Wormser-Migot, in her thesis on Le Système
    • concentrationnaire nazi, 1933-1945, (Paris, Presses universitaires de France), gave an ampleexposition of what she called “the problem of the gas chambers” (p. 541-544). She voiced herscepticism as to the worth of some well-known witnesses’ accounts attesting to the existence of gaschambers in camps such as Mauthausen or Ravensbrück. On Auschwitz-I she was categorical: thatcamp where, still today, tourists visit an alleged gas chamber was, in reality, “without any gaschamber” (p. 157).Remark: To bring their horrible charges of homicidal gassingsagainst the defeated, the accusers have relied solely on testimoniesand those testimonies have not been verified. Let us take note ofthe particular case of Auschwitz-I: it was thus 38 years ago that aJewish historian had the courage to write that this camp was“without any gas chamber”; however, still today, in 2006, crowds oftourists there visit an enclosed space that the authorities dare topresent, fallaciously, as a “gas chamber”. Here we see a practice ofoutright deceit. 4) In 1979 thirty-four French historians signed a lengthy joint declaration in reply to mytechnical arguments aiming to demonstrate that the allegation of the existence and functioning of theNazi gas chambers ran up against certain radical material impossibilities. According to the officialversion, Rudolf Höss, one of the three successive Auschwitz commandants, had confessed (!) anddescribed how Jews had been gassed at Auschwitz and Birkenau. According to that very vagueconfession, when the victims appeared to have breathed their last gasp, a ventilation apparatus wasswitched on and a squad of Jewish prisoners immediately entered the vast room to remove the corpsesand carry them as far as the crematory ovens. R. Höss said that those Jews went about this worknonchalantly, whilst smoking and eating. I had pointed out that this could not be: one cannot go intopremises saturated with hydrogen cyanide gas (a poisonous, penetrating and explosive compound)whilst smoking and eating and then touch, handle and take out, using all one’s strength, thousands ofbodies suffused with that poison and therefore untouchable. In their declaration the thirty-fourhistorians answered me thus: “It must not be asked how, technically, such a mass-murder waspossible. It was technically possible, since it happened” (Le Monde, February 21, 1979, p. 23).Remark: That answer amounts to a dodging of the enquiry put forth.If someone shirks a question in this manner, it is because he isincapable of answering. And if thirty-four historians findthemselves to such a degree unable to explain how a crime of thesedimensions was perpetrated, it is because that crime defies the lawsof nature; it is therefore imaginary. 5) Also in 1979, the American authorities finally decided to make public certain aerialphotographs of Auschwitz which, up to then, they had kept hidden. With either cynicism or naivety,the two authors of the publication, former CIA men Dino A. Brugioni and Robert G. Poirier, gave theirlittle set of photos the title The Holocaust Revisited and tacked on here and there labels bearing thewords “gas chamber(s)”, but, in their commentaries, there was nothing whatever to justify thosedesignations. (Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, February 1979, ST-79-10001).
    • Remark: Today, in 2006, this trickery makes our thoughts turn to themiserable demonstration by the former American government ministerColin Powell when trying to prove, by the same device of havinglabels stuck onto aerial photos, the existence of works for themanufacture of “weapons of mass destruction” in Saddam Hussein’sIraq. In reality, those photos of Auschwitz slap discredit on thecase for Nazi gas chambers. What can be distinctly made out on themare serene crematoria structures, with no crowds huddled outsidewaiting to enter the alleged changing rooms and the alleged deathchambers. The surrounding grounds are free of obstruction andvisible from all directions. The flowerbeds in the patches of gardenround the crematories are neatly laid-out and bear no trace of beingstamped upon, every day, by thousands of people. Crematorium n°3,for instance, abuts on what we know to have been, thanks to sounddocuments from the Auschwitz State Museum, a football field and isclose to a volleyball court (Hefte von Auschwitz, 15, 1975, plate onpage 56 and page 64). It is also close to eighteen hospital barracksof the men’s camp. There were thirty-two Allied air missions abovethis zone which also comprised the large industrial installations ofMonowitz. It is understandable that the Allied aviation should haveattacked the industrial sector several times whilst sparing as muchas possible what was obviously a concentration, labour and transitcamp and not an “extermination camp”, on which there fell, in theend, only a few stray bombs. 6) On April 21, 1982 an association (the “ASSAG”), was created in Paris for “the study ofmurders by gassing under the National-Socialist regime”, “with a view to seeking and verifyingelements bearing proof of the use of poison gasses in Europe by the officials of the National-Socialistregime to kill persons of various nationalities, to contributing to the publication of this evidence, tomaking, to that purpose, all useful contacts on the national and international level”. Article 2 of theassociation’s charter stipulates: “The Association shall last as long as shall be necessary to attainthe objectives set forth in Article 1.” However, this association, founded by fourteen persons, amongstwhom Germaine Tillion, Georges Wellers, Geneviève Anthonioz née de Gaulle, barrister BernardJouanneau and Pierre Vidal-Naquet, has, in nearly a quarter of a century, never published anythingand, to this day in 2006, remains in existence. In the event that it be maintained, wrongly, that thegroup has produced a book entitled Chambres à gaz, secret d’État (Gas chambers, State secret), it willbe fitting to recall that the book in question is in fact the French translation of a work first published inGerman by Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein and Adalbert Rückerl and in which there featured a fewcontributions by a few members of the “ASSAG” (Paris, Editions de Minuit, 1984; English translationpublished as Nazi Mass Murder: a documentary history of the use of poison gas, New Haven, YaleUniversity Press, 1994).Remark: By itself the book’s French title gives a fair idea of thecontents: instead of proof, supported by photographs of gaschambers, drawings, sketches, forensic reports on the crime weapon,the reader finds only speculations based on what is called“evidence” (éléments de preuve, “elements of proof”, not proof), andthis because, we are told, those gas chambers had constituted the
    • greatest possible secret, a “State secret”. If ever there were a“weapon of mass destruction” that deserved a well-done forensicexamination, it was indeed this one. In effect, it constitutes ananomaly in the history of science for at least two reasons: it hadno precedent and has had no continuation; it arose out of nothingonly to return to nothingness. However, the history of science knowsof no such phenomenon. In any case, by the very fact of itsexistence yet today in 2006, one may say that the ASSAG associationhas still not attained the objective for which it was founded nearlytwenty-five years ago. It has still found neither proof nor even anyevidence of the “Nazi gas chambers’” existence. 7) In 1982, from June 29 to July 2, an international symposium was held in Paris, at theSorbonne, under the chairmanship of two Jewish historians, François Furet and Raymond Aron.According to the organisers, it was to reply authoritatively and publicly to Robert Faurisson and “ahandful of anarcho-communists” who had given him their support (an allusion to Pierre Guillaume,Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, Serge Thion and a few other free-thinking persons, some of them Jewish).On the last day, at a much-awaited press conference, the two chairmen had to admit publicly that,“despite the most scholarly research”, no order given by Hitler to kill the Jews had been found. As forthe gas chambers, they did not even make an allusion to them.Remark: This symposium constituted the first out-in-the-open attemptto show the general public that the revisionists were lying. As atother gatherings of the same kind (notably one held in 1987, againat the Sorbonne), revisionists were barred entry and, like all othersuch gatherings without exception, it ended in utter failure for theorganisers. 8) On April 26, 1983, the long-running lawsuit against me for “personal injury throughfalsification of history” (sic), begun, notably by Jewish organisations, in 1979, came to an end. On thatday the first chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal, civil division section A, presided by judgeGrégoire, whilst upholding a judgment finding me liable for “personal injury”, paid solid tribute to thequality of my work. It ruled, in effect, that there could be detected in my writings on the gas chambersno trace of rashness, no trace of negligence, no trace of having deliberately overlooked anything,nor any trace of a lie and that, as a consequence, “the appraisal of the value of the findings [onthe gas chambers] defended by Mr Faurisson is a matter, therefore, solely for experts, historiansand the public.”Remark: If there cannot be found in the work of an author proposingto refute the case for the gas chambers either any rashness,negligence, deliberate oversight, lies or “falsification”, that isproof that the work in question is the product of a serious,careful, conscientious, upright and genuine researcher, proof goodenough to ensure the legal right to maintain publicly, as he himselfdoes, that the said gas chambers are but a myth.
    • 9) In 1983, on May 7, Simone Veil, who is Jewish and herself a “survivor of the genocide”,declared on the subject of the gas chambers: “In the course of a case brought against Faurisson forhaving denied the existence of the gas chambers, those who bring the case are compelled to provideformal proof of the gas chambers’ reality. However, everyone knows that the Nazis destroyed thosegas chambers and systematically did away with all the witnesses” (France-Soir Magazine, May 7,1983, p. 47).Remark: If there are neither any murder weapons nor testimonies,then what is left? What is one to think of the places presented tomillions of deceived visitors as gas chambers? What must be thoughtof the individuals who introduce themselves as witnesses ormiraculous survivors of the gas chambers? For her part, S. Veil isthe first holocaustic authority to have thus given to understandthat any alleged witness to gassings can only be a false witness.Already on March 6, 1979, in the course of a televised discussionpresented by the French programme “Dossiers de l’écran” (ScreenFiles) about the airing of the American series “Holocaust”, she haddisplayed her contempt for one Maurice Benroubi, introduced as a“witness of the gas chambers”. The latter, as a result, adopted anattitude of extreme discretion compared with that shown in his“testimony”, which had appeared shortly before in the weeklyL’Express (March 3-9, 1979, p. 107-110). 10) In 1961 the Jew Raul Hilberg, orthodox historian Number One, published the first editionof his major work, The Destruction of the European Jews, and it was in 1985 that he brought out thesecond edition, a profoundly revised and corrected version. The distance between the two isconsiderable and can only be explained by the succession of victories achieved in the meantime by therevisionists. In the first edition the author had brazenly affirmed that “the destruction of the Jews ofEurope” had been set off following two consecutive orders given by Hitler. He neither specified thedate nor reproduced the wording thereof. Then he professed to explain in detail the political,administrative and bureaucratic process of that destruction; for example he went so far as to write thatat Auschwitz the extermination of the Jews was organised by an office that was in charge of both thedisinfection of clothing and the extermination of human beings (The Destruction of the EuropeanJews, 1961, republished in 1979 by Quadrangle Books, Chicago, p. 177, 570). However, in 1983,going back completely on that explanation, Hilberg suddenly proceeded to state that the business of“the destruction of the European Jews” had, after all, gone on without a plan, without anyorganisation, centralisation, project or budget, but altogether thanks to “an incredible meeting ofminds, a consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy” (Newsday, New York, February 23,1983, p. II/3). He would confirm this explanation under oath at the first Zündel trial in Toronto onJanuary 16, 1985 (verbatim transcript, p. 848); he would soon afterwards confirm it anew but withother words in the greatly revised version of his above-mentioned work (New York, Holmes & Meier,1985, p. 53, 55, 62). He has just recently, in October 2006, confirmed it yet again in an interviewgiven to Le Monde: “There was no pre-established guiding plan. As for the question of the decision, itis in part unsolvable: no order signed by Hitler has ever been found, doubtless because no suchdocument ever existed. I am persuaded that the bureaucracies moved through a sort of latent structure:each decision brings on another, then another, and so forth, even if it isn’t possible to foresee exactly
    • the next step” (Le Monde des livres, October 20, 2006, p. 12).Remark: The Number One historian of the Jewish genocide, at acertain point, thus found himself so helpless that he suddenlyproceeded to disown his first version and to explain a giganticundertaking of collective murder as if it had all been carried outthrough something like the workings of the Holy Spirit. In effect,since then he has evoked a “meeting of minds” within a bureaucracy,terming this meeting “incredible”. If it is “incredible” orunbelievable, why then should it be believed? Must one believe theunbelievable? He also brings up “mind reading” and states it wasperformed by “consensus”, but this is a matter of pure intellectualspeculation grounded in a belief in the supernatural. How can onebelieve in such a phenomenon, particularly within a vastbureaucratic structure and, still more particularly, within thebureaucracy of the Third Reich? It is worth noting that on R.Hilberg’s example the other official historians set about, in the1980s and 1990s, abandoning history and lapsed into metaphysics andjargon. They questioned themselves on the point of whether oneshould be “intentionalist” or “functionalist”: must it be supposedthat the extermination of the Jews occurred subsequent to an“intent” (not yet proved) and in line with a concerted plan (not yetfound), or instead had that extermination happened all by itself,spontaneously and through improvisation, without there being anyformal intent and with no plan? This type of woolly controversyattests to the disarray of historians who, unable to provideevidence and real documents to back their case, are thus reduced totheorising in the void. At bottom, those on one side, the“intentionalists”, tell us: “There were necessarily an intent and aplan, which we haven’t yet found but which we shall perhaps indeeddiscover one day”, whereas the others affirm: “There is no need togo looking for evidence of an intent and a plan, for everything wasable to occur without intent, without plan and without leaving anytraces; such traces are not to be found because they have neverexisted.” 11) In May 1986 in France, certain Jews, alarmed upon realising that they could not manage toanswer the revisionists on the simple plane of reason, decided to take action with a view to obtaining alegal prohibition of revisionism. Chief amongst them were Georges Wellers and Pierre Vidal-Naquet,grouped, with their friends, round the country’s head rabbi René-Samuel Sirat (Bulletin quotidien del’Agence télégraphique juive, June 1986, p. 1, 3). After four years, on July 13, 1990, they would get,thanks notably to Jewish former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius, then president of the NationalAssembly, a special law passed allowing for the punishment of any person who publicly maderevisionist statements on the subject of the “extermination of the Jews”: up to a year’s imprisonment, afine of €45,000 and still other sanctions. This recourse to force is a flagrant admission of weakness.Remark: G. Wellers and P. Vidal-Naquet were especially alarmed bythe court decision of April 26, 1983 (see paragraph 8 above). The
    • former wrote: “The court admitted that [Faurisson] was welldocumented, which is false. It is astonishing that the court shouldfall for that” (Le Droit de vivre, June-July 1987, p. 13). Thelatter wrote that the Paris Court of Appeal “recognised theseriousness of Faurissons work — which is quite outrageous — andfinally found him guilty only of having acted malevolently bysummarising his theses as slogans” (Les Assassins de la mémoire,Paris, La Découverte, 1987, p. 182; here quoted the Englishtranslation: Assassins of Memory, New York, Columbia UniversityPress, 1992). 12) In August 1986 Michel de Boüard, himself deported during the war as a résistant,professor of history and Dean of letters at the University of Caen (Normandy), member of the Institutde France and former head of the Commission d’histoire de la déportation within the official Comitéd’histoire de la deuxième guerre mondiale, declared that, all told, “the dossier is rotten”. He specifiedthat the dossier in question, that of the history of the German concentration camp system, was “rotten”due to, in his own words, “a huge amount of made-up stories, inaccuracies stubbornly repeated —particularly where numbers are concerned — amalgamations and generalisations”. Alluding to therevisionists’ studies, he added that there were “on the other side, very carefully done critical studiesdemonstrating the inanity of those exaggerations” (Ouest-France of August 2nd and 3rd, 1986, p. 6).Remark: Michel de Boüard was a professional historian, indeed theablest French historian on the subject of the wartime deportations.Up to 1985 he defended the strictly orthodox and official position.Upon reading the revisionist Henri Roques’s doctoral thesis on thealleged testimony of SS man Kurt Gerstein, he saw his error. Hehonestly acknowledged it, going so far as to say that, if hehitherto personally upheld the existence of a gas chamber in theMauthausen camp, he had done so wrongly, on the faith of what wassaid around him. (His untimely death in 1989 deprived therevisionist camp of an eminent personality who had resolved topublish a new work aiming to put historians on their guard againstthe official lies of Second World War history).13) In 1988 Arno Mayer, an American professor of Jewish origin teaching contemporary Europeanhistory at Princeton University, wrote on the subject of the Nazi gas chambers: “Sources for the studyof the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable” (The “Final Solution” in History, New York,Pantheon Books, p. 362).Remark: Still today in, 2006, the greater public persist inbelieving that, as the media tirelessly suggest, the sources for thestudy of the gas chambers are innumerable and unquestionable. At theSorbonne symposium of 1982, A. Mayer, like his friend Pierre Vidal-Naquet, could not find words harsh enough for the revisionists;however, six years later, here was an ultra-orthodox historian who
    • had drawn considerably closer to the revisionists’ findings.14) In 1989 Swiss historian Philippe Burrin, laying down as a premise, without demonstration, thereality of Nazi gas chambers and Jewish genocide, attempted to determine at what date and by whomthe decision to exterminate physically the Jews of Europe had been taken. He did not succeed anymore than all his “intentionalist” or “functionalist” colleagues (Hitler et les juifs / Genèse d’ungénocide, Paris, Seuil; English version: Hitler and the Jews: the Genesis of the Holocaust, London,Edward Arnold, 1994). He had to remark the absence of traces of the crime and note what he decidedto call “the stubborn erasure of the trace of anyone’s passing through” (p. 9). He bemoaned “the largegaps in the documentation” and added: “There subsists no document bearing an exterminationorder signed by Hitler. […] In all likelihood, the orders were given verbally. […] here the tracesare not only few and far between, but difficult to interpret” (p. 13).Remark: Here again is a professional historian who acknowledges thathe can produce no documents in support of the official case. Thegreater public imagine that the traces of Hitler’s crime are manyand unambiguous but the historian who has examined the relevantdocumentation has, for his part, found nothing but sparse semblancesand “traces”, and wonders what interpretation to give to them.15) In 1992 Yehuda Bauer, professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, stated at an internationalconference on the genocide of the Jews held in London: “The public still repeats, time after time, thesilly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at” (Jewish Telegraphic Agencyrelease published as “Wannsee’s importance rejected”, Canadian Jewish News, January 30, 1992, p.8).Remark: Apart from the fact that a careful reading of the “minutes”of the Berlin-Wannsee meeting of January 20, 1942 proves that theGermans envisaged a “territorial final solution [eine territorialeEndlösung] of the Jewish question” leading in the end to a “Jewishrenewal” in a geographical space to be determined, Yehuda Bauer’squite belated declaration confirms that this major point of the casealleging the extermination of the Jews is in fact worthless. Let usadd, in our turn, that the extermination of the Jews was decided onneither at Wannsee nor anywhere else; the expression “exterminationcamps” is but an invention of American war propaganda and there areexamples proving that, during that war, the killing of a singleJewish man or woman exposed the perpetrator, whether soldier orcivilian, member of the SS or not, to German military justiceproceedings and the possibility of being shot by firing squad (insixty years, never has a sole orthodox historian provided anexplanation for such facts, revealed by the defence before theNuremberg tribunal itself).
    • 16) In January 1995 French historian Eric Conan, co-author with Henry Rousso of Vichy, un passéqui ne passe pas (Paris, Gallimard, 2001 [1994, 1996]; English edition: Vichy: an ever-present past,Hanover, New Hampshire and London, University Press of New England, 1998), wrote that I had beenright after all to certify, in the late 1970s, that the gas chamber thus far visited by millions of tourists atAuschwitz was completely fake. According to E. Conan, expressing himself in a leading Frenchweekly: “Everything in it is false […]. In the late 1970s, Robert Faurisson exploited thesefalsifications all the better as the [Auschwitz] museum administration balked at acknowledging them”.Conan went on: “[Some people], like Théo Klein [former president of the CRIF, the ‘RepresentativeCouncil of Jewish Institutions of France’], prefer to leave it in its present state, whilst explaining themisrepresentation to the public: ‘History is what it is; it suffices to tell it, even when it is not simple,rather than to add artifice to artifice’”. Conan then related a staggering remark by Krystyna Oleksy,deputy director of the Auschwitz National Museum, who, for her part, could not find the resolve toexplain the misrepresentation to the public. He wrote: “Krystyna Oleksy […] can’t bring herself to doso: ‘For the time being [the room designated as a gas chamber] is to be left “as is”, with nothingspecified to the visitor. It’s too complicated. We’ll see to it later on’” (“Auschwitz: la mémoire dumal” [Auschwitz: the remembrance of evil], L’Express, January 19-25, 1995, p. 68).Remark: This statement by a Polish official means, in plainlanguage: we have lied, we are lying and, until further notice, weshall continue to lie. In 2005 I asked E. Conan whether theAuschwitz Museum authorities had issued a denial or raised anyprotest against the statement that he, in 1995, had ascribed to K.Oleksy. His answer was that there had been neither denial norprotest. In 1996, this imposture and others as well concerning theAuschwitz-I camp were denounced by two Jewish authors, Robert Janvan Pelt and Deborah Dwork, in a work they produced together:Auschwitz, 1270 to the Present, Yale University Press, 443 p. Hereis a sampling of their words in that regard: “postwar obfuscation”,“additions”, “deletions”, “suppression”, “reconstruction”, “largelya postwar reconstruction” (p. 363), “reconstructed”, “usurpation”,“re-created”, “four hatched openings in the roof, as if for pouringZyklon B into the gas chamber below, were installed [after the war]”(p. 364), “ falsified”, “inexact”, “misinformation”, “inappropriate”(p. 367), “falsifying” (p. 369). In 2001 the fallacious character ofthis Potemkin village gas chamber was also acknowledged in a Frenchbooklet accompanying two CD-Roms entitled Le Négationnisme; writtenby Jean-Marc Turine and Valérie Igounet, it was prefaced by SimoneVeil (Radio France-INA, Vincennes, Frémeaux & Associés).17) In 1996 the leftwing French historian Jacques Baynac, a staunch antirevisionist since 1978, endedup admitting, after due consideration, that there was no evidence of the Nazi gas chambers’ existence.One could not fail to note, wrote Baynac, “the absence of documents, traces or other materialevidence” (Le Nouveau Quotidien de Lausanne [Switzerland], September 2, 1996, p. 16, andSeptember 3, 1996, p. 14). But he said that he carried on believing in the existence of those magicalgas chambers.Remark: All in all, J. Baynac says: “There is no evidence but Ibelieve”, whereas a revisionist thinks: “There is no evidence,
    • therefore I refuse to believe and it is my duty to dispute”.18) In 2000, at the end of her book Histoire du négationnisme en France (Paris, Gallimard), ValérieIgounet published a long text by Jean-Claude Pressac at the end of which the latter, who had been oneof the revisionists’ most determined opponents, signed a veritable act of surrender. In effect, taking upthe words of professor Michel de Boüard, he stated that the dossier on the concentration camp systemwas “rotten”, and irremediably so. He wrote asking: “Can things be put back on an even keel?” andanswered: “It is too late”. He added: “The current form, albeit triumphant, of the presentation of thecamp universe is doomed”. He finished by surmising that everything that had been invented aroundsufferings all too real was bound “for the rubbish bins of history” (p. 651-652). In 1993-1994, thatprotégé of the French Jew Serge Klarsfeld and the American rabbi Michael Berenbaum, “ProjectDirector” at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, had been acclaimed worldwide as anextraordinary researcher who, in his book on Les Crématoires d’Auschwitz, la machinerie du meurtrede masse (Paris, CNRS éditions, 1993; English title: The Auschwitz Crematories. The Machinery ofMass Murder), had, it appeared, felled the hydra of revisionism. Here, in V. Igounet’s book, he wasseen signing his act of surrender.Remark: The greater public are kept in ignorance of a major fact:the man who had supposedly saved the day for History, who once waspresented by the world press as an extraordinary researcher who hadat last discovered the scientific proof of the Nazi gas chambers’existence, ended up acknowledging his error. A few years later, nota single newspaper or magazine announced his death.19) In 2002, R. J. van Pelt, already mentioned, published The Case for Auschwitz. Evidence from theIrving Trial, Indiana University Press, XVIII-571 p. As is widely known, David Irving, who at thevery most is a semi-revisionist ill-acquainted with the revisionist argumentation, lost the libel suit hehad recklessly brought against the Jewish-American academic Deborah Lipstadt. He tried clumsily tomake the case — a perfectly right one, for that matter — that there had existed no homicidal gaschambers at Auschwitz. But he nonetheless scored an essential point and, if Justice Charles Gray andother judges after him had had more courage, that point would have enabled him to succeed in hisclaim. The argument was summed up in a four-word phrase that I first put forth in 1994: “No holes,no Holocaust”. My reasoning behind it was as follows: 1. Auschwitz is at the centre of the“Holocaust”; 2. The great crematoria of Auschwitz-Birkenau, or Auschwitz-II, are at the centre of thevast Auschwitz complex; 3. At the heart of these crematoria there were, supposedly, one or severalhomicidal gas chambers; 4. At a single one of these crematoria (crematorium n° 3), although it is inruins, is it today possible to go and examine the room said to have been a gas chamber; it is thepresumed scene of the crime, itself presumed as well; 5. We are told that, in order to kill the Jewishdetainees locked inside, an SS man, moving about on the concrete roof of the said gas chamber,poured Zyklon-B pellets through four regular openings situated in the roof; 6. However, one need onlyhave eyes to realise that no such openings have ever existed there; 7. Therefore the crime cannot havebeen committed. For R. J. van Pelt, testifying against Irving, it was near torture trying to find a reply tothis argument. Justice Gray as well had to acknowledge “the apparent absence of evidence of holes”(p. 490 of the verbatim transcript) and, in a more general way, he conceded that “contemporaneousdocuments yield little clear evidence of the existence of gas chambers designed to kill humans”(p. 489; for more details one may consult pages 458-460, 466-467, 475-478 and 490-506). In the text
    • of his judgment, Charles Gray admitted surprise: “I have to confess that, in common I suspect withmost other people, I had supposed that the evidence of mass extermination of Jews in the gaschambers at Auschwitz was compelling. I have, however, set aside this preconception when assessingthe evidence adduced by the parties in these proceedings” (13.71). Here the failure of the accusinghistorians is flagrant and Irving ought to have won his case thanks to that observation by a judge whowas hostile towards him: the documents of the era furnish us with but decidedly little clear evidence ofthe Nazi gas chambers’ existence and thus of a German policy to exterminate the Jews. Is this not,after all — as we have seen above —, what several Jewish historians had already concluded,beginning with Léon Poliakov in 1951?20) In 2004 French historian Florent Brayard published a work entitled La « solution finale de laquestion juive ». La technique, le temps et les catégories de la décision, Paris, Fayard, 640 p. In 2005,in a review of this book, the following three sentences could be read: “It is known that the Führerneither drafted nor signed any order to eliminate the Jews, that the decisions — for there were several— were taken in the secrecy of talks with Himmler, perhaps Heydrich and/or Göring. It is supposedthat, rather than an explicit order, Hitler gave his consent to his interlocutors’ requests or projects.Perhaps he did not even put it into words, but made himself understood by a silence or anacquiescence” (Yves Ternon, Revue d’histoire de la Shoah, July-December 2005, p. 537).Remark: At nearly every word, these sentences show that their authoris reduced to adventurous speculations. When he dares to express,without the benefit of the least clue, the notion that Hitlerperhaps made himself understood “by a silence or an acquiescence”,he is merely taking up the theory of the “nod” (the Führer’s merenod!) first voiced by American professor Christopher Browning at theZündel trial in Toronto in 1988. No academic of antirevisionistpersuasion has shown himself to be more pitiful and foolish thanthat shabbos-goy. So true is it that, destroyed by the revisionistvictories, the official case has ended up being emptied of allscientific content.An assessment of these revisionist victories Let us briefly recapitulate these revisionist victories. Their backs set to the wall by the revisionists, the official historians of the alleged physicalextermination of the Jews have ended up acknowledging that, from the historical and scientificviewpoint, they are left without a single argument to support their ghastly accusation. They admit, ineffect: 1) that they cannot invoke a single document proving the crime; 2) that they are unable toprovide the least representation of the crime weapon; 3) that they do not possess any proof nor evenany evidence; 4) that they cannot name a single truthful witness (see above, S. Veil’s opinion on thematter); 5) that their dossier is rotten (twice repeated), irremediably rotten and that it is bound for the
    • rubbish bins of history; 6) that the sources formerly invoked have revealed themselves to be not onlyrarer than was claimed but also unreliable; 7) that the alleged traces of the crime are few and farbetween, and difficult to interpret; 8) that at their end there have been falsifications, misrepresentation,artifice; 9) that in support of their case there has too often been invoked a “silly [sic] story”, that of adecision to exterminate the Jews supposedly taken on January 20, 1942 at Berlin-Wannsee; 10) thatthe foremost of their number, Raul Hilberg, is today reduced to explaining it all, in a nonsensical way,by supposed initiatives that the German bureaucracy had, according to him, boldly taken without anyorder, plan, instruction or supervision and thanks simply, it seems, to an incredible meeting of mindsand a consensus-mind reading. These official historians have not known how to answer any of therevisionists’ requests or observations in the style of: 1) “Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber”; 2)“Bring me one proof, one single piece of evidence of your own choosing, on the grounds of which toassert that there was a genocide”; 3) “Bring me one testimony, one single testimony, the best one inyour opinion” or again: 4) “No holes, no Holocaust ”. Finding themselves on the ropes, the courthistorians have called on the law-courts to find against the revisionists, but, contrary to all expectation,it has sometimes happened that the judges have gone so far as to pay tribute to the revisionists’uprightness or to show their surprise before the sparseness or absence of the accusers’ documentaryevidence. Then, first in France and later in a number of other countries in Europe, these accusers havecalled for the passing of special laws to silence the revisionists. Here they have sealed their doom. Toresort to special laws, to the police and prisons is to admit one’s utter inability to use the arguments ofreason, history and science. A hundred other arguments again could be recalled here to prove that, on the plane of historyand science, the immense edifice of lies put up by the “Holocaust” or “Shoah” sect has beenthrown down, with not one stone left upon another. In contrast to this expanse of ruins, we haveseen the construction of a whole revisionist literature. In it can be discovered a profusion ofdocuments, photographs, expert studies, trial transcripts, technical and scientific reports, testimonies,statistical studies, all of which bearing on a hundred aspects of the history of the Second World Warthat show what the lot of the European Jews was in reality, and demonstrate in striking manner that theJewish version of that war is largely of the order of myth. From the myth, the Jews have gone on tomythology and from mythology on to religion or, rather, to a semblance of religion. Today theservants of that false religion appear more and more like priests who carry on officiating and turningover the hallowed phrases but, manifestly, no longer have the faith. They seem no longer really tobelieve in their “credo”. So it is, for instance, that for about the last ten years they have been seenadvising their flocks to observe the greatest possible discretion on the subject of the gas chambers. Inhis memoirs, published in French in 1994 and in English in 1995, the big false witness Elie Wieselwrote: "Let the gas chambers remain closed to prying eyes, and to imagination" (All Rivers Run to theSea, New York, Knopf [Random House], p. 74). Claude Lanzmann (maker of the film Shoah), DanielGoldhagen (author of Hitler’s Willing Executioners), Simone Veil (former president of the EuropeanParliament, quoted above), François Léotard (a former French government minister) have in the lastfew years become surprisingly reserved, cautious or silent on the matter. Some months ago, JacquesAttali (a Jewish businessman and historian) decreed: “The immense majority of Jews murdered werekilled by German soldiers’ and military policemen’s individual weapons, between 1940 and 1942, andnot by the death-works, which were put into place afterwards” (“Groupes de criminels?”, L’Express,June 1, 2006, p. 60). This implicit way of writing off the alleged Nazi gas chambers is becomingregular practice. Attempts are made to replace the Auschwitz lie with the lie of Babi Yar or those ofother fantastical slaughters in the Ukraine or the Baltic countries but not once are we provided withscientific evidence concerning them, such as reports of exhumation and post-mortems as has been thecase with the real massacres perpetrated by the Soviets at Katyn, Vinnitsa or elsewhere. As for the
    • number of dead at Auschwitz, we are hardly told any longer that it was 9,000,000 (as in the film Nuitet Brouillard [Night and Fog]), 8,000,000, 6,000,000 or 4,000,000 (as at the Nuremberg trial or on thecommemorative stones at Auschwitz-Birkenau until 1990). The new religion’s clerics are settling for1,500,000 (as marked on those same stones since 1995), or for 1,100,000, or for 700,000, (as J.-C.Pressac wrote), or still for 510,000 (as Fritjof Meyer concluded in 2002: “Die Zahl der Opfer vonAuschwitz”, Osteuropa, May 2003, p. 631-641), all these latter figures being no better founded thanthe previous ones. General Conclusion We are granted the privilege of witnessing, in this beginning of the 21st century, a seriouscalling into question of one of the greatest lies in history. The myth of the “Holocaust” may well beaglow with a thousand lights: in reality it is burning itself out. It has served to justify the creationin the land of Palestine of a warlike colony that has taken the name of “Jewish State” and endoweditself with a “Jewish Army”. It imposes on the Western world the yoke of a Jewish or Zionist tyrannybringing itself to bear in all fields of intellectual, academic and media activity. It poisons the very soulof a great country, Germany. It has allowed the extortion from the latter, as well as from a goodnumber of other Western countries, of exorbitant sums in marks, in dollars or in euros. It overwhelmsus with films, with museums, with books that keep the flame of a Talmudic-style hatred burning. Itmakes it possible to call for an armed crusade against “the axis of evil” and, for this, to fabricate, ondemand, the most shameless lies precisely in the pattern of the Great Lie of the “Holocaust”, for thereis no difference between Adolf Hitler’s “weapons of mass destruction” and those of Saddam Hussein.It makes it possible to accuse nearly the whole world and to demand “repentance” and “reparations”everywhere, either for alleged actions directed against “Yahweh’s chosen people”, an allegedcomplicity in the crime, or an alleged general indifference to the fate of the Jews during the SecondWorld War. Under its belt it has a glut of rigged trials, beginning with the loathsome Nuremberg trial.It has sanctioned thousands of hangings of defeated soldiers, an atrocious post-war Purge, thedeportation of millions of civilians chased from their ancestral homelands, indescribable pillaging,tens of thousands of scandalous legal proceedings, including those carried out today againstoctogenarians or nonagenarians, attacked by “miraculous” Jewish survivors giving their falsetestimony. These abominations, this outrage of lies and hatred, this hubris that one day or anotherdestiny always comes to punish, in short, all these excesses must end. No nation has shown morepatience with this Jewish or Zionist hubris than the Arab nation; however we see that this nation itselfhas now run out of patience. It is going to throw off the Israeli yoke and have the West understand thatthe time has come to seek real peace instead of supporting and arming an artificial State that maintainsitself only by force. Even in the West, even in the United States, the scales are falling off somepeople’s eyes and there is now a certain awareness of the hazards imposed on the internationalcommunity by such prolonged submission to the false religion of the “Holocaust”, no. 1 weapon,sword and shield of the State of Israel.Practical Conclusion
    • There exist some practical means to launch a real action against this false religion with itssanctuary located at Auschwitz. As is known, in the heart of Auschwitz there is an emblematic gas chamber. Up to now thirtymillion tourists have visited it. It is an imposture; all the historians are aware of this, as the authoritiesof the Auschwitz State Museum know better than anyone. Yet UNESCO (the United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), on October 26, 1979, at the request of the Polishgovernment, put this camp on its list of World Heritage and Cultural Property Sites, thus assumingthe duty of preserving its authenticity. For my part, I suggest therefore that the matter of thisfraud be formally referred to UNESCO, as it constitutes an offence against education, scienceand culture. In a more general manner, we could take up the words of Jean-Gabriel CohnBendit in 1979: "Let us fight for the destruction of those gas chambers they show tourists in thecamps where there were none, as we now know” (Libération, March 5, 1979, p. 4). There exist other practical means to fight the tyranny of the “Holocaust” myth, first amongstwhich is to announce to the whole world these “revisionist victories” which have thus far been kepthidden from it. I trust the revisionists present at this gathering will suggest other means and discussthem with us. Practising mendacity on a grand scale, the “Holocaust” religionists have made themselves,little by little, the enemies of the human race. For more than sixty years they have progressively beenputting the whole world, or just about, under indictment. Their main target has, of course, beenGermany and all those who, alongside that country, had thought it their duty to fight against Stalin inthe same way that others, in the opposing camp, believed they must fight against Hitler. But, in theiraccusatory frenzy, Jewish organisations have gone so far as to rebuke the wartime Allies for an allegedcriminal “indifference” to the lot of the European Jews. They have attacked Roosevelt, Churchill, DeGaulle, Pope Pius XII, the International Committee of the Red Cross and numerous other personalities,official bodies or countries for not having denounced the existence of the “gas chambers”. But howcould what was so obviously just a grotesque war rumour have been considered verified? It is enoughto read the book by the Jew Walter Laqueur, The Terrible Secret (London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson,1980, 262 p.), to gather thirty or so references to the widespread and thoroughly justified scepticism inthe Allied camp before the flood of rumours originating from Jewish sources. Inquiries were carriedout enabling officials to conclude that the rumours were unfounded. It was thus clear-sightednessand not indifference that the Allies and others charged showed. It was that same clear-sightedness which, after the war, in their speeches or in their memoirs, Churchill, De Gaulle andEisenhower showed as they avoided mentioning, even so much as once, the said “gas chambers”. War and war propaganda need lies just as crusades and the crusader spirit are fuelled byhatred. On the other side, peace and friendship between peoples can only gain from care being takento achieve exactitude in historical research, research that all must be able to carry out in completefreedom.
    • Two appendices concerning the alleged gas chamber of Auschwitz-I 1) Eric Conan’s 1995 statement in its entiretyAnother delicate subject: what to do about the falsifications bequeathed by the Communistadministration? In the fifties and sixties, several buildings which had either disappeared or been putto other use were reconstructed, with serious errors, and presented as genuine. Some, too “new”,were closed to the public. To say nothing of the delousing chambers that were at times presented asexecution gas chambers. These aberrations have been of great service to the negationists, who havedrawn on them for the main substance of their fabrications. The example of crematorium I, the loneone at Auschwitz I, is significant. In its morgue was installed the first gas chamber. It functioned for ashort time, in early 1942: the isolation of the zone, called for by the gassings, disrupted the camp’sactivity. It was therefore decided, towards the end of April 1942, to transfer these lethal gassings toBirkenau, where they were carried out, on essentially Jewish victims, on an industrial scale.Crematorium I was subsequently turned into an air-raid shelter, with an operating room. In 1948,during the museum’s creation, crematorium I was reconstituted in its supposed original state.Everything in it is false: the gas chamber’s dimensions, the location of the doors, the openings for thepouring in of the Zyklon B, the ovens, rebuilt according to what the survivors remembered, the heightof the chimney. In the late 1970’s, Robert Faurisson exploited these falsifications all the better as themuseum administration balked at acknowledging them. An American negationist has recently shot avideo inside the gas chamber (still presented as authentic): in it he can be seen addressing his“revelations” to the visitors. Jean-Claude Pressac, one of the first to establish exactly the history ofthis gas chamber and its modifications during and after the war, proposes that it be restored to its1942 state, basing his suggestion on the German blueprints that he has recently found in the Sovietarchives. Others, like Théo Klein, prefer to leave it in its present state, whilst explaining themisrepresentation to the public: ‘History is what it is; it suffices to tell it, even when it is not simple,rather than to add artifice to artifice.’ Krystyna Oleksy, whose director’s office, which occupies theold SS hospital, looks straight out on to crematorium I, has not resigned herself to do so: ‘For the timebeing, it is to be left “as is”, with nothing specified to the visitor. It’s too complicated. We’ll see to itlater on.’ ” (Eric Conan, “Auschwitz: la mémoire du mal”, L’Express, January 19-25, 1995, pages54-69; p. 68)In his lengthy study, E. Conan wanted to show the great distance between “remembrance” and history.He did so without calling into question the dogma of the “Holocaust”; he even went so far as to statehis belief in the existence of the weapon of mass destruction called “gas chamber”, and he positedcertain assertions devoid of the least scientific foundation as being exact and demonstrated.Nonetheless he had the courage to denounce some serious lies, amongst which that of the emblematic“gas chamber” presented today to visitors at Auschwitz. And he dares to admit that, in the late 1970s, Iwas right about the matter. In 2005 I asked him whether his study had given rise to any rectificationsor protests, particularly on the part of the Auschwitz State Museum authorities and Krystyna Oleksy.His answer was: “None”.
    • 2) The full relevant passage in a CD-Rom booklet prefaced by Simone Veil [Robert Faurisson] has the motivation: exclusive love of the truth; this would seem to be an obsessionof his. An academic, Robert Faurisson was never to cease using this scientific surety, a presumedpledge of respectability. He read Maurice Bardèche. He discovered Paul Rassinier. He “dissected”Rimbaud, Lautréamont and Apollinaire. A brilliant and cultured man, he is nonetheless one bent oncausing trouble. Through the seventies, Robert Faurisson worked. He outlined his historico-literarymethod. He went to the Auschwitz archives. His denial was to build itself there. It rests on a real fact:the gas chamber at the Auschwitz I camp is a “reconstitution”, for it served as a storehouse for SSmedical supplies and as an air-raid shelter after the gas chambers at Auschwitz II Birkenau were putinto service; what he was able to see (and what can still be seen) is a supposed gas chamber. This isundeniable. Be that as it may, for Robert Faurisson it is a put-up job done by the Jews (LeNégationnisme (1948-2000). Interviews broadcast on the radio network France-Culture, produced byJean-Marc Turine. Booklet by Valérie Igounet and Jean-Marc Turine with a preface by Simone Veil,Vincennes, Frémeaux et associés, 2001, 48 pages; p. 27-28).“And yet it doesn’t gas…” [colloquial French for “it’s no good” or “it doesn’t work”]Professor Bruno Gollnisch had merely stated that, on the subject of the gas chambers, historians ought to beable to express themselves freely. He was first suspended from teaching for five years by the University ofLyon-III. Then, on November 7th and 8th, 2006, he had to appear before a court in Lyon made up of presidingjudge Fernand Schir and two associates. Pressures and blackmail led him to break down and acknowledgebefore his judges the existence of the genocide of the Jews and the Nazi gas chambers. The court’s decision willbe pronounced on January 18, 2007. It must be realised that French law prohibits any disputing of the reality ofNazi crimes against the Jews “even if [such disputing] is presented in veiled or dubitative form or by way ofinsinuation”(Code pénal, 2006, p. 2059). Consequently, with regard to this matter one must neither dispute noreven appear to dispute. END
    • Paper prepared for The Tehran Conference on The Holocaust 11-12th December, 2006The Holocaust Demography Jan Bernhoff jan.bernhoff@usa.net
    • ContentsForeword.................................................................................................... 3 The Empty Plaques of the Auschwitz Monument .............................................. 3 Reception and Consequences back in Sweden .................................................. 4The Six Million Tradition......................................................................... 5 The Nuremberg Trial Protocol and The Black Book ........................................ 5 The Nuremberg Trial................................................................................................ 5 The history and perception of The Black Book......................................................... 6 The Black Book: 6 million exterminated .................................................................. 6 The Black Book: 10 million dead ............................................................................. 7 Harvest of Hate by Léon Poliakov .................................................................... 9 The Final Solution by Gerald Reitlinger......................................................... 10 The Destruction by Raul Hilberg .................................................................... 11 The Holocaust by Nora Levin ......................................................................... 13 The War Against the Jews by Lucy Dawidowicz............................................. 14 "Why did the Heavens not darken?" by Arno Mayer ...................................... 16 Jean-Claude Pressac....................................................................................... 16 The figures and the impressions put together ................................................. 18 The erosion of testimonial based history from Nuremberg to Hilberg ........... 19 Why this numerical dogmatism? ..................................................................... 21The Origins of Six Million ...................................................................... 22 Wilhelm Höttls false Eichmann quotation...................................................... 22 Wartime propaganda from The New York Times............................................ 24 During and after World War I ........................................................................ 26 Rabbi Stephen Wise and his "6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering"..................... 27 Gathering the money .............................................................................................. 28 Sending the money ................................................................................................. 32Some Serious Attempts ........................................................................... 34 Walter Sanning................................................................................................ 34 Carl Nordling.................................................................................................. 35 The Benz Counterattack .................................................................................. 36 Refuting Benz .................................................................................................. 37 Is the Gas Chamber Killing Rate an indicator?.............................................. 38 David Olères drawing ............................................................................................ 38 Hydrogen Cyanide.................................................................................................. 38 Bogus "defense" of the correct story ...................................................................... 38 The story goes on ................................................................................................... 40What is the Point? ................................................................................... 41 Alright, here are my points: ............................................................................ 41 Togetherness ................................................................................................... 41Appendices ............................................................................................... 42 Appendix 1 – Chief Rabbi condemns silence .................................................. 42 Appendix 2 – "The Crucifixion of Jews must stop!"........................................ 43 Appendix 3 – Rabbi Wises Address ................................................................ 44 Appendix 4 – Felix Warburg tells sad plight................................................... 45 Appendix 5 – "more than 5,000,000 Jews" ..................................................... 46 Appendix 6 – The Jewish Establishment under Nazi-Threat........................... 46 APPENDIX I.......................................................................................................... 52 APPENDIX II ........................................................................................................ 52Literature including websites................................................................. 542
    • Foreword "Six million Jews where exterminated in the Holocaust", we are being toldover and over again since many years. The public conscience of this figurestands in stark contrast to the fact that few people know – or care about –the number of Chinese, French, British, German, Japanese, Polish orRussian victims who perished during the greatest and most horrifying warever known to humanity. This paper does not give any hints on why the Jewish Six Million Figurehas overshadowed any other figure describing the suffering and death ofdifferent peoples. It will, however, try to show how differentiated theestablished historians have been in their reasoning and calculating toproduce this Six Million Figure. The difference of meaning before and after1961 is, for example, great. If the opinions expressed among these historians had been a sign ofpluralism in a scientific context everything would have been nice and fine,but this is not so. Neither science nor pluralism, as we shall see, haveanything to do with the Holocaust maths produced by the judges inNuremberg, by Léon Poliakov, or by Raul Hilberg, just to mention some ofthem. Having proved the lack of scientific basis for The Six Million Figure, Iwill then trace the roots of it. Though it is impossible to establish a reliableand definite Jewish Death Figure, I will refer to those who have made aserious try. Finally, this paper will explain what reasons there are to all thismaths, macabre though it might look at first glance.The Empty Plaques of the Auschwitz Monument I visited Auschwitz in August 1994. The guided tour ended in Birkenau atthe monument erected in 1967. For over 20 years the plaques at thismonument bore an inscription telling the visitor in 19 languages that fourmillion people died here as victims of Fascism. It was just that this text hadbeen eradicated at the time of my visit, and the merciless sun called upon itsrays to dance over the 19 flat, empty plaques. The guide told us that the real number of dead in Auschwitz is lower,"only" 1.1-1.4 million. She went on saying also that the Russians had alsokilled some of the Jews earlier counted as victims of Auschwitz. When Iasked how this revision of numbers affects The Six Million Figure, I got theanswer that "six million is a theoretical maximum also including people whohave perished in other ways, escaped or disappeared." We will see later on how well this statement coincides with the attitudes oftraditionalist historians as well as with the attitudes of the revisionisthistorians who reject the traditionalist Six Million Figure. 3
    • Reception and Consequences back in Sweden In May 1997, almost three years after my tour to Auschwitz, I defendedmy master thesis at the University of Lund, Sweden. The essay was dividedin two halves, of which the first half dealt with the different waysestablished historians had handled The Holocaust Six Million from 1945and on. The second half proved that historians have told us bizarre storiesabout several methods of Nazi mass execution methods, all of which havebeen forgotten today. I also mentioned the stories about soap andlampshades made of human fat and skin, respectively, and I distancedmyself from them. Even though my essay offered a half-hearted defence of the establishedgas chamber stories, the historians and students mostly met me withsuspicion and hostility. My career as historian was – of course – ruined asfar as I understand it, and I moved to Stockholm eventually becoming acomputer teacher. Im not mourning that any more, since my present work isstimulating and free and since Ive got the time to write this paper. Manyother historians have come out much worse after having touched thischapter of the past. The next chapter will analyze what the established historians have writtenabout the Six Million Figure. 4
    • The Six Million TraditionThe Nuremberg Trial Protocol and The Black Book These two works, central for the oldest historiography, are very close toeach other. To sum them up, they want to tell us that 10 million Jews diedbecause of the Holocaust, and that 6 million of them where intentionallyexterminated.The Nuremberg Trial Already at the outset of the trial the judges stated that six million Jewsdied as victims of The Holocaust, also stating that four million of them diedin "extermination camps". The protocol claims that Adolf Eichmann shouldhave been talking about "six million" with Wilhelm Höttl (whom I willdiscuss in the next chapter), and he offered his testimony to the trial.1 Inaddition to this, another four million should have succumbed, so that thedeath toll ends at 10 million.2 Some subsets of this figure are alsoestablished, of which I hereby mention the two most important: Auschwitz: The number of dead presented depends on the testimony ofRudolf Höss. He said that 3 million died in the camp, and that 2,5 million ofthose where executed.3 The tribunal didnt take Höss at face value, and sodecided that four million people died in Auschwitz. Mauthausen: The tribunal pointed at the confession from the formercommandant Frank Ziereis, who said that 1 – 1½ million died in a nearbysubordinate camp named Hartheim.4 The emphasis given to the confessions from Höttl, Höss and Ziereisreflects the tendency in Nuremberg – as well as in the eldest Holocaustliterature in general – to believe in the witnesss testimonies. But today thefour million figure has been erased from those 19 Auschwitz plaques as Isaid in the foreword. Similarly, hardly anyone believes any longer in theconfession made by Frank Ziereis. For us, this means we have to questionthe methods probably used to extract the confessions from Höss and Ziereis.We should equally question the two Nuremberg articles 19 and 21 aboutpolicy regarding testimonies: "Article 19. The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules ofevidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditiousand non-technical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deemsto have probative value." "Article 21. The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of commonknowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. . . ." 5 1 International Military Tribunal (IMT) vol 31 p85-87 & vol 5 p380-382 2 IMT vol 9 p611-612 3 IMT vol 33 p275-279 4 IMT vol 33 p282 5 IMT vol 1 p15. 5
    • The history and perception of The Black Book The Black Book, was a result of the collaborative effort by the SovietJewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAC) and members of the American Jewishcommunity. The Soviet intellectuals Ilya Ehrenburg and Vasily Grossmanhad a leading role in the composing of The Black Book. According toEhrenburg, the mandatory State literary commission did not commit topublish the Book in October 1944: "Instead of straight answer, the resolution was: write the book, and if itcomes out well, it would be published. But it is not we who are the authors,it is the fascists… What does that mean, comes out well this is not a novel,it is a document." The Book was partially printed in the Soviet Union by the Yiddishpublisher Der Emes, however the entire edition, the typefaces, as well as themanuscript, were destroyed. After the end of the war, the concept of TheBlack Book was no longer politically correct. The JAC was also disbanded,its members purged at the outset of the state campaign against the "rootlesscosmopolitans", a Soviet euphemism for Jews.6 Lucy Dawidowicz, who ishappy to write that this work could be published in Jerusalem in 1980,praises it, and many with her consider it to be a valuable documentunveiling Fascism.7The Black Book: 6 million exterminated This work might be praised and its history might be dramatic, but it isbadly composed and chaotic. The figures expressing the number of victimsallegedly exterminated are not decently summed up anywhere. There is,however, a map telling as how many Jews lived in Europe before the war. (Iwill deal with the problems of these pre-war estimates later on.) If those figures are gathered together – and if you sum it up yourself – itwill look like this: (Country) (Jewish citizens) Austria 181 778 Belgium 60 000 Bulgaria 48 398 C. S. R. (=Czechoslovakia) 356 830 Danzig 10 448 Denmark 5 690 Estonia 4 302 Finland 1 755 France 240 000 Germany 522 700 Greece 72 000 Hungary 444 567 Italy 47 825 Latvia 93 479 Lithuania 1 55 125 Luxembourg 3 144 Netherlands 156 817 6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book 7 Dawidowicz, Lucy: The Holocaust and The Historians, London, 1981 p81 6
    • Norway 1 359 Poland 3 113 900 Portugal 1 200 Rumania 900 000 Spain 4 000 Sweden 6 653 Switzerland 17 973 U. S. S. R. 3 020 141 Yugoslavia 68 405 (My sum) 9 538 489 And down to the right by the map it reads "2 out of every 3 European Jewshave been exterminated".8 This obviously implicates six million Jewishvictims. Yet there is nowhere in this work any figures suggesting deathnumbers for any single country. In this context it is important to point outwhat is meant with the implicated six million exterminated: "The exact statistics will not be available for some time. But it is unlikelythat the present estimates will be far wrong. Of seven million Jews wholived in Europe outside the Soviet Union in 1933, or were born between1933 and 1945, approximately six million have been killed by the Nazis ortheir satellite governments."9 (The boldfaces are mine.) The writers have, in other words, reached six million without includingany Soviet Jews. Later on, we shall see that later works put strong emphasisin the Soviet Jews as victims, yet staying faithfully by that Six Million whenit comes to the summing up.The Black Book: 10 million dead The Black Book, while it does not claim any ability to specify Jewish deathtolls country by country, still wants to specify death tolls camp by camp,(mostly without giving any statistics for different ways to die in thosecamps). Treblinka should have been the scene of death for at least three millionpeople, mostly of Jewish origin.10 Vassili Grossman, who is the author ofthe chapter on Treblinka, claims that he could calculate this death numberfrom the gas chamber 24-hour capacity, presupposing maximum usageduring 10 of the 13 months the camp functioned.11 He also wrote that the 3million figure finds support in the transport capacity calculations, and thatthese transport calculations are supportable in testimonies from survivingprisoners as well as from captured Germans.12 When it comes to Majdanek, The Black Book refers to a Polish-Sovietcommission estimating that 1.5 millions of people where gassed or shotthere, and that a huge number of them where Jews.13 In Chelmno, 1 350 000 8 The Black Book 1946 p250-251. 9 The Black Book 1946p4. 1010 The Black Book 1946 p400 11 The Black Book 1946 s407. Even if Grossman makes no reference, it is obvious that hisgas chamber capacity calculations are based on the testimony made by the Auschwitzcommandant Rudolf Höss, who made statements on Treblinka as well. IMT vol 33 p277. 12 The Black Book 1946 p398 & p400 13 The Black Book 1946 p389 7
    • Jews should have been killed.14 (In addition to these statistics, the workmentions several camps as extermination sites without attaching any figuresto them.) Auschwitz – including Birkenau as a subordinate camp – is the only campwhere The Black Book makes a distinction between different ways to die. Itcould be proper to quote the relevant passage in its entity: Careful Estimate of the Number of Jews Gassed in Birkenau between April 1942 and April 1944 (according to Countries of Origin) Poland approximately 900,000 Holland " 100,000 Greece 45,000 France 150,000 Belgium 50,000 Germany 60,000 Yugoslavia, Italy, Norway 50,000 Lithuania 50,000 Bohemia, Moravia, Austria 30,000 Slovakia 30,000 Various foreign Jews concen- trated in Poland 300,000 (Sum) 1,765,000 (Then the text goes on saying that:) "Four million Jews – about two-thirds of the six million who perished inEurope at the hand of the Nazis – were murdered at Oswiecim and itsubsidiary camps. During the Lunenburg trial at which war criminals Josef Kramer andforty-four SS men and women were prosecuted for conspiracy to commitmass murder, the chief prosecutor, Colonel T. M. Backhouse, produced aswitness Dr. Ada Bimko, 30-year-old Polish physician who had been atOswiecim until her transfer to Belsen, where she was liberated. She testifiedthat records kept by the special group of prisoners assigned to the Oswiecimdeath house numbered 4,000,000 Jews killed."15 To sum it up, The Black Book claims that four million Jews died inAuschwitz and that 1.8 millions of them where mass murdered in gaschambers. This fits well to the Nuremberg statement based on the Hössconfession, which was – as already had been said – reinterpreted upwards.The harmony with Nuremberg stands even clearer if the above mentionedcamps are put together. (If you read that work you have to make the belowsumming up for yourself:) Camp Death number Auschwitz 4,000,000 Treblinka 3,000,000 Majdanek 1,500,000 Chelmno 1,135,000 Sum 9,635,000 14 The Black Book 1946 p377 15 The Black Book 1946 p396. 8
    • When it comes to Treblinka and Maidanek it has already been said that thenumbers include an (unspecified) smaller amount of Non-jews, but on theother hand The Black Book mentions other camps which are ascribed asmaller role in the so-called extermination process. These camps havent gotany death number attached to them, but it might be that they could"compensate" for the Treblinka/Maidanek Non-Jews included in thestatistics. Even though all these statistics might look tidy, and even though TheBlack Book points at as many witness sources as possible, all thesecalculations are built on sand. Later on, not even established historians cameto believe in the Black Book methods relying on testimonies from peoplelike Ada Bimko, claiming she could confirm four million dead inAuschwitz. Having said enough about the Nuremberg Trial Protocol and The BlackBook from the late 1940s, I will now move on saying a few word about thetwo most important Holocaust historians of the 1950s. There names areLéon Poliakov and Gerald Reitlinger.Harvest of Hate by Léon Poliakov Poliakov – to mention him first – carefully points out in his work from1951 that he only covers the fate of those having been exterminated (that is,intentionally murdered). This clearly means a narrowing of the subjectcompared to Nuremberg and The Black Book. He did not change anything inthe 1985 edition, except that an extra chapter has been added at the end.This new chapter, with the purpose to clarify and not to revise, states thatthe real number of dead should be 8 million. Poliakov must have felt that theoriginal work was to narrow only caring about those gassed or shot.16 Thisis – according to himself – the reason why he excluded Maidanek from thecalculations, even though all other established historians have labelled thiscamp an extermination site. Poliakovs statistics are as below: The Holocaust Statistics according to Poliakov Auschwitz 2,000,000 Treblinka over 700,000 Belzec near 600,000 Sobibor 250,000 Chelmno/Kulmnhof 300,000 Death patrols in the Soviet Union 1,500,000 Sum 5,350,000 In the relevant context, Poliakov tells us how he extracted the two millionfigure concerning Auschwitz from the Höss confession. Höss said, as areminder, that three million died in Auschwitz and 2.5 million of thesewhere exterminated. Poliakovs interest lies in the latter of these two figures,even though he did not believe that Höss understated, but that heexaggerated.17 Poliakov motivates this conclusion pointing at the statistics 16 Poliakov 1985 p386. 17 Poliakov 1951 p231-232 on Auschwitz, p224 on the other camps, and p159 concerningthe Soviet Union. The figures for Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor and Chelmno/Kulmnhof comefrom a polish commission that was active when the Nuremberg trial was still in progress. 9
    • of the deportees country by country, and claims that these statistics indicatea figure lower than the one Höss stated. At the same time, Poliakov admitsthat real statistic material is scarce, in particular when it comes to the PolishJews. This is the motivation behind his "two million exterminated inAuschwitz" thesis, and it was going to be repeated by several prominenthistorians. A further comment in the 1985 edition explains the background to theextermination figure of 1.5 Jews in the Soviet Union. Poliakov namelyexplains that its the average of a 2 million statement that Adolf Eichmannshould have done and 1 million coming from an American Nuremberg trialreport.18 As we shall see, this fits perfectly fine with the findings of the greatRaul Hilberg. Léon Poliakov does not represent any progress from the naïve Nurembergconcept of putting all faith in the testimonies. He is just a caretaker of thattradition, even though he is a little more careful when it comes to theirresponsible Höss and Eichmann figures.The Final Solution by Gerald Reitlinger Reitlinger published his Magnum Opus only two years after PoliakovsHarvest of Hate hit the shelves, but there is a remarkable difference betweenthem. Obviously, Reitlinger didnt pay much attention to the Nurembergtestimonial concept (or to Poliakovs slight modifications). The difference isvisible both in the figures and in the philosophy: Reitlingers figures for the number of dead Low High Estimate Estimate France 60, 000 65,000 Belgium 25,000 28,000 Luxembourg 3,000 3,000 Norway 700 700 Holland 104,000 104,000 Italy 8,500 9,500 Yugoslavia 55,000 58,000 Greece 57,000 60,000 Bulgaria (pre-1941-frontiers) - - Rumania (pre-1940-frontiers) 200,000 220,000 Hungary (1938 frontiers) 180,000 200,000 Poland (1939 frontiers) 2,350,000 2,600,000 U.S.S.R. (pre-1939-frontiers + Balticum) 700,000 750,000 Totals 4,194,200 4,581,200 Reitlinger, who admits he has done guesses without being able to precisethem very well, motivates his low figures saying that many Jewsdisappeared from the smaller countries (like Poland) into the Soviet Union,and thus never fell into German hands. His death figure for Auschwitz –between 800 000 and 900 000 – is lower than the official death figure of1.1-1.4 million I was told about at the end of my aforementioned 1994 visit 18 Poliakov 1985 p387. Since this is about the Einsatzgruppen I suppose the calculationsalso include Balticum, Byelorussia and Ukraine. Unfortunately, Poliakov does not specify. 10
    • there.19 Strange though it might look, Reitlinger has a good reputationamong established historians though they dont seem to show any interest inhis methods and principles.The Destruction by Raul Hilberg The publication of Raul Hilbergs work in 1961 meant a powerful revivalfor the Holocaust as a mass media phenomena and thus also for publicconscience, even though the Eichmann Trial going on in Jerusalem alsohelped a lot. It provoked same debate that Hilberg unveiled the Jews reluctance tooppose the effort to gather them and to deport them. Yet this, Hilberg failsto explain the reasons for this. He could have been writing that the Zionistleaders of that time wanted the Jews to be deported in stead of beingassimilated. But that is something we can read about in Leni BrennersZionism in the Age of Dictators, so lets not be too small-minded.20 In the 1961 version as well as in the revised and greatly expanded 1985version of The Destruction, Hilberg sums up the dead to 5.1 million.21 Hestill admits in an article written in 1994 – without expressing any opinionabout it – that orthodox estimates tend to closer to six million.22 Similarly toearlier traditional works, Hilberg has drawn up tables for Jewish victims.First, we have his table about the where and how: Hilbergs figures for the number of dead Auschwitz 1,000,000 Treblinka 750,000 Belzec 550,000 Sobibor up to 200,000 Chelmno/Kulmnhof 150,000 Lublin (=Majdanek) 50,000 Total, Extermination camps 2,700,000 Non-extermination camps 300,000 Total, Camps 3,000,000 Mobile Killing Actions 1,400,000 Ghettoes & "aggravated deaths" 700,000 Total 5,100,000 5,100,000 Lets observe that Hilberg, because of his ambition to include not only thealleged exterminated in the Poliakov way, specifies how many he believesto have died in the so called non-extermination camps.23 Hilberg is namelythe first established historian to distinguish between the western camps inGermany and Austria on the one hand, and the camps on Polish ground,labelling only the latter as "extermination camps" Thus, Hilbergs differs greatly from the Nuremberg/Black Book attitude ofcalling everything "extermination camps". This attitude change taking placeat about 1960 could possibly depend on the writings of the French 19 Reitlinger 1953 p489-501 20 I strongly recommend this work to everyone who is interested in the history ofcollaboration between Nazism and Zionism before and during WWII. Brenners work isavailable in its entity at http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ 21 Hilberg 1961 p767 & Hilberg 1985 p1219 22 Hilberg "Holocaust" at CD-ROM-encyclopaedia Encarta – 94, Microsoft 1994. 23 Hilberg 1961 p767 & 1985 p1219 11
    • revisionist Paul Rassinier in the 1950s. Rassinier had been captured by theGermans when he was in the French resistance, and was put in theBuchenwald camp. After the war, when he learned about the gas chamberstories from his former camp, he did what he could to prove them wrong.This essay cant prove that Rassiniers works made the difference, butHilberg moved the extermination concept eastwards, ensuring its survival. Not every historian has admitted this difference between elder andyounger historiography. For example, the Swedish popular historian PeterEnglund has written that "People like Faurrisson have been living on borrowed time, partlybecause he has been able to exploit those misunderstandings which haveoccurred when the knowledge about Holocaust has moved on from theprofessional historians to the man in the street. As for example, common people generally dont know how to distinguishbetween the different camps created by the Nazi police state, and that gaschambers only existed in some few camps in Poland, where the most activemass killings took place. Thus, revisionists score easy points by saying for example that indeedthere where no gas chambers in Dachau or in Bergen-Belsen or inMauthausen, something professional historians havent ever claimedeither."24 The Black Book should be enough to reject this bizarre statement fromEnglund. It gives a vivid painting of Natzweiler, Dachau and other places inthe West, labelling them "extermination camps.25 If that wouldnt beenough, I only have to look into my former university student book aboutcommon world history to see how wrong Englund is: "A generation, having been brought up to have disbelief in [the WWIfalsehoods] became painfully aware of […] concentration camps, turnedinto centres for mass extermination with gas chambers and crematory ovensin Majdanek, Treblinka, Dachau, Buchenwald, Auschwitz and elsewhere,where people of lesser value could be killed systematically."26 So much for "borrowed time", "misunderstandings", and "easy points". 24 Englund, Peter: "Förintelsens bevis" ("The Proofs of the Holocaust") in Moderna Tider,June/July 1992 25 Just to get a few examples out of The Black Book I can start quoting an article fromNew York Herald Tribune (April, 30th, 1945), claimed as a source. The article is written byJoseph Pulitzer, saying: "(The Germans) real interest was in killing [the Jews] off [...] If thereader is still sceptical, let him look at the photographs and when he does, let himremember that they picture only small parts of the mosaic of the Nazi policy of deliberatemass extermination." (Black Book p258) The next page tells the reader that in Dachau, thatAmerican soldiers and officials could bear witness about the trench, the machinegun towers[…] and the gas chambers and the crematories. (Black Book p259-260) About the campNatzweiler near Struthof, Jacques Fano wrote in Le Parisien Libéré (according to FrenchPress and Information Service, New York, January 2, 1945, Document Series II, No. 1816E) under the heading l´Usine de la Mort (=Death Factory) in detail telling that prisonerswhere executed there en masse after having undergone many kinds of torture and sinisterexperiments. In his turn, he refers to French intelligence service. (Black Book p281-286) 26 Palmer, R R and Colton, J: Nya tidens världshistoria (Original title: A History of TheModern World), vol II, Norstedts, Stockholm 1990, p336 12
    • In consequence with the eastwards move of the Holocaust centre, Hilbergtook a great interest in the so called "Mobile Killing Actions" specified inthe above chart. He points at a great number of documents, yet by chance(?) ending up with the same 1.5 million approximation as Poliakov did. Tidy though his camp statistics might seem to be, Hilberg is much morenonchalant when it comes to figures country by country. His simplistic wayof thinking is easily unveiled with some maths, as in the chart below:27 County Column A: Column B: Column C: Column D: Jewish Jewish Death Column A inhabitants inhabitants figures - column B 1939 1945 (p670 (s767) - column C (p670) & p737) = Poland 3,300,000 225,000 3,000,000 75,000 Rumania 800,000 430,000 270,000 100,000 Yugoslavia 75,000 12,000 60,000 3,000 Greece 74,000 12,000 60,000 2,000 Belgium + Netherlands 230,000 60,000 130,000 40,000 France + Italy 320,000 70,000 233,000 17,000 Total 4,799,000 809,000 3,753,000 237,000 Column D, derived from the three first columns, indicates the number ofJews that – according to Hilberg – have escaped or have a fate unknown tous. It is easy to find stories about the Polish mass flight eastwards from theGerman-Polish war in September 1939, and it is not very hard to prove thatthe Soviets deported many who escaped into "their" part of Poland. Yet this,Hilberg makes things much too easy for himself. In his uncomplicatedworld, people stay and die on the spot with only few exceptions. Summing Hilberg up, his work represented new concepts not only bysaying that the Jews offered little resistance, or by his eastwards moving ofthe Holocaust epicentre. He also must have decided to reject the "always-believe-testimonial" concept applied in Nuremberg. And finally – this beingnot the least important aspect of Hilberg – his 5.1 million expresses thenumber of dead in total. This makes for a big difference between him on theone hand and Nuremberg/Black Book and Poliakov on the other hand. Ifonly he could have started to think in terms of migration the way Reitlingerstarted to do.The Holocaust by Nora Levin Nora Levin stands out so far that she presents many different death figuresproduced by other known and unknown historians. In addition to this, shehas her own figures spread out on many pages in her work published in1968. When it comes to camps and Einsatzgruppen, her figures look like thoseoffered by Poliakov, except that only 80 000 people should have died inTreblinka. Levin has made an effort in motivating her Treblinka figure andthis is understandable, since it is only 1/10 of the figures offered to us byPoliakov and Hilberg. Levin argues that few Jews could have been 27 Hilberg 1961 13
    • exterminated in Treblinka because of resistance and technical problems. 28She also has no death figures to offer when it comes to Maidanek andSobibor (although she calls Maidanek an extermination site as opposed toPoliakov). Her death figures for Jews country by country look like the Hilbergfigures, and for this reason I dont offer them here.29 With the exception of her Treblinka death figure, Levin doesnt offeranything controversial. Its just some from Poliakov and some from Hilberg,though I cannot see how that combination makes for consequence. On theother hand, she doesnt seem to take any real interest in death figures. In thelate 1960s when she wrote her work, it must have been obvious for anexpert of her kind how diversified the death figures historiography hadbecome. She might have thought they were not worth taking any stand.The War Against the Jews by Lucy Dawidowicz According to the historiographer Michael Marrus this is "probably themost widely read work on this subject".30 Maybe the passion and poetrywithin could be one explanation to this. Even though Dawidowicz goes the Hilberg way of counting six milliondead instead of six million exterminated as for example the Nurembergprotocol, she does not seem to understand (or care about) this distinction. Instead, she praises the Nuremberg calculations describing them as"remarkably correct". Then she goes on displaying her own statisticscountry by country:31 Dawidowicz´ figures for the number of dead Estimated Pre- Estimated Jewish Final Solution Population Country Population Annihiliated Percent Poland 3,300,000 3,000,000 90 Baltic countries 253,000 228,000 90 Germany/Austria 240,000 210,000 90 Protectorate 90,000 80,000 89 Slovakia 90,000 75,000 83 Greece 70,000 54,000 77 The Netherlands 140,000 105,000 75 Hungary 650,000 450,000 70 SSR White Russia 375,000 245,000 65 SSR Ukraine 1,500,000 900,000 60 Belgium 65,000 40,000 60 Yugoslavia 43,000 26,000 60 Rumania 600,000 300,000 50 Norway 1,800 900 50 France 350,000 90,000 26 Bulgaria 64,000 14,000 22 28 Levin 1968 p267 about Einsatzgruppen, p306 about Chelmno, p307 about Belzec, p315about Treblinka and p316 about Auschwitz 29 Levin 1968 pages 401, 403, 458, 468, 477, 514, 516, 517, 526, 547, 560 and 596 aboutdeath figures for different countries 30 Marrus 1993 s34. 31 Dawidowicz 1975 Appendix B - The Final Solution in Figures 14
    • Italy 40,000 8,000 20 Luxembourg 5,000 1,000 20 Russia (RSFSR) 975,000 107,000 11 Denmark 8,000 - - Finland 2,000 - - Total 8,861,800 5,933,900 67 The reader should observe that the first column does not express theJewish pre-war population, but the population before the "implication of thefinal solution". This makes for some marginal differences vis-à-vis TheBlack Book and Hilberg. Dawidowicz 600,000 figure for Rumania is thuslower than The Black Books 900,000 and Hilbergs 800,000, since sheadmits that many Jews had been able to leave the country up to the momentof the implication of the "Final solution". For the same reason, she offers us64,000 Jews in Bulgaria while The Black Books and Hilberg says 50,000, aswe have already seen. In the light of this, it is astonishing that she cannot make a similarestimation regarding the Jews of Poland. How can she believe that 3.3million Jews where waiting in Poland when she admits a migrationmovement from Rumania to Bulgaria? Lucy Dawidowicz softly touches yetmainly avoids the complex topic of Jewish migration during World Wartwo. The Dawidowicz way of reasoning becomes a lot more unscientific whenit comes to the camp death figures. Now she doesnt talk in terms of dead asregarding the countries, but about exterminated (in the Nuremberg-Poliakovway). Since the figures and methods are very similar those used byPoliakov, I have put these two historians next to each other. Yet thesimilarity, we can see some striking differences: Dawidowicz extermination figures Poliakovs extermination figures (page 149) Auschwitz 2,000,000 Auschwitz 2,000,000 Belzec 600,000 Belzec near 600,000 Chelmno 340,000 Chelmno/Kulmnhof 300,000 Majdanek 1,380,000 (Majdanek) - Sobibor 250,000 Sobibor 250,000 Treblinka 800,000 Treblinka over 700,000 Death patrols in USSR 1,500,000 Total 5,370,000 Total 5,350,000 For some reason, Dawidowicz has taken no interest in the possibility thatSoviet Jews could have been killed by "death patrols". Instead, she prefersto restore and slightly modify (from 1.5 million to 1.38 million) theMajdanek extermination figure as it was presented in The Black Book. Weare left alone with our guesses, since Dawidowicz offers no explanationsand no arguments to support her combination of old and new figurescomposed in her own personal way. 15
    • "Why did the Heavens not darken?" by Arno Mayer Mayers starting point, when it comes to death figures, is that calculationsare hard to make with exactitude, but at least he writes that Poland duringthe winter 1941-42 became "the country of slaughter for European Jewry".At the beginning of this winter, fatal as it might have been, Mayer estimatesthere could have been a little less than 2 million Jews in Poland.32 Thus, heobviously doesnt share the widespread opinion that as many as 3 million ofthe (allegedly) 3.3 million Polish Jews of 1939 died by German hands. Theaforementioned 2 million estimate doesnt mean that Mayer has any figuresto offer himself. In stead, he writes: "All in all, how many bodies where cremated in Auschwitz? How manydied there all told? What was the national, religious, and the ethnicbreakdown in this commonwealth of victims? How many of them wherecondemned to die a ‘natural’ death and how many were deliberatelyslaughtered? And what was the proportion of Jews among those murderedin cold blood - among those gassed? We have simply no answers to thesequestions at this time." On the same page he further claims that: "Besides, from 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz, but probably overall,more Jews were killed by so-called natural causes than by unnaturalones."33 Taking this stand, Mayer distances himself from at least Poliakov and hiskind, since the latter claimed that many more where killed intentionally thanby "natural causes".34 Since Mayer is very careful not to give away toomuch of his opinions, it is hard to analyze him much deeper, but thedifferences vis-à-vis Hilberg are not very great.Jean-Claude Pressac Pressac was popular during a few years in the mid 1990s. As a protégé ofthe Klarsfeld couple, he could challenge some popular beliefs on theHolocaust (as for example that about the Wannsee conference) just becausehe was considered as a defender of "truth" and "memory" againstrevisionists like Robert Faurrisson. As a historian as well as an individual,Pressac was a fascinating personality. In his 1989 book Pressac claims without much discussing that 1-1½million people had died in Auschwitz, aligning well with Raul Hilberg.35However, Pressac has revised himself by 1993, stating a death figure of775,000 at the same place. He adds that 630,000 of them had been gassedand that about only 400,000 people where ever registered as prisoners inAuschwitz, about half of that number representing Jews.36 Those who where 32 Mayer 1988 p390. 33 Mayer 1988 p365-366 34 Poliakov who writes very little about those who died without being "holocausted"estimates their number in Auschwitz to "only" 300,000 (1951 p232). 35 Pressac 1989 p553 36 Pressac 1993 p148 16
    • sent to the gas chambers, he writes, where never registered. Their numbershave been estimated from demographic models. Pressac does not offer any such model to the reader, and is thus no betterthan any of his conformist predecessors, had we not known anything abouthis secret agenda. There have namely been claims from Germar Rudolf andothers about Pressac being a revisionist "double agent". These claims wherein fact true, as can be seen in the below article, where he said: "Concerning the massacres of Jews, several basic conceptions must bethoroughly revised. The expression genocide is no longer appropriate.Every epochal change leads to a new evaluation of rigid canons of memorywhich we have heretofore been taught to regard as eternal. However, newdocuments inevitably surface which increasingly upset official certainties.Thus, todays depiction of the system of concentration camps, while stilltriumphant, is doomed to collapse. What can be salvaged from it? Verylittle. The truth is that exaggeration of the extent of the concentration campsystem is like squaring the circle - it means declaring that black is white.The truth is that national conscience does not care for sad stories. The lifeof a zombie is not inspiring, since pain suffered is exploited and convertedinto jingling coins: Medals, pensions, public office, political influence. Thusit becomes possible to be simultaneously victim and privileged individual,even executioner."37 In the same interview, Pressac made some revisions about death figuresfor other camps than Auschwitz, and these figures where an embarrassmentfor those who by then considered Pressac as a friend: Chelmno 80,000 to 85,000 Belzec 100,000 to 150,000 Sobibor 30,000 to 35,000 Treblinka 200,000 to 250,000 Majdanek fewer than 100,000 Total 410,000 to 620,000 For saying things like the above, Pressac fell into disgrace. After the briefstorm of propaganda that accompanied publication of Les crématoiresdAuschwitz died down, his name quickly disappeared from the headlines.At the defamation trial Irving versus Lipstadt, which took place in Londonin 2000, Lipstadt called as expert witness, not Pressac, but rather the DutchJew Robert Jan van Pelt, who was clearly less informed than Pressac.38 It is most interesting to notice that Pressac is still referred to by conformisthistorians, as we shall see later on in this paper. 37 Igounet, Valerie: "Entretien avec Jean-Claude Pressac réalisé par Valérie Igounet(Interview with Jean-Claude Pressac, Conducted by Valerie Igounet)", in: Histoire dunégationnisme en France, Editions du Seuil, Paris 2000. 38 Rudolf, Germar: Critique of Claims Made by Robert Jan Van Pelt, http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html 17
    • The figures and the impressions put together The most central figures belonging to this chapter are gathered in the chart below:The Death Figures historiography condensed Jewish victims in total Jewish victims in Auschwitz(All figures are in millions) Dead of which extermin Dead of which exterminNuremb & 10 6 4 Nuremb: 2,5 1 Black B: 1,8Black B 1946Poliakov 1951 & 1985 8 5,35 2,3 2Reitlinger 1953 4,2-4,6 0,8-0,9Hilberg 1961 & 1985 5,1 ca 4,1 1Dawidowicz 1975 6 5,37 2Mayer 1988 ? Probably less than half ? Less than half of under 6 of total death figure total-death figurePressac 1993 775 000 630 000 If I now sum things up, the established historians being active after that the Nuremberg protocol and The Black Book where produced, have tried to lower the high death figures stemming from them. This is something they have done without coordination (which is good) and without relating to each other (which is highly inappropriate). Also, most of them made their sums reach six million. Until 1961, the established story was – in accordance with the Nuremberg trial – that ten million Jews perished during World War II, and that six million of them where intentionally mass murdered in places like Auschwitz. Léon Poliakov and Gerald Reitlinger made up their own number, but that didnt seem to change the big picture. After 1961, when Hilberg published The Destruction of the European Jews, the Six Million Figure has meant six million dead Jews altogether implying that two million where murdered intentionally. This means that Michael Marrus, the famous Holocaust historiographer, was very wrong when he wrote in 1993 that "We are therefore more or less where we where forty years ago, with an estimate of between 5 million and six million."39 He pretends that six million in 1946 meant the same as in 1993, following the figures I express in boldface in the above chart. How much harder could it have been for Marrus to know about the Nuremberg Trial Protocols than it was for me as a student? Also, Marrus conveniently ignored the work of Arno Mayer, who had written in 1988 that we cant really know how many died in the Holocaust. 39 Marrus 1993 p199-200 18
    • Mayers Why did the heavens not darken? is to be considered as atraditionalist work, though it was not orthodox enough to be acceptedamong most historians. There seems to be a convention among themdemanding that Mayers work not should be mentioned or quoted (becausehe is "forgotten and unimportant"), and as a student in Lund I was expectedto accept this convention. Even though Mayer was too careful to invent any number of his own andeven though Pressac did so, the big picture offer us an establishment ofhistorians who have done their best to defend the status quo, with historianslike Peter Englund and Michael Marrus doing their part trying to cover it up.The erosion of testimonial based history fromNuremberg to Hilberg On the other hand, the established historians have clearly jettisoned theblind belief in the stories told by "witnesses". This change in attitudes finds– as we shall see – it expression in the judging of those individuals whohave stepped forward offering grotesque stories. The original respect for whatever any camp survivor might have said, isexpressed in the word of Elie Wiesel, who received the Nobel Peace Price in1986. He is probably the most well-known of all the camp survivors: "Auschwitz defies imagination and perception; it submits only tomemory[….] Between the dead and the rest of us there exists an abyss thatno talent can comprehend [….] Only (sic!) the survivors, or those who aretotally honest with themselves about the limitations of their powers, hadbetter try."40 There are in fact some other established historians who have supportedthis rigid stand tainted with religious language. One of them is Nora Levin,who has written in her foreword that the survivors stories are moreimportant than whatever work a historian could possibly produce: ”No one altogether understands how mass murder on such a scale couldhave happened or could have been allowed to happen. The accumulation ofmore facts does not yield this understanding; indeed, comprehensibility maynever be possible. [...] Currently, there is an eruption of interest in diaries,survivors´ accounts, poetry and fiction based on the Holocaust. [...] In spiteof the vast accumulating literature, however, an abyss still lies betweenthose who endured the unimaginable and those who did not. [...] Ordinaryhuman beings simply cannot rethink themselves into such a world andordinary ways to achieve empathy fail, for all of the recognizable attributesof human reaction are balked at the Nazi divide. The world of Auschwitzwas, in truth, a new planet.”41 Marrus, who himself quoted Wiesel as per the above, wants to be moremoderate than both him and Levin: 40 Wiesel, Elie: "Does the Holocaust Lie Beyond the Reach of Art?" New York Times,April, 17th, 1983. See also Marrus 1993 p3. 41 Levin 1968 pages xi-xii 19
    • "Survivors especially, I think, can feel violated by many historians´ effortsand are far more comfortable with acts of commemoration and thecompilation of eye-witness testimony."42 Most historians respect for testimonies as sources, however, has faded.Lucy Dawidowicz, who based her death numbers on those from The BlackBook as well as on Poliakovs testimonial based calculations, hasnevertheless become more critical later on: "[...] the survivor´s memory is often distorted by hate, sentimentality andthe passage of time. His perspective on external events is often skewed bythe limits of his personal experience."43 Gerald Reitlinger, who proved to be a "radicalist" early on, wrote like thislater in his life: "A certain degree of reserve is necessary in handling all this material, andparticularly this applies to the last section [concerning the survivorstestimonies] [….] The Eastern European Jew is a natural rhetorician,speaking in flowery similes."44 By now, no one should be surprised to learn that Mayer and Pressac seemto be of the same opinion: "Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable.[…] Most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials andexecutioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors andbystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can beinfluenced by subjective factors of great complexity."45 "This study (=Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the Gas Chambers)already demonstrates the complete bankruptcy of the traditional history, ahistory based for the most part on testimonies, assembled according to themood of the moment, truncated to fit an arbitrary truth and sprinkled with afew German documents of uneven value and without any connection withone another."46 Perhaps we could have expected some criticism against the twoNuremberg articles 19 & 21, now that the above historians have been sooutspoken? But none of Dawidowicz, Reitlinger, Mayer and Pressac haveseen them, or maybe the have forgotten them. Here they are again: 42 Marrus 1993 p3 43 Dawidowicz 1976 p11 44 Reitlinger 1971 p581 45 Mayer 1988 p362-363 He then goes on writing "The want of precise and verifiableinformation about the method and extent of the mass murder of Jews by the crusaders (inthe Rhine Valley in 1096) does not in any way put into question the reality and generalmagnitude of this prototypical Judeocide of the Middle Ages. Both radical scepticism andrigid dogmatism about the exact process of extermination and the exact number of victimsare the bane of sound historical interpretation." 46 Pressac 1989 p264 20
    • "Article 19. The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules ofevidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditiousand non-technical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deemsto have probative value." "Article 21. The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of commonknowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof […]." 47Why this numerical dogmatism? If the above figures are not studied carefully enough, it is possible to endup with at least two faulty conclusions, namely that the establishedhistorians presented in this chapter (1) have used scientific methods in their "research". (2) have sometimes dared to go their own way yet reaching 6 million. If the wanted to offer a vivid picture of the Jewish WWII-tragedy, why didthey have to be fixated at a certain number of casualties? 47 IMT vol 1 p15. 21
    • The Origins of Six Million As mentioned before, Hilberg reinvented the Six Million Figure. InNuremberg that number meant something else. As we shall see, however,the roots of this number go way back.Wilhelm Höttls false Eichmann quotation I already mentioned the Nuremberg six million testimony of former SSofficer Wilhelm Höttl (sometimes spelled Hoettl), who said that he recalledit from a remark by Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann had been wartime head ofthe Jewish affairs section of Himmlers Reich Security Main Office(RSHA). Höttl, who also served with the RSHA during the war, stated in anaffidavit dated November 26, 1945, and provided to the U.S. prosecution atNuremberg, that Eichmann confided to him in August 1944 that some fourmillion Jews had been killed in the "various extermination camps," andanother two million had been killed in other ways, mostly in shootings byEinsatzgruppen forces in the course of the military campaign in Russia.48 Eichmann himself, it should be noted, later called the Höttl story"nonsense," vigorously denied ever having made the alleged remark, andspeculated that Höttl may have picked up the figure from a radio ornewspaper report.49 Also, lets notice that the above Höttl affidavit does notmatch the official Nuremberg figures already mentioned in the formerchapter. Then who was Wilhelm Höttl, and how reliable is his historic affidavit? He was born in Vienna in March 1915. In 1938, at the remarkably youngage of twenty-three, he received a doctorate in history from the Universityof Vienna. While still a student there, he joined the National Socialist partyand the SS. From 1939 until the end of the war in Europe, Höttl wasemployed almost without interruption by Germanys central intelligenceagency, the RSHA. In March 1944 Höttl was assigned to Budapest, where he served as secondin command to Himmlers SS representative in Hungary, and as politicaladvisor to Hitlers ambassador there, Edmund Veesenmayer, who reportedto Berlin, for example, on the large-scale deportations in 1944 of Jews fromHungary. On May 8, 1945, as German forces were unconditionallysurrendering to the Allies, American troops arrested Höttl in Austria, and forseveral years after that he worked as an intelligence agent for the UnitedStates. He died in 1999, not long after the publication of his self-servingmemoirs. In April 2001 the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency made public thousandsof pages of long-suppressed documents from its files of major Germanwartime figures, including the bulging Höttl file. Along with the release of 48 Höttl affidavit of Nov. 26, 1945: 2738-PS (USA-296) in IMT vol 31 p85-87 49 Aschenauer, Rudolf: (ed), Ich, Adolf Eichmann (Leoni [Bavaria]: Druffel, 1980), p460-461 & 474. 22
    • these documents, two U.S. government employees wrote and issued adetailed report about Höttl based on those recently declassified CIA files,which sheds revealing light on his wartime and postwar career. This report,entitled "Analysis of the Name File of Wilhelm Hoettl", was written by twohistorical researchers of the U.S. governments "Interagency WorkingGroup" (IWG), Miriam Kleiman and Robert Skwirot.50 These documents establish that Höttl was a completely unreliableinformant who routinely fabricated information to please those who werewilling to pay him. In their report, the two U.S. government researcherswrite: "Hoettls name file is approximately 600 pages, one of the largest of thosereleased to the public so far. The size of the file owes to Hoettls postwarcareer as a peddler of intelligence, good and bad, to anyone who would payhim. Reports link Hoettl to twelve different intelligence services, includingthe U.S., Yugoslav, Austrian, Israeli, Romanian, Vatican, Swiss, French,West German, Russian, Hungarian and British." Soon after his arrest by the Americans in May 1945, Höttl began workingfor the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the predecessor to theCentral Intelligence Agency, and then for the U.S. Armys CounterIntelligence Corps (CIC). As the two U.S. government researchers put it: "Upon his arrest, Hoettl played to the interests of his captors ..." It was during this period, while he was secretly working for Americanintelligence, that Höttl provided his historic and damning "six million"affidavit for submission by the American prosecution at the Allied-runtribunal at Nuremberg. In June 1949 one U.S. intelligence official cautioned against using Höttlfor any reason, calling him "a man of such low character and poor politicalrecord that his use for intelligence activities, regardless of how profitablethey may be, is a short-sighted policy by the U.S." In August 1950, CIAmessages referred to Höttl as a "notorious fabricator [of] intelligence." AU.S. Army CIC report in early 1952 deemed his information useless, notingthat Höttl "is involved in extensive intelligence activities for almost anyonewho is willing to purchase his findings." In April 1952 his reports werecalled "worthless and possibly inflated or fabricated." In July 1952, when U.S. Army intelligence finally broke completely withHöttl, a letter on U.S. Army stationery warned: "Dr. Höttl has long been known to this headquarters and other alliedmilitary organizations in Austria as a fabricator of intelligence information.His reports normally consist of a fine cobweb of fact, heavily padded withlies, deceit, conjecture and other false types of information. Thisorganization will have absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Höttl or anymembers of his present entourage. He is persona non grata to the American,French and British elements in Austria." 50 The report has formerly been posted on the U.S. National Archives web site:http://www.nara.gov/iwg/declass/hoettl.html 23
    • In their report on his postwar career, U.S. government historicalresearchers Kleiman and Skwirot conclude: "The voluminous materials in Wilhelm Höttls personality file ... trace theactivities of a notorious intelligence peddler and fabricator, whosuccessfully convinced one intelligence service after another of his value,and then proceeded to lose such support." Indeed, and as already noted, Höttl "successfully convinced" the Americanand British prosecutors, and the judges, of the inter-Allied tribunal inNuremberg, and many others around the world ever since, that Germanauthorities killed six million Jews during the Second World War. And eventhough U.S. intelligence services and U.S. government researchers have,finally, as it were, discredited him, Höttls most historically important claimremains widely, and even officially accepted. The recently released U.S. intelligence documents on Höttl, and the U.S.government report about his postwar career, confirm what some revisionistscholars have contended for years. In his pathbreaking book The Hoax of theTwentieth Century, first published in 1976, Dr. Arthur Butz cited sourcesthat were publicly available even in the 1950s to show that, during the war,Höttl had gotten into trouble more than once with SS authorities. Hisinvolvement in a shady Polish land deal led in 1942 to an SS investigationof his activities. An internal SS report characterized him as "dishonest,scheming, fawning,... a real hoaxer," and concluded that he was not fit evenfor SS membership, let alone a sensitive intelligence service position.51Höttl was, accordingly, demoted. But his luck improved after his friend andfellow Austrian, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, was appointed in 1943 to head theRSHA. It seems that Kaltenbrunner protected him from a seconddisciplinary action, this one for misappropriation of security service funds.52 So it was Höttl who invented and offered us the Six Million Figure? Itcould be that his statement mattered, but he is not a starting point. In stead,he was a link in a long tradition and a liar and an opportunist as much as hewas proven to be when it came to his intelligence "findings".Wartime propaganda from The New York Times Some years before Wilhelm Höttl sat in Nuremberg and said what thevictors wanted him to say, The New York Times repeatedly gave out TheSix Million Figure to everyone able to read. To quote just a few of thosearticles offered as examples by Arthur Butz, NYT wrote in December 13,1942, p. 21: "[…] Authenticated reports point to 2,000,000 Jews who have alreadybeen slain by all manner of satanic barbarism, and plans for the totalextermination of all Jews upon whom the Nazis can lay their hands. Theslaughter of a third of the Jewish population in Hitler’s domain 51 Butz, Arthur: The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, IHR 1997, p81. 52 Also see Weber, Mark: "Wilhelm Höttl and the Elusive Six Million" athttp://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n5p25_Weber.html. 24
    • [3×2,000,000=6,000,000] and the threatened slaughter of all is a holocaustwithout parallel."53 NYT, March 2, 1943, pp. 1, 4: "Immediate action by the United Nations to save as many as possible ofthe five million Jews threatened with extermination […] was demanded at amass demonstration […] in Madison Square Garden last night. […Rabbi Hertz said] ‘appalling is the fact that those who proclaim theFour Freedoms have so far done very little to secure even the freedom tolive for 6,000,000 of their Jewish fellow men by readiness to rescue thosewho might still escape Nazi torture and butchery."54 NYT, March 10, 1943, p. 12: "Forty thousand persons listened and watched […] last night to twoperformances of We Will Never Die, a dramatic mass memorial to the2,000,000 Jews killed in Europe. […] The narrator said ‘There will be noJews left in Europe for representation when peace comes. The four millionleft to kill are being killed, according to plan."55 Butz concludes in his work that The Six Million Figures traces its roots inthe wartime propaganda of 1942 and 1943.56 Strenuous though he might have been in the searching for the abovequotations, Arthur Butz failed to grasp the true six million roots. I cant besure to do so either, but I can prove that there are reasons to look forquotations from the time before World War II. Chaim Weizmann, who was going to be the first president of Israel lateron, is very interesting in this context. On November 25, 1936 he testified, asthe president of the World Zionist Organization, in front of the PeelCommission. It was formed as a reaction of violent clashes between Jewsand Arabs in Palestine and it finally decided to divide Palestine into aJewish and an Arab State. In his speech, Weizmann said: “It is no exaggeration to say that six million Jews are sentenced to beimprisoned in this part of the world, where they are unwanted, and forwhom the countries are divided into those, where they are unwanted, andthose, where they are not admitted.” 57 Let us notice that Weizmann exploited the Holocaust in the struggleagainst the Palestinians three years before the outbreak of World War II. 53 Butz, Arthur: The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Brighton, Historical Review Press, 1976 p100.All following quotes are from the 3rd edition. 54 Butz 1976 p103. This is the same Rabbi Hertz who already as early as 1922 referred to"1,000,000 human beings […] butchered" during pogroms in the Ukraine, New York Times, January9, 1922, p19; also see Appendix 1. 55 Butz 1976 p104 56 Butz 1976 p105 57 Retranslated from the introduction of Walter A. Berendsohn to Thomas Mann, SiebenManifeste zur jüdischen Frage, Darmstadt: Jos. Melzer Verlag, 1966, p18. Also seeHeddesheimer, Don: The First Holocaust, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL60625, October 2003 p10. 25
    • This does not mean that Weizmann was the inventor of The Six MillionNumber. We have to step further backwards in time.During and after World War I Holocaust is a World War One word. Holocaust was used during and afterWorld War One to describe what was going on in Europe and whatallegedly happened to the Jews of Europe during and after that war. Whilethe stories that are today referred to as "the Holocaust" weren’t called aholocaust (in the 1950s by Poliakov or Reitlinger, for example) during oreven for decades after World War Two, the word "holocaust" was usedwhile World War One was happening and thereafter. It was called "aholocaust", it was called "the greatest tragedy the world has ever known"and it was called "the greatest need the world has ever known". No historians today believe in these stories and only a little more of themseem to know about them. Of course, all kind of people suffered in WWIEastern Europe, but there are no signs that the Jews would have sufferedmuch more than any other religious or ethnic group. Until 1917, the leader of the Jewish community in New York, JacobSchiff, repeatedly called for an end to "this holocaust".58 In 1919, theAmerican Hebrew magazine used the word holocaust in describing theplight of European Jewry in an article written under the byline of a formerGovernor of New York State.59 Yehuda Bauer wrote in My Brother’sKeeper, an authorized history of the Joint Distribution Committee of JewishWar Sufferers, that “[…] the destruction of European Jewry during World War Two hasobliterated the memory of the first holocaust of the 20th century in the wakeof the First World War". 60 Less than a month after the initial declarations of war in Europe, planswere begun to organize an effort to help Jews living in the war affectedareas. On October 4, 1914, the Central Committee for the Relief of JewsSuffering Through the War was formed with Morris Engelman electedfinancial secretary and a day of prayer was proclaimed by PresidentWoodrow Wilson. On October 14, 1914, Louis Marshall, the president ofthe American Jewish Committee, called a meeting which resulted in theformation of the American Jewish Relief Committee with Louis Marshall aschairman and Felix Warburg as treasurer. On November 27, 1914, theAmerican Jewish Relief Committee and the Central Relief Committeeorganized the Joint Distribution Committee, electing Felix M. Warburgchairman.61 58 Cohen, Naomi W: Jacob H. Schiff, A Study in American Jewish Leadership, Hanover, NH:Brandeis University Press, University Press of New England, 1999, p191. 59 Glynn, Martin H: "The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!", The American Hebrew, Oct. 31, 1919,p582f; also see Appendix 2. 60 Bauer, Yehuda: My Brother’s Keeper. A History of the American Joint Distribution Committee1929-1939, The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1974. 61 Engelman, Morris: Fifteen Years of Effort on Behalf of World Jewry, Ference Press, New York,1929. 26
    • The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee for Jewish WarSufferers, affectionately referred to by its supporters as the ‘Joint’, was alsostarted in 1914 by the leaders of the American Jewish Committee inresponse to: “[…] alarming news that reached the U.S. regarding the fate of eighty fivethousand Jews of Palestine.” There were then many Jews living in Palestine being subsidized by BritishJews whose subsidies were interrupted by the war between Great Britainand Turkey, by then still in control of Palestine. Felix Marshall, the long-time president of the American JewishCommittee, became its first president. Jacob Schiff made son-in-law FelixWarburg the first ‘Joint’ treasurer. On New Years Day of 1915, FelixWarburg, the Chairman of the Joint Distribution Committee, organized aremittance or credit bureau supervised by his secretary, Harriet Lowenstein.In March of that year, the Central Relief Committee made arrangementswith Henry Morgenthau, Woodrow Wilson’s ambassador to Turkey, totransmit funds to institutions in Palestine. In time, aid to Palestine, Greece,Egypt, and Syria was channelled through the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey. The Price of Liberty is an authorized history of the American JewishCommittee that was published in 1948, after World War Two was over. Itcontains a chapter about World War One entitled “The Holocaust of War”.This chapter mentions some of these World War One and post-war fundraising efforts and includes the following quote: "As the armies rolled back and forth in desperate conflict over the bordersof Poland, Galicia, and East Prussia, terror, desolation and deathdescended on the civilian population in general, but most of all upon theseven million Jews. The Christian Poles, Ruthenians and Germans sufferedthe inevitable hardships that attend all warfare; but the Jews, alreadyproscribed by the Russians and Poles, met with a concentrated orgy ofhatred, blood lust and vindictive opportunity that threatened to wipe themout in one vast holocaust." 62Rabbi Stephen Wise and his "6,000,000 living, bleeding,suffering" In 1918, the American Jewish Congress was founded with the originalgoals of “providing humanitarian relief for European Jews who hadsuffered from the carnage of the war and restoring the State Of Israel toPalestine”.63 The American Jewish Congress saw itself as the voice of theeastern European Jews rather than the American Jewish Committee, whosemembers were mostly German Jews. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise was the majorleadership figure of the American Jewish Congress during its formativeperiod.64 Early on, Dr. Wise was known for his progressive ideas on general 62 Schachner, Nathan: The Price of Liberty. A History of The American Jewish Committee,The American Jewish Committee, New York, 1948, p60 63 Ivers, Gregg: To Build A Wall. The American Jews and the Separation of Church andState, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville 1995, p36 64 Ivers, G 1995, p51 27
    • topics and also as an exponent of Zionism, a movement then contemplatingthe reestablishment of the Jewish nation.65 As early as 1900, Wise is recorded telling a Zionist gathering that "thereare 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism" asreported in a New York Times article.66 It should be interesting in this context that Rabbi Wise was also veryimportant in breaking the World War Two extermination stories to theAmerican mainstream media through the New York Times. A New YorkTimes article of November 25, 1942, written under the byline of James Mac-Donald, has been mounted and displayed in the United States MemorialHolocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. It is titled: “Himmler Program Kills Polish Jews. […] Officials of Poland PublishData – Dr. Wise Gets Check Here by State Department.” The first part of the article was based on a report issued on November 24by the Polish government in exile in London, England, although details ofthe report had allegedly been previously printed in unnamed Palestinenewspapers. It stated that in June of 1942 Himmler had visited Warsaw andordered that half the Jews in Poland be killed by the end of the year and thatthis was being done throughout Poland and especially at Treblinka, Belzec,and Sobibor. There is no mention of Auschwitz, which seemingly didntenter Allied rhetoric before 1944. Stephen S. Wise, who was still the president of the American JewishCongress as well as chairman of the World Jewish Congress, is the sourceof the second half of the article “Wise Gets Confirmations-Checks WithState Department on Nazis’ Extermination Campaign.” Wise said that hehad learned through unnamed sources confirmed by the State Department“that about half the estimated 4,000,000 Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe hadbeen slain in an extermination campaign” and that “the plan was drafted byHerman Backe, Secretary of State for Economics, and was put into effect byHitler by late summer.” 67 Was Rabbi Wise the first one to mention The Six Million Number, whenhe appealed for charity in the summer of 1900? We cant know for sure, butwe can always study how the World War One cries about "Holocaust"appealed for money, and we can follow this money to see where it went inthe end.Gathering the money Felix Warburg, who is already mentioned in this paper because of hisactivities in the American Jewish Relief Committee as well as in the JointDistribution Committee, went on with his activities even after the end ofWorld War One. 65 "Dr. Wise To Go To Portland", New York Times, August 3, 1898 p1 66 "Rabbi Wises Address", New York Times, June 11, 1900, p7; also see Appendix 3. 67 Also see Heddesheimer 2003 p43 28
    • Felix told the New York Times in an article that the Jews were the worstsufferers in the war, "and have reduced to tragically unbelievable poverty,starvation and disease about 6,000,000 souls, or half the Jewish populationof the earth."68 At the same time, one of Felix’s older brothers, MaxWarburg, was representing Germany on their Finance Committee at theVersailles Peace conference. Max ran the Warburg bank in Hamburg andplayed a role at every major reparations conference for 14 years giving himwide yet unofficial influence. During the Weimar Republic, Max Warburgwas on the Central Committee of the Reichsbank and on the board of 27German businesses including I.G. Farben. American Red Cross and American Jewish Committee representativeswere working in a remote region of Poland according to another 1919 reportarticle:69 “The war has left 5,000,000 destitute and stricken Jews in EasternEurope. […] Their number is being reduced every day by a series of themost terrible epidemics that ever swept any section of the world.” He attributed this to an accident of geography, causing Jews to suffer “more from the war than any other element of the population.” At the end of World War One, there certainly were people starving inEurope. There were millions of Germans, Poles, and Russians starving. Alsomore people died in a worldwide influenza epidemic in 1918-1919 than diedin World War One. On Christmas Day of 1919, the American ReliefCommittee for German Children, which included Jacob Schiff and PaulWarburg, was soliciting funds for hungry German children through theSociety of Friends. Of course only a very small percentage of the world’s many needy peoplethen was Jewish, as is true today, although the State of Israel receives thelion’s share of the total of U.S. foreign aid. Some things dont change. This 1920 fund raising campaign was aided and legitimized by at least twoNew York Times editorials. One entitled “A Work Of Mercy” made the pointthat the Jews who fought bravely for the allied cause had no fatherland andwere still suffering even though the war had ended. It stated: “In Europe there are today more than 5,000,000 Jews who are starving oron the verge of starvation, and many are in the grip of a virulent typhusepidemic. An appeal has been issued throughout the world.”70 Another Times editorial captioned "The Jewish War Sufferers" reported: “In Russia and the neighboring countries the Jews have been subject to aparticularly malignant persecution which has not ended with the war.Without any national organization of their own, they have no central 68 "Felix M. Warburg Tells Sad Plight of Jews," New York Times, September 29, 1919, p7. For thecomplete article, see Appendix 4. 69 "Five Million Face Famine in Poland", New York Times, December 3, 1919, p24 70 New York Times, April 21, 1920, p. 8. For the entire article, see Appendix 5. 29
    • organization to appeal to. Living in segregated and generally impoverishedcommunities, their misery is cumulative to an extent unknown among othersufferers. It is estimated that more than five millions are actually starving oron the verge of starvation, and a virulent typhus epidemic is raging amongthem and is already spreading among neighboring populations.”71 On September 10, 1920, President Woodrow Wilson expressed sympathyfor the suffering Jews of eastern Europe in a letter to Stephen S. Wise, thenExecutive Chairman of the Committee on Jewish Status in eastern Europe.President Wilson declared: "I am deeply moved by the reports which you send me of the trials andsufferings endured by your fellow Jews throughout Eastern Europe. NoAmerican, whatever his racial origin or religious creed can fail to feel thedeepest sympathy with the Jews of Eastern Europe who continue to bear notonly the burden of the war, but also the sufferings incident to unenlightenedand unjust treatment at the hands of governments and peoples. […] I am ofthe hope that those nations with which our own land holds politicalcommerce may do everything in their power to end not only the legaldisabilities of their Jewish populations as provided for in the minorityclauses of the Peace Treaty, but all the injustices and wrongs which are laidupon them."72 The peace treaty that President Wilson was referring to was of course theVersailles Treaty and the Peace Conference at Paris that ended World WarOne. In the early twenties, the charity engagement faced a gradual decline until1926, when the mass media campaign revived again briefly:73 “There are millions of Eastern European Jews in Poland and an equalnumber in other countries who are passing away and all of them willdisappear unless we rise to the emergency, forget everything else, and cometo the rescue.“ —Louis Marshall, President, American Jewish Committee.74 71 "The Jewish War Sufferers," New York Times, May 3, 1920, p12 72 "President Urges Justice for Jews," New York Times, September 12, 1920. 73 Heddesheimer 2003 p57ff 74 "Gifts of $3,700,000 Open Jewish Drive", New York Times, April 26, 1926, p1 30
    • At this time the Six Million Figure could also be used meaning dollarsinstead of people, as in this poster from the New York Times April, 21st,1926 (and reprinted as an appendix by Heddesheimer): “There are 5,000,000 Jews in Central and Eastern Europe facingstarvation […]. Five million Jews are in desperate distress today -2,225,000 in Russia, 2,225,000 in Poland, and 500,000 in Bessarabia,Lithuania, and the nearby countries.“ —The American Christian Fund, December 6, 1926.75 75 "Cathedral is Scene of Rally of Faiths for Jewish Relief", New York Times, December 6, 1926,pp. 1, 18 31
    • Although obviously not true, or at the very least grossly exaggerated, thesestories, which have been completely forgotten today, were taken quiteseriously at the time they were made. The press had a lot more credibility in1920 than it has today. Yet this, few people might believe that The SixMillion Figure was hammered into the minds of people by the mediaalready during WWI and the years around 1920. And as we can see from thelast two quotations below the story went on – at least sparsely – seeminglyunhindered until the next great war in Europe: In 1938, “a depressing picture of 6,000,000 Jews in Central Europedeprived of protection or economic opportunities, slowly dying ofstarvation, all hope gone” was presented by Jacob Tarshis, known by hisradio audience as the Lamplighter, representing the American JointDistribution Committee: “‘The Jewish tragedy started when Hitler came to power in 1933,’ Mr.Tarshis declared. ‘Now anti-Semitism has spread to thirteen Europeannations, and threatened the very existence of millions of Jews.” 76 In 1940, Dr. Nahum Goldman, chairman of the administrative committeeof the World Jewish Congress, said in an interview at the Hotel Astor that: “Six million Jews in Europe are doomed to destruction, if the victoryofNazis should be final. […] The chances for mass emigration andresettlement of European Jewry seems to be remote, and European Jewsface the danger of physical annihilation. Even the 4,000,000 Jews underSoviet rule, although free from racial discrimination, are not safe in theevent of a final Nazi victory.” 77 At the time of Nahum Goldmans outcry, World War II had already begun,and the epic story of our Big Number could soon get some more fuel again.Sending the money But if most Eastern European Jews where not as destitute as all the aboveheartbreaking stories told people in those days, where did all the charitymoney go? The wealthy Felix Warburg, whom we already know by now, played a keyrole in this story. He made most of the money go into different agriculturalprojects in the Soviet Union. Since he was a banker we dont expect him to sympathize with the Sovietway of ruling the society, and even though the early Soviet state attractedsympathy from many Jews around the world, we cannot label Warburg as acommunist that easily. That would be as unfair as to label the Germans asNational Socialists just because the lived in the 1930s. Also, there had already been several Jewish agricultural project at the endof the 19th century in czarist Russia. Baron Edmund de Rothschild fundedsome of them calling them "my colonies", and that didnt make him a friend 76 "Jewish Teachers Chided By Isaac", New York Times, February 23, 1938. 77 "Nazi Publicity Here Held Smoke Screen", New York Times, June 25, 1940, p4 32
    • of the Czar. This problem of Third World Aid "helping-the-people-without-helping-the-regime" has repeated itself many times during the 20th century. All this being said however, Felix Warburg was clearly a friend of theSoviet system. He travelled the huge Red Empire by train and limousine inthe spring of 1927 to visit about 40 of the Jewish colonies he had foundedand supported.78 When he came back, he talked enthusiastically about hisimpressions at a fund raising rally in Chicago: “I wish you had been with us on our trip through Russia. Good friendshad warned us not to make the trip, that it was dangerous, that we weregoing to a country where everything would be supervised and we would getpredigested food in regard to the things we wanted to see. Nothing of thekind has happened. In no country we visited were we as free fromformalities and granted such absolute freedom as in Russia. […] The workin Russia has been a great success, not only from the sentimental standpointbut also from the financial standpoint. It is difficult to realize that untrainedJewish people from the cities should have been brought to these farms andin the third year should begin seriously to pay back the loans, heavy loans,but that is the truth. Everything given to them is noted down by them in abook. Whenever they look at the book they know what they owe to themutual credit society, and they know what they owe to the Kassas and theyknow what they owe to the Jews of America.”79 It is a fair guess that this kind of efforts from people like Felix Warburgdid not help the Soviet Union only economically. Let us assume that leaderslike Lenin and Stalin where happy to get the moral support from abroad, andthat they where at least as happy about the PR effect. 78 Heddesheimer 2003 p67-71 79 "After Three Years, The Progress of the Jewish Farm Colonies in Russia", Reports ofDr. Joseph A. Rosen, Felix M. Warburg, and James H. Becker, Delivered at theConstructive Relief Conference of the Joint Distribution Committee and the United JewishCampaign, Chicago, October 22-23, 1927. Also see Heddesheimer 2003 p71. 33
    • Some Serious Attempts Of course, no one can establish for sure a World War II death number forthe Jews. This being said, there are good and bad methods. This chapterdeals with demographers who did not presuppose six million, instead tryingto establish a figure without such prejudices.Walter Sanning The work by this demographer is filled with statistics and chartsexpressing births, deaths, migration and deportation. Since I dont want towrite his book a second time, I will in the following limit the scope to theJews of Poland. As we could see in the "six-million-tradition" chapter, allthe historians who have believed in "six million exterminated" or "sixmillion dead" claim that about half of that number came from Poland. Forthat reason, Poland will be the most reasonable case study, though not theeasiest one. The Polish census of December 9, 1931 showed that the Polish Jewsnumbered 3,113,933 or almost 9.8% in a total population of 31,915,779.The census also proved that the Jews lived mostly in cities and mostly in theeastern provinces. In the countryside, Jews where almost never peasants butinstead artisans living in small Jewish settlements called shtetls.80 Even the Munich-based Institute for Contemporary History admitted: "The wave of emigration of German Jews was only a part – and not eventhe largest one at that – of a general Jewish emigration from central,eastern and southeastern Europe. In the years following 1933, about100,000 Jews left Poland every year, partly because of the increasinglyanti-Semitic policies of the Polish government, but also because of theprogressively worsening pauperization of the Polish Jews. Similartendencies showed up in Latvia, Lithuania, Rumania and, to a lesser degree,in Hungary."81 Having made deductions for the mortality-over-birth estimation, alsohaving made deductions for the 31,216 Jews that died as Polish soldiers inthe 1939 German-Polish war, Sanning comes to the conclusion that therewhere still 2,633,000 Jews left in Poland at the end of September 1939.82Since the Jews mostly lived in the eastern part of Poland up to the war,Sanning proposes the below figures: Areas under German control 757,000 Areas under Soviet Control 1,776,000 Refugees in Rumania 100,000 Former Polish Jews (end of 1939) 2,633,000 80 Sanning, Walter: The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, Institute for HistoricalReview, 3rd printing November 1990, p20ff 81 Gutachen des Instituts für Zeitgeschichte, Munich 1958, p79-80; Sanning 1990 p32. 82 Sanning 1990 p33 34
    • When it comes to the Jews in the Soviet sphere, most of them wheredeported before the German attack of June, 22nd, 1941. Most of them whereabove-average educated, and thus very useful in remote parts of the SovietUnion. We shall also keep in mind that Stalin soon started to organize amassive military build-up in the zone bordering German-occupied Poland,and civilians running around where not a welcome sight.83 And what happened to those supposedly 757,000 Jews who where caughtin German-occupied Poland? At the end June 1946, when the option for areturn from the Soviet Union expired for the Jewish refugees of 1939, only240,489 registered Jewish survivors where observed: Jews having returned from the Soviet Union 157,420 Jews having survived the German occupation 83,069 Jews registered in Poland, June 1946 240,489 Sanning stresses that this is the number of registered Jews. The abovefigures make no mention of those who survived as gentiles in disguise,and/or fled to the West between the end of the war and June 1946. Sanningproposes that hundreds of thousands of Jews could have opted for this.84Still, this could well mean that 100,000 or 200,000 Jews perished at Germanhands. When Sanning sums up his statistics for all countries at the end of thebook, he arrives at 304,000 "missing" Jews altogether, admitting again howhard it is to really offer any figure with exactitude.85 This was admittedly a very brief referring of Sanning, but at least we shallsoon have a look at the failed attempt to counter him.Carl Nordling Nordling has studied the Encyclopaedia Judaica carefully and extractedthe entries concerning 722 Jews from 12 European countries.86 All of theseJews where born in the period 1860-1909, and still alive on January 1st,1939. (In Appendix) Nordling calls them the "Jewish Establishment group",abbreviated to EstG. To qualify for inclusion in the EstG, an individual Jew must have beenliving in one of the following countries on January 1st, 1938: France,Poland, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia,Romania, Denmark Yugoslavia or Belgium. There fates where as in thetables below: Fled or emigrated 1938-1945 317 43.9% Non-captured or in ghetto till end of War 256 35.5% Captured by Axis forces 149 20.6% Jewish Establishment group (EstG) 722 100.0% 83 Sanning 1990 p91-92 84 Sanning 1990 p44-46 85 Sanning 1990 p176 86 Nordling, Carl O: "The Jewish Establishment under Nazi-Threat and Domination 1938-1945" The Journal of Historical Review, vol 10, no 2, p195-209; Also see Appendix 6 toread the article in its entity. 35
    • The category "Captured by Axis forces" is naturally very interesting forsome further splitting up: To concentration camps 96 13.3% To Auschwitz 33 4.6% To other camps in Poland 13 1.8% To unknown camps 15 2.1% To other camps 20 2.7% To Theresienstadt 15 2.1% To Prisoner-Of-War camps 18 2.5% Murdered or executed 18 2.5% Released or escaped 17 2.3% Captured by Axis forces 149 20.6% Of those 61 who where deported to Auschwitz, other camps in Poland orto the unknown camps, only four returned alive. The other 57 whereprobably killed in one or the other way or succumbed to diseases liketyphoid fever. Maybe some of them could have ended up as Sovietprisoners. Elie Wiesel has written that an enormous number of evacuatedAuschwitz internees died during the 10-day transport in open railway trucksto Buchenwald in January 1945. Most of those who died because of typhoidfever did so at the end of the war, when chaos and utter misery reigned inGermany. Understanding of the conditions inside the camps calls for anunderstanding of the conditions outside of the camps. We have to take into consideration that these 722 Jewish VIPs cant berepresentative for all the Jews of their respective countries. Those who havebeen included in the Encyclopaedia are sometimes perhaps there justbecause they took some kind of action during the war, or just because theyhappened to survive. Also, some of these prominent Jews could have hadthe economic means to escape more easily then the common, unknownJews. On the other hand, well known personalities probably had to facemore hardships, should they have tried to escape incognito. It also must besaid that the most well-known Jews – like Albert Einstein – had already leftGermany well before 1938. Yet these problems, Nordlings study clearly indicates that the GermanNational Socialist regime didnt try to exterminate the Jews systematically.The Benz Counterattack Even though Nordlings study supported Walter Sannings detailed work inits sprit, there where some others who did their best to harpoon him.Already in the foreword, the editor Wolfgang Benz has written that the workhas been produced to counter Sanning. And even though Benz writes that hehad no purpose to defend any pre-set figure, he happens to end up with anopinion similar to the by now well known figure offered by Rabbi Wise asfar back as in 1900: "The bottom line indicates a minimum of 5.29 and a maximum of just over6 million [Jewish victims of the Holocaust]".87 87 Benz, Wolfgang: Dimension des Völkermords, Oldenbourg, München 1991, p17 36
    • Benz 585-page book has 17 authors, one for each country covered,including Germany, Austria, Luxemburg, France, Belgium, the Netherlands,Denmark, Norway, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Hungary,Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Poland and the Soviet Union. Every one of themhas started his own chapter by giving a detailed account of all the anti-Jewish laws, measures and events that took place there. This means that thethickness of this work depends on the rich alphabet soup of material alreadycovered in many other works. The statistic material is weaker than inSannings work which is contrastingly small, concise and compact. There is another potential problem when many people get together to writea book like this one, and in this case it has not been evaded: The authorshave seemingly not been able to agree among themselves how to split up thedifferent countries in Europe, where borders went back and forth during thetime span covered. In a detailed study comparing Sanning and Benz,Germar Rudolf has proved that about half a million Jews are counted twicein Benz work, since – for example – the Transylvanian Jews are covered inthe chapter about Rumania as well as in the chapter about Hungary.88Refuting Benz As for the German and Austrian Jews, Sanning being a demographer hastaken the Jewish emigration until October 1941 into account. In this context,he calculates that, since the younger people emigrated and the elderremained, the stay-at-homes suffered from a higher mortality as well asfrom a lower nativity. Benz and his team altogether simply deny theproblem with altered birth and death rates in Germany as well as in anyother country. It doesnt seem to matter that the claim to write in response ofSanning.89 It is even more insulting to the reader that Benz, when he is working forInstitute for Contemporary History, pretends that the passage quoted bySanning (in this paper at page 34) did not exist. The reason for this is, ofcourse, that Benz wants to account those hundreds of thousands of Jews asexterminated. Again, this is done in spite of the fact that Benz claims that heis writing in response of Sanning. The complete neglecting of the aforementioned passage – produced byBenz own institute – is symptomatic of his overall attitude: Benz and histeam act as if no Jewish emigration ever took place, not only regardingPoland as per the above. Every Jew who after the war no longer lived in thesame place where he had been living before the war, is simply counted asexterminated! What was the point in the writing of this book when the attitudes and thedeath figures are almost the same as in Raul Hilbergs work published 30years earlier? It could have been enough to illustrate the demographicproblem with the below article published on November 24, 1978 in the State 88 Rudolf, Germar: Holocaust Victims: "A Statistical Analysis", in Dissecting theHolocaust, Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw (Alabama), July 2000, p203-204 89 Sanning 1990 p136-138; Benz 1991 pages 34ff, 52, 64, 68 & 71. Also see Rudolf 2000p187. 37
    • Time (Baton Rouge, Louisiana), since it explains much more vividly thanany population statistics the fate of the "missing" Jews: "The Steinbergs once flourished in a small Jewish village in Poland. Thatwas before Hitlers death camps. Now more than 200 survivors anddescendants of survivors are gathered here to share a special four-daycelebration that began, appropriately, on Thanksgiving day. Relatives cameThursday from Canada, France, England, Argentina, Columbia, Israel, andfrom at least 13 cities across the United States. It is fabulous, said IrisKrasnow of Chicago. There are five generations here - from three monthsold to 85. People are crying and having a wonderful time. Its almost like aWorld War Two refugee reunion."Is the Gas Chamber Killing Rate an indicator? If there had been ample proof that the Auschwitz gas chambers could haveswallowed – and also actually did swallow – enough victims to justify SixMillion as a relevant number, all other conclusions and analyses in thispaper would have been futile and meaningless. This had also probably beentrue, even if only the hundreds of thousands accounted as "missing" bySanning could have been killed in this way. Therefore, I will briefly provehow absurd the Zyklon B mass killing story is. David Olères drawing The image to the left made by David Olère in 1946 could serve as a starting point. The supervised prisoners who drag the many corpses from the gas chamber to the crematoria fit well into the commonly accepted image of mass killings It is said that the insecticide Zyklon B containing hydrogen cyanide dropped through the roof was used for this mass killing.Hydrogen Cyanide Hydrogen Cyanide (with molecular formula HCN) is – in short –explosive and at the same time highly poisonous. Skin contact with the gasis enough to kill people, and there is an explosion risk since the alleged gaschambers where located near the crematories.Bogus "defense" of the correct story The Holocaust History Project has a page with the URL http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/ and it is interesting in this context as it is ambitious, and might in thiscontext serve as an example to illustrate how the politically correct act todefend their Nuremberg or Hilberg based stories. The discussion looksindeed very technical in its "response" against the revisionists in common 38
    • and against Germar Rudolf in particular, but it fails completely to explainseveral problems, so you dont have to be a chemist to refute this site:90 (1) The authors fail to admit that the deadly hydrogen cyanide sticks to thecorpses and should have killed the workers upon skin contact, though thereis an arrogant comment in note 53. (2) The authors of the Holocaust History Project skilfully evadeexplaining how the gas chamber could have been ventilated when it wascrammed with dead bodies. There should have been pockets of gaseverywhere. (3) When talking about ventilation problems, there should have been aproblem with the Zyklon B granules littered everywhere on the floor and onthe corpses. These granules should have diffused hydrogen cyanide for along time after the crammed people had been killed. No one ever vividlydescribed workers in the gas chambers quickly picking up the remaininggranules with tweezers. (4) The authors of the site also cling on to the "confession" made byRudolf Höss.91 As have already been said, his death figure of 3 million atAuschwitz has long since been discarded, but they try to defend the part ofthe testimony saying that the workers ate and smoked while they wheredragging the corpses. (For their own best, they are not quoting himhonestly.) And even though no mention is being made of any gas masks theauthors somehow presume Höss just "forgot" to mention them. (5) It is also interesting to see that material produced by Jean-ClaudePressac is referred to extensively.92 As we remember from "The Six MillionTradition"-chapter earlier (page 17 to be exact), Pressac lost the status heonce had when he became too outspoken saying that "The expressiongenocide is no longer appropriate". 90 For a general description of Hydrogen Cyanide and Zyklon B, see for examplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cyanide and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_Bthough these sites are to political correct to ask the questions relevant in this context. 91 http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/hoess-memoirs/index.shtml 92 http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/ 39
    • The story goes on As if the above was not enough, new gas chamber stories have been produced long after the end of WWII, as can be seen in the newspaper examples at this page. 40
    • What is the Point? This paper has done its best to refute the story about 6,000,000 Jews beingexterminated or killed during World War II, and now we have come to theend. But if six million dead Jews would have been a tragedy, then the 304,000-Jews-dead-or-missing figure proposed by Sanning also should represent atragedy. Also, as the investigation Carl Nordling did in the EncyclopaediaJudaica indicated, the death rates for Jews having arrived at Auschwitzwhere very high. How exactly they died there is perhaps of less interest.Then what is the meaning, what is the point with all these analyses?Alright, here are my points: Established historians after WWII have – with few exceptions – done theirbest to uphold the image of 6,000,000 even though they have revised boththe meaning and the subsets of this figure. At the same time, the havemostly pretended that this discrete revision has not taken place. The mostobvious "denier" is Michael Marrus who wants people to believe that therehavent been any revision of numbers at all. Peter Englund similarly wantsus to believe that the historiography has always been the same when itcomes to the "extermination sites". As if this wasnt bad enough, the figure 6,000,000 where not even inventedduring or after WWII, but long before. As we have seen, well organisedJewish interest groups used this figure already during WWI to collectmoney for their purposes. This money then mainly supported the buildingup of the Soviet Union. When Walter Sanning made his demographical calculations driving on theroad towards the 304,000-conclusion, he made another point obvious to thereader. Jews who died outside of the camps – for many different reasons –doesnt normally count as exterminated. And of course, non-Jews who diedat the same time do not matter either: A German who died at typhoid feveroutside of Belsen when his country suffered from Allied mass bombingdoesnt count while Anne Frank, who died inside the camp from the samedisease, counts. As I already said in context with Carl Nordlings analysis,understanding of the conditions inside the camps calls for an understandingof the conditions outside of the camps.Togetherness Thus, my last point is that the huge Second World War in all its tragedyshould be analyzed as a whole. No doubt, hundreds of thousands of Jewsmust have perished because of the war, and a great part of them where killedintentionally out of prejudiced reasons. But it cant be fair to extract theJews as one single minority and concentrate all attention just on them. Letus instead face this horrible past as a whole, and together. Stockholm October, 31st, 2006 Jan Bernhoff 41
    • AppendicesAppendix 1 – Chief Rabbi condemns silence January 9, 1922, p. 19 “BRITISH CHIEF RABBI CONDEMNS SILENCE ON POGROMS CARRIED OUT IN UKRAINE London, Jan 8 (Associated Press). —At the second annual conference of the Federation of Ukrainian Jewsthe Very Rev. Joseph H. Hertz, Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, calledattention to the ‘astonishing fact in the moral history of contemporaryhumanity that one of the blackest pages in the annals of man has just closed,and yet the world knows next to nothing of the unspeakable horrors andinfinite crimes perpetrated against the Jewish people.’ Dr. Hertz declared that 1,000,000 human beings had been butchered andthat for three years 3,000,000 persons in the Ukraine had been made ‘topass through the horrors of hell’ and that hardly a word of these facts hadappeared in the newspapers. The voice of the Jewish community, Dr. Hertz continued, had not beenraised as it should have been, and it was humiliating to find the apathy andcallousness with which certain sections of Jewry had faced this disaster. Hedescribed in detail some of the crimes that had been committed. He said that although the pogroms in the Ukraine had ended there weresomething like 600,000 homeless children, 150,000 orphans and 35,000double orphans in the Ukraine who would die from cold, hunger, or diseaseunless Jewish hearts remained human and came to the rescue.” 42
    • Appendix 2 – "The Crucifixion of Jews must stop!" 43
    • Appendix 3 – Rabbi Wises Address June 11, 1900, p. 7 "Rabbi Wise said, in part: ‘The day will never come when I will care less for Zion, when there will beanyone who will strive more for the glorious ideals of Zionism. ‘Two great conventions of Jews are being held tonight. In Chicago, thereis a conference of charities called together by men who minister to thewants of the poor. They have assembled to see that too much charity is notgiven to the unworthy. Their purpose is right. But ours is the greatercharity. We have assembled not to see that the Jew does not get too much,but that every Jew shall get the right to live. ‘There are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor ofZionism. They come not to beg, but ask for that which is higher than allmaterial things. They seek to have satisfied the unquenchable thirst after theideal. They ask to become once again the messengers of right, justice, andhumanity. ‘Your Christian friends will honor you if you have enough self-respect tocare for your own people. Say that you are not a Jew and you will be hatedas a Jew, nevertheless. But say that you are an American Jew, and strive forthe best principles of the race, you will be respected and the Zionist namehonored. ‘Of Israel and Zion one thing is true. They can conquer. God is ourleader, and with the General of the heavenly hosts to lead who will say thatwe go not to victory? ‘In the old Greek games, the man who won the racewas not he who went fastest, but the one who bore a lighted torch to the endof the course. ‘We Zionists have entered a race, the torch of liberty, charity, and justicein our hands. ‘The race will be won, not because we are fastest but because that lamp isa light unto the world. It will never be extinguished. ‘Come, brothers, the lamp is in your hands, run the race and may Godgive you the victory forever." 44
    • Appendix 4 – Felix Warburg tells sad plightSeptember 29, 1919, p. 7 "FELIX M. WARBURG TELLS SAD PLIGHT OF JEWS. Felix M. Warburg Says They Were the Worst Sufferers in War. Felix M.Warburg, Chairman of the Joint Distribution Committee of American Fundsfor Jewish War Sufferers, who returned several days ago from a trip toEurope for that organization, made public yesterday some of his findings. ‘The successive blows of contending armies have all but broken the backof European Jewry,’ he said, ‘and have reduced to tragically unbelievablepoverty, starvation and disease about 6,000,000 souls, or half the Jewishpopulation of the earth. ‘The Jewish people throughout Eastern Europe, by sheer accident ofgeography, have suffered more from the war than any other element of thepopulation. The potential vitality and the capacity for self-help that remainsto those people after the last five years is amazing to me.’ The people are deeply moved by the help given them by America, Mr.Warburg said, but it would be fatal to lessen the emergency aid now whilemillions are in tragic need. The $30,000,000 spent by this committee, hesaid, has fed and clothed more than a million children and it has renewedthe hope of five million parents and elders. ‘For more than four years,’ he said, ‘The war on the Eastern front wasfought largely in the congested centers of Jewish population. A straightnorth and south line from Riga, on the Baltic, to Salonica, on the AegeanSea, will touch every important battle area of the Eastern war zone andevery center of Jewish population. After the cataclysm of the last few yearsit is too much to expect this Jewry to become self-sustaining in a shorttwelve-month.’ Mr. Warburg is concerned over the program soon to be started for thediscontinuance of emergency relief. This plan, he said, calls for theformation of a $10,000,000 reconstruction corporation. ‘This organization,’ he said, ‘would afford facilities for constructive aid toJews abroad in the way of loans and credit at nominal interest rates. Thevalue of this sort of assistance as a substitute for pure charity is apparent.’ Other relief projects recommended by Mr. Warburg include theestablishment of an express company to forward money and packages fromJews in this country to relatives and friends abroad; the distribution of$120,000 worth of fuel in sections of Poland where destitution is greatest;the purchase of $300,000 worth of cloth in the bolt whereby unemployedworkmen of Poland may get raw material, and a plan to reunite thoseJewish families that have relatives in the United States and those who havebecome separated abroad." 45
    • Appendix 5 – "more than 5,000,000 Jews"April 21, 1920, Editorial, p. 8 "A WORK OF MERCY. Hitherto the Jews have financed their own philanthropies and with aliberality and skill that has been universally recognized. In behalf of thoseof their religion who are still suffering in the war-ridden districts of Europethey are now for the first time seeking outside aid. With the fate of Belgium and Serbia it was easy to sympathize. A nation’sterritory was invaded and its citizens were making a united stand. The Jewshave no fatherland, no means of uniting in the common defense. Yet fromthe outset, wherever the call came, they fought, and fought bravely, for theallied cause. Meantime, in widely scattered lands the folk at home sufferedas perhaps those of no other people, and their suffering has in manylocalities outlasted the war. In Europe there are today more than 5,000,000 Jews who are starving oron the verge of starvation, and many are in the grip of a virulent typhusepidemic. An appeal has been issued throughout the world. The quota ofNew York City is $7,500,000. The drive will occupy the week of May 2-9,and will be based wholly upon the principle of sympathy and a commonhumanity."Appendix 6 – The Jewish Establishment under Nazi-Threat and Domination 1938-1945 Carl O. Nordling The millions of Jews persecuted by Nazi Germany and to a certain extentalso by the Romanian government, by Vichy France, by the Arrow CrossCorps in Hungary, etc., are generally regarded as anonymous "masses" ofpeople, too numerous to be perceived as individuals. Admittedly, somebooks have been written by persons subjected to these persecutions. Suchbooks as Anne Franks Diary, Si questo é un uomo [If This Be a Man] (byPrimo Levi), I Cannot Forgive (by Rudolf Vrba) and La Nuit (by ElieWiesel) certainly present accounts of persecution under its individualaspects, but on the other hand it is obvious that the authors of these bookshad too narrow a range of vision to permit drawing any general conclusions. There is, however, a certain substantial group, consisting of Jews whoseindividual fates are all fairly well known, so that the entire group may bestudied statistically. From such a study, at least some general conclusionsmay be drawn. For convenience, this group will be called here the "JewishEstablishment Group," or EstG, as it is limited and defined below. Thegroup consists of all the Jews whose biographical data are recorded underindividual entries in the Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: KeterPublishing House and New York: Macmillan, 1971). For the purpose of thefollowing investigation the group has been limited to Jews from 12countries, who were born in the period of 1860-1909 and alive on January 46
    • 1st, 1939. A further limitation is caused by the difficulty of finding everyapplicable entry in the encyclopaedia. (On going through the encyclopaediathe first time, I found 590 applicable persons. A second survey added 132persons, but the general view didnt change very much.) To qualify forinclusion in the EstG, an individual Jew must have been living in one of thefollowing countries on January 1st, 1938: France, Poland, Germany,Austria, Hungary, Italy the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Romania,Denmark Yugoslavia or Belgium. In the case of Poland, Jews from theVilna district have been excluded. Although the Jews in the Soviet Union, the Baltic states and the Vilnadistrict were also persecuted by the Nazi regimes they have not beenincluded in the present study because of the difficulty of determiningwhether the Nazis or the Soviets were responsible for the fate of eachindividual. The great majority of the 96 Polish Jews included were living inthe German zone in 1939. Two Norwegian and three Greek Jews were excluded as being too few torepresent any "Establishment" of their respective countries. There were noJews from Finland, Bulgaria, Albania or Luxembourg to qualify forinclusion. Within the limitations mentioned, altogether 722 Jews were foundto satisfy the requirements, distributed according to last country ofvoluntarily chosen residence, as follows: France 170, Poland 96, Germany93, Austria 85, Hungary 64, Italy 63, The Netherlands 49, Czechoslovakia42, Romania 29, Denmark 13, Yugoslavia 9 and Belgium 9. This group of722 will be referred to as EstG for brevitys sake. Out of the entire EstG, 317 persons (44%) emigrated or fled from thetwelve countries studied at some time between January 1938 and April1945. This figure of 317 does not include persons who emigrated to theBaltic states and were later caught by the Germans, nor persons whoemigrated after liberation from German occupation. The emigration in mostcases took place in the years 1938-41, although later cases of escape,notably among Danes, are also recorded. Out of the 405 non-emigrated Jews, or "remainers," 256 (63% of theremainers, 35% of the EstG as a whole) were fortunate enough to escapeseizure by the SS, the Gestapo, the Arrow Cross and like organizations. The256 non-captured remainers also include Polish Jews living in ghettosthroughout the war. The number of cases of those who hid cannot bedetermined because the Encyclopaedia Judaica does not give such detailsexcept in a few odd cases. Out of the 256 non-captured remainers, 88 (34%) died before May, 1945,and 168 (66%) survived the war. The harsh treatment inflicted on Jewishpeople was especially detrimental to the elderly. The death rate was 67%among those born 1860-79 as against 6% among those born 1890-1909(non-captured persons). 149 of the remainers were captured by Nazi organizations or by individualNazis. However, 17 of the captured Jews (11%) were released (or escaped)to freedom outside Nazi controlled territory, thus became "secondaryemigrants." 18 were murdered or executed without previous imprisonmentof any kind. 18 were detained in custody or in POW camps -- some of themreleased before the end of the war without subsequent emigration. Five ofthese 18 died in confinement. All the other 96 persons were sent to somekind of concentration camps, as far as is known. (A few may have died inroute.) 47
    • The most fortunate among the concentration camp group were the 15 Jewswho were permitted to stay at Theresienstadt (which was not a concentrationcamp proper). Four of these died (three of them 72-74 years old) and 11survived until liberation. Next comes a group of 20, who were detained in anumber of identified camps in Germany, Austria, France and theNetherlands. 11 of these died, 9 survived. (Some of the 17 "secondaryemigrants" were in fact also survivors from the categories mentioned.) The remaining 61 Jews of the "camp group" were either sent to Auschwitz(33 persons), to camps in Poland (13 persons), or to destinations unknown(15 persons). Only four returned alive, all of them from Auschwitz. Theother 57 perished or disappeared. What really happened to every one of the57 missing persons is, of course, impossible to ascertain. The notoriouscause of death in these Eastern camps was, of course, organized massmurder. There are, however, also noted seven cases of individual murder orexecutions. It is also well known that typhoid fever and other diseases tooka heavy toll among the internees in the Eastern camps -- just as in theWestern ones. (About half of the EstG who died in the Eastern camps were60 years old or older.) According to Elie Wiesel, an enormous number ofevacuated Auschwitz internees died during the 10-day transport in openrailway trucks to Buchenwald in January 1945. In Wiesels truck only adozen out of a hundred are said to have survived the transport. For everyone of the four survivors of the EstG, one would expect several transportvictims. We must also consider after-effects of torture, accidents and suicideas occasional causes of death in any concentration camp. Finally there is thepossibility that some of the 57 missing ended up in Soviet captivity. Exceptfor the 7 cases of individual murder, no precise figure can be given for thevarious other causes of death. Contrary to what would have been expected, it is obvious that only aminor part (fewer than 50) of the EstG Jews who died in Nazi territory (183in all) were subjected to organized mass murder. Ridding Europe from Jewish influence on cultural life was one of thedeclared aims of the anti-Semitic policy of the Third Reich. It appears thatprimary and secondary emigration -- totalling 334 EstG Jews -- was a muchmore effective means of attaining this end than was the killing of prominentJews. However, none of these means was entirely effectual in eliminatingthe Jewish Establishment on the Continent. When the Third Reich perished,no less than 205 Jews of the EstG (28% of the original number) were stillalive in the 12 countries that had been targets of anti-Semitic persecutionson a scale that the world had never beheld. Auschwitz and the Eastern camps certainly proved to be much more fatalthan the rest. Therefore it is noteworthy that as many as about 30% of theEstG remainers from Poland and Czechoslovakia were sent to these camps(including unknown destinations), while only about 18% of those fromAustria and Hungary suffered the same fate. And among the EstG fromFrance, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands the proportion was 10-14%, afact that differentiates those countries from Romania, Denmark, Yugoslaviaand Belgium, none of which supplied any EstG internees to the Easterncamps. Another seeming difference applies to professions. A check on theprofessions of the 95 persons who died as victims of Nazi activity (Table 5)reveals a higher number of rabbis among them (15) than would have beenexpected from the fact that only about 10% of the EstG Jews are rabbis. Thereason may be that the rabbis in most cases remained with their community 48
    • and therefore are seldom to be found among the large, victim-free group ofemigrants. Apart from the differences mentioned above, the German authorities seemto have paid little attention to the standing (in the world of letters, etc.) ofthe specific Jewish individual. In spite of this, the group of 722 Jews studiedhere cannot be regarded as a random sample of European Jews in general --for several reasons. First, inclusion in the Encyclopaedia Judaica may have been influencedby what happened to these individuals during the war. Secondly, some who wouldnt have qualified for inclusion in 1945 mayhave been able to distinguish themselves enough -- afterwards - becausethey happened to survive. (This applies to the youngest category.) Third, internationally known Jews must have had considerably betteropportunities for emigration than Jews without foreign relations. (The best-known Jews are not among the 722 either, because they emigrated longbefore 1938.) Still, in the countries noted for the highest and the lowestproportion of Jewish emigration, these proportions differ very little betweenEstG Jews and Jews in general. About 70-80% of all EstG Jews in Austriaand Denmark emigrated in 1938-44, and roughly the same percentageapplies to the general emigration in the same period of time. In Hungary andYugoslavia, Jewish emigration reportedly was insignificant, and so wasemigration among the EstG from these countries (about 15%). Fourth, if a well-known Jew left his country (even if secretly) and enteredanother country (even if illegally), his migration certainly was disclosed inpublic, sooner or later -- contrary to what might have happened in themultitude of cases of clandestine and illegal migration in general. Forsimilar reasons, the noted Jews could hardly seek rescue by means ofchanging their identity - a means that was most certainly used by a great butindeterminable number of ordinary Jews. Finally, Jews of the "Establishment" category (and especially politicians,Zionists and rabbis) often protested or took action against the persecutions.(Many such cases are reported in the Encyclopaedia.) Consequently, theymay have been arrested and treated according to such political offences inthe first place. The group of 722 treated above consist mostly of Jewish authors, scholars,artists, scientists, rabbis and politicians -- all with some reputation, at leastin 1970. They probably are typical for an even larger number of Jewsbelonging to these same professions, but somewhat less distinguished in1970. As far as their fates under the Nazi persecutions are concerned, thefollowing general conclusions may be drawn from the present investigation:The members of the group apparently had relatively good 9 opportunities toemigrate or flee in the years 1938-41, and many used them. About one thirdof those who did not emigrate were taken prisoners by the Nazis. Asprisoners they were treated in various ways. It turns out that 13% werereleased, 28% survived imprisonment and 21% died under circumstancesdemonstrably excluding organized mass murder. The remaining 38% (7% ofthe EstG total) probably died from a variety of causes, possibly includinggas chambers and most certainly also typhoid fever, starvation, ill-treatmentand hypothermia. It is obvious that wholesale extermination was not decreed by the Nazileadership as a means to rid occupied Europe of prominent Jews, capable ofinfluencing public opinion. 49
    • TABLE 1:Rescue by emigration among 722 "Establishment Group" Jews from 12 European countries No. of Country No. of emigrants according to year of emigration Jews All -38 -39 -40 -41 -42 -43 -44 -45 France 170 75 1 5 39 23 3 3 1 - Poland 96 42 1 28 8 5 - - - - Germany 93 54 17 22 7 6 - 1 1 - Austria 85 66 50 11 3 2 - - - - Hungary 64 10 6 2 1 1 - - - - Italy 63 21 9 10 - 1 - 1 - - The Netherlands 49 7 3 2 1 1 - - - - Czechoslovakia 42 20 6 14 - - - - - - Romania 29 6 - - 4 2 - - - - Denmark 13 9 - 1 - - - 8 - - Yugoslavia 9 1 - 1 - - - - - - Belgium 9 6 - - 5 1 - - - - All 12 countries 722 317 93 96 68 42 3 13 2 0 Thereof: to USA 30 35 36 26 to Engl. 30 23 12 1 to Pales. 20 20 13 5 to USSR - 16 2 5 TABLE 2:National Socialist treatment of 405 Jews of the "Establishment Group" from 12 European countries No. of non- Murdered, Arrested Country Unmolested emigrants executed (seized) France 95 68 1 26 Poland 54 23 10 21 Germany 39 22 2 15 Austria 19 6 - 13 Hungary 54 38 3 13 Italy 42 38 - 4 The Netherlands 42 24 1 17 Czechoslovakia 22 9 - 13 Romania 23 20 1 2 Denmark 4 3 - 1 Yugoslavia 8 2 - 6 Belgium 3 3 - - All 12 countries. 405 256 18 131 50
    • TABLE 3:National Socialist treatment of 131 arrested Jews of the "Establishment Group" from 12 European countries Taken Western Eastern No. Of Released to Into Camps Camps Country Jews Foreign Custody & & arrested country and Theresi. unknown POW France 26 4 6 5 11 Poland 21 1 2 2 16 Germany 15 6 3 2 4 Austria 13 3 1 5 4 Hungary 13 - 1 3 9 Italy 4 - - - 4 The Netherlands 17 - 1 10 6 Czechoslovakia 13 1 - 5 7 Romania 2 1 - 1 - Denmark 1 - - 1 - Yugoslavia 6 1 4 1 - Belgium - - - - - All 12 countries 131 17 18 35 61 Thereof Died as interned 77 - 5 15 57 Survived 54 17 13 20 4 Note: The heading "Released to Foreign Country" also covers a few POWs who escaped to a foreign country. The heading "Taken Into Custody and POW" covers POW-camp internees, inmates of jails, hospitals and penal institutions, and persons kept as hostages (notably Léon Blum). TABLE 4: Presumed year of death of 95 "Establishment Group" Jews from 12 European countries who died as victims of National Socialist action or imprisonment in the period from January, 1939, to April, 1945. Country All 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 France 17 - 1 - 2 5 8 1 Poland 27 - - 2 11 8 3 3 Germany 8 - - 1 3 2 2 - Austria 5 - - 1 2 - 2 - Hungary 13 - - - - - 10 3 Italy 4 - - - - 2 2 - The Netherlands 11 - - 1 3 4 1 2 Czechoslovakia 8 - - 1 1 - 6 - Romania 1 - - 1 - - - - Denmark 1 - - - - 1 - - Yugoslavia - - - - - - - - Belgium - - - - - - - - All 12 countries 95 0 1 7 22 22 34 9 Note: The "Presumed Year of Death" may not always represent the real year of death but instead the last year when something was known about the person in question. Note: The heading "Western Camps" covers the deaths among the 35 Jews who were sent to Theresienstadt and to concentration camps outside Poland. 51
    • The heading "Eastern Camps" covers the deaths among the 61 Jews whowere sent to Auschwitz, to concentration camps in Poland and todestinations unknownAPPENDIX I Names and relevant facts of the first 25 EstG Jews: Abel, Emil, 1875-1958, Austrian chemist, to England in 1938. Abeles, Otto, 1879-1945, Austrian author and Zionist living in theNetherlands, taken to camp, died after liberation. Abramowitz, Raphael 1880-1963, Latvian-German politician, to France in1939, to U.S.A. in 1940. Adler, Friedrich, 1879-1960, Austrian politician, to U.S.A. in 1939.. Adler, Hugo, 1894-1955, Dutch composer, to U.S.A. about 1938-39. Adler, Jules, 1865-1952, French artist. Adler, Paul, 1878-1946, German author, hiding in Czechoslovakia. Algazi, Leon, 1890-, Romanian composer, living in France. Almagia, Roberto, 1884-1962, Italian geographer, living in the Vatican. Almanzi, Joseph, 1901-1960, Italian author. Alter, Victor, 1890-1941, Polish politician and Jewish leader, to USSR in1939 (executed there). Altman, Moishe, 1891-, Romanian poet, to USSR during or after WW II. Altmann, Alexander, 1906-, Hungarian rabbi, to England in 1938. Arendt, Hannah, 1906-, German philosopher living in France, to U.S.A. in1941. Aronson, Grigori, 1887-1968, Russian author, living in France, to U.S.A.in 1940. Aronson, Naum, 1872-1943, Latvian sculptor, living in France, to U.S.A.in 1940. Artom, Elia, 1887-1965, Italian rabbi, to Palestine in 1939. Ascarelli, Tullio, 1903-1959, Italian jurist, to England in 1938. Aschaffenberg, Gustav, 1866-1944, German criminologist, to U.S.A. in1938. Aschheim, Isidor, 1891-1968, German painter, to Palestine in 1940. Ascoli, Ettore, 1873-1943, Italian lieutenant general, fell as partisan. Ashendorf, Israel, 1909-1956, Polish author, to USSR about193940.Asscher, Abraham, 1880-1955, Dutch Zionist, to Bergen-Belsencamp in 1943.Bab, Julius, 1880-1955, German literary historian, to U.S.A.in 1940Bachi, Armando, 1883-1943, Italian lieutenant general, toAuschwitz in 1943, died there.APPENDIX II List of 33 known Jews who were interned in Auschwitz ConcentrationCamp during part of World War II (name, age and manner of death asgiven in the Encyclopaedia Judaica). Bachi, Armado, 60, "died" Bernstein, Béla, 76, "died" Blum, René, 66, "died" Borchardt, Georg, 72, "died" (Entry: Hermann, G.) Buchler, Alexander, 74, "died" 52
    • Cohen, Ernst Julius, 75, "transported to gas chambers" Cohen, Isaac Kadmi, 52,"died" (actually at Gleiwitz) Duckesz, Eduard, 76, "perished" Edelstein, Jacob, c. 50, "shot" Fleischman, Gisi, 47, "killed on arrival" Fondane, Benjamin, 46, "murdered" Frankl, Victor, born 1905, alive in 1970 Friedemann, Desider, 64, "sent to gas chambers" Heyman, Fritz, 44, "killed" Hirschel, Levie, 49, (no mention of his death) Hirschler, Pal, 37, "died" Hirschler, René, 39, "perished" Hoffmann, Camill, 66, "died" Jakobovits, Tobias, 57, "deported to his death" Katzenelson, Itzhak, 58,"perished" Lambert, Raymond, 49, "gassed upon arrival" Lohner, Fritz, 59, "died" (Entry: Beda, F) Nadel, Arno, 65, "murdered" Pollak, Miksa, 76, "killed" Salomon, Erich, 58, "died in the gas chambers" Spiegel, Isaiah, born 1906, alive in 1970 Stein, Edith, 51, "died in the gas chambers" Steiner, Hannah, 50, "died in the gas chambers" Stricker, Robert, 65, Transported to the gas chambers" Szenes, Erzsi, born 1902, alive in 1970 Taussig, Friedrich, 35, "died after torture" (Entry: Fritta) Varshavsky, Oizer, 46, "sent to Auschw. for extermination" Wygodzki, Stanislaw, born 1907, alive in 1970 (The encyclopedia gives 1942 as the year of death in three cases, 1943 infive cases and 1944 in 21 cases.) Note: This list contains real names wherever possible; EncyclopaediaJudaica has entered three Jews who were interned at Auschwitz under thepen names noted above (after "Entry:"). Reprinted from The Journal of Historical Review, vol 10, no 2, p195-209. 53
    • Literature including websites Aschenauer Rudolf: (ed), Ich, Adolf Eichmann (Leoni [Bavaria]: Druffel,1980). Bauer, Yehuda: My Brother’s Keeper. A History of the American JointDistribution Committee 1929-1939, The Jewish Publication Society ofAmerica, Philadelphia, 1974 Benz, Wolfgang: Dimension des Völkermords, Oldenbourg, München1991. Brenner, Leni: Zionism in the Age of Dictators, available athttp://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ Butz, Arthur: The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Brighton, HistoricalReview Press 1976; Institute for Historical Review (IHR) 1997. The Black Book: The Nazi Crime Against the Jewish People, NewYork 1946. Cohen, Naomi W: Jacob H. Schiff, A Study in American JewishLeadership, Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, University Press ofNew England, 1999 Dawidowicz, Lucy: A Holocaust Reader, London 1976. The Holocaust and The Historians, London 1981. The War Against the Jews 1933-1945, London 1975. Engelman, Morris: Fifteen Years of Effort on Behalf of World Jewry,Ference Press, New York, 1929. Englund, Peter: "Förintelsens bevis" ("The Proofs of the Holocaust") inModerna Tider, June/July 1992 Glynn, Martin H: "The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!", The AmericanHebrew, Oct 31, 1919, also see Appendix 2. Gutachen des Instituts für Zeitgeschichte, Munich 1958 Heddesheimer, Don: The First Holocaust; Jewish Fund RaisingCampaigns With Holocaust Claims During And After World War One,Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL 60625, October 2003. This workcan also be downloaded at http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/tfh/. Hilberg, Raul: The Destruction of the European Jews Chicago 1961 &New York 1985. "Holocaust" at CD-ROM-encyclopaedia Encarta – 94, Microsoft. Holocaust History Project: http://www.holocaust-history.org/ includingsome sub links: http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/ http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/hoess-memoirs/index.shtml http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book concerning the Black Book Igounet, Valerie: "Entretien avec Jean-Claude Pressac réalisé par ValérieIgounet (Interview with Jean-Claude Pressac, Conducted by ValerieIgounet)", in: Histoire du négationnisme en France, Editions du Seuil, Paris2000. Ivers, Gregg: To Build A Wall. The American Jews and the Separation ofChurch and State, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville 1995 Levin, Nora: The Holocaust, New York 1968. Mann, Thomas: Sieben Manifeste zur jüdischen Frage, Darmstadt: Jos.Melzer Verlag, 1966 Marrus, Michael: The Holocaust in History, 1993 54
    • Mayer, Arno J: Why did the heavens not darken? The Final Solution inHistory Princeton 1988. New York Times: For some of the articles quoted, se the AppendicesChapter in this paper. Nordling, Carl O: "The Jewish Establishment under Nazi-Threat andDomination 1938-1945" The Journal of Historical Review, vol 10, no 2.Also see Appendix 6 in this paper. Palmer, R R and Colton, J: Nya tidens världshistoria (Original title: AHistory of The Modern World), vol II, Norstedts, Stockholm 1990 Poliakov, Léon: Bréviare de la Haine, Paris 1951 & Bruxelles 1985 Pressac, Jean Claude: Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the GasChambers New York 1989. Les crématoires d´Auschwitz La Machinerie du meurtre de masse Paris1993. Reitlinger, Gerald: The Final Solution: The Attempt to Exterminate theJews of Europe, 1939-1945 New York 1961 & London 1971. Rudolf, Germar: Holocaust Victims: "A Statistical Analysis", inDissecting the Holocaust, Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw(Alabama), July 2000 Critique of Claims Made by Robert Jan Van Pelt, http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html Sanning, Walter: The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, Institutefor Historical Review, 3rd printing November 1990. Schachner, Nathan: The Price of Liberty. A History of The AmericanJewish Committee, The American Jewish Committee, New York, 1948 Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International MilitaryTribunal ("IMT" Nürnberg 1947-1949. Weber, Mark: Wilhelm Höttl and the Elusive `Six Million athttp://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n5p25_Weber.html Wiesel, Elie: "Does the Holocaust Lie Beyond the Reach of Art?" NewYork Times, April, 17th, 1983 Wikipedia; The Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cyanide about hydrogen cyanide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B about Zyklon B 55