Review of the Holocaust, Global Vision.-ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN - Tehran International Conference-
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.
between 1940 and 1945, no fewer than 15,400perished in the first four months of 1945, more thanin the five preceding years. 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.” 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.) 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, 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”. 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, 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”. In their answers to Pressac, Prof.Robert Faurisson and other revisionist scholarscould 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.” 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. 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: “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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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; 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: “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, while otherspreferred to tell of a mysterious heavy blacksubstance coming down in swirls from openings in thedeath chambers’ ceilings. 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. 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 and the Italian Carlo Mattogno, 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, 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.This was the birth of the official version of theAuschwitz myth. 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”!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. 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. 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. 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. Accordingto the witness Nyiszli, who claimed to have worked inCrematorium II for several months, the length of the“gas chamber” was 200 metres. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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 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, 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. 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. 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. 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! 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. 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. This pathological liar isthe favourite witness of Professor Raul Hilberg. In hisstandard work about the “Holocaust”, The Destructionof the European Jews, Hilberg quotes Filip Müllertwenty times as a witness of homicidal gassings atAuschwitz! 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, 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. 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, and CarloMattogno has shown that even this figure is inflatedby at least 200,000. 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! 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. 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. 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). 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.” In fact, this order did result in a very considerableimprovement of conditions in most camps, andmortality decreased by almost 80% within eightmonths. 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: