Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Dissecting the Holocaust’ Category

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

What you do not know has always been, and will always be, used against you. If you do not wish to be manipulated, you have to study, seriously and independently, the various subjects which the world’s greatest manipulators have either hidden or strategically forbidden. The deeper they’ve been buried and the darker their depth, the greater the source (and force) of the light you will have unearthed. Whatever perils the winding course of unpopular truth may bring, these are preferable, by far, to any safe and/or comfortable alternatives if they serve the elevated cause of enlightenment, empowerment and liberation. Whatever you have to bear, so be it. The value of all action toward such ends must never be underestimated. To dare is to know. To know is to prevail.

Support Castle Hill Publishers/VHO. Support all revisionist links and free, critical thinkers championed by Ironlight. Nothing here is superfluous. Reassess what you think you know and all you’ve inherited in this dark age. Whatever is faulty will inevitably be destroyed in the process, and whatever is factual will only be strengthened again and again. -W.

Visit: Castle Hill Publishers/VHO

Read Full Post »

David Irving and the “Aktion Reinhardt Camps”
by Jürgen Graf
Source: Inconvenient History

A brilliant author and historian

English historian David Irving has several admirable qualities:

  1. He is a tireless researcher who has spent thousands of hours
    in the archives.
  2. He is an excellent historian of the Second World War. Some
    of his books, such as Hitler’s War and Churchill’s War, will
    be read as long as there will be people who are interested in
    this dark and dramatic period of history.
  3. He is a master of the English language, both as a writer
    and as an orator.

In the sixties and the early seventies, Irving’s brilliance was
widely recognized. While many establishment historians disliked
the young maverick, few of them denied his talent. He was so good
that the media begrudgingly forgave him for what was perceived as
covert sympathies for Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. Even in
Germany, he was repeatedly invited to television discussions where
he impressed the public with his historical knowledge and his fluency
in the German language.

With regard to the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question,” Irving
accepted the official version as a matter of course; he never wrote
a book or even an article about the subject.

“Hitler’s War”

During his work on Hitler’s War, David Irving studied a significant
number of German war-time documents. With growing amazement he realized
that none of these countless documents proved that Hitler had ordered
the extermination of the Jews. More amazing was the fact that
the documents contained no evidence that Hitler was even aware of
a plan to exterminate Europe’s Jews.

At that time, Irving must have been aware that there were researchers
who disputed the official version of the Jews’ fate during World
War Two. Arthur Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth Century had come
out in 1976, a year before Hitler’s War. It seems unlikely that
Irving was not aware of this book and its thesis. At
any rate, Irving failed to draw the only logical conclusion from
the total lack of documentary evidence for the “Holocaust,” and
concluded instead that the extermination of the Jews had been ordered
and organized by the Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler without Hitler’s
knowing. In Hitler’s War, Irving wrote:

“By 1942, the massacre machinery was gathering momentum – of
such refinement and devilish ingenuity that from Himmler down to
the ex-lawyers who ran the extermination camps perhaps only seventy
men were aware of the truth.“1

To this wildly implausible thesis, Robert Faurisson raised the
following objection:

“Borrowing a comparison from David Irving, I can certainly believe
that Menachem Begin could have been unaware of the massacre of the
Sabra and Shatila camps in Lebanon at the time it was taking place.
Over a period of several hours, several hundred civilians were massacred.
I do not know when Begin learned of the massacre, but I do know
that, like everybody else in the world, he learned about it very
quickly. If, however, instead of several hundred men, women and
children being massacred in a few hours, we are considering the
massacre of millions of men, women and children over a period of
three or four years in the very heart of Europe, by which miracle
could that heinous crime have been hidden from Hitler, Stalin, Churchill
and Roosevelt, as well as Germany and all of Europe, except for
perhaps only seventy men!”2

Today, in 2009, this argument is as sound as it was in 1983!

The Leuchter Report

In April 1988, during the second Zündel trial in Toronto, David
Irving learned that an American execution technologist, Fred Leuchter,
who had been contacted by Ernst Zündel’s advisor Robert Faurisson,
had flown to Poland with a small group of helpers in order to examine
the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz I, Auschwitz-Birkenau
and Majdanek. Upon his return, Leuchter had written a report in
which he concluded that these rooms could not have been used as
gas chambers for technical reasons. More importantly, Leuchter and
his team had taken samples from the walls inside the alleged gas
chambers of Auschwitz I and Birkenau where, according to official
historiography, huge numbers of Jews had been killed with Hydrogen
Cyanide gas (Zyklon B). The samples were subsequently analyzed in
an American laboratory. The tests revealed either no detection of
traces of cyanide or extremely low levels, while a control sample
taken from Delousing Facility No. 1 at Birkenau contained an exceedingly
high percentage of cyanide.3

The Leuchter report confirmed what David Irving must have suspected:
The Auschwitz gas chamber story was a hoax. Irving now believed
that the Holocaust story would collapse in the near future, and
he decided to jump on the revisionist bandwagon. He, David Irving,
whose genius the narrow-minded court historians stubbornly refused
to acknowledge, would put them all to shame; he would be the first
prominent historian to pillory the Auschwitz fraud. Towards the
end of the Zündel trial, Irving appeared as a witness for the defense.
He endorsed the Leuchter report, which he called a “shattering document.”
In 1988 and 1989, he made several speeches disputing the existence
of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz: one of these speeches, which
he delivered on Austrian soil in 1989, would lead to his arrest
and incarceration in Austria sixteen years later.

Irving’s hope that the Leuchter report would lead to the immediate
collapse of the Auschwitz gas chamber story did not materialize.
Irving was viciously smeared by the media; his books disappeared
from the bookshops; he sustained huge financial losses and ultimately
was branded a “Holocaust denier.”

David Irving v. Deborah Lipstadt

After a particularly obnoxious representative of the Holocaust
lobby, Deborah Lipstadt, had reviled Irving in her book Denying
the Holocaust
4, he sued her for libel. The
trial took place in London in early 2000. Although it was unlikely
that Irving would win this case, he could have scored a tremendous
moral victory by making mincemeat of Lipstadt and her experts. It
goes without saying that this would have required serious preparation,
but Irving, who was insufficiently acquainted with the “Holocaust”
subject, did not deem it necessary to study the revisionist literature
before the trial. I vividly remember my dismay when I read in the
Swiss Jewish newspaper Jüdische Rundschau Maccabi that Irving had
“admitted the existence of the gas vans”. It was quite true: confronted
with the so-called “Just document”5 which
Lipstadt’s team had presented as documentary proof for the mass
murder of Jews in gas vans, Irving had declared it to be authentic,
although it is a crude forgery teeming with linguistic and technical
absurdities. This fake had been analyzed in detail by two revisionist
researchers, the German Ingrid Weckert6 and
the Frenchman Pierre Marais.7 Since Irving
can read both German and French with the greatest ease, he had no
excuse for not being familiar with these exceedingly important studies.


British historian, David Irving

David Irving, December 13, 2008. Photo by Acacio Luis Friera published with permission.

His limited knowledge of the subject forced Irving to make several
spectacular, but totally unnecessary concessions to his adversaries.
In his verdict, the judge Charles Gray correctly stated:

“In the course of the trial Irving modified his position: He
was prepared to concede that gassings of human beings had taken
place at Auschwitz, but on a limited scale.”8

To Irving’s credit, it should be pointed out that he made very
efficient use of Faurisson’s “No holes, no Holocaust” argument.
According to the “eyewitness evidence” on which the official version
of the events is based, Leichenkeller (morgue) 1 of Krematorium
II at Auschwitz-Birkenau was used as a homicidal gas chamber where,
according to Lipstadt’s expert Robert Jan van Pelt, about 500,000
Jews were murdered in 1943/1944. During the trial, Irving demonstrated
that the openings in the roof of Leichenkeller 1, through which
the SS allegedly dropped pellets of Zyklon B, did not exist, which
means that the alleged crime could not possibly have been perpetrated.
In this point, Irving scored a major triumph. Even the judge Charles
Grey, who was quite hostile to Irving, honestly admitted in his
verdict:

“I have to confess that, in common I suspect with most other
people, I had supposed that the evidence of mass extermination of
Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compelling. I have, however,
set aside this preconception when assessing the evidence adduced
by the parties in this proceeding.”9

In jail in Austria

In November 2005, David Irving imprudently visited the once free
Austria where he was promptly arrested for a “Holocaust-denying”
speech he had made in 1989. At his trial, Irving said certain things
for which we have no right to blame him: He wanted to be a free
man again as soon as possible and to be reunited with his family.
In his situation, many people would have done the same thing. For
his cooperative attitude, the Austrian kangaroo court sentenced
Irving to three years imprisonment. In December 2006, after
serving one third of his prison term, he was released and allowed
to return to England.

David Irving’s trip to Poland

In March 2007, I [received] an e-mail from Irving who informed
me that he was in Poland, where he was visiting the “Aktion Reinhardt
camps.” According to German wartime documents the purpose of “Aktion
Reinhardt” was the confiscation of Jewish property. Without a shred
of documentary or material evidence, the orthodox historians claim
that the real purpose of this action was the physical liquidation
of the Jews of Eastern Poland and that between 1.5 and 2 million
Jews were killed with carbon monoxide from diesel engines in three
camps: Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka. Traditional history has it
that these camps were pure extermination centers where all Jews,
regardless of age and health, were gassed upon arrival without registration:
only a handful of strong young Jews were temporarily spared because
they were needed to keep the camps running.

In his e-mail (which I unfortunately deleted) Irving must have
asked me a question about Belzec because I distinctly remember that
in my reply I asked him if he had read Carlo Mattogno’s book Belzec
in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research, and History
.10
He answered that he would read it later.

In addition to Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, Irving also visited
Auschwitz and Majdanek. Apparently he did not visit the sixth alleged
“extermination camp,” Chelmno (Kulmhof). On his website11,
he published an account of his trip to Poland which struck me by
its superficiality and its vagueness. It was impossible to deduce
from this account whether Irving believed that homicidal gassings
had taken place at Auschwitz and Majdanek. As far as the three “Aktion
Reinhardt” camps were concerned, he seemed to endorse the “extermination
camp” version; on the other hand, he spoke of the “alleged gas chambers”
of these camps. In other words: He avoided making clear and unequivocal
statements.

My questions to David Irving and his reply

In March 2009, I learned that David Irving had given advice to
a fellow “Holocaust denier,” Bishop Richard Williamson, and I received
a message from an irate French lady who castigated Irving’s statements
about Treblinka. On 2 April, I sent Irving a message, asking him
the following four questions:

  • Did he believe that a mass murder of Jews had taken place at
    Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec?
  • If he believed that such a mass murder had indeed been committed,
    what was his evidence?
  • In this case, how was the massacre carried out?
  • Had he, David Irving, read Carlo Mattogno’s book about Belzec
    and the book Treblinka: Extermination camp or transit camp?12,
    written by Carlo Mattogno and me?

On the very same day, I received the following reply from David
Irving:

“1. Ich bin der Auffassung, dass in besagten drei Lagern Massenvernichtungen
stattgefunden haben (“durch Gas” lässt sich nicht beweisen, ist
ja sehr umstritten).

2. Beweismaterial:

– Bekannter Briefwechsel Wolff/Ganzenmüller betr. Malkinia/Treblinka.
– Himmlers Anordnung, in Treblinka nichts auffindbar
zurückzulassen, anschliessend einen Bauernhof darüber entstehen
zu lassen […].
– Persönliche Befragung zweier Zeugen…
betr. Belzec, falls Echtheit nachweisbar.
– Höfle-Decode vom Januar 1943 und in Zusammenhang damit der Korherr-Bericht.
3. Für das Jahr 1942: Das Höfle-Dokument spricht von 1’274’166.
Für 1942 und 1943 haben wir aus Himmler-Akten die Beuteziffer Reinhardt
– Schmuck, Uhren, Münzen. Daraus lässt sich ungefähr eine Ziffer
für das Ergebnis für 1943 zusammenreimen bzw. hochrechnen, und zwar
mehr als 1 Million – Himmler spricht dem Mufti gegenüber von „3
Millionen“.

[1. In my opinion, a mass extermination took place in the aforementioned
three camps (it cannot be proved that it was carried out by means
of gas; as you know, this is highly controversial).
2. Evidence:
– The well-known correspondence between Wolff and Ganzenmüller concerning
Malkinia/Treblinka.
– Himmler’s order not to leave any traces at Treblinka
and later to build a farmhouse there.
– Personal interrogation of two witnesses… about Belzec,
if the authenticity [of their statements] can be proved.
– The decoded Höfle radio message from January 1943 and in
this connection the Korherr report.

3. For 1942: The Höfle document mentions a figure of 1,274,166.
For 1942 and 1943, Himmler’s documents reveal the extent of the
Reinhardt loot – jewels, watches, coins. Based on this information,
it is possible to guess or to calculate an approximate figure for
1943, to wit more than one million. To the Mufti Himmler speaks
of “three million”.]

The case of the missing answer to the fourth question

While David Irving gave clear answers to my first three questions,
he did not care to answer the forth one: Had he read Treblinka –
Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?
, written by Carlo Mattogno and
me, and Mattogno’s book about Belzec? At the time of Irving’s journey
to Poland, both books had been online for more than three years,
and the British historian, who is highly computer-literate, could
easily have convinced himself of their value. The bibliography of
Treblinka contains over 200 titles, about two dozen of them in Polish.
As many of these Polish sources are of vital importance, one merit
of our book is to make them accessible to researchers who, like
Irving, do not understand the Polish tongue. Furthermore, Treblinka
contains numerous references to documents from Russian archives
which were never before published in any Western language.

While Belzec is much shorter than Treblinka, its bibliography
still comprises 80 titles, 18 of them in the Polish language. The
most important chapter is the third one, where Mattogno analyses
the results of the forensic drillings and excavations which were
performed on the territory of the former camp in the late 1990s.

If David Irving did not consider it necessary to read these two
books, this shows he is not in the least interested in what really
happened at Treblinka and Belzec. Of course, it is quite possible
that he has indeed read them, but is reluctant to admit this, because
otherwise he would be forced to respond to the revisionist arguments,
especially the technical ones.

David Irving’s evidence for the mass murder of Jews at the three
Reinhardt camps

In his answer to my questions, David Irving mentioned seven reasons
for his belief that the three Reinhardt camps had been extermination
centers. Five of these reasons are based on documents, the remaining
two on hearsay. We will examine the documents first.

– “The well known correspondence between Wolff and Ganzenmüller
concerning Malkinia/Treblinka.”

On July 28, 1942, Albert Ganzenmüller, Secretary of State in
the Reichsverkehrsministerium (Imperial Ministry of Transport),
stated in a letter to SS-Gruppenführer Karl Wolff: “Since July 22,
a train with 5000 Jews makes a daily trip from Warsaw to Treblinka
via Malkinia, in addition to a train with 5000 Jews traveling twice
a week from Pryemysl to Belzec.”13 On August
13, Wolff replied: “I have noted with especial pleasure that a train
with 5000 members of the chosen people has already been running
for 14 days to Treblinka every day, and we are thus in a position
to carry out this movement of population in an accelerated tempo.”14
Neither Ganzenmüller nor Wolff stated that the Jews were being killed
at Treblinka; Wolff spoke of a “movement of population” which clearly
shows that he regarded Treblinka as a transit camp.

– “Himmler’s order not to leave any traces at Treblinka and later
to build a farmhouse there.”

As I do not know this order, I asked David Irving to send me
a copy. On April 9, he answered that he would do so later. Since
I have yet to receive the document, I am unable to comment on it,
however I am absolutely sure that it does not contain any reference
to mass murder, for if this were the case, it would be quoted in
every traditional study of the Holocaust.

– “The decoded Höfle radio message from January 1943 and in this
connection the Korherr report.”

In his well-known 1943 report,15 Richard
Korherr wrote that by the end of 1942 1,274,166 Jews had been moved
through the camps in the General Gouvernement. The Höfle radio message16
confirms Korherr’s figure of 1,274,166 and specifies that 24,733
of the deportees had been sent to L. (Lublin/Majdanek), 434,508
to B. (Belzec), 101,370 to S. (Sobibor) and 713,355 to T. (Treblinka).
Neither of the two documents states that the deportees were killed.

“For 1942 and 1943, Himmler’s documents which reveal the extent
of the Reinhardt loot: Jewels, watches, coins.”

The fact that the Germans robbed Jews of their jewels, watches
and coins does not prove that they murdered them.

Thus none of the documents mentioned by Irving provide proof
that the Reinhardt camps were extermination centers.

The last two “proofs” belong to the category of hearsay. What
the Mufti of Jerusalem claimed to have heard from Himmler, or what
somebody claimed the Mufti had claimed to have heard from Himmler,
has little historical value. Even more preposterous is the reference
to the “personal interrogation of two witnesses about Belzec”. Imagine
the following dialogue:

Hiroshima denier: “I do not believe for a moment that the Americans
really dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima in August 1945. That’s
just silly Japanese atrocity propaganda.”

David Irving: “I think you are wrong. Two years ago, I went to
Hiroshima where I personally interrogated two old Japanese who had
witnessed the bombing as children. If their statements are true,
they prove that the Americans indeed dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima.”

If hundreds of thousands of Jews had been murdered at Belzec,
we could do without “eyewitness evidence.” Irving’s argument reminds
me of “Belzec expert” Michael Tregenza who wrote about the pyres
of Belzec:

“There is much disagreement on the subject of the number of pyres
at Belzec. Witnesses from the village state that up to five pyres
were in use, whereas SS personnel spoke of two pyres during the
judicial proceedings in Munich in 1963/1964. Assuming that a minimum
of 500,000 corpses were burned on two pyres, one has to assume,
for five pyres, a much higher figure – possibly twice as high –
than the 600,000 persons officially assumed so far.”17

So Tregenza “proves” the murder of up to 1,200,000 Jews at Belzec
by means of gossip he has heard from some old people several decades
after the war!

David Irving’s death toll for the Reinhardt camps

In his standard work about the “Holocaust,” Raul Hilberg claims
that 750,000 Jews were murdered at Treblinka, 550,000 at Belzec,
and 200.000 at Sobibor18, which means that
according to Hilberg, the total death toll for the three Reinhardt
camps was 1.5 million. This figure is lower by 900,000 than the
one peddled by David Irving (1.274 million for 1942 plus more than
a million for 1943 = about 2.4 million).

Consider the following:

-Hilberg’s figure of 550,000 Belzec victims is impossible because
according to the Höfle document (which was not yet known in 1985
when Hilberg published the second and “definitive” edition of his
book) 434,508 Jews were deported to Belzec until December 31, 1942.
Since everybody agrees Belzec was closed at the end of 1942, no
deportations to this camp can have occurred in 1943.
– In view of this fact, the total death toll for this camp cannot
possibly have exceeded 434,508, even if every single Jew deported
to Belzec was killed there (as both Hilberg and Irving assume).
– If Irving is right, and if 2.4 million Jews were indeed exterminated
at the three Reinhardt camps, but “only” 434,508 of them at Belzec,
the remaining 1,965,492 victims must have been murdered at Treblinka
and Sobibor. This would mean that Hilberg’s combined figure for
these two camps (750,000 + 200,000 = 950,000) is too low by more
than one million!

The case of the missing murder weapon

In his reply to my questions, David Irving stated that it is
not proven that the (alleged) extermination at the Reinhardt camps
was carried out by means of gas. Since Irving did not mention any
alternative killing method (e.g. shooting), this implies that the
murder weapon is unknown.

We know exactly how the victims died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
They were killed by the explosion of the atomic bombs, or later
succumbed to radioactivity. We know exactly how the victims died
in Dresden: They were burned alive, or suffocated under the debris
of their houses. We know exactly how the victims died at Katyn:
They were shot by Stalin’s henchmen. We know exactly how the victims
died at Eisenhower’s Rhine meadow camps: They were deliberately
starved to death.

According to David Irving, 2.4 million people were murdered at
the three Reinhardt camps – far more than in Hiroshima, Nagasaki,
Dresden, Katyn and the Rhine meadow camps combined. But we do not
know how they were killed!

Let us sum up: David Irving is unable to produce any documentary
evidence for the alleged mass murder at Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka.
He implicitly admits that there is not a single trustworthy witness.
But if there are no documents and no trustworthy witnesses, what
evidence are his claims based upon?

Does he claim that there is forensic evidence, i.e. huge amounts
of human remains found at the site of the three Reinhardt camps?
No, he does not. He does not even mention the Kola report which,
according to the orthodox historians, proves that Belzec was an
extermination camp. (We will discuss this report later.)

The diesel gas chamber story

According the official Holocaust literature, the (alleged) mass
murders at Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec were carried out with diesel
exhaust. But as engineer Friedrich Berg has shown in his carefully
researched article “Diesel Gas Chambers: Ideal for Torture, Absurd
for Murder”19, diesel engines are an extremely
poor murder weapon because they put out very low quantities of CO,
but contain a high percentage of oxygen. Any gasoline engine would
be infinitely more suitable for mass murder than a diesel. Berg’s
arguments were so iron-clad that the Holocaust lobby made no attempt
to refute them. In Debating the Holocaust Thomas Dalton states:

“The [diesel engine] topic is almost completely avoided by every
anti-revisionist writer. […] This is a strong implicit admission
that traditionalism has no reply to Berg and the revisionists. […]
Most recently the bloggers have attempted to address this issue.
After admitting that ‘it is simply not feasible to use diesel engines
for gassings… when one has access to petrol engines’, Romanov20
claims that the diesel issue is ‘irrelevant’ because, in his view,
anyone who claimed that the gassing engine was a diesel was simply
mistaken. He argues that the ‘most knowledgeable’ witnesses mentioned
gasoline, but he can cite only two: Fuchs (for Sobibor only), and
Reder, who said the exhaust gas was sent into the open air!”21

Let me add that the argument of anti-revisionist blogger S. Romanov
(“The diesel issue is irrelevant”) reveals the queer mindset of
this individual: There is neither documentary nor material evidence
for the “Aktion Reinhardt” holocaust, and there are no trustworthy
witnesses either (for what credit can be given to witnesses who
“were simply mistaken” as to the murder weapon?), but nonetheless
the Aktion Reinhardt holocaust is a proven and indisputable fact!
In other words: The pillars on which the edifice once rested are
gone, but the edifice is still standing, or rather hovering in the
air! A major miracle!

David Irving is certainly aware of the absurdity of the diesel
gas chamber story. At the 1983 revisionist conference, which
Irving attended, Friedrich Berg presented a paper which already
contained nearly all the arguments adduced in his 2003 article22.
Irving, who delivered his speech on the same day as Berg, stated:

“I must say that I have been deeply impressed by Mr. Friedrich
Berg’s lecture earlier this afternoon. I have found a great deal
in his lecture which was greatly impressive.”23

So as early as in 1983, Irving knew that the diesel exhaust story
is untenable. That is why he is now compelled to state that it is
unproven that the (alleged) mass murder was carried out by gas,
and that this issue is “highly controversial.”

The evolution of the extermination legend

Almost immediately after the three Reinhardt camps had been put
into operation, Jewish and Polish groups started spreading fantastic
rumors about mass killings in these camps. The knowledge of these
stories is of vital importance for an understanding of how the currently
dominant historical version of these camps came about and what level
of credibility can be ascribed to it.

Let us begin with Belzec. According to the self-styled “eyewitness”
Jan Karski, Jews were exterminated at Belzec by means of quicklime
in trains24. However, most “witnesses” mentioned
killing by electricity. On July 10, 1942, the Polish government
in exile in London received the following report:

“According to information from a German who is employed there,
the place of execution is at Belzec, near the station. […] Once
discharged, the men go into a barrack on the right, the women into
one on the left, to undress, supposedly for taking a bath. Then
the groups go together into a third barrack with an electric plate,
where the execution occurs.”25

In a book published in Stockholm in 1944 and translated into
English a year later, the Hungarian Jew Stefan Szende described
how million of Jews had been killed at Belzec by electricity in
“the underground premises of the execution building”:

“When trainloads of naked Jews arrived they were herded into
a great hall capable of holding several thousand people. This hall
had no windows and its flooring was of metal. Once the Jews were
all inside, the floor of this hall sank like a lift into a great
tank of water which lay below it until the Jews were up to their
waists in water. Then a powerful electric current was sent into
the metal flooring and within a few seconds all the Jews, thousands
at a time, were dead.”26

In its official report on the German crimes in Poland, presented
by the Soviets at the Nuremberg trial, the Polish government wrote
the following about Belzec:

“In the early months of 1942, reports came in that in this camp,
special installations for the mass execution of Jews were being
built. Under the pretext that they were being taken to a bath, they
were undressed completely and pushed into the building. A strong
electric current passed through the floor of this building.”27

The horror stories about Sobibor were quite different. While
the Jewish witness Zelda Metz claimed that at this camp the Jews
were “asphyxiated with chlorine”28, the
Soviet witness Alexander Pechersky depicted the alleged mass murder
in the following way:

“As soon as they all have entered, the doors are closed with
a heavy thump. A heavy black substance comes down in swirls from
openings in the ceiling. One hears frantic screams, but not for
very long because they change to gasping suffocating breaths and
convulsions.”29

The case of Treblinka is even more instructive. While some of
the earlier witnesses indeed mentioned gas chambers, none of them
claimed that the murder weapon was a diesel engine. On August 17,
1942, the Polish underground newspaper Informacja biezaca told of
a mobile gas chamber which moved along the mass graves.30
Three weeks later, on September 8, the same paper described the
alleged gassings as follows: The victims were exposed to a gas with
retarded effect, whereupon they left the gas chambers, walked to
the mass graves, fainted and fell into the graves.31
However, the main killing method depicted by the witnesses was hot
steam. On November 15, 1942, the Resistance Movement of the Warsaw
Ghetto published a long report in which it stated that between late
July and early November, two million Jews had been exterminated
at Treblinka in steam chambers.32

In August 1944, the Red Army conquered the area around Treblinka,
and a Soviet commission questioned former inmates of the camp. What
murder weapon would it opt for – gas or steam? As a matter of fact,
it chose neither, but claimed in its report that three million people
had been killed at Treblinka by pumping the air out of the execution
chambers!33 In September 1944, a professional
atrocity propaganda monger, Wassili Grossman, honored Treblinka
with his visit. In his pamphlet The Hell of Treblinka Grossman confirmed
the figure of three million victims; as he could not know which
of the three killing methods (steam, gas and pumping the air out
of the chambers) would finally prevail, he prudently mentioned all
of them in his booklet.34

At the Nuremberg trial, Germany’s accusers chose the steam version.
On December 14, 1945, the Polish government issued a document which
was presented by the Soviets in Nuremberg and according to which
“several hundreds of thousands” of people had been exterminated
at Treblinka by means of steam.35 By 1946,
the official version had already changed. As it was simply not credible
that the Germans would have used such varied killing methods in
the three Reinhardt camps, the steam chambers, electric killing
installations etc. were relegated to the dustbin of history and
replaced by diesel engines. The reason for this choice was undoubtedly
the Gerstein report. In early 1946, this report – which decades
later was brilliantly analyzed by French revisionist Henri Roques36
– had monopolized the attention of the historians, and Gerstein,
who claimed to have witnessed a gassing of Jews at Belzec, had identified
the murder weapon as a diesel engine.

It would be quite interesting how blogger S. Romanov would react
if presented with the statements of all these eyewitnesses. Most
probably he would argue that the witnesses had actually seen a gasoline
engine, but unfortunately failed to identify it crrectly. The first
witness had identified it as a train wagon the floor of which was
covered with quicklime, the second as an electrified plate in a
barrack, the third as an electrified plate in a huge subterranean
basin, the fourth as a ceiling with openings through which a black
liquid was poured, the fifth as a mobile gas chamber moving along
mass graves, the sixth as a steam-generating boiler, the seventh
as a pump by means of which the air was pumped out of the chambers,
and the eighth as a diesel engine! But these minor differences were
entirely irrelevant, as the Aktion Reinhardt Holocaust was a proven
historical fact!

Is David Irving familiar with these eyewitness reports? If he
has not read the revisionist literature, it is unlikely that he
knows them as they are never mentioned in the official literature.
In his “standard work” about the Reinhardt camps, Yitzhak Arad quotes
an excerpt from the report of the resistance movement of the Warsaw
Ghetto, but shamelessly distorts the text by replacing the embarrassing
“steam chambers” by “gas chambers”!37

The results of the excavations at Treblinka (1945)

It is universally admitted that none of the three Reinhardt camps
had crematoria. According to Holocaust historians, the bodies of
gassed Jews were first buried in mass graves, then in 1943 they
were exhumed and burned in the open air. This fact alone is
sufficient to make the official version highly improbable. All “normal”
concentration camps, such as Dachau and Buchenwald, for which no
mass killings are claimed, had crematoria, so why wouldn’t the German’s
have built crematoria at the “extermination camps” where they would
have been a hundred times more necessary?

Based on several cremation experiments, Carlo Mattogno assumes
that 160 kg of wood are necessary to cremate a human body with a
weight of 45 kg.38 He calculates that the
burning of 870,000 corpses would have left 1,950 tons of human ashes,
plus 11,100 tons of wood ashes. The total volume of ashes would
have amounted to approximately 48,000 cubic meters. Since human
teeth and bones cannot be completely destroyed through open air
cremations, myriads of teeth and bone fragments would have been
scattered at the site of the former camp.

Had the Soviets and the Poles found but 10% of these ashes, teeth
and bone fragments, they would have had a very serious case against
the Germans. They would have summoned an international commission
– just as the Germans had done after discovering the mass graves
at Katyn – and presented the results of the forensic investigations
at the Nuremberg trial.

In November 1945, a Polish team headed by the judge Zdzislaw
Lukaszkiewicz carried out an excavation on the area of the former
camp Treblinka and subsequently wrote a report which was published
thirty years later (!).39 On the first day
of the excavations, the diggers found “a large amount of Polish,
Soviet, German, Austrian and Czech coins, plus fragments of pots
and pans”, but no human remains. On the second day they discovered
“all kind of tableware, different household objects, shreds of garments,
a large amount of more or less seriously damaged Polish documents,
the badly damaged identity card of a German Jew and more coins”.
On the third day, they found “a considerable amount of human ashes
and human remains”. On the fourth days, they discovered “fragments
of all kind of cutlery, a large number of rags, Greek, Slovak and
French coins, plus the remainders of a Soviet passport”. On November
13, Lukaszkiewicz ordered the excavation to be stopped, because
he considered the discovery of further graves “improbable”.

That the Poles found any human remains at all will come as a
surprise to nobody. According to the Höfle document, 713,355 Jews
were sent to Treblinka in 1942, and the deportations continued until
August 1943, albeit at a much slower rate. Under these circumstances,
one cannot but assume that several thousand deportees must have
died at the camp.

The results of the archeological drillings at Belzec (1997-1999)

In 1997, the United States Holocaust Museum and a similar Polish
organization decided to undertake archeological drillings and diggings
within the area of the former camp at Belzec. The work was conducted
by a team of archeologists led by Professor Andrzej Kola who published
the results in 2000.40 In his aforementioned
book about Belzec, Carlo Mattogno performs a very detailed analysis
of the Kola report, which I will presently summarize.

It goes without saying that the only rational method would have
consisted in digging up the whole territory of the former camp,
but this is precisely what Kola and his team did not do. They proceeded
in the following way: Drilling was conducted in the designated area
at 5 m intervals with a manual drill 8 m long and with a diameter
of 65 mm. Altogether 2,277 drillings were sunk, and mass graves
were identified by 236 of them. The earth samples taken in this
way were then analyzed to determine their contents. The research
resulted in the discovery of 33 graves in two separate areas of
the camp. The 32 graves had a total surface of 5,919 square meters
and a total volume of 21,310 cubic meters.

Although Kola and his team discovered not only human ashes and
bone fragments, but also a certain number of unburned corpses, they
inexplicably failed to excavate them. Their book contains photographic
documentation of objects found in the area of the camp. The photographs
show the most insignificant junk: horseshoes, keys and padlocks,
pots and scissors, combs, coins and bottles, but not a single photograph
shows a corpse or part of a corpse!

On the basis of experimental data, the maximum capacity of a
mass grave can be set at 8 corpses per cubic meter (m3), assuming
that one third of them are children. Theoretically, the surface
area of the Belzec graves would thus have been sufficient to inter
170,000 corpses. If this had been the case, the revisionists would
be forced to admit that Belzec had indeed been an extermination
camp, for 170,000 people could not possibly have died from “natural
causes” in a camp which existed only for nine and a half months.
On the other hand, Belzec could not have been a total extermination
camp: According to the Höfle document, 434,000 people were deported
there, and if 170,000 of them had been killed there, the other 264,000
would have left the camp alive.

As a matter of fact, the capacity figure of 170,000 corpses is
based on two entirely unrealistic assumptions: A maximized surface/volume
of the graves and a maximum density of corpses in them. As to the
first point, Kola remarked:

“In the first zone, as we can suppose, the connecting of smaller
neighbouring graves into bigger ones by the destruction of the
earthen walls separating them was observed. […] Additional disturbances
in archeological structures were made by intensive dig-ups directly
after the war while local people were searching for jewelry. This
fact makes it difficult for the archeologists to define precisely
the ranges of burial pits.”41

Already in 1946, the prosecutor of the town of Zamosc had stated
that the camp site had been “completely dug up by the local population
in their search for valuables”.42

As to the second point, of the 236 samples taken in connection
with the graves, 99 contained no human remains at all, while more
than half of the remaining 137 show a very thin layer of human ashes.
Carlo Mattogno concludes:

“Although it is impossible to establish the number of the deaths,
it is nonetheless possible to infer, from what has been discussed
above, an order of magnitude of several thousands, perhaps even
some tens of thousands.”43

Personally, I consider the latter figure (“some tens of thousands”)
extremely unlikely, although I cannot exclude it with absolute certainty.
Probably several thousand Jews died at Belzec.

Sobibor or the scientific report that never was

About the third Reinhardt camp, Sobibor, a young and talented
revisionist, Thomas Kues, furnishes the following information:

“In an article published in The Scotsman on November 26, 2001,
we read that Polish archaeologist A. Kola and his team had discovered
seven mass graves at the Sobibor site. […] Despite seven years having
passed since the drills and diggings were reportedly made, not a
single article, paper or scientific report has appeared on them,
neither in English, Polish, nor in any other language.”44

Why was “not a single article, paper or scientific report” published
about the result of the drillings and diggings, “neither in English,
Polish, or any other language”? The answer to this question is all
too obvious!

Two important documents Irving deliberately ignores

In light of the above-mentioned facts, the Reinhardt camps cannot
possibly have been extermination centers. They cannot have been
labor camps either because they were much too small to accommodate
the enormous number of people deported to them. This leaves but
one possibility: Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor were transit camps.
This conclusion squares with the numerous German wartime documents
which speak of the “evacuation” or “expulsion” of the Jews to the
east. It also squares with two important documents about Belzec
and Sobibor which David Irving deliberately ignores because they
contradict his thesis.

On March 17, 1942, Fritz Reuter, an employee in the Department
of Population and Welfare in the Office of the Governor General
for the District of Lublin, made a note in which he referred to
a talk on the previous day with the SS Hauptsturmführer H. Höfle,
the delegate for Jewish resettlement in the Lublin district. Reuter
wrote:

“It would be expedient to divide the transports of Jews arriving
in the Lublin district at the station of origin into employable
and unemployable Jews. […] All unemployable Jews are to come to
Bezec [sic], the outermost border station in the Zamosz district.
Hauptsturmführer Höfle is thinking of building a large camp in which
the employable Jews can be registered in a file system according
to their occupations and requisitioned from there. […] In conclusion
he [Höfle] stated that he could accept 4-5 transports of 1.000 Jews
to the terminal station Bezec daily. These Jews would cross the
border and never return to the General Gouvernement.”45

There can be no doubt whatsoever about the meaning of this document:
Jews unable to work would be expelled from the General Gouvernement
and deported to the occupied eastern territories. The sentence that
Belzec was “the outermost border station in the Zamosz district”
makes sense only in connection with an expulsion beyond the border.
Like Sobibor, Belzec was situated in the extreme east of the General
Gouvernement, close to the Ukrainian frontier.

David Irving could claim that Reuter had used a code language
and that “cross the border and never return to the General Gouvernement”
was a code expression for “will be killed at Belzec”, but there
is no objective evidence to support such a position.

On 15 July, 1943, Heinrich Himmler ordered:

“The transit camp Sobibor is to be converted into a concentration
camp.”46

So Sobibor was officially called a transit camp (Durchgangslager).

The three Reinhardt camps were transit camps

On July 31, 1942, the Reichskommissar of Bielorussia, Wilhelm
Kube, sent a telegram to the Reichskommissar for the occupied Eastern
territories, Henrich Lohse, in which he protested against the deportation
of 1000 Warsaw Jews to Minsk.47 As the deportation
of Jews from the Warsaw ghetto had commenced eight days before,
and as everybody agrees that at that time all Warsaw Jews were deported
to Treblinka, the 1000 Jews mentioned by Kube must by necessity
have been deported to Minsk via Treblinka. On August 17, 1942, the
illegal Polish newspaper Informacja Biezaca reported that 2000 skilled
Jewish workers had been deported from Warsaw to Smolensk on August
1.48 On September 7, 1942, the same paper
informed that two transports with 4000 Warsaw Jews had been sent
for labor at installations important for the war effort in Brzesc
and Malachowicze.49

I am aware that these figures represent but a small part of the
Jews transported to Treblinka and that the anti-revisionists will
claim that these cases were “exceptions”. But every single Jew who
left Treblinka, or one of the two other Reinhardt camps, alive deals
a blow to the official version according to which they were “pure
extermination centers” where all Jews, regardless of age and health,
were gassed on arrival. If the anti-revisionists call the aforementioned
cases “exceptions”, we are entitled to ask them how many other such
“exceptions” there may have been.

A certain number of Jews were sent from the Reinhardt camps to
Majdanek and to Auschwitz. A Polish historian who can hardly be
suspected of revisionist sympathies, Zofia Leszczynska, reports
that in October of 1942, 1,700 Jews left Belzec for Majdanek.50
This fact is amply sufficient to shatter the official version according
to which less than ten Jews survived Belzec.

In an article about “Jews at Majdanek” the Jewish historians
Adam Rutkowski and Tatiana Berenstein state:

“Some of the transports from Warsaw reached Lublin by way of
Treblinka, where the selection of the deportees took place.”51

For the official historiography, this fact is simply lethal!
On 30 April 1942, a transport with 305 Jews arrived at Majdanek
from Treblinka. One of these Jews, Samuel Zylbersztain, later wrote
a report about his plight.52 After the “extermination
camp” Treblinka and the “extermination camp” Majdanek, Zylbersztain
had survived eight “normal concentration camps”. He is thus a living
proof that the Germans did not exterminate their Jewish prisoners.

The author of the most detailed book about Sobibor,53
the Dutch Jew Julius Schelvis, was himself an inmate of this camp.
He naturally presents Sobibor as a death factory, but his description
is solely based on what he has heard from others or read in books,
for he only spent a few hours at the camp. From Sobibor, he was
deported to Lublin and later to Auschwitz whence he finally returned
to the Netherlands. Schelvis was not an isolated case: At least
700 other Dutch Jews were moved from Sobibor to labor camps, and
some of them returned home via Auschwitz – another “extermination
camp” where the Germans apparently forgot to “gas” them.54

The case of Minna Grossova is particularly significant: born
in September 1874, she was deported to Treblinka on October 19,
1942. Although Treblinka was allegedly a “pure extermination camp”
where even able-bodied Jews were gassed on arrival, Mrs. Grossova
was not gassed, but transferred to Auschwitz – where, according
to Holocaust lore, all Jews who were unable to work were immediately
sent to the “gas chambers” without previous registration. Again,
Mrs. Grossova was not gassed, but duly registered. She died on December
30, 1943.55 From the point of view of the
orthodox Holocaust story, the fate of this woman is absolutely inexplicable.

The fact that relatively few transports of Jews from the Reinhardt
camps to other destinations are documented can be explained quite
easily. As early as in 1945, the victors of the Second World War
decided to perpetuate the Jewish extermination legend, and we may
safely assume that countless documents contradicting the official
truth were either hidden or destroyed. Some people might accuse
me of resorting to the same trick as the orthodox historians who
claim that there is no documentary evidence for homicidal gas chambers
because “the Germans destroyed the documents”, but such an accusation
would be groundless, since my position is much more solid. If there
were but one document proving the gassing of Jews, I would readily
admit that there might have been others, but although 64 years have
elapsed since the end of the war, no such document has emerged.
On the other hand, we have seen that there are documents proving
that Jews were sent from the Reinhardt camps to other destinations
– and for each such document there may have been a hundred others.

Once a “Holocaust denier”, always a “Holocaust denier”!

David Irving is an extremely intelligent man, but unfortunately
he is totally amoral. For him, truth is negotiable. He is prepared
to say anything if he thinks it might enhance his career.

Irving is longing for the good old times when he was invited
to television discussions, when his books were favorably reviewed
and sold well. He wants these good old times to return. On the other
hand, he knows that he will be treated as an outcast as long as
he is labeled a “Holocaust denier”, so he wants to get rid of this
label at any cost.

At the heart of his problem is Auschwitz. He has never contested
any of the other aspects of the Holocaust story. He has always maintained
that the Germans shot a huge number of Jews on the Eastern front
(in the eighth chapter of Treblinka – Extermination Camp or Transit
camp?
he could find compelling evidence that the reports of
the Einsatzgruppen, which allegedly prove such a gargantuan slaughter
are highly suspect because they are contradicted by other German
documents and not corroborated by forensic evidence). He has never
disputed the alleged mass murders at the Reinhardt camps, or Majdanek.
He has explicitly admitted the existence of the “gas vans” allegedly
used at Chelmno and in the occupied Soviet territories. But he has
so often and so vociferously defended the revisionist position on
Auschwitz that his pride forbids him to back down in this one question;
he is at best willing to concede the possibility that some gassings
took place at Auschwitz on a limited scale.

According to Raul Hilberg, one million Jews perished at Auschwitz.[56]
As it is unlikely that the number of Jews who died at Auschwitz
from so-called “natural causes” (disease, exhaustion etc.) could
have exceeded 100,000, this implies that about 900,000 Jews must
have died in the “gas chambers” of that camp). So what does David
Irving do? He claims that 2.4 million Jews, rather than Hilberg’s
1.5 million, were murdered at the three Reinhardt camps Belzec,
Sobibor and Treblinka, thus replacing the roughly 900,000 “Auschwitz
gas chamber victims.”

By questioning the Auschwitz story, Irving has, from the Jewish
point of view, committed the worst of all sacrileges, because Auschwitz
is the heart of the Holocaust story, although, according to Hilberg,
it accounts for less than one fifth of the Holocaust victims. The
Holocaust lobby will never forgive David Irving this sacrilege.
Even if he suddenly claimed that the Germans gassed one million
Jews at Majdanek, plus two million at Chelmno, plus three million
at Sobibor, plus five million at Belzec, plus ten million at Treblinka,
and that they shot twenty million Jews on the Russian front, this
would be of no avail: he would continue to be branded a “Holocaust
denier”.

A warning to David Irving

I do not know when David Irving’s long-announced book about Heinrich
Himmler will be published, but I fear that I already know the gist
of it: Yes, the Holocaust did indeed happen; millions of Jews were
exterminated, but only an insignificant number were gassed at Auschwitz.
Upwards of two million Jews were killed by some unknown means at
Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec; between one and two million were
shot, or murdered in gas vans, on the killing fields of Russia.
For this crime Adolf Hitler bears no responsibility whatsoever.
It was ordered and organized by the Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler,
who somehow managed to hide this gigantic massacre from his Führer.

As Heinrich Himmler has few admirers even among avowed National
Socialists, Irving obviously regards him as the ideal scapegoat.
I warn David Irving that the only effect of such statements will
be to ruin what little credibility he still has. Heinrich Himmler
may be guilty of many things, but nobody, not even David Irving,
has the right to accuse him of ordering and organizing a monstrous
slaughter he cannot possibly have ordered and organized for the
simple reason that it did not take place.

Advice to David Irving

Like other brilliant men before him, David Irving has fallen
hard and fallen far, but who has fallen can rise again. I advise David Irving to remember
the old adage: “Facts are tyrants, they tolerate no dissent.” Let
us hope that David Irving will muster the necessary courage to face
the facts and to draw the inevitable conclusions. There is simply
no other way he can save his honor and restore his credibility.

Notes:
  1. David Irving, Hitler’s War, Wiking Press, New York 1977, p. 393.
  2. Robert Faurisson, “A Challenge to David Irving”, Journal of Historial Review, Volume
    5, 1984.
  3. Fred Leuchter, An Engineering Report on the alleged “Gas Chambers” at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland, Samisdat Publishers, Toronto 1988.
  4. Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, Free Speech Press, New York 1994.
  5. Bundesarchiv Koblenz, R. 58/871.
  6. Ingrid Weckert, “’Massentötungen’oder Desinformation?”, Historische Tatsachen, Nr. 24, Verlag für
    Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1985. Ingrid Weckert,
    „Die Gaswagen“, in: Ernst Gauss (editor), Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte,
    Grabert Verlag, Tübringen 1994.
  7. Pierre Marais, Les
    camions à gaz en question
    , Polémiques, Paris 1994.
  8. England and Wales High Court (Queen’s Bench Division), Decision David Irving v. Penguin
    Books Limited, Deborah E. Lipstadt, 7.11.
  9. Ibidem, 13.71.
  10. Theses and Dissertations Press, Chicago 2004.
  11. http://www.fpp.co.uk/
  12. Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Treblinka
    – Extermination camp or transit camp?
    Thesis and Dissertations Press,
    Chicago 2004.
  13. Raul Hilberg, Sonderzüge nach
    Auschwitz
    , Dumjahn, Munich 1981, p. 177.
  14. Ibidem, p. 181.
  15. NO-5194.
  16. Peter Witte, Stephen Tyas, “A
    New Document on the Deportation and Murder of the Jews during ‘Einsatz
    Reinhardt’ 1942”, in: Holocaust and Genocide Studies, no. 3, Winter
    2001, pp. 469 f.
  17. Michael Treguenza,”Das vergessene
    Lager des Holocaust”, in: I. Wojak, P. Hayes (eds), „Arisierung“
    im Nationalsozialismus, Volksgemeinschaft, Raub und Gedächtnis
    ,
    Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, New York 2000, p. 253.
  18. Raul Hilberg, Die Vernichtung
    der europäischen Juden
    , Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Frankfurt a.
    M. 1997, p. 946.
  19. In: Germar Rudolf (Ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust,
    Theses and Dissertations Press, Chicago 2003.
  20. S. Romanov, “Why the diesel issue is irrelevant”.
    http://www.holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com
  21. Thomas Dalton, Debating the Holocaust, Theses and
    Dissertations Press, Chicago 2003, p. 110, 111.
  22. Friedrich Berg, “The Diesel Gas Chambers – Myth
    within the Myth”, Journal of Historical Review, Volume 5, 1984.
  23. David Irving, “On History and Historiography”, Journal
    of Historical Review
    , Volume 5, 1984.
  24. Jan Karski, Story of a Secret State, Houghton Mifflin
    Company, Boston 1944.
  25. Carlo Mattogno, Belzec…, p. 12.
  26. Stefan Szende, The Promise Hitler Kept, V. Gollancz,
    London 1945, pp. 159 f.
  27. URSS-93, pp. 41 f.
  28. N. Blumental (ed.), Dokumenty i materialy, vol.
    I, Lodz 1946, p. 211.
  29. Yuri Suhl, Ed essi si ribellarono. Storia della
    resistenza ebraica contro il nazismo
    , Milan 1969, p. 31.
  30. K. Marczweska, W. Wazniewski, “Treblinka w swietle
    Akt Delegatury Rzadu RP na Kraji”, in: Biuletyn Glownej Komisji
    Badania Zbrodni Hitlerowskich w Polsce
    , volume XIX, Warsaw 1968,
    p. 136 f.
  31. Ibidem, p. 138 f.
  32. Ibidem, p. 139-145.
  33. State Archives of the Russian Federation, Moscow,
    7021-115-9, p. 108.
  34. Wassili Grossman, „Die Hölle von Treblinka“, in:
    Die Vernichtungslager Maidanek und Treblinka, Stern-Verlag, Vienna
    1945, p. 33.
  35. PS-3311.
  36. André Chelain (Ed.), Faut-il fusiller Henri Roques?,
    Polémiques, Paris 1986.
  37. Yitzhak Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. The Aktion
    Reinhard Death Camps
    , Indiana University Press, Bloomington and
    Indianapolis 1987, pp. 334, 335.
  38. Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Treblinka – Extermination
    Camp or Transit Camp?
    , chapter 4.
  39. Stanislaw Wojtczak, “Karny oboz pracy Treblinka
    I i osrodek zaglady Treblinka II”, in: Biuletyn Glowney Komisji
    Badania Zbrodni Hitlerowskich w Polsce,
    Warsaw 1975, volume XXVI,
    pp. 183-185.
  40. A. Kola, Belzec: The Nazi Camp for Jews in the light
    of archeological sources: Excavations 1997-1999
    , The Concil for
    the Protection of Memory and Martyrdom, United States Holocaust
    Museum, Warsaw and Washington 2000.
  41. Ibidem, p. 65 f.
  42. Zentrale Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltungen, Ludwigsburg252/59,
    vol. I, p. 1227.
  43. Carlo Mattogno, Belzec…, p. 91.
  44. http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrtksgwl.html
  45. Jozef Kermisz, Dokumenty i materialy do dziejow
    okupacji niemieckiej w Polsce
    , vol. II: “Akce” i “Wysiedlenia”,
    Warsaw-Lodz-Krakow 1946, p. 32 f.
  46. Reproduction of the document in: Tovi Blatt, Sobibor.
    The forgotten revolt
    , H. E. P., Issaquah 1998, documentation without
    pagination.
  47. State Archives of the Russian Federation, Moscow,
    7445-2-145, p. 80.
  48. Hoover Institute Library and Archives, Stanford,
    “Report on conditions in Poland”, Annex No. 7, Box 29.
  49. K. Marczewsk, W. Wazniewski, „Treblinka w swietle
    akt Delegatury…“, p. 137.
  50. Z. Leszczynska, „Transporty wiezniow do obozu na
    Majdanku“, Zeszyty Majdanka, IV, 1969, p. 184.
  51. Tatiana Berenstein, Adam Rutkowski, „Zydzi w obozie
    koncentracijnym Majdanek (1941-1944)“, Biuletyn Zydowskiego Instytutu
    Historycznego w Polsce
    , no. 58, 1966, p. 16.
  52. Samuel Zylbersztain, „Pamietnik wieznia dziesieciu
    obozow“, Biuletyn Zydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego w Polsce,
    no. 68, Warsaw 1968.
  53. Julius Schelvis, Vernichtungslager Sobibor, Metropol Verlag, Berlin 1998.
  54. Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Treblinka…, pp. 259-288.
  55. Terezinska Pametni Kniha, Terezinska Iniciativa,
    Melantrich 1995, p. 393.
  56. Raul Hilberg, Die Vernichtung der europäischen Juden,
    Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Frankfurt a. M. 1997, p. 946.
  57. Read Full Post »


Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides
Author: Thomas Dalton, Theses & Dissertations Press, 280 pages, 2009.
Reviewed by Martin Gunnels
Source: Inconvenient History

As we all know, Holocaust books tend to be pretty boring. Graphs, charts, numbers, rambling footnotes. When thrown together, page after page, the literature can be exhausting. Whereas most histories are driven by their narratives, by their tales of life, Holocaust scholarship follows a different path. Because reputable Holocaust histories can’t really frame a coherent narrative out of such a mysterious and strangely undocumented event, Holocaust historiography constitutes a unique genre within contemporary history. Of course, Holocaust fans can also get their kicks by reading tales like The Diary of Anne Frank or Elie Wiesel‘s latest blockbuster. But as we all know, these texts aren’t exactly “history”: they tell us very little about what really happened to the Jews in the Reich.

Because orthodox Holocaustiography masquerades as both history and hard science, it has to take itself very seriously. Believing its own myths about unique evil and unprecedented criminality, Holocaust historiography operates in an un-ironic, funereal atmosphere where alternative possibilities simply don’t exist. Yet Holocaust revisionism, on the other hand, does something completely different. It is disputatious, dialogical, and aggressive. Without the traditional Holocaust narrative, it couldn’t exist. Dissent is revisionism’s raison d’etre. It is an exercise in intellectual commensalism; it latches onto the gills of mainstream Holocaust scholarship, where it passes basically unnoticed as its gnarly host devours everything in sight.

The key word here, of course, is unnoticed. If the Holocausters paid attention to their little revisionist fellow traveler, the Holocaust, like all other historical events, would then be open to legitimate historical debate. And that’s the last thing establishment Holocaust historians want. So we’re not fooled when Thomas Dalton swears that he is not a revisionist, that he’s merely a neutral observer trying to objectively present a scholarly debate. As far as the true blue Holocausters are concerned, there is no debate. By simply positing that a dialog exists—and by refusing to subtitle his book with some overblown, sensational reference to “assassinated” or “assaulted” memory—Dalton is throwing in his lot with “the dark side.” He is, alas, one of us.

Nonetheless, Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides is a new kind of revisionism. Because he is careful to appear nonpartisan, Dalton doesn’t make any new discoveries or devise any new theories. What he does, however, is synthesize a wide range of mainstream and revisionist scholarship in an attempt to patch together the most important challenges that revisionism has posed to conventional Holocaust opinion. But because his work is a synthesis, he has to do more than recite the strongest work of Graf, Mattogno, Rudolf, and Faurisson (his favorite revisionists); he must also present the cases of Pressac, van Pelt, and Hilberg (his favorite Holocausters). Fortunately, Dalton knows both sides well, and so his text is especially valuable to non-experts who are interested in a straightforward presentation of how mainstream Holocaustiography measures up to its revisionist response.

Dalton begins by reminding us why the Holocaust is so important to re-vise [that is, to take a second look at]. “Why not let the Jews have their ol’ Holocaust?,” he poses to himself rhetorically. After giving the obligatory reply that we have to dedicate ourselves to historical truth, he quickly proceeds to the good stuff. He describes why we can’t just move on and forget about the Holocaust debate:

“We are not allowed to forget about it, even if we wanted to. Coverage of the Holocaust is standard fare in every school curriculum. Children the world over read The Diary of Anne Frank, Number the Stars, Waiting for Anya, Butterfly. Students learn about the gas chambers and the six million, about the Nazi atrocities. We watch Holocaust miniseries on television, Schindler’s List, and Night and Fog. We celebrate ‘Holocaust Education Week,’ and we acknowledge January 27 each year as the ‘International Day of Commemoration’ of Holocaust victims, as declared by the UN in 2005. School children collect six million pencils, or six million paperclips. We visit Holocaust museums. We take college courses (for full credit) from endowed chairs in Holocaust studies. This is not by accident. It is a deliberate plan, to make sure we ‘never forget.’ And if we can never forget, then we should at least get the story straight.

Dalton gets it. Instead of repeating the orthodox garbage about “never forget” and “never again,” he reminds us that, if we’re going to canonize a historical event in state and popular culture, and if we’re going to let this historical event dominate our foreign policy rhetoric and guide the actions of our empire, we better keep an open mind about what really happened. By reminding us of the ubiquity of the Holocaust in our lives—and in the lives of the other 6 billion people residing under the jurisdiction of the United Nations—Dalton points out that, despite his earlier claims about needing to set the record straight for mere historical truth, the Holocaust really needs to be revised because of the tyranny it imposes upon the world’s publics. Because of the Holocaust campaign, the old protest refrain we hear so often is as true for us as it is for anyone: “We are all Palestinians now.” We have all been thoroughly colonized by the Holocaust, and to decolonize, we must first revise. As Dalton himself points out, by indicting one of the central myths of the postwar liberal order, “Revisionists challenge not only orthodoxy; they challenge the power of the State.

After describing what’s at stake in the debate, Dalton moves onto the basic complaints of the revisionists: the unreliability of the eye-witnesses, the dubiousness of the six million figure, the strange dematerialization of most of the death camps (along with their millions of victims), the impracticality of the murder weapons, the wartime photos’ failure to corroborate the mainstream narrative, the lack of any explicit order from Hitler or the Nazi bureaucracy, and the preponderance of “survivors” who somehow managed to live through the omnipotent, satanic Nazi death machine. After reciting a thorough list of standard revisionist “concessions”—among them the regrettable and atrocious persecution of Europe’s Jews, at least hundreds of thousands of whom died—Dalton debunks several “myths” about revisionism. He trashes the clichés that circulate about revisionists: that they are all neo-Nazis, for example, or that they all believe that the Holocaust was some sort of “hoax,” the unfortunate vocabulary of which evokes images of tinfoil hats and Luftwaffe exoduses to the moon.

Dalton breaks down the six “death” camps, one-by-one, presenting the traditionalist narrative before detailing revisionists’ critiques. What we get are not dry, feeble regurgitations of revisionist research; instead we find well-analyzed summaries of the work conducted by contemporary revisionism’s strongest researchers. Further, Dalton’s information is up-to-date, as he relies much more upon Rudolf, Mattogno, and Graf than he does the groundbreaking work of Arthur Butz. The work’s strongest feature, indeed, is its scope: never before has an author written such an accessible yet comprehensive and critical synthesis of revisionist as well as traditionalist sources.

That’s not to say that the book doesn’t make some pretty weird choices. The cover, to my utter confusion, is adorned with a giant Star of David and an even more giant Swastika, as if those are the two “sides” of the Holocaust debate. Since Dalton spends so much time emphasizing that revisionists are not just Nazis, and that traditionalists aren’t just Zionist Jews, this is a most bizarre, dissonant flaw; and because these images are emblazoned on the book’s front cover, they’re difficult to sweep under the rug. But despite this minor yet conspicuous mistake, I think Debating the Holocaust is an important contribution to the current state of revisionist scholarship, and I can only hope that, in future editions (this successful book is already in its third printing), the book’s menacing, misleading cover will be replaced by something more befitting its reasonable and inoffensive content.

In closing, I want to address why this book is so important and timely. To put it bluntly, we needed a valuable addition to the revisionist literature. With Germar Rudolf out of commission, book-length revisionism has lost its most energetic contributor. It is heartening to see Theses and Dissertations Press alive and well, and we should commend them for continuing to bring us the kind of vital scholarship that keeps historical revisionism dynamic and alive. Along with the recent appearance of Inconvenient History, I’m hopeful that Dalton’s new volume signals a reawakening of serious revisionist work. After all, the book is a very potent effort at setting the record straight about revisionist claims, and it’s done in such a reasonable, straightforward way that you could give the book to your mom without apology. It is the kind of book that resists drowning its reader in statistics, opting instead for a concise, memorable, camp-by-camp analysis of what Dalton calls “the great debate.” In Debating the Holocaust, the revisionist community now has the closest thing yet to an encyclopedic handbook of revisionist arguments. This is the work’s most remarkable achievement, and I hope it will only mark the very beginning of Thomas Dalton’s promising new career in the fight for historical truth.

Read Full Post »

Photobucket
Anne Frank’s Tree of Hope Toppled by Storm
23 August 2010
Source: www.bbc.co.uk

The 150-year-old horse chestnut that brought comfort to Anne Frank as she hid from the Nazis in World War Two has toppled in high winds and heavy rain.

The tree, whose trunk was diseased and rotten, snapped a metre (3ft) above the ground, and crashed into neighbouring gardens in Amsterdam.

It smashed into a brick wall and sheds, but nobody was reported injured.

The Anne Frank House museum, which has a million visitors a year, also escaped unscathed during Monday’s poor weather.

“Someone yelled: ‘It’s falling. The tree is falling,’ and then you heard it go down,” museum spokeswoman Maatje Mostart told the Associated Press. “Luckily no one was hurt.”

“Unpleasantly surprised”

A global campaign to save “the Anne Frank tree” was launched in 2007 after Dutch officials and conservationists declared it a safety hazard and ordered it felled. They feared it could topple and crash into the museum.

But the Support Anne Frank Tree Foundation won a court injunction in November that year, stopping the city authorities from chopping it down. Neighbours and campaigners argued that, as a symbol of freedom, the tree was worth making extraordinary efforts to preserve.

But it was blighted with fungus and moths, and two years ago conservationists encased the trunk in steel girders to prop it up.

The Netherlands’ Trees Institute, a leading supporter of the project to save the tree, said it was “unpleasantly surprised” to hear it had fallen.

“On the advice of experts in tree care, it had been calculated that the tree could live several more decades” the institute said in a statement. “Alas, in the event it seems that nature is stronger.”

The Jewish teenager referred several times to the tree in the [Ironlight: forged] diary that she kept during the 25 months she remained in hiding.

Anne Frank wrote on 23 February 1944: “From my favourite spot on the floor I look up at the blue sky and the bare chestnut tree, on whose branches little raindrops shine, appearing like silver, and at the seagulls and other birds as they glide on the wind.”

She died, aged 15, [Ironlight: of typhus] the following year in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »