Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Dissecting the Holocaust’ Category

Photobucket
The Leaders of the Arab States should Quit their Silence on the Imposture of the “Holocaust”
by Robert Faurisson
Source: Archives, Institute for Historical Review

* Written 22 March for presentation March 31, 2001 at the Beirut Conference on Revisionism and Zionism.

Five introductory remarks:

1. I do mean “the leaders”, and not: “the intellectuals, the academics, the journalists”, some of whom have already expressed themselves on the matter;

2. The word “Holocaust” (always to be placed in quotation marks) designates the triple myth of the alleged genocide of the Jews, the alleged Nazi gas chambers and the alleged number of six million Jewish victims of the Second World War. In the course of a history full of fury, blood and fire, humanity has known a hundred holocausts, that is, appalling losses of human life or bloody catastrophes (presented, at the origin of the word’s use in this manner, as a sort of offering demanded by some superior forces); but our contemporaries have been conditioned to keep in mind only one holocaust, that of the Jews; it is written today with a capital letter, and has become unique: there is no longer the need to add “of the Jews”. None of the other previous holocausts has given rise to any financial indemnity, reparation or compensation to match those which the Jews have claimed and obtained for a catastrophe or “Shoah” which they describe as unique and unprecedented, and which would, in effect, be so if its three components (genocide, Nazi gas chambers and six million victims) had been real. If many European Jews had suffered and died during the war in question, without that suffering’s amounting to what today’s Jews mean by the term “Holocaust”, many other peoples and communities, in particular the Germans, the Japanese, the Russians and the Chinese, suffered, in reality, a fate far worse than that of the Jews; let us but think of the phosphorous or nuclear-fueled firestorms in which at least a million Germans and Japanese met an atrocious death (and what of the wounded and mutilated?). It is, moreover, fitting to add that millions of European Jews survived this alleged policy of physical extermination to go on to enjoy, after the war, a power and a prosperity without precedent in their history. To privilege, as is thus done, the alleged “Holocaust” is to inflate Jewish suffering beyond all measure in both quality and quantity and to reduce, in direct proportion, the suffering of all others, none of whose ordeals receives even so much as a specific name;

3. Imposture is an imposed lie; here it is a question of a historical lie, meaning that, forged by liars or fabricators of outlandish tales, it has subsequently been adopted by an ever-expanding number of people who, in good faith or bad, have peddled it; in this event, we are thus dealing with a tiny number of liars and a plethora of peddlers;

4. The opposite of such a lie, fabricated or peddled, is the factual truth. Still, as the word “truth” is vague and overused, I prefer exactitude. Revisionism consists in trying to examine and correct what is generally accepted with a view to establishing with exactitude the nature of an object, the reality of a fact, the worth of a figure, the authenticity, the veracity and the import of a text or document;

5. Zionism is an ideology whilst revisionism is a method. As a revisionist I shall be making a judgment less of Zionism itself (at the dawn of the 21st century) than on the use which it makes of the “Holocaust” imposture.

If the leaders of the Muslim states planned to quit their silence on this imposture and if, in so doing, they put a challenge to the Jewish and Zionist lobby, they would obviously need first a) to make a proper sizing up of the adversary, then b) to decide on an appropriate strategy and, finally, c) to determine the exact area on which to concentrate their [counter]attacks. To discuss these three points, I shall divide my talk into three parts.

In a first part, in order to avoid any mistakes as to the opponents’ identity and to ensure that they are correctly sized up, I shall expound on what are, in my view, the seeming weak points of the Jews and Zionists, then on their true weak points. In a second part, concerning the strategy to adopt, I shall sum up certain conclusions that I reached, in November 2000, during my visit to Tehran, in the company of representatives of the Centre of Strategic Studies of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Finally, in a third part, I shall designate the precise target to strike: “the magic Nazi gas chamber” (as Louis-Ferdinand Céline put it).

I. The Jewish and Zionist adversary

A deceitful adversary may display fears that he does not really feel. He may expose to the view of all certain weak points which, in fact, are not such, and try to hide what it is that causes him real disquiet. In so doing he will be attacked where it does not bother him in the least and be spared an attack that would truly do him harm. Here, the adversary is almost indifferently Jewish or Zionist. The Jews are undeniably diverse (“Two Jews, three synagogues”, says the Yiddish proverb) and, politically speaking, they have never formed a single bloc, not even against Hitler; but, without Jews, there is no Zionism (“Zionism is to the Jew what the hammer is to the carpenter”, as Ahmed Rami has said) and, except for some rare instances, the Jew will feel solidarity with the Zionist and the Zionist with the Jew if both notice that their common “Holocaust” myth is in peril; this is why the distinction that usually deserves to be made between the two hardly belongs here.

a) The adversary’s false fears and seeming weak points:

1. Despite their display of fear of a military attack on the state of Israel, the Zionists who rule that state and the Diaspora Jews who support them do not really dread the enemy’s military strength, for they know that the enemy in question will always be outclassed by the Israeli army, thanks to the technology and economic aid supplied from abroad, especially by the Americans and the Germans;

2. They do not really fear the variety of anti-Judaism improperly called anti-semitism; on the contrary, they feed on it; they need to be able to cry out against anti-semitism, if only to collect more money in the Diaspora; in general, moaning is of vital necessity to them: “The more I sob, the more I get; the more I get, the more I sob”;

3. Jews and Zionists are not really afraid of the Jewish denunciations of “Shoah Business” and the “Holocaust Industry” made by the Peter Novicks, Tim Coles or Norman Finkelsteins, for there it is a matter, paradoxically, of more or less kosher denunciations in which care is taken to show reverence for the “Holocaust” itself; it will be noted, moreover, that if the industrial or commercial exploitation of the real or supposed sufferings of the Jews constitutes a lucrative line of business, criticism of this exploitation has over the last few years become another such line; but, these two lines of business, especially the latter, happen to be strictly reserved to the Jews; they are “off limits“, and a Gentile who ventured to imitate N. Finkelstein in his denunciation of the “Holocaust” mafia would immediately be set upon by a pack of its watchful henchmen;

4. They do not really fear anti-Zionism as such; at times they even authorise its expression;

5. In particular, they have not much cause to worry about a now commonplace form of anti-semitism which consists in attacking all of the founding myths of Israel except that which has become essential for them: the “Holocaust”;

6. They need not be anxious about accusations of racism, imperialism and Judeo-nazism since such accusations, even if at times founded, resemble ritual, mechanically uttered slogans, coined in outdated language. To see the Jews being compared to Hitler, then hear it said that the Zionists are, like the Nazis, carrying out a policy of “genocide”, is not altogether disagreeable to the Jews and Zionists, for it serves to reinforce the images of Hitler and the Nazis that they themselves have succeeded in fabricating; this helps them to fix firmly in all minds the illusion, first and foremost, of a “genocide” of the Jews. In reality, Hitler was no more a monster, as his Jewish enemies claim, than was Napoleon an “ogre”, as English propaganda used to have it. Although a racialist, and hostile to internationalist Jews (but not necessarily to Zionists early on), Hitler never ordered or allowed the killing of anyone on account of his or her race or religion; moreover, his military tribunals or courts martial meted out sentences — sometimes the death sentence — to German soldiers, officers or civil servants who had been found guilty of killing a single Jewish man or woman (even in regard to acts committed, during the war, in Poland, Russia or Hungary); here is a point of history that has been shrouded by the exterminationist historians and regrettably overlooked by revisionist authors. If Hitler had been such a monstrous racist as described, never would such a prestigious Arab and Muslim personality as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (the Palestinian Hadj Amin Al-Husseini) have remained on his side until the end. Despite the episode of the Germano-Soviet pact (August 1939-June 1941), Hitler was essentially hostile to Stalinism and to what he called, because of the Jews’ decisive contribution to Bolshevism, “Judeo-Bolshevism”. The German soldier, like the European, Russian, Asian or Muslim volunteer who fought beside him, had but Moscow-style Communism as his essential enemy;

7. Although they pretend the contrary, the Jews and Zionists laugh — not without reason — at those who talk of a “Jewish plot” or a “conspiracy of Auschwitz”, since there is no “Jewish plot” (any more than a Masonic, Jesuit, Papal, American or Communist plot) but a Jewish power or influence; in the same manner, there is no “Auschwitz conspiracy” but rather an Auschwitz lie; incidentally, ideas of plot or conspiracy, dear to the Jewish tradition, ought to remain the privilege of the latter; we should be wrong to turn to them.

b) The adversary’s true fears and veritable weak points:

1. In Israel-Palestine, Jews and Zionists truly fear the weapons of the poor (children’s stones, their slingshots like that of David against the giant Goliath, the suicide attacks) and all that may endanger persons and business; they fear a demeaning of their brand image; they dread having to choose one day between the suitcase and the coffin;

2. But they are above all apprehensive of “the poor man’s atomic bomb“, that is, the disintegration, by historical revisionism, of the lie of the gas chambers, the genocide and the six million; they dread this weapon that kills no-one but that would not fail, if properly used, to explode their Big Lie like a bag of hot air;

3. They fear seeing revealed before the eyes of the world that it is the imposture of the “Holocaust” that permitted, in the wake of the Second World War, the creation in the land of Palestine of a Jewish colony called Israel, and this at a time when, throughout the globe (except in the Communist empire), a gigantic decolonisation movement was well under way;

4. They know that to lose the “Holocaust” is to lose the sword and the shield of Israel as well as a formidable instrument of political and financial blackmail; Yad Vashem, which, in Jerusalem, is a “Holocaust” memorial and museum all in one (now undergoing expansion work), is still more precious to them than the Wailing Wall; every foreign personality on visit to Israel for political or financial dealings is, before all other business, obliged to call at this museum of horrors so as to be well imbued with a feeling of guilt which will render him more malleable; sometimes there is a dispensation from this formality for representatives of those rare nations which the Jews and Zionists, try as they might, cannot rebuke for an active or passive role in the alleged “Holocaust”; it is then amusing to notice the Israeli officials complaining about the difficulty in dealing with partners whom they have not been able to condition beforehand;

5. They are aware that “were the Holocaust shown to be a hoax, the number one weapon in Israel’s propaganda armoury disappears (sic)” (letter of W. D. Rubinstein, Professor at Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia, in Nation Review, 21 June 1979, p. 639);

6. They know only too well of “the fact that, if the Holocaust can be shown to be a Zionist myth, the strongest of all weapons in Israel’s propaganda armoury collapses” (the same academic in “The Left, the Right and the Jews”, Quadrant, September 1979, p. 27);

7. They nearly faint at the thought that the general public might finally learn of the sum of iniquities represented by all the purges, the cases brought in the style of the judicial masquerades of Nuremberg, the confessions extorted on the subject of gas chambers or gas vans which had, in fact, never existed or the further confessions about implausible killings imputed to the Einsatzgruppen, the hunting down of old men, be they patients in homes for the aged, more than half a century after their alleged crimes, the indoctrination of all minds, from primary school to university, in books, newspapers, on radio and television, on every continent, morning, noon, afternoon, evening, night; all this is accompanied by a fierce repression of the revisionists, carried on especially in a Germany subjugated to its conquerors (and with which no peace treaty has yet been signed); these revisionists have committed the awful crime of simply demanding the right to verify either staggering accusations devoid of proof or testimonies received as truthful, albeit in the absence of examination and cross-examination, concerning the material nature of the purported facts and without, beforehand, a single investigation of the alleged weapon of the alleged crime;

8. To sum up, the nightmare of these Jews and Zionists would be to have to hear repeated all over a certain sixty-word sentence pronounced on the air more than twenty years ago on Radio Europe 1, before the journalist Yvan Levaï, by a French revisionist, disciple of Paul Rassinier. Here is that sentence which, at the time, was to earn me a heavy fine in court:

The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle, the main beneficiaries of which are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people — but not their leaders — and the Palestinian people in their entirety.

II. How to wage the fight to quit this silence

1. In November 2000, I spent a week in Iran at the invitation of the Centre of Strategic Studies, a body directly attached to the office of the President of the Islamic Republic, Mr Mohammed Khatami. I had no contact with the country’s press, radio or television but only with a few personalities who were well-informed about revisionism. I held no public conference but enjoyed an interview of several hours with the head of the Institute for Scientific Political Research, Professor Soroush-Nejad and a few of his colleagues. There again, I was struck by the knowledge of revisionism that certain Iranians could have. At about that time, the Swiss revisionist Jürgen Graf made his appearance in Iran and I am indeed pleased that, some months later, thanks to his intense activity and to the contacts which I, at my end, had maintained with the Iranian authorities after returning to France, the Tehran Times undertook the publication of a series of revisionist articles, the first of which was to bear the signature of Professor Soroush-Nejad.

2. In exchange for the information with which I had been able to provide him, I asked my main partner in discussion within the said body why, up to the present, revisionism seemed not to have found much of an echo in the Arab and Muslim countries. He willingly listed eight reasons. Some of these, in light of the quite recent events in Palestine, appeared to each of us, by and by, to be no longer valid; others seemed to be imputable to misunderstandings; other reasons, in the end, unhappily retained all of their force, in particular the following: in the Western countries, who ought to preach by example before complaining of the silence of others, there were but a laughably small number of revisionists who had resolutely committed themselves, in their own names and without any reservations or skillful manoeuvring, to following the road opened up by P. Rassinier;

3. I attempted to explain that this deplorable record was largely due to what one must call the fear (metus Judaeorum) inspired everywhere by the groaning and threatening Jew (which Cicero felt in 59 BC). I added that no political figure of today, be he Iranian, Lebanese, Chinese or Japanese, could avoid feeling this fear in the face of a community so rich and powerful in the Western world that its leaders have the means with which, at any moment, to invade the media with their grievances and recriminations in order to demand, in the end, the economic boycott of whatever nation’s leaders failed to make a rapid enough act of “repentance” or resisted Jewish demands;

4. I then went over the reasons why the leaders of the Muslim states must nonetheless, as a proper policy, quit their silence and how, in my opinion, they could do so. I shall not expound on those reasons here but shall in the following words sum up my feelings as to the path to follow: one or more of these leaders should cross the Rubicon resolutely and, above all, without the least thought of turning back. My long experience (with) the Jews or Zionists in this regard has convinced me that the hoaxers are disconcerted by the hardiness of anyone who dares to confront them in the open. Just as the false witness, if one can catch his glance, must be questioned eye to eye, so must the Edgar Bronfmans, the Elie Wiesels, the Simon Wiesenthals (the latter two hate and envy one another more Judaico), or the rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper be defied in direct proportion to their habitual threats;

5. I warned my hosts against the temptation to resort, be it only at the first stages, to a form of bastardised revisionism; here again, experience has proved that wet-dog revisionism leads to whipping. One must also, in order to take a firmly revisionist stand, be well acquainted with the physical, chemical, documentary and historical argumentation of revisionism. I reminded them, for example, that the myth of the alleged Nazi gas chambers had already died on 21 February 1979 when, in the daily Le Monde, thirty-four French historians showed themselves to be unable to take up my challenge concerning the technical impossibilities of those absurd chemical slaughterhouses. The general public are unaware of that event, just as they are unaware of the succession of defeats and debacles suffered by the holocaustic historians’ lobby since 1985 (the date of the first Zündel trial in Toronto). It is now up to the leaders of the Muslim states to bring out into the light of day information like this, which is still being kept under a bushel;

6. In these different countries, institutes of history, sociology or political studies ought to equip themselves with a section specialising in historical revisionism. Research resources and archives would enable scholars from around the world who have been chased out of their respective countries’ universities, centres of research or libraries, because of their revisionist opinions or tendencies, to come to work at the side of their colleagues of the Muslim lands. The various ministries of education, research, culture, foreign affairs and information would collaborate on this project of international scope;

7. If one takes into account the fact that the “Holocaust” religionists harbour and maintain not only lies but also hatred, it will seem appropriate to plan the establishment on an international level of a “Movement against the imposture of the ‘Holocaust’ and for friendship among peoples“;

8. It would be fitting to try to bring some equilibrium to the balance of forces in international relations by inviting the political or diplomatic personnel of the great powers to show more modesty; these people, who never spare the rest of the world their morality lessons, should be reminded that they themselves bow a bit too low before an international mafia specialising in lies, swindles and contempt for human rights; the so-called international community, which constantly invokes those rights, should re-establish them in the cases of revisionists before rebuking those Arab or Muslim countries for intolerance or obscurantism. Such accusations could easily be turned against the states which, not tolerating the calling into question of a legend turned official history and now protected by special laws, forbid their inhabitants from casting light on certain historical subjects;

9. A new and powerful medium of information, the Internet, allows an accelerated spreading of revisionism (see, in particular, the sites attributed to Ahmed Rami, with their sections in Arabic); here is a chance for the Arab and Muslim intellectuals, overly influenced by the dominant ideology in the Western universities where they have often been educated, to get detoxified from the holocaustic drug;

10. In sum, the feeling of grave disquiet shown by the Jewish and Zionist leaders in the face both of the Intifada of young Palestinians living in destitution and of the activities of revisionists possessing nothing at all like the economic or financial resources at the disposal of the great holocaustic mafia reminds one of the ancestral fear that the rich feel in the face of the poor, the colonisers before the colonised and the masters at the sight of their slaves. The Jewish and Zionist leaders groan, threaten and strike. They see themselves as rich (never rich enough, of course), in possession of all sorts of weapons (those of brute force as well as those of blackmail and racketeering) and they know how to make themselves feared by all the leaders of the most privileged nations; they are, in particular, aware that the German leaders are devoted to them, willing to provide even the blood of German soldiers against the foes of Israel and ready to strengthen still more unmercifully their repression of revisionism. And yet, Jews and Zionists are haunted by the thought of having to confront the courage of those who no longer have anything to lose in the double Intifada, Palestinian or revisionist. The rich and mighty are enraged to see that they can be defied as they are by the Palestinians, bare-fisted with stones, and by the revisionists, barehanded with only their pens.

III. The main target: “the magical gas chamber” (Céline)

Let us learn to take aim. Let us not scatter our efforts. Let us apply ourselves to setting our attention on the centre of the adversary’s operation. But, the centre of the huge edifice forming the religion of the “Holocaust” is none other than the Auschwitz lie. And the heart of the Auschwitz lie is, in its turn, made up of the prodigious “gas chamber”. That is where we must aim. Placards waved by Palestinian or other Arab demonstrators bearing the words “The ‘Holocaust’ of the Jews is a lie”, or “The six million are a lie” would of course worry the “extor-Zionists” but those formulations remain still too vague; they are less vivid, less precise and less striking than “The gas chambers are a lie“.

No-one is able to show us, at Auschwitz or anywhere else, a single specimen of these chemical slaughterhouses. No-one is capable of describing to us their exact appearance and workings. Neither a vestige nor a hint of their existence is to be found. Not one document, not one study, not one drawing. Nothing. Nothing but some occasional, pitiful “evidence”, which, like a mirage, vanishes as soon as one draws near and which the Jewish historians themselves, in recent years, have finally been obliged to repudiate. Sometimes, as at Auschwitz, tourists are shown around an alleged “reconstituted” gas chamber but the historians, and the Auschwitz museum authorities too, know quite well that, in the words of the French ant-irevisionist historian Eric Conan, “EVERYTHING IN IT IS FALSE” (“Auschwitz: la mémoire du mal”, L’Express, 19-25 January 1995, p. 68). Still, the Jews are lucky. They are believed on their word. Practically no-one asks to see the technological prodigy that a Nazi gas chamber would have been, a veritable large-scale chemical slaughterhouse. Imagine that someone has told you about an aeroplane capable of transporting two or three thousand passengers from Paris to New York in one half hour (according to the exterminationist vulgate, in a single alleged gas chamber at Auschwitz, a batch of two or three thousand Jews could be killed in half an hour). Would you not, in order to begin to believe it, demand to see at least an image of a thing which would constitute a technological leap forward such as science has never known? Are we not in the age of exact sciences and the audio-visual? Why this sudden shyness when it comes to our gas chamber? The peddlers have an easy game. They show you the equivalent of either your garage or your shower and tell you: “Here is the place where the Germans gassed the Jews in groups of a hundred or a thousand”. And you lend credence to this. You are shown human hair like that which you could see at a barber’s or a wig maker’s and told, without the least proof, that it is the hair of gassing victims. You are offered shoes and they are stamped “shoes of gassing victims”. You are presented with photographs of dead bodies and you believe that you see bodies of the slain. You are made to shudder at the sight of crematory ovens which are, in fact, perfectly unexceptional. There exists a very simple means by which to show that we are being fooled as concerns the prodigious yields of German crematory ovens in the 1940s: this is simply to set them against the present-day yield of the most modern crematoria of our cities for comparison. I also know an unanswerable way to prove that the alleged gas chambers for the killing of Jews with hydrogen cyanide gas could not have existed: it entails visiting today, as I myself did in 1979, the execution gas chamber of an American penitentiary, or otherwise acquainting oneself with the so complex nature of the gas chamber, its so-complicated structure and its so-draconian procedure of an execution by gassing, in the 1940s or 50s, in the prisons of Carson City (Nevada), Baltimore (Maryland) or Parchmann (Mississippi); precisely, those executions were, and are, still carried out with hydrogen cyanide gas. They are so dreadfully dangerous for the executioners that the putting to death of one individual requires drastic precautions and a most complex technology (setting aside the recently achieved sophistication due either to scientific progress or to a multitude of safety measures).

On the subject, let us listen to Céline!

I hold Louis-Ferdinand Céline (1894-1961) to be the loftiest genius of French literature in the 20th century. His force, his finesse, his clear-sightedness were incomparable. His existence, unhappily, was largely one of hardship. From the day in 1937 when he began to display the fear of seeing a new world war flare up, he brought on his own doom. He had been seriously wounded during the First World War and felt the apprehension of a new butchery with all his body and soul. The Jews, from their end, did not see things that way. Most of their leaders clamoured for a crusade against Hitler. Céline then condemned this feverish desire to punish Germany, this frantic warmongering. He foresaw the catastrophe, and later, when Great Britain and France had taken it upon themselves to go to war with Germany, he could only remark in what “fine bed-sheets” France was lying. In 1944, he narrowly escaped the summary justice then being administered by, in particular, the Jews and the Communists. He fled to Germany in its agony of the final months of the war, then to Denmark, where for nearly a year and a half he was imprisoned in the worst conditions. When he eventually returned to France, it was to live the life of an outcast. France is a particularly cruel land for its great writers. It is still the case today, sixty years after their respective publication in 1937, 1938 and 1941, that three of his works, masterly satires covered in scorn by the Jews, remain prohibited de facto. No law, in principle, prevents their republication, but everyone knows that the Jewish organisations would drum up the scalp dance should Céline’s widow, still living, authorise their appearance. Such is the unwritten law of the modern Talmud.

Other examples of this Jewish privilege are well known; it is thus, to cite the case of an academic guilty of having once written a revisionist sentence, that Bernard Notin has, since 1990, not been allowed to give any lectures at his Lyon faculty. No law, no judicial or administrative decision, has been made to serve notice of such a prohibition. Today, in the same university, it is the turn of Professor Jean-Paul Allard to be marked with the brand of Cain for having, more than fifteen years ago, presided at the viva of a revisionist thesis. A veritable manhunt has been mounted against him. Formerly, if one remarked to the Jews that they tracked down the revisionists like wild animals, they would protest. They would dare claim that nothing of the sort was done. But times have changed. The Jews no longer conceal this practice of theirs and proudly assert responsibility for such violent actions. On 1 March 2001, the weekly Actualité Juive headed one of its articles: “La chasse à Jean-Paul Allard est ouverte” (“The hunt for Jean-Paul Allard is on”), and the contents of the piece amounted to an incitement to kill. The Jewish organisations cynically intend to make themselves feared and it is correct to say, today more than ever, “metus regnat Judaeorum“. In J.-P. Allard’s case they seem to be reaching their goal: just recently, this professor, exhausted by the chase, has been hospitalised for a stroke and has lost the ability to speak normally. On another score, the Jews and their friends have succeeded in attempts to have the revisionist Serge Thion, sociologist and historian of merit, removed from his post at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), and this by means of a procedure so openly arbitrary in nature that the most arrogant of employers would not use it against his humblest employee lest he have to pay heavy damages. And I shall say nothing of the suffering endured by the revisionists who have fought openly, in their own name, the most admirable for his intelligence and his heart being, in my view, the German Ernst Zündel. Having been settled in Canada for forty years, he has waged a titanic struggle against the international “Holocaust” lobby, aiming particularly to obtain justice for his maligned homeland. Without him revisionism would have continued to live in semidarkness. But one cannot swim up the Niagara and, in the face of an almighty coalition of political, financial and judicial forces, he has recently been obliged, in spite of some brilliant victories, to leave Canada. In his new exile, he continues, with the aid of his German-American wife, Ingrid Rimland, to fight for a just cause. [He has since served seven years behind bars in the U.S., Canada, and Germany, for no other crime than debating the imposture of the “Holocaust.”]

If, towards the end of this talk, I have called to mind the lofty figure of the author of Journey to the End of Night, it is because Céline, by one of his customary strokes of genius, had already suspected, just five years after the war, that the alleged physical extermination of the Jews might be but a fable, a work of trickery. It must be said that from 1945, floods of Jews from Central Europe, who were thought to have been exterminated, had headed for France, when they had not headed for other Western countries or for Palestine; in France, they had just added their number to a Jewish community of which four fifths were spared by the wartime deportation measures. In November 1950, upon a reading of P. Rassinier’s first sizeable work, Le Mensonge d’Ulysse, Céline wrote to his friend Albert Paraz:

Rassinier is certainly an honest man […]. His book, admirable, is going to cause quite a stir — AFTER ALL, it tends to cast doubt on the magical gas chamber! No small matter! A whole world of hatreds is going to be compelled to yelp at the Iconoclast! It was everything, the gas chamber! It permitted EVERYTHING!

In our turn, let us admire this lucid and scintillating vision of things, this foresight.

Yes, the gas chamber is really “magical”. As I have said, no-one, in the end, has proved capable of showing or even of drawing one for us in reply to my challenge “Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!” No-one has been able to explain its operation to us. No-one has been able to tell us how, at Auschwitz, the Germans could pour pellets of Zyklon B, a powerful hydrogen cyanide-based insecticide, into alleged orifices made in the roof of the “gas chamber”, considering that this alleged gas chamber (in reality, a cold room for the storage of corpses awaiting cremation) has, as a careful eye may note amidst the ruins, never possessed even a single one of those orifices, a fact which has permitted me to state the four-word conclusion “No holes, no ‘Holocaust’!” No one has been able to reveal to us the mystery, implied by the standard version, which allowed the squads of Jews under the orders of the Germans (the Sonderkommando) to enter that great gas chamber with impunity, so soon after the alleged mass killings, to remove energetically, day after day, the thousands of corpses lying in tangled heaps. Hydrogen cyanide gas is difficult to remove by ventilation, a time-consuming process; it penetrates and lingers within plaster, brick, concrete, wood, paint and, above all, the skin and the mucous of humans; thus one could not enter, move about and work in such a manner in what would effectively be an ocean of deadly poison, handling corpses which, infused with that poison, would poison whoever touched them. It is, furthermore, well known to specialists in the field of disinfection (or disinfestation) that it is essential, in such an atmosphere, to avoid physical effort for, if such effort is made, the breathing quickens and the gasmask filter will then allow the poison to pass through, killing the wearer. Finally, no-one has been able to instruct us as to how those amazing Jews of the Sonderkommando, ever dragging out the corpses of their co-religionists, could perform such exploits whilst eating and smoking (in the version of the “confession” ascribed to Rudolf Höss, the best known of the successive Auschwitz commandants); for, if one understands correctly, they did not even wear gasmasks and smoked amidst the noxious fumes of an explosive gas. Like the imaginary flower dreamt of by the French symbolist poet Stéphane Mallarmé (1842-1898), who wrote of “the one missing from every bouquet”, the Nazi gas chamber, capable of astounding works, is “missing from all reality”; it remains truly magical, but of a sinister and nauseating magic; it is nothing other than a nightmare that dwells in Jewish brains whilst, for their part, the high priests of the “Holocaust” work to make this gruesome illusion come to haunt the world for eternity, and to hold it in a state of near-hypnosis; their livelihood depends on it.

Céline is right again to add, on the subject of the magical gas chamber, that it is “no small matter!” In reality, as he says further on, it is everything and it permits everything. Without it, the holocaustic edifice would collapse totally. Pierre Vidal-Naquet, sorry herald of the anti-revisionist struggle, has himself acknowledged as much when, remarking that some of his friends, grown weary of the campaign, were decidedly tempted to dump these cumbersome gas chambers without further ado, he entreated them not to do so and voiced this cry of alarm: “I beg their pardon: that would be to surrender in open country” (“Le Secret partagé”, Le Nouvel Observateur, 21 September 1984, p. 80). The Nazi gas chamber is said to be the only tangible — but, in fact, impossible to find — evidence of a physical extermination that never took place and that is, moreover, brazenly described to us as being concerted, planned, and of a monstrously industrial nature, with production yields worthy of veritable “death factories”.

Céline, finally, is right to conclude “A whole world of hatreds is going to be compelled to yelp at the Iconoclast!” For my part, I should add, more than half a century after that prognosis or prophecy, that the yelps, now more and more deafening, have not ceased for an instant against the iconoclasts who are the revisionists. In France, the latter are today christened with the barbarous term “négationnistes” whereas they “negate” or deny nothing but, at the end of their research, affirm that a gigantic historical imposture holds sway.

Conclusion

The revisionists haunt the days and nights of the upholders of Jewish law and of those who Céline — again — called “the martyrs’ trust”. Against the revisionists who seek to protect themselves from it, the said trust is merciless. It drives some to suicide, causes physical injury and disfigurement, it kills or forces others into exile. It sets fire to houses and burns books. It has the police, the judges, the prison authorities, do its bidding. It applies pressure, it extorts and steals. It sets the dogs of the press on us, it throws us out of our jobs, it heaps insults upon us. On our side, not one amongst us, to my knowledge, has ever struck one of these perpetual “law enforcers”. On 25 April 1995, in Munich, a German revisionist ended up killing himself, burning himself alive. He meant this act to be a protest against “the Niagara of lies” showered upon his people. In his suicide letter, he stated his hope that the flames which consumed his body would burn as a beacon for the generations to come. The German police proceeded to arrest the persons who soon afterwards came to leave a bouquet at the spot where Reinhold Elstner had immolated himself. On 13 May 2000, the German political science professor Werner Pfeiffenberger, aged 58, ended his own life after having long endured a legal persecution launched against him by a Jewish journalist in Vienna, one Karl Pfeifer, who had detected a whiff of revisionism (called, of course, neo-Nazism) in the academic’s writings.

The revisionists live a life of hardship and the Palestinians are living a tragedy. In particular, many Palestinian children are destined for a sorrowful fate. Their Israeli killers are, on a modest scale, the worthy successors of the US Air Force, the military corps which, in all of a cruel human history, has contributed to killing, mutilating, disfiguring or starving more children than any other, first in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, then in Japan, in Vietnam and in much of the rest of Asia, then in the Near and Middle East and, finally, in still many other places in the world whenever the American soldier receives from his masters the order to hunt down a new “Hitler” and to prevent a new “genocide”.

May the leaders of the Muslim states hear the Palestinians’ — and the revisionists’ — appeals! Our ordeals are similar and our Intifadas identical.

May those leaders finally quit their silence on the biggest imposture of modern times: that of the “Holocaust”!

May they, especially, denounce the lie of the alleged Nazi gas chambers! After all, not one of the leaders on the winning side of the Second World War, despite their hatred of Hitler’s Germany, stooped so low as to claim that such gas chambers had existed. During that war, in their speeches, as afterwards, in their memoirs, never did Churchill, or de Gaulle, or Eisenhower once mention this demonic horror which they well saw to have been laboriously peddled during the war by propaganda agencies. Already a quarter of a century ago, in a masterly book, the American professor Arthur Robert Butz called the grand imposture “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.” That century is over and as for its hoax, it must vanish into the rubbish bins of history.

The tragedy of the Palestinians demands it, the ordeal of the revisionists makes it essential and the cause of humanity, as a whole, makes it our historical, political and moral duty: the Grand Imposture must be denounced. It is a fomenter of hatred and war. It is in the interest of all that the leaders of the Muslim states quit their silence on the imposture of the “Holocaust”.

Read Full Post »

Photobucket
The Franke-Gricksch ‘Resettlement Action Report’: Anatomy of a Fabrication
By Brian A. Renk
Source: Institute for Historical Review

It was long presumed that the alleged German policy to exterminate the Jews of Europe was set in motion by a direct, if not a written order, from Adolf Hitler. This purported order was cited in the main Nuremberg trial a 1945-46 and in subsequent trials of “Nazi war criminals.” Although documentary evidence for the “Führer Order” has remained elusive, its existence was taken for granted by exterminationist historians until 1977.

In that year the British historian David Irving provoked considerable discussion in the historical establishment with the publication of his Hitler’s War. Irving argued, on the basis of a painstaking study of the documentary record as well as exhaustive interviews with surviving members of Hitler’s entourage, that the German leader did not order mass killings of Jews, and that he did not learn about an extermination policy until, perhaps, 1943.[1]

Anglo-Jewish historian Gerald Fleming, now reader emeritus at the University of Surrey (England), decided to deal with this problem–and specifically to respond to Irving’s provocative 1977 thesis–by setting to work on a book that would prove conclusively that Hitler did indeed order the extermination of European Jewry. After several years of research and writing, he presented his case in Hitler and the Final Solution (German edition 1982, published in America 1984), a work that was widely hailed as a definitive response to Irving and other Revisionists.

A key document cited by Fleming in his book is a two-page report entitled “Umsiedlungs-Aktion der Juden” (“Resettlement Action of the Jews,” although Fleming calls it “Resettlement of the Jews”), which describes mass killings of Jews in gas chambers at Auschwitz and makes explicit reference to the “Führer Order.” This document, said to be part of a longer report, is alleged by Fleming to have been composed by SS Sturmbannführer (Major) Alfred Franke-Gricksch, a highranking official in the SS personnel main office in Berlin, shortly after an inspection tour of Auschwitz-Birkenau in May 1943.

The “Resettlement Action” document was apparently first cited by the American historian Charles W. Sydnor (in his book Soldiers of Destruction (Princeton Univ., 1977, p. 3371). More recently, it was published-both in facsimile and in English translation-by the French anti-Revisionist historian Jean-Claude Pressac in his Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, 1989 [pages 236-239]).

The importance Fleming attaches to this report is indicated by the fact that he devotes an entire chapter of Hitler and the Final Solution to it. He gives this chapter the title “An Official Report from Auschwitz-Birkenau.”

If authentic, the “Resettlement Action” report would seem to confirm several key points of the Exterminationist thesis:

* The phrase “resettlement of the Jews” was a euphemism for a policy of mass extermination, particularly by “gassing.”
* Mass killings at Auschwitz were part of a secret program ordered by Hitler to exterminate the Jews.
* Homicidal gas chambers in the crematorium complex of Auschwitz-Birkenau were used to kill Jews during the spring of 1943.

But is the “Resettlement Action” report authentic? In this paper, we shall establish that it is almost certainly not. A careful examination of the text, as well as Fleming and Pressac’s analysis of that text, will reveal the following:

* The “Resettlement Action” report is almost certainly a postwar forgery. No original, carbon copy or facsimile of the document, let alone the longer report from which it is supposed to have been excerpted, has ever been produced or is even known to exist.
* Orthographic peculiarities in the German of the “Resettlement Action” report suggest that the man who is supposed to have transcribed it did not have a German original before him.
* Specific details about Auschwitz-Birkenau given in this report are demonstrably false.
* Fleming and Pressac have ignored or glossed over numerous factual “errors” and gross implausibilities in this “report,” indicating shoddy and perhaps even unethical scholarship.

The ‘Resettlement Action’ Document

The following is a translation of the complete text of the “Resettlement Action” report:

[English-language heading:]

Part of a report rendered by SS Sturmbannführer Franke-Gricksch on a trip through the General Gouvernement on 4 to 16 May 1943.

Resettlement Action of the Jews

The Auschwitz camp has a special role in the settlement of the Jewish question. The most up-to-date methods make it possible to implement the Führer Order here very quickly and discreetly.

The so-called “resettlement action” for the Jews proceeds as follows:

The Jews arrive in special trains (freight cars) toward evening and are taken by a special rail track into an area of the camp specifically set aside for this purpose. There they are unloaded and are then examined for their fitness for work by a medical team in the presence of the camp commandant and several SS officers. Here every person who can somehow be integrated into the labor program is taken to a special camp. Temporarily sick persons are immediately taken to the recuperation camp and are restored to health with a special diet. The basic principle is: Conserve all manpower for work. The earlier “resettlement action” policy is now completely rejected, because no one can afford to systematically destroy valuable labor energy.

The unfit are taken into the basement rooms of a large building, which can be entered from the outside. They go down five or six steps and come into a long, well-built and ventilated basement room, which is fitted with benches on the right and left. It is brightly lit and above the benches are numbers. The prisoners are told they are to be disinfected and washed in preparation for their new tasks. They must therefore undress completely in order to be bathed. In order to avoid any panic and disorder, they are told to arrange their clothes neatly and leave them under a number so they can find their things again after the bath. Everything proceeds in complete calm. They then go through a small corridor and come into a large basement room that resembles a shower room. In this room there are three big pillars. Into these it is possible to introduce certain materials from above, outside the basement room. After 300-400 people have gathered in this room, the doors are closed and from above the containers with the materials are let down into the pillars. When the containers reach the base of the pillars, they produce certain substances that put people to sleep in one minute. A few minutes later, the door on the other side, which leads to an elevator, is opened. The hair of the corpses is cut off, and the teeth (gold teeth) are broken out by specialists (Jews). It has been observed that Jews have hidden jewelry objects, gold, platinum, etc., in hollow teeth. The corpses are then loaded into the elevators and are taken to the first floor. There are located ten large crematory ovens, in which the corpses are burned. (Because fresh corpses burn particularly well, the entire process requires only one-half to one Zentner [50 to 100 pounds] of coke). The work itself is carried out by Jewish prisoners who will never leave this camp.

The result so far of this “resettlement action”: 500,000 Jews.

The present capacity of the “resettlement action” ovens: 10,000 in 24 hours.

[Handwritten notation in English:]

I affirm that this is a true copy of the original report. Eric M. Lipman.

(Note also the accompanying facsimile reproduction of the report, entitled “Umsiedlungs-Aktion der Juden.”: page 1, page 2)

Origins of the Document

As he worked on Hitler and the Final Solution, Fleming searched for proof that Franke-Gricksch had actually written the “Resettlement Action” report attributed to him. In a private letter to Alfred Franke-Gricksch’s widow dated July 18, 1978, Fleming wrote:

I am writing these lines to you today because ten months ago the British Academy [of Arts and Sciences] officially granted me the research assignment to clear up once and for all, that is, to thoroughly research the following important topic, because this has not yet been done by any contemporary historian: [To find proof for] Adolf Hitler’s personal, direct orders for mass liquidation [of Jews] as issued by Hitler during the Second World War … I would like to quote an excerpt from the report of May 15, 1943, signed by your husband, as it pertains directly to my topic: Hitler’s personal orders for liquidation …

A preliminary comment: Fleming’s reference to Franke-Gricksch’s signature is not correct. In fact, the “Resettlement Action” report bears only the signature of the purported copyist, Lipman. And whereas Fleming asserts in this letter that Franke-Gricksch’s report was written on May 15, 1943, in his book he vaguely dates it “sometime between 4 and 16 May.”

According to Pressac (pp. 238-39), a carbon copy of a report by Franke-Gricksch on an inspection tour of the General Government, the German occupation regime in Poland, was discovered after the end of the Second World War “somewhere in Bavaria” by Eric M. Lipman (whom Pressac mistakenly calls “Lippmann”, an officer with the War Crimes Branch of the U.S. Third Army. After finding the full report in Franke-Gricksch’s “career file,” Lipman is supposed to have made a typescript copy of that portion of the report describing Auschwitz, i.e. the “Resettlement Action” report. Pressac writes that the carbon copy of the full report was turned over to the American prosecution team at Nuremberg, and is now “thought to be preserved in the National Archives Collection reference NA RG 238.” Charles Sydnor, however, who first wrote of the document, writes that “the original of this document evidently is lost amid the still unindexed collection of Nuremberg prosecution documents.”[2]

If the carbon copy of the full report was in fact turned over to the American prosecution team at Nuremberg, however, the question arises as to why this explosive document was never introduced into evidence. And why is Eric Lipman the only person who seems to have known anything about it until the 1970s?

I wrote to Mr. Lipman, who now resides in Richmond, Virginia, to ask him about the “Resettlement Action” document. In a letter dated January 23, 1991, he informed me:

[I] have disposed of most of my Nazi documents to various institutions, including Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, the Tauber Institute at Brandeis University, and the archives of Temple Beth Ababa in Richmond.

Consistent with this, Pressac writes (p. 238) that the two-page report typed by Lipman is “now preserved in the Tauber Institute at Brandeis University, with other documents from the Third Reich.”[3]

It is therefore quite likely that Sydnor, who teaches at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, either learned of the Lipman’s typescript from Lipman himself, or discovered it at Brandeis, while he was researching his book Soldiers of Destruction.

In a footnote following his presentation of the “report” in Hitler and the Final Solution (p. 143), Fleming characterizes the existing “Resettlement-Action” document as follows:

Typewritten copy, deposited by Charles W. Sydnor in the U.S. National Archives; one of three carbon copies from [sic] Alfred Franke-Gricksch’s report, written on a service mission through the Generalgouvernement between 14 and 16 May 1943, is in author’s possession.

In a letter to Fleming dated February 19, 1991, 1 wrote:

I have been trying to locate the carbon copy from which the typewritten report was culled, and as a result, have been directed to you, as I have discerned that Brandeis and the US National Archives do not possess the carbon.

Upon reading Fleming’s reply of March 1, in which he wrote, “I am sending you the requested photocopy,” I rather understandably expected to receive a photocopy of the carbon copy of the full report ascribed to Franke-Gricksch. Instead, Fleming merely sent me a photocopy of the same typescript “copy”, complete with English-language heading, that is reproduced in facsimile by Pressac.[4]

Thus, Fleming’s statement that “one of three carbon copies from Alfred Franke-Gricksch’s report … is in author’s possession” is apparently not true.

To sum up: There is no evidence that a carbon copy of the original report was ever “found” in the SS officer’s career file. Nor is there any evidence that this elusive “carbon copy” is in the National Archives, or even that such a document ever existed. The only version of this report that seems to exist anywhere is Lipman’s typescript “copy” of an alleged extract from the missing report.

Analysis of the Document

The document itself, Lipman’s alleged typed copy of a carbon of the original, bears no reference to a letterhead or classification number, which were routine on authentic official reports, and would have been present on the original. Oddly enough, instead of supplying the date of the report at the top of page 1, Lipman has given the dates of Franke-Gricksch’s supposed trip through the “General Gouvernement” (sic – the correct German designation is “Generalgouvernement”), although he stumbled over the year and had to handwrite “3” over the last digit, indecipherable in the copy available to this writer, in the year.

An analysis of the text of the “Resettlement-Action” report points toward a fabrication. Although it is represented that Lipman merely typed the “Umsiedlungs-Aktion der Juden” from the German original, the document contains tell-tale anglicisms, some of them uncorrected, some of them typed over with the equivalent German words. Thus, on the first line of the purported report, “had” for “hat”; “der,” the second word of line 2, typed over “the”; and on line 3, “hier” typed over “here.” On line 8 of the second page of the report, the alleged copyist typed “had,” but corrected that to “hat,” only to begin the following word with “t” (evidently for “the”) before catching that and typing the correct German definite article, “die”. Furthermore, in the final paragraph of page 1, the English participial ending “d” is twice typed for the German “t”, i.e. “ausgestatted” “ausgestattet” on line 5, which has been corrected, and “gebaded” for “gebadet” on line 9. And last, but not least, the verb “kommt” is used twice with the same subject in the sentence beginning on line 6 of the third paragraph of page 1.

These are certainly remarkable characteristics for what Fleming and Pressac advance as a simple transcription of a German original. A less trusting (or perhaps more scrupulous) interpreter might well be within his rights to suggest that this document was based on an English-language, not a German, source.

Fleming’s Analysis

Fleming avoids dwelling on, or even mentioning, the textual peculiarities of the document. Instead, he limits himself to carping about the accuracy of one portion of the “report.” He writes (p. 144):

Franke-Gricksch’s account of “the execution of the Führerorder,” namely, the lowering of “certain materials” into a large cellar room resembling a “shower bath” and activation and release of “particular substances that put people to sleep in one minute” is a fraudulent and cynical white-washing of death by gassing.

Grasping to confirm the orthodox extermination story, Fleming regards the absurd statements which immediately follow as completely accurate. He accepts that specially chosen Jews extracted gold-filled teeth from the corpses, which were then loaded into elevators. He believes that the corpses burned very quickly in the “ten large crematoria.” Fleming credulously accepts that half a million Jews had already been killed as part of this “Resettlement Action” by mid-May 1943, and that the camp’s crematory ovens could “process” as many as ten thousand corpses every twenty-four hours. In support of this, he cites the incredible, and indeed fantastic, “testimony” of former “Sonderkommando” member Filip Müller, who made much the same claim.[5]

As for whom the report was intended, Fleming’s viewpoint is no less unsatisfactory. He cites a letter written by Franke-Gricksch’s superior, SS-Obergruppenführer Maximilian von Herff, who headed the SS Personnel Office and reported directly to Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler, in which von Herff stated his intention to inspect the Auschwitz camp on May 4, 1943. Fleming goes on to argue, without advancing any evidence, that von Herff may not have visited Auschwitz after all, although he accepts that von Herff carried out the rest of the inspection tour. The reasoning for Fleming’s contention here becomes evident on the next page of his book, where the Exterminationist scholar claims that Franke-Gricksch wrote the “Resettlement Action” report for von Herff. Fleming’s shaky facts and logic provide, of course, the only possible rationale for Franke-Gricksch’s composing such a report.[6]

In short, Fleming ignores the basic elements of historical source criticism, passing over the manifest defects and incongruities of the text of the alleged “transcript,” and straining to manufacture a reason for its existence.

In any case Fleming’s real authority for the authenticity of the “Umsiedlungs-Aktion” report is another, postwar, document, also allegedly composed by Alfred Franke-Gricksch, which bears the title “From the Diary of a Fallen SS Leader.” We shall analyze this document in the light of Franke-Gricksch’s remarkable political affinities and activities from the last years of the Weimar Republic to the postwar occupation, further on in this paper.

Pressac’s Analysis

In contrast to Fleming’s rather superficial appraisal of the document, French researcher Jean-Claude Pressac, the leading Exterminationist expert on the crematoria of Auschwitz-Birkenau, has wrestled with the “Resettlement-Action” report at length in his 1990 Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, not always to the advantage of the report’s authenticity and veracity.[7]

Pressac reproduces a facsimile of a “typed copy of the carbon copy” of the alleged Franke-Gricksch report which is identical to the one provided to this author by Gerald Fleming, except that Fleming’s version does not include Lipman’s handwritten sentence and signature.

Pressac acknowledges a number of serious factual errors in the “Resettlement Action” report, which he accepts as authentic. He tries to discount their importance by explaining them away as understandable mistakes. As we shall see, Pressac’s apologetic explanations are woefully inadequate.

Pressac assigns the site of the mass murders described in the report to Krematorium No. II at Birkenau. Whereas the “Resettlement Action ” report describes “three big pillars” in the alleged death chamber, Pressac points out (p. 239) that there were actually four pillars in this room (which was actually a mortuary cellar, or Leichenkeller). He also acknowledges as erroneous the report’s assertion that there were ten large crematory furnaces in this building. In fact, there were five three-muffle crematory ovens in Krema II. Pressac’s “explanation” that perhaps Franke-Gricksch was referring to the total number of ovens in Kremas II and III together cannot be valid because the document specifically asserts that these ten crematory ovens were in a single building.

Pressac also admits that the figure of ten thousand daily cremations given in the “Resettlement Action” report is a physical impossibility (p. 239, n. 8). His lame “explanation” for this absurd figure is that it must have been a product of SS propaganda. He does not explain, though, why there should be propaganda falsehoods in a confidential, internal SS report. Pressac also fails to note that this figure, which he concedes is ridiculous, has also been cited by supposedly authoritative “eyewitnesses” such as Rudolf Höss, Miklos Nyiszli and Filip Müller, as well as in the Soviet War Crimes Commission Report of May 1945 (Nuremberg document USSR-008).[8]

Pressac concedes that the “Resettlement Action” reports claim that 500,000 Jews had already been killed by May 1943 is not true. The real figure, he asserts without evidence, was “probably somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000.” Pressac fails to convincingly explain just why the killers would want to exaggerate their grisly toll by at least two-fold. Furthermore, even this lower estimate is difficult to accept, given the fact that the four Birkenau crematory facilities were not completed until between March and June 1943.[9]

The “most striking and serious error” in the “Resettlement Action” report, Pressac writes (p. 239), is the assertion that the “gas chamber” had a door at each end. In fact, this room had only one door (“through which the victims entered and from which the corpses were removed,” Pressac adds). Pressac’s lame explanation for Franke-Gricksch’s “confusion” is that he must have taken “some kind of break in his visit to the crematorium that caused him to lose his bearings somewhat.”

In addition to the errors that he willingly acknowledges, Pressac silently passes over other problematic assertions in the document. For example, Pressac does not even try to explain how Jewish “Sonderkommando” members could have begun their gruesome work of hauling bodies from the “gas chamber” only “a few minutes” after the killings without themselves promptly falling victim to the residual poisonous vapors.[10]

Contrary to the claim in the “Resettlement Action” report (and by various “eyewitness”) that the lethal substance (supposedly Zyklon) was lowered or dropped into the chamber through hollow pillars, anyone visiting the site of the extant ruins of this chamber (Leichenkeller I) can easily verify that the pillars there are not hollow, but are made of solid, steel-reinforced concrete.[11]

Further, Pressac offers no explanation for the document’s silly assertion that “fresh corpses burn particularly well.”

Nor does he attempt to account for the report’s mention of a “special rail track into an area of the camp specifically set aside for this purpose.” This can only refer to a rail spur from the main Auschwitz (Vienna-Krakow) rail line into the Birkenau camp. In fact, work on this Birkenau rail spur did not even begin until January 1944.[12]

This false reference to a “special rail track” would by itself be enough to show that the “Resettlement Action” report is fraudulent, and almost certainly a postwar fabrication. Fleming’s credulity not merely in accepting the “Resettlement Action” report but in making it a centerpiece of his defense of the thesis that Hitler did give an explicit order to exterminate the Jews of Europe, and Pressac’s ineffectual lucubrations to validate it, tell a good deal about the substance of contemporary Exterminationist scholarship.

Franke-Gricksch’s Dubious Diary Entry

There remains the enigma of a postwar writing attributed to Alfred Franke-Gricksch, on which Fleming bases much of his credence in the “Resettlement Action” report.

Several months after his release from British captivity in 1948, Franke-Gricksch is said to have dictated a statement to his wife entitled “From the Diary of a Fallen SS Leader” (“Aus dem Tagebuch eines gefallenen SS-Führers”). This statement, which is quoted at some length by Fleming in Hitler and the Final Solution (pp. 146-151), would seem to corroborate the extermination thesis, including an order by Hitler to “blot out once and for all the biological bases of Judaism.”

The purported diary entry (Franke-Gricksch’s actual diary of the wartime years, if it ever existed, seems to be missing), concerns an alleged meeting between Himmler, von Herff, and Franke-Gricksch shortly before the May 1943 “Generalgouvernement” inspection tour. (For reasons of space, the document is not reproduced here.)

As Gerald Fleming readily concedes, even the title of this document is misleading: Franke-Gricksch did not “fall” during the war. Fleming also accepts that this “diary” entry is not a contemporary record, but was indeed written after the war.[13] In his 1978 letter to Franke-Gricksch’s widow, Fleming wrote:

The text “From the Diary of an SS Leader [sic]” can only be understood if it is read together with, and compared with, the report your husband drew up for Maximilian von Herff in mid May 1943.

Franke-Gricksch’s son Ekkehard begs to differ. In a November 4, 1990, letter to this author, he explained:

By war’s end, my father was manager of the office of Maximilian von Herff, head of the SS Personnel Main Office, and a member of Himmler’s inner staff. As a member of this inner staff, he was involved, above all, with the questions of socio-political, economic, and financial-political policy that the SS had to put into effect …

Through his work with von Herff, my father gained a keen insight into the morale among the SS leaders. As indicated in the “Diary of a Fallen SS Leader,” no SS man wanted to serve in the concentration camps. The supervision of labor camps seemed pointless. This matter was repeatedly raised in discussions with Himmler, as a result of the increasing discontent among the SS men.

It was in this context that Himmler spoke of the assigned task of the SS to administer and supervise these camps. This [he said] was a Führer Order. Fleming turned this into the [so-called] Führer Order for the extermination of the Jews. The diary was dictated by my father after the war. From many letters, I recognize his typewriter [script] with which the diary was written … As a consequence of his position in the SS Personnel Office, my father visited the concentration camps, but this was only out of concern for the SS men who worked there. It was out of this that the falsification was produced.

While Ekkehard’s interpretation seems plausible, he fails to explain why his father would have entitled it “From the Diary of a Fallen SS Leader,” or why this odd document was submitted in evidence at the 1965 Treblinka Trial.

Assuming that Alfred Franke-Gricksch wrote “From the Diary of a Fallen Soldier,” what was his motive in writing it? Fleming, who recognizes that the document is enigmatic enough to require the help of the “Resettlement Action” “report” for elucidation, provides a speculative explanation that simply defies belief (pp. 152-153):

… In autumn 1948, when the above account [the “Diary”] was written, von Herff was no longer alive to testify (having died in British captivity in 1945); Alfred Franke-Gricksch therefore saw himself with no choice but to supply, in as convincing and plausible a form as possible, the background circumstances of the report he made on the liquidation machinery at Auschwitz-Birkenau. He did not know at the time whether the Auschwitz [“Resettlement Action”] report had already been found and registered, but he had to reckon with the possibility that sooner or later this compromising document would indeed be found.

As we have demonstrated, though, the “Resettlement Action” document is not what it purports to be. It could not possibly have been written as an authentic first-person contemporary report. Franke-Gricksch therefore would not have had any reason to “cover himself” by writing this “Diary.” In fact, it is obvious from even a casual reading of the “Diary” document that it more tended to incriminate than to exonerate Franke-Gricksch, particularly if one takes into account that the “Resettlement-Action” document has all the earmarks of a clumsy postwar forgery.

Fortunately, a look at Franke-Gricksch’s ideology and background, and especially his political activities between late 1948 and late 1953, provides the most likely explanation of why this ‘Diary” was fabricated.

During the early 1930’s, Franke-Gricksch was a leading activist in the political movement of Otto Strasser, who like his brother Gregor was a one-time comrade and later a bitter enemy of Hitler.

In his letter to the author of November 4, 1990, Ekkehard Franke-Gricksch wrote about his father’s prewar activities:

My father, my mother, the Strassers, and Himmler had known each other since about 1927. They were dedicated National Socialists, and thus followed Hitler. My father joined the party in 1928 and left it in 1930. Gregor Strasser was the witness at my parents’ wedding …

When Hitler took control of the government in 1933, and distanced himself from his original National Socialist goals … my father fled the country with Gregor [meant is Otto] Strasser … The Reich Supreme Court sentenced my father to death in absentia for treason — that is, because he was a member of the Strasser organization … [However] my father came to an understanding with Himmler about the Party’s betrayal of the National Socialist revolution. Himmler and my father came to an agreement, and my father [returned to Germany and] joined the Waffen SS under the name of Alfred Franke — behind the back of the Party. Himmler only asked that he refrain from political activity for the time being, until the time was right for that.

In a short autobiographical statement (“Mein Lebenslauf in Stichworten”) composed while in British captivity, Alfred Franke-Gricksch recalled his activist days with the Strasser organization in Prague:

Separation from Otto Strasser due to fundamental differences of opinion in political matters. Strasser wanted his newspaper to oppose the return [to the Reich] of the Saar and Memel [territories] … I was of a different opinion: the Saar and Memel territories belong to Germany, and if we did not want to lose the trust of our fighters in Germany, the fight against Hitler must not be permitted to become a fight against Germany.[14]

Despite his break with Otto Strasser’s “Black Front” and his enlistment in the SS, Franke-Gricksch maintained an open, indeed critical, mind. In February 1941 Franke-Gricksch sent Himmler a memorandum from Dachau, where he was serving as an officer responsible for ideological training of SS Totenkopf recruits, who guarded the concentration camps. The memorandum was, as Charles Sydnor summarizes (pp. 315-16):

… subtly critical of the crude and harsh emphasis upon hatred of racial enemies and obedience to orders that Franke-Gricksch describes as the staple of political indoctrination in the SSTK The document concludes with an appeal that Himmler revise the ideological training in the SS to include an emphasis upon what Franke-Gricksch calls the great political, economic, and geographical issues the SS soldier needed to know to be a convinced National Socialist.

After his release from British captivity in 1948, Franke-Gricksch played a major role in organizing the “German Brotherhood” (“Deutsche Bruderschaft”), a semi-clandestine group largely made up of former Wehrmacht officers, Hitler Youth leaders, and SS men. Franke-Gricksch became the group’s spokesman and “chancellor.”[15]

The ideology of the “Brotherhood” reflected Franke-Gricksch’s own past as a leader in the “Red-Brown” Strasser organization. The “Brotherhood” aligned itself with the Communist “National Front” and supported cooperation with the Soviet Union. A Munich newspaper reported in 1950 that the “Brotherhood” even offered to transfer its organization to the Soviet army.

By all accounts, Franke-Gricksch opposed Hitler (and “Hitlerism”) before, during, and after the war. Given this record, it is reasonable to conclude that he was capable of working together with Allied intelligence personnel to furnish background information that would provide credibility for the “Resettlement Action” report. Such cooperation would also explain why an SS officer of Franke-Gricksch’s standing might have been released by the British rather than being tried as a “war criminal.” It may also provide a plausible motive for Franke-Gricksch to compose his back-dated, damningly anti-Hitler “diary” entry. In any case, Franke-Gricksch’s political activities and aspirations indicate that he might well be willing to accept, and even help bolster for some conceivable reason of Realpolitik, the Allied propaganda claims about “gas chambers” and the like.[16]

But Franke-Gricksch’s political activity was short-lived. Fleming reports (p. 141):

In October 1951, he [Franke-Gricksch] went to visit his mother in Potsdam, where he and his wife were subsequently charged. For his activities with the SS Police division in Russia between August and the winter of 1942, Franke-Gricksch was condemned to death by the Russians in October 1951, in Karlshorst [a Berlin suburb], while his wife was sentenced to twenty-five years in a labor camp. In October 1955, his wife left Vorkuta and returned to West Germany.

With regard to his father’s arrest and deportation, Ekkehard writes in his letter to the author (see above, p. 273):

As a leader of the Brotherhood, my father was lured to East Berlin in late September 1951 where he was arrested by Soviet secret service agents. One or two days later his wife [Ekkehard’s stepmother] was lured into the Soviet Zone with a fabricated letter containing the message that her husband had suffered a severe colic and was laid up at his mother’s in Potsdam.

He died on August 18, 1953, in the Vorkuta camp in the Soviet Union. My stepmother was sentenced to 25 years forced labor, but was released in 1956.

Why Franke-Gricksch was arrested, convicted, and sent off to death in the Gulag at precisely that time remains, no less than the motivation for his writing his fake diary entry, speculative. Could Franke-Gricksch have been playing some complicated intelligence game between East and West, Britain’s SIS and its Soviet counterpart, while all the while striving to resurrect a neutral Germany following a “third way” beyond capitalism and communism?

As already indicated, Frau Liselotte Franke-Gricksch submitted the “Diary” entry as evidence for the prosecution in the 1965 West German Treblinka Trial. Interestingly, Frau Franke-Gricksch asked about her husband’s fate and whereabouts in a letter of February 3, 1969, sent to the Tracing Service of the German Red Cross. Apparently she believed, or at least hoped, that her husband might still be alive in Soviet captivity. This provides a possible explanation for her decision to submit the “Diary” as evidence in the Treblinka. trial. She may have believed that this act of cooperation might help procure her husband’s release.

Conclusion

As we have shown, a careful examination of the available evidence shows that the “Resettlement Action” report attributed to Franke-Gricksch (“Umsiedlungs Aktion der Juden”) is a postwar fabrication, most likely by Eric Lipman.

Even though this “report” is worthless as a document of historical importance, the way it has been handled and exploited by Exterminationist historians Gerald Fleming and Jean-Claude Pressac is revealing. In their frantic search for evidence to prove the Holocaust story, these historians have misrepresented, ignored or white-washed the clearly false assertions in the document’s text, and ignored other evidence, including the suspiciously defective text itself, that indicates its fraudulent character.

Instead of calmly evaluating evidence, subjecting it to critical analysis, and then drawing conclusions from it, Fleming and Pressac have instead tried to portray the bogus “Resettlement Action” report as an authentic and credible document, exploiting it as “evidence” to “prove” a preconceived view. This technique, which by the most charitable interpretation might be called wish fulfillment, is precisely the opposite of how open-minded historians should go about their work.

Notes

1. Eleven years after the publication of Hitler’s War, Irving further modified his stand on this issue. On the basis of his own further research, and impressed with the results of execution expert Fred Leuchter’s investigation of the alleged extermination gas chambers in Auschwitz, Irving joined Holocaust Revisionists such as Dr. Arthur Butz and Prof. Robert Faurisson, who maintain that there was no German wartime policy of extermination. For a more detailed discussion of the lack of documentary evidence for an extermination program, see: Carlo Mattogno, “The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1988 (Vol. 8, No. 2), pp. 133-140.
2. C. Sydnor, Soldiers of Destruction (1977), p. 337, footnote.
3. In a January 1991 telephone conversation, Lipman informed me that he could not recall the Franke-Gricksch “Resettlement” document.
4. However, Lipman’s handwritten sentence and signature at the end appears possibly to have been blanked out on the photocopy sent to me by Fleming.
5. Supposedly corroborating the “Resettlement” report, Fleming also cites Müller’s description of the alleged gassing procedure. However, this is a description of gassings in Krema I (in the Auschwitz main camp), and not in Krema II in Birkenau, the supposed setting of gassings in the “Resettlement” report. Fleming also ignores differences between Müller’s description of the gassing procedure, and the description given in the “report.”
6. G. Fleming, pp. 144-145.
7. J.-C. Pressac, pp. 236-239.
8. Pressac provides no plausible explanation for his assertion (p. 239, n. 8 ) that “the maximum daily throughput of the four Birkenau Krematorien was in the order of 3,000 incinerations,” since the coke consumption (25 to 50 kg per body) would have required 75,000-150,000 kg per day (!), and the retorts themselves could not possibly have operated at such a rate.
9. J.-C. Pressac, pp. 246, 348.
10. Whereas the “gas chamber” could hold 300 to 400 persons, according to the “Resettlement” report, both Fleming and Pressac fail to note that Filip Müller and other “eyewitnesses” have insisted that as many as 3,000 persons at a time were herded into the room.
11. Still another description of the alleged gassing procedure is given in the 1944 Vrba-Wetzler WRB report.
12. Martin Gilbert, Auschwitz and the Allies (1981), p. 34 (fn 3), p. 175.
13. G. Fleming, pp. 152, 153.
14. From p. 1 of a two-page typed copy provided the author by Ekkehard Franke-Gricksch.
15. Various German press accounts from the year 1950, including Der Tagesspiegel (Berlin), Nov. 17, 1950. Copies in author’s possession, provided by Ekkehard Franke-Gricksch.
16. The case of Alfred Franke-Gricksch resembles in some respects that of Kurt Gerstein. See: Henri Roques, The “Confessions” of Kurt Gerstein (IHR, 1989).

From The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1991 (Vol. 11, No. 3), pp. 261-279

About the Author

Brian A. Renk was born in British Columbia in 1964. He studied at Selkirk College and the University of British Columbia (Vancouver), with a special interest in history and philosophy. At the time this article was published (1991), he was living in Ottawa, where he was studying toward a degree in history.

Read Full Post »

Photobucket
A Case for Letting Nature Take Back Auschwitz
This Leading Holocaust Scholar Argues That There Would Be Dignity in Death Camp’s Neglect

Published December 27th, 2009
Brett Popplewell, Staff Reporter
Source: The Toronto Star

The recent theft and retrieval of the infamous “Arbeit Macht Frei” (“Work Sets You Free”) sign that marks the gateway into Auschwitz has reignited debate over what should be done with the sombre monument to one of humanity’s darkest hours.

Last week Poland’s culture minister promised the equivalent of $137,000 for improving security at the site where more than one million people died during the Holocaust. [Ironlight: Heightened security means inquisitive sorts are unlikely to trespass to conduct their research after-hours. Might this “theft” have been artificial/orchestrated from within?]

But Robert Jan Van Pelt, an architectural historian and a leading expert on Auschwitz, says it may be time to consider other strategies for the site, which is split into two camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau. They sprawl over nearly 500 acres.

Van Pelt, a professor at the University of Waterloo, suggests the museum consider sealing off the Birkenau death camp, where 95 per cent of the murders took place, and letting nature take over. We asked him to explain.

Why have you posited that Birkenau should be closed up and reclaimed by nature? Robert Jan Van Pelt responds:

There is a present problem of preservation in Auschwitz. The place that is actually well-preserved – that’s where the museum is. But the site of Birkenau, a couple kilometres away, where the murders happened, is falling apart. That camp was very hastily constructed. The buildings were built to have a lifespan of two to three years. They were built from recycled bricks. When they ran out of recycled bricks, the SS bought from the German army prefab horse stables. In 1945, when the war came to an end, these horse stables were very valuable because they were kind of instant housing for someone who needed it. So people had the idea that the best thing that they could do was to pick up all of these horse stables – and there’s like 500 of them – take them apart, put them on the train and send them to Warsaw. By 1948 all of the brick barracks in Birkenau were already falling apart. Each of the old horse stables had two stoves inside with two brick chimneys that were not taken to Warsaw.

So you had this very weird landscape – and you still have that – where you get these small, primitive brick chimneys rising three metres out of the ground. They don’t have any other bracing and if you have a storm they blow over. But of course the chimneys themselves – altogether there are hundreds of them – create a very powerful symbolic landscape because we associate Birkenau with the chimneys of the crematoria. Those crematoria aren’t there anymore, they were blown up by the Germans and one of them was blown up by the prisoners in 1944. So because there are only these ruins of the crematoria and because people expect to see chimneys in some way, that field of small chimneys that are the leftovers of the barracks creates a kind of landscape that people in some way associate with the killing and the burning of the bodies of the victims.

By allowing nature to take over the site, do we run the risk of allowing humanity to forget what happened and set the stage for future questioning of the Holocaust?

Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge. [Ironlight: “Knowledge” without “physical evidence to prove,” you say?]

I don’t think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony. . . . We are very successful in remembering the past in that manner. That’s how we know that Cesar was killed on the Ides of March. To put the holocaust in some separate category and to demand that it be there – to demand that we have more material evidence – is actually us somehow giving in to the Holocaust deniers by providing some sort of special evidence.

Why has the site not been closed off already?

In 1959, a proposal was made to let nature take over the camp. The museum wanted to seal the gates and let everything fall into disrepair. The idea was that this spot represented a place where humanity failed in such a monumental way that we really have no business maintaining it. [Ironlight: this makes little sense, especially coming from an architectural historian. The only way one might begin to rationalize this counter-preservationist mentality is to interpret Van Pelt’s suggestion to “seal off” and usher the deterioration of this site — what Robert Jan van Pelt has himself termed “the Holy of Holies” — as the deliberate barring of investigation and the systematic destruction of all remaining physical evidence. If Auschwitz-Birkenau represents, as Van Pelt describes in the documentary Mr. Death, “the absolute center” of the “map of human suffering” in the “geography of atrocity,” then one would assume this architectural historian would wish to safeguard this alleged crime-scene from the forces of disintegration. In truth, Van pelt serves the forces of disintegration, and it should be increasingly obvious to critical-thinkers around the world that this man, and millions just like him, have something to hide.]

At that time the survivors opposed that proposal. They said `You cannot lock us out of our own experience. We suffered here; we need to be able to return to the site where we suffered.’

Fifty years later, we are facing the end of the age of the survivors – the age of the witnesses – and I think when the last survivor of the Holocaust has died, when that almost silent passing happens, we as a civilization or as a species should mark this.

And (what) if no one was going to provide the funds to preserve this site? My response to that challenge is `So what? Maybe it’s not so bad if this site is erased.’ But if indeed there is a moment when we can surrender this site to nature, we cannot do that before the last survivor dies. [Ironlight: concerning the option of “erasure,” the never again crowd has long employed this strategy in order to secure their myth. This is not terribly dissimilar to 70,000 tons of steel being whisked away from the World Trade Center site before a thorough investigation had been conducted. Tall tales are continually reinforced. Inconvenient truths are increasingly erased.]

The chairman of the international Auschwitz council says the decision should be left to those who died at Auschwitz. Do we have any insight – recorded statements from victims before they died – on what they wanted to be done with the site?

No. So when you call on the victims to some way indicate what happened at the site we can only talk about the survivors. But can survivors really represent those who died? The survivors can do that to a degree, but once they are dead I don’t think it’s our place to interpret. This is a decision that we have to take as the living. The earth belongs to the living. It is the living that have to make the tough decisions.

It is fine with me if we the living decide that this site should be preserved and . . . we are willing to spend the money to maintain the site in a proper way . . . that somehow leaves the dignity of the place intact. I’m not going to quarrel with that. But that means we as a worldwide society are actually accepting responsibility for the site – and putting resources toward that.

[Ironlight: “Truth does not fear investigation!“]

Read Full Post »

Earlier versions of Mr. Death were nixed, as viewers left the theater with a fair if not favorable estimation of Fred Leuchter and his peculiar field of research. Jewish director Errol Morris, unable to tolerate this unintended response, reworked the documentary until the desired effect was achieved: Fred Leuchter was to be “cast” as the unmistakable villain, not the unconventional hero. Knowing just how hard the director toiled to prevent a favorable view of his subject speaks volumes, I believe, and makes this documentary worth viewing — not buying. -W.

Read Full Post »



Read Full Post »

Photobucket
Forty-Six Important Unanswered Questions
By David Cole
Source: www.vho.org

Foreword by Bradley Smith

Professor Deborah Lipstadt, author of Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, is the leading voice on college campuses and in the media arguing against intellectual freedom with regard to the holocaust controversy. She is passionate — well, obsessive — about not wanting to exchange views with revisionists.

“[A]t times,” she writes, “I have felt compelled to prove something I knew to be true. I had constantly to avoid being inadvertently sucked into a debate that is no debate and an argument that is no argument.” She adds that revisionism is “totally irrational . . . not responsive to logic” and that “evidence plays no role” in revisionist research.

I’m going to go out on a limb here. I know that Deborah Lipstadt and hundreds of other trained scholars with access to the relevant archives in Europe and the old Soviet Union have studied the Nazi gas chambers for half a century and know everything there is to know about them. Despite this universally accepted fact, I am presenting here a few questions about the notorious homicidal gassing chambers that are being raised by a young scholar named David Cole.

David Cole traveled to Europe twice to make on-site inspections of the still extant “gas chambers.” The lady who financed each of these little expeditions wanted me to go with Cole to direct the project. I thought that would be a nifty idea. I’d never been to Europe and here was my chance. But Cole kept telling me he could handle it on his own. After awhile I got the message. He didn’t want me to go. In the end, each time he went alone, or rather he and a camera woman. I think he was right. He didn’t need direction from me. He handled his responsibilities very well on his own.

When you read David Cole’s 46 unanswered questions about the Nazi gas chambers you may feel yourself hard-pressed — despite what Deborah Lipstadt would have you believe — to find them totally irrational, not responsive to logic, or that evidence plays no role in their design. Of course, you are probably not the towering intellectual that Deborah Lipstadt is, so if you find a few or perhaps more than a few of the 46 questions disturbing in their logic and rationality, precisely because they are based on the physical evidence commonly used to identify the “gas chambers,” why not ring up Professor Lipstadt at Emory University and ask her for the correct answers to these interesting puzzles?

Then pass her answers on to me. I’ll run them by David Cole and see what he has to say about them. Maybe we’ll be able to post Lipstadt’s criticisms of the 46 Questions here, along with David’s response to her criticisms. In the academy they call this process peer review. Ms. Lipstadt would probably point out to you that David Cole is not part of the “academy.” Let’s not call it peer review then. Let’s just call it talking it over. Tell her you have 46 questions about the German gassing chambers and you would like to talk them over with her.

Bradley R. Smith
9 October 1995

The Zyklon-B Issue

AT THE FORMER concentration camps of Auschwitz and Auschwitz-Birkenau, we find the following scenario: The buildings which used to serve as the camp delousing facilities still have extremely high traces of the gas Zyklon B, which was used in these buildings to disinfest clothing, mattresses, etc. Also, there is heavy blue staining on the walls both inside the delousing chambers, INSIDE the hallways between the delousing chambers, and OUTSIDE the building, on the EXTERIOR WALLS of the delousing facilities.

However, the interiors of the Krema 1 gas chamber (Auschwitz Main Camp) and the Krema 2 and 3 gas chambers (Auschwitz-Birkenau), where hundreds of thousands if not millions of people are said to have been gassed, show only minute traces of Zyklon B and no blue staining.

Also, the Auschwitz camp barracks and offices, which were fumigated with the Zyklon B from time to time, show similarly minute traces of the gas, and no blue staining.

(1) What explanation can there be for the low levels of traces, and absence of blue staining, in the homicidal gas chambers?

(2) If one suggests that the Zyklon traces in the homicidal gas chambers have been “weathered away”, how can one explain the traces and staining on the OUTSIDE of the delousing complexes…traces which have NOT been weathered away after fifty years?

(3) It has been suggested that the amount of Zyklon B needed to kill people, even cumulative millions of people, would not leave traces as strong as the amount needed to kill lice in the delousing chambers. But when we factor in the Zyklon B traces still existing in the camp barracks and offices, we see that infrequent gassings will still leave SOME traces. Thus, we have the traces in the camp offices and barracks, which reveal what levels of traces would remain, fifty years after the fact, in rooms which were gassed infrequently.

Then we have the delousing chambers, which reveal what levels of traces would remain, fifty years after the fact, in rooms which were gassed frequently. Can it not be expected that the levels of traces in the homicidal gas chambers, while perhaps not being as high as those in the delousing rooms, would AT LEAST be substantially higher than the traces in the buildings which were only fumigated infrequently? Yet the traces in Kremas 1, 2 and 3 are not markedly higher than the office and barracks traces. Does this not suggest that the traces which DO exist in Kremas 1, 2 and 3 come from the same fumigation routine that all the other buildings went through?

(4) Once one has fashioned an explanation for the minute traces and no blue staining in Kremas 1, 2 and 3 at Auschwitz, how does one THEN explain the HIGH levels of Zyklon B traces and DEEP, FLOOR-TO-CEILING blue staining in three of the four Majdanek gas chambers? Far fewer people are said to have been killed at Majdanek than at Auschwitz. The four Majdanek gas chambers would never have had to handle the workload of Kremas 1,2 and 3. Yet whereas Kremas 1,2 and 3 have only minute traces and no blue staining, three of the four Majdanek gas chambers have heavy traces and deep blue staining. How could gassing a GREATER amount of people (at Auschwitz) leave minute traces and no blue staining, yet gassing a much SMALLER amount (at Majdanek) leave heavy traces and deep blue staining?

(5) The gas chambers at the Majdanek camp not only have heavy Zyklon B blue stains on the INSIDE, but also on the OUTSIDE walls, as well. What could account for this? The delousing facilities at Birkenau have heavy blue staining on their outside walls, staining which is said to come from the mattresses which were propped up against the outside walls and beaten after delousing (to rid them of Zyklon B residue). Do the heavy blue stains on the outside walls of the Majdanek gas chambers therefore suggest that these rooms were used as delousing facilities? Isn’t the building which contains the gas chambers labeled the “Bath and Disinfection” complex? If, as with Auschwitz, it is said that gassing people wouldn’t leave blue stains on the INSIDE walls of a homicidal gas chamber, how then, at Majdanek, could gassing people leave heavy blue stains not only on the INSIDE walls but also on the OUTSIDE ones as well?

(6) To sum up the Zyklon B issue, we can take an overview of the Nazi gas chambers and their respective states RE Zyklon B traces:

Krema 1 (Auschwitz Main Camp): Minute traces, no blue staining

Krema 2 (Auschwitz-Birkenau): Minute traces, no blue staining

Krema 3 (Auschwitz-Birkenau): Minute traces, no blue staining.

Majdanek gas chambers 1, 3 and 4: Heavy traces, heavy blue staining (on inside and outside walls).

Dachau gas chamber: No traces, no blue staining.

Mauthausen gas chamber: No traces, no blue staining.

The revisionist explanation for the above is:

Kremas 1, 2 and 3 were not used as gas chambers; — the only Zyklon B they saw was from the routine camp fumigations.

Majdanek rooms 1, 3 and 4 were delousing rooms, like the ones at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

The Dachau gas chamber was a shower.

The Mauthausen gas chamber was a shower

What theory can be offered which explains the wildly divergent states of the gas chambers re Zyklon B traces, while still supporting the concept of mass homicidal gassings at these camps?

Unanswered Questions Regarding the Physical Evidence at the Auschwitz-Birkenau Concentration Camp (Poland)

(7) Why was the area between Kremas 2 and 3, the area where thousands of people were marched daily to their deaths, left completely unfenced? The ditches which run the length of the camp perimeter would make a person invisible both to ground fire AND fire from the guard tower. Why would the Nazis risk an attempted escape, especially considering the fact that many inmates were gassed after they had been in the camp for a while, and knew what their fate would be if marched into either of those buildings? Doesn’t the Auschwitz State Museum claim that the inmates would often “riot” as they were being marched toward Kremas 2 and 3?

(8) Why were Kremas 2 and 3 not hidden in any way from the view of the inmates? Isn’t it claimed at the Auschwitz State Museum that gassings were stopped at Krema 1 (Auschwitz Main Camp) and moved to Birkenau because the inmates were starting to get an idea of the homicidal purpose of Krema 1? Why then were Kremas 2 and 3 put in plain sight of all sectors of the Birkenau camp, with no camouflage of any kind? Wouldn’t this just create hundreds of thousands of “eyewitnesses”, with everyone in the camp becoming well aware of the exterminations (and with many of these inmates later transferred to other camps in other parts of Europe to “spread the word” about the gassing program)? How could this profit the Nazis?

(9) It is claimed that there were four holes on the roofs of Kremas 2 and 3, which served as Zyklon B induction holes. The best piece of evidence that these holes ever existed is found in the U.S. aerial photos taken of Auschwitz during the war. Is there any discrepancy between the size of these holes as depicted in the U.S. aerial photos, and the size of the holes as depicted on the model of the Krema 2 gas chamber (on display at the Auschwitz State Museum and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum), the size as theorized by Jean-Claude Pressac in his book “Auschwitz; Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers”, the size as depicted in the movie “Triumph of the Spirit” (which recreated a gassing at Krema 2), and the size as described over the decades by eyewitnesses? Indeed, can it be said that the holes as depicted in the aerial photos are ridiculously large…larger than what would have been needed for pouring in a can of Zyklon B gas?

(10) Why are the four holes not present today in the roof slab of Krema 2? The roof slab, though collapsed, is intact and both the top and underside of the roof are still visible. There are two crudely chiseled holes at opposite ends of the roof slab (one is more like a huge crack than a hole), but the other two holes are non existent, and the underside of the roof, with the two-by-fours lining the ceiling still visible, shows no sign of two holes having ever been present. There are also no traces of the two holes on the top of the roof. How can the absence of the two holes, and any traces of the two holes, be explained?

(11) What circumstances would produce the Krema 2 roof slab as we now see it, with two holes visible and the other two non-existent? If the Nazis attempted to erase the traces of the roof holes, why did they stop after two? Why would they expend much effort to erase all traces of two of the roof holes, then not make any effort to erase the two which survived the demolition?

(12) Could the still existing roof holes have been added after the liberation, by the Soviets or Poles? Doesn’t Pressac admit that these two holes don’t correspond with the positions of the holes in the aerial photos (Pressac says that this might be because the roof “shifted” during demolition, but even if the roof “shifted”, that wouldn’t account for why these holes, which were supposed to run in a straight line down the middle of the roof, have changed their positions, and are no longer in a straight line down the middle of the intact roof slab)? These holes are in incredibly bad condition; their edges are consistently rough, with not an inch of smoothness left. And they are no longer circular. They look like someone took a jack-hammer and roughly hammered through the roof slab. It is explained by Auschwitz State Museum officials that the demolition of the roof is what accounts for the awful condition of the holes (that is, they USED to be round and smooth until the demolition).

But if one observes the wreckage of the “undressing room” roof slab, which was similarly destroyed and is now in even worse shape than the gas chamber roof slab, one sees the remains of the undressing room front ventilation hole, which is still round and smooth even after the demolition and fifty years of laying around as rubble. Why did the undressing room roof hole survive intact, while the two still existing gas chamber roof holes emerged from the demolition without even the slightest trace that they had once been round and smooth? If we consider that the two still existing gas chamber roof holes don’t correspond with their supposed position on the roof, can we theorize that MAYBE these two holes were chiseled in after the liberation? It is now admitted by the Auschwitz State Museum that the Soviets, after liberation, drilled four “Zyklon B induction holes” in the roof of Krema 1 (Auschwitz Main Camp). One needn’t assume bad faith on the part of the Soviets (they might have honestly believed that they were “restoring” the roof to the state in which it had once been), but this act clearly establishes that the Soviets DID in fact drill post-liberation “Zyklon B induction holes” in roofs that, at that time, had none. Is it possible that this accounts for the two sloppy “Zyklon B induction holes” in the roof slab of the Krema 2?

(13) It is said that the Nazis destroyed Kremas 2 and 3 in order to hide the proofs of their gas chambers. But what “proof” of gassings would have been provided by Krema 2 if Krema 2 had not been dynamited? There are no heavy Zyklon B traces or blue stains on the walls, and great care was obviously taken to remove even the slightest trace of two of the Zyklon B induction holes. The Krema 2 gas chamber would have resembled an ordinary morgue. Was the destruction of Krema 2 an attempt to hide the evidence of a gas chamber, or simply the destruction of a cremation facility in the face of the advancing Soviets? Were cremation facilities at other camps, camps that were never claimed to have gas chambers, also destroyed?

(14) If one is to believe that four Zyklon B induction holes were at one time in the roof slab of Krema 2, it must be assumed that the Nazis went through great pains to meticulously hide any traces of at least two of those holes. Yet we are told that when the Soviets, after liberation, “reopened” the Zyklon B induction holes in the Krema 1 gas chamber state (at the time of liberation, it was being used as an air-raid shelter), they know exactly where to “reopen” the four holes because the traces where these holes had been were STILL VISIBLE. The idea that the Zyklon B induction hole traces were still visible is supported by the Auschwitz State Museum officials, and by author Jean-Claude Pressac. Why didn’t the Nazis attempt to “cover-up” THOSE holes, especially keeping in mind that the Krema 1 gas chamber had been abandoned as a gas chamber AT LEAST a year before liberation, giving the Nazis more than enough time to erase the traces.

The Nazis were apparently able to do an incredibly good job of erasing the hole traces in the Krema 2 roof, even though time was short (the Nazis knew the Soviets were advancing, and they were busy making preparations to abandon the camp), yet we are told that they did NOT attempt to likewise cover up the hole traces in the Krema 1 roof slab, even though they had at least a year to do so. Why would the Nazis do such a fastidiously good job of hiding the existence of Zyklon B induction holes in a roof that they were then going to dynamite (Krema 2), yet allow the hole traces to remain in a roof that was left intact for the advancing Soviets (Krema 1)? Isn’t that backwards?

Unanswered Questions Regarding the Physical Evidence at the Mauthausen Concentration Camp (Austria)

(15) The gas chamber at concentration camp Mauthausen (in Austria) has no locks on the doors, and no holes or fittings where locks may once have been. The doors can be opened from inside or outside. How could human beings have been gassed in this room?

(16) The peepholes in the two Mauthausen gas chamber doors have no hemispherical metal grid covering the glass, as would have been necessary to prevent the victims from knocking out the glass and causing a gas leak. There are no holes or fittings where a grid might once have been. Doesn’t Pressac write extensively about the need for such hemispherical grids? Doesn’t Pressac recount survivor testimony regarding the need for such grids during a homicidal gassing? With no grid, what stopped the inmates from knocking out the glass, using either their hands or the ample shower piping in the chamber?

(17) Why are there no Zyklon B traces, or blue stains, in this chamber?

(18) The hole in the ceiling of this chamber, through which the Zyklon B crystals were supposedly poured, is small enough to be blocked by the inmates hands, and the ceiling is low enough for them to block the hole. How could the Zyklon B be effectively poured in?

(19) There is a large drain in the floor of this room. There are no holes or fittings where a cover for this drain might have been attached. What would stop the victims from brushing the Zyklon B crystals down this drain?

(20) Unlike the Dachau “fake shower room”, which indeed has fake shower heads (which were directly screwed into the concrete to a maze of water pipes which run the length of the ceiling AND across the walls. Doesn’t this room resemble a real shower room? How do we know it wasn’t?

(21) What would have been the wisdom of construction a fake shower room with such a maze of pipes running across the ceiling and walls? Wouldn’t the victims have torn these fixtures down? Doesn’t Pressac write about how the victims in the Auschwitz gas chambers would destroy the electrical fixtures and anything else in the chamber? Wouldn’t the pipes serve as perfect weapons with which to smash a hole through the unguarded peepholes (not to mention the doors have no locks)? And if the prisoners didn’t wish to block the Zyclon B induction hole with their hands, the showers heads would’ve fit inside the hole nicely. Why wasn’t the “fake shower heads screwed directly into the ceiling” method (a la Dachau) employed here?

(22) Considering the absence of Zyklon B traces, locks on the doors, peephole covers, and a viable means of pouring in the Zyklon B, and factoring in the floor drain and the water pipes and genuine shower heads in this room, why can’t we assume this was a genuine shower room?

Unanswered Questions Regarding the Physical Evidence at the Dachau Concentration Camp (Germany)

(23) The method of Zyklon B induction for the Dachau gas chamber is claimed to be via two chutes carved through one of the walls, through which the Zyklon B would be poured. What would have stopped the victims from putting their backs against the mouths of these chutes, thus preventing the crystals from entering the room?

(24) If the crystals WERE able to enter the room, the two chutes are located just above two large drains in the floor. There are no holes or fittings where covers for these drains might have been. What would stop the crystals from falling down the drains?

(25) There is a mystery room (not open to the public but visible through several windows) adjoining the gas chamber room. This room appears to have water and steam pipes which appear to lead into the gas chamber. Was the gas chamber room actually a shower? What is the purpose of this “mystery room”? What can be gained by ignoring this room which, it stands to reason, must have had SOME purpose?

(26) It is often said that the Nazis tried to hide the evidence of their extermination program by speaking in code, and rarely speaking of the exterminations on the record. It is similarly held that, as it became clear that they were losing the war, the Nazis tried to destroy the proofs of their crimes (the destruction of the four Birkenau Kremas is said to have been part of this “cover-up”). How, then, does one explain the Dachau gas chamber? The obviously false shower heads are incontrovertible proof of the homicidal purpose of this room. It is impossible not explain away the fake shower heads/a homicidal gas chamber. Yet we are to believe that this gas chamber was NEVER USED. And we are also supposed to believe that the room in its present state is exactly as the U.S. Army found it when the camp was liberated. Now, the details of the liberation of Dachau are well known: Dachau was not taken in some surprise attack. The guards at Dachau knew that the Americans were on their way. Therefore, we are asked to believe that the Nazis, KNOWING the camp would be surrendered, left the gas chamber room (which was not even being USED as a gas chamber) in a state which unashamedly points to its homicidal purpose. Why were the fake shower heads not removed? *

Why was there no attempt at a “cover-up,” like at Auschwitz? Unlike the Auschwitz gas chambers, THIS one was not even in use! What good was an unused room which only served to scream to the world “the Nazis are gassing the Jews”? Why would the Nazis, who were NOT using the “gas chamber” to kill people, leave it in this blatantly homicidal state, especially as the Americans drew closer? Keep in mind that, with the fake shower heads, this room was also impossible to us as a SHOWER. Therefore, this room served NO PURPOSE: it wasn’t used as a gas chamber, and couldn’t be used as a shower. We are asked to accept that the Nazis kept a large, USELESS room in one of the more important buildings in the Dachau camp (the “gas chamber” is located in the building which houses the Zyklon B clothing fumigation cubicles) and that this room remained UNUSED for years but was never stripped of the fake shower heads which pointed irrefutably to the Nazi’s murderous intentions.

Surely, understanding the great pains the Nazis took to keep their gassing/extermination plans a secret, and the great pains they supposedly took at OTHER camps to “hide their crimes” once the Allies were advancing (i.e. the destruction of Kremas 2 through 5 at Auschwitz), we can expect that they would have performed the very simple task of removing the fake shower heads (and perhaps plastering over the marks where the shower heads had been). Why didn’t the Nazis do this?

* There might be a simple answer to the Dachau shower head issue. The height of the ceiling in the “Dachau gas chamber” is presently 7.6 feet. However, in Document L-159, No. 47 of the 79th Congress, 1st Session (Exhibit NO. USA-222; IMT, XXXVII, p. 621), which details the U.S. Army’s investigation of the Dachau camp after liberation, the ceiling of this room is measured at 10 feet high. The fake shower heads which exist today embedded in the 7.6 foot high ceiling are made of sheet metal. Document No. 47 describes the 10 foot high ceiling as having “brass fixtures”, which might very well have been genuine shower heads and pipes but which, in any event, are long absent from the ceiling of this room. Basically, sometime between the liberation of Dachau, and the media blitz regarding the “Dachau gas chamber”, a 10 foot high ceiling with bass fixtures became a 7.6 foot high ceiling with cone-shaped sheet metal fake shower heads. How? I think we can take a guess!

Remember that the record of the U.S. Army (and the U.S. government, for that matter) is not very good when it comes to being honest about Dachau. If we are to assume that the Army created a fraudulent “gas chamber”, it helps to understand that there is already proof that the Army was less than honest when presenting Dachau to the world. Most notable in this respect is the photographic sleight-of-hand which is still employed today (especially at the Weisenthal Center’s high-tech “Museum of Tolerance” here in L.A.) where a photo of a door to one of the Dachau ZYKLON B FUMIGATION CUBICLES, complete with poisonous gas warning, skull and crossbones, and gassing schedule, is shown (often with a soldier standing in front) along with the caption that this is the door to the Dachau “HOMICIDAL” gas chamber (thus giving the impression that Zyklon B gas was used in the alleged homicidal gas chamber). This is pure fraud, and not the kind of fraud that the Army could have perpetrated “by accident”. In pictures released by the Army, the doors to the small fumigation cubicles were portrayed as the doors to the alleged homicidal gas chamber…and this is something that doesn’t happen by accident. For people like my mother and her family, Jews living in the U.S. during the forties, it’s the Dachau gas chamber propaganda that they most clearly remember as their first exposure to the concept of homicidal gas chambers.

Unanswered Questions Regarding the Physical Evidence at the Majdanek Concentration Camp (Poland)

(27) Gas chamber 1 has two doors, both of which open INTO the gas chamber room. How can a homicidal gas chamber have two doors which open IN? Wouldn’t the bodies be pressed up against the doors, as described numerous times by eyewitnesses?

(28) The main door into the gas chamber 1 has no locks. It can be opened from either the inside or the outside. There are no holes or fittings where a lock might have been. What stopped the inmates from opening this door?

(29) Gas chamber 1 has a plate glass window in it. There are no holes or fittings around the window where bars or any other kind of cover might once have been. Since the plaster around the window is covered with blue stains, we know that it is the plaster that existed during the time Zyklon B gas was used in this room. If there WERE bars or any other type of cover attached to this window, why are there no traces? What would have stopped the inmates from trying to climb out the window, or breaking the window and causing a gas leak?

(30) There is a room INSIDE gas chamber 1. Why would there be a separate room INSIDE a gas chamber? Doesn’t this room indicate that gas chamber 1 was used for something OTHER than killing people?

(31) Gas chambers 2 and 3 are designed backwards. Chamber 2 has a Zyklon B induction hole in the ceiling, but no Zyklon B traces or blue stains. Chamber 3 has heavy, floor-to-ceiling Zyklon B traces and blue stains, but no Zyklon B induction hole. And, like the roof of Krema 2 at Auschwitz, the ceiling shows no sign of a hole having ever been there. Why would chamber 2 have a Zyklon B induction hole and no traces, and chamber 3 plenty of traces but no hole?

(32) The ceilings in chambers 2 and 4 are low enough so that the Zyklon B induction holes could have been blocked by the victims. What would have stopped the inmates from blocking the holes?

(33) The doors to chambers 2,3 and 4 are built to latch from the outside AND the inside. The latches can be opened from either side. Does this suggest that the rooms were used for something other than killing people?

(34) Getting back to the issue of hemispherical grids covering the peepholes, it is said that the point of these grids was to prevent the inmates from breaking the glass of the peepholes and causing a gas leak. Yet the hemispherical grids attached to the peepholes on the doors of chambers 2, 3 and 4 are attached on the OUTSIDE of the doors. These grids wouldn’t prevent someone INSIDE the room from breaking the glass…but they WOULD prevent someone OUTSIDE the room from doing so. Why are the grids not on the inside? Does this contradict with the statements by Pressac and the eyewitnesses regarding the need for grids in a homicidal gas chamber?

(35) The Majdanek camp is built on a hill. At the top of the hill is the camp crematorium. At the opposite end of the camp, at the bottom of the hill, is the “Bath and Disinfection” complex, which houses the gas chambers. From the Nazi’s point of view, what was the wisdom in putting the gas chambers at the opposite end of the camp from the ovens, and at the bottom of the hill (after each gassing, the dead bodies would have to have been dragged up the hill, the length of the entire camp, to the ovens)?

(36) As the Nazis were preparing to abandon the Majdanek camp, they destroyed the crematorium building. Why were the gas chambers not similarly destroyed? Why would the Nazis leave their weapons of mass murder intact for the world to see? How hard would it have been for the Nazis to destroy the gas chambers, just like they did the crematorium building? At least, shouldn’t the Nazis have filled in the Zyklon B induction holes, which serve as direct proofs of homicidal gassings? Either way, the destruction of the crematorium is clear proof that the Nazis had both the time and the ability to demolish buildings in the camp if they wanted to. Why were the gas chambers not demolished?

(37) In his book “Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers”, Jean-Claude Pressac publishes a photo of the Majdanek gas chambers, with the caption “Photograph taken at the Majdanek concentration camp in June 1979, showing one of the disinfestation gas chambers thought to be a homicidal gas chamber.” On page 555, he also has this to say about the Majdanek gas chambers: “I am sorry to say, and I am not the only one in the West, that the Majdanek homicidal and/or delousing gas chambers are still waiting for a true historian, which is mildly upsetting in view of the fact that the camp fell into the hands of the Russians intact in 1944.” Do these comments suggest that the gas chambers at Majdanek may in fact have been disinfestation gas chambers? At least, don’t these comments suggest that there has not yet been a thorough investigation into the purpose of these rooms? **

(38) To sum up the Majdanek gas chamber issue: If we take Pressac’s comments and then factor in the doors that don’t lock, the doors that open INTO the gas chamber, the doors with latches that can be manipulated from both the outside AND the inside, the window in gas chamber 1, the room inside gas chamber 1, the lack of any Zyklon B induction hole in gas chamber 3, the lack of any Zyklon B traces in gas chamber 2 (which DOES have a “Zyklon B induction hole”), the heavy blue stains on the OUTSIDE of the building, and the location of the building, at the bottom of a hill, at the opposite end of the camp from the crematorium, is it reasonable to suggest that these rooms were delousing chambers?

** In what can only be considered an unfortunate example of how major disputes between Holocaust historians are shielded from the public, the same room Pressac describes in his book as a “disinfestation gas chamber” is featured in the book “The World Must Know,” the official book of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C., written by Museum director Dr. Michael Berenbaum. In that book, Berenbaum describes the room as a HOMICIDAL gas chamber and, what’s more, a CASTING of this room was made for display AT THE MUSEUM, as PROOF of the homicidal gas chambers! Thus, in both Berenbaum’s book AND in the Museum itself, the ONLY material proof given of homicidal gassings is THIS ROOM, a room Pressac staunchly believes to be a disinfestation gas chamber (in fact, in his Auschwitz book, Pressac actually RIDICULES those who say that this Majdanek room is proof of homicidal gassings, and criticizes everyone from the man who prosecuted Faurisson in France to the Majdanek State Museum personnel for perpetuating a fraud).

But does anyone give a damn that the general public, all the millions, might be receiving fraudulent information? Some might suggest that disputes such as these should be kept private so as not to shake the public’s confidence in Holocaust history, or in the Holocaust historians. But don’t you think we have a RESPONSIBILITY not to knowingly feed the public falsehoods or unproven claims disguised as unquestioned facts? Don’t you think we have a responsibility to be honest about our research? If not, what makes us any different from the “historians” of the Soviet Union, or Hitler’s Germany, who knowingly tailored their research to produce a politically expedient conclusion? When the ends begin justifying the means, watch integrity go flying out the window.

As bad as the public misinformation about Majdanek is, the Stalin-esque purging of Pressac’s “Auschwitz; Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers” from the official record is worse. This master-work of historiography, once loudly heralded in the press (see enclosed clippings), is NOW nowhere to be found when references to Pressac are made. A recent article in “Publishers Weekly,” detailing a forthcoming U.S. Holocaust Museum book containing 29 original essays from Holocaust scholars including Berenbaum and Pressac, not only neglects to mention Pressac’s gas chamber book, but seems to suggest that Pressac’s conversion from revisionist to gas chamber believer came only recently, as he was researching his just-published “slim volume” about the Auschwitz crematorium. The entire period of the 1980’s, which Pressac spent researching his gas chamber book after his “conversion”, is omitted.

Yet scholars around the world continue to use Pressac’s gas chamber book (if they’re lucky enough to have one of the few copies), mainly because, even if one disagrees with Pressac’s conclusions, his book is STILL the best (and the only) single source for the blueprints, construction slips, alteration plans, and inter-office communiques regarding the Auschwitz “gas chambers”. Neither side in this debate agrees entirely with Pressac…but for the gas chamber supporters, his book is an embarrassment because it IS so thorough. It is the most thorough work yet produced about the gas chambers, yet Pressac cannot find that elusive objective proof of gassings. So now, apparently, the historians have just decided to pretend the book doesn’t exist. I’ve always referred to the Pressac gas chamber book as the most popular book that never existed!

Four Unanswered Questions About Stutthof

When preparing the original 38 questions, I didn’t bother with the tiny Stutthof “gas chamber” because so few people take it seriously anymore. Stutthof was the camp where the Nazis supposedly made the “human soap.”. When the soap story was dropped, so was much of the testimony about the Stutthof “gas chamber.” However, recently an NBC prime-time news show, “The Crusaders,” decided to revive this rarely mentioned “homicidal gas chamber,” producing a segment about Stutthof that played up the existence of an intact gas chamber at the camp. This segment of “The Crusaders” has now been adopted as part of California’s public school Holocaust-education curriculum. Therefore, I thought a brief overview of, and a few questions about, the Stutthof “gas chamber” were in order

Brief Overview: The Stutthof concentration camp, located 35 km east of Gdansk, was designed for Polish civilians and designated as a “civilian internees camp.” The Stutthof “gas chamber,” a relatively small building (8 meters long, 3 meters wide, and 2.30 meters high) located next door to the camp crematorium (which was destroyed as the Nazis abandoned the camp, and has been rebuilt by the Poles) has walls soaked both inside and out with the tell-tale blue staining that comes from repeated Zyklon B usage. There is a stove and chimney outside, for heating the interior. Inside, a long clay heating conduit runs the length of one wall. This building was clearly a delousing gas chamber. The Zyklon granules would be placed on the heating conduit, and the stove would be fired up. The conduit would become hot, and the granules would release their gas. The two doors would then be opened for natural ventilation. This is an “old style” German Zyklon B delousing chamber, built before the more modern chambers, like the ones at Dachau, were designed (the newer, more energy efficient chambers came equipped with Zyklon evaporators, which would heat the granules on a kind of hot plate, and blow the gas onto the clothes, mattresses, etc. This was more energy efficient because it was a waste of fuel to heat an ENTIRE ROOM when it was only the ZYKLON GRANULES that needed to be warmed up. These Zyklon evaporators remain at Dachau today, in the delousing chambers of “Barrack X.”).

The “evidence” of homicidal usage of the Stutthof gas chamber is a “Zyklon B induction hole” in the roof. We are told that the Zyklon would be poured in through the this hole on the heads of the unsuspecting victims. The roof of this chamber is accessible only via ladder.
Let’s pause to read what Pressac has to say about Stutthof:

“It is not known when this gas chamber FOR DELOUSING PRISONERS’ EFFECTS (emphasis his) was installed. Its dimensions are close to the standard dimensions of those erected by BOOS or DEGESCH…From 22nd June to the beginning of November 1944, it was used as a HOMICIDAL gas chamber for groups of about 100 people, Zyklon B being poured in through a small opening of 15 cm diameter in the roof, a system apparently introduced on the advice of SS Lieutenant Colonel Rudolf Hoess, former commandant of Auschwitz-Birkenau and at that time head of Department D1 of the WVHA-SS (SS Economic Administration Head Office). While the history of this gas chamber is known from TESTIMONIES reported by Father Krzysztof Dunin-Wasowicz, there has been no scientific examination of the “murder weapon” since 1945, which means that we do not know how the chamber functioned as a delousing installation and are unable to provide material proof of its criminal use.

(Pressac cont.) The number of victims is estimated at one or two thousand. The visit (to Stutthof) did not greatly impress us.” (Pressac; “Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers” pages 539-540)

The Stutthof Museum personnel agree with Pressac’s claim that this was FIRST AND FOREMOST a delousing chamber, used as such for years, only LATER “converted”into a homicidal one.

Now, let’s ask some questions, picking up from where we left off in the “38 Questions”

(39) The Stutthof “gas chamber” has a large floor drain right in the middle of the room, DIRECTLY BELOW the “Zyklon B induction hole.” Any granules dropped through this hole would automatically go right down the drain. What’s more, the floor of this room is DEPRESSED in the middle, where the drain is, so that any water or, in this case, Zyklon granules, would automatically roll into the drain. what would stop the Zyklon granules from going down the drain, since they were being poured into the room directly over this drain? And, if a few granules missed the drain, wouldn’t they simply roll, or couldn’t the inmates brush them, down the drain?

(40) The roof of this room is low enough so that a tall person could reach up and block the “Zyklon B induction hole.” However, the thoughtful Nazis, by installing the heating conduit that runs the length of on wall, have made it possible for ANYONE, of whatever height, to stand on this conduit and block the hole. What would stop the inmates from blocking the “Zyklon B induction hole,” especially since they would be EXPECTING foul play (this room was the official Stutthof delousing chamber, known as such by all the inmates. No Stutthof inmate would expect to be given a “shower” in this room, and indeed the Stutthof Museum makes no claims about such a deception (neither do the eyewitnesses)?

(41) Why was this building – a clear “proof” of Nazi crimes, what with its ” Zyklon B induction hole,” – not DESTROYED as the Nazis evacuated the camp? Amazingly, the crematorium RIGHT NEXT DOOR was blown up, and, in fact, one side of the gas chamber building was actually HIT by shrapnel from the exploding crematorium. Yet the gas chamber was allowed to remain intact, even though, as reported by the Stutthof survivor interviewed on the “Crusaders” TV show, at the end of the war the Nazis were ordered to KILL EVERY INMATE at Stutthof, in order to erase any evidence of the gassings (by killing all the eyewitnesses). For some unknown reason, this order was never carried out, and the Stutthof inmates were evacuated west.

Why would the Nazis BLOW UP the crematorium, yet leave the “homicidal” gas chamber standing? Why would the Nazis decide to KILL EVERY INMATE in order to “cover up” their crimes, yet leave the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of those crimes standing? Why wouldn’t the Nazis AT LEAST cover up the “Zyklon B induction hole,” which would serve as CLEAR AND INDISPUTABLE PROOF of homicidal usage (unless we dare to imagine that this hole was put in by the Soviets/Poles, as they ADMIT doing at the building the Nazis abandoned knowing it was soon to fall into Soviet hands. Considering the great pains that the Nazis went through to “cover up” the gassings elsewhere, how hard would it have been to dynamite THIS building along with the crematorium just a few yards away?

(42) Since personal testimony is all we have to go on regarding the homicidal usage of this chamber, and since much of this testimony also mentions the “human soap” – which has long been officially debunked – what evidence do we have that the testimony about the Stutthof homicidal gas chamber is any more reliable than the testimony about the human soap?

I could add one more question (but I won’t), something about the fact that the Stutthof gas chamber is located in full view of all the inmates, inmates who were NOT destined for extermination, and not, to a great extent, Jewish. Strangely, the secrecy-obsessed Nazis also seemed obsessed with conducting their homicidal gassings in the most open, noticeable places possible…especially at the non-“extermination” camps (at Mauthausen, another non-extermination camp, the “gas chamber” is right in the middle of the inmate barracks), thus hoping, I suppose, to create tens or hundreds of thousands of “eyewitnesses” to something the Nazis would not even discuss privately in coded transmissions. Go figure.

The following four questions are based on personal meetings I had during my last trip to Europe in October of 1994. In Lublin, Poland, I met with Tomasz Kranz, Curator of the Majdanek State Museum. I spoke at length with Mr. Kranz, who has been Curator for ten years, in his office on the Majdanek concentration camp site, Two weeks later, in a suburb outside Paris, I met with Jean-Claude Pressac, the celebrated Holocaust author who has become perhaps the man most recognized with defending the gas chamber theory. I met with Mr. Pressac in his office, and got to spend roughly six hours discussing gas chambers, Holocaust history, the demands of publishing in the mainstream, and much more.

For the purpose of this list of questions, I have chosen four simple ones based on these meetings.

(43) Majdanek Curator Tomasz Kranz had to admit, after I raised the same questions I’ve raised in this list, that the biggest Majdanek “gas chamber,” chamber #1, was not intended or used homicidally. Big revelation. With the doors, window, and everything else that precludes homicidal usage, this is a conclusion even a five year old child would come to. Although Kranz could offer no evidence for homicidal usage in the other three chambers, chamber #1 was the only one he was willing to completely jettison as a homicidal room. Pressac went further. He is only willing to even CONSIDER homicidal gassings in chamber #3. Of course, he has no evidence. What’s more, he admits that the Soviets laid down fake “gas piping” in chamber #3 to give the room the appearance of a homicidal gas chamber. This is certainly in keeping with Soviet precedent regarding the mishandling and faking of important historical evidence. Pressac could offer no REAL evidence for gassings in this room. But my question is: Why does Curator Tomasz Kranz continue to allow this room to be represented to tourists and the world as a homicidal gas chamber, when he privately acknowledges it never was? If there is agreement that this room was never homicidally used, why continue to promote it as a death chamber? If the Majdanek Curator and Europe’s most well known Holocaust author express such uncertainty about homicidal usage of this and the other rooms, why are people like me who ask basic questions like these labeled as anti-Semitic irrational cranks? If, as Pressac believes, rooms 1,2 and 4 were not homicidal gas chambers, what evidence is there that anyone was killed in room 3?

(44) At Auschwitz Birkenau, the rooms in Kremas 4 and 5 that are supposed to have been used as homicidal gas chambers all had drains in the floor that led right into the camp sewage system. These floor drains can still be seen today. Since, in these “gas chambers,” it is said that the Zyklon pellets were dumped in loose, what stopped the pellets from going down the drain or being kicked or brushed down by the victims? Pressac was aware of this problem. He has tried to prove that the Zyklon pellets would present no problem. He has tried to prove that the Zyklon pellets would present no danger in the camp sewer, since the water would (in his opinion; this is a debatable point) “neutralize” the poison so it wouldn’t present a danger when going through Birkenau’s large sewage treatment plants. But Pressac misses the point; the question of just how harmful the Zyklon would be in the sewer is SECONDARY to the point that if the Zyklon is IN the sewer that means it’s NOT in the gas chamber doing the job the Nazis intended! If the victims can dump the Zyklon into the sewer, that means they themselves won’t be gassed. How could these rooms have functioned as homicidal gas chambers?

(45) There is a large square manhole in the floor of the Krema 1 “gas chamber” at the Auschwitz Main Camp. The manhole has a concrete cover with a metal handle. It is possible for anybody of normal or even below-normal strength to lift off the lid, and the manhole is large enough for anyone of any size to climb down. What would stop the victims from climbing down the manhole to either escape the gas chamber via the sewer OR at least escape the gas? And even if escape wasn’t possible, what would stop the victims from kicking or brushing the Zyklon B pellets down the manhole and closing the cover? There is something I should mention here, since several times I’ve talked about the possibility of the victims brushing the pellets down floor drains of in this, the worst case yet, a manhole. Zyklon B can kill a human being quite effectively when its gas is INHALED. It kills through the lungs. It doesn’t kill through the skin (unless it is in contact with the skin for a very long period of time and in a very high concentration). Therefore, the pellets could easily be handled by victims in a gas chamber without posing any threat to the victims via absorption through the skin. In fact, a Zyklon mixture was frequently brushed directly onto people’s arms and legs during disinfestation procedures at Auschwitz, and Zyklon was also used in a liquid solution to bathe people in for delousing. As for the Zyklon pellets giving off their gas, it should be remembered that Zyklon B begins giving off gas when warmed. The hotter it is, the quicker the evaporation.

Yet Kremas 1 ( and 2 and 3) were not only UNHEATED but partially or completely UNDERGROUND! All three rooms were used or designed as morgues; they were MEANT to be cold all the time. It has never been explained just how the Zyklon was heated, especially in the freezing winter months. The best that the other side can do is say that the body temperatures of the victims warmed the rooms. But that would take time, and the “confession” of Auschwitz Commandant Hoess speaks of a very swift process – herd ’em in, drop down the gas, ventilate the room. No time mentioned to let the victims warm up the room. Zyklon pellets dropped down into a cold room, landing on the cold floor, would not only give off gas slowly, but would be safe to brush down a drain or manhole. What would stop the inmates from doing this? (For the record, there is a floor drain in the Krema 1 “gas chamber” AS WELL as a manhole…but with a manhole of that size, the drain becomes almost irrelevant!)

In 1992 I ran my manhole question past Dr. Franciszek Piper, Senior Curator of the Auschwitz State Museum, and he had no answer. When I ran it by Pressac, he thought I was trying to put one over on him; he didn’t believe there WAS a manhole in Krema 1! I was floored that he had never seen it. We argued about this for some time until I had to go through his files and find a picture of Krema 1 and POINT OUT the damn manhole. Now HE was floored. “Over the last ten years I’ve been to Krema 1 more times than I can possibly count,” he said (in French, of course), ” and I’ve never noticed the manhole!”

“The next time you go, Jean-Claude,” I responded, “you should look down!” “Ah, that is the problem David,” he said. “You look down while I look up.” Well, for the record, I look up too. My aim is to notice things, to take these gas chambers seriously; to walk into these rooms and ask three questions:

“How is this gas chamber supposed to have worked?” “What would have happened if it worked that way?,” “What evidence is there that it did?”

The mainstream historians gloss over the difficult questions. They have nothing to gain by challenging their own beliefs. As a result, all too often they don’t pay attention to the crucial details of their own stories. They come up with their conclusion first, and then they only pay attention to the evidence that supports that conclusion. They don’t look at ALL the evidence.

As a result, the mainstream Holocaust historians have only had to explain the problems and discrepancies in their story (like the absence of Zyklon B traces) after revisionists have pointed out these problems. Mainstream Holocaust historians have never tried to explain problems with the gas chamber story willingly; they’ve always had to be prodded into doing so. (This, by the way, is not a situation unique to Holocaust history. The value of a society where dissent is allowed to exist is that often times it is the existence of two or more opposing sides to an issue that prompts and encourages the search for the truth; each side critiques the other side mercilessly and, therefore, the public is made aware of possible flaws in ALL sides. If a school of thought is insulated from criticism, as Holocaust history is in all the countries where questioning the gas chambers in an illegal and punishable offense, that school of thought can remain unchecked for errors).

As for the manhole, apparently the other side has not yet been able to rationalize its presence in as supposedly homicidal gas chamber. I welcome their attempts. Maybe there’s something I’M missing. It doesn’t matter to me if one proceeds with the hypothesis that there were homicidal gas chambers, or with the hypothesis that there weren’t. As long as we search in good faith for the facts. The only crime is to wish away the difficult questions, pretending they don’t exist and slandering the people who do nothing more than ask them.

(46) Another thing I learned from Pressac is that he believes that the Krema 1 “gas chamber” had THREE “Zyklon B induction holes,” running in a straight line in the ceiling. But the Auschwitz State Museum believes that there were FOUR holes, running in two lines of two holes. When the Poles and Soviets put holes in the Krema 1 roof after liberation, this is the version they installed; four holes in two lines. This is the version that can be seen today in Krema 1. But Pressac says they’re wrong; it was THREE holes in a straight line. Who’s right? Were there three holes or four? And how do we know that there were ever ANY holes? There are no holes present in any of the aerial photos, and there were no holes when the Soviets liberated the camp.

The important question is; HOW can such a debate (three holes or four?) among major Holocaust scholars exist in the first place? It is only because hard evidence for gassings at Auschwitz is so lacking that something like this can still be an issue fifty years later. Whatever the evidence for gassings at Krema 1, it is apparently not good ENOUGH evidence to provide a description of the gas chamber that all scholars can agree on. Now, it would be one thing if we had tons of SUPPLEMENTARY evidence (i.e. Zyklon B traces in the walls that were heavier than all the other rooms, evidence of people entering the building en masse and never coming out, a special ventilation system and heating equipment, or German coded transmissions or documents talking about gassings, etc.); then we could at least say “Well, we know there were gassings, we’re just not sure about the design of the gas chamber.” But there is no supplementary evidence. We have no description of the Krema 1 murder weapon, but we ALSO have no evidence of any murders in Krema 1. Even the best prosecutor in the world would be hard pressed to get a conviction were this case to be tried in any standard American court.

All that we have are testimonies. And just a few. Yet Pressac spends much of his gas chamber book demolishing these testimonies as false. We have the testimony of camp Commandant Hoess, the man who SHOULD have been able to provide us with the best description of the Krema 1 gas chamber, but Pressac, Hilberg, Lipstadt, Chris Browning, and most other Holocaust scholars dismiss his account as unreliable, fabricated, or just plain false. So what’s left? Pressac searches in vain for ANY hard evidence to reproduce in his chapter on Kremas 1, and ends up with nothing. As a result, this chapter is perhaps the most awkward in Pressac’s book. Pressac begins the chapter by affirming his belief in homicidal gassings in this room, but then goes on to offer no evidence, and what’s more he doubts the credibility of the testimonies, which are the only evidence he offers. One is left saying “Jean-Claude Pressac believes in Homicidal gassings in Krema 1…I’m just not sure why.”

What I try to do is look at the evidence that calls gassings into question (the manhole, the floor drain, the lack of Zyklon B traces, the absence of documentary evidence, the lack of evidence in the aerial photos, the lack of ventilation, the fact that the room is extremely cold, etc. etc.) and weigh that against any evidence FOR gassings (a few testimonies which the experts themselves doubt). You can see how a debate over the design of this “gas chamber” can still be raging among mainstream historians; it is because of the lack of evidence.

And it is therefore legitimate to ask, “If you don’t know whether there were three or four holes, how do you know that there were ANY holes?”

– David Cole

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

This book remains an essential key to a great awakening. To dare is to know.

Photobucket

Did Six Million Really Die? Investigate the matter HERE.

Read Full Post »

Photobucket
Testing the Limits of Freedom of Speech: Ernst Zundel Speaks Out
An exclusive interview with one of Europe’s most well-known political prisoners
by Kourosh Ziabari
April 30, 2010
Source:Foreign Policy Journal

Ernst Zundel is a German author and historian who has spent seven years of his life behind bars as a result of expressing his controversial viewpoints and opinions. He is a revisionist who has denied the Holocaust as described by most historians. He has been one of the most prominent political prisoners in Europe and has been jailed in three countries on two continents.

After his arrest in the U.S. in 2003, he was deported to Canada, where he was kept in prison as “a threat to the national security” for two years. After deportation to Germany in March 2005, he was convicted and sentenced in 2007 to five additional years of imprisonment on charges of holocaust denial. He was finally released on March 1, 2010.

This is the first interview Ernst Zundel has given since his release.

Firstly, I would like to extend my congratulations on your recent release. Were you ever mistreated or subject to any type of mental or physical punishment in breach of international conventions?

Photobucket
Ernst Zundel in a courtroom in Mannheim, Germany on November 8, 2005 (Michael Probst/AP)

My entire treatment these past seven years by those arresting me, trying and convicting me, and keeping me in prison has been in brutal breach of international conventions. I was arrested in broad daylight on American soil by officials of the U.S. government who acted as hit squads for a nefarious lobby. There was no arrest warrant. I was not read my rights. I was whisked away in handcuffs without being allowed to get my wallet, to call my attorney, to be allowed to make my case before an American Immigration Judge or even hug my wife goodbye.

I was incarcerated in six different prisons on two continents in three countries—the USA, Canada, and Germany—without relief of any kind. In effect, I have had 10 percent of my life stolen from me – and for what “crime”? For having “overstayed my U.S. visa”?

Throughout my imprisonment, basic human rights principles were trampled underfoot repeatedly and with impunity. The worst prisons were the Canadian detention centers at Thorold, Ontario and at Toronto West, where I was held for two long years in isolation cells, ice-cold in the winter, no shoes or socks allowed. The electric light in these cells, bright enough to be able to read, was kept on 24 hours a day. Through a glass slot in the door I was checked every 20 minutes, and my activities were meticulously noted by the guards: one sheet for every day. No dignity, no privacy. My toothbrush was kept in a plastic bin in a hall. I was not allowed to speak to other prisoners. Bed sheets were changed only after three months. No pillows. No chairs. When I wrote to my wife or to my attorneys, I had to sit on a makeshift pile of my court transcripts. No radio, no television, not even an electrical outlet to sharpen my pencils. No ball point pens, only pencil stubs, cut in half with a saw. No spoons, forks, or knives were permitted; only a white plastic spoon with a fork called a “spork” that had to be returned every time at the end of the meal. With very few exceptions when furtive guards showed me some kindness away from the surveillance cameras, I was treated as though I was the worst of criminals. That’s Canada for you, where I have lived and worked without a criminal record for more than 40 years.

It was somewhat better, but not much, in the United States. In Germany, it was quite a bit better in terms of the basic necessities, but personal mail was routinely withheld – 1,700 letters for up to five years – even after I forced a court to order that it be given to me. My so-called trial in Mannheim was a political show trial in the Stalinist mode in that my guilt was a foregone conclusion. I requested that exculpatory exhibits be allowed as validation for what I believed and had written and said. No meaningful defense was allowed. I could not put on record any forensic evidence, any historical documents, or even expert witnesses. That very request to be allowed to offer evidence was held to be a new offense of criminal behavior and could have resulted in new criminal charges – as were, in fact, lodged against my lawyers during that very trial who tried to overcome these restrictions.

Photobucket

Along with the rest of EU members, Germany regularly criticizes other countries for violations of free speech and human rights. However, your case demonstrated the emptiness of such claims within Europe. What’s your take on that? Is Europe really a utopia of liberty and freedom of speech?

Most European countries have only selected free speech for officially approved and sanctioned views on history. Almost all EU countries have laws in place that restrict freedom of speech under the guise of one fig leaf or other, such as the prevention of racist or neo-Nazi activities. The state decides selectively who is and what is racist. These laws are hypocritical, in Germany’s case superseding even their own Basic Law.

Dissidents are allowed very little opportunity to be read or heard in the mainstream corporate media channels of the West. The control mechanisms of the press are many, often subtle but widely understood and obeyed – fear of loss of jobs, diminished circulation, the withholding of government advertisements etc. There is no longer unrestricted freedom in any Western country, not even in the U.S. with its wonderful Constitution and Amendments such as the Bill of Rights.

Allow me here to point out to your readers the outline of a censorship practice known by its neutral term “rendition”, but more honestly defined as political kidnappings to force the silencing of dissident speech or alternate thoughts. Renditions in the West are ever more frequently practiced not only against alleged “terrorist suspects” but against ordinary political activists and writers whose viewpoints are frowned upon by such outfits as AIPAC and similar Zionist lobby and interest groups, B’nai Brith, the Canadian Jewish Congress, etc.

In order to spell out what I can only describe to you in broad strokes, I’d like to briefly shed light on the period preceding my arrest in the U.S. and Canada, the conniving and the similarity in other cases like mine, where an innocuous or alleged infraction is used as a fig leaf to silence a political opponent.

Viet Dinh, a Georgetown University law professor and director of their Asian Law and Policy Studies Program who helped craft the Patriot Act, put it succinctly, as reported in an American publication called Wired that deals with freedom of speech on the net. That interview reads:

Wired News: An estimated 5,000 people have been subjected to detention since 9/11. Of those, only five — three noncitizens and two citizens — were charged with terrorism-related crimes and one was convicted. How do we justify such broad-sweeping legislation that has resulted in very few terrorist-related convictions?

Dinh: I’ve heard the 5,000 number. The official numbers released from the Department of Justice indicate approximately 500 persons have been charged with immigration violations and have been deported who have been of interest to the 9/11 investigation.

It may well be that a number of citizens were not charged with terrorism-related crimes, but they need not be. Where the department has suspected people of terrorism, it will prosecute those persons for other violations of law, rather than wait for a terrorist conspiracy to fully develop and risk the potential that that conspiracy will be missed and thereby sacrificing innocent American lives in the process.

This is exactly what happened to me. The initial reason given was an alleged immigration infraction – namely a “visa overstay”. I was no terrorist; I was a dissident writer. My political detractors knew perfectly well that I was in America legally, awaiting adjustment of status due to my marriage to an American citizen. I was in Immigration Adjustment of Status proceedings, meticulously following all the prerequisite steps. I was living openly in a rural area in Tennessee and was listed by address in the local telephone book. The U.S. government had given me a Social Security number, a work permit, a document that allowed me to leave the country and return unmolested. I had undergone and passed an FBI check and a health clearance. The only last step missing was a personal interview by an immigration official to ascertain a valid marriage to my American citizen wife.

We had been notified in writing that this interview could take as long as three years, and that no status report would be given. We were patiently waiting for that last step, a routine interview with an immigration official. Our immigration attorney had requested such an interview in writing – twice! Under oath, he testified that he had written those letters. These letters have mysteriously disappeared from our immigration file. When I was arrested, it was claimed that I had negligently “missed a hearing” which gave them grounds for an arrest due to a visa overstay. In other words, a simple bureaucratic loophole was found or fabricated that has cost me seven years of my life.

What happened to me in the context of a deliberate state policy of deception has also happened to others. Similar ruses via false accusations were used in cases like Germar Rudolf, likewise married to an American citizen, El Masri of Germany, Maher Arar of Canada, Gerd Honsik of Spain, Siegfried Verbeke of Belgium, David Irving, and now Bishop Williamson of England, to name only a few individuals who were caught between the grind stones of a criminal policy possible only under the Patriot Act in the U.S. and similar legal instruments in other countries. Embedded in that background of a widespread covert policy and practice to force political conformity, my case makes eminent sense. We are no longer dealing with an aberration. These extrajudicial renditions give 9/11 and the Patriot Act a new light as a global policy instrument of brutal censorship of unpopular thinkers and writers.

The thrust of a prestigious publication such as yours would normally deal with the policies of foreign governments, renditions, kidnappings, and incarcerations not only of foreign enemies but, as in the case of Vanunu, an Israeli-born-and-raised atomic scientist. He was no neo-Nazi, no racist, no Holocaust Denier, yet he was relentlessly pursued by the Mossad and ultimately kidnapped and jailed for 18 years.

The patterns of the breaking of international law and conventions, the use of false identities, and the brazen practice of breaking and entering by spy and intelligence agencies, etc. – these criminal activities are daily in the news. This sets the stage and makes my case a logical progression of an old, established policy, with this one difference: we are no longer talking about hunting and kidnapping alleged “Nazi war criminals” like Eichmann or stone-throwing Palestinians or even “Arab terrorists”, but instead the targeting of writers and other political dissidents in Western countries calling themselves “democracies”.

My story does not even end there. In my case, my “Holocaust Denier” profile was convenient, but passé. It was not even, as is so commonly and falsely claimed, “Denial of the Holocaust” or even more bizarre, my “visa overstay”! I was told what actually happened by a friend of ours with high-level UN connections. In his own words: “It was the Blue Booklet that did it! That’s when it was decided at the very highest level to take you out for good!”

Photobucket

Here is what happened, briefly: In the early months post-9/11 my wife, an avid Internetter, discovered a compelling research document entitled Stranger than Fiction: An Independent Investigation of 9/11 and the War on Terrorism by Anonymous, 11-11-2. She gave it to me over breakfast. I read it, found it interesting, and ran a few copies off on my printer for people on my mailing list. I did not write that lavishly footnoted paper. I did not research it. I merely copied it. Somebody must have concluded that I, with my background of thorough forensic investigations in other areas, showed more than ordinary interest in 9/11 as a potential political false flag common in intelligence agency operations!

During my trial in Mannheim, ostensibly for “Holocaust Denial”, portions of my monthly newsletter, where I mentioned this booklet and the 9/11 topic, were referenced by the prosecution as criminal offenses. Only after it became clear that I welcomed the opportunity to have my attorneys present forensic evidence of a potential 9/11 cover-up were those portions of the accusation against me hastily dropped, and my trial became a “Holocaust Denial” show trial in the traditional Stalinist mode, “… accuse wildly but don’t allow a defense!”

As we later found out through various freedom of information requests in various countries, there was in place for years a deliberate, convoluted plan to arrest and detain me under false pretenses so as to take me out and put me behind bars.

I mention this only as an overarching, logical example as to how diabolically clever my political opponents are in using the accusation of “Holocaust Denial” and persecution of Holocaust Revisionists as arrows in their arsenal of weaponry to shore up, consolidate, and protect their deceptively acquired power and influence.

What’s the reality behind Holocaust? Didn’t it happen at all? What about people such as Elie Wiesel, Thomas Blatt, Wladyslaw Bartoszewski and Leopold Engleitner who are Holocaust survivors and describe their own accounts of those painful days, when they personally witnessed the heart-rending demise of their parents in concentration camps and bone-crushing machines. How should we resolve these contradictions?

I will not answer this question. I would risk five more years in jail if I answered these questions honestly and truthfully. However, in the age of the Internet, others less known than I am find ways to simplify a painful, multifaceted problem, as the cartoon below makes plain:

Photobucket
“Prevent Holocaust: BOMB IRAN” by Carlos Latuff

Many people of other countries have come to the categorical conclusion that the Western world is a beacon of liberty and unrestricted freedom of speech. But it sometimes seems that the reality is something else, and that people can be easily prosecuted merely for publishing views that are disliked. The booklet you published, “Did Six Million Really Die?”, is an example. What do you think?

Here is just one more example of what I already outlined above: We have faxes and other documents that prove on official embassy letterhead that the much vaunted and propagandized U.S. Judiciary has run interference for these kidnappers and renditioners via behind-the-scenes ex parte communication, thus engaging in a cover-up and whitewash worse than the ones practiced by those the U.S. government always blames for human rights violations in their hypocritical press campaigns, like against China in Tibet, Lukashenko in Belarus, Putin in Moscow and, of course, Iran during the recent so-called Green Revolution.

Many Zionist websites have introduced you as a white supremacist. Is that a fair characterization?

This claim is a convenient character assassination technique. I have never been a white supremacist and have stated so for decades, publicly, in countless interviews, newsletters, speeches, broadcasts, etc. It is my opponents’ modus operandi to broad-brush complex issues by politically expedient demonization.

You’re opposed to the regime of Israel because of its discriminatory and atrocious approach against the nation of Palestine. You consider yourself a pacifist who advocates stability and peace; aren’t these beliefs incompatible with your viewpoint regarding Hitler, who is internationally considered to be a notorious dictator and relentless killer? How can your peace-seeking stance come together with your approval of Hitler?

I cannot answer this question due to legal restraints. An honest and complete answer would land me in jail as a re-offender very quickly. Implicit in your question is the toxic image of me that my detractors would like you to have. To be called a Nazi is worse than being called a leper. For decades I have been on the receiving end of just such a targeted character assassination campaign. I have been jailed many times not for advocating an ideology but for expressing a dissident, alternative viewpoint on many topics, including Adolf Hitler’s role in history. Revisionism is not an ideology. It is merely a scientific method of re-examining historical events and of trying to understand the movers and shakers who made history a footnote to their personalities.

Let me answer your question this way: I have always abhorred any kind of violence in the pursuit of political goals. By anyone! Politically, I was and am a pacifist, much in the Gandhi style. I advocate a sober, neutral look at history, including the period known as the Third Reich. The peoples of the world, regardless of what system of government they live under, owe it to themselves to emancipate themselves of the simplistic images of propaganda and deceit posing as history.

On May 1995, your Toronto residence was the target of an arson attack which resulted in $400,000 worth of damage. A few days later, some of your extremist opponents were caught trying to break into your property. Again a few days later, you received a parcel bomb which the Toronto police detonated. Have you ever tried to lodge a complaint against them? Have they ever been lawfully sentenced?

This is the flip side of some of the questions above. While I have never advocated or engaged in violence, egregious acts of violence have been repeatedly practiced on me, of which the political kidnapping in 2003 was merely the latest. As to the fire and the bomb, no, nothing was ever resolved. The police apprehended the bomb builders and senders, but the charges laid were stayed. There seems to have been no political will at the highest levels of the Canadian government. There was no political coin to be garnered by prosecuting Jewish arsonists, who even confessed to the deed.

Do you differentiate between the Zionists and Jews as the followers of a divine, monotheistic religion?

Yes, the two are totally different. Some Orthodox Jews who are united against Zionism, such as the Neturei Karta, believe that also. They know the godfathers of Communism and Zionism followed identical policies. The guiding spirit behind the two systems is the same. Neturei Karta rabbis attended the 2006 Tehran Conference sponsored by your President in an attempt to distance themselves from what they consider to be a dangerous atheist clique in the pursuit of illegal politics of conquest of which they want no part.

The mainstream corporate media, while having already vilified you, remained silent about your release. What do you think about this? Are you going to continue your ideological path or would you prefer to keep a low profile and forget about the intellectual activities?

Ironically, that was exactly what I intended to do when I moved to Tennessee and married Ingrid; keeping a low profile and turning to private endeavors such as my love for art and music. I felt that my revisionist outreach was finished, concluded to my inner satisfaction. Let others read both sides and then judge for themselves. All the arguments, all the information needed on the Holocaust is out there, on the Internet, in tens of thousands of websites, all for the taking. How often do you have to dig up an archeological site to find yet one more bone, yet one more implicating shard? My wife likes to say that you don’t have to eat a camel to know what a cutlet tastes like. I was quite ready to retire and satisfy my creative needs and desires. I could leave the political mopping-up activities for others to complete. But could my political opponents bring themselves, as rational people might have, to likewise call it quits? No; that is simply not in their nature.

As you point out so cogently, a powerful vilification campaign is still going full blast. It keeps my name in the media for people to decide for themselves who I am. Upon my release, my wife has collected thousands and thousands of letters from readers, only three of which were negative! Not a bad record, of the millions of dollars spent and millions of words dispersed in an attempt to paint me as as a devil with horns.

Let me ask you – would your prestigious publication have cared to interview me if you thought that I deserved the label of Evil Incarnate?

[Editor’s note: The views and beliefs of Ernst Zundel are his own, and not those of Foreign Policy Journal. It is the policy of FPJ to uphold the principle of freedom of speech, which means freedom to say things that others may find despicable. It is otherwise a meaningless principle. It is also the position of FPJ that both sides to a story deserve to be heard. It’s up to readers to draw their own conclusions and make their own judgments.]

Read Full Post »

Photobucket
A Brief History of Forensic Examinations of Auschwitz
Germar Rudolf
Source: Archives, Institute for Historical Review

“Auschwitz” has come to symbolize the greatest crime in human history. The significance of the alleged murder of a million or more persons, most of them Jewish, by gassing at the German concentration camp of that name has elicited endless discussion among philosophers, theologians, and litterateurs as well as jurists and historians, and evoked numberless platitudes from journalists and politicians. The focus of this article, however, is on the following questions:

1. Should the alleged monstrous crime be subject to careful scrutiny by means of thorough forensic analysis?
2. What forensic examinations of the purported crimes scenes at Auschwitz have been conducted thus far, and with what findings? How are we to assess the results?

The Moral Obligation of Forensic Examination

In late spring 1993, the Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart issued an internal memorandum informing its employees that a doctoral candidate there had been dismissed for research he had done on Auschwitz. The institute explained that in view of the horror of the National Socialists’ crimes against the Jews, it was morally repugnant to discuss the specific manner in which the victims had been killed, or to try to determine the precise number of the dead. That one of the world’s leading scientific research institutes stated to its personnel that to determine accurate quantities is not only unethical, but reprehensible, and cause for dismissal, is not without its own irony.

Does it really matter just how many Jews lost their lives in the German sphere of influence during the Second World War? Is it so important, after so many years, to attempt painstakingly to investigate just how they died? After all, it is surely morally correct that even one victim is one too many; and nobody seriously denies that many Jews died.

To affirm these things, however, is not to raise a valid objection — moral or otherwise — to the scientific investigation of a crime held to be unique and unparalleled in the history of mankind. Even a crime that is alleged to be uniquely reprehensible must be open to a procedure that is standard for any other crime: namely, that it can be — must be — subject to a detailed material investigation. Further: whoever postulates that a crime, alleged or actual, is unique must be prepared for a uniquely thorough investigation of the alleged crime before its uniqueness is accepted as fact.

If, on the other hand, someone sought to shield so allegedly unparalleled a crime from investigation by erecting a taboo of moral outrage, the creators of that taboo would, at least morally, themselves commit a singular offense: imputing an unparalleled guilt, beyond any critique and defense, to an entire people, the Germans. To demonstrate just what kind of double standard is being applied to “the Holocaust” (the definition of which usually includes the purposeful annihilation of millions of Jews by the Third Reich), let us note the international reaction to several recent examples of “crimes against humanity.” After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, numerous mass graves, containing hundreds of thousands of victims of the Soviets, were discovered and investigated. Not only was the number of victims determined, but in many cases the specific cause of death as well. In the same regions where many of these mass graves were found, one million or more Jews are said to have been shot by the Einsatzgruppen: yet no such grave has ever been reported found, let alone dug up and investigated, in the more than half a century during which these areas have been controlled by the USSR and its successor states.

During the conflict in Kosovo in 1999, rumors about mass killings by Serbs spread around the world. After the fighting was over, an international forensic commission arrived in Kosovo, searching, excavating, and forensically investigating mass graves. These graves proved to be not only fewer than the Serbs’ Albanian opponents had alleged, but to contain small fractions of the numbers of victims claimed.

Did the Allies attempt, during the war and in the years immediately following, to find and to investigate mass graves of persons said to have been victims of the Germans? So far as is known, only once: at Katyn. But the findings of the Soviet forensic commission, which blamed the mass murder of several thousand Polish officers buried there on the Germans, are today generally considered a fabrication. The report of the international forensic commission invited by the Germans in 1943, on the other hand, which found that the Soviets had carried out this mass murder, is today considered accurate even by the Russian government.
A Definition of Forensic Science

Forensic science is generally seen as a supporting science of criminology. Its aim is to collect and to identify physical remnants of a crime, and from these to draw conclusions about the victim(s), the perpetrator(s), the weapon(s), and the time and location of the crime, as well as how it was committed, if at all. This science is relatively new, and entered the courtrooms only in 1902, when fingerprint evidence was accepted, in an English court, for the first time. The 1998 CD-ROM Encyclopaedia Britannica writes of forensic science:

A broad range of scientific techniques is available to law enforcement agencies attempting to identify suspects or to establish beyond doubt the connection between a suspect and the crime in question. Examples include the analysis of bloodstains and traces of other body fluids (such as semen or spittle) that may indicate some of the characteristics of the offender. Fibres can be analyzed by microscopy or chemical analysis to show, for instance, that fibres found on the victim or at the scene of the crime are similar to those in the clothing of the suspect. Hair samples, and particularly skin cells attached to hair roots, can be compared chemically and genetically to those of the suspect. Many inorganic substances, such as glass, paper, and paint, can yield considerable information under microscopic or chemical analysis. Examination of a document in question may reveal it to be a forgery, on the evidence that the paper on which it is written was manufactured by a technique not available at the time to which it allegedly dates. The refractive index of even small particles of glass may be measured to show that a given item or fragment of glass was part of a particular batch manufactured at a particular time and place.

Hence, forensic research is exactly what revisionists, starting with Robert Faurisson, have called the search for material evidence. The revisionists’ demand for such material evidence is entirely consistent with the normal practice of modern law enforcement. And, as is generally acknowledged, forensic evidence is more conclusive than eyewitness testimony or documentary evidence.
Forensic Science and Auschwitz
The 1946 Krakow Auschwitz Trial

In 1945, the Krakow Institute for Forensic Research (Instytut Ekspertyz Sadowych) prepared a report on a forensic investigation of Auschwitz that was submitted in evidence in the 1946 Auschwitz trial in Krakow, Poland.[see note] This expert report should be treated with caution, because forensic examinations and judicial procedures under the Communists have been anything but trustworthy, and Poland was in 1945 a Stalinist satellite. One need only point to the example of Katyn, the Soviet account of which was fully endorsed by Poland’s Communist regime.[see note]

The Krakow forensic investigators took hair, presumably cut from inmates, and hair clasps from bags found by the Soviets in Auschwitz. Tested for cyanide residues, both hair and clasps showed positive results. Additionally, a zinc-plated metal cover was tested for cyanide and found to have a positive result as well. The Krakow Institute claims that this metal cover once shielded the exhaust duct of a supposed homicidal “gas chamber” at Birkenau.

The tests conducted by the institute were qualitative, not quantitative, analyses. In other words, they could only determine whether or not cyanide was present, not how much of it was there.

As to whether or not homicidal gassing with hydrogen cyanide took place in Auschwitz, these analyses are worthless, for three reasons:

1. There is no way of determining the origin and history of the hair and hair clasps obtained from bags in Auschwitz. Assuming that the analytic results are correct, from a chemical point of view the following can be noted: A positive test for cyanide in human hair proves only that the hair has been exposed to HCN (hydrogen cyanide). But that result does not suffice to establish that the persons from whom the hair came were killed by cyanide. It is a good deal more likely that the hair had already been cut when it was exposed to the gas: in German as well as Allied camps, it was standard to cut off prisoners’ hair for hygienic reasons. When hair over a certain length was later recycled,[see note] it had to be deloused beforehand (often with Zyklon B, the active ingredient of which is hydrogen cyanide). Hence, positive cyanide results from loose hair do not prove human gassings.
2. We face a similar problem with the zinc-plated covers allegedly used to cover the ventilation ducts of the supposed “gas chambers”: their exact origin and history is unknown. It would have been much preferable for the Krakow Institute to have analyzed samples from the walls of the alleged “gas chambers” instead of obtaining samples from pieces of metal:
1. Whereas the origin and history of these metal covers was uncertain, the origin and (at least partly) the history of the walls of the morgues allegedly used as “gas chambers” was known.
2. In contrast to cement and concrete, zinc-plated metal covers prevent the formation of stable iron cyanide compounds.[see note] The developing zinc cyanide compounds are relatively unstable and must be expected to vanish in a short period of time.[see note]
3. The tendency of porous wall material in moist underground rooms to accumulate and to bind hydrogen cyanide, physically as well as chemically, is hundreds of times higher than that of sheet metal.
4. As a matter of fact, the letter accompanying the samples sent to the Krakow Institute actually mentions that a mortar sample allegedly taken from a so-called “gas chamber” is enclosed as well and should also be tested for cyanide. However, for unknown reasons, the Krakow Institute did not mention this mortar sample in its report, perhaps because it did not show any positive result.
3. There is no evidence that either analysis has been successfully reproduced.

The 1964-1966 Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial

Several expert reports were prepared during the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, the best known being those of the Munich Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute for Contemporary History).[see note] However, none of these reports was forensic in nature. They addressed legal, historical, or psychological topics. Throughout this mammoth trial, neither the court, nor the prosecution,[see note]. nor the defense[see note] ever suggested that material traces of the alleged crime be secured and investigated. The prosecution had at its disposal numerous statements by eyewitnesses and confessions by perpetrators, and it considered this material entirely sufficient to establish beyond doubt the existence of a program to exterminate Jews in Auschwitz and elsewhere during the Third Reich.[see note] The abundance of such evidence has since been used to argue that the lack of documentary and material evidence was irrelevant.[see note] That no material evidence was presented during the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial was freely conceded by the court in its ruling:

The court lacked almost all possibilities of discovery available in a normal murder trial to create a true picture of the actual event at the time of the murder. It lacked the bodies of the victims, autopsy records, expert reports on the cause of death and the time of death; it lacked any trace of the murderers, murder weapons, etc. An examination of the eyewitness testimony was only possible in rare cases. Where the slightest doubt existed or the possibility of confusion could not be excluded with certainty, the court did not evaluate the testimony of witnesses[.]
The 1972 Vienna Auschwitz Trial

Between January 18 and March 10, 1972, two architects responsible for the design and construction of the crematoria in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Walter Dejaco and Fritz Ertl, were put on trial in Vienna, Austria.[see note] During the trial, an expert report on the possible interpretation of the blueprints of the alleged gas chambers of the Auschwitz and Birkenau crematoria was presented to the court. The report concluded that the rooms in question could not have been gas chambers, nor could they have been converted into gas chambers.[see note] Thanks to this first methodologically sound expert report on Auschwitz, the defendants were acquitted.
In Search of Mass Graves

In 1966 the Auschwitz State Museum commissioned the Polish company Hydrokop to drill into the soil of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp and to analyze the samples. It is not known whether this research was done in the context of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial. The results, however, vanished into the museum’s archives: they have never been released, which by itself is revealing enough. Years later, however, several pages from this report were photocopied and sent to the German revisionist publisher Udo Walendy, who published them with commentary in an issue of his periodical.[see note] Traces of bones and hair allegedly found at several places might indicate mass graves. The few pages published by Walendy, however, do not reveal whether these findings led to an excavation or a subsequent forensic study of the traces. It is not even evident whether the bone and hair samples collected are human or animal remains.
Faurisson Pulls the Trigger

It took a professor of French literature to inform the world that determining whether mass murder took place at Auschwitz is a matter for forensic evidence. Robert Faurisson, professor of French, and an analyst of documents, texts, and witness statements at the University of Lyon 2, began to doubt the standard historical version of the Holocaust after much critical study of the eyewitness testimony and intensive scrutiny of documents said to support the claim of mass murder. Faurisson first asserted the thesis that “there was not a single gas chamber under Adolf Hitler” in 1978.[see note] Thereafter he buttressed his position with numerous physical, chemical, topographic, architectonic, documentary, and historical arguments. He described the existence of the homicidal gas chambers as “radically impossible.”[see note] At the end of 1978 Le Monde, the leading French newspaper, afforded Professor Faurisson the opportunity to present his thesis in an article.[see note]

It took almost a decade, however, for the first expert to accept Faurisson’s challenge and to prepare the first forensic report on the alleged homicidal “gas chambers” in Auschwitz: Fred Leuchter’s now famous report of 1988.[see note] The background and history of the Leuchter Report are well known to readers of the Journal of Historical Review and need not be repeated here.[see note] Suffice it to say that the Leuchter Report was a pioneer work that initiated a series of publications, the scope of which broadened more and more into various fields of forensic science[see note] and soon encompassed many interdisciplinary studies of material and documentary evidence.[see note]
Reaction of the Jan Sehn Institute

The reaction of the Krakow Institute which had carried out the faulty 1945 investigation — by 1988 named after the Communist judge who presided during the Polish Auschwitz and Rudolf Höss trials — to the Leuchter Report has caused much confusion in revisionist circles. To this day, many believe that in 1990 four investigators from this institute corroborated the Leuchter Report,[see note] but this is quite incorrect. Clearing up the misunderstanding requires that the post-Leuchter findings of the Krakow Institute be treated in some detail.
A Short Chemical Introduction

To expose the errors of the Krakow investigators requires presenting a little basic chemistry — so basic that equations have been omitted. First of all, until 1979, Zyklon B was the German trademark for a pesticide based on hydrogen cyanide (HCN). As every student of chemistry knows, hydrogen cyanide forms salts, often simply referred to as cyanides. Like hydrogen cyanide itself, these salts are usually highly poisonous. There is one group of cyanides, however, which are not poisonous at all. The best known representatives of this group are the iron cyanides, especially so-called Prussian blue, a pigment discovered in Prussia a few centuries ago. Every college student of chemistry knows Prussian blue, for one of the more important things a chemist must learn is how to dispose of poisonous cyanide salts without endangering life (including one’s own). One simply makes Prussian blue out of it by adding certain iron compounds. Then it can be poured down the sink in good conscience, for Prussian blue is extremely stable and releases no cyanide into the environment.

Understanding the controversy surrounding the Leuchter Report is much easier if one keeps in mind that when hydrogen cyanide and certain iron compounds come together, they form Prussian blue. That is exactly the phenomenon that one can observe when entering the Zyklon B delousing facilities that were used across Europe during the Third Reich. A few of them, for example in the Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdanek, and Stutthof concentration camps, are still intact today. All these facilities have one thing in common: their walls are permeated with Prussian blue. Not just the inner surfaces, but the mortar between the bricks, and even the outside walls of these delousing chambers abound in iron cyanides, exhibiting a patchy blue coloration. Nothing of the sort can be observed in the alleged homicidal “gas chambers” of Auschwitz and Birkenau.[see note]

The iron compounds needed to form Prussian blue are an integral part of all building materials: bricks, sand, and cement always contain a certain amount of rust (iron oxide, usually between 1 and 4 percent). That is what gives bricks their red, or ocher, color and what makes most sands ocher, too.

Now, let’s examine the way in which the investigators from the Jan Sehn Institute approached the problem of analyzing and interpreting samples from Auschwitz.
A Lack of Understanding

The team from the forensic institute, Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, and Jerzy Labedz, claims not to have understood how it was possible for Prussian blue to have formed in walls as a result of their being exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas: “It is difficult to imagine the chemical reactions and physicochemical processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in that place.”[see note]

There is no shame in not understanding. Actually, this is the beginning of every science: the cognition of not understanding. In pre-scientific ages, humans tended to find mystical or religious answers to unsolved questions; modern scientists approach problems they don’t understand, and sometimes can scarcely imagine, as challenges to investigate, in order to understand. This quest for knowledge is the chief driving force of modern humanity. Should we not expect, then, that the Krakow researchers would next have attempted to learn whether Prussian blue can be formed in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide and, if so, how?
More Lack of Understanding

In 1991 Dr. Markiewicz wrote, via a mutual acquaintance, that he was unable to understand how Prussian blue could possibly form in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide. He thought that quite unlikely, and suggested that its presence might stem from a different source, for example from Prussian blue wall paint used to give the interior walls of the delousing chambers a fanciful, patchy blue coloration. (What for?, one is tempted to ask.[see note]) I suggested that he look at the outer surfaces of the walls, which are exposed to environmental influences, and which were partly patchy blue as well. Their color cannot be explained by paint, but only by cyanide compounds spreading to the outside walls over the years, and being converted to Prussian blue. He replied that these blue patches were hard to explain, and first it had to be established that they were indeed Prussian blue.[see note] So there were even more questions to be answered before these scientists could conduct their analysis.
Disregard of Key Questions

At length, the Polish investigators published an article on their findings, in 1994.[see note] Surprisingly, perusing their article reveals that they did nothing to establish whether or not Prussian blue can form in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide. Nothing indicates that they did basic research on the behavior of cyanide compounds under conditions similar to those in brickwork. Nor did they do anything to establish whether or not the blue patches on the external walls of the delousing chambers were caused by Prussian blue. Should you wonder why, just be patient: it gets even worse.
Ignoring Peer Opinions

Had the researchers found a scientific source which stated in a reliable way that Prussian blue cannot develop in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide, that would have made things easy for them, by rendering any new research obsolete. On the other hand, if they had discovered literature claiming in a scientific way that the formation of Prussian blue in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide was possible, the scientific method would have compelled them to do either of two things: to abandon their position that Prussian blue cannot form thus, or to refute the opposing position by proving that it cannot form. That is what the scientific process is all about: verification or refutation of theses postulated by peers. Ignoring peer opinions is a strong indicator of unscientific behavior.

In fact, the Krakow researchers quoted one book that deals intensively with the question of Prussian blue formation.[see note] On consulting it, however, one quickly realizes that it proves the exact opposite of Markiewicz’s thesis. The work demonstrates in detail how, and under which circumstances, walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide can indeed form Prussian blue, and that this was not only possible but very likely, at least in the Auschwitz delousing chambers.

Do the Krakow researchers claim that this book shows the opposite? Not at all. In fact, they cite it not to refer the reader to its chemical arguments, but, instead, merely as an example of scientific studies these authors from the Jan Sehn Institute intend to combat with their report. All arguments advanced in the book are simply ignored, while the work is stigmatized as an example of “undesirable science.” Let it be recalled that Dr. Markiewicz is a professor, meaning: he professes to adhere to the ideals of science and the scientific method!
Excluding the Unwanted

The authors of the Krakow study ignored all arguments proving them wrong, although they were certainly aware of them, as they quoted them. They made no attempt to prove or to disprove their own claims. They did nothing to understand what they claimed not to have understood.

Was there a reason for their strange conduct?

The answer is very simple: The researchers wanted to exclude Prussian blue and similar iron cyanide compounds from their analyses. Excluding these compounds can only be justified on the assumption that Prussian blue in the walls of the delousing chambers must have a different origin, e.g. from paint. As the Krakow investigators wrote in their 1994 article:

We decided therefore to determine the cyanide ions using a method that does not induce the breakdown of the composed ferrum cyanide complex (this is the blue under discussion) [.]

What does this mean?

In fact, the exclusion of Prussian blue from analytical detection must result in much lower cyanide traces for the delousing chambers, as non-iron cyanide compounds are not very stable and would therefore hardly be present after fifty years. The same is true for every room ever exposed to hydrogen cyanide. In fact, values close to the detection level must be expected. These are generally so unreliable that a proper interpretation is close to impossible. It can therefore be expected that the analysis of samples tested with such a method would deliver similar results for nearly every sampling of material that is many years old. Such an analysis would make it practically impossible to distinguish between rooms massively exposed to hydrogen cyanide and those which were not: all would have a cyanide residue of close to zero.

Comparison of the order of magnitude of analyses results of different samples.
Photobucket

I believe that is exactly what the researchers from the Jan Sehn Institute wanted to achieve: values for both the delousing chambers and the alleged homicidal “gas chambers” with similar levels of cyanide residues. This would allow them to state: “The same amount of cyanides, hence the same amount of gassing activity: thus, humans were gassed in the crematoria cellars. Thus, Leuchter is refuted.”

The analyses results of the Krakow report showed just that, and its authors drew the requisite conclusions.

If we examine the analyses results of samples taken by different people, and obtained with different methods of analysis, it is evident that Markiewicz and his co-workers fudged their results by adjusting their method to deliver what they wanted.

If that doesn’t smell like scientific fraud, well … we aren’t through with the Krakow report yet.
Suppressing Unwanted Results

In 1991, a document leaked out of the Jan Sehn Institute in Krakow into the hands of the revisionists, and was eventually published in their periodicals.[see note] It showed that Dr. Markiewicz and his co-workers had prepared a first report as early as 1990. This report was never published. Its results were discomfiting: although the researchers were already employing their deceptive analytical method, only one of the five samples taken from alleged homicidal gas chambers resulted in an extremely small amount of cyanide (0.024 mg/kg); the rest had no detectable cyanide. On the other hand, samples taken from a delousing chamber showed values up to 20 times higher (0.036-0.588 mg/kg). These results seemed to confirm Leuchter’s findings. Hence, in their 1994 paper, the Krakow investigators suppressed any information about their initial results. Normally, researchers guilty of such unethical conduct are expelled from the scientific community.

Today, most revisionists are aware of the findings revealed in 1991, but not of the later ones published in 1994 that seem to refute Leuchter.
Krakow Guidelines: Not Scientific Truth, but a Political Agenda

In a subsequent correspondence with the Krakow researchers, I asked for a scientific explanation of their method of analysis. I gave them irrefutable proof that Prussian blue can be formed in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas, citing a recent case documented in expert literature.[see note] The authors of the Krakow report were unable to give a scientific reason for their deliberate failure to test for Prussian blue and refused to admit that they had made a mistake.[see note]

Finally, in their article as well as in a letter to me, the Krakow researchers stated that the purpose of their paper was to refute the “Holocaust deniers” and to prevent the whitewashing of Hitler and National Socialism. In other words, their purpose was not the search for truth, but to serve a political end.
Conclusions

To summarize the extremely unscientific and politically biased approach of Markiewicz and his co-workers:

1. The most important task of a scientist is to try to understand what hasn’t been understood. The investigators from the Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Research in Krakow did just the opposite: they chose to ignore and to exclude what they didn’t understand (the formation of Prussian blue in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide).
2. The next important task of a scientist is to discuss other scientists’ attempts to understand something. The Krakow team did just the opposite: they chose to ignore and to exclude from discussion all that might let them (and others) understand how Prussian blue can be formed.
3. These choices allowed them to employ methods that would produce the results desired.
4. They suppressed whichever results didn’t fit their purposes.
5. Finally, they admitted that the purpose of their research was not to seek truth, but to contribute to the continued disrepute of the long defunct Adolf Hitler.

Therefore, I publicly called, and continue to call, these researchers scientific frauds. There is only one place for their research findings: the garbage. Neither Markiewicz nor his co-workers have ever responded to my accusations. Dr. Markiewicz, who was an expert in technical testing, not a chemist, died in 1997; the remaining two authors have continued to remain silent.
A German Corroboration of Leuchter

In early 1990, a few months after beginning work on my Ph.D. at the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart, Germany, I started investigations to verify the chemical claims made in the Leuchter Report: namely, that long-term stable cyanide compounds were still to be expected in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, if the mass gassings with Zyklon B took place in them as claimed by witnesses. Initially I was interested only in finding out whether the resulting compound — iron blue or Prussian blue — is stable enough to survive forty-five years of exposure to harsh environmental conditions. After this was confirmed, I mailed the results to some twenty people I thought might be interested in these results. Subsequently I got in contact with several engineers and lawyers, the former willing to help me in doing forensic research, and the latter primarily interested in using the results for their clients. I made two trips to Auschwitz and did eighteen months of further research until, in January 1992, the first, 72-page long version of the so-called Rudolf Report was distributed to opinion leaders in Germany. Briefly summarized, it corroborates Leuchter’s claim that, for several technical and chemical reasons, the mass gassing attested to by witnesses could not have occurred. My report was subsequently updated and enhanced, and finally published in July 1993 as a 120-page paperback booklet.[see note] Dutch and French versions appeared in 1995 and 1996, but an English version has never been printed. (A short 16-page summary published in summer 1993 is often mistakenly assumed to be a full version of my report.) An updated and enhanced version is currently in preparation; publication is planned for later this year.[see note]

Because I can’t be the judge of my own work, I will not discuss my own research here. Scientific discussion of my report began with a German book, consisting mainly of unfounded attacks, in 1995.[see note] The first serious critique to date, unfortunately riddled with ad hominem attacks, has appeared only on the Internet.[see note] Its author, Richard Green, is, like me, a chemist with a Ph.D. thesis in physical chemistry. He has made some far-reaching concessions in his critique:

1. In order to kill humans as quickly as attested to by the witnesses, hydrogen cyanide in concentrations similar to those used for delousing procedures is required. Leuchter was frequently attacked by his opponents on the basis that much less poison would have been required to kill humans than to kill lice. Although this is generally true, it does not apply to a scenario in which many hundreds of humans are supposed to have died from this poison within a few minutes.
2. Iron blue (Prussian blue) can indeed be the result of exposing walls to hydrogen cyanide, and, when found in the delousing facilities in Auschwitz and elsewhere, HCN is most likely the cause.

The latter concession obviously destroys the reputation of the Krakow researchers (and their supporters), who summarily declared that the vast amount of iron blue in the walls of delousing facilities must have a different origin, which in turn “allowed” them to exclude it from analysis. Green, however, is undisturbed by this, and still claims that their results ought to be taken as standard by everybody. To my question of why the Krakow investigators had not responded to my inquiries as to their obviously unscientific behavior, Green responded as follows:

Rudolf complains that Markiewicz et al. have not responded to his queries. Why should they do so? What credibility does Rudolf have, that demands they answer his every objection no matter how ill-founded?

Other Forensic Approaches

Chemistry is obviously not the only science to be consulted when it comes to solving the mysteries of Auschwitz. Engineers, architects, physicians, geologists, and other experts can contribute to this, too. Nor does their work stop with trying to decipher the hidden messages of material traces on site. Original wartime documents on the facilities and events in Auschwitz require the expertise of engineers, architects, physicians, and geologists as well. When it comes to reconstructing the infrastructure of the camp, down to the function and purpose of every building and every room, the technical modes of operation and capacities of its installations, the extent and modernity of the treatment in its hospitals, the effect of the water table of the swamps, most of which can be determined by analyzing the tens of thousands of documents that have been found or released during the last decade, the historian alone simply cannot do the job, nor can I as a chemist.
‘No Holes? No “Holocau$t”‘!

Ditlieb Felderer was the first to deal intensively with the question of whether or not there were holes in the roof of the alleged homicidal “gas chambers,” although he seems not to have published anything about it. Leuchter touched on this topic only superficially in his report. It was this question, rather than whether or not there were still any chemical residues of the poison gas allegedly used, which made me most curious to go to Auschwitz, to search for these holes by myself. On August 16, 1991, while standing on the collapsed roof of the alleged “gas chamber” of crematorium II in Birkenau, I lost my faith in the “Holocaust,” because I could find no holes that deserved the name. This I described in detail in my report. In 1994, Robert Faurisson made the famous quip that subtitles this section. Yet it was not until 2000, during David Irving’s libel case against Deborah Lipstadt, that the world took notice of the revisionist allegation that no holes can be found in this roof.

Charles Provan has since written an Internet article in which he claims to have refuted this revisionist finding. He did, indeed, find holes in the roof of the morgue of crematorium II.[see note] But are they the same holes used fifty-five years ago to introduce Zyklon B into the “gas chamber,” as claimed by the witnesses? Or are they merely results of the collapsing roof being pierced by the concrete supporting pillars? I am convinced that the latter is the case. My conviction doesn’t matter, however. What matters are facts. But how are we to establish facts in such a case?

According to Robert Van Pelt:

In the twenty-five hundred square feet of this one room more people lost their lives than in any other place on this planet. Five hundred thousand people were killed. If you would draw a map of human suffering, if you create a geography of atrocities, this would be the absolute centre.[see note]

Now, let us consider a somewhat different, but still tragic case. We all know what happens after an airplane crash: hundreds of experts swarm out to retrieve the debris of the accident, in order to assemble it all like a gigantic, three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. The purpose is to determine the cause of the accident in order to prevent it from happening again. No expense is spared.

Would it not be appropriate to do the same with the morgues of crematoriums II and III in Birkenau? To assemble a staff of hundreds of historians, engineers, architects, and archaeologists to exactingly retrieve all the debris of these rooms and to reassemble them, like piecing together a huge puzzle, in order to determine what they really looked like fifty-five years ago? Would it not be logical to attempt to determine what vestiges we have to expect when looking for holes, before ecstatically jumping to conclusions at the mere sight of a crack in the concrete?

During the last few years, I have heard, to my horror, of people walking up to these rooms and breaking off reinforcement bars protruding from cracks or holes,[see note] or taking shovels and clearing the roof of debris in order to look for holes.[see note] What would a paleontologist say of someone who wanted to use a shovel to excavate the skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus rex? Sometimes one has cause to wonder: Where have all the homo sapiens gone? When will people begin to think and act about the Holocaust like wise human beings?

The question of whether or not there were holes in the roof of crematorium II is not a trivial one. If there were none, then it would have been impossible to introduce Zyklon B into the alleged “gas chamber” in the manner claimed by the witnesses — discrediting all those witnesses. Because eyewitness accounts are the sole pillar on which the Holocaust rests, this would sooner or later lead to the collapse of the entire Holocaust story. This, in turn, is no trivial matter. The international order established by the victorious powers after the Second World War rests mainly on the “given” of the Holocaust. The Holocaust is used to control Germany (and hence Europe), to suppress national movements, and to maintain American dominance — to say nothing of the power leftist and internationalist movements derive from it, and the use to which Jewish and Zionist groups put it.

Who, then, wants to know the truth? Wouldn’t it be easier to blow up the Auschwitz crematoria and remove the debris once and for all, and be content with the witness accounts?

If revisionist researchers don’t do the work of establishing what really took place in Auschwitz, nobody will. Considering our limited means and the legal restrictions placed on us, it might be only realistic to conclude that nobody ever will. Thus all we can do right now is to meticulously map and document the material remains as they are today, from top to bottom, and hope that eventually reason will prevail.
Criminal Traces?

The discovery in German wartime documents of ambivalent words for which a sinister meaning can be interpreted is quite common in mainstream historiography on the Holocaust. Jean-Claude Pressac is not the first to have done so, but he is perhaps the most determined, taking it well beyond the bizarre.[see note] The revisionist responses have been thorough and, for the exterminationists, devastating.[see note] Revisionist interpretations have been based, on the one hand, on thorough knowledge of the documents dealing with Auschwitz — including Allied air photos — as well as their context, and on expert knowledge in various fields of engineering and architecture on the other.
Exculpatory Traces!

That approach, applied to a great number of documents on Auschwitz, has yielded another, even more important result that sheds revealing light on the history of the Auschwitz camp system. Samuel Crowell has unearthed material on air raid shelters built by the SS to protect inmates from Allied air raids. Hans Lamker and Hans Nowak have shown in detail how the SS installed modern (and highly) expensive microwave delousing facilities to protect the lives of inmates.[see note] Together with Michael Gärtner and Werner Rademacher, they are currently working on a comprehensive history of the Auschwitz camp, equipped with all means necessary to ensure the survival of tens of thousands of prisoners: hospitals, dentists, kitchens, laundries, butchers, as well as recreation facilities like sport fields and gardens. Together with the fact that the overall costs of erecting this camp complex were on the order of magnitude of some five hundred million dollars, these facilities clearly contradict an intention by the German authorities to use this camp as an extermination center. There are cheaper ways of killing humans than to spend 500 dollars per capita.[see note]
The Future of Auschwitz Forensics

Since the dawn of science, scientists have sought the perpetuum mobile. They seem never to have noticed that they had found it at the beginning of their search: science itself. So it can be expected that forensic research about Auschwitz will never cease, especially if one considers the controversial and highly ideological implications of any potential findings. The direction and methods of research, however, are clearly being set by the pioneers in this field, the revisionists, who lack neither the imagination nor the curiosity to discover whether the mass gassing claims of the Holocaust are true, whatever their use for political or financial purposes. The Auschwitz camp system will, as before, be at the very focus of it all.

To name one recent instance, in early 2000 the Australian engineer Richard Krege employed ground penetrating radar in order to locate (or not to locate) mass graves in the vicinity of alleged German extermination camps. A preliminary study was published in my German language revisionist quarterly in early 2000.[see note] Krege has promised more thorough investigations, together with a proper introduction into this geological method of determining disturbances in the soil beneath our feet. His work is going to break new ground, as Leuchter’s work did thirteen years ago. No doubt he will not be the last pioneer to challenge reigning dogmas and taboos.
Conclusions

As they do for all alleged crimes in the historical past, the forensic sciences hold the key to the riddles of Auschwitz. No group with the power to conduct, or else to demand, forensic research on the necessary scale seems willing to do so: on the contrary. Those in power have no stake in changing our view of Auschwitz, and consequently of the Holocaust, and forensic research is liable to do exactly that. Instead, authorities the world over persecute and prosecute those who advocate or attempt such research. This may slow us down, but it will not stop us.

When revisionist researchers achieve a sudden breakthrough through forensic research, they are countered not merely with slander and persecution, but also with academic forgery and professorial deceit, of which the Krakow forensic report is so evident an example. How desperate must they be, the keepers of the flame of the Holocaust legend, to resort to such methods? By guarding the purported graves and “gas chamber” ruins of Auschwitz from scientific inquiry, they risk the burial of their own reputations, and the ruin of the Auschwitz myth.
Notes

1. Published in German by the Dokumentationszentrum des Österreichischen Widerstandes (Documentation Center of the Austrian Resistance) and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Education and Culture, in Amoklauf gegen die Wirklichkeit (Vienna, 1991), pp. 36-40; the original is in the Auschwitz State Museum.
2. See F. Kadell, Die Katyn Lüge (Münich: Herbig, 1991).
3. Letter from the SS Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungs- hauptamt, Oranienburg, to concentration camp commanders, August 6,1942, IMT Document 511-USSR, cited in: Der Prozess gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Militärgerichtshof (Nuremberg, 1949), pp. 553f. The letter ordered the recycling of prisoners’ hair twenty centimeters or more in length.
4. Zinc prevents the formation of rust, which is required to form long-term stable iron cyanides.
5. Like earth alkaline cyanides, zinc cyanides are slowly decomposed by humidity.
6. H. Buchheim et al., Anatomie des SS-Staates (Freiburg: Walter, 1964).
7. Throughout his writings, Adalbert Rückerl, one of the most prominent German prosecutors in “Holocaust cases,” dispenses with any mention of material evidence. Instead, he declares documentary evidence the best and most important form of evidence, even in the absence of material evidence for the authenticity and correctness of the documents themselves (in J. Weber, P. Steinbach, eds., Vergangenheitsbewältigung durch Strafverfahren? [Munich: Olzog,1984] p. 77). Rückerl reports that it is practically impossible to find a suspect guilty solely on documentary evidence, so that, especially given the increasing time span separating alleged crimes from trial, it is almost always necessary to fall back on eyewitness testimony, even though its unreliability is clear, particularly in trials of so-called “National Socialist violent crimes” (A. Rückerl, NS-Verbrechen vor Gericht [Heidelberg: C. F. Müller, 1984], p. 249; Rückerl, Nationalsozialistische Vernichtungslager im Spiegel deutscher Strafprozesse [Munich: dtv, 1978], p. 34; Rückerl, NS-Prozesse [Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller, 1972], pp. 27, 29, 31.).
8. Such total naiveté, combined with legal incompetence, on behalf of the defense is best exemplified in Hans Laternser, Die andere Seite im Auschwitzprozess 1963/65 (Stuttgart: Seewald,1966).
9. The most prominent advocate of this thesis is Professor Nolte, in his book Streitpunkte (Berlin: Propyläen, 1993), pp. 290, 293, 297.
10. For example, the verdict of the Schwurgericht (jury court) of Frankfurt am Main stated that there was no evidence as to the crime, its victims, the murder weapon, nor even the perpetrators themselves; Ref. 50/4 Ks 2/63; cf. I. Sagel-Grande, H. H. Fuchs, C. F. Rüter, eds., Justiz und NS-Verbrechen, vol. 21 (Amsterdam: University Press,1979), p. 434.
11. Ref. 20 Vr 6575/72 (Hv56/72); this reference number is different from the one Robert Van Pelt quotes in his report: The Pelt Report, Irving vs. Lipstadt (Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, David John Cawdell Irving ./. [1] Penguin Books Limited, [2] Deborah E. Lipstadt, Ref. 1996 I. No. 113; p. 135 n. 59: 20 Vr 3806/64 and 27 C Vr 3806/64).
12. Personal communication from the expert, who must, for the time being, remain anonymous. See Michael Gärtner, “Vor 25 Jahren: Ein anderer Auschwitzprozess,” Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung (VffG)1, no. 1(1997), pp. 24f. (vho.org/VffG/1997/1/Gaertner1.html)
13. Udo Walendy, Historische Tatsachen 60 (Vlotho: Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, 1993), pp. 7-10.
14. Cf. Mémoire en défense (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1980); Serge Thion, ed., Vérité historique ou vérité politique? (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1980) (online: aaargh.vho.org/fran/histo/SF1.html); R. Faurisson, Écrits révisionnistes, 4 vols., published by author,Vichy,1999; see also Faurisson, Es gab keine Gaskammern (Witten: Deutscher Arbeitskreis Witten, 1978).
15. R. Faurisson, “Le camere a gas non sono mai esistite,” Storia illustrata 261 (1979), pp. 15-35 (online: aaargh.vho.org/fran/archFaur/RF7908xx2.html); cf. Faurisson, “The Mechanics of Gassing,” The Journal of Historical Review (JHR) 1, no. 1 (spring 1980), pp. 23ff. (online: aaargh.vho.org/engl/FaurisArch/RF80spring.html); Faurisson, “The Gas Chambers of Auschwitz Appear to Be Physically Inconceivable,” JHR 2, no. 4 (winter 1981), pp. 311ff. (online: vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/2/4/Faurisson312-317.html)
16. “‘Le problème des chambres à gaz’ ou ‘la rumeur d’Auschwitz,'” Le Monde, December 29, 1978, p. 8; see also “The ‘problem of the gas chambers,” JHR 1, no. 2 (summer 1980), pp. 103-114 (online: ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p103_Faurisson.html).
17. F. A. Leuchter, An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland, Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1988 (ihr.org/books/leuchter/leuchter.toc.html).
18. For Leuchter’s own statement, cf. “Witch Hunt in Boston,” JHR 10, no. 4 (winter 1990), pp. 453-460; “The Leuchter Report: The How and the Why,” JHR 9, no. 2 (summer 1988), pp. 133-139.
19. To name only a few of the more prominent early publications: J.-C. Pressac, Jour J, December 12, 1988, i-x; Pressac in: S. Shapiro, ed., Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust Denial: The End of the Leuchter Report, (NY: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1990); W. Schuster, “Technische Unmöglichkeiten bei Pressac,” Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart (DGG) 39, no. 2 (1991), pp. 9-13 (vho.org./D/DGG/Schuster39_2); Paul Grubach, “The Leuchter Report Vindicated: A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac’s Critique,” JHR 12, no. 2 (summer 1992), pp. 248ff. (codoh.com/gcgv/gc426v12.html); Helmut Auerbach, Institut für Zeitgeschichte, letter to Bundesprüfstelle, München, Oct. 10, 1989; Auerbach, November 1989, both published in U. Walendy, Historische Tatsache 42 (Vlotho: Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, 1990), pp. 32 and 34; see my technical appraisal of Auerbach’s writings in Henri Roques, Günter Annthon, Der Fall Günter Deckert (Weinheim: DAGD/Germania Verlag, 1995), pp. 431-435 (vho.org/D/Deckert/C2.html); W. Wegner, “Keine Massenvergasungen in Auschwitz? Zur Kritik des Leuchter-Gutachtens,” in U. Backes, E. Jesse, R. Zitelmann, eds., Die Schatten der Vergangenheit (Frankfurt: Propyläen, 1990), pp. 450-476 (vho.org/D/dsdv/Wegner.html, with interpolated critique by the present writer); on this cf. W. Häberle, “Zu Wegners Kritik am Leuchter-Gutachten,” DGG 39, no. 2 (1991), pp. 13-17 (online: vho.org/D/DGG/Haeberle39_2.html); J. Bailer, “Der Leuchter-Bericht aus der Sicht eines Chemikers,” in Amoklauf gegen die Wirklichkeit, pp. 47-52; cf. E. Gauss (alias G. Rudolf), Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte (Tübingen: Grabert, 1993), pp. 290-293; Gauss, “Chemische Wissenschaft zur Gaskammerfrage,” DGG 41, no. 2 (1993), pp. 16-24 (online: vho.org./D/DGG/Gauss41_2); J. Bailer, in B. Bailer-Galanda, W. Benz, W. Neugebauer, eds., Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge (Vienna: Deuticke, 1995), pp. 112-118; cf. my critique “Zur Kritik an ‘Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge,'” in Herbert Verbeke, ed., Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte (Berchem: Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, 1996), pp. 91-108 (vho.org/D/Kardinal/Wahrheit.html); English: “Critique of ‘Truth and the Auschwitz-Lie'” (online: http://vho.org/GB/Books/cq/critique.html); G. Wellers, “Der Leuchter-Bericht über die Gaskammern von Auschwitz,” Dachauer Hefte 7, no. 7 (November 1991), pp. 230-241.
20. Most notably the works of the Italian historian Carlo Mattogno, the American historian Samuel Crowell, and a group of South German engineers and architects comprising Michael Gärtner, Hans Lamker, Hans Jürgen Nowak, Werner Rademacher, Gottfried Sänger. For a comprehensive list of their works, enter their names in the search tool of the revisionist online database at http://www.vho.org/i/a.html.
21. J. Markiewicz, W. Gubala, J. Labedz, B. Trzcinska, Prof. Dr. Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Research, Department for Forensic Toxicology, Krakow, September 24, 1990; partly published in DGG 39, no. 2 (1991), pp. 18f. (vho.org/D/DGG/IDN39_2.html); English: “An Official Polish Report on the Auschwitz ‘Gas Chambers,'” JHR 11, no. 2 (summer 1991), pp. 207-216 (vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/11/2/ IHR207-216.html).
22. It is a bit different in Majdanek and Stutthof, where rooms that unquestionably served as delousing facilities are claimed to have served as homicidal gas chambers as well. Thus we cannot make the same observation for them as for Auschwitz. However, because the prevailing opinion generally claims that high iron cyanide residues cannot be the results of homicidal gassings — for fallacious reasons unable to be discussed here — it is generally accepted by all sides in this controversy that the blue staining generally originates in the use of these rooms as delousing facilities.
23. Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, Jerzy Labedz, “A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content in the Walls of the Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps,” Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych / Problems of Forensic Science 30 (1994), pp. 17-27 (online: www2.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/post-leuchter.report).
24. There are no wall paints that contain Prussian blue, because Prussian blue decomposes on fresh plaster (it is unstable in alkaline environments). Thus, nobody could have painted these walls with Prussian blue.
25. Prof. Dr. Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Research, Dept. for Forensic Toxicology, Krakow, letter to W. Wegner, undated (winter 1991/92), signature illegible, but probably Dr. Markiewicz himself, unpublished, partly quoted in: Rüdiger Kammerer, Armin Solms, eds., Das Rudolf Gutachten: Gutachten über die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in den “Gaskammern” von Auschwitz (London: Cromwell Press, 1993) (vho.org/D/rga/krakau.html).
26. E. Gauss (alias G. Rudolf), Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte (Tübingen: Grabert, 1993); on the chemistry involved here, cf. pp. 163ff., 290-294 (vho.org/D/vuez/v3.html#v3_4 and ~/v5.html#v5_5).
27. G. Rudolf, Das Rudolf Gutachten, 2nd ed. (Hastings, Eng.: Castle Hill Publishers, 2001).
28. A construction damage case occurred in 1976 in Bavaria (Meeder-Wiesenfeld), when a recently plastered church was fumigated with Zyklon B. After several months the plaster was covered with blue patches formed by Prussian blue. See Günter Zimmermann, ed., Bauschäden Sammlung, vol. 4 (Stuttgart: Forum-Verlag, 1981), pp. 120f.; reprint in Ernst Gauss (alias G. Rudolf), ed., Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte (Tübingen: Grabert, 1994, pp. 401ff.; (codoh.com/inter/intgrgauss.html; English: vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwood.html). Furthermore, every one of the delousing facilities of the former concentration camps in eastern Europe that is still standing today has developed enormous amounts of Prussian blue throughout the walls, cf. my report, note 25 above (vho.org/D/rga/prob9_22.html and following pages); Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, KL Majdanek: Eine historische und technische Studie (Hastings, Eng: Castle Hill Publishers, 1998) (vho.org/D/Majdanek/MR.html); Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, Das Konzentrationslager Stutthof und seine Funktion in der nationalsozialistischen Judenpolitik (Hastings, Eng: Castle Hill Publishers, 1999) (vho.org/D/Stutthof/index.html).
29. G. Rudolf, “Leuchter-Gegengutachten: Ein Wissenschaftlicher Betrug?,” DGG 43, no. 1 (1995), pp. 22-26 (vho.org/D/Kardinal/Leuchter.html; Engl.: vho.org/GB/Books/cq/leuchter.html); G. Rudolf and J. Markiewicz, W. Gubala, J. Labedz, “Briefwechsel,” Sleipnir 1, no. 3 (1995), pp. 29-33; reprinted in Verbeke, ed., Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte, pp. 86-90 (online: as above).
30. Kammerer, Solms, eds., Das Rudolf Gutachten (vho.org/D/rga/). For background, history, and consequences of my report, see W. Schlesiger, Der Fall Rudolf (London: Cromwell, 1994) (online: vho.org/D/dfr/Fall.html); English: The Rudolf Case (vho.org/GB/Books/trc); and Verbeke, ed., Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte (vho.org/D/Kardinal/); English: Cardinal Questions about Contemporary History (vho.org/GB/Books/cq/); cf. “Hunting Germar Rudolf,” vho.org/Authors/RudolfCase.html.
31. This large-format, 350 pp. hardcover book may be ordered for $30.at http://www.tadp.org or by writing to Theses & Dissertations Press, PO Box 64, Capshaw, AL 35742.
32. J. Bailer, in B. Bailer-Galanda, W. Benz, W. Neugebauer, eds., op. cit. (see note 19 above); see my answer to this, “Zur Kritik an ‘Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge'”/”Critique of Truth and the Auschwitz-Lie,” in Herbert Verbeke, ed., Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte. Even less sophisticated: B. Clair, “Revisionistische Gutachten,” VffG 1, no. 2 (1997), pp. 102-104 (vho.org/VffG/1997/2/Clair2.html); my answer: “Zur Kritik am Rudolf Gutachten,” ibid., pp. 104-108 (vho.org/VffG/1997/2/RudGut2.html); further, La Vieille Taupe/Pierre Guillaume, “Rudolf Gutachten: ‘Psychopathologisch und Gefährlich’: Über die Psychopathologie einer Erklärung,” VffG 1, no. 4 (1997), pp. 224f. (vho.org/VffG/1997/4/Guillaume4.html). Robert Van Pelt did not discuss my report, but preferred to repeat and aggravate Pressac’s errors: op. cit. (see note 11 above); cf. G. Rudolf, “Gutachter und Urteilsschelte,” VffG 4, no. 1 (2000), pp. 33-50 (vho.org/VffG/2000/1/Rudolf33-50.html); more exhaustively, in English, vho.org/GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html and …/CritiqueGray.html.
33. Richard J. Green, “The Chemistry of Auschwitz,” May 10, 1998, holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/, und “Leuchter, Rudolf and the Iron Blues,” March 25, 1998, holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/, with considerable proselytizing “anti-fascist” bias. A detailed description of the deficiencies of the paper appeared in “Das Rudolf Gutachten in der Kritik, Teil 2,” VffG 3, no. 1 (1999), pp. 77-82 (vho.org/VffG/1999/1/RudDas3.html); English.: “Some Considerations about the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz and Birkenau,” vho.org/GB/Contributions/Green.html; for the response see: Richard J. Green, Jamie McCarthy, “Chemistry is Not the Science,” May 2,1999, holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/. About 50 percent of the article consists of political accusations and vilification. For a response, see G. Rudolf, “Character Assassin,” online: vho.org/GB/Contributions/CharacterAssassins.html.
34. Charles D. Provan, “No Holes? No Holocaust?: A Study of the Holes in the Roof of Leichenkeller I of Krematorium 2 at Birkenau” (www.revisingrevisionism.com)
35. Van Pelt’s testimony in Errol Morris’s documentary film Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.
36. As did at least one revisionist, in spring 1996, on the roof of morgue 1 of crematorium II.
37. As did an engineer named Barford; his colleagues are assisting in the conservation and restoration of the camp for the Auschwitz Museum administration. He informed David Irving of this.
38. Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (NY: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989); Les Crématoires d’Auschwitz: la Machinerie du meurtre de masse (Paris: CNRS, 1993).
39. For criticisms of Pressac’s first book, see R. Faurisson, JHR 11, no. 1 (spring 1991), p. 25ff.; JHR 11, no. 2 (1991), p. 133ff. (French: http://www.lebensraum.org/english/04.adobe.faurisson/pressac.pdf); F. A. Leuchter, The Fourth Leuchter Report (Toronto: Samisdat, 1991) (www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report4/leuchter4.toc.html); for a criticism of Pressac’s second book see: Herbert Verbeke, ed., Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten (Berchem: VHO, 1995), pp. 101-162 (online: vho.org/D/anf/; English: Auschwitz: Plain Facts, vho.org/GB/Books/anf; for a criticism of the principles underlying Pressac’s methodology, see G. Rudolf, “Gutachten über die Frage der Wissenschaftlichkeit der Bücher Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers und Les Crématoires d’Auschwitz. la Machinerie du meurtre de masse von Jean-Claude Pressac,” in Schlesiger, Der Fall Rudolf (vho.org/D/dfr/Fall.html#Gutachten); English: see vho.org/GB/Books/trc#expert-report; see also Pierre Guillaume’s criticism, De la misère intellectuelle en milieu universitaire, B.p. 9805, 75224 Paris cedex 05, 1995 (aaargh.vho.org/fran/archVT/vt9309xx1.html). See also S. Crowell’s various writings and Mattogno’s responses to them, referenced at http://www.vho.org/i/a.html, as well as the upcoming English version of my report, which will include a summary of this topic.
40. H. Nowak, “Kurzwellen-Entlausungsanlagen in Auschwitz,” VffG 2, no. 2 (1998), pp. 87-105; English version in Gauss, ed., Dissecting the Holocaust (Capshaw, AL: Theses & Dissertations Press, 2000), pp. 311-324; H. Lamker, “Die Kurzwellen-Entlausungsanlagen in Auschwitz, Teil 2,” VffG 2, no. 4 (1998), pp. 261-273; see also Mark Weber, “High Frequency Delousing Facilities at Auschwitz,” JHR 18, no. 3 (May-June 1999), pp. 4-12.
41. W. Rademacher, M. Gärtner, “Berichte zum KL Auschwitz,” VffG 4, no. 3-4 (2000), pp. 330-344.
42. R. Krege, “Vernichtungslager Treblinka — archäologisch betrachtet,” VffG 4, no. 1 (2000), pp. 62-64.

About the author

Germar Rudolf had completed his doctoral dissertation in chemistry while working at the renowned Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart, when publication of his forensic study of the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz caused university authorities to forbid him from completing the doctorate. In 1995 Rudolf was sentenced to fourteen months in jail for authoring the Rudolf Report; in the same year all available copies of Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, a collection of up-to-date research on the Holocaust problem, were seized and destroyed by court order (the English-language version, Dissecting the Holocaust, can be purchased from IHR). Rudolf edits the revisionist quarterly Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, and is currently seeking political asylum in the United States. He has submitted a lengthy affidavit in support of David Irving’s appeal of the adverse ruling in the Lipstadt trial.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »