The Forbidden Truth

(Die verbotene Wahrheit)

(author: anonymous)

Reflections on a past that will not go away

Questions about an obviousness that is not so obvious

In the brochure “The Forbidden Truth” (orig. “Die verbotene Wahrheit”) the issue of the alleged genocide of 1942-1945 (above all of the Jews) by the German Reich is being considered. The text is 34 pages long and contains numerous references. It provides information about all the important questions concerning the so-called Holocaust and is a valuable resource for persons new to the subject as well as to the more “seasoned” researchers. The author is probably Horst Mahler (there are many references to legal issues and the argumentation resembles Mahler’s style from other publications and videos). The text was translated by shoabloger. The original may be found HERE

Three generations after the war one chapter of history that has since 1979 been called the Holocaust, is dominating the public discourse more than ever. For decades, hardly a day goes by without ritual expressions of embarrassment in the press, radio and television.

But in the shadow of its unprecedented exploitation, the Holocaust, regarded as obvious historical truth, is ever more distant from the objective historical facts. At the same time legitimate questions about the numerous inconsistencies and contradictions of the ruling dogma are being forbidden by criminal law.

A huge Holocaust memorial, the size of two football fields, which occupies the center of Berlin, has been built despite empty coffers and against the will of the people.

The 2751 concrete pillars symbolize the desperate attempt to cement a highly questionable account of history, and to avoid any rational discussion. Doubts about the official version of the Holocaust are being suppressed under threat of draconian penalties.

In the Federal Republic of Germany, the alleged “freest state that ever existed on German soil”, more people are being prosecuted today for “crimes of opinion” than in the last years the GDR regime.

This vicious repression of freedom begs the question: What kind of truth is this that shuns the light of a public hearing and, on top of that, the discussion of which is prescribed by criminal law? This issue will be investigated here.

Table of contents:

1. Atrocity propaganda

2. The miraculous transformation of historical truth

3. The Wannsee Conference

4. Quotes leading Nazi politicians

5. Photo and film documentation

6. Witness testimony

7. Eyewitnesses in the media

8. Confessions

9. Where is the murder weapon?

10 Truth as stipulated by the law

11. Summary and Conclusion

12. Further Reading

__________________________________________________

1. Atrocity propaganda

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“There is no more good-natured, but also more easily fooled, people than Germans. No lie can be gross enough for the Germans to believe it. Give them a slogan and they will persecute their countrymen with greater bitterness than their real enemies.”

(Napoleon)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Atrocity propaganda is a psychological weapon used in any modern war, to boost the morale of the troops and to direct public opinion in a desired direction. When peace comes, a more conciliatory tone is struck.

But after the end of World War II the victors continued their atrocity propaganda against the vanquished and utterly destroyed Germany unabated – probably in order to distract attention from their own war crimes (e.g. war of extermination by the systematic bombing of German cities [1], the expulsion and murder of millions of German civilians) or let these atrocities appear morally justifiable in the fight against “absolute evil”.

The consequences of the Allied bombing terror were painfully real. In contrast, many allegations of the victors were so absurd that no halfway intelligent person would take them seriously today. Nevertheless, inter alia, following allegations appeared in countless documentaries, newspaper articles and books:

· Mass killings in steam and vacuum chambers [2]

· Mass killings on electrically charged assembly lines and burning the bodies in blast furnaces [3]

· Traceless removal of 20,000 people in one go using atomic bombs [4]

· Killing of millions of people with a delousing substance [5]

· Mass graves from which fresh blood shot up like a fountain [6]

· Electrically operated crematoria hidden in vast underground rooms [7]

· Poison gas which acted with time delay, so that the victims could march from gas chambers to mass graves. Having arrived at the pit, they suddenly fell dead into it [8]

These and similar horror stories constituted official charges at the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg. As a result of this internationally staged judicial spectacle absurd war propaganda mutated gradually into a legislated truth: In the Treaty which gave partial sovereignty to the Federal Republic of Germany, all the judgements and decisions of the IMT are for German authorities and courts “in all respects legally enshrined and binding according to German law” [9] Today the official version of the Holocaust is considered “public domain” or “obvious” (offenkundig) and enjoys in German courts, despite the outrageous contradictions, the same rank as laws of nature.

________________________________

1 Eberhard Spetzler, Luftkrieg und Menschlichkeit, Musterschmidt, 1956, as well as Jörg Friedrich, Der Brand. Deutschland im Bombenkrieg 1940-1945, Propyläen München, 2002
2 IMT Document PS-3311; W. Grossmann, Die Hölle von Treblinka, Verlag für fremdsprachige Literatur, Moskau 1947; Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, The Holocaust in History, The Record 1979
3 Boris Polevoi, Das Todes-Kombinat von Auschwitz, Prawda, Moskau, February 2, 1945
4 US Prosecutor Robert Jackson in June 21, 1946 to Albert Speer: IMT volume XVI, p. 529
5 IMT Document 3868 – PS
6 A. Rückerl, NS-Vernichtungslager im Spiegel Deutscher Strafprozesse, dtv München, 1978; Hanna Ahrend, Eichmann in Jerusalem, Reclam Leipzig 1990
7 Stefan Szende, Der letzte Jude in Polen, Europa-Verlag, Zürich 1945; Simon Wiesenthal, Der Neue Weg, 19/20, Wien 1946; The Black Book of Polish Jewry, 1946; M. Tregenza, Belzec Death Camp, The Wiener Library
8 Information Bulletin of Sept.8, 1942,first published by the Polish underground “Home Army.”, quoted by Yitzhak Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Bloomington 1987 p. 353 ff.
9 Art. 7, Transfer Treaty, BGBl., 1955 II, p. 405 ff; confirmed in the Amendment of the 2+4 Treaty.
__________________________

2. The miraculous transformation of historical truth

_______________________________________________________________________

“There were no extermination camps on German soil.”
(Simon Wiesenthal [10])

_______________________________________________________________________

Shortly after the war, the existence of gas chambers in concentration camps within the Reich territory, e.g. in Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen and Dachau in particular, due to alleged perpetrator confessions and eyewitness accounts has been considered established truth.

The Berner Tagwacht in its edition of 24 August 1945 reported that Hitler’s Germany had “killed a total of 26 million Jews, most of them at Dachau.” Until about 1960, the camps within the former German Reich were considered the most important extermination camps. The camps in Poland, like Auschwitz, Treblinka and Sobibor played a marginal role in reporting.

.
2.1 No gassings at Dachau
The thesis that in the concentration camps within the Reich people had been killed in gas chambers (“gassed”) has been officially rejected in 1960, and, of all people, by Martin Broszat, at that time an employee and later longtime director of the Munich Institute of Contemporary History (Institut für Zeitgeschichte). In a letter to the weekly newspaper Die Zeit, Broszat put it tersely:

“Neither in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald Jews or other prisoners have been gassed. The gas chamber in Dachau was never completed … Hundreds of thousands of prisoners who perished in Dachau or other concentration camps in the Reich were mainly victims the catastrophic hygienic conditions and lack of supplies … “[11]

With this statement Broszat conceded that the officially propagated historical truth was nothing more than the uncritically parroted atrocity propaganda of the victors. Since that time, at the “gas chamber” at Dachau a sign with the following text in multiple languages​​ has been on display: “gas chamber – disguised as a ‘shower room’ – never used as a gas chamber”

In order to avoid too much damage in the “public education in the desired historical truth” [12], shortly after

this serious revision of the official historiography, the propaganda about the camps located in Poland was constructed. In particular, the media attention turned on the staged Nazi trials, e.g. the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, or the Auschwitz trials in Frankfurt.

However, to this day the established historians cannot explain why the testimony and confessions about the gassings at Auschwitz, Treblinka and Sobibor should be more credible than the long refuted reports about the alleged gas chambers in the Old Reich.

Nevertheless, the guardians of the official historical truth managed to dispel the increasingly loud doubts about the gas chamber thesis, at least temporarily. Any questions were either declared taboo or redirected to the camps behind the Iron Curtain which, until 1989, were virtually inaccessible to independent researchers.

_________________________________________
10 Books and Bookmen, April 1975
11 Martin Broszat, Keine Vergasungen in Dachau, Die Zeit, Hamburg, 19. August 1960
12 Wording of the historian Golo Mann
______________________

2.2 Where did they all go?

_______________________________________________________

“There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are the statistics”
(Winston Churchill)

________________________________________________________

The question of how many people actually fell victim to the Holocaust is often dismissed as anti-Semitic. Not seldom the following question is asked in a tone of moral indignation: “If the six million Jews were not gassed, where did they go?” This totally unverifiable number has become an immutable constant. Anyone who considers this figure unrealistic, is asked to explain the whereabouts of the alleged or actual victims of the Holocaust.

Frequently encountered statistical data on Jewish population in each country are misleading because during the war considerable migration took place. In addition, the boundaries in Europe have changed considerably after the war, making it difficult to count separately different populations in each country. [see here]

For example, Poland’s borders moved after 1945 about 200 km to the west; the Soviet Union annexed eastern and southern parts of Poland while Germany lost its eastern provinces to Poland. A large part of Poland’s Jews lived in the east and south of Poland (Galicia, Bukovina). Because of the changed boundaries after 1945 they no longer showed up in the population statistics of Poland.

The comparison of the world’s Jewish population before and after the Second World War is therefore the only objective way to determine the likely number of the victims of Holocaust.

The following list of the world’s Jewish population comes from contemporary sources. The figures which come from various publications were adopted by the American Jewish Committee (a Jewish organization) and refer to all Jews, regardless of whether they belong to a synagogue or Jewish community or not.

Jewish population of the world before the Second World War

The National Council of Churches, USA 1930: 15,3 Million

Jewish Encyclopedia, USA 1933: 15,6 Million

World Almanac 1939: 15,6 Million

Jewish population of the world after the Second World War

World Almanac 1945: 15,19 Million

World Almanac 1947: 15,75 Million

Surveys of Jewish organizations worldwide for 1947: 15,6 – 18,7 Million [13]

The world Jewish population remained approximately constant between 1930 and 1947. Therefore the number of victims of the Holocaust could not have been larger than the natural population increase during this period. A report from the Basler Nachrichten of 13 June 1946 seems to confirm this conclusion. It said the following about the presumed number of Jewish victims:

“… One thing is already today certain: The claim that this number is 5-6 million (a claim which, inexplicably, also the Palestine Committee made its own) is not true. The number of Jewish victims can lie between 1 and 1.5 million, because Hitler and Himmler were unable to lay their hands on more. It is likely, however, and we certainly hope, that the final figure of the Jewish victims will be even lower…”

These contemporary voices paint a clear picture. However, given the countless half truths and lies in the official story of the Holocaust, it would not surprise that the statistical data on the Jewish world population were gradually adjusted, so that the alleged 5 to 6 million victims could seem plausible. One of the most striking manipulations can be found in the World Almanac. In the editions of 1948 and 1955 the figures for the Jewish population are as follows:

The statistics of the Holocaust from 1948 to 1955:

World Almanac, year of issue: 1948 1955

Jewish population in North America………………………. 4,971,261 …………. 5,222,000
Jewish population in Latin America………………………….. 226,958……………. 638,030
Jewish population in Europe ……………………………. 9,372,666…………. 3,424,150
Jewish population in Asia …………………………………… 572,930 …………. 1,609,520
Jewish population in Africa …………………………………. 542,869 …………… 675,500
Jewish population in Oceania ……………………………….. ..26,954 …………….. 58,250
Jewish population worldwide: …………………………. 15,753,638 …………11,627,450

The figures for the Jewish population in Europe are particularly striking. It was not until 1955, that is, after the first “unique and definitive” compensation funds were transferred to the newly established State of Israel, inexplicably, approximately six million European Jews disappeared from the statistics of numerous publications and reference works.

_______________________________________________

13 Hanson W. Baldwin, New York Times, 22. February 1948

_________________

2.3 Mathematical acrobatics à la Auschwitz

__________________________________________________________

“We were lucky! Six million Jews were killed and we get money for it!”

(Shmuel Dayan, deputy Knesset) [14]

______________________________________________________________________________

Since the early 1960s, the concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau has been considered the largest and most important concentration camp of the Nazi regime. Auschwitz is a symbol of the worst crime in human history. All accounts on this subject are considered “obvious” or “self-evident”. In German court they not only enjoy the same status as natural laws, but are even dictated by criminal law.

Given this aggressively promoted certainty, it is very surprising that the “obvious” death toll, depending on the source and date of the publication, may vary by more than a hundred times. “Welt am Sonntag” even managed in the same issue to name numbers that deviated by 60% from one another:

1945: French Comm. for Invest. of German War Crimes……….. 8.000.000

1946: Internatl. Military Tribunal, Document 3868-PS…………… 3.000.000

1948: Welt im Film,  a Documentary Nr. 137…………………………. 300.000

1978: Le Monde………………………………………………………….. 5.000.000

1989: Eugen Kogon, Der SS-Staat…………………………………….. 4.500.000

1990: Hamburger Abendblatt………………………………………….. 2.000.000

1993: Die Welt……………………………………………………………… 800.000

1994: Focus ………………………………………………………………… 700.000

1994: Internatl. Tracing Service (Intl. Red Cross)*…………………….. 68.864

1994: J-C. Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz…………………… 631.000

1995: Welt am Sonntag (22. January, page 21)………………………. 1.200.000

1995: Welt am Sonntag (22. January, page 22)………………………… 750.000

1995: Wetzlarer Neue Zeitung………………………………………….. 4.000.000

1995: Institute for Contemporary History, Munich………………… 1.000.000

2002: Fritjof Meyer, Osteuropa magazine……………………………… 356.000

*)The only unequivocally proven number of victims of Auschwitz was established when the official death books that have been unexpectedly found in 1989 in a Moscow archive. All other figures are based on the rebuttable claim that handicapped persons – particularly the elderly and children – were not registered, but upon arrival in the camp “selected” and “gassed”. More on this in Section 2.4.

At the Nuremberg trials, the number of four million Auschwitz victims was presented as proven and was “carved in stone for all eternity” at the entrance to Auschwitz (actually in Birkenau – transl.). Because of the growing inconsistencies the plaque was in 1990 removed without much hype.[15]

Fritjof Meyer, a veteran editor of Der Spiegel in May 2002 in the journal Osteuropa, which is published under the auspices of Rita Süssmuth, based on new archival discoveries came to the conclusion that the number of Auschwitz victims was less than a tenth of that “proven” in Nuremberg. This should be great news for all those who have the interests of Jews at heart. But it is precisely Jewish interest groups that have angrily rejected this good news.

That these circles, against better judgment, cling frantically to the total of six million Holocaust victims can probably be explained by the fact that the number six has a mystical, if not religious significance in Judaism [16]. In this context it is interesting that Jewish interest groups claimed in 1919(!) that six million Jews in Eastern Europe were threatened by “Holocaust”. The absurd horror stories of that time were set in the world by no less than the Governor of New York, Martin H. Glenn. [17]

Nahum Goldmann, former president of the World Jewish Congress commented this shameless exploitation of the Holocaust based on bizarre corpse-arithmetic in his book The Jewish Paradox [18] with refreshing candor: “I am not exaggerating. Jewish life consists of two elements. Making money and protesting. “

2.4 The official death registers

The doubts concerning the official casualty figures at Auschwitz were strengthened in 1989 when the original official death registers, until then believed lost, were found in and a number of independent historians had the opportunity to evaluate these important historical documents. The death registers fell in January 1945 into the hands of the Red Army and lay unnoticed for 44 years in Soviet archives. In the recovered 46 volumes 68,864 deaths are recorded. The documented death toll for the entire operating period of the camp complex of Auschwitz-Birkenau is estimated by the curator of the Auschwitz Memorial, Franciszek Piper, at about 100,000. [19]

If one compares Pipers estimate with the number of victims initially assumed, there is a difference of approximately 3.9 million. But the court historians have a ready answer even to this glaring discrepancy: Many of the victims were not recorded in the death register of Auschwitz because all persons who were deemed unfit for work were immediately sorted out upon arrival and murdered, without any registration.

This argument may – at least at first glance – be a plausible explanation for the difference between the official, well-documented and the alleged number of victims. But in that case only the fit for work, relatively healthy people in the age range of about 16 – 60 would have been recorded in the official death books. Those unable to work, especially the elderly and children were, according to the official version, not registered at all, but “selected” and “gassed” immediately on arrival at the camp. If you look a little more closely, however, the lists contain many entries that make this argument look absurd. A small excerpt:

11. 08. 1941: Josek N., Laborer, 71 years

01. 03. 1942: Chaim R., salesman, 81 years

04. 06. 1942: Ernestine H., 70 years

22. 06. 1942: Josef H., butcher, 89 years

02. 07. 1942: Abraham S., salesman, 79 years

22. 07. 1942: David R., farmer, 70 years

19. 08. 1942: Armin H., salesman 70 years

15. 02. 1943: Emil K., lawyer, 78 years

01. 04. 1943: Irmgard L., 4 years

07. 05. 1943: Ingrid M., 2years

12. 05. 1943: Agathe B., 2 years

25. 05. 1943: Jan B., 2 years

09. 08. 1943: Paul Rudolf B., 8 years

31. 10. 1943: Frieda B., 4 years

28. 11. 1943: Grete O., 4 years

Each entry of a person under 16 or over 60 is a mute but irrefutable testimony that those classified as unfit for work (“selected”) inmates were indeed recorded. Thus, the assertion that in Auschwitz, there where countless nameless deaths, in addition to the officially documented deaths, is indeed untenable. [20]

The full names are not mentioned here out of respect. The originals of the death books with full names, place of birth, occupation, last place of residence, date of death and cause of death are located in the Auschwitz Museum. Copies are available on microfilm, for ex. in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Tracing Service Arolsen.

____________________________________

14 Tom Segev, The Seventh Million – The Israelis and The Holocaust, Hill and Wang, New York 1994, S. 223
15 Hamburger Abendblatt, 25. 7. 1990; Jüdische Allgemeine Wochenzeitung, 26. 7. 1990; Daily Telegraph, London, Auschwitz Deaths Reduced to a Million, 17. July 1990; The Washington Times, Poland Reduces Auschwitz Death Toll Estimate to 1 Million, 17. July 1990
16 Supposedly, the Hebrew Messiah will come to the world after certain conditions are met. One of these conditions is that the “chosen people” has already returned to the land promised by him, having lost 6 million people. See for instance, Wolfgang Eggert, Israels Geheimvatikan, Propheten Verlag München 2001, Volume 3, page 326, et seq
17 Martin H. Glenn, The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop [“Die Kreuzigung der Juden muß aufhören”], The American Hebrew, New York, 31. 10. 1919
18 Nahum Goldmann, Das jüdische Paradox, Europäische Verlagsanstalt 1992
19 Franciszek Piper, Wie viele Juden, Polen, Zigeuner …wurden umgebracht, Universitas, Krakau 1992. See also the discussion by Robert Faurisson, How many people died at Auschwitz?, Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, 3(3) (1999), p. 268-272

._______________________

3. The Wannsee Conference

According to the official history, on 20th January 1942 in a villa in Berlin’s Wannsee, the “final solution of the Jewish question” was decided. [21] This formulation is commonly portrayed as a cynical Nazi jargon for the alleged murder of six million Jews, although the term “solution of the Jewish question” was coined in 1896 by the founder of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl. [22]

The “Wannsee Protocol” is in the history books and the mass media still referred to as the most important documentary evidence for the Holocaust. In contrast, the Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer, in his capacity of the Head of the Institute for the Study of the Holocaust at Yad Vashem, called the claim that the extermination of the Jews of Europe was decided during the Wannsee Conference a “silly story” [23].

In his study “The Wannsee Protocol – Anatomy of a forgery” [24] Johannes Peter Ney discovers all the irregularities which were supposedly also well known to Yehuda Bauer and may have led him to his devastating critique. Here are some important conclusions from Ney’s analysis:

Purely formally the Wannsee Protocol lacks all characteristics of a protocol. The beginning and end of the conference, information on the invited but not present persons and the names of the speakers are not recorded. You will also look in vain for a letterhead, date, distribution, document number, place of issue, signature, proper font, countersignature of the chairman of the meeting or an official stamp. In short, this ominous report lacks all the features of an official document.

The style shows strange stylistic bloopers and atypical formulations suggesting that the author was heavily influenced by the English language. Phrases like “[…] the […] Jews will be lead into those areas building the roads” suggest in addition a vivid imagination of the author, because in this way not a single road was ever built. Note also that “in the final solution […] around 11 million Jews come into consideration” which should make you suspicious, because at no time half as many Jews have been within reach of the Nazi regime.[25]

By the way, the number of Jews in the German Reich, including the eastern territories, was in 1933 just half a million, thereof approximately 250,000 emigrated unscathed and 150,000 served as soldiers in the Wehrmacht [26].

As for the factual or stylistic inconsistencies, one or other makeshift excuse could be found. However, there is no explanation for the following fact: both the cover letter and the protocol exist in two different versions. Establishment historians refer sometimes to the one, sometimes to the other as the only complete “original” surviving copy number 16 (of 30).

The first version was “found” by Robert Kempner (a German Jew who emigrated to America the 1930s). Kempner returned to Germany in 1945 and was prosecutor at the Wilhelmstrasse Trial. He provided no details about the circumstances of his discovery. Despite the unexplained origin, “Wannsee Protocol” provided by Kempner was admitted into evidence and received the file number E-2568. Later he published a facsimile of the protocol in his book Eichmann und Komplizen. [27]

Even at a quick glance it is striking that the version of the protocol submitted by Kempner lacks typical SS runes (left picture). Obviously, the writer did not have a typewriter which stood in all German offices in 1942. The other, somewhat unfortunate, version was apparently later tapped by an unidentified individual on an appropriate typewriter (right picture). In this version, authentic SS runes suddenly appear. The same applies to the cover letter, which was also remade. Somebody has even tried to imitate a handwritten note, in which he did not succeed so well. The second version, together with a copy of the protocol and the cover letter, is to be found in the political archives of the German Foreign Office. [28]

Since the authors of the second version did not succeed in making the one submitted by Kempner to disappear from the previously published publications, it can be demonstrated through generally accessible publications (see footnotes 27 and 28) that the Wannsee Protocol is nothing but a clumsy forgery. Today, after the British and Americans have attacked Iraq for the second time under false pretenses, this Allied practice is euphemistically called “sexing up the dossier” – documentary evidence is being fabricated as needed.

______________________________________________________________________

25 American Jewish Yearbook, Nr. 43; Walter Sanning, Die Auflösung der Juden Europas, Grabert 1983
26 Bryan Mark Rigg, Hitlers jüdische Soldaten, Schöningh Paderborn 2003
27 Robert M. W. Kempner, Eichmann und Komplizen, Europa Verlag Zürich 1961
28 as facsimile i.a. at Peter Longerich, Die Wannsee-Konferenz von 20. January 1942, Edition Hentrich 1998
___________________

4. Quotes of leading National Socialist politicians

The victorious powers seized tons of National Socialist documents but, despite strenuous efforts, they failed to find a plan, command or other evidence of the alleged industrial-scale extermination of Jews. Leading Holocaust expert Raul Hilberg explains in all seriousness that the project was so secret that all arrangements were done through “thought transference” (“meeting of minds, a consensus mind-reading by a far-flung bureaucracy”) which easily explains why no paperwork was necessary. [29]

With this outrageous argument all questions concerning evidence of the supposed genocide of six million Jews are being wiped aside. On the other hand, extracts from public statements of leading National Socialist politicians are presented as proof of the Holocaust. The gentlemen Holocaust experts contradict themselves and do not even seem to notice: Either the plan to exterminate the Jews was so secret that the transmission of commands was only by means of telepathy or of a code language, or the project has been trumpeted openly in public. Below I will comment on some oft-quoted public statements of leading National Socialist politicians.

4.1 Adolf Hitler

It is often claimed that Adolf Hitler had already announced the extermination of the Jews with poison gas in his book Mein Kampf. In this context, the following statement is quoted: “Had we at start and during the war exposed twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people to poison gas, just as hundreds of thousands of our best workers from all walks of life had to endure it in the field, then the sacrifice of millions of victims at the front would not have been in vain. On the contrary: the elimination of twelve thousand scoundrels in time would probably have saved a million lives of decent, valuable people for the future of Germany.“

This passage is in the second volume, in the chapter on the law of self-defense, where Hitler addresses the conditions during the First World War and attacks Marxism, which in Germany was mostly led by Jews. Both the reference to the past and the conditional form (“Had we”) suggest that this was pure propaganda and by no means a planning, programmatic statement.

In this context it should be recalled that the Jew Kurt Tucholsky had following wishes for those middle classes who did not share his pacifist views:

“May the gas sneak into the playrooms of your children. Let them drop dead slow, those little dolls. I wish that the wife of the president of the church council and of the chief editor, and the mother of the sculptor and the sister of the banker meet a bitter, agonizing death, all together.“[30]

We are certainly not claiming that Tucholsky planned to annihilate his opponents with gas. However, considering the rough language of the time, it is ridiculous to quote the far more moderate words from Hitler’s Mein Kampf as a proof that he was planning the Holocaust.

In his speech of 30^th January 1939 to the Reichstag, Hitler spoke for the first time unequivocally about the destruction of the Jews:

“Should the international Jewish financiers inside and outside Europe succeed in plunging the nations once again into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization the Earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.”

Establishment historians want to see in this Hitler quote a proof of an extermination plan, they always fail no mention of the first half of the sentence. Was the concern expressed in it, that influential Jewish circles could force a war on Germany completely taken out of thin air? It would certainly be interesting to have those circles speak for themselves:

Daily Express, London, 24 March 1933:
“Judea Declares War on Germany … Fourteen million Jews around the world stand together as one man and declare war on Germany.”

Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky in January 1934 in the Jewish newspaper Tatscha Retsch: “Our Jewish interests call for the definitive destruction of Germany”

The Youngstown Jewish Times, 16 April 1936:
“After the next war there will be no longer a Germany. At a given signal from Paris, France and Belgium as well as the peoples of Czechoslovakia will be set in motion to take the German colossus in a deadly pincer grip. They will split Prussia from Bavaria and destroy life in those countries.”

The American Hebrew, 30 April 1937:
“The nations will come to the necessary insight that Nazi Germany deserves to be eradicated from the family of nations.”

These are just a few examples of a whole ocean of anti-German propaganda. Against this background, Hitler’s Reichstag speech of 30^th January 1939 is nothing more than a stylistically similar reply to the ongoing warmongering and openly expressed genocidal fantasies of Zionists, but by no means the official announcement of the extermination of Jews.

Quoted in full and seen in the context of time, this Hitler quotation also contradicts the still prevalent thesis that the Nazi regime wanted war. Incidentally, the British chief prosecutor at the IMT, Sir Hartley Shawcross, in a speech on 16th March 1984 expressed the following, belated insight into Hitler’s alleged war intentions:

“Step by step I am more and more of the conviction that the aims of Communism in Europe are sinister. I indicted the Nazis at Nuremberg. Together with my Russian colleagues I condemned Nazi aggression and the Nazi terror. (But) Hitler and the German people did not want war! Following our policy of balance of power and inspired by “Americans” [31] around Roosevelt, we declared war on Germany in order to destroy it. We have not responded to the numerous pleas of Hitler for peace. Now we have to realize that Hitler was right. Instead of a cooperative Germany, which he had offered us, stands the huge imperialist power of the Soviets. I feel ashamed and humiliated to have to see how the same goals, which we assumed Hitler had, are being pursued under a different name, and the same tactic is being used without restrain.”[32]

4.2 Heinrich Himmler’s Posen speeches

Excerpts from two speeches that Heinrich Himmler held on October 4^th and 6^th 1943 in Posen to top leaders of the NSDAP are often quoted. Himmler is assumed to have been unusually open on the question of systematic extermination of the Jews. It is beyond the scope of this work to reproduce the speeches even partially. Wilhelm Stäglich [33] has quoted these speeches fully and provided a critical analysis. The main contradictions can be summarized as follows:

• Himmler asked the audience to “never to talk about it” and “to take the secret to the grave.” He himself, however, without any apparent reason, spoke in front of people who had nothing to do with the assumed extermination. Also, the obvious question of why Himmler let make recordings of the secret speeches is painstakingly ignored by establishment historians. By the way, that the sound quality of the recordings is so miserable that the speaker’s voice cannot even be recognized.
• Himmler provides a demonstrably false statement that extermination of the Jews was part of the NSDAP program. Himmler was a member since 1923 and for several years served as Reich propaganda leader of the party. It is hard to imagine that he would commit such a blunder in a speech to NSDAP officials.
• Himmler speaks of the extermination of Jews in the past tense as if it were a done deal already in October 1943. This is in stark contradiction even to the official version of the Holocaust.

Apart from these substantive discrepancies, a detailed analysis of the speeches shows that the often-quoted passages do not fit with the rest of the document. David Irving showed that those passages were written with a different typewriter, with a different color ribbon and the numbers of the pages have been written with pencil [34]. These unmistakable signs of counterfeit become apparent only to those historians, who subject the original document to a thorough and unbiased source analysis.
__________________________________

29 Raul Hilberg, quoted in: George De Wan, The Holocaust in Perspective, Newsday, Long Island, New York, 23.February 1983
30 Die Weltbühne, Vol. XXIII, Nr. 30 from 26. 7. 1927, p. 152
31 He meant following “Americans”: Bernard Baruch, Felix Frankfurter, Henry Morgenthau and other Jews.
32 Fritz Becker, In Kampf um Europa, Stocker Graz 1991
33 Wilhelm Stäglich, Der Auschwitz-Mythos, Grabert Tübingen 1979

____________

5. Photo and film documentation

It is often said the camera does not lie. But when it comes to propagating the “educationally desired view of history,” some opinion makers do not shy away from using just about any means. A prime example of how unscrupulously photographs are falsified or taken out of context is the first Wehrmacht exhibition. The initiators of this controversial exhibition ignored for years well founded criticisms, and used absurd insinuations against historians and witnesses who were pointing out gross errors and manipulation. Only after foreign historians (especially Bogdan Musial from Poland and Krisztian Ungvary from Hungary) questioned the seriousness of the exhibition, an independent historical commission was called in to verify the authenticity of the presented images. In autumn 1999, the commission came to the conclusion that, of the approximately 800 images of the Wehrmacht exhibition, 90% were fake, wrongly assigned or of questionable origin [35].

5.1 Fake photos as supposed evidence of the Holocaust

In his work Photo-“documentation” on the Nazi persecution?(Bild-„Dokumente“ zur NS-Judenverfolgung?) Udo Walendy has examined numerous photographs which are being presented as evidence of the Holocaust. He shows that hardly any picture in the Holocaust literature is not falsified or “sexed-up”. The following comparison is just one example of the countless manipulations:

Eschwege uses in his book “J-label” (Kennzeichen J) a picture from 1946 to document shipments to ghettos and extermination camps. The original is in the archives of Bundesbahndirektion Hamburg (Federal Railways Directorate) and is entitled “Freight cars with refugees 1946. Fully occupied train for the Ruhr. In the background – a double-decker train to Lübeck”.

5.2 Atrocity pictures

As Allied troops in the spring of 1945 were taking over the Nazi concentration camps, they saw unbearable scenes. There is hardly anyone who has not seen the horrific images of emaciated concentration camp prisoners and corpses. Pictures of the dead are so awe-inspiring that hardly anyone dares to ask questions about the origin, authenticity or assignment of such photos. Precisely such images are often used to promote politically motivated “historical truth” and at the same time to stifle legitimate doubts about the official dogma with an overdose of emotions and embarrassment.

This image shows victims of typhoid at Bergen-Belsen. It has been published in various journals, such as Quick, in 1979, with the totally false subtitle “Auschwitz as it really was” printed in large format across two pages (!). Such images prove nothing more than the undisputed fact that in the “western” camps, towards the end of the war, terribly many people died from disease and malnutrition.

In autumn 1944 the supply situation worsened dramatically in the German Reich. Systematic destruction of German cities by Allied air raids meant that neither the civilians nor the inmates were provided with sufficient food. As the Eastern Front approached, on top of that, the inmates of the camps were moved from east to west.

As the camps in the Reich were overcrowded and under-supplied, the spreading of diseases could hardly be brought under control. As a result of this catastrophic development in Dachau, for example, more people died in the last four months of war than in the previous five years. [36] Since – as the example above shows – pictures of “western” camps are used to illustrate the horrors of Auschwitz, the question arises: Where are the photos that were taken by the Soviets during the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp?

The Soviet Army reached Auschwitz on 27^th January 1945. On that day many pictures were taken of those approximately 7,500 inmates who were left behind. These photographs, however, are almost never shown to the general public; the relatively well-fed people do not fit so well into the popular image of “extermination camp” Auschwitz.

One also wonders why the Soviets did not take a single photo of that gas chamber, which through decades has been presented to millions of tourists as the place where millions of Jews had been gassed.

Instead, Pravda reported six days after the liberation of Auschwitz of mass killings on electric conveyors and cremations in blast furnaces (see footnote 3) but said not a word about Zyklon B, the main weapon of the alleged Holocaust.

5.3 Allied aerial photos

Aerial reconnaissance progressed greatly towards the end of the war and produced documents that today are not only of inestimable value for historians. For example, based on aerial photographs from that time unexploded ordnance are still located and defused.

According to the official history, from May to July 1944 over 400,000 Hungarian Jews were gassed and then burned in open pits in Auschwitz.[37] Such unprecedented action would have to be visible on Allied air photos from that period.

On 31^st May 1944 the U.S. Army made, in clear weather, sharp images [38] of Auschwitz which can be found, among others, at www.vho.org/D/gzz/BallA-B-Luft.jpg. A precise analysis of these aerial photographs shows the following picture: No sign of open pits in which more than 12,000 people a day were allegedly burned, no lines of people in front of the buildings in which the gas chamber should have been. It can also be seen that the surrounding fields were cultivated right up to the fence of the camp. As the fences gave no protection from outside viewers, the events in the camp could not be kept secret, as generally claimed. The Canadian John C. Ball has worked for years with the evaluation of Allied air photos. In his book Airborne evidence (Luftbild-Beweise) [39] He concludes:

“There is as yet no air photo evidence that would support the theory of mass murder of Jews in any part of the German-occupied Europe during World War II. The analysis of aerial photographs also refutes the claim that the Nazis wanted at any time to keep the events in the alleged extermination camps secret. On the other hand, the aerial photographs often provide indisputable evidence that, despite the testimony to the contrary, some events, like the extermination of Hungarian Jews or the mass shootings at Babi Yar, have not taken place. It is hoped that the release of Soviet aerial images from the time during the operation of the camp will provide further clarification. The fact that these images have not been published speaks for itself. And the circumstance, that the images located in Western hands have been falsified and first published by the CIA, also speaks for itself. “

5.4 Films

Immediately after the war the “documentary” Mills of Death was presented. [40] Hundreds of thousands of German prisoners of war and the civilian population were forced to watch it. The film depicted the supposed horrors of the concentration camps, but even then the doubts about the authenticity of the footage were loud. According to contemporary reports, the criticism was caused by the fact that some, supposedly authentic movie clips, have been accompanied by those where corpses from the bombed German cities and emaciated German prisoners of war could be seen. Those were also presented as concentration camp victims.[41] Not infrequently, protests expressed by viewers were suppressed with the use of violence.

The American prosecutors did not shy from submitting as evidence at the Nuremberg trials a totally fake film. [42] This film which showed the discovery of gold teeth of murdered Jews was fabricated ​​from start to finish [43]. In reality, the entire gold reserves of the Reichsbank (over 200 tons of gold in bars and coins), by the end of the war, was deposited in a potash mine “Merkers” in Thuringia, and in April 1945 was seized, as alleged SS gold, by the Americans. The German currency reserves and art treasures which were also stored there met the same fate. The resulting film depicting the looting was not shown at the IMT but can still be seen in “Merkers” Mining Museum.

The term “Holocaust” (derived from the Greek holos “whole, complete” and kausis “fire”) was used neither by the Nazi regime nor by the Allies after the war. In the 16,000 pages of records of the Nuremberg trials, this expression cannot be found a single time. Not even in the eighteenth, completely revised 20-volume edition of the Great Brockhaus encyclopedia (published from 1977 to 1982, e.g. more than three decades after the presumed event) you will not find even the etymological explanation of this neologism.

But after the broadcasting in January 1979 of an American four-part television series Holocaust directed by Marvin Chomsky, this word was suddenly on everyone’s lips, and a new name for the imputed systematic, industrial-scale murder of the Jews of Europe was found. This television film had very little historical truth but was nevertheless (or perhaps because of this) a resounding propaganda success: literally overnight all Germany spoke with awe and dismay of the newly learned word [44]. The most influential ‘ethnic group’ in the US finally attained the moral status of pitiable victims. Since then, the term Holocaust has been used by Jewish interest groups unrestrainedly and effectively as an ideological battle cry.

Also in financial terms Holocaust was extraordinarily successful: In the wake of this sentimental docusoap the contributions of the US to Israel more than doubled within a year: in 1979 Israel received about two billion US dollars. A year later (1980) the US “development aid” to Israel increased to about five billion dollars. Each year the US sends more aid to Israel than to all African countries together. According to a 2003 study [45] since 1945 the economic, political and military support for Israel cost US taxpayer three trillion dollars.

Since 1979 the public is being blessed with increasing frequency with new films about the Holocaust. Typical of this genre is a strange brew of half-truths, emotion, pathos and “cult of guilt”. These ingredients have been shown to be particularly effective means for stifling questions about the objective historical truth.

Also Steven Spielberg‘s Schindler’s List follows exactly this same pattern. The film was praised for its conciliatory aspects because a German film hero is shown behaving humanely towards Jewish forced laborers. Upon closer inspection, however, it is striking that all other Germans are shown as either emotionally cold monsters or as compliant instruments of a killing machine.

Most viewers of Schindler’s List are probably not aware that the anti-hero of the film, camp commandant Amon Göth, was arrested by the SS in September 1944 for his brutal behavior towards prisoners.[46] He escaped the death penalty likely only because in the turmoil of the last months of the war a trial no longer could be conducted.

However, Hermann Florstedt, commandant of Lublin (Majdanek), and Karl Koch, commandant of Buchenwald were less lucky. Both were sentenced to death and executed for similar offenses. Until 1945, the SS leadership has initiated over 800 criminal proceedings against concentration camp security personnel. These proceedings, initiated by the German side, show on the one hand, that there was, in fact, abuse and even murder in concentration camps. On the other hand, the numerous criminal proceedings are clear evidence that the SS leadership did not tolerate this kind of misconduct. But these facts do not quite fit into the silly Hollywood cliché of good vs. evil; therefore they are usually omitted or mentioned only in passing in the end credits.

_____________________________________

34 David Irving’s testimony as an expert witness in the Zündel trial, April 1988, Toronto
35 See extensive coverage in the local press in autumn 1999, for example FAZ on 22. 10. 1999, page 2
36 Johann Neuhäusler, What was in Dachau?, Board of Trustees for the Museum of Atonement KZ Dachau, Munich 1981
37 Jürgen Graf, Was geschah mit den nach Auschwitz deportierten, jedoch dort nicht registrierten Juden?,( What happened to the Jewish deportees to Auschwitz who were not registered there?) Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, Hastings, Nr. 2/2000, p. 140-149
38 Aufnahme des US Militärs (Photo by US military) Ref. No. RG 373 Can D 1508, exp. 3055
39 John C. Ball, Luftbild-Beweise, appeared in: Ernst Gauss, Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte
40 B.S. Chamberlin, Todesmühlen. (Mills of death) Ein Versuch zur Massen-Umerziehung im besetzten Deutschland 1945-1946, (An attempt of mass re-education in occupied Germany 1945-1946), Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 29 (1981) p. 420-436
41 Die Unabhängigen Nachrichten, Nr. 11 (1986), p. 11
42 IMT, Vol. XIII, p. 186ff
43 Cf. H. Springer, Das Schwert auf der Waage, Vowinckel, Heidelberg 1953, p. 178f.; P. Kleist, Aufbruch und Sturz der Dritten Reiches, Schütz, Göttingen 1968, p. 346; U. Walendy, HT Nr. 43, 1990, p. 12ff.
44 Peter Märtesheimer, Ivo Frenzel (ed.): Im Kreuzfeuer: Der Fernsehfilm ‘Holocaust‘. Fischer Frankfurt, 1979
45 Thomas R. Stauffer, The Costs to American Taxpayers of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: $3 Trillion, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June 2003
46 Reuben Ainsztein, Jewish Resistance in Nazi Occupied Eastern Europe, Barnes and Noble, 1974, p. 845

_________________

6. Witness testimony

______________________________________________________

““The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence”

(Article 19 of the IMT Statute)

______________________________________________________

Although mass media, documentaries and textbooks suggest that the official version of the Holocaust is beyond all doubt, the claim that millions of people were killed in specially constructed gas chambers using Zyklon B is not based on any proof which would hold in a normal court of law. A study of the most known books on the subject such as Raul Hilberg’s The Destruction of European Jewry [47], Eugen Kogon’s The SS State [48] and Jean-Claude Pressac’s The crematoria of Auschwitz [49] shows, that not one evidential, original document has ever been quoted in these standard works.

This has just recently been confirmed in a London court ruling in the Irving trial. The British historian David Irving lost his action for damages for libel against American author Deborah Lipstadt and has been since jeeringly referred to as “active Holocaust denier” by the international press. However, the outcome of this famous process may yet prove a Pyrrhic victory for the Holocaust lobby because Judge Charles Gray determined in paragraph 13.73 of the judgment of 11^th April 2000 as follows:

“Irving has rightly pointed out that the original documents from that period, such as drawings, blueprints, correspondence with building contractors, etc. provide no clear evidence that gas chambers were used to kill people. Evidence of the use of gas, as found in some of these documents, can be explained with a need for delousing of clothing in order to counter the risk of epidemics such as typhus. The quantities of Zyklon B delivered to the camp at Auschwitz can be explained with a need for delousing clothes and other items.”

Even the establishment historian J. Baynac freely admitted in 1966 that hardly any conclusive original document exists. The official story of the Holocaust is based consequently on testimonies of a few witnesses.[50]

These witnesses, however, were not neutral and uninvolved but were almost exclusively former concentration camp prisoners, from whom objectivity against the accused could hardly be expected. This type of testimony (testimony of parties) is considered by lawyers, and for good reason, as the least credible evidence and therefore should be a priori considered with particular skepticism.

This is especially true for testimonies before the IMT, because here almost all incriminating statements have been made in the form of written statements (affidavits), and not – as is customary in court – on the witness stand. The few witnesses appearing personally could not be questioned by the defense about exonerating circumstances. In this way, most bizarre stories, unchecked and unopposed, could be brought into the world.

6.1 Nuremberg – the last battle

David Irving in his book Nuremberg – the final battle [51] demonstrated very clearly, what means made have been used by the victorious powers in order to present their atrocity propaganda as “obvious”. Even a short glance at the IMT Statute is enough to realize that in Nuremberg practically all principles of jurisprudence were not only ignored but downright insulted.

Article 18 specifies that the Tribunal should confine itself to an expeditious hearing of cases raised by the prosecution. This clause allowed the prosecutors to pick out from the tons of seized documents only those seemingly incriminating. Exonerating documents and testimonies have been systematically suppressed.

Article 19 reads as follows: “The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value.” This provision in practice meant that the prosecution could pretty much admit any untried allegations as incriminating evidence. The defense, however, was not allowed to submit exonerating evidence, request evidence or cross-examine the few witnesses who did appear. A revision or appeal was not allowed.

Article 21 reads as follows: “The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof.” Following this proviso, neither autopsies of the victims nor independent forensic investigation of the alleged “murder weapons” were submitted. In other words, the “greatest mass murder of all time” was proclaimed by the Tribunal without single physical evidence.

6.2 Examples of often cited witness testimony

The allegation that prisoners have been gassed at Dachau meant that the camp commandant Martin Gottfried Weiss and 39 guards were condemned by the American occupation forces to death. In his written statement [52] the former inmate Franz Blaha, who had been in Dachau, claimed that “many people were killed by gas” but he failed to provide any concrete data on the number of casualties.

Blaha’s testimony was also presented at the Nuremberg trials, and there was used as important evidence against Wilhelm Frick, who was also sentenced to death. But since 1960 at the latest, it is undisputed that the gas chamber in Dachau was never operational. Thus Blaha’s statement which brought 40 men to the gallows, must be considered what it has always been, namely a lie of a partisan and vindictive witness.

The former Auschwitz inmate Sigismund Bendel was an important prosecution witness in the trial of Bruno Tesch and Karl Weinbacher. Both were on trial because their company (TESTA GmbH) supplied insecticide Zyklon B to various concentration camps.

Bendel claimed that in Auschwitz four million people have been murdered with Zyklon-B. He claimed that groups of 1,000 people were crammed into a 10 m long, 4 m wide and 1.6 m high room and gassed. When the defense lawyer Zippel asked how it was possible to accommodate 1,000 people in a space of 64 cubic meters, the witness replied:

Bendel: “It could only be achieved with German methods.”

Zippel: “Do you want to seriously claim that one can accommodate ten people in half a cubic meter?”

Bendel: “The four million people gassed in Auschwitz attest to that fact” [53].

Any further examination of this witness, who apparently entangled himself in contradictions, was stopped by the Tribunal. This flippant and implausible testimony, in no way hindered the court in condemning Tesch and Weinbacher to death.

Rudolf Vrba (aka Walter Rosenberg) is one of the most important and most cited witnesses of Auschwitz. He described in his supposedly authentic report [54] the gassings at Auschwitz “with meticulous, almost fanatical respect for accuracy” (according to Alan Bestic in the preface of the book) .

But when Vrba, on the occasion of the trial of Ernst Zündel in Toronto in 1985, was confronted for the first time with specific questions about the local conditions, he admitted, after some excuses and white lies, not to have seen a single gassing himself. Then Vrba alleged nonchalantly that he had taken “literary liberties” when writing his book, which was until then considered as the central proof of the official version of the Holocaust. In other words, Vrba’s description of the gassings at Auschwitz was fictitious. [55]

Paul Rassinier, a French socialist and Resistance fighter, himself an inmate of a concentration camp at Buchenwald-Dora, dealt extensively after the war with the credibility of witness testimony relating to the Holocaust. In his book The Drama of the European Jews (Das Drama der Juden Europas) [56] he came to the following conclusion:

“During the last 15 years, outside of Soviet-occupied territories, when someone named a witness who claimed to have himself attended the gassings, I went there immediately to record his testimony. And each time the same thing happened: with my file in hand, I asked so many precise questions to the witness, that he finally declared that a good friend, unfortunately deceased, whose testimony could not be questioned, told him about the matter. In this way, I have laid back thousands of kilometers across Europe.”

This view of Rassinier is also shared by the director of archives of the Israeli Holocaust Memorial Yad Vashem, Shmuel Krakowski. In a 1986 article published in the Jerusalem Post, He described most of the known 20,000 witness testimonies to the Holocaust as “implausible, falsified, improvable, or in some different way untrue.” [57]

_________________________________

47 Raul Hilberg, Die Vernichtung der europäischen Juden (The Destruction of The European Jews), Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Frankfurt 1997; for critique see also: Jürgen Graf, Riese auf tönernen Füßen, Raul Hilberg und sein Standardwerk über den Holocaust (The giant with feet of clay; Raul Hilberg and his standard work on the “Holocaust”), Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 1999
48 Eugen Kogon, Der SS-Staat, Kindler, Hamburg 1974
49 Jean-Claude Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz (Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers), Pieper, München 1994; for critique see also Herbert Vrbeke, Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten (Auschwitz; Plain Facts), VHO, Berchem 1995
50 Jean Baynac, Faute de documents probants sur les chambres à gaz, les historiens esquivent le débat, [Due to lack of valid documents concerning gas chambers, the experts dodge a debate] Le Nouveau Quotidien, Lausanne, 3. September 1996
51 David Irving, Nürnberg. Die letzte Schlacht (Nuremberg, the Last Battle), Grabert Tübingen 1996
52 IMT Document 3249 PS
53 IMT Document NI-11953
54 Rudolf Vrba, Ich kann nicht vergeben (I Cannot Forgive), Rütten & Loening, München 1964
55 Dick Chapman, Survivor never saw actual gassing deaths, Toronto Sun, 24. January 1985; see also: Robert Faurisson, Die Zeugen der Gaskammern von Auschwitz (Witnesses to the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz), in Ernst Gauss, Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte
56 Paul Rassinier, Das Drama der Juden Europas (The Drama of the European Jews), Hans Pfeifer Verlag Hannover 1965
57 Jerusalem Post, 17th August 1986

___________________

7. Witnesses in the media

__________________________________________________________________

“I do not know what to fear more: Streets full of soldiers who plunder, or attics full of writers who lie”

(Samuel Johnson)

___________________________________________________________________

Who does not know those stories about selections, gas chambers, ovens and crematoria. With reverence, millions listen to the craziest stories imaginable and hardly anyone dares to question the plausibility of these incredible tales. Here are a few examples of horror stories with which the average media consumer is bombarded almost daily:

7.1 Elie Wiesel

Elie Wiesel claims to have miraculously survived several “death camps” and is now regarded as The Witness of The Holocaust©. In his book The Night, [58] which appeared for the first time in French, there is not a hint of any gas chambers. Wiesel describes instead how people in Auschwitz and Buchenwald were cast alive into “burning pits with huge flames”. The victims sometimes “have for hours struggled with death in the fire.”

Towards the end of his book, Elie Wiesel tells how he and his father experienced the last days in Auschwitz: As it was only a matter of time before the Soviet Army would reach the camp, the SS decided to abandon the camp. The inmates were given the choice to stay in the camp and wait for the Red Army or move with the guards to the West.

After a short discussion with his father Elie Wiesel chose – like tens of thousands of other inmates – to go with their guards to Germany, instead of waiting for the Soviet liberators. It would be interesting to learn from Mr. Wiesel the reason for this astonishing decision. Probably in order to avoid such uncomfortable questions, the professional Holocaust survivor has described the whole issue as an “incomprehensible and inexplicable religious mystery.”

For a fee of $25,000 per speech (2003 dollars – h.c.), Elie Wiesel is regularly making an attempt to explain the mystery which he has himself created. But objectivity and impartiality is probably too much expect from someone who, among other things, excelled with the following, truly hateful statement:

“Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate -healthy virile hate- for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German.”

This hateful language was no obstacle for the more than 80 members of the German Bundestag (parliament), to propose Elie Wiesel, of all people, for the Nobel Peace Prize “because he is a great encouragement for all those who actively advocate reconciliation.” Elie Wiesel was indeed awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, but so far has his tone not become more conciliatory for that.

7.2 Martin Niemöller

Pastor Martin Niemöller was after the war a symbol of peace movement and enjoyed the nimbus of a resistance fighter and longtime concentration camp inmate. Especially in the circles of Leftists and self-appointed do-gooders, his old saying “When they came for the communists, I did not speak, I was not a Communist …” is still being recited quite often.

But if today’s follower of Niemöller were to read his book From U-boat to Pulpit (published in 1935), he would be quite surprised, maybe even shocked, by his clear commitment to National Socialism. His eulogies for Adolf Hitler do not exactly demonstrate his spirit of Resistance either. As President of the Association of Pastors he had this to tell to its members in a circular: “The members of the Association stand unconditionally behind our Führer, Adolf Hitler.”

Contrary to popular opinion, Niemöller was not sent to a concentration camp because he was against the policies of the Nazis, but because of a dispute between a party called “German Christians” and the movement which Niemöller decisively influenced – the “Confessing Church”.

As Hitler did not tolerate this religious discord, Niemöller was arrested and spent the period from 1938 to 1945 in various concentration camps, the last of which was Dachau. As the “personal prisoner” of the Führer, he enjoyed considerable privileges and survived the war – in contrast to many actual resistance fighters – well-fed and unharmed.

After the war Niemöller claimed in his book The Path to Freedom that in Dachau 238,756 Jews were killed in gas chambers and then burned [60]. Meanwhile, it is beyond doubt that during the entire period of operation of the Dachau concentration camp, no more than about 200,000 people were brought in, of whom only a small proportion were Jews. It is a proven fact that a gas chamber in Dachau was never in operation.

What moved Pastor Niemöller, against his better judgment, to spread lies about Dachau and on top of that to preach at every opportunity about the myth of the German collective guilt, will forever remain a mystery. Whatever his motives, pastor Niemöller is responsible for ensuring that the people in this country with almost religious devotion believe in the myth of the Holocaust.

7.3 Anne Frank

The Diary of Anne Frank is one of the world’s best-selling books – so far, more than 30 million copies have been sold in more than 60 languages​​.

No book is more suitable for Holocaust indoctrination of school children, and it has been for decades a required reading for almost every school child in the Western world. The Fischer paperback publishing house called the diary “a symbol and a document of the extermination of the Jews.” The Anne Frank House in Amsterdam speaks of a “window to the Holocaust.”

The authorship of this book is obscure, despite the enormous importance that is attached to it. Quite apart from many nonsensical descriptions, its writing style, quite unusual for a young girl, is conspicuous. Stranger still is the fact that the diary entries were made in two distinctly different handwritings. The first is rather inexperienced and typical for a young girl. The second script is more fluent, more experienced and adult.

A person even completely inexperienced in graphology is likely to notice two different handwritings. The unusual for a young girl second handwriting repeatedly led independent researchers to question the authenticity of the diary.

The Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) examined the original in the context of a legal conflict between a critic, Ernst Römer, and Anne Frank’s father, Otto Frank. The BKA investigation revealed that some entries were “written by black, green and blue ballpoint pen ink”. Der Spiegel reported about it [61] and concluded that the authenticity of the diary must be questioned, because Anne Frank died in 1945 in Bergen-Belsen from typhus but ball-pens were not marketed before 1951.

Many a reader will ask the obvious question, why so many publishers worldwide accepted this manuscript uncritically, and why nobody was bothered by the two significantly different handwriting styles. Well, Otto Frank probably knew very well the weaknesses of this alleged diary, and until his death in 1980 prevented any critical assessment of the original.

Contact, the Dutch publishing house, was given, as the basis for the first publication, only a typewritten manuscript created by Otto Frank.[62] The book was published in the Dutch language and not the original, and this became the basis for translations into other languages​​. The original version was never released.

Today, publishers, because of their business interests, are not particularly interested in investigating the exact origin of this bestseller. Not to mention the Anne Frank Foundation, which aggressively rejects any doubts about the authenticity of the diary of Anne Frank, but still has the proverbial chutzpah to exhibit the two different handwritings.

7.4 Binjamin Wilkomirski

The scandal about the book Fragments from a childhood of Binjamin Wilkomirski in 1995 demonstrates the nature and quality of the witness accounts of the Holocaust disseminated by the media. In his supposedly autobiographical work Wilkomirski claimed that he had as a child survived the “death camps” Auschwitz and Majdanek, and had at the age of nine years, succeeded in moving from Poland to Switzerland, where he was taken up by Swiss adoptive parents.

For three years, establishment historians, such as the head of the Berlin Center for Research on Antisemitism, Wolfgang Benz, considered the abstruse descriptions of Wilkomirski as authentic, and the press praised the book as the last nail in the coffin of the “Auschwitz deniers”.

But the Swiss journalist and author Daniel Ganzfried researched the case of Wilkomirski closer and came to the following conclusion: “Binjamin Wilkomirski” was born on February 12^th, 1941 in Biel as an illegitimate son of Yvonne Berthe Grosjean, was given the name Bruno, came to an orphanage and was 1945 adopted by a couple Dossekker.

The childhood in Riga, Majdanek and Auschwitz is wholly fictitious [63]. Ganzfried raises in his resume the following question:

“How is it possible that every serious newspaper book section celebrated this book as if it were the original transcript of the Old Testament.”

A good question. But what is it that moves a person to conceive the most bizarre horror stories and then to maintain, stiff and firm, that he had experienced it all. Germaine Tillion who was arrested as a member of the Resistance in Paris, and later deported to Ravensbrück concentration camp for women, described this phenomenon as follows:

“People [who invent horror stories] are in reality much more numerous than is generally believed, and the theme of the concentration camps – unfortunately perfect for generating sadomasochistic ideas – offers them an exceptional field of activity. We have seen many mentally injured, half swindlers – half fools, who took advantage of an imaginary deportation, and we have experienced others – the real deportees – whose morbid mind strove to outdo the atrocities they themselves had seen or of which they had been told, and they have succeeded. There have even been publishers who have printed some of these fantasies, and used for this more or less official compilations. But these publishers, as well as the authors of those compilations, have no excuse, because the simplest investigation would have been sufficient to expose the fraud.“[64]

After the exposure of Wilkomirski psychologists have called the morbid desire to be a victim – The Wilkomirski Syndrome.

______________________________________________________

55 Dick Chapman, Survivor never saw actual gassing deaths, Toronto Sun, 24. January 1985; see also: Robert Faurisson, Die Zeugen der Gaskammern von Auschwitz, in Ernst Gauss, Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte
56 Paul Rassinier, Das Drama der Juden Europas, Hans Pfeifer Verlag Hannover 1965
57 Jerusalem Post, 17. August 1986
58 Elie Wiesel, La Nuit, Editions de Minuit, Paris, 195859, Elie Wiesel, Legends of our Time, Avon Books, New York 1968
60 Martin Niemöller, Der Weg ins Freie, Hellbach Verlag Stuttgart 1956
61 Der Spiegel, Nr. 41/1980, Blaue Paste – Ein Gutachten des BKA belegt: Im “Tagebuch der Anne Frank” ist nachträglich redigiert worden (Blue ink – An assessment by the BKA: The “Diary of Anne Frank” has been after-edited).
62 Robert Faurisson, Is The Diary of Anne Frank genuine?, Journal of Historical Review, 1985 and Gerd Knabe, Die Wahrheit über das Tagebuch der Anne Frank, Winkelberg Verlag Knüllwald 1994
63 Die Weltwoche (Zürich) Nr. 35, S. 46/47, 27. August 1999; Jürgen Graf, Die Wilkomirski-Pleite, Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 3(1) 1999, p. 88-90; Daniel Ganzfried, …alias Wilkomirski. Die Holocaust-Travestie, Jüdischer Verlag Berlin, 2002
64 Germaine Tillion, Le Système concentrationnaire allemand, Revue d’Histoire de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, July 1954

____________________

8. Confessions

_________________________________________________

“We had rammed a torchlight into his mouth. The beatings and the screams were endless “
(Sergeant Bernard Clarke of the interrogation of the camp commandant Rudolf Höß)

_________________________________________________

The highly contradictory testimonies are not suitable to substantiate the official version of the Holocaust even approximately. Asked about this shortcoming, establishment historians like to refer to the confessions of camp commandants and concentration camp guards. Circumstances under which these alleged confessions came about and what evidential value they have in a legal trial will be explained here on some examples.

8.1 Rudolf Höß

The testimony of the first commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Höß, is a frequently cited “proof” of the assumed industrial-scale extermination of the Jews of Europe. The Polish historian Aleksander Lasik said the following about the value of the Höß testimony:

“More than any other concentration camp commandant, Rudolf Höß is solidly placed in the historiography. The man who founded and directed Auschwitz appears in any book that deals with the fate of European Jews during World War II.”

Any lawyer will confirm that a testimony obtained under torture has no evidential value. But in a desperate attempt to salvage this important “confession”, establishment historians often refer to the memoirs, which Höß is said to have written in Polish prison before his execution. The long-standing director of the Institute of Contemporary History Martin Broszat even published Höß’s memoirs as a book [67]. But, although any conscientious researcher would have scrutinized very closely this document, which was written with a pencil (!), Broszat, apparently, considered any source analysis for unnecessary. Otherwise, he would have noticed that the handwriting in the “memoirs” does not agree with Höß’s well-documented handwriting [68]. But not enough with this: to prevent any doubt about the authenticity of Höß’s memoirs from arising, Broszat omitted, without commenting, all implausible and contradictory passages – both in the book Kommandant in Auschwitz and in other publications [69].

8.2 Kurt Gerstein

The medical officer Kurt Gerstein found himself on July 1945 in French captivity and wrote shortly before his alleged suicide a strange confession. In the testimony, written in French, he relates, among other things, that in the camps of Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor, 25 million (!) people were killed in gas chambers, while others were put to death by exhaust gases from a diesel engine. Here is an excerpt from “the Gerstein confession”:

“Fill it up well, ordered Captain Wirth. The naked people thread on each other’s feet. 700 to 800 into 25 cubic meters – 45 square meters! The doors close … Heckenholt is the operator of the diesel. Its exhaust is meant to kill the unfortunates. SS Sergeant Heckenholt is trying hard to start the diesel. But it will not start … After two hours and forty minutes – the stopwatch has recorded it all – the diesel starts … ”

The author of the Gerstein document must have been eager to prove the mass killings in the camps of Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor, but at this point any sense of reality failed him. How 800 people could fit into a 25 m2 area is a mystery. And how hundreds of people could survive in a crowded, hermetically closed space for two hours and forty minutes, belongs to the many strange mysteries of the Holocaust.

Nevertheless, the Gerstein confession was for decades a key document, and in 1961, at the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, was even admitted as evidence [70]. The confused descriptions that are commonly attributed to Kurt Gerstein found also their way into a 1963 play of Rolf Hochhuts The Deputy, which was filmed in 2002 by Constantin Costa-Gavras (film of the same title). In contrast, establishment historians scrupulously avoid this document because of its obvious contradictions.

8.3 Perry Broad

In return for a mild sentence or even an acquittal, some accused were ready to confess just about anything. A classic example is the SS man of British origin, Perry Broad, who was a guard at Auschwitz and in 1945 fell into British captivity. He spoke fluent German and was therefore at first used by the British as an interpreter. Afterwards he wrote a report, in which the alleged mass killings in Auschwitz were described in accordance with common atrocity propaganda of that time [71]. The reward for this cooperative behavior was freedom. Numerous defendants, who were trying to defend themselves with truth, were sentenced to death. Still others died under mysterious circumstances while in custody.

8.4 Richard Baer

What happened to defendants who persistently refused, for freedom’s sake, to sign a fraudulent confession? The case of the last commandant of Auschwitz, Richard Baer, gives us some insight: Richard Baer lived after the war, under the name Karl Neumann, in a village near Hamburg with a new identity as a forestry worker. He was arrested in 1960 by the British. Baer was in all probability not tortured. Unlike his predecessor Rudolf Höß, Baer had therefore hardly a compelling reason to buy freedom with a false testimony.

However, the initiators of the made-for-media Auschwitz trials were anything but indifferent, how the main accused would express himself. Reminder: This trial took place shortly after Martin Broszat of the Institute for Contemporary History made ​​it clear in public that the gas chamber in Dachau was never operational. The extermination camps of the old Reich, which for 15 long years belonged to the official dogma, with stroke of a pen have been relocated to the east. At the same time, the previously little-known Auschwitz became the main extermination camp the National Socialist regime.

If, of all people, Richard Baer, the last surviving commander of Auschwitz, opposed this newly defined “historical truth”, the core thesis of the Holocaust, namely the assumed factory-style killings in especially created gas chambers, would drop like a house of cards. But it did not have to go so far: Richard Baer, who previously enjoyed good health, died suddenly at the age of 51 on 17^th June 1963 while in custody. The Forensic Institute of the University of Frankfurt examined the corpse, and the autopsy report could not exclude the possibility, that Baer died of a “non-smelling and non-corrosive poison”[72]. Even before the cause of death of this very important defendant and witness could be positively identified, Attorney General Fritz Bauer (a Jew who returned to Germany after the war) ordered the cremation of the corpse. These mysterious events found little attention in the media and were even deliberately played down. Today one looks in vain for the name of Richard Baer in most reference books on the Third Reich – the “confessing” Rudolf Höß, however, can be found everywhere.

_________________________________

65 Rupert Butler, Legions of Death, Arrow Books, 1983, p. 235 ff
66 Robert Faurisson, Wie die Briten zu dem Geständnis von Rudolf Höß, Kommandant von Auschwitz, gekommen sind, Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart 35(1) (1987), pp. 12-17
67 Martin Broszat, Kommandant in Auschwitz, dtv München 1963
68 G. Jagschitz, Gutachten in der Strafsache Hosnik, 1992, Landesgericht Wien, AZ 20e Vr 14184, Hv 5720/90
69 Fritjof Meyer, Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz, Osteuropa, 52.Jg., 5/2002, p. 631-641
70 Henri Roques, Die „Geständnisse“ des Kurt Gerstein, Druffel Verlag, 1986
71 Pery Broad, Auschwitz in den Augen der SS, Kattowitz 1981

____________________

9. Where is the murder weapon?

______________________________________

“Approximately 95 – 98% of Zyklon B delivered to Auschwitz was used as a fumigant”

(Jean-Claude Pressac)

In any murder case, an examination of traditional murder weapon is an essential part of the investigation. In the case of the Holocaust, “the greatest murder of all time” this was apparently forgotten – both during the International Military Trial at Nuremberg and in the later trials. Today this shortcoming is being routinely swept aside by the German courts with the claim, that the case of the Holocaust is “obvious” and it needs no further proof. Because a legally decreed dogma cannot be a substitute for elementary physical evidence, several politically and financially independent researchers have in recent decades addressed this question.

9.1 What exactly is Zyklon B?

Zyklon B [73] is generally considered the most important weapon of the Holocaust. When an average media consumer is asked what exactly Zyklon B is, the usual answer will be: A poison gas which was lead through shower heads into the gas chambers. In (the never used) so called gas chamber in Dachau there are still sham shower heads that should have served this purpose.

Contrary to popular belief, Zyklon B is not a gas, but soaked in cyanide pellets (diatomite or cellulose). A granular substance can hardly pass through a shower head, even though it is still misrepresented in countless documentaries, reference books and movies. In order to resolve the contradiction, this pretty significant detail has been revised: Zyklon B now does not flow through shower heads, but is thrown through roof hatches into the gas chambers.

However, there is a “little” problem with this representation: the hatches which could have served this purpose cannot be recognized on aerial photographs of the Allies from that time. In the still completely intact concrete roof of the “gas chambers” of Auschwitz – apart from holes crudely hewn after 1945 – no holes can be found [74].

It is undisputed that Zyklon B was delivered in large quantities to concentration camps. If this insecticide was not used to kill people, what was used for? Well, during the war in much of Europe raged a devastating typhus epidemic. (Have you heard about it on TV? – transl.)

Typhus, also known as epidemic typhus or typhoid fever is a life-threatening disease, the pathogen (Rickettsia prowazekii) is transmitted by lice. The delousing of blankets, mattresses, clothing and living quarters as well as the inmates and the guards was therefore a life-saving measure. This also explains why the concentration camp administration attached signs such as “A louse is your death” or “Keep Clean” on the walls of showers and bedrooms.

Cyanide [75], the actual active ingredient of Zyklon B, was in fact already used in 1915 by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service on Ellis Iceland for delousing and disinfection. The generic products that are absolutely identical with Zyklon B (e.g. Fumex, Detia Degesch) are still produced and used worldwide as pesticides.

Establishment Holocaust experts such as Jean-Claude Pressac admit that 95 – 98% of Zyklon B delivered to Auschwitz was not used to kill people, but as a fumigant, in order to get to the typhus epidemic under control, to save the lives of the inmates.

Would they then kill the very same people whose lives they previously wanted to save with the remaining 2-5% of the same agent?

The official history is not able to explain the use of the alleged murder weapon Zyklon B conclusively. Instead, they show to the unsuspecting audience delivery notes, invoices and empty cans of the still used insecticide as “proof” for the murder of six million Jews. Establishment historians also assiduously evade the following question: If there really existed an industrial-scale plan to exterminate the Jews by poison gas, why would one want to use a slowly acting and cumbersome insecticide? There was a whole range of highly effective chemical agents available (e.g. tabun or sarin), which were never used by the NS regime in a single case, not even for military purposes.

9.2 The Leuchter Report

Neither at the IMT at Nuremberg nor at the widely acclaimed Frankfurt Auschwitz trial of 1963 an independent forensic investigation of a gas chamber was submitted. Not until 1988, 43 years after the war, for the first time a gas chamber has been studied by an American expert on execution technology Fred Leuchter. Some important results from the Leuchter Report [76]:

9.2.1 Structural details of the buildings

The gas chamber at Auschwitz, which for decades was paraded in front of millions of tourists as “original”, is equipped with simple wooden doors. Outside and inside, it has handles attached.

There is neither any special locking mechanism nor a sealing that would prevent unintended leakage of poisonous gas. One of the doors has a glass panel with plain window glass (left image).

The doors of the room, which is referred to as a gas chamber of Auschwitz, open to the inside. Just try to imagine a gassing which, according to the official version, took place over the years in 30-minute intervals:

900 people are crammed in orderly and without resistance to the gas chamber and then heroically close the rickety wooden doors from the inside. After the gassing, the door could – if at all – be opened only with great difficulty, because the bodies lying on the floor would block it.

Such a clumsy construction is entirely unsuitable for the imputed purpose, and it is hardly conceivable that it was in use for one day. For comparison, in the right picture, you see the door of a gas chamber, which was set up in the State Delaware (USA) for individual executions (American design from the 1930s).

9.2.2 Investigation of the cyanide residue

Hydrocyanic acid, the actual active ingredient of the insecticide Zyklon B is not only toxic to insects, animals and humans, but also chemically very aggressive and forms long-term stable links with mineral substances. The masonry of the alleged gas chamber would thus contain residues of hydrocyanic acid (cyanide) if this room was indeed exposed to this substance for years. Consequently, Leuchter took samples from various places, especially in the alleged gas chamber and in the delousing chambers where, as no one disputes, Zyklon B was used daily to delouse blankets, mattresses and clothing.

The samples were sealed and sent to a laboratory, to determine the cyanide content. The analyzes showed extremely high cyanide concentrations in the masonry of the delousing chambers, but only insignificant traces of the masonry of the alleged gas chamber. Through this result, the gas chamber theory for the first time refuted by a scientific method [77].

9.3 The Rudolf Report

As shown with the investigation of Fred Leuchter, the determination of cyanide content in masonry of the alleged gas chambers is a scientifically sound method to either confirm or clearly disprove the gas chamber thesis.

This approach was pursued in the early 1990s by the chemist Germar Rudolf, parallel to his research for his doctoral thesis in inorganic chemistry at the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Physics in Stuttgart. In his work [78] Rudolf had the same results as Leuchter: extremely high cyanide concentrations in the delousing chambers, but barely measurable traces in the rooms, which is allegedly the corpus delicti of the Holocaust. Ever since the Rudolf Report, the thesis of the industrial-scale genocide with purpose-built gas chambers is no longer tenable.

But then something strange happened in the case of the young, all too curious chemist Germar Rudolf: a complaint [79] of the Central Council of Jews (in Germany) to the head of the Max Planck Society was followed by a permanent dismissal of this doctoral student, because his methodologically properly conducted scientific work supposedly led to “wrong conclusions”. Germar Rudolf, who had neither a criminal record nor any political ambitions, was then charged with sedition. Rudolph’s defense lawyers in the trial requested repeating of the incriminated analysis by an independent auditor. This simple request was rejected by the court due to the “obviousness” of the Holocaust, and Germar Rudolf was, because of the unpleasant research results convicted to 14 months in prison without parole(!) [80]. Today Rudolf lives in the US, where he has applied for political asylum.

Germar Rudolf came into the mills of the “German” justice, but his work has never been refuted. Even the Hollywood director Steven Spielberg took note of the results of the Rudolf Report and – at least tacitly – accepted. In his film The Last Days (The Shoah Foundation, USA 1999) Spielberg shows with an overlay, that the sacred hall of the myth of the Holocaust, the gas chamber of Auschwitz, is a “reconstruction” which was brought to the present condition after 1945. However, he does not explain why this room is still presented to millions of tourists as “original”.

Also Gitta Sereny, a Jewish historian and journalist living in England, was recently compelled to the conclusion that Auschwitz was a “terrible place, but not a death camp” [81]. This knowledge will prevail sooner or later, even though the servile German historians have not exactly distinguished themselves with scientific curiosity and love of truth – at least as regards the subject matter covered here.

9.4 The Crematoria

The crematoria of the concentration camps are often held up as an important proof of the supposed extermination of the Jews, although their existence allow only a statement about their burial, but not to draw conclusions about the cause of death to the inmates. (…and much less about the number of deaths! – shoabloger)

Especially at Auschwitz, where about 65% of deaths are due to the then prevalent typhus epidemic, a crematorium was urgently needed to prevent an even worse spread of disease. Because of the high water table in the area (about 50 cm), a burial was as impossible as the often alleged cremation of corpses in open pits [82].

Jean-Claude Pressac’s technical examination of the crematoria of Auschwitz led the establishment historiography to reduce the number of Auschwitz deaths from four million to one million. Pressac himself writes in his most recent book (see footnote 49) of a number from 631,000 to 711,000.

Carlo Mattogno and Franco Deana have dealt critically with Pressac’s work and concluded in a detailed technical report, that even this figure is still far too high [83].

A critical assessment of the Auschwitz crematoria, especially with regard to capacity, actual operating hours and fuel consumption, supports the views of independent researchers, that the official death books found in 1989 reflect the probable death toll most accurately. During the entire period of operation of the camp complex of Auschwitz-Birkenau, some 100,000 people perished, thereof approximately half were of Jewish faith.

9.5 Treblinka – considered archaeologically

Treblinka, about 120 km northeast of Warsaw, is now considered the second most important “death camps”, just after Auschwitz. Reportedly 900,000 Jews have been killed here with – according to various sources – steam, vacuum chambers, jackhammers or the exhaust gases of a U-boat diesel engine. At the site of the former concentration camp of Treblinka an impressive monument reminds of this truly incredible feat. But there is not the slightest trace of the dead, or of the fantastic murder weapons.

Established historians explain the lack of any physical evidence as follows: Since there were no crematoria in Treblinka, the dead were buried in a huge mass grave. When the camp was to be abandoned, Himmler personally ordered the guards in the summer of 1943 to exhume the 900,000 bodies to cause them to disappear without a trace. According to this narrative, each 2000-2500 corpses were burnt to ashes on a huge grate, made ​​of railroad rails. Freshly cut wood served as fuel because neither coal nor dry firewood was available at that time in Treblinka. The gas chambers and other tools of this assumed mass murder were also eliminated without a trace [84].

This explanation does not really make sense because National Socialist Germany was in the summer of 1943 in the middle of a terrible war, and there were certainly other priorities for the use of troops and resources.

In order to clarify this contradiction, a team of Australian researchers made in October 1999 a comprehensive archaeological survey of the entire camp area. Since excavations at the site of the monument are not permitted, modern ground radar equipment was used. This technology has proven its value for years and is widely used by geologists, archaeologists, engineers, and criminologists and others to search for buried objects, or, more generally, to analyze the soil.

At the site, where the huge grave for 900,000 people should have been, the Australian researchers could not discover any disruption of the soil layers. The soil in this area has been completely untouched for at least 100 years. Neither human remains, traces of the alleged exhumation and incineration were detected [85]. This archaeological investigation of Treblinka confirms the findings of John C. Ball, who showed using Allied air photos (see footnote 39) that Treblinka was not an extermination camp, but a small and insignificant transit camp, which was abandoned already in 1943 [86].

_________________________________________________

72 Deutsche Hochschullehrer-Zeitung, Nr. 3, 1963, p. 29
73 Zyklon B was until 1979 the trade name of the company DEGESCH (German Company for Pest Control, Frankfurt am Main)
74 Ross Dunnu. Roger Boyes, Jewish experts predict more battles to fight, The Times, London, 12. April 2000
75 Blue acid (hydrogen cyanide, chemical formula:. HCN) is a liquid with a boiling point of +27 ° C
76 Fred A. Leuchter, An Engineering Report on the alleged Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek,Poland,(pdf) also: Samisdat Publishers, Toronto 1988
77 Robert Faurisson, The Leuchter Report. End of a myth Journal of Historical Review, 1988
78 Germar Rudolf,The Rudolf Report, (pdf) also: Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings (UK) 2001
79 Letter of Heinz Jaeckel, secretary of the Central Council of Jews to Prof. Dr. Hans F. Zacher, President of the Max Planck Society, 22 June 1993, see also: Peter Dehoust, Ignatz Bubis – The truth Nation Europa, Coburg 1998
80 the presentation from the perspective of Rudolf, see Wilhelm Schlesiger, The Rudolf Case, Cromwell Press, Brighton, 1994 und Herbert Verbeke, Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte,(pdf) VHO, Berchem (Belgien), 1996
81 Gitta Sereny, The German Trauma: Experiences and Reflections, The Times, London, 29. 8. 2001
82 Filip Müller, Sonderbehandlung. Drei Jahre in den Krematorien und Gaskammern von Auschwitz, Steinhausen, München 1979
83 Carlo Mattogno, Franco Deana, Die Krematoriumsöfen von Auschwitz-Birkenau, in: Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, Ernst Gauss (ed.), Grabert Verlag Tübingen 1994
84 Ytzak Arad, Treblinka, in Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, New York 1997, p. 1481 et seq.
85 Richard Krege, „Vernichtungslager“ Treblinka – Archäologisch betrachtet, Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, 2000; The Examiner, Poland’s Jews not buried at Treblinka, Sydney, 24. January 2000
86 see also: Carlo Mattogno und Jürgen Graf, Treblinka: Vernichtungslager oder Durchgangslager, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings, Großbritannien, 2002 (Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?) pdf.

_______________

10. The truth as decreed by the law

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

“Every truth goes to its recognition through three steps: In the first it is ridiculed, in the second fought, and in the third it is regarded as self-evident”

(Arthur Schopenhauer)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

As is shown in this paper, the official story of the Holocaust is full of contradictions and half-truths. An ideologically impartial, exploration of this issue, based on sober historical facts is therefore imperative.

But in Germany, the reaction of establishment historians, politicians and journalists to the issues raised here runs mostly through the following scheme: First, it is assumed that the skeptic has ulterior motives. With subtle arguments, the importance of the contradictions, as they are outlined here, is played down. If this does not bear fruit, a criminal court judge will get the “opinion-criminal” silenced.

The legal instrument of this ruthless terror against free speech is almost always §130 of Criminal Code [sedition]. Until 1994, this clause was applied only when someone expressed ethnically offensive views or actually incited against an ethnic or religious group. The mere questioning of the official version of modern German history, as officially propagated, was not punishable.

The case of Günter Deckert from Weinheim was the catalyst for a dramatic sharpening of §130. Günter Deckert came into the cross-hairs of political justice, because he, in November 1991, at a public meeting “with affirmative gestures and facial expressions” translated into German a lecture of the American Fred Leuchter. Because results of Leuchter’s investigations questioned the gas chamber thesis, Deckert was sentenced by the Mannheim Regional Court to twelve months in prison for sedition.

The German Supreme Court, the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), annulled the judgment on 15 March 1994 and found that the utterances and actions Deckert did not constitute incitement.

Then the Central Council of Jews in Germany criticized the judgment of the Supreme Court and publicly urged a sharpening of the criminal law [88]. After an unusually short consultation period, the Federal Parliament supplemented §130 of the Criminal Code in accordance with the wishes and instructions of the Central Council of Jews: Since 1^st December 1994, anyone who expresses even the general doubts concerning the current Dogma, is punished with up to five years in prison (!) on the basis of §130, section 3 of the Criminal Code (“Lex Auschwitz”). Thus, the legal instrument for re-winding of the trial against Deckert was perfect. Already in April 1995, the case was heard again before the Regional Court of Karlsruhe according to the much tougher new §130. This time, the prosecutor Heiko Klein had no problems with proving that Deckert committed sedition. He asked him before the court only one question:

“Do you believe in the gas chambers?“

Referring to Nietzsche’s quote “Faith means not to want to know” Deckert replied: “I want to know.”

This brief reply was acknowledged with a prison term of 2 years without parole. Because of his “incorrigible attitude” Günter Deckert has now spent more than five years in prison [89] (as of 2003 -transl.).

Since the introduction of the “Lex Auschwitz”, the political machinery of persecution is running smoothly in Germany. “Report about Protection of the Constitution” showed that from 1994 to 2000 more than 62,000 people were prosecuted after §130. Just two examples are mentioned here to illustrate the bizarre traits of the “political justice” in Germany:

The 78-year-old Silesian Walter Sattler was denounced for sedition by a Young Socialist activist Ismail Ertug, because at an event of an Expellees’ Association in November 2000, he compared the expulsion of Germans from their ancestral homelands to the Holocaust. The district court in Amberg sentenced Sattler to a fine of 16,000 marks (ca. $10,000) [90].

Wolf Andreas Hess was accused of sedition because he posted an interview with his late father on the Internet. His father expressed in this interview the opinion, that the gas chamber of Dachau had never been in operation. Although this fact is no longer disputed among historians, and even a sign to this effect is shown to the visitors in this same gas chamber, the Munich Local Court condemned the 23-year-old student in January 2002, due to “Holocaust denial” to a fine of 1,350 Euros [91].

Why the state power of Germany of today so desperately clings to the very questionable representation of the Holocaust at the expense of freedom of speech? Patrick Bahners, the current features editor of the “FAZ” – one of Germany’s biggest newspapers – commenting in 1994 on Deckert process, in panic expressed concern in this way:

“If Deckert’s view of the Holocaust were true, then the Federal Republic of Germany would be founded on a lie. Every presidential address, every minute of silence, every history book would be a lie. In denying the murder of the Jews, he denies the legitimacy of the Federal Republic”[92].

More appropriate way to describe the agony of a State trapped in a web of lies can hardly be made. And because all historians who deal with the Holocaust in Germany are officials (IE. personnel, legally and financially dependent of this State), an objective and unbiased discussion of this issue from their side can hardly be expected.

Nevertheless, many establishment historians and Holocaust experts understand that the myth of the Holocaust is doomed. The following statement by Jean-Claude Pressac speaks for itself:

“Bungling, exaggeration, omissions and lies characterize most accounts of that era. New documents will inevitably come to light, which will more and more shake the official certainty. The seemingly triumphant contemporary representation of the Holocaust is doomed. What will we be able to save of it? Very little. It’s too late!” [93] (Jean-Claude Pressac)

_______________________________________________________________________________

87 §130 section 3 of the Criminal Code says: A prison sentence of up to five years or a fine will be imposed on anyone who publicly or in a meeting approves, denies or downplays an offense committed under the rule of National Socialism, as designated in §220a, section 1[genocide], in a manner suitable to disturb public peace.
88 Juden verlangen Gesetzesänderung, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung vom 21. March 1994
89 Henry Roques, Günter Deckert. Der nicht mit den Wölfen heulte, Germania Verlag 2000
90 Mensch und Maß, 15/2001
91 Report from Reuters from 24. January 2002
92 Patrick Bahners, Objektive Selbstzerstörung, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 15. August. 1994
93 quoted from: Valérie Igounet, Histoire du négationnisme en France (History of Revisionism in France), Seuil, Paris 2000

____________________________

11. Summary and Conclusion

It should be explicitly stated that it is not the intention of the author in any way to deny, justify, or even just to relativize the disfranchisement, expulsion and murder of countless innocent people in the period from 1933 to 1945. No claim is being made to give definitive answers to complex problems. The aim of the author is rather to point out the many inconsistencies and contradictions that are willfully overlooked by civil servant historians, politicians and journalists:

A state-planned genocide without orders, without a plan, without a budget?

The physical destruction of the Jews of Europe is often described as one of the main goals the National Socialist dictatorship. But in tons of confiscated by the victorious powers documents is not a single plan, instruction, budget, or other documentary proof of this conspiracy theory, which is now commonly referred to as the “Holocaust.”

Six million murders and not single forensic evidence?

In any conventional murder case an autopsy is performed, in order to establish as precisely as possible the course of events and the cause of death. But to this day no forensic expertise detected even a single case of death by gassing [94].

Six million murders and no trace of a murder weapon?

Independent forensic investigations of the most important weapon of the Holocaust disprove the theory that millions of people were killed in specially constructed gas chambers. To this day, neither plan, instruction manual nor a single photo of what has been actually operating gas chamber was found. This extremely poor evidence prompted the Frenchman Robert Faurisson, to summarize the Achilles heel of the Holocaust myth in a single sentence: “Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber.”

Absurd testimonies, confessions under torture?

The testimonies and confessions that are often cited as proof of the Holocaust would not have the slightest chance of being accepted in a legal trial. All important witnesses, whose statements were examined in cross-examination entangled themselves in such contradictions that they eventually had to withdraw their initial allegations. The most important and most cited confessions were obtained through torture and blackmailing.

The Holocaust: A unique event in history?

While in Germany of today more people are prosecuted for thought crimes than in the last years of the East German regime, the self-confessed Zionist, Henryk M. Broder ridicules: “Unique is not the Holocaust, but the stupidity of the Germans, who persist in their guilt.” When one considers that during a single Allied bombing raid on a German city (Dresden, 13^th February 1945) most likely more people were killed than during the entire period of operation of the Auschwitz concentration camp [95], one is inclined to agree with this not exactly charming statement.

Are prosecutors and criminal judges better historians?

Only in an open competition of arguments it will ultimately be possible to discover the objective historical truth. Yet the federal German criminal judges are happy to preach alleged certainties and to impose draconian penalties against dissenters. The legal principle of “common knowledge” (obviousness), applied to historiography, is a clear case of perversion of justice and violates the constitutional right of freedom of speech, teaching and research.

State religion Holocaust?

Some Protestant theologians have made the phrase “God is dead” their own, and give as reasons for this paradoxical for a cleric attitude, that God, if he really existed, would have stopped trains rolling to Auschwitz. With such seemingly profound philosophical statements German priests violate religious feelings of millions of Christians. On the other hand, the myth of the Holocaust has assumed the characteristics of a state religion: Faith is officially replacing knowledge and heretics are persecuted by the state.

Holocaust Myth – cui bono?

There is hardly any doubt that during of Nazi rule much less Jews died than was claimed shortly after the war. This should be great news for all those who have the well being of the Jews at heart. But it is precisely Jewish interest groups and philosemites who reject this good news angrily. Why do these circles cling so firmly to the Holocaust myth against their better judgment?

Norman Finkelstein, author and professor of political science at New York’s Hunter College identifies, in his book The Holocaust Industry [96], another important reason for this instrumentalization: “The Holocaust is an invaluable ideological weapon. Through the use of this weapon, one of the most fearsome states of the world, in which human rights of non-Jewish population are violated in a horrible way, has become a ‘state of victims’. The most influential ‘ethnic group’ in the US has also achieved the status of victims. … This alleged victimhood yields substantial dividends – especially immunity to criticism, no matter how justified this criticism might be.”

The current behavior of Israel [97] clearly shows how much the “chosen people” consider themselves immune from any criticism. Any other state in the Middle East, reaching for weapons of mass destruction, annexing illegally foreign land and brutally suppressing civilians would have been thrown by the United States back to the Stone Age a long time ago.

The historical truth is indivisible!

Shortly after the war, it might have been in order, out of deference to the emotions of those persecuted by the National Socialist regime to tolerate unchallenged exaggerations, half-truths or even lies. But today there is not the slightest reason to evade a rational discussion of the Holocaust and leave it to Jewish interests. They have to face the truth if they expect recognition of their suffering.

The Germans, in turn, three generations after the war, still in a collective moral dock and confronted with ever more outrageous financial and political demands, have the right to an unbiased representation of history.

Fear of dogmas enforced by law must yield to the courage to use the intellect!

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

94 Theodore J. O’Keefe, Die „Befreiung der Lager“ – Fakten gegen Lügen
95 According to a report of the Dresden police until 20 March 1945 a total of 202,040 bombing victims, mostly women and children, were recovered. Including the missing, the number of 250,000 to 300,000 must be realistic. In Brockhaus of 1956, the number of 300,000 is mentioned. However, based on the official death books of Auschwitz, rediscovered in 1989, about 100,000 deaths can be proven for the total operating time of the camp.
96 Original in English by Verso London 2000; German edition: Die Holocaust-Industrie, Piper München 2001
97 Israel has violated more than 70 UN resolutions, 30 more UN resolutions against Israel were blocked by a US. veto. The Israeli military routinely sends tanks and helicopter gunships in refugee camps. Permanent military terror and the continued humiliation of Palestinian civilians are commonplace.

________________________

12. Further Reading

The following books are recommended for all those readers who want to further study the issues discussed here. Contrary to widespread belief it is not illegal (in Germany) to buy these books for personal study purposes, to own or share with friends.

Butz, Arthur Der Jahrhundertbetrug (The Hoax of the Twentieth Century)

Christopersen, Thies Die Auschwitz-Lüge and HERE

Diwald, Hellmut Geschichte der Deutschen

Eggert, Wolfgang Israels Geheimvatikan Teil I, Teil II

Faurisson, Robert Der Leuchter-Report. Ende eines Mythos (Leuchter Report)

Faurisson, Robert Die Zeugen der Gaskammern von Auschwitz

(Witnesses to the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz)

Finkelstein, Norman Die Holocaust-Industrie (The Holocaust Industry)

Fish, Hamilton Der zerbrochene Mythos (Tragic Deception)

Friedrich, Jörg Der Brand. Deutschland im Bombenkrieg 1940 – 1945

Gabis, Tomasz Die Holocaust-Religion (The Holocaust Religion)

Gauss, Ernst Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte

Graf, Jürgen Der Holocaust auf dem Prüfstand

Graf, Jürgen Tätergeständnisse und Augenzeugen des Holocaust

Halow, Joseph Siegerjustiz in Dachau – Ein Amerikaner stellt richtig

(Victors Justice in Dachau)

Harwood, Richard Starben wirklich Sechs Millionen? and HERE

(Did Six Million Really Die?) and HERE

Hoggan, David Der erzwungene Krieg (The Forced War)

Irving, David Nürnberg – Die Letzte Schlacht (Nuremberg – The Last Battle)

Kammerer, Rüdiger Das Rudolf-Gutachten (Rudolf Report)

Kardel, Hennecke Adolf Hitler, Begründer Israels (Adolf Hitler – Founder of Israel)

Kern, Erich Verheimlichte Dokumente. Was den Deutschen verschwiegen wird

Laternser, Hans Die andere Seite im Auschwitz-Prozeß

Lenz, Vera M. Auschwitz und die Auschwitz-Lüge

Maser, Werner Der Wortbruch

Mattogno, C. und Graf, J. Treblinka: Vernichtungslager oder Durchgangslager?

(Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?)

Nicosia, Francis R. Hitler und der Zionismus (The Third Reich and the Palestine Question)

O’Keefe, Theodore Die „Befreiung der Lager“ – Fakten gegen Lügen

(The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies)

Porter, Carlos Nicht schuldig in Nürnberg

(Not Guilty at Nuremberg)

Rassinier, Paul Das Drama der Juden Europas

(Debunking the Genocide Myth) and HERE and HERE

Rassinier, Paul Die Jahrhundertprovokation

Rassinier, Paul Was ist Wahrheit

Rassinier, Paul Die Lüge des Odysseus and HERE

(The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses)

Roques, Henri Die „Geständnisse“ des Kurt Gerstein

Roques, Henry Günter Deckert. Der nicht mit den Wölfen heulte

Sanning, Walter Die Auflösung des osteuropäischen Judentums

(The Dissolution of East European Jewry)

Schröcke, Helmut Kriegsursachen – Kriegsschuld

Schultze-Rhonhof, Gerd Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte

Shahak, Israel Jüdische Geschichte, Jüdische Religion

(Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3,000 Years)

Stäglich, Wilhelm Der Auschwitz Mythos

Auschwitz; a Judge Looks at the Evidence

Steffen, Werner Die Zweite Babylonische Gefangenschaft

Walendy, Udo Wahrheit für Deutschland

(Truth for Germany)

Weckert, Ingird Feuerzeichen

(The blue colored items are available on the Internet and may be accessed and downloaded for free. Underlined titles are in English).