Nazi Gas Chambers: One Researcher's View

Teoría.
Número 83 - 2007.
“DEBEMOS ESTAR EXTRAORDINARIAMENTE CONTENTOS
DE SABER QUE EL FUTURO ES ENTERAMENTE NUESTRO”.

LA CONFERENCIA DE TEHERÁN SOBRE EL
HOLOCAU$TO.

Debido a su importancia, hemos colectado en este número algunas de las
ponencias presentadas en la “Conferencia de Tehrán sobre el Holocausto”, celebrada
en 2006. Se insta a los Camaradas que puedan hacerlo, a traducir el material
importante al castellano para su más amplia difusión.

Ejemplar público 1

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN - Tehran International Conference
"Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision 10-12 December 2006

____________________________

Program

Tuesday, 12 December 2006

Alexander Baron

THE NAZI GAS CHAMBERS: Rumours, Lies And
Reality – One Researcher’s View

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, Mr
President, Honoured Guests,

First of all, thank you for inviting me to this seminal
conference. My name is Alexander Baron, and I am
probably something of an anomaly at a gathering of
this nature. Although I have spent many thousands of
hours over the last eighteen years or so researching
in the British Library and other archives, I am not an
academic in the proper sense of the word. Technically
I am a journalist, but my efforts to earn a living by
means of this dubious profession have been sporadic
and largely unsuccessful.

I first heard of the supposedly so difficult subject of
Holocaust Revisionism in the mid-seventies, but I
didn’t begin to take any sort of interest in it until the
early eighties when I began studying Revisionist
literature in earnest. It took me no time at all to
conclude that the entire Holocaust story from
beginning to end was a gigantic concoction, pure
Allied and Zionist propaganda, after all, wasn’t truth
the first casualty of war? And wasn’t history written
by the victors?

It took me several years more to realise that this was
a somewhat naïve view, and that lies are propagated
not just by the victors in any conflict. Although like
Jewish power and Jewish mendacity generally, the
Holocaust is and remains strictly off-limits to
established and respectable scholars, quote unquote,
and although explanations for anti-Semitism – real
and imagined – are always rationalised in slavishly
philo-Semitic terms, in the past few years a number
of attempts have been made by courageous scholars,
some of them Jewish, to make a more balanced
assessment. One of these scholars is Professor
Lindemann who in his book Esau’s Tears complained
that many books on the Holocaust have been
characterised by “disappointing intellectual standards
and doubtful conclusions”. (1)

Commenting on a critically acclaimed book by another
Jewish scholar, Daniel Goldhagen, he says that its
thesis is far from original and that it represents the
case for the prosecution but that “a major problem is
that few serious historians would want to present a
case for the defense” adding that “history should
not...be written in the same way that cases are
presented to a jury”. (2)

A major criticism of Holocaust Revisionism is that it
seeks to present only the case for the defence,
another Jewish scholar, Professor Mayer has written
that Revisionists – to whom he refers as skeptics - are
“outright negationists [who] mock the Jewish victims
with their one-sided sympathetic understanding for
the executioners” and that they are “ill-disguised anti-
Semites and merchants of prejudice” whose “morally
reprehensible posture disqualifies them from
membership in the republic of free letters and
scholarship”. (3)

This is probably the most complimentary remark that
any mainstream scholar has ever made about the
Revisionist Historians of the Holocaust; in addition to
being denounced as anti-Semites, outright Nazis,
bigots, racists, cranks, etc and ad nauseum,
Revisionists have been subjected to intellectual, moral
and most of all to legal persecution, and at times to
naked force and tyranny. On the few occasions when
our enemies have allowed us a platform and haven’t
subjected us either to tyranny or to the silent
treatment we have been subjected instead to ridicule,
satire and gross misrepresentation. We have been
compared with Flat Earthers and other denuded
cranks, but since the early 1990s in particular, and to
some extent before that, some of the enemies of
intellectual freedom seeing that the writing was on
the wall have found it necessary to confront, or to try
to confront the evidence and arguments we have

adduced. And almost exclusively these confrontations
have been retractions, climbdowns, admissions that
we have all been lied to, and each and every one of
them has been made without the slightest good grace
or good will.

Although to some extent Holocaust Revisionism can
be said to have begun during the Holocaust itself, and
although pamphlets and books on the subject have
been published since the end of the Second World
War, it would be true to say that the first thoroughly
documented scientific study was The Hoax Of The
Twentieth Century, by Professor Arthur Butz, which
was first published in 1976.

In this book, the author makes an extremely
important point which is often overlooked even today.
At the beginning of Chapter II, he writes “When
Germany collapsed in the spring of 1945 it was after a
long Allied propaganda campaign which had
repeatedly claimed that people, mainly Jews, were
being systematically killed in German ‘camps’. When
the British captured the camp at Bergen-Belsen in
northern Germany they found a large number of
unburied bodies lying around the camp.”

Film of Belsen - still photographs and video footage -
was subsequently reproduced all over the world.

Professor Butz continues: “It is, I believe, Belsen
which has always constituted the effective, mass
propaganda ‘proof’ of exterminations, and even today
you will find such scenes occasionally waved around
as ‘proof’. (4)

This is something of an understatement, the terrible
scenes that were found at Belsen and other camps
were used, certainly in Britain, in a decades long
campaign to attack racists and those who opposed
uncontrolled non-white immigration into the UK. At
times the hysteria against racism and racists became
fever pitched, although curiously many of the same
people who raged against the Nazis in our midst had
no compunction whatsoever in starting not one but
three wars against Iraq thereby causing death,
destruction and suffering to the Iraqi people on a
scale that had not been seen in Britain even at the
height of the Second World War.

Returning to Professor Butz, he is correct of course
when he states that Belsen was used as a mass
propaganda proof of the Holocaust – and of innate
German wickedness – but he might have added that
the scenes at Dachau were similarly used. He does in
fact make this point, and later in his book he
reproduces a photograph of a delousing chamber used

at this camp which was captioned a gas chamber by
the US Army. (5)

When I was researching the Holocaust in the 1990s I
found original photographs in the archive of the
prestigious Imperial War Museum which bore the
imprint of this lying propaganda. Two publications in
particular spring to mind, one is a book which was
produced in the immediate aftermath of the Second
World War. Lest We Forget was published in
September 1945 by the Daily Mail newspaper. In this,
photographs of the gassed at Dachau – quote
unquote - and of the non-existent Dachau gas
chamber are exhibited with the candid statement that
they are to be used to re-educate the Germans.

Now in all fairness, there was a great deal of genuine
confusion at this time about the nature of these gas
chambers – real and imagined – and tabloid
journalists have never been the most reliable source
of information about any subject, least of all war, (6)
but in spite of media misrepresentations, the truth
about Dachau and Belsen did eventually come out, so
there was no excuse in 1963 when the Board of
Deputies of British Jews published a pamphlet called
Letters To My Daughter in which the same tiresome
lies were repeated. And there was absolutely no
excuse a decade and a half later when the South
African Board of Deputies used exactly the same
miscaptioned photographs and outright lies in their
successful campaign to make questioning the
Holocaust a criminal offence in that country, which if
you recall, was at that time ruled by a racist
Apartheid régime.

Uncritical belief in the Holocaust in the West is an act
of faith, of zealotry, even the most outrageous lies go
unchallenged. My favourite piece of Holocaust
nonsense is a story that appeared in the supposedly
prestigious New York Times newspaper in 1988.
According to Holocaust survivor Morris Hubert, a most
remarkable menagerie existed in Buchenwald:

“In the camp there was a cage with a bear and an
eagle,” he said. “Every day, they would throw a Jew
in there. The bear would tear him apart and the eagle
would pick at his bones.”
“But that’s unbelievable,” whispered a visitor.
“It is unbelievable,” said Mr. Hubert, “but it
happened.” (7)

This story is prima facie ludicrous; that doesn’t mean
it couldn’t have happened, of course, but as far as I
know, it is a unique claim: there are no reports of the
same acts of barbarism from any other source. Has
anyone here heard of bears being kept in the Nazi
concentration camps? And how would the Nazis or

anyone keep an eagle in the same cage as a bear
without the bear tearing it to pieces? Perhaps it was a
special breed of bear, a man-eating koala trained to
perform this particular task?

I don’t wish to sound uncharitable, or to mock the
afflicted, but it would help if newspapers such as the
New York Times didn’t insult my intelligence, and
yours, by endorsing such nonsense.

When powerful Jewish organisations spread far less
incredible but still wilful lies about the non-existent
Dachau gas chambers, the silence is deafening, but
when others attempt to expose such lies, they are
denounced as liars, bigots, hatemongers and of
course as anti-Semites. Indeed I am living proof of
this. In 1995 and 1996 I published two editions of a
pamphlet called Why Britain’s Police Aren’t Worth A
Jewish Fingernail in which I exposed this particular
version of the lie. The “Jewish fingernail” is a
reference to the 1994 Hebron massacre; at the
funeral of the murderer, a Zionist Rabbi made the
terrible statement that one million Arabs are not
worth a Jewish fingernail. I thought that was an
appropriate title. And I mailed out a large number of
this publication to police stations. And what did the
police do? They arrested me on suspicion of
“incitement to racial hatred”. The charge was
eventually dropped (8) probably because of the
embarrassment my accusers would have faced in the
courtroom where the tables would have been turned
on them. It is though ironic is it not that lies which
besmirch the German people are considered perfectly
acceptable while people who expose these lies are
branded bigots?

No one summed up the religious fervour over the
Holocaust better than your own charismatic President;
speaking in December last year he pointed out that:

“If someone were to deny the existence of God... or
prophets and religion, they would not bother him.
However, if someone were to deny the myth of the
Jews’ massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the
governments subservient to the Zionists tear their
larynxes and scream against the person as much as
they can”.

We have seen similar religious fervour over the issue
of ritual murder. In Britain in the last century, three
people were prosecuted for claiming Jews practised
ritual murder. Arnold Leese together with his printer
Walter Whitehead was put in the dock in the 1930s,
and the Dowager Lady Birdwood was so indicted, tried
and convicted in the 1990s. (9) Yet in recent years
there have been serious claims supported by serious
evidence that certain Africans have murdered children

for ritual purposes in England, the most notorious of
which was the case of ‘Adam’ – this being the name
given to the torso of a young unidentified African boy
which was fished from the River Thames in
September 2001.

Unless one accepts the dubious proposition that Jews
are morally superior to Africans, one must at least
concede the possibility of Jewish ritual murder, and
discuss it in rational rather than hysterical terms, but
nobody ever does, least of all our spineless and
compliant academics. Just for the record I do not
believe Jews are morally superior to Africans, and I
know quite a lot of people who feel the same way.
They are called Palestinians.

Returning to the Holocaust proper, the claims of mass
extermination in homicidal gas chambers are
extraordinary, and it is well attested that
extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, yet
when one lifts the veil of media hysteria, one finds
such proof sorely lacking. In this connection I can do
no better than again quote the distinguished Jewish
academic Arno Mayer who writes that: “Sources for
the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and
unreliable.” (10)

Although he is of course a committed believer in the
official version of the Holocaust, Professor Mayer’s
book is an excellent work; he is clearly unhappy with
many survivor testimonies, and does his level best to
examine the subject critically. Although as he points
out, testimonies about the Nazi gas chambers are
rare, there are some eyewitness testimonies, the
problem they all have is that where they are credible
they do not support the Exterminationist position, and
when they do support it, they are just not credible.

We are particularly fortunate to have two such
striking testimonies, both from Polish Jewesses, which
were given at the main Belsen Trial in the immediate
aftermath of the Second World War. The Belsen Trial
concerned atrocities – real and imagined – which were
committed both at Belsen and at Auschwitz I. Many of
those on trial, including Commandant Kramer, had
worked at both camps. The papers relating to this
trial are held by the Public Record Office – or the
National Archives as we are now to call it – in the War
Office or WO series, (the predecessor of the Ministry
of Defence).

It is a stock charge by Revisionists that the trials held
by the Allies after the Second World War were show
trials; there is more than a grain of truth in this claim,
but any honest person who reads the entire transcript
of the main Belsen Trial – as I have – will conclude
that show trial or not, the defence team did not

simply go through the motions. The cross-
examination of the accusers by the likes of Major
Winwood – who defended Kramer – was vigorous, and
all but destroyed the prosecution’s case. Sometimes
though cross-examination is academic, because the
testimony of a witness is patently false, or even
patently ludicrous in the light of the known facts of a
case.

The testimony of Holocaust survivor Sophia Litwinska
falls into the ludicrous category in the light of the laws
of physics, because she would have the court and the
world believe not that she had simply witnessed the
wicked SS administering the Zyklon to a group of ill-
fated Jews, but that she herself had actually been
gassed, and was for some inexplicable reason
dragged out of the gas chamber by an SS man just as
the darkness was about to overcome her.

Litwinska’s testimony on the seventh day of the trial,
September 24, 1945, can be found in WO235/13; at
page 169 of this document we find the following:

She was asked: “When you reached the crematorium
what happened there?”

And replied: “We left the trucks and were led into a
room which gave me the impression of a shower bath.
There were towels hanging round and sprays, and
even mirrors.”

She was then asked: “Were the doors closed?”

And replied: “I cannot say; I have never thought
when I was there I shall leave and be here present in
the court to speak about it.”

“What happened next?”

“There were tears; people were shouting at each
other; people were hitting each other. There were
healthy people; strong people; weak people; and sick
people, and suddenly I saw fumes coming in through
a window.”

“What do you mean when you say window?”

“On top, very small sort of window.”

“What effect did this have on you?”

“I had to cough very violently; tears were streaming
out from my eyes, and I had a sort of feeling in my
throat as if I would be asphyxiated.”

“What happened to other people around you?”

“I could not look even at the others because each of
us was only concentrated on what happened to
himself.”

“What was the next thing that you remember?”

“In that moment I heard my name called. I had not
the strength to answer it, but I raised my arm. Then I
felt somebody take me and throw me out from that
room.”

Her rescuer was Franz Hoessler, who was in the dock
at this trial. One might have thought this death
defying act of remarkable courage would have earned
him some sort of commendation at the very least.
Instead, he was hanged.

According to Litwinska, she had been sent to the gas
chamber by mistake and was rescued because she
was married to a Gentile, although curiously her
husband, a Polish officer, had been arrested because
he had married a Jewess, and was already dead.

In the book INDUSTRIAL POISONS IN THE UNITED
STATES, Harvard medic Alice Hamilton writes: “The
indiscriminate use of this very dangerous gas by
persons quite unfamiliar with it led to the accidental
death in Cleveland of four persons who inhaled
hydrocyanic gas with which a restaurant under their
apartment was being fumigated.” (11)

Hamilton gives the lethal dosage as .25 parts per
thousand for men stood at rest for two minutes, and
.375 parts per thousand for a minute and a half
without dizziness.

The lethal dose is a mere 60mg minimum or .8 to
1mg per kg of body weight. (12)

One might ask how the laws of physics changed
between the publication of Professor Hamilton’s book
in 1925 and the rescue of Litwinska less than twenty
years later.

Can anyone give any credence whatsoever to the
ludicrous claim that as a large group of people is
being gassed to death, an SS man opens the door,
dives in, and whisks one of them out? The military
court which tried Franz Hoessler did, apparently.

Litwinska was sent off to be gassed in a fairly small
group, but the conventional Holocaust wisdom is that
these gassings were carried out on an industrial scale.
The big question has to be how? How can hundreds of
people at a time be duped or coerced into entering a
gas chamber? On the pretext that they were to
shower? And then the door is slammed, and the

Zyklon administered through a hole in the roof, or
through the wall. It doesn’t work like that, the laws of
physics won’t permit it. One has only to look at the
precautions that have to be taken when one individual
is gassed with intent in a lethal execution chamber, as
has happened to convicted murderers on numerous
occasions in the United States.

How do the Exterminationists explain this away? The
answer is they don’t; they simply brand us anti-
Semitic for even daring to ask the question.

Curiously the question appears not to have been
asked in any meaningful sense until the courageous
Professor Faurisson published the results of his
researches. I have to say I do not agree with
everything the Professor has written, especially with
regard to Anne Frank, but when it comes to the gas
chambers, he is spot on.

One might have expected medical men to have taken
an interest in the mechanics of this unique form of
mass murder, but their curiosity appears never to
have been aroused. I made a fairly detailed study of
all the major English language medical journals
published immediately after the Second World War;
they contain scant mention of Nazi crimes – real and
imagined – and none at all about mass gassings.

For those who remain skeptical about the Revisionist
position, or indeed for those who are skeptical of the
perceived wisdom, I propose a solution. In some
countries, including Israel, a murderer who freely
admits his crime is made to re-enact it. This was the
case with the November 1995 assassination of Yitzhak
Rabin by the Zionist fanatic Yigal Amir. (13)

As the Nazis freely admitted their crimes – so we are
told – why should not a re-enactment of a mass
gassing be ordered? Or a simulation? Nowadays
computers can do wonderful things. There have been
simulations of the Kennedy assassination which dispel
the numerous ill-informed claims that Lee Harvey
Oswald was not the assassin; why not a simulation of
a couple of thousand Jews being marched into a gas
chamber and exterminated with a lighter than air gas
that was dropped from the ceiling while the SS stood
around drinking coffee and smoking Woodbines? If my
tone sounds facetious I apologise not; the scenario
really is that ludicrous.

The other testimony of a survivor who survived an
actual gassing was that of 28 year old Regina Bialek. I
am quoting here from a slightly more accessible
source, the official book on the Belsen Trial. In this
book we find her deposition, which reads thus:

“On 25th December, 1943, I was sick with typhus
and was picked out at a selection made by Doctors
Mengele and Tauber along with about 350 other
women. I was made to undress and taken by lorry to
a gas chamber. There were seven gas chambers at
Auschwitz. This particular one was underground and
the lorry was able to run down the slope and straight
into the chamber. Here we were tipped
unceremoniously on the floor. The room was about 12
yards square and small lights on the wall dimly
illuminated it. When the room was full a hissing sound
was heard coming from the centre point on the floor
and gas came into the room. After what seemed
about ten minutes some of the victims began to bite
their hands and foam at the mouth and blood issued
from their ears, eyes and mouth, and their faces went
blue. I suffered from all these symptoms, together
with a tight feeling at the throat. I was half conscious
when my number was called out by Dr. Mengele and I
was led from the chamber. I attributed my escape to
the fact that the daughter of a friend of mine who was
an Aryan and a doctor at Auschwitz had seen me
being transported to the chamber and had told her
mother, who immediately appealed to Dr. Mengele.
Apparently he realized that as a political prisoner I
was of more value alive than dead, and I was
released...I think that the time to kill a person in this
particular gas chamber would be from 15 to 20
minutes.” (14)

Until his death in a drowning accident in Brazil in
1979, Dr Mengele achieved notoriety as one of the
most notorious Nazi war criminals at large; known as
the Angel of Death, he inspired a song and at least
one smash box office film, The Boys From Brazil. Are
we to believe Regina Bialek was saved from the gas
chamber by the Angel of Death himself?

Should we dismiss this testimony just because it is
ludicrous? It wouldn’t be half as ludicrous if these
women were the victims of medical experiments
rather than of attempted exterminations by Zyklon B.
We know the Nazis conducted unethical medical
experiments on what they regarded as the lower
elements and expendables of society, just as the
British conducted such experiments on our own
servicemen in the 1950s. (15) It is possible that
Litwinska and Bialek were guinea pigs rather than
potential genocide victims; the alternative is that their
stories were made up out of the whole cloth, certainly
lies and perjury were rather commonplace at all the
so-called war crimes trials; this fact was even
recognised by the United Nations War Crimes
Commission. In its 1947 report on the Belsen Trial,
after paying lip service to the Nazi extermination
programme: “at least 2,500,000 human beings (or as
some say 4,000,000) were done to death by being

poisoned in gas chambers [in Auschwitz]” (16) it
pointed out that “From the evidence it appeared that
the usual ground for inferring that people had been
gassed was that they disappeared.” (17)

People disappear all the time, especially during war-
time; that doesn’t mean they have been gassed. The
report sheds some light on how the evidence for the
trial – and by implication other such trials - was
generated. We are told that affidavits were prepared
from statements taken by other people, mainly by
police officers, then turned into affidavits by Major
Smallwood. And “the accused were never present or
really present when these accounts were being
made.” It is not clear what not being really present
means, but it is obvious that these affidavits and
witness statements enjoyed a considerable amount of
creative licence. (18)

The rules of evidence at this – and related trials -
were such that they allowed for the admission of
documents and statements “appearing on the face of
it to be authentic, provided the statement or
document appears to the Court to be of assistance in
proving or disproving the charge...” (19) Hearsay
evidence was admitted both in affidavits and in the
witness box. (20)

Now it is a fact that prosaic evidence given under oath
can be a tissue of lies, and that by the same token
the most scurrilous unsubstantiated rumours can be
true; one has only to compare President Clinton’s
categorical denial “I did not have sex with that
woman” with the sordid case of Monica Lewinsky’s
semen stained dress to realise this, but the
admittance of hearsay evidence at a criminal trial
makes a mockery of the process. Such evidence
cannot be tested, and can only be prejudicial to the
accused.

As well as generating ludicrous evidence of mass
gassings, the Belsen Trial gave the world the claim of
four million dead in Auschwitz. This claim is likewise
based on hearsay.

Ada Bimko (Bimko that is, not Bimbo) was a Jewish
doctor who was interned at Auschwitz for fifteen
months before being transferred to Belsen.

Asked by the prosecutor Colonel Backhouse if any of
the prisoners kept records in respect of the operation
of the alleged gas chambers, she replied: “Yes...One
of those who took part...a man called Grzecks, told
me that others of those kommandos before having
been gassed had complete records of all those
transports which did arrive and then eventually were
destroyed. This man Grzeck [sic] told me that others

who took part in these kommandos, and in fact he
himself, kept records and that the number of those
Jews who were destroyed in this gas chamber would
be about four million.” (21)

That is in one gas chamber, one room, not in the
entire camp. If you imagine a football stadium, the
largest football stadium you can think of, and imagine
it filled again and again and again and again and
again, many, many, many times, then think of all
these people exterminated in one room, that should
give you an idea of just how ludicrous are these
claims.

I will return to the subject of gas chambers shortly
when I will explain why I believe there were indeed
some homicidal gassings, but I think we have
established two things: i) that the stories about
gassings are not as established as the Great Pyramid,
if I may borrow an expression from Professor Butz,
that many of them are based on wilful distortions and
outright lies; and ii) mass gassings did not happen,
they just could not have been carried out the way
they were allegedly carried out. Gassing a thousand
or even a hundred people in a gas chamber or any
building and doing so without endangering the
operators is a very different proposition from gassing
one person under controlled conditions.

I want now though to examine a few documented
facts which are totally at odds with the claims of a
mass extermination programme. In particular I want
to discuss the way prisoners of war were treated by
the Nazis.

On one occasion while I was pottering about in the
library of the Imperial War Museum I came across The
Prisoner Of War, a magazine published during the
Second World War by the Red Cross. Some of the
articles therein make extraordinary reading; Allied
servicemen in the Nazi camps staged boxing matches,
some had the use of swimming pools, prisoners had
access to a wide range of educational classes
including modern languages, economics and gas
fitting (ironically). And they even took examinations.

One article though struck me as absolutely
astonishing; the September 1942 issue reported that
one prisoner, Ronnie Wells, who was described as
“the Bournemouth Speed Skating champion and stilt
skater” had been allowed a very special privilege
while interned in Poland the previous year. And I
quote: “the German authorities allowed him to buy
two pairs of skates and to go ten miles outside the
camp to practise on a large lake”.

This shows an astonishing lack of security, British
prisoners of war were in effect treated as men of
honour – give us your word as an English gentleman
that you won’t do anything dastardly, Tommy, like
trying to escape – and all that, but if human beings
really were being exterminated in those very camps,
would British POWs, or indeed anyone, have been
allowed out of them at all? I think not.

We find similar anomalies of security in the survivor
literature. In her book Prisoners Of Fear, the Gentile
doctor and former Auschwitz inmate Ella Lingens-
Reiner reports matter of factly that prisoners went
outside to the ponds on working parties some
considerable distance from the camp, and that while
they were breaking rocks or doing whatever
concentration camp inmates do around ponds, their
SS guards busied themselves with their fishing rods.
(22)

But perhaps the most remarkable account of life in
Auschwitz comes from a British soldier named Charles
Coward. Coward’s story was related in a 1954 book
The Password Is Courage, which went through no less
than eight editions by 1988. (23) His story was even
made into a tongue-in-cheek film starring Dirk
Bogarde. Coward’s exploits earned him the sobriquet
The Count Of Auschwitz; he was captured at Calais in
1940, and while lying badly wounded in a civilian
hospital was awarded the Iron Cross by a German
general in a bizarre mix up.

An amusing aside here, between pages 48 & 49 of the
1954 edition, 3rd Impression, is a photograph
captioned “Manacled, a British prisoner receives a Red
Cross parcel”. We can’t see the prisoner so have no
idea if he is really British, however, the manacles on
his wrist appear to be floating in mid-air. They
certainly give the impression of having been
superimposed.

During one of his myriad escape attempts, Coward
and the other escapee with whom he was captured
received a stern warning. They had been travelling on
forged documents, posing as Bulgarian mine workers.

After protesting: “All prisoners of war have the right
to try to escape,” his captor replied: “Say ‘sir’ when
you address an officer. Prisoners may try to escape,
however foolish that may be, but in disguising
themselves as civilians and carrying forged identity
papers, they make themselves liable to be shot as
spies.”

Suffice it to say they were not shot but were sent to a
castle at Ulm where they were said to have been
badly beaten. Coward complained about his treatment

to the Commandant, who promised to look into it
saying “I apologise for the behaviour of the guard; in
war-time we cannot always employ the best of men in
the Wehrmacht.” You just can't get the staff
nowadays, can you?

When he and his fellow escapee were tried for trying
to escape, Coward told the officer in charge that he
would protest to the trustees of the Geneva
Convention. He was thrown out and warned never to
cross Herr Hauptmann’s path again!

His biographers tell us “...Coward’s position was
unassailable. Try as they would, they could not stop a
prisoner from getting in touch with Geneva...” (24)
This is absolutely ridiculous. Two years later these
same people who were quivering in their boots at the
thought of some upstart British serviceman reporting
them to the Red Cross were supposed to be
exterminating every Jew in Europe. Surely Coward
and his fellow escapee could have had an “accident”
in custody, or been shot while trying to escape.
Instead of being shot though, he was sent to a sugar
factory in Czechoslovakia. And put in charge of it!

That didn’t last long though because he escaped
again. Well, he walked out of the gate, anyway, and
eventually, at the end of 1943 he was transferred to
Auschwitz.

He was far from the only British POW in the camp, at
Christmas the same year, several hundred of his
fellow Brits were set to work digging trenches and the
like at Monowitz, 3 miles from the main camp. They
are said to have received heavy workers’ rations
supplemented by Red Cross food.

Although this book is highly imaginative, it relates an
incident which did undoubtedly happen, and which
again is highly at odds with the alleged genocidal
behaviour of the camp hierarchy. A guard shot dead a
British POW for disobeying an order and “the German
guards let no one near until a doctor had been
summoned and pronounced the man dead.”

The Nazis were perhaps the most bureaucratic
administration that ever existed anywhere at anytime,
everything was done by the book and had to be
approved from above. One man is shot dead, and
they summon a doctor to ensure everything is in
order.

Coward regarded this shooting as cold-blooded
murder, he was so incensed that after reporting it
indirectly to the British authorities – as one would do
– he murdered a German spy in retaliation; there
seem to have been no repercussions for this. (25)

Later when he needed to have his eyes tested he was
permitted to go into nearby Berkenwald accompanied
by a solitary guard. On the bus he was abused by a
young German woman. His escort seized the woman
by the wrist and gave her a lecture on good manners
and the decent treatment of prisoners of war!

Even though he had the run of the place, Coward was
not happy with his working conditions, and threatened
to report IG Farben to the Red Cross. He complained
about “the bad food here” and about “other things”,
the other things being gassings to which came the
response: “Gassings? Killings? You must be out of
your mind. Don’t talk lightly of such things, Mr
Coward. It might be dangerous for you to make such
wild statements about the Government and this
company.” (26)

Even worse, you might lose your beer ration!

Yes, one of the complaints the Auschwitz personnel
department received from the Red Cross concerned
the distribution of beer for the POWs. As the saying
goes, you couldn’t make it up.

That being said, what follows next provides I think an
interesting insight into how rumour mills work. After
demanding an interview with the Farben
administrators Coward found himself face to face with
several Farben and S.S. officials.

Through an interpreter he asked: “Is it true that
thousands of civilian prisoners are being gassed and
cremated?”
There was silence for a moment, then a Farben
official laughed. Immediately all at the table were
chuckling good-naturedly. “Utter nonsense...A
crematorium is necessary to serve such a large area
as this, in which many prisoners fall sick and die. It is
hygienic, you must understand.”
“What about the gassing of people who are alive?”
“Fairy tales. Where a great number of workers are
gathered together, one must expect the wildest
rumours.”

In her aforementioned book, Ella-Lingens Reiner
reports a similar encounter with officialdom. After her
arrest she told her Gestapo interrogator that she had
helped Jews to escape because they were being sent
to Poland to be killed; he replied: “You are completely
crazy! The people there are working in factories.” (27)

Another Gentile doctor, Alexander Dering, had
obviously visited the same rumour mill; Dering was a
Pole; he was arrested in July 1940 and was sent to

Auschwitz the following month. He didn’t let on that
he was a doctor because he was afraid he would be
exterminated; German policy was said to be to
murder all the intellectuals and professional classes.
He worked as an orderly, but when the wicked Nazis
found out that he was a doctor, instead of
exterminating him they promoted him. Three years
later he was in charge of the whole camp hospital.
(28)

I don’t dispute that there were rumours of gassings,
but I would like to compare these rumours with
another rumour. One of the craziest so-called
conspiracy theories about AIDS is that it was
manufactured by the US Government at the Fort
Detrick biological warfare center as part of a plot to
rid the United States of African-Americans. There is at
least one spurious memorandum in circulation to that
effect; it has all the authenticity of The Protocols Of
The Learned Elders Of Zion. At one time this
nonsense was apparently taken seriously by many
American blacks. In reality we all of us pay lip service
to all manner of rumours and scurrilous gossip
everyday of our lives. I doubt very much many
denizens of Nazi Germany and its satellites took
claims of mass gassings anymore seriously than did
the average American Negro of the Fort Detrick AIDS
nonsense.

Returning to Ella Lingens-Reiner’s book, as with all
survivor literature, one must learn to distinguish
between what the witness claims to have seen and
what he – or in this case she – actually experienced.
She reports that after her arrest she was interrogated
“in a fairly civilised manner” because “the period of
arbitrary, purposeless tortures for the sake of
pleasure was past”. (29) In other words, she wasn’t
tortured but assumes other people in the same
position were. Because that’s how the wicked Nazis
behave, isn’t it!?

There can be little doubt though that many people
believed they had seen or even visited gas chambers.
The passage of time has if anything reinforced this
propaganda. When I first began reading Revisionist
literature in the early 80s I was asked by a left wing
workmate about the photographs we had seen of gas
chambers; he was referring specifically to the Dachau
gas chambers. When I told him these were in fact
delousing chambers he shook his head and ridiculed
me, yet that is precisely what they were, and we are
told nowadays that their presentation to the world as
homicidal gas chambers was a mistake. Some
mistake!

It is no doubt true though that some people with
overactive imaginations did contribute to this

nonsense. One such person was Ada Bimko, whom we
have already met. In her testimony at the Belsen Trial
she was asked “Have you ever been into one of the
gas chambers?”

She replied simply “Yes.”

When prompted, she expanded in the following terms

“In August 1944 [when she was working as a doctor
at Auschwitz]...again a new crowd of those selected
for the gas chamber had arrived, and as they were
sick they came covered with a blanket. After two days
we were told to fetch all those blankets from the gas
chamber. I took the opportunity, as I always wanted
to see with my own eyes this ill-famed gas chamber,
and I went. I did go into this crematorium.” (30)

It is clear from the above passage that what the good
doctor refers to as a “gas chamber” was in reality no
such thing.

Another quite remarkable but little known testimony
can be found in a book by another female Auschwitz
survivor.

smoke over birkenau by Seweryna Szmaglewska was
published in New York in 1947; in this book the
author says that women would take a long, hot steam
bath then a cold shower and then they were sprayed
with “some evil-smelling liquid, with which they
disinfect your head”. This was clearly a precaution
against typhus, which was rampant in the
concentration camp system. Then she goes on:

“It had been announced that while the women took
their bath their clothes would be disinfected in the gas
chamber and in a steam kettle. But actually it turned
out that the men working in the gas chambers could
not catch up with their work. So we wait naked, in the
big, cold hall.”

Gas chambers, she says, but clearly she does not
mean homicidal gas chambers.

“After an hour the first batch of gassed clothes is
brought.”

Then a bit later she says that everything the women
in the hospital own is stripped from them and sent to
the gas chamber. She even gives a detailed
description of the gassing of clothes and says that
“Two rooms adjoin the gas chamber - one for the
storage of coal and coke, the other for the disinfected
clothes.”

On pages 174-7 of her book the author gives a
remarkable description of a delousing. Clothes appear
to have been deloused with Zyklon B in the open air.
The women were deloused a thousand at a time, quite
naked. Nice work if you can get it.

One thing which is striking about this book is that the
inmates appear to have moved freely about the camp,
and of course you will recall that some even went ice
skating.

There can be little doubt that the reports of mass
gassings based on the flimsiest of evidence coupled
with the myriad lies that have been and are
continually parroted about the Holocaust to this day
taint the subject more than any other event in
history. Much of the evidence for the existence of an
extermination programme was generated at trials
which were likewise tainted. In an earlier era, legal
tribunals made findings of fact to the effect that
women had copulated with the Devil; in some ways
those judgments were less tainted; confessions were
not always extracted by torture, and denuded old
women with no fear of death sometimes proved
credible witnesses, more so than many of those tried
by their vanquishers in the aftermath of the bloodiest
war in history.

In the British courts, if a conviction is sufficiently
tainted, it will be quashed by the Court of Appeal.
Certainly if prosecution witnesses lie repeatedly under
oath – as police officers often do – and if the forensic
evidence is doubtful, non-existent, or even
impossible, then the court will say enough, and the
conviction will fail. It may be that the accused will
never be completely exonerated, but he will to all
intents and purposes be considered innocent, and
may even be eligible for compensation.

The historian though is not a jury, or a judge, and he
is certainly not a tribunal of appeal. Unlike a judge
who may exclude evidence, which is considered
tainted or prejudicial, the historian, the honest
historian, must consider all the evidence.

There is an old apocryphal tale related many centuries
ago by one of those clever Greek geezers named
Aesop, I’m sure you’re all familiar with it, it’s known
as the boy who cried wolf. Throughout the ages, men
and women of all races have cried wolf, often
innocently, but sometimes for self-aggrandisement,
for some deeper motive, revenge perhaps, or even for
the sheer hell of it. I think it is fair to say that the
Jews have cried wolf more often than most, certainly
since the establishment of the State of Israel. The
wolf they claim to see is an anti-Semitic wolf; they
imagine anti-Semitism everywhere and in everyone.

Hillary Clinton, the most politically correct person in
Arkansas has been smeared as anti-Semitic, as has
George Bush Senior, the singer Shirley Bassey, and
the son of Yehudi Menhuin.

It is the punishment of a liar that he will not be
believed; when he has lied so long and so persistently
and so gratuitously, when the lies trip off his tongue
with such effortless guile, there comes a point when
we, when the world, will say enough is enough, go
away and take your lies with you. This is the case
with the Holocaust, and I was just coming to this
point, having endured decades of the same lies:
having seen delousing chambers persistently
misrepresented as gas chambers, having seen
retouched, or outright faked photographs – of which
there are many – having listened to the most
ludicrous nonsense such as the story of the bear and
the eagle at Buchenwald, and seeing otherwise
cynical people like journalists, pundits and even
powerful politicians lap up these lies without
exercising the slightest critical faculty, I had just
about had enough of the Holohoax. Then I took a
deeper look at the case of Commandant Kramer, and
I arrived at my current position regarding homicidal
gas chambers.

Kramer was sentenced to death and hanged for
crimes allegedly committed at Belsen and Auschwitz.
He was defended at the Belsen Trial by the spirited
Major Winwood, who by his own account met his
client only two to three weeks before the start of the
proceedings. Winwood’s papers – which nobody else
in the world appears to have read – are held by the
Imperial War Museum.

Amongst them is a short dissertation on the Belsen
Trial called Over Their Shoulder. As soon as I read it,
something Winwood said in this paper struck me as
curious; after the indictment was drawn up against
Kramer he expressed relief that he was not to be
charged with crimes allegedly committed at the
Natzweiller camp; this camp, also known as Struthof,
is not to be confused with Stuthof. Kramer had
worked at Struthof too, and after his arrest he had
confessed freely and voluntarily to the murders of 87
Jews – 50 men and 37 women – who had been
gassed for “medical purposes”.

The thought that struck me was why was Kramer so
worried about the Struthof charge when he didn’t
appear worried at all about the Belsen and Auschwitz
charges? It’s a bit like Osama bin Laden being
arrested in New York and telling his lawyer he’s afraid
he’ll be deported as an illegal alien. And the answer I
came up with, and I stress this is only my answer, is
that Kramer’s confession to the Struthof murders was

bona fide; charges had been put to him, and he had
admitted them, whereas he had not participated in
murder or brutalities at either Belsen or Auschwitz, at
least no more than prison guards of that era normally
did. In short, his conscience was clear, at least on the
major charges against him.

A word now about the conditions the British, the
Americans and the Russians found in these camps. It
is all too easy for us today sitting in out centrally
heated living rooms in front of our computer screens
to look at these scenes and recoil in horror, but what
we must remember is that not only were these
conditions caused primarily by the chaotic situation in
a Reich that was being battered on all sides, but that
prisoners – be they Jews, politicals or simply common
criminals – are always at the bottom of the food
chain, and on top of that, that this was a different
era.

Nowadays if a family or an individual doesn’t own a
refrigerator, or a telephone, or a TV set, that family or
person is considered poor. How many families had
refrigerators in the 1940s? Television was all but
unknown, and although telephones had been around
since the previous century, people didn’t walk around
with them in their pockets as they do today.
Conditions for ordinary working people were spartan,
at times harsh, conditions for prisoners were even
more so. Kramer was in charge of these camps, so
ultimately the responsibility fell on his shoulders, but
the question we should ask ourselves is had we been
in his position, would we have been any different? I
suggest that if we had been in charge of these camps
most of us would have ended up like him, in the dock,
and then swinging on the end of a rope.

Now, Struthof, Kramer made his confession to Major
Jadin on July 26, 1945; curiously, in a book edited by
self-styled Nazi hunter Serge Klarsfeld, the arch anti-
Revisionist Jean-Claude Pressac states uncaterogically
that the way in which Kramer claimed the gassings
were carried out “cannot be considered credible. He
would have ended up gassing himself.”

Kramer described a chemically impossible reaction
“Because of the absurdity of this modus operandi and
his ignorance about the substances involved, some
quite legitimate historical suspicion has weighed on
the procedure and on the very existence of the gas
chamber at Struthof.” (31)

The gassings were said to have been carried out on
three days (in the evening) in August 1943. Kramer
said he gassed a total of 80-85 individuals on 4 or 5
different occasions, ie in total.

It is ironic that the Klarsfelds of all people cannot see
the absurdity of this claim. Small scale gassings were
impossible – as described by Kramer – but mass
gassings, question them at your peril. Indeed in
Germany as I am sure you know it is a criminal
offence even to suggest such gassings didn’t happen,
not that they couldn’t have happened but simply that
they didn’t happen.

It is my considered opinion that whatever technical
mistakes Kramer made in this statement, he did
indeed participate in these – by comparison – small
scale acts of mass murder at this particular camp.
Clear as his conscience was on the major charges, he
was still a mass murderer; okay, he was only a
technician, he was only following orders, only doing
his job, as the saying goes, but the orders he followed
were clearly illegal. Jews were never outlaws in Nazi
Germany, and whatever deprivations they suffered in
the Hitler era, from his accession to power to
September 1939 and later, it was always a criminal
offence to murder Jews per se, and I am convinced
that however many people Hitler murdered in his
bombing campaign against Britain, a campaign that
was murderous on both sides, however many British
and other soldiers his troops killed on the battlefield,
that neither he nor anyone at the top of the Nazi
hierarchy ordered the extermination of Jews in gas
chambers.

The gassings – i.e. the acts of murder – that were
carried out in Struthof, and very likely were carried
out on a small scale in other camps, were
unsanctioned acts which were punishable under Nazi
law.

We know that the British in particular had an
extremely competent and incredibly devious black
propaganda department, the Special Operations
Executive, and that this department under the control
of Sefton Delmer churned out atrocity propaganda by
the bucketload. It is my belief that the extermination
programme was a child of this British black
propaganda, and that small scale acts of mass murder
– if I may use that oxymoron – were magnified and
distorted out of all proportion, until like many
similarly successful propaganda campaigns, it took on
a life of its own; the witchcraft hysteria of an earlier
age is a good example of this.

In closing, I will say that it is important for
Revisionists to face these facts; we must not fall into
the trap of Nazi apologetics, and we must certainly
not try to outdo the Zionist propaganda machine in
guile and cunning; in the first instance, they are so
much more devious, sly and cunning than us that we
must be on a loser from the start. In the second

instance, unless we learn from the mistakes of the
past, we are doomed forever to repeat them. The
foreign policies of the United States, of the United
Kingdom, and of nearly all the Western powers
towards the Middle East have been based on
misunderstandings, wilful distortions and at times the
most outrageous lies for at least the past half century.
Only by facing and exposing the lies, and the real
crimes of all the Western powers of those past eras,
and of today, can we pave the way to a just and
peaceful world. Nowhere is this more important than
here, for the people of the Middle East, and most
especially at this time for the people of Iran.

Notes And References

(1) ESAU’S TEARS Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise
of the Jews, by Albert S. Lindemann, published by
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1997), page
ix.
(2) Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, page x, (ibid).
(3) Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? The “Final
Solution” in History, by Arno J. Mayer, published by
Verso, London, (1990), pages 451-2.
(4) The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century, by A.R. Butz,
Second Edition, published by Historical Review Press,
Brighton, Sussex, (1977), page 34.
(5) Butz, Hoax Of The Twentieth Century, page 191,
(ibid).
(6) At that time the Daily Mail was a broadsheet
newspaper, and somewhat upmarket from today’s
version, but the point should be taken.
(7) Time ‘Too Painful’ to Remember, by Aril Goldman,
published in the New York Times, November 10,
1988, (Late Edition), page A10.
(8) No charges were in fact filed although
subsequently attempts were made to destroy me by
other means.
(9) The charges were a bit more complicated than
that but basically all three were indicted primarily
because they had endorsed claims of Jewish ritual
murder. Leese and his printer were convicted on
lesser charges and fined; Whitehead paid the fine but
Leese elected to martyr himself by serving a gaol
sentence. On his release he published a thoroughly
documented pamphlet on the subject. Unlike the
rabidly anti-Semitic Leese, the well-meaning but
gullible Lady Birdwood published her self-financed
pamphlets with the best of intentions; infamy was her
only reward.
(10) Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?...,
page 362, (ibid).
(11) INDUSTRIAL POISONS IN THE UNITED STATES,
by Alice Hamilton, published by Macmillan, New York,
(1925), page 347.
(12) Hamilton, Industrial Poisons In The United
States, page 346, (ibid).

(13) Although he admitted killing Rabin, Amir actually
pleaded not guilty, a plea which understandably cut
no ice with the court.
(14) TRIAL OF JOSEF KRAMER AND FORTY-FOUR
OTHERS (The Belsen Trial), Edited by Raymond
Phillips, Foreword by the Right. Hon. Lord Jowitt,
published by William Hodge, London, (1949), page
657.
(15) In 1953, an RAF engineer named Ronald
Maddison died after being subjected to sarin gas
testing at Porton Down chemical warfare centre. It
was not until November 2004 that an inquest jury
returned a verdict of unlawful killing; a previous
inquest had returned a verdict of death by
misadventure.
(16) LAW REPORTS OF TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS
Selected and prepared by THE UNITED NATIONS WAR
CRIMES COMMISSION VOLUME II THE BELSEN TRIAL,
published by HMSO, London, (1947), page ix.
(17) Belsen Law Report, (ibid), page 87.
(19) Belsen Law Report, (ibid), page 130-31.
(21) WO235/13, page 139.
(22) PRISONERS OF FEAR, by Ella Lingens-Reiner,
Doctor of Medicine and Law of the University of
Vienna, With an Introduction by Arturo Barea,
published by Victor Gollancz, London, (1948), page
34.
(23) The Password is Courage, by John Castle,
published by Souvenir Press, London, (1954). 3rd
Impression. [John Castle is the pseudonym of Ronald
Charles Payne and John Williams Garrod]. This book
has to be read to be believed, or perhaps not to be
believed.
(24) Castle, The Password Is Courage, pages 89-90,
(ibid).
(25) Castle, The Password Is Courage, pages 139-42,
(ibid).
(26) Castle, The Password Is Courage, page 160,
(ibid).
(26) Castle, The Password Is Courage, page 177,
(ibid).
(27) Lingens-Reiner, Prisoners Of Fear, page 3, (op
cit).
(28) Dr Dering’s story is related in the book Auschwitz
In England, which was written in the wake of the libel
case he brought against the Jewish author Leon Uris.
After the War he was branded a war criminal but was
subsequently cleared; in reality he had been a leading
figure in the Auschwitz underground resistance and
due to his position in the camp hierarchy had
doubtless been forced to make hard choices.
(29) Lingens-Reiner, Prisoners Of Fear, page 4, (op
cit).
(30) WO235/13, page 138. This testimony was given
on the 5th day of the trial, September 21, 1945.

(31) THE STRUTHOF ALBUM...A photographic
document, by Jean-Claude Pressac, Edited by Serge
Klarsfeld, published by the Beate Klarsfeld
Foundation, New York, (1985), page 5.

Alexander Baron comments on the conference

Top | Home
©-free 2006 Adelaide Institute

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN - Tehran International Conference
"Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision 10-12 December 2006

____________________________

Program Tuesday, 12 December 2006

Jürgen Graf
Material evidence, documentary evidence and
eyewitness testimony in the “Holocaust”
controversy

No one denies the persecution of the Jews during the
Second World War. Large parts of the Jewish
populations in all countries controlled by National
Socialist Germany were deported to concentration
camps or ghettos in the East.

In the ghettos, and even more so in the camps, the
mortality was at certain times appallingly high. This
was mainly due to disease, especially the dreaded
spotted fever, which is spread by lice and which the
Germans never managed to get under control. The
worst mortality figures for Auschwitz, the largest
camp, were registered during the second half of 1942,
when an epidemic of spotted fever killed a large part
of the camp’s population: between the 7th and the
11th of September 1942, the daily death-rate was
375[1].

In the western camps such as Dachau,
Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen, where sanitary
conditions were better than in the east, mortality was
relatively low until late 1944. But then, the situation
dramatically worsened. According to the official
statistics, of the 27,900 prisoners who died in Dachau

between 1940 and 1945, no fewer than 15,400
perished in the first four months of 1945, more than
in the five preceding years[2].

When British and American troops liberated the
western camps in April 1945, they found many
thousands of corpses and walking skeletons. The
horrific mortality during the last months of these
camps’ operation was a direct result of general
German collapse, for which the Western Allies
themselves were in part responsible; after all, they
had systematically destroyed the German
infrastructure with their ruthless terror bombings. A
British physician, Dr Russell Barton, who had spent a
month in the Bergen-Belsen camp, remarked in a
report:

“Visiting journalists interpreted the situation
according to the needs of propaganda at home. […]
German officers told me that it had been increasingly
difficult to transport food to the camp for some
months. Anything that moved on the autobahns was
likely to be bombed. […] I became convinced,
contrary to popular opinion, that there had never
been a policy of deliberate starvation. This was
confirmed by the large number of well-fed inmates.
[…] The major reason for the state at Belsen were
diseases, gross overcrowding by central authority,
lack of law and order in the huts, and inadequate
supplies of food, water and drugs.”[3]

Up to the present day, the gruesome pictures taken
then by the allied journalists are regularly presented
by the media as proof of the “Holocaust”, although
every single historian agrees that they show the
corpses of people who had died from epidemics.
(Incidentally, the majority of victims in most western
camps were non-Jewish.)

This tragedy, terrible as it was, is not what is called
the “Holocaust”. According to the official version of
History, the Jews were not only persecuted, but also
systematically exterminated by the German National
Socialists in specially created “extermination camps”.
Millions of Jews are said to have been horribly
murdered in homicidal gas chambers and, to a much
lesser extent, in gas vans. Moreover, the Germans are
accused of having shot more than a million Jews in
the occupied Soviet territories,

For us revisionists, the homicidal gas chambers and
gas vans are an invention of propaganda, just like
“Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction”,
which served as a pretext for the Anglo-American
invasion of Iraq in early 2003. The founder of
revisionism, French resistance fighter Paul Rassinier,
who had been an inmate of two concentration camps

himself, called the Jewish extermination story “the
most macabre hoax of all time”. According to the
revisionists, the Germans never planned to
exterminate the Jews, and the traditional six million
figure is an irresponsible exaggeration. (As a matter
of fact, the wartime documents allow the conclusion
that about 300,000 Jews died in the German
concentration camps[4].) These three points – the
extermination plan, the gas chambers and the six
million figure – are the pillars of the orthodox
“Holocaust” story. As for the killings of Jews on the
Eastern front, the revisionists do not dispute that
many Jews were shot, but they regard the figures
mentioned in the orthodox “Holocaust” literature as
wildly exaggerated. Most of these shootings occurred
as reprisals for attacks by the partisan movement, in
which Jews were strongly represented.

If the official version of history is true, then the
German National Socialists did indeed perpetrate a
crime of unprecedented magnitude, and the Jews’ fate
was truly unique in its cruelty, as the Jews incessantly
claim. On the other hand, if we Revisionists are right,
the Jews’ fate, while still deplorable, was by no means
unique: persecution of religious and ethnic minorities,
mass deportations, high mortality in overcrowded
camps, the killing of civilians – all this has happened
countless times in history.

In order to decide which side is right, we shall now
examine the evidence. I will concentrate on the
question of the homicidal gas chambers. If these
chemical slaughterhouses did not exist, then the
whole “Holocaust” story immediately collapses. In this
case, there can have been no plan to exterminate the
Jews of Europe, because there was no murder
weapon, and the six million figure becomes impossible
because the several millions of Jews who were
formerly alleged to have been gassed have to be
subtracted from the sum of six million.

2. The Hierarchy of Evidence

Permit me a short digression. By means of two simple
examples, I shall demonstrate that there exists a
generally recognized hierarchy of evidence.

Let us assume that someone has found an old
manuscript according to which at a certain place there
once stood a large city unknown to history.
Archaeologists perform excavations in the respective
area, but find nothing. As it is impossible that a large
city should disappear without leaving the slightest
trace, the archaeologists will inevitably conclude that
the claims made in the manuscript are false. This
does not necessarily mean that the manuscript is a
forgery: it may be authentic, but if this is the case, it

conveys not a historical fact, but a myth. This
example shows that material evidence is more reliable
than documentary evidence.

A second example will demonstrate the superiority
of documentary evidence as compared to eyewitness
testimony. Two witnesses accuse a person of having
committed a crime at a certain place and a certain
time. The defendant claims that at that moment he
was staying at a hotel 1000 miles away from the
scene of the crime. The hotel register confirms his
statement. Under these circumstances, the defendant
will doubtless be acquitted. The documentary
evidence – the hotel register – will be considered of
higher value than the statements of the witnesses,
who may either have erred in good faith or
deliberately lied in order to harm the defendant.

Thus, we have established a hierarchy of evidence:
the material evidence comes first, followed by the
documentary evidence, while eyewitness testimony is
the most unreliable and thus the least valuable
evidence. All this is perfectly known to every judge
and should also be known to every self-respecting
historian.

3. The evidence of the orthodox “Holocaust”
historians

If millions of Jews were indeed gassed, we should
expect to see an overwhelming volume of evidence
for this unique atrocity: indisputably genuine
homicidal gas chambers or at least blueprints of such
chambers, mass graves with victims’ remains and
plenty of documentary evidence. Indeed, such a crime
would have required an elaborate organization, and
the idea that this organization could have functioned
without written orders, or that the Germans could
have managed to destroy every single incriminating
document before the end of the war, is highly
implausible. But when we read the orthodox
“Holocaust” literature attentively, we soon realize that
the gas chamber claims are almost exclusively based
on eyewitness testimony. The most important
evidence, material evidence, is totally lacking. The so-
called “homicidal gas chambers” which the tourists
visit at a few former camps were in reality morgues
(such as the ones at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-
Birkenau) or delousing chambers (such as the ones at
Majdanek). A technical analysis conclusively shows
that these alleged “homicidal gas chambers” could not
have functioned as such. But this is not my topic: it is
an aspect that will be dealt with by another speaker.

Although the orthodox historians often claim that
there are mountains of documents corroborating the

extermination thesis, they can produce merely a
handful of documents, a careful examination of which
shows that they prove nothing of the kind. For
decades, the protocol of the Wannsee conference was
presented as a key document. On January 20, 1942,
high-ranking German functionaries had met at the
Wannsee villa near Berlin to discuss anti-Jewish
measures; their discussions were subsequently
summarized in a protocol. Some revisionist authors
have demonstrated that the authenticity of this
protocol is highly dubious[5], but even if it is genuine,
it constitutes no proof whatsoever of the “Holocaust”,
since it does not contain a single word about an
extermination policy or gas chambers. In 1992, Israeli
“Holocaust” expert Yehuda Bauer candidly admitted
that “Wannsee” was “a silly story”[6]. Unfortunately,
this “silly story” still figures in German schoolbooks.

The last researcher to have made a halfway serious
attempt to produce documentary evidence for the
existence of homicidal gas chambers was the late
Frenchman Jean-Claude Pressac. In two books, which
appeared in 1989 and 1993 respectively[7], Pressac
quoted documents of the Central Construction Office
of Auschwitz which contain references to gas-tight
doors, a gassing cellar, gas detectors etc. Now these
documents indeed furnish strong evidence for the
existence of gas chambers, but not necessarily of
homicidal ones. All major camps including Auschwitz
had delousing chambers which primarily served for
destroying lice, the carriers of spotted fever, by
means of Zyklon-B, a pesticide containing prussic
acid. These delousing chambers were sometimes
officially called “gas chambers”; thus the title of a
booklet published in 1943 was “Prussic acid gas
chambers as an instrument in the fight against
spotted fever”.[8] In their answers to Pressac, Prof.
Robert Faurisson[9] and other revisionist scholars[10]
could demonstrate that all documents quoted by
Pressac can easily be interpreted as referring to
delousing operations, so that they constitute no
evidence for the gassing of human beings.

Ten years ago, in September 1996, an anti-
revisionist French historian, Jacques Baynac,
conceded that there was no scientific evidence for the
existence of homicidal gas chambers; he wrote:

“For the scientific historian a witness report does
not constitute history. It is a part of history. And a
witness report has not much weight; many witness
reports do not have any more weight if no solid
document corroborates them. […] Either we abandon
the priority of the archives, and in this case, history is
disqualified as a science and must be reclassified as
an art. Or we maintain the priority of the archives,
and in this case we are forced to admit that the lack

of traces makes it impossible to furnish any direct
proof of the existence of the homicidal gas
chambers.”[11]

Having noted the absence of material and
documentary evidence, one sees that the whole
“Holocaust” story rests entirely upon the reports of
so-called eyewitnesses and the confessions of alleged
perpetrators. This alone should be a reason for deep
scepticism. As the American revisionist Prof. Arthur
Butz has aptly remarked, we need no eyewitness
reports or confessions to know that Dresden and
Hiroshima were actually bombed and destroyed[12].

Let us now take a look at these eyewitness
reports.

4) The evolution of the eyewitness reports

Starting in late 1941, Jewish organisations in the
allied and neutral countries inundated the world with
all kind of lurid stories about an ongoing
“extermination” of the Jews in the territories
controlled by Germany. When reading these accounts,
we note that they do not mesh with today’s version of
the “Holocaust”. According to the latter, the Jews
were put to death with the pesticide Zyklon-B in
Auschwitz, whereas in the so-called “eastern
extermination camps” of Belzec, Treblinka and
Sobibor, they were killed using the exhaust fumes
from Diesel engines. But the stories told during the
war were different.

Let us begin with the alleged “extermination camps”
in eastern Poland. According to the rumours spread
by the Jewish organizations, the Jews were being
exterminated by means of electric current in the
Belzec camp. In 1945, Jewish writer Stefan Szende
described the killing procedure in the following way[13]:

“The death factory comprises an area approximately
7 kilometres in diameter. […] The trains filled with
Jews entered the underground rooms of the execution
factory. […] The naked Jews were brought into
gigantic halls. The floor was of metal and was
submergible. The floors of these halls, with their
thousands of Jews, were sunk into a water basin
which lay beneath – but only far enough so that the
people on the metal plate were not entirely under
water. After a few moments all the Jews, thousands
of them, were dead. Then the metal plate was raised
out of the water. On it lay the corpses of the
murdered victims. Another shock of electric current
was sent through, and the metal plate became a
crematory oven, white hot, until all the bodies were
burnt to ashes. […] Modern technology triumphed in

the Nazi system. The problem of how to exterminate
millions of people was solved.”

A different version of the electric current murder
system survived till after the war. In 1945, the Polish
government, in its official report on the German
crimes in Poland, which was presented by the Soviets
at the Nuremberg trial, claimed that at Belzec the
Jews had been pushed into a building wherein a
strong electric current passed through the floor[14].

Another no less grotesque version of the alleged
mass murders at Belzec was supplied by a non-Jewish
Pole, Jan Karski. According to him, the Jews were
crowded into trains the floors of which had been
covered by a thick layer of quicklime, which burned
them to death whilst eating the flesh from their
bones[15].

Even more significant is the case of Treblinka, the
most famous of the so-called “eastern extermination
camps”. Some of the reports spread by the Jewish
organizations shortly after the camp was opened in
July 1942 did indeed mention gas chambers, but
never spoke of a Diesel engine. One of these reports
described a mobile gas chamber moving between the
mass graves[16], whilst another stated that the
Germans used a gas with delayed effect allowing the
victims to leave the chamber and to walk to the
graves, whereupon they swooned and fell into the
graves[17]. However, the dominant version was that of
hot steam. In a long report dating from November 15,
1942, the resistance movement of the Warsaw ghetto
claimed that at Treblinka no fewer than two million
Jews had been murdered by means of hot steam
within four months[18]. On 24 August 1944, after the
Red Army had conquered the area around Treblinka,
the story changed again: now a Soviet commission
stated in its report that the Germans had suffocated
three million people by pumping the air out of the
death chambers[19].

At that time, the atrocity-story mongers were
obviously not yet sure which of the three versions
would eventually prevail. In 1945, Jewish Soviet
propagandist Vasili Grossmann published a booklet
called The Hell of Treblinka[20]; according to him, all
three methods – steam, gas and pumping of the air
from the chambers – had been used simultaneously.
At the Nuremberg trial, the Polish government chose
the steam version. On December 14, 1945, it issued a
document in which the extermination procedure was
described as follows[21]:

“All victims had to strip off their clothes and shoes,
which were collected afterwards, whereupon all
victims, women and children first, were driven into

the death chambers. […] After being filled to capacity,
the chambers were hermetically closed, and steam
was let in. In a few minutes, all was over.”

As to the third of the alleged “Eastern extermination
camps”, Sobibor, some witnesses said that the victims
were killed by means of chlorine[22], while others
preferred to tell of a mysterious heavy black
substance coming down in swirls from openings in the
death chambers’ ceilings[23].

The version now found in the official Holocaust
literature, to wit that the Jews were exterminated by
means of exhaust fumes from a Diesel engine in all
three camps, triumphed as late as in 1947. As it was
utterly incredible that the Germans should have used
a wide range of totally different killing methods in
camps run by the same administration, the Polish
authorities chose the method which at first sight
seemed the most likely one. But technically, the
Diesel engine story does not make sense: since the
exhausts of a Diesel engine contain high quantities of
oxygen, but only little carbon monoxide, such engines
would have been a very poor murder weapon indeed;
any petrol-burning engine would have been ten times
more efficient[24]. The origin of the Diesel story is to be
found in the Gerstein report. Kurt Gerstein, a mentally
deranged SS officer who died mysteriously in French
captivity in July 1945, had confessed two months
before his death that he had witnessed a mass
gassing at Belzec by means of a Diesel engine.
Gerstein claimed that 700 to 800 Jews were crowded
into a gas chamber of 25 square meters, which means
that up to 32 people were standing in the space of a
square meter! According to him, between 20 and 25
million people had been gassed. Although the absurd
Gerstein report has been totally demolished by two
Revisionist researchers, the Frenchman Henri
Roques[25] and the Italian Carlo Mattogno[26], it is still a
cornerstone of the orthodox “Holocaust” story.

As for Auschwitz, the evolution of the extermination
story is hardly less revealing. According to the
“Holocaust” literature, most of the victims were killed
with Zyklon-B in the subterranean morgues of the
Crematoria II and III of Birkenau which had been
transformed into homicidal gas chambers. However,
as Spanish researcher Enrique Aynat has
demonstrated in an excellent study[27], during the war
some totally different stories were being told. Aynat
examined the reports which the Delegatura, an
organization representing the Polish government in
exile, had written about the Auschwitz camp between
October 1941 and July 1944. Thanks to the constant
stream of prisoners who were released from
Auschwitz or transferred to other camps, the agents
of the Delegatura were extremely well informed about

what was going on in the camp. While they indeed
claimed mass murders at Auschwitz, not a single one
of the 32 reports mentioned Zyklon B as a murder
weapon or the Crematoria of Birkenau as the place of
killing. According to the reports, the victims were put
to death in “electric baths” or by means of a so-called
“pneumatic hammer”. In some of the reports, this
“pneumatic hammer” was an air-gun, in others a
mobile ceiling crashing onto the heads of the inmates
in the death chambers. In some of the reports, gas
chambers were indeed mentioned. However, these
gas chambers were not in the morgues of the
crematoria, but “huge halls with windows through
which the gas was thrown in”. Only in November 1944
did the official Auschwitz version take shape. In that
month the War Refugee Board, a Washington-based
organization led by the Jewish Secretary of the
Treasury Henry Morgenthau, published the report of
two young Slovakian Jews, Rudolf Vrba and Alfred
Wetzler, who had managed to flee from Auschwitz in
April 1944. In their report, the crematoria of Birkenau
were described as containing homicidal gas chambers
in which the Jews were murdered with Zyklon-B[28].
This was the birth of the official version of the
Auschwitz myth[29].

For the orthodox historians, all this is terribly
embarrassing. Since all extermination methods save
the gas chambers have been relegated to the dustbins
of history, all witnesses who described mass murder
by steam, electricity, quicklime, “pneumatic
hammers” etc. must necessarily have lied. Of course,
the official historians are unable to explain why the
eyewitness reports of gas chambers should be more
credible than the thoroughly discredited ones
specifying other slaughter methods. For this reason,
they simply hush up these stories. In his immense
three-volume work The Destruction of the European
Jews, Raul Hilberg does not mention them at all, so
that it never occurs to the reader that the “Holocaust”
story has undergone a fundamental change since the
original reports. Whereas Hilberg is at least decent
enough not to resort to direct forgery, leading Israeli
“Holocaust specialist” Yitzhak Arad does precisely
that. In his book about Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka,
he summarizes the report of the resistance movement
of the Warsaw ghetto of November 15, 1942, but
shamelessly distorts the text by replacing the
embarrassing “steam chambers” by “gas
chambers”![30]

5. Do the eyewitness reports corroborate or
contradict each other?

Ill-informed opponents of revisionism often argue that
the gas chamber witnesses cannot possibly have

invented the same stories independently from each
other. Therefore, these people argue, the gassing
story must essentially be true, even if the number of
victims may have been exaggerated. This argument is
fundamentally flawed because the witnesses do not
tell the same stories, and their reports do not tally
with but rather blatantly contradict each other. A
simple example will suffice to illustrate this point[31].

In his book The Final Solution, which is still
considered a classic of “Holocaust” literature, British-
Jewish historian Gerald Reitlinger describes the
alleged homicidal gassings in Crematoria II and III of
Auschwitz-Birkenau[32]. His description is based on
excerpts of the declarations of three eyewitnesses:
the Polish Jewess Ada Bimko, the Hungarian Jew Dr
Miklos Nyiszli and the Romanian Jew Dr Charles
Sigismund Bendel. If you read only Reitlinger’s text,
you will notice no contradictions; the three witnesses’
accounts seem to complete each other. But as soon
as you read the full text of their statements, the
situation radically changes. According to Ada Bimko,
the “gas chamber” was connected with the
crematorium by a narrow-gauge railway. As a matter
of fact, the alleged “gas chamber”, which was in
reality nothing but an ordinary morgue, and the
crematoria ovens were situated on different floors of
the building[33]. In other words: Ada Bimko had never
seen the interior of the crematory and can therefore
not have been a witness to any events taking place
there.

Thanks to the preserved blueprints of the
crematoria, the dimensions of the morgues of
Crematoria II and III, which allegedly served as gas
chambers, are known. These rooms were 30 metres
long, 7 metres wide and 2.4 metres high[34]. According
to the witness Nyiszli, who claimed to have worked in
Crematorium II for several months, the length of the
“gas chamber” was 200 metres[35]. No less surprising
is the description by the witness Bendel, who claimed
that the “gas chamber” was ten metres long, four
metres wide and 1.6 metres high[36]. Incidentally, the
latter description means that the witness, except for
small children and midgets, would have had to bend
down inside the chamber. In other words, the three
witnesses not only blatantly contradict each other, but
their descriptions are totally incompatible with the
physical realities of the building they speak about.
The inevitable conclusion is that all three of them
must have lied.

In other cases, the descriptions of the “gas chamber
witnesses” actually mesh, but contain the same
technical and physical impossibilities. In my book
Auschwitz. Perpetrators’ confessions and eyewitness
reports of the Holocaust[37], I have summed up

numerous such impossibilities. Again, one example
will be sufficient. Several witnesses claimed that in
the Auschwitz crematoria ovens, three bodies were
simultaneously burned in one muffle within 20
minutes.

In 1975, a group of British cremation experts
conducted a series of experiments in order to
ascertain the lowest possible duration of the
cremation of an adult corpse. They came to the
conclusion that the minimal duration was 63
minutes[38]. Provided that at Auschwitz three corpses
could be simultaneously introduced into a muffle, the
process of cremation would therefore have lasted
about three hours, which means that the time
mentioned by the witnesses is nine times too low.

Of course, it is impossible that several witnesses
had invented such absurdities independently from
each other: one witness repeated what another had
said or written. In many cases, these witnesses made
their statements shortly after the war at the trials of
Germans accused of participation in the mass murder
of Jews. These trials were organized by the victorious
powers in order to establish that the “Holocaust” was
a historical fact, and as there was no documentary or
material evidence for homicidal gas chambers, the
declarations of – mostly Jewish – former
concentration camp inmates were the only basis of
the accusation. That being the case, it is clear that
the witnesses were thoroughly instructed before the
trials. As these former prisoners had indeed suffered
in the camps, they readily took advantage of the
opportunity to incriminate their former oppressors by
accusing them of every imaginable atrocity.

What the eyewitness reports are worth was
dramatically demonstrated by the case of Frank
Walus. In 1974, “Nazi hunter” Simon Wiesenthal and
his gang accused US citizen Walus, a retired factory
worker of Polish descent, of mind-boggling atrocities
in Poland during the Second World War. No fewer
than eleven Jewish liars testified under oath that
Walus had fiendishly tortured and murdered an old
woman, a girl, several children and a cripple. Walus
finally managed to obtain documents from Germany
which proved that he had not even been in Poland at
the time of the alleged events but was working on a
Bavarian farm[39]. Thus the prosecution’s case
collapsed, and Walus remained a free man till the end
of his life. But thousands of other defendants who had
been incriminated by witnesses no better than the
ones who testified against Walus have been sent to
the gallows or have spent many years in jail.

6. Three key witnesses

Let us now have a look at three key-witnesses of the
alleged homicidal gassings at Auschwitz: Rudolf Vrba,
Henryk Tauber and Filip Müller. As you will remember,
Rudolf Vrba, who had escaped from Auschwitz in April
1944, authored a report about the camp together with
Alfred Wetzler. In this report, the two claimed that,
when the first crematorium of Birkenau was opened in
March 1943, the first gassing operation in the morgue
of this crematorium was witnessed by some unnamed
high officials from Berlin and that 8,000 Jews were
killed in this first gassing. (As the morgue had an area
of 210 square metres, this would mean that 38
victims were standing in the space of one square
metre.) In 1964, Vrba wrote a book entitled I cannot
forgive[40] in which the story had changed somewhat.
Inexplicably, he now claimed that the first
crematorium had been opened in January 1943 and
that the gassing in question had been witnessed by
SS chief Heinrich Himmler himself, although all
historians agree that Himmler last visited Auschwitz in
July 1942. On the other hand, Vrba now contented
himself with 3,000 victims. In 1985, when German-
born Canadian revisionist Ernst Zündel (who, together
with chemist Germar Rudolf, is now the most
prominent political prisoner of the Zionist puppet
regime in Germany) was brought to trial in Toronto
for spreading “false news”, Vrba was the star witness
of the prosecution. But the impostor was mercilessly
cross-examined by Zündel’s lawyer Douglas
Christie[41], who was constantly advised by Robert
Faurisson throughout the whole trial, and finally had
to admit that he had never witnessed this alleged
gassing, but simply repeated a story he had heard
from others; he had used “poetic licence”, to quote
his own words. During his interrogation by Christie,
the swindler insisted that he had personally seen
150,000 French Jews disappear into the Crematoria,
whereupon Christie pointed out that according to
Jewish historian Serge Klarsfeld only 75,721 Jews had
been deported from France during the whole war, and
not all of them to Auschwitz[42].

A second key witness of the “Holocaust” is Henryk
Tauber, a Polish Jew who had worked in one of the
crematoria. At the trial of Rudolf Höss, the first
commandant of Auschwitz, a declaration written by
Tauber after his liberation was presented as evidence
by the prosecution[43]. He stated that, whenever an
allied aeroplane approached the camp, he and his
colleagues had shoved eight corpses into a muffle in
order to ensure that especially high flames shot from
the chimney, thus calling the attention of the pilot to
the mass extermination going on in the camp. Apart
from the fact that no flames shoot from the chimney
of a crematorium, the doors of the muffles were
exactly 60 cm high[44]. The average human body has a

vertical thickness of 20 cm, which means that it would
hardly have been possible to shove three corpses into
a muffle, much less eight. Tauber further testified that
at Auschwitz fat corpses burned without fuel. But
since about 65% of the human body is water, corpses
never burn without fuel; thousands of energy-
consuming crematoria all over the world testify to this
fact. Although Tauber’s statements are nothing but
outlandish nonsense, one Robert Jan van Pelt, whom
some people consider to be the leading expert on
Auschwitz, takes this rubbish seriously and even
praises Tauber as the most reliable witness of all[45]!

Even more hare-brained than the testimony of
Tauber is that of Filip Müller. Müller had been a
member of the so-called “Sonderkommando” of
Auschwitz from spring 1942 till the end of the camp’s
operation in January 1945. According to the legend,
the members of the “Sonderkommando” had to work
in the gas chambers and the crematoria. They were
liquidated every four months and replaced by others.
This means that Müller must have miraculously
survived at least five liquidations. But this was not the
only miracle from which he benefited. In his
nauseating bestseller Sonderbehandlung, which he
wrote 34 years after the war with the help of a ghost-
writer, he related that he had had to undress the
victims who had just been killed by prussic acid in the
gas chamber. Once, he found a piece of cake in the
pocket of a victim and greedily devored it[46]. Since
Müller cannot possibly have worn a gas-mask when
eating this cake, we cannot but conclude that he was
resistant to prussic acid. In his masterwork, Müller
describes how he wanted to die in the gas chamber
together with the other victims, but then a group of
naked Jewish women decided that he had to survive
in order to inform the world of the horrors he had
witnessed, so they seized him by his arms and pushed
him out of the gas chamber[47]. This pathological liar is
the favourite witness of Professor Raul Hilberg. In his
standard work about the “Holocaust”, The Destruction
of the European Jews[48], Hilberg quotes Filip Müller
twenty times as a witness of homicidal gassings at
Auschwitz![49] That is the kind of stuff the “Holocaust”
legend has been made from!

VII. The confessions of the “perpetrators”

After the war, the victors decided to transform the
rumours about German “death factories” into an
“established historical fact”. In my view, there were
three main reasons for this. First of all, the victors
wanted to brand the German nation with the mark of
Cain in order to prevent a resurgence of German
nationalism. Secondly, they wanted to hush up their
own heinous crimes against humanity, such as the

brutal expulsion of over 12 million Eastern Germans
from the land of their ancestors, the destruction of
the city of Dresden where at least 250.000 – 300.000
civilians were murdered without the slightest military
necessity[50], or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki at a time when Japan was already prepared
to surrender. In order to achieve this goal, they found
it convenient to charge the Germans with an atrocity
that made their own misdeeds look pale in
comparison. Thirdly, the “Holocaust” story, which took
its present shape in the years after the war, served as
a justification for the creation of the state of Israel,
which was founded in 1948 with the blessing of both
the United States and the Soviet Union. At the
Nuremberg trial, where the victors hypocritically
judged the vanquished, applying law retrospectively
and resorting to numerous other legal manipulations,
the alleged extermination of the Jews was “proved”
by statements of self-declared “eyewitnesses” and the
“confessions” of German “perpetrators”. These
confessions were frequently extracted by torture. The
most famous case is that of the aforementioned
Rudolf Höss, first commandant of Auschwitz. After his
capture by the British, Höss confessed in April 1946
that no fewer than 2.5 million prisoners had been
gassed at Auschwitz by the end of November 1943,
whilst another 500,000 had perished from starvation
and disease[51]. But according to Franciszek Piper, the
leading historian of the Auschwitz museum, 1.3
million prisoners were brought to Auschwitz during
the period of the camp’s operation[52], and Carlo
Mattogno has shown that even this figure is inflated
by at least 200,000[53]. Höss also declared to have
visited Belzec and Treblinka in 1941, although Belzec
was opened in March 1942 and Treblinka in July of
that year. As British writer Rupert Butler described in
1983 in his book Legions of Death, a team of British
torture specialists led by the Jewish sergeant Bernard
Clarke had savagely beaten Höss for three days
before he finally signed his confession. It was in
English, a language he did not understand[54]!

The fact that the authorities of the Federal Republic
of Germany have always been anxious to go along
with the “Holocaust” story may seem
incomprehensible to the uninformed observer – why
should these people charge their own nation with
imaginary crimes? The answer to this question is that
the so-called “democratic” system, having been
imposed on the western part of Germany, just as a
communist dictatorship was imposed on the eastern
part, tried to legitimize itself in the eyes of the
population by proving the unprecedented cruelty of
National Socialism. This was achieved by an endless
flood of trials where the defendants, who were usually
accused of having murdered Jews, were presented by
the media as beasts in human form; the authorities

forced countless school classes to attend these show-
trials in order to incite them against the generation of
their fathers, who had overwhelmingly supported the
National Socialist regime. Thus the trials played a
crucial part in the re-education of the German nation.
They served to conjure up retrospectively the desired
evidence of murder by the millions in “gas chambers”
through eyewitness narratives and confessions by
alleged culprits - evidence which historiography has
been unable to produce right down to the present
day, due to a total lack of pertinent documents and
material traces. In view of the eminent political
significance of the trials, a former SS-man sitting in
the dock, who wanted a chance at an acquittal or at
least a relatively lenient sentence, could not dispute
the extermination of the Jews; he could at most deny
his own personal guilt or, in case the witnesses
incriminated him too much, claim that he had been
forced to obey orders. This strategy was often
successful. A succinct example of this is furnished by
the case of former SS officer Josef Oberhauser, who
had been stationed in Belzec during the war and was
put on trial in Munich in 1965. In the dock, he
referred to the necessity of following orders, but did
not contest the gassings at Belzec, so once again, the
West German justice system could triumphantly point
out that the defendant had not denied the reality of
the mass murders. Although Oberhauser was found
guilty of assisting in the collective murder of 300,000
people, he nevertheless got off with an incredibly light
sentence of merely four and a half years’
imprisonment[55]. Since he had been taken into
investigative custody in 1960, in 1965 his sentence
was considered served, and he was released shortly
after the verdict. This example shows that the West
German justice system did not need to torture the
defendants to obtain the desired confessions.

In 1977, Adalbert Rückerl, the former director of
the office responsible for the prosecution of alleged
war criminals, wrote a book about the trials[56]. In the
second edition of his classic work about the
Holocaust, The Destruction of the European Jews,
Raul Hilberg quotes Rückerl’s book as a source 41
times. In other words: the German justice system has
“proved” the “Holocaust” through trials where the
declarations of perjured witnesses and the enforced or
enticed confessions of alleged “perpetrators”
constituted the only evidence, and orthodox
“Holocaust” historians like Raul Hilberg have largely
based their findings on the verdicts given at these
trials. And today, the same corrupt German justice
system that had fabricated fake evidence for the
“Holocaust” sends revisionists to jail without ever
examining their arguments, declaring the “Holocaust”
to be an obvious fact proved by the historians!

VIII What do the documents say?

The German documents, which have survived in huge
numbers, prove that the Third Reich indeed wanted to
get rid of the Jewish presence, but not by means of
extermination. Until 1941, Jewish emigration to non-
European territories was strongly encouraged, but
then the war and the large number of Jews living in
the newly conquered territories made a continuation
of this policy impossible, and the German leadership
instead considered implementing what it called a
“territorial final solution” (this expression occurs in a
letter Reinhard Heydrich wrote to foreign minister
Joachim Ribbentrop on June 24th, 1940[57]). After the
big territorial gains of the Third Reich in the early
stages of the war against the Soviet Union, large
numbers of Jews were sent to the occupied territories
in the east, the transit camps on the way being
Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, which in Jewish and
Allied propaganda became “extermination camps”.
Simultaneously, the Reich deported hundreds of
thousands of Jews to concentration camps in order to
exploit their labour. As the extremely high mortality in
some camps, which was mainly due to disease, but
also to poor food and clothing, detracted severely
from the deportees’ economic usefulness, the German
leadership took measures to improve the situation.
Let me quote excerpts from two documents which
deal a devastating blow to the extermination claims.
On December 28th, 1942, concentration camp
inspector Richard Glücks sent a circular to all camp
commanders, making them personally responsible for
keeping the inmates in work-fit condition; he wrote:

“The camp physicians are to pay greater attention
to the inmates’ rations than heretofore, and shall
submit proposals for improvements to the camp
commandant, in agreement with the administration.
These improvements must not remain on paper only,
but must be regularly verified by the camp physicians.
Further, the camp physicians shall see to it that
working conditions at the various work sites are
improved as much as possible. […] The Reichsführer
SS [Heinrich Himmler] has ordered that mortality
absolutely must decrease.”[58]

In fact, this order did result in a very considerable
improvement of conditions in most camps, and
mortality decreased by almost 80% within eight
months[59].

On October 26th 1943, Oswald Pohl, chief of the
Main Office of economic administration of the SS, sent
a directive to all camp commanders demanding
increased productivity; he stated:

“At the present time, inmate manpower is of
significance, and all measures of the commandants,
leaders of the food supply service and doctors must
be aimed at maintaining inmate health and ability to
work. Not from false sentimentality, but rather
because they must contribute to the achievement of a
great victory of the German people, we must
therefore be alert to the well-being of the inmates. I
propose as our first goal: not more than 10% of all
inmates at a time may be unable to work due to
illness. […] This requires: 1) proper and practical diet;
2) proper and practical clothing; 3) making full use of
all natural means for preserving health; 4) avoiding
all unnecessary strain and expenditure of energy not
directly required for work; 5) productivity bonuses.”[60]

Exactly eight days after this directive had been
issued, the Germans are said to have shot no fewer
than 42,000 Jews who had been working in the
armaments plants at Majdanek and two of its sub-
camps! As usual, the reports of self-declared
“eyewitnesses” and the confessions of “perpetrators”
form the only basis of this claim[61]. This sort of thing
deserves to be greeted with roars of contemptuous
laughter.

The objection that the Germans spared only the
work-fit Jews and exterminated those who were
unable to work is categorically refuted by the
documents from Auschwitz, which was supposedly the
biggest killing centre. Since 1990, the so-called
“Sterbebücher” (death books) of Auschwitz, which,
with some gaps, cover the period from August 1941
to December 1943 – the ones for 1944 are missing –
have been accessible to researchers. If, on arrival, the
sick, the old and small children had been sent straight
to the “gas chambers” without registration, as the
orthodox historians claim, there would be no death
certificates of persons over 60 or under 14. As a
matter of fact, at least ten percent of the prisoners
who died at Auschwitz belonged to these two age
categories[62]. That old people and children were
deported at all is certainly shameful, even if the
reason was not sadism, but rather a reluctance to
separate families. On the other hand, if the orthodox
historians were right, there would be no documentary
trace of these people at Auschwitz: all of them would
have been gassed on arrival.

During the whole existence of the Auschwitz camp,
the percentage of prisoners unfit to work was always
very high. For example, on December 31st, 1943, the
camp population was 85,298, of whom no fewer than
19,699, or 23%, belonged to that category[63]. These
people too would have been sent to the “gas
chambers” if the official historians were right. After

Nazi Gas Chambers: One Researcher's View

Nazi Gas Chambers: One Researcher's View

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

More from Muro del Honor Patriotico

More from Muro del Honor Patriotico (20)

Nazi Gas Chambers: One Researcher's View