RSS Feed
November 28th, 2020 
Awake Goy 
Holocaust or Hoax?
by Jürgen Graf
Documentary Proofs of the Holocaust
If a systematic extermination of several million persons had really taken place during WW II, it would have required meticulous organization, involving thousands of persons. An operation on this scale could not possibly take place without a great number of written instructions. Nothing could be done in a strictly hierarchical bureaucratic state like the Third Reich without written orders.
We would therefore expect a flood of documentary proof on the planning and execution of the extermination of the jews. In the meantime, the orthodox historians continue to act as if this were really the case. Thus, Raul Hilberg’s “standard work” on the Holocaust begins with the following introduction (1):
“Raul Hilberg has spent his life collecting and adding to the material for his book. He is considered the best expert on the source documents which, for the most part, originate from the criminals themselves. As thorough as they were, the Germans filed away the evidence of their crimes a hundred thousand times over, with letter heads and service stamps… proving their responsibility for the killings.”
This statement is pure fantasy, as we shall soon see.
Raul Hilberg, Danuta Czech, Jean-Claude Pressac: Three experts reach into their bag of tricks
a) Raul Hilberg scrapes the bottom of the barrel
A curious reader dipping into Hilberg’s standard work entitled The Destruction of the European Jews is condemned to wait 927 pages before stumbling upon the “extermination camps”, and another 100 pages until the “extermination operations” are described. This means that Hilberg uses 1,027 pages before arriving at the topic which gives the book its title! Just a few pages further along, on page 1,046, he starts writing about the “Evacuation of the Extermination Centres and the End of the Extermination Process”. This means that, out of a total of 1,308 pages of text, fewer than 20 are dedicated to the “extermination procedure”! And these fewer than 20 page are a miserable flop.
The “hundreds of thousands” of documentary proofs of German mass murder promised in the introduction are simply never produced; Hilberg’s only proof of mass murders in the extermination camps are the eyewitnesses, the confessions of war criminals, and the judgements of trials (in turn based exclusively on eyewitnesses and confessions by the accused). Among Hilberg’s favourite witnesses are Kurt Gerstein and Filip Mueller. Although we will discuss the eyewitnesses only in the following chapter, a few remarks on these star eyewitnesses are called for here:
Kurt Gerstein, an SS sanitation officer, who allegedly died by suicide in July 1945 in French imprisonment, is the star witness for the extermination of the jews in Belzec. As shown by the French researcher Henri Roques, there are no less than six versions of his “confession”, each of which deviates considerably from the others (2). According to Gerstein, 20 or 25 million people were gassed (according to which confession you consult). At Belzec, according to Gerstein, 700-800 persons were crushed into a gas chamber 25-m2, i.e., 28 to 32 persons per square metre. Gerstein also claims to have seen piles of clothing and shoes 35 to 40 metres high!
Filip Mueller’s book Sonderbehandlung (3) (English title Eyewitness Auschwitz) is cited no less than sixteen times by Hilberg in the 20 relevant pages. On p. 207 ff of his disgusting botch job, Mueller describes the method of open-air cremation utilized in disposing of the bodies of the many thousands of “Hungarian” jews gassed and burned every day in the early summer of 1944: three layers of bodies were laid in deep ditches and burnt using wood for fuel. Fat from the bodies was then supposedly used for extra fuel. The fat is alleged to have flowed down during the cremation process into small grooves especially provided and dug in the earth, leading to a container. The members of the Sonderkommando are supposed to have scooped up the burning fat from the containers and poured it over the bodies to make them burn better!
Of course, this is complete nonsense. Due to the deficient oxygen supply, the bodies in the ditches would merely be charred, and would not burn (4). The fat from the bodies would, of course be the first thing to be burned, and if, nevertheless, it did run into the grooves, it would have ignited at the first spark (5).
On p. 74, Mueller offers us the following tale:
“From time to time, The SS doctors came into the crematorium… Before the executions, both doctors, like cattle traders, felt the thighs and buttocks of the still-living men and women, in order to select the ‘best parts’. After the shooting, the victims were placed on the table. Then the doctors cut pieces off still-warm flesh from the thighs and buttocks and threw it into waiting buckets. The muscles of the recently-shot were still moving and throwing convulsions, causing the buckets to jump about.”
That is Filip Mueller, Raul Hilberg’s favourite witness, cited 16 times in the crucial 20 pages dealing with the mass extermination!
Hilberg cannot conceal the fact that there are no documents relating to any plan to exterminate the jews. He finds a profound explanation: the “Nazi” leaders gave their orders in “an incredible meeting of minds” (6)!
b) How Danuta Czech’s Kaldenarium came to her conclusions as to the numbers of the gassed
Danuta Czech’s work Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau (1939-1945) is considered by orthodox historians to be by far the most important work on the history of Auschwitz camp. The second edition, which appeared in 1989, differs very considerably from the edition published in 1960. In her monumental opus, Danuta Czech indicates, for every individual day in the history of the camp, the most important events, giving, for the most part, the exact numbers of persons gassed, for every day on which gassings are said to have taken place. What is the basis for Danuta Czech’s allegations? German documents? Of course not!
In many cases, her sources consist of testimonies given after the war (eyewitness reports or confessions during trials), but for the most part they consist of secret notes kept by prisoners working in the offices of the Gestapo, giving information on inmate transports arriving at Auschwitz: date of arrival, first and last registration numbers of the newly arriving inmates, and, in many cases, the origin of the transports. The notes were smuggled out of the camp in 1944. There is nothing in them about gassings. Danuta Czech then compares the information appearing in the notes with reference to the numerical strength of every convoy, and compares them to the data appearing in the documents of the German police offices responsible for the transports. Great discrepancies are then noted; only some of the jews deported, according to the German files, appear in the secret notes of the inmates! All the “missing” jews are simply listed by Danuta Czech as having been “gassed”! At the same time, it is known that some deported persons never arrived at Auschwitz, for the simple reason that they were unloaded 100 km further west — at Cosel — and housed in local work camps. This has been shown by the “French” jew Serge Klarsfeld in his Memorial de la Deportation des Juifs de France (7). In a few cases, D. Czech acknowledges the selection of jews for local camps in the second edition of her book. Consistently ignored by her, however, is the fact that many of the “gassed” jews suddenly reappeared later, far east of Auschwitz, in the Baltic states and White Russia. This means that the reason why these Jews were not registered at Auschwitz was because Auschwitz only served as a transit camp for them. Her “gassing” figures are therefore pure fantasy, and her method can only be termed a shameless falsification of evidence. In this regard, consult Enrique Aynat’s work Estudios sobre el Holocausto (8).
c) Jean-Claude Pressac’s “criminal traces”
In September 1983, a book by the French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac was hailed by the world’s “free press” with deafening fanfare as the rebuttal of the revisionists. It is called Les crematoires d’Auschwitz, and also appeared in German from Piper Verlag under the title of Die Krematorien von Auschwitz. Pressac had already published a gigantic book under the title Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, which is, however, hardly mentioned by the mass media.
In the introduction to his second book, Pressac repeatedly promises that he will not base his book on eyewitness testimonies, but will instead rely solely upon documents. During the reading, the astonished reader then notes that, every time the author begins to speak of concrete “gassing” operations, he cites an eyewitness as his source! As “definitive proof” of the existence of the execution gas chambers, he cites a document which contains not a single word relating to the gassing of human beings; it is simply a business letter related to the ordering of “gas testers”, to be discussed below in the present chapter (point f).
Pressac never mentions any of the scientific or technical arguments of the revisionists. Not a single revisionist book is mentioned.
In the absence of any documentary proofs for the gassings of even one jew in Auschwitz, Pressac cites a few “criminal traces” in both his first and his second work; these “traces” are supposed to indicate the gassing of human beings. We will cite two examples only: the pagination below refers to the French original edition:
– on p. 69, Pressac mentions a letter from the leader of the Central Construction Administration of the Waffen SS at Auschwitz, Bischoff, to SS Bridgefuehrer Dr. Kammler at Berlin, stating (9):
“Crematorium II has been completed, right down to the small details of construction, utilizing all available manpower and despite unspeakable difficulties and frosty weather. The ovens… function perfectly. The reinforced concrete ceiling of the morgue could not be used because of damage by frost. This is however insignificant, since the Vergasungskeller [gassing cellar] could be used for this purpose.”
Like other Holocaust scholars before him, Pressac takes this as a reference to a gas chamber installed in crematorium II. The room indicated in the plans as Morgue I must have functioned as such, according to the Holocaust true believers.
The letter has given the revisionists a few headaches, so to speak; the explanations given by them didn’t sound exactly convincing. One possible explanation was found in December 1995, when we were researching the original documents with Carlo Mattogno in the Moskow Special Archives. There, we found a document indicating the planned installation of a delousing chamber in the crematorium (10).
In early 1943, typhus was raging at Auschwitz. The Germans were desperately attempting to stem the epidemic by killing lice, and to do, they needed as many delousing chambers as possible. Delousing chambers require at least rudimentary ventilation, a characteristic also present in the morgues of the crematoria. Of course, there is no proof that the planned delousing chamber was ever actually built in a crematorium. The complete absence of further documentary proof appears to indicate that it was not; the Rudolf Report, to be discussed below, also appears to indicate that it was not.
In any case, however, the letter contains no proof of the gassing of human beings.
– on p.80, Pressac mentions a document from the Auschwitz Construction Administration relating to an order for a gas-tight door as well as 14 (“false”) shower heads for crematorium III at Birkenau. In so doing, he assumes that the gas-tight doors actually in fact served to seal off an execution gas chamber; the “false” shower heads are alleged to have been intended to lure victims into a gas chamber disguised as a shower bath.
If the construction of a delousing chamber was actually planned within a crematorium, it would, of course, have needed a gas-tight door. Such a door could also have been intended to prevent the seepage of odours from decomposing bodies in the morgue.
That the shower heads were “false” appears nowhere on the document. There is nothing unusual about a shower bath in a crematorium; it was certainly not unusual in Auschwitz, where service personnel sometimes had to drag typhus-infected corpses all day to the ovens.
– On p. 70/71, Pressac mentions the existence of a wooden fan for the “gas chamber” (i.e., the morgue) of a Birkenau crematorium. If the fan was of metal, the argument runs, it would have been exposed to the damage by the corrosive effects of Zyklon. The choice of a wooden fan instead of a metal one is therefore alleged to constitute proof of the use of hydrocyanic acid on the premises. But Pressac mentions on p. 77 that a metal fan was finally installed, since the SS had “overestimated the danger of corrosion.”
Just think — millions of people are gassed to death, and the only “proof” for this huge crime, dished up by “today’s leading expert on Auschwitz”, is nonsense like this! Several revisionist researchers, such as Faurisson (11) and Mattogno (12), have picked Pressac’s scribblings apart mercilessly in meticulous detail. In late 1995, an anthology of articles critical of Pressac was published containing German translations of contributions of Faurisson and Mattogno, as well as articles by Ernst Gauss, Manfred Koehler and Serge Thion (13).
In the meantime, it dawned on the exterminationists that Pressac had done their cause a disservice. In Le Monde juif (January April 1996, p. 92 ff), the Jew Maurice Cling mercilessly criticized Pressac — once celebrated as the “rebutter of the Revisionists” — accusing him of “manipulations”, “inventions”, and “deviant statements”. The revisionists couldn’t have put it better themselves.
Right after the appearance of the second Pressac book, the Jewish film producer Claude Lanzmann (he who — in his nine-and-a-half hour gas chamber epic, Shoa — filmed the barber Abraham Bomba describing how 17 barbers supposedly cut the hair off 70 naked women in a gas chamber at Treblinka measuring 4 x 4 m), angrily criticized Pressac, saying “I prefer the tears of the barbers of Treblinka to Pressac’s ‘gas testers’”. Lanzmann is right. The Holocaust can only survive as a myth; every attempt to prove it scientifically is an immediate debacle.
“The Germans destroyed all the documents”
If one were to ask the Knights of the Holocaust Holy Grail why there is such an absence of unequivocal documentary evidence of the mass murder of the jews, most of them will reply that the Germans destroyed all the documents right before the end of the war. This claim is actually made by one of the star witnesses from amongst the ranks of the accused, namely, Brazilian SS Man Pery Broad, who compiled detailed notes in British imprisonment. On the last page of Broad’s Erinnerungen, he says (14):
“Before the buildings of the Auschwitz offices blazed piles of documents, while the structures utilized in committing the greatest mass murder in the history of mankind were blown up…”
Broad was released as early as 1947 (15) although the British could have shot or hanged him without further ado, since every German, especially every SS man, was free game at that time. Quite obviously, early release was his reward for services rendered, services which continue to comprise a major contribution to solidifying the image of the “Final Solution”, at that time still in the unformed, fluid state.
It is simply quite untrue that piles of documents blazed at Auschwitz, since huge numbers of documents are available precisely from this largest of all “extermination camps”. The Moscow Special Archives contain approximately 90,000 pages of documents from the Construction Administration, i.e., precisely the same organization which was responsible for the construction of the crematorium and therefore, according to the Holocaust legend, for building the gas chambers allegedly located in the crematoria.
During two rather lengthy stays in Moscow (July-August as well as November-December 1995), we examined all 90,000 pages of documents together with the Italian researcher Carlo Mattogno (Mattogno’s American publisher Russel Granata was also present during the first visit). Some of these documents, perhaps 20,000 pages, consist of copies made by the Germans of other pages; approximately 70,000 other pages are primary documents. Not one single document provides any proof of mass gassings of human beings. This in no way surprised us, since if such a document had existed, it would long ago have been triumphantly displayed to the world. Two prominent representatives of the extermination school, Jean-Claude Pressac and the British Jew Gerald Fleming, have both worked in this archive and examined part of the documentation. Neither Pressac nor Fleming found the long-sought documentary proof for the homicidal gas chambers.
The objection that the Germans could have sifted out the incriminating documents just in time and destroyed them, is extremely naive. Just imagine such a situation:
In autumn 1994, when the decision is made to evacuate Auschwitz before the approaching Red Army, Commandant Richard Baer issues the following order to his subordinates: “Sort out all the documents which prove the gassing of the jews, and burn them, but leave all other documents lying around for the Russians”. Could anything be more naive? They could have burnt the entire archive of documents in a few hours! QUITE OBVIOUSLY, THE REASON WHY THE GERMANS LEFT ALL THE DOCUMENTS BEHIND WAS BECAUSE IT NEVER OCCURRED TO THEM THAT THE DOCUMENTS COULD INCRIMINATE THEM IN ANY WAY!
The same applies to the camp Majdanek, for which mountains of documents are also available.
Conjuring up “proof”
Since the defenders of the orthodox Holocaust image could not possibly be content themselves with “eyewitness testimony” alone, they were compelled to come up with a number of documents which allegedly prove the gas chamber genocide. In doing so, two possibilities were open to them:
– manufacture forgeries;
– deliberately distort authentic documents.
The second method was resorted to with much greater frequency. Carlo Mattogno describes this as follows (16):
“The Nuremberg inquisitors created… an absurd method of interpretation which made it possible to interpret any meaning they wished into any document, but which isn’t there. The point of departure for this method of interpretation was the unproven and arbitrary axiom that the NS authorities used a sort of code language, even in the most secret documents, the key to which the Nuremberg inquisitors naturally pretended to have discovered. The systematic false interpretation of documents which, in themselves, had nothing to do with extermination, then followed as a matter of course.
“The best-known example of this type of false interpretation is represented by the interpretation of the word ‘Final Solution’ which became a synonym for the ‘extermination of the jews’…
“In truth and in fact, there is not the slightest proof that ‘Final Solution’ ever referred to any alleged ‘Hitler plan for the extermination of the ‘European’ jews’. There are even documents which prove the contrary. These documents relate to the policy followed by the National Socialists with regards to jewish emigration…”
Let us consider below some of the “documentary proofs” for the Holocaust repeatedly trundled out for us in the standard literature. We will divide these into two groups: obvious forgeries, documents of questionable authenticity, and, finally, undoubtedly genuine, but deliberately falsely interpreted documents.
Forged documents
In contrast to the attitude of some revisionists, only relatively few of the documents which are presented as proofs of the extermination of the jews are obvious falsifications. These include three remarkable examples, which we will examine as follows:
a) The Wannsee Protocol
For decades, it was claimed that the extermination of the jews was decided at the Wannsee Conference in Berlin of 20 January 1942. Anyone who reads the (alleged) protocol of that conference (17), will discover that it contains no mention of any physical extermination of the jews, nothing about gas chambers, and speaks only of “evacuation” and “resettlement”. The orthodox historians, as usual, offer the lazy excuse that these are code words for extermination.
Even if this document were genuine, it would in no way constitute proof for any extermination of the jews, but rather for their deportation, which is not disputed by any revisionist. But the Wannsee Protocol is a rather crude forgery, as shown by several revisionist researchers, in greatest detail by Johannes P. Ney (18). The forgery is proven by absuridities of content (for example grossly exaggerated numbers of Jews living in Europe), as well as formal errors.
30 copies of the Wannsee Protocol are supposed to have been prepared. Of these 30 copies, only 1, the 16th, has survived, quite remarkably, in several different versions, in which SS is written sometimes in runes, and sometimes in normal script.
Even the exterminationists are distancing themselves further and further from the Wannsee protocol. In the Canadian jewish News of 20 January 1992, Israeli Holocaust Specialist Yehuda Bauer, calls the belief that the conference arrived at any decision to exterminate the jews, a “silly story”. According to him, the whole caste of historians just blabbered a silly story for decades, like parrots. The “silly story” also appears in all schoolbooks.
b) The document of 28 June 1943 on the capacity of the crematoria of Auschwitz
To prove the powerful capacity of the Auschwitz crematoria, the exterminationists tirelessly quote a letter allegedly prepared on 28 June 1943 by the leader of the Auschwitz Central Construction Administration, Bischoff, through his subordinate SS Brigadefuehrer Kammler (19), according to which the daily capacity of the crematoria of Auschwitz and Birkenau are as follows:
– crematory I: 340 persons [sic!] each
– crematoria II and III: 1440 persons each
– crematoria IV and V: 768 persons each.
Note the remarkably un-German-sounding use of the word “persons” in this connection. Much more revealing, however, is the content.
As may be seen from the standard literature, for example the work of Raul Hilberg (20), the main crematorium at Auschwitz I possessed 6 muffles; crematoria II and III of Birkenau possessed 15 muffles each; and the Birkenau Kremas IV and V possessed 8 muffles each. This makes a total of 52 muffles. In today’s modern crematoria, the burning of one corpse per muffle takes one to one and a half hours (see illustration 1V, the reproduction of a letter from Freiburg crematorium). If one can cremate 4,756 bodies per day in 52 muffles, that would be 95 bodies per day per muffle, which would mean that the crematoria of Auschwitz were around four times faster than modern crematoria! This means that either all the laws of thermodynamics were suspended, or that the letter is a fabrication (presumably from a Communist forgery factory). Irrefutable proof of the falsity of this document has been provided by Carlo Mattogno (21).
F. Documents of dubious authenticity
a) The Goebbels diary passages of 27 March 1942
For 27 March 1942, there is an entry in the diaries of NS Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels (22), according to which a “rather barbarous procedure, not to be described in detail here” was being applied to the jews. 60% of the jews were liquidated, while only 40% could be used for work.
Revisionist researchers are not unanimous on the authenticity of the Goebbels Diaries. Staeglich considers them forged in whole or in part, while Irving and Faurisson believe in their authenticity. We refrain from expressing an opinion and refer to the entry of 7 March 1942, in which Goebbels states that the jews must first be concentrated in the East; eventually, they could be sent to an island, perhaps Madagascar. This entry is in crass contradiction to the entry made twenty days later. Goebbels, an irreconcilable enemy of the jews, may, in writing his diaries, have risen to an even more intense hatred of them, and in doing so, may have brought fantasies to paper which were in no way reconcilable with his earlier notes. This passage is therefore no proof of the occurrence of the extermination of the jews; it is at best the most forceful indication that the exterminationists can produce, an indication which is nevertheless contradicted by a whole slew of watertight, irrefutable revisionist evidence.
b) The two Himmler speeches of October 1943
Two bloodthirsty speeches, alleged to have given by SS Reichsfuehrer Heinrich Himmler on 4 or 6 October 1943 in Posen before his SS men, are quoted in Holocaust literature with extraordinary frequency. The first speech states (23):
“I want to speak to you in all openness about a quite difficult matter. It must be spoken of among us once quite openly, but we will never speak about it in public… I mean the evacuation of the jews, the extirpation of the jewish people. It is one of those things which is easy to say — ‘The jewish people will be extirpated’, says every Party comrade, ‘quite obvious, we’ll do it, it’s in our Party programme. Elimination of the jews, extirpation, that’s what we’re doing…’ We had the moral right, we had the duty to our people, to kill this people that wanted to kill us.”
Two days later, according to the notes, Himmler said (24):
“A difficult decision had to be made to cause this people to disappear from the earth… You now know with certainty, and you’ll keep it for yourselves… I believe it is better, we — we, all of us — have borne this for our people, have taken the responsibility for this upon ourselves (the responsibility for a deed, not for an idea), and we shall take that secret to our grave.”
There are no original texts of the speeches. Himmler is allegedly supposed to have had the text of these (and other) speeches written down later with a typewriter — for whom? For posterity? To ensure that posterity would finally possess unequivocal proof of a Holocaust? As noted by the British historian David Irving, the critical passages, i.e., the passages which “prove the Holocaust”, were inserted later, as may be seen from the different indentations on the pages concerned (25).
Two of the leading revisionists, Staeglich (26) and Walendy (27), have examined this text. Both came to the conclusion that it is a forgery.
On the other hand, there is a wire recording of the first speech. A recording was made of excerpts of the first, which was played at the Nuremberg Trial. The copy of this recording is supposed to have been of very mediocre quality, but the original recording is supposed to have been of acceptable quality. A voice analysis is supposed to have proven that this was actually Heinrich Himmler speaking (28).
A few remarks on this subject:
1) in the first speech, Himmler identifies the “evacuation” of the jews with their “extermination”, mixing up two concepts which are totally distinct today. The identification of evacuation and extermination loses their contradictory meaning when one considers that the meaning of the word “Ausrottung” has changed. In today’s speech, “Ausrottung” doubtlessly means “liquidation, physical extermination”. This was not necessarily so earlier; the etymological derivation of “ausrotten” is “to uproot”. This change in meaning is proven by the following:
In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler wrote that Germanness was threatened with “Ausrottung” under the Habsburg Monarchy (29). He certainly didn’t mean that the old Kaiser Franz Josef had any plans to drive ten million German-Austrians into gas chambers; rather, that they were exposed to the danger of losing their power and influence to the Slavs. Accordingly, Himmler could have meant by “Ausrottung” of the jews to mean their political exclusion as well as their expulsion and resettlement outside of Europe. Of course, in the first speech, he uses the unmistakable word “umbringen”, to kill; it is a fact, particularly on the Eastern front, that many jews were shot, but the mere fact of the existence of millions of jews in the German sphere of influence at the time of the speech argues against any systematic extermination.
2) there was nothing about any “Ausrottung” of the Jews in the party programme of the NSDAP.
3) In the second speech, Himmler speaks of the extermination of the jews as if this were already concluded. In reality, millions of jews were still alive in Europe in October 1943. Approximately 80% of the “French” jews remained unharmed at the end of war. At the time of the speech, the “Hungarian” jews had yet been disturbed in any way; their deportation only began in May 1944. At any rate, Himmler, in a speech over seven months later, on 24 May 1944, at Sonthofen, stated the following (30):
“At the present time… we will first take 100,000, later another 100,000 jews from Hungary into concentration camps, with which to build underground factories. Not one will thence return into the view of the German people.”
If the extermination of the “European” jews had already been concluded seven months earlier, one could not possibly set 200,000 “Hungarian” jews to work building underground factories!
4) In both speeches, especially the second, Himmler emphasizes the need for absolute silence, but fails to obey his own recommendation himself in the slightest; rather, he blabbers about the horrid crimes committed by his organization, and even had a wire recording made of the first speech!
If the wire recording of the first speech actually proves to be Himmler’s voice, then these arguments will naturally not apply, insofar as they affect the first speech.
We shall leave the question of the authenticity of both speeches, as well as their exact meaning, open for the present. A detailed analysis of the speeches by Jack Wickoff will be published in the near future (31).
c) The business letter relating to the ordering of “gas testers”
As the “final proof” for homicidal gassings in Auschwitz, Pressac cites a business letter dated 6 March 1943 from the oven construction firm Topf & Soehne to the Central Construction of Auschwitz. The firm confirms receipt of a telegram ordering 10 gas testers (32).
Faurisson considers the letter to be genuine, but most revisionists consider it a falsification. We tend to the forgery theory, on the following grounds, stated by Walter Rademacher, among others (33):
– devices for the detection of hydrocyanic acid residues are not called “Gaspruefer”, but rather, “Blausaeurerestnachweisgeraete”. The instructions for the use of Zyklon B, dated 1942, mention these devices no less than six times (34);
– if the health service responsible for the delousing action ran out of hydrocyanic acid detection devices, they would certainly not have ordered them from an oven construction firm which had nothing to do with their manufacture;
– “Gaspruefer” are understood to be devices for the analysis of CO or CO2 combustion gases which arise during the carburation of coke in the generator of a crematory oven. According to Rademacher, the number of Gaspruefer ordered — ten — indicates precisely this application, since crematoria II and III possessed 10 flue gas channels.
This indicates that the document cited by Pressac is a forgery which “mixes apples and oranges”! Since neither the ordering of “hydrocyanic acid residue detection devices”, nor the ordering of “gas testers” represents even the slightest proof of the gassing of human beings, the document lacks the slightest probative value even in the event of its authenticity.
Undoubtedly genuine but falsely interpreted documents
Indisputably genuine documents which are subjected to a meaning arbitrarily altered from the meaning expressed, play an important role in Holocaust literature. Here are a few examples:
a) The passage on the “Hebraic race perverters” from Mein Kampf
In Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf it says (35):
“If twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebraic race perverters had been held under poison gas at the beginning of the war, as hundreds of thousands of our best German workers from all classes and professions were forced to endure it in the field, then the sacrifice of millions at the Front would not have been in vain.”
A correct interpretation of this passage requires a knowledge of Hitler’s biography. Hitler was temporarily blinded by a gas attack in 1918; to him, gas warfare involved personal trauma. He held the (mostly jewish) Marxist leaders responsible for Germany’s defeat during WWI. The passage therefore has the following meaning: “If the Marxist leaders had been sent to the front, where they would have been exposed to poison gas attacks like all the other soldiers, instead of being allowed to agitate in the rear, then we wouldn’t have lost the war”. That Hitler is not speaking of the extermination of the jews here, is obvious from the quoted figure of “twelve to fifteen thousand”.
When historians use this passage as proof of a “plan to gas the jews”, a plan alleged to have taken shape in his mind as early as the 1920s, they involve themselves in an extricable contradiction. If you ask them why there are no documentary proofs of the Holocaust, they reply that the Germans either drew up no documents, or destroyed them all, just in time to conceal their crimes. According to the same historians, however, Hitler is then supposed to have announced his genocidal intentions to the entire world!
b) documents on the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question”
In a series of wartime German documents, the concept “Final Solution to the jewish Question” arises. Thus, Goering wrote to Heydrich on 31 July 1941 (36):
“Supplementing your order already issued by decree of 24.1.1939, to bring the jewish question to the most satisfactory possible solution in the form of emmigration or evacuation in accordance with the time circumstances, I hereby assign you with responsibility for finding all the necessary conditions in an organizational, technical and material regard for an overall solution of the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe… I furthermore assign you with responsibility for presenting me soon with an overall draft of the organizational, technical, and material preconditions for the execution of the desired overall solution of the jewish question.”
This letter is quoted to the point of exhaustion by the Holocaust peddlers, always with the allegation that Goering entrusted Heydrich with the organizational preparation of the genocide. Again, the ruling clique is reading something into the document which is not there.
What the National Socialists understood by “Final Solution of the jewish Question” is made very clear in this document: the emigration, by force if necessary, of all jews from Europe. Madagascar was originally intended to serve as the home of the jews (see, in this regard, the above mentioned entry in Goebbels’ diary of 7 March 1942), but this plan could not be realized. After conquering extensive territories in the East at the beginning of the Russian campaign, the creation of at least a provisional jewish settlement area in each zone was considered. That a considerable number of jews were actually sent to White Russia and the Baltic states, is admitted even by the exterminationists (37). Of course, such deportations make nonsense of the exterminationist argument: why send jews right past six “extermination camps” running full tilt, all the way to White Russia and the Baltic states, if a decision has been made for the complete extermination of jewry?
In his book Die zweite babylonische Gefangenschaft, Steffen Werner collects a number of clues indicating that considerable numbers of jews were in fact sent to White Russia and settled there (38). That Auschwitz was used as a transit camp for the Eastern settlement of jews not registered at Auschwitz and therefore assumed by exterminationists to have been gassed, has been shown by the Spaniard Enrique Aynat (39).
The character of German policy towards the jews is clearly revealed by a document drawn up by Martin Luther, an official of the Foreign Office, on 21 August 1942 (40):
“The evacuation of the jews from Germany has begun on the basis of the… mentioned instruction of the Fuehrer (on the resettlement of the jews). It was considered whether to include the jewish citizens of countries which had also taken jewish measures… the number of jews shifted to the East in this manner does not suffice to cover the labour requirements. The Reichssicherheitsamt approached the Foreign Office, upon the instructions of the Reichsfuehrer SS, to ask the Slovakian government to make 20,000 strong young jews from Slovakia available for transfer to the East.”
Hans Heinrich Lammers, Director of the Reichschancellory, was asked about his knowledge of the Final Solution by attorney Dr. Thoma during the Nuremberg Trial. In 1942, he had asked Himmler what the “Final Solution of the jewish question” was to be understood to mean; after which Himmler informed him that this meant the evacuation of the jews to the East. In 1943, rumours came to Lammers’ attention according to which the jews were being exterminated. He investigated the matter, and returned to Himmler, who reacted as follows (41):
“He (Himmler) brought out a lot of pictures and albums and showed me the work that was being done in these camps by the jews and how they worked for the war needs — the shoemakers’ shops, tailors’ shops, and so forth. He told me: ‘This is the order of the Fuehrer: if you believe that you have to take action against it, then tell the Fuehrer….’ I once again reported this matter to the Fuehrer, and on this occasion he gave me exactly the same reply which I had been given by Himmler. He said, ‘I shall later on decide where these jews will be taken and in the meantime they are being cared for there.’”.
The following dialogue took place between Dr. Thoma and Lammers
(42):
Thoma: Did Himmler ever tell you that the Final Solution of the jewish problem was to take place through the extermination of the jews?
Lammers: That was never mentioned. He talked only about evacuation.
Thoma: When did you hear that these five million jews had been exterminated?
Lammers: I heard of that here a while ago.
The chief of the Reichschancellory, who, according to the Enzyklopaedie der Holocaust, received “all anti-jewish measures” across his desk, (43), therefore only learned at Nuremberg that the Final Solution of the jewish question was to take place through their extermination!
c) Documents on “Special actions”, etc.
All German documents in which words appear bearing the prefix “Sonder” (Sondermassnahmen, Sonderaktionen, Sonderbehandlung, etc.) are trotted out as proof of the extermination of the jews. Now, it is true that such concepts could relate to executions (44), but this was by no means always the case. Thus, Pressac mentions in his second book, that the concept (Sonderaktion” was used in Auschwitz for the police investigation of the grounds for a strike of the civilian workers (45) — a STRIKE in an EXTERMINATION CAMP! Pressac furthermore quotes an order from the SS concerning “Sondermassnahmen” for the improvement of the sanitary conditions in the Birkenau camp (46). Thus, the Sondermassnahmen here were to prolong life, and not to shorten it.
To sum up: among the many millions of documents from the era of the Third Reich, there is NOT ONE which delivers a single proof for the gassing of even one JEW in Auschwitz or elsewhere!
d) The Korherr Report: master example of misinterpretation
A report drawn up by the SS statistician Richard Korherr (47) in early 1943 for Dr. Rudolf Brandt of Himmler’s staff is constantly quoted by the orthodox historians as “proof of the Holocaust”. According to the report, the number of “European” jews in Europe had been reduced by nearly half in the time period between 1933 and 1943. 1,873,549 jews are stated to have been lost as the result of “evacuations including Theresienstadt and including Sonderbehandlung” (Theresienstadt was a ghetto for mostly elderly and privileged Jews).
Korherr then lists the Jews evacuated from Baden and the Pfalz to France, from the territory of the Reich, including the Protectorate and Bialystock, to the East, and from the territory of the Reich and the Protectorate to Theresienstadt, presenting his statistics as follows:
4. Transport of jews from the Eastern provinces to the Russian East: 1,449,692 Jews
Transit through the camps
in the General Gouvernement 1,274,166 jews
Through the camps in the Wartegau 145,301 jews
If one considers the number of the jews transported to the East, one notes that they correspond very exactly to the numbers listed in the Holocaust literature as having been exterminated in the “pure extermination camps” at that time, of Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, and Chelmno. The first three of these “extermination camps” were located in the General Gouvernment , Chelmno lay in the Warthegau (i.e., in the territory which was originally German, but is today Polish, having been annexed by Poland after WWI and reincorporated into Germany in 1939). The strategy of the falsifiers of history is obvious: to deliberately misinterpret the unambiguous expression “transport” as a code word for “murder”, and then claim that the “transit camps” were “extermination camps”.
The Korrherr Report has been examined by Georges Wellers from the exterminationist point of view (48), and by Stephen Challer (49) and Carlo Mattogno (50) from the revisionist point of view.
Documents which contradict the extermination theory
But it gets even worse for the Holocaust scribblers. A flood of indisputably genuine documents namely prove that NO extermination of the Jews was planned.
If the National Socialists had planned the physical extermination of the jews at any time, there should have been no more documents, dated later, speaking of the use of the jews for their labour; yet such documents exist by the ton. We already discussed one of them, the Luther Memorandum; here are a few more examples.
At the end of 1942, Himmler wrote to KL Inspector Richard Gluecks (51):
“Prepare to accept 100,000 male Jews and up to 50,000 female jews in the concentration camp in the next 4 weeks. Great economic tasks will arise in the concentration camps in the coming weeks.”
Hadn’t Himmler yet been informed about the decision to exterminate the Jews, made at the Wannsee Conference by subordinates, or was “large economic tasks” a camouflage term for “gassing”?
On 18 November 1943, the Auschwitz camp administration received the order from WVHA (Wirtschaftsverwaltungshauptamt) of the SS to grant premiums to good workers, INCLUDING JEWS (52). What jewish workers? According to the Himmler speeches at Posen of October 1943 and quoted in Holocaust literature a thousand times over, all the European Jews had already been exterminated by that time!
On 9 March 1944, as the extermination of the “Hungarian” jews was already running full tilt, according to the legend, Himmler wrote to the Chief of the SS Main Office as well as to the SS Economic Main Administration Office stating (53):
“The Fuehrer has ordered the transfer of 10,000 men, with officers and non-commissioned officers, to supervise the 200,000 jews being transferred to the concentration camps of the Reich in order to put them to work on large construction projects for the OT [Organization Todt] and other projects of importance to the war.”
What did they need to supervise gassed jews for?
On 15 August 1944, the WVHA reported the above mentioned delivery of 612,000 persons, INCLUDING 90,000 HUNGARIAN JEWS, to the work camps (54). And the Hungarian Minister for the Interior Gabor Wajna reports, Himmler is said to have reported that the production of fighter planes had been increased by 40% due to the assignment of “Hungarian” jews.
How was this possible? All 438,000 deported “Hungarian” jews, including the 28,000 registered in Auschwitz, were gassed between May and July in Birkenau (56)! How could these gassing victims still work on the manufacture of fighter planes?
The absurdity of the notion that the Germans could even think of exterminating huge numbers of people capable of working at precisely a time when they were in desperate need of manpower, has even dawned on a few Holocaust writers. Hannah Arendt wonders (57):
“The inconceivability of the horror is closely related to its economic uselessness. The ‘Nazis’ drove this uselessness to the greatest extremes, even to open anti-utilitarianism, by building gigantic and expensive extermination factories in the middle of the war and transported people back and forth, despite the lack of building materials and rolling stock. In the eyes of a strictly utilitarian world, the obvious contrast between these actions and all military necessity gave the whole undertaking an appearance of insane unreality.”
It appears to us that there is an “appearance of insane unreality” floating over the theories of the orthodox historians.
In conclusion, we wish to comment on two Auschwitz documents reproduced here (Figs. XXX and XXXI
The first of these documents is dated 30 June 1943. It was prepared by a doctor at Auschwitz who reported that an inmate, Jaroslaus Murka, had been “admitted to the HKB (main hospital) with numerous haematoma on the skull, in the face, upper arm and breast, disturbances of vision and concussion”. The doctor then asks that the guilty parties be punished.
In a camp in which between 470,000 and 9 million jews were murdered, according to which historian you believe, the Germans, therefore, took the trouble to write up a report about a beaten inmate, and to demand punishment for the guilty party. The victim was admitted to hospital — what the devil was a HOSPITAL doing in an EXTERMINATION CAMP?
The second document reproduced here proves that an inmate, Jan Kristian, was detained at Auschwitz from 3 May to 8 June 1944 and was released on the last mentioned date, on the condition that he report immediately to the Auschwitz labour office for new arrangements.
This release is no isolated case. Carlo Mattogno and myself found 56 such release certificates in Moscow covering a period of only a few days in June and July 1944. In almost all cases, these were Poles having served short sentences in Birkenau “labour education camp” for violating their labour contracts, and were sent to a factory after completing their sentences.
The releases occurred at just the point in time, according to official Holocaust literature, when the extermination of the “Hungarian” jews was running full blast; around 400,000 of these people are supposed to have been driven into the gas chambers within the short period of less than two months. Jan Kristian and the numerous releases over that same period are therefore supposed to have permitted to witness the gassing of the 400,000 “Hungarian” jews “live”, after which they were released so that they could blabber all about it in their factories! This is the sort of rubbish which has been touted by the media whores, court historians, and politicians for decades; and we believe it.
In reality, Auschwitz was used as a transit camp for the deportation of the “Hungarian” jews, with the exception of the 28,000 who were registered there. This is proven by German documents, and is confirmed by a totally unimpeachable authority, Jean-Claude Pressac; he reports, referring to documents located in the Yad Vashem, that 40,000 to 50,000 Hungarian female jews were sent to the work camp of Stutthof alone (58). Pressac thus involuntarily reinforces the basic theory of the revisionists — that the transport of a large part of “European” jews for compulsory labour is a historical fact, but that the “extermination of jews in gas chambers” is the most enormous, most impudent swindle of all time.
Notes:
1) Hilberg, Introduction
2) Andre Chelain, Faut-il fusiller Henri Roques?, Polemiques, Ogmios Diffusion, 1986; see also the abridged German edition Die ‘Gestaendnisse’ des Kurt Gerstein, Druffel, 1986.
3) Filip Mueller, Sonderbehandlung, Steinhausen, 1979.
4) After the battle of Sedan, the Germans attempted to cremate the bodies of the fallen in graves. They laid three layers of bodies in the graves, covered them with tar, and set them on fire. The upper layer was charred, the middle layer was slightly singed, and the lowest layer was not even affected (Harald Froehlich, “Zur Gesundheitspflege auf den Schlachtfeldern”, Deutsche Militaeraertzliche Zeitschrift, I, 1-4, 1872, p. 109/110, quoted by Carlo Mattogno in Auschwitz, The End of a Legend, IHR, 1994, p. 19).
5) In this regard, see Mattogno in Gauss, Grundlagen… op. cit. p. 318 ff.
6) Newsday, Long Island, New York, 23 February 1983, quoted by Robert Faurisson, “Mon experience du revisionnisme”, in: Annales d’histoire revisioniste, no. 8, p. 31/32.
7) Klarsfeld, p. 5 (private numbering; Klarsfeld’s Memorial has no page numbers).
8) Enrique Aynat, Estudios sobre el Holocausto, Graficas Hurtado, Valencia 1994.
9) Quoted here according to Kogon/Langbein/Rueckerl, p. 220.
10) The document concerned in the Moskow Special Archive bears the archive number 502-I-316, sheet 431.
11) Robert Faurisson in Revue d’Histoire Revisionniste, no. 3, as well as R. Faurisson, Reponse a Jean-Claude pressac, RHR, 1993.
12) Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz, The End of a Legend.
13) Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten, published by Herbert Verbeke, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Postbus 60, 2600 Berchem, Belgium
14) Pery Broad, Erinnerungen, in the anthology Auschwitz in den Augen der SS, Krajowa Agencja Wydawniczna, Katowice, 1981, p. 195.
15) Kogon/Langbein/Rueckerl, p. 197
16) Carlo Mattogno, La soluzione finale, Edizioni di Ar, 1991, p. 64/65.
17) The (alleged) protocol of the Wannsee Conference is reproduced among others by Wilhelm Staeglich, Der Auschwitz-Mythos (Grabert, 1978), p. 39 ff., and in Gauss, Grundlagen… p. 182 ff.
18) See, for example, Staeglich in Der Auschwitz-Mythos, p. 38 ff; Walendy in Historische Tatsachen, no. 35; Ingrid Weckert in Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart, no. 40 (1992); Johannes P. Ney in Gauss, Grundlagen… p. 169 ff.
19) The document is now mentioned in Brigitte Bailer-Galanda/Wolfgang Benz/Wolfgang Neugebauer (publishers), Wahrheit und Auschwitzluege, Deuticke, 1995, p. 71.
20) Hilberg, p. 946.
21) Mattogno in Gauss, Grundlagen… p. 300 ff.
22) Quoted in Fraenkel/Manvell, Goebbels – eine Biographie, Kiepenheuer und Witsch, 1960, p. 257 ff.
23) Nuremberg trial document volumes IMT XXXIX p. 122 ff.
24) Quoted according to Staeglich, p. 95 ff.
25) David Irving, Hitler’s Krieg, F.A. Herbig, 1986, p. 252.
26) Staeglich, p. 89 ff.
27) Walendy in Historische Tatsachen no. 45.
28) Oral communication from G. Rudolf and A. Schimmelpfennig to the author.
29) Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Franz Eher Verlag, Muenchen 1943, p. 13/14.
30) Staeglich, p. 100.
31) Wickoff’s analysis of the speech is scheduled to appear sometime in 1997 in the Vierteljahreszeitschrift fuer freie Geschichtsforschung.
32) Quoted, among others, by Pressac, Les crematoires… p. 71 ff.
33) Rademacher in Gauss, Grundlagen, p. 55 ff.
34) Nuremberg Document NI-9912.
35) Hitler, p. 772.
36) Nueremberg Document NG-2586/PS-710.
37) See for example Reitlinger, p. 100 ff.
38) Steffen Werner, Die zweite babylonische Gefangenschaft, Grabert, Tuebingen, 1992.
39) Enrique Aynat, Estudios sobre el Holocausto, Graficas Hurtado, Valencia 1994.
40) Nuremberg Document NG-2586.
41) Nuremberg trial transcript IMT XI pp. 82/83 (German text).
42) ibid, p. 83.
43) Enzyklopaedia des Holocaust, p. 848.
44) An example of this is provided by Kogon/Rueckerl on p. 17.
45) Pressac, Les crematoires… p. 63.
46) ibid, p. 82.
47) Nuremberg documents NO-5194 and NO-5193.
48) Georges Wellers, La solution finale et la Mythomanie Neo-Nazie, published by Serge and Beate Klarsfeld, Paris, 1979.
49) Stephen Challen, Richard Korherr and his Reports, Cromwell Press, London 1993.
50) Carlo Mattogno, Dilettanti allo Sbaraglio, Edizioni di Ar, Padova, 1996, p. 112 ff.
51) Nuremberg Document NO-500.
52) Hefte von Auschwitz, Wydanictwo Panstwowego Muzeum w Oswiecimiu, no. 6, 1962, p. 78.
53) Nuremberg document NO-5689.
54) Nuremberg document NO-1990.
55) Nuremberg document NO-1874.
56) Enzyklopaedie des Holocaust, p. 1467.
57) Hannah Arendt Le origini del totalitarismo, Milan, 1967, p. 609, quoted by Carlo Mattogno in La soluzione finale, p. 106 (retranslated from English to Italian to German to English).
58) Pressac, Les crematoires…, p. 147.
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
