Juergen Graf

Holocaust Revisionism And its Political Consequences

The Odyssey of a Revisionist: Juergen Graf Finds Asylum in Iran

George Brewer

Over the past several years, the Swiss Juergen Graf has emerged as one of the most powerful voices in the revisionist community. Yet, in accordance with legislation specifically designed to shut down revisionist voices in the Alpine republic, Graf was found guilty of a Swiss "racial hatred" statute in 1998. His appeals exhausted, Graf was recently to begin serving his sentence, until he began to hear that some revisionists incarcerated in German speaking countries were not emerging from confinement alive. As a result, he has been forced to flee his native country, pursuing a now familiar odyssey for those who seek historical truth.

Background Graf, who is in his mid 40's, originally followed the career path of a secondary school teacher. One is tempted to think that he was following in the footsteps of another secondary school teacher, Oswald Spengler, whose Decline of the West remains one of the apexes of 20th Century cultural criticism. But something happened. In the early 1990's, Graf became concerned about the decline in Swiss culture, uncontrolled immigration into Switzerland and throughout the rest of Europe, and the remorseless use of the Holocaust icon to pursue these and other social engineering projects. So he turned his impressive intellect (Graf uses 18 languages in his research) to the fate of the Jewish people in World War Two. The result was a number of studies in the early '90's that quickly made a reputation for the Swiss scholar. These include The Holocaust Swindle and The Holocaust Under the Scanner, as well as a scientific monograph on witness testimonies, and even a novel on the difficulties revisionists encounter.

Nearly all of these books were written prior to the Swiss law that went into effect in 1995, which, by labeling revisionist writings as "race hatred" effectively criminalized any open historical discussion of key issues of WWII. Within a year and a half, pressure was brought to bear on the Swiss judiciary to enforce the new law. Thus, in April 1996, Graf, as well as his elderly publisher, were charged with violating Switzerland's "hate crimes" statute; that is, for the crime of disseminating Graf's books.

Of course, in a technical sense the application of the law was wrong in the first place, since it violated the basic principle that no crime can be assessed by law retroactively, but that didn't stop the Nuremberg court and it wasn't going to stop the Swiss courts, either. After two years, Graf and his co-defendant were put on trial.

The Inquisition of Juergen Graf The trial began at 8 o'clock on the morning of July 17, 1998 and finished the same day. First, Graf sought to have Dr. Robert Faurisson, the pre-eminent revisionist author, appear on his behalf However, the court lost no time in dismissing Faurisson's petition to appear before the tribunal. Instead, Wolfgang Froehlich, an Austrian engineer, was the sole witness allowed for Graf. Froehlich is a certified engineer in Austria and has extensive experience in fumigations, including those using cyanide gas. The prosecutor, Aufdenblatten, violated a basic rule of cross examination -- never ask a question whose answer you cannot predict -- when he asked Froehlich his opinion as to whether he felt that gassings were possible with Zyklon B.

Froehlich's testimony, spoken with authority, denied even the possibility of homicidal gassing with the German pesticide, and was greeted with loud applause by the spectators in the courtroom. The prosecutor was reduced, in his impotent rage, to threats, which fairly well exposed the absence of the rule of law in this courtroom. Aufdenblatten said:

"I hereby request the court to bring an indictment against this witness for racial discrimination or I will do it myself." In other words, simple scientifically valid and qualified testimony now constitutes a hate crime in the People's Republic of Switzerland! Graf's co-defendant, the elderly publisher Foerster, then took the stand for two hours, although the defendant could barely cope with the rigors of testimony. (Foerster died a few weeks later, before the Swiss State could put him behind bars.) Then Graf took the stand and offered a broad and detailed defense of his writings and the trends of modem revisionism. After closing speeches from the prosecutor and defense attorneys, Graf had the last word, quoting a Swiss revisionist compatriot:

"As in earlier historical times, it is a sign of weakness to attempt to enforce a dogma by force. The exponents of the Jewish extermination thesis may -win trials based on censorship today; but they will lose the last trial before the court of future generations." In the end, such eloquence helped neither Graf nor Foerster. They were found guilty of "race hatred," Graf receiving a prison sentence of 15 months, Foerster 12 months, and both were heavily fined.

Aftermath Although the trial decision was handed down in great haste, clearly Graf had some breathing room due to the appeals process. He put the time to good use. Already in 1995 he had worked with Carlo Mattogno in doing path-breaking research in the Auschwitz archives located in Moscow, and there were several other such trips throughout Eastern Europe. In the last two years Graf had co-authored two important new documentary studies with the Italian savant: Maidanek (1998) and Stutthof (1999) (both, Castle Hill Publishers, UK). In addition, Graf has kept up a busy speaking schedule, including an appearance at the conference of the IHR (Institute for Historical Review), held in may 2000. Not only did Graf's participation contribute to the strong overall success of that conference - the first IHR conference in six years - but his talk on that occasion quickly stimulated widespread discussion. Graf's paper, which has since been published in the Journal of Historical Review, deals with the problem of accounting for the hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews allegedly deported to Auschwitz in the spring and summer of 1944. Truly, Graf has managed to keep himself involved in almost every significant trend in modem revisionism, even under the threat of prison.

Lost, Stolen or Strayed However, it was inevitable that at some point the Swiss government would insist that Graf start to serve his sentence. Over the past two years Graf had gradually resigned himself to being a prisoner on behalf of intellectual freedom. But in recent months he had been made aware of a frightening prospect: according to several reports, a number of prisoners of conscience in jails in German-speaking Europe have died mysteriously in recent times, including three in Austria alone. A prisoner of conscience is one thing, a martyr is something else. Unable to recant, Graf sought refuge. After stop-overs in Russia and Turkey, Graf has been welcomed into exile in Iran. Of course it is hard to predict what will be the next stop in the odyssey of Juergen Graf. He has escaped prison and a possible de facto "death sentence. But at the same time, revisionism has suffered a serious blow. 'However much freedom is accorded him in Iran, it seems fairly certain that Graf's involvement in revisionism will not be able to maintain its previously high levels so long as he is forced to live in exile.

Forced exile, of course, is just one of the stratagems of the enemies of historical revisionism, and in this particular case Graf s misfortune mirrors the fate of the exiled German scientist Germar Rudolf. There have been other schemes, too, ranging from career and personal destruction (Fred Leuchter, David Irving), attempted censorship (Ernst Zundel, Fred Toeben), and imprisonment (Guenther Deckert, Udo Walendy, and again Fred Toeben), all with a view to stifling intellectual curiosity. These efforts may, in the short term, muffle the voice of revisionism. But they will never silence it.

When Ulysses was fated to make his 20-year odyssey after the fall of Troy, his wife and son could only try to maintain the integrity of the kingdom. Penelope, raveling and unraveling the tapestry that would confer the kingship of Ithaca, and Telemachus, by refusing the blandishment of the suitors, both kept faith with the exiled Ulysses. Today, for every revisionist silenced by prison, exile, personal destruction, or even fire and car bombs, there are thousands of silent Penelopes and Telernachuses keeping the faith, however much they have been intimidated into silence. Yet, when the enemies of revisionism create an epic structure of suffering for revisionists, suffering which revisionists have never sought, these enemies also guarantee an epic outcome. In that outcome, truth always prevails, the heroes will return, and like Ulysses, they will be known by the scars they bear.

Reproduced gratefully from www.codoh.com/ 

Holocaust Revisionism And its Political Consequences Jürgen Graf, January 2001, in Tehran exile

                                      

1. The intellectual adventure which changed my life

I was born in Basel, Switzerland, on August 15, 1951. My father was a bank employee, my mother a housewife. Both of them are still alive and well; my father, who celebrated his 80th birthday on 12 December 2000, retired from his job many years ago.

After finishing school, I went to Basel University, where I studied French, English, and Scandinavian philology. In 1979, I acquired a master's degree which entitled me to teach languages at a school in Basel. In 1982, I went on a journey to South East Asian from where I did not return before 1988, as I had got a job as a university teacher of German in Taipeh, Taiwan. Back in Switzerland, I gathered some professional experience in fields unrelated to teaching before returning to my former profession in 1990. Until March 1993, when I was fired in the aftermath of the publication of my first revisionist book, I taught Latin and French in Therwil, a small town near Basel.

In October 1994, I got a job as a teacher of German for foreign students at a private language school in Basel. Though badly paid, my work greatly appealed to me because most of my students were highly motivated adults. While the director of the school, Mr. Remo Orsini, did not share my views about the holocaust and Zionism, he was tolerant of my revisionist activities (which I never talked about in class). In August 1998, after the infamous Baden trial in which my editor Gerhard Foerster and myself were sentenced to stiff prison terms because of our revisionist publications, Mr. Orsini reluctantly dismissed me in order to prevent the ruin of his school which would have become the target of a relentless media smear campaign had he kept me as a teacher. Apart from some translation jobs, I was unable to find any work in Switzerland after the Baden trial because no employer would have dared to hire me. I left Switzerland on August 15, 2000, my 49th birthday, and I do not intend to return there before the political situation has changed and Switzerland is a free country again. (Should I go back now, I would face immediate arrest.)

Before 1991, I did not know anything about revisionism. While I thought that the six million figure might be somewhat exaggerated, I never had the slightest doubts as to the reality of the Nazi extermination program and the homicidal gas chambers. I was dimly aware that there were some authors who questioned even the approximate truth of the official holocaust version,

but I thought they were just a bunch of Neo-Nazis eager to whitewash Hitler, so I made no effort to find out what there arguments were. However, I was already quite anti-Zionist at that time. First of all, I was profoundly disgusted by Israel's inhuman treatment of the Palestinians, and secondly, I was greatly angered by the fact that the Jews shamelessly exploited the tragedy which had befallen them during World War Two to extort huge sums of money from Germany and to malign the entire German nation. Because I had many German relatives (my father, though a Swiss citizen, was born in Germany and did not come to Switzerland before 1947), I was a Germanophile from earliest childhood and found it totally inadmissible to blame the German people as a whole for Hitler and his holocaust. Although greatly interested in contemporary history in general and the Second World War in particular, I always tried to keep away from the holocaust subject. The holocaust was an ugly and shameful episode of European and German history, and I felt no desire whatsoever to know the gory details.

All this changed in April 1991 when I made the acquaintance of a elderly Swiss gentleman, Mr. Arthur Vogt. Vogt, a retired teacher of mathematics and biology who was born in 1917, has been my close friend and generous sponsor ever since. At our first meeting, he introduced himself as a revisionist and gave me a tape with a revisionist text authored by himself. Even if this text did not convince me entirely, it came as a serious shock to me. I realised that the revisionists had some valid arguments and could not simply be dismissed as crackpots or charlatans, so I asked Vogt for more information. He sent me the three revisionist books which, at that time, were the best existing ones: Serge Thion's Verite Historique ou Verite Politique? (La Vieille Taupe, Paris 1980), Arthur Butz's The Hoax of the Twentieth Century (Institute for Historical Review, Torrance/California 1977) and Wilhelm Staeglich's Der Auschwitz Mythos (Grabert Verlag, Tuebingen 1979). Even before studying these books, I read the German translation of an article I also had got from Vogt. It had appeared in the Soviet Communist Party's newspaper Pravda on February 2, 1945, one week after the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp by the Red Army. (Four years later, in Moscow, I got hold of the Russian original.) The author of that article, Soviet Jewish reporter Boris Polevoi, who had visited Auschwitz immediately after its liberation, wrote about an "assembly line killing installation where hundreds of people were killed simultaneously with electrical current". Polevoi also mentioned gas chambers in the eastern sector of the Auschwitz camp. Nowadays, nobody claims that the German made use of electric current to kill people, and according to the official Holocaust version, the Auschwitz gas chambers were at Birkenau, west of the main camp, and not in the eastern sector. Having read this article, I knew that the revisionists were right: The gas chamber and mass extermination story had been fabricated by propagandists, and the first versions did not tally with the later ones.

On that day, April 29, 1991, I decided to dedicate my life to the struggle against the most monstrous fraud ever concocted by human brains.

I had long discussions with Arthur Vogt who appreciated my enthusiasm and often gave me useful advice. In order to have sufficient time for my historical studies, I only taught about 15 hours a week which of course meant a reduced, though still decent salary. (In Switzerland, state school teachers are exceedingly well paid.) At that time, there already were numerous revisionist books and articles, but most of them dealt with specific aspects of the holocaust. As there was no easily understandable introduction to revisionism and its arguments, I decided to write one myself. The title of the book was to be Der Holocaust-Schwindel ("The Holocaust Swindle"). In March 1992, I visited the world's most renowned revisionist, professor Robert Faurisson, at his home in Vichy, France. Faurisson, who had been a respected professor of French literature, had his career ruined because of his revisionist writings; he had been put on trial numerous times, had been fined exorbitant sums, and in 1989, he was brutally beaten up and almost killed by a gang of Jewish thugs who called themselves "Sons of Jewish Memory". Faurisson corrected the manuscript of my future book. I was deeply impressed by his brilliant intellect and even more by his extraordinary courage and uncompromising search for the truth.

I eventually realised that Der Holocaust-Schwindel would be much too long to serve as a mere introduction to revisionism, so I wrote an abridged version which was published in early 1993 under the title Der Holocaust auf dem Pruefstand ("The Holocaust under the scanner"). The book was later translated into French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, Bulgarian, Arabic, and Swedish. Immediately after its publication, I lost my job in Therwil for alleged unethical behaviour. Der Holocaust-Schwindel was published shortly after the first book. Many readers especially liked the last three chapters in which I analysed the political implications of the hoax more stringently than any other revisionist had done before. The introduction, written by Faurisson, was also greatly appreciated by the readers.

In April 1993, only a few days after being dismissed as a teacher, I made the acquaintance of German-born engineer Gerhard Foerster who at that time was 73 years old. Foerster, who made his living in Wuerenlos near Zurich, had been a revisionist for many years. His father, a Silesian, had perished during the brutal expulsion of about 12 million Germans from the eastern German territories annexed by Poland after World War Two, and Foerster was deeply hurt by the fact that nobody seemed to care about the terrible tragedy of his nation while the media made a big fuss about the spurious Jewish holocaust every day. As Foerster was unable to write a historical book himself - he was a highly gifted engineer, not a writer -, and as I already had a good grasp of the subject, he urged me to write a book about the eyewitness reports upon which the Auschwitz gas chamber story is exclusively based. (As I will explain later, there is no material or documentary evidence for the existence of even one single homicidal gas chamber in any German concentration camp, and the official holocaust version totally relies on eyewitness accounts.)

While some of the sources I needed for the new book were readily available, others were very difficult to get at. In September 1993, I visited Italian revisionist scholar Carlo Mattogno who makes his living near Rome with his family. Mattogno had already been studying the holocaust for over a decade when I first met him, and he possessed an impressive collection of rare documents. Many of them were in Polish (I had learned this difficult language because of its importance for students of the holocaust). I copied the material I needed for my book. Since my first visit, I have been closely co-operating with Mattogno; I have translated many of his writings, we have made six trips together and co-authored two books. Mattogno's knowledge of the holocaust subject is second to none, but his books are not easy to read because of their highly academic and arcane style. Since there is no anti-revisionist law in Italy, he has never been persecuted. He is one of my best friends, and whenever I come to his house, I am treated like a member of the family.

My book Auschwitz. Taetergestaendnisse und Augenzeugen des Holocaust ("Auschwitz. Perpetrator confessions and eyewitnesses of the holocaust") was published by Foerster in August 1994, a few month before the ignoble "anti-racism law" (Article 261b of the Swiss penal code) was enacted. It contained a critical analysis of 30 key eyewitness reports about the alleged homicidal gassings at Auschwitz. My conclusion was unambiguous: The "eyewitnesses" had all lied. Their accounts flagrantly contradicted each other, and in those cases where they agreed, they regularly contained the same logical and technical impossibilities. For example, numerous witnesses claimed that at Auschwitz it took 20 minutes to incinerate three corpses in a crematorium muffle. Even in modern crematoria, it takes about one hour to burn one corpse, and as we know from the documents, the same thing applied to the German wartime crematoria. As the witnesses could not possibly have invented the same absurdities independently of each other, it was obvious that they had either been instructed to lie (many of them testified before Polish, British and American kangaroo courts, which had been entrusted with the task to "prove" the existence of the homicidal gas chambers), or that one witness had simply parroted what he had heard from another one or read in a book. As virtually all of the eyewitnesses were former Jewish concentration camp inmates, they were keen on taking revenge upon the Germans who had deprived them of their liberty and gladly told all sort of wild atrocity tales to ruin the reputation of the German nation for decades, if not for centuries.

In September 1994, I attended a revisionist conference in California which was organised by the Institute for Historical Review (P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA, 92659, USA) The I.H.R. publishes the scholarly Journal of Historical Review.) At that conference, I made the acquaintance of US historian Mark Weber, the director of the I.H.R. I also met Bradley Smith, Ernst Zuendel, and other leading figures of holocaust revisionism.

In October 1995, Foerster published my fourth revisionist book, Todesursache Zeitgeschichtsforschung ("Cause of death: Research of contemporary history"). This book could be called a novel because of its fictitious background: In a German school, two groups of students discuss about the holocaust and other delicate historical subjects. One group believes in the orthodox holocaust story, while the other one does not, and both groups present their best arguments. At the end of the debates, which the revisionists win, the teacher, Miss Margarethe Laemple, is converted to revisionism. She loses her job for having encouraged an controversial debate on the holocaust and is later murdered; hence the title of the book. While Todesursache Zeitgeschichtsforschung is certainly not the most scientific book I have written, it has ever since been my most popular one. I was aghast to discover that some readers believed the story had happened in real life - one German lady even wanted to know where Miss Laemple, the unfortunate heroine of the novel, was buried, so that she could put flowers on her grave!

In July/August and November/December 1995, I made two long visits to Moscow with Carlo Mattogno in order to work in Russian archives. We found heaps of wartime documents about Auschwitz and other National Socialist concentration camps and made thousands of photocopies many of which Mattogno has used in his books since. During our first trip, we were accompanied by our faithful friend Russ Granata, an elderly American gentleman of Italian descent. Granata, who has published several books by Carlo Mattogno in English, has now his own revisionist website (www.russgranata.com).

In 1996, the manuscript of a book which was never to be printed in German - a summary of revisionist arguments much superior to The Holocaust under the Scanner - was translated into Russian. The title was Mif o Kholokoste - "The Myth of the holocaust". The book, which was first published as a special issue of the nationalist and anti-Zionist monthly Russki Vestnik, was hugely successful. The German manuscript was later translated into English. This English version does not exist in print, but it is available on the internet under the title Holocaust or Hoax? The arguments (Historical Review Press, http://ety.com/HRP).

In January 1997, I published an essay called Vom Untergang der Schweizerischen Freiheit ("The decline of Swiss freedom"), a scathing attack upon the "Anti-racism law" which had been enacted two years earlier. I showed that the law was a purely Zionist creation and that its main purpose was the repression of holocaust revisionism. Two and a half years later, in October 1999, this booklet was to cause a political storm. Christoph Blocher, a populist politician who leads the right wing of the conservative Swiss People's Party, had got a copy of Vom Untergang der Schweizerischen Freiheit from one of my friends and thanked him in a short personal letter, stating that Juergen Graf was right. One week before the October 1999 elections, in which Blocher's party was expected to score massive gains, the Sunday newspaper Sonntagsblick published the letter and castigated Blocher because of his alleged pro-revisionist sympathies. For several days, Switzerland resembled a madhouse as the media were talking about nothing but the Blocher letter. Predictably, Blocher threw the towel; he claimed that he had committed a regrettable error and that he had never read the book. The smear campaign backfired, and Blocher's party won an impressive victory.

In the summer of 1997, I travelled to Poland, Lithuania and White Russia with Carlo Mattogno. In Poland, we did research in the archives of the former concentration camps Majdanek and Stutthof and made many photographs of the purported homicidal gas chambers. After returning from this journey, Mattogno and I wrote a book about Majdanek. KL Majdanek. Eine historische und technische Studie ("Concentration camp Majdanek. A historical and technical study") was published by Germar Rudolf's Castle Hill Publisher (Hastings, TN34 3ZQ, UK) in September 1998. About two thirds of the book were written by Mattogno. He was the author of the very difficult technical chapters about the gas chambers and the crematoria which I could not have written because my technical knowledge would have been totally insufficient for such a task.

In May 1998, Mattogno and I made a trip to Belgium and Holland. In Antwerpen, Belgium, we visited one of our best friends, the indefatigable revisionist publisher Siegfried Verbeke, a key figures of European revisionism. In Amsterdam, Holland, we spent some days in archives where countless war time documents - also about the German concentration camps - are being kept.

On July 16, 1998, my editor Gerhard Foerster and myself went on trial in Baden, Switzerland, for alleged violation of the Swiss "anti-racism law". The law forbids "denying, minimising or justifying a genocide", but mentions neither gas chambers nor the six million figure nor, indeed, the Jews and the holocaust. Being open to all sorts of interpretations, the wording of the "anti-racism law" enables the judges to condemn everybody for everything. I was sentenced to 15 months in jail without probation, whereas Foerster got 12 months; in addition we were both fined astronomical sums. I was even punished for the books I had written before the law was enacted! An English-language documentation about this trial can be found in the last chapters of my book Holocaust or Hoax? The arguments (http:www.ety.com/HRP).

Foerster, who was so sick at the time of the trial that he had to be brought into the courtroom in a wheelchair, died nine weeks later, on September 23, 1998. I had visited him in hospital three days before his demise. He is buried in Wuerenlos where he had spent the last decades of his eventful life. May he rest in peace!

My lawyer, Dr. Urs Oswald, had done an excellent job, but as the trial was a political one, the sentence was fixed in advance, and no lawyer in the world could had influenced it. Of course, Dr. Oswald appealed the verdict. On June 23, 1999, the court of the canton of Aargau confirmed the sentence, whereupon Dr. Oswald appealed to the highest court, the federal court in Lausanne. In April 2000, I learned that the appeal had been rejected, and I was ordered to report to prison on October 2. But at that time, I was in Moscow with my fiancee. - The Swiss organisation Verite et Justice, which is headed by Rene-Louis Berclaz, Philippe Brennenstuhl, and myself, has published a documentation about my case (Un proces politique au scanner. L'affaire Juergen Graf, "A political trial under the scanner. The case of Juergen Graf"). The booklet was translated into German under the title Inquisitoren in Aktion ("Inquisitors in action"). Both versions are available at Verite et Justice, C.P. 355, 1618 Chatel-St. Denis, Switzerland, and on the Internet Website Wilhelm Tell (www.ety.com/tell). The English trial report mentioned earlier is based upon this documentation, but it only covers the first trial, the one held in Baden, while the brochure published by Verite et Justice also covers the second one held in Aargau and contains a lot of background information about the nefarious "anti-racism law".

In March 1999, Mattogno and I made yet another trip to Poland for further research in the archives. We also visited archives in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary. During the first part of our journey, we were accompanied by Australian revisionist Dr. Fred Toben. Toben, the director of the Adelaide Institute, was later arrested in Germany and kept in jail for seven months because he had published revisionist material on his internet website in Australia (where there is no anti-revisionist law). According to a recent decision of the German "Bundesverfassungsgericht" (Supreme court), anybody who posts revisionist material on an internet website in any country of the world can be arrested and sent to prison for five years as soon as he enters Germany.

Upon returning to Italy, we wrote a book about Stutthof, Das Konzentrationslager Stutthof und seine Funktion in der nationalsozialistischen Judenpolitik ("The concentration camp Stutthof and its function in the Jewish policy of the National socialists"), which was published by Castle Hill Publisher, Hastings, in the fall of the same year. As well as our book about Majdanek, the one about Stutthof has already been translated into English but is not yet available in print. The English versions of both books will appear in 2001.

In early of 2000, Castle Hill Publisher published my book Riese auf toenernen Fuessen. Raul Hilberg und sein Standardwerk ueber den Holocaust ("Giant on clay feet. Raul Hilberg and his standard work about the Holocaust"), a devastating attack upon the Austrian-born American Jew Raul Hilberg whose three-volume study The Destruction of the European Jews(the "definitive" version of which appeared in 1985) is universally praised as the standard work about the holocaust. I exposed the blatantly fraudulent methods used by the swindler Hilberg in order to substantiate the orthodox holocaust claims. - This book will appear in English in the spring of 2001.

In 1999 and 2000, I engaged in numerous activities on behalf of Verite et Justice, an organisation fighting for the restoration of intellectual freedom in Switzerland. In March 2000, Verite et Justice published its second booklet, Le Contre-Rapport Bergier ("The Anti-Bergier Report"), which soundly refuted the mendacious Bergier Report. (In late 1999, a group of Zionist and pro-Zionist propagandists headed by professor Bergier had published the so-called Bergier Report denigrating Switzerland as a country heavily involved in the Nazi holocaust. This tendentious report, which contained countless distortions and downright lies, was to serve as an ideological justification for further Jewish financial claims against our country.) Both the French and the German version of our answer to Bergier are available at Verite et Justice and on the Internet Website Wilhelm Tell (www.ety.com/tell). In September 2000, Verite et Justice documented the atrocious trial of 79 years old revisionist publisher Gaston-Armand Amaudruz, whom a court in Lausanne had sentenced to one year in prison for disputing the six million figure and questioning the existence of the Nazi gas chambers, in its third brochure Le proces Amaudruz. Une farce judiciaire ("The Amaudruz trial. A parody of justice", German version: Der Amaudruz-Prozess. Eine Justizfarce).

In April and May 2000, Mattogno and I visited Moscow for the third time in order to finish our work in the archives. In late May, I attended the 13th conference of the Institute for Historical Review in California where I delivered a speech on the subject "What happened to the Jews who were deported to Auschwitz but were not registered there?" (The text of this speech was printed in the Journal of Historical Review, Volume 19, Number 4, July/August 2000). Three months later, in the second half of August, I accompanied Richard Krege, a young and brilliant Australian engineer, to Poland. The purpose of this trip will be explained later. - From Poland, I went to Russia and later to Ukraine to do research in the archives of Lemberg (Lwiw). - I should like to point out that all these journeys were made possible by generous sponsors.

Revisionism has radically changed my life. Although my existence has become perilous and precarious, it is now more interesting and more meaningful than ever before as I know that I am fighting against something fundamentally evil. Discovering the truth about the holocaust was a singular intellectual adventure and opened my eyes. Having ascertained that the Jewish extermination and homicidal gas chamber story is but a monstrous hoax, I understood the true nature of the so-called "Western democracy", and I became aware of the fact that a hostile alien minority is the driving force behind the decadence and corruption corroding Western society. The holocaust is but the most extreme case of the lies the Jewish-run media are continuously poisoning the world with. A very significant example is the vicious propaganda against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Jews and their stooges bitterly hate Iran because that country has dared to challenge the political, military and cultural imperialism of the world's only remaining superpower, the Zionist-led USA. It is of paramount importance to remember that the people who are constantly lying about "gas chambers" and "six million" are the same ones who relentlessly vilify Iran and the Islamic Revolution. They are, incidentally, the same people who propagate abortion, gay rights (including the right of homosexuals to marry a partner of their own sex and the right of homosexual couples to adopt children), hard-core pornography, and similar abominations.

 

                                                

2. The official version of the holocaust

The world "holocaust" is of Greek origin and means "immolation by fire". It is nowadays almost exclusively used to design the alleged extermination of the Jews by the Germans during the Second World War.

According to the orthodox historians, the National Socialist leadership, having decided to wipe out the Jewish race, set up six extermination camps where [six] million of Jews were gassed. All six killing factories were located in Poland (or in territories which had been Polish before the war and were annexed by Germany in 1939 before returning to Poland in 1945). Four of them (Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor and Chelmno) were pure extermination camps, and only a handful of Jews survived them. At Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor, the Jews were murdered in gas chambers, at Chelmno in gas vans. The remaining two extermination centres, Auschwitz and Majdanek, served both as killing factories and as labour camps. In these two camps, the Jews unfit for labour were gassed, while those able to work were at least temporarily spared. The bodies of the gassed Jews were burnt, partly in crematoria, partly in the open air, so that no mass graves were found after the war. As all gassing orders were only given orally, no documentary evidence corroborating the existence of homicidal gas chambers has ever been discovered.

The Holocaust historians claim that, in addition to the mass gassings, the Germans shot between one and two million Jews on the Eastern front. According to them, between five and six million Jews perished in the German sphere of influence. More than half of them were murdered in homicidal gas chambers (and, to a much lesser extent, in homicidal gas vans), a large part of them were shot in the occupied Soviet territories, and the remaining ones (some hundreds of thousands) perished from diseases, starvation and bad treatment in labour camps and ghettos.

This is the official version of the holocaust, as it is described in Raul Hilberg's standard work The Destruction of the European Jews. But as we shall see later, the first versions were very different from the story we are told today.

 

3. The revisionist thesis

Nobody denies the persecution of the Jews during World War Two. This persecution was very real and very brutal. However, a small but increasingly influential group of scholars, who call themselves "revisionists" - their opponents prefer to call them "holocaust deniers" - claim that the Germans never planned to exterminate the Jewish people, that the killing factories, homicidal gas chambers and gas vans did not exist and that the figure of five to six million Jewish victims is an irresponsible exaggeration. Revisionists do not deny that many Jews were shot by the Germans in the occupied Soviet territories, but consider the figures pandered by the orthodox historians (one to two million shot Jews) to be heavily inflated.

For the revisionists, the Jewish tragedy during World War Two is not fundamentally different from the tragedies many other nations have suffered in wartimes. The persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, concentration camps and forced labour, the shooting of civilians - all these things have occurred many times throughout history. Thus, for the revisionists, what happened to the Jews was by no means a historically unique event as the official historians claim.

In order to ascertain who is right, the orthodox historians or the revisionists, one must resolve the crucial question of the gas chambers. (When referring to "gas chambers", I always mean homicidal ones, not the delousing chambers which were found in all concentrations camps and were often called "gas chambers" in German wartime documents.) If the homicidal gas chambers did not exist, there was no holocaust, because there was no murder weapon, and the six million figure has to be drastically reduced, as the several million gassed Jew were non-existing people.

Of course, the revisionists cannot prove that no Jews were gassed. It is usually very difficult to prove that a certain event did not take place. For example, none of us could prove that he has never committed a murder. But if somebody charges us with murder, he must produce hard evidence to substantiate his accusation, otherwise he will be despised as a foul-mouthed slanderer. - While the revisionists cannot prove that no Jews were gassed during the Second World War, they are able to prove that the alleged mass slaughter in gas chambers as described by eye-witnesses cannot possible have taken place because it was technically impossible. They can also demonstrate that it would have been quite impossible to dispose of millions of human bodies in the so-called extermination camps.

Even if the defenders of the holocaust story were able to produce a document proving that some Jews were gassed in World War Two, this would not invalidate the revisionist thesis, as one or two isolated cases would probably have been the work of a few criminal individuals. However, it should be stressed that not even one case of homicidal gassing by the Germans during World War Two has ever been proved by a document and that not a single body of a gassed prisoner was found by the allied troops who liberated the German concentrations camps in 1944 and 1945. This is candidly admitted by the orthodox holocaust historians.

4. How the revisionists are presented in the media

If you want to control society, you have to control the media. The average citizen believes what he reads in his newspaper and what he sees on TV. For this reason, the overwhelming majority of the people in Western society accept the official holocaust story and reject revisionism - about which they know nothing, because the media invariably present the revisionist arguments in a grossly distorted way. For example, they mendaciously claim that the revisionists deny the persecution of the Jews or the existence of the concentration camps.

When the Swiss television commented upon the Baden trial against my editor Gerhard Foerster and myself, they showed pictures of dead concentration camp inmates found by American and British troops in the spring of 1945, insinuating that the revisionists were dismissing such photographs as forgeries. But no revisionist has ever claimed that these photographs were fakes. In the last months of the war, tens of thousands of prisoners died in the German concentration camps because the German infrastructure had collapsed as a result of relentless Allied terror bombing which had led to catastrophic shortages in the camps of medication and food. New inmates were constantly sent to the Western camps as the Eastern ones were being evacuated, so that the western camps were terribly overcrowded. There was no more insecticide to fight the lice which spread pectoral typhus, and countless prisoners succumbed to this dread disease. Under these circumstances, 15.389 people died in the Dachau concentration camp near Munich between January and April 1945, whereas the death toll between January 1940 and December 1944 had been 12.060 (Paul Berben, Dachau. The official History, The Norfolk Press, London 1975; these figures are universally accepted, both by the orthodox historians and the revisionists). Not even the most ardent defenders of the official holocaust story say that the horrible scenes American and British soldiers witnessed in the liberated camps (incidentally, a large percentage of the victims were non-Jewish) were the result of a deliberate extermination policy. According to the orthodox holocaust story, the gassings at Auschwitz, the last functioning "extermination camp", were stopped in late October or early November 1944, and there were no homicidal gas chambers in the western camps such as Dachau, Buchenwald, and Bergen-Belsen which the British and Americans liberated in spring 1945. But the average TV spectator does not know this; he believes that the bodies shown on television are those of murdered Jews, and he gets very angry at the revisionists who seem to deny the undeniable. - So, the media "prove" gassings at Auschwitz and Treblinka by showing victims of typhus, dysentery and starvation at Dachau and Bergen-Belsen!

The media, which never ever allow the revisionists to present their arguments themselves, routinely depict them as neo-Nazis who falsify history in order to whitewash the National Socialist regime. This is totally untrue for several reasons:

- Revisionism is not a political ideology. The revisionists don't waste their time arguing whether Hitler was right or wrong. They simple want to find out what really happened.

- The father of revisionism, the Frenchman Paul Rassinier, was a former inmate of two German concentration camps (Buchenwald and Dora). Rassinier, who was not Jewish, was a anti-Nazi resistance fighter. He was arrested in 1943 and tortured before being sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp. After the war, Rassinier read many blatantly untrue stories about Buchenwald. Former inmates claimed that there had been a homicidal gas chamber in that camp, which Rassinier knew to be a lie as he had been in Buchenwald himself. In his largely autobiographical book Le Mensonge d'Ulysse ("The Lie of Ulysses"), which appeared in 1950 and is perhaps still the best account ever written by a former inmate of a German concentration camp, Rassinier expressed the view that there had undoubtedly been gas chambers in some of the camps, but that the number of the victims had been grossly exaggerated. However, in his 1964 book Le drame des juifs europeens ("The Drama of the European Jews", Les sept couleurs, Paris 1964), he branded the gas chamber and Jewish extermination story as "the most macabre lie of all times". Rassinier died in 1967.

- Several Jews, such as the very courageous and very anti-Zionist Josef Gideon Burg (who died in 1990) have espoused the revisionist point of view. (A young American Jewish revisionist, David Cole, recanted some years ago because the hooligans of the "Jewish Defence League" had made his life a living hell and threatened to murder him.)

- It is true that some revisionists - by no means all of them! - sympathise with National Socialism, but this is totally irrelevant as only the arguments count. When an astronomer claims to have discovered a new planet, we do not ask whether he is a fascist, a conservative, a liberal, a socialist or a communist. We only want to know whether he has really discovered a new planet or not.

Some revisionists have tried to avoid the accusation of "Neo-Nazism"

by making strong anti-Nazi and anti-Hitler statements. It did not help them a bit, because everybody who challenges the gas chambers and the six million figure will automatically be branded as a "Neo-Nazi" and a "Hitlerite" by the media even if he condemns Hitler ten times a day.

5. Anti-revisionist repression

Up to this day, seven European countries have adopted repressive laws which make holocaust revisionism a criminal offence. Of cause, these laws, which grossly violate the principles of free speech and free historical research, reveal the weakness of the official holocaust version: If the revisionists were wrong, it would be amply sufficient to refute them publicly, for example in TV discussions. But such debates are not allowed in the so-called free world. The only televised discussion between a revisionist and an anti-revisionist took place in April 1979 when professor Robert Faurisson debated German holocaust specialist professor Wolfgang Scheffler on the Italian-language Swiss TV. A survey showed that most spectators felt Faurisson had won. Since 1979, the revisionist position has been greatly strengthened thanks to the efforts of revisionist researchers, while the adherents of the official holocaust story have made no progress whatsoever. It is therefore easily understandable that the opinion makers of Western society trembles at the very idea of an open discussion on the holocaust - quite apart from the fact that today none of the orthodox historians would have the courage to debate a competent revisionist in public.

Anti-revisionist repression is especially ferocious in Germany where the survival of the entire political system hinges on its ability to keep the holocaust lie alive. Hundreds of German revisionists have been sentenced to stiff fines and jail sentences. Most of them have been prosecuted according to the paragraph 130 of the Criminal Code ("Incitement to racial hatred"). In October 1992, Major General Otto Ernst Remer, one of the most highly decorated soldiers of World War Two, was sentenced to 22 months imprisonment without probation in Schweinfurt for "holocaust denial". (Remer, a seriously ill man aged 82 then, was brought to Spain by friends. He died in his Spanish exile on Oct. 4, 1997). In April 1995, former National Democratic Party chairman Guenther Deckert, a teacher of English and French, was sentenced to two years in jail for translating a technical talk by revisionist US gas chamber expert Fred Leuchter. While in prison, Deckert got another three years for similar offences. In June 1995, chemist Germar Rudolf, who had written a scientific report about the alleged Auschwitz homicidal gas chambers, was sentenced to 14 months incarceration. He went into exile. In May 1996, editor Wigbert Grabert was fined 30.000 Mark for publishing the scientific revisionist anthology Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte ("Foundation of contemporary history", Grabert Verlag, Tuebingen 1994). Even before the book was forbidden, German citizens were getting up to six months in jail for the crime of ordering more than one copy of the book. Also in May 1996, historian Udo Walendy, who had published the revisionist quarterly Historische Tatsachen, was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment for "trivialising the holocaust". Walendy, who is now over 70 and chronically sick, later got a second prison of 22 more months in prison for "what-he-didn't-write". For those unfamiliar with the case: the historian historian and university-trained political scientist Udo Walendy was sentenced not for what he had written, but for what he had not written. Judge Knöner:

"We're not dealing with what you wrote here, that's not the task of this court, but what you did not write!" (Quoted by Westfalen-Blatt, May 8, 1997).

While I am writing these lines, Walendy, who is now the most prominent political prisoner of the repressive German regime, is still behind bars. Another political prisoner is agricultural engineer Erhard Kempner who has spent years in jail for "holocaust denial". - In none of these abominable terror trials did the court spend as much as one second considering the arguments of the defendants.

In Austria, a revisionist theoretically risks a 20 years prison term, because Austrian law equates revisionism with the attempt to restore National Socialist rule. In France, where the revisionists are particularly numerous and active, about a hundred trials have taken place, but with one exception (Alain Guionnet), no revisionist has been sent to jail so far since the French courts usually content themselves with huge fines (which the defendants have to pay to Jewish organisations). In Switzerland, nine revisionists (Arthur Vogt, Andreas Studer, Ernst Indlekofer, Aldo Ferraglia, Dr. Max Wahl, Rene-Louis Berclaz, Gaston-Armand Amaudruz, Gerhard Foerster and myself) have been sentenced to fines and/or prison terms since the "anti-racism law" was enacted in 1995. In Belgium, there has been an anti-revisionist law for several years, but it has never been applied so far, not even against the very active and very efficient editor Siegfried Verbeke who sends revisionist material to almost every European country. In Spain, historian and publisher Pedro Varela, who is not only a revisionist, but an outspoken anti-Zionist as well, was sentenced to no less than five years in prison in November 1998, but the verdict was later nullified by a higher court. In Poland, where the anti-revisionist law was enacted in 1999, university professor Dariusz Ratajczak was put on trial in October of that year because he had published a booklet in which he objectively summarised the revisionist arguments and stated that the six million figure was an exaggeration. Ratajczak was acquitted, but he had lost his job even before the trial. - Incidentally, the booklet was named Tematy niebezpeczne ("Dangerous subjects"). When I visited Ratajczak in August of this year, he laughingly told me he now knew that there is only one dangerous subject...

A particularly outrageous feature of anti-revisionist repression is that the defendants are never allowed to prove the validity of their arguments. A revisionist who sticks to his views in court usually faces a particularly severe punishment because of his "obstinacy" and "unwillingness to repent".

At the Baden trial against Foerster and me, my lawyer Dr. Oswald had summoned two witnesses, professor Faurisson and Austrian engineer Wolfgang Froehlich, who were to testify that the revisionists had cogent arguments against the gas chamber story. Faurisson was not permitted to speak. However, Froehlich, a pest control specialist, was allowed to make a statement. He declared that homicidal gassings as described by former Auschwitz inmates were technically impossible. His statement ran as follows:

"The insecticide Zyklon B consists of hydrocyanic acid absorbed in a granulate carrier substance. The hydrocyanic acid is released through contact with the air. The boiling point of hydrocyanic acid is 25,7 degrees C. The higher the temperature, the faster the evaporation rate. The delousing chambers in which Zyklon B was used in National Socialist camps and elsewhere were heated up to 30 degrees or more, so that the hydrocyanic acid left the carrier granulate rapidly. On the other hand, much lower temperatures prevailed in the half-subterranean morgues of the crematoria at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where, according to eyewitness accounts, mass murders are supposed to have taken place using Zyklon B. Even if one assumes the rooms were warmed by the bodies of the hypothetical occupants, the temperature should not have exceeded 15 degrees even in the warm season. The hydrocyanic acid would therefore have taken many hours to evaporate. According to the eyewitness accounts, the victims died very rapidly. The eyewitnesses speak of time periods ranging from 'immediately' to 15 minutes. To kill the occupants of the gas chambers in such a short amount of time, the Germans would have had to use absurdly high quantities of Zyklon B, I assume from 40 to 50 kg per gassing procedure. The members of the Special Kommando who, according to the eyewitnesses, were responsible for removing the bodies from the chamber, would have collapsed at once, even if they had worn gas masks. Immensely great quantities of hydrocyanic acid vapour would have streamed into the open air though the open doors, contaminating the entire camp."

When the engineer had got to this point, public prosecutor Dominik Aufdenblatten, acting like a madman, interrupted him and threatened to charge him with racial discrimination!

At the Amaudruz trial in Lausanne, the court refused to hear the two witnesses summoned by the defence (Faurisson and French lawyer Eric Delcroix). In Germany, Dr. Ludwig Bock, the lawyer of imprisoned revisionist Guenther Deckert, was fined 10.000 Deutschmark because he had asked for an independant expert report about the technical feasibility of the alleged homicidal gassings! Thus, the defence is practically paralysed, and a lawyer defending his client too vigorously knows that he risks being accused and punished himself.

It is a remarkable fact that the stronghold of Zionism, the USA, has no anti-revisionist law as this would constitute a violation of the first amendment of the US constitution which guarantees freedom of speech. The California-based I.H.R. (Institute for Historical review) can publish books and a review and organise revisionist conferences without fear of legal repression. This does not mean that American revisionists are safe from unpleasant surprises: In July 1984, terrorists eager to silence the voice of US revisionism burnt down the headquarter of the I.H.R. But this only temporarily paralysed the activities of the Institute.

6. The simplest argument against the extermination thesis

If the official holocaust version were true, very few Jews would have survived in the German sphere of influence. Every Jew the German could get hold of would have been sent to the death camps. (One might ask oneself why the Germans should have set up extermination centres in Poland to which the Jews had to been transported from all over Europe instead of simply shooting them in their own countries, which would have been much more practical.) As a matter of fact, a large part of European Jewry was not deported at all. In France, 75.721 out of approximately 300.000 Jews were deported, and most of them had foreign passports. (This figure, which was established by Jewish historian Serge Klarsfeld in his Memorial de la Deportation des Juifs de France, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, Brussels/New York 1982, is not disputed by anybody.) Thus, the overwhelming majority of French Jews did not suffer from any serious persecution. The same thing applies to Belgium; only a small part of the indigenous Belgian Jews ever saw a concentration camp. (On the other hand, over 70% of the Dutch Jews were deported.)

Let us develop this argument further. If there had been an extermination policy, virtually no Jew would have survived the camps. But the memoirs of "holocaust survivors" fill whole libraries. Professional "survivors" such as Elie Wiesel, who present themselves as witnesses of the holocaust, are, in fact, living proofs that the purported systematic slaughter of the Jews did not take place.

Elie Wiesel, a Rumanian-born Jew who was deported together with his in the spring of 1944, spent nine months in Auschwitz. When he got sick, the Germans sent him to the camp hospital. In January 1945, when the Red Army was approaching, the German let the sick prisoners choose whether they wanted to be evacuated west or stay behind to wait for their Russian liberators. Elie Wiesel and his father opted for going west with the Germans. All this can be read in Wiesel's book La Nuit (Editions de Minuit, Paris 1958).

Even the tragic fate of the Frank family does not corroborate the official holocaust story. Anne Frank, who became world-famous after her death thanks to her diary (which, in fact, was largely written by her father Otto after the war, see Robert Faurisson, Is the Diary of Anne Frank genuine?, I.H.R., Torrance 1985) was deported from Amsterdam to Auschwitz with her family in August, 1944. Shortly afterwards, the Germans began evacuating Auschwitz because of the worsening military situation, and the prisoners were gradually transferred to the Western camps. Anne and her sister were sent to Bergen-Belsen where they succumbed to typhus shortly before the end of the war. Her mother died at Auschwitz in January 1945 (which means that she cannot possibly have been gassed because those who believe in the gassings unanimously claim they were stopped in October or November 1944). Her father survived; he moved to Switzerland after the war. The example of the Frank family illustrates that, while the Jews were indeed heavily persecuted and large numbers of them perished because of the bad conditions in the camps, there was no extermination policy because otherwise the whole family would have been gassed at Auschwitz on arrival.

Many Jews were transferred from one camp to the other without ever running the risk of being murdered. Famous cases are Austrian Jewish Socialist Benedikt Kautsky (he spent the whole war in camps, being at first interned at Dachau, thereupon sent to Buchenwald, later transferred to Auschwitz before being sent back to Buchenwald where he was liberated in April 1945), Jewish historian Arno Lustiger, a former inmate of several camps, and Israel Gutmann, editor of the Ecyclopedia of the Holocaust, who survived Majdanek, Auschwitz, Mauthausen and Gunkirchen. - Incidentally, these frequent transfers were to be explained by the permanent labour shortage in war-torn Germany; the prisoners were sent wherever they were needed for labour. In the last stage of the war, the inmates of the Eastern camps were transferred to the Western ones.

At the Amaudruz trial in Lausanne, Switzerland in April 2000, two "holocaust survivors", Sigmund Toman and Leon Reich, were summoned as witnesses by the Jewish organisations which had sued revisionist publisher Gaston-Armand Amaudruz. Reich had been in four camps, while Toman had survived Auschwitz together with his father. Far from proving the "Nazi extermination policy", these witnesses demonstrated, by their very existence, that there had been no such policy. (Verite et Justice, Le proces Amaudruz. Une farce judiciaire, Chatel-St. Denis/Switzerland, 2000.) - In February 2000, while doing research in Poland, I discovered the report of a Polish Jew who had survived no less than ten camps: The "extermination camp" Treblinka, the "extermination camp" Majdanek, and eight "ordinary" concentration camps into the bargain! (Samuel Zylbersztain, "Pamietnik Wieznia dziesieciu obozow" in: Biuletyn Zydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego Nr. 68, Warsaw 1968.)

As the countless former Jewish concentration camp inmates who wrote their memoirs after the war are forced to explain how they managed to survive the "Nazi killing machine", they routinely ascribe their rescue to a miracle. Here are two examples (there are many more in my book Holocaust or Hoax? The arguments). Elie Wiesel, who claimed that the Germans burnt the Jews alive (an accusation no longer made by any historian today), describes his miraculous escape from death as follows:

"Not far from us blazed flames from a pit, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drove up to the pit and dumped something into it. They were small children. Babies! Yes, I had seen it with my own eyes! Children in the flames (is it a wonder that sleep shuns my eyes since that time?) We went there, too. Somewhat further along was another, bigger pit for adults. 'Father', I said, 'if that is so, I wish to wait no longer. I shall throw myself into the electrified barbed wire. That is better than suffering in the flames for hours.' (...) Our column had only fifteen steps to go. I bit my lips, so that my father would not hear my teeth gnashing. Another ten steps. Eight, seven. We marched together, as if behind the hearse of our own funeral. Only four steps to go. Three steps. It was now quite close, the ditch with its flames. I gathered all my remaining strength to jump out of the line and throw myself against the barbed wire. Deep in my heart I took farewell from my father, from the whole world. (...) It was almost the moment I stood before the Death Angel. No. Two steps away from the ditch, they ordered us to turn around, and we were told to go into a barracks". (Elie Wiesel, La Nuit, Editions de Minuit, Paris 1958, p. 58-60.)

An even bigger miracle was reported in Canada in 1993:

"As an eleven year old boy held captive at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp during WW II, Moshe Peer was sent to the gas chamber at least six times. Each time he survived, watching with horror as many of the women and children gassed with him collapsed and died. To this day, Peer doesn't know how he managed to survive. 'Maybe children resist better, I don't know', he said in an interview last week. (...) Peer and his sisters, WHO ALL SURVIVED, were cared for by two camp women. After the war, Peer was reunited with his father and his wife." (The Gazette, Montreal, 5 August 1993).

7. The evolution of the holocaust story

a) The killing methods

Starting in late 1941, the Jewish organisations in the allied and neutral countries inundated the world with an endless flood of gruesome tales about the extermination of the Jews in the parts of Europe controlled by Germany. When reading these accounts, we notice that they do not jibe with today's version of the holocaust. According to this latter, the Jews were murdered with Diesel exhaust gas in the four "pure extermination camps" Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor and Chelmno, while they were killed with the insecticide Zyklon-B at Auschwitz and Majdanek (in Majdanek, the Germans are also said to have used Carbon monoxide as a murder weapon). But the stories pandered by the Jewish organisations during the war were totally different. As we have already seen, Elie Wiesel contended in his book La Nuit, which was published in 1958, that the Germans burned their victims alive. Wiesel had belatedly taken up a horror story dear to the Jewish wartime atrocity mongers. Another killing method often mentioned in Jewish wartime propaganda was murder by electrical current. For example, Dr. Stefan Szende, a Swedish-based Jew of Hungarian origin, described the alleged mass extermination at the Belzec camp as follows:

"The death factory comprises an area approximately seven kilometres in diameter. (...) The trains filled with Jews entered the underground rooms of the execution factory. (...) The naked Jews were brought into gigantic halls. Several thousand people at one time could be filled into these halls. The floor was of metal and was submergible. The floors of these halls, with their thousands of Jews, sank into a water basin which lay beneath - but only far enough so that the people on the metal plate were not entirely under water. When all the Jews on the metal plate were in the water to over their hips, electrical current was sent through the water. After a few moments, all the Jews, thousands at once, were dead. Then the metal plate was raised out of the water. On it lay the corpses of the murdered victims. Another shock of electrical current was sent through, and the metal plate became a crematory oven, white hot, until all the bodies were burnt to ashes. (...) Each individual train brought three to five thousand, sometimes more, Jews. There were days on which the lines to Belzec supplied twenty or more trains. Modern technology triumphed in the Nazi system. The problem of how to exterminate millions of people was solved." (Stefan Szende, Der letzte Jude aus Polen, Europa Verlag, Zurich-New York 1945, p. 290 ff.).

On 14 December 1945, during the Nuremberg trial - where the victors, who had themselves committed heinous crimes against humanity, hypocritically judged the defeated - the Polish authorities submitted a report about Treblinka which described the alleged mass murder at that camp in the following way:

"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. (...)From reports received it may be assumed that several hundred thousands of Jews have been exterminated at Treblinka". (Nuremberg document PS-3311, translation of the German version).

In addition to burning alive, electrical current and steam, numerous other killing methods were described by the "eyewitnesses": Suffocating by pumping the air out of the chambers; quicklime; drowning; blood poisoning; burying alive; assembly line shooting. (See my book Holocaust or Hoax? The arguments, chapter five.) All these stories have fallen into oblivion. Only the gas remains.

b) Which camps had gas chambers?

Nowadays, most holocaust historians claim that only the "extermination camps", all of which are in Poland, had homicidal gas chambers (some historians hold that small-scale gassings involving a few thousand victims also occurred at Mauthausen, Austria, and Stutthof, Poland, but holocaust pope Raul Hilbergs does not mention gassings at either of these two camps in his standard work). However, according to the immediate post-war version, there had been a gas chamber used for the extermination of Jews in nearly every camp. British prosecutor Sir Stanley Hartcross claimed during the closing phase of the Nuremberg trial that the Germans had conducted murder "like some mass production in the gas chambers and the ovens of Auschwitz, Dachau, Treblinka, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Majdanek and Oranienburg" (Nuremberg volume IMT XIX p. 483, translation of the German version). Today, no self-respecting historian contends that there were gas chambers at Dachau, Buchenwald, and Oranienburg, or that the German conducted murder in the ovens (everybody agrees on the fact that the crematoria served for the incineration of dead bodies, not of living people). In January 1946, the Czech physician Dr. Franz Blaha, who had been interned in Dachau and practised his profession there, speaking under oath at the Nuremberg trial, declared that he had personally examined the corpses of gassed prisoners (Nuremberg volume IMT V p. 198, German version). Many "eye witnesses" confirmed the existence of gas chambers at Buchenwald, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and other Western camps. However, in 1960, leading German holocaust historian Martin Broszat categorically stated that there had never been any homicidal gassings in the concentration camps of the "Old Reich" (to wit, of Germany in its 1939 borders), and that gassings had only occurred in the "extermination camps", which were on Polish soil (Die Zeit, 19 August 1960).Thus, Broszat declared null and void all eyewitness reports about gassings in the Western camps. Now, why should the eyewitness accounts about gassing at Auschwitz, Belzec and Treblinka be any more trustworthy that the ones about gassings in Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen and Dachau? Ever since the days of Rassinier, revisionists have been asking this simple and obvious question. They never got an answer.

c) The Jewish soap story

A particularly revolting example of Jewish atrocity propaganda was the claim that the German used the fat of murdered Jews for the production of soap. Many people still believe this today, as the preposterous rubbish was constantly warmed up by the media for decades. Jewish "Nazi hunter" and arch-lier Simon Wiesenthal wrote in the Austrian newspaper Der Neue Weg (Nr. 15/16, 1946):

"During the last weeks of March [1946] the Romanian press reported an unusual piece of news: In the small Romanian town of Folticeni, 20 boxes of soap were buried in the Jewish cemetery with full ceremony and complete funeral rites. The soap had been fund recently in a former German army depot. On the boxes were the initials RIF, 'rein juedisches Fett'" [pure Jewish fat].

As a matter of fact, "RIF" did not mean "rein juedisches Fett" (pure Jewish fat), but "Reichsstelle fuer industrielle Fettversorgung", to wit "State bureau for industrial fat provision". In 1990, Israeli holocaust specialist Shmuel Krakowski admitted that the Jewish soap tale was a myth (Daily Telegraph, 25 April 1990). However, Krakowski had the impudence to blame the lie on the Germans who, according to him, had invented the story in order to scare their Jewish prisoners!

d) The number of concentration camp victims

At the Nuremberg trial, the Soviets claimed that no less than four million people had perished at Auschwitz. (Nuremberg document URSS-008). For 45 years, the Polish authorities stuck to this absurd figure, but in 1990 they grudgingly admitted that it was greatly exaggerated, now contending that the real number was 1,5 million. (For the sake of honesty we should point out that the Western Jewish holocaust historians had never accepted the four million nonsense: in his standard work The Destruction of the European Jews, Holmes and Meier, New York 1985, p. 895, Raul Hilberg put the number of Jewish and non-Jewish Auschwitz victims at 1,25 million.) In 1993, the Frenchman Jean-Claude Pressac, whom the media enthusiastically extolled as the man who had finally refuted the revisionists, lowered the Auschwitz death toll to 775.00 (Les crematoires d'Auschwitz, CNRS, Paris 1993). In the subsequent German version of this book, Pressac further reduced the number to 630.000 (Die Krematorien von Auschwitz, Piper Verlag, Munich 1994). In reality, about 150.000 prisoners, probably just over half of them Jewish, died at the Auschwitz camp from all causes (diseases, starvation, exhaustion, old age, execution by shooting or hanging, etc.). This will be demonstrated by Italian historian Carlo Mattogno in a book due to appear in 2001 and exclusively based on German wartime documents. - As for Majdanek, the Poles and the Soviets claimed after the liberation of that camp in summer 1944 that 1,7 million prisoners had perished there. Already in 1948, the figure was lowered to 360.000, and in the early ninetieth, it was further reduced to 235.000. The real number is about 42.500 (Juergen Graf and Carlo Mattogno, KL Majdanek. Eine historische und technische Studie, Castle Hill Publisher, Hastings 1998).

Significantly, the massive reduction of the death toll for the individual camps does not affect the sacrosanct figure of six (or five to six) million holocaust victims. This figure remains as solid as the pyramids. So, if you have six apples in a basket, you can eat one, two or even three of them, there are still six apples left! That is holocaust mathematics.

8. The Jewish policy of the National Socialist government in the light of the wartime documents

Adolf Hitler's National Socialist German Worker's Party, which assumed power in January 1933, was anti-Jewish. The National Socialists regarded the Jewish people as an element of decadence and destruction and the spearhead of international Communism (not only had Marx and most Communist theoreticians been Jewish, but the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was largely lead by Jews). From 1933, Hitler's government adapted numerous laws restricting the rights of the German Jews, so that many of them went into exile. In order to speed up Jewish emigration, the National Socialists closely co-operated with Zionist groups which wanted the Jews to go to Palestine. This National Socialist-Zionist co-operation has been extensively documented by American Jewish writer Edwin Black in The Transfer Agreement (New York/London 1994) and is disputed by nobody. Before 1941, the majority of German and Austrian Jews had emigrated (though only a few of them actually went to Palestine), but there were large numbers of Jews in the countries the Germans had conquered in the first, successful phase of the war. Up to 1941, the German government envisaged implementing the Madagascar plan, which foresaw the resettlement of European Jewry to Madagascar and the creation of a Jewish state on that island, but as the British ruled the seas, this plan could not be carried through.

Mass deportations to the concentration camps started in 1941. The Germans desperately needed labour as most of their own able-bodies men were fighting at the front. Furthermore, the Jews were considered to be a security risk. This was no idle concern, for Jewish historian Arno Lustiger, a former resistance fighter and survivor of several camps, proudly boasted that in France, the Jews represented 15% of all active resistance, yet only 0,6% of the French population was Jewish (Der Spiegel, 7/1993).

In some of the concentration camps, especially Auschwitz and Majdanek, the mortality rate was staggeringly high. While many deaths were caused by insufficient food, bad clothing and harsh treatment, and while there were executions by shooting and hanging, diseases, especially the dreaded pectoral typhus which is carried by lice, were the main cause of the enormously high mortality. The most efficient weapon against lice was the insecticide Zyklon-B, but the quantities available were never sufficient. Far from being used to kill people, Zyklon-B was used to save them, and as Robert Faurisson aptly states, fewer prisoners would have died if the Germans had had more Zyklon-B. (The holocaust historians do not deny that Zyklon-B was an insecticide used to eradicate lice and other vermin, but they claim it had a double function, serving also as a murder weapon for the killing of Jews at Auschwitz and Majdanek). In Auschwitz, the biggest camp, the typhus epidemic reached its climax between 7 and 11 September 1942 with a daily average of 375 deaths. In January 1943, the average death rate was down to 107 a day, but by March it had risen again to 298 (Jean-Claude Pressac, Les crematoires d'Auschwitz, p. 145).

On December 28, 1942, concentration camp inspector Richard Gluecks wrote in a circular letter to all camp commandants:

"The senior doctors of the camps must use all means at their disposal to achieve a massive reduction of the mortality figures in every camp. (...) More than ever, the doctors have to ensure that the prisoners are adequately fed, and together with the camp administration, they have to submit the necessary suggestions for improvement. (...) The Reichsfuehrer SS [Heinrich Himmler] has ordered the mortality rate to be reduced at all costs." (Nuremberg document NO-1523). As a result of this order, the mortality rate sank by almost 80% by August, 1943 (Nuremberg document PS-1469). - On 26 October 1943, Oswald Pohl, head of the SS main office of economic administration, stated in a circular letter to the commandants of all 19 concentration camps:

"In earlier years, when the emphasis was on re-eduction, it did not matter if a detainee performed any useful work or not. But now, the labour of the prisoners is of paramount importance, and all efforts of the camp commandants, the direction of the administrative service and the doctors must serve the purpose to keep the prisoners in good health and able to work. Not for sentimental reasons, but because we need them with their arms and there legs, so that the German people may win a great victory, we have to take care of the health of the prisoners." (Archiwum Muzeum Stutthof, 1-1b-8, p. 53.)

Such documents prove beyond doubt that, far from intending to exterminate their prisoners, the Germans wanted to keep them alive, because they were needed as labourers. (As we will see later, this does not mean that those who were temporarily or permanently unable to work were murdered.)

Several German wartime documents refer to the "Aussiedlung" (evacuation) or "Umsiedlung" (relocation) of the Jews in the east. Thus, on August 21, 1942, Martin Luther, an official in the Ministry of Foreign Affair, wrote in a memorandum about the Jewish policy of the Reich:

"The principle of the German Jewish Policy after the assumption of power [by the National Socialists] was to promote Jewish emigration by all means. (...) The present war gives Germany the possibility and also the duty to solve the Jewish question in Europe. (...) The evacuation of the Jews from Germany began on the basis of the mentioned leader directive. [A Hitler order to evacuate the Jews.] It was logical to include immediately the Jewish citizens of the countries which had also adporte anti-Jewish measures. (...) But still, the number of Jews deported in this way to the East did not suffice to meet labour needs there." (Nuremberg document NG-2586.)

For decades, the orthodox historians, who are unable to produce even one document proving a German extermination policy, arbitrarily claimed that "relocation" and "evacuation" were code-words for "extermination", and some of them continue to repeat this nonsense even today. The expression Endloesung der Judenfrage ("Final solution of the Jewish question") is also interpreted as a camouflage-term for extermination, although several documents explicitly state that this "final solution" meant the evacuation or emigration of all Jews from the German sphere of influence. But in 1993, Jean-Claude Pressac, who believes in the gas chamber story, conceded in Les Crematoires d'Auschwitz that the coded language was a myth, and in 1996, anti-revisionist French historian Jacques Baynac honestly admitted that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of homicidal gas chambers (Le Nouveau Quotidien, Lausanne/Switzerland, 2 and 3 September, 1996).

In the early ninetieths, the Russians released the Sterbebuecher (death books) from Auschwitz. In these documents, the camp administration had meticulously recorded 66.000 death cases which had occurred at Auschwitz between mid-1941 and late 1943. Each page contained the name, date and place of birth, nationality, religion as well as the date and cause of death of a deceased prisoner. (As the death books present many gaps, and as the ones from 1944 are missing, the documentation is incomplete). The exterminationists are terribly embarrassed by these death books, as they are unable to explain why the Germans, who are supposed to have gassed up to one million Jews at Auschwitz without caring to register them, took such great pains to document every case of natural death at the camp.

In 1995, Carlo Mattogno and I visited the Russian archives where 88.000 pages of German documents emanating from the Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung (Central building administration) are being kept. These documents were made accessible to researchers in the early ninetieth. The Zentralbauleitung was responsible for the construction of the Auschwitz crematoria which, according to the holocaust story, contained homicidal gas chambers. (As a matter of fact, these "gas chambers" were just ordinary morgues where the bodies of deceased prisoners were stored prior to cremation.) Predictably, we did not find any documents corroborating the gas chamber and extermination story, for if they existed, the Soviets would triumphantly have produced them already in 1945 to prove the bestiality of the German National Socialist regime.

Not only do the documents of the camp administration not confirm the Jewish extermination story, they directly contradict it. For example, records kept at the Auschwitz museum show that 15.706 mostly Jewish prisoners received medical care at Monowitz (a sub-camp of Auschwitz) between July 1942 and June 1944. 766 of them died, the remaining ones were released from hospital (Panstwowe Muzeum w Oswiecimiu, Syg. D AuI-III-5/1, 5/2 5/3). Now, how does this fact square with an extermination policy? The myth that the unemployable were murdered is also refuted by the documents. One example may suffice to prove this. When doing research in Moscow in April/May 2000, Mattogno and I found a German-language report written under the auspices of the Russians in early 1945, just after the liberation of Auschwitz, by four Jewish doctors (Lebovits, Bloch, Reich and Weil) who had practised their profession in the camp hospital. The report contains the names of more that a thousand almost exclusively Jewish patients whom the German had left behind before evacuating the camp. Among them were 97 boys and 83 girls between one and fifteen years. (Gosudarstvenny Archiv Rossiskoi Federatsii, Moscow, document 7021-108-23). They had been deported to Auschwitz with their parents in order to avoid the separation of families. If the holocaust story were true, all of them would have been murdered long before 1945. After all, they were unable to work.

9. The scientific investigations

a) Introduction

Everybody familiar with the normal rules of court proceedings knows that physical evidence is greatly superior to eyewitness testimony, since an eyewitness may lie or err in good faith. For this reason, an autopsy of the corpse, as well as an expert report on the murder weapon, are ordered in any ordinary non-political murder trial. If the statements of eyewitnesses contradict the results of the forensic tests, the latter will be conclusive.

What is true in any ordinary murder case must apply to an even greater extent when hundreds of thousands, let alone millions of victims are involved. But after Word War Two, Germany's accusers never cared to carry out a forensic investigation of the alleged gas chambers. Nor did they make any serious effort to find out whether the Auschwitz crematoria could possibly have disposed of the four million people said to have perished at the Auschwitz camp. (This figure, which was later gradually reduced by the holocaust historians, was claimed by the Soviets at the Nuremberg trial, cf. Nuremberg document URSS-008.)

Only in two cases have the accusers of Germany made a half-hearted attempt to prove the reality of the mass extermination scientifically. After the liberation of the Majdanek concentration camp in summer 1944, a joined Polish-Soviet commission drew up a report which Carlo Mattogno and I have unearthed in the archives of the Majdanek museum and published in our book KL Majdanek. Eine historische und technische Studie (Castle Hill Publisher, Hastings, 1998, chapter V and VI). But the Polish and Soviet scientists shamelessly cheated and made ridiculous claims, affirming that the five ovens of the new Majdanek crematorium, which only started functioning six months before the end of the camp, could have cremated 600.000 bodies within this period. The real figure was about thirty-two times lower. In 1945, the Polish authorities ordered some forensic testing to be carried out at Auschwitz. In the Cracow report (the text of which figures in the anti-revisionist book Wahrheit und Auschwitz-Luege, edited by B. Bailer-Gailanda and W. Benz, Deuticke Verlag 1995), the Poles claimed to have discovered cyanide traces in sacks of human hair found at the camp. But even if this is true (which is impossible to ascertain today), it does not prove that anybody was gassed. During the war, human hair was used for industrial purposes (for example for stuffing mattresses), and in this case it would not have been unusual to delouse it before use. If any homicidal gassings had occurred, it would have been absurd to cut the hair off after the murder, since Zyklon B clings to surfaces and would have endangered the workers. The hair would have been cut before the victims were sent to the gas chambers.

The first revisionist researcher who seriously examined the technical aspects of the holocaust question was Robert Faurisson. Faurisson studied the execution technique used in some US states where death sentences were carried out with hydrocyanic acid. (Hydrocyanic acid is also the active ingredient of the insecticide Zyklon B which has the shape of small pellets from which the gas is released through contact with the air). An execution by gas is a complicated matter. Many precautions have to been taken, and the gas chamber must be hermetically sealed, otherwise the execution will become a gamble with death for the penitentiary employees. (This is one of the reasons why almost all US states have by now given up this execution method, using lethal injection instead.) Faurisson, who had visited Auschwitz and studied the plans of the crematoria which, according to the witnesses, contained gas chambers, wondered how up to 2000 people could have been murdered simultaneously in these rooms which could not be hermetically sealed and had no facilities for the introduction of the gas. He came to the conclusion that any gassing with Zyklon B performed in these rooms would not only have killed the victims in the gas chambers, but contaminated the surroundings as well, and that it would not have been possible to remove the dead bodies from the rooms shortly after the gassing, as claimed by the witnesses. (For details, see Serge Thion, Verite historique ou verite politique?, La Vieille Taupe, Paris 1980).

b) The Leuchter report

In 1985, German-born revisionist activist Ernst Zuendel was tried in Toronto, Canada, and sentenced to 15 months in prison on the basis of an obsolete law forbidding the "spreading of false news" for selling Richard Harwood's booklet Did Six Million really die? Zuendel's lawyer Douglas Christie had appealed the verdict, and the second round of the trial took place in early 1985. (About this trial, there is a book which contains an immense wealth of information about the holocaust and revisionism. It was written by Barbara Kulaszka and has the same title as the Harwood brochure which had led to the Zuendel trials, Did Six Million really die?, Samisdat Publishers, 206 Carlton Street, Toronto). During the court proceedings, Zuendel and Faurisson assigned American execution specialist Fred Leuchter, who had constructed gas chambers himself, to draw up a report about the rooms designated as gas chambers in Auschwitz I, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek. With a small crew, Leuchter flew to Poland in late February. Upon returning, he wrote his report which would become a real icebreaker and initiate the scientific victory of the revisionists (Fred Leuchter, An engineering report about the alleged execution gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland, Samisdat Publishers, Toronto 1989). Here are his conclusions about Auschwitz:

- The "gas chambers" were exactly what they were called in the war-time documents, namely ordinary morgues. Owing to their features of technical constructions, they could not have been used for homicidal gassings.

- The capacity of the crematoria would only have been sufficient to incinerate a small fraction of the alleged victims.

- Analyses of mortar samples taken from the walls of the "gas chambers" showed no significant quantities of cyanide residue. The analyses did however indicate an enormously high cyanide content in a sample taken from a Birkenau delousing chamber. (Nobody claims that human beings were gassed in that room.)

The Leuchter report was far from perfect. The chapters about the construction of the "gas chambers" contained some serious flaws (for example, Leuchter erroneously stated there had been no ventilation system in these rooms, and he overestimated the explosion risk), and the part about the capacity of the crematoria is unsatisfactory, as Leuchter had no competence in this field. However, the chemical part, which has never been refuted, would turn out to be decisive.

c) The Rudolf Report

In 1993, German chemist Germar Rudolf verified the results of the Leuchter report in a much more detailed study which is probably up to this day the most important thing the revisionists have ever produced (Das Rudolf-Gutachten. Gutachten ueber die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in den "Gaskammern" von Auschwitz, Cromwell Press, London 1993, updated version: Das Rudolf-Gutachten 2000, Castle Hill Publisher, Hastings 2000. A shortened version of the report is contained in Ernst Gauss, Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, English version: Dissecting the Holocaust, Capshaw/Alabama 2000). All attempts to refute it have failed miserably. Rudolf proved that the alleged main gas chamber of the Third Reich, the one in the crematorium II of Auschwitz-Birkenau, where several hundreds of thousands of Jews were gassed according to the eyewitnesses, was never exposed to Zyklon B. Hydrocyanic acid forms an extremely stable pigment (ferric-ferrocyanide) with the iron-bearing components of the masonry. This pigment decomposes as slowly as the masonry itself, as shown by long-time experiments over decades. High concentrations of cyanide compounds are still to be found in the delousing chambers of Birkenau, while no relevant concentrations can be traced in the alleged gas chamber of Krema II (there were four crematoria at Birkenau, named Krema II - V, but all of them were blown up in late 1944 or early 1945, and Krema II is the only one where the "gas chamber" is still partly accessible). This leads to the inevitable conclusion that no gassings can have taken place there.

Another no less crucial argument against the gassing story is that the holes in the roof of the "gas chamber", through which the Zyklon B pellets were introduced according to the witnesses, did not exist at the time when the mass murder was purportedly taking place. The witnesses speak of four round holes, and the two holes which we now sew in the roof are of irregular shape; moreover, the reinforcement rods running through the holes show that these were clumsily made after the war to create the illusion of Zyklon B introduction openings. Thus, the poison could not be introduced into the "gas chamber". This is also irrefutably demonstrated in the Rudolf report.

d) The capacity of the Auschwitz crematoria

"How can I get rid of the body of my victim?" is the nightmare of every murderer. The human body is difficult to destroy, as it consists to over 60% of water. Tales of "holocaust survivors" such as the Polish Jew Henryk Tauber, who claimed that at Auschwitz corpses could be burnt without fuel are absolutely preposterous, yet holocaust historians such as Jean-Claude Pressac, who considers Tauber a very reliable witness, take this nonsense seriously (Jean-Claude Pressac, Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1989).

A major gap in technical holocaust research was filled by the Italian Carlo Mattogno. In collaboration with engineer Franco Deana, Mattogno has written a large study about the Auschwitz crematoria which is the fruit of many years of research. The book will appear in the Italian language at Edizioni di Ar, Padova, in 2001. But already in 1994, Mattogno and Deana had published an article about the question in the scientific anthology Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte we have repeatedly referred to (English version: Dissecting the Holocaust, Capshaw/Alabama 2000). Mattogno and Deana studied the following:

1) The maximum capacity of the Auschwitz crematoria. The first crematorium was put into operation in 1941 at the main camp. Because its capacity was insufficient to incinerate the large amount of corpses (tens of thousands of prisoners succumbed to the typhus epidemics), four big crematoria were planned in 1942. From March 1943, they were put into operation in Birkenau, west of Auschwitz I, the main camp. At no time did all five crematoria function simultaneously; because of technical problems, they constantly had to be overhauled which, of cause, greatly reduced their capacity.

2) The coke deliveries to the crematoria. Except for 1944, these deliveries are documented almost completely, and as the amount of coke required for the cremation of a body is known, the maximum number of cremations may be calculated for any period.

3) The fact that the fire-resistant refractory brick masonry in the crematoria ovens was never replaced which would have been necessary after 2000 - 3000 cremations in one muffle.

Having taken into consideration all these factors, Mattogno and Deana concluded that the crematoria ovens could not possibly have disposed of more than 162.000 bodies. Now, this squares very well with Mattogno's estimate of about 150.000 Auschwitz victims (because of the gaps in the documentation, no exact figure can be given).

Of course, one has to consider the possibility of open air cremations. Such cremations certainly occurred in the second half of 1942 and in early 1943, when typhus wrought havoc at Auschwitz and the Birkenau crematoria were not yet operational. But the crucial period is the one from May to July 1944. At that time, massive deportations of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz were taking place. According to the holocaust historians, between 180.000 and 410.000 of them were gassed and burned at Birkenau between during this time. (The former figure is given by Raul Hilberg, Die Vernichtung der europaeischen Juden, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Frankfurt a.M. 1997, p.1300, the latter one by French-Jewish historian Georges Wellers, Le Monde Juif, October-December 1983, p. 153). Even the orthodox historians, who routinely exaggerate the capacity of the crematoria, agree that it would not have been possible to incinerate so many corpses in the crematoria, so they claim that most of them were burnt in big pits. (Filip Mueller, a witness especially dear to these historians, describes these pits in his book Sonderbehandlung, Verlag Steinhausen, Frankfurt a.M. 1979. His account is full of technical impossibilities.) But from December 1943, Auschwitz was repeatedly photographed by allied reconnaissance planes. Several of these photos fell into the period between May and July 1944. The most important one was made on 31 May. If we can trust the official figures of deported Hungarian Jews, 15.000 of them were brought to Auschwitz on that very day, and in the preceding days, the daily average had been 13.000. None of the events reported by Mueller and his fellow-eyewitnesses are visible in the photo: There are no lines of prisoners waiting before the crematoria, no gigantic blazing fires, no cremation pits, no smoke-blackened sky. This photo, together with other ones from the same period, can be found in John Ball's exceedingly important book Air photo evidence (Ball Resource Services, Delta/Canada 1992). So there were no large-scale open-air cremations during that period, and as the crematoria could only have incinerated a fraction of the alleged victims, the extermination of the Hungarian Jews at Auschwitz-Birkenau was radically impossible for technical reasons alone - quite apart from the fact that it is contradicted by the documents, as we will demonstrate in chapter 13.

e) The Diesel gas chambers

In the "pure extermination camps" Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor, there were no crematoria, and no homicidal use of Zyklon B is alleged. During the initial development of the holocaust yarn, all sorts of imaginable execution methods were pictured in great detail by the atrocity mongers, but all of them - from Dr. Szende's "submergible platform" to Jan Karski's "quicklime trains" and Vasili Grossman's "air-pumping vacuum chambers" - have disappeared into the rubbish bins of history and replaced by Diesel exhaust gasses which were supposedly produced by the engines of wrecked Russian tanks (or, according to an alternative version, submarines). - In the fourth and last "pure extermination camp", Chelmno, homicidal gas vans equipped with Diesel engines were used according to the holocaust historians. As French automobile constructor Pierre Marais has demonstrated in an excellent study, these vans were yet another invention of war propaganda (Les camions a gaz en question, Polemiques, Paris 1994). In all four of the "pure extermination camps", the Germans allegedly buried the bodies, only to dig them out and burn them in the open air later.

Friedrich Berg, an American engineer of German extraction, has analysed the Diesel exhaust story from a technical and toxicological point of view (his article is in Ernst Gauss, Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, English version Dissecting the Holocaust). While it is not impossible to kill people with Diesel exhaust gasses, it is an extremely cumbersome and inefficient method, for the exhaust gasses are poorly suited as murder weapons due to their high oxygen and very low carbon monoxide content. A gasoline motor can easily produce exhaust with a carbon monoxide content of 7% or more, but a Diesel motor cannot even produce a carbon monoxide content of one percent. Ironically, the introduction of Diesel exhaust gases into a chamber packed with people would only have prolonged their death agony, since these gases contain an oxygen content of approximately 16% which is sufficient for survival. Instead of introducing the exhaust gas, the executioners could simply have allowed the victims in the overcrowded gas chamber to suffocate, as the available oxygen would have been breathed up before the carbon monoxide took effect.

Incidentally, the father of the Diesel story was a madman named Kurt Gerstein who reported 20 - 25 million gassing victims. At Belzec, Gerstein claimed to have seen 35 - 40 m high piles of shoes and clothes and 28 - 32 gas chamber inmates per square meter (Andre Chelain, Faut-il fusiller Henri Roques?, Polemiques, Paris 1986). There are no less than six different versions of the Gerstein report! - Evidently, the Diesel story was later taken up by technical morons who thought that such exhausts must be an fearsome murder weapon because they stink so much. In fact, any gasoline engine would have been ten times more efficient. The holocaust historians would doubtless gladly get rid of the Diesel story, but it is too late, as it is now in all history books.

f) Body disposal at the "pure extermination camps"

The way in which the bodies of the victims were allegedly disposed of have been studied in detail by the late and regretted German engineer Arnulf Neumaier in his article Der Treblinka-Holocaust (in: Ernst Gauss, Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, English version: Dissecting the Holocaust). Neumaier assumed 875.000 Treblinka victims. This figure had been given at the Demjanjuk trial in Jerusalem, although Raul Hilberg modestly contents himself with 750.000 and the Soviet Jew Vasili Grossman had mentioned three million in 1946. For Belzec (600.000 allegedly gassed), Sobibor (200.000 - 250.000 allegedly gassed) and Chelmno (150.000 - 400.000 allegedly murdered in two or three gas vans, according to which historian you chose to believe), the figures have to be reduced accordingly, but the method of body disposal described in the standard literature were the same.

To burn 875.000 bodies in the open air would have requested at least 200 kg of wood per corpse, i.e. a total of 175.000 tons. This is equivalent to a forest 6,4 km long and 1 km wide. A deforested terrain of the corresponding size does not, and did not, exist in the vicinity of Treblinka, and the transport of 175.000 tons of wood to the camp would certainly have been noted in the records of the Germany railways if the wood had been brought from same place else.

The 875.000 bodies would have left 2900 tons of human ashes in addition to 1000 tons of wood ashes. These ashes would have contained millions of unburned pieces of bone, plus 20 to 30 million teeth. Had the Soviets and the Poles found but a fraction of these ashes, bones and teeth, they would immediately have summoned an international commission of experts to prove the depravity of their German enemies, just as the German had summoned such a commission in 1943 after finding the bodies of 4000 Polish officers the Soviets had murdered at Katyn in White Russia. But that is precisely what the Soviets and the Poles did not do. One and a half years after the Red Army had conquered the Treblinka area, the Polish authorities still claimed that the victims had been steamed to death (Nuremberg document PS-3311).

g) Ground radar investigation

In October 1999, young Australian engineer Richard Krege went to Treblinka with a ground radar instrument which, among other things, makes it possible to detect the presence of graves and is nowadays commonly used in archaeology as well as in geology. In August 2000, he made a second trip to Poland, this time accompanied by me. He continued his work at Treblinka and performed the same research at Belzec. In the holocaust literature, the places where the gigantic mass graves are supposed to have been (as we remember, the Germans allegedly buried their victims before digging them out again and burning them) are exactly marked, so there is no room for error. Kreges conclusion is formal: The huge mass graves never existed. At Belzec, he found signs of a small mass grave (not in the area designated by the holocaust historians), which is hardly surprising, as a certain number of prisoners must have died in the camp, and as there was no crematorium at that camp. Thus, the whole Belzec and Treblinka story collapses. The result of Richard Krege's investigations will be published in 2001.

10. The eyewitnesses

Raul Hilberg's standard work about the holocaust contains thousands of references to the author's sources. While Hilberg is able to quote an immense amount of wartime documents attesting the persecution of the European Jews - to wit the anti-Jewish laws enacted by Germany and her allies, and the deportation of large numbers of Jews to the concentration camps -, the few pages dedicated to the description of homicidal gassings are exclusively based upon eyewitness accounts. This is inevitable, for as we already know, there is no material or documentary evidence for the existence of extermination camps and homicidal gas chambers.

We have seen that in the immediate post-war period, there were all kind of eyewitness accounts about mass murder by fire, steam and electricity, about gas chambers at Dachau, Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen and about soap manufactured from the bodies of murdered Jews. The defenders of the holocaust story hate to be reminded of these tales because they prove the total unreliability of eyewitnesses, especially Jewish ones. Two spectacular trials, which were organised to focus the attention of world opinion once more on the holocaust, went wrong and inflicted immense damage to the credibility of Jewish witnesses. In the USA, Frank Walus, a retired factory worker of Polish extraction, was put on trial after the arch-liar Simon Wiesenthal and his gang had accused him of heinous crimes in a German wartime concentration camp. No less than eleven Jewish liars declared under oath that they had personally seen Walus fiendishly torturing and murdering Jewish prisoners. Walus spent all his savings and run into debt to finance his defence. He finally obtained documents from Germany which proved that he had spent the entire war as an agricultural worker on a farm in Bavaria. The accusation broke down, and Walus was acquitted. (Mark Weber, Simon Wiesenthal: Bogus Nazi Hunter, in: Journal of Historical Review, Volume 9, Nr. 4, Winter 1989/1990). John Demjanjuk, an American automobile worker of Ukrainian origin, was extradited to Israel for alleged unspeakable atrocities at the Treblinka camp during the war (of course, his extradition was a flagrant violation of elementary legal principles, as the state of Israel did not yet exist during the Second World War). At the Demjanjuk trial, five Jewish liars swore that they recognised in Demjanjuk "Ivan the terrible" who had cut off the breasts of Jewish women with his sword, split open the bellies of pregnant Jewesses with his sable and personally murdered hundreds of thousands of Jews with exhaust gas from the Diesel engine of a wrecked Russian tank. to the USA. (Hans Peter Rullmann, Der Fall Demjanjuk, Verlag fuer ganzheitliche Forschung, Vioel/Germany 1987.)

But Demjanjuk had never been to Treblinka. He was finally acquitted and could return to the USA.

As the revisionists have shown that the alleged homicidal gassings at Auschwitz can not have taken place for chemical and technical reasons, it is basically unnecessary to discuss the eyewitness accounts upon which the whole gas chamber lie is based. However, I will present a particularly significant case.

For decades, no lawyer and no journalist ever dared to ask the handful of swindlers who presented themselves as "gas chamber witnesses" any critical questions, so these impostors could travel from one trial and from one press conference to the other without fear of exposure. This state of affairs changed in 1985, at the first Zuendel trial in Toronto. Slovak-born Jew and former Auschwitz inmate Rudolf Vrba, by now a university professor of biology in Canada, testified on behalf of the "Holocaust Remembrance Association" which had sued Zuendel for spreading false news. Vrba was the best witness the defenders of the holocaust story could ask for. Together with his Slovak compatriot and fellow-Jew Alfred Wetzler, he had escaped from Auschwitz on 7 April, 1944 and fled to Slovakia. In November of the same year, a report fathered by Vrba and Wetzler in which Auschwitz was depicted as an extermination centre was published in New York as part of the so-called War Refugee Board. Twenty years later, Vrba wrote a book about his time at the Auschwitz camp (I cannot forgive, Bantam publishers, Toronto 1964). On pages 10-13, he described a Himmler visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau in January 1943. According to him, a new crematorium, Krema II, was inaugurated in Birkenau on that day with the gassing and burning of 3000 Jews, and Himmler watched the agony of the unfortunate victims through a peephole in the gas chamber door. (Had Vrba studied the documents, he would have known that the first Birkenau crematorium was put into operation in March 1943, and that Himmler visited Auschwitz-Birkenau for the last time in July 1942. As the room designed as a gas chamber in Krema II was but 210 m2 big, filling it with 3000 victims would have meant that 14 people were sta