Jürgen Graf

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

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

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

     In the western camps such as Dachau, Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen, where sanitary conditions were better than in the east, mortality was relatively low until late 1944. But then, the situation dramatically worsened. According to the official statistics, of the 27,900 prisoners who died in Dachau between 1940 and 1945, no fewer than 15,400 perished in the first four months of 1945, more than in the five preceding years[2].

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

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

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

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

   For us revisionists, the homicidal gas chambers and gas vans are an invention of propaganda, just like “Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction”, which served as a pretext for the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in early 2003. The founder of revisionism, French resistance fighter Paul Rassinier, who had been an inmate of two concentration camps himself, called the Jewish extermination story “the most macabre hoax of all time”. According to the revisionists, the Germans never planned to exterminate the Jews, and the traditional six million figure is an irresponsible exaggeration. (As a matter of fact, the wartime documents allow the conclusion that about 300,000 Jews died in the German concentration camps[4].) These three points – the extermination plan, the gas chambers and the six million figure – are the pillars of the orthodox “Holocaust” story. As for the killings of Jews on the Eastern front, the revisionists do not dispute that many Jews were shot, but they regard the figures mentioned in the orthodox “Holocaust” literature as wildly exaggerated. Most of these shootings occurred as reprisals for attacks by the partisan movement, in which Jews were strongly represented.

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

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

2. The Hierarchy of Evidence

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

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

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

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

3. The evidence of the orthodox “Holocaust” historians

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

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

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

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

   “For the scientific historian a witness report does not constitute history. It is a part of history. And a witness report has not much weight; many witness reports do not have any more weight if no solid document corroborates them. […] Either we abandon the priority of the archives, and in this case, history is disqualified as a science and must be reclassified as an art. Or we maintain the priority of the archives, and in this case we are forced to admit that the lack of traces makes it impossible to furnish any direct proof of the existence of the homicidal gas chambers.”[11]

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

   Let us now take a look at these eyewitness reports.  

4) The evolution of the eyewitness reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   “All victims had to strip off their clothes and shoes, which were collected afterwards, whereupon all victims, women and children first, were driven into the death chambers. […] After being filled to capacity, the chambers were hermetically closed, and steam was let in. In a few minutes, all was over.”

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

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

   As for Auschwitz, the evolution of the extermination story is hardly less revealing. According to the “Holocaust” literature, most of the victims were killed with Zyklon-B in the subterranean morgues of the Crematoria II and III of Birkenau which had been transformed into homicidal gas chambers. However, as Spanish researcher Enrique Aynat has demonstrated in an excellent study[27], during the war some totally different stories were being told. Aynat examined the reports which the Delegatura, an organization representing the Polish government in exile, had written about the Auschwitz camp between October 1941 and July 1944. Thanks to the constant stream of prisoners who were released from Auschwitz or transferred to other camps, the agents of the Delegatura were extremely well informed about what was going on in the camp. While they indeed claimed mass murders at Auschwitz, not a single one of the 32 reports mentioned Zyklon B as a murder weapon or the Crematoria of Birkenau as the place of killing. According to the reports, the victims were put to death in “electric baths” or by means of a so-called “pneumatic hammer”. In some of the reports, this “pneumatic hammer” was an air-gun, in others a mobile ceiling crashing onto the heads of the inmates in the death chambers. In some of the reports, gas chambers were indeed mentioned. However, these gas chambers were not in the morgues of the crematoria, but “huge halls with windows through which the gas was thrown in”. Only in November 1944 did the official Auschwitz version take shape. In that month the War Refugee Board, a Washington-based organization led by the Jewish Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, published the report of two young Slovakian Jews, Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler, who had managed to flee from Auschwitz in April 1944. In their report, the crematoria of Birkenau were described as containing homicidal gas chambers in which the Jews were murdered with Zyklon-B[28]. This was the birth of the official version of the Auschwitz myth[29].

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

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

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

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

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

   In other cases, the descriptions of the “gas chamber witnesses” actually mesh, but contain the same technical and physical impossibilities. In my book Auschwitz. Perpetrators’ confessions and eyewitness reports of the Holocaust[37], I have summed up numerous such impossibilities. Again, one example will be sufficient. Several witnesses claimed that in the Auschwitz crematoria ovens, three bodies were simultaneously burned in one muffle within 20 minutes.

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

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

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

6. Three key witnesses

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

   A second key witness of the “Holocaust” is Henryk Tauber, a Polish Jew who had worked in one of the crematoria. At the trial of Rudolf Höss, the first commandant of Auschwitz, a declaration written by Tauber after his liberation was presented as evidence by the prosecution[43]. He stated that, whenever an allied aeroplane approached the camp, he and his colleagues had shoved eight corpses into a muffle in order to ensure that especially high flames shot from the chimney, thus calling the attention of the pilot to the mass extermination going on in the camp. Apart from the fact that no flames shoot from the chimney of a crematorium, the doors of the muffles were exactly 60 cm high[44]. The average human body has a vertical thickness of 20 cm, which means that it would hardly have been possible to shove three corpses into a muffle, much less eight. Tauber further testified that at Auschwitz fat corpses burned without fuel. But since about 65% of the human body is water, corpses never burn without fuel; thousands of energy-consuming crematoria all over the world testify to this fact. Although Tauber’s statements are nothing but outlandish nonsense, one Robert Jan van Pelt, whom some people consider to be the leading expert on Auschwitz, takes this rubbish seriously and even praises Tauber as the most reliable witness of all[45]!

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

VII. The confessions of the “perpetrators”

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

   The fact that the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany have always been anxious to go along with the “Holocaust” story may seem incomprehensible to the uninformed observer – why should these people charge their own nation with imaginary crimes? The answer to this question is that the so-called “democratic” system, having been imposed on the western part of Germany, just as a communist dictatorship was imposed on the eastern part, tried to legitimize itself in the eyes of the population by proving the unprecedented cruelty of National Socialism. This was achieved by an endless flood of trials where the defendants, who were usually accused of having murdered Jews, were presented by the media as beasts in human form; the authorities forced countless school classes to attend these show-trials in order to incite them against the generation of their fathers, who had overwhelmingly supported the National Socialist regime. Thus the trials played a crucial part in the re-education of the German nation. They served to conjure up retrospectively the desired evidence of murder by the millions in “gas chambers” through eyewitness narratives and confessions by alleged culprits - evidence which historiography has been unable to produce right down to the present day, due to a total lack of pertinent documents and material traces. In view of the eminent political significance of the trials, a former SS-man sitting in the dock, who wanted a chance at an acquittal or at least a relatively lenient sentence, could not dispute the extermination of the Jews; he could at most deny his own personal guilt or, in case the witnesses incriminated him too much, claim that he had been forced to obey orders. This strategy was often successful. A succinct example of this is furnished by the case of former SS officer Josef Oberhauser, who had been stationed in Belzec during the war and was put on trial in Munich in 1965. In the dock, he referred to the necessity of following orders, but did not contest the gassings at Belzec, so once again, the West German justice system could triumphantly point out that the defendant had not denied the reality of the mass murders. Although Oberhauser was found guilty of assisting in the collective murder of 300,000 people, he nevertheless got off with an incredibly light sentence of merely four and a half years’ imprisonment[55]. Since he had been taken into investigative custody in 1960, in 1965 his sentence was considered served, and he was released shortly after the verdict. This example shows that the West German justice system did not need to torture the defendants to obtain the desired confessions. 

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

VIII  What do the documents say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   All this is terribly embarrassing for the defenders of the “Holocaust” myth. No less embarrassing is the enormous wealth of documents about the medical treatment of both non-Jewish and Jewish prisoners at Auschwitz. This aspect will be dealt with in detail in a still unpublished book by Italian revisionist Carlo Mattogno in which a large amount of such documents will be quoted. To mention but one example: a statistical survey compiled on July 27^th, 1944 shows that in the preceding two months 3,138 Hungarian Jews had been treated at the Auschwitz camp hospital for a wide range of diseases and that 1,426 of them had undergone surgery[64]. During the very same period, hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews are said to have been gassed at Auschwitz! Again, this claim, for which there is not a shred of documentary or material evidence, is exclusively based on the declarations of Jewish “eyewitnesses” like Rudolf Vrba, Henryk Tauber, Filip Müller and other professional swindlers. Speaking of medical surgery, a Polish historian, Henryk Swiebocki, reports that no fewer than 11,246 prisoners were operated on at the camp hospital of Auschwitz between September 1942 and February 1944[65]. Any further comment seems superfluous.

IX Conclusion                           

To future generations, the “Holocaust” will indeed seem unique, but for other reasons than the Jews claim. These future generations will be at a loss to explain how a history so utterly absurd was not only universally believed for many decades, but even defended by the governments of so-called “democratic” states by rigid censorship and naked terror. We are supposed to believe in a gigantic mass murder in chemical slaughterhouses which has left no traces at all: no homicidal gas chambers, no blueprints of such, no autopsy reports about even one single gassed prisoner, no mass graves, no ashes, no bones, no documents – nothing. The “Holocaust” is supposedly proved by legions of Jewish survivors, although every single survivor constitutes living proof that, whilst the Germans certainly persecuted the Jews, they did not exterminate them. In 1968, the Polish Historical Institute in Warsaw published the narrative of one Samuel Zylbersztain, a Polish Jew who had survived no fewer than ten camps: The “extermination camp” Treblinka, the “extermination camp” Majdanek, and eight “normal concentration camps” into the bargain[66]. Far from proving the “Holocaust”, such cases show that there was no “Holocaust”.

   That said, the preposterous “Holocaust” story had and still has dire political consequences. But for this hoax, the world would never have allowed the Zionists to embark on their anachronistic colonialist enterprise in Palestine. But for this hoax, the state of Israel, which is the main cause of unrest in the Middle East, would not exist, and the Palestinians would not have been robbed of their homeland. But for this hoax, the world would be a more secure and peaceful place.