ISSN 1440-9828
ber 2003
No 207

A Journey into the Past

What follows is of interest to any historian, and to those who have uncritically supped at the German-hatred table for decades. It is also of interest to those who cannot accept the fact that Adolf Hitler’s Germany during the 1930s was pioneering anew the eternal human freedom cry: Die Gedanken sind frei – thoughts are free, and the cry for freedom from predatory financial debt enslavement and oppression. To this day ‘Holocaust’ propaganda plays a retarding role in this quest for freedom. The mental enslavement of Germany as a nation through this ‘Holocaust’ is, almost 60 years after the alleged event, a fact from which only a minority of Germans has broken free. In 2000 in London British historian David Irving mounted a defamation action against Professor Deborah Lipstadt because she called him, among other things a ‘Holocaust’ denier, something he objected to. At this trial matters about the ‘Holocaust’ were raised, this in spite of Irving claiming he is not a ‘Holocaust’ Revisionist. That Irving is not a Holocaust scholar is evident from the transcript of the proceedings. A supporter of Adelaide Institute reviewed his trial notes, and he asked the following six questions, brief answers to which were supplied by a well-known Revisionist scholar.


Q. 1. Legal Counsel for Lipstadt, Rampton, says that Leuchter got it badly wrong because far less gas is needed to kill humans than lice. Is this right?

A: Yes. But that is only one factor in the equation because in order to kill people within minutes, as stated by witnesses, one needs just about the same concentration of gas as to kill lice, which takes hours. In discussions with the other side, both sides have
therefore agreed that the concentrations of gas used would have been roughly the same.


Q.2. Rampton also says that Irving conceded mass gassings at various camps, including Treblinka and some at Auschwitz . Did he in fact say this?

A: Yes. Irving also called the IHR people crazy anti-Semites, and made comments about other Revisionists, disassociating himself from all Revisionists. His behavior led to a collapse of any support he had with other Revisionists.


Q.3. What about the re-designing of the buildings in 1942 and 1943 – the comments made by Professor Robert Jan van Pelt?
A: Van Pelt’s comments are flawed because he relies on a false interpretation of documents which, if viewed in context, do not only NOT prove any sinister redesigning but the changes made actually prove that these installations were NOT used to kill people. For more details on this critical point read The Rudolf Report, which is available in English online at This book destroys van Pelt’s credibility and anyone else’s who believes in the homicidal gas chamber story.

Q.4. The so-called gas chambers could not be used as air raid shelters as they were too isolated?

A: That is not so and according to eyewitnesses they were used as such.


Q. 5 .To me the strangest comment of all – if you put enough fat bodies in a crematorium retort they would be self-fuelling and you would not need much coke. Were the Auschwitz retorts designed for multiple body burning and is this the load of nonsense I think it is?

A: It is nonsense indeed. Even fat bodies require fuel, and in those years, Jews were not normally fat. The muffle doors allowed for the insertion of two, perhaps three corpses piled up on top of each other. However, this would have massively decreased the speed of incineration for two reasons:

a) The corpses would have blocked the muffle, preventing the hot gasses from giving off their heat to muffle walls and corpses - narrowing the muffle leads to a faster flow through of the gasses, i.e., hot air gets blown out the chimney with little effect.

b) The speed of incineration directly depends on the surface/volume ratio of what is burned (the energy enters via the surface only, but has to heat up the entire volume).  Piling up corpses decreases this ratio, hence slowing down the process of cremation.

In other words it takes longer to burn three piled-up corpses at once, let's say two hours, than one after the other at half an hour each, at a total of  1.5 hours. Though it could have been done, it would have reduced the cremation capacity and energy efficiency, not increased it.

This question has been addressed by C. Mattogno and F. Deana, the latter being an engineer who for decades did research on the Auschwitz crematorium technology. See for more details where you will find an article featured in the book Dissecting the Holocaust. The hard cover edition is out of print, but a paperback edition is now available.


Q. 6.In the various points I have read on Irving’s libel trial, I have not seen anywhere mentioned that if the morgues were used as gas chambers, how was the gas got out? Surely a chimney would be needed?

A: The morgues had a ventilation system, i.e., gas inlets and separate gas outlets. This is quite common for morgues because corpses develop gases. The ventilation system in morgue 1, the alleged gas chamber, had a normal performance just like any morgue in Germany . It was also LOWER than the performance of the ventilation for all other rooms in this building (the other morgue, allegedly an undressing room, the dissecting room, the physician's office, etc.) Thus any claim that morgue 1 was used as a gas chamber can certainly NOT be substantiated by pointing to its ventilation system, in particular since, according to German wartime expert literature, the ventilation systems for delousing chambers had to be 7 times stronger than those used in morgues. See more about that in The Rudolf Report, or, alternatively in C. Mattogno's study Auschwitz: The End of a Legend at



Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute