|
Did the Irving-Lipstadt Trial Prove the Official Holocaust Narrative?
January/April 2017
The tag-line for the new Hollywood film, 'Denial', implies that the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial somehow proved the official Holocaust narrative. Did it really? Or are we simply being fed another preposterous propaganda lie by the masters of the art? Clearly the answer to this question is not to be found in Hollywood's version of history, but in knowing the true state of the Holocaust debate beyond the carefully controlled main stream media information channels. That means knowing both sides of the story, not just one. In what follows we will go straight to the source: the trial materials themselves, and also the work of valiant revisionist scholars who have, until recently, gone relatively unheard. Core elements of the revisionist case will be discussed side by side with that which passed for evidence for the official Holocaust narrative at the Irving-Lipstadt trial - the real trial that is, not the Hollywood substitute. Links will be given to facilitate further research and investigations. If you are new to the 'other' side of the debate you may be in for something of a shock as to where the proofs actually lie.......
To begin with, it should perhaps be noted that the Irving-Lipstadt trial was not primarily about establishing the validity of the official Holocaust narrative. It was rather, a libel action taken by the Plaintiff David Irving against the Defendants Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin publishers regarding statements that Lipstadt had made in her book “Denying the Holocaust”. The distinction is an important one because in trying to establish whether or not the evidence presented by the Lipstadt defence team proved the official Holocaust narrative we need not concern ourselves unduly with the opinions of any of the protagonists regarding the facts. This is especially true when one considers how utterly unqualified any of them, including van Pelt (or even Irving) were to deal with some of the more forensic elements of the evidence; for example the chemical findings published in the Leuchter report. (It should perhaps be further noted that Irving has in fact made concessions to Holohoaxers that a serious revisionist expert, on the basis of the evidence, would never make(1).) Therefore if considerations of subjective, non-expert opinion had any relevance at all it was only to the libel issue which was concerned, in part, with Lipstadt's defamatory statements about Irving's methodology as an historian and therefore necessarily with what both Irving and Lipstadt honestly and reasonably believed to be true about what they wrote or said. In fact English Defamation law required Lipstadt to justify her statements and not Irving, which is why, of course, the fact that Lipstadt refused to testify personally should have by all rights told much more heavily against her than it apparently did.
In fact the judge did not find that Lipstadt had succeeded in justifying all of her statements about Irving. Most notably the Defence made no attempt to prove the despicable lie that Irving had attended a meeting in Sweden where members of Hezbollah and Hamas were present(2). The judge ruled however (according to section 5 of the English Defamation Act 1952) that since the statements about Irving as a falsifier of history had been, in his opinion, successfully justified by the Lipstadt team, the further statement about Hezbollah and Hamas did not make any material difference to Irving's reputation. In other words the judge effectively ruled that questioning the Holocaust or any other aspect of orthodox WWII historiography is more or less on a par with rubbing shoulders with terrorists. (Please note that the present author does not presume to have any real knowledge as to the true nature of the organizations known as 'Hezbollah' and 'Hamas'. Nonetheless it is certain that when Lipstadt used the names of these organizations in connection with Irving, it was her intention to imply a terrorist connection as per mainstream-media-instilled consensus notions.) I will leave it to the reader to decide if that was a fair call by Mr. Justice Gray.
“It is therefore necessary to consider with care what is the nature of the evidence relied on by the Defendants. It is contained principally in the expert report prepared by van Pelt.”
But first some basics
1) When we talk about 'Auschwitz' we are actually dealing with two camps: Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II. The latter, which was built later and is situated a couple of kilometres from the main camp, is more commonly referred to as 'Birkenau'. The 'gas chamber' at the main camp that has been passed off to tourists for decades as genuine, complete with a chimney stack conspicuously not connected to anything, and post-war installed Zyklon B entry holes in the roof, has been exposed as a fake(3). There is no-one on either side of the Holocaust debate who seriously disputes this, including van Pelt, though the exterminationists understandably prefer the term 'reconstruction'. The main camp at Auschwitz was the site of Crematorium I, but the sites where it is alleged that the majority of gassings took place are at Birkenau (Crematoria II, III, IV and V) and in particular the mortuary at Crematorium II. The revisionists of course contend that these crematoria served only the purpose for which their incineration capacities were actually capable – the disposal of the corpses of inmates that died from mostly natural and unsought for causes, especially typhus.
The short answer is nothing, clearly. Indeed what we find is the usual ultra-dependence on dubious, if not thoroughly discredited, though emotionally provocative, eye-witness testimony; the usual scanty number of documents taken from literally hundreds of tonnes in the archives or the 80,000 documents taken from the undamaged, fully intact Auschwitz construction office, which we are expected to believe was left fully intact by the guilty Germans as an oversight; the usual requirement to 'read between the lines' of said documents in such a way that pushes if not credulity, then certainly fair-mindedness to the utmost limit (unless of course like Gray J you are hell-bent on believing it anyway); and finally the usual pitiful excuse for physical evidence that turns out on closer inspection to be nothing more than a misleading exercize in drawing outrageous inferences from mere hypothesis.
But let us not be too hasty in drawing our conclusions. If we are going to answer this question properly it goes without saying that a certain level of intellectual honesty is required. That means that, as we have already noted, we are not going to simply take the word of a Hollywood propaganda film, but rather we are going to do some reading of our own from the actual trial materials and also perhaps some further material suggested below that, in effect, permits those revisionist experts who for one reason or another were unable to present their rebuttals at the trial(4) to have their say.
Fortunately for researchers Gray J has done most of the work for us in distilling the van Pelt report down to size. And frankly, this is just as well, for despite its sheer size and verbosity, the van Pelt report contains very little by way of real, credible evidence. In fact, though Gray concludes in his judgment that the evidence contained in the van Pelt report is 'overwhelming', by which he means to imply his acceptance of its mysterious 'convergence' properties, an inspection of the day to day trial transcripts reveals a judge who seems more overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the information being presented to him, than by its substance. It is of course an age old strategy of liars to seek to compensate for lack of substance with a corresponding glut of empty rhetoric. Indeed, the van Pelt report appears to have more as its chief guiding principle the art of persuasion and sophistry, than the objective and impartial logic one might properly expect from a real expert report. This is perhaps not surprising for a document that depends so heavily for its overall 'convergence of evidence' effect on subjective elements such as eye-witness accounts. In any case, the reason we can trust so implicitly to Gray to have absolutely scraped the bottom of that largely empty barrel is his barely concealed determination throughout the trial to find in favour of the Holocaust narrative as van Pelt presents it. We can rest assured therefore that if there is anything at all even slightly helpful to that cause in van Pelt then Gray J found it and included it in his final judgement.
Essential background reading
1. The final judgement of Justice Gray. In particular, the parts dealing with Auschwitz are section7 and section 13 (13.68 to 13.91).
2. The trial transcipts. Especially Irving's cross examination of van Pelt on day 9, day 10, day 11 and day 13.
3. Irving's appeal: skeleton argument by Andrew Davies.
4. Irving's Statement of Claim.
5. The Rudolf Report - Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the 'Gas Chambers' at Auschwitz, by Germar Rudolf. Essential reading. Almost all of the arguments/'evidence' presented by van Pelt in his report and relied on by Gray in his judgement are dealt with thoroughly in sections 1 to 9, and especially 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5, of Germar Rudolf's meticulous and unsurpassed report. And he is is kind enough to clearly label the really technical bits in case we wish to skip over them. Anything not covered in the report may be found largely in the following two additional Rudolf links:
i) Chemist Germar Rudolf's thorough critique of Gray's judgement and ii) a more general critique of the van Pelt report also by Germar Rudolf. Please note that these two web pages are largely summaries of information presented in greater detail in the Rudolf report, though they also contain some additional material and have the advantage also of referring specifically to sections from Gray J's judgement for easy reference. Please also note that Rudolf was still refining his English skills when he wrote these articles and though they are certainly fully understandable they are not up to his present standards which are excellent. (Rudolf currently lives with his family in Pennsylvania, USA.) The English of the Rudolf Report on the other hand is impeccable.
6. Carlo Mattogno's banned interview for magazine 'Historia'. Carlo Mattogno answers all the standard objections of orthodox historians about revisionism with characteristic thoroughness, clarity, logic and flair. So much so that the original, fair-minded plan of the magazine to publish Mattogno's interview alongside a representative of the exterminationist side of the debate, Professor Cajani, was at the last minute revoked. Mattogno's interview was not published - only Cajani's interview featured in the final, published article. Incredibly, the reasons given by the newly appointed director of the magazine, Alberto Tagliati, were uncommonly candid. Apparently Mattogno's responses had failed to conform with a historiographical methodology that the current 'era considers useful to hold true of another.' Moreover, qualities such as 'objectivity' and 'serenity of judgement' (a perfect description of Mattogno's method, by the way) are dismissed by the magazine's director as inappropriate when applied to the so-called Holocaust, which Tagliati apparently believes we ought really to accept more or less as a matter of blind faith and in a spirit of reverential awe. Please understand these men are quite serious. On the other hand readers of this website can simply bypass yet another pathetic attempt to censor the record by reading Mattogno's interview here. (Ah, thank goodness for the Internet!) Note that in the interview Mattogno addresses statements made by leading exterminationists Jean Claude Pressac and Christopher Browning. Pressac was heavily relied on by van Pelt in his report (though he gives Pressac little credit) and Browning appeared as a witness in the Irving-Lipstadt trial.
7. Carlo Mattogno's article “The Crematoria Ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau”. The final word on the physical impossibility of the Holocaust gas chamber narrative in terms of Auschwitz crematoria incineration capacity and coke supply. Nobody has ever come close to Mattogno's technical knowledge on this subject. Though Mattogno is always meticulously fine-tuning his data according to fresh documentation as it becomes available to him, his essential findings have remained the same.
8. Carlo Mattogno's 'Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity - A Historical and Technical study of Jean-Claude Pressac’s Criminal Traces and Robert Jan van Pelt’s Convergence of Evidence'. A longer read, but the most thorough debunking of van Pelt and Pressac available anywhere, by one of revisionism's great voices for sanity and reason. Mattogno leaves no stone unturned and no room for doubt in this two volume work, especially when coupled with Germar Rudolf's 'Rudolf Report'. Essential reference material.
9. The Leuchter Report – The End of a Myth. (IHR easy reference version.) Now largely superseded by the Rudolf report, it nonetheless warrants a look, especially the chemical findings which are as valid today as they ever were.
10. The Irving Trial Diary.
11. The Hoffman Trial Journal. US revisionist author, Michael Hoffman, gives us a day by day account of the media coverage of the Irving trial including articles from outside the mainstream sources and his own commentary. Hoffman, as usual, is at once edifying and interesting to read.
12. The van Pelt report. Actually for reasons I have mentioned above I do not consider the van Pelt report to be essential reading. Nevertheless, I include it here for reference. In fact Rampton admitted at trial that two thirds of the Lipstadt team's evidence on Auschwitz consisted of van Pelt's attempts to refute the Leuchter report (day 7, p.107-108) though, the section in the van Pelt report dealing with Leuchter is relatively brief (p.286). The reader may wish to have a look at that - it is pitifully inadequate. Frankly I find van Pelt tough going – I simply do not have the stomach for its continual stream of lies and misdirection.
13. 'Robert Jan van Pelt's Cremation Claims Refuted' (TakeOurWorldBack.com): A well researched study from the steadily increasing power of independent information sources.
 |
The Arguments |
The documentary evidence as relied on by Gray J in his judgement
Though Gray J admits that anything like incriminating documents for the official Holocaust narrative are 'few and far between' he nonetheless mentions in paragraph 13.76 of his judgement the following six items especially for which he 'found it difficult to find an innocent explanation'. Let's now help him with that endeavour. It isn't difficult:
i) “The nature of the redesign in 1942 of crematorium 2 appears to me, for the reasons summarised in paragraph 7.59 to 7.63 above, to constitute powerful evidence that the morgue was to be used to gas live human beings who had been able to walk downstairs.”
Briefly the redesign Gray is referring to was the incorporation of additional stairways to crematorium 2 (and 3) so as to give street side access. The original plans had been intended for the main camp at Auschwitz I, but were then rather hastily moved to Birkenau, creating the need for a rethink regarding orientation and access. The corpse chute of the original stairway was falsely alleged by van Pelt to have been removed – Carlo Mattogno has shown four separate plans, two from the Construction Office, and two from the Huta construction firm that built crematorium 2, that make it clear that in fact the corpse chute was never removed. Now that's real documentary evidence.
For more, see the Rudolf Report, sections 5.4.1.1 and 5.4.1.2. (Note: Rudolf refers to Jean Claude Pressac who was a leading writer for the exterminationists, now deceased, on technical aspects of the alleged 'gas chambers'. His work has been thoroughly debunked by revisionists.)
ii) “I have in mind for example the minute of the meeting of 19 August 1942 (paragraph 7.66 above), which refers to Badenanstalten fur Sonderaktionen (“bath-houses for special actions”)......”
Gray J's sinister interpretation of the German term 'Sonderaktion', or in English 'Special Action', is completely arbitrary and ill-founded as can be proven again by reference to the documents. In fact the term 'sonderaktion' is found to be used for any of a range of indisputably non-criminal, if not actually life-saving activities, (it was used especially for activities associated with hygiene). For more click here and scroll down to the section titled 'Sonderaktion'.
iii) 7.67“In a different category is a report dated 16 December 1942 made by a corporal [sic] named Kinna, which made reference to an order that, in order to relieve the camp, limited people, idiots, cripples and sick people must be removed from the same by liquidation. Kinna stated that the implementation of this order was difficult because the Poles, unlike the Jews, must die a natural death.”
The Kinna document is hearsay. And nobody should understand better than Gray the value, or lack thereof, of hearsay in a court of law. Worse still it is hearsay uncorroborated by any further documentation. The fact that Gray puts so much store by it is evidence only of his prevailing bias. Even presuming the document is authentic, which is by no means certain, Kinna had seen nothing himself. He is rather reporting the statements of somebody else, namely, the deputy camp commandant of the Auschwitz camp, Hans Aumeier, regarding the deportation of Poles to Auschwitz. Specifically he is referring to an order not to bring mentally and physically handicapped Poles into the camp - it is perhaps worth noting that at this time typhus was still raging at Auschwitz, which was no doubt causing all kinds of logistical difficulties.
In 1948, an American Commission of Inquiry presided over by the Judges van Roden and Simpson, investigated the workings of the Dachau Tribunal, and ascertained that the confessions of the accused were extorted with physical and psychic tortures of every sort, among other things, in 137 of the 139 cases examined, the accused had suffered irreparable damage to their testicles.
 |
| Rudolf Hoss: taking a break from 'interrogation' by the 'British'. |
Aumeier himself, of course, could not be called to confirm and/or clarify his alleged statements to Kinna - he was executed by the Poles in 1945....but not before the British had succeeded in extracting from him all the obligatory 'confessions' regarding the 'gassing' and 'genocide' of the Jews. (More on this below.) Given what we know to be the conditions under which Auschwitz camp commandant Rudolf Hoss gave his factually absurd(5), implausible and downright impossible confessions (i.e. extreme duress and torture at the hands of British-Jewish thugs such as Bernard Clarke), it would be unreasonable to attach much weight to those procured from Aumeier, which in all fairness must be considered as suspect as the 'confessions' of Hoss. In fact torture was the rule and not the exception for the confessions obtained by the Allied forces from high ranking camp officials captured immediately after the war. Carlo Mattogno, in his banned interview for the Historia magazine reported that:
“In 1948, an American Commission of Inquiry presided over by the Judges van Roden and Simpson, investigated the workings of the Dachau Tribunal, and ascertained that the confessions of the accused were extorted with physical and psychic tortures of every sort, among other things, in 137 of the 139 cases examined, the accused had suffered irreparable damage to their testicles.” (6)
The appearance of the Kinna report at the trial was decidedly odd - it was sprung upon Irving by the Lipstadt team unexpectedly, mid-trial, and was, the court was told, from an 'anonymous' source. Rampton told Gray that the source had asked to remain anonymous for 'personal reasons'. (One can't help wondering why all the cloak and dagger?) It later turned out that it was a facsimile of a document published in a book in communist Poland in 1960, which some 20 years after the fact, in 1964, Kinna confirmed as his own report at a Frankfurt Auschwitz trial to which he had been summoned. There is nothing on it to vouch for its authenticity save Kinna's signature which he confirmed to be his. Otherwise it just a typewritten document with an appropriate date attached. It is perhaps significant that by Rampton's own admission nobody had ever heard of the document, not even the Lipstadt team scholars.
Nevertheless Gray J refers to it specifically as noteworthy evidence for both the gassing and genocide of the Jews, which is perhaps more indicative of how little he had to work with, than the actual value of the document. In any case, an inspection of Gray's interpretation of the translation given to him(7) reveals that even if we accept Kinna's hearsay to be indicative of historical fact, it is certainly no evidence of gassing, since there is no reference in it at all to gassing. In fact it does not even per se constitute evidence for a general policy of genocide towards the Jews - certainly not without further clarification from Kinna himself regarding it.
And that's the problem. Kinna appeared in court at a 1960s Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt, summoned by authorities who were only too keen to establish the genocide of the Jews beyond any doubt if they possibly could, yet nobody ever asked him under oath or on the record to clarify what he meant about the 'measure applied to the Jews' he refers to in his report. He was simply asked to confirm his authorship of the report and his signature. No other specific questions or answers have been recorded. Why? Why didn't they ask Kinna?
Irving, who one senses has a nose for these things (no doubt from years of experience with such documents), asked just this question of Gray J at trial when the Kinna document was first sprung on him. He suggested to Gray that Kinna had perhaps made a deal with the Chief Prosecutor at the Frankfurt trial - a not unreasonable suggestion especially when one considers that the Kinna document, at least according to conclusions derived from it such as those of Gray J, doesn't exactly leave Kinna smelling like roses with respect to his own possible complicity - yet he was never pursued in this regard. Given that the document is authentic, which as noted is by no means certain, one wonders if perhaps they did ask Kinna all the key questions they ought to have, albeit off the record, and simply didn't like the answers.....
iv) “As to Muller’s [sic] letter about the incineration capacity of the ovens (see paragraphs 7.69 and 7.106 above).......it is further cogent evidence of genocidal gassing because the capacity to which Muller refers cannot have been needed to incinerate those who succumbed to disease.”
Apparently the reasons given by Irving at the trial why he believed the Bischoff letter of 28 June 1943, to be a forgery(8) did nothing to change Gray's mind about its value as 'cogent evidence' for his preferred version of history. (Note that Gray mistakenly refers to it above as the 'Muller' letter(9).) Never mind that said reasons included such excellent, if not downright unassailable ones as oven manufacturer (Topf) specifications drastically at odds with the Bischoff letter: namely, a maximum capacity of 800 corpses per day for Crematoria II and III combined, in contrast to the Bischoff letter's 2880! (I mean why believe the manufacturers of the oven?) Or the fact that at the time of writing the Bischoff letter three of the five crematoria referred to in it were not even in service - in the case of crematorium I, permanently , in the case of crematorium IV, without resumption of service for at least the rest of the year, and in the case of the heavily depended on crematorium II, without resuming again for three weeks, after having been down for months. I mean, the fact that a high ranking official at the camp would overlook the fact that at least one of the crematoria he is including in his report no longer exists as such, is not suspicious is it? Surely not! But seriously, even if we assume these to be only gross mistakes on behalf of the author of the letter, or the one responsible for the calculations, such a level of inaccuracy is as good a reason to reject it as 'cogent evidence' as significant doubts about its authenticity are. Clearly. In any case the well-founded misgivings about the Bischoff letter mentioned above, and more besides, were put to the Lipstadt team's experts on cross examination by Irving, yet according to Gray, not only were they not sufficient to dismiss or doubt the authenticity or accuracy of the document, it was unreasonable for Irving to have even thought so.
Anyway it doesn't really matter. There are even more compelling reasons why the Bischoff letter is bunk as we shall see. Actually, though Irving's doubts about the authenticity of the letter are clearly justified, and impossible to dismiss for impartial researchers, they are in fact only of secondary importance.
Even the facts that:
1) revisionists have shown using technologically well-founded arguments that the overall capacity for the ovens at Auschwitz-Birkenau was no more than 650 to 1000 corpses per day as opposed to the claims of the Bischoff letter of 4756 corpses per day, and
2) the Bischoff figure has no evidential support other than eye-witness testimony,
are also only of secondary importance.
They are in fact besides the point. The reason for this is that Italian revisionist scholar Carlo Mattogno has shown that the decisive factor for the incineration capacity of the ovens at Auschwitz-Birkenau had little to do with their theoretical maximum capacity per day. At best this figure sets only a theoretical limit to capacity that was never in practice even remotely approached. The reason for this is that the capacity of the Auschwitz cremation ovens was limited first and foremost by the durability of the fire-bricks with which they were made. The maximum lifetime of these bricks has been established beyond any doubt by documentary evidence relating to their use in the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp, as well as manufacturer specifications. And thanks to the 80,000 or so documents of the SS Construction Office released around the time of the demise of the Soviet Union in the early nineties, we know exactly what maintenance took place regarding all the Auschwitz ovens in the period of their operation. There is no room for error here. There is no speculation, and above all there is no reliance on highly questionable eye-witness testimony. The Bischoff letter is quite simply overruled by the physical impossibility of its claims. Carlo Mattogno reveals all in his article “The Crematoria Ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau”(10). We will discuss this in greater detail below in the section dealing specifically with incineration capacity and coke supply at Auschwitz, but suffice to say for now that Mattogno's findings are consistent with the registered numbers of deaths according to official camp records (also from the released Moscow archives) and not with the wild claims of the Bischoff letter.
Germar Rudolf thoroughly debunks the so-called 'evidence' (a Communist propaganda exercize, truth be told) gathered by the Polish Central Commission in the Rudolf Report (section 4.4.1.1, p.42-44, 'The 1946 Krakow Auschwitz Trial'); yet another attempt by Gray to make a mountain out of an ant hill. We shall deal with the fraudulent Markiewicz report in some detail in our discussion of the Leuchter report below.
We could perhaps add further here to Rudolf's observations about the post-war Polish commission, that equally specious Holocaust 'museum' exhibits or photographs of piles of hair cuttings or prisoner personal effects such as shoes, do not prove anything beyond the fact that detainees were re-shod and given a haircut on arrival, and that recycling (of hair for instance) was very much a part of a frugal German war time economy. In fact, cutting the hair of new arrivals and giving them prison uniforms and shoes was standard protocol for prison environments of the period, including Allied ones. In German camps, confiscated clothing and shoes, and hair intended for recycle, were fumigated with hydrogen cyanide gas in specially built delousing chambers, as a measure against deadly typhus-carrying body lice - a major threat to German labour camp output during the war, particularly in Eastern Europe. As to the relatively smaller piles of other assorted prisoner effects similarly exhibited, such as eye-glasses at the Auschwitz museum for instance, we ought to keep in mind that according to official Auschwitz-Birkenau death registers released by the Soviets in 1989 (more on this below), about seventy thousand prisoners died at the camp in 1942 and 1943 alone, mostly from natural causes, including disease. Nevertheless, exhibits such as piles of hair, shoes and other prisoner effects (or empty cans of delousing agent 'Zyklon B'), coupled with skilfully applied psychological tricks of association, continue to impress large numbers of suggestible visitors to Holocaust propaganda and indoctrination centres to this day.
The eye-witness evidence as relied on by Gray in his judgement
(Note that the section and item number are given immediately following each excerpt from Gray's judgement.)
“Irving had some valid comments to make about the various accounts given by survivors of the camp and by camp officials. Some of those accounts were given in evidence at the post-war trials. The possibility exists that some of these witnesses invented some or even all of the experiences which they describe......Van Pelt accepted that these possibilities exist. I agree.” [13.74]
“Whilst I acknowledge that the reliability of the eye-witness evidence is variable, what is to me striking about that category of evidence is the similarity of the accounts and the extent to which they are consistent with the documentary evidence. The account of, for example, Tauber, is so clear and detailed that, in my judgment, no objective historian would dismiss it as invention unless there were powerful reasons for doing so. Tauber’s account is corroborated by and corroborative of the accounts given by others such as Jankowski and Dragon. Their descriptions marry up with Olere’s drawings. The evidence of other eye-witnesses, such as Hoss and Broad, would in my view appear credible to a dispassionate student of Auschwitz.” [13.77]
Actually the eye-witness reports that exist regarding the Holocaust are generally so full of inconsistencies, impossibilities and downright absurdities that it is no exaggeration to say that on the whole they have probably done much more for the cause of revisionist truth than the official Holocaust lie. Leading exterminationist Jean Claude Pressac (on whom van Pelt relies so heavily for his technical arguments) more or less admitted as much, citing it as the reason for his intention to focus on sources of evidence other than the eye-witness accounts for the purposes of his own investigations. Unfortunately for Pressac all that left him with were a handful of what he called 'criminal traces' which on closer inspection amount to little or nothing. We have dealt with some of them above.
The witnesses referred to by van Pelt in his report are no exception to the rule. Though it is popularly assumed that Holocaust eye-witnesses are numerous, this illusion is dispelled by simply looking into the matter. Then one is surprised to find the same dozen or so of the usual suspects who have made allegations that they claim to be from their own personal and direct experience. (The rest is hearsay.) Many of them are professional witnesses who until the Zundel trial of 1985 could pretty much count on no real scrutiny being applied to their claims. Gray mentions specifically as testimonies that impressed him those of Hoss, Broad, Tauber, Jankowski, Dragon and the 'artist' Olere(11). The first two of these were SS men (Hoss we have discussed briefly above), and the others were inmates. Elsewhere both Gray and van Pelt mention Johann Paul Kremer - a rather unique case which I will discuss briefly below with a link to an article by Faurisson.
Some further links to revisionist material that discusses not only the testimonies specifically referred to by Gray but many of the other lie-witnesses that featured in the van Pelt report are also listed below. Please understand that without this essential background reading it is very easy to be carried away by the sheer sophistication (both on the emotional level, and also on what one might describe as the pseudo-technical level) of some of the better crafted of the Holocaust lies. The effect is meretricious. It is achieved by propagandists in much the same way that it is achieved by writers of popular fiction - a 'trick of the pen', one might say, well known to authors: a real event or object is described in (even mundane or trivial) detail from the writer's actual experience and then fictional elements are transposed on top of that description. The propaganda version will often entail the memorising and repeating, or in some cases, even acting out of these details for future re-telling by an appropriate protagonist. Better still, a number of protagonists are given similar details to rehearse. The effect is to give to the reader or listener a sense of realism and credibility (since our basic perception of reality is essentially composed of details) that serves to place him mentally and therefore also emotionally in the scene described – an effect that might otherwise be very difficult or impossible to convey where the fictional elements are in and of themselves somewhat fantastical. Despite this, in most cases Holocaust eye-witness testimony can be revealed as nothing more than clever propaganda by even the most elementary of investigations. Still others are just plain ridiculous – Tauber's later abandoned sausages-from-human-flesh horror story is a case in point. Referring, by way of example, to false confessions regarding the Ravensbrück concentration camp in northern Germany, revisionist scholar Professor Robert Faurisson asks us to:
“….recall that, in the cases from Ravensbrück where people now know that there never was any "gassing," the British and French courts obtained confessions which were particularly detailed on the alleged 11 gassings." People speak to us about the three principal confessions of Auschwitz, but they no longer speak to us at all about the three principal confessions of Ravensbrück: that of the camp commandant, Suhren, that of his adjutant Schwarzhuber and that of the camp physician, Dr. Treite. Do you know what was the size of that "gas chamber" that never existed? Answer: nine meters by four and one half meters. Do you know where it was located? Answer: five meters away from the two crematory ovens. Do you know how many persons were gassed there? Of what nationality? On what precise dates? Do you wish to know on whose orders all of that was done, from the top to the bottom of the German military and political hierarchy? Are you interested in learning how they used a "gas capsule" (sic)? You will find the answers to these questions and to many others while reading, for example, the historian Germaine Tillion. That French woman had been interned at Ravensbrück....[she] enjoys in France, for reasons of which I am unaware, considerable moral credit. Her honesty is a sort of established fact. Nevertheless, several years after the war, she went before the courts to overwhelm the persons responsible for Ravensbrück with her stories about the "gas chambers...... Two of the three persons who confessed at Ravensbrück were hanged, and Dr. Treite committed suicide." [The full article is linked to below in regard to 'eye-witness' Johann Paul Kremer.]
In chapter 10 of his booklet "Holocaust or Hoax", Swiss revisionist Jurgen Graf gives the following concise description of how, both at Nuremburg and at subsequent trials, pressure could be brought to bear on former German camp officials, such as those of Ravensbrück, to tow the official Holocaust narrative line, even without torture:
“Before the trial began, the accused was vilified in the controlled media as a "beast in human shape". Proof was not required, since "crime" and "criminal" were, for the most part, considered to have been established from the outset. The witnesses were allowed to lie a blue streak, since nobody was allowed to subject the former "victims of persecution" to emotional torment with sceptical questioning; the only chance for a lenient sentence for the accused lay in evading any dispute over the existence of the gas chambers and the reality of the genocide, while merely disputing one's own participation in the killings, blaming everything on persons already dead, missing, or superiors who had already been sentenced. Anyone in a war crimes trial who disputed the basic version of events at Auschwitz (i.e., the Holocaust yarn) -- a version already accepted as "proven fact" -- found himself in a totally hopeless position: his stubborness only got him a tougher sentence. This is how the confessions came to be given.”
And Ravensbrück is certainly not an exceptional case. For example, for years it was claimed that thousands had lost their lives in gas chambers at the Dachau concentration camp, yet same claims have now and since been acknowledged as false by even the most ardent proponents of Holocaust orthodoxy including for example notorious 'Nazi-hunter' Simon Weisenthal. Irving, in fact, brought the example of Dachau to Gray J's attention in his cross examination of Lipstadt expert-for-hire, Christopher Browning, the latter developing a timely amnesia on the witness stand about all details regarding the camp. Gray however had no choice but to acknowledge the present general consensus on the Dachau gas chamber lie(12). Of course the fact that revisionists had been right all along about Dachau is never explicitly conceded by Holohoaxers. Neither is the fact that the 'evidence' that was relied on (at Nuremburg and elsewhere) to 'prove' the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Dachau was, truth be told, similar in quality and quantity to that which is relied on to 'prove' the present Auschwitz gas chamber mythology; that is, it was drivel. Actually, the 'witness' descriptions for the Dachau gassings that never took place make edifying reading(13). They provide a valuable insight into just how detailed pure invention can be; and perhaps also, how the line between hearsay and fact can become blurred in the minds of men, especially where the minds are feeble ones and/or where there exists an over-riding psychological need to believe in it. Please keep in mind that men were hanged on the basis of such uncorroborated hearsay and lies.
|
Partners in Propaganda In his article 'The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust', Manfred Koehler identifies half a dozen of the eye-witnesses that appear in the van Pelt report as Auschwitz 'camp partisans' involved in 'making propaganda'. An excerpt follows (blue text):
It is well known that many communists and socialists were incarcerated in German concentration camps. It is more than likely that these persons co-operated with external underground movements as well as with the Soviets in what is today generally acknowledged as atrocity propaganda. For example, the famous Auschwitz inmates Ota Krauss and Erich Schön-Kulka, Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler, Filip Müller and Stanislaw Jankowski all were members of the so-called camp partisans of Auschwitz who were involved in what they themselves called "making propaganda." The communist Bruno Baum even declared: "The whole propaganda which started about Auschwitz abroad was initiated by us with the help of our Polish comrades." "It is no exaggeration when I say that the majority of all Auschwitz propaganda, which was spread at that time all over the world, was written by ourselves in the camp." "We carried out this propaganda in [for] the world public until our very last day of presence in Auschwitz." The most striking admission of being a preposterous liar is perhaps that by famous Jewish Auschwitz ‘survivor’ Rudolf Vrba to his fellow-Jew and fellow-‘survivor’ Georg Klein. Asked if everything is true that Vrba had said about Auschwitz during an interview made for Claude Lanzmann’s movie Shoa, Vrba answered with a sardonic smile on his face: "I do not know. I was just an actor and I recited my text." This is the same Vrba who years later, under cross examination by barrister Doug Christie at the 1985 Zundel trial, admitted to using 'poetic licence' in describing alleged events in his book. Vrba also features in the van Pelt report. Such obvious explanations, as those above, for the similarities of a handful of Auschwitz witness testimonies (representing a tiny fraction of the overall numbers of survivors) apparently did not occur to Gray J as a reasonable alternative to his self-imposed gullibility, nor did the fact that witnesses such as Tauber are known to have been questioned on the basis of blueprints to which both he and his Polish interrogators referred throughout the interrogation. So much so that Tauber describes things in his statement that are on the blueprint, but for one reason or another were never actually installed(14). Oops! |
Journalist, Doug Collins, a World War II Canadian war hero, who himself escaped from several National Socialist POW camps, was never backward in coming forward about what he thought of the reliability of Holocaust eyewitness statements(15). Speaking from his own experience, not speculating, he said:
“I saw that place [Bergen-Belsen] myself in 1945. The camp was captured intact and if there had been any gas chambers there they would be featured on TV every time the "Holocaust" is mentioned, which is practically every night. But that didn't stop the 'Montreal Gazette' in 1993 from reviewing a book by Montrealer Moshe Peer in which he claimed to have been put through them six times when he was a child, managing to escape death every time. Miraculous!”
There is a vast amount of revisionist material on the subject of eye-witnesses of the Holocaust. A small fraction of that is represented in the suggested reading that follows:
'Critique of Claims Made by Robert Jan Van Pelt'. Article by Germar Rudolf (section 2, 'Wire Mesh Columns').
'The eye-witnesses': items 124 -133 of Irving's appeal document
Other eye-witness material
The Value of Eye-witness Testimony Regarding the Holocaust by Manfred Koehler*
'Holocaust or Hoax' by Jurgen Graf. Booklet by Graf; the entire document is well worth a read, but the chapters dealing specifically with eye-witnesses are chapter 8 and chapter 9 and chapter 10.
'Witnesses at Auschwitz' and 'The Witnesses of the Auschwitz Gas Chambers' by Faurisson. Includes a discussion of the rout delivered by Faurisson and Barrister Doug Christie to Holocaust lie-witnesses at the Zundel trials.
'The Lies, Slips, Bungles and perjuries of Filip Mueller, Professional Witness of Auschwitz-Birkenau' by Maria Temer.
Carlo Mattogno's Banned Interview. See the question and answer beginning on p18.
'Two False testimonies from Auschwitz' by Carlo Mattogno. Mattogno exposes Bendel and Bimko.
Also see the following documentaries from US film-maker Eric Hunt*:
Warning! Not for children. Viewers discretion advised. Some of the images in Eric Hunt's documentaries may be disturbing to some viewers, including adults.
Spielberg's Hoax - The Last Days of the Big Lie (Alternative links here and here)
The Jewish Gas Chamber Hoax
(Alternative links here and here)
*New* - Questioning the Holocaust - *New* (Alternative links here, here and with German subtitles, here. Note that though this film is sometimes referred to as part 1 of 2, the latter part was never in fact completed by Hunt and does not exist. In any case part 1 is nonetheless a complete film in and of itself.)
The Majdanek Gas Chamber Myth (Alternative links here and in HD, here)
*Please note that the present author does not find the comparison both Hunt and Kohler make of the Holocaust trials and those of the medieval inquisition to be an exact one for a number of reasons I will not go into here.
The Case of the Kremer Diary
 |
| Johann Paul Kremer: do or die |
What sets the testimony of medical doctor, Johann Paul Kremer, apart from those of other SS men is that it is based on a written diary kept by Kremer during the war years at Auschwitz. Though it contains, as usual, no direct reference to gassings or genocide (the Kremer diary was a private diary which he had no idea would ever be read by anybody other than himself and which was confiscated by the British at the end of the war) it was later interpreted so as to support the gas chamber narrative. Kremer then obligingly confirmed this interpretation at various trials where he was quite clearly under a great deal of pressure to save his own neck. In the article here, Professor Robert Faurisson puts the Kremer diary under the microscope of his meticulous 'text and document criticism' technique.
The Faurisson technique
In the above-linked article, Faurisson exposes many of the linguistic sleights of hand used by Holohoaxers to make of the Kremer diary entries what they will. Just like pictures, words too can be taken out of their real and proper context and placed instead in the context of pre-instilled conceptions that serve to give to the words an effect other than their original intention. For example, Kremer's diary entry of the 2nd of September 1942 contains a sentence that is translated by Holohoaxers as:
“It is not for nothing that Auschwitz is called an extermination camp.”
when in fact the original German is more properly translated as:
“It is not for nothing that Auschwitz is called the camp of annihilation.”
That is a significant difference, especially when one considers that Kremer had in effect walked into a camp (he only stayed about 60 days) in the throes of a devastating typhus epidemic that was quite literally threatening to wipe out the whole camp, officials and guards and inmates alike.
Consider also the following entries in the diary of Kremer for the 12th and 18th of October 1942 respectively:
“Was present at night at another special action with a draft from Holland (1600 persons). Horrible scene in front of the last bunker! This was the 10th special action.”
“In wet and cold weather was on this Sunday morning present at the 11th special action (from Holland). Terrible scenes when 3 women begged to have their bare lives spared.”
These entries have been interpreted as referring to the gassing of arrivals from Holland in a farmhouse near Birkenau. But what do they really tell us?
The clue is the use of the words 'bunker' and 'last'.
First of all, there is no evidence anywhere that the two farmhouses near Birkenau where gassings were supposed to have taken place (the so-called 'white house' and 'red house'), were ever referred to by the Germans as 'bunkers'. On the other hand it is a fact that the barracks buildings of the main camp were referred to as such. Note also that there is ample documentary evidence to show that the word 'special action' (sonderaktion in German) was frequently used to describe actions that could not possibly have referred to anything in the least bit homicidal, and sometimes quite the contrary - the disinfection and disinfestation of new arrivals to the camp for instance. Such protocols of hygiene were standard procedure for arrivals at any kind of detention camp, German or otherwise, especially where dangerous diseases were problematic. And of course the presence of a doctor at such actions would have been quite natural, if not essential.
Secondly the use of the the word 'last' implies more than two. When referring to two objects it is natural to refer to the first and the second, not the first and the 'last'. Clearly the reference here is to the last bunker at the main camp, that is, bunker 11.
Now consider further that the courtyard of bunker 11 was the location of the 'black wall' where executions by shooting took place. And keep also in mind that it was one of Kremer's duties, as confirmed in his diary (eg. September 9), to be present at corporal punishments such as executions and floggings.
A whole different picture begins to emerge doesn't it?
Documentary confirmation of Faurisson's findings
An astute contributor to David Irving's website, Dr. David Hebden, wrote to the Auschwitz museum not too long ago requesting records for deaths of registered inmates of the women's camp at Auschwitz for around the day of Sep.5 1942. Kremer had alleged in a statement made at his own trial in communist Poland soon after the war , that his diary entry for that date had in fact referred to the gassing of 800 such women, though of course, the actual text of the entry does not explicitly say anything about gassing, 800, or even 'death'. The standard argument of exterminationists that the deaths of unregistered arrivals would not show up on the records cannot apply here, yet the records show no abnormal death number entries for the period in question. Click here or here for Hebden's account of his investigation.
|
The Case for Revisionism |
(Note: in the following we shall use the abbreviation 'RR' for specific references to the Rudolf Report. So for example 'RR sect.6.5' means section 6.5 of the Rudolf report. You can download the Rudolf Report in pdf here.)
1. No Holes, No Holocaust
 |
| Van Pelt, left: nature lover. Faurisson, right: "this researcher's embarrassment is indeed understandable". |
It is really quite simple. The concrete roof of morgue one of Crematorium II of the Birkenhau camp (Auschwitz II) is largely intact, though partially pancaked down to the floor. (There are still parts of the interior accessible and unexposed to the elements.) There are no traces anywhere on the roof of the 70cm square holes(16) that were allegedly the means of introducing the Zyklon B pellets into the alleged morgue-cum-gas chamber. Van Pelt conceded as much under oath. As Robert Faurisson has neatly and famously summed it up 'no holes, no holocaust'. (This was echoed by Irving at the trial.) Indeed the phrase 'concrete evidence' might well have been coined especially to describe what is probably the most damning piece of physical evidence of all that the mortuary at Crematorium II was never used as a gas chamber. And since really this is the centre-piece flagship of the official Holocaust narrative (half a million people are alleged to have been gassed in that one room alone), the whole pack of lies goes down with it. Of course the contention by both Gray and van Pelt that the holes were filled in at some stage, in such a way as to leave not the slightest trace, is absurd. Perhaps both men should one day be forced to demonstrate how that might be done in practice and not simply in their all too obliging imaginations. In any case van Pelt's rather suspicious suggestion to the Toronto Star, nine years after the trial, that the camp should be left to 'go back to Nature' will avail nothing (“this researcher's embarrassment is indeed understandable”, was Faurisson's wry comment). The roof at Crematorium II has been thoroughly investigated, mapped and photographed. In fact, Irving informed the court when cross-examining van Pelt that the Poles alone had made 400 photographs of every square inch of the underside of the roof in an attempt to find the incriminating holes and failed. (Needless to say, that event received no media attention.) Referring then to a map of the roof that Gray had been given to consult, Irving explained:
Despite this, Gray J had the following to say in his judgement regarding the absence of holes:
13.84: “The apparent absence of evidence of holes in the roof of morgue at Crematorium II falls far short of being a good reason for rejecting the cumulative effect of the evidence.”
It is remarkable and frankly, disgraceful, that a High court judge could have been permitted to get away with such a brazen display of partiality. Nothing else could account for such phony logic - it makes a mockery of English justice. It is exactly analogous to a judge ruling that the apparent absence of holes in the barrel of a gun is no good reason to dismiss all the evidence that a murder victim was shot with it. It is patently absurd. Irving's appeal argument provided the following response to Gray's shameless nonsense:
“This is an astonishing finding. The roof is still there and has no holes in it, but because the cumulative convergent evidence presented by the Defendants’ experts in London suggests that there are holes, the evidence of the concrete roof is ignored. Irving three times challenged the Defendants: “go and find the holes, and I will halt the case.” The Times of 12 April 2000 reports that the Auschwitz authorities went to look for the holes. No report of their findings was put before the Court.”
Now just consider for a moment. Let's use our common sense here. Do we really believe that if the Auschwitz authorities, or anybody else serving the exterminationist cause, had found anything like the holes they were looking for, that the Lipstadt team, not to mention every major outlet of the ubiquitous Jewish-controlled press, would not have pounced on it in a second? Of course they would have, and we'd still be hearing about it today, truth be told. Clearly there are no holes, nor anything that could reasonably pass for traces of them. Every attempt to demonstrate them in the wake of the Irving trial has been shown to be ridiculous, if not downright fraudulent.(17) Please understand that even if the revisionists had nothing else the whole case for the official Holocaust narrative collapses on that point, at least as far as Auschwitz is concerned.
For Germar Rudolf's analysis of wartime photographs of the roof, including aerial ones showing clear signs of doctoring (probably by the CIA) click here. (RR section 5.4.1.2.8, p 104-123.)
A genuine 'reconstruction': one of the fake holes, crudely installed by the Soviets after the war, in the roof of the alleged 'gas chamber' at Auschwitz I (not to be confused with the collapsed roof of the alleged gas chamber of crematorium II discussed above). The Holohoaxers prefer the term 'reconstruction' to 'fake'. This does not however explain the lack of traces of the original holes, which could not have been located where the fake holes are now(18), and of course, like the alleged holes at crematorium II, never really existed either.
2. The Leuchter Report
 |
| Fred Leuchter: his seminal report has heralded the beginning of the end for the Holocaust fraud. |
In time to come the 'Leuchter Report' will go down in history as the beginning of the end for the Holocaust lie. Though it has been conceded even by revisionists that it contains errors, this is really besides the point, as its essential findings remain in any case valid and have since been replicated, embellished and superseded by the equally seminal 'Rudolf Report' by Germar Rudolf. Nothing strikes fear into the bosoms of the Holocaust swindlers more than these two reports. It is no surprise therefore that the Leuchter report has been so viciously and unreasonably attacked.
Background to the Report
In brief Fred Leuchter was an American execution equipment expert who, at the behest of Ernst Zundel, visited the Auschwitz and Birkenau sites in the late eighties taking samples from the alleged gas chamber walls, both at the main camp and the Birkenau sites. These samples were taken to a certified laboratory back in the US where tests revealed that, unlike the delousing (disinfestation) chambers where the use of cyanide gas is known to have been used extensively for fumigation purposes, the samples taken from the alleged gas chambers had little or no cyanide present in them at all. In fact Germar Rudolf later went as far as to show that the traces of cyanide found in the samples taken from the walls of the alleged gas chambers were comparable to those detected in the walls of a randomly chosen farm-house in Bavaria! This was in stark contrast to the delousing chambers at Auschwitz, the walls of which were so saturated with Iron Blue (a product of the reaction of hydrogen cyanide, or 'HCN', with iron in the masonry and brickwork) that the distinctive blue colouring had permeated right through to the other side of the wall on the outside of the building! Leuchter also gave compelling reasons from a design viewpoint why the alleged gas chambers could never have been in reality used for such a purpose. Needless to say Leuchter paid the full martyr's price for his impartial commitment to telling the plain truth, which is another story entirely, and a credit to Leuchter, that despite every effort of powerful enemies to destroy him, will never be taken from him.
Confirmation of Leuchter's findings suppressed
It is worth noting that previous to replication by the Rudolf report the Auschwitz museum authorities themselves, alarmed by the Leuchter report, secretly commissioned their own tests, but then decided not to publicize them when the results were found to be, shall we say, unsatisfactory. Later a different method of 'testing' was devised that contrived to fraudulently do away with the troubling indications of the first set of results. We will discuss this further below. Unfortunately for these incorrigible cheats however, a copy of the original report was sent to revisionists by an unnamed sympathiser with access to the relevant archives. On day 8 of the trial, Irving explained to the court:
“....somebody sent us a copy of the Krakow report by the Jansen [sic] Institute which the Auschwitz state museum immediately commissioned after the Leuchter report was published, and they did not like the findings, and so they pigeonholed it. They put it in a safe and locked it away, because it basically substantiated what Mr Leuchter had said......A copy was supplied to me, a copy was supplied to the Institute of Historical Review in California, and in fact it was supplied to us surreptitiously. Somebody in the Auschwitz archives photographed a copy and sent us a copy of what the Auschwitz archives were concealing from [us].” [Trial transcripts. Day 8, see p64-65]
Click here for the copy sent to the Institute of Historical Review.
The Report at the trial and the importance of Rudolf
Understandably the Lipstadt team, and Gray J too truth be told, did everything they could to discount the ultra-dangerous Leuchter Report during the trial, first by trying to pressure Irving into not leading it as evidence at all, and when that failed, by pressuring him into making unnecessary concessions regarding it. In fact Gray J's contention in his judgement that Irving had conceded that the report was fundamentally flawed is demonstrably untrue even if it mattered - the reader is invited to read p. 82 of Day 8 of the trial transcripts where Irving describes it not as 'fundamentally flawed' but 'cosmetically flawed', despite several attempts by Rampton to put the former words into his mouth instead. In the end the Lipstadt gang were compelled to resort to pseudo-scientific fraud - namely the 'findings' of Professor Roth and elsewhere the Polish team of scientists headed by Dr. Jan Markiewicz. These fraudulent findings were included in the van Pelt report.
Debunking Roth and Markiewicz
Roth contended that the gas in the alleged gas chambers would not have been able to permeate more that the width of a human hair into the wall, thus explaining why the samples taken by Leuchter were so diluted in terms of cyanide content. Neat. Only problem is that Germar Rudolf had shown conclusively that far from stopping at the width of a hair the cyanide in the delousing chambers made it right through to the other side in the form of the bright blue pigment, Iron Blue (also known as Prussian blue), where it still can be seen today... and photographed. Oops! Astonishingly, though Gray was shown photographs of the Iron Blue penetration to the outside walls of the disinfestation chambers he nonetheless accepted Roth's explanation as a part of the Defendant's so-called 'convergence of evidence'!
|
|
|
The Markiewicz team took a different, though equally fraudulent tack (RR sect. 8.4.2.). First they claimed that the reason the samples from the alleged gas chamber walls contained little or no traces of cyanide was that they had been exposed to the elements for 40 years. In fact as Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf have attested the samples from both Crematorium I and II were taken from interior walls that have not been exposed to weathering at all. (The roof of the mortuary of crematorium II is indeed partially pancaked down to the floor but parts of the interior remain sheltered and can be accessed by a gap in the roof.) What is more, as has already been noted, the tell-tale bright blue stains of Iron Blue, an iron cyanide compound, are still to this day observable on the outside walls of the unguttered disinfestation chambers. So much for weathering!(19)
The Markiewicz team then claimed that it was “hard to imagine the chemical reactions and physico-chemical processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in that place”. Such lack of imagination was then deemed sufficient basis per se for the contention that the Iron Blue stains, so conspicuous in the delousing chambers yet entirely absent from the alleged gas chambers, were possibly the result of some sort of paint. On the basis of this absurd hypothesis (we shall see below exactly how absurd it is) they then devised a testing method for cyanide which permitted them to conveniently omit all iron associated cyanide compounds from their results, thus giving similar quantities of non-iron associated cyanide for both the delousing chamber and the alleged gas chamber samples; that is to say, traces so small as to be meaningless.(20) This incredibly transparent ruse from a team of authorised scoundrels was then relied on by Lipstadt's defence team in their efforts to discredit the Leuchter report. Markiewicz and company did not even try to address the pre-existing and well-known arguments of Germar Rudolf, who in the Rudolf report had demonstrated precisely the chemical dynamics by which Iron Blue can result from reaction of masonry components with HCN gas under conditions which he specified (RR sect. 6.5). Indeed, Rudolf's theoretical proof has been confirmed also in practice. Under the right conditions (for instance, in damp and unheated interiors where cement based mortar is used to plaster the walls, and is relatively fresh), the same reaction and effect has been observed in cases where HCN gas was used for fumigation purposes; for instance in a number of churches in Bavaria in the 1970s, the walls of which were stained an unwelcome bright blue, and where there was no question of the use of paint (RR sect. 1.3).
The fact is that Markiewicz, a Pole, admitted in correspondence with Germar Rudolf and exterminationist Werner Wegner that his work had been motivated, at least in part, by his desire to refute the 'Holocaust deniers' and to ensure that Hitler and National Socialism were not 'whitewashed'. In other words what we are dealing with here is ideology posing as science. And with politically correct bureaucrats like Gray J along for the ride, we can add pseudo-justice too to the ranks of ideology's many regrettable disguises.
300 or 3200?
Another claim presented at the Irving-Lipstadt trial was that Leuchter was wrong to assume that it would have taken concentrations of gas of a similar order of magnitude to delouse garments as to kill people. They contended that in fact it takes a much lower concentration to kill people than it does to kill lice: 300ppm according to their sources, as opposed to the 3200ppm that Leuchter suggested. Besides the fact that this still does not adequately explain the almost total absence of cyanide in the alleged gas chamber wall samples, the claim is misleading (and probably deliberately so) for a number of reasons elucidated by Rudolf in his report (RR sect.7.1)(21). Firstly the 300ppm figure can be shown to be essentially a safety standard for 'rapid fatality', not a killing standard – an important distinction. Clearly the two standards are going to take their thresholds from opposite ends of the scale. Safety on the one hand is concerned with what might be fatal to the most susceptible person while a homicidal efficiency threshold is concerned with what will certainly be fatal to the least susceptible person. According to most eyewitness reports when the 'evil Germans' ordered the doors of the gas chambers opened after only a few minutes of gassing, all those within (around 1000 or more, we are told), strong and weak alike, were at the very least rendered unconscious and immobile if not dead. Obviously, the standards of safety for ingestion of HCN gas cannot apply to such a scenario as they are necessarily extremely conservative guesses based not on time till death or unconsciousness, but rather on time taken for a fatal dose to be ingested. The actual effect of that fatal dose may be considerably later in some cases. The homicidal standard on the other hand must take into account extreme cases, for instance people of greater body weight and strength who refuse to breathe deeply, or who otherwise struggle against their demise; and it must go beyond the limits of mere fatal ingestion to actual serious effects thereof. It must also allow for the fact that people situated at the extreme limits of the room away from the source of the cyanide gas will in just a few minutes not be subject to sufficiently high concentrations of gas unless the concentration nearer the source is considerably higher still. This again makes for a higher average concentration required overall. Furthermore Germar Rudolf has shown that the amount of Zyklon B needed to achieve such a high concentration at the source in such a short period of time would be impossibly high as a matter of supply (RR p.197-198).
By the way, if all of this seems to the reader too horrible to even contemplate, the good news is it never happened.
 |
| Above: Rudolf's graph for the effective time exposure of walls to HCN gas for an alleged mass gassing [green bar added]. The area of the green box is the same as under the green curve and therefore gives the effective time of exposure for a constant concentration of 10g/m3 (approx. 8,400ppm), that is, conditions similar to the delousing procedure. Ventilation kicks in at the ten minute mark. Note that the green curve applies to ventilation less powerful than was present in the alleged gas chambers of crematoria II and III, but allows for serious obstructions to operational efficiency of those systems inherent in the homicidal gassing story and also in the rooms themselves. An efficiency of 25% is assumed. The effective time exposure is calculated thus to be about 90 minutes. |
The fact is that Leuchter, unlike van Pelt et al was not guessing. He was the foremost consultant on execution equipment in the US at the time of writing his report. He knew that a man situated directly over a source of HCN gas in an American execution gas chamber takes anything from four to 17 minutes to die (with 10 to 14 minutes being the rule not the exception) and that an average concentration of HCN gas to air in the order of magnitude of that required to delouse clothes is needed to do it(22). We should note that the concentration used is only half the story and has no meaning unless we consider also the time of exposure. 'Haber's law' tells us that in terms of the effect of a gas on a living organism (and on wall masonry presumably), the time of exposure and the concentration of the gas are (approximately) inversely proportional. In other words if we double the time of exposure we need only use half the concentration of gas for the same effect and so on. Therefore in making comparisons we need necessarily be aware of the value of both variables, or the product of the two, which will remain constant for the same effect(23).
Germar Rudolf has therefore calculated the effective time of exposure for a homicidal mass-gassing in the mortuaries of crematoria II and III as it is alleged to have happened, starting with the introduction of the Zyklon B pellets into the non-existent holes in the roof and ending with the full ventilation of the room by the perfectly ordinary ventilation systems that were installed in these rooms, and are known to have been 7 times less powerful (about one air exchange each six minutes at ideal performance) than those used for ventilating the air of the delousing chambers, where of course HCN gas was really used (RR sect.5.4.1.2.4). Assuming a steadily increasing overall concentration of HCN to about 8400ppm at the ten minute mark of the homicidal gassing procedure, and taking into account all factors mitigating ventilation performance, such as hundreds of bodies in the way, and the non-optimal positions of air inlets and outlets, we can use Rudolf's calculations as a guide to estimate an effective time of exposure for the homicidal gassing procedure – probably about 1 to 2 hours (RR sect.7.3.2.2.3, see also graph above).
Furthermore Rudolf has shown that any extra exposure to HCN that the delousing chambers might have accrued as a result of the extra time required for the delousing procedure (several hours), would have most likely been offset by the cold and damp conditions(24) in the alleged gas chambers (actually morgues) which dramatically increases (by a factor of 8) the absorption propensity of the bricks and uncoated(25) cement mortar of the walls (RR sect.6.5, 8.4.6 & p270). The fact that cement based mortar was used in the alleged gas chambers of crematoria II and III would also have made them more amenable to cyanide adsorption (by a factor in excess of 2) than the cement poor delousing chamber walls (RR ibid). There is simply no explaining the near total absence of cyanide traces in the walls of a room where the exterminationists allege half a million people were gassed to death using hydrogen cyanide, unless of course one is prepared to admit the allegation is a false one. This is where chemist Rudolf was so badly needed at the trial. If he had appeared as a witness he would have been the only qualified expert to testify as to the chemical findings of the Leuchter report (and his own efforts to replicate them). Van Pelt, on the other hand, is certainly no chemist, let alone an expert on gas chambers; he is not even a qualified architect truth be told, which is why large portions of his evidence, at least, should have been ruled inadmissible as a matter of law.
Germar Rudolf: Sorely missed
If Rudolf had appeared as a witness he may have been able to make it clear to the court that the conclusions of the van Pelt report, particularly those based on the false chemico-physical claims outlined above, were not only grossly erroneous but in the circumstances almost certainly the result of a deliberate intent to deceive. As it was, the Roth/Markiewicz nonsense and the other spurious attempts to pick holes in the Leuchter report were, it would appear, sufficiently wrapped up in scientific-looking garb to impress the likes of Gray J, who for all his qualifications as an expert on the law was hopelessly unequipped to see through such pseudo-scientific ruses, even if he had been inclined to, which he clearly wasn't. Germar Rudolf, like Faurisson, has commented pertinently on the incapacity of members of the legal profession to understand the issues at hand regarding the Holocaust fraud, which they contend is, after all, essentially a forensic (crime) investigation:
“It is my conviction that it is not the task of any law court of this world to decide who is right and who is wrong in this struggle, as no judge will ever have the knowledge and the competence to decide this, and because finding the truth is exclusively a matter to be dealt with by the worldwide scientific community.”
We could perhaps add to that the caveat that the so-called scientists need be honest ones (not to mention the judges), which as we have seen from our investigations into the chemtrail atrocity, the psychiatry fraud, and now also the Holohoax, is by no means guaranteed. Is it mere co-incidence that we find the same modus operandi of deceit in all cases? But even if one were to argue that the acute cognitive dissonance(26) that Gray J was clearly struggling with both during the trial and when he wrote his judgement would have rendered Rudolf's contribution inconsequential to the final outcome anyway, that is besides the point. The outcome of the trial is only of secondary importance. There is a much bigger trial going on in the court of public opinion and the facts as they really are must be properly presented there. Clearly, for all our sakes this task must not be simply left to the Hollywood propaganda moguls. In any case, we will certainly not confine ourselves here to the 'findings' of Roth and Markiewicz and co. Or, for that matter, the all too convenient conclusions of Gray J. In fact we can call Rudolf to testify for us right now by clicking here.
 |
| Another bad day for the Holocaust fraud. Gorbachev releases the official death registers for Auschwitz. |
In September 1989, not long before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev decided to finally release to Western historians some of the Auschwitz death registry books that had been captured by the Red Army at the end of the war. This resulted in a dramatic reduction of the death figures listed on the plaques at the Auschwitz museum from 4 million to 1.5 million, though even these latter figures are not justified by the registry numbers, which indicate a figure an entire order of magnitude lower. In fact, though the released Auschwitz death books represent only a partial record (it is not clear why the full records have never been released) they are, however, almost complete for the key years of 1942 and 1943. Overall they indicate 68,864 dead, mostly by natural causes, of whom around 30,000 are recorded as Jews. The other 40 odd thousand were almost all Christians. Notably, though these deaths do include a relatively small number who died by shootings and hangings there is no mention of anyone dying by gassing. Regarding the death registers Gray J had the following to say:
13.88 “Irving relied on the fact that the camp registers or “death books” released by the Russians record deaths at Auschwitz, but make no mention of any deaths by gassing(27). The short answer to this point is that, according to the unchallenged evidence of a large number of witnesses, the books record only the deaths of those who were formally registered as inmates of the camp. The Jews who were selected on arrival to die were taken straight to the gas chambers without being registered. One would not therefore expect to find mention of the cause of death of those Jews in the death books.”
In other words, Gray manages to dismiss the hard documentary evidence of the Auschwitz camp death registers on the basis of what? What is the basis for his assertion that 'the Jews who were selected on arrival to die were taken straight to the gas chambers without being registered'? It can only be eye-witness testimony since, as we have seen, there is no documentary or physical evidence for this. Therefore to dismiss out of hand documentary evidence on the basis of eyewitness testimony is simply bad jurisprudence and unacceptable from a judge, let alone one of the so-called 'High Court'. Gray reveals here his modus operandi. Like his predecessors at the Nuremberg farce he has already taken 'judicial notice' of the orthodox Holocaust narrative (i.e. accepted it as true), and his assessment of the evidence has always this a priori assumption as its starting point. Irving simply could not win. The fact is, had Gray J been as inclined to dismiss as easily the 'evidence' of the Lipstadt team as he was to dismiss the evidence led by Irving, he would have had very little indeed with which to 'converge'.
We on the other hand must be fair. That means we need to be asking what evidence, if any, the revisionists have to support the death books numbers? Is there any reason why we should believe, as opposed to not believe, that they are a fair indication of the number of people who died in the camp? And here again we find that where the exterminationists can only furnish more dubious eye-witness testimony, the revisionists can furnish irrefutable technical facts. Carlo Mattogno has shown exactly the incineration capacity of the Auschwitz-Birkenau cremation ovens for the periods in which the alleged gassing took place, and also the coke supply. He has done this down to the smallest technical and administrative detail, fully supported by documents from the completely intact Auschwitz Construction Office archive. These show without a shadow of a doubt that not only would it have been a physical impossibility to have, as alleged, cremated the numbers of people that the exterminationists claim were gassed, but the actual cremation capacity matches more or less the numbers of registered deaths at the camp during the relevant periods. Now that, is real supporting evidence.
We will discuss this in detail in the next section.
4. Incineration Capacity and Coke Supply
7.65 ….....there are other documents which, according to the Defendants, lend support to their contention that there were gas chambers at the camp which were used for genocidal purposes.........They include a patent application for multi-muffle ovens made by Topf. Although the patent application does not in fact relate to the ovens supplied to Auschwitz in 1942/3, it is said that the principle is the same. The two features of the application on which the Defendants focus are, firstly, the method of employing fat corpses to speed promote the rate at which corpses can be burned and, secondly, the claim that no fuel is required after the initial two day pre-heating period, no more fuel will be required because of the amount of heat generated by the burning corpses. Van Pelt noted that both these features are reflected in the account given by Tauber of the way in which the corpses were incinerated.
13.90 Irving argued that the quantity of coke required to burn one body would have been 35kg. He contended that the amount of coke which is recorded as having been delivered to Auschwitz is nothing like enough to kill the number of Jews who the Defendants say lost their lives in the gas chambers. But I accept that the evidence of van Pelt, which was based on contemporaneous documents........that, if the incinerators were operated continuously and many corpses were burnt together so themselves providing fuel, no more than 3.5kg of coke would have been required per corpse.
(The reader will excuse, I trust, the grisly nature of the discussion that follows.)
The problem with the official Holocaust narrative is that the only way to believe in it is to accept the impossible, a feat Gray J apparently finds no difficulty in performing time and time again. The incineration capacity and coke supply at Auschwitz is another case in point. We are expected to believe that by some amazing thermo-dynamical twist in which a corpse acts as fuel for other corpses, the Germans managed to get their cremation ovens to work at a fuel-to-corpse efficiency that is several times greater than that managed even in today's much more technologically advanced crematoria. Even intuitively one rejects the notion that a 65% water, 50, 60 or 70 kg corpse can be reduced to ashes by only 3.5 kg of coke, but that is precisely what we are expected to believe. The other incredible figure relied on, that is, the number of corpses that could be reduced more or less to ashes in a day at Auschwitz (4756), is based not on any technical evidence, but rather on one letter of dubious authenticity and accuracy (the Bischoff letter discussed above), and you guessed it, those all-purpose eyewitness accounts again. Regarding these latter, Italian revisionist, Carlo Mattogno observes:
"The eyewitnesses wish to persuade us that the crematory ovens of Auschwitz-Birkenau were independent of the laws of nature: diabolical instruments, not ordinary crematory installations subject to the chemico-physical and thermo-technical laws of nature which ordinarily apply to such installations. The historians have decided to trust the witnesses blindly, and therefore allowed themselves to be dragged along by the current of totally misleading testimonies."
Before we go any further it is of the utmost importance to understand that the idea introduced by lie-witnesses like Tauber (and their latter day champions from the world of Jewish academia) that simultaneously burning more than one corpse at a time could significantly decrease the time taken and fuel required to burn the effective overall mass in the ovens at Auschwitz, is at once as utterly essential to the exterminationists' narrative as it is demonstrably bunk. For without getting us first to accept this elementary lie there is no way the proponents of the official Holocaust narrative can account for the vastly inadequate supplies of either time or fuel that were available to the Germans in which to cremate the bodies of all the alleged gassing victims at Auschwitz. And though there is in fact another factor besides time and fuel in determining the incineration capacity of the ovens at Auschwitz, which is (as we shall see below) decisive, the deception about the effect on duration and fuel of simultaneous corpse burning is nevertheless necessary in order to maintain a superficial impression of logistical feasibility for the vast majority of researchers who, at least until recently, have not been inclined to look too deeply into the matter. For those who do so, on the other hand, the pseudo-scientific sleight of hand is soon uncovered.
Factors affecting fuel consumption
 |
| Coke: the fuel used in the cremation ovens at Auschwitz-Birkenau. |
There are three factors that affected the fuel consumption of the crematoria ovens at Auschwitz, of which the single greatest factor was the continuity of operation. If the reader has any experience with a log fire-place or perhaps even a camp fire he will know that a fire needs a relatively large amount of fuel to begin with, but once a certain point has been reached and the coals are deep and glowing, it takes only a log every now and then to maintain the heat. The fireplace is said to have reached 'thermal equilibrium'. In other words it has reached a state at which it no longer needs fuel to reach equilibrium but only to compensate for heat losses to the environment. This state can only be achieved and maintained by continuous operation. If for instance I neglect the fire and it burns down to almost nothing then I need much more fuel to get it started again and to bring it back to heat balance. Or if I radically change the environmental conditions by, for instance, adding a wet object to the fire, then I may need to add extra fuel to evaporate the water and burn the object, thus re-establishing equilibrium.
The second factor affecting fuel consumption is the type of oven used. This is because the thermal properties of an oven depend on its design. A pot bellied stove for instance uses less fuel than an open fire-place. We know that at Auschwitz the eight muffle ovens were more fuel efficient at thermal equilibrium than the triple muffle ovens which in turn were more efficient than the double muffle ovens. (A 'muffle' by the way is one of the oven compartments.) The third factor affecting fuel consumption is the nature of the object burned. Fat corpses need less fuel to burn than emaciated corpses simply because fat itself is a fuel. Nevertheless no corpse is sufficiently endowed with fat so as not to require extra fuel to evaporate its 65% water content and reduce its non-fatty components to ashes (certainly not any corpse that could have fit through a muffle door at Auschwitz anyway), and this would have been the case even in the optimally efficient case at Auschwitz of an eight muffle oven at thermal equilibrium. Therefore no corpse could have acted as fuel for another corpse except in so far as it no longer acted as fuel for itself. One does not need to be a scientist to understand that energy borrowed from one body to burn another is simply at best a transfer of energy, not a creation of it. What is a gain for one is a loss to the other – there can be no change to the overall fuel consumption required to burn multiple corpses in this way. The fact that this was beyond the understanding of Gray has probably much more to do with his bias than his stupidity or ignorance of the principles of thermodynamics.
Neither would the simultaneous burning of corpses in crematoria ovens have resulted in a reduction of effective time to burn them, but merely a more or less proportional increase of time taken per additional corpse. Unlike the exterminationists who have no real evidence at all to back up their claims, we know this from data taken from the incineration of multiple animal carcasses and also, please excuse the reference, the cremation of bodies of human adults with baby(28). In other words the cremation time of say two similar type bodies is going to take more or less twice the time to burn to completion than one body alone, and so on. It is questionable in any case to what extent simultaneous burning of corpses at Auschwitz could have actually been achieved. Oven manufacturer operating instructions to the Auschwitz Central Construction Office specify one-corpse-at-a-time loading of the ovens. And then there is the size of the muffle doors themselves - only 60cm across and, beginning at 20cm high to allow for the rollers, arching to an apex of 50cm from the base(29). Get a measuring tape and see for yourself how small that really is. The muffles themselves were only 80cm high, 70cm wide and 200cm long. Clearly these doors and muffles were designed for one corpse only and it would have been very difficult if not impossible to get any further corpses into them (let alone the up to 8 of Tauber's sick fantasies) without grave risk to the operator of being badly burnt. Note that these ovens were operating at around 1000 degrees Celsius and the corpses were slid into them on rollers. There was no possibility of moving them about in the oven from the outside.
Click here for further reasons why the simultaneous burning claims are preposterous.
 |
| Carlo Mattogno: The world's foremost expert on the crematoria at Auschwitz and Birkenau. |
Revisionist scholar Carlo Mattogno has shown here that the fuel consumption for bodies of various types, in the three different oven types used at Auschwitz, and for continuous operation at thermal equilibrium, ranged from about 12kg for a normal, non-emaciated corpse in an eight muffle oven, to about 32kg for an emaciated corpse in a double muffle oven, with the average being about 20kg. Of course, for discontinuous operation, which was both inevitably and frequently the case, the coke consumption was much higher. Mattogno has also shown that the average time taken for the cremation of one corpse at Auschwitz was about an hour and that the overall incineration capacity of the ovens at Auschwitz never exceeded 650 corpses a day, if we assume the likeliest scenario of 12 hours of operation a day on average(30), or just over a thousand corpses a day if we assume the maximum possible of 20 hours a day. Based then on the actual service times of the ovens which takes into account down times for repairs and maintenance (data which is more or less documented) Mattogno is able to arrive at an upper limit(31) for the overall incinerator capacity for Birkenau (where the vast bulk of the cremations took place) of about 315,000 - though, as we shall see below, this is ultimately only a theoretical estimate as there is another factor in determining the incineration capacity which overrides it. It is important to note that Mattogno's conclusions are not based on the dubious eye-witness testimonies of Auschwitz camp inmates with an axe to grind, but on practical data taken from contemporaneous on-site operation of cremation ovens of the same period, and in some cases the same make, as those at Auschwitz. In this way Mattogno proves that both the fuel available to the Germans and the incineration capacity of the Auschwitz ovens was vastly inadequate for the burning of the corpses alleged to have been gassed there in the relevant periods. The reader is encouraged to read Mattogno's excellent article, “The Crematoria Ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau”, for more details. And for an even more detailed analysis there is Mattogno's ground-breaking and authoritative book on the subject: “The Cremation Furnaces of Auschwitz”, by C. Mattogno and F. Deana. Click to download it in pdf. Or alternatively you can get it in hard copy here.
The good news for those who wish to be certain about whether or not the overall incineration capacity of the ovens at Auschwitz was adequate for the hundreds of thousands of victims alleged to have been gassed there is that the matter is much simpler than it may at first appear. This is because any uncertainty or debate there may be about the time taken for each cremation is, as previously noted, largely besides the point. What is more, the truly decisive factor is also the easiest to prove.
Carlo Mattogno has established, based on cremation data from the Gusen concentration camp, that the absolute maximum number of cremations before the fire-brick of these ovens had to be replaced was 3000 per muffle. Note that the ovens at Auschwitz-Birkenau ranged from double to triple to eight muffle ovens with triple muffle ovens being the most used. To give an idea how conservative is the estimate of 3000 corpses per muffle, Mattogno compares this with the performance of a double muffle oven at the camp in Gusen of the same make as the ovens at Auschwitz, that needed a fire-brick overhaul after only 1600 cremations per muffle. This number is known precisely from the Gusen camp death registers and is not disputed. In fact, the average lifespan of the fire-brick was considered by manufacturer Topf to be about 2000 cremations per muffle, so as noted, 3000 is a very conservative estimate.
The good news for those who wish to be certain about whether or not the overall incineration capacity of the ovens at Auschwitz was adequate for the hundreds of thousands of victims alleged to have been gassed there is that the matter is much simpler than it may at first appear. This is because any uncertainty or debate there may be about the time taken for each cremation is largely besides the point. What is more, the truly decisive factor is also the easiest to prove.
Mattogno then calculates the number of fire-brick replacements that would have been required if we assume the numbers of gassing victims subscribed to by say Jean Claude Pressac (i.e. 530,000)(32), and concludes that a total of five such overhauls would have been required in that case. (Note that Mattogno takes also into account the additional 100,000 inmates who, according to camp records, really did die at Auschwitz, mostly from natural causes.) Going by the archival documents regarding the same work at Gusen (dismantling of the oven and replacing of the fire-brick) Mattogno then calculates the amount of fire-brick that would have been required for crematoria II and III alone - a staggering 320,000kg, along with 9000 man-hours to install them. It should be noted that the calculated requirements are even more enormous if we accept the estimates of van Pelt who would have us believe that a total of 1.1 million were gassed to death at Auschwitz-Birkenau, with half a million perishing in the alleged gas chamber of crematorium II alone. (That's the one without any holes in the roof, we recall.) In such a case (not taking into account additional numbers of natural deaths) the ovens in crematorium II would have needed to be rebuilt 11 times each, and the ovens of the other crematoria 5 times each. And this is where we enter into the domain of hard indisputable documentary evidence. There simply is no need for revisionists and exterminationists to squabble over the details of oven capacity, the fact is that if indeed these essential five (or 16) fire-brick overhauls had really taken place, the amount of documents generated at the SS Construction office would have been considerable (recall that the Construction office at Auschwitz was found intact by the invading Red Army), yet there exists only one letter from Topf to the SS Construction office indicating the order of one wagon-load of fire-brick for the new construction of one oven.
Therefore we can calculate exactly the maximum capacity for the ovens at Auschwitz-Birkenhau during the entire period of their operation and prove it. 52 muffles overall plus 2 repaired multiplied by 3000 = 162,000, which incidentally agrees quite well with death register figures, but unfortunately for the Holocaust liars is not even close to the utterly incredible estimates of their sick fantasies. Case closed.
 |
| The Amazing Imaginary Burning Machine: To-scale drawings of the furnace proposed by the 1942 patent on which van Pelt relied as evidence of incineration capacity at Auschwitz. The oven in the patent was never built or installed anywhere and a 1985 'assessment' of it, commissioned by the Holohoaxers, had to imagine a furnace 100 metres high and 40 metres wide in order to accommodate their capacity estimates! Needless to say all such calculations were entirely theoretical. |
Before leaving this section we really ought to comment even if only briefly on the Topf patent to which Gray is alluding above. Indeed the van Pelt report is replete with lies and misdirection, but with this one he enters almost into the realm of comedy. In short we are expected to believe that a patent for an imaginary furnace that was never built and never tried can somehow give us an indication of the incineration capacity of the Auschwitz ovens during the war. In fact we are told little about the incredible burning machine of the 1942 patent beyond that it was intended to be top-loading for multiple corpse feeding and that it involved a 'system of inclined grids' down which the corpses would slide on their way to being finally reduced to ashes. In other words it had nothing at all to do with the ovens installed at Auschwitz or anywhere else.
Van Pelt even gives us an excerpt from the opening paragraph of the patent which concludes that ovens installed already in 'some of the camps' (which van Pelt himself presumes to include Auschwitz),
“do not fully satisfy, because the burning does not proceed quickly enough to dispose of in the shortest possible time the great number of corpses that are constantly presented.”(33)
But that doesn't deter van Pelt. He now cites an 'engineering assessment' made some forty years after the fact in 1985, about the proposed machine of the 1940's patent, in which a so-called 'expert of corpse cremation'(34) is no doubt paid very well to imagine some mind-boggling dimensions for the amazing burning machine, such as 25 metre shelves accommodating 50 corpses at a time. Never mind that according to patent diagrams in which the dimensions are not specified (but are to scale), this would make our fantastic oven an astonishing 100 metres high and 40 metres wide!(35) Having had these dimensions simply imagined into existence for him, van Pelt then cites it as corroborating evidence for the flawed incineration capacity estimates of the Bischoff letter. Hey presto! Never mind the 1985 assessment's clear disclaimer that all estimates of capacity and duration are entirely theoretical and unsupported by 'practical trials'. But why stop there? The machine is now imagined to be, after a two day pre-heating period, fuel free, with fat and emaciated bodies burning together alone to maintain a constant temperature. Again, this is not in the original patent, it has simply been imagined on to it forty years later. And what do you know? We are told that this feat of imagination just happens to support the testimony of lie-witness Tauber. Extraordinary! Never mind that the patent of 1942 does nothing of the sort. Finally van Pelt concludes his foray into engineering fantasy by citing both the 1985 'assessment' and the patent of forty years earlier, on which the former is very loosely based, as the final word on the incineration capacity at Auschwitz.
He is quite serious.
In a typical example of how the proponents of the Holocaust fraud resort to lies and misrepresentation, a short TV documentary made in 2000 about the Irving-Lipstadt trial called "Holocaust on trial"* tells its viewers that the above-discussed patent of 1942 was in fact for the ovens installed at Auschwitz – a despicable deception. In a re-enactment, by actors, of a re-examination of van Pelt by Rampton, no mention is made of the absurd dimensional requirements of the 1985 'assessment', or its disclaimer about being only theoretical. On the other hand select excerpts from it are very subtly passed off as the patent of 1942 itself. It is inconceivable that this could have been a mere mistake. The blatant fraud has to be seen to be believed - a highly instructive display of just how sophisticated and subtle media lies can be. Click here for the video. The relevant part begins at 46:38. Note that the present author did not watch the entire video (propaganda does not interest me) so it is probable there are other deceptions in it besides this one. Now ask yourself simply: if the official Holocaust narrative is truly credible then why the continual resort to lies?
*the documentary was produced as part of the NOVA "science" series for PBS. We discuss NOVA, its financial backers and its executive producer in some detail here, in regard to spurious evolution theory propaganda. CG.
13.89 Reports were sent regularly from the camp to Berlin in cypher. They were intercepted and decoded at Bletchley Park. Although these reports often gave the cause of death, they did not mention gassing. In my judgement there are two reasons why little significance is to be attached to this: the first is that there was a strict rule of secrecy about the gassing and the second is that, like the death books, these reports related to registered inmates only.
 |
| Victor Cavendish Bentinck, head of British Intelligence during the war: “The Poles, and to a far greater extent the Jews, tend to exaggerate German atrocities in order to stoke us up. They seem to have succeeded.” |
It is indeed ironic that while the Lipstadt team's case was based on the notion of a 'convergence of evidence' for what amounts to a thinly-veiled and paltry pack of lies and distortions, the real convergence of evidence was that in support of the case for revisionism. The evidence of the deciphered daily messages of Auschwitz camp commandant, Rudolf Hoss, to his superiors in Berlin, is a case in point. What do they tell us? That the major cause of death in the camps was from illness (chiefly typhus) and that the numbers of dead as reported by Hoss by cypher is more or less in keeping with the Auschwitz death registers found in the Moscow archives, which in turn is (unlike the exterminationist numbers) consistent with the proven incineration capacity of the Auschwitz cremation ovens, which in turn was established by the fire-brick maintenance history of the ovens recorded in the documents of the SS Construction office, which, by the way, we are told the Germans forgot to destroy. (The fact that they simply had nothing to hide and thus had no qualms in leaving it, is naturally not considered a plausible alternative by proponents of the Holohoax.) Add to all that the fact that there are no holes in the roof of the alleged 'gas chamber' of crematorium II, nor cyanide in its walls and that's what one might truly call 'convergence of evidence'. In fact Irving referred to it at the trial as 'the chain of documents'.
In my opinion it is incorrect to describe Polish Information regarding German atrocities as "trustworthy".....These mass executions in gas chambers remind me of the story of employment of human corpses during the last war for the manufacture of fat, which was a grotesque lie......
Keep in mind that the Germans had no idea that British intelligence had cracked the Enigma code and was listening in on their radio messages – this is not disputed, and is evidenced by the fact that the Germans made many military decisions clearly on the basis of such ignorance. And keep in mind that as part of his messages, Hoss reported all the deaths taking place in the camp, including unnatural deaths such as shootings and hangings. Yet British intelligence never found any reference to gassing. Not one. As mentioned, the main cause of death reported was illness, just as revisionists contend. Perhaps that is why the head of British intelligence no less, Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, writing in late August 1943(36) at the height of the alleged gassing program at Auschwitz, dismissed reports coming in from Poles and Jews about gas chambers in concentration camps as unfounded:
It is worth noting that these statements were made previous to appalling Allied atrocities at German cities like Dresden, and thus previous to any psychological and/or perceived propaganda need to justify said atrocities. Also of note is the comment of an associate or perhaps subordinate of Cavendish-Bentinck named 'Roger Allen', who prior to the above Cavendish-Bentinck memorandum had apparently been entrusted with digging up whatever communications they had concerning gas chambers, and who subsequently came up with all of two telegrams which he describes as characteristically 'vague', and emanating from 'Jewish sources'. He remarks in his own notes:
"Personally, I have never really understood the advantage of the gas chamber over the simpler machine gun, or the equally simple starvation method......"
Indeed(37). In any case, despite the opinion (based on real and extraordinary data) of the British Secret Service, Gray J appears to have favoured the 'incredible meeting of minds' school of thought of discredited Jewish historian Raul Hilberg. This, we recall, is the theory that a 'far-flung bureaucracy' managed the whole extermination affair by an incredible feat of 'consensus mind-reading'.
The reader, on the other hand, is invited to make up his own mind.
Click here for Irving's appeal document and scroll down to items 139-143. Also, click here or here for the article 'The Enemy Is Listening! - What Did the British Intelligence Service Know about the Holocaust?' by Christoph M. Wieland.
An Honest Judgment
Publicity material for the propaganda film “Denial” includes the following tag line:
“Everyone knows the Holocaust happened. Now she will have to prove it.”
Leaving aside the fact that the real Lipstadt did not participate actively in the trial at all and thus proved nothing except the capacity to turn up to court each day and tap away at her laptop; and leaving aside again the Orwellian doublespeak inherent in the tag line (how can anyone know that which hasn't been proven?), we are left with the implication that somehow or other the Irving-Lipstadt trial proved the official Holocaust narrative to be a true one. Now we are asking: is this a fair statement?
Of course, if the verdict of the trial had gone against Lipstadt we can rest assured that an opposing claim in favour of Holocaust revisionism would not have been tolerated by Jewish controlled Hollywood. In fact it would certainly have been relegated to the dustbins of mainstream media selectivity. Michael Berenbaum, founding project director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, was asked mid-trial (in an article for “Jewish Week”), if a result for Irving would mean the Holocaust had not happened. He replied:
"Of course not. The Shoah is not on trial. It just means that in one legal proceeding [Irving] prevailed."
When asked what would be the significance of a verdict in favour of Lipstadt however, he said it would mean that:
"essentially denial has been shown to be absolutely false by a different test -- the test of judicial accuracy.”
Again I must stress that these men are quite serious.
Therefore I invite the reader to put aside the superficial judgements of politically motivated ideology, and to make his own judgement as to whether the evidence presented at the Irving-Lipstadt trial proved the validity of the official Holocaust narrative; with reference of course to both sides of the debate; notwithstanding one side's insistence that to do so is unacceptable, indeed sacrilegious and in some cases illegal; and keeping in mind that the value of a judgement has nothing to do with who makes it, but rather the honesty, intelligence and impartiality with which it is made. Obviously.
Which means of course that there are few of us who can do much worse than Mr. Justice Gray.
Other Recommended Reading
"None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes." - Goethe
1. Are we the unwitting slaves of a hidden hand?
Click here for the article 'The Money Trap: Do I Need to be a Slave to Money? (Applying the Scientific Method to the question of Liberty.)'
2. Are your desires being used to control and enslave you?
Click here for the article 'The Sex Deception (A Young Man's Guide.)'
It's 1972. Eight men and women and a psychology professor walk into various psychiatric hospitals in the US pretending to be hearing voices. Immediately institutionalized by all the hospitals bar none they then return to their normal behaviour. Will any of the psychiatrists or nurses on the hospital staff spot the deception? What happens next will shatter any illusions you may have about psychiatry forever..........
“The fact that the patients often recognized normality when staff did not raises important questions.”
"Any diagnostic process that lends itself too readily to massive errors of this sort cannot be a very reliable one."
- D.L.Rosenhan, psychologist
Psychiatrists: health professionals or thought policemen? You decide.......Click here for more.
(Click the note to return to its position in the article.)
(1) In fact, at the Lipstadt trial Irving rejected the 'Holocaust denier' label on the not unreasonable grounds that the 'Holocaust' term is ill-defined, and therefore open to alternative definition.
(2) By the way, this false guilt-by-association tactic is a very commonly adopted one in the Jewish press. It was recently applied to the present website by Jewish digital propaganda rag, Buzzfeed. In September of this year Buzzfeed reported the appearance of flyers at universities both in Australia and abroad promoting the present website and in particular the Holocaust Swindle article (read it here). This fact was reported alongside further reports of allegedly contemporaneous acts of petty vandalism at universities of an 'anti-semitic' and even violent nature. The implication in the article is that the two separate events, the distribution of the flyers and the petty vandalism are related. Shills in the comments section of the Buzzfeed article page do their bit to complete the psychological sleight of hand. (Click here for the Buzzfeed propaganda article. It is instructive to see how it is done. And here also is a screenshot of the article taken in 2024, so that any future modifications can be checked for. You may need to zoom in to read.)
Yet the intelligent reader will ask: what evidence do we have that the photos provided of the alleged acts of vandalism actually depict something located at the universities in question? And if they do, what evidence do we have that it was done contemporaneously with the distribution of the flyers? And even if that is also true, what evidence do we have that the source of both events are one and the same? Having a not insubstantial experience of the way these deceivers operate, the present author suspects that the perpetrators of the alleged 'vandalism' (presuming it exists at all) and its photographer, and the writers of the Buzzfeed article, may in fact have a lot more in common than the distributors of the flyers will ever have with any of them........
(3) See section 5.3 of the Rudolf Report.
(4) Both Germar Rudolf and Jurgen Graf were in exile at the time of the trial, so there may have been complications; though Rudolf, who was in England, has gone on record saying he might have been willing to risk it, if asked. Faurisson and Mattogno offered their valuable services to Irving for the trial. In any case Irving was not inclined to directly involve well-known revisionists for tactical reasons which may not have been in his best interests after all. Of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
(5) An entire concentration camp that Hoss mentions by name in his confessions was later found to have never existed.
(6) Click here.
(7) I have been unable to find a reliable English translation of the Kinna report online. From my own inspection of the original document, Kinna's statements appear to be in connection to an order from the deputy commandant of Auschwitz, Hans Aumeier, not to bring mentally or physically disabled Poles into the camp. There does not appear to be an order for Kinna himself to do anything regarding such persons. (It is unclear if Gray is implying this in his paragraph 7.6.) Rather Kinna appears to be reporting what Aumeier has allegedly told him regarding camp policy. Interestingly, in regard to this policy the German word for 'release' or 'discharge' (entlastung) appears in the same sentence as the one that refers to 'liquidation' and removal from the camp. Furthermore the said word for 'release or 'discharge' appears to have escaped the translation to which Gray refers in his judgement. For this reason I think it would be very interesting to see a translation from an impartial translator. Irving in fact suggested that the validity of some of the language used may be questionable due to Kinna's relatively low rank (second lieutenant).
(8) The full list of reasons why Irving believed the Bischoff letter to be a forgery can be found listed in Irving's appeal document here. Scroll down to items 135-138.
(9) Elsewhere it is also referred to as the 'Jahrling' document, after the civil servant who signed it.
(10) Click here.
(11) At yet another trial of the relentlessly persecuted and prosecuted, but ever undaunted Faurisson, exterminationist Pressac admitted under oath regarding Olere and the 'drawings' that Gray puts such store by: “At last I became convinced that Olère did not really see any gassing scenes.” Better late than never.
(12) Trial transcripts, Day 17, p.127.
(13) Click here.
(14) Gray cannot claim to have been ignorant of this fact as Irving put it to the Defendant's experts in cross examination. See Irving's appeal document here. (Scroll down to item 127.)
(15) The article from which the above excerpt is taken includes an Editor's note that Collins' “war record did not deter the Canadian establishment from prosecuting [him] when he wrote a newspaper column analyzing the flaws in Steven Spielberg's Academy-award winning film, "Schindler's List."
(16) The size of the alleged holes are claimed to have been anything from 25 to 70 cm square, depending on which witness you believe. However the 70cm square size is taken from the testimony of Michael Kula who claimed to have actually built the wire mesh column device that facilitated the introduction of Zyklon B via the roof. This testimony is generally accepted as valid by exterminationists. The device that Kula describes and which he claims to have made is a column with a cross section 70 cm square rising some 41cm above the height of the roof. See “Auschwitz: the Case for Sanity. A Historical and Technical Study of Jean-Claude Pressac’s “Criminal Traces” and Robert Jan van Pelt’s 'Convergence of Evidence'”, p.481-482.
(17) Carlo Mattogno deals with one team claiming they had found the elusive holes of Holohoax fantasy in his book (Mattogno, op cit p.480). He debunks another such claim this time by Charles Provan here.
(18) See the video "Curated Lies: The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions", by Germar Rudolf, particularly from 25:42 to 28:22. (The book by Carlo Mattogno, on which the video by Rudolf is based, is here.) Leading exterminationist Pressac also confirmed this conclusion in his book, “Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers” p.133.
(19) For more on the ultra-stability of the Iron Blue compound see section 6.6 of the Rudolf Report.
(20) In fact the results of the original (valid) tests were scrapped when they confirmed the findings of Leuchter. These original results were not publicised but appeared in an article for the Institute for Historical Review, to whom they had been sent surreptitiously.
(21) Mattogno, op cit p.499.
(22) Nuremberg archives, Aug 21, 1947. Document NI-9912: “Guidelines for the Use of Prussic Acid (Zyklon) For Destruction of Vermin (Disinfestation): the recommended concentration for the delousing of clothes is given as 8g/m3 or roughly 6500ppm. The recommended time exposure is given as 6 hours in warm weather. Airtightness of the room is also cited as a factor in decreasing the time of exposure required. Considering then that the delousing chambers were specially heated, and exceptionally airtight, the recommended time of exposure of 6 hours can be taken to be a probable upper limit.
(23) The van Pelt report includes an excerpt from the cross examination of Fred Leuchter at the 1988 Zundel trial in which prosecuting counsel tells Leuchter that, according to a Degesch manual for use of Zyklon B, the concentration of HCN to air required to kill lice is 16,600ppm. ('Degesch' by the way, was the firm that was supplying the Auschwitz camp with Zyklon B.) A little later in the cross examination prosecuting counsel mentions the time exposure range of 2 to 72 hours. Given then that the 16,600ppm figure is the top limit of the concentration range this implies a corresponding range of recommended concentrations for HCN to air of about 450ppm to 16600ppm. In fact we know that the concentration used was roughly 6,500 to 8,500ppm. (See note above.)
(24) Claims by the Lipstadt team that the morgue at Crematorium I was heated have been proven false by revisionists. Heating was never installed despite plans to do so as a standard precaution against frostbite (see the Rudolf Report p. 99).
(25) See 'Coating of walls' here. (Part A, no.8)
(26) 'Cognitive dissonance' is a relatively new way (coined by psychologists), of describing a mental problem that has been with us from time immemorial. Previously we were content to simply quote our Lord Jesus Christ: “Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”
(27) Note that though the vast majority of deaths recorded in the registers were by natural causes, they did mention deaths by shootings and hangings.
(28) See Mattogno article here, section 7.2. 'Simultaneous Cremation of More Than One Corpse in One Muffle'.
(29) These dimensions apply to the muffles for the triple muffle ovens – which were the ovens used in crematorium II and thus by far the ones most used for cremation overall at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
(30) A memo of March 17, 1943, edited by civil employee 'Jährling' on behalf of the oven manufacturers, Topf & Söhne, gives 12 hours a day as the cremation ovens' operation time at Birkenau, for the purposes of an estimate of the overall coke consumption. The accuracy of such an estimate would presumably have been critical.
(31) This assumes the maximum daily operation time of 20 hours a day, and operation every day where it was not rendered impossible by repairs and maintenance. Such a scenario is of course highly improbable and therefore represents an upper limit.
(32) This is one of the less ambitious estimates for the numbers of gassing victims alleged to have perished at Auschwitz. The commemorative plaque at the Auschwitz camp gives a figure of 1.5 million. Van Pelt on the other hand gives a figure of 1.1 million.
(33) Note that the patent was written (5 November 1942) at the height of the typhus epidemic in the East.
(34) Van Pelt tells us that “in 1985 the consulting engineers Klaus and Christel Kunz made, in consultation with Rolf Decker, manager of incinerator production at the Ruppmann company in Stuttgart, an engineering assessment of Topf’s continuous cremation furnace”. In fact Decker compiled the assessment. In his book 'Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity', Carlo Mattogno says of Decker: “To visualize the profound knowledge and the technical competence of this “expert,” we note that in the drawing of the Sander oven he mistook the gasifier hearth grid for “air feed channels.” (Mattogno, op cit p.448)
(35) ibid, p.449
(36) Click here.
(37) See also, the Rudolf Report: 'Why, Precisely, Zyklon B?' section 7.3.5, p226.