Yoram Haimi and the Documentary Exposing Sobibor

When excavating Bełżec in 1997-1998, Andrzej Kola thought it sufficient to show the public a photo of two men operating a manual drill, some pictures of excavated building remains, and a lot of pictures of broken glass, rusty horse shoes etc. No photographs were released showing the drilling samples from the mass graves. Yoram Haimi of the Sobibor Archaeological Project is, on the other hand, more than willing to have his bunglings documented on film (and we are most thankful for this). The result, a one hour documentary made by a certain Mr. Amos Refaeli entitled Exposing Sobibor was originally scheduled for release in December 2008 but appears to have been delayed. Fortunately, a four minute trailer is viewable online and has Haimi himself showing us the site of the mass graves and – hold on to your hats – what is presented as (a part of) the excavated gas chamber building!

As the documentary is in Hebrew, a language I do not speak or understand, I have to trust that the English subtitles gives an accurate, if compressed, translation of Haimi’s statements before the camera. I will quote below the subtitles to the most important part, which shows Haimi and his team excavating one of the “gas chambers”.

Starting at 02:08 into the trailer, we see Haimi (in a dark jacket and jeans) together with seven assistants at an excavation site. There are two trees (pines?) in the foreground, one to the extreme left of our view, one at the far right. The tree to the right apparently stands inside the excavated area. A few meters behind the men we see the edge of a wooded area, containing a dozen or so trees (birch trees and conifers). Behind that is an open, grassy area. In the background to the left is the large circular, vaguely dome-shaped concrete monument known as the “mound of ashes“. A quick comparison with a map showing the present day memorial overlaid on the so-called Rutherford map, and an aerial photograph of the memorial taken in 2008 (“Excavating Nazi Extermination Centres”, p. 31, fig. 16) shows the men to be standing at the site of “Building E”, which B. Rutherford identifies as the alleged gas chamber building. Haimi and his team are thus depicted re-excavating a site previously dug out by Kola in 2001. At 02:14, Haimi takes a few steps back (first out of view, then the camera turns to focus on Haimi, standing in the middle with a shovel in his hand):   

«This is the wall, it continues. There is a corner here, it’s a cell. Maybe it’s the gas chamber? Is it 4 meters? Calculate from there 4 meters. 1, 2, 3, 4.. it’s 4 meters. Four by three. 1, 2, 3..».

While talking Haimi paces out the length of one side of the “cell”. We are then shown the excavated “cell”, what appears to be a small rectangular area with the aforementioned tree inside it. In one corner and on one side of it a grey-white substance is visible, likely the remains of a wall. It is difficult to judge from this view alone what materials are present. Someone, possibly Refaeli, then asks “How do you know it’s 4 by 3?”, to which Haimi replies:

«From the witnesses. We know from one of the Polish witnesses that the size of the gas chambers was four meters by three».

I will return below to the issue of the size of the alleged gas chambers. Here I will first note that Haimi is willing to, at least temporarily, identify the alleged homicidal gas chambers based on eyewitness statements. In the following paragraph I will examine what Haimi himself has to say on this form of evidence in the article he co-authored with Gilead and Mazurek.

Eyewitness Statements as the Basis of Identification of Archeological Remains

To Gilead et al, the fallibility of human memory is one of the primary motivations for excavations being carried out at the sites of the former “extermination centres”. On this point they invoke Christopher Browning’s expert report from the Irving-Lipstadt trial (quoted on p. 25):

«human memory is imperfect. The testimonies of both survivors and other witnesses to the events in Bełżec Sobibór, and Treblinka are no more immune to forgetfulness, error, exaggeration, distortion, and repression than eyewitness accounts of other events in the past».

Gilead et al then comments (p. 26):

«The problems of human memory that Browning lists affect also the recollections related to space, structures and artefacts, so important in archaeology. Perpetrators and dozens of survivors left Sobibór in late 1943 and only a handful returned to visit the place decades later. The locals were unfamiliar with the inner structure of the site and could go there only after the area was totally levelled and replanted. For survivors, it is not easy to recognize specific locales while walking in the present day forest of Sobibór, with no familiar structures for orientation, decades after the site was erased» (italics mine).

It thus comes as a surprise that Haimi in the trailer quickly jumps to the conclusion that the “cell” uncovered is a gas chamber based on a detail of an eyewitness account – and a Polish one to boot! As seen in my previous posting, there is considerable disagreement on the size of the Sobibór gas chambers among “eyewitnesses” as well as historians. 

Problems Relating to the Identification of “Building E”

The most striking feature of Kola’s “Building E” is its size: (according to Gilead et al) it is approximately 60 meters long, and, judging from the redrawn excavation map about 5-7 meters wide. The problem is that the verdict of the Hagen Sobibór trial, as summarized by Adalbert Rückerl and adopted as truth by historian Yitzhak Arad, found the second gas chamber building (supposedly on constructed on top of the demolished or partially torn down first gas chamber building) to have contained six gas chambers measuring 4 x 4 meters,arranged three and three along a corridor. This is the same layout (although with a differing number of chambers) alleged for the second phase gas chambers at Bełżec as well as Treblinka. Assuming 25 cm thick walls, this building would have a length of 13 meters and, assuming a corridor width of 1.5 meter, a total width of 9.5 meters. It would thus have a length only one-fourth that of “Building E”!

Sobibór historian Miriam Novitch’s description (Sobibor. Martyrdom and Revolt, Holocaust Library, New York 1980, p. 26) could hypothetically fit the length of “Building E”, as she claims that there were only five chambers, implying that they were placed in a row rather than opposite each other. The crux is that Novitch has each chamber measuring 4 x 12 meters, i.e. three times the size claimed by the Sobibor trial verdict and Arad!

The perhaps foremost expert on Sobibór, Jules Schelvis, apparently believes the (second) Sobibór gas chamber building to have shared its layout with the Bełżec chambers, as in order to portray the former in detail he cites Rudolf Reder’s and Kurt Gerstein’s testimonies on Bełżec (Sobibor. A History of a Nazi Death Camp, Berg/USHMM, Oxford/New York 2007, pp. 105-109 ). 

Let us now assume for the sake of argument that the (single!) 4 x 3 m “cell” shown in the trailer to Exposing Sobibor is the remains of a gas chamber, and that every chamber had the same size. Assuming moreover the layout stated by the Hagen court, and that the long side of the chambers faced the corridor, we get a building with a length of 13 meters and a width of 7.5 meters (again supposing corridor width of 1.5 m), which is not too far from the width inferred from the excavation map. Thus the width of “Building E” is not the most crucial issue, but rather its length. In order to “fill it out” the surplus length of (60 – 13 =) 47 meters, Haimi would have to identify a further row of (47 : 4.25 =) ~ 11 “cells”, so that the hypothetical building contained in all (14 x 2 =) 28 gas chambers! Such a construction would, needless to say, blatantly contradict all witness statements, upon which, in turn, the whole Sobibór narrative is based. What could possibly account for this remarkable discrepancy between the eyewitness descriptions and the archeological remains?

A look at the map of B. Rutherford who, as mentioned above, identifies “Building E” with the gas chambers (numbered “58″ on the map), shows a small annex (numbered 59 on the map), an “engine room”, tucked onto the northern end of the gas chamber building. As this supposedly contained only the engine used as killing agent, some fuel cans, some piping and perhaps some boxes with repair tools and spare parts, it could hardly have added more than 5 meters to the length of the building. We are thus still left with (47 – 5 =) 38 meters or nearly two-thirds of “Building E”.

The only possible solution to the archeologists’ problem (i.e. how to identify “Building E” with the “gas chambers”) seems to be to assume that “Building E” consists not only of the “gas chamber” remains, but also the remains of the “barbers barrack”. On the Rutherford map this is the building (numbered 57) located closest to the gas chambers (58) and also more or less aligned with it. A fenced-in corridor is marked out as leading straight from this barrack to the entrance of the gas chamber building.

This “solution” is, however, riddled with problems. To begin with we have the distance between the two buildings. On Rutherford’s map, this amounts to at least 10-15 meters. The map drawn by Arad (Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. The Operation Reinhard Death Camps, Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis 1987, p. 35) shows a similar distance (Arad maps the camp as a rectangular area with the long side measuring 600 meters). In fact, all maps of the camp seems to agree that the distance was no less than 10 meters. This in turn brings the question: why would Kola, an experienced archeologist, designate the remains of two so separate buildings as that of a single one? One may note in this context that the two small building remains “B” and “D” are located just next to each other (cf. the excavation map in the Present Pasts article, p. 28), without fusing them into one. This map also shows the width of “Building E” to be more and less continuous for at least 30 meters (as pointed out in my previous article, the map is cropped and only shows the northern portion of “Building E”). Moreover, the second gas chamber building was supposedly a brick or concrete structure, while the “barbers barrack” was built of wood! It is also hardly conceivable that Kola would mistake the remains of a fence for the continuation of a wall. If Kola had in fact committed this serious blunder, why did Gilead et al not take the opportunity to point this out when discussing “Building E” in their 2009 article?

The appearance of the “cell” shown in the documentary trailer presents yet an other problem: why did Kola, who uncovered the same remains containing the same “cell” back in 2001, in his brief article published the same year, identify “Building E” not as the gas chamber building but as “the undressing barrack” (as reported by Gilead et al, p. 33)? Just as “mysterious” is the aforementioned reluctance of Gilead et al to equate “Building E” with the gas chamber building, despite Mr. Haimi’s awe-inspiring archeological revelations!

Hopefully, the revealed contents of Kola’s Polish 2001 article – as well as the hypothetically forthcoming publications from the Sobibor Archaeological Project – will throw more light on the nature of “Building E”.      

The Intellectual Bankrupcy of Gilead, Haimi and Mazurek

Finally I would like to adress the purpose of the recent excavations and surveys at Sobibór, as stated by Gilead et al in their article (p. 13-14):

«We regard the Nazi extermination of Jews during the Second World War as a past reality. There is ample written and oral documentation to support it, as well as comprehensive and detailed historical studies that authenticate what Hilberg (1985) calls ‘The Destruction of European Jews’. Arad (1987), in his study of the Einsatz Reinhardt extermination centres, further establishes the role of Treblinka, Sobibór and Bełżec in the destruction process. Beyond the written documents, the evidence consists also of oral accounts of the survivors and SS perpetrators who served in the extermination centres and committed the murders (…). Thus, the extermination of Jews in general, and the extermination of Jews at Sobibór and other centres in particular, is a historically established truth which does not need to be proven by archaeological excavations. Archaeology has the role of supplementing information on the layout of the sites, structures and artefacts in use there, thus providing data for the historical reconstruction of the sites. [...]
Being acquainted with the terrain of Sobibór and other extermination centres, and also being familiar with writings of revisionists, we take a more reserved position regarding the role of historical archaeology in substantiating the extermination in general and gas chambers in particular. Knowing that the evidence of the extermination centres was obliterated by the perpetrators, we assume that remains of gas chambers, even if preserved in situ, are in an extremely bad state of preservation. If the standing gas chambers of Majdanek and Auschwitz-Birkenau are currently denied as such, there is a minimal chance, if at all, that future exposure of poorly preserved remains of gas chambers will assert any truth in the face of a revisionists’ lie. The archaeology of extermination centres is not and cannot be an instrument to show deniers how wrong they are. We think that documentation of detail is intrinsically important even without the need to refute lies, but we believe that, paraphrasing Evans (2002:237), professors of geography, and archaeologists as well, should not waste time debating with people who think that the earth is flat» (italics mine).

Let us recapitulate:
1) the extermination of Jews at Sobibór is a “historically established truth” based on “eyewitness” testimony, Polish-Soviet reports, and a few documents relating to Jewish deportations, none of which mention killings in any form;
2) since the extermination at Sobibór and the other camps is an Undisputed Historical Fact, based on aforesaid “evidence”, there is no need to prove it with the methods of forensic archeology;
3) the remains of the supposed gas chambers are assumed to be in a state which makes impossible the verification of the gas chamber allegations;
4) therefore the results of the archeological excavations and geophysical surveys carried out at Sobibór should not be, in fact can not be, an attempt to verify the existence of the gas chambers;
5) Holocaust “deniers”, whose work Gilead et al are acquainted with but loath to provide reference to, are to equate with flat-earthers who are simply not to be debated with.

The above statement is of course nothing but a sort of pre-emptive clause, a guarantee to be able to pass of any uncomfortable data as irrelevant, and a carte blanche to ignore all negative critique of their conclusions, however well-founded it may be. In this way it may be conveniently ignored that no remains of the alleged gas chambers were found at Bełżec, or that the mass graves identified by Kola could have contained, in theory, only a smaller part of the allegedly killed, and that the amount of ash present in the graves is absolutely incompatible with the official claims (as demonstrated by Mattogno in his study on the camp as well as in more detail in a recent article).

In this context we should take special note of what Gilead et al writes on p. 22:

«It is generally agreed that one of the challenges facing the historical archaeologist is the artefact/text dichotomy. (…) If contradictions are apparent and real, we are talking about spaces between or within artefact and text, about dissonances, that may reveal additional aspects hitherto unknown (…). However, to establish if in a given case dissonances exist, the nature and quality of the evidence, of both the archaeological and the historical data, should be re-examined carefully».

But how can an honest and unbiased re-examination of the evidence even be possible if the existence of the Sobibór gas chambers (for which we have only eyewitness evidence!) is taken as an à priori fact? 

Gilead et al’s reasoning serves only to betray their intellectual bankrupcy. Also, if Gilead and Haimi are so keen on ignoring fanatical nutters, they should have stayed at home, turning a deaf ear to their own sponsors, the Shoah cultists of Yad Vashem!

Those who read my previous article on “Building E” may remember that the website of the Sobibor Archaeological Project states that its “work will constitute a basis for countering the claims of Holocaust deniers” (my readers are recommended to verify this quote for themselves in case the SAP decides to edit the page). Thus Haimi and his cohorts are furthermore contradicting themselves regarding the purpose of their excavations!

 - Thomas Kues

Mainstream holocaust writer Jean-Claude Pressac spotted what he called a “Soviet put up job” – a clear attempt by the Soviet War Crimes Commission to falsely portray an ordinary delousing chamber in the Central Sauna section of Auschwitz-Birkenau as homicidal in nature. Much credit is due to him for this observation, however he failed to ask a critically important question: If there were real homicidal gas chambers a literal stone’s throw away, why undertake an effort to fake this one? Pressac unfortunately does not appear to ask himself this question and passes over the significance of a Soviet hoax gas chamber with accompanying propaganda photo spread without a second thought. For photos of the faked gas chamber and Pressac’s commentary, see http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0046.shtml and following pages.

If the Soviet War Crimes Commission faking a gas chamber isn’t bad enough, it gets worse. There is a definite pattern here.

Chemist and holocaust revisionist Germar Rudolf found an old volume published in Germany titled, Widerstand in Auschwitz, by Bruno Baum, a Communist and former leader of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp resistance. In this book and in a separate magazine interview, Baum literally bragged about how the “propaganda” authored by himself and his comrades circulated all over the world during the war. The translated passages read, “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 us with the help of our Polish comrades.” Click here for Rudolf’s translation and discussion.

I purchased Widerstand in Auschwitz and uploaded it to the CODOH Library where you can read the relevant passages for yourselves. Since it is a color searchable .pdf document, it’s a rather large download, approximately 45mb.

From mainstream historical writers we hear nothing of Communist propaganda campaigns, but rather “reports” by “witnesses” about real gas chambers. Interestingly, in my reading of the memoirs of survivors of Auschwitz-Birkenau which I’ve selected by their use in the writings of mainstream historians, there is one thing in common with many of them: they’re associated with the camp resistance in one way or another. This means they’re tied to Bruno Baum and his Communist propaganda mill. In fact, a number of cited witnesses and writers of collected testimonies used to this day are openly Communists tied to the camp resistance, such as Hermann Langbein, Ota Kraus, Erich Kulka, and others. As I showed in my paper on the prominent and oft-cited claimed mass-gassing witness of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Filip Mueller, little to no effort has been taken to verify the claims these people have advanced other than that their stories are generally consistent with the accepted holocaust narrative.

«The most troublesome aspect of the 2001 excavation is the complete lack of publicly available documentation. Despite seven years having passed since the drills and diggings were reportedly made, not a single article, paper or scientific report has appeared on them, neither in English, Polish, or any other language. The only available source of information consists of the brief and even contradictory press reports published in November 2001».

As it turns out, however, I was wrong on this point. Kola did indeed write an article on his Sobibór excavation, if rather brief, already in 2001, though this escaped my database searches and other inquires. The article, entitled “Badania archeologiczne terenu byłego obozu zagłady Żydów w Sobiborze” was published in the journal Przeszłość i Pamięć. Biuletyn Rady Ochroni Pamięci Walk i Męczeństwa, Issue 4, 2001, pp. 115-122. I do not have access to a copy of this text, and neither is my knowledge of Polish – which is very much at a beginner’s level, I am sorry to say – sufficient to tackle a scholarly article in that language.

Fortunately, there was recently published (in the journal Present Pasts, Vol. 1, 2009 pp. 10-39) an article entitled “Excavating Nazi Extermination Centres”, written by Isaac Gilead, Yoram Haimi (one of the founders of the site www.undersobibor.org) and Wojciech Mazurek. The latter half of this article (pp. 23-37) is devoted to a “Summary of recent research at Sobibór” by which is meant the 2001 excavation by Kola as well as a a series of diggings in 2007 and a geophysical survey in 2008, carried out respectively by the authors of the article and a team led by Richard Freund of the University of Hartford. As some vital information on Kola’s results can be gleaned from this article I have decided to make some preliminary observations relating to the archeological remains designated as “Building E” by A. Kola.

The article from Present Pasts can be read as a pdf-file here:

http://presentpasts.info/journal/index.php/pp/article/view/3/6

The following is what Gilead, Haimi and Mazurek (hereafter: Gilead et al) has to say on “Building E” (p. 27):

«Building E is the largest and the most significant structural assemblage uncovered. It is about 60m long and is located in the south-west section of the area tested. It is interpreted as an undressing room where the clothes and belongings of the victims were processed (Kola, 2001: 121). We will discuss Building E further in the section below. For the moment, it is worth noting that in the current plans for future development of the site, this archaeological feature is interpreted as the gas chambers (Bem, 2006)»

“Bem, 2006″ is a reference to an official English language pamphlet with a map of the present memorial, Masterplan Sobibór: …a place to remember …a place to learn, published by the Włodawa Museum.

Some pages later the authors’ return to the issue of “Building E” (p. 33-34):

«As mentioned above, the most important structure discovered during the dig of Kola is Building E. Although Kola suggested that this structure was the undressing barrack (Kola, 2001), in later reconstructions it appears as the gas chamber. The Sobibór booklet (Bem, 2006) includes a map labelled ‘Sobibór Death Camp Memorial Map’. It consists of a combination of the present day structures and monuments of the site, with the suggested reconstruction as their background (Fig. 19). The ‘Memorial Map’ identifies the Sobibór gas chambers with Building E, which in Kola’s opinion served as undressing complex. Rutherford (2002), follows this map in placing the gas chambers in the same place, although the structure he reconstructs is different in shape. It is obvious that the location of the gas chambers is a complex issue that has to be solved, an important objective for future archaeological research at Sobibór» (italics mine).

The “Rutherford map” referred to in this passage can be viewed at http://www.deathcamps.org/sobibor/pic/bmap21.jpg

On page 28 Gilead et al presents a “Plan of the 2000-2001 excavations at Sobibór” (Fig. 12), apparently drawn after a map of Kola’s. Judging by this there were uncovered only a handful of building remains in “Lager III”, which was the Totenlager or “death camp” section of the camp. Three of them, Buildings A, B and D, seems to be remnants of huts rather than houses. Building C does not appear, which means that the redrawing is only of a portion of the map. This is further confirmed by the fact that only the northern half of Building E is visible. Unless the not shown southern half differs drastically from the northern one, this reportedly 60 meter long structure has a width of maybe 5-7 meters, with outcropping sections at the northern corners.

Already here I will draw two important conclusions:

1) Gilead et al. admits that they have not been able to identify Building E as the alleged gas chamber building.

2) While Kola has interpreted “Building E” as an undressing barrack, the Włodawa Museum, which is responsible for the Sobibór Memorial, as well as B. Rutherford “identifies the Sobibór gas chambers with Building E”. This can only mean that no other structure has been discovered which could possibly be interpreted as the gas chamber building.

The Alleged First Phase and Second Phase Gas Chamber Buildings at Sobibór

In the introduction to my article “The Alleged First Gas Chamber Building at Sobibór” (http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrtkfsgc.html) I recount the official historiography on the Sobibór gas chambers as follows:

«It is alleged in regard to all three Aktion Reinhardt camps – Bełżec, Sobibór, Treblinka – that they each contained two buildings with homicidal gas chambers during their respective period of operation. [...] In the case of Sobibór an original smaller building was wholly or partially torn down in summer 1942 and a larger gas chamber building built on the same spot».

According to Jules Schelvis, one of the major experts on Sobibór, the new gas chambers were fully functional by October 1942 (Sobibor. A History of a Nazi Death Camp, Berg/USHMM, Oxford/New York 2007, p. 104).

As there exists a consensus among the historians on this detail of the narrative we should assume that the search for the location of the “gas chambers” means identifying the remains of the alleged second gas chamber building (although there hypothetically might exist traces of the first structure contained within the remains of the later building). But what is the second gas chamber building supposed to have looked like? Let us first ask the historians.

The foremost exterminationist scholar on the Aktion Reinhardt camps is without doubt the Israeli historian Yitzhak Arad. On page 123 of his classic work Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. The Operation Reinhard Death Camps (Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis 1987) we read the following description of the second phase gas chambers at Sobibór:

«The last camp at which the new, larger gas chambers were installed was Sobibor. The three single-room gas chambers, with a killing capacity of a mere 600 people, could not cope with the tasks imposed on this camp. During the two-month lull in extermination activities in autumn of 1942, the old gas chambers were partially dismantled and the three additional gas chambers were built. [...] The new six-room gas chamber building had a corridor that ran through its center, and three rooms on either side. The entrance to each gas chamber was from the corridor. The three gas chambers were the same size as the existing one[sic], 4 x 4 meters. The killing capacity of the gas chambers was increased to nearly 1,300 people simultaneously».

Thus Arad has it that the original three gas chambers, which he claims was a “solid brick building with a concrete foundation” (p. 31), was expanded rather than completely demolished with a new building raised on top of it. From his description we can deduce that the (alleged) building measured approximately 12 x 9 meters.

Arad’s statement is consistent with that of Adalbert Rückerl, who in his book NS-Vernichtungslager im Spiegel deutscher Strafprozesse (Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Frankfurt 1977, p. 163) summarizes verdicts from trials against former members of the Sobibór camp staff.

Miriam Novitch, in the introduction to her anthology of Jewish eyewitness testimonies, Sobibor. Martyrdom and Revolt (Holocaust Library, New York 1980), writes:

«In order to build the new gas chambers, old houses[sic] were pulled down and new ones were erected, each 4 x 12 meters. Five rooms were prepared to hold 70 to 80 people. Thus, 400 victims could be put to death at the same time, if children were included» (p. 26).

Novitch does not describe the layout of the new building, and neither does she state her sources. If the five chambers described by her – differing drastically in size and capacity from those in Arad’s description – were placed in a row with their short sides to each other the building would – theoretically, of course - correspond roughly to the identified surface area of “Building E”.

Jules Schelvis prefer to quote various pieces of eyewitness testimony on the gas chambers. Below I will look at those as well as others.

Unlike Bełżec and Treblinka there were, supposedly, no survivors from the Jewish Totenlager work commando at Sobibór. The prisoners working in the other parts of the camp were kept completely separated from the former. In addition to this wooded areas surrounded Lager III containing the alleged gas chambers, mass graves and pyres, making observations from the outside difficult or impossible. The historiographical (exterminationist) descriptions of the Totenlager and its features are therefore based on testimonies left by former camp staff years or even decades after the end of the war.

While the former SS-Unterscharführer Erwin Lambert, who supposedly constructed the second phase gas chambers at both Sobibór and Treblinka, does not offer any details on the size or other characteristics of the new gas chamber building (other than that it was larger than the previous structure: Schelvis, p. 104), the accused Franz Hödl, who allegedly operated the engine which exhaust gas was used as the killing agent, left the following testimony (Schelvis, p. 104):

«In Lager 3 a concrete building, 18 to 20 metres long with about 6 to 8 gas chambers, had been erected. The gas chamber had either 4 or 6 chambers on either side of the central corridor, three on the left, three on the right».

Thus according to Hödl the new structure contained either 12, 8 or 6 chambers! We note, however, that the layout and dimensions are completely incompatible with Novitch’s description as well as the remains of “Building E”.

Vassily Nikolaievitch Pankov, a Ukrainian former auxiliary who had served as a guard (Wachmann) in the camp from January 1 to March 27, 1943, stated during an interrogation held in Stalino, USSR, on October 18, 1950 :

«At the camp there were 6 not-large gas chambers, sized about 3 x 4 meters, and 50-70 and even up to 100 detainees were put into each chamber and then the doors would be hermetically closed and a diesel motor operated, from which the exhaust fumes would be piped into each chamber».

(http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aktion.reinhard/ftp.py?camps/aktion.reinhard/sobibor//pankov.001)

Another Ukrainian former guard, Ignat Terentyevich Danilchenko, who was at the camp from March 1943 onward, stated in an interrogation conducted on November 21, 1979:

«The naked people were driven along this passage to a large stone building which was called the “showers”. Actually, this was a gas chamber where the arriving Jews were killed in six gas chambers (250 persons in each) by exhaust gasses from diesel engines which were located near the gas chamber».

(http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aktion.reinhard/ftp.py?camps/aktion.reinhard/sobibor//dchenko.001)

Yet another Ukrainian, Mikhail Affanaseivitch Razgonayev who had served as a guard from May 1942 onward and who was interrogated in Dniepropetrowsk, USSR, on September 20, 1948, speaks of a “large stone building” containing four gas chambers placed on one side of a corridor, but it is not clear if he refers to the first or the second phase building; indeed, he appears unaware of the (supposed) construction of a new gas chamber building during his time of service at the camp (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aktion.reinhard/ftp.py?camps/aktion.reinhard/sobibor/razgonayev.001).

As can be seen from above, there seems to exist a general consensus that the later building was a brick or concrete structure (with the possible exception of Lambert, who states that “Hackenholt ordered a big consignment of wood” for the “reconstruction” of the Sobibór gas chamber, cf. Arad, p. 123). When it comes to the number of gas chambers and the total size of the building, the statements vary considerably. This fact is also reflected in the disparate descriptions of the gas chambers made by historians and judges.

We may also note here that the identification of “Building E” with the (second phase) gas chamber building produces an interesting paradox within the Aktion Reinhardt “death camp” narrative. According to this Bełżec was the first camp to have its gas chambers torn down and replaced with a larger brick or concrete building, containing six gas chambers arranged three and three on either side of a corridor. Arad and other historians hold that Bełżec was an experiment camp where new solutions to problems in the alleged mass killing process were tested and, if successful, adopted at Sobibór and Treblinka (which according to Arad was the most perfected of the camps). Consequently the new gas chambers at those two camps were, according to Arad as well as the judges at the 1966 Hagen Sobibór trial, variants of the second gas chamber building at Bełżec. Furthermore, the construction of the three buildings was overseen by the same two people, namely Lorenz Hackenholt and Erwin Lambert (Hackenholt is supposed to have been the supervisor alone at Bełżec, while co-supervising with Lambert at Sobibór; Lambert then apparently oversaw the construction work at Treblinka on his own). In this context Novitch’s assertion that the second building was of a different layout (as implied by the uneven number of gas chambers) appears more than a little strange. One must remember, however, that this narrative is merely based on selected pieces of “eyewitness” testimony mixed with a “common sense” approach to the alleged series of events (i.e. an increased number of deportees ought to have resulted in the enlargement of the gas chambers). Of course it is possible that there existed a building ín Sobibór Lager III which was replaced with another, larger one, but instead it might have been a bathhouse with shower rooms (as the “gas chambers” were allegedly camouflaged like), a building containing disinfection chambers, or a structure containing both facilities.

While the contents of Kola’s Polish article from 2001 are not available to me, I have already mentioned in previous articles the statements made by Kola to the press at the time. In an article (“Polish researchers find mass graves at former Nazi death camp of Sobibor“) written by Andrzej Stylinski for The Associated Press and published on November 23, 2001, we read:

«The research team began drilling around the site over the summer to determine where buildings and graves might have been located, Kola said. [...] The drillings provided the initial evidence of mass graves and traces of a long barrack. After further excavation at the building site, researchers uncovered 1,700 bullets in one of its corners, leading them to believe that prisoners were executed there, Kola said. Researchers also found various objects used by inmates or guards, including metal cups and spoons, watches and binoculars. Kola said the barrack, located about 70 yards from the mass graves, might have served as a gas chamber, but that further study was necessary» (italics mine).

(http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aktion.reinhard/ftp.py?camps/aktion.reinhard/sobibor/press/Graves_found.011123)

However, in an article which appeared in The Scotsman three days later, on November 26, Kola is reported as saying:

«We also found a hospital barracks[sic]. The people there were probably shot, as we found over 1,800 machine gun cartridges».

(http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Sobibor/Scotsman.html)

The two statements more than likely refer to the same building remains. Notwithstanding the difference of 100 bullets, it is highly improbable that found two buildings with the same amount of bullets inside them. In the AP piece the barrack is referred to as being located “about 70 yards [= 64 meters] from the mass graves”. A look at the aforementioned (redrawn) map of Kola’s excavations shows “Building E” to be located approximately 50 meters from the closest mass grave. Therefore we might assume “Building E” to be identical with the “barrack” referred to in the two news items.

This would mean that Kola in turn has believed this “Building E” to be the remains of a “gas chamber” (possibly) where prisoners were also shot(!), a “hospital barrack”, and an undressing barrack (according to the summary of Gilead et al)! The various objects found at the site (“metal cups and spoons, watches and binoculars”) may not be evidence against the building having been used as a gas chamber (as they might have ended up there when the camp was liquidated and leveled), but they are rather curious. Stranger still is the large number of bullets found “in one of its corners”. How did they end up inside a gas chamber, or an undressing barrack for that matter? Did the Germans shoot the gassing victims, just to be on the sure side? The official narrative on the other hand has it that sick and impaired deportees were brought either to a pit (the so-called “Lazarett”) at to the old chapel near the main railroad (this was the practice during the first phase according to some sources), or with a narrow gauge train directly to one of the grave pits in Lager III (this during the second phase), and shot there.

We may also note that the 2008 excavation team reports having found, “in the area bordering the west of Kola’s Building E” (p. 27), among various mundane objects, “larger jars, some (…) produced in the Netherlands, [which] could contain disinfectants” (p. 30). This might possibly refer to a substance which was applied to deportees in the course of a bath and delousing process at a transit camp (in German Durchgangslager, abbreviated DuLag). The witness Galina K., a former inmate in a transit camp in Germany through which Russian and other forced laborers (so-called Ostarbeitern) were sluiced, has testified:

«Wir hatten folgende Aufgaben: die Kranken und Toten aus den angekommenen Zügen zu tragen, die Haare mit der Rasiermaschine zu schneiden, Kopfhaare bei den Männern, wenn aber Frauen [Läuse] hatten, auch bei den Frauen, die Haare unter den Achseln und unter der Taille. Wir schmierten Köpfe, Achselhöhlen, Genitalien mit einer chemischen Lösung ein. [...] nach 20 Minuten bekam man Seife, die wie Paste aussah, dann ging es zur Dusche. Nach jeder Gruppe machten wir sauber».

(Janet Anschutz, Irmtraud Heike, “Medizinische Versorgung von Zwangsarbeitern in Hannover: Forschung und Zeitzeugenberichte zum Gesundheitswesen”, in: Günter Siedbürger, Andreas Frewer, Zwangsarbeit und Gesundheitswesen im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Einsatz und Versorgung in Norddeutschland, Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim, Zürich, New York 2006, p. 52).

My translation:

«We had the following tasks: carrying the sick and dead from the arriving trains, cutting of the hair with electric razors, the scalp hair of the men, but also that of the women if they had [lice], the hair below the shoulders and that below the waist. We smeared heads, armpits and genitalia with a chemical solution [...] after 20 minutes they were given soaps, which looked like paste, and then they went to the showers. After each group we cleaned up».

Did the deportees to the Aktion Reinhardt camps in fact go through a similar procedure? In future articles I hope to provide more information on the known transit camps.

As will be seen in this paragraph, statements made by the members of the 2007-2008 excavation team contradict each other regarding the identity of “Building E”. In the present article, as I have already noted, Gilead et al makes it clear that “the location of the gas chambers is a complex issue” which remains to be solved. In other words they do not conclude “Building E” to have been the alleged gas chambers. On p. 27 we read:

«In October 2007, acting on the assumption that we knew roughly where the gas chamber was located, we decided to dig first in the area bordering the west of Kola’s Building E. We worked in 5 x 5m squares which correspond to Kola’s grid, screened all the sediments we dug and used soft hair brushes to clean the surfaces we exposed. The sediment we excavated was sand, heavily mixed with ashes and burnt materials and artefacts. It was approximately 10cm deep and overlaid deep layers of sterile sand. The nature and the extension of the archaeological deposit and the types of artefacts embedded in it indicate that the part of Sobibór we excavated is neither the gas chamber nor the undressing barrack» (italics mine).

This implies that the team set out believing that “Building E” was identical with the alleged gas chambers, but did not manage to uncover any material supporting a positive identification. However, on the abovementioned website set up by members of the Sobibor Archaeological Project (http://www.undersobibor.org/project.html) we read:

«In 2001 Polish archaeologists under the direction of Andrzej Kola carried out an excavation at the camp in Sobibor. The magnometric survey was carried out at the site in order to create a plan of the camp. Excavations revealed seven concentrations of mass graves and the structure that functioned as a gas chamber».

Thus on their website team members state that Kola did find the gas chamber building, despite the fact that in 2001 Kola variously interpreted it as an undressing barrack and a hospital barrack, and that they themselves in their new article from 2009 admits that the problem of the location of the gas chambers remains to be solved.

In a brief 2008 article from a Hartford University campus newspaper we read (http://www.hartford.edu/unotes_html/Articles.asp?MainID=4581&Category=1):

«This summer, a team led by Richard Freund, director of the University’s Maurice Greenberg Center for Judaic Studies, mapped the surface of the camp using electromagnetics, magnetometry and ground-penetrating radar equipment. The team detected the floor of what is thought to be the camp’s gas chambers».

An article from the Jewish Ledger reproduced at the University of Hartford website (http://www.hartford.edu/greenberg/events/sobibor.asp) reports Freund, who as mentioned carried out the geophysical survey in 2008, as making a statement to the same effect

«Freund says the team located structures thought to be Sobibor’s gas chamber and crematoria[sic], as well as light-railway tracks used to bring the sick and infirm from the main railway line directly to the crematoria».

But why then the reluctance to identify “Building E” as the gas chambers? Could it be that Kola called it a “barrack”, because, like the “Building G” at Bełżec half-heartedly suggested as the second phase gas chamber building at that camp, we are dealing with the remains of a wooden building, not a brick or concrete one, which size moreover does not match the descriptions of the eyewitnesses? We are indeed eager to to learn what Kola, as well as Haimi, Freund et al has to say about this structure.

As seen from above, the archeologists at Sobibór has quite a few “problems” left to “solve”, first and foremost the identification of Kola’s “Building E”. Apparently there are no other candidates for the alleged gas chamber building, meaning that they are stuck with this building remain. While in the present article the new archeological team, like Kola’s before it, hesitate to identify “Building E” with the gas chambers, they are apparently tempted to follow the policy of the Włodawa Museum, since there are no alternatives but to conclude that no homicidal gas chambers existed at the site – which would of course be unforgivable, even punishable. To what lengths are they ready to go in order to present a positive identification?

This situation needless to say reminds of the 1997-1998 Bełżec excavations. In his report on that undertaking, Kola made a seriously flawed attempt to identify the second phase gas chambers, which according to eyewitnesses was a concrete structure with a total surface area of at least 120 square meters, with a wooden building (the aforementioned “Building G”) measuring 52.5 square meters. As for the first phase gas chamber building, Kola tried to identify it with a “Building D” but in effect abandoned this idea. Bełżec expert Robin O’Neil, who was also involved in the project, tactfully admitted: “We found no trace of the gassing barracks dating from either the first or second phase of the camp’s construction”. This failure has been analyzed in detail by revisionist Carlo Mattogno (Bełżec in Propaganda, testimonies, Archeological Research, and History, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2004, pp. 92-96). As seen at their website (http://www.undersobibor.org/project.html) the Sobibor Archaeological Project is fully aware of Mattogno’s study:

«A comprehensive study of the Belzec concentration camp in Poland where extermination pits were uncovered has been published by Prof. Andrzej Kola (Kola 2000). This study was cited by Carolo[sic] Mattogno (2004) in an attempt to reach the opposite conclusion, i.e., that the Belzec camp was not an extermination camp but rather only an interment[sic] camp».

We may note here that the author(s) (deliberately?) misrepresent Mattogno’s hypothesis regarding the nature of the camp. A transit camp is rather the opposite of an internment camp. On the same webpage we also read:

«The work will constitute a basis for countering the claims of Holocaust deniers».

Thus the future identification of remains proving the existence of the alleged gas chambers is taken more or less for granted, and a conclusion to the contrary would be incompatible with the purpose of the project!

Until the contents of Kola’s 2001 article becomes available to us – and an actual report on the 2007-2008 excavations and surveys is published – we can mostly only speculate and make conjectures. It is apparent, however, that Gilead et al, while having only one possible candidate (“Building E”), are hesitant to identify it with the alleged gas chamber building. We might thus assume, for the time being, that, as at Bełżec, the archeologists have failed to locate the remains of any homicidal gas chambers.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/events/western/pdf/AmnestyConference_BazylerMichaelCLE.pdf

“…[to] keep complete records of the vile crimes perpetrated by the Germans and their accomplices and the damage inflicted by them on Soviet citizens and the socialist state; establish wherever possible the identity of the German-Fascist criminals guilty of the organization or execution of the crimes in occupied Soviet territories, so that they might be handed over to the courts for severe punishment; [and] unify and coordinate the work already performed by Soviet state organs in this area.” (George Ginsburgs, “Moscow’s Road to Nuremberg”, New York: Kluwer Law International, 1996, pp.37-8)

The work of said commission left much to be desired, its biggest fault being that not one impartial party was invited to participate in the investigations or shown any of the alleged sites in order to independently verify the findings. All the Russians did, at the IMT, was to make claims, some of them totally bogus, and present documents – I will get into more details about those later. That the proceedings, the IMT, were a sham becomes clear when reading the following (Bazyler, p.1):

“[…]Nikitchenko publicly pronounced his view that all of the defendants were guilty even prior to the start of the IMT proceedings:
“We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea [referring to Yalta] declarations by the heads of the governments…. The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime.”
He then famously added: “If… the judge is supposed to be impartial [at Nuremberg], it would only lead to unnecessary delays.”

As the accused was declared guilty before the trial even started, there was, to sum up the Russian attitude, no reason to bother with any feigned impartiality. The Russians were also successful in having the following added, so as to being able to submit anything as evidence without having to prove the veracity of it (Bazyler, p.2):

“[…]Moreover, the Soviets directed that the tribunal take judicial notice of facts of common knowledge instead of requiring their proof.”

The western Allies had to wait before they could assemble what they deemed to be evidence, since D-Day did not happen until June 6. 1944 and it took them awhile to get to Germany. Nevertheless, they were successful in obtaining hundreds of tons of documents, 485 tons of foreign office documents alone. The document they looked for most diligently was that ordering the killing of the Jews (Prof. Dr. Franz Seidler, “Das Recht in Siegerhand”, p.104). This document has not been found to this day.

The search for documents was undertaken only by the prosecution, which is problematic from a legal point of view. The defense was never allowed to search freely for acquitting documentary evidence, had to state what documents they intended to obtain, needed travel permits which were not always granted, etc., etc., Dr. August von Knieriem provides details in his “The Nuremberg Trials”. Also, the defense lawyers were picked by the Allies, meaning that if a lawyer was a (former) member of the National Socialist Party (NSdAP), or sympathetic to National Socialism, he was not considered, thus eliminating all lawyers who were active during the years of National Socialism (Seidler, pp.101/02). National Socialism was a movement of the working class, and many of the so-called intellectuals had shunned it, while some, if not many, had joined the resistance. By calling them to defend former NS dignitaries, one left the door wide open for lawyers who had an axe to grind. Some lawyers refused to participate for fear of repercussions, as the press had unleashed a hate campaign against anything “Nazi”(Seidler, p.102). Thus, the accused were defended by people not free of fear or bias. In fact, when reading through the transcripts it becomes clear that most of the defense lawyers believed what was presented by the prosecution, and just tried to deflect guild from their clients onto others.

A little about the gathering of documents, from Vol.II , pp.156 ff. (online: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/11-22-45.asp : )

“The Germans kept accurate and voluminous records[…] Many times the records were so voluminous that they were hauled by fleets of Army trucks to document centers […] Beginning last June (1945), Mr. Justice Jackson requested me to direct the assembling of documentary evidence on the continent for the United States case. Field teams from our office were organized under the direction of Major William H. Coogan, who established United States liaison officers at theory document centers. Such officers were directed to screen and analyze the mass of captured documents, and select those having evidentiary value for our case. Literally hundreds of tons of enemy documents and records were screened and examined and those selected were forwarded to Nuremberg for processing […] Finally, more than 2,500 documents were selected and filed here in this Court House. At least several hundred will be offered in evidence[…]“

Documents “…having evidentiary value for our case” were selected, with only the prosecution present and deciding what was of value and what was not. The last part is also telling: from the “…hundreds of tons of enemy documents and records”, only 2 500 were selected and out of those “several hundred” were submitted.

A further aspect of interest: On October 22, 1945, a report was issued titled “Report, German Document Conference”, referring to a conference held prior to the date shown. This report reads, in part:

“It is also necessary for this conference to consider the overall problem of the denial of certain archives, records and papers to the Germans. Serious consideration must be given to plans for the organized destruction of papers which possess no value for the Allies and must be denied to the Germans. We must be cognizant at all times of the final disposition of documents required for study in Germany which must not be permitted to fall into German hands after the departure of occupation
forces […] The question was then coordinated with the War Department and they were asked to prepare a draft of State, War, Navy Coordinating Committee views on documents which should be destroyed, or to which the Germans were to be denied access[…]“

The stamp on the document reads: “Declassified, Authority: NWh 968018, By: P Y, NARA Date: 08 + 206″ (Georg, Friedrich “Verrat in der Normandie”, S.17).

Many researchers have also complained that archives are still locked or inaccessible, among them John Costello and Oleg Tsarev, the latter a former KGB officer (Deadly Illusions), Valentin Falin (Zweite Front. Die Interessenkonflikte in der Anti-Hitler-Koalition), Franz Seidler (Das Recht in Siegerhand), Victor Suvorov (Stalins verhinderter Erstschlag) and many more.

The foreign office (AA) documents were only released starting in 1956, following their perusal by a American-English-French Commission (Bohlinger/Ney, “Gutachten zur Frage der Echtheit des sogenannten Wannsee-Protokolls”, pp.6-7). Thus, aside from the fact that documents had been sorted out, some are still not accessible. Why is this?
<!–[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]–>
<!–[endif]–>

Further we have the well founded suspicion-, and not just suspicion, that documents had been forged. The Displaced Persons’ Camp Föhrenwald-Wolfratshausen housed the largest forgery and photo-montage operation in post war Germany (Ibid, p.p.6, footnote 10). Prof. Dr. Franz Seidler provides some examples of forgeries (pp.152 ff). Thomas E. Mahl, in his “Desperate Deception” also gives examples of the forgeries produced by the Brits to turn the American public against the “Nazis” in order to get America into the war. Now, this was done before WWII, but could not some of those forgeries have been used following the war? One would assume that, because of the one-sidedness and shenanigans, historians would be extra careful before accepting a document as evidence, make sure that an original exists and that the original presented is a true original. Sadly, this is not the case. The victors captured German typewriters, stationary, stamps, etc., etc., making it no great achievement to manufacture a “original”.

At the IMT, the Russians were allowed to submit photocopies of documents, promising to produce the originals later. This did not happen, and the court just turned a blind eye (Seidler, p.80). We have the following exchange between the Russian Rudenko and the President on day 54, Friday, 8 February 1946, re. a document pertaining to the Sudeten Germans, IMT Proceedings Vol. VII, p.202ff ( http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/02-08-46.asp ):

“THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, I am sorry to interrupt you but it is not quite clear, on the translation that has come through, whether you have deposited the original of this document and have given it an exhibit number, that is, if it has already been put in.
COL. POKROVSKY: All the documents presented by the Soviet Delegation are submitted by us to the Tribunal in Russian and they are then handed for translation to the international translators’ pool, which is charged to serve the Tribunal with translation into all the other languages. This document is referred to by me in precise correspondence with its registration number – our Number USSR-271.
THE PRESIDENT: If the original document is not in Russian, it must be deposited with the Tribunal in its original condition. I do not know what the document is. It is about a conference, apparently, and I suppose the original is in German.
COL. POKROVSKY: The original document is in German.
THE PRESIDENT: If that is so, we would like to see the original in German.
COL. POKROVSKY: The photostatic copy of the original document, in the German language, is at present at the disposal of the Tribunal. May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Is this the original?
COL.POKROVSKY: It is a photostat.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid that we must’ insist upon having the original.
COL. POKROVSKY: The original document is at the disposal of the Soviet Government and, if the Tribunal wishes, it can be sent for and presented to the Tribunal a little later. The photostat is certified.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid we must have the original documents. After the original documents have been produced and exhibit numbers given to them, they will remain in the hands of the Tribunal. Of course, the subject of the translations is quite a different one, but for the purpose of insuring that we get really genuine evidence we must have the originals deposited with the General Secretary.
COL.POKROVSKY: I note the wish of the Tribunal and we shall give instruction for the original documents to be submitted to the Tribunal, although in this case we have followed the established precedent where the Tribunal considers it sufficient to accept the certified photostats. We can submit the original, but we shall have to do it somewhat later, as not all the requisite material is in Nuremberg at the present time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, so long as you undertake to do it. But I do not think you are right in saying that it is the practice that has been already established, because we have been demanding the production of the original document from the French prosecutors, and they have been produced.
COL.POKROVSKY: We shall take the necessary measures so that the Tribunal
will receive, although of course somewhat later, all the original
documents from which the present photostats were taken. May I now continue? I now continue the quotation….
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, I imagine that you will be able to produce tomorrow the originals of the documents which were referred to today.
COL. POKROVSKY: I cannot promise that, because not all the originals are here. A considerable part of these documents are unique and consequently not kept in Nuremberg. Here we keep only a certain part of the originals.’ All that I can do is to submit, in the future, the originals at our disposal. Those which we do not have here we shall request the Soviet Government to send over in exchange for the photostats. This we can do.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal had better adjourn for the purpose of considering this matter.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has considered the matter of the deposition of original documents, and they wish the following procedure to be adopted: In the first place, they want original documents deposited with the General Secretary of the Tribunal, wherever possible. Secondly, where it is impossible for original documents to be deposited, or highly inconvenient, they will accept photostat copies of the original documents, provided that a certificate accompanies the photostat document that it is a true copy of an original document, and that the original is an authentic document, giving the origin of the original document and the place of its present custody. Thirdly, they will accept photostat copies for the present, on the undertaking of counsel that certificates, such as I have indicated, will be furnished as soon as possible. Is that clear, Colonel Pokrovsky?
COL.POKROVSKY: I would ask the Tribunal to explain one point to me. Do I understand that the Tribunal only confirms its former decision and practice, which was established in connection with the presentation of the document in evidence by my American and British colleagues, or is it something new that the Tribunal is introducing? I am asking this because a similar document to the one which caused the interruption in my presentation today has already been accepted as a photostat in the same Trial under Exhibit Number USA-95 or Document 2788-PS. Therefore, it is not quite clear to me whether I am dealing with a new decision or with the confirmation of an old practice.
THE PRESIDENT: I think what you have stated is true, that this particular document does not appear to have any certificate that it is a true copy. But the Tribunal expects that the United States will produce such a certificate that it is a true copy of an authentic document and will state the origin and the custody of the original document.
COL.POKROVSKY: Pray forgive me, but I consider that the question which I wish to elucidate is of equal interest to all the prosecutors. Am I, and with me all the representatives of the Prosecution, to understand the decision of the Tribunal to mean that we are to present supplementary documentation in support of all photostats, including the photostats previously accepted by the Tribunal, or does it only refer to documents which the Soviet Delegation will present in the future?
THE PRESIDENT: If a document had been accepted in photostatic form and there has been no certificate that it was a true copy of an authentic document, then such a certificate must be given. And we desire that the certificate should also show that the document was authentic, and the place of its present custody. And that applies equally to all the chief prosecutors.
COL., POKROVSKY: Now, I understand that the Tribunal is confirming its former practice which means that we can present a photostat, but that they must be certified and that the originals should be presented whenever possible. Have I understood you correctly?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we desire originals, if possible. If it is impossible or if it is highly inconvenient, then we will accept photostats. And in the meantime, and for your convenience – because this practice has not been perhaps adequately stated before – we will accept photostat copies without certificate, on your undertaking that you will have the certificate later on. Is that clear?
COL. POKROVSKY: I understand. The former practice will continue in operation […]“

This was about a relatively unimportant document, but the precedent was set. If it was “impossible or…highly inconvenient” to produce the original, a copy would do – but the copy of what, one might ask. Also, how can it even be “impossible” or “inconvenient” to produce an original, if one exists? Thus, even though tons of documents had been confiscated, the prosecution still had to resort to this.

At the Frankfurt “Auschwitz Trials” 1963-1965, the judges had to admit in their verdict that the few documents at their disposal referred only to generalities, and that they therefore had to rely almost exclusively on eyewitness testimony. Hundreds of tons of documents and no case for mass murder could be made using any of them. Did the Germans destroy each and every incriminating document? Historians try to make us believe just that. But, if such a mass murder actually happened, would the Germans even have drawn up documents? Just to later have the bother of destroying them, a procedure that would require much work and the involvement of many hands, whom all had to be absolutely trustworthy. Why the Korherr report or the Hoefle telegram, if they referred to Jews that had been murdered? Especially the latter – why tell all how many Jews had been murdered, if that was what happened? There would have been no need to document this. Also, why then the need for the above mentioned Allied document sorting conference? Why the still locked archives?

When looking closely at the evidence presented, it becomes clear that no solid case has been made to prove the mass murder of Jews. No substantial evidence is presented, such as reports of investigations by experts in the field of criminal- and forensic investigations. All we are shown is some circumstantial evidence, transport lists, telegrams, excerpts of speeches by dignitaries, bits of diary entries (the Dr. Hans Frank diary is an example [Seidler, pp.150/51]) copies of documents of dubious origin. Do originals exist? No doubt they do, but even if all of the documents presented are genuine, no case for mass murder can be made relying on them. In all cases, eyewitnesses are providing the “real evidence”, and those constitute the weakest link in the evidence chain.

Wilfried Heink

Of course, where no real evidence can be found, one can always blame the perfectionist evidence destroyers of Sonderkommando 1005 who, with the Red Army and surviving partisans in their back, managed to obliterate the traces of German mass murder at hundreds, or even thousands, more or less obscure sites all over western Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, thus inadvertently providing Fr. Desbois and his likes with the strongest, most impenetrable sort of proof: the tell-tale lack of evidence.      

In a similar fashion, Desbois relies on the so-called Ereignismeldungen (operational reports), taking it for granted that the Einsatzgruppen dutifully reported the number of killed Jews to Berlin, while in cases where no “documentary evidence” can be mustered, he resorts to the rather pagan method of tea-leaf reading. In a typical example of exterminationist double-think, we are to believe that in some cases the Einsatzgruppen leaders reported the exact number of executed Jews (sometimes even with nifty little illustrations of coffins – on formal reports!), while in other cases they took pains to encode reports on mass shootings as “innocent daily meteorological forecasts”, wherein “the number of clouds stood for the number of graves and the amount of rain indicated the number of victims”! Did it occur to Desbois to check if the contents of those “encoded” messages corresponds to the actual weather at that time and place? Or, if there is such a correspondence, are we perhaps to take it that the number of shot depended on the weather? Were Jews saved by sunny days?  

If Fr. Desbois has demonstrated anything, it’s the exterminationist camp’s awkward tendency to shoot itself in the foot. Holocaust by Bullets is a juicy bone thrown to the revisionists. Now we are only waiting for Steven Spielberg to finish his ever-delayed documentary on Babi Yar.

In 2000, Kola published the book Belzec: The Nazi Camp for Jews in the Light of Archeological Sources. Excavations 1997-1999 (The Council for the Protection of Memory of Combat and Martyrdom/USHMM) wherein he reported that he and his team through drillings had discovered 32 grave pits with a total surface area of 5,919 square meters and a total volume of 21,310 cubic meters. The news of Kola’s research was widely touted as the definite proof that Bełżec had served as an extermination camp where hundreds of thousands of European Jews had met their death.

However, this claim was challenged in 2004 when Italian revisionist researcher Carlo Mattogno published his study on the Bełżec camp, Bełżec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research, and History (Theses & Dissertations Press). In it, Mattogno scrutinized among other things the actual capacity of the reported mass graves, concluding that a theoretical maximum of 170,480 corpses could have been interred in them (p.85), with the reported physical evidence from the probe drillings indicating an actual number of Bełżec dead in the range of “several thousands, perhaps even some tens of thousands” (p.91). As it is uniformly alleged that practically all of the more than 400,000 Jews deported to the camp were killed there within a few hours of arrival, and that all victims were interred within the camp borders, this would by default obliterate the orthodox “extermination camp” hypothesis. The corpses actually buried at the camp site could readily be explained as dead Jewish deportees who had perished in transit – contemporary records document a catastrophic transport from Kolomea (Kolomyja) to Bełżec, during which 2,000 Jews died of various causes – or Bełżec inmates dead due to disease and other causes. As the tiny camp could not have contained even a small portion of the more than 430,000 Jews deported to the camp, it becomes obvious that the only viable alternative to the extermination camp hypothesis is that of a transit camp, wherefrom Jews were sent east to occupied USSR territory or to labor camps in the Lublin district.  

In 2009, Mattogno replied to an exterminationist critique of his study written by Roberto Muehlenkamp (available online at http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/05/carlo-mattogno-on-belzec.html), publishing the long article “Bełżec e le Controversie Olocaustiche di Roberto Muehlenkamp” online (http://ita.vho.org/BELZEC_RISPOSTA_A_MUEHLENKAMP.pdf). This important work is at the moment awaiting translation.

In his 2004 study, Mattogno points out the fact that the reported dimensions of the Bełżec grave pits hardly can be identical to the original ones dating from the operation of the “death camp”. As Kola himself admits, it is likely that clandestine “wildcat diggings” (carried out by locals searching for buried valuables) destroyed the walls between smaller neighbouring graves, creating bigger ones. According to Kola, “disturbances in archeological structures were made by intensive dig-ups directly after the war”. The diggings continued in fact into the early 1960s, when the first monument was erected at the former camp site. Mattogno writes (p.89):

«How many graves were dug up in those twenty years? The diggings took place in total disorder, without any regard for orientation, order, or symmetry, which explains the total lack of orientation, the confusion, and the irregularity of the graves identified by Kola. In the course of these diggings, the walls which had originally separated the graves were destroyed, deceptively enlarging the graves. Furthermore, as we see from Kozak’s testimony, the soil removed from the graves was spread across a large area of the camp, leaving ash and human remains exposed. When the graves were refilled, this mixture of soil, ash, and human remains ended up both in places which had originally been earthen walls separating the graves, and in holes where there were originally neither remains nor ash, thus creating the illusion of more numerous and more extensive mass graves».   

There also exists the possibility, suggested by Mattogno, that some of the pits detected by Kola derive not from the operation of the “death camp” in 1942-1943, but from just a few years earlier, in 1940, when a Jewish labor camp and (somewhat previously) a Gypsy camp was located in the immediate vicinity of the future “death camp”. This could possibly explain why some of the pits reportedly contained remains of uncremated corpses.

In his 2009 rebuttal to Roberto Muehlenkamp, Mattogno moreover stresses that the outlines of the grave pits mapped by are, to a certain degree,  arbitrary, since the graves were located using a grid of probe drillings, with no attempt made to determine the exact outlines. 

The above indications that the original mass graves of the Bełżec “corpse factory” had a total volume significantly smaller than the 21,310 cubic meters stated by Kola makes the extermination hypothesis even more untenable than it already is. Below I will suggest that there exists yet another possible cause of grave pit enlargement which has been overlooked by Mattogno (in both his original study and in his 2009 rebuttal to R. Muehlenkamp) as well as, quite naturally, his detractors, namely that of soil movement caused by rainfall.

In a brief article entitled “Covering the mass graves at the Belzec Death Camp, Poland; geotechnical perspectives” published in the anthology Geotechnical and Environmental Aspects of Waste Disposal Sites (Ed. R.W. Sarsby & A.J. Felton, CRC Press 2007), A. Klein, an independent geotechnical consult based in Haifa, Israel, recounts how he and a team carried out various geotechnical work in connection with the installation of the new memorial at the former Bełżec camp site in 2003-2004. In the article Klein describes the topography and soil conditions of the former camp site as follows (p.151):

«The Belzec death camp is situated on a slope that descends from north-east to south-west at an angle of between 5° to 10°. The site was formerly covered with trees planted for the most part in the period 1943 to 1944, after the camp was closed. Almost all the trees were removed and their roots killed as part of the building of the new memorial site in 2003/2004.

The soil profile across most of the site consists of a thick layer of yellow, fine to medium, sand. According to information supplied by the contractor’s project manager, a layer of loam or light clay was found at the southern corner of the site, next to the museum. This layer of clay was removed from the site in the framework of the works for the new memorial, and a layer of medium hard yellowish chalk, at least 3 meter thick, was found underneath. Groundwater was not found on site within the depth of the slurry walls excavated to construct the central concrete trench structure, i.e. it was at least 20 m below ground level».

According to the originally proposed construction design, the entire new memorial site, after having been leveled and freed of trees and other vegetation, was to be covered with a layer of thin perforated LDPE (Low-density polyethylene, a thermoplastic often used to create corrosion-resistant surfaces). On top of this a layer of blast furnace slag would be placed to prevent plant growth. It was realized, however, that rainwater run-off on the LDPE layer would make the slag move downhill in direction of the newly-built museum and also possibly cause flooding of the building. Klein writes (p.153):

«After the construction work had begun on site it was realised that there was a problem with the drainage across the site, and that in times of heavy rainfall the mass of sand and slag sitting on the perforated PVC might move down the slope towards the cemetery. In addition, the heavy rainfall could cause flooding in the museum area. The Client also became concerned that with the removal of most of the tree cover, human bone fragments and ash were working their way up through the sandy soil, out of the mass graves and moving across the site».

To solve these drainage-related problems Klein and his team were brought in at the end of 2003. They revised the construction, replacing the LDPE layer with a 10 to 20 cm thick leveling layer of sand. Next a layer of high strength woven geotextile was placed “above the approximate positions of the mass graves”. Its purpose was to a) “cover the mass graves so as to lessen possible settlements in the future”, and b) “to prevent the movement of human bone fragments and ash out of the mass graves and across the camp site”. On top of the geotextile in turn was placed a some 10 centimeter thick layer of sand, whereupon rested a part of the actual memorial in the shape of a 30 centimeter thick layer of blast furnace slag.

The most interesting part of Klein’s paper is the mention that absent a “tree cover” (or to be more precise, the roots of trees buried in the ground) there was an apparent risk at heavy rainfall of bone fragments as well as ashes moving not only to the surface, but also “across the site”. This risk was obviously considered very real, as Klein (p.153) speaks of “periods of heavy rainfall, such as occur in this area of Poland”. One should also not forget in this context Klein’s note that the former camp “is situated on a slope that descends from north-east to south-west at an angle of between 5° to 10°”. This is important, as a quick look at Kola’s excavation map will reveal that the mass graves are concentrated in the northern portion of the camp area, that is uphill. Rain pouring down on the side of the slope would thus naturally cause human remains to move in a south-west direction. It happens to be the case that a large number of Kola’s grave pits, especially those in the north-west quarter of the camp area, are more or less rectangular or elongated and aligned in roughly a west-south-western direction. Using Kola’s enumeration (cf. p.19, 70), they are grave pits number 5, 4, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24 and 27.

According to Klein, who bases his description of the alleged death camp mainly on Kola’s book, the Germans after dismantling the camp “planted trees over the whole site, in an effort to hide their past activities”. If this was in fact true, then the resulting tree cover would have more or less effectively kept the bones and ashes in the soil from “moving across” the site in the years following the camp’s dismantling. The problem is that we have a panorama photo (or rather a panorama composed of two photographies of ordinary size) of the former camp site, taken likely in 1944 or 1945 by Polish or Soviet “investigators” and displayed by the Bełżec Museum on its website (http://www.belzec.org.pl/historia.php?site=likwidacja).

This photograph, taken from the south-western corner of the old camp perimeter and clearly displaying the north-eastward elevation of the camp site, shows no newly-planted trees in sight. In fact, the whole camp area, including the portion containing the grave pits, is bare, with the exception of small shrove of trees not too far from the camera. There are also what seems to be the traces of diggings visible in front of this shrove. There might be more traces of dug-up pits further back that are not visible due to the quality of the picture. The photo does not prove whether the Germans had actually planted trees at the site or not, but on the other hand it clearly demonstrates that were was virtually no “tree cover” present to keep the grave contents from moving, or rather spreading out, during the end period of the war, and possibly for several years following it. A number of heavy rainfalls might thus have caused the enlargement of the soil volume containing human remains, half a century later leading Kola’s drills to detect (yet) larger graves than were originally present at the site.

Finally, when reading Klein’s article, one is struck by the special reverence seemingly given only to Jewish victims of war crimes (real or alleged). In the conclusion we read (p.155):

«The site reported in this pape was the location of a former death camp (Belzec) in south-east Poland. Within the ground were mass graves (occupying about 50% of the total area of the site) containing the remains (after burning and crushing of the bodies) of up to 600,000 people. Consequently any construction work on this site needed to be carried sensitively and sympathetically with respect to the victims».

Aside from the fact that the total area of Kola’s grave pits covers 0.59 hectars, that is 9.5, not 50% of the camp site as Klein falsely claims, the above quote seems to imply that the necessary special respect given to the alleged gas chamber victims rules out any forensic investigation of the grave sites. Recently, a mass grave was found in Malbork, northern Poland. The discovery prompted a thorough excavation, which revealed that the grave contained the skeletal remains of 1,800 German men, women and children. Bullet holes found in many of the skulls suggested that a mass execution of German civilians had taken place at the end of the war. Several forensic tests were carried out by German and Polish experts before the remains were interred at two local cemetaries (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/13/mass-grave-poland-german-war). In sharp contrast to this, none of the mass graves detected at Bełżec was ever excavated, none of the saponified corpses were disinterred to be examined, and no attempt whatsoever was made to determine the actual amount of buried cremated human remains. Nowadays of course there is the thick layer of blast furnace slag covering the entire site, making further examinations virtually impossible. A similar protective layer disguised as someone’s idea of a momument has covered the “Totenlager” area of the Treblinka camp since the 1960s.

One might perhaps argue that there was no reason to excavate and examine the mass grave contents since one already the identity of the victims and their approximate number. This is however not true. While the Polish Cental Commission’s figure of 600,000 Bełżec victims still is the most repeated one, at the time of Kola’s excavations (1997-1999) as diverse figures as 1,000,000 (Michael Tregenza 1999), 800,555 (Robert O’Neil 1999) and 100,000-150,000 (Jean-Claude Pressac 2000) were offered by various exterminationist experts. It thus existed ample reason to conduct a forensic examination aimed at determining the approximate number of buried victims. However, not the slightest intention in that direction appears to have existed among the Polish archeologists in regards to Bełżec. Rather, the non-excavations of the graves were supervised by Jewish rabbis, while not a single photo of the drill cores was published. It appears that a number of institutions, including Polish academia, make a significant difference between Gentile and Jewish bodies.

It is readily acknowledged that the extent of the above described (likely rather than simply possible) kind of soil (or rather sand) movement of human remains is unknown, and that it might be not very significant, but it is any case worthy of notice.

 - Thomas Kues

First, we will concentrate mainly on the history of World War II and the Third Reich, but ideally we should actually go back to 1871, when Germany was united under Bismarck. At that time, and Bismarck realized this, Germany came to be viewed as a threat, and this foremost by Britain. It is not our intention to go into detail about this period of history, but the fact is that this is when the concept of “Convenient History” was introduced. This convenient history consisted of blaming the Germans for everything bad that happened from then on, right up to 1945. German statesmen were the only actors, all others reacted. Lord Vansittart, a high ranking official in the British government who in 1938 became Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the British Government, stated in his Black Record: Germans past and present (1941) that Germany had started five wars, including, of course, World War II. It is within this context that the Holocaust charge came about. While the larger focus will be on the two world wars, it is important to remember that each era is born out of the one before. Thus when searching for the causes of World War II, one should not fail to consider World War I, while looking into the origins of World War I one gains much from studying the period following the unification of Germany. We also hope to present inquiries into problematic issues of the Pacific War and the events preceding it, including Pearl Harbor, the atomic bombings, and alleged Japanese war crimes.

The other reason behind our choice of name is that we are all aware, or should be aware, of the fact that the victor writes history, thus giving rise to “convenient history”. Mainstream historiography on the Second World War, and in particular that on the Third Reich and its policies against Jewry, must be viewed with this old adage in mind. This is especially the case since mainstream historiography is still used today to advance certain aims, such as starting wars by pointing to Hitler’s perceived aggression, etc. The Holocaust is becoming more and more ‘the’ focal point of international relations and global political rhetoric. Atrocities committed today can be excused through use of the slogan “Never Again,” meaning that no new Holocaust will be allowed to befall the Jewish people. This situation has resulted in the launching of aggressive perpetual wars fought under the banner that they will prevent new Hitlers from gaining too much power and subsequently to prevent a new Holocaust from occurring, as well as granting to the Israeli state a carte blanche to brutally oppress the Palestinian people and ethnically cleanse them from their homeland . Such thinking limits diplomacy and grants a free license to fight new crusades wherever and whenever we please. Even if we were to accept the full veracity of the orthodox version of the Holocaust, the killing of innocent non-Jews to prevent a future Jewish Holocaust remains criminal, and wrong.

Meanwhile hundreds, if not thousands of books have been written and published dealing with the Holocaust. Mainstream historians without exceptions accept the orthodox version of the Holocaust as an indisputable fact. This acceptance is, however, not based on solid evidence. No investigation by experts trained in the field of criminal forensics has ever taken place. The essential part of what is generally held to be the most well-documented event in history, namely the alleged gas chamber mass murders of the Holocaust, rests exclusively upon circumstantial evidence, most of it post-war witness accounts. This is confirmed by Judge Gray’s conclusion at the 2000 David Irving libel trial: “What is the evidence for mass extermination of Jews at those camps? The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eye witness and circumstantial evidence (…).”

When all of their attempts to make a case for this alleged mass murder fail, defenders of the Holocaust will always resort to the question: “Well, where are they then if they have not been murdered”? This is not how we should proceed, however. Indeed, for several reasons that question has been rendered obsolete. Solid evidence must be presented to make a solid case for mass murder, as in every other criminal and historical court, but so far that has not happened. Furthermore, leading Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg recently admitted that, “We know perhaps 20 per cent about the Holocaust.” With so much ground and information left to cover, there is no reason for revisionists to have a full alternative history ready to replace the extermination thesis. It simply is not practical at this point.

What we can do, however, is present the case for a re-examination of the Holocaust. We will attempt to show that alternate explanations are not just possible, but indeed plausible. We do not claim to have all the answers – we leave that claim to the mainstream historians – but our aim is to present as good a case as is possible, using the breadcrumbs dropped by the victors who not only carefully sorted all the material, but in some cases still keep portions of it under lock and key.

In discussing the controversial issues brought forth by historical revisionism, we will always strive to take the moral high ground. This means that we will abstain from ad hominem attacks and other forms of unfair argumentation. Rather than involving ourselves in polemics, we will calmly present our arguments and then let the facts speak for themselves.

While sharing with the revisionist journal “Inconvenient History” its name and focus, as well as some of its contributors, this blog will not be moderated by the editorial board of the journal, but is to be regarded as in effect a separate and independent entity.

Finally, it saddens us that in many countries, open thought is prohibited from reaching the subject of the Holocaust. As we speak, numerous revisionists sit in prison, having their historical doubts answered only by criminal charges. Even in countries which do not criminalize historical skepticism, powerful political forces have brought enough pressure to bear that the mere fear of possible consequences has prevented many skeptics from speaking out. Even in the “land of the free”, any doubt of the Holocaust could easily equate to career and professional suicide. Let each of our posts stand as symbols for free expression and free thought, something we hold to be a universal right for all mankind.

- The Inconvenient History Blog Group