The first chapter in the book Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas is captioned: “Massentötungen durch Giftgas: Zwischen wissenschaftlicher Einordnung und individueller Erinnerung” (Mass murder by poisonous gas: Amid scientific cataloguing and the recollection by individuals).

The chapter contains two essays, the first one by the British historian Richard J. Evans, titled: “Wie einzigartig war die Ermordung der Juden durch die Nationalsozialisten?”(How unique was the killing of the Jews by the National Socialists?).

Mr. Evans begins by informing us that a few weeks after the conquest of Poland in September 1939, the victorious power started systematically suppressing Polish culture and language. Polish libraries and other cultural centres were closed, memorials were destroyed and street signs removed. Half a million Poles were incarcerated, many physically abused and killed. About 20 000 officers, among them insurgents, were shot, up to 1.5 million members of the Polish intelligentsia and their families were arrested and later transported out of the country in unheated cattle cars. About one third did not survive, among them 100 000 Jews. Those were the catastrophic results of the conquering of eastern Poland by the Soviets.

Comments: This came as a surprise, why would Evans start out by listing Soviet crimes when this is supposed to be about the uniqueness of the mass killing of Jews with poisonous gas by the National Socialists?

Evans continues by writing that only after the Germans marched into the Soviet Union (Einmarsch der Wehrmacht) in June 1941 did Soviet repression of Polish nationalism ease, the Poles then seen as potential allies. But at the same time, Stalin started a campaign against ethnic minorities who he believed could help the Germans. From September 1941 on, according Evans, 1.2 million German nationals (Volksdeutsche) from Ukraine, the Volga region and various Soviet cities were deported to Siberia by the Soviet Secret Police — about 175 000 of them died. Members of various other ethnic groups followed the Germans to Siberia, the secret police killed anybody believed to be in the way: more than 100 000 prisoners were murdered in Ukraine alone. Those actions closely resembled the policies of National Socialist Germany, so Evans, but there were differences.

The Soviets’ true intent, we learn, was to initiate a social revolution: Poland was incorporated into the SU, private property nationalized, Ukrainians and Byelorussian’s encouraged to rise up against the Polish ruling class. Thus, according to Evans, Soviet policy was not racist but part of the class struggle and in reality, the Soviet occupation brought about a system of equal rights. For many Jews this in fact meant liberation, whereas in the western, German occupied part, racism was the deciding factor from the start – Polish and Jewish property expropriated but a general nationalization never took place, the capitalist system continued.

Comments: Hard to say what all of this has to do with the subject matter, also, the National Socialists never tried to hide their racial policies. Evans intends – even though he admits that crimes were committed by the Soviets – to give their policies a sort of human face, whereas what the Nazis did was in his view purely criminal. He admits that those effected by either policy would probably not have been able to differentiate, but clings to the class struggle theme even when mentioning the years of the Great Terror in the SU.

Actual National Socialist policies regarding the new European order, as worked out by Heinrich Himmler, were revealed when German forces occupied Poland in June 1941, so Evans. Half a million German nationals (Volksdeutsche) from Eastern Poland, Rumania, the Soviet Union (SU) and other east European countries were to displace the dispossessed Poles. This so called (Evans’s words) Generalplan Ost (Master Plan East) stipulated that 64% of the Ukrainian -, as well as 75% of the Byelorussian population was earmarked for expropriation -, death via hunger/disease or be deported further east. 30 to 45 million were to die and the whole territory populated by millions of German farmers, effectively moving Germanys border 1000 km east. If this plan have been realized, Evans summarizes, it would have resulted in the biggest mass murder of all times. This Generalplan Ost was supposedly based on Hitler’s long held ambition to create “Lebensraum”(living space) for Germans.

The extermination of the Jews must be seen in the context of this far reaching master plan – and with this Evans has finally made a connection to the actual topic. But, he cautions, the extermination of Jews should not be viewed as just a side show of this Master Plan to re-arrange Eastern Europe along ethnic lines. No, this plan envisioned the starvation/killing of millions of Slavic peoples for economic reasons — their territories intended for future German settlement The Jews on the other hand were mostly poor and therefore of no economic benefit to the Germans. Jews were used as slave labor whenever necessary and allowed to live for a while (even though representatives of the Wehrmacht (German forces) stressed that Jews were “useless eaters”).

Comments: Evans claims that this Generalplan Ost was a long held ambition (auf die lang gehegte Ambition) by Hitler to create “Lebensraum” for Germans. We must backtrack some to see if what Evans charges is accurate. Evans no doubt referred to what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. While Hitler did desire more living space, he had a legitimate basis for doing so. The British blockade during WWI was still fresh in his mind, hundreds of thousands of Germans had died because of this blockade, a blockade left in place long after hostilities ceased.[1] As for Mein Kampf, Hitler told the French reporter Bertrand de Jouvenel of the “Paris Midi” that when he wrote his book, the Ruhr region was occupied by France, etc., and yes, France and Germany were enemies. When asked by de Jouvenel if he would rewrite what he wrote Hitler answered that he is not an author, corrections will be made in the book of history.[2] And he did just that, never laying claim to Alsace-Lorraine.  Hitler also mentioned that when he wrote his book he could not even dream of becoming chancellor of Germany. But, when Hitler did become chancellor, he wanted the Allies to honor what they had promised at Versailles – and did so from the start – to disarm as agreed to and as stipulated under Article 8 of the Versailles Treaty, which reads:

“The Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations. The Council, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments. Such plans shall be subject to reconsideration and revision at least every ten years. After these plans shall have been adopted by the several Governments, the limits of armaments therein fixed shall not be exceeded without the concurrence of the Council. The Members of the League agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open to grave objections. The Council shall advise how the evil effects attendant upon such manufacture can be prevented, due regard being had to the necessities of those Members of the League which are not able to manufacture the munitions and implements of war necessary for their safety. The Members of the League undertake to interchange full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their military, naval, and air programmes and the condition of such of their industries as are adaptable to war-like purposes”.

The Versailles Treaty (German defense lawyer were never allowed to mention that Treaty at the Nürnberg trial) allowed Germany an army of 100 000 lightly armed troops, and Hitler, in a speech of 17 May 1933 promised to send even those home if the Allies did likewise.[3] In this same speech, Hitler told his audience that he had agreed to the MacDonald Plan, a plan allowing Germany 200 000 troops, about one-fifth of the number of troops allowed other countries surrounding Germany – the Russian army of about 1 million not even included. Also, Germany was not allowed any planes, while Poland was allowed 22, Belgium 150, the Baltic’s 150, the little entente 550, France 500: England and Russia are not mentioned. Again, Hitler agreed to this plan, even though France demanded that Germany be placed under a 4 year prohibition period.[4] The Allies kept stalling – efforts were made to extend the prohibition period by another eight years – and negotiations were finally to resume in 1935,[5] the Allies arming all the while. Those stalling tactics forced Hitler to break off negotiations and on 16 March 1935 he gave the order to re-arm Germany, as any responsible statesman would have done. On 2 May 1935, France and Russia signed a mutual assistance agreement (Beistandspakt), which officially added the Red Army to the list of foes. That was followed on 16 May by the signing of a similar agreement between Moscow and Prague,[6] and Hitler was supposed to wait 12 years before re-arming Germany???

Germany was also concerned with the newly created state of Czechoslovakia. Ribbentrop stated at the IMT:

“I remember that in this connection he (Hitler) quoted especially the former French Minister of Aviation, Pierre Cot, who had called Bohemia and Moravia, that is Czechoslovakia, the “airplane carrier” against Germany. I believe it was Reich Marshal Goering who already mentioned that at that time we received intelligence reports of Russian pilots or Russian missions being on Czech airdromes[…]”[7]

Still, Hitler took no action until the maltreatment of minorities by Czech authorities aroused even the displeasure of the British. To save face they send Lord Runciman to investigate.[8] Thus the Sudetenland was finally allowed to reunite with Germany, and Czechoslovakia was eventually dropped by the British [9].

On 26 January 1934, Germany and Poland signed a non-aggression Treaty, and on 24 October 1938, Ribbentrop had a lengthy talk with the Polish envoy Lipski, to see if outstanding issues could not be settled. His suggestion: Danzig was to be returned to Germany and a rail/road link build connecting East Prussia to Germany. Poland, in return, would get to keep all the German territories given to it at Versailles, with Germany to guarantee the border for 25 years. Lipski promised to relay those proposal to the Polish foreign minister Jozef Beck. Those very reasonable proposals were eventually turned down by the Poles.[10] Negations continued but when the British gave the Poles that unconditional guarantee, against Germany, the Poles – emboldened by the British guarantee – refused to negotiate any further. But even after Britain had given the Poles that guarantee, Hitler, along with other ministers, had worked out a 16 point program in order to try and settle issues peacefully. He had informed the British about this program and waited, right up to 31 August  1939, for a Polish emissary, no one showed up. The 16 points were broadcast on the radio at 21:00 hrs (9:00 o’clock) on 31 August, the Poles ridiculed them and called their people to arms, on 1 September 1939, the German army marched into Poland.[11]

Germanys peace offerings, following the outbreak of war with Poland, are well known, but they fell on deaf ears. Hitler demonstrated again and again that he did not want war, and when the French campaign ended he ordered demobilisation, sending whole divisions home: production of war material changed to production of consumer goods.[12] Thus, if the Generalplan Ost was really a long held ambition of Hitler’s, he sure had a strange way of going about it.

***

Just briefly to the war with the Soviet Union: At the meeting with Molotov in Berlin in November 1940, Hitler told him that because of the war with England, Germany had been forced to advance into territories in which it had no interest in.[13] Hitler than stated that Germanys’ Lebensraum had been greatly expanded, and even though both, Germany and the Soviet Union, might not have achieved what they set out to do, they could be satisfied nevertheless.[14] But Molotov demanded more concessions from Germany[15] and following this meeting Hitler realized that war with the Soviet Union was inevitable. Barbarossa, the strike against the Soviet Union, was a preventive strike, though establishment historians are still loath to admit this in spite of the growing evidence.

***

Given this evidence one cannot possibly see any preconceived notion on Hitlers’ part re. the Generalplan Ost, as claimed by Evans. This plan, if it ever actually existed as stated, was created for administration purposes — after the war against the SU had started and huge territorial and population gains made at first. On 15 July 1941, Konrad Meyer-Hetlich presented this administrative plan to Himmler, who had requested it.[16] Hitler supposedly discussed his plan in a meeting of 16 July 1941: what is known from this discussion was presented at the IMT as L-221.[17] The original document that might prove the malicious intent of Generalplan Ost does not exist or has never been found —  only bits and pieces of related documents were presented at the Nürnberg trials. As such, there is no proof at all that this plan was a long held ambition of Hitler’s, and to try and use it to prove “The Holocaust” is folly.

Hitler openly talked about settling the east and the problems that would have to be overcome. But, he stated, England was controlling 400 million in India with just 250 000 English soldiers and administrators, so it should likewise be possible for Germans to do the same.[18] Hitler outlined how it should be done, by building German cities/villages but explicitly stated that, for the rest of Russia: “…in der wir die Russen leben lassen wie sie wollen, nur daß wir sie beherrschen“ (we will allow the Russians to live as they chose, we will just govern them).[19] Nowhere does he mention  killing tens of millions of Slavs, in fact L-221 – according to Hillgruber the Generalplan Ost per se – never alludes to mass killings. There is, however, something odd about L-221. We read, right at the beginning: “…seems to have been prepared by Bormann, because his initials appear at the top of page one”? Seems to be?

Evans goes on to talk about the Ideology of National Socialist Propaganda concerning Jews. The National Socialists viewed Slavic people, i.e., Poles, Russians, Czechs, etc., as “Untermenschen” (lesser humans), who represented a danger to Germans only when lead by clever and ruthless Jews — as was allegedly the case with Bolshevism. But on their own they were considered primitive, backwards and passive. Thus they were expandable, but never a threat to the existence of Germans. Even in the closing years of the war, when National Socialist propaganda started to warn about Bolshevism as a danger to European culture, Slavs were always depicted as the helpers of international Jewry. The Slavs were a nuisance, but the Jews were a threat: the “Weltfeind” (enemy of the world).

Comments: First, in his speech of 28 April 1939, Hitler spoke highly of the Czech people. As for the Untermenschen, here is what Hans Fritzsche stated at the IMT:

“German propaganda, and under that I understand official German propaganda, did not even preach racial hatred. It only spoke about racial distinctions, and that is something quite different; but I will admit that there was a certain type of German propaganda which went beyond that and which did preach the clear-cut and primitive racial hatred[…]”[20]

While the term Untermenschen was used, it was never officially sanctioned – Alfred Rosenberg confirmed this.[21] As for the anti Jewish propaganda, Evans relied on a book by Jeffrey Herf, “The Jewish Enemy”, who tried to make a case for “The Holocaust” via NS propaganda” and failed miserably. One wonders what all of this has to do with mass murder of Jews by poisonous gas! This ‘context’ is designed to lead the reader (via the power of suggestion and bias) to false conclusions. Assumptions are presented as though they are facts.

According to Evans, Hitlers’ anti-Semitism was based on his perceived (vermeindlichen) experiences of WWI, i.e., from the paranoid interpretation of Germany’s defeat, the ”Dolchstoßlegende“ (stab in the back) — as was other National Socialist propagandists’ anti-Semitism. Jews were to blame for the unrest near the end of that war, since they used food shortages to foment revolution which, in turn, led to Germanys’ defeat.

Comments: Mr. Evans would do well to read some books which address that issue, for starters “The Kings Depart. The Tragedy of Germany, Versailles and the German Revolution”, by Richard M. Watt. Mr. Watt details the Bolshevist involvement in that revolution, the forming of “Soviets” and the like. Also, Jewish contribution to communism/bolshevism is well documented.[22]

Hitler was exposed to Jewish machinations in the Weimar Republik, thus his antisemitism had a “rational core’, as Prof. Nolte calls it (see footnote 34). Jews represented 0.7% of the total German population in the Weimar Republik, but 16.25% of all lawyers and judges were Jews and 10.88% of all medical doctors. They all but controlled the entertainment industry, as well as the press [23]. This is why Hitler spoke of a Jewish Überfremdung, overrepresentation by a foreign people. In Berlin 2,614 out of 6,203 medical doctors were Jews, which is 42%; out of 3,890 lawyers, 1,879 were Jewish…48%.[24] Dr. Willy Glasebock wrote in the NZ (Nürnberger Zeitung) Nr.5 of 2 April 1966, that all restrictions for Jews – i.e., those that existed before – were dropped in the Weimar Republik. Jews pushed their way to the forefront not only in economics, but also in government, literature and media (the press); they were able to fill important positions in entertainment. In politics they associated mostly with the left. The communist Jew Kurt Eisner became minister president of Bavaria, but was received with indignation by the rest of Germany. Glasebock lists many more examples, including some of the dubious financial dealings by Eastern-European Jewish shysters and concludes that it was no wonder anti-Semitism increased in the Weimar Republik and that no Hitler was needed for this.[25] Prof. Ernst Nolte writes extensively about the involvement of Jews in communism in Germany — their attempt to establish a “Soviet Germany”. And, Germans themselves were well aware of the Jewish-Bolsheviks butchering[26] that had happened/was happening in Russia, and therefore not interested in the establishment of a Soviet-Germany.[27]

Now Evans informs us that even though officials, as well as members of the Einsatzgruppen (task forces) mistreated/shot Poles and Slavs, their attitude towards Jews was totally different. Jews beards were cut off [28], girls were forced to clean latrines with their shirts, synagogues were burned down, Jewish men were assembled in public places and forced to do gymnastics till they collapsed, etc. Evans forgets to mention in all of this the following, from the presentation by Smirnov at the IMT:

“Radomsky and Rieder used all kinds of devices for the extermination of Soviet citizens. For instance, they invented the following method of murder: Several Soviet prisoners would be forced to climb a tree and others had to saw it down. The prisoners would fall together with the tree and be killed.”[29]

And although Smirnov refers to “Soviet citizens”, we now know that this was only Tarnsprache for Jews.[30] We then learn a little about the treatment of Jews by Rumanian and Croatian officials, again with the difference that the latter just wanted to get rid of Jews, whereas Germans considered Jews to be the Weltfeind — public enemy #1. The elimination of Jews was of central importance to the Germans, closely tied in with their boundless war aims, their plan to first conquer Europe and then the world.

Comments: So, a nation of some 85 million, that number of course including woman, children and the old, set out to conquer the world? Absolute rubbish. In his speech of December 31, 1941 Hitler reminded the world of his repeated offers to disarm, starting in 1933, and of his many peace offers since. He also told his listeners that England and France declared war on Germany because Germany wanted to conquer the world. Was Danzig the world, Hitler asked? Germany was not allowed an additional 500 000 square kilometers, whereas it was acceptable for 45 million Englishmen to rule over 40 million square kilometers of territory.[31] As mentioned, following the French campaign whole divisions were discharged and production of war material curtailed. Germany likewise never build any long range bombers like the Allies Lancaster (the Flying Fortress). In 1940, less than 15% of Germanys’ GNP was spend on armaments, in 1941 it was still just 19%…reaching 50% in 1944, when “total war” was declared.[32] In contrast, Stalin spend 32.6% of his nations GNP on armaments in 1940, and 43.4% in 1941.[33] This confirms that the threat originated in the Soviet Union: communism intended to conquer the whole world from the start — their emblem was a Hammer and Sichel superimposed over the globe.

Reductionist attempts to explain the National Socialist Jewish policy as rational[34], or economically related, are erroneous, claims Evans. Jews from all over Europe were arrested and send to extermination camps — the Wannsee Protocol makes this clear. With this the German racial wars differs from all other genocidal wars in history. Other wars were wars of conquest: genocides happened as a consequence, like the killing of the Herero by Germans in South West Africa, or the civil wars in Bosnia et al. Hitler, in his ‘Table Talks’, drew parallels to what was planned in the east (Generalplan Ost) and the killing of natives in North America or Australia, but mass murder of Jews by the National Socialists does not fit into this frame.

Comments: The National Socialists accused the Jews of subversive activities, and for being the carriers of the Bolshevik/Communist virus. Thus, they wanted all Jews living within their sphere of influence ousted; the case for mass murder has yet to be made. The Evian Committee stated: “Not one of the participating countries denies the unassailable right of the German government, to take measures in regards to certain citizens, when those measures are within its rights as a sovereign nation”[35] Problem was, nobody wanted the Jews so when war broke out, forced deportation east, or forced labor, became the norm. For the killing of the Herero, what actually happened differs from the official version, but this isn’t a relevant issue, Evans is just stacking the jury. As for the ‘Table Talks’, I searched the talks recorded by Heims and found nothing – the Generalplan Ost discussed above. The Wannsee Conference? It talks of killing Jews being worked to death while building roads, and not even the most ardent defender of “The Holocaust” claims that this is how it happened.

And now we have finally arrived at something that can actually be construed as an attempt, by Evans, to prove Hitlers’ genocidal intend. WWII was always seen as a racial war by Hitler (even though Hitler did everything in his power to avoid war), of which an integrate part was the eugenic upgrading (eugenische “Aufwertung”) of the German populace and the removal of Jews. When Hitler signed the T4 decree (Evans writes order) in October 1939, he backdated this order to 1 September, the beginning of the war. But even more significant is that during the war Hitler recalled his prophesy when he stated on 30 January 1942: “If the international Jewish financiers, inside and outside Europe, succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevisation of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!”

Hitler, in this speech, told his audience that he made this prophesy in his speech of September 1,1939, when in fact it was made on January 30,1939. For Hitler the genocidal re-arrangement of Europe started with the beginning of the war.[36]

Comments: Much ado about the dating of this T4 decree. At the Nürnberg doctor’s Trial, Dr. Georg Fröschmann, defense attorney for Viktor Brack, stated that Brack viewed the oral instructions that  he received on 1 September 1939 from Hitler as the legal basis for this decree.[37] This shows that the decree was issued on 1 September, but since the war had just started, Hitler had other things to do than to put it on paper – he did so later and dated it to the day it was issued, nothing sinister here. The Erlaß (decree) was typed on ordinary stationary showing the German Eagle in Gold and “Adolf Hitler” in print, dated 1 September 1939 with the wording:

„Reichsleiter Bouhler und Dr. med. Brandt sind unter Verantwortung beauftragt, die Befugnisse namentlich zu bestimmender Ärzte so zu erweitern, daß nach menschlichem Ermessen unheilbar Kranken bei kritischster Beurteilung ihres Krankheitszustandes der Gnadentod gewährt werden kann. gez. Adolf Hitler.”

(Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged with the responsibility for expanding the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, to the end that patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen] of their state of health, can be granted a mercy death [Gnadentod]. Signed Adolf Hitler)[38]

The legal wrangling is outlined in the VfZ article I quoted from above, the essay titled “Euthenasie und Justiz im Dritten Reich”(Euthanasia and justice in the Third Reich), demonstrating that the TR (Third Reich) was far from being a lawless society. Hitler signed this with the thought of mass starvation of Germans during WWI still in mind, and decided that the life of the incurable must be sacrificed to save the others. Indeed, when the protests became too loud, the action was stopped. Also, before anyone raises the moral forefinger, what about the killings of the unborn sanctioned in our societies? This is done without any basis other than a “woman’s right” to murder her unborn child.

Now for Hitlers’ prophesy: Evans lifted this from “Hitler, 1936-1945”, by Ian Kershaw, in which the caption to chapter 10 “Fulfilling ‘The Prophesy’” reads:

“‘I already stated on 1 September 1939 in the German Reichstag — and I refrain from over-hasty prophecies — that this war will not come to an end as the Jews imagine, with the extermination of the European—Aryan peoples, but that the result of this war will be the annihilation of Jewry. For the first time the old Jewish law will now be applied: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’

Hitler, speaking in the Sportpalast, Berlin, 30 January 1942

Kershaw seems to ignore the date issue, he remarks on p.464:

“Goebbels registered his satisfaction, when he received a detailed report in mid-August, at the information that ‘vengeance was being wreaked on the Jews in the big towns’ of the Baltic, and that they were ‘being slain in their masses on the streets by the self-protection organizations’. He connected the killing directly with Hitler’s ‘prophecy’ of January 1939. ‘What the Fuhrer prophesied is now taking place,’ he wrote, ‘that if Jewry succeeded in provoking another war, it would lose its existence[…]”

While Evans is correct that Hitler made that prophesy on 30 January 1939, not on 1 September 1939, he neglected to provide the part about “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Hitler added this element in his speech of 30 January 1942, which was not part of his 30 January 1939 speech. Also, why would Hitler refer to a prophesy he had made on 1 September 1939, when that which he had prophesized, on 30 January 1939, has already happened, the war had started? It seems that Hitler mixed his dates/speeches up, horror upon horror. But then, in lieu of real evidence, anything will have to do for Mr. Evans.

Evans then tells us that the upgrading (Ertüchtigung) of the “so called Arian race” (his words), and the elimination of the unfit was an important part of waging this war. The efforts to eliminate unwanted included “extermination by work” (Vernichtung durch Arbeit) — the Sinti and Roma were effected by this also as many were shipped to Auschwitz and killed in gas chambers.

He again refers to the elusive Generalplan Ost, Hitlers’ table talks and anti-Jewish propaganda (referring to Herf), all of which supposedly created a genocidal climate – and he finally arrives at the Einsatzgruppen (task forces). We learn from Evans that in September 1941, the RSHA (Reich Main Security Office) had already come to the conclusion that mass shootings were not sufficient and that the experiences gained by the T4 program will have to be utilized. By the end of December 1941, we are told that all four Einsatzgruppen(EG) utilized one gas wagon in which Jewish men, woman and children were murdered via re-routing the exhaust through the box in the back. In March-, and later May and June 1942, the mass murder of Jews had begun in the three Action Reinhardt extermination camps, by routing exhaust gas into air tight chambers. At the same time Jews were killed en masse in Auschwitz by the use of Zyklon B, which was then followed by killings in Majdanek: gas chambers also existed in other camps but were not used for mass killings. For evidence, Evans refers us to the articles in this book.

Comments: Here again we see an attempt to connect T4 to the alleged mass killings of Jews, with no evidence offered, just assumptions. As for the EG, no independent body of experts has ever undertaken an investigation to find out whether what was reported and claimed can actually be confirmed. Prof. Maser writes that large areas of the east are still ‘terra incognita’, as historians appear unwilling to investigate for fear of not finding what is allegedly there.[39] Prof Seidler wrote of “documents of dubious origin” when referring to reports allegedly issued by the EG, the whole of Allied allegations based on those reports.[40] As for the rest of it, we will have to wait and see what the other authors have to offer.

Evans continues by writing that poisonous gas was used in three international conflicts: in the first World War, against subversives in Morocco, and by the Italians in Ethiopia; but never to murder millions of helpless, defenceless civilians. Just the same, one can not reduce the singularity of the National Socialist mass murder of Jews to the technical aspect of gassings alone. One can certainly differentiate between work- and extermination camps, but regarding the singularity of the crime it is not a matter of ‘how’ but ‘why’. Up to the end of the war, 5.5 to 6 million Jews were killed by the National Socialists. 3.5 million of them died in gas chambers; 1.3 million were shot by units of the SS, the police and the armed forces; 700 000 died in gas wagons; and up to 1 million starved or died of sicknesses or as a result of maltreatment in the camps erected by the National Socialists in Poland and elsewhere in eastern Europe (Evans refers here to the book by Saul Friedländer, ‘Jahre der Vernichtung’).

Thus, poisonous gas was only one method used for mass murder by the National Socialists. Posterity concentrates on that method because poisonous gas has never been used before. Never before has mass murder been committed in facilities erected for this purpose alone, but it would be erroneous to assume that this mechanized killing was something impersonal. In Belzec, for instance, the gas chambers did often not work, until improvements were made. In Auschwitz, Crematorium IV broke down during the Hungarian action in the spring of 1944, but those problems were solved also. The arrests and mistreatments in the ghettos continued, and all attempts by the SS to calm the Jews failed. The brutal treatment they had to endure left no doubt about their fate.

It is therefore time to again confront the many misunderstandings and legends circulating around the mass murder of Jews by poisonous gas. For the first time international historiography addresses the issues in this book, and as an aside, counters the attempts by self-styled revisionists to deny the existence of the gas chambers.

Final comments: Evans accuses the National Socialists (by now I wish they would call them “Nazis”) of inciting the masses via propaganda, using Herf as a reference, to condition them to accept the mass murder of Jews allegedly undertaken — but of which nobody knew (see part I). Evans just conditions the reader to accept that the National Socialists were nothing but a bunch of mass murderers who cultivated their killers via propaganda. Hitler is supposed to have planned the destruction of tens of millions of Slaves well in advance of the start of WWII, but evidence shows otherwise. Jews were to be killed, something that was planned all along, but evidence shows otherwise. Nowhere does he mention the declaration of war by “Jews of the world” on 24 March 1933 — mere weeks after Hitler came to power — proving that a “World Jewry” actually exists. In this declaration of war, Jews around the world were told to boycott German goods, this boycott having a severe affect. Here is what Rolf Vogel, a decided anti-Nazi, had to say:

“Ein weltweiter Boykott deutscher Exporte setzte ein, unterstützt von ausländischen Juden wie Nichtjuden. Dieser Boykott war so stark, daß Vizekanzler von Papen am 27. März 1933 einen flehentlichen Brief an die deutsch-amerikanische Handelskammer schrieb[…] “.[41]

(A worldwide boycott of German exports started, supported by foreign Jews as well as non Jews. This boycott was so strong that vice chancellor von Papen was forced to write a letter to the German-American trade commission)

Nor does Evans mention anything about the efforts made to get Jews to emigrate, right up to the spring of 1942, when the Madagascar plan was finally dropped.[42] And there’s no mention of the renewed declaration of war by Jewry of August 1941, this time from Moscow.[43] Following this latest declaration, Hitler had to consider Jews to be a fifth column, and since there was no way to differentiate between who was a good Jew (prima Jude) and who was not, evacuation to the east was ordered. As for ‘specially erected’ facilities, van Pelt tells us re. Auschwitz [44]:

“The two crematoria under development (2 and 3), were retro-actively fitted with homicidal gas chambers.”

And that in the spring of 1942, rather late I would suggest if Hitler really intended to kill Jews all along, as Evans tries to convince us. For Treblinka we have conflicting stories about killing methods [45]: it will be interesting to see if the authors of the essays addressing Treblinka acknowledge this and explain how this was possible, since those were also eyewitness testimonies.

Mr. Evans offers no evidence, just rhetoric.

To be continued…

Wilfried Heink

Sources

1. Wilhelm Ziegler, Versailles, die geschichte eines mißglückten Friedens, Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, Hamburg, 1933, pp.91ff
2. Heinrich Härtle, Die Kriegsschuld der Sieger, Verlag K.W. Schütz, Göttingen 1966, pp.107/108 (the interview published on February 21, 1936, Ibid, p.107)
3. Ibid, p.64
4. Ibid, pp.63-66
5. Ibid, pp.62ff
6. Ibid, p.73
7. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-29-46.asp#ribbentrop2, p.259; H. Härtle, Die Kriegsschuld…, p.182
8. Laurence Thompson, The Greatest Treason, The Untold Story of Munich, William Morrow & Company, Inc. New York 1968, pp.98/99 and 116ff; H. Härtle, Die Kriegsschuld…, pp.205ff
9. Annelies von Ribbentrop, Die Kriegsschuld des Widerstandes, Aus Britischen Geheimdokumenten 1938/39, Duffel-Verlag, Leoni am Starnberger See 1974, pp.242ff
10. Walter Post, Unternehmen Barbarossa, Verlag E.S. Mittler & Sohn GmbH, Hamburg-Berlin-Bonn 2001, p.104
11. Ribbentrop, Die Kriegsschuld…, pp.335-357; 360-368; 369-381
12. Werner Maser, Der Wortbruch, Hitler, Stalin und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Wilhelm Heyne Verlag, München 2001, p.230
13. Ernst Topitsch, Stalins Krieg, Moskaus Griff nach der Weltherrschaft, Strategie und Scheiterm, Verlag Busse + Seewald GmbH, Herford 1993, p.141
14. Maser, Der Wortbruch…, pp.236/237
15. Ibid, pp.233-246; Topitsch, Stalins Krieg…, pp.139-152
16. Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte (VfZ), 1972, Heft 2: Andreas Hillgruber, Die “Endlösung” und das deutsche Ostimperium als Kernstück des rassenideologischen Programms des Nationalsozialismus, p.141, also footnote 24
17. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/chap_13.asp
18. Adolf Hitler, Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944, Die Aufzeichnungen Heinrich Heims, Herausgegeben von Werner Jochmann, Wilhelm Heyne Verlag, München1982, p.48
19. Ibid, p.55
20. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/06-28-46.asp, p.196
21. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-15-46.asp, p.450
22. Alexander Solschenizyn, “Zweihundert Jahre zusammen”. Die Juden in der Sowjetunion, F.A. Herbig Verlagsbuchhandlung GmbH, München 2003
23. Rolf Vogel, Ein Stempel hat gefehlt. Dokumente zur Emigration deutscher Juden, Droemersche Verlagsanstalt Th. Knaur, München/Zürich 1977, p.36
24. Dr. jur., Dr. phil., Dr. pol., Franz J. Scheidl, Deutschland und die Juden in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, II Teil, p.9
25. Ibid, p.12
26. Ernst Nolte, Der europäische Bürgerkrieg 1917-1945, Nationalsozialismus und Bolschewismus, Propyläen Verlag, 1987 Verlag Ullstein GmbH, Frankfurt/Main, Berlin, p. 139. Also pp.69-143
27. Ibid, p.141
28. Evans no doubt referring to the well known picture, reproduced in Faschismus, Ghetto Massenmord, p.41. The picture looks suspect, the face of the soldier on the right, for instance, just a blur, as well as that of the soldier next to him.
29. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/02-19-46.asp, p.582
30. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/holocaust_and_genocide_studies/v017/17.1prusin.html
31. http://der-fuehrer.org/reden/deutsch/Der%20Grossdeutsche%20Freiheitskampf%20-%20Reden%20Adolf%20Hitlers%20-%20Band%203.pdf, p.87
32. Maser, Der Wortbruch…, p.132, also footnote **
33. Ibid, p.230, also footnote **
34. Ernst Nolte, Feindliche Nähe, Herbig München 1998, p.12; p.28; pp.41ff
35. Vogel, Ein Stempel…, p.193
36. Morsch et al, Neue Studien…, p.7
37. Franz W. Seidler, Das Recht in Siegerhand. Die 13 Nürnberger Prozesse 1945-1949, Pour le Mérite-Verlag für Militärgeschichte, Postfach 52, D-24236 Selent, p.219
38. VfZ, 1972, Heft 3, p.241
39. Werner Maser, Fälschung Dichtung und Wahrheit über Hitler und Stalin, Olzog Verlag GmbH, München 2004, p.232
40. Seidler, Das Recht…, p.272/73
41. Vogel, Ein Stempel…, p.43
42. Ibid, pp.334-336
43. Solschenizyn, zweihundert Jahre…, p.368; Heinrich Härtle, Freispruch für Deutschland, Verlag K.W. Schütz, Göttingen 1965, pp.249-255; This declaration was published in November 1941 by the „Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee, Buckingham House 6-7, Buckingham Street, Adelphi, London, W.C.2 (Härtle, p.255)
44. http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/van/1, the last part of 8
45. Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Treblinka. Vernichtungslager oder Durchgangslager?, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings Great Britain 2002, pp.87ff

Counting the years properly we are now facing a new decade. What will it bring for holocaust revisionism?
In one of my first articles for Smith’s Report, “What Remains to be Researched?” (issue 150) I outlined a number of areas still in need of research as well as mentioned a number of studies in need of translation of the English. In the two and a half years that have passed since then much of this research has in fact been carried out.

In 2010, coinciding with the new trial against John Demjanjuk in Munich, was published the first revisionist study on the Aktion Reinhardt “extermination camp” of Sobibór, co-authored by myself, Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno and titled Sobibór. Holocaust Propaganda and Reality (TBR Books). The most important part of this book is undoubtedly the analysis of the results from an archeological survey carried out at the former Sobibór camp site by the Polish professor Andrzej Kola in the years 2000-2001. Kola had published an article on his research result in a rather obscure Polish journal already in 2001, but this was never translated into any Western language, or for that matter referenced by any of the orthodox experts on the Aktion Reinhardt camps (including the foremost mainstream expert on Sobibór, Jules Schelvis, who has published two revised editions of his study Sobibór. A History of a Nazi Death Camp after 2001). The reason for this is easy to see: While Kola pays the necessary lip service to the mass extermination dogma, the published results from his probings and diggings clearly show that the official claim that Sobibór served as a “pure extermination center” – a claim based exclusively on “eyewitness” testimony – do not hold water. Instead of the concrete gas chamber building described by the “eyewitnesses”, Kola discovered, at the site where this murder factory should have been located, the remains of a huge wooden barrack, with dimensions completely incompatible with those of the alleged gas chamber building, containing numerous fragments from toilet articles and clothing. Not far from this barrack he also discovered the remains of a smaller building containing an oven. These finds suggest a large delousing barrack and a smaller hot air delousing chamber, something which greatly strenghtens the revisionist hypothesis. Neither Kola nor a later Israeli-Polish team of archeologists active in 2007-8008 managed to find the slightest trace of the alleged gas chambers, despite finecombing the 3 hectare area of the “death camp proper” with probes and advanced equipment. In other words: the homicidal gas chambers at Sobibór never existed. Thanks to the research of Kola we may now conclude, based on solid proof, that Sobibór was in fact what Himmler had called it in a directive from 5 July 1943, namely a transit camp. In Chapter 10 of our study we discuss the deportation of Jews to the German-occupied territories of the Soviet Union via the “extermination camps” – which were in fact all transit camps. A key piece of evidence presented here is the wartime diary of Herman Kruk, who served as head librarian in the Vilna ghetto. Kruk’s diary entries from April 1943 confirm that a large number of Dutch Jews, that according to mainstream historiography were “gassed” in Auschwitz and Sobibór, were in fact deported to Lithuania. The discovery of these diary entries in turn prompted me to write a survey of the available evidence for the eastward transit of supposedly murdered Jews, which is currently being published in installments in the Inconvenient History web journal under the title “Evidence for the presence of ‘gassed’ Jews in the Occupied eastern territories“.

In 2009 Carlo Mattogno published in Italian Il Campo di Chelmno tra Storia e Propaganda, the first full-length revisionist study on the first constructed of the “extermination camps”, Chelmno (also known as Kulmhof) in the Warthegau district of occupied Poland. This volume, which presents an abundance of evidence against the official Chelmno historiography, which has it that some 150 000 Jews were murdered at this camp in “gas vans”, is scheduled to be published in English by TBR Books in mid-2011 with the title Chelmno: Myth and Reality. Among other things, Mattogno demonstrates, based on the published results of four archeological surveys, that the only means of cremation which existed in the camp, a single open field oven of a known type, could only have incinerated at most 45 corpses within 24 hours, so that the cremation of the alleged 150 000 victims would have lasted until 1951, and that the amount of human remains present in the mass graves at the former camp site is absolutely incompatible with the supposed victim figure. Furthermore a diary entry of Herman Kruk’s from 4 July 1942 as well two diary entries penned on 14 and 30 July 1942 by Avraham Tory, the secretary of the Jewish Council in the Kovno ghetto, confirm independently of each other that many of the Jews deported to Chelmno ended up in Lithuania, where they were employed in road construction. With the publication of this volume, all six “extermination camps” (as well as the “auxiliary extermination camp” of Stutthof) have been devoted book-length revisionist studies. It thus marks an milestone in the history of holocaust revisionism.

Naturally Mattogno spends many pages of this book discussing the evidence for the alleged murder weapon employed at Chelmno, the so-called “gas vans”, concluding that the scanty “proofs” dished up by the holocaust historians for the existence and use of these vehicles is devoid of any real evidentiary value. The issue of the “gas vans”, which were allegedly used not only at Chelmno, but also in Serbia and the occupied Soviet territories, is also dealt with in detail in French revisionist Pierre Marais’ study Les camions de gaz en question from 1994, which will be published in a fully revamped English edition as The Gas Vans: A Critical Investigation in late 2011.

The indefatigable Carlo Mattogno is most of all known as an expert on the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp complex, and in December 2010 his most exhaustive study on this subject, Auschwitz: The Case For Sanity, was published in English. This 756-page volume critically examines Jean-Claude Pressac’s and Robert Jan van Pelt’s desperate, deeply flawed and sometimes plain absurd attempts at proving the existence of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Birkenau, as well as traces how the Auschwitz gas chamber legend came into being. It is the most definite revisionist statement on the Auschwitz gas chambers to date. In late 2011 it will be followed by what might justly be called Mattogno’s long-awaited magnum opus, The Crematory Ovens of Auschwitz, a likewise monumental study on the five crematories at Auschwitz-Birkenau, whose incineration capacities play a crucial role in determining the veracity of the mass extermination claims. The publication of these two volumes however does not mark the end of Mattogno’s research efforts. In Healthcare in Auschwitz, scheduled for publication in late 2011, the vast measures undertaken by the Auschwitz camp administration for the sake of the inmates’ health are for the first time revealed in their full scope, including detailed regulations for the proper nourishment of the inmates and the construction of a large hospital complex wherein surgeries were carried out on thousands of Jewish inmates allegedly marked for death. Auschwitz: assistenza sanitaria, “selezione” e “Sonderbehandlung” dei detenuti immatricolati (Auschwitz: sanitary service, “selections” and “special treatment” of registered inmates, Effepi 2010) serves as a sort of companion volume to Healthcare in Auschwitz, as well as a follow-up to Mattogno’s previous study Special Treatment in Auschwitz (2004), and discusses the “special treatment” of registered Auschwitz inmates and the allegation of mainstream historians that this term meant the selection of sick detainees for killing in homicidal gas chambers. This volume will hopefully be published in English during 2012.

As was mentioned some months agp during a broadcast of Carolyn Yeager’s radio show Heretic’s Hour, Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno and myself are embarking on one of the largest revisionist research undertakings to date. The subject of this research project will be the last major aspect of the holocaust that has yet to be dealt with in detail by revisionists, namely the alleged mass extermination of 1 to 2 million Jews carried out by the Einsatzgruppen in the German-occupied parts of the Soviet Union. This part of the holocaust is especially complex, as we are not dealing here with isolated phantasms within very limited areas (I am talking here of the “gas chambers” in the “extermination camps”), but with mass shootings of the most varying scopes carried out at hundreds of locations during a three-year period. The orthodox allegations are based on a number of activity and situation reports supposedly based on messages dispatched by the Einsatzgruppen themselves. While there is no questions that mass shootings were carried out in the East, there are several questions in need of critical inquiry, chief of them a) Were the Einsatzgruppen ordered to exterminate Jews based solely on their ethnicity? b) Are the reports presented as evidence for the mass extermination genuine and reliable? and c) How many Jews were actually killed by the Einsatzgruppen? In order to answer these questions we must survey the entire available contemporary documentation on the Einsatzgruppen, which means going through tens of thousands of document pages. In fact, one of the initial obstacles we are now facing even before the start of our research is the pressing need to transfer this vast documentation from microfilm to digital media, something which unfortunately costs a rather large sum of money. We would be most grateful for any helping donations, however small (we can be reached via CODOH).

Where is Holocaust revisionism heading in this new decade? As seen above, we will soon have covered virtually all aspects of the holocaust complex in our research. What remains now, first and foremost, is to reconstruct, piece by piece, what actually happened to the Jews in German-controlled Europe during World War II, to map the real history of the camps, the ghettos, the deportations and the victim figures. Carlo Mattogno has dubbed this new constructive side of revisionism “affirmationism”. The best examples of this affirmationist trend in revisionist research can be found in Mattogno’s own latest studies on Auschwitz. While running the risk of sounding self-promoting, I see my own research concerning the actual fate of the “gassed” Jews as another example of affirmationism, as this seeks to provide an answer to the anti-revisionists’ favorite rhetorical question: If they were not gassed, then what happened to them?

During the coming decade revisionism will have many challenges to meet, but also many opportunities to take advantage of. I will begin with listing the challenges.
First and foremost there is a lack of revisionist researchers. The number of revisionists carrying out original research can easily be counted on both hands’ fingers. This does not mean that we necessarily need x number of full-time researchers. It would be just as well to have a sizable number of spare-time researchers, preferably from varied disciplinary backgrounds, who contribute high-quality articles from time to time, or only once or twice. As a saying in my native Sweden goes, “many small streams will form a large river”. Our opponents consists of an armada of certified court historians and skilled propagandists with virtually unlimited funds and resources as well as mass media and the legal and political systems on their side – yet despite this the field of “Holocaust studies” appears increasingly moribund, not to say braindead. We on the other hand, while lacking manpower as well as fundings, have dedication and the endurance that comes from knowing that historical truth is on our side and that this truth ultimately will prevail.

It would be most welcome if new revisionist researchers would appear in eastern Europe – I am thinking specifically of Romania, Moldavia, the Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia – as natives of this region would have many advantages in dealing with the two great remaining problems of revisionist research, the Einsatzgruppen killings and the fate of the “gassed” Jews deported to the occupied Soviet territories. Especially welcome would be research from scholars with access to historical archives. Such researchers should realize that it is possible for them to publish findings of revisionist nature without running any risk of being charged with “Holocaust denial”, provided that they proceed cautiously. For example, if a historian, based on testimonal or documentary evidence, demonstrated the presence of French, Dutch or Belgian Jews in a camp or ghetto in Belarus during the period 1942-1944 – a fact not allowed for by mainstream historiography – but refrained from discussing how exactly these Jews had reached occupied Soviet territory and paid the necessary lip service to the orthodox version of the holocaust, he could go scot free, provided that he knew how to play his cards well. Even discoveries of documents concerning transports of supposedly “gassed” Jews to the East could possibly go unpunished with enough reference to the find constituting an “exception” (though publication outside peer-reviewed channels might prove necessary). This would amount to a sort of “salami tactics” undercover revisionism which might to some seem cowardly, but in some cases, and particularly under an increasingly totalitarian system, this might be the most effective way to proceed. This would serve to undermine the orthodox dogmas from within, by piling anomaly upon anomaly until critical mass is reached and the stability of the building of lies can no longer be maintained. I recommend such prospective researchers to read through my above-mentioned article series on the presence of “gassed” Jews in the East, which should be regarded as a stepping stone for further research into this issue.

The second challenge is the legal persecution of Holocaust revisionists taking place in many European nations. There is no sign that this persecution will decrease, rather we must be prepared that it will increase as revisionism gains new victories. The more the facts presented by us threatens the system, the more we in turn will be threatened by the system. Alarmingly a trend has recently been seen among the governments of the Western world, in connection with the Wikileaks “Cablegate”, to seek to control and censor the Internet. We should expect open or covert attacks on revisionist websites under the guise of campaigns against “online terrorism” and similar, and we should therefore do our best to counter the encroachment of Internet freedom and civil liberties. As long as the Internet remains free, revisionism cannot be stopped.

The third (thankfully minor) challenge is posed by what I prefer to call “pseudorevisionists”. Carlo Mattogno warned about this phenomenon already back in his book My Banned Holocaust Interview, originally published in 1995: “Unfortunately, for some years now, several groups of “Naziskins” have appropriated some revisionist positions for their own particular ideological-propagandistic purposes. These are revisionism’s most dangerous enemies: first, because they spread a version of revisionism which has been simplified to the point of banality, giving the impression that revisionist arguments are all nonsense; and secondly, because they provide a justification for those who claim that revisionism is a Nazi phenomenon (…)”. Today this challenge is not necessarily posed by only people mishandling revisionist arguments for political ends; there are also individuals spreading fallacious arguments in the name of holocaust revisionism. Their usual operating procedure is to claim that virtually every document relating to the fate of the Jews has been forged, without backing up their vast accusations with any form of evidence. Two concrete examples of this are so-called “Krema denial”, the assertion that all or most of the crematorium building at Auschwitz-Birkenau never existed, or that those structures were in fact bakeries or some such, and what might be called “Aktion Reinhardt denial”: the claim that the camps Belzec, Sobibór and Treblinka not merely did not function as extermination centers, but actually did not exist at all, with no Jewish deportees ever reaching them. Both of these positions lack any kind of evidential support and are contradicted by archeological evidence as well as hundreds, even thousands of pages of doubtlessly authentic documents – evidence which is fully congruent with the revisionist position and which do not in any way provide proof of homicidal gas chambers. Whether this pseudorevisionism stems from ignorance, politically motivated subjectivism (“everything that furthers my agenda is permissible”) or covert activism by anti-revisionists and Zionist trolls (or “Hasbara activists” as they prefer to call themselves), it lends ammunition to our opponents, who can use these individuals as strawmen and say things like: “See, the revisionists are denying that the camps existed. They are either crackpots or liars”. I should remind my readers that the need to counter this challenge has nothing do with defending any revisionist “dogmas”. Authentic revisionism is, by the very definition of the term, alien to the concept of dogmatic thinking. It is not the abovementioned notions in themselves that are problematic, but the fact that they completely lack any evidential basis. To stubbornly maintain an assertion without present a serious argument for it is to cling to a dogma, hence why I call these positions “pseudorevisionist”. What must be defended is sound scientific methodology. I see no real need for revisionist researchers to spend their valuable time discussing these vapid claims in detail (a rebuttal to Krema denial has already been offered by Mattogno in his article “Zu den ‘nicht existierenden’ Krematorien von Birkenau”, Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, vol. 3, no. 3), but I recommend online revisionist debaters to not let such claims go unanswered – and to educate themselves.
Then we have the upcoming opportunities and good news.

To begin with it looks like the efforts of the powers that be to introduce anti-revisionist legislation into all member states of the European Union will be thwarted – at least temporarily – by constitutional friction in those states yet lacking such heresy laws. A recent statement from Sweden’s constitution committee implies that such legislation most likely cannot be passed before 2014. The “Anti-Racist” legal framework constructed for the implementation of an EU-wide anti-revisionist law has also been watered down by those member states still paying a modicum of respect to the freedom of speech.

The second piece of good news may not be very new, but will have implications for the coming decade. Some four years ago it was revealed that while postwar historians estimated that the Germans had operated between 5,000 and 7,000 detention sites, recent research shows that there in fact existed “somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 000 camps and ghettos of various categories”, the majority of them on located on occupied Soviet territory (“Largest archive of Holocaust records to open”, USA Today (online edition), 19 November 2006). Presently a 7-volume encyclopedia of these camps and ghettos is being compiled by Geoffrey Megargee of the USHMM. This piece of news is of great interest to revisionists, as it ties in with the question of the destination of the deported “gassed” Jews.
Other opportunities for further research will no doubt arise from the “European Holocaust Research Infrastructure” (EHRI), a 7 million euro project in which “seventeen research centres from Europe and Israel” will “transform the dispersed data available for Holocaust research in Europe, Israel and the United States into a cohesive corpus of resources” which will then be made available online for “maximum open access of these data” (cf. http://www.cegesoma.be/cms/index_en.php?article=1575). Experience has shown that openings of archives and releases of unpublished material strengthens the revisionist position while correspondingly weakening the orthodox.
Finally there is a very interesting development on the archeological frontier. As reported by me on the Inconvenient History blog, a young British forensic archeologist, Caroline Sturdy Colls of the University of Birmingham, is currently working on a project which involves identifying the mass graves at the site of the former Treblinka “extermination camp” using “the most up-to-date scientific techniques”. This project will form the basis of her doctoral dissertation, which will be presented at the earliest by the end of this year. Considering the fatal damage which Kola et. al.’s research activities at Belzec and Sobibór have caused orthodox holocaust historiography, the news of this high-tech survey is most welcome. One should never underestimate the Shoah defenders’ propensity for shooting themselves in their collective foot of clay.
All in all, I believe that this will prove one of the most important decades in the history of holocaust revisionism. Let us face every challenge with renewed energy, and may our opponents live in interesting times, as the old Chinese saying goes…

“25 years after the publication of ‘Nationalsozialistische Massentötung durch Giftgas’(National Socialist mass murder by poisonous gas), authored by the survivors Eugen Kogon and Hermann Langbein, the aim of this conference is to update this work by adding recently discovered material,” said Haase. At the end of the article we are informed that the depiction of the gas chambers is fictitious, as no photos exist — all we have are eyewitness tales (Erzählungen von Augenzeugen). Prof. Morsch continued by saying that what has been presented and discussed will be summarized and published. The book will be made available to teachers, scientists and interested citizens (Bürger).[1] After some delays this summary (Sammelband) was published (2011) under the title: “Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas” (New studies on National Socialist mass murder by poisonous gas).

What follows, then, are some observations of this newest research as it is presented, including a comparison of the work by Kogon et al. whenever necessary. Publications by Revisionists will also be considered. The intent is to — for the most part — comment on the essays in general terms and also make comparisons of what we have been told until now and how this differs from this latest account. Some of the topics, like chemistry, need to be addressed by experts in that field.

The Introductions

The first article is a “Greeting” by Gernot Erler, minister in the foreign office from 2005 – 2009. Herr Erler informs us that the killing of European Jewry is one of the best researched and most precisely documented aspects of contemporary history. And yet, attempts are still made to deny what happened, to downplay the significance. Those who try and relativize the Holocaust place themselves outside of the international community. The United Nations has declared January 27 to be the day to memorialize the victims of the Holocaust. Germany has accepted responsibility for the crimes committed, so Erler welcomes the efforts made by the “Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education (ITF)” in the development of a culture of memory (Erinnerungskultur). He also thanks the Brandenburg Memorial Foundation for its assistance.

Comments: If the Holocaust has been that thoroughly researched and the mass murder of European Jewry established as such an undeniable fact, then why have this conference on Holocaust denial in 2008? Facts speak for themselves — just present them and denial will stop. What this suggests in the strongest terms is that what has been presented as evidence so far is obviously not convincing; thus this effort to present new material to finally silence deniers. The reference to a “Culture of Memory” is also of interest: more and more Germans call it a “Culture of Guilt” (Schuld-Kult)

Next, another “Greeting” by Dr. Ursula Plassnik, foreign minister of the Republic of Austria from 2004 to 2008. She tells us that this work is a comprehensive and detailed narrative of the mass murder via poisonous gas in the National Socialist concentration camps. The technical and scientific aspects of mass murder are documented, as well as the cooperation by technicians, organisations and politicians. She also welcomes the fact that educators had been invited to contribute to this book.[2]

Comment: Good, then this should finally convince all sceptics.

Then a Foreword by Thomas Krüger, President of the German centre for political education (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, bpb). He starts out by telling us that the relativizing and belittling of the crimes committed by National Socialists (by now I am wondering why the term “Nazi(s)” is not used) is not a new phenomenon originating in the far right scene. Even during the existence of the Third Reich we had “I don’t want to see” this or “I don’t want to know” that. He then contradicted himself writing that even when – following the war – it became known what had occurred in the concentration- and extermination camps, many did not accept it, others denied that it happened.

Comment: We have an obvious contradiction here. Krüger tells us that what happened, meaning the mass murder of Jews, only became known after the war; so how could Germans have turned their heads, etc., when what had allegedly happened was not known ‘till after the war? Also, are we now going back to the “200 – 300” in the know, established at the IMT, by claiming that nothing was know until after the war — which is in fact what had happened? If so, the authors need to be congratulated upon having finally admitted that next to nothing, aside from a few rumours, was known during the war. The dilemma they face however is that a crime of this enormity, if it was really committed, could not have been kept a secret. Indeed the authors of another recent study, “Das Amt und die Vergangenheit” which examines the complicity of the foreign office (AA) in the alleged mass murder, tell us that 200,000 Germans directly participated, while another 200,000, mostly foreigners, assisted.[3] And with that many ‘in the know,’ how can this crime have been kept under wraps? Confusion right from the start.

We are then informed, by Krüger, that the Holocaust has since then been thoroughly investigated,  that it is well documented and part of our education system. Denying the Holocaust is against the law in Germany (§130, Abs. 3) and deniers are prosecuted; in spite of this Holocaust-Deniers and relativists are still with us.

Comment: Another contradiction which Herr Krüger seems to have missed. If the Holocaust undoubtedly occurred as alleged, then why are laws needed to support said allegations? Why not simply confront deniers with facts instead? Recent court cases in Germany have shown that judges are unwilling (unable?) to present facts; they hide behind Offenkundigkeit. Their claim: The Holocaust obviously happened, so there’s no need to substantiate it any further. In any other trial, “obviousness” would not stand up in court; the defendant is always allowed to present his/her evidence. One has to also wonder why, if all is “obvious,” this book had to be written? If the Holocaust has been investigated, and evidence exists proving without any doubt that mass murder was committed, then why not present this evidence — why the laws?

But Krüger is not done, he continues on telling us that time works for the Revisionists: as the Shoah becomes ever more distant from the present, fewer and fewer witnesses will be found who can attest to it. And because of this, historical myths and relativism could become more prevalent, even reaching the middle of society. For Revisionism is aimed at the uninformed, says Krüger, and historical facts are misrepresented — history is embellished and rewritten. The message of Revisionists pretends to be scientific, when instead basic norms of historiography are ignored and history is presented selectively.

Comments: Is Herr Krüger telling us here that the Shoah is based solely on witness testimony? Surely substantial enough evidence exists to prove the Holocaust in spite of the passage of time. And what of the documentation mentioned before: will it not, when combined with the evidence of substance, prove what allegedly happened without the eyewitness accounts? Also, how is it possible for Revisionism to grow, reaching even the middle of our society, if the Holocaust is as well-researched and documented as he claimed it is?

We then learn how to combat Revisionism. First, historical-political education is a must — the goal is to have students counter the apparent pseudo-scientific Revisionist propaganda. Youth are especially endangered, the internet having become a platform for Revisionism. None of this is getting any easier with the NS era receding further into the past; the death of eyewitnesses also poses a dilemma. Knowledge about Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust must be transmitted as an important part of political education. Also, it is not enough to just add all of this to our democratic value system; efforts must be made to reach youth of all walks of life.

We are faced with two problems, according to Krüger:

First, we must introduce migrants to Germany’s National Socialist past, and second, in the foreseeable future we will have no more witnesses who can be questioned. The intensity of their deliberations will be sorely missed, so we must adopt new strategies to compensate.

Comments: In reality, Herr Krüger must know that German youth is already inundated with all things Holocaust. But it appears — and this seems to be Herr Krüger’s underlying message — that what is presented, sans the eyewitness accounts, is just not persuasive, but not for lack of effort. One can only conclude that the material presented up to now is just not convincing. Further, to educate immigrants, especially Muslims, about the Holocaust will be a mighty task.

Krüger closed his lecture by voicing his conviction that this book will help combat Revisionist lies, and that his office will assist in any way necessary.[4]

Lastly, we have the actual Introduction by Messrs. Morsch and Perz. They began by informing us that in 1983, concentration camp survivors Eugen Kogon and Hermann Langbein — along with the head of Ludwigsburg Central Office for the Investigation of National Socialist Crimes, Adalbert Rückerl, as well as others — published the book “Nationalsozialistische Massentötung durch Giftgas.” This was published on the initiative of two Mauthausen survivors, Pierre-Serge Choumoff and Jean Gavard. All of this resulted from a meeting with officials of the centre for political education who discussed the increase in Revisionist debates about NS mass murder in the 1970s.[5]

The early deniers, as the authors call them, referred to a letter by Martin Broszat of the Munich Institute for Contemporary History (IfZ), written in the summer of 1960. The reason for Broszat’s letter was an article by Robert Strobel in “Die Zeit”[6] — he demanded the removal of former General Unrein, employed by American forces at the time, because he had claimed that the Dachau gas ovens were not used to burn Hitler’s victims, but the Americans’ SS victims (i.e. former guards). Furthermore, Unrein maintained that the gas ovens were not built by the Nazis, but by German prisoners of war on order of the Americans.

Following this, Broszat published this letter stating that “Not in Dachau, nor Bergen-Belsen or Buchenwald, were Jews or other prisoners gassed. The gas chambers in Dachau were never completed, so those who died in Dachau or other concentration camps were victims of the catastrophic conditions (in the camps)…the lack of supplies…Mass murder of Jews started in 1941/42 and was committed exclusively in a few specially selected locations with the help of technical installations, mostly on occupied Polish territories: in Auschwitz-Birkenau, in Sobibor on the Bug, in Treblinka, Chelmno and Belzec, but not in Germany proper…”.[7] (gaps in the original)

The reason Broszat published this, so we’ve been told, was to differentiate between the internment camps in Germany proper versus the mass murder in camps on Polish territory and to make it impossible for irrational people to make use of false information. Sadly however, Broszat’s efforts were for naught. Revisionists then claimed that Broszat had denied the existence of gas chambers altogether. Broszat’s claim that gas chambers did exist in Poland was of no consequence to Revisionists — so say the authors.

Comments: I am not aware of any Revisionist claiming that Broszat denied the existence of gas chambers in toto. What Revisionists say is that eyewitnesses testified about gassings in the German camps. In the 1950s, Dachau was seen as the place of horror — I know because I lived in Germany at that time. Hitchcock produced a film about it, but since this was not true the justified Revisionist argument is: why should we believe what we are told about the camps in the east? Especially since all gas chamber evidence for the east also rests on eyewitness testimony, as admitted in the news release mentioned at the beginning.

The authors continue by informing us that Kogon et al. tried to counter Revisionist claims by publishing their book in 1983 (it took a while), but now, 25 years after said publication, it is time to upgrade this book by including what has been learned since. We are then provided with a list of the issues discussed at the May 2008 conference, which reads in part: What have we learned since then and what had to be revised? Who decided to use poisonous gas and was it done on orders from higher ups or the initiative of individual camp commanders? We then learn that mass murder actions were undertaken in all camps, but why was poisonous gas, except for Auschwitz, not used exclusively — why were other killing methods adopted? What part did the killing of sick camp inmates, Aktion 14f13, play in all of this? To answer those questions a team of renowned scientists was invited, to look at the historical background, the technical aspects, etc.

Upon examining the footnotes of the 1983 publication, the authors continue, it is evident that eyewitness testimony and court transcripts are the main sources used. This reveals the dilemma researchers are faced with: Many of the sources (it reads: zeitgenössische Quellen) were systematically destroyed to maintain secrecy, so many of the orders were given orally. The Dachau trial is mentioned, as are the Polish trials in Krakow, the Jerusalem Eichmann trial and the euthanasia trials in the BRD. And, without the investigations by the Polish Central Commission or the work done by the Ludwigsburg Central Office for the Investigation of National Socialist Crimes, it was nearly impossible to address those issues.[8] But why aren’t the investigations that were allegedly done by the Soviets — by the “Extraordinary State Commission for Ascertaining and Investigating Crimes Perpetrated by the German-Fascist Invaders and their Accomplices,” created on 2 November 1942 — not mentioned, especially since the ESC constitutes a cornerstone of “The Holocaust”?[9]

We learn that among the new material now available are intercepts, by the British, of German radio communications, which were discovered in the 1980s; documents from Moscow’s special archives; as well as Himmler’s itinerary (Dienstkalender); some comprehensive reports found in archives of the Russian Federation as well as documents concerning the manufacturers of cremation equipment by the German manufacturer Topf & Sons. One would assume that with all of this additional material a solid case can be made for the Holocaust. Not so! We are told that in spite the fact that so much has been learned, many obstacles still cannot be overcome even 30 years later. This is especially the case for the Action Reinhardt camps, as hardly any documents about them have been found. It is therefore imperative, as scant sources re. those camps exist and it since is impossible to change this (die Quellebasis nicht beliebig erweitert werden kann), to scrutinize the available material again. Also, research of court case material has not been completed. Well then, we will have to wait for more on the AR-Camps, i.e. on 25% of the Holocaust. And, according to the authors the camps were indeed named “Reinhard,” as in Reinhard Heydrich, although some contemporary historians still misspell it as Reinhardt, as done by these authors and other contributors continually.[10]

We then learn how the book is structured: its chronological order beginning with the murder of  sick camp inmates, the T4 action[11], the mass murder in the gas wagons and the gas chambers in the extermination camps in the east, and finally to the killings by poisonous gas in the camps in Germany proper.

Comment: Why begin with and emphasize the T4 action? This action is mentioned some 23 times in the introduction alone. No Revisionist disputes that this action took place. A team of medical doctors decided, by consensus, who was to be euthanized until word got out and the action stopped on 24 August 1941: “It was impossible to keep the T4 program secret, given that thousands of doctors, nurses…and administrators were involved in it,…”.[12]

This presents a problem for the authors and they try to counter it by writing:

“Hinsichtlich der Verschleierung der Morde [ed. “in the extermination camps”] bestand ein ebenso eklatanter Unterschied zur „Aktion T4“. Wurde bei dieser der Mord als natürlicher Todesfall getarnt, der Todesfall selbst aber nicht nur nicht in Frage gestellt, sondern amtlich bestätigt, so wurde der Vorgang des Massenmordes an den europäischen Juden, wie an der Sinti und Roma, als Ganzes abgestritten[…]”[13] [ed. “Concerning the concealment of the murders, there was a vast difference between those in the extermination camps and the T4 Action. Whereas in the latter murder was concealed by camouflaging the murders as cases of natural death, which were officially confirmed as such and never questioned, the murder of European Jews as well as Sinti and Roma was categorically denied.”)

Comment: It should not be necessary to point out the fallacy of this, ahem, reasoning, but I will do so nevertheless. In the Wikipedia article we read, and it states only the obvious, the T4 action could not be kept secret because of the thousands involved. What about the alleged mass murder in the camps? Did that happen on its own -- no perpetrators, no witnesses, and therefore could be categorically denied? Rubbish. We were informed that 200,000 participated directly, with another 200,000 assisting (see above). The above argument provides us with another admission that nothing was known about the alleged mass murder of millions of Jews, a supposed fact; however, if this mass murder actually took place it would have been impossible to conceal, and that is also admitted here, albeit in a roundabout way by saying that it was “denied.”

And again, why the continued referral to the T4 and 14f13 actions? Out of a total of 34 essays by various authors, 7 deal directly with T4 actions/facilities, beginning with some general observations about the extermination of unworthy life to naming off specific places: Brandenburg/Havel, Grafeneck, Pirna-Sonnenstein, Hartheim, Bernburg/Saale and Hadamar. Two other essays -- “Gas wagons. From euthanasia to genocide” and “From the T4 action to the mass murder of European Jews” -- as well as one essay about the 14f13 action in the concentration camps deal directly with those actions, the term T4 being repeatedly mentioned throughout the book. So roughly 1/3 of the book is about euthanasia. But, the book’s title reads “Mass murder by poisonous gas,” this book was obviously written to try and prove that “The Holocaust” happened and to silence Revisionists. Now, as alluded to before, Revisionists do not “deny” those actions, so why bother with T4 and 14f13? It is apparent that the T4 actions are needed to make a case for “The Holocaust”, why? Is it not possible to prove “The Holocaust” without referring to those actions? With this – this continued reference to the T4/14f13 actions - it has become obvious that no evidence exists proving  that “The Holocaust” happened. If there was solid evidence like investigation reports compiled by experts in the field of criminal investigations, then there would be no need to perform these mental gymnastics. As for the missing evidence concerning the so-called “Action Reinhard” camps: why not simply locate the Treblinka mass graves, alleged to exist beyond any doubt and measuring 50m x 25m x 10m deep? We are still told that the first 700,000 Jews mass murdered at Treblinka were initially buried in those alleged graves, but later exhumed and burned on open air grills. Mr. Alex Bay depicted a number of the graves as they ‘must have’ existed, i.e. they must still exist[14], but “try as he may” to make it sound as though even one of these graves has been located[15], this is simply untrue. In fact an English archaeologist asked why those graves have never been found.[16] Proving the case of Treblinka alone, by submitting solid evidence like the graves, would eliminate the need to try and make the case for the entire “Holocaust” by bringing up the T4 and 14f13 actions ad nauseam.

The T4 actions, i.e. the killing of just thousands, could not be kept secret and were stopped due to protests by the German populace. When coupled with these authors’ speculation that concealment of the mass murder of millions would have been impossible, we may conclude that the so-called “Holocaust” action would also have been stopped. The Holocaust never happened. Period. This is the only logical, possible conclusion. Is this why we are told that nothing about the alleged mass murder was known until the war was over? – Yes, the only explanation possible, though faulty to its core due to the enormity of the alleged crime.

Now back to the introduction. The authors listed the essays in order, adding some comments, and I will address those that I am qualified to address. (This subject is simply too large for just one person to wholly address. Indeed, numerous authors contributed to the writing of this book).

We learn in chapter one that the alleged mass murder by poisonous gas must be considered within a larger context. Richard Evans provides these details. This larger context consists of the supposedly racist policies of the NSdAP, the elimination of Jewish-Communist culture, the T4 action, etc. Poisonous gas, we are told, was but one of the methods used to kill between 5.5 and 6 million Jews: 1.3 million were shot and up to one million died from diseases, starvation or maltreatment in the camps and ghettos.[17]

Comment: Since the case for mass murder of Europe’s Jews cannot be made without referring to initial race policies, etc., which have nothing to do with the alleged mass murder, we may conclude that Evans et al. have no Holocaust evidence and therefore no case (this is called retroactive foreshadowing). At some of the West German trials, the 1963 – 1965 Frankfurt Auschwitz trials for example, the Nürnberg Racial Laws of 1935 were submitted as “evidence” in lieu of real evidence — the same phenomenon seems to be at work here as well.

In the second chapter the technical aspects of the T4 action are discussed, as well as those of the gas wagons and the killing with the insecticide Zyklon B in Auschwitz and the technical innovations needed to cremate the bodies of those killed. German court cases are then discussed, and finally, the role archaeology plays in the investigations.

Chapter three consists of seven essays about T4.

In chapter four, by which time we are now on page 153 (of a whopping 424 with the last 87 pages devoted to Revisionism), we are made aware of 1) how the T4 action led to mass murder, 2) the technical aspects of it, 3) the problems encountered, and so forth. We also read how the “Sonderkommando Lange,” having killed patients in various facilities under the T4 program, was now strategically placed in Chelmno. This commando supposedly used bottled carbon monoxide before, but now, because of shortages, had to resort to gassing its victims with engine exhaust. This then directly led to killing via engine exhaust in the Aktion Reinhard camps, in which 1.5 people (not just Jews) were killed. Over one hundred T4 personnel were transferred to those camps[18].

Comment: This part of the book is supposed to deal with the technical aspects of the alleged mass murder, but instead T4 is repeatedly mentioned. Why? Just provide the evidence and allow it to stand on its own, if it can.

Chapter five then provides details about the killings by poisonous gas in Germany proper, as well as in Mauthausen, Stutthof and Natzweiler. Prof. Maser receives some ink, as he provided evidence that the Sachsenhausen shooting facility (Genickschussanlage) as well as the gas chamber were built on instructions by the Soviets following the war.[emphasis added; 19] But in this segment we are again reminded of the connection between the T4 action and mass murder.

The last part of the book addresses Revisionist arguments, as mentioned already. Looking at the index of names, such prominent Revisionists as Carlo Mattogno and Jürgen Graf are only mentioned in passing, which makes me suspect that their arguments were not thoroughly considered, if at all. Mattogno, for instance, published a number of books, as did Germar Rudolf, so all of what they have written must be considered – and presented in context – to do justice to this topic. These authors have actually done what they accuse Revisionists of doing: they have selectively quoted their opposition.

What we have here is a revised interpretation of what allegedly happened, i.e., mass murder by the National Socialists. No longer do we see any effort put forth to try and explain why a Hitler order has never been found, nor even a resemblance of an extermination plan; the order by Hitler to commence the T4 action used as substitute, or so it seems. Wannsee, the time and place where the extermination of Jews was allegedly decided upon, receives only anecdotal mention – T4 put in its place. One can oftentimes judge a book by its introduction: this book is not an attempt to shore up what is known about “The Holocaust,” but a sordid attempt to rewrite how this alleged crime was conceived and how it supposedly evolved. But as mentioned, the logic, if one can even call it that, is faulty. The ultra secret T4 action was halted as a result of public protests when it was leaked by von Galen. The mass murder of Europe’s Jews, had it actually happened, would also have been stopped. If T4 could not be kept secret by only a few thousand participating, then the Holocaust of Europe’s Jews could not have been kept secret with tens of thousands involved.

To be continued…

Wilfried Heink

Sources:

1. The article quoted from, available under http://oga.mzv.net/lokales/story.php?id=43876# has disappeared, all I have is the printout. One other article about the conference is still available http://www.taz.de/1/politik/deutschland/artikel/1/das-paradox-der-neonazis/?src=AR&cHash=d5a40ddb3c
2. Günter Morsch, Bertrand Perz, publishers, with the assistance of Astrid Ley, Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas, Metropol Verlag, Berlin, 2011, p.X
3. http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/1564/_ich_zielte_ruhig_auf_die_saeuglinge.html
4. Morsch et al, Neue Studien…, pp. XI-XII
5. Ibid, p. XIII
6. Ibid, p. XIII; R. Strobel, „Weg mit ihm!“ in: Die Zeit of August 12,1960
7. Ibid, pp. XIII/IV; Die Zeit of August 19,1960, p.16
8. Ibid, pp. XV-XIV
9. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/holocaust_and_genocide_studies/v017/17.1prusin.html; and also http://www.amnestyusa.org/events/western/pdf/AmnestyConference_BazylerMichaelCLE.pdf
10. Morsch et al, Neue Studien…, p. XVII, footnote 11
11. The name T4 was an abbreviation of “Tiergartenstraße 4″, the address of a villa in the Berlin borough of Tiergarten which was the headquarters of the Gemeinnützige Stiftung für Heil- und Anstaltspflege, bearing the euphemistic name literally translating into English: as Charitable Foundation for Cure and Institutional Care. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4
13. Morsch et al, Neue Studien…, p. XXIV
14. http://www.holocaust-history.org/Treblinka/deathcampinternet/deathcampp7.shtml, Figure 42
15. http://www.holocaust-history.org/Treblinka/appendixd/, Text and Figure D1
16. http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2010/11/uk-forensic-archeologist-sets-out-to-refute-treblinka-deniers/
17. Morsch et al, Neue Studien…, pp. XIX-XX
18. Ibid, pp. XXI-XXIV
19. Werner Maser, Fälschung, Dichtung und Wahrheit über Hitler und Stalin”, OLZOG Verlag GmbH, München, 2004, pp.352-370

In 2010 a National Geographic Documentary was shown titled Sonderkommando: The living dead of Auschwitz (produced in 2009). This featured the self-styled Sonderkommando member Henryk Mandelbaum, who was interviewed by Stanislav Motl, a Czech author and journalist. We are told in this documentary by the narrator, Chris Plumley, that Motl “…spent years courting this last survivor” and that now the role played by the Sonderkommando in the extermination process can be revealed. Their role, he continues, posed a moral dilemma for them. Most of them were eventually executed by the Nazis “…as inconvenient witnesses, and those who survived the death camps were hunted down by the Russians who believed they were Nazi collaborators”. Still others were murdered by “…Zionist terror groups who roamed Europe, killing anyone seen as being a collaborator, seeking revenge…This is why Sonderkommando have rarely given interviews…”. Therefore, he concludes, the Mandelbaum testimony is an important document about events 65 years ago.

This, however, is not quite true, as several Sonderkommando members, such as Henryk Tauber and Filip Müller, gave testimonies right after the war which helped shape the holocaust story as we know it. Also later many Sonderkommando members were interviewed. For example, 8 of them were interviewed by Gideon Greif in his book We Wept Without Tears¹, and another, Shlomo Venezia, gave statements to Italian journalists before publishing his memoirs.² Yet another Sonderkommando survivor, Daniel Bennahmias, “spoke out” in the early 90s.³ The Mandelbaum interview is thus far from as unique as it is made out to be.

At the end of the documentary an impressive list of sources is presented, naming among others Museum of Gliwice, Poland; Museum of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Poland; Museum Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, Israel; Archive of Museum Beit Terezin Givat Chaim, Israel; Holocaust Museum, Washington, USA; Archive of Jewish Museum, Prague, Czech Republic; Institute of Terezin Initiative, Prague, Czech Republic; Memorial Terezin; etc. The sketches shown throughout the documentary, interspersed with a few, well known photos are by David Olère, while maps are courtesy of Martin Gilbert. Considering the sources and the recent vintage of the documentary we must surmise that this documentary is an up-to-date effort, that the most recent research has been taken into account. Let us see then what Mandelbaum, as well as the narrator, have to say. I copied what was said by the narrator word for word, as well as the English subtitles. Mandelbaum speaks in Polish.

The narrator states that Auschwitz was “…the primary headquarter the genocide of Jews”, and that on a cold morning in February 1942 at Wannsee, death sentences were imposed on 11 million Jews. Auschwitz was chosen because of the good rail connections, “…a good locality for the Final Solution”. Mandelbaum states in the interview that he arrived on April 22,1944, and was given the inmate number 181970.⁴In an earlier deposition, however, he gave the same date as February 23.⁵ As seen Mandelbaum has told his story before, contrary to what is asserted in the documentary.

The scene presented to the viewer is a snow covered ground with rubble, possibly the site of Krema II. One has to wonder why this was shot in winter, with the snow cover making it almost impossible to determine what is what. The interview is conducted in Polish with English subtitles. Mandelbaum tells Motl:

“Right now, we are standing in the worlds largest cemetery, this is crematorium II…Nobody would think that people⁶were gassed and murdered here, the young, the elderly, disabled people, simply everybody, living people”.

Mandelbaum tells us that the crematoria looked like small “chateaus”.

The narrator continues:

“In his confession having been written after his arrest in 1946, [Auschwitz commandant Rudolf] Höß stated: ‘When the powder was thrown in, there were cries of “gas”, then a great bellowing and the trapped prisoners hurled themselves against the door, but the door held and was opened several hours later so the place might be aired. It was then that I saw for the first time gassed bodies en masse, it made me feel uncomfortable and I shuddered, although I had imagined death by gas would be worse [a picture of corpses is shown here]. However I must admit that it set my mind at rest for the mass extermination of Jews was to start soon. At that time neither Eichmann nor I were certain how these mass killings were to be carried out”’.

Considering the impressive list of sources cited above, we must assume that the narrator read this from a document given to him, and that this is not his invention. Let us therefore take a look at this version of the Höß confession, leaving aside the controversies surrounding his alleged various declarations of guilt. First regarding: “…when the powder was thrown in”, referring to Cyklon B. In NO-1210, his first statement, we read, referring to the “bunkers” (there is no mention of Krema I in this): “The doors were locked and one or two tins of Cyklon B were thrown into the room through holes in the wall”. No specifics as to what was used in the new crematoria are given. Now to PS-3868, the Höß affidavit used at the IMT: „I used Cyklon B which was a crystallized prussic acid which was dropped into the death chamber from a small opening”. And last from his Memoirs which he (allegedly) wrote while in a Polish prison: “The doors were made airtight, and we knocked some holes in the ceiling through which we throw in the gas crystals” (he is referring to Krema I here), and, as for the Bunkers: “The airtight doors were screwed tight, and the contents of the gas crystal canisters emptied into the rooms through special hatches”. And for the new crematoria: “The door would be screwed shut and the waiting disinfection squads would immediately pour the gas [crystals] into the vents in the ceiling of the gas chamber down an air shaft which went to the floor. This ensured the rapid distribution of the gas”.⁷ Later in the film we are shown a well known picture of an opened can of Cyklon B with the pellets spilling out of the can. Why would those who wrote the script make Höß say “powder”?

Now to the next item, the opening of the door(s). The narrator states: “…but the door held and was opened several hours later so the place might be aired”. In NO-1210 we read about the Bunkers: “After half an hour the doors were opened and the bodies were taken out by a commando of prisoners (…)”. Concerning the new crematoria we find only this: “After half an hour the electric air conditioner was started up and the bodies were taken up to the cremating stove by a lift”. In PS-3868 we read: “We usually waited about one-half hour before we opened the doors and removed the bodies”. Now from the Höß memoirs, p.30: “After half an hour the doors were opened and the bodies were pulled out”, p.42: “So far as Auschwitz is concerned, I have never known or heard of a single person being found alive when the gas chambers were opened half an hour after the gas had been poured in”, and finally from p. 43: “The door was opened a half an hour after the gas was thrown in and the ventilation system was turned on. Work was immediately started to remove the corpses”.

Nowhere does Höß mention anything about „several hours“, in fact he consistently states “half an hour” or “about half an hour” before the doors were opened. Thus again we have to ask the question: Why have the narrator quote Höß as stating “several hours”? Is this because revisionists have shown that the half an hour claim is nonsense, necessitating a rewrite of the story? Are we looking here at an “upgraded” version of the gas chamber claims?

Next we learn about the transport conditions: no water or food for 4 days (according to Mandelbaum) and at the arrival in Auschwitz the deportees were beaten by SS officers who were accompanied by barking dogs (the well-known preserved photos shows people being discharged from train wagons with some soldiers standing by, rifles slung over their shoulders, no sign of dogs). The narrator tells us:

“The whole process started with the arrival of the transports, perhaps 2,000 people at a time. All throughout the day and night, the numbers were truly staggering. For several years perhaps 9,000 people a day were gassed at Auschwitz, and it was only one of 39 death camps set up by the Nazis”.

Höß writes on p. 36 of his memoirs that „The highest total figure of people gassed and cremated in twenty-four hours was slightly more than 9,000”. While this is portrayed as a one time achievement, we now hear in the documentary that 9,000 was the normal rate, and that this went on for several years and “in 39 camps”! If this is true, the numbers would truly be staggering, in the tens of millions.

Mandelbaum continues with his narrative:

“And there it was, over there I think [he points with his cane], this small platform…they arrived at the platform and we’d escort them to an area of the camp near the crematoria, here they got undressed”.

The narrator also tells us that:

“The Sonderkommando would accompany them to the chateaux where they were to be cleaned up before going into the main camp. Many people wondered why the Sonderkommando did not warn the new arrivals”.

This is curious. As far as I am aware no-one has ever claimed that the Sonderkommando were present at the ramp. Here is what Höß stated when he took the stand at the Nuremberg Trial on 15 April 1946:

“DR. KAUFFMANN: During an interrogation I had with you the other day you told me that about 60 men were designated to receive these transports, and that these 60 persons, too, had been bound to the same secrecy described before. Do you still maintain that today?

HOESS: Yes, these 60 men were always on hand to take the internees not capable of work to these provisional installations and later on to the other ones. This group, consisting of about ten leaders and subleaders, as well as doctors and medical personnel, had repeatedly been told, both in writing and verbally, that they were bound to the strictest secrecy as to all that went on in the camps.”⁸

According to this description the 60 persons were Germans, not Jewish Sonderkommando members. In fact, when a “special Kommando” (IMT), “permanent Kommando of prisoners” (NO-1210) or “a special contingent of Jews” (Memoirs) is mentioned, it is always connected with the removal of bodies from the gas chamber, cutting of hair, pulling of gold teeth, etc., never with the escort of the victims from the railway ramp to the crematoria.

Mandelbaum continues:

“They’d just walk down, the whole thing [was] located underground [pictures are displayed of what appears to be ruins of the “undressing room” of Krema II]. In the changing room you had hangers and benches, so they didn’t see through it, they didn’t know. The first one who entered had to undress to go to the showers and they hung their clothes on the hangers and entered the shower room with their toothbrush, toothpaste [this appears to be the first and only mention of such items being brought along by the victims], towel, soap and their valuables. And there were two of those showers as you can see here underground [points at the ruins], so there were two gas chambers in fact, divided in two parts, each chamber had those two holes [draws a square into the snow]”.

This is all rather confusing, and I will point out again here that I copied Mandelbaum’s statements verbatim from the subtitles. Mandelbaum next pulls a piece of paper out of his briefcase, stating: “The gas chamber looked like this”. With this the camera focuses on a photograph of a shower room with a wooden joist ceiling, a wooden beam running down the center, a door in the back wall, a number of shower heads as well as a light in the ceiling (reproduced below). The shower heads have water pipes connected to them and look genuine. Yet we are told that the gas chamber had concrete walls and a concrete ceiling, why then show a room not even vaguely resembling one of the morgues, i.e. the alleged gas chambers? Needless to say the room displayed in the picture shows nothing resembling the alleged “Kula columns”. In reality, the picture shows the real bath of the “Bad und Desinfektion I” barrack in Majdanek.⁹

Above: The photo shown by Mandelbaum

Mandelbaum goes on:

“They’d see these showers so at first they didn’t know and thought they were real [as the ones in the picture!], but when maybe a quarter of them were inside, and others kept coming in, they’d start feeling that something wasn’t right, so they try and get out but the SS men would beat them over the head with these sticks and push them back in”.

Mandelbaum allegedly arrived in Auschwitz on April 22,1944, less than a month after that the so called Hungarian action began, yet there is not one word from him about Hungarian Jews. Also, this film was made in 2009, more than six decades after the end of the war – surely enough time for Mandelbaum to be well saturated with Holocaust stories. Still, what is startling is that he has some of the basics wrong, and not only that, the narrator’s story is also not even close to the official version.

The narrator then talks about the gassing process, a Olère drawing is shown (naked woman and children in a room, a SS guard at the door), and we are told that the condemned sometimes had to wait up to 13 minutes for the gas to be dropped in, another first. Mandelbaum describes:

“They gave a signal from above and put in 6 cans of gas through the hole [singular], people struggling for air, they’d breathe fitfully [how could he know this?] and then, still standing, they’d die in 20 or 30 minutes”.

While the motif of the still-standing corpses frequently appear in Treblinka testimonies, this is the first time I have heard it applied to the alleged gas chamber victims of Auschwitz-Birkenau. As for the time required for the victims to die, we are here told “20 or 30 minutes”, whereas Höß states 3-10 minutes, depending on the weather (NO-1210), 3-15 minutes (IMT) and “After 20 minutes at the most no movement could be detected” (Memoirs). It is hard to tell which hat Mandelbaum pulled the “20 or 30 minutes” out of. Mandelbaum continues:

“The gas worked like this: When there were a lot of people inside, humidity increased in the showers because of the breathing and the Zyklon dissolved with this humidity”.

Still no mention of the crucial Kula columns.

The narrator goes on:

“After about half an hour, what the SS called ‘the great thunder’ [another new motif], the mayhem of people dying, the chamber became silent…After opening the doors [no time given] to let the gas out…”.

What happened to the ventilators, the “electric air conditioners” mentioned in NO-1210, or as described in the memoirs: “The door was opened a half an hour after the gas was thrown in and the ventilation system was turned on”. The ventilators are an important part of the story, why forget to mention it here and tell us that the gas was let out through the doors? And they wonder why Revisionists exist…

The narration continues:

“The average lifespan of a Sonderkommando was about 60 days, sometimes more, sometimes less, after which they were executed [Mandelbaum tells us: “What saved me was the decontamination block. Over there, that was the block, a sauna”. He fails to provide details]…They were kept separate. Theirs was the only hut with barbed wire around it, as the Nazis had to maintain absolute secrecy. Hidden knowledge of the gas chambers never leaked out…”.

What is important here is the secrecy issue. We have to remember that at the IMT it was established that only 200-300 people knew about the mass gassings, because not one of the accused had ever heard of this alleged mass murder. Prof. Hilberg was the first one to dismiss this, writing that: “…the Holocaust had been the result of a huge bureaucratic machine with thousands of participants, not the fulfillment of a preconceived plan or a single order by Hitler.”¹⁰ His book The Destruction of the European Jews, published in 1961, was shunned at first, as the part about the knowledge of thousands regarding the Holocaust did not fit the story told at that time. This has changed since then, and we now learn that some 400,000 not only knew about the Holocaust but participated in the killings.¹¹ And therein lies the dilemma for the Holocaust Industry, for if that many would have known about it, all of Germany – in fact the whole world – would have known. But nothing was known, a few rumors and that is about it. Is this why this particular documentary is going back to the original story, to try and explain why practically nothing was known?

Mandelbaum states:

“Twelve thousand of them I think it was [daily], they’d gas them and burn them. In the beginning they used to burn them in crematoria I in Auschwitz, a primitive one. But then, neither Crematoria I, or IV of V could keep up with the influx of transports. They had scheduled transports from all around Europe, right? So they had to build crematoria II and III with 15 furnaces each…Each furnace had a device that sucked in the air, so the corpses burned faster”.

Here again one has to wonder why Mandelbaum is allowed to talk nonsense. When considering the impressive list of sources provided, one would think that obvious mistakes would be corrected by the narrator.¹² Crematoria II was completed first, on March 15,1943, IV on March 22, V on April 4 and III on June 25. All of them were under construction at roughly the same time. Why state that IV and V were in operation, couldn’t handle the load so II and III had to be build? Astoundingly it apparently doesn’t strike Mandelbaum that his statement makes a joke of the enumeration of the building. If he was correct then the crematories IV and V would of course have been designated crematories II and III.

The air sucking device mentioned is also of interest, Prof. van Pelt testified at the Irving trial:

“MR IRVING: ‘Well, they would self-combust? When they were raised to a certain temperature, they would self-combust?’

PROF VAN PELT: ‘That is the idea of a normal incineration.That is the idea of a normal incineration. In Auschwitz, actually, the ovens – the difference between the ovens is that one element which is used in normal ovens is with a heat kind of regenerator in Auschwitz was replaced by compressed air which was blown into the oven. Now - ‘

MR IRVING: ‘Would this account for the drop of normal coke usage from 35 kilograms in the crematorium Gusen concentration camp per body to 3.5 in Auschwitz, in your opinion?’

PROF VAN PELT: ‘Yes…’.”¹³

This description does not make much sense, and neither does Mandelbaum. Blowing air into the muffle would cool it down, blowing it into the fire box would increase coke consumption and produce more heat than the muffles could handle. In the instructions for the ovens it is stated that if the heat in the muffles rises to above 1000° Celsius, then air has to be blown in to cool it down.^xiv

Mandelbaum keeps piling it on with Motl listening and nodding, no questions asked. To list all of it would make this too long, so here will suffice with Mandelbaum’s description of the corpses and the utilization of body fat as fuel:

“Over there, there were a lot of dead men [he points in a general direction], gassed, they couldn’t burn them. But the chamber had to be emptied because the transports kept arriving. They didn’t want the people to see them, they had to keep the place tidy. So for the time being they put them behind the crema, and there they lay over night and the following day too [yet another new detail]. And I saw them in those ditches, there was smoke too and something was on fire and there they pulled those corpses [here is displayed a well known picture of a pile of bodies with multiple limbs, smoke in the background, I call it the spaghetti picture because the bodies are undistinguishable]. They’d bring poles from young trees, 80 or 70 cm cut into four [if this makes sense to anyone, congratulations], and also conifer branches from spruce trees in the woods. On top of this they would lay the dead men [he keeps mentioning only male bodies], then another layer and so forth. They burned fast, but just the legs, the heads and parts of the hips – the thighs – wouldn’t burn, because there is a lot of flesh inside so you need a high temperature. We had those hooks from the armoury made from course wire mesh, so we’d drive them into the thighs and pull them into another ditch. The other reason why the bodies wouldn’t burn is because they were piled on top of one another and there wasn’t enough air coming from the bottom. Every ditch had in the corners these holes [he draws a square in the snow], 40 by 40 or 30 by 30 and 70 or 80 centimeters deep. A normal person didn’t burn when inside those layers. And the fat of the gassed people that didn’t burn flowed into these holes…So the fat would flow into those holes and when they were about ¾ full, we’d scoop out the fat with these types of mugs and pour it over the dead men [again only male corpses are mentioned] so that the fire would flare up and the corpses would burn faster”.

Where to begin? We learn that the Nazis did not want people to see the corpses, yet we are to believe that burning them would not be noticed? As far as the incineration process is concerned, it is clear that Mandelbaum has no clue. What are we to make of the 80 cm or 70 cm poles cut into four? Then the part about the heads and thighs not burning because of too much flesh! What part of the body is flammable, the bones? In fact, there is no mention of ashes or bone fragments. Mandelbaum admits, however, that burning corpses in a ditch will not work because the lack of draught, so here we go again with the fat collection canard. He has the fat flowing into four holes in the corners, while another witness, Filip Müller, has a trench on the bottom of the burning pit with the fat flowing into a hole outside the pit.¹⁵ The concept of the fat reservoirs is nonsense in any case. For one, the fat would ignite as soon as it made contact with the flames.¹⁶ Secondly, how would the Sonderkommando workers get close enough to the raging fire to dip their mugs into the holes?

The description of the incineration ditch leads to the following dialogue:

Motl: “The smell had to be appalling”.

Mandelbaum: “Well, it was burning flesh, just imagine, we worked in those ditches. The wind would start blowing against us, so our eyes were streaming. If I drank a litre of water, I’d loose a litre and a half when my eyes were streaming. We worked without masks. We never had breaks when it rained [M looks at Motl to see if he swallows this too, which he does]”.

And here we have it, this awful smell/stink of burning bodies. The narrator told us before that “hidden knowledge of the gas chambers never leaked out”, but are we to believe that nobody ever wondered what they were burning? And according to our witness, the burning continued even on rainy days. I wonder how the water mixed with the fat in the corner holes.

The narrator gives us an extremely propagandistic version of the evacuation of the camp:

“When it became obvious that the allies were close [“allies” is strange wording, considering that the Red Army was the only force to liberate Auschwitz], the camp and it’s inmates had to be destroyed. The crematoria, the hospital and it’s inmates were all blown up in a desperate attempt to conceal the dreadful legacy. The SS went on a rampage, murdering everybody. Most witnesses were shot or forced to begin their long march west into Germany, a journey on which most were to die. Before the Nazis left Auschwitz on the death march, they executed 98,000 people, including most of the Sonderkommando. Using a combination of luck and ingenuity, Mandelbaum managed to escape from the mass shootings, blending himself into the camp population”.

We have no firm knowledge as to who blew up the crematoria, but the part about the Nazis blowing up the hospital, including the patients, is simply a lie. The same goes for the of 98,000 inmates being killed before the Germans left. The fact is that the inmates were given a choice to either stay and be liberated by the Soviets or go west with the Germans. The majority chose the latter alternative. Here is what Elie Wiesel, perhaps the most prominent Auschwitz eyewitness, has to say concerning the decision to leave with the Germans instead of waiting to be liberated by the Soviets:

“He was lost in thought. The choice was in our hands. For once. We could decide our fate for ourselves. To stay, both of us, in the infirmary, where, thanks to my doctor, he could enter as either a patient or a medic.

I had made up my mind to accompany my father wherever he went.

“Well, Father, what do we do?”

“He was silent.

“Let’s be evacuated with the others,” I said.

He didn’t answer. He was looking at my foot.

“You think you’ll be able to walk?”

“Yes, I think so.”

“Let’s hope we won’t regret it, Eliezer.”¹⁷

Why then tell those obvious lies?

In the last part of the documentary, Mandelbaum questions the existence of God, telling us that he can not “remain a religious person”, because of the millions killed “Nobody knows exactly…the exact figures aren’t known”. He tells us that he made a vow, that if he survived, no details given about his obvious survival, he would speak about “…what I saw with my own eyes”. He copies Elie Wiesel here, who is also adamant that what he states he saw “with his own eyes”. One also wonders why Mandelbaum waited that long to tell his story. There is also the revealing mistakes he mistakes. For example he mentions the women’s camp, claiming that it was called “Canada”, which is erroneous.

The final minutes of Sonderkommando plays in Mandelbaum’s house, to be exact in his garden, where he cultivates many varities of trees. Motl asks him if it is possible to forget Auschwitz, and Mandelbaum answer:

“No, you can not forget a thing like that, it is something I will never forget. As long as I live , I won’t be able to forget, you just can not”.

If his story was in fact believable, one could agree with this. As mentioned at the beginning, Mandelbaum died at the age of 86, a ripe old age I would suggest – many Germans who made it through the war died much younger because of the hardships they suffered.

The importation question, however, is this: Why make a film such as this, with so many inaccuracies and contradictions visavi the official story? Why allow Mandelbaum, as well as the narrator, to make statements contradicting what we are told to believe? Anyone with the slightest bit of subject knowledge has to wonder why this documentary was made. I personally have no clue what the purpose of this is.

Lies have many versions, the Truth but one.