On 11 October 2008 an article appeared in junge Welt, a German daily, titled “Er galt als Amispizel und mußte aus dem Weg geräumt werden“ (He was considered to be an American agent/spy and had to be eliminated), featuring a picture of Adolf Eichmann (I was unable to access the original junge Welt article at this time, available here but for a fee

https://www.jungewelt.de/loginFailed.php?ref=/2008/10-11/001.php ,

the following a link to a copy http://www.kominform.at/article.php/2008101023471245/print ).

The headline continues to say that the article is an interview with Gaby Weber about the mass murderer Adolf Eichmann and that he knew too much about the tripartite dealings (Dreiecksgeschäft) concerning the Israeli atomic bomb. Weber has written a book about what she had uncovered titled chatting with Socrates and followed this up in a radio show on Deutschlandfunk on 4 March of this year (2011). This suggests that here, too, the official version differs from actual events.

Before addressing the Weber research results, let’s review some background on what was known about Adolf Eichmann, and when. He came into prominence at the IMT when, on 14 December 1945, an affidavit by Dr. Wilhelm Höttl was introduced as evidence (Document 2738-PS; Exhibit USA-269), in which Eichmann was mentioned. Here is part of the presentation by Major Walsh at the IMT:

“I do wish, however, to offer one document, a statement, to establish the deaths of 4 million Jews in camps and deaths of 2 million Jews by the State Police in the East, making a total of 6 million- Document 2738-PS, Exhibit USA-296. This is a statement of Adolf Eichmann, Chief of the Jewish Section of the Gestapo, and the source of the figures quoted — made by Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl, Deputy Group Leader of the foreign section of the Security Police Amt IV of the RSHA.

Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl, in affidavit form, made the following statement; and I quote from page 2:

“Approximately 4 million Jews had been killed in the various concentration camps, while an additional 2 million met death in other ways, the major part of which were shot by operational squads of the Security Police during the campaign against Russia.” (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/12-14-45.asp, p. 569)

This was sort of confirmed by Captain Dieter Wisliceny who, on 3 January 1946, testified at the IMT:

“WISLICENY: Eichmann personally always talked about at least 4 million Jews. Sometimes he even mentioned 5 million. According to my own estimate I should say that at least 4 million must have been destined for the so-called final solution. How many of those actually survived, I am not in a position to say.” (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/01-03-46.asp, p. 371)

Incidentally, this does not establish as fact the deaths of 6 million Jews. But we are not concerned here with fallacious IMT figures; instead, we are concerned with what was known both by and of Eichmann and when. While he was mentioned a few more times at the IMT, an arrest warrant was not issued until 1956. Moreover, Höttl never appeared in court nor was he ever cross-examined. Rudolf Höß, first Auschwitz camp commandant, also mentioned Eichmann in his memoirs, allegedly written while incarcerated in Poland. The following is from Death Dealer: The Memoirs of the SS Kommandant at Auschwitz, edited by Steven Paskuly and translated by Andrew Pollinger, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1992, pp. 27-29:

“In the summer of 1941, I am unable to recall the exact date, I was suddenly ordered by Himmler’s adjutant to report directly to the Reichsführer SS 1. in Berlin…Himmler greeted me with the following: ‘The Führer has ordered the Final Solution of the Jewish question. We the SS have to carry out this order…You will learn the further details through Major [Adolf] Eichmann of the RSHA [Reich Security Headquarters], who will soon visit you’…A short time after that Eichmann came to see me at Auschwitz…Eichmann wanted to find a gas that was easy to produce and one that would require no special installations; he then would report back to me. We drove around the Auschwitz area to locate a suitable place. We thought the farmhouse at the northwest corner of Birkenau near planned Section III would be suitable. 6. The house had been abandoned, and it was hidden from view by the surrounding trees and bushes and not too far from the railroad. The bodies could be buried in long, deep pits in the nearby meadows. We didn’t think about burning them at this time…”

This sounds like it was copied from a comic strip, but that’s also not the issue here. According to this, Eichmann was involved in the “final solution,” the alleged mass murder of Jews, his name and role known, yet no effort was made to find him! He lived in Germany until 1950, “unbehelligt” (undisturbed) according to Weber, and only left for Argentina that year. He entered Argentina under a false name, but his children registered in school under their real name and were also registered under their correct name at the German embassy. One has to wonder how this was possible: the “architect” of the “final solution” never bothered or pursued. At his trial he came across as an official doing his job, prompting Hannah Arendt to write about “the banality of evil”. It is true that Eichmann organized the transportation of Jews to various camps, but he also helped them emigrate.

Höttl, in his book Secret Service (Enigma books New York 2003 [I was unable to obtain an original 1953 edition]), had this to say about Eichmann:

“When Eichmann left for Berlin, where I was also transferred, I stayed in touch with him, since I repeatedly needed favors from him.

How is it possible that someone, who until that point could only be accused of expelling tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, out of Germany, even though applying methods that were not always decent, would “turn around” from one day to another and hand over the Jews (who stayed behind to their death) with the same fanaticism and unfortunately also with the same talent for organization? True, before that Eichmann zealously defended his plans to settle the European Jews on Madagascar — even Napoleon had a similar plan — or in Poland, in an empty space near Nisko on the San River…” (emphasis added; p. 308)

Before that, Höttl goes into detail about Eichmann saving “trustworthy Jews”, but then he allegedly made a “turn around” and delivered them to their death. Quite the story! Very little has been written about Eichmann before his capture, not even the Institut für Zeitgeschichte, normally a good source, seems to have concerned itself with Eichmann (publishing of their quarterlies, Viertlejahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte [VfZ] started in 1953). In 1965, an article titled “Hannah Arendt, Eichmann und die Kritiker (H. Arendt, Eichmann and the critics) appeared. The author, Hans E. Holthusen,  performed a tightrope act so as not to ‘offend’ Arendt (VfZ 1965, Heft 2, pp. 179-190). Only in 1981 was Eichmann mentioned again, in Eichmann und die Nisko-Aktion im Oktober 1939, by Seev Goshen. (Jahrgang 29, 1981, Heft 1, pp. 74-96).

S. Wiesenthal writes:

“Seit dem Frühjahr 1959 waren in verschiedenen israelischen Zeitungen gelegentlich Berichte über die wichtige Rolle, die Eichmann bei der Judenvernichtung gespielt hatte, erschienen, in denen auch die Wichtigkeit der Suche nach ihm unterstrichen wurde…“(Simon Wiesenthal, Ich jagte Eichmann, Im Bertelsmann Lesering 1961, p. 302)

(Since spring 1959, articles appeared in various Israeli newspapers about the important role Eichmann played in the destruction of the Jews, and that finding him is of utmost importance.)

It is now alleged that Wiesenthal was a Mossad agent (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/famous-nazi-hunter-was-a-mossad-agent-new-book-reveals-1.311612) and should have known where Eichmann was. He claimed he didn’t and never found him. Why not? (More on this later.) What is also of note is that, according to Wiesenthal, the Israelis “discovered” Eichmann only in the spring of 1959 – astonishing! — confirming that Eichmann was of little concern re. his alleged role in the “final solution” before his capture and trial.

This seems to have given at least one historian reason to revisit Eichmann. In a Die Welt article of 4 April 2011, titled “Eichmann zog in Jerusalem eine perfide Show ab” (“Eichmann gave a perfidious performance at Jerusalem”) http://www.welt.de/kultur/history/article13063495/Eichmann-zog-in-Jerusalem-eine-perfide-Show-ab.html we learn that Bettina Stangeth, a German philosopher and historian has written a book, Eichmann vor Jerusalem. Das unbehelligte Leben eines Massenmörders (“Eichmann before Jerusalem. The undisturbed life of a mass murderer”). In the ensuing interview, Stangeth tells us that Eichmann knew perfectly well what he was doing, participating willingly and enthusiastically in the murder of Jews, contradicting what Arendt wrote. But Stangeth was careful to downplay the contradiction. Why this book now? Could it be that Gaby Weber opened a can of worms? Stangeth also tried to gain access to the Eichmann files, but unsuccessfully.

Stangeth continues by informing the interviewer that Eichmann was not a “desk murderer” (Schreibtischmörder), but that he knew from day one what was happening and that at the IMT his name was well known; thus, one has to wonder how he managed to convince people of the opposite just fifteen years later. She then talks about the “Argentina papers”, the notes made during talks by Germans in Argentina, recorded by Wilhelm Sassen. The interviewer then states that when those talks took place, the German Secret Service (BND) knew where he was…, Stangeth interrupts to say that the CIA knew as well, she had been able to examine the “alleged” (angebliche) BND Eichmann file. When asked why alleged, she replies that she knows that there is more to it, for much is missing and that is obvious. The CIA file contains copies of BND files, but the originals are not to be found in the BND files. In fact, the file about Eichmann before Jerusalem contains only 20 pages. However, according to Stangeth, Bild, a German daily, published a file copy in January proving that the BND already knew in 1952 where Eichmann was. And, Stangeth continues, she discovered hints from the activities of the Gehlen organization and the BND that could lead to risky speculations, but that she is not in the speculation business. Still, since the chancellery has made an effort to extend the period of closure for the Eichmann files — the reason given that releasing them would damage Germany’s image — she reckons that her suspicions are well founded.

Stangeth is suggesting here that the BND acted independently, which is nonsense. If any one of the former National Socialist (NS) officials in the Adenauer government would not have been acceptable to the allies, he would have been removed. Maser wrote that Gehlen, Chief of German Foreign Armies East during WWII, was made head of the BND (1956-1968) at the insistence of the American occupying forces (W. Maser, Fälschung, Dichtung und Wahrheit, Olzog 2004, p. 281). Valentin Falin, a former Soviet insider, writes that the Americans were able to obtain enormous amounts of NS files, some from the last Hitler HQ “Olga” stored in secret depots, containing information on how “Nazis” were channeled into foreign countries. The microfilms supplied by General Gehlen were only a small part of the information they were able to obtain (V. Falin, Zweite Front, Droemer/Knaur 1995, p. 12). Thus the Americans, who were in charge in Germany, knew most of what there was to know; it was impossible for Germans to act independently. Also, Kilzer hints at the possibility that Gehlen might have made contact with the Western Allies during the war. (Louis Kilzer, Hitler’s Traitor, Presidio Press Inc. 2000, pp. 266-69) Was his appointment in return for services rendered during the war? Germany is still not an independent state; it has no peace treaty. In a Spiegel Online interview of 20 February 2011, Jutta Ditfurth, cofounder of the Green Party, mentioned that while addressing an audience at Georgetown University in Washington in 1987, one of the attendees, a former Berlin commandant, told her during the ensuing debate that if the US would not have wanted a Green Party, there would be no Green Party (http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,745943,00.html).

This shows that Americans are still in control of what is happening in Germany.

Back to Eichmann. In a declassified document, a “Foreign Service Dispatch of February 7. 1961, Subject: The Eichmann Trial and the Allegations Against State Secretary Dr. Globke. A conversation with Hessian Attorney General Fritz Bauer” we read:

“The following main points emerged in private conversations January 30 with Hessian Attorney General Fritz Bauer (SPD),…and who has recently visited Israel on several occasions in connection with the forthcoming trial of EICHMANN, in whose apprehension by Israeli Agents in Argentina last year he played a definite, though still obscure role, and with whom he talked in Israel in early January:

2) That the Israeli government was going slowly with the Eichmann trial in general, and would go particularly slowly with damaging allegations against prominent West Germans during the trial, for political and diplomatic reasons which Bauer himself accepts as fully valid;…During the conversation, Bauer clammed up completely on questions regarding the method of Eichmann’s apprehension and his part in it (beyond admitting the latter), which he called “irrelevant historical questions…”.

The report is signed by Consul Wayland B. Wuters. “Apprehended by Israeli Agents”, not Mossad and the promise that the Israeli government would go slowly for “political and diplomatic reasons”? Also, Bauer would not debouch any details about the capture of Eichmann. The Dr. Globke issue is not the topic here, but as mentioned above, he would not have been in the Adenauer government if the Americans, and perhaps the Israelis too, had not wanted him there.

This then brings us to Gaby Weber, a German journalist reporting from Buenos Aires — Berlin.

The following is from the Deutschlandfunk radio-show of 4 March 2011, Weber has updated her material since the junge Welt interview of 11 October 2008. Here is the link to the radio show transcript: www.gabyweber.com, click on AKTUELLES on top and an English download on Eichmann is available.

The title of the radio show is Die Entführungs-Legende, oder wie kam Eichmann nach Jerusalem, by Gaby Weber (“The legend of the kidnapping, or how did Eichmann get to Jerusalem?”). The transcript begins (the English translation leaves a little to be desired, but is accurate in essence):

“Author: April 1961. In Jerusalem, the trial of SS Lieutenant Colonel Adolf Eichmann, the Organizer of the deportations to Nazi death camps, began. This dominated the headlines of the world’s public for months.

Almost a year before, on 11 May 1960, the Israeli Foreign Intelligence Service had kidnapped Eichmann from his hideout in Buenos Aires. Three of these Mossad agents, among them their chief, Isser Harel, wrote books on their “heroic deeds”. Today, the world’s press repeats their version. But it has long been known that Eichmann’s hideout had already been leaked at the beginning of the 50s. What lies behind the legends about this abduction and trial? Do they really only have to do with the crimes of National Socialism? Was not perhaps Hans Globke, Chancellor Adenauer’s right-hand man and commentator of the Nuremberg Race Laws, involved? What were the relationships at the time of the Eichmann trial between Chancellor Adenauer and Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion? What role did the most important intelligence services of the Cold War, the CIA and the KGB, play in this? Why many documents are in this case still kept secret? And might there perhaps even be a military link?

For years I have been driven to seek answers to these questions in both interviews and archives. Finally, after taking the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND)—the German Intelligence Agency, to court, they finally had to grant me some insight, albeit partial, into all of this [...].”

There are quite a few issues raised, most addressed in the show, but, going into detail here would drag this out too much, and is not really the issue: is what we are told true or just another lie? Weber also mentions her trials and tribulations with the BND; she was finally given some files, many blackened or whited-out and nothing really of consequence. Stangeth confirms this. As for the kidnapping, we read on p. 18 from a CIA file (my translation from the German original):

“The security branch Shin Bet (Internal Secret) took Eichmann into custody in mid-May. The Israeli Attorney General Rosen was not informed until Eichmann was on route to Israel on an airplane between Buenos Aires and Dakar. He was told that Eichmann was to be taken directly to Israel from Dakar. Vladimir Belchenko, a Russian diplomat in Israel, mentioned a “deal” between Eichmann and the Israeli government, the latter hoping for a boost to its image. And furthermore, the security services is expecting a budget increase for their “capture” of Eichmann. (back to the original translation)

Speaker:

“The CIA puts the word “capture” in quotation marks …

Author:

But what interest had the U.S. government in Eichmann’s capture? Where did he get in their way? Quote from the BND:

“Eichmann had contacts with Soviet intelligence and was to be transferred at the same moment as Khrushchev was proposing that the SBZ (Soviet Occupation Zone = GDR) should abandon all co-operation with former National Socialist members. Eichmann has prepared a comprehensive roster of former Nazis currently in the service of Pankow, including 220 members of the East Zone KP (Communist Party), most importantly Trade Minister Merkel, Minister of Agriculture Reichelt, President of the Supreme Court of the GDR Schumann, and General Müller”

Speaker:

The note is dated 4 June 1960, shortly after Eichmann’s arrest. The source is given as Intelligent Agent 5473, who refers this to “French Circles.”

Author:

“…to be transferred at the same moment “The words ‘same moment’ refer to the Paris Summit in May 1960. But what the Soviets had meant by the word “transfer,” (Überfuhrung) and what exactly their plans for Eichmann were, are not known to this day [...]”

Again, there are many issues here, but it appears that Mossad was not directly involved as is claimed. And what about the deal between Eichmann and the Israelis, as referred to by Belchenko? Eichmann was in touch with the Russians as well? Then we have General Müller, is this “Gestapo Müller”? And finally, “Trade Minister Merkel”: any relation(s) to Chancellor Merkel?

Here’s a little about Globke, who wrote a legal commentary on the new Reich Citizenship Law (“Nuremberg Laws”) and who keeps popping up, as he was apparently involved in forging the deal. As mentioned above, anyone suspected of trying to further a “Nazi” initiative would not have been allowed in office. The Americans saw to that. Also, Rolf Vogel, a Mischling who had a Jewish mother, and was referred to by Weber as the go-between for the Germans and Israelis, suggests that Globke should be honored as a “righteous gentile” for trying to help Jews. Globke dealt with every Jewish case brought to him personally, thus helping to save Jews. And, Robert Kempner, the “unrelenting” (unnachsichtige) prosecutor never bothered Globke. (Ein Stempel hat gefehlt, Droemer Knaur 1977, pp. 12-15). Vogel also mentions a meeting he had with Adenauer in a Jerusalem hotel in 1966, with Adenauer inviting him to his room (pp. 100-101). This raises another question: Who was Adenauer and why was he picked as first chancellor of postwar Germany? Richard M. Watt wrote re. the efforts made by the French at Versailles to establish the Rhenish Province (the German territory on the left side of the Rhine river) under French protection:

“(*) There seems to be no doubt that Konrad Adenauer, then the burgomaster of Cologne and a prominent political figure in the Rhineland, took a leading (although cautious) role in the encouragement of Rhenish separatism. He was in frequent contact with Dorten and certainly did nothing to discourage Dorten’s efforts (see King, Jere Clemens, Foch versus Clemenceau, pp. 32—37). Clemenceau in his “Grandeur and Misery of Victory”, published in 1930, States flatly (p. 209) that “the Burgomaster of Cologne, Herr Adenauer, had become the leader of the movement.” Subsequently, in 1956 Adenauer denied any connection whatever with the Separatist movement (see King, p. 33). (The Kings Depart, Simon and Schuster, New York 1968, p. 433, footnote *)

Was Herr Adenauer also rewarded for services (almost) rendered? Now, back to Weber and just a little about the deal re. the Israeli atomic bomb (details provided in the transcript, the link provided above).

“Speaker:

The main goal on the political agenda of the Israeli government at that time was: an atomic bomb. The U.S. did not wish to help since their Laws prohibited the manufacture of nuclear weapons for other states.

Ben Gurion thus first asked the French for help. And they offered a commitment for the construction of the Dimona reactor in the Negev desert. But U.S. President Eisenhower exerted pressure on Paris, and Charles De Gaulle had to back down. Instead, he brought the West Germans into play.

Author:

Would Bonn, after all that Germany had done to the European Jews, be able to reject the wishes of Jerusalem?

Speaker:

In December 1959, a high-level delegation of German Nuclear scientists, including Otto Hahn, President of the Max Planck Society in Göttingen, and nuclear physicist Wolfgang Gentner, travelled to the Israeli Weizmann Institute. Both had worked on the “wonder weapon” (Wunderwaffe) in Hitler’s “Uranium Group” (Uranverein). And four months later, the Cabinet granted three million marks from the budget of the Atomic Energy Ministry, for nuclear cooperation with Israel. The raw material – uranium – was sourced in Argentina, who gave a total of 116 tons of so-called “yellow cake” to Israel. Now only the money needed to build the nuclear reactor itself had to be found.

On 14 March 1960, two months before the kidnapping of Eichmann from Buenos Aires, Adenauer and Ben Gurion met in New York. It was a harmonious meeting, wrote the press—a breakthrough to almost “normal” diplomatic relations. The mass murder of the Jews was fifteen years ago, in 1952 the “Reconciliation Agreement” had been completed—destitute Jewish refugees in Israel would be helped to the tune of 3.5 billion DM.

Author:

Adenauer and Ben Gurion agreed in New York to: “Operation Business Friend” (Aktion Geschäftsfreund).

Speaker:

Excerpt from a memo from Karl Carstens, Secretary of State at the Foreign Office.

Citation:

“During the meeting of the Chancellor with Mr. Ben Gurion in New York, was discussed the matter of German development aid to Israel. The Chancellor agreed to Development Assistance, on a commercial basis, in the form of a loan of DM 200 million per year pledged over ten years. Other meetings between the Chancellor, Minister Erhard, and State Secretary Globke were conducted, and these concluded with an understanding whereby the first portion of this year’s allocation, namely 85 million DM, would be released in June and July.”

Author:

The payment was for a “development project in the Negev desert.” There, the Dimona Nuclear Plant was under construction, including its hidden underground facilities…Ben Gurion received from Bonn 630 million D-Mark for the nuclear reactor…”

Conclusion

It seems that German tax money was used to build Dimona and that German scientists helped the Israelis obtain the atomic bomb. Did Eichmann play a role in this? Argentinean whereabouts of Eichmann were known to the BND and the CIA at the beginning of the 50s, with Mossad no doubt also informed. Bauer, during his conversation with the American Consul Wuters, claims to have been involved in the capture of Eichmann. Wuters writes about Bauer: “The reporting officer suspects, though he can in no way document his supposition, that Bauer may well be connected in some high-ranking capacity with the Israeli Intelligence Service in West Germany.” Yet Wiesenthal, who was hunting Eichmann, could not find him, and it seems that Wiesenthal was also close to Mossad. The whole of the Eichmann files at the BND are still inaccessible, which both Gaby Weber and Bettina Stangneth confirm. Why? If Eichmann had been the mass murderer, as claimed, why was he not apprehended earlier? If he was a mass murderer and had no other role to play in Argentina, he would have been “found” like all the other so-called “mass murderers” of Jews.

When reading what Eichmann allegedly wrote while incarcerated in Jerusalem, I write allegedly because we have no way of confirming that he indeed wrote this, he comes across as someone genuinely interested in helping the Jews. Höttl also alludes to this albeit in a roundabout way. Also, the Nisko undertaking could be used to confirm it (VfZ 1981, Heft 1, Eichmann und die Nisko-Aktion im Oktober 1939), even though the author presents it in a negative perspective. As for the trial, here is what Bauer told Wuters during their conversation:

“In fact however, there was little reason for anyone in Bonn to lay awake nights, worrying about the Eichmann trial, as the press was speculating. No one in the Israeli government, least of all BEN GURION himself, Bauer went on, wanted to complicate or in any way exacerbate German-Israeli relations. These were, on the whole, viewed as developing favorably by the Israelis…Bauer did not think that Israel would be in any sort of a hurry with the Eichmann trial, on the contrary; nor did he think the trial would be particularly sensational. He seems to feel all parties involved would “behave wisely” and that Ben Gurion’s main aim would be to secure “historical light” for internal educational purposes within Israel (“Ben Gurion thinks the new generation in Israel is as unbelieving of Jewish passivity in the face of mass murder as the new generation in Germany is unbelieving of mass German guilt”, Bauer said”) [...]”.

Why would anyone “behave wisely” during a murder trial? This whole Eichmann saga raises more questions than can be answered. Would the Israelis have used Eichmann if he was the mass murderer of Jews as is alleged? No. We know that Walter Rauff was used by the Israeli secret service, raising serious doubts as to his alleged involvement in the gas van story. (http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/in-the-service-of-the-jewish-state-1.216923)

Would the Germans have been able to act on their own initiative in helping the Israelis to get the atomic bomb? No. Eichmann was hanged, his body cremated and his ashes scattered at sea, leaving no way to confirm anything. Incidentally, the remains of bin Laden’s body were also recently (allegedly) scattered at sea. What is clear is that there is more to the Eichmann story than meets the eye, and one has to congratulate Gaby Weber for digging this up. Will we ever know what really happened? I doubt it.

4 September 2011.

Samuel Crowell; The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes, and Other Writings on the Holocaust, Revisionism, and Historical Understanding; Nine-Banded Books, PO Box 1862, Charleston, WV 25327 (www.ninebandedbooks.com); 2011, 401 pp.

Carlo Mattogno; Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity, two vols.; The Barnes Review, PO Box 15877, Washington, DC 20003 (www.BarnesReview.org), 1-877-773-9077 toll free; 2010, 756 pp. total

These two very recent books evidence the maturity of the field of Holocaust revisionism.

Carlo Mattogno, together with his long-time colleague Jürgen Graf and, more recently, Thomas Kues (familiar to readers of this newsletter) are among the most energetic and productive revisionists working today. They have accumulated a wealth of documentary material with long, presumably self-financed, trips to the various archives, especially in eastern Europe.

Mattogno has published a number of books and articles on Auschwitz, the core of the “Holocaust” legend, and this two-volume work is the most recent. Past readers of IHR’s Journal of Historical Review and Germar Rudolf’s The Revisionist may recall that I have occasionally clashed with Mattogno. I do have a problem with Mattogno’s writings and, partly because I have already read many of them, and partly for reasons I shall presently elucidate, I did not read these recent two volumes in their entirety.

A major reason I did not read all of Mattogno’s books is simply that I have great trouble following his arguments and, even after taking all that time and trouble, I can feel I have been left in the lurch.

Our most recent clash was on the subject of a document showing the Auschwitz construction department attempting to get cyanide gas detectors from the oven manufacturer Topf for use in a crematorium then under construction. Pressac and others had held this document up as proving the existence of gas chambers in the crematoria. Those wishing to revisit that exchange can see my original article[i], Mattogno’s original article[ii], and the Butz-Mattogno exchange.[iii] It suffices to say that Mattogno’s theory was that the document “was falsified by an ignorant forger”, while I speculated that the wish for cyanide gas detectors arose from a waste incinerator that shared ducts with the crematorium ovens. We agreed that Zyklon was not involved, as there was a special department at Auschwitz for that, which had all the cyanide detectors needed for that application.

It was therefore with great interest that I read his new discussion of the alleged gas detectors, which is admirable for its copious documentation. It takes 22 pages but, mainly because Mattogno’s trains of thought contrast so much with mine, I found the going rough. It seemed that Mattogno was coming around to my theory, with the change that a cyanide danger was seen in the cremations (I had never encountered an association of cyanide with cremation). I say it “seemed” because throughout the considerable labor of reading this section it was not clear where he was headed, but that’s okay if the matter is clarified in the end. Twice (pp 94, 107) he promised to “furnish an alternative explanation” to the interpretation of Pressac et.al.. He did not consider the possible involvement of the waste incinerator.

I was to be disappointed as he suddenly, and without warning, concluded his analysis with this single paragraph (p. 114):

For all these reason [sic] the Topf letter of March 2, 1943, is at least suspicious. Although it seems formally authentic, its content is utterly untenable.

What does that mean? I don’t know. If anything, Mattogno appears to want to come back to his original claim of falsification, but perhaps understands that the evidence gives no support to such a conclusion, so he has left the matter in confusion. He did not “furnish an alternative explanation”.

Thus I warn that the fruits of the reader’s considerable labor may be more in learning the relevant documents than in formulating reliable conclusions. In knowledge of the documents, Mattogno seems to have no peer. You will come away from the section I have discussed knowing more about the application of Zyklon at Auschwitz than you ever needed to know.

Much of Samuel Crowell’s book is about Auschwitz, though his aim is to consider all the major features of Holocaust legend; in that respect his work is comparable to my 1976 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. His book is copiously documented. I read the whole volume, and am much happier with both Crowell’s conclusions and his means of reaching them than I am with Mattogno’s, on those matters common to both works. I believe Crowell’s work is of basic and abiding importance in untangling what I have called the “Hoax”.

Crowell has an additional objective missing in Mattogno. He presents a genesis of the legend, even examining the early 20^th century for cultural developments that could have given rise to fears of gas chambers. His main thrust appears to be (p. 151) “The gassing claim as a mass delusion . . . . as a cultural construct . . . . created by, and reinforced by, delusional pressures of social and cultural change as well as by censorship.” That is, the claim was created by society and history, or a natural evolution of society, rather than by intent of specific persons.

Here I shall, before coming to my main objection, criticize a major point in Crowell’s presentation, namely, his disdain for the “hoax” and “conspiracy” interpretations of the legend, though he gives limited approval to the hoax thesis (p 155):

It would probably be better to say that, if the claim is a hoax, then surely a hoax of limited participation, and we should emphasize the number of those deceived, rather than the small number of those deceiving.

Why? Everybody knows the number of those deceived, namely almost everybody, and the number of those deceiving is therefore necessarily small, and there remains only the questions who, how, and why, questions that this reviewer will further examine.

Earlier in the book Crowell advanced his theory with another concession (p. 42): “while we continue to maintain that most of the elements in the gassing story arose more or less spontaneously and were just as spontaneously believed, at Majdanek we are confronted with grim evidence of a deliberate Soviet hoax.” As for the claim of gas chambers at Auschwitz, he remarks (p. 133) “there is a strong likelihood of a Polish and Soviet communist hoax in developing this particular evidence.” The concession is most interesting in terms of who is missing as a perpetrator, whom I shall presently identify.

Later in the book he denigrates “conspiracy theory” much as our major media do (pp. 357ff):

. . . . the human mind will seek to create causal nexuses for events that seem arbitrary and capricious, especially when they are destructive on a grand scale. To this extent the human mind is always potentially schizophrenic: perceiving a world full of confusing and unpredictable action, yet understood by a mind that refuses to accept a lack of pattern or structure. When Einstein wrote to Max Born and declared that God “does not throw dice,” he was speaking not as a scientist but as Everyman.

I beg to differ: Einstein was speaking as a scientist to another scientist. His resistance as a scientist to much of modern physics, which his remark related to, is well known. Indeed finding “pattern or structure” in creating “causal nexuses for events that seem arbitrary and capricious”, though perceiving only “a world full of confusing and unpredictable action”, is called “science”.

As for definitions, that which is “confidential cooperation” to you may be “conspiracy” to me. That is, the notion of conspiracy depends on point of view. We may say my definition of conspiracy is “confidential cooperation Butz doesn’t like”.

We can agree with Crowell, for the sake of discussion, that “conspiracy theory”, as distinct from “conspiracy”, is a claim, not supported by evidence sufficient for proof, of the existence of some conspiracy. The lack of proof, of course, is the basis for the ridicule that our media heap on the dissident conspiracy theorists. Where I part with Crowell is on the value of conspiracy theory. While some conspiracy theories are of course ridiculous, the possibility of hypothesizing conspiracies is vital to arriving at truth.

Here is an example. A police inspector, trying to solve a crime, conjectures that two or more characters may have collaborated in that crime. How does he investigate the conjecture? An important feature of his conjecture would be a hypothesis on specifically how the two or more suspects collaborated to commit the crime, because that hypothesis would guide him in seeking evidence that would, if it is found, confirm the conjecture. Without the hypothesis, the investigation would be unguided. That hypothesis, of course, is a “conspiracy theory”. The police inspector has two luxuries: official investigative power and that he need not reveal his hypothesis until he has the proof.

Public debate on matters of general concern does not allow that; there is normally no way to test the theory other than by throwing it out into the public arena. Should those who suspected a conspiracy involving President Nixon, before the Watergate tapes were released, have kept their mouths shut? I don’t think so.

I argued in my Hoax book that the “Holocaust”, in its canonical “gas chamber” form, has Auschwitz as its center and the document I called the “WRB Report” (since it was first published by Henry Morgenthau’s War Refugee Board), at its foundation. I made it clear in Hoax, Ch. III, that the War Refugee Board was a Jewish operation designed to help Jews, despite the neutrality of its name.

A preliminary version of the WRB Report had been reported by the NY Times on 3 July 1944 and on 26 Nov. 1944 the Times reported publication of the Report by the WRB, more than two months before the Soviets captured Auschwitz.

The WRB Report is also sometimes referred to, today, as the “Auschwitz Protocol”. In the book and elsewhere I noted the strong presence of truth in the document, e.g. the transport lists, which well approximate those later published by the Auschwitz Museum and which, as I said at the end of my Ch. III,  “is not the sort of information escapees would carry out”. As for the rest of the WRB Report, it closely approximates the present orthodox presentation of the gas chamber yarn, according to which gas chambers employing Zyklon were integrated into the crematoria. The knowledgeable, and I stress “knowledgeable”, authors therefore gave us a hoax.

What does Crowell say about the WRB Report? Very little, but it is important. He considers the document USSR-8 presented by the Soviet Union at the big Nuremberg trial (the IMT), as the foundation of the legend (pp. 58ff), noting the WRB Report was not presented (p 62). However Crowell also remarks that the Soviet report was influenced by the WRB Report, and also by a 2 Feb. 1945 report by the Soviet journalist Boris Polevoi (p. 48). He does not note that Polevoi was a Jew on his mother’s side. The Soviet report, having been written a year after the WRB Report by the Soviets who had captured the camp and many of its documents, of course contained more detail, but the Soviets were well instructed beforehand on what they were supposed to find there.

Actually, one page of the WRB Report was put in evidence in the IMT trial[iv]. Moreover, the Höss testimony, given originally, and under duress, to Jewish interrogators while in British captivity, had far more impact in the trial and in the press, and well into the postwar years, than either the Soviet report or the WRB Report.[v] Crowell notes (p. 77) that Höss’ statements “speak with great authority to most historians”.

The relative inattention to the WRB Report at the IMT could have been due to a number of things, e.g. an impossibility of producing the authors, or a decision to let the Soviet Union star in this matter, or simply because Auschwitz was on territory conquered by the Soviet Union.

It may be asked, why must the happenings at the IMT settle this? A hoax need not be something presented in a trial, but I think Crowell is right to focus in this way on the IMT; it provided the basis for all future presentations of the legend. Indeed trials have always been crucial in advancing or supporting the legend, a situation that alone should arouse suspicion in reflective historians. A recent example is the Irving-Lipstadt trial (2000).

The WRB Report played a role in the Eichmann trial (1961). The names (Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler) later allegedly used by the two escapees were given there.[vi] Vrba was a cousin of Vera Atkins, who was to inspire the Miss Moneypenny character in the James Bond stories, but who was a British intelligence agent during the war, indeed one of Höss’ Jewish interrogators.[vii] Small world! Or perhaps we should say “All In the Family”. Vrba published his alleged memoirs in 1964 and testified at Ernst Zündel’s trial in Canada in 1985.[viii] It is the WRB Report that has had both a wartime and postwar life; the Soviet Union’s report has been forgotten. Interest in the WRB Report faded in the first three postwar decades but has risen in recent years. It is the foundation for what I called the Hoax and it is clear that it was created, and has been sustained, by the Jewish entity, especially in its Zionist manifestation, despite the many absurdities and contradictions in the accounts of Rudolf Vrba.

I have to add that I don’t know what individuals actually composed the WRB Report. What is clear is that it came from Jewish circles.

That brings us to my “main objection”: Crowell does not present the Jews as important actors in the genesis of the legend. Indeed they don’t do much more than get killed. There being no hoaxer identified in this book, it can be difficult to see a hoax.

Reconsider, as Crowell would have us, the Nuremberg trials. They were a Jewish festival, conducted under the auspices of the USA in the US zone of occupation in Germany. At the IMT, the Soviets, British and French were just guests in a US-staged show. President Franklin “Clear It With Sidney” Roosevelt[ix] was closely associated with the Jews. During the war he enlisted the support of the Jewish gangster Meyer Lansky via their mutual friend the Jew Walter Winchell, then the most influential columnist in the US.[x] Roosevelt’s secret emissary to the dictator-gangster Fulgencio Batista in Cuba was Lansky.[xi]

Roosevelt tasked his close Jewish associate Samuel Rosenman to lay the foundation of the “war crimes” trials, fighting off a British preference to just shoot the Nazi leaders unceremoniously, in favor of the show that was eventually staged in Nuremberg.[xii] What the Soviet Union did there, with its variation or embellishment of the basic materials of the WRB Report, was part of this Jewish festival. The star of the show was Rudolf Höss, acting out a script written for him by Jews. I said much about the Jewish involvement in the Nuremberg trials in my Hoax book, especially in Chs. I, III, V.

What is sorely missing in Crowell’s book is the Jew as actor or, in terms Crowell quotes, as exercising “deliberate agency” (p. 358) in creating and sustaining the hoax. This absence seems to be deliberate. In discussing the various statements made by or attributed to Höss (pp. 75-83), Crowell references (note 298 on p. 76) Robert Faurisson’s paper, cited above, on the interrogations of Höss while in British custody. I consider Faurisson’s paper the basic study of the Höss testimony problem, but Crowell remarks with obvious disapproval that Faurisson preferred “to stress the Jewish identity” of the interrogators. I say “obvious disapproval” because only the unusual reader alert to such footnotes could infer from Crowell’s section that Höss’ tormentors were Jews. From that I must infer that Crowell considers it irrelevant or at least unimportant that the Höss testimony was obtained under duress applied by Jews. Moreover to Crowell it seems (p. 81) Höss’ interrogators were “acting more or less in good faith”!

In summary both the Crowell book and the Mattogno volumes, and probably Mattogno’s earlier works, are indispensable additions to the revisionist library, but both must be read with care and reserve, as indeed all historical works should. I have had to criticize Crowell’s treatment of the genesis of the legend, because I think it very seriously flawed. That does not diminish my admiration for his analysis of the documents purporting to prove the existence of “gas chambers”. It’s the bad things the book reviewer has to give space to; the author gives space to the good things.

In concluding I want to express my great satisfaction with developments of the past 40 years, at the outset of which I wandered alone in the desert. We are not yet in the land of milk and honey, but we are in a land of plenty and these books prove it.