Chapter X: Conclusion

In 1987, Robert Faurisson wrote the following noteworthy lines:[930]

Yes, Treblinka is, in fact, the most fitting landmark for the 'Holocaust,' a mirage of a multi-million genocide in gas chambers, of which not the slightest documentary or material trace exists and about which we would know nothing without the tales of a handful of 'eyewitnesses' - in sharp contrast to the real, irrefutable suffering of the Jewish people during the Second World War.

It is not without pregnant symbolism that the most important Treblinka 'eyewitness' by far, Jankiel Wiernik, and the most prominent representative of all of the orthodox historiography about that camp, Yitzhak Arad, are blatant falsifiers. By means of a bold manipulation of the November 15, 1942, report produced by the resistance movement of the Warsaw Ghetto, Wiernik converted the embarrassing 'steam chambers,' which characterize the first phase of the Treblinka atrocity propaganda, into 'gas chambers' in 1944 and thereby laid the cornerstone for the legend of the 'gas chambers of Treblinka,' which were subsequently transmogrified by orthodox historiography into 'established historical fact.' But compared to this harsh judgment about the Jewish cabinet maker from the Warsaw Ghetto, we must come to an even harsher judgment about the Israeli Professor Arad, who is guilty of the gravest of all offenses against the commandments of scientific ethics: the conscious falsification of source material.

That Jewish circles, above all others, defend the historically and technically absurd story of 'extermination camp' Treblinka with tooth and claw can be explained without difficulty by the pressures, to which these people are subjected.

From the beginning of the 'Holocaust' propaganda, Auschwitz has had the first rank and Treblinka the second; of the other four 'extermination camps,' there has always been far less discussion. Since the end of the sixties, the flagship of the Holocaust Armada, Auschwitz, has been under uninterrupted barrage from revisionist researchers. Due to the pressure of the revisionists - invisible to the public but enormous - the advocates of the orthodox version of history saw themselves forced to keep reducing the number of victims of this camp. In 1990, the Administration of the Auschwitz Museum withdrew the four million figure of Auschwitz victims - which had never been accepted by western historians anyway - and replaced it with one-and-a-half million; in 1994, Jean-Claude Pressac, celebrated by the media as the leading Auschwitz expert, reduced the number again drastically to 631,000 to 711,000.[931] For the present, the last retrenchment of the front in this ongoing retreat came in May of 2002, when one of the editors of Germany's largest newsmagazine Der Spiegel, Fritjof Meyer, wrote in the geopolitical German magazine Osteuropa with reference to allegedly new research results that 'only' half a million died in Auschwitz, which is still an exaggeration by at least a factor of three.[932]

An even more drastic revision was achieved for Majdanek: in 1944, a figure of one-and-a-half million murdered had been given for that camp; in 1948, Polish historiography set the total number of victims at 360,000, but at the beginning of the nineties, the number was reduced to 230,000;[933] Raul Hilberg assumes in his standard work that only 50,000 Jewish prisoners were killed in Majdanek.[934]

According to the laws of mathematics and sound human reasoning, this massive reduction in the number of victims for Auschwitz and Majdanek would had to have resulted in a corresponding reduction in the total number of 'Holocaust' victims, but no: the mythical six million figure must be upheld at all cost!

Under these circumstances, the proponents and beneficiaries of the official historiography can never give up the 'extermination camp' Treblinka with its 750,000 to 870,000 people 'gassed,' since this would amount to a final dismantling of the current image of the fate of the Jews during World War II. At the same time, the other 'pure extermination camps' Bełżec, Sobibór, and Chełmno, for which the evidentiary material presented is of similar 'quality,' would have to take their departure from real history along with Treblinka.

That the official view of Treblinka increases respect for the Jewish people can be justly questioned, for one of the cornerstones of this picture is the slavish cooperation of the victims with their executioners. Does it really do credit to Jewish honor if their fathers and grandfathers marched into the gas chambers of Treblinka like a herd of sheep, without giving a thought to escaping or resisting? Can one feel respect for the 1,000 Jewish workers of Treblinka, who - always according to the orthodox version of history - assisted the 30 to 40 SS people and 120 Ukrainians day after day in murdering many thousands of their co-religionists, never warned them of the fate awaiting them, and acted as loyal accomplices to their tormentors to the very end, in full awareness of their own impending death?

The American revisionist Bradley R. Smith has commented upon the appearance of the barber Abraham Bomba in Claude Lanzmann 's film Shoa, in which Bomba describes how he cut the hair of 60 to 70 naked women in the 16 square meter large gas chamber of Treblinka. After Lanzmann had asked Bomba what he felt when he saw all these naked women for the first time, the barber replied:[935]

Smith says in response to this:

Historians who are interested in facts will not allow themselves to be deterred by Bomba's monstrous fantasies from pursuing the many still open questions of Treblinka. Above all, it is entirely unclear where the Jews deported to Treblinka ultimately wound up. That Treblinka served as a transit camp is proven, but for the most part we are still in the dark as to the details (the number of those resettled, their destinations, and their fate during the war and afterwards). In coming years, the improving access to archives in the successor states of the Soviet Union will hopefully make it possible for researchers to shed more and more light into this darkness. When we speak of researcher, we of course mean the revisionists, for their opponents will hardly be doing this task.

Notes