What Remains to be Researched?
Published: 2008-01-04

As has already been stated by leading revisionist Germar Rudolf, there are still many “Holocaust” issues left unstudied, many revisionist works waiting to be written. We have come a long way, for sure, especially in the late 90’s and early 00’s with the publication of the eminent series Holocaust Handbooks, but the scholarly revisionist work is still far from finished. We should not rest on our laurels, but look forward and ask ourselves the question: what, in terms of research, needs to be done?

This article aims not to be an exhaustive survey, but rather a personally chosen list of issues which I believe are in need of clarification. It is my hope that it will serve to inspire new revisionist research into hitherto overlooked subjects.

Books awaiting publication and translation

Let us first direct our attention at revisionist literature announced as planned or awaiting publication. According to the VHO website, we can look forward to a collaborative effort by Germar Rudolf and Jürgen Graf on gas chamber eyewitness testimonies, as well a critique of the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial penned by Rudolf. Or rather should have been able to look forward to, since T&DP publisher Rudolf languishes in jail and his company is left apparently defunct.

Since 2005, Carlo Mattogno has written three books deserving translation: a debunking of the arguments presented by the exterminationist camp’s new knight in shining armor, R.J. van Pelt (Auschwitz: La falsa "convergenza di prove" di Robert Jan van Pelt, Effepi, Genova 2007), as well as thorough critique of the methodology of the late Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg (Raul Hilberg e i “centri di stermino”, Effepi, Genova 2007). There has further been published a volume on the Auschwitz healthcare system, not yet available in translation. There is also a 46-page article dealing with the recent book on the Birkenau “gas chambers” by self-styled Sonderkommando eyewitness Shlomo Venezia, a book which has already been translated into several European languages and is touted as a “unique document” by the mass media.

As was mentioned in an interview by Graf (published in issue #147 of Smith’s Report), there is also an extensive history of Auschwitz waiting to be written if the opportunity present itself. We are also looking forward to the definitive published version of Mattogno’s study on the Auschwitz crematoria.

Next I will list a number of possible research issues, divided among the various “areas” of the alleged mass killing process.

Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek

  • Given that the revisionist hypothesis is true, Auschwitz would have served as a transit camp for the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were not registered at arrival. As Graf writes, those deportees were likely placed in quarantine before sent away. Could it be somehow found out where exactly in Birkenau those people were held?
  • The contents as well as documentary background of the supposedly buried diaries of Birkenau “Sonderkommando” members need closer scrutiny. The man who allegedly discovered some of the documents, as well as their main historian, was a Polish-Jewish historian named Ber Mark. Significantly, Pierre Guillaume writes in his Law and History (p. 114) that Mark was “accused of having manufactured false journals of children of the Warsaw ghetto.” As source Guillaume gives a French journal of historiography, Revue d’histoire de la Seconde guerre mondiale, January 1962. This deserves to be looked into.
  • Jürgen Graf has already provided us with an article on the latest victim figure revisions for Majdanek. A critique of Tomasz Kranz’ recent book Extermination of Jews at the Majdanek Concentration Camp (Majdanek State Museum 2007) would also be welcome.

The Reinhardt Camps and Chelmno

  • A thorough critique study on the various eyewitness accounts of the Reinhardt camps, similar in structure to Jürgen Graf’s Auschwitz: Tätergeständnisse und Augenzeugen would be desirable. As of yet, the only real thorough revisionist critiques are to be found in an old book by Carlo Mattogno which is only available in Italian (Il rapporto Gerstein: Anatomia di un falso, 1985).
  • Mattogno, following the lead of Jean-Claude Pressac, identifies the ovens described by Belzec construction worker Stanislaw Kozak as Heißluftentwesungsöfen, hot air disinfestation ovens (cf. Mattogno, Belzec…, pp. 45-6). Can the ovens described by Kozak be matched against documented Heißluftentwesungsöfen? Product descriptions, patents and photographs may possible be available in the archives of German companies (such as Kori) or in specialist journals of WWII Germany (such as Der praktischer Desinfektor). Kozak’s original account in Polish should if possible also be dug up and examined.
  • As hinted at by exterminationist Belzec specialist Michael Tregenza (cf. ibid., p. 43), there may exist a number of photos taken within this camp at its time of operation by local Poles as well as by SS camp staff. We know of four photos depicting SS and Jewish inmates in front of the “sorting barracks”. Andrzej Kola gives as source for these pictures the photo archive of the regional museum of Tomaszow Lubelski. Further pictures may possibly have been preserved by local residents as well as in local archives. Such photographs may potentially provide insight into what really transpired in the camp.
  • There is a need for further studies on the three Treblinka air photos taken in 1941 and 1944, as well as for an expert critique on the online article “Reconstructing Treblinka” by exterminationist Charles A. Bay. A closer examination of the photos contained in the Kurt Franz album is also desirable. Is the scenery of the excavator photos reconcilable with the landscape shown on the air photos? Does the building in of the excavator photos identified by exterminationists as the first Treblinka gas chamber building really match the descriptions made by alleged eyewitnesses?
  • More scrutiny needs to be devoted to the Euthanasia program (“T4”) and the claims of gas chambers for the mentally ill. What do we really know about the “Brack method”? What was the subsequent fate of the T4 personnel (surely the majority) who did not go on to Aktion Reinhardt?
  • A book similar to Rudolf and Mattogno’s Auschwitz Lies, but focusing on antirevisionist arguments regarding the Reinhardt camps, would be welcomed.
  • A thorough revisionist study on Chelmno remains to be written. Shmuel Krakowski’s recent book Das Todeslager Chelmno / Kulmhof (Wallstein 2007) could serve as a departure point.

The Einsatzgruppen and Miscellaneous

  • The alleged extermination of Jews in the Baltic States by means of firing squads needs to be looked into. Possible topics for case studies would include the alleged massacres at Fort VII and IX in Lithuania and the Estonian Jagala camp, whose personnel was sentenced by a Soviet show tribunal in 1961.
  • More case studies would be welcome when it comes to the Einsatzgruppen shootings.
  • An survey of Polish and Soviet wartime publications written in Yiddish may provide new insights into how the gas chamber story was created and disseminated.

How revisionist research may be invigorated

Holocaust revisionism is struggling against many odds at the moment, not least of them the imprisonment and legal ostracizing of important revisionists. As an effect of the imprisonment of Germar Rudolf by the German inquisition, most of the publication of revisionist research in the West has stopped. However, there are some lights in the darkness. Most importantly, we have the Internet. Thanks to electronic newsletters like this one and revisionist websites such as CODOH and VHO/AAARGH, the publication of revisionist material may continue unabated, reaching new readers around the world. With the help of web forums and mailing lists revisionist researchers can communicate with each other, exchanging views as well as materials of study.

Writing a list of research to be done, such the one above, gives you a slightly bad feeling. More exactly, you feel like you should do it yourself instead of exhorting others to do it. Each one of us can of course only do what he is able to, but if we find our specialized fields of knowledge and pool them, a lot of significant work may be accomplished. Let us start to day and find out what part, however small, each of us can contribute to revisionist research.


Additional information about this document
Property Value
Author(s): Thomas Kues
Title: What Remains to be Researched?
Sources:
n/a
Contributions:
n/a
Published: 2008-01-04
First posted on CODOH: April 29, 2008, 7 p.m.
Last revision:
n/a
Comments:
n/a
Appears In:
Mirrors:
n/a
Download:
n/a