Revisionism on the Advance in Estonia

0. Introduction

During the conference on “Globalism” held at Moscow in January 2002, where I reported about the most recent finding of revisionism on the alleged Treblinka extermination camp, I got to know two young Estonians, who to my pleasant surprise had brought with them an Estonian edition of my first revisionist work Der Holocaust auf dem Prüfstand. They told me that the first printing of 1,000 copies was almost sold out; the book is not displayed in the window by bookshops, but is available on request, and word of mouth publicity has worked well. The two young people immediately invited my wife and me to Estonia with the request that I present a paper about revisionism at two meetings.

The journey to the smallest and most northerly of the three Baltic States became a reality between November 25-28, 2002 (I had to renew my Russian visa which ran out on November 25^th anyway, so I suggested these dates myself). Unfortunately my wife Olga was unable to accompany me, as her mother had shortly before been taken to hospital. I had visited Tallinn briefly in October 1991 shortly after independence and knew what an attractive city it is.

In Estonia there is a small but very active group of revisionists led by historians and teachers. A representative of this group organized the two talks I would be giving, on November 25 at 1800 hours in Tallinn, and on November 26 at 1900 hours in Pärju (a small town in the south of the country, well known as a holiday resort). On both occasions I gave the talk in German, and it was translated into Estonian by two excellent female interpreters who had been given the text in advance. (Estonian belongs to the Finno-Ugrian group of languages and is related to Finnish as German is to Dutch, or Italian to Portuguese; it is nothing to do with Lithuanian or Latvian, which together form the Baltic branch of the Indo-European language family and are related to each other roughly as Swedish and German are related.) My talk is reproduced in Egnlish below.

In Tallinn the event (with no entry fee) was attended by 316 people (one of the organizers kept an exact count); in Pärju 55 attended, although the room officially had space for only 40 visitors. At the first talk in Tallinn, the great majority of the audience supported revisionism, and at the second talk in Pärju all of them supported revisionism. During the discussions that followed each lecture, I was surprised to find that no one asked any questions about Auschwitz, Treblinka, or the gas chambers. Critical questions were asked in Tallinn about Babi Jar (a Ukrainian woman cited eyewitness accounts and insisted that the massacre had taken place), and another woman wanted to know what had become of the Polish Jews. I clearly could not answer fully all questions concerning the revisionist view of what happened to the Jews in the Baltic States, as the revisionists have so far carried out very little research on this subject; however, I did bring up some points made by Carlo Mattogno in chapter seven of the book he and I had written – Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? I also stated that there are still many unanswered questions and that the research work being carried out by the revisionists is nowhere near a conclusion.

Many of the audience were astonished by my descriptions of the repression that takes place in West European countries (I had brought up as examples my own case and those of Amaudruz, Udo Walendy, and Günter Deckert). One older gentleman commented: “This is not possible in a democracy.”

Several former Estonian wartime volunteers were among the listeners, but there were also many young people.

Early on the morning of November 26, I was interviewed for about seven minutes at the Estonian television studios for the morning news. This time I spoke in English, and the interview was simultaneously interpreted. The journalist carrying out the interview had no idea about the subject, but was not hostile. He suggested that the revisionists are concerned solely with numbers, and brought up the well-known line:

“If just one died, then that is already one too many.”

I replied that every scientist strives for accuracy, and secondly a figure of one million dead Jews is already so terrible that there is no need at all to multiply it for reasons of propaganda. I further stated that the state of Israel, which is largely responsible for the continuous disturbances in the Middle East, would not exist without the legends of the six million and the gas chambers.

The interview was broadcast live, so I am certain that nothing was censored, and that hundreds of thousands of Estonians learned for the first time of the suppression of the right of freedom of expression in Western Europe. I emphasized that we revisionists constantly suggest an open debate to our opponents, but are denied one.

A brief interview I had given to a German-speaking reporter after the talk in Tallinn was broadcast on the evening of 28 November, at which time I was on a train back to Moscow. The questions had all been fully objective. Shortly before my departure for Moscow I spoke with a reporter from a Russian-language newspaper for an hour. He had prepared for the interview by researching revisionism and me on the Internet and had some knowledge of both subjects. My Estonian friends promised to send me a copy of the newspaper issue in which the interview is published.

Many fear that following Estonian entry to the EU, Estonia will be called on to introduce anti-revisionist laws. In my closing words at both talks I urged Estonia to retain its independence, and not allow itself to come under a new foreign domination after fifty years of Soviet rule, with the governor sitting in Washington or Brussels instead of Moscow. Incidentally, three members of the Estonian security police were among the audience at Tallinn; one of the Estonian revisionists, who teaches law at the police academy, had personally invited them. They told him afterwards that I was a “respectable gentleman,” who had done nothing illegal. Let us hope that what is legal in Estonia today will still be so tomorrow. In view of the fact that the EU has pressured the Baltic States in 2002 into holding the “Holocaust Day” there are no grounds for undue optimism.

The Greatest Adventure of Our Time: Holocaust Revisionism

Speech Held by Jürgen Graf in Estonia in 2002

1. How “Western Democracies” Fight Revisionism

Ladies and gentlemen, right now, in Switzerland, as of the 16^th of January 2003, an 82-year-old man in poor health will be undergoing imprisonment for three months. In April of 2000, he was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, but the appellate court reduced his punishment. His crime: In self-published writings he had explained why he considers the numeric total of six million Jews, which are said to have perished due to National Socialistic persecution during World War Two, to be highly exaggerated; and furthermore, he does not believe in murderous Nazi gas chambers because there is no proof of their existence.

This man is Gaston-Armand Amaudruz, a retired language teacher from Lausanne. His published paper is called Courrier du Continent, and has a run of about 450 copies every six weeks. If every copy were read by three people, it would mean that approximately one Swiss out of six thousand is reading the Amaudruz publication. One would assume that Switzerland ought to be able to bear the fact that one out of six thousand citizens is reading an opposition publication every one and a half months – but that’s far from the truth.

G. A. Amaudruz is only one of many hundreds of citizens of Western European “democracies” who have been sentenced to fines and imprisonment for questioning the official version of the Holocaust. In Switzerland, ten revisionists have been sentenced so far including me. If I returned to my homeland, I would be jailed for fifteen months because of my revisionist books and I would be prosecuted again either during or after my imprisonment for the books and articles which I have published since my departure from Switzerland. In Germany, Gunter Deckert, the former head of the National Democratic Party, spent five years behind bars because of his doubts about the Holocaust. The historian Udo Walendy spent twenty-seven months in jail. In Austria, a Holocaust Revisionist theoretically risks twenty years in prison; in France, three years. However, the French courts are mainly content with ruining the accused with expensive penalties, in contrast to the German, Austrian, and Swiss courts. Accordingly, Robert Faurisson, the most prominent French revisionist who was also the first to point out the technical impossibility of mass human gassing, has so far appeared about fifteen times before a judge, but he has never seen a prison from the inside.

I am filled with satisfaction that I am today able to speak openly about revisionism in free Estonia. But don’t have any illusions; just as with Latvia and Lithuania, your country will be asked to pay a price for entry into the European Union and NATO – including the introduction of the so-called laws against racial hatred and discrimination, which forbid the expression of deviating opinions about the fate of Jews during the Second World War. I was also officially sentenced in Switzerland because of racial discrimination.

If you are now asking yourselves just what disbelief in gas chambers and the number six million has to do with racial discrimination, the answer has to be: nothing! This label was selected only to create the impression that revisionists are dealing with race hatred. This is not so; the revisionists are concerned about the research for historical truth – nothing else.

It is completely normal in historiography for traditional misconceptions to be revised based on latest findings. For instance, here is a simple example: I learned in my 1960s history class that the human being is approximately five hundred thousand years old; nowadays most anthropologists date the age of man back to over one million years owing to new bone discoveries. Such revisionism is harmless to the ruling system of the West and is therefore tolerated. Holocaust revisionism is not tolerated because it is apparently highly dangerous to the mighty of the Western world.

Among the media, revisionists are by and large considered crazy people and are compared to those who insist that the sun is revolving around the earth. Indeed there are such people, but nobody tries to persecute them; they are just ignored. If the opinions of revisionists were unreasonable or nonsense, they would also be ignored, and no government would issue special laws against them. If you want to inform yourself about the high level of reasoning of revisionists and their solid historical, demographic, and technical arguments, you should read the anthology by Germar Rudolf entitled Dissecting the Holocaust. This book, which is the updated English version of the German Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, contains articles by leading revisionist specialists. You will see why they cannot be disproved with arguments, and are being desperately silenced by awkward police-state-like repression, like dangerous heretics.

2. What do the Holocaust Revisionists maintain?

Nobody denies the persecution of Jews during the Second World War. It was brutal. A large part of the Jewish population of the countries which were occupied or controlled by the Axis were abducted between 1941 and 1944 and placed in ghettoes and concentration camps where many lives were lost to typhus and other epidemics, inadequate nutrition, and substandard treatment. We all have seen the terrible photos of the emaciated bodies and walking human skeletons which were found by the Allies in 1945 in the liberated concentration camps. These photographs are being incorrectly used even up to the present time as proof of the politics of extermination, although orthodox historians do not claim that these bodies were murder victims. Rather, the mass starvation in the concentration camps during the last months of warfare was caused by a total breakdown within Germany, and had nothing to do with intentional German extermination policies.

By the way, there is only one revisionist who denies that German troops on the Eastern front shot many Jews and questions the number of one and a half million victims cited in the official literature.

Three points are being disputed or contested:

1. The existence of a program of physical extermination of Jews.
2. The existence of extermination camps which were solely established for the purpose of annihilating Jews, as well as the maintenance of gas chambers for killing humans.
3. The number six million as the total of Jewish victims. An exact alternative number cannot be named because the documentation is incomplete. I personally believe that almost a million Jewish deaths were caused by the politics of the National Socialists.

The founder of Holocaust revisionism was the Frenchman Paul Rassinier: a Socialist, resistance fighter, and inmate of the Buchenwald and Dora concentration camps. After his liberation, Rassinier read many stories about gas chambers in Buchenwald. Since he knew this camp from his own experience, he realized that these reports were lies, and he then asked himself what could be believed about witness testimonies concerning gas chambers in other camps. In his book, The Drama of the European Jews, Rassinier came to the conclusion that the so-called extermination of the Jews was the weirdest fraud of all times – thus Holocaust revisionism was founded by an anti-Fascist and former concentration camp prisoner, which shows how deceitful the claim is that revisionists are neo-Nazi ideologues. Oh, certainly there are revisionists who sympathize with National Socialism, but two and two make four even when it is said by a National Socialist. The ideological orientation of a researcher is of no importance to the correctness of his thesis. In a scientific discussion, only the factual argument should count.

3. Statement of Facts, Documentary Proof, and Witness Testimony.

If one wants to know the official version of the Holocaust and the proof (documentation) according to which several million Jews were allegedly murdered in gas chambers, one should read at least Raul Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews (Homes & Meyer, New York 1985). Hilberg’s enormous three-volume work contains thousands of footnotes. When we examine these, we quickly realize that Hilberg proves with solid documentation the persecution of Jews through the anti-Jewish laws of Germany and its allies, and the deportation of a large part of those Jews into camps and ghettoes. On the other hand, he relies on only eyewitness reports when describing extermination of Jews in gas chambers on those few pages where it’s mentioned. Eyewitness testimony is not avoidable because, for alleged gassing, no factual proofs or documents exist. By the way, an anti-revisionist French historian, Jacque Baynac, freely admitted in two newspaper articles that no such proofs for gas chambers are at hand. “A witness report does not weigh much, and more witness reports do not weigh more if not supported by a solid document,” wrote Baynac (Le Nouveau Quotidien, Lausanne, 2., and 3. September 1996).

When only witness testimonies can be cited for such a monstrous crime as the extermination of several million human beings, that should make us highly suspicious for three reasons:

1. First, every lawyer knows that witness testimony is the weakest of all proofs, far weaker than factual proof. Here is a simple example: a man causes a traffic accident. The alcohol test shows two parts per thousand alcohol in his blood. At the court hearing, two of his drinking comrades appear and testify that this man had only been drinking tea – and only tea – all evening. Whom does the court believe: the results of the alcohol test or the testimony of his drinking buddies?
2. Much of the evidence against the Germans which was based on witness reports has been retracted by official historians. The two most well-known examples are soap made from Jews, and gas chambers in Western camps such as Dachau and Buchenwald. Today, even the most orthodox historians admit that all those stories about soap factories where soap was supposedly made from the bodies of murdered Jews were pure horror stories. There is also agreement that there were no homicidal gassings in Dachau, Buchenwald, and other Western camps which means that all those witnesses who described such gassings were lying. They must have been lying. So, why should eyewitness reports about gassings in Auschwitz and Treblinka be more credible than those about gassings in Dachau and Buchenwald, or about soap production from fat of Jews? Official historians have never given an answer to these elementary questions asked by revisionists thousands of times since Rassinier.
3. Witnesses who reported human gassings in concentration camps were almost exclusively former Jewish inmates. Objectivity could not be expected from them because inevitably they felt hatred for those who had robbed them of their freedom. One should point out here that SS personnel also testified to gassings. For example, the first Auschwitz commander, R. Hoess, testified in April 1946 after his arrest by the English that up until November 1943 there were two and a half million people who had been gassed in Auschwitz, and furthermore, a half million died due to illness and starvation. Yet we know today that the confession of Commandant Hoess was forced from him by three days of torture, which was described in detail by the English author Rupert Butler in his book, Legions of Death (Arrow Books Limited, London 1986). Indeed, the official historiography assumes today that during the whole history of the Auschwitz camp, 1.3 million persons were deported to that camp – which is far less than half of those who died there, even until November 1943, according to the Höss confession.

Contrary to official historians, revisionists submit eyewitness reports to critical examination. I myself have done this with my book entitled Auschwitz: Tätergestaendnisse und Augenzeugen des Holocaust (Verlag Neue Visionen, Würenlos/Switzerland). The result is unmistakably clear: Eyewitness reports contain innumerable technical and logical absurdities, and they contradict each other strikingly. Their power of proof is zero.

One might assume that so many witnesses could not possibly have invented the same stories independently from each other, and that therefore the gas chamber story must have a core of truth. This argument is based on a misunderstanding. First of all, the number of witnesses describing gas chambers in some detail is very small – not more than a few dozen. Second, the witnesses did not make their statements independently of each other; they were often coordinated with one witness copying from another. Two examples of this: Shortly after the liberation of Auschwitz, one witness after the other appeared before the Soviet and Polish Commission and stated that four million people perished in Auschwitz. That was the number from the propaganda of that time. Of course, the witnesses had agreed among themselves on this number or had been instructed to do so. Another weakness is the many technical impossibilities in the testimony. Numerous witnesses claimed, for example, that within a quarter of an hour three corpses were cremated in one muffle. The correct number is one corpse per muffle per hour.

Besides the analysis of witness testimonies, revisionists examine two points:

1. What do German documents state in regard to National Socialist/Jew politics?
2. Were the alleged mass gassings and cremations technically possible?

The answers to both questions are clear. According to the German documents, the wartime National Socialist politics regarding Jews consisted of making use of a Jewish work force, which is why a large part of the Jews were deported to work camps. In addition, the National Socialists wanted to relocate all Jews away from Europe. After the plan to establish a Jewish reservation on the island of Madagascar became practically unfeasible, the National Socialists planned to establish a large Jewish reservation in Eastern Europe. Indeed, many Jews were deported into the occupied eastern regions, according to documentation. The unfavorable course of the war for Germany prevented the completion of these politics.

The second point: Based on technical and chemical analysis, revisionists have come to the conclusion that the alleged mass exterminations were impossible and could not have occurred. More about this later.

4. Auschwitz: The Technical Investigations.

In what follows, I will deal briefly with three main complexities of the so-called Holocaust: Auschwitz, Treblinka, and executions on the Eastern Front.

Let’s start with Auschwitz. This was established as a normal concentration camp for mainly Polish political prisoners, as the official historiography concedes, but then as of 1942, it was supposed to have become, in addition, an extermination camp for Jews, of whom an enormous number were allegedly murdered in gas chambers. This claim is not supported in any way by the plentiful German wartime documents which still exist.

In the Rossiskij Vojenniy Arkhiv in Moscow on Viborg Street, there are approximately 88,000 pages of documents from the Auschwitz Central Construction Office. This organization was assigned to build the crematories in which supposedly gas chambers for the extermination of humans were located. Not one of these documents supplies proof of the gassing of even one Jew. If this had been otherwise, the Soviets would have presented such documentation triumphantly in 1945. But no, the documents immediately disappeared into an archive and have been accessible to researchers only since the 1990s.

If Auschwitz had been a camp for exterminating Jews, then hardly any Jew would have survived, and we would not have the innumerable survivor reports which fill whole libraries. When Elie Wiesel was suffering from a foot ailment, he was not murdered because of his inability to work, but was sent into a hospital and cared for. When the Russians approached the camp, the healthy prisoners were evacuated; the sick were allowed the choice of waiting for the arrival of the Russian liberators, or of withdrawing with the Germans towards the West. Wiesel describes this in his book, La Nuit (Editions de Minuit, Paris 1958; Engl.: Night, Hill and Wang, New York 1960, pp. 78). He also reports which choice was made by his father as well as himself: They did not wait for the Russians, but took off with the Germans. By the way, Wiesel does not mention gas chambers in his book anywhere, but claims that the Germans burned the Jews alive. This is one of the earlier versions of horror propaganda which was later replaced by gassings.

The first technical investigation of the alleged gas chambers was done in 1988 by the American execution expert, Fred Leuchter, on behalf of the revisionists Ernst Zündel and Robert Faurisson (An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland, Samisdat Publishers, Toronto 1988). Leuchter, who himself had constructed execution gas chambers in the USA, came to the conclusion that the “German gas chambers” were exactly what the architectural plans of the crematories designated them to be – namely, ordinary morgue cellars for the holding of the dead before they could be cremated. Human gassings with Zyklon B would have been catastrophic in the camp because these rooms were not sealed. There is no doubt that Leuchter’s report contained errors; however his conclusions were five years later fully confirmed by the German chemist Germar Rudolf in a more exact study ( R. Kammerer, A. Solms, Das Rudolf Gutachten, Cromwell Press, London 1993).

Rudolf’s proof is based on two points:

1. According to witnesses, mass murders were committed in the Crematory II morgue at Auschwitz Birkenau by pouring granulates of the insecticide Zyklon B through four round holes in the ceiling. However, no such holes can be seen today in the ceiling of what in fact was a morgue cellar for corpses and which is still preserved to a large extent. A structural investigation of the ceiling concludes that such holes had never been there; therefore such poison could not have been introduced as described by witnesses.
2. If Zyklon B is used in a room, it leaves some residue in the mortar of the wall which would be detectable even after decades; one talks here about ferrocyanide. Indeed, the walls of the delousing chambers at Auschwitz, where the clothing of the prisoners was deloused of the typhus-carrying lice, are still today an intense bluish color, and chemical analysis of these walls shows that they contain a high amount of cyanide. On the other hand, the walls of the alleged main gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau, and of Crematory II, do not display any blue coloring, and chemical tests show no significant cyanide remnant. The only possible conclusion is that, in that room, no human gassings have taken place.

Certainly, as important as structural, technical, and chemical analyses of the Rudolf investigations are, the investigations of the crematories and their capacities performed by Italian revisionist Carlo Mattogno are equally so. Mattogno considers the well-documented operating time of the crematories as well as the fully-documented (except for 1944) coke deliveries to the crematories. Since the supply of coke needed for cremation is known, as is the capacity of the crematory ovens, the critical highest number of corpses which could be cremated in the crematories is easily determined: It comes to 164,000 (Carlo Mattogno and Franco Deana: “The Crematoria Ovens of Auschwitz-Birkenau,” in: Ernst Gauss, Dissecting the Holocaust).

If one takes into account the Auschwitz death records, which are preserved to a large extent, as well as German wartime documents, this points to a range of 130,000 to 150,000 cremations in the camp, and it is clear that epidemic diseases took their toll; typhoid fever was the principal cause of the catastrophically high death rate at Auschwitz.

According to the version widely accepted today, mass murders were committed using the insecticide Zyklon B. This version emerged only at the end of 1944. According to the resistance movements spreading reports in 1942, the massacres were committed with electricity in bath houses. One never hears this version any more. Comrade Polevoi also discovered gas chambers in Auschwitz, but unfortunately in the wrong place: at the eastern part, instead of the western part of Birkenau, where they should have been, based on the later version.

5. Treblinka

Contrary to Auschwitz, which was a work camp as well as an alleged extermination camp, Treblinka was supposed to have been solely an extermination camp. Other than a handful of “work Jews” needed for the maintenance of the camp, every Jew, regardless of age or state of health, was supposed to have been murdered immediately and without being registered. After the seizure by the Red Army of east Poland, a Soviet commission published a report referring to three million humans being murdered in Treblinka. The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust gives a significantly lower number – namely 870,000.

The Italian researcher Carlo Mattogno and I have written a recently-published book about Treblinka called, Treblinka. Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? (Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2004). Our book is the first comprehensive scientific study of that camp.

According to the current version of Treblinka, murders were committed there with the exhaust gas of diesel engines. This story is completely unbelievable. It is very difficult to kill people with diesel exhaust fumes; while one can obtain a concentration of 7% or more carbon monoxide with a gasoline motor, one can not even get a concentration of 1% with a diesel engine. If the Germans had come upon the idea of committing mass murders with motor exhaust fumes, they would have used diesel last. The story of the diesel motor was clearly invented by non-technical laymen who assumed these gases would be especially poisonous because they smell horrible.

Treblinka was opened on July 23, 1942. On this day the mass deportation of Jews from Warsaw to that camp began. On November 15, 1942, the resistance movement of the Warsaw Ghetto published a long report in which it was pointed out that, so far, a million Jews had been murdered in Treblinka (this comes to 20,000 per day!). Gas chambers were not named at all as the murder weapon; however steam chambers, whose functions were described in detail, were reported. Altogether the eyewitnesses for Treblinka mentioned no fewer than eleven different killing methods which I shall enumerate here for the sake of curiosity.

1. Exhaust fumes from poison fuel.
2. A mobile gas chamber which was moved along the mass graves and dumped the bodies directly into them.
3. A delayed-acting gas which made it possible for the victims to walk to their grave-sites. There they would faint and fall into their graves.
4. Slaked lime.
5. Electricity (electric current).
6. Shooting with machine guns.
7. Chlorine gas.
8. Steam.
9. Suffocation with vacuum chambers.
10. Zyklon B.
11. Diesel exhaust gases.

The last version became generally accepted in 1946. Yet in December of 1945, the Polish government submitted a paper during the Nurnberg Trial, according to which hundreds of thousands of people were suffocated with hot steam at Treblinka (Nuremberg Document 3311-PS).

According to witness testimonies, the bodies were buried first in gigantic mass graves, but later, when the German defeat became obvious, they were burned out in the open almost without any fuel. The whole purpose of Treblinka stands and falls thus by the existence of these graves. In August 2000 I spent several days in Treblinka and Belzec with the young Australian engineer, Richard Krege. Belzec was another so-called extermination camp where 60,000 Jews supposedly were murdered (according to the wartime version, with electricity; and according to the post-war version, with diesel exhaust). Krege worked in the area of these camps with a ground radar instrument used to find mass graves, and also mineral resources. This instrument would show disturbances in the earth structure. Neither in Treblinka nor in Belzec, was there a zone where giant graves could have been located or disturbances in the ground structure except for one place in Belzec where a grave of some hundred people could have existed. Richard Krege is publishing his study which will mean an end to the Treblinka and Belzec myths.

What was Treblinka, then, if it was not an extermination camp? The answer is clear: it was a transit camp. The fact that many Jews passed through Treblinka to Majdanek and other work camps in the Lublin area has been admitted by the Jewish historians Adam Rutkowski and Tatjana Berenstein. In 1968, the Bulletin of the Jewish Historical Committee in Warsaw published the eyewitness report of a Jew named Samuel Zylbersztain who came to Majdanek, another alleged “extermination camp, after a short stay in Treblinka. In addition to the “extermination camp” Treblinka and the “extermination camp” Majdanek, Zylbersztain survived eight other ordinary camps since the title of his testimony is, Memories of an Inmate of Ten Camps. He is a living example that the Germans did not exterminate the Jews.

Less simple is the proof that Treblinka also served as a transit camp for the occupied Soviet territories, but in one case at least there is definite proof of this. On July 31, 1942, eight days before the opening of Treblinka, the Reichskommissar [governor] of White Russia, Wilhelm Kube, protested in a telegram against the deportation of 1,000 Polish Jews from Warsaw to Minsk. At this time, all deported Jews from Warsaw came to Treblinka, so that the mentioned Jews must have been sent via Treblinka. This one transport is already sufficient to make the thesis of Treblinka as a pure extermination camp tumble like a house of cards. Of course, the documentation is so incomplete that many questions remain open.

6. The Shootings on the Eastern Front.

As mentioned already, it is beyond question that German troops shot many Jews on the Eastern Front. The main reason is that Jews formed a disproportionately high number of partisans and were collectively considered pro-Bolshevik.

In official historiography, the number of Jews killed in the East is given as up to 1,500,000, of which the greatest part were supposed to have been killed by special deployment troops. So far, revisionists have dealt with this topic relatively little, although the historian Udo Walendy, who was imprisoned for two years in Germany, had already by the early 1980s objected to the official count of victims. A comprehensive investigation about the question of special forces and executions on the Eastern Front is presently being prepared, but it will probably be years until its publication.

The central argument against the number of killings in the East lies in the absence of proof. After the Soviets murdered 4,000 Polish officers in Katyn, the Germans found the mass graves of the victims and they were individually identified. In the same way, almost all the more than 8,000 Ukrainians who were murdered by the communists near Winnitza could be identified in 1943. It is to be noted that the Soviets never showed a single mass grave with victims of the Germans which could compare with those of Katyn or Winnitza.

The most notorious of all alleged German massacres of Jews in the East was that at Babi Yar. On September 29, 1941, no fewer than 33,000 Jews were supposed to have been shot there. In the following months, it is said that ten thousand were added to this. In order to erase the traces of the crime, the Germans supposedly excavated all the corpses two years later and burnt them; this project was completed in September 1943. But the area around Babi Jar was photographed on September 26, 1943 by the Air Force. This photograph does not show any trace of mass burnings, of, indeed, of any recognizable human activity. The vegetation and topography were untouched (John Ball, “Air Photo Evidence” in E. Gauss, Dissecting the Holocaust). Thus it is clearly proven that the Babi Yar story falls under horror propaganda. Since no other alleged German massacre on the Eastern Front had been so propagandistically utilized as that of Babi Yar, the logical conclusion must be that the other alleged mass murder reports were also either invented or, at the least, highly exaggerated.

7. The Invisible Elephant

In 1980, the British Jewish historian Walter Laquer published a popular book entitled, The Terrible Secret (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London). He proved that Auschwitz was hardly an isolated camp, and that nothing which occurred in Auschwitz could have remained a secret for long. The Allies, who had an outstanding communication network, managed to find out everything within weeks; but they never reacted to the horror stories about the extermination of European Jews spread by Jewish organizations and the resistance movement. In 1944, they refrained from bombing the only railroad line leading from Hungary into Auschwitz during the mass deportation of Hungarian Jews into that camp. No Allied head of state ever mentioned the words “gas chamber” before the end of the war. Thus the Allies did not do anything to stop the Holocaust and have placed upon themselves moral guilt.

After Laqueur, several other authors – Martin Gilbert, David Wyman, Richard Breitman – dealt with the same theses. For incomprehensible reasons not merely the Allied governments, but also the Vatican and the International Red Cross kept silent until the end about the extermination of Jews, although it was impossible that they could have been ignorant of the events in Auschwitz and the other camps.

The initial position is the following:

1. What happened in Auschwitz and other concentration camps could not have remained a secret for long.
2. Therefore, the Allies, the Vatican, and the Red Cross knew exactly what happened in Auschwitz and the other camps.
3. The Allies, the Vatican, and the Red Cross said nothing about extermination of Jews in gas chambers until the end of the war.

Laqueur, Gilbert, Wyman, and Breitman conclude that the Allies, the Vatican, and the Red Cross also are guilty of the greatest genocide in history. Another conclusion, and for me a more logical one, was presented by the American revisionist Arthur Butz:

“I don’t see an elephant in my basement. If there was an elephant in my basement I would certainly see it. Therefore, there is no elephant in my basement.”

In other words, since the Allies, the Vatican, and the Red Cross kept silent about the extermination of Jews, there must have been no gas chambers and no extermination. Anyway, the Jewish leaders in Poland, the alleged epicenter of the Holocaust, never believed in the horror stories which were spread about them. An unwilling proof was given by Raul Hilberg in his standard work The Destruction of the European Jews, in which he describes how in August 1944 – that is more than two years after the beginning of the alleged mass extermination – the Jews of the ghetto of Lodz, of their own free will and without any resistance, boarded the trains to Auschwitz. Now if they had known or had feared that gas chambers were waiting for them, they would not have done so. The Polish Jews took the horror stories which were constantly spread about gas chambers, steam chambers, and electrical execution facilities for what they were: namely, war propaganda.

Today, the steam chambers and electrical execution facilities have been forgotten, but the gas chambers are an “established historical fact” in the history books. People such as the ailing 82-year-old Swiss Amaudruz are thrown into jail because they refuse to believe the fabrications of war propaganda. One understands why the “democratic system” has to take these measures of repression: It is to try to suppress Revisionists because if the Holocaust is exposed as the swindle which it is, then not only the State of Israel is lost, but also the whole Western system will lose its credibility. Nobody would believe a word from our politicians and journalists.