Revisionism Will Set Us Free

The Early Revisionists

Paul Rassinier was a French history teacher who was arrested during the war for passive resistance activities, which included helping to smuggle Jews into neutral Switzerland. Rassinier stated that, although he suffered greatly during the war in the Buchenwald and Dora concentration camps, he never saw any evidence of homicidal gas chambers or any program to exterminate the Jews. After reading sensationalized accounts that he knew were false, Rassinier felt it was his ethical duty to tell the truth about the camps, and refute the false claims being made in the world’s press.

Rassinier wrote extensively about his own experiences and observations in the German camps. He began to research the entire issue of German genocide against the Jews during the war. Rassinier concluded that the death toll in the camps was far lower than alleged. He also concluded that the deaths in the camps were not caused by a German program of mass murder,[1] but rather primarily by the poor conditions of the camps attributable to the economic collapse of Germany during a devastating war. Rassinier had nothing to gain personally from taking his unpopular position, and after suffering greatly in the German concentration camps, he then suffered intense persecution in postwar France for his courageous writings after the war.

Paul Rassinier’s writings helped to inspire an interest in Holocaust revisionism in other writers. One of these was Dr. Arthur Robert Butz, who in 1976 published a comprehensive analysis of the so-called Holocaust in his book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, later sub-titled The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry. Butz states in his book that “the simplest valid reason for being skeptical about the extermination claim is also the simplest conceivable reason: at the end of the war, they were still there.”[2]

Robert Faurisson wrote a review of Butz’s book as to why the alleged extermination of the Jews did not happen (p. 39):

“[I]f, in the middle of Europe, in the space of three years, the Germans had killed so many millions of Jews, such an extraordinary phenomenon could not have gone unnoticed. But the Vatican did not perceive this awesome occurrence. The International Committee of the Red Cross did not see it. The German underground opposition did not mention it. The European Jews had no information on the subject and did not truly believe the vague, absurd, and cacophonous rumors circulating here and there of a physical extermination of industrial proportions. Jews overseas (United States, Palestine, international Jewish organizations) did not behave as if they themselves lent credence to the alarming accounts that they were disseminating, and nor did the Allied governments.”

Beaumont writes that Robert Faurisson did an immense amount of work in the cause of revisionism. Of great importance was Faurisson’s study of American gas chambers, which used Zyklon B (hydrocyanic acid) to execute one man in American penitentiaries. Faurisson’s research on gas chambers and Zyklon B took between three and four years of study. Faurisson stated why the alleged homicidal gas chambers never existed (pp. 48f.):

“Today’s visitor to Auschwitz or Majdanek discovers, in the way of ‘gas chambers,’ facilities in which any gassings would have spelt catastrophe for the gassers and their entourage. A collective execution by gas, supposing that it was practicable, could not at all be likened either to a suicidal or to an accidental gassing. In order to gas a single convict at a time, with his wrists and ankles shackled, the Americans employ a special gas [hydrogen cyanide] within a small space, from which, after its use, it is extracted and subsequently neutralized. So then, how could 2,000 people (and even 3,000) be held in an enclosure of 210 square meters (!), at Auschwitz, for example, to have a common and powerful insecticide called Zyklon B poured onto them (!); finally, just after the victims’ death, how could a team be sent, without gas masks, into that place saturated with hydrogen cyanide, in order to remove the corpses infused with cyanide?”

The 1985 Zündel Trial

Beaumont includes in his book a chapter about the 1985 Ernst Zündel trial. This trial originated when Samisdat Publishers Ltd., under the signature of its president, Ernst Zündel, published in the early 1980s a 32-page booklet titled Did Six Million Really Die?. Sabina Citron, a founder of the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, filed a criminal complaint against Ernst Zündel for the alleged criminal offense of “spreading false news” likely to cause racial and social intolerance. This charge was later assumed by the Canadian government and led to a lengthy jury trial in 1985.[3]

The booklet Did Six Million Really Die? unquestionably contained some errors. It was written hastily in the early 1970s by a young University of London graduate, Richard Verrall, who used the pseudonym “Richard Harwood.” The booklet critiqued the weaknesses of the evidence and arguments provided in orthodox Holocaust literature, and gave the reader alternative views of what happened in the German camps during World War II. The booklet Did Six Million Really Die? did what polemical works are supposed to do by providing readers with an alternative view of the so-called Holocaust.[3]

The primary purpose of the prosecution of Ernst Zündel was to make sure that ordinary Canadians would not have access to the type of information contained in Did Six Million Really Die?. Zündel in his defense decided to put the “Holocaust” on trial. Indeed, Zündel forced pro-Holocaust historians to defend their position that Germany had a program of mass extermination against Jews during World War II.[4]

The prosecution in the 1985 Ernst Zündel trial counted on the testimony of carefully chosen survivors to prove the so-called Holocaust happened as described by mainstream historians. These survivors were supposed to testify that they had seen, with their own eyes, the carrying out of homicidal gassings. However, none of the prosecution’s eyewitnesses was able to successfully describe any homicidal gassings at the German camps.[5]

Arnold Friedman, a 56-year-old Hungarian Jew, was touted as an eyewitness to the homicidal gassings at Auschwitz. Friedman testified that while in Auschwitz he saw “14-foot flames” shooting out of the crematorium chimneys. Douglas Christie, Zündel’s defense attorney, showed Friedman scientific evidence that the crematoria at Auschwitz were designed not to give off either flames, ashes, or odors. Friedman eventually admitted that his testimony did not come from personal experience; he was simply repeating what others had told him.[6]

Rudolf Vrba, who had escaped from Auschwitz in April of 1944, was a world-famous eyewitness to the homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. Vrba was a coauthor of the War Refugee Board Report, and was the author of the book I Cannot Forgive (with Alan Bestic) published in 1964. Furthermore, Vrba had provided important eyewitness testimony at the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt in 1964.[7] The prosecution felt that Vrba could produce reliable and authentic testimony at the trial. Vrba was considered one of the most important witnesses in support of the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz.

However, Vrba confessed during his testimony at Zündel’s trial that his book I Cannot Forgive was “an artistic picture […] not a document for the court.” Vrba also testified that he had never actually witnessed anybody being gassed at Auschwitz, but had merely heard rumors. Furthermore, Vrba admitted that his written and pictorial descriptions of the Auschwitz crematory were mere guessing, based on “what I heard it might look like.” Vrba proved to be an unreliable witness who could only cite hearsay evidence of the so-called Holocaust.[8]

All the other prosecution witnesses were discredited on cross-examination by Douglas Christie. Today, the evidence that the so-called Holocaust happened is based almost entirely on eyewitness testimony of “survivors.” As the 1985 Ernst Zündel trial showed, such eyewitness testimony has consistently proved to be extremely unreliable.

Dr. Raul Hilberg was hired by the prosecution in the 1985 Zündel trial to testify as an expert on the “Holocaust.” He commenced his study of the “Holocaust” in 1948. Hilberg’s major work on the so-called Holocaust was The Destruction of the European Jews, which was first published in 1961, and reprinted many times.

When asked in 1983 how the extermination of European Jewry took place without an order, Hilberg replied:[9]

“What began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus, came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.”

On January 16, 1985, under cross-examination at the 1985 Zündel trial, Hilberg confirmed that he said these words.[10] Thus, Hilberg stated that the mass murder of European Jewry was not carried out by a plan or order, but rather by an incredible mind reading among far-flung German bureaucrats.

Douglas Christie asked Hilberg if he knew of one scientific report that substantiates that any single place was used as a gas chamber. Hilberg, after repeatedly asking for clarification of the question, eventually had to admit that he knew of no scientific report that proved the existence of a gas chamber in German camps during World War II.[11] Thus, the world’s greatest pro-Holocaust expert admitted that there was no scientific evidence or even an autopsy report to back up the prosecution’s incredible extermination claims.[12]

After Hilberg’s testimony, spirits were understandably high at Zündel’s headquarters. The prosecution witnesses and their “Holocaust” expert, who were supposed to make a fool of Zündel, had failed miserably in their testimony.[12]

Zündel now produced solid evidence in his defense, including eyewitnesses. Dr. Robert Faurisson, the leader of Zündel’s defense team and a recognized expert on text and document criticism, was Zündel’s first witness. Faurisson testified that there was not a single homicidal gas chamber in any of the German concentration camps. He stated:[13]

“If it [proof of gassings] had existed, we should have thousands of material [proofs]. We have not one proof.”

Dr. Russell Barton, an English physician who later became an American psychiatrist, testified that he entered Bergen-Belsen with British forces as a young medical student on May 2, 1945. Dr. Barton’s first impression of the camp was one of horror: some inmates were dead and piled up outside the huts, others were in various stages of dying, disease and dehydration. Barton examined the camp’s well-equipped kitchens, and found record books listing the food that had been cooked and distributed going back to 1942. Dr. Barton determined from his examination of the camp records that there had not been a deliberate policy of starvation at Bergen-Belsen.

Dr. Barton made inquiries with inmates, including Jewish doctors, who told him that Bergen-Belsen had not been too bad until the autumn of 1944. Then, as the Russian armies were advancing, the inmates said they had been given the choice of remaining in the camps about to be overrun by the Soviets, or being repatriated back to Germany. Many chose to return to Germany. As a result, from the autumn of 1944 to early 1945, some 53,000 people were moved into Bergen-Belsen, which had room for only 3,000 inmates. The overcrowding was extreme, and the staff at the camp resented it. Josef Kramer, the commandant of Bergen-Belsen, and Dr. Fritz Klein, the medical doctor at the camp, didn’t know what to do with the huge influx of inmates. Dr. Barton testified that the horrific conditions at Bergen-Belsen were attributable to overcrowding and the collapse of the German economy at the end of the war rather than to an intentional program of extermination.[14]

Thies Christophersen was another witness who said that the alleged mass murder of Jews during the war never happened. Christophersen supervised about 300 workers at Auschwitz from January to December 1944. On numerous occasions during this period, he visited Birkenau, where allegedly hundreds of thousands of Jews were being gassed to death. In a memoir first published in Germany in 1973, The Auschwitz Lie, Christophersen wrote that, during the time he was at Auschwitz, he did not notice the slightest evidence of mass gassings. At the 1985 Zündel trial, he successfully answered numerous pointed questions by the prosecuting attorney about his experiences at Auschwitz.[15]

Dr. William B. Lindsey, a research chemist employed for 33 years by the DuPont Corporation, testified at the 1985 Ernst Zündel trial that he considered mass homicidal gassings in the camps to be technically impossible. Based on his on-site examination of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek, Dr. Lindsey stated:[16]

“I have come to the conclusion that no one was willfully or purposefully killed with Zyklon B in this manner. I consider it absolutely impossible.”

Ditlieb Felderer, a revisionist researcher of Jewish descent, testified that he had conducted 27 separate visits to Auschwitz, where he snapped more than 30,000 color photographs, took soil samples and conducted infra-red analysis of rooms and buildings. He examined the camp from top to bottom, and sneaked into areas which were off limits to tourists. Zündel testified that Felderer’s photographs were important in the formation of his understanding of the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz. However, none of Felderer’s photographs was permitted to be offered as evidence by the judge in Zündel’s trial.

Felderer testified that the real Zyklon-B rooms at Auschwitz were delousing chambers. These facilities were designed to save lives by fighting typhus through the fumigation of bedding and clothing. He said that faked or reconstructed exhibits were placed on the guided Auschwitz tour. These fake exhibits included the infamous “execution wall,” which Felderer discovered did not have any bullet holes in the wall. Felderer described Auschwitz as it is now portrayed as being a “Hollywood set” which carries on Zionist and Communist propaganda.[17]

Zündel called numerous additional witnesses to testify in his defense. At the end of his trial, Zündel was questioned about his views of the “Holocaust.” His testimony indicated that he had studied the subject quite extensively.

Unfortunately, regarding the booklet Did Six Million Really Die?, the jury found Zündel guilty of willfully promoting false news. Judge Hugh Locke sentenced Ernst Zündel to 15 months in prison, followed by three years of probation. While free on bail, Judge Locke placed Zündel under a judicial gag order forbidding him from writing or speaking about the “Holocaust.”[18]

Christie appealed the court’s decision. On January 23, 1987, Zündel’s conviction was overturned by the five-judge Ontario Court of Appeals for two very important reasons. First, Locke had not allowed the defense any influence in the jury selection process. Second, the jury had been misled by the judge on the very meaning of the trial. A second trial concerning only the booklet Did Six Million Really Die? was ordered by the court.[19]

The 1988 Zündel Trial

Beaumont also includes an entire chapter on Ernst Zündel’s second trial, which began on January 18, 1988. Prior to the start of the trial, Crown Attorney John Pearson requested that the new judge, Ron Thomas, take judicial notice of the historical fact that the National Socialist regime of Adolf Hitler pursued a policy of extermination of Europe’s Jews. Judge Thomas granted Pearson’s request. The jury was directed by Thomas to accept as a fact that the “Holocaust” had occurred. Thus, in the 1988 Zündel trial, the judge by this ruling effectively determined the result of the case (pp. 100f.).

Not one “Holocaust” survivor entered the witness box in Zündel’s second trial. The prosecution had apparently learned in the first trial that there were no credible witnesses to the existence and operation of German gas chambers. Despite objections by Douglas Christie, the judge in the second trial allowed Raul Hillberg’s testimony from 1985 to be read to the jury, thereby enabling Hilberg to avoid cross-examination in Zündel’s second trial.

Dr. Christopher Browning, a professor of history at Pacific Lutheran University, was called by the prosecution as their expert witness to replace Hilberg. Browning admitted in his testimony that, during his 17 years of research, he had never seen a homicidal gas chamber or a technical plan for a homicidal gas chamber. He had never seen an autopsy report for a supposedly gassed individual in any German concentration camp. Browning also could not provide any credible evidence that Hitler had ordered the extermination of the Jews. He was also unaware of the numerous tortures of Germans such as Rudolf Höss, the commandant of Auschwitz, who had spoken of gassings (pp. 101-103).

Robert Faurisson provided extensive testimony at this trial as to the nonexistence of gas chambers in the German camps. Faurisson spoke of the very serious practical necessities that would be required for Germany to bring such a system into operation (p. 113):

“A gassing is not an improvisation. If the Germans had decided to gas millions of people, a complete overhaul of some very formidable machinery would have been absolutely essential. A general order, instructions, studies, commands, and plans would surely have been necessary also. Such items have never been found. Meetings of experts would have been necessary: of architects, chemists, doctors, and experts in a wide range of technical fields. Disbursements and allocation of funds would have been necessary.”

Bill M. Armontrout, the Warden of Missouri State Penitentiary, confirmed at the 1988 Zündel trial the difficulty of conducting homicidal gassings to kill people. He described the procedure used in Missouri after the execution of only one person in a homicidal gas chamber:[20]

“After the execution, the ammonia was released and the gas expelled out of the chamber. All staff and witnesses were removed from the area. The ventilation fan ran for approximately an hour before two officers equipped with Scott air-packs (self-contained breathing apparatus which firemen use to enter smoke-filled buildings) opened the hatch of the gas chamber and removed the lead bucket containing the cyanide residue. The two officers wore rubberized disposable clothing and long rubber gloves. They hosed down the condemned man’s body in the chair, paying particular attention to the hair and the clothing because of the cyanide residue, then removed him and placed him on a gurney where further decontamination took place. The officers then hosed the entire inside of the gas chamber with regular cold water.”

Obviously, such a difficult and time-consuming procedure would not be an effective means of quickly executing hundreds of thousands of people as allegedly happened to the Jews at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

British historian David Irving also provided valuable testimony at the 1988 Zündel trial. Irving was asked: Do you consider it likely that an enterprise of the magnitude of the extermination of the Jews of Europe could be accomplished by the people [Germans], knowing the way they conducted business from their documents, without the existence of explicit orders and plans? David Irving testified:[21]

“Not only without existence of orders, but also without the existence of any written reference to it. I have to say that the German wartime civil servant was basically a cowardly animal and he would not do something that he considered to be criminal without getting a document clearing himself. He would get his superior to write a letter saying, ‘On the Führer’s orders, we are doing the following,’ which is why there are letters showing Himmler saying, ‘On the Führer’s orders, we are deporting the Jews.’ Which was the extent of the Führer’s orders and which was the extent, to my mind, of the final solution. So, the documents don’t exist where you expect to find them. Hitler’s other crimes, the documents are there: the euthanasia order, the order to kill British commandos, the orders to lynch American airmen, the orders for the killing of the male population of Stalingrad if ever they occupied it. Hitler’s other crimes, simple crimes, the documents are there where you expect to find them. And yet this biggest crime of all, there is no document […]. I think there would definitely have had to be orders and these orders would have been referred to in countless files of different ministerial bodies. So, it would have been impossible for these documents to have been destroyed at the end of the war. There would always be carbon copies somewhere.”

The highlight of the 1988 Zündel trial was Fred Leuchter’s testimony. In every murder trial, the prosecution has the burden of proof to show the cause of death. Scientific evidence is usually the most convincing evidence to show the cause of death, because scientific evidence can be verified in an objective manner. Incredibly, in the biggest and most publicized murder trial of all time, the prosecution at the IMT produced no autopsy reports or expert reports on the existence and operation of the alleged homicidal gas chambers. Even in the Auschwitz Trial in Frankfurt in the mid-1960s and the Majdanek Trial in Düsseldorf in the late 1970s, the defense never requested a report on the alleged murder weapons, which have partly survived today. The prosecution in these trials relied almost exclusively on eyewitness testimony to convict the defendants of murder.[22]

It was not until the 1988 Zündel trial that a scientific study was conducted concerning the homicidal gas chambers allegedly used in the German camps. As part of his defense in this trial, Zündel commissioned the American gas chamber expert Fred Leuchter to make a scientific examination of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek. The resulting Leuchter Report is the first scientific study of the alleged German homicidal gas chambers.[22]

Leuchter, who before this assignment had believed in the existence of the homicidal gas chambers and the German genocide of European Jewry, was perhaps the leading expert in the United States on the construction and use of execution equipment. Leuchter had designed and manufactured execution equipment of all types prior to this assignment, including electrocution systems, lethal injection equipment, gallows and gas chamber hardware. He had worked with most, if not all, of the states in the United States having capital punishment.[23]

As a result of his on-site examination of the alleged homicidal gas chambers, Fred Leuchter states:[24]

“After reviewing all of the material and inspecting all of the sites at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, your author finds the evidence to be overwhelming. There were no execution gas chambers at any of these locations. It is the best engineering opinion of this author that the alleged gas chambers at the inspected sites could not have been, or now be, utilized or seriously considered to function as execution gas chambers.”

Douglas Christie, in his summation to the jury, stated that the prosecution had produced no technical or forensic evidence, no eyewitnesses and no “survivors.” Christie noted that the defense had covered all these issues, eliciting historic revelations in the process (p. 133).

Based on Judge Thomas’s ruling requiring the jury to accept as a fact that the “Holocaust” occurred, the jury found Zündel guilty of spreading false news. Zündel was sentenced to nine months imprisonment. Fortunately, in 1992, Zündel’s conviction was overturned by the Canadian Supreme Court, which ruled that the section of the Criminal Code that had been the grounds for Zündel’s conviction was unconstitutional (ibid.).

Germar Rudolf

John Beaumont also devotes a lengthy chapter to the Revisionist work of Germar Rudolf. Like most Germans, Rudolf originally believed in the official Holocaust narrative. He began to question the “Holocaust” after reading Paul Rassiner’s book What is Truth. Rudolf became increasingly skeptical of the so-called Holocaust after reading the Leuchter Report. He decided to do original scientific work on his own (pp. 138-141).

Rudolf, a certified chemist, expanded on Leuchter’s work by writing the Rudolf Report in the spring of 1992. The Rudolf Report, which has been updated and revised several times, focuses on the engineering and chemical aspects of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenau. Rudolf observed in his on-site examinations that the delousing facilities at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek all have one thing in common: their walls are permeated with Prussian Blue. Not only the inner surfaces, but also the outside walls and the mortar between the bricks of the delousing chambers have Prussian Blue staining. Nothing of this sort can be observed in any of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenau.

Rudolf also took samples from the alleged homicidal gas chambers and the delousing facilities at Auschwitz and Birkenau. Similar to Leuchter’s samples, the alleged homicidal gas chambers exhibit only insignificant traces of ferrocyanide residue on the same order of magnitude found in any other building. The samples from the delousing chambers, however, all show very high ferrocyanide residues. Rudolf determined that, if mass execution gassings with hydrocyanic acid had taken place in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, the rooms in the alleged homicidal gas chambers would exhibit similar ferrocyanide residue as the delousing chambers. Therefore, Rudolf concludes that mass gassings with Zyklon B could not have occurred in the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenau.[25]

Rudolf states that the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau could not have been used to exterminate hundreds of thousands of people as described in pro-Holocaust literature for the following reasons:

1. they did not have escape-proof doors and windows;
2. they did not have panic-proof equipment;
3. they did not have technically gastight doors and shutters;
4. they had no provision to quickly release and distribute the poison gas; and
5. they had no effective devices to ventilate or otherwise render ineffective the poison gas after the execution.[26]

By contrast, Germany built highly sophisticated and expensive disinfestation facilities at Auschwitz-Birkenau to kill lice and save inmate lives. These disinfestation facilities:

1. had walls and ceilings covered with gastight coatings;
2. were equipped with massive steel doors and had no windows;
3. had technically gastight doors;
4. had devices to quickly release and distribute the poison gas; and
5. had effective devices to ventilate or otherwise render ineffective the poison gas after the gas procedure.

By one estimate, the SS at Auschwitz-Birkenau spent almost $1 billion in today’s values to bring the typhus epidemics raging there under control.[27] An enormous amount of information exists concerning the German delousing facilities,[28] but no similar information exists regarding the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau.[29]

Additional evidence arguing against the existence of homicidal gas chambers is the roof of the semi-underground Morgue #1 of Crematorium II at Birkenau, which is said to have been the building’s homicidal gas chamber. This roof remains intact to some degree today. Contrary to eyewitness testimony, that roof has no Zyklon-B-introduction holes. This has been acknowledged by pro-Holocaust researcher Robert Jan van Pelt. Since it is impossible to close holes measuring 70 x 70 cm from a concrete roof without leaving clearly visible traces, it is certain that no Zyklon-B-introduction holes ever existed at Crematorium II. Consequently, Zyklon B could not have been introduced through the roof of this morgue as alleged by pro-Holocaust supporters.[30]

Beaumont writes that Rudolf has written many articles and books on the so-called Holocaust. Probably Rudolf’s most wide-ranging book is his Lectures on the Holocaust: Controversial Issues Cross-Examined, now in its expanded fourth edition published in 2023. Beaumont writes that this book is a remarkable work and is a powerful refutation of the official Holocaust story (p. 147).

Rudolf writes about so many topics in Lectures on the Holocaust that only a few topics can be mentioned here. Regarding the Aktion Reinhardt camps and Chelmno, Rudolf notes that witnesses have claimed that far more than homicidal gassings were used to execute people at these camps. For example, at Treblinka, various witnesses have alleged that mobile or stationary gas chambers, poison gas, quicklime, steam, electricity, machine guns, vacuum chambers, Zyklon B, and exhaust from diesel or gasoline engines were used as murder weapons. Such a mish-mash of eyewitness testimony greatly reduces its credibility.[31]

Rudolf also notes that none of the Aktion Reinhardt camps had crematoria even though all the other important German camps had fixed or mobile cremation furnaces. The Germans even built a crematorium for a simple prisoner-of-war transit camp in Russia. Also, when it turned out that the Germans had bought too many cremation furnaces, camp leaders were all asked if such furnaces were needed in their camps. No one at Treblinka, Belzec, or Sobibór indicated a need for such cremation furnaces. This makes no sense if the Aktion Reinhardt camps were the extermination camps they are claimed to have been.[32]

According to Holocaust historians, the bodies of Jews gassed at the Aktion Reinhardt camps were first buried in mass graves. The bodies were later exhumed and burned in the open air.[33] This story lacks all credibility. First, it would have required a tremendous amount of work to bury hundreds of thousands of dead bodies in a few months at the Aktion Reinhardt camps. It would have then required an enormous amount of work to recover these buried bodies and place them on the open-air pyres to be cremated. Finally, it would have required an enormous amount of wood to burn the dead bodies on open-air pyres. The Germans were not so stupid to have used such a labor-intensive and costly process when far better alternatives were available.

It would have been enormously difficult, if not impossible, to cremate 870,000 bodies at Treblinka through open air cremations. Germar Rudolf calculates that without wood between the corpse layers, each pyre of the fire grates would have been about nine meters high. With wood between the layers, each pyre would have been over 26 meters high. This would result in a total weight of over 700 metric tons per pyre for successful cremations. Even if the Germans had managed to build such a pile, it would be only a matter of time before the corpses fell over to one side, because fires never burn evenly. Realistically, a stable pile cannot be built that is higher than it is wide.[34]

Rudolf notes that all three of the Aktion Reinhardt camps were situated near the demarcation line between German- and Soviet-occupied Poland. This geographic fact indicates the likelihood that these camps served as transit camps for Jews to the east. The Soviets used broad-gauge railway tracks in contrast to the rest of Europe. Therefore, transports towards the east had to transfer their people at this demarcation line from trains of the European gauge to those of the Russian gauge. This explains why so many witnesses talked about hygienic measures such as delousing and showering procedures at these camps, which today are often falsely regarded as deceptive measures preceding mass murder.[35]

Rudolf writes about the Aktion Reinhardt camps:[36]

“Those claiming that a gigantic mass-murder operation unfolded have to deliver the kinds of evidence required in any murder case: primarily traces of the bodies, evidence of them having been murdered, and any kind of trace of the murder weapon.”

Official Holocaust historiography has produced no credible evidence of any of these.

Rudolf also writes extensively on the so-called Holocaust by bullets. The allegation is that the Einsatzgruppen and other German forces conducted a program of mass extermination against Jews.

However, in addition to fighting partisans, Rudolf writes that the Einsatzgruppen had numerous tasks involving the reorganization of civilian life in the Soviet territories occupied by the Germans. In their reports, the Einsatzgruppen addressed such issues as morale, politics and administration, propaganda, cultural life, public health, church, economy, the food situation, agriculture, industry and trade, the resistance movements, as well as the Jews. The Einsatzgruppen were involved in a truly staggering number of tasks. The mass murder of Jews was clearly not the primary function of the Einsatzgruppen .[37]

Much of the documentation for the Holocaust by bullets is based on the Einsatzgruppen reports. Rudolf notes, however, that even pro-Holocaust historians question the veracity of these reports. For example, German mainstream historian Peter Longerich comments on the possible exaggeration of Jews killed in the Einsatzgruppen reports:[38]

“Regarding the number of victims, it cannot be excluded that the accounting-style accuracy with which the Event Reports were written convey a false impression; it is possible that the exact number of people killed during the massacres was not recorded, and it seems conceivable that the figures given are exaggerated in order to polish the ‘success record.’”

Rudolf makes it clear that the alleged massacre of some 33,371 Jews at Babi Yar in September 1941 did not take place. He notes that the established version of this claimed event is that Jews were driven to the edge of Babi Yar and then shot and thrown into the ravine. Other sources claim that the Jews were murdered in a cemetery, in a forest, in the ravine itself, in a brickyard, in the city of Kiev, in gas vans or in the River Dnieper. The murder weapons were supposed to have been machine guns, submachine guns, automatic rifles, rifle butts, clubs, tanks, mines, hand grenades, gas vans, bayonets and knives, live burial, drowning, injections and electrical shocks.[39] Such absurd and conflicting testimony greatly reduces the credibility of the eyewitness testimony.

Rudolf also discusses an air photo taken on September 26, 1943 by the German air force which fell into American hands at war’s end. The photo was taken shortly after the corpses of Babi Yar were allegedly exhumed and cremated on gigantic pyres. The resolution of the photo is so good that distinct objects such as shrubs, trees and cars can be recognized. This photo shows nothing indicating that any recently terminated cataclysmic event took place such as the exhumation of 33,371 Jewish bodies. This photo proves that the Babi Yar massacre never took place.[40]

Beaumont correctly writes about Germar Rudolf (p. 216):

“Evidence, objectivity, and reasoned analysis are at the heart of his writings, which are massive in quantity and, it is submitted, excellent in quality, resulting in a very powerful case for revisionism.”

Walter Lüftl

Beaumont also includes a chapter in his book on Austrian engineer Walter Lüftl. In 1992, many Austrian and German newspapers reported the resignation of the president of the Federal Austrian Chamber of Engineers, Walter Lüftl, who stepped down from his position after voicing doubts about the Holocaust. There were demands that Lüftl be prosecuted, and allegations were made that he had expressed “Nazi” sentiments. Lüftl’s alleged crime was that he had written a paper that confirmed Fred Leuchter’s findings (pp. 220-222).

Lüftl states in his report that, although the hydrocyanic acid contained in the Zyklon B can kill quickly and certainly, the handling requirements for Zyklon B rule out any significant use of Zyklon B for the mass killing of people. Lüftl states that, during the ventilation process after a gassing, Zyklon B would still retain approximately 92% of its hydrocyanic acid content, and would thus continue releasing hydrocyanic acid gas. Lüftl asks: How could the gas chamber operators get rid of the remaining Zyklon B from the midst of dead corpses, without lengthy ventilation periods, and without causing mass deaths outside the gas chambers? Lüftl concludes that, because of operational and time considerations, quasi-industrial killing using Zyklon B is impossible.[41]

Lüftl also states in his report that mass murder with diesel exhaust gasses is an impossibility for reasons of time alone. Lüftl writes that this can be easily proven experimentally, even today, with a few brave men. Therefore, Lüftl concludes that the stories of gas chambers with diesel engines and gas vans at places such as Treblinka can only be disinformation. In his report, Lüftl states:[42]

“The laws of nature apply both to Nazis and anti-fascists. Nobody can be killed with diesel exhaust gas in the manner described [in the Holocaust literature].”

Lüftl summarizes the evidence in his Lüftl Report:[43]

“An absolutely unbiased study of the problem must conclude that, by and large, the views of the so-called ‘Revisionists’—the so-called ‘deniers’—are far more in line with the laws of nature, logic, and technical realities than the accounts in Holocaust literature (in which, moreover, scientifically verifiable data is generally lacking). When, as an exception, verifiable data is given in the Holocaust literature, a critical examination of such data leads to absurd results (25 persons per square meter, and so forth).

The decisive error in the Holocaust literature is the belief that the hydrocyanic acid contained in Zyklon B could be fully released in the alleged time span of 15-30 minutes required for the gassing, and that the carrier material would simultaneously and completely vaporize like a moth ball. The (fact of the) residue of Zyklon B makes the Auschwitz extermination story (‘Auschwitz-Mythos’) obsolete.”

Carlo Mattogno and Jürgen Graf

Beaumont writes that Carlo Mattogno is arguably the world’s leading Holocaust revisionist scholar. He has published dozens of books and numerous articles, more than any other Holocaust revisionist. The majority of Mattogno’s books are very detailed specialist works about specific topics (p. 275).

By the early 1990s, Mattogno had obtained a relatively small amount of documentary evidence concerning Auschwitz and the so-called Holocaust. His real breakthrough came in 1995, when he first gained access to the Moscow archives and made numerous tours in the archives of many eastern European countries in the company of Jürgen Graf. To Mattogno’s great surprise, the Auschwitz archives that he examined in Moscow were both “vast” (over 88,000 pages) and “meticulous.” Everything one could think of was documented except one thing only—the construction and operation of the homicidal gas chambers. There was no mention of the homicidal gas chambers in the Moscow archives (p. 277).

Now having extensive documentation, Mattogno began a scientific investigation of many issues regarding Auschwitz and the alleged homicidal gas chambers. Mattogno’s investigations include the issues of cremation at Auschwitz, open-air incinerations at Auschwitz, the alleged first gassing at Auschwitz, the bunkers of Auschwitz, the intention held by the Germans with respect to the fate of the Jews, the healthcare in Auschwitz, the deliveries of coke, wood and Zyklon B to Auschwitz, the unreliability of witnesses at Auschwitz, and the British intercepts of secret transmissions from Auschwitz (pp. 277-286).

Mattogno has also done extensive research on the alleged crimes of Dr. Josef Mengele at Auschwitz, and has concluded that Mengele has been falsely accused of these crimes. Mattogno writes (p. 303):

“Dr. Mengele’s alleged crimes are not substantiated by any document. No document shows that Mengele ever killed even one single child, or that one single child was ever killed on his orders. The crucial and sole witness, the one upon whose testimony the whole accusation is based, was an extraordinarily imaginative imposter. Dr. Mengele’s closest collaborators, including this presumed crucial witness, and at least 543 of his ‘victims’ were allowed to live. But then, how could anyone seriously believe in the fable of the ‘Angel of Death’ of Auschwitz?”

Jürgen Graf became acquainted with the revisionist view of the Holocaust in 1991. He soon published a couple of books which served as an introduction to Holocaust revisionism, but he was subsequently dismissed from his job for alleged unethical behavior. After obtaining a new job teaching German to foreign students at a private language school in Basel, Graf wrote another book about the unreliability of eyewitness reports of the alleged Auschwitz-Birkenau gas chambers. Graf at this time also met Carlo Mattogno, who he began working with in close cooperation, translating many of Mattogno’s writings and co-authoring several books (pp. 246f.).

Graf’s fourth revisionist book was published in 1995. In July 1998, Graf and his editor Gerhard Förster went on trial in Baden, Switzerland, for publication of Graf’s Holocaust revisionist views. It was claimed that Graf’s books were a violation of the Swiss “anti-racism law.” Graf was sentenced to 15 months in jail without probation, while Förster was sentenced to 12 months in jail. They were also fined large sums of money. Graf was dismissed from his teaching post after the trial, and his two appeals of the court’s verdict were turned down. He moved to Moscow to avoid serving prison time in Switzerland (pp. 247f.).

Jürgen Graf writes about his trials in his efforts to get at the truth of the so-called Holocaust (p. 249):

“Revisionism has radically changed my life. Although my existence has become perilous and precarious, it is now more interesting and more meaningful than ever before as I know that I am fighting against something fundamentally evil. Discovering the truth about the holocaust was a singular intellectual adventure and opened my eyes. Having ascertained that the Jewish extermination and homicidal gas chamber story is but a monstrous hoax, I understood the true nature of the so-called ‘Western democracy,’ and I became aware of the fact that a hostile alien minority is the driving force behind the decadence and corruption corroding Western society. The holocaust is but the most extreme case of the lies the Jewish-run media are continuously poisoning the world with…”

Conclusion

The Truth Will Set You Free: The Case for Holocaust Revisionism is an excellent introduction to the subject of the “Holocaust.” John Beaumont has done extensive research on the subject, and effectively summarizes the work of the major Holocaust revisionists. I highly recommend Beaumont’s book to anyone who wants to learn more about Holocaust revisionism and the fraudulent nature of the official Holocaust narrative.

Notes