The latest effort to combat “denial”, i.e., Holocaust Revisionism (part V)

Published: 2011-03-23

By Wilfried Heink

The second essay in chapter two is titled, “Technische Aspekte des Massenmordes durch Giftgas als Argument vor Gericht”(Technical aspects of mass murder by poisonous gas as presented in court). It is written by two authors, Volker Bieler, Judge at the court in Landau, Palatine – up to 31 August 2010 also department head of the Central Agency for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes in Ludwigsburg and Kurt Schrimm, head prosecutor and head of the Ludwigsburg Central Agency for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes.

The authors start out by informing us that, when the NS regime had come to an end, mass murder by poisonous gas was the subject of numerous German courts cases (Trials conducted in the DDR are not considered). This contribution will show, by citing examples, how this specific system of murder had been legally evaluated (strafrechtlich bewertet). Paragraph (§) 211 will be discussed, as well as other relevant legalities.

Starting with the planning- and executing NS-authorities, right up to the guard who supervised the burning of the corpses, co-ordination was a characteristic of the mass murder. How this co-ordination, i.e., perpetrator and assistant, played a role in courts’ decisions of determining sentences will also be discussed. To put it all into perspective, we will let the verdicts speak for themselves. How the courts judged the substantial as well as the historical facts is laid out in the other essays contained in this summarizing volume (Sammelband). We will therefore only refer to the findings re. historical events (Historische Vorgänge) - contained in the verdicts - as is necessary for understanding the legal arguments of the courts.

Comments: The authors refer to “historical” events, “historical” facts, the historical significance irrelevant when guilt/innocence of the accused is to be determined. Some generalities concerning legal systems up front first, the differences no doubt known to many but perhaps not all, and since I am no expert just a rough outlay.

The Continental legal system differs from that of England and the US, insofar as in Continental jurisprudence, and I am only somewhat familiar with the German system, a series of laws exist, identified by so-called paragraphs “§”. In the Anglo-American system common law is practiced, judges verdicts become law and is referred to in similar cases. The authors discuss § 211, issued on 4 September 1941, at a time when lawlessness was the norm in Germany, as is claimed. This paragraph, among other issues, defines that person as a murderer who “insidiously or cruelly” (heimtückisch oder grausam) kills another person. A person acts insidiously when taking advantage of another person’s unwariness and defenselessness (Arg- und Wehrlosigkeit). Killing cruelly is when out of malice the victim is made to suffer unnecessarily.

This is an abbreviation of the legal terms as defined by the authors, but it needs to be mentioned to show how the courts wasted time in definitions and were forced to do so because of lack of evidence. Thus, to make all of it appear as legal proceedings, and to be able to convict without any substantial evidence, they had to resort to legal shenanigans. In the verdicts that I have seen, and the authors of this essay confirm this, no mention is ever made of a court ordered investigation of the alleged crime scene, no court ordered investigation of the alleged murder weapons, nothing. In the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials verdict the judges refer to the NSdAP party program, Dr. Broszat and Dr. Krausnick elaborating, the Hitler speech of 30 January 1939, the Wannsee Conference, etc. As for the alleged killings, they state that in the bunkers Jews were killed with gas with no details provided. And concerning the alleged gassings in crematoria II & III they stated:

“Zur Tarnung der in der Decke befindlichen Öffnungen, durch die das Zyklon B von aussen hineingeschüttet wurde, hatte man aus durchlöchertem Blech bestehende hohle Säulen installiert, die vom Boden bis zur Decke reichten und die Öffnungen verdeckten. In den Säulen befanden sich Spiralen, die das gekörnte Zyklon B nach dem Einschütten verteilten.“

(To camouflage the openings in the ceiling, through which the Zyklon B was poured from the outside, columns made from perforated sheet metal were installed, reaching from floor to ceiling and thus covered the openings. Inside the columns were spirals which distributed the Zyklon B granules.)

According to this, the columns were installed to hide the holes in the ceiling and the spiral inside the columns - made from perforated sheet metal - helped to distribute the pellets. None of that nonsense has survived, we now have columns made from wire mesh with a can on a string inside, the latest in German technical ingenuity and know how, equally as ridiculous as pointed out in part IV. The judges admit that no evidence existed when they stated:

“Bei der Feststellung der individuellen Beteiligung der Angeklagten an den in dem Konzentrationslager Auschwitz begangenen Mordtaten, sei es an Massenmorden, sei es an Einzeltötungen, sah sich das Schwurgericht vor ausserordentlich schwierige Aufgaben gestellt. Die Angeklagten selbst trugen zur Aufklärung nur sehr wenig bei. Soweit sie eine Beteiligung zugaben, schwächten sie diese ab, stellten sie verzerrt dar oder hatten stets eine Reihe von Ausreden zur Hand.

Die wenigen zur Verfügung stehenden Urkunden dienten im wesentlichen nur der Aufklärung allgemeiner Dinge, konnten jedoch über die individuelle Schuld der Angeklagten kaum Aufschluss geben.

Das Gericht war somit bei der Aufklärung der von den Angeklagten begangenen Verbrechen fast ausschliesslich auf Zeugenaussagen angewiesen[…]”[1]

(Trying to determine participation of the accused in the mass murder the court was faced with enormous difficulties. The accused refused to assist, if they admitted to participation they distorted what happened and had excuses at the ready.

The few available documents were only useful in clearing up general matters, but were of no help in determining guilt of the accused.

The courts had to therefore depend almost exclusively on the testimony of witnesses)

The verdicts of the Belzec and Sobibor trials are similar: no sign of an attempt to substantiate the charges with investigation reports compiled by experts in the field of crime investigations. In fact, recent trials in Germany, vs. Messrs. Zündel and Rudolf for instance, follow much the same pattern -- no evidence is submitted and when the defense tries to submit evidence of its own, it is refused. The authors of this essay are no doubt aware of this, which is why they needed to resort to legal definitions. For, if evidence existed, proving without doubt that the crimes had been committed as alleged, that evidence would have been presented. And to refer to the contributions by others will also not cut it -- the authors are legal experts and this essay should be where they make their case, if it can be made then.

The authors then provide excerpts from some of the verdicts, taken from “Justiz und NS-Verbrechen, Sammlung deutscher Strafurteile wegen nationalsozialistischen Tötungsverbrechen 1945-1999“, Amsterdam 1968 ff, by Christian F. Rüter and Dick W. de Mildt, publishers (Justice and NS crimes, A summary of verdicts of NS crimes as submitted 1945-1999). They start out with the gas wagons and a verdict of 23 July 1965 from the Bonn trial. Just a sample:

“Bei den Gaswagen handelte es sich um große, grau angestrichene Lastkraftwagen[...]mit geschlossenem Kastenaufbau[...]Das Innere war mit verzinktem Eisenblech ausgeschlagen. Auf dem Boden lagen Holzroste, unter denen sich Rohre befanden. An die Öffnung der Rohre war unter dem Wagenboden ein Schlauch angeschlossen, der eine konisch zulaufende Spitze besaß. Das Schlauchende konnte in das Auspuffrohr eingeführt und mit einer Überwurfmutter fest verschraubt werden”.[2]

Comments: Gaps are in the original. What this says is that the gas wagons were big trucks, painted grey with a closed-in box at the back. That box was lined with zinc coated sheet metal, at the floor wooden grills under which pipes were placed. A hose was connected to those pipes, the other end of the hose connected to the exhaust pipe. Thus, we have a grey box, no details as to what material this box was made of. And that is important, for it had to withstand pressure, this will be discussed later. Then this: a hose was connected to the exhaust. The German word used is “Schlauch” and at that time no doubt made of rubber or some rubber compound. The exhaust pipe gets scorching hot, any rubber or related material would melt in seconds. And no, Schlauch has no other meaning in German, if a pipe was meant or a hose made from flex material it would have said so. Also, I doubt any material available at that time, other than exhaust pipe related material, would have withstood the heat. All of this evidence that no experts had been consulted, the court relying on witness testimony.

In the verdict of the Düsseldorf Treblinka trial of 3 September 1965 we read:

“Der Boden der Gaskammern war gekachelt[…]An denDecken…befanden sich einige Rohrleitungen und Brauseköpfe. Dadurch sollten die Gaskammern den Eindruck von Duschräumen hervorrufen. Tatsächlich dienten die Rohrleitungen aber zum Einführen der von den Dieselmotoren im Maschinenraum erzeugten Gase[…]”[3]

(The floor of the gas chamber was tiled[…](gap in the original)Pipes with shower heads were fastened to the ceiling, supposed to create the impression that this was a shower room. But in fact the pipes were used to introduce the exhaust gas from the diesel engine, located in the machine room, into the chamber.)

Comments: And here we go again, diesel exhaust. The previous author, Achim Trunk, tried hard to convince us that diesel could have been used, maybe, and that with enough effort it could perhaps even be poisonous, but concludes, sort of, that “serious”, ahem, historians do not assume that diesel exhaust was used exclusively, except for Treblinka. So here we have confirmation, diesel exhaust was allegedly used in Treblinka. But the excerpt of the verdict says nothing about special settings for the diesel engine to make the exhaust poisonous enough to be suitable for mass murder, if this is at all possible, evidence again that the judges did not rely on expert analysis, that the proceedings were mere show trials. And why would the Germans, who had numerous gases at their disposal, among them the highly poisonous and cheaply produced Holzgas (producer gas) even consider diesel? All this is confirmation that what is alleged never happened.

The authors continue to write about the measures taken to fool the alleged victims into thinking that nothing sinister was about to happen, and all of them fell for it, or so we are ordered to believe. We then learn that out of the 70,000 mentally challenged, only a few of those killed in the T4 action were serious enough cases (Endzustände). Again the reference to the T4 action, unable to make a case for the Shoah, as it is referred to throughout the book, on its own. The number is of some importance, however, to be addressed later. They then go into more detail about definitions, i.e., who was considered a perpetrator (Täter) and who an assistant (Gehilfe), followed by how punishment was meted out.

Nothing that helps to prove that “The Shoah” is standing on solid ground, thus of no real benefit.



1.    The site, IDGR, I copied this from has since disappeared, all I have is the printout.

2        Günter Morsch et al, Neue Studien zu Nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas, p.51

3        Ibid, p.53



The third and last essay of chapter II is titled:

“Gewalt und Tod in Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslagern. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Archäologie“. (Violence and death in the concentration and extermination camps. Possibilities and limits of archeology). The essay is by Dr. Claudia Theune, University professor, institution head of the Institute for Ancient and Early History at the Vienna University. This sounds promising, although by now I would have expected an expert on crime investigations to join in, instead of a professor on ancient/early history. But again, no judging the book by its cover; let’s see what Dr. Theune writes.

In the introduction she informs us that archeology is the science which allows us, by investigating the traces left behind, to learn about the history and culture of peoples of times past. Over time different disciplines have emerged which concentrate on specific time periods. Before, the middle ages, as well as contemporary history, were not considered, it was believed that for that time enough documentation exists. This changed when the bombed out cities were reconstructed, thus in the 1950s archeology of the Middle Ages emerged, as did archeology of contemporary history in the 1980s. An international agreement was reached in 1964, the Charta of Venice, to be followed by the Malta Convention of 1992 and since then memorials are protected - this to include memorials from the time of National Socialism - and are part of archaeological research. Thus we now have four sources to fall back on: documents, photos, archaeological sources and written as well as oral witness testimonies. All of those, taken into context will give us an insight into the history of the former concentration camps and the violence and killings that took place in them. Theune further tells us that archaeology is only able to document the history of building traces found, i.e., basements or building foundations. Buildings that were demolished are lost for research, it is at best possible to determine what a building was used for by analogy.[1]

Comments: Good, we learn what archaeology can and cannot do. Pointing out that conclusions can sometimes only be reached when applying analogy, i.e. “inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others” (Webster’s), is a little troubling. For, Webster’s states “prob.”, probably and if all we have are eyewitness tales, as in most cases, that and the “probable” is not solid evidence to determine guilt or innocence. But most important, Theune lists evidence provided in the order of importance: 1. documents, 2. photos, 3. archaeology and 4. eyewitness testimony. No sign here of any mention of reports compiled by experts in the field of crime investigations, unless she included them in the archaeological sources (archäologische Quellen), or in documentary sources (schriftliche Quellen), but that is uncertain. It is however more likely that she is aware of the fact that no such reports exist and she thus ignored them. But, she did put witness testimony at the end, and as we have been told in the new release following the 2008 Berlin Conference, the “gas chambers” rest solely on eyewitness testimonies (see part one), the least reliable source. But, lets keep an open mind and see, perhaps Dr. Theune did find traces of a gas chamber.

The next sub-chapter is titled: Archäologie in ehemaligen Konzentrationslagern (archaeology in the former concentration camps). Archaeological excavations in the former camps have been undertaken for the past 15 years, so Theune. The reason being: construction in the camps, changes made re. the appearance of the camps, as in Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald, etc. Or, historical interest was the reason, as was the case in Flossenbürg and Witten-Annen, finding artefacts another possible motive. A few investigations were undertaken in Poland, in the former camp Belzec and Sobibor, as well as in the area around crematoria II in Auschwitz.[2] Archaeological research in the camps is of special importance, for in most cases other sources are not available. Based on those diggings the functions of the camps could be determined.

Theune continues by pointing out that we must perceive archaeological research re. violence and killings in the gas chambers differently (Die archäologischen Erkenntnisse zu Gewalt und Tod durch Tötung in Gaskammern sind jedoch differenziert zu betrachten). In many cases the technical facilities of the gas chambers (technischen Anlagen der Gaskammern) were destroyed by the National Socialists in the last days of the war. Or the structures were changed by the Soviets, as was the case in Sachsenhausen and Buchenwald, which were Soviet special camps, or buildings changed when the camps were turned into memorials. The technical equipment from the Sachsenhausen gas chamber was found in a shed, the blastings of the 1950s destroyed additional evidence. Mauthausen also changed, but the analysis of the walls in the room adjacent to the gas chambers resulted in a discovery: it turned out that tiles were replaced, one of the reasons to cover a round hole, probably the opening where the gas line came through the wall.

Many utensils were found, spoons and the like made from aluminum probably used by the inmates, whereas utensils made from more expensive material was used by the perpetrators. Human ashes were also found, as were teeth. Objects found in refuse sites are of little evidentiary value, as they are instead a telltale sign (deutliche Hinweise). Some comments about Hartheim which has also been altered.

Comments: For the Belzec investigations by Andrzej Kola see “Belzec”, by Carlo Mattogno.[3] For Sobibor see “The Akte Sobibor”, by Jürgen Graf, Thomas Kues and Carlo Mattogno.[4] Some of the controversies re. the recent Sobibor investigations are addressed by Thomas Kues.[5] It is strange, however, that Theune never mentions Treblinka, the camp in witch 880,000 Jews were killed, according to Yad Vashem. Also, witnesses testified that in Belzec and Treblinka the bodies were first buried in huge mass graves, then exhumed and burned. The outlines of those mass graves must still be clearly visible, the graves themselves must of course also still exist, impossible to destroy huge holes. All of this should assist archaeologists in their investigations, but we have nothing, no pictures taken from a plane showing the outlines of the graves, no mention of any of this by Dr. Theune.

Then there is the issue of the investigations themselves. Theune tells us that they only started some 15 years ago, the reason for those investigations not really to substantiate what is alleged but to turn the sites into memorials, and artefacts are found while doing so. But then again she tells us about the hole in the wall in one of the Mauthausen rooms, a small room just ahead of the alleged gas chamber, she calls it Gaszelle” (gas cell) and assumes that this is the hole where the gas pipe went through the wall. Some time was spent on this investigation; Theune tells us that the tiles were checked as to their origin, as was the plaster, etc., etc. But re. the hole she jumps to a conclusion, she is convinced that this must be the hole through which the gas pipe was routed. How can a hole tell us that? It can’t, but when approaching an investigation with the intend to prove what is alleged, this is the outcome and the inherent problem with all of those so-called investigations. The same approach was/is taken when investigating events depicted in the Old Testament. Julius Wellhausen was one of those taking a closer look and had this to say about some of the researchers: “Für die Deutung werden die Thatsachen vorausgesetzt und aus der Deutung werden sie bewiesen...“(For the interpretation facts are established up front and confirmed by using the interpretation)[6] But the detailed hole in the wall investigations prove that evidence is being looked for, just nothing of substance has ever been found.

The camp Sachsenhausen, forgotten for decades, has, since German unification, come to the fore. In the introduction to the book under discussion here, we learned that Martin Broszat of the Munich Institute for Contemporary History (IfZ) published a letter on 19 August 1960 in which he stated that no gas chambers had existed in Germany proper. This has now been revised, the Institute (IfZ) explained in a publication of 27 June 2001 that recent research has shown that gas chambers did exist inside Germany proper. No additional research is being referred to, only the book “Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas” by Kogon et al cited as source(pp.240-280).[7] Kogon et al base their conclusions in part on the testimony of Anton Kaindl, former camp commandant, at his trial of 23 October – 1 November 1947 before a Soviet court. The court case not part of this discussion, only to note that it is strange that Broszat was not aware of this. But, in a publication in “Stars and Stripes” of 24 January 1993, Simon Wiesenthal wrote:

“It is true that there were no extermination camps on German soil and thus no mass gassings such as those that took place at Auschwitz, Treblinka and other camps[…]”[8]

Prof. Dr. Yehuda Bauer, of Yad Vashem, confirmed this in a letter of 4 July 2000 in which he wrote that to his knowledge gassings were undertaken in Ravensbrück, and elsewhere in the borders of 1937, on a small scale[9], but no mention of Sachsenhausen et al. This is now interpreted to mean that gassings did take place in most camps, but not mass gassings. Spin everything until it fits. It is however alleged that mass gassings did take place in Sachsenhausen.

Prof. Maser (Fälschung, Dichtung und Wahrheit über Hitler und Stalin) lists the contradicting testimonies re. this gas chamber and at the end refers to an affidavit by Gerhard Schirmer in which the latter states that a replica of a gas chamber had been constructed by him, and several others, on order of the Soviets at about the middle of October 1945.[10] This affidavit was eventually seized by German authorities.[11]

After the war, the Soviets used Sachsenhausen as one of their special camps, scores of Germans were killed there or just died, many interned in the camp just for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. But no building marked “gas chamber” appeared on any of the camp sketches made public by either the Soviets or East German authorities. And even though “Fascist crimes” were referred to daily by the Soviets, no mention of any gas chamber in any of the reports by vice SMAD chief Serov (SMAD=Soviet Military Administration in Germany).[12] [13] And it gets even more peculiar: In 1950, the newly created East German army, at first referred to as “Kasernierte Volks-Polizei” KVP (police housed in barracks), took over the site (later all pretences were dropped and the army called an army, the Nationale Volksarmee [NVA], National peoples Army). An excerpt from the Sachsenhausen Memorial site regarding the gas chamber:

“In 1952/3, without reference to the historical importance of the site, the KVP blew up 'Station Z' - the crematorium and killing areas, to make room for a shooting gallery and the local population used the remaining materials of the barracks for building and heating. The Nationale Volksarmee (NVA) were also involved in the destruction of the site[…]”[14]

We are to believe that the Soviets allowed the Germans to destroy a perfectly good gas chamber, and that even though Smirnov stated at the IMT that: “…840,000 Russian prisoners of war in Sachsenhausen were annihilated at one time.”[15] This number has now shrunk somewhat, in the Sachsenhausen memorial write up we read of 12,000 Soviet POW’s.[16] Still, why not preserve the building to commemorate “Fascist crimes”? We must remember that at about the same time, the Soviets were busy re-building the morgue of crematoria I in Auschwitz, to make it appear as a gas chamber! Why then not preserve the alleged Sachsenhausen gas chamber? Because no gas chamber ever existed, except perhaps for the replica built by Schirmer et al.

In addition to this, Theune tells us that the gassing equipment was found in a shed, we don’t know what exactly has been found, but we are asked to believe that the Soviets had the Germans move said equipment out of the room before they started blasting. Anyone interested in a bridge in New York, very reasonably priced? Today all that is shown are some concrete footings of some building, with the proper write-ups of course - more information available at the memorial site, footnotes 14 & 16.

Theune then provides some details about the Sachsenhausen investigations, writing that the ground is saturated with human ashes, evidence that mass murder had been committed, by whom she does not say. Excavations were undertaken when the memorial was erected, but she never again mentions the fact that the Germans had been allowed to blow all of this up in the 1950s! She does get around later to suggest that some ditches filled with human ashes were of Soviet doing.

We are then told that the majority of camp inmates, by far, were Jews and that when digging Jewish burial laws need to be respected. 600,000 Jews were murdered in Belzec, only a few survived, we have hardly any pictures and only two maps drawn from memory. Drillings were done throughout the camp, which allowed the investigators to estimate the size of the mass graves. 33 mass graves were located, some as deep as 5m, with a volume of 21,000 cubic meters. Some building remnants were found, but the function of them remains unclear. The gas chamber, which had to be situated in the extermination camp (die in dem Vernichtungslager gestanden haben muss), could not be located by archaeological methods. The researchers assumed that it must be building G, the gas chamber positioned in the middle of the camp according to eyewitnesses.

Comments: For details about those investigations, please refer to the book by C. Mattogno, mentioned above, see footnote 3. As for the 33 graves allegedly located, here is what Mattogno writes:

The official map of the camp was drawn by the investigative commission of the German crimes in Poland and appeared in the article “The Belzec extermination camp” by Eugeniusz Szrojt, a member of this group.228 There, the area of the graves is represented by a rectangle placed near the northeastern border of the camp.

In conclusion, we can see that the location given by Kola for the majority of the graves is in disagreement both with Rudolf Reder’s testimony and with the findings of the Polish investigative commission[…]”

( 228 E. Szrojt, “Obóz zaglady w Belzcu,” in Biuletyn Glównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Niemieckich w Polsce, vol. III, Poznan 1947, insert without page number. A. Kola has also shown this map without any commentary; cf. document 7 in the Appendix.)[17]

The graves were backfilled with the ashes of the corpses cremated, so we are told. It is impossible to compact the backfill to keep it from settling, thus, the outlines of the graves should still be clearly visible, if any graves existed. Also, the “gas chamber” has never been found, Theune writes that it must have existed, well…., yes. But since nothing that really fits has been found, it is assumed that one of the buildings must have been it, not very convincing at all, but then, impossible to find what never existed.

Sobibor is next, and we learn that an estimated 250,000 people (Menschen) were killed there. Because a museum is planned, efforts are made to locate the gas chamber, a number of mass graves have also been found. Here too it has been determined that the bodies were buried first, lime poured over them, and later cremated. In a corner hundreds of bullets were found, an indications that people might have been shot there (anscheinend Menschen erschossen worden). None of the technical equipment of the gas chamber was recovered, removed when the camp was shut down.

Comments: For Sobibor, please refer to the works cited in footnotes 4 & 5. The part about the lime is interesting, however I have not seen it mentioned anywhere else. As for mass graves located, Messrs. Graf, Kues and Mattogno provide details.[18]

The next sub-chapter is titled: “Archäologische Spuren von Gewalt und Tod in ehemaligen Erschießungsstätten“(archaeological traces of violence and death in former shooting locations). Theune writes about excavations in Hebertshausen near Dachau, but most important were the archaeological investigations in Katyn, Miednoje (Russia) and Kharkiv in Ukraine, places where Soviet units murdered Polish citizens. She then writes about the shooting of Soviet POWs in Hebertshausen, irrelevant even if true, but then returns to Katyn. The mass graves were identified by using photos taken from planes (Luftbilder), and drillings were undertaken to determine the size of the graves. It is estimated that some 16,000 were killed in Katyn, et al. The investigation also revealed the efforts made by the National Socialists of 1943, and also that the Soviet secret service had opened the graves.

Comments: This is important, for Theune admits here that it is possible to identify graves by using airplane surveillance photos. Why is that not possible in Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor? Why only drillings in the latter two, with no investigation in Treblinka to locate the huge mass graves alleged to exist? There can only be one plausible explanation: no mass graves exist in those camps, for if they did exist, air surveillance photos would have pinpointed their location.

For Belzec it is now no longer possible to do this, the site having been totally worked over, the same is planned for Sobibor. Treblinka has masses of artifacts cluttering the site, making it almost impossible to investigate. Why is this, what is being hidden? Not the graves, for if they would have been located we would have been able to look at them on one TV channel or another over the years. Jewish burial laws/concerns? Not true either: In 2010 a whole area of the former Sachsenhausen sub-camp Lieberose near Jamlitz was dug up, looking for the graves of 753 Jews allegedly murdered there. A Rabbi was present, giving his blessings to the excavations. The whole site was turned upside-down, no regards for any burial laws, but nothing found.[19] This shows that when it is expected that the diggings will be successful, graves found, Jewish laws are bypassed, the law only enforced in places were it is known that no graves exist.

In her summary, Theune tells us that archaeological research has shown that death was ever present in the camps, it is however not possible to determine how many were killed. It is also possible to prove that violent shootings took place (Gewalt kann besonders bei den Erschiessungsanlagen…belegt werden). However, since the gas chamber equipment has been removed, archaeological research is limited. But, in Mauthausen the location of the gas pipe has been revealed, thus proving that equipment for the gassing of inmates had been installed, even though said equipment is no longer in place.

Final comments: Theune is displaying her stiff upper lip, trying to turn a disaster into success, and fails miserably. What have the investigations by archaeologists revealed, to prove without doubt that Jews were killed with poisonous gas? Nothing! She harps on about this Mauthausen hole in the wall, assuming that this is where the gas pipe entered the room, embarrassing, for she provides no solid evidence. She talks about the Belzec and Sobibor investigations by archaeologists, failures, but never mentions the missing Treblinka graves. Sachsenhausen has been dug up and dusted off, but since the Soviets used the camp to murder Germans and remodeled it, Maser writes about it, it is almost impossible to tell who did what. Unless of course archaeologists approach the subject with the conviction that the stories told about the “Nazis” are true, and that is obviously the case. But “investigations” of that kind do not deserve the term, they are missions undertaken to prove that what is told is fact, efforts to substantiate witness testimonies, tales of impossibilities.

Dr. Theune can thus also be dismissed as someone who contributed nothing to proving that Jews were murdered with poisonous gasses.

To be continued…




  1. Günter Morsch et al, Neue Studien zu Nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas, pp.64/65
  2. Ibid, pp.65/66, footnotes 9 & 10: 9 Andrzej Kola, Belzec, The Nazi Camp for Jewish in the Light of Archaeological Sources, Excavations 1997-1999, Warsaw/Washington 2000; (Februar 2009). Zu den archäologischen Forschungen in Polen siehe auch: Anders Otte Stensager, Holocaustarkaeologie - en arkaeologisk funktionsanalysea f udryddelseslejrene in Polen 1941-1945. Magisterarbeit Universität Kobenhavn 2007; (Januar 2010). 10 (Februar 2009); Tuwiah Friedman (Hrsg.)Sobibór. Ein NS-Vernichtungslager im Rahmen der Aktion Reinhard. Eine dokumentarische Sammlung, Haifa 1998. No source for Auschwitz.
  6. Julius Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und dir Sadducäer, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen, 1967 (first edition Verlag Bamberg, Greifswald 1874), p.66
  7. Werner Maser, Fälschung, Dichtung und Wahrheit über Hitler und Stalin, Olzog Verlag GmbH, München 2004, p.354
  10. Ibid, pp.256/57
  11. Personal letter of 23 August 2005 by Maser to the me.
  12. Maser, Fälschung, Dichtung…, pp.358-361
  13. About the machinations of Ivan Serov, see Marschall Schukow, Lebensweg über Leichen, by Victor Suvorov, Pour le Mérite-Verlag für Militärgeschichte, Selent 2002, pp.257-271
  15., p.586
  17. Mattogno, Belzec, p.76

Additional information about this document
Property Value
Author(s): Wilfried Heink
Title: The latest effort to combat “denial”, i.e., Holocaust Revisionism (part V)
Published: 2011-03-23
First posted on CODOH: March 23, 2011, 4:39 a.m.
Last revision:
Appears In: