Holocaust Documents, Part 6: Exposing holocaust deniers
Written by Sir Aaron Richards
Mirrored from https://imgur.com/a/725A7
In this section we will take a look at some of the leading holocaust deniers around the globe and how they all turned out to be frauds.
CONTENTS:
David Irving
Ernst Zündel and Samisdat publishers
Fred A. Leuchter - What came first? The chicken (gas chamber expert) or the egg (gas chambers)?
Germar Rudolf
Carlo Mattogno
The Institute for Historical Review
Dean Irebodd aka "denierbud" aka "Carto's Cutlass Supreme" (still active) over at CODOH
Eric Hunt, psychopath
David Cole / David Stein
Walter Sanning & Jürgen Graf
David Irving
To begin with, David Irving is not a historian.
David Irving tried to study physics and failed. Then he tried to study political economy and failed. He then went on to endorse Oswald Mosley from the British Union of Fascists, became an editor of a student rag-mag called Carnival Times where he first started spouting antisemitism such as saying the British Press was owned by Jews and that Hitler is the greatest unifying force Europe has known since Charlemagne. He then worked as a steelworker for Thyssen AG in West Germany, wrote for a German boulevard journal (Neue Illustrierte), and his writing career began with his novel "The Destruction of Dresden", where he claimed 100,000 to 250,000 people were killed in the allied fire-bombings of Dresden (a number he based off the TB-47 document promulgated by Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, a forgery), when today historians have concluded this number to be only around 25,000 dead. More about that here: i.imgur.com/k3kukxO
There was a time when David Irving had conned people into believing he was not only a historian but also an expert on Hitler, more than anyone else. But his little game ended when believing Faurisson and the Leuchter report, he jumped onto the "no Jew was ever gassed at Auschwitz" bandwagon and sued Deborah Lipstadt for libel as she figured him out and rightly called him a neo-Nazi.
The British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, who penned the classic work 'The Last Days of Hitler', observed: “I regard Irving as a very industrious and efficient investigator, and hunter of documents, a hard worker and good writer. That is on the credit side. But I don’t regard him as an historian. I don’t think he has any historical sense. He is a propagandist who uses efficiently collected and arranged material to support a propagandist line.”
There was a time when David Irving was holding speeches at neo-Nazi rallies and attending revisionist meetings hosted by the IHR. Indeed, the denier bunch didn't take it too well that he has now returned from his erroneous path and currently is no longer entirely denying the holocaust, just playing around with the number. For instance, he now accepts homicidal gassing at the Aktion Reinhard camps and Einsatzgruppen massacres in the east. Interestingly, he also accepts the gassing of Jews in the makeshift gas chambers known as the red and white house at Birkenau, and offers the accounts of Hans Aumeier as evidence for them - yet continues to deny the homicidal nature of the larger Krema facilities even though Aumeier also mentions these. During his trial in Austria, Irving admitted saying that there were no homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz was a mistake. See:
https://www.theguardian.com/guardianweekly/story/0,,1715580,00.html
In 2009 he gave a two and a half hour long interview called "Talking Frankly" where he spoke about his life, the books he had written, his rise to fame, the Irving-Lipstadt trial, and also about his revised views on the Holocaust. The short version is: David Irving today accepts homicidal gassings happened at Auschwitz, but only in the little red house and white house, while dismissing all the other homicidal gas chambers. He still calls the place a Disneyland-style theme park. However, David Irving also accepts Einsatzgruppen massacres and homicidal gassing at the Aktion Reinhard camps as fact, see here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIdjRJMyByY [video has been removed for violating YouTube's policy on hate speech]
A bit late, as his entire rep and fortune is in tethers.
The world's true expert on Adolf Hitler is Richard J. Evans, who destroyed Irving's so-called reputation and exposed him as a fraudulent researcher during the Irving vs. Lipstadt trial in the 90s, when he wrote his book-length refutation freely available here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160213122844/http://hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans.html
You can find the entire Irving-Lipstadt trial transcripts here:
https://www.hdot.org/trial-materials/trial-transcripts/
A quicker way to learn more about this trial during which the "holocaust was up for debate", is watching the PBS documentary "NOVA: Holocaust On Trial".
Those few holocaust deniers who still admire Irving today, rather than hating him for backstabbing them, reverse the story and claim it was poor Irving that was the victim of the Irving-Lipstadt trial (and not the other way round even though HE sued HER for libel) as he had no one for defense and therefore, so they claim, he lost to Lipstadt's "well paid" defense team containing actual historians. But keep in mind David Irving felt perfectly fine and confident representing himself and I am sure many fellow deniers like Faurisson, Butz, Leuchter, Mattogno etc. would have come to his aid for little or no pay, had he asked. And when it comes to crying about freedom of speech, consider this: If David Irving had won, it means Lipstadt would have gotten smacked hard for exercising her freedom of speech (calling someone a neo-Nazi), and the trial would have been an example of the censoring of free speech. But that's of course something the deniers will never mention when they invoke their usual one-sided wailing about their freedom of expression (calling out an alleged group they call "International Jewry" to be the biggest criminals and falsifiers of history) coming under assault.
And finally, here is a short summary of how David Irving operated as a falsifier of history (in regard to whitewashing Hitler's role in the holocaust), complete with examples and citations:
http://www.phdn.org/negation/gravediggers/gom-1998-david_irving_hitler.html
Ernst Zündel and Samisdat publishers
A second significant focal point of revisionist propaganda centered around the now defunct Samizdat Publishers in Toronto. The founder and guiding spirit was Ernst Zündel, a German who emigrated to Canada in 1958. Well equipped with printing equipment, archives, and literature, Samizdat published and distributed revisionist literature glorifying Hitler and the Third Reich, and denying the Holocaust. Its staff dispatched distorted versions of “the truth” about the Third Reich era around the world, including Germany and Poland.
In 1983 Sabina Citron, a Holocaust survivor and founder of the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, filed a private complaint against Zündel before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Zündel was charged under the Criminal Code, section 181, of spreading false news by publishing Richard Verral's "Did Six Million Really Die?" Zündel underwent two criminal trials in 1985 and 1988. The charge against Zündel alleged that he "did publish a statement or tale, namely, "Did Six Million Really Die?" that he knows is false and that is likely to cause mischief to the public interest in social and racial tolerance, contrary to the Criminal Code." After a much publicized trial in 1985, Zündel was found guilty. His conviction was later overturned in an appeal on a legal technicality, leading to a second trial in 1988. The 1988 trial relied on testimony from the Holocaust deniers David Irving and Fred A. Leuchter, a self-taught execution technician. Leuchter's testimony as an expert witness was accepted by the court, but his accompanying Leuchter report was excluded, based on his lack of engineering credentials. In 1985, key expert testimony against Zündel's alleged Holocaust denial was provided at great lengths by Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, who refused to testify at Zündel's 1988 trial. Zündel was convicted in 1988 and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, but was finally acquitted upon appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Zündel which held in 1992 that section 181 (formerly known as section 177) was a violation of the guarantee of freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In 1997, Zündel's marriage with his second wife, Irene Marcarelli, collapsed after 18 months. She subsequently testified against him in the late 1990s when he was under investigation by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for promoting hatred against Jews via his website. In January 2000, before the commission had completed its hearings, he left Canada for Sevierville, Tennessee, where he married his third wife, Ingrid Rimland, and vowed never to return to Canada. After his extradition to Germany in 2005, a court in Mannheim sentenced him to 5 years' imprisonment in 2007. His colleagues and supporters run the Zundelsite, which propagates his ideas.
When Zündel started Samisdat Publishers in the 1970s, he became interested in UFO-logy when the subject was at its peak of worldwide attention. His main offerings were his own books claiming that flying saucers were secret weapons developed by the Third Reich and now based in Antarctica. Under the pseudonyms Christof Friedrich and Mattern Friedrich, Zündel also wrote several publications promoting the idea that UFOs were craft developed by German scientists who had fled to New Swabia (Neuschwabenland), Antarctica. These titles include "Secret Nazi Polar Expeditions" [1978] and "Hitler at the South Pole" [1979]. He promoted the idea of Nazi secret bases in Antarctica, Nazi UFOs and Hollow Earth theories.
In the Samisdat Publishers newsletter of 1978, Zündel advertised an expedition to Antarctica to find these bases and UFOs. A ticket would cost $9,999 for a seat on an exploration team to locate the polar entrance to the hollow earth. This expedition never took place.
Fred A. Leuchter - What came first? The chicken (gas chamber expert) or the egg (gas chambers)?
Leuchter is not, as many deniers hail him as, "America's foremost gas chamber expert" (because the gas chambers in American prisons were built by experts and in operation long before he even came into the scene, see: http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/gascham.html), he only holds a bachelor's degree in liberal arts and is thus absolutely unqualified - this is obvious to any trained engineer that listens to the man (e.g. when he says stuff like the gas chamber being in so close proximity to the crematoria should have meant the entire place would have exploded, which is simply not true because you need HCN concentrations beyond 56,000ppm for volatility).
Fred Leuchter coldly exploited a legal loophole whereby an engineering license (registration) was not required to practice engineering in many states at the time, unless the engineer is involved in construction of buildings or dealing with the general public. This way, Fred Leuchter ran a nice shakedown scheme wherein he offered his services to inspect, modify and sell after-market parts to several US prisons with capital punishment facilities, and if a state refused to use his services, Leuchter would testify at the last minute on behalf of the inmate, claiming that the state's gas chamber might malfunction!
Source: Memorandum from Ed Carnes, Alabama Assistant Attorney General, to all Capital Punishment States July 20,1990; Shapiro 'Truth Prevails' pp. 17 and 21; Newsweek, Oct. 22, 1990, p. 64; Swampscott Journal, Nov. 1, 1990.
Leuchter's shady business came to an abrupt end when he was hired as an expert by the defense team of German-Canadian freelance publisher Ernst Zündel, who was on trial (for having published Richard Harwood/Verrall's "Did Six Million Really Die?" holocaust denial pamphlet, which at that time violated Canada's false news laws), and tasked to travel to Poland, in order to find out whether the homicidal gassing of hundreds of thousands of human beings in the gas chamber facilities over the course of several years at Auschwitz-Birkenau was historical fact or a big, fat, Jewish lie. Leuchter did this by taking samples in the gas chambers of Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II Birkenau, as well as the delousing chambers in Birkenau, to investigate the presence of "Prussian Blue" staining left on the walls by the pesticide Zyklon-B, pellets containing and releasing hydrogen cyanide (HCN) poison gas used by the Nazis for the genocidal killing, but also for fumigation and delousing of inmate clothing for the slave labor force.
Leuchter committed a number of errors: Despite the gas chamber in Krema I being a Polish-Soviet reconstruction from 1947 and the Birkenau Kremas being nothing but mangled ruins that had been exposed to the elements for over four decades, with the floors periodically flooding during heavy rain, Leuchter nevertheless decided to go ahead and not only that, but chiseled directly into the brickwork to take samples (rather than scraping alongside; and without any permission to boot) and after smuggling the samples back to the Alpha Analytical Labs in Massachusetts, United States for testing without telling them where the samples were from, came to the conclusion that because of the low cyanide concentration compared to the samples taken from the relatively well-preserved delousing chamber elsewhere in the camp, that no one was gassed in the gas chambers, or to put the conclusion more in his own words, that these chambers couldn't have been functioning gas chambers at all. Furthermore, Leuchter repeatedly expressed concern and disbelief over the proximity of the gas chambers to the crematoria, stating that due to the explosivity of HCN, the entire place would blow up if a homicidal gassing took place - although an "execution expert" and "engineer" like him should have known that warm blooded human beings can be killed with concentrations as low as 300 ppm, while HCN only becomes explosive in concentrations beyond 56,000 ppm[1].
Leuchter's "science report" didn't hold up in court and therefore did not help Zündel. Understandably, you can't get away with fraud, and therefore Leuchter's engineering career was ruined and the man was reduced to a divorced bus driver. He still had a good amount of luck though, because he wasn't charged with defacing a national monument and extradited to Poland, as for example would befall someone who would hammer home a chisel into the Statue of Liberty to take samples in order to prove where it was actually built. The fact that Leuchter is a free man today, and not rotting away in some Polish prison is proof enough of how lightly he got away with what he did.
The Leuchter report is a perfect example of how the scientific method can be abused to come to "conclusions" by the clueless that spit in the face of history, and even science itself because one fails to take in so many other factors. I have yet to see holocaust deniers provide any scientific study that can irrefutably prove how much prussian blue MUST form on a concrete wall in a given time frame and under what conditions and concentrations, and how likely or unlikely it is to fade away when exposed to something as simple as regularly hosing down the walls with water, or periodic flooding due to heavy rain over the decades. A common counter-argument by the holocaust denying chemistry student Germar Rudolf is that the "exposed to the elements" theory is bunk because there is prussian blue staining on the outside walls of the delousing chamber as well. But so far, neither Leuchter, nor Rudolf have been able to prove that the the entire brickwork is SOAKED with prussian blue (how else would they explain pigmentation on the OUTSIDE of the delousing chamber wall unless the pigment worked its way from the inside all the way through the brickwork to the outside?). Oh, I know - perhaps if it were the remnant of a coat of paint, as suggested by Josef Bailer, or if the deloused clothing and bedding had been piled up outside to dry.
If anyone is interested in reading a scientific refutation of the Leuchter and Rudolf reports, I recommend respected chemist Dr. Richard Green's essays "Leuchter, Rudolf and the Iron Blues", "Chemistry is Not the Science: Rudolf, Rhetoric, and Reduction", or for those who are fluent in German, Joseph Bailer's "Die Revisionisten und die Chemie".
Even if you dismiss all other explanations, even if you accept it as fact that concrete walls always develop prussian blue as a result of exposure to HCN, the fact still remains that while the walls of the delousing chambers were exposed to the gas for many, many hours at a time (cold-blooded lice take a lot longer to die than warm-blooded humans) the walls of the homicidal gas chambers were exposed to the gas, even at the height of extermination, less than an hour a day (each gassing took around 20 minutes and the moment the ventilation system started working, the HCN concentration in the air dropped, so the theory that the gas remained in the chamber until all bodies have been cleared, which took many hours, is nonsense, and HCN rapidly loses its toxicity and danger when ventilated into the open air, as was done with the US gas chambers as well, or even the delousing chambers for that matter, so the idea of it killing everyone around the building upon ventilation is equally nonsense) and therefore we have an observable difference in the build-up of prussian blue.
If you think Leuchter is just some poor, naive fool who got caught in the holocaust denier vs defender battle as the Errol Morris documentary "Mr. Death - The Rise and Fall of Fred Leuchter" makes one believe, think again - this man is a rabid antisemite like the rest of them. Here's what he had to say:
"Because I was somewhat naive at the time, I was not aware that by so testifying I was offending the organized world Jewish community. By providing final, definitive proof that there were no execution gas chambers utilized for genocidal purposes by the Germans at these wartime camps, I established the simple fact that the Holocaust story is not true. What I did not know was that anyone expressing such beliefs is guilty of a capital crime: that of thinking and telling the unspeakable truth about the greatest lie of the age." - Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., “Is there Life after Persecution? – The Botched Execution of Fred Leuchter,” presented at the eleventh IHR Conference, 1992. Journal of Historical Review Vol. 12, No. 4, Winter, 1992-93, pp. 429-444.
Straight from the horse's mouth. Leuchter isn't a simple-minded fool. He's a cold & calculating conman.
Source:
Germar Rudolf
"If the Holocaust is seen as a unique collection of lies, then the sole pillar supporting international Judaism's legitimacy will collapse. The idol of substitute religion will disintegrate. The possibility of extorting more billions from Germany on account of its alleged obligation will likewise collapse. The possibility of obligating America to eternally rescue the Jews from new Holocausts through endless donations of money will likewise collapse. World sympathy for the greatest liars and swindlers in the history of mankind will likewise collapse. Europe's second attempt to establish a lasting enclave in Palestine against the will of the Arabs, similar to the crusades, will likewise collapse. And finally, the future Arabia, which will be unified and self ruling without Jewish, American or European occupiers and colonial powers, will develop irresistibly. This explains why the Jews and Jewish dominated media and politicians everywhere defend these (Holocaust) lies and repress the prophets of truth by all means possible."
- Germar Rudolf, page 80 "Expert Report on the Formation and Detectability of Cyanide Compounds in the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz," aka Rudolf report. source is page 39 of: http://germarrudolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ListPos1_e.pdf
...and he gets upset when people call him antisemite rather than impartial chemist & revisionist scholar...
This man has had a history of using several different pseudonyms (like Ernst Gauss, H. K. Westphal, Dr. W. Kretschmer, Dr. Ch. Konrad, Dr. R. Scholz, Dr.-Ing. Hans Jürgen Nowak, etc.) to publish or peer-review his own writings (reminder that the one-time gas chamber denier and former President of the Austrian Chamber of Engineers, the Bundesingenieurskammer, Walter Lüftl, also wrote under pseudonyms, including Dipl-Ing. Werner Rademacher). I have to admit that Germar Rudolf is a tougher nut to crack than Fred Leuchter, given that we actually have someone here who saw the inside of a science faculty (the Max-Planck-Institut für Festkörperforschung in Stuttgart, Germany). His sob-story of getting into trouble with German hate speech laws aside, Rudolf is, together with Carlo Mattogno the world's leading active holocaust denier, in that he has actually written and presented lots of material that builds on Leuchter and seems more convincing (to a layman) rather than point-blank Jew-hatred, witness-shaming and logical fallacies as is customary with the bulk of deniers on the internet. Keep in mind that Germar Rudolf did not travel to Auschwitz, do the examination and write the Rudolf Report out of selfless, pure academic interest, but because similar to Leuchter working for Zundel's defense, Rudolf did it for the legal defense of Otto Ernst Remer, so the intent is clear: this was not a neutral "scientist" pursuing academic curiosity in his spare time, but someone involved in the defense of an actual, real Altnazi. His Rudolf report is currently hailed as the pinnacle of revisionist science. You can find the report here:
http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-trr.pdf
Note how it is a 467 page tome of detailed tables, diagrams, equations, and accompanying images. Someone who isn't in, or graduated from, STEM and a holocaust historian at the same time, will be in no position to be able to spot the errors on his own accord, since the expanded Rudolf Report uses both chemistry and history. Doubtless, he will be overwhelmed, and would consider that no dimwitted man (a lack of intelligence is, after all, the stereotype of Neo-Nazis) could have written this, therefore there must really be some truth to this. In reality, the majority of the Rudolf report isn't even about the science regarding the gas chambers. In fact, this isn't even the original Rudolf report, but an edited version including many portions dedicated to revisionist history to "provide context". Along with these, it also contains a regurgitation of highly selective references to how things work outside Auschwitz, and only once all of that has been mentioned, to then test Auschwitz for the principles established earlier.
The fact that Germar Rudolf set out to simply and effectively prove that science alone can expose "the holohoax" but has now converted himself to the approach of a regular 'revisionist historian', i.e. having to add everything else other deniers have come up with is proof that science itself cannot refute the reality of homicidal gassing at Auschwitz.
In scope, the Krakow Institute for Forensic Research (KIFR)'s report, "A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content In The Walls Of The Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps" by Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, Jerzy Labedz of the Institute of Forensic Research, Cracow" seems truly pathetic by initial comparison:
...but that is exactly the scientific core to what testing the gas chamber walls of Auschwitz can be reduced to. Rudolf's 400 page rambling is the house of cards necessary to defend HIS intepretation of the same forensic testing the KIFR did. And the KIFR's conclusion, despite similar results (far less HCN in the gas chamber walls compared to the delousing chamber) nevertheless refuted Rudolf. But it wasn't just them.
Germar Rudolf has also been refuted (among others) by a fellow chemist, albeit with a higher degree: Dr. Richard Green who seems to make a habit of naming and shaming Rudolf's rape of the scientific method:
If the link is dead, it's "Chemistry is Not the Science: Rudolf, Rhetoric and Reduction". In the Prussian Blue section. I have already presented more arguments and links that expose Rudolf's tomfoolery regarding cyanide chemistry, though I haven't talked much about vapor pressure which is in the link above.
Jamie McCarthy and Josef Bailer have also addressed Rudolf's "science". In fact, in August 1998, Germar Rudolf himself conceded that chemistry alone cannot refute the Holocaust, which pretty much dealt a staggering blow to all those deniers who relied on him and believed the scientific method was the be-all, end-all means with which "the holocaust narrative" could be factually disproven once and for all, without having to bother with elaborate historiographic methods.
As already provided in the Prussian Blue section of this blog, these are links to the papers that debunk the Rudolf report:
http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/auschwitz/cyanide/cyanide.002
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/blue.html
Of course Rudolf has responded to these. And of course Dr. Green has responded to Rudolf's response and Rudolf has subsequently responded to Dr. Green's response to Rudolf's response to Dr. Green's original response to Rudolf's claims and so on and so forth. Feel free to spend weeks reading all their available correspondence, but to me, perhaps the most important sentence in the Rudolf Report is the following sentence:
"All of the above makes prediction with certainty of the quantities of cyanide which one might have expected to find in the masonry of the alleged 'gas chambers' impossible."
- Rudolf Report, Limits of the Chemical Method, Ch. 8.4.6.
What this means, is the holocaust revisionists' brightest (and only) scientist walked into Auschwitz expecting to find levels of Iron Blues in a "homicidal quantity" he based on lots of woulda-coulda-shoulda postulation of his own, one-man's worth of understanding of science (and a hint of political motivation) and when he didn't find those levels set by himself, he concluded hundreds of thousands of people were not gassed here. That is, in summary, the original Rudolf Report. The revised one expanded to twice its size, is a result of the author noticing his science is not solid on its own, and therefore used the standard "historiographic methods" of other holocaust revisionists to flesh out his report, which is quite self-defeating, to put it in plain words.
Piggybacking on his success and respect among holocaust deniers, a finding falsely attributed to Germar Rudolf is a hoax document supposedly authored by one "Dr. Germar Rudolf". It titles "OFFICIAL GERMAN RECORD OF PRISONERS IN AUSCHWITZ CONCENTRATION CAMP MAY 1940 THROUGH DECEMBER 1944" The hoax can be found here:
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/rudolf.html
Germar Rudolf was already contacted about this fraud and replied:
”the article 'Official German Record of Prisoners in Auschwitz Concentration Camp, May 1940 through December 1944,' accredited to a 'Dr. Germar Rudolf' was not authored by me. Actually, I have not contributed anything to that paper. In addition, I have never used a doctor title for anything which was published with my consent under my real name, because that would be fraudulent, as I do not possess a doctor title. The paper was written by Peter Stahl, aka Gregory Douglas. I was in frequent contact with him in 2000-2004, but had a major falling out with him in 2002/2003. He once offered me the files/microfilms he claims to have containing the figures published in this paper. I do not remember why I didn’t get/obtain them. I probably had other more pressing issues and didn’t exactly trust the guy anymore at that point.”
source: https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=51162
The figures are fakes because the archive named, "Russian Central Archives, Central State Archives", does not exist and never did through the 1990s or 2000s. The Russian archives were renamed the State Archive of the Russian Federation after the collapse of the USSR, Gosudarstvennoi Arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii or GARF. It houses the records of the Extraordinary State Commission, whose fond number is 7021. The other major archive holding captured German records is the special archive, or Osobyi Arkhiv. This was renamed the Russian State Military Archive or Rossiiskoi Gosudarstvennoi Voennyi Arkhiv or RGVA.
Although the Russians have microfilmed some of their files, this would not result in the existence of any of the numbers given such as 'rolls 281-286'.
Further confirmation that the figures are simply made up can be found in the fact that the figures for numbers of prisoners registered by year and by month do not even vaguely match the numbers reconstructed from all other sources by the Auschwitz Museum. Overturning that research effort, which rests on countless transport lists, and the knowledge of registration numbers issued on specific days which can be corroborated from several directions and several sources, is not something that can be done by merely asserting a table of made up figures.
The work is also sloppy when it claims that "The number of Hungarian Jews claimed sent to Auschwitz during May-October 1944 in Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews, New York (1975) is 450,000; in Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, New York (1985) it is 180,000." Hilberg said no such thing; he used the known German reports from Hungary to specify that 437,000 deportees were sent to Auschwitz.
Why the author decided to simply make up these statistics is beyond me. They do not make any sense in relation to all other known sources, and not one leading holocaust denier such as Carlo Mattogno or Juergen Graf has cited Kreig's brochure or acknowledged these figures.
As for the writer of this, Peter Stahl, this is what Irving had to write about his so called document: “Stahl/Douglas has shown nobody anything original, whatever, whenever. No films, no documents. Just promises upon promises for decades. A true thief and forger .“ — David Irving, April 26, 1998
http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/diary_extracts.html
more fun regarding how Peter Stahl has tried to fool other deniers:
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-german&m
Carlo Mattogno
Mattogno likes to introduce himself as a linguist, a researcher and a man of international note in the field of history. A person who has dedicated his life to historical revisionism. While the suit and tie might give off an air of professionalism, the fact remains that he is associated with neither a university nor any reputable organization. Nor does he hold any degree I am aware of. And so far I am still unable to tell whether this man ever worked a day in his life. Chances are, his wife has a job while he is at home typing up his upteenth novel. Yet he would have us believe he is a scholar of international importance. The only organization he is affiliated with is the Institute for Historical Review. As we are by now well aware, the institute is devoted to denying the intent, scope, mass civilian shooting, medical experimentation, deliberate mistreatment such as torture, and homicidal gas chamber aspects of the Holocaust.
Mattogno is a lying shyster and anybody who takes the time to look this up will find plenty of instances where this has occurred, to then be able to conclude that Carlo Mattogno's standard method of refuting holocaust scholars is by lying about their credibility. I . e. he builds a strawman that a certain holocaust historian is not to be taken seriously, to then be able to escape the responsibility of refuting all his works. One such example is found here:
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&p=575424
Mattogno, among other things, also claims expertise on the cremation process and boasts about having researched it for decades. Studies of the crematory ovens have to confront and solve two problems, what Mattogno calls "thermotechnical problems": capacity and yield. Capacity is the number of corpses cremated within a time frame. Yield is the relation between heat produced and used. More to the point, it is the relation between amount of fuel needed to heat the oven to the degree needed for consumption. Mattogno says Jean-Claude Pressac did not scientifically examine either of these two problems while doing his study. He therefore could not have come to the conclusions he did, which are as follows:
The Auschwitz oven muffle had a capacity of 30 to 36 corpses per day. The ovens were used approximately 21 hours per day. Realistically speaking, the three double-muffle ovens had an average capacity of 200 to 250 corpses per day. The capacity of the 5 triple-muffle ovens at Krema II and III each, was 800-1000 corpses per day each. The capacity of the two eight-muffle ovens installed in Kremas IV and V at Birkenau was 500 corpses per day each. Cremations lasted approximately forty minutes. Therefore the total capacity of the crematories at Auschwitz-Birkenau was 4,156 per day starting in March 1943.
To Mattogno, these figures are completely without technical proof. Concerning the capacity and attacking Pressac’s citation of a Topf firm letter, he says Pressac had no understanding of the content of the letter. He states the rate of 30 to 36 corpses a day, taking 40 minutes to burn in one oven on average, could only be obtained under optimal conditions with the aid of an intake draft system. The oven’s typical limit of efficiency for adult corpses was 60 minutes when you count principal combustion plus the post-combustion which lasted 20 minutes.
Mattogno says the aforementioned figures which Pressac is using don't apply to Auschwitz because they are based on a model called the "Gusen Model", therefore, when Pressac was applying them to the ovens at Auschwitz, he was doing so theoretically.
The capacity of the eight chambered ovens is actually more like 756 copses per day, so Pressac's estimate of 800 to 1000 is technically errant. What is Matagno's main point through all of this is that since Pressac's information has technical faults, then we should ignore his study as it is incorrect.
Mattogno then attacks the figures of the estimated number of people who lost their lives at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Again, he returns to belaboring the point of crematory capacity in his supposition of the reality of gassings. He bases this part of his argument on the apparent lack of an efficient draft intake system in the ovens at Auschwitz. For this reason, he only allows 20 hours of operation (a point he repeatedly makes), the operation time is further reduced by the need for the air to clear. Therefore, it is his point that the actual capacity of the entire complex is only 1,040 corpses per day, approximately 3000 less than Pressac's estimate.
Next, he attempts to explain the reason for the gas chambers. During the summer of 1942, a typhus epidemic had descended on the camp. The decimation in the male sector alone in the first weeks of August was 4,113. Therefore the ovens were established on the order of Himmler, to deal with the deaths due to the typhus outbreak and the expected increase in the POW population who would ultimately die from the disease. The ovens were not there as result of any homicidal gassings, according to Mattogno.
Pressac asserted that Zyklon B was the ingredient used for extermination. Though he recognizes that Zyklon B was used for delousing purposes, massive amounts were ordered by the SS commandant as the major extermination tool.
Mattogno rejects this assertion outright. He argues Zyklon B was only used for a disinfectant on all incoming prisoners. Mattogno says the amount needed for the final solution would have actually been much more than what was used. Of the total tonnage of Zyklon B which was ordered and used by Auschwitz, only 2% to 3% of the amount Pressac stipulates (95%) would have been needed for disinfecting. Therefore, it is Mattogno's reasoning that Pressac was, for all intents and purposes, fabricating his evidence.
It is important to bring up Mattogno's argument against the figures relating to the deaths of the Hungarian Jews. Why he decides to I’m not sure because Pressac does not discuss the plight of the Hungarian Jews in his study. But since Mattogno raises the issue in his reasoning against the existence of gas chambers and crematoria, I felt it prudent to address his argument.
According to Mattogno, of the 438,000 Hungarian Jews who were sent to Auschwitz-Birkenau, allowing for the deaths of roughly 28,000 old and infirm people who died from hardship, it is conceivable for him that 410,000 survived Auschwitz-Birkenau.
If 410,000 survived, then the process of extermination that supposedly was in existence could not have been so. According to Mattogno, of the Hungarian Jews who survived the death camp, most either went on to live in either the United States or Israel, living to a ripe old age.
Now that you have the basic arguments Mattogno has against Pressac, what does Pressac really say in his study on Auschwitz-Birkenau?
The Topf Firm was, in fact, engaged to build the crematoria. They had the technical know how, the experience of qualified personnel. By 1941 there would be an exceptionally close relationship growing between the camp command structure, the Zentralbauleitung, and the firm. The architect of the ovens whose correspondence forms evidence for Pressac’s argument, was a regular guest at the camp.
Kurt Prüfer designed the entire system from gas chamber to the inner workings of the crematoria. When the system needed to be expanded, he showed them how. When the smokestack of the crematoria began to crack from overuse, he made a special trip to correct the problem, and ended up making the system more efficient. Prüfer provided all the technical assistance the Nazis needed. He left a detailed description of everything he did.
For Auschwitz, they would incorporate what were then considered new innovations to facilitate the task of the crematoria. The ovens had to be fueled by coke. The older systems fueled by oil had to be phased out due to the rationing that had been necessitated in Germany by the war. This new coke firing system would need a special ventilation system incorporated into the roof of the ovens in order to handle the added time needed to burn the amount corpses they would have to for the final solution.
The designers of the system realized they needed to increase the size of the ventilators in conjunction with the rest of the system. It was decided the number of ventilators in each oven would be increased from 2 to 3. This would provide enough intake of air to create what they called forced draft, a system that took in air in an exponentially greater rate to facilitate consumption, and move the smoke faster into the stack which served the entire crematorium.
For example, the crematoria that were to built at Birkenau, were to have a 66% increase in their ventilation capacity. This would mean they would have the capacity to move 8,000 cubic meters of air through the ovens in one hour. It was on-line and functioning by the summer of 1943.
To further add credence to Pressac’s argument, I though it might be a good idea to get another scholar's point of view. I decided on Franciszek Piper.
Piper states the first of the prisoners gassed by Zyklon B were 600 Soviet prisoners of war, who met their deaths in the summer of 1941. The resulting test gassing pointed to Zyklon-B as the most likely agent to perform the job at hand.
Corroborating Pressac on his analysis, Piper states that in the months of 1942, the gassing operation was extended to Birkenau. This was caused by the small capacity of the Krema I gas chamber at the main camp, the Stammlager, and the difficulties the SS was having in camouflaging it. The expansion at Birkenau was a move that was the direct result of the Nazi decision to exterminate European Jewry.
Initially, the victims were gassed in farmhouses ridded of their inhabitants and converted into gas chambers.
As I have already stated, Mattogno puts forth the theory that the majority of the Hungarian Jews survived Auschwitz. I will now attack that theory using a study by historian Randolph Braham.
According to Braham, the Hungarian Jews represent a unique aspect of the Holocaust. The reason being, they remained relatively well off and cohesive until the Nazis occupied Hungary on March 19, 1944.
There were more than 800,000 Hungarian citizens of Jewish faith in 1944. Protected by their government, an ally of Germany, they believed they would be safe from persecution. After German occupation in the late stages of the war, this large community was subjected to the most ruthless, concentrated and swift destruction process in the entire war. Within a few months, all of the Jews in Hungary had, for the most part, been sent to concentration camps, the majority of which went to Auschwitz.
To ensure the orderly deportation, Hungary was divided into six zones. Accompanied by Hungarian police and SS, special "civilian officials", anti-Semitic Hungarian citizens who volunteered for the task, the roundup began on April 16, 1944. Their first destination were ghettos, a little less than one month from when the Germans occupied the country.
After many days in the ghetto, many were relived they were leaving, lulled by the rumors the SS spread which led them to believe they were going to work farms for the remainder of the war. They arrived in Auschwitz on May 16. These were the first Jewish citizens of Hungary who entered the death camp.
Now, here are the real figures for what happened to the Hungarian Jews:
Of approximately 438,000 Hungarians who were deported to Auschwitz from May 19 to July 9, 1944, only about 10% were determined to be fit for labor. Not the other way around as Mattogno’s reverse logic would like us to believe. Of this minority who weren't gassed, some remained in Auschwitz-Birkenau but the remainder and the vast majority were sent to other camps in the Nazi dominion, the largest going to Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Gross-Rosen, Mauthausen and Sachsenhausen. Most of those who were sent to these camps did not survive to see liberation in April and May 1945. They most assuredly did not live to emigrate to Israel and the United States.
So how do we know so much about these late stage deportations? The reasons are that both the Germans and the Hungarians prepared detailed reports on the progress of the liquidation process and especially those who went to Auschwitz.
The completion of operations for northern Hungary was reported on June 30. Following the completion of this zone, the number of deportees had risen to 340,162. After the southern part had been rid of its Jews, that number rose to 381,661. After the final deportations, 437,402 Jews had been taken to their final destination.
In this analysis of Mattogno’s argument against the existence of the gas chambers, I have seen the demented effort of one man to cast doubt on the horrifying reality of the Holocaust. Mattogno, through clever jargon, rewording of facts, and belaboring his fraudulent points over and over, would have us believe the single most devastating event in Jewish history did not happen.
Since, according to Mattogno, Pressac’s study is incorrect, then all accepted beliefs of Auschwitz must also be wrong. This includes the fate of the Hungarian Jews, of which, he would have us believe the vast majority survived the war. Something he states as fact, without offering any solid proof.
Mattogno is an idiot. A lackey of the Institute For Historical Review. He offers no counter-evidence for his arguments. He thinks that by cleverly rewording the facts and figures, and bombarding the reader with endless amounts of graphs that only convince a layman, he can trick people into believing Auschwitz was not the death camp it was. If Auschwitz was not the final destination for so many helpless European Jews, then by his reasoning, its conceivable the Nazis never enacted the plan they called "The Final Solution".
Carlo Mattogno has authored a whole host of other books. Arguably, more than any other holocaust denier has ever written. Worry not, if you want to waste your life reading his books, and then reading refutations to his books, I can only point you toward the Holocaust Controversies team who put up with his ramblings. And then you will have the pleasure of seeing him getting furious and writing refutations to those refutations, and the HC team working on refutations to his refutation of their refutation of his refutation of holocaust historiography. Enjoy.
The Institute for Historical Review
The world's focal point of holocaust revisionism since 1978 has been the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) in California. Its main propaganda organs were the quarterly Journal of Historical Review (JHR) and the bi-monthly IHR Newsletter. The 29 members of the editorial staff and board came not only from the US, but also from Germany (Udo Walendy, Wilhelm Stäglich, Georg Franz Willing), France (Robert Faurisson and Henri Roques), Argentina (W. Beweraggi-Allende), Australia (John Bennet), Spain (Enrique Aynat), Italy (Carlo Mattogno), and Japan (Hideo Miki).
David Irving (Britain), Ernst Zündel (Canada), Fred Leuchter, Arthur Butz, Bradley Smith, Jürgen Graf (Switzerland), Fritz Berg, John C. Ball, David Cole, and Radio Islam founder Ahmed Rami (Moroccan-Swede) are just some who have attended conferences and/or contributed to publications of the IHR.
The JHR became a tribunal for holocaust deniers around the world. The activities of the Institute, headed by the historian (!) and current director Mark Weber, have been curtailed in recent years by financial problems. Publication of the JHR ceased in 2002, and the Bulletin now appears only in an online edition.
The IHR has had a long history of organizing annual revisionist congresses presenting the latest “achievements” in the field of denying Nazi genocide. Wolf Rudiger Hess, the son of Hitler’s chosen deputy, Rudolf Hess, addressed the October 1992 eleventh congress as guest of honor.
In 2001, Eric Owens, a former employee, alleged that Mark Weber and Greg Raven from the IHR's staff had been planning to sell their mailing lists to either the Anti-Defamation League or the Church of Scientology.
The IHR today is loathed by many holocaust deniers. The reason for this is because Mark Weber is no longer interested in propagating revisionist material. Instead, he has chosen for the 'institute' to rather focus on anti-zionism and anti-Israel sentiments. Whether it is pointing out their human rights violations, taking the side of the Palestinians, or pointing out the presence of powerful Jewish organizations and people in the United States, Mark Weber's current focus is purely on present politics. When asked by deniers why his interest in "exposing the holohoax" has sunk so much despite him being the director of the IHR and a historian to boot, they finally realized it is because Mark Weber no longer fully denies the holocaust. Mark Weber now accepts homicidal gassings happened in the Aktion Reinhard camps, just like David Irving, David Cole and Eric Hunt. He goes on to say between 2 and 4 million Jews died in the holocaust. A classic "on the fence" guy, disliked by both sides. Here's proof of this via a skype interview he gives to the denier who interviews many other deniers, Jim Rizoli and his "League of Extraordinary Revisionists", around the 59:10 minute mark where it begins:
One of the most provocative public acts of the IHR back in its heyday was the public challenge it issued in 1979, offering a prize of $50,000 to anyone who could prove that there were gas chambers in Auschwitz. When a former Auschwitz prisoner living in California who had lost his mother and two sisters in the camp, Mel Mermelstein, came forth with such proof, the IHR rejeced his claims because it wasn't the type of proof they wanted. Mermelstein took the IHR to court. In 1995, he was awarded the prize and an additional sum in damages. Nevertheless, the IHR continued informing the world that Mermelstein had failed to prove his case. It still continues to declare this in its “66 Questions and Answers about the Holocaust,” which is widely available on the Internet. All 66 questions have been addressed and answered by Nizkor, a website dedicated to giving holocaust deniers the attention they are so desperately attempting to get from historians:
Dean Irebodd aka "denierbud" aka "Carto's Cutlass Supreme" (still active) over at CODOH
The central, easily accessible body of denier material for the average consumer (aka not Carlo Mattogno's thousand page tripe) involving the Aktion Reinhardt camps is denierbud's "One Third of the Holocaust" series on family friendly mass media sites such as YT. What's interesting to note, is that this video is about a decade old, and you will only find re-uploads made by people who are denierbud's followers, rather than the man himself.
The video is over 4 hours long, oftentimes you will find it segmented into many smaller parts, each 10-15 minutes long. If you are asking yourself whether a refutation to this video exists, or whether this is the ultimate redpill that has left mainstream historians baffled and unable to answer, well, you won't have to search long. The fine gentlemen from the Holocaust Controversies Blog have systematically destroyed the entire "One Third of the Holocaust" material part by part, and you can find their refutation here:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html
(scroll down to "Debunking denierbud videos and writings")
While he was active (in terms of video making), denierbud had a history of not allowing debate in the comments section of his videos, routinely deleting anyone who dared challenge his theses. He even ventured into holocaust debating forums to link his videos and asked what the others think, but when they began to ask questions he started setting up demands for what kinds of questions he allows, and which ones break his rules. This guy ended up being a coward and a fraud who closed shop and achieved with his 'one third' what David Cole achieved with his visit to Auschwitz, namely making himself look like an idiot (well, at least to Cole's credit, he did expose 1990s polish tour guide girls to be poorly informed). This is why the HC team coined the famous "chicken challenge" - counting the days denierbud had been refusing to link to their refutations of his video. Other deniers (like Jürgen Graf, Germar Rudolf or Carlo Mattogno) have at least had the decency to acknowledge, link and respond to rebuttals of their work by the HC team. Denierbud eventually did respond. But he didn't run an active site the way our next hero, Eric Hunt did.
In any case, it is still a mystery as to who he could be. His phonetic anagram is Dean Irebodd. He does have a somewhat active account, and is, in fact, the user "Carto's Cutlass Supreme"[1], over at codoh. He might be a gentleman going by the name of one "Mike Smith", living in the San Fransisco Bay Area. Indeed, if "Truth Does not Fear Investigation", why are holocaust deniers living in the land of the free, protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution, still so elusive?
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/11/interview-with-mike-smith-aka-denier.html
Source:
[1]: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11631&sid=376897b755874ea9281ddc8660b67e53
Eric Hunt, psychopath
There's one little detail many deniers probably don't know about their young, smart revisionist hero Eric Hunt whose videos grace Youtube to this day, and who had grand ambitions to open a virtual "holocaust hoax museum", whose domain is for sale today:
Eric Hunt turned out to be a deranged psychopath who stalked and physically assaulted Elie Wiesel in the Argent Hotel in 2007. Eric Hunt was taken to court and spent 18 months in jail. His attorney, John Runfola, pleaded to the court that Eric Hunt was a "lost soul", "had bipolar disorder" and was mentally ill. These are the "poor victims of Jewish persecution" holocaust deniers like to admire: Convicted felons, conmen and terrorists.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Jury-convicts-man-in-attack-on-Elie-Wiesel-3276032.php#photo-2347749
Today, among other activities, Eric Hunt runs a twitter account happily retweeting stories that fulfill every stereotype one can think of that go hand in hand: contempt for people of color, beliefs in Jew-organized White Genocide, White Nationalism, "race realism", support for Donald Trump, hatred toward all things Islamic, hatred toward the Clinton administration, the list goes on...I daresay he might even browse /pol/. It seems he has deleted his twitter recently.
Once again we witness what noble souls holocaust deniers really turn out to be, merely embarked on a purely academic pursuit of correcting the historical record, and nothing else....
But enough of the character assassination, let's attack the man's research, right? Except...there isn't any work of his worth discrediting, as Eric Hunt hasn't done any noteworthy original research of his own accord. All he does is parrot the claims made by other deniers long before him, e . g. Mattogno, and just presents them in a more palpable format for the gullible on youtube.
Recently though, it seems even this spokesperson for revisionism, this 'errand boy' of older revisionists whose job it was to make the content of holocausthandbooks more accessible to the youtube generation, to have had a change of heart:
Eric Hunt is now no longer a hardcore holocaust denier, given he cannot find a satisfactory answer to the question "Where did all those Jews deemed unfit for labor (babies, children, elderly...) end up going?"
He wrote a 14,000 word essay denouncing his earlier work and explaining how he finally saw the light:
The HC blog analyzes his change of heart, and the resulting panic in denier safe spaces such as codoh in the following post:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/02/eric-hunt-is-no-longer-holocaust-denier.html
David Cole / David Stein
We have two David Coles on the internet, and they are one and the same person:
One, the late teen or early twenties looking kid (a high school dropout, no less) in the 1990s who made a "documentary" where he filmed himself at Auschwitz asking poorly trained, broken English speaking Polish girls working as tour guides clever questions and then appeared on talk-shows like the Donahue or Montel Williams show together with CODOH founder Bradley Smith or the later IHR director Mark Weber to piss off elderly holocaust survivors with his smartassery,
And two, the almost middle aged, greying David Stein (and alcoholic) of today - but with the same squeaky voice - who is also the author of "Republican Party Animal". Isn't it interesting how holocaust deniers always prefer to show you the 25 year old David Cole videos rather than current ones of him? Gee, I wonder why. Maybe because David Cole, like David Irving, like Jean-Claude Pressac, like Charles D. Provan, like Mark Weber, like Eric Hunt and others have realized some of their errors. While Cole still denies the homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz, he accepts homicidal gassings at Natzweiler-Struthof and Aktion Reinhardt as facts. You can listen to snippets taken from his recent interviews here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Tr19lvXmQ [video has been removed]
Here's an excerpt of what he has to say about fellow deniers getting awfully upset over him:
"Since the release of my book, Republican Party Animal, I have received many emails from revisionists regarding my position, laid out in some detail in the book’s appendix, that Treblinka and the other so-called “Reinhardt” camps were places that functioned primarily, if not solely, as killing centers. To the credit of the revisionist community, most of these emails have been intelligent and supportive. But recently, Fred Leuchter and Robert Faurisson launched a campaign of name-calling against me, with Fred going so far as to declare that I am “not a revisionist.
I have seen abysmal things written about David Irving and Mark Weber, due to what is perceived to be their “weakness,” their “lack of commitment to the cause,” because they accept that many Jews were killed at the “Reinhardt” camps in Poland in 1942 and 1943, and that many were also killed in mass shootings, especially in the occupied Soviet territories in 1941.
“Hardcore” revisionist researchers like Carlo Mattogno and Jurgen Graf have pushed the notion that Treblinka and the “Reinhardt” camps were merely transit camps. Jews were sent there, only to be divided up and sent to other camps. Simple transit camps. This explains the camps’ small size versus the numbers sent there.
I can kill that argument with one sentence.
In their book “Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp,” Mattogno and Graf acknowledge the authenticity of the Korherr Report, which they correctly describe as “made by the statistician Richard Korherr at the beginning of 1943 at the instruction of Heinrich Himmler.” The report, they accept, contains “very accurate numbers of the Jews deported to the supposed extermination camps” (both quotes are from page 106 of the English-language version of the book).
Among these “very accurate numbers”:
Transportation of Jews from the Eastern provinces to the Russian east: 1,449,692 Processed through the camps in the General Government area: 1,274,166 Through the camps in the Warthegau: 145,302
Mattogno and Graf hold that these numbers indicate Jews sent through “transit camps,” on their way to other camps.
But what these two gentlemen fail to mention is the sentence in the Korherr Report that follows those numbers (numbers they admit are accurate, in a report they admit is authentic):
“The above numbers do not include the inmates of ghettos and concentration camps” (in the original German: “In den obigen Zahlen sind nicht enthalten die Insassen der Ghettos und der Konzentrationslager”).
And right there, the “Reinhardt camps as transit camps” theory is dead. Killed. Finished off. Irreparably. My work is done. I’m off to Moe’s to have a drink. Anyone care to join me?
Korherr makes it clear that the Jews “processed through the camps in the General Government” were NOT, following the processing, “inmates of ghettos and concentration camps.” Transit camp theory, RIP.
Mattogno and Graf devote not one word to that sentence. Not one word is devoted to “The above numbers do not include the inmates of ghettos and concentration camps.” Odd, as that seems to be a rather key sentence.
I could stop here. But I won’t. Because maybe you’re thinking, “okay, okay, they weren’t transited through Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec to other camps or ghettoes...maybe they were just set free! You know, to roam about in Ukraine or near the front.” Putting aside the patently ridiculous notion that the Nazis would take over a million Jews (people they considered sworn enemies and communist partisans) out of Polish ghettos, transport them closer to the front, and let them roam free, the Korherr Report still kills that theory, as Korherr enumerates the only remaining countries under Nazi control that still had, by early 1943, sizeable Jewish populations: Romania, Hungary, and France.
He says nothing about a million Polish Jews milling about freely in Ukraine or at the front.
The Jews “processed through the camps in the General Gouvernement” were not thereafter “processed” into other camps or ghettos. They “disappeared.”
Need more proof? Here’s the most important part. In Korherr’s conclusion, here’s what he writes (I’ve kept one sentence in the original German): “From 1937 to the beginning of 1943, the number of Jews in Europe has diminished by an estimated 4 million, partially due to emigration, partially due to the excess mortality of the Jews in Central and Western Europe, partially due to the evacuations especially in the more strongly populated Eastern Territories, die hier als Abgang gerechnet werden (“which are here counted as departed”).
These Jews are departed. “Evacuations,” along with excess mortality and pre-1941 emigration, constituted a population reduction in West, Central, and Eastern Europe of an estimated 4 million Jews. If the evacuated Jews were merely transferred from Poland to Ukraine, or from Poland to the occupied East, why would these Jews be counted as among those who are no longer in West, Central, or Eastern Europe? Why would their status be equal to those who have died from natural causes and suicide? Use your damn common sense here. It’s as clear as day.
The evacuees were not, by early 1943, in camps or ghettos. They were “counted as departed.” Not departed from the Reich proper, but departed from all of West, Central, and Eastern Europe. Departed. Gone. Not in Ukraine. Not at the front. Gone.
The “Höfle message” confirms the Korherr Report numbers. Mattogno, in his latest book “Inside the Gas Chambers,” mentions Höfle seven times in the book’s main body (Korherr gets two footnote mentions). Why? Because the Höfle document is merely numbers, with no pesky mentions of “diminished/reduced population,” and no argument-killing sentences about how “the numbers do not include the inmates of ghettos and concentration camps.”
Mattogno can use Höfle and his transit camp theory is not jeopardized. But he has no answer to Korherr.
Some revisionists will reflexively ask, “but where’s the physical evidence for the ‘Reinhardt’ camps? Where are the ‘gas chambers?’” I feel partly responsible for the fetish among revisionists regarding physical evidence. Yes, physical evidence is vital to study, when it exists. But if it doesn’t, it’s completely acceptable to build a case through contemporaneous documents. That’s not a “cop out.”
Did the inmates at Treblinka eat? For a year-and-a-half, did they ever ingest food? Did the commandant ever eat? Well, show me the Treblinka stove. Did the inmates ever go to the bathroom? Did the commandant? Well, show me a Treblinka toilet. Show me or draw me a Treblinka toilet. You can’t? Then none existed.
My sarcasm aside, the fact is, we all know that Treblinka existed. Studying the barren land where Treblinka once stood isn’t like looking for Noah’s Ark. We know that what we’re studying did exist. And we know that the camp was razed. The case for Treblinka (and Sobibor, etc.) must be made through documents.
This is not abnormal in the field of historical research. My work in the early ‘90s with physical evidence was never intended to suggest that only by physical evidence can a case be made for a gas chamber, for a camp, for intent, for population changes. I did not study physical evidence to the exclusion of all other types of evidence.
If you want to claim that the Colossus of Rhodes never existed, fine. But your “proof” can’t be “because there’s no photo of it,” or “because we can’t find any remains.” Some things did exist in this world, only to be erased by natural or man-made causes.
Were the Jews at the Reinhardt camps gassed? Were the bodies buried and then dug up to be burned, or burned immediately? We may never be able to say with 100% accuracy. But, we can say that the “transit camp” theory is bunk. It holds no water. The Korherr Report kills it. Simultaneously, the Korherr Report, coupled with the Höfle telegram, coupled with the March 1942 Goebbels diary entries about liquidating Polish Jews, coupled with the December 1942 entry about having to “answer to some things” regarding what’s happening to Polish Jews “if we do not want to run the risk of becoming gradually discovered,” coupled with Himmler’s admission at Sonthofen about murdering Jewish children and rubbing the Jewish ghettos in the General Government out of existence, creates a good case for mass-killing at the Reinhardt camps.
We don’t have a still-existing Treblinka gas chamber. What we have is documentary evidence that not only points to the Reinhardt camps as being terminal stops, but also voids the “transit camp” theory as a viable possibility.
Mark Weber, David Irving, and I, have all separately come to the conclusion that there is good evidence to regard the Reinhardt camps as killing centers. If Fred Leuchter and Robert Faurisson wish to claim that I am “not a revisionist,” I would humbly suggest that a more accurate solution would be for them to refer to themselves as “deniers,” and reserve the term revisionist for people who follow rather than finesse the evidence.
Two Postscripts:
1) In a piece on Inconvenient History, Jurgen Graf attacked David Irving for his belief that mass murders occurred at the Reinhardt camps. Graf’s position is 100% dependant on the idea that if the Nazis did have four secret murder camps, the Nazi higher-ups would have been blabbing about them left-and-right to every underling and bureaucratic cog.
Graf’s view is that the Nazi leaders had no secrets, and dispensed no information on a need-to-know basis. If Fritz Reuter, an employee in the Department of Population and Welfare in the Office of the Governor General for the District of Lublin, didn’t know the nature of Belzec, if he believed it to be a regular camp, well then, gosh darn it, it was, because the Nazileaders never kept anything secret. Himmler? Goebbels? They were like Wikileaks. Everything out in the open, 24 hours a day. If you actually buy that, you’ll buy Graf’s attack on Irving.
When Himmler received the Korherr Report, he insisted that the term “special treatment of the Jews” be removed in the section regarding the General Government evacuees (through Brandt, Korherr was instructed to use the term “processed through the camps in the General Government” instead). Himmler himself told Korherr that the report might be good in the future for “camouflage purposes” (Tarnungszwecken), but that, for now, it would be for his eyes only.
If Himmler insisted on “camouflage” in a report that only he was going to see, doesn’t that give some indication of the level of secrecy surrounding the “evacuations?” If he was that cautious with a document not distributed to anyone else, why would he be expected to scream the truth about the Reinhardt camps to low-level bureaucrats?
2) Ever since my position on Treblinka became known, well-meaning revisionists have been pillorying me with instructions to “watch Eric Hunt’s Treblinka archeology video. Watch it. Oh, just watch it. You’ll see how wrong you are.”
I have never met Mr. Hunt, and I have no beef with the young unsuccessful elevator conversationalist. But I must confess, there was little of value in Hunt’s examination of the Smithsonian Channel’s Treblinka “excavation” show.
To be clear, that Smithsonian program was nutty as a bowl of pistachios. It was empty, meaningless, overwrought, and just plain dumb. There was nothing of value in it. It should rightfully be mocked, and I’m glad young Mr. Hunt invested an hour-twenty in doing so.
Hunt devotes a lot of time to the fact that many survivors – perhaps numbering in the thousands – were sent through Treblinka to other camps. But this is no scoop. As I point out in my book, Reitlinger made this exact point in “The Final Solution” in the 1950s. That possibly thousands of Jews were chosen for labor and sent on from Treblinka to other camps doesn’t negate the horrific figure given by Korherr for the Jews processed through the General Government camps who constitute the Jewish “population reduction” in Europe.
Hunt’s takedown of the Smithsonian Channel’s stupidity is fine enough, but what’s relevant to the discussion here is what Treblinka actually was. Hunt “addresses” that around the fifty-three minute mark in his video. And what he says exposes him as either a liar or a man with no actual comprehension of what he’s speaking about.
His quote: “We’re told the Nazis used ‘transited to the East’ as a code word to mean ‘gassed at extermination camps.’ Yet there is credible evidence of hundreds of thousands of Jews being expelled eastwards. For instance, this is a report from September 1942, of the Joint Distribution Committee providing medical aid to 600,000 Polish-Jewish refugees in Asiatic Russia.”
This is pure fraud on Hunt’s part. The “report” in question (which is actually a fundraising appeal by the same “Zionist liars” whose “Zionist lies” Hunt repeatedly cautions us about) refers to Polish Jews who supposedly fled to the Soviet Union from Poland after the German invasion in 1939. This “report” with its 600,000 figure refers to Jews who fled long before the German invasion of Russia.
Walter Sanning uses the Joint Distribution Committee claim correctly in his early revisionist work, “The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry.” He accurately states that the 600,000 figure refers to Jews who either fled from Poland into Russia, or who were “evacuated” and/or “deported” by Stalin into the Russian interior in ’39 and ’40 (Dissolution, pages 42 through 44, hardcover edition).
That 600,000 figure is completely, entirely, 100% unrelated to the Nazis “expelling Jews eastwards” in 1942 and 1943. Does Hunt even know enough about basic World War Two history to understand the logistical impossibility of the Nazis expelling Jews to “Asiatic Russia” in ’42 and ’43? Does he know that it would have necessitated crossing the front? During the time of the Battle of Stalingrad? How much World War Two history does this guy know beyond “gas chambers?”
Regardless, Hunt either lied about the Joint Distribution Committee claim, which dealt purely with Jews who either fled or were “evacuated” by the Soviets in 1939 and 1940, or he is simply too ignorant of basic history to understand that in 1942 and 1943, trains were not running from occupied Poland to “Asiatic Russia.”
In any event, his “documentary” adds nothing but misinformation (intentional or due to ignorance) to the legitimate study of the nature of Treblinka."
Also, see: http://hooverhog.typepad.com/hognotes/2015/02/a-reply-by-david-cole.html
This "Walter Sanning" David Cole fondly refers to, is a fraud even in his own work, whose title, "The Dissolution of European Jewry" is a deliberate choice of name so that it could be seen as the antithesis and "refutation" of holocaust historian Raul Hilberg's famous "The Destruction of the European Jews". This piggybacking is by the way a common practice of holocaust deniers so that their works get noticed more easily, e.g. Carlo Mattogno's "Auschwitz: The Case For Sanity" as response to Jan Van Pelt's "The Case For Auschwitz", or "Fail: Debunking Holocaust Denial Theories" as Mattogno and Rudolf's reponse to James and Lance Morcan's "Debunking Holocaust Denial Theories". In any case, Walter Sanning, including the 600,000 Polish Jews in the Soviet Union claim also mentioned above, has already been refuted, which I will link to in the next section.
If you're still not convinced that David Cole has pretty much left denial, here you can see him destroy the recent denier Ron Unz in an e-mail exchange where he dismantles a denier's most common talking points:
Walter Sanning & Jürgen Graf
Sanning (presumably the pen name of one Wilhelm Niederreiter who passed away in 2014) is a classic example of shadowy revisionist figures who publish under presumably pen names and are never heard from again. A rule of thumb that will save you a lot of time in your reading career is before reading a book, always try to find some information on who wrote it, what credentials he or she has, and how the book was received. Most revisionist authors can only boast about the latter (in regards to their circles).
Instead of attacking gas chambers, eye-witnesses, Nuremberg trials or "missing documents", as is the norm for other holocaust deniers, Walter Sanning chose a different approach: games involving census data. If he could prove, that there either never were as many Jews to begin with, or that more of them escaped the Shoah by evacuation than historians have shown were killed in it, then, so Sanning's logic, the holocaust death toll will be proven a hoax. His chief opponent in this aspect was to try and take down Raul Hilberg's weighty tome "The Destruction of the European Jews", where Hilberg meticulously traced and calculated over 5 million Jewish dead. Piggybacking on his title to get more attention, Sanning aptly titled his much thinner novel: "The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry". Apart from this publication, Sanning's activity in the revisionist scene remained minimal. I'm just going to take a bet and say he realized the error of his calculations.
One author who has debunked Walter Sanning's calculations is John C. Zimmerman, who discusses Poland's pre-war demographics in his book “Holocaust Denial: Demographics, Testimonies and Ideologies.”
Zimmerman notes that the Polish Census of 1931 shows a Jewish population of 3,113,900. He brings up Sanning’s attempt to show that Poland didn’t have enough Jews living there during the German occupation to account for some 3,000,000 dead:
Sanning made the claim that 100,000 Jews left Poland annually from 1933, apparently citing the respected Munich Institute for Contemporary History (Institut für Zeitgeschichte, IFZ). Zimmermann however notes that the article in question deals with German-Jewish Immigration and only mentions Poland once. The article also fails to note where these Jews immigrated to. Zimmermann attempted to contact the Munich Institute and was never contacted back.
Zimmermann notes that the total number of Jews from all countries that immigrated to the United States from 1933-1943 was 168,128 but that only 9,300 came from Poland.
Sanning attempted to show that the difference from 4,228,039 Jews in the US in 1927 to 4,770,647 Jews in 1937 came from immigration, but Zimmerman notes that this was not necessarily so. Many were already immigrants who had come earlier and produced more children during this period of time, something that Sanning completely left out of his calculation.
Official Polish totals for Jewish emigration placed the number at 109,716 Jews from 1931-1937. These numbers were published in 1940 and give a breakdown of the countries the Jews wound up in. There simply wasn’t an outlet of nations where these Jews could go.
The Holocaust Controversies team has done a 9 part refutation of Sanning's dishonesties, see here:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.at/2007/08/crazy-world-of-walter-sanning-part-1.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.at/2007/08/crazy-world-of-walter-sanning-part-2.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.at/2007/08/crazy-world-of-walter-sanning-part-3.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.at/2007/08/crazy-world-of-walter-sanning-part-4.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.at/2007/08/crazy-world-of-walter-sanning-part-5.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.at/2007/08/crazy-world-of-walter-sanning-part-6.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.at/2007/08/crazy-world-of-walter-sanning-part-7.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.at/2007/08/crazy-world-of-walter-sanning-part-8.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.at/2007/08/crazy-world-of-walter-sanning-part-9.html
On a similar note I can also mention the other revisionist attempt to tackle Hilberg: Jürgen Graf's "Giant with Feet of Clay". Except this book is even thinner than Sanning's 200 page novel, numbering just a bit more than 120 pages. Even if you put both books together you'll only achieve maybe 30% of Hilberg's book, and the majority of these pages is rather spent attacking Hilberg's conclusions rather than establishing alternate revisionist research. For instance, on page 41 of GwfoC Graf claims Einsatzgruppe A had 990 members, subtracts all truck drivers and women from the equation because they apparently cannot operate a gun, and then says it is impossible for this unit to have killed some 125,000 Jews over the period of 2 months, although each soldier tasked with killing some 130 people over this period of time should be no problem, given that the victims were unarmed and marched to their deaths in an orderly fashion. Jürgen Graf, in his infinite wisdom, of course also assumes no local militia assisted the Einsatzgruppen whatsoever in rounding up and killing Jews. For those of you having trouble imagining people offering no resistance despite death by firing squad awaiting them, I kindly advise you to watch some 1080p ISIS videos, especially of summer 2014 where you can see first hand how "Einsatzgruppen" 73 years later are still a feasible thing, and you'll have ample opportunity to see Iraqi civilians dig their own graves and line up to get shot. And this is just the more civilized way for ISIS to kill unarmed victims. Partial beheading along the drainage channel in a slaughterhouse and subsequent hanging onto the meathooks is where ISIS outdid the Nazi Einsatzgruppen. Of course, I can't guarantee you won't be scarred mentally as a result.
Jürgen Graf also deliberately ignores the fact that in many, many cases the shooters were local auxiliaries themselves. He is ignoring Baltic auxiliaries like the Lithuanian Shaulists or in Latvia Arajs Kommando. And it seems to have also eluded him that Himmler ended up reinforcing the other Einsatzgruppen in Belorussia and Ukraine with SS Cavalry and Order Police (Ordnungspolizei), about 30,000 men. In the Baltics, Hamann’s Rollkommando for example had a core of 60 mechanized Lithuanian troops, and 100s more at his disposal. Arad (Ghetto in Flames) writes of “a force of several hundred soldiers” (p 172) available as needed to the German Einsatzgruppen operating across Lithuania.
For more about how Einsatzgruppe A operated, see:
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/einsatz/lithuaniamurders.html
credit to "Statistical Mechanic" and "Jeffk 1970" from the SkepticForum