Elie Wiesel

Den gamle charlatanen och proffsmartyren, Holocaustkultens superstjärna, förtjänar en egen tråd, tycker jag. Hans återberättande av chassidiska legender i några böcker är charmerande, på liknande sätt som det är fascinerande att läsa en idealiserad och mirakelfylld bild av ortodoxa ashkenazis liv och öden i det gamla Östeuropa skrivna av Buber och Singer: men Wiesels påståenden om FÖRINTELSEN är skandalösa, i många stycken grovt lögnaktiga och löjeväckande orimliga.


http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml

"A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel

By Robert Faurisson

Elie Wiesel won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. He is generally accepted as a witness to the Jewish "Holocaust," and, more specifically, as a witness to the legendary Nazi extermination gas chambers. The Paris daily Le Monde emphasized at the time that Wiesel was awarded the Nobel Prize because: [1]

These last years have seen, in the name of so-called "historical revisionism," the elaboration of theses, especially in France, questioning the existence of the Nazi gas chambers and, perhaps beyond that, of the genocide of the Jews itself.

But in what respect is Elie Wiesel a witness to the alleged gas chambers? By what right does he ask us to believe in that means of extermination? In an autobiographical book that supposedly describes his experiences at Auschwitz and Buchenwald, he nowhere mentions the gas chambers. [2] He does indeed say that the Germans executed Jews, but ... by fire; by throwing them alive into flaming ditches, before the very eyes of the deportees! No less than that!

Here Wiesel the false witness had some bad luck. Forced to choose from among several Allied war propaganda lies, he chose to defend the fire lie instead of the boiling water, gassing, or electrocution lies. In 1956, when he published his testimony in Yiddish, the fire lie was still alive in certain circles. This lie is the origin of the term Holocaust. Today there is no longer a single historian who believes that Jews were burned alive. The myths of the boiling water and of electrocution have also disappeared. Only the gas remains.

The gassing lie was spread by the Americans. [3] The lie that Jews were killed by boiling water or steam (specifically at Treblinka) was spread by the Poles. [4] The electrocution lie was spread by the Soviets. [5]

The fire lie is of undetermined origin. It is in a sense as old as war propaganda or hate propaganda. In his memoir, Night, which is a version of his earlier Yiddish testimony, Wiesel reports that at Auschwitz there was one flaming ditch for the adults and another one for babies. He writes: [6]

Not far from us, flames were leaping from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered its load -- little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it -- saw it with my own eyes ... Those children in the flames. (Is it surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep has fled from my eyes.)

A little farther on there was another ditch with gigantic flames where the victims suffered "slow agony in the flames." Wiesel's column was led by the Germans to within "three steps" of the ditch, then to "two steps." "Two steps from the pit we were ordered to turn to the left and made to go into a barracks."

An exceptional witness himself, Wiesel assures us of his having met other exceptional witnesses. Regarding Babi Yar, a place in Ukraine where the Germans executed Soviet citizens, among them Jews, Wiesel wrote: [7]

Later, I learn from a witness that, for month after month, the ground never stopped trembling; and that, from time to time, geysers of blood spurted from it.

These words did not slip from their author in a moment of frenzy: first, he wrote them, then some unspecified number of times (but at least once) he had to reread them in the proofs; finally, his words were translated into various languages, as is everything this author writes.

That Wiesel personally survived, was, of course, the result of a miracle. He says that: [8]

In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 persons to their deaths each day. I was always in the last hundred near the gate. They stopped. Why?

In 1954 French scholar Germaine Tillion analyzed the "gratuitous lie" with regard to the German concentration camps. She wrote: [9]

Those persons [who gratuitously lie] are, to tell the truth, much more numerous than people generally suppose, and a subject like that of the concentration camp world -- well designed, alas, to stimulate sado-masochistic imaginings -- offered them an exceptional field of action. We have known numerous mentally damaged persons, half swindlers and half fools, who exploited an imaginary deportation; we have known others of them -- authentic deportees -- whose sick minds strove to go even beyond the monstrosities that they had seen or that people said had happened to them. There have been publishers to print some of their imaginings, and more or less official compilations to use them, but publishers and compilers are absolutely inexcusable, since the most elementary inquiry would have been enough to reveal the imposture.

Tillion lacked the courage to give examples and names. But that is usually the case. People agree that there are false gas chambers that tourists and pilgrims are encouraged to visit, but they do not tell us where. They agree that there are false "eyewitnesses," but in general they name only Martin Gray, the well-known swindler, at whose request Max Gallo, with full knowledge of what he was doing, fabricated the bestseller For Those I Loved.

http://www.eliewieselfoundation.org/...eWieselBio.htm

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Wiesel/

http://www.ukar.org/wiesel.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein1.html

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dis...inkelstein.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/mickey07072004.html

Ett kapitel ur Norman Finkelsteins The Holocaust Industry:

http://www.libreopinion.com/revision...-chapter-2.htm

"---Only a flea's hop separates the claim of Holocaust uniqueness from the claim that The Holocaust cannot be rationally apprehended. If The Holocaust is unprecedented in history, it must stand above and hence cannot be grasped by history. Indeed, The Holocaust is unique because it is inexplicable, and it is inexplicable because it is unique.

Dubbed by Novick the "sacralization of the Holocaust," this mystifications's most practiced purveyor is Elie Wiesel. For Wiesel, Novick rightly observes, The Holocaust is effectively a "mystery" religion. Thus Wiesel intones that the Holocaust "leads into darkness," "negates all answers," "lies outside, if not beyond, history," "defies both knowledge and description," "cannot be explained nor visualized," is "never to be comprehended or transmitted," marks a "destruction of history" and a "mutation on a cosmic scale." Only the survivor-priest (read: only Wiesel) is qualified to divine its mystery. And yet, The Holocaust's mystery, Wiesel avows, is "noncommunicable"; "we cannot even talk about it." Thus, for his standard fee of $25,000 (plus chauffeured limousine), Wiesel lectures that the "secret" of Auschwitz's "truth lies in silence."8

Rationally comprehending The Holocaust amounts, in this view, to denying it. For rationality denies The Holocaust's uniqueness and mystery. And to compare The Holocaust with the sufferings of others constitutes, for Wiesel, a "total betrayal of Jewish history."9 Some years back, the parody of a New York tabloid was headlined: "Michael Jackson, 60 Million Others, Die in Nuclear Holocaust." The letters page carried an irate protest from Wiesel: "How dare people refer to what happened yesterday as a Holocaust? There was only one Holocaust...." In his new memoir Wiesel, proving that life can also imitate spoof, reprimands Shimon Peres for speaking "without hesitation of 'the two holocausts' of the twentieth century: Auschwitz and Hiroshima. He shouldn't have."10 A favorite Wiesel tag line declares that «the universality of the Holocaust lies in its uniqueness."11 But if it is incomparably and incomprehensibly unique, how can The Holocaust have a universal dimension?

The Holocaust uniqueness debate is sterile. Indeed, the claims of Holocaust uniqueness have come to constitute a form of "intellectual terrorism" (Chaumont). Those practicing the normal comparative procedures of scholarly inquiry must first enter a thousand and one caveats to ward off the accusation of "trivializing The Holocaust."12

A subtext of the Holocaust uniqueness claim is that The Holocaust was uniquely evil. However terrible, the suffering of others simply does not compare. Proponents of Holocaust uniqueness typically disclaim this implication, but such demurrals are disingenuous.13

The claims of Holocaust uniqueness are intellectually barren and morally discreditable, yet they persist. The question is, Why? In the first place, unique suffering confers unique entitlement. The unique evil of the Holocaust, according to Jacob Neusner, not only sets Jews apart from others, but also gives Jews a "claim upon those others."

For Edward Alexander, the uniqueness of The Holocaust is "moral capital"; Jews must "claim sovereignty" over this «valuable property."14

In effect, Holocaust uniqueness - this "claim" upon others, this "moral capital" - serves as Israel's prize alibi. "The singularity of the Jewish suffering," historian Peter Baldwin suggests, "adds to the moral and emotional claims that Israel can make . . . on other nations."15 Thus, according to Nathan Glazer, The Holocaust, which pointed to the "peculiar distinctiveness of the Jews," gave Jews "the right to consider themselves specially threatened and specially worthy of whatever efforts were necessary for survival."16 (emphasis in original) To cite one typical example, every account of Israel's decision to develop nuclear weapons evokes the specter of The Holocaust.'' As if Israel otherwise would not have gone nuclear.

There is another factor at work. The claim of Holocaust uniqueness is a claim of Jewish uniqueness. Not the suffering of Jews but that Jews suffered is what made The Holocaust unique. Or: The Holocaust is special because Jews are special. Thus Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, ridicules the Holocaust uniqueness claim as "a distasteful secular version of chosenness."18 Vehement as he is about the uniqueness of The Holocaust, Elie Wiesel is no less vehement that Jews are unique. "Everything about us is different." Jews are "ontologically" exceptional.19 Marking the climax of a millennial Gentile hatred of Jews, The Holocaust attested not only to the unique suffering of Jews but to Jewish uniqueness as well.---"

Simon Wiesenthal är ju också en levande legend som förtjänar att granskas i sömmarna, men dock knappast en egen tråd. Så han får vackert finna sig i att sidekicka i den hyllningstråd till Elie Wiesel som redan finns:

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesenthal.shtml

"---Eli Rosenbaum, an official with the US government's "Nazi hunting" Office of Special Investigations and an investigator for the World Jewish Congress, took aim at Wiesenthal's carefully cultivated "Nazi hunter" reputation in a detailed 1993 book, Betrayal. [50] For example, Rosenbaum mentioned, Wiesenthal "had all these reports placing Mengele in almost every country in Latin America except the one he was in -- namely, Brazil." [51]

Wiesenthal, wrote Rosenbaum, has been a "pathetically ineffective" investigator who had "gone far beyond the buffoonery and false boasts in prior years." Much of his illustrious career, Rosenbaum said, has been characterized by "incompetence and arrogance." [52]

Bruno Kreisky once summed up his attitude towards the "Nazi hunter" in these words: [53]

The engineer Wiesenthal, or whatever else his title is, hates me because he knows that I despise his activity. The Wiesenthal group is a quasi-political Mafia that works against Austria with disgraceful methods. Wiesenthal is known as someone who isn't very careful about the truth, who is not very selective about his methods and who uses tricks. He pretends to be the "Eichmann hunter," even though everyone knows that this was the work of a secret service, and that Wiesenthal only takes credit for that.

The Los Angeles Wiesenthal Center pays the Vienna "Nazi Hunter" $75,000 a year for the use of his name, the director of Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust center said in 1988.
Both the Center and Wiesenthal "commercialize" and "trivialize" the Holocaust, the director added.---"

Jag lägger in lite info i denna tråd om en man jag nämnde i förbifarten i "förintelsetråden", en viss Benjamin Wilkomirski, som gjorde succé i Holocaustindustrikretsar för några år sedan med sina "barndomsminnen" från det grymma 40-talet. Allt tydde på att Wilkomirski skulle komma att ha röda mattor utrullade för sig under resten av sin levnad, men så visade det sig förtretligt nog att han fantiserat ihop hela skiten, och att han tillbringat sin späda barndom trygg i Schweiz:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n5p15_Weber.html

"A Holocaust survivor memoir that has received prestigious literary awards and lavish praise has been exposed as a hoax.

In Fragments: Memories of a Wartime Childhood, Binjamin Wilkomirski describes his ordeal as an infant in the Jewish ghetto of Riga (Latvia), where his earliest memory is of seeing his father being killed. Wilkomirski also tells how he survived the terrible rigors of wartime internment, at the age of three or four, in the German-run concentration camps of Majdanek and Auschwitz.

First published in German in 1995, Fragments has been translated into twelve languages. In Switzerland, the country where Wilkomirski lives, the book has been a major best-seller. Two documentary films and numerous personal appearances by the author in schools throughout the country have helped promote the memoir.

The American edition was published by Schocken, an imprint of Random House, which heavily promoted the book with teachers' study guides and other supplementary materials.

Jewish groups and major American newspapers have warmly praised Fragments. The New York Times called it "stunning," and the Los Angeles Times lauded it as a "classic first-hand account of the Holocaust." It received the 1996 National Jewish Book Award for Autobiography and Memoir, while in Britain it was awarded the Jewish Quarterly Literary Prize, and in France the Prix Memoire de la Shoah.

The US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC -- a federal government agency -- was so impressed that it sent Wilkomirski on a six-city United States fund-raising tour last fall.

This past summer, though, compelling evidence came to light exposing Wilkomirski's memoir as an literary hoax.

Although he claims to have been born in Latvia in 1939, and to have arrived in Switzerland in 1947 or 1948, Swiss legal records show that he was actually born in Switzerland in February 1941, the son of an unwed woman, Yvette Grosjean. The infant was then adopted and raised by the Doessekkers, a middle-class Zurich couple. Jewish author Daniel Ganzfried, writing in the Swiss weekly Weltwoche, also reports that he has found a 1946 photo of the young Bruno Doessekker (Wilkomirski) in the garden of his adoptive parents.

Comparisons have been drawn between Wilkomirski's Fragments and The Painted Bird, the supposedly autobiographical "Holocaust memoir" by prominent literary figure Jerzy Kosinksi that turned out to be fraudulent.

Reaction by Jewish Holocaust scholars to the new revelations has been instructive, because they seem more concerned about propagandistic impact than about historical truth. Their primary regret seems merely to be that the fraud has been detected, not that it was perpetrated.

In an essay published in a major Canadian newspaper (Ottawa Citizen, Nov. 18, 1998), Jewish writer Judith Shulevitz arrogantly argued that it doesn't really matter much if Fragments is authentic. Her main misgiving, apparently, is that the deceit was not more adroit: "I can't help wishing Wilkomirksi-Doesseker [sic] had been more subtle in his efforts at deception, and produced the magnificent fraud world literature deserves."

Deborah Dwork, director of the Center for Holocaust Studies at Clark University (Worcester, Mass.), and co-author of Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present (Yale Univ. Press, 1996), agrees that Fragments now appears to be fraudulent. At the same time, though, she expressed sympathy for Wilkomirski, saying that when she met him he appeared "to be a deeply scarred man." Amazingly, Dwork does not blame him for the imposture, "because she believes in his identity." Instead, she takes the publishers to task for having "exploited" Wilkomirski. (New York Times, Nov. 3, 1998).

Deborah Lipstadt, author of the anti-revisionist polemic Denying the Holocaust, has assigned Fragments in her Emory University class on Holocaust memoirs. When confronted with evidence that it is a fraud, she commented that the new revelations "might complicate matters somewhat, but [the work] is still powerful."

Daniel Ganzfried reports that Jews have complained to him that even if Fragments is a fraud, his exposé is dangerously aiding "those who deny the Holocaust."

American Jewish writer Howard Weiss makes a similar point in an essay published in the Chicago Jewish Star (Oct. 9-29, 1998):

Presenting a fictional account of the Holocaust as factual only provides ammunition to those who already deny that the horrors of Nazism and the death camps ever even happened. If one account is untrue, the deniers' reasoning goes, how can we be sure any survivors accounts are true ... Perhaps no one was ready to question the authenticity of the [Wilkomirski] account because just about anything concerning the Holocaust becomes sacrosanct.

Wilkomirski himself has responded to the new revelations by going into hiding, although he did issue a defiant statement describing the climate of discussion about his memoir as a "poisonous" atmosphere of "totalitarian judgment and criticism.""

Snacka om röda mattan. En människa som skriver detta ger man nobelpriset.

Wiesel försäkrar att han träffat andra liknande vittnen. Angående Babi-Jar, en plats i Ukraina där tyskarna avrättade ryssar, däribland judar, skriver Wiesel följande:

"Senare fick jag av ett vittne veta att marken inte slutade skaka på flera månader och att gejsrar av blod då och då sprutade fram ur den."
(Paroles détranger, Edition du Seul, 1982, 192 s., s.86)

Iofs var det inte fysikpriset han fick.

Var är alla exterminationistkramare då? Kan det vara så att dom också upptäckt Elie Wiesels lögner?

Han är uppenbarligen en liten "vessla", denna Wiesel! Så här har han sagt om Irak-kriget:

"America understands that a nation is great not because its economy is flourishing or its army invincible but because its ideals are loftier. Hence America’s desire to help those who have lost their freedom to conquer it again. America’s credo might read as follows: For an individual, as for a nation, to be free is an admirable duty—but to help others become free is even more admirable.

Some skeptics may object: But what about Vietnam? And Cambodia? And the support some administrations gave to corrupt regimes in Africa or the Middle East? And the occupation of Iraq? Did we go wrong—and if so, where?
And what are we to make of the despicable, abominable “interrogation methods” used on Iraqi prisoners of war by a few soldiers (but even a few are too many) in Iraqi military prisons?

Well, one could say that no nation is composed of saints alone. None is sheltered from mistakes or misdeeds. All have their Cain and Abel. It takes vision and courage to undergo serious soul-searching and to favor moral conscience over political expediency. And America, in extreme situations, is endowed with both. America is always ready to learn from its mishaps. Self-criticism remains its second nature.

Not surprising, some Europeans do not share such views. In extreme left-wing political and intellectual circles, suspicion and distrust toward America is the order of the day. They deride America’s motives for its military interventions, particularly in Iraq. They say: It’s just money. As if America went to war only to please the oil-rich capitalists.

They are wrong. America went to war to liberate a population too long subjected to terror and death.

We see in newspapers and magazines and on television screens the mass graves and torture chambers imposed by Saddam Hussein and his accomplices. One cannot but feel grateful to the young Americans who leave their families, some to lose their lives, in order to bring to Iraq the first rays of hope—without which no people can imagine the happiness of welcoming freedom."

http://archive.parade.com/2004/0704/0704_america.html

Jag kommer att tänka på situationen i Palestina när jag läser det han skrivit.

Elie Wiesel, fredspristagare, lögnare, svindlare och hatmånglare, en man av vår urartade tid. Har vi ingen liten Per Ahlmarkwannabe på forumet som vill berätta om varför Wiesels absurda greuelhistorier inte endast tolereras utan belönas med stora penningsummor och "hedersutmärkelser" av offentligheten?

http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~abutz/dnews/O...neChicago.html

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Wiese...tml#Buchenwald

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Wiesel/Reis1.html

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/stories/Wiesel4.html

"Events following the liberation of Buchenwald:

[A correspondence with Eli Wiesel about his memoirs, Night, and how the account varies significantly from one language-version to the next]

[QUESTION TO ELI WIESEL]: ". . . BUT the Yiddish [of Un di velt, your early version of Night] continues: "Early the next day, Jewish boys ran off to Weimar to steal clothing and potatoes. And to rape German girls [un tsu fargvaldikn daytshe shikses]. The historical commandment of revenge was not fulfilled."

In French this passage reads: "Le lendemain, quelques jeunes gens coururent à Weimar ramasser des pommes de terre et des habits - et coucher avec des filles. Mais de vengeance, pas trace."

Or, in Stella Rodway's English rendition: "On the following morning, some of the young men went to Weimar to get some potatoes and clothes - and to sleep with girls. But of revenge, not a sign."

To describe the differences between these versions as a stylistic reworking is to miss the extent of what is suppressed in the French. Un di velt depicts a post-Holocaust landscape in which Jewish boys "run off" to steal provisions and rape German girls; Night extracts from this scene of lawless retribution a far more innocent picture of the aftermath of the war, with young men going off to the nearest city to look for clothes and sex.

In the Yiddish, the survivors are explicitly described as Jews and their victims (or intended victims) as German; in the French, they are just young men and women. The narrator of both versions decries the Jewish failure to take revenge against the Germans, but this failure means something different when it is emblematized, as it is in Yiddish, with the rape of German women.

The implication, in the Yiddish, is that rape is a frivolous dereliction of the obligation to fulfill the "historical commandment of revenge"; presumably fulfillment of this obligation would involve a concerted and public act of retribution with a clearly defined target. Un di velt does not spell out what form this retribution might take, only that it is sanctioned - even commanded - by Jewish history and tradition.

From Naomi Seidman, Elie Wiesel and the Scandal of Jewish rage, Jewish Social Studies: History, Culture, and Society, Fall 1996, Volume 3, Number 1."

Claude Lanzmann är omistlig i en sådan här tråd, enormt inflytelserik Holocaustprofet, inte minst bland de lättledda kulturkoftorna, genom sin mastodontiska "dokumentärfilm" Shoah, som även jag i min späda ungdom såg på svensk TV:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n6p-8_Thion.html

"Once again, in his typically heavy-handed way, occasional film director Claude Lanzmann has made another flabbergasting admission. Speaking of his movie "Shoah," he said to the Paris daily Le Monde (June 12, 1997): "Not understanding has been my iron law."

Several years ago, while speaking of Spielberg's "Schindler's List," Lanzmann said that if he had found authentic pictures of homicidal gas chambers, he would have destroyed them. What he precisely said was this (Le Monde, March 3, 1994):

There is not one second of archival material in Shoah because it is not the way I work or think, and besides it does not exist.... If I had found an existing film -- a secret film because that was forbidden -- shot by an SS and showing how 3,000 Jews, men, women and children, were dying together, asphyxiated in the gas chamber of Krema 2 in Auschwitz, not only would I have not shown it, but I would have destroyed it. I cannot say why. It goes by itself.

Such a remark should astonish only those who still don't realize that Lanzmann is deranged. Fortunately, he could never find such a film because his nightmare is just a dream. (An official at Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust center pretends that such a film exists, hidden deep in the center's archives. But nobody has ever seen it. As usual the proof lies in the invisibility of the proof.)---"


http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p244_Smith.html

Men det där kommer ju inte från trovärdiga källor, ni som har BBC kan snart se program som behandlar ämnet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworl...386675,00.html

Rudolf Vrba är ett av många falska vittnen inom Holocaustkulten, och dessutom ett av de mest "prominenta":

http://vho.org/tr/2003/2/Bruun169f.html

"---And Vrba's camp experiences naturally became the topic when he met another Holocaust survivor. Klein asked Vrba if his colleagues knew what he had experienced during the War. To begin with, Vrba did not answer the question. Later, however, he mentioned, sardonically smiling, that one of his colleagues had been upset when he unexpectedly had seen Vrba in Lanzmann's film. The colleague had wondered if everything that Vrba said in the film was really true, to which Vrba answered:

"I do not know. I was just an actor and I recited my text."

Which was commented by his colleague as follows:

"Most extraordinary! I did not know that you were an actor. Seeing that, why was it said that the film was made without actors?"

Hearing this revelation, Klein turned speechless and refrained from asking any more questions. In his book he says that he will never forget Vrba's sardonic smile. Any informed reader certainly knows that much of what Vrba says in Shoah is at variance with well established facts. Vrba is simply a reckless liar, to put it in plain language. But was he perhaps for once telling the truth when he said "I was just an actor and I recited my text"? That would certainly explain his sardonic smile that made such an impression on his credulous colleague.[11]"


http://www.ety.com/tell/books/jglife/10.htm

"---As the revisionists have shown that the alleged homicidal gassings at Auschwitz can not have taken place for chemical and technical reasons, it is basically unnecessary to discuss the eyewitness accounts upon which the whole gas chamber lie is based. However, I will present a particularly significant case.

For decades, no lawyer and no journalist ever dared to ask the handful of swindlers who presented themselves as "gas chamber witnesses" any critical questions, so these impostors could travel from one trial and from one press conference to the other without fear of exposure. This state of affairs changed in 1985, at the first Zuendel trial in Toronto. Slovak-born Jew and former Auschwitz inmate Rudolf Vrba, by now a university professor of biology in Canada, testified on behalf of the "Holocaust Remembrance Association" which had sued Zuendel for spreading false news. Vrba was the best witness the defenders of the holocaust story could ask for. Together with his Slovak compatriot and fellow-Jew Alfred Wetzler, he had escaped from Auschwitz on 7 April, 1944 and fled to Slovakia. In November of the same year, a report fathered by Vrba and Wetzler in which Auschwitz was depicted as an extermination centre was published in New York as part of the so-called War Refugee Board. Twenty years later, Vrba wrote a book about his time at the Auschwitz camp (I cannot forgive, Bantam publishers, Toronto 1964). On pages 10-13, he described a Himmler visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau in January 1943. According to him, a new crematorium, Krema II, was inaugurated in Birkenau on that day with the gassing and burning of 3000 Jews, and Himmler watched the agony of the unfortunate victims through a peephole in the gas chamber door. (Had Vrba studied the documents, he would have known that the first Birkenau crematorium was put into operation in March 1943, and that Himmler visited Auschwitz-Birkenau for the last time in July 1942. As the room designed as a gas chamber in Krema II was but 210 m2 big, filling it with 3000 victims would have meant that 14 people were standing on a square meter, which is impossible.) Zuendel's lawyer Douglas Christie mercilessly cross-examined the impostor Vrba:

Christie: I would like to ask you whether you mean to say you actually saw him arrive in January 1943, or is this only...

Vrba: In September 1943 or in January?

Christie: Now, in the book it says January.

Vrba: No, I saw him in July 1943 and then once in 1943 [sic!].

Christie: But here it says January 1943.

Vrba: Then that's an error.

Christie: An error?

Vrba: Yes.

Christie: But you saw him arrive on this occasion.

Vrba: The first time I saw him arrive because he was as close to me as you are. (...) He came a step closer to be polite.

Christie: Uh-hm.

Vrba: But the second time I saw him in a car, the same as the first time. He drove a black Mercedes and was all surrounded by his subordinates who used to accompany him. I saw him only from about 600 yards away and heard it was him, but he didn't come up to me this time to shake my hand and introduce himself. Perhaps it was him, perhaps it was only a representative. I don't think it makes a big difference.

Christie: And you want to tell this court that you actually saw Heinrich Himmler peeking through the door of a gas chamber, isn't that right?

Vrba: No, I didn't say I was present when he peeked through the door of the gas chamber, but I put together a story which I had heard several times from various people, who were present and told me all about it. There were many Sonderkommando and SS men with him.

Christie: But in your book you write that you had seen everything, and you don't mention that you had heard the story from other people.

Vrba: In this special case I told what I had heard from others.

(Trial record of the first Zuendel trial in Toronto, 1985, p. 1244 ff.)

Some people unfamiliar with the details of the holocaust story claim that there are "innumerable gas chamber witnesses" and that not all of them can possibly have lied. This is an error. When studying the holocaust literature, we quickly discover that only a handful of witnesses are quoted in these books. Vrba is one of them, and the other ones are no better. A key witness is yet another Slovak Jew, Filip Mueller, whom Raul Hilberg quotes as a source no less than twenty times in his standard work The Destruction of the European Jews. In his nauseating best-seller (Sonderbehandlung, Verlag Steinhausen, Frankfurt a.M. 1979), Mueller described how he ate cake in a cyanide-saturated gas chamber (he would have died immediately), and how the special commando he belonged to used the boiling fat flowing down from the burning bodies in the "cremation pits" as additional fuel: the fat was collected by him and his fellow workers and poured over the bodies again to accelerate combustion! (p. 24/25; p. 207 ff)!

So, the terrible accusation of an industrial genocide made against the German nation since 1945 is based upon the fantasies of a small number of liars and swindlers like Vrba and Mueller - plus on the confessions of former SS men. Perhaps the most important pillar of the holocaust story is the confession of Rudolf Hoess, the first of three commandants of the Auschwitz camp, which is quoted in virtually every history schoolbook of the Western world. But Hoess had said things which could not possibly be true. For example, he confessed to gassing 2,5 million people, with a total death count of three million, until the end of November 1943. This is much more than twice the number of prisoners brought to Auschwitz during the whole of its existence, as even orthodox historians now concede. Hoess also told his interrogators that he had visited Belzec and Treblinka in June 1941, although neither camp existed at that time, and mentioned an extermination camp "Wolzek" nobody has ever heard of since. (Nuremberg document PS-3868). In 1983, British writer Rupert Butler described in his book Legions of Death (Arrow Books, London, p. 235 ff.) how the Hoess confession was obtained by a British team of torture specialists under the leadership of Jewish sergeant Bernard Clarke in March 1946: Hoess, who had been arrested after hiding on a farm in Northern Germany, was savagely beaten and kept awake for three days before he gave in and signed the confession his tormentors had drafted for him - in the English language, which he did not understand!---"

Moshe Peers historia är lite för bra för att vara sann :

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n6p24_Holocaust.html

"Fraudulent Holocaust claims about magical gas chambers and miraculous survival in wartime German camps are all too familiar. Occasionally, though, we come across a claim so breathtaking in its mendacious effrontery that it deserves special notice.

In an article (reproduced here) in The Gazette of Montreal (Canada), August 5, 1993, and in a memoir, Moshe Peer recounts his wartime ordeal as an eleven-year-old in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. Peer claims that he "was sent to the [Bergen-Belsen camp] gas chamber at least six times." The Gazette account goes on to relate: "Each time he survived, watching with horror as many of the women and children gassed with him collapsed and died. To this day, Peer doesn't know how he was able to survive." In an effort to explain the miracle, Peer muses: "Maybe children resist better, I don't know." (These days, not a single reputable historian claims that anyone was ever "gassed" in the Bergen-Belsen camp.)

How was such horror possible? In Peer's view, the "rest of the world stood by and let the Holocaust happen." The evil Germans, he says, "had the permission of the world" to kill Jews. Although Peer claims that "Bergen-Belsen was worse than Auschwitz," he acknowledges that he and his younger brother and sister, who were deported to the camp in 1944, all somehow survived internment there.---"

En fantastisk historia om en mytomanisk gammal snyltare som härjar i Dachau och lurar godtrogna lägerturister:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n2p60_Weber.html

"Each year many thousands of tourists visit the site of the notorious Dachau concentration camp in southern Germany, not far from Munich. They see the crematory, the memorial shrines, and the museum. And in recent years, as an almost daily fixture, they see Martin Zaidenstadt. This elderly Jewish man lectures visitors to Dachau on his experiences as a wartime prisoner there. He is particularly passionate about the horrors of the camp's gas chamber where, he explains, many prisoners were put to death with poison gas. He even claims that this gas chamber served as a model for Auschwitz (New York Times, Oct. 26, 1997). Zaidenstadt's listeners respond to his heart-rending testimony with unquestioning sympathy. Many reach generously into their wallets.

But now a new 50-minute documentary film, "Martin," and a new book, The Last Survivor: In Search of Martin Zaidenstadt, written by journalist Timothy W. Ryback and published by Pantheon, have subjected that testimony to critical review. Ryback establishes that the octogenarian Zaidenstadt was born in Jedwabne, Poland, but that his story of Dachau internment is a fraud. He probably never visited the camp until the 1990s, says Ryback, and his tales of gas chamber killings are untrue.

Although supposedly authoritative evidence of gas chamber killings at Dachau has been cited over the years -- including "eyewitness" testimony at the main Nuremberg trial of 1945-46 -- today no reputable historian credits such claims. It is widely acknowledged, even by the well-known "Nazi hunter" Simon Wiesenthal, that no one was ever "gassed" at the camp.---"