[WW2] - Auschwitz

citat bolt: en kolerisk stolle
citat bolt:
Ditt HAT, ditt OBÄNDIGA hat och stinkande karma och själ kastar en sån djup dålig atmosfär att det hotar hela min livssituation..

BOSTON, June 17 - Fred A. Leuchter Jr., a self-styled expert in the machinery of death who parlayed his reputation as a builder of killing equipment into a second career as a proponent of "Holocaust revisionism," has admitted that he is not an engineer.

Made in a consent decree filed with a Massachusetts court last week, his admission should deal a blow to the movement holding that the Nazi extermination of 6 million Jews and others during World War II was a hoax or an exaggeration, according to experts in the field.

Leuchter, 48, of suburban Malden, was to face trial later this month on charges of practicing engineering without a license, a violation of Massachusetts law. But on June 11, he signed a consent agreement with the board that licenses engineers.

In it, Leuchter acknowledged that, "I am not and have never been registered as a professional engineer" and that he nevertheless had represented himself as an engineer in dealings with various states that use the death penalty and to which he supplied equipment or advice.

The agreement also requires Leuchter to stop disseminating reports in which he purports to be an engineer, most significantly a document known as the "Leuchter Report."

That report, widely circulated by revisionists, asserts that gas chambers at Nazi concentration camps in Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek could not have been used for mass killings because they were not big enough nor well ventilated or sealed. The assertion is based largely on chemical analysis of materials scraped surreptitiously from walls of those chambers by Leuchter during a visit to Poland in February 1988.

Sally Greenberg, an attorney with the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith in Boston, which was instrumental in bringing Leuchter to the attention of Massachusetts authorities, welcomed the settlement.

"It's a blow to Holocaust revisionism because he has been the guru of the revisionists," she said. "Now, he has as much as admitted that he is not qualified as an engineer to comment on the 'myth' of the Holocaust. It's essentially an admission that he's the charlatan and phony that we always knew he was." ("Holocaust Revisionist Admits He Is Not Engineer." The Washington Post. Get pub/people/l/leuchter.fred/washington-post.0691 for the complete text.)

"---The Leuchter report was far from perfect. The chapters about the construction of the "gas chambers" contained some serious flaws (for example, Leuchter erroneously stated there had been no ventilation system in these rooms, and he overestimated the explosion risk), and the part about the capacity of the crematoria is unsatisfactory, as Leuchter had no competence in this field. However, the chemical part, which has never been refuted, would turn out to be decisive.

c) The Rudolf Report

In 1993, German chemist Germar Rudolf verified the results of the Leuchter report in a much more detailed study which is probably up to this day the most important thing the revisionists have ever produced (Das Rudolf-Gutachten. Gutachten ueber die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in den "Gaskammern" von Auschwitz, Cromwell Press, London 1993, updated version: Das Rudolf-Gutachten 2000, Castle Hill Publisher, Hastings 2000. A shortened version of the report is contained in Ernst Gauss, Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, English version: Dissecting the Holocaust, Capshaw/Alabama 2000). All attempts to refute it have failed miserably. Rudolf proved that the alleged main gas chamber of the Third Reich, the one in the crematorium II of Auschwitz-Birkenau, where several hundreds of thousands of Jews were gassed according to the eyewitnesses, was never exposed to Zyklon B. Hydrocyanic acid forms an extremely stable pigment (ferric-ferrocyanide) with the iron-bearing components of the masonry. This pigment decomposes as slowly as the masonry itself, as shown by long-time experiments over decades. High concentrations of cyanide compounds are still to be found in the delousing chambers of Birkenau, while no relevant concentrations can be traced in the alleged gas chamber of Krema II (there were four crematoria at Birkenau, named Krema II - V, but all of them were blown up in late 1944 or early 1945, and Krema II is the only one where the "gas chamber" is still partly accessible). This leads to the inevitable conclusion that no gassings can have taken place there.---"

"---For the rest, to touch again on the measure of that "reality," it is enough to study the genesis of the myth of the "gas chambers" of Auschwitz.

That myth was imposed very late in the day, and that is surprising, since the largest of all the places of execution, the death-factory of Auschwitz-Birkenau, succeeded in keeping its secret until the summer of 1944. [50]

The reports of the Slovakian Jews (Alfred Wetzler and Rudolf Vrba) who escaped from Auschwitz 7 April [51] circulated in July 1944, reports that were published in the United States by the War Refugee Board in November of the same year, with two other reports, [52] one by two Jews who escaped from Auschwitz on 27 May (Czeslaw Mordowicz and Arnost Rosin), the other by a "Polish commander" who is not otherwise identified.

The most important of these so-called "official reports of Auschwitz," that of Alfred Wetzler, is visibly false: this one presents a plan and a description of Crematoria I and II (II and III, according to the offical numerical designation) that are in fact completely invented, as is seen by a simple comparison with the original plan. He states that in the "oven room" there were "nine ovens, each with four openings" placed around a high smokestack, which also is false in regard to the number as well as to the arrangement of the ovens; since in Crematoria II and III there were in fact five ovens each, having three openings, arranged lengthwise, one beside the other. [53]

The "gas chamber," according to Wetzler, was on the surface, since Wetzler tells us that the SS whose job it was to introduce the gas, clamber onto the roof, which, too, is wholly false, as the mortuary chamber I, the so-called "gas chamber" was, in fact, underground. [54]

Besides, again according to Wetzler, a track led from the 'gas chamber' to the oven room," [55] which also is false, in view of the fact that the oven room was on the ground level. [56]

But none of this hinders the official historians in presenting this report as though it were true. The case of Georges Wellers is typical, since he uses, stupidly, Alfred Wetzler's false description in two works in which the correct original plan of Crematorium II in Birkenau is reproduced. [57] But that is not all. He tries painfully to minimize the very grave contradictions in the "eyewitness report" of Alfred Wetzler, writing:

That some witnesses have committed errors of detail in their various descriptions is understandable. It is thus that Wetzler speaks of three openings in the ceiling of the gas chamber; in fact it had four. [58]

And that is all. It can thus be deduced that certain Exterminationist historians are not guilty of an excess of zeal in their reading of the texts.

Before receiving its official codification in the "confessions" of Rudolf Höss, the myth of the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz had known other vicissitudes as to the locale, the technique, and the period of the "extermination."

At the Nuremberg trial, in the course of the hearing on 8 August 1946, Sturmbannführer Georg Konrad Morgen described, in abundant detail, "the installations of the 'extermination camp' of Monowitz":

Then the trucks left. They did not go to the Auschwitz concentration camp, but in another direction, to the Monowitz extermination camp, which was some kilometers distant. This extermination camp consisted of a series of crematoria not recognizable as such from the outside. They could be mistaken for large bath installations. Even the detainees knew it. These crematoria were surrounded by barbed wire and were tended on the inside by the Jewish working groups already mentioned.

And further:

The Monowitz extermination camp was set apart from the concentration camp. It was situated in a vast industrial zone and was not recognizable as such Chimneys smoked all across the horizon. The camp itself was guarded on the outside by a detachment of Balts, Estonians, Lithuanians, and by Ukrainians. The entire procedure was almost entirely in the hands of the detainees themselves, who were supervised only from time to time by a subordinate officer (Unterführer). The execution itself was carried out by another Unterführer who released the gas into that place. [59]

In reality, Monowitz, like the thirty-nine Auschwitz subcamps, never had a "gas chamber." [60]

As concerns the technique of "extermination," a report dated 8 April 1943 listed the following methods of murder, in addition to "gas chambers" and execution by weapons.

[... ]

(b) Electric chambers: these rooms had metallic wall linings; the victims were led inside, then the hightension was switched on;

(c) the system of the so-called pneumatic hammer; this was a system of special rooms in which the "hammer" came down from the ceiling, and the victims were killed by means of a special installation under high pneumatic pressure. [61]

As Martin Gilbert comments, these two methods were "pure fantasy." [62] On 2 February 1945 Pravda published an article on Auschwitz in which the following method of "extermination" was described:

The most elaborate apparatus was an electric conveyor belt on which hundreds of persons could be electrocuted simultaneously, then moved on into furnaces. [62a]

In 1945, the version of "gassing" by sham shower baths was affirmed by the most ingenious perjurers, who echoed this story. At the Belsen trial, Dr. Ada Bimko described the sprinklers, the two "pipes," and the "huge metal containers containing gas" of the Birkenau "gas chambers" that this "eyewitness" professed to have visited personally. [63]

How these false witnesses imagined that the "gassings" had taken place can be seen clearly in the following recital by Sofia Schafranov to whom a Sonderkommando (special command) detainee is supposed to have recounted the following:

A shower bath was simulated to the victims, and although they knew beforehand what kind of shower it was, they were given towels and a bit of soap; after that they were made to undress, and were pushed into low cement rooms, hermetically sealed. From faucets set in the ceiling there came a poison gas instead of water. [64]

That story was repeated at the 1949 Degesch trial: one witness had heard talk that "at Birkenau the gas was introduced by fake showers." But just as Dr. Heli, inventor of Zyklon B. as well as Dr. Ra, [65] a physician, declared that the "gassing" technique described by the witness was impossible, so the court rejected as false the story in question

The court does not doubt the inexactness of the hypothesis according to which the gas was drawn from the can of Zyklon by means of a small tube and introduced into the gas chambers so that it is no longer necessary to do the experiment asked for by one of the accused. [66]

But that did not prevent Vincenzo and Luigi Pappalettera from making the following commentary -- evidently inspired by what had been maintained at Nuremberg [67] - on the photograph of the "gas chamber" at Mauthausen:

In the showers the prisoners were drenched, not with water, but with murderous gas that spurted from little holes. [68]---"

"---Pressac presents two kinds of evidence for mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers:

First, he cites a few "eyewitness testimonies," including the well-known ones of Miklos Nyiszli and Charles (Paul) Bendel (treated by Carlo Mattogno in the Spring 1990 Journal of Historical Review). At the same time, though, Pressac frankly acknowledges that these testimonies are riddled with "errors," absurdities, " inventions" and contradictions. (pp. 469-479.) Second, Pressac cites what he calls documentary "criminal traces" of extermination at Auschwitz and Birkenau. These "traces" are presented as a kind of answer to Dr. Robert Faurisson's insistent demand for "one proof, just one proof" of homicidal gassings. Pressac admits that these are not really "proofs," and adds that no real proofs exist. At least some of Pressac's dubious and inconclusive documentary "traces" are already well known to Revisionists. (Enrique Aynat Eknes provides an excellent Revisionist critique of these "traces" in The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1988.)
Pressac's book actually strengthens the Revisionist view of the Auschwitz extermination story and, by extension, of the entire Holocaust legend. For one thing, in presenting his central thesis, Pressac is obliged to make many significant concessions to the Revisionist position. Both explicitly and implicitly, he discredits countless Holocaust claims, "testimonies" and interpretations.

Of his book and its relation to the "orthodox" extermination story, Pressac writes:

This study already demonstrates the complete bankruptcy of the traditional ["Holocaust"] history ... a history based for the most part on testimonies, assembled according to the need of the moment, truncated to fit an arbitrary truth and sprinkled with a few German documents of uneven value and without any connection with one another. (p. 264)

Pressac thus implicitly rejects the work of Holocaust historians such as Raul Hilberg, Lucy Dawidowicz and Nora Levin as "bankrupt." Indeed, one may regard Pressac and the Klarsfelds as comparable to hard -- pressed military commanders who have decided to respond to the relentless Revisionist advance by abandoning vast but untenable lowlands of the orthodox Holocaust story, and retreating to a small but seemingly more defensible fortress.

Among Pressac's many specific concessions to truth are these:

There is no conclusive or documentary evidence for the widely claimed homicidal gassings in the Auschwitz main camp crematory building. The entire building was drastically "restructured" and "reconstituted" after the war, and the crematory chimney there is phony. (pp. 123, 131-133,144-146, 551.)
The often -- quoted "autobiography" of former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoss is riddled with errors. What's more, the handwritten "manuscript" of several hundred pages contains not a single correction or crossing out, suggesting that it was copied out. (pp. 127-128, 551.)
A 1945 Soviet film that "documents" extermination gassings in the "Kanada I" section is a "completely put up job." No homicidal gassings were ever carried out there. (pp. 46,47, 49, 264.)
The 1946 British military trial of Zyklon suppliers Dr. Bruno Tesch and Karl Weinbacher, which resulted in death sentences and hangings, was unjust and probably a "masquerade." (p. 17.)
The widely quoted figure of four million Auschwitz deaths is "propaganda" and "symbolic." (pp. 13, 501.)
Cremation is much more problematical and time -- consuming than Holocaust historians have claimed, and the widely repeated stories about cremating 10,000 or even 25,000 corpses daily at Auschwitz are absurd and impossible. (pp. 244, 247, 253, 334, 384, 413, 420.)
"Sonderaktion" ("special action" was not a euphemism for killing or extermination. (pp. 210, 213.)
The diagram of "gas chambers" at Birkenau in the widely circulated 1944 War Refugee Board Report is "inaccurate." (pp. 459, 461-)
An architectural plan of Auschwitz -- Birkenau from August 1942 shows that the German authorities anticipated a camp large enough eventually to hold 200,000 inmates. (p. 203.)
Photographs and diagrams show extensive quarantine and recuperation facilities for sick and injured Birkenau inmates. (pp. 510-513.)
Birkenau's four crematory buildings (Kremas II-V) are the core of the Auschwitz extermination story. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were allegedly gassed in these buildings between March 1943 and November 1944. However, the documentary evidence presented in this book simply cannot be reconciled with any kind of organized, systematic extermination plan or policy.---"

"---The gas chambers existed -- oh no, they didn't -- oh yes, they did.

The most famous "Nazi gas chamber" is the morgue of the Krema I in the Stammlager of Auschwitz. Millions of tourists have visited this room. Both Jews and Soviet prisoners of war are supposed to have been murdered here with Zyklon B in 1941-42. That there is no documentary proof of this crime, but only a few eyewitness testimonies, is admitted quite unashamedly by Jean-Claude Pressac, the pharmacist and amateur historian hailed by the exterminationists as the "World's Leading Expert on Auschwitz" (41). The two principal eyewitnesses to the gassings in these Kremas are the first commandant of the camp, Rudolf Hoess (42), and an SS man, Perry Broad (43).

The judgement of the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial (1963-1965) states as follows (44):

"In the beginning -- from October 1941 -- smaller individual groups of Jews were gassed... in the little (old) crematorium. Defendant Stark participated in still other gassings of Jewish inmates in May and June 1942. These gassings also took place in the small crematorium."

In 1968, the French Jewess Olga Wormser-Migot wrote a book on the National Socialist concentration camps (45) which is considered standard today; in it, she states:

"Auschwitz I... which was to remain the model camp and simultaneously the administrative centre -- had no gas chamber."

How easy it is for a Jewish historian, with one single sentence, to wipe out all the "eyewitness testimonies" relating to gassings in this room, as well as the corresponding text of the judgement in the Frankfurt Trial! On 8 January 1979, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, at that time German Minister of Foreign Affairs, wrote the following to a certain Herr Stuparek who had doubted the existence of the gas chambers of Auschwitz (46):

"I, too, know that no gas chambers existed in the Auschwitz camp."

The gas chambers, Genscher then continued, were located in Birkenau, west of the main camp.

The gas chambers of the main camp nevertheless continue to live on in Holocaust literature. That they give the court historians a few headaches, of course, is quite obvious: the trio Kogon/Langbein/Rueckerl pass over them in a single sentence in their "standard" book on the gas chambers (47).

In 1991, the British historian David Irving was sentenced to a 30,000 DM fine after a trial in Munich for calling the gas chamber in Krema I a "fake". Notwithstanding the confessions of Olga Wormser/Migots and Foreign Minister Genscher, the Holocaust liars simply could not do without this most famous of all "gas chambers", because otherwise nobody would believe their stories about the gas chambers at Birkenau.

Anybody who doubts the absolute correctness of the version of the Holocaust which has come down to us today, even in view of the incredible mixture of errors and confusion, and despite the incredibility of the eyewitness reports on gassings at Birkenau and Treblinka , would do best to keep his doubts to himself; since if he lives in "free democratic" Germany, "free democratic" Austria, "free democratic France", or "free democratic" Switzerland, he is already standing with one foot in jail. The ideal model of conduct in today's "free democracies" is the three monkeys: see nothing, say nothing, hear nothing.---"

Sehr geehrter Herr Stuparek,

Bundesminister Genscher hat mich gebeten, Ihr Schreiben vom 21. Dezember 1978 zu beantworten.

Auch mir ist bekannt, daß es im Lager Auschwitz keine Gaskammern gegeben hat. Die Gaskammern befanden sich im ca. 3 km davon entfernten KZ Auschwitz-Birkenau. Bundesminister Genscher hat bei seiner Eintragung in das Gedenkbuch in Birkenau aller Opfer von Krieg und Gewaltherrschaft gedacht.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Im Auftrag

gez. Dr. Scheel

Ende des Briefes

Freundliche Grüße
Inigo Speer