The Contradictory, Shifting & Evasive Testimony of Holocaust Eyewitnesses Is Protected From Questioning To Justify The Genocide Of Germans

By John Wear

Eye witnesses say that for months after the killings the ground continued to spurt geysers of blood…. Famed Nazi-hunter ((((((Simon Wiesenthal))))))…. wrote that he tried to commit suicide by cutting his wrists while incarcerated by the Germans. Instead of letting him die, the Germans sent him to the hospital where they nursed him back to health…

Editor’s Comment: Evocative testimonies must comply with natural physical laws or be struck from history. Realistically, dead bodies cannot spurt blood for months unless in a Hollywood Studio. We invite any qualified expert to explain how authoritative eyewitness testimony such as this is plausible (assuming it is not illegal for the expert to do so).

Eyewitness Testimony of German Genocide of European Jewry

Inevitably when anyone questions the genocide of European Jewry, eyewitness testimony is raised as proof that the genocide happened.  However, most of the eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust story have proved to be extremely unreliable.

For example, John Demjanjuk, a naturalized American citizen, was accused by eyewitnesses of being a murderous guard at Treblinka named Ivan the Terrible. Demjanjuk was deported to Israel, and an Israeli court tried and convicted him primarily based on the eyewitness testimony of five Jewish survivors of Treblinka. Demjanjuk’s defense attorney eventually uncovered new evidence proving that the Soviet KGB had framed Demjanjuk, and that documents supposedly showing him to be a guard at Treblinka were Soviet forgeries. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the eyewitness accounts were not credible and that Demjanjuk was innocent.[1]

Another example of false witness testimony of the Holocaust story occurred in the case of Frank Walus, who was a retired Chicago factory worker charged with killing Jews in his native Poland during the war. An accusation by ((((((Simon Wiesenthal)))))) that Walus had worked for the Gestapo prompted the U.S. government’s legal action. During Walus’s trial 11 Jews testified under oath that Walus had murdered Jews during the war. After a costly four-year legal battle, Walus was finally able to prove that he had spent the war years as a teenager working on German farms. An American Bar Association article published in 1981 concluded in regard to Walus’s trial that

…in an atmosphere of hatred and loathing verging on hysteria, the government persecuted an innocent man.”[2]

It would be impossible for me to discuss every eyewitness account of the Holocaust story. To illustrate the unreliability of eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust story, I will analyze the eyewitness accounts of probably its three most famous survivors:

  1. ((((((Elie Wiesel)))))),
  2. ((((((Simon Wiesenthal)))))), and
  3. ((((((Viktor Frankl)))))).
Questioning ((((((Wiesel))))))’s and other authoritative claims is now illegal in an increasing number of nations, including those who fought AGAINST Germany in WWII. Aside from nations that overtly make it illegal, many other countries also have broader laws that criminalize questioning the genocide of Armenians, Ukrainians, Tutsi, Jews… Even in America it is acceptable if you lose your job and livelihood for questioning the testimony of these and other revered witnesses.

((((((Elie Wiesel)))))), whose autobiography Night written in 1956 helped him win the Nobel Peace Prize, never mentions homicidal gas chambers in his book. Instead, ((((((Wiesel)))))) writes that Jews were killed en masse by being thrown alive in burning pits.[3] If there had actually been homicidal gas chambers at Birkenau, one would think that ((((((Wiesel)))))) would have mentioned the gas chambers in his autobiography. Also, if there had been burning pits at Birkenau, these would have shown in some of the Allied aerial photographs taken of Birkenau in 1944.

((((((Wiesel)))))) also mentions in Night that he had surgery on an infected foot in January 1945. The German authorities at Birkenau gave ((((((Wiesel)))))) and other hospital patients unfit to travel the option to remain in the camp. ((((((Wiesel)))))) and his father decided to evacuate Birkenau and travel to Buchenwald with the Germans rather than be liberated by the Russian army.[4] If Birkenau had been a place of mass exterminations, why would ((((((Wiesel)))))) choose to travel with his supposed killers? Also, why would the German authorities at Birkenau leave behind thousands of witnesses to their genocide if a policy of genocide had actually taken place at Birkenau?

That ((((((Wiesel)))))) survived his internment at Buchenwald is, of course, the result of a miracle. ((((((Wiesel)))))) states:

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?”[5]

Today no credible historian believes that 10,000 Jews per day were executed at Buchenwald.

A remarkable witness himself, ((((((Wiesel)))))) assures us that he has met other remarkable witnesses. ((((((Wiesel)))))) states in one of his books that after Jews were executed at Babi Yar in the Ukraine:

Eye witnesses say that for months after the killings the ground continued to spurt geysers of blood. One was always treading on corpses.”[6] ((((((Wiesel)))))) repeats this claim later with some embellishment: “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.”[7]

This story lacks all credibility.

((((((Wiesel)))))) does not seem to know that photos taken at Babi Yar shortly after the alleged mass executions of Jews show no indication of any mass grave site or any disturbance of the foliage or ground cover.[8]

Famed Nazi-hunter ((((((Simon Wiesenthal)))))) also reports a trip to a German camp hospital in his book The Murderers Among Us. ((((((Wiesenthal)))))) wrote that he tried to commit suicide by cutting his wrists while incarcerated by the Germans. Instead of letting him die, the Germans sent him to the hospital where they nursed him back to health.[9] If the Germans were intent on committing genocide against European Jewry, why would they make the effort to send both ((((((Wiesel)))))) and ((((((Wiesenthal)))))) to the hospital to restore their health?

((((((Viktor Frankl))))))’s book Man’s Search For Meaning has been ranked by the Library of Congress as one of the 20th century’s 10 most influential books in the United States. Frankl describes his experiences at Auschwitz in this book as if he had spent many months there. In reality, Frankl was in Auschwitz only for a few days in October 1944 while in transit from Theresienstadt to a sub-camp of Dachau. Frankl has admitted this to the American evangelist Robert Schuller:

I was in Auschwitz only three or four days…I was sent to a barrack and we were all transported to a camp in Bavaria.”[10]

Frankl’s short time in Auschwitz is substantiated by the prisoner log from the sub-camp of Dachau, Kaufering III, which listed Frankl’s arrival on Oct. 25, 1944, six days after his departure from Theresienstadt.[11] Thus, Frankl’s descriptions of his long stay at Auschwitz in Man’s Search For Meaning are false and inaccurate.

The unreliability of eyewitness testimony of the Holocaust story has also been commented on by some historians. Jewish historian Samuel Gringauz criticized what he called the “hyperhistorical” nature of most Jewish survivor testimony. Gringauz wrote that

most of the memoirs and reports are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors bias, partisan attacks and apologies.”[12]

Shmuel Krakowski, archives director of Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust center, confirmed in 1986 that more than half of the testimonies of Jewish survivors on file there are unreliable. Krakowski said that many survivors, wanting to be a part of history, may have let their imaginations run away from them. He stated that many of the testimonies on file at Yad Vashem were later proved to be inaccurate when locations and dates could not pass an expert historian’s appraisal. Krakowski commented on the Jewish survivor testimony,

Many were never in the places where they claimed to have witnessed atrocities, while others relied on second-hand information given them by friends or passing strangers.”[13]

Although seldom mentioned in the press, numerous eyewitnesses have reported that they did not see any evidence of genocide in the German concentration camps. One of the first to dispute reports of German genocide was Paul Rassinier. Rassinier was a French professor of history who was arrested during the war for passive resistance activities, which included helping to smuggle Jews into neutral Switzerland. Rassinier stated that although he suffered greatly during the war in the Buchenwald and Dora concentration camps, he never saw any evidence of homicidal gas chambers or any program to exterminate the Jews. After reading sensationalized accounts that he knew were false, Rassinier felt it was his ethical duty to tell the truth about the camps and refute the false claims being made in the world’s press.

Rassinier wrote extensively about his own experiences and observations in the German camps. He also began to research the entire issue of German genocide against the Jews during the war. Rassinier concluded that the death toll in the camps was far lower than alleged. He also concluded that the deaths in the camps were not caused by a German program of genocide,[14] but rather primarily by the poor conditions of the camps attributable to the economic collapse of Germany during a devastating war. Rassinier had nothing to gain personally from taking his unpopular position, and after suffering greatly in the German concentration camps, he then suffered intense persecution in postwar France for his courageous writings after the war.

Thies Christophersen was another witness who said that the alleged genocide of Jews during the war never happened. Christophersen supervised about 300 workers, many of them Jewish, at Auschwitz from January to December 1944. On a number of occasions during this period he visited Birkenau where allegedly hundreds of thousands of Jews were being gassed to death. In a memoir first published in Germany in 1973, The Auschwitz Lie, Christophersen wrote that during the time he was at Auschwitz he did not notice the slightest evidence of mass gassings. In March 1988 at the Ernst Zündel trial in Toronto, he also successfully answered numerous pointed questions by the prosecuting attorney about his experiences at Auschwitz.

After The Auschwitz Lie was published, Christophersen received thousands of letters and calls. He wrote in regard to these letters and calls:

Many of those who contacted me can confirm my statements, but are afraid to do so publicly. Some of those are SS men who were brutally mistreated and even tortured in Allied captivity. I also immediately contacted those who claimed to know more about mass gassings. My experiences were precisely the same as those of French professor Paul Rassinier. I have not found any eyewitnesses. Instead, people would tell me that they knew someone who knew someone else, who talked about it. In most cases the alleged eyewitnesses had died. Other supposed eyewitnesses would quickly begin to stammer and stutter when I asked a few precise questions. Even ((((((Simon Wiesenthal)))))) had to finally admit before a Frankfurt district court that he was actually never in Auschwitz. All of the reports I have heard about are contradictory. Everyone seemed to tell a different story about the gas chambers. They couldn’t even agree about where they were supposed to have been located. This is also true of the so-called scholarly literature, which is full of contradictions.…[15]

Ursula Haverbeck at 89 years of age poses such a threat to humanity she has had to be jailed for a period longer than many rapists… to protect us. She questioned the eye witness accounts of the Holocaust and the ongoing consequences for Germans. Her sentence at her age could reasonably deemed “For Life”.

Another eyewitness who did not see any evidence of genocide of the Jews is Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich. Dr. Stäglich, a German judge, visited Auschwitz several times during the Second World War as a German orderly officer of an Anti-aircraft Detachment. Dr. Stäglich published the following account of his visits to Auschwitz:

On none of these visits did I see gassing installations, crematoria, instruments of torture, or similar horrors. The camp gave one the impression of being well-kept and very well-organized… The camp reminded me of the German Labor Front camp in which I served out my six-month stretch in the Labor Service, except that Auschwitz was, of course, considerably larger…None of the inmates behaved as though they were in fear of mistreatment, let alone death.

On the later point, one encounter with inmates especially sticks in my memory. As some comrades and I were standing near the camp one evening, we caught sight of a big gang of inmates returning to camp from work in the industrial plants. They were escorted by a relatively small contingent of SS-men—mostly older people—and seemed to be thoroughly undisciplined.

They talked loudly among themselves, laughing all the while. Two or three inmates dropped out of line when they spotted us, opened their flies, and made water. Although this gesture could have been interpreted as a sign of contempt for German men in uniform, the SS guards ignored it completely. Later, whenever I heard that mortal terror prevailed in the concentration camps, I had to recall this incident. Thatis hardly the way people who are in constant fear of death behave.[16]

Another credible eyewitness is the Austrian-born Canadian Maria Van Herwaarden, who was interned at Birkenau starting in 1942. Van Herwaarden testified at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial that she saw nothing at Birkenau that resembled mass murder. She did testify, however, that many of the inmates at Birkenau died of typhus and some inmates committed suicide.[17] No prosecution witnesses were called during this trial because the prosecution knew of no survivors who could withstand cross examination by Zündel’s defense attorney.

 


Read Germany’s War

Previously Posted on Katana17 with additional images and notes of interest.

ENDNOTES

[1] An excellent account of John Demjanjuk’s trial is provided in Sheftel, Yoram, Defending “Ivan the Terrible”: The Conspiracy to Convict John Demjanjuk, Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1996.

[2] “The Nazi Who Never Was,” The Washington Post, May 10, 1981, pp. B5, B8.

[3] ((((((Wiesel)))))), Elie, Night Trilogy, New York: Hill and Wang, 2008, pp. 51-52.

[4] Ibid, pp. 98-100.

[5] “Author, Teacher, Witness,” Time Magazine, March 18, 1985, p. 79.

[6] ((((((Wiesel)))))), Elie, The Jews of Silence, London: Vallentine Mitchell, 1968, p. 37.

[7] ((((((Wiesel)))))), Elie, Paroles d’étranger, Editions du Seuil, Paris, 1982, p. 86.

[8] Ball, John C., Air Photo Evidence, Delta, British Columbia: Ball Resources Services Limited, 1992, p. 108.

[9] ((((((Wiesenthal)))))), Simon, The Murderers Among Us, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967, pp. 37-38.

[10] Frankl, Viktor, “Dr. Robert Schuller Interviews ((((((Viktor Frankl)))))): How to Find Meaning In Life,” Possibilities: The Magazine of Hope, March/April 1991, p. 10.

[11] Pytell, Timothy, “Extreme Experience, Psychological Insight, and Holocaust Perception; Reflections of Bettelheim and Frankl,” Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 4, Oct. 2007, p. 646.

[12] Jewish Social Studies, New York: Conference on Jewish Relations, Jan. 1950, Vol. 12, pp. 65-66.

[13] Amouyal, Barbara, “Doubts over Evidence of Camp Survivors,” Jerusalem Post, Israel, Aug. 17, 1986, p. 1.

[14] Rassinier, Paul, The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses, Costa Mesa, CA: The Institute for Historical Review, 1978.

[15] Christophersen, Thies, “Reflections on Auschwitz and West German Justice,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring 1985, p. 118.

[16] Stäglich, Wilhelm, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Institute for Historical Review, 1990, p. 293.

[17] Kulaszka, Barbara, (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die: Report of Evidence in theCanadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel, Toronto: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 1992, pp. 253-255.

A “Fact Of Common Knowledge” Did Not Require Proof To Execute Germans; Propaganda & Torture Provided The Legal ‘Evidence’

A “Fact Of Common Knowledge” Did Not Require Proof To Execute Germans; Propaganda & Torture Provided The Legal ‘Evidence’

From Wear’s War

Each week we bring you a quote from one of the many fine men and women of various nationalities and professions, including senior military personnel, who were openly appalled by the dispensation of normal military and/or criminal evidentiary processes expected in a trial. These people were highly respected and prominent in their field, at least until they spoke out against the Nuremberg trials.

Rudolf Höss was the first of three successive commandants of the Auschwitz concentration camp… He appeared before the International Military Tribunal as a witness… To the amazement of the defendants and in the presence of journalists from around the world, he confessed to the most frightful crimes that history had ever known. He said that he had personally received an order from Himmler to exterminate the Jews. He estimated that at Auschwitz 3,000,000 people had been exterminated, 2,500,000 of them by means of gas chambers. His confessions were false. They had been extorted from Höss by torture, but it took until 1983 to learn the identity of the torturers and the nature of the tortures they inflicted upon him.  IHR

German Judge Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, who visited Auschwitz several times during World War II, wrote:

The Nuremberg IMT trial transcripts likewise cannot—as we have seen in another connection—be considered a reliable historical source or even merely a standard of comparison for other documents, as here in the case of the Höss memoirs. For the testimonies produced under Nuremberg “law” contained anything but historical truth. This is the conclusion which has been reached by all objective and unbiased observers of this judicial farce. We have already expounded on the fact that Höss, after his capture, was subjected to the most inhumane treatment and at every stage of his imprisonment placed under various kinds of pressure…

…In the Nuremberg trials, the basic rule was that a “fact of common knowledge” did not require proof. It was enough for the court to take “judicial notice” thereof. The same device was employed in the Auschwitz Trial. Since the post-war “re-education” of the German people, founded on Zionist and Bolshevik atrocity propaganda, had made the “gas chamber” legend into a “fact of common knowledge,” the judges in the Auschwitz Trial had to take “judicial notice” of it, in a certain sense, since otherwise they would have been subjected to the most grievous professional disadvantages and personal attacks

Source: Stäglich, Wilhelm, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Institute for Historical Review, 1990, pp. 200-201, 259.

 

The Biggest Murder Trial In History! Did The American-Run Einsatzgruppen Trial Use Forged Documents To Convict Germans Of Genocide?

By John Wear

Benjamin Ferencz, Chief Prosecutor:

“I once saw DPs [Displaced Persons] beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air, but I was not inclined to do so.”

…official Holocaust historiography, however, claims that the Einsatzgruppen had the additional task of committing genocide against Soviet Jews. The Einsatzgruppen reports… are the primary proof of this alleged genocide. The Einsatzgruppen reports that have been produced are copies which show clear signs of postwar additions, inaccurate and inflated figures, and rare signatures which appear on non-incriminating pages.

Benjamin Ferencz immigrated to America as a baby with his Hungarian Jewish parents, he graduated Harvard Law School in 1943. He then joined the U.S. Army as a Private in the 115th AAA Gun Battalion. He was discharged Christmas 1945. Within a few months he was selected as Chief Prosecutor for “The Biggest Murder Trial In History”. Out of thousands of highly experienced American lawyers – young, inexperienced Benjamin Ferencz was chosen. In the following video Benjamin Ferencz describes liberating concentration camps and the known effects of Typhus. At the 5:40 minute mark he mentions how the Nazis used the fat of Jewish victims to make soap. At the 10 minute mark he justifies his interrogation methods stating “There’s a war going on! They’ll kill you if they could!”. The war had finished. Germany was in ruins and occupied by the Allies.

Switching from one myth to another. This is why it is illegal to question the evidence of the so-called Holocaust in 22 countries. The implications if this narrative collapsed would be staggering. Truth does not fear investigation.

The Einsatzgruppen Trial

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The Einsatzgruppen trial was the ninth of 12 American-run trials held after the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg, Germany. The trial was officially titled “The United States of America v. Otto Ohlendorf et al.” and lasted from September 29, 1947 to April 10, 1948. The court indicted 24 Einsatzgruppen leaders on three counts of criminality: crimes against humanity, war crimes, and membership in organizations declared criminal by the IMT. Only 22 defendants were tried because one committed suicide and another had to be excluded for health reasons.[1]

Benjamin Ferencz, a 27-year-old Harvard-educated attorney, was appointed by Telford Taylor as chief prosecutor in the case. The prosecution’s case was based primarily on the Einsatzgruppen reports his team had discovered in Berlin. Ferencz later said about the Einsatzgruppen reports:

So we had the names of each town and village, the date, the number of people killed, the name of the unit, the officer in charge, and other officers. I sat down in my office with a little adding machine, and I began to count the people that were murdered in cold blood. When I reached a million, I said that’s enough for me. I flew from Berlin to Nuremberg, to see Telford Taylor, who by then was a general. And I said, we’ve got to put on another trial.[2]

Ferencz said the Einsatzgruppen trial probably would not have taken place if his team had not had the extraordinary luck of finding these reports.[3]

The presentation of the prosecution’s evidence lasted less than two days and consisted mainly of excerpts from the Einsatzgruppen reports. Ferencz and the four attorneys assisting him called no prosecution witnesses and presented no films during the trial. Thus, the Nuremberg prosecutors set out to prove by documentation alone that the defendants had participated in some of the worst crimes of the National Socialist regime.[4] Since the Einsatzgruppen reports were crucial to the prosecution’s case, we will examine the validity of these reports.

THE EINSATZGRUPPEN REPORTS

The Einsatzgruppen sent reports of their activities back to Berlin by radio. These reports were transcribed and edited by civil servants and distributed in summary format to non-SS offices such as the German Foreign Office. None of these reports exist today in the original—all of them are copies.[5]

That the Germans let copies of the Einsatzgruppen reports fall into the hands of the Allies is strikingly odd. They could have easily burned these few stacks of incriminating papers before the Allies conquered Germany.[6] The authenticity of the Einsatzgruppen reports has also been questioned because, like so much other “evidence” of Nazi atrocities, the documents emerged from the Soviet occupation zon.[7]

The Soviets murdered up to 22,000 Poles in Katyn Forest & other locations. Until 1990 Germans were blamed for this atrocity by the Soviets.

The copies of the Einsatzgruppen reports which have been produced show clear signs of postwar additions. A typical example is Einsatzgruppen Report No. 111. Peter Winter writes that this report contains not only completely garbled wording, but also a clear addition to the end of a paragraph (highlighted in italics below):

These were the motives for the executions carried out by the Kommandos: Political officials, looters and saboteurs, active Communists and political representatives, Jews who gained their release from prison camps by false statements, agents and informers of the NKVD, persons who, by false depositions and influencing witnesses, were instrumental in the deportation of ethnic Germans, Jewish sadism and revengefulness, undesirable elements, partisans, Politruks, dangers of plague and epidemics, members of Russian bands, armed insurgents—provisioning of Russian bands, rebels and agitators, drifting juveniles, Jews in general.[8]

Dr. Arthur Robert Butz also questions the authenticity of the Einsatzgruppenreports. Butz writes:

They [the documents] are mimeographed and signatures are most rare and, when they occur, appear on non-incriminating pages. Document NO-3159, for example, has a signature, R. R. Strauch, but only on a covering page giving the locations of various units of the Einsatzgruppen. There is also NO-1128, allegedly from Himmler to Hitler reporting, among other things, the execution of 363,211 Russian Jews in August-November 1942. This claim occurs on page four of NO-1128, while initials said to be Himmler’s occur on the irrelevant page one. Moreover, Himmler’s initials were easy to forge: three vertical lines with a horizontal line drawn through them.[9]

Carlo Mattogno has shown that the figures quoted in the Einsatzgruppen reports are inaccurate. Mattogno writes:

For example, in the summary of the activity of Einsatzgruppen A(October 16, 1941, to January 31, 1942) the number of Jews present in Latvia at the arrival of the German troops is 70,000, but the number of Jews shot is reported as being 71,184! Furthermore, another 3,750 Jews were alive in work camps. In Lithuania, there were 153,743 Jews, of which 136,421 were allegedly shot, whereas 34,500 were taken to the ghettos at Kaunas, Wilna, and Schaulen, but the total of those two figures is 170,921 Jews![10]

The British trial of German Field Marshall Erich von Manstein in Hamburg, Germany also proved the inaccuracy of the Einsatzgruppen reports. The prosecution’s case was based on the reports showing that Einsatzgruppe D under the command of Otto Ohlendorf had executed some 85,000 Jews in four and one-half months. Manstein’s defense attorney, Reginald T. Paget, wrote that these claims seemed quite impossible:

In one instance we were able to check their figures. The S.D. claimed that they had killed 10,000 in Simferopol during November and in December they reported Simferopol clear of Jews. By a series of cross checks we were able to establish that the execution of the Jews in Simferopol had taken place on a single day, 16th November. Only one company of S.D. was in Simferopol. The place of execution was 15 kilometers from the town. The numbers involved could not have been more than about 300. These 300 were probably not exclusively Jews but a miscellaneous collection of people who were being held on suspicion of resistance activity…

It was indeed clear that the Jewish community had continued to function quite openly in Simferopol and although several of our witnesses had heard rumors about an S.D. excess committed against Jews in Simferopol, it certainly appeared that this Jewish community was unaware of any special danger…

By the time we had finished with the figures and pointed out the repeated self-contradiction in the S.D. reports, it became probable that at least one “0” would have to be knocked off the total claimed by the S.D. and we also established that only about one-third of Ohlendorf’s activities had taken place in von Manstein’s area. It is impossible to know even the approximate number of murdered Jews, for not only was Ohlendorf lying to his superiors but as we were able to show his company commanders were lying to him.[11]

Von Manstein testified that he had no knowledge that the Einsatzgruppe D or the German army had a policy of murdering Jews. The court believed Manstein and found him innocent of murdering Jews.[12]

BENJAMIN FERENCZ’S CREDIBILITY

Benjamin Ferencz has made statements that call into question his independence and integrity. For example, the defense counsel at the Mauthausen trial in Dachau insisted that signed confessions of the accused, used by the prosecution to great effect, had been extracted from the defendants through physical abuse, coercion and deceit.[13] Benjamin Ferencz admits in an interview that these defense counsel’s claims were correct:

You know how I got witness statements? I’d go into a village where, say, an American pilot had parachuted and been beaten to death and line everyone up against the wall. Then I’d say, “Anyone who lies will be shot on the spot.” It never occurred to me that statements taken under duress would be invalid.[14]

In the same interview, Ferencz admits that he observed the torturing and execution of a captured Nazi at a concentration camp:

I once saw DPs [Displaced Persons] beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air, but I was not inclined to do so. Does that make me an accomplice to murder?[15]

Ferencz, who enjoys an international reputation as a world peace advocate, further relates a story concerning the interrogation of an SS colonel. Ferencz explains that he took out his pistol in order to intimidate him:

What do you do when he thinks he’s still in charge? I’ve got to show him that I’m in charge. All I’ve got to do is squeeze the trigger and mark it as auf der Flucht erschossen [shot while trying to escape]…I said “you are in a filthy uniform sir, take it off!” I stripped him naked and threw his clothes out the window. He stood there naked for half an hour, covering his balls with his hands, not looking nearly like the SS officer he was reported to be. Then I said “now listen, you and I are gonna have an understanding right now. I am a Jew—I would love to kill you and mark you down as auf der Flucht erschossen, but I’m gonna do what you would never do. You are gonna sit down and write out exactly what happened—when you entered the camp, who was there, how many died, why they died, everything else about it. Or, you don’t have to do that—you are under no obligation—you can write a note of five lines to your wife, and I will try to deliver it…” [Ferencz gets the desired statement and continues:] I then went to someone outside and said “Major, I got this affidavit, but I’m not gonna use it—it is a coerced confession. I want you to go in, be nice to him, and have him re-write it.” The second one seemed to be okay—I told him to keep the second one and destroy the first one. That was it.[16]

Peter Winter asks the question: “Is this the sort of ‘objective’ legal person who can be relied upon to produce evidence at a major trial?”[17] The fact that Ferencz threatened and humiliated his witness and reported as much to his superior officer indicates that he operated in a culture where such illegal methods were acceptable.[18] Any lawyer knows that such evidence is not admissible in a legitimate court of law.

DEFENDANTS’ TESTIMONY

Otto Ohlendorf testified at the IMT that Einsatzgruppe D, the mobile security unit he commanded in the Crimea between June 1941 and 1942, was responsible for the murder of approximately 90,000 people. Ohlendorf’s testimony horrified the court and had a depressing effect on the defendants. Dr. Gustav M. Gilbert, the American prison psychologist, wrote that Ohlendorf’s testimony established

the inescapable reality and shame of mass murder…by the unquestionable reliability of a German official.”[19]

British attorney Reginald Paget, however, questioned the validity of Ohlendorf’s testimony at the IMT. Paget wrote:

Ohlendorf had reported that not only Simferopol but the whole Crimea was cleared of Jews. He was clearly a man who was prepared to say anything that would please his employers. The Americans had found him the perfect witness.”[20]

Otto Ohlendorf at the Einsatzgruppen trial retracted his earlier testimony at the IMT that there had been a specific policy to exterminate Jews on racial or religious grounds. Under cross examination, Ohlendorf testified that any Jews and gypsies killed by his group D were killed as part of anti-partisan activities. Ohlendorf also testified that only 40,000 people had been executed by his group D instead of the 90,000 that he had testified to at the IMT.[21]

Another defendant at the Einsatzgruppen trial, Walter Haensch, claimed he knew nothing of the murder of the Jews and denied any criminal wrongdoing by his Kommando while he was its leader. Haensch claimed he first learned of the murder of Jews in July 1947 when his interrogator at Nuremberg told him of the Final Solution. Haensch claimed that the Einsatzgruppen reports that contradicted his testimony were inaccurate. After the trial, Haensch became so obsessed with proving his innocence that he refused to apply for parole, hoping that American officials would see their error and grant him the clemency he deserved.[22]

Benjamin Ferencz claims the Einsatzgruppen reports were definitive proof that the Einsatzgruppen had mass murdered Jews. Ferencz states:

Michael Musmanno, the presiding judge, provided the defendants with wide latitude in their presentation of evidence in the Einsatzgruppen trial. However, Ferencz writes that Musmanno was convinced early on of the defendants’ guilt:

The judge handed down worse sentences than I would have imposed. So he had made up his mind, early on, that he wasn’t going to be deceived. For him the question was how to sentence them. He was a devout Catholic, and he went into a monastery for a week before sentencing. He convicted all 22 people, and of these he sentenced 13 to death by hanging. During the trial, he had let everyone say whatever they wanted to say. He gave so much leeway; he was leaning over backwards to show the world that it was a fair trial.[24]

“There were times when I felt outraged. For example, the day one defendant, a colonel, said: ‘What, Jews were shot? I hear that in this courtroom for the first time.’ We had the records of every day that man was out murdering, and he had the gall to say that. I was ready to jump over the bar and poke my fingers into his eyes.”[23]

Four Einsatzgruppen units altogether numbering 3,000 men—including non-combat troops such as drivers, interpreters, and radiomen—became operational soon after the German invasion of the Soviet Union. One of their missions indisputably consisted of fighting against partisans, and in this regard they committed numerous mass shootings.[25]

Michael Musmanno, the presiding judge, provided the defendants with wide latitude in their presentation of evidence in the Einsatzgruppen trial. However, Ferencz writes that Musmanno was convinced early on of the defendants’ guilt:

The judge handed down worse sentences than I would have imposed. So he had made up his mind, early on, that he wasn’t going to be deceived. For him the question was how to sentence them. He was a devout Catholic, and he went into a monastery for a week before sentencing. He convicted all 22 people, and of these he sentenced 13 to death by hanging. During the trial, he had let everyone say whatever they wanted to say. He gave so much leeway; he was leaning over backwards to show the world that it was a fair trial.[24]

The defendants at the Einsatzgruppen trial did not receive a fair hearing. The shootings carried out by the Einsatzgruppen were not nearly as extensive as claimed at the trial, for the numbers mentioned in the Einsatzgruppen reports cannot be objectively confirmed and in many cases are demonstrably exaggerated. These reports should not have been used to convict the Einsatzgruppen defendants of genocide against Soviet Jewry.[27]

The Nuremberg Trials are critical to defending the slaughter of more than 9 million Germans post-WWII. Known as History’s Most Terrifying Peace.

Read Germany’s War

ENDNOTES

[1] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 1, 9-11.

[2] Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, pp. 14-15.

[3] Ibid., p. 14.

[4] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 179-180.

[5] Winter, Peter, The Six Million: Fact or Fiction?, The Revisionist Press, 2015, p. 24.

[6] Mattogno, Carlo and Graf, Jürgen, Treblinka: Transit Camp or Extermination Camp?, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2010, p. 204.

[7] Winter, Peter, The Six Million: Fact or Fiction?, The Revisionist Press, 2015, p. 25

[8] Ibid., pp. 24-25.

[9] Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, ninth edition, Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 198.

[10] Rudolf, Germar and Mattogno, Carlo, Auschwitz Lies: Legends, Lies & Prejudices on the Holocaust, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2011, p. 243.

[11] Paget, Reginald T., Manstein: His Campaigns and His Trial, London: Collins, 1951, pp. 169-172.

[12] Ibid., p. 174.

[13] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012, p. 6.

[14] Brzezinski, Matthew, “Giving Hitler Hell”, The Washington Post Magazine, July 24, 2005, p. 26.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012, pp. 82-83.

[17] Winter, Peter, The Six Million: Fact or Fiction?, The Revisionist Press, 2015, p. 24.

[18] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012, p. 83.

[19] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 72.

[20] Paget, Reginald T., Manstein: His Campaigns and His Trial, London: Collins, 1951, p. 171.

[21] Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, ninth edition, Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 202.

[22] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 162-163.

[23] Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, p. 19.

[24] Ibid., pp. 19-20.

[25] Mattogno, Carlo and Graf, Jürgen, Treblinka: Transit Camp or Extermination Camp?, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2010, pp. 203, 205.

[26] Ibid., pp. 203-211.

[27] Ibid., pp. 208-211.

All these things that happened so long ago, are very relevant to the current narrative promoted today, and the genocide of the white race.

 

How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss

Robert Faurisson

Rudolf Höss was the first of three successive commandants of the Auschwitz concentration camp. He is often called “the Commandant of Auschwitz,” and the general public knows of him from a book published under the title Commandant in Auschwitz.

He appeared before the International Military Tribunal as a witness on 15 April 1946, where his deposition caused a sensation. To the amazement of the defendants and in the presence of journalists from around the world, he confessed to the most frightful crimes that history had ever known. He said that he had personally received an order from Himmler to exterminate the Jews. He estimated that at Auschwitz 3,000,000 people had been exterminated, 2,500,000 of them by means of gas chambers. His confessions were false. They had been extorted from Höss by torture, but it took until 1983 to learn the identity of the torturers and the nature of the tortures they inflicted upon him.

The confessions of Rudolf Höss supply the keystone to the theory which maintains that systematic extermination of the Jews, especially by means of homicidal gas chambers, was a historical reality. These confessions consist essentially of four documents which, in chronological order, are the following:

1. A written deposition signed on l4 March (or l5 March?) l946 at 2:30 in the morning; it is an 8-page typed text written in German; I do not think, under normal circumstances, a court in any democracy would agree to take into consideration those pages lacking as they did any heading and any printed administrative reference; and crawling with various corrections, whether typed or handwritten, uninitialled and without a notation at the end of the total number of words corrected or deleted. Höss signed it for the first time after having written: “14.3.46 230.” He signed again after two lines which are supposed to have been handwritten but which were typed, and which say:

I have read the above account and confirm that it is corresponding to my own statement and that it was the pure truth. (Official translation.]

The names and the signatures of the two witnesses, British sergeants, follow. One did not note the date, while the other indicated 15 March. The last signature is that of a captain of the 92nd Field Security Section, who certifies that the two sergeants were present throughout the entire proceedings, during which the prisoner Rudolf Höss made his statement voluntarily. The date indicated is 14 March 1946. Nothing indicates the place!

The Allies numbered this document NO-1210.

2. An affidavit signed 22 days later on 5 April 1946. It is a typed text, 20 pages long, written in English. That is surprising: thereby Höss signed a declaration under oath, not in his own language but in that of his guards. His signature appeared three times: at the bottom of the first two pages, then on the third and last page, after a text of four lines, still in English, still typed, which reads:

I understand English as it is written above. The above statements are true: this declaration is made by me voluntarily and without compulsion; after reading over the statement, I have signed and executed the same at Nurnberg, Germany, on the fifth day of April 1946.

There follows the signature of Lieutenant-Colonel Smith W. Brookhart after the statement: “Subscribed and sworn before me this 5th day of April 1946, at Nurnberg, Germany.”

In its form, this text is, if possible, even less acceptable than the preceding one. In particular, entire lines have been added in capital letters in the English style, while others are crossed out with a stroke of the pen. There is no initialling in the margin next to these corrections, and no summary at the end of the document of the words struck out. The Allies assigned this document the number PS-3868.

In order to hide the fact that Höss had signed an affidavit that was in English when it ought to have been in his own language, and in order to make the crossed-out words and the additions and corrections disappear, the following trick was used at Nuremberg: the original text was recast and presented as a “Translation” from German into English! But the person responsible for this deception did his work too quickly. He thought that a handwritten addition to paragraph 10 (done in an English handwriting style) was an addition to the end of paragraph 9. The result of that misunderstanding is that the end of paragraph 9 is rendered totally incomprehensible. There are, therefore, two different documents that bear the same file number, PS-3868: the document signed by Höss and the “remake.” It is the “remake,” really a glaring forgery, that was used before the Nuremberg tribunal. One historical work that claimed to reproduce document PS-3868 by Höss in fact reproduced the “remake” but omitted (without saying so) the end of paragraph 9 as well as all of paragraph 10: see Henri Monneray, La Persécution des Juifs dans les pays de l’Est présentee à Nuremberg, Paris, Center for Contemporary Jewish Documentation,1949, pp.159 – 162.

3. The spectacular oral deposition, which I have already mentioned, made before the IMT on 15 April 1946, ten days after the writing of document PS-3868. Paradoxically, it was a lawyer for the defense, Kurt Kauffmann, Ernst Kaltenbrunner’s attorney, who had asked for Höss’s appearance. His obvious intention was to show that the person responsible for the presumed extermination was Himmler and not Kaltenbrunner. When it came time for the representative of the prosecution (at that point the American assistant prosecutor, Col. Harlan Amen) to question Höss, he seemed to be reading from the affidavit signed by the latter but, in fact, he was reading excerpts from the “remake.” Col. Amen gave an excuse for not reading paragraph 9 (and, at the same time, paragraph 8). Stopping after reading each excerpt, he asked Höss if that was in fact what he had stated. He received the following responses: “Jawohl,” “Jawohl,” “Jawohl” “Ja, es stimmt,” a two sentence response (containing an obvious error about the Hungarian Jews supposedly having been killed at Auschwitz as early as 1943 even though the first convoy of them did not arrive at Auschwitz until May 2 of 1944), “Jawohl,” “Jawohl,” “Jawohl,” a one-sentence response, “Jawohl,” and “Jawohl.” [IMT, XI, pp. 457-461]. Höss is quoted according to the text of the German-language edition of the IMT series.

In a normal murder case there would have been a hundred questions to ask about the extermination and the gas chambers (that is to say about a crime and an instrument of the crime which were without precedent in history), but no one asked those questions. In particular, Colonel Amen did not ask for a single detail nor for any additional information about the frightening text which he had read in the presence of journalists whose stories would make the headlines in newspapers around the world the next day.

4. The texts generally collected under the title Commandant in Auschwitz. Höss is alleged to have written these texts in pencil under the watchful eye of his Polish-Communist jailers, while in a prison at Cracow awaiting his trial. He was condemned to death on 2 April 1947 and hanged at the Auschwitz concentration camp fourteen days later. The world had to wait 11 years, until 1958, for the publication in German of his alleged memoirs. They were edited by the German historian Martin Broszat without regard for scholarly method. Broszat went so far as to suppress several fragments which would have too clearly made it appear that Höss (or his Polish jailers) had offered outrageous statements which would have called into question the reliability of his writings in toto.

The four documents that I have just enumerated are closely connected in their origin. Looking at them more closely, there are contradictions among their respective contents, but, for the most part, they are internally consistent. The eight pages of NO-1210 are in a sense summed up in the 2º pages of PS-3868; that latter document served as the central document in the oral testimony before the IMT; and, finally, the memoirs written at Cracow crown the whole. The base and the matrix are thus document NO-1210. It was in the Cracow memoirs, written under the supervision of Polish examining magistrate Jan Sehn, that Höss was to give particulars about how the British had obtained that very first confession.

Höss’s Revelations about His First Confession (Document NO-1210 of 14 or 15 March 1946)

The war ended in Germany on 8 May 1945. Höss fell into the hands of the British, who imprisoned him in a camp for SS men. As a trained agronomist, he obtained an early release. His guards were unaware of the importance of their prey. A work office found him employment as an agricultural work at a farm near Flensburg, not far from the Danish border. He remained there for eight months. The military police looked for him. His family, with whom he succeeded in making contact, was closely watched and subjected to frequent searches.

In his memoirs Höss recounts the circumstances of his arrest and what followed. The treatment that he underwent was particularly brutal. At first sight it is surprising that the Poles allowed Höss to make the revelations he did about the British military police. On reflection, we discover that they might have done so out of one or more of the following motives:

  • to give the confession an appearance of sincerity and veracity;
  • to cause the reader to make a comparison, flattering for the Polish Communists, between the British and Polish methods, Indeed Höss later said that during the first part of his detention at Cracow, his jailers came very close to finishing him off physically and above all morally, but that later they treated him with “such decent and considerate treatment” that he consented to write his memoirs;
  • to furnish an explanation for certain absurdities contained in the text (NO-1210) that the British police had had Höss sign, one of these absurdities being the invention of an “extermination camp” in a place which never existed on any Polish map: “Wolzek near Lublin”; confusion with Belzec is not possible since Höss talks about three camps: “Belzek (sic), Tublinka (sic) and Wolzek near Lublin.” Farther on, the spelling of Treblinka will be corrected. Let us note in passing that the camps of Belzec and Treblinka did not yet exist at the time (June 194l) when Himmler, according to Höss, told him that they were already functioning as “extermination camps.”

Here are the words Höss uses to describe, in succession, his arrest by the British; his signing of the document that would that would become NO-1210; his transfer to Minden-on-the-Weser, where the treatment that he underwent was worse yet; his stay at the Nuremberg tribunal’s prison; and, finally, his extradition to Poland.

I was arrested on 11 March 1946 (at 11 pm).

My phial of poison had been broken two days before.

When I was aroused from sleep, I thought at first I was being attacked by robbers, for many robberies were taking place at that time. That was how they managed to arrest me. I was maltreated by the Field Security Police.

I was taken to Heide where I was put in those very barracks from which I had been released by the Bntish eight months earlier.

At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it. Alcohol and the whip were too much for me. The whip was my own, which by chance had got into my wife’s luggage. It had hardly ever touched my horse, far less the prisoners. Nevertheless, one of my interrogators was convinced that I had perpetually used it for flogging the prisoners.

After some days I was taken to Minden-on-the-Weser, the main interrogation centre in the British Zone. There I received further rough treatment at the hands of the English public prosecutor, a major.

The conditions in the prison accorded with this behaviour.

After three weeks, to my surprise, I was shaved and had my hair cut and I was allowed to wash. My handcuffs had not previously been removed since my arrest.

On the next day I was taken by lorry to Nuremberg, together with a prisoner of war who had been brought over from London as a witness in Fritzsche’s defence. My impnsonment by the Intemational Military Tribunal was a rest-cure compared to what I had been through before. I was accommodated in the same building as the principal accused, and was able to see them daily as they were taken to the court. Almost every day we were visited by representatives for all the Allied nations. I was always pointed out as an especially interesting animal.

I was in Nuremberg because Kaltenbrunner’s counsel had demanded me as a witness for his defence. I have never been able to grasp, and it is still not clear to me, how I of all people could have helped to exonerate Kaltenbrunner. Although the conditions in prison were, in every respect, good — I read whenever I had the time, and there was a well stocked library available — the interrogations were extremely unpleasant, not so much physically, but far more because of their strong psychological effect. I cannot really blame the interrogators — they were all Jews.

Psychologically I was almost cut in pieces. They wanted to know all about everything, and this was also done by Jews. They left me in no doubt whatever as to the fate that was in store for me.

On 25 May, my wedding anniversary as it happened, I was driven with von Burgsdorff and Bühler to the aerodrome and there handed over to Polish officers. We flew in an American plane via Berlin to Warsaw. Although we were treated very politely during our joumey, I feared the worst when I remembered my experiences in the British Zone and the tales I had heard about the way people were being treated in the East. (Commandant in Auschwitz, Introduction by Lord Russell of Liverpool. English translation, Weidenfeld and Nicolson,. 1959, p. 173-175.)

Revelations in 1983 About the British Torturers of Rudolf Höss

The Revisionists proved a long time ago that the various confessions of Rudolf Höss contained so many gross errors, nonsensical elements, and impossibilities of all kinds, that it is no longer possible to believe them, as did the judges at Nuremberg and Cracow, as well as certain self styled historians, without any prior analysis of their content and of the circumstances in which they were obtained.

In all likelihood, Höss was tortured by the British soldiers of the 92nd Field Security Section, but a confirmation of that hypothesis was necessary. Confirmation has come with the publication in England of a book containing the name of the principal torturer (a British sergeant of Jewish origin) and a description of the circumstances of Höss’ arrest, as well as his third-degree interrogation.

The book is by Rupert Butler. It was published in 1983 (Hamlyn Paperbacks). Butler is the author of three other works: The Black Angels, Hand of Steel and Gestapo, all published by Hamlyn. The book that interests us is entitled Legions of Death. Its inspiration is anti-Nazi. Butler says that he researched this book at the Imperial War Museum in London, the Institute for Contemporary History and Wiener Library, and other such prestigious institutions. At the beginning of his book, he expresses his gratitude to these institutions and, among others, to two persons, one of whom is Bernard Clarke (“who captured Auschwitz Commandant Rudolf Höss”). The author quotes several fragments of what are either written or recorded statements by Clarke.

Bernard Clarke shows no remorse. On the contrary, he exhibits a certain pride in having tortured a “Nazi.” Rupert Butler, likewise, finds nothing to criticize in that. Neither of them understands the importance of their revelations. They say that Höss was arrested on 11 March, 1946, and that it took three days of torture to obtain “a coherent statement.” They do not realize that the alleged “coherent statement” is nothing other than the lunatic confession, signed by their quivering victim on the l4th or l5th of March 1946, at 2:30 in the morning, which was to seal Höss’ fate definitely, a confession which would also give definitive shape to the myth. The confession would also shape decisively the myth of Auschwitz, the supposed high-point of the extermination of the Jews, above all due to the alleged use of homicidal gas chambers.

On 11 March 1946, a Captain Cross, Bernard Clarke and four other intelligence specialists in British uniforms, most of them tall and menacing, entered the home of Frau Höss and her children.

The six men, we are told, were all “practised in the more sophisticated techniques of sustained and merciless investigation” (p. 235). Clarke began to shout:

If you don’t tell us [where your husband is] we’ll turn you over to the Russians and they’ll put you before a firing-squad. Your son will go to Siberia.

Frau Höss broke down and revealed, says Clarke, the location of the farm where her husband was in hiding, as well as his assumed name: Franz Lang. And Bernard Clarke added:

Suitable intimidation of the son and daughter produced precisely identical information.

The Jewish sergeant and the five other specialists in third degree interrogation then left to seek out Höss, whom they surprised in the middle of the night, sleeping in an alcove of the room used to slaughter cattle on the farm.

Höss screamed in terror at the mere sight of British uniforms.

Clarke yelled “What is your name?”

With each answer of “Franz Lang,” Clarke’s hand crashed into the face of his prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Höss broke and admitted who he was.

The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of the Jewish sergeants in the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an order signed by Höss.

The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.

Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: “Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse.”

A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke’s car, where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his throat. Then Höss tried to sleep.

Clarke thrust his service stick under the man’s eyelids and ordered in German: “Keep your pig eyes open, you swine.”

For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification: “I took my orders from Himmler. I am a soldier in the same way as you are a soldier and we had to obey orders.”

The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to walk completely nude through the prison yard to his cell. (p. 237)

So it is that Bernard reveals “It took three days to get a coherent statement out of [Höss]” (ibid.). This admission was corroborated by Mr. Ken Jones in an article in the Wrexham Leader. (October 17,1986):

Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the fifth Royal Horse Artillery stationed at Heid[e) in Schleswig-Holstein. “They brought him to us when he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activities during the war. He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks,” recalls Mr. Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell to help break him down for interrogation. “We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance,” said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out for exercise he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Höss finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities.

Clarke’s statement, obtained under the conditions just described by bullies of British Military Security under the brutal inspiration of sergeant-interpreter Bernard Clarke, became Höss’s first confession, the original confession indexed under the number NO-1210. Once the tortured prisoner had begun to talk, according to Clarke, it was impossible to stop him. Clarke, no more conscious in 1982 or 1983 than in 1946 of the enormity of what he forced Höss to confess, goes on to describe a series of fictitious horrors presented here as the truth: Höss went on to tell how after the bodies had been ignited, the fat oozing from them was poured over the other bodies (!). He estimated the number of dead during just the period when he was at Auschwitz at two million (!); the killings reached 10,000 victims per day (!).

It was Clarke’s duty to censor the letters sent by Höss to his wife and children. Every policeman knows that the power to grant or withhold permission to a prisoner to write to his family constitutes a psychological weapon. To make a prisoner “sing” it is sometimes sufficient to merely suspend or cancel that authorization. Clarke makes an interesting remark about the content of Höss’s letters; he confides to us:

Sometimes a lump came to my throat. There were two different men in that one man. One was brutal with no regard for human life. The other was soft and affectionate. (p. 238)

Rupert Butler ends his narrative by saying that Höss sought neither to deny nor to escape his responsibilities. In effect, at the Nuremberg tribunal Höss conducted himself with a “schizoid apathy.” The expression is that of the American prison psychologist, G.M. Gilbert, who was in charge of the psychological surveillance of the prisoners and whose eavesdropping aided the American prosecution. We can certainly believe that Höss was “split in two”! He had the appearance of a rag because they had turned him into a rag.

“Apathetic”, writes Gilbert on page 229 of his book; “apathetic, he repeats on the following page; “schizoid apathy,” he writes on page 239 (Nuremberg Diary, 1947, Signet Book, 1961).

At the end of his trial at Cracow; Höss greeted his death sentence with apparent indifference, Rupert Butler comments as follows:

[Höss] reasoned that Allies had their orders and, that there could be absolutely no question of these not being carried out. (ibid.)

One could not say it any better. It seems that Rudolf Höss, like thousands of accused Germans turned over to the mercy of conquerors who were totally convinced of their own goodness, had quickly grasped that he had no other choice but to suffer the will of his judges, whether they came from the West or from the East.

Butler then quickly evokes the case of Hans Frank, the former Governor of Poland. With the same tone of moral satisfaction he recounts the circumstances of Frank’s capture and subsequent treatment:

Celebrity status of any kind singularly failed to impress the two coloured GIs who arrested him and made sure he was transported to the municipal prison in Miesbach only after he had been savagely beaten up and flung into a lorry.

A tarpaulin had been thrown over him to hide the more obvious signs of ill-treatment; Frank found the cover useful when he attempted to slash an artery in his left arm.

Clearly, no such easy way out could be permitted; a US army medical officer saved his life and he stood trial at the International Military Tribunial at Nuremberg. (p. 238-239)

Rudolf Höss and Hans Frank were not the only ones to undergo treatment of that kind. Among the most celebrated cases, we know of Julius Streicher, Hans Fritzsche, Oswald Pohl, Franz Ziereis, and Josef Kramer.

But the case of Rudolf Höss is by far the most serious in its consequences. There is no document that proves that the Germans had a policy of exterminating the Jews. Léon Poliakov agreed with this in 1951:

As regards the conception properly called of the plan for a total extermination, the three or four principal actors committed suicide in May of 1945. No document has survived or perhaps has ever existed.

(Bréviaire de la haine: Le IIIe Reich et les Juifs, Calmann-((((((((((((Levy)))))))))))), 1951, Livre de Poche, 1974, p.171 )

In the absence of any document, historians à la Poliakov have repeatedly returned, primarily, to doubtful confessions like those of Kurt ((((((((((((Gerstein)))))))))))) or Rudolf Höss, sometimes modifying the texts to suit their convenience.

Bernard Clarke is “today a successful businessman working in the south of England” (Legions of Death, 1983, p. 235). One can in fact say that it is his voice that was heard at Nuremberg on 15 April 1946, when Assistant Prosecutor Amen read, piece by piece, to an astonished and overwhelmed audience, the supposed confession of Rudolf Höss. On that day was launched a lie of world-wide dimensions: the lie of Auschwitz. At the origins of that prodigious media event: several Jewish sergeants of British Military Security, including Bernard Clarke, “today a successful businessman working in the south of England.”

The Testimony of Moritz von Schirmeister

During the war, Moritz von Schirmeister had been the personal press attaché of Joseph Goebbels. On 29 June 1946, he was interrogated before the IMT as a defense witness for Hans Fritzsche. His deposition was particularly interesting regarding the actual personality of Dr. Goebbels and the attitude of the official German news services toward the flood of atrocity stories about the concentration camps spread during the war by the Allies.

At the end of the war, Moritz von Schirmeister had been arrested by the British and interned in a camp in England, where he was given the task of politically “re-educating” his fellow prisoners. Before testifying at Nuremberg, he was transferred by plane from London to Germany. At first he was kept at Minden-on-the-Weser, which was the principal interrogation center for the British Military Police. From there he was taken by car (31 March — 1 April 1946) to the prison at Nuremberg. In the same car rode Rudolf Höss. Moritz von Schirmeister is precisely that “prisoner of war who had been brought over from London as a witness in Fritzsche’s defense about whom Höss speaks in his “memoirs” (see above, p. 393).

Thanks to a document that I obtained from American researcher Mark Weber, who gave me a copy of it in Washington in September of 1983 (a document whose exact source I not yet authorized to indicate), we know that they were able to talk freely in the car that took them to Nuremberg. In that document, slightly more than two pages long, Schirmeister reports, as regarding the charges hanging over Höss, that Höss confided to him:

Gewiss, ich habe unterschrieben, dass ich 2 Millionen Juden umgebracht habe. Aber ich hätte genausogut untershrieben, dass es 5 Millionen Juden gewesen sind. Es gibt eben Methoden, mit denen man jedes Geständnis erreichen kann — ob es nun wahr ist oder nicht.

“Certainly, I signed a statement that I killed two and a half million Jews. But I could just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not.”

Another Confession Signed by Rudolf Höss

The British torturers of Rudolf Höss had no reason to exercise any restraint. After making him sign document NO-1210 at 2:30 in the morning of the l4th or l5th of March 1946, they obtained a new signature from him on March 16, this time at the bottom of a text in English, written in an English handwriting style, with a blank in the space where the name of the place ought to have been given. His guards made him sign a simple note written in English:

Statement made voluntarily at ______ Gaol by Rudolf Höss, former Commandant of Auschwitz Concentration Camp on l6th day of March 1946.

I personally arranged on orders received from Himmler in May 1941 the gassing of two million persons between June/July 1941 and the end of 1943 during which time I was commandant of Auschwitz.

signed.
Rudolf Höss,
SS-Stubhr.
Eh. (?) Kdt. v. Auschwitz-Birkenau

(even the word “signed” was written in an English hand).

The Auschwitz Myth

We have known for some time that the Auschwitz myth is of an exclusively Jewish origin. Arthur R. Butz has related the facts in his book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, as has Wilhelm Stäglich in The Auschwitz Myth. The principal authors of the creation and the peddling of the “rumor of Auschwitz” have been, successively, two Slovaks, ((((((((((((Alfred Wetzler)))))))))))) (or Weczler) and ((((((((((((Rudolf Vrba)))))))))))) (or ((((((((((((Rosenberg)))))))))))) or ((((((((((((Rosenthal))))))))))))); then a Hungarian, Rabbi Michael Dov Ber Weissmandel (or Weissmandl); then, in Switzerland, representatives of the World Jewish Congress like Gerhard Riegner, who were in touch with London and Washington; and finally Americans like ((((((((((((Harry Dexter White)))))))))))), ((((((((((((Henry Morgenthau)))))))))))) Jr. and Rabbi ((((((((((((Stephen Samuel Wise)))))))))))). Thus was born the famous World Refugee Board Report on Auschwitz and Birkenau, published in Washington in November 1944. Copies of this report were included in the files of the judges advocate general in charge of prosecuting the Germans involved in the Auschwitz camp. It constituted the official version of the story of the alleged gassing of the Jews in that camp. Most probably it was used as a reference work by the inquirers-interrogators-torturers of “the Commandant of Auschwitz.” All the names here mentioned are those of Jews.

Moreover we now see that Bernard Clarke, the first British torturer, was a Jew, The second British torturer, Major Draper (?), may also have been a Jew. The same for the two Americans: psychologist G.M. (Gustave ((((((((((((Mahler))))))))))))) Gilbert and Colonel Harlan Amen. Finally, in Poland, Höss was faced with Polish Jews who treated him more or less the same way. When he wrote his “memoirs” it was under the supervision of instructing magistrate Jan Sehn, who was also probably a Jew.

Establishment historians dispute that Höss had been tortured and had confessed under duress. Since the publication of Rupert Butler’s book in 1983, however, it is no longer possible for them to contest that. The Revisionists were right.

Since 1985 it is even less possible. In January-March 1985, the trial of Ernst Zündel, who was accused by a Jewish association and by the Crown of spreading Revisionist literature, took place in Toronto (Canada). ((((((((((((Rudolf Vrba)))))))))))) testified as a Crown witness. (He lives now in British Columbia). Affirmative and self assured as long as he answered the questions of the Crown, he suffered a spectacular rout when cross-examined by Ernst Zündel’s lawyer, Doug Christie. For the first time since 1945 a Jewish witness to the alleged gassings in Auschwitz was asked to explain his affirmations and his figures. The result was so terrible for R. Vrba that finally the Crown itself gave a kind of coup de grace to its key witness. That unexpected event and some others (like the leading specialist of the Holocaust, ((((((((((((Raul Hilberg)))))))))))), being caught red-handed in his lies) really made of the “Toronto Trial” the “Trial of the Nuremberg Trial.”

The unintentional revelations of Rupert Butler in 1983 and unexpected revelations of the “Toronto Trial” in 1985 succeeded at last in showing entirely and clearly how the Auschwitz myth was fabricated from 1944 to 1947, to be exact from April 1944, when ((((((((((((Rudolf Vrba)))))))))))) and ((((((((((((Alfred Wetzler)))))))))))) are supposed to have escaped from Auschwitz to tell their story to the world up until April 1947, when Rudolf Höss was hanged after having supposedly told the same world his own story about Auschwitz.

It is remarkable that from beginning to end that story comes from essentially or perhaps even exclusively Jewish sources. Two Jewish liars (Vrba and Wetzler) from Slovakia convinced or seemed to have convinced other Jews from Hungary, Switzerland, United States, Great Britain, and Poland. This is not a conspiracy or a plot; it is the story of the birth of a religious belief: the myth of Auschwitz, center of the religion of the Holocaust.

This photograph was published after p. 161 of Lord Russell of Liverpool’s Geissel der Menschheit, Berlin, Verlag Volk und Welt, 1960. The title of the original book in English is The Scourge of the Swastika. The caption of the photo says: ‘The Confession of Rudolf Höss.” It is not NO-1210 or PS-3868 but only a very short text of 16 March 1946. You will note the difference between the handwriting of the text of the confession and Höss’s own handwriting. In his introduction to the English edition of Commandant in Auschwitz Lord Russell claims to furnish some information on the conditions in which Höss had to sign that note, but, since he commits errors in the chronology of the events in that regard, his information is to be received with reservations. (See Commandant in Auschwitz, p.18.)

The second photo was published as photo #22 in Tom Bower, Blind Eye to Murder (Britain, America and the Purging of Nazi Germany — A Pledge Betrayed), Granada: London, Toronto, Sydney, New York 1981. The caption of the photo says: “Colonel Gerald Draper of the British War Crimes Group photographed as he finally secured the confession of Rudolf Höss, the commandant of Auschwitz, to the murder of three million people.” As one remembers, Höss said in his “memoirs”: “I received further rough treatment at the hands of the English public prosecutor, a major” (Commandant in Auschwitz, p. 74). Did this major become a colonel and was his name “Draper”?


From The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87 (Vol. 7, No. 4), pages 380-403

The Bizarre Lies Told At Nuremberg To Execute Germans They Wish You’d Forget

The Bizarre Lies Told At Nuremberg To Execute Germans They Wish You’d Forget

From Wear’s War

…many of the charges made at Nuremberg are so bizarre that most defenders of the Holocaust story have long since let them lapse”.

After Germany’s defeat in WWII, the Nuremberg and later trials were organized primarily for political purposes rather than to dispense impartial justice. Wears War brings to you each week a quote from the many fine men and women who were openly appalled by the trials. All of these people were highly respected and prominent in their field, at least until they spoke out against the trials.

Healthy Inmates Celebrate Liberation With Alcohol, Buchenwald, 1945

Many defenders of the Holocaust story maintain that the 42-volume Trial of the Major War Criminals (The Blue Series) supplies a massive compilation of damning evidence against Germany’s National Socialist regime. In his book Made in Russia: The Holocaust, Carlos Porter confronts the evidence directly by reproducing page after page from the Blue Series. Porter shows that many of the charges made at Nuremberg are so bizarre that most defenders of the Holocaust story have long since let them lapse. In addition to killing Jews in homicidal gas chambers, the Germans at Nuremberg were accused of:

–building special electrical appliances to zap inmates to death with mass electrical shocks;

–killing 20,000 Jews in a village near Auschwitz with an atomic bomb;

–forcing prisoners to climb trees and then killing the prisoners by cutting down the trees;

–killing 840,000 Russian prisoners at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp using a pedal-driven brain-bashing machine, and then burning the bodies in four mobile crematories;

–torturing and executing people at the Yanov camp in Russia in time to musiccreated by a special orchestra selected from among the prisoners, and then shooting every member of the orchestra;

grinding the bones of 200 people at one time as described in documents and photographs that have disappeared;

making lampshades, handbags, driving gloves for SS officers, book bindings, saddles, house slippers, etc. out of human skin;

–killing prisoners and concentration camp inmates for everything from having soiled underwear to having armpit hair; and

steaming people to death like lobsters in steam chambers at Treblinka.

After this incredible survey of Nuremberg atrocity evidence, Carlos Porter provides numerous examples of improper prosecution tactics at Nuremberg. The defendants at Nuremberg were rarely able to confront their accusers, since affidavits from witnesses who had been deposed months before sufficed. The prosecution made it difficult for the defense lawyers to have timely access to the documents introduced into evidence by the prosecution. Also, photocopies and transcripts were usually submitted into evidence instead of the original German documents, which in many cases seemed to have disappeared. Finally, the defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case. The defense had no right to review the tons of remaining documents that might help them defend their clients.

American soldiers with deloused clothing airing outside the dis-infestation chambers, 1945. The dis-infestation chambers and Zyklon-B continued to be used after the Allied liberation of the camp, something that the Holocaust storytellers always neglect to tell.

Quote Source: Porter, Carlos Whitlock, Made in Russia: The Holocaust, Historical Review Press, 1988.

Repeat After Me: “The Nuremberg Trials Dispensed Fair & Objective Justice For The Greater Good Of Humanity!”
Decades Later Americans Pay To Administer Reparation Agreements: “…the State Department has waived ‘quite considerable’ administrative costs”. After Survivors Interfered In U.S. State & Federal Contract Tenders In 2016. Repeat After Me: “The Nuremberg Trials Dispensed Fair & Objective Justice For The Greater GUILT Of Humanity!”
The Book That Requires Trolls On A Salary To Attempt To Discredit It.

Fake History Lie: The Allies Won The Good War And Treated Defeated Germans Humanely

Fake History Lie: The Allies Won The Good War And Treated Defeated Germans Humanely

By John Wear
The Lie:

The Allies fought the Good War. They treated defeated German men, women and children humanely.

After learning about the murderous rape rampage of Soviet soldiers following Germany’s defeat in WWII, a young Polish man in Gdansk, Poland was so deeply affected he created a statue titled Komm Frau, of a pregnant young woman being raped to memorialize the memory of the 2 million girls and women. After displaying it on a city street, he was promptly arrested and the statue was removed.

A beautiful traditional English setting, the Victoria Tower Gardens, will soon be blighted by a new Holocaust Memorial. Nicknamed the “toast rack” few people can figure out how this monstrosity memorializes suffering. Holocaust Memorials increase in number every year around the world.

The Truth:

There were clear designs to destroy Germany before WWII. The Allies also committed horrific crimes against Germans after World War II while preparing for and conducting the Nuremberg show-trials for vindication. This is because the breathtaking scale and horror of the atrocities committed against Germans dwarfs the so-called Holocaust. The real agenda of World War II was the complete destruction of Germany in perpetuity, as evidenced by German leader Angela Merkel throwing away a German flag in disgust on a globally televised platform.

The “Good War” Ends & 95% Of Babies Born in Berlin The Summer of 1945 Die On America’s Watch: The Policy To Expel & Force Resettlement of Germans into Germany
After signing the pre-Armistice contract to end WWI, the Allies continued their naval blockade. This resulted in the starvation of 800,000 Germans (the elderly and young children were the worst affected), to force Germany to sign a new and unfair contract – The Versailles Treaty. NO MERCY! The Unprecedented Vengeance Of The Versailles Treaty

Despite Hitler’s repeated efforts to avert a world war and defend Europe from a   Communist take-over by the greatest offensive army ever created, the Allies led by Churchill and FDR, conspired to create WWII.

A Blank Check & Forked Tongues: How Britain & Poland Started WWII & Blamed Hitler & Germans For Eternity!
Did President Roosevelt Betray America To Force An Unjustified Global War?

The intentional prolonging of WWII permitted the extraordinarily excessive saturation bombing of Germany. The Holocaust firestorm of the militarily unimportant city of Dresden alone resulted in 250,000 people dying including refugees, The bombing was followed by the aerial mowing down by bullets of survivors. Even the last surviving Zoo animals were mowed down. This Hellstorm has been publicly revealed by the efforts of many including Thomas Goodrich and Kyle Hunt.

Gen. Patton Exposes The Allied Conspiracy To Extend WW2 & Give Eastern Europeans To Stalin. Suddenly Patton Dies Burying The Real Holocaust

The saturation bombing and destruction of food and medical supply lines resulted in the senseless deaths of Germans and many concentration camp inmates due to months of hunger and diseases including Typhus. Large numbers of refugees from neighboring countries fleeing the Red Army also died.

While Germany’s unconditional surrender to the Allies marked the end of a long nightmare for German citizens, it was the beginning of a new, even more dangerous future. Most Germans assumed that as bad as the coming weeks and months might be, the worst of their death and suffering was behind them. However, although World War II was history’s most catastrophic and destructive war, the death and suffering of Germans increased after the end of the war. What lay ahead for Germany was, as Time magazine later phrased it, “history’s most terrifying peace.”[1]

Numerous writers had warned of the terrible consequences that Germans would face if Germany lost the war. In his widely read book published in 1941, Germany Must Perish, Theodore ((((((Kaufman)))))) wrote:

This time Germany has forced a total war upon the world. As a result, she must be prepared to pay a total penalty. And there is one, and only one, such total penalty: Germany must perish forever! In fact—not in fancy!…The goal of world-dominion must be removed from the reach of the German and the only way to accomplish that is to remove the German from the world….There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forever of Germanism—and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Germany from ever again reproducing their kind.[2]

Why the Holocaust Story Was Invented

((((((Kaufman)))))) concluded that all German men and women should be sterilized to eliminate Germanism and its carriers.[3] Many leading American journals such as Time magazine and the Washington Post expressed strong support for this genocidal concept.[4]

The Allied postwar treatment of Germany resulted in more German deaths than were incurred during the Second World War. While the exact number of casualties will never be known, the number of German military and civilian deaths during World War II is approximately 6.5 million.[5] The total number of German postwar deaths from 1945 to 1950 almost certainly exceeds 9 million. Few acknowledge the incredible death toll amongst the elderly and young after more than 16 million Germans were expelled from their homes and home lands, nor the fate of those who were trapped in the Allied-run concentration camps.

The Nuremberg trials failed to recognize these horrific crimes committed against the German people. They also overlooked the intentional starvation of ethnic German infants and children in post-WWII Eastern Europe.

The German dead do not tell the entire story of the tragedy that was inflicted on Germany after World War II.

In Germany as a whole it is estimated that 2 million German girls and women were raped in the aftermath of the Second World War. This represents more rapes against a defeated enemy than any other war in history. The German women and girls (as young as 8 years old) who had been repeatedly raped, often with torture, and survived had to bear the physical and psychological scars for the rest of their lives.[6] Compounding this atrocity was the post-WWII requirement that these victims assume guilt and pay on-going reparations for their role in alleged German atrocities.

The Soviet, French Senegalese and Moroccan troops were notorious for raping German girls and women.

By contrast, the German army behaved very correctly toward the people of occupied territories whose governments were signatories of The Hague and Geneva Conventions. Rape by German soldiers in these territories was strictly forbidden. This has been confirmed by numerous sources and is beyond dispute. For example, after a tour of inspection in which he visited areas where the Germans had been in occupation for four years, Frederick C. Crawford stated in his “Report From the War Front”:

The Germans tried to be careful in their dealings with the people…We were told that if a citizen attended strictly to business and took no political or underground action against the occupying army, he was treated with correctness.”[7]

The German POWs fared no better, if not intentionally starved to death by Americans, they were slave labor for the other Allies and died in the millions.

If laws must be adjusted to a particular crime scene to defend that specific crime scene from forensic investigation, then that is a most odious set of laws akin to the Nuremberg Trials.

While a 96-year-old man is deemed fit to serve a prison sentence, we are awaiting the equivalent ‘justice’ to be granted to the non-Communist Jews who were intentionally deprived of food and basic necessities by the gangs of Communist-Jews in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp.


Buy Germany’s War

ENDNOTES

[1] Keeling, Ralph Franklin, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War against the German People, Torrance, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, p. XII.

[5] Bessel, Richard, Germany 1945: From War to Peace, London: Harper Perennial, 2010, p. 388.

[6] Lowe, Keith, Savage Continent: Europe in the Aftermath of World War II, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2012, pp. 51, 55.

[7] Keeling, Ralph Franklin, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War against the German People, Torrance, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, pp. 64-65.

[2] ((((((Kaufman)))))), Theodore N., Germany Must Perish! Newark, NJ: Argyle Press, 1941, pp. 6-7, 28, 86.

[3]Ibid., pp. 88-89.

[4] Goodrich, Thomas, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany,1944-1947, Sheridan, CO: Aberdeen Books, 2010, pp. 7-8.

Do The Sonderkommandos Prove A Holocaust or Holohoax?

Do The Sonderkommandos Prove A Holocaust or Holohoax? Debating Eyewitnesses Accepted By Historians

By John Wear

Shlomo and Abraham Dragon claim they lived to tell their story only because Shlomo got sick. All the other 200 Sonderkommandos in their group allegedly were transferred to Lublin and gassed. So instead of being gassed, Shlomo stayed at Birkenau, received medical treatment, convinced the SS to keep his brother with him, and both brothers lived to tell their story of mass murder at Birkenau. Like most Holocaust survivors, they both claim to have survived Birkenau through a miracle.[25]

Sonderkommando Eyewitness Testimony to the Holocaust

Defenders of the Holocaust story inevitably raise eyewitness testimony as proof that the genocide of European Jewry happened. However, as I discussed in a previous article, eyewitness testimony to the so-called Holocaust is notoriously unreliable.[1]

A pro-Holocaust supporter told me that witnesses such as Elie Wiesel, Simon Wiesenthal and Viktor Frankl are not relied upon by historians to prove the so-called Holocaust happened. Instead, testimony from Sonderkommandos who actually worked at the alleged homicidal gas chambers constitutes the most reliable eyewitness testimony. In this article I will examine the credibility of the eyewitness testimony of several Jewish Sonderkommandos mentioned frequently in the pro-Holocaust literature.

Henryk Tauber

Henryk Tauber states in his deposition of May 1945 that he worked in the Crematoria at Birkenau from February 1943 to October 1944. Pro-Holocaust researcher Robert Jan van Pelt refers to Sonderkommando Henryk Tauber as “an almost ideal witness” and states “we do well to attach the highest evidentiary value” to Tauber’s testimony.[2] Jean-Claude Pressac states:

The testimony by Henryk Tauber is the best that exists on the Birkenau Krematorien. Being 95% historically reliable, it stands head and shoulders above the rest.”[3]

An analysis of Tauber’s testimony, however, shows that it is extremely unreliable.

Tauber states in his deposition:

Generally speaking, we burned four or five corpses at a time in one muffle, but sometimes we charged a greater number of corpses. It was possible to charge up to eight ‘muselmanns’. Such big charges were incinerated without the knowledge of the head of the crematorium during air raid warnings in order to attract the attention of airmen by having a bigger fire emerging from the chimney. We imagined that in that way it might be possible to change our fate.”[4]

As is common knowledge and has been pointed out many times, no flames come out of crematorium chimneys. It is also impossible to push eight corpses into a cremation muffle whose door is just two feet wide and two feet high. And apart from that, before Tauber and his co-workers would have been able to push eight corpses into each oven and get a huge blaze going, any plane they claim to have heard approaching would have long since flown away. Such testimonies are, to use Pressac’s words,

nothing but downright lies and pure invention.”[5]

Tauber states in his deposition:

During the incineration of such [not emaciated] corpses, we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for fatty corpses burned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body fat. On occasion, when coke was in short supply, we would put some straw and wood in the ash bins under the muffles, and once the fat of the corpse began to burn the other corpses would catch light themselves…Later on, as cremations succeeded one another, the furnaces burned thanks to the embers produced by the combustion of the corpses. So, during the incineration of fat bodies, the fires were generally extinguished.”[6]

Tauber’s testimony is absurd. The thousands of crematories around the world consuming large amounts of energy are the best proof that total cremation of naked bodies in a short period of time will not occur from the combustion of body fat from the corpses.[7]

Tauber’s testimony becomes even more absurd when he states that the Birkenau crematories were shut down in 1944 because cremation trenches are more efficient than crematories. Tauber testifies:

It was realized that the pits burned the corpses better (than the furnaces), so the Krematorien closed down one after the other after the pits came into operation.”[8]

Germar Rudolf comments on Tauber’s testimony:

As for trench burning in comparison to cremation, the energy loss through radiation and convection, along with the problem of incomplete burning, is so gigantic that further commentary is really not needed.”[9]

Tauber also states in his testimony:

Ober Capo August explained to us that, according to the calculations and plans for this crematorium, five to seven minutes was allowed to burn one corpse in a muffle.”[10]

This is impossible even today, and using 1940s technology it would have taken at least an hour to incinerate a corpse.

Tauber also estimates that 4 million people were gassed at Auschwitz/Birkenau:

During my time in Auschwitz, I was able to talk to various prisoners who had worked in the Krematorien and the Bunkers before my arrival. They told me that I was not among the first to do this work, and that before I came another 2 million people had already been gassed in Bunkers 1 and 2 and Krematorium I. Adding up, the total number of people gassed in Auschwitz amounted to about 4 million.”[11]

Today no credible historian estimates that 4 million people were gassed at Auschwitz/Birkenau.

Dramatically Acted Holocaust Survivor Holograms Will Be Used To Traumatize All School Children For Generations Despite Questionable Authenticity
More Incongruities in Tauber’s Testimony

Henryk Tauber states in his deposition:

The people going to be gassed and those in the gas chamber damaged the electrical installations, tearing the cables out and damaging the ventilation equipment.”[12]

The alleged homicidal gas chambers could not have been ventilated when the ventilation equipment was damaged by the inmates. If Tauber’s statement were true, the Germans would have had to repair the wiring and ventilation ducts in the gas chambers on a regular basis. Tauber and the other Sonderkommandos would not have been able to clear the gas chambers of dead bodies when the ventilation system was not working. Thus, the daily mass gassings in the homicidal gas chambers could not have occurred as Tauber alleges.[13]

Henryk Tauber also states in his deposition that the Sonderkommandos carried the bodies to the Crematorium ovens. Tauber makes no mention that the Sonderkommandos used special protection to carry the bodies.

A body that has been killed with hydrocyanic acid (HCN) cannot be safely touched without protection. Dr. Robert Faurisson states in regard to HCN poisoning:

Hydrocyanic acid penetrates into the skin, the mucous membranes, and the bodily fluids. The corpse of a man who has just been killed by this powerful poison is itself a dangerous source of poisoning, and cannot be touched with bare hands. In order to enter the HCN-saturated chamber to remove the corpse, special gear is needed, as well as a gas mask with a special filter.”[14]

The danger of touching someone killed with Zyklon B gas is confirmed in the scientific literature.[15]

Bill M. Armontrout, the Warden of Missouri State Penitentiary, testified at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial as to the operation of the Missouri homicidal gas chamber:

After the execution, the ammonia was released and the gas expelled out of the chamber. All staff and witnesses were removed from the area. The ventilation fan ran for approximately an hour before two officers equipped with Scott air-packs (self-contained breathing apparatus which firemen use to enter smoke-filled buildings) opened the hatch of the gas chamber and removed the lead bucket containing the cyanide residue. The two officers wore rubberized disposable clothing and long rubber gloves. They hosed down the condemned man’s body in the chair, paying particular attention to the hair and the clothing because of the cyanide residue, then removed him and placed him on a gurney where further decontamination took place. The officers then hosed the entire inside of the gas chamber with regular cold water.[16]

The Sonderkommandos at Auschwitz/Birkenau would also have had to wear something similar to Scott air-packs. There is simply no way around it. Otherwise, the alleged homicidal gassing operations would not have worked, and Henryk Tauber could not have lived to tell his story.

Henryk Tauber states in his deposition concerning the alleged gas chambers:

The roof of the gas chamber was supported by concrete pillars running down the middle of its length. On either side of these pillars there were four others, two on each side. The sides of these pillars, which went up through the roof, were of heavy wire mesh. Inside this grid, there was another of finer mesh and inside that a third of very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the pellets from which the gas had evaporated.”[17]

Germar Rudolf states in regard to Tauber’s testimony:

Several hundred people, locked into a cellar with a very small surface area, anticipating death, would panic and attempt to escape, damaging everything that stood in their way… If these columns actually existed, their outer framework would have to have been of solid steel, but certainly not of fragile wire mesh construction.”[18]

Tauber’s testimony concerning wire mesh in the gas chambers is simply not credible.

We Have Discussed Spielberg’s Fictional Movies Including Swindler’s List Based On A Novel Of No Authentic Value Used To Traumatize School Children
Abraham and Shlomo Dragon

Brothers Abraham and Shlomo Dragon both claim to have been Sonderkommandos stationed at Birkenau. Shlomo Dragon recalls his first encounter with dead bodies at a cottage known as Bunker 2:

As [SS officer Otto] Moll opened the door of the house, bodies fell out. We smelled gas. We saw corpses of both sexes. The whole place was full of naked people on top of each other falling out.”[19]

Shlomo Dragon states that the cottage was “a little house with a thatched roof” that served as a gas chamber. When asked how the SS threw the gas into the cottage, Shlomo Dragon replied: “There was a little window in the side wall.” Dragon states that he “could sense the sweetish taste of the gas.” According to Dragon, the Sonderkommandos dragged the bodies out of the alleged gas chamber “by the hands,” and then “threw them into the carts, lugged them to the pits, and threw them into the pits.”[20]

Purchase Germany’s War

Shlomo Dragon’s testimony is absurd for many reasons. First, Dragon claims that the sexes were not separated before entering the alleged gas chambers. This is not credible because:

1) This procedure is in contradiction to the procedures followed during disinfestation, where according to eyewitnesses the sexes were carefully separated,

2) Since there were always two alleged “gas chambers” of each type available in Birkenau (in Crematorium II and III, or IV and V, or Bunker I and II), there is no apparent reason why the victims could not have been separated by sex,

3) The claims were repeatedly made that the victims were made to believe that they were going to shower or undergo disinfestation. These procedures would have necessarily separated the populace on the basis of sex, if only because of the need for deception, and

4) Particularly in the 1940s, large numbers of people could only have been made to disrobe completely with others of the opposite sex if they had been threatened with force and violence. This would, however, have nullified all the other measures of concealment.[21]

Shlomo Dragon’s statement that he could smell the sweetish taste of the gas is also not credible. Hydrogen cyanide gas actually smells of bitter almonds. There is nothing sweetish about it.[22]

As previously stated, it is also not safe to enter “gas chambers” and then to drag and carry the dead bodies with bare hands to the pits with only a gas mask as a protective measure. Germar Rudolf states:

It should not be forgotten here that hydrogen cyanide is a contact poison. Transporting corpses, on whose skin huge, possibly lethal amounts of hydrogen cyanide are absorbed, had required that the special commands dealing with these corpses had to wear protective clothes.”[23]

Dragon’s description of Bunker 2 as a little house with a little window in the side wall where gas was introduced is also not credible. Genuine homicidal gas chambers require advanced engineering and construction. Homicidal gas chambers cannot be made out of existing cottages where poison gas is introduced through a little window in a side wall. Furthermore, no documentary evidence has ever been found indicating that Bunker 2 at Birkenau existed as an extermination facility.[24]

Shlomo and Abraham Dragon claim they lived to tell their story only because Shlomo got sick. All the other 200 Sonderkommandos in their group allegedly were transferred to Lublin and gassed. So instead of being gassed, Shlomo stayed at Birkenau, received medical treatment, convinced the SS to keep his brother with him, and both brothers lived to tell their story of mass murder at Birkenau. Like most Holocaust survivors, they both claim to have survived Birkenau through a miracle.[25]

Shlomo Venezia

Shlomo Venezia arrived in Auschwitz/Birkenau on April 11, 1944 and soon began work with the Sonderkommandos.[26] Venezia’s work initially involved carrying bodies removed from Bunker 2 to nearby ditches. Venezia states:

The ditches sloped down, so that, as they burned, the bodies discharged a flow of human fat down the ditch to a corner where a sort of basin had been formed to collect it. When it looked as if the fire might go out, the men had to take some of that liquid fat from the basin, and throw it onto the fire to revive the flames. I saw this only in the ditches of Bunker 2.”[27]

Shlomo Venezia’s story is nonsense. The ignition temperature of human fats is far less than the ignition temperature of the light hydrocarbons which form as a result of the gasification of the bodies and of the seasoned wood used in the fire. The human fat is the first thing that burns on a corpse located in a fire. The human fat could not possibly have flowed down to a corner of the ditch as Venezia describes.

Also, if by some miracle the human fat had flowed to the corner of the ditch, the Sonderkommandos would have had to collect it while an immense bonfire was raging with a temperature of at least 600° C. The Sonderkommandos could not have withstood such intense heat.[28]

Venezia later worked at Crematorium III in Birkenau. He states that it took about 10 to 12 minutes for the people to be killed by the gas, and another 20 minutes to run the ventilation system. Venezia describes bringing the corpses out of the gas chamber:

A terrible, acrid smell filled the room. We couldn’t distinguish between what came from the specific smell of the gas and what came from the smell of the people and the human excrement.”[29]

Venezia never mentions that he used a gas mask during his work. Without a gas mask, Venezia and the other Sonderkommandos would have been gassed in turn. The ventilators could not have completely exhausted the gas from the alleged gas chambers in only 20 minutes. More importantly, there would always have been residues of the toxic gas among the dead which would be released during the clearing of the gas chamber. A gas mask would have been required for the Sonderkommandos to safely remove the corpses from the homicidal gas chambers.[30]

Conclusion

This article documents only a small portion of the absurdities, inconsistencies and outright lies of the Sonderkommando testimony. Similar to other eyewitnesses to the so-called Holocaust, the surviving Sonderkommandos have failed to provide credible evidence that Germany built homicidal gas chambers to conduct a program of genocide against European Jewry during World War II.     

Read more about the questionable reliability of Eyewitness Testimony here.

Germany’s War By John Wear

ENDNOTES

[1] https://katana17.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/holocaust-eyewitnesses-is-the-testimony-reliable/.

[2] Van Pelt, Robert Jan, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence From the Irving Trial, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2002, pp. 188, 204-205.

[3] http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0481.shtml.

[4] http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82890.

[5] The Rudolf Report, pp. 188-189, located at http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-trr.pdf.

[6] http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82890.

[7] Rudolf, Germar, Lectures on the Holocaust, p. 387, located at http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/15-loth.pdf.

[8] http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82890.

[9] Rudolf, Germar, Lectures on the Holocaust, p. 387, located at http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/15-loth.pdf.

[10] http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82890.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] The Rudolf Report, pp. 111-112, located at http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-trr.pdf.

[14] http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p14_Faurisson.html. See also The Rudolf Report, pp. 217-218, located at http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-trr.pdf.

[15] http://medind.nic.in/jal/t10/i1/jalt10i1p80.pdf.

[16] Kulaszka, Barbara, (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die: Report of Evidence in the Canadian `False News’ Trial of Ernst Zündel, Toronto: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 1992, p. 352.

[17] http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82890.

[18] The Rudolf Report, p. 111, located at http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-trr.pdf.

[19] Greif, Gideon, We Wept Without Tears: Testimonies of the Jewish Sonderkommando from Auschwitz, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005, p. 133.

[20] Ibid., pp. 134-136.

[21] The Rudolf Report, pp. 204-205, located at http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-trr.pdf.

[22] http://vho.org/dl/ENG/tboa.pdf, p. 130.

[23] The Rudolf Report, p. 218, located at http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-trr.pdf.

[24] http://vho.org/dl/ENG/tboa.pdf, p. 48.

[25] Greif, Gideon, We Wept Without Tears: Testimonies of the Jewish Sonderkommando from Auschwitz, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005, p. 147.

[26] Veneziz, Shlomo, Inside the Gas Chambers: Eight Months in the Sonderkommando of Auschwitz, Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2009, p. xi.

[27] Ibid., pp. 59-60.

[28]ww.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2010/volume_2/number_1/truth_about_the_gas_chambers.php.

[29] Veneziz, Shlomo, Inside the Gas Chambers: Eight Months in the Sonderkommando of Auschwitz, Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2009, p. 69.

[30]ww.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2010/volume_2/number_1/truth_about_the_gas_chambers.php.

Why Not War?

Why Not War?

There is overwhelming agreement among economists that the Second World War was responsible for decisively ending the Great Depression. When asked why the wars in Iran and Afghanistan are failing to make the same impact today, they often claim that the current conflicts are simply too small to be economically significant.

There is, of course, much irony here. No one argues that World War II, with its genocide, tens of millions of combatant casualties, and wholesale destruction of cities and regions, was good for humanity. But the improved American economy of the late 1940s seems to illustrate the benefits of large-scale government stimulus. This conundrum may be causing some to wonder how we could capture the good without the bad.

If one believes that government spending can create economic growth, then the answer should be simple: let’s have a huge pretend war that rivals the Second World War in size. However, this time, let’s not kill anyone.

Most economists believe that massive federal government spending on tanks, uniforms, bullets, and battleships used in World War II, as well the jobs created to actually wage the War, finally put to an end the paralyzing “deflationary trap” that had existed since the Crash of 1929. Many further argue that war spending succeeded where the much smaller New Deal programs of the 1930s had fallen short.

The numbers were indeed staggering. From 1940 to 1944, federal spending shot up more than six times from just $9.5 billion to $72 billion. This increase led to a corresponding $75 billion expansion of US nominal GDP, from $101 billion in 1940 to $175 billion by 1944. In other words, the war effort caused US GDP to increase close to 75% in just four years!

The War also wiped out the country’s chronic unemployment problems. In 1940, eleven years after the Crash, unemployment was still at a stubbornly high 8.1%. By 1944, the figure had dropped to less than 1%. The fresh influx of government spending and deployment of working-age men overseas drew women into the workforce in unprecedented numbers, thereby greatly expanding economic output. In addition, government spending on wartime technology produced a great many breakthroughs that impacted consumer goods production for decades.

So, why not have the United States declare a fake war on Russia (a grudge match that is, after all, long overdue)? Both countries could immediately order full employment and revitalize their respective manufacturing sectors. Instead of live munitions, we could build all varieties of paint guns, water balloons, and stink bombs.

Once new armies have been drafted and properly outfitted with harmless weaponry, our two countries could stage exciting war games. Perhaps the US could mount an amphibious invasion of Kamchatka (just like in Risk!). As far as the destruction goes, let’s just bring in Pixar and James Cameron. With limitless funds from Washington, these Hollywood magicians could surely produce simulated mayhem more spectacular than Pearl Harbor or D-Day. The spectacle could be televised- with advertising revenue going straight to the government.

The competition could be extended so that the winner of the pseudo-conflict could challenge another country to an all-out fake war. I’m sure France or Italy wouldn’t mind putting a few notches in the ‘win’ column. The stimulus could be never-ending.

If the US can’t find any willing international partners, we could always re-create the Civil War. Missed the Monitor vs. the Merrimack the first time? No worries, we’ll do it again!

But to repeat the impact of World War II today would require a truly massive effort. Replicating the six-fold increase in the federal budget that was seen in the early 1940s would result in a nearly $20 trillion budget today. That equates to $67,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. Surely, the tremendous GDP growth created by such spending would make short work of the so-called Great Recession.

The big question is how to pay for it. To a degree that will surprise many, the US funded its World War II effort largely by raising taxes and tapping into Americans’ personal savings. Both of those avenues are nowhere near as promising today as they were in 1941.

Current tax burdens are now much higher than they were before the War, so raising taxes today would be much more difficult. The “Victory Tax” of 1942 sharply raised income tax rates and allowed, for the first time in our nation’s history, taxes to be withheld directly from paychecks. The hikes were originally intended to be temporary but have, of course, far outlasted their purpose. It would be unlikely that Americans would accept higher taxes today to fund a real war, let alone a pretend one.

That leaves savings, which was the War’s primary source of funding. During the War, Americans purchased approximately $186 billion worth of war bonds, accounting for nearly three quarters of total federal spending from 1941-1945. Today, we don’t have the savings to pay for our current spending, let alone any significant expansions. Even if we could convince the Chinese to loan us a large chunk of the $20 trillion (on top of the $1 trillion we already owe them), how could we ever pay them back?

If all of this seems absurd, that’s because it is. War is a great way to destroy things, but it’s a terrible way to grow an economy.

What is often overlooked is that war creates hardship, and not just for those who endure the violence. Yes, US production increased during the Second World War, but very little of that was of use to anyone but soldiers. Consumers can’t use a bomber to take a family vacation.

The goal of an economy is to raise living standards. During the War, as productive output was diverted to the front, consumer goods were rationed back home and living standards fell. While it’s easy to see the numerical results of wartime spending, it is much harder to see the civilian cutbacks that enabled it.

The truth is that we cannot spend our way out of our current crisis, no matter how great a spectacle we create. Even if we spent on infrastructure rather than war, we would still have no means to fund it, and there would still be no guarantee that the economy would grow as a result.

What we need is more savings, more free enterprise, more production, and a return of American competitiveness in the global economy. Yes, we need Rosie the Riveter – but this time she has to work in the private sector making things that don’t explode. To do this, we need less government spending, not more.