Treblinka "surveyed with ground penetrating radar ... no trace of the claimed mass graves"

Peter Myers, February 9, 2009; update April 30, 2009.

My comments within quoted text are shown {thus}; write to me at contact.html.

You are at

Please report broken links. Write to me at contact.html.

Back to the previous bulletin in the debate: holocaust-debate06.html.

{start of bulletin 7}

(1) "We don't punish a whole group" - what about native peoples? Palestine? Iraq? (2) WW II atrocity propaganda - used to motivate armies (3) Nuremberg: Fair Trial or Show Trial? (4) Treblinka "surveyed with ground penetrating radar ... no trace of the claimed mass graves" (5) Treblinka - reply to Yankel Wiernik (6) Language - why not use the term 'Holocaust Revisionist'? (7) Holocaust, yes, but it was the reaction to what Jews did (8) You belive in 'holocaust'; does it justify creation of Israel? (9) Hitler Killed Anti-Semitism in Britain (10) Hitler's Economic Talents put to Harmful Uses (11) Debate on Nazis is taking attention from Israel's assault on the Palestinians (12) David Irving knows virtually nothing about the Holocaust (13) Irving only became a Denier when he read the Leuchter Report at Zundel's trial (14) No engagement, because the Jewish Thought Police will not allow open debate

(1) "We don't punish a whole group" - what about native peoples? Palestine? Iraq?

From: jeff zervas <> Date: 12.02.2009 10:51 PM

"We don't punish a whole group for what some did."

"The Nazis, like the Communists, broke that unwritten law of our civilization. Admittedly, group thinking is part of Judaism too; but that's no reason for us to abandon that core principle of our civilization."

To be more precise, we should state that we say that we don't punish a whole group for what some did. One only has to think of what went on with the "aboriginal" peoples to demonstrate how it really really works. There are numerous examples of mass punishment. The continuing crimes in Palestine and Iraq (particularly Fallujah) are good examples of how we "break the rule". The Vietnam and Cambodian experiences show that we punish whole groups even when there is precious little evidence any of them did anything to any of our interests. In fact, they had precious little ability to do so, and I am aware of no intention , on their part, to do so! Kinda makes me wonder what the word "civilization" means! "We" in the U.S. are even worse than the Nazis because whereas the Nazis faced a real existential threat, we have never yet faced such a condition, yet we have spent 200 years slaughtering masses of the weak under various pretenses.

(2) WW II atrocity propaganda - used to motivate armies

From: ausgrass <> Date: 12.02.2009 10:30 PM

In my teenage years, I was a serviceman in the Royal Australian Navy and as part of indoctrination exercise to get us to really hate our supposed enemies with a vengeance, we were shown black and white footage of WW II atrocities by the Japanese and the Germans. We were given a paper bag at the door on entry to the cinema to throw up into when things got a bit gruesome.

Forty years on, my memory is still reasonably clear as to the images, the dates and details are a different story,??

But with the Japanese the full gruesome story of the rape and wholesale slaughter of Chinese women, children and babies was the main feature, with the beheading of Australian Navy Servicemen on the beaches of Java thrown in for good value. Oh, cutting babies out of pregnant women with bayonets was a pastime the Japanese seemed to relish and appeared expert at, obviously had some practice sessions and now apply this skill to protected species of whales in the southern oceans.

As far as the Germans went, the masses of bodies in lime pits and the incinerators with partly burnt bodies was obviously footage taken during the allied occupation of at least one concentration camp. The immense piles of dentures, spectacles, clothing, shoes, hats and luggage was hardly fabricated for effect and I doubt could have been faked in any shape or form by uniformed soldiers carrying weapons.

Not certain who produced the films, the Japanese did their own filming, perhaps the Russians or the Yanks filmed the Germans little games. Anyway I have no doubt the film is well hidden in Canberra somewhere, as we are no longer allowed to find fault with our former enemies.

I am certain that somewhere there is evidence to sort out both sides of the holocaust argument BUT perhaps humanity has to move on, accept our shady past and really start work on a brighter future and focus on preventing todays and tomorrows atrocities from happening.

Cheers, Howard Miller

(3) Nuremberg: Fair Trial or Show Trial?

From: glen ivory <> Date: 13.02.2009 08:40 AM

The media propaganda is that the defendants received a fair trial but certain facts stand in the way. Some of those on trial claimed torture - most notably Julius Streicher. Rudolf Hess flew to Britain to end the war and was charged with "crimes against the peace"! When asked about when he first heard about a genocide of the Jews Hermann Goering replied "Right here at Nuremberg!" The prosecution claimed "steam chambers" were used for mass murder. Then they claimed "electrocution chambers". Finally they settled on "gas chambers". In other words, they were making it up as they went along. The following essay is by Mark Weber -

The reasons for the trial were political as the countries doing the prosecuting were guilty of similar crimes themselves. For instance, the Soviets tried to pin the blame for the Katyn massacre of Polish officers on the German defendants. In 1990 Mikhail Gorbachev admitted the USSR was responsible for this atrocity. Many military officers, judges and jurists spoke out against the trials. Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery said "they make losing a war a crime" and US supreme court judge Harlan Fiske Stone referred to them as a "lynching party". For a detailed case by case analysis of each individual defendant I recommend NOT GUILTY AT NUREMBERG THE GERMAN DEFENSE CASE This author states that Nuremberg bore similarities to witchcraft trials of medieval times He also lists some of the more absurd prosecution charges These trials were a form of psychological warfare not only against t! he German defendants but against the German nation as well as summed up by American prosecutor Jackson's statement that they were a "continuation of the war against Germany". For other links to war crimes trials info see

(4) Treblinka "surveyed with ground penetrating radar ... no trace of the claimed mass graves"

From: Michael Rivero <> Date: 13.02.2009 12:07 PM

The problem is that the Treblinka complex has been surveyed with ground penetrating radar, and no trace of the claimed mass graves can be found. The strata is still as it was laid down during the last great ice age.

Reply (Peter M.):

I know Richard Krege, who did that Radar study at Treblinka.

He has only presented his findings to private groups (as a Powerpoint presentation, I recall; I saw it some years ago) .

Richard is qualified as an electrical engineer. But he's not a Geophysicist (Geophysicists are the people who routinely use such machines), nor an expert of Forensic science, nor a Physical Anthropologist.

Nor has he published his findings, i.e. in a public place where independent experts could look at them and give their comments.

I've urged him to publish his study and findings on the internet, and accept the challenge to visit the site "with qualified scientists" - a challenge issued to him at

I'm not demeaning his study; far from it. I'm calling for more of the same. The point is, you're assuming that his study is definitive, when it isn't. The location he chose could have been wrong or too restricted, for example; or the machine not calibrated properly.

Extra studies are needed; I have called on the UN General Assembly to commission such a study; Richard should be invited to participate.

Richard lost his government job after he made a presentation (I'm not sure if was a slide show) to the Tehran Holocaust Conference. He made the indiscretion of using his Airservices Australia email address for his political work:

{no longer at, but is at}

That's no way to foster knowledge, but it would been so easy for him to use a different email address. Why learn the hard way?

The sacking and the front-page publicity are probably why he's gone to ground since. He's not a performer - unlike Toben, who loves the media limelight.

But Richard's refusal to publish his findings, and subject them to the scrutiny of experts, is also no way to foster knowledge.

The only way forward is for the two sides to talk to each other. You can see how difficult that is, by the strain of the (unprecedented) current debate we are having here - in protected space.

Were Richard to publish his findings on Toben's website, it would be a "front page" news item. He would be called on for interviews by world media. And given the provocative nature of Toben's site, Richard's career would be in danger again.

But there is a way it could be done. Not on Toben's website, but at some neutral site (try Scientific American), or even at an Affirmer website such as Nizkor (which delves into Leuchter's report etc):

He could hardly be sacked for publishing his findings there, provided that he made no "Denier" statements. His opponents would of course attack it, but that's part of the advancement of knowledge.

The way to do it would be to make an informal, perhaps indirect approach, to put out feelers. I would be glad to help.

Given the challenge issued to Richard, reported at the above Wikipedia webpage, I can't see that any harm would come to him by accepting it in that way.

(5) Treblinka - reply to Yankel Wiernik

From: ct <> Date: 12.02.2009 09:34 PM

In this detailed report, Arnulf Neumaier addresses many key features of the currently accepted Treblinka narrative, including details offered by Wiernik. He analyzes these descriptions from the perspective of their logical and physical implications. I think the points he raises should be considered carefully before giving credence to these stories. The analysis begins in Section 3 of his report. Here are a few excerpts:

The Treblinka Holocaust


4.1 Generalities on the Site of the Crime and the Murder Weapons

...According to concurrent publications on the Holocaust, the mass murder of Jews was committed in closed rooms, chiefly with various gases believed to have toxic effects. Various sources describe another variation on the methods for the alleged extermination camp Belzec where, it is claimed, the victims were killed with electric current, on an enormous platform that could be submerged in water; the victims were then immediately incinerated, using electricity.(51) This account shows a complete lack of technical and scientific understanding; the excessive powers of imagination it attests to render an ordinary person speechless. We shall therefore dispense with a serious evaluation of it here, even though this tale was even accorded a hearing before the IMT.(52)

The other publications, which are also based on eyewitness testimony, allege assembly-line executions, steam, vacuum, high-pressure air, chlorine gas, diesel engine exhaust gas, and hydrocyanic acid (Zyklon B) as the means of killing. The facilities in which the gassings are said to have taken place are described as gas vans or gas chambers. Depending on which eyewitness account is cited, the following methods of killing were used in Treblinka:

1. killing by means of assembly-line shooting in the neck, out-of-doors;

2. killing with chlorine gas;

3. killing with steam;

4. killing with exhaust gas from a diesel engine;

5. killing by means of pumping the air out of the rooms using large special pumps.

Variations 1, 3 and 5 are reported in the Black Book of 1946 (53) and are no doubt the epitome of perverted imagination. For example, in any attempt to pump the air out of a room, only a few tenths atm. below atmospheric pressure would suffice to make the entire building collapse. The alleged execution by means of steam appears in the same place in the Black Book, in the statement of A. Krzepicki,(54) and is repeated by a Polish source.(55) H. P. Rullmann states that the information given by the Black Book of 194351 is unreliable, since this source cites a nonexistent publication, the East London Observer.(56) Rückerl believes that this was a matter of rumors being circulated by witnesses who knew of the exterminations as a fact but were unable to find out precisely how they took place.(57) And finally, the steam version - which is generally rejected nowadays - was presented to the IMT as established method of killing.(43) Today there is a general consensus that the murders were committed using diesel exhaust gas - whose insufficient capacity to kill is demonstrated by F. P. Berg in the present volume...

In recent times no-one has given any more serious consideration to the alleged facilities for the production of high-temperature steam, of sub-atmospheric pressure, or of chlorine gas for mass killing; these claims have clearly been rejected for their absurdity. But it is inexplicable why witnesses, historians and the courts have agreed on diesel exhaust gas as the "murder weapon" for Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor. It is quite incomprehensible why those planning the extermination of incredibly great numbers of Jews should have resorted to the exhaust from diesel engines, since we know today from many environmental reports that the exhaust from gasoline-powered engines is a hundred times more poisonous than that from a diesel engine. A comparison of the various witness statements does not clarify just exactly how the gas affected those locked into the gas chambers. Any grave toxic effects of the exhaust from a diesel engine can be ruled out due to the low carbon monoxide content of said gas.(62) Pouring diesel exhaust gas into the gas chambers would amount to a reduced but still adequate supply of oxygen to the rooms in question...

After escaping from the combustion chamber, the exhaust gases of internal combustion engines are channelled into exhaust pipes, whence they pass into the open air. If the gas escaping out the end of the exhaust pipe is stopped up, the pressure will increase until the engine stalls. The degree to which the pressure can rise varies with the type and construction of the engine.(63)

According to the witnesses, the engines used to supply the gas chambers with gas were heavy diesel engines taken from Soviet tanks, whose power ranged up to 550 PS. Since diesel engines have a high compression ratio (1:15), it may be assumed that they are still able to function even if the pressure of the exhaust increases by 0.5 atm. after exiting the cylinder.

Now if these exhaust gases are channelled into a hermetically sealed room, the pressure there can also increase by 0.5 atm. (corresponding to a weight of 500g/cm2, or 1,024 pounds per sq.ft.); this means that there would have been a force equivalent to the weight of 5 metric tons pushing outward against each square meter of surface area. This would have been the situation in any gassing as described by the witnesses for these allegedly hermetically sealed gas chambers. To illustrate the total force acting on the walls of the gas chamber, let us look at the dimensions of the chambers of Death House 2. Given the assumed height of 6.6 ft. and a room length of 26.25 ft., the wall surface area comes to about 173 sq.ft.; the force pushing outwards against the wall amounts to the equivalent of 80 metric tons...

The ceiling of this facility has a total surface area of 603 sq.ft. The force acting on it from below would be equivalent to the weight of 280 metric tons. The dead weight of such a ceiling is approximately 10 metric tons. If the ceiling did not actually lift off, it would at least snap in half upwards, since the steel reinforcement of reinforced ceilings is located in the lower third of the ceiling as seen in cross-section. Since according to Rückerl the floor of this gas chamber was 5 ft. above ground level, there must have been an empty space beneath it. Therefore the floor must have had a load-carrying capacity of more than 5 t/m2. Ceilings and floors of 6 t/m2 weight-bearing capacity would not have simply vanished into thin air after the War.

Similar considerations apply to the doors of the gas chambers. The aforementioned trap doors measured 8.2 ft. width x 6.6 ft. assumed height, ie. 54 sq.ft. The pressure brought to bear on them would thus have amounted to 25 tons pushing outward - and yet these doors still managed to remain airtight...

Rachel Auerbach cites a modified version, according to which the air was pumped out before the diesel exhaust was piped in.(64) That even just the first half of this would have sufficed to kill the victims if the gas chamber had survived the process from a construction point of view is something which clearly does not occur to Ms. Auerbach. For these methods of killing, the forces acting on the building would have been reversed in comparison to the previous, ie. acting inwardly from without, and of even greater intensity up to twice the previously demonstrated values, since the difference in pressure between a normal room and one pumped to vacuum conditions is approximately 1 atm.). It must be stressed that even considerably smaller pressure differences between the gas chamber and the atmosphere would have demolished the building.

Let us briefly consider how long it would have taken to attain an excess pressure of 0.5 atm. in the gas chamber of 603 sq.ft. area x 6.6 ft. height, ie. 3,980 cu.ft. Of the aforementioned Soviet diesel engines, the W2 with 38 liter cubic capacity would be a possibility.(62) In a gassing situation the air volume in the gas chamber (volume of chamber minus volume of victims locked into it) would have been approximately 2,684 cu.ft. Assuming that the engine ran at 500 rpm, the volume of exhaust gas output would have been 335 cu.ft. per minute. The introduction of a total of 1,342 cu.ft. of exhaust gas would have increased the pressure in the gas chamber to 1.5 atm. within 4 minutes. Even running at full load and under the most unfavorable conditions, a diesel engine does not put out enough toxins in this short time to suffice to kill anyone - but the volume of exhaust certainly would suffice to blow up hermetically sealed brick-walled rooms.

How would a homicidal gassing process even be possible if, for example, the ten gas chambers of Death House 2 were simultaneously filled with 6,000 people, as the Black Book reports? The hallway leading to the gas chambers was allegedly 5 ft. wide. This is just wide enough to allow two people to enter it side by side. So if the victims-to-be are lined up outside the Death House, two abreast and each 2 ft. behind the person before them, we end up with a line-up almost 1.5 miles long. [emphasis added]

According to technical specifications for engineers, the oxygen requirement for people performing even non-strenuous work is 2/3 liters per minute. Under the conditions given - being crowded together in a small room - this is the least amount required. This means that 600 persons under the specified conditions use up some 400 liters of oxygen per minute, so that as long as consumption remained steady, the available oxygen would already have been completely used up within 40 minutes; dead bodies would have been all that was left in the chamber, long before the start of any gassing. In fact, oxygen consumption decreases with the onset of death, so that it would have taken the victims about one hour to suffocate. Even the witnesses ought to have noticed that. These, however, report that death by suffocation took 24 or even 48 hours when the diesel engines failed to work; this account, therefore, must be rejected as being a sheer flight of fancy.(65)

If, however, the chambers were not hermetically sealed and were only enriched, so to speak, with diesel exhaust gas, then the 15-17% oxygen content of the exhaust would not have been fatal.(66)

5.1 Burial Pits

According to Eliahu Rosenberg,(17) after the trap doors of the gas chambers were opened, the corpses (some 850,000 altogether) were taken to pits measuring 394 ft. in length, 49 ft. in breadth and 20 ft. in depth. Based on Rosenberg's testimony, and assuming a likely gradient of 65° in the sandy and gravelly terrain of the Treblinka area and a 1.6 ft. soil layer to cover the mass grave, such a burial pit would have had a fillable volume of some 282,500 cu.ft.

Some witnesses have stated that the bodies were layered into the pit and that each layer was covered with a layer of soil; others claim that the bodies were haphazardly thrown into the pit. Both situations would allow for approximately 8 bodies per cubic meter (10 per 44 cubic ft.), meaning that the pits described would have accommodated about 64,000 bodies each. Interestingly enough, none of the witnesses mention the considerable amount of excavated soil, which came to about 339,000 cubic ft. per pit, given a 20% loosening-up of the soil. The gradient of a pit dug in natural ground conditions is known to be much steeper than that of the pile of dug-up contents. If the surface area of the burial pit measured 19,300 sq.ft., as alleged, then given a gradient of approximately 30° for the excavated gravel or sand - and after subtracting approximately 35,300 cu.ft. for the material with which the corpses were covered - the area taken up by the dug-up material piled 20 ft. high along the pit would have been approximately 28,000 sq.ft.

According to the Slovenian historian Tone Ference,(70) the upper extermination area, which is said to have been within the camp area of Treblinka II, covered an area of about 172,000 sq.ft.; however, to forestall any objections on this score, we shall base our further considerations on the size of the extermination area indicated by the archival plan, namely about 193,700 sq.ft. This area held not only burial pits and the material dug up in the course of their excavation, but gas chambers and other buildings as well. If one accepts the 875,000 dead mentioned in the Jerusalem Trial of John Demjanjuk, then 14 burial pits à la Rosenberg and a total of some 4.6 million cu.ft. of excavated earth would have been involved in the accommodation of all these bodies. Since these 14 pits would have taken up an area of 271,150 sq.ft, they could not have fit into the extermination area measuring only 193,700 sq.ft. Further, the heaps of excavated material resulting from the 14 burial pits would have required an additional area of more than 392,000 sq.ft.

If, on the other hand, one proceeds on the assumption that the claims of 3 million victims are correct, then 47 burial pits covering some 910,000 sq.ft. would have been needed; these would have taken up almost two-thirds of the area of Treblinka II - not even including the excavated soil going with them.

Finally, some comments on the allegedly 20-ft.-deep burial pits. First off, it seems unlikely that the pits would have been dug that deep, as doing so would have required either complicated heavy machinery or increased expenses related to the construction of ramps. The excavators allegedly used in Treblinka would hardly have been adequate to this task.(71) At depths of 20 ft., it is also probable that ground water seepage occurs, which would have impeded or downright prevented the construction and use of pits of such depth. However, since the camp Treblinka I, with a large gravel pit, is said to have been located near Treblinka II, a ground water level lower than 20 ft. is certainly conceivable. If one proceeds on the assumption of a more realistic pit depth of approximately 10 ft., then a pit of the aforementioned surface area would have held some 35,000 bodies, and 25 pits would have been needed, covering a total of 484,200 sq.ft. excluding the area taken up by the excavated soil. The excavated material itself would have required an area of 570,300 sq.ft., making for a total of almost 1.1 million sq.ft. For the alleged 3 million victims, 86 pits covering 1.67 million sq.ft. would have been needed, plus the corresponding area for the excavated soil...

5.3 Cremation of Bodies...

Even though they are contradictory, the many eyewitness accounts do offer numerous details of the extermination activities in Treblinka II; on the other hand, the issue of the fuel necessary for the elimination of the bodies - that is, for their incineration - is ignored, glossed over, or dismissed with unacceptable claims. This consistent approach suggests that the issue, not being resolvable, is repressed either consciously or unconsciously. Szyja Warszawski came up with what is no doubt the easiest solution to the fuel problem when he declared,

"[...] Once the bodies caught fire they would continue burning by themselves", and Grossmann also took a turn in this direction when he stated,

"[...] the bodies did not catch fire properly," and,

"[...] kindling the bodies".

Bodies are not fuel.

The witnesses appear to agree on the opinion that female corpses burn by themselves particularly well, and can thus serve to ignite and burn other corpses. These claims imply that mere kindling suffices to set corpses on fire.

However, this easy way out does not suffice to truly solve the problem of the cremation of corpses, for the worldwide presence and use of oil-, natural gas- or coal-fired crematoria refutes it conclusively, as do all the laws of nature. Some 65% of the human body is unburnable water.

When a major earthquake struck India in September 1993, claiming some 20,000 lives, it was feared that epidemics would break out if the fuel (wood) needed for the cremation of the bodies could not be procured in time. In India, where the cremation of bodies has been the rule rather than the exception for a long time, self-burning corpses have yet to be discovered, even though the country suffers from fuel shortage in this context.

Psychologists ought to investigate the patently false witness claims, since there is no scientific or literary precedent for any similar event which might have found its way into the witnesses' subconscious mind in the form of a literary experience. An event somewhat similar to the claims of the witnesses may be found in the well-known children's picture-book Der Struwwelpeter, where the dreadful fate of Pauline, a girl playing with matches, is described in order to deter children from doing the same. All that remains of Pauline is a pile of ashes and the girl's shoes...

Moving on, Grossmann describes the oven grating and states that three supports of reinforced concrete posts(!!!) and steel joists some 40 inches high were set up along the length of the trench, across which rails were placed 2 to 3 inches apart.(92) In this way there are about 5 rails per running meter, which - assuming a rail length of only 40 ft., although the trench is said to have been as much as 82 ft. in width - results in a total rail length of just over 11 miles. To allow for the burning of the alleged millions of bodies, Grossmann reports two further boiler trenches, making for a total rail length of 33.5 miles. Where on earth did all these rails come from? According to Grossmann the grates were loaded with 3,500 to 4,000 corpses at a time. How were the bodies counted, and who distributed them on the grating, and how?

From the dimensions given, the surface area of one grating may be calculated as 38,700 sq.ft.; this means that for the three boiler trenches the total surface area was 116,100 sq.ft., in other words, roughly the same area as the entire death camp. The total volume of soil excavated - 2.86 million cu.ft. - was even greater than that for the mass graves...

The sick imagination on which such an account is based is not as astonishing as the fact that millions of people believe it. What became of the enormous number of rails and of the reinforced concrete pillars, and who carried out the transports?

While the complete incineration of a body in the retort of a crematorium requires at least 66 lbs. of coke fuel,(95) then the equivalent incineration in the open air will require at least 16 gallons of gasoline, given a suitable set-up. Under the technical conditions described for Treblinka, the incineration of the 875,000 victims alleged in Jerusalem would have taken some 13.2 million gallons of gasoline. Given this daily requirement of fully 10 tank cars of gasoline - an overall total of no less than 2,000 - the train of tank cars would have been all of 9.3 miles long. And this at a time when every gallon of gasoline was badly needed for fighter planes and vehicles of all kinds!

According to a November 27, 1986 report of the New Delhi Shenectady Gazette, cremations and the consumption of wood involved therein (due to the lack of corpses that will burn by themselves) are a serious concern for the inhabitants of India, since entire forests have been cut down over time for just this purpose. According to this report, the daily incineration of 21,000 bodies requires 6,433 metric tons of wood, ie. 675 lbs. per body. In applying these conditions to Treblinka, we shall simplify the matter somewhat by ignoring the problems involved in the prior exhumation of the bodies; let it suffice to consider only one unreality, namely the incineration of the bodies.

To forestall objections of any kind, we shall reduce the consumption of wood for mass cremations from 675 lbs. to 440 lbs. per body. From various eyewitness accounts it follows that the cremation process lasted until early August, a total of about 185 days. This means that a minimum of 4,700 bodies had to be cremated every day, requiring 950 metric tons of dry wood daily. The engineering handbook Hütte indicates a volume of 74.15 cu.ft. per metric ton for spruce wood,(96) and of 109.5 cu.ft. per metric ton for spruce wood fire logs.(97) This means that the volume of the wood needed in Treblinka daily for incinerating the corpses would have been about 104,000 cu.ft. This volume is perhaps easier to grasp when visualized as a stack 3 ft. high, 3 ft. wide and about 1.75 miles long. Every day! [emphasis added]

The cremation gratings, described by Warszawski as measuring 13 ft. x 33 ft. and with 1.5 ft. elevation above the ground, had a spatial volume of approximately 650 cu.ft. underneath the grating. To ensure that the firewood would receive enough draft (oxygen), a maximum of 530 cu.ft. could have been placed underneath. This quantity corresponds to a net weight of 10,600 lbs. and would have sufficed for cremating 24 (twenty-four!) bodies. If one assumes that, in this case, the complete incineration of the bodies took only 2 hours (which, however, is far too short to be realistic), then even cremating 'round-the-clock would have disposed of 288 bodies at most. The high piling-up of bodies on the grating, as it is described by witnesses, would have brought nothing but disadvantages, if only due to the inhibited access granted the flames. But if 4,700 bodies had to be burned every day, this would have required more than 16 gratings as described above, with a total surface area of 6,890 sq.ft.

Stoking the cremation sites with wood, and removing the ashes and skeletons, are elements which have been ignored to date. Given the heat of the fire under the gratings and the stench of the burning bodies, it would have been impossible to perform these necessary tasks while the fire was burning. It is thus safe to say that continuous cremation in the manner described, and using the burning sites described by the witnesses, would not have been possible. Burning the 4,700 bodies would have required at least twice the number of gratings.

With reference to the number of bodies to be incinerated, we still need to examine the source, processing and transportation of the needed quantities of firewood. The total cremation process in Treblinka would have required 430 million pounds, or 195,000 metric tons, of air-dried (seasoned) wood. Due to the short notice and brief time that Himmler allegedly allotted for this process, such a large quantity of air-dried wood would certainly have been impossible to get, which is why only fresh ("green") wood of lower calorific value would have been available. The calorific value of seasoned wood is 3,600 kcal/kg, whereas that of green wood is only 2,000 kcal/kg.(98) Therefore the total required quantity of wood would have increased to 351,000 metric tons, and the daily requirement of green wood was thus approximately 1,900 metric tons. Assuming medium-sized trees of 1 cord volume and 1,500 lbs., the total number of trees needed comes to roughly 515,000.

There were two options for obtaining the required quantity of wood: either there was a large forested area near the camp where the demand for firewood could be met, and whence the wood would then be transported to the camp with suitable vehicles, or the wood had to be brought in from other areas by rail.

Let us suppose for the moment that the wood supply was nearby. Assuming that a 15-ton truck can make 3 runs daily, allowing for loading and unloading of the truck, then 126 trips would need to be made daily, using some 42 trucks. None of the eyewitness statements indicate the presence of such a fleet of trucks. The same goes for the labor force required for the daily felling, limbing, sawing and splitting as well as loading and unloading of 2,800 trees. If, given the primitive conditions that prevailed, we assume that one man could have processed - that is, felled, limbed, sawed and split - one tree per day (an utter illusion), then the lumberjacks would clearly have had to number at least 2,800.

To give an idea of how large a forest would need to be in order to supply such vast quantities of wood, let us assume a yield of 325 cord per acre, which for 515,000 trees would require a forest of 1,590 acres, or just short of 2.5 square miles. To put it more graphically, such a forest would have been 2.5 miles long and 1 mile wide. Is it really conceivable that the witnesses and the local residents could have failed to notice such a large deforested area? The site would still be apparent today.

If one proceeds instead on the assumption that the quantity of wood needed would not have been available locally, then it would have had to be brought in from elsewhere, for example in the form of large fire logs, in rail wagons. If one performs the corresponding calculations for this scenario, then a freight train of 63 cars of 30 metric tons would have had to be unloaded in the camp every day - a total of 185 freight trains. In the end the total length of the trains would have reached 116 km, or 72 miles. This begs the question: where are the pertinent Reichsbahn (German Railway) documents about these enormous wood transports? The authorities and offices in question would hardly have dispensed with payment and not submitted their accounts.

Regarding the claim that the 875,000 corpses were eliminated completely with out any trace, we must consider the quantities of ashes that remain. The quantities of wood ashes are considerable, and vary with the type of wood. We shall postulate the low value of 6.6 lbs. per ton of dry wood.(97) The wood ashes remaining would then have weighed approximately 1,000 metric tons; the equivalent of the payload of 100 10-ton trucks.

The ash content of a human body makes up about 5.6% of the body's weight;(99) given a 132 lb. body, this comes to 7.3 lbs. The ashes from the 875,000 burned bodies would thus have weighed 6,387,500 lbs. The total quantity of ashes - wood ashes plus human ashes - would therefore have weighed almost 4,000 metric tons, or 8.6 million pounds, all of which (according to the witnesses) were then mixed with the soil and thrown back into the pits.(100) Even if this quantity of ash had been mixed with the roughly 3.53 million cubic feet of soil excavated from the burial pits, it would be easy to find evidence for human remains of the quantity alleged by the witnesses. It must also be noted that in the incineration of corpses under the conditions specified by the witnesses, the bones would not have turned to ash, but would have remained as bones.

The witnesses have described how the skeletal remains of the corpses were broken up, and screened and sifted over and over again to ensure that no evidence would remain. Given the primitive equipment described by the witnesses - wooden rollers and thin sheets of metal for crushing the bones - it might have been possible for a man to break up and sift two skeletons per hour in the manner specified. Thus, if one Jewish laborer had pulverized 20 skeletons per day, 240 Jewish laborers would have been needed for this task alone. Adding up the required personnel - 2,800 Jewish laborers for obtaining the wood, 240 for pulverizing the bones, and 150 to stoke the fire sites - fully 3,200 Jewish workers were needed to complete all the required tasks in a solid seven-day work week. Additionally, further hundreds of Jewish workers would have been needed to carry out various other tasks reported by witnesses: excavating and filling trenches, camouflage activities, sorting the valuables of the murdered Jews, cutting the hair and extracting the gold teeth of the victims, rendering services to the SS, administration, rations and supplies for the camp, etc. There would also have to have been reserve labor standing by at all times. Thus the camp would have had to have a permanent workforce of at least 5,000. This number stands in glaring contrast to the mere 700 Jewish laborers attested to for Treblinka.(101)

And finally, we must note that the teeth of the supposed victims could not have been destroyed by the primitive methods attested to.(102) Even if each of the alleged victims had only 20 of the usual 32 teeth left at the time he or she died, there would have been at least 17.5 million teeth to be disposed of at Treblinka. This means that we should still be able to find some 5 teeth per cubic foot of the 3.53 million cu.ft. of material excavated at the alleged site of the crime.

All these calculations are based on the number of victims (875,000) specified by the Jerusalem court. If, on the other hand, one were to postulate the 3 million Treblinka victims alleged by Grossmann and others, then the data ascertained in the previous must be multiplied by a factor of 3.5, meaning: 6,650 metric tons of wood daily to cremate the corpses; a total of approximately 1,200,000 tons of firewood, ie. almost two million trees, for whose transport trains totalling about 252 miles would have been required. The area of the forest thus required amounts to 9 square miles. There would have been roughly 13,700 tons of ashes to hide, containing at least 60 million teeth. And where on earth were the 20,000 Jewish laborers needed to do all the work involved?

(6) Language - why not use the term 'Holocaust Revisionist'? - Peter M., February 13, 2009

I don't like using the term 'Holocaust' because of its religious overtones, and because its connotation of uniqueness severs comparison with the Red Terror, the Gulag, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, the European conquest of the New World, and Israel's treatement of the Palestinians and Arabs.

But I use it; what other term to use? I say "the Nazi Holocaust", following Finkelstein.

A number of contributors have suggested that I should use the term 'Revisionist' rather than 'Denier'.

All of History is constantly being revised; that's what Historians do. This suggested label would not have come from a Historian, for that reason.

Toben and Richard Krege, the two I personally know, call themselves 'Revisionists', but in fact do Deny that Nazis had an Extermination programme, and do Deny the Gas Chambers.

Do the 'Revisionists' revise their own views? No, they hold steadfast.

The other side - the 'Affirmers' - have, on the other hand, revised their opinions. They have revised the Auschwitz toll down from 4 million to 1 million. They have accepted that various books were fake and have removed them from the Holocaust Canon.

Hilberg, in the 1985 edition of his book The Destruction of the European Jews, revised statements he had made in the 1961 edition.

In particular, he acknowledges not finding an explicit written order from Hitler for the Extermination.

Its lack is no more a proof that such an order was not given - written or oral - than is the absence of the Tanaka Memorial from Japanese Government Archives a proof that that document was not genuine.

Hilberg lists the Jewish toll as 5.1 million (not 6 million); and supports Finkelstein's depiction of the Holocaust Industry.

When the Deniers call themselves 'Revisionists', they do not mean that THEIR OWN position should be revised, but that THE AFFIRMERS' position should be revised - in effect, whittled down until there is no Extermination and no Gas Chambers.

So the word 'Revisionist' is not a descriptive term which differetiates the two groups.

(7) Holocaust, yes, but it was the reaction to what Jews did

From: Mark MacCuish <> Date: 13.02.2009 01:33 PM

While I am vehemently ant-Zionist and anti-Trotskyist (I believe in positive versions of nationalism not world-wide internationalism), and while I am no friend of Israel, I, like you, also support the belief that the Holocaust did exist. However, while I fully acknowledge the Holocaust did occur, I could never understand why people support the conclusion of "6 million Jews" who died. This, to me, is impossible on so many different levels. To come to this conclusion of 6 million boggles my mind. Not 6,000,0001 not 5,999,999 but a nice round number of 6 million -- which is repeated quite often without using the word "approximately", especially in open discussions and in media, this term is used without providing any sort of proof of such numbers. Till this date, in 2009, no one on Earth, no organization and no government has come even close of proving conclusively that 6 million Jews died -- no one. And to think anyone ever will is quite the joke.

But the Holocaust did happen. Jews were exterminated. This is a fact of history.

And, while Jews did die, and while they were exterminated, so were many others. There should be no reason as to why Jews should receive special treatment, especially when over 20 million Russian's died. The world is forced, through media manipulation mainly, to mourn the deaths of 6 millions Jews, a number which has never been close to being proven, but why is it the world never mourns the 20+ million Russians who died ? This is the height of hypocrisy in my opinion -- and it is this hypocrisy which leads many to question the Holocaust in the first place.

But what I am most concerned with in regards to your recent articles is this:

Instead of talking about whether or not the Holocaust occured (it obviously did occur but it did not occur by the ficticious number of 6 million) and while it was a tragedy, why not talk about that old classroom lesson that we learn back in science class as a child?

For every action, there is a reaction.

The Holocaust, if you actually think about it from a subjective point of view, was not the action by the Nazis and Hitler; it was the reaction.

Instead of writing constantly about the "reaction" (i.e. the holocaust) why not discuss the entire spectrucm? Sadly this is something you haven't done yet, and something I was hoping you would have. In this manner, you do not have to take sides, but instead can provide to everyone WHY tragedy happened.

Why not discuss what "actions" by Jews (as individuals not as a group) led to the "reaction" being the Holocaust? Hitler himself in your recent "Table Talk" articles mentioned Jews as the force behind WW1 with millions of deaths on their consciouses'. Whether or not this is correct is not important as it is in the mind of Hitler a fact and perhaps may explain his actions towards the Jews.

You can start from a wide ranging number of examples, as someone with your historical knowledge of the situation can grasp. You can mention the Treaty of Versailles, how almost all of the "advisors" to the victorious countries, including France, England, Russia and America, almost all were Jews. An incredible statistic considering Jews were only 1% (if that) of those countries invovled in the war, yet incredibly were almost 90% of the "advisors" to the victorious countries at the Versailles meeting. Such numbers cannot be explained by "chance" alone.

You could mention the impossible reparations placed upon Germany's economy (which was admitted by allied countries as well) which was initiated by Bernard Baruch, the head of the Supreme Economic Council for the Treaty of Versailles. Baruch was a Jewish Wall Street financier and a personal advior to a few American presidents. He was later involved in an attempt after WW2 to create the "Baruch Plan for World Government" with Lilenthal (also Jewish) -- a plan that was rejected by Stalin, but a plan that would have surely been accepted by the Jewish International Communist Trotsky (who sailed from New York on a ship full of Gold along to Russia) had Trotsky been able to retain power from Lenin.

Most importantly, you could mention that while many Jews died during the Holocaust, which was indeed a tragedy, perhaps this was a result of many German's dieing after WW1 with the implementation of the Versailles Treaty (a revolutionairy treaty as Rakovsky described in Red Symphony). What about the hundreds and thousands of German citizens who died of a starvation? What about the massive inflation? What about the poverty? The misery? The so-called "revolutionairy" technqiues that were applied to Germany? Surely this had an effect on both the mindsets of Hitler and his inner cirlce!

Samuel Untermyer, a Jew from Wall Street, in collusion with other Jewish financiers in New York, initiated a World wide financial and economic blockade of Germany after WW1, in light of the rise of Hitler (also financed by Wallstreet). We are talking about countless innocent civilians in Germany dieing from starvation, malnutrition, and poverty, inflicted upon them, in Hitler's eyes at least, by Jews.

I want to make this very clear Peter: while NONE of this in any manner what-so-ever excuses Hitler's disgusting programme of mass murder against Jews, it may explain it. I think what your articles are sadly missing is an explanation of WHY Hitler did this. He did not have a swinging stop watch to hypnotize millions of German's into supporting such an attrocity, perhaps because none was needed; the facts were, unfortunately, that Jews did play a massive role in the demise of Germany (perhaps to sew the seeds of misery so that the approaching "Communist Revolution" from the East would be accepted) and all that was needed was to provide to the masses an explanation of how and why this occured, and the Jews were, in the eyes of Hitler and his people, the reason for their misery.

I am a centralist. I am neither left nore right. I am not making excuses for Hitler's decision to murder and exterminate Jews, I am only providing an explanation, something curiously you have not mentioned yet.

I fully support your views, articles, fact, and opinions. But in this case, I am a little bit confused as to why you've spent so much time discussing the "reaction" -- being the Holocaust -- without ever mentioning the "actions" of Jews which led to it.

Please provide this to your readers as I think it will provide them with some clarity on the overall situation.

Cheers, Mark from Canada

(8) You belive in 'holocaust'; does it justify creation of Israel?

From: Iskandar Masih <> Date: 13.02.2009 05:57 PM

Just wondering: if you accept that there was a deliberate programme of persecution and massacres of Jews during WWII, what consequences of that would you accept? Would you still accept the phenomenon to be grouped together as 'one event' under the name 'holocaust' (i.e., a ' burnt offering' a la Leviticus?) Would you accept the phenomenon as a valid reason to support the creation (or continued existence) of a 'State of Israel'? If not, why not? and please explain. And further to that, why do you think 'denial' of 'holocaust' has been promoted by some few particularly brave (or perhaps, 'foolish'?) souls, who have in turn suffered severe persecution for that? What do you make of it overall, given that you seem to have arrived at a new position with respect to the alleged 'massacres'? What do you think was the real German agenda, or was there only one such agenda, or perhaps was it eben undermined by some baser fiends?

Reply (Peter M.):

'Holocaust' is a religious term. I don't like it, but can you suggest a better one?

No, I do not think it warranted the creation of Israel. Hitler's regime had been defeated anyway; there was no longer any danger to Jews. Zionists used the Nazi Holocaust as a pretext to proceed with plans they developed well before Hitler. Israel's wars have precipitated Islamic fundamentalism as a reaction; Jews in Israel are more insecure than they would be if they had stayed where they were. And the whole world is on fire, through Israel.

Deniers are persecuted for denying the Extermination programme. Details such as the 6 million figure are peripheral, subordinate in importance. No-one would be prosecuted for accepting Raul Hilberg's figure of 5.1 million.

Denial has become a surrogate for Nazism. Laws against Denial may actually be directed against a revival of Nazism. But it would be much better to use other ways to suppress it.

Nazism is a reaction to Communism (the force behind the Cultural Revolution in the West) and to Capitalism (ie Free Trade & Laissez-Faire). Communism continues today through the New Left; it's called 'New' because it rejects Stalinism as a betrayal of Communist ideals.

Stalin made Communism Russian rather than Jewish. Jewish Bolsheviks therefore pioneered the New Left (Trotsky, the Frankfurt School etc).

Hitler commented (Table Talk session 95 Night of 5th-6th January 1942):

{pdf 188} 182

Stalin pretends to have been the herald of the Bolshevik revolution. In actual fact, he identifies himself with the Russia of the Tsars, and he has merely resurrected the tradition of Pan-Slavism.


The best way of heading off the rise of Nazism would be to call a halt to New Left policies such as the excesses of Feminism, Open Border immigration, etc.

Plus to return to state guidance of the economy, in place of Free Trade.

On that topic, Hitler said (Table Talk session 250 5th July 1942, midday):

{pdf 566} 560

The Venetian Republic affords an excellent example of how successful a State directed economy can be. For five hundred years the price of bread in Venice never varied, and it was left to the Jews with their predatory motto of Free Trade to wreck this stability.


It might sound that I'm actually a supporter of Hitler. I don't deny that Hitler was right about some things; Trotsky was too. If either of them pronounced that the earth is round, I would not thereby become a flat-earther.

It was the violence and excesses of both men that made them dangerous. See the article below, "Hitler killed Anti-Semitism in Britain".

There's no point in being an economic genius - which Hitler was, in conjunction with Schacht -if you put your economic talents to harmful uses. More on this in a large Table Talk quote below.

(9) Hitler Killed Anti-Semitism in Britain - Jewish Chronicle/Hebrew Standard, 1942

By Charles Solomon Formerly Director, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, London

Hebrew Standard of Australasia

Sydney, Thursday 3, 1942

(Reprint from "The Jewish Chronicle" of June, 1942.

Anti-Semitism in Britain today is dead. That is not to say that the few anti-Semites who remain are completely inert. They still continue the galvanic and apparently purposeless activity of the newly-dead corpse. Rude remarks about Jews, scribbled on street corners walls, may still be seen from time to time; an occasional sneer at the Jewish people will appear in the less reputable organs of the Press. But the anti-Semitic movement, as a living and self-conscious entity, is a thing of the past. It has been killed almost at a blow. And for its happy concummation the credit must go to one man and one man alone - Adolf Hitler.

Even had Hitler not sounded the death-knell of anti-Semitism in this country, it is doubtful whether ther movement would ever have made much headway. The Englishman is not without faults; but the persecution of unoffending monirities is certainly not one of those faults. On the contrary, the Englishman has a natural and innate sympathy with the under-dog. Partly, it may be, because of his love for sport, he likes to see the little fellow get a fair chance. The spectacle of fifty armed soldiers or police tormenting a harassed and defenceless Jew is not one that would afford him any gratification. ...

A dictionary definition of "anti-Semite" is "one who is opposed to the influence of Jews in politics." ...

The man who to-day avows his anti-Semitism says, in effect: "I ally myself with the gangsters of Europe, with the Brown House. I renounce democracy, freedom and decency. I applaud the herding of helpless Jews into the ghetto; I approve of the pogrom and the rubber truncheon. I see it as a worthy and righteous thing the defenceless people, men, women and children, should be imprisoned, starved and tortured. I desire to become the toady to a Gauteiler, if only, as comparison, I may bully someone more helpless than myself."

Such a confession of faith, apart from all moral standards, is neither dignified nor decent. It is not respectable. And for that reason, even if for no higher reason, the Englishman will never accept it. ...

{endquote} See the image of this article at

As the above article argues, Hitler's excesses discredited opposition to Jewish political influence. The same applies today: Holocaust Denial inhibits, rather than strengthens, the Dissident movement.

(10) Hitler's Economic Talents put to Harmful Uses - Peter M., February 13, 2009

Hitler's ideas about the nature of money, in the following Table Talk quote, are correct; but he also shows that right from the start of his regime he was pushing the Central Bank to fund a big military programme, for the wars he had in mind.

{pdf 724} 718 3557 16th May 1944, evening

{pdf 726} At the time the State had floated a loan of two million seven hundred thousand marks for the construction of a road. I told Zwiedineck that I regarded this way of financing a project as foolish in the extreme. The life of the road in question would be some fifteen years ; but the amortisation of the capital involved would continue for eighty years. What the Government was really doing was to evade an immediate financial obliga-

{pdf 727} 721

tion by transferring the charges to the men of the next generation and, indeed, of the generation after. I insisted that nothing could be more unsound, and that what the Government should really do was to take radical steps to reduce the rate of interest and thus to render capital more fluid.

I next argued that the gold standard, the fixing of rates of exchange and so forth were shibboleths which I had never regarded and never would regard as weighty and immutable principles of economy. Money, to me, was simply a token of exchange for work done, and its value depended absolutely on the value of the work accomplished. Where money did not represent services rendered, I insisted, it had no value at all. Zwiedineck was horrified and very excited. Such ideas, he declared, would upset the accepted economic principles of the entire world, and the putting of them into practice would cause a breakdown of the world's political economy.

When, later, after our assumption of power, I put my theories into practice, the economists were not in the least discountenanced, but calmly set to work to prove by scientific argument that my theories were, indeed, sound economy!

{pdf 432} 426

191 12th April 1942, midday

At the time when it was decided that the Olympic Games should be held in Germany, the Ministry of the Interior submitted plans to me for the construction of an appropriate stadium. There were two alternative designs, the one costing eleven hundred thousand and the other fourteen hundred thousand marks. None of the people concerned seems to have taken into consideration the fact that the Olympic Games afforded us a unique opportunity to amass foreign credits, and at the same time a splendid chance of enhancing our prestige abroad. I can still see the faces of my colleagues when I said that I proposed to make a preliminary grant of twenty-eight million marks for the construction of the Berlin stadium ! In actual fact, the stadium cost us seventy-seven million marks Ñ but it brought in over half a milliard marks in foreign currency!

{pdf 427} 421 This is a good example of the tendency of Germans to do things on a niggardly scale. On occasions of this sort one must aim at the greatest success possible, and the proper solution of the problem demands thinking on a grand scale. When Wallenstein was ordered to raise an army of five thousand men, he was quite right to refuse to have anything to do with an army of less than fifty thousand. It would, indeed, be ridiculous to spend a single pfennig on any army which, when the need arose, would be too weak to fight and to win.

In the prosecution of any war it is essential that armament in peace-time should conform to the envisaged war requirements and thus be capable of attaining the desired results. Unfortunately a man like Schacht completely ignored this vital aspect, and he complicated my task very considerably when we came to our own rearmament. Schacht returned again and again to the charge, assuring me that German economy could afford at the most one and a half milliards for the war budget, if it were to avoid the danger of complete collapse. In the event, I demanded a hundred times this sum, and our national economy still continues to function perfectly!

Particularly in the case of this war, one must never forget that if we lose it, we lose everything. There can therefore be but one slogan : Victory ! If we win, the milliards we have spent will weigh nothing in the scales. The reserves of minerals which we have acquired in Russia are alone enough to repay us amply.


193 22nd April 1942, midday

It was with Dr. Luther, the then President of the Reichsbank, that I had, in 1933, one of my first discussions on the subject of our rearmament. In view of the deficit in the Reich budget, which then stood at about three milliard marks, and of the financial state of the Laender, which was not much better, it was impossible to make even the smallest effort towards rearmament without the collaboration of the Reichsbank. In the course of this conversation I impressed upon Dr. Luther that, unless she regained her military power, Germany was doomed to strangulation. Luther listened to me for two hours, at the end of which he assured me of his profoundly nationalist sympathies and promised me all the help he could give me. He then mentioned a precise figure, telling me that he would put a hundred million marks at my disposal! For a moment I thought I must have misunderstood him, for I did not think it possible that a financier should have so little knowledge of the vast expense involved in a policy of rearmament. But when I asked him to repeat what he had said, Luther again gave me the figure of one hundred million. Further comment was obviously superfluous, so I simply asked the President of the Reich to remove the man from his office. This, however, was not possible without further ado, as the Reichsbank was still an international organisation. I was then compelled to try to reach an amicable agreement. I told Luther that any collaboration between us was impossible, that he might perhaps have some legal means of retaining his position, but that I had now assumed office, that I would brook


no argument from him, and that, if the interests of the country demanded it, I should not even hesitate to break him; and then - and this was the idea that Meissner had suggested as a solution - I offered him the post of Ambassador to Washington, if he would voluntarily resign his present position. This he declared himself ready to accept, provided I would add an allowance of fifty thousand marks a year to his pension. I can see him still, his eyes modestly downcast, assuring me that it was pure patriotism which caused him to fall in with my suggestions !

So I had to pay good money to open the way for the appointment of a man of international reputation to the Presidency of the Reichsbank - Dr. Schacht. Schacht understood at once that it would be ridiculous to think of launching any rearmament programme unless we were prepared to vote many milliards for its implementation. In this manner I was able to extract a sum of eight milliards, though the announcement of the figure caused Schwerin-Krosigk, the then Minister of Finance, many grave misgivings. At this moment General Blomberg was unfortunately stupid enough to disclose that, apart from these eight milliards, a further supplementary sum of twelve milliards would be required to carry out the preliminary phase of the re- armament programme. I reproached Blomberg bitterly for his indiscretion. After all, seeing that the whole gang of financiers is a bunch of crooks, what possible point was there in being scrupulously honest with them? By far the best thing was to state our needs bit by bit as they arose. This method was also to the advantage of the financial experts themselves; for if things should go wrong, they would then be in a position to justify themselves in the public eye by claiming that they had not been told the truth.

It is characteristic of Schacht that, from the first eight milliard marks, he retained five hundred million as interest ! He is a man of quite astonishing ability and is unsurpassed in the art of getting the better of the other party. But it was just his conummate skill in swindling other people which made him indispensable at the time. Before each meeting of the International Bank at Basle, half the world was anxious to know whether Schacht would attend or not, and it was only after


receipt of the assurance that he would be there that the Jew bankers of the entire world packed their bags and prepared to attend. I must say that the tricks Schacht succeeded in playing on them proves that even in the field of sharp finance a really intelligent Aryan is more than a match for his Jewish counterpart. It is Schacht who was the instigator of the plan, subsequently put into practice, of devaluing German shares held abroad. Most of these represented reparations held in the form of shares; these shares were then later purchased in the open market by intermediaries on our behalf at prices varying from 12 per cent to 18 per cent of their real value, after which German industry was compelled to redeem from us at par value. In this way, thanks to a profit of 80 per cent and over, we were able to organise an export dumping campaign which brought in three-quarters of a milliard marks in foreign currency.

It is greatly to Schacht's credit that he remained completely silent on the existence of this foreign currency. There were several occasions on which, had the existence of these funds been known, the most determined efforts would have been made to deprive us of them. I am thinking particularly of the time when we did not know where to lay our hands on the money for the salaries of our officials, and of the moment when we were faced with a complete lack of rubber. It was only in 1938, when war was obviously inevitable, that I made publicly known the existence of these reserves. It was clear that the future belligerents would, like ourselves, make the most strenuous efforts to buy up any and everything in the way of raw materials that the world's markets had to offer. Speed, therefore, was essential if we wished to avoid seeing our gold and foreign currency reserves transformed suddenly into paper and metal of no value. It was to Funk that I entrusted the task of buying our share of raw materials. In spite of his ability, I felt I could not quite trust Schacht in this matter, for I had often seen how his face lit up when he succeeded in swindling somebody out of a hundred-mark note, and I feared that in the face of such temptation he would quite, probably try his Freemason's tricks on me!

{pdf 566} 560

191 12th April 1942, midday


In the prosecution of any war it is essential that armament in peace-time should conform to the envisaged war requirements and thus be capable of attaining the desired results. Unfortunately a man like Schacht completely ignored this vital aspect, and he complicated my task very considerably when we came to our own rearmament. Schacht returned again and again to the charge, assuring me that German economy could afford at the most one and a half milliards for the war budget, if it were to avoid the danger of complete collapse. In the event, I demanded a hundred times this sum, and our national economy still continues to function perfectly! Particularly in the case of this war, one must never forget that if we lose it, we lose everything. There can therefore be but one slogan : Victory ! If we win, the milliards we have spent will weigh nothing in the scales. The reserves of minerals which we have acquired in Russia are alone enough to repay us amply.


(11) Debate on Nazis is taking attention from Israel's assault on the Palestinians

From: Date: 12.02.2009 09:06 PM

This ongoing dialogue about the nazi led German governments assault on humanity for a brief ten year period beginning seventy years ago is smothering the discussion of the current Jewish Zionest led, Christian Zionest supported Israeli government's accelerated assault on the people Palestine that began some sixty years ago in their drive to recreate the Eretz Israel of that collection of Judaic short stories that has become known as the bible.

Yehuda Bauer, academic advisor to Yad Vashem in Israel, asked the following question on January 27, 2006 at the first commemoration of the ten year period of nazi led Germany's victims at the United Nations,

"...why is there a flood of fiction, theater, films, TV series, and music, and, of course, historical, sociological, philosophical, psychological, and other academic research, a flood that has rarely if ever been equaled in dealing with any other historical event?"

Bauer asks the question as a rhetorical question in his speech---it is a good question-- and he has his answer and I have mine . From my perspective, there are two reasons for the flood. The first and foremost reason is that it makes a hero out of the United States in its historical narrative. The scenario as it is played out in the narrative of the United States is that the "forces of freedom and democracy" defeated "the forces of totalitarianism and genocidal despotism". So much of a hero, in fact, that the three centuries of the organized, industrial, capture, transport, enslavement and murder of millions of Africans and indigenous people of this land is shuttled into the background. So much so that the racist characteristics of the nazi led venture with its racial courts--to detect non-aryans using the tools developed by the eugenics movement in the United States-- is also shunted into the background as the United States' racially segregated armed forces engaged them.

Imagine ---a centuries old industry that has special forces and traders engaged in the capture of humans, has a whole industry that builds special transport ships for its human cargo, has specific insurance for the transport, has an industry that produces special iron forged instruments of containment and torture, has an international trade involving the production and sale of rum as the finance for the human cargo, has a whole religious, philosophical academic rationale for the industry, has special training camps and personnel for breaking the will of the captured, has an entire society built on the premise of this industry for centuries.

Then, when the "flood" described by Bauer of the nazi led decade is considered, there is scarcely, in comparison, a trickle of the myriad of descriptions possible, in the vast variety of genre that Bauer lists, of this enormous racist human crime of the United States.

This is not a comparative analysis of the two historical events but, instead, it is a description of how the one historical event in its emphasis and abundance, in its "flood" as Bauer puts it, about the decade of the nazi led German government's atrocities, is used, on the one hand, to embellish the United States historical narrative and, on the other hand, to subsume and to smother the enormous, unspeakable, human genocidal atrocities committed for centuries by the racist, slave holders controlled United States government.

The second and equally relevant reason has been examined in detail by Norman Finkelstein in his consummate study of the "flood" phenomenon in his books The Holocaust Industry, Reflections On The Exploitation of Jewish Suffering and Beyond Chutzpah, On The Misuse of Anti-Semitism and The Abuse of History.

(12) David Irving knows virtually nothing about the Holocaust

From: bill Date: 12.02.2009 02:51 AM

Let me cover the bases for you. First, David Irving knows virtually nothing about the Holocaust. He is a rank amateur on the subject. His concessions about "gas vans" at Chelmno and other places are absurd. Get Fritz Berg's articles out of the old JHR on the actual mechanics of carbon dioxide poisoning or go to his web site and you will quickly see how absurd these claims are. The Red Cross reports quoted by Lipstadt prove absolutely nothing. Note that the Red Cross does not report having witnessed any of the exterminations they refer to; they merely quote what everybody else was saying. That, in legal terms, is hearsay. The Himmler Diaries make great reference to what various self-proclaimed "experts" say they mean, but the actual quotations are hardly convincing. Everyone knows that the Germans shot Jewish partisans as they were entitled to under the rules of war. That is far short of proving an extermination program. But you fail to ask the obvious question. If Himmler's private papers show a Jewish extermination program at work, then why did not the Jewish Communists present that evidence at Nuremberg to make their case? Why did they cart it off to Moscow instead? Think, Peter, Think.

You go on and on about the allegedly evil motivations of the revisionists. And yes, you love to quote those socialist scum bags, the Strasser brothers, on Hitler. But when it comes to the Holocaust Hoax, Peter, you are just getting your feet wet.

(13) Irving only became a Denier when he read the Leuchter Report at Zundel's trial

Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Transcripts, Day 1: Electronic Edition

Pages 92 - 97 of 103

So, my Lord, I pass on to Mr Irving and 2Holocaust denial. Between the publication of the first 3edition of Hitler's War in 1977 and its second edition in 41991, Mr Irving's views about the Holocaust underwent a 5sea change. In the 1977 edition he accepted it as an 6historical truth in all its essentials, systematic mass 7murder of Jews in purpose built extermination factories, 8but in the 1991 edition all trace of the Holocaust in this 9sense has disappeared. Auschwitz, for example, has been 10transformed from a monstrous killing machine into a mere 11slave labour camp. 12 What are the reasons for this astounding 13volte-face? The principal reason can be expressed in one 14word Leuchter. In 1988 a man of German origin, Ernst 15Zundel, was put on trial in Canada for publishing material 16which, amongst other things, denied the existence of 17homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. In defence of this 18charge Mr Zundel's lawyers recruited a man called Fred 19Leuchter who seems to have made his living as some kind of 20consultant in the design of execution facilities in the 21USA. Mr Leuchter was duly despatched to Auschwitz to seek 22evidence of the use, or otherwise, of homicidal gas 23chambers. He took some samples from various parts of the 24remains of Auschwitz which he later had analysed in 25America and then wrote a report describing his findings 26and summarizing his conclusions. These were that there

. P-95

1were never any homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. 2 Unfortunately for Mr Zundel, Mr Leuchter's 3report was declared inadmissible by the Canadian judge on 4the grounds that Mr Leuchter had no relevant expertise. 5 Now it happens that Mr Irving also gave evidence 6for Mr Zundel at that trial. In the course of that visit 7he had read the Leuchter report. Shortly thereafter he 8declared himself convinced that Leuchter was right and 9that there never any homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. 10So enthused was he by the Leuchter report that he 11published it himself in this country, with an appreciative 12forward written by him and introduced it to the public at 13a press conference in London, at which he declared that 14the validity of Leuchter's laboratory reports was 15unchallengable. 16 So it was that the Leuchter report became the 17main weapon in Mr Irving's campaign to "sink the 18battleship Auschwitz", as he calls it. The essence of 19this campaign is that the Holocaust symbolized by 20Auschwitz is a myth legend or lie, deployed by Jews to 21blackmail the German people into paying vast sums in 22reparations to supposed victims of the Holocaust. 23 According to Mr Irving, the Leuchter report 24is "the biggest calibre shell that has yet hit the 25battleship Auschwitz" and has "totally exploded the 26legend". Unfortunately for Mr Irving, the Leuchter report

. P-96

1is bunk and he knows it. It was comprehensively debunked 2in court in Canada. It has been comprehensively 3demolished since by people who have written to Mr Irving, 4and perhaps not least by Professor van Pelt in his report 5made for the purposes of this case. This is not the 6moment to describe all the many means by which the 7Leuchter report is demolished, but one simple example can 8be given because it is derived from the internal evidence 9of the Leuchter report itself, and must have been apparent 10to anyone with an open and thoughtful mind. 11 One of the main reasons that Mr Leuchter 12advanced in his report for his conclusion that there were 13no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, was that it was to 14be expected that any residual traces of hydrogen cyanide, 15the killing agent in the Zyklon B pellets used by the SS, 16should be very much higher in those parts of the remains 17of Auschwitz which were identified as gas chambers for 18killing people than in those parts which are known to have 19been used for killing lice. 20 Leucther's report recorded very small traces of 21hydrogen cyanide in the gas chamber remains and relatively 22large traces in the delicing remains. Therefore, said 23Mr Leuchter, the alleged gas chamber remains could 24obviously never have been gas chambers at all. But the 25report itself contained the seeds of its own destruction, 26for it revealed that concentration of hydrogen cyanide

. P-97 ==

Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Transcripts, Day 1: Electronic Edition

1required to kill humans was approximately 22 times lower 2than that required to kill lice, 300 parts per million as 3against 6,666 parts per million for lice. This was 4internal evidence obvious to any interested reader, which 5Mr Irving certainly was, that the Leuchter report was 6rubbish. 7 So why did Mr Irving ignore this and all other 8stupidities in the Leuchter report? Why did he embrace it 9with such wholehearted enthusiasm? The answer must be 10that he wanted it to be true. After all, if the Holocaust 11never happened, then Hitler cannot have ordered it or 12known about it. Thus, as Mr Irving himself said of the 13second edition of Hitler's War, "You won't find the 14Holocaust mentioned in one line, not even in a footnote. 15Why should you? If something didn't happen, then you 16don't even dignify it with a footnote." 17 So, finally, my Lord, why has Mr Irving resorted 18to these lies, distortions and misrepresentations and 19deceptions in pursuit of his exoneration of Adolf Hitler 20and his denial of the Holocaust? One can often derive a 21fair picture of a man's true attitudes and motives from 22what he says and from the kind of people he associates 23with and speaks to. Mr Irving has done a lot of public 24speaking over the years. The evidence for the Defendants 25in this case will show that his audiences will often 26consist of radical right-wing neo-facist, neo-Nazi groups

. P-98

1of people, groups like the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi, 2white supremacist organisation in the USA, the DVU, 3perhaps the most radical right-wing party in Germany, 4gatherings of so-called revisionists, in truth largely 5Holocaust deniers, the extreme right-wing British National 6Party and so on. 7 What sorts of things has Mr Irving said on these 8occasions which might be thought to betray his underlying 9motives and attitudes? It is not possible in a relatively 10short statement of this kind to catalogue all the most 11telling instances of this kind, but it is perhaps possible 12to give the flavour of some of Mr Irving's thinking by 13reference to two short examples from the same speech. 14 In September 1991 Mr Irving spoke to an audience 15in Calgary, Alberto. He complained about pressure from 16Jewish people and Jewish bodies designed to prevent him 17from speaking. He said: 18 "And it's happening now. They're zeroing in on 19the university, 'Nazism not welcome here, self-professed 20moderate facist'". Mr Irving went on: "I strongly object 21to that word "moderate". That remarked provoked some 22laughter and it may be that it was not meant to be 23entirely serious. 24 On the same occasion, however, he said something 25which, though somewhat facetiously worded, conveys a 26message about his true views and attitudes which can only

. P-99

1be taken seriously. It was this: 2 "I don't see any reason to be tasteful about 3Auschwitz. It's baloney. It's a legend. Once we admit 4the fact that it was a brutal slave labour camp and large 5numbers of people did die, as large numbers of innocent 6people died elsewhere in the war, why believe the rest of 7the baloney? I say quite tastelessly in fact that more 8women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at 9Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in 10Auschwitz. Oh, you think that's tasteless. How about 11this. There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around, 12in fact the number increases as the years go past which is 13biologically very odd to say the least, because I am going 14to form an Association of Auschwitz survivors, survivors 15of the Holocaust and other liars for the A-S-S-H-O-L-S", 16pronounced no doubt "asshols". 17 This last inspiration was also greeted by 18laughter, but it was laughter of an altogether different 19kind. It was the laughter of mockery, mockery of the 20suffering of others, people whom on this and other 21occasions Mr Irving has accused of lying about their 22Holocaust experiences, of forging Auschwitz tattoos on 23their arms, of deserving both contempt and the attention 24of psychiatrists. ...

(14) No engagement, because the Jewish Thought Police will not allow open debate

From: RW Date: 12.02.2009 07:20 AM

>Your statements, like those of many other respondents, are made from the comfort of a protected backwater, safe from public scrutiny.

Maybe so, but in some countries they risk prison time. The Toben case tested criminilazing the internet because it crosses the borders of those countries where it is a criminal act to question the Holocaust.

>Denier literature, which has been coming my way for years, simply IGNORES the opinion of mainstream experts. There's no engagement between the two sides at all.

The fact that there is no engagement, as far as I know, is because the Jewish Thought Police who now run the Western world will not allow an open and honest debate! Whose side are you bloody well on man?!

And you ignore answering basic questions of physics, or providing evidence of how homocidal gas chambers killed mllions of Jews.

>At the Irving/Lipstadt trial, for example, Irving - who comes across as something of an expert in Dissident circles (they only disapprove when he seems NOT to support Denial) - had to face the experts brought by Lipstadt. He was found wanting, and conceded that he had made errors.
>He was the one who brought the court case, not her.

I see, I am not familiar with that data, you may have a point there. I am aware that Irving has confused the revisionists since he now says there were mass shootings of Jews, but not gassings! He is certainly an impressive scholar so your point is well taken though.

>Why haven't the Deniers been interested in what those experts had to say? Even if only to refute them?

Is this true? As far as I know revisionists have responded to the Exterminationists. It was my understanding that Exterminationists have stopped talking about forensic aspects of the Holocaust and shifted the strategy to simply smearing revisionists (or arresting them).

>One of them was Christopher R. Browning. Surprisingly, I had never come across him until I started this project. That's because he's simply NOT MENTIONED in Denier news or debating emails. They pay no attention to the other side.

I'm interested to see his work in case I have missed it, pardon me. In a nutshell, what point does he make?

>You've fallen for the Nazi tactic of placing the onus of proof on the other side, ridiculing all eyewitnesses, then concluding that there's no proof, and therefore no Nazi Holocaust.

That is too broad a brush. I asked for your proof that homocidal gas chambers existed that can be verified by scientists. You have not even read Germar Rudolph's classic works so I cannot take your criticisms seriously.

>This tactic is only possible because the Nazis blew up the alleged gas chambers. If they were only insecticidal facilities, why bother destroying them?

Where is the forensic evidence for this charge? How do you account for the wildly disparate contradictions between documented witness testimony and scientists who know about the physical factuality of such matters?

>Despite destruction of the chambers themselves, there is still indirect evidence in the form of documents and witness statements. I'll be presenting this material, but in Denial circles it seems to be ignored, passed over.

OK, look forward to it.

>Faced with this, my tactic is to bring in information they usually exclude from the debate. Such as Hitler's Table Talk, which shows Hitler talking about Extermination on a number of occasions. > >Apart from that, his intended treatment of the Ukranians should leave us all cold. It also undercuts the claim that Hitler did not want war.

Fine, but where is the evidence of gas chambers? I guess I will have to wait to find out.

>We are not just talking about events in the past; given the current economic depression, we are talking about a possible revival of Nazism, through the very dissident movements that we are participating in now.

Now you are talking complete one hundred percent nonsense. The empirical evidence even presented on your list shows overwhelming politica, economic, social control by Elite Jewry. You have clearly gone over to the dark side along with such erudite authors such as Jim Marrs who posits that Nazis run the world (his books are published by prominent Jewish publishers and sold at major Jewish owned book stores). At a time when Israel can massacre at will without restraint any number of innocent civilians, can brag about their control of the USA, can terrorize and threaten the world with nuclear blackmail, you are making the ultimate apologist assertion, this is shameful.

>After Otto Strasser's revelations, confirmed with Hitler's own words in Table Talk, that prospect horrifies me; I can't understand why you are so nonchalant about it.

Where are all the Nazis threatening to take over the world? If the Nazis were in control why would Elite Jewry control Germany, and every other country in Europe, North America and not to mention the totally Zionized country of Australia?

>I would not mind if Hitler's supporters said, "Hitler did some good things, but also bad things". If they took a critical attitude, I would not worry.

Well, I agree with that, I conceded in my earlier email that the Nazis were cruel according to what Rudoph wrote about the Wannsee protocol, but no plan of genocide can be found. Why do YOU IGNORE what Yehuda Bauer said also about there being no paper trail to find a Nazi plan of genocide. It seems both sides are talking past each other.

You write a lot of stuff Peter, much of it valid and provocative, and appreciated, but let's get back to simple simple questions: How did the "extermination" of Jews take place using homocidal gas chambers? I strongly doubt you can deal with this question so will throw lots of shotgun blast of irrelevant topics my way.

{end of bulletin 7}

On to the next bulletin in the debate: holocaust-debate08.html.

Back to the Holocaust Denial Debate menu: holocaust-debate.html.

Write to me at contact.html.