Red Cross incorrectly reported; Toben's paper at Tehran

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-debate04.html.

{start of bulletin 5}

Red Cross incorrectly reported; Toben's paper at Tehran

Correction: Eric Hufschmid's 9/11 video was produced in 2003.

I was going to put Bishop Williamson's sacking into today's NEWS bulletin. But it moves me, and is relevant to our Denial debate, so I've included it here.

(1) Thesis and Antithesis (2) Something forces you to send out? - from Toben (3) Bishop Williamson suspended as head of SSPX seminary, forbidden to make public statements (4) Bishop Williamson sacked as head of seminary; refuses to recant, but will read Pressac (5) "Denierbud's" 9.5 hrs of Holocaust debunking streaming videos (6) - (9) "Moon landing hoax" claims cf "Holocaust hoax" claims (10) Essential to publish both sides of the story regarding Nazi Holocaust; but ... (11) Table Talk - "vernichten" and "ausrotten" ambiguous (12) "vernichten" and "ausrotten" - from Judgment in Irving/Lipstadt trial (13) Red Cross report on Jews in concentration camps - Theresienstadt show camp (14) Red Cross Report - Harwood corrected by Deborah Lipstatd (15) Diaries of Heinrich Himmler - consult David Irving (16) Himmler's newly published diaries for 1941-2 - Irving clipping from The Guardian (17) "it is for the Holocaust-Shoah believers to prove their assertions" - Toben (18) Toben's paper at the Tehran Holocaust Conference

(1) Thesis and Antithesis - Peter M., February 12, 2009

I've been surprised that most contributors to our debate have supported Denial positions. My own "Holocaust Agnosticism" made me tolerant of Denial for years, partly because I had not investigated the issue (meaning both sides), and partly because dissidents of all sorts (9/11, JFK, Pearl Harbor, anti-Zionist, anti-One World) were being corralled together through exclusion by the establishment.

The more the establishment imposed Speech Codes, the more Hollywood blazed away at Hitler, the more Israel killed its neighbours and the Lobby manipulated the US, the more this corralling occurred. Establishment propaganda changed no one's mind. For some, Denial became a way of snubbing the establishment, something non-rational, beyond rational debate - like a slogan amongst the Trotskyists.

But it's also a refusal to talk, to consider that the other side may be partly right, and therefore a refusal to correct one's own side. At the leading edge, Denial has become a surrogate for Nazism as a cause. And, through hiding the violent side of Nazism it has the potential to draw new members in - from those very same dissident movements corralled by the establishment.

One group of Jews has promoted Bolshevism (most recently the Trotskyist/New Left kind), another has promoted Zionism. But our tradition, in Western civilization, is to judge people as individuals rather than as groups. 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.

The corollary is: we cannot turn our eyes and ears away from the fate of Jews in the Final Solution.

For me, having Far Left and Far Right in one forum is a way of maintaining a tension between Thesis and Antithesis, in the hope of a productive Synthesis emerging. This is the Dialectic, the traditional way that knowledge progresses.

I will continue to put out both sides of the Denial debate, in the hope that a Synthesis emerges.

One might object, "Surely there can be no Synthesis between Holocaust Affirmers and Deniers?"

But Jean-Claude Pressac, a Revisionist-turned-Affirmer, a former colleague of Faurisson's and one of the most important writers on this topic, wrote in the POSTFACE of his book AUSCHWITZ: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers:

{p. 537} POSTFACE by the author I am not a Jew and I was at one time a "revisionist". After reading this book, some will no doubt think that I still am one. This is quite possible and I bear them no grudge. The distinction between these two fiercely opposed schools, the "exterminationists" and the "revisionists", becomes meaningless once a certain threshold of knowledge about the former Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp has been reached. I have passed this point of no return.


Bishop Williamson recently announced that he has ordered a copy of Pressac's book. It's only available second-hand, in French and German. The English edition is unobtainable, new or second-hand.

The text of Pressac's book can be downloaded as lots of small files, but the images & photos are equally important. Given that, I've just ordered a second-hand French edition from Abebooks.

(2) Something forces you to send out? - from Toben

From: Adelaide Institute <> Date: 12.02.2009 07:10 PM

> I normally only send out two email bulletins a day.
> Today, I already have two to go out on the Holocaust Denial debate.
> However, pressing news items force me to put out this one, so there will be three today.

Something forces you to send out? You let yourself be forced - that's the moral imperative called DUTY!

Reply (Peter M.):


> Something forces you to send out? You let yourself be forced - that's the > moral imperative called DUTY!

You likewise. But my duty differs from yours.

I'll be putting out your Tehran paper, plus Faurison's (in a few days; there's more to go first), but also the best anti-Denier material.

I've come to the conclusion that the Nazis did exterminate Jews, including with gas chambers.

My approach is the old Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis.

The Deniers' pressure has made the Affirmers careful to weed out overstatement, fakery etc. David Cole's video shows that Auschwitz museum was being used for didactic purposes, and the visitors were not told that Krema I is a restoration rather than being strictly historical.

That is, of course, because the Nazis destroyed the evidence. Apparently news reports reaching the West about the Katyn massacre made them realize that their own gruesome deeds could make the news too - they didn't want the West to know (or Germans, or Europeans or even Jews scheduled for deportation).

I would like to see Hitler's supporters take a critical attitude to him. To admit his sins, just as I call on Trotsky's followers to do likewise.

I would then feel less uneasy about either group taking over in the event that the current Depression leads to revolution.

(3) Bishop Williamson suspended as head of SSPX seminary, forbidden to make public statements

From: Josef Schwanzer <> Date: 11.02.2009 07:36 AM,,4017832,00.html

Holocaust | 10.02.2009

Holocaust Revisionist Put Under Pressure by Church, Courts The superior of an ultra-conservative Society of St. Pius X called on Richard Williamson to "correct" his denial of the Holocaust. The move comes as Argentina, where Williamson resides, filed suit against him. Bernard Fellay, who heads the ultra-conservative Society of St. Pius X, said Richard Williamson "should study the historical facts quickly and correct his false statements -- the sooner the better," the online version of the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel reported Tuesday, Feb. 10.

There has been outrage, especially in Germany, over Williamson's claim to a Swedish television interviewer that there had been no gas chambers at Nazi concentration camps and "only 200,000 to 300,000" Jews had died in the camps.

Fellay, 50, said he told Williamson to "correct this nonsense" as soon as he saw the interview.

"It should not have needed a papal demand to do so," Fellay said, adding that he had suspended Williamson as head of the SSPX seminary at La Reja, Argentina, on Jan. 31. "I have forbidden him to make further public statements without my permission."

Possible prison sentence

Legal charges were also leveled against Williamson on Tuesday in Argentina. He is accused of denying the Holocaust, according to evidence brought to Judge Julian Ercolini's attention.

The head of Argentina's National Institute Against Discrimination (INADI), Maria Jose Lubertino, said Williamson would have to correct or confirm his claims and could potentially face other legal charges.

"He is obliged to clarify the veracity of his claims," Lubertino said, according to the AFP news agency. "We are going to make a formal legal complaint and he may face up to three years in prison."

Last week, Williamson told Der Spiegel he would reexamine the historical evidence before reaching a decision on whether to apologize. ...

(4) Bishop Williamson sacked as head of seminary; refuses to recant, but will read Pressac

From: Josef Schwanzer <> Date: 11.02.2009 04:29 AM

Conservative order ousts Holocaust-denier bishop

Paola Totaro February 11, 2009 - 1:23AM

THE English Catholic bishop who denies the Holocaust has been sacked as the head of his seminary - but still refuses to recant.

The Argentinian newspaper La Nacion has reported that Richard Williamson, who heads the traditionalist Society of St Pius X Seminary at La Reja, outside Buenos Aires, has been removed from his position after he refused to recant in another interview last week.

The move, announced by Father Christian Bouchacourt, the head of the Latin American arm of the ultra-conservative fraternity, was accompanied by a statement that distanced the group from Bishop Williamson's beliefs. ...

Bishop Williamson said he had ordered a book by Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique And Operation Of The Gas Chambers, and that he planned to be true to his Catholicism and work towards a "return to the centre".

(5) "Denierbud's" 9.5 hrs of Holocaust debunking streaming videos

From: Charles Krafft <> Date: 11.02.2009 10:36 AM

Someone has certainly sent you the link to "denierbud's" 9.5 hrs of Holocaust debunking streaming videos here:

On the off chance they haven't than there you are. I think it's pretty compelling stuff. I personally went to Romania to investigate a famous WWII holocaust related atrocity story and found it to have been highly exaggerated and possibly entirely false. I'm currently searching for the one document in the world, not of Jewish provenance, that will prove it. Todate my search has been futile.

Reply (Peter M.):

David Cole's video is valuable. It shows that visitors to Krema I at Auschwitz are (were) given the impression that it's original, when it's a restoration. Faurisson was the first to point this out. When, during the war, this chamber was turned into a bomb shelter, the holes in the roof (allegedly for administering Zyklon B powder, and for subsequent forced ventilation) were removed. The Russians restored them to their present state. But Cole's video does not prove that there was no Extermination there.

Also at the above link are videos scoffing about Yankel Wiernik's testimony on Treblinka. More on that in the next email.

(6) "Moon landing hoax" claims cf "Holocaust hoax" claims

{I have not watched these videos. The Dark Side of the Moon was enough. Bart Sibrel is the person Buzz Aldrin punched in the face - Peter M.}

From: Ionut Dobrinescu <> Date: 11.02.2009 03:46 AM

I had been long waiting for you to reach this moonlanding hoax subject, as indeed it is a good practice on the holohoax, 9/11 and others.

But you definitely must watch Bart Sibrel's (do explore the whole site) with special mention of:

Most of these documentaries, if not all of them, are already available for download on dc hubs (divx format) yet apparently they are banned on youtube and googlevideo.

(7) "Moon landing hoax" claims cf "Holocaust hoax" claims

From: Don <> Date: 11.02.2009 01:00 AM

You may want to see the following site debunking the Moon Landing Hoax theories:

Note the following:

"Arguments brought forward by skeptics of the moon landings are altogether based particularly on ignorance of technical and scientific fact and can be refuted quite easily. It is a pleasure to note that experts and hobby astronomers do not refrain from addressing these arguments, but accept this challenge eagerly and discuss it publicly, and in most cases with the objectivity that this matter deserves."

Again, I re-emphasize the following text:

"do not refrain from addressing these arguments, but accept this challenge eagerly and discuss it publicly"

Now, those who want to refute the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax theories do not refrain from refuting the theorists in public. They know the evidence backs them up. But, notice how the holocaust Libelers are very reluctant to discuss revisionism publicly. In fact, the Libelers have passed laws to make it illegal to question the Libelers. Why are the Libelers afraid of public debate?

(8) "Moon landing hoax" claims cf "Holocaust hoax" claims

From: Don <> Date: 11.02.2009 12:51 AM

The best evidence that the astronauts landed on the Moon is the physical evidence. The astronauts brought back Moon rocks, which can be proven to have originated on the Moon. They also left behind reflectors for lasers, which are regularly used by astronomers to measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon. This physical evidence can be tested in a repeatable and verifiable fashion:

Likewise the scientific method and physical evidence have exposed the gas chambers as the Libel that they are.

You may be interested to know that Germar Rudolf wrote on the Moon Landing theories as you may see here:

(9) "Moon landing hoax" claims cf "Holocaust hoax" claims

From: Don <> Date: 11.02.2009 12:37 AM

>I could never understand his position, until I saw the video in item#1 (in 3 parts).
>It's very persuasive. For an hour or two, I was thinking it was right. In item #3 below, I explain why I think it's wrong. But please don't read that explanation until you've watched it and investigated a bit.

I have seen the arguments presented by those who claim the Moon Landings were a hoax. I have seen their videos and photographs. I never found their arguments compelling. Most of them are easily shown as false. I am surprised that so many people fall for such weak arguments. For instance, some of their analysis of shadows ignores the fact that the Moon is a three-dimensional surface, and thus shadows will not go in straight lines. In fact, most of the photographs and videos by the apollo-hoax theorists actually are evidence that the astronauts landed on the Moon.

This is a good site on the matter:

(10) Essential to publish both sides of the story regarding Nazi Holocaust; but ...

From: RW Date: 11.02.2009 02:56 AM

1. I agree with you that it is essential to publish both sides of the story regarding the Holocaust, thank you for publishing this latest debate. Debating the mainstream orthodoxy should be the basis for historical revisionism, and it is my understanding that many books from revisionists have done just that. Of course, the mainstream orthodoxy has an advantage since they will not go to prison or lose their careers if they defend their position whereas revisionists might.

2. The Moon Landing has nothing to do with the Holocaust accept insofar as a dog has four legs and a chair has four legs. I used to support and defend Hufschmid but in recent times I have come to see him as a bit of a disinformation artist and no longer visit his website (for what it's worth).

3. I almost wondered if you were not taking the devil's advocate role in your initial comments about the Holocaust since you made such a weak case against the revisionists (you mistakenly call Deniers). However, you seem to be sincere. It was brave of you to expose your weak position and publish those who strongly disagreed with you, and looking over the comments they were are devastating rebuttal of all the points you made in your original post. So, I am confused why you still cling to taking the pro Holocaust position.

4. I disagree with your presumption that "pro Denial" people do so only because they have had little competition. The more you write about this topic it appears the less you know. Have you even read the two must read tomes on the work, Lectures on the Holocaust and Dissecting the Holocaust, by imprisoned researcher Germar Rudolph? You are not making an empirical argument but proposing a flimsy theory in order to discredit the revisionists, it would appear. While it may be true that the more oppressive the laws become the more people will fight back and "band together", this is not relevant to an empirical investigation into the Holocaust. The Holocausters have only themselves to blame for banning the topic if they are now on the run from the truth. If the truth were allowed to come out people would not need to gang up on the poor helpless Holocaust Defenders.

5. You make another strawman argument implying that revisionists are sympathetic to the Nazis. They may or may not be sympathetic, but that is also a separate issue. We might say that WWII revisionism is also another topic that needs to be brought into the mainstream, given that even if Hitler were a real SOB, it is more commonly believed that the Allied powers were not only not evil but on the side of good. This is BS. For the record though, I do not think Nazism is the answer to our problems either.

6. Personally I am also confused about these big numbers of deaths during 20th century wars. This is due mainly to my own ignorance. I have heard that 180 million people died during the reign of the Soviet Union! But I thought the former SU only had a population of 100 million on average. If 50 million died in WWII in the European theatre, six million Jews does not sound out of line. But maybe the 50 million number is inflated. If you look at the empirical data regarding the Holocaust (as it appears you have not done a good job of), the best we can estimate at this point, according to Germar Rudolph, is about half a million Jews who died in all areas under German occupation during the WWII period. And of course revisionists claim this was due to the war itself and not a policy of extermination.

7. Finally, your Moon Landing comparison is especially weak and disingenuous given that you have not attempted to deal with the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows that homocidal gas chambers used to murder several million Jews would have been physically impossible. Are you next going to ask us to believe that steel buildings fall down even when they were not hit with airplanes (Bldg 7), or that ones hit with airplanes would fall down due to emotional trauma (twim towers)!?

Reply (Peter M.):

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

You seem to think that the debate is over, when it's only just started. There's much more material to go out, on both sides.

One difficulty I face, is that I am spread thin, covering so many topics from Ancient History to Politics, Religion and Economy, whereas the Deniers have been marshalling their forces, for years, on just this one issue.

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.

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. 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.

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. But they don't. I've also mixed with Trotskyists close up, and am struck by the unquestioning loyalty both groups have to the leader, their uncompromising and militant nature, their use of entrist tactics - the Trots in Green & other "minority" movements, the Deniers in the 911 Truth and anti-Zionist movements - and lack of real dialogue with those not of the faith.

I have not changed my opinion about the Zionists, the Trotskyists, the "British" One-Worlders, or the Protocols of Zion; not one bit. If you can find anything on my website which is inconsistent with what I am saying in this debate, please let me know.

If you want a precedent for my position, try Douglas Reed. His book The Controversy of Zion is an anti-Zionist classic; it's where I learned about the removal of Lord Northcliffe from ownership of The Times; I believe it's been pro-Zionist ever since.

As a journalist, he visited early Bolshevik Russia and wrote (in his book Insanity Fair) that "The censorship department ... was entirely staffed by Jews".

Yet Reed also wrote the the Introduction to Otto Straser's book Hitler and I, which exposes Hitler's violence, and published a book about Strasser, Nemesis.

Reed opposed decolonization, but I support it. However, I oppose Open Borders.

I support Benjamin Freedman's explanation of the background to Nazism.

Acknowledging the Nazi Holocaust is akin to admitting the death toll of Communist regimes. I believe in both. And also in the toll of native peoples in the New World. Our species is genocidal; even aboriginal peoples are too.

(11) Table Talk - "vernichten" and "ausrotten" ambiguous

From: Don <> Date: 11.02.2009 11:45 AM

Overall I fail to see how any of this is supposed to prove the holocaust. You also seem to be digressing into Hitler's views on the Slavs instead of concentrating on the alleged extermination of the Jews. I shall cover a few of your points and discuss why I find them unpersuasive. I really don't have the time to go over line by line at each and every one of your quotes.

>(3) Hitler's "struggle for the hegemony of the world"

Churchill, Stalin or Roosevelt could have said the same thing. Remember, Churchill was fighting to preserve the British Empire's rule over 1/4 of the globe. Hitler was an amateur at imperialism and "hegemony of the world" compared to Churchill. Churchill was suppressing the Indian independence movement, among others in his VAST empire, which dwarfed the entire combined Axis empires at the height of their territorial extent.

The leaders of great nations often aim to make their nation the most powerful. American leaders (especially neocons) nowadays often openly speak of maintaining a unipolar world with American hegemony. Does this mean that the neocons have gas chambers ready to gas muslims?

>We shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jew.

This statement is entirely consistent with the revisionist thesis. What is elimination? The Zionists, assume that "eliminating" must mean gassing the Jews, since it fits with their propaganda. But this statement is just as valid for a deportation program. The Polish-Communist leaders of 1945 could just as easily have spoken of "eliminating the German" from East Prussia. George Bush could just as easily have spoken about "eliminating the Islamist" in private conversations, and this would not mean that he intended to exterminate the Muslims.

> "all the occupants of the concentration camps would be shot within three days"

This is a hypothetical question as to what he would do if there were a revolt. I don't think it should be taken too literally. I don't see how it relates to the holocaust. If it did, why not talk about the gas chambers? Your own quotes, Peter, argue against the gas chamber extermination myth. If these quotes are evidence of the extermination of the Jews, then why mention shootings instead of gas chambers?

>"Jew is a parasite"

So Hitler didn't like the Jews. Since when is this news? If you want to prove that Hitler hated the Jews you have succeeded marvelously. I fail to see how this proves the alleged extermination program, though. I can dislike a gizillion different people. Such dislike or even hate is not proof that I killed any of them.

>(10) "The fate of a few filthy, lousy Jews and epileptics is not worth bothering about"

Again, as with shooting all the inmates of the camps, it is a hypothetical statement taken out of context. Once more, if this has anything to do with the alleged extermination program, why the talk of shooting them instead of gassing them? General Patton and Eisenhower said similar things about Germans:

> "God, I hate the Germans..." (Dwight David Eisenhower in a letter to his wife in September, 1944)

> From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don't give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder we push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that.

> One year ago today we we reached Paris full of desire to kill Germans. We are still full of desire but some times I deeply regret that I did not take the infantry last November instead of the tanks. The regiment I had the chance to join has been at it now for five months. Of course I have done a lot but I keep dreading lest the war should finish before I can really do any fighting. That would destroy my military career or at least give it a great set back the unknown is always full of terrors and I wake up at night in a sweat fearing that the damn show is over. I trust that it is doing my character a lot of good for I keep at it in spite of constant difficulties and discouragements. But unless I get into a fight or two it is all wasted effort.

> Some crazy German bastards decided they were supermen and decided it was their mission to rule the world. They've been pushing people around all over the world, looting, killing, and abusing millions of innocent men, women and children. They were getting set to do the same to us. We are fighting to defeat and wipe out the Nazis who started all this goddamned son-of-a-bitchery.

Could not a German soldier have just as easily said "wipe out the Jews" or "wipe out the Russians"? Or "full of desire to kill Russians"? It's what happens in war, Peter. It shouldn't be taken as evidence of extermination programs.

>if I fail to exterminate the vermin as a counter-balance, a dangerous situation would arise.
>(14) "until Jewry, which is the bandits' Intelligence Service, is exterminated"
>(15) "every nation which fails to exterminate the Jews in its midst ... "

Ah! Finally we get to something that has some relation to the alleged extermination program. I shall set aside the fact that some of these statements may have been taken out of context as my time is limited.

Now, the quotes that you have provided are in English. Therefore, they were translated from the original German. We must look at the translation of the word "exterminate." The German word is "ausrottung" or "austrotten." But this word does not just mean "exterminate," you see. It can have other, non-genocidal, meanings, such as "extirpate" or "root out." Therefore the use of the word "ausrottung" by a German leader is not evidence of an extermination program. It can just as easily be evidence of a deportation program.

> The "ausrotten" and "vernichten" Debate
> HerfÕs theory is based upon his translation of two key German words: vernichten and ausrotten. He insists the use of these two terms by Hitler and Goebbels in reference to their Jewish policy proves that they had a plan of mass murder. In his own words: "[T]he public language of the Nazi regime combined complete suppression of any facts about the Final Solution with a brutal, sometimes crude declaration of murderous intent. Two key verbs and nouns in the German language were at the core of this language of mass murder: vernichten and ausrotten. These translate as "annihilate," "exterminate," "totally destroy," and "kill," and the nouns Vernichtung and Ausrottung as "annihilation," "extermination," "total destruction," and "killing." Whether taken on their own from the dictionary meaning or placed in the context of the speeches, paragraphs, and sentences in which they were uttered, their meaning was clear [p.11]."
> These beliefs were undermined at one of the most famous Holocaust court cases of our time, the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial in London in 2000. British historian David Irving sued Penguin Books and Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt, who denounced Irving in print as "one of the most dangerous Holocaust deniers." At the trial, there was a debate about the meaning of the terms, "vernichten" and "ausrotten." In point of fact, the meanings of these words were shown to be equivocal.

> In regard to the allegedly incriminating words and statements in Nazi documents that are employed to "prove" the Nazis had a policy to exterminate the Jews, the Judge in the case, Charles Gray, after hearing testimony from Irving and his opponents, pointed out that these words are capable of being interpreted in a non-genocidal sense. That is, in a manner that is consistent with Holocaust revisionist theory.

> In his Final Judgment, we read: "Much time was spent in evidence and argument on discussing the meaning and true significance of a number of German words to be found in the speeches of Hitler and others in contemporaneous documents generally. There was a prolonged cross-examination of Longerich [one of Penguin BooksÕs and LipstadtÕs expert witnesses] by Irving as to the meaning of certain German words which he listed in a glossary prepared for the purpose of these proceedings. Those words include ausrotten, vernichten, liquidieren, evakuieren, umsiedeln and abschieben. A considerable number of documents were scrutinized in an attempt to ascertain whether the words in question were being used or understood in a genocidal sense. Irving contended that most of these words are properly to be understood in a non-genocidal sense. Longerich agreed that most, if not all, of these words are capable of being used in a non-genocidal sense. For example, ausrotten can bear such anodyne meanings as Ôget rid ofÕ or Ôwipe outÕ without connoting physical extermination. But he asserted that its usual and primary meaning is ÔexterminateÕ or Ôkill off," especially when applied to people or to a group of people as opposed to, for example, a religion. He contended that all depends on the context in which the words are used."10
> This undermines HerfÕs claim that the meanings of these terms are clear. In fact, they are equivocal, as has been admitted by Peter Longerich, a court recognized expert who believes the Nazis had a policy to exterminate the Jews.
> Furthermore, Herf is wrong to claim the "dictionary meanings" of said terms are clear. Two opponents of revisionism, Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, consulted a German-English dictionary from the war years, and it was found, for example, that "ausrotten" could mean more than just "exterminate." The lexicon clearly stated that "ausrotten" could also mean to "root out" in addition to "extirpate" or "exterminate."11
> It is important to note that this factÑthe words "ausrotten" and "vernichten" are equivocal and can be interpreted in a non-genocidal senseÑundermines HerfÕs theory. The latter is based upon the genocidal interpretation of certain statements made by Hitler and Goebbels between January 1939 and February 1943. Yet, these same statements that Herf insists literally mean that the Hitler and Goebbels intended to exterminate the Jews could also be interpreted as meaning that they intended to root out and deport the Jews by brutal and ruthless means, and wipe out their influence in Europe. This specifically applies to what Herf labels as HitlerÕs first unequivocal public threat to exterminate the Jews, his speech to the Reichstag on January 30, 1939 (p.5). ...

{I have cut short Don's quote, because I want to publish the Judgment in full (below), and Don's quote omits the most important part of it. Readers who wish to, can get the rest from the link above}

Thus, your quotes mentioning "extermination" do not support your thesis in the way that you believe, since the original German could just as easily be translated into English as "extirpate" or "root out," which fits perfectly with the revisionist thesis.

Also, I do observe that you seem to have a focus on matters relating to the Ukraine and the Slavs even though they do not pertain directly to the alleged extermination of the Jews in gas chambers. I also observe that you seem to place more emphasis on text and documentary evidence than you do on physical evidence. Physical evidence is more reliable than documentary evidence, for the simple reason that documents can be falsified, mistranslated, or misinterpreted. Even genuine documents can be unreliable. For example, we know that the logs U-boat commanders made, on the number of ships that they sank, greatly exaggerate the number of actual sinkings, because the U-boat captains had every incentive to make it look like they were doing their job. These U-boat documents are 100% genuine, yet are not fully accurate.

For this reason, physical evidence always takes precedence. Why the aversion to the physical evidence, Peter?

Further, I would like to point out that it is easy to go and dig around all private conversations of the German leaders. But this, in isolation, can be misleading. There was a war going on, and ruthless talk like this is to be expected. We do not have the private conversations of Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman. I fully expect that if we had them, we would find similar talk by the Allied leaders. I have certainly seen similar quotes by American generals about the Germans and Japanese. Here is a quote from Admiral Halsey:

> "I hate Japs! I'm telling you men, that if I met a pregnant Japanese woman, I'd kick her in the belly!"

General Patton gave orders to take no prisoners of war:

> General Omar Bradley ordered two men to face a general court-martial for premeditated murder. The men's main defence was that they were obeying orders issued by Patton in a speech he made to his soldiers on 27th June. Several soldiers said they were willing to give evidence that Patton had told then to take no prisoners. One officer claimed that Patton had said: "The more prisoners we took, the more we'd have to feed, and not to fool with prisoners." In order to protect Patton from the charge of war crimes, Bradley decided to drop the investigation into the murder of the Italian soldiers.

So their defense was that they were "obeying orders." Sound familiar? But does this mean that Admiral Halsey intended to exterminate Japanese women? Or that General Patton intended to gas German POWs?

If these are statements by American admirals and generals, what did Roosevelt, Churchill, Truman and Stalin say in private? I wouldn't doubt that they sounded much like Hitler in the quotes that you provided.

(12) "vernichten" and "ausrotten" - from Judgment in Irving/Lipstadt trial

{Irving sued Lipstadt; not the other way around. Reader, if this is the first time you saw this Judgment, ask yourself why it was never put out in the Denier literature, even if only to disagree with it. If you have been relying on the Deniers to give you a balanced picture, think again - Peter M.}


Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Judgment: Electronic Edition, by Charles Gray

Irving's response: the scale of the killings by gassing

6.106 As I have already pointed out, Irving accepted that the object of Operation Reinhard was broadly that contended for by the Defendants. What he disputed are the Defendants' contentions as to scale of the operation and Hitler's knowledge and approval of it. As to the scale of the extermination programme, Irving's stance in regard to the question whether gas chambers were employed at the Reinhard camps for the killing of Jews and, if so, on what scale appeared to evolve during the course of the hearing. He produced documents which show that various poisonous gasses were employed by the Nazis for non-lethal purposes, in particular for the fumigation of clothing. Indeed the Nazis trained people in the use of gas for fumigation purposes. He spent some time in his own evidence and during the course of his cross-examination of Browning stressing the marked absence of documentary evidence of the gassing in contrast with the ample documentation which has survived of the execution of Jews by shooting. He pointed out that, of the many thousands of messages intercepted by the British at Bletchley elsewhere, none mentions gassing. Browning accepted that, with the exception of a few documents referring to the use of gas vans by the Einsatzgruppen and their use at Chelmno, documents do not now exist. His explanation was that Operation Reinhard was centralised and so required little communication, whereas the shooting was carried out by means of numerous local operations. He added that most of the Reinhard documents had in any event been systematically destroyed.

6.107 Irving was critical of the reliance placed by the Defendants on such documents as are said by them to cast light on the allegedly genocidal use to which the camps were put. Much time was spent in evidence and argument on discussing the meaning and true significance of a number of German words to be found in the speeches of Hitler and others and in contemporaneous documents generally. There was prolonged cross-examination of Longerich by Irving as to the meaning of certain German words which he listed in a glossary prepared for the purpose of these proceedings. Those words include ausrotten, vernichten, liquidieren, evakuieren, umsiedeln and abschieben. A considerable number of documents were scrutinised in an attempt to ascertain whether the words in question were being used or understood in a genocidal sense. Irving contended that most of these words are properly to be understood in a non-genocidal sense. Longerich's agreed that most, if not all, of these words are capable of being used in a non-genocidal sense. For example ausrotten can bear such anodyne meanings as "get rid of" or "wipe out" without connoting physical extermination. But he asserted that its usual and primary meaning is "exterminate" or "kill off", especially when applied to people or to a group of people as opposed to, for example a religion. He contended that all depends on the context in which the words are used. Another example is Umsiedlung, which can mean no more than resettlement in a ghetto but more often embraces a homicidal meaning as well. Whilst Longerich was prepared to concede that some of the words in question may be used in a non-genocidal sense in the years leading up to 1941, he argued that from about that date onwards the words are invariably used in a sinister sense to connote killing on a major scale. For instance he contends that when, in a document dated 20 February 1942 the Reichsicherheitshauptamt (RHSA) use the term Evakuierung in connection with the issuing of guidelines for the implementation of the evacuation of Jews to Auschwitz, the word is being used in a genocidal sense.

6.108 Irving was also critical of the Defendants' experts for their readiness, as he saw it, to dismiss as "euphemistic" German words which on their face are anodyne or imprecise in their connotation. Examples of such words include Sonderbehandlung (special treatment), Evakuierung (evacuation) and Umsiedlung (resettlement). According to the Defendants, such words were often employed where the writer or speaker wished either to be evasive or to speak in a coded language calculated to mislead outsiders. Browning used Event report 21 of 13 July 1941 together with a number of other similar reports to demonstrate that Sonderbehandlung was used to mean liquidation or shooting or execution. He also cited a document which refers to the Umsiedlung (resettlement) in the Kreisgebiet Brest-Litovsk of 20,000 Jews who can be shown to have been killed. Browning and Irving were in agreement that in the case of camouflage documents such as these it is necessary to take careful account of the context when deciding what these terms really signified. According to both of them, it is legitimate and indeed necessary for an historian to have regard not only to the circumstances as they existed at the time when the document came into existence but also to what happened later.

6.109 As regards the mass extermination of Jews, Irving accepted that gas vans were employed to kill Jews at camps in the east. When asked whether he accepted that at Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec Jews were killed with gas, Irving answered that, on the basis of evidence contained in Eichmann's private papers, he accepts that there was gassing in vans at Chelmno. He said, however, that he has not seen evidence of the use of gas vans at the other camps. He maintained the position that this was a very inefficient method of killing. He also pointed out that there was some disagreement as to the way in which the poison was administered and whether it was carbon monoxide or some other form of poison. Irving also queried whether it would have been feasible to have buried so many corpses.

6.110 But in the end Irving's doubts were no more than academic. For, despite his original claim that gassing occurred on a limited basis involving the use of no more that six to eight vans, Irving, in the light of documents he had seen in the past six months, made a number of concessions. He did not quarrel with the assertion of Browning that in a period of about five weeks in 1942 97,000 were killed at Chelmno by the use of gas vans. Irving suggested that figure may be an exaggeration but he agreed that was not limited or experimental but systematic. He further agreed that the evidence established that Jewish women and children were gassed to death in vans in Semlin, near Belgrade, in 1942.

6.111 However, despite his acceptance at an earlier stage of the trial that the gassing at the Reinhard camps had been systematic and on a considerable scale, Irving cross-examined Evans on the basis that the gas vans had been used to kill Jews on a basis which was no more than experimental. Evans's evidence was that, whilst the vans were used in a transitional stage only, they were nevertheless used on a large scale.

6.112 As to the specific documents relied on by the Defendants, Irving agreed that Wetzel's letter of 25 October 1941 was concerned with liquidating Jews but stressed that, as the Defendants accept, no gas chambers were in the event constructed in Riga. Irving also noted that Wetzel was never prosecuted. Browning's explanation is that there is no evidence he did anything more than propose the construction of gas chambers.

6.113 In reliance on the remarks made by Rosenberg at a press conference on 18 November 1941 about six million Jews being "brought across the Urals", Irving argued that the primary Nazi intention was to transport them yet further to the East rather than to exterminate them. Rosenberg specifically referred to the option of expelling them to the eastern side of the Urals, so he should not be taken to have had in mind that the Jews would be killed. Longerich in reply pointed out that Rosenberg had spoken of "the biological eradication of the entirety of Jewry" at a time when 500,000 odd Soviet Jews had already been exterminated. Rosenberg was intent on exterminating the Jews by one means or another, according to Longerich, for he said:

"For this it is necessary to push them over the Urals or otherwise (my italics) eradicate them".

(13) Red Cross report on Jews in concentration camps - Theresienstadt show camp

The material put out a couple of days ago is chapter 9 of Richard Harwood's book "Did Six Million Really Die?"


Do a Find on the word "visit". The only hits in that Chapter 9 refer to the show camp Theresienstadt.

In the same way, important visitors to the Soviet Union were also taken to show places.==


The "Show-Ghetto"

A guest publication researched & written by Wolf Murmelstein


In May 1944 SS Captain Wisliceny handed out to the Budapest Zionist Rescue Committee a letter signed by 12 Zionist leaders present in Theresienstadt with statements like "in Theresienstadt a Jewish Town had been established."

Of some note is the fact that not one of the leading figures who signed that strange letter survived beyond October 1944. Indeed the first role of Theresienstadt was the derision of the Zionist idea.

The second role of Theresienstadt was the two-fold fooling of German public opinion:

*1. As Himmler had pointed out in his famous Poznan speech "É All Germans agreed on getting rid of the Jews. But then every German came with his own Jew saying: "this here is first class Jew É"

Indeed there were Germans ­ even leading Nazis ­ who had their Jew to protect from Deportation to the East. There were Jews who because of their past positions could not simply disappear to the East and there were Jews holding highest distinctions earned as Officers in World War One.

Nor was possible to let the Jews holding foreign passports, to simply disappear. These protections, obviously, lasted only as long as the "protector" stood in power as will be seen in following chapters. *

2. The Nazi Propaganda spoke about the "Resettlement of the Jews for work in the East" which could hardly be pretended in the case of aged or persons who people who were not healthy.

The little town Theresienstadt­ surrounded by walls - in the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia but near to the than Reich border seemed to be the suitable solution for these purposes.

For the setting up the so called "Jewish Town the necessary manpower was available in the Jewish Communities in Bohemia ­ Moravia. The third role of Theresienstadt was to mislead public opinion and to fool the Jews in Bohemia Moravia. The Zionists hoped that Theresienstadt could be a training- ground for their future in Palestine. The Czech Nationalists hoped to recover of the State of Massaryk and Benes. The Communists hoped for a Socialist State like in Soviet Union. All of them hoped for their survival.

The fourth role of Theresienstadt was fund raising for the Eichmann Office and its "Emigration Fund". In order to get the last money of the aged German Jews ­ ensuring to obtain this substantial wealth instead of the Reich Treasury ­ the Eichmann Office launched an action to let these aged Jews purchase their retirement flats at Terezin Spa (Theresienbad).

This is behind the tale of people had to pay for staying at Theresienstadt instead of leaving for the East. This fund raising action resulted in a vast amount of money being collected by the Eichmann Staff, in order for the SS to dispose of these amounts.

The fifth role of Theresienstadt was that of a safe place for an RSHA Archive and its SS clerks. The sixth role of Theresienstadt was in the last months of the war as a "package" in the deals with the Allied Commanders which both Himmler and the Protectorate Governor SS General K .H. Frank tried to perform through the Red Cross. ...

Copyright Wolf Murmelstein H.E.A.R.T 2007

(14) Red Cross Report - Harwood corrected by Deborah Lipstatd

Deborah Lipstadt, to illustrate the level of scholastic duplicity employed by deniers, addresses the ICRC report ... "Harwood contended that the report made 'nonsense' of the allegation that there were 'gas chambers cunningly disguised as shower facilities.' He substantiated this assertion by quoting a passage from the report that depicted how ICRC officials inspected baths and showers in the camps. When they found problems they acted swiftly 'to have fixtures made less primitive and to have them repared or enlarged.' <53> This, Harwood argued, demonstrated conclusively that showers functioned as showers, and not as killing apparatus. The problem with Harwood's choice of this citation, which he quoted correctly, is that the passage had nothing to do with German concentration camps: It referred to _Allied_ camps for civilian internees in Egypt.<54>" (Lipstadt, 115-116)

Lipstadt then goes on ... regarding care parcels:

Harewood repeatedly asserted that from August 1942 the ICRC was allowed to visit and distribute food parcels to major concentration camps in Germany, and that from February 1943 this privilege was extended to all other camps and prisons.<55> Harwood claimed that this information was to be found on page 78 of the report's third volume. The page did refer to 'major concentration camps' in Germany but indicated that they included only Dachau and Oranienburg. The concession that was extended in 1943 included all other camps and prisons _in Germany_.<56> This meant that numerous camps outside Germany were not included. Moreover, the Red Cross acknowledged that it was limited to giving parcels only to deported aliens for whom it had addresses, and that many inmates, among them the vast majority of Jews, were not allowed to receive food parcels at all." (Lipstadt, 116)

... Lipstadt addresses the primary issue - did the ICRC deny the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz? "According to him [Harwood] [the ICRC report] demonstrated that the International Red Cross had found no evidence 'whatever' in camps in Axis-occupied Europe of a 'deliberate policy to exterminate the Jews.'<47> Harwood contended that in all its sixteen hundred pages the report failed to make any mention of 'such a thing as a gas chamber.' Though the ICRC admitted that Jews had suffered rigors and privations, as had many other wartime nationalities, 'its complete silence on the subject of planned extermination is ample refutation of the Six Million legend.'<48>

Harwood could make this claim only by ignoring key sections of the ICRC report. The Red Cross was absolutely specific about the Jews' fate. It made reference to the Nazi attempt to annihilate them, observing that under Nazi rule Jews had been transformed into 'outcasts condemned by rigid racial legislation to suffer tyranny, persecution and _systematic extermination_.'<49> ...Most important, the ICRC specifically delineated how systematic annihilation was carried out: 'They were penned into concentration camps and ghettos, recruited for forced labour, subjected to grave brutalities and sent to _death camps_ without anyone being allowed to intervene in those matters.'<50> These were not the ICRC's only references to death camps or systematic annihilation." (Lipstadt, 114-115) It is important to understand the mechanics commonly employed by Holocaust deniers, including the simple-minded Mr. Kuschel. When a document like the ICRC report is examined, any quote which would, when presented out of context, support the denial claims, is embraced like a long lost friend. On the other hand, any quote which refutes their claims, or even casts doubt about them, is simply ignored. This technique is essential to the entire denial industry, since an honest examination of the evidence absolutely destroys their position.

Lipstadt's footnotes:

<47> Harwood, "Did Six Million Really Die?", p. 24. For analysis of his use of the ICRC report, see Arthur Suzman and Denis Diamond, "Six Million Did Die: The Truth Shall Prevail" (Johannesburg, 1977), pp. 10-13. <48> Harwood, "Did Six Million Really Die?", p. 25 <49> "The Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on its Activities during the Second World War" (Geneva, 1948), vol. 1, p. 641 (italics added). The report is replete with numerous quotes that demonstrate that Harwood totally misconstrued its findings. For additional examples see Suzman and Diamond, "Six Million Did Die," p. 12 <50> Report of the ICRC, vol. 1, p. 641 <53> Harwood, p.25 <54> Report of the ICRC, vol. 1, p. 594. Harwood incorrectly cited this passage as coming from vol. 3. <55> Harwood, p. 25 <56> Report of the ICRC, vol. 3, p. 77.

Work cited

Lipstadt, Deborah E. Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. New York: The Free Press (A division of Macmillan, Inc.), 1993.

(15) Diaries of Heinrich Himmler - consult David Irving

From: bill Date: 11.02.2009 11:49 AM

First, there is no doubt whatever that the diaries of Heinrich Himmler do exist and that they were stored in Israel for many years by an Israeli diplomat named Rosenthal. Consult David Irving for verification. No one has seen them since. Second, the numbers of Jews exiting Soviet Russia through the Balkans has been deliberately undercounted to preserve the legend. The reports of the time speak of far greater numbers than is now generally conceded. I see nothing in Hitler's "Table Talk" that in any way supports the thesis of a planned extermination of Jews. All that it indicates is a desire to deport them. Hitler's aims of territorial annexation in the east are also well known.

The Treblinka camp has been subjected to both aerial reconaissance photographs and excavations. Neither show the slightest evidence of mass graves, mass bones or mass exterminations. The evidence for Jewish exterminations remains to be provided.

(16) Himmler's newly published diaries for 1941-2 - Irving clipping from The Guardian

The Guardian London, May 8, 1999

Hangman for Hitler

Five words in Heinrich Himmler's newly published diaries could change Holocaust history.

IAN TRAYNOR reports from Berlin.

... It was November 1941, a few months after the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, and Himmler's SS death squads had just taken 13,000 Jews out of the ghetto in Minsk in Belarus and ordered them to lie down in freshly dug graves outside the city. They were then shot to make room for the first deportations to the east of Jews from Germany proper.

The next day, Saturday November 15, Himmler put through several phone calls to Hitler's "Wolf's Lair" headquarters and chatted with the Fuehrer's chief-of-staff, Martin Bormann. He rang Berlin and Prague and then had lunch and a four-hour discussion with Alfred Rosenberg, Nazi minister for the occupied eastern territories. Next day the two men travelled to East Prussia for supper with Hitler. First Himmler again called his daughter, then had a haircut.

The nub of those crucial discussions was revealed by Rosenberg two days later when he confided to German journalists that the occupied Soviet territories "are called upon to solve a question confronting the peoples of Europe: that is the Jewish question. It can only be solved through the biological elimination of the entire Jewry in Europe."

Rosenberg's remarks touch on one of the remaining central questions of the Holocaust -- whether the supreme Nazi leadership ever took a formal decision to exterminate the Jews. Now Himmler's long-missing desk diaries for 1941 and 1942 have just been published in Germany and the argument is poised to re-erupt. The SS leader's schedule for those two years was thought to have been lost in 1945 when his secretary burnt the entire contents of his filing cabinets.

Himmler himself, the Bavarian schoolmaster's son and trained agronomist who became Hitler's devoted acolyte and pre-eminent pseudo-theoretician of the master race, bit on a cyanide capsule lodged between his teeth on May 23, 1945, after surrendering to British troops near Lüneburg. He was then buried in an unmarked grave.

But the key papers resurfaced in 1990 among a huge KGB cache of Nazi documents secreted away in a north Moscow suburb for 45 years. The 570 pages of typewritten and handwritten appointments schedules were maintained by Himmler's staff, with scrawls, notes and observations lodged by the SS leader himself. The Hamburg team have combined them with other relevant archive material in Germany, the United States and elsewhere to produce a comprehensive chronology of Himmler's activities in the two-year period.

The result is 800 pages of diary entries and footnotes <>. Leading US Holocaust historian, Dr Richard Breitman, believes it will influence scholarship for years to come. He argues that Hitler and Himmler had long decided to embark on a systematic campaign to murder all of Europe's Jews.

"By March 1941 the Final Solution was just a matter of time and timing. This date is months earlier than the juncture most specialists have selected, but the evidence is compelling," says Dr Breitman. The "fundamental decisions" on the Holocaust were taken in advance of the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, he insists.

Mr Peter Witte, one of the eight-strong diaries team, argues by contrast that Hitler and Himmler decided to try to murder all of Europe's Jews in the [northern] summer of 1941 and that Himmler then moved to refine the fundamental decision that autumn. The Himmler papers could shed light on his hunch, but the diary entries for June 25-August 12 are still missing, perhaps still with the Russian secret service.

And Christian Gerlach, a young Berlin historian specialising in the Nazi occupation of eastern Europe and another of those working on the diaries, claims that the defining moment came in December 1941 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler found himself formally at war with America.

A note handwritten by Himmler dated December 18 and referring to a meeting just held with Hitler says: "Jewish question -- exterminate as partisans." Those few words could change the expert view on the Holocaust.

The diary entry comes exactly one week after Hitler declared war on America and six days after Hitler's December 12 secret speech in Berlin to 50 Nazi provincial governors [Gauleiters]. "Hitler's speech and his discussions in the following days with Himmler ... led first of all to the fundamental directives on the murder of all Jews in the occupied Soviet territories ... secondly to the intensification of plans to gas Jews, and thirdly signify the decision to murder German Jews as well," the eight researchers state in explanation.

But frustratingly, Himmler's diary entries for December 15-18 are missing. -- The Guardian Himmler Index © Focal Point 1999 write to David Irving

(17) "it is for the Holocaust-Shoah believers to prove their assertions" - Toben

From: Adelaide Institute <> Date: 11.02.2009 12:26 AM

Another good serve, Peter - but always remember that it is for the Holocaust-Shoah believers to prove their assertions because Revisionists cannot prove that which never happened.

1. In this respect Revisionists have over the past 30+ years done some sterling work refuting the nonsense that has come from true believers.

2. The basic pillars on which the Holocaust-Shoah narrative rests remain mere assertions and have no reality in space and time - only in memory: 1. 6 million Jews killed, 2. systematic extermination planned by a state and 3. the murder weapon mainly a homicidal gas chamber.

3. Perhaps a re-reading of my Teheran talk may shed some light on the problem faced by believers who continue to assert this nonsense:

And a new YouTube segment -

(18) Toben's paper at the Tehran Holocaust Conference

{visit the link to see the map & other graphics}

{no longer at
but is at}

Islamic Republic of Iran National Anthem

In celebration of the Iranian President's support of Revisionists __

International Conference

"Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision

Tehran, 11-12 December 2006 __


The Alleged Murder Weapon: Homicidal Gas Chambers

The Logistics Problem: UNDRESS-GAS-BURN

Dr Fredrick Töben - Adelaide Institute, Australia ***

"How can anybody seriously believe that the Holocaust did NOT happen? Considering all the witnesses, all these pictures, all the documents, how could all this be lies and forgeries? And how could anybody, who has his five senses together, believe that such a thing could be made up? Thousands of historians and other researchers, hundreds of prosecutors, judges, and jurors - are they all wrong? Or did they all conspire in an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus of mind-reading?"

"How can anybody seriously believe that the Holocaust DID happen? Considering all the absurdities, impossibilities, contradictions, how could all these witness tales ever be believed? And how could anybody, who has his five senses together, believe that such a thing could have happened? Thousands of historians and other researchers, hundreds of prosecutors, judges, and jurors - have they all lost their minds? Or were they all so brainwashed by wartime propaganda or trembling in fear of the Jews that they did not dare to rock the boat?"

Germar Rudolf, 'Epilogue', in: Mattogno, C & Graf, J: Treblinka. Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?. ***

"The consequence of World War II did not create Zionism as an effective political movement: they merely gave Zionism the world political victory it needed for the final stage of the takeover of Palestine. All the world power had fallen to the U.S. and the Soviet Union, both of which were most friendly to the Zionist cause at this time. Under the circumstances, the Arab position was hopeless, because it depended on the firmness and political independence of a Britain that was almost prostrate politically and economically." Professor Arthur Butz, in his 1979 classic: The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. ***

We will not accept that Iran acquires nuclear weapons - we have learnt from the Holocaust to defend ourselves. Israeli PM Ehud Olmert, on NBC TV before meeting with US President Bush, Der Standard, 13 November 2006 __

1. Words of Thanks

Honourable Attendees

With deep gratitude I thank the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for making all this here possible. It is the first time in Revisionist history that a truly international ÔHolocaustÕ conference has been held where general and specific focus is on the claim that during World War Two the Germans systematically exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers, in particular at Auschwitz.

I thank the Iranian people for having brought forth a leadership that is fearless of Jewish pressure, a leadership that courageously sets out to clarify fundamental human values lost in most of the western Ôdemocratic and free worldÕ where such have been replaced by the outgrowth of international predatory capitalism -excessive materialistic consumer hedonism and militarism.

There are Revisionists, such as Germar Rudolf, Jürgen Graf, Siegfried Verbeke, Ernst-Günter Kögel, Horst Mahler, Ernst Zündel, among others, who cannot attend this conference because they are currently locked up in German prisons. Udo Walendy and Günter Deckert, who have both served prison sentences for their Revisionist work, send their regards to all. Gunter almost made it to the conference but the authorities withdrew his passport a couple of days before he was set to depart for Iran. Then there are a number of American Revisionists who dare not come to Tehran for fear of US government retaliation against their persons. We all know what form it takes: personal defamatory, economic and professional attacks aimed at discrediting and destroying the person rather than the arguments they propound. Sometimes I ask myself, is the United States of America, the land of the free, about to become a prison for Revisionists? If so, why?[1]


No one can deny that during World War Two millions of people tragically suffered and died - were deliberately killed, and let me reassure you that Revisionists are not in the business of denying the obvious tragic facts of any military conflict. However, where there has been made an allegation of murder, then any criminal investigation will, as a top priority, need to establish the cause of death. This means, as in all murder investigations, the first thing to look for is the murder weapon. In the Jewish case against the Germans, called the 'Holocaust' - or as Jews now refer to it 'Shoah' - the mass murder weapon, among others, is alleged to have been homicidal gas chambers.

What Revisionists aim to do is to gain a balanced understanding of events, of sifting fact from fiction. In the world event that has become known as the 'Holocaust-Shoah' there is an urgent need objectively to look at the claims made within its narrative. Why? Because the claims are of such horrendous nature that they are beyond belief and distorting our understanding of human nature. In other words, the claims made against the Germans border on madness.

It is not good enough for researchers into this topic to assume the closed-minded attitude adopted, for example, by professors Deborah Lipstadt and Alan Dershowitz. Both academics maintain there is no discussion on this topic and that anyone who seeks such a public discussion should be ridiculed and ignored. Such a mindset reveals outright intellectual dishonesty and shows how morally bankrupt these two individuals are. There is a raging discussion about the 'Holocaust-Shoah' controversy.

What has occurred though, especially in the so-called western democracies is that through subtle and direct legal, economic and social sanctions an open public discussion has been successfully stifled, at all levels of society, especially within places of learning, such as universities and schools.

We need to be cautious in our stance against this mindset, lest we adopt its own parameters for our own and become like them - closed minded. Hence my guiding principle is expressed thus: Don't blame the Jews, blame those that bend to their pressure. All that is needed to topple the 'Holocaust-Shoah' lies is for courageous and fearless people to stand up to the pressure that particular lobby groups exert on individuals in an attempt to stifle the urgently needed public debate. [2]

It is not possible in the brief time available to present a detailed report on an issue such as the alleged ÔHolocaust-ShoahÕ murder weapon, and so I need drastically to limit myself to some basic physical matters that will show how absurd the gassing claim really is.

I wish to offer a brief overview of the homicidal gas chamber thesis as it applies to Auschwitz and Treblinka concentration camps, and with the help of a model show that technically the claims made by so-called 'Holocaust-Shoah' survivors and believers about the mass gassings and burnings, are a physical impossibility.[3]

2.1 The extermination claim

In the spring of 1945, long before Germany finally collapsed , there had been an Allied propaganda campaign claiming that people, mainly Jews, were being killed in so-called extermination camps.

Of the six alleged German extermination camps in Poland, Auschwitz-Birkenau[4] is the key to the whole story because it is for this camp that mountains of documentary evidence exists, while for the others hardly anything at all exists.

Map of Europe

3. The Auschwitz gassing story

3.1 Setting the scene

Auschwitz I, Stammlager/base camp, was the administrative centre, which had been a converted and expanded military barracks complex belonging to the Austrian Army before World War One, while Auschwitz II, Birkenau, at the outset had been designed as a much larger camp intended for the specific needs of the SS operations in the area.

Auschwitz II performed the normal functions of a German concentration camp, housing inmates for the purpose of exploiting their labour for the nearby-established large industrial complex. It was clearly the main camp in terms of inmate accommodating functions.

If during World War Two a monstrous extermination of many hundreds of thousands of people took place in gas chambers at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II, and if the bodies of the victims were disposed of in the cremation facilities in those camps, then the murder weapon - the homicidal gas chambers - had an essential counterpart: the cremation ovens.

3.2 Auschwitz-Birkenau Krema II: - physical

There were four crematories at Birkenau, and in particular Krema II and III still remain the principal sites where Germans allegedly implemented the Ôfinal solutionÕ of exterminating European Jews during World War II. Here also the physical evidence of an alleged homicidal gas chamber is the most extant.

Interestingly, Krema II and III performed cremation functions similar to those performed in other typical German labour camps where, however, it is not claimed that exterminations took place.

Map of Auschwitz District with industrial areas

It is alleged that during a three-month period, May to July 1944, about 436,000 Hungarian Jews were gassed and cremated in Kremas II and III - 12,000 Jews were allegedly gassed and cremated every day, and it is claimed there is available data and testimony to support these assertions.

Imagine organizing the physical gassing procedure for 12,000 persons a day. It was a three-step procedure:

1. From the railway ramp the Jews were herded into Kremas II and III mortuary where they undressed;

2. From there they walked naked into the shower room to be gassed;

3. The bodies were then transported via a small flat-top lift upstairs into the room where the five crematory ovens were ready to burn the bodies, all 12,000 of them.

A quick calculation about the daily numbers gassed indicates that it is technically impossible to gas 12,000 persons a day. Hence the urgent need to investigate such claims. Although a believer in the gassings, Dr Norman Finkelstein put it clearly: ÒThe challenge today is to restore the Nazi Holocaust as a rational subject of inquiry. Because Holocaust survivors are now revered as secular saints, one doesnÕt dare question them. Preposterous statements pass without comment.Ó [5]

Revisionists need to have the freedom to research this matter without fear of having their livelihood destroyed through legal persecution that also often ends in an imposed prison sentence.

3.3 The legal battle - factual evidence becomes irrelevant

It is a fact that in all courts where ÔHolocaustÕ matters are litigated, physical proof and the testing of eyewitness evidence is not done. This is because in the Ernst Zündel 1984/5 and 1988 Toronto ÔHolocaustÕ trial, expert witnesses, for example Professor Raul Hilberg, could not support their claims under rigorous cross examination, as is the usual practice in a criminal matter where individuals are accused of murder. Hilberg stated that there was no Hitler 'Final Solution' Order, and that the alleged homicidal gas chambers had never been scientifically investigated. Parallel with the Zündel case in 1988 we saw a Jerusalem court sentence Ivan Demjanjuk to death - but more of that later.

This admission that Revisionists would win their court cases if they had an opportunity to present their case, was a danger sign for ÔHolocaustÕ believers, and so from 1988 onwards the legal persecution of ÔHolocaust deniers' focused on how to avoid proving in court the physical claims made by so-called survivors.This was done by diverting and subsuming 'Holocaust' matters into the realm of racial hatred - an absurdity but an effective one.[7]

Also, it must be remembered that any blocking of enquiry by legal means has psychological implications for alleged victims and perpetrators alike because the result is ignorance about vital historical matters - and ignorance cannot be good for any mind.

There is nothing mysterious about Revisionism as such because Revisionism is an heuristic method that enables individuals to open themselves to, and to effectively process new information impulses. All thinking individuals are Revisionists.

3.4 The Five Crematoria at Auschwitz I and II: Krema I-V

3.41. Basic facts

The crematorium at Auschwitz I was equipped with three double muffle ovens, i.e. each of the three cremation ovens had two compartments wherein a body could be placed. It was taken out of service in 1943 when the new crematories at Auschwitz II were commissioned. It was then converted into an air raid shelter for the SS guards. After the war it was reconstructed by the Poles to make it look as if it had been functioning as a homicidal gas chamber.

It was claimed that about 15,000 Jews were gassed in Krema I. Up to 1996 this claim remained authentic, but then 'Holocaust' historians, professors Robert Jan van Pelt and Deborah Dwork, stated that mass killings in this crematorium never took place, and that the facilities were restructured to symbolically represent what was happening at Auschwitz II, Krema II in particular.[6]

Auschwitz I mortuary: Krema I - next to the hospital

- some 'Holocaust-Shoah' believers still think it was a homicidal gaschamber

3.42 A lesson from History - technological limits

We must bear in mind that throughout history technology has not only provided means but has also dictated limits. These technological limitations are absolute, and if historical conclusions can be based on them, they therefore become absolute too. For example, it would be quite easy to prove as genuine or a forgery a wartime diary that was written in ink. If an analysis of the ink was made and the result showed that the particular ink used to write the diary came on to the market in only 1950,for example, then we can safely conclude the diary is a forgery.

Likewise with any of the Holocaust claims where any number of technical problems arise. Professor Robert Faurisson, Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf, among others,[8] investigated the use of Zyklon-B gas, as claimed in the extermination theory. They concluded that most, if not all, of the reported evidence taken for granted by today's ÔHolocaustÕ historians, must be dismissed on grounds of the technical properties of the insecticide gas - Zyklon-B.

Another subject of a technical nature is the disposal of the alleged millions of corpses after prisoners had supposedly been gassed. NB.: It is not disputed that prisoners were shot and otherwise killed.

3.43 Practical/technical problems - Krema II

Therefore, the practical and technical problem is basically a simple one. If victims were gassed and cremated, cremation facilities must have dealt with the proclaimed 6 million corpses. If one can calculate the total number of theoretically possible cremations on a technological basis, and in accordance with the relevant historical data, one simultaneously arrives at the maximum number of theoretically possible dead. For the present, the calculation shall be restricted to cremations in Krema II only, and the result will justify such an approach.

The term Extermination Camp as understood here refers to Death Camps and Killing Centres as listed by Raul Hilberg.[9]

It is interesting to note that 'Holocaust' believer, Robert Jan van Pelt, uses a statement from former camp commandant, Rudolf Höß, made at the 1947 Krakow court hearing, that sheds light on the inherent problem of continuous crematoria use:

ÒAfter eight or ten hours of operation the crematoria were unfit for further use.Ó[10]

The significance of his statement will become apparent when we look at the cremation problem.

Also, what is often not mentioned by 'Holocaust' believers when talking about Auschwitz is that the hydrogenation and other chemical industries set up at the Auschwitz industrial complex to produce synthetic rubber, among other things, were contaminating the air with stenches. A number of so-called eyewitnesses stated they could smell the homicidal gas chambers.[11]

However, the crematoriaÕs ovens were built in such a way that the fumes escaping through the chimney were odourless, and no flames came out of the chimney, as many 'Holocaust' survivors had reported.

3.44 Operation of cremation ovens - Krema II

Assuming a daily operation time of nine hours, we get per oven with three muffles each containing a corpse, the burning of three bodies per hour. This means that at Krema II one oven could cremate 9 x 3 corpses/h = 27 corpses per day. Thus, 27 x 5 ovens = 135 corpses per day. Add to that Krema III, the mirror image of Krema II, and we have a total of 135 x 2 = 270 corpses per day for Krema II and Krema III combined.

Krema IV and V with eight muffles each = 8 x 9 = 72 x 2 is a total of 144 corpses per day.

Therefore, in theory, we have Auschwitz II's Krema II to V cremating 270 + 144 = 414 corpses in total per day, providing of course that all four crematories worked continuously without breaking down or stopping for essential maintenance.

All crematories existed for a total of 2,367 days, but the actual operation time was 1,164 days, and it is highly unlikely that all of the ovens within the oven room were always in action.[12]

Therefore, the stand-down time due to defects and repairs or idle time was about 55%.

Shortly after the end of the war, a Soviet investigating committee estimated and determined, without any further research, the figure of four million deaths at Auschwitz. Even though there were doubts about the accuracy of the estimates from the very beginning, it became a dogma when the figure was set in legal concrete through the staging of what were essentially show trials.[13]

3.45 Model Auschwitz-Birkenau - Krema II

Model of Auschwitz-Birkenau Krema II. It operated from 15 March 1943 - October 1944 = 432 days. The tile-lining inside the three muffles of each of the five ovens had a lifespan of 3,000 cremations each, and after 45,000 cremations all muffle lining had to be replaced. They were not replaced while Krema II operated indicating that the total number of cremations was about 45,000 cremations. Considering the other crematories and we come very close to the figure of 135,000 victims died of natural courses in the camp and were cremated.

On 21 February 2006 Australia's ABC TV Lateline interviewed [14] Fredrick Töben before his March 2006 visit to Mashhad.

Auschwitz II, Krema II model displayed at the Holocaust Museum showing the logistic problem of removing the bodies - left, 2,000 undressing and waiting, right, 2,000 gassed and waiting, while above right 2,000 cremations in the alleged gas ovens.

Explaining the workings of Krema II at Mashhad in March 2006

Let's recall: Krema V was used for the prisoners that routinely died in Auschwitz I, Auschwitz II and in any of the 40 or so satellite camps, and whose corpses were collected daily. Krema IV was beyond repair and taken out of service, i.e. after being in service for only 50 days for all of 1943.

From May 15 to July 1944 about 12,000 mainly Hungarian prisoners in six trains arrived daily, approximately 400,000 prisoners in total. It was an awesome task: 12,000 daily arrivals had to be gassed and cremated mainly in Krema II and III. Remember that Krema II and III each had five ovens with 15 muffles thus giving each Krema a capacity of 135 corpses a day x 2 = 270 in total.

The 12,000 arrivals were distributed to Krema II & III[15] which meant 6,000 gassings and cremations for each of the two crematories. However, the ovens in each Krema could only handle 135 corpses per day, so what happened to the remaining 5,865 persons for each crematorium? They could not be gassed nor could they be cremated as long as the first batch of gassed persons still occupied the gas chamber, something that would have taken about three weeks. I need not mention the problem of the first batch of prisoners getting into the undressing room where they had to wait for the gas chamber to be cleared of the gassed prisoners.

3.46 Air photos reveal no activity

31 May 1944

Air photo Auschwitz-Birkenau camp: Krema II & III mirror image ­ top right, Krema II, below Krema III.

Colour photos of area in 2000

{no longer at but is at}

Some definitive air photos taken during that period show no unusual activity on the ground within the camp area. There is no smoke, no fires, and no people getting off the trains, going through that 'selection' - to the right off to work, to the left immediate gassing - queuing up, waiting to enter the undressing room.[16]

3. 5 Mortuary I, Krema II - problem with cremation time

The alleged gas chamber, 210m2 in area, could hold between 2,000 ­ 3,000 victims as testified by Rudolf Höß and others for one only gassing operation. But as the cremation ovens could only manage 135 corpses a day, it would have taken about three weeks uninterrupted operation to cremate all corpses piled up in the Ôgas chamberÕ.

The Holocaust believers are aware of this number problem, and to overcome it they use for their calculations a round-the-clock operation of the ovens and a tripling of the number of corpses per muffle ­ as well as a shortening of the duration of the cremation time. And still the numbers and the duration time does not add up!

In March 2003 I watched my fatherÕs cremation and can attest that to this day the cremation of one corpse in a modern computer-driven gas operated oven, made in Sweden, takes between 70-80 minutes. Also, human bones do not burn and need to be removed and crushed - time-consuming work.

Also, as did a number of Revisionists before me, in 1997 and 1999 I entered Krema II, and proved to myself that the roof of Krema IIÕs alleged Ôgas chamberÕ has no gas induction holes through which guards threw the Zyklon-B canisters containing the gas pellets.[17]

The railway track into Birkenau ending near Krema II & III was constructed only in May 1944. Before that, prisoners and goods had to be unloaded at Auschwitz I. Also the infamous selection point: to the right - work; to the left - immediate gassing.

- entering the alleged homicidal gas chamber through one of the alleged gas induction holes.

- inside the alleged homicidal gas chamber at Krema II where the concrete pillar turned out to be quite solid and not at all porous through which the gas seeped.

3.6 The 1972 Vienna Auschwitz Trial

From 18 January to 10 March 1972, former members of the SS, Walter Dejaco and Fritz Ertl, the two architects responsible for the design and construction of the crematoria in Auschwitz II were put on trial in Vienna, Austria. During the trial, an expert report on the possible interpretation of the blueprints of the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz II crematoria was presented to the court. The expert report concluded that the rooms in question could not have been gas chambers, nor could they have been converted into gas chambers. The defendants were acquitted on a technicality, and afterwards the file "went missing", though a few Austrian lawyers have copies of the file.[18]

3.7 The Rudolf Report, 1993: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ÔGas ChambersÕ of Auschwitz

Elaborating on Fred Leuchter's and Walter Lüftl's research, Germar Rudolf conducted research at Auschwitz II. He took masonry samples and had them tested for their cyanide contents at the renowned Max Planck Institute, Stuttgart. The analytic results confirmed earlier tests made of the samples:


Cyanide that reacts with masonry produces iron blue, a stain that is visible and stable for decades, if not for centuries. Weathering does not influence the cyanide concentration. This chemical process is still clearly visible on the outer walls of the Auschwitz II delousing chambers 5a/b where to this day a deep blue stain is visible, indicating there is still a high concentration of cyanide present.


In the delousing/disinfestation chambers considerable traces of cyanide were found together with the tell-tale blue discolouration of the walls.


The 'gas chambers' walls where the alleged mass gassings occurred do not reveal any markedly higher concentration of cyanide remnants than found in any other randomly selected building.

Rudolf concluded that the the presence of HCN-hydrogen cyanide - (mg per kg tested buildings material) is close to zero in the alleged gas chamber Krema II and 1,050 mg/kg CN in the delousing and disinfections chambers where Zyklon-B was actually used for disinfections.

The evidence is compelling: The formation of iron blue, visible by the deep blue colour on the walls and ceilings can be seen in the delousing and disinfections chamber 5a/b, but the blue colour is not present in the alleged gas chambers.

Iron cyanides are quite stable and iron blue, or Prussian Blue, has been a commonly used blue pigment for over three centuries.[19]

3.8 Unreliable Eyewitness Reports

A consideration of eye witness evidence suggests such evidence is highly unreliable. Most eye witnesses to mass gassings have been totally discredited whenever their evidence has been properly tested in a court of law. The Hungarian pathologist at Auschwitz, Doctor Niyiszli, relates the following gassing story he witnessed at Krema II:

ÒThe granulated substance fell in a lump to the bottom. The gas it produced escaped through the perforations, and within a few second filled the room in which the deportees were stacked. (15 person/m2) Within 5 minutes everybody was dead. For every convoy it was the same story. Red Cross cars brought the gas from the outside. There was never a stock of it in the crematorium. The precaution was scandalous, but still more scandalous was the fact that the gas was brought in a car bearing the insignia of the Red Cross. In order to be certain of their business the two gas-butchers waited another 5 minutes.Ó[20]

It is almost ironic that witnesses who claimed they saw prisoners gassed in only a matter of minutes were ignorant of the fact that Zyklon-B gas pellets require an extended period of time and a certain temperature to start the process of exuding the gas. Thus when eye witnesses make absurd claims, they are either ignorant of the physical facts, or they are lying.

Germar Rudolf produced his definitive The Rudolf Report wherein he scientifically proves that gassing in homicidal gas chambers was not possible as claimed by witnesses, and as published in 'Holocaust' literature. For example Dr. Nyiszli's eyewitness testimony, is discredited because it would take 1-2 hours for the deadly Zyklon-B gas to be released, and after the gassing it would take some hours to ventilate the chamber before the door can be safely opened.

3.9 A sensation in May 2002

Upholders of 'Holocaust' horror stories always attempt to counter what Revisionist researchers have to offer. The latest example of such expose appeared in ÔThe Number of Victims of Auschwitz, New Insights due to new Findings in the ArchivesÕ. Written by Fritjof Meyer, Editor-in-chief, Der Spiegel, and published in a relatively unknown specialist journal, Osteuropa. Zeitschrift für Gegenwartsfragen des Ostens, the article effectively de-commissions Auschwitz Krema II as a homicidal gassing centre. All the chemical analysis work done by Leuchter, Rudolf, et al, suddenly becomes irrelevant as Meyer asserts that the gassings occurred in two outlying farm houses, referred to as Bunker I and Bunker II.

The title of the article is significant in that it claims - almost 60 years after the event - new archival discoveries justify the author's conclusions. Those new discoveries are, of course, nothing new for Revisionists. The main points extracted from the article are:

1. Soviet war propaganda generated the four million death figure.

2. The first Holocaust historian, Gerald Reitlinger, stated the one million death figure, but latest research indicates it should be half a million, of those 350,000 were gassed.

3. There were 313, 866 cremations at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

4. The use of mortuaries as gas chambers in March/April 1943 failed because of ventilation problems.

5. The genocide occurred in two farmhouses, also called Bunker I and Bunker II. 350,000 were gassed in Bunker II within a two-year period.[21]

Yet again, here we have an example by a non-Revisionist historian attempting to keep ahead of Revisionist exposure of the gigantic Holocaust lie - the story keeps on changing.

But as always, although the total Auschwitz death figure has been reduced from four million, then to 1-1.5 million, and now to half a million, the six million death figure remains a constant. Why? Something just doesn't add up.

Meanwhile imprisoned German Revisionists cannot hope to gain relief from their imprisonment because of the specific 'Holocaust' law currently enforced in Germany. A judge will not consider this new Meyer information as relevant to the prosecution because truth is no defence. The fact that the accused is before the court is proof enough of his guilt, and what remains for the accused to do is to show contrition and remorse for his having dared to doubt the 'Holocaust'. This will then influence the length of the imposed prison term - physical factual truths do not influence the judge's decision.

3.10 Religious significance of the Six Million

After the 1988 Zündel trial the plaques, which Pope John Paul II blessed in 1979, noting 4 million dead were removed and a few years later replaced by plaques listing about 1.5 million, which Pope Benedict XVI has also now blessed.

Pope John Paul II blesses the 4 Million number in 1979

Pope Benedict XVI blesses the 1.5 Million number

However, such reductions to not influence the overall SIX MILLION number that is never reduced because it has religious significance, as pointed out by Ben Weintraub in: The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism: Keystone of the New World Order.[22] - how prophecy fulfilment demands 6 million.

4. Treblinka

4.1 Brief history

Treblinka concentration camp consisted of two camps, Treblinka I, a labour camp, and Treblinka II, the alleged 'pure extermination' camp located about 80 km north-east of Warsaw, Poland. The camp model is scaled 1:250, and excludes the four hectare living quarters situated at the northern boundary. In September 1943 the camp was dismantled and turned into a farm. The model[23]was built on information obtained from a number of sources, bearing in mind how the gassing stories keep on changing, it may safely be assumed that at least some of the information about this camp could have been fabricated with hindsight so as to synchronize, to match, the claims made by survivors of other camp, such as Belzec.[24]

Noted German historian, Ernst Nolte, reminds us that we need constantly to bear in mind how any standard 'Holocaust-Shoah' literature omits all evidence likely to be critical of the dogmatic and legally sanctioned version of events.[25]

Treblinka II was established in July 1942 and abandoned in September 1943, so it was operational for only 14 months. During this time, however, it is claimed that in total about 870,000 persons were send to Treblinka, mainly Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto. Witnesses testified that about two to three trains arrived per day containing 6,000-7,000 persons in each train in 60 cattle wagons, an average of 16,000 persons. They were all gassed, then buried in mass graves near the alleged gas chambers.

Specifically, in a ten week period, from July 22 to October 1942, about 700,000 prisoners were murdered in the three rooms of the so-called little gas house, measuring 4m x 4m each, an area about the size of a medium bedroom. A fourth room in the building housed the Diesel engine taken from a captured Russian tank.[26]

Between 250-300 persons, an average of 275, were forced into those rooms, i.e., 18 per m2. At one 'sitting' a total of 825 died after 30-40 minutes exposure to the Diesel fumes, making it 58,330 persons a week or 8,330 a day. The bodies were then carried by stretcher for about 200 meters to the mass graves located in the south-east corner of the camp.

According to eyewitness evidence, in matters of what is alleged to have occurred in the concentration camps, German logic is always difficult to follow. After the murder of about 700,000 persons it is said that another, much larger gas house was built in October 1942, comprising 10 gas chambers measuring 8 m x 4 m each room, 320 m2, with a capacity of 700 persons per room or a total of 7,000 persons, i.e., 22 persons per m2.. All this, of course, also with one only Russian tank diesel motor. Both gas houses with a capacity of 320m2 plus 48 m2, a total of 368 m2 were used to exterminate the remaining 170,000 persons, an efficiency of 3.5 % between November 42 and April 43. Hence, there was no need for the new and larger gashouse[27]

Ten months after the gassings began in April 1943, the bodies were exhumed and cremated, all within 122 days, just on four months for the purpose of eliminating the evidence of the crime. The cremation was done on two separate grills, made from railway tracks, measuring 30m in length, 3m wide and about 700 mm above ground.[28]

- a similar excavator operating a drag line, such as this one, is alleged to have dug the huge pits for the hundreds of thousands of corpses at Treblinka - again a technical impossibility.

- excavation of buried corpses is quite labour intensive

These two photos are from Dresden in February 1945 after the city was engulfed in a fire storm - the real HOLOCAUST of Germans. The Treblinka pyres were said to have been about 10 m high, if no wood was placed between the layers of bodies - again a physical/technical impossibility. With wood it would have been 14 meters above ground. Such claims deflect from the crimes committed by the Allies against the German people - much like what we saw the coalition of the willing did in Iraq, and the Jews are doing to the Palestinians since they invaded Palestine.

4.2 Official Investigations of the Treblinka campsite in 1945 - nothing there!

During November 1945, in preparation for the Nürnberg trial - the International Military Tribunal, IMT - the Polish magistrate of the district court in Sirdlce, guided by eyewitness testimony of the alleged atrocities committed, ordered an exploration of the former Treblinka II camp. The Polish commission attempted to unearth physical evidence of the alleged crime because it did not trust the survivorsÕ stories, especially the claim that 3,500,000 were killed there.

As with the Auschwitz claim this number was an invention of Soviet war-time propaganda. The Jewish chairman of the Sirdlce District Court, Szlebzak, together with the help of about 30 labourers, personally supervised the forensic exploration and excavation.

Witnessing the investigations were four former inmates of Treblinka: S. Rajzman, T. Crimberg, S. Friedman and M. Mittelberg. It was their task to indicate the location of the buildings, which they claimed they had seen operating for a whole year, and which had been dismantled two years before the commission began its work.

4.21 A shot to the head

Survivors had stated that 50,000 people who were unable to walk to the 'gas chambers' were allegedly executed by a shot to the head in the hospital pit. Forensic exploration found only a few small personal articles belonging to the alleged shot victims, such as a few small foreign coins, but failed to find any human bones or any of the 50,000, alleged execution bullets or spent cartridges.

Neither could it locate TreblinkaÕs two gas-houses, the largest stone buildings in the district built in the two-hectare upper camp extermination area. Long and deep trenches, running in a north-south direction, were dug but nothing was found.

The polish judge even had the area surveyed, which confirmed that the total camp area was 13.45 ha, while Yitshak Arad had claimed it was 24 ha.[29]The commission judge, and also later Professor Faurisson, did find that the Poles bought additional land on the south site from local farmers to increase the area.

The investigation report, signed by both judge and state prosecutor, confirmed that no mass graves were found nor any traces of foundations or buildings. The judgeÕs report became document URSS-344 submitted by the Soviets to the IMT.

Once again, as is so common with all the 'Holocaust' stories, on an original campsite the fabricated story received a physical reality of its own so as to justify the propaganda claim that over three million persons were gassed at Treblinka.[30]

4.3 Eye-witness confusion - steaming or gassing?

Shortly after the war Treblinka eyewitnesses testified that Jews were killed by hot water steam, or pumping out the air inside the room to create a vacuum, and even describing a hot water boiler installation inside the alleged gas chamber. For example, according to a 1944 eyewitness account compiled by the OSS, the principle US intelligence agency, Jews at Treblinka "were in general killed by steam and not by gas as had been at first suspected."[31] However, a realistic interpretation is that because the walls and floors of those rooms were tiled, they could have been used for disinfections and bathing purposes.[32]

It is only later that the 'Holocaust' literature changed the murder weapon to a Diesel motor, thereby offering a more convincing argument than the hot steam thesis, thereby bringing it in line with the Belzec and Sobibro camps where Diesel exhaust was also claimed to be the murder weapon.

At the main Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946, two conflicting stories were given: steaming and gassing. Former Treblinka prisoner Samuel Rajzman testified that Jews were killed there in gas chambers. To confuse matters still more, a few months earlier Rajzman claimed that during the time he was in Treblinka, Jews were "suffocated to death" with a machine that pumped air out of death chambers to suffocate the victims

American prosecutors at the main Nuremberg trial supported the steam story. As proof, a Polish government report of December 5, 1945, was submitted as prosecution exhibit USA-293. It charged that Jews were killed at the camp "by suffocating them in steam-filled chambers." This report, which says nothing about poison gas killings, was published in the official Nuremberg trial record as document PS-3311, and an American prosecutor quoted from this report during his address to the Tribunal on December 14, 1945.

The work of the American Diesel exhaust expert, Friedrich P Berg, clearly supports research that people cannot be killed with Diesel exhaust fumes as claimed by eyewitnesses.[33] Interestingly but not surprisingly, although the Diesel engine story as told by 'eye-witnesses' is still propagated by 'Holocaust' believers.[34]

4.4 The burial and excavation problem

As incredible as the Diesel exhaust story sounds, it gets worse with the Düsseldorf court's finding about the burial site of the 870,000 victims in the south-eastern corner of the camp. The mass graves, as seen on the scaled model, could only have accommodated about 200,000 bodies, but 'Holocaust' historians claim 870,000 bodies were buried there.

The excavation story, first for body burial, then for exhumation, is physically impossible to carry out. German political scientist Udo Walendy puts the problem into context when he reminds us that supposedly only a few people managed to perpetrate the extermination.[35]

Treblinka is, in fact, the most fitting landmark for mass killing levelled against Germans, a mirage of a multi-million genocide in gas chambers, of which not the slightest documentary or material trace exists and about which we would know nothing without the testimony of a handful of 'eyewitnesses'. As stated in my introduction, that millions of people died and suffered horribly during World War Two is, of course, irrefutable and cannot be denied.

John Demjanjuk

4.5 Treblinka - legal significance

The 'Ivan the terrible' trial of John Demjanjuk in Jerusalem was the final attempt to set the gassing story into legal concrete - and it failed, but that is not for want of trying by those who are obsessed with persecuting so-called 'Nazi war criminals'.

The persecution of John Demjanjuk is not an isolated case but it is one that has been taken to the extreme limit of absurdity by holding the trial in Israel, a country that did not even exist at the time the alleged crime was committed. Earlier, of course, we had during the early 1960s the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Similar cases of persecuting former eastern Europeans who 'collaborated' with the Germans during World War Two was also in vogue in western democracies during the early 1990s. For example in Australia such trials failed because eye-witness evidence was so unreliable and so obviously fabricated that judges could not continue with the prosecution.

It is seriously different in the US where a powerful Zionist lobby has infiltrated the judiciary. This helps to explain why the Demjanjuk persecution has lasted for over two decades, and why the United States authorities complied with Jewish pressure and deported from its territory to Germany both Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zündel, the latter via Canada.

John Demjanjuk was deported from the USA to Israel in 1986, and after a trial that saw one of his defence counsels murdered and another blinded with acid, on April 25, 1988 he was sentenced to death by a Jerusalem court. Upon appeal it was found he was not 'Ivan the terrible', and in September 1993 he was returned to the USA. But the persecution by US-based Jews of former Axis-members continues to this day. Of course, the injustice is not compensated, and Demjanjuk has not been compensated for any of his suffering, neither by Israel nor by the USA which permitted him to be extradited in the first place. Witness testimony turned out to be pure fabrication - imagine, witnesses stated that this Ukrainian camp guard was standing outside the Treblinka gas chamber as the victims walked into it, cutting off women's breasts in the process. Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno extensively deal with this matter in their 2004 book: Treblinka. Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?[36]

Contrast this with the irrefutable suffering of the millions of people during the Second World War that is fully documented, physically and in writing. Just consider: go to Hiroshima, Dresden, Hamburg, Pforzheim, Stuttgart, et al, and you will still see physical evidence of the ferocious battles that engulfed the residents in those cities, and if you are lucky, you may still meet some of the survivors of this real Holocaust - while the gassing stories reveal themselves to be mere puffery.

4.6 Richard Krege's Research - as yet unpublished

5. Conclusion

1. As stated in the introduction, it is not possible in the available time to present a detailed report on an issue such as the alleged ÔHolocaustÕ murder weapon. Yet even a limited discussion of the gassing claims indicates the gassing stories to be mere puffery ­ the product of a feverish pathological mind filled with pure hatred, mostly directed against Germans and anything German, and greed, and if not that, then certainly the product of an appalling state of ignorance of natural and chemical processes.

2. In my talk I tried to present a brief overview of the homicidal gas chamber thesis as it applies to Auschwitz and Treblinka concentration camps, and with the help of a model show that technically the claims made by ÔHolocaustÕ believers about the mass gassings and burnings are a physical impossibility.

3. This fact alone justifies the Iranian President Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's aim in holding the conference, to urge historians and scientists to investigate the whole 'Holocaust-Shoah' matter in a rational way without fear or favour. The urgency is there because the 'Holocaust' has distorted our understanding of world history and brought injustice and unimaginable suffering to the Palestinians.

6. Footnotes

[1] I would like to thank the many Revisionists around the world who have supported my personal work at Adelaide Institute. There are too many to list, but I mention from Australia Mrs Olga Scully, Lila McIntosh, Mohammed Hegazi, Peter Rackemann, John Brown, James McGregor, Peter Hartung of Australia Free Press, David Brockschmidt, and all the many Adelaide Institute supporters who have enabled me to continue this work full-time since 1994. A thank you to John Bennett of the Australian Civil Liberties Union who in 1979 lit the Revisionist torch in Australia by sending free copies of Arthur Butz's classic, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, literally to hundreds of public figures. Later, during my 1999 imprisonment at Mannheim, John organized the defence fund for me. Another thank you to courageous Christopher Steele for launching the first expose of the Auschwitz gas-chamber myth at Adelaide's Constitutional Museum in 1983, after having received a copy of the Butz book from Werner Fischer. However, had it not been for American Willis Carto's pioneering work in publishing in 1969 The Myth of the Six Million, and founding in 1979 the Institute for Historical Review in California on to whose editorial advisory board Carto invited John Bennett, among others, we would not have been able to view Revisionist work from almost a continuous half-century perspective. Needless to say that Frenchman Paul Rassinier was one of a number of earlier Revisionists who in isolation did pioneering work, and I think of Dr Wilhelm Stäglich who symbolizes the solitary nature of Revisionist work. Revisionists, in essence, are individuals who mostly work alone, in some collaboration, but rarely in a mass movement. For that their thinking is way ahead of the prevailing orthodoxy, which has little tolerance when it comes to enduring personal discomfort while pursuing an ideal, in this instance the search for truth in history. My special thanks go to Jupp, a retired construction engineer, and a former member of the Australian Institute of Engineers, who built the scaled models of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau and at Treblinka concentration camps. Jupp's models clearly illustrate the factually absurd nature of the homicidal gassing claims.

[2] On 20 July 1994 Australia's ABC TV Lateline 1994 program screened 'The Big Lie', wherein 'Holocaust' matters were canvassed in some detail by presenter Paul Barry and guests Dr Bill Leadbetter, Genocide Studies, Macquarie University, Sydney, and Professor Deborah Lipstadt, Emory University. Atlanta. Among other things Paul Barry canvassed the following with Lipstadt:

Paul Barry: "Just tell me briefly, how overwhelming, in your view, well not just in your view, how overwhelming is the evidence of the Holocaust?

1. Deborah Lipstadt: It's so overwhelming that the facts are just beyond belief and beyond question. We have in the United States alone ... in the National Archives, 28,000 linear feet of files on the activities of the deniers, I'm sorry, of the SS. So for the deniers to say that this didn't happen - but that documentation what the survivors provide is exceptionally important documentation, and the bystanders provide important documentation. The Poles who watched trains go into the camps, day after day, and come out empty, full of people, and come out empty, who knew exactly what was going on. Our best witnesses, our best source, are the perpetrators. The documentation that they left us, lists of people who were killed. They left us plans for the gas chambers, and of course the perpetrators. The perpetrators say "I did it' in interviews, just saying 'I did it' in trials. They say "I did it' in interviews and on other occasions and context.

2. On 'Holocaust' deniers: "[They] are a lunatic fringe. these people are consumed and motivated by hate. Truth doesn't enter into their equation at all, it's hate ...For me it's not an issue of free speech {but} an issue of providing them a platform. When you have a denier - what they say is absolute rubbish - do you give them a forum, invite them into your universities when what they're saying is the equivalent of 'the earth is flat' or 'Elvis Presley is alive and well', or 'there was no slavery'. ... [Will not debate them] I won't dignify them by making them sound like an other side, that someone would sit and say, well, here's one side, Deborah Lipstadt is a better debater but maybe there's some truth to what the other side said ... I can ridicule them easily. I can demolish what they said on the clip [Geoff Muirden] that there were no plans, that there are millions of survivors, the fact that there were survivors means the Holocaust didn't happen implies everything the Nazis did they accomplished. Well, the Nazis set out to win World War Two. They lost the war, so ipso facto, they didn't accomplish everything they wanted. I wouldn't be afraid of taking them on, face to face. The reason I don't is I don't want to dignify them as another side. You wouldn't ask someone who is an astronomy expert to come in and debate whether the world is flat or whether the world is round ... the other reason is that they lie, they pull things out of context."

3. On gas chamber evidence: "The evidence is overwhelming. First of all we have the plans, the architectural plans for converting the buildings to gas chambers ... We have work orders from the firm building the gas chambers in Auschwitz, to the suppliers "Please send us gas-tight doors, send us a door, we need to manufacture a door with a peep-hole'. The deniers claim these were delousing chambers solely to get rid of the lice in the clothing. Why would you need a peep-hole, to see when the clothes stopped moving? 'Send us a handle for a gas-tight door' - all sorts of references which could only be used for gas chambers. And coming out of Moscow now, the archives in Moscow are even more detailed. One of the reasons the Moscow archives has all this information is that Auschwitz was liberated by the Russians and they picked up the archives, and those archives have sat in Moscow for the past years. I want to make another point that is equally important. The deniers like to say that all these things are forged. They'll look at these plans and say these are forged. The list of peoples, names, thousands of names killed, is all forgery. And then they'll go ahead and say, David Irving likes to do this, 'show me the one piece of paper that says "I, Adolf Hitler hereby order the extermination of the Jews", signed Adolf Hitler, then I'll believe the Holocaust happened'. I'd like to ask them if the hoaxers, so-called hoaxers, and they're the Jews, were able to forge all this information with the help of the allies and planted it in the archives, why don't they just forge that one piece of paper that says, "I, Adolf Hitler, hereby order the extermination of the Jews", and that'll settle the argument. Clearly that piece of paper won't be found because that's not how the Nazis operated. But again the fallacy of their argument is really quite evident if you just think about it a little bit."

4. On deniers a danger: "What I'd like to say it that ... the deniers are not a clear and present danger. They're a clear and future danger. It's when there people won't be around as I said earlier who said, "I saw this. This is what happened to me", that it'll be much easier to ply their wares, and that's what they're looking for a day down the road, which is one reason they target the college campus to get the younger people, and there are people who are tenacious. They are haters, and haters, whether they're hating Jews or hating racial minorities, or hating whatever, haters are tenacious in their hatred and truth is very fragile."

Bill Leadbetter: The Holocaust deniers are ideologically motivated: i. They are antisemites; ii. They don't want to give Jews the moral legitimacy they get from being victims of the Holocaust; iii. Deniers have a political agenda - Nazism is a good thing but is negated by the Holocaust.

Also featured in the introduction was a clip of Professor Robert Jan van Pelt showing the existence of air ventilation ducts for 'the gas chamber', something Fritjof Meyer expressly, and wisely, now discounts, i.e. eight years later - see Footnote 21. The fact is that German law prescribed strict regulations governing mortuaries and their ventilation systems.

[3] Any Internet search engine will reveal the existence of extensive propaganda material on Auschwitz, with German media outlets at the forefront linking any current political issue with the alleged Auschwitz 'extermination' camp. For example, on 25 October 2006, the email service of the ran an article about a Holocaust exhibition at German railway stations, and how the Transport Minister, Wolfgang Tiefensee is conflicting with the Director of the DB - German Railways, Hartmut Mehdorn, who opposes such an exhibition. The Internet website contains various links, including âAuschwitz: Das präzedenzlose VerbrechenÕ ­ ÔAuschwitz, the crime without precedentÕ, where is presented the usual unsubstantiated rubbish about GermanyÕs cruelty and Ôbreak with civilisationÕ. The Iranian president is also mentioned by name and as is usual in German and Zionist-controlled media outlets, his statements are distorted and falsified. For example, the President does not 'deny' the Holocaust as such, i.e. that the murder of EuropeÕs Jews is a myth. He has asked this issue to be investigated because things have been mythologised.,1185,OID6033194_REF1,00.html; the Revisionist Forum invites individuals to participate in a lively exchange of views, something that Holocaust dogmatists such as Professor Deborah Lipstadt vehemently oppose because for her 'there is no debate on the Holocaust'. See DVD of her appearance on ABC TV Lateline, 20 July 1994.

[4] The other camps are Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, Chelmno, Majdanek, and there is also the alleged 'auxiliary extermination camp' Stutthoff, near Danzig in western Prussia.

It is customary to refer to the Auschwitz Stammlager - base camp - as Auschwitz I, and to Auschwitz-Birkenau as Auschwitz II, while the reference to cremation facilities at Auschwitz I is referred to as Krema I and for Auschwitz II, as Krema II, III, IV and V. Auschwitz-Monowitz is referred to as Auschwitz III, where the Buna synthetic rubber plant was situated.

[5] Norman Finkelstein: The Holocaust Industry. Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering; also The New Statement, London, November 20, 2000. Finkestein is critical of the economic exploitation of so-called 'Holocaust' survivors who generally never received much from the massive reparation claims paid to world Jewish organisations, but he does not extend his criticism to the factuality of the actual '6 million murdered' claim. Such a claim is simplistic and it does not amaze that it has succeeded until the present. For example, the gassing claim begins with a basic factual truth: Zyklon-B gas was used in concentration camps for disinfection purposes. From this fact the story begins to be exaggerated by recounting personal suffering of individuals - which is also a fact, ending in distortions and wild imaginings and fabrications to outright lying For example, deaths occurred in the camps, especially during the final stages of the war when allied saturation bombing destroyed Germany's supply lines. We know from the recent Iraq invasion how devastating such bombing can be to destroying the fabric of social and economic order. The motto at the Auschwitz entrance - Arbeit Macht Frei-work liberates - has also been twisted and perverted to support claims of cruelty, slave labour, sadistic murders and the German's inhumanity towards its war-time prison populations. The equivalent of this motto in English is 'idle hands invite the devil'. During and post World War Two the USA, Australia and other countries had an extensive concentration camp program, the Rhein Wiesen in Germany comes to mind here where the allies starved hundreds of thousands of German soldiers to death. Naturally it is in the allies' interest to deflect from their crimes perpetrated upon the German people, and the 'Holocaust' lies to this day serve to deflect from an analysis of such crimes. All means are used to hold on to these lies, for example the current Revisionists before German courts cannot defend themselves because of the legal principle of 'Offenkundigkeit - judicial notice', whereby the actual physical issues are not canvassed and tested for truth-content in any trial. The 'Holocaust' happened, and so matters do not have to be re-tested in court. In fact, doing such testing will merely prove that an accused is an 'Überzeugungstäter - a convinced perpetrator, and any verdict in favour of the accused would then set a precedent, which would have ramifications on those thousands of earlier successful prosecutions. The German legal system is indeed in a bind - and so now we witness it moving inexorably into decline as decisions become more abstract and absurd, all for the sake of upholding the 'Holocaust' lies.

[6] Barbara Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die? Report on the Evidence in the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst Zündel, 1988, Samisdat Publishers, Toronto, 1992. Alan M Dershowitz: The Vanishing American Jew. In Search of Jewish Identity for the Next Century. 1997 ISBN 0-316-18133-1. Dershowitz states quite specifically that an actual investigation of eyewitness claims must not be aired in court because the 1988 Zündel trial showed the Revisionists would win the factual argument. Imagine, had we not had the 1988 Zündel trial, then the four million Auschwitz deaths toll would still be on those 20 plaques at Auschwitz-Birkenau, which were removed and re-appeared some years later with the figure 1-1.5 million deaths.

[7] Robert Jan van Pelt, Deborah Dwork: Auschwitz. From 1270 To The Present, 1996, state at p.363-64, that Krema I was merely a symbolic representation of what actually happened at the Birkenau 'homicidal gas chambers', in effect de-commissioning Krema I as a homicidal gas chamber. During my 1997 and 1999 visit to Auschwitz, tourists were still being told Auschwitz-Stammlager, Krema I, was a 'homicidal gas chamber'. For statements that Krema I is still a gas chamber, see: 2.01 'Disparities in Hydrocyanic Compound Levels' at

[8] Prof Arthur Butz, in his 1976 published classic - now 3rd edition by TDP, 2003 - The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, reasoned without visiting the camp that Auschwitz was a labour and transit camp; The Leuchter Report, 1988 and The Rudolf Report, 1993, confirm that no Zyklon-B residual was to be found in the alleged homicidal gas chambers. But as in the Treblinka case below, the Jupp model shows, without a chemical analysis, that it was physically impossible to gas and cremate the number of bodies claimed by the orthodox Auschwitz story. Hence the reduction of alleged killed at Auschwitz after the 1988 Ernst Zündel Toronto trial from four million to 1-1.5 million - but still the claim persists that the total number Jews killed remains at six million! In her 1995 published book, The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism: Keystone of the New World Order, Margaret Stucki, writing under the pseudonym Ben Weintraub, explains how the 6 million is a magic Kabbalistic number, which has incorporated the 'Holocaust' into Judaism, thereby giving it absolute religious significance. Unrelated, but perhaps of interest to those who are looking for overarching principles in internationalist human endeavour, is the world quest to enshrine climate change in law. A first analysis of such mindset is found in Smith, J and Shearman, D: Climate Change Litigation. Analysing the law, scientific evidence & impacts on the environment, health & property. Presidian, Adelaide, 2006.

[9] Raul Hilberg: The Destruction of the European Jews, 1961.

[10] Robert Jan van Pelt, The Pelt Report, David Irving's Defamation action against Deborah Lipstadt, London, 2000.

[11] Former Adelaide resident now living in Melbourne, Australia, 'Holocaust' survivor, Fred Steiner, in 1994 stated at a public meeting at the University of Adelaide: ÒI did not see the gas chambers, but I could smell themÓ. The huge industrial complex that was Auschwitz generated smells, beginning with tannery smells, and those generated by the large Buna synthetic rubber production facilities. Such eyewitness evidence as the above is worthless, and when such witnesses are advised they need more to prove their allegations that gassings occurred at Auschwitz, they usually play on hurt feelings ­ and then the discussion is terminated, sometimes followed by a threat that Ôlegal action will follow this confrontationÕ because the memory of the dead has been defiled.

[12] Carlo Mattogno & France Deana, Operation of the Crematoria at Birkenau; total cremations - section 5.3

[13] Soviet War Crimes report on Auschwitz IMT at Nuremberg 1945, document USSR-008.

[14] Professor Reza Khaji responded to the allegation made in the news item that Iranian universities are recruiting grounds for suicide bombers, and here is the email correspondence on the matter:

Director of Television Australian Broadcasting Corporation ABC Ultimo Centre 700 Harris Street Ultimo 2007 Network TV (02) 8333 1500 Network TV Fax (02) 8333 3055 Dear Sir or Madam, As a Professor of Political Science at the University of Ferdowsi in Mashhad, Iran, I wish to hereby lodge an official complaint regarding the broadcast of the Lateline program on Australian Broadcasting Corporation Television on the 21st February 2006. During this program it was stated in a story by the reporter Mr Tom Iggelton that He [Dr Toben] will be taking the model with him on what he describes as an academic tour of Iran where he will be speaking at Universities recently accused of being recruiting grounds for suicide bombers. We were only recently made aware of this statement from the transcript at this website address:

Both staff and students feel very much insulted and offended to be slurred in this manner and request a written explanation from the management of the ABC to explain this officially published statement. On behalf of the University of Ferdowsi, and indeed all Iranian Universities, I would also request of you to disclose the source(s) on which this statement is based on to allow us to mount a defence against such an accusation. We would appreciate your addressing this matter as soon as possible in order to have it resolved. Sincerely, Dr Reza Khaji Faculty of Political Science University of Ferdowsi Mashhad IRAN ---------------

Dear Dr Kahji Thank you for your email of 1 August 2006, regarding the Lateline story about the visit of Dr Toben to Iran. It is important to understand that the reference to "suicide bombers" being recruited from Iranian universities was made by Dr Toben himself. It is not the view of the ABC. The ABC has a responsibility to report events in an accurate manner, and it has accurately reported the claims of Dr Toben in this report. Dr Toben, as you may be aware, is a controversial academic who was imprisoned in Germany in 1999 for denying the Holocaust. The reporting of his remarks are no different to the reporting of the views of other notable and controversial figures whose ideas the ABC does not share. For example - remarks about Israel by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also included in this report. The reporter, Tom Iggulden, has advised he would be very interested in any information you have regarding Mr Toben's visits to Iran and his activities while there. He said he would be particularly interested in any video footage of his visit that you may be aware of so that we might follow Dr Tobin's activities. Mr Iggulden has expressed a strong desire to challenge Dr Tobin's claims in a follow-up story and, to that end, we are pleased that you are now in contact with the ABC to provide a rebuttal of Dr Toben's allegations. Yours sincerely

Kieran Doyle Senior Liaison Officer Audience and Consumer Affairs

[15]Adolf EichmannÕs memoirs and interrogation at the 1961 Jerusalem Trail stated that about 12,000 Jews were sent to the Auschwitz gas chambers daily, Major Walsh, IMT III document 3311 ­ PS.

[16]US air force air photos surveillance: May 31, 1944 and August 25, 1944. In John Ball, Air Photo Evidence, Ball Resource Services Ltd. Delta/Canada, evidence is presented that proves how forgers had been at work on such photos to suggest there were gas insertion holes in the roof of Krema I - and Krema II.

[17] Germar Rudolf, The Rudolf Report, p. 113; section; Professor Robert FaurissonÕs ÔNo Holes, No HolocaustÕ still remains valid. Interestingly, during my 8 and 10 November 1999 trial at Mannheim, public prosecutor Hans-Heiko Klein mentioned "two gas induction holes at Krema II". During my conversation with him in his office just prior to my arrest on 8 April 1999 I had mentioned that there was a new sign at Krema II where the four gas induction holes had been placed in a single line at the edge of the roof.

[18] Robert Jan van Pelt in The Pelt Report, op. cit. (note 66), p. 135 n. 59: 20 Vr 3806/64 and 27 C Vr 3806/64). Austrian engineer, Walter Lüftl, of course also confirmed this in his Lüftl Report - .

[19] Section 1.2, p 15, The Rudolf Report ­ cyanide gas continues to evaporate slowly from moist objects for hours and days, involving a permanent environmental hazard where sufficient ventilation cannot be assured. C.f. with Markiewicz, et al, 'Expert Opinion: An official Polish report on the Auschwitz "gas chambers"', in: Journal of Historical Review, 11(2), 1991. This report failed to discredit Rudolf's findings that Zyklon-B is not subject to weathering. Germar Rudolf was hunted all over the world and while together with his US wife visiting Immigration at Chicago was arrested on 19 October 2005. Then on 14 November 2005 he was deported by US officials to Germany where he was immediately sent to Stammheim Prison, Stuttgart, to serve the 14 month sentence imposed on him in 1995 for the scientific conclusions he had reached in his research, namely that gassing with Zyklon-B under the described circumstances is for scientific reasons and on account of laws of nature not possible. His new trial for publishing Revisionist material on the Internet began at Mannheim on 14 November 2006.

[20] Dr. M. Niyiszli the pathologist at Birkenau Krema II in his book: Jenseits der MenschlichkeitÓ. Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1992. Translation ­ Beyond Humanity. Also, Rudolf Report, section 4.5.9.

[21] Fritjof Meyer, ÔThe Number of Victims of Auschwitz. New Insights due to new Findings in the ArchivesÕ, Osteuropa, May 2002, ISSN 0030-6428 - translation by Markus Haverkamp, An important excerpt follows:

ÒIn 1945 the Soviet investigative committee counted four million victims of the National Socialist labour and extermination camp Auschwitz-Birkenau - a product of war propaganda. How many people indeed fell victim to this unique mass murder could only be estimated up until now. The first Holocaust historian, Gerald Reitlinger reckoned one million, the latest research estimates several hundred thousand less. Two new documents on the capacity of the crematoria now confirm the extant documents on the internments into the camp. With this, the dimensions of this break with civilization at last move into the realm of the imaginable and thus only now become a convincing portent for future generations. "A key document, which gives information about the capacity of the crematoria of Auschwitz-Birkenau, has now been found. Simultaneously to the length of time for which these were in use, a statement by Rudolf Höß has come to light. In connection with the extant documents, which have to a large extent been ignored, concerning themselves with those who were interned into this camp, it is now possible to calculate more accurately how many people were murdered in Auschwitz. To indicate it in advance: Half a million fell victim to the genocide, 350,000 of those were gassed. ÒOf course the crematoria were not in service permanently, but often broke down. The crematorium II, which had been taken into service on 15 March 1943, was already damaged after nine days, and the repair work only "neared completion" on 18 July. The repair of 20 oven doors of the two big crematoria was ordered on 3 April 1944 and completed only on 17 October. The chimney of crematorium III, which had been in working order since 22 March, already showed cracks on 3 April and was unusable by mid May. After the war, the commandant of the camp, Rudolf Höß, reported: "After a short while, Crematorium III totally broke down and was later not at all used. IV [taken into service on 4 April 1943, F. M.] had to be shut down repeatedly as the chimneys or ovens were burnt out after a short time in service of four to six weeks"; this gives a working time of 509 days for II, 462 days for II, only 50 days for III and 309 days for IV, thus 971 days in 15 muffles and 359 days in 8 muffles. ÒProfessor Van Pelt now delivers the second surprising piece of information when he quotes a Höß statement made during cross-examination before the Cracow court in 1947: "After eight or ten hours of operation the crematoria were unfit for further use. It was impossible to operate them continuously." With the average value of this detail, i.e. nine hours daily operating time, we get with three bodies per muffle 18 cremations daily, in Kremas I & II thus 270, together 540; in Kremas III & IV, 144 each, together 288, therefore a total of 828 per day. The conclusion is simple: during the 971 days of operation, 262 170 bodies in total could be cremated in Kremas I & II; in Kremas III & IV in 359 days a total of 51 696. This makes it a grand total of 313 866 corpses cremated at Birkenau. ÒI cannot enter into the details here that the extant written evidence, namely documents about a refit of Crematoria buildings which were originally not for such a purpose into "gas cellars". Chutes (introduction holes) for throwing the gas in and gas as well as the relevant eye witness statements, rather points towards attempts in March/April 1943 to use the mortuaries for the mass murders, after the crematoria were completed in the early summer of 1943. This obviously failed, because the ventilation was counter-productive, and because the expected mass of victims did not arrive in the following eleven months. The actually perpetrated genocide probably took place mainly in the two converted farmhouses outside the camp; ÒAs far as the capacity is concerned, 350 000 people could have been gassed alone in the "Red House", or "Bunker II", within two years. But not necessarily meant actually killed. Even the establishment of the large crematories in 1943, the rate of murder sank dramatically with their being brought into service, for the period of one year due to an order by Himmler, who terminated the supposed gas murders in the extermination camps along the German-Soviet demarcation line of 1939: Belzec, Sobibôr and Treblinka.Ó

Note Germar RudolfÕs response to Meyer's article in: ÔCautious Mainstream RevisionismÕ, The Revisionist 1(1) (2003), pp. 23-30 - .

[22] Ben Weintraub: The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism: Keystone of the New World Order, Cosmos Publishing, 1995. Although resting on a translation error, prophecy fulfillment demands 6 million fewer Jews will return to the Promised Land, the maxim driving the 'Holocaust' mythology.

[23] When Jupp donated these models to Adelaide Institute, we passed the first to the Iranian research institute, ASRA, Mashhad, and after today I shall hand over the second model to PSR, Tehran, so that this may assist its research students to grapple with ÔHolocaustÕ matters. Jupp is a hobby model builder, and he used information obtained from current conventional ÔHolocaustÕ literature about the campsÕ dimensions. I drew heavily upon his engineering expertise and personal research when preparing todayÕs material, but I must stress that JuppÕs role in all this has been strictly limited to his professional competence, as reflected in his research findings on Auschwitz and Treblinka camps. There is no inference to be made that his work in any way denies the ÔHolocaustÕ or Jewish persecution during World War Two ­ that matter I take upon myself!

[24] Yankel Wiernik: One year in Treblinka, New York, 1945; General Jewish Workers Union of Poland; Document 3311 ­ PS, exhibit USA 293, IMT III, p. 567 to diesel Exhaust carbon monoxide. The general narrative is reproduced in Israel Gutman's (ed) Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, 4 vols, New York, 1990. The original map of Treblinka was drawn from memory by Yankiel Wiernik in his testimony. Years later Yankiel Wiernik built the Treblinka model, exhibited in the Ghetto Fighters' House Holocaust and Jewish Resistance Heritage Museum, Israel.

[25] Nolte, Ernst, Streitpunkte, Propyläen, Berlin 1993, p. 309f.; First Treblinka Trial, September 3, 1965, of Kurt Franz and nine others at the court of Assizes in Düsseldorf, AZ-LG Düsseldorf: II 931638, p. 49 ff.; Second Treblinka Trial, December 22, 1970, of Franz Stangl at the court of Assizes at Düsseldorf, pp. 111 ff., AZ-LG Düsseldorf, XI-148/69 S.

[26] Yitshak Arad: Treblinka camp history; ARC website: TreblinkaÕs Camp History; Mattogno, C, Graf, J: Treblinka. Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?, 2004.

[27] The Düsseldorf Court verdict, 8 I ks 2/64, p. 88.

[28] 27 Jerusalem District Court, Criminal Case 373/86; 700,000 is the figure cited, for example, by the Institut für Zeitgeschichte; the highest figure is given in World Jewish Congress et .al. (eds.), The Black Book - The Nazi Crime against the Jewish People, New York 1946, reprint: Nexus Press, New York 1981, pp. 400ff.

[29] ITM p. 198; the general massacre was to be performed by means of steam.

[30] Auerbach, In the fields of Treblinka, note. 28, p. 70-72. The judgeÕs report became document URSS-344 at the Nuremberg trail submitted by the Soviets.

[31] OSS, Jews were killed by steam, p.198, 14 December 1945, document 3311- PS, Exhibit USA 293.

[32] The Düsseldorf Court verdict 8 I ks 2/64, p. 88, camp area 14 ha, Zdzis?aw ?ukaszkiewicz, ÔObóz zag?ady TreblinkaÕ, in: Biuletyn G?ównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Niemieckich w Polsce, No. 1, Posen 1946, p. 133-144.

[33] Berg, Friedrich P., 'The Diesel-Gas Chambers : Myth within a Myth', Journal of Historical Review, 5(1) 1984. "Although diesel exhaust is relatively harmless, inhaling it is not a pleasant experience. If diesel exhaust were introduced into a large meeting room, it would not take very long before everyone present would feel driven by an overwhelming desire to get out, regardless of how safe he or she were convinced the exhaust really was. But the Diesel exhaust would have given them nothing worse than a headache. For all their efforts they would have had an average concentration of less than 0.4% carbon monoxide and more than 4% oxygen....".

[34] See, among others, Eberhard Jäckel, Peter Longerich, Julius H Schoepps (eds), Enzyklopädie des Holocaust. Die Verfolgung und Ermordung der europäischen Juden, 3 vols., Berlin 1993.

[35] Walendy, Udo: Historische Tatsachen No 12 'Das Recht in dem wir leben', Vlotho, 1982, in: Mattogno, C, Graf, J: Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp, 2004, p. 44: "50 SS-men [incl. 120 Ukrainian Hilfstruppen and 600 Arbeitsjuden] manage, with the assistance of a tank engine, to kill approximately 700,000 people within a year and remove all traces. That is 14,000 per SS-guard ... a total for all 50 of 2,000 per day ... these people still had time to pause for sadistic atrocities and continually invent new ones... Neither attorneys nor experts, jurors, judges 'historians' or newspaper writers have burdened themselves to worry about any of the technical impossibilities that are becoming obvious here ...".

[36] Ibid. In their book, Graf and Mattogno extensively and comprehensively deal with the camp's "historical genesis, inner logic, and technical feasibility ... it is nothing more than an uninterrupted chain of absurdities.", but in a number of European countries such absurdities enjoy legal protection. I wonder how much of this kind of perverse thinking is a result of Talmudic thought patterns that, besides a profit motive, exude hatred and intolerance against anyone who is different, anyone who does not belong to the tribe that considers itself to be 'God's chosen'?

7. Information on persecution - of things to come?

Anyone who wishes to begin a study of this topic is well advised to use any of the Internet search engines, locate Exterminationist and Revisionist websites, then sift through the mountains of material available, ranging from survivor testimony to legal reports and popular media coverage. Then it is advisable logically to employ one's common sense and fearlessly pursue the narratives for or against the extermination thesis. Although decommissioned as a homicidal gas chamber site, I would still advise anyone to visit Auschwitz because there the extermination story is still being told - for how much longer is not easy to assess.

It must be noted that the 'Holocaust-Shoah' story is told by individuals, such as professors Lipstadt and Dershowitz, in a way that when they describe the mindset of 'Holocaust deniers', then they are in fact describing their own mindset. They are the ones consumed by hatred and contempt for the truth - and this hatred is vicious.

Interestingly, in 1993 a New Zealand academic who claims to be Jewish, Joel Hayward, wrote his honours MA thesis on Revisionism wherein he questioned the existence of the gas chambers. He sent me his original copy with the advice that I could use it in any way I liked - subsequently he denied this. I naturally copied it and handed one to each of our Adelaide Institute's associates.

On 31 May 1996, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission - HREOC - received from Jeremy Jones, Executive Council of Australian Jewry, a letter dated 28 May 1996 wherein he lodged a complaint against Adelaide Institute's website, which had just been activated on 1 May 1996. On 10 April 1997 Race Discrimination Commissioner Zita Antonios referred the matter to a hearing because Jones refuses to conciliate. I was facing the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on allegedly operating a racist and antisemitic website, I submitted his thesis as evidence in defence. All hell broke loose - my case stalled and would not progress, because my list of witnesses was dismissed as irrelevant, then the commissioner refused to confirm or deny whether truth was a defence in the proceedings,and finally I refused to attend any further hearings. On 5 October 2000 Commissioner Kath McEvoy handed down her decision, without making any reference to the Hayward thesis. Why not? By this time the Hayward thesis had been officially 'discredited'. How?

In 1999 I was imprisoned for seven months in Germany's Mannheim Prison where Ernst Zündel currently finds himself. After my return home, via a one-week stay in Tehran, Dr Hayward rang me in Adelaide and informed me of his troubles. He would be given the treatment in 2000 when Canterbury University held an enquiry into the granting of his degree. New Zealand's Jews wanted the degree to be downgraded to a BA, not going as far as Germany's University of Göttingen went when in 1983 it revoked the doctorate of Judge Wilhelm Stäglich for his writing in 1979 The Auschwitz Myth - ironically using a law that Adolf Hitler introduced to safeguard academic standards.

The Hayward enquiry condemned the thesis but did not downgrade it, thereby nominally supporting academic freedom. Hayward was crushed - he recanted and said "I stuffed up". In 2003 Canterbury University history lecturer, Canadian Dr Thomas Fudge, who has two PhDs, had been commissioned to write about the Hayward affair for his department's History Now magazine. Again, all hell broke loose and the 500 copies were ordered destroyed - "the book-burning affair" - by department heads. At the end of 2003 Dr Fudge left New Zealand and went to America where his troubles began anew. As he stated in The Press interview of 23 April 2005, "My defence of Joel Hayward has been something that has created some consequences for me. Institutions, in my view, are scared to death of being associated with me because I guess they are afraid of being accused of having some sort of Holocaust-denier in their faculty." American academia is indeed in trouble. I received a request from Baylor University to hand over any information I had on the Fudge matter! Back to my troubles in Australia. On 30 March 2001, Jeremy Jones applied to the Federal Court to have the HREOC decision enforced - not acknowledging that I had indeed done more than the commissioner had asked me to do. I had not only removed the offending articles and passages, I had wiped the whole website and begun again. On 17 September 2002 Justice Catherine Branson adopted the HREOC findings without my having contested the matter in court because I could not get legal representation, and without that it was foolish for me to go on participating in the proceedings. She found against me, and so for the second time I wiped the contents of Adelaide Institute's website and began again. Victorian Civil Liberties' advocates decided I should appeal against the Branson decision, which was heard in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia on 19 May 2003, five days after my father died, and the decision dismissing the appeal was handed down on 27 June 2003. Much like in my German case, the first fact-finding stage is feared by lawyers, but at the appeal stage where it is a matter of law that is contested, there lawyers do not fear becoming involved in a matter. When I informed Justice Branson that I could not get legal representation, she scoffed at me and said that with my tertiary qualifications I could easily read up matters at the university law library. And so for 2006 I enrolled myself at The University of Adelaide law faculty, where I again had the opportunity of meeting up with former HREOC commissioner Kath McEvoy, who is a senior lecturer there. Needless to say I did not pass her subject, Introduction to Australian Law!

During my March 2006 Mashhad visit, an article written by Peter Kohn, 'Ire over Töben's Iran visit' appeared on 3 March in the Australian Jewish News:

'Instead of preaching Holocaust denial in Iran, Adelaide revisionist Dr Fredrick Töben would do well to emulate David Irving, who has recanted his claims that the Shoah never happened, Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) president Grahame Leonard said this week. He was commenting on reports that Dr Töben, of the Adelaide Institute, was planning a trip to Iran to take part in a conference "on the Holocaust myth" being staged by the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The information on the Iran trip was posted on Dr Töben's website last weekend. Irving was sentenced to three years' jail for Holocaust denial in an Austrian court last week. Dr Töben was jailed in Germany in 1999 for spreading Holocaust denial. Meanwhile, the ECAJ is preparing to file an action against German-born Dr Töben in the Federal Court, alleging contempt of the court over his continued posting of Holocaust-denial material on the website of his Adelaide Institute, Leonard said. Dr Töben was ordered by the Federal Court to remove Holocaust-denial material from the site in a landmark ruling in 2002 but the ECAJ claims he has since flouted the court's orders. Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council's director of international and community relations Jeremy Jones says he believed Dr Töben "fits with the Iranian regime's contempt for history, truth and basic civilized norms of discourse".'

The above context clarifies the significance of the Tehran Holocaust Conference, and the following excerpts from a newspaper commentary highlights the fear of those for whom the 'Holocaust-Shoah' is an undisputable historical fact, never to be discussed in open forum. Note how some wish to rescue the 'Holocaust-Shoah' from public discussion by retaining control of any discussion by limiting discourse only to professional historians. However, it is this very fact of professional historians' intellectual and moral cowardice that has enabled the 'Holocaust-Shoah' lobby to turn the subject matter into a taboo topic. The peculiar persistence of Holocaust denial Holocaust denial flies in the face of overwhelming evidence. Yet, decades after the Nazis' crimes, it continues -- and the president of Iran is merely its latest, and highest-profile, advocate. By Arthur Hirsch Sun reporter\May 21, 2006 When a three-day conference in Tehran on the future of the Palestinians ended last month, the few hundred militant leaders and their backers had heard speeches condemning Israel and pledging support for Hamas - but not, as many anticipated, any experts challenging evidence of the Holocaust. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he'd stage a conference of Holocaust skeptics, right around the time he referred to the mass murder of European Jews during World War II as a "myth." Ahmadinejad may be the first president of a country to challenge the Holocaust, allying himself with an array of claims viewed among serious historians in much the same light as the case for a flat Earth. He seemed to soften that a bit during the April meeting, referring to his "serious doubt" that the Nazis killed 5 million to 6 million Jews. If the Iranian president does convene a conference challenging Holocaust evidence - a former Iranian foreign minister said it is still being planned - he'll step into what scholars describe as a parallel universe, an arena of minutiae and semantic gamesmanship where the weight of historical evidence is never so great that it cannot be dismissed with a fine point, even if the point has been willfully or innocently misconstrued. [...] Deborah E. Lipstadt, who teaches modern Jewish and Holocaust studies at Emory University in Atlanta, published one of the early books on the phenomenon in 1993 only after overcoming strong impulses to ignore Irving and others, hoping they would go away. In Denying the Holocaust, she insists deniers are racist extremists who demand attention not for the merit of the ideas but "because of the fragility of reason and society's susceptibility of such farfetched notions. Many powerful movements have been founded by people living in similar irrational wonderlands, national socialism foremost among them." [...] The tendency to see the Holocaust as propaganda aiding Jewish causes has run through this form of extreme "revisionism" at least since the Frenchman Paul Rassinier published The Drama of European Jewry in 1964. The gas chambers, he said, were an invention of the "Zionist establishment." When Ahmadinejad threatens Israel in one breath and in the next calls the Holocaust a "myth," he echoes a familiar song. How it's playing, and what his remarks do for the cause of the likes of Irving, is hard to say. [IHR's Mark] Weber certainly does not seem enthusiastic about the remarks, saying Ahmadinejad is not a historian and should keep these thoughts to himself. Next to the Irving trial outcome, Lipstadt says Ahmadinejad is the deniers' "worst nightmare ... I don't think it helps." Ahmadinejad's intended audience is clearly not the world's academic historians, but Lipstadt figures that his remarks do say something significant about the leader of a country that apparently has serious nuclear aspirations. "Some say he's crazy," says Lipstadt. "I say he's crazy like a fox."

Let's hope the International Tehran Conference 'Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision', will impact on all those fearful people who bend to Jewish pressure, instead of standing up to it, as are Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Hans-Günter Kögel, Horst Mahler, Siegfried Verbeke, Walter Fröhlich, et al, who refuse to recant!

©-free 2006 Adelaide Institute

{end of bulletin 5}

On to the next bulletin in the debate: holocaust-debate06.html.

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

Write to me at contact.html.