Holocaust Revisionism And its Political Consequences Jürgen Graf, January 2001, in Tehran exile

10. The eyewitnesses

Raul Hilberg's standard work about the holocaust contains thousands of references to the author's sources. While Hilberg is able to quote an immense amount of wartime documents attesting the persecution of the European Jews - to wit the anti-Jewish laws enacted by Germany and her allies, and the deportation of large numbers of Jews to the concentration camps -, the few pages dedicated to the description of homicidal gassings are exclusively based upon eyewitness accounts. This is inevitable, for as we already know, there is no material or documentary evidence for the existence of extermination camps and homicidal gas chambers.

We have seen that in the immediate post-war period, there were all kind of eyewitness accounts about mass murder by fire, steam and electricity, about gas chambers at Dachau, Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen and about soap manufactured from the bodies of murdered Jews. The defenders of the holocaust story hate to be reminded of these tales because they prove the total unreliability of eyewitnesses, especially Jewish ones. Two spectacular trials, which were organised to focus the attention of world opinion once more on the holocaust, went wrong and inflicted immense damage to the credibility of Jewish witnesses. In the USA, Frank Walus, a retired factory worker of Polish extraction, was put on trial after the arch-liar Simon Wiesenthal and his gang had accused him of heinous crimes in a German wartime concentration camp. No less than eleven Jewish liars declared under oath that they had personally seen Walus fiendishly torturing and murdering Jewish prisoners. Walus spent all his savings and run into debt to finance his defence. He finally obtained documents from Germany which proved that he had spent the entire war as an agricultural worker on a farm in Bavaria. The accusation broke down, and Walus was acquitted. (Mark Weber, Simon Wiesenthal: Bogus Nazi Hunter, in: Journal of Historical Review, Volume 9, Nr. 4, Winter 1989/1990). John Demjanjuk, an American automobile worker of Ukrainian origin, was extradited to Israel for alleged unspeakable atrocities at the Treblinka camp during the war (of course, his extradition was a flagrant violation of elementary legal principles, as the state of Israel did not yet exist during the Second World War). At the Demjanjuk trial, five Jewish liars swore that they recognised in Demjanjuk "Ivan the terrible" who had cut off the breasts of Jewish women with his sword, split open the bellies of pregnant Jewesses with his sable and personally murdered hundreds of thousands of Jews with exhaust gas from the Diesel engine of a wrecked Russian tank. to the USA. (Hans Peter Rullmann, Der Fall Demjanjuk, Verlag fuer ganzheitliche Forschung, Vioel/Germany 1987.)

But Demjanjuk had never been to Treblinka. He was finally acquitted and could return to the USA.

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

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

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

Vrba: In September 1943 or in January?

Christie: Now, in the book it says January.

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

Christie: But here it says January 1943.

Vrba: Then that's an error.

Christie: An error?

Vrba: Yes.

Christie: But you saw him arrive on this occasion.

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

Christie: Uh-hm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While the physical torture of German prisoners was quite common in the immediate post-war period, the courts of the Federal Republic of Germany resorted to a more subtle strategy to obtain the desired confessions of "Nazi war criminals". The countless trial of such "criminals", who were usually accused of having murdered Jews, played an exceedingly important role in the re-education of the German people. By constantly "proving" the depravity of the National Socialist system, the German "democracy", which suffered from the defect that it had been introduced solely as a result of German defeat in Word War Two, legitimated its own existence. During virtually each of these trials, classes of schoolchildren were dragged into the courtrooms to fill them with shame about the crimes of their fathers and to destroy their national pride and self-respect. Thus, the trials helped to create acceptance for the policies of the German puppet regime which completely subordinated German interests to the ones of the American occupiers.

The trials were invariably held according to the same pattern. Before they began, the accused were reviled in the media as beasts in human shapes. No material or documentary evidence for their crimes was needed, as there were eyewitnesses. These witnesses could lie as impudently as they wanted (at a trial in Aschaffenburg, a witness told the court that the SS used to hold bicycle races in the Birkenau gas chamber between the gassings), they never risked to be accused of perjury, and they knew that the lawyers would be unlikely to ask them embarrassing questions lest they be castigated by the media for torturing the victims of the holocaust again. Under these circumstances, the only chance for a lenient sentence for the accused lay in evading any dispute over the existence of the gas chambers and the mass extermination, while merely denying one's personal guilt, blame everything on people dead, missing or already sentenced. Anyone in a "war crime trial" who disputed the official version of the "holocaust" found himself in a hopeless position. Nobody would believe him, and his "stubbornness" only got him a tougher sentence. This is how to confessions were obtained and evidence for the holocaust created! (Cf. Wilhelm Staeglich, Der Auschwitz Mythos, Grabert Verlag, Tuebingen 1979, and Manfred Koehler's article on the value of holocaust testimonies and confessions in Ernst Gauss, Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, Grabert Verlag, Tuebingen 1994, English version: Dissecting the Holocaust, Theses and Dissertation Press, Capshaw/Alabama 2000.)