In March 2010 the Hungarian parliament adopted an anti-revisionist law making it illegal to dispute the orthodox version of the “holocaust” At the same time, Hungarian nationalist and revisionist Otto Perge suggested a debate on the topic. One of the country’s most prominent “holocaust” scholars, Dr. Laszlo Karsai, accepted the challenge. Having learned this, I contacted Mr. Perge, who fortunately knows English (I neither read nor speak Hungarian) and offered him my assistance, which he accepted. Thereupon I sent him 17 questions for his opponent. Dr. Perge translated them into Hungarian and had them published on the website Kuruc.info. Having read them, Dr. Karsai told Perge that he did not intend to answer these questions, and it is indeed highly improbable that he will.
Questions to Dr. Laszlo Karsai
1) In August 1944, a few weeks after the liberation of the Majdanek concentration camp by the Red Army, a Polish-Soviet commission wrote an “expert report” about the camp in which they claimed that no fewer than 1.5 million prisoners had been murdered there. This document was presented by the Soviets as evidence at the Nuremberg trial. As early as in 1948, Polish historian Zdzislaw Lukaszkiewicz reduced the Majdanek death toll to 360,000. A further reduction took place in 1992 when Polish historian Czeslaw Rajca spoke of 235,000 victims. Another 13 years later, in 2005, Thomas Kranz, director of the research department of the Majdanek museum, stated that 78,000 prisoners had perished in the camp. For a comparison: In their 1998 book KL Majdanek. Eine historische und technische Studie the revisionist authors Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno came to the conclusion that approximately 42,200 people died at Majdanek. So the new figure of the Majdanek museum is still higher by 35,800 than the revisionist one, but lower by 1,422,000 than the one claimed at Nuremberg and lower by 157,000 than the official figure of the Majdanek museum until 2005. – Any comment?
2) In its English language edition, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported on 18 April 2004 that 687,000 Jews who had lived in the countries under German control during the Second World War were still alive at that moment. Consequently, there must have been several million Jews in the same countries in May 1945. How does this figure square with an extermination policy?
3) If the National Socialists had really intended to exterminate the Jews, almost no Jewish concentration camp inmates would have survived. But the “survivor reports” fill whole libraries. Many of these former Jewish prisoners had been transferred from one camp to the other without ever being exterminated. An extreme case is the Polish Jew Samuel Zylberstztain who survived ten camps: The “extermination camp” Majdanek, the “extermination camp” Auschwitz and eight “normal concentration camps” into the bargain. The Austrian Socialist and Jew Benedikt Kautsky spent six years in the camps (Dachau, Buchenwald, Auschwitz, and again Buchenwald) before being liberated in spring 1945. The Jew and anti-Nazi resistance fighter Arno Lustiger is “a survivor of the concentration and extermination camps” (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 27 April 1995). The newspaper did not reveal which “extermination camps” Lustiger had been interned in, but he cannot have been exterminated in any of them, because he was still very much alive in 1995. These examples can be multiplied. How does this square with the assertion that the aim of the German leadership was the physical annihilation of the Jews?
4) According to the “Holocaust” story, from spring 1942 at Auschwitz all Jews unable to work were gassed upon arrival without previous registration. If this assertion were true, no names of old Jews or Jewish children would figure in the Sterbebücher of Auschwitz. But a study of these documents, which were published in printed form in 1995, reveals that many old Jews and Jewish children were registered at Auschwitz:
– 2 Jews over 90 years of age;
– 73 Jews from 80 to 90 years of age;
– 482 Jews from 70 to 80 years of age;
– 2,083 Jews from 60 to 70 years of age;
– 2,584 Jews from 0 to 10 years of age.
Considering these statistics, how can one seriously claim that Jews unfit to work were gassed without registration at Auschwitz?
5) The documents of the Auschwitz camp administration show that there were 85,298 inmates at the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp on 31 December 1943. No fewer than 19,699, i.e. more than 20%, belonged to the category “unfit to work.” Why were these “useless eaters” not exterminated, as the “Holocaust” legend claims?
6) On 27 July 1944 the administration of the Auschwitz camp compiled a statistics about the prisoners “temporarily quartered in the camp of the Hungarian Jews.” The document shows that until that date 3,138 Hungarian Jews had received medical treatment at the camp hospital. 1,426 of them had undergone surgical operation. According to the “Holocaust” story, a huge number of Hungarian Jews were gassed at Auschwitz between 15 May and 9 July 1944. While not a single of these alleged gas chamber murders is confirmed by a German document, the medical treatment of 3,138 Hungarian Jews at Auschwitz until 27 July is indeed documented. What conclusions will a logically thinking person draw from these bare facts?
7) As Polish historian Henryk Swiebocki has documented, 11,246 prisoners underwent surgical operations at Auschwitz between 10 September 1942 and 23 February 1944. What kind of “extermination camp” was this where more than 11,000 prisoners were not only not exterminated, but operated on in a period of just 18 months?
8) Mainstream “Holocaust” historians are unable to present even a shred of documentary evidence for the alleged “gassing” of Hungarian Jews between May and July 1944. The whole accusation rests on “eyewitness testimony.” Two of the most prominent “witnesses” to these alleged mass murders are the Hungarian Jew Miklos Nyiszli and the Slovak Jew Filip Müller. In his book about Auschwitz, which first appeared in Hungarian in 1946 and later was translated into German, English, and French, Nyiszli claims that 20,000 people were gassed and burned every day in the Auschwitz crematoria, and that another 6,000 people were shot or burned alive every day in the nearby forest. In his 1979 book Sonderbehandlung, Filip Müller describes how he had to undress the bodies of the gassed Jews in the gas chamber. Once he found a piece of cake in the pocket of one of the victims, which he devoured greedily. As Müller cannot have devoured this cake with his gas mask donned, we cannot but conclude that he was immune to Prussic acid. Müller states furthermore that three bodies were simultaneously burned in a crematoria muffle within 15 minutes. In 1975 a group of British cremation experts came to the conclusion that the minimum duration of the cremation of an adult corpse in a crematoria muffle is 63 minutes, so Müller’s figure is nine times too high. Do you consider Nyiszli and Müller credible witnesses? If you don’t, could you please name a credible witness to the gassing of the Hungarian Jews, and could you quote his testimony, so that we can analyze it?
9) According to the French Jew Georges Wellers, the number of Hungarian Jews gassed at Birkenau between May and July 1944 amounted to 409,640, while leading Jewish “Holocaust” historian Raul Hilberg contents himself with “over 180,000.”
Where were the bodies of the victims cremated? In order to clarify this question, we have to take into account the following facts:
a) At the time, there were four crematoria in Birkenau (Krema II, III, IV, and V; crematorium I at the main camp Auschwitz I had been inactive since July 1943).
b) Crematoria II and III had 15 muffles each, crematoria IV and V 8 muffles each. So the 4 crematoria had altogether 46 muffles.
c) If we assume that the incineration of a body in a muffle took 60 minutes, that the crematoria were active 20 hours per day, and that they functioned perfectly during the whole period (a rather unrealistic assumption!), they could thus burn 920 corpses a day. In order to allow for the presence of children’s bodies, we will increase this figure to 1000.
d) In the 55 days between 15 May and 9 July, the crematoria could thus theoretically incinerate 55,000 bodies. If Wellers’ figure of murdered Hungarian Jews is correct, there were therefore (409,000 – 55,000 =) 354,000 unburned human bodies at Birkenau after 9 July. If Hilberg’s figure is accurate, there were still (180,000 – 55,000 =) 125,000 unburned corpses. The “Holocaust” historians cannot claim that these bodies were burned after 9 July, because according to them, the gassings continued until late October 1944, albeit on a lesser scale. Furthermore, the bodies of prisoners who had died from natural causes at Auschwitz-Birkenau had to be incinerated too. So how did the Germans make these mountains of corpses disappear?
10) Based on the declaration of “eyewitnesses,” such as Filip Müller and Szlama Dragon, the “Holocaust” historians claim that the corpses of the gassed Hungarian Jews were partially burned in huge ditches near the crematoria. During that critical period Birkenau was photographed several times by allied planes. None of these pictures show any “incineration pits” or large open fires. How do you explain this fact?
11) Two German wartime documents quoted by Carlo Mattogno in one of his articles definitely prove that the morgues of the Birkenau crematoria were not used as homicidal gas chambers, as the official historians claim. On 20 July 1943 SS physician Dr. Wirths asked the Central Construction Office of Auschwitz to set up provisional morgues in several sectors of the Birkenau camp. At that time, the bodies of prisoners who had died in the camp were stored in wooden sheds before being taken to the crematoria. As Birkenau was infested with rats, these rodents were attracted by the bodies and feasted on them. In his letter Dr. Wirths stated that the rats were the carriers of flees which could spread plague, and an outbreak of this disease would have dire consequences for the staff and the prisoners. On 4 August 1943 Karl Bischoff, chief of the Central Construction Office, answered that no provisional morgues were needed, as the corpses of deceased prisoners would henceforth be taken to the crematoria twice a day. This proves that the morgues of the crematoria could be used as such any time and were not used as homicidal gas chambers.
In May 1944 the problem arose again. On the 22th of that month the new chief of the Central Construction Office of Auschwitz, Jothann, wrote a letter in which he stressed that the corpses of prisoners who had died in the camp would be removed every morning, so that there was no need for the construction of provisional morgues. Jothann did not state explicitly that the corpses would be taken to the crematoria, but the context allows for no other explanation. The date of this letter is especially important. According to Danuta Czech’s Kalendarium, 62,000 Hungarian Jews were deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau between 17 and 22 May 1944, 41,000 of them were “gassed without registration,” which means that the morgues of the crematoria must have been used as gas chambers day and night during the whole period. How could any bodies of prisoners who had died from natural causes during the same time be stored in these same morgues?
12) On 27 January 1945 Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army. The Soviet soldiers found 8,000 prisoners whom the Germans had left behind, because they were too weak to be evacuated with the others. On 2 February the Soviet daily Pravda published an article by the well-known Soviet-Jewish war correspondent Boris Polevoi entitled “The Death Factory at Auschwitz.” In this article, Polevoi spoke of a conveyor belt on which prisoners were killed by means of electric current. This conveyor belt was never heard of again. Polevoi also mentioned “gas chambers,” but located them neither at Birkenau nor at the main camp Auschwitz I, but in the “east” of Auschwitz, were nobody has located them either before or after him. How do you explain that:
a) the Germans had not killed these 8,000 weak prisoners as “useless eaters;”
b) that the Germans, who allegedly destroyed the evidence of their genocidal crimes, allowed 8,000 witnesses to survive so that they could tell the world what they had seen;
c) that the witnesses did not tell Polevoi about crimes they had seen but about crimes they could not have seen, as there was neither an electrified conveyor belt at Auschwitz, nor were they gas chambers in the eastern sector of the camp?
13) Can you adduce any documentary evidence proving that even a single Jew was killed in a gas chamber in any National Socialist concentration camp? If your answer is yes, please quote this document and publish a copy in the internet, so that we can analyze it together.
14) Are you ready to sign an appeal for an international expert commission, consisting of historians, architects, engineers, chemists, cremation experts, and air photo specialists, to evaluate the evidence for the alleged mass murders at Auschwitz and to publish their results in a detailed report? If your answer is yes, let us formulate the text of this appeal together!
15) According to the official version of the events, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka were extermination camps where a huge number of Jews were murdered by engine exhausts. But during the war and in the immediate post-war period completely different reports were spread about what transpired in these camps. Here is a concise (and incomplete) list of the extermination techniques allegedly used in these camps:
Belzec: – Quicklime in trains
– An electrified plate in a huge underwater basin
Sobibor: – A black substance poured into the chamber through holes in the ceiling
Treblinka: – A mobile gas chamber moving along mass graves, discharging corpses into them
– Lethal gasses with a retarded effect allowing the victims to walk to the mass graves before swooning and falling into the graves
– Pumping the air out of the chambers
Any comment? (Please do not argue that it was impossible during the war to ascertain how the victims were killed; as late as December 1945, more than half a year after the end of the war, it was claimed at the Nuremberg trial that steam had been used at Treblinka to kill “hundreds of thousands” of Jews.)
16) According to “Holocaust” literature, the Sobibor “extermination camp” had a “gassing building” containing first three and later six gas chambers. This building was about 18 m long and was made of concrete. How do you explain that two teams of qualified archeologists, the first one headed by Prof. Andrzej Kola of the University of Torun, the second one by Israeli archeologists I. Gilead and Y. Haimi and Polish archeologist W. Mazurek, were unable to find any trace of this building despite extensive digging and drilling on the territory of the former camp of Sobibor?
17) When the Germans found the bodies of over 4,000 Polish officers murdered by the Soviets at Katyn, they invited experts from several countries to inspect the site of the crime and to carry out autopsies. They then published a detailed forensic report about the massacre. They did the same thing after discovering the bodies of over 8,000 Ukrainians shot by the Bolshevists at Vinnitsa before the war. Do you know of any similar forensic reports published by the Soviets about mass graves containing the bodies of Jews who had been murdered by the Germans on the Eastern front? (I do not claim that no such reports exist, I simply do not know any, and I would like you to help me. In his enormous three volume study The Destruction of the European Jews Raul Hilberg does not quote a single such report, which ought to make us pause, to say the least.)
The following text was published on the website kuruc.info on 28 April, 2010
Answers to Dr. Laszlo Karsai’s arguments
By Jürgen Graf
“Serious historians do not accept the revisionist arguments. They regard them as absurd.”
In Austria, revisionist poet Gerd Honsik was sentenced to five years in prison, revisionist engineer Wolfgang Fröhlich (who specialized in the use of gas to eradicate vermin and microbes and repeatedly pointed out the technical impossibility of the alleged mass gassings with Zyklon B) to six years. In Germany, the schoolteacher Günter Deckert spent five years behind bars, the writer Udo Walendy more than four years, the chemist Germar Rudolf three years and eight months, the revisionist activist Ernst Zündel five years. The revisionist lawyer Sylvia Stark got a prison term of three years and three months, Horst Mahler was sentenced to almost thirteen years in jail for his revisionist writings and utterances. How many historians will be prepared to risk not only the abrupt end of their career, but stiff prison terms, for the sake of historical truth? Very few indeed!
It is true that many countries, such as the USA and Britain, do not have anti-revisionist laws, but even there a revisionist historian teaching at a university or a school would immediately become free game for Jewish and left-wing organizations, plus for the media, and he would most probably lose his job.
The fact that the supporters of the official “holocaust” story depend on repressive laws, censorship, and intimidation to defend their version of the events clearly shows that these people have something to hide. Only a free debate can show which side is right (or at least closer to the truth). However, the mainstream “holocaust” historians and the media shun such a discussion. In Hungary, Dr. Laszlo Karsai, who at first had accepted a debate with the revisionist Otto Perge, immediately threw in the towel after receiving Mr. Perge’s questions. By the way, no one could have done better than Dr. Karsai. If leading Jewish “holocaust” historian Raul Hilberg, who passed away in 2008, were still alive, he could not answer these questions either, because they are based on solid facts. An old adage says: Facts are tyrants, they tolerate no dissent.
“In a speech delivered in the Reichstag on 30 January 1939, Adolf Hitler predicted that the effect of a new war would be the annihilation of the Jewish race.”
In today’s language, “annihilation” is a synonym for “physical liquidation.” But if we analyze Hitler’s writings and speeches, we discover that he often used the word “annihilation” (“Vernichtung”), as well as the word “extermination” (“Ausrottung”), in the sense of “depriving someone of his power.” An example from Mein Kampf clearly illustrates this point. In this book, Hitler wrote that in the Hapsburg monarchy the German population had been threatened by “langsame Ausrottung” (“slow extermination”). Did Hitler insinuate that Austrian emperor Franz Josef planned to gas or to shoot all 10 million Austrians of German nationality? Of course not; he simply feared that in the multi-national Hapsburg empire the Germans would gradually lose their dominating position to the Slavs.
Hitler’s speech from 30 January 1939 is often quoted in “holocaust” literature, so it is not surprising that Dr. Karsai uses it to “prove” that Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews. Unfortunately, the “holocaust” historians always “forget” to quote the continuation of Hitler’s speech, and Dr. Karsai is no exception, so we shall quote it ourselves:
“The times where the non-Jewish peoples were defenseless in the field of propaganda are gone. National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy now have institutions which in case of necessity enable them to enlighten the world about the essence of a question of which many peoples are instinctively conscious, but lack scientific knowledge.”
So the “annihilation” of the Jews simply meant the enlightenment of the non-Jewish nations about the Jewish peril!
“On 27 March 1942, Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary that ‘barbaric methods,’ which he preferred not to describe, were used against the Jews, and that 60% of them would be liquidated; the other 40% would be used for labor.”
No revisionist has ever been able to furnish a satisfactory explanation for this passage. But let us compare it with what Goebbels wrote in the same diary only 20 days earlier, on 7 March 1942:
“There are about 11 million Jews in Europe [a heavily inflated figure!]. Later it will be necessary to concentrate them in the East. After the war some island such as Madagascar can be assigned to them.”
The deportation of the European Jews to Madagascar was not Dr. Goebbel’s brainchild. The so-called “Madagascar plan” was taken very seriously by the National Socialist leadership, but finally abandoned as unworkable. Now, mainstream “holocaust” historians may argue that the German government dropped this plan between 7 and 27 March and decided to exterminate the Jews instead. This would explain the discrepancy between the two diary entries. However, this argument would be untenable for the following reason: According to the “holocaust” story, the first “extermination camp,” Chelmno, started to function as early as in December 1941. Since it is unthinkable that a local commander would have set up an “extermination camp” without an order from the highest authorities, an extermination policy must already have existed in late 1941, if the claims about Chelmno are correct (which the revisionists dispute). Being one of the leading figures of the Third Reich, Dr. Goebbels would of course have known about such an extermination policy, so how do the “holocaust” historians explain the fact that he spoke of the concentration of the Jews in the East and advocated assigning them Madagascar (or another island) as late as on 7 March 1942?
Let’s sum up: While the revisionists are unable to explain the second entry in Goebbels’ diary, the “holocaust” historians are at a loss to explain the first one! It is unlikely that this mystery will ever be solved.
“In a letter to Franz Rademacher, the chief of the ‘Judenreferat’ in the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Adolf Eichmann wrote that the Serbian Jews should be shot.”
In Serbia, the partisan movement was very active; this created huge problems for the occupying powers (Germany and Italy). As a reprisal for attacks by the partisans, the German and Italian armies frequently shot hostages, among them many Jews (because the percentage of Jews in the resistance movement was particularly high).
On 8 September 1941, the German plenipotentiary in Belgrade, Felix Benzler, sent a telegram to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which he stated that the Serbian Jews were involved in numerous acts of sabotage and rebellion. For this reason, the “removal” (Entfernung) of the male Jews (about 8,000) was a necessity. It would be advisable to deport them to an island in the Danube Delta, on Romanian territory.
On 11 September 1941, Martin Luther of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs answered that the expulsion of the Jews to Romania was not desirable. Benzler should take the necessary measures to have these Jews interned in labor camps. On the following day, Benzler sent yet another telegram to Berlin, in which he objected that this solution was not feasible for security reasons because the labor camps constituted a threat to the German troops. For this reason, the labor camp Sabac would have to be dissolved, as it was situated in a combat zone and surrounded by thousands of rebels. In case his request to have the Jews deported to Romania was again rejected, they would have to be expelled to the General Government or to Russia.
Franz Rademacher, chief of the “Judenreferat” at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then called Eichmann and asked him for advice, whereupon he summarized the results of their discussion: According to Eichmann, the deportation of the Jews to the General Governement or Russia was impossible; Eichmann suggested shooting them.
On 2 October, Joachim Ribbentrop, minister of foreign affairs, decided to contact Himmler in order to ascertain if he could take care of 8,000 Serbian Jews, deporting them to East Poland or somewhere else. On 25 October Rademacher summarized the negotiations which had ensued: The male Jews would be shot. As to the remaining 20,000 Serbian Jews (women, children, and old people), they would be evacuated by ship to the camps in the east (“auf dem Wasserwege in die Auffanglager im Osten abgeschoben”).
What conclusions can we draw from these documented facts?
– In Serbia a large number of Jews were indeed shot.
– These shootings were not part of a policy which aimed at the total destruction of the Jews because of their race and/or religion, but a brutal and excessive reaction to the activity of the partisans, among whom there were numerous Jews.
– The shooting of the male Serb Jews was preceded by long discussions, during which less brutal measures were suggested (and finally rejected).
– Jewish women and children, as well as old Jews, were not killed.
“Paul Wurm wrote a letter to Franz Rademacher in which he stated that the Jews would be murderd ‘with special methods.’”
On 23 October 1941 one Paul Wurm, a member of the Anti-Jewish World League, wrote to Franz Rademacher:
“On my journey home to Berlin, I met an old party comrade who is working on the solution of the Jewish question in the East. In the near future, much of the Jewish vermin will be annihilated by special measures.”
It should be pointed out that this is not an official document. Paul Wurm, who was a complete nonentity and had no influence whatsoever on the policy of the German leadership, did not even mention the name of the “old party comrade” to whom he owed this piece of information! Under these circumstances, his letter proves very little.
Of course, this does not mean that no Jews were killed on the Eastern front; no revisionist has ever made such an absurd assertion. The revisionists basically contest two things:
1) That there was a policy to kill all Jews because of their race and/or religion.
2) That the number of Jews shot in the East was even remotely as high as mainstream “holocaust” historians argue (2.2 million according to H. Krausnick and H. H. Wilhelm, 1.3 million according to R. Hilberg).
Since there are no reliable documents (as we will see later, the Einsatzgruppen reports are highly suspect), the real number cannot be determined with any degree of accuracy, unless new evidence becomes available.
“Why was Jewish emigration from the countries under German control forbidden in October 1941? Obviously because the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews!”
Had the Jews been allowed to emigrate, they would of course have supported the allied war effort as soldiers, technicians, and scientists. This was hardly in the interest of the Germans.
“French priest Patrick Desbois has located more than 600 mass graves with murdered Jews in Ukraine. This is hard evidence for the reality of the holocaust.”
In order to judge the value of Patrick Desbois’ book about the “holocaust by bullets,” we can do no better than quote what Prof. Robert Faurisson has written under the headline “Father Desbois is one hell of a prankster”:
“The alleged mass graves have not been dug open and never will be. […] The people claiming to have discovered the ‘mass graves’ have not, in reality, carried out any excavations, hence no inventory of remains, no verification, forensic or physical or material certification of the standard, compulsory kind made in the inquest following the discovery of even a single corpse or skeleton. No police or justice official has been to any of the sites to do any examination whatsoever. […] Two Jewish associations […] have gone about gathering ‘testimonies’ […] Ukrainian villagers, mustered for the occasion, are filmed giving their accounts from which, subsequently, only choice bits will be picked. […] But, coming back to those alleged mass graves, how is the value of testimony to be assessed if the material reality of the facts has not been established beforehand?”
“The Einsatzgruppen used gas vans to kill huge numbers of Jews on the Eastern front.”
Nobody has ever been able to prove that even one person, Jew or non-Jew, was killed by the Germans in a gas van. No such vehicle has ever been found. The vast body of “holocaust” literature does not contain a single photograph of such a van, or a blueprint for it. (The only exception is Gerald Fleming’s book Hitler und die Endlösung, which shows a picture of a lorry allegedly used as a gas van. But as an anti-revisionist researcher, Jerzy Halberstadt, has pointed out, the vehicle shown by Fleming was found in November 1945 on the territory of a Polish factory and thereupon examined by a Polish war crime commission, which came to the conclusion that it had not been used for homicidal purposes, but only to transport furniture.)
Mainstream “holocaust” historians often quote two documents which allegedly prove the use of gas van for the killing of Jews. As the German Ingrid Weckert and the Frenchman Pierre Marais have demonstrated that these documents are grotesque forgeries. According to the first of them, the “Becker document,” these vans could only circulate in good weather and became absolutely useless as soon as it started to rain! The alleged author of this ridiculous document, purportedly a German officer, describes how he had to bribe other Germans to obtain the necessary spare parts for these murder vans! In this case, the forgery is so blatant that E. Kogon, H. Langbein, and A. Rückerl did not dare to include this “piece of evidence” in their well-known “documentation” Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas (“National Socialist Mass Killings by Poison Gas”). But the second “documentary evidence,” the “Just document,” which is teeming with technical absurdities, is just as preposterous.
If Dr. Karsai persists in his claim that the Germans used homicidal gas vans for the murder of Jews, we think he is obliged to tell us where we can see one of these vehicles. If he cannot do this, let him at least show us a German wartime blueprint of it, or a document proving the use of such vans – a genuine document, please, and not a third-rate fake!
“The amount of Zyklon B delivered to Auschwitz was too large to be used exclusively for delousing procedures.”
No, it wasn’t. In 1942, 7,500 kg of Zyklon B were delivered to Auschwitz, in 1943, 12,000 kg. (The amount for 1944 is not known.) Auschwitz was infested with lice, the carriers of the extremely dangerous typhus disease, which was the main cause of the frighteningly high mortality at the camp. Hundreds of barracks and a large number of workshops had to be deloused regularly, and Auschwitz had about 30 satellite camps.
A report written on 22 July 1943 by SS-Untersturmführer Johann Schwarzhuber, the Schutzhaftlagerführer of the male section of the Birkenau camp, demonstrates the extent of the use of Zyklon B for disinfestation:
“By mid-May 1943, the old male camp in Birkenau, B 1 b, was nearly free from lice and – with a few exceptions – also free from typhus. This could only be reached by the daily use of the delousing installation. Starting in mid-May, the whole gipsy camp plus the straw sacks, woolen blankets, underwear and clothes form the female camp were deloused too.”
By the way, Jean-Claude Pressac, who was once hailed by the media as the leading Auschwitz expert, wrote that 97 to 98% of the Zyklon B delivered to Auschwitz were used for delousing procedures and only 2 to 3% for homicidal gassings. In view of the fact that the difference between 100% and 97-98% is statistically insignificant, even according to Pressac the amount of Zyklon B delivered to the Auschwitz camp does not prove that some of it was used to kill human beings.
“The Leuchter report contains many mistakes. The fact that Leuchter did not find significant concentrations of ferrocyanides in the walls of the Auschwitz gas chambers is irrelevant, because ferrocyanides dissolve as a result of rain, snow, wind etc.”
Yes, the Leuchter report indeed contains a certain number of errors. They can at least partially be explained by the fact that Leuchter had to write his report in a great hurry. It was to be presented at the trial of Ernst Zündel in Toronto, which then (April 1988) was approaching its end. But many of Leuchter’s results were basically confirmed by Germar Rudolf in a much more scientific study.
Dr. Karsai’s assertion that ferrocyanides dissolve as a result of rain, snow, wind etc. is incorrect. In his above-mentioned report Rudolf quotes expert literature proving that these cyanides are well-known for their extraordinary stability. They dissolve about as slowly as the walls which contain them. We advise Dr. Karsai to have a look at the gas chambers of Majdanek (which were authentic Zyklon B gas chambers, but only used for the eradication of insects, as revisionist researchers Carlo Mattogno and Jürgen Graf have shown in their book about the Majdanek camp). The walls of these rooms are still covered with blue stains. The same is true of the delousing chambers in Bauwerk 5a of Auschwitz-Birkenau. (No one has ever alleged that human beings were gassed in this building.) On the other hand, there are no blue stains whatsoever on the walls of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz I (the morgue of Krematorium I) and Birkenau (the morgue of Krematorium II).
“The Nazis killed more than 200,000 mentally disabled people in the frame of their ‘euthanasia’ action, which proves that they did not shrink from mass killings. Many of the men who had taken part in the euthanasia program were later employed in the camps of Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka. This is strong evidence that these camps were murder factories.”
While the figure of 200,000 euthanasia victims is certainly inflated, the euthanasia program itself is indeed an indisputable fact.
In Sobibor. Holocaust Propaganda and Reality, a book authored by Jürgen Graf, Thomas Kues, and Carlo Mattogno and scheduled to appear in the USA in May or June 2010, the question why certain men who had been involved in the euthanasia program were later stationed in the above-mentioned three camps is discussed in detail. Although they cannot adduce documentary evidence, the authors think that a certain number of Jews (the mentally ill and people suffering from infectious diseases) were killed in these three camps, probably by lethal injection. In Germany, euthanasia had been stopped, after Catholic bishop Clemens von Galen and Lutheran bishop Theophil Wurm had protested against this practice, but in occupied Poland, the German authorities did not have to heed possible protests from the church or other institutions. From the National Socialist point of view it would have been meaningless to send mentally ill Jews, or Jews with infectious diseases, to the Eastern territories, as the Germans did with the other Jews deported to the Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka. (As a matter of fact, these three camps were transit camps; see the following question.)
“Large numbers of Jews were sent to the camps of Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka. Where did these Jews go if they were not gassed?”
After the German leadership had abandoned the Madagascar plan, it pursued a new policy: The European Jews were to be resettled in the occupied Soviet territories. On 10 February 1942 Franz Rademacher wrote a letter to envoy Harald Bielfeld of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which he stated:
“The war against the Soviet Union has meanwhile opened up the possibility of providing other territories for the final solution. The Führer has decided accordingly that the Jews will not be deported to Madagascar but to the East. Hence, Madagascar need no longer be considered for the final solution.”
This clearly shows that the “final solution” was a territorial one!
The construction of the transit camps Belzec, Treblinka, and Sobibor must be seen in this context:
– On 17 March 1942 Fritz Reuter, an employee in the Department of Population Matters at the office of the General Governor for the Lublin district, wrote a memorandum on a conversation he had had the day before with SS-Hauptsturmführer Julius Höfle. According to this memorandum, Höfle had explained that “Jews unfit for work” would all be taken to Belzec, “the outmost border station in Zamosc county.” 4 to 5 transports of 1,000 Jews each would be “taken across the border and would never return to the General Government.”
– On 13 August 1942 SS general Karl Wolff wrote to Albert Ganzenmüller of the Reichsbahn, who had previously informed him that since 22 July there had been a daily train with 5,000 Jews from Warsaw to Treblinka, that he was very glad to learn that the Germans were now able “to accelerate this population transfer.”
– On 5 July 1943 Himmler ordered the “transit camp Sobibor” to be converted into a concentration camp.
The mainstream “holocaust” historians expect us to believe that the National Socialist leadership used a “coded language” even in their private correspondence, and that expressions such as “be taken across the border,” “transit camp,” and “population transfer” were euphemisms for “physical extermination.” This claim is ridiculous beyond comment. To back up their monstrous fantasies about chemical slaughterhouses where huge numbers of Jews were gassed (in the case of Belzec and Treblinka with Diesel exhaust, although it is generally known that Diesel exhaust, which contains a high amount of oxygen and very low quantities of carbon monoxide, is relatively harmless), these historians can present no better evidence than grotesque “eyewitness testimony.” That the witnesses contradict each other on just about everything and that there reports are teeming with absurdities does not seem to bother these splendid scholars at all.
The whole gassing story hinges on the existence of the gas chamber buildings described by the self-styled “eyewitness.” Between 1997 and 2000, a highly qualified Polish archeologist, Prof. Andrzej Kola, performed extensive excavations and drillings on the territory of the former camps Belzec and Sobibor. He was unable to find the slightest trace of the alleged gas chamber buildings, which definitely settles the matter.
The authors of the above-mentioned book Sobibor. Holocaust Propaganda and Reality adduce solid evidence for the presence of French, Belgian, Dutch, and other Western Jews in the occupied Eastern territories during the war. Two examples will suffice here:
– During the German wartime occupation of Lithuania, the Jew Herman Kruk kept a Yiddish-language diary which was later translated into English. In his entry of 16 April 1943 Kruk mentioned the presence of 19,000 Dutch Jews in the Lithuanian town of Vievis. On 20 April 1943, he wrote that furniture belonging to Dutch Jews had been brought to the local workshops for repair and that Dutch documents had been found in the drawers. As there is no reason on earth why Kruk should have made up this story, this proves that Dutch Jews allegedly gassed at Auschwitz and Sobibor were transferred to Lithuania (mainstream “holocaust” literature knows nothing about Dutch Jews in the Eastern territories).
– In April 1944 the communist French underground newspaper Notre Voix reported that 8,000 Jews from Paris had been “rescued” by the Red Army in Ukraine. According to “holocaust” literature, the only French Jews ever deported to the East went to Estonia and Lithuania in May 1944, so the Parisian Jews found in the Ukraine in April 1944 must by necessity have gone there via Auschwitz. In the “holocaust” statistics, they figure as “gassed people.”
Now, the supporters of the orthodox “holocaust” story will ask why there are no German documents about railway transports of these Jews to the occupied Eastern Territories and about Jewish settlements in the East. Furthermore they will ask what happened to those of the deported Jews who survived the harsh wartime conditions. To these questions the revisionists can only oppose a hypothesis, but a reasonable and well-founded one:
For several reasons, the victorious allies decided to continue propagating the Jewish extermination story after the war. First of all, this enabled them to excuse their own crimes, such as the terror bombing of the German cities or the inhumane expulsion of more than 15 million civilians from East Germany and the Sudetenland, by accusing the vanquished of far worse atrocities. But there were other, even more important reasons. By charging Germany with an unparalleled crime, the victors hoped to crush the national spirit of the German people and to prevent any resurgence of German nationalism. Finally the “holocaust” story prepared the ground for the foundation of the State of Israel, which both the USA and the Soviet Union wholeheartedly supported. (In view of the communist sympathies of many Jews, Stalin undoubtedly hoped that Israel would become a Soviet bulwark in the Near East; as the further developments showed, this hope was illusionary.) Now, if the Jewish extermination story was to be believed, the documents about the transfer of the Jews to the East had to disappear. For the victorious powers it was certainly not difficult to destroy, or to hide, some piles of paper.
The number of the Jews transferred to the occupied Soviet territories was about 1.9 million (for details see the above-mentioned book Sobibor. Holocaust Propaganda and Reality). A clear majority of them were Polish Jews. The authors of the book assume that the Soviet prevented the deportees who had survived the grim wartime conditions from returning to their homelands after 1945.
“What happened to the Jews if they were not gassed? After the war, most Eastern European Jews were gone.”
There are only two detailed studies about Jewish population losses during World War II. In 1983 the revisionist Walter Sanning wrote The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, in which he came to the conclusion that the number of Jewish victims amounted to about 300,000. Eight years later Walter Benz edited an anthology entitled Dimension des Völkermords; according to his statistics, between 5.29 and 6.01 million Jews perished as a result of National Socialist persecution.
Sanning’s book is far from perfect. He ignores a vital German wartime document, the Korherr report, and puts too much trust in the statements of a Soviet Jewish propagandist, David Bergelson, who had claimed that 80% of the Jews in the Soviet territories later conquered by the Germans had been evacuated and thus “saved.” The real number of the evacuees was most probably much lower. Sanning’s own figure of 300,000 Jewish victims is certainly too low. Such obvious shortcomings notwithstanding, Sanning’s book is still the most serious one about the question, whereas the Benz book is utterly fraudulent.
In an article comparing Sanning and Benz, Germar Rudolf has demonstrated the methods used by the swindler Benz and his team to corroborate the official “holocaust” statistics:
– For Benz and his team, every Jew who died during World War II was a “holocaust victim.” So if a Jewish soldier of the Red Army was killed in combat, or if a Jew evacuated to Siberia before the arrival of the German troops died from cold or starvation, he was a victim of National Socialist racism!
– As everybody knows, numerous territories in Eastern Europe changed their owners during World War II. In most cases, Benz and his team count Jews who (really or allegedly) perished in these territories twice, as citizens of state A and as citizens of state B! Thanks to this cheap trick, Benz gains over 500,000 “exterminated Jews.”
– Benz virtually ignores the vast post-war Jewish emigration to Palestine, the U.S., and numerous other countries (unlike Sanning, who treats this fundamental question in great detail).
– The fact that most Jews had vanished from Eastern Europe after the war was not only due to war, persecution, and emigration. Many Polish, Soviet, etc., Jews disappeared in the statistics. The years after World War Two saw a rapid acceleration of Jewish assimilation. In the USSR, every citizen could himself chose what nationality he wanted to belong to, so in the postwar population census many Jews, who did not feel any emotional ties to the creed of their ancestors, simply called themselves “Russians,” “Ukrainians” etc. As we see, very much depends on the definition of the word “Jew.”
For this simple reason, official population statistics cannot help us to ascertain the real magnitude of Jewish losses. A more rational method consists in calculating how many Jews perished as a result of concrete acts of persecution. As far as the Jews who died in the NS concentration camps are concerned, their number can be established with a certain amount of accuracy, because the German documents about the camps have largely survived. The figure is approximately 340,000.
On the other hand, it is impossible to determine how many Jews were shot on the Eastern front. In order to prove a gigantic slaughter allegedly committed by the German troops, especially the so-called “Einsatzgruppen” whose primary task was the struggle against partisans, mainstream “holocaust” historians regularly quote the Einsatzgruppen reports, which were found in the Reichskanzlei in 1945 (why did the Germans not destroy these incriminating documents???), but the reports are highly suspect for two reasons:
– Their contents are not confirmed by forensic evidence.
– They contain obvious anomalies and are contradicted by other documents.
One example will suffice to illustrate the second point. According to a report from Einsatzgruppe A from February 1942, there had been 153,743 Jews in Lithuania before the outbreak of the German-Soviet war. 136,421 had been liquidated since, and 34,500 were still living in ghettos. A simple addition shows that something is wrong here. But this is not the only inexplicable thing. If the Germans allowed a fraction of the Lithuanian Jews to survive, this could only be due to the fact that they wanted to use them as cheap labor, so one would expect that only able-bodied Jews were spared. However, in late May 1942 14,545 Jews lived in the ghetto of Vilnius, 3,693 of whom were children under 16. There were also many old people among them; the oldest one, a woman, had been born in 1852. In view of these facts, every self-respecting historian will treat the Einsatzgruppen reports with utter caution.
Dr. Karsai’s last two arguments have nothing to do with the alleged extermination of the Jews, but we will answer them all the same.
“The Nazis killed about 2,5 million Soviet prisoners of war.”
The vast majority of the Soviet POWs who died in German captivity were not “killed,” but succumbed to starvation, exhaustion, and disease, just like the vast majority of German POWs who did not survive Soviet captivity.
Not having studied this subject, we are unable to comment on the figure mentioned by Dr. Karsai, but as a matter of fact all sources agree that the mortality among the Soviet POWs was staggeringly high. For this tragedy there were basically two reasons: After the rapid German victories in the first phase of the war, millions of Soviet soldiers were taken prisoners. The Germans, who had not foreseen this, did not have enough food to nourish them adequately. But even later the Soviet prisoners of war received inadequate food rations and died in large numbers, unlike the POWs from Western countries, who were treated correctly. There can be no doubt whatsoever that this policy towards the Soviet prisoners (which Alexander Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago explains by the fact that the USSR had not signed the Geneva Convention) was criminal. That the German POWs in Soviet camps were also treated dismally and died in huge numbers is no justification, because one crime does not excuse another one.
“According to the ‘Plan Ost,’ the Nazis planned to kill 30 million Soviet citizens.”
This assertion is based on a declaration of Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, former SS-Obergruppenführer and Höherer SS- und Polizeiführer Russland-Mitte, during the Nuremberg trial. In Nuremberg, von dem Bach-Zelewski stated that in early 1941, Heinrich Himmler had said at the Wewelsburg that the purpose of the coming campaign in Russia would be the reduction of the Slavic population by 30 million. The problem is that such statements made after the war are totally worthless, because the victorious powers could easily force any German to confess anything. Quite often the confessions were extorted by torture. The most famous case is the one of Rudolf Höss, the first commander of Auschwitz, who declared in British captivity that up to November 1943 two and a half million people had been gassed at the Auschwitz camp, while another 500,000 had perished from starvation and disease. (It should be remembered that today’s mainstream “holocaust” historians usually claim about one million Auschwitz victims, which is still an insane exaggeration, as the real number of people who died at Auschwitz, both Jews and non-Jews, was about 135,000.) In his book Legions of Death British writer Rupert Butler has documented how the British obtained the confession of Höss: They mercilessly beat him for three days before he finally signed the text they had prepared for him!
Of course not all German defendants were tortured to obtain the desired confessions. There were other, more refined methods. Let us have a closer look at Oberstgruppenführer von dem Bach-Zelewski’s fate. According to the official “holocaust” story, he was one of the worst criminals. He is supposed to have ordered the murder of 27,800 Jews near Riga and the massacre of tens of thousands of Soviet civilians. Under these circumstances, one would assume that he was certainly put on trial and sentenced to hang after the war, but precisely this did not happen. At the Nuremberg trial, he was used as a witness for the prosecution and then released. Obviously this lenient treatment was the reward for having made statements as the one quoted above, which allowed the allies to accuse the Germans of having planned not only the total extermination of the Jews, but also a gruesome genocide of tens of millions of Slavs.
It is true that von dem Bach-Zelewski was later tried by the West German justice, but not for his alleged role in the “holocaust” or the slaughter of Soviet citizens. He was tried for two murders he was accused of having committed in 1934.86
The following text was published on the website Kuruc.info on 19 may, 2010
Welcome on board of the Holocaust Titanic, Dr. Ungvary!
By Jürgen Graf
Dr. Krisztian Ungvary is one of Hungary’s most renowned historians. To his credit, he has criticized the notorious “Wehrmachtausstellung,” which slanders the Wehrmacht as a criminal organization. We may therefore safely assume that he has no anti-German bias, and we have certainly no right to accuse him of bigotry. But by boarding the Holocaust Titanic, he has made a catastrophic mistake.
Before examining the arguments Dr. Ungvary adduces in his reply to the revisionist Otto Perge, I will quote what he wrote on the website Kuruc.info on 23 April 2010:
“If Perge can answer my questions, he may also ask me some. I have one request: Please do not ask me about the gassing procedure, because I have not done research on this subject. But he may ask me about other killing methods, because there are unfortunately other killing methods that are part of the holocaust.”
According to the official “holocaust” story, the Germans used three methods to exterminate the Jews: 1) shootings; 2) homicidal gas vans (in the alleged “extermination camp” Chelmno, plus on the Eastern front); 3) stationary homicidal gas chambers (in the alleged “extermination camps” Auschwitz, Majdanek, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka).
As to the shootings on the Eastern front, no revisionist has ever denied that they did indeed occur. The revisionists basically dispute two things: That the Germans intended to kill all Soviet Jews because of their race and/or religion, and that the number of the Jews who were shot in the East was even remotely as high as the orthodox historians expect us to believe (2.2 million according to H. Krausnick and H. H. Wilhelm; 1.3 million according to R. Hilberg). We will return to this question later.
As far as the “gas vans” are concerned, I repeat what I stated in my answer to Dr. L. Karsai’s argument No. 8: These vans are a fabrication of black propaganda. If Dr. Ungvary claims that they existed, I challenge him to tell us where we can see one of these mystical vehicles. If he cannot do that, let him at least show us a blueprint of such a van, or a wartime document corroborating their existence – a genuine document, not a ridiculous forgery like the “Becker document” or the “Just document,” which I briefly discussed in my answer to Dr. Karsai. (Yes, there were also “confessions” of captured German soldiers and Ukrainian collaborationists “proving” the use of these vans, but of course Dr. Ungvary knows that such confessions, which could easily be obtained by various methods including physical torture, are not worth the paper they are printed on.)
However, the main “murder weapon” of the official “holocaust” story is the gas chamber. If these monstrous chemical slaughterhouses were a historical reality, the German National Socialists arguably committed the worst atrocity in history – not because the number of victims (after all, the Soviet and Chinese communists killed even more people), but because of the industrial character of the massacre. On the other hand, if the revisionists are right and the slaughterhouses are an invention of black propaganda, the Jewish fate during World War Two, while still deplorable, immediately loses its uniqueness and becomes just one among countless other tragedies of history. It goes without saying that in this case the sacrosanct six million figure becomes untenable too, because the several millions “gassed” Jews must evidently be deducted from the six million.
In other words: Whoever defends the orthodox “holocaust” story must defend the gas chambers. But this is not exactly an enviable task: Since there is not the faintest documentary or material evidence that even one Jew was gassed by the Germans, the holocaust historians must adduce “scientific evidence” for the mirage of a gigantic massacre in chemical slaughterhouses which has left no traces whatsoever! This is simply beyond the possibilities of any researcher, even if he is one of Hungary’s most famous historians.
In view of these facts, it is easy to understand why every holocaust historian under the sun, when confronted with the technical arguments of the revisionists, declares that he “has done no research on the subject.” I am very sorry, Dr. Ungvary, but we revisionists will not let you get away with this lame excuse! By the way, one does not have to be a technical genius to understand our arguments: It suffices to take note of some basic facts which can easily be verified in books or on the internet.
An example will illustrate this: According to the holocaust lore, about 1.4 million Jews were murdered with Diesel exhaust gas in the “extermination camps” Belzec and Treblinka in eastern Poland. As to the third “eastern extermination camp,” Sobibor, some holocaust historians such as Barbara Distel also claim a Diesel engine was used as murder weapon, but as the most authoritative of them, Raul Hilberg, speaks of a gasoline engine, we will not consider Sobibor in this context.
As revisionist engineer Friedrich P. Berg has shown in a carefully researched study, Diesel exhaust gas is an extremely poor murder weapon because of its high oxygen and low carbon monoxide content. To demonstrate the inanity of the Diesel gas chamber story, it is amply sufficient to describe a barbaric experiment on animals, which was conducted in England in 1957 in order to test the toxicity of Diesel exhaust gas. On this point, Germar Rudolf states:
“These experiments simulated heavy motor load by limiting the oxygen supply artificially. This was achieved by reducing the air supply at the intake manifold as much as possible without completely killing the motor. This was necessary because the exhaust fumes simply did not cause poisoning in any of the test animals while the engine was idling or operating under light loads. After the gas chamber had been filled with exhaust gas, 40 mice, 4 rabbits and 10 guinea pigs were exposed to it. The last of the animals had died of a combination CO poisoning after three hours and 20 minutes.”
The relative harmlessness of Diesel exhaust gas was well known in Germany long before the war. As early as in 1928 Diesel engines were used in German mines, because their exhaust gas did not jeopardize the health of the miners. The idea that the National Socialists should have used such a clumsy murder weapon to kill about one and a half million people in “extermination camps” is preposterous beyond comment – after all, gasoline engines would have been ten times more efficient!
But the absurdities do not end here. As Carlo Mattogno has shown in a book about Treblinka authored together with me, the victims of the “gas chambers” of Treblinka, which were reportedly packed full before every gassing operation, would have died from asphyxiation within 20 to 32 minutes if the chambers had been hermetically sealed off. Ironically, if the exhaust gas of a Diesel engine had been conducted into the chambers, this would not have accelerated, but delayed the death of the inmates, because this gas contains extremely small quantities of toxic CO, but about 16% oxygen, which is sufficient to survive. So what was the Diesel engine good for, Dr. Ungvary? Oh sorry, I forgot that you do not want to be asked any questions about the “gassing procedure,” because you have “done no research on the subject…”
How did the Diesel gas chamber myth originate? Not one of the earlier “witnesses” ever mentioned this method. As for Belzec, the key witness Jan Karski (a non-Jewish Pole) asserted that the Jews were put to death with quicklime in trains; however, the majority of the witnesses claimed that the Jews were murdered with electric current, be it in a shed or in a water basin. One Dr. Stefan Szende, a Hungarian Jew who had emigrated to Sweden, described a “human mill” at Belzec where up to 100.000 Jews per day had been killed on an electrified metal plate in a gigantic subterranean water basin. After the execution, this plate became a crematorium and speedily transformed the corpses into ashes which were then removed by gigantic cranes!
The case of Treblinka is even more instructive. One of the early witnesses spoke of a mobile gas chamber moving along the mass graves, another one of a gas with retarding effect allowing the victims to leave the gas chambers and to walk to the mass graves, where they swooned and fell into the graves. On November 15, 1942, the resistance movement of the Warsaw ghetto published a long report in which it stated that since July of the same year, two million Jews had been put to death at Treblinka by means of hot steam. In August 1944, after the Red Army had conquered the area around Treblinka, a Soviet commission “investigated” the events in the camp and questioned numerous former Treblinka inmates. In its report, the commission mentioned neither gas chambers nor steam chambers, but asserted that three million people had been killed at Treblinka by pumping the air out of the chambers! One month later, in September 1944, a seasoned atrocity monger, the Jewish propagandist Vasili Grossman, honored Treblinka with his visit. As he was not sure which of the three extermination techniques (gas, steam, vacuum) would finally prevail, he was prudent enough to describe all three in his grotesque pamphlet The Hell of Treblinka.
In December 1945, in a report submitted as evidence at the Nuremberg trial, the Polish government inexplicably chose the steam version, maintaining that “several hundreds of thousands of Jews” had been killed in the “steam chambers” of Treblinka. But in 1946, the story began to change. Since it was utterly incredible that the German should have used an array of widely divergent and bizarre killing methods in two camps run by the same men, the Polish communists decided that something better was clearly needed. The reason why they opted for Diesel gas chambers was undoubtedly the so-called Gerstein report. In spring 1945, a mentally deranged SS officer, a certain Kurt Gerstein, had “confessed” in French captivity that he had visited two extermination camps, Belzec and Treblinka, and witnessed the gassing of Jews in the former camp. He repeated four times that the murder weapon had been a Diesel engine. According to Gerstein, 700 to 800 victims had been herded into a gas chamber of 25 square meters, which meant that 28 to 32 victims were standing on one square meter! Altogether, 20 million people had been gassed!
Two outstanding revisionist researchers, the Frenchman Henri Roques and the Italian Carlo Mattogno, have analyzed the Gerstein report in great detail, showing conclusively that it is devoid of any historical value. Nevertheless, the crazy statements of Kurt Gerstein are still a cornerstone of the holocaust story!
To a rationally thinking reader it will by now have become clear why the holocaust historians shun any controversial debate about the gas chambers. No matter whether we regard it from the technical or the historical point of view, the gas chamber story is absolutely idiotic – and without gas chambers, there still was a brutal persecution of the Jews which claimed many innocent lives, but there was no “holocaust.”
After this lengthy, but necessary introduction we will now examine Dr. Ungvary’s arguments.
Dr. Ungvary’s arguments in favor of the orthodox holocaust story and my answers
In his debate with the revisionist Otto Perge, Dr. Ungvary adduces some very strange arguments in favor of the orthodox holocaust story, such as: “Why were the deported [Jewish] women in the ghettos almost without exception submitted to vaginal searching by the Hungarian authorities?” I confess that I do not see the relevancy of this topic, and quite frankly it does not interest me. On the other hand, Dr. Ungvary also raises some legitimate questions which certainly deserve to be answered. This I will do now.
“The fate of the Soviet prisoners of war in German captivity was even worse than the one of the German POWs in Soviet captivity. While in the winter of 1943 a large part of the German soldiers died on the way to the camps because the supply system of the Red Army was badly organized, and while in many cases German prisoners were killed on the spot by Soviet soldiers indoctrinated in the spirit of Ilya Ehrenburg, there was no official policy to exterminate the German POWs, while the Soviet POWs in German hands were indeed victims of such a policy.”
As I stated in my reply to Dr. Karsai’s argument 14, I have not studied this subject, which is not related to the alleged extermination of the Jews. I do not know how many Soviet prisoners of war died in German captivity, but all sources agree that their number was staggeringly high. In the first phase of the war, this was due to the fact that the Germans made a huge number of prisoners, which they had not foreseen, and they were therefore unable to feed them adequately, but even later the Soviet POWs usually received woefully inadequate food rations and died in large numbers. This was certainly a crime against humanity.
On the other hand, if the German leadership had actually planned to exterminate the Soviet POWs, as Dr. Ungvary wants to convince us, they would not have fed them inadequately, but not fed them at all, and none of them would have survived. But according to official statistics, more than 1.8 million Soviet POWs returned to their country, which would of course not have been possible, if Dr. Ungvary’s assertions were correct.
By the way: On 6 January 1943 Heinrich Himmler ordered to set up a hospital for Soviet war invalids (Lazarett für sowjetische Kriegsversehrte) at the Majdanek concentration camp. According to his order, the barracks were to be organized like a hospital, and the invalids were to be taken care of by Russian doctors and nurses. How does this fact, which is mentioned in an official Polish history of Majdanek, square with an extermination policy?
“If the Nazis did not want to annihilate the Jews, what explanation can there be for Himmler’s speech to SS officers in Posen on October 4, 1943, where the Reichsführer SS openly spoke about the extermination of the Jews? There is a record with the text of this speech, which should convince Perge of its authenticity.”
Very well, Dr. Ungvary, let us assume that the text of the speech, and the record, are both authentic and that on 4 October 1943 the Reichsführer SS thus told an attentive audience the following:
“I am talking about the Jewish evacuation, the extermination of the Jews. It is one of those things that are easily said. ’The Jewish people is being exterminated, every party member will tell you, ’perfectly clear, it is part of our program, we are eliminating the Jews, exterminating them’.”
Here at least two things ought to strike Dr. Ungvary as very odd:
1. Why on earth should Himmler have ordered to record this bloodthirsty speech? Did he perhaps want to supply the world with irrefutable evidence for the holocaust? (It should be borne in mind that small tape recorders, which could have been smuggled into the room where Himmler made this speech, did not exist in 1943.) An extensive discussion of this question can be found in Germar Rudolf’s Vorlesungen über den Holocaust, a book which is available online. Dr. Ungvary, who has an excellent command of the German language, should read these pages, if he is seriously interested in the subject.
2. It goes without saying that the party program of the NSDAP, which every SS man knew, did not demand the “extermination” of the Jews, but simply stated that no Jew could be a member of the German nation (paragraph 4). So how could Himmler utter such nonsense?
Now let us quote from another Himmler speech. On 23 November 1942, at a time when, according to the holocaust historians, all six “extermination camps” were performing their grisly task around the clock, the Reichsführer SS stated:
“The Jewish question in Europe has changed radically. [...] The Jew has been evacuated from Germany and is now living in the East, where he is working on our roads, railroads, etc.”
So if Dr. Ungvary uses Himmler’s Posen speech to “prove” that in the autumn of 1943 the Jews were being exterminated, I will use his Bad Tölz speech to “prove” that they had been resettled in the occupied Soviet territories, where they were performing manual labor! This would be in perfect agreement with the numerous German documents which describe precisely such a policy.
In order to clarify the matter, it is advisable to examine some documents from the autumn of 1943. On 26 October, twenty-two days after Himmler’s Posen speech, Oswald Pohl, chief of the SS Economics and Administration Main Office (SS-WVHA), stated in a circular letter to the commanders of all concentration camps:
“The work capacity of the detainees has become significant and all measures taken by the commanders, the heads of the food service, and the physicians have to aim for the health and efficiency of the detainees. [...] My first priority is: No more than 10% of all detainees should be disabled because of diseases. This objective must be achieved by the joint efforts of all concerned. Thus, it is necessary to ensure:
1) Good and proper diet
2) Good and proper clothing
3) Use of all natural health agents
4) Avoidance of all unnecessary efforts not immediately connected with the task in question.”
A curious “extermination policy,” is it not, Dr. Ungvary?
Three days before Himmler’s Posen speech, on 1 October 1943, SS-Obersturmführer Werner Jothann, chief of the Central Construction Office of the Auschwitz concentration camp, drafted a preliminary cost estimate for the enlargement of the prisoners’ hospital (Häftlingslazarett) of the camp. The enlarged hospital was to comprise 114 hospital barracks (Krankenbaracken), 11 barracks for patients in need of care (Pflegebaracken) and 12 barracks for critically ill patients (Baracken für Schwerkranke). The combined cost of these 137 barracks was estimated at 5,161,329 Reichsmark (about 50 million Euro at current rates). Quite a lot of money, especially if one considers that all these sick detainees were soon to be exterminated by gassing or lethal injection, isn’t it, Dr. Ungvary?
On 9 December 1943, two months and five days after Himmler’s Posen speech, Richard Glücks, inspector of the concentration camps, sent a circular letter to the commanders of all camps including Auschwitz in which he stated that Jewish prisoners in urgent need of an operation could be treated in the nearest hospital, but the operation had to be performed by a Jewish doctor. Five days later the directive was modified: In case no Jewish doctor was available, a non-Jewish physician could be used as well.
“There is overwhelming evidence that the Jews in the occupied Soviet territories were systematically slaughtered. Several Hungarian officers who fought on the Eastern Front (Alajos Salamon, Jenö Bor, Geza Bozoky, Bela Vecsey) have described massacres of Jews in their diaries. The revisionists claim that many Jews were shot because they were partisans. But the reports of the Einsatzgruppen and other units (secret military police etc.) precisely distinguished between partisans, partisan-helpers, and Jews, and executions of Jews were registered separately.”
Unfortunately, I cannot read Hungarian, but I readily believe that some Hungarian officers mentioned the shooting of Jews in their diaries, because such shootings occurred without the slightest doubt. Since there are no reliable documents, it is not possible to state how many Jews were shot in the East. (As I wrote in my answer to Dr. Karsai’s argument 13, the Einsatzgruppen reports are highly suspect and cannot be regarded as reliable historical sources; if Dr. Ungvary is seriously interested in the question, I invite him to read chapter 7 of Treblinka: Vernichtungslager oder Durchgangslager?, where the problem is discussed in detail.) I will refrain from any estimates as to the number of Jews shot; instead I will demonstrate that even in the East there was no policy to exterminate the Jews because of their race and/or religion.
Lack of material evidence
In several cases, Soviet commissions performed forensic examinations at the “sites of the crimes” after the German retreat, but the results of their investigations were not widely publicized, because they belied the fantastic exaggerations of Soviet propaganda. A very illustrative example is the concentration camp of Salaspils, near Riga (Lettland), where Soviet forensic experts had found 574 bodies (472 men, 64 women, and 38 children) – which did not prevent the Soviet propagandists from brazenly claiming that no fewer than 101,000 people had been murdered at Salaspils! Today’s experts, such as the Latvian Hinrihs Strods and the Germans A. Angrick and P. Klein, put the Salaspils death toll at 2,000-3,000.
In order to explain the absence of material evidence for the alleged huge slaughter in the occupied eastern territories, mainstream holocaust historians assert that the Germans opened hundreds of mass graves before their retreat and burned the corpses of the murdered Jews. This operation was allegedly called “Aktion 1005.” As a matter of fact, there is not the faintest material or documentary evidence showing that such a gigantic action ever took place. It suffices to read Jens Hoffmann’s book about the “Aktion 1005” to convince oneself that this story is exclusively based on eyewitness reports and confessions, which are not worth the paper they are printed on, plus on the verdicts of trials where such eyewitness reports and confessions were the only available evidence as well.
By the way, it would not have been possible to delete the traces of the murder of hundreds of thousands by simply opening the graves and burning the corpses. The position of the former mass graves could easily have been detected by air photographs, and the Soviet investigators would then have found myriads of bone fragments and teeth, plus huge amount of human ashes, at the sites of the crimes. The Soviet prosecutors could thus have presented irrefutable forensic evidence at the Nuremberg trial and would not have been compelled to resort to the “gas chamber” and “gas van” rubbish.
Documentary evidence that there was no extermination policy
Had the Germans planned the physical extermination of the Jewish population, they would of course have killed children and old people first; able-bodied adults would perhaps have been temporarily spared, because they could have been used as slave-laborers. As a matter of fact, solid documentary evidence shows that Jewish children and old people were not exterminated. The following four examples will suffice here:
On 5 June 1942 there were about 9,000 Jews living in the ghetto of Brest (White Russia). Among them there were 932 old people over 65 (the oldest one was 92) and more than 500 children under 16.
In an unknown month of the year 1943, 225 children under the age of 16, plus some old people of up to 86 years of age, were living in the ghetto of Minsk (White Russia).
At the end of May 1942 there were many old people living in the ghetto of Vilnius (Lithuania); the oldest one, a woman by the name of Chana Stamleriene, had been born in 1852. There were also 3,693 children under 16. The angel of death was not hovering over these Jewish children: As we learn from an “Anthology of holocaust literature,” more than 20 schools were founded in the first year of the existence of the ghetto. In October 1942 between 1,500 and 1,800 children were studying at these schools, and in April 1943 school attendance became compulsory.
In the summer and autumn of 1944 many Jews of various nationalities (also Hungarian Jews who had been previously deported to Lithuania and Latvia to work for the German army) were transferred from Riga and Kaunas to the Stutthof concentration camp, east of Danzig. On 26 July 1944 1,983 Jews, most of them Lithuanian ones, arrived at Stutthof. 850 of them were under 15 years old which means that the oldest ones had been 12 when the Germans conquered Lithuania in the summer of 1941.
“If the Nazis did not want to exterminate the Jews, why did Ribbentrop say to Horthy that ‘the Jews must be annihilated or taken to concentration camps’?”
Politicians always talk a lot, especially in wartime. Rather than wasting his precious time pondering over what Ribbentrop said to Horthy, Dr. Ungvary should study the documents about the medical treatment of Jewish detainees at Auschwitz, or Jewish population statistics which show that, in April 2004, 687,000 Jews, who had lived in the countries under German control during the war, were still very much alive (which means that there were several millions of “survivors” in 1945). But let us examine the sentence quoted by Dr. Ungvary:
If Ribbentrop stated that the Jews “must be annihilated or taken to concentration camps” this evidently meant that the Jews in the camps were not annihilated. To demonstrate this, we will use the case of the Hungarian Jews, which will be of special interest to Dr. Ungvary. On 11 May 1944 Himmler wrote that The Führer had ordered 200,000 Jews to be sent to the concentration camps, where they would be employed at the great construction works of the Organisation Todt and other projects of importance for the German war effort. A few days later, the massive deportation of Hungarian Jews commenced.
It goes without saying that many of the deported Hungarian Jews must have succumbed to the harsh conditions prevailing in the last year of the war. The number of casualties among them may have amounted to several tens of thousands. But as Jean-Claude Pressac, who was once hailed by the media as a genius for allegedly having refuted the revisionist arguments, informs his readers, in spring 1945 the Anglo-American troops found Hungarian Jews in “386 concentration camps, labor camps, and working commandos, from some hundreds in the commandos to tens of thousands in the big camps.”
After the liberation of Auschwitz, four Jewish physicians (Lebowitz, Reich, Bloch, and Weil) wrote a report in which they stated that over 1,000 Hungarian Jews were being treated in the camp hospital, among them 97 boys and 83 girls under 16. One of them, the boy J. H. Malek, was three years old, another one, the girl R. M. Salomon, was nine years of age. If the official version of the events were true, these Jewish Hungarian children would have been gassed on the spot after their arrival in Auschwitz. After all, they were unable to work.
“Why did the Germans deport old Jews and Jewish children, who were unable to work, if they did not plan to murder them?”
The Germans deported old Jews and Jewish children because they did not want to separate families. The monstrous fantasies of the holocaust historians are categorically refuted by wartime documents. I see no necessity to repeat what I wrote in my answers to Dr. Ungvary’s arguments 3 and 4, but I want to call Dr. Ungvary’s attention to a particularly illustrative case, the one of the Czech Jewess Minna Grossova who had been born in 1874 and died at Auschwitz on 30 December 1943. She had been deported to Auschwitz via Treblinka. Now, the holocaust historians want us to believe that Treblinka was a “pure extermination camp” where even able-bodied Jews were gassed on the spot (except for a handful of “Arbeitsjuden” needed to run the camp). How could Minna Grossova, who was 68 at the time of her deportation to Treblinka, possible survive this “pure extermination camp” and later the selection at Auschwitz, where Jews unable to work were reportedly gassed at once without previous registration? This case alone is sufficient to prove that the orthodox holocaust story is rotten to the core!
If Dr. Ungvary is an honest man, he should understand that his case is hopeless and concede defeat. If he persists in his claims, I am willing to continue the debate, but I will not care to answer arguments based on quotations from Hitler, Himmler, Ribbentrop, or Horthy, or on the diaries of former Hungarian (or German) soldiers, because my time is of value. Instead I request Dr. Ungvary to answer the 17 questions Otto Perge originally submitted to Dr. Karsai (who did not make any attempt to reply to them). There is however a second possibility: Let us limit the debate to the fate of the Hungarian Jews deported in 1944. If Dr. Ungvary wants to convince me and the readers of the website kuruc.info that large numbers of them were exterminated at Birkenau, let him answer Otto Perge’s questions 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
The following text was published on the website Kuruc.info on 6 June, 2010
Answer to a Bungler: Dr. Laszlo Karsai and the “Holocaust”
By Jürgen Graf
Part I: Introduction
Raul Hilberg, who passed away in 2008, had an excellent knowledge of the German wartime documents, of which he quotes many hundreds in his three-volume study The Destruction of the European Jews. One should think that such an eminent specialist scholar would surely have been the most qualified person to refute the revisionists, but as a matter of fact, Hilberg preferred to ignore them and to feign that he had never heard of their arguments. He knew why.
Mainstream holocaust historians are very good at lecturing before students who are so brainwashed that they would not even dream of questioning the kosher version of the facts. They are very good at talking to each other at conferences where they indulge in idle speculation in cloud-cuckoo-land, discussing phony problems such as the date when the (alleged) order to exterminate the Jews did go out. On the other hand, they shun any debate with competent revisionists, because they know that such a discussion would be fraught with peril for them. After all, they would be asked tough questions which they could not possibly answer.
During the first trial of German-born revisionist Ernst Zündel, which took place in Toronto in 1985, Raul Hilberg foolishly agreed to act as a witness for the prosecution. Mercilessly cross-examined by Zündel’s combative attorney Douglas Christie, the leading Jewish holocaust scholar met his Waterloo. Christie asked him about an alleged Hitler order for the extermination of all Jews which Hilberg had mentioned in the first edition of his book (the second edition was then in preparation). After endless tergiversation, Hilberg finally conceded that there was no proof for such an order. He was also forced to admit that he knew no expert report proving that any room in any National Socialist concentration camp had ever been used as a homicidal gas chamber. After this painful and humiliating experience, Hilberg rejected an invitation to testify at the trial on appeal three years later.
In spring 2010, Hungarian revisionist Otto Perge challenged the defenders of the orthodox holocaust story to a debate. Two historians, Dr. Krisztian Ungvary and Dr. Laszlo Karsai, who is reputedly the country’s leading holocaust scholar, accepted this challenge. This can only be explained by the fact that, owing to their insufficient acquaintance with the documents, both men did not realize how weak the exterminationist thesis is. Moreover, we can safely assume that neither of them ever read a serious revisionist book. Had them for instance known Germar Rudolf’s Lectures on the Holocaust, they would have understood that their case was hopeless from the beginning, and they would never have agreed to a debate. They must by now regret that they have.
Of these two Hungarian anti-revisionists, Dr. Ungvary is clearly the more decent man. While his arguments are basically every bit as weak as Dr. Karsai’s, he at least refrains from insulting the revisionists – which is precisely what Dr. Karsai does. Dr. Karsai’s rude and insolent style bears witness to the deplorably low moral and intellectual level of “Hungary’s leading holocaust scholar.”
In my answer to Dr. Karsai, I will first discuss his article “Answer to a Hungarist [Otto Perge] and to Jürgen Graf, ’historian’ from Moscow,” which was published on the website kuruc.info. I will not comment on his statements about questions such as the fate of the Soviet POWs or euthanasia, which are certainly important, but not related to the alleged holocaust of the Jews (as to the treatment of the Soviet prisoners of war I already said what I had to say in my two preceding articles).
Part II: My response to Dr. L. Karsai’s article “Answer to a Hungarist and to Jürgen Graf, ‘historian’ from Moscow”
Like most holocaust historians, Dr. Karsai interprets the anti-Jewish diatribes of Adolf Hitler, in which he threatened to “annihilate” the Jews, as hard evidence that such an annihilation did indeed take place. He claims that I cannot or will not answer his question why Hitler repeated the threats several times which he had uttered in his speech from January 30, 1939, and why Goebbels repeatedly quoted these threats.
If you ask the holocaust historians why there are no documents about homicidal gas chambers and why there are no mass graves containing the bodies of gassed Jews at any of the six alleged “extermination camps,” they reply that the Germans, who wanted to hide their atrocities from the world, used a coded language in their documents and burned the bodies of the gas chamber victims. But why? Why should they have bothered using a coded language, and why should they have squandered huge amounts of fuel for the burning of millions of corpses in order to conceal their crimes? After all, Himmler and Goebbels had constantly told the whole world that they wanted to annihilate the Jews! Apparently people like Dr. Karsai do not notice, or pretend not to notice, this flagrant contradiction.
Incidentally, Israeli holocaust scholar Yehuda Bauer stated that Hitler’s extermination threat from 30 January 1939 was nothing but an “emotional, vague menace.” Besides, even if the various statements of leading Third Reich politicians proved a specific genocidal intention, they still do not prove that and how this intention was implemented and realized. Not that is of primary importance for historiography which politicians have claimed they intend to do – or else all of historiography would be full of vapid chatter, megalomaniac lies and false promises – but what the politicians have actually done, that is to say: what actually happened.
This should be sufficient to settle the matter.
When discussing the Goebbels diary, I mentioned the fact that on 7 March 1942 Goebbels advocated allotting Madagascar or another island to the Jews after the war. I pointed out that, according to the holocaust story, the first of the alleged extermination camps, Chelmno, started to operate as early as December 1941, which means that there must have been an extermination policy well before March 1942. Being one of Germany’s leading figures, Goebbels could not possibly have been unaware of this. Dr. Karsai calls this argument “miserable”; he claims that
“Goebbels was by no means the most informed Nazi leader on the subject of the holocaust. It is known that for example to the Wannsee conference of 20 January 1942, no representative of the propaganda ministry was invited.”
Therefore Dr. Karsai does not find it surprising that Goebbels did only learn of the existence of an extermination policy on 27 March, the date of the famous entry in his diary in which he stated that the Jews would be subject to a “barbaric procedure,” and that not much would be left of them.
As early as in 1992, Yehuda Bauer wrote:
“The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at.”
“Hungary’s leading holocaust scholar” must be one of the last people in the world to believe in this “silly story.” Otherwise he would not argue that in early March 1942 Goebbels still knew nothing of an extermination policy “because no representative of the propaganda ministry was invited” to this conference.
In fact, the protocol of the Wannsee conference does not support the exterminationist thesis in any way. It simply states that the Jews would be evacuated to the East, which is in accordance with other German documents describing precisely the same policy. Before Dr. Karsai resorts to the usual trite explanation that the Nazis used a coded language, in which “evacuation to the East” meant “extermination,” I would like to call his attention to the following sentence in the protocol:
“It is not intended to evacuate the Jews over 65 years old, but to send them to an old-age ghetto; Theresienstadt is being considered for this purpose.”
If “evacuate” was a code word for “kill,” this sentence obviously means that Jews over 65 years of age would not be killed, but send to an old-age ghetto. But if there had been an extermination policy, there could have been no reason on earth to spare old Jews, from whom no hard labor could be expected. They would of course have been the first candidates for the “gas chambers” and “gas vans,” had there been any.
Elementary, my dear Watson!
As to the fate of the Serbian Jews, Dr. Karsai states:
“According to Graf, in Serbia the Jewish women, Jewish children and old people were not killed. He either lies or does not know the original sources. Heydrich mentioned already at the Wannsee conference that in Serbia, the Jewish question was solved.”
According to the German wartime documents quoted by me, it was decided after lengthy discussions that 8,000 male Serbian Jews were to be shot, while 20,000 Jewish women and children, plus old Jews, would be evacuated by ship to the camps in the East. The objection that “evacuated by ship to the camps in the East” really meant “will be killed” would be preposterous beyond comment – in this case, why did the German authorities not use a coded language when speaking about the male Serbian Jews, but openly stated that they would be shot?
Despite Dr. Karsai’s assertions, Heydrich did not claim at the Wannsee conference that in Serbia the Jewish question was solved. The protocol states that there were still 10,000 Jews living in Serbia. Before accusing me of lying, or of not knowing the documents, Hungary’s leading holocaust scholar should himself acquire a better knowledge of the documents!
By the way, Jewish author Reuben Ainsztain mentions the presence of Yugoslav Jews in the Janov camp near Lodz during the war. The holocaust literature knows nothing about the deportation of Jews from the former Yugoslavia to the East. As there is no discernible reason why Ainsztein should have made up this story, his statement provides strong evidence that Yugoslav (i. e. Serbian) Jews were indeed “evacuated to the camps in the East.”
With regard to the Einsatzgruppen reports, Dr. Karsai writes:
“For Graf, the reports of the Einsatzgruppen are suspect. For me a man making such a claim is suspect.”
Obviously Dr. Karsai thinks that these reports, which describe the killing of huge numbers of Jews, are of unquestionable authenticity.
In my answer to Dr. Karsai’s argument Nr. 13, I mentioned a concrete example showing that the Einsatzgruppen reports are indeed suspect. I will now adduce a second example to corroborate my claim that a responsible historian should use these reports with utter caution.
The alleged slaughter of 33,711 Ukrainian Jews at Babi Yar near Kiev is the most notorious massacre ascribed to the Germans on the Eastern Front. This figure appears in an Einsatzgruppen report from 7 October 1941. According to the established version of the facts, these 33,711 Jews were shot and their bodies thrown into the ravine of Babij Yar on 29 September 1941. But the first witnesses told completely different stories: The massacre was perpetrated on a graveyard, or near a graveyard, or in a forest, or in the very city of Kiev, or on the shores of the Dnepr. As to the murder weapon, the early witnesses spoke of rifles, or machine guns, or submachine guns, or hand grenades, or bayonets, or knives; some witnesses claimed that the victims had been put to death via lethal injections whereas others asserted that they had been drowned in the Dnepr, or buried alive, or killed by means of electric current, or squashed by tanks, or driven into minefields, or that their skulls had been crushed with rocks, or that they had been murdered in gas vans. Now that is what we call good, solid evidence, is it not, Dr. Karsai?
As the Soviets found no human remains at Babi Yar after reconquering Kiev in early November 1943, they were once again forced to resort to the traditional explanation: The Germans had disinterred and burned the bodies before their retreat in the second half of September 1943. But on 26 September 1943, Babi Yar was photographed by a German reconnaissance aircraft. The air photo shows no fires, no open graves and no traces of human activity.
So the report from 7 October 1941, which mentions an imaginary slaughter, must necessarily be wrong, whether fabricated or not. This means that all other Einsatzgruppen reports are suspect from the beginning.
Asked by Dr. Karsai why the German authorities forbade Jewish emigration in October 1941, Otto Perge answered that the Germans needed the Jews as workers. I gave a different answer: The Germans wanted to prevent the Jews from contributing to the Allied war effort as soldiers, technicians, scientists etc. For Dr. Karsai, this explanation is “even more stupid” than Otto Perge’s one; he insists that the Germans forbade Jewish emigration because they planned on killing the Jews.
Hungary’s leading holocaust scholar may have some hidden talents I have failed to notice, but logical thinking is definitely not one of them. Otherwise he would have realized that his theory according to which in October 1941 the National Socialists forbade Jewish emigration because they wanted to exterminate the Jews is in flagrant contradiction with his earlier statement that as early as in January 1939, when he made his famous speech in the Reichstag, Adolf Hitler had already opted for an extermination policy. Had this been the case, Jewish emigration would of course have been prohibited right away, but precisely this did not happen, on the contrary: It was actively promoted by the government of the Reich! On 11 February 1939, less than two weeks after Hitler’s speech, a “Reichsstelle für jüdische Auswanderung” (Imperial Office for Jewish Emigration) under the leadership of Reinhard Heydrich was formally established in Berlin. Following the creation of the “Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren,” SS-Hauptsturmführer Adolf Eichmann was ordered by Heydrich on 15 July 1939 to establish such an Office in Prague as well.
As to the reasons why Jewish emigration was finally forbidden, both Otto Perge and myself were both right; our answers did not exclude, but complement each other. While the Germans indeed wanted to prevent the Jews from working for the Allies, they also wanted them to work for the German side. From 1942, Jewish forced labor played an increasingly important role in the German war industry, as numerous documents prove.
As we can learn from the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, even in the alleged extermination camp Sobibor, “some [Jews] were employed in the workshops as tailors, cobblers, carpenters and so on” At Sobibor, the Jewish workers were treated humanely. Leon Feldhendler, who was interned in that camp from January to October 1943, relates:
“The tradesmen were living very nicely, in their workshops they had comfortable quarters. […] Their daily rations consisted of half a kilogram of bread, soup, horsemeat, groats (from the transports) twice a week. […] Work: From 6 a.m. through noon, an hour for lunch and then again work until 5 p.m. […] Time of between 5 and 10, at their discretion.”
It would be a bit difficult to argue that the Jew Feldhendler deliberately embellished conditions at Sobibor in order to whitewash the National Socialist system!
Dr. Karsai writes:
“Walking in front of the Kremlin, Graf should perhaps think about why rabbinical scholars, small Jewish children, plus sick and old Jews were deported too.”
Walking in front of the Kremlin, Graf advises Hungary’s leading holocaust scholar to re-read and to answer Otto Perge’s question number 4. He should also re-read my answers to Dr. Ungvary’s arguments 3, 4 and 5.
With regard to the alleged gas vans, I asked Dr. Karsai where I could see such a vehicle. In view of the fact that large numbers of Jews are supposed to have been murdered in such vans (145,000 at Chelmno, plus thousands, or tens of thousands, behind the Eastern front), this was certainly no unreasonable demand. Referring to Pierre Marais and Ingrid Weckert, who have painstakingly analyzed the available evidence, I pointed out that the two documents allegedly confirming the existence of the gas vans are “third rate falsifications.” To this Dr. Karsai replied:
“Graf, the poor fellow, wants to see the original gas vans. As to myself, I am satisfied with less – with the original Nazi documents, the correspondence between members of the SS which speaks of the gas vans. Graf is forced to lie that these documents are ‘third rate falsifications.’ Since he must know that this is not true, I am compelled to range him among those holocaust deniers whom Deborah Lipstadt called ‘base scoundrels.’”
Dr. Karsai’s vulgar insults cannot camouflage the fact that he is an ignoramus who has no idea what he is talking about. I do not know whether he understands French and German, but he certainly knows English, so if he could not read Pierre Marais’ book about the gas vans or the German original of Ingrid Weckert’s study, he could at least have read the English translation of the latter.
The only alleged German wartime documents about the gas vans are the ones I mentioned in my first article: The “Becker document” and the “Just document.” The first one is so obvious a forgery that Kogon, Langbein, Rückerl et al. did not dare to include it in their well-known collective volume Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas (National Socialist Mass Killings by Poisonous Gas). As a matter of fact, this document explicitly speaks of “gassing,” which is at variance with the traditional exterminationist claim that the Germans used a coded language. Let us now have a closer look at the second document presented as evidence for the existence of these vehicles, a letter purportedly written by the SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt to the car manufacturing company Gaubschat. Already the very beginning shows that this document is fishy:
“Berlin, 5 June 1942. Onliest specimen [Einzigste Ausfertigung]. Top secret.
Technical modifications to the Special Vehicles used in the operations and to those currently in manufacture.
Since December 1941, for example, 97,000 were processed with the use of three vehicles, without any defects in the vehicles becoming apparent.”
This is simply ridiculous. The form “einzigste Ausfertigung” does not exist in German, just as “onliest specimen” does not exist in English. Furthermore, it makes absolutely no sense to begin a letter with “for example.” Finally, the text does not indicate what the “97,000” that were processed might be.
Although “no defects in the vehicles had become apparent,” the author of the letter demanded a considerable number of modifications, the first of which was the following:
“To allow for the rapid inflow of the CO while preventing excessive pressure, two open slits of 10 x 1 cm are to be located in the upper back wall.”
This could only mean that at the time this letter was written there were no such slits in the upper back wall. But if one directs the exhaust gas of a truck engine into the coach, and if the coach does not have any openings, either it will break apart because of the pressure, or the engine will simply stop to work. In either case, the Germans could not even have “processed” 97 Jews in such vehicles, much less 97,000. The text contains several other technical absurdities. That the holocaust historians are forced to quote such a clumsy forgery as evidence for the use of homicidal gas vans clearly shows the extent of their despair.
Part III: Dr. Karsai’s article “The gas chambers of Auschwitz did indeed exist”
In spite of the title of his article, only about half of it is about the gas chambers of Auschwitz or the holocaust topic as a whole. I will not bother to answer Dr. Karsai’s assertions about problems unrelated to the alleged holocaust of the Jews, with one exception (see point 8).
Dr. Karsai writes:
“Hitler considered the Slavic peoples as a lower race (“Untermenschen”). In his famous “table conversations” he stressed several times that in the German sphere of influence the Slavs would be helots, slaves.”
That the National Socialists considered the Slavs to be “Untermenschen” is just another tenacious myth about the Third Reich. As the question has nothing to do with the holocaust or the gas chambers, I will not analyze it in detail, but confine myself to the following four points:
1) The word “Untermensch” (subhuman) did indeed exist in National Socialist terminology, but it did not refer to the Slavs. It was used to characterize the criminal or parasitical scum of society which is found in any nation, including the German.
2) I challenge Dr. Karsai to show me a single utterance by a leading National Socialist politician, or by a racial scientist of the Third Reich, in which the Slavs are called “Untermenschen.”
3) If Hitler had regarded the Slavs as “Untermenschen,” he would of course not have allied himself with the Slovaks, the Croats, and the Bulgarians, nor would he have allowed the formation of Ukrainian SS divisions.
4) Hitler’s “table conversations” are no reliable historical source, because it cannot possibly be ascertained if Hitler really made the statements ascribed to him.
Dr. Karsai writes:
“Unlike amateur historians like Perge, the professional historian endeavours to analyze the sources at his disposal ‘sine ira et studio’ (without zeal and excitement). The real historian only accepts the memoirs, or the testimony, of a Jew or a Nazi as trustworthy if they are corroborated by contemporary documents.”
Excellent, Dr. Karsai, this is indeed a sound method! It is the revisionist method. We revisionists do not accept the statements of Jewish witnesses, or the confessions of “Nazi war criminals,” if they are contradicted by documentary (or forensic) evidence. By his own definition of a “serious historian,” Dr. Karsai admits that all holocaust historians including himself are not serious historians, but amateurs. The whole gas chamber story, which is the core of the holocaust tale, is exclusively based on eyewitness testimony and confessions. There is not a single document proving that even one Jew was gassed either at Auschwitz, or at Treblinka, or in any other German camp. What is worse for the holocaust historians, numerous German wartime documents clearly contradict the exterminationist thesis (see for example the documents quoted in Otto Perge’s questions 4, 5, 6 and 7 and my answer to Dr. Ungvary’s questions 2, 3, 4 and 5).
So welcome to the club of amateur historians, Dr. Karsai! You will meet many of your friends there, from Robert Jan van Pelt to the charming Deborah Lipstadt.
To Otto Perge’s question where the necessary wood for the cremation of the alleged 800,000 victims had come from, Dr. Karsai replied:
“Perge and co. should not look for cut trees in the vicinity of Treblinka, but instead study those original German documents which unanimously confirm that Treblinka was a death camp where almost 800,000 people were murdered.”
If such documents existed, they would of course be quoted in every single book about the holocaust. But you can read the entire body of holocaust literature without ever finding even the slightest allusion to these “original German documents.” Dr. Karsai is of course perfectly aware of this fact, otherwise he would quote these documents himself – which he cannot possibly do, because they do not exist. This proves beyond doubt that “Hungary’s leading holocaust scholar” is not only a bungling amateur, but a brazen impostor as well.
But let us talk about the question raised by Otto Perge: How did the Germans manage to burn 800,000 bodies at Treblinka? Unlike “normal concentration camps” like Dachau and Buchenwald, all of which were equipped with stationary or mobile crematoria furnaces, Treblinka had no crematoria. (If a mass extermination had indeed been planned at Treblinka, it would of course have been the sheerest insanity not to build a powerful crematorium; this fact alone deals a deadly blow to the “death camp” legend.) All witnesses agree that the bodies of the victims were burned in the open air.
Where did the wood come from? Again, the witnesses are unanimous: The wood was not brought to the camp by railroad or by truck, but cut in the nearby forest by a group of detainees. One witness, the Czech Jew Richard Glazar, mentions the number of the woodcutters: There were 25 of them. This means that the Germans used freshly cut wood, not dry wood, for the cremation.
In the book about Treblinka authored together with me, Carlo Mattogno stated that 160 kg of wood are needed for the cremation of a human body, but his calculations were based on the use of seasoned (dry) wood. His recent research on the use of green wood, which was supposedly used in all “eastern extermination camps,” led to the result that on an average, the cremation of a body requires at least 300 kg of such wood. Consequently, the open-air burning of 800,000 bodies would have required 240,000 tons of fresh wood. According to the witnesses, the cremation started in March 1943 and was finished in September of the same years, which means that it lasted no longer than seven months. In other words: The 25 woodcutters had to cut and to saw at least 34,000 tons of wood per month, or more than 1,100 tons per day, so each of them had to procure about 44 tons of wood daily!
As we can learn from an internet source, six Italian woodcutters, using traditional instruments such as saws and hatchets and working from sunrise to sunset, needed 15 working days to cut and to saw 50 tons of wood, which means that each of them could only cut and saw 0.55 tons daily. One really has to be a holocaust scholar to believe that the Jewish woodcutters at Treblinka were 80 times as efficient as their Italian colleagues, who were using the same tools!
More down to earth, let us assume that both groups were equally efficient. In this case, the 25 members of the Treblinka woodcutter team could procure (25×0.55=) 13.25 tons of wood per day. To be on the safe side, we will round up this figure to 14 tons. As the total amount of wood needed for the cremation of 800,000 bodies would have been 240,000 tons, the cutting and sawing would have required (240,000÷14=) about 17,100 days, or 570 months, or 48 years, which means that the woodcutters would have finished their job in 1991!
One final remark: Air photographs of Treblinka, which were taken in May and November 1944, show a dense forest of about 100 hectares on the northern and eastern side of the camp. At least one hectare of wood was on the territory of the camp itself. So where did the wood for the cremation of 800,000 bodies come from, Dr. Karsai?
Attacking Otto Perge, Dr. Karsai writes:
“Perge and co. will hardly be able to explain why the precise, bureaucratic Germans in their strictly confidential internal correspondence made a difference between concentration camps, labor camps, punitive camps and Jewish camps on the one side and extermination camps on the other side. The latter ones were called ‘Vernichtungsanstalten.’”
It goes without saying that there are no German wartime documents speaking of “Vernichtungsanstalten,” and the impostor Dr. Karsai knows this very well. Otherwise he would have quoted at least one of these documents and mentioned its archive number.
In order to bolster his claim that the Germans used the pesticide Zyklon B for homicidal purposes, Dr. Karsai makes the following statement:
“Series of archived letters show that the Nazis lengthily tried to find out the proper dose of Zyklon B.”
For the third time, the impostor Dr. Karsai uses freely invented documents to back up the exterminationist thesis. Whom does he hope to fool with such primitive tricks?
In order to explain the fact that the death books of Auschwitz contain “few names” (as a matter of fact, there were 80 death books, of which 46 were handed over to the Red Cross by the Soviets in 1990; these 46 books contain 68,571 names), Dr. Karsai makes the following claim:
“The death-lists of the Auschwitz camps contain indeed few names, but only because they only contain the names of the registered detainees who either died or were murdered in the camp. The deportees considered unfit to work were gassed upon arrival without previous registration. This is confirmed by several reports from SS officers to Himmler, one of them being the Franke-Griksch report.”
As Otto Perge mentioned in his question 4 to Dr. Karsai (which Hungary’s leading holocaust scholars has not bothered to answer), the death books of Auschwitz categorically refute the assertion that at Auschwitz Jews unfit to work were gassed upon arrival without previous registration. The 46 death books which have been made public (the remaining 34, which also cover the year 1944, are still being kept secret) contain the names of 2,584 Jews from 0 to 10 years of age, 2,083 Jews from 60 to 70 years of age, 482 Jews of 70 to 80 years of age, 73 Jews of 80 to 90 years of age and 2 Jews of over 90 years of age. Since the death books were made accessible to the public already in 1995, there is simply no excuse for Dr. Karsai for not knowing these exceedingly important documents.
Dr. Karsai expects us to believe that “several reports from SS officers to Himmler” prove that Jews unfit to work were gassed upon arrival, but mentions only one such report, the so-called “Franke-Griksch resettlement report.” This document, allegedly written by SS-Sturmbannführer Alfred Franke-Griksch in May 1943 after a visit at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where he witnessed the killing of Jews by means of gas, was first published by the Jew Gerald Fleming in his book Hitler und die Endlösung. As Brian Renk and Carlo Mattogno have demonstrated, this “report” is a crude forgery. I put “report” in quotation marks, because the only extant copy of it is actually a text typed by the U.S. Army employee Eric M Lippmann who merely claims that he has re-typed a paper by Franke-Griksch. This text begins with a blatant anachronism:
“The Jews arrive in special trains (freight cars) towards evening and are taken by a special rail track into an area of the camp specifically set aside for this purpose.”
This can only refer to a rail spur from the main Auschwitz (Vienna-Cracow) rail line into the Birkenau camp. In fact, work on this rail spur commenced as late as in January 1944, so Franke-Griksch cannot have described it in May 1943. While Dr. Karsai can be excused for not knowing this, the report contains a lot of preposterous nonsense which Dr. Karsai cannot possibly have failed to notice: that the Jews used to hide jewels in their teeth; that 10,000 Jews were being killed every day, etc. But in his desperate search for evidence for the gas chambers, Hungary’s leading holocaust scholar would presumably have accepted the Franke-Griksch report as authentic even if it had been written in the Zulu language.
Talking about Rudolf Höss, the first commandant of the Auschwitz concentration camp, Dr. Karsai states:
“The Polish resistance sent too much and very accurate information from this camp to London, therefore Himmler urged Höss to show moderation.”
Once again, Dr. Karsai makes unsubstantiated claims. From the point of view of the orthodox holocaust story, his assertion that “Himmler urged Höss to show moderation” makes no sense, because Höss had reportedly received Hitler’s alleged order to exterminate the Jews from Himmler himself. But let us take a look at the reports of the Polish resistance movement about Auschwitz, which Dr. Karsai regards as “very accurate.”
In the period between 24 October 1941 and 7 July 1944, the Polish resistance movement sent altogether 32 reports about Auschwitz to the London-based Polish government in exile. These reports have been thoroughly analyzed by the Spanish researcher Enrique Aynat. While they indeed pictured Auschwitz as an extermination camp, they radically differed from today’s standard version of the events, as they neither mentioned homicidal gas chambers in the crematoria nor the “murder weapon” Zyklon B. According to these reports, the “gas chambers” were located in a forest; sometimes they were described as “showers, from which instead of water gas was flowing.” As far as the murder weapon was concerned, the reports mentioned “combat gas,” a non-existing gas by the name of “Krezolit,” “electric baths” and a “pneumatic hammer.” The authors of the reports were apparently not too sure about this “pneumatic hammer,” for sometimes it was described as a kind of air-gun used for shooting the victims in the back of the neck, sometimes as a moveable ceiling which fell down on the victims and crushed their heads.
Now the adherents of the holocaust tale might object that the members of the Polish resistance had no access to the Auschwitz camp and could therefore not know the details of the mass killings. However, this objection would be unfounded; as a matter of fact, the resistance was extremely well informed about everything going on in the camp. One of the reports contained a detailed plan of Birkenau showing the exact location of the kitchen and the laundry.
Now, where did the Polish resistance get this information from? For a first, no fewer than 12 firms participated in the construction of the Birkenau camp. The civilian workers contracted by these firms worked in the camp together with the detainees and returned to their quarters every evening. For a second, a considerable number of prisoners were released from Auschwitz-Birkenau. Danuta Czech’s Kalendarium mentions 1,255 such cases, but the real figure was certainly much higher. In 1943 and 1944, many foreign workers, who had violated their labor contracts, were sent to the so-called “Arbeitserziehungslager Birkenau” (Reeducation labor camp Birkenau). After having spent a maximum of 56 days there, they had to report to the Arbeitsamt Bielitz (Labor Office Bielitz). The (incomplete!) documentation Carlo Mattogno and myself have found in a Russian archive shows that there were at least 304 such cases. This means that the region of Auschwitz was literally teeming with witnesses who had a first-hand experience of the conditions in the camp. Had Birkenau been an extermination camp, the whole of Europe would have learned this within weeks. The Polish resistance would have spread accurate information about the genocide, rather than rubbish about “electric baths” and a “pneumatic hammer.” The leaders of the allied nations would have castigated the gassings. But neither Churchill nor Roosevelt nor Stalin ever spoke of “gas chambers.” The Vatican and the International Red Cross remained silent too. Very strange indeed, is it not, Dr. Karsai?
Attacking the Leuchter Report (which indeed contains certain errors, as I pointed out in my first article), Dr. Karsai writes:
“Fred Leuchter pretends to be an engineer and a gas chamber specialist. In fact, he never took any chemical or technological courses, and he earned his BA in history.”
Fred Leuchter may not have had any formal training as an engineer or a chemist, but he obviously knows a lot about the gassing of human beings, otherwise he would hardly have been commissioned to build execution gas chambers in several American prisons.
Referring to the US execution gas chambers, Dr. Karsai makes the following statement:
“The claim of the holocaust deniers that the Nazis could not have used Zyklon B to kill large numbers of human beings is ridiculous. This gas had been used as early as 1920 in a prison in California for the execution of people sentenced to death.”
Once again, Dr. Karsai shows himself to be a bungling amateur with an extremely superficial knowledge of the subject.
Apart from the fact that the first execution by gas did not take place in 1920, but in 1924, and not in California, but in Nevada (I admit that these details are immaterial for our debate), Zyklon B was of course never used in the American gas chambers. Hungary’s leading holocaust scholar does not even know that Zyklon B was not a gas, but a pesticide, the lethal component of which was Prussic Acid (hydrogen cyanide) soaked up by gypsum pellets.
When a sentenced was executed by gas in an American prison (the last such execution occurred in 1999; since then all states which had practiced this form of capital punishment have replaced it by lethal injection, or at least allow the latter one as an alternative), the prisoner was strapped to a chair inside a sealed gas chamber. The executioner, standing outside of the chamber, pulled a lever dropping potassium cyanide pellets into a vat of sulfuric acid. The cyanide pellets dissolved at once, flooding the chamber with lethal hydrogen cyanide gas.
After the gas chamber had been ventilated, members of the prison staff wearing a gas mask, a protection suit and gloves entered the gas chamber and removed the dead body.
Since it was indeed possible to open the door of an American execution gas chambers 20 to 30 minutes after the execution, Dr. Karsai assumes that it would have been possible in the “Auschwitz gas chambers” as well; he writes:
“Just as his comrades in the West, Perge claims that it would not have been possible to open the door of the gas chambers 20-30 minutes after the introduction of the Zyklon B pellets. But thanks to a powerful ventilation system, these chambers could be ventilated in about a quarter of an hour.”
As to the “powerful ventilation” of the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz, I will confine myself to Krematorium II, which according to the kosher version of the events was the epicenter of the holocaust. (Jewish holocaust historian Robert Jan van Pelt wants us to believe that 500,000 Jews were killed in this building.) Morgue I (Leichenkeller I), which allegedly served as a homicidal gas chamber, was equipped with a ventilator which could perform 9,49 air changes per hour, whereas the adjacent Morgue II (Leichenkeller II), which according to holocaust mythology served as an undressing room for the victims, had a more efficient ventilation (11,08 air changes per hour). Apparently the stupid Nazis thought that an undressing room needed a better ventilation than a gas chamber! On the other hand, the Degesch delousing chambers had a very efficient ventilation which could perform 72 air changes per hour. Had the Germans had the outlandish idea to commit a mass murder with prussic acid, they would of course have equipped their homicidal gas chambers with such an efficient ventilation.
But even in this case, one would have had to wait at least two hours before the ventilation of the gas chambers could have been effective, because the hydrogen cyanide adsorbed to the Zyklon B pellets evaporates very slowly. Germar Rudolf has shown that at a temperature of 15 °C it takes about two hours until the gas has left the pellets. Ironically, this fact, which deals a mortal blow to the whole holocaust story, was confirmed by people with impeccable antifascist credentials – the members of a Polish-Soviet war crimes commission which inspected the recently liberated Majdanek concentration camp in August 1944 and found a large amount of Zyklon B cans.
If the members of the Sonderkommando, who allegedly had to clear the gas chambers after each gassing, had entered these rooms before they had been ventilated, they would have died within minutes, even if they had been wearing gas masks. As the ventilation could not possibly have been effective less than two hours after the introduction of the Zyklon B, several hours would have elapsed before the corpses of the victims could have been removed. But according to the witnesses, the Sonderkommando entered the gas chambers shortly after the death of the victims (“immediately,” “after 20 minutes,” “after 30 minutes,” “after 40 minutes). This alone is sufficient to unmask all these self-styled witnesses as liars.
In his frantic attempt to convince his readers that the alleged gassings at Auschwitz were technically possibly, Dr. Karsai writes:
“The holocaust deniers do not know, or pretend not to know, that HCN kills warm-blooded animals, including human beings, much more rapidly than insects. With Zyklon B it was quite possible to kill people within 15-20 minutes.”
This is true and has been stated repeatedly by revisionists like G. Rudolf, but for the reason mentioned in my previous answer, it is irrelevant. Even if all the victims were dead after 15 or 20 minutes, one would still have had to wait almost two hours before the ventilation could have been effective due to the ongoing release of hydrogen cyanide.
As evidence for the alleged mass murders at Auschwitz, Dr. Karsai quotes an excerpt from the diary of Dr. Johann Paul Kremer:
“On 2 September 1942, the SS-physician Dr. Kremer noted in his diary: ‘At three o’clock at dawn, I was for the first time present at a special action. Compared with that, Dante’s inferno looks almost a comedy. Not for nothing is Auschwitz called an annihilation-camp.’”
Except for a minor detail – Dr. Kremer did not call Auschwitz an “annihilation camp” (“Vernichtungslager”), but “the camp of annihilation” (“Lager der Vernichtung”) – Dr. Karsai’s quotation is correct.
In 1980, Robert Faurisson presented a masterful analysis of Dr. Kremers’s diary. The physician’s statements must be seen in the context of the murderous epidemic of typhus which transformed Auschwitz into a living hell in the second half of 1942, killing off a large part of the population of the camp. That the German authorities continued deporting people to Auschwitz while the epidemic wreaked havoc was simply criminal. Under these circumstances, Auschwitz was indeed a “camp of annihilation,” but the killer was not Zyklon B. The killer was typhus. Zyklon B was actually a life saver, as it combated lice, the disease’s vector.
Dr. Karsai insists that 80 to 90% of the 437,000 Hungarian Jews deported between May and July 1944 were gassed at Auschwitz and their bodies incinerated.
As Otto Perge proved in his questions 9, 10 and 11, which Hungary’s leading holocaust scholars has not bothered to answer (in fact, not one person in the world could have answered them), the alleged gassing and burning of hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews at Auschwitz-Birkenau cannot have taken place for the simple reason that it was technically impossible. The German documents proving that at Auschwitz thousands of Hungarian Jews benefitted from medical treatment, the report written by four Jewish doctors after the liberation of Auschwitz which stated that over 1,000 Hungarian Jews, among them many children, were still at the camp hospital, the fact that in spring 1945 Hungarian Jews were found in 386 concentration camps, labor camps and commandos, the lack of any trace of massive open air incinerations on Allied air photos taken during the time span when hundreds of thousands of allegedly murdered Hungarian Jews are said to have been cremated on pyres – all this confirms that the deported Hungarian Jews were not exterminated. (Of course, many of them, probably some tens of thousands, died from disease or exhaustion, and undoubtedly there were executions as well; no serious revisionist would even dream of denying the suffering of the Hungarian Jews.)
Being woefully unable to refute the technical arguments of the revisionists, Dr. Karsai resorts to the traditional argument:
“Where are the six million Jews who were alive and well in 1939?”
1) Large numbers of Jews died from disease, exhaustion and bad treatment in concentration camps, labor camps, and ghettos. On the Eastern Front and in Serbia, many Jews were shot. Since there are no reliable statistics, it is impossible to determine the number of Jews who died as a result of such persecution with any degree of accuracy, but it could have been close to one million. For a mentally sane person, this figure would be atrocious enough, but the Jews are not content with it. They want their six million!
2) Several hundreds of thousands of Jews perished as the result of acts of war not related to their race or religion. They were killed in combat as soldiers of the Red Army, succumbed to starvation during the siege of Leningrad, etc. In my opinion, Soviet Jews who were evacuated to Siberia before the onslaught of the German troops and died from starvation or cold during or after their evacuation should be added to this category as well.
3) Enormous numbers of Jews emigrated to Palestine, the USA and other countries after the war. On 24 November 1978, the State Times (Baton Rouge, Louisiana) reported the following:
“The Steinbergs once flourished in a small Jewish village in Poland. That was before Hitlers death camps. Now more than 200 survivors and descendants are gathered here to share a special 4 day celebration that began appropriately on Thanksgiving Day. Relatives came from Canada, France, England, Argentina, Colombia, Israel and at least 13 cities across the United States. ’It’s fabulous’, said Iris Krasnow of Chicago. ’There are five generations here – from 3 months old to 85. People are crying and having a wonderful time. It’s almost like a WW II refugee reunion.”
4) Huge numbers of Jews disappeared in the statistics. One example will be sufficient to illustrate this. Thanks to my wife Olga, who is from White Russia, I know that even decades after the beginning of Jewish emigration to Israel and the USA, the capital of the country, Minsk, is still full of Jews. However, only a small minority of them are members of the tiny Jewish community. The others have become “White Russians,” or “Russians.” They do not visit the Synagogue. They do not grow beards. They do not wear the yarmulke, Many of them now have Russian names. Menachem Rosensaft became Vladimir Ivanov – just as his cousin Chaim Goldstein in Warsaw became Lech Kowalski.
That is what happened to the Jews. Of course, for the holocaust historians, the categories III and IV do not exist. They were all gassed or shot. That’s how the fraudulent statistic such as the one presented by Dr. Karsai at the beginning of his article were concocted. I do not intend to waste my time commenting on these statistics. They may or may not be close to the truth in the case of some Western European countries, or Yugoslavia, but as far as the key countries – Russia, Poland and Hungary – are concerned, they are the merest fabrication.
Dr. Karsai makes it clear that he does not enjoy the debate with the revisionist (a statement I readily believe!). He writes:
“For me it is certainly no intellectual pleasure to debate with ignorant, uninformed and prejudiced anti-Semites.”
When I learned that Dr. Karsai had written an article pretending to prove the existence of the Auschwitz gas chambers, I of course knew that it would be easy for me to win the debate. As I mentioned in the introduction to my answer to Dr. Ungvary, not even the best of scholars can hope to adduce scientific evidence for the mirage of a gigantic genocide in chemical slaughterhouses which has left no material or documentary traces whatsoever. But I confess that, having read Dr. Karsai’s text, I was utterly amazed at his dismal performance. I had hoped that he would state his case more intelligently. It did not imagine that he would be foolish enough to bolster his assertions by referring to non-existing documents, or to ridiculous forgeries such as the Franke-Griksch report. I was sure that he would quote at least some of the documents published by Jean-Claude Pressac – documents which mention “gas-tight doors” and a “gassing cellar” and at first glance seem to confirm the orthodox version of Auschwitz. Thanks to the research of Robert Faurisson, Carlo Mattogno and Germar Rudolf, I would of course have been able to show that these documents prove nothing of the kind, but at least Dr. Karsai would not have made a fool of himself – which is precisely what he did.
Now, the same Dr. Karsai who has not been able to answer even one of Otto Perge’s 17 questions, who has again and again showed himself to be an amateur with an extremely superficial knowledge of the subject and who does not shrink from downright fraud to “prove” his claims, has the audacity to call the revisionists “ignorant, uninformed and prejudiced people”! Quite obviously “Hungary’s leading holocaust scholar” is not only a bungler and a fraud, but a foul-mouthed slanderer as well.
Together with individuals such as Deborah Lipstadt, the late Lucy Dawidowicz, the late Gerald Fleming and the late Pierre-Vidal-Naquet, Dr. Laszlo Karsai represents the lowest level of the pseudo-science called “holocaust studies.”
Otto Perge’s „Questions to Dr. Laszlo Karsai“ contain an error which should be corrected (Question Nr. 4). But as I had prepared these questions for Perge, the responsibility is mine and not his. The same error occurs in my article „Answer to a Bungler“ (Argument Nr. 13).
The text published on Kuruc.info reads:
„According to the Holocaust story, from spring 1942 at Auschwitz all Jews unable to work were gassed on arrival. If this assertion were true, no names of old Jews or Jewish children would figure in the Sterbebücher of Auschwitz. But a study of these documents, which were printed in 1995 (Saur Verlag, Munich) reveals that many old Jews and Jewish children were registered in the Sterbebücher:
- 2 Jews over 90 years of age,
- 73 Jews from 80 to 90 years of age,
- 482 Jews from 70 to 80 years of age,
- 2.083 Jews from 60 to 70 years of age,
- 2.584 Jews from 0 to 10 years of age.
The source given is Germar Rudolf, Vorlesungen über den Holocaust, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 2005.
While the figures quoted are correct, they refer to all categories of inmates at Auschwitz, not only to Jews. However, this does not change the picture radically. The only other category of inmates among whom there were many children and old people were the gypsies, who were much less numerous at Auschwitz than the Jews. Among the remaining categories of inmates (political prisoners, asocials, homosexuals, criminals, Jehova’s witnesses, Soviet POWs) there were of course very few old people and probably no or only a handful of children. Still, honesty obliges me to admit that I made a mistake, for which I duly apologize to the readers of Kuruc.info.
Another argument Perge and myself could have adduced in this context is that even according to official Holocaust literature, some Jewish children born at Auschwitz were duly registered. In her book Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz Birkenau 1939-1945 (Rowohlt Verlag, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1989), Danuta Czech mentions two such cases (p. 803, 806). How does this square with a policy of extermination of Jews unable to work?
©Jürgen Graf 2005