The Allies and world Jewish organizations invented the "gas chamber" story as wartime atrocity propaganda. They used atrocity propaganda against the Nazis to distract their own people from the atrocities being committed by themselves. In 1944 the British Ministry of Information requested British clergy to help spread atrocity propaganda against the Germans which would be put into circulation by the Ministry. The purpose of the atrocity propaganda was to distract public opinion from Red Army atrocities which would inevitably occur as it "liberated" Central Europe. ("Allied Wartime Diplomacy", Edward J. Rozek)

Affidavit of Charles Coward, filed at the Nuremberg trials, swears that the Allies dropped leaflets in Poland alleging gassings and that radio broadcasts were made by Anthony Eden making the same allegation. (Prosecution Exhibit 1462)

The Allies were fully aware there was no evidence to support the allegation of "gas chambers" against the Germans. In August of 1943, the Allies decided not to make a specific allegation of gas chambers against the Nazis in a published declaration on the grounds that there was "insufficient evidence to justify the statement regarding execution in gas chambers." (Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers 1943)

The Allies were breaking all top-secret codes between Auschwitz and Berlin, yet there is NOT ONE MENTION OF DEATHS BY GASSING. As the Germans did not know the code was being broken, they had no reason not be report the deaths by gassing if they were occurring.

The Müller document, revealed by Emil Lachout in 1988, shows that Allied Commissions of Inquiry investigated and established by 1948 that no people were killed by gas at Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Mauthausen and several other named camps. Austria admits the Müller document is genuine.

THE ALLIES MANUFACTURED THE "GAS CHAMBER" STORY AS ATROCITY PROPAGANDA TO "STOKE UP" THEIR OWN PEOPLE AGAINST THE NAZIS AND TO DISTRACT THEM FROM THEIR OWN WAR CRIMES SUCH AS THE TERROR BOMBING OF CIVILIANS.

There were no "gas chambers" at Auschwitz. This fact has been conclusively proven by several forensic studies of the alleged "gas chambers" at Auschwitz.

The Leuchter Report - Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. is an expert specializing in gas chambers and executions. He was described by Missouri State Penitentiary Warden Bill M. Armontrout as "well versed in all areas and is the only consultant in the United States [in gas chambers] that I know of." Leuchter examined the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek in 1988 and took samples from the walls and floors for forensic testing for cyanide. He concluded that the rooms were not and could not have been used as gas chambers based on their construction and the fact that either no or only extremely small traces of cyanide were found in the brick and mortar samples. In contrast, a room where Zyklon B (the alleged killing gas) was used for disinfection purposes by the Nazis, had 1000 times more cyanide in the samples.

The Krakow Institute Report - Alarmed by the Leuchter Report, the Auschwitz State Museum itself commissioned in 1990 the Krakow Forensic Institute to carry out an investigation of the alleged gassing sites. The Krakow Report fully corroborated the cyanide readings found by Leuchter. The Auschwitz Museum maintains, however, that Poland's acid rain had eliminated the cyanide. This flies in the face of scientific fact that "Prussian blue", the compound formed by cyanide and iron in the bricks and mortar is one of the most stable and enduring compounds known to man. The blue stain is clearly seen in disinfection chambers at Auschwitz today.

The Rudolf Report - Germar Rudolf, a diplom chemist in Germany, investigated the sites of the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz and took samples for the purpose of determining cyanide levels. Rudolf's report concluded, like Leuchter's, that the alleged gas chambers could never have been used for gassings. Tests on samples showed no or minimal traces of cyanide.

The Lüftl Report - Walter Lüftl is a professional engineer with a large engineering firm in Vienna and was president of the Austrian Association of Engineers. He is regularly called in court cases as an expert witness. In 1992 Lüftl wrote a report calling the alleged extermination of millions of Jews in gas chambers "technically impossible." He pointed out that the design of the crematories themselves showed that they were incapable of handling the number of victims alleged. "Corpses are not flammable material," wrote Lüftl. "to cremate them requires much time and energy." Lüftl was criminally charged for writing this report for "denying the Holocaust." BUT ALL CHARGES HAVE BEEN DROPPED.

Jewish historian Arno Mayer of Princeton now admits that evidence for the gas chambers is "rare and unreliable." ("Why Did The Heavens Not Darken?) The truth in fact is that there is no reliable evidence whatsoever for gas chambers in Auschwitz.

With no scientific evidence to back up the claim that millions of Jews were killed in Auschwitz by gassing, the Holocaust lobby relies on "survivor testimony" which it is apparently rude to dispute. How reliable is their testimony? Here are some of the opinions of non-revisionist historians:

Prof. Michel de Bouard - "The record is rotten to the core. On one hand a considerable amount of fantasies, inaccuracies, obstinately repeated (in particular concerning numbers), heterogeneous mixtures, generalizations, and, on the other hand, very dry critical studies [by revisionists] that demonstrate the inanity of those exaggerations." (Ouest-France, August 1986).

Samuel Gringauz - "The hyperhistorical complex [of survivors] may be described as judeocentric, lococentric and egocentric...This is the reason why most of the memoirs and reports are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks and apologies." (Jewish Social Studies, January 1950).

Shmuel Krakowski - In an Aug. 1986 Jerusalem Post article - "[Yad Vashem director] Krakowski says that many survivors, wanting "to be part of history" may have let their imaginations run away with them. "Many were never in the places where they claim to have witnessed atrocities, while others relied on second hand information given them by friends or passing strangers" according to Krakowski. Over half of 20,000 survivor accounts were found by Yad Vashem to be "unreliable" and "inaccurate."

With no scientific evidence to back up the gas chamber claim, the testimony of Holocaust "survivors" becomes vital to proving the gassings at Auschwitz. How reliable is this testimony? Judge for yourself.

Rudolf Vrba is an extremely important eyewitness to the Holocaust Lobby. He wrote I Cannot Forgive which stated in the foreword that the book was "meticulous" and written with a "fanatical respect for accuracy" (p. 2) - but under cross-examination by defence lawyer Doug Christie in the Zündel case in 1985, Vrba immediately backtracked and admitted that the book was merely an "artistic expression" which belonged to the "realm of a literary afternoon."

Kurt Gerstein, heavily relied upon by Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg as a witness to the Holocaust was admitted by Hilberg to have been a person who had spoken "pure nonsense." ("Expert's Admission: Some gas death 'facts' nonsense" Toronto Sun, January 17, 1985)

Filip Müller, another important witness for the gas chambers, claimed in his book Eyewitness Auschwitz that muscles of those who had been shot were cut from their legs by the Nazis and thrown into a bucket. He claimed the muscles "were still working and contracting, making the bucket jump about."

Arnold Friedman, a prosecution witness in the 1985 Zündel trial, testified that he could tell the difference between skinny people and fat people from the colour of the flames at the crematory at Auschwitz.

Dr. Henry Heller, was "saved" at Auschwitz when a former colleague, a German, recognized him as he was being led to the gas chambers and "mercifully turned on the water instead of the gas." (Chicago Tribune, May 4, 1975.)

Rudolf Kauer, a former inmate of Auschwitz, admitted he lied when he accused former Auschwitz personnel of beating a Polish girl on her breasts with a bullwhip, ripping one breast off. "I lied," he said, "That was just a yarn going about the camp. I never saw it." (Miami Herald, July 7, 1964.)

Moshe Peer was sent to the gas chamber at least six times at Bergen-Belsen and lived to tell. "Maybe children resist better, I don't know," he said. Peer hasn't heard yet that no reputable historian claims there were gas chambers at Belsen. ("Surviving the horror", Montreal Gazette, August 5, 1993)

Olga Lengyel, another important witness for the Holocaust Lobby, claimed that 1,314,000 Jews were gassed and cremated at Auschwitz in only three months (May, June and July of 1944) and that these statistics were provided to her by a doctor who had worked in the crematory. She claimed that 3 bodies could be burned in a crematory retort in half an hour and that 17,280 people were gassed and burned every 24 hours. (Five Chimneys: The Story of Auschwitz.)

Raul Hilberg claimed that the Birkenau crematories could cremate 4,400 corpses daily under optimum conditions. (The Destruction of the European Jews).

Lagacé examined the building plans of the crematories at Birkenau and testified that the maximum number of bodies that could have been cremated daily at Birkenau was 184. Lagacé termed Hilberg's figure "preposterous" and "beyond the realm of reality." It takes 2 hours for a modern crematory to cremate one body. This time could not have been exceeded by the Birkenau crematories. The Holocaust Lobby has never produced one cremation expert to substantiate their claims.

Crematories were built at Auschwitz in 1942 to help stop the typhus epidemic then raging through the camp. Typhus was incurable and highly contagious. Victims of the disease (including Nazi personnel) could not be buried due to the extremely high water table at Auschwitz. Even today in Canada, strict procedures are in force to deal with corpses infected with typhus. Protective clothing must be worn, and the clothing and container in which the corpse was put must be destroyed. In the case of typhus, Lagacé testified that the medical officer would likely order a direct cremation as this was the most effective way of dealing with something that volatile.

Within minutes of the release of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision overturning the conviction of Ernst Zündel and striking down the "false news" law, representatives of Canadian Jewish organizations appeared before television cameras with dire predictions that they would make sure that Zündel would be charged under the "hate" provisions of the Criminal Code if he continued with his Holocaust denial activities. There is nothing new in the demand of the Jewish organizations that "Holocaust denial" be prosecuted as "hate" under the criminal law. In a letter published in the Globe and Mail on Jan. 22, 1992, David Matas, Senior Counsel for the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada, called for the prosecution of Malcolm Ross for "Holocaust denial." Wrote Matas: "The Holocaust was the murder of six million Jews, including two million children. Holocaust denial is a second murder of those same six million. First their lives were extinguished; then their deaths. A person who denies the Holocaust becomes part of the crime of the Holocaust itself."

But before Crown authorities commit themselves to any further criminal charges against Zündel or anyone else because they are allegedly "Holocaust deniers", they should ask two important questions - what is the "Holocaust" and what will constitute "denial"?

Will someone be a "Holocaust denier" because he does not believe that the six million Jews referred to by David Matas died during World War II? Certainly, the six million figure was cited by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. It found that "the policy pursued [by the Nazis] resulted in the killing of six million Jews, of which four million were killed in the extermination institutions." Yet if that is so, then several of the most prominent Holocaust historians would be subject to criminal prosecution. Professor Raul Hilberg, the author of The Destruction of the European Jews, doesn't believe that six million Jews died. He puts the total at 5.1 million. Gerald Reitlinger, the author of The Final Solution, didn't believe in the six million either. He estimated the figure to be a high of 4.6 million and admitted that the figure was conjectural due to lack of reliable information.

Will someone be a "Holocaust denier" if he says that the Nazis didn't use Jewish fat to make soap? The International Military Tribunal, which had all the evidence before it to be able to decide whether this allegation was true or not (including actual bars of soap), held in its judgment of October 1, 1946 that "in some instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap." Then, in 1990, Israeli historians at Yad Vashem (Israel's Holocaust Remembrance Authority) admitted that the soap story wasn't true. "Historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat. When so many people deny the Holocaust ever happened, why give them something to use against the truth?", said Shmuel Krakowski of Yad Vashem. (Globe &Mail, April 25, 1990)

Will someone be a "Holocaust denier" if he says that the meeting of Nazi bureaucrats at Wannsee on January 20, 1942, was not a meeting for the purpose of coordinating the systematic mass murder of Europe's Jews? Gunther Plaut of Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto recently wrote on the fiftieth anniversary of this meeting that it was "a conference, surely the most macabre in recorded history...calmly discussing a task. Rounding up millions of men, women and children" who were ultimately murdered in "extermination camps." If Plaut is right, then Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer must be wrong and a "Holocaust denier" to boot. With people like Plaut probably in mind, Bauer was quoted as saying at a recent London conference: "The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at." In Bauer's opinion, Wannsee was a meeting but "hardly a conference" and "little of what was said there was executed in detail." (Canadian Jewish News, Jan. 30, 1992)

Will someone be a "Holocaust denier" if he says that there was no policy to exterminate the Jews because no Hitler order for such a policy exists? Once upon a time the answer would have been 'yes'. In 1961, for example, Raul Hilberg wrote in his book, The Destruction of the European Jews that there were two Hitler orders for the destruction of Europe's Jews, the first given in the spring of 1941 and the second shortly thereafter. But by 1985 and the publication of his second, revised edition, Hilberg was not so sure. In a review of Hilberg's revised edition, historian Christopher Browning wrote: "In the new edition, all references in the text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the 'Final Solution' have been systematically excised. Buried at the bottom of a single footnote stands the solitary reference: 'Chronology and circumstances point to a Hitler decision before the summer ended.' In the new edition, decisions were not made and orders were not given." ("The Revised Hilberg", Simon Wiesenthal Annual, Vol. 3 (1986), p. 294).

The controversy over the lack of a written Hitler order has fractured Holocaust historians into the "intentionalists" and the "functionalists"; the former believing there was a premeditated plan with Hitler at the top and the latter believing that Nazi Jewish policy evolved at lower levels in response to circumstances. But the point is, they cannot show either a plan or an order notwithstanding the capture of literally tons of German documents after the war. This was admitted by Hilberg at Zündel's trial.

So what will constitute "Holocaust denial"? Surely, if one claimed that most people at Auschwitz died from disease and not systematic extermination in gas chambers, this would be cause for prosecution. But perhaps not. Jewish historian, Arno J. Mayer, of Princeton University in his 1988 book Why Did The Heaven's Not Darken?: The "Final Solution" in History writes at page 365: "...from 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz, but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called 'natural' causes than by 'unnatural' ones."

Even the number of people who died at Auschwitz, the main alleged extermination centre, is not clear-cut. For 45 years after World War II, the monument at Auschwitz read: "Four Million People Suffered and Died Here at the Hands of the Nazi Murderers Between the Years 1940 and 1945." During a visit to the camp in June of 1979, Pope John Paul II stood before this monument and blessed the 4 million victims. Would it be "Holocaust denial" to deny these four million deaths? Not today. In 1990, the Auschwitz Museum removed the words from the stone monument, admitting that the 4 million figure was grossly exaggerated. The toll has been tentatively put at 1.1 million, but the release by the Soviet Union in 1990 of the Auschwitz death register books has complicated matters further. They show a death toll in the camp during the war of approximately 74,000 people. Arno Mayer admits these are open questions. At page 366 of his book he states: "...many questions remain open...All in all, how many bodies were cremated in Auschwitz? How many died there all told? What was the national, religious, and ethnic breakdown in this commonwealth of victims? How many of them were condemned to die a 'natural' death and how many were deliberately slaughtered? And what was the proportion of Jews among those murdered in cold blood - among these gassed? We have simply no answers to these questions at this time."

Continue . . .