Continued from 2nd Leuchter Report, Part A
One of the decisive days at the Nuremberg show trial was the one on which the prosecution exhibited a film about the German concentration camps. The ultimate horror came with a view of the "gas chamber" at Dachau. The narrator explained the functioning of the machinery which supposedly gassed "probably a hundred men at one time". We cannot overemphasize how much that segment - 6,000 feet selected from the 80,000 feet that had been shot - caught and influenced the imagination of people, including most of the German defendants. It is likely that the two events which most helped to stir up public opinion against the vanquished Germans were, first, the showing of that film, and second, the sort of public confession made before the tribunal by Rudolf Höss, "the Commandant of Auschwitz". Today we know that his confession was "dictated". The substance of it was made up by the sick imagination of a British Jew who was one of the men who tortured Höss after his capture (see Robert Faurisson, How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss, The Journal of Historical Review, Winter, 1986-1987, pp. 389-403).
But the story of the Dachau "gassings" was also made up out of thin air. We had to wait until 1960 for the liars to admit it. On August 19, 1960, in Die Zeit, the notorious Martin Broszat admitted that there had never been any homicidal gassings at Dachau. Two years earlier that same historian, to his everlasting shame, had published the "confession" of Rudolf Höss, supposedly written in prison after Höss was turned over by the British to the Polish Communists. In so doing, he had presented it as genuine and trustworthy, yet these "confessions" were essentially the same confessions obtained by the British, and were nothing more than a re-organized and expanded version of the British inventions, with a bit of a Polish flavour added! (In 1972, Martin Broszat became the director of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich, a semi-official propaganda institute of the West German state).
Today, every visitor to the "gas chamber" at Dachau can read on a movable panel the following statement in five languages:
GAS CHAMBER - disguised as a 'shower room' - never used as a gas chamber.
Since that panel is movable, the film makers who sensationalize evil, as well as other professional liars, can roll it out of view and film or photograph the room from all angles while persisting in saying that it was a gas chamber that was actually used to gas prisoners.
I am amazed at the cynicism of the officials of the Dachau Museum and the naivete of the museum's visitors. The words on the panel really don't mean anything. In 1980, in my Mémoire en defense contre ceux qui m'accusent de falsifier l'histoire (1980, p. 197-222), I think I illustrated this point. I recounted how I completely embarrassed Barbara Distel, the Director of the Museum, and the late Dr. Guerisse, then President of the International Dachau Committee, headquartered in Brussels, by asking them why they called this room a "gas chamber". When people asked those two how it happened that the Germans did not find the time to finish that little gas chamber that they began in 1942, they said that the prisoners used to construct it either sabotaged it or refused to work on it. But how could those prisoners, who never in their lives could have seen something that did not exist anywhere in the world (a gas chamber for 100 people at a time), how could they know from the time they started work, that once the work was completed, they would have constructed a homicidal gas chamber? Do we have here yet another miracle, one of interpersonal divination and mental telepathy? Did successive work details of the prisoners pass on the word about this for three years? Did the Germans give them an ultra-secret mission without being concerned about finishing this murder instrument, if the killing of inmates was a German policy for the "Final Solution"? Furthermore, how did Barbara Distel and Dr. Guerisse know that the room was an uncompleted gas chamber? Can they explain to us what needs to be added to the "uncompleted" little gas chamber in order to complete it? Where did they get their technical information? Do they have building plans for "gas chambers" in their archives? Have they already seen some "completed" gas chambers? Where and when?
At the time of our visit to Dachau on April 9, 1989, Fred Leuchter, Mark Weber and I were videotaped by cameraman Eugen Ernst, first in the gas chamber, and then, after leaving it, on a sort of parade ground outside. It was on that parade ground that we decided to record our comments about the visit. The tourists who had just visited the room saw us and some stopped and listened. Fred Leuchter was able to make his report in peace, except for one not too serious incident provoked by one tourist who aggressively asked me if we doubted the reality of the "gas chamber". I evaded the question and he went away. When it was time for Mark Weber and myself to comment on camera about our visit, the tourists began to gather in very great numbers. Some of them betrayed a little nervousness. We could have interrupted our report and continued it somewhere else in the camp, but I decided to remain where we were and try to exploit the situation. After all, we had there in front of us the best possible audience: all of them had just "seen a gas chamber" and they later would probably tell their friends : "No one can deny the existence of the gas chambers. I saw one myself at Dachau." I therefore engaged in an improvised debate with the visitors. I made it a point to say that they had not visited a gas chamber at all, but merely a room to which Mrs. Distel, director of the Museum, had given that designation. In so doing, she made a serious allegation for which she offered no proof (the few photos and documents hung in a room next to the alleged gas chamber proved nothing at all). But who dared to ask her for any proof? Apparently no one. I warned those tourists not to be tempted to go and tell their family circle that they had seen a gas chamber at Dachau. In reality, they had seen nothing of the kind. In the midst of my presentation I let them know that as far as we revisionists are concerned, there had been no homicidal gas chambers anywhere, including Auschwitz, nor had there been any German policy to exterminate the Jews.
The whole thing began to look like a sort of "happening". Some visitors reacted angrily, others agreed with us. All of them appeared either indignant or interested. One young German thought that I deserved to be thrown into prison for such statements. The most hostile ones escaped in the usual way: "Gas chambers or not, it doesn't make any difference". This is an argument which I, as a Frenchman, particularly enjoyed, since in France Jean-Marie Le Pen had been severely condemned by the courts, in response to complaints by Jewish groups, for having said exactly the same thing.
The magical "gas chamber" is the central pillar of the "Holocaust" religion. It is not the revisionists but rather the adherences of this religion who make such a fuss about the gas chambers. Consequently, we must ask them for some explanation for their attachment to the gas chamber. Of course, they must cling to this, for without a specific means of destruction, it becomes impossible to prove the existence of a systematic and specific destruction of the Jews. Without the gas chamber, there is no genocide. And, without genocide, the history of the Jewish community resembles the suffering of all others in the community of mankind endured in the Second World War.
Eugen Ernst was able to tape a good part of this happening that allowed me to give my first public presentation in Germany about the taboo of the "gas chambers" and the "genocide" claim, right across from the fake gas chamber of Dachau, one of the most important places used by the proponents of the Big Holocaust Lie.
-Mauthausen-
The minuscule gas chamber of Mauthausen has never been defended by very many of the Holocaust faithful. It is indefensible. In nearly a half century only two people have really tried to make us believe in its reality: Hans Marsalek of Austria and Pierre-Serge Choumoff of France. In their various publications they wisely refrain from showing a real photo of the interior of the room. The reason is simple: the room looks like nothing more than a simple shower room and one can see nothing that would lead him to think that it was a homicidal gas chamber with all the machinery which, if it were, would be indispensable and thus would still have to be there! Marsalek and Choumoff usually don't show anything at all of it; very rarely they will show an exterior photo of one of its two doors (two doors to a gas chamber, a fact that would definitely double the problems of keeping the chamber air-tight), or sometimes they allow the reader to vaguely see a small part of the interior.
At the time of my first visit to Mathausen in 1978, I asked two officials of the museum, particularly the director, a former Spanish inmate, why amongst all the postcards of the camp that were on sale to tourists there was not a single one showing the so-called gas chamber. The answer was: "That would be too cruel." That is a rather surprising answer when you remember that all those concentration camp museums, including the one at Mathausen, are reminiscent of the "chambers of horrors" that can be seen at country fairs and exhibitions, and when you realize that a sort of "sex-shop anti-Nazism" is one of the most flourishing commodities in "Shoah Business".
During that same visit, I also wanted to know why they did not display, either in the "gas chamber" itself or in the museum, any document or any expert report proving that what looked like a shower room was in fact a homicidal gas chamber. The camp's director dared to reply that the text of such an expert report was in fact on display in the gas chamber itself. That was not true. He had to return and tell me about an expert report that could be found in Linz, but he gave no further details about it. It is clear that, if there were any such expert report, it would be reprinted in all the works devoted to Mauthausen and that it would be mentioned in all the "Holocaust" bibliographies.
During our inspection of Mauthausen on April 10, 1989, an incident took place involving the camp authorities. We visited the place at an early hour in the morning to allow Fred Leuchter to carry out his sample takings without too much risk. No sooner had he finished his task (which caused a great deal of noise) than some groups of visitors began to go through the "gas chamber". They were mostly children from schools where they are indoctrinated systematically to feel shame and hatred for what previous generations of Germans and Austrians supposedly did during the war (Austria is the chosen home of the rather odious Simon Wiesenthal). The guides, either museum officials or teachers, talked at length about the "gas chamber" and how it worked, giving the usual, typical explanations found in popular "Holocaust literature" that contradicted each other on many points.
Without any warning, Mark Weber and I, under the watchful eye of Eugen Ernst's rolling camera, began to ask questions of the museum tour guide who seemed to be the highest ranking on the scene. After being at first very sure of himself, the poor man, bombarded with questions, finally had to admit that no one knew very much about how that "gas chamber" had worked. It appeared that over the years the story had taken extremely varied forms. They had given visitors three successive contradictory versions of the gassing procedure:
Version No. 1:
The gas came from the ceiling through shower heads (still in existence): That version, the official told us, was abandoned when people noticed that, considering the low ceiling, the victims could have simply put their hands over the shower heads to block them up and prevent the spread of the gas;
Version No. 2:
The gas came in from the ceiling and was vented at the time of the airing-out process through a sort of chimney opening, still in existence, located on the west side: The official was not able to tell us why that version of the story also had to be abandoned;
Version No. 3:
The gas came through a thin, perforated pipe located on the east wall, about 80 centimeters above the ground. That is, it came from the part of the room diametrically opposite to where it had been in Version No. 2. There is no longer any trace of that pipe, or even of the opening through which it supposedly came from the adjacent room where the gas was generated. The adjacent room, however, was completely empty and contained nothing that gave any hint of what it had been used for.
All of that was already troubling, but perhaps the most troubling thing was that the whole explanation given on a metal plaque inside the gas chamber was that of Version No. 2. I mentioned that to the official, who explained that the text of the plaque was a mistake, that the procedure described there was no longer the right one. I observed that Version No. 3, the one currently considered to be authentic, had the problem of being physically extremely unlikely. Since it was located 80 centimeters above the ground, the perforated pipe, even if it had been partially embedded in the wall to resist the pressure of the bodies inside, would have been blocked up by the bodies of the victims jammed into the gas chamber. How would the gas have spread itself normally in the "gas chamber" so as to kill all the victims throughout the room's entirety? The official finally said that he was not a scientist and that his explanation was that given in the book written by...Hans Marsalek.
A few minutes after the museum tour guide left, two police officers (?) appeared and ordered us to stop all filming. They informed us that we could photograph all of Mauthausen except...the "gas chamber" and the crematory oven! However, there was no announcement advising tourists of that. In any event, thousands of visitors photographed the two places without any warnings from the camp authorities.
At Mauthausen, I had the feeling that the camp authorities lived in a sort of panic. They appeared to be haunted by the progress of revisionism in Austria and by the revisionist work of people like Emil Lachout, Gerd Honsik and Walter Ochensberger. (In passing, I would like to pay hommage to the memory of another Austrian, Franz Scheidl. In the 1960's, at his own expense, he published a whole series of studies bearing the general title Geschichte der Verfemung Deutschlands ["History of the Defaming of Germany"]. It has remained largely unknown, even to many revisionists). -
Hartheim Castle-
Hartheim Castle can be seen from a great distance, sitting as it does in the middle of a plain. For an area that allegedly served as a place to carry out the most secret of crimes, it really is impossible to hide. That castle was, before and after the war, a sort of asylum and it still is today. It contains a small, inoffensive-looking room that makes one wonder why the practitioners of the Big Lie decided to call it a homicidal "gas chamber". It is one of the most insulting and most baffling inventions of the "Holocaust" religion. Today I can see only one use for it: to those who mock the religious superstitions of the past as if our era were more enlightened and more intelligent than the most distant centuries, I would gladly say: "Go visit the gas chamber at Hartheim Castle and then come tell me whether you feel humiliated to be treated like imbeciles by people who dare to say that it was once a gas chamber". I do not know of any publication that reproduces a photo of that miniscule "gas chamber". It was identified as such by Hans Marsalek, in the English version of the confession that he supposedly took from Franz Ziereis, Comandant at Mauthausen, regarding the:
"large gassing establishment where, in Ziereis' estimate, between 1 and 1.5 million people were killed." [!]
The Revisionist Intifada
The current disarray of the defenders of the "Holocaust" has some curious effects. Up to the end of the 1970's, they believed that in Auschwitz, Birkenau and other camps located in Poland they had solid proof of the existence of the gas chambers and therefore of the genocide of the Jews. Up until that time they went so far as to say that there were some exaggerations and that the camps located outside present-day Poland probably or certainly did not have any gas chambers.
Beginning with the start of the 1980's, under the pressure of revisionist writings, the gas chambers in Poland and in particular those at Auschwitz and Birkenau seemed more and more doubtful. This then produced a reaction motivated by fear. In a movement comparable to that of religious or political fundamentalism, the exterminationists called for a return to the faith and to the original doctrines. They "re-established" the gas chambers that had been abandoned. They set out to reaffirm that there had indeed been gas chambers at Mathausen, Sachsenhausen, Ravensbrück, Neuengamme, Struthof-Natzweiler, and perhaps even at Dachau. I refer here to the book by Adalbert Rückerl, Hermann Langbein, Eugen Kogon and 21 other writers: NS-Massentötungen durch Giftgas, (Fischer Verlag, 1983).
As regards Mauthausen, some people, including Claude Lanzmann and Yehuda Bauer, went so far as to retract the story. In 1982, Bauer clearly wrote that "no gassings took place at Mauthausen." Lanzmann was just as clear. In 1986, during a bitter debate about the Roques affair on Europe 1 (a French radio network), he corrected cabinet member Michel Noir, who had mentioned the Mauthausen gas chamber. Lanzmann firmly contradicted the Minister on this score: never had there been a gas chamber in that camp. But all of that did not prevent our two fellows from stating a few years later that there had indeed been a gas chamber at Mauthausen. (For Bauer's retraction, see pages 33-34 of the absurd book published in Vienna in 1989, by the Dokumentations-archiv des österreichischen Widerstandes under the title Das Lachout- "Dokument", Anatomie einer Falschung. As regards Lanzmann's retraction, read his letter published in Le Monde Juif, July-September 1986, p. 97). All those retractions and sudden changes of direction and constantly changing explanations add up to one further proof that the "gas chamber" and the "genocide" are nothing more than a myth. A myth constantly mutates under the influence of the dominant opinions and the necessities of the moment.
The exterminationists of today have only two refuges left them, two points where they hope to be able to anchor their faith: the "gas van" and "Treblinka." As regards the first point, I can tell them that the Frenchman Pierre Marais will soon publish a study entitled Le Mythe des camions a gaz (The Myth of the Gas Vans). On the second point, I can tell them that they are going to lose "Treblinka" as they have lost "Auschwitz".
The promoters of the "Holocaust", for the foreseeable future, will keep their money, their power, their capacity to produce films, to stage ceremonies, to build museums, but those films and ceremonies and museums will be more and more devoid of meaning. They will be able still to find more and more ways of repressing the revisionists through physical attacks, press campaigns, the passing of special laws and even murder. Fifty years after the war they will continue to prosecute all those they call "war ciminals" in show trials. The revisionists will reply to them with historical and forensic studies, scholarly and technical books. Those books and those studies will be our stones, in this our intellectual Intifada.
The Jews will have a choice: they can either follow the example of the rare few among them who have been courageous and honourable enough to denouce the Big Lie, or they can support the melodramatic activities of people like Elie Wiesel and Samuel Pisar and the shameful witch hunts carried out by people like Simon Wiesenthal and the O.S.I. in the United States.
David Irving, who rallied to the support of the Revisionist position in 1988, recently said:
"The Jewish community have to examine their consciences. They have been propagating something that isn't true." (The Jewish Chronicle, London, 23 June 1989) I couldn't have said it better. Dr. Robert Faurisson August, 1989