| |
| Author |
Message |
|
| pokerkid |
 Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:30 pm |
 |
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Jan 2003
Posts: 7162
Location: Allentown, PA
|
For most things I cant stand the zionazi-pop culture creation called Ochra Wimpy. to others her name is Oprah Winfrey.. But on this issue of the holofraud... she has done more to destroy it by outing two of her holohaux-authors as writing books that were complete and utter BULLSHIT.
But to the fraudsters, dont let TRUTH get in the way, of selling your swill.
Why do we HATE your lies so much... Because you fuckers are putting good people in jail for having a fucking difference of opinon or thought.
Your lies are crumbling down.
Did 97,000 jews die of old age, disease, and other causes... yes. You were workers. If some nazi harmed you, Nazis got shot. Deal with that fact. Watch the new film Buchenwald and get your learn on. From the first day.. Ike and his fellow jews prepared the masses of germans and our troops for the ultimate mind fuck and created the whole fucking propaganda for the behest of their masters the rothschilds.
Dont like real history ... go fuck yourselves. Im tired of the whine. Im tired of you using your bullshit whine of anti0semitism leveled at anyone who can think for themselves and see through this made up fantasy.
your leaders like to wallow you in the cult of death. I really pity the common jew, because he is so fucked by his own leadership.
pk
from a fan D
After reading this chapter of Robert Faurisson you will understand WHY there is always so
much "Holocaust" propaganda distributed ALL the time. Jews CANNOT prove that there were
gassings or exceptionally bad treatment in the LABOR camps because they cannot
CORROBORATE their accounts with FACTS. Much like the recent outing of the scam
perpetuated on Oprah Winfrey's show about the Holocaust couple that viewers thought so
charming. It is all a charade.
That is why no one is supposed to PISS on the Jews' parade and question the Hoax, THAT is
why when you ask a "good" Jew they start mincing around about being "comfortable" with
the HISTORIC account, even when they keep saying 6 million while the official tallies
have been going DOWN for over 20 YEARS, particularly at Aushwitz in 1991 when the newly
un-Communist Poland CHANGED the plaque to read that 1.5 million PEOPLE (not only Jews,
but the totality of everyone that perished there) from the original plaque that claimed 4
million had dies there. Sure they are comfortable with it. The Hoax has given the Jewish
people a gilting of gold, it has allowed them to commit crimes and atrocities of their
own knowing they can claim "anti-Semitism", and it has created a new religion that once
again focuses the center of attention on these "pitiable" and "persecuted" people. I
suggest you read it and then pass it on to a "good" Jew you know and tell him to come
down off of his pedestal and join the human race.
brother D is half Jewish... even he is getting sick of this shite
Witnesses to the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz
ROBERT FAURISSON
SUMMARY: An eye-witness testimony must always be verified. There are two essential means
of substantiating such testimony in criminal cases: confronting the account with the
material elements (in particular, with expertise as to the crime weapon), and the
detailed cross-examination of the witnesson what he purports to have seen. Thus, in the
proceedings where it had beena question of the homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz, no
judge nor any attorneywas able to claim any kind of expertise regarding the weapon of the
crime; moreover, no lawyer ever cross-examined the witnesses by asking them to describe
with precision even one of these chemical slaughter-houses. That is, up until 1985. When
witnesses that year were finally cross-examined on these subjects during the first Zündel
trial in Toronto, their rout was total. Becauseof this resounding set-back and by reason
of other calamities previous toor following 1985, the defenders of the thesis of Jewish
extermination have begun to abandon a history of Auschwitz primarily founded on
testimonies and are obliging themselves, at the present time, to replace it with a
scientific basis, or, at least, one which appears scientific, founded on factual research
and proofs. The "testimonial history" of Auschwitz in the manner of Elie Wiesel and
Claude Lanzmann is discredited. Its time has passed. It remains for the exterminationists
to attempt to work like the revisionists on thefacts and the evidence.
In the present study, "gas chambers" is intended to mean "homicidal gaschambers," or
"Nazi gas chambers." By "Auschwitz," it is necessary to understand this as Auschwitz I or
Auschwitz Stammlager, as well as Auschwitz II or Birkenau. Finally, by "gas chamber
witnesses," I am indiscriminately designating those who claim to have participated in a
homicidal gassing operation at theselocations and those who are content to say they
either saw or perceived ahomicidal gas chamber there. In sum, by "witnesses," I mean
those whom oneusually designates as such, whether it is a matter of judicial witnessesor
media witnesses; the first have expressed themselves under oath in thedocket of a legal
proceeding, while the second have given testimony in books, magazine articles, films, on
television or the radio. It so happens certainwitnesses have alternately been of both the
judicial and media types.
This study is devoid of any psychological or sociological consideration forthe Auschwitz
gas chamber testimonies, as well as any consideration alongthe lines of what is physical,
chemical, topographical, architectural, documentary, and historical by which these
testimonies are unacceptable. It aims above all to make evident a point which the
revisionists have so far not mentioned but which is nonetheless of prime importance: up
until1985, no judicial witness of these gas chambers had been cross-examined onthe
material nature of the facts reported; when, in Toronto, at the first Zündel trial in
1985, I was able to cause such witnesses to becross-examined, they collapsed; since this
date, there are no longer any gas chamber witnesses presented in court except perhaps at
the trial of Demjanjukin Israel where, there again, the witnesses revealed themselves as
false.
To begin, I will digress upon the grievous causes by which, since 1983, SimonVeil1 was
led to recognize that there existed no witnesses of the gas chambers.
1. The Thesis of Simone Veil
After the end of the war, the illusion that there were innumerable witnesses to the
Auschwitz gas chambers was gradually accepted. By the end of the 1970s,with the arrival
of historical revisionism into the media arena, particularly in France, it began to occur
to certain individuals that these witnesses were perhaps not as numerous as one had
believed. It is thus that, duringthe preparations for a major trial which Jewish
organizations had intended against me during the early 1980s, their lawyers and in
particular, Robert Badinter, the future Minister of Justice, experienced severe
difficulties uncovering evidence and witnesses. With staff in hand in the manner of the
pilgrim, they were obliged to go to Poland and to Israel so as to bring back,if possible,
that which they could not find in France. All for naught. Myfirst trial took place in
1981, followed by the appeal in 1983. Not one singlewitness took the risk of appearing in
court. On April 26, 1983 the Paris Court of Appeal rendered its verdict. Naturally, I was
found guilty, as onemight have expected, for "harm to others," which is in fact to say
for harmcaused to Jews for the exposition of my theses in the mainstream press. Yetthe
court coupled this verdict with remarks sufficient to cause my adversariesa fair degree
of consternation. My work was judged to be substantial andyet dangerous. It was dangerous
because, in the opinion of the judges, itappeared I allowed other persons the possibility
of exploiting my discoveriesfor reprehensible ends! All the while, this same work was
substantial in the sense that, in the opinion of the court, one could uncover
neithernegligence, frivolousness, willful ignorance, nor lies - and this contrary to what
had been affirmed by the adversarial party which had accused me of "causing harm to
others by falsification of history." (sic)
On the subject of testimonies, the court went so far as to pronounce:
"The researches of Mr. Faurisson have dealt with the existence of the gas chambers which,
to believe multiple testimonies, would have been used during the Second World War to
systematically put to death a portion of those persons deported by the German
authorities." [my italics]
The court perfectly summarized what it called my "logical thread" and my"reasoning" by
specifying that, for me, the existence of the gas chambers,such as usually described
since 1945, conflict with an absolute impossibility,which suffices by itself to
invalidate all the existing testimonies or, atthe least, to stamp them with suspicion [my
italics].
Finally, the court, drawing a practical conclusion from these considerations,decreed the
right of every Frenchman not to believe in the evidence and witnessesof the gas chambers.
It stated:
"The value of the conclusions defended by Mr. Faurisson [as to the problem of the gas
chambers] rests therefore upon the sole appreciation of the experts, the historians and
the public."
Two weeks later, Simon Veil publicly reacted to this judicial decision -upsetting for her
and her co-religionists - with a declaration of extremeimportance. She admitted the
absence of proofs, of traces and even witnessesof the gas chambers, but added this
absence was easily explained because:
"Everyone knows [she asserts] that the Nazis destroyed these gas chambers and
systematically eradicated all the witnesses."
To begin with, "everyone knows" is not an argument worthy of a jurist.Furthermore, S.
Veil, believing perhaps to be getting out from behind theeight-ball, made her case only
worse; in effect, in order to uphold whatshe was claiming, it would have been necessary
for her to prove not onlythat the gas chambers had existed but that the Nazis had
destroyed them andthat they liquidated all the witnesses: a vast criminal undertaking
aboutwhich one wonders on what order, when, with whom and by what means the Germanswould
have carried it out in greatest secrecy.
But what does it matter? We shall take note of this concession by S. Veil:there is
neither proof, nor traces, nor witnesses to the gas chambers. Itso happens that, in
trying to reassure her circle, S. Veil clothed thissurprising concession with
conventional parlance. Here is, therefore, inher own words, what she confided in an
"interview-event" for France-SoirMagazine (May 7, 1983, p. 47), of which the title was:
"Simone Veil'swarning in regard to Hitler's diaries: `We risk banalizing genocide'":
What strikes me nowadays is the paradox of the situation: someone publishes a diary
attributed to Hitler by sheer dint of publicity and a great deal of money without, it
seems, taking very great precautions to assure himself of its authenticity, yet, at the
same time, in the course of a trial brought against Faurisson for having denied the
existence of the gas chambers, those lodging the complaint are obliged to apply a formal
proof about the reality of the gas chambers. Yet everyone knows that the Nazis destroyed
these gas chambers and systematically eradicated all the witnesses.
A choice so full of consequences as that of S. Veil is not to be explainedsolely by the
disaster of April 26, 1983 but by an entire series of eventswhich, for her, made 1982 a
dark year in terms of the history of the gaschambers and the credibility of witnesses. I
will recall here but three ofthese events:
1) On April 21, 1982, historians, politicians and former deportees foundedan association
in Paris having as its objective the research of evidencefor the existence and operation
of the gas chambers (ASSAG: Association pourl'étude des assassinats par gaz sous le
régime national-socialiste;Association for the study of killings by gas under the
national-socialistregime); one year later, this association had still not discovered any
proof[this is still the case today in 1993, since, envisioned according to itsown
statutes for a "duration limited to the realization of its objective,"this association
has not disbanded];
2) In May, 1982, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs launched a noteworthy"Deportation
Exposition, 1933-1945" in Paris; this exposition was supposedto continue by touring
throughout France; I immediately sent out a text inwhich I demonstrated the fallacious
character of this exposition: no evidence- except fraudulent evidence - nor any precise
testimony for the existenceof Nazi gas chambers was able to be shown to visitors;
additionally, Ms.Jacobs, the person responsible for this initiative by the Ministry,
tookit upon herself to immediately cancel this would-be vagabond exposition;
3) From June 29 to July 2, 1982 an international symposium was held at theSorbonne on
"Nazi Germany and the extermination of the Jews"; this colloquiumhad been announced as a
decisive reply to the revisionist offensive in France;it was supposed to have concluded
with a resounding press conference; inreality, it was totally different: the first day of
the proceedings, wedistributed in the Sorbonne's entrance hall recent copies of my
Responseto Pierre Vidal- Naquet (not without risk to ourselves); the colloquiumwas
carried out behind closed doors and in a turbulent atmosphere; finally,during the press
conference, the two colloquium organizers, historiansFrançois Furet and Raymond Aron,
weren't even mentioning the words"gas chamber(s)."
I often say it's on this date of July 2, 1982 that the myth of the Nazi gaschambers and
their associated witnesses died or entered their final deaththrows, at least on the level
of historical research. At the very heart ofthe Sorbonne, one had thus disconcertingly
discovered the absence of anysolid proof and any witness worthy of trust.
Notwithstanding, one had previouslytrumpeted that this colloquium would put an end to
"the ineptitude of Faurisson"by bringing forth a mass of evidence and testimonies. Such a
silence afterall that fanfare was truly eloquent.
2. The Written Testimony of Fajnzylberg-Janowski
I said earlier that at my trial not a single witness took the risk of appearingbefore the
court. At the last minute, my accusers had nonetheless providedthe written testimony of a
Jew who was living in Paris but whom one intentionallykept from appearing in the dock.
This Jew was the famous Alter Szmul Fajnzylberg,born in Stockek, Poland, October 23,
1911. This former Polish waiter, anatheistic Jew and Communist political delegate for the
international brigadesserving in Spain, had been imprisoned during a period of three
years atAuschwitz-Birkenau.
In his brief written testimony, he essentially stated that, working in theAuschwitz
crematory (the Altes Krematorium, or Krematorium I), he had spenta good deal of his time
locked up with his comrades in the coke-room, for,on each occasion that the SS gassed
Jews in the adjoining room, they tookthe precaution of sequestering the Sonderkommando in
the coke-room so thatno Jew might visibly confirm the gassing operation! Once the gassing
operationwas completed, the Germans freed the Sonderkommando members and made themcollect
and incinerate the victims. Thus, the Germans would have dissimulatedthe crime and yet
revealed its results!
This unseeing witness is equally known by the names Alter Feinsilber, StanislawJankowski
or Kaskowiak. One can read his testimony in another form in theAuschwitz Diaries.2
3. The Unravelling of the Witnesses at the First Zündel Trial (1985)
The important victory won by Revisionism in France on April 26, 1983 wouldgo on to
confirm itself in 1985 with the first Zündel trial in Toronto.I would like to dwell a
moment on this trial in order to underscore the impacton everyone's point of view, and
especially as far as the testimonies onthe Auschwitz gas chambers are concerned: for the
first time since the war,Jewish witnesses were subjected to a regular cross-examination.
Moreover,without wanting to minimize the importance of the second Zündel trial(that of
1988), I should like it to be understood that the 1985 trial alreadycontained the seeds
for all that was attained in the 1988 trial, includingthe report by Leuchter and all the
scientific reports which, in the aftermath,would proliferate in the wake of the Leuchter
Report.
In 1985, as also afterwards in 1988, I served as advisor to Ernst Zündeland his lawyer,
Douglas Christie. In 1985, I accepted this heavy responsibilityonly under condition that
all the Jewish witnesses would, for the first time,be cross-examined on the material
nature of the reported facts, bluntly andwithout discretion. I had noted, in effect, that
from 1945 to 1985, Jewishwitnesses had been granted virtual immunity. Never had any
defense lawyerthought or dared to ask them for material explanations about the gas
chambers(exact location, physical appearance, dimensions, internal and
externalstructure), or about the homicidal gassing (the operational procedure
frombeginning to end, the tools employed, the precautions taken by the
executionersbefore, during and after execution). On rare occasions, as at the trial
ofTesch, Drosihn and Weinbacher3, lawyers formulated some unusual questionsof a material
nature, hardly troublesome for the witness, but these alwaysfound themselves on the
fringes of the more fundamental questions which shouldhave been asked. No lawyer ever
demanded clarifications on a weapon which,indeed, he had never seen and that no one had
ever shown him. At the majorNuremberg Trial of 1945-46, the German lawyers had manifested
total discretionon this point. At the proceedings against Eichmann in Jerusalem in
1961,the lawyer Dr. Robert Servatius had not wanted to raise the question; ina letter on
this subject dated June 21, 1974, he wrote me: "Eichmann hatselbst keine Gaskammer
gesehen; die Frage wurde nicht diskutiert; er hatsich aber auch nicht gegen deren
Existenz gewandt" [Eichmann himself hadnot seen any gas chamber; the question was not
discussed; but neither didhe raise the issue of their existence]. At the Frankfurt Trial
of 1963-65,the lawyers showed themselves to be particularly timid; I should mentionthat
the atmosphere was rather inhospitable for the defense and the accused.This show trial
will remain as a blot on the honor of German justice as onthe person of Hans Hofmeyer,
initially Landgerichtsdirektor, thenSenatspräsident. During more than 180 sessions, the
judges and juries,the public prosecutors and the private parties, the accused and their
attorneys,as well as the journalists who had come from around the world, accepted asa
complete physical representation of the "crime weapon" a mere map of thecamp of Auschwitz
and a map of the camp of Birkenau, whereupon five minusculegeometric figures were
inscribed for the location of each of the allegedhomicidal gas chambers, with the words,
for Auschwitz: "Altes Krematorium,"and for Birkenau: "Krematorium II," "Krematorium III,"
"Krematorium IV,"and "Krematorium V"! These maps4 were displayed in the courtroom.
TheRevisionists have often compared the Frankfort trial with the 1450-1650 trialsagainst
witchcraft. Nevertheless, at least during those trials, someone sometimesbothered to
describe or depict the witches' sabbath. At the Frankfurt trial,even among the lawyers
who made difficulties for a witness like FilipMüller, not one asked of a Jewish witness
or a repentant German defendantto describe for him in greater detail what he purported to
have seen. Despitetwo judicial visits to the scene of the crime at Auschwitz, accompanied
bysome German lawyers, it seems not one of the latter insisted on any
technicalexplanations or criminological expertise regarding the murder weapon. Tothe
contrary, one of them, Anton Reiners, a Frankfurt lawyer, pushed complacencyto the point
of having himself photographed by the press while raising thechute cover by which the SS
supposedly sprinkled Zyklon B granules into thealleged Auschwitz gas chamber.
And so at Toronto in 1985, I had fully decided to do away with these anomalies,to break
the taboo and, for starters, pose, or rather have Douglas Christiepose, questions to the
experts and Jewish witnesses as one normally posesin every trial where one is supposed to
establish whether a crime has beencommitted and, if so, by whom, how and when.
Fortunately for me, ErnstZündel accepted my conditions and Douglas Chritie consented to
adoptthis course of action and to pose to the experts and witnesses the questionsthat I
would prepare for him. I was convinced that, in this manner, all mightchange, and the
veil woven by so many false testimonies could be torn away.While I was not counting on
Ernst Zündel's acquittal and we were allresigned to paying the price for our audacity, I
nevertheless had hope thatwith the aid of this far-sighted man of character, and thanks
to his intrepidlawyer, history, if not justice, would at last carry him into legend.
From the moment of the first cross-examination, a tremor of panic began tocreep its way
amid the ranks of the prosecution. Every evening and throughoutmost of the night, I would
prepare the questions to ask. In the morning,I would turn over these questions,
accompanied by the necessary documents,to lawyer Doug Christie who, for his part and with
the aid of his femalecollaborator, conducted the essentially legal aspects of the effort.
Duringthe cross-examinations, I maintained a position close to the lawyer's podiumand
unremittingly furnished, on yellow notepads, supplementary andimprovisational questions
according to the experts' and witnesses' responses.
The expert cited by the prosecution was Dr. Raul Hilberg, author of TheDestruction of
European Jews. Day after day, he was subjected to suchhumiliation that, when solicited in
1988 by a new prosecutor for a new trialagainst Ernst Zündel, he refused to return to
give witness; he explainedthe motive for his refusal in a confidential letter wherein he
acknowledgedhis fear of having to once again confront the questions of Douglas
Christie.From the cross-examination of Dr. Raul Hilberg, it was definitively broughtout
that no one possessed any proof for the existence either of an order,a plan, an
instruction, or a budget for the presumed physical exterminationof the Jews; furthermore,
no one possessed either an expertise of the murderweapon (whether gas chamber or gas
van), or an autopsy report establishingthe murder of a detainee by poison gas. However,
in the absence of evidenceregarding the weapon and victim, did there exist witnesses of
the crime?
A testimony must always be verified. The usual first means of proceedingto this
verification is to confront the assertions of the witness with theresults of
investigations or expert opinion regarding the material natureof the crime. In the case
at hand, there were neither investigations, norexpertise relative to the alleged
Auschwitz gas chambers. Here is what madeany cross-examination difficult. Yet, this
difficulty should not serve asan excuse, and one might even say that a cross-examination
becomes ever moreindispensable because, without it, there no longer remains any way of
knowingwhether the witness is telling the truth or not.
4. Jewish Witnesses Finally Cross-examined:
A. Friedman and Dr. R. Vrba
For those persons interested in the technical and documentary means by whichwe were
nevertheless in a position to severely cross-examine the two principalJewish witnesses,
Arnold Friedman and Dr. Rudolf Vrba, I can do no betterthan to recommend a reading of the
trial transcript: Queen versusZündel, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, January 7, 1985. Pages
304-371cover the questioning and cross-examination of Arnold Friedman; the latterbreaks
down on pages 445-446 when he ends by acknowledging that he in factsaw nothing, that he
had spoken from hearsay because, according to him, hehad met persons who were convincing;
perhaps, he added, he would have adoptedthe position of Mr. Christie rather than that of
these other persons if onlyMr. Christie had been able to tell him back then what he was
telling himnow!
Dr. Vrba was a witness of exceptional importance. One might even say aboutthis trial in
Toronto that the prosecution had found the means of recruiting"Holocaust" expert number
one in the person of Dr. Raul Hilberg, and witnessnumber one in the person of Dr. Rudolf
Vrba. The testimony of this lattergentleman had been one of the principal sources of the
famous War RefugeeBoard Report on the German Extermination Camps - Auschwitz and
Birkenau,published in November 1944 by the Executive Office of President Roosevelt.Dr. R.
Vrba was also the author of I Cannot Forgive (BantamBooks, New York, 1964), written in
collaboration with Alan Bestic who, inhis preface declares with regard to him: "Indeed I
would like to pay tributeto him for the immense trouble he took over every detail; for
the meticulous,almost fanatical respect he revealed for accuracy" (p.2).
Never perhaps had a court of justice seen a witness express himself withmore assurance on
the Auschwitz gas chambers. Yet, by the end of thecross-examination, the situation had
reversed itself to the point where Dr.R. Vrba was left with only one explanation for his
errors and his lies: inhis book he had, he confessed, resorted to "poetic license" or, as
he waswont to say in Latin, to "licentia poetarum"!
In the end, a bit of drama unfolded: Mr. Griffiths, the prosecutor who hadhimself
solicited the presence of this witness numero uno and yet now apparentlyexasperated by
Dr. Vrba's lies, fired off the following question:
You told Mr. Christie several times in discussing your book I Cannot Forgive that you
used poetic license in writing that book. Have you used poetic license in your testimony?
(p. 1636).
The false witness tried to parry the blow but prosecutor Griffiths hit himwith a second
question equally treacherous, this time concerning the numberof gassing victims which
Vrba had given; the witness responded with garrulousnonsense; Griffiths was getting ready
to ask him a third and final questionwhen suddenly, the matter was cut short and one
heard the prosecutor sayto the judge: "I have no further questions for Dr. Vrba" (p.
1643).
Crestfallen, the witness left the dock. Dr. Vrba's initial questioning,cross-examination
and final questioning filled 400 pages of transcripts (pp.1244-1643). These pages could
readily be used in an encyclopedia of law undera chapter on the detection of false
witnesses.
5. The Prosecution Gives Up On Calling Witnesses
Three years later, in 1988, during the second trial against Ernst Zündel,the public
prosecutor deemed it prudent to abandon any recourse to witnesses.Canadian justice had
apparently understood the lesson of the first trial:there were no credible witnesses to
the existence and operation of the Nazigas chambers.
Little by little, every other country in the world has learned this samelesson. At the
trial of Klaus Barbie in France, in 1987, there was talk aboutthe gas chambers of
Auschwitz but no one produced any witnesses who couldproperly speak about them. The
attorney Jacques Vergès, courageousyet not foolhardy, preferred to avoid the subject.
This was a stroke of luckfor the Jewish lawyers who feared nothing so much as to see me
appearingat the side of Mr. Vergès. If this gentleman had accepted my offerto counsel
him, we in France might have been able to strike a tremendousblow against the myth of the
gas chambers.
All the while in France, during several Revisionist trials, Jewish witnessessometimes
came to evoke the gas chambers but none of them testified beforethe court as to having
seen one or having participated in a homicidal gassing.
Today, gas chamber witnesses are making themselves extremely scarce and theDemjanjuk
trial in Israel, which once again has revealed how much false testimonyis involved in the
matter, has contributed to the suppression. Several yearsago, it happened that I was
aggressively questioned at the rear of a lawcourt by elderly Jews who presented
themselves as "living witnesses to thegas chambers of Auschwitz," showing me their
tatoos. It was necessary forme only to ask them to look me in the eyes and to describe
for me a gas chamberthat inevitably they retorted: "How could I do this? If I had seen a
gaschamber with my own eyes I would not be here today to speak with you; I myselfwould
have been gassed also." This brings us back, as one can see, to SimoneVeil and her
declaration of May 7, 1983, about which we already know whatwe should think.
6. The Media Witnesses
Aside from the judicial witnesses, there are media witnesses to the gas chambers,or
homicidal gassing, at Auschwitz or Birkenau. Here one thinks of the namesof Olga Lengyel,
Gisela Perl, Fania Fénelon, Ota Kraus, Erich Kulka,Hermann Langbein, André Lettich,
Samuel Pisar, Maurice Benroubi,André Rogerie, Robert Clary,... My library is full of
these accountswhich duplicate themselves over and over. Paul Rassinier was the first
toshow us in what manner the falsehood of these testimonies might be demonstrated;he did
this notably for Auschwitz in Le Véritable ProcèsEichmann ou les Vainqueurs incorrigibles
(The True Eichmann Trialor, the Incorrigible Victors, Les Sept Couleurs, 1962), where
Appendix Vis devoted toMédecin à Auschwitz (Doctor atAuschwitz) regarding Miklos Nyiszli.
From the 1950s to the 1980s, the Revisionists found merit in undertakingstudies critical
of testimonies. Nowadays, it seems to me this exercise hasbecome superfluous. Let us
abstain from chasing after ambulances and insteadleave the care of criticizing this
sub-literature to the Exterminationiststhemselves, and in particular Jean-Claude Pressac,
because - so far as onecan determine at present - the most virulent anti-Revisionists end
by puttingthemselves into the school of the Revisionists. The result is sometimes
rifewith pungency. In October 1991, the periodical Le Déportépour la liberté (Deportee
for Liberty), an organ of l'Unionnationale des associations de déportés, internés
etfamilles de disparus (UNADIF; National Union of Associations of Deportees,Prisoners and
Families of the Missing), announced on its cover-page: "Inthe inner pages of this issue,
part one of the testimony of Henry Bily, oneof the rare escapees from a Sonderkommando."
In his follow-up of November1991, Mr. Bily continued the account of his Auschwitz
experience under thetitle of "Mon histoire extraordinaire" (My Amazing Story).
However, in the following instalment of Déporté pourla liberté, that of December
1991-January 1992, there appeareda "Clarification regarding insertion of the text of
Henry Bily in our columns."The review's director and editor uncovered the falsehood: in
the major portionof his testimony, Mr. Bily had proceeded to:
copy word for word without any citation of references, from passages (notably chapters 7
and 28) of the book by Dr. Myklos Nyiszli: Médecin à Auschwitz, written in 1946 and
translated and published in 1961 by René Julliard publishing house. Unfortunately, the
original errors committed by Dr. Nyiszli have also been repeated; finally, the most
extensive borrowing has to do with the description of the Sonderkommando functions at
Auschwitz-Birkenau, in which Henry Bily declares [deceivingly] to have worked... The
result of this analysis is that it is in no way possible to consider Henry Bily's text as
an original and personal testimony.
To an attentive reader of this declaration, the sentence "Unfortunately,the original
errors committed by Dr. Nyiszli have also been resumed" mightallow one to perceive that,
worst of all, Mr. Bily, a petty Jewish tradesman,had recopied a testimony which itself
had already been false. As I have recentlymentioned, Paul Rassinier had long ago proved
that Médecin àAuschwitz, a work dear to Jean-Paul Sartre who in 1951 published partsof it
in Les Temps modernes, could only be one of the greatestimpostures. Many Revisionists,
and in particular Carlo Mattogno, have sinceconfirmed this assessment. As for me, in my
report regarding Jean-ClaudePressac's book Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas
Chambers(Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, 1989), I have inserted a sectionentitled:
"Pressac's (involuntary) buffoonery in regard to M. Nyiszli." Irecommend the reading of
this section to people interested in false testimonieson Auschwitz, false testimonies
which pharmacist J.C. Pressac tries to defendat any price by way of convolutions,
laborious inventions and flightyspeculations, thus unintentionally discrediting them once
and for all (R.Faurisson, "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers
(1989)or, Pottering and Sputtering at Auschwitz and Birkenau According to J.C.Pressac,"
Revue d'histoire révisionniste, November 1990, pp. 126-130).
7. False Witnesses Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi
A few words force themselves to our attention in regard to Elie Wiesel andPrimo Levi.
Regarding the former, I come back to my article "Un grand faux témoin:Elie Wiesel"[A
Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel] (Annales d'histoirerévisionniste, Spring 1988, pp.
163-168; see also "Un grand fauxtémoin: Elie Wiesel (suite)" [A Prominent False Witness:
Elie Wiesel(Continued)], Nouvelle Vision, September 1993, pp. 19-24). InNight (preface by
François Mauriac, Les Editions de Minuit,1958), a biographical account particularly
regarding his internment at Auschwitzand Buchenwald, Mr. Wiesel does not even mention the
gas chambers but itappears, by way of a sort of universal media convention, that he is
consideredas a witness par excellence on the "Holocaust" and the gas chambers.
Accordingto him, if the Germans exterminated large numbers of Jews, it was by forcingthem
either into raging fires or ovens! The conclusion of his testimony includesan extremely
curious episode (pp. 129-133) over which I have been waitingyears for Elie Wiesel to
furnish us an explanation: in January 1945 he tellsus, the Germans gave him and his
father the choice between staying behindin the camp to await the arrival of the Soviets,
or leaving with the Germans;after agreeing between them, the father and son decided to
depart for Germanywith their executioners instead of staying in place to await their
Sovietliberators...5
Curiously, for several years now, Primo Levi has been posthumously elevatedby the media
to the rank of first importance among witnesses of the Auschwitzgas chambers. He is the
author of Se questo è un uomo ("If This BeA Man," Julliard Press, pocket edition, 1993).
The first part of the bookis the longest and the most important; it comprises 180 pages
(pp. 7-186)and was edited in 1947; the author says, starting on page 19, that it wasafter
the war he learned about the gassing of the Jews at Birkenau; he himselfwas working at
Buna-Monowitz and had never set foot in Birkenau; also, heonly spoke in extremely vague
terms and but six times about "the" gas chamber(pp. 19, 48, 51, 96, 135 and 138) and on
one occasion about the gas chambers(page 159); he is satisfied to nearly always mention
it in the singular andas a rumor about which "everyone is talking" (page 51). Suddenly,
in his"Appendix" written in 1976, being some 30 years later, the gas chambers makea
forceful entry: in the space of 26 pages (pp. 189-214), which, in viewof their more
compact typography, can be considered as 30, the author mentionson 11 occasions (page
193, two times; page 198, three times; page 199, once;page 201, two times; pages 202, 209
and 210, once each); on two occasions,he speaks of "gas" and on nine occasions of "gas
chambers" (always in theplural); he writes as if he had seen them: "The gas chambers were
in effectcamouflaged as shower rooms with plumbing, faucets, dressing rooms,
clotheshooks, benches, etc." (page 198). He does not fear to write additionally:"The gas
chambers and the crematory ovens had been deliberately conceivedto destroy lives and
human bodies by the millions; the horrible record forthis is credited to Auschwitz, with
24,000 deaths in a single day duringthe month of August 1944" (pp. 201-202).
Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi are not the only ones to have thus "enriched"their
recollections.
Primo Levi was a chemical engineer. Regarding his crack-up or delirium froma scientific
point of view in If This Be A Man, one should consult PierreMarais' En lisant de près les
écrivains chantres de la Shoah- Primo Levi, Georges Wellers, Jean-Claude Pressac ("A
Close Reading of theSiren Writers of the Shoah - Primo Levi, Georges Wellers, Jean-Claude
Pressac),La Vieille Taupe, 1991, 127 pages; see in particular "Le chimiste, la batteriede
camion et... les chambres à gaz" ("The Chemist, the Truck Batteryand... the Gas
Chambers"), the chapter which involves Primo Levi (pp. 7-21).The latter committed suicide
on April 11, 1987. It was to his very natureof being a Jew that he owes not having been
shot by the Fascist militia onDecember 13, 1943 at the age of 24. "The Fascists had
captured him in therole of a partisan (he was still carrying a pistol), and he declared
himselfa Jew in order not to be immediately shot. And it is in the role of a Jewthat he
was delivered over to the Germans. The Germans sent him to Auschwitz..."(Ferdinando
Camon, "Chimie/Levi, la mort" ("Chemistry/Levi, death"),Libération, April 13, 1987, page
29).
CONCLUSION
From 1945 to 1985, the presumed judicial witnesses of the Auschwitz gas chambershave
benefitted from an extraordinary privilege: they have always been sparedthe ordeal of
cross-examination regarding the material nature of the purportedfacts they related. In
1985, at the first of two Zündel trials in Toronto,attorney Douglas Christie was fully
agreeable, based on my suggestion andoffer of assistance, to conduct the
cross-examination according to standardprocedure for these type of witnesses. The result
was the unmasking of witnessesArnold Friedman and Dr. Rudolf Vrba. This reversal was so
serious that todayone can no longer find witnesses willing to take the risk of swearing
beforethe dock of a court of law that they saw a homicidal gassing, whether atAuschwitz
or any other concentration camp within the Third Reich.
The would-be media witnesses continue to proliferate in the world of radio,television and
books, where they hardly run the risk of being put into difficultyby embarrassing
questions. Yet even these witnesses are becoming more andmore vague, making themselves
liable to denunciation by representatives ofthe exterminationist thesis. These latter are
in effect aligning themselvesmore and more with the Revisionist school because they
realize that up untilnow they have stood by the lies of too many false witnesses, lies
which endby costing their own cause too dearly.
As there are notoriously more and more risks now in presenting oneself asa witness of the
gas chambers - as again did the Jew Filip Müller in1979 - the solution which nowadays
tends to prevail is the one which, sinceMay 7, 1983, Simone Veil has had to adopt in the
aftermath of the April 26decision by the Paris Court of Appeal, a decision which
recognized that mywork on the problem of the gas chambers was serious insofar as I
demonstratedthat the accepted testimonies flew in the face of strong
physical-chemicalimpossibilities. The solution, or moreover, the evasion, advocated by
Ms.Veil consisted in saying that, if there were in effect no proofs, no traces,and no
witnesses of the crime, it was because the Germans had destroyed allthe evidence, all the
traces, and all the witnesses. Such a statement, besidesbeing absurd, would in turn
necessitate evidence which Ms. Veil has not provided.But this matters little. Let us take
note of this statement and, like Ms.Veil and those who in practice seem to rally to her
thesis, let us also putto good use the evidence long brought to light by the
Revisionists: not onlydo there exist no proofs and no traces of Nazi gas chambers, but
there areno witnesses for them either.
Today, at the close of 1993, the testimonies regarding the Auschwitz gaschambers are
discredited, even among the Exterminationists. History as foundedupon these testimonies
is beginning to give way to history founded eitheron facts or arguments of a scientific
nature. It is this which I had advocatedin my article of December 29, 1978 in the Monde
and in my letter to the Mondeof January 16, 1979. It was necessary to wait more than ten
years to seeour adversaries venture into the arena where I had invited them to join usin
being evaluated: the field of science. Jean-Claude Pressac had been appointed,notably by
Mr. and Mrs. Klarsfeld, to denounce "testimonial history" andto replace it with a
scientific basis or, at least, one with a scientificappearance.
Claude Lanzmann and the supporters of "testimonial history" are upset,6 tothe
satisfaction, by the way, of the Revisionists. A half-century ofunsubstantiated
testimonies must now be definitively succeeded by an inquiryfor facts and proofs along a
judicial, scientific and historical basis.
Annex
THE TRANSLATION INTO GERMAN OF ELIE WIESEL'S MOST FAMOUS BOOK
(thanks to a discovery by Jürgen Graf and the help of Ms. A.W.)
French Original Version: La Nuit, éditions de Minuit, 1958, 178 pages English
Translation: Night, translated f. the French by Stella Rodway, Bantam Books, 1986 (25th
Anniversary Edition), pp. XIV-111 German Translation:Die Nacht zu begraben, Elisha,
German translation by Kurt Meyer-Clason, Ullstein*, 1962,pp. 17-153
A. In Auschwitz A. In Auschwitz A. In Auschwitz
1. p.57: au crématoire p.30: to the crematory p.53: in die Gaskammer
2. p.57: au crématoire p.30: to the crematory p.53: ins Vernichtungslager**
3. p.58:les fours crématoires p.30: these crematories p.54: die Gaskammern
4. p.61: aux crématoires p.33:in the crematories p.57: in den Gaskammern
5. p.62: le four crématoire p.33:the crematory oven p.57: die Gaskammer
6. p.67: Au crématoire p.36: the crematory p.62: die Gaskammer
7. p.67: le crématoire p.36: the crematory p.62: Gaskammer
8. p.84: exterminés p.48: exterminated p.76: vergast
9. p.101: les fours crématoires p.59: the crematory ovens p.90: den Gaskammern
10. p.108: six crématoires p.64: six crematories p.95: sechs Gaskammern
11. p.109: au crématoire p.64: the crematory p.95: den Gaskammern
12. p.112: le crématoire p.66: the crematory p.98: die Gaskammer
13. p.129: au crématoire p.77: to the crematory p.113: in die Gaskammer
B. In Buchenwald B. In Buchenwald B. In Buchenwald
14. p.163: du four crématoire p.99: of the crematory oven p.140: der Gaskammer
15. p.174: au crématoire p.106: to the crematory p.150: in die Gaskammer
CONCLUSION: The English translation (1960) of the French original(1958) is correct,
whereas the German translation (1962) reads "gas" in 15instances where, in fact, there
was no mention of "gas" in the French original.
* Ullstein, Thomas-Wimmer-Ring 11, D-80539 München; phone: (089) 23500 80; fax: (089) 235
00 844.
** "Vernichtungslager" means "camp with homicidal gas chambers."
1. S. Veil, former Minister of Justice, former President of the EuropeanParliament.
2. Hefte von Auschwitz, Sonderheft (I), Handschriften von Mitgleidern desSonderkommandos,
Verlag Staatliches Auschwitz-Museum, 1972, pp. 32-71.
3. On the cross-examination of the witness Dr. Charles Sigismund Bendel byattorney Dr.
Zippel, see "Excerpt from transcript of proceedings of a MilitaryCourt for the Trial of
War Criminals held at the War Crimes Court, Curiohaus,Hamburg, on Saturday 2nd March,
1946, upon the trial of Bruno Tesch, JoachimDrosihn and Karl Weinbacher," transcript, pp.
30-31 (doc. NI-11953). Regardingthis abominable trial, it is indispensable to read: Dr.
William Lindsay,"Zyklon B, Auschwitz, and the Trial of Bruno Tesch," The Journal
ofHistorical Review, Fall 1983, pp.261-303. This study has been reproducedin part by Udo
Walendy in Historische Tatsachen, Nr. 25 (1985),pp. 10-23.
4. For a representation of these two maps, see Hermann Langbein, DerAuschwitz-Prozess,
Eine Dokumentation, 2. Bänder, Frankfurt,Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 1965, 1027 p., pp.
930-933. For an authoritativestudy of the trial, see Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, Der
Auschwitz-Prozess,Legende oder Wirklichkeit? Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme,Tübingen,
Grabert Verlag, 1979, XII-492 S.
5. One point which cannot fail to be interesting is that in the Germantranslation of this
book (Die Nacht zu begraben, Elisha, withGerman translation by Curt Meyer-Clason,
Ullstein, 1962, pp. 17-153), thecrematory ovens of the original French version are done
away with to be replacedby gas chambers (which also applies to Buchenwald). I owe this
discoveryto the Swiss Revisionist Jürgen Graf and I am indebted to A.W., a
GermanRevisionist living in France, for a list of 15 instances where the Germantranslator
thought it good to use the word "gas" where it was not used inthe original text (see
Annex). In December 1986, I made my way to Oslo toattend the awarding of the Nobel Peace
Prize to Elie Wiesel. Assisted byfriends, I distributed a tract previously titled "Elie
Wiesel, A ProminentFalse Witness." Some months later, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, one of mymost
implacable adversaries, denounced Mr. Wiesel as a man "who talks anyrubbish that comes
into his head... It suffices to read certain of hisdescriptions in Night to know that
certain of his accounts are not exactand that he ends by transforming himself into a
Shoah peddler. He commitsan injustice, an immense injustice to historical truth"
(Interview by MichelFolco, Zéro, April 1987, page 57).
6. See notably the article by Robert Redeker which he published in his reviewLes Temps
Modernes, under the title: "La Catastrophe durévisionnisme" ("The Revisionist
Catastrophe," November 1993, pp.1-6); here, Revisionism is presented as a catastrophic
sign of a changingtime: "Auschwitz" was - and for the author, still is - a "mystique,"
whichis to say a belief enveloped by religious reverence; yet, he says in a deploringtone
that "Auschwitz" is becoming the subject of historical and technologicalconsiderations.
This article was in printing when there appeared inL'Express a substantial write-up on
the new book by Jean-ClaudePressac (September 23, 1993, pp. 76-80, 82-87). Claude
Lanzmann virulentlyprotested against this turn of events taken by "Holocaust" history. He
wrote:"Even if it is in order to refute them, we thus legitimize the argumentsof the
Revisionists, which become the only criterion by which every text and every author is now
judged. The Revisionists occupy the entire playing field" (Le Nouvel Observateur,
September 30, 1993, page 97).
This work was translated from the original French by Daniel D. Desjardins
For Liberty, God Bless the Republic
One man with courage is a majority. - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| pokerkid |
| Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:40 pm |
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Jan 2003
Posts: 7162
Location: Allentown, PA
|
From a fan and expert on all things about zionazi holofraud LIES!!!
The True Story of Snow White in Auschwitz - Jeez, these people can't keep their ducks in a row can they?
Someday, in the not so distant future (I believe), the Jews THEMSELVES will become
Holocaust Revisionists. Now that they have completely destroyed German and European
culture with their lies and their pushing of multiculturalism, they will turn around and
declare that the Germans did NOT gas Jews or anyone else (which they are already quietly
backing away from by the way) and that it was indeed the relentless Allied bombing of the
US and England that caused the widespread starvation and therefor the typhus and other
diseases that swept the camps (and much of Germany). Someday soon the US and Britain will
start feeling the heat of the Jews' claims for reparations that they have extorted from
Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy, the Vatican, and others (which the US helped them by
intimidation). The latest spat of Jewish Holocaust books are already leveling charges
against FDR for not doing MORE, even claiming that the Allies SHOULD have bombed the
camps DIRECTLY so the inmates could run free (in my estimation a reminder to the WASP
elites that a turn o the worm is one sentence away on the truth).
Mark my words. They have gotten us into THEIR wars in the Middle East, they have sucked
our blood already through the Federal Reserve System, they have destroyed this once 90%
white country by writing pushing the Immigration law in 1965 that allowed in Third
Worlders, it is their control of the US political system (Liberalism) that stops us from
kicking out the illegals (by force if necessary) and makes us pay for the social services
that make it possible for the illegals to stay here. Only 40 years later, the white
population of the US is now 65% and minority on white crimes like rape go under reported.
Now that the US has helped the Jews build up Israel into a nuclear weapons power they
will hang onto us only as long as they must for the US to finish off Israel's enemies,
Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, then they will engineer our downfall as they did Russia
(1917) and Germany (WWI & WWII).
I wish I had better news, but if folks don't start really thinking into the future, with
a real perspective of history, we are done for. People like Scott Brown and Sarah Palin
DO NOT offer real solutions to our real problems, they are window dressing that push
forward the Israel Agenda while pretending to be "Conservative". - Editor
The True Story of Snow White in Auschwitz
According to the official propaganda which the Jews constantly push out about the
Auschwitz camp, the evil Nazis “exterminated the children as soon as they arrive” with
the “selection on the ramp” conducted by Dr. Josef Mengele and others.
This is, like everything else the Jews say about Auschwitz, simply a lie. A spat over
ownership of art works – yes, art works– made in the Auschwitz camp has revealed that not
only was there a children’s section in the camp (impossible if the original Jew
propaganda is believed!) but that it also had a Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs mural
painted in it to cheer the children up!
The incredible story of the children’s section at Auschwitz has come to light with the
demand by supporters of an old Jewess, Dina Gottliebova Babbitt, who was asked by Dr.
Mengele in person to paint a series of pictures of Gypsies for him in the camp in 1944.
It is claimed that Mengele wanted the painting to “study race” but this is clearly false,
as Nazi racial scientists would always use photographs for such matters, which would
always accurately capture racial features far more properly than a painting. The images
were clearly made as art, as can be seen below:
The Auschwitz museum, which considers the watercolors to be its property, has argued that
they are the true owners of the artworks, and has refused to return them to Babbitt as
she is demanding.
Dina Gottliebova was a 19-year-old art student in Prague in 1942 when she first went to a
concentration camp. In September 1943 she and her mother, Johanna, were moved to
Auschwitz, where she tried to cheer the imprisoned children by painting a mural of a
Swiss mountainside and “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.”
The work drew the attention of Mengele, who singled her out in March 1944. Babbitt
claims, ridiculously, that she demanded of Mengele that he “also spare her mother or she
would commit suicide by touching an electrified fence.”
Babbitt and her mother survived internment in two more concentration camps before being
set free in May 1945.
In 1973 the Auschwitz museum told her that the watercolors had survived. The curators had
determined that she was the artist by comparing her signature — “Dina 1944” — to the ones
on artworks she had done shortly after the war for a book on the Holocaust.
The artist borrowed money to fly to Poland to authenticate the work, carrying a briefcase
that she planned to use to take the watercolors home. When museum officials refused to
give them to her, the long-running dispute began.
* Incredibly, the Auschwitz Museum admits that there are about “2000 artworks” in the
museum archives!
“There are a few thousand artifacts – works of art – in the Museum’s Collections
Department. About two thousand of them were made in the camp by the prisoners,” says the
Auschwitz museum on its web site.
Let us see now:
* A camp with a children’s section;
* A camp with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs mural painted on the walls of the
children’s section;
* A camp with “two thousand art works” made by inmates…
Does this sound like an “extermination camp” to you?
Article about Babbitt and the artworks in the New York Times. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
