Holocaust Truthers

Professor Michel de Bouard, former inmate at Mauthausen, admits Holocaust™ record is “rotten to the core”, rife with “fantasies” and “exaggerations”

Michel de Boüard

In 1986, Michel de Boüard, former inmate at Mauthausen, honorary dean of the Faculty of Letters at the University of Caen, member of the Committee for the History of the Second World War, member of the Institut de France, said:

In the monograph on Mauthausen that I published in Revue d’Histoire de la [Deuxième] Guerre mondiale in 1954, I mentioned a gas chamber on two occasions. When the time of reflection had arrived, I said to myself: where did you arrive at the conviction that there was a gas chamber in Mauthausen? This cannot have been during my stay in this camp, for neither myself nor anybody else ever suspected that there was one there. This must therefore be a piece of ‘baggage’ that I picked up after the war; this was [an] admitted [fact] but I noticed that in my text – although I have the habit of supporting most of my affirmations by references-there was none referring to the gas chamber . . . (Ouest-France, August 2-3, 1986, p. 6).

In response to The Journalist’s question:

You were president of the Calvados (Normandy) Association of Deportees, and you resigned in May, 1985, why?

he said:

I found myself torn between my conscience as a historian and the duties it implies, and on the other hand, my membership in a group of comrades whom I deeply love, but who refuse to recognize the necessity of dealing with the deportation [ 1] as a historical fact in accordance with sound historical methods. I am haunted by the thought that in 100 years or even 50 years the historians will question themselves on the particular aspect of the Second World War which is the concentration camp system and what they will find out. 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 close critical studies that demonstrate the inanity of those exaggerations. I fear that those future historians might then say that the deportation, when all is said and done, must have been a myth There lies the danger. That haunts me. (Ibid).

For more than 30 years Robert Faurisson has been Europe’s foremost historical revisionist scholar. Dr Faurisson was professor of modern and contemporary French literature at the Sorbonne and at a University in Lyon, where he specialised in the “critical appraisal of texts and documents (literature, history, media)”. From 1979 he was forbidden, de facto, from teaching.

After years of private research and study, Faurisson first made his sceptical views about the “Holocaust” story known to the general public in two pieces printed in December 1978 and January 1979 by the influential Paris daily Le Monde. Soon afterwards Faurisson discovered the building plans of the Auschwitz morgues, the crematoria and other installations in the archives of the Auschwitz State Museum. He was the first person to publicise those important documents, which had been kept hidden since the war, and point out their significance.

Faurisson played an important role in both of the Ernst Zundel “Holocaust trials” in Toronto, Canada (1985 and 1988). His most noteworthy contribution to Zündel’s defence in 1988 may well have been his securing of the participation of Fred Leuchter, an American gas chamber specialist. He was also instrumental in arranging for Leuchter’s on-site investigation in Poland of alleged homicidal gas chambers, and in making public the American’s remarkable findings.

For years French government agencies and influential private bodies have waged a concerted campaign to silence him. He has been obliged to defend himself many times in the courts for his forthright writings and statements. He has had to contend with numerous convictions and has suffered at least ten physical assaults, one of which was a nearly successful attempt at murder.

His bank account has been frozen, and legal officials have repeatedly visited his home threatening him and his wife with seizure of their furniture to cover damages imposed by civil judgments against his “heretical” works. His family life has been repeatedly disrupted and thrown into turmoil by this harassment. His health has suffered terribly.

During an interview in December 1980 with the French radio network Europe no. 1, Faurisson summed up the results of his research on “the Holocaust” in a sentence of 60 French words. Here is that sentence in English: “The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people — but not their leaders — and the Palestinian people in their entirety.”

Some  new facts about Auschwitz are at last beginning to make a tentative  appearance. They are contained in a recent work called Die Auschwitz-Lüge:  Ein  Erlebnisbericht von Theis Christopherson (The Auschwitz Legends:  An Account of  his Experiences by Thies Christopherson, Kritik  Verlag/Mohrkirch, 1973).  Published by the German lawyer Dr. Manfred  Roeder in the periodical Deutsche  Bürger-Iniative, it is an eye-witness  account of Auschwitz by Thies  Christopherson, who was sent to  the Bunawerk plant laboratories at Auschwitz to  research into  the production of synthetic rubber for the Kaiser Wilhelm  Institute.  In May 1973, not long after the appearance of this account, the  veteran Jewish “Nazi-hunter” Simon Wiesenthal wrote to the Frankfurt  Chamber of  Lawyers, demanding that the publisher and author of  the Forward, Dr. Roeder, a  member of the Chamber, should be brought  before its disciplinary commission.  Sure enough, proceedings began  in July, but not without harsh criticism even  from the Press,  who asked “Is Simon Wiesenthal the new Gauleiter of Germany?”  (Deutsche  Wochenzeitung, July 27th, 1973). Christopherson’s account is certainly  one of the most important documents for a re-appraisal of Auschwitz.  He spent  the whole of 1944 there, during which time he visited  all of the separate camps  comprising the large Auschwitz complex,  including Auschwitz-Birkenau where it is  alleged that wholesale  massacres of Jews took place. Christopherson, however, is  in no  doubt that this is totally untrue. He writes: “I was in Auschwitz  from  January 1944 until December 1944. After the war I heard about  the mass murders  which were supposedly perpetrated by the S.S.  against the Jewish prisoners, and  I was perfectly astonished.  Despite all the evidence of witnesses, all the  newspaper reports  and radio broadcasts I still do not believe today in these  horrible  deeds. I have said this many times and in many places, but to no  purpose. One is never believed” (p. 16). Space forbids a detailed  summary here  of the author’s experiences at Auschwitz, which include  facts about camp routine  and the daily life of prisoners totally  at variance with the allegations of  propaganda (pp. 22-7). More  important are his revelations about the supposed  existence of  an extermination camp. “During the whole of my time at Auschwitz,  l  never observed the slightest evidence of mass gassings. Moreover,  the odour of  burning flesh that is often said to have hung over  the camp is a downright  falsehood. In the vicinity of the main  camp (Auschwitz I) was a large farrier’s  works, from which the  smell of molten iron was naturally not pleasant” (p.  33-4). Reitlinger  confirms that there were five blast furnaces and five  collieries  at Auschwitz, which together with the Bunawerk factories comprised  Auschwitz III (ibid. p. 452). The author agrees that a crematorium  would  certainly have existed at Auschwitz, “since 200,000 people  lived there, and in  every city with 200,000 inhabitants there  would be a crematorium. Naturally  people died there — but not  only prisoners. In fact the wife of  Obersturmbannführer A. (Christopherson’s  superior) also died there” (p. 33). The  author explains: “There  were no secrets at Auschwitz. In September 1944 a  commission of  the International Red Cross came to the camp for an inspection.  They were particularly interested in the camp at Birkenau, though  we also had  many inspections at Raisko” (Bunawerk section, p.  35). Christopherson points out  that the constant visits to Auschwitz  by outsiders cannot be reconciled with  allegations of mass extermination.  When describing the visit of his wife to the  camp in May, he observes:  “The fact that it was possible to receive visits from  our relatives  at any time demonstrates the openness of the camp administration.  Had Auschwitz been a great extermination camp, we would certainly  not have been  able to receive such visits” (p. 27). After the  war, Christopherson came to hear  of the alleged existence of a  building with gigantic chimneys in the vicinity of  the main camp.  “This was supposed to be the crematorium. However, I must record  the fact that when I left the camp at Auschwitz in December 1944,  I had not seen  this building there” (p. 37). Does this mysterious  building exist today?  Apparently not; Reitlinger claims it was  demolished and “completely burnt out in  full view of the camp”  in October, though Christopherson never saw this public  demolition.  Although it is said to have taken place “in full view of the camp”,  it was allegedly seen by only one Jewish witness, a certain Dr.  Bendel, and his  is the only testimony to the occurrence (Reitlinger,  ibid, p. 457). This  situation is generally typical. When it comes  down to hard evidence, it is  strangely elusive; the building was  “demolished”, the document is “lost”, the  order was “verbal”.  At Auschwitz today, visitors are shown a small furnace and  here  they are told that millions of people were exterminated. The Soviet  State  Commission which “investigated” the camp announced on May  12th, 1945, that  “Using rectified coefficients . . . the technical  expert commission has  ascertained that during the time that the  Auschwitz camp existed, the German  butchers exterminated in this  camp not less than four million citizens …”  Reitlinger’s surprisingly  frank comment on this is perfectly adequate: “The  world has grown  mistrustful of ‘rectified coefficients’ and the figure of four  millions  has become ridiculous” (ibid, p. 460). Finally, the account of Mr.  Christopherson draws attention to a very curious circumstance.  The only  defendant who did not appear at the Frankfurt Auschwitz  Trial in 1963 was  Richard Baer, the successor of Rudolf Höss  as commandant of Auschwitz. Though in  perfect health, he died  suddenly in prison before the trial had begun, “in a  highly mysterious  way” according to the newspaper; Deutsche Wochenzeitung (July  27th,  1973). Baer’s sudden demise before giving evidence is especially  strange,  since the Paris newspaper Rivarol recorded his insistence  that “during the whole  time in which he governed Auschwitz, he  never saw any gas chambers nor believed  that such things existed,”  and from this statement nothing would dissuade him.  In short,  the Christopherson account adds to a mounting collection of evidence  demonstrating that the giant industrial complex of Auschwitz (comprising  thirty  separate installations and divided by the main Vienna-Cracow  railway line) was  nothing but a vast war production centre, which,  while admittedly employing the  compulsory labour of detainees,  was certainly not a place of “mass  extermination”.

The Factual Appraisal of the Conditions  in

the German Wartime  Concentration Camps

by the International  Committee

of the Red  Cross

A  key role in relation to the Jewish question in Europe during  World  War H was played by the International Committee of the Red Cross,  which  consisted largely of relatively detached Swiss nationals,  although, as might be  expected, sentiment became more critical  of Germany when the German military  defeats continued to mount  following Stalingrad. At the 17th International Red  Cross Conference  at Stockholm in 1947 final arrangements were made for a  definitive  report to appear the next year: Report of the International  Committee  of the Red Cross on its Activities during the Second World War (3  vols., Geneva, 1948). This comprehensive survey both supplemented  and  incorporated the findings from two previous key works: Documents  sur  L’activité du CICR en faveur des civils detenus dans les  camps de concentration  en Allemagne, 1939-1945 (Geneva, 1946),  and Inter Arma Caritas: the Work  of the ICRC during the Second  World War (Geneva, 1947). The team of authors,  headed by Frédéric  Siordet, explained in the opening pages of the first of the  1948  volumes that their motto had been strict political neutrality, and  service  to all. The ICRC was contrasted with the national societies  of the Red Cross  with their primary aims of aiding their own peoples.  The neutrality of the ICRC  was seen to he typified by its two  principal wartime leaders, Max Huber and Carl  J. Burckhardt. This  neutral source has been selected here to conclude the  testimony  on the genocide question.

The ICRC considered  that its greatest single wartime triumph  consisted in the successful  application of the 1929 Geneva military convention  to obtain access  to civilian internees in the various parts of Central and  Western  Europe. The ICRC, however, was unable to obtain any access to the  Soviet  Union, which had failed to ratify the 1929 convention.  The millions of civilian  and military internees in the USSR were  cut off from any international contact  or supervision whatever.  This was especially deplorable, since enough was known  to assert  that by far the worst conditions for internees of both types existed  in the USSR.

ICRC contacts with German internment  camps in wartime began on  September 23, 1939, with a visit to  Germany’s major PW camp for captured Polish  soldiers. The ICRC,  after March, 1942, and the first reports on German  mass-internment  policies directed toward the Jews, became concerned that  previously  satisfactory conditions in German civilian internment camps might  be  affected. The German Red Cross was requested to take action,  but they candidly  reported to the ICRC on April 29, 1942, that  the German Government was not being  sufficiently cooperative in  providing necessary information. The German  Government took the  position that its internment policy “related to the security  of  the detaining state” (Report, vol. 1, p. 613). The ICRC did  not accept  this position as a basis for excluding supervisory  authority, and finally, by  the latter part of 1942, it was able  to secure important concessions from  Germany.

The  German Government agreed to permit the ICRC to supervise  the shipment  of food parcels to the camps for all cases which did not involve  German nationals. The ICRC soon established contact with the commandants  and  personnel of the camps and launched their food relief program,  which functioned  until the last chaotic days of the war in 1945.  Letters of thanks for packages  were soon pouring in from Jewish  internees, and it was also possible to make  unlimited anonymous  food shipments to the camps.

As early as October  2, 1944, the ICRC warned the German Foreign  Office of the impending  collapse of the German transportation system due to the  Allied  bombing campaign. The ICRC considered that starvation conditions  for  people throughout Germany were becoming inevitable. At last,  on February 1,  1945, the German Government agreed to permit Canadian  PW’s to drive white supply  trucks to the various concentration  camps. The ICRC set up one special  distribution center at the  Berlin Jewish Hospital and another at Basel. However,  this improvised  food system did not work well, and many of the white food trucks  were destroyed by Allied aerial attacks. The ICRC role became  so important in  the last phase of the war that it was actually  the ICRC representatives who  hoisted the white flags of surrender  at Dachau and Mauthausen during the final  days of the war.

The ICRC had special praise for the liberal conditions  which  prevailed at Theresienstadt (Terezin) up to the time of  their last visits there  in April, 1945. This large Jewish community,  which had been concentrated under  German auspices, enjoyed complete  autonomy in communal life under a Jewish  administration. The Jewish  Council of Elders repeatedly informed the ICRC  representatives  that they were enjoying surprisingly favorable conditions when  one  considered that Germany was going down to defeat during a war in  which World  Jewry had been the first to call for her destruction.

The ICRC also had special praise for the Vittel camp  in  German-occupied France. This camp contained thousands of Polish  Jews whose only  claim to special consideration was that they had  received visas from American  consular authorities. They were treated  by the German authorities in every  respect as full-fledged American  citizens.

The ICRC had some guarded comments  to make about the situation  of Hungarian Jews, many of whom were  deported. to Poland by the Germans in 1944  after the German occupation  of Hungary. The ICRC believed, for instance, that  the “ardent”  demonstrations of Hungarian Jews against the German occupation were  unwise.

The ICRC had special praise for  the mild regime of Ion  Antonescu of Rumania toward the Jews, and  they were able to give special relief  help to 183,000 Rumanian  Jews until the moment of the Soviet occupation. This  enabled the  Rumanian Jews to enjoy far better conditions than average Rumanians  during the late months of the war. This aid ceased with the Soviet  occupation,  and the ICRC complained bitterly that it never succeeded  “in sending anything  whatsoever to Russia” (Report, vol.  2, p. 62).

It should be noted that the ICRC  received voluminous flow of  mail from Auschwitz until the period  of the Soviet occupation. By that time many  of the internees had  been evacuated westward by the Germans. The efforts of the  ICRC  to extend aid to the internees left at Auschwitz under the Soviet  occupation were futile. It was possible, however, at least to  a limited extent,  for ICRC representatives to supervise the evacuation  of Auschwitz by way of  Moravia and Bohemia. It was also possible  to continue sending food parcels for  former Auschwitz inmates  to such places as Buchenwald and Oranienburg.

The  ICRC complained bitterly that their vast relief operations  for  civilian Jewish internees in camps were hampered by the tight Allied  blockade of Fortress Europe. Most of their purchases of relief  food were made in  Rumania, Hungary, and Slovakia. It was also  in the interest of the interned Jews  that the ICRC on March 15,  1944, protested against “the barbarous aerial warfare  of the Allies”  (Inter Arma Caritas, p. 78). The period of the 1899 and  1907  Hague conventions could only be considered a golden age by comparison.

It is important to note in finishing with these detailed  and  comprehensive ICRC reports that none of the International  Red Cross  representatives at the camps or else where in Axis-occupied  Europe found any  evidence what ever that a deliberate policy of  extermination was being conducted  by Germany against the Jews.  The ICRC did emphasize that there was general chaos  in Germany  during the final months of the war at a time when most of the Jewish  doctors from the camps were being used to combat typhus on the  eastern front.  These doctors were far from the camp areas when  the dreaded typhus epidemics of  1945 struck (Report, vol.  1, pp. 204ff.).

The ICRC worked in close cooperation  throughout the war with  Vatican representatives, and, like the  Vatican, found itself unable, after the  event, to engage in the  irresponsible charges of genocide which had become the  order of  the day.

Nothing is more striking or important  relative to the work of  the International Red Cross in relation  to the concentration camps than the  statistics it presented on  the loss of life in the civil population during the  Second World  War:

Loss of German civil population  as a result of air raids and  forced repatriation2,050,000
Loss of German nationals  of other countries during the time of  their eviction1,000,000
Loss of victims of persecution  because of politics, race or  religion who died in prisons and  concentration camps between 1939 and 1945 (not  incl. USSR)300,000
Loss of civil population  of the countries of Eastern Europe,  without the Soviet Union8,100,000
Loss of civil population  of the Soviet Union6,700,000

These figures present the appalling estimate of 17,850,000  who  lost their lives for reasons other than persecution, while  only 300,000 of all  persecuted groups, many of whom were not Jews,  died from all causes during the war. This figure of 300,000  stands out in marked contrast with  the 5,012,000 Jews estimated  by the Jewish joint Distribution Committee to have  lost their  lives during the war, mainly through extermination by National  Socialists.

One of the most bewildered Germans after the war was  Legation  Counsellor Eberhard von Thadden, who had been delegated  the double  responsibility by the German Foreign Office of working  on the Jewish question  with the ICRC and with Adolf Eichmann.  In April, 1943, he discussed with  Eichmann the rumors circulating  abroad that Jews were being wantonly  exterminated by the German  authorities. Eichmann insisted that the very idea of  extermination  was absurd. Germany needed all possible labor in a struggle for  her very existence.

Thadden questioned the  wisdom of the internment policy.  Eichmann admitted that available  transportation facilities were needed to  furnish both the fronts  and the homeland, but he argued that it had become  necessary to  concentrate Jew from the occupied territories in the East and in  German camps to secure Jewish labor effectively and to avert unrest  and  subversion in the occupied countries. Any of the occupied  countries might become  a front-line area within a relatively short  period of time.

Eichmann insisted that the  family camps for the Jews in the  East, along the lines of Theresienstadt,  were far more acceptable to the Jews  than the separations which  the splitting up of families would entail. Eichmann  admitted a  case to Thaden in 1944 in which a Jew was killed in Slovakia while  on  transport from Hungary to Poland, but he insisted that such  an event was  extremely exceptional. He reminded Thadden again  that the Jews were solely in  camps so that their working power  could be utilized and espionage could be  prevented. He noted that  Germany had not employed these extreme measures in the  early years  of the war, but only when it became evident that her very existence  was at stake. Eichmann also reminded Thadden that foreign Jews  who were being  allowed to leave Europe directly from the camps  were not charging Germany with  the atrocities which were irresponsibly  rumored from abroad. In short, Thadden,  who had personally made  numerous visits to the various concentration camps, was  thoroughly  convinced that Eichmann was right and that the foreign rumors of  genocide in circulation were incorrect.

Eberhard  von Thadden’s only comment from his prison cell on  June 11, 1946,  after having heard the full scope of the Nuremberg Trial  propaganda,  was that, if Eichmann had lied, he would have to have been a “very  skillful” liar indeed. The world has not yet sufficiently pondered  the question  about who has lied and why. Yet it is a statistical  fact that, for every  fraudulent affidavit or statement claiming  a death camp or a gas chamber, there  are at least twenty which  deny the very existence of such camps and gas  chambers. It is  only the published evidence which has presented a  lop-sided  picture in support of the genocide myth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.