My Unintentionally Negative Impact on Holocaust Revisionism
So this is what I left behind? I’ve been saying that to myself for three months now, since the publication of my book. The successes I had during my revisionist years (1989 – 1995) appear more as defeats when examined in the light of the sorry state of Holocaust revisionism today.
I was “Mr. Physical Evidence.” Revisionists before me had explored that avenue, but I made it into an art form. In 1995, the mainstream French magazine L’Express admitted that even though denier Robert Faurisson (to be referred to here, from now on, by his preferred moniker, The Amazing Faurisson™) had (along with other revisionists) expressed doubts about the authenticity of the Auschwitz (Main Camp) gas chamber, he had never been able to get them to admit the fraud. The magazine credits my video for exposing the “revelations.”
As published in my book, my friend Dr. Carlos Huerta (then of Touro College, later chaplain of West Point) credited my work for sparking a series of training sessions at Yad Vashem to stop the Auschwitz tour guides from giving out false information.
After visiting with Thomas Kranz of the Majdanek State Museum in 1994, I got him to admit that the infamous “gas chamber with a window in it” was never a gas chamber. The description of the room was officially changed.
My “46 Forty-Six Important Unanswered Questions Regarding the Nazi Gas Chambers” dealt solely with physical evidence issues. As recounted in my book, I manipulated my appearance on the Donahue Show (during which I showed damning footage of physical evidence problems at Auschwitz, Majdanek, and Mauthausen) in order to get those questions seen by the leading figures in Holocaust history, and I recorded Michael Shermer admitting that the questions left the “experts” stymied.
Yep, I was “Mr. Physical Evidence.”
And now “Mr. Physical Evidence” has a message for his former comrades: some of you have completely missed the point of what I was doing. My position was that physical evidence must be rigorously examined when and where it exists. But its absence is not a reason to deny that a particular event happened, or that a particular structure or location existed.
Relying on documentary evidence is not a de facto admission that you have a weak case. Indeed, most history, most sound history, has been assembled by studying documents. Documents can express things that a wall or a door can’t, like intent, responsibility, and a bigger picture beyond that one wall or door.
I don’t want to be misunderstood here – I have had the good fortune to meet some wonderful and exceptional revisionists since my outing, people (most of whom are quite young) who value truth and adhere to the principle that you go where the evidence takes you, and everyone, regardless of preconceived biases, might end up a little happy, or a little disappointed, with the end results.
But too many of today’s so-called revisionists have taken my focus on physical evidence and distorted it to shut out all consideration of the other equally important ways in which historians piece together the record of a particular event.
Regarding the case I make that Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, and Chelmno were mass-murder camps, consider these two almost identical responses I received from two different boneheads – balls-out insane Aussie Freddy Toben, and a troll who frequently comments on my site:
Toben: “You have embraced the ‘limited gassings’ premise without offering any physical proof – but just some written documentation.”
Troll: “At the end of the day there has to be undeniable physical evidence for any such claim in my very sincere opinion.”
“Just some written documentation?” Written documentation is the backbone of history as a field. Anyone who doesn’t get that has no understanding of the discipline.
When we speak of sixty million (or more) killed under Mao, do any of you really think that historians arrived at that figure because sixty million Chinese bodies were dug up, autopsied, and positively identified?
Are any of you that stupid?
When we speak of twenty million or more murdered under Stalin, are you genuinely under the impression that this figure was arrived at by “undeniable physical evidence?”
Please tell me you’re not that dense.
The study of deaths during the Soviet years, and during Mao’s rule, involve complex demographic studies and lots of extrapolation. The margin of error alone in the figures regarding Communist Chinese deaths is a larger figure than the entire number of Jews believed to be killed under Hitler. Yet that doesn’t mean we dismiss the notion of mass deaths from murder and starvation under Mao. It means we shouldn’t go around saying “show me sixty million dead, autopsied, positively ID’d bodies, or I ain’t buying this nonsense.”
Regarding the fate of the Jews “evacuated” during the Reinhardt period, we have a solid, iron-clad chain of unassailable documents from the very people who were “in the know.”
We have Goebbels’ March 27, 1942, diary entry:
“Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated (abgeschoben) eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated (liquidiert) whereas only about 40 percent can be used for forced labor. The former Gauleiter of Vienna [Globocnik], who is to carry this measure through, is doing it with considerable circumspection and according to a method that does not attract too much attention. A judgment is being visited upon the Jews that, while barbaric, is fully deserved by them.”
We have the Korherr Report from early 1943, in which the number of “departed” evacuees “dragged through” or “processed through” the camps in the General Government and the Warthegau equals 62% of the number of General Government Jews, matching almost exactly the figure that Goebbels gave for how many would be liquidated.
Korherr clearly states that the “evacuated” Jews are not in camps or ghettoes. He quite clearly states they are gone, departed, no longer in Europe, and, what’s more, he states that because of the evacuations, coupled with other causes of population decrease (pre-1941 emigration, suicide, and excess deaths over births), the Jewish population in all of Europe (West, Central, and South) has about four million fewer Jews than when the Nazis ascended to power.
We have a wealth of documents between Kube, Lohse, Strauch, and Heydrich very clearly illustrating that the Jews who were sent to White Russia were being systematically killed. At the same time Jews were disappearing down the black hole of the Reinhardt camps, the Jews sent to Belarus (primarily Reich Jews and native Russian Jews) were being killed as well.
In June 1943, Himmler ordered the Ostland ghettoes closed, and all non-essential (non-working) Jews “evacuated to the East,” even though there was no German East beyond the Ostland.
At Sonthofen, Himmler admitted to the killing of Jews, including children, and patted himself on the back for having “resolved” the Jewish question in the General Government. He clearly stated that the General Government ghettoes and their inhabitants were no longer “in existence.” In three separate speeches at Sonthofen, Himmler stated that the Front (as it was in May 1944) would be in great peril if those massive numbers of Jews were still around.
And then there’s the Stroop Report, which I’ll mention because Mattogno and Graf consider it authentic (which it is), and they use it in “Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?” M&G have a hard time explaining away this entry:
“With the Jews who have been bagged today, in my opinion a very large part of the bandits and lowest elements of the ghetto have been captured. Due to the onset of darkness, their immediate liquidation was no longer carried out. I will try to get a train to T II for tomorrow, otherwise the liquidation will be carried out tomorrow.”
So how do M&G handle that?
“But more important is another problem: if these Jews were destroyed in ‘T II,’ then does this mean that Treblinka was a camp established for the purpose of killing people? In our view, the ‘liquidation’ there of a few thousand Jews, whom the SS classified as ‘bandits and lowest elements of the ghetto’ proves neither that they were gassed, nor that Treblinka was operated as an ‘extermination camp.’ If one keeps in mind that the camp was only 80 km from Warsaw, then it would not be surprising if the SS had shot a few thousand people there whom they were unable or unwilling to execute in the city.”
Unable to dismiss the authenticity of the passage, M&G admit that maybe just a little itty bitty bit of liquidations went on at Treblinka. Ignoring all of the evidence that Treblinka was already a one-way destination for Warsaw Jews, M&G decide it’s much more effective to argue that Stroop totally randomly, one-time-only, and out-of-the-blue chose that “simple transit camp” for his liquidations. What a coincidence!
Goebbels, Himmler, Korherr, Hoefle, Heydrich, Kube, Lohse, Strauch, Stroop. All people “in the know.” And all telling the same story, both privately and in communication with their superiors or subordinates. The General Government “evacuees” were gone. They were not living in the Ostland, they were not at the Front, they were no longer in the General Government, they were no longer in Western, Central, or Eastern Europe. To counter this documentary chain, deniers must offer up something of substance.
But they can’t. They simply can’t. They can’t account for Korherr’s 2.4 million “departed” evacuees. When they try, as when Mattogno and Graf point to one transport of Polish Jews to Kube’s domain (for labor, at the request of the Luftwaffe), they lose, as Kube’s own communication – the one that Mattogno and Graf themselves rely on – very clearly shows that this was an irregular event, and an unwanted one, which Kube fought against vigorously.
And the fact that Treblinka is listed as a final destination for over 700,000 Jews in the Hoefle telegram is, according to the deniers, completely coincidental to the fact that it’s where Mattogno and Graf admit Stroop sent Jews for liquidation. It was just a fluke that the place with the reputation for liquidating Jews was where Stroop sent Jews for liquidation. Hell, it coulda been anywhere…
In the end, the deniers have nothing with which to counter the chain of documentary evidence. They simply cannot account for the 2.4 million Reinhardt and Ostland “evacuees.” Sure, there were several hundred, probably several thousand, Jews who survived the Reinhardt camps because of labor needs, but the deniers can’t account for the 60% “not useful for labor” Polish Jews that Goebbels said would have to be liquidated. Where were the relocation homelands for these Jews? They did not exist, and the deniers flee from the responsibility of providing an alternate hypothesis like cockroaches seeking cover under a dark, filthy floorboard. Eventually, when confronted with the chain of documentary evidence for mass-murders during the Reinhardt period, the deniers scurry to the safety of the “physical impossibility” defense.
That defense goes something like this: “Okay, you have all those precious, precious documents. But all the documents in the world can’t overcome physical reality, man! If you have thirty documents from Himmler, Goebbels, and Heydrich stating that they summoned the demon Astaroth and he gave them pet unicorns, your beloved ‘documents’ can’t change the fact that what they claim defies the laws of reality.”
The “impossibility” argument regarding the Reinhardt camps covers three main points:
1) “You can’t mass-poison people with gas, especially carbon monoxide. It can’t be done.”
2) “In Treblinka’s final year, it’s impossible to have exhumed and burned hundreds of thousands of bodies. Can’t be DONE, man.”
3) “Treblinka couldn’t have held such large mass graves. It was way too small.”
I’ll tackle those cow-pies of stupidity one at a time, and then I’m through with this idiotic answering of denier clowns.
1) OF COURSE you can gas people en masse with carbon monoxide. Along with the roughly 5,200 accidental (i.e., non-homicidal) deaths in the U.S. from carbon monoxide poisoning between 2000 and 2010 (source: CDC), and tons of routine cases in which multiple people succumb at once in rooms that are not hermetically sealed – two Mormon missionaries on August 24 in Taipei, three family members in Ontario on March 17, three people dead in Jefferson County, MO, on August 29, a little girl killed in Syracuse, her brother critically injured, on September 3, three people killed in Boone, PA, in January and June, two dozen people seriously injured in Scranton on August 26, etc. etc. – one need only look at the horrific Turkey mine disaster in May of this year in which nearly 300 miners were killed by carbon monoxide in the worst mining disaster in Turkey’s history.
And that was accidental.
Yes, you can kill people en masse with carbon monoxide. It happens even when no intent to kill is present.
2) and 3) “Treblinka couldn’t hold that many bodies, and even if it DID, you couldn’t exhume ‘em and dispose of ‘em in just a year.” Horseshit. One need only look at the number of bodies crammed into the famed “Cemetery of the Holy Innocents” (Cimetiere des Saints-Innocents) in Paris. To make a long story short, over hundreds of years, the local church had been making a tidy profit by dumping millions of bodies in a very, very small plot. However, rather than decomposing, the tightly-packed bodies remained largely intact (this is something the Al Gore “ban plastic bags ‘cuz they don’t decompose” crowd never mentions; oxygen is needed for decomposition. And many modern landfills – by design – and the Innocents cemetery – by stupidity – packed the earth too tightly to allow decomposition).
The cemetery was smack in the middle of Paris, and eventually bodies began exploding into people’s basements. In the 1780s, the order was given to exhume and transfer every single body to the catacombs. The generally-accepted number of bodies exhumed from the Cemetery of the Innocents is two million. It took between twelve and fifteen months, using 1780s “technology:” hand-held shovels, horses and carriages, and candlelight, as the work was only done at night (so as to not disturb local commerce and morale).
Additionally, due to the inability to decompose, a large number of the bodies had transformed into what became known as “fat mummies.” Usually, the fat was burned off before transport to the catacombs, but according to an 1825 issue of Scientific American, sometimes the fat was extracted and sold to be used for soap and candles.
So, using 1780s equipment, working only at night by candlelight, and with the added burden of removing the fat before transport, the French managed to exhume, de-flesh, and re-inter two million bodies in the space of between twelve and fifteen months. But the Nazis, working 24-hours a day with 20th Century technology and a force of slave laborers couldn’t exhume over 700,000 bodies within a year?
Physical impossibility my ass. It’s totally possible.
And how big was this plot of land into which 2,000,000 people were stuffed at the Cimetiere? Wow, it must have taken up forty city blocks! How many football fields would that be, “Elevator Man” Eric Hunt? I mean, you make the point that for 900,000 bodies to have been buried at Treblinka, the size of the area would have to amount to 10 L.A. Coliseums. So, by logical extension, the Cemetery of the Innocents must have been large enough to accommodate at least 20 L.A. Coliseums.
In light of Hunt’s phantasmagorical illustration above, that damn cemetery in Paris must have been MASSIVE. Like, fifty square blocks.
Oh wait, shit…someone tell Hunt to take his meds; he isn’t gonna like this…
The cemetery is that dirt patch in the middle of the red circle. Now, to be fair, some of the bodies were stored in the charnel houses that circle the dirt field. But, according to contemporaneous works, the majority were in the ground. And frankly, even if half were in the charnel houses, that still leaves more in the ground than what’s claimed at Treblinka…not to mention that the bodies in the charnel houses are still occupying space on that tiny piece of land (in other words, there are still two million bodies give or take stuffed into or on top of that tiny parcel). It was enough to make Mike Bieling, of the Old Cemeteries Society of Victoria, remark of the following drawing (on the website of the Association for Gravestone Studies, June 2007), “The illustration below gives you some idea of how small an area was used to dispose of the remains of close to 2 million people in the Cimetiere des Saints-Innocents.”
Never confuse difficult with impossible. The Nazis had a massive slave labor force, total secrecy, no press interference, no legal setbacks or injunctions, no work safety codes, no environmental impact reports, no “save the trees” protestors, no corrupt union bosses stalling work with strikes for better wages. Exhuming and burning hundreds of thousands of corpses? Difficult? Yes. Impossible? Of course not.
The “impossibility” argument is the last filthy hiding place of denier cockroaches.
The competent revisionists, David Irving, Mark Weber, and I, recognize two distinct killing periods during the Holocaust: The Einsatzgruppen murders after the invasion of Russia (’41), and the murders (both in the General Government and the Ostland) during the Reinhardt period (’42 – ’43). The three of us have not “conspired” to come to this conclusion. I have neither seen nor been in contact with David Irving since 1995. The acceptance of the reality of these two killing periods happens organically when one chooses to look at the evidence in an objective manner.
And who, among the tattered remnants of the “revisionist” community, is on the other side of this?
Bradley Smith, whose oft-repeated mantra is, “I’m not really interested in the history of the period.”
Aussie Fred Toben, who, like a spurned suitor, admitted in an August 26th email to me (copied to about two dozen revisionists) that he still bears a grudge that I never met with him in the 1990s: “I never understood why you didn’t wish to meet with me when I came through (North America) in 1997 and 1999.” Get over it, Dame Edna. I don’t meet with loons.
Eric Hunt, a self-described “delusional, mentally ill psychotic.”
And The Amazing Faurisson™. This is a man, more accurately a fraud, who wrote, in the Summer 1980 Journal of Historical Review, “Hitler never gave an order nor permission that anyone should be killed because of his race or religion,” while admitting five years later, on the stand at the Zundel trial, that he had never even bothered to read either standard or revisionist works about the Einsatzgruppen (I’m publishing the transcript at length so that it will be Google-searchable, attached to Faurisson’s name, from now on):
CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GRIFFITHS:
Q: Mr. Faurisson, will you give us your opinion as to how many Jews died as a result of the action of the Einsatzgruppen, the special action groups?
A: I have no answer about that. I said the figures that I was supposing right for the concentration camps and specially Auschwitz. I didn’t say anything about the Einsatzgruppen or about any slaughters or about any pogrom or about any Jews who died in prison.
Q: Is that an area that you’ve researched?
A: I’ve been interested, yes, in this, but I specialized myself in what I consider as the cornerstone of the Holocaust belief.
Q: Dr. Hilberg testified here that 1.4 million Jews were shot by groups such as the Einsatzgruppen, and that’s the whole area that you, in your study of the Holocaust, haven’t even considered; is that right?
A: No, I didn’t say that. I considered that, but I didn’t make a specialty of that. I know that —
Q: Have you read the documents on that?
A: Yes. Sure.
Q: All right. Have you read the Stahlecker or Jager reports?
Q: Can you tell us what the Stahlecker report says?
A: Yes. That is about the Einsatzgruppen in Russia, but that is not my competence report.
Q: You have read the Stahlecker report?
Q: What does it say?
A: It says so many Jews executed.
Q: How many Jews?
A: I don’t remember.
Q: A lot, wasn’t there?
A: It is a lot, yes.
Q: Yes. You don’t consider that.
A: Oh, I didn’t say that I do not consider. I say that I have not studied the question. I told you that I had been interested, this question, and that I found that Sir Reginald Paget had made some very simple remarks which seemed to me important. He has a practical way of studying the question. That is my practical way. As far as the gas chambers I know that books —
Q: We are not talking about the gas chambers. We are talking about the Einsatzgruppen.
A: No, that is not my specialty. I don’t want to go into that.
Q: This book of Paget’s that you read, when was that written?
A: ’51 or ’52 or ’53, beginning of the fifties, yes.
Q: Are you familiar with the daily reports filed by Einsatzgruppen?
A: I’ve seen that also, yes.
Q: Indicating the number of dead killed each day?
A: I’ve seen that also. I don’t know how much those documents are genuine or not. People have studied that. They do not think that it is genuine, others think that they are genuine.
Q: Who doesn’t think they are genuine?
A: Arthur Butz and Mark Weber. There are doubts about those reports. I cannot pronounce about them.
Q: Who is Mark Weber?
A: Mark Weber is a historian who is going to publish a book, and he will treat in this book the question of the Einsatzgruppen specially.
Q: All right. And is he a member of the Institute of Historical Review?
A: He works with, but I don’t think he is a member. He is in relation with another specialist of this question with Mr. Timothy Milligan of the National Archives, working under Mr. Robert Wolfe. I think that he has also something about that. I am waiting.
Q: Can you tell us how many copies of the daily report were made out and how many survived?
A: I don’t know.
Q: You haven ever seen anything on that?
A: I’ve seen. I don’t know. I don’t remember. I took this problem apart, like the question of, I could say, many other questions. The state of the Jews in France, for example. I am French. I should be able to answer about the situation of the Jews in France during occupation. It is an enormous work. I didn’t go into it, not really.
Q: Why? I ask you these questions, Dr. Faurisson, because you have been qualified on the Holocaust as a whole, same as Dr. Hilberg. So I want to ask you about that as a whole.
A: But I say that if you consider the Einsatzgruppen as being a part of this question, that’s your opinion.
Q: Well, that’s —
A: Myself, I am waiting for real studies about the question.
Q: You are waiting for ….
A: Real studies about that.
Q: Real studies.
A: I mean — yes. I mean something which is based on documents.
Q: Yes. Have you read the work of Helmut Krausnick and Hans Wilhelm?
A: No. I didn’t read this book.
Q: So you don’t know whether that is based on documents or not?
Q: All right. That is a book – you are better at German than I am. Would you read that?
A: The troops of Weltanschauungskrieges. When I shall have the two sides I will be interested.
Q: And that is published in 1981?
Q: You will be interested when you have the two sides, but you haven’t read this side yet.
A: No, I don’t say that even the other side I have not read, really. Even the side of Butz and Weber.
So, on one side, we have David Irving, Mark Weber, and your humble author. On the other side, we have one man totally uninterested in history, another who forms his opinions based on who accepts or turns down his dinner invitations, another who is a self-described delusional psychotic, and finally a man capable of making the most sweeping statement possible while never bothering to read up on one of the most vital episodes of the period.
Not everything in life has clearly defined, easily identifiable sides. This does. Revisionist or denier. Pick a side.