The Truth About Holocaust Denial
Introduction
The following is not entirely verbatim, usually I try to stick closely to the script, but this is seldom possible. Here there is a fair amount of ad libbing, including audience participation with applause! In his introduction, Master of Ceremonies Adrian Davies was as generous as ever, but chess genius I never was. I was certainly county standard, and as a junior I once played on Board 1 for Middlesex, in fact I never lost a game for my then county, but that, and Baron’s Immortal, is as good as it got for this one-time slave of the cruellest mistress.
I pointed out prior to the start of my speech that Gerry Gable had called me a lunatic after reading my last one. The reaction to that was look who’s talking, but as usual, this article is not simply unflattering but factually incorrect. I resigned from the British Movement over thirty years ago, as Gable well knows. I was for many years an associate member of the Islamic Party of Britain, but this fine organisation appears now to have disappeared up its own exhaust pipe, and unfortunately at least two of its major players have swallowed the 9/11 Truth lunacy hook, line and sinker.
As far as my being a lunatic, I have a saying that in the 21st Century we are probably all a little mad, and indeed we probably have to be, but unlike Gable my grip on reality is not so loose that I claim to have solved a murder that never happened.
As to my previous speech here being both anti-Semitic and racist (bore, bore), I can assume only this is an allusion to my condemnation of the Master Race philosophy of political Zionism, and my echoing the sentiments of Martin Webster, that Britain should have an ethical foreign policy, “one based on treating people fairly – regardless of their religion, race, colour or creed”.
Away with all pests. I think I’ve excelled myself with this one. Enjoy!
Good afternoon everyone, all of you. (2)
The subject of this dissertation is one which has been dear to my heart for over thirty years – if you’re wondering where all that time has gone, you’re not the only one.
It is a field to which I have made original contributions, in all modesty. Among other things I have published two full length books on the so-called Holocaust from the Revisionist perspective. Anybody read them?
[A selective] No.
Well, you can download them for free. After the arrest of Dr Töben in 2008 here at Heathrow
I uploaded them to Archive.Org and my own [main] website. (3) I did that partly because of Dr Töben and partly because I didn’t think I’d be here now, but that’s another story.
It goes without saying that these publications have not been at all popular either with the Jewish establishment and its fellow travellers,
or with the intellectual prostitutes of high academe who slavishly peddle the Exterminationist line.
But my researches have not been entirely popular with the Revisionist camp either, primarily because I have concluded, albeit with some reluctance, that the use of lethal gas chambers was not a total fantasy, but an honest researcher must go where the evidence leads him, unless he has good reason to suspect that evidence has been fabricated.
I began reading Revisionist literature in 1980, although I had heard about it before then, albeit in a very general sense. It didn’t take me long to conclude that we had been lied to on a massive scale, and indeed that we are still being lied to, not only about the Second World War, but about a great many other things, though not, I hasten to add, about either the Kennedy Assassination or the run up to the 9/11 attacks.
The thing I have always found most fascinating, in fact I would say horrifying about the opposition to Holocaust Revisionism, is the lack of any real
attempt to refute it. All the attacks on it at that time, and I do mean all of them, were virtually 100% ad hominem, with the notable exception of the
November 1979 article by Gita Sereny, The Men Who Whitewash Hitler. (4)
One such attack appeared in Searchlight; called Institute For Rewriting History, it was written by the magazine’s then editor Maurice Ludmer, who appears to have worked himself up into such a frenzy that he dropped dead of a heart attack shortly before it was published.
[Laughter]
The attempt to rewrite the history of the so-called Holocaust has been called a conspiracy theory, one that involves the mesmeric power of Jews – alluded to always as “the Jews” - ...who are seen to control the world from behind the scenes, all its politicians, and all its media. Instead of simply controlling Hollywood – by their own admission –
and having such a pernicious [influence] on American foreign policy that but for the election of Barack Obama in 2008, they might have started World War III by bombing Iran.
Although Holocaust Revisionism is alluded to as a conspiracy theory and derided as such, as usual, the detractors have come up with their own,
even more outlandish conspiracy theory, namely that Revisionism is a plot by neo-Nazis and fellow travellers who are intent on rewriting the history of World War Two as a necessary prerequisite to rehabilitating National Socialism, creating a Fourth Reich, and breeding a race of blond-eyed, blue-haired supermen. And as of 2006, these wicked Nazis have been financed by the equally wicked Iranians, who unlike Israel, India, Pakistan, China, France, the UK, and most of all the USA, are not to be permitted to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.
Holocaust Revisionists are alluded to universally as Holocaust Deniers. I have my own definition of the phrase Holocaust Denial, namely it is one that was invented to demonise Holocaust Revisionists, to bring them into ridicule, hatred, scorn and contempt, and to discourage honest, intelligent, independent-minded men and women – as presumably you think you are – from examining the evidence they adduce and the arguments they advance.
The advent of this phrase was necessary because many open-minded people were indeed taking the discipline seriously, and both legal and quasi-legal attempts to crush it were spectacularly unsuccessful. Let us stay for the moment with that dishonest phrase.
In her 1986 polemic The Holocaust Denial, Gill Seidel claims point blank that this misnamed phenomenon is simply an update of the Protocols Of Zion, an outright lie, so it should surprise no one that this woman is both a Jewess and a contributor to Searchlight.
In his aforementioned article, Maurice Ludmer states overtly that “the attempt to re-write the history of the Nazi era...is known as Historical Revisionism”. This is not simply untrue, it is another outright lie. To begin with Historical Revisionism precedes the Second World War and indeed the Nazi era, and I would like to say a few things about this discipline in general. First though, can I ask can anyone tell me when was the Battle of Hastings fought?
1066.
Were you there, sir?
[Laughter]
I wasn’t there either, though I was there in 1966 for the 900th anniversary. I don’t remember much about it because I was only
ten years old at the time, though I do remember buying a first day cover or two, and knights jousting with what appeared to be cardboard lances.
We know there was a battle at Senlac Hill near Hastings in October 1066 because details of it were written down. The further back in time we go, the more unreliable the historical record becomes because chroniclers were few and far between, and precious little has survived.
What actually happened on the battlefield, whether William of Normandy fought bravely, or Harold really got it in the eye, I dunno, but we know there was certainly a battle there in 1066.
The advent of the printing press led to a veritable explosion of record keeping, but it led also to new problems. A man who doesn’t own a watch, doesn’t know the time; a man who owns two watches is never sure; and if he owns ten, or a hundred, and they all say something different, and he is in a dark room, he hasn’t a clue
what time it is.
In practical terms, history is bits of paper, even in the 21st Century when he have audio, video, and all manner of wonderful
digital record keeping, we still depend primarily on written documents...much of what we read is non-contentious.
I’ve often said we can probably believe 99% of what the government tells us, but we should always bear in mind that
the difference between man and chimp is 1% DNA. We should concentrate on that 1%, and should not allow ourselves to
get sidetracked by lunatic conspiracy theories and such. But even seemingly innocuous documents can have sinister connotations.
To give one shocking contemporary example, does everyone here know of Dr Harold Shipman? Anyone not know of him?
[Everyone had.]
He murdered over two hundred of his patients, although he was convicted only of 15 murders. His last victim, as I’m sure you know, was Mrs Kathleen Grundy, 81 years young. Not only did he forge her will, he altered her medical records to imply she had been a heroin addict.
Another more recent and in some ways more shocking fabrication – though far less serious – was plebgate. Everyone here know what plebgate is?
[Everyone did.]
A police officer on guard at Downing Street no less decided to fabricate a story about a senior politician, a fabrication that led to his resignation. With their de rigueur disrespect for truth and their well-documented arrogance, this man and his collaborator(s) made not only a false entry in a police log, but invented an eyewitness who wasn’t there. Who just happened to be a police officer.
If they hadn’t over-egged the pudding in this fashion, if Andrew Mitchell had been a lesser mortal than a
government minister, if he hadn’t been so insistent about what he didn’t say, and if someone at Channel 4 hadn’t
smelled a rat, they would have gotten away with it. Every day, someone somewhere is writing something about you in an official document. Except perhaps in a very general sense you have no idea what this person is writing, you know nothing about the individual concerned, and he may know nothing about you. He may simply be copying verbatim or paraphrasing inaccurately something someone else has written about you, that may in any case be total rubbish. In cyberspace of course, anything goes, and it is virtually impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff.
There you can find the Jewish origins of Troy Southgate; you can certainly find the Jewish origins of Adolf Hitler;
how 9/11 was perpetrated by the Mossad or by the Illuminati, how Tony Blair was cautioned for doing things in a public
toilet with another man that he shouldn’t...all sorts of rubbish. (5)
Revisionist Historians demand that we subject the historical record to a thorough scrutiny, and for all the above reasons we should be not simply
suspicious but downright distrustful of those arrogant individuals such as Professor Deborah Lipstadt who insist
not only that there is no debate but that she will tell us what happened, when, where, to whom, why and how,
while us dumb goyim must keep our mouths shut, or if we are permitted to speak at all, it is only to ask permissible questions for which she and her ilk will give us the answers they see fit with no qualification and no further discussion.
Although we can determine with a high degree of probability most of the time what happened and even why, we can never be entirely sure because in the first place we are dependent on chroniclers who may be lying through their teeth, biased, or simply wrong. Whatever one thinks of the Nazi era, or the Nazis, or Hitler himself, this is a subject that stirs strong emotions all round. There are people who hate or who profess to hate passionately anything associated with Nazi Germany. There are others even today who fawn on National Socialism, or at least on what they think it was, so we should be especially wary of blanket attacks on the system and the people who ran it.
Okay, let’s return to Maurice Ludmer’s polemic, he was wrong with his claim that Revisionist History is concerned solely with the Third Reich and the Holocaust, and he is wrong again with his claim that it is an invention of those wicked Nazis, because the two men who pioneered Holocaust Revisionism were both not only passionate anti-Nazis but victims of the Nazis, and indeed one of them was a Jew. This claim needs a slight qualification because from the beginning there were those who did not take seriously or even had the temerity to question the atrocity propaganda that was directed against the Nazis.
One such source, surprisingly, was the Jewish Chronicle; in its issue for April 14, 1933, an editorial entitled “Truth Must Out”. alludes to “...certain Jewish organisations abroad [that] circulated exaggerated atrocity stories.”
As I’m sure most of you realise, anything that appears in the Jewish Chronicle is to be treated with a certain amount of reserve, but when people make claims against their own perceived interest, they are generally to be given more credence than when they are singing their own praises.
The two men to whom I alluded, the pioneers of Holocaust Revisionism, were Paul Rassinier and J.G. Burg. Rassinier was a French socialist who was interned at Buchenwald; Burg – Josef Ginsburg – was a Jew who suffered terribly on account of the Nazi persecution. The fact that these men were political enemies of the Nazis does not make them infallible much less saints, but it does mean we should be less skeptical about their motives than about the motives of most of their later fellow travellers.
In her 1993 polemic Denying The Holocaust, Deborah Lipstadt makes the usual attacks on Rassinier, but she doesn’t mention Ginsburg at all, and in view of his devastating testimony on behalf of Ernst Zündel, it is easy to understand why.
Okay, that is two big lies of the Exterminationist Lobby disposed of, now let us pose the question did the Holocaust really happen? As so often with
such an apparently simply question, the answer is both yes and no. Between September 1939 and 1945 – from November 1941 to 1945 for the Americans, there was indeed a Holocaust. If one accepts the 6 million figure for the Jewish dead – and there is no sound reason we should - but even if we do accept that, the total who died during that terrible conflict was over 50 million. That includes the accepted total of 20 million Russians; over 6 million Germans; and perhaps 3 million Japanese. It should never be forgotten that the greatest atrocities by far of World War Two were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No one in his right mind can dispute these acts of utter inhumanity, the immediate death toll from the two was in excess of 150,000. Yet even today there are those who attempt to justify these unspeakable crimes arguing that they shortened the war. The reality is that these were cities full of women, children and old men.
So yes, there was a Holocaust. Was there a specifically Jewish Holocaust? In the first place, the word itself did not come into general use until 1978, before that it was known as the Jewish Tragedy, the Shoah and such. As for the so-called Holocaust itself, there are two schools of thought from the Exterminationist view: the functionalist and the intentionalist. Broadly speaking the intentionalist position is that from the beginning, the object of the Final Solution was the physical extermination of Jews from Europe if not from the face of this planet; the functionalist position is broadly that this was something that evolved, and that during the war the plan to expel Jews from Europe was converted into something far more sinister. The intentionalist position is now no longer tenable, and if I personally had any doubts about that they were dispelled forever by my researches at especially the Newspaper Library.
From 1993 I went through every issue of the Jewish Chronicle for the entire Nazi era, and some of the reports I found in that are truly amazing.
I cited some of them in my first book on this subject: Holocaust Denial: New Nazi Lie Or New Inquisition?
The May 25, 1934 issue contains a number of reports of persecution of Jews, also “The Jewish commercial representative Max Hufnagel of Dortmund, has been taken into provisional custody for having written a letter to an address in France containing fictitious cases of secret persecutions of Jews and insults against members of the Reich Government, etc. When examined by the police nothing remained for him but to confess.”
Whoops!
This account was not challenged by the Jewish Chronicle, which does rather beg the question: how many other fraudulent accounts of “persecution” were there?
The August 10, 1934 issue reports a Hamburg court had ruled that a Jewish pauper was entitled to free legal defence.
There is another report here that the Nazis were said to have condemned the desecration of 54 tombstones which were smashed when a Jewish cemetery was vandalised. “Our movement wars only against living people, not against the dead, who are at peace” said one spokesman. Three drunkards were later jailed: one for one year, one for six months, one for four months, for this act of desecration.
There was clearly persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany, but this was a persecution that was carried out within a framework of legality, however odious most of us may find this sort of thing today. With the single spectacular exception of Kristallnacht, this was true right up to and well into the outbreak of the Second World War. There was certainly none of the brutality and shocking inhumanity that has been meted out to the Palestinians by the Zionists. German soldiers never set about Jews in the street breaking their arms with rocks; the Nazis never dynamited Jewish homes; and they certainly never murdered an 11 year old girl on her way to buy milk, as the Zionists did Rana Abu Tuyur on December 19, 1992.
With the outbreak of war, many Jews and others were interned in concentration camps, an institution that was by no means unique to Nazi Germany. There were reports of murders including by poison gas from these camps from fairly early on. The most influential of these reports was the War Refugee Board Report, or to give it its full title and citation: THE GERMAN EXTERMINATION CAMPS OF Auschwitz AND Birkenau Two Eye-Witness Reports, published by the WAR REFUGEE BOARD, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Washington, D.C., (November 1944).
The man who was appears to have been responsible for the bulk of these purported eyewitness accounts was Rudolph Vrba, although he wasn’t named at the
time. Another Jew, Alfred Wetzler, reported on Majdanek; two other anonymous Jews reported on Birkenau; and a Polish major also reported on Auschwitz.
There is no doubt that Vrba was there, but there are serious doubts about the quality of his evidence. On page 12 we find “At present there are four crematoria in operation at BIRKENAU, two large ones, I and II, and two smaller ones, III and IV. Those of type I and II consist of 3 parts, i.e.: (A) the furnace room; (B) the large hall; and (C) the gas chamber. A huge chimney rises from the furnace room around which are grouped nine furnaces, each having four openings. Each opening can take three normal corpses at once and after an hour and a half the bodies are completely burned. This corresponds to a daily capacity of about 2,000 bodies.”
The report goes on to state that victims were told to undress; and each was given a towel and a piece of soap by two men in white coats. The total capacity for Birkenau was given at around 6,000 daily. One has to ask how was this information obtained?
Just because he was there doesn’t mean he could have got this information. Did he interview the perpetrators? Anyone who has read Vrba’s 1964 memoir I Cannot Forgive will conclude that the men in white coats were definitely real, and that their task was not to exterminate Jews or anyone else, but to help him put on his straitjacket.
The reality is that Vrba’s impressions of Auschwitz were no more valid than those of Thies Christophersen; I’ll come to him shortly.
The testimony of Gentile so-called survivors is no more reliable than that of Jewish ones as far as exterminations are concerned. Dr Alexander Dering was sent to Auschwitz in August 1940. He was set to work as an orderly because he didn’t let on that he was a doctor. The reason he gave for this was that “German policy was to destroy intellectuals and professional people”. (6)
And when they realised he was a doctor...they put him in charge of the hospital. Later, this would lead to his being branded a war criminal. I’m sure the phrase “Auschwitz in England” will be familiar
to somebody in this room...
[Yes.]
Ella Lingens was another Gentile doctor. In her book Prisoners Of Fear she claimed Dr Mengele had a novel way of stopping a typhus epidemic:
he sent the worst 1500 cases to the gas chamber, obtained a new hut, disinfected it, supplied it with clean bedding, then shipped all the patients naked and deloused from the next hut into the clean one. But how much of this did she actually witness? Most likely she saw the so-called Angel of Death doing
his best to save lives, while her imagination inspired by rumours and scurrilous gossip did the rest.
Lingens-Reiner – as she then was - claimed she was arrested after being betrayed by a Jewish Gestapo spy. No wonder these people are hated. She was helping Jews to escape, they were being sent to Poland to be killed, she said. Her interrogator’s response to this was “You are completely crazy! The people there are working in factories.”
She was, she said interrogated “in a fairly civilised manner” because “the period of arbitrary, purposeless tortures for the sake of sadistic
pleasure was past.” Note the difference between what she surmises and what she actually experiences. The wicked Gestapo tortured suspects - “Ve haff vays of making you talk”.
But when they arrested her, they were quite civilised, in other words they were simply typical plod doing their jobs, a job they may not have particularly liked.
Again, when you look at what these people claim happened and what they really saw and experienced, you are forced to conclude something I have long maintained: the testimony of survivors is credible when it supports the Revisionist thesis; when it does not support the Revisionist thesis, it is not credible. In this connection in particular I would invite you to check out the excellent video The Last Days Of The Big Lie, by Eric Hunt. I’ll come to him in due course.
At the end of the war, the victorious allies held a large number of so-called war crimes trials, although it was only the vanquished who were put on trial, not the perpetrators of Dresden, and certainly not those responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In my humble opinion, the most important of these trials was the Belsen Trial because for me this is where the legend – as Professor Butz calls it – was really established. During the 1990s I spent some considerable time at the Public Record Office where I read the entire transcript of this trial. The short title is a little confusing; the full
title is “Bergen-Belsen & Auschwitz Concentration Camps Case”, and it was held at Lüneburg, Germany between September 17 and November 17, 1945.
The defendants were all former staff of either Belsen or Auschwitz or both; Commandant Kramer for example had served at Auschwitz, and was in charge at
Belsen when the camp was liberated at the end of the war. Now I am sure you have all of you seen the photographs from Belsen, the inmates dying of hunger,
the typhus epidemic, the burial pits, and the bodies being shovelled up by a bulldozer. As Professor Butz points out in his never refuted magnum opus, these terrible photographs were used and are still used to this very day as the mass propaganda proof of the Holocaust, but they are absolutely nothing to do with it, because it was never claimed in scholarly works that Belsen was an extermination camp, nor that people were gassed there. In fact, Belsen was actually one of the better camps until the last few months of the war when communications broke down, Germany was being battered on all sides, and the typhus epidemic took hold. It should also be noted that typhus is a wasting disease. Please bear that in mind, because it is very important.
A striking example of the way the photographs of Belsen, Buchenwald and Dachau in particular are misrepresented as proof of so-called exterminations can be found in - you guessed it - Searchlight, issue Number 30, which was published around November 1977.
[At this point I handed out a copy of this article.]
This was a somewhat indignant article about Manfred Roeder, a German lawyer who had published a pamphlet “Auschwitz - Truth Or Lie. An Eye Witness Report”. This was written by
Thies Christophersen who had served with the Wehrmacht during the war. I read this pamphlet in 1980 or 1981, and it impressed me as an honest straightforward account, as indeed it is. Of course, the mere fact that Christophersen was at
Auschwitz at the material time and didn’t witness any mass murders doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.
[At this point I told a personal anecdote about a local hospice.]
The author of the Searchlight article though, presumably Maurice Ludmer, is so incensed at
Christophersen voicing this honest opinion and his publisher being allowed to do so in Britain, that not only does he brand this account a lie, but offers his own version of the truth,
and this is...a photograph from Dachau, and another from Belsen, the latter being of a bulldozer shoving bodies into a mass grave, a terrible sight, indeed a terrible process, but a necessary one
in view of the typhus epidemic and the risk of spreading all manner of other diseases associated with rotting corpses.
As Ludmer was actually at Belsen after the war, he had absolutely no excuse for perpetuating this lie, for that it what it was and is, a shameless lie.
Terrible though these scenes are, similar scenes can be found from the Andersonville concentration camp of the American Civil War down to the present day, and indeed such scenes are not always man made.
The arch-liars and Machiavellian schemers of the Board of Deputies of British Jews pulled the same scam back in 1963 when they reprinted as a pamphlet a series of letters to his daughter by a dumb goy named John Alldridge, only this time they used photographs of a delousing chamber at Dachau as “proof” that the Nazis had exterminated Jews at Auschwitz. And their South African brethren went one better in the 1970s when they published photographs of the same delousing chamber and the dead from this camp in a successful campaign to ban the distribution of the pamphlet Did Six Million Really Die? In other words, they used outrageous lies to suppress a dissenting opinion, or indeed to question their already state sanctioned lies. And that in Apartheid South Africa.
In 1994, Bradley Smith and David Cole appeared on The Phil Donahue Show to discuss Holocaust Revisionism; although
so-called skeptic Michael Shermer put in an appearance, the
Holocaust lobby didn’t dare, but they did send the programme some archive film to use, and would you believe
they used the same facile trick of presenting footage from other camps, including of the non-existent Dachau gas chamber? Cole was on the ball though, and exposed the lie. Smiling for the cameras like the shabboz goy he is, Shermer countered that real historians had found mistakes and had corrected them. No, Dr Shermer, these are not mistakes that have been corrected, they are lies that have been outed and can be defended no more, lies like the shrunken heads found at Buchenwald, the bars of soap made from Jewish fat, and so on. All lies, sick and twisted, faked for the gullible goyim and I might add for the equally gullible non-goyim to swallow. If it hadn’t been for the Revisionists, we’d still be hearing these ludicrous stories about Jews being turned into soap and worse to this very day.
In 1995, I decided to throw my hat into the ring, and to expose this lie specifically to people in positions of authority, so I published a pamphlet
called Why Britain’s Police Aren’t Worth A Jewish Fingernail...
- I'm sure many of you will realise where that phrase comes from - and mailed it out to police stations, and to a number of academics and other
people I thought might take an interest. The result was interesting, to say the least, because the same arch-liars and Machiavellian schemers tried
then to drag me into court for having the temerity to expose them. They went whining to the police about Baron being a filthy anti-Semite and
distributing anti-Semitic literature. I received a letter, which I ignored, then the Organised Crime Group no less turned
up on my doorstep. I was arrested, and a number of the pamphlets seized, but unfortunately the Attorney General decided not to proceed with a prosecution, which would have enabled me to drag the hidden hand into the light of day and expose them the same way I did Gerry Gable. Their arrogance is truly breathtaking; anyone who catches them with their hands in the till can only be an anti-Semite. That really is the way they see it.
[Here I ad libbed a bit again.]
Bearing all this in mind, let us return to the Belsen Trial. There were a great many witnesses tendered here, but I wish to focus on three in particular. Some Revisionists claim this was a show trial, and that all the war crimes trials were show trials. The Belsen Trial was actually conducted fairly, at least as fairly as it could have been under any circumstances where the victors put on trial the vanquished. Certainly Major Winwood who defended Kramer gave it his best shot, but although there were acquittals as well as convictions, this was one of those trials in which the court listened to the evidence, then brought in a verdict that more or less ignored it.
The first of our witnesses is Dr Ada Bimko, a Jewess who claimed not only that 4 million Jews had been exterminated at Auschwitz, but that four million had been killed in one room, as she put it. On Friday, September 21, 1945 she testified that she had been arrested on August 4, 1943 and sent to Auschwitz with 5,000 other Jews. The lateness of this arrest is further evidence that the intentionalist position is totally untenable.
When she arrived at Auschwitz she took part in a selection at which some people were loaded onto a truck. She told the court “I had no idea what happened to them, but later on I was told that they were sent into the crematorium and gassed.”
At best this is hearsay. The lady herself says she actually attended a number of selections – a process we are told by the Exterminationists was a euphemism for gassing - which begs the question why wasn’t she gassed?
She said that 4,000 out of 4,124 sick Jewish women were selected for the gas chamber on December 1, 1943, though how she knew this, we are not told. (7)
Asked point blank “Have you ever been into one of the gas chambers?” she replied “Yes.”
Asked if any of the prisoners kept records in respect of the operation of the alleged gas chambers, she replied: “Yes...One of those who took part...a man called Grzecks, told me that others of those kommandos before having been gassed had complete records of all those transports which did arrive and then eventually were destroyed. This man Grzeck [sic] told me that others who took part in these kommandos, and in fact he himself, kept records and that the number of those Jews who were destroyed in this gas chamber would be about four million.”
Four million exterminated in one room. According to her own testimony, she was deported to Belsen and arrived there November 23, 1944 where she was set to work in the hospital. So four million Jews were exterminated in Auschwitz before the end of November 1944, many apparently because they were sick, and then she is put to work in a hospital. What was the point of murdering people on the one hand and sending them to hospital on the other? Dr Bimko spent 15 months in Auschwitz, then 5 months at Belsen, and she appears to have been in reasonable shape by the time of this trial; certainly there was nothing wrong with her imagination.
[Laughter.]
In a deposition, Bimko says she was shown around one of the gas chambers by an (apparently friendly) and (of course) unnamed SS man. It was disguised as a shower but had no drains.
“The S.S. man told me that the pipes, which were in the floor, were connected to the spray fittings in the gas chamber below. [There were 100-120 sprays; this room was about 48 feet square and 10 feet high] In a corner of the room were two large cylinders...The S.S. man told me that the cylinders contained the gas which passed through the pipes into the gas chamber.”
If the S.S. man did indeed make that statement, he probably had a sense of humour. Zyklon-B gas was not piped into buildings, rather it came in a crystalline form.
The second of our witnesses is by far the most remarkable, because she claimed not only to have been inside a gas chamber but to have been gassed in one. I believe understanding her testimony and the way it was handled by the court is the key to understanding the entire mystery, and a mystery it certainly is.
According to Sophia Litwinska, she was arrested at Lublin on May 19, 1940 because she was a Jewess. Her husband was a Gentile. She claimed to have been almost gassed by mistake and rescued from the chamber. Under cross-examination she said she was in the gas chamber a minute or two, collapsed from the effects of the gas, but could not remember if the man who rescued her was wearing a gas mask.
Cross-examined by Major Cranfield, she said “We were beaten every day”.
Cranfield suggested that the British had invited her – and others – to make accusations against specific persons at Belsen. Here and elsewhere such cross-examination was vigorous in places, except on the subject of the gas chambers. It is difficult even for the most cynical of Revisionists to conclude that the defence team did anything but the best for their clients, but it must be stressed that what they were doing was the best for their particular clients, not challenging the perceived wisdom. It could be of course that there really were mass gassings, but...
The following lengthy extract is not from her testimony but from her affidavit...
[No it is not! I was getting my gassees confused! This is actually an extract from the affidavit of
Regina Bialek, whom I mentioned in the discussion afterwards. I have dug out a photocopy of the
original document from WO 235/19. The relevant paragraph has been scanned here in PDF. My humble apologies,
but unlike the Exterminationist crowd, a true Revisionist will always admit when he is wrong.]
...which was published in the official book on the Belsen Trial: “On 25th December, 1943, I was sick with typhus and was picked out at a selection
made by Doctors Mengele and Tauber along with about 350 other women. I was made to undress and taken by lorry to a gas chamber. There were seven gas chambers at Auschwitz. This particular one was underground and the lorry was able to run down the slope and straight into the chamber. Here we were tipped unceremoniously on the floor. The room was about 12 yards square and small lights on the wall dimly illuminated it. When the room was full a hissing sound was heard coming from the centre point on the floor and gas came into the room. After what seemed about ten minutes some of the victims began to bite their hands and foam at the mouth and blood issued from their ears, eyes and mouth, and their faces went blue. I suffered from all these symptoms, together with a tight feeling at the throat. I was half conscious when my number was called out by Dr. Mengele and I was led from the chamber. I attributed my escape to the fact that the daughter of a friend of mine who was an Aryan and a doctor at Auschwitz had seen me being transported to the chamber and had told her mother, who immediately appealed to Dr. Mengele. Apparently he realized that as a political prisoner
I was of more value alive than dead, and I was released...I think that the time to kill a person in this particular gas chamber would be from 15 to 20 minutes.”
[Ad lib.]
Now clearly this is total nonsense because it is physically impossible. Think about it. There are over 300 of them in this chamber, if you have difficulty visualising that, they were all naked.
The doors are slammed behind them, then she hears Dr Mengele’s voice. From where?
[Laughter.]
They open the door to this gas chamber and drag her out, just her. What were all the others doing? Think about it.
Should we reject all testimony that is physically impossible? It is tempting to suggest so, but consider this, an adept conjurer can apport a silk handkerchief out of thin air and then vanish it. A small child or a feeble-minded person witnessing such may well testify truthfully that she saw first a materialisation then a dematerialisation.
You’ll see there’s nothing up the sleeves of my Tehran shirt (8). I’ve been practising this all week, so I hope I get it right.
My apologies for the irregular sizes of the following screengrabs.
Is there anyone who does not know how that trick is done?
[There was applause and laughter after the trick, then some ad libbing about miracles followed by more laughter.]
Yes, it’s a false thumb, so what you saw was not what you thought you saw. An interesting aside here; I thought I’d better try out that trick on a live audience, so I showed it to my colleague Mark Taha, who simply grunted and carried on reading his paper, but last month there was a strange woman in my bathroom; she was painting the wall with one hand and using her mobile phone with the other. (It’s a long story). I couldn’t understand what she was saying because she was Polish, so I decided to try out the trick on her. I made sure she was positioned in the doorway, that I was some distance away, and that the light was poor. She was a bit confused, but when she saw the handkerchief, she was amazed. She was even more amazed when I vanished it. Then I walked up to her, held out my hand, and wiggled my thumb. She thought I wanted to shake hands; it was only when I removed the false thumb that she realised it was false.
Where is the false thumb here? Clearly, it is the testimony itself. Litwinska simply lied. It’s all lies, all of it.
The Poles are not the only people who have failed to see the false thumb here; ordinary people can be forgiven for failing to investigate such testimony with the thoroughness and indeed the skepticism it warrants. We are led – erroneously - to believe this was the greatest crime in history, so surely it requires a genuine investigation, not merely to be rubber stamped by first the military tribunals and then the Court Historians.
I’m not the first Revisionist to happen upon the Litwinska testimony, but unlike others I was not prepared to dismiss it out of hand, so looked for another explanation. The only reasonable one is that Litwinska was the subject of some bizarre experiment. We know those wicked Nazis carried out unethical and at times murderous experiments on human subjects,
although unlike the British they appear to have confined such tests to prisoners. And let’s not mention the obscene and dare I say racist Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment? (9) I considered this, but there is no way her testimony or that of any other witness to these alleged mass homicidal gassings can be reconciled with the physical evidence.
But it gets worse, the person who saved Sophie (I was gassed) Litwinska was SS man Franz Hoessler. When he was on the stand he denied making selections: “Only doctors could make selections, and selections could only be made on orders of higher authorities.”
When asked about Litwinska’s testimony he must have realised how ludicrous it was, but he realised too that his neck was on the chopping block, so he did his best to portray himself as a hero.
“Do you remember the witness Litwinska saying that you took her out of the gas chamber?” He replied “Yes, but it was someone else whom I took out from the gas chamber. Those who had been selected were in trucks and went down in the direction of the crematorium. I was on the road when one of these trucks passed by, and I saw a woman whom I recognized in the back of the truck. Suddenly two women came and implored me to save her. I saw a motor cyclist near the block facing me, and I told him to go and fetch the woman and take her to the hospital, which he did. She had not been inside the gas chamber.” (10)
Asked: “Were prisoners from Birkenau ever transferred to other camps?” he replied “Yes, there were parades and the people who were selected were prepared and sent away. I was in charge of those selections. They did not come back again.”
Hoessler claimed to have saved several hundred people from the gas chamber, a claim that is every bit as convincing as the one that people were gassed in the first place.
“Did you do anything to prevent people from being sent to the gas chamber?”
He did though admit to hanging four women for the theft of ammunition. Rough, summary justice that this was, it was clearly carried out by due process and is the sort of thing one could expect under such no frills conditions.
Hoessler’s endorsement of the gas chamber fantasy didn’t do him any good, because he was one of those sentenced to death and duly hanged.
It is on nonsense like this that the Exterminationist version of the Final Solution is based: reports about the alleged gas chambers based on the claims of people who were in no position to know what was going on or how many bodies were being cremated. Ludicrous hearsay reports about 4 million people being murdered in one room. Testimony that clearly abrogates the laws of physics. And when all else fails, the photographs of the burial pits at Belsen. Of course they won’t indeed can’t debate the Revisionists, because there is no debate.
I’d like to mention briefly another trial, of a woman who was charged with and admitted freely and voluntarily to committing heinous crimes. Her name was Issobell Gowdie, and in 1662 she confessed to renouncing her baptism to the Devil and being baptised in his name. She said she had killed more than half a dozen people. She and her accomplices had sexual relations with the Devil and he was “abler for them sexually than any man could be. His members were exceeding great and long, but he was as heavy as a sack of malt and as cold as ice.” (11)
Gowdie’s confession lasted four days, was entirely voluntary and was corroborated by her accomplice, Janet Breadheid, who confirmed her story about killing all the male children of the Laird of Parkis by roasting clay images of them.
Those of you who have studied such historical phenomena will realise her testimony was not exceptional, and personally I find it more credible than that of Litwinska. Picture this, a young woman locked into an unhappy marriage meets a handsome stranger, and confides in him. And perhaps he says, “Hey baby, I got something here that’ll make you feel good”.
This analogy has of course been made before, but it is worth bearing in mind a crucial difference; Issobel Gowdie and others confessed freely and voluntarily in order to implicate and condemn themselves to a certain death. The testimony of Litwinska and others was made in order to implicate people they hated.
Now here is something for you to chew over, impossible though Litwinska’s testimony is, to claim so in Germany is a criminal offence, not only for Revisionists, but for their lawyers, as Sylvia Stoltz found out in January 2008. What was that about the mesmeric powers of Jews?
[I ad libbed a bit here, too.]
As I pointed out, the Belsen Trial was relatively fair, yet it still convicted many of the defendants and sentenced them to death on the basis of testimony that no physicist in his right mind would entertain. How much more unreliable then later trials that were not fair, and in which it would have been impossible for the defendants to deny the existence of homicidal gas chambers?
All the testimony I have related here has been in the public domain for decades, or if it has not been readily accessible to most people, then certainly it has been to accredited historians and other academics, yet aside from the Revisionists, none have dared to raise the issues I have highlighted. On occasion I have confronted sundry individuals with these impossible gassings; the result has been ridicule, satire, scorn, ad hominem, but never the slightest attempt to refute it. I think we all know why.
Earlier I alluded to Gita Sereny’s article The Men Who Whitewash Hitler.
[At this point I passed round a copy of this document.]
This is a truly marvellous essay. After the introduction which was written by someone at the New Statesman, there is a lot of ad hominem by Sereny herself with all the usual wailing and whining, and then comes the refutation of the Revisionists, which is like no refutation I have seen of anything else. It is in fact a series of admissions. Belsen and Dachau were not extermination camps, she says; some Holocaust memoirs are partial or complete fakes, something the New Statesman dismisses as “commercial frivolity”, using seven syllables where one will suffice. Or if one is too few, how about two syllables – damned lies? Then Sereny makes her most amazing admission or perhaps one should call it a claim: Auschwitz, she says, was not primarily an extermination camp...
Excuse me!
Instead, the exterminations were carried out largely at the Aktion Reinhard camps – Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmno and Belzec - which were of course all dismantled and made to disappear without trace. This was in November 1979, be it noted. Gita Sereny died last year, but one can only wonder what would have been the response if at that time she had made this claim on German soil about Auschwitz not being primarily an extermination camp.
Yet still the myth of Auschwitz was and continues to be peddled. There used to be a plaque at the camp that commemorated the 4 million people allegedly murdered there. In 1993, this was
replaced by one which refers to the million and a half who died there. One would expect therefore a
lowering of the death toll by two and a half million to three and a half million, but anyone who expects that is not familiar with Jewish arithmetic,
which says everything must add up to six million. In fact, this emblematic figure has never had any basis in fact. Many years ago, someone dug out a copy of the American Hebrew newspaper for October 31, 1919 which includes an article that refers to the extermination of six million Jews – in an entirely different context, of course.
[Here I added a reference to the recent finds of Dr Töben and his team.]
So what was Auschwitz? Primarily it was a slave labour camp in which people – mostly Jews of course - were worked to death. It is easy for us today sitting in the comfort of our centrally heated living rooms to look at photographs and film of these camps and be seduced by this clever propaganda, but what is missing from Sereny’s whining and wailing is context. How many of you have a bathroom in your house or apartment? What about an inside toilet? Many houses in even Britain didn’t have inside toilets during the 1940s, and a few still didn’t have inside toilets or running hot water in the 1960s. So then we should not be surprised that Auschwitz had communal toilets and similar facilities.
In this country, the 1844 Factory Act limited the hours worked by children to six and a half, with three hours’ schooling, and set a maximum 12 hour day for young people between 13 and 18. This 12 hour rule also applied to women. What was that about slave labour?
Does anyone know when the last climbing boy was shoved up a chimney?
[There was no response.]
Try 1875. (12)
In spite of all Sereny’s admissions and special pleading, the lies and deceptions of the so-called Holocaust are perpetuated to this day, including by Steven Spielberg, who set up the
Shoah Foundation, and made a film called The Last Days. A young American Revisionist,
Eric Hunt, has produced a superb video critique of this nonsense. Some of you may have seen it. Clearly, Hunt regards Spielberg as one of the key perpetuators of this lie; thirty years ago – before Hunt was born - I would have agreed with that sentiment. After all, Spielberg is one of the biggest and most influential Jews in the media. However, if you study Hunt’s analysis, it is clear that Spielberg is a victim rather than a perpetrator, in short he is a well-meaning sap, more Esther Rantzen than Gerry Gable. He’s one of these people who believes Jews and everyone else who says bad things about the Nazis must always be believed uncritically, and has clearly been taken in by a number of outrageous liars including a black former soldier Paul Parks, who passed himself off as one of the liberators of Dachau. Unusually, Spielberg was even taken to task by the American press for this.
Leaving aside the minutae, what is the bottom line of Holocaust Revisionism? It is simply that in war-time, the first casualty is truth, that our leaders have lied to us persistently if not consistently about the Second World War, while others have joined in the lies and hysteria for the same reasons, for their own reasons, for no reason at all, or simply to make money. We hear the very same charges made about our own governments to this day, about things unfolding now, and no one bats an eyelid. Yet anyone who has the temerity to question the nature and extent of the tragedy that befell not only the Jews of Europe but everyone else at that time, is branded a bigot, a hater, or even, in modern democratic Germany, a criminal.
One might have expected Jews in particular to welcome the claims of the Revisionists, after all, wouldn’t it be good news if far fewer of their number had died? You’d have thought so, instead the response is always disbelief, anger, outrage, legal repression and on occasion violence from the morons of the self-styled anti-fascist left.
Now as well as being called a conspiracy theory, Holocaust Revisionism is portrayed as a belief system similar to that of the Flat Earthers. I think I have demonstrated here that it is anything but a belief system, rather it is a discipline grounded in empiricism. I mentioned David Cole earlier, Cole is an American Jew who broke ranks with the sheeplike mentality of the tribe, he went to Europe and did his own research, and among other things he found a so-called gas chamber with a door that couldn’t be locked, either from the outside or the inside.
As he pointed out to a disbelieving audience on The Phil Donahue Show, this is physical evidence. In English courtrooms and indeed in most courtrooms throughout the world, physical evidence is given much greater weight than either documentary or eyewitness evidence, and for good reasons. In June 2007, the Pakistan cricket coach Bob Woolmer was found dead in his Kingston hotel room. The Jamaican police fingerprinted the entire Pakistan cricket squad, and there were all manner of reports that he was strangled, or poisoned and then strangled. They even called in Scotland Yard. Eventually, it was concluded that Woolmer had died from a heart attack; there had obviously been great difficulty interpreting the physical evidence, but that was where it led.
Now, physical evidence can be not simply misinterpreted, but tampered with, and when it is, it can be extremely difficult to prove, so we should not
always take it at face value. But it was not Revisionists who have tampered with the evidence here or who wilfully misinterpreted it, and do so to this day.
It was not Revisionists who labelled the Dachau delousing chamber “gas chamber”. It was not Revisionists who picked up a couple of shrunken heads in a German curiosity shop and planted them in Buchenwald. It was not Revisionists who built a fake chimney at Auschwitz after the war. But bearing all that in mind, the pronouncements of Rudolph Vrba, Dr Ada Bimko and Sophie (I was gassed) Litwinska, are not physical evidence. If I may paraphrase Professor Butz, not for the first time, we are dealing here not with Flat Earthism, or mysticism, or so-called New Age nutters. We are not talking about shapeshifters, or ectoplasmic entities, or even flying saucers. What we are talking about is people telling lies, pure and simple. In short, so-called survivors, Jewish organisations and others are lying about their political enemies.
Not all of them are lying, some of them, probably the vast majority, including Spielberg, really believe this garbage, and will entertain nothing that conflicts with the established paradigm. We see this sort of thing all the time, here in the UK, in this day and age.
We saw it in the Jimmy Savile affair (13) in which he and apparently a great many other men were doing things with underage girls they shouldn’t have. Some people knew what was going on, or must have suspected, but they all looked the other way. There have been similar scandals involving the Catholic Church including in the United States.
In some countries, including India, there have been cases of women being raped or even gang raped, and the legal authorities doing nothing. Indeed, according to the Exterminationists, something like that was afoot in Nazi Germany, people knew what was going on, that Jews and others were being systematically murdered, but they looked the other way or simply didn’t care. That claim is partly true, at least as far as the persecution of Jews was concerned. Talking of persecution, that is something everyone in this room understands, because the very fact that we are meeting here under conditions of semi-secrecy is testament to the stranglehold our political enemies have over society, where any dissenting view of history, race or culture is suppressed ruthlessly, and where the vilest lies are circulated about us. Both Mark Taha and the late Jonathan Bowden have been smeared as paedophiles as part of this sinister...if you want to call it a conspiracy, I won’t object.
I’ve been physically attacked; Mike Newland was attacked very badly. (14)
In short, Holocaust Revisionism is not about people with nutty beliefs, it is about exposing lies, refuting lies, and liars, damned liars. We should always recognise this simple truth, and we must not allow ourselves to be intimidated by these dregs of humanity like Maurice Ludmer and his successor Gerry Gable, or by the leaders of Organised Zionist Jewry, who supported not only only the Gaza Massacre but the Flotilla Massacre that followed, and branded the victims terrorists into the bargain.
I would like to end with some food for thought, while there are other subjects which can likewise not be discussed rationally in either the mass media or the halls of academe – like the question of Negro intelligence (or the lack of it), and the truth about the spiritual sickness of homosexuality – it is certainly true that as far as history is concerned, there can be no meaningful dissent on anything associated with the Jewish Question, most especially the so-called Holocaust, but even if the Revisionist position were totally indefensible, even if we were all liars and bigots rather than heretics, there are two subjects today about which even more grotesque lies are told, and by and large no one bats an eyelid.
There is first and foremost the freakshow known as the 9/11 Truth Movement; I don’t want to go into this in any detail because I know there are people in this very room who have been taken in by these clowns and their stupid mantra of “9/11 was an inside job”.
The 9/11 Truth Movement – or if not all of it then elements of it – have accused hundreds or even thousands of people of being involved in an enormous conspiracy to commit mass murder on American soil. They have named the guilty men right up to the President of the United States. At the very least this
is criminal libel, yet these people are able to hire premises, to proselytise their nonsense to the world, and indeed some of their spokesmen including its elder statesman David Ray Griffin are revered. (Unlike his namesake Nick Griffin).
Then there is the Stalin Society which is based here in London, an organisation that claims Josef Stalin – a greater mass murderer by far than even Adolf Hitler – was framed. The well-documented crimes of Stalin and the apparatus he created didn’t happen, including the Ukrainian famine-genocide, which they describe as a myth. Few people take these cranks seriously, and where Holocaust Revisionists are greeted with howls of indignation and contempt, the reaction to them is generally laughter, when anyone bothers to react at all.
This says more about the mass media than about anything else, and by that I don’t mean the now not so hidden hand of the likes of the odious Gerry Gable and the even more odious Abraham Foxman, but the total and utter hypocrisy and spiritual bankruptcy of the spineless goyim who bow to the pressure of conformity even though they must surely suspect that the Emperor of the Holocaust has nothing on.
After the applause there was a question and answer session.
Back To Speeches Index
“When was that?”
“In August 1944. I was working in a portion of the camp...as a doctor, and again a new crowd of those selected for the gas chamber had arrived, and as they were sick they came covered with a blanket. After two days we were told to fetch all those blankets from the gas chamber. I took the opportunity, as I always wanted to see with my own eyes this ill-famed gas chamber, and I went. I did go into this crematorium”.
She goes to see a gas chamber, and ends up in a crematorium.
“Yes, very often young girls came to me and implored me, saying that their sister or their friend or somebody else they liked was in this Block 25 and I should try to save them, and I have done so.”
“What do you do with that, eat it?”
“No baby, you smoke it”.
“What does it do?”
“Smoke this and you’ll taste colours, you’ll feel like you’re flyin’.”
Back To Site Index