Holocaust or Hoax?

The Arguments

by Jürgen Graf



How the eyewitness reports were coordinated

As the historian Ernst Nolte correctly observes, it is impossible for a considerable number of persons to invent more or less the same stories entirely independently of each other. Nolte's conclusion is that the gas chamber stories must contain at least a core of truth, even if the number of victims has been exaggerated (1). A similar sort of logical process might lead one to conclude as follows: "In the Middle Ages, innumerable witnesses testified that they had seen witches riding to the Witches' Sabbath on broomsticks; many witches even admitted as much at their trials. The story must, therefore, contain a certain core of basic truth; it may be, however, that the number of witches riding through the air has been greatly exaggerated." It obviously does not occur to Professor Nolte that eyewitness testimonies and confessions can be coordinated as much as one likes if one possesses complete freedom to torture and falsify as much as one likes -- as the Allies did after WWII.

As shown by the excellent Spanish researcher Enrique Aynat, the Polish resistance movement reported mass murders in Auschwitz as early as 1941. Zyklon was never mentioned as the murder weapon; the murders were allegedly being committed with pneumatic hammers, electrical baths, and combat gases (2). These reports attracted no attention outside Poland. While atrocity stories of steam, gas, and electrical chambers at Belzec and Treblinka were diligently spread starting in 1942, there was silence about Auschwitz until June 1944. The British Jewish author, Martin Gilbert writes,

"The secret of the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau lay hidden until the third week of June" (3).

In June 1944, the mass deportation of Hungarian Jews was in full swing; of these, 438,000 were sent to Auschwitz. 28,000 of them were registered there, while the others were sent on to other work camps and factories (4). The alleged extermination of the Hungarian Jews in the gas chambers at Birkenau was the starting point for the legend of the extermination camp Auschwitz.

In November 1944, this legend took concrete form. At that time there appeared in Washington the WRB report, based on the testimonies of Auschwitz escapees Rudolf Vrba, Alfred Wetzler, Czeslaw Mordowicz, Arnost Rosin, and Jerzy Tabeau, not all of whom were cited by name in the report (5). According to the WRB report, Zyklon was being used as the murder weapon; the gassings were taking place in two farm houses west of Birkenau, as well as within the four Birkenau crematoria. There was no talk of murders in the main camp crematorium. We will return to this report below.

On 2 February 1945, shortly after the liberation of Auschwitz, Pravda reported a "conveyor belt of death", on which hundreds of people were murdered at one time. This "conveyor belt" disappeared immediately; no eyewitness has ever mentioned it. Gas chambers also existed, according to Pravda, but they were located them in the wrong place -- not at Birkenau, but in the "Eastern part of the camp". Quite obviously, the conference between the Western powers and the Soviets had not been entirely successful: the Russians knew they were supposed to find "proof" of mass murders, but Washington and London seem to have forgotten to provide the full details; so the Pravda reporter, a Jew by the name of Polevoi, permitted his fantasy to run amuck.

In April and May 1945, several former Auschwitz inmates appeared as witnesses before a Polish commission. These inmates included the following Jews, commonly cited in holocaust literature: Alter Szmul Faynzylberg -- who also went by the name of Stanislaw Jankowsi, Kaskowiak, and Alter Feinsilber, and who changed his date of birth as often as his name -- Szlama Dragon, and Henryk Tauber (6). After the flop with the Pravda article, the Polish Communists took care to coordinate the testimonies, at least very generally. So the witnesses placed the gas chambers in the right location, and were unanimous as to the murder weapon: no more combat gas, no more electrical baths, no more pneumatic hammers, but rather, Zyklon B. Apart from this, the Holocaust survivors were allowed to allow their perverted imaginations to run amuck as usual; for this reason, their factual reports are highly entertaining.

The myth took on formal shape with the "confession" of the first Auschwitz commandant, Rudolf Hoess. He disappeared after the end of the war, and, assuming the name Franz Lang, hid out on a farm in Schleswig-Holstein. In March 1946, the British found him. His confession -- representing the core of the Auschwitz yarn which continues to be defended with the viciousness of a cornered rat right down to the present day -- was obtained by a British team of torture specialists under the leadership of the Jewish sergeant Bernard Clarke as follows (7):

"Hoess screamed in terror at the mere sight of the British uniforms. Clarke yelled: 'What is your name?' With each answer of 'Fritz Lang', Clarke's hand crashed into the face of the prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Hoess broke and admitted who he was... He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless... It took three days to get a coherent statement out of him."

The Hoess confession (8) has been analysed and torn to shreds so many times and in such great detail by revisionist researchers so that we need not go into further detail; we will content ourselves with a few comments:

- Hoess confessed to gassing 2.5 million people, with a total death count of 3 million, at Auschwitz during his period as commandant (until the end of November 1943). Not a single historian believes these figures today. Was Hoess so eager to be hanged as to incriminate himself untruthfully to such an extent?

- according to his confession, Hoess visisted Treblinka as early as 1941. The extermination camp of Belzec is therefore supposed to have been in existence as early as 1941. In reality, however, the Belzec camp was only opened in March 1942, while the Treblinka camp was opened in July 1942 (9). Hoess also mentions an extermination camp, Wolzek, which nobody has ever heard of, either before or since. He can't possibly have confused it with Belzec, since both camps are mentioned in the same sentence.

- in our book Auschwitz: Taetergestaendnisse..., we listed a total of 45 absuridities, impossibilities, and improbabilities contained in the Hoess confesssion, as well as in the Hoess memoirs in the prison of Krakow (Hoess was delivered to the Poles after his appearance at Nuremberg). The list is most certainly far from complete.

How the courts faked "evidence" for the Holocaust

Auschwitz played an important role in the Nuremberg Trial. The objective of the trial was to provide "legal proof" of the crimes of the Germans, alleged to be "unique in world history". Especially significant are articles 19 and 21 of the London Agreement of August 1945, which created the so-called legal basis for the trials (10). According to article 19, the court was "not bound by technical rules of evidence"; article 21 stated that "the court need not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but shall take judicial notice thereof". Just what constituted "a fact of common knowledge", was, of course, to be decided by the court itself! Since the extermination of the Jews and the other crimes of which Germany stood accused -- such as the mass murder of Polish officers at Katyn, committed by the Bolshevik butchers and blamed on the Germans, hanging German soldiers for their own crime (11) -- "were facts of common knowledge", the tedious task of producing actual proof could conveniently be dispensed with.

The innumerable trials of Nazi war criminals in the Federal German Republic were held on the same model. Ever since the 1950s, the US puppet regime in Bonn has assigned the "German" justice system the task of conjuring up the Fata Morgana of a mass murder of millions of people in gas chambers, of which not the slightest evidence remains. This was achieved in the following manner:

Before the trial began, the accused was vilified in the controlled media as a "beast in human shape". Proof was not required, since "crime" and "criminal" were, for the most part, considered to have been established from the outset. The witnesses were allowed to lie a blue streak, since nobody was allowed to subject the former "victims of persecution" to emotional torment with sceptical questioning; the only chance for a lenient sentence for the accused lay in evading any dispute over the existence of the gas chambers and the reality of the genocide, while merely disputing one's own participation in the killings, blaming everything on persons already dead, missing, or superiors who had already been sentenced. Anyone in a war crimes trial who disputed the basic version of events at Auschwitz (i.e., the Holocaust yarn) -- a version already accepted as "proven fact" -- found himself in a totally hopeless position: his stubborness only got him a tougher sentence. This is how the confessions came to be given. Anyone wishing further information should consult chapter 4 of Wilhelm Staeglich's book Der Auschwitz-Mythos, Manfred Koehler's article on the value of Holocaust testimonies and confessions in the Gauss anthology Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, and the chapter on the trials in our book "The Holocaust Swindle".

Many people may wonder why every post-war German government from Adenauer to Kohl has allowed these show trials to be carried on in order to incriminate their own people with fake atrocities. The reason is that the Bundesrepublik is not a sovereign state. The trials are intended to pursue definite objectives in domestic as well as foreign policy.

First, every such trial allows Bonn to prove its anti-fascistic convictions to foreign powers, thus proving the Bonn regime to be a prime ally of the USA. In addition, the trials help "re-educate" the German people. In this respect, all German governments have played a decisive role as the bootlickers and thugs of Washington. By repeatedly "proving" the unexcelled brutality of the National Socialist regime, they legitimize their own "democratic" parliamentary system, which continues to suffer from the minor defect of having being introduced solely as a result of German defeat in WW II. Dragging crowds of young people through the courtrooms to witness the trials destroys the national pride and self-respect of the young, and thus creates acceptance for Bonn policies, which provide for a complete subordination to American interests. In so doing, the trials contribute greatly to strengthening the post-war New World Order, which is based upon two dogmas: sole German guilt for WWII, and the cruelty of the National Socialist regime (unique in world history, don't forget), a cruelty most clearly expressed in the extermination of the Jews.

A perfect example: Dr. Johann Paul Kremer

Let us illustrate the above with a particularly notable exemplary case.

Dr. Johann Paul Kremer is one of the star witnesses of exterminationist historians; hardly a single work of Holocaust literature appears without mentioning him and his diary entries on Auschwitz. Here are the facts:

Kremer, born in 1883, was a professor of medicine at the University of Muenster. From the end of August to the middle of November 1942, he was sent to Auschwitz as the replacement for a camp doctor who had fallen ill. While he was at Auschwitz, he made the diary entries which were later to be quoted thousands of times as proof of genocide. He was then sent back to his university. This means that the Nazis were stupid enough to allow Kremer to witness the mass murders at Auschwitz first hand -- they were allegedly in full swing at that time -- and then go back and blabber all about it to his students! This is just the first thing to note in considering the credibility of this Holocaust "star witness".

The ominous entries are very short, and read as follows (12):

"2. Sept. 1942. For the first time outside at 3 o'clock early at a special action. In comparison to this, Dante's Inferno is almost a comedy. It's not for nothing that Auschwitz is called the camp of annihilation!...

5. Sept. 1942. Today after noon at a special action of the F.K.L. (Mohammedans): the most horrible of horrors. Hschf. Thilo -- military physician -- was right when he told me we were in the anus mundi here. Evening around 8 o'clock again at a special action from Holland. For the special rations given in so doing, consisting of fifth of a litre of brandy, 5 cigarettes, and 100 g sausage and bread, the men volunteer for such actions in droves...

F.K.L. meant "Frauenkonzentrationslager" (women's concentration camp) and "Mohammedans" was camp slang for living skeletons. HSCHF stood for "Hauptscharfuehrer", "anus mundi" means "anus of the world" in Latin.

On 12 October, Kremer entrusted his diary with the following entry (13):

"Protective innoculation against typhus; afterwards strong general reaction towards evening (fever); nevertheless present in the night at a special action from Holland (1600 persons). Horrible scenes in front of the last bunker. This was the 10th special action."

It might be noted that Kremer did not destroy his diary after the war, but rather allowed it to fall intact into the hands of the British.

According to Holocaust literature, the "special actions" were gassings. The "last bunker" was accordingly one of the two bunkers designated as farm houses in Birkenau (the red and white house), which are supposed to have been used as gassing stations before the erection of the Birkenau cremtoria.

The doctor himself confirmed this version of the facts before a Polish court in Krakow in 1947 (after the British handed him over to the poles). He was accused of having participated in gassing a group of women. He was sentenced to death, then the sentence was commuted into life imprisonment. In 1958, he was finally due to his advanced age and good conduct. Soon afterwards, he was hauled into court in the BRD and sentenced to ten year's imprisonment for aiding and abetting murder, which sentence he was, however, considered to have already served. At the age of 80, Kremer took the stand on 4 July 1964 during the Auschwitz Trial and confirmed this story once again. The Holocaust scribblers rely upon such confessions, and argue that the criminals could not have disputed the murders in the gas chambers anyway.

A very convincing discussion of the Kremer case was provided by Robert Faurisson in his work Memoire en defense (14): The following is his discussion summarized in a few points:

- Auschwitz could easily have been called the "camp of annihilation" in late summer of 1942 even without gas chambers and mass murders, since typhus was claiming 300 victims a day at that time;

- no gassing can have been meant by "special action", since Kremer writes that it took place "outside". (Several Holocaust scribblers, for examples, Wellers, Klarsfeld and Poliakov, have revealingly deleted this word in their reproduction of the dairy entries.) The words "last bunker" cannot possibly have meant one of the two Birkenau farmhouses, otherwise Kremer woud have spoken of the "second" bunker, and not the "last" one;

- in reality, the special action could have consisted of cleaning dirty train carriages after the arrival of new inmates. Special rations were distributed for such unpleasant work;

- Kremer must have attended about 30 executions during his time at Auschwitz. The horrid scenes could have involved something of this nature.

- that Kremer confirmed the reported gassings before his Polish judges is easily explained: he wanted to save his life, and finally succeeded. If he had disputed the official version, he would inevitably have been hanged;

- even his testimony at the Auschwitz Trial was given on understandably opportunist grounds: at the age of eighty, he simply had no desire to spend the last years of his life behind bars, which is what would presumably have happened to him if he had disputed the gassings.

This is how the confessions came to be given. In any case, Kremer mentions gassings expressly in his diary at one point (entry of 1 September): "afternoon at the gassing of a block with Zkylon B against lice."

Not even Holocaust literature has ever claimed that "lice" is just a camouflage term for "Jews". At least not yet!

The father of the Auschwitz lie

If one were to bestow the disreputable title of "Father of the Auschwitz Lie", Dr. Rudolf Vrba, today a retired university professor in Vancouver, Canada, would have justifiable claim to that honour. As a young man, the Slovakian Jew was deported to Auschwitz, where he succeeded in escaping on 7 April 1944 with his compatriot and fellow Jew Aldred Wetzler. Together with the testimonies of Czeslow Mordowicz, Arnost Rosin, and Jerzy Tabeau, a report by Verba and Wetzler appeared in the WRB report of November 1944.

A careful examination of the Vrba-Wetzler report leads to the conclusion that the two Slovakian Jews never laid eyes on the interior of the crematoria where the gas chambers are supposed to have been located. In particular, they describe the Kremas II and III of Birkenau (designated I and II in the report) as follows (15):

"From the midst of the oven room, a gigantic chimney rises into the sky. Around are 9 ovens with 4 openings each. Every opening takes 3 normal bodies at once, which are fully burnt within one a half hours... On the flat roof are 3 openings, which can be hermetically sealed from the outside by means of lids. From the gas chamber, rails lead through the hall to the oven room... After 3 minutes, everyone in the chamber is dead... The chambers are then ventilated, aired, and the Sonderkommando takes the bodies on railway cars to the oven room, where the cremation takes place."

First, the two Kremas didn't have "9 ovens with 4 openings each", but rather, five three-muffle ovens; secondly, there were no "3 windows which can be hermetically sealed from the outside by means of lids" on the roof of the morgue I (the "gas chamber"); third, there were never any "rails" to the oven room, but rather, an elevator, since the ovens were located on the the floor above. In addition to all these obvious errors, the Vrba-Wetzler report contains a number of other gross errors. With great probability, the two authors received their "information" from members of the Resistance, who never had access to the Kremas.

In 1964, Vrba published his book I Cannot Forgive (6). On pages 10 to 13, he describes the gassing of Krakow Jews in great detail; this is supposed to have taken place in Krema II of Birkenau in January 1943 in honour of Heinrich Himmler, then visting Auschwitz. If Vrba had studied the Holocaust literature somewhat more carefully, he would have known that Krema II was not opened in January 1943 for the first time, but in March 1943 (17); Himmler visited Auschwitz in July 1942 for the last time (18). In his book, Verba replaces the "rails" leading to the oven room with "special elevators" (in reality, there was only one elevator). The cremation time for 3 bodies in one muffle shrinks down to 20 minutes in contrast to the WRB report. This is an absolute physical impossibility, but it accords with the testimony of Rudolf Hoess. There is no longer any mention of three openings in the roof, but only one. Vrba has also "improved" his testimony as compared to his 1944 testimony on a number of other points.

As emphasized by Robert Faurisson (19), it took fully 40 years before any Jewish "eyewitness to the gas chambers" was subjected to cross examination in any trial, as would be the case in any ordinary murder trial to start with. Until that year, these swindlers were free to tell their lies before a court, give presentations and interviews, one after the other, as much as they liked, without any need to answer any embarrassing questions: who would dare torment people with awkward questions? After all, they've suffered so much and only escaped death by a miracle! In 1985, in Toronto, Canada, Rudolf Vrba appeared as star witness in the first trial of a German Canadian, Ernst Zuendel, indicted on the basis of a complaint from a Jewish organization by the name of the Holocaust Remembrance Association for dissemination of a revisionist text. Vrba was mercilessly cross-examined by Zuendel's combatative defence lawyer Douglas Christie; here are some excerpts from the cross-examination. First Christie asks Vrba about the Himmler visit described in his book (21):

Q: I would like to ask you whether you mean to say that you actually saw him arrive in January 1943, or is this only...

A: In September 1943 or January?

Q: Now, in the book it says January 1943.

A: No, I saw him in July 1943, and then once in 1943 [sic!].

Q: But here it says January 1943.

A: Then that's an error.

Q: An error?

A: Yes.

Q: But you saw him arrive on this occasion?

A: The first time I saw him arrive, because he was as close to me as you are.

Q: He was as close to you as I am now?

A: About.

Q: I understand. And you were...

A: He came a step closer to be polite [!].

Q: Uh-hum.

A? But the second time I saw him in a car, the same as the first time. He drove a black Mercedes and was all surrounded by his subordinates who used to accompany him. I saw him only from about 600 yards away, and I heard it was him, but he didn't come up to me this time, to shake my hand and introduce himself [!]. Perhaps it was him, perhaps it was only a representative, and I do not believe that that makes a big difference...

Q: And you want to tell this Court that you actually saw Heinrich Himmler peeking through the door of a gas chamber, isn't that right?

A: No, I didn't say I was present when he peeked through the door of the gas chamber, but I put together a story which I had heard several times from various people, who were present had told me all about it... There were many Sonderkommando and SS men with him.

Q: Were you there?

A: No, I was in the quarantine camp at that time, and I talked with a number of them and hear, and I know that every unfortunate victim had to wait a long time for the gassing, because the big shots don't die that fast, so they had to wait in the gas chamber.

Q: But in your book you write that you had seen everything, and you don't mention that you heard the story from other people.

A: But in this special case I told what I heard from other people.

Vrba still insisted that he had seen 1,765,000 Jews disappear into the crematoria with his own eyes; this included 150,000 French Jews. Christie mentioned that a total of slightly more than 75,000 French Jews were deported from France, to which Vrba asked "Where did you get that figure? From the Nazi newspapers?" Christie replied calmly that he didn't get them from the Nazi newspapers, but from the standard work on the subject by the French Jew Serge Klarsfeld (22).

The debacle of arch liar Vrba was a turning point in the legal demolition of the Holocaust. Except for the Demjanjuk trial in Jerusalem, at which five liars swore they watched the Ukrainian drive hundreds of thousands of people into the gas chambers with his own hands (23) -- the evidence was so poor that Demjanjuk finally had to be acquitted -- no "eyewitnesses to the gas chambers" have dared to testify in court since 1985.

Ernst Zuendel was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment in 1985 and then 9 months imprisonment on appeal in 1988; the basis for the charge was a law against "spreading false news". In August 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada acquitted him and declared the "false news" law unconstitutional. There are two excellent books on the Zuendel trial, which are highly recommended to anyone interested in the Holocaust (24, 25).

The "murder weapon" Zyklon B: refutation of the lie

Death sentences have been carried out with hydrocyanic acid in the United States since 1924; the active ingredient of Zyklon B is hydrocyanic acid. The execution of a single convict with this poison gas is a complicated matter. The gas chamber must be hermetically sealed to perfection, otherwise the execution will become a gamble with death for penitentiary personnel and witnesses. Fig. VIII shows the door of a US gas chamber. The adjacent illustration, Fig. IX, shows the doors of the gas chamber of the main camp of Auschwitz. These pictures speak volumes. The sealing of the death chamber and the disposal of the gas would be an impossibility, and the first mass gassing would have turned into a catastrophe for the SS.

The practical dangers of the use of hydrocyanic acid are revealed in the following report, which appeared in the local newspaper, the Boeblinger Bote of 16 November 1995 (and no doubt in other newspapers as well):

"Pest Exterminators in Botch Job

"Three local residents were nearly asphyxiated while an infestation of wood worm survived intact. This was the final score of a completely botched vermin extermination job in a church in a Croatian holiday resort of Lovran in Rijeka. Several hundred residents of the area had to be evacuated due to the pest exterminators' botched job.

"The exterminators attempted to eradicate woodworm in the church of the Holy Jurjaj using highly toxic gas in Lovran during the night. Improper hermetic sealing of the church, however, allowed the gas to penetrate surrounding houses in which people were asleep. 'Due to the sudden onset of nausea, the people fortunately woke up immediately. Only this rescued them from certain death', the local newspaper Vecernij reported. 'Nevertheless, three residents suffered from severe intoxication. The Mayor decided to evacuate the area. The pest exterminators were arrested, and the woodworm survived.'"

Robert Faurisson was the first to describe the technical impossibility of the mass gassings in the areas designated as gas chambers with Zyklon B, as testified to by eyewitnesses (26). The following sentence is a clear statement of the core of Faurisson's argument (27):

"If the Nazi gas chambers were to work at all, they would have needed the following: absolutely perfect hermetic sealing; a special introduction and distribution system for the gas; a fantastic ventilation system to eliminate the gas from the chambers after the mass murders; a system to neutralize the exhausted gases; and then, quite separately, a device, incredibly clever in design and construction, to eliminate the gas which would adhere stubbornly to the bodies, making touching and carrying them a deadly business. The ventilation and exhaustion of cyanide gas is very time-consuming and difficult. It adheres to the human body, and penetrates the skin so easily that it would be hazardous to touch the body of a person killed with high concentrations of cyanide gas with the bare hands. Contact through the skin alone may lead to intoxication."

These technical considerations refute all "eyewitness reports" on mass gassings with Zyklon B without exception. That the inventors of the gas chamber lie had no knowledge of chemistry and made the mistake of choosing an insecticide as the murder weapon, was to prove a fateful error. First, an assembly line murder of human beings utilizing this poison gas in the areas designated as the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz would be impossible for technical reasons. In addition, the use of Zyklon B in these premises, if any such had occurred, could be proven by a chemical analysis of samples taken from the masonry, even today. The masonry samples would contain significant quantities of cyanide residues, even after half a century, if mass gassings had really taken place in the areas indicated as homicidal gas chambers. But significant concentrations of cyanide residues are entirely absent (see the following article, points a and b).

Zkylon B is mentioned in the eyewitness reports, the confessions of the accused, trial records, and history books. The exterminationists would dearly like to forget about it, and substitute something else, but it is too late. The lie will stick in their throats, and the liars will choke on their own poison.


1) Ernst Nolte, Streitpunkte, Propylaen, 1993.

2) Enrique Aynat, Estudios...

3) Martin Gilbert, Auschwitz und die Allierten, C.H. Beck, Muenich, 1982.

4) As reported by Pressac, the Struthof camp alone contained 40 to 50,000 Hungarian Jews after the war who had been deported in 1944 via Auschwitz (Les crematoires... p. 147).

5) The complete text of the WRB report is reproduced in Enrique Aynat's Los protocolos de Auschwitz: Una fuente historica, Garcia Hispan, Alicante, 1990.

6) Excerpts from the testimonies of these men are reproduced in our book Auschwitz...

7) Rupert Butler, Legions of Death, Arrows Book Limited, 1983, p. 235 ff.

8) Nuremberg document 3868-PS.

9) See the entries on Belzec and Treblinka in the Enzkyklopaedie des Holocaust.

10) Der Prozess gegen die Hauptkriegverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Militaergerichtshof. Published at Nuremberg, Germany. Photomechanical reprinting by Delphin Verlag, 1984, introduction to volume I.

11) Nuremberg trial transcript IMT VII p. 469 (German text).

12) Quoted according to Robert Faurisson, Memoire en defense, La Vielle Taupe, 1980 p. 124.

13) Ibid, p. 35.

14) See note 12.

15) Quoted according to Enrique Aynat, Los protocolos... appendix I.

16) Published by Bantam in 1964.

17) See, in this regard, any book of Holocaust literature, for example, Hilberg, p. 946.

18) See, for example, Pressac, Les crematoires, p. 43/44.

19) Faurisson in Gauss, Grundlagen, p. 99 ff.

20) Richard Harwood, Did Six Million Really Die? reproduced in the book of the same name by Barbara Kulaszka; see following note.

21) Vrba's testimony appears in the trial record of the first Zuendel trial in Toronto, 1985, p. 1,244 ff; excerpts from it are reproduced in our book Auschwitz... p. 251 ff.

22) Klarsfeld, Le memorial...

23) On the Demjanjuk trial, see for example, Hans Peter Rullman, Der Fall Demjanjuk, Verlag fuer ganzheitliche Forschung und Kultur, 1987.

24) Robert Lenski, Der Holocaust vor Gericht, Samisdat, Toronto, 1993.

25) Barbara Kulaszka, Did Six Million Really Die? Samisdat, Toronto, 1992.

26) See, in this regard, Serge Thion, Verite historique ou verite politique? La Vielle Taupe, 1980. The book was written by Thion in collaboration with Robert Faurisson. It appeared in 1995 under the title Historische Wahrheit oder politische Wahrheit? published by the Verlag der Freunde, Berlin. The French original version contains a long interview with Robert Faurisson, given in August 1979 to the Italian periodical Storia Illustrata.

27) According to Robert Faurisson in his introduction to our book Der Holocaust Schwindel, Guideon Burg, 1993, p. ix.

Back to table of contents
To the next chapter
To previous chapter
Back to archive