This essay illustrates how Germar Rudolf, a young German chemist who is passionate about objective truth, was condemned as the exact opposite, and even labeled a “neo-Nazi,” by a prejudiced and ignorant society.1 In the months since British historian David Irving (sometimes called a revisionist) lost his libel case against American Jewish activist Deborah Lipstadt – largely, I believe, because of his ignorance of Rudolf’s work – the issues raised in his headline-making trial have become all the more urgent for the future of revisionism.
All too often history is written for propaganda purposes. This is especially common when a state strives to inculcate the youth with its political views, but it also occurs when zealous writers seek to defend the historical rights, as they see them, of their own people.
Can history be objective? The question seems to have been first asked two and a half thousand years ago by Thucydides, historian of the 30-year war between ancient Athens and Sparta. At the beginning of his History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides states that his aim is to preserve an accurate record of the war, not only for its intrinsic interest but in the hope this would be useful for “those who desire an exact knowledge of the past as a key to the future.” He wished his History to be “a possession forever, not the rhetorical triumph of an hour.”2
Thucydides writes that as other authors “take rumors for granted and copy uncritically from each other,” his own work “because of its lack of fiction may be less pleasing than theirs.”3 This sentiment is the hallmark of a true historian: aiming to separate myth from reality and not to please any party.4
This goal can only be achieved by closely examining all the available evidence. As Italian scholar Carlo Mattogno has emphasized, there is really nothing new about Holocaust revisionism: it simply calls for the same evidential rigor that is normally demanded when historians examine events other than the “Nazi genocide of the Jews.”5
History is important because the way we perceive the past fundamentally – and often unconsciously – affects our perception of the present. For example, Nicholas Ridley, a minister in the British government of Margaret Thatcher, cited Auschwitz and all it stands for as an argument to keep Britain out of the European Union, in which Germany plays a major role. Others see the Union as a means of “keeping Germany in check.” On the eve of Germany’s reunification, author Günther Grass remarked that “Auschwitz speaks against our right to self-determination,” showing how in modern Germany patriotism has been completely turned on its head.6
Nearly all the evidence supporting allegations of mass homicidal gassings in wartime Germany is eyewitness testimony, given at postwar trials of alleged war criminals or written down after the war, often decades later. The critical historian wishes to distinguish carefully between what a witness claims to have seen personally and what he or she has heard from others.
Historians should have asked some basic questions before concluding that German authorities planned the physical destruction of all Jews, and used gas chambers to carry out mass killings. As pioneer revisionists such as Robert Faurisson have demanded: show us an order, not necessarily from Hitler, but from any of his subordinates, to exterminate the Jews just because they were Jews; and, “show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!”7
At the Nuremberg “International Military Tribunal” of 1945–1946, or at the great Frankfurt “Auschwitz Trial” of 1963–1965, where defendants were convicted of participating in so-called selections of victims for gas chambers, the defense did not demand that forensic scientists examine the alleged “weapon of the crime,” that is the homicidal gas chamber. Why not? This is remarkable, considering that scholars of ancient history defer to the archaeologist, not only when in doubt, but as a matter of course?8
Although there may be more to this problem, there seems little doubt that the rot set in at the main Nuremberg trial, the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which set the precedent in not only requiring no scientific evidence for the worst allegations of mass murder, but actually forbidding any such evidence.9 This meant that the Nuremberg court could accept allegations as “self-evident” facts and that it could (indeed, was bound to) take seriously any report made by Soviet and other “special commissions” expressly set up to “investigate” the alleged crimes.10
Today, hardly anyone claims that the Germans manufactured soap from murdered Jews. But why did it take many decades to admit this officially? Was it really so difficult to carry out a forensic test of any one of the notorious soap bars marked “RIF”? The irony is a sample of “human soap” was submitted evidence at Nuremberg by the Soviets with no effort by the defense to challenge its authenticity.11
Several other “facts” – also “proven” at Nuremberg – are no longer taken seriously by historians, such as homicidal gas chambers in camps located in the German “Altreich” (Germany in its borders of 1937), and bizarre killing machines operated with electricity or steam.12
Some readers will be familiar with the origin of the Leuchter Report. The German-Canadian publicist Ernst Zündel was twice put on trial for allegedly knowingly spreading “false news” because he re-published Did Six Million Really Die?, an early revisionist booklet by Richard Harwood (Richard Verral) that was banned in numerous countries, including South Africa.13
For the second trial in 1988,14 Zündel engaged Fred Leuchter, widely acknowledged as the foremost US authority on execution gas chambers, as an expert witness. He sent Leuchter to Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek to determine, based on an evaluation of samples taken there, and other factors, whether the alleged extermination facilities there could have performed their grisly task as claimed.
It is generally agreed that hydrocyanic acid (HCN), a poisonous gas, was widely used at Auschwitz-Birkenau, and that it was extensively used to kill lice and other disease-carrying vermin. The gas was contained in a commercially-produced pesticide, Zyklon B.15 For nearly 30 years a small group of historians has questioned the widely held view that this gas was used to kill hundreds of thousands of prisoners there. If the allegations are true, shouldn’t traces of this gas be detectable today? Fred Leuchter took brick and mortar samples from an acknowledged disinfestation chamber, as well as from the ruins of crematory buildings (Kremas) where, it is widely alleged, mass killings with poison gas were carried out. These samples were later independently analyzed for cyanide residues by Alpha Analytical Laboratories in Ashland, Massachusetts. The results appeared astonishing: 1050 mg/kg of cyanide was found in the sample taken from the delousing chamber, but less than 10 mg/kg in the alleged homicidal chambers. This fact was cited in supporting Leuchter’s conclusion that “none of the facilities examined were ever utilized for the execution of human beings.”16
After issuing his report and testifying in April 1988 in the second Zündel trial in Toronto, Fred Leuchter came under vicious attack, above all from Jewish organizations. His health, marriage and livelihood were ruined, and he literally went into hiding in an effort to quietly rebuild his life.17 But film maker Errol Morris persuaded him to cooperate in making “Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.”, a film in which Ernst Zündel, David Irving and others also make appearances.18 Having seen “Mr. Death,” my overall impression is that Leuchter comes across as rather naive – even a bit of a “weirdo” – but not evil. On the other hand, those who brought him down appear as fanatics bent on destroying him at all costs. As with the Irving-Lipstadt trial, even bad publicity may be better than none. From a technical point of view, possibly the worst failing of “Mr. Death” is that it avoids any mention of the relatively huge concentration of cyanide found in Leuchter’s sample taken from a non-homicidal delousing chamber.
Apart from attacks aimed at ruining his reputation and livelihood, there have been some reasoned criticisms of Leuchter, if not all of the same standard. One who thought he had decisively discredited the Leuchter Report (and the revisionists) was French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac.19
Aside from some uncalled for ad hominem attacks against Leuchter, Pressac raised pertinent issues that called for reasoned response. For example, he made the important point that much smaller amounts of hydrocyanic acid are needed to kill humans than lice, and that the delousing chambers were exposed to warm gas (to increase its effect) and for much longer periods than those (allegedly) used to kill human beings.20 Regarding the matter of remnants of cyanide in the “homicidal gas chambers,” Pressac claimed that after nearly half a century of exposure to the elements “it is practically a miracle that any measurable traces of hydrocyanic compounds still remain.”21 The inside walls of some of the delousing chambers are quite blue with ferric ferrocyanide (commonly known as Prussian Blue) as a result of their exposure to HCN, but Pressac goes so far as to claim that “the ‘blue wall phenomenon’ ... permits the immediate distinction ... with absolute certainty between delousing gas chambers, where the phenomenon is present, and the homicidal gas chambers, where it is not.”22 He further writes: “... In a homicidal gas chamber, the action of highly concentrated HCN was rapid and intense (never more than 15 to 20 minutes), then the room was aired ... as quickly as possible ... The acid ... did not have enough time to impregnate and stain the brick.”23
It took a man of letters to first propose that the chemistry of the gas chambers be investigated by competent scientists: Robert Faurisson suggested the idea of taking brick and mortar samples to be later analyzed. Others, notably William Brian Lindsey, have considered chemical aspects of the problem.24 Germar Rudolf, a graduate doctoral student employed by the prestigious Max Planck Institute for Solid State Physics in Stuttgart, began his own investigations in the early 1990s. He set himself the task of thoroughly investigating problems such as those posed by Pressac, who had written that the formation of Prussian Blue “occurs under the influence of various physico-chemical factors which have not yet been studied.”25
At about the same time, Paul Grubach in an article titled “The Leuchter Report Vindicated,” dismissed some of Pressac’s claims by pointing out that damp and cool environments favor the formation of stable iron compounds; heating prevented condensation of the gas. Like Leuchter, he concluded that “if the alleged extermination gas chambers had actually been used to kill people..., ferric ferrocyanide [Prussian Blue] would have been found in them in amounts comparable to those found in the delousing facility.”26
In 1989, the Jan Sehn Forensic Institute in Cracow, Poland, commissioned by the Auschwitz State Museum, took samples from the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz and Birkenau, and conducted its own chemical tests, the results of which, in the eyes of many revisionists, appeared to confirm Leuchter’s findings, even though the Cracow Institute itself came to the opposite conclusion. (More will be said on this below).27
Germar Rudolf praised the Leuchter Report for its “ice-breaking function” which, he said was of “inestimable value.” But he also had some criticisms:
First of all, as a scientist one checks carefully if the work is solidly backed up by references to competent authorities. Unfortunately, Leuchter’s report hardly has such a foundation. For one thing, none of the chemical conclusions is properly referenced. On their own, a few chemical results say nothing; they must be correctly interpreted. One cannot simply claim: there are no cyanides, therefore nobody was gassed. In the end, there could be other explanations for the lack of cyanide compounds. Leuchter ought to have scientifically eliminated these beforehand.
According to Rudolf, other shortcomings were that only one sample was taken from a delousing chamber and that there was no control analysis. Leuchter, a non-chemist, should have consulted specialists in this field. He had no original plans, which led him to make the incorrect claim that the Leichenkeller (underground morgues) in Kremas (crematory buildings) II and III had no ventilation. “Leuchter regards an approximately 1% by volume mixture of HCN with air as explosive while a table in his report clearly shows that only concentrations of more than 5% are explosive.”28
Austrian engineer Walter Lüftl shared Rudolf’s view that “Leuchter is correct, even though he provided no detailed scientific proof in his report,” adding that the final word has not been said on this subject.29
At the Ninth IHR Conference in 1989 Leuchter himself called for the formation of an “international commission of scientists, historians and scholars to investigate the facilities in Poland and make an impartial report of their findings to the world at large.”30
When Rudolf first came across Leuchter’s report, he told Journal contributor Fritz Berg: “I felt as though I had been hit on the head. I knew it straight away, either this American was a charlatan or my entire world-picture was completely false.” To Berg’s question, whether Leuchter had persuaded him, Rudolf replied “No, not at all,” explaining that more questions were left open than had been answered, but he was keen to apply his scientific knowledge to test independently the validity of revisionist arguments.31
Writing that Leuchter’s study “should not be regarded as the end but rather as the beginning of more comprehensive investigations of the subject,”32 Rudolf recalled that he had expressed some of these reservations in a 1990 letter to the German periodical Junge Freiheit, noting that “Leuchter’s report does not tell us in exactly what condition the supposed gas chambers are, how stable these residues (more precisely, cyanide compounds) are, and moreover whether they would even have formed in the first place ...”33
Otto Ernst Remer, who as a German army officer played a major role in putting down the ill-fated anti-Hitler Putsch of July 20, 1944, had for years disputed the “gas chamber” claims, and was consequently indicted for “incitement of the people,” “disparaging the memory of the dead” and “inciting racial hatred,” and sentenced to 22 months imprisonment.34
As a result of Rudolf’s letter to Junge Freiheit, Hajo Hermann, attorney for Remer, came into contact with the young scientist and commissioned him to compile a Leuchter-like forensic report on the alleged “gas chambers” of Auschwitz.35
This was a unique opportunity for Rudolf to further explore the issue. Having made a thorough study of the extant literature, he traveled to Auschwitz (including Birkenau) where he took brick, concrete and mortar samples from various facilities. Rudolf’s 119-page report, Das Rudolf Gutachten (the Rudolf Report), is a thorough technical investigation of the “gas chambers” of Auschwitz-Birkenau, which seems to confirm and complement the Leuchter Report in a spectacular way.36
In the first chapter of his Report, “Construction Methods used for the Gassing Facilities at Auschwitz,” Rudolf points out that a study of such methods is important because the type of building material and the way it was used, as well as how the various facilities were outfitted, could have significantly affected the formation of cyanide compounds.
In Chapter 2, “Formation and Stability of Prussian Blue,” Rudolf discusses in detail the composition and properties of cyanide compounds, in particular those of the extremely stable and insoluble iron compound ferric ferrocyanide (Prussian Blue), as well as the conditions under which such compounds may form. The author considers the influence of moisture, reactivity of iron, temperature (which affects the adsorption, or sticking-effect, of hydrogen cyanide gas on walls) and the effects of acidity levels. Rudolf goes deeply into the question of the long-term stability of Prussian Blue,13 thoroughly surveying a number of related questions.
In chapter 3, “Procedures for Gassing with Hydrocyanic Acid (HCN),” Rudolf presents an overview of the toxicology of HCN, and he compares the gassing procedures for delousing chambers and what they theoretically should have been for the alleged homicidal chambers. He argues that eyewitness accounts, in particular the commonly made claim that death followed quickly (3–10 minutes) implies that large amounts of Zyklon B would have been needed to carry out the killing process. This affects the detectability of cyanide compounds today, as do other factors, such as the rate of evaporation of HCN gas from its holding material,14 the distribution of Zyklon B in the underground Leichenkeller (morgue cellar) No.1 of Birkenau Kremas II and III39 (the ‘homicidal gas chambers’), and the rate at which the morgues were ventilated, as well as their dampness.
In chapter 4, “Evaluation of the Chemical Analyses,” Rudolf relates how the samples he collected were analyzed by the prestigious Institut Fresenius in Taunusstein, Hessen, Germany, without the institute being informed of the origin of the samples.40
This chapter includes a comparison of the methods and results of the Institut Fresenius, Alpha Analytical Laboratories and the Jan Sehn Forensic Institute. Rudolf regards the analytical method of the Cracow institute as altogether unreliable, mainly because it excludes the possibility of detecting stable compounds of cyanide like Prussian Blue, which should account for the vast majority of compounds detectable today.41 Table 15 in Rudolf’s Report gives the precise place from where each sample was taken, the type of material it contains, the depth in the wall from which it originated, the iron concentration and, finally, the cyanide (CN-) content, measured in the standard ratio of milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Results from morgue No. 1 in Krema II, allegedly the chief killing location, show concentrations of 7.2 mg/kg or less, while the samples from the inner and outer walls of the delousing chambers show up to 13,500 mg/kg, quantities which are not merely larger but of different order. Rudolf also discusses the results of experiments in which he exposed building material to HCN under various laboratory conditions.
The fifth chapter contains Rudolf’s conclusions (cited below). In chapter six, “Critique of Counter Reports,” he responds to the 1945 and 1990 expert reports by the Jan Sehn Forensic Institute (Cracow),42 and also to the “anti-Leuchter” findings of French researcher Jean-Claude Pressac, German writer Werner Wegner,43 G. Wellers, Austrian chemist J. Bailer,44 Prof. G. Jagschitz,45 and historian Gerald Fleming.
Prussian Blue stains are formed on walls as follows: First the hydrocyanic acid (HCN) gas sticks to the walls, where it is adsorbed on the surface in a purely physical process. Later HCN combines with ferrous iron and, eventually, ferric iron in the building materials to form the permanent blue compound.46 Finally, the compound begins to “migrate” into and through the wall.47 The presence of moisture, as in the damp morgue-cellars of Birkenau Kremas II and III, hastens this chemical process, which may take a long time to complete.
This can be observed in Auschwitz-Birkenau buildings BW (Bauwerk) 5a and 5b, which had delousing or disinfestation chambers that used Zyklon B. The north-west interior wall of the delousing tract in building BW 5a shows intense blue coloring, and there are dark blue patches on the exterior walls of both these buildings, especially the wall of BW 5b which was exposed to wet westerly winds. This shows that Prussian Blue has “migrated” right through the brick. The claim that exposure to the elements would have “washed away” any cyanide compounds is thus shown to be false.48 On the contrary, as Rudolf explains, the wet Polish winds have encouraged the process of Prussian Blue formation in the walls of the disinfestation chambers (especially the west-facing outer-wall of the gas chamber in building BW 5b). If Birkenau’s alleged homicidal “gas chambers” – the damp morgue rooms in Kremas II and III – had been exposed to Zyklon/ HCN as claimed, Prussian Blue staining should have been similarly visible.
Rudolf cites the interesting case of a sample of building material taken from a farmhouse in the Bavarian countryside that showed a cyanide concentration of 9.6 mg/kg, which is of the same order as the 7.2 mg/kg found in the “gas chamber” of Krema II. This suggests that such low concentrations may well be a phenomenon of nature, or be below the practical detection level.49
Some revisionists have suggested that the morgue cellars (where homicidal gassings were allegedly carried out) may have been disinfected from time to time with HCN, thus accounting for these low levels of cyanide. This is possible,50 but pharmacist Pressac has plausibly pointed out that HCN would not normally be used as a disinfectant.51 As already noted, however, it appears that such low concentrations may have nothing to do with occasional exposure to Zyklon (HCN). In fact, though, we simply do not know if the morgues were disinfected with Zyklon B or not. If the figures for cyanide found in the Leichenkeller indeed have nothing to do with applications of Zyklon B, that would surely be more satisfactory than having to account for partial gassings there.
(A) The investigation concerning the formation and long-term stability of cyanide remnants in the witnessed facilities and the analysis of the brick and mortar samples resulted in the following conclusions:52
1. The cyanide in the walls, which has been activated into Prussian Blue possesses a long-term stability of centuries ... Cyanide remnants should therefore be detectable in almost undiminished quantities, irrespective of the influence of the weather. This is proved by the intense blue in the outer walls of the delousing chambers of the buildings BW 5a and 5b which contain large amounts of cyanide.
2. Under the actual conditions, as testified to by eyewitnesses of massive homicidal gassing in the disputed chambers, traces of cyanide residues would have formed of the same order of magnitude as those found in the delousing chambers, including the blue coloration of the walls.
3. The traces found in the alleged gas chambers are just as insignificant as those to be found in any building chosen at random.
Conclusion: On chemical and physical grounds, the mass gassing with hydrocyanic acid in the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz, as described by witnesses, could not have taken place.
(B) The investigation of the practical and technical data regarding the witnessed mass gassing in the indicated facilities and their physical and chemical analyses resulted in the following conclusions:
1. The alleged main gas chambers of Auschwitz, that is the morgue in the main camp, and the morgue number 1 of Kremas II and III in Birkenau, had no means to introduce the poison. Holes visible today in the roofs were made after the war.
2. The release of the lethal hydrogen cyanide gas from its carrier material could not have taken place in the short time span indicated by eyewitnesses. In fact, it would have taken hours before the gas was completely released.
3. The necessary ventilation of the alleged gas chambers of Kremas II and III, at the rate of one air exchange every 15 minutes would have taken at least two hours, contradicting all eyewitness accounts.
4. An effective ventilation of the alleged gas chambers of Kremas IV and V and Bunkers I and II53 was not possible. The Sonderkommandos could not have removed the corpses from the chambers without wearing protective clothing and gas masks fitted with a special filter.
Conclusion: The mass gassing as described by witnesses cross-examined before courts, as stated in verdicts and published in literary and scientific writings could not, for chemical and physical reasons, have taken place.54
Rudolf concludes with the declaration: “The author of this report can only refer to existing eyewitness accounts and documents, which can be the only basis for any historical consideration of the matters under discussion. Should the belief nevertheless arise that the eyewitnesses erred in their statements, then the author of the present report can only assert that there is no other basis for putting together a specialist report, and therefore ... there is no longer any legal basis for courts to prosecute certain opinions. The invention of new mass-murder techniques and scenarios which contradict all eyewitness testimony may be fine for the Hollywood horror industry but is unsuited for writing history.”
Not all these conclusions are new, but as a scientist Rudolf rightly emphasizes that he can only go by existing evidence, either based on eyewitnesses testimony or on accepted scientific principles.
In 1994 the Jan Sehn Forensic Institute published a second, lengthier technical report on the Auschwitz gas chambers, basing its conclusions on chemical analyses of numerous brick and mortar samples taken from various buildings.55 If one accepts the methods used by the authors of this report, the results would appear to prove that there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, as they found cyanide residues in the (non-homicidal) delousing chambers in amounts comparable to those found in morgue No. 1 of Krema II (an alleged homicidal gas chamber).
What, if anything, is wrong here? The Polish investigators called the blue wall phenomenon “controversial,” and possibly due to paint! In a fax exchange with the Cracow Institute and the authors of this report, Germar Rudolf reminded them that, by their own admission, they had deliberately chosen an analytic method that would not detect Prussian Blue,56 that is, the vast majority of stable cyanide compounds present in the walls.57 This fact is crucial to their results and cannot be overemphasized, especially given that the Polish researchers offer no satisfactory explanation for their assertion that the Prussian Blue stains are “controversial,” apart from the arbitrary conjecture that “this dye” (as they call it) may have resulted from “paint.” They were not even sure if the “blue” was due to cyanide, something they could easily have ascertained.58
If the standard DIN method used by Rudolf is the proper or correct one, then, we can conclude, with Rudolf, that the chemical results of the Jan Sehn Institute are completely meaningless.
Even a single gassing with hydrocyanic acid can be instructive. A fascinating instance of a one-time gassing is that of a church which was treated with HCN to rid the woodwork of bore beetles. A few months later intense blue patches began to show on the walls, and eventually all the plaster had to be removed to get rid of the Prussian Blue. The significance of this is clear: even a single gassing can result in the formation of large remnants of cyanide. It should be noted that the interior church walls had been freshly plastered some weeks before they were exposed to HCN, and that the chemical reaction producing Prussian Blue stopped only a year later, confirming the long-term action of the process.59
Professor Richard Green, a chemist, joined the discussion – against the “deniers,” as he calls them – about the conditions under which Prussian Blue is formed. While accepting that cyanide compounds of iron are present in the delousing chambers, he disputes whether they would have formed in the “homicidal gas chambers.” Green regards Rudolf’s “church” example as an exception rather than the rule, and believes that the Jan Sehn Institute’s 1994 report “provided real information.”60
John C. Zimmerman, an Asssociate Professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, responded critically to a Los Angeles Times article61 that had given a fair description of Rudolf’s forensic results. In a letter published in the paper,62 Zimmerman wrote: “The problem for deniers like Rudolf is to explain why any traces of poison gas turned up in structures identified by numerous eyewitnesses as homicidal gas chambers.”
In a reply to Zimmerman, Rudolf wrote: “Contrary to your false claim, I have no problems to explain the minimal cyanide residues in the walls of those morgues: They are not reproducible and in the same order of magnitude as in samples taken from all sorts of locations. In other words: These values close to the detection level cannot be interpreted at all.” Rudolf also reminded Zimmerman of the faults of the second Cracow report.63
Because the Jan Sehn Forensic Institute used much the same methods for both its reports, revisionists should not cite the earlier report as somehow confirming Leuchter’s findings.64
(One of the charges brought against Rudolf in 1993 was, remarkably, the publication of his correspondence with the Jan Sehn Institute in the Berlin periodical Sleipnir.)65
The court in Schweinfurt, Germany, that tried Otto Ernst Remer refused to accept Rudolf’s Report in evidence. It found the former Major General guilty of the charges brought against him, and, in October 1992, sentenced him to 22 months imprisonment. Before fleeing to Spain in February 1994 he once again showed his defiance by adding his own polemical comments to a new edition of Rudolf’s Report, publishing it, and then distributing it to leading German personalities, including many accomplished professors of inorganic chemistry. Remer’s foreword or preface, as well as the epilogue (afterword) were added without Germar Rudolf’s permission. When copies of the new edition began arriving at the Max Planck Institute in the middle of April 1993, heated discussions took place between Rudolf and his doctoral supervisor, Professor H. G. von Schnering. A letter of complaint by the Central Council of German Jews expressed anxiety that the Report “might all too easily be used as pseudo-scientific support for denial of the mass murder of the Jews.”66
The uproar led not only to Rudolf’s dismissal from the Max Planck Institute,67 but also to his indictment for collaboration with Remer. Formal charges were brought against him on April 19, 1994,68 with the indictment accusing him of having “concomitantly (1) attacked the dignity of others in a way suited to disturbing public order by (a) inciting hatred against sections of the population (b) abusing these people, maliciously making them appear despicable and calumniating them; (2) defamed the memory of the dead, and (3) defamed others.”69
In the indictment as well as the judgment (Urteil), the term Gutachten (expert report) is consistently given in quotation marks, apparently to denigrate the value of Rudolf’s forensic investigation. We read in the indictment, for example: “In this ‘Gutachten’, the notorious systematic mass murder of the Jews, which was committed by means of gas chambers in concentration camps of the Third Reich, in particular at Auschwitz-Birkenau, is denied in a degrading way and, in at least a partial identification with Nazi persecution and motivated by a tendency to exonerate National Socialism from the stain of having murdered the Jews, it is claimed that as a result of allegedly scientific research [angeblich wissenschaftlich fundierter Untersuchungen], neither at Auschwitz nor at Birkenau were there gas chambers for the destruction of human beings nor were they suitable for such a purpose.”70
The indictment then quotes Rudolf’s “Concluding Assessments” (A) and (B) as given above, and goes on to state that the accompanying text of the ‘Gutachten’ “blames the Jews for the ‘gassing lie’.” The indictment supports the charges against Rudolf by accusing him of sanctioning these additions as well as their distribution – although it accepts that he did not write them. The charges are further justified with the claim that the “degrading denial” of the “historically documented murder of Jews in gas chambers... represents a particularly serious slur on their memory,” and the allegation that the “actual [factual?] determinations [tatsächlichen Feststellungen] of the ‘Gutachten’ are completely unsuited for proving the conclusions (A) and (B).” It is further alleged that “considering the content of the ‘Gutachten’ and the accompanying text, it follows that the accused identifies with National Socialist racist ideology, and is thus determined to arouse feelings of hatred toward the Jews ...”
Remer’s foreword holds German politicians and the media responsible for what is called an “unbelievably satanical distortion of history,” and Jews are not even mentioned. The added epilogue – which covers Remer’s trial and some revisionist material – consists only of brief quotes from a few Jewish personalities.71
Thus the charge that Rudolf “blames the Jews for the ‘gassing lie’” was paper-thin to begin with. My understanding is that the “aggavating circumstances” – his revisionist work – was the real object of the trial, as I will try to show.
Although during the trial he categorically denied having collaborated with Remer, Rudolf has subsequently acknowledged that, through a third person he, in fact, gave Remer permission to distribute what he thought would be the unpoliticized version of his Report.72 In a deposition he explained that publication of the politicized version of his Report could only have detracted from its value. For one thing, it had already appeared in all its essentials under the pen-name of Ernst Gauss in the book Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte before Remer’s action had begun.
Rudolf has repeatedly stressed, both before and during the trial, that only dry, material arguments have a chance to be being taken seriously. It is difficult to see how the court could regard such an attitude, which he repeatedly emphasized in writings and dealings with others, as “particularly refined deception.” In his deposition he explained that the pen name “Ernst Gauss” had gained prestige, while the name of Otto Ernst Remer “is not an advertisement, as the public prosecutor alleges, rather it frightens people off [from reading revisionist literature].”73
Without justification the court regarded as insincere even statements made by Rudolf in private letters. In a personal letter to his godmother, for example, he rejected David Irving’s “propaganda methods,” and wrote of Remer, “I do not wish to be associated with his totally obnoxious views.”74 The judges cited this as an “index” of how Rudolf played down his connections with the extreme right! In the court’s opinion the publication of Remer’s edition of the Rudolf Report was a “publicity trick” which served as an advertisement for the later authorized version. Allegedly, another purpose of Remer’s publication was to enable Rudolf to avoid the penal consequences of publishing the official version! The court declared: “The ‘Gutachten’ was ... the basis of a ‘revisionist’ publication campaign in which the theme of Auschwitz was discussed at various levels in order to force a public debate on the issue.”75
Imagine! A public debate! How dare Rudolf! In its judgment the court claimed that because Rudolf could not find a publisher for his report outside the “national camp,” and in order “to avoid possible negative repercussions for his career ..., he, together with his co-workers feigned the self-defense action76 of a third person,” namely Remer, whereby the accused would “create the impression that he would be under pressure to prove his supposedly pure scientific aims by opposing the out-of-date Remer-version of the ‘Gutachten’ with that of a more current and purified version.”77 This nonsense continues with the claim that “finally, by sending it to all professors of inorganic chemistry, from whom he expected no reaction,78 the foundation would be laid for the later pseudo-argument that allegedly no technical errors had been found in the ‘Gutachten’.”79
Not once did the court address any of Rudolf’s technical arguments, while it regarded his conclusions – (A) and (B), above – as constituting aggravating circumstances. Further aggravating circumstances were that Rudolf continued his revisionist work during the trial. The court cynically pronounced that “freedom of the sciences remains unrestricted, and is unaffected by the verdict ... In its totality, the Remer version of the ‘Gutachten’ ... is not scholarly. This follows already from the polemical character of the comments ... the court does not need to test whether parts are of a scientific nature or not – which, considering the political objectives of the accused and the way he treats facts..., seems improbable. The accused and his accomplices made use of the scientific-looking major section of the work with the express aim of committing the stated offence by means of the foreword and accompanying text.”80
The court ordered a “self-reading procedure” for the Report itself, so that it was not be read in open court. The court justified this order by explaining that “in spite of damage done to transparency,” “the work is extremely extensive and difficult to read and understand,” thus implicitly admitting it was not qualified to form an opinion on the technical issues discussed by Rudolf.81 While seemingly conceding that the Report is written in an “essentially scientific style” (im wesentlichen wissenschaftlichen Stil gehalten), the court withdrew its “recognition” by tying a “strategy” to the Stil. The “Report,” it patronizingly stated, “is concerned with a “difficult to explain ... chemical detail,”82 “whose real purpose is, following a common ‘revisionist’ strategy, to fix on a central point and then draw general conclusions.”83 Throughout the trial the court maintained that Rudolf’s methodology has only the appearance of objectivity, his arguments are “pseudo-arguments,” there is merely a “claim to scholarship,” and that he merely gave the “impression” of being an unprejudiced researcher.84 In his submission for a review, attorney Ludwig Bock emphasized the court’s negligence in testing any of the Report’s theses, let alone whether Rudolf’s arguments had any substance to them.
On a wall of the main Sauna at Auschwitz, one can still see the slogan Eine Laus Dein Tod (“One Louse Your Death”), warning prisoners of the ever-present danger of typhus. Because this is quoted in Rudolf’s Report, the court found that the accused “cynically ... identifies with National Socialist terminology.” As Rudolf comments in a note, “the truth is not cynical; cynical are judges who punish the proclamation of truth under the pretext of protecting the law.”85
The court refused to admit extensive testimony that would have favored the defendant. For example, it dismissed as of no importance the avowal by a Jewish friend that Rudolf was no anti-Semite.86
Likewise, the court regarded as insignificant the fact that Rudolf had given a public lecture praising the German-Jewish patriot Eduard von Simson, the first president of the Reichstag. Similarly, in an introductory chapter of the anthology Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, Rudolf expressed the hope that a resolution of the Holocaust issue might lead to a re-establishment of the fruitful German-Jewish “symbiosis.” “In any case it is my wish, that both peoples may again find each other in a partnership of mutual respect and resume an epoch which brought so many benefits to the world, to Jewry and to the German people. It is also my wish that a chapter of history which has been full of mutual contempt, mistrust and fear can be finally closed. I long for the end of a period which, like none other before it, has brought so much unhappiness to the world, to Jews and Germans.”87 The court arbitrarily dismissed this sincere appeal for reconciliation as merely an “attempt to make an impression.”88
That the court saw Rudolf’s “crimes” as more than his alleged approval of Remer’s additions to his Report is already clear from the court’s repeated citing of Rudolf’s revisionist work, including Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte and Grundlagen zur Zeitgecshichte, both of which had nothing at all to do with the main charge. In support of its award of punishment, the court asserted that by means of his “specially refined and concealed strategy ... the accused made it as difficult as possible for the victims [survivors] to defend themselves.”89 I interpret this as saying (among possibly other things) that the arguments in Rudolf’s Report leading up to his conclusions appeared extremely difficult to see through.
On June 23, 1995, Germar Rudolf was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment. According to Judge Dietmar Mayer, Rudolf, who continued his revisionist work (for example on Grundlagen) “in spite of and while the trial was proceeding” was “an anti-Semite fanatically committed to the cause of Holocaust denial [fanatischer Überzeugungstäter],” with the result that no part of the sentence could be suspended. Thus there were “no mitigating circumstances which would make his offence ‘more understandable.’ On the contrary, the calculating and refined way in which he camouflaged his crime is to be seen as particularly aggravating.”90
One of the major flaws in the German judicial system is the lack of any records of statements made by witnesses. Since 1979 even summaries of such statements were dispensed with, thus allowing for later distortions and even contradictions during judgment.91
Significantly, during the post-war trials of “war criminals” this same system was in operation.92
Because he had been convicted of a “thought crime,” the University of Stuttgart refused to accept Rudolf’s doctoral thesis – ironically on the basis of a 1939 law signed by Hitler that permits German universities to withdraw or withhold academic titles in cases of “lack of academic dignity.”93
At the time of his flight from Germany there were other cases pending against Rudolf. Rather than serve his 14-month sentence, he fled the country, first going to Spain and then settling in England. Since its founding in 1997, Rudolf has been editor of the quarterly Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung (VffG),94 a scholarly, intellectually ambitious revisionist quarterly journal. Rudolf also runs Castle Hill Publishers, which has brought out new and important revisionist works.95
“German neo-Nazi fugitive is found hiding in Britain” headlined a report in the British Sunday Telegraph of October 17, 1999. The writers, Jessica Berry and Chris Hastings, claimed that they had “tracked down” a “neo-Nazi who fled Germany after being convicted of inciting racial hatred.” Rudolf was quoted as saying “In Britain I work as an Holocaust revisionist 24 hours a day. My work has brought me into contact with people on the far Right. I have met leading members of the National Front and the British National Party while I have been in England. I have also made contact with David Irving. But I want to make clear that I am not a member of any far-Right organisations. I am not a total apologist for the Nazis like a lot of people who support my work. I miss Germany but I am a political prisoner who came here because I wanted to be free.”
Based on the Sunday Telegraph article, the German news agency dpa issued a report about the “wanted German neo-Nazi” that appeared in several German newspapers, and a German radio station told listeners that Germany’s Jewish Community demanded that the German government ask Britain to extradite Rudolf to Germany.96
Rudolf immediately issued a response to the Sunday Telegraph, which the paper did not publish. In this letter of response,97 Rudolf categorically denied that he ever was “involved in a neo-Nazi organisation,” or held “political views which are even close to National Socialism.” He was, in fact, “a patriotic conservative with strong libertarian convictions,” adding that he had been living quite openly in England since he arrived there in the Spring of 1997, that the German police knew this and had not been “looking” for him. Furthermore, Rudolf continued, his only reason for contacting the head of the British National Party was because he “wanted to report [in VffG] about him [the BNP leader] being prosecuted for ‘Holocaust denial’.” Dismissing the imputation that he might be a partial “apologist for the Nazis,” Rudolf wrote that his “business is not to apologize for what happened or did not happen in Germany 60 years ago, but to try to bring historiography into accord with the facts.” Finally, he reminded the Sunday Telegraph of the circumstances under which he was unable to complete his doctorate, and that he had not been “expelled from [his] university course.”
Rudolf also recalled that reporter Chris Hastings “was very curious about the situation in Germany regarding freedom of speech.” Rudolf had told him of the thousands of prosecutions each year for “thought crimes,” “as published by the German authorities,” and that these authorities “burned many thousands of books” in recent years “even if German professors testified ... that some of these books are scientific and should be protected by ... internationally guaranteed human rights.” Rudolf had “offered Hastings hard evidence for these things” but to no avail.98 Instead, the Sunday Telegraph article reported that “the ease with which Rudolf has been able to continue his revisionist work ... has intensified calls for the introduction of Holocaust denial and race hate legislation in Britain. Andrew Dismore, the Labour MP for Hendon and a member of the Council Against Anti-Semitism, said: ‘I think a cause like this can only strengthen the case for Holocaust denial legislation to be introduced in Britain. I hope the German authorities will take immediate action to deal with this man. I intend to refer the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions.’ Lord Janner, the chairman of the Holocaust Education Trust, said: ‘Holocaust denial legislation is long overdue in Britain. I intend to refer this particular case to the Home Secretary’.”99
It is encouraging to note that former Conservative MPs Michael Howard and Sir Leon Brittan, to mention only two of Jewish origin, have vigorously opposed such legislation. The article confirmed that “there is a warrant out for [Rudolf’s] arrest,” and Rudolf told his supporters “They won’t get me, I promise you all.” “Did Britain fight two World Wars and sacrifice its empire in order to end up in a unified Europe that is being ruled by German political paranoia?,” he asked in his letter to the Sunday Telegraph.
Two weeks later the Sunday Telegraph again reported on the Rudolf case. “The disclosure that Rudolf is likely to be extradited has been welcomed by MPs and Jewish groups. Stephen Twigg, the chairman of the lobby group Labour Friends of Israel, said: ‘I welcome any action that would bring this man to justice.’ Mike Gates MP, the vice-chairman of The Council Against Anti-Semitism said: ‘This is excellent news. This country should not be used as a haven for people who have committed crimes abroad’.”100 In January 2000 this same paper assured its readers that “police here have joined the hunt for Germar Rudolf ... If he is arrested on British soil, he faces extradition or deportation. One source close to the case said: ‘Concern about this man’s presence in Britain has been raised at the very highest level. The Home Secretary is likely to want to do all he can to help the Germans bring this man to justice’.”101
The manhunt turned into hysteria with a BBC report about Rudolf on March 28, 2000, which was repeated the next day by the south English regional TV station ITV. This television report included six or seven photographs of Rudolf, which had been taken from Rudolf’s website. The public was warned to be aware of this “nazi sympathizer”, as though Rudolf was some dangerous skinhead. Michael Whine of the British Jewish Board of Deputies appeared on screen to announce that Britain was dealing with a “new breed of dangerous Nazis.” The local press chimed in once again with a report on “Escaped Neo-nazi still hiding in Hastings ...”102
In May 2000, the British Home Secretary – responding to an inquiry by a Member of Parliament – stated: “The Government are aware of the reports in some quarters that Mr. Rudolf may be in the United Kingdom. The police have also been informed of the allegations against Mr. Rudolf.”103
Thus Rudolf is treated as a common criminal. No one bothers to read a single word of his writings, let alone take any of it seriously. Or is his writing taken so seriously as to be regarded as a threat?104
In his well-publicized libel action against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books for what Lipstadt had written about him in her book Denying the Holocaust,105 British historian David Irving made almost no use of the Rudolf Report. Had he made good use of it he would possibly have stood a better chance in the London Royal Courts of Justice.106 At least the airing of some of Rudolf’s scientific research might have aroused wider public interest in revisionism. As it was, Irving had no legal representation, while the defendants’ case was ably argued by Richard Rampton, Queen’s Counsel.107
Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Jewish Studies at Emory University claimed in her book that “Irving is one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial. Familiar with historical evidence, he bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda.”108 Irving, she further stated, “is best known for his thesis that Hitler did not know about the Final Solution, an idea that scholars have dismissed ... he has been accused of skewing documents and misrepresenting data in order to reach historically untenable conclusions, particularly those that exonerate Hitler.”109 Most of Lipstadt’s statements merely echo the opinions of others, and are properly referenced.110
The three-month trial began on January 11, 2000, and ended April 11, 2000, with Justice Gray’s finding in favor of Lipstadt and Penguin Books.111 Under English law a libel case favors the plaintiff because the defendants are obliged to prove the “substantial truth of the defamatory imputations.”112 It is fair to say that, had Irving brought this action in the United States, he would have stood just about zero chance of winning his case. The defendants called numerous “expert witnesses,” who submitted lengthy “expert reports,” for which they were handsomely paid.113 They included Professor Richard Evans of Cambridge University (England), Robert Jan van Pelt, author (with Debórah Dwork) of a detailed book about Auschwitz,114 as well as the American historian Christopher Browning,115 and the German historian Dr. Heinz Peter Longerich.
Irving claimed that the defendants conspired with what he calls “the traditional enemies of truth” to ruin his reputation and income. They influenced publishers not to publish his books and even to break existing contracts.116 Justice Gray correctly identified these “traditional enemies” as Jewish117 and pointed out “that ... it would be necessary for him to prove on the balance of probability that both the Defendants were implicated in the alleged conspiracy,” that Lipstadt “was acting in league with the Anti Defamation League, the Board of Deputies of Jews and other organizations intent on targeting him.”118 Justice Gray did not consider, on the evidence placed before him, that this claim of Irving was established.119
To decide whether calling Irving a “Holocaust denier” constitutes libel, Justice Gray wished to know how “the notional typical reader ... would have understood the words.”120
While I agree that our century has known many holocausts, Irving should have been aware of the commonly accepted meaning of “Holocaust denier”: one who denies that National Socialist Germany murdered Jews on an industrial scale in gas chambers. In fact, Prof. Richard Evans devotes almost a hundred pages of his 740-page “expert report” to finding a suitable definition of the expression,121 concluding it fits Irving quite well.122
Irving wrote in his Statement of Claim that “the true or legal innuendo of the words ‘Holocaust denier’ is that any person described as such wilfully perversely and with disregard to all the existing historical evidence denied and continues to deny all and any occurrence of one of the worst crimes known to history, namely the mass murder by whatever means by Hitler’s agents and their associates of the Jewish people and hence genocide and hence a crime against humanity.”123
The rest of this section will explore to what extent Irving should be regarded as a spokesperson for Holocaust revisionism, and to his responses to the arguments of his adversaries, especially those dealing with chemistry.
The trial was puzzling from the start, with Irving determined not to make this a debate about the Holocaust as such,124 on which he is no expert125 – and which in any case “bores” him126 – but to defend his reputation as an historian.127 Yet, on the very first day Irving stated: “The most interesting part of the action in the light of history is, undoubtedly, the Holocaust and Auschwitz, and is also, I think we all apprehend, the most complicated to prepare.”128 On another day he declared “When you are an author, you are constantly receiving letters from members of the public suggesting you have got things wrong. Sometimes you ignore them.... But when you are conscientious, then you will put those objections to other people who are probably better informed than yourselves and say, ‘What do you say about this?’ This is precisely what I did.”129
How well Irving was prepared for the trial and how much he followed his own advice is problematic, as we will see.
Just as the trial was getting under way, Robert Faurisson wrote: “I expect David Irving to make twists and turns and recantations. He writes and publishes too much in order to allow himself the time, beforehand, to read attentively the documents which he quotes or which the opposing side submits. If he is acquainted with the revisionist literature, it is only just barely; he cannot be considered a spokesman for historical revisionism. I have always called him ‘the reluctant revisionist.’ Strong in appearance, he is, in reality, fragile. His opponents will have an easy time tripping him up.”130
In the introduction to his edition of the Leuchter Report, Irving wrote that “chemistry is an exact science ... the laboratory reports were shattering ... I myself would, admittedly, have preferred to see more rigorous methods used in identifying and certifying the samples ...”.131 And although it dealt only with Auschwitz and Majdanek, the Report appeared to convince him that the homicidal gas chambers of the Third Reich were a total myth132 – except possibly for some “experimental” gas vans.133 Whenever he spoke of the report in public, he expressed no doubts about it beyond what he had written in the introduction to his own edition of the Leuchter Report. Statements such as “the gas chambers that are shown to tourists in Auschwitz are fakes”134 give the impression that the gas chambers at Birkenau are also fakes since for most people “Auschwitz” includes Auschwitz II. Irving found it easy to use such loose language when talking to admiring audiences, but it harmed his case.135
In 1977 David Irving touched off a lively historical controversy with the presentation, in his book Hitler’s War, of his provocative thesis that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust, and hardly knew about it until quite late in the war.136 Revisionism has since moved on and we now ask “what is it exactly that Hitler was supposed to know?” Not so for David Irving, who in this trial conceded just about every point made by the opposition, including their objections to the Leuchter Report, but could not help himself and returned again and again and again to the “Hitler didn’t know” theme.
In my view, Irving’s worst blunder was to neglect the work of Germar Rudolf, who did not appear as an expert witness.137 Neither his own report nor his technical opinions on Van Pelt’s report138 were placed in Irving’s discovery. At Irving’s request Rudolf wrote a “Critique of the ‘Findings on Justification’ by Judge Gray,” for use in a possible appeal.139 However, nearly everything Rudolf wrote there on the chemical and physical aspects of gassing could already be found in the Rudolf Report and his other pre-trial writings.140 Often trumpeted by Irving as a more thorough study than Leuchter’s,141 the Rudolf Report was never submitted, and this tied Gray’s hands in forming his judgment. On the morning of the ninth day, Irving promised to have it couriered for the afternoon session, but it failed to arrive.142 The next day there was a repeat of this tragicomedy as the “dozen copies” of the “glossy blue publication” that should have been handed to his Lordship were “through an oversight... not listed in discovery,” for which Irving apologized.143
Then Robert Jan van Pelt took the stand, and defense attorney Rampton examined him on Rudolf’s work, as well as on the various reports made by the Institute of Forensic Research in Cracow,144 even though Van Pelt admitted he was far from qualified as a chemist. With regard to Rudolf’s Report, van Pelt said that he was “vaguely familiar with it.” But given that he thought it had “something like” 20 pages, van Pelt could hardly have looked at it.145 Van Pelt said that he was “hesitant to give any kind of definite opinion,” but thought that “in substance the Leuchter results were substantiated by Rudolf, which means a high level of Prussian Blue.” Citing the compilers of the Jan Sehn Forensic Institute reports, he said “What I do know is that they [the Polish investigators] found that the Prussian blue test was problematic,”146 and he proceeded to expound on the perceived merits of their 1994 report.147
Furthermore, had Irving been familiar with Rudolf’s work,148 he might have been able to counter van Pelt’s arguments, as well as those of Dr. James Roth, who had analyzed Leuchter’s samples in 1988, but who now says “I do not think that the Leuchter results have any meaning ...”149 Moreover, David Irving would not have reiterated again and again the “virtues” of the 1990 Cracow report, which, if accepted, logically compels one to accept the 1994 Cracow report as forensic evidence for the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz.150
Had David Irving examined more thoroughly his doubts about the Leuchter Report – and made them “plain to his audiences”151 – before the trial, instead of having his nose rubbed in them during the proceedings, he might have been in a better position to counter the rather thin arguments of his opponents. The strongest criticism of Leuchter was that he had grossly overestimated the concentration of HCN gas that would have been needed in the “homicidal gas chambers.”152 That Irving did have some doubts concerning this issue emerges from the correspondence he had in the 90’s with one “Colin Beer” (probably a pseudonym), who raised this very point – causing Irving to write: “these criticisms ... have to be taken on board.” Rampton reminded Irving of this. He responded: “I completely agree and you are absolutely right. There are probably concessions [which] have to be made at both ends of this scale.”153
Although Irving held on to Leuchter’s forensic chemistry, he lacked the necessary knowledge to back up his argument. When confronted with technical details he had to confess: “I am afraid I am way out of my depth there,” “I am lost.”154
Irving probably made his strongest impact with Faurisson’s “No Holes, No Holocaust” reasoning. Although Justice Gray agreed that “Irving’s argument deserves to be taken seriously,” he also agreed with Van Pelt that the now-collapsed roofs of the “gas chambers” are too fragmentary to permit any firm conclusions, and that “it is unclear how much of the roof can be seen in the photograph on which Irving relies.”155
Irving also pointed out that Roth was wrong in assuming that cyanide is only a “surface reaction,” given that cyanide had penetrated to the outer walls of the delousing tracts. Questioned whether the outside walls had been tested, Irving answered: “Yes, by Germar Rudolf.”156
Two days later Van Pelt acknowledged that the blue stains on the outside walls were due to cyanide.157 With nobody an authority on the subject, it was really a case of the blind leading the blind. On day nine Van Pelt, in his discussion of the 1994 Cracow Institute report, pointed out that samples taken from blue stains on both the inside and outside walls of the building mentioned by Irving, showed “relative high readings,” comparable to those from morgue number 1 of Birkenau Krema II. This was supposed to constitute “a positive proof that the spaces in the crematoria they had tested had been used with Zyklon B” [sic].158 However, since Van Pelt mentioned that the Cracow Institute had not tested for Prussian Blue, what then was the point of taking samples from the “blue stains”? Not even once did Irving challenge Van Pelt’s “evidence,” and his ignorance of Rudolf’s arguments was once again his nemesis. The heart of the matter is that the analytic methods used by the Cracow forensic institute do not pick up total cyanide, and are therefore suspect.
David Irving repeated Leuchter’s challenge: “If you don’t like Leuchter’s results, go and do the tests yourself and prove that I am a nincompoop.”159 But in the end Irving accepted that in Birkenau “gas chamber experiments were conducted.”160
What is one to make of Irving’s statement about the “Reinhardt” camps, Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor? “For the purposes of this trial,” he said, “we are accepting that gassing did occur in those camps.”161 Was this merely a tactical manoeuvre? Asked if he accepts that “hundreds upon thousands of Jews were from ... the spring of 1942, and in Chelmno earlier, and probably Belzec, deliberately killed in Sobibor, Treblinka and Belzec,” Irving responded “I think on the balance of probabilities, the answer is yes,” but added that “the evidentiary basis for that statement is extremely weak.” He repeated once more: “I have to keep on emphasizing I am not an expert on the Holocaust...,” but agreed that hundreds of thousands were killed in those camps.162
Although he scored some good points on the Gerstein documents,163 Justice Gray indicated that Irving’s arguments had no real purpose because he was already “accepting that gas chambers were used [to] kill Jews in those three camps.”164
Regarding Chelmno and the “gas vans,” Irving was more explicit: “I have repeatedly allowed that [Jews] were killed in gas vans” – and he included Yugoslavia among the places where such vans were used.165 A dramatic moment in the proceedings came when Irving was shown a document describing the gassing of 97,000 Jews in Chelmno “gas vans.”166 Although he claimed to have first seen this document only five or six months earlier, he accepted it as genuine. It showed “systematic, huge scale, using gas trucks to murder Jews.”167
As Rampton put it in his closing speech: “Mr Irving has been driven, in the face of overwhelming evidence presented by Professor Robert Jan van Pelt, Professor Christopher Browning and Dr Longerich, to concede that there were indeed mass murders on a huge scale by means of gassing at Chelmno in the Warthegau and at the Reinhardt camps of Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor; and even that there were ‘some gassings’ at Auschwitz.”168
In many countries revisionists are outcasts, and their writings suppressed; in some countries questioning “the Holocaust” is a crime. In France for example, Professor Faurisson has repeatedly been convicted for so-called “Holocaust denial,”169 as have others in Germany, including David Irving. The list grows longer and longer.170
Why are authorities so determined to stamp out revisionism? Some claim that the answer lies in Jewish influence, in particular in the power of the “Jewish lobby.” There is much truth in this, but I believe the matter is more complex than that, even if I don’t claim to have the answer. Let it be said, though, that if six million innocent men, women and children were indeed killed in cold blood only because of their birth – in other words if one accepts the standard picture of the Holocaust, with all its chilling details – then it is not so surprising that humanity’s conscience should be deeply troubled, and that thinking people would want to keep the memory of it alive, especially the German leaders. “The Holocaust,” it has often been said, forms the foundation stone of the Federal Republic of Germany.171 All the same, political leaders, especially in Germany, should be aware of the dangers posed by officially sanitized truth!172 Even German judges must see the absurdity of condemning a thesis while ignoring its content. A strong hint that a condition set for German reunification by the victors of World War II was that the German authorities clamp down on revisionists can be gleaned from a 1994 Der Spiegel interview wth the then Interior Minister for Brandenburg, Alwin Ziel, who stated: “The Allies only allowed Germans to consider reunification on the condition that a catastrophe such as National Socialism would never again take root in Germany ... Restrictions on freedom of opinion and association, which before unification were viewed critically, are now justified. Today Germany and her basic law are different from what they were before unification.”173
“The Holocaust,” it seems, has taken on quasi-religious characteristics and, like any religion, is used and abused – by Jews as well as non-Jews – for political purposes. However, we must accept that, on the whole, the “Holocaust promotion lobby” is concerned with preserving what it perceived as truth. Let us also not forget that what did happen to Europe’s Jews during World War II was dreadful enough. There cannot be any reasonable doubt about the realities of the forced deportations of millions, including the very young and the very old, of forced labor, or of anti-Jewish pogroms and massacres in the East. Surely it is a bitter irony that many talented Jews would likely have remained patriotic Germans and contributed to Germany’s struggle for equality among nations, had not the regime turned against them only on account of their birth. I do not think it will ever be possible to really understand why National Socialist Germany carried out such harsh measures against Jews as a people. One day, perhaps, it might be possible to better “understand” these measures, and Irving’s question is perfectly valid: “Why were the Jews so hated?” At this junction however, any insensitive approach to the problem can only harm historical revisionism.174
It is clear to me that historians should long ago have challenged the prosecution evidence at the Nuremberg trials, especially regarding the alleged systematic extermination of six million European Jews. By the 1980’s at the latest, serious and respectful consideration should have been given to the revisionist critique of the Holocaust story, certainly in the wake of the arguments presented by Robert Faurisson in Le Monde, and of two books published in 1980, Faurisson’s Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m’accusent de falsifier l’Histoire and Vérité historique ou vérité politique by Serge Thion.175 How, then, is it that revisionist scholarship is continually subjected to ridicule and that serious revisionists are habitually vilified? While it is generally normal to be wary of, sometimes even hostile to a new idea that challenges the status quo, the very nature of the Holocaust issue intensifies such feelings a hundredfold, and not just among Jews. Shock waves from the Hitler period are still being felt, above all in Germany. In no other country would a head of state call his own people a nation of criminals – ein Tätervolk.176
A major impediment to revisionist views gaining legitimacy is the fact that many of revisionism’s adherents often have their own, all too obvious, political-ideological agendas, which frightens off those who might otherwise be interested, even supportive. This is the “baggage” that Skeptic editor-publisher Michael Shermer spoke of in his July 1995 debate with Mark Weber.177 Frequently spokespersons for revisionism (self-proclaimed or otherwise) give the impression that in their view Hitler’s Germany did nothing wrong, and that the Jews were themselves ultimately responsible for their fate. Some Internet users with ill-considered, even irrational, viewpoints are increasingly labelled “revisionist,” or label themselves thus, so that the term may be losing any clear or precise meaning.
All this adds to the widely held perception that Holocaust revisionism is not serious or scholarly, and gives ammunition to those who regard revisionists as “Neo-Nazis, nostalgics and agitators.”178 What self-respecting established historian would risk being confused, let alone identified, with such persons? Of course many other factors play a role, for example the perception that questioning the Holocaust is a little like committing the crimes all over again.179
In order to facilitate cross-fertilization with academic historians, genuine Holocaust revisionists may ultimately have to distance themselves from those who use and abuse the, often still tentative, results of revisionist research for overt political ends. It cannot be overemphasized that for revisionism to be taken seriously, “... only publications with a content that is dry, objective, serious (sachlich) and demand high scientific standards can be productive”, as Germar Rudolf has underscored.180 We also have to keep in mind that only a tiny proportion of historians accepts the revisionist thesis – that is, there was no plan to exterminate the Jewish people, there were no gas chambers to carry out such a plan, and the number of Jewish dead has been vastly exaggerated. Furthermore, we need to remind ourselves that nothing is one hundred percent certain, and this also applies to Auschwitz, the camp most thoroughly studied by both sides. Although apparently based on standard scientific methods, Rudolf’s results should not be regarded as the final word on the subject, and need to be confirmed by other competent scientists. Compared to Auschwitz, much less is known about the “purely extermination” camps (Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Chelmno).181 Extensive research also remains to be done on the special security police units, the Einsatzgruppen and the Ordnungspolizei,182 on the extent to which local militia in the occupied Eastern territories were responsible for massacres,183 and on the number of Jewish deaths,184 and exactly how these came about.
Should Auschwitz go the way of “Jewish soap,” it is obvious that many historians would consider questions on the Holocaust with a far more open mind and, in fact, find themselves forced to re-examine all aspects of that terrible period.185
To get to the truth, a completely open debate is needed – something that revisionists have wanted for a long time.186 Let us hope historian Donald Cameron Watt is wrong in speculating that the Irving case “could have one undesirable outcome – to drive the Holocaust deniers underground. ‘We need to have this stuff out in the open ...’”187 As a small group that holds a dissident, minority viewpoint, our impact and importance is limited. Revisionism will only have a wider impact once it starts to filter down from recognized authorities to the public at large.188
There are several criteria for judging revisionist progress. The most important one will always be the quality of work published, but another is the extent to which it is accepted by historians of more general standing, and the degree to which revisionist work is acknowledged in quality journals, newspapers, and so forth.
In conclusion, let me quote Germar Rudolf’s words from a statement he made in 1994: “Our challenge must be to write a comprehensive history of the persecution of the Jews during the Third Reich: one that says not merely what did not happen, but above all tells us what really did happen.”189
Source: Reprinted from The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 19, no. 5, p. 26.
Published with permission, courtesy of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR).
For the current IHR catalog, with a complete listing of books and audio and video tapes, send one dollar to:
Institute For Historical Review
Post Office Box 2739
Newport Beach, California 92659
email: ihr@ihr.org