David Cole Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper, Director, Auschwitz State Museum
Transcript © 1992 David Cole & Bradley Smith
See or listen to this video tape online!
It is an undisputed fact of history that, during World War II, the Germans ran a network of prison and labor camps, both in Germany and in the territories they controlled. Into these camps were sent Jews, prisoners-of-war, resistance fighters, Gypsies, and other people considered enemies of the Third Reich.
The largest of these camps was the one called Auschwitz, located in Poland. Those interned at Auschwitz came from all over Europe and consisted of men, women, and children. Those able to work were used as labor for the German war effort. Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet Army in January of 1945.
But that is where the consensus ends.
Since the end of World War II we have been told repeatedly that many of these camps served a darker purpose: the genocide of six million Jews and the execution of five million non-Jews through the use of homicidal gas chambers in what is now commonly known as the "Holocaust." The largest number of people are said to have been murdered at Auschwitz.
But there are some people who maintain these claims of mass murder have never been proven. These people point to the lack of documentation other than the highly questionable and partially discredited evidence supplied by the Soviet Union at the Nuremberg Trials and the unreliable nature of the eyewitness testimonies, many of which have also been discredited. (For example, many former camp inmates, as well as American soldiers, still speak of "gassing" at the Dachau camp in Germany, even though it is no longer held that any [homicidal] gas chamber was ever in use at that camp.)
Still, the Holocaust is an event that has seemingly grown in importance since the end of the war, taught as fact...usually accepted without question.
But how do we know it really happened? What "proofs" are offered for those not willing to take history on faith alone?
This video deals with, among other things, one of those proofs, one piece in a very large puzzle: the supposed gas chamber at the Auschwitz Main Camp. This tape is the first in a series of tapes covering my September 1992 trip to Europe to investigate first hand the sites of the alleged "Final Solution."
It is by no means intended to be the last word on the controversy, but just the opposite. I hope this tape can begin an open debate that's long overdue: what is fact and what is simple wartime propanganda regarding the event we have come to know as the Holocaust.
Tour of Auschwitz
This is the Auschwitz main camp or Stammlager. There are three parts to what is known as Auschwitz. There is Auschwitz I, the main camp, a well-built compound which existed before World War II as a military barracks and was slightly modified by the Germans when they took it over.
Then there's Auschwitz II, also known as Auschwitz-Birkenau, which was constructed during the war as an expansion of the main camp.
And there's Auschwitz III, or Auschwitz-Monowitz, a large industrial area where many inmates were forced to work.
It is Auschwitz I, the main camp, which is the center of Auschwitz tourism. It is here that tours are conducted hourly in English, Polish, German, and French. By their own figures, over half a million people visit here every year and the place has become a curious shrine, a mix of crass commercialism and religious reverence, with a hotel, restaurant, gift shop, and booths selling all manner of video equipment like batteries and videotapes in all formats so that no one need worry about missing a shot of the Final Solution.
This is a shrine which combines Catholic exressions of identity and mourning with Jewish ones, and this has traditionally caused some tension. Jewish groups have charged that the Poles down-play the role of Jewish suffering, and while few would openly suggest it, it could be said that, in the West, Jews have attempted to monopolize Auschwitz as a uniquely Jewish experience.
Already we reach an important point in our examination of the Holocaust. It is an event interpreted differently in various corners of the world.
The Soviets have always stressed the suffering of Russians, Poles, Ukrainians, and others. Post-World War II Soviet propaganda films often made little mention of Jews. To the Polish locals, Auschwitz is given a Catholic face, with all the usual fetishes-- the suffering of Polish priests and other martyrs is stressed, and attempted extermination of the Polish people is the preferred theme. But in the Western world, we get a single-mindedly Jewish interpretation, with the non-Jewish deaths being used mainly to keep non-Jewish interest in the Holocaust alive by giving non-Jews some involvement in it.
But we are told that even though non-Jews suffered as well, it is the Jews and the Jews only who are marked for extermination. This schism has often resulted in well-publicized disputes such as the convent of Carmelite nuns who took up residence here at Auschwitz against the wishes of many Jewish groups. And the time a touring Polish Auschwitz exhibit was protested for not being Jewish enough.
However, at the camp itself, there is more than enough victimization to go around. The layout of the Auschwitz main camp is fairly simple. A square of barbed wire fence surrounds rows and rows of inmate barracks, a large mess hall, and a few surprises which we will get to later.
Outside the fenced-in area is the SS headquarters these two buildings -- and the SS hospital and restaurant. Across from that is the building known as Crematorium I, the infamous gas chamber and crematorium.
Most of the inmates' barracks have been converted into museums which make up the bulk of the guided tour. The rest of the barracks are used as either archives or offices for the museum staff. One barrack, Block 11, has been kept in its original state. It was the camp prison and it is now referred to, naturally, as "The Block of Death."
Which brings up another interesting point: what is shown on the tour and what is not. During the tour, you are shown "The Block of Death," the so-called "Wall of Death" -- naturally right next door to "The Block of Death" -- and exhibit after exhibit specifically designed to affirm atrocity stories and to portray Auschwitz as a death machine, the place where internment meant extermination.
But what don't they show you? To start with, a building which could conceivably be called "The Block of Life," a massive disinfestation complex where Zyklon B gas was used daily to combat lice and the disease they carried. These were the real gas chambers except their victimes were clothing and mattresses, and their purpose was to preserve the health of the inmates.
Holocaust experts don't deny the purpose of this building; they just don't like mentioning it. After all, why complicate things?
Also forgotten is the Auschwitz camp theatre, the current home of the aforementioned convent of nuns. The last pictures taken inside this building showed pianos and costumes and a stage where the inmates used to put on productions. These days, however, the nuns don't allow pictures to be taken inside.
And finally, we have the Auschwitz swimming pool. Yes, that's right; swimming pool, situated inside the prison compound right along side of the inmates barracks. A beautiful pool with a diving board and 'starters' blocks for races.
To their credit, the Auschwitz camp officials have not tried to remove this distraction. But if you want to see the pool, you need to know already that it exists because you won't find it on the tour.
So basically what we have is a tour that consists mainly of tourists who already believe in the Holocaust story and are perhaps emotionally connected to it in some way, being given a selectively edited tour filled with horror story after horror story and finally ending up at the final stop -- the gas chamber.
At this point, the tour group is emotionally primed to believe anything and the gas chamber is like the featured performer after a two hour warm-up act to get the crowd in the mood. Literally, the gas chamber is the objective proof that everything they've heard on the tour is true; objective proof of the Holocaust. But is it? We'll see in a minute.
I went to Auschwitz in September of 1992 to see for myself this place I had studied for so long. I paid extra for a personal English language tour guide, a young lady named Alicia, who gives tours in Polish, German, and English. And I wore my yarmulke just so nobody missed the point that I'm Jewish.
I figured that way I could ask my questions in a manner that would not make me look like a revisionist. You see, in the past, revisionists haven't had much success in getting answers from the Auschwitz officials. But I would come off as a righteous Jew wanting to know the real facts and answer those who say the Holocaust never happened.
(For the sake of clarity, not only am I a revisionist, I am also quite proudly an atheist. But my parents are both Jewish so if you're a Jew by birth, you're a Jew by birth. It's not anything I'd be ashamed of.)
Alicia, like the other tour guides, had to take a class and memorize the spiel to become one. This is an important point because I'm going to show that the people who run Auschwitz. like Dr. Franciszek Piper and the tour guide supervisor you'll meet shortly, teach their tour guides to say things they know aren't true. But this shouldn't reflect badly on Alicia; she only repeats what she's been told and I'm sure she never had to put up with a tourist like me before.
I have over four hours of footage of me taking the tour, asking one obnoxious question after another. This footage will be re-edited into a seperate tape. This time, we're just going to concern ourselves with the gas chamber and my interview with Dr. Franciszek Piper, Senior Curator and Head of Archives at the Auschwitz State Museum.
I came to Auschwitz as a confirmed skeptic about the gas chamber story. I know to some people, critically examining the Holocaust is the ultimate sacrilege. But you'll have to realize that I have no sacred cows and understanding what really happened is important to me, and I ask that you respect that.
I know from years of my own research and the research of others that proofs of the Holocaust are few. Literally, all there is are the "eyewitness" testimonies and the postwar confessions. There's no picture, plan or wartime document dealing with homicidal gas chambers or a plan to exterminate Jews.
And we can't use the excuse the Nazis destroyed all the evidence because after we had broken the German code, we were able to intercept their secret transmissions including those that came from Auschwitz. The key to understanding the Holocaust story is understanding the true nature of the things passed off as proofs. Everything that is used as evidence of the Holocaust also can be said to have a perfectly normal explanation.
For example, these exhibits are said to be the material proofs of exterminations. There are the piles of human hair. But what does that prove? It is acknowledged that each inmate had his or her head shaved because of the lice problem. That's not denied, so why wouldn't there be piles of human hair?
What about the piles of shoes and clothing. Is that a proof? It's a fact that the prisoners were issued a uniform upon arrival, including shoes. So why wouldn't there be piles of inmates' shoes and clothing? It doesn't prove anybody was killed. And that's giving the Soviets and Poles the benefit of the doubt that the clothes and hair are genuinely from the camp during its operation.
What about the canisters of gas? No one denies that Zyklon B was used to disinfect clothes and also buildings. Zyklon B was one of the premier pest control agents in Europe at that time. It was present in most of the concentration camps including those that were not said to have had homicidal gas chambers in them.
The typhus epidemic that spread throughout Europe during the war and also spread through the camps called for stringent lice control procedures.
In his book, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, published by the [Beate] Klarsfeld Foundation and meant to refute revisivonists, Jean-Claude Pressac admits that over 95% of the Zyklon B used by the Germans was used to disinfect. He assigns only 5% to homicidal purposes. And this from a Holocaust supporter.
So what other proofs are offered? Well, there's the usual pictures of sick inmates which proves the ground-breaking thesis that people got sick at the camp. Once again I'll add that nobody denies the typhus epidemic which resulted in many deaths.
Then there's the artwork and picures of children. But at this point it's looking pretty bad for somebody looking for objective proofs of the gas chamber. And some of the proofs they present actually work against the concept.
For example, they have one of several aerial photographs taken at Auschwitz by the Allies during the war. They don't mention, however, that when blown up, these photographs don't show people being gassed or bodies being burned, even though they were taken during the time killings were said to be going on almost non-stop.
I won't even go into the special money the Germans printed for Auschwitz inmates or the fact even though it was said that Jewish children were killed immediately, both Anne Frank and her sister were sent to Auschwitz and survived, later being transfered to the Bergen-Belsen camp where they are said to have died from typhus.
But all this bickering would be pointless if we could see a genuine gas chamber for ourselves. That, of course, would most effectively end the argument.
Which brings us to the building I'm standing in front of, the gas chamber and crematorium. Pictures of this building have been featured in book after book on the Holocaust. After all, what better proof it all happened? Revisionists don't dispute that this was a real building from during the war.We say that it was indeed a crematorium and a mortuary which also was used as an air-raid shelter for the SS men in the hospital and restaurant right across the street from it.
The Auschwitz people say it was indeed a mortuary and crematorium with the mortuary part, which you're looking at right there, later being used as the gas chamber. They also say it was used as an air-raid shelter.
And they have, in the past, admitted that the large brick chimney at the side of the building is a reconstrucion, which is no big shock to anybody because it clearly isn't connected to the building in any way.
Now let's go inside. Once inside, we can see why revisionists have had such a field day with this building:
Yet the building does have what appears to be evidence of criminal usage -- four holes in the ceiling which lead to the roof where four little chimneys stand. It is said that through these four holes, Zyklon B crystals were dropped. And indeed, there seems to be no other explanation for them.
Do these holes prove homicidal gassings? Revisionists have claimed in the past that these holes were added after the camp's liberation, and that the inside walls were knocked down and the bathroom facilities removed to make the room look like a big gas chamber.
As Alicia and I approached the building, we passed the gallows where the commandant in Auschwitz, Rudolph Höss, was hanged by the Soviets in 1947, executed directly in front of the evidence of his crime.
Here, in front of the gas chamber, I asked Alicia about the authenticity of that building.
Now there Alicia has very clearly represented the gas chamber as being in its original state. Once inside, I asked her specifically about the holes in the ceiling.
I then asked Alicia if any walls had been knocked down in the room exhibited as the gas chamber.
Let's pause here to re-cap the gas chamber according to according to our tour guide. She states that the room is in its "original state" that the ceiling holes were original and that no walls were knocked down.
The Supervisor's version
Unsatisfied with her answers, I continued to badger poor Alicia about the real history of this room. Feeling somewhat exasperated at the fact that nothing she could say would shut me up, Alicia went to get a woman who was introduced to me as the Supervisor of Tour Guides for the Auschwitz State Museum. When I saw this woman approach, I figured I was either going to get a straight answer or kicked out of the camp.
So, here that it was first suggested that I meet with the Head of Archives and Senior Curator, Dr. Franciszek Piper. Still, fearing that such a meeting might not come about, and assuming that the supervisor was probably in the loop regarding any instructions, I decided to get her input regarding the supposedly original holes in the ceiling.
So, if you're keeping score, that makes it one vote for original, one vote for not original. I guess that would make Dr. Piper the tie-breaker.
Interview with Piper
Now before we proceed any further, a little digression is needed about some genuine Holocaust revisionism. Dr. Franciszek Piper is one of the Holocaust experts most directly responsible for the lowering of the Auschwitz death count along with other scholars like Israeli Holocaust expert Dr. Yehuda Bauer.
It was decided around 1989 to admit publicly that fewer people died at Auschwitz than had previously been reported. In his book, Auschwitz, --How Many Perished? Dr. Piper concludes that the old Soviet figure of four million is wrong and that the real figure is closer to 1.1 million.
Now that's no small revision, an admission the Soviets exaggerated the figure by almost four times. We can also see how the fraudulent figure has been an ingrained part of supposedly factual Holocaust history for almost fifty years.
As late as 1988, in the official Auschwitz State Museum Guidebook, you'll find on page 19 an official affirmation of the four million figure. The Soviet State Extraordinary Commission for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes stated that "no less than four million people perished at Auschwitz." The Supreme National Tribunal in Poland stated that "about four million persons perished at Auschwitz." According to the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, "more than four million persons perished in Auschwitz." These figures are "based on the evidence of hundreds of surviving prisoners and upon the opinion of experts."
This shows that not only was fraudulent Soviet evidence admitted as fact at Nuremberg, but also that survivors and experts can be wrong.
And, if it matters, many Holocaust revisionists believe that the actual total of dead at Auschwitz is even less than 1.1 million. But still, there is no possibility that even the most extreme Holocaust revisionist in the world could possibly revise the figure any more than the Holocaust "experts" already have.
Which rather neatly brings us to this man, Dr. Franciszek Piper. I interviewed him in his office in the Auschwitz State Museum. At first, he was a little apprehensive about being videotaped. But I explained to him that since I already had the tour guide on tape, giving out what I had now come to believe was incorrect information, I should have a videotape which would set the record straight.
Once he consented, I immediately asked him about changes made in the gas chamber.
Here I think we should recap what Dr. Piper has told us. According to him, the room was a gas chamber but was later turned into an air-raid shelter at which time dividing walls were built, the holes in the ceiling were removed and a new door was added on one side of the gas chamber.
After the camp's liberation, the dividing walls were knocked down, [and] the holes were put in the ceiling. However, the new door was not removed.
I think here there are three main points that have to be made. The first of these is that we are looking at a clear deception. As I have shown, the gas chamber is shown off to tourists as being in its original state even though the museum officials know better.
Dr. Piper seems to be very nonchalant about the fact that changes were made after the war. But if it isn't such a big deal, why hide it from the tourists?
And that's not all. In May of 1992 British historian David Irving was fined by a German court for telling a meeting in Munich exactly what you just heard Dr. Piper tell you. In fact, Piper was even called as a defense witness. But the judge wouldn't allow him to testify even though it might have cleared Irving.
Once again I'll say, if this is not such a big deal, why fine somebody for saying it? The point is, the "gas chamber" is no longer valid as proof in its present state. It is not a roof of homicidal gassings unless it can be shown then that at some time during the war this building had four holes in the ceiling and no dividing walls during the time the Germans were operating the camp.
Which brings us to our final point, the reconstruction itself. With the information we now have, we can say there are two different views of the gas chamber reconstruction.
The first one, the official view, holds that the Soviets and Poles created a "gas chamber" in an air-raid shelter that had been a gas chamber. The revisionist view holds that the Soviets and Poles created a "gas chamber" in air-raid shelter that had been -- an air raid shelter. So how do we know which one is correct?
Well, obviously the burden of proof is on those who say that there was a gas chamber at one time in that building. So they have any evidence at all to support that claim?
In my tenure as a Holocaust revisionist, I'm sure if there was any I'd have seen it. I can also add that those questionable four holes in the roof of the building are not detectable in any of the aerial photograph blow-ups that I've seen.
Other questions about the "gas chambers"
To get to the truth of this matter, there are some other pertinent questions that can be asked. If there was at one time a functioning gas chamber in this building, why was its operation halted, especially if the Nazis were running Auschwitz as an extermination center?
Well, Dr. Piper has an answer for that one, too. In an essay published in the Polish book Auschwitz, Piper writes that exterminations were moved to new gas chambers in the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex because it had become too difficult to keep the gas chamber at the Auschwitz main camp a secret from the inmates.
This has apparently become part of official Auschwitz lore because it is something Alicia repeated to me on the tour.
Now, let's be perfectly clear about this. They say that exterminations were moved to Birkenau because the gas chamber at the main camp was too close to the inmates and therefore they could know what was going on.
But is this even remotely accurate? Let's refer back to our map of the main camp. Now here's the gas chamber right there, and there's the rows of inmates barracks. As you can see, the gas chamber is well outside the prison compound. It's hidden from view by the three SS building which effectively hide it from the inmates' sight.
Plus we're told, the arrivals who are going to be gassed would be taken in through here, thus avoiding any and all contact with the other inmates. This was a gas chamber that could functioned completely isolated from anybody's notice.
Now this is Auschwitz-Birkenau in an Allied arial photo from September 1944. These are the two crematoriums and " gas chambers," with the crematoriums above ground and L-shaped below ground rooms that were either gas chambers or mortuaries. And here you have the rows and rows of inmates barracks.
Now the thing that becomes immediately clear is there is nothing but a barbed wire fence hiding the inmates' barracks from the gas chambers.
And this over here was the Auschwitz [Birkenau] sports field, right next door to the "gas chambers." And another thing to notice is not only could you see the "gas chamber," paralled with the barracks, but you could see diagonally to the one across the way from you. Nothing was hidden form the inmates.
Another interesting thing was the train that would come up, carrying the doomed inmates. You would have thousands of inmates being marched off the train into one of these two gas chambers in full view of the entire camp. This was a a spectacle that nobody it the camp could miss; they would see thousands of people marching into those buildings and nobody coming out.
These were "gas chambers" that were not isolated from anyone and indeed, when these aerial photograhs were released in the late 70's, they contradicted many supposed eyewitness claims about how the Nazis had tried to camouflage the gas chambers at Birkenau.
I spent several days here at Birkenau, and the footage I have which is available on a separate tape, dramatically shows eveything I have just been saying. Frankly, I don't think Piper's claim holds any water.
The Leuchter Report revisited
Another question that should be asked: Is there any Zyklon B gas residue in the gas chamber, knowing that cyanide gas would, in fact, leave a residue?
In 1988, execution equipment expert Fred Leuchter conducted forensic examinations on the gas chambers at Auschwitz to answer that question.
He took samples from the four gas chambers at Birkenau, the one at the main camp and the control sample from one of the disinfestation chambers that we know did use Zyklon B. Now, the gas chamber samples showed almost no appreciable traces whereas the disinfestation sample literally went right off the scale.
More importantly though, in 1990, the Institute of Forensic Research in Krakow decided to conduct their own forensic tests to see if they could refute Fred Leuchter's findings. They did this with Dr. Piper's help.
Their own tests got back the same results so, since then, the question has not been, "Are there any appreciable traces of Zyklon B residue in the gas chambers?" but instead, "Why are there not any appreciable traces?"
I put this question to Dr. Piper. I asked him why there are so few appreciable traces in the homicidal gas chambers compared to the large amounts of traces found in the disinfestation chamber.
Now let's be perfectly clear about what Dr. Piper is saying. I asked him, "Why is the residue count high in the delousing chambers, but low in the homicidal ones?"
And he answers, because the delousing chambers were used "day and night" whereas the homicidal ones were used "about 20,30 minutes during 24 hours," this would account for roughly one gassing a day. Now not only does this contradict the eyewitness testimonies which speak of repeated homicidal gassings going on day and night but Dr. Piper also manages to contradict himself because later on in the interview I asked him how many groups of people a day would be gassed and he, too, speaks of repeated gassings.
We have to ask this question: Could the high death rate at the camp have occured if the gas chambers were used only "20, 30 minutes during 24 hours" as Pipe initially claims they were?
In a New York Times article about the aformentioned book by Jean-Claude Pressac, written to refute revisionists, New York Times writer Richard Bernstein writes that according to Pressac, "it would have been necessary [sic] for the extermination rooms to have been emptied of corpses and refilled with new victims every half hour or so, as would have been necessary for such a large number of victims."
In other words, he realizes that for such a high death rate, multiple gassings every day at an extremely fast pace would have been necessary. So what we have here is a contradiction.The concept of limited use of the chambers could conceivably explain the lack of residue but limited gassing contradicts eye-witnesses and makes the high gassing death rate technically impossible.
Also, the concept of limited gassing makes ridiculous the idea of German intent to wipe out the entire Jewish population. Literally, to support one part of the Holocaust story, Piper ends up jeopardizing another.
Unfortunately, what passes for Holocaust History has become such a complex balancing act of rationalizations. This is why its proponents prefer you not ask too many questions like the ones concerning Zyklon B.
What about the gas itself? We are shown many canisters of Zyklon B gas as proof of the Final Solution. But apart from delousing , which everyone agrees on, and homicidal gassings, which the Auschwitz officials maintain, did the gas have any other uses?
Now, let's recap again. We now know that Zyklon B gas was used to delouse clothes, to disinfect buildings and if you will remember the calculations of Holocaust supporter Jean-Claude Pressac, over 95% was used for disinfection with only 5% or less used for homicide. This seems like a great amount of effort on the part of the Germans to preserve the health of people who were meant to be exterminated. And I think at this point we can move on.
Can we trust the Communists?
We return now to our job of trying to decide between the two alternate views of the reconstructed gas chamber. Is it a fake or a faithful reconstruction?
One very important question is this: Can we trust the Soviets to have faithfully reconstructed the gas chamber? Since there is no wartime proof of there ever having been four holes in the ceiling, or of any gas chamber usage, we literally have to take the Soviets and Poles at their word that they simply returned the four holes to where they had originally been and "reconstructed" instead of fabricated the gas chamber.
If we're going to try to establish Soviet intent, we need to look at precedent there is concerning Soviet truthfulness regarding the Holocaust story.
Do the Soviets have a history of fabricating "Holocaust" evidence or using deception to support the concept?
Well, as we've already shown, the Soviets quite brazenly exaggerated the figures of dead at Auschwitz by at least four times. But was this simply a well-intentioned error on their part? We are told in the Auschwitz guidebook and also by other sources that the reason it was so difficult to ascertain the number of victims at Auschwitz was because the Nazis had destroyed the appropriate records.
This concept was also repeated to me by Dr.Piper.
But in fact, the Auschwitz camp death records were held by the Soviets ... not released until 1989. These documents were not destroyed by the Nazis, I think we can assume that, during all those years the Soviets were handing out their exaggerated death figures, they knew they had these books in their possession.
We can also look at discredited charges made by the Soviets and supported by the other Allies at the Nuremberg Trial. The Soviets claimed there were "steam chambers" for killing inmates at the Treblinka camp in Poland. Now, of course, that claim has been quietly dropped. Also dropped are the claims of "electro-chambers."
Most interestingly, we have the Soviets at Nuremberg claiming that it was the Nazis, not the Soviets, who murdered thousands of Polish officers in the infamous Katyn Forest massacre. These days, of course, the Soviets have admitted that they are the ones responsible and most legitimate historians knew this all along. But at Nuremberg, the Soviets claimed that the Nazis bribed and threatened people to falsely blame the Soviets.
The now discredited atrocity stories of Nazi-created shruken heads and human skin lampshades were also exhibited as fact. And in an almost inconceivalbe charge, it was claimed that the Nazis exterminated Jews with an atomic bomb.
Also presented as fact was the story the Nazis made soap from the bodies of Jews. Let's examine this one a little more closely. Now the Soviets actually submitted supposed Jewish soap at the Nuremberg Trials. But today, Holocaust scholars like Raul Hilberg, Yehuda Bauer and Deborah Lipstadt agree that these accusations are groundless.
Let's be more specific here. Simon Wiesenthal, perhaps one of the most recognizable names in the Holocaust arena, wrote in 1946 in a series of articles for an Austrian Jewish paper, about boxes of Jewish soap:
How very fiendish! It's not hard to imagine such devilish behavior after decades of seeing two-dimensional Nazi villians in movies and on TV.
The soap story has also been immortalized in William Shirer's best-selling Rise and Fall of the Third Reich as well as in countless other Holocaust articles, books and even school textbooks.
But can we speak with such certainty about this incredible atrocity? Nowadays, those designated as Holocaust "experts" are as firm as Wiesenthal and Shirer regarding the soap story, except that they say it isn't true.
In 1981, professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust expert Deborah Lipstadt wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Times that
Now that's pretty clear!
And Shmuel Krakowski, Director of Archives of Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust Center, confirmed in a Chicago Tribune article titled, "A Holocaust Belief Cleared Up" that:
Now I have a few reasonable questions: First, has anyone told Simon Wiesenthal that he's wrong? Secondly, if there was no soap made from Jews, then that means the Nuremberg "soap" and the testimony about "human soap" at Nuremberg is wrong. Third, Deborah Lipstadt speaks of a thorough investigation of the soap story and Shmuel Krakowski speaks of historians having concluded that the soap story is wrong.
By speaking of a thorough investigation and a consensus by historians, Lipstadt and Krakowski are able to drop the soap story while at the same time affirming their faith in the soundness of establishment Holocaust history.
But is that faith appropriate? Not only was the soap story not thoroughly investigated and refuted after the war but even today there is no consensus among historians and experts concerning the soap story.
As recently as 1991 Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff was talking about having seen Jewish soap with his own eyes. And Dr. Piper? Well, he still supports the discredited soap story.
As you can see, the Holocaust experts prove themselves hypocrites when they tell you there is no need to question the Holocaust story, that it has already been proven beyond question.
And here I don't mean to suggest that the soap story is the only thing the experts are not in unison about. Far more importantly, even though they present a united front in support of the gas chamber concept, many of them realize there is little documentation for it.
Gas Chamber Documentation
Which brings us to the real myth of the Holocaust. The myth that the existence and use of homicidal "gas chambers" is well documented. In fact, the thing that really got me interested in this subject in the first place was the lack of documentation for gas chambers presented in the standard Holocaust work and the contradictions and guesswork inherent in the evidence that was presented.
Several times now we've mentioned the book by Jean-Claude Pressac. This book was published in 1989 by the famed Nazi-hunting duo, the Klarsfelds, and heralded as the final refutation of Holocaust revisionism. In his book, Pressac offers this damning condemnation of what has passed for Holocaust history among traditional historians. Pressac says that his book
Mayer also wrote that more Jews died in Auschwitz of natural causes than by gassings or shootings. And his book angered other Holocaust experts who have called it everything from "dangerous and ugly" to "a perversion of the Holocaust."
My point is, when the experts tell you there is no room for debate about the gas chamber story they are hiding the fact that they debate each other about it frequently. Oftentimes, the reason for reluctance to answer hard questions about the gas chambers comes from the fact that the experts secretly realize that the gas chambers are simply not well documented, and that much of the documentation we have has already been discredted.
Indeed, the spector of fraudulent Holocaust evidence from the Soviets has reared its head in more current events like the prosecution of Ukrainian-American John Demjanjuk whose incredibly flawed war crimes conviction was based, in part, on faulty Soviet evidence.
And speaking of fraudulent evidence, some Holocaust experts seem to have difficulty explaining the difference between what's fraudulent and what's real.
We return briefly to Jean-Claude Pressac's book on Auschwitz, a book meant to refute the revisionists. Here he shows us a picture of a gas-tight door from a delousing room which he claims the Soviets falsely represented to be from a homcidal gas chamber. Yet several pages later, he shows us a door which he claims is a genuine homicidal gas chamber door because of the metal hemispherical grid protecting the peephole.
Pressac offers this door as a proof that homicidal gassings occured. But there's just one unanswered question. How does Pressac know that this door too, isn't a Soviet put-on?
If we admit that the Soviets went around misrepresenting and reconstructing things how can we tell the difference between what's real and what's not? In the case of that supposedly genuine door with a metal grid over the peephole, I asked Dr. Piper if I could see it for myself.
Well, guess what? After the interview we went to the director's office and got the keys and explored every room in Crematorium I and no homicidal gas chamber door with a metal grid over the peephole. No one knew where it went. I guess it simply vanished, like magic.
So, in answer to our question about precedent regarding Soviet trustworthiness, I think we've established that we can't really accept anything on faith because evidence, certified as real one year might be considered fake the next. Evidence you are told is genuine can, in fact, be a so-called "reconstruction" . And if the Holocaust experts themselves can't agree on what's real and what's not, then surely they proved themselves hypocrites when they insist homicidal gassings cannot be questioned.
With all this talk about Soviet deception, I think it's necessary to put this matter in its proper historical perspective. You see, we live in a time now when the old Soviet Union has fallen apart and it's now okay for both liberals and conservatives, as well as everybody else, to speak ill of the dear, departed communist state.
But it was not always that way. During World War II, the Soviets were more than just a military ally; their anti-Nazi propaganda was readily accepted by the other Allies because it served all of their purposes.
It has to be understood that Russia's communists and Germany's fascists had a long-running propaganda battle, both before the Hitler-Stalin Non-Aggression Pact and, of course, after, with the outbreak of war. Both Stalin and Hitler were men capable of and quite adept at propaganda. Yet the vestiges of our acceptance of Soviet propaganda still linger to this day. For example, when we see an anti-communist German poster, we most likely immediately dismiss it as paranoid Nazi anti-communist propaganda.
Yet are we so conditioned to dismiss a similar Soviet work as paranoid, anti-fascist propaganda? The point is, we have a hard time realizing that Stalin's anti-German propaganda was just as virulent as Hitler's anti-Soviet propaganda and that, as the victors, the Soviets got to commit their propaganda to the history books as fact.
But all charges and counter-charges made during World War II must be re-examined with the 20-20 hindsight we now have: the knowledge of Stalin's despotism and the KGB's history and misinformation and deception. And this re-examination must include the charges of genocide made against the Nazis, especially considering that for Auschwitz, as well as the other camps in Poland (Majdanek. Belzec, Chelmno,Treblinka and Sobibor), we've had to rely on the Soviets for most of our information. If the Soviets exaggerated the numberof dead at Auschwitz, who's to say they didn't also do it at the other camps?
Why would they exaggerate Auschwitz by four times and then be brutally honest about Treblinka? However, lest I appear to be unfair, it should be added that our own army and propaganda department did not sit idly by and let the Soviets have all the atrocity propaganda fun.
After the war, it was claimed at the Dachau camp that people were gassed. In fact, the army produced several propaganda films supporting that notion.
Yet now it is no longer claimed that anyone ever died in a Dachau gas chamber. This is a clear case of wartime propaganda. It should also be added, in fairness, that it was the British who obtained by torture the confession of Rudolph Hvss, Commandant of Auschwitz, before turning him over to the Soviets and Poles. This has been confirmed in a book published in 1983, titled Legions of Death, which contains the recollections of British Sergeant Clark who brags about having tortured Hvss to get a confession out of him, and of threatening his family.
Which brings us back to Auschwitz. It was here, behind the building we've talked so much about, the supposed gas chamber, that Hvss was hanged for running an extermination camp. But can we say now that was a just sentence, with the main evidence being obtained by torture and a reconstructed air raid shelter?
Perhaps you will answer that the sentence was still a just one since Höss did run an internment camp where people did indeed die in high numbers from disease and malnutrition. Yet if you consider internment of citizens based on their race a crime worthy of hanging, then who ran our internment camps in the United States for Japenese-Americans?
And if you consider running a camp with such a high loss of life a crime punishable by death, what should have been done with General Eisenhower and his soldiers who ran post-World War II prison camps where anywhere from several hundred thousand to over two million Germans died from disease and malnutrition?
Camps that prompted Lieutenant Ernest Fisher, of the 101st Airborne Division and former Senior Historian of the United States Army to remark in the recent book, Other Losses, that:
Clearly, the only thing that seperates Auschwitz from what the Allies did is the concept of exterminations, of genocide, of homicidal gas chambers. If you remove the exterminations from the Auschwitz equation, you are left with a tragedy, yes, but not a unique tragedy-- a war crime that was duplicated by the Allies during World War II.
So our question regarding the authenticity of the Auschwitz main camp gas chamber takes on an added importance. Was it a real gas chamber or a simple air-raid shelter, redone to look like one?
And if we haven't reached a definite answer to that question in this short video, at least, hopefully, I've shown that it is a legitimate question to ask. And although there might not be any easy answers, one thing is for certain: this issue is far from over.
"We're Loud, W e're Proud, and Best of All, We're Right!"
A Jewish Revisionist's Visit to Auschwitz
(Presented at the Eleventh IHR Conference, October 1992)
When I decided last September to take a well-deserved vacation, I thought, what better destination than Europe. After all, as a Revisionist I'd always felt it my duty to see the concentration camps in person. My girl-friend, though, said that she'd like to go to Europe to visit Euro-Disney, the new Disneyland theme park in France. So I thought for a while about where to go: Auschwitz or Euro-Disney. And as I looked around, and saw the miserable state of the world and this country, the political and social malaise and depression, I realized that if I did take a vacation, I wanted to go to a place as far away from reality as possible: a fantasy land of wondrous fairy tales. So, of course, I chose Auschwitz.
Now that I've gone through the Auschwitz main camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek, Mauthausen, and Dachau, I feel more secure in my position as a Revisionist that there exists no convincing evidence that Jews or anyone else were taken en masse into gas chambers and killed by the Nazis at these camps. In fact, the remains that I inspected at the camp sites seem, in many different ways, to directly contradict these claims.
I returned to the United States with more than 25 hours of video footage from the camps. At Majdanek I uncovered obvious tampering with the buildings exhibited as gas chambers. This evidence was discovered when my attractive camerawoman busted a lock and got into a room that is not open to tourists. There we were able to view several items in their original state, most notably the doors, which were clearly constructed to latch from both the outside and the inside.
The high point of my visit, though, was my interview with Dr. Franciszek Piper, Senior Curator of the Polish government's Auschwitz State Museum. He has worked there for more than 26 years. On tape, he admits that the so-called gas chamber in Crematory Building (Krema) I, which is shown to half a million visitors a year as a genuine homicidal gas chamber, is in fact a reconstruction-- even down to the holes cut into the ceiling. Piper also admits that walls were knocked down and bathroom facilities removed. He went on to tell us that the remains of the "white cottage," supposed site of the first preliminary gassings at Birkenau, are also reconstructed. This was hardly news to me. Even a quick examination of the remains of the "white cottage" shows that the bricks are not connected in any way, but are simply laid on top of each other like children's building blocks.
Piper has no problems with the Leuchter Report. He told me that he agrees with Leuchter's findings regarding traces of ferro-ferric-cyanide in the walls of Crematory Buildings (Kremas) I, II and III. So what is his explanation for this lack of traces in the supposed homicidal gas chambers when, by contrast, there are significant traces in the non-homicidal delousing gas chambers? He told me that the amount of hydrogen cyanide (from Zyklon) supposedly used by the Germans to kill people -- unlike the amount needed to kill lice in delousing chambers -- was not enough to leave blue (ferro-ferric-cyanide) staining, or appreciable traces.
This argument has problems, though. For one thing, the supposed homicidal gas chambers at Majdanek (which in reality were non-homicidal delousing chambers) have abundant blue staining. So according to Piper's "Holocaust logic" gassing people in Auschwitz did not leave blue stains, but gassing people at Majdanek did. Talk about a Magic Kingdom! As we spoke, I half expected to see Piper's nose grow as long as Pinocchio's!
The importance of Piper's revelations is obvious. The burden of proof has now shifted decisively to the Exterminationist side. For example, Piper's admission that the four holes in the ceiling of Crematory Building (Krema) I were put in after the war makes ludicrous the oft-repeated claim of Auschwitz tourists that "Now I've seen the gas chambers with my own two eyes." Now that the often-made claims are no longer valid, can the Exterminationists produce any evidence -- a photograph, document, plan, or order -- showing that the supposed gas chamber there was ever used to kill people as alleged? Most likely not, but what else is new? We've never been asked to accept the Holocaust story on anything but faith, and for me, that's not good enough.
On the issue of the Holocaust -- and perhaps uniquely on this issue --- we are told: "Close the books, there will be no more learning, no more discussion, no more questions. Not only will no questions be tolerated, but anyone who dares to ask such questions will be slandered and viciously attacked."
Now as someone who believes that part of being human is to learn something new everyday, I respond: "How dare you tell me there will be no more learning?" The establishment that maintains the Holocaust story on life support admits that there is no direct proof of homicidal gassings. No order, no document, no pictures, only "eyewitnesses."
And what of these eyewitnesses? The Holocaust lobby insists that this is convincing evidence. But what kind of evidence is this? In some European countries, a person who denies the gas chambers can be jailed, fined, or physically attacked. He might lose his job, his standing in the community, maybe even his life. Something similar has happened in Canada. In the United States, he might be attacked and villified. And if he says that he comes by his knowledge from first-hand experience -- in other words from helping to run the camps during the war years -- then he might easily find himself deported to Israel or eastern Europe, where he might be sentenced to death or at least stripped of his US citizenship and denied due process.
In other words, we only hear of eyewitnesses from one side because witnesses from the other side have been strong-armed into silence. This is governmental coercion of the worst kind, and on a worldwide scale no less. One kind of eyewitness is encouraged, the other is warned that his words might lead to deportation, imprisonment, loss of livelihood, property, and even life. Some great victory for the Holocaust lobby: The game has been fixed!
Let people speak! If only no one else, I demand this for my own sake. I want to know what happened during World War Two, and yet how can I if those who might have firsthand knowledge are told : "Speak only the official line, or suffer the consequences." I insist on my human right to learn.
There are those who say, "Okay, so maybe the Holocaust is a bit exaggerated, but do we really want to destabilize society by openly talking about all this, possibly encouraging hostility against Jews?" This raises an important philosophical question: Do you believe mankind to be so inherently cruel and stupid that people must be lied to in order to make them behave? If so, then the lies you tell them are only a small bandage to cover up a much greater evil: Lack of confidence in mankind's ability to handle the truth. And if you truly believe that people cannot handle the truth, but instead need a "Big Brother" to handle it for them, then surely democracy is the most dangerous thing on earth.
Of course, I understand that people can be cruel and stupid, but I also believe in the human ability to learn, and to grow with each new piece of knowledge. Rather than censor information that we subjectively perceive to be "dangerous," we should teach our children to think critically, to remain open-minded, and to look for truth rather than cling to emotionally appealing falsehoods.
And that is just about all we can do: teach our children and hope for the best, realizing that people cannot be programmed like robots. Eighty years of failed Communism should have taught us that. To use the power of the state to force men to be what the state defines as "good" creates a world far more hellish than the one that is supposedly being prevented. I would rather live in a world where people are free to be cruel and stupid than one in which "goodness" is enforced at gun point.
Keep in mind also that truth, objective truth, does not need threats and intimidation to prevail. We Holocaust Revisionists are often likened to those who said that the earth was flat. But just the reverse is true: It is the other side that acts like a Holy Inquisition, institutionalizing one viewpoint and punishing heretics. Remember: We only accepted that the earth is round after the debate was opened. And since then, the round-earth adherents have not needed false news laws, hate crimes laws, and libel or slander laws to protect the truthfulness of their view. Likewise, all we ask is that the Holocaust story either stand or fall according to the evidence -- or lack of it.
While we Holocaust Revisionists sit on a wealth of wonderfully heretical information, can we get it out to the general public? Can we "mainstream" Holocaust Revisionism before it's too late, that is to say, before all those who have firsthand information of what really happened die off entirely?
As a Jew, it would be wrong for me not to mention the issue of Jewish influence. Influence is a very strange thing. People spend so much time and energy to acquire it and then an equal amount of time and energy denying they have it. Jewish influence does exist. If it didn't, why would billions of dollars be spent annually by Jewish lobbying groups? That money isn't to pay for dance lessons for Senators and Congressmen, of course, it's for inflluence. Jews must come to terms with the fact that they are not only a powerful and influential group, but have responsibilities that come with that -- particularly the responsibility not to abuse power, or, more specifically, to avoid abusing people with that power.
It is a testament to the strength of Revisionist research and scholarship, and to Revisionist tenacity, that all the Jewish influence in the world has not erased this movement. Despite the best efforts of our most clever and determined adversaries, Revsionist books are still read, and the Institute for Historical Review continues to function.
But how much progress are we really making in getting our message to the public? Unfortunately, we've been making only tiny pussycat steps. I am not a patient man. Every day I fool myself into thinking that I can be patient -- I can't. I don't want to be a guerilla fighter of the political underground for the rest of my life. The time has come, indeed has never been better, to take Revisionist scholarship to the rest of the world, and if the powers that be try to stop us, we either go around them or if necessary , we go right through them.
Two more years! That's my new motto. In two years' time, Holocaust Revisionism should be in the mainstream, squarely in the public eye.
I am sure that we will eventually succeed in getting out our message. Information can be suppressed for just so long. But that's not enough for me. It's not enough that fellow Revisionists recognize Professor Faurisson's scholarship for the brilliant work it is. I want it to be widely recognized as such, and in his lifetime!
So let's make a concerted effort. Mindful of the recent Jewish NewYear, I hearby make a Jewish New Year's resolution: Two more years! No more sitting in the back of the ideological bus. We're loud, we're proud, and best of all, we're right!
David Cole was raised and educated in Los Angeles, where he lives and works. Because of his support for Holocaust Revisionism, he was assaulted during a meeting at the University of California at Los Angeles on January 22, 1992, by thugs of the Jewish Defense League, who hit him in the face and bloodied his nose. JDL leader Irv Rubin also tried to push him down a flight of stairs. In April 1992 he appeared -- along with Journal editor Mark Weber -- as a guest on the Montel Williams Show, a nationally syndicated television program, to present the Revisionist view of the Holocaust story.
Dramatic New Videotape Presentation Takes Aim at Key Holocaust Claims
Auschwitz Museum Official Admits "Gas Chamber" is Postwar Reconstruction
The patch-work quilt that passes for establishment Holocaust history has grown so tattered that the tailors and seamstresses responsible for its condition are finding it ever more difficult to keep it in good repair. Now, a stunning new video written, produced and narrated by a young Jewish-American Revisionist named David Cole tears yet another gaping hole in the increasingly threadbare legend.
The main value of this production -- which promises to be a Revisionist "best-seller" -- is Cole's interview with a senior Auschwitz State Museum official, who admits on camera that the Auschwitz "gas chamber" shown to hundreds of thousands of tourists annually is a postwar reconstruction, and thus confirms an important point that Revisionists have been making for years.
Cole, a Jew by birth but an atheist by choice, visited Europe in September 1992 to inspect the sites of the wartime German concentration camps of Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdanek, Mauthausen, and Dachau, and to record his findings on videotape. Knowing that Revisionists had sometimes been rebuffed in earlier attempts to gather information at such sites, Cole presented himself as a concerned Jewish researcher determined to collect unassailable proof for the Holocaust extermination story that he could use back home in the United States to refute the claims of Revisionists.
At Auschwitz he got more than he bargained for. Wearing a traditional Jewish yarmulke, which seemed to ensure friendly cooperation by authorities, Cole hired an official Museum guide named Alicia to personally show him around the camp site. She first took Cole through the obligatory tourist inspection of the exhibits, a ritual designed to encourage a properly reverential and uncritical attitude on the part of visitors. Cole remained unimpressed, though, in large part because Alicia was unable to provide satisfactory answers to his questions. "At this point," Cole comments, "it was looking pretty bad for someone looking for objective proofs of the gas chamber, and some of the proofs they present actually work against the concept."
Alicia then took Cole to the high point of the tour, the supposed extermination "gas chamber" in the Auschwitz I main camp. Inside the "gas chamber" itself, Cole's questions became more specific: Were there ever interior walls in this room? Were those pipes and drains ever operational and connected to plumbing facilities? Do the obvious scars on the walls and floor mean that the chamber was once sub-divided into smaller rooms?
Cole's pointed questions soon thoroughly frustrated his guide. As he explains in his video, "Feeling somewhat exasperated at the fact that nothing she could say would shut me up, Alicia went to get a woman who was introduced to me as the supervisor of tour guides for the Auschwitz State Museum."
The supervisor only further confused things. As a perplexed Alicia looked on, the supervisor casually discredited a long-standing "exterminationist" claim about the Auschwitz I "gas chamber." Flatly disagreeing with what Alicia had told Cole ( and doubtless many other visitors), the supervisor explained that the vents in the roof, through which deadly Zyklon B was supposedly introduced, were put in after the war.
With the contradictions adding up, the supervisor then suggested that Cole meet with the Museum's "head scientist," Dr. Piper, to obtain really authoritative answers to his persistent questions. Cole readily accepted the offer, and the next day he met with Piper in his office.
Dr. Franciszek Piper (pronounced "peeper") is archives director and Senior Curator of the Polish government's Auschwitz State Museum. Cole was indeed fortunate to be able to put pointed questions to a man who is internationally recognized as a foremost Holocaust authority, and to record the entire interview on vidotape.
Until just a few years ago Piper fully endorsed the official view that four million people -- most of them Jews -- had been killed at Auschwitz. This was still the figure given in an official Auschwitz State Museum guide book distributed to visitors as late as 1988.9 In July1990, though, Piper (along with Israeli officials) abruptly abandoned the long-standing figure, announcing that the estimated number of Auschwitz victims was actually about 1.1 million.2 As Cole stresses, this drastic 75 percent reduction in the "official" estimate is no small revision. (In a lengthy article on this subject published in 1991, Piper suggested that further revision might be forthcoming.)3
Cole's most important question to Piper is probably this: Is the "gas chamber" in the Auschwitz I main camp in its original state, or is it a reconstruction? Piper's response:
Piper's startling acknowledgment to Cole has special legal significance for David Irving. In May 1992 a Munich court fined the British historian $6,000 for having told a German audience that the room in Aushwitz that has been portrayed to tourists as an extermination gas chamber is a phony reconstruction ("Attrappen"). The judge in the case rejected the defense request to call Piper as a witness to confirm that what Irving had said was, in fact, the truth. (More than that, the German judge refused to permit Irving to present any evidence whatsoever in its own defense. Irving's conviction was upheld by another German court in January 1993.)*
Although Piper maintains that the "gas chamber" was restored to its "original" state as killing facility, this postwar reconstruction is in fact worthless as proof of anything because there is not a single wartime document or photograph to confirm just what the alleged homicidal "gas chamber" looked like.
Elsewhere during his interview, Cole raises another important issue. Why is it, he asks Piper, that whereas there are obvious and abundant blue stains (caused by contact with Zyklon B gas) on the walls of the non-homicidal chambers used to disinfect clothes there are no such stains or traces on the walls of the alleged homicidal "gas chambers"? Piper responds:
This remarkable explanation creates yet another problem. According to the most authoritative Holocaust historians, a single "gassing" operation took at least 20 or 30 minutes. If, as Piper maintains, the alleged gas chambers were operated for only 20 or 30 minutes a day, no more than a single gassing per day could have been carried out. This hardly consistent with an alleged German program of mass extermination.
As "expert" as he is about the Auschwitz gas chamber, it is fitting that Piper still believes that the Germans made soap from the bodies of their war-time victims -- a once widely-accepted story that has since been utterly discredtied.*
In its own way, "David Cole Interviews Dr.Franciszek Piper," may well prove to be as powerful a blow to the Holocaust extermination story, and the formidable lobby that defends it, as was Fred Leuchter's famous 1988 forensic report.
By dramatically pointing up glaring contradictions between what a senior official of the Auschwitz State Museum believes and what the gullible public is told, Cole exposes the bad faith on the part of the Holocaust establishment, and underscores its fear of open discussion and free inquiry.
Cole's interview with Piper gives the lie to the claim that Holocaust historians agree on all the main points of the extermination story, and refutes the insistent assertion that there is no place for Revisionist input into the still continuing debate.
While this is almost certainly the best video presentation of the Revisionist view of the Holocaust story produced so far, its technical quality is unfortunately not ideal. Cole's narration is often obtrusive and less that adroit. For example, the screen occasionally goes black as Cole finishes making this or that point, a poor use of the medium and one that disrupts the pace of the presentation. One also has the impression that the text was hastily scripted and hurriedly edited.
Still, these are relatively minor flaws in an otherwise well-made video. With a good grasp of the subtleties of Holocaust claims and the Revisionist responses, and the ability to discern the critical nub of an issue, Cole deserves praise for this effective and persuasive production. (Happily, he is working on further videos based on visits to other camp sites.)
While this video is ideal for those who have no previous familiarity with the Revisionist perspective on this issue, veteran skeptics of the Holocaust story will appreciate it. Slightly less than an hour in length, it is also suited for broadcast on local public access television stations. (Revisionist activists, please take note!)
This video is part of a still-continuing process of prying truth from those who are reluctant to acknowledge it. Ultimately, the entire Holocaust story will be discredited as Piper and others like him are obliged to respond to further Revisionist questioning.
Reprinted by permission of The Journal of Historical Review, P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, California 92659, United States of America.
Purchase the VHS videotape, "David Cole Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper"