The Case of Walter Lüftl
Contemporary History and the Justice System
Contemporary History and the Justice System
WERNER RADEMACHER
In Germany, in the early spring of February 1992,
many Austrian and German newspapers dailies[1]
reported the resignation of the President of the Federal Austrian Chamber
of Engineers, Walter Lüftl, who stepped down from his prestigious position
after voicing doubts about the Holocaust. Things calmed down fairly
quickly in Germany, while in Austria a fair-sized scandal ensued. The
President of the Federal Chamber of Engineers, it was alleged, had expressed
'Nazi' sentiments, and cries for the public prosecutor were to be heard.
More sensible and aware persons, however, perked
up their ears, since, after all, an engineer and many-thousand-time
forensic expert witness from Austria's high society must surely have
had his reasons if he questioned the technical feasibility of some aspects
of the Holocaust.
Insiders had realized as early as winter 1991 that
something was in the wind, since Lüftl had already published preliminary
hints in the engineering paper Konstruktiv that not all was right
with some historical eyewitness testimony. He did not at that time make
reference to the Holocaust, leaving it up to the reader instead to make
the connection based on the facts and questions raised.[2]
The basic legal principles of a state under the rule
of law demand that subject experts sworn in by the state must accord
greater significance to material evidence than to any eyewitness accounts.
Lüftl, being such an expert and acting in accordance with this logical
stipulation, was more than a little surprised to realize that the generally
accepted qualitative hierarchy of evidence appears to be reversed where
the Holocaust is concerned: historiography of the Holocaust is dominated
by the eyewitness testimony which, he found, frequently does not stand
up to expert criticism, but which is nevertheless accepted unquestioningly
and is given precedence over the material findings of experts.
He was also surprised to find that the courts take
"judicial notice" of the events of the Holocaust as described
by eyewitnesses - i.e., they consider these accounts to be self-evident
and proven facts - not only in order to obviate the need for their formal
proof and thus to spare themselves the bother of bringing evidence for
these events, but that they also make use of this "judicial notice"
in order to deny the opposing side the right to bring evidence to the
contrary. Lüftl considers this practice to be a violation of human rights,
since judicial notice should be taken only of such matters as are also
undisputed by both prosecution and defense - such as water is
wet, fire is hot, and ice is cold. However, as soon as there is any
justified and reasonable dispute of any point, such a point must be
open to discussion.
Does someone hiding behind rulings of judicial notice
not in fact reveal that he does not care to know the truth if it differs
from the traditional version (that which is 'desirable from the perspective
of public education'), and that he wishes to keep this truth, by whatever
means, from those who would prefer to see actual knowledge replace blind
faith? Surely someone who is truly convinced that the official
truth corresponds to his truth has nothing to fear from any material
evidence proffered, which after all he ought to be easily able to refute.
But the forensic reality with respect to the Holocaust is that any and
all dissenting evidence proffered is dismissed from the start as being
"pseudo-scientific". Truth is the sole province of the status
quo. 'Everything has been proved a thousand times over. Arguments to
the contrary have been refuted ad nauseam', goes the hollow standard
objection, which is simply not true. This arbitrarily assigned self-evidence
is the muzzle that is put on truth.
Austria is an oddity which can only be understood
if one knows Austria's history. Since the early Middle Ages, Austria
had been part of the German-dominated Holy Roman Empire, to whose name
the phrase "of German Nation" was later added. Since the end
of the Middle Ages at the latest, Austria and its royal house of the
Habsburgs was the dominant power in Germany. This did not change until
the Silesian Wars, when the Prussian Hohenzollerns under Friedrich the
Great, with much martial luck, wrested Silesia from the Habsburgs. Since
then, Prussia had claimed equal standing with Austria in Germany, which
ever since the late Middle Ages had consisted of hundreds of small kingdoms
and principalities. It was not until 1806, when the Holy Roman Empire
of the German Nation collapsed under Napoleon's onslaught, that Austria
gave up its leading role in Germany, a role which was assumed by Prussia
60 years later when Prussia again defeated Austria in the Austro-Prussian
War.[3] As early as
1848, when the German people urged the princes on to a political unification
of the German states, it was clear that due to their involvement in
the Balkans the Habsburgs could not participate in the first German
unification of 1871, which was being envisaged even then - although
the inhabitants of Austria wanted this unification no less than all
the other Germans, regardless whether they lived in Bohemia, Moravia,
Prussia, Bavaria, Swabia, Saxony, or wherever. The unification of 1871
encompassed only the northern German states, which became the so-called
German Reich. However, the relations with Austria-Hungary were very
close, and neither side ever gave up hoping or striving for an eventual
reunification of both empires into one "whole Germany". This
did not become possible until the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed
after World War One, but at that time the western Allies forcibly prevented
the unification of Austria with the rest of the German empire, even
though the unification had already been formally agreed upon. Both sides
continued to hope that sooner or later the Allies would comply with
the Austrian Germans' right to self-determination, and so, unofficial
negotiations continued after 1918 to prepare for Austria's unification
with the rest of Germany, by co-ordinating laws and decrees. As we know,
actual unification did not come about until 1938, when it finally became
fact as a result to Adolf Hitler's no-nonsense approach; and it is important
to note that even though the circumstances were perhaps less than ideal,
this unification did take place with the overwhelming agreement of the
Austrian Germans. Even after World War Two the Austrian Germans did
not want to give up their affiliation with "whole Germany", yet
again the victorious Allies denied them this option.
This time, however, the Allies went all the way.
They established the so-called Prohibition Order as prerequisite
for ending their military occupation of Austria. This Order provides
for severe penalties for any activities serving National Socialist interests,
including severe punishment for anyone attempting to undermine Austria's
independence, for example by preparing for or carrying out its reunification
with Germany. At the same time, a totalitarian re-education program
similar to that imposed on Germany was also instituted in Austria; one
of its aims was to strip the Austrians of their German identity and
to define them as a separate people. By now this endeavor has largely
succeeded.
The so-called Prohibition Order - a separate,
independent criminal law existing parallel to the Austrian Criminal
Code - is a relic from occupation times which still has the power to
impose harsh penalties for certain poorly-defined 'thought crimes' labelled
as being 'Nazi' in nature. Its hazy definition, as well as the randomness
with which it criminalizes certain beliefs and convictions, puts this
law outside the norms of human rights. Beyond that, it also violates
fundamental principles of international law, such as the right of self-determination.
What is more, the Prohibition Order even violates the Austrian
Constitution, which is in compliance with internationally accepted human
rights and international laws. But due to the special lie that Austria
lives - namely, to consider itself "Hitler's first victim", but
now a "liberated nation" - it is impossible for Austria to dispense
with this law if it does not wish to jeopardize its own statehood. And
since the international community has no wish to see the cooperation
between Austria and Germany grow closer, these shortcomings are generously
ignored.
In the late 1980s the Holocaust Revisionists became
more active in Austria as well. At that time the Austrian Criminal Code
did not contain any explicit means for punishing such dissidents. Falling
back on the so-called Prohibition Order, which provides for severe
punishment for any revival of National Socialist activity, turned out
to be problematic, however, for the government. Admittedly, judges did
not hesitate to impute National Socialist convictions to the accused,
and to assume that these intended their revisionist theories to make
National Socialist ideology socially acceptable again, in order to restore
it to influence and power at some future date. However, the Prohibition
Order in force at the time provided for a minimum sentence of five
and a maximum sentence of twenty years in prison for offenses of this
kind, and most judges were hesitant to pass such harsh sentences for
mere 'thought crimes', so that - in the opinion of the media and of
the politicians - the bottom line in all too many cases was an acquittal.
A rectification of the matter was demanded by several pressure groups.
The reader will no doubt wonder how any conflict
with this law could be possible for a person 'like you and me', a person
who has lived a decent, industrious life, has no prior convictions -
not even a traffic violation -, who has devoted considerable efforts
to working on a volunteer basis for the public good. It would take an
entire page just to list all the functions and offices W. Lüftl has
held and who was ultimately elected to serve in a politically unaffiliated
and independent capacity as President of the representative body of
his profession - the Federal Austrian Chamber of Engineers. How can
it be possible for such a man to come into conflict with the law previously
set out and be branded as dangerous criminal subject to twenty
years imprisonment?
What follows in this article will detail the case
of this academically accredited engineer, Walter Lüftl.
For Lüftl, it all began with two press releases in
the Viennese daily paper Die Presse on March 23 and 29, 1991.
Both articles reported about the debates by the SPÖ [Austrian Social
Democratic Party] and the ÖVP [Austrian People's Party] regarding the
introduction of a new special definition of a crime, namely "incitement",
as §283a of the Austrian Criminal Code. This suggested paragraph provides
for a term up to one year in prison for anyone "who denies the fact
that millions of human beings, Jews in particular, were killed in concentration
camps of the National Socialist regime as part of a program of planned
genocide."[4]
This prompted Lüftl to write two letters, one to
the newspaper Die Presse and one to Dr. Michael Graff, the Chairman
of the Justice Committee of the Austrian National Council. Their contents
in brief: all that the new law will do is promote denunciation. Following
a visit to the concentration camp Dachau in 1990, Lüftl had found that
the tourist attraction exhibited there as 'gas chamber' not only "had
not been used", as the tour guide briefly summed up the truth, but
was in fact a fake that had been set up by a group of laypersons. Lüftl
asked whether this fact, which could be easily proved, would in future
brand anyone mentioning it as suggesting perhaps a 'Dachau Lie'?
Dr. Graff did not respond; the Editor-in-Chief of
the Presse, Dr. Thomas Chorherr, informed Lüftl on April 5, 1991
that unfortunately his letter could not be published, as it might be
misunderstood by the public. On April 10, 1991, Lüftl replied to this
with the following letter:
"Vienna, April 10,1991
Your Ref.: Dr. Ch/P Re.: Your letter of April
5, 1991
Dear Dr. Chorherr, Editor-in-Chief:
Thank you for your response; it is rather
unusual for an editor-in-chief to reply to the writer of a letter
to the editor. It shows that my letter was received with a thoughtful
and open mind on your part. I agree that my letter might be misunderstood,
particularly when someone wants to misunderstand it; there is also
the potential danger of approval from the wrong parties.
For this reason I am sending you a memo authored
by me and documented with publicly available sources. This memo
is not intended in defense of anyone, it is merely intended to raise
doubts in the sense of: I cannot tell whether it was this way because
I wasn't there, but if it wasn't necessarily this way then one ought
to be allowed to talk about it.
Even a judge and jury may not convict a defendant
if they still have doubts.
I ask you to please treat this memo as confidential.
It is only for your personal information.
If it should raise doubts in your mind as
well, then Die Presse must nevertheless take a stand AGAINST §283a;
not, however, due to the cause per se (again, I agree with you regarding
the potential for misunderstandings), but due rather to the hazard
posed to our state under the rule of law. A handful of neo-Nazis
are not worth jeopardizing the maxims of a state under the rule
of law.
Very sincerely yours,
[signed] Walter Lüftl"
The memo mentioned in this letter was a study,
Die neue Inquisition, which Lüftl had by then written on the basis
of information from his own library and of otherwise easily accessible
sources.
Lüftl had decided to inform some Deputies to the
National Assembly as well as some other 'opinion leaders' of the doubts
he, as an impartial expert, was entertaining. Naively enough, he hoped
that if such doubts were expressed by an expert, not by a 'neo-Nazi',
they would prompt second thoughts in the persons addressed. Chorherr's
negative attitude had baffled him somewhat, since he recalled that Chorherr
had voiced rather vehement objections in the Presse when the
movie Holocaust had been broadcast on Austrian television. What
had happened since then to turn this Saint Paul back into a Saul?
In his memo Die neue Inquisition, Lüftl, drawing
on his subject knowledge of that time, severely criticized a number
of core topics of the historiography of the Holocaust,[5]
denounced the Austrian legislators' attempt to prevent the search for
truth ex lege (by legal means) as being state-proscribed terrorism
of conviction, and asked whether the Minister of Justice and the Parliament
intended that in the future historians and technical-scientific experts,
or even perfectly average persons who merely expressed their doubts,
would be dragged into court and convicted without any chance to defend
themselves. As the case of Lüftl shows, both the Minister of Justice
as well as the Parliament did indeed intend this!
Since Dr. Graff had not responded to Lüftl's letter
of March 23, 1991, Lüftl wrote him again on May 9, 1991, after he had
received a visit from the former Club Representative [party whip] of
the ÖVP, to whom he had entrusted some documents with the request to
pass them on to Dr. Graff. Lüftl drew Graff's attention to the results
of his researches to date: irreconcilable inconsistencies and well-founded
doubts. 'Contemporary history' and technology simply could not be made
to agree. This time Dr. Graff responded, with a letter dated May 13,
1991:
"Thank you for your letter regarding the planned
§283a. The 'Leuchter Report' which you sent me is already known
to me. I must say, however, that the personal recollections of so
many witnesses who described the atrocities of Auschwitz impress
me more than the expositions of the 'Leuchter Report'. I do,
however, fully agree with you on the point that only science, not
a trial judge, can determine what is truth and what is falsehood.
"
On May 19, 1991, Lüftl responded to this letter and
pointed out, with examples, that the eyewitness testimony and confessions
of alleged perpetrators which he had examined were factually incorrect,
and informed Dr. Graff of the contents of a letter he (Lüftl) had sent
to Professor Jagschitz on May 10, 1991.
The District Criminal Court of Vienna had summoned
Dr. Gerhard Jagschitz, Professor for contemporary history in Vienna,
as expert witness in the trial of the Austrian Holocaust Revisionist
Gerd Honsik (26b Vr 14.186/86); in a January 10, 1991 letter to the
District Court, Jagschitz had mentioned fundamental doubts about
matters of judicial notice.
Lüftl informed Professor Jagschitz of his own well-founded
doubts and urged him to consult the expertise of engineers in order
to resolve the questions at issue: had there really been mass executions
by means of poison gas, and were there really gas chambers in Auschwitz?
Lüftl further wrote to Professor Jagschitz on August 12, October 5,
October 21, 1991 and February 20, 1992, pointing out many facts (forgeries
and false testimony), providing references to relevant literature, and
finally asking him the decisive question:
"How do you as contemporary historian expect
to judge whether a witness is in a position to know something, if
you do not consider the material evidence offered by technical experts
(Wittgenstein, On Certainty, Clause 441)? All you can do is to quote
other sources, without being able to really check the facts! One
example: how do you deal with the testimony of a 'witness of atrocities'
who claims that '...flames several metres high shot out of the chimneys...'?
I know the witness is lying, and I can prove it by means of my expert
knowledge, and by calculations and experimentation if need be. But
how can you, on the other hand, '...prove that the witness was in
a position to know...'? "
Lüftl therefore urged Professor Jagschitz to recommend
to the Court that engineering experts should be consulted. Professor
Jagschitz responded for the sake of politeness, but evaded the issue.
Germar Rudolf also generously offered Professor Jagschitz his services.
The following critique of the Jagschitz Report shows the consequences
of the Professor's refusal to consider these recommendations.
By this time, Lüftl had written the outline for parts
of Holocaust (Belief and Facts) and was working on corrections
and supplements; since his work had meanwhile become known, the German
lawyer Hajo Herrmann of Düsseldorf commissioned him on May 24,1991 to
draw up a report "about the alleged gassing of human beings during
the war in the concentration camps of Auschwitz 1 and 2, based on on-site
investigation". An active exchange of letters developed between
Lüftl and the lawyer, who wrote the former on June 7, 1991 that the
documents he had received showed him a "chemical and medical aspect"
and that he had therefore written to Germar Rudolf for more information.
This was the starting point for the report of academically accredited
chemist Germar Rudolf; the reader will find a summary of this report
further on in the present volume. For reasons of time it was not possible
for Lüftl to go to Auschwitz for on-site investigation, and so his correspondence
with attorney Herrmann ended with a letter of July 16, 1991, without
Lüftl's having completed a report. He merely handed in the results he
had worked out by then as well as the relevant documents, and answered
a number of questions. He amended and supplemented his work Holocaust
on the basis of the information he had been given by the experts consulted,
and concluded his work in August 1991.
Prior to this time Lüftl had sent copies of his work
- always the currently up-to-date version - to a number of politicians,
including the Minister of Justice, a Club representative, several Deputies
to the National Assembly, a Head of Provincial Government, etc., and
in February 1992 to a number of Senate Chairmen of the Supreme Court.
One of these gentlemen, whose name is here withheld out of gratitude,
sent him the following remarkable reply:
"Walter Lüftl, Accredited Engineer March 3,
1992
Head of Planning and Building Control, h.c.
President of the Federal Chamber of Engineers
Dear Mr. President,
I read your work with great interest. According
to press reports the National Assembly has decided to pass the enclosed
amendment into law.
As far as I am concerned, a law that criminalizes
the scientific debate about issues of contemporary history is unconstitutional,
and irreconcilable with the basic principles of a state under the
rule of law.
The new criminal law §3h operates largely
with vague legal concepts, but I personally consider it untenable
to try to interpret this paragraph to mean that (public) scientific
works endeavoring to question or even to refute the accounts given
by academics or institutions of certain historical events represent
a violation of the law.
The scientific endeavor to refute, by technical
arguments, the opinion generally held of certain killing methods
or the numbers of victims does not in my opinion fall within the
province of this law at all, unless the National Socialist genocide
or other National Socialist crimes are thereby denied or grossly
trivialized. The other potential ways of violating the law do not
enter into the picture at all in the case at hand.
Of course I cannot give an authoritative interpretation
or a prediction of the law's interpretation by the Supreme Court.
Sincerely, [...]"
The study Holocaust (Belief and Facts) was
published in English in volume 12, issue 4 (winter 1992/1993) of the
Journal of Historical Review. It should be briefly mentioned
that in it Lüftl stated the motives that had prompted his work, and
further, that he believed that a crime begins with the very first person
wrongly killed and that it was not the issue to try to argue for a reduction
of the number of victims, but rather that the numerous contradictions
and the factually incorrect, even deliberately false claims he had pointed
out needed to be critically appraised and analyzed by technical experts.
In any case, the doubts entertained by Revisionists were not unfounded,
he said, and much more readily reconciled with technological realities
than the claims made by orthodox Holocaust writers to date. If, contrary
to the expectations of the Revisionists, scientific investigations of
the Holocaust - notably by means of material evidence - were to establish
the Holocaust as a fact, then the Revisionists, too, would have to accept
this. To Lüftl, the questionable aspect of the Holocaust was particularly
the alleged mass gassings; the other forms of killing are not mentioned
at all by Lüftl due to his lack of familiarity with these topics.
In February 1992 the Austrian National Assembly had
passed the amendment into law.[6]
The revised paragraph 3g) and the new paragraph 3h) of the Austrian
Special Criminal Code (Verbotsgesetz), which is analogous to
the contents of the planned §283a Criminal Code, now read as follows:
"g) Anyone engaging in activities reflecting
National Socialist sentiments in any way other than set out in §§3a
to 3f - and providing that there is no other law providing for a
more severe sentence - shall be punished by a term of imprisonment
ranging from one to ten years, and in cases of particular menace
posed by the perpetrator or by his actions, by up to 20 years' imprisonment.
h) §3g also applies to anyone who, whether
through publication, broadcasting, any other media, or other manner
suited to public dissemination, denies, grossly trivializes, applauds
or seeks to justify the National Socialist genocide or other National
Socialist crimes against humanity."
Thus, Lüftl considered his work on this problem to
be finished. He had no wish to be a tilter at windmills.
Only a few days later an article appeared in issue
11/92 of the Wochenpresse / Wirtschaftswoche titled "The Nazi
Blabber of Walter Lüftl " ["Die Nazisprüche des Walter Lüftl
"], written by a journalist named Reichmann in the typically manipulative
style so characteristic of today's 'investigative journalism'. Reichmann
took factually undeniably true statements such as "bodies are not
fuel; their incineration requires a great input of energy, and a long
time", out of their proper context and denounced them as "Nazi
blabber". He ignored entirely the motives, which had prompted Lüftl's
work.
The outrage was not long in coming. "Architecture
Chief denies Auschwitz" was the style of one of the more harmless
headlines. No researches were initiated, to the contrary. At best there
were two or three telephone inquiries whose subsequent print editions
usually claimed exactly the opposite of what Lüftl had explained.
The scandal was complete.
The Professional Engineering Associations as well
were abuzz with outrage both real (based on ignorance) and induced.
Especially the Association of Social Democratic Academics [Bund Sozialdemokratischer
Akademiker, BSA]. Masonic institutions outdid themselves in screaming
for Lüftl's resignation as President of the Austrian Chamber of Engineers.
Being President, Lüftl really could neither be dismissed nor voted out
of office, but he did not see the point in trying to continue working
with artificially outraged representatives of the civil engineering
profession. He had assumed that engineers, of all people, would investigate
first and judge later. The President of the Vienna Chamber of Engineers,
a Socialist, tried to make stepping down a tempting option for Lüftl
by pointing out that the BSA would not pursue legal proceedings against
him. What the word of this Social-Democrat is worth was demonstrated
by the fact that even with all the induced outrage and boat-rocking
there were only two reports to the police: that of Dr. Neugebauer, the
professional denouncer of the Documentation Center of the Austrian Resistance
[Dokumentationszentrum des österreichischen Widerstandes], and
that of the BSA.
Since the office of President of the Federal Chamber
of Engineers was no sinecure, but required great sacrifice of time and
money from anyone who was truly committed to this function, and to spare
his family further grief, Lüftl resigned on March 12,1992.
It was not long before he received a summons from
the District Criminal Court. A preliminary inquiry had been instituted
against him on the basis of the two aforementioned denunciations. But
the examining magistrate did not care to ascertain the truth; his sole
concern was to determine how excerpts of Lüftl's work had found their
way into 'radical right-wing publications'. No notice was taken of Lüftl's
comment that surely the important point was the correctness of his work
and not its place of publication, which might have been the Atlanta
Church News for all he cared. No, the issue was the 'National Socialist
sentiments' that clearly come up whenever anyone records undesirable
truths (i.e., such as are directed against matters of judicial notice).
There is obviously a sort of 'relative truth' that depends on the medium
in which it appears. It is surprising that no one went so far as to
speculate that Lüftl himself just might have instigated Herrn Reichmann
of the Wochenzeitung to carefully select tendentious quotations
from his work Holocaust and to publish these in his article "Nazi
Blabber", namely as clandestine "glorification of the National
Socialist regime"...
Neither the prosecuting attorney nor the examining
magistrate could come up with even so much as one sentence, or part
of a sentence, that would show Lüftl to have grossly trivialized, approved
or justified National Socialist crimes, much less genocide.
On January 15, 1993, Lüftl was informed that on the
request of the Public Prosecutor's Office the preliminary inquiry, which
evidently had not yielded any incriminating findings, had been 'upgraded'
to preliminary investigation, a more serious proceeding.
A motion by Lüftl's defense attorney to abandon the
proceedings was rejected on June 28, 1993, on the remarkable grounds
"[...] that it is clear from the formulation
of the work that it is fundamentally suited, when used in a palliative
or exculpatory manner, to facilitate the violation of §3g VG
[...]."
In plain English this means that to state the fact
that hydrocyanic acid boils at 78.3oF represents National
Socialist revivalism if a 'radical right-winger' uses this fact to raise
the question of how it could then have been possible to 'gas' people
with Zyklon B in only a few minutes in unheated basements. What is more,
even to suggest that someone should answer this question for himself
by referring to a chemistry text (approved by the Ministry of Education)
would be a clear case of "National Socialist revivalism". But
since Lüftl was no longer accused of 'denial', his defense counsel drew
the crystal-clear conclusion in his subsequent objection
"[...] that the findings [of his work]
are obviously correct. In this respect we agree with the Court
[...]."
What we have here is a law clearly in violation of
human rights. Lüftl wrote to a good number of Deputies to the National
Assembly and asked them whether at the time they had voted this bill
into law they had desired the sort of thing that was happening to him.
A single deputy wrote back:
"Your letter disturbs me. I wanted no such
thing."
7. Further Research
Lüftl now saw himself forced to continue working
on his study Holocaust, even if only for the sake of backing
up his defense, as well as to fulfil the requirements of the Stenographische
Protokolle of the Austrian National Assembly, which permit the "strictly
serious scientific research into specific topics". Through the intensive
study of source literature and through exchange of information with
qualified experts, his knowledge grew exponentially, since he could
now devote to these pursuits the time he had previously spent on volunteer
service to the Engineering Chamber. On those points where he had had
only 'educated guesses' or 'personal convictions' to draw upon while
writing Holocaust, he could now supplement his knowledge to the
point of virtual certainty. Today Lüftl feels confident that he can
prove each and every claim advanced in Holocaust with technical
certitude, replicable with all technical evidence and verifiable results.
A case in point is his critique of the Jagschitz Report that
had been submitted in the Honsik Trial, discussed in the following
(Section 8).
It is natural that Lüftl took the greatest interest
in the Honsik Trial which was held before the District Criminal
Court of Vienna from late April to early May 1992. He was particularly
interested in a report which, contrary to all judicial custom, had not
been presented in writing prior to the main hearing. In other words,
had only been introduced in the course of the main hearing. This was
the Jagschitz Report, by the expert witness Dr. Gerhard Jagschitz who,
as 'contemporary historian', fought a losing battle from the start where
the issue of 'mass extermination with poison gas' was concerned.
Even a child could glean from news media coverage
that this was no expert report, but rather an accounting to the Court
of what the expert had read and what he personally believed. According
to his own claims made under oath - so we must believe him, until and
unless he is proven false - the expert witness had read 5,000 to 7,000
statements of witnesses and found some two-thirds to be false. However,
the expert fails to state his criteria for this examination, which presumably
took no more than ten minutes per witness statement. Further, only
the Court should be in a position to evaluate testimony, and only
such testimony as was made before a Court, since after all the accused
and his defense counsel must be able to question each witness and possibly
to refute this testimony.
But only one single eyewitness statement was introduced
in detail into the trial proceedings. This was the documented testimony
of "Dr." Horst Fischer who, however, according to the Dienstaltersliste
der Waffen-SS, was not a physician at all at the time in question,
and hence cannot have performed the functions he testified he performed
in Auschwitz.[7] His
statement is rife with absurdities, which the expert Dr. Jagschitz failed
to recognize as such - and in fact he could not possibly have recognized
them, due to his lack of qualifications on the subject. Did he deem
Dr. Fischer's statement to be a "key statement"? Or did he simply
fail to find a more incriminating one, one he deemed 'more credible'?
More of that later.
It is self-evident, as well as confirmed by expert
observers of the trial, that it was only the massive intervention of
the Presiding Judge that saved the expert witness from greater embarrassment
during cross-examination by the defense attorney. The fact that in complicated
issues it is necessary to provide clarifying commentary before asking
one's question in order to ensure that matters are clear to everyone
concerned and that there is no more or less deliberate talk at cross-purposes
makes it possible for the Presiding Judge to cut short any preliminary
statements that might prove uncomfortable for the expert witness, merely
by saying, "Ask your question, please!" But anyone who truly
wishes to ascertain the truth will not hesitate to permit even long-winded
introductions in such important matters, since these serve the purpose
of determining what is the truth. Within the framework of current criminal
procedure, however, it is clearly not good form in such cases to let
the defense 'have its say' and listen patiently. We wonder why?
Just consider how the defense attorney would have
driven the expert witness into a corner if the report had been made
available before the main hearing and if subject experts could
have critically examined the statements of the report, which were downright
amateurish on some technical points in question. But this was not possible
until afterwards, when the transcript of the hearing was available.
Prof. Jagschitz did repeatedly stress that he was
no engineer - which, since it had already been established as fact by
the Court, really needed no further avowal. Still, he constantly presumed
to interpret such technical documents as he considered to be genuine.
However, a genuine document need not be correct. A 'contemporary historian'
is not in a position to judge. Further, an opportunity to examine the
expense account of the expert witness revealed that not only had the
Court 'commissioned a reading', but that Jagschitz as well, due to inadequate
facility in the Polish language, had commissioned third parties to 'read
for him' and had then presented their findings as his own conclusions.
In Austria court experts must swear an oath that what they present
to the Court are their observations in a true and complete manner.
It is quite incomprehensible how Jagschitz could arrive at any 'true
and complete' findings at all without relying on translations by Austrian
court translators. These translations, however, should have been available
to the accused and his defense counsel at an appropriate time, as well
as the complete overall findings, so as to permit thorough preparations
on the part of the defense. But that was not considered to be important.
On the contrary, when the accused made the thoroughly sensible suggestion
(which would no doubt have been acted on in any other trial) that one
should at least call in experts from the Viennese crematorium to refute
the false and incorrect document regarding the incineration capacity
of the crematoria of Auschwitz, he was cut off. Was that fair?
Nevertheless, Jagschitz did do away with certain
'stereotypes' such as 'soap from Jewish bodies' and 'four million gassed
in Auschwitz'. Despite a great many shortcomings, his report is a step
in the direction of the manifestation of 'true' truth. Nothing is more
foolish than to dispute actual facts. But if these facts, which are
terrible enough in themselves, are exaggerated, there is a danger that
this exaggeration will result in nothing being believed any more
in the future.
Lüftl examined Professor Jagschitz's report only
through 'spot checks'. The following sets out his findings. These few
examples hint at how the defense might have acted to the benefit of
the accused, had it had refutations by engineers at its disposal.
Even though Professor Jagschitz was alerted to the
fact that in light of the complexity of the issue relating to 'mass
exterminations with poison gas' it would be useful and advisable to
obtain prior engineering and scientific reports on this subject, he
- in his capacity as expert on contemporary history summoned by the
Court for the Honsik Trial - neglected to have the technical questions
settled by engineering experts at the outset.
In drawing up his report, he relied on witness testimony
given in other trials, on claims made by other persons, and on documents
which he apparently deemed genuine and true. The following expositions,
co-authored by Lüftl, are intended to show in a replicable manner that
neglecting to consult engineering experts resulted in false conclusions
that could have been avoided.
9.1. Mortuary as Gas Chamber
On April 30, 1992 (page 471 of the court transcript),
expert Jagschitz explained that in a letter dated March 6, 1943 the
Chief of the Central Construction Management / Waffen-SS, a man by the
name of Bischoff, had ordered preheating facilities for mortuary I,
with ventilation and aeration from crematoria II and III in the concentration
camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau. The court expert now takes this order as
proof that mortuary I was in fact a gas chamber,
- since the heating facility was needed "because Zyklon B works properly only at temperatures between 75 and 79oF" (what vast ignorance in engineering, physical and chemical respects is revealed by even these few words!), and
- no heating facility would have been needed for a mortuary, since such a room would need to be cool.
Disregarding the question of whether the document
is even genuine[8] (the
process of planning and construction described leaves room for considerable
doubt), it must be stated first of all that the court expert merely
stated precisely the same thing here as Jean-Claude Pressac.[9]
He came to the same false conclusion. However, what Pressac points out
but Jagschitz seems not to know is the fact that the preheating installation
for crematorium II was dropped from these facilities even prior to its
first use due to a faulty construction of the aeration and ventilation
device. The same installation was cancelled for crematorium III from
the start.[10] Did
Jagschitz skip over that part in his reading? Or is he not that familiar
with Pressac's work after all? Consequently, how can he draw up a report
about 'mass extermination with poison gas at Auschwitz' without being
aware of Pressac's voluminous findings?
Furthermore, there may very well have been a technical
need to install heating facilities in a mortuary, for two reasons:
- For reasons of hygiene it was no doubt necessary to have water pipes connected to the mortuary, for cleaning purposes.[11] If one wants to avoid having to routinely drain all facilities manually in winter when there is danger of frost, then one must surely keep the room temperature above 32oF, and
- Neufert's Bauentwurfslehre[12] clearly states that a mortuary should be kept at a temperature between 35.5 and 53.5oF, since freezing bodies burst open and may freeze to whatever they are lying on (as well as to each other, if they are stacked). On May 24, 1945, eyewitness Henryk Tauber stated with respect to crematorium I:[13]
"All the bodies were frozen and we had
to separate them from each other with axes."
Therefore, planning for "mortuary heating facilities"
is by no means proof that said mortuary was used as homicidal 'gas chamber'.
At any rate, no engineering expert would have dreamed of incompletely
quoting Jean-Claude Pressac, without stating his source, and without
critical, replicable technical arguments. And further to present these
incomplete quotation as the result of his own replicable thought process,
as his own 'expert report'. And what is more, the cancellation of the
order in question renders this 'proof' for the existence of 'gas chambers'
per se quite irrelevant.
9.2. Capacity of the Crematoria
Due to the characteristic nature of court expert
Jagschitz's presentation (without adequate technical verification, but
proportionately all the more adamant!), the document pertaining to the
capacity of the crematoria[14]
will be briefly discussed.
The document[15]
of June 23, 1943 states the five crematoria of Auschwitz Stammlager
and Birkenau were able to process 4,756 corpses in 24 hours.
The figure regarding total capacity was purely hypothetical.
The first point here is that the SS Central Construction
Management includes in its statement crematorium I of Auschwitz Stammlager,
even though it was to be reconstructed into an air-raid shelter a few
weeks later. Crematorium II frequently had to be taken out of service
because of damage to its chimney and was fully serviceable only from
May to July 1944(!). Crematorium III was never used to full capacity,
and crematorium IV suffered from constant damage to its ovens and chimney
(taken out of service in May 1943, repairs attempted in vain in April
1944) and was shut down for good after the inmates' revolt of October
7, 1944. In crematoria V as well, ovens and chimneys frequently burned
out. The document in question is well-known and has already been declared
to be absurd several times (Stäglich, Butz, Walendy and others).[16]
The figures it cites are sheer fantasy, as the following will show.
Aside from the claim that the capacity of the individual retorts in
crematoria II through V allegedly was 96 persons per day,[17]
the capacity of crematorium I would have been only half as great - even
though the supplier (Topf & Söhne) clearly manufactured the ovens based
on the same patent.
But if one compares this document with the memo of
March 12, 1943[18]
regarding the consumption of coke fuel recorded there, then one finds
something truly remarkable. In a non-stop 24-hour operation the 4,416
bodies (4,756 - 340 for crematorium I = crematorium II through V) could
allegedly be cremated with 34,574 lbs. of coke fuel, i.e., 7.8 lbs.
per body. This is utterly incredible, since normally it takes 88 to
110 lbs. per body. Anyone who does not believe this is free to go to
the crematorium of any larger city and ask the older staff members there,
who remember the 'coal-fired age'.[19]
The maximum delivery of coke fuel in March 1943 amounted
to 144.5 metric tons,[20]
this alleged peak capacity was possible for only nine days in March
1943 - but at that time crematoria II through V were not yet ready for
full operation! At other times, average consumption was about 71 metric
tons per month; in other words, the crematoria could have been used
at peak capacity for only 4.5 days per month. Even if the fabulous capacity
of 4,416 persons per day were fact, no more than a maximum 20,000 bodies
could have been cremated per 'average month' in 1943. If one takes into
consideration a realistic fuel consumption rate, which may be conservatively
estimated at 55 to 66 pounds (greater than the alleged by a factor of
7 to 8!), then the cremation capacity of the crematoria cannot have
exceeded an average of 2,500 to 3,000 bodies per month. This means that
the method by which the victims of the mass gassings were disposed of
is yet to be determined. In any case, the crematoria were not up to
such a task. Possibilities that have been suggested include burning
the bodies in pits and on pyres, for instance with methanol (boiling
point 148oF!), or with wood: quantities of 330 to 440 lbs
per body would be required; and the question whether such an operation
would even be possible at all becomes clear from the testimony of crematoria
expert Lagacé, see Section 9.4.
For the double-/triple-/eightfold retorts respectively,
the consumption of coke fuel (based on a calculation of the energy balance)
per body, in continuous operation (i.e., in the theoretical ideal case),
for 'normal bodies', would amount to 50.1/33.7/24.9 lbs, and for extremely
emaciated bodies, to 67.7/45.0/33.7 lbs, which means an approximate
average of 44.1 lbs.[21]
One must add to this approximately 20% for periods of firing-up and
discontinuity. In other words, between April and October 1943 (consumption
approx. 497 metric tons[18]),
497,000/24 = 20,000 to 21,000 bodies could be cremated. This means an
average of barely 3,000 cremations per month, or roughly 100 per day.
Therefore, if one considers the actual consumption of fuel, the crematoria
were incapable of cremating thousands of bodies per day. Furthermore,
after a maximum of 3,000 cremations the retort is 'burned out', that
is, the wall and ceiling tile must be completely replaced, which, as
can also be proved, was never done for any of the retorts.[21]
9.3. No Smoke from the Crematoria Chimneys
Regarding the absence of smoke from the crematoria
chimneys in Auschwitz-Birkenau on the USAF aerial reconnaissance photos,[22]
court expert Jagschitz suggested that the Americans
"probably used a filter [...] its purpose
was to screen out thin clouds [...]"[23]
However, even if such a filter had successfully "screened
out" smoke trails, expert Jagschitz should know that their shadows
would still have been visible on the ground, and thus on the photos,
as clearly and precisely as the shadows of the stacks are visible. Aside
from this fact, the filters, for whose use Jagschitz cannot cite any
source or evidence, clearly were not used, since the bombs dropped
by the Allies caused fires on the ground, and thus smoke trails; and
these smoke trails are clearly visible on other photos.[24]
9.4. The "Fabulous" Crematorium Expert
Questioned by defense attorney Dr. Herbert Schaller,
court expert Jagschitz stated that he did not understand how some (later
"some fabulous") crematorium expert could say that there had
only been hundreds (of cremations), ... [thousands] are just physically
unrealistic... unimaginable...[25]
By studying the sworn testimony of the "fabulous" crematorium
expert (a Canadian citizen before a Canadian court on April 5 and 6,
1988, in the second 'Zündel Trial'!), expert witness Jagschitz could
easily have discovered technical reality.
The "fabulous crematorium expert" is Ivan
Lagacé, Manager of the Bow Valley Crematorium in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
The Bow Valley Crematorium is the hottest and therefore the fastest
crematory in operation in North America. By virtue of its natural gas
burner a cremation can be completed in only 90 minutes.
Lagacé had completed the two-and-a half-year Funeral
Services program at Humber College in Ontario and in 1979 obtained his
diploma and Ontario license. In 1983 he obtained his Alberta license.
He has cremated more than 1,000 bodies. In clear testimony Lagacé meticulously
explained the problems of cremation and the hazards involved. He showed,
in replicable and verifiable manner, that the (coal-stoked!) crematoria
of Birkenau were less efficient than crematoria using natural-gas burners
(where power can be simply shut off). He was also familiar with the
plans for the Birkenau crematoria and compared them to the similar facilities
in Bow Valley.
Lagacé also discussed in detail the practice of open-air
burning and the issue of how to deal with typhus-infected corpses. Regarding
open-air burning, he testified that even with the use of gasoline, in
90% of all cases it would be only the skin that charred, perhaps the
limbs would also be burnt, but the torso was very difficult to cremate.
That was the "fabulous" crematorium expert,
whose testimony is doubtless of much greater value than a patently
false document. A physically impossible scenario does not become
true even if it is alleged in a 'genuine' document, or one considered
to be 'genuine' by court expert Jagschitz.
Even Raul Hilberg knows that crematorium I was operational
only until spring 1943.[26]
So why the SS would still detail its capacity on June 23, 1943 in this
case is "unimaginable" for this author.
9.5. The Powerful Ventilators
On May 4, 1992, court expert Jagschitz discussed
the "considerably large ventilators" ("I found that clearly
in Moscow", page 19 of court transcript; "these enormous ventilators
that vent air out of the mortuaries", "rather there were considerably
large ventilators at least in crematoria II and III", page 34 of
court transcript).
These ventilators had engines of 3.5 hp. Given a
necessary vacuum capacity of 6 inches water-column and considering the
length of the conduit cross-sections, conduit course (numerous right-angle
diversions), interior surfaces of the conduit (undressed brick, wood)
and the nature of the vent openings (coarsely punched metal), this suffices
for a maximum of ten exchanges of air in the 'gas chamber' per hour.
Considering the ventilation time of 30 minutes, this
means that the concentration of hydrocyanic acid may then have dropped
to a minimum of approximately 1/100 of the initial
concentration. But since the method of alleged introduction of the Zyklon
B from above means that the outgassing of hydrocyanic acid cannot be
simply 'shut off', as it were (that works only in the American gas chambers
using hydrogen cyanide generators), the outgassing would continue and
at a greater rate than before, since the less than atmospheric pressure
created in ventilation (lowering of the boiling-point) promotes outgassing.
This means that until almost right before the end of the outgassing
process - which can take from a few to many hours, depending on the
ambient temperature and humidity - the ventilators with their capacity
of only 3.5 hp would have had to perform a Sisyphean task without succeeding
in lowering the concentration below the lethal level.
The question how the ventilators really worked, given
a chamber crowded to bursting with dead bodies and given the air intake
and exhaust configuration, is a matter that still needs to be settled
by ventilation experts, for the used air was exhausted from below even
though heating and increased moisture content caused by the presence
of the victims would have made it lighter than the incoming fresh air.
Another problem is the fact that the air intake and exhaust openings
are located too close to each other - 6.5 feet apart on the same wall,
vs. a distance of 24.5 feet from the opposite wall of the room blocked
by the dead bodies. This means that there would be a 'short-circuit'
of air in the chamber.
Given an initial hydrocyanic acid concentration of
5 g/m3, complete 'shut-off' of gas production, five air exchanges
per half hour and ideal ventilation conditions, the concentration of
hydrocyanic acid remaining will be only 50 mg/m3 after half
an hour and it will be safe to enter the gas chamber without a gas mask.
But since Zyklon B continues to outgas for hours, entering the gas chamber
after 30 minutes and without protective clothing as claimed would be
fatal. Even gas masks equipped with a special filter J, guaranteeing
safety for 30 minutes, would be inadequate under such conditions. Furthermore,
the location of the air intake and exhaust vents on the roof ridge,
approximately 15 feet apart,[27]
begs the question as to what would happen whenever there was a breeze
from the exhaust vent towards the intake opening. Again, it would be
a matter of a 'short-circuit of air'. No self-respecting German engineer
worth his epaulets would design a 'gas chamber' this poorly.
The ventilator for the dissecting room and the rooms
for washing up and for laying out the corpses - all of them situated
above-ground and with windows - had a capacity of 1 hp, while that for
the much larger mortuary 1 ('gas chamber') had 3.5 hp. As Carlo Mattogno
has shown, the performance of all air extractions systems of the different
rooms in crematoria II and III in Birkenau (oven room, mortuary 1, mortuary
2, dissecting and washing room) was considered to be nearly the same:
11,5 to 16,6 air exchanges per hour.[28]
And Mattogno provided evidence that this was the standard power required
for morgues according to contemporary German expert literature,[29]
whereas air extraction systems for hydrogen cyanid gas chambers (delousing
chmabers) required at least 72 air exchanges per hour.[30]
Thus, mortuary 1 was certainly not suited to exchange the given volume
of air, enriched with 5 g/m3 (according to Pressac,[31]
it was even 12 g/m3!) and within the space of time (30 minutes)
claimed in Holocaust literature (eyewitness reports), nor was it suited
to exchange the given volume of air a sufficient number of times to
allow the 'gas chamber' to be entered after this ventilation process
without powerful gas masks and protective clothing. The bottom line
of all this is that the ventilation facilities of crematoria II and
III were designed strictly for purposes of normal ventilation, and not
for the removal of highly toxic quantities of gas in a short period
of time (20 to 30 minutes).[32]
9.6. An SS-Colonel as Traveling Repairman
'Court expert' Jagschitz also omits to go directly
to the source of things in non-technical matters, as he had initially
stated he would (court transcript page 261).
As proof of the existence of gas chambers he cites
the so-called fact (transcripts page 390) that specialists for 'gas
chambers' were evidently called in from Berlin when repairs were needed:
"When gas facilities [sic] were broken,
there was a man who was called in from Berlin to repair them. This
was a certain Herr Eirenschmalz [...]"
A quick glance into a standard work of 'Holocaust
literature' reveals that the "certain Herr Eirenschmalz" was
Chief of the Office C-4 (Finances!) in Group C (Construction) of the
WVHA (Wirtschafts-und Verwaltungshauptamt, Main Economic and
Administrative Office of the SS).[33]
He held the rank of Standartenführer, approximately equivalent
to that of Colonel in the US Army.
Does anyone with half a brain really believe that
an SS Standartenführer, who normally commands a regiment in the
Army and who was evidently the Chief Paymaster of the Construction Office,
would come running from Berlin clutching his toolbox whenever a hinge
stuck on some input chute for Zyklon B?! Particularly when there were
enough workshops and trained personnel available in Auschwitz itself?
9.7. The Unusual Consequences of Hydrocyanic Acid Poisoning
'Court expert' Jagschitz also claims (court transcript
page 441f.) that in an interview in Warsaw with an "inmate who had
a relationship of personal trust with SS-man Breitwieser" he had
learned that Breitwieser had been present at "this particular gassing"
(of Soviet prisoners-of-war on September 4, 1941 in Block 11 of the
Auschwitz main camp, which now, according to Pressac, apparently did
not take place until December[34]).
Breitwieser had removed his gas mask too soon and had suffered facial
hemiplegia, paralysis of one half of his face, as a result.
The expert is here quoting a false statement, presumably
given by the inmate, one Michal Kula. Asking a toxicologist or forensic
doctor about this would reveal that paralysis of one half of the face
cannot be the result of hydrocyanic acid poisoning, as such poisoning
has no permanent effects if it is not immediately fatal.[35]
9.8. Further Details, Conclusions and Questions
Incidentally, Jagschitz concludes (transcript pages
499-501) that there is room for correction in individual subsections
of this complex subject and that considerable academic efforts are still
required to look into the numerous questions of detail.
But this is exactly what was neglected in the trial!
Not one single question of detail was examined by
engineers, chemists, doctors, etc. summoned for the purpose. On the
contrary: experts whose interest in contemporary history prompts them
to raise critical questions for discussion (i.e., who do exactly what
court expert Jagschitz urges) are being embroiled in criminal trials
under §3h of the revised Austrian Criminal Code or §§130f., 185 of the
Criminal Code in Germany dealing with jeopardizing the public peace,
incitement to hatred, and slander.[36]
On January 10, 1991, in a preliminary report prior
to submission of his expert report, Jagschitz had commented that
"fundamental doubts about some basic issues
have been reinforced" and "that there is only a relatively small
body of scientific literature, as opposed to a considerably greater
number of personal accounts or non-scientific summaries."
His presentations during the main hearing and the
transcript thereof were thus studied with eager interest. Nothing important
however, emerged from this presentation that had not already been well-known.
Jagschitz bases his summary value judgement, that
the mass murder with poison gas is a proven fact,
primarily on documentary evidence and on his observation
that in examining the accounts of witnesses and perpetrators he had
found approximately two-third of these accounts to be false and some
third to be correct.
An interesting forensic aspect is the 'expert's'
assessment of the evidential value of the testimony of persons who were
not even questioned by this Court!
But court expert Jagschitz withholds the testimonies
themselves, as well as his criteria for evaluating them. The only one
he quotes, as example typical for all of them it seems, is the statement
of a 'perpetrator', the "SS-physician", Dr. Fischer. Since it
is incriminating, it must be true?
An objective and unbiased observer ponders with some
surprise is how it was possible, as late as the 1960s, to persuade a
'perpetrator' to personally record such physically impossible nonsense
as:
- the victims die within two minutes of the introduction of Zyklon B;
- an elevator for the corpses leads directly to the doors of the crematoria ovens;
- his 'eyewitness' could never have seen a crematorium from the inside, much less supervised an execution with hydrocyanic acid gas derived from Zyklon B.
Let us critically examine only two details from the
statement of "Dr." Fischer. These pertain to gassings in the
'Sauna' (trial transcript p. 443, supplement), a renovated farmhouse
which, interestingly enough, is not shown or recognizable in so much
as one single aerial photograph ever taken!
- "[...] only 4-lb. cans were used [...]"
As Pressac states, only cans with a net weight
of 1, 2 and 3 lbs. of hydrocyanic acid were available.[37]
- "[...] the gas chamber was opened after about 20 minutes [...] the doors were left open for approximately 10-15 minutes so that the poison gas could escape the gas chamber. There were no ventilation facilities in the 'sauna'. Now the inmates (from the Corpse Commando) [...] pulled the dead bodies out [...] with 6-foot poles that had a bent iron hook at the end [...]"
Since Zyklon B continues to release hydrocyanic
acid for hours, and ventilation by means of natural draft would
have taken days rather than hours, these inmates must have been
immune to the highly toxic hydrocyanic acid! How does that agree
with the Special Order issued by Camp Commandant Hoess,[38]
August 12, 1942, which stated that after gassed (more correctly:
fumigated!) facilities are opened, members of the SS not wearing
gas masks must keep at a distance of 45 feet for at least 5 hours
and must also be mindful of wind direction, since there had already
been some accidents?
Insofar as the documents quoted by Jagschitz are
even genuine and correct - which is frequently very doubtful for technical
reasons - they certainly also permit other technical interpretations
than those which the expert witness ascribes to them. One document,
for example, discusses a gas-proof door in crematoria II having dimensions
of 39.4" × 75.6". According to the building plans however the mortuaries
1 of crematoria II and III had double doors measuring 70.9" × 78.7".
But how does one gas-proof a double-door opening of 70.9" × 78.7" with
a single door measuring 39.4" × 75.6"?
Two other examples from 'Holocaust literature' and
the Jagschitz Report are examined subsequently.
In spring 1943, the Central Construction Management
of Auschwitz ordered "10 gas detectors" from the oven manufacturing
firm of Topf and Sons.[39]
If these gas detectors had had anything to do with hydrocyanic acid
they would have been ordered by the appropriate health authorities from
the company DEGESCH, not by the Central Construction Management from
the oven manufacturer Topf and Sons.
As even contemporaneous subject literature shows,
"gas detectors" were in fact devices used for analyzing combustion
gas for the presence of CO or CO2, which are produced by
the 'gasification' of coke fuel in the generator of the crematorium
oven.[40] The number
of gas detectors ordered (ten) also indicates strongly that this is
what they were intended for, since the two crematoria II and III, constructed
as mirror images of each other, had a total of ten waste-gas flues,
where the gauges were probably placed.
This matter took a strange turn when Pressac recently
found a document in the KGB archives in Moscow in which the company
Topf and Sons confirms the aforementioned order of the gas detectors.[41]
This document makes reference to the telegram with the words "Re..:
Crematorium, gas detectors", but in the main text it is mentioned
that it had not yet been possible to locate a supplier of "indicators
of hydrocyanic acid residue". So this document would have us believe
that gas detectors were in fact devices for detecting hydrocyanic acid.
But several factors ought to make an engineer suspicious:
- According to the subject literature of the time, devices for the detection of hydrocyanic acid residue were called Blausäurerestnachweisgeräte.[42] The term used in the letter, however, is Anzeigegerät für Blausäure-Reste. (No German would write Blausäure-Reste as two words, hyphenated!) But since, according to their letter, Topf and Sons by that time had received responses from three suppliers regarding such devices, the correct name of said devices ought to have penetrated even to Topf and Sons. Besides: "kommen wir Ihnen sofort näher" [we shall come close to you immediately] is nonsense. It should read 'kommen wir sofort auf Sie zu' [we shall get in contact with you immediately].
- The regulations of that time stipulated that after every delousing procedure utilizing hydrocyanic acid, a hydrocyanic acid residue detector had to be used to test the fumigated facilities to determine whether ventilation had been successful. Only then could the deloused rooms be entered without a protective gas mask.
- The health authorities of the Auschwitz camp had been responsible for the ordering, distribution and use of Zyklon B and all the materials necessary for its use (delousing facilities, gas masks, hydrocyanic acid residue detectors etc., and allegedly for the mass gassings as well) ever since the Birkenau camp had been set up in 1941. In other words, they had two years experience in this field. So why should the Central Construction Management, which was not responsible for this field and not competent in matters related to it, suddenly step in in spring 1943 and order the purchase of hydrocyanic acid residue detectors?
- Why was the order given to the oven manufacturing firm Topf and Sons, who were so out of their depth in this field that they clearly did not even know who the suppliers of these devices might be, when the health authorities of camp Auschwitz had already been continually supplied with these devices for two years, and thus knew the suppliers (which actually were the selfsame which supplied Zyklon B)? Very probably the health authorities even had some spare devices in stock.
- From the text of the order placed by the Central Construction Management ("Ship 10 gas detectors immediately, as discussed [...] quote price later.") it also becomes clear that after a discussion with the firm of Topf and Sons the Central Construction Management was in a position to expect that the devices would be shipped without delay and that the price would be up to Topf. Both, however, could only have been the case for products that were part of Topf's standard stock, and thus not possibly for hydrocyanic acid residue detectors. The latter is also clearly apparent from Topf's reply, which indicates the necessity for laborious research to locate the manufacturers of these detectors.
- It has never been customary in German business practice to confirm receipt of telegrams with a proper letter, in which the entire telegram itself is quoted (!), as was allegedly done in this case. And what is more: after the collapse of the 6th Army in Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-43, the Reich suffered from a severe labor shortage, so that especially in administrative respects every step that could possibly be dispensed with was eliminated to save work. Thus one can be quite certain that telegrams were not confirmed in those days.
- It is somewhat puzzling that this document, which was celebrated in the press as the irrefutable proof of the existence of gas chambers,[43] was not discovered until 1993, and then in the oh-so-trustworthy archives of the KGB!
 |
|
Document
in facsimile in: J.-C. Pressac, Die Krematorien von
Auschwitz, Piper, Munich 1994. Doc. Plate No. 28. (Click
to enlarge)
Translation:
"[...]
We confirm
the reception of your telegram, saying:
'Send
off immediately 10 gas detectors as discussed. Hand
in estimate later'."
In this regard,
we let you know that already two weeks ago we asked 5 different
firms about the indicators of hydrocyanic acid residue requested
by you. We received negative answers from 3 firms, and from
two others an answer is still outstanding.
In case we
receive notification in this matter, we shall come close
to you immediately so that you can get in contact with the
firm producing these devices.
H e i l
H i t l e r !
[...]
|
Since delousing had been carried on in Birkenau
on a large scale ever since 1941, it is utterly implausible that
no one should have seen to the provision and the suppliers of these
devices until spring 1943.
Therefore, this alleged new document is probably
a forgery. This needs to be conclusively determined by an expert analysis
of the supposed original document. But even if it would be genuine,
it does not prove the existence of homicidal gas chambers.[44]
Who would need 210(!) door anchors[45]
for the lethal gas chamber of crematorium IV if the "gas-tight doors"
had indeed been doors to the 'gas chamber'? The technical work Blausäuregaskammern
zur Fleckfieberabwehr explains how hydrocyanic-acid-gas-proof doors
must be anchored:[46]
the 8 wall anchors per door (supplier, Otte & Co., Vienna) are already
welded onto the doorframe so that the door cannot warp. 210 anchors
for fixing gas-tight doors are no proof for gassings of human beings.
However, they might be a proof for the fact that gas tight doors, windows
and shutters were installed everywhere in Auschwitz as protection devices
against poison gas attacks by allied bombers, as author Samuel Crowell
pointed out.[44]
These examples clearly show how many details would
require attention before a comprehensive value judgement based on a
solid foundation of factual questions answered to scientific satisfaction
can be rendered in this historical issue that sincerely concerns many
who seek the truth.
9.9. Summary
In his report, court expert Jagschitz corrected the
"symbolic number of 4 million Jewish victims" insofar as he stated
that "several hundreds of thousands, up to a maximum of 1.5 million
were killed by gassing" in Auschwitz.
In light of the aforementioned technical facts, one
can agree with Jagschitz's lower limit regarding the magnitude of number
of victim - with perhaps, some reservations with respect to the actual
cremation capacities. However, this does not comprehensibly settle the
number of killed, on the one hand, and the number of deceased on the
other. All the more so since Kazimierz Smolen, an author certainly above
suspicion of revisionist leanings, stated:[47]
"[...] Several hundred died in the camp daily.
Mortality was particularly high during the typhus epidemics, and
when diarrhoea occurred on a large scale [...]"
So if "several hundred" actually died on a
daily basis,[48] then
in light of the limited capacity of the crematoria there was no leeway
left for the removal of the victims of alleged 'mass gassings'. Smolen
made this statement while still believing in the '4 million'. He still
allowed for 'mass gassings'. But if one combines the findings of Jagschitz
(several hundreds of thousands, up to a maximum total of 1.5 million)
with Smolen's (several hundred dead per day) and with the capacity of
the crematoria, then the final picture is quite a different one.
But the statistics Jagschitz arrived at place this
court expert in sharp conflict with Galinski, the late Chairman of the
Central Council of Jews in Germany, who as late as mid-1990 vehemently
clung to the traditional figure of 4 million mostly Jewish victims of
Auschwitz:
"I consider it a historically proven fact
that four million persons died in the worst extermination factory
in the world."[49]
This statement is reminiscent of Germany's Supreme
Court's ruling of "judicial notice" based on information given
in the Brockhaus encyclopedia. However, Brockhaus also
states that cremation takes from 90 to 100 minutes!
One wonders whether this part of Jagschitz's report
will yet come back to haunt him? On the other hand, perhaps Simon Wiesenthal's
recent statement will exculpate Lüftl. Wiesenthal was quoted as having
said that 1.5 million is now supposed to be the final, definitive number
of victims. Only those who claim a lesser figure run the risk of incurring
Wiesenthal's wrath.[50]
Furthermore, from press releases it has been evident
since early March, 1993, that according to the Polish agency PAP the
updated number of victims is between 1.2 to 1.5 million:
"[...] the 4-million-figure was part of Soviet
propaganda [...]"
So what do the courts consider to be "judicially
noticed" since March, 1993? Will those persons who have been censured
in the past for claiming figures between 1.5 and 6 million now be pardoned
or rehabilitated, or even paid compensations?
In his new book Pressac writes that only 630,000
persons perished in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and that no more than
800,000 persons died in Auschwitz altogether.[51]
In the German edition of this contribution this author already questioned
which figure will be granted judicial notice in 1994.[52]
Now we know according to the German edition of Pressac's latest book,
there are some 470,000 to 550,000 gassed Jews and some 710,000 victims
altogether.[53] What
number will be "judicially noticed" in 2001? What number in the
year 2002? Which in 2010?
Drawing exclusively upon the Jagschitz Report, on
'non-revisionist' sources such as Pressac, Hilberg, documents from the
archives of the Auschwitz Museum, and on other sources such as standard
subject-reference works which are certainly above suspicion, Walter
Lüftl has shown that the material presented by court expert Jagschitz
can be interpreted in other, equally plausible ways, to arrive at the
opposite conclusion, namely that
the mass murder with poison gas cannot be proven.
Even though only seven points (and some details)
from the court expert's report were discussed here, an examination of
the whole of the court transcript reveals a plenitude of points, a scrutiny
of whose technical components (and, as the example of "Eirenschmalz"
shows, even merely the organizational components) allows precisely the
opposite conclusion than that drawn by court expert Jagschitz.
For an outside observer, the following question arises:
if, after careful examination of sources and consultation with subject
experts, and working in a replicable and verifiable manner, court expert
Jagschitz had arrived at the opposite of his actual conclusion -
would he too have been in violation of §3h of the Criminal Code?
In any western nation under the rule of law one must
naturally answer this in the negative. And therefore such a violation
also cannot be alleged against a private researcher such as Walter Lüftl,
who has looked into this issue and concluded as the result of an examination
of the facts and of his own replicable and verifiable reasoning that
the 'truth desirable from the perspective of public education' is as
yet open to doubt since it stands in contradiction to natural laws and
what is technically possible. Such an allegation would be all the more
inappropriate since the examination of individual aspects of the overall
subject has been expressly declared to be outside the province of the
law cited (cf. Stenographic Transcripts of the Austrian National Assembly).
It is purposely left up to the reader to determine
for himself that the above expositions as a whole are at least equal
to the scientific and academic standard of Jagschitz's presentation.
In any case every value judgement has been thoroughly founded on fact,
and adequately supplemented with documentation permitting the replication
and verification of findings.
At no point does the above article contain any statement
or claim, whether of direct or indirect nature, which was intended or
meant to be taken as
- denial,
- approval, or
- gross trivialization of the judicially noticed National Socialist mass murder.
This author sincerely condemns National Socialist
crimes with all appropriate force and affirms that a crime begins with
the very first victim wrongfully killed.
However, he claims for himself the fundamental
principle of academic freedom as expressed in the February 5, 1992
report of the Justice Committee of the Austrian National Assembly.[54]
The above study, being a serious academic and scientific
endeavor, concerns itself with individual aspects of a historical
complex of events and should be regarded first and foremost as a
critical post-verdict statement pertaining to the individual aspects
of a report drawn up by an 'expert' summoned by the court and
discussing the historical complex of events in question.
In particular, the author wishes to stress a statement
of the Chairman of the Justice Committee of the Austrian National Assembly:
"I do, however, fully agree with you on the
point that only science, not a trial judge, can determine what is
truth and what is falsehood." (Dr. Michael Graff)
What is more, where and by whom this work is published
is quite irrelevant,
for the truth is indivisible.
On June 15, 1994, Lüftl received a notice from the
District Criminal Court of Vienna, dated June 8, 1994[55]
and stating that the initial investigation that had been instituted
against him had been dropped since there were no further grounds for
prosecution.
The Holocaust lobby who had learned even before Lüftl
that the case had been abandoned (whatever happened to 'official secrecy'?)
considered this a severe blow.[56]
In an open letter to Justice Minister Michalek, professional denouncer
Wolfgang Neugebauer from the Documentation Center of Austrian Resistance
lamented the outcome of these events and charged the Minister of Justice,
who had only acted correctly, with "full responsibility":
"A severe setback in the battle against denial
of the Holocaust, and carte blanche for all future Holocaust-deniers."
Meanwhile, the Holocaust lobby had realized that
in denouncing Lüftl they had shot themselves in the foot. Prior to the
revision of the Criminal Code, what Lüftl had written in his study
Holocaust had not been an indictable offense; the only point
at issue had been whether or not he had written it in the spirit of
"National Socialist revivalism", for which the legal persecution
and preliminary investigation to which he had been subjected for more
than two years had failed to turn up even the slightest shadow of evidence.
But the loud and vociferous manner in which the press reported on the
"scandal", grossly distorting the truth in the process, ensuring
that the matter drew attention around the globe, prompted a great many
people to independent thought. And in the eyes (and for the purposes)
of the Holocaust lobby, the results of such reflection were certainly
counterproductive.[57]
Thus, Lüftl, vindicated by the District Criminal
Court of Vienna, could state with impunity:
- In light of natural laws and technical possibilities vs. impossibilities, the mass gassings with Zyklon B, as they are described by 'contemporaneous witnesses' and 'perpetrators who confessed', cannot have taken place.
- The Kurt Gerstein Statement is (verbatim) "a whopping lie".[58]
- By virtue of the composition of the exhaust gases, mass gassings with Diesel exhaust fumes cannot have taken place. Had there really been execution chambers or 'gas vans' operating with exhaust gas, the Germans would have used the more efficient internal combustion engines, or the even more efficient wood-gas generators.
- Crematoria chimneys do not spew flames during the cremation process. All 'eyewitness' testimonies asserting such a phenomenon are false.
- The number of cremated victims is considerably exaggerated since the capacity of the crematoria would have been insufficient to handle mass gassings. The quantity of fuel actually used delimits the true number of bodies cremated.
- No homicidal mass gassings took place in the concentration camp Mauthausen. The method of gassing described by witnesses is nonsense and would have been fatal for the executioners.[59]
- Homicidal mass gassing using bottled carbon monoxide is technically impossible nonsense.
- Auerbach's attempt at discrediting the Leuchter Report[60] can easily be refuted by experiment.
- Zyklon B and Diesel exhaust fumes have lost all credibility as alleged 'murder weapons' used in the "planned extermination of millions of human beings, especially Jews, as part of a program of planned genocide."
- Natural laws hold true for 'Nazis' no less than for anti-Fascists.
- Material evidence will refute the testimony of perjured 'eyewitnesses' and the confessions of 'perpetrators'.
- Should the objective and scientific investigation of the Holocaust nevertheless prove the "planned genocide by means of gas chambers", then the Revisionists too will have to accept this.
- Who is it that wants to stifle any and all discussion of this topic by means of criminal laws, and for what reasons?
- Are we entering an era of 1984 totalitarianism after all, albeit through the back door?
However, considering the new revised paragraph 3h)
of Austria's Prohibition Order, it seems to be necessary to advise
others not to make similar claims today, since the above statements
were made before the new law came into effect. A national-liberal Austrian
publisher who published these statements in 1995 as part of a documentation
of Lüftl's case,[61]
was charged with "Holocaust denial" according to the new §3h)[62]
and consequently sentenced to 10 month imprisonment on probation and
a fine of ÖS 240,000 ($24,000).[63]
| [1] | E.g., "Rücktritt nach Zweifel am Holocaust", Süddeutsche Zeitung, March 14, 1992. |
| [2] | W. Lüftl, Konstruktiv 166 (1991) p. 31f.; cf. also E. Gauss, Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen 1993, pp. 44ff. (online: vho.org/D/vuez/v1.html) |
| [3] | Formally speaking, the dispute was about who would hold supremacy in Schleswig-Holstein. |
| [4] | This suggested paragraph was later abandoned in favor of a new paragraph 3h of the Verbotsgesetz. |
| [5] | A later, revised version titled "Holocaust: Belief and Facts" was published in The Journal of Historical Review 12(4) (Winter 1992-93) p. 391-420. |
| [6] | On February 26, 1992, Bundesgesetzblatt 127/92. |
| [7] | B. Meyer (ed.), Dienstaltersliste der Waffen-SS, Stand 1.7.1944, Biblio Verlag, Osnabrück 1987. Horst Fischer was "SS-Führer of the Medical Corps" with no medical degree, and SS-Hauptsturmführer. His written statement, that he participated in gassings in 1942 in the capacity of SS physician, is thus false; in a recent publication, the professional denouncers of the Documentation Center of the Austrian Resistance repeat Jagschitz's allegation about the "Dr.", but refuse to give any evidence: B. Bailer-Galanda, in B. Bailer-Galanda, W. Benz, W. Neugebauer (eds.), Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge, Deuticke, Vienna 1995, p. 97; cf. Germar Rudolf, "Zur Kritik an 'Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge'", in H. Verbeke (ed.), Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte, VHO, P.O. Box 60, B-2600 Berchem 2, Belgium, 1996, p. 96 (online: vho.org/D/Kardinal/WahrheitR.html; English: vho.org/GB/Books/cq/critique.html). |
| [8] | Letter of Bischoff, Chief of the Central Construction Management, Waffen-SS, dated March 6, 1943, published, e.g., in J.-C. Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1989, p. 221. |
| [9] | J.-C. Pressac, ibid., p. 223, bottom right. |
| [10] | J.-C. Pressac, ibid., p. 230. |
| [11] | The blueprints of the mortuaries in question do in fact show water taps; J.-C. Pressac, ibid., pp. 311f. These are said to have been removed later: ibid., p. 286. |
| [12] | E. Neufert, Bauentwurfslehre, Ullstein Fachverlag, Frankfurt am Main 1962, p. 423. |
| [13] | J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 8), p. 482. |
| [14] | Court transcript, page 475. |
| [15] | J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 8), p. 247. |
| [16] | For the latest critique see Carlo Mattogno, "'Schlüsseldokument' - eine alternative Interpretation", VffG 4(1) (2000), pp. 50-56 (online: vho.org/VffG/2000/1/Mattogno50-56.html: Engl. "The Auschwitz Central Construction Headquarters Letter Dated 28 June 1943: An Alternative Interpretation", codoh.com/granata/lalett.html). |
| [17] | 15 minutes per body! In 1940 the technology available required 1.5 to 2 hours per body! |
| [18] | J.-C. Pressac, ibid., p. 223, column 3. |
| [19] | Anyone who wishes to study the problems of cremation and power consumption by various means and methods is referred to the standard work on this topic: F. Schumacher, Die Feuerbestattung, Gebhardt's Verlag, Leipzig 1939. Cf. also the chapter by C. Mattogno and F. Deana chapter, this volume. |
| [20] | J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 8), p. 224. |
| [21] | Cf. the chapter by C. Mattogno and F. Deana, this volume. |
| [22] | CIA Report, The Holocaust Revisited, February 1979, ST-79-10001, p. 11. |
| [23] | Court transcript, page 478. |
| [24] | Cf. the photos in J. C. Ball, Air Photo Evidence, Ball Resource Services, Delta (BC, Canada) 1992, pp. 41, 48, 65, 74. |
| [25] | Report of expert witness Professor Jagschitz for the District Criminal Court of Vienna in the trial of Gerd Honsik, Ref. 26b Vr 14.186/86, pp. 20 and 42 of the court transcript. |
| [26] | R. Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, Holmes & Meier, New York 1985, Table 75. |
| [27] | J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 8), p. 291. |
| [28] | C. Mattogno, "Auschwitz: Das Ende einer Legende", in H. Verbeke (ed.), Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Postbus 60, B-2600 Berchem 2, 1995, pp. 133ff. (online: vho.org/D/anf/MattognoR.html) |
| [29] | Ibid., p. 140; cf. W. Heepke, Die Leichenverbrennungsanstalten (die Krematorien), Verlag von Carl Marhold, Halle a.S. 1905, p. 104. |
| [30] | C. Mattogno, op. cit. (note 28), p. 141f.; cf. G. Peters, E. Wüstinger, "Sach-Entlausung in Blausäure-Kammern", Zeitschrift für hygienische Zoologie und Schädlingsbekämpfung 10/11 (1940), p. 195; F. Puntigam, H. Breymesser, E. Bernfus, Blausäuregaskammern zur Fleckfieberabwehr, Sonderveröffentlichung des Reichsarbeitsblattes, Berlin 1943, p. 50. |
| [31] | J.-C. Pressac, ibid., pp. 16 and 18. |
| [32] | This is also the opinion of J.-C. Pressac, ibid., pp. 224 and 289. |
| [33] | R. Hilberg, op. cit. (note 26), Table 72, p. 559. |
| [34] | J.-C. Pressac, Les Crématoires d'Auschwitz, la Machinerie du meurtre de masse, CNRS, Paris 1993. |
| [35] | W. Forth, D. Henschler, W. Rummel, Allgemeine und spezielle Pharmakologie und Toxikologie, 5th ed., Wissenschaftsverlag, Mannheim 1987, pp. 751f. |
| [36] | Eg., the trial against G. Rudolf, academically accredited chemist, for his report; cf. the chapter by G. Rudolf, this volume. |
| [37] | J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 8), pp. 16f. |
| [38] | J.-C. Pressac, ibid., p. 201; also p. 445 of court transcript. |
| [39] | J.-C. Pressac, ibid., p. 371; also p. 471 of court transcript. |
| [40] | Akademischer Verein Hütte (ed.), Hütte, 27th ed., Ernst und Sohn, Berlin 1942, p. 1087. |
| [41] | J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 34), plate 28. Compared to his first book this is the only new document introduced here. The rest of the book in essence only repeats and condenses the expositions of the book from note 8. |
| [42] | Cf. the guidelines for the use of hydrocyanic acid (Zyklon) for pest control (disinfestation), issued by the Gesundheitsanstalt des Protektorats Böhmen und Mähren, Prague, n.d.; IMT Document NI-9912(1). |
| [43] | Cf. FAZ, Oct. 14, 1993; Die Welt, Sept. 27, 1993; Welt am Sonntag, Oct. 3, 1993; Der Spiegel, 49/1993; L'Express, Sept. 23, 1993; Libération, Sept. 24, 1993; Le Monde, Sept. 26, 1993; Le Nouvel Observateur, Sept. 30, 1993. |
| [44] | A different approach to this document was given by S. Crowell, "Technik und Arbeitsweise deutscher Gasschutzbunker im Zweiten Weltkrieg", Vierteljahrehefte für freie Geschichtsforschung (VffG) 1(4) (1997), pp. 226-244 (online: vho.org/VffG/1997/4/Crowell4.html; Engl.: codoh.com); for a recent summary of the discussion regarding this document see Carlo Mattogno, "Die 'Gasprüfer' von Auschwitz", VffG 2(1) (1998), pp. 13-22 (online: vho.org/VffG/1998/1/Mattogno1.html). |
| [45] | J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 8), p. 451. |
| [46] | F. Puntigam, H. Breymesser, E. Bernfus, Blausäuregaskammern zur Fleckfieberabwehr, Sonderveröffentlichung des Reichsarbeitsblattes, Berlin 1943, p. 44. |
| [47] | Prior to the collapse of the Communist regime in the Eastern Bloc, Kazimierz Smolen had been Director of the Auschwitz Museum. Quoted from Smolen, Auschwitz 1940-1945, Ullstein, Frankfurt/Main 1961, p. 63. |
| [48] | "Died", not "were killed"; of course no one, not even Revisionists, will seriously contest that killings also occurred on the side! |
| [49] | Rheinische Post, July 18, 1990. |
| [50] | Kleine Zeitung, Klagenfurt, Aug. 1, 1992. |
| [51] | Op. cit. (note 34), p. 147. |
| [52] | E. Gauss (ed.), Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen 1994, p. 58. |
| [53] | J.-C. Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz. Die Technik des Massenmordes, Piper-Verlag, Munich 1994, p. 202. |
| [54] | Cf. No. 387, Supplements to the Transcripts of Proceedings of the National Assembly, XVIII of the transcript, Point 4, p. 5. |
| [55] | Ref. 26b Vr 4274/92. |
| [56] | Cf. reports in the Austrian daily press of June 15, 1994, as well as Profil, June 20, 1994. |
| [57] | In the meanwhile, Lüftl succeeded in being reelected for the Austrian Chamber of Engineers, cf. "Lüftl wieder in Kammer. 'Schwieriges Problem'", Standard, September 19, 1994. |
| [58] | For a brief discussion of Gerstein's statement see F.P. Berg's article in this handbook. |
| [59] | See the interesting admissions that no traces of killing devices of the concentration camp Mauthausen could ever found and that the gas chamber shown to visitors is a post war fabrication with no relation to reality: Florian Freund, Bertrand Perz, Karl Stuhlpfarrer, "Historische Überreste von Tötungseinrichtungen im KZ Mauthausen", Zeitgeschichte (Vienna), 22 (1995), pp. 297-317; review: I. Schirmer-Vowinkel, VffG, 2(1) (1998), pp. 68f. (online: vho.org/VffG/1998/1/Buecher1.html#ISV2). |
| [60] | H. Auerbach, November 1989, published in U. Walendy, Historische Tatsachen (HT) No. 42, Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1990, pp. 32 and 34. |
| [61] | Hans Moser, "Naturgesetze gelten für Nazis und Antifaschisten", Aula, 7-8 (1994), p. 15. |
| [62] | Cf. "Ein rauhes Lüftl", Bau, 5 (1995), p. 8. |
| [63] | Staatsanwaltschaft Graz vs. Herwig Nachtmann, Ref. 14 St 4566/94-8, April 4, 1995. |
No comments:
Post a Comment