The latest effort to combat “Denial” -- PART III - VI
By Wilfried Heink
The second study in chapter one is by Dr. Moshe Zimmermann, Prof. for
contemporary history and head of the Richard Koebner Minerva Center for
German History at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The essay is titled
“Massenmord durch Giftgas in der Wahrnehmung der Überlebenden” (How
survivors perceive the mass murder by poisonous gas).
Before we go into this, the book this article is part of is about new
studies on killing with poisonous gas by the Nazis, and the denial by
Revisionists of said killings. The first article by Mr. Evans
contributed nothing to the issue supposedly under discussion, the title
of the second seems to follow that trend. One has to wonder why we need
to know how the alleged murder by poisonous gas was perceived by the,
ahem, survivors. But let’s not judge a book by its cover and see what
Mr. Zimmermann has to say.
He starts out by informing us that he will concentrate on how Jewish
survivors perceived this mass murder, specifically Israelis, even though
only a small percentage of actual survivors live in that country. But,
so Zimmermann, the whole of Israeli society, starting with the
“Survivors of the second generation”, consider themselves to be a
society of survivors. And in their opinion they represent the whole of
Jewish society (Doch die gesamte israelische Gesellschaft, mit den
„Überlebenden der zweiten Generation“ beginnend, betrachtet sich als
eine Gesellschaft von Überlebenden. Darüber hinaus geht diese
Gesellschaft davon aus, dass sie die gesamte jüdische Gemeinschaft
repräsentiert).[1]
Comments: The last part makes it clear that “surviving the
Holocaust” has turned into a social exercise and has nothing to do with
actual numbers. But the part about percentages is interesting, because
one needs to ask: A percentage of what? In a Ha’aretz article
of December 29, 2005, we read: “As of 2005, of the nearly 400,000
Holocaust survivors residing in Israel, 40% live below the poverty
line…”. This article has since disappeared, all I have is the printout
of a portion of it. Some of it is still available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_the_Holocaust
— look under “Survivors welfare in Israel” (footnote 7 refers to the disappeared Ha’aretz
article). And this article talks about cancer/colon cancer as a result
of starvation — clearly just about actual survivors. Thus, if 400 000 is
a small percentage of the total of survivors, how many did “survive”?
Why do we have no exact figures when they surely must exist because
Germany is paying retribution to each of the survivors? I have seen
numbers as high as 4 million [2], but it is said that some of those were
double claims. Possibly so, but why the big secret?
Fact is, no historian ever concerned himself with the issue
of how many survived, and many did survive the war.[3] In this essay,
links are provided to works by Messrs. Kulischer and Scheidl, among
others, with the latter demonstrating that the numbers we are given – of
Jews allegedly murdered by the Germans – are not based on solid
research. We also know now that up to 20,000 camps, i.e., detention
facilities existed instead of the 5,000 to 7,000 believed to have
existed. Mr. Thomas Kues mentions this in his article.[4] So, why is the
issue of how many survived seemingly unimportant? It should not be, for
only if we know how many Jews were able to flee or make it through the
war somehow can we begin to look for those missing.
According to Jewish customs, Zimmermann continues, at the funeral of a
diseased, and the anniversary of that day, the “Jahrzeit”, a special
prayer is offered: El male Rachamim (merciful God), the merciful God is
asked to give eternal peace to the souls of the diseased. On the 10
th
day of the Jewish month Tevet, the day of the of remembrance of the
Shoah, special versions of El male Rachamin are offered for the six
million Jewish victims of the European Shoah. One version inserts the
following into the original prayer: “that were killed, butchered, burned
and became martyrs through the German Nazi murderers and their helpers”
(die getötet, geschlachtet, verbrannt und Märtyrer wurden, durch die
deutschen Nazi-Mörder und deren Helfern aus anderen Völkern). The other
version adds: „that were killed, butchered, suffocated, burned and
buried alive by the German Nazis and their helpers”(die getötet,
geschlachtet, erstickt, verbrannt und bei lebendigem Leibe begraben
wurden, durch die deutschen Nazis und ihre Helfer). Thus, in this prayer
death by gassing is grouped in (zugeordnet) with suffocation, a known
punishment in ancient Judaism.
This makes two things clear: the word “gassing” does not exist in the
Hebrew language to this day, and second, that burning is implanted more
firmly in the collective Jewish conscience than gassings and has become
synonymous with the mass murder of Jews during the Shoah. To wit: in
one of the prayers the word “suffocating”, as a substitute for gassing,
is missing. Thus as monstrous as the killing by poisonous gas was, in
the end the expressions “oven” and “burning” have become better known as
the word “Gas chamber”.
Comments: This is of some importance, for it is true that in some
eyewitness accounts only burnings are mentioned, E. Wiesel for instance
never mentions gas chambers – only burnings in ditches. This of course
puts the veracity of their testimony in doubt, for Jewish tradition and
language are one thing but surely a Jew could never forget the gas
chambers in which millions of his compatriots were allegedly killed.
Zimmermann now goes into detail as to why burnings are burned,
pardon, implanted into the Jewish subconscious, and tells us that there
are various reasons for this. In the descriptions of the persecution of
Jews in the middle ages, and beyond that in Jewish historiography —
which accentuates (unterstreicht) the difference between the subdued
“bent down” (gebückten) Jew of the Diaspora and the proud, allegedly new
Jew of Israel – burning pyres (Scheiterhaufen) play a central role.
When religious Jews understand the Third Reich as a return to the middle
ages, then the killing by fire seems to be (scheint) what connects
those killings to the Jewish martyrdom of the middle ages. When looking
at pictures which portray the mass murder of Jews in iconographic
language (ikonografischer Sprache), we find that ovens are not just used
for burning of corpses but become a murder weapon of their own, and
this even though burning of live people was the exception. Zimmermann
then quotes H. Heine, as a nice touch: “Dort wo man Bücher verbrennt,
verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen“ (Where books are burned, humans
will follow)
Death by suffocation was one form of execution in ancient Judaism, as
punishment for patricide for instance, but for obvious reasons one
cannot find anything about gassings in the ancient Jewish catalogue of
punishments. In fact, gassing, in its implementation, reminds more of
the punishment by burning practiced in old Judaism, because it depicts
the blocking of the air ways with glowing lead (glühendem Blei), instead
of burning on pyres (this makes no sense in German either). This is why
the burning facilities, the crematoria (“Misrafot”), as well as the
smoking chimney’s (“Arubot”) are mentioned, instead of the gas chambers
(“Ta’ei Gisim”) when talking of the Shoah.
And even without going back to the middle ages it would have been
possible for flames as icons to displace the invisible gas, for in
Palestine hardly any gas pipelines existed before the establishment of
Israel. Then, in early summer of 1942, when the news of mass murder
methods reached the country, Ha’aretz reported on 30 June 1943: “In
November and December of 1941 the Nazis have began to murder Jews with
poisonous vapor (Dunst, the word poisonous gas did not exist). They did
this in the city Chelm[no[ […] Following this, those poisoned were
burned in the forest”. And at a meeting of the Jewish Agency of 22
November 1942 it was reported: “They are destroyed (vernichtet) with
gas. Three ovens exist in Oswiezim,[…] in which Jews are burned”. (Als
im Frühsommer 1942 dann die ersten Nachrichten über die neue Mordmethode
das Land erreichten, meldete die hebräische Tageszeitung Haaretz dies
am 30. Juni 1942 mit den Worten: „Im November und Dezember [1941]
begannen die Nazis Juden mit Giftdunst [das Wort Giftgas stand damals
überhaupt nicht im Wörterbuch] zu ermorden. Sie taten dies in der Stadt
Chelm[no],[...]. Danach hat man die Vergifteten in den Wäldern
verbrannt.” Und bei einer Sitzung des Direktoriums der Jewish Agency am
22. November 1942 wurde berichtet: „Man vernichtet sie mit Gas. In
Oswiezim gibt es drei Öfen, [...] in denen man Juden verbrennt.”2 (2
Dina Porat/Yehiam Weitz, Between the Star of David and the Yellow Star.
The Jewish Community in Palestine and the Holocaust 1939-1945, Tel Aviv
2002, S. 106.)[5]
Comments: One might want to ask what all of this old Jewish
history has to do with evidence for the alleged killing of Jews by
poisonous gas. Well, nothing, and yet… Zimmermann makes a good case here
for how the story came to be. Burning and suffocating, not the gassing,
is what is implanted in the Jewish psyche. We must remember here the
first reports from the camps, and I’ll start with Treblinka, the area
around it conquered by the Red Army in the middle of August 1944:
“The Military Examining Judge of the Military Office of
Prosecution First Lieutenant of Justice Jurowski went to work
immediately, supported by other officers – Major Kononjuk, Major V.S.
Apresjan, First Lieutenant F.A. Rodionov, Major M.E. Golovan, and
Lieutenant N.V. Kadalo – and carried out investigations between August
15 and 23 on the grounds of the camps Treblinka I and Treblinka II. He
furthermore questioned witnesses: Samuel Rajzman, Lucjan Puchała,
Marianna Kobus, Stanisław Zdonek, Barbara Zemkiewicz, Józef Pukaszek,
Stanisław Kon, Mieczysław Anyszkiewicz, Tadeusz Kann, Franciszek
Wesolowski, Max Lewit, and Kazimierz Skarzyński (GARF, 7021-115-11, pp.
15-43.)[...]
The ‘bath’ was a house, which consisted of 12 cabins,
each 6 × 6 m in size. 400 to 500 people were driven at a time into one
cabin. It had two doors, which could be sealed hermetically. In the
corner, between ceiling and wall, were two openings connected with
hoses. Behind the ‘bath’ stood a machine. It pumped the air out of the
room. The people suffocated within 6 to 10 minutes. The second door was
opened and the dead were brought on wheelbarrows to the special ovens[…]
The oven – this was a large trench
250-300 m in length, 20-25 m in width and 5-6 m deep, excavated by an
excavator. Driven into the bottom of the ditch were three rows of
reinforced concrete posts, one-and-a-half meters in height each. The
posts were connected to one another by cross-beams. On these cross-beams
rails were placed at intervals of 5 to 7 cm. That was a gigantic oven
grill. A narrow-gage spur track led down to the edge of the trench.
(Witness testimony of Abe Kon, Hejnoch Brenner, Samuel Rajzman,
and the content of the book ‘One Year in Treblinka’).[…]
On the basis of the preliminary facts, the cremation of
people has been determined with no doubt. The extent of the
extermination of people was monstrous: about three million.”[6]
And here we have it all, suffocation – followed by burning.
However, the alleged suffocating in vacuum chambers has since been
changed to gassings by diesel exhaust, at first, and now to gassings by
gasoline engine exhaust. Also, it is no longer claimed that the “ovens”
were 5-6m deep ditches. One has to wonder why that has been changed,
since the first eyewitnesses surely must have remembered how it was
allegedly done, especially the witnesses Samuel Rajzmann and Yankiel
Wiernik, who claim to have been in Treblinka during its operation and
both participated in the revolt, even though neither mentions the other.
The three million cremated has also been downsized somewhat, but no
agreement has been reached on a number, Yad Vashem has it as 880,000.
And now to the first report of Oswiezim, or Auschwitz as it
is better known. As we know, Auschwitz was ‘liberated’ by the Red Army
on 27 January 1945. On 2 February an article appeared in “Pravda”, a
Soviet daily, in which the author, Boris Polevoi, writes about what
eyewitnesses had told him:
The name of the town “Auschwitz” has long been a synonym
for bloody German atrocities in the lexicon of the peoples of the world.
Few of its prisoners escaped the fires of its notorious “ovens.” [2]
[…]Last year, when the Red Army revealed to the world the terrible and
abominable secrets of Majdanek, the Germans in Auschwitz began to wipe
out the traces of their crimes. They leveled the mounds of the so-called
“old” [3] graves in the Eastern [4]
part of the camp, tore up and destroyed the traces of the electric
conveyor belt, on which hundreds of people were simultaneously
electrocuted, their bodies falling onto the slow moving conveyor belt
which carried them to the top of the blast furnace [5]
where they fell in, were completely burned, their bones converted to
meal in the rolling mills, and then sent to the surrounding fields.[7]
Ok, no suffocation, but we have this: “Few of its prisoners escaped the fires of its notorious “ovens”. And: “…their bodies falling onto the slow moving conveyor belt which carried them to the top of the blast furnace”. The
electrocution, as well as the blast furnaces have also not survived,
even though attested to by eyewitnesses. But what we see here is the
story in the making, the suffocating in Treblinka and the burnings in
both camps, although “details” had to be worked out yet, and were.
As for the persecution of Jews in the middle ages, mentioned
by Zimmermann, here is what Bernard Lazare, a Jew himself, had to say
about his contemporaries:
“If this hostility, even aversion, had only been shown
toward the Jews at one period and in one country, it would be easy to
unravel the limited causes of this anger, but this race has been on the
contrary an object of hatred to all the peoples among whom it has
established itself. It must be therefore, since the enemies of the Jews
belonged to the most diverse races, since they lived in countries very
distant from each other,
since’ they were ruled by very different laws, governed
by opposite principles, since they had neither the same morals, nor the
same customs, since they were animated by unlike dispositions which did
not permit them to judge of anything in the same way, it must be
therefore that the general cause of Anti-Semitism has always resided in
Israel itself and not in those who have fought against Israel.[8]
Dr. Theodor Herzl sounds much the same in his “Der
Judenstaat”, it is therefore incorrect to refer to Jewish persecution, a
fact, and not mention the “why”.
To the News (Nachrichten) about Chelmno. First, we must recall what
was said in the introduction to this book: that only after the war had
ended did the world as a whole find out what had happened in the
concentration camps – were people informed about the mass murder
(Völkermord).[9] So, how could Ha’aretz have known about the murder of
Jews in Chelmno with poisonous vapor already in 1942? Then the times
given, “November and December”. In the same book, on p.153 we read:
“[I]n Chelmno wurde am 8. Dezember 1941, und damit am
frühesten, die systematische Ermordung von Juden in einem
Vernichtungslager aufgenommen”.(On 8 December the systematic murder of Jews in Chelmno started).
And in “Nationalsozialistische Massentötung durch Giftgas”, by Kogon et al, we read on p.120, a Jozef Czuprynski testifying:
“Während der gesamten Kriegsdauer wohnte ich im Dorf
Zawadki, arbeitete jedoch in Powiercie. Am 5. Dezember 1941 kamen die
ersten Autotransporte mit Juden aus Kolo nach Chelmno”. (During the whole of the war I lived in Zawadki, and on 5 December 1941 the first transports of Jews arrived in Chelmno).
If, what Ha’aretz reported, is fact based, how could
they then talk about gassings in November when the alleged gassings did
not start until December? This report was based on rumors, just like
any other “report” peddled at that time. Pierre Blet writes about the
rumors of Jews killed that reached the Vatican, all dismissed by the
Pope because they could not be substantiated.[10]
Other iconographic images, Zimmermann continues, the manufacturing of
soap from human fat for instance, are also associated with burnings,
not gassings, that particular image has now been largely dropped (aus
dem Diskurs verdrängt). Of course the history of the Shoah, the gassings
as killing method, is well known to historians and lay persons alike.
Therefore it is not possible to separate the gas chamber from the
crematoria, but in Israels’ iconography both are depicted as killing
devices. For example: The heavy burden of that icon of extermination,
the crematoria, played a role in public discussions in Israel. According
to the rules of the Jewish “Halacha”, deceased can only be buried, not
cremated and by burning Jewish bodies the National Socialists committed
sacrilege (Zimmermann continues by talking about a crematorium existing
in Israel).
Comments: Ye old soap canard again, and Zimmermann does not dismiss
it as a tall tale, oh no, it is just not mentioned as often anymore,
according to him. The repeated reference to “iconography” and “Iconic
imagery” is also of interest. “The Holocaust” in pictures? Yes indeed,
just look at the drawings by David Olère, most of them demonstrate that
what is told is untrue. And we must remember that hardly any photographs
exist, an abnormality since camps like Treblinka were only fenced off
with barbed wire and the alleged Totenlager (killing site) situated on a
rise in the camp. We should have albums of pictures, showing the
digging of graves, the hauling away of the soil from diggings (we need
to remember that at least seven graves were allegedly dug, measuring 50m
x 25 x 10m deep) the burnings, etc., etc.
But staying with iconography, we have here also the other meaning of
the word ‘icon”, Webster’s defines it as: “3: an object of uncritical
devotion”. So when Zimmermann refers to that “icon of extermination”
(Ikone der Vernichtung), the crematoria, he refers to it as a religious
symbol, an icon, “an object of uncritical devotion”. In fact, by now
“The Holocaust” has turned into a quasi religion, as is acknowledged by
many.[11]
In the memory of survivors, death by gas and cremation are one and
the same (unzertrennbar), understandably so – for there were no
survivors of gassings. And if someone survived a camp, he did not
survive the gas chamber. Only in films, as in “Schindlers List” could
people survive, the twenty children who survived by being asked to help
unload potatoes – as mentioned in the Eichmann trial – an exception.
And the few surviving members of the “Sonderkommando” were
responsible only for getting rid of the bodies of the gassed by burning
them in the ovens. One of my colleagues, the Holocaust survivor and
Holocaust historian Otto Dov Kulka, remembers the fire flaming from the
crematoria (das Feuer das aus den Krematorien emporflammte) as the
crucial point of his remembrance.[12]
Comments: There are accounts of gas chamber survivors, but that is
hardly the issue here. Also, flames coming out of crematory chimneys, as
in one of the Olère drawings — rubbish.
Ever since the Baby Yar massacre of 1941 has become a symbol of the
Shoah, beside the gas chambers, the mass shootings are now also in
competition with the image of the gas chamber. The questions asked: Who
is holding the rifle? How does a Jew react, does he willingly go to get
butchered (Schlachtbank), or does he resist? Thus the image of a Jew,
shovelling his own grave, is perhaps more powerful than all other images
when considering the necessity of establishing the state of Israel. But
at the close, the story of Babi Yar (die Geschichte von Babi Yar) also
ends with the burning of bodies.
Comments: Babi Yar has absolutely nothing to do with the
subject matter, the Jews of Kiev allegedly shot, so why mention it here,
when alleged killings by poisonous gas is the issue? But yes, lately
the shootings have moved more and more to the front, because they are
harder to dispute. As for the defenceless Jew who never resists, this
has been a problem with the story right from the start. In a meeting of 7
February 1961, between Hessian Attorney General Fritz Bauer and
American Consul Wayland B. Wuters (Waters?), regarding the Eichmann
trial, the latter wrote in his report:
“Bauer did not think that Israel would be in any sort of
hurry with the Eichmann trial, on the contrary; nor did he think the
trial would be particularly sensational. He seems to feel all parties
involved would ‘behave wisely’ and that Ben Gurion’s main aim would be
to secure ‘historical light’ for internal educational purposes within
Israel. (“Ben Gurion thinks the new generation in Israel is as
unbelieving of Jewish passivity in the face of mass murder as the new
Generation in Germany is unbelieving of mass German guilt”, Bauer said)
The reporting officer suspects, though he can in no way
document his supposition, that Bauer may well be connected in some
high-ranking capacity with the Israeli Intelligence Service in West
Germany”.[13]
One has to read this slowly to grasp the meaning. First, Ben
Gurion only wanted to make “history (historical) light”, why? Was the
evidence for “The Holocaust” not convincing enough at that time? And
then we have the part about Jews not believing that millions of their
compatriots could be murdered without any sign of resistance, and that
remains unbelievable to this day. As for Germans not believing the
story, this is why the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials had to be conducted
from 1963 to 1965, school classes invited to witness the proceedings,
with the prosecutor calling the accused “murderers”, reminiscent of the
Stalinist trials. And even though no substantial evidence was submitted
at that trial, the judges admitting to this in the verdict, the
publicity and baseless horror stories told did what it was supposed to
do: establish “The Holocaust” in the minds of Germans.
And of course we must never forget that the State of Israel rests on “The Holocaust”.
Zimmermann then writes about Israeli school books (curriculum), and
that the Holocaust is, since 1977, a compulsory course. The books of the
1980s concern themselves more with the shooting by the Einsatzgruppen
(EG, task forces) — with issues like the Jewish councils(Judenräte) in
the ghettos and the Warsaw uprising in the foreground — the gas chambers
mentioned only in passing, ditto for the newer books. In one of the
books from 1999 a connection is made between the T4 actions and the
killings with gas during the “Endlösung”, this based on newer research,
the historian Shulamit Volkov contributed to the book. The only photo in
the book, however, is that of a mass shooting, and thus it actually
distracts from the T4 story (Geschichte). The selection of photos serves
more as corroboration to our actual perception.[14] Zimmermann
published the only school book in 1981 which featured a picture of a gas
chamber.[15] In a book written for graduates, published in 1999, the
change over from mass shootings to extermination camps is addressed, but
murder by gas is marginalized, the book sharply criticized for lack of
patriotism. The photo shown in the book that of a crematoria in
Dachau.[16]
Comments: It always strikes me as odd when I read that “The
Holocaust” still needs to be taught in school, not only in Israel but
throughout most of the western world. Not only is it taught, but special
guidelines for teaching the subject needed to be issued: “Guidelines
for Teaching about the Holocaust”.[17] Why is that? By now, the facts
should speak for themselves, in fact, there should be no need to publish
this book under discussion. So why the continued Holocaust “education”.
Because what is presented as evidence is just not convincing. Now to
the issues of photos, i.e., the lack of same. Zimmermann tries to induce
that photos only serve to convince us of what we already know, he does
so in vain (the wording of what he wrote is a little strange, this is
why the German original is provided). We know that at least one camera
had been smuggled into Auschwitz [18], the pictures leaving much to be
desired. Also, the Auschwitz resistance had excellent connections to the
outside [19], the question that needs to be asked then: Why not more
pictures? And to dismiss the evidentiary value of photos is not
convincing in the least, with all the opportunities that no doubt
presented themselves, we should have piles of them, if what is alleged
really happened.
Zimmermann writes that in the school book he published in 1981, a
picture of a Gaskammer is shown, the only book to do so, here is what he
wrote in German:
“Das einzige Schulbuch, in dem ein Foto einer Gaskammer gezeigt wird, habe ich bereits im Jahre 1981 herausgegeben”.[20]
No details about which gas chamber he featured, and the book he is
referring to (footnote 15) seems to have disappeared. I searched for it
in every on-line book store, from ABAA to Zentrales V.A.B., nothing. Why
is this important? Well, in the newspaper write up to the Berlin
conference of 2008 — attended by 200 scientists from around the world to
discuss “the historical significance, the technical development and
revisionists denial of the Holocaust”, the book under discussion based
on the findings of said scientists — we read that the description of gas
chambers is fictional (fictive Darstellung), no pictures exist, all we
have is eyewitness testimony. But now we learn that Mr. Zimmermann
provided a picture of a gas chamber already in 1981, why not show that
picture? Or is it also a picture of a genuine shower room, as shown by
Henryk Mandelbaum, and claimed to be the gas chamber of Auschwitz?[21]
Zimmermann then talks more about the cremations, and also about
films, “Witness to Murder” a 1954 Hollywood production is mentioned, as
is “I want to live”, produced four years later, that film about state
sanctioned killings in gas chambers in the USA. But, no connection is
made between American and German gas chambers.
We then learn about the distribution of poisonous baby food “Made in
Germany” in Israel, some babies died. It turned out that vitamin B1 was
missing, not by accident according to a Member of the Knesset. Then, the
gas pipeline from Egypt was put into operation, in April 2008, on the
day when the Shoah is commemorated in Israel. But the climax of the
association with “gas” and Germany was reached in 1991, when Saddam had
conquered Kuwait. The discussion in Israel centred around the
association between the German chemical industry and Saddam, the fear
that the latter would use chemical weapons, built with German expertise,
against Israel. The Soviet Scud rockets a modernized version of the
German V-2. There was even talk about gassings in Iraq with Zyklon B,
but this rumor was discarded.[22]
Comment: Typical Jewish paranoia.
But then, five years later and three years following the gassings of
his own Kurdish people, Zimmermann continues, the Iraqi chemical weapons
arsenal seems to have (schien) threatened Israel. This brought back the
memories of gassings of Jews during the Shoah — Saddam Hussein a Hitler
copy and Israel’s worst enemy — and chemical weapons “Made in Germany”,
an explosive combination. Michael Bar Zohar gave a detailed speech
concerning the participation of German companies and the export of
poisonous gas to Iraq. He spoke of: “a devilish formula which goes: Jews
– Germans – Gas”. Yitzchak Levi added: “There are things that are
implanted in the pedigree (Wurzeln) of a people”, referring to the
inclination of Germans – the modern Amaleks — to use poisonous gas
against Jews. Two weeks after the start of that war Knesset Member
Gershon Shafat summarized: “The father delivers Zyklon B for the
extermination of Jews, the son the gas to Iraq so it can be used against
Israel”.[23]
Comments: Zimmermann goes on and on, and even though this could be
considered a “tongue in cheek” account, one has to ask: What has all of
this to do with the subject? Why fill almost four pages with what
amounts to Jewish paranoia? Or is it just paranoia? Most likely not, for
“The Holocaust” is used by Israelis to justify just about anything,
starting with the crimes committed against Palestinians, or to convince
the “Coalition of the Willing” that a war against Hussein was necessary
to save the world, although some in that coalition did not need much
coaxing.
And now, toward the end of his essay, Zimmermann tells us that the
attitude in Israel re. the Shoah is not as sacrilegious as before (with
this again adding the religious undertone), even though we still have
the new addition of Yad Vashem, the yearly “Marches of the Living”, and
the ritualizing of the Holocaust Memorial Day. But, on the other side,
the number of survivors is dwindling, and voices are heard criticizing
the use of the Holocaust for political gains. Even Shoah jokes are told,
originating in Germany of 30 years ago. Why this is so — the
psychological aspect of this — Zimmermann does not wish to address. But
in the jokes burning also plays a major role: “Question: “What do we
call a survivor?’ Answer: ‘Schnizolim’ (Schnitzel)”. Hebrew for
survivors being “Nizolim”. Be that as it may, even now tear gas is not
used against Jewish, right-wing demonstrators because the right
immediately points towards the Shoah. Tear gas is used against Arabs,
however, and against the left in Israel, no concern here that the Shoah
will be evoked.
There is no interest in discussions about facts, the Leuchter Report
almost ignored by the media. The naming of an institute for theoretical
chemicals (Institutes für theoretische Chemie) as “Fritz Haber” also of
no interest. Advertising by Hoover for their vacuum cleaner “Zyklon” was
allowed. This shows that the poisonous gas theme can only be brought
into the conscience in certain connections, and then used for political
purposes. The fight against Shoah deniers is seen as a fight for
existence, but in this framework attention is not focused on gassings
alone, and that rightly so.
Final comments: Zimmermann convinces us that in the Jewish psyche
burnings are what makes the Shoah, not the gassings, unless “Germany”
and “Gas” are mentioned in the same context. He, aside from a few
deviations into the world of paranoia, addresses the issue, the heading
of his essay “How survivors perceive the mass murder by poisonous gas”.
But, the question has to be asked again: What has all of this to do with
proving that Jews were mass murdered with poisonous gas? This is after
all what the title of the book promises, to provide new evidence for
said gassings. One could dismiss this article, as well as that of Evans,
as irrelevant, but it is not. The intent here is to get the reader
conditioned, to soften him/her up to later accept all that is presented
without question. And sadly, this tactic will work, most readers having
never concerned themselves with details about “The Holocaust”.
Zimmermann alludes to this in the last part of his essay in regards to
Israel, but the same may be said for most people in the rest of the
world.
To be continued…
Sources:
- Günter Morsch und Bertrand Perz, Neue Studien zu Nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas, Metropol Verlag Berlin 2011, p.11
- http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Wiedergutmachung
- http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2010/05/well-where-are-they-then/#more-931
- http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2011/02/facing-a-new-decade/#more-1416
- Neue Studien…, p.12
- Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Treblinka. Extermination Camp of Transit Camp, Theses & Dissertations Press, PO Box 257768, Chicago, Illinois 60625 January 2004, pp.77-80
- http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Pravda020245.html#Anchor3
- Vicomte Leon De Poncins, Freemasonry & Judaism. Secret Powers Behind Revolution,
A&B Publishers Group. 1000 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklym New York
(no publishing date given), p.183 (B. Lazare, L’Antisemitism, p.3)
- Neue Studien…, p. XI
- Pierre Blet, S.J, Pius XII and the Second War. According to the Archives of the Vatican, Paulist Press, New York, N.Y, Mahwah, N.J. 1997. English translation 1999
- http://www.stateofnature.org/holocaustReligion.html (this just one example)
- Neue Studien…, pp.13/14, footnote 4: “These Images of
blue skies and columns of people in black swallowed into the
confines of the crematoria and disappearing in clouds of smoke.”
Zit. in Otto D. Kulka, In Search of History and Memory: Excerpts
from „Landscapes of the Metropolis of Death”, in: Moshe Zimmermann
(Hrsg.),On Germans and Jews under the Nazi Regime, Jerusalem 2006,
S. 401-471, hier S. 411.”
- All I have is a printout of the document. Page 1 has this
number printed on it: PL105-246 and on the bottom of each page a
stamp reads “Decalassified, Authority NND 36822, By UB, NARA Date 2-7-05
- Neue Studien…, p.15: The German original: Die Auswahl der Fotos dient ohnehin als starkes Indiz für die eigentliche Wahrnehmung.
- Ibid: Moshe Zimmermann (publisher), Von Krieg zu Krieg 1918-1945, Jerusalem 1981, p.182
- Ibid: Dani Jakobi (publisher), Olam Schel Tmurot (Eine
Welt voller wenden. Geschichte für die 9. Klasse [A world full of
changes. History for the 9. grade]), Tel Aviv 1999, pp.134-140
- http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2009/12/guidelines-for-teaching-about-the-holocaust/
- Bruno Baum, Widerstand in Auschwitz, Kongress-Verlag Berlin 1961, p.88
- Ibid, p.89f
- Neue Studien…, p.15
- http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2011/02/the-latest-sonderkommando-testimony/
- Neue Studien…, pp.16/17
- Ibid, p.17
-----------------------------------------
By Wilfried Heink
The second chapter in the book: “Neue Studien zu
nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas” is captioned:
“Technische und pharmakologische Aspekte und der Stellenwert der
Überreste” (Technical and pharmacological aspects and how remnands
should be rated)
The first essay in this chapter is titled: “Die todbringenden Gase”
(The deadly [death carrying] gasses), by Achim Trunk, Dr. phil.,
historiographer, with a degree in biology – biochemicals.[1]
Mr. Trunk starts out by telling us that mass murder with poisonous
gas is a characteristic of the National Socialist policy of mass murder,
and that his essay will address the methods used. The questions to be
answered: What poisons were used, where did they come from, how were
they administered (eingesetzt) and what were the effects? The answer to
those questions will allow us to better understand the sufferings of the
victims – even though it is impossible to find the words to describe
the horror. This will furthermore help us to understand what motivated
the perpetrators. And lastly, it will allow us to disparage the chemical
and technical assertions put forth by those who relativize or deny the
Shoah. The origin-, application and effects of the poisons will be
described, as well as some of the counter arguments by Revisionists.
Comments: We are told that it is of relevance to know what
type of poison was used, its origin, and effect and how it was all
applied. True, some of it we need to know, for instance what type of
poison was allegedly used, the origin of same irrelevant. We then have
the referral to victims, absolutely irrelevant when establishing guilt
is the objective. Only after it has been established without doubt that
poisons had been used for mass murder, something the previous authors
failed to do, can victims be mentioned. By talking about victim
hood up front we again have this attempt to influence readers, to
soften them up. One can only hope that Trunk will address the relevant
issues first — by referring us to reports compiled by competent
authorities, i.e., experts in the field of criminal investigations, to
establish that gas chambers in whatever form could have been used as
alleged — before going into the obvious effects of poisonous gasses. We
are also told that Revisionist arguments will be addressed.
In the introduction Trunk refers us to a chapter in
“Nationalsozialistische Massentötung durch Giftgas” by Kogon et al, an
essay by George Wellers captioned “Die zwei Giftgase”[2] (The two
poisonous gasses). Wellers writes that two gasses were used, carbon
monoxide (CO) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN), detailing the molecular
structure of the former first. He tells us that Höß was ordered by
Himmler, in the summer of 1941, to organize the destruction of Jews to
be undertaken at Auschwitz. We are then informed about the molecular
structure of HCN and that exposure to either of the two is deadly,
suffocation the consequence.
Comments: Well done, Mr. Wellers, but we know that those two
gasses are poisonous, what we are interested in are the exact details as
to how they were applied. Thus, Wellers only states the obvious, not a
good start.
Trunk now provides an overview of murder methods used:
- In the T4 facilities bottled CO was used, the method also used
at first in the Aktion 14f13 by “Sonderkommando Lange” in the first
so-called (sogenannten) gas wagons. Cause of death: acute carbon
monoxide poisoning.
- In the “Action Reinhardt” extermination camps engine exhaust
was used as a murder weapon. Cause of death: carbon monoxide
poisoning.
- Since 1941 the pesticide Zyklon B was used, mainly in Auschwitz
but also in Mauthausen alongside killings with bottled CO, as well
as in Ravensbrück. Cause of death: HCN poisoning.
- A different form of HCN (common name ‘Prussian acid’[3]) was
used from 1943-1945 in Sachsenhausen, and a still different form
used for killings in Ravensbrück in 1943. Cause of death: HCN
poisoning.
Three million people (Menschen) were killed by the National
Socialists with poisonous gasses, about two million of them with engine
exhaust, and around one million with Zyklon B. About 100 000 people were
killed with pure (bottled) CO, and the number of those killed with
different forms of Prussian acid should be in the thousands (dürfte
vierstellig sein). Those figures are intended to show the dimensions and
to make comparisons possible, the actualizing of them the task of
researchers (eine Aufgabe der Forschung).[4]
Comments: Why start out with the T4/14f13 actions, no
Revisionist denies them as Trunk later points out. Therefore, when
“deniers” are mentioned the reference is to “The Holocaust”, so, why not
provide evidence for this alleged crime and let it stand on its own, if
it can? By continually mentioning T4 the authors admit that they are
unable to make a case for “The Holocaust”, that it is necessary for them
to suggest to the reader that if one happened, the T4/14f13 actions, a
fact, the other, “The Holocaust” must be a logical extension. Well, it
isn’t, so why not get on with substantiating what this is all about: the
alleged mass murder of Jews with poisonous gas.
Also, is it necessary to detail all the effects of the gasses
allegedly used? No, it has nothing to do with proving that the gasses
mentioned
were used to kill people, i.e., Jews — so why bother?
But Trunk tells us why he ‘bothered’ in the last part about the
numbers, the intent again to condition the readers for them to accept
uncritically what is to follow. And even though Trunk admits that the
numbers he cites are not exact, he is however implying that they are
horribly high nevertheless; and
that without providing evidence that anyone was killed with poisonous gas!
In the following pages Trunk talks about the effects of poisonous
gasses, that they paralyse breathing. We also learn that it has long
been known that carbon monoxide will kill. He then goes into detail why
that is so, hardly of any interest. Also, CO was picked as gas for T4
because it was a humane gas, allowing the patients to gently fall asleep
(sanftes Einschlafen). Some witnesses testified to the patients gently
falling asleep [5], but, so Trunk, this killing method had nothing to do
with being humane when considering the circumstances.
He then informs us that as to the killing with bottled/pure CO, no
objections are raised by deniers based on chemical analyses. Part of the
reason for this might be the low numbers and that here we have a
Führerbefehl, an order from Hitler. But it is also possible that
Negationists are in agreement concerning the killing of life unworthy of
life and furthermore the antisemitic background of denial does not
exist, because the killed were mostly non-Jews.
Comments: Herr Trunk shows his true colors by asserting that a
denier must be an antisemite. With this any pretence of objectivity
goes out the window. Thank you for being honest, Herr Trunk.
But the part about the Hitler order is interesting: Trunk
claims that it is impossible for deniers, he calls them also
Negationists, to deny the T4/14f13 actions because a Hitler order
exists, thereby admitting that nothing of the sort has ever been found
regarding “The Holocaust”. He has obviously never concerned himself with
Revisionism, has never read any of the literature produced by
Revisionists. If he had he would know that the absence of a Hitler
order, plan, or budget is only part of why Revisionism is alive
and well. It is the absence of any substantial evidence that makes the
story unbelievable; all is based on documents, some of them of dubious
origin and of course witness tales and testimonies of accused
perpetrators obtained under who knows what circumstances. And the
stories told are not credible: we hear of crematories with ludicrous
capacities, able to burn bodies with just a handful of coke, or bodies
burning on their own; of never located burning pits where human fat was
collected during the burning processes and used as additional fuel; on
and on it goes. This is why Revisionists dispute the tale. Also, the T4
action was stopped because of public outcry, “The Holocaust” would also
have been stopped had it happened. And the defenders of the story are
aware of this, which is why we are told in the introductions that all
became known only after the war, with this dismissing Hilberg and one of
the newer studies re. the AA, in which it is claimed that officials of
the foreign office were willing helpers who must therefore have known
about the alleged mass killings of Jews. Another reason why this story
comes across as untrue, for only a lie has many versions, the truth but
one.
Trunk continues by writing about the T4 action in the annexed Polish
territories, patients killed with bottled CO in so-called gas wagons,
later with engine exhaust and he refers the reader to an article by
Mathias Beer, to be discussed later. With this change of murder method,
from pure CO to engine exhaust, the canard about ‘gently falling asleep’
was dropped, notifying the bereaved impossible anyway because of the
dimensions, therefore it was just denied (nur noch eine schlichte
Leugnung).
Comments: The T4 action again, then going over seamlessly
into the alleged mass murder, which was however denied. How anyone can
write nonsense as this is beyond me. If Trunk is talking about denial
concerning the T4 patients, one has to wonder, for how is it possible to
“deny” to a mom, for instance, that their sick child was killed. And if
he is talking about the Jews, allegedly killed in gas wagons, this
could never have been kept a secret either, and therefore impossible to
“deny”.
And now it gets interesting, Trunk informs us that we have testimony
about gasoline engines as murder weapon, but diesel engines are also
talked about. He mentions the Gerstein testimonies, admitting that
different versions exist. He then gets into details re. diesel exhaust,
the subtitle: “Zur Giftigkeit von Dieselabgasen” (To the toxicity of
diesel exhaust). It is not my intention to go into details here, beyond
my knowledge anyway, and also Mr. Friedrich Berg has written about this
subject extensively.[6]
Negationist critique centres on the question whether it is possible
to produce high enough concentration of carbon monoxide with a diesel
engine, they claim that it cannot be done, therefore mass killings in
Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor would not have been possible. This
suggests that all reports about the Shoah are manufactured: the murder
with diesel exhaust a “Myth within a Myth”. Trunk refers here to Mr.
Berg.[7] But, he asserts, those arguments are folly, for, serious
researchers are not claiming that diesel exhaust was used exclusively in
the Aktion Reinhardt Camps (ARC),[8] therefore this argument is
baseless. He admits however (p.32, footnote 28) that in older works
diesel did play a role. Raul Hilberg, for instance,[8] writes that in
Belzec and Treblinka diesel exhaust was used, gasoline engine exhaust in
Sobibor. But nevertheless, the question about the toxicity should be
addressed.
Comments: If anyone is confused by now, join the club. Trunk
never goes into detail as to why earlier writings by Hilberg, or Martin,
talk of diesel exhaust. In fact in the West German Treblinka Trial of
1965 killing by diesel exhaust was established, ditto for the Belzec
Trial of the same year. Thus it is not just historians claiming diesel
exhaust, judges also accepted that diesel exhaust, as murder weapon, was
indeed used exclusively in those two camps. No plausible explanation
has been offered to date why this has now been changed to gasoline
engine exhaust, as Trunk suggest when he writes that “no serious
researcher claims that diesel exhaust was used exclusively”. And whether
it was used exclusively or just in some camps is also not the issue,
the courts claims it was used, as did some historians. But to add to the
confusion, Trunk then attempts to prove that diesel exhaust could
indeed be deadly, when used under load (Please refer to the writings of
Mr. Berg). So what is it? If diesel exhaust could have been used, in
fact established in court proceedings, why not leave the diesel story
intact, why make it sound as if “serious” historians — demoting Hilberg
to the lower ranks with this — never considered diesel exhaust?
Trunk later tells us — after having tried to make a case for the
toxicity of diesel exhaust — that it is most likely (naheliegend) that
gasoline engines were used because of greater availability of them, and
that they produced deadly gasses even when idling. He refers to Reder
again who testified that the motor had been located in a small room next
to the gas chamber and that it used 80 to 100 litres of gasoline
daily.[10] For Sobibor we have precise testimony for gasoline engines,
the only issue unclear whether they were of French or Russian origin.
For Treblinka however, the last camp to be erected, research is assuming
(geht davon aus) that diesel engines were used, raising the question
why a changeover from a successful, uncomplicated method was made to one
more complicated. It appears that a mix up could be possible: in every
camp a diesel engine was used for generating electricity and that the
gasoline engine, used for the killings, was installed right beside it.
Trunk refers us to the testimony of SS Franz Hödl, who for a while
operated the Sobibor death engine (Todesmotor) and stated: “That two
engines were installed in the engine room, one a gasoline engine,
possibly from a Russian tank, the other a diesel engine. The latter was
never used”.[11] According to Kogon [12] a diesel engine was installed
in a room adjacent to the gas chamber which produced poisonous gasses
and next to it a generator for producing electricity.
Comments: More confused postulations. In the opinion of Trunk
it was most likely that gasoline engines were used, he tries to support
this supposition by claiming that they were more easily available and
that they produce deadly gasses even when idling, a fact. That in
contrast to diesel exhaust which is harmless when the engine is at idle
and only toxic when the engine is under load and the injectors somehow
manipulated, he refers to a test by Holtz/Elliot (p.33). Whenever
machinery for digging, etc., is needed underground, for instance in the
construction of underground parking facilities, equipment with diesel
engines is used, those engines nearly always working at full throttle,
i.e., under load, with the workers nearby complaining about the soot but
showing no ill effects. This is why it is claimed that the engines were
manipulated to produce deadly exhaust. More nonsense, for surely the
Germans were aware of that and would not have even considered using
diesel engines. And Trunk admits this in a roundabout way, he is however
unable to explain away the diesel engines mentioned by others. Thus, he
is forced to talk out of both sides of his mouth, not making any sense
at all doing it. He also admits that changing from gasoline engines to
diesel engines, as was supposedly the case for Treblinka, would have
been remedial, a technical disadvantage, a fact. He tries to get around
it by having us believe that in Sobibor, two engines were used, one a
gasoline engine for killing – the other a diesel which was not used
(testimony by Hödl, see above). And
Kogon et al have it that one diesel engine produced the deadly gas, the
other not, also for Sobibor. One has to be mentally unstable to even
consider this nonsense, but Trunk, unable to settle the issue, is forced
to resort to those mental gymnastics. Demonstrating again that what is
told is just not true, and portraying Germans as babbling idiots who
would resort to these kinds of shenanigans will just not cut it. Thus,
the diesel/gasoline matter still needs to be settled, if we are to
accept that Jews were murdered en masse with engine exhaust, and Trunk
only confused the issue.
We then learn that reports about gas wagons explicitly talk of
gasoline engines, which is not true but will be discussed later. Trunk
then goes into detail about “Massenmorde mit Zyklon B”(Mass murder with
Zyklon B), an issue addressed by Mr. Germar Rudolf in his “Das Rudolf
Gutachten”(The Rudolf Report).[13] A few pages on Trunk makes an effort
to debunk deniers (Leugner) and writes that one of the issues raised by
deniers is temperature, that it would have been too cold in the gas
chambers for the hydrogen cyanide to release fast enough from the
carrier substance to kill Jews within the times testified to. The other
issue is the absence of Prussian Blue in the ruins of the morgue of
Crematoria II, the alleged gas chamber. Revisionists conclude that
because no Prussian Blue stains are visible in the remnants of
crematorium II, no gassings with Zyklon B could have taken place if this
facility. They point to the delousing chambers where the Prussian Blue
is clearly visible, penetrating in some cases right through the
wall.[14] But, so Trunk, this conclusion is erroneous, for it has not
been established that the blue stains in the delousing chambers are
indeed Prussian Blue. For instance, those stains could be spots of
paint, many paints of that time contained those pigments. Thus, the
missing blue coloring could mean that only the walls of the delousing
chambers were painted blue, not those of the gas chamber (Rudolf
addresses this issue[15]). But even if one assumes that the blue stains
in the walls are Prussian Blue, this does not necessarily mean that
similar spots must also be visible on the walls of the gas chambers. For
there are vast differences between the two: whereas in the delousing
chambers the walls were exposed to hydrogen cyanide (Prussian Blue) for
many hours — lice die slower than humans — those in the gas chambers
were exposed to it for only a short time. And because of less exposure
the chances for Prussian Blue to form in the walls diminish, and most
important, the gas chambers were hosed down after each gassing, removing
blood and excrements, thus removing most of the hydrogen cyanide
remnants. In fact, traces of cyanide were found on the walls: using
highly sensitive methods of analysis in the 1990s, it was proven that
the walls of the gas chamber had been exposed to hydrogen cyanide, see
“The Rudolf Report” on that, he explains why the test results were
erroneous.[16]
Comments: First the temperature: Trunk claims that the bodies
of the victims, standing close together, would have warmed the room
sufficiently, but to claim that the body heat of people will warm up a
room with concrete floor, walls and ceiling, in the middle of winter and
just hosed down with cold water, is a real stretch. He writes that this
is why the victims were left standing “a few minutes” (einige Minuten),
as is attested to, referring us to “Massentötungen…” by Kogon et
al.[17] We read in that book that ten minutes after the doors were
closed, the temperature in the room was sufficient for the hydrogen
cyanide to release from the carrier substance, but this is about the
so-called “Bunkers”, not the morgues of crematoria II and III, thus
useless here because of the different construction materials used. But,
Trunk is quote mining here again, using only what fits. Höß, whose testimony is also only used when convenient, says nothing about any wait.
We read: “The
door would be screwed shut and the waiting disinfection squads would
immediately pour the gas (crystals) into the vents in the ceiling of the
gas chamber, down an air shaft which went to the floor”.[18] For
the intended victims to heat a damp room with concrete walls – in the
middle of winter – would only have been remotely possible if for every
“gassing” the room would have been filled to capacity, and that is
unlikely. This heat problem was considered earlier, the Polish judge Jan
Sehn informs us: “…the gas chamber was being heated with portable braziers,”[19]
The “Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland’,
repeated this in their report of 1946.[20] But, no mention of that by
Trunk, why, when this had also been attested to? (The Polish report
mentions interviewing witnesses). It is easy to see, however, why this
has been dropped: heating the “gas chamber” with coke fired braziers
would have filled the room with deadly fumes and if the room would have
been vented with the existing ventilation system, the heat would have
been sucked out – replaced by cold air from outside. But, it is
altogether possible that braziers were used to keep the bodies in the
morgue from becoming stiff, no pun intended, and thus harder to cremate.
So, reality was mixed in with the story, but that part could not be
maintained, and we are now to “body heat”, which is equally ridiculous.
Now to the Prussian Blue issue: No blue spots in the remnants
of crema II, but if continued gassings had been undertaken in it, blue
spots would be visible, that is the position of Revisionists. A logical
conclusion when looking at the walls of the delousing chambers. At
first, Trunk tells us that the blue in the delousing chambers could be
paint, he refers us to a work by Bailer.[21] This is embarrassing, for I
have yet to see paint penetrate a brick wall, right through that wall
to make it visible on the other side (see footnote 14).
Trunk seems to realize this and moves on to plan B, i.e. the
length of exposure to the cyanide gas. It is true that lice, especially
their eggs, nits, are extremely hard to kill, this is why the
producer/supplier of Zyklon B, DEGESCH, developed the circular system,
i.e., Kreislaufsystem, F. Berg goes into detail about it.[22] Heated air
is blown over the Zyklon B crystals, speeding up the release of cyanide
from the carrier substance and also distributing the poisonous gasses
throughout the room. But, this very simple system was never installed in
any of the alleged gas chambers in which according to witness testimony
hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed. What we have instead is this:
“Der Doseninhalt wurde in Auschwitz vom Mordpersonal,
sogenannten Sanitätsdienstgraden (SDG) der SS, unter Aufsicht eines
SS-Arztes über besondere Einfüllöffnungen in die Gaskammern
hineingeschüttet. In den beiden Gaskammern, in denen die meisten
Menschen vergiftet wurden – den als Keller angelegten Gaskammern der
Krematorien II und III in Auschwitz-Birkenau – befanden sich je vier
dieser Öffnungen auf ihrem begehbaren Dach. Das Granulat gelangte dann
in aus Metallgitter gefertigte Schächte.57 Anschließend gaste die
Blausäure im Innern der Kammer aus, was je nach Menge, Temperatur und
Luftfeuchte unterschiedlich schnell erfolgte, und sie verteilte sich in
ihr, was ebenfalls eine gewisse Zeit brauchte.“[23]
(Under the supervision of a SS Doctor the medical personnel
poured the contents of the cans through special openings into the gas
chambers. Four holes were present in each of the ceilings of the two
chambers in which most of the people (Menschen) were poisoned – the gas
chambers of the crematoria II and III, constructed as basements. The
granules were delivered into shafts made from metal lattice.[24] The
cyanide then outgassed inside the chamber, the time for this varied –
depending on quantity, temperature and humidity, the gas dispersed as
well, which also took time)
The blue staining issue has been discussed by Rudolf, I’ll
just concern myself with the rest here, starting with the “shafts made
from metal lattice”, here is one more view of them [25]. Trunk is not
very clear on this, for good reason no doubt, for instance when
referring to placing the pellets into the columns he writes
“gelangte(n)”, why not say ‘poured into the basket’? This could be
because we have different descriptions for those columns. The first
question that needs to be asked, however, is this: Why would the Germans
go to a system as this when they had the above mentioned circulation
method already in use, successfully? The answer: They would not have, if
mass murder was the intent they would have used the system used in the
delousing chambers.
But, back to the columns, allegedly built by a Michal Kula, see footnote 25, here is what the authors of that article wrote:
“At Auschwitz-Birkenau, in the gas chambers of crematoria
II and III, Zyklon-B was poured in through holes in the roof. After
early experiments with this poison, the camp staff had learned that it
was important to allow the pellets of Zyklon to be removed after the victims’ death, and also to spread them to increase the speed of outgassing.
The solution to these problems was a wire mesh column,
which ran from the floor up through the roof. An SS man, wearing a gas
mask and standing on the roof, would pour the pellets into the top of
the column and place a wooden cover over it. The pellets fell into an
inner wire mesh basket, which held them as they released their poison
into the gas chamber.
After the mass murder was complete, the cover was opened,
the basket was pulled up, and the Zyklon expelled the remainder of its
poison harmlessly into the open air. Meanwhile, the ventilation of the
gas chamber and the cremation of the corpses could begin[…]”
We are told that at first, the pellets were just poured into
the room, no columns, leaving no Prussian Blue stains, but then it was
“learned” to remove the pellets and also that the pellets needed to be
spread. No wonder Trunk provides no details, for the above is rubbish.
The pellets were allegedly in a basket, how then does this aid
spreading? It doesn’t, pouring them on the heads of the people would
have spread them, this method did not. In the verdict of the Auschwitz
Trial the judges talk of a column made from perforated tin, with a
spiral inside to help spread the pellets.[26] The “judges” believed the
nonsense, lies, Filip Müller told them.[27] Just one more description of
those columns, this one by Shaul Chazan, who tells us that the columns
did not reach the floor, but left a gap so the pellets could be swept
up.[28] Not one of those magical (imaginary?) columns has ever been
found.
The drawings by Kula (footnote 24), or McCarthy/van Alstine
(footnote 25) show that the columns, measuring 70cm x 70cm, went right
through the roof, had to, the columns 3m long, the ceiling only 2.40m
high (footnote 25). Therefore, holes measuring at least 70cm x 70cm must
exist in the roof of the ruins of crema II, no sign of them.[29] Mr.
Carlo Mattogno goes into detail about those cracks and blemishes in the
roof [30], identified as “Die Löcher des Todes” (The holes of Death)
[31], by Sven Felix Kellerhoff in: Die Welt, 23.08.2004. The biggest
opening found is 45cm, not nearly enough to accommodate one of those
columns. We are now told that only the inner core stuck through the
roof, but that is just an attempt to deceive, no evidence exists to back
this up. Thus, unless some sense can be made out of this, the columns
must be dismissed as a hoax.
The only other part of interest re. what Trunk wrote above is
the mention of how much Zyklon B was used — the reference to
temperature and humidity. As for the first, he uses Höß
as a reference, who stated that 5 to 7 one kilo cans were used for the
murder of 1,500 people (Menschen), 2 to 3 cans more in cold and/or humid
weather.[32] That per “gassing” and still no signs of Prussian Blue. As
for removing the pellets before Prussian Blue can form, how would these
people on the roof know when to pull the can up, considering what
Trunk/Höß wrote/stated re. cold and humidity? As already pointed out, this column nonsense is rubbish, but impossible for Trunk et al to let go of this column tale for now.
In his conclusion Trunk tells us that both gasses allegedly used, CO
and HCN, are very poisonous — continued breathing of either of them is
deadly inside of minutes. Both poisons were easy to obtain/manufacture
and easy to handle, which is why they were used because their toxicity
was known to the perpetrators. The mass murder of over three million
Jews (Jews this time, not people) historically verified with
overwhelming evidence (durch erdrückende Beweise historisch gesichert).
No need therefore to investigate the chemical or technical aspects of
the mass murder to debunk Revisionists who question the Shoah, the above
only meant as an addition to what is known. But, having experts analyse
the historical sources helps to refute Revisionists’ arguments, if only
as an aside. Thus, even the most far fetched arguments of Negationists
can be disproved.
Final comments: Trunk tells us that both poisons were easy to
obtain and use, not so. Zyklon B was in short supply and because of its
toxicity dangerous to handle: Especially so when it was used as is
alleged — pouring the pellets into baskets, raising them up, and letting
them outgas in the open. That is just one example. Fact is the people
handling this substance were specially trained. Then the repeated
references to “historical” evidence/sources and the admission that there
never was an experts involved in the investigation of crimes — a fact.
As for overwhelming evidence — where? Trunk skips over this and only
tells us that CO and HCN are highly poisonous, stating the obvious. But
when it comes to how the Zyklon B was allegedly administered, all he can
do is make a few general comments, later claiming that there is no need
to look at the technical aspects, pretending that all has been proven.
He is wrong: for the purpose of this book is to fight
Revisionism and stating that CO and HCN are poisonous will just not do,
as the toxicity is not the issue. The technical and chemical aspects
are, but Trunk feels those need not be addressed. A lot of pages filled
with words, but nothing that will turn a doubter into a believer.
To be continued…
Sources:
- Günter Morsch, Bertrand Perz, Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas, Metropol Verlag, Berlin 2011, pp.23-49
- Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein, Adalbert Rückerl, et al, Nationalsozialistische Massentötung durch Giftgas, S. Fischer Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main 1983, pp.281-287
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cyanide
- Neue Studien…, pp.23-25
- Kogon et al, Nationalsozialistische Massentötung…, pp.48f
- http://www.nazigassings.com/dieselgaschamber.html
- http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gcdiesel.html
- Neue Studien…, p.32, the German wording: “…da die
seriöse Forschung überhaupt nicht davon ausgeht, dass in den
Vernichtungslagern der „Aktion Reinhardt“ durchgängig mit
Dieselmotoren gemordet wurde“.
- Raul Hilberg, Die Vernichtung der Europäischen Juden, Frankfurt a. M. 1992, p.941
- Morsch et al, Neue Studien…, p.31, footnote 35: Rudolf Reder, Belzec, Krakow 1946, p.44
- Ibid, p.35, quote from: Jules Schelvis, Vernichtungslager Sobibor, Münster/Hamburg 2003, p.118
- Kogon et al, Massentötungen…, p.163
- Germar Rudolf, The Rudolf Report, http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/
- Rudolf, The Rudolf Report, http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/6.html#6.7.4.
- http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/8.html#8.4.
- http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/8.html#8.4.
- Kogon et al, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen…, p.211
- Rudolf Höss, Death Dealer: The Memoirs of the SS Kommandant at Auschwitz, Prometheus Books, Amherst New York 1992. Edited by Steven Paskuly and translated by Andrew Pollinger, p.43
- http://www.codoh.com/review/revsehn.html
- http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/gcpol11.htm#Gas-chambers
- Josef Bailer, Die “Revisionisten” und die Chemie, in: Brigitte Bailer-Galanda/Wolfgang Benz/Wolfgang Neubauer (publishers), Die Auschwitzleugener. “Revisionistische” Geschichtslüge und historische Wahrheit, Berlin 1996, p.146; pp.142-149
- http://www.nazigassings.com/zyklondelousing.html
- Morsch et al, Neue Studien…, p.39
- Morsch et al, Neue Studien…, p.39; reference to: Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz, Technique and Operation of the Gas chambers, p. 487 http://www.mazal.org/pressac/Pressac0487.htm
- http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/
- Zur Tarnung der in der Decke befindlichen Öffnungen, durch die
das Zyklon B von aussen hineingeschüttet wurde, hatte man aus
durchlöchertem Blech bestehende hohle Säulen installiert, die vom Boden
bis zur Decke reichten und die Öffnungen verdeckten. In den Säulen
befanden sich Spiralen, die das gekörnte Zyklon B nach dem
Einschütten verteilten. (The site this was taken from, IDGR, has
since disappeared, all I have is the printout)
- http://vho.org/GB/c/CM/noholes.html
- http://vho.org/dl/vffg/3_04.pdf ; Die Einfüllöffnungen für Zyklon B – Teil 2., p. 31
- The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of
Crematoriums at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau, Daniel Keren,
Jamie McCarthy, and Harry W. Mazal, http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/holes-report/holes.shtml
- http://vho.org/GB/c/CM/noholes.html
- file:///D:/IDGR%20-%20Die%20L%C3%B6cher%20des%20Todes.htm
- Morsch et al, Neue Studien…, p.39; Höß affidavit of 20 May 1946, IMT document NI-034, p.2
-------------------------------------
By Wilfried Heink
The second essay in chapter two is titled,
“Technische Aspekte des Massenmordes durch Giftgas als Argument vor Gericht”(Technical
aspects of mass murder by poisonous gas as presented in court). It is
written by two authors, Volker Bieler, Judge at the court in Landau,
Palatine – up to 31 August 2010 also department head of the Central
Agency for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes in Ludwigsburg and Kurt
Schrimm, head prosecutor and head of the Ludwigsburg Central Agency for
the Investigation of Nazi Crimes.
The authors start out by informing us that, when the NS regime had
come to an end, mass murder by poisonous gas was the subject of numerous
German courts cases (Trials conducted in the DDR are not considered).
This contribution will show, by citing examples, how this specific
system of murder had been legally evaluated (strafrechtlich bewertet).
Paragraph (§) 211 will be discussed, as well as other relevant
legalities.
Starting with the planning- and executing NS-authorities, right up to
the guard who supervised the burning of the corpses, co-ordination was a
characteristic of the mass murder. How this co-ordination, i.e.,
perpetrator and assistant, played a role in courts’ decisions of
determining sentences will also be discussed. To put it all into
perspective, we will let the verdicts speak for themselves. How the
courts judged the substantial as well as the historical facts is laid
out in the other essays contained in this summarizing volume
(Sammelband). We will therefore only refer to the findings re.
historical events (Historische Vorgänge) – contained in the verdicts –
as is necessary for understanding the legal arguments of the courts.
Comments: The authors refer to “historical” events,
“historical” facts, the historical significance irrelevant when
guilt/innocence of the accused is to be determined. Some generalities
concerning legal systems up front first, the differences no doubt known
to many but perhaps not all, and since I am no expert just a rough
outlay.
The Continental legal system differs from that of England and
the US, insofar as in Continental jurisprudence, and I am only somewhat
familiar with the German system, a series of laws exist, identified by
so-called paragraphs “§”. In the Anglo-American system common law is
practiced, judges verdicts become law and is referred to in similar
cases. The authors discuss § 211, issued on 4 September 1941, at a time
when lawlessness was the norm in Germany, as is claimed. This paragraph,
among other issues, defines that person as a murderer who “insidiously
or cruelly” (heimtückisch oder grausam)
kills another person. A person acts insidiously when taking advantage
of another person’s unwariness and defenselessness (Arg- und
Wehrlosigkeit). Killing cruelly is when out of malice the victim is made
to suffer unnecessarily.
This is an abbreviation of the legal terms as defined by the
authors, but it needs to be mentioned to show how the courts wasted time
in definitions and were forced to do so because of lack of evidence.
Thus, to make all of it appear as legal proceedings, and to be able to
convict without any substantial evidence, they had to resort to legal
shenanigans. In the verdicts that I have seen, and the authors of this
essay confirm this, no mention is ever made of a court ordered
investigation of the alleged crime scene, no court ordered investigation
of the alleged murder weapons, nothing. In the Frankfurt Auschwitz
trials verdict the judges refer to the NSdAP party program, Dr. Broszat
and Dr. Krausnick elaborating, the Hitler speech of 30 January 1939, the
Wannsee Conference, etc. As for the alleged killings, they state that
in the bunkers Jews were killed with gas with no details provided. And
concerning the alleged gassings in crematoria II & III they stated:
“Zur Tarnung der in der Decke befindlichen Öffnungen,
durch die das Zyklon B von aussen hineingeschüttet wurde, hatte man aus
durchlöchertem Blech bestehende hohle Säulen installiert, die vom Boden
bis zur Decke reichten und die Öffnungen verdeckten. In den Säulen
befanden sich Spiralen, die das gekörnte Zyklon B nach dem Einschütten
verteilten.“
(To camouflage the openings in the ceiling,
through which the Zyklon B was poured from the outside, columns made
from perforated sheet metal were installed, reaching from floor to
ceiling and thus covered the openings. Inside the columns were spirals
which distributed the Zyklon B granules.)
According to this, the columns were installed to hide the
holes in the ceiling and the spiral inside the columns – made from
perforated sheet metal – helped to distribute the pellets. None of that
nonsense has survived, we now have columns made from wire mesh with a
can on a string inside, the latest in German technical ingenuity and
know how, equally as ridiculous as pointed out in part IV. The judges
admit that no evidence existed when they stated:
“Bei der Feststellung der individuellen Beteiligung der
Angeklagten an den in dem Konzentrationslager Auschwitz begangenen
Mordtaten, sei es an Massenmorden, sei es an Einzeltötungen, sah sich
das Schwurgericht vor ausserordentlich schwierige Aufgaben gestellt. Die
Angeklagten selbst trugen zur Aufklärung nur sehr wenig bei. Soweit sie
eine Beteiligung zugaben, schwächten sie diese ab, stellten sie
verzerrt dar oder hatten stets eine Reihe von Ausreden zur Hand.
Die wenigen zur Verfügung stehenden Urkunden dienten im
wesentlichen nur der Aufklärung allgemeiner Dinge, konnten jedoch über
die individuelle Schuld der Angeklagten kaum Aufschluss geben.
Das Gericht war somit bei der Aufklärung der von den
Angeklagten begangenen Verbrechen fast ausschliesslich auf
Zeugenaussagen angewiesen[…]”[1]
(Trying to determine participation of the accused in the mass
murder the court was faced with enormous difficulties. The accused
refused to assist, if they admitted to participation they distorted what
happened and had excuses at the ready.
The few available documents were only useful in clearing up
general matters, but were of no help in determining guilt of the
accused.
The courts had to therefore depend almost exclusively on the testimony of witnesses)
The verdicts of the Belzec and Sobibor trials are similar: no sign of
an attempt to substantiate the charges with investigation reports
compiled by experts in the field of crime investigations. In fact,
recent trials in Germany, vs. Messrs. Zündel and Rudolf for instance,
follow much the same pattern — no evidence is submitted and when the
defense tries to submit evidence of its own, it is refused. The authors
of this essay are no doubt aware of this, which is why they needed to
resort to legal definitions. For, if evidence existed, proving without
doubt that the crimes had been committed as alleged, that evidence would
have been presented. And to refer to the contributions by others will
also not cut it — the authors are legal experts and this essay should be
where they make their case, if it can be made then.
The authors then provide excerpts from some of the verdicts, taken from
“Justiz und NS-Verbrechen, Sammlung deutscher Strafurteile wegen nationalsozialistischen Tötungsverbrechen 1945-1999“,
Amsterdam 1968 ff, by Christian F. Rüter and Dick W. de Mildt,
publishers (Justice and NS crimes, A summary of verdicts of NS crimes as
submitted 1945-1999). They start out with the gas wagons and a verdict
of 23 July 1965 from the Bonn trial. Just a sample:
“Bei den Gaswagen handelte es sich um große, grau angestrichene
Lastkraftwagen[...]mit geschlossenem Kastenaufbau[...]Das Innere war mit
verzinktem Eisenblech ausgeschlagen. Auf dem Boden lagen Holzroste,
unter denen sich Rohre befanden. An die Öffnung der Rohre war unter dem
Wagenboden ein Schlauch angeschlossen, der eine konisch zulaufende
Spitze besaß. Das Schlauchende konnte in das Auspuffrohr eingeführt und
mit einer Überwurfmutter fest verschraubt werden”.[2]
Comments: Gaps are in the original. What this says is that
the gas wagons were big trucks, painted grey with a closed-in box at the
back. That box was lined with zinc coated sheet metal, at the floor
wooden grills under which pipes were placed. A hose was connected to
those pipes, the other end of the hose connected to the exhaust pipe.
Thus, we have a grey box, no details as to what material this box was
made of. And that is important, for it had to withstand pressure, this
will be discussed later. Then this: a hose was connected to the exhaust.
The German word used is “Schlauch” and at that time no doubt made of
rubber or some rubber compound. The exhaust pipe gets scorching hot, any
rubber or related material would melt in seconds. And no, Schlauch has
no other meaning in German, if a pipe was meant or a hose made from flex
material it would have said so. Also, I doubt any material available at
that time, other than exhaust pipe related material, would have
withstood the heat. All of this evidence that no experts had been
consulted, the court relying on witness testimony.
In the verdict of the Düsseldorf Treblinka trial of 3 September 1965 we read:
“Der Boden der Gaskammern war gekachelt[…]An denDecken…befanden
sich einige Rohrleitungen und Brauseköpfe. Dadurch sollten die
Gaskammern den Eindruck von Duschräumen hervorrufen. Tatsächlich dienten
die Rohrleitungen aber zum Einführen der von den Dieselmotoren im
Maschinenraum erzeugten Gase[…]”[3]
(The floor of the gas chamber was tiled[…](gap in the original)Pipes
with shower heads were fastened to the ceiling, supposed to create the
impression that this was a shower room. But in fact the pipes were used
to introduce the exhaust gas from the diesel engine, located in the
machine room, into the chamber.)
Comments: And here we go again, diesel exhaust. The previous
author, Achim Trunk, tried hard to convince us that diesel could have
been used, maybe, and that with enough effort it could perhaps even be
poisonous, but concludes, sort of, that “serious”, ahem, historians do
not assume that diesel exhaust was used exclusively, except for
Treblinka. So here we have confirmation, diesel exhaust was allegedly
used in Treblinka. But the excerpt of the verdict says nothing about
special settings for the diesel engine to make the exhaust poisonous
enough to be suitable for mass murder, if this is at all possible,
evidence again that the judges did not rely on expert analysis, that the
proceedings were mere show trials. And why would the
Germans, who had numerous gases at their disposal, among them the highly
poisonous and cheaply produced Holzgas (producer gas) even consider
diesel? All this is confirmation that what is alleged never happened.
The authors continue to write about the measures taken to fool the
alleged victims into thinking that nothing sinister was about to happen,
and all of them fell for it, or so we are ordered to believe. We then
learn that out of the 70,000 mentally challenged, only a few of those
killed in the T4 action were serious enough cases (Endzustände). Again
the reference to the T4 action, unable to make a case for the Shoah, as
it is referred to throughout the book, on its own. The number is of some
importance, however, to be addressed later. They then go into more
detail about definitions, i.e., who was considered a perpetrator (Täter)
and who an assistant (Gehilfe), followed by how punishment was meted
out.
Nothing that helps to prove that “The Shoah” is standing on solid ground, thus of no real benefit.
Sources:
1. The site, IDGR, I copied this from has since disappeared, all I have is the printout.
2 Günter Morsch et al,
Neue Studien zu Nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas, p.51
3 Ibid, p.53
The third and last essay of chapter II is titled:
“Gewalt und Tod in Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslagern. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Archäologie“.
(Violence and death in the concentration and extermination camps.
Possibilities and limits of archeology). The essay is by Dr. Claudia
Theune, University professor, institution head of the Institute for
Ancient and Early History at the Vienna University. This sounds
promising, although by now I would have expected an expert on crime
investigations to join in, instead of a professor on ancient/early
history. But again, no judging the book by its cover; let’s see what Dr.
Theune writes.
In the introduction she informs us that archeology is the science
which allows us, by investigating the traces left behind, to learn about
the history and culture of peoples of times past. Over time different
disciplines have emerged which concentrate on specific time periods.
Before, the middle ages, as well as contemporary history, were not
considered, it was believed that for that time enough documentation
exists. This changed when the bombed out cities were reconstructed, thus
in the 1950s archeology of the Middle Ages emerged, as did archeology
of contemporary history in the 1980s. An international agreement was
reached in 1964, the Charta of Venice, to be followed by the Malta
Convention of 1992 and since then memorials are protected – this to
include memorials from the time of National Socialism – and are part of
archaeological research. Thus we now have four sources to fall back on:
documents, photos, archaeological sources and written as well as oral
witness testimonies. All of those, taken into context will give us an
insight into the history of the former concentration camps and the
violence and killings that took place in them. Theune further tells us
that archaeology is only able to document the history of building traces
found, i.e., basements or building foundations. Buildings that were
demolished are lost for research, it is at best possible to determine
what a building was used for by analogy.[1]
Comments: Good, we learn what archaeology can and cannot do.
Pointing out that conclusions can sometimes only be reached when
applying analogy, i.e. “inference that if two or more things agree with
one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others”
(Webster’s), is a little troubling. For, Webster’s states “prob.”,
probably and if all we have are eyewitness tales, as in most cases, that
and the “probable” is not solid evidence to determine guilt or
innocence. But most important, Theune lists evidence provided in the
order of importance: 1. documents, 2. photos, 3. archaeology and 4.
eyewitness testimony. No sign here of any mention of reports compiled by
experts in the field of crime investigations, unless she included them
in the archaeological sources (archäologische Quellen), or in
documentary sources (schriftliche Quellen), but that is uncertain. It is
however more likely that she is aware of the fact that no such reports
exist and she thus ignored them. But, she did put witness testimony at
the end, and as we have been told in the new release following the 2008
Berlin Conference, the “gas chambers” rest solely on eyewitness testimonies
(see part one), the least reliable source. But, lets keep an open mind
and see, perhaps Dr. Theune did find traces of a gas chamber.
The next sub-chapter is titled:
Archäologie in ehemaligen Konzentrationslagern
(archaeology in the former concentration camps). Archaeological
excavations in the former camps have been undertaken for the past 15
years, so Theune. The reason being: construction in the camps, changes
made re. the appearance of the camps, as in Dachau, Sachsenhausen,
Buchenwald, etc. Or, historical interest was the reason, as was the case
in Flossenbürg and Witten-Annen, finding artefacts another possible
motive. A few investigations were undertaken in Poland, in the former
camp Belzec and Sobibor, as well as in the area around crematoria II in
Auschwitz.[2] Archaeological research in the camps is of special
importance, for in most cases other sources are not available. Based on
those diggings the functions of the camps could be determined.
Theune continues by pointing out that we must perceive archaeological
research re. violence and killings in the gas chambers differently (Die
archäologischen Erkenntnisse zu Gewalt und Tod durch Tötung in
Gaskammern sind jedoch differenziert zu betrachten). In many cases the
technical facilities of the gas chambers (technischen Anlagen der
Gaskammern) were destroyed by the National Socialists in the last days
of the war. Or the structures were changed by the Soviets, as was the
case in Sachsenhausen and Buchenwald, which were Soviet special camps,
or buildings changed when the camps were turned into memorials. The
technical equipment from the Sachsenhausen gas chamber was found in a
shed, the blastings of the 1950s destroyed additional evidence.
Mauthausen also changed, but the analysis of the walls in the room
adjacent to the gas chambers resulted in a discovery: it turned out that
tiles were replaced, one of the reasons to cover a round hole, probably
the opening where the gas line came through the wall.
Many utensils were found, spoons and the like made from aluminum
probably used by the inmates, whereas utensils made from more expensive
material was used by the perpetrators. Human ashes were also found, as
were teeth. Objects found in refuse sites are of little evidentiary
value, as they are instead a telltale sign (deutliche Hinweise). Some
comments about Hartheim which has also been altered.
Comments: For the Belzec investigations by Andrzej Kola see “Belzec”, by Carlo Mattogno.[3] For Sobibor see “The Akte Sobibor”,
by Jürgen Graf, Thomas Kues and Carlo Mattogno.[4] Some of the
controversies re. the recent Sobibor investigations are addressed by
Thomas Kues.[5] It is strange, however, that Theune never mentions
Treblinka, the camp in witch 880,000 Jews were killed, according to Yad
Vashem. Also, witnesses testified that in Belzec and Treblinka the
bodies were first buried in huge mass graves, then exhumed and burned.
The outlines of those mass graves must still be clearly visible, the
graves themselves must of course also still exist, impossible to destroy
huge holes. All of this should assist archaeologists in their
investigations, but we have nothing, no pictures taken from a plane
showing the outlines of the graves, no mention of any of this by Dr.
Theune.
Then there is the issue of the investigations themselves.
Theune tells us that they only started some 15 years ago, the reason for
those investigations not really to substantiate what is alleged but to
turn the sites into memorials, and artefacts are found while doing so.
But then again she tells us about the hole in the wall in one of the
Mauthausen rooms, a small room just ahead of the alleged gas chamber,
she calls it “Gaszelle” (gas cell) and
assumes that this is the hole where the gas pipe went through the wall.
Some time was spent on this investigation; Theune tells us that the
tiles were checked as to their origin, as was the plaster, etc., etc.
But re. the hole she jumps to a conclusion, she is convinced that this
must be the hole through which the gas pipe was routed. How can a hole
tell us that? It can’t, but when approaching an investigation with the
intend to prove what is alleged, this is the outcome and the inherent
problem with all of those so-called investigations. The same approach
was/is taken when investigating events depicted in the Old Testament.
Julius Wellhausen was one of those taking a closer look and had this to
say about some of the researchers: “Für die Deutung werden die Thatsachen vorausgesetzt und aus der Deutung werden sie bewiesen…“(For the interpretation facts are established up front and confirmed by using the interpretation)[6] But
the detailed hole in the wall investigations prove that evidence is
being looked for, just nothing of substance has ever been found.
The camp Sachsenhausen, forgotten for decades, has, since
German unification, come to the fore. In the introduction to the book
under discussion here, we learned that Martin Broszat of the Munich
Institute for Contemporary History (IfZ) published a letter on 19 August
1960 in which he stated that no gas chambers had existed in Germany
proper. This has now been revised, the Institute (IfZ) explained in a
publication of 27 June 2001 that recent research has shown that gas
chambers did exist inside Germany proper. No additional research is
being referred to, only the book “Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas”
by Kogon et al cited as source(pp.240-280).[7] Kogon et al base their
conclusions in part on the testimony of Anton Kaindl, former camp
commandant, at his trial of 23 October – 1 November 1947 before a Soviet
court. The court case not part of this discussion, only to note that it
is strange that Broszat was not aware of this. But, in a publication in
“Stars and Stripes” of 24 January 1993, Simon Wiesenthal wrote:
“It is true that there were no extermination camps on
German soil and thus no mass gassings such as those that took place at
Auschwitz, Treblinka and other camps[…]”[8]
Prof. Dr. Yehuda Bauer, of Yad Vashem, confirmed this in a
letter of 4 July 2000 in which he wrote that to his knowledge gassings
were undertaken in Ravensbrück, and elsewhere in the borders of 1937, on
a small scale[9], but no mention of Sachsenhausen et al. This is now
interpreted to mean that gassings did take place in most camps, but not
mass gassings. Spin everything until it fits. It is however alleged that
mass gassings did take place in Sachsenhausen.
Prof. Maser (Fälschung, Dichtung und Wahrheit über Hitler und
Stalin) lists the contradicting testimonies re. this gas chamber and at
the end refers to an affidavit by Gerhard Schirmer in which the latter
states that a replica of a gas chamber had been constructed by him, and
several others, on order of the Soviets at about the middle of October
1945.[10] This affidavit was eventually seized by German
authorities.[11]
After the war, the Soviets used Sachsenhausen as one of their
special camps, scores of Germans were killed there or just died, many
interned in the camp just for being at the wrong place at the wrong
time. But no building marked “gas chamber” appeared on any of the camp
sketches made public by either the Soviets or East German authorities.
And even though “Fascist crimes” were referred to daily by the Soviets,
no mention of any gas chamber in any of the reports by
vice SMAD chief Serov (SMAD=Soviet Military Administration in
Germany).[12] [13] And it gets even more peculiar: In 1950, the newly
created East German army, at first referred to as “Kasernierte
Volks-Polizei” KVP (police housed in barracks), took over the site
(later all pretences were dropped and the army called an army, the
Nationale Volksarmee [NVA], National peoples Army). An excerpt from the
Sachsenhausen Memorial site regarding the gas chamber:
“In 1952/3, without reference to the historical
importance of the site, the KVP blew up ‘Station Z’ – the crematorium
and killing areas, to make room for a shooting gallery and the local
population used the remaining materials of the barracks for building and
heating. The Nationale Volksarmee (NVA) were also involved in the
destruction of the site[…]”[14]
We are to believe that the Soviets allowed the Germans to
destroy a perfectly good gas chamber, and that even though Smirnov
stated at the IMT that: “…840,000 Russian prisoners of war in Sachsenhausen were annihilated at one time.”[15]
This number has now shrunk somewhat, in the Sachsenhausen memorial
write up we read of 12,000 Soviet POW’s.[16] Still, why not preserve the
building to commemorate “Fascist crimes”? We must remember that at
about the same time, the Soviets were busy re-building the morgue of
crematoria I in Auschwitz, to make it appear as a gas chamber! Why then
not preserve the alleged Sachsenhausen gas chamber? Because no gas
chamber ever existed, except perhaps for the replica built by Schirmer
et al.
In addition to this, Theune tells us that the gassing
equipment was found in a shed, we don’t know what exactly has been
found, but we are asked to believe that the Soviets had the Germans move
said equipment out of the room before they started blasting. Anyone
interested in a bridge in New York, very reasonably priced? Today all
that is shown are some concrete footings of some building, with the
proper write-ups of course – more information available at the memorial
site, footnotes 14 & 16.
Theune then provides some details about the Sachsenhausen
investigations, writing that the ground is saturated with human ashes,
evidence that mass murder had been committed, by whom she does not say.
Excavations were undertaken when the memorial was erected, but she never
again mentions the fact that the Germans had been allowed to blow all
of this up in the 1950s! She does get around later to suggest that some
ditches filled with human ashes were of Soviet doing.
We are then told that the majority of camp inmates, by far, were Jews
and that when digging Jewish burial laws need to be respected. 600,000
Jews were murdered in Belzec, only a few survived, we have hardly any
pictures and only two maps drawn from memory. Drillings were done
throughout the camp, which allowed the investigators to estimate the
size of the mass graves. 33 mass graves were located, some as deep as
5m, with a volume of 21,000 cubic meters. Some building remnants were
found, but the function of them remains unclear. The gas chamber, which
had to be situated in the extermination camp (die in dem
Vernichtungslager gestanden haben muss), could not be located by
archaeological methods. The researchers assumed that it must be building
G, the gas chamber positioned in the middle of the camp according to
eyewitnesses.
Comments: For details about those investigations, please
refer to the book by C. Mattogno, mentioned above, see footnote 3. As
for the 33 graves allegedly located, here is what Mattogno writes:
“The official map of the camp
was drawn by the investigative commission of the German crimes in Poland
and appeared in the article “The Belzec extermination camp” by
Eugeniusz Szrojt, a member of this group.228 There, the area of the
graves is represented by a rectangle placed near the northeastern border
of the camp.
In conclusion, we can see that the location given by Kola
for the majority of the graves is in disagreement both with Rudolf
Reder’s testimony and with the findings of the Polish investigative
commission[…]”
( 228 E. Szrojt, “Obóz zaglady w Belzcu,” in Biuletyn Glównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Niemieckich w Polsce, vol. III, Poznan 1947, insert without page number. A. Kola has also shown this map without any commentary; cf. document 7 in the Appendix.)[17]
The graves were backfilled with the ashes of the corpses
cremated, so we are told. It is impossible to compact the backfill to
keep it from settling, thus, the outlines of the graves should still be
clearly visible, if any graves existed. Also, the “gas chamber” has
never been found, Theune writes that it must have existed, well…., yes.
But since nothing that really fits has been found, it is assumed that
one of the buildings must have been it, not very convincing at all, but
then, impossible to find what never existed.
Sobibor is next, and we learn that an estimated 250,000 people
(Menschen) were killed there. Because a museum is planned, efforts are
made to locate the gas chamber, a number of mass graves have also been
found. Here too it has been determined that the bodies were buried
first, lime poured over them, and later cremated. In a corner hundreds
of bullets were found, an indications that people might have been shot
there (anscheinend Menschen erschossen worden). None of the technical
equipment of the gas chamber was recovered, removed when the camp was
shut down.
Comments: For Sobibor, please refer to the works cited in
footnotes 4 & 5. The part about the lime is interesting, however I
have not seen it mentioned anywhere else. As for mass graves located,
Messrs. Graf, Kues and Mattogno provide details.[18]
The next sub-chapter is titled: “
Archäologische Spuren von Gewalt und Tod in ehemaligen Erschießungsstätten“(archaeological
traces of violence and death in former shooting locations). Theune
writes about excavations in Hebertshausen near Dachau, but most
important were the archaeological investigations in Katyn, Miednoje
(Russia) and Kharkiv in Ukraine, places where Soviet units murdered
Polish citizens. She then writes about the shooting of Soviet POWs in
Hebertshausen, irrelevant even if true, but then returns to Katyn. The
mass graves were identified by using photos taken from planes
(Luftbilder), and drillings were undertaken to determine the size of the
graves. It is estimated that some 16,000 were killed in Katyn, et al.
The investigation also revealed the efforts made by the National
Socialists of 1943, and also that the Soviet secret service had opened
the graves.
Comments: This is important, for Theune admits here that it
is possible to identify graves by using airplane surveillance photos.
Why is that not possible in Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor? Why only
drillings in the latter two, with no investigation in Treblinka to
locate the huge mass graves alleged to exist? There can only be one
plausible explanation: no mass graves exist in those camps, for if they
did exist, air surveillance photos would have pinpointed their location.
For Belzec it is now no longer possible to do this, the site
having been totally worked over, the same is planned for Sobibor.
Treblinka has masses of artifacts cluttering the site, making it almost
impossible to investigate. Why is this, what is being hidden? Not the
graves, for if they would have been located we would have been able to
look at them on one TV channel or another over the years. Jewish burial
laws/concerns? Not true either: In 2010 a whole area of the former
Sachsenhausen sub-camp Lieberose near Jamlitz was dug up, looking for
the graves of 753 Jews allegedly murdered there. A Rabbi was present,
giving his blessings to the excavations. The whole site was turned
upside-down, no regards for any burial laws, but nothing found.[19] This
shows that when it is expected that the diggings will be successful,
graves found, Jewish laws are bypassed, the law only enforced in places
were it is known that no graves exist.
In her summary, Theune tells us that archaeological research has
shown that death was ever present in the camps, it is however not
possible to determine how many were killed. It is also possible to prove
that violent shootings took place (Gewalt kann besonders bei den
Erschiessungsanlagen…belegt werden). However, since the gas chamber
equipment has been removed, archaeological research is limited. But, in
Mauthausen the location of the gas pipe has been revealed, thus proving
that equipment for the gassing of inmates had been installed, even
though said equipment is no longer in place.
Final comments: Theune is displaying her stiff upper lip,
trying to turn a disaster into success, and fails miserably. What have
the investigations by archaeologists revealed, to prove without doubt
that Jews were killed with poisonous gas? Nothing! She harps on about
this Mauthausen hole in the wall, assuming that this is where the gas
pipe entered the room, embarrassing, for she provides no solid evidence.
She talks about the Belzec and Sobibor investigations by
archaeologists, failures, but never mentions the missing Treblinka
graves. Sachsenhausen has been dug up and dusted off, but since the
Soviets used the camp to murder Germans and remodeled it, Maser writes
about it, it is almost impossible to tell who did what. Unless of course
archaeologists approach the subject with the conviction that the
stories told about the “Nazis” are true, and that is obviously the case.
But “investigations” of that kind do not deserve the term, they are
missions undertaken to prove that what is told is fact, efforts to
substantiate witness testimonies, tales of impossibilities.
Dr. Theune can thus also be dismissed as someone who
contributed nothing to proving that Jews were murdered with poisonous
gasses.
To be continued…
Sources:
- Günter Morsch et al, Neue Studien zu Nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas, pp.64/65
- Ibid, pp.65/66, footnotes 9 & 10: 9 Andrzej
Kola, Belzec, The Nazi Camp for Jewish in the Light of Archaeological
Sources, Excavations 1997-1999, Warsaw/Washington 2000;
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/ar/modern/archreview.html
(Februar 2009). Zu den archäologischen Forschungen in Polen siehe
auch: Anders Otte Stensager, Holocaustarkaeologie – en
arkaeologisk funktionsanalysea f udryddelseslejrene in Polen
1941-1945. Magisterarbeit Universität Kobenhavn 2007;
http://www.diis.dk/graphics/CVerPersonlige_CVer/Holocaust_and_Genocide/Publikationer/specialer/Holocaustark%E6ologi-Hoveddel.pdf
(Januar 2010). 10
http://www.hartford.edu/greenberg/events/sobibor.asp (Februar
2009); Tuwiah Friedman (Hrsg.)Sobibór. Ein NS-Vernichtungslager im
Rahmen der Aktion Reinhard. Eine dokumentarische Sammlung, Haifa
1998. No source for Auschwitz.
- http://vho.org/D/b/
- http://juergen-graf.vho.org/pdf/graf-kues-mattogno-die-akte-sobibor.pdf
- http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2009/05/kolas-building-e-at-sobibor-addenda/
- Julius Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und dir Sadducäer, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen, 1967 (first edition Verlag Bamberg, Greifswald 1874), p.66
- Werner Maser, Fälschung, Dichtung und Wahrheit über Hitler und Stalin, Olzog Verlag GmbH, München 2004, p.354
- http://vho.org/dl/vffg/4_01.pdf
- http://vho.org/dl/vffg/4_01.pdf
- Ibid, pp.256/57
- Personal letter of 23 August 2005 by Maser to the me.
- Maser, Fälschung, Dichtung…, pp.358-361
- About the machinations of Ivan Serov, see Marschall Schukow, Lebensweg über Leichen, by Victor Suvorov, Pour le Mérite-Verlag für Militärgeschichte, Selent 2002, pp.257-271
- http://www.stiftung-bg.de/gums/en/index.htm
- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/02-19-46.asp, p.586
- http://www.stiftung-bg.de/gums/en/index.htm
- Mattogno, Belzec, p.76
- http://juergen-graf.vho.org/pdf/graf-kues-mattogno-die-akte-sobibor.pdf
- http://www.mi.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.216164.de
-----------------------------------
By Wilfried Heink
The third chapter in the book “Neue Studien zu
nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas” (New studies on
National Socialist mass murder by poisonous gas) is titled:
“Die Tötungsanstalten der ‘Aktion T4’” (The T4 killing facilities).
As the title suggests, this is about the T4 action in six of the facilities, with a sort of foreword
“Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens” im Nationalsozialismus: Die “Aktion T4” (Extermination
of life unworthy of life under National Socialism. The Action T4), by
Brigitte Kepplinger, Dr. Mag., Soziologin und Historikerin,
wissenschftliche Beamtin am Institute für Gesellschafts- und
Sozialpolitik der Johannes Kepler-Universität Linz.
Since Revisionists do not deny that terminally ill and severely
mentally challenged patients were put to death, there is no need to
spend much time on this chapter. Kepplinger writes about the early
stages of this action: that it was initiated by Hitler who instructed
health minister Leonardo Conti to submit a plan. Later, Philipp Bouhler
of the chancellery was able to push Conti out, an action typical of the
politics of rivalry (
Polikratie) in the Third Reich, according to Kepplinger.
Here is what Prof. Dr. Franz Seidler has to say about what took place
before the doctors’ trial in which the T4 action played a major role:
– Dr. Conti, who was supposed to be one of the accused, committed suicide in his Nürnberg jail cell;
– The substitute head of the Reich Doctors Association (
Reichärztekammer),
Prof. Dr. Kurt Blome, who was to be charged in his stead, had to be
acquitted because he could prove German doctors refused to participate
in experiments on humans without consent of the proband. He stated
however that tests are necessary and the Americans in 1951 invited him
to participate in experiments re. chemical warfare;
– SS Obergruppenführer Prof. Dr. Ernst Robert Grawitz, CEO of the
German Red Cross, committed suicide with his family in April 1945;
– Prof. Dr. August Hirt, head of the institute of military science in Straßburg committed suicide on 2 June 1945;
– Philipp Bouhler, head of the euthanasia program, captured by the
Americans but committed suicide before being brought to Dachau;
– A whole group of doctors could not be found, some of them later
turned up and were taken to the US to participate in research in their
field of expertise, i.e., they continued were they left off just under a
differed administration. [1]
This is an unusually high number of “suicides,” with some of the
doctors not found for the trial but later invited to come to America to
do exactly what they had done in the Third Reich, only now it was deemed
“legal.” Prof. Dr. Karl Brandt, until the end of the war head health
care official, was the most prominent of the accused. He weighed 44kg
(97 pounds) when brought to Nürnberg, a consequence of hardships and
torture inflicted on him by the British. The main charge against him was
the T4 program, with Dr. Eugene Kogon (Nationalsozialistische
Massentötungen…) the chief witness, but Kogon had to admit later that
what he told was hearsay. The shenanigans continued, as documents of
dubious origin were submitted, but too late for the defense to refute
anything. Defense lawyer Dr. Servatuis charged that this program was a
domestic (internal) program that foreigners were not competent to judge.
He further questioned the affidavits because they contained words like
“might have been”, “possibly”, “might be”, etc., and demanded that
witnesses be produced for cross-examination. But the prosecution would
not allow it for fear that the charges could not be sustained; again,
because of phrases in the protocols like “I believe”, I assume”, “as far
as I can remember” and “possibly”. It was also pointed out that the
British engaged in human experiments – this was published in a medical
journal. Dr. Brandt stated that whoever showed mercy for the incurable
can never be a murderer, but to no avail — he was hanged on 2 June
1948.[2]
This proves that the illegality of the program was only “established”
in a show trial. In fact, discussions about the legality of euthanasia
were initiated as early as 1933. During the rearranging (
Neugsataltung)
of German penal law, the Prussian minister of justice, Hanns Kerrl,
published a memorandum entitled “Nationalsozialistische Srafrecht” in
1933 in which he argued that euthanasia cannot be illegal if an
incurable person is asking for it, or if that person is unable to do so
has relatives ask on his/her stead. No person shall be prosecuted if a
doctor determines that the patient cannot be cured, as confirmed by
another medical doctor. The memo then mentions the mentally challenged:
„
Sollte der Staat etwa bei unheilbar Geisteskranken ihre
Ausschaltung aus dem Leben durch amtliche Organe gesetzmäßig anordnen,
so liegt in der Ausführung solcher Maßnahmen nur die Durchführung einer
staatlichen Anordnung … Wohl bleibt zu betonen, daß die Vernichtung
lebensunwerten Lebens durch eine nichtamtliche Person stets eine
strafbare Handlung darstellt.“[3]
(Should the state pass a decree legalizing the ending of the life of
an insane (mentally challenged) person by state officials, participation
in this would only be the execution of a state order…It must be
stressed however that this action, if performed by anyone other than a
state official, is punishable)
This was based on an essay by the expert on penal law (
Strafrechtslehrer), Prof. Karl Binding, and psychiatrist Alfred Hoche, published in Leipzig 1920 and titled
“Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens – Ihr Maß und ihre Form”
(The release for extermination of unworthy life – the limits and form).
According to the authors, the killing of incurables and insane (
Blödsinniger)
should be allowed if asked for by relatives, following a thorough
examination by two doctors and a legal expert. Economic reasons were
given because the persons, who care for these unproductive beings (
Ballastexistenzen), are not available for the greater good.[4]
The above essay was published in 1920 – a time in which starvation as
a result of the criminal British blockade was still fresh in mind. Only
someone who experienced anything like that can dare judge, for the
world looks friendlier with a full stomach.
Churches protested, as did the medical profession and as a
consequence the new penal law of 1935 did not sanction euthanasia. Later
efforts to legalize euthanasia failed, but Hitler claimed that “
the well being of the German populace (Volk) is above any paragraph”.[5] And as has been shown in part II of this series, Hitler issued a decree on 1 September 1939, allowing:
“…that
patients considered incurable according to the best available human
judgment [menschlichem Ermessen] of their state of health, can be
granted a mercy death [Gnadentod].”[6]
This was not a license to kill. Doctors had to determine if the
affected were indeed incurable or mentally challenged beyond hope.
Abuses probably happened, but the intent was to end the lives of those
who were a burden on society, especially in wartime. But above all,
Hitler, as the undisputed head of state, could pass laws, i.e. issue
decrees that became de facto laws. And here we have the issue of
“consciousness of doing wrong”, as August von Knieriem words it.[7]
Von Knieriem starts out with:
“Under the national legal system concerned, the majority of acts judged at Nuremberg would not have been punishable at all…”.[8]
And that is precisely the issue. A Hitler order – or decree of any
kind – was law, period. The doctors examined the patients and found them
to be incurable, thus by the decree Hitler had issued they followed the
law and were not conscious of wrong doing. Von Knieriem puts it thus:
“This problem is generally designated as that of the
“consciousness of unlawfulness” or of doing wrong, and can be expressed
in the following terms: Can the guilty intent be imputed to an actor who
was not conscious of doing wrong? As the act must first be unlawful
for the problem of the actor’s guilt to be raised at all, the question
may also be expressed in the following way: Can anybody be punished for
being guilty of intent if he was mistaken about the lawfulness of his
act? This is why the problem of the consciousness of doing wrong is
generally designated as that of error of law or, since unlawfulness
means that the act is prohibited, as the “error of prohibition.”
Irrespective of the manner in which the question is formulated, its
meaning is always the same; it refers to the determination of the
extent, if any, to which the actor was conscious of doing wrong.”[9]
And moral consideration, if even present, cannot make an act
unlawful. Also, Dr. Brandt had stated at his trial that showing mercy to
the incurable can never be considered murder. These doctors and whoever
else that participated in the program were not murderers, but used
their judgment to end the sufferings of those who at that time could not
be cured. It is therefore folly to refer to the T4 program to make a
case for alleged mass killings of Jews with poisonous gas, since the
illegality of T4 has never been proven.
Just briefly to the numbers of the T4 action, and we seem to have the
same “discrepancies” here as with Shoah numbers. Kogon et al claim
70,273 killed, based on some accounting sheets found.[10] The Kogon book
was published in 1983, but only in the years following German
unification were a number of the pertinent documents discovered in East
German archives. But, the discovery raised more questions as were
answered, according to Peter Sandner.[11] Sandner then tells us that for
a long time it was assumed that 70,000 had been killed; this number was
based on the so-called “Hartheim-Dokument”.[12] But newer research has
shown that at most (
allenfalls) 25,000 to 30,000 files are on
hand, about a third of the total. The questions are, so Sandner: where
are the rest of the files, and how did those files end up in the DDR
(East Germany)?[13] Sandner then tells us that most of the Hartheim
files have been destroyed; he doesn’t say how we know that. In an IfZ
essay of 2003, we learn that 30,000 files have since been located, but
that the rest were destroyed.[14] And even though it seems that only
30,000 deaths can be confirmed, Sandner hangs on to the 70,000 number,
admitting only that the files found in East Germany must be evaluated
and that this is happening now.[15]
In conclusion, the illegality of the T4 action was never established
and there seem to be some other questions – i.e., the numbers. The many
authors of the book under discussion are unable to make a case for mass
gassings, and therefore need to try to make their case via T4: quite the
admittance. Therefore there’s no need to waste time on this chapter,
which offers no evidence at all for the alleged Shoah.
Sources:
- Franz W. Seidler, Das Recht in Siegerhand. Die 13 Nürnberger Prozesse 1945-1949, Pour le Mérite-Verlag für Militärgeschichte, Selen Austria 2007, pp.212/13
- Ibid, pp.213-217
- Lothar Gruchmann, Euthanasie und Justiz im Dritten Reich,
IfZ Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 1972, Heft 3, p.235;
(Nationalsozialistisches Strafrecht, Denkschrift des Preußischen
Justizministers, Berlin 1933, pp.86/87)
- Ibid, pp.235/36
- Ibid, p.239
- Ibid, p.241
- August von Knieriem, The Nuremberg Trials, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, Illinois 1959, pp.217ff
- Ibid, p.217
- Ibid, pp.218/19
- Eugen Kogon et al, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, S. Fischer Verlag Frankfurt am Main 1983, pp. 60-62
- Peter Sander, Die “Euthanasie” Akten im Bundesarchiv, IfZ Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 1999, Heft 3, p.385
- Ibid, p.386. The document stored in the National Archives, Washington, with a film-copy in the Federal Archive, Koblenz.
- Ibid, pp.386/87
- Peter Sandner, Schlüsseldokumente zur Überlieferungsgeschichte
der NS “Euthanasie” Akten gefunden, IfZ Vierteljahrshefte für
Zeitgeschichte 2003, Heft 2, p.285
- Ibid. p.290
Chapter four is titled “
Giftgas als Mittel zum Völkermord in Gaswagen und Vernichtungslager” (Poisonous gas as means to commit mass murder in gas wagons and extermination camps).
With this we finally seem to be getting to the nitty-gritty of the
subject, and we are almost half-way through the book. The first essay is
by Mathias Beer,
“Gaswagen. Von der “Euthanasie” zum Genozid”
(Gas wagons. From euthanasia to genocide). Dr. phil. Mathias Beer is a
historian, the head of research into contemporary history and head of
the Donau-Swabian institute of history in Tübingen.
Most, if not all, authors place the word “euthanasia” in quotation
marks, suggesting that this is the wrong term and that mass murder would
be the correct definition. This is then additional evidence that the
reader must be conditioned and that a solid Shoah case cannot be made.
Before I address the article by Mr. Beer, allow me to state a few
generalities. It appears that gas wagons did exist; called Black Ravens
[1]. They were the invention of Isaj Davidovich Berg, a Jew, and were
used by the Soviets.[2]
Voslensky writes that the inventor of the gas vans was a certain (
gewisser) Berg, the exhaust gasses were routed through the interior of the box (
Wagenkasten)
and that the vans were already in use in 1936.[3] Solzhenitsyn provides
a few more details: Berg had been manager of the economic
administration (AchO) of the NKVD in the Moscow district and was ordered
to put into practice the decisions made by the “Troika”, a semi
judicial body. He did so by having the condemned transported to the
place where they were shot (
Er transportierte Leute zu Erschiessungen).
But with three “Troikas” operating at the same time, the shooting
commandos could not handle the load and Berg invented the gas vans. The
victims were undressed and thrown into a closed truck, camouflaged as a
bread delivery truck. The exhaust gasses were rerouted through the box
and by the time the truck arrived at the place of execution, the victims
had been dealt with (
erledigt). Berg himself was shot in 1939,
but not because of that crime. In 1956 he was rehabilitated, and that
even though his invention, the gas vans, are recorded in his file and
remained there until discovered by journalists.[4]
Now to the German gas vans
alleged to have existed. In the
summer of 1942, the Germans found evidence of the Katyn massacre, the
killing of 27,500 Polish citizens in Katyn and the surrounding area.[5]
On 2 November 1942, the Soviets announced the creation of the
“Extraordinary State Commission” (ESC)[6] and on 19 April 1943 issued a
decree. Mr. Alexander Victor Prusin [7] provides some details:
“The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet signed a decree
stipulating public execution or heavy prison sentences for Axis
personnel and their accomplices found guilty of crimes [End Page 3]
against civilians and POWs. The decree provided no legal definition of
war crimes—it used the all-encompassing terms “atrocities” or “evil
deeds” (zverstva or zlodeianiia)—but it stated that while the Axis
powers and their accomplices had committed horrible crimes against
Soviet citizens, “to date the punishment meted out to these criminals
and their local hirelings is clearly inadequate to the crimes they have
committed.”[…] While some scholars have suggested that the decree was a
direct Soviet response to the German discovery of the mass graves of
Polish POWs in the Katyn Forest in April 1943, the fact that [End Page 4] the Soviets never published the decree confirms that it was intended for internal purposes[…]”[8]
The Germans had actually discovered the Katyn crime scene in the
summer of 1942 [9], but the investigations were not undertaken ‘till the
spring of 1943, for obvious reasons — a war was on. Try as Mr. Prusin
might, the issuing of the above Soviet decree and the discovery by the
Germans of the Katyn crime are just too closely related to dismiss them
as coincidence. Also, publishing decisions made by Soviet officials was
not common practice, Voslensky goes into detail, see footnote 2.
Consequently, and this gets us back to the gas vans, the
Krasnodar/Kharkov show trials were conducted by the Soviets in
July/December 1943.[10] Gas vans play a large role in those trials, not
surprisingly since the Soviets seemed to have been experts on how they
worked. As for how the evidence was collected by the Soviets, see the
Prusin article. What is of interest is that the experts in both trials
established that the vans were diesel powered. From the Krasnodar trial:
“On the basis of the thorough medical, chemical and
spectroscopic investigation which was carried out, a Committee of
Experts consisting of Dr. V. I. Prozorovsky, Chief Medico-Legal Export
of the Commissariat of Public Health of the U.S.S.R.; V. M. Smolyaninov,
Chief Medico-Legal Export of the People’s Commissariat of Public Health
of the R.S.F.S.R.; Professor M. I. Avdeyev, D. M. Sc., Chief
Medico-Legal Expert of the Red Army; Dr. P. S. Semenovsky, Consulting
Physician of the Moscow City Medico-Legal Department; and S. M. Sokolov,
court chemist, arrived at the conclusion that the cause of death in 523
of the cases examined was carbon monoxide poisoning, and that in 100
cases death was due to firearm wounds inflicted, in the majority of
cases, in the head.
In their report the Committee of Experts stated that the carbon monoxide could undoubtedly have had lethal effect if the waste gases from the diesel engine penetrated the closed van”.[11]
And from the Kharkov trial:
“As established by the investigation similar “gas lorries,” which were nicknamed
“murder vans,” were used by the Germans for murdering peaceful Soviet
citizens not only in Krasnodar but also in Kharkov.
These vans, as testified by the German defendants in the present
case and also by witnesses who witnessed the crimes committed by the
Germans, are large closed trucks of dark grey colour, driven by diesel engines.
The vans are lined inside with galvanized iron and have air-tight folding doors at the back. The floor is equipped with a wooden grating under which passes a pipe with apertures. This pipe is connected to the exhaust pipe of the engine. The exhaust gases of the diesel engine, containing highly concentrated carbon monoxide, enter the body of the van, causing rapid poisoning and asphyxiation of the people locked up in the van.”[12]
Thus, Achim Trunk is wrong when he writes that reports about murder
by gas vans talk of gasoline engines explicitly.[13] Also, in a letter
of 16. 5. 42, Walter Rauff (details about him later) is informed that
the Saurer truck, allegedly one of the gas vans, had brake problems
during the transfer from Simferopol to Taganrog. Now, Taganrog is a
little over 200km north of Krasnodar and the Soviets had determined that
in Krasnodar the trucks were powered by diesel engines. This then
suggests that some Saurer trucks were diesel powered, adding to the
confusion. Beer of course never mentions any of this, he starts out by
referring to a letter by Greiser to Himmler in which the former praises
the Sonderkommando Lange who had served well in Kulmhof (Chelmno). It is
not my intention to concentrate on specific camps or locations in which
gas vans were allegedly used, as others have done that (for Chelmno see
the essay by Ingrid Weckert)[14]; I understand that Carlo Mattogno will
publish a book on Chelmno.[15] Also, Ingrid Weckert and Friedrich Berg
published a study on the gas vans dealing with most of the issues.[16] I
will therefore just make a few general comments on the vans themselves:
what is known about them; do we have a precise description of them;
could they have been used as testified, etc. – on this too we only have
eyewitness testimony. Not one of those vans has ever been found, though
we have a picture of a Magirus truck alleged to be a gas van, but the
Magirus factory in Ulm only produced trucks with diesel engines.
Back to Herr Beer, who of course ignores Weckert and Berg, and begins with T4 instead, the title of his first sub-chapter: “
Kaisers Kaffee Geschäft”: Töten auf Rädern mit reinem CO im Rahmen der „Euthanasie“(Kaisers
coffee shop. Killing with pure CO during “euthanasia”) (Beer had
already published an essay on the gas vans for the Institute für
Zeitgeschichte [Institute for contemporary history] in 1987).[17] Beer
writes that the criminological-technical institute of the security
police (KTI) had been told to look for a quick and painless method for
killing the mentally challenged. It was decided that killing with CO
would be the most humane way and some successful tests in the
“euthanasia” facility in Brandenburg an der Havel were undertaken, with
Dr. Widmann opening the valve and controlling the gas amount. Then some
gassings were tried in the concentration camp Fort VII Posen:
Untersturmführer Herbert Lange was in charge and the latter were the
first killings of persons deemed unfit (
unwertes Leben) in the
territories of west and north Poland annexed by the Reich. From this two
methods evolved: the stationary gas chambers for the T4 action, and the
second a prototype of a gas van built with “Sonderkommando Lange” in
control. And even though it is not possible to prove the genesis of this
killing method for lack of sources, we know that the SS and Police
(HSSPF), the RSHA, the KTI, as well as Widmann, were involved.
This first gas van, Beer continues, operated under the same principal
as the gas chambers in the “euthanasia” facilities, except that it was a
mobile gas chamber. The deadly gasses were routed into an air-tight
trailer pulled by a vehicle; thus, the victims did not have to be
transported to the killing facilities. As camouflage the trailers had
“Kaiser’s Kaffee Geschäft” painted on their sides and from January 1940
to July 1941 the “Sonderkommando Lange” killed several thousand patients
in the Warthegau. This was so successful that the gas vans were lent to
East Prussia on 21 May to 8 June 1940, and in the transit camp Soldau
alone 1,500 were killed by the “Sonderkommando Lange” and their
“Kaiser’s Kaffee Geschäft” wagons. This then was the first generation of
gas vans: the systematic murder of persons unfit to live, which was
later expanded in late fall of 194 to Jewish genocide.[18]
Comments: The “Kaiser Kaffee” story stretches credulity to
the breaking point. We are to believe that the “Nazis” first took the
patients for a scenic tour, then unloaded their corpses in a room close
to a crematoria instead of simply killing them right there? Beer admits
that nothing has been found linking the Kaiser Kaffee Company to the gas
trailers and provides no real evidence for the existence of those
trailers. In his 1987 publication (see footnote 17), Beer tells us that
eyewitnesses testified that in 1939/1940 trailers were used in Poland
for the transportation of mentally challenged. The trailers had the
inscription “Kaisers-Kaffee-Geschäft” painted on their sides and it is
alleged that in those trailers the sick were killed with CO (Im Anhänger
sollen Kranke mit aus Stahlflaschen eingeleitetem reinen Kohlenmonoxid (CO) getötet worden sein).
This does not prevent Beer from repeating this story in this newest
publication, needing it to confabulate a link to the killings of the
mentally ill to the alleged killing of Jews. Such is the “evidence” for
the Shoah.
Beer then continues with the coffee wagon story, writing that the
Sonderkommando Lange used them in the Warthegau, and that Lange was very
busy. Then, Arthur Nebe, chief of Einsatzgruppe(EG) B, had Dr. Widmann
from the KTI meet him to discuss killing methods. Widmann was to bring
400kg of explosives as well as some metal hoses. As a first test some
mentally ill were locked into a bunker and the bunker was blown up with
explosives, but that didn’t work too well. Then the Widmann metal hoses
were put to use, connected to the exhaust of a car or truck with the
exhaust directed via the hose into a closed room filled with patients.
From this experiment it was learned that killing with exhaust would be
the solution, but since the EG did not have buildings at the ready, the
killing facilities had to be mobile.
Thus, on instructions from Heydrich, Walter Rauff of group II D 3 (technical matters) ordered that “closed in vehicles” (
geschlossenen Kraftfahrzeuge)
were to be put at the disposal of the EG. They were to be 3.5 ton
vehicles at minimum, powered by gasoline engines and fitted with an
airtight box. The exhaust was to be routed via a metal hose into that
box.
Comments: First a little about Arthur Nebe. Already in 1938
he was a member of a group of traitors: Canaris, von Witzleben, Gisevius
and Count Helldorf: influential people with excellent contacts
abroad.[19] Nebe was later shot because of his involvement in the
assassination attempt of Hitler in 1944. The traitors were desperately
looking for something to discredit Hitler, to turn the German population
against him. Why did Nebe not provide Gisevius – or Canaris who was
head of military intelligence – with details of the gas vans and all the
killings allegedly happening? Why did the gas van story only emerge
after the war?
Now to Walter Rauff, the inventor of the “gas vans”.
“In the late 1940s, Walther (Walter) Rauff, an SS officer
who was responsible for the murder of at least 100,000 people and was
wanted by the Allies as a war criminal, was employed by the Israeli
secret service. Instead of bringing him to justice it paid him for his
services and helped him escape to South America… compared to Rauff, who
was a criminal on the same scale as Eichmann… Klarsfeld wrote in an
e-mail. “I doubt that it could have been possible, because Rauff was
well-known in the Jewish world for his role in the gassing program by
trucks[…]”[20]
Jews knew about Rauff, but the Mossad hired and paid him, and
in 1984 he died of cancer in Chile. In the documentary “Nazi Hunters.
The Real Story” it is claimed that Chile refused to extradite Rauff. If
so, what prevented the Mossad from kidnapping him as they had done to
Eichmann? This story also lacks credibility, leaving one to suspect that
the gas van story was concocted later. In fact, the documents presented
to support the gas van story suggest just that.
As for Widmann and the experiments, this reads like a
Keystone Cops operation. First, the Germans, who were so far advanced in
weapons technology that to this day the victors are looking for links
as to why this was so[21], but these same Germans then had to experiment
with killing methods by sticking people into a bunker and blowing it up
to see if it worked? Heaven help us! The rest of the story is not much
better; surely the Germans were aware of the fact that carbon monoxide
is a dangerous killer.
Also, gasoline engines are not explicitly mentioned, only some eyewitnesses refer to them.
Beer continues to insult our intelligence, but there’s no need to
suffer any further; thus, to the gas vans. First, what do we know about
them, i.e., how were they described? Beer tells us that they were 3.5
ton trucks with an airtight box in which a group of people were loaded
and killed with the exhaust produced by a petrol powered engine, the
exhaust led into the box via metal hoses. The judges in the Bonn Chelmno
trial of 1965 tell us that the trucks were big, painted grey, of
foreign manufacture and had a closed-in box in the back. The double
doors in the back of the box were sealed with rubber gaskets and the
exhaust entered the box via a hose, which could be attached to the
exhaust pipe.[22] The judges of the 1966 Hannover trial have it as a
special truck with a high, air-tight, box in the back in which 40 – 50
persons could be killed within 10 to 15 minutes.
There’s nothing really of substance and all other descriptions are
much the same. Pierre Marais writes that it would be relatively easy to
construct a gas van, but that it is strange that no detailed plans have
survived, given the Germans penchant for exactness and paperwork. Also,
the box needs to be constructed to withstand pressure. A square box was
not ideal for that purpose: the pressure issue a “conditio sine qua non”
– without which it could not be.[23] Any type of container which has to
withstand pressure from within has rounded corners, cylindrical in
shape. A square box as described would have been ill-suited to handle
the pressure even if vents were provided to allow the air in the box to
escape when the exhaust entered, thus allowing the exhaust to vent
during operation. If the vents were too small, either the engine would
stall or the box would explode. But we have no mention of any
calculations concerning this issue, and the square boxes are evidence to
the contrary — i.e. they are proof that no pressure could have been
applied.
What we have is the letter of June 5 (the date handwritten) 1942, which starts with:
“Seit Dezember 1941 wurden beispielsweise so mit 3 eingesetzten Wagen 97,000 verarbeitet”.
(For instance, since December 1941, 97,000 were processed in this manner)
This is nonsense, for no German starts a letter with “
for instance” when no context is provided referring to what instance is meant. The letter then states that to prevent the
possible
build-up of excess pressure, two slots of 10 x 1 cm are to be added to
the back of the box, covered with tin plates on hinges. More nonsense
because excess pressure is a certainty, not a possibility, and those two
slots, amounting to a 4 inch cut with a saw blade and covered with
hinged tin, would not have prevented this. Also, how were the 97,000
“processed” without those slots? In the next letter of 23 June 1942
(handwritten) we learn that the openings in the back door, covered by
sliders, were to be eliminated and replaced by the slots: No mention of
how big those openings were, but having replaced them with those saw
cuts is ridiculous. In both letters the date is added by hand, curious
to say the least. Also, the first letter has “Einzigste Ausfertigung” at
the top, but “Einzigste” is not a German word.
Back to those openings in the back. Pradl, in his testimony at the
Hannover trial stated that a hole of 58-60mm diameter, the size of the
exhaust pipe, was drilled into the floor.[24] Thus we have an intake
opening of 28 square cm and outflow openings of 20 square cm in total,
smaller by almost one third: no go, as the pressure would have built up
and blown the box apart or stalled the engine. Then we have the exhaust
temperature, not mentioned by any of the witnesses. Marais writes that
exhaust exits the engine at 600 to 800 degrees Celsius. He continues by
saying that even if we allow for the exhaust to cool down to 200 degrees
C by the time it enters the box — unlikely that it would have cooled
down that much — the temperature added to the pressure would surely have
blown the box apart.[25] At the end of May 1942 an explosion occurred
at Chelmno, and it is alleged that this was as a result of excess
pressure in a gas van and that consequently the problem was dealt with.
Not so. The explosion occurred in the basement of the castle and
circumstances remain unknown. [26] And even if this explosion was truck
related, as suggested in the letter of 5 June, the 4 inch slots would
not have fixed the problem. Also, we have nothing about Jews being
cooked; not one witness I am aware of mentions death via temperature.
Final comments: The aforementioned letters contain many
oddities, Ingrid Weckert addresses them in her essay (footnote 16).
Marais contacted Beer to ask him about the pressure, Beer wrote back
that the authorities were aware of it and solved the problem by adding
the two 10cm x 1cm slots in the back, which is not so. No gas van has
ever been found, although Beer wrote back to Marais that one has
survived, displayed at Konin, Poland. Not so, the city authorities wrote
back that no such van exists.[27] Smirnov submitted what he deemed to
be gas van evidence at the IMT:
“On the floor of the van, under the grating, were two metal
pipes. These pipes were connected with a transverse pipe of equal
diameter… These pipes had frequent holes a half centimeter in width.
From the transverse pipe down through a hole in the galvanized iron
floor went a rubber hose with a hexagonal screw at the end, threaded so
as to fit the thread on the end of the engine exhaust pipe…which says
that in the Stavropol region the murder vans were used for the killing
of 660 people who were ill in the local hospital. Further I draw the
attention of the Tribunal to the report of the Extraordinary State
Commission regarding the Crimes of the German fascist criminals in
Krasnodar[…]”[28]
No diameter of the exhaust pipe given, but we learn that a
rubber hose was attached to the exhaust pipe: complete nonsense, as the
rubber would have gone up in flames. We also have the reference to the
Krasnodar trial, and there it was determined that the trucks were
powered by diesel engines. Also, the gas vans only came into
prominence at the IMT, but partisans were everywhere. A page in an East
German atlas shows the location of partisan operations in the east. Some
areas around Minsk, for instance, where gas vans were allegedly in
operation were controlled by partisans for periods of time. The same is
true for Kharkov and other areas[29], and with that many partisans
around, why don’t we have any pictures of those gas vans?
Did trucks of this kind even exist? More than likely, but
they could not have been used to gas people as described, and all we
have are witness testimonies: no genuine shop drawings; just letter that
only confuses the issue. Rauff was questioned in Chile, but the whole
Rauff story presents more questions than answers. The West German trials
established nothing; they never asked for any details as to how the gas
vans were operated; no experts were called; just witness testimony was
submitted. In an “Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung” article of
29 April 1966, we read, concerning the trial vs. Pradl and Wentritt,
that classical witnesses are not available (Es fehlt an klassischen
Zeugen). One of the witnesses, name withheld, a member of EG B from June
1941 to June 1942, stated that they had no gas vans and that he never
heard of them. Another witness testified that he saw a gas van, but when
asked what he was told about it he stated that it was to be used for
delousing.[30] And it matters not if alleged perpetrators admitted to
anything. Without expert testimony to prove that the vans could have
been used to gas people as described, the testimony is worthless.
Beer provides no solid evidence. His “Kaffee-Wagen” story is amusing, but in general he just believes they existed. Once again we are no further along in proving that Jews were killed with poisonous gas of any kind.
Sources:
- The Barnes Review, Volume XIV Number 5,
September/October 2008, p.49; also Udo Walendy, Historische Tatsachen
Nr.48, Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1991,
pp.35/36; Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné,
Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, The Black
Book of Communism, Crimes, Terror, Repression, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, London, England 1999, picture
section following p.202, seventh page
- Michael S. Voslensky, Das Geheimnis wird offenbar, Moskauer Archive erzählen 1917-1991, Langen Müller 1995, F.A. Herbig Verlagsbuchhandlung GmbH, München, pp.28/29; also Alexander Solschenizyn, Zweihundert Jahre zusammen, Die Juden in der Sowjetunion, F.A. Herbig Verlagsbuchhandlung GmbH, München 2007, pp.309/10
- Voslensky, Das Geheimnis…, pp.28/29 in “Argumenty i fakty”, Nr.17, 1993
- Solschenizyn, Zweihundert Jahre…, pp.309/10, in Komsomol’skaja Pravda of 28 October 1990, p.2
- Voslensky, Das Geheimnis…, pp.29ff
- For an evaluation of the reports issued by the ESC see: People
and Procedures. Toward a History of the Investigation of Nazi
Crimes in the USSR, by Marina Sorokina. The article is no longer
available on-line, reference to it here http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/kritika/v006/6.4sorokina.pdf
- Alexander Victor Prusin, “Fascist Criminals to the Gallows!”: The Holocaust and Soviet War Crimes Trials, December 1945-February 1946, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/holocaust_and_genocide_studies/v017/17.1prusin.html
- Ibid.
- http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2009/09/katyn/#more-408
- The People’s Verdict. A full Report of the Proceedings at the Krasnodar and Kharkov German Atrocity Trials, Hutchinson and Co., Ltd.; London, New York: 1944
- Ibid, p.14
- Ibid. p.50
- Günter Morsch et al, Neue Studien zu Nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas, p.36
- http://vho.org/tr/2003/4/Weckert400-412.html
- http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2011/02/facing-a-new-decade/#more-1416
- http://vho.org/D/gzz/9.html
- Mathias Beer, Die Entwicklung der Gaswagen beim Mord an den
Juden, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte (VfZ), 1987, Heft 3,
pp.403-417
- Morsch et al, Neue Studien…, pp.155-158
- Annelies von Ribbentrop, Deutsch-Englische Geheimverbindungen, Verlag der Deutschen Hochschullehrer-Zeitung, 1967, p.130
- http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/in-the-service-of-the-jewish-state-1.216923.htm
- Edgar Mayer/Thomas Mehner, Die Lügen der Alliierten und die deutschen Wunderwaffen, Kopp Verlag 2010; Friedrich Georg, Verrat in der Normandie, Grabert-Verlag, Thüringen 2008
- Pierre Marais, “Die Gaswagen”, a translation by Jürgen
Graf from the original “Les Camions à gaz en question.
Polémiques”, Peter Hammer Verlag, Turin, 2008, p.220
- Ibid, pp.24/25
- Eugene Kogon et al, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, S. Fischer Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main 1983, p.83
- Marais, Die Gaswagen, pp.117/18
- Ibid, p.223
- Ibid, p.264
- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/02-19-46.asp , pp.572/73
- Atlas zur geschichte, Band 2, VEB Hermann Haack, Geographisch-Kartographische Anstalt Gotha/Leipzig 1975, p.46
- A copy of this article is in my possession.
-----------------------------
