Source:
https://codoh.com/library/document/peter-longerich-holocaust/en/
by
John Wear
Published: 2021-08-27
German
historian Dr. Peter Longerich is regarded by many as one of the leading
authorities on the „Holocaust.” Journalist D. D. Guttenplan calls Longerich „one
of the most accomplished German historians of the Holocaust in the generation
born after the war.”[1]
Longerich was hired as an expert defense witness in David Irving’s libel suit
against Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books. He prepared two
reports for this civil action: the first titled „The Systematic Character of
National Socialist Policy for the Annihilation of the Jews,” and the second
titled „Hitler’s Role in the Persecution of the Jews by the National Socialist
Regime.”[2] Longerich later wrote books expanding on his
research for this trial.
This
article discusses some of the weaknesses of Longerich’s research regarding the
so-called Holocaust.
The
Unwritten Order
Holocaust historians have acknowledged that no document of a plan by Germany to
exterminate European Jewry has ever been found. In his well-known book on the
Holocaust, French-Jewish historian Leon Poliakov wrote that „…the campaign to
exterminate the Jews, as regards its conception as well as many other essential
aspects, remains shrouded in darkness.” Poliakov added that no documents of a
plan for exterminating the Jews have ever been found because „perhaps none ever
existed.”[3]
British
historian Ian Kershaw states that when the Soviet archives were opened in the
early 1990s: „Predictably, a written order by Hitler for the ‘Final Solution’
was not found. The presumption that a single, explicit written order had ever
been given had long been dismissed by most historians.”[4]
Many
Jewish Holocaust historians also acknowledge that the Wannsee Conference did not
discuss the extermination of Europe’s Jews. Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda
Bauer has declared, „The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story
that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at.”[5]
Likewise, Israeli Holocaust historian Leni Yahil wrote in regard to the Wannsee
conference, „[I]t is often assumed that the decision to launch the Final
Solution was taken on this occasion, but this is not so.…”[6]
When
asked in 1983 how the extermination of European Jewry took place without an
order, Jewish Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg replied:[7]
„What
began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized
centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for
destructive measures. They were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus,
came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of
minds, a consensus – mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.”
On
January 16, 1985, under cross-examination at the first Ernst Zündel trial in
Toronto, Raul Hilberg confirmed that he said these words.[8]
Thus, Hilberg stated that the genocide of European Jewry was not carried out by
a plan or order, but rather by an incredible mind reading among far-flung German
bureaucrats.
Longerich agrees with Hilberg that Hitler never made a written order to murder
Jews. Instead, Longerich claims that Hitler only issued oral instructions.
Longerich writes:[9]
„When he
[Hitler] did speak about the subject, he used formulations that certainly
left room for interpretation or deliberately concealed the true state of
affairs. Hitler’s behavior in this respect was initially determined by the
desire for secrecy. The murder of the European Jews was treated as classified
information by the organs of the Third Reich on principle, which is to say that
no public discussion of the topic whatsoever was permitted.”
Longerich assumes that Hitler never made a written order to murder European
Jewry because of the lessons he learned from his written order to murder
mentally-ill Germans in his euthanasia program. He claims that Hitler did not
want to assume responsibility for the genocide of European Jewry by making an
unambiguous written order.[10]
Longerich is correct that Hitler authorized in writing the German euthanasia
program.[11] However, Longerich provides no
credible evidence why Hitler decided not to issue a written order to exterminate
European Jewry. Longerich absurdly assumes that Hitler learned his lesson from
his written authorization of the euthanasia program, as if Hitler thought he
would be found innocent if he never made a written order to exterminate Europe’s
Jews.
Himmler’s Speeches
Longerich uses speeches by Heinrich Himmler to attempt to prove that Hitler
ordered the extermination of European Jewry. He writes that Himmler expressed
himself very clearly in the years 1943 and 1944 about the murder of European
Jews by his SS. Longerich says that even if Himmler did not name one particular
name, Himmler’s listeners knew perfectly well that it was Hitler who had given
him this commission.[12]
Himmler’s Posen speech of October 4, 1943, has been called „the best evidence”
to prove the Holocaust happened.[13] Himmler
stated in this speech: „I am referring here to the evacuation of the Jews, the
extermination of the Jewish people. This is one of the things that is easily
said: „The Jewish people are going to be exterminated,” that’s what every Party
member says, „sure, it’s in our program, elimination of the Jews, extermination
– it’ll be done.”[14]
Most
translations of Himmler’s Posen speech assume that the German word „ausrotten”
means murder or extermination. David Irving, who is very fluent in the German
language, testified at the second Ernst Zündel trial that this is an incorrect
translation of the word „ausrotten”:[15]
„There
is no doubt that in modern Germany the word ausrotten now means murder. But we
have to look at the meaning of the word ausrotten in the 1930s and 1940s, as
used by those who wrote or spoke these documents. In the mouth of Adolf Hitler,
the word ausrotten is never once used to mean murder, and I’ve made a study of
that particular semantic problem. You can find document after document which
Hitler himself spoke or wrote where the word ausrotten cannot possibly mean
murder.”
Longerich writes that the word „ausrotten” or „ausrottung” means
extirpation.[16] Deborah Lipstadt writes that
virtually all Holocaust historians agree that the use of this term by Nazi
leaders in conjunction with Jews from the summer of 1941 on is an unambiguous
euphemism for „physical annihilation.”[17]
Lipstadt
says that David Irving at her trial contended that the word „ausrottung”
meant to literally uproot, as in the enforced emigration – but certainly not
murder – of Jews. Irving read a speech Hitler gave immediately after
Kristallnacht to prove his point: „I look at the intellectual class among
us…you could ausrottung them…but unfortunately you need them.” Irving
argued that Hitler could not have been referring to actual killings when he used
the word „ausrottung,” because this speech was made in 1938 when nobody
was being liquidated.[18]
Lipstadt
writes that Longerich quickly responded to Irving, „Except the 90 people who
just died the night before.” Longerich added:[19]
„This is
the most brutal killing which happened in Germany since, I think, the Middle
Ages. There are more than 90 people, I would say several hundred people possibly
were killed the last night, and in this atmosphere, Hitler is giving a press
conference and speaks about the ausrottung of intellectuals…Look again at the
historical content…this is an atmosphere which is dominated by brutality and a
kind of absence of public order and law.”
Despite
the possible ambiguity of this example, Deborah Lipstadt and Peter Longerich
ignore the numerous examples where German leaders used the word „ausrotten”
or „ausrottung” in a context when they could not possibly have meant
murder. David Irving gave some examples in his testimony at the second Ernst
Zündel trial:[20]
„In
August 1936, Hitler dictated the famous memorandum of the four-year plan which
contains the phrase ‘if the Bolsheviks succeed in entering Germany, it will lead
to the ausrotten of the German people.’ Now, clearly, he doesn’t mean that if
the Bolsheviks invade Germany it will lead to the murder of 50 million Germans.
He is saying it will lead to the end of Germany as a national state, as a power,
as a factor, an end of the German people. He says the same to the
Czechoslovakian President Emil Hácha, on March the 15th, 1939. Hácha
has just signed away Czechoslovakia’s independence in a midnight session with
Hitler and Hitler says to him afterwards, ‘It is a good thing that you signed
because otherwise it would have meant the ausrotten of the Czechoslovakian
people.’ Hitler didn’t mean, ‘If you hadn’t signed, I would have had to kill 8
million Czechs.’ What he is saying [is], ‘If you hadn’t signed, I would
have ended Czechoslovakia’s existence as a separate country.’”
Since
Hitler didn’t use the word „ausrotten” to mean murder, and since Hitler
and Himmler spoke the same language, there is no reason to believe that Himmler
was speaking about the murder of the Jews in his widely-quoted 1943 Posen
speech.
The
„Holocaust by Bullets”
Longerich states that the Einsatzgruppen and German Wehrmacht murdered
many hundreds of thousands of Jews in the occupied Soviet territories. Since the
bodies of these murdered Jews have not been found, Longerich and other Holocaust
historians claim they were cremated in what is called Aktion 1005.[21]
An article in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust defines this operation:
„Operation 1005, code name for a large-scale activity that aimed to obliterate
the traces of the murder of millions of human beings by the Nazis in occupied
Europe.”[22]
It is
unrealistic to assume that Aktion 1005 succeeded and that Germans exhumed and
burned such a large number of dead bodies. This would mean that, within a period
of 13 months, the Germans had to have emptied thousands of mass graves in Soviet
territory of more than 463,000 square miles – all without leaving behind any
material or documentary traces. The mass exhumation of such a large number of
bodies in such a short period of time is quite impossible.[23]
Furthermore, we know that no Soviet planes discovered and photographed the
burning of these bodies, because otherwise the Soviets would have exploited the
photographs for propaganda purposes. The thousands of pyres burning through the
night would have been photographed by the Soviets if such mass exhumations had
actually taken place.[24]
Jewish
historian Yitzhak Arad attempts to explain away these problems by stating that
Aktion 1005 was both a highly classified operation and a failure:[25]
„Aktion
1005 was a highly classified operation. Orders and reports were given and
received verbally, and no German documents were saved to provide evidence. The
SS, which was responsible for the operation, did everything in its power to
prevent a leak of information on the site…
There is
no way of knowing how many corpses were cremated in the course of the operation
– hundreds of thousands, certainly, possibly even millions. But millions of
corpses remained in the pits in which they had been buried. This tangible
evidence – the corpses of millions of Jews and non-Jews, murdered by Nazi
Germany and its collaborators in the occupied Soviet territories – remained for
posterity. In its main objective – destroying the evidence of mass murder –
Aktion 1005 failed.”
The
problem with Arad’s explanation is that neither the Soviets nor anyone else have
found mass graves in which large numbers of Jews were supposedly buried in the
Soviet Union. Germar Rudolf writes:[26]
„After
the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, numerous mass graves, containing
altogether hundreds of thousands of bodies of victims of the Soviets, were
discovered, excavated, and investigated. Not only was the number of victims
determined, but in many cases the specific cause of death as well. In the same
regions where many of these mass graves were found, one million Jews are said to
have been shot by the Einsatzgruppen. Yet no such grave has ever been reported
found, let alone dug and investigated, in the more than half a century during
which these areas have been controlled by the USSR and its successor states.”
Thus,
the undocumented and imaginary Aktion 1005 supported by Longerich and other
historians provides no evidence of a German program of genocide against Jews.
Carlo
Mattogno concludes: „Orthodox Holocaust historiography has never proven that the
authorities of the Reich planned and carried out a general plan on an
institutional level to eliminate the bodies of the victims of the
Einsatzgruppen and other associated units by means of a systematic operation
of exhumation and cremation of bodies.”[27]
The
Aktion Reinhardt Camps
Like
most historians, Peter Longerich believes the Aktion Reinhardt camps of
Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec were pure extermination camps. He states in his
book Holocaust that 1,274,166 Jews had been killed in the Aktion
Reinhardt camps by the end of 1942. Longerich bases his statement on the Höfle
telegram from January 1943, which shows that this many Jews had been sent by
then to the Aktion Reinhardt camps. Longerich assumes that all Jews sent to the
Aktion Reinhardt camps were murdered.[28]
However,
the Aktion Reinhardt camps were transit camps rather than extermination camps.
The demographic studies, the statements from Heinrich Himmler, the reports of
transfers of Jews from the Aktion Reinhardt camps to Auschwitz and Majdanek, the
lack of credible forensic evidence that mass exterminations occurred at these
camps, the photographic and engineering evidence, the impossibility of disposing
of so many bodies in such a short period of time, the relative lack of secrecy
and security in the camps, and the small size of the areas where the bodies were
supposedly buried all indicate that the Aktion Reinhardt camps were transit
camps.[29]
The
impossibility of disposing of so many bodies in such a short period of time
proves the absurdity that all Jews sent to the Aktion Reinhardt camps were
exterminated. Historians universally acknowledge that none of the Aktion
Reinhardt camps had crematoria. By contrast, German concentration camps such as
Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen and Dachau had crematoria even though mass killings
are not alleged to have taken place at these camps. Why wouldn’t the Germans
have also built crematoria at the Aktion Reinhardt camps, since such crematoria
would have been far more necessary to accomplish the mass killings?[30]
According to Holocaust historians, the bodies of Jews gassed at the Aktion
Reinhardt camps were first buried in mass graves. The bodies were later exhumed
and burned in the open air.[31]
Based on
several cremation experiments, Carlo Mattogno determines that 160 kg of wood are
needed to cremate a human body weighing 45 kg. He calculates that the burning of
870,000 bodies at Treblinka would have left 1,950 tons of human ashes, plus
11,100 tons of wood ashes. The total volume of ashes would have amounted to
approximately 48,400 cubic meters. Also, 139,200 metric tons of wood would have
been required for the incineration of the bodies. Since human teeth and bones
cannot be completely destroyed through open air cremations, myriads of teeth and
bone fragments would have been scattered at the site of the former camp.[32]
Even if
Mattogno’s calculations are significantly inflated, the mass extermination of
approximately 870,000 people at Treblinka would have left huge amounts of human
and wood ashes as well as teeth and bones. The fact that large quantities of
these have not been found indicates that mass exterminations of inmates did not
take place at Treblinka.
Although
enormous amounts of fuel would have been needed to cremate the hundreds of
thousands of alleged corpses, there is no credible documentary record or witness
recollection of the great quantities of firewood that would have been required.
According to Polish-Jewish historian Rachel Auerbach, fuel to burn bodies was
not needed at Treblinka because the bodies of women, which had more fat, „were
used to kindle, or, more accurately put, to build the fires among the piles of
corpses…” Even more incredible, she wrote that „blood, too, was found to be
first-class combustion material.”[33] Auerbach’s
explanation of how bodies were burned at Treblinka is total nonsense.
Jewish „Holocaust” Survivors
Peter
Longerich writes that „no witnesses were to fall into the hands of the
Allies. That meant that the prisoners were either to be murdered or ‘evacuated’
from one camp to the other. The SS saw the prisoners who were ‘fit for work’ as
living capital that would be exploited to the bitter end.”[34]
A
problem with Longerich’s statement is that a large number of Jewish children
survived the so-called Holocaust. Carlo Mattogno has prepared a long list of
children and twins at Auschwitz who survived the camp.[35]
These children were not „fit for work” and could not have survived the war if
Auschwitz-Birkenau had been the extermination camp it is claimed to be.
Another
problem with Longerich’s statement is that a large number of disabled Jewish
adults who were not fit for work survived their internment at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
For example, Anne Frank’s father, Otto Frank, contracted typhus at Auschwitz and
was sent to the camp hospital to recover. He remained at Auschwitz-Birkenau when
the Germans abandoned the camp in January 1945, survived the war, and died in
Switzerland in August 1980.[36] If Auschwitz-Birkenau
had been a place of mass exterminations, why would the German authorities leave
behind thousands of disabled Jews such as Otto Frank to testify to their
genocide?
Primo
Levi, a Jewish Communist, is another disabled Jew who one would think would have
been executed at Auschwitz-Birkenau. However, along with about 7,000 to 8,000
additional disabled Jews, Levi was left behind in Auschwitz. Although the
Germans could have easily gassed and cremated these Jewish inmates in
crematorium V in Birkenau during the first week of January 1945, they let them
survive the war to tell their stories about Auschwitz-Birkenau.[37]
German Gas Chambers
Like
most historians, Longerich believes that Jews were gassed in homicidal
gas chambers at Auschwitz. He writes: „On 17 and 18 July [1942] Himmler visited
Auschwitz and used the opportunity to witness a demonstration of how people were
murdered in a gas chamber.”[38] Longerich further
writes: „And on 21 July, for the first time, ‘Jews incapable of work’, whom
Himmler had insisted be deported, were separated from the other deportees
immediately on arrival and murdered in the gas chambers.”[39]
The
forensic evidence, however, refutes the possibility of homicidal gas chambers at
Auschwitz-Birkenau. Reports, articles, testimony, books and videos from Fred
Leuchter, Walter Lüftl, Germar Rudolf, Friedrich Paul Berg, Dr. William B.
Lindsey, Carlo Mattogno, John C. Ball, Dr. Arthur Butz, Dr. Nicholas
Kollerstrom, Wolfgang Fröhlich and David Cole have proven that there were no
homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The books The Real Case for
Auschwitz by Carlo Mattogno[40] and The
Chemistry of Auschwitz by Germar Rudolf[41]
are probably the best books available for anyone wanting to make a thorough
study of this subject.
Longerich also writes that the Germans used gas vans to murder Jews in the
Soviet-occupied territories.[42] In regard to the
gas vans, Ingrid Weckert writes:[43]
„There
is no document to indicate that [homicidal] ‘gas vans’ had ever come up
for discussion in the Third Reich. The term dates from post-war times…To
automatically connect the term ‘Special Motor Vehicle’ with the murder of Jews
reveals gross ignorance of the facts…To date, no vehicle which clearly could
have served as [a] ‘gas van’ has ever been found.”
Longerich does not provide any information of how the alleged German homicidal
gas chambers operated. This is typical of virtually all Holocaust historians.
American engineer Friedrich Paul Berg wrote about the Holocaust literature that
„as far as the actual mechanics of the extermination process are concerned,
about all one ever finds is an occasional short and vague description.”[44]
Longerich never provides even a short or vague description of how German
homicidal gas chambers operated.
Berg
concluded concerning the evidence provided for the alleged German Diesel gas
chambers: „Ultimately, the burden of proof for the mass gassing allegations must
be on the accusers. Until now, their best evidence for CO gassings has failed to
meet the most basic standards that credible evidence must pass to
satisfy reasonable people.”[45]
Conclusion
Deborah
Lipstadt writes that during her trial her defense attorney, Richard Rampton,
„passed me his completed sketch of a smiling, almost beatific, Saint Peter –
who, except for his halo and wings, bore an uncanny resemblance to Peter
Longerich.” Rampton also approached Longerich to thank him after his testimony
at the trial. Lipstadt writes that Longerich looked at Rampton and said, not
without some bitterness, „The Nazis stole our political identity. And now people
like Irving are attempting to steal it again.”[46]
However,
in my opinion, it is court historians such as Longerich who are
stealing Germany’s political and historical identity. German children are taught
from early childhood to view the Third Reich as solely bad, wrong, criminal and
despicable. In the spring of 2001, Anna Rau, the 17-year-old daughter of German
president Johannes Rau, was interviewed by a German television station. Anna Rau
discussed what was taught about history in school:[47]
„As to
the question what we are learning in school when history is taught, I can answer
simply with the term National Socialism. Nothing else seems to matter.
Everything about the Second World War really gets on my nerves. It is always the
same. They start with Hitler, then we talk about Anne Frank, and on the day when
we should take a walk in the forest, we have to go and see the movie Schindler’s
List instead. And this continues when we go to church where in place of learning
our religious confirmation instructions we are taught more about the
„Holocaust.” The final result is obviously that we just don’t want to hear about
that stuff anymore. It drains us emotionally, and eventually leads to
callousness.”
Wilhelm
Stäglich, a German judge and author of the book Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at
the Evidence, wrote in 1984 about the intellectual subservience and guilt
inculcated in most Germans after World War II:[48]
„We
Germans, in spite of the repeated assurances to the contrary of our puppet
politicians, are politically and intellectually no longer a sovereign nation
since our defeat in the Second World War. Our political subservience, which is
apparent in the fact of the breaking up of the Reich and the incorporation of
the individual pieces into the extant power blocks of the East and of the West,
has had as its consequence a corresponding intellectual subservience. Escape
from this intellectual subservience is prevented primarily by the guilt complex
inculcated in most Germans through the „reeducation” instituted in 1945. This
guilt complex is based primarily on the Holocaust Legend. Therefore, for we
Germans the struggle against what I have called the „Auschwitz Myth” is so
frightfully important.”
Germany
soon passed laws after the publication of Stäglich’s book making it a felony to
dispute any aspect of the Holocaust story. The obvious question is: What kind of
historical truth needs criminal sanctions to protect it? The official Holocaust
story would not need criminal sanctions to protect it if it was historically
accurate. The goal is to make Germans feel guilty about a genocide they never
committed, while making a criminal of anyone who contests the fraudulent
Holocaust story.
Notes
|
[1] |
Guttenplan, D. D., The Holocaust on Trial, New York: W. W. Norton
& Company, 2001, p. 235. |
|
[2] |
Longerich, Peter, The Unwritten Order: Hitler’s Role in the Final
Solution, The Mill, Brimscombe Port: Tempus Publishing Limited,
2005, pp. 8-9. |
|
[3] |
Poliakov, Leon, Harvest of Hate, New York: Holocaust Library,
1979, p. 108. |
|
[4] |
Kershaw, Ian, Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution, New
Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2008, p. 96. |
|
[5] |
Canadian Jewish News,
Toronto, Jan. 30, 1992, p. 8. |
|
[6] |
Yahil, Leni, The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945,
Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 312. |
|
[7] |
De Wan, George, „The Holocaust in Perspective,” Newsday: Long
Island, N.Y., Feb. 23, 1983, Part II, p. 3. |
|
[8] |
See trial transcript, pp. 846-848. Also, Kulaszka, Barbara, (ed.),
Did Six Million Really Die: Report of Evidence in the Canadian
„False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel, Toronto: Samisdat Publishers
Ltd., 1992, p. 24. |
|
[9] |
Longerich, Peter, The Unwritten Order: Hitler’s Role in the Final
Solution, The Mill, Brimscombe Port: Tempus Publishing Limited,
2005, pp. 22-23. |
|
[10] |
Ibid., pp. 82-83. |
|
[11] |
Schmidt, Ulf, Karl Brandt: The Nazi Doctor, New York: Continuum
Books, 2007, pp. 132-133. |
|
[12] |
Longerich, Peter, The Unwritten Order: Hitler’s Role in the Final
Solution, The Mill, Brimscombe Port: Tempus Publishing Limited,
2005, p. 209. |
|
[13] |
http://codoh.com/library/document/891/. |
|
[14] |
http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%204029.pdf. |
|
[15] |
Kulaszka, Barbara, (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die: Report of
Evidence in the Canadian „False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel,
Toronto: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 1992, pp. 370-371. |
|
[16] |
Longerich, Peter, The Unwritten Order: Hitler’s Role in the Final
Solution, The Mill, Brimscombe Port: Tempus Publishing Limited,
2005, pp. 24, 31, 34, 92. |
|
[17] |
Lipstadt, Deborah E., History on Trial: My Day in Court with David
Irving, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2005, p. 224. |
|
[18] |
Ibid., pp. 224-225. |
|
[19] |
Ibid., p. 225. |
|
[20] |
Kulaszka, Barbara, (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die: Report of
Evidence in the Canadian „False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel,
Toronto: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 1992, p. 371. |
|
[21] |
Longerich, Peter, Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the
Jews, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 242, 255, 410-411. |
|
[22] |
Gutman, Israel (ed), Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, 4 vols., New
York: Macmillan, 1990, article „Aktion 1005,” Vol. 1, p. 11. |
|
[23] |
Mattogno, Carlo and Graf, Jürgen, Treblinka: Transit Camp or
Extermination Camp?, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2010, p.
226. |
|
[24] |
Ibid. |
|
[25] |
Arad, Yitzhak, The Holocaust in the Soviet Union, Lincoln, Neb.:
University of Nebraska Press, 2009, pp. 355-356. |
|
[26] |
Rudolf, Germar, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and
Technical Aspects of the „Gas Chambers” of Auschwitz,
Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2011, p. 40. |
|
[27] |
Mattogno, Carlo, The Einsatzgruppen in the Occupied Eastern
Territories: Genesis, Mission and Actions, Uckfield, UK: Castle Hill
Publishers, 2018, p. 715. |
|
[28] |
Longerich, Peter, Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the
Jews, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 340. |
|
[29] |
Wear, John, „What Happened to Jews Sent to the Aktion Reinhardt
Camps?” Inconvenient History, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2020. |
|
[30] |
Graf, Jürgen, „David Irving and the Aktion Reinhardt Camps,”
Inconvenient History, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2009. |
|
[31] |
Ibid. |
|
[32] |
Mattogno, Carlo and Graf, Jürgen, Treblinka: Transit Camp or
Extermination Camp? Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2010, pp.
150-151. |
|
[33] |
Auerbach, Rachel, „In the Fields of Treblinka,” edited by Donat,
Alexander, The Death Camp Treblinka, New York: Holocaust Library,
1979, p. 38. |
|
[34] |
Longerich, Peter, Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the
Jews, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 411. |
|
[35] |
Mattogno, Carlo and Nyiszli, Miklos, An Auschwitz Doctor’s Eyewitness
Account: The Bestselling Tall Tales of Dr. Mengele’s Assistant
Analyzed, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2020, pp. 391-407. |
|
[36] |
Weber, Mark, The Journal of Historical Review, May/June 1995,
Vol. 15, No. 3, p. 31. |
|
[37] |
Faurison, Robert, „Witnesses to the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz,” in
Gauss, Ernst (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of
Truth and Memory, Capshaw, Ala.: Thesis and Dissertations Press,
2000, p. 142. See also Mattogno, Carlo, Auschwitz: The Case for
Sanity, Volume Two, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2010, p.
558. |
|
[38] |
Longrich, Peter, Heinrich Himmler, New York: Oxford University
Press, 2012, p. 573. |
|
[39] |
Ibid., p. 572. |
|
[40] |
Mattogno, Carlo, The Real Case for Auschwitz: Robert van Pelt’s
Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed, 2nd
ed., Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015 https://shop.codoh.com/book/the-real-case-for-auschwitz-en/389/. |
|
[41] |
Rudolf, Germar, The Chemistry of Auschwitz: The Technology and
Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas Chambers. A Crime-Scene
Investigation, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017 https://shop.codoh.com/book/the-chemistry-of-auschwitz-en/389/. |
|
[42] |
Longerich, Peter, Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the
Jews, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 240-241, 278-279. |
|
[43] |
Weckert, Ingrid, „The Gas Vans: A Critical Assessment of the Evidence,”
in Gauss, Ernst (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique
of Truth and Memory, Capshaw, Ala.: Thesis and Dissertations Press,
2000, pp. 217-218. |
|
[44] |
Berg, Friedrich Paul, „The Diesel Gas Chambers: Ideal for Torture –
Absurd for Murder, „ in Gauss, Ernst (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust:
The Growing Critique of Truth and Memory, Capshaw, Ala.: Thesis and
Dissertations Press, 2000, pp. 435-436. |
|
[45] |
Ibid., p. 465. |
|
[46] |
Lipstadt, Deborah E., History on Trial: My Day in Court with David
Irving, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2005, pp. 228, 231. |
|
[47] |
Schmidt, Hans, Hitler Boys in America: Re-Education Exposed,
Pensacola, Fla.: Hans Schmidt Publications, 2003, pp. 261-262. |
|
[48] |
Stäglich, Wilhelm, „Der Auschwitz Mythos: A Book and its Fate in
the German Federal Republic,” The Journal of Historical Review,
Vol. 5, No. 1, Spring 1984, p. 65. |
