33. What was the exact procedure the Nazis allegedly used to exterminate Jews?

Ernst Zündel Replies:
Rebuttal # 33

The stories of the methods and procedures of the alleged “gassings” vary according to the extent and capacity of “survivors'” level of education and/or fertility of imagination. They range from dropping the gas, gas pellets or canisters into a crowded room from one hole or several holes in the ceiling or in the wall, to piping it through shower heads or perforated pipes to hollow, perforated pillars, to “steam chambers,” to “electrocution machinery”, “vacuum chambers”, “Diesel engine exhaust chambers”, “mass shootings”, “Chlorine chalk killings” and other fabrications, although the latter alleged methods have nothing to do with gassings. It’s all in the same hopper of alleged genocide.

“Millions” of Jews are alleged to have been killed in this manner. Most of these tales of horrors have now been refuted, and even some of the Holocaust promoters seem embarrassed by some of the outlandish claims, except of course Nizkor!

As one example of many, we have Professor Michel de Bouard, as quoted in Jewish Social Studies, January 1950, who said: “The record is rotten to the core.”

Professor Bouard is not just anyone. He was a former inmate at Mauthausen, honorary Dean of the Faculty of Letters at the University of Caen (Normandy), member of the Committee for the History of the Second World War, and member of the Institut de France.

Here is what he had to say:

“In the monograph on Mauthausen that I published in La Revue d’histoire de a (Deuxieme) Guerre mondiale in 1954, I mentioned a gas chamber on two occasions. When the time of reflection had arrived, I said to myself: where did you arrive at the conviction that there was a gas chamber in Mauthausen? This cannot have been during my stay in this camp, for neither myself nor anybody else ever suspected that there was one there. This must therefore be a piece of ‘baggage’ that I picked up after the war; this was an admitted fact but I noticed that in my text – although I have the habit of supporting most of my statements by references – there was none referring to the gas chamber. . .”

In response to a journalist asking him:

“You were president of the Calvados (Normandy) Association of Deportees, and you resigned in May, 1985, why?”

Professor Bouard answered:

“I found myself torn between my conscience as a historian and the duties it implies, and on the other hand, my membership in a group of comrades whom I deeply love, but who refuse to recognize the necessity of dealing with the deportation as a historical fact in accordance with sound historical methods. I am haunted by the thought that in 100 years or even 50 years the historians will question themselves on this particular aspect of the Second World War which is the concentration camp system and what they will find out. The record is rotten to the core. On one hand a considerable amount of fantasies, inaccuracies, obstinately repeated (in particular concerning numbers) heterogeneous mixtures, generalizations, and on the other hand, very dry critical studies that demonstrate the inanity of these exaggerations.” (Quest-France, August 2-3, 1986, p. 6)

An Iowa supreme court justice, Charles E. Wennerstrum, who presided over one of the Nuremberg trials commented similarly to one Chicago Tribune reporter (Feb. 23, 1948):

“The initial war times trial here was judged and prosecuted by Americans, Russians, British and French with much of the time, effort and high expenses devoted to whitewashing the allies and placing the sole blame for World War II upon Germany. . . The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals has not been evident. The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity aloof from vindictiveness, aloof from personal ambitions for convictions. . . The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome. . . Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who become Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were embedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices.”

In other words, these folks came out the stetls and ghettos of Europe. They were the ones who selected and filtered the so-called “evidence” for the alleged horrific crimes of mass extermination! Said Judge Wennerstrum:

“Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected from the large tonnage of captured records. The selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case.”

That’s why you get stories like the one titled “Rash saved man from being made into lampshade” (Victoria Times-Colonist, March 18, 1993) or “Sent to gas chamber six times at Belsen but survived. (Montreal Gazette, August 5, 1993) It matters little to this man, apparently, that it is no longer claimed even by the most stubborn Holocaust promoters that there were any gas chambers at Belsen!

It will be a future task to investigate the exact sources, origins and development of these claimed mass execution methods, specifically the evolution and usefulness to the Holocaust Lobby of the remaining “gassing” tales. Some of the horror stories appeared only for a short time after the war and disappeared quickly, since some of them were so grotesque or technically impossible that those accounts couldn’t survive as “self evident” accusations.

A perfect example, but only one of hundreds if not thousands, is this one:

Olga Lengyel claimed brazenly that 1,314,000 Jews were gassed and cremated at Auschwitz in only three months (May, June and July of 1944); that 3 bodies could be burned in a crematory retort in half an hour; that 17,280 people were gassed and burned every 24 hours (“Five Chimneys: The Story of Auschwitz”)

Repeatedly you say: “The Nuremberg trials. . . ”

Grotesque nonsense was quoted during the Nuremberg trials! During these trials, for instance, it was stated that steam executions in Treblinka were “self evident” (IMT Vol. IV, p. 1119-1152, Doc. 3311-PS), and it took some years to abandon this story and replace it by the Diesel myth.

If Nizkor states that “such stories [like the steam chambers] had no evidence or corroborating testimony to back them up, and so were not even entered as charges at the war-crimes trials”, Nizkor is simply, once again, not informed.

Nizkor again: “In other words, those false stories are not evidence that the Nazis were falsely charged — rather, they are evidence that the trials were fair, and that the system worked. . . ”

My God! Is Nizkor serious?

There are now posted at the Zundelsite and other websites extensive, very detailed analyses of just what happened at Nuremberg. Of specific noteworthiness are the Carlos Porter documents. They come in five different languages and show that what was said at Nuremberg regarding genocidal exterminations had no scientific value.

Specifically, read Dr. John Fried’s, a New York Jew, testimony at the Zündel preliminary hearings in June of 1984. Dr. Fried was one of the Jewish “editors” who decided what of the Nuremberg transcripts would be kept for posterity and what would be “edited” out – in other words, censored before publication, and just what was allowed to be entered into the Nuremberg records.

Reread Streicher’s testimony, already mentioned several times, which was partially expunged on the order of Nuremberg Judges because it contained claims of torture and brutality by US guards against Streicher, and how those documents that documented the torture were carefully expunged from the records – with the assistance of his defense attorney! What kind of legal assistance was that for a defendant? The story was covered by a reporter of the Times of London, who was not subject to Allied Military censorship. Many of the Nuremberg sentences that caused people to be hanged were based on ex post facto law and admitted psychological or physical torture.

One final point needs to be made:

So the “eye witness testimonies” of “steam chambers” and “electrocution machinery” were “. . . testimonies given by confused eye witnesses”? Is that a fact? How interesting. That is precisely what Revisionists have claimed all along about the testimony about gassings. What makes the “gassing stories different from the “steam chamber” and “electrocution machinery” stories?

The more important question is: Are we talking about mere embellishment due to confusion, or are we talking about deliberate, spiteful, hateful, revenge-driven lies? By people angry at their captors out to settle scores now that the hated enemy was defeated and defenceless.

Nizkor is hurting visibly for physical, tangible evidence of genocidal gassings. THERE IS NO DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE. There was no evidence ever of homicidal gassings by the Germans and none was introduced at Nuremberg.

There are only tall “survivors'” tales not one iota different from the kind of confabulations that would claim “Walpurgisnacht” where the Devil cavorted with virgins centuries ago ,during the Witch hunt craze in the darkest middle ages!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s