2017-08-11 23:57:11 UTC
Counter Them Excerpt
|| Return to Cybrary ||
In Auschwitz wurde niemand vergast. (Nobody was gassed at
Auschwitz.: 60 Rightist Lies and How to Counter Them) Excerpt
These excerpts from In Auschwitz wurde niemand vergast.
(Nobody was gassed at Auschwitz.: 60 Rightist Lies and How to
Counter Them), written by Markus Tiedemann and published by
the Verlag an der Ruhr, is being translated into English and
will appear some time next year.
Email Verlag an Der Ruhr for more information, or Kenneth
Lie #29 The Concentration Camps
The concentration camps were used exclusively for re-education
and punishment. There were no gas chambers.
This claim is made frequently by Holocaust deniers, and they
use a cleverly chosen assortment of documents to back up their
assertions. Often, young people who have visited a
concentration camp memorial site point out that there were no
gas chambers to be seen. Sometimes they will point to reports
by pre-1941 inmates or will cite the diagrams of Auschwitz I
(not the extermination camp Birkenau) in which no gas chambers
are to be seen.
When visiting a concentration camp, it is important to remember
that not all of them had gas chambers. Although Auschwitz and
Chelmno (Kulmhof) were built within the borders of the
so-called Reich, all the actual Nazi extermination camps
(i.e., camps devoted almost exclusively to mass murder) were
situated outside of Germany proper. For this reason, most young
Germans have never seen one of the death camps.
There were six main extermination camps:
Auschwitz-Birkenau (1,000,000+ deaths), Treblinka (974,000+),
Sobibor (250,000+), Belzec (600,000+), Chelmno (225,000+), and
What is repressed and largely forgotten is that there was an
entire system of concentration camps; along with the
extermination camps, there were labor camps and transit
camps, which, with all their subcamps, were dispersed
throughout Germany. Forced labor was always a hallmark of the
concentration camp system. At the beginning, the inmates were
used in construction; later in the armaments industry as well.
Selections were a feature at Birkenau (Auschwitz II) only and
were determined by the current need for labor. At the other
extermination camps, people were fed directly into the gas
chambers. At labor and transit camps, people were destroyed
by a combination of overwork and malnourishment. Although
executions were common, killings were not done on an industrial
scale as was the case at the extermination camps.
Those former inmates who told of re-education, forced labor,
and eventual release were certainly not lying. However, such
reports were made almost entirely by German political prisoners
who were interned in concentration camps during the period from
1933-1936 or at the very latest 1939-1940. Reports by others
crop up every now and then, but they are either complete
falsifications or distort the truth.
The purpose of the concentration camps changed dramatically
after 1941 from re-education and punishment of political
opponents; they became death camps for Jews, the Sinti and
Roma, prisoners of war, and those the Nazis considered
On November 9, 1938, the Nazis organized the Kristallnacht, the
nation-wide pogrom designed to terrorize Jews and pressure them
to emigrate. This pogrom was a reflection of their racial
ideology, which saw Jews as the most pernicious enemy of the
Germans, and represented a high point in the Nazis official
policy of terror. However, when Germany invaded the Soviet
Union in 1941, the Nazis were faced with the question of what
to do with the millions of Jews living in conquered territory.
Far from Germany and under cover of the fog of war, the Nazis
began implementing the systematic physical destruction of the
Jews. This final solution changed the existing camps into
facilities for the mass destruction of human beings. In
addition, new extermination camps were built (e.g., Auschwitz
II, also known as Birkenau in 1942).
But even if it were true that there were no gas chambers at the
extermination camps, the Nazis would still be guilty of mass
murder. In Chelmno, for example, hundreds of thousands of
people were murdered in mobile gas wagons. Mass shootings were
commonplace. At Belzec and Treblinka, the old and the infirm as
well as children were taken off the ramp and shot immediately
In Germany, a favorite tactic of Holocaust deniers is to cite a
diagram of the plans to expand Auschwitz I, dating from about
1940, to deny the existence of gas chambers. This fraud is
often successful because most young people dont know that
Auschwitz II (Birkenau) was the actual center where most of the
gassing took place. In addition, the deniers are not above
bringing out diagrams that they themselves have concocted.
The first experiments with gassing did in fact take place in
Auschwitz I, in the cellar of Block 11 in September 1941. The
victims consisted of about 600 Soviet prisoners of war and 250
sick inmates. About two weeks later, 900 Soviet war prisoners
were gassed to death in the mortuary cellar of the crematorium
in Auschwitz I. Gassings continued at Auschwitz I even after
Birkenau began processing victims.
The Leuchter Report and the Remer Report represent expert
Before we go into the factual misinformation contained in these
studies, there is one criticism that can be made at the
outset. Neither Leuchter nor Germar Rudolf, who works for
Remer, are experts in the field they claim knowledge of.
Fred A. Leuchter has a Masters Degree in history and sells
execution devices to American prisons. In his publications, he
always claims to be an engineer. Rudolf is a certified chemist
in Stuttgart. In spite of what he claims, Leuchter has
absolutely no practical experience with gas chambers. Of the
six states that are supposed to have consulted with him, five
turned him down. Only in Maryland did Leuchter submit a single
draft for the renovation of a gas chamber. The plans were never
carried out because Maryland decided to execute death row
inmates by lethal injection.
Otto E. Remer was a general in the Wehrmacht and took part in
the arrest of the military officers who attempted to
assassinate Hitler on July 20, 1944. He is both sponsor and
financier of the Remer Report.
It is important to realize that neither of these studies can be
considered neutral analyses. Both were designed and written to
aid in the legal defense of accused Holocaust revisionists. In
the case of the Leuchter Report, the impetus came from the
right-wing radical literary critic Robert Faurisson who tried
to help his political friend Ernst Zündel, who was facing
prosecution in Canada (and was later convicted). Zündel himself
financed the trip of this neutral expert Leuchter. During
cross examination, Leuchter admitted that he did not have the
necessary scientific training. On top of that, in order to
acquaint himself with the subject, he used only the sources
recommended by Faurisson. Because of these inadequacies, the
court in Toronto lent Leuchter no credence whatsoever. The
judge stated that it was shameless of Leuchter to claim more
than superficial understanding of the material.
In June of 1991, Leuchter himself landed in court for illegally
practicing as an engineer. As a result, he signed a voluntary
statement in which he admitted that he had never been an
engineer by profession, that he had falsely made statements to
the contrary in several states in order to solicit work, and
finally that he was a self-styled expert in execution
technology. He promised that he would cease and desist from
representing himself as an engineer and stop publishing his
scientific analyses, like the one about Auschwitz.
Even when looked at from the point of view of time invested and
on-site research, both of these reports fail as serious
investigations. For example, Leuchter devoted all of nine days,
including flight time, to his excursion. He then wrote his
132-page report in four weeks, using diagrams that came from
tourist brochures. In addition, it is clear that he knew
nothing of important documents such as those written by SS
As the contents of both reports demonstrate, neither author
considered it necessary to work through the on-site
Even the construction of the Auschwitz gas chambers did not
represent the technological state of the art then current and
available in the United States. Therefore, they were not
designed for killing.
George Wellers, a French Auschwitz survivor had the following
to say about Leuchters expert testimony:
The worthy Mr. Leuchter finds it strange that Höß didnt cross
the Atlantic in 1941-42 during the height of the war to get
tips from the Americans on how to kill hundreds of thousands of
men, women, and children more efficiently His conclusions
contain many astonishing clues that this executioner de luxe
has confused his Hilton gas chambers with the miserable sheds
that served the purpose in Auschwitz.
At first, even the Nazis had no experience with mass murder on
this scale. They improved their technology slowly as they
gained that experience. There were different types of gas
chambers. The first stationary one was put into use in Belzec
in February 1942; mobile gas chambers in trucks were also used.
In addition, different types of gas were tried, primarily
carbon monoxide (from canisters or diesel exhaust) and prussic
acid (Zyklon B). Development was very uneven; whereas Belzec
still used wooden barracks with three gas chambers, there was a
brick building with a concrete floor at Sobibor. The first gas
chambers that could be hermetically sealed were at Treblinka.
Further efficiencies were brought about at Auschwitz in early
1943 with the introduction of Zyklon B and by building the gas
chambers with adjacent crematoria.
The Nazis were certainly not concerned with the humaneness of
their technology; efficiency was their only goal. If the
necessary technology was unavailable or overloaded, they shot
or hanged their victims.