Are the Gas Chamber Witnesses Reliable? The 1988 Ernst Zundel Trial

When questioning the existence of homicidal gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps, one invariably hears the objection that there are thousands of eyewitnesses to the gassing of Jews, thus it is ridiculous to even to question.  Therefore, it is important to note the problems with eyewitness testimony in general as well as the specific eyewitness testimony to the gas chambers.  Eyewitnesses can never be as reliable as concrete scientific fact for many reasons such as human error, pressure that can be applied to influence testimony, high emotional stress, etc.  In particular, “eyewitnesses” to the supposed gas chambers have been, like the vast majority of people in the developed world today, highly influenced by the portrayal of the Holocaust in movies, TV shows, the classroom, and the media.  Can “eyewitnesses” in all cases separate what they really saw from what they have been indoctrinated to believe?

One of the very few times that these eyewitnesses have been put under scrutiny and subject to cross-examination in a court of law was the 1988 Ernst Zundel “false news” trial in Canada.  Zundel was accused of disseminating “false news” by claiming that the Nazis did not use gas chambers to murder millions of Jews, as the “official” story goes.  The prosecution had the opportunity to put the nail in the coffin of Holocaust revisionism.  They knew what Zundel’s defense team would be arguing; if they could prove in a courtroom setting that there were creditable eyewitnesses to homicidal gas chambers, the revisionists’ theories would be dealt a serious blow.  Here is how the prosecution’s “eyewitnesses” fared in court.

Arnold Friedman, Hungarian Jew that claimed to be an eyewitness of homicidal gassings at Auschwitz:  Friedman claimed under oath that he saw “fourteen foot flames” coming from the crematory chimneys and that he could determine whether the bodies being burned were skinny Jews from Poland or fatter Jews from Hungary by the color of the flames.  Doug Christie, Zundel’s attorney pointed out that crematoria are designed to not emit any smoke, flames, ashes, or odors—it is impossible that the crematoria could emit flames.  Friedman countered that the crematoria in Auschwitz were not ordinary—these specially made ones could indeed do what he claimed.  Christie demolished all credibility of the witness by producing the patent for the crematorium built at Auschwitz.  It clearly showed that they were ordinary and could not emit flames or smoke.  In the end, Friedman had to admit that while he was at Auschwitz, he never witnessed any gassings and had been relying on what others have told him.

Rudolph Vrba, a Slovak Jew that claimed to be an eyewitness to gassings at Auschwitz:  Under oath, Vrba, whose testimony was included in the US Government’s 1944 “War Refugee Report” and was featured in various Holocaust documentaries, was forced to admit that his popular autobiography, I Cannot Forgive, was not based on fact but was instead an “artistic picture” and that he had made up the number and location of gas chambers in the 1944 report.  Vrba testified that he had calculated that around 150,000 French Jews were gassed at Auschwitz.  Christie demolished the claim by producing records that showed that only 75,721 Jews were deported from France.  Vrba has also claimed that he witnessed an SS man pour poison gas down a roof opening of an above-ground gas chamber and then proceed to climb down afterwards.  Christie further discredited Vrba by forcing him to admit that it was not a gas chamber, but a partially-underground mortuary that was not high enough from the ground for someone to need to “climb down.” 

Dennis Urstein, a supposed eyewitness that claimed to have assisted with bodies after Zyklon B homicidal gassings:  Urstein gave testimony that, against all common sense, he assisted in moving bodies after gassings while using no protective clothing whatsoever.  People who die from Zykon B poisoning turn a bright red.  Urstein testified that the bodies were “grayish-greenish.”  Another supposed “eyewitness” for the prosecution, Henry Leader, testified that the bodies of the gassing victims turned blue.

The 1988 Ernst Zundel trial cast a collective doubt on all supposed "eyewitnesses" to the Jewish "Holocaust."

Sources:  Michael Hoffman's The Great Holocaust Trial, Robert Fariusson's "The Zundel Trials"

A Comment on the ADL’s Guide to Holocaust Revisionism

I recently came across a publication on the ADL’s website entitled “Holocaust Denial: An Online Guide to Exposing and Combating Anti-Semitic Propaganda.”  It seems to be a guide for the intellectually-limited who have come across “Holocaust denial” for the first time.  The whole article is predictable and unimpressive, but there is one paragraph in the introduction that is nonetheless very interesting.  After beginning the guide by equating the critical study of the Holocaust with anti-Semitism and describing the revisionist movement as a “diverse hate movement” consisting of groups such as KKK factions, racist skinheads, the Aryan Nations, and neo-Nazis, they go on to tell us:

Dressing themselves in pseudo-academic garb, they [“Holocaust deniers”] have adopted the term "revisionism" in order to mask and legitimate their enterprise. After all, the ongoing challenge to and revision of previously accepted historical interpretation is one of the hallmarks of the professional historian's craft.

The ADL is saying that all historians are revisionists, to one degree or another.  Of course this is true—how does one come to know historical truth?  Not by accepting some set of a priori axioms, but by serious study of complex events.  Therefore, the historian, by definition, must study facts critically and revise preconceived opinions when new facts come to light.  One who merely regurgitates information is no historian.  Nonetheless, according to the ADL, historians must make an exception when dealing with the Holocaust.  Historians who critically examine the established history and make revisions when necessary are not real historians but “Holocaust deniers” and “anti-Semites.” “Historians” who uncritically accept it as true a priori are now the genuine historians.  Quite bizarre, no?

Why Holocaust Revisionism is Important

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor recently returned from a trip to Auschwitz, a trip that he made with several other members of the House of Representatives.  In a speech given at Virginia Military Institute on Feb. 17, Cantor, a Jew, cited the Holocaust as a reason why the United States cannot peruse a policy of isolationism (as was envisioned by the founding fathers).  According to the article, "sources who have spoken to him suggest his foreign policy address was shaped specifically by profound feelings aroused by his visit to Auschwitz."  The article later quoted Republican political consultant Fred Luntz: Cantor was ”making a statement that the isolationists in the GOP are acting in a destructive way, that there’s one thing that unites both those on the right and those in the center — a strong America and a peaceful America...I saw him after he returned from his visit to Auschwitz, and he came over to me and he was still stunned 36 hours after he had been there.  I could feel his emotional reaction five feet from him.”

Obviously, the Holocaust arouses strong emotion in people; top decision leaders are no exception.  I'm sure that Cantor is not the only politician whose foreign policy views are influenced by the Holocaust and not the only politician that uses emotional rhetoric of the Holocaust to draw the public to their views.  If an historical event can have such an impact on our foreign policy, shouldn't that event be open to every kind of rational criticism?  Shouldn't we be able to openly challenge the facts and the perceptions of those decision makers and the public at large if their perceptions may be inaccurate?  With that being said, are Holocaust revisionists dangerous anti-Semites, or are they an essential part of a well-functioning democracy?

Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine?

Recently, news sources have reported that 265 books relating to Anne Frank have been vandalized in Tokyo libraries.  Since the Anne Frank diary is one of the sacred works of the Holocaust religion, we should take the time to question what exactly was vandalized: Documents of true historical importance or works of fiction.  The following is a brief summary of Professor Robert Faurisson’s work, Is The Diary of Anne Frank Genuine? Although Professor Faurisson conducts several investigations, I will cover just the first three:  internal criticism, the premises of the Anne Frank house, and Faurisson’s interview of Mr. Otto Frank.

Professor Faurisson, a specialist in text and document criticism, begins his study by critically assessing the text of the document itself (are the facts contained therein consistent with itself and reality?).  To the neighbors and authorities, the annex at 263 Prinsengracht, where Anne Frank and six to seven other occupants are said to have hid from the Germans from June 1942 to August 1944, was thought to be unoccupied.  In a 1977 interview with Professor Faurisson, Anne's father, Otto Frank, indicated that he confirmed with his neighbors and others in the town that no one believed the annex to be occupied while they were secretly living there. Is it possible that eight people could live in those quarters and remain secret while engaging in the actions described in the Diary?

1. The annex in which they stayed was thought to be vacant.  Both common sense and the Diary itself tell us that the numerous occupants hiding in the building would need to be extremely quiet—there were “enemies” all around them.  If discovered, they would be turned over to the Germans (which, of course, happened in 1944).  With this in mind, there are several notable passages in the Diary that bring up the significantly loud noises that were routinely made: (1) As noted on August 5 1943, Mrs. Van Daan, one of the occupants in hiding, used a noisy vacuum cleaner everyday at 12:30pm. (2) On August 4 1943, it is noted that an alarm clock was used. (3) Carpentry work was completed by those in hiding (the swinging cupboard, the boy Peter split wood in the attic, wooden candlestick, etc.).  (4) A radio was used, doors were slammed, there were arguments, yelling, laughing, etc.
2. The occupants of the annex burned their refuse, but no one seemed to notice the smoke coming from an apparently uninhibited building.
3. Although they arrived at the building on July 6 1942, they did not dare to make a fire until October 30.  What did they do with their refuse up to then?
4. Professor Faurisson points out that they had abundant food; each usually had three square meals a day.  A “nice greengrocer” made very large deliveries during the lunch hour. Other sources indicate that food was very scarce in the city at the time.  “This is hard to believe. In a city described elsewhere as starving, how could a greengrocer leave his store, in broad daylight, with such loads to go to deliver them to a house located in a busy neighborhood? How could this greengrocer, in his own neighborhood (he was ‘at the corner’), avoid meeting his normal customers for whom, in that time of scarcity, he ought normally to be a person to be sought out and begged for favors?”
5. The swinging cupboard: “The invention of the ‘swinging cupboard’ is an absurdity. In fact, the part of the house which is supposed to have protected the persons in hiding existed well before their arrival. Therefore, to install a cupboard is to point out, if not someone's presence, at least a change in that part of the property. That transformation of the premises -- accompanied by the noise of the carpentry work -- could not have escaped the notice of the ‘enemies’ and, in particular, of the cleaning woman.” (More on this point below)
6. Additional problems with the text include the opening and closing of windows, the use of electricity, the coal was acquired from the common pile with no one noticing, the opening and closing of curtains, the use of water/toilet, cooking, etc.

Professor Faurisson goes on to study the premises and determines that it would be impossible to live in the annex without being discovered.  There were numerous windows at the annex.  Neighbors and those who worked in the main house were in very close proximity to them; they had clear views of the building and would have smelled the cooking odors and heard the noises being made in the supposedly vacant rooms.  While inspecting the premises, Faruisson noted that he "counted two hundred windows of old houses from which people had a view of the 'Anne Frank House.'"

The last section that I will discuss is the interview with Mr. Otto Frank, Anne's father. Professor Faurisson interviewed Mr. Frank for a total of nine hours on March 24 and 25 1977.  Mr. Frank confirmed that it was Anne alone who had written the manuscripts, but he admitted that he altered some of the text when typing out the “tapuscript” given to the publishers. The reasons given for the alterations were that the manuscripts included some repetitions, they included some indiscretions, and there were some omissions.  To make up for these omissions, Mr. Frank admitted to adding some benign additions to the “tapuscrupt.”  He also changed certain dates and names.  According to Faurission, Mr. Frank could not sufficiently explain several of his criticisms of the text itself.  For example:

1. Mr. Frank indicated that after the war, no one mentioned that they expected that anyone was hiding in the annex.  When asked about the addition of the swinging cupboard on the 2nd floor landing, Mr. Frank indicated that the housekeeper, a potential “enemy,” never went there to clean and thus did not notice the new cupboard.  Beforehand, Faurisson confirmed with Mr. Frank that those in hiding never did any housekeeping outside of cleaning a part of the annex.  Thus, “[t]he logical conclusion of Mr. Frank's two statements therefore became: ‘For twenty-five months, no one had done any cleaning of the landing on the second floor.’ In the face of that improbability, Mrs. Frank suddenly broke in to say to her husband: ‘Nonsense! No cleaning on that landing! In a factory! But there would have been dust this high!’ What Mrs. Frank could have added is that the landing was supposed to have served as a passageway for the people in hiding in their comings and goings between the annex and the front house. The trail of their goings and comings would have been obvious in the midst of so much accumulated dust, even without taking into account the dust from the coal brought from downstairs.”
2. Another example as told by Professor Faurisson:  “I would take one other example of Mr. Frank's explanations. According to him, the people who worked in the front house could not see the main part of the annex because of the ‘masking paper on the window panes.’ This statement, which is found in the brochure of the ‘museum,’ was repeated to me by Mr. Frank in the presence of his wife. Without pausing at that statement, I went on to another subject: that of the consumption of electricity. I made the remark that the consumption of electricity in the house must have been considerable. Because Mr. Frank was surprised by my remark, I stated it precisely: ‘That consumption must have been considerable because the electric light was on all day in the office on the courtyard and in the store on the courtyard in the front house.’ Mr. Frank then said to me: ‘How is that? The electric light is not necessary in broad daylight!’ I indicated to him how those rooms could not receive daylight, knowing that the windows had some ‘masking paper’ on them. Mr. Frank then answered me that those rooms were not so very dark: a disconcerting answer which found itself in contradiction with the statement of the booklet written by Mr. Frank: ‘Spices must be kept in the dark.’ Mr. Frank then dared to add that, all the same, what one saw through those windows on the courtyard was only a wall. He specified, contrary to all evidence, that one did not see that it was the wall of a house! That detail contradicted the following passage of the same prospectus: ‘therefore, although you saw windows, you could not see through them, and everyone took it for granted that they overlooked the garden.’ I asked if those masked windows were nevertheless sometimes open, if only for airing out the office where they received visitors, if only in the summer, on swelteringly hot days. Mrs. Frank agreed with me on that and remarked that those windows must all the same have been open sometimes. Silence from Mr. Frank.”
3. Mr. Frank was not able to explain how they remained undetected despite the loud noises (vacuum, alarm clock, etc.).  Mr. Frank: "Mr. Faurisson, you are theoretically and scientifically right. I agree with you 100 percent. What you pointed out to me was, in fact, impossible. But, in practice, it was nevertheless in that way that things happened."
4. One explanation of why the Germans did not discover the annex is that they were unfamiliar with the Dutch architecture.  When asked about this point, and how it was that the smoke coming from the annex was did not tip off the “enemy” as to their presence, Mr. Frank responded:  “You are quite right. In the explanations that are given to visitors, it is necessary to simplify. That is not so serious. It is necessary to make that agreeable to visitors. This is not the scientific way of doing things. One is not always able to be scientific."
5. Professor Faurisson on how Mr. Frank distorted the layout of the building in the published books: “I questioned him about the layout of the premises. I had noted some anomalies in the plan of the house, such as it is reproduced - by Mr. Frank -- in all the editions of the Diary. Those anomalies had been confirmed for me by my visit to the museum (taking account of the changes made in the premises in order to make it into a museum). It was then that once again Mr. Frank went on to be led, in the face of the physical evidence, to make some new and important concessions to me, especially, as is going to be seen in regard to the "swinging cupboard." He began by admitting that the diagram of the plan ought not to have concealed from the reader that the small courtyard which separates the front house from the annex was common to No. 263 (the Frank house) and to No. 265 (the house of their neighbors and "enemies"). It seems bizarre that, in the Diary, there was not the slightest allusion to the fact, which, for the persons in hiding, was of extreme importance. Mr. Frank then acknowledged that the diagram of the place let people believe that on the third floor the flat roof was not accessible; but that roof was accessible by a door from the annex and it could very well have offered to the police or to the "enemies" an easy way of access into the very heart of the premises inhabited by the persons in hiding. Finally and especially, Mr. Frank conceded to me that the "swinging cupboard" did not make any sense. He recognized that his ruse could not, in any case, have prevented a search of the annex, seeing that that annex was accessible in other ways, and especially in the most natural way -- the entrance door leading out to the garden.”

Professor goes on to tackle additional issues regarding the authenticity of the Anne Frank Diary, but I hope that this brief introduction to the study may spark some interest in the study.