Downloaded from http://www.adam.com.au/~fredadin/mccarthy04.html
on Dec. 21, 1996, and saved in text format.






Fredrick Toben replies to Jamie McCarthy's response of 2 September 1996


In the realm of the doubters: a fire-side monologue addressed to Mr 
Jamie McCarthy of Nizkor - never forget - Project


6 October 1996


Dear Mr McCarthy 

I have now had time to consider your response and I must apologize for 
the number of typographical errors you found in my material. For these 
errors I shall not blame a typist, my secretary nor my webmaster. All 
the same, I do not think the substance of my response has suffered 
therefrom. 

I must also apologize for being a little late with this response. I have 
just returned from a stay in the country - a most delightful experience 
to once again be exposed to the elements. I find this a most humbling 
experience because the natural forces are still 'doing their thing' 
without my presence having any effect on them. Also, animal and bird 
life reveals itself to be instinct-driven. When on the farm ,I walked 
along the airstrip and passed a large gum tree wherein a magpies had 
built their nests. With their fledglings not quite able to protect 
themselves from their natural enemies, the adult magpies would attack 
anything that ventured too close to the home-base. These birds will 
defend to the death their territory and their young. Interestingly, once 
the external enemy disappears they begin to squabble amongst themselves. 
Oh, so human! 

This reminded me of the situation currently prevailing in Germany. 
There, Gunter Deckert, a patriot who believes he has the right to defend 
his home territory, has been imprisoned because he doubts the official 
version of the Holocaust I is not prepared to be dictated to in such 
matters and he asks probing questions about the Auschwitz concentration 
camp which others find offensive. His refusal to shut up and stop 
challenging the official Auschwitz dogma has landed him behind bars. 

Now, when there is no external enemy, all those who are dialectically 
schooled - and not imbued with the Kantian Categorical Imperative - will 
have to find one, invent and set-up an enemy. This is why the 
dialecticians are, in my view, somewhat primitive and culturally 
unsophisticated. They need the thrusting - which is good in itself - but 
only if this is modified and tempered by a cultural appreciation which 
ultimately has as its goal a search for truth - in our case, a search 
for truth in history. 

There is no sense in scoring against individuals, for example, against 
you, Mr McCarthy. I was tempted to call you all sorts of names when I 
realized you had sunk to the level where labeling your opponents rather 
than looking at their arguments becomes a prime motive. 

You have called us antisemitic - that's really sad because by doing this 
you have closed your mind to impulses which could help you to discover 
deeper truths about the alleged homicidal gas chambers. 

I could call you an anti-German racist and a German-hater because that 
is exactly what you are doing by holding on to the homicidal gas chamber 
story - without proof! 

But I shall not label you a hater because I thereby short-circuit our 
interaction - and that will not help us to find the truth. 


Have you read John Dipple's 'Bound Upon A Wheel Of Fire - Why so many 
Jews made the tragic decision to remain in Nazi Germany' ? His argument 
is that German Jews had reached assimilation to the point of 
invisibility. Secularization and an aging factor was causing the Jews to 
die out in Germany. It was Hitler who re-activated their sense of 
Jewishness. This is a most interesting premise because it opens up the 
argument about the influence Zionism had on what happened during World 
War II. 

Further, I have become aware of the controversy raging between the 
Polish and Jewish communities in America and Australia where the former 
is claiming that Eichmann, Goebbels, Himmler, etc. all had Jewish 
ancestry. So what you ask? Well, if the dying out of the group is a 
fact, then somehow a revival mechanism needs to be activated so that a 
new breeding program can begin which will ensure the survival of the 
group. I am deliberately not using race in this instance because in my 
view the Jewish people are not a race. Hence the use of the term Semitic 
- or antisemitic - presents definitive problems for me. It includes the 
whole Arab peoples as well. As David Irving recently popularized in 
Australia through his media interview: An antisemite is someone who is 
not liked by the Jews.


The Story Keeps On Changing


For half a century the Allies and their German collaborators have 
attempted to hold on to the premise that Germany committed massive war 
crimes. Here is how Professor Robert Faurisson put it to me on 17 
September 1996:


What Is War


War is butchery 

Who is the victor? 

The best butcher.


How can the best butcher then 

criticize the other butchers 

who don't measure up to his 

excellence?


The only valid criticism to make of 

Germany's role in the war is that it was 

either a good or bad butcher. 

To bring moral-ethical considerations 

into the judgment, denies the fact that 

war itself is a crime.


The best criminal cannot criticize others 

for not being good criminal!


If there is no victor crime, then there is 

no Nazi crime; 

If there is no Nazi crime, then there is 

no German crime.


Mr McCarthy, can you accept the above thoughts as making a valid points 
in our discussion? 

I view the above as highlighting your one-sided project : Nizkor - never 
forget- Project. Surely, if you are truly concerned about justice, then 
surely you ought to begin to investigate the crimes committed by Jewish 
Pole, Solomon Morel, against German prisoners of war. Have you read John 
Sack's An Eye for an Eye? If not, why not?


We intend to broaden then whole war-crimes debate - your 'never forget' 
message - to include the crimes committed by the Allies. If we do not do 
this, then your work as well as ours will rightly be seen to be biased 
and anti-intellectual - and intellectually dishonest. If we do not talk 
to those who have an opposing point-of-view, then we are ideologues who 
believe in the mutual back-slapping feel-good society. I do not want to 
be a part of such movements. 

For half a century the world has talked about German war crimes, the 
most serious one being the allegation that Germans systematically 
exterminated European Jewry in specially constructed huge chemical 
slaughterhouses called homicidal gas chambers. 

In the recent past - early 1990s - non-historians such as Pressac, 
Fleming and van Pelt, have claimed that they could prove the thesis of 
the homicidal gassings. They used the mortuary construction plans of 
Auschwitz-Birkenau, Krematorium II, and claimed that therein specific 
conversions proved conclusively that the Germans converted the mortuary 
into a homicidal gas chamber. 

Of immediate interest to us is the fact that this so-called new evidence 
has been around for a long time. All that was needed to bring it into 
the public's gaze was for non-historians like Pressac, Fleming and van 
Pelt to come along and correctly interpret these construction plans. 

This, to my mind, is stretching the limits of anyone's rational 
credibility lust a little too far. After half a century we are now led 
to believe that the final clinching proof that homicidal gas chambers 
existed, has finally surfaced in the form of plans that have been around 
for almost half a century! 

I believe, Mr McCarthy, that we can justifiably dismiss such claims. I 
am saying this in the knowledge that anyone is free to believe that 
Germans exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers . We are 
free to believe anything. But it's a different matter when such a claim 
moves from a mere belief to an assertion that it is a proven fact, an 
historical fact. Then it is up to those who make such an assertion to 
unequivocally prove their claims. 

It is not good enough to point to an entry in an inventory of Krema II 
which, according to my source is a hand-written entry, that lists a 
'gas-tight door with a peep-hole'.


Here, again, Professor Faurisson's simple dictum is so telling: 


Show me or draw me a homicidal gas chamber.


To my knowledge this, to date, has not been done. Instead, what we do 
have is another one of those reports which move the argument away from 
the talk-fest atmosphere and place it firmly into the realm of forensic 
science.


Germar Rudolf, the young industrial chemist who is now a political 
refugee from his native Germany on account of having written The Rudolf 
Report [ The 120-page Report is available to anyone who can read 
German]. 

Following on from Leuchter - and contrary what you have said about The 
Leuchter Report - Rudolf confirms the essence of Leuchter's evidence, 
namely that had the mortuaries been used as homicidal gas chambers, then 
there ought to be traces of Zyklon-B found in the walls, as is the case 
in buildings where the delousing chambers were used. 

Interestingly, those who have criticized Leuchter - are not experts in 
the field of chemical analysis. I must confess that I lack expertise in 
this field, but Germar Rudolf doesn't. His argument, however, is 
convincing. Have you read his report, Mr McCarthy? If not, why not?


The Jewish-Nazi Holocaust discussion has now reached another watershed 
with this Rudolf Report - and anyone who clings to the homicidal gas 
chamber story must effectively refute the 120-page report. From memory, 
I think, about just as many professors of chemistry in Germany confirm 
that Rudolf's findings cannot be faulted. Naturally these professors 
would not comment on the implication his report has on the homicidal 
gassing story. It is not surprising, therefore, that the German 
judiciary began to hound Germar Rudolf and his wife and two young babies 
out of Germany into political exile. That's the consequence faced by 
German Holocaust heretics Any comment on that, Mr McCarthy?


The Four Million Figure


A more recent example of how the story keeps on changing is, of course, 
the four million deaths claim for Auschwitz concentration camp. In my 
response to you I referred to the entry in The Reader's Digest Universal 
Dictionary of 1988. 

As late as 1990 the late Heinz Galinski, head of the Jews in Germany, 
claimed that four million people died at Auschwitz - Allgemeine Judische 
Wochenzeitung, 26 July 1990, p.1. 

Similarly, German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, stated that four million 
people died at Auschwitz - Die Welt, 27 January 1995, p.3. 

You claim that I have tied together the 6:4 million figure in a 
"rhetorical trick". No, Mr McCarthy, I don't have to rely on tricks - 
that would tax my energy too much because to date I have always put 
things the way I see them. I would have to become like those who are 
defending the IT HAPPENED story. We at Adelaide Institute do not defend 
lies and fabrications because that would rob us of energy. After I 
complete this response , I shall enjoy listening to some Mozart, 
Beethoven and Wagner - much more delightful than working on this 
material. 

The fact that the homicidal gas chamber story is now aired on the 
Internet will benefit us all. Remember how the survivor eye-witness 
accounts used to be wildly all over the place? Now the views are being 
standardized through instant communications. That is why perhaps Nobel 
Peace Prize recipient, ElieWiesel, opted for the wrong version of the IT 
HAPPENED story when it was in its infancy during the 1950s. Do you 
recall this so-called credible witness claiming in his 1958 novel La 
Nuit, that the Germans killed people by burning them in open pits? 

The other version of how the Germans killed their prisoners was by 
boiling them in water, through electricity and, of course, by gassing 
them. So, as late as 1958 the gassing story had not emerged as the clear 
victor in the field of competing versions. That was to happen at the 
1962 Jerusalem Eichmann Trial and the 1964 Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial. 

Today the other three versions have almost been forgotten and the 
current version has as its premise that huge chemical slaughterhouses 
existed. Interestingly, Max Freilich, one of Australia's leading 
Zionists wrote his memoirs in 1967, Zion in our Time, and he mentions 
the whole matter in general terms only:


"É.But for the Jews of Europe it was a year (1943) of mass murder, of 
the gas chambers and of the carrying into effect of the avowed genocide 
policy of the barbaric Hitler regimeÉ" p.112


Bergen-Belsen is mentioned but I could not find any mention of 
Auschwitz. What I did find was the mention of the 'Transfer Agreement' 
(Haavarah) between the German government and the World Zionist 
Executive:


"The agreement made it possible for German Jews to transfer their assets 
on their emigration to Palestine".


Only recently at the University of Adelaide we heard a retired history 
professor, Dr Heinz Kent, deny that there ever existed such an 
Agreement!


What do you think of Elie Wiesel as a credible witness? I would be 
pleased to have your critical comments on this man's writings. It was 
this man who in a letter to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 20 
November 1986, stated that historians must not give up the concept that 
the Nazi-Jewish Holocaust was a unique event in history. Earlier that 
year, on 8 April 1986, West German Chancellor, Dr Kohl, also stated that 
the uniqueness of the murder of millions of Jews must never be 
forgotten, repressed or trivialized. President von Weizsacker expressed 
similar sentiments. Now, after the politicians Kohl and Weiszacker had 
had their say, it was the turn of court historian - whom David Irving 
has called a liar and a falsifier - Professor Eberhard Jackel, then at 
the University of Stuttgart. In a letter to Die Zeit, dated 12 September 
1986, he stated ( my translation):


"É.that the national socialist's murder of the Jews is unique because 
never before had a state with the express authority of its leader made 
public that a certain ethnic group, including old people , women, 
children and infants be killed ( restlos zu toeten), and that, using all 
available state powers, the decision be carried out in practice."


Notice that it was only after the politicians and the court historian 
had made their public utterances that 'the power behind the throne' came 
to have his say - in the guise of Elie Wiesel. That's how it's done, Mr 
McCarthy - and David Irving has now exposed the pattern by having gained 
this proof in writing.


Fortunately others are also now waking up, especially many Germans are 
now not frightened any more to speak out and even go to prison or pay 
hefty fines. This repressive method of silencing people will not hold 
back an open debate on this most interesting topic. If people are fined, 
imprisoned or forced into political exile all because of refusing to be 
silenced, then the political authorities have a great problem on their 
hands. The only way to solve it is by permitting open and unrestricted 
debate 

of the topic. 

Interestingly, it was establishment historian, Professor Ernst Nolte, 
who began the 1986 debate in Germany. On 6 June 1986 the Frankfurter 
Allgemeine Zeitung printed an article of his wherein he dared to suggest 
that German historians widen their rather restricted historical focus of 
pre-World War II and World War II. This would, so he claimed, liberate 
the historians from the one-sided nature of the historical debate which 
in his view was too black-white. 

He pointed out that the claim of uniqueness could be off-set by looking 
at the Bolshevik-Stalinist-Gulag Holocaust. Inevitably, neo-Marxist 
professor, Jurgen Habermass. Heir to the Frankfurter Schule of Ardorno 
and Horkheimer - the gurus of German re-education - opposed any such 
discussion. Interestingly, Habermass, like Pressac, van Pelt, Lipstadt, 
Fleming, et al., are all non-historians. I don't know about you, Mr 
McCarthy - are you historically trained? 


This propagation of a one-dimensional view of World War II history we 
oppose because it creates dogmatic world views that run counter to 
scientific enquiry, and therefore is anti-intellectual. 

To date the only material that is available to German historians is that 
which incriminates them. It is not even permitted to point out the good 
things that happened under the National Socialists. Yes, Mr McCarthy, I 
hear and see you frown in glee - but does my saying this make me a Nazi 
sympathizer? 

I couldn't care less what you call me because you have already labeled 
me, thereby indicating to the world that you have problems in working 
yourself independently 

through contentious material towards a balanced view of things. 

This one-sided view, of course, stems from your =never forget= dogma. I 
hasten to add that no-one should forget their dead and this means that 
Germans have a right to remember the blessed memory of those millions of 
dead ( and living) German soldiers and civilians who served their state 
during World War II. A nation that does not honour its dead will do no 
honour to its perception of its own history. It is the ability to know 
your own dark and light sides that matters. To date the German 
historical record is totally twisted - and it is twisting the minds of 
the German people who are ever willing to open their wallets to those 
who continue to make unjustified claims on them.


Anti-German Racism and Hatred at The University of Adelaide 


As a brief aside let me mention the fact that your material was 
distributed on the final day of a five-part session called Hitler's 
Germany: Will History Repeat? 

Dr Heinz Kent's sessions were nothing but anti-German. racism and hatred 
One participant, Mr Fred Steiner, our local Holocaust-Auschwitz 
survivor, even asked me why I had not as yet replied to your questions. 
I invited him to help out my webmaster, something he declined with a 
smile. 

So, Mr McCarthy, you are providing a valuable service for those who 
believe in the gassing story. 

Unfortunately you also mislead. How can you label Mr David 
Brockschmidt's letter to World Jewry as an example of antisemitism? Have 
you read the Babylonian Talmud? If not, why not?


1. Specific response to your 2 September 1996 letter


1. It worries me to see a recorded death figure which claims these 
deaths are 'unrecorded', i.e. the victims were herded straight into the 
homicidal gas chambers. Under the pretext of going into a shower - which 
is a fact - these people were asked to undress - which is another fact - 
and then were packed tightly into the homicidal gas chamber - which is 
an unproven assertion. 

We claim that even if these victims' deaths were not recorded, then we 
can go back to railway transportation documents. If these are missing, 
then we can go back to the local community records. To this day all 
Germans have their residence recorded at their local police station. 

To claim, as some historians do - Piper, et al, - that the 900,000, 
approx., unregistered death figure is accurate, is a bad joke! 


I now ask: Where is the proof that one million people, approx., were 
gassed at Auschwitz? 

Further, hot on the heel of this question is my other one: Where is the 
proof that six million Jews were killed during World War II? 

If the "emotional" four million has been reduced - since 1990 - then 
surely the original six million ought to be lowered to two million.. Or 
am I to believe that the original six million figure was actually ten 
million? 

You see, Mr McCarthy, such numbers games does not convince me that very 
much is true about this whole sorry story. 

This is why I value our instant communications network. If an error 
creeps into someone's work, then this will become known very soon. 

We must, however, be aware of the fact that in today's world we have 
people who have a vested interest in propagating all sorts of things - 
because a financial grant is attached to them towing the official line. 
An example of this is the AIDS issue. Professor Peter Duesberg's claims 
that Gallo's research findings were never properly refereed by his 
peers, and that his HIV=AIDS hypothesis was quickly adopted by the 
health bureaucracy, and thereby raised to an official dogma . Anyone who 
now wishes to challenge this dogma will soon find out that funding is 
only available to those who believe in the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. 
Dissenters are not welcomed at conferences either because if the premise 
of the hypothesis is questioned, then perhaps Duesberg's thesis may gain 
some ground and solve the problem of AIDS. What is his theory all about? 
The condition referred to as AIDS is a result of high levels of drug 
toxicity which breaks down the body's immune system. A simple solution 
which would, however, raise questions about a person's life-style - and 
that's not on, is it?


So, too, the claim that Germans killed millions of people in homicidal 
gas chambers. This claim needs to be rigorously looked at without fear 
of persecution. 

Is this persecution, as you claim Mr McCarthy, necessary to prevent the 
rise of Nazism? What was Nazism all about, Mr McCarthy? Can we not 
objectively look at it - without immediately linking it to Wagner's 
music and from there to Auschwitz? 

Let's look at some of the good points of National Socialism without you 
labeling us antisemite, as you already have. 

Ernst Zundel, who unashamedly has looked at the good aspects of National 
Socialism and doesn't mind if someone labels him a Nazi, has had to 
suffer because of his belief. Why? What has he done to people that 
justifies such criminal treatment? Just because he is a Holocaust 
Heretic? Mr McCarthy, there are people who have tried to kill Mr Zundel. 
Why? What is his message that so upsets people? Is he in possession of a 
truth that people fear because they have been living on a lie for too 
long? 

Similarly with David Irving. Forget the character bit. I'm not 
interested in his personal life nor in how he has been framed by 
individuals using government agencies to get at him. What is so 
disturbing about his message - what is it that has governments around 
the world fearing his physical presence? Where is his ammunition, Mr 
McCarthy? What is he killing? In my view he is killing lies - and that's 
a worthy and noble thing to do. 


What if all this is a massive hoax, Mr McCarthy? The compassion 
barometer seems to rise as the level of compensation rises. Would you 
have the courage to come out into the open and admit to yourself that 
all this business is, as Professor Buts believes, a gigantic hoax ? 
Could you admit to yourself that you had been fooled all these years 
into believing that the story of the gassings was true? Too many people 
stick to their belief systems, especially when old age hits them and 
their mental capacities fade. To believe is comforting while to think is 
a painful activity. 

The above thoughts adequately justify why we ought to lift the taboo on 
this vexed historical topic - and open up the archives where the truth 
still lies. It is silly to give Professor Gerald Fleming and a handful 
of researchers a look into the archives on Auschwitz. This immediately 
opens up the claim that the authorities are hiding something and that 
files have to be sanitized. 

Also Mr McCarthy, it is not helpful for you to use in your research the 
words antisemitic, anti-Jewish, haters, etc. By labeling your perceived 
enemy thus, you are blocking intellectual impulses which could very well 
open up your perception of a problematic topic. 


2. The Irving $1,000 offer


I don't know whether British historian David Irving's offer is still 
open. Note, though, he is asking for conversion which neither Pressac 
nor you have provided. 

To my knowledge no reputable historian is willing to touch these plans, 
then pass them off as actual conversion plans. Do you know any historian 
who has made specific reference to these plans? See my response to this 
matter below.


3. Misleading claims on Adelaide Institute Homepage


Yes, Mr McCarthy, your claim that homicidal gas chambers existed at 
Auschwitz is just that - your claim. It is your word against mine - and 
you offer no compelling evidence to support your claim. It does not help 
your argument to brand your opponents as antisemitic and 
Holocaust-denier. 

I shall ask our webmaster to insert a link to this correspondence at the 
point where we claim that to date the plans of the conversion have not 
been forthcoming. We cannot accept what you offer as plans that prove 
the homicidal gassing story. You will have to do better than that.


4. Response to my questions


Your self-appointed role as guardian, to spy out neo-Nazis, racists, 
antisemites, haters, etc. is pure sanctimonious hypocrisy. Why? Because 
you are not being objective in your quest for truth. The whole issue has 
been elevated into the realm of a dogma where you dictate what is to be 
believed and who is the devil in this quest. 

By using the buzzwords - antisemitism and Holocaust-denial - you are 
attempting to smear legitimate research. It reminds me of the dictator 
who fears free-thinking individuals. A dictator hates free thought and 
free speech and therefore has to rely on psychological terror tactics to 
keep the dogma in place. 

You display a high level of intolerance , Mr McCarthy, because you begin 
with the premise that gassings occurred. Now, Germar Rudolf, the 
industrial chemist, is not at all political. But I think he is a 
patriotic German who wants the historical record to be balanced out. His 
scientific training has enabled him to look at the whole gassing story 
with an objectivity that is lacking on the polemicists and the 
dogmatists who cannot tolerate a divergence from the orthodox path. 

Scientists always append an error to any results they come up with. The 
humanities should do this via the principle of fallibilism, and those 
who do not are dogmatists who are quite happy to peddle some kind of 
ideology. 

You share no doubt in your belief that the homicidal gas chambers 
existed and that millions of people were killed therein. 

You also claim to know why a legal persecution of those questioning the 
gassings is necessary because the Germans "know what it (National 
Socialism) leads to". 

My Question to you: To what does it lead to, Mr McCarthy? Your answer, I 
suppose, and all those who nurture anti-German racism and hatred, howl 
in unison: It leads to the Auschwitz homicidal gas chambers, stupid! 

Well, does it? That claim needs to be proven and historians and people 
like us must make every effort to re-open the premise on which such 
assertions rest. The whole issue is now in the scientists' court and we 
should dissuade judiciary bodies from becoming involved in it. Thanks to 
Ernst Zundel and his dedicated team of helpers the legal scene proved to 
be friend to those who question the official Holocaust dogma. The German 
judiciary is very sick because it offends against so many basic 
democratic principles as it relentlessly pursues the Holocaust heretics. 
One of the basic ones is the freedom of research.


5. Udo Walendy - "purveyors of self-published newsprint pamphlets don't 
draw much attention".


I am amazed by the hubris contained in this statement. Can you point to 
any Walendy publications where he has been wrong? 

The forgery business in this historical debate begins with those stupid 
eyewitness accounts. It is time that the liars be brought into court and 
prosecuted for telling all those lies about the Germans. Wouldn't that 
be interesting to see! So many of them have made a handsome living out 
of this business. Again thanks to Zundel's trials they have largely 
stopped telling lies. We had the same in Adelaide when the War Crimes 
Trials began. It was just too incredible to see a witness, after being 
asked to identify the accused, point into the general body of the court 
at a man who turned out to be an American tourist who happened to be 
visiting Adelaide! There was also the fact that Mark Aarons, the 
initiator of renewed interest in persecuting so-called war criminals,
 had gone off to Ukraine with some photos of the to-be-accused, and 
shown them to the villagers! 

These people are never punished and it reminds me of the Demjanjuk case 
where the legion of false witnesses never once were persecuted for 
perjury. Why not, Mr McCarthy? And don't say this is mere rhetoric. Get 
your mind into gear and think about what I have just stated.


I think that Udo Walendy has his integrity in-tact, especially after the 
Tubingen court imposed a prison term on this old man. 


"Revisionism's aim is to mislead" 

Mr McCarthy, do you really believe this? How can you make such a claim 
without feeling ashamed for your self? Are you seriously saying that 
revisionists are dishonest in their endeavors to balance the historical 
picture? If you are, then you are presenting a view of history which is 
set in concrete. All good historians are revisionists. They have to be 
because views are based on incomplete information - and as new 
information comes to hand, then the picture is redrawn. 

Only the dogmatists and the ideologues do not revise their work and this 
applies to those who embrace the never forget ideology. Such people are 
busy forcing their views on the weak in the head and strong in the 
heart.


Rhetorical Questions


I have views on all sorts of things - as you can see from you response - 
and I believe it is legitimate for me to ask you questions on anything I 
like. It is your freedom to decide whether to respond or not. 

Censorship is for the young who need protection from perverse ideas, 
etc. But when you get to my age, then it is silly to fear asking 
questions. Cowards are not needed in this enterprise. Often the hater is 
also a coward - I, Mr McCarthy, am neither a coward nor a hater. As I 
mentioned elsewhere, I am guided by the Kantian Categorical Imperative - 
my wonderment of the stars above and a respect for the moral law within 
keep me balanced. I don't need the slave mentality of them-us, the 
dialectic process to keep me going.


In this respect it is important to recall how David Irving has been 
smeared and defamed by so many people. The whole American publishing 
industry has been shamed by him . This happened when St Martin's Press 
pulled the plug on his Goebbels, Mastermind of the Third Reich. 


Have you read the book, Mr McCarthy? If not, why not? It has nothing to 
do with a celebration of Nazism, etc. But why are people so fearful of 
opening themselves to his views on history? It does not lead to 
Auschwitz!


In any case, we shall one day look at the way in which Zionists and 
Nazis collaborated and cooperated. That will throw more spanners in the 
works of those who claim a one-dimensional view of history. 


Subjective Chronology


If you cannot see the significance of this personal report, then I am 
very sorry. I thought it important to highlight how the story of the 
death figure keeps on changing - and now we have a "four million 
emotional figure"! 

Piper still claims that there are about 900,000 unregistered deaths at 
Auschwitz. I wonder when we shall see this figure being revised, as 
ought the six million figure in the light of the four million to one 
million. approx., reduction. 

For my own personal record I would like to insert here the dates which I 
inadvertently failed to include in he original chronology 


* 1988 - in Brisbane at the World Expo Fair the 6:4 million figure was 
alive and hotly defended by those who were enjoying the atmosphere in an 
'all-German' beer tent. I met one businessman who knew something about 
Zundel's second Holocaust trial. Meanwhile, Mr John Bennett, in 
Melbourne single-handedly distributed The Leuchter Report to all 
Australian media outlets, libraries, politicians and prominent 
Australians.


*1990 - within Melbourne's legal circles the 6:4 death figure was 
generally held to be true. Only those lawyers who had any direct contact 
with their colleague, Mr John Bennett, would have been aware that the 
"figures and the story keep on changing". In July the plaques at 
Auschwitz were removed and Professor Shmuel Krakowski of Yad Vashem, 
Jerusalem, admitted that the soap story was not true. None of this 
information filtered through into society at large. Why not? 


* 1991 - during the Australian War Crimes Trials at Adelaide, the 
minimum figure was still 6:4 million Jewish deaths, this despite the 
fact that The Advertiser had the previous year carried a tiny item 
announcing the removal of the commemorative plaques at the Auschwitz 
concentration camp whereon the four million deaths figure was engraved.


McCarthy brings out the storm troopers: antisemitism and 
Holocaust-denial 


Unfortunately using such buzz-words will not make us submit to your 
version of events. Far from it, it may intimidate someone like Marlon 
Brando and force him to apologize for telling the truth. How can you 
apologize for telling the truth? That's weird! 

You cannot paralyze me with such terror tactics, Mr McCarthy I have 
divested myself of all material possession so that I cannot be harmed in 
that way. 

I suggest that you also throw away these crutches of antisemtism and 
Holocaust-denial because they are conceptual prisons for your mind. Walk 
tall, like a real man who values his intellectual integrity as he 
fearlessly pursues truth.


Mr McCarthy's anti-German racism and hatred?


Let me repeat our claim: Anyone who states that homicidal gassings 
occurred at Auschwitz is leveling serious allegations against the German 
people, namely that during World War II they 

1. planned, 

2. constructed, and 

3. used huge chemical slaughterhouses to kill millions of people, in 
particular they exterminated European Jewry.


Anyone who knows how a bureaucracy works will realize that such a 
massive undertaking leaves behind it an extensive paper trail. It is not 
enough to draw our attention to an inventory list wherein a handwritten 
entry states that a gas-tight door with a peep-hole was ordered. 

You must know that any Freemason Lodge has an entrance door with a 
peep-hole. Are you suggesting that Freemasons exterminate people within 
their temple? Or, similarly, in our law courts we see doors linking the 
courtroom with the judges' chambers containing a peep-hole. Some of the 
modern courtrooms have done away with the peep-hole and introduced small 
windows instead.


The Rudolf Report


For almost fifty years there has been no conclusive proof presented as 
evidence of those wild claims that Germans horribly killed their war 
prisoners. Basic war massacres, etc. are thereby not denied. War is war 
- unfortunately. But the wildly subjective eye-witness accounts which 
contradict one another now serve as examples of exaggerations flowing 
from feverish minds.


Germar Rudolf's report is an objective forensic investigation and anyone 
who believes in the gassing story cannot get past this report. 

Further, Carlo Mattogno in his book Auschwitz The End of a Legend - A 
critique of J C Pressac, 1994, I..H.R. is also clear and concise on this 
matter of gassings.


I suggest Mr McCarthy, if you have not read the above works, then it is 
high time that you do. But, be warned. If you begin to harbor any doubt 
about the IT HAPPENED story, then your career at Nizkor is finished. I 
am lucky in this respect because I am not defending any series of 
events. I am merely asking uncomfortable questions about an historical 
event which has become a taboo topic. Like other revisionist researchers 
I would like to see myself as a pioneer and go where the timid fear to 
tread. To date, however, I have not really made any original 
contribution to the debate about the Auschwitz story - this final 
intellectual adventure of the twentieth century!


Interpreting the Crematoria Plans 

[with reference to Germar Rudolf's Das Rudolf Gutachten] 


Unlike you, Mr McCarthy , I am not defending any premise of the IT 
HAPPENED story and thus the following is what I take to be a common 
sense interpretation of the so-called 'conversion plans'. I have not 
laced my account with a pathological hatred for anything Nazi-German, as 
do Professors Gerald Fleming, Deborah Lipstadt, et al.


1. The need for mortuaries ( Leichenkeller) to be well-ventilated was 
recognized by the Germans who planned such facilities at the Auschwitz 
concentration camp. The build-up of gases in decomposing corpses is 
slowed down in a cool atmosphere, and today's crematoria construction 
takes this into account.


2. From the beginning of its operation as a concentration camp, the camp 
administrators expected epidemics to produce many deaths - which was the 
case in 1942. Hence the fact that Auschwitz had mortuaries cannot be 
regarded as proof of "criminal intent".


3. By constructing underground mortuaries - below ground level - the 
planners ensured that the rooms remained cool at a consistent 
temperature. As well, by placing them below ground, the mortuary 
building had limited contact with the crematoria buildings. 

The plans indicate that corpses need to be stored in a cool place.


4. The premise that the mortuaries were planned and used as homicidal 
gas chambers, wherein Zyklon-B was used as a killing agent, cannot be 
sustained. 

It is difficult to heat underground rooms whose walls are always moist. 
Effective gassings could not have taken place in such rooms because cold 
air reduces the evaporation rate of Prussic blue from its carrier. 

Further, the moisture content heightens the absorbtion rate of the gas 
as it penetrates the walls of the rooms; hence the reason for finding 
Prussic blue stains in the delousing chambers. 

Thus in an hypothetical gassing, more gas is needed in cool-moist rooms. 
But we note that during the war, the disinfectant gas, Zyklon-B, was a 
scarce resource. 

Pressac agrees that originally these mortuary rooms were not designed as 
homicidal gas chambers. Further, he claims that 95% of Zyklon-B was used 
for disinfection purposes and only 5% for homicidal gassings. 

I have not yet worked out how much this 5% of what quantity is. If Piper 
claims that about a million people were gassed at Auschwitz, then this 
5% figure becomes important.


5. The design of Kreatorium II and III was derived from an earlier 1941 
plan for a new crematorium planned for Auschwitz I, the Stammlager. 

In this plan the entrance is on the side of Mortuary I, i.e. between 
Mortuary I and II we have stairs and a corpse chute. 

Owing to the high groundwater level at Auschwitz-Birkenau, it was 
necessary to raise the foundations of these mortuaries. 

The entrance also had to be shifted to the opposite side, offering 
stairs to the office rooms of mortuary II and stairs at the end of 
mortuary II.


6. The fact that during Winter 1942/42, after Stalingrad, resources were 
scarce, explains why there is no corpse chute for mortuary II. The 
Auschwitz administration simply did not have the resources to do a 
proper job, as is evident if one looks at the construction of 
Krematorium III, IV and V.


7. The original entrance to the mortuary was not used because it offered 
no direct road access, as would have been the case had the building been 
constructed at Auschwitz I, the Stammlager. 

The construction of the steps indicates a hasty improvisation of the 
Stammlager plans to the Birkenau site.


8. Today the entrance steps at the end of the mortuary of Krematorium II 
and III is interpreted as the entrance used by the victims of the 
gassings. 

Mortuary II is considered to be the undressing room and it is this room 
which, according to Pressac, is proof of the "criminal intent" of those 
who planned the mass killings. 

However, having an undressing room in a mortuary is quite normal because 
autopsies require that the corpses be undressed. Corpses are also 
cremated without clothes. The question we would like to ask is this: Are 
there autopsy reports available from corpses that were prepared in Krema 
II and III?


9. Pressac claims that the missing corpse chute is proof that the 
mortuary was changed into a homicidal gas chamber because "corpses don't 
walk stairs". 

However, it must be remembered that by 1943-44 about 200 daily deaths - 
of all natural and epidemic causes - were recorded at Auschwitz. Pressac 
needs to explain how these 200 dead arrived at the mortuaries. The 
obvious answer is that they were carried on stretchers to the 
mortuaries. 

The absence of a corpse chute does not prove anything. According to 
Pressac it could indicate that in building the facilities some corners 
had to be cut on account of material shortages, especially after the 
Stalingrad defeat.


10. The mortuary construction is of concrete and steel, and as the 
doweling technique was still quite poorly developed, in order to fix 
pipes and lamps to concrete walls and ceilings, pieces of conic-shaped 
wood were cemented into the ceiling. 

Pressac uses this as an example of proof that these wooden pieces were 
to have shower heads fixed to them when, in fact, they were to carry 
electric power lines. 

Germar Rudolf rightly states that Pressac's interpretation "speaks 
volumes of his incompetence".


11. The fact that the drainage system for Kreamtorium II and III was 
changed from the original plan does not prove anything. We have to 
remind ourselves that these buildings were originally designed for 
Auschwitz I, the Stammlager. 

What the plans prove is that they were adapted to the changed physical 
conditions at Auschwitz-Birkenau - Auschwitz II. 

Further, the fact that Mortuary I has a separate drainage system 
indicates the foresight of the planners. In this way any highly infected 
water was treated separately from the rest of the complex. 


12. It is claimed that in the inventory of Mortuary I of Krematorium II 
and III, there is listed an order for gas-tight doors, size 100 x 192 
cm. It appears in the inventory index on page 430 for Krema II - and 
then it is a hand-written entry "gas-tight door". Most probably it is a 
door for the disaffection chambers. 

Further, in the plan of Krematorium II there appears a door size of 190 
x 200 cm, and so the gas-tight door would not fit into the door frame. 

It is now important to investigate the site and find out whether the 
door frame has been reduced in size. This task, however, requires some 
excavation work at the site.


13. The reference to the "gas-tight door" in the documents refers to 
hatches and doors, and it must be borne in mind that when talking about 
doors, we are generally talking about wooden doors made of boards. Also, 
the hatches had a round felt seal and so it is wrong to imagine the 
doors and hatches to be made of heavy steel. 

Similarly, the barrack windows were not "gas-tight" because often there 
was a considerable gap between the frame and the brickwork, and hence it 
would have been quite drafty. So, too, with the doors. All of this 
material was naturally produced by prisoners in the concentration camp 
workshop. 

It is difficult to imagine that homicidal gassings would succeed in 
rooms which had wooden doors. A consideration of whether these doors 
opened inward or outward becomes an irrelevancy. 

I 

14. Pressac claims that the planned heating of the mortuaries confirms 
that they were to be converted into homicidal gas chambers because 
mortuaries are not heated. He conveniently ignores the fact that corpses 
must be protected from frost, and so a minimum heating of the room is 
essential during winter months. 


15. Pressac also claims that the open pipes were removed so that the 
victims could not do it. Another explanation is that the pipes were 
removed because there was no heating in winter and this avoided the 
pipes from bursting during frosty nights.


16. The claim that Zyklon-B was introduced into the mortuaries through 
holes in the roof - three or four holes - cannot be upheld because there 
simply is no physical proof of these alleged holes ever having existed. 

The latest version from Pressac and Nizkor is that the 
exhaust-ventilation system was used to blow the gas into the alleged 
homicidal gas chamber. This version lacks credibility - but we would be 
interested to hear how the dialecticians explain its workings.


17. There is also a claim made about Krematorium II having a wire basket 
or nets contraption for Zyklon-B use. It is listed in the inventory - 
but again written by hand. Such a contraption could possibly have been 
used to push - or pull - corpses into the crematory ovens. 

We do know that German craftsmanship has always been of the highest 
order and German creativity has always been realized through practical 
application. In other words, the hand and the mind are working as one. 
Such minds do not need slaves to get the physical work done! I am 
reminded that the XP-86 and the current US Stealth bomber are based on a 
German war-time design. In fact, this whole matter of German wartime 
aviation research has led me to conclude that it would be in order for 
Germans to make claims on those who plundered their high-tech know-how 
during and after the war. It reminds me of the joke about two rockets , 
one a US and the other a USSR, passing through a cloud layer on their 
way into space. One rocket says to the other: "Now we can talk German
 again!"


And so, Mr McCarthy, I end my response to you. Please understand that we 
cannot accept the plans that you offer as those which prove that the 
Germans converted the mortuaries at Auschwitz-Birkenau into homicidal 
gas chambers. I repeat my earlier claim that the plans ought o speak for 
themselves - and they do not prove anything about homicidal gassings. To 
date I prefer the interpretation given of these plans by Germar Rudolf 
who has no political ax to grind other than that of the scientist who 
dared look at the vexed Auschwitz problem - and for that he has already 
paid a heavy price. Your interpretation does not convince - except only 
in that you prove to me your vindictive nature which has a pathological 
hatred for anything German. 

All those who go along with your nasty interpretation are somehow 
motivated by a sick desire to see homicidal gas chambers where there 
were none. That is very sad for me to see. I thought you would have had 
an open mind on this matter. 

To date no reputable historian has, to my knowledge, looked at these 
plans and confirmed your interpretation. Dr Gerald Fleming, Professor 
Deborah Lipstadt, professor Robert-Jan van Pelt, et al, all claim 
something that is not proven. 

I demand hard evidence - and I shy away from any attempts at character 
assassination of those who, like Fred Leuchter, pioneered the scientific 
investigation of the Auschwitz site. I couldn't care less if Professor 
Lipstadt was a thief and Dr Fleming was a murder ; I would put to one 
side this aspect of their person and focus on their expertise, i.e. what 
new material they had brought into the Auschwitz discussion, in 
particular that material which directly related to the interpretation of 
the material surrounding the claim that mortuaries were converted into 
homicidal gas chambers. 

Cannot you do the same for once - leave the character assassinations for 
once and get on with the job of working on the real project? Why is 
David Irving hounded by the Jewish bodies in Australia, United Kingdom, 
Canada and the US? What is his crime? Associating with extreme 
right-wing groups? Why don't you concentrate on the things that he says 
about Hitler, Goebbels, et al? instead of avoiding the issue by becoming 
personal. David Irving makes sense about all sorts of things - and he 
was fined in Germany for telling the truth! Fancy, such punishment! The 
German legal system is truly sick and in great need of some help. 

So. Mr McCarthy, perhaps we can continue to explore issues in such a 
light, i.e. we leave the smearing and name-calling because that is so 
infantile. 

Sincerely Fredrick Toben 

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor