Six Million Lies

“EYEWITNESS” ACCOUNTS

By Peter Winter

January 27, 2018

The physical evidence for mass exterminations is simply not there, and, as a result, the jewish holocaust storytellers have relied on “holocaust survivors” and “eyewitness accounts” to bolster the allegations of “mass murder.” This tendency to lie, exaggerate, and fabricate is the overriding characteristic of almost all jewish “eyewitness” literature.

Simon Wiesenthal’s Faked “Memoirs”

One of the world’s most famous holocaust “survivors” was the “Austrian” jew, Simon Wiesenthal. He claimed to have been interned at the Mauthausen camp and after the war, devoted his life to hunting ex-NAZIS. Wiesenthal had an organization (which is still in existence), devoted to jewish interests and promoting the jewish mass extermination legend, named after him.

Yet it is a little known fact that Wiesenthal’s own personal holocaust memoirs, entitled KZ Mauthausen, Bild und Wort (“Concentration Camp Mauthausen, Pictures and Words”), published in 1946, contains one of the most blatant forgeries of all holocaust memoirs.

Wiesenthal illustrated his book with drawings which he allegedly did either while in Mauthausen or from memory thereafter. One of the more famous pictures from his book is of three jews, in their striped prisoner outfits, who had been shot at the stake by the NAZIS.

Although Wiesenthal alleged in his book that the drawing of the three shot jews occurred in Mauthausen, the pictures were in reality plagiarized from a series of photographs which appeared in Life magazine of June 11, 1945. The series of photographs were of German soldiers, captured during the “Battle of the Bulge” wearing American uniforms, and executed by firing squad.

Wiesenthal copied his picture of “three shot jews” from this Life photo essay, as can be seen in the illustrations below.

Below: The title page of “NAZI hunter” and “holocaust survivor” Simon Wiesenthal’s memoirs, KZ Mauthausen: Bild und Wort (Concentration Camp Mauthausen: Pictures and Words, Vienna, 1946) and an illustration in the book, drawn by Wiesenthal with his signature at the bottom. The illustration purports to be the shooting of three jews Wiesenthal “witnessed” while imprisoned in the camp.

 

Below: Life magazine of June 11, 1945, carried a series of photographs of the unwarrented execution of German special forces soldiers caught wearing American uniforms behind judeoaAllied lines during the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944. Wiesenthal took the images of the executed Germans, and redrew them as “executed jews” in Mauthausen.

Above is the photographic story in Life magazine showing the shooting of the three Germans. Below are the final three photographs, laid out side by side.

And below, these three images next to Wiesenthal’s “Mauthausen execution” drawing. There is no doubt as to where this “world-acclaimed NAZI hunter” stole this image for his “memoirs.”

The Diary of Anne Frank—Handwriting Reveals Two Authors

One of the most celebrated “Holocaust” books is the so-called Diary of Anne Frank, first published in 1947, and supposedly the work of a young jewess girl written while her family and four other poor poor jews were hiding in a factory during the German occupation of Holland.

Eventually the eight were arrested and detained in various concentration camps. Anne Frank died in Bergen-Belsen of typhus, by which time she was fifteen. When Auschwitz was liberated by the Russians, her father Otto Frank was being treated for typhus in the camp hospital, and he died in 1980.

Life Magazine of August 18, 1958, carried a photograph of Anne Frank on the cover against the background of what is clearly and unquestionably the childlike non-cursive handwriting of a very young girl.

However, other published examples of the handwriting from the diary—including a large poster set up in front of the “Anne Frank School” in Amsterdam, clearly show the handwriting of an adult.

Below: Left, the handwriting of Anne Frank was published on the front page of Life magazine on August 18, 1958, along with a photograph she had taken of herself. The childish scrawl is in marked contrast to the adult’s handwriting of large parts of the diary, as illustrated on the right. (Picture of the front of the Anne Frank School in Amsterdam, where the building facade contains a copy of a page from the diary, ending with the signature “Anne M Frank.”

Below: A photograph of two pages from the original diary, showing once again the obvious difference in handwriting.

This fact alone showed that the diary was clearly not written by Anne, or at the very least, that large portions of it were written by someone else, most likely her father, Otto. Eventually, Otto Frank was forced to admit that the handwriting was in fact his, and not that of Anne’s. He explained that he had “transcribed” Anne’s diary before publication, and this was why the handwriting was his.

Furthermore, Otto Frank announced he had actually only published a “novel” called The Annex: Diary Notes 14 June 1942 —1 August 1944 (in Dutch, Het Achterhuis. Dagboekbrieven 14 juni 1942 —1 augustus 1944) and had never called it the “Diary of Anne Frank.” The title Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl had been given to the book’s first English translation.

This “transcription” by Otto Frank finally explained the 1980 report by the German Bundeskriminalamt (Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau, or BKA) which showed that portions of the dairy had been altered or added after 1951. The manuscript was examined on orders of a West German court as the result of a libel action brought by Otto Frank against a German publisher who had claimed the book was a fraud.

The manuscript, in the form of three hardbound notebooks and 324 loose pages bound in a fourth notebook, was examined with special equipment.

The results of tests performed at the BKA laboratories show that portions of the work, especially of the fourth volume, were written with a ballpoint pen. As ballpoint pens were not commercially available until after the war, the BKA concluded that those sections were added after Anne Frank died.

Otto Frank’s admission that he had transcribed the work not only finally explained the ballpoint pen writing, but why the subject matter of the diaries also shows an adult hand at work.

Early in the book, the diary contains an essay on why a 13-year-old girl would start a diary, which is then followed by a short history of the Frank family and a review of the appropriate anti-jewish measures in Holland which followed the German occupation in 1940. To think that a 13-year-old would assemble a factual historical account in a diary is improbable to say the least.

There is no doubt that the jew Anne Frank had a diary. It would however have been a perfectly normal 13-year-old’s work. The diary which has been sold to the world as a “witness to the holocaust” is however, an obvious jewish exaggeration and alteration of the original work by an adult.

Finally, it should be noted that Anne Frank died of typhus and was not “gassed” with an insecticide. It is one of the ironies of the jewish war that Anne Frank died due to a lack of Zyklon-B at Bergen-Belsen—and this lack was caused directly by the judeo-Allied bombing campaign. The real story of Anne Frank is a bit tragic, but the cruel exploitation, exaggeration, and faking of her diary by the holocaust storytellers is a scandal of epic proportions.

Anne Frank Fund Admits Father Co-Authored Diary

The Basel, Switzerland, Anne Frank Fonds (Anne Frank Fund)—which controls the copyright to the Diary of Anne Frank—finally admitted in November 2015 that the book was in fact at least co-authored by Otto Frank, Anne’s father, after the war.

The admission proved that the book, which is still heavily promoted as a “holocaust memoir,” is in fact largely a postwar fabrication which contained parts of the young Anne’s diary with extensive additions added by her father.

An article in the Jew York Times , of November 13, 2015, said that when “Otto Frank first published his daughter’s red-checked diary and notebooks, he wrote a prologue assuring readers that the book mostly contained her words, written while hiding from the NAZIS in a secret annex of a factory in Amsterdam.”

Normal copyright on books extends only 70 years after the author’s death. As Anne Frank died of typhus in Bergen Belsen in February 1945, the book theoretically entered the public domain in February 2015.

But, as the Jew York Times went on to say, the Anne Frank Fonds had now decided to try to extend copyright on the book past the 70-year cut-off period—by admitting that Otto Frank, who died in 1980, was indeed a “co-author” after all. The implications of this admission are obvious. As the Jew York Times put it:

“While the foundation, the Anne Frank Fonds, in Basel, signaled its intentions a year ago, warnings about the change have provoked a furor as the deadline approaches. Some people opposed to the move have declared that they would defy the foundation and publish portions of her text.

“Foundation officials ‘should think very carefully about the consequences,’ said Agnès Tricoire, a lawyer in Paris who specializes in intellectual property rights in France, where critics have been the most vociferous and are organizing a challenge. ‘If you follow their arguments, it means that they have lied for years about the fact that it was only written by Anne Frank.’”

 

Below: The Jew York Times article in which the fraud was revealed.

Rudolf Vrba’s “I Cannot Forgive”

One of the more famous “eyewitnesses” is the lying jew Rudolf Vrba, who in 1985 was an assistant professor at the Canadian University of British Columbia. Vrba’s testimony has formed the basis of most, if not all, descriptions of the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

However, in 1985, during a trial of a holocaust revisionist in Toronto, Vrba testified that his book, I Cannot Forgive, which contained all his eyewitness accounts was “an artistic picture” and that he himself had in fact never witnessed any gassings (“Book ‘An Artistic Picture’: Survivor never saw actual gassing deaths,” Toronto Star, January 24, 1985).

Pushed on the point, Vrba admitted that he never witnessed anybody being gassed to death and his book about Auschwitz-Birkenau is only “an artistic picture…not a document for a court” (ibid).

Vrba told the trial that his written and pictorial descriptions of the Auschwitz crematoria and gas chambers are based on “what I heard it might look like.”

He said that his 1944 drawings of the “Auschwitz camp layout were inexact.”

Vrba, who escaped the camp in Poland in 1944, insisted however he had made an accurate (“within 10%”) estimates of 1,765,000 mass-murder victims up to that point.

Olga Lengyel’s “Five Chimneys”

The blurb on the back cover of Olga Lengyel’s Five Chimneys: a woman survivor’s true story of Auschwitz (Granada/ Ziff-Davis, 1947, 1972), quotes the New York Herald-Tribune: “Passionate, tormenting.” Albert Einstein is also quoted: “You have done a real service by letting the ones who are now silent and most forgotten [sic] speak.”

So what does Lengyel say?

“After June, 1943, the gas chamber was reserved exclusively for Jews and Gypsies. Three hundred and sixty corpses every half hour, which was all the time it took to reduce human flesh to ashes, made 720 per hour, or 17,280 corpses per twenty-four hour shift. And the ovens, with murderous efficiency, functioned day and night. However, one must also reckon the death pits, which could destroy another 8,000 cadavers a day. In round numbers, about 24,000 corpses were handled each day. An admirable production record, one that speaks well for German industry” (ibid., pp. 80–81).

This implies almost 100,000 corpses per four working days, or a million in 40 days, or six million in 240 days (eight months). This claim is, of course, simply impossible, even by the conventional holocaust storyteller standards, and has obviously been made up.

Kitty Hart’s “Return to Auschwitz”

In her book, Return to Auschwitz (Granada, London, 1983), Kitty Hart wrote the following:

“Working around the clock, the four units together could dispose of about 18,000 bodies every twenty-four hours, while the open pits coped with a further 8,000 in the same period” (ibid., p. 118).

This means 26,000 bodies every 24 hours, or 182,000 every week, reaching the magic 6 million figure in an astonishing 33 weeks, or eight months.

Her book deals with “gassing” in just one paragraph on page 112 and in a film version, made especially for television, she claims that she was sunbathing (!) opposite Auschwitz-Birkenau crematorium number 4 when she witnessed an SS man climbing up a ladder and tipping in Zyklon-B, and human ashes coming out “10 minutes later.”

The flaws are obvious: what was a jewess doing “sunbathing” at an “extermination camp” and if the “gassing” story was true, then it would be impossible to kill and cremate people in ten minutes. Despite this, Return to Auschwitz is still used as “evidence” of the “Holocaust.”

Martin Gray’s “For Those I Loved”

In addition to the wild exaggerations contained in “eyewitness” survivor memoirs, an entire genre of outright faked accounts have become widely circulated and believed, even though they have all been formally debunked and exposed as such by the official “holocaust historians.”

The book For Those I Loved by Martin Gray (Bodley Head, 1973), purported to be an account of the Treblinka camp. Gray specialized in selling fake antiques to America before turning to concentration camp memoirs, although he waited twenty-eight years before producing his phony “eyewitness” account.

Although it was made into a film and remains a “best seller,” the “holocaust historians” have soundly rejected the book as a fake.

In The New Statesman magazine of November 2, 1979, “holocaust expert” Gitta Sereny (who also produced the Franz Stangl “memoirs”) wrote in a review of Gray’s book: “Gray’s For Those I Loved was the work of Max Gallo the ghostwriter, who also produced Papillion. During the research for a Sunday Times inquiry into Gray’s work, M. Gallo informed me coolly that he ‘needed’ a long chapter on Treblinka because the book required something strong for pulling in readers. When I myself told Gray, the ‘author,’ that he had manifestly never been to, nor escaped from Treblinka, he finally asked, despairingly, ‘But does it matter? Wasn’t the only thing that Treblinka did happen, that it should be written about, and that some jews should be shown to have been heroic?” (Gitta Sereny, “The Men Who Whitewash Hitler,” The New Statesman, Vol. 98, No. 2537, November 2, 1979, pp. 670–73).

Jean Francis Steiner’s “Treblinka”

In the same New Statesman article, Sereny also condemned Jean François Steiner’s book, Treblinka, in the following manner:

“Worse again are the partial or complete fakes such as Jean Francis Steiner’s Treblinka or Martin Gray’s For Those I Loved. Steiner’s book on the surface even seems right: he is a man of talent and conviction, and it is hard to know how he could go so wrong. But what he finally produced was a hodgepodge of truth and falsehood, libeling both the dead and the living. The original French book had to be withdrawn and reissued with all the names changed. But it retains its format of imagined conversations and reactions—i.e. pure fiction— incredibly remaining nonetheless, in serious bibliographies” (ibid).

Miklos Nyiszli’s “Auschwitz: A Doctor’s Eyewitness Account”

The book Auschwitz: A Doctor’s Eyewitness Account by Miklos Nyiszli was first published in installments by the Hungarian magazine Vilag (“World”) from February 16, 1947 to April 5, 1947. Its original title was I Was Mengele’s Autopsy Doctor in Auschwitz: A Hungarian Doctor’s Diary from Hell. This book claimed that Auschwitz killed 20,000 people every day in its gas chambers (!) which had been in operation from 1940 to 1944.

At the rate of 20,000 per day, for four years, this would have amounted to an astonishing 29 million dead.

Of course, not even the Holocaust storytellers claim that the gas chambers were built in 1940.

There are also numerous other obvious errors in this “eyewitness account” including a claim that the “undressing room” in which it is alleged that the victims disrobed was “200 yards long” (in fact there is no such building of that size in the crematoria complex); that “four elevators” moved the bodies from the “gas chambers” to the crematorium and that the camp held an incredible 500,000 inmates.

The preposterous nature of the latter claim was quickly recognized, and when the book was translated into English, the 500,000 figure was “edited” down to 100,000.

However, the English version retains to the present day a large number of errors and outrageous claims which reveal that the book is an obvious forgery:

– He claimed (page 23) that Auschwitz is in Germany (it is in Poland);

– He claimed (page 23) that the crematoria chimneys had “enormous tongues of flame” rising from them. (In fact, crematorium chimneys do not belch fire, but only issue smoke.) This “flaming chimney stack” lie has become a firm favorite of the Holocaust storytellers.

– He claimed that Gypsies (!) were used to police the Jews in the camp (chapter 4).

– He claimed (chapter 7) that after gassing, the bodies in the “gas chamber” were piled in a heap to the ceiling and that the “ Sonderkommando squad, outfitted with large rubber boots, lined up around the hill of bodies and flooded it with powerful jets of water. This was necessary because the final act of those who die by drowning or by gas is an involuntary defecation. Each body was befouled, and had to be washed.”

There is, of course, no drainage system either in the original architect’s plans of any of the crematory buildings, or in any of the ruins today, which could cope with the simultaneous defecation of 3,000 people.

The morgue building (which was claimed to have been the “gas chamber”) would quickly have filled to the brim with excrement after just one or two “mass gassings.” The allegation is patently absurd.

Finally, in chapter 6, Nyiszli said that the  Sonderkommando, those jews allegedly assigned the task of removing the bodies from the “gas chambers,” were “never permitted to leave the grounds of the crematorium, and every four months, when they had learned too much about the place for their own good, they were liquidated. Till now such had been the fate of every  Sonderkommando since the founding of the KZ; this explains why no one had ever escaped to tell the world what had been taking place inside these grim walls for the past several years.”

This last statement is of significance for the next “eyewitness” account, that of Filip Müller.

Filip Müller’s “Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas Chambers”

Another Holocaust potboiler is “survivor” Filip Müller’s Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas Chambers (Stein & Day, 1979).

This book is quoted as “fact” by the US Holocaust Museum as one of its main sources for descriptions of the Auschwitz “gas chambers.” Müller claimed to have been a member of the “Sonderkommando” (a jewish prisoner detachment which was allegedly tasked with removing bodies from the “gas chambers”).

Even though all the official Holocaust storytellers claim that the NAZIS routinely killed all  Sonderkommando members every few months to “hide their crimes” (see Nyiszli’s reference above), Müller claimed to have avoided execution and witnessed “gassings of a million jews” over an incredible three year period (!) working in the  Sonderkommando. The first problem with Müller’s book is that despite his unique and breathtaking “experiences,” he inexplicably waited thirty years before writing them down.

The second problem is that Müller’s book is simply a plagiarism of Nyiszli’s book! This is obvious from a cursory overview of portions of the two books, with entire sections repeated verbatim. Some examples suffice to illustrate:

Nyiszli: “Fate has imposed the cruelest duty upon us, to collaborate in the annihilation of our people, before we ourselves become ashes.”

Müller: “A cruel and awful fate has forced us to collaborate in the extermination of our people, before we ourselves become ashes.”

Nyiszli: “Our eyes, blinded by tears, would seek in vain for our annihilated relatives.”

Müller: “We would seek our annihilated relatives in vain.”

Nyiszli: “Heaven has not opened, no rain strong enough to extinguish the funeral pyres built by the hands of men has fallen.”

Müller: “No miracle has taken place. Heaven has sent no avenging lightning, nor has it let fall any rain strong enough to stifle the funeral pyres built by the hands of men.”

Nyiszli: “This is a trial which the Lord has sent us. To seek the reasons is not the business of us humans, who are nothing compared to the Almighty God.”

Müller: “With jewish resignation we must now accept the irrevocable. This is the last trial which Heaven to has sent us. To ask the reasons is not for us, since we are nothing compared to Almighty God.”

And so on. It is clear that Müller simply copied Nyiszli’s book, added a few parts and claimed to have been a miraculous “eyewitness” to Auschwitz.

The parts which Müller added are incredulous, and it is staggering that anyone takes them seriously.

Amongst other things, Müller says that SS doctors would slice off bits of the [dead] gassees’ flesh, which would then “jump around in buckets,” (p.47);

That there was a striptease in the “gas chamber” (p.87);

That the chief gasser, a man he names as Moll, and his dog, were sexually excited by a gassing (p.141);

And that babies were flung into pits of sizzling human fat (p.142).

It is incredible that this book is taken as a serious account of the “gas chambers” and Auschwitz. Or then again, perhaps it is not.

Truthful Survivor Books Not Given Prominence

The ‘holocaust industry’ continues to churn out ever more “new” holocaust survivor tales, although they are patently made-up stories based on the first set of “survivor” books outlined above.

Those survivor books which do not support the official line are, by way of contrast, consigned to the rubbish heap.

For example, the book Under Two Dictators (London, 1949) by Margarete Buber is a story of a woman unfortunate enough to spend time in both a Russian prison camp and Ravensbrück, the German camp for female detainees, in August 1940.

She noted that she was the only person in her contingent of deportees from Russia who was not straight away released by the Gestapo.

Her book presents a striking contrast between the camps of Soviet Russia and Germany: compared to the squalor, disorder, and starvation of the Russian camp, she found Ravensbrück to be clean, civilized, and well administered.

Regular baths and clean linen seemed a luxury after her earlier experiences, and her first meal of white bread, sausage, sweet porridge, and dried fruit prompted her to inquire of another camp inmate whether August 3rd, 1940, was some sort of holiday or special occasion.

She observed, too, that the barracks at Ravensbrück were remarkably spacious compared to the crowded mud huts of the Soviet camp.

In the final months of 1945, she experienced the progressive decline of camp conditions which she described in detail and which were common throughout the camp system, as outlined earlier.

Another account which is at total variance with popular propaganda is Die Gestapo Lässt Bitten (“The Gestapo Invites You”) by Charlotte Bormann, a Communist political prisoner who was also interned at Ravensbrück. Undoubtedly, its most important revelation is the author’s statement that rumors of gas executions were deliberate and malicious inventions circulated among the prisoners by the judeo-Communists.

A further shocking reflection on the postwar trials is the fact that Charlotte Bormann was not permitted to testify at the Rastadt Trial of Ravensbrück camp personnel in the French occupation zone.

This was the usual fate of anyone who denied the extermination legend: they were just ignored.

Paul Rassinier—The Holocaust Victim Who Argued Against the “Gas Chambers”

One of the most remarkable memoirs which the Holocaust storytellers have deliberately ignored is that of the French historian, Professor Paul Rassinier, who was a Socialist intellectual and anti-NAZI.

Below: French anti-NAZI and resistance fighter Paul Rassinier was arrested by the Gestapo and imprisoned in Buchenwald concentration camp. After the war, he was elected to the French National Assembly and awarded heroism medals. He was shocked to find that others claimed that there were gas chambers at Buchenwald, something he knew was a lie because of his internment there. Rassinier spent the rest of his life exposing the lies behind the “holocaust” and, as a result, his memoirs of interment at Buchenwald are ignored by the Holocaust storytellers.

From 1933 until 1943, Rassinier was a professor of history in the Collège d’enseignement général at Belfort, Académie de Besançon. During the war he engaged in resistance activity until he was arrested by the Gestapo on October 30th, 1943, and as a result was imprisoned in the German concentration camps at Buchenwald and Dora until 1945.

At Buchenwald, toward the end of the war, he contracted typhus, which so damaged his health that he could not resume his teaching. After the war, Rassinier was awarded the Médaille de la Résistance et de la Reconnaisance Française, and was elected to the French Chamber of Deputies. Rassinier published his memoirs, titled Crossing the Line (Paris: Editions Bressanes, 1949 and 1950), which was an account of his experience in Buchenwald. It was a best seller of the time and was notable for its revelation that many brutalities in the camp were committed not by the SS, but by the mainly Communist prisoners who took over the internal affairs of the camps for their own benefit.

Rassinier blamed the high death rate at the two camps he saw on their corruption.

The fame which this memoir attracted soon focused his attention on other “survivor” accounts of Buchenwald, all of which claimed that there had been a gas chamber at that camp.

As he was a former detainee, Rassinier knew that these claims were false, and in 1949 published a second book, Le Mensonge d’Ulysse (“The Lies of Ulysses, Paris,” 1949) in which he made short work of the extravagant claims about gas chambers at Buchenwald in David Rousset’s The Other Kingdom (New York, 1947).

Rassinier also confronted another “survivor eyewitness,” Abbé Jean-Paul Renard and asked him how he could possibly have testified in his book Chaînes et Lumières that gas chambers were in operation at Buchenwald. Renard replied that others had told him of their existence, and hence he had been willing to pose as a witness of things that he had never seen (ibid., p. 209 ff).

Rassinier also investigated Denise Dufournier’s Ravensbrück: The Women’s Camp of Death (London, 1948), and again found that the authoress had no other evidence for gas chambers there than vague “rumors,” which Charlotte Bormann stated were deliberately spread by Communist political prisoners.

Similar investigations were made of such books as Philip Friedman’s This was Auschwitz: The Story of a Murder Camp (N.Y., 1946), and Eugen Kogon’s The Theory and Practice of Hell (N.Y., 1950), and he found that none of these authors could produce an authentic eyewitness of a gas chamber at Auschwitz, nor had they themselves actually seen one.

Rassinier also mentioned Kogon’s claim that a deceased former inmate, Janda Weiss, had said to Kogon alone that she had witnessed gas chambers at Auschwitz, but of course, since this person was untraceable, Rassinier was unable to investigate the claim.

He was able to interview Benedikt Kautsky, author of Teufel und Verdammte, who had alleged that millions of jews were exterminated at Auschwitz. However, Kautsky only confirmed to Rassinier the confession in his book, namely that never at any time had he seen a gas chamber, and that he had based his information on what others had “told him.”

Rassinier also produced three other books, Ulysse trahi par les Siens (1960), which further refuted the impostures of propagandists concerning German concentration camps; Le Véritable Procès Eichmann (1962), which revealed the distortions around the Eichmann trial and Le Drame des Juifs Européens (1964), in which he exposed the dishonest and reckless distortions concerning the fate of the jews by a careful statistical analysis.

The last work also examined the political and financial significance of the extermination legend and its exploitation by Israel and the Communist powers.

Not surprisingly, Rassinier’s eyewitness testimony is never quoted by the holocaust industry, even though he was a bona fide victim who could never be accused of being a “NAZI sympathizer.”

 

Martin Gilbert’s “Auschwitz and the Allies”

Although not a survivor, Martin Gilbert was a well-known jewish writer and biographer of Winston Churchill, holding a senior and supposedly respected position within the academic community, who also glibly passed off the most outrageous figures with regard to Auschwitz in his book Auschwitz and the Allies (Gilbert, Martin, New York: Henry Holt, 1981).

In this book he states: “The deliberate attempt to destroy systematically all of Europe’s jews was unsuspected in the spring and early summer of 1942: the very period during which it was at its most intense, and during which hundreds of thousands of jews were being gassed every day at Belzec, Chelmo, Sobibór and Treblinka” (ibid., p.26).

If it is assumed, according to Gilbert’s figures, that a minimum of 200,000 jews per day were being gassed (he says “hundreds of thousands”), this amounts to one million every five days, or six million in thirty days. This is obviously impossible, and makes a complete mockery of the supposed “academics” who claim to be authorities on the holocaust.

Klara Markus, and the Psychology behind “Holocaust Survivor Testimonies”

A December 2014 article which appeared in the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper, quoting a 101-year-old jewish “holocaust survivor” as having survived being gassed because the NAZIS “ran out of gas” is the perfect example of the psychology of mass deceit and lies which has come to typify this sort of “testimony.”

 

Below: The interview with Klara Markus as published in the Daily Mail.

In addition, the unquestioning acceptance of the easily-disproved jewish lies of the “eye-witness” by the Daily Mail shows once again how the jewish mass media is directly complicit in promoting the Six Million Story. The Daily Mail story in question, titled “Woman who SURVIVED Auschwitz because NAZIS ran out of gas turns 101,” published on December 10, 2014, quotes one Klara Markus, who claims to have survived no less than three camps.

According to the Daily Mail, Markus claimed to have arrived in Dachau on October 20, 1944, and one week later she was sent to the notorious women’s camp in Ravensbruck, before being transported to Auschwitz. Then, she said, shortly before the evacuation and subsequent liberation of Auschwitz in January 1945, she was sent to the gas chambers.

“I was ‘chosen’ towards the end of the day with a large group of other women and we were made ready for the gas chamber. But when they put us inside and went to turn the gas on, they found they had run out.

‘One of the guards joked that it was our lucky day because they had already killed so many they didn’t have any gas left for us.’

This is an astonishing story—but of course, a colossal lie from beginning to end. The most obvious lie is that Markus was sent to the “gas chamber” at Auschwitz in January 1945. According to the official holocaust storyteller version—as contained in, for example, the JUnited States Holocaust Museum timeline of events at Auschwitz, the “gas chambers” were put out of commission in November 1944—in other words, before Markus even supposedly arrived at the camp.

To claim that she was sent to the “gas chambers” in January 1945 is therefore impossible even by the “official” record.

Furthermore, according to the official holocaust storyteller line, the NAZIS did not pipe gas to the “gas chambers” at Auschwitz, but instead used Zyklon-B, an insecticide, to kill thousands of horrified jews in underground chambers. Leaving aside the technical impossibility of killing thousands of people simultaneously in an underground chamber, the NAZIS would never have started an execution with thousands of people without making sure all the logistics were in place.

This obviously fraudulent “survivor testimony” raises two important issues:

1. Why would someone invent a story which could be so easily disproved, even by consulting the “official” holocaust storytellers’ version of events? And

2. Why would the Daily Mail—and other mass media outlets—carry this story without doing even the most basic of research to check if it was true or not? They would most certainly question and research any other such fantastic claim. The answer to the first question cuts to the very heart of so much “holocaust survivor” testimony which has been proven to be false. The vast majority of “survivors” are merely repeating the stories they have been told after the war.

Herman Rosenblat’s “Angel at the Fence”

Herman Rosenblat’s Angel at the Fence: The True Story of a Love That Survived was a Holocaust memoir in which the author invented the story that, while he was imprisoned in the Buchenwald concentration camp, a young girl from the outside would pass him food through the fence daily and years later they accidentally met and married.

 

Below: Rosenblat and wife in happier days before their swindle was exposed. 

Rosenblat appeared twice on The Oprah Winfrey Show. Prior to the book’s announced publication, Winfrey called the story “the single greatest love story, in 22 years of doing this show, we’ve ever told on the air.”

The book was scheduled for publication in February 2009 by Berkley Books, a division of Penguin Group USA, but was canceled after it was exposed as a lie from beginning to end.

Binjamin Wilkomirski’s “Fragments”

Binjamin Wilkomirski’s Fragments (1995), was an acclaimed account of his supposed internment in Auschwitz and Majdanek.

The Jew York Times called the book “stunning,” the Los Angeles Times described it as a “classic first-hand account of the Holocaust”; it received the 1996 National Jewish Book Award for Autobiography and Memoir. In Britain, Wilkomirski’s book received the Jewish Quarterly Literary Prize, and in France it was awarded the Prix Memoire de la Shoah.

In 1998, Wilkomirski was exposed as a liar by a Swiss journalist, who revealed the author had been nowhere near the camps; that he was in fact called Bruno Grosjean, and had been raised in an orphanage.

“Survivor” Swindlers 1—The Philip Auerbach Case

Immediately after the war’s end, a jew by the name of Philip Auerbach, who claimed to have “survived” Auschwitz, was appointed head of the “Bavarian State Restitution Office” which was set up by the judeo-Allies, and tasked with overseeing “compensation payments” to his fellow jews.

Above: Philip Auerbach.

 

In January 1951, Auerbach became a member of the Zentralrat der juden in Deutschland (Central Council of jews in Germany)—but the very next month, he was arrested and charged with stealing 3 million Deutsch Marks (DM) from the “restitution fund.”

He was found guilty, and in August 1952 was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment. He committed suicide in jail.

Three of Auerbach’s associates in the restitution office were also sentenced to prison in the same court case.

One of them, rabbi Aaron Orenstein, was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and fined 10,000 DM. The second, Dr. Klaus Koenig-Ohnsorg, was sentenced to a year in prison and 200 DM fine. The third, Dr. Berthold Kernisch, received a four-month jail term and was fined 500 DM.

“Survivor” Swindlers 2—The Werner Nachmann Case

Werner Nachmann (1925–1988) was president of the Zentralrat der juden in Deutschland (Central Council of jews in Germany) from 1969 to 1988. He served on the organizing committee of the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, and in 1986 he received the Theodor Heuss prize for his services to the jewish-German reconciliation and the peaceful coexistence of jews and christians in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Above: Werner Nachmann.

 

After his death in 1988, it was discovered that from 1981 to 1987 he had defrauded about 33 million DM ($17 million in U.S. dollars at the time) from a German government fund intended for “victims.” As reported in the Jew York Times of December 1988, half of the directors of the Central Council of jews in Germany were forced to resign in the wake of the swindle. The missing money was never found.

“Survivor” Swindlers 3—The Semen Domnitser Case

In November 2010, the FBI in New York arrested 31 jews in that city in connection with a $42.5 million organized fraud against a compensation fund for holocaust victims. The U.S. Attorney’s Office charged the 31, who included six current and former staff members of the Conference on jewish Material Claims Against Germany conference, with making false financial claims using false documents.

In May 2013, the ringleader of the swindler gang, Semen Domnitser, was found guilty on all counts by a U.S. District Court jury in Manhattan. The verdict ended a four week trial in which two others, Oksana Romalis and Luba Kramrish, were also found guilty. The remaining 28 jews who had participated in the fraud scheme had all pleaded guilty earlier. Cases such as these only scratch the surface of the ongoing “survivor” fraud industry.

 

Below: Conference on jewish Material Claims Against Germany employee Semen Domnitser weeps after being exposed as a “reparations” fraudster.