Pressac and the German Public

Manfred Köhler [1]

1. The Claim

1.1 The Media

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the most respected newspaper of the German-speaking world and one of the most respected newspapers world-wide, published an article by Joseph Hanimann entitled "Ziffernsprache des Ungeheuerlichen" (Encrypted Speech of Monsters) on 14.10.1993 on page 37. In this piece Hanimann reported on the book by French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac published at the end of September 1993 by the publishing arm of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique on the crematories of Auschwitz, that supposedly sheltered the technology for the mass murder of countless persons, mostly Jews. [2] Hanimann wrote:

The book is filled with photographic material and construction plans. It reads like an engineer's handbook in which technical data, such as incineration capacity and fuel consumption per corpse coldly document the whole monstrous thing [...]

The principal benefit of this publication is that the technical details have been historically analyzed for the first time.

The amazed layman learns that the claimed worst crime of human history has been subjected to a technical-criminological investigation for the first time 50 years after the fact. Almost every vehicular death and ordinary murder is routinely investigated by technological and criminological experts as soon as possible after it is reported. Why the 50 years' delay here? Hanimann himself indicates the answer:

The author, who can think the ice-cold logic of technicians and can speak the hollow speech of the numbers of race-murder, meets the technicians of the time and the Revisionists of today on their own ground. But at the same time one gets the impression that someone else in the mirror is writing the book: Pressac's earlier teacher, the Revisionist Faurisson. In that Pressac expends his entire power of argument to prove what is clearly true, the reality of the gas chambers, his former doubt seems to linger.

Apparently there are people who dispute the mass murder in Auschwitz on technical and scientific grounds. These people must be met with scientific-technical expertise. Yet again the layman must wonder, Were not the doubters formerly portrayed as crazies whose arguments need not be taken seriously? Why do we need to argue with them and bring up such a big gun as a publication put out by the most prestigious scientific institute of France? Are the objections of the deniers worthy of discussion? Do their arguments have substance? In that case, why were they withheld from the German readership of the reputedly most thorough newspaper in Germany? Why do we hear about them first through a supposed refutation? Why does the FAZ conceal from its readers the views of the deniers, who after all were the real reason for Pressac's book? Does not the FAZ trust its readers to be able to distinguish between true and false argumentation? Are the staff of FAZ not very bright? Or are the editors afraid that the readers might discover that those who put the newspaper together are not very bright? Question upon question ...

Apparently readers' criticisms of this one-sided discussion of the subject had an effect on Joseph Hanimann, because in his discussion of the German edition of Pressac's book, [3] under the title "Teuflische Details" (Devilish Details) on 16.8.1994 (p. 8) we find, in addition to what was essentially a repeat of what he had already written, the following passages:

The German Germar Rudolf describes Pressac's proofs as fraudulent; Faurisson has himself published a "Réponse à Jean-Claude Pressac" (Answer to ...). Out of context, he welcomes what he takes to be Pressac's "concessions" to the Revisionist viewpoint: that the number of victims is less than that formerly given, that no decision for mass murder was taken at the Wannsee conference, that Zyklon B was used for combating typhus, that the crematories of Birkenau were originally planned without gas chambers. The exiguousness of the objections that Faurisson can raise to Pressac clearly shows his embarassment.

Other reviews evaluated Pressac's new book similarly. For example, in Die Welt on 27.9.1993 in a piece entitled "Neue Erkenntnisse über Auschwitz" (New Knowledge on Auschwitz), Greta Maiello wrote:

The result is a comprehensive and highly professional study.

A piece entitled "Die Maschinerie des Todes" (The Machinery of Death) which appeared in Welt am Sonntag on 3.10.1993, signed by "ell", contained:

[...] describes even the tiniest technical details as to how people were killed in the concentration camps.

In "Die Gaskammer-Erbauer von Auschwitz" (The Gas chamber Builders of Auschwitz), Peter Hillebrand of the TAZ in Berlin said on 21.3.1994 about the German edition of Pressac's book:

By means of technical data he [Pressac] can now confirm the existence and the operation of the gas chambers. [...] In his book, which will appear soon in German, he describes with gripping, ice-cold technical detail the work of the fitters, site engineers and architects. It is just this painful description of technical detail, revealing changes of plans, fudging and bungling [...] which demonstrates the incomprehensible unscrupulousness of the builders of these killing facilities.

Following an interview with Pressac in the piece "Die Technik des Massenmordes" (The Technology of Mass Murder) in Focus, nr. 17 (pp. 116ff.) on 25.4.1994 Burkhard Müller-Ullrich added this commentary:

What has been missing until now has been proof of the technical method of mass murder. The Revisionists – an international group of private historians, mostly confessed National Socialists, who deny the crime or want to "minimize" it – attack just this point. [...] Pressac's merit is that with his book he has undermined the foundation for any objections of the Revisionists and Auschwitz-deniers, if there ever was any. [...] Even Nolte did not know about the conclusive, indisputable refutation with which Pressac disposed of the main point of the Auschwitz-deniers, that a mass gassing of several thousand people in one day in a single camp was technically impossible.

On 29.4.1994 in the Süddeutsche Zeitung under the caption "Die Sprache des Unfaßbaren" (Speech of the Incomprehensible) Harald Eggebrecht stated:

[...] since the brutal resurgence of neo-Nazis and their shameless denial of the annihilation of the Jews in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, propped up with pseudoscientific theories that the murder machinery was impossible on so-called technical grounds, it has appeared necessary to prove Auschwitz all over again. [...] In this document concerned with the careful analysis of all documents there are only a few lines in which Pressac grabs hold of the horror. [...] As said before, this book is not a sensation, this is no argument from the defense against the attack of the unteachable, the shameless, the cynics and the relativizers à la Ernst Nolte, assuming that one should take their arguments and theorization seriously as belonging in a scientific discussion. Whoever does that is well on the way to believing in an "Auschwitz lie" and acceptance of the Nazi era as an integratable period.

Manfred Kriener, discussing Pressac's masterwork under the heading "Die Technik des Massenmordes" (The Technology of Mass Murder) on 18.6.1994 in the regional newspaper Stuttgarter Nachrichten, was equally forthright:

Pressac has written on technology, but not a technical book. The shadow of the piles of corpses and the suffering of the victims are always present. [...] His books have become part of the material that now make Auschwitz one of the "best documented mass killings of all human history." [...] The hope that Pressac, as a former "Revisionist", can persuade his former intellectual comrades to the opposite view is surely illusory. Only the wrong-headed would read such books. [...] Comprehension of the mass murder and its practical, technical realization – that is Pressac's main contribution.

This much is clear: The print media present the work of Pressac as a technically-oriented study on a high scientific plane, which, though not strictly limited to technical matter, was intended to and is capable of refuting the supposedly pseudoscientific arguments of the supposedly ignorant and neo-Nazi Revisionists and Auschwitz deniers. [5]

1.2 The Judicial System

The criminal justice system in Germany refuses to allow an accused who is charged with publicly denying the Holocaust in part or wholly to present any evidence in support of his view. The reason they give for this is sec. 244, para. 3, sentence 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that evidence will not be allowed when a thing is commonly known to be true. Since the Nuremberg trials of 1946, our judicial system has operated on the presumption that the Holocaust is as well-known a fact as that the earth revolves around the sun. The objection on common knowledge can be defeated by two things: first, by a discussion within competent scientific circles and second, if the accused presents new evidence that is superior to all previously submitted evidence. For example, a technical-scientific expert report would be superior to any previous evidence if only witness testimony and documents had been presented before, because the latter are inferior in evidentiary power to technical evidence. Recently, two technical expert reports have been commonly presented by the defense as evidence for the correctness of the views of their clients, namely, the Leuchter Report [6] and the Rudolf expert report. [7] When these expert reports were presented in a criminal trial recently, the court refused to accept them as evidence, saying that they were not only not capable of resolving "doubts" in "competent scientific research", and that they did not constitute new evidence superior to previously submitted evidence. To quote the Upper Land Court of Celle: [8]

The evidence submitted is mainly supported by researches of Diplom Chemist Rudolph [9] and the so-called "Leuchter Report" of the American Frederick A. Leuchter [...] As to the discussion of the question in technical circles, we merely point out that the "Leuchter Report" has been criticized, and that the French pharmacologist and toxicologist Pressac [10] as well as the retired Social Counselor Wegner have produced expert reports that came to an opposite conclusion. Therefore, there are no facts to prove that the new research presented has led to a discussion in the technical community due to new doubts as to the consensus nor that there is any ground for thinking the evidence presented is superior to evidence already at hand.

Social Counselor Wegner, a man nearly 90 years old, had recently made a fool of himself with his article, [11] which did not even approach the standards of a competent technical expert report, since he was not qualified in chemistry, toxicology or other technical matters and had never tried to put his writing in the form required by the rules and customs of these disciplines. He is therefore of no account in any discussion in technical circles. Pressac, however, was portrayed as the single technical specialist who argued against the Revisionists – even though he had never addressed the arguments in the Rudolf expert report. Nevertheless, for the court, Pressac's works constitute a refutation of Revisionist arguments, or are at least a match for them. Pressac is the last reed to which German justice can cling when they raise the objection "common knowledge" – for the purpose of suppression of evidence.

1.3 The Historians

Eberhard Jäckel, Professor of Contemporary History in Stuttgart and one of the most widely-known specialists on the Holocaust, wrote a review of the German edition of Pressac's book, which appeared shortly thereafter, under the heading "Die Maschinerie des Massenmordes" (The Machinery of Mass Murder), in the weekly Die Zeit on 18.3.1994. In the review he said:

It has angered a few readers that he [Pressac] has described all this with the unfeeling precision of a heating technician. For every assertion he has a letter or a quote from the records of the construction office. What is even more aggravating is that he gives the impression that he is the one who discovered the evidence. In fact, the method of operation has been known for a long time, though without the technical details, and moreover it is questionable whether they were developed in the way he describes. [...] He has been researching for ten years but he has not become a sound historian. His book is through and through technical, limited to a single mode, one might say benighted. Nevertheless, it is useful for just that reason. The usefulness is not so much that there is now a completely irrefutable proof for the existence of the gas chambers. [...] It is useful that Pressac has refuted the anti-Semitic deniers with their own technical arguments. One waits in suspense to see what they will think of next. But since they are not interested in the truth, but only in the seeming justification of their prejudices, not even Pressac will convince them. The greatest usefulness of the book lies in this, that we can now understand the operation in its technical details.

Thus the opinion of the Holocaust court historians did not deviate markedly from that of the media. They are of one viewpoint in their evaluation of Pressac as the technical-scientific wonder weapon against the "evil" Revisionists, but there are discrepancies with respect to how evaluate Pressac's working methods. Jäckel is angry that Pressac pretends that he alone has discovered the wheel. Indeed, most of the work had already been done by others, including not only the established historians and hobby-historians but also by Revisionists such as Faurisson – something Jäckel omitted to mention.

The response from the Institute for Contemporary History when asked to make a comment on the Rudolf expert report was revealing: [12]

The Institute for Contemporary History will make no comment on this expert report. In our opinion, it is useless to go in detail into the diverse attempts of the Revisionist side to dispute the mass gassings in Auschwitz. The fact of these gassings is obvious and has only recently been reconfirmed by the records of the construction office of the Waffen SS and police found in the Moscow archives (see the publication by Jean-Claude Pressac, Les Crématoires d'Auschwitz. La machinerie du meurtre de masse. – Editions CNRS, Paris 1993).

Here again Pressac was brought out as a decisive weapon against the Revisionists.

2. The Reality

2.1 The Scientific Basis

Briefly defined, science is any research open to examination by outsiders and the systematic description of same. Examination by outsiders means that anyone could undertake the same research through experimentation based on defined conditions and logical deduction. Also, the source data that the researcher has relied upon must be publicly available. This means that conclusions that are based on original documents or on the data of foreign scientific research should be identified such that the outsider can retrieve the original documents or the publications of the foreign scientists. Further, proper scientific procedure requires the inclusion in the research of at least the most important of the current scientific theories and counter-theories; there should be a systematic treatment of known works on the same subject. Also, a scientist should make clear the premises of his research; he should distinguish between facts and value judgements openly and acknowledge the limits of his technical competence if this is not clear from the context of the publication.

Pressac violates many of these principles grossly. R. Faurisson, for example, will show below how Pressac's method of citation cannot be accepted as scientific. Over and over he constructs sentences with several assertions and then proves the assertions with a document that bears on only one of them. Also he frequently mixes his personal, usually unfounded, opinion in with statements taken from documents he references without making it clear that he is doing so.

The way Pressac organizes his work also leaves much to be desired, since he has apparently not taken the trouble to use the documents he has analyzed to form an overall picture of Lager Auschwitz, which, if he had done so, might provide a very different picture from the one he presents. Instead, he sifts through the haypile of documents for this or that indication of a presumed crime and omits to include possibly exonerating documents in his investigations.

In Pressac's work one can find hardly any opposing opinions. Although he alleges that he will show that the arguments of the Revisionists are invalid – and the media, contemporary historians and judicial officers sing the same song –, Pressac systematically excludes all facts, sources, views and conclusions that put his conception in question. No Revisionist work is named, no Revisionist argument is discussed. Since Pressac is invoked because of the Revisionists and against them, this fact alone must be the death stroke to his work.

Nowhere does Pressac tell us that as a pharmacist he does not have the requisite technical or historical training nor has he taught himself sufficiently in these areas. With his book and the hubbub with which the media responded to it he created, if only sloppily, the impression that he would publish definitive results in these technical areas. If he wanted to meet the requirements adhered to by scientists, he had a duty to make it clear that he did not possess expert qualifications

2.2 Technology and Physical Science

One might be tempted to pardon the systematic omission of contrary viewpoints if Pressac had been true to the task he set for himself in the title of his book, which, as we are incessantly reminded by our media, contemporary historians and judicial officers, was to deliver a technically founded treatment of the question of the crematories in Auschwitz. Unfortunately, his work does not contain a reference to any source from a technical publication. It does not contain the results of a single technical study of his own or anyone else. Here is an example: With respect to the time it would take to cremate a corpse in the crematories at Auschwitz, a figure necessary to the determination of maximum capacity, Pressac's book does not contain any calculation or figure based on the technical literature. Instead it contains a collection of conflicting values in various places throughout the book (1 hr., p. 7; 30-40 min., p. 13; 1 hr. 12 min., p. 15; 15 min., p. 28; 1 hr. 36 min., p. 34; 34-43 min., p. 49; 13 min., p. 72; 29 min., p. 74; 22 min., p. 80) [13] For some incomprehensible reason Joseph Hanimann praised J.-C. Pressac in the FAZ for his determination of the capacity of the crematories at Auschwitz ....

In this book, C. Mattogno will demonstrate in detail that Pressac fails to examine critically and mostly even ignores the contradictions on technical processes that appear in the witness statements and documents – as though he had not noticed them. Significantly, one notices dry comments from Pressac that this or that witness has exaggerated and can not be relied upon but there is nothing as to what could be proven to be technically possible. In this Pressac does not differ from the other historians and hobby-historians of the credulous Holocaust brotherhood.

2.3 Historiography

Pressac's book also does not measure up to the requirements made on works within the discipline of historiography. In that respect it differs little from the works of others of the same intellectual orientation.

For example, where is the critical evaluation of testimony and documentation, the alpha and omega of all historiography? As mentioned above, there is no sign of any critical evaluation of witness testimony. One looks in vain for any evaluation even of the most important of the 80,000 documents that Pressac studied. C. Mattogno gives one example of how necessary critical evaluation is to documents found in the KGB archives.

One can not necessarily demand of a work that sets out to investigate the technology of mass murder through study of the crematories of Auschwitz that it furnish an historical overview of the events in the camps of Auschwitz. What one can and must demand, however, is an overview of the technical and organizational conditions and operations in the camp directly or indirectly connnected with the claimed killing machinery. In this respect also Pressac is blind to technical facts that contradict the picture of a ghastly, inhumane killing camp: recreation facilities, infirmaries, expensive, ultra-modern sanitary facilities, civil, non-criminal use of the crematories, ground water drainage, waste water filtration, biogas reclamation from sewage sludge, industrial work programs, and so on.

3. The Evaluation

3.1 The Press

When the chief editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung was asked to explain why they had praised Pressac's book so uncritically and whether there was any one on the editorial staff with a technical or scientific background who might have recognized the above-mentioned defects of the book, they declined to answer and referred the inquiry to the responsible journalist Joseph Hanimann, living in Paris. The latter, when he answered, stated that it was neither part of his assigned duty nor within his competence to critically review Pressac's book, that it was his task to report on events in France, which included the publishing of Pressac's book and the accompanying publicity campaign. In addition, he did not see any reason to undertake a critical review of Pressac's book, because to his knowledge no reputable historian saw any reason to do so. [14] In German editorial offices critical journalism does not appear to be called for when our court historians cough. Anxious obedience is a better description of such behaviour. Apparently Mr. Hanimann also does not understand that historians are not the proper respondants for technical or natural scientific questions. One could not expect an historian to recognize deficiencies in these areas. This sort of reporting demonstrates the incompetence of the journalists and editors of the FAZ on this subject and the fact that our journalists do not do much more than to rewrite uncritically what others of the same orientation have already written. It is the same with the other reviewers, whose similar-sounding phrasing make the rewriting sometimes patent.

Hanimann's review of the German edition of Pressac's book, published by the FAZ on 16.8.1994, was a little bit better. It is true his judgement on Pressac's book was identical with that of October of the previous year but at least he named two of the leading Revisionists. By chance, however, he omitted to mention that which he allowed to Pressac by mentioning his profession (pharmacist): he withheld from the reader that both Revisionists were academics. Whether Hanimann's belief that Pressac embarrassed Faurisson is true or not we will leave to the judgement of our readers. It is strange, however, that Hanimann imputes to Germar Rudolf that he described Pressac's technical documentation as a forgery. Rudolf had thoroughly discussed Pressac's book in a technical paper in which his judgement is the same as that expressed here. [15] The word "forgery" does not occur in Rudolf's work in connection with Pressac's documentation. He did mention the forgery of the Demjanjuk identity card found in the Moscow archives [16] in order to emphasize the necessity of critical evaluation of documents, something in which Pressac was flagrantly negligent. However, FAZ did have the fairness to publish a correction by Rudolf as a letter to the editor on 26.8.1994 on p. 8, including a list of the assertions which were actually made in his expert report.

Hot air disinfestation in Birkenau
The machinery of human annihilation:
the gas chambers of Auschwitz
Falsification of a photograph – mislabeling by the Stuttgarter Nachrichten (18.6.1994): What is shown is actually an apparatus for hot air disinfestation of prisoner's clothing.

The Stuttgarter Nachrichten has shown itself more unscrupulous in its handling of the truth than Hanimann. They embellished their above-mentioned article with a picture from Pressac's book of a hot air clothing disinfestation apparatus in Auschwitz and captioned it with these words: "The machinery of human annihilation: the gas chambers of Auschwitz", clearly suggesting that it had to do with the killing gas chambers. Since this picture appears in Pressac's book explicitly and unambiguously lablelled as a hot air disinfestation chamber, thus as harmless equipment for cleaning prisoner's clothing to prevent disease and to protect Jewish lives, if we are to believe that the responsible journalist, Manfred Kriener, made a mistake we must attribute to him either illiteracy or partial blindness. My personal opinion is that this is one of the vilest falsifications and most brazen deceits I have encountered.

It is characteristic of the mode of thinking of our media on the Revisionists that, on the one hand, they defame all of them categorically as Nazis or reproach them as apologists for the Nazi regime. The average reader is probably influenced by this mostly false imputation, yet it has no bearing on any technical argument and can only have the effect of diverting the discussion from the technical area to the political. This political instrumentalization of the subject by the media (and also by the court historians and the judicial system) can never contribute to a scientific discussion – it represents the violation of science.

On the other hand, one constantly comes across media warnings to the effect that the citizen should beware of the danger of Revisionist arguments. On 19.5.1994 the Swiss Weltwoche wrote:

Hence our warning to all that may come in contact with this propaganda material that only barely disguises its anti-Semitism: Do not get into a discussion with a Revisionist! Whoever denies the murder of Jews in the gas chambers of the Nazi regime lies and can not claim the right to freedom of opinion, as the Constitutional High Court in Karlsruhe recently decided.

Here we have it: Because of the potential danger to the one's spiritual contentment due to knowledge of the truth, it is safer to: see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing! It is better to: warn, threaten, malign and censor.

3.2 Justice

The decision of the Upper Land Court of Celle mentioned above refers explicitly to the works of W. Wegner und J.-C. Pressac as counter-expert reports opposed to the Revisionist works. In fact, an expert report can be used in a trial as countervailing evidence only when it has been submitted by one of the parties. It is an error of procedure to deny a motion to submit evidence on the grounds that there is a paper somewhere that reaches a different conclusion. It is beyond the competence of the court to decide whether the works of Wegner and Pressac are capable of refuting the arguments of the Revisionists. For example, it has never been asserted that Pressac has refuted the Rudolf expert report, yet since Spring 1992 the latter has been refused as evidence without an examination and without a reason. Whether the responses of the opposing side can refute Revisionist arguments is a question for technical experts to clarify. Above all, this is an interdisciplinary question whose explication can not be accomplished by a court and which a court has no business dealing with.

It is a peculiar arrogance to require that there be a public discussion on Revisionist theories as a condition for overcoming the objection of "common knowledge", since anyone who makes Revisionist utterances in public is charged and sentenced without possibility of defense through the invocation of this very same "common knowledge". It is the incantation "common knowledge" which blocks public discussion.

Our judicial system assumes the power to make decisions on scientific questions, despite gross incompetence, and persecutes scientists of an opposite viewpoint with methods that are comparable to those of medieaval witch hunts.

3.3 Historians

It is elementary that historians are not qualified to resolve technical or natural scientific questions in a competent fashion. It is apparently less elementary that the foundations of historiography can only be what is consistent with physical laws, the laws of logic and what was technically possible in the period being studied. These scientific disciplines dominate even historiography – even if this is not to the taste of many historians. Technical and physical scientific questions play an overriding role in the question of the claimed mass murder of Jews during the Third Reich since such a gigantic mass murder without trace represents a phenomenon that needs a technical investigation – quite apart from the critical evaluation of so many absurd witness statements that our court historians have accepted uncritically for decades, as though they were children hanging on the storyteller's every word. Even Pressac is critical of this practice: [17]

No, no. One can not base competent historical writing on witness testimony alone.

It is a singular circumstance that even the supposedly super-competent Institute for Contemporary History could do no better in response to the Rudolf expert report than appeal to the common knowledge of the Holocaust, since their mention of Pressac, who merely interpreted documents and testimony, completely fails to meet the points made by the technical and natural scientific Rudolf expert report, and therefore can not invalidate it. There can not be much substance to the arguments or the competence of these "scientists" working for the Institute for Contemporary History, supposedly the leaders in the field of Holocaust reasearch.

4. The Freedom of Science

In a decision on 11.1.1994 the Constitutional High Court stated: [18]

The defense of the fundamental right to freedom of science does not depend either on the correctness of methods and results or on the validity of the argumentation and evidence or the completeness of the viewpoints and authorities on which the work is based. The decision between good and bad science, between the truth or falsehood of results can only be made scientifically. [...] Therefore freedom of science protects minority opinions as well as research endeavors and results that prove to be erroneous or faulty. Unorthodox or intuitive methods likewise enjoy the protection of the fundamental right. The only precondition is that the question be about science; this includes everything whose form and content indicate that it is concerned with the discovery of the truth. [...]

The quality of being scientific cannot be refused to a work because it is one-sided or contains omissions or does not sufficiently pay attention to differing conceptions. [...] It can be withdrawn from the domain of science only when it lacks any claim to being scientific not just in details or according to the definition of certain schools, but systematically. This would be the case if it were intended not to make known the truth but to give preconcieved opinions or conclusions the appearance of scientific derivation or provability. An indication of this could be the systematic refusal to deal with facts, sources, views and conclusions that put the author's conception in question. On the other hand, it is not sufficient that the scientific quality of a work is disputed in controversies in scientific circles between different orientations of methods or subject matter.

In almost all of their works the established historiography ignores the opposing scientific opinion of the Revisionists on the subject of the Holocaust. [19] This would be understandable if Revisionist research were considered so insignificant and ridiculous that no one need bother with it. However, the numerous papers in research publications and in the media prove that it is the theories and methods of the Revisionists that determine the questions and methods of Holocaust research today. In the French philosophical monthly Les Temps Modernes, edited by Claude Lanzmann, issue for 11/93, under the title "La Catastrophe du Révisionnisme", Robert Redeker described the situation as follows: [20]

Revisionism is not a theory like any other, it is a catastrophe. [...] A catastrophe is a change of epoch. [...] Revisionism marks the end of a myth [...] it means the end of our myth.

In the issue for 12/93 he continued these thoughts under the title "Le Révisionnisme invisible": [21]

Far from signifying the defeat of the Revisionists, Mr. Pressac's book Die Krematorien von Auschwitz. Die Technik des Massenmordes signifies its paradoxical triumph: The apparent victors (those who affirm the crime in its whole horrible extent) are the defeated, and the apparent losers (the Revisionists and with them the deniers) come out on top. Their victory is invisible, but incontestable. [...] The Revisionists stand in the center of the debate, determine the methods, fortify their hegemony.

Revisionist theories and methods therefore can not be ignored, but are obviously the principal challenge for the established historiography. Therefore one must deny that the established Holocaust historiography can claim to be science, since it disregards the arguments and the publications of the Revisionists. This applies to Pressac's book especially.

The present book constitutes a systematic documentation of Pressac's numerous scientific errors, not to mention fraudulence. It is a Revisionist book that is concerned almost exclusively with the opinions of the opposing side. It proves all its research and conclusions in detail.

Our judicial system sees the picture reversed: The Revisionists, they say, are not scientific and should be criminally prosecuted because their theories supposedly offend the Jews. But the court historians, whose method is provably non-scientific, are allowed to play the fool and can potentially offend the German people with their theories, because, by the ruling of the highest court in Germany the latter are not subject to being offended – there is no "defined group" in that case.

Should the judicial system decide to haul the authors of the present book into court and to ban their work, they are reminded that with this work the last reed to which the judicial claim of "common knowledge" clung has been broken. The public is reminded that only the truth can be a stable foundation on which peace and understanding between peoples can thrive. Truth can only be found through free, unhindered scientific discourse and never through a historical description fixed by penal law.



Manfred Köhler is a pseudonym for Diplom Chemist Germar Rudolf, who does not wish to have his career and his happiness destroyed by Federal German justice or inquisitional media. Under the same pseudonym he has published Auch Holocaust-Lügen haben kurze Beine, Cromwell Press, Brighton 1994 (now: P.O. Box 62, Uckfield/East-Sussex TN22 1ZY (Great Britain)), an answer to the theories of Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte in: Streitpunkte, Propyläen, Berlin 1993; and also: Der Wert von Aussagen und Geständnissen zum Holocaust, in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen 1994.


J.-C. Pressac, Les Crématoires d'Auschwitz. La Machinerie du meurtre de masse, CNRS Éditions, Paris 1993.


Die Krematorien von Auschwitz. Die Technik des Massenmordes, Piper, München 1994.


Hans-Günther Richardi deviates from this general line in his article, "Untilgbare Spuren der Vernichtung", Süddeutsche Zeitung, 13./14./15.8.1994, p. 9, in that he describes Pressac's book as "documentation", by which he may mean that he thinks Pressac's new book merely served as a reason for someone to write a general study on Auschwitz.


F.A. Leuchter, An Engineering Report on the alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland, Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1988, 195 pp.; in German: F.A. Leuchter, Der erste Leuchter Report, Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto, 1988.


R. Kammerer, A. Solms, Das Rudolf Gutachten, Cromwell Press, London 1993 (now: P.O. Box 62, Uckfield/East-Sussex TN22 1ZY (Great Britain). DM 35,- Vorkasse).


Upper Land Court Celle, decision on 13.12.1993, Az. 3 Ss 88/93, Monatszeitschrift für Deutsches Recht, 46(6) (1994) 608.


Incorrect: the spelling is "Rudolf".


Incorrect: Pressac is neither a pharmacologist nor a toxicologist, merely a pharmacist.


W. Wegner in: U. Backes, E. Jesse, R. Zitelmann (eds.), Die Schatten der Vergangenheit, Propyläen, Frankfurt/Main 1990, pp. es) s'imposent définitivement. Leur victoire est invisible, mais incontestable. [...] Les révisionnistes se placent au centre du débat, imposent leur méthode, manifestent leur hégémonie."

Back to Table of Contents
Next Contribution
Previous Contribution