On August 28, 2002, Sven Felix Kellerhoff of the German daily newspaper Die Welt expressed his anger about the semi-revisionist theories of Fritjof Meyer, a leading editor of Germany’s largest news magazines Der Spiegel. In 2002, Meyer had published an article, in which he reduced the death toll of Auschwitz down to half a million victims, and also decommissioned the gas chambers that were allegedly located in the crematoria of Auschwitz.1 Kellerhof called Meyer a “crown witness” for the “Holocaust deniers.” The Revisionist has thoroughly covered the controversy ignited by Meyer from a revisionist perspective.2 In early 2004, Meyer himself made an end – perhaps only temporarily so – to this public exchange. In an Open Letter of February 12, 2004, he declared, i.a.:3
“Now the impression grows that they [“right-wing radicals” or “Auschwitz deniers”] could succeed to in-strumentalize my theses: for a propaganda of minimization. I therefore do not wish to continue this debate in this forum.”
In the following sentence, Meyer's mask drops, and he reveals himself as the left-wing extremist he is, who is promoting the use of violence as a means of solving conflicts:
“Considering the current dangers in Italy, France, Russia, and the U.S., it remains true that the fascists need to be beaten up wherever one encounters them.”
With this statement, Meyer has discredited himself utterly as a partner for any future discussion. But that does not, of course, mean that the entire discussion has ended with this epilogue. One of the most ambitious opponents of revisionism, John C. Zimmerman,4 assistant professor for book keeping (sic!) at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas, has criticized Meyer’s theses harshly.5
But the latest attack against revisionists came again from the above mentioned Sven Felix Kellerhoff, published in Die Welt of August 23, 2004. Under the headline “The Holes of Death”, he quotes Robert Faurisson’s provocative quip “No holes, no Holocaust” and writes:
“The French revisionist Robert Faurisson repeats it over and over again; David Irving also used it in this sense. Despite the uncouth nature of this quip, the core of it is the question whether or not each of the smaller basement rooms of the crematoria II and III in the extermination camp Birkenau was used as a gas chamber.
In the larger basement room, situated along the axis of the crematorium building above ground, the victims had to undress before they were pressed, sometimes up to 1000 of them, into the small basement room of some 210 square meters, which was perpendicular to the other. Then SS men threw the poison, hydrogen cyanide bound on diatomaceous earth (Zyklon B), through openings in the ceiling into wire mesh columns in the basement. Within half an hour, the hydrogen cyanide evaporated due to the heat of the bodies and killed every human life.”
The question of the alleged misuse of the basement rooms of crematoria II & III in the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp for mass murder with poison gas is in the very focus of revisionist discussion on the Holocaust. Many monographs and papers appeared about it,6 one of which was solely dedicated to discuss the issue of the Zyklon B introduction holes.7 Kellerhoff’s summary of the revisionist viewpoint puts it well:
“Faurisson, Irving & Co. claim that there were no openings in the roof. Therefore, no Zyklon B could have been thrown into the murder chambers. Hence, the Holocaust is an invention.”
Subsequently, however, Kellerhoff dares treading on the minefield of evidence, where he exposes his lack of competence when claiming, “a photo taken during the construction of the murder plant and two air photos taken by the Allies in August 1944” prove the existence of introduction holes. But this is definitely not the case, as I have repeatedly shown.8 Kellerhoff’s claim is based upon a false interpretation of these pictures, a fact which is admitted even by adherents of the gas chamber theses.9
The total lack of documents for the existence of these introduction holes as well as the total lack of any physical trace of these holes in the roof of the ruins of crematorium II in Birkenau, as it has been claimed for decades by revisionists, forced the Holocausters finally to tackle the issue. Sven Kellerhoff gladly announces the result of such research:
“In the journal ‘Holocaust and Genocide Studies,’ three coworkers of the research network ‘Holocaust History Project’ exhaustingly clarify the question of the holes in the roof. Daniel Keren, Jamie McCarthy, and Henry W. Mazal have investigated the ruins of both gas chambers in Birkenau as well as the gas chamber in the Auschwitz main camp.
Their result matches exactly the circumstantial evidence known and preserved so far: the smaller basement room of crematorium II had four openings in its roof measuring roughly 60 centimeters in square. [...] The U.S. scientist could identify three of four openings in the ruins, the fourth is covered by debris. All alleged ‘arguments’ of the Auschwitz deniers are thus refuted on the basis of physically provable facts: The smaller basement rooms of both crematorium buildings were equipped with gas chambers and were used as such to kill hundreds of thousands of human beings. The case of the openings in the roof of the gas chamber in the crematorium of the main camp is a little more complicated. [...]”
As indicated above, the crematorium in the main camp is not the only case that is a little more complicated than Kellerhof suggests. A final answer to this question will be given only after the arguments of both sides have been weighed objectively, something that Kellerhoff, with his dogmatic attitude, will probably never accept.
It is already indicative that the three authors mentioned by Kellerhoff – Keren, McCarthy, and Mazal – have never published before in the field of Holocaust research. They also refused to even take notice of a thorough study on this issue by revisionist scholar Carlo Mattogno,7 which had been published in English on the internet as early as 2002.11 Hence, Keren, McCarthy, and Mazal did not weigh arguments, but confirmed prejudices, which quickly gained the predicate of “scientific self-evidentness” by the Holocaust lobby by virtue of having it published in the most renowned journal these genocide researchers have at their hands.
In the following, we give the word to the world’s unchallenged expert on Auschwitz, Carlo Mattogno. This may result in Kellerhoff and his “hole heroes” losing their wits, which in turn might lead to them resorting to character assassination, something they are good at, since they have exercised it before.12
In concluding I may state that this episode in the controversy over the Holocaust between revisionists and exterminationists proves – to quote Galileo Galilei freely: Something moves after all!
The discussion about the reality of Holocaust claims, which the establishment wants to suppress so badly, is already going on. It has hit the scholarly journals of the establishment. There is no way back anymore, because we revisionists won’t let go! The Revisionist is at the utmost forefront of this ongoing debate, and you as our readers have the privilege to sit in the first row when historians make history!