VffG Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung

History and Pseudo-History

A reply on Prof.Dr.Michael Shermer‘s theses concering revisionism

By Dipl.-Chem. Germar Rudolf

The story so far

It rarely happens, that an established professor of historical sciences gets directly involved in a discussion with Holocaust-Revisionists, if not to say: This was the "first time"! On July 22nd 1995 Prof. Dr. Michael Shermer of the Occidental College, L.A., appeared on a round-table discussion in Costa Mesa especially organised in his honour by the Institute for Historical Review, at that time the leading revisionist Institute for Historical Sciences. The reason why he had been invited was the publishing of the eighth volume of the magazine "Skeptic" edited by Shermer himself, in which he had tackled the theses of the revisionists (pic.1).

During the discussion Shermer made astonishing concessions. He stated for instance, that he had strong doubts about the alleged gas chamber in Mauthausen, as the door shown there could not be closed and as the museum officials, he had talked with, had given him only contradictory answers about the gas chamber. Also concerning a pictured gas chamber in the concentration camp of Majdanek he regarded it merely as a construction for delousing. In Majdanek as for Mauthausen or Dachau gassing of human beings had, if at all, only occurred in little numbers. Even concerning the gas chambers in the crematories II and III in Auschwitz-Birkenau he showed scepticism, as he had not been able, during his visit on site, to find any traces of pillars to throw in Zyklon B, as mentioned by survivors of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp. Though Shermer considers the holocaust not be unique in the not-trivial sense, he nevertheless sees the mystical power contained in the history of the holocaust. He also had no problems to admit, that the history of the holocaust had already been revised many times and would still be revised in the future, though not by the revisionists. The problem of the revisionists were, that they would be constantly stigmatised by others – right or wrong – with an ideological label, so others would feel encouraged to ignore or even to fight against them.

During this discussion it appeared, that on the one hand Shermer made extraordinary concessions to the revisionists, on the other hand he evaded many questions brought up by the revisionists, for instance why he only would scrutinise ideological motives of the revisionist side, but not of the other side. Or why he could refuse to accept many of also from "official" side already rejected testimonies, but on the other hand he would accept without any hesitation other statements made by witnesses, which were not rejected by the establishment, although them too could not withstand critical assessment.[1]

Skeptic Magazin

Ill. 1: Skeptic, vol. 2, no. 4, 1994; distributed by: Skeptics Society, 2761 N. Marengo Ave., Altadena, CA 91001, USA

Science and Pseudo-Science: A Definition

Before one enters a discussion with Prof. Shermer or other exterminationist scholars, it should be defined, what science is in opposition to the pseudo-science. In the following text I want to rely myself in basic on the often cited epistemological work by Prof. Dr. Karl R. Popper "Objektive Erkenntnis " (Objective Cognition)[2]. To do so, I would like first to enumerate the most important premises for science:

  1. Any kind of initial thesis is permitted.
  2. No result of research can be forbidden, none prescribed.
  3. Every scientific result has to be exposed to public debate, as to be verified or rejected by the scientific community.
  4. Theses, which for obvious reason can not be rejected, are not scientific.
  5. Theses, which for judicial reasons are practically not verifiable or refutable, can not be scrutinised on their probable content of truth, as only the failure of the strongest attempt to reject a thesis can demonstrate the probable truth of a thesis.
  6. Serious and persistent attempts to reject a thesis are the core of each scientific debate.

Out of this, the differences between science and pseudo-science can be concluded:

  1. Theses or arguments, which for obvious reasons can not be rejected, are unscientific or pseudo-scientific. An example for this style of argumentation is: "The fact, that no traces can be found, is the proof, that the traces have been erased." The fact that evidence is missing is not used to reject the thesis, but to confirm it. Such arguments are theoretically not refutable and therefore pseudo-scientific.
  2. Papers, that ignore generally known or accessible publications containing counterarguments undermining this paper, are pseudo-scientific. When, for instance, a scientific paper claims to reject another thesis, but at the same time does not even comment the main arguments of the attacked thesis, then this paper is a pseudo-scientific work.
  3. Studies, that leave out logical rules, which exist generally for all scientific fields or even leave out rules and laws within a scientific field, can be regarded as unscientific, as long as it is not specifically these rules or laws, which are to be addressed. Rules and laws accepted interdisciplinary or within a scientific field are of course also subject of revisionism.[3]

From the above it follows, that a thesis obviously does not become only therefore unscientific, because it is presented by a layman or a scientist from a different discipline, nor on the opposite does it become automatically scientific, only because it is worked out by an expert out of this specific discipline. Furthermore it is clear, that any ideological interests an author may have does not have any direct influence on the question, if his/her work is scientific or not. That is why this question is for principal reasons not debated here, although there are strong hints for the assumption, that there also on the exterminationist side individuals with massive ideological interests.

Science and Pseudo-Science by revisionists and exterminationists

Norman G. Finkelstein has recently, and for good reasons, classified the literature about the holocaust as an "unhistorical literature on the holocaust" and "holocaust-science.[4]

This does not only apply on the exterminationist side, but also on the revisionist side. The "holocaust" is filled as no other topic with so many emotions and is contaminated with ideological temptations, that many contributors on both sides do feel qualified to give their opinion on this matter, without having sufficient scientific background or being not prepared to obtain the necessary facts. That is why the place is teeming with literature and of course with films and broadcast reports, that without considering up-to-date scientific standard, spread numerous legends. These pseudo-scientific accounts do surely represent the strong majority.

Michael Shermer has correctly pointed out, that it is unscientific to conclude from the missing of one part of our huge history jigsaw called "contemporary history", that the whole of the up-to-now assembled jigsaw was wrong.[5] It would be indeed unscientific to conclude from the missing of facts or from single vagueness and contradictions that the whole would be wrong. As it is principally always impossible to know everything about the past, meaning there will always be areas not known in history, it would be therefore impossible to reject theses using that kind of argumentation, as for instance the thesis of the falseness of our view on history. A thesis build on that argumentation line would therefore be pseudo-scientifc.

It appears differently, when one would not conclude on the missing of one or few elements on the falseness of the whole, but on the missing of many different elements or on the existence of many parts not fitting in the general picture. Here there has to be made a difference between the pseudo-(so-called-)revisionism, as it is sometimes found at "regular’s tables", and the scientific revisionism, that points out in numerous publications on a vast quantity of missing elements and even more uncounted elements, that do not fit in the contemporary picture. More about that later.

In opposition to that one does find many pseudo-scientific working methods with exterminationists, that often diminish considerably the quality of the paper. One will almost never find a discussion on arguments presented by revisionists, even more it is often not even mentioned, who these revisionists are in fact and what they have published. As many of these books are expressis verbis published to reject the "Auschwitz deniers", one thereby admits, that one knows of their existence and of the "necessity" to disprove them. This solely deficiency is a true sign of the unscientific standard of such papers.

Michael Shermer at the IHR

Ill. 2: Michael Shermer, editor of the journal Skeptic, addressing the audience at the conference

(c) Scott Lidgren

It becomes highly explosive, when we turn towards the subject of following interdisciplinary and field specific rules. Michael Shermer and many other historians accuse revisionists of ignoring the typical rules of historical science or to turn them upside down, when documents or testimonies are thrown out of context and when it is ignored, that many documents and accounts are at least partially verifiable, when seen in the context of the whole exhibit.[5]

As many of the revisionists are indeed not historians, this reproach might be true in parts. It would be surprising, if non-historians would not make any mistakes of that kind.

But out of the revisionist forest it echoes in the same way, as it has been shouted into it by the exterminationists, because especially, as published in this magazine, the papers presented in the past year on the specific topic of the KL Auschwitz[6] have shown clearly, that especially established historical science do take documents out of their context, instead of leaving them in their context of thousand neighbouring documents and judging them in this perspective.[7]

Additionally there are of course reproaches only revisionists express against exterminationists, and these I consider far more important.

The first of these reproaches clearly states, that historians would not respect the hierarchy of the validity of pieces of evidence, as used in all scientific fields. They point out that evidence originating from natural-technical science or physical science is superior to all other evidence. On the next lower level follows evidence stemming from contemporary documents, followed again by the weakest piece of evidence, the testimony. This can be demonstrated with a harmless example. The issue: who is the father of the child, the husband or the lover? Three kinds of pieces of evidence are presented: the testimonies of the three involved persons, their three contemporary written diaries and a genetic analysis of the descendant and the three adults. Of course every sensible person would, if contradictions arise, favour the evidence stemming from the genetic analysis, because only this analysis gives such a high percentage of certainty, that one could be allowed to say that the result of the analysis is valid. Not differently does it occur with the events of the individual and collective history. Here, on the contrary, historians tend to stick to testimonies if contradictions arise (contemporary documents are mostly non-existent) and either to ignore explanations of technical-natural-scientific origin or to push them aside with flimsy, often enough capricious-argumentative juggling pieces. With this we will have to deal later. Both is a clear hint for pseudo-scholarly standard", as the generally accepted rules of assessing pieces of evidence are purely not respected. That these rules are not challenged by the exterminationists, often even supported, as seen for instance with the highly ranked allegedly technical works by J.-C. Pressac on the "refutation" of revisionism, only supports the statement.[8]

The second revisionist reproach focuses on exterminationist theses, which refusal is logically impossible, therefore have to be rejected as unscientific. A perfect example here is the thesis by Prof. Shermer of the alleged functionality of the door of the gas chamber in the concentration camp (KL) Majdanek (compare the former article in this edition). Revisionists say: the door of the gas chamber shown in the KL Majdanek is not functional, therefore it is not suitable as a physical piece of evidence for the existence of a gas chamber. Shermer puts out his counterargument as follows: this door is not the original, indeed only a "reconstruction" without any link to the original, as original and the construction plans have disappeared without leaving any traces. Therefore, he concludes, the assertion, that the "reconstruction" is non-functional, can not refute the existence of the gas chamber. Here Shermer has stepped into the pseudo-scientific trap: his thesis postulates, that there certainly has been the ominous original door of the gas chamber, which can because of missing evidence neither be proved nor refuted – a classical case of unscientific "argumentation". In exactly the same methodology the exterminationists argue also, by the way, in respect to the non-functional "door of the gas chamber" in the alleged gas chamber of the KL Auschwitz-Stammlager.

"Everyone knows as a matter of fact (she claims), that the Nazis have destroyed these gas chambers and all witnesses have systematically been removed."[9]

This thesis of the systematic annihilation of evidence brings the exterminationists in even bigger problems of proving their case, as they now have to prove besides

  1. the existence of gas chambers also
  2. that the pieces of evidence, which are claimed to have been annihilated, have at all existed and
  3. that these were indeed all annihilated.

But as they claim, that evidence has been annihilated without leaving any trace, it is logically impossible to prove or to refute this exterminationist thesis. Such kind of argumentation lines are also a definite proof of non-scholarly standard.[10]

At last one reproach put up against exterminationist historians should not be left unmentioned. They would ignore totally their most important rule, namely the unsparing criticism of sources of pieces of evidence, for instance as they have up to today never put one of the alleged eye-witnesses under a critical cross-examination or even dared to ask, if really all "pieces of evidence" in the holocaust-case are authentic. Grounds to such doubts were definitely never as relevant in no other historical period as for the Second World War, because never before such a war was fought with that kind of emotions and ideological involvement and ended with such orgies of horror. Why should there have been no violence put on these documents of all documents and these witnesses and testimonies of all witnesses and testimonies?

Michael Shermer's pieces of evidence[11]

Prof. Shermer classifies his pieces of evidence in five categories:[12]

  1. Written documents. Thereunder he counts all contemporary written documents. We know the rubbish that ends on the paper. Before a document can be accepted as authentic, it first has to be clarified, if it is or can be authentic and if its content is or can be objectively correct.
  2. Eye-witnesses. As this piece of evidence is the weakest of all, it should only be used to be added to the historical network, that is put up by documents and objective proof. This is certainly the case with our topic, that, like no other topic can, is capable of manipulating with its coupled emotions and social expectations memory or testimony.[13]
  3. Photgraphs and films. Also with these documents checking sources and origins is naturally necessary. Can it be investigated, to what time a photo/film from whom and where has been shot and what is shown on/in it?
  4. Physical pieces of evidence. Also here by its pure nature it can come to distortions, so it has to be checked, if or to which extent physical pieces of evidence have changed or have been changed.
  5. Demographies. They stem on statistical surveys concerning inhabitants, shown in contemporary documents, as it does with their evaluations, whereas both methods are subject to error or manipulation and therefore have to be verified.

Shermer gives us no clue, if he allocates to these five categories different levels of conclusiveness. Rather he discusses these categories one by one. We want to subdue ourselves to our above shown priorities and first turn to the stronger pieces of evidence and after that to the others.

Shermer's physical pieces of evidence

Concerning physical pieces of evidence Shermer shows us in his book ... nothing.

Wait, yet, one thing he bravely knows to cite, namely the comments made by Prof. Dr. Arno J. Mayer:[14]

"sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable. Even though Hitler and the Nazis made no secret of their war on the Jews, the SS operatives dutifully eliminated all traces of their murderous activities and instruments. No written order for gassing have turned up thus far. The SS not only destroyed most camp records, which were in any case complete, but also razed nearly all killing and crematory installations well before the arrival of Soviet troops. Likewise, care was taken to disposed of the bones and ashes of the victims."

At the risk of boring you I permit myself to repeat:

Theses or arguments, that for logical reasons can not be refuted, are unscientific or pseudo-scientific. One example therefore are arguments of the type: "The fact, that there are no physical pieces of evidence, proves, that these pieces of evidence were removed without leaving any trace." Here the missing of evidence for a thesis supports not the rejection of the thesis, but its confirmation. Such arguments are logically not deniable and therefore pseudo-scientific or unscientific. That means: Arno Mayer's (and in consequence also Michael Shermer’s?) thesis, that evidence was removed without leaving any traces, is unscientific.[15]

Michael Shermer und Mark Weber

Ill. 3: Mark Weber, director of the Institute for Historical Review, talking to Prof. Michael Shermer at a conference for discussing the Holocaust, organized by the IHR. ((c) Scott Lidgren)

It is alike absurd to believe, one could make disappear all direct hints of a mass-murder in a bureaucracy in such a short time, that between 1941 and 1945 produced millions of documents and sent them into all parts of the Reich and that were archived there, as it is technically-scientifically impossible, that the alleged murdering of hundred of thousands if not millions of human beings (in Auschwitz, Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor, Babij Yar etc.), carried out each on few acres of land, could be hidden without leaving any traces.[16]

In fact the pieces of physical evidence do not also not match with the testimonies, they even more sometimes stand totally in opposition to them.[17] Especially the many revisionist hard facts about the technical-scientific absurdity of alleged mass murdering show clearly and without any doubt, that the testimonies of witnesses can not be true.[18] Shermer does not tackle these arguments with any word. If they are not known to him, may be left open. To deal with these central revisionist arguments should be the precondition for the scholarly standard of such a paper.

Shermer's Documents


Concerning the alleged losses of Jews during the Second World War, Shermer refers on the English edition of The encyclopedia of the holocaust,[19] an even within expert circles not very renowned work of tertiary literature. Scientifically much more respected is on the contrary the only up to today published monography from exterminationist side on this topic with the title "Dimension des Völkermordsof" (Dimension of genocide), edited by Prof. W. Benz.[20] Weak about this work is mainly, that on the one hand the figures of population of Poland and Soviet Russia are rather carelessly handled, and on the other hand, that emigration of many Jews during the Second World War and after that, also known as the Exodus, is completely left out, so that these million of emigrants simply are accounted for as "victims of the holocaust". Walter N. Sanning didnt’t make this mistake in his eight year previously appeared study, so one can state, that the findings of this study, at least for the major parts, have not been contested up to today. [21] Shermer ignores them in the same way as W. Benz did it in his work, therefore this alone is to be categorised as pseudo-scientific.[22]


Stoecker and Seidler have both correctly mentioned, that for the pictures shown in the "Anti-Wehrmacht exhibition", that are being presented as pieces of evidence for the alleged crimes of the Wehrmacht, not a single clean prove does exist, what or whom and which event these pictures do exactly show.[23] This is even more true when pictures or even films are shown, which are presented as alleged prove for the mass murdering of the Jews. One can be lucky if one it told who shot the picture. It is almost never documented, what is exactly seen on the pictures. No kind of assertion made by contemporary authors can replace the necessity to mention for such evidence, of what source they come from, which is necessary precondition, before such pictures can be accepted as pieces of evidence for anything. Prof. Shermer also leaves out these basic investigations, critical towards their origin.[24] His reproduction of a picture, allegedly taken in secret by a member of the Sonderkommando in Auschwitz, on which the burning of corpses are supposed to be seen, confirms this: even if the picture should be true, it proves in now way a mass murdering, but only the cremation in the open of corpses, that could have come to death in many ways. (see pic. 4)

A group of photographic documents though is, in respect to its origins and its remains, almost continuously documented, and these are the air photos taken by the Allies and Germans of the region, in which according to witnesses mass extermination should have occurred, as well as those, which for instance were taken by the Construction Main Office of the Waffen-SS in Auschwitz. M. Shermer addresses these pictures as to clarify, if in the ceilings of the mortuary 1 of the crematories II and III (alleged "gas chamber") there did exist these famous insertion holes, through which the poisonous product Zyklon B should have been poured in. This topic is dealt with in depth in the next but one article in this issue.


I would like to separate the written documents into two groups. There are at first the administration documents, that mainly reflect any kind of administrative activities, without thereby in most cases expressing any personal opinions or moods. The second group of documents comprises personal recordings, also personal letters, diaries, reports, also speeches and similar things. These are often mixed with moods and opinions and can therefore rather comprise distortions than pure administrative documents. Hence, they resemble more the testimonies. The recorded "confessions" shown by Shermer, which in principal don't differ from the many testimonies collected after the end of the war, are to be treated separately. They will be dealt with elsewhere.

alleged corpses burning in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Ill. 4: Allegedly an open air cremation behind crematorium V in concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau, a photo presumably secretly shot by a member of the Sonderkommando working inside the crema.[25] The fence posts visible in the background did never exist with that shape in Auschwitz. The real posts had curved tops, cf. Ill. 5 below (Birkenau, B1b, BW 5b, photo taken by author in 1991).[26]

BW 5b in Auschwitz-Birkenau; Lüftungsöffnungen, Zaunpfosten

Due to their more objective nature, the evidential weight of purely bureaucratic documents is higher than that of private documents. To make it clear: Even if Hitler in one of his speeches in the Reichstag threatened the Jews with extermination and Himmler, Goebbels and Hans Frank as well as many low-ranked NS-officials in the media and in their dairies time and again tripped over themselves in swearing against the Jews, this does only prove the speaker's or writer's mood and opinion, but not necessarily that the things expressed is in accordance with the facts[27] (we are still waiting for the day when just a single politician tells us the truth...).

But when, to the contrary, the huge masses of documents of the Central Construction Office of the Waffen-SS and Police Auschwitz continuously reveal a completely different image than that of an extermination camp or even a different one than that of a mixed labour and extermination camp [6] (and additionally to this air photos and physical evidence indicate the same interpretation, even so in case of the concentration camp Majdanek[7]), these documents are of a much higher importance than all these abuse tirades and threats of politicians which we know where never very gentle, and who knew very well that the were fighting a war declared on them expressively to exterminate their own nation and people.

Prof. Shermer’s assertion, besides to these expressions of opinions from leading NS-politicians there were administrative documents, that proved the mass murdering, this is at least a misinterpretation, which he most likely owes to his selectively interpreting colleagues.[28]

For instance, Shermer states that "construction plans of gas chambers" were found, which in this context he can only mean "gas chambers for human beings".[29] And exactly this is wrong. One has found construction plans of crematories and mortuaries and of those "gas chambers" clearly designed for the purposes of material delousing, not more. The high amount of Zyklon B delivered to the Auschwitz camp, as Shermer states, only proves the massive use of this product in the camp, but not the purpose of its use. That Zyklon B was used for delousing purposes in many different locations of the camp - in order to save human lives -, is unquestionable. That the necessary amount to fight lice and thus epidemics successfully was much smaller than what actually has been ordered - i.e. that this surplus could possibly have been used for killing humans -, this allegation has not even partially been proved.


There has been from revisionist side numerous criticism regarding the given testimonies, which to repeat I would save myself here.[30] According to the above mentioned generally accepted rules, one is committed to reject testimonies as wrong in these cases, when in core elements they can not be brought to fit with the higher ranked pieces of evidence. As this is the case along many areas, and as even more an explanation for this emergence of such wrong testimonies is not really difficult,[30] one can not understand, why the scientifically orientated researcher should waste his time with inferior, already rejected testimonies. As long as the shown physical pieces of evidence are not refuted and the presented chain of evidence from a variety of documents is not caused to collapse, it can not be understood, why one should deal with the explanations by Shermer concerning several of his witnesses, especially as he thinks to be able to ignore massive revisionist criticism brought in other occasions, what, by the way, points out further more towards his unscholarly standard.


Without any doubt the intentions of the NS-leaders radicalised regarding the Jews with the extension of the war, and public or private threats of murder or punishment did certainly occur. In face of the actual circumstances, under which Jews were exposed in camps and in areas, they were deported to, one can absolutely describe the NS-policy towards Jews in the colloquial way as "murderous". The antijudaic incitement of masses through propaganda by the regime will certainly have pushed many of the persons from the Wehrmacht, SS, SD and Police coming into contact with Jews to a ruthless behaviour, so one has to expect, that violent clashes, which were covered - or not - by the upper ranks, more frequently happened against Jews than towards other minorities. Viewing the documented and physical evidence one nevertheless has still to assume, that in the camps of the Third Reich there has been no technical mass murdering. Also the allegedly in Russia carried out mass executions on Jews have in view of several examinations gone ahead with so far, are at least in its extent to be questioned.[31] Further, research relying on physical pieces of evidence, as for instance the search and exhumation of mass graves, have yet to be realised.

It is astonishing, how differently Prof. Shermer has argued during his discussion with revisionists in the IHR in the year 1995 and during his speech in the year 1998 in Berlin (compare with previous article). Did he make many concessions in 1995 to the revisionists and brought forward his accusations of pseudo-scholarly standard" in an only very mild way, he in contrast presented himself towards the public in Berlin much more uncompromising. It has to be supposed, that this is due to the pressure of the Political Correctness.

Meanwhile it would be quite difficult for every historian to follow the revisionist research on the holocaust, as this has not only enormously grown in volume and depth, but also uses the assistance of a multitude of neighbouring sciences, which an historian can impossibly master. Furthermore the revisionist literature basically exists in five languages (English, German, Italian, French and Spanish), what for its registration requires additional high amounts of language knowledge. (Polish and Russian language knowledge to research the primary and secondary sources are in any ways minimum requirement).

Prof. Shermer has shown through his publications and his behaviour, that he is willing to debate the revisionist theses on objective grounds and to champion the freedom of speech and science of the revisionists. For that we owe him our thanks. But we can not really expect, that he as a scientific historian, who himself is actually not a holocaust expert, should be, with his limited knowledge of languages, really able to grasp the interdisciplinary, in many languages appearing revisionistic works. Nevertheless this task should have to be fulfilled, would he or any other historian really dare to challenge us revisionists.

[1]A detailed summary of the discussion was published in  The Journal for Historical Review, 16(1) (1996), pp. 23-35. Parallel to this the IHR distributes video-cassettes with a recording of this discussion in US-format NTSC, obtainable at: PO Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659, USA.
[2]Hoffmann & Campe, 4th ed., Hamburg 1984.
[3]Other possible criteria to assess the scholarly standard, as for instance the verifiable proving of factual assertions, the separation of factual assertions and judgements or the systematic character of a paper or an argumentation, I do not mention here for reasons of space, especially as in that respect there is no dissent..
[4]Norman G. Finkelstein, Ruth Bettina Birn, A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth, Metropolitan Books, New York 1998. Cf. the review of R.A. Widmann in VffG 2(4) (1998) S. 311f.
[5]M Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things, W.H. Freeman & Co., New York 1997, S. 213ff. Shermer currently prepares a revised version of this volume, which is scheduled for 2000.
[6]M. Gärtner, W. Rademacher, »Grundwasser im Gelände des KGL Birkenau«, VffG 2(1)(1998), pp. 2-12; H.-J. Nowak, »Kurzwellen-Entlausungsanlagen in Auschwitz«, VffG 2(2) (1998), pp. 87-105; H. Lamker, »Die Kurzwellen-Entlausungsanlagen in Auschwitz, Teil 2«, VffG 2(4) (1998), pp. 261-272; M. Gerner, »›Schlüsseldokument‹ ist Fälschung«, VffG 2(3) (1998), pp. 166-174; H.J. Nowak, W. Rademacher, »›Gasdichte‹ Türen in Auschwitz« VffG 2(4) (1998), pp. 248-261.
[7]compare here also especially the work by J.   Graf und C. Mattogno, KL Majdanek. Eine historische und technische Studie, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 1998. Further studies by C.Mattogno, that support this point of view, are currently being translated.
[8]Cf.  H. Verbeke (Hg.), Auschwitz; Nackte Fakten, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Berchem 1995.
[9]S. Veil, nee Jacob, former French minister of Justice, former president of the European Parliament, was interned during the war in the KZ Auschwitz, without being witness of the gas chambers. Extracted from the exposition by R. Faurisson in: "Die Zeugen der Gaskammern von Auschwitz", in  E. Gauss (Hg.), Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen 1994, S. 100. (engl: »Witnesses to the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz«, in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), Foundations of Contemporary History, to be published)
[10]Similar counts for the alleged elimination without leaving any trace of the rests of the mass extermination in the alleged extermination camps or also during the factual or alleged mass executions of Jews in the occupied Russia.
[11]I intentionally ignore Sherms’s speculations on possible motives of revisionists, especially because they rarely are impartial, for instance when he calls R.Faurisson a "gadfly" (p. 190) or thinks, Irving could sell as a revisionist more books as if he would have stuck with less provocative theses (p. 197). That the print run of Irving‘s books have decreased after his conversion by the factor 10, because he only could find small editors and he is being avoided by book-shops and wholesalers, has not yet reached Shermer’s ear. Shermer spreads in this paragraph rather stereotype fairy tales, and I certainly do not join in to such a kindergarten.
[12]M Shermer, op. cit. (Note 5), p. 214.
[13]Cf. G. Rudolf, »Falsche Erinnerungen überall - nur nicht in der Zeitgeschichte«, VffG 2(3) (1998), pp. 214-217.
[14]M Shermer, op. cit. (Note 5), p. 228; A.J. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? Pantheon, New York 1990, p. 362.
[15]by the way: The interpretation from recent excavation findings in the area of the KL Belzec show a similar pseudo-scientific structure of argumentation, compare S. Crowell, »Ausgrabungen in Belzec«, VffG 2(3) (1998), p. 222. (Engl. Version: Comments on the Recent Excavations at Belzec)
[16]compare for instance the explanations by Arnulf Neumaier, "Der Treblinka-Holocaust", in: Ernst Gauss (Hg.), op. cit. (Note  9), pp. 347-374. (engl.: »The Treblinka Holocaust«, in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), Foundations of Contemporary History, to be published)
[17]As an example should merely be named the missing holes to throw in Zyklon B in the ceiling of the mortuary I ("gas chamber") of the crematories II and III in Birkenau, compare the next but one article in this edition.
[18]compare for instance for the question of capacity of cremation, the burning in the open and the alleged murders by diesel exhaust fumes besides Note 5 and C.Mattogno, "Auschwitz: Das Ende einer Legende" in  H. Verbeke (ed.), op.cit., Note 8 also C.Mattogno and Franco Deana, "Die Krematoriumsöfen von Auschwitz-Birkenau", in E. Gaus (Hg.), op. cit. (Note 9) (engl.: »The Crematoria Ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau« (with Franco Deana) , in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), Foundations of Contemporary History, to be published), as well as Conrad Grieb, "Dieselabgase töten langsam", VffG 1(3) (1997), p.134-137 (with more references).
[19]M. Shermer, op. cit. (Note 5), p. 237; Y. Gutman (Hg.), Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Macmillan, New York 1990.
[20]Oldenburg, München 1991.
[21]W. N. Sanning, The Dissolution of the Eastern European Jewry, Institute for Historical Review, Newport Beach, CA 1983; German: Die Auflösung des osteuropäischen Judentums, Grabert, Tübingen 1983.
[22]Cf . G. Rudolf, »Statistisches über die Holocaust-Opfer«, in E. Gauss (Hg.), aaO. (Anm. 9), S. 141-168. (engl: »Holocaust Victims: A Statistical Analysis. W. Benz and W. N. Sanning - A Comparison«, in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), Foundations of Contemporary History, to be published)
[23]Wolf Stoecker, »Fälschung und Agitation« , in: Joachim F. Weber (ed.), Armee im Kreuzfeuer, Universitas, München 1997; F.W. Seidler, Verbrechen an der Wehrmacht, Pour Le Mérite, Selent 1997.
[24]The possibilty of wrong titling, touching up and total fakes, which have existed especially for pictures and films form this time, we want to leave out totally; compare U. Walendy, »Bild-"Dokumente" zur NS-Judenverfolgung?«, in E. Gauss (Hg.), op. cit. (Note  9), pp. 219-233. (engl.: »"Documentary" Photographs Proving the National Socialist Persecution of the Jews?« , in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), Foundations of Contemporary History, to be published)
[25]M. Shermer, op. cit. (Note  5), p. 232.
[26]Cf. more critiques in E. Gauss, Vorlesungen zur Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen 1993, pp. 141-145.
[27]Cf. G. Rudolf, »Einige Anmerkungen zur NS-Sprache gegenüber den Juden«, VffG 1(4), (1997), pp. 260f.
[28]Cf. R. Faurisson, »Keine Beweise für Nazi-Gaskammern!«, VffG, 1(1) (1997), pp. 19ff.
[29]M. Shermer, Op. cit.. (Note 5), p. 215.
[30]Cf. as an introduction eg. J. Graf, Auschwitz. Tätergeständnisse und Augenzeugen des Holocaust, Verlag Neue Visionen, Würenlos 1994; M. Köhler, »Der Wert von Aussagen und Geständnissen zum Holocaust«, in: E. Gauss (Hg.), op. cit. (Note  9), pp. 61-98 (engl.: »The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust«, in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), Foundations of Contemporary History, to be published); R. Faurisson, op. cit. (Note 9).
[31]Re Babij Yar cf. H. Tiedemann, »Babi Jar: Kritische Fragen und Anmerkungen«, in E. Gauss (Hg.), op. cit. (Note 9), pp. 375-400; (engl.: »Babi Yar: Critical Questions and Comments«, in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), Foundations of Contemporary History, to be published); cf. Reginald T. Paget, Manstein, seine Feldzüge und sein Prozeß, Limes, Wiesbaden 1952.

Quelle: Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 3(1) (1999), S. 68-74.

Zurück zum Inhaltsverzeichnis