Meyer Replies Engl

the Auschwitz death toll Further documents on the truth about Auschwitz Allow time for images to download!

David Irving writes:

FRITJOF MEYER is standing firm against the extreme leftwing onslaught and the mud flung at him by the conformist historians. As a minor service to completeness, we reproduce below the Index to the controversy posted by the extreme leftwing idgr (Informationsdienst gegen Rechtsextremismus, an extreme leftwing German body). It contains nothing we have not already published.

For the record: This translation and the original article are posted on this website without the consent of Meyer, and on our own initiative.

The Controversy surrounding Fritjof Meyer’s article in “Osteuropa”: Overview Fritjof Meyer’s Article in “Osteuropa” (May 2002) Article by Sven Felix Kellerhoff in ” DIE WELT” (28 August 2002) Meyer’s Letter to the Editor and Kellerhoff’s Response in ” DIE WELT” ( 9 September 2002) Piper’s Critique of Meyer’s Article (English Translation, November 2003) Article by Albrecht Kolthoff Concerning Piper’s Article in the idgr (November 2003) Meyer’s Response to Piper (December 2003) Piper’s Critique

of Meyer’s Article (German version, December 2003) Albrecht Kolthoff criticises Meyer’s response: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] Being distributed by Focal Point Publications: 20,000 copies of a new leaflet — View: German | English (pdf) All images added by this website [ source ] [ German original ] [Hamburg, den] 4.

Dezember 2003 Response to Piper by Fritjof Meyer [Translated into English by J. M. Damon] FIRST of all, I wish to express my thanks to Franciszek Piper for his thoroughgoing critique of my article. I now take the liberty of responding to his critique, and I request that my reply be published on the same website as his. Piper’s review is the first serious critique of my study.

If I had doubts about some of my conclusions, his criticisms have put them to rest, since he is the expert in this area. Not a single one of his relevant objections is convincing, therefore I consider my study completely vindicated. He and I are in total agreement that the atrocities committed in Auschwitz are unequalled with regards to their extent, methods employed and above all, the character and philosophical background of the perpetrator: the former nation of poets and philosophers.

It goes without saying that the actual number of victims, whatever it may be, cannot detract from the severity of the unique crime of mass murder by poison gas. In the long run, however, credibility alone retains the power to convince. Such credibility is vital for the survival of modern society, in order that succeeding generations may draw vital lessons from it.

Grossly exaggerated numbers, on the other hand, support the arguments of none except Holocaust deniers and apologists for National Socialism. My article in “Osteuropa” was also directed against the Revisionists. Where propaganda is concerned, the magazine “Nationalzeitung” praised the new total as the “Truth about Auschwitz” Thus, even the mouthpiece of German rightwing radicals finally acknowledged the defeat of the Auschwitz deniers.

Among these deniers, the publisher of a periodical appearing in England dubbed me an “egalitarian re-educator” and “diploma demagogue” who writes “shithouse slogans.” I actually felt honored by that!

In addition, an Italian Auschwitz-denier recently published a study of the document which I quote (and he questions) concerning the conversion of the two farm houses “for special measures” (specifically mass murder), although he states laconically that .” . . there is no doubt these buildings served as storage facilities.”

It is very much to the credit of the Auschwitz museum, its archives section (the APMO ), and especially Franciszek Piper that they corrected the misleading number of four million victims to 1.1 million, following the collapse of the USSR. My result, which will certainly not be the ultimate truth concerning the number of Auschwitz victims, varies less from Piper’s result (or Pressac ‘s, or Reitlinger ‘s) than does Piper’s from that of the Soviets.

They had insisted on gross exaggeration for almost a half century, even in the face of irrefutable information which had been privately before Piper at the time. And yet, oddly, Piper still maintains, in the absence of documentation and in the face of very informative eyewitness accounts, that “we should accept 4,000,000 as a figure that . . . reflected the actual human losses in Auschwitz.”

Such a judgment is adequate vindication for publication of my study which, in the sense of the German word “fragwürdig” is of course “worthy of questions.” Not malicious or supercilious questions, but necessary questions. As recently as last year I noticed that in the Auschwitz Museum a guidebook was still being sold, in which former director Kazimierz Smolen [ below , lecturing to German pupils recently] insists on the figure of four million.

According to Piper, this imaginary number is based on crematorium capacity. This is in part my approach as well. It leads to a tenth of his alleged number of victims. It is based also on detailed eyewitness accounts by Tauber and Dragon , which had been kept secret for several decades. The fact that both of them stand by the number of four million, which they by themselves could not have established, speaks against the reliability of their eyewitness testimony.

Such an extremely high number would necessitate a crime locale vastly different from the two converted farm houses. The crematoria would have been suitable for homicidal gassings, at least experimentally. However, in the Soviet commissar’s report, mention of both crematoria and gassings is limited to a single sentence. The meager results of the commission’s findings cannot be explained as simply dearth of information.

Foreign experts such as the International Red Cross were not allowed to investigate Auschwitz, as the National Socialists had invited it to investigate the Katyn Forest massacre. The commission completely ignored Western sources of information such as the WRB report. Furthermore the Red Army possessed all the Central Building Administration documents, camp death rolls, directives of the camp commandant, and possibly the entire camp archives containing more than 127,000 documents.

According to the interrogation report the Russian interior ministry returned these to Poland soon after the camp was liberated. According to Piper, however, all this evidentiary material was “destroyed before liberation.” The Soviet investigatory commission included, in addition to the charlatan Lyssenko , two members who had investigated the Katyn massacre and blamed it on the Germans.

Furthermore the Soviets had already grossly exaggerated the number of dead for Majdanek (they claimed 1.5 million) and Treblinka (3 million). As early as December 1944, Ilya Ehrenburg had counted six million Jewish victims and declared that all Jews who died in custody of the Germans were murdered. Since then, for two generations, this horrendous number of six million has been used as a rhetorical “club” ( Martin Walser ) with which to beat the German “nation of criminals.”

However, genocide of such massive proportions could not have remained invisible to the whole German nation. The six million figure was a case of neverending wartime propaganda. Moreover: In the commission’s report , which was the first information the world received about the liberated concentration camp of Auschwitz, there is not a single word suggesting that exterminations of Jews occurred there.

In the 21 printed pages which it takes up in the Nuremberg Tribunal, there is mention of only one Jewish victim, a “Jewish woman named Bella from Greece.” According to the testimony of one witness, she was a victim of medical experimentation. According to the Soviet formulation, Auschwitz was used for the extermination of “citizens of all the countries of Europe.”

The commission’s findings offer no explanation as to why the Germans would transport large numbers of persons across Europe in order to liquidate them. The report includes testimony such as “A Hungarian woman from Cluj” (Klausenburg), named Anna Keppich . It describes the arrival of 3000 Hungarian internees but makes no mention of mass murders of tens of thousands of Hungarian Jews in 1944.

In fact, in the testimony of several witnesses, family names are the only indication that the subjects were Jews. The Investigatory Commission contains an “Appeal to the International Public” signed by 27 former inmates. Although these are all Jews, they too are identified only as “inmates of all nationalities.” Once again, in the case of the massacre at Babi Yar , which was investigated by the same officers of the court, there is no mention that Jews were the principal victims.

This omission was done on orders from higher up, which gives causes suspicion that these millions were victims of Soviet atrocities. The fact that State Prosecutor Rudenko had been involved in the Katyn massacre makes this all the more likely. It could also be that these statistics were falsified or manufactured as another propaganda lie; and this is what brings the subject within my realm of professional interest as an expert on Russia.

The author of a factual and realistic depiction of atrocity is not responsible for irritations caused by his revelation. Rather, it is the instigator of tenfold exaggeration of numbers of victims who is culpable, along with everyone who supports the atrocity by allowing himself to be used as an instrument of propaganda.