[John Friend talks with Germar Rudolf on Holocaust revisionism and why there were no homicidal gas chambers in the German camps.
The Realist Report
John Friend with
Click the link below to John’s blog post:
Click here to listen to the: audio
The Realist Report Description
Published on Nov 5, 2020
The Realist Report – Germar Rudolf
November 5, 2020 Realist Report 14 comments
On this edition of The Realist Report, we’re joined by the courageous revisionist Germar Rudolf. Germar and I discuss his background and experience in the revisionist movement, the main conclusions he has drawn from his revisionist work, his excellent Holocaust Handbooks website and much more!
John Friend: All right folks welcome back to another edition of the Realist Report. This is your host, John Friend. Today is November 5th, 2020.
Of course my website is therealistreport dot com, where you will find an extensive archive of these podcasts as well as other programs I’ve participated in. You will also find all of my blog posts and articles, a contact page, my twitter feed which is embedded in the right hand sidebar of the website, and many other useful and important links.
I am a regular reporter for American Free Press, America’s last real newspaper. And I also contribute to the Barnes Review, the bi-monthly revisionist history magazine. Please do subscribe to these fine print publications. Check out American Free Press dot net and Barnes Review dot org for all the details.
All right with that said let me introduce our special guest today. The one and only Germar Rudolf is joing us for the very first time! Germar, welcome to the program! How are you this morning, sir?
Germar Rudolf: I want to thank you for having me. I’m doing fine. And yourself?
John Friend: I’m doing good! I’m doing good! The past couple of days have been crazy with this election going on. This still unresolved election. I think it’s pretty clear that there are trying to steal this thing from Trump. So we will have to kind of wait and see what happens with that.
But we have a number of other important topics to discuss here this morn so it’s really an honor to have you here. I’ve been very much by your writing and your work over the years. I’ve heard you interviewed on other programs. And I’ve always wanted to have you as a guest here. So I’m glad that you are able to join me this morning, and I thank you for taking the time.
To get started could you maybe just introduction yourself a little bit? Give us a little bit of background and explain your experience in the revisionist movement and what lead you into critically investigating the World War Two narrative and specifically the alleged Jewish “Holocaust” of six million Jews during this monumental period of history.
Germar Rudolf: Yes! Well, this a question that the answer to which could take an hour already! [chuckling] I’ll make it shorter than that.
I’m a native German. So I grew up in Germany and I got my school and university education in Germany. I finished with a Masters degree, or an equivalent of that in Chemistry back in 1989, and then started a year later after doing my compulsory military service, I started working on a PhD in Chemistry.
And it was around that time that the Leuchter Report was issued. That was in 1988. I found out about it in 1989. And was curious about it. I had a keen interest in German history for years but I never touched upon the “Holocaust”. That was too hot a topic, too unpleasant a topic for Germans I would say. Maybe a number of them would make a career out of it of doing the “mea culpa” thing. There was a lot of them actually in Germany. But that wasn’t my thing.
So I stayed away from it. German history, for me it was, of interest, was the Kaiser time, First World War, the run up to the Second World War, and how the Second World War got started, and the aftermath. So I kind of stayed out of the war itself. Because it’s too bloody a topic, and of course in particular the “Holocaust”.
What changed it was a book that I read just a few months before I found out about the Leuchter Report. And that was a book by French historian Paul Rassiner, who is considered the founder of historical revisionism.
He himself had been in a concentration camp because he had helped Jews get illegal papers to get out of occupied France. And he ended up in the Buchenwald camp, and after the war wrote about it. And was not pleased by the exaggerations and lies that was spread by his fellow inmates. And that was his starting point.
When I obtained the book of his in, I think it was Spring 1988, 89, I was amazed! Up to that point anyone who was questioning the orthodox “Holocaust” narrative for me was just a Nazi, a Right-wing extremist, an anti-semite, and all the kind of labels that are put on people who question the “Holocaust”. And I was among those mainstream people who automatically, Pavlovian reflex, throw these words at people who would dare to doubt.
But this guy, I couldn’t do that with him because he was a victim of National Socialism! He had been inside a concentration camp as a prisoner. He had suffered terribly. And yet there he was doubting the whole narrative and bringing up arguments against the gas chamber claims, which opened up my mind. Allowed me to have doubts, to question the thing itself. I did not yet do it, but the preparation of my mind, the opening up of my mind was there.
And then a few months later I happened to stumble over the Leuchter Report. Which of course in one of its sections talks about taking wall samples and analyzing them chemically.
Now of course I had just graduated in chemistry a year before, roughly a year before. And that was my field of expertise. History had been a hobby, a field of interest, but I never felt like I could contribute in any way to it because I’m not an historian by any stretch of the imagination. I was just a consumer, an aficionado, if you wish.
But there was a topic where I thought:
“Well, I can understand it, I can verify why, I can actually maybe even contribute to it.”
And that is how I got going on that.
And while I was doing that, a year later starting my PhD at Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart, I realized that they have a fine research library, and they had an online research.
Back then in 1990, 1991 there wasn’t no such thing as the internet yet. But there was intranet of libraries that were already connected and communicating in a similar fashion, as it was then expanded to encompass everyone in the world wide web.
So there was a pre-existing web, and it was fantastic! I could use it without getting charged. I could do all the research that I wanted.
And in my spare time when I was not working on my PhD, I went there and had the librarians work for me on that topic of, well, what chemicals are being formed, how are they being formed, and what kind of chemistry is going on, and what conditions had been prevalent and would be needed.
And all these questions that were raised, I started to answer. Not because I was planning on doing anything with it. I was just curious. It was just pure curiosity. Because in my mind it was too important a topic to ignore it and to leave it half done! Because that was my impression when I read the Leuchter Report. He just took those sample, had them analyzed, got the results and then said:
“Well, because the results are not as I expect them, that proves that there was not any mass gassings going on in Auschwitz.”
But my opinion back then and still today he kind of jumped the gun.
Because there were so many questions the were not properly answered. Like the chemical compound that he had been looking for in his analysis. Could they be long-term stable enough to survive forty years. Between the end of the war and the time he took the samples — we’re talking about roughly forty years — would they be able to survive? Unless you can give a definitive answer to that it makes little sense to take samples.
And then the next question is; well of course if we have established — and I did that then by doing a lot of research — that they do survive forty years or more, so that it makes sense to look for them analytically, could they form in the first place? What were the conditions that are claimed to have been present during those mass gassings? The physical conditions, the chemical conditions, the actual conditions of what happened exactly, what concentrations were used, how quickly was it ventilated. Could it have been ventilated?
All these questions that came up to my mind and I think had to be answered. And I couldn’t find the answer in the Leuchter Report. So he left me high and dry in thirsting for more. And that was what I was doing for my own curiosity sake.
But I knew that a lot of people out there who would be interested in these findings. And as soon as I had my first findings in early 1991 that show the this chemical which was analyzed, which was detected by those analyses, called, … There’s an umbrella term term called “iron blue”, and there is some subsets of it called “Prussian blue”, and “Turnbull blue” and all kinds of other names are used for it. But it’s a blue pigment essentially that is a combination of iron and cyanide.
And cyanide is the part which comes from Zyklon B, which is the infamous product said to have been used to mass murder Jews in Auschwitz.
So I found out with a number of peer-reviewed papers that had been published in the fifties, sixties and seventies, that this pigment is indeed is extremely stable and should survive with ease those forty years between World War Two and the time that Leuchter had taken his samples. And those papers, I just made copies of the papers and sent them to a list of people and institutions that I had received from a friend of mine who told me that they might be interested. I didn’t know any of these people. I just sent it out. It was some twenty people or so.
And one of them must have become interested in me expanding that research, because he contacted me, and invited me and asked if whether I would be willing to myself go to Auschwitz, take samples and do a similar analysis. And I happily agreed to do that.
I took a few days off from my employment as a PhD student to go on an extended weekend to Auschwitz. And we did our research there and took samples and had them analyzed.
Fortunately at Max Plank Institute also had a nice engineering department where you could get, as a PhD student, you could get your own machinery built. So if you were doing some experiment, or were planning on doing some novel experience [experiment?] you needed some novel machine, some novel setup to do your experiment that would actually construct it for you. So I had an engineer friend of mine make construction drawings of an experimental little gas chamber that we could use to expose building material to hydrogen cyanide, to Zyklon B fumes, essentially. To see how they react to verify that my chemical findings were accurate.
And Max Plank Institute actually built it for me, at their expense. As a matter of fact it sounds a little bit spurious that I did that, but I had a contract with the Max Plank Institute, the Max Plank Society. Actually the full name is “Max Plank Society for the Furthering of Science”. So what they do, their mission is to further science in any which way possible. And the contract I had with them allowed me to do my PhD, but allowed me also, expressively [explicitly] in a chapter it says:
“T any student who wants to do his own research on his own initiative is encouraged and invited to do so use the Institute’s resources for it.”
John Friend: Wow!
Germar Rudolf: At the end of the day they didn’t like what I did with it, and then they eventually wanted to fire me because I had done that. And it went to court because I said:
“You can’t do this because I have the contract here that said explicitly I’m allowed to do it.”
And we settled out of court and the contract with them was resolved [dissolved?] two or three months before it would com to a normal end. And anyway it was a limited contract of three years.
So anyway that was the setup and the guy who actually contacted me and asked me whether I wanted to do that research and take my our samples, he was in contact with a lawyer who had clients who were on trial, or were prosecuted and soon to be on trial for quote, unquote, “holocaust denial”. And they then asked me to get all my results to get her, write an expert report that could be presented in court in Germany. Which I did.
And then I appeared in some seven or eight court cases as an expert witness. However I was never hurt by the court because they basically violated German penal code. Because it said that:
“If an expert witness is already in the court rooms.”
So to say there’s no expense and no time wasted for the court to get this witness. The witness is already there. He is an expert by his education, which I was. You don’t need a PhD degree to be an expert. Already if you have a diploma degree, which is somewhere between a Master’s degree and a PhD degree in the US. If you have that already you are considered an expert in chemistry and you can testify. And if you are in control of your mind, so you are not under the influence of some drug or so, or unconscious, you can’t testify of course.
And if what you have to say is relevant to the case, which it is because those people were on trial for denying that there were gassings in Auschwitz, and I could prove or explain to the court what could and could not have happened according to the material evidence that I had found. So what I would testify was relevant.
Under these circumstances the German penal code forces a court to hear the evidence. They cannot reject it! It’s already there, it’s relevant, it’s possible, do it! But no! They broke the law and denied me to testify anyway. And in one case the judge actually threatened me!
Now this is a crime under German penal law to threaten a witness in the witness stand or in the courtroom that if he testifies to his best knowledge that he would get prosecuted for it. And that is exactly what that judge did. He said:
“Witness, are you really going to testify along the line as the motion of the defense suggests?”
“Well you will hear when I’m in the stand.”
So I didn’t even answer to that. But then he said:
“Well if you do testify along those lines, you are making yourself liable to prosecution because it’s going to be a crime!”
[chuckling] So he was threatening me as a witness that if I testify in a certain way that I would be prosecuted! But that is standard procedure in Germany. Back then actually you could still file a motion as a lawyer to have evidence like that introduced.
That changed in the mean time because of me. Because of my appearances they wanted to put a stop to it, so they changed the case law by a supreme court decision that a lawyer who files a motion to introduce evidence which by its content denies the “Holocaust”, the lawyer actually commits a crime and will be prosecuted. Merely for filing the motion! That does not even include the evidentiary statement itself, but only suggests that the statement would go along this line, and then this is already considered a crime.
And several lawyers were prosecuted and sentence in Germany for having done exactly that. And the first case that set the precedent was when a lawyer filed a motion to have me testify.
John Friend: Yeah, it’s pretty unbelievable where literally in Germany if you present evidence that questions or criticizes the official “Holocaust” story it’s literally a crime. For presenting authentic, legitimate evidence. It’s totally tyrannical and Orwellian to a degree that I can’t even express!
Germar Rudolf: Right. It is the step before. They don’t even get to present it! They just file a motion:
“I would like to present this evidence.”
That is already a crime! You don’t even get to present the evidence! Yeah, it’s ridiculous!
So initially the first couple of years I was doing that, I was chasing the system ahead of me, they were panicking, the judges were panicking. It was a big upheaval, and they were trying to stop me. They would do anything to stop me.
And they did eventually. They dragged me in court for my expert report and sentenced me. I left the country before it actually became valid because an appeal was pending and I had not been arrested for it, because they thought there was no danger that I might flee because I was married, I had children, I had a job, I had a home. So they thought:
“No, I’m not going to run.”
And I did.
And I lived abroad for a number of years, expanding my activities in this regard. Turning what was initially only a research on a small level into a publishing enterprise that was focusing on this issue. Expanding more and more the research horizons. Not just Auschwitz but all the camps. Not just the camps but the whole topic of the “Holocaust”.
Not just me. I’m a minor contributor at this point. I’m primarily editing and publishing other authors, particularly the Italian scholar Carlo Mattogno. Who I consider to be the world’s foremost expert in matters of “Holocaust” in general.
He has published monographs on pretty much anything you can imagine of — with a few exceptions maybe. But he’s covered the whole territory and he has a knowledge that is rivaled by no one! Not even mainstream historians! They cannot touch him with anything with the depth and intensity of knowledge that he has. He would blow any orthodox historian out of the water with ease!
John Friend: Yeah.
Germar Rudolf: And I have the pleasure and the honor to publish his material.
And actually right now I’m working on getting another one of his books translated from Italian to English. I’ve turned into a translator and editor mainly. I’m doing translations, and I have been doing translations for the past 2 or 3 years from Italian on a regular basis. So I have passive knowledge of Italian [words unclear]. That is what I’m doing now days!
John Friend: Very good! You are doing a great job! You have been doing a great job for a number of years. So I wanted to ask you. So your main forensic and chemical investigations into the alleged “Holocaust” really focuses on Auschwitz, correct? That was the main camp that you kind of focused on?
Germar Rudolf: Yes. Exclusively focused on Auschwitz simply because back then I was a student that didn’t have the means of travelling to other camps and doing research on them as well Auschwitz is kind of the big elephant in the room anyhow. If we are talking about the “Holocaust” in terms of propagandistic importance from [word unclear] in terms of number of victims, in terms of the documentation that has been left. Because pretty much most of the camp archives from the Construction Office, as well as from the Headquarters has survived.
Also when it comes to the number of witness statement we have, because there are so many Auschwitz survivors. They go into the hundred of thousands after the war, which already tells you a lot about how successful an extermination could have said to have happened there. If hundreds of thousands are left after the war, allowed to survive and tell their story to the world.
As a matter of fact had the things that are claimed happened you would have hundreds of thousands, or even two hundred thousand, the testimony is pretty much saying the same thing. But we don’t have that! We have maybe 50 that are relevant in terms someone claiming he actually saw something in person. We have a lot more that repeat rumours and that regurgitate what has been published in the media. But actual people who claim:
“I was there! I did that and I saw that!”
There’s maybe 50, maybe a hundred. But if you consider you have 200,000 survivors and a 100 of them come up with a story and the other 199,900 don’t! Then you have a pretty good statistical idea where the truth is.
Under 200,000 people you find a 100 pathetic liars! And they are!
John Friend: Yeah, exactly! Well, I wanted to ask you, and it’s kind of a broad question, but what are the main conclusions that you have come to regarding Auschwitz and how it fits in to the overall “Holocaust” story.
Germar Rudolf: Well, pretty much the same a Leuchter’s.
They are based on a much broader basis of evidence. And I’m not blaming Leuchter for not having been able to do the, because he was asked, in the middle of a trial [Zundel Trial II] to do within a few days, which normally you wouldn’t do because the topic is do complex, you couldn’t have done the preparatory research on any level to actually allow him to come to these conclusions. So I think he was pushing it a little bit.
[Image] Fred Leuchter (second from left) with the Zundel team for the second Zundel Trial (1988).
But basically I’m saying the same thing. If we look at the facilities where it is claimed to have happened, we look at the technical, the engineering, the architectural design, the capabilities, you can say that already from that point of view these facilities would not have been able to do what is claimed to have happened in them.
And then you come to the chemical part and I prove with a lot of research that first of all the components we analyze are so stable that we need to find them to this day. And they actually would have formed, there are numerous factors, chemical and physical in nature which I can back up with a lot of expert literature from normal chemical and physical peer-reviewed journals, mainstream journals that publish that kind of research, showing that this stuff would have formed under the circumstances. And actually the homicidal gas chambers would have been primary place where we should expect them because of their chemical and physical makeup.
So basically coming to the same conclusion on a much wide evidentiary basis.
Possibly because I happen to revise my report, getting more and more access to material that is in the archives of the Auschwitz Museum, in the Moscow archives, because the Red Army came and took most of the documents they found in Auschwitz and took them to Moscow. And they revealed them only in the mid 90s.
And we got a hold of them and Carlo Mattogno has done analysis of a lot of this material from all these archives. And I have a good working relation with him, so I get a lot of the material that is interesting and have used it for newer editions of my report, to further substantiate the conclusions that I had already come to in my first edition of 1992.
Basically the facilities couldn’t have done it and the chemical evidence shows that it didn’t happen.
John Friend: Right. So Auschwitz is presented as this like mass extermination centre, right, at least by the mainstream court historians. So what was going on at Auschwitz then? If it wasn’t this death camp what was really going on there?
Germar Rudolf: It was a “death camp“, but not a murder camp! They’re different.
Auschwitz initially was just a normal concentration camp where primarily political prisoners and resistance fighters were incarcerated. And that changed after the start of the Soviet German war in the summer of 1941. At which point they wanted to build in the vicinity of Auschwitz a huge POW camp where they planned on housing 100,000 or even 200,000 Soviet prisoners of war.
Now if you look into the history of war the Germans had millions of Soviet POWs, but they were all grounded somewhere in Russia and there was no logistical means for them to actually get millions of people back west. Because their transport infrastructure to get soldiers, munitions, supplies to the front and back were so strained that they just didn’t have the capacity to get any of the Soviet people, Soviet prisoners out of there, or very few.
And of course then winter broke, it broke out relatively early that year in October and November already, things were completely shut down. And then those Soviet prisoners of war in those, they were not really prisoner of war camps, they just put them in a spot, put some barbed wire around them and some people with machine guns and guarded them that way, because they were just not prepared for this sudden huge amount of prisoners. And they started dying like flies.
So the plans to have that POW camp near Auschwitz, which was then called Birkenau [Auschwitz II] filled with Soviet POWs didn’t work out. They wanted to use those people to work in the chemical factories that were being constructed at that time nearby. Which was absolutely crucial for the German war effort because basically Germany manufactured the most important things for conducting war, there’s fuel, ammunition, and all kinds of basic chemicals that are used to run any kind of machinery, rubber, lubricants, everything. They were synthesizing it out of air and coal.
So they had plans on using the coal mines in Upper Silesia to get the coal, get the coal liquidfication and gasification plants near Auschwitz which they were building there. Because there is a lot of process water, the rivers of Vistula, the Sola. There’s a lot of water, the processes you need water. And they wanted to build these huge factories which would then produce fuel, lubricants, and other chemicals to fuel the machinery. And they needed workers for them. So they planned on using the POWs for working in those factories. And they didn’t come!
[Image] Map of the Auschwitz complex. (click image to enlarge)
The Plan B was, which they switched to early 1942 when they knew they can’t get the Russian POWs out of Russia to use the Jews. The Jews of Europe. They started to deporting from Czechoslovakia, and then from France, Jews and put them in the POW camp, instead. It took them two years actually to rename the camp from POW to concentration camp. So initially they kept the name even though it never really was a POW camp. It was filled with Jews.
And when they started filling it up with Jews in early 1942 there wasn’t much of a camp. It was pretty much similar like with all the other camps. Initially they put a barbed wire fence around an area, threw the people in there and gave them some boards and some hammers. And some nails and told them:
“Build your own barrack. Build your own huts. Build your own bed, and that is it!”
Not a nice situation for anyone. So up to the end of 1942, the first three quarter years basically no sanitary facilities worth mentioning. No proper toilets, no showers at all, no de-lousing facilities. And you can imagine if you cram people to get here in an area that is only developing housing, that is only developing sanitary installations, the hygienic conditions are going to be catastrophic, which they were.
And right from the beginning they were infested with lice and fleas inevitably. If you cram people to get here and they can’t wash and shower, and their clothes don’t get de-loused then you have these vermin spread like crazy! And it’s only a matter of time in wartime that disease are spread by these pests. You know fleas spread the plague, lice spread typhus! The plague, fortunately, did not break out in those years even though we can see from the documents that the German authorities were afraid it might.
But the lice did introduce typhus. And right from the beginning people started dying like flies in that camp because of hygienic situation because of typhus spreading like crazy. It reached it’s peak in August and September of 1942. So not even half a year they started shipping Jews into that camp. And the peak, I think, was that 500 inmates died on one day! I think it was in late August or September. I can’t remember exactly. But it stayed around several hundreds from July into October, when it subsided a little bit, but it re-surged again in early 1943.
They got it under control only towards the end of 43, early 1944. So during that time for large stretches, hundreds of people died every day from this typhus epidemic.
It was so bad that actually the SS guards and SS officials, they were supposed to run the camp, at least remotely, getting some inmates in charge inside who would run it for them inside. But of course there had to be some interaction between the SS and the inmates. And the SS people succumbed to typhus as well.
It was the very first garrison physician of Auschwitz, Dr Schwela who got sick of it in April or May of 42, and he died in May. And the next one put in charge, Dr Uhlenbroock got sick of it too in September and he barely survived. He was incapacitated for a month.
And the next physician they put in charge, he came from the Dachau concentration camp, was put in charge in September. He took over. And he described in letters he wrote after the war, what situation he found when he came to Auschwitz. That there was no sanitary facilities, people were filthy, they were covered in lice, and fleas were everywhere. He could see everything crawling in the huts. He said that:
“It looks like the wood everywhere is moving because there are lice and fleas everywhere! It was absolutely horrific! Dead inmates lying in bunks, not being removed for sometimes days because there was no organization, no structure.”
Dr Verzt [?] was the third garrison position who then moved heaven and earth to get things improved. It took him two years to get it under control. When you consider the completely chaotic conditions were completely out of control. They had so many people die there. They had only one crematoria, an old one in the main camp, the original concentration camp [Auschwitz I]. And they couldn’t burn it [the bodies] because they just didn’t have the capacity, and then they overloaded that and it broke down anyhow.
So they had to bury most of these victims for a period of time in the second half of 1942 in mass graves. And as I mentioned this is an area where the rivers Vistula and Sola flow to get here, so it’s a low lying meadow land, and it’s swampy. And if you dig up mass graves there and throw thousands of people in there, they are going to be in the ground water, they are going to rot, and they are going to poison the ground water.
And that was the danger that the ground water in the entire area would get poisoned and that other diseases caused by, getting transferred by drinking water, typhoid fever and cholera and whatever else that can get into it. You have not only typhus, but typhoid fever which is a different thing. And then you have cholera, all things can happen! So they were freaking out. And then they had inmates actually excavate those mass graves again and try to incinerate the rotting left overs of those typhus victims, to make sure they wouldn’t poison the ground water.
So it’s a complete nightmarish scenario that I’m describing to you here. And it’s allegedly also the same time when mass gassings are supposed to have happened. Now if you imagine how completely out of control the situation was for the SS, where the SS men themselves are dying, and have no means of getting a hand and a control of the situation!
It is unfathomable that on top of all this they would start mass murdering Jews that were being shipped to Auschwitz! As a matter of fact we know from the documentation that all the Jews up to July 1942 that were ever shipped to Auschwitz, and can be proved to have been shipped there, were properly registered there and entered the camp as normal inmates. So they were not mass murdered. So mass murder claims for the first half of 1942 are completely bogus! There’s no documentary evidence for it.
But considering how completely out of control the situation was, the SS could not possibly have had the logistical means to organize, to implement, and then to clean up such a mass murder program, because they were completely unable to handle the quote, unquote “natural death” cases they had on hand.
So you can see that, yes, Auschwitz during that phase was a death camp, but not because of murder, but because of mass dying due to the absolutely outrageous conditions that prevailed in the camp during the first year. It got better only, as I said, when Dr. Vertz [sp] came. He had showers built, delousing facilities built. He actually saw to it that the most modern delousing device ever created was installed at Auschwitz. It was a microwave delousing facility.
The Germans had discovered microwaves during the Olympics in 1936 with their strong TV emitters that had a broadband spectrum that went into the microwave, and they were frying flies that were getting near to the emitters. And they suddenly realized:
“Oh! Look at this! That frequency range radiation actually does something that radio waves don’t do. It heats up water and kills every bug.”
So they started developing. It was Siemens, started developing delousing devices based on microwave radiation. And the first one was ready in 1943 and eventually got sent to Auschwitz. And then Auschwitz got a stationary installation in 1944.
Roughly a month, the same time they also got the first DTT, which as you know, was invented by a Swiss chemical company. And they licensed it out to German companies, to American companies. And they all started using it in 1943, 1944.
Auschwitz got it’s first tons of DTT in May of 1944. And at that point things were under control. Not talking about DTT as being a good thing. As we know, down the road, it is very detrimental environmental effects, but at that point it saved the lives of thousands of people, if not tens of thousands of people. And got all the epidemics that were raging in Europe under control.
John Friend: Wow!
Germar Rudolf: And among them the ones in Auschwitz. In addition to the microwave systems they had built there.
John Friend: Very interesting. That’s probably the best explanation of Auschwitz that I’ve heard, ever! So thank you for explaining all of that.
And it really kind of shows you that the Germans did not, absolutely did not have this State sanctioned policy of murdering jews. They were just dealing with very chaotic situation with all these people in their control, right? I mean I think that’s what it really boils down to. They weren’t prepared, they didn’t have the resources.
Germar Rudolf: Yeah.
John Friend: Is that what you were getting at?
Germar Rudolf: When we are talking about the local people at Auschwitz they have at numerous times, both Dr. Vertz and the camp command said:
“Stop shipping jews to us. We can’t handle the situation!”
The responsibility for for what is involved there lies clearly with the Reich government [words unclear] The main office in charge of [word unclear], basically Nazi Germany’s “Department of Homeland Security”, who decided that we have to have people working in our factories, all our men are at the front, we have no workforce anymore, and now we’ve tried to get volunteers from foreign countries and they are not enough.
So jews were the primary scapegoat of the National Socialists. So they picked those:
“You are going to be our slave laborers.”
And then they ship them to Auschwitz, even though they were informed sooner. There’s some responsibility of the SS at Auschwitz. They tried to cover it up, in the disastrous situation they were not screaming “bloody murder” loud enough, if at all, earlier on. They should have done it. It was only Dr Vertz who started doing that.
But still then, the Reich government wouldn’t stop shipping jews down there!
Starting in July and August 1942, most jews deported to the Auschwitz region were not admitted to the camp anymore. And that’s where the main stream narrative comes from, that says:
“Okay, we have this train. We know it left Campaign, let’s say, in France, with 1,000 jews. And we see them in the camp records that say only 150 had been admitted to the camp. So, we conclude that 850 of them were killed on arrival in gas chambers.”
That’s not true. We found document that shows very clearly in July the typhus epidemic was completely out of control, and it was decided then to not send the jews into the camp anymore, but two but to take them off trains in other places and let them work in factories. And let the factories set up little workers’ camps in the vicinity. So there were a lot of them in the vicinity of Auschwitz where the inmates were temporarily housed, because the Auschwitz camp was completely out of control and it would be just irresponsible to send people there.
Still they did admit a lot of people. If you look at the people the French jews who sent to Auschwitz in 1942. All of them who were sent there until early July were properly registered. We have their names.
And we see also in the Death Books that all inmates that died are recorded as one after one of these people died. So most of these French jews, indeed, were shipped en mass to Auschwitz, even though the conditions were terrible! The Reich government just didn’t care. They wanted them there. They wanted them to work. If bad conditions, too bad. Just see to it that they get better. We need to get this done. And then they died like flies.
And at the end you can see all the names. Not a single one of these 70,000 jews who were deported were killed in a gas chamber. We can see it. They died of typhus and all the other bad things that happened there, because of the conditions.
But most of the them did die, and within a year.
John Friend: I’m curious, because most people are aware that Auschwitz originally, I think up until the early 90s, if I’m not mistaken, I mean the official narrative was that 3 million people were murdered!
Germar Rudolf: Four.
John Friend: Oh was it four? OK, I’m sorry.
Germar Rudolf: Yeah.
John Friend: And then they reduced it down to one million, I think now is the official narrative. So how many people in total? I mean, do you have any idea of how many people actually died during the war at Auschwitz? It certainly wasn’t four million! It probably wasn’t even one million! How many people do you think actually died there?
Germar Rudolf: The Death Books, which officially recorded every death case in the camp of inmates that were registered in the camp, have, … Let me rephrase that.
The volumes of the Death Books that have been released to the public have recorded around 68,000 death cases. Roughly half of them are jews. And the rest of mainly Poles, Christian Poles who were there.
Now this set is incomplete. We know from an accompanying letter of the Russian archives that they do have more. But it seems like they have not released those, and they keep them hidden. Or they have been destroyed in the meantime. So there is a set missing that goes, if I’m not mistaken from the end of 43 to the end of 44. And there are a few volumes, here and there, missing at the beginning too.
Now from the conditions that prevailed we can see that probably the death rate shrank dramatically towards the end of 43 and into 1944. And that is maybe one reason why they are hiding them and not releasing them, because they clearly show that Auschwitz camp got the situation under control and they were relatively little death cases during that time.
But we can set an upper limit of what is possible by a number of logistical factors that if we extrapolate things, if we look at the conditions. If we look at what would have been possible to destroy when we come to talking about cremation.
Because evidently Auschwitz with the situation there, they couldn’t bury people in mass graves, so they had to cremate them.
And they built crematoria. And we know what capacity they have. We know for good stretches what fuel they got delivered. How much fuel you need. And we can make calculations. What is the maximum number of people that could have been cremated there. And we know that there aren’t huge mass graves. And the narrative doesn’t even claim that after the initial typhus victims that there were people buried in mass graves.
So they all need to have been cremated in those crematoria. But there are technical limits of what they could have achieved in that time, with that fuel, with the equipment they had.
And so the upper limit is is maybe roughly double the amount that is recorded in those Death Books. So we are talking 140,000 as an upper limit.
But this is definitely really an upper limit. It’s probably a little less. We’re talking about an order of magnitude of 100,000, plus or minus a few 10,000 up or down.
If you consider this in comparison to what has been claimed, one million, or even four million, it sounds like little, it sounds like a minimization, a trivialization of what happened in Auschwitz.
But give me a break! We have one camp that existed basically only during a few years during the war, and roughly 100,000 die there, because of prevailing catastrophic conditions. For which the SS and the Reich government is responsible. And if they can’t provide proper amenities for the inmates to be able to survive, they ship them there anyway, it’s their responsibility.
A 100,000 people is a huge number! And I find it shocking that people don’t find such a number shocking, but consider it a trivialization and a mockery! No it’s not! It’s a 100,000 individual fates of death!
In the realm of the concentration camps that existed in Germany. You know Buchenwald, you know, Mauthausen, Dachau, and all the other ones. They all had their their death talk. None of them are claimed to have had mass gassings going on there. Some minor claims of test gassings, here and there, but not numerically significant.
None of them come anywhere close to the death toll that Auschwitz has. So even if we take the revisionist narrative of it, this camp’s still has been the main location of loss of life, of catastrophic, of tragic loss, of tragic loss of life in the concentration camp system.
So that’s why I’m saying it was a “death camp” in that term. Not because of murder. Not because of gas chambers.
Just the other day I mentioned to an acquaintance of mine, who was not familiar with my views on that. And we got to talk about it. And I said:
“Genocide does not require gas chambers.”
In fact the whole history of mankind is riddled with genocide! And not a single one of them included mass gassings in gas chambers! So why do you insist on this one, of having gas chambers?
If you look at the definition of genocide:
“You persecute a defined group in a way that its numbers, its population numbers, shrinks due to your measures of preventing births, preventing families to form, of putting them under conditions where they die en mass.”
This is today is definition. And today that definition still applies even if you take out gas chambers. So the genocide charge, ethically speaking, not legally speaking because the law didn’t exist back then, but today it does. But ethically it’s always been there, the genocide charge doesn’t go away.
John Friend: Right. Yeah, and I mean even a 100,000, as you mentioned is itself a tragedy. A 100,000 people, that is a small city just dying in one camp in these horrible conditions. And that really is important to understand and to consider that it really was a horrific situation.
Not a State sanctioned policy by the Germans, but just given the environment and given the conditions, given the war, and just how strained the German government was. It probably was a pretty irresponsible thing to do. And it did lead to a lot of deaths.
Germar Rudolf: Right. And of course now days Germany has to deal with it morally, but they of course pile up stuff on top of it which is inaccurate and is just exaggeration or outright lying. This is just not right either.
John Friend: Yes, exactly. Well we could probably spend another two hours discussing this, or even more.
I know you are going to have to run here in just a minute. I wanted you to briefly kind of of just website and also your fundraiser. I know you have had a, … Well you have had a number of legal challenges and legal issues over the years, both here in the United States and of course in Germany. And I know recently you’re sort of facing a legal situation that I wanted you to talk about briefly, if you have just a couple more minutes?
Germar Rudolf: Sure. Well, I actually don’t want to spend too much on it. I have my own personal website which they [can] find a brief introduction to it, and then a short video I did, I posted on YouTube. You can find the link there.
And my website. Just my name, germarrudolf dot com. And right on the home page there you will find a little attention catcher, paragraph that explains the trial and tribulations that I’ve been going through. And a video where it explains it gets you to a GoFundMe page, and gives you other options there on the website to donate if you feel so inclined.
But also, what I also want to point out that is more to the topic is that there are other websites that are of more interest to those that are curious about the topic we’ve been talking about. And the main one is probably Holocaust Handbooks dot com, where we have posted for free download as e-books, PDFs, Kindle and epub almost all of the volumes of the Holocaust Handbook series, which comprise of 40 volumes by now. And it keeps growing.
And it also has some documentaries, movies there that you can watch in case moving pictures are more your thing rather than reading. And you find links there to purchase hard copies of them. And the shop that I’m actually operating is connected with CODOH, the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust. The website is shop dot codoh dot com.
But as I said you’ll find the link on Holocaust Handbook dot com website. It probably is the best point to start at. It has recommendations on what to read if you want an introduction, starting with simple leaflets, to brochures, to booklets, going to lengthier books, and actually thick tomes, depending on what you are looking for.
And then we have the documentaries there and links too, if you want to buy something. And you can go from there. That is probably the best starting point.
John Friend: Very good! I will definitely have that link. And I will also have your personal website link, and your GoFundMe pages as well. And I would encourage people to support you, whether that is by donating directly to the GoFundMe, or purchasing books from your website.
So yeah! Thanks a lot man! I appreciate you taking the time. And we will have to do this again, and maybe spend a little bit more time discussing the “Holocaust”. There’s no shortage of information to discuss, that is for sure!
Germar Rudolf: I’m already in the call that I was expecting now. So I have to run.
John Friend: Okay. Thanks Germar! Have a good one. I’ll talk to you soon!
Germar Rudolf: Yep. Bye!
* Total words = 8,582
* Total images = 9
* Total A4 pages = xx
Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):
Version 2: Nov 10, 2020 — Added more images. Completed remaining transcript. Transcript now complete.
Version 1: Nov 9, 2020 — Published post. Total transcript so far = 40/55 mins.