generated by an Adobe application 12.00

‘THE TRILLION DOLLAR LIE – THE HOLOCAUST – VOL 2 – PHOENIX JOURNAL #40 CHAPTER  10

REC  #4    HATON

WED., NOV. 13, 1991   1:34 P.M.   YEAR 5, DAY 089

THE  OSWALD  POHL  TRIAL

 

The case of the Action Groups is a revealing insight into the methods of the Nuremberg Trials and the fabrication of the Myth of the Six Million.  Another is the trial of Oswald Pohl in 1948, which is of great importance as it bears directly on the administration of the concentra­tion camp system.  Pohl had been the chief disbursing officer of the German Navy until 1934, when Himmler requested his transfer to the S.S.  For eleven years he was the principal ad­ministrative chief of the entire S.S. in his position as head of the S.S. Economy and Adminis­tration Office, which after 1941 was concerned with the industrial pro­ductivity of the concen­tration camp sys­tem.  A peak point of hypocrisy was reached at the trial when the prosecution said to Pohl that “had Germany rested content with the exclusion of Jews from her own terri­tory, with denying them German citi­zenship, with excluding them from public office, or any like domestic regula­tion, no other nation could have been heard to complain.”  The truth is that Germany was bom­barded with in­sults and economic sanctions for doing precisely these things, and her internal measures against the Jews were certainly a ma­jor cause of the declara­tion of war against Ger­many by the democracies.

 

Oswald Pohl was an extremely sensitive and intellectual individ­ual who was reduced to a bro­ken man in the course of his trial.  As Senator McCarthy pointed out, Pohl had signed some incrimi­nating statements after being subjected to severe torture, including a bogus admission that he had seen a gas chamber at Auschwitz in the summer of 1944.  The prosecution strenu­ously pressed this charge, but Pohl successfully repudiated it.  The aim of the prosecution was to de­pict this dejected man as a ver­itable fiend in human shape, an impression hopelessly at vari­ance with the testimony of those who knew him.

 

Such testimony was given by Heinrich Hoepker, an anti-Nazi friend of Pohl’s wife who came into frequent contact with him during the period 1942-45.  Hoepker noted that Pohl was essen­tially a serene and mild-mannered person. During a visit to Pohl in the spring of 1944, Hoep­ker was brought into contact with concentration camp inmates who were working on a local pro­ject outside the camp area.  He noted that the prisoners worked in a leisurely manner and relaxed atmosphere without any pres­sure from their guards.  Hoepker declared that Pohl did not hold an emotional attitude toward the Jews, and did not object to his wife entertaining her Jewish friend Annemarie Jacques at their home.  By the beginning of 1945, Hoepker was fully con­vinced that the administrator of the concentration camps was a humane, conscientious and dedicated servant of this task, and he was as­tonished when he heard later in 1945 of the accusa­tions being made against Pohl and his colleagues. Frau Pohl noted that her husband re­tained his serenity in the face of adversity until March 1945, when he visited the camp at Bergen-Belsen at the time of the typhus epidemic there.  Hitherto the camp had been a model of cleanliness and order, but the chaotic conditions at the close of the war had reduced it to a state of extreme hard­ship.  Pohl, who was unable to alleviate conditions there be­cause of the desperate pass which the war had reached by that time, was deeply affected by the experience and, according to his wife, never regained his former state of composure.

Dr. Alfred Seidl, the highly respected lawyer who acted as prin­cipal defense counsel at the Nuremberg Trials, went to work passionately to secure the acquittal of Pohl.  Seidl had been a personal friend of the accused for many years, and was thor­oughly convinced of his innocence with respect to the fraudulent charge of planned genocide against the Jews.  The Allied judg­ment which condemned Pohl did not prompt Seidl to change his opinion in the slightest.  He declared that the prosecution had failed to produce a single piece of valid evidence against him.

 

One of the most eloquent defenses of Oswald Pohl was made by S.S. Lieutenant Colonel Kurt Schmidt-Klevenow, a legal officer in the S.S. Economy and Administration Office, in his affi­davit of August 8th, 1947.  This affidavit has been deliberately omit­ted from the published doc­uments known as Trials of the War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals 1946-1949.  Schmidt-Klevenow pointed out that Pohl had given his fullest support to Judge Konrad Morgen of the Reich Criminal Police Office, whose job was to investigate irregulari­ties at the con­centration camps.  Later on we shall refer to a case in which Pohl was in favor of the death penalty for camp commandant Koch, who was accused by an S.S. court of mis­conduct.  Schmidt-Klevenow explained that Pohl was instrumental in ar­ranging for local police chiefs to share in the jurisdiction of con­centration camps, and took personal initiative in se­curing strict discipline on the part of camp personnel.  In short, the evidence given at the Pohl trial shows that the pro­ceedings involved nothing less than the deliberate defamation of a man’s character in order to support the propaganda legend of genocide against the Jews in the concentration camps he ad­ministered.

 

FALSIFIED  EVIDENCE  AND  FRAUDULENT

AFFIDAVITS

 

Spurious testimony at Nuremberg which included extravagant statements in support of the myth of the Six Million was invari­ably given by former German officers because of pressure, ei­ther se­vere torture as in the cases cited previously, or the assur­ance of leniency for them­selves if they supplied the required statements.  An example of the latter was the testimony of S.S. General Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski.  He was threatened with execution himself be­cause of his sup­pression of the revolt by Polish partisans at Warsaw in August 1944, which he carried out with his S.S. Brigade of White Russians.  He was therefore prepared to be “co-op­erative”.  The evi­dence of Bach-Zelewski constituted the basis of the testimony against the Reichsfuhrer of the S.S. Heinrich Himmler at the main Nuremberg Trial (TRIAL OF THE MAJOR WAR CRIMI­NALS, Vol. IV, pp. 29, 36).  In March 1941, on the eve of the inva­sion of Russia, Himmler in­vited the Higher S.S. Leaders to his Castle at Wewelsburg for a conference, including Bach-Zelewski who was an expert on partisan warfare.  In his Nurem­berg evidence, he depicted Himmler speaking in grandiose terms at this confer­ence about the liquidation of peoples in Eastern Europe, but Go­ering, in the courtroom, denounced Bach-Zelewski to his face for the falsity of this testimony.  An especially outrageous alle­gation con­cerned a supposed declaration by Himmler that one of the aims of the Russian campaign was to “decimate the Slav population by thirty millions”.  What Himmler really said is given by his Chief of Staff, Wolff—that war in Russia was cer­tain to result in millions of dead (Manvell & Frankl, ibid. p. 117).  Another brazen falsehood was Bach-Zelewski’s accusa­tion that on Au­gust 31st, 1942 Himmler personally witnessed the execution of one hundred Jews by an Ein­satz detachment at Minsk, causing him to nearly faint.  It is known, however, that on this date Himmler was in conference at his field headquarters at Zhitomir in the Ukraine (cf. K. Vow­inckel, Die Wehrmacht Im Kampf, vol 4, p. 275).

 

Much is made of Bach-Zelewski’s evidence in all the books on Himmler, especially Wiolli Frischauer’s HIMMLER: EVIL GENIUS OF THE THIRD REICH (London, 1953, p. 148 ff.).  However, in April 1959, Bach-Zelewski publicly repudiated his Nuremberg testimony be­fore a West German court.  He admit­ted that his earlier statements had not the slightest foun­dation in fact, and that he had made them for the sake of expediency and his own survival.  The German court, after careful deliberation, accepted his retraction.  Needless to say, what Veale calls the “Iron Curtain of Discreet Silence” descended immediately over these events.  They have had no influence whatever on the books which propagate the myth of the Six Mil­lion, and Bach-Zelewski’s testimony on Himmler is still taken at face value.

 

The truth concerning Himmler is provided ironically by an anti-Nazi, Felix Kersten, his physi­cian and masseur.  Because Ker­sten was opposed to the regime, he tends to support the legend that the internment of Jews meant their extermination.  But from his close personal knowledge of Himmler he cannot help but tell the truth concerning him, and in his MEMOIRS 1940-1945 (London, 1956, p. 119 ff.) he is emphatic in stating that Hein­rich Himmler did not advocate liquidating the Jews but favored their emigration overseas.  Neither does Kersten implicate Hitler.  However, the credibility of his anti-Nazi narrative is completely shattered when, in search of an alternative villain, he declares that Dr. Goebbels was the real advocate of “extermination”.  This nonsensical allegation is amply disproved by the fact that Goebbels was still concerned with the Madagas­car project even after it had been temporarily shelved by the German Foreign Office, as we showed earlier.

 

So much for the false evidence at Nuremberg.  Reference has also been made to the thousands of fraudulent “written affi­davits” which were accepted by the Nuremberg Court without any at­tempt to ascertain the authenticity of their contents or even their authorship.  These hearsay documents, often of the most bizarre kind, were introduced as “evidence” so long as they bore the required signature.  A typical prosecution affidavit contested by the defense in the Concen­tration Camp Trial of 1947 was that of Alois Hoellriegel, a member of the camp personnel at Mau­thausen in Austria.  This affidavit, which the defense proved was fabricated during Hoell­riegel’s torture, had already been used to secure the conviction of S.S. General Ernst Kaltenbrun­ner in 1946.  It claimed that a mass gassing operation had taken place at Mau­thausen and that Hoellriegel had witnessed Kaltenbrunner (the highest S.S. leader in the Reich excepting Himmler) actually taking part in it.

 

By the time of the Concentration Camp Trial (Pohl’s trial)  a year later, it had become impossi­ble to sustain this piece of non­sense when it was produced in court again.  The defense not only demonstrated that the affidavit was falsified, but showed that all deaths at Mauthausen were systematically checked by the local police authorities.  They were also entered on a camp regis­ter, and particular embarrassment was caused to the prose­cution when the Mauthausen register, one of the few that sur­vived, was produced in evidence.  The defense also obtained numerous affidavits from former inmates of Mauthausen (a prison camp chiefly for criminals) testifying to humane and or­derly conditions there.

 

 

 

ALLIED  ACCUSATION  DISBELIEVED

 

There is no more eloquent testimony to the tragedy and tyranny of Nuremberg than the pa­thetic astonishment or outraged disbe­lief of the accused persons themselves at the grotesque charges made against them.  Such is reflected in the affidavit of S.S. Major-General Hans Fanslau, who visited most of the German concentration camps during the last years of the war.  Although a front line soldier of the Waffen S.S., Fanslau had taken a great interest in concen­tration camp conditions, and he was se­lected as a prime target by the Allies for the charge of conspir­acy to annihilate the Jews.  It was argued, on the basis of his many contacts, that he must have been fully involved.  When it was first rumored that he would be tried and con­victed, hun­dreds of af­fidavits were produced on his behalf by camp inmates he had visited.  When he read the full scope of the indictment against the concentration camp personnel in sup­plementary Nuremberg Trial No. 4 on May 6th, 1947, Fanslau declared in disbelief: “This cannot be possible, because I, too, would have had to know something about it.”  (Of course this is assuming he didn’t have an “Ollie North” to keep all this information from the top such as Reagan, Bush, Gates and on and on and on.)

 

It must be emphasized that throughout the Nuremberg proceed­ings, the German leaders on trial never believed for a moment the allegations of the Allied prosecution.  Hermann Goering, who was exposed to the full brunt of the Nuremberg atrocity propaganda, failed to be con­vinced by it.  Hans Fritzsche, on trial as the highest functionary of Goebbels’ Ministry, relates that Go­ering, even after hearing the Ohlendorf affidavit on the Einsatzgruppen and the Hoess testi­mony on Auschwitz, re­mained convinced that the extermination of Jews was entirely pro­paganda fiction [THE SWORD IN THE SCALES, London, 1953, p. 145].  At one point dur­ing the trial, Goering declared rather cogently that the first time he had heard of it “was right here in Nuremberg”  [Shirer, ibid. p. 1147].  The Jewish writers Poliakov, Reitlinger and Manvell and Frankl all attempt to im­plicate Goering in this supposed extermination, but Charles Bew­ley in his work HERMANN GOERING (GOETTINGEN, 1956) SHOWS THAT NOT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AT NUREMBERG TO SUBSTANTI­ATE THIS CHARGE.

 

Hans Fritzsche pondered on the whole question during the trials, and he concluded that there had certainly been no thorough in­vestigation of these monstrous charges.  Fritzsche, who was ac­quitted, was an associate of Goebbels and a skilled propagandist.  He recognized that the al­leged massacre of the Jews was the main point of the indictment against all defendants.  Kaltenbrun­ner, who succeeded Heydrich as chief of the Reich Security Head Office and was the main defendant for the S.S. due to the death of Himmler, was no more convinced of the geno­cide charges than was Goering.  He confided to Fritzsche that the prosecution was scoring ap­parent successes because of their technique of coercing witnesses and suppressing evidence, which was precisely the accusation of Judges Wenersturm and van Roden.

 

AUSCHWITZ  AND  POLISH  JEWRY

 

The concentration camp at Auschwitz near Cracow in Poland has remained at the center of the alleged extermination of mil­lions of Jews.  Later we shall see how, when it was discovered by honest observers in the British and American zones after the war that no “gas chambers” ex­isted in the German camps such as Dachau and Bergen-Belsen, attention was shifted to the east­ern camps, particularly Auschwitz.  Ovens definitely existed here, it was claimed.  Unfor­tunately, the eastern camps were in the Russian zone of occupation, so that no one could verify whether or not these allegations were true.  The Russians re­fused to allow anyone to see Auschwitz until about ten years af­ter the war, by which time they were able to alter its appear­ance and give some plausibility to the claim that millions of people had been exterminated there.  If anyone doubts that the Russians are capable of such deception, they should remember the mon­uments erected at sites where thousands of people were mur­dered in Russia by Stalin’s secret police—but where the monu­ments proclaim them to be victims of German troops in World War Two.  Try giving thought, as example, to Katyn Forest.

The truth about Auschwitz is that it was the largest and most important industrial concentration camp, producing all kinds of material for the war industry.  The camp consisted of synthetic coal and rubber plants built by I. G. Farben Industries, for whom the prisoners supplied labor.  Auschwitz also comprised an agricultural research station, with laboratories, plant nurs­eries and facilities for stock breeding, as well as Krupp’s arma­ment works.  We have already re­marked that this kind of activ­ity was the prime function of the camps; all major firms had sub­sidiaries in them and the S.S. even opened their own facto­ries.  The remarkable evidence that says more than anything—IS THAT THE INDUSTRIES WERE ALMOST ALL JEWISH!

 

Accounts of visits by Himmler to the camps show that his main purpose was to inspect and as­sess their industrial efficiency.  When he visited Auschwitz in March 1941 accompanied by high ex­ecutives of I. G. Farben, he showed no interest in the prob­lems of the camp as a facil­ity for pris­oners, but merely ordered that the camp be enlarged to take 100,000 detainees to supply labor for I. G. Farben.  This hardly accords with a policy of exterminating prisoners by the millions.

 

MORE  AND  MORE  MILLIONS

 

It was nevertheless at this single camp that about half of the six million Jews were supposed to have been exterminated.  Indeed some writers claim 4 or even 5 million.  Four million was the sensational figure announced by the Soviet Government after the Communists had “investigated” the camp, at the same time as they were attempting to blame the Katyn mas­sacre on the Ger­mans.  Reitlinger admits that information regarding Auschwitz and other east­ern camps comes from the post-war Communist regimes of Eastern Europe: “The evidence con­cerning the Polish death camps was mainly taken after the war by Polish State commissions or by the Central Jewish Historical Commission of Poland” (THE FINAL SOLUTION, p. 631).

 

However, no living, authentic eye-witness of these “gassings” has EVER been produced and validated.  Benedikt Kautsky, who spent seven years in concentration camps, including three in Auschwitz, alleged in his book Teufel and Verdammte (Devil and Damned, Zurich, 1946) that “not less than 3,500,000 Jews” had been killed there.  This was certainly a remarkable state­ment, because by his own admission he had never seen a gas chamber.  He confesses: “I was in the big German concentration camps.  However, I must establish the truth that in no camp at any time did I come across such an installation as a gas cham­ber” (p. 272-3).  The only exe­cution he actually witnessed was when two Polish inmates were executed for killing two Jew­ish inmates.  Kautsky, who was sent from Buchenwald in October, 1942 to work at Auschwitz-Buna, stresses in his book that the use of prisoners in war industry was a major feature of con­centration camp policy until the end of the war.  He fails to rec­oncile this with an alleged pol­icy of massacring Jews.

 

The exterminations at Auschwitz are alleged to have occurred between March 1942 and Octo­ber 1944; the figure of half of six million, therefore, would mean the extermination and dis­posal of about 94,000 people per month for thirty-two months—ap­proximately 3,350 people every day, day and night, for over two and a-half years.  This kind of thing is so ludicrous that it scarcely needs refuting.  And yet Reitlinger claims quite seri­ously that Auschwitz could dis­pose of no less than 6,000 people a day.

 

Although Reitlinger’s 6,000 a day would mean a total by Octo­ber of 1944 of over 5 million, all such estimates pale before the wild fantasies of Olga Lengyel in her book FIVE CHIM­NEYS (London, 1959).

Claiming to be a former inmate of Auschwitz, she asserts that the camp cre­mated no less than “750 per hour, or 17,280 corpses per twenty-four hour shift”.  She also al­leges that, in addition, 8,000 people were burned every day in the “death-pits”, and that there­fore “In round number, about 24,000 corpses were handled every day” (p. 80-1).  This would, of course, mean a yearly rate of over 8 1/2 million.  Thus between March 1942 and October 1944 Auschwitz would finally have disposed of over 21 million people, six million more than the en­tire world Jewish population.  Comment is superfluous, I be­lieve, for she certainly didn’t offer any circumstances such as days off for good behavior, etc.

Although several million were supposed to have died at Auschwitz alone, Reitlinger has to admit that only 363,000 in­mates were registered at the camp for the whole of the period be­tween Jan­uary 1940 and February 1945 (THE S.S., ALIBI OF A NATION, p. 268 ff.), and by no means all of them were Jews.  It is frequently claimed that many prisoners were never reg­istered, but no one has offered any proof of this.  Even if there were as many unregistered as there were regis­tered, it would mean only a total of  750,000 prisoners—hardly enough for the elimination of 3 or 4 million.  Moreover, large  numbers of the camp population were released or transported else­where during the war, and at the end 80,000 were evacuated westward in January 1945 before the Russian advance.

 

One example will suffice of the statistical frauds relating to ca­sualties at Auschwitz.  Shirer claims that in the summer of 1944, no less than 300,000 Hungarian Jews were done to death in a mere forty-six days (ibid. p. 1156).  This would have been al­most the entire Hungarian Jew­ish population, which numbered some 380,000.  But according to the Central Statistical Office of Budapest, there were 260,000 Jews in Hungary in 1945 (which roughly conforms with the Joint Distribution Committee figure of 220,000), so that only 120,000 were classed as no longer resi­dent.  Of these, 35,000 were emigrants from the new Com­munist regime, and a further 25,000 were still being held in Russia after having worked in German labor battalions there.  This leaves only 60,000 Hungarian Jews unaccounted for, but M.E. Namenyi estimates that 60,000 Jews returned to Hungary from deportation in Germany, though Reitlinger says this figure is too high (THE FINAL SOLUTION, p. 497).  Possibly it is, but bearing in mind the substantial emigration of Hungarian Jews during the war (cf. REPORT OF THE ICRC, Vol. I, p. 649), the num­ber of Hungarian Jewish casualties must have been very low indeed.

 

AUSCHWITZ:  AN  EYE-WITNESS  ACCOUNT

 

Some new facts about Auschwitz are at last beginning to make a tentative appearance.  They are contained in a recent work called Die Auschwitz-Luge: Ein Eriebnisbericht von Thies Christopherson [THE AUSCHWITZ LEGENDS: AN AC­COUNT OF HIS EXPERIENCE BY THIES CHRISTOPHER­SON, Kritik Verlag/Mohrkirch, 1973].  Published by the Ger­man lawyer Dr. Manfred Roeder in the periodical Deutsche Burger-Iniative, it is an eye-witness ac­count of Auschwitz by Thies Christopherson, who was sent to the Bunawerk plant labo­ratories at Auschwitz to research into the production of synthetic rubber for the Kaiser Wilhelm Insti­tute.  In May 1973, not long after the appearance of this account, the veteran Jewish “Nazi-hunter” Simon Wiesenthal wrote to the Frankfurt Chamber of Lawyers, demanding that the publisher and author of the Fore­ward, Dr. Roeder, a member of the Chamber, should be brought before its disciplinary commission.  Sure enough, pro­ceedings began in July, but not without harsh criticism even from the Press, who asked “Is Simon Wiesenthal the new Gauleiter of Germany?” (Deutsche Wochenzeitung, July 27th, 1973).

 

Christopherson’s account is certainly one of the most important documents for a re-appraisal of Auschwitz. 

He spent the whole of 1944 there, during which time he visited all of the separate camps comprising the large Auschwitz complex, including Auschwitz-Birkenau where it is al­leged that wholesale massacres of Jews took place.  Christopherson, however, is in no doubt that this is totally untrue.  He writes, “I was in Auschwitz from January 1944 until December 1944.  After the war I heard about the mass murders which were supposedly perpetrated by the S.S. against the Jewish prisoners, and I was perfectly aston­ished.  Despite all the evidence of witnesses, all the newspaper reports and radio broadcasts, I still do not believe today in these horrible deeds.  I have said this many times and in many places but to no purpose.  One is never believed” (p. 16).

 

Space forbids a detailed summary here of more details about personally known facts, which in­clude facts about camp routine and the daily life of prisoners totally at variance with the alle­gations of propaganda (pp. 22-27).  More important are his rev­elations about the supposed ex­istence of an extermination camp.  “During the whole of my time at Auschwitz, I never ob­served the slightest evidence of mass gassings.  Moreover, the odour of burning flesh that is often said to have hung over the camp is a downright falsehood.  In the vicinity of the main camp (Auschwitz I) was a larger farrier’s works, from which the smell of molten iron was naturally not pleasant” (p. 33-4).  Re­itlinger confirms that there were five blast furnaces and five collieries at Auschwitz, which to­gether with the Bunawerk fac­tories comprised Auschwitz III (ibid. p. 452).  The author agrees that a crematorium would certainly have existed at Auschwitz, “since 200,000 people lived there, and in every city with 200,000 inhabitants there would be a crematorium.  Natu­rally people died there—but not only prisoners.  In fact the wife of Obersturmbannfuhrer (Christopherson’s supe­rior) also died there,” (p. 33).  The author ex­plains: “There were no secrets at Auschwitz.  In September 1944 a commission of the Interna­tional Red Cross came to the camp for an inspec­tion.  They were particularly interested in the camp at Birkenau, though we also had many in­spections at Raisko” (Bunawerk section, p. 35).

 

Christopherson points out that the constant visits to Auschwitz by outsiders cannot be recon­ciled with allegations of mass ex­termination.  When describing the visit of his wife to the camp in May, he observes: “The fact that it was possible to receive visits from our relatives at any time demonstrates the openness of the camp administration.  Had Auschwitz been a great extermina­tion camp, we would certainly not have been able to receive such visits” (p. 27).

 

After the war, Christopherson came to hear of the alleged exis­tence of a building with gigantic chimneys in the vicinity of the main camp.  “This was supposed to be the crematorium.  How­ever, I must record the fact that when I left the camp at Auschwitz in December 1944, I had not seen this building there” (p. 37).  Does this mysterious building exist today?  Ap­parently not; Reitlinger claims it was demolished and “completely burnt out in full view of the camp” in Octo­ber, though Christopherson never saw this public demolition.  Al­though it is said to have taken place “in full view of the camp, it was allegedly seen by only one Jewish witness, a certain Dr. Bendel, and his is the only testimony to the occurrence (Reitlinger, ibid. p. 457).  This situation is generally typical.  When it comes down to hard evidence, it is strangely elu­sive; the building was “demolished”, the document is “lost”, the order was “verbal”.  At Auschwitz today, visitors are shown a small furnace and here they are told that millions of people were ex­terminated.  The Soviet State Commission which “investigated” the camp an­nounced on May 12th, 1945 that “using rectified co­efficients’ and the figure of four millions has become ridiculous” (ibid. p. 460).

 

Finally, the account of Mr. Christopherson draws attention to a very curious circumstance.  The only defendant who did not ap­pear at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial in 1963 was Richard Baer, the successor of Rudolf Hoess as commandant of Auschwitz.  Though in perfect health, he died suddenly in prison before the trial had begun, “in a highly mysterious way” according to the newspaper Duetshe Wochenzeitung (July 27, 1973).  Baer’s sudden demise before giv­ing evidence is especially strange since the Paris newspaper Rivarol recorded his insistence that “during the whole time in which he governed Auschwitz, he never saw any gas chambers nor believed that such things existed,” and from this statement nothing would dissuade him.  In short, the Christopherson account adds to a mounting collection of evi­dence demonstrating that the gi­ant industrial complex of Auschwitz (comprising thirty separate installations and divided by the main Vienna-Cracow railway line) was nothing but a vast war-production center, which, while admittedly employing the compulsory labor of detainees, was certainly not a place of “mass extermination”.

 

Let us take respite for I see that we cannot finish this JOUR­NAL today.  Let us consider eas­ing up a bit with intent of wrap­ping it up by Friday.  There are several more subjects I want to cover in this approach to the “Holocaust”.  Then we will follow with another couple of histori­cal out­lays.  We will simply have to approach the massive amount of material in segments.  Each is far too important to omit so we must ask readers to bear with us through these presen­tations.  This is one of the most urgent and critical segments of your “time”, it IS worth every minute of your reading time.  Peace, Light and understanding are given unto you if you will but accept them.    Salu,  Hatonn

 

http://fourwinds10.com/journals/pdf/J040.pdf

 

April 2, 2011