Thursday, April 30, 2020

History Teacher Fired for Allowing Students to Question “Holocaust” Loses Lawsuit on Appeal


Jason Mostafa Ali, a New Jersey history teacher of Egyptian descent, had his appeal in a lawsuit alleging discrimination at the hands of the principal at his school tossed out of federal court.
The dispute began in 2017, when Woodbridge High School's Jewish principal Glenn Lottman lobbied local Superintendant Robert Zega to have him fired.
Zega and Lottman terminated Ali after he allowed students in the class to question the Holocaust and whether the Mossad aided Al Qaeda during the 9/11 terror attacks.
The students were questioning the Holocaust and the legacy of Hitler on their own. Ali only encouraged the students to engage in critical thinking without ideological input.
Public schools supposedly protect the First Amendment, yet in this case, Ali was punished for merely allowing the students to read their papers outloud.
One of the papers was based on the documentary "Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told," showing just how far revisionists have come in impacting the debate over the Second World War. An English teacher overheard it being discussed and informed on Ali and his students to adminiistrators.
After being interrogated by Zega and Lottman on why he didn't punish the students for "denying" the Holocaust, Ali affirmed the right to question everything. He was then fired.
During his trial, Ali argued that he had a First Amendment right to set his own lesson plans, and his students had a right to examine history from whatever perspective they saw having the most compelling evidence. The Judge in the case, Madeline Cox Arleo, said he did not and Lottmann had a right to fire him.
Jennifer Rich, a Jewish professor in "Genocide Studies," was called in to provide expert testimony in the case. She lauded the suppression of ideas she doesn't like and condemned Ali in an op-ed for the liberal clickfarm Raw Story.
Ali also alleges that Principal Lottman would constantly make discriminatory remarks, like referring to him as a terrorist and "that Egyptian." Ali put extra emphasis on this part of his case when moving to the appellate court.
Appeals to the Civil Rights Act in politically sensitive cases tends to do better in lower courts than invoking the actual Constitution, but the US Court of Appeals' 3rd Circuit decided not to give his case any more oxygen. This is yet another blow to free speech.
While this story is being widely reported, neither conservative "free speech" advocates or the ACLU appear to have any problem with this attack on the First Amendment.

National Socialism: My Choice, My Path


This is the author’s preface to William Brooke Joyce’s earthshaking book Twilight Over England. 
The preface is usually that part of a book which can most safely be omitted. It usually represents that efflorescent manifestation of egotism which an author, after working hard, cannot spare either himself or his readers. More often than not the readers spare themselves. When, however, the writer is a daily perpetrator of High Treason, his introductory remarks may command from the English public that kind of awful veneration with which £5000 confessions are perused in the Sunday newspapers, quite frequently after the narrator has taken his last leap in the dark.
by William Joyce
At any rate, I have reason to believe that many fictitious stories are being circulated about me in England already: and it seems less than fair to neglect to provide them with that basis of fact which every skilful liar welcomes. I have no wish to write a brief autobiography: it merely seems necessary to give a few details which, in conjunction with the argument of the book, will explain why I came to Germany at the end of August 1939 to play what humble part I could in working for her victory in the war which I knew to be inevitable.
I was born in New York in 1906. My father’s people had lived in Ireland since the Norman Conquest. From my mother I inherited English, Irish, and Scottish blood. Thus, I suppose, the nondescript adjective British could well be applied to my race, though, in fact, I think it is more purely Norman than that of most people who trace their descent with finer feelings. I went to school in Ireland, where the Jesuits, with whom I had differences, gave me the benefit of their splendid-educational system. However recalcitrant I may have proved in some matters, I have good reason to be grateful to them for what they did for me. Nor do I know any better motto in the world than Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam. Later, at the University of London I studied English Language and Literature, History, and Psychology. Much of my study had to be part-time, because my parents had lost what money they had in Ireland, by reason of a devotion to the British Crown — a devotion which seems to have been misplaced and was certainly ill-requited. From time to time, well-meaning people have sympathized with me concerning my educational deficiencies: but having compared their standards with my own, I feel that their sympathy might have been reserved for more needy cases.
I was brought up by my parents in a creed of fanatical patriotism which the English people found very hard to understand. From my earliest days, I was taught to love England and her Empire. Patriotism was the highest virtue that I knew. In 1923, I joined the British Fascists, the first Fascist body to be formed in England. In those days, Communism was a lively force in England: and I saw a certain amount of street and hall fighting, of which I shall carry the marks so long as I live. For reasons which need not be given here, the British Fascists, as an organization, came to grief. Some attempts which I most foolishly made to introduce the doctrine of true Nationalism into the Conservative party met with the ignominious failure that they deserved.
I earned my living as a tutor and was fortunate enough to have a good employer.
In 1933, however, I joined Sir Oswald Mosley’s new movement, the British Union of Fascists. In that movement I became one of the chief speakers and writers: and for three years, I was Sir Oswald’s Director of Propaganda. We had some fine times in that movement — days which I shall never forget. What influence I had I used to promote a thoroughly anti-Jewish policy: and, in this respect I succeeded.
Moreover, I did everything possible to stress the philosophical community of German and British National-Socialism. To anybody who could see, in the years 1934 and 1935, it was only a specially successful effort to spread National-Socialism widely in England that could avert the tragedy which has come to pass.
Here I should explain that in the course of years and experience the basis of my patriotism had changed. It was no longer the collection of sentimental abstractions that had satisfied me in my youth. Having seen how the poor lived and how they suffered, I had realized the impossibility of a patriotism which excluded them. On the one hand, the Tory politicians were ruining the Empire for the sake of international finance: on the other hand, the mere fact that the Conservatives claimed a monopoly of patriotism made millions of the working people detest it. It became clear to me that it was vain presumption to talk about patriotism until the masses of the people were given some real reason to love their country: and the only real reason conceivable was that a new and scientific economic system should abolish unemployment, poverty, and social injustice. The more I investigated the facts, the more convinced I became that the old stereotyped patriotism was a hollow sham, designed to conceal the operations of financiers and preserve the privileges of an effete plutocratic caste. From the outset of my political career, I was always told how unwise it was to mention the Jews. One could condemn the King in public without any fear as to the consequences: but to mention the Jews was sacrilege. For some years I worked to break this evil superstition, and I believe that I succeeded.
In 1937, it unfortunately happened that I had differences with Sir Oswald Mosley on matters pertaining to organization: and I left his movement to found my own, the National Socialist League. In this task I was helped by John Beckett, the former Socialist M. P. for Gateshead and Peckham. Our little League had a hard and stormy time. In September 1938, I was left in sole charge of it, as John Beckett, though agreeing with me in principle, thought my methods too extreme. I always held a certain view about the League. There were various movements and societies larger than ours which were, in general, favourable to National-Socialism: but, in my opinion, it was desirable that there should be one which would maintain the purity of the doctrine in the extremest and most uncompromising form. Moreover, I have always believed, in the face of experienced advice to the contrary, that he who speaks the truth with passion and conviction is a better propagandist than he who burns the midnight oil considering in what way a programme can best be put before the people.
There may, of course, be very different opinions on this subject, but as I once said to a colleague who told me that I was damaging my chances in politics: “I am not in politics because I want to get on, but because I feel and believe things that I consider it a duty to utter. Success be damned.” I still think that this attitude is appreciated better than any other by ordinary people.
In the National-Socialist League I came into contact with even more appalling poverty than I had seen in my work for the British Union of Fascists and National-Socialists. I could give only part of my time to the work. The rest of my time I was earning my living as a tutor with an old friend. As, however, we told all the agencies that we would not take Jewish pupils in any circumstances, largely successful attempts were made to ruin our business.
What seemed most touching to me was the large number of men and women in England who loved or admired National-Socialism but were rendered inarticulate by the lack of cash. Needless to say, cheap stories were circulated to the effect that we were receiving money from Germany. By this time, Scotland Yard’s investigations into the finances of the League should have convinced the Government that nothing could be further from the truth.
Despite my severance from Mosley’s movement, I still had many friends in it. I had friends in every movement working for the right cause. Just when it seemed that there were greater prospects of cooperation between those of like mind, the war clouds loomed on the horizon.
Twice in the year preceding the 3rd of September, I was arrested. In all there were two charges of assault and one of an offence under the Public Order Act. I was acquitted on all three and shall always remember the loyalty of my friends who worked for my acquittal. This was not my first brush with the law. In 1934, I had been tried, together with Mosley and two others, on a charge of Riotous Assembly. We were all acquitted. So far as I am concerned, I can only express the opinion that the King’s Judges and the Stipendiary Magistrates are as honourable as the Justices of the Peace are hopelessly incompetent and corrupt. This, however, is just a personal impression: and much depends on how the case is handled by the defendant. I had studied certain aspects of the law to some purpose. The Police Force of London was very anti-Jewish but special measures were taken by Sir Samuel Hoare to enforce upon them the dire necessity of pampering the Israelites. Of the hundreds of meetings that I addressed, the Commissioner of Police had notes on every one. I was warned again and again by friendly police officers of some rank to slacken the pace: and I refused. All the circumstances of the last charges brought against me point to the probability that I was arrested at the urgent instance of the Home Office.
We in the League lived National-Socialism. As a small band, we were united in the struggle: and we were all poor enough to know the horrors of freedom in democracy. One of our members was driven mad by eighteen months of unemployment and starvation. We did what we could to help him: but I am afraid it was little enough. I lived for months with real friends who loved England and could not get enough to eat from her. Unemployed members who had only two shillings a day came twelve miles by train to attend street corner meetings, or to undertake office duties, spent the surviving pennies on food, and walked home into the small hours of the morning in winter weather. These unknown men were great patriots.
They all had the hope that out of their sacrifices a greater England would be born. So it was with Mosley’s men and women too. The misery of these people was indescribable when it seemed to them that all their efforts would be cancelled by war between their country and Germany. They had family ties. Having been brought up as patriots they were benumbed at the thought that there was to be a conflict between their country and all the beliefs that they held dear.
For my part, the decision was easy to make. To me it was clear on the morning of August 25th that the greatest struggle in history was now doomed to take place. It might have been a very worthy course to stay in England and incessantly work for peace: but I had one traditionally acquired or inherited prejudice, which many will think foolish and which may be logically difficult to defend. England was going to war. I felt that if, for perfect reasons of conscience, I could not fight for her, I must give her up for ever. Such an argument I do not commend to anybody else: but man is guided by more than reason alone: and in this great conflict, I wanted to play a clear and definite part. In small matters, it is easy enough to be guided by conventional loyalty. In great matters, a man has the right to hold himself responsible to Higher Justice alone.
Apart from my absolute belief in National-Socialism and my conviction of Hitler’s superhuman heroism, I had always been attracted to Germany. Perhaps the attraction was due to the German blood which flowed in the veins of some of my ancestors: it was no doubt helped by my veneration for the genius of men like Wagner and Goethe. Perchance my studies in Germanic Philology did much to make me aware of racial bonds that time and money have obscured. Whatever the reason may be, I grew up with that mystical attraction which has ended by my making Germany my permanent home.
My hopes of being able to play some part of a definite kind, however small, in this struggle have been realized, thanks to the wonderful kindness and trust with which I, as a stranger, was greeted.
It would be impossible for me to close this preface without adding that my wife has been of inestimable help to me. It was through National-Socialism that we met: and it was therefore only fitting that our decision to leave London for Germany on August 25th, 1939, was a joint decision. It was no small sacrifice for her to pack a few things into some suitcases and leave without even being able to say farewell to her parents: but the sacred purpose of this struggle to free the world offers more than ample compensation for any human sacrifice.
Finally, I should like to add that this book is in no sense an official publication.
In no way are the authorities of the Reich to be held responsible for any opinion which I may express. That I have been permitted to write freely what I would is due to that respect for freedom of honest expression which I have found everywhere in Germany since my arrival. Certainly propaganda against the state and people is not permitted: but, with this natural reservation, I can say that the authorities here display a breadth of mind which, to anybody who has read the English press, must seem astonishing.
The ideological reasons which have caused me to place my entire services at the disposal of the Third Reich are stated in the following chapters.
Source: Twilight Over England, full book available at Cosmotheist Books

Two False Testimonies from Auschwitz


By Carlo Mattogno
Introduction
In an article commemorating the thirtieth anniversary of the Nuremberg trial, Robert M.W. Kempner states that the extermination of the jews has been incontestably and unassailably proved since the time of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, and the twelve successive trials which continued until mid-1949.
Kempner writes:
“The history of the Holocaust written at Nuremberg bears importantly on the punishment of the guilty. The historical verification rests almost exclusively on the official records of the Hitler regime, which a faithful bureaucracy painstakingly preserved.”
In addition to these documents there are the confessions of Hans Frank and Baldur von Schirach, the eyewitness testimonies of Rudolf Hoss and Otto Ohlendorf and the statements of numerous defendants heard as testimony in the Einsatzgruppen and Wilhelmstrasse trials. “A large number of other historical truths were established thanks to documents and eyewitness testimony before German courts during the past twenty years.”
In reality, as we have shown in our study “The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews“, despite the enormous mass of official National Socialist documents produced during these trials, there exists not a single proof of a “plan to exterminate” the jews, so that at this time “it is difficult to say exactly how, when, and by whom the order to exterminate the jews was given.”
Even apart from that, however, to attribute historical value to the verdicts of tribunals in which the victors sat in judgment over the vanquished is at the very least naive.
In fact, as the attorney general of the United States stated during a hearing of the Nuremberg trial on 26 July 1946, the International Military Tribunal constituted simply “a continuation of the United Nations’ war effort” against Germany, with which they were “technically still in a state of war” although the political and military institutions of the enemy had collapsed.
At Nuremberg, as the English historian A.J.P. Taylor remarks:
“The documents were chosen not only to demonstrate the war-guilt of the men on trial, but to conceal that of the prosecuting Powers.”
The guilt of Germany was therefore posited at the start:
“The verdict preceded the tribunal; and the documents were brought in to sustain a conclusion which had already been settled.”
Torture also entered into the framework of this “continuation of the war effort” directed, thanks to the trials, against the Germans. The first commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoss, interrogated by British investigators at Heide with “alcohol and the whip,” signed a deposition without even knowing its content!
At the Malmedy trial, which took place at Dachau in 1946, American investigators submitted the accused to every sort of physical and mental torture to force them to sign false confessions, as the commission of inquiry presided over by Judges van Roden and Simpson established.
During the proceedings, there occurred an incident which illustrates perfectly the atmosphere which prevailed during the trials of the vanquished conducted immediately after the war by the victors.
The American investigator Kirschbaum had introduced a witness, Einstein, to prove that the defendant, Metzel, had murdered his brother, who was nonetheless sitting in the courtroom! Kirschbaum proceeded to scold Einstein: “How can we bring this pig to the gallows, if you are so stupid as to bring your brother into court!”
The most absurd aspect of these trials is that any “eyewitness” was able to tell the most shameless lies without the least fear of being contradicted, let alone being charged with perjury.
That this is literally true is demonstrated by the extravagant statements about Auschwitz by one Sophia Litwinska during The Belsen Trial. She stated that she had been “selected” for the gas chamber” – together with 3,000 other jews at the Auschwitz hospital – on Christmas Eve, 1941 or several days before, although, according to the historians of the Auschwitz Museum, neither “selections” nor “gassings” of jews had begun at that time. In the “gas chamber,” Sophia Litwinska saw “fumes coming in through a very small window at the top”, which is absurd because Zyklon B, the gas allegedly used to “exterminate” the jews, is stored as a solid in hermetically sealed cans. Our “eyewitness” was exposed to the gas “a minute or two perhaps”, and then something extraordinary happened:
“At that moment I heard my name called. I had not the strength to answer it, but I raised my arm. Then I felt someone take me and throw me out from that room. Hoessler put a blanket round me and took me on a motor cycle to the hospital, where I stayed six weeks.
Thus, in the middle of a “gassing” someone – without even a gas mask! – is supposed to have entered the “gas chamber” to summon Sophia Litwinska and carry her out!
This comes under the heading of lunacy, if one considers that hydrocyanic acid is one of the most powerful poisons which exist: for humans 12 milligrams per liter of air is a fatal dose; moreover, “if the concentration of hydrocyanic acid in the air is strong enough, death is almost immediate.”
In this study we shall examine the “Eyewitness testimony” of two other witnesses who testified at The Belsen Trial: Charles Sigismund Bendel and Ada Bimko.
Their testimonies, while less extravagant, are entirely false.
This, however, has not prevented Gerald Reitlinger from accepting them in his famous book The Final Solution.
Further, the “eyewitness testimony” of Charles Sigismund Bendel has been recently dug up by Georges Wellers to demonstrate the existence of the “gas chambers” at Auschwitz.
Now, the fact that these perjurers lied brazenly is doubtless shameful, but it is still more shameful that unscrupulous judges used their “eyewitness testimony” to exact a legal vengeance against the German defendants, with whom they were “technically still in a state of war,” and that biased historians have consciously used it to prop up the tottering myth of the “extermination” of the jews.
  1. The “Eyewitness” Charles Sigismund Bendel
The Romanian-jewish doctor Charles Sigismund Bende was a prosecution witness at The Belsen Trial in 1945 and at the Tesch trial in 1946. His “eyewitness testimony” also appeared in 1946 in the work Temoignages sur Auschwitz (Auschwitz Eyewitnesses).
He was arrested in Paris on 4 November 1943 and interned in the camp at Drancy from which, on 10 December 1943, he was deported to Auschwitz. From there he was sent to the Buna camp (Monowitz or Auschwitz-III), then returned to the main camp at Auschwitz, from which he was finally transferred to Birkenau.
Dr. Bendel does not even know when this took place, since he declares, contradictorily:
On 1st January, 1944, I was transferred to the main camp, and on 27th February,1944, into the gipsy camp 4 in Birkenau, where I worked as a doctor.
Q: How long did you work at Birkenau?
A: From 1st January 1944 to 18th January 1945.
In June 1944, Dr. Bendel was attached to the Sonderkommando of the crematoriums at Birkenau, which according to him simultaneously comprised 200 and 900 men, and in which he helped in the “extermination” of jews in the “gas chambers.”
At this time he observed a “gassing” for the first time:
One day in June 1944, at 6 in the morning, I joined the day shift (150 men) of Crematorium 4… At noon a long procession of women, children, and elderly people entered the courtyard of the Crematorium. They were from the Lodz ghetto.
This is incorrect because the first convoy of jews from Lodz arrived at Auschwitz on 15 August 1944. Furthermore, this contradicts Bendel’s testimony in The Belsen Trial:
The first time I started work there was in August, 1944. No one was gassed on that occasion, but 150 political prisoners, Russians and Poles, were led one by one to the graves and there they were shot. Two days later, when I was attached to the day group, I saw a gas chamber in action. On that occasion it was the ghetto at Lodz – 80,000 people were gassed.
In reality the execution of the 150 political prisoners is a complete fabrication while his number for Lodz ghetto jews “gassed” is greater by ten thousand than the number of jews deported from Lodz to Auschwitz.
Dr. Bendel states that there were four crematoriums at Birkenau, numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4.
According to him, the construction of crematoriums 1 and 2 (II and III in the official German numeration) began in March 1942: “The foundations of these imposing red brick buildings were laid in March 1942.”
This is not correct, because the Central Construction Office of the Waffen-SS and Police in Auschwitz took bids for the construction of the first Birkenau crematorium on 1 July 1942 .
Once again according to Dr. Bendel, the crematoriums were completed in January 1943: “Completed in January 1943, their dedication was honored by the presence of Himmler in person”.
This is likewise incorrect. The Construction Office of the Waffen-SS and Police of KGL-Auschwitz finished construction on crematoriums II and III on 31 March and 25 June 1943 respectively.
It is also untrue that Himmler was present for the openings.
According to Dr. Bendel, crematoriums 1 and 2 (II and III) each had 16 ovens, which is false because 5 triple ovens were installed in the above-mentioned crematoriums, giving a total of 15 muffles.
Dr. Bendel asserts that there were two “gas chambers” in each of the four crematoriums at Birkenau:
Q: How many gas chambers were there?
A: In each crematorium there were generally two gas chambers.
Contradicting this, in his sworn declaration of 21 October 1945 Dr. Bendel speaks of a single “gas chamber” in each crematorium. These two assertions are contradicted anew by the “official” version defended by the Auschwitz Museum, the protagonists of which assign crematoriums II and III one “gas chamber” each, while crematoriums IV and V are supposed to have had a total of four. The “gas chambers” of crematoriums 1 and 2 (II and III) measured 10 x 4 x 1.6 meters [40 square meters, 64 cubic meters) and at the same time 10 x 5 x 1.5 meters (50 square meters, 75 cubic meters):
Q: How big were the chambers?
A: Each chamber was 10 meters long and 4 wide.
Q: [by the defense attorney, Dr. Zippel]: You stated that the gas chambers had dimensions of 10 by 1.6 meters, is that correct?
A: Yes, certainly.
There were 2 underground gas chambers, each approximately 10 meters long, 5 wide, and one and a half high. The 2 gas chambers supplied the corpses for the crematoriums.
The “gas chambers” of Crematoriums 3 and 4 (III and IV) measured in turn 6 x 3 x 1.5 meters (18 square meters, 27 cubic meters): “For crematoriums 3 and 4 there were 2 other gas chambers which each measured 6 meters long, 3 wide, and one and a half high.”
The data supplied by Dr. Bendel are all false. According to the original plans of the crematoriums, the rooms which are supposed to have been “gas chambers” had the following dimensions:
CremasDesignationDimensionsAreaVolume
II and IIIMortuary cellar130x7x2.4210504
IV and V1. Room with “Binder”12.35×7.72×2.295.34209.75
 2. Room with “Lichte Höhe 2.00m”8.4×11.69×2.298.19216.03
 3. Room without designation11.69×3.7×2.243.2595.15
The capacity of the “gas chambers” described by Dr. Bendel was, if truth be told, surprising:
1,000 people were customarily put in each of the two large chambers and 500 in each of the two small ones.
This is impossible and contradictory. Impossible, since the two “gas chambers” of crematoriums II and III would have held – based on the surface area supplied by Dr. Bendel – 25 or 20 people per square meter, while those of crematoriums IV and V would have held 28 people per square meter! Contradictory, because Dr. Bendel asserts: “In crematoriums 1 and 2,2,000 each; in crematoriums 3 and 4, 1,000 each; and in the bunker 1,000.”
Cross-examined by the defense attorney on the possibility of cramming 1,000 people into a room of 64 cubic meters, Dr. Bendel gave an astonishing answer, which makes plain the deceitfulness and bad faith of this “eyewitness”:
Q: How is it possible to get 1,000 people into a room of 64 cubic meters?
A: That’s a good question. It could only be done with German technique.
Q: Do you seriously maintain that 10 people can be put in a space of half a cubic meter?
A: Four million people who were gassed at Auschwitz are the witnesses.
This ridiculous argumentation has been taken up by the court historians who obstinately close their eyes to the flagrant technical absurdities of the “gassings” and Cremations,” pretending that because the extermination of the jews occurred, it was therefore feasible. Thus the famous declaration of the 34 French historians:
It is not necessary to ask how, technically, such a mass murder was feasible. It was technically feasible because it took place.
Dr. Bendel describes the extraordinary German technique which allowed cramming 1,000 people into a room of forty square meters:
The people were so tightly packed in there that it was impossible to fit in even a single one more. It was great fun for the SS to throw in children over the heads of those packed closely into these rooms.
That was no longer possible, because the “gas chambers,” according to the “witness,” had a height of only 1.6 or 1.5 meters!
Thus it is evident that Dr. Bendel never set foot in the crematoriums at Birkenau and that what he says about the “gas chambers” is completely false.
Equally false is his description of the technique of “extermination” allegedly employed in Crematorium V. The “victims” undressed in the crematorium courtyard:
About twelve o’clock the new transport arrived, consisting of some 800 to 1000 people. These people had to undress themselves in the court of the crematorium and were promised a bath and hot coffee afterwards.
This contradicts the official “truth” about Auschwitz, according to which the “victims” undressed in special rooms referred to specifically as “changing rooms” in Exterminationist literature. On the original plan of Crematorium II, the alleged changing room is actually called “Leichenkeller 2”; on the plan of Crematorium IV, the alleged changing room is not so designated: on the plan appears solely the word Entluftung (aeration, ventilation).
From the courtyard of the crematorium the new transport entered the “gas chamber”: “One heard cries and shouts and they started to fight against each other, knocking on the walls.”
This is not possible, because in the “gas chamber,” according to Dr. Bendel, there were 28 persons per square meter, that is to say a density preventing all movement completely.
The “victims” died in two minutes; twenty minutes after the “gas chamber” was opened the men of the Sonderkommando went inside without gas masks – since Dr. Bendel says nothing of gas masks, either – and began to drag out the bodies:
This went on for two minutes and then there was complete silence. Five minutes later the doors were opened, but it was quite impossible to go in for another twenty minutes. Then the Special Kommandos started work.
This is impossible. Crematoriums IV and V did not have ventilation systems. The “gas chambers” were aired out simply by opening the doors to create a draft. Given the extreme toxicity of hydrocyanic acid, a room fumigated for disinfection must be aired for at least twenty hours. Thus it is evident that the men of the Sonderkommando, entering, after only twenty minutes’ aeration, “gas chambers” in which there lingered lethal concentrations of gas would themselves have been gassed.
Consequently, it is still more impossible that the Sonderkommando could have begun evacuating the corpses five minutes after the death of the “victims,” as Dr. Bendel anomalously asserts:
“For two interminable minutes, one heard blows against the walls, cries which had nothing human in them any longer. And then nothing. My head spun, I thought I had lost my mind. Of what abominable crimes were these women, these infants guilty that they had to die in so cruel a manner?”
Five minutes later the doors were opened. The heaped, contracted corpses tumbled out like a waterfall. A few were so intertwined that separating them required fantastic effort. Covered with blood, they appeared to have struggled desperately against death. One who has seen a gas chamber even only once can never forget it. The corpses, still warm, passed to the barber, who cut their hair, and the dentist, who pulled out their gold teeth.
Elsewhere, Dr. Bendel reports that the “victims” unable to enter completely filled “gas chambers” were shot in front of the cremation ditches:
During the time this is going on they continue to shoot people in front of these ditches, people who could not be got into the gas chambers because they were overcrowded.
This is also in contradiction with the official “truth” about Auschwitz, which says absolutely nothing about executions near these alleged ditches.
On this matter, Dr. Bendel asserts that during the period of maximum exterminations, Crematorium V was unable to deal with the enormous number of corpses, and so three cremation trenches were dug behind it for burning the bodies in the open:
In Crematorium No. 4 [V] the result which was achieved by burning was apparently not sufficient. The work was not going on quickly enough, so behind the crematorium they dug three large trenches 12 metres long and 6 metres wide.
This is wrong, as shown by the aerial photograph of Birkenau taken 26 June 1944, on which there appears not the least trace, anywhere in the camp, not merely of pyres, but of any smoke at all, including over the crematoria. Yet according to Dr. Bendel “during the month of June the number of gassed was 25,000 every day.”
Dr. Bendel’s claims on these phantom ditches are not merely wrong, but impossible. He asserts that “… in the middle of these big trenches they built two canals through which the human fat or grease should seep so that work could be continued in a quicker way.” In reality, corpses placed in a cremation trench (!) would have been charred, and, even if the fat had flowed off, it could not have collected in the bottom of the trench because it would have burned immediately owing to the high temperature of the pyre. For the same reason the men of the Sonderkommando would not have been able to come up to these 72-square-meter pyres to throw in the corpses of the “gassed” without being burnt themselves.
Here again, therefore, the “eyewitness” Charles Sigismund Bendel has lied.
Regarding the incineration capacity of the crematoriums, he asserts:
The corpses were then removed by the men of the Kommando and placed in an elevator which rose to the ground floor, where there were sixteen ovens. Their overall capacity was around two thousand corpses in twenty-four hours. The twin crematoriums 3 and 4 [IV and V] which were commonly called the “Forest Kremas” (being located in a pleasant clearing), were of more modest dimensions, with their eight ovens having a capacity for a thousand corpses in twenty-four hours.
This is wrong too (see note 18 of “Auschwitz: A Case of Plagiarism“). Had they been as efficient as those in a modern crematorium, the 46 muffles at Birkenau could have incinerated 946 to 1,325 corpses in 24 hours, i.e. an average of 1,104 corpses and not the 6,000 which Dr. Bendel has dreamed up.
As has been seen, our “eyewitness” states that in June 1944 25,000 people were gassed a day, which amounts to 750,000 for the entire month. But, contradictorily, he asserts that during the months of May and June 1944, 400,000 people were killed:
In May and tune 1944, a total of 400,000 people were gassed and in August around 100,000.
In still another contradiction with the above, Dr. Bendel claims that “from 15th July to 1st September, 80,000” people were gassed.
In any case it is absolutely impossible that in the month of June 1944 25,000 people per day were “gassed” for a total of 750,000 since, during this month, fewer than 70,000 persons were deported to Auschwitz.
As to the grand total of “victims,” Dr. Bendel asserts that the number “gassed” was “more than 4 million” but he contradicts himself by defining Birkenau as “the tomb of hundreds of thousands of victims brought from all corners of Europe.”
As is well known, the figure of four million, invented by the Soviets, is now considered incorrect, even by Exterminationist historiography.
Dr. Bendel claims that disinfection of personal clothing and barracks in the concentration camp was accomplished “chiefly with lisoform”, that is, with a substance ineffective against parasites. This is to avoid acknowledging that the alleged means of “extermination” in the “gas chambers,” Zyklon B. was in fact commonly used at Auschwitz, and in all the German concentration camps, for disinfection.
Finally, the Eyewitness testimony” of Dr. Bendel presents other deviations from the official “truth” about Auschwitz.
According to him, 17 tons(!) of gold teeth were extracted from the alleged 4 million corpses.
According to the historians of the Auschwitz Museum, 40 kg of gold teeth were collected from 16 to 31 May 1944 (29 transports of jews allegedly sent to the “gas chambers”). At that rate, 12,000 transports would have been necessary to obtain the 17 tons imagined by Dr. Bendel.
Dr. Bendel claims that 4,300 Gypsies were “gassed” at the end of July 1944. The Auschwitz Museum’s historians claim that the “gassing” of 2,897 Gypsies took place on 2 August 1944.
To believe Dr. Bendel, in the revolt of 7 October 1944, 500 men of the Sonderkommando were shot, more precisely 100 from Crematorium 1 (I) and 400 from Crematorium 3 (IV), which is false, since on 7 October 1944 the Sonderkommando of Crematorium IV consisted of only 169 men.
Bendel states that 200 other members of the Sonderkommando were gassed either on 7 or 27 September 1944, depending on which of his two testimonies is credited.
The four detainees accused of supplying the explosives to the Sonderkommando were hanged “in December 1944”, although, according to the historians of the Auschwitz Museum, this event took place on 6 January 1945.
In conclusion, Dr. Charles Sigismund Bendel has lied on every essential point of his Eyewitness testimony.
  1. The ‘Eyewitness’ Ada Bimko
The Polish-jewish physician Ada Bimko, deported to Auschwitz on 4 August 1943, compares to Dr. Bendel as a prosecution witness in The Belsen Trial.
During her testimony she related that in August 1944 she had been sent into a “gas chamber” at Birkenau to recover blankets left by the “gassing victims.” No sooner had she entered the crematorium than she had the good fortune to meet a member of the Sonderkommando who came from the same town as she; he described to her the ultrasecret installations for “extermination.” Here is her account:
“In the first room I met a man who came from the same town as I do. There was also an S.S. man with a rank of Unterscharfuhrer, and he belonged to the Red Cross. I was told that in the first big room the people left their clothes, and from this room were led into a second, and I gained the impression that hundreds and hundreds might go into this room, it was so large. It resembled the shower-baths or ablution rooms we had in the camp. There were many sprays all over the ceiling in rows which were parallel. All these people who went into this room were issued with a towel and a cake of soap, so that they should have the impression that they were going to have a bath, but for anybody who looked at the floor it was quite clear that it was not so because there were no drains. In this room there was a small door which opened to a room which was pitch dark and looked like a corridor. I saw a few lines of rails with a small wagon which they called a lorry, and I was told that prisoners who were already gassed were put on these wagons and sent directly to the crematorium. I believe the crematorium was in the same building, but I myself did not see the stove [sic!]. There was yet another room a few steps higher than the previous one with a very low ceiling, and I noticed two pipes which I was told contained the gas. There were also two huge metal containers containing gas.”
To summarize, from the changing room one could enter the “gas chamber” which opened on an adjacent room, resembling a corridor (the room with the rails), from which one passed into another room a few steps higher than the previous one and with a very low ceiling (the room with the gas containers).
If one compares this description with the original plans of the crematoriums, one notices that it is completely incorrect. Let us examine the material facts of the crematoriums II and III.
From the alleged “changing room” (Leichenkeller 2) one proceeds directly to Leichenkeller 3, and, by a corridor (Gang), to the anteroom (Vorraum), in which is located the elevator (Aufzug) and through which the alleged “gas chamber” (Leichenkeller 1) is entered. This entire sector of the crematoriums was underground, and on a single level.
The room with the rails and the room with the gas chambers did not exist. No underground room had rails leading directly to the oven room, which was on the ground level (the corpses were transported by the elevator). No room was several steps higher than the others or had a very low ceiling: Leichenkeller 1 was 2.30 meters high and Leichenkeller 2 was 2.40 meters in height.
Now let us examine crematoriums IV and V.
From the alleged changing room (designated Entlüftung, or ventilation, on the plan) across the anteroom (Vorraum) one enters the first of three adjacent alleged “gas chambers.” All these rooms were on the ground floor and on the same level. The room with the rails and the room with the gas containers were non-existent. No room had rails leading directly to the oven room; besides, these rails would have had to cross the alleged “changing room.” No room was several steps higher than the others, nor did any room have a very low ceiling; the lowest place in these two crematoriums measured 2.20 meters in height.
But the crowning absurdity of this “eyewitness testimony” is that Ada Bimko, not even aware that Zyklon B was contained in cans, speaks of pipes and of “huge metal containers containing gas,” as if the gas in question were methane!
Dr. Bimko gives to understand that the gas passed from the metal containers into the pipes and came out the shower sprays into the “gas chamber.”
Another member of the Sonderkommando reported to Dr. Bimko that “in this gas chamber” “about four million” jews were “gassed.”
In fine, Dr. Ada Bimko never set foot in any of the crematoriums at Birkenau and her “eyewitness testimony” on this subject is completely fabricated.
It is therefore not surprising that our “eyewitness” doesn’t even know how many crematoriums there were:
Auschwitz was divided into a number of camps and the five crematoria were in a portion called Birkenau, of which Kramer was commandant.
Dr. Bimko’s other lies complete the tableau of her perjury:
I remember that 1st December, 1943, was a day of very large scale selections. Typhus was rampant throughout the camp and there were in the hospital 4124 sick jewish women. Of this number 4000 were selected for the crematorium and only 124 remained.
In fact, according to the Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau (Calendar of Events in the Concentration Camp Auschwitz-Birkenau), no selection was made in the hospitals on that date.
On 27th July I remember that all those who were even suspected, who were not yet in hospital, were sent to the gas chamber. On that day big transports came in from a concentration camp called Litzmannstadt and there were quite a few cases of typhoid fever.
As we have seen, however, the first transport of jews from the Litzmannstadt (in Polish, Lodz) ghetto arrived at Auschwitz on 15 August 1944.
Dr. Ada Bimko, therefore, has also lied on all the essential points of her “eyewitness testimony.”

Featured Post

I Need Some Help......

Go Fund Me   Photos of the damages to my home   Photos of my home before the damages   First, let me thank anyone who is reading this very p...

Popular Posts This Week