The CODOH Revisionist Forum

After reading this statement from Nessie on a recent thread:

Nessie wrote:The extraordinary pattern, is the revisionist claim that 100% of the eyewitnesses lied. Nazi and Jew, German, Polish, French, Hungarian and Greeks all conspired together and not one single person who worked at the Kremas, has told the truth.

Nessie is clearly under the impression that "no Nazis ever denied the Holocaust"; a claim easily and repeatedly debunked. For example (from my time as 'Callahan' on the old CODOH forum in 2013):

Callahan wrote:I only briefly read the original post but this exact topic came up in a debate I was involved in with Nick Terry about a year ago on the JREF forum. I was able to dig up a few examples:

This is what happened to Germans who didn't support the 'Holocaust' narrative:

Birkenau Commandant Josef Kramer was ultimately hanged:

I have heard of the allegations of former prisoners in Auschwitz referring to a gas chamber there, the mass executions and whippings, the cruelty of the guards employed and that all this took place either in my presence or with my knowledge. All I can say to all this is that it is untrue from beginning to end.

Julius Streicher wasn't even a member of the military nor did he take part in planning the 'Holocaust'. He was hanged for statements such as these:

To this day I do not believe that 5 million were killed. I consider it technically impossible that that could have happened. I do not believe it. I have not received proof of that up until now.

SS Ernst Kaltenbrunner was also hanged for his "denial":

Show me one of those men or any of those orders. It is utterly impossible.

...as was SS Hans Aumeier:

I know nothing about any gas chambers and no detainee was gassed during my tour of duty.

Alfred Rosenberg was hung, as well:

But that there was an order for the individual annihilation of the entire Jewry, I could not assume... it was not interpreted as an individual extermination, an individual annihilation of millions of Jews.

It gets even deeper:

- Auschwitz Commandant Richard Baer was the only defendant who did not appear at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial in 1963. Though in perfect health, he died "in a highly mysterious way" while in prison before the trial had begun. This is of particular interest because a Paris newspaper had 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.

- Deputy Commandant Gustav Franz Wagner lived in Brazil after the war. After Simon Wiesenthal initiated a hunt for a man falsely identified as him, the real Wagner voluntarily handed himself over to the Brazil special police. Wagner reportedly told police “I never saw any gas chamber at Sobibor”. A year later Wagner allegedly committed suicide by stabbing himself to death in the bathroom of his rural home.

- There were also mysterious pre-trial "suicides" of Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Hitler, Odilo Globocnik and several others.

As over-cited as he may be, Rudolf Hoess probably deserved better than what he got:

Psychologically I was almost cut in pieces. They wanted to know all about everything, and this was also done by Jews. They left me in no doubt whatever as to the fate that was in store for me.

Whatever they did to him, it worked. He blamed himself for crimes he wasn't even aware of:

Since I was Commandant of the extermination camp Auschwitz I was totally responsible for everything that happened there, whether I knew about it or not. Most of the terrible and horrible things that took place there I learned only during this investigation and during the trial itself. I cannot describe how I was deceived, how my directives were twisted, and all the things they had carried out supposedly under my orders.

Oswald Pohl dealt with similar problems:

As result of the brutal physical mistreatment in Nenndorf and my treatment in Nuremberg, I was emotionally a completely broken man. I was 54 years old. For 33 years I had served by country without dishonor, and I was unconscious of any crime.

Pohl had to say about the general character of postwar trials against German leaders:

It was obvious during the Dachau trials, and it also came out unmistakably and only poorly disguised during the Nuremberg trials, that the prosecution authorities, among whom Jews predominated, were driven by blind hatred and obvious lust for revenge. Their goal was not the search for truth but rather the annihilation of as many adversaries as possible.

Both Pohl and Hoess were executed by hanging.

Once subsequently-tried German officials "got the picture", the only dependable option became acknowledging 'extermination' while denying involvement. This became the standard for SS confessions.

More examples and discussion: https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... c34a4.html

So-called revisionists constantly prove that they cannot grasp the simple concept of what makes an eyewitness. The clue is in the word, "eye". Listing people who worked at A-B, but not inside the Kremas, is not a list of eyewitnesses, as they did not see, with their eyes, what happened inside. It is quite incredible how easily so-called revisionists confuse hearsay with eyewitness evidence.

That ineptness is followed up by another error. None of the witnesses listed, provide any evidence, that the Kremas were used for a purpose other than gassings. The accused defence is one of a lack of involvement in, or responsibility for, rather than an alternative purpose. If a person was accused of murdering someone, and they know that person was not killed and where they went to, the accused would use that as their defence. Or, if they knew what the Kremas were really used for, which was not mass murder, they would say. So-called revisionists, with their supposed scepticism, never think to be sceptical about the witnesses never evidencing what really happened.

The list is of people who deny knowledge or express disbelief of the use of gas chambers. No one is so naive to think that people accused of a crime, especially a serious crime, will lie and deceive about their involvement. Or, they genuinely were not responsible, or involved in the gassings. When Nazis were put on trial by the British or Americans, their claims about no responsibility were less inclined to be accepted, than when they were put on trial in West Germany. German attitudes also changed over the years, whereby people with minor roles at the camps, who had not been put on trial, or had been given minor punishments, would later be tried and more severely punished. Appeals to a lack of responsibility became less acceptable.

It clearly causes so-called revisionists discomfort, that they deny any eyewitness who worked inside the Kremas, is telling the truth. It is that attitude why I am now reluctant to accept the term revisionist, as they are not revising history. They are denying it.

It remains correct to say that no Nazi who worked at the Kremas, denied they were used for gassings and instead, described a process such as showering, delousing, sheltering from bombs or storing corpses. The so-called revisionist, attempts to revise history, are not supported by a single Nazi.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 8:29 am So-called revisionists constantly prove that they cannot grasp the simple concept of what makes an eyewitness. The clue is in the word, "eye". Listing people who worked at A-B, but not inside the Kremas, is not a list of eyewitnesses, as they did not see, with their eyes, what happened inside. It is quite incredible how easily so-called revisionists confuse hearsay with eyewitness evidence.
....

I think Nessie is projecting.
Isn't it rather the other way round that Exterminationists have a misconception of what an eyewitness to the Holocaust would be, if they really existed? Frequently they think someone that says he was interned in Auschwitz would be an 'eyewitness to the Holocaust'... even if they themselves don't even claim to have witnessed any homicidal gassings or other forms of killing.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 8:29 am So-called revisionists constantly prove that they cannot grasp the simple concept of what makes an eyewitness. The clue is in the word, "eye". Listing people who worked at A-B, but not inside the Kremas, is not a list of eyewitnesses, as they did not see, with their eyes, what happened inside. It is quite incredible how easily so-called revisionists confuse hearsay with eyewitness evidence.

You just posted a thread of supposedly hundreds of "direct" witnesses to gassings, virtually none of which actually personally saw gassings. You're a lying hypocrite.

As for German SS witnesses who denied gassings (or denied an extermination program more generally), they obviously do not need to have personally participated in a gassing to be able to deny that any such activity was going on, because they would have been aware of the existence of the program, especially if they worked in Auschwitz. Their denials carry a lot of weight. The witnesses named in the OP would have known about exterminations regardless of whether they personally participated in it or not. Are you seriously going to deny that Kramer, Aumeier, Rosenberg, Goering, Kaltenbrunner and Pohl were just innocently unaware of gassings, and their denials are therefore worthless?

Your hypocricy in this regard is also reflective of how the extermination hypothesis is being carefully immunized against falsification by moving the goalpost and creating intentional catch-22 scenarios. On the one hand, if gassings did not happen at Auschwitz, the SS in the camp obviously would not have witnessed any of it (hence, they are not direct eyewitnesses because it didn't happen), but if it did happen, their denials are still worthless because they allegedly did not personally see a gassing!

That ineptness is followed up by another error. None of the witnesses listed, provide any evidence, that the Kremas were used for a purpose other than gassings.

This is just another proof that you don't hold witnesses to the same standard depending on whether they affirm your personal biases or not. An SS man from Auschwitz who denied gassings took place while he was stationed at the camp is supposedly insufficient evidence because he didn't provide any additional evidence (he didn't bring with him documents from the camp to refute a post-hoc allegation against him?) that the very specific claim of "gas chambers inside Leichenkeller 1 of Crematoria II and III" was in fact not true. Bear in mind, for many of these witnesses, the specific allegations that we know of today, namely that the Morgue 1 in Crematoria II and III were secretely converted into gas chambers, was never articulated in any specific way. All they were expected to confess was that gassings took place. So for them to, on the spot, provide evidence for the specific use of the morgues according to your 2025 understanding of the Holohoax, is a fallacy, ironically known as the Historian's fallacy.

Hektor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 10:28 am
I think Nessie is projecting.
Isn't it rather the other way round that Exterminationists have a misconception of what an eyewitness to the Holocaust would be, if they really existed? Frequently they think someone that says he was interned in Auschwitz would be an 'eyewitness to the Holocaust'... even if they themselves don't even claim to have witnessed any homicidal gassings or other forms of killing.

Absolutely - similar to the phrase "Holocaust survivor". If we are being honest a Holocaust survivor should be reserved for a person who:

- Was shoved into a gas chamber, the Kula columns loaded up, doors locked, and due to a miscalculation the HcN concentrations only hit 299 ppm so he miraculously survived and went about his day, OR
- Was laid out in the the sardine formation and the bullet grazed his earlobe but he had the composure and wherewithal to play dead and be buried and dig himself back up from the soil and go about his day

Hektor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 10:28 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 8:29 am So-called revisionists constantly prove that they cannot grasp the simple concept of what makes an eyewitness. The clue is in the word, "eye". Listing people who worked at A-B, but not inside the Kremas, is not a list of eyewitnesses, as they did not see, with their eyes, what happened inside. It is quite incredible how easily so-called revisionists confuse hearsay with eyewitness evidence.
....

I think Nessie is projecting.
Isn't it rather the other way round that Exterminationists have a misconception of what an eyewitness to the Holocaust would be, if they really existed? Frequently they think someone that says he was interned in Auschwitz would be an 'eyewitness to the Holocaust'... even if they themselves don't even claim to have witnessed any homicidal gassings or other forms of killing.

Someone who was imprisoned, or worked at A-B, but who did not work at the Kremas, is an eyewitness to the Holocaust, but not the gassings. If they worked in Canada, they were an eyewitness to the mass theft of property. If they worked in Monowitz, they were an eyewitness to the use of slave labour. They will have been eyewitnesses to the mass transports to the camp and the selection process and the death marches when the camp closed down.

If someone who worked inside the Kremas, spoke about the work in Canada, that would hearsay. If someone who worked inside Canada spoke about inside the Kremas, that would be hearsay.

It is so simple, but revisionists just cannot grasp the two main forms of witness evidence.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:15 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 8:29 am So-called revisionists constantly prove that they cannot grasp the simple concept of what makes an eyewitness. The clue is in the word, "eye". Listing people who worked at A-B, but not inside the Kremas, is not a list of eyewitnesses, as they did not see, with their eyes, what happened inside. It is quite incredible how easily so-called revisionists confuse hearsay with eyewitness evidence.

You just posted a thread of supposedly hundreds of "direct" witnesses to gassings, virtually none of which actually personally saw gassings. You're a lying hypocrite.

I included Das Prussian's introduction, where he makes it clear that he accepts there will be disputes about what counts as a direct witness. If you had read a few posts on, I say "It was not my list and a few names on it, I would not have included, such as Vrba, or anyone who did not work inside the Kremas.". So, I am not a hypocrite, since I think some names should not be there. You are lying when you claim virtually none saw a gassing.

As for German SS witnesses who denied gassings (or denied an extermination program more generally),

They denied knowing about, or participating in, gassings. They do not outright deny gassings ever happened and say what really did take place.

... they obviously do not need to have personally participated in a gassing to be able to deny that any such activity was going on, because they would have been aware of the existence of the program, especially if they worked in Auschwitz. Their denials carry a lot of weight. The witnesses named in the OP would have known about exterminations regardless of whether they personally participated in it or not. Are you seriously going to deny that Kramer, Aumeier, Rosenberg, Goering, Kaltenbrunner and Pohl were just innocently unaware of gassings, and their denials are therefore worthless?

They are examples of the denial of knowledge or participation. Significantly, a significance so-called revisionists refuse to acknowledge, is that none of them provide any evidence that would mean the mass murder narrative has to be revised and to what it should be revised to.

Your hypocricy in this regard is also reflective of how the extermination hypothesis is being carefully immunized against falsification by moving the goalpost and creating intentional catch-22 scenarios. On the one hand, if gassings did not happen at Auschwitz, the SS in the camp obviously would not have witnessed any of it (hence, they are not direct eyewitnesses because it didn't happen), but if it did happen, their denials are still worthless because they allegedly did not personally see a gassing!

If gassings did not happen, then there would have been camp staff who knew what the Kremas were used for, what happened inside the part of the camp called Canada, used to sort all the prisoners stolen property and where those not selected for work were sent to. Between them, they would have provided extensive, corroborated eyewitness evidence, as to the real operation of the camp.

But they don't.

That ineptness is followed up by another error. None of the witnesses listed, provide any evidence, that the Kremas were used for a purpose other than gassings.

This is just another proof that you don't hold witnesses to the same standard depending on whether they affirm your personal biases or not. An SS man from Auschwitz who denied gassings took place while he was stationed at the camp is supposedly insufficient evidence because he didn't provide any additional evidence (he didn't bring with him documents from the camp to refute a post-hoc allegation against him?) that the very specific claim of "gas chambers inside Leichenkeller 1 of Crematoria II and III" was in fact not true. Bear in mind, for many of these witnesses, the specific allegations that we know of today, namely that the Morgue 1 in Crematoria II and III were secretely converted into gas chambers, was never articulated in any specific way. All they were expected to confess was that gassings took place. So for them to, on the spot, provide evidence for the specific use of the morgues according to your 2025 understanding of the Holohoax, is a fallacy, ironically known as the Historian's fallacy.

The "SS man from Auschwitz" who denied the Kremas were used for gassings, and states what they were used for, does not exist. The "SS man from Auschwitz" who denied gassings, denies knowledge of, or responsibility for gassings, and not that gassings did not take place and what happened instead. They don't need to provide other evidence, that is an unrealistic expectation, you have straw manned. They would be able to states sources of other evidence, such as the names of other staff and Sonderkommandos, or where documents could be located.

Not one single member of camp staff, or contractors, such as the Topf & Sons engineers does that.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:56 am

Hektor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 10:28 am
I think Nessie is projecting.
Isn't it rather the other way round that Exterminationists have a misconception of what an eyewitness to the Holocaust would be, if they really existed? Frequently they think someone that says he was interned in Auschwitz would be an 'eyewitness to the Holocaust'... even if they themselves don't even claim to have witnessed any homicidal gassings or other forms of killing.

Absolutely - similar to the phrase "Holocaust survivor". If we are being honest a Holocaust survivor should be reserved for a person who:

- Was shoved into a gas chamber, the Kula columns loaded up, doors locked, and due to a miscalculation the HcN concentrations only hit 299 ppm so he miraculously survived and went about his day, OR
- Was laid out in the the sardine formation and the bullet grazed his earlobe but he had the composure and wherewithal to play dead and be buried and dig himself back up from the soil and go about his day

Strictly speaking less, but as for the vast majority of Holocaust survivors, there were no real attempts to kill them. And most weren't even interned. And to illustrate this a little more: "If the Holocaust didn't happen, why are there so many Holocaust Survivors?".... Now let that sink sin for a while.

Thank you for again highlighting that not one single Nazi who worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or at an A-B Krema, denied they were used for gassings, or provided any evidence as to what they were used for.

Kaltenbrunner and Pohl did say it happened. It's understandable that people may lie about involvement in crimes, but these two didn't maintain even that. I don't think any Nazi who was tried and who had evidenced involvement denied to the end.

Testimony of Hans Fritzsche, Ministerialdirektor in the Third Reich’s Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda.

Hans began his broadcasting career in 1932, and a year later his agency was incorporated into the Propaganda Ministry headed by Joseph Goebbels, at which time he also became a member of the NSDAP (Nazi) Party. He became head of the ministry's Press Division in 1938, and head of the Radio Division in 1942. He was the preeminent German broadcaster of his time, as part of efforts to present a more popular and entertaining side of the NSDAP government, and his voice was recognised by the majority of Germans.
… Fritzsche was present in the Berlin Führerbunker during the last days of Adolf Hitler. After Hitler's death, he surrendered to the Red Army. He was indicted for war crimes in the Nuremberg trials before the International Military Tribunal but was acquitted of all charges. Yet in January 1947, a German ’denazification’ court sentenced him to nine years of hard labour.
He was finally released under an amnesty in 1950 but died three years later.
~ Wikipedia

DR. FRITZ: Herr Fritzsche, I should like to put two more general questions to you on this topic. During the last period of the war, did you not try to find out something about the final fate of the Jews?

FRITZSCHE: Yes. I made the most of an opportunity to which I will refer briefly later on. I asked a colleague of Obergruppenfuehrer Glucks, in Oranienburg-Sachsenhausen, about the Jews. Briefly summarized, his answer was as follows: The Jews were under the special protection of the Reichsführer-SS who wished to make a political deal with them. He looked upon them as a kind of hostages and he did not wish a single hair from their heads to be harmed.

DR. FRITZ: Some of the Prosecution's witnesses have asserted during this Trial that the German public knew about these murders. Now I just want to ask you, as a journalist who worked in the National Socialist State, what was, as far as you know, the attitude of the broad mass of the German people to the Jews? Did the people know about the murder of the Jews? Please be brief.

FRITZSCHE: Leaving out all those matters which have already been mentioned at this Trial, I should like to mention only a few observations which to me seem important. I shall omit the period shortly after the first World War, which has already been described, during which certain anti-Semitic feelings were popular in Germany. I should like to state only that in 1933 at the time of the Jewish boycott, which was organised by the NSDAP, the sympathies of the German people clearly turned again in favour of the Jews. For a number of years the Party tried hard to prevent the public from buying in Jewish stores. Finally they even had to resort to threats. A profound and decisive factor in this development was the promulgating of the Nuremberg Laws. As a result of these the fight against the Jews was taken for the first time out of the sphere of pure agitation, that is, the kind of agitation from which one could remain aloof, and, shifted to the field of State Police.

At that time a deep feeling of fear ran through the German people, for now dissension spread even to individual families. At that time many human tragedies resulted, tragedies which were obvious to many, probably to everyone, and there was only one justification for these racial laws. There was only one excuse for them and one explanation; that was the assertion and the hope: ‘Well, now that the separation of the two peoples is being carried out, although painfully, there will at last be an end to the wild and unbridled agitation; and due to this separation there will be peace where formerly only unrest reigned’.

When the Jews were forced to wear the emblem of a star and when, for instance, in Berlin they were prohibited from occupying seats on streetcars, the German people openly took sides with the Jews and it happened again and again that Jews were ostentatiously offered seats. In this connection I heard several declarations by Dr. Goebbels, who was extremely bitter about this undesired effect of the marking of the Jews.

I, as a journalist who worked during that period, am firmly convinced that the German people were unaware of the mass murders of the Jews and assertions to that effect were considered rumours; and reports which reached the German people from outside were officially denied again and again. As these documents are not in my possession, I cannot quote from memory individual cases of denial; but one case I do remember with particular clearness. That was the moment when the Russians, after they recaptured Kharkov, started legal proceedings during which killing by gas was mentioned for the first time.
I ran to Dr. Goebbels with these reports and asked him about the facts. He stated he would have the matter investigated and would discuss it with Himmler and with Hitler.
The next day he sent me notice of denial. This denial was not made public; and the reason stated was that in German legal proceedings it is necessary to state in a much plainer manner matters that need clarification. However, Dr. Goebbels explicitly informed me that the gas vans mentioned in the Russian legal proceeding were pure invention and that there was no actual proof to support it.

DR. FRITZ: Did you know anything about the conditions in the concentration camps? Did you speak to anyone who had ever been in a concentration camp?

FRITZSCHE: Yes. Even as early as 1933 or 1934 I spoke to a journalist who had been interned for a few weeks in the Oranienburg concentration camp, which was the old Oranienburg camp. He informed me that he himself had not been tortured but that he had seen and heard how others had been beaten and how their fingers had deliberately been squeezed in a door.

DR. FRITZ: Did you just accept these reports and do nothing about them? ~

FRITZSCHE: Quite the contrary! I made quite a row. This journalist — I believe his name was Stolzenberg, as far as I remember — did not wish to have his name mentioned. I wrote three letters, one to Dr. Goebbels (and he informed me that he would look into the matter), another letter to Frick as Minister of the Interior, and one to Göring as Prussian Prime Minister.

Senior officials from both these offices rang me up and told me that an investigation was being carried out. A short time afterwards, I heard that this old camp Oranienburg had been dissolved and that the commander had been sentenced to death. This was a report given to me by a Herr Von Lutzow, who was press reporter for Diels or Diehl, who at that time was chief of the State Police.

DR. FRITZ: After this first successful protest against ill-treatment, did you receive any further reports about atrocities in concentration camps? '

FRITZSCHE: No. I received no further reports about ill-treatment. On the contrary, I frequently made individual inquiries of members of the Gestapo or of the press section of the Reichsfuehrer SS. All of the individuals whom I asked declared the following: beastliness in the concentration camps only occurred in 1933 or at the beginning of 1934 at the time when these camps were guarded by members of the SA, who had no profession… that is to say, by those members of the SA who had the whole day at their disposal, and some of them were far from being the best type of men. In this connection I was told further that the 30th of June signified that a purge had taken place. The 30th of June had removed those Gauleiter and those SA leaders who had abused their power. They declared finally that the concentration camps were now being guarded by the SS, who had engaged professional guards, professional administrators and officials expert in dealing with criminal matters, and prison control officials. I was told that this would be a guarantee against abuses.

~ Pages 179-182 | Friday 28th June 1946 | morning session | Nuremburg | ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SIXTH DAY

Wahrheitssucher wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 5:06 pm ...

DR. FRITZ: Herr Fritzsche, I should like to put two more general questions to you on this topic. During the last period of the war, did you not try to find out something about the final fate of the Jews?

FRITZSCHE: Yes. I made the most of an opportunity to which I will refer briefly later on. I asked a colleague of Obergruppenfuehrer Glucks, in Oranienburg-Sachsenhausen, about the Jews. Briefly summarized, his answer was as follows: The Jews were under the special protection of the Reichsführer-SS who wished to make a political deal with them. He looked upon them as a kind of hostages and he did not wish a single hair from their heads to be harmed.

That refers to the few hundred thousand Jews still alive in the camps in 1945.

DR. FRITZ: Some of the Prosecution's witnesses have asserted during this Trial that the German public knew about these murders. Now I just want to ask you, as a journalist who worked in the National Socialist State, what was, as far as you know, the attitude of the broad mass of the German people to the Jews? Did the people know about the murder of the Jews? Please be brief.

FRITZSCHE: Leaving out all those matters which have already been mentioned at this Trial, I should like to mention only a few observations which to me seem important. I shall omit the period shortly after the first World War, which has already been described, during which certain anti-Semitic feelings were popular in Germany. I should like to state only that in 1933 at the time of the Jewish boycott, which was organised by the NSDAP, the sympathies of the German people clearly turned again in favour of the Jews. For a number of years the Party tried hard to prevent the public from buying in Jewish stores. Finally they even had to resort to threats. A profound and decisive factor in this development was the promulgating of the Nuremberg Laws. As a result of these the fight against the Jews was taken for the first time out of the sphere of pure agitation, that is, the kind of agitation from which one could remain aloof, and, shifted to the field of State Police.

At that time a deep feeling of fear ran through the German people, for now dissension spread even to individual families. At that time many human tragedies resulted, tragedies which were obvious to many, probably to everyone, and there was only one justification for these racial laws. There was only one excuse for them and one explanation; that was the assertion and the hope: ‘Well, now that the separation of the two peoples is being carried out, although painfully, there will at last be an end to the wild and unbridled agitation; and due to this separation there will be peace where formerly only unrest reigned’.

When the Jews were forced to wear the emblem of a star and when, for instance, in Berlin they were prohibited from occupying seats on streetcars, the German people openly took sides with the Jews and it happened again and again that Jews were ostentatiously offered seats. In this connection I heard several declarations by Dr. Goebbels, who was extremely bitter about this undesired effect of the marking of the Jews.

That is evidence of motive.

I, as a journalist who worked during that period, am firmly convinced that the German people were unaware of the mass murders of the Jews and assertions to that effect were considered rumours; and reports which reached the German people from outside were officially denied again and again. As these documents are not in my possession, I cannot quote from memory individual cases of denial; but one case I do remember with particular clearness. That was the moment when the Russians, after they recaptured Kharkov, started legal proceedings during which killing by gas was mentioned for the first time.
I ran to Dr. Goebbels with these reports and asked him about the facts. He stated he would have the matter investigated and would discuss it with Himmler and with Hitler.
The next day he sent me notice of denial. This denial was not made public; and the reason stated was that in German legal proceedings it is necessary to state in a much plainer manner matters that need clarification. However, Dr. Goebbels explicitly informed me that the gas vans mentioned in the Russian legal proceeding were pure invention and that there was no actual proof to support it.

That was the senior Nazi plan, to keep as much of the Holocaust as secret as possible.

DR. FRITZ: Did you know anything about the conditions in the concentration camps? Did you speak to anyone who had ever been in a concentration camp?

FRITZSCHE: Yes. Even as early as 1933 or 1934 I spoke to a journalist who had been interned for a few weeks in the Oranienburg concentration camp, which was the old Oranienburg camp. He informed me that he himself had not been tortured but that he had seen and heard how others had been beaten and how their fingers had deliberately been squeezed in a door.

DR. FRITZ: Did you just accept these reports and do nothing about them? ~

FRITZSCHE: Quite the contrary! I made quite a row. This journalist — I believe his name was Stolzenberg, as far as I remember — did not wish to have his name mentioned. I wrote three letters, one to Dr. Goebbels (and he informed me that he would look into the matter), another letter to Frick as Minister of the Interior, and one to Göring as Prussian Prime Minister.

Senior officials from both these offices rang me up and told me that an investigation was being carried out. A short time afterwards, I heard that this old camp Oranienburg had been dissolved and that the commander had been sentenced to death. This was a report given to me by a Herr Von Lutzow, who was press reporter for Diels or Diehl, who at that time was chief of the State Police.

Evidence of what would happen to a journalist who stepped out of line. The Nazis were prepared to use violence to achieve their aims.

DR. FRITZ: After this first successful protest against ill-treatment, did you receive any further reports about atrocities in concentration camps? '

FRITZSCHE: No. I received no further reports about ill-treatment. On the contrary, I frequently made individual inquiries of members of the Gestapo or of the press section of the Reichsfuehrer SS. All of the individuals whom I asked declared the following: beastliness in the concentration camps only occurred in 1933 or at the beginning of 1934 at the time when these camps were guarded by members of the SA, who had no profession… that is to say, by those members of the SA who had the whole day at their disposal, and some of them were far from being the best type of men. In this connection I was told further that the 30th of June signified that a purge had taken place. The 30th of June had removed those Gauleiter and those SA leaders who had abused their power. They declared finally that the concentration camps were now being guarded by the SS, who had engaged professional guards, professional administrators and officials expert in dealing with criminal matters, and prison control officials. I was told that this would be a guarantee against abuses.

~ Pages 179-182 | Friday 28th June 1946 | morning session | Nuremburg | ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SIXTH DAY

No evidence is produced, of millions of Jews still alive in 1944-5. Instead, Fritzsche is one of many who claimed ignorance.

Fact is, so-called revisionists cannot produce a single Nazi eyewitness to events inside the AR camps, Chelmno or the A-B Kremas, to prove they were used for a purpose other than gassings, and by 1944, there were millions of Jews in camps and ghettos.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 6:31 am
Fact is, so-called revisionists cannot produce a single Nazi eyewitness to events inside the AR camps, Chelmno or the A-B Kremas, to prove they were used for a purpose other than gassings, and by 1944, there were millions of Jews in camps and ghettos.

Thies Christophersen, Wilhelm Stäglich and Maria Van Herwaarden prove otherwise.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 04, 2025 11:43 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 6:31 am
Fact is, so-called revisionists cannot produce a single Nazi eyewitness to events inside the AR camps, Chelmno or the A-B Kremas, to prove they were used for a purpose other than gassings, and by 1944, there were millions of Jews in camps and ghettos.

Thies Christophersen, Wilhelm Stäglich and Maria Van Herwaarden prove otherwise.

None were eyewitnesses to the inside of an AR camp, Chelmno or the Kremas, or provide any evidence of millions of Jews still alive in 1944.

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 6:36 am
None were eyewitnesses to the inside of an AR camp, Chelmno or the Kremas, or provide any evidence of millions of Jews still alive in 1944.

And what guarantees that they are less qualified to say anything about what you think happened? After all, they were in the field, they could have said that there were hordes heading towards the Kremas and no one leaving, but that is not what they say they saw, and this even comes from witnesses who were there on the Kremas side in the barracks.