Germany's 87 Year Old Ursula Haverbeck Is Sentenced to 10 Months in Prison for Doubting the "Facts" of the Holocaust Myth
[Editor's Note: April 4, 2016. On November 12, 2015, 87 year old Ursula Haverbeck was sentenced in Germany by Magistrate Bjoern Joensson to 10 months in prison for "sedition" due to her unwillingness to accept "the facts" of the Holocaust story. Her "sedition" trial came in the wake of a brilliant March 14, 2015Panorama German TV interview (see further below) with Mrs Haverbeck in which she convincingly reviewed the lack of proof that anybody, let alone "millions" of Jews, was gassed to death at Auschwitz, despite 70 years of unrelenting and ubiquitous Organized Jewish propaganda to the contrary. At her sentencing, Magistrate Joensson told her: "It is futile to argue with people who do not accept the facts." Frau Haverbeck had, up to now, always defended herself in court and has not used a lawyer. She said she would appeal the sentencing.
I began to realize that there were big problems with the Auschwitz gas shower and crematorium story with the 1992 Youtube videos of Jewish film maker David Cole (later outed by a vindictive ex-girlfriend on April 20, 2013 as David Stein) which I saw online in the late 1990s. After reading many articles and watching numerous videos, it became obvious that the entire story of mass gassing of people and the burning of corpes, around the clock at Auschwitz, was a compete fabrication and had no real evidence to support it. Yes, plenty of innocent people died at Auschwitz, but the "shower" gassing and burning of millons of bodies, day and night, is Zionist propaganda that has been throughly debunked by historical revisionists like Robert Faurisson and Germar Rudolf.]
November 15, 2015,
Where did the murder by gassing of six million (or at least, millions) of Jews take place?
For five years now I have been asking this question — and waiting, in vain, for an answer. Perhaps you will think that it is rather remarkable that I should even pose this question.
Why do I do it?
The Holocaust is self-evident, after all: everyone knows that six million Jews were gassed, above all in Auschwitz. And yet, precisely in the past twenty to twenty-five years, this claim has become ever more questionable.
First, through the reduction of the number of victims in Auschwitz itself. It was there — and this in the public news programming of ZDF TV —on the 8th of October, 1993, in the open view of all citizens, that the old memorial tablet with its "Four Million Murdered" was taken down and replaced with a new tablet with only "About One and a Half Million." And in a debate afterwards, Jews, Poles and Gypsies quarreled over who had the biggest share among these victims. An explanation or even an apology to the German people for having, for decades, accused them with a false number was nowhere to be heard.
Secondly, through an article published by "Der Spiegel" editor Fritjof Meyer in a respected scholarly journal, namely "Osteuropa" [Eastern Europe], in May 2002, in which, taking note of new discoveries resulting from the emergence of previously unknown documents, etc., he comes to the conclusion that in Auschwitz itself no one at all was gassed. And it's certainly not one and a half million either, but at the most — Mr. Meyer is very careful— in a subcamp of Auschwitz, in Birkenau, and even there, outside the camp itself, in a farmhouse (the foundations of which, curiously, have only recently been discovered) around ("presumably," he says) 365,000 Jews were gassed.
That too, thus, an open question.
And amazingly, Mr. Meyer has never been prosecuted or indicted or denounced to the police for "trivialization" of the Holocaust.
And thirdly — and this really is new for all of us, though it was published back in 2000 —the book "Garrison and Commandant Orders" from the Institute for Contemporary History, a collection of material which had been stored away in Moscow ever since Auschwitz was overrun by the Russians, by the Red Army, and which now was made available to the Institute for Contemporary History.
And already by the year 2000, the Institute for Contemporary History had deemed it necessary to publish it. This is quite a thick book [624 pages], mind you, and it costs the tidy little sum, today in Euros, of €124 (now €150, USD $170]. But you can order it, and you can ask for it in the library too and study it there.
From these "Commandant orders" in which the instructions from the administration at Auschwitz to the guard staff were laid down complete with dates, numbers and so on, all very precise as is usual with German officialdom, telling the guards what they are to do. It emerges clearly and undeniably, plain to see, that Auschwitz was NOT an extermination camp, but rather a work camp in which people were to be kept as fit for work as possible in order for them to work in the munitions industries which were necessary for the war effort. Naturally, with the continuous worsening of transportation conditions and the like, and of course the events of the war itself, it became ever more difficult to care for a large number of people in such a camp. But it was, and remained, a work camp and not an extermination camp. And that's precisely what, from the beginning, those who served there have always insisted.
Now finally, one might think, there would have to be a public explanation and a reconsideration, as well, of all the trials in which Germans have been condemned because they doubted that Auschwitz was an extermination camp: here now we have the confirmation that they were right. But once more nothing happened.
To this day, some of these people are still in prison. All that should cause any thinking person to ask the question:
If people are still being imprisoned because the murder of the six million Jews is "self-evident" well then, where were they murdered?
You need to tell us that.
And that led me to write with this question, repeatedly, to the Central Council of Jews in Germany, to whom I have written three times in succession in the last five years and asked this question;
- then to the German Association of Judges;
- to the Chief Justices of the Regional and Higher Regional Courts;
to the Prosecutor General's Offices of the sixteen German States;
and now also to the Ministry of Justice
Since, I have received from these other institutions — and these are all public,
no answer to this question.
Quite plainly, none of the people written to and questioned knows where six million Jews were gassed, or even simply murdered. That leaves, for a thinking person, only one conclusion: they have no answer.
There is no answer, and why? Because there was no Holocaust. Since this murder is supposed to be "self-evident"— as the courts to this day never tire of emphasizing and holding up to us over and over— one cannot now go on about some kind of "order to maintain secrecy" [i.e.,preventing us from knowing more] and a retreat back to a drastically reduced number of victims is also impossible, for then, the singularity, the uniqueness, the unforgivable scope of the greatest crime of all time would be called into question.
We need merely think of the victims of the Rhine Meadows Camps, of Dresden, Hiroshima . . .
and the huge number of victims, more than 2,500,000, during the expulsion of the Germans from the East.
No valid confession can be extracted by torture
and no one claimed
that in this concentration camp there was ever a gas chamber in which people were gassed except for [former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf] Höss, who was tortured
that he afterwards said, "I would have signed anything."
Indeed Fritjof Meyer himself noted that it is "not to be taken into account" in any reasonably fair trial
when someone, after being tortured so terribly, says, "Yes, it was three million, or however many million, whatever you like, that were gassed by us."
I think it's now becoming clear and comprehensible for us, this question which we've always wondered about: Why indeed must there be this Paragraph 130 of the German Criminal Code? In order to keep these things from being looked into too closely?
And it also becomes comprehensible that the innumerable motions to present evidence which the accused have put forward have been completely struck down and ignored. These could only serve as evidence of something if that something happened;
clearly they could serve as evidence of "nothing" — and so, they had to disappear.
If we now look at world politics after 1945,
it becomes clear that the Holocaust is the greatest and most enduring lie in history. It was needed in order to finally complete the centuries-long struggle for world domination by the chosen people — that world domination was once promised to them by their god Yahweh and they believed in that promise firmly, it was their conviction. Whether we call them Zionists, Khazars, oligarchs or globalizers, it is always the same.
World Wars I and II themselves were merely a preliminary stage for this achievement — in their view, understandably, but why, why in the view of the French, the Swiss, the Germans?
Why have German judges, whose independence is constitutionally guaranteed, gone along with that?
Why have state prosecutors, who should represent the federal government, indeed the German state, represented the interests of Israel instead?
For that is what they have done in these trials. And why have all the historians in our universities not unanimously refused to renounce their freedom of research, which likewise is guaranteed to them constitutionally?
And this poor, miseducated, lie-fed German people . . . will it now turn, indignant, against those who want to relieve it of this deeply implanted belief?
Might Germans not be ready, and able, to rethink their beliefs? The ancient Greeks used to lay such weighty questions at the feet the gods. I do the same.
Before concluding, I would like to present a much needed — even if it has been done before — definition of the question work camp / extermination camp / concentration camp. I want to do this in order to prevent misunderstandings, and to emphasize once more that no revisionist has ever denied there were concentration camps. Their existence is never questioned by the so-called "neo-Nazis," as they're called today, or "right-extremists" when these want to be taken seriously.
Moreover, concentration camps were no invention of the National Socialists, but were already around during the Boer War in 1900, and indeed were established by the English and they're still being set up to this day by the Americans, as for example at Guantanamo Bay.
According to the Hague Conventions on War on Land, members of an enemy nation may be interned in order to prevent espionage and the multiple, repeated Jewish declarations of war against the Third Reich since 1933 led to a situation in which, as for example Professor Ernst Nolte has established, the Third Reich was justified in treating German Jews as prisoners of war for these declarations of war had clearly demonstrated that Jewry considered itself at war with the Third Reich. Ernst Nolte says this in his book "The Passing of the Past" [Das Vergehen der Vergangenheit] where anyone can read it on page 171 and earlier as well on page 21. So there were German concentration camps — no revisionist has ever disputed that.
Nor is it disputed that the majority of the Jews were interned in them. This occurred in particular following the failure of Hitler's many offers of peace to England. (See in this connection English historian Martin Allen in his book "The Hitler/Hess Deception" which you can get at any bookstore.) These concentration camps were, in Germany, in the Third Reich, work camps — during the war. The word "concentration camp," however, is often used to evoke the idea of extermination — or emotionally provoke it.
With the increasing ferocity of the war, and above all with the increasing bombardment of all transport facilities — practically the entire infrastructure in Germany — through Allied bombing raids, living conditions in the concentration camps obviously became ever more difficult and not just for the German people.
And likewise it has not been disputed by anyone that in German concentration camps there were incidents of cruelty and mistreatment and even of murder. Why otherwise would four — some even say five — camp commandants have been brought before an SS tribunal with two of them even being sentenced to death?
The taking up and exposure and publication of these events has come about entirely through the efforts of the revisionists, they have never been mentioned in court. And I ask myself if in any other state — any of the states that stood against us then in open hostility —such drastic punishments existed for the mistreatment of prisoners.
If historians meanwhile have arrived at fundamentally lower numbers of victims (for the concentration camps) that indeed does not mean that a correction was thereby made in public as well. The saying "History is written by the victors" in no way implies that this history must correspond with the truth.
We must therefore demand, now that in verifiable form, and now that these official reports and contemporary statements from the time of the Third Reich, as for example the Commandant Orders, have been made public, that at the very least there should now follow a public explanation and — I would say — an apology too from those who have spread these lies. And finally, of necessity, there must also follow a reconsideration of all these convictions based on a false claim.
In conclusion, I would like to read a quotation from Germar Rudolf, who as a young chemist made a thorough study of the chemical properties of Zyklon-B — on professional grounds —including on location in Auschwitz, something for which he had to spend three-and-a-half years in prison because his research conclusions, as a chemist, were different from so-called politically correct opinion.
I would like to read this quotation from him in conclusion. Germar Rudolf writes:
"One of the important characteristics of evil is that it forbids questioning and it taboos or punishes the candid search for answers."
(I might add, punishes BY LAW.)
"By prohibiting a person to ask questions and to search for answers it is
denying that which makes us human. For the capacity to doubt and to search for answers to pressing problems is one of the most important attributes that distinguishes humans from animals."
Thus one can read in his "Lectures on the Holocaust," page 12.
It is therefore urgently necessary that an official, public clarification, unencumbered by any taboo or law, be provided to the German people and to the entire world that explains what really happened in the German concentration camps.
Ursula Haverbeck: The Panorama Interview, with English Subtitles and English Transcript
Published on May 14, 2015
In 2015, Ursula Haverbeck made history in a defiant interview in which she threw down the gauntlet to the biggest taboo
of our times. Revisionism . . . on German TV! A seismic event.
Ursula Haverbeck's March 14, 2015 German Television Interview with Robert Bongen.
[English transcript organized from printed subtitles by Ken Adachi
See Notes below transcript for description of names mentioned in this interview
Robert Bongen: You once created a sensation with the statement:"The Holocaust is the biggest and most persistent lie in history." What do you mean by that?
Ursula Haverbeck: Well, naturally I said that somewhat in the style of Faurisson,
of Robert Faurisson, who was one of the first to look for these alleged gas chambers— in the concentration camps— and found none.
And I mean it in this sense today:
there is, I believe, no lie that has operated more persistently and transformatively. And indeed, not only in Germany, but practically worldwide
as this Holocaust. I would have to search a long time to find something equivalent.
Robert Bongen: Because it didn't happen, you believe?
Ursula Haverbeck: Yes, well. If it couldn't have worked with Zyklon B the way it is described. If there were no gas chambers, as many people meanwhile have said, then the question must be answered: Where, then, were the six million killed?
For five years I have asked this question systematically, with friends,
and received no answer. Not one. Then I wrote to the Justice Minister: "This is the situation. Could we now please have a public debate between both sides, pro and con?"
So then I wrote to him:"Since you have no answer to that for me, all that remains
is to draw the natural inference and admit the conclusion: There was no Holocaust."
And in that case it really is the biggest lie ever.
I mean, there are legal experts who say
that the whole post-war political system will fall apart if THAT is questioned. That's why it's so vehemently defended, quite logically.
Robert Bongen: All that is, naturally, for . . . for —
Ursula Haverbeck: " . . . the normal citizen today, a slap in the face."
Robert Bongen: Exactly. Yes. Everyone has learned it that way: The Holocaust happened. It happened with six million deaths . Could you explain once more, in a few sentences as it were, why the Holocaust, for you, is a — is the biggest lie in history?
Ursula Haverbeck: Because it's the most persistent; because it has had the most impact. And when one can't get a straight answer even from the Central Council of Jews in Germany— and I've written to them at least four times on this account— as to where the Jews were killed,
then that's one answer right there [to your question]. And the second answer is that when one needs a law
that sets the Holocaust in stone - and threatens punishment if anyone investigates it openly - well, there you have the next problem, no? For the truth needs no laws.
In other words, it's clear from that, that something's not right. And when one considers all that has been built upon it and when the legal experts say that the whole post-war political system would fall apart if it were to be questioned. Then really, it is rather clear that it is the biggest— the biggest lie — since one gets no answers.
And "Auschwitz" cannot stand.
Robert Bongen: Seventy years after — after the Holocaust— naturally you might now just say you want to live your last years in peace.
What keeps you going?
Ursula Haverbeck: Well, just these same contradictions that weigh down people's lives.
And — I must add this as well — it is the members of my generation who suffered so terribly.
Everything that is said about atrocities is only ever said with respect to others.
What is never mentioned, however — there are no big memorials— is that fifteen million Germans from the lost eastern provinces, myself among them, were driven from their homes.
That's equivalent to the entire population of Scandinavia. Try to imagine, that was it — a notice would appear on the door: "You must vacate the house by tomorrow at such-and-such o'clock. Keys are to be left in the door. You may take with you no more than 20 kg each." And then they came.
And as a result, two-and-a-half to three million people truly brutally murdered; raped to death; crushed beneath tanks; and so on.
And even Konrad Adenauer said in his first Bernauer speech in 1949, shortly after the founding of the Federal Republic: "We have many problems, but the biggest problem is the " — he says fourteen million, he claims to know that from the Americans — "the fourteen million German expellees, of whom six million have never arrived. They are dead and gone."
Remarkably, he says six million.
Today actually we know that it is probably three-and-a-half or two-and-a-half [million] — It's never been possible to determine exactly how many didn't arrive, but perhaps Adenauer was right after all and we simply don't know.
Robert Bongen: It's all a muddle. ( — But one cannot . . . )
Ursula Haverbeck: But in any case, the number of victims at Dresden was not 25,000, as is claimed today. That would mean that Dresden was practically empty, right? Now there you have a lie so big, it can't be topped either. The authorities in Dresden itself told me, after reunification. I had asked what was said in Dresden about the number of the dead —
"About 235,000 — as far as we can determine. But there could be many more still lying under the rubble."
And then fifteen years later, when I heard that a new group of historians was working on the problem. I asked again at the very same institute and they told me:
"Well, right now we have 35,000 but it will probably come to 25,000."
So you see, there are all sorts of lies from all sorts of sides, only the other side's are weightier. And then, of course, above all else, this practically forced me into it: if we want a future that is humane and sustainable
then we can't get there with lies.
For then, we need a solid foundation — among the different peoples too. And that solid foundation can only be the truth.
And that's the reason why this question must be re-examined. :And the crazy part is, the more you ask questions and try to get some ground beneath your feet, the bigger the questions become. And what do the courts do? They have tried to hide their ignorance, as I really must call it, behind the word "self-evident."
And that is connected with this Paragraph 130 [of the German Criminal Code] - "Incitement of the People" - which was formulated and presented to the Bundestag as a bill in 1994.
And the Bundestag Deputies said "no, that won't do. That's irreconcilable with Article 5 [of the German Constitution] 'Freedom of Expression' 'Freedom of Research.' " And then the whole lot got such a working over that on the second or third reading— I can't exactly recall now, there's something you can research— they passed the paragraph by a majority.
And this paragraph - which in its language is already an absurdity - it says, namely that: "a punishment of up to five years in prison or a fine will be assessed on anyone" — and then comes a reference to international law— "who approves of, denies or minimizes the crimes committed by National Socialism
in a manner that is apt to disturb the public peace."
So first of all, it says crimes committed
by National Socialism.
It can't just be said, or believed or claimed, it has to be an established fact. But in the meantime this "fact" is much disputed,
and so already that can be eliminated.
Next comes "approve of."
The greatest crime ever committed by humanity — which is what the Holocaust would be— could hardly be "approved of" by anyone if it were unequivocal.
It's the same, for that matter, even if its just a single serious traffic accident or a single murder: the majority of people will cry "severest penalty!" Right?
People are always calling for the severest penalty, they don't approve of these things.
So that's all very unclear.
And then, I was once in the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig
on account of the Collegium institute, and the discussion turned to the word "deny." And the judge admitted, the presiding judge — there were five in all —"Indeed, we must in fact prove that you're convinced the Holocaust happened. For 'to deny' something means — " (I had said this myself earlier)"to claim something against one's better knowledge. The word 'deny' depends on the word 'lie.'"
So if you accuse me of having denied something then you must prove against me — the judge was quite right— that I actually believe it. And yet they do the exact opposite in their indictments. And so that falls apart.
And as for "minimize," he said:
"It's really not entirely clear that that should be punishable." Good.
Moreover, it's not the case that
denial or any minimization
entails a punishment, but rather only— [aside, unclear]
if it is apt to— if it's done in a
that is apt to disturb the public peace. And here the Federal Constitutional Court says, quite correctly — in 2009, in the famous Wunsiedel Decision— That is an assumption.
Who's to say if it is "apt" or not?
How do they know that some statement somewhere is "apt" to do so? The "public peace." What after all is the public peace? That is all mere assumption.
If that is the sole point on the basis of which a statement is liable to punishment,
and it is only an assumption, then, says the Federal Constitutional Court, the whole thing is legally untenable.
Indeed, jurist Heribert Prantl has gone so far as to write in the Süddeutschen Zeitung that the Holocaust, this Paragraph 130, thus becomes no more than an empty shell that is no longer legally applicable. And yet it still has not been struck down in the Bundestag.
But that's just what an absurdity this law is:
one sees clearly how the Deputies disagreed and were at odds with themselves, and thus wound up making this monstrous verbal formulation in which everything's back to front and nothing make sense.
And afterwards they could take, for example, someone like Germar Rudolf, a chemist, who made a study of a chemical substance and whose results didn't sit well with the political world, and put him in jail for three and a half years.
And Horst Mahler for twelve [years]. Right? On the basis of such a law.
And that must inwardly outrage any decent person
and awake real doubt in a so-called nation of laws - that allows such a thing. That really is something that, naturally, spurred me to action for I want
a nation of laws; I don't want a nation of un-laws. I don't want a nation that constantly talks of law and justice and so on — of "freedom of expression" as in France again right now— and does the opposite.
That is the situation that really upsets me the most, that it was my own generation that suffered so terribly
and no one talks about that.
Everyone only talks about the six million Jews. No school child knows how many of the German expellees died. They don't even know that Breslau was a German city.
That is unbearable.
Robert Bongen: So you go about openly claiming that Holocaust never happened?
Ursula Haverbeck: Yes, naturally, just so. And I also say — and I put this on the Internet as well— that that doesn't mean, however, that a single revisionist has ever claimed that there were no concentration camps. Of course there were concentration camps, and bad things happened in them.
And there even were four concentration camp commandants who were prosecuted by an SS court-martial because they, in violation of the regulations in the Commandants' Orders, did not deal with prisoners appropriately but rather struck them or even shot some, and so on.
And that was strictly forbidden and two of them were executed.
But here's the kicker:
I don't know that from the Jews who are always accusing us, I know that from the revisionists— they're the ones who discovered that such cases occurred. And that the SS in fact took the strictest measures against them. So none of us would ever say that nothing happened there. Of course things happened.
In times of war, the negative qualities in people are always aroused and encouraged. And to that extent . . .
But that has nothing to do with the notion that a unique, unparalleled, enormous crime was committed by the Germans. One must see this in context.
Robert Bongen: So, if I understand you correctly, the concentration camps did exist but a program of mass extermination, in the sense we understand it today, did not. Well then, what happened in the camps?
Ursula Haverbeck: Auschwitz was quite simply a huge industrial complex
and they performed very valuable work there for the armaments industry.
Robert Bongen: So the prisoners who were there were rightly there?
Ursula Haverbeck: That's another thing Prof. Nolte has established.
If one goes by the Hague Conventions on Land War then every state, in the event of war,
has the right to intern enemy nationals residing in its territory because the danger exists that they may commit espionage.
Everyone did it.
For example, one of my uncles was in India at the time
but the English were there and so he was interned there. My mother's brother was in America and he was interned there.
Everyone did it.
And um, the Russians did it too, of course. One mustn't forget that.
Robert Bongen: Against that background, then, what you're saying is that what happened in Auschwitz was right.
Ursula Haverbeck: Right? Well, "right" is rather . .
It was legally unassailable, let's put it that way.
As to whether I find it "right" that people were . . .
But then, my own high school class was also mobilized
for the armaments industry and we too had to work on armaments. For example, I painted munitions crates and the like.
So it wasn't just them — we were all mobilized, especially during the last year. Nor was that a special case.
We all had very little to eat and hardly anything to wear, and above all no shoes. Or none that fit: young people's feet are always growing and we'd have to cut the fronts off.
Robert Bongen: I'd like to turn now to the Garrison and Commandant Orders.
Ursula Haverbeck: Yes, these are truly paradigm-changing, even for me when I first read them.
For these details — for example these dealing with nutrition. They're not in here, they're in the Special Orders. They actually recommended what we had to painstakingly learn in our senior Home Ec cooking class: not to overcook vegetables, but rather to cook half until they are just soft and to just steam the other half as quickly as possible
because then the vitamins are preserved better. And then they told them they must go out and gather wild herbs and the like
and put them raw on top, in place of parsley as it were. And that they were to make a hearty, thick soup — not a thin broth, but a thick soup. And if the cook didn't, then he was to be removed and another cook put in his place. That was the sort of thing they were concerned with— in the middle of the war! It's really most remarkable.
Robert Bongen: What conclusion do you draw from these
Garrison and Commandant Orders?
Ursula Haverbeck: I draw the conclusion, that here we have the ultimate, perhaps most outstanding proof that Auschwitz was not an extermination camp but rather a work camp in which all of the workers interned there were indispensable for the armaments industry. That's what is said quite clearly, isn't it?
Robert Bongen: So there was no mass extermination at Auschwitz?
Ursula Haverbeck: No, one cannot want to have armaments workers and exterminate them at the same time; that makes no sense. It's a self-contradiction.
And it makes even less sense when one asks them later: "Would you like to stay and be liberated or would you like to come with us to the Reich?" And they say: "No, we'd rather go with our murderers." It's schizophrenic.
What did you think when you read that for the first time?
Ursula Haverbeck: Frankly I was rather amazed that it was all so clearly laid out here. — Until then I had . . . —
Robert Bongen: What is so clearly laid out?
Ursula Haverbeck: That it was a work camp. Which is just what the veterans had always said. And everyone jumped all over them. And yet they were right, that's the really painful part.
Robert Bongen: Is there anything about the gas chambers?
Ursula Haverbeck: No, nothing at all. And they can't be inferred from Reich orders either.
Robert Bongen: How do you explain the fact that the gas chambers are not mentioned?
Ursula Haverbeck Because there weren't any, naturally. One cannot mention something that doesn't exist. Why do you want to cling to the gas chambers when you can read what is written here?
Above all, I find it presumptuous of people living today who think they know better than those who actually lived then. And the people who were there, all the old defendants said: "We never saw anything like that."
But we know better what it was like there! We know better what it was like in the Third Reich than those who lived through it. That's the great failing, the lack of self-critique in those talking today. That's what is so astounding here and what .. .
Robert Bongen: In other words, you conclude from the fact that no gas chambers are mentioned that at the camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau there weren't any.
Ursula Haverbeck No, you you just have to remember what I said earlier.
That goes along with the fact that one simply couldn't have done it with Zyklon B. It wouldn't work.
I mean, we live in a scientific age! We have to listen to the experts. And when the chemist Germar Rudolf says it wouldn't work and every chemical dictionary says so too, and when Fred Leuchter, the sole living expert in gas chambers — for there still are states in America that use them to execute people— takes a look at what is claimed and says, "That's completely absurd. One can execute a single individual
in a hermetically sealed, highly complex technical structure,
in such-and-such amount of time . . ." then the whole thing falls apart. And I am not ready to just take the lawyers at their word that they know better. And I don't just take others at their word either. But then that's why they didn't promote this book. They didn't promote it!
Robert Bongen: What are the points that most persuaded you?
Ursula Haverbeck All right, 7 February 1944: "Prisoner Transports."
Robert Bongen: Yeah, OK.
Ursula Haverbeck I find this quite astonishing. Shall I read it out here?
I can just sum it up:
"It is ordered that the camp doctor must first examine all prisoners before they go into the transport."
Then how the transport wagons are to be procured:
"If it's cold, each car must be thickly strewn with straw and there must be a stove inside, and above all else" ( — our people would have loved to have had that— ) "there must be boiled water or tea available inside."
And also stated explicitly: to take along sufficient food— the transports could be delayed by bombing attacks— in order that no one should starve. Our people went for seven days without getting anything to eat. So yes, that's quite striking. And it's also quite striking here . . . where it is again related how the sick are to be handled. Indeed there was . . .
The Red Cross — I believe it was the Red Cross — also inspected Auschwitz and they found a very modern clinic there.
And the sick were looked after very carefully in order that they become healthy again as quickly as possible. And also about the special diet — there was a special diet
though naturally they had to provide it only within this infirmary. And that the condition of clothing must be continuously monitored, especially shoes. That makes sense. And then, hard-working prisoners could even earn special privileges— they even received bonuses for extra piecework— or their industriousness could be so rewarded that they be given early release. There's that too. It's all in here.
Robert Bongen: Do you believe it also happened?
Ursula Haverbeck: I would assume so.
Whether it still happened in the last . . .
What year is it here?
1944 . . . in February.
Whether that was still possible at the end of 1944, I doubt, but . . .
Robert Bongen: In the footnotes, there's a comment on this point
that "No prisoner ever obtained freedom on account of industriousness. Despite repeated directives from the SS Economic and Administrative Office, the goal of interning and punishing concentration camp prisoners retained priority over the efficiency of labor deployment."— Does that not contradict . . . ?
Ursula Haverbeck: — Yes, but where . .
Where did the commentator in question get that from? It reminds one of the Foreword, which also completely dodges the issue.
So I would immediately ask: where do you know that from then?
If the order says one thing, how can you, a person living today, simply claim the opposite? You'll have to prove that to me, please.
We are too trusting. We'll believe anything people say today.
If someone says "I experienced such and such" then I can't simply claim the opposite, I have to prove it.
Anyway, you know the lot — Otto Uthgennant and Enrico Marco and whatever they're called, all the people who have lied about us.
Initially they got [Auschwitz factory workers]— they had to observe a two-hour midday break and have an evening break at four or five o'clock. And during the break, the deployment leader had to make sure
that they did not receive any additional assignments. Because, first of all, one gets more out of one's food when one rests afterwards and secondly, because only then is one capable of working
This sleep-break directive really surprised me, I must confess.
Robert Bongen: What do you conclude from it?
Ursula Haverbeck: That they wanted to have good workers. Curiously, it even says somewhere that there were very good watchmakers among the Jews who were then to be sent on to special locations. I never knew that the Jews were especially good watchmakers.
So one's always finding something here that's odd — or astounding.
[reading from Garrison and Commandant Orders book]"Foot-inspection for prisoners in every subcamp." Hmm? "Foot-inspection to be held 3 times [weekly] among the prisoners to check on foot injuries and cleanliness of prisoners." You see, they placed — on account of this terrible typhus epidemic — they placed, they had
to place, enormous value on hygiene.
And as a result this had to be respected.
And hair had to be shorn not only among the prisoners, but among the SS men as well. Because that's where the lice usually would get established. And they still weren't at all past this typhus epidemic.
And I have also — Was it in here?
Somewhere, anyway, I've read that the lice were brought into the camp from outside: the prisoners themselves had no lice. Naturally I can't verify that, I can only take it as is.
So, in addition to everything up to this point, it really is quite remarkable what it says here
under the title "Mistreatment of Prisoners":
"On this occasion, I once more expressly draw attention to the standing order that no SS man may lay a hand on a prisoner. In this fifth year of the war every emphasis must be placed on maintaining the working strength of the prisoners. Should a prisoner violate regulations then a report should be made."
So they weren't allowed to do it themselves.
And that's why I said earlier and I point out again that strict punishments were carried out for any SS men who didn't follow such orders. — One can thus . . . —
Robert Bongen: What conclusion you draw from that?
Against the background [of claims] that at Auschwitz-Birkenau
people were mistreated and ultimately killed?
Ursula Haverbeck: Presumably it's the same as what the English and Americans did as they entered Germany and distributed propaganda leaflets to "inform" their soldiers of the terrible atrocities that the Germans supposedly committed because the soldiers were so appalled by the destruction of German cities. And to make it comprehensible to them that this was justified,
they distributed these leaflets claiming the most awful atrocities which they hadn't, however, "discovered" among the Germans — [because] they made them up. Sefton Delmer himself said that, right?
And here, it's just the same: everything has been twisted and turned into its opposite. And sadly one must also say that a great deal, for example, of what German POWs went through on the Rheinwiesen or in the gulags in Russia, they accused us of, to distract from their own — And the Russians themselves said so. It was them, that Bolshevism-infected army, that actually encouraged its soldiers to rape women. On our side, that stood under penalty of death.
We had two very good friends, one my husband's and one my father's,
who discovered that a man in their unit had raped a Pole or a Russian. And they had to hand them over to a military court martial, even though they needed every man they had for the war -- knowing full well that they would be executed. And that weighed upon them for their whole lives.
But that's just how strict it was.
Robert Bongen: Why do these Garrison Orders, in your eyes, have supreme, independent credibility?
Ursula Haverbeck: Because they are originals. And because they're also consistent with the Reich Orders decoded by Enigma [top secret encryption machine used by Germany during WWII which was cracked by the allies early in the war and allowed the allies to decipher secret encoded communications] that was military . It's no anomaly. Each side complements the other.
And they are complementary as well with the stories of those who lived through it all. And to that extent, they are the final confirmation that was missing.
Robert Bongen: If they are such paradigm-changing documents, why haven't they been talked about?
Ursula Haverbeck: You can answer for that yourself. Because it wasn't desirable.
Robert Bongen: To whom?
Ursula Haverbeck: Them. The people who brought the whole business about.
Robert Bongen: Why publish it then?
Ursula Haverbeck: Because one feels — That's just it, I said this earlier. Wherever you go, you find this sort and that sort. And that goes as well for these institutes.
Martin Broszat, for example, when he said that there were no gassings in Germany itself— authentic, from the Institute for Contemporary History— after they'd been saying for more than a decade that there were gassings everywhere.
And that's just how it is: one tries to pass off the negative things one has done onto the other, defeated side and history is always written by the victors.
And so they had this material, and they thought, "We must publish this, as the Institute for Contemporary History we cannot just lock it away."
But it simply wasn't discussed. And so for ten years it remained in obscurity [Garrison and Commandant Orders book].
Robert Bongen: Could it be that the responsible officials who wrote these orders consciously left out the aspect of the extermination of prisoners, or internees, in order to leave no evidence for the future, as it were?
Ursula Haverbeck: That would be completely unrealistic, in the middle of war. The question is completely unrealistic.
In the middle of a war in which one is fighting for one's very survival,
and one's trying to reach the labor quotas that are being demanded of one. They wouldn't have had five minutes for such a thing.
It's simply unimaginable. Everyone still believed in victory.
It was only very late in the war that people started to doubt.
Robert Bongen: The book has been published for some time now . . .
Ursula Haverbeck: It was published in 2000, but only came to the attention of a few historians in 2013. Before that, it was dead.
Robert Bongen: Why?
Ursula Haverbeck: Because people had decided . . .
Robert Bongen: So really Norbert Frei, as editor, should have said that history has to be rewritten here or at least, the history of the Holocaust.
Ursula Haverbeck: So you say: he should have said that. But you know that Germans are all afraid. Back then, there still weren't —
To be fair to him, I would even say there hadn't yet been all those trials, there weren't yet so many facts that had come to light, so many contradictions, in 2000 as today. To that extent, fear of the consequences for one's career and one's fate really was much more pressing then than it is today.
Today one can say more, because meanwhile more contradictions have become evident.
That still wasn't possible then. So I would grant Frei that much, that he — that they all, all five of them here— might have said, "But we'll keep quiet about that. We won't discuss it.
We have to do it because we're historians and the Institute for Contemporary History has such things as its mission, but . . . we won't try to publicize it." And none of them spoke about it.
Robert Bongen: Have you ever spoken with Professor Frei, as editor . . . ?
Ursula Haverbeck: No, I don't know him. I've mostly dealt with Nolte.
Robert Bongen: — Not about the Garrison and Commandant Orders
Ursula Haverbeck: — No.
Robert Bongen: Why not?
Ursula Haverbeck: It never really occurred to me to.
Robert Bongen: — Yeah but . . .
Ursula Haverbeck: — I simply don't know the man. I've spoken with Walter Post and Stefan Scheil and Ernst Nolte.
Robert Bongen: But if you take this as evidence, as the last piece of the puzzle,
for the non-existence of the Holocaust might you not have asked why . . .
Why did he do it?
Ursula Haverbeck: Maybe you should ask him.
Robert Bongen: . . . why he published it, and whether his interpretation is the same as yours?
Ursula Haverbeck: If he has courage then it will be. If he doesn't have courage he'll try to avoid it, like in the Introduction. That's quite clear.
Robert Bongen: What does the Introduction say?
Ursula Haverbeck: In the Introduction they attempt, desperately— but it really is quite desperate and quite obvious that it's false— to find something somewhere showing that someone was gassed
— I'm not sure they say "gassed," but murdered, anyway. Some big number.
But it doesn't hold water, what they say in the Introduction. One can refute it quite quickly.
Robert Bongen: What do you think: would he acknowledge that, on the basis of the Garrison and Commandant Orders,
one can call into question the Holocaust in the form it's known in today?
Ursula Haverbeck: I couldn't say, I don't know him. I don't know how courageous the man is. I couldn't say.
But might he not say that the orders have to be seen in context, they relate to individual areas in the concentration camp, that there were parts of the camp that are fairly described
by precisely those aspects which you have just mentioned, but . . . ?
Ursula Haverbeck: Yes, but the whole place was a giant armaments complex. There were all sorts of armaments firms there. There was a film once on television about a woman who worked there as a secretary. And naturally she too said, "I never saw anything of the sort.
I had to manage the list for the bordello and things like that."
Those who were there always said something quite different and now we're trying to reconcile that with what we've been taught for 50 years in school. That is our problem, and naturally it is very hard. Above all, one must then say, "My teachers and parents lied to me." That is bitter.
Robert Bongen: What does that mean then for history if the extermination of the Jews was essentially, as we learned in school, a part of the ideology of National Socialism? What does that mean for history if the concentration camps, and the extermination of the Jews didn't happen?
Ursula Haverbeck: Well, I think there have now been quite enough investigations of that. It was not a matter of extermination, it was a matter of removal from Germany. And that indeed on the basis of the experience of two world wars. Hitler knew quite well that, already in the nineteenth century, it had been decided to destroy Germany.
And we knew about the declarations of Morgenthau and Nizer and whatever they were all called.
So that meant, ultimately, that Hitler wanted Germany freed from this Jewish influence. But they also said, "I'll decide who's a Jew."
So if a Jew had converted to Christianity, or if they . . .
for example, the many popular and respected pediatricians, and even in the military — Erhard Milch was a half-Jew. Right? And yet he remained in the military.
So "extermination" does not fit, "resettlement" fits.
But the Zionists themselves wanted that.
And to that extent they even collaborated on it. The Zionists wanted to have a state . . . In 1897 was the big Jewish Congress where Herzl presented the plan and on that account they collaborated on it.
They had the same goal: one side wanted their own state— and above all they wanted the German Jews since they were the cleverest, the bankers . . . though Herzl said they didn't want the really rich bankers . . .
but the real technicians, engineers and so on — "We'll take those!"
And Hitler wanted to be rid of them, so it all went together quite well.
But that doesn't mean exterminating them.
Robert Bongen: If, as you say, the mass extermination did not happened as claimed
then did these crimes not happen as well?
Ursula Haverbeck: Didn't I say that four camp commandants had to appear before an SS court? Inevitably there were some crimes, but that wasn't the goal.
Robert Bongen: But then that means Hitler was not the greatest criminal in history.
Ursula Haverbeck: It should be apparent by now that that's not right.
Robert Bongen: Hitler wasn't a criminal?
Ursula Haverbeck: Now it's Putin who is the greatest criminal.
Robert Bongen: But Hitler was not a criminal back then?
Ursula Haverbeck:When it comes to pinning such a label on anyone, I would be very
Robert Bongen: All right, but if you say the mass extermination — ?
Ursula Haverbeck: There is no order for extermination!
But of course Hitler isn't accused of just that. He's supposed to have done many other things, and certainly did do many other things. But as to calling a person a criminal, that goes against my nature because I know that in every person there is a spark of the divine and it needs to be addressed as well.
And if I pin a label on someone and say, "You are a criminal!" then the divine in him can only be smothered, so I would never do that. I wouldn't say it of any person.
Robert Bongen: But must the figure of Hitler be seen in a new light as a result?
Ursula Haverbeck: Well, more than anything, I can say something to that. The view of Hitler that we currently have is already in complete contradiction with the view that historians like Joachim Fest or Werner Maser and so on presented in their big biographies back in the seventies or sixties — sixties.
Fest says, "Hitler was, for ten years, the center of movement for the world." That's not exactly negative. And if you read Lloyd George and the English writers who came to Germany, in some cases in secret, in order to determine what was really happening here in the 1930s .
they spoke in astonishingly positive terms about Hitler. And they published it too: Hans Grimm, for example. And just as he is presented today, the further one gets away from that time the more negative everything becomes for the Germans. And do you know why?
Because they're afraid that a change may come again and that the lies will be exposed. That's the only reason.
Why are they even now pulling Anne Frank from the drawer, even though it's now been proven in every possible case to be a fake?
Robert Bongen: So you say Hitler was not a criminal?
Ursula Haverbeck: I just told you, I would not say of anyone, "He is
a criminal." A man has the most various possibilities to develop personally. And when I read the statements from that time then its clear he was of great significance for world history. And that brings me to the fourth level of historical understanding: Why do such men appear in history?
Hitler always spoke of Providence to which he felt responsible, as it were. And he felt himself to be called to his task. And one could never call that criminal. Didn't you learn anything else in school about bad things Hitler did — just the Jews?
Robert Bongen: Well, yeah, that he killed a lot of other people. One hears, one learns.
And that he was more or less responsible for the greatest— That he started the war.
Ursula Haverbeck: Yes, they teach that to children too.
Robert Bongen: But that isn't so?
Ursula Haverbeck: No, of course not. But really that is rather obvious.
We won't have to wait so long as we did for Clark and his Sleepwalkers to prove that the Germans are not repsonsible for the First World War. They will discover even sooner that they're not responsible for the Second either. That won't take nearly so long.
Many people already — Even, what's his name? Haffner.
The Second World War, he said, began at Versailles.
Versailles is the cause of WW II then, not Hitler. In every person there are changes.
Hitler did many positive things, which many significant people recognized— read the biographies by Fest and Maser— and a great many things are foisted on him that he did not do.— But he was a man . . .
Robert Bongen: — For example the Holocaust.
Ursula Haverbeck: Yes. A man with his highs and lows and so on. And my husband always said— he'd met Hitler in person, and he was always being urged, "Write a book about Hitler!" And he always said: "That's such a complex personality and there's so much—" the most in all literature, the person about whom there are the most biographies, etc. —"I must first read all that . . .
I leave that to future generations in a hundred years.
For now, we will always only be able to say something false." And I would say the same.
Robert Bongen: When you call the Holocaust into question seventy years afterwards,
is that not a slap in the face to the relatives of victims, and above all to survivors?
Ursula Haverbeck: I find the real slap in people's faces are those individuals who have written books — which are flogged in our schools— and told about their sufferings in a concentration camp without ever having been in one. And it seems that even goes for Ellie Wiesel,
who's still working on touching up his autobiography.
Robert Bongen: — But were you ever in a concentration camp?
Ursula Haverbeck: — I'm sorry?
Robert Bongen: — Were you ever in a concentration camp?
Ursula Haverbeck:— Of course not. No.
I was still too young. I was seventeen.
Robert Bongen: — But then you say, of course . . .
Ursula Haverbeck: — No, look for a moment.
Robert Bongen: . . . the concentration camps, in the generally recognized form, did not exist.
Ursula Haverbeck: I say that the concentration camps existed and that terrible things happened.
In any case, it's always something about Auschwitz, it is the symbol.
Robert Bongen: But it was a work camp . . .
Ursula Haverbeck: It was a work camp and the Commandant Orders
And there weren't six million people killed; the reduction on the memorial tablets at Auschwitz confirms that.
And above all that is confirmed by my own unsuccessful efforts to get to the bottom of it.
Really, I asked everyone.
Not a single one of them could tell me where the six million were killed. And in that case, one must show a little courage and say that it's a lie. Or one must indeed say there
. One or the other. But that is a task for others, not me; I can only point out what the questions are.
Robert Bongen: At the same time, it just so happens it will soon be 70th anniversary of the war . . . Ursula Haverbeck: It's going to be talked about everywhere.
. . .
Robert Bongen: ...and naturally it's a big topic, and there are many survivors who have made it their task to remember the Holocaust,
to say, as it were, "Don't forget the evil that happened here." But when you say that the Holocaust, in its recognized form, did not in fact occur, is that not a slap in the face for these people?
Ursula Haverbeck: No. The slap in the face is this: it is seventy years not only since the end of the war, not only since the liberation of Auschwitz, but also since the expulsion of 15 million Germans from their ancestral homeland
with the murder — proven murder — of 2.5 million of them, and probably many more. That is never mentioned, not a word. That is something I might actually call a slap in the face.
I might ask the question, Why not this? Why only that?
Robert Bongen: These pictures of piles of bodies in Auschwitz and in Bergen-Belsen . . .
Ursula Haverbeck: In Auschwitz there couldn't have been any since the prisoners were evacuated, the majority, and the rest they left behind to be liberated. And when you see pictures of them they look quite normal. But then where do they come from, these pictures?
Ursula Haverbeck: [sighs] Don't you know about the piles of bodies in our ruined cities? From Hamburg, from Pforzheim from Hildesheim, from Dresden . . .
Robert Bongen: And they were brought into the camps?
Ursula Haverbeck: No need to bring them in. One makes the piles of bodies, takes some pictures, and . . .
They can piece it together with pictures, there's no great art to it. One young man managed to be everywhere. In Dresden, and there
It was always the same young man.
We know all that, you just have to read!
The piles of bodies at Bergen-Belsen certainly were real, but why did they occur?
They have nothing to do with the camp system, or rather they do, but only in the sense that all access routes had been destroyed by bombing and that they thus could no longer get any food or medicine. The director of the camp went in desperation to the local farmers but they all had hardly anything to eat themselves. After all, this was 1945, in May.
And then the English came and made huge quantities of sardines available to them. I know that because a good friend of ours had a brother-in-law who was there and told us. And the starving prisoners couldn't tolerate such food, and they all got dysentery and so on. And when someone lay down to die, there they lay, since no one was left to bury them.
But one can't call that something of the Germans' doing. That has nothing to do with it.
You know, this kind of mendacity, we never could have imagined it, me included. It is enormously difficult for me to imagine that anyone could ever lie the way they've lied to us.
But they have lied to us like that. And when one thinks today —
Robert Bongen: You mean that the completely emaciated people, the pictures of emaciated people . .
Ursula Haverbeck: There are other reasons!
Robert Bongen: . . . the piles of bodies in Dachau, in Buchenwald, in Theresienstadt, in Auschwitz, where did they come from?
Ursula Haverbeck: I just told you where they come from. Besides, at the end of the war we were all starved. My mother weighed only ninety pounds! We were all emaciated.
Robert Bongen: — You mean to say the . . .
Ursula Haverbeck: — And the bombs!
Robert Bongen: . . . the terrible condition of these poor people was not the result, as it were, of what the Germans had established in the camps?
Ursula Haverbeck: They were not the result, or at any rate not the goal. But they were the result of the war. Think about it: when you no longer have the least scrap of transport infrastructure, when everything is broken . . . the bridges were broken, you couldn't drive at all, you could still get about by bicycle, but otherwise . . .
then the prisoners could no longer be supplied.
Ursula Haverbeck: Of course not.
Robert Bongen: But all the same, you must admit that is still the result of how the Germans acted toward them in the camps.
Ursula Haverbeck: No. It is a result of how the enemies of Germany acted by completely bombing Germany to pieces. People today cannot imagine it.
Robert Bongen: Do you believe that you could convince the majority of Germans that the Holocaust, in its recognized form, did not occur, that it never happened?
Ursula Haverbeck: Even now, I already have the impression that the majority of thinking Germans have experienced so many contradictions that they, at the very least, doubt it strongly. And perhaps even more so, a great many tradespeople and the like, precisely because they're people with their feet on the ground, also say, "That simply can't be right." I take their word.
Robert Bongen: What can't be right?
Ursula Haverbeck: The gas chambers and so on, all those technical things that tradespeople understand better than we do. And they say that simply can't be right.
And then, in the war — we old folks all lived through the war and we know what short supply everything was in —
and when you think how many men would have been needed to run it all, it makes no sense.
So that's that, but as to whether everyone will come around . . .
I'm afraid so. And it will be very uncomfortable for people.
Robert Bongen: Why, in your opinion, is it important to pass down to the next generation doubt about the historicity of the Holocaust?
Ursula Haverbeck: Because otherwise they'll suffer under it uselessly for all eternity. And they do, they're told they have to. This guilt complex is so deeply rooted — and above all then there are the demands too: give more submarines, give more this, do more that, and so on. All of that is founded upon "we and our past . . ." No doubt you've heard that yourself many times. And above all the worst of it is, the Jews themselves don't want it. They make it a reproach to us now that we do as much. Read the open letter by . . . What was his name now? — Meir Margalit, written after Chancellor Merkel's visit to Israel and her speech to the Knesset, which he himself heard. At that rate we have to despair of ourselves all the more. They make it a reproach to us now that we do that. We must, and— No, I can't imagine that thinking people will go along with that for much longer.
Robert Bongen: What events do you organize in order to spread this idea . . .
Ursula Haverbeck: I don't organize anything. . . .
Robert Bongen: Where do you appear? How do you try to pass this on to young people?
Ursula Haverbeck: I don't do anything at all from my side. I get asked questions, on every possible subject, not just that.
Robert Bongen: And who comes then, what sort of people are they?
Ursula Haverbeck: All sorts of people, old and young mixed, but lots of young people. The young, however, mostly want to hear about what you asked about earlier, the Third Reich.
That interests them the most.
Robert Bongen: Are they for the most part National Party members then, or . . .
Ursula Haverbeck: I don't think so. No, no, I wouldn't say that. The NPD is not highly regarded by the young. Or I have that impression, anyway. Tthough perhaps the fault for that lies . . . well, I can't generalize. But in any case, with regard to the young people who invite me to speak,
I would say, no. They're mainly not NPD. They're quite critical of it.
But they do want to be German! That's what it is.
And even just to be German today is "fascist." That is the problem.
It probably has to be— thought I haven't yet finished sorting out what I think about this . . .
Why did these events — why did this conflict, Jews and Germans, become so stark, and why this hate of the Jews, why did it have to happen? It's still completely unclear to me.
But perhaps I'll manage someday.
Robert Bongen: The hate of the Jews for the Germans?
Ursula Haverbeck: Yes. I have never read, from any other people, such hate-filled expressions about another people as from the Jews. — Why . . .
Robert Bongen: — More than the hate of the Germans toward Jews?
Ursula Haverbeck: That's much later, the hate of the Germans. The Jews were much earlier.
And it's . . . all you have to do is read the Talmud. I have all twelve volumes there in the authorized, most recent translation and edition, 2002. I bought them with Horst Mahler because we wanted to verify the commonly circulated statements from the Talmud.
Are they accurate? (Especially compared with an authorized edition.) And I couldn't read more than three pages, it made me feel ill.
That's how revolting it is, all the stuff in it about sexuality and so on, about how you can do it with a three-year-old child, and and and . . . You know, it's all just so alien
I don't even want to think about it.
Robert Bongen: As a last question I'd like to ask you, since you just mentioned Horst Mahler The things that you say and that you believe— namely, that the Holocaust in particular did not happen, as you say— saying this, naturally, could land you in prison.
Ursula Haverbeck: Well then, that's just a risk I have to take if people think that's best. Their opinion. That's, that's . . . look, I'm old. I've had a long life, a good life, as I've told you.
That's just the price that one must pay. I always think of Schiller,
"Rise up, my comrades, to horse! to horse!"
And it ends, "And if you will not stake your lives, You'll never win life as your prize."
That's what your motto must be. And you must also be prepared —
And Nehru, by the way, said that to the Kurds too: if a people is ready to pay the price for freedom, then no one can make them unfree. It just depends on the price one is ready to pay.
(Subtitles by Kladderadatsch )
Notes (Description of names mentioned in this interview)
Robert Faurisson: Pioneering French revisionist.
Zykon B: Cyanide-based pesticide developed to allow safe fumigation of buildings, it releases its cyanide content too slowly to work as described by "eyewitnesses" to alleged gassings.
15 Million Germans: Germans driven from their homes in the eastern provinces of Germany given to Poland after the war, as well as from similar areas in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere.
Konrad Adenauer: First chancellor of post-war (West) Germany.
Dresden: Eastern Germany city [fire] bombed by British and American planes in February 1945.
Collegium Humanum: Independent school/study center founded by Werner Georg Haverbeck (Ursula's husband); banned by German government in 2008 for promoting "Holocaust denial."
Herbert Prantl: Prominent German legal expert and journalist.
Suddeutsche Zeitung: Major German newspaper, based in Munich.
Germar Rudolf: German chemist and major revisionist, showed that the masonry of the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers shows no traces of cyanide residues consistent with gassing claims.
Horst Mahler: German lawyer and nationalist activist; sentenced to twelve years in prison in 2009.
Breslau: Former German city in eastern provinces, seized and subjected to ethnic cleansing by Poland after the war; today "Wrocław."
Ernst Nolte: Prominent German political scientist, attacked during 1980s for suggesting a "causal nexus" between Holocaust and Soviet atrocities.
Garrison and Commandant Orders (German: Standort-und Kommandanturbefehle): A collection of orders issued by SS authorities concerning the management and treatment of prisoners at Auschwitz, seized along with other Auschwitz records by the Soviets in 1945 and held in archives in Moscow until the 1990s; published in book form in 2000.
"Would you like to stay . . . ?": Prisoners at Auschwitz were given the option in January 1945 to stay behind to be liberated by the advancing Red Army or to evacuate to Germany with the SS; a majority chose the latter.
Fred Leuchter: American expert in execution technology, did pioneering study of cyanide residues at Auschwitz which was later developed by Germar Rudolf.
Otto Uthgenannt and Enrico Marco: Alleged former concentration camp inmates whose claims have been exposed as false.
Typhus: Highly contagious, deadly disease spread by lice; the primary means of control available to the Germans during the war was to kill the disease vector (lice) by fumigating clothing and barracks with cyanide gas, aka Zyklon B.
Sefton Delmer: British journalist and propagandist, later wrote about his role in creating "black propaganda" during the war.
Rheinwiesen: Area of western Germany where US and other Allied forces set up POW camps for surrendered Germans, large numbers of whom would die of exposure, disease and malnutrition.
Martin Broszat: Former director of Institute for Contemporary History, admitted in a published letter in 1960 that there were no gas chambers in any camp in Germany or Austria.
Norbert Frei: Orthodox German historian, lead editor of the "Commandant Orders."
Walter Post, Stefan Scheil: Prominent dissenting historians of WWII.
Henry Morgenthau and Louis Nizer: Prominent American Jews in the 1940s, both developed plans ("Morgenthau Plan"; "What to Do With Germany") for the effective destruction of Germany as a viable European nation.
Erhard Milch: Half-Jewish German field marshal, responsible for development and production for the Luftwaffe.
Theodor Herzl: German-Jewish founder of the modern Zionist movement, author of "The Jewish State."
Hans Grimm: German author of mid-20th century; his 1954 book "Warum — Woher — aber Wohin?" collects many examples of admiring tributes to Hitler by English authors.
Christopher Clark: Australian historian whose recent history of the origins of WWI, "The Sleepwalkers," demolishes the notion of Germany's "sole guilt" for the war.
Sebastian Haffner: Traitorous German author (see Weber, "Sebastian Haffner's 1942 Call for Mass Murder") who later became a "respectable" historian in post-war Germany.
Versailles: The 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which placed "sole guilt" for the outbreak of WWI on Germany.
Meir Margalit: Israeli historian and human rights activist, opposed to misuse of Holocaust narrative to justify Zionist intransigence.
NPD: National Democratic Party of Germany (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands).
Friedrich Schiller: 18th-century German poet and dramatist, his "Wallenstein" tells the story of the Thirty Years War general Albrecht Wallenstein.
Jawaharlal Nehru: Indian independence activist and associate of Ghandi; first Prime Minister of post-colonial India.
Superb April 4, 2014 interveiw with Jewish Revisionist David Stein (aka David Cole) & Ryan Dawson on the mind boggling ordeals
encountered by anyone who attempts to bring out the truth of the Holocaust Deception https://tinyurl.com/yc438ym5
Historical Revisionist Activist Jim Rizoli's Two Hour Interview with Red Ice Radio on Feb. 1, 2016
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.