The Triumph of Walter Lüftl
/The Triumph of a "Catacomb Revisionist"
The Case of WalTer LUftl
By John Beaumont Author of The Truth Will Set You Free: The Case for Holocaust Revisionism
(A) Introduction
In my new book, The Truth Will Set You Free: The Case for Holocaust Revisionism, I set out in the final chapter, under fourteen headings and in summary form, the best arguments for this case, all of which are dealt with in detail in the body of the book. Of course, Holocaust revisionism is not the same as Holocaust denial. In reality, no one holds the view often characterized as “Holocaust denial” in the sense of denying completely that there was ever any persecution of the Jews at that time. Of course, there was. As Thomas Dalton expresses it in his short summary of the issues, “[Revisionists] do not deny that a tragedy happened to the Jews, nor do they deny that many thousands of them died. No serious revisionist claims that ‘the Holocaust never happened.’”[1] In fact, at any moment in history evil things have been done and the Jews have been the subject of such things. But these things have happened to other people as well, and in great numbers.
To continue, then, on the revisionist theme, the first four arguments for Holocaust revisionism that are developed in this article are very important. They are powerful indeed, and all to whom they have been put have found them so. But they are not formally conclusive. However, we shall see that there does exist another specific further argument. This shows in a different and conclusive way that the mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers is actually impossible. It is impossible for technical reasons and because it is incompatible with observable laws of nature. This final argument was put forward by the eminent Austrian engineer, Walter Lüftl, in what has become known as The Lüftl Report, published in its revised and definitive form in 1992.[2]
The expanded title of the report refers to it as “An Austrian Engineer’s Report on the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz and Mauthausen.” This article will concentrate on Auschwitz, always perceived by those involved in the mainstream versus revisionist debate as being the central issue, what is often referred to in this context, in the words of the historian, David Irving, as “Battleship Auschwitz.”[3]
Before going any further what must be emphasized is the great number of the functions and offices Walter Lüftl has held. He was born on November 6, 1933 in Vienna. He was a court-recognized expert engineer, having given expert forensic evidence as a witness in the courts on a great number of occasions, and headed a large engineering firm in Vienna. He had no links with the neo-Nazis. His immense reputation as “a particularly precise and exact specialist,”[4] led him to be chosen to serve in a politically unaffiliated and independent capacity as president of the Federal Austrian Chamber of Engineers (Bundes-Ingenieurkammer). This is the representative body of his profession and a very prestigious organization, consisting of 4,000 members.
(B) The Konstructiv Article
In the Winter of 1991 Walter Lüftl had published a preliminary version of his views in the engineering journal, Konstruktiv, making it clear that he had grave doubts about some historical eyewitness testimony.
Walter Lüftl
The basic legal principles of a state under the rule of law demand that publicly appointed and sworn experts must accord greater significance to material evidence than to any eyewitness accounts. Lüftl, being such an expert and acting in accordance with this logical stipulation, was more than a little surprised to realize that the generally accepted qualitative hierarchy of evidence appears to be reversed where the Holocaust is concerned: Holocaust historiography is dominated by eyewitness testimony which, he found, frequently does not stand up to expert criticism, but which is nevertheless accepted unquestioningly and is given precedence over the material findings of experts.[5]
Lüftl went on to state that “we know from past cases: even if 46 witnesses more or less firmly declare that they heard nothing, the 47th witness who heard something, whose statement can be verified by experts, nonetheless speaks the truth.[6]
Lüftl also expressed his surprise at the fact that “the courts take ‘judicial notice’ of the events of the Holocaust as described by eyewitnesses – i.e., they consider these accounts to be self-evident and proven facts – not only in order to obviate the need for their formal proof and thus to spare themselves the bother of bringing evidence for these events, but that they also make use of this ‘judicial notice’ in order to deny the opposing side the right to bring evidence to the contrary.”[7] Lüftl rightly considered this practice to be “a violation of human rights, since judicial notice should be taken only of such matters as are undisputed by both prosecution and defense – such as water is wet, fire is hot, and ice is cold. As soon as there is any justified and reasonable dispute of any point, however, such a point must be open to discussion.”[8] However, as Lüftl is able to point out, “[T]he legal reality with respect to the Holocaust is that any and all dissenting evidence proffered is dismissed from the start as being ‘pseudo-scientific.’ Truth is the sole province of the status quo. ‘Everything has been proved a thousand times over. Arguments to the contrary have been refuted ad nauseam,’ goes the hollow standard objection, which is simply not true. This arbitrarily assigned self-evidentness is the muzzle that is put on truth.”[9]
(C) The Factual Background
In March 1992 Lüftl made the headlines when the report he had written about alleged German wartime gas chambers, which has become known as The Lüftl Report, was made public. In it he had cast doubt about particular aspects of the Holocaust, namely the belief that mass gassings, especially of Jews, were carried out in the concentration camps of the Third Reich. As a result of the uproar following his report, and in spite of his great reputation, he was obliged to resign as president of the engineers’ association. In addition, a preliminary investigation began into whether he had violated a recently enacted law that makes it a crime in Austria to deny the “National Socialist crimes against humanity.” This applied to “anyone who, whether through publication, broadcasting, any other media, or other manner suited to public dissemination, denies, grossly trivializes, applauds or seeks to justify the National-Socialist genocide or other National-Socialist crimes against humanity.”[10] This carried a basic penalty (subject to certain qualifications) of a term of imprisonment ranging from one to ten years, and in cases of particular menace posed by the perpetrator or by his actions, by up to twenty years’ imprisonment.[11]
In view of this threat, Lüftl continued to work on his Holocaust studies in order to back up his defense to any charge that might be brought against him. He researched intensely into the source literature. He exchanged information with other qualified experts and his knowledge grew accordingly. This was such that “on those points where he had had only ‘educated guesses’ or ‘personal convictions’ to draw upon while writing the first version of what later became The Lüftl Report, he could now consolidate his knowledge to the point of virtual certainty.”[12] This meant that Lüftl came to feel confident that he could prove “each and every claim advanced . . . with technical certitude, replete with all technical evidence and verifiable results.”[13]
Fortunately, for Walter Lüftl personally, he did not have to go to court and there was a more positive conclusion than could have been expected at one time.
In November of 1992, he was advised by telephone that the charges had been dropped, since it was established that he was scientifically correct. Lüftl’s telephone message from the bureaucrat is a notable exception. In the written notification of dismissal, the grounds were not named. In official documents the authorities would always avoid writing down a statement that could have serious consequences, like admitting that revisionists are right after all.[14]
More formally, on June 15, 1994, he received a notice from the District Criminal Court of Vienna, dated June 8, 1994, stating that the preliminary investigation initiated against him had been dropped since there were no further grounds for prosecution.
Walter Lüftl continued to publish many articles on the same themes. Germar Rudolf, a major revisionist writer himself of course, describes the resulting phenomenon, referring to a letter written by Lüftl in 2004 to the editor of the quarterly Journal for Free Historical Research:
In this connection, [Lüftl] speaks of the creation of “catacomb revisionists,” that is, of the fact that behind the scenes, directly and indirectly, he is constantly converting people to revisionism because, due to his reputation, no one suspects him of being a National Socialist. But since revisionists are persecuted, they have to conduct their activities underground, like the Christians in ancient Rome.[15]
As a result, Lüftl made several public appearances speaking in support of scientific revisionism, which had a considerable social effect. In addition, he succeeded in being re-elected for the Austrian Chamber of Engineers.[16] On December 11, 2009, he was awarded the Golden Diploma of Engineering from the Vienna University of Technology. However, it will not come as a huge surprise to readers that after protests, notably from Jewish organizations, for example the Simon Wiesenthal Center, this honor was formally revoked at the end of January 2010 by the Rectorate of the Vienna University of Technology.[17]
Lüftl’s utter objectivity can be seen by the fact that in one of his articles he went so far as to include the statement that “should the objective and scientific investigation of the Holocaust nevertheless prove the ‘planned genocide by means of gas chambers,’ then the revisionists too will have to accept this.”[18] That has never become necessary and nothing is more important than the central proposition put forward in The Lüftl Report itself, on which we shall now concentrate.
(D) Evidence: Testimony and Scientific Analysis
As we have seen from the Konstructiv article, Walter Lüftl has always been disappointed that although the modern state, rightly in his view, gives precedence to material evidence over eyewitness testimony, this does not seem to apply to the issue of the Holocaust. Lüftl begins his later report by emphasising again that “Holocaust literature” tends to be so “one-sided”:
A critical examination of the limited area of the overall topic under discussion has shown that the accounts of “eyewitnesses” in particular have been immensely exaggerated and unbelievable; so much so that a balancing of the discussion appeared indispensable. The impossible does not become any “truer” when it is claimed by many people. In cases of contradiction between witness testimony and objective proof, the latter takes precedence in every modern constitutional state. In the case of the “Holocaust,” though, this has obviously been otherwise.[19]
A little later on Lüftl comes back to the point that a major flaw in the Auschwitz extermination story at the time he was writing was that it had so far not been subjected to scientific analysis. The discussion had been dominated by belief. As he says, “even intelligent, well-educated people believe in the ‘atrocities confirmed by many eyewitnesses.’ In doing so, they forget that in any modern constitutional state, forensic evidence and documentary proof carry more weight than witness testimony.”[20]
Witnesses may err; their memories may deceive; witnesses may exaggerate their own importance and repeat hearsay. Witnesses have also been known to lie. Even the “confessions” of allegedly guilty individuals (which may be extorted through torture or obtained through promises of lesser punishment) are worthless without the support of objective proof. Anyone who doubts this should check Solzhenitsyn. . . [In The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn cites the case of the Bavarian Jupp Aschenbrenner, who “confessed” to serving in a German wartime murder commando. Only later, in a camp in 1954, was he able to prove that at the time of the alleged crimes, he was in Munich learning to be a welder.][21]
If people are not willing to accept the truth, all the arguments against the mainstream Holocaust story will be meaningless. Lüftl cites some lines of verse from the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer:
Nothing is more galling
Than to fight with facts and arguments
Against an adversary. In the belief
That one is dealing with his understanding,
When in reality One is dealing with the will,
Which obdurately closes its mind to the truth.
One must understand that reason
Applied against the will
Is like seed sown on bare rock
Like light arrows against armor,
Like the stormwind against a beam of light.[22]
On a more practical line, the virtue of Lüftl’s approach to evidence can be seen in the advice he gave in 1991 and 1992 to Dr. Gerhard Jagschitz, Professor for Contemporary History in Vienna, who was summoned as an expert witness in the trial of the Austrian Holocaust revisionist Gerd Honsik. Lüftl informed Professor Jagschitz of his own well-founded doubts and urged him to consult the expertise of engineers in order to resolve the questions at issue: had there really been mass executions by means of poison gas, and were there really gas chambers in Auschwitz? Lüftl further wrote to Professor Jagschitz on August 12, October 5, October 21, 1991, and February 20, 1992, pointing out many facts (forgeries and false testimony), providing references to relevant literature, and finally asking him the decisive question: “How do you as contemporary historian expect to judge whether a witness is in a position to know something, if you do not consider the material evidence offered by technical experts (Wittgenstein, On Certainty, Clause 441)?”[23]
All you can do is to quote other sources, without being able to really check the facts! One example: how do you deal with the testimony of a “witness of atrocities” who claims that “. . . flames several meters high shot out of the chimneys . . .”? I know the witness is lying, and I can prove it by means of my expert knowledge, and by calculations and experimentation if need be. But how can you, on the other hand, “. . . prove that the witness was in a position to know. . .”?[24]
Lüftl therefore urged Professor Jagschitz to submit that the Court should consult engineering experts. Germar Rudolf also offered his services to Professor Jagschitz. The latter’s refusal to consider either of these recommendations led to disastrous results at the Honsik trial. However, Lüftl’s critique of the Jagschitz Report, submitted at that trial, is a brilliant examination of specific aspects of the revisionist case. It cannot be dealt with here, but should even today be read and digested by all Holocaust revisionists.[25]
As a lawyer the present author is all too well aware of the possibility of error in testimony, of both mistaken evidence and invented evidence (inaccuracy of observation and recall; fragility of memory in such as identification evidence; accomplice evidence; and evidence of children). Many experiments have been carried out and the results have almost always shown that error in testimony is the rule rather than the exception. In the United Kingdom, cases such as Adolf Beck and Oscar Slater, have become notorious,[26] and the situation in the United States is in line with this.[27]
(E) The Holocaust and its Cornerstone Zyklon B
Lüftl begins his report by giving a definition of the Holocaust:
In the view of those who believe – or cause others to believe – in the [Holocaust], mass gassings, especially of Jews, were carried out in the concentration camps of the Third Reich.[28]
He goes on to state that, concentrating on Auschwitz then (using the term “Auschwitz myth”), the estimated number of Jews killed varies between 1.5 million and 6 million, although there has been a reduction in recent years. However, “such a reduction does not lessen the [gravity of the] crime in any way, because even one victim is one too many.”[29] Whatever the situation was, the question for Lüftl remained whether mass gassings took place at all, or could possibly have taken place.[30]
Lüftl next states that, insofar as possible, he has carefully examined many reports of “eyewitnesses,” as well as “confessions” of SS men. And the results?:
If one examines the “eyewitness” testimony, doubts still persist, even if one believes everything that appears in the Holocaust literature. These doubts become even greater when one studies the “confessions” of those who were later found guilty [of crimes].[31]
Lüftl insists that he wishes only to inquire into the truth of the “Auschwitz myth” and to focus on its critical core. This he sees as the technical possibilities of industrial mass killing with Zyklon B. So, Zyklon B is the cornerstone of the Auschwitz myth. This means that “if Zyklon B is unsuitable for use in ‘deliberate genocidal extermination,’ then the entire Auschwitz extermination story . . . falls apart. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.”[32]
(F) LÜftl on the Mainstream Account
Lüftl’s description of the mainstream account of the supposed gassing procedure sets out the claim made there. This needs to be done in considerable detail in order to be accurate and so fair, and to set the stage for the revisionist response. Lüftl starts by dealing with the gas chambers and the handling of Zyklon B:
According to the Holocaust literature, the victims were “packed” into the gas chambers and then poisoned with hydrogen cyanide (Prussian Blue) vapors from Zyklon B. The bodies were burned in crematory ovens, and the ashes were strewn on hillsides or in water. . .
Because certain organizational problems arise even in mass extermination – for example, varying killing capacities of the gas chambers or varying crematory capacities in disposing of the bodies – it should be obvious even at this point that events cannot have transpired as described in the Holocaust literature. We shall nevertheless limit our discussion to the essentials. . .
What is Zyklon B? Zyklon B is a pest control agent, the active ingredient of which is Prussian Blue (hydrocyanic acid, HCN). Hydrocyanic acid is a highly toxic, highly flammable liquid that vaporizes at 25.7 degrees Celsius. The vapors released upon evaporation are lighter than air (density: 0.95). The ignition point of hydrocyanic acid is 535 degrees Celsius, but the acid can be ignited at temperatures as low as -17.8 degrees Celsius. The explosion point in air at 20 degrees Celsius ranges from 5.4 to 46.6 percent by volume percent, or between 60 and 520 grams per cubic meter (m3).
Among other uses, gaseous hydrogen cyanide is used as a fumigant gas. What is the effect of hydrogen cyanide gas on human beings? 0.10 ml/m3 is harmless over an eight-hour exposure; 0.90 ml/m3 is dangerous or fatal upon protracted exposure; 0.80-270 ml/m3 is rapidly fatal.
For safe handling, hydrocyanic acid is absorbed in diatomite (following the admixture of an irritant for safety purposes), and is stored and transported in air-tight metal cans. The product is generally used within three months. Because the Zyklon B manufacturing facilities were totally destroyed in bombing attacks in early 1944, gassings with Zyklon B could not have taken place after the summer of 1944. . .
Hydrocyanic acid vapors are not released immediately after the cans are opened. The evaporation of Zyklon B requires as many as 32 hours or as few as six hours, depending on whether the ambient temperature ranges from five to 30 degrees Celsius. The evaporation rate is not exactly proportional to time.[33]
What follows next is a description of the gassing procedure according to the mainstream Holocaust literature:
The victims were led to gas chambers, which were disguised as shower baths,[34] and were deceived by being handed soap and a towel. But what for? Who takes a shower holding a towel in his hands? But let’s not detain ourselves with such trivia.
It is said, for example, that a hundred victims were packed into a chamber of 20 square meters, that is, five persons per square meter. (Witnesses sometimes even speak of as many as 25 victims per square meter). At five persons per square meter, the victims wouldn’t even be able even to soap themselves, due to lack of space. So what would they need the soap for? Soap was a commodity in short supply, but was permitted to fall on the floor unused, and become unusable. But let’s move along.
The doors of the 2.5 meter-high chamber were hermetically sealed. An SS man wearing a gas mask threw Zyklon B, a mixture of hydrocyanic acid and irritant (added as a warning substance, since some people cannot smell hydrocyanic acid, the odor of which peculiarly resembles that of bitter almonds) absorbed in a carrier substance, from a can containing 200 grams of HCN in each case [the significance of this is dealt with later], from above. . . The mixture fell to the floor, and the hydrocyanic acid began to escape. The gassing procedure normally lasted 15 to 20 minutes. (According to some sources, it lasted from five to as long as 30 minutes)….
[…] This is just an excerpt from the March 2024 Issue of Culture Wars magazine. To read the full article, please purchase a digital download of the magazine, or become a subscriber!
Articles:
Culture of Death Watch
Murder in West Cork by Geraldine Comiskey
Features
The Triumph of Walter Lüftl by John Beaumont
The Ethnic Cleansing of German Minorities after the War by Dr. E. Michael Jones
Reviews
Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy by Sean Naughton
(Endnotes Available by Request)
[1] Holocaust Revisionism in 60 Seconds, p. 1, https://holocausthandbooks. com/dl/HRin60Seconds.pdf.
[2] Originally published as “Holocaust, Glaube und Fakten” (Holocaust, Belief and Facts) (1991), published in English under the title The Lüftl Report: An Austrian Engineer’s Report on the “Gas Chambers” of Auschwitz and Mauthausen in The Journal of Historical Review (1992), http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p391_Luftl.html; reprinted at https://archive.org/details/LueftlWalterTheLueftlReportEN199217S.Text/mode/1up, and at www.unz.com › pub › jhr_the-luftl-report. Note that the version in the Journal of Historical Review gives the tables of statistics in full, whereas the actual report does not. However, these statistics are concerned only with the question of mass gassings with diesel engine exhaust gas, a matter of only secondary importance in the present article. For a detailed chronological account of the Lüftl affair, see Walter Lüftl, “The Case of Walter Lüftl: Contemporary History and the Justice System,” in Germar Rudolf (ed), Dissecting the Holocaust (2019), p. 61. The reason why this is written in the third person is that originally Walter Lüftl used the pen name Werner Rademacher for this contribution.
[3] See “Battleship Auschwitz,” The Journal of Historical Review (1990), p. 490, http://www.ihr.
org/jhr/v10/v10p491_Irving.html. No homicidal mass gassings took place in the concentration camp Mauthausen. The method of gassing described by witnesses is nonsense and would have been fatal for the executioners (see The Lüftl Report, pp. 11-13). It is important to note that no traces of killing devices of the Mauthausen Concentration Camp were ever found and that the gas chamber shown to visitors is a post war fabrication with no relation to reality: Florian Freund, Bertrand Perz, Karl Stuhlpfarrer, “Historische Überreste von Tötungseinrichtungen im KZ Mauthausen,” Zeitgeschichte (Vienna), 22 (1995), pp. 297-317; review: I. SchirmerVowinckel, “Nicht vorhanden,” VffG, 2(1) (1998), pp. 68f.
[4] F. Holtzhäuser, editor, The Lüftl Report, p. 1.
[5] “Sachverständigenbeweis versus Zeugenbeweis,” Konstruktiv 166 (Dec. 1991), pp. 31f.
[6] “Sachverständigenbeweis versus Zeugenbeweis,” Konstruktiv 166 (Dec. 1991), pp. 31f.
[7] “The Case of Walter Lüftl: Contemporary History and the Justice System,” in Germar Rudolf (ed), Dissecting the Holocaust (2019), p. 61.
[8] “The Case of Walter Lüftl,” p. 61.
[9] “The Case of Walter Lüftl,” pp. 61-62.
[10] “The Case of Walter Lüftl,” p. 67.
[11] “The Case of Walter Lüftl,” p. 66.
[12] “The Case of Walter Lüftl,” p. 68.
[13] ““The Case of Walter Lüftl,” p. 68.
[14] Germar Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust: Controversial Issues Cross-Examined (4th edition, 2023), p. 260. On the question how do we know the contents of Lüftl’s telephone conversations with a bureaucrat, Rudolf cites a phone call from Lüftl advising him. Rudolf recognizes that a telephone message from a bureaucrat does not prove that Lüftl was correct, but says that if he had been mistaken, “the authorities would certainly have jumped on it.”
[15] Germar Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust: Controversial Issues Cross-Examined (4th edition, 2023), p. 139.
[16] “Lüftl wieder in Kammer. ‘Schwieriges Problem,’” Standard, September 19, 1994.
[17] “Walter Lüftl” - German Wikipedia, Google translation.
[18] “The Case of Walter Lüftl,” p. 82.
[19] The Lüftl Report, p. 1.
[20] The Lüftl Report, p. 3.
[21] The Lüftl Report, pp. 3-4.
[22] Cited in The Lüftl Report, p. 4, but without a specific reference. The present writer has not been able to find the exact reference to this verse in Schopenhauer’s works.
[23] “The Case of Walter Lüftl,” p. 65.
[24] “The Case of Walter Lüftl,” p. 65.
[25] For much detail on this, see Walter Lüftl, “The Case of Walter Lüftl: Contemporary History and the Justice System,” in Germar Rudolf (ed), Dissecting the Holocaust (2019), pp. 68-81.
[26] See, for example, the study by Professor Glanville Williams in his book The Proof of Guilt (1963), pp. 86-182.
[27] See “List of Wrongful Convictions in the United States” - Wikipedia.
[28] The Lüftl Report, p. 3.
[29] The Lüftl Report, p. 3.
[30] Note that “to Lüftl, the questionable aspect of the Holocaust was particularly the alleged mass gassings; the other forms of killing are not mentioned at all by Lüftl due to his lack of familiarity with these topics” (Walter Lüftl, “The Case of Walter Lüftl: Contemporary History and the Justice System,” in Germar Rudolf (ed), Dissecting the Holocaust (2019), p. 66.
[31] The Lüftl Report, p. 3.
[32] The Lüftl Report, p. 3.
[33] The Lüftl Report, p. 4.
[34] Claims have sometimes been made describing gas admission by means of brass shower heads through pipes which were connected to two valves in the exterior wall, into which the gas was introduced. This version was admitted as Document 159-L during the Nuremberg Tribunal. But Zyklon B is a granulate and cannot be conducted through pipes and shower heads, since the hydrogen cyanide of this product is not a gas under pressure. Hence, the corresponding statements by the investigatory commissions and by witnesses are therefore false. In the proprietary Zyklon pesticide, the cyanide compound was impregnated into inert slow-release pellets the size of sugar-cubes; it was consequently incapable of being “blown in” through “little holes,” shower-heads or the like.
[35] The Lüftl Report, pp. 4-5.
[36] The Lüftl Report, p. 5.
[37] Jürgen Graf, Eyewitness Reports and Perpetrator Confessions of the Holocaust: 30 Gas-Chamber Witnesses Scrutinized (2019), pp. 340-341, https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.
[38] See The Lüftl Report, pp. 15-16.
[39] Interview in Iran conducted by the Tehran Times, December 13, 2006.
[40] The Chemistry of Auschwitz (4th edition, 2020), p. 11, https://holocaust-handbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf.
[41] Germar Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust: Controversial Issues Cross-Examined (4th edition, 2023), p. 227, https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/15-loth.pdf.
[42] “Transcript of the recording of a talk given in Stockholm on December 4, 1992,”
AAARGH, https://aaargh.vho.org/engl/FaurisArch/RF921204.html.
[43] Holocaust Revisionism in 60 Seconds, p. 1, https://holocausthandbooks.
com/dl/HRin60Seconds.pdf.
[44] Holocaust Revisionism in 60 Seconds, p. 2, https://holocausthandbooks.
com/dl/HRin60Seconds.pdf.
[45] “Transcript of the recording of a talk given in Stockholm on December 4, 1992,” AAARGH, https://aaargh.vho.org/engl/FaurisArch/RF921204.html.
[46] “Transcript of the recording of a talk given in Stockholm on December 4, 1992,” AARGH, https://aaargh.vho.org/engl/FaurisArch/RF921204.html.
[47] “Transcript of the recording of a talk given in Stockholm on December 4, 1992,” AARGH, https://aaargh.vho.org/engl/FaurisArch/RF921204.html.
[48] Robert Faurisson, “The Victories of Revisionism (Part 2),” (2011), https://codoh.com/
library/document/the-victories-of-revisionism-part-2/en/; republished in Inconvenient History (Vol. 8, No. 1, 2016).
[49] Robert Faurisson, “Presentation of Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century
(French edition),” October 2002, https://aaargh.vho.org/engl/FaurisArch/RF0210.html.
[50] The Lüftl Report, pp. 5-6. In addition, there are many mainstream reports that the teams were sent, without gas masks, into places supposedly saturated with hydrogen cyanide, in order to remove the corpses infused with cyanide.
[51] The Lüftl Report, p. 7. The many other contributions made by Lüftl include the following facts: the Kurt Gerstein statement (the “confession” of an SS man) is worthless. Mass gassings with diesel-exhaust fumes cannot have taken place. Crematoria chimneys do not spew flames during the cremation process. The number of cremated victims is considerably exaggerated since the capacity of the crematoria would have been insufficient to handle mass gassings.
[52] The Lüftl Report, p. 7.
[53] The Lüftl Report, p. 7.
[54] The Lüftl Report, p. 16.
[55] See https://www.radicalrightanalysis.com/tag/walter-luftl/
[56] Barbara Kulaszka (ed), Did Six Million Really Die, p. 674.
[57] Kulaszka (ed), Did Six Million Really Die?, p. 674.
[58] Hoax or Holocaust: The Arguments (1998), p. 28.
[59] Hoax or Holocaust: The Arguments (1998), p. 29.
[60] Hoax or Holocaust: The Arguments (1998), p. 29.
[61] Hoax or Holocaust: The Arguments (1998), p. 29.
[62] Hoax or Holocaust: The Arguments (1998), p. 33.
[63] Holocaust Revisionism in 60 Seconds, https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/HRin60Seconds.pdf. See also Dalton’s reference to this theme in his The Holocaust: An Introduction (2016), pp. 113-115, and his important detailed reflections on it in his Debating the Holocaust: Controversial Issues Cross-Examined (4th edition, 2020), pp. 261-303, https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/15-loth.pdf.
[64] “The Case of Walter Lüftl,” p. 61.
