Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Deceit, Lies and Swindles: The Psychology behind “Holocaust Survivor Testimonies”

A new article which appeared in the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper, quoting a 101-year-old Jewish “Holocaust Survivor” as having survived being gassed because the Nazis “ran out of gas” is the perfect example of the psychology of mass deceit and lies which has come to typify this sort of “testimony.”

In addition, the unquestioning acceptance of the easily-disproved lies of the “eye-witness” by the Daily Mail shows once again how the mass media is directly complicit in promoting the Six Million Story.



The Daily Mail story in question, titled “Woman who SURVIVED Auschwitz because Nazis ran out of gasturns 101,” published on December 10, 2014, quotes one Klara Markus, who claims to have survived no less than three camps.

According to the Daily Mail, Markus “escaped [the] Auschwitz gas chambers because Nazis ran out of gas.”

This incredible Daily Mail story is worth quoting in full in order to provide a proper analysis:

Mrs Markus, who had been imprisoned in Dachau and Ravensbruck before being sent to Auschwitz, survived the Nazi German camp in occupied Poland because the Nazis ran out of gas.

Mrs Markus was born Klara Schongut, on New Years Eve 1913, in Carei, Satu Mare County.

In August 1942, she was deported to a Jewish ghetto in Budapest, Hungary where she started work in an umbrella factory.

'My mother and older sisters were taken directly to Auschwitz. I never saw them again,' Klara Markus told a Romanian newspaper in 2010.

The mother-of-two remained in Budapest for another two years, before the Nazis ordered the remaining Jews in the city to march toward the concentration camps.

After a month-long march, Mrs Markus arrived at Dachau on October 20, 1944, and one week later she was sent to the notorious women's camp in Ravensbruck, before being transported to Auschwitz.

Shortly before the evacuation and subsequent liberation of Auschwitz in January 1945, Mrs Markus, then 30 years old and weighing around 70lbs (32kg), was sent to the gas chambers. 

She said: 'I was chosen towards the end of the day with a large group of other women and we were made ready for the gas chamber.

'But when they put us inside and went to turn the gas on, they found they had run out.

'One of the guards joked that it was our lucky day because they had already killed so many they didn't have any gas left for us.'

'God was watching over me that day.'

Mrs Markus says her narrow escape made her realise that she had nothing to lose and she managed to escape Auschwitz.

This is an astonishing story—but of course, a colossal lie from beginning to end.
According to the “official” Holocaust Storyteller version of events, Markus’s “testimony” is blatantly untrue.

Even accepting the claim that it was possible to march thousands of people from Budapest to Dachau—a 403 mile or 650 kilometer route in wartime, during winter, without thousands of guards (!), Markus’s story contains two astonishing lies:

Lie 1: Even the official Holocaust Storytellers Deny that Auschwitz had “gas chambers” in January 1945.

The most obvious lie is that Markus was sent to the “gas chamber” at Auschwitz in January 1945.

According to the official Holocaust Storyteller version—as contained in, for example, the United States Holocaust Museum timeline ofevents at Auschwitz, the “gas chambers” were put out of commission in November 1944—in other words, before Markus even supposedly arrived at the camp.

Bear in mind that this “Holocaust survivor” claimed to have marched for a month to reach Dachau, where she claimed to have arrived on October 20, 1944.

After a week, she claimed to have been transported to Ravensbruck camp. This camp was located north of Berlin, another 410 miles / 661 kilometers further north. This would have meant that she would have arrived in Ravensbruck during the first week of November at the earliest—just as the “gas chambers” at Auschwitz were being closed down, according to the official Holocaust Storytellers.

To claim that she was sent to the “gas chambers” in January 1945 is therefore impossible even by the “official” record.

Lie 2: The Nazis “ran out gas.”

According to the official Holocaust Storyteller line, the Nazis did not pipe gas to the “gas chambers” but instead used Zyklon-B, an insecticide, to kill thousands of Jews in underground chambers at Auschwitz.

Leaving aside the technical impossibility of killing thousands of people simultaneously in an underground chamber,* the Nazis would never have started an execution with thousands of people without making sure all the logistics were in place.

Markus’s claim that the Nazis “ran out of gas” is as ludicrous as the claim that she was sent to a gas chamber in January 1945.

Finally, the reality is that Soviet troops reached Auschwitz on January 27, making Markus’s claim to have “escaped” from the camp as unlikely as her claim to have escaped being “gassed.”

*(For example, the involuntary—and perfectly normal—defecation by executed persons as their bowel muscles relax, replicated by “thousands” of “victims” being killed simultaneously in a crowded, supposedly airtight, underground chamber, would quickly block up the room and make it unusable after even one such “mass gassing.”)

This obviously fraudulent “survivor testimony” raises two important issues:

1. Why would someone invent a story which could be so easily disproved, even by consulting the “official” Holocaust Storytellers’ version of events? And

2. Why would the Daily Mail—and other mass media outlets—carry this story without doing even the most basic of research to check if it was true or not? They would most certainly question and research any other such fantastic claim.

The answer to the first question cuts to the very heart of so much “holocaust survivor” testimony which has been proven to be false.

The vast majority of “survivors” are merely repeating the stories they have been told after the war, and this is why their “testimony” differs so widely—because it is all second, third or fourth hand “Chinese Whispers.”

Rudolf Vrba’s Lies Form Basis of “Auschwitz Gas Chamber” Story


Even the most famous “eye witness Auschwitz survivor” of all, Rudolf Vbra, upon whose “testimony” much of the entire “Auschwitz gas chamber” story is based, admitted in a Toronto Court in 1985 that he had never actually seen a gassing at the camp and that his book, I Cannot Forgive, was only "an artistic picture...not a document for a court."


Rudolf Vrba, now an assistant professor at the University of B.C., told the Ernst Zündel trial that his written and pictorial descriptions of the Auschwitz crematoria and gas chambers are based on "what I heard it might look like."

This was an astonishing admission, bearing in mind that Vrba’s “testimony” has formed the basis of most, if not all, descriptions of the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

Consider the following advertising blurb which accompanies themost recent reprint of Vrba’s book:

“April 7, 1944—Alarm sirens announce the escape of two Slovak prisoners from a heavily-guarded camp in Nazi Germany. The escapees, Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler, succeed and flee more than one hundred miles to give the first graphic and exact descriptions of the operations at Auschwitz, which up to that point had only been heard about as unverifiable rumours. Their report, first punished in Swiss and then in the western press, made the reality of Nazi annihilation camps explicit and unequivocal to Pope Pius XII, Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.”

Yet now we are told, by Vrba himself, that it was all just an “artistic picture” based on “what I heard it might look like.”

Holocaust “Memoirs”: A Long List of Lies and Fraud

Vrba’s “testimony” is but one of a long line of invented “memoirs”, of which only a few can be reviewed here:

- Herman Rosenblat’s Angel at the Fence: The True Story of a Love That Survived was a Holocaust memoir in which the author invented the story that, while he was imprisoned in the Buchenwald concentration camp, a young girl from the outside would pass him food through the fence daily and years later they accidentally met and married.

Rosenblat appeared twice on The Oprah Winfrey Show. Prior to the book's announced publication, Winfrey called the story "the single greatest love story, in 22 years of doing this show, we've ever told on the air." The book was scheduled for publication in February 2009 by Berkley Books, a division of Penguin Group USA, but was cancelled after it was exposed as a lie from beginning to end.

Rosenblat and wife in happier days before their swindle was exposed.

- Binjamin Wilkomirski’s Fragments (1995), was an acclaimed account of his supposed internment in Auschwitz and Majdanek.

The New York Times called the book "stunning," the Los Angeles Times described it as a "classic first-hand account of the Holocaust"; it received the 1996 National Jewish Book Award for Autobiography and Memoir.

In Britain, Wilkomirski’s book received the Jewish Quarterly Literary Prize, and in France it was awarded the Prix Memoire de la Shoah.


In 1998, Wilkomirski was exposed as a liar by a Swiss journalist, who revealed the author had been nowhere near the camps; that he was in fact called Bruno Grosjean, and had been raised in an orphanage.

Other Works of Fiction

I have analyzed all the major “eye witness testimony” accounts in The Six Million: Fact or Fiction, chapter 20, where the reader can discover further the outright fraud and fiction contained in the following books:

- Simon Wiesenthal’s KZ Mauthausen;
- The Diary of Anne Frank;
- Olga Lengyel’s Five Chimneys;
- Kitty Hart’s Return to Auschwitz;
- Martin Gray’s For Those I Loved;
- Jean Francis Steiner’s Treblinka;
- Miklos Nyisizli’s Auschwitz: A Doctor’s Eyewitness Account; and
- Filip Muller’s Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the gas Chambers.

In addition, there is a fuller discussion of Vrba’s I Cannot Forgive, and Martin Gilbert’s Auschwitz and the Allies.

The Ongoing Financial Swindle 1: The Philip Auerbach Case

Set against the backdrop of lies about the camps, it comes as little surprise to learn that from the very beginning, Jews have been swindling millions out of Germany—figuratively and literally.

Auerbach before his arrest and exposure as a crook.
They started on this swindle early: Immediately after the war’s end, a Jew by the name of Philip Auerbach, who claimed to have “survived” Auschwitz, was appointed head of the “Bavarian State Restitution Office” which was set up by the Allies, and tasked with overseeing “compensation payments” to his fellow Jews.

In January 1951, Auerbach became a member of the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland (Central Council of Jews in Germany)—but the very next month, he was arrested and charged with stealing 3 million Deutsch Marks (DM) from the “restitution fund.”

He was found guilty, and in August 1952 was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment. He committed suicide in jail.

Three of Auerbach’s associates in the restitution office were also sentenced to prison in the same court case.

One of them, Rabbi Aaron Orenstein, was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and fined 10,000 DM. The second, Dr. Klaus Koenig-Ohnsorg, was sentenced to a year in prison and 200 DM fine.

The third, Dr. Berthold Kernisch, received a four-month jail term and was fined 500 DM.

The Ongoing Financial Swindle 2: The Werner Nachmann Case

Werner Nachmann (1925–1988) was president of the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland (Central Council of Jews in Germany) from 1969 to 1988. He served on the organizing committee of the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, and in 1986 he received the Theodor Heuss prize for his services to the Jewish-German reconciliation and the peaceful coexistence of Jews and Christians in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Nachmann: His fraud was revealed after his death.

After his death in 1988, it was discovered that from 1981 to 1987 he had defrauded about 33 million DM ($17 million in U.S. dollars at the time) from a German government fund intended for “victims.”

As reported in the NewYork Times of December 1988, half of the directors of the Central Council of Jews in Germany were forced to resign in the wake of the swindle.

The missing money was never found.



The Ongoing Financial Swindle 3: The Semen Domnister Case

In November 2010, the FBI in New York arrested 31 Jews in that city in connection with a $42.5 million organized fraud against a compensation fund for Holocaust victims.


The U.S. Attorney's Office charged the 31, who included six current and former staff members of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany conference, with making false financial claims using false documents.




The verdict ended a four week trial in which two others, Oksana Romalis and Luba Kramrish, were also found guilty.

The remaining 28 Jews who had participated in the fraud scheme had all pleaded guilty earlier.

All of this just scratches the surface of the ongoing “survivor” fraud which forms an integral part of the entire Holocaust industry.


It is a swindle from beginning to end.

Thursday, December 4, 2014

Alois Brunner and the “I Would Do It All Again” Lie

The announcement by the Simon Wiesenthal Center that one of their most sought-after “war criminals,” Alois Brunner—the so-called “right hand man to Adolf Eichmann—died four years ago, has brought forth the usual outpouring of Holocaust stories about how he was responsible for “deporting tens of thousands of Jews to death camps during the second world war.”




These stories have included the usual rehashing of a supposed interview he gave with the Chicago SunTimes in which Brunner was claimed to have said:
“All of [the Jews] deserved to die because they were the Devil's agents and human garbage. I have no regrets and would do it again” (“Nazi Butcher in Syria Haven”, Nov. 1, 1987).




This incredible quote has been reused time and time again, and has once again made its appearance with the latest reports of Brunner’s death.

Most media outlets—following the Holocaust Storyteller line—just repeat the quote without questioning its origin—even though Brunner denied ever saying such a thing.

So who actually conducted the interview? The article was written by a Chicago Sun-Times journalist named Chuck Ashman. He claimed he had conducted a telephone interview with Brunner in Damascus, “in front of a witness.”

So who exactly was this “Chuck Ashman?”

According to an article in the Chicago Reader magazine, titled “Ashman: Adventures of anUninteresting Person,” all of Ashman’s stories were well known in the Chicago newspaper world to be “hyperbolic” and “selective in its facts.”

However, this is not the worst of it: Ashman was also a convicted fraudster who had spent time in a lunatic asylum.




According to the Chicago Reader, Ashman was a “habitual embellisher of reality, among whose many spurious claims were a law degree from the University of Tennessee and postgraduate study at Oxford University, schools that told the Press-Enterprise they had no record of him.

Most tellingly, the paper [the Press Enterprise] examined his past. At the age of 21, when an aide to Senator George Smathers, he'd been named the Miami Beach Jaycees' outstanding young man of the year. But in 1964, seven years later, he was convicted of three counts of passing fraudulent checks. He avoided prison by pleading insanity and undergoing two years' confinement in a Florida state mental hospital.”

After writing a whole series of outrageous stories about then Austrian president Kurt Waldheim—which were attacked by Clemens Coreth, the Austrian consul general in Chicago, in a letter to the Chicago Sun-Times in which he accused Ashman of "misrepresentation" and "malicious" insinuations—“The Sun-Times dropped him like a hot potato after finding out a few things about Ashman's highly erratic personal and professional history,” the Chicago Reader revealed.

This “quote” therefore comes from a “journalist” who was not only a convicted fraudster, and a certified lunatic, but who was also fired by the Chicago Sun-Times for making up news stories.

In fact the only correctly related interview with Brunner—who left his native Austria after the war and eventually settled in Syria—took place in July 1987. It was conducted by Austrian journalist Gerd Honsik, and published in his book Freispruch für Hitler (Burgenländischer Kulturverband, Wien, 1988).

Honsik’s book was a series of interviews with some thirty-six witnesses, including six former concentration camp inmates and several historians on the topic of the war and the alleged mass-extermination story.

Honsik actually travelled to Damascus where he interviewed Brunner in person.

Brunner as a young man, left, and in 1987, right. Picture from Honsik's book.

In the interview, Brunner denied ever saying the infamous quote attributed to him, stating specifically that he had only said that he would “do it again” in reference to his attempts to resettle Jews outside Europe.

When Honsik specifically asked Brunner about gas chambers, the former senior SS man replied that he had “first heard about them in newspapers after the war” and had never heard of such a thing during his period of service.

Instead, he continued, he had been actively involved in the project to create a Jewish homeland in Madagascar.

It is an indication of the mass hysteria and media propaganda around the Holocaust that the word of a certified lunatic fraudster is taken to be true without question—even though Brunner denied ever making it.

* The Austrian journalist Honsik suffered the fate of many honest people in Europe. His book was outlawed, and he was sentenced to five years imprisonment for his “crime.” His book is available on the Archive.org site, free, at this link.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Sobibór: 2014 Archeological Dig Contradicts Earlier “Gas Chamber” Claims

In September 2014, it was announced that Yoram Haimi from the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel, and Wojciech Mazurek from the Archaeological Division, Chelm, Poland, and a team had discovered the concrete foundations to a building previously covered up by post-war asphalt in the immediate vicinity of a monument at the Sobibór site.

Despite extensive media coverage of the find—and Haimi’s claims that these were the “gas chambers” of Sobibór, there is in reality no evidence that the unearthed foundations are anything else but a building at the camp.

In fact, the unearthing of the foundations created more problems for the Holocaust Storytellers’ narrative than anything else. Previously, it had been claimed that there were three, four, or six “gas chambers” at Sobibór—but the September 2014 “discovery” announced that there were now “apparently” eight “gas chambers”—this based purely on the number of rooms unearthed in the foundations.

Photographs of the 2014 excavation results shows an irregular-shaped building with at least seven differing sized rooms, as can be seen in the image below, released by the researchers.

The foundations unearthed at Sobibór in September 2014: an irregular-shaped building with a number of rooms of different sizes, completely contradictory to the official Holocaust Storyteller narrative of “four square meter chambers.” The irregular size of the rooms is clearly visible in this photograph.

This layout completely contradicts all previous narratives of the Sobibór “gas chambers”, which all claimed that the execution chambers worked with a two-door system and floor extensions on either side of the building. 

These “gas chambers” were, according to the “old” narrative, all the same size (four meters square). On the one side of the “gas chambers,” the Holocaust Storytellers claim, there was a ramp type affair used by the supposed victims to enter the “gas chambers” and, on the other side were supposedly larger doors through which the bodies were removed. As can be seen, the unearthed foundations bear no resemblance to this narrative.

The total lack of any confirming evidence was highlighted by media reports which were careful enough to put in their coverage that the archaeological team had unearthed what they “thought” were the “gas chambers.”

For example, the Israeli Haaretz newspaper quoted Haimi as specifically saying that the unearthed foundations “apparently” served as gas chambers: 

“We have finally found the building that apparently served as the gas chambers,” said Israeli archaeologist Yoram Haimi, who has been coordinating excavations at the site for the past eight years” (“Archaeologists uncover remnants of Sobibór gas chambers”, Haaretz, Sept. 17, 2014).

Israel’s Y-net News also quoted Haimi as saying only that he “believed” he had uncovered the gas chambers: 

"Up until now, we've been waiting for the asphalt to be removed for the construction of the new visitors center, and as soon as it was removed we found this big structure, that we believe housed the Sobibór camp's gas chambers” (“Sobibór's last survivor: There was no time to fear, only to live”, Ynet News, 09.18.14).

In its coverage, the Reuters news agency also pointed out that the archaeologists “believed” they had found the “gas chambers”:

 “Archaeologists excavated beneath the road and found lines of bricks, laid four deep, where they believe the walls of the gas chambers used to stand” (“Archaeologists uncover buried gas chambers at Sobibór death camp”, Reuters,Sep 18, 2014).

The same Reuters article then produced another example of how the Holocaust narrative continually changes: it stated that prisoners were killed in “fifteen minutes with carbon monoxide gas,” and—incredibly—that the Germans kept geese to hide the screams of the dying from other prisoners (!).

The structure of the unearthed foundations—in a place where no-one disputes that there were buildings in the first place—is therefore totally at variance with the “murder facility” claims.

The media coverage given to these excavations is therefore, typically, completely false.

It is also noted with amusement that Ivar Schute from the Netherlands was part of this Sobibór archeological dig team.


The claims about the latest Sobibór “excavations” are clearly as bogus as Schute’s earlier fantasies about “gas chamber tiles” at Treblinka.

In summary:

Firstly, and most importantly, there is no evidence at all these foundations are actually those of “gas chambers.”  

This is simply an invention by the “archeological team” claiming to have found something that they themselves—as evidence in the media coverage outlined above, only “think” and “believe” are gas chambers.

This bears repeating: there is no evidence at all to show that these foundations are actually those of “gas chambers.”

Secondly, the shape of the walls and of the building completely contradict all previous “eye-witness accounts” of “gas chambers” at Sobibór.


Either all the “eye-witnesses” were lying, or they were “mistaken”—or, as is more likely the case, the whole allegation of “gas chambers” is made up.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Reviews for The Six Million: Fact or Fiction?

On Amazon.com


Don't Hate..
By fuller on September 17, 2014
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
What one wants to know is the Truth. Don't believe what they taught you in High School. Think for yourself. Don't Hate... Educate! This is a great learning tool. What you have been taught is a lie. Research, Research, Research.

The most comprehensive overview ever... read it and never be the same.
By Richard Prentice on April 19, 2014
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
This has to simply be the best, most comprehensive, well-researched and convincing overview of the holocaust ever written.
It shows how Nazis and Zionists actually worked together before the war, and then moves on to a systematic analysis of all the evidence of what happened after the war broke out.
In here you will read of the actual number of Jews under Nazi control, what the "Final Solution" actually meant, the farce of the Nuremberg Trials, the reality of the Einsatzgruppen in Russia, the truth about Babi Yar, what Adolf Eichmann actually confessed to, the John Demjanjuk Trials, and then a blow-by-blow analysis--with pictures--of each of the major camps, starting with Auschwitz, Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek, Dachau, Sachsenhausen and Bergen-Belsen.
It then analyzes the "eye-witness" evidence through a dramatic deconstruction of the most-quoted "sources", including an illustrated example of Simon Wiesenthal's fakery.
I cannot recommend this work highly enough--I am convinced it will become the definitive, final word on the holocaust. Read it and be prepared to have your preconceptions of this period of history dramatically revised.

Great Insight.
By Amazon Customer on September 18, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
I will never think of WW2 in the same way...great insight..very brave Author thank you.

Five Stars
By Christopher M Olson on September 11, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
Excellent holohoax synopsis. The last page is epic!! 

On Amazon.co.uk


Read without fear of being smeared you are only enquiring.
By richard the little. on 10 Aug 2014
Format: Kindle Edition
I believed the Nuremberg paradigm without question. But the Auschwitz camp toll has been dropped officially from four million to one and a half million by the authorities without the official toll of six million being adjusted accordingly ? I think you should be able to read other opinions on a historic subject without being smeared as a Nazi ! Otherwise it is very Orwellian !

Masterful and scholarly treatment of the Holocaust Story
By FrankD on 2 Aug 2014
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
An incredible book which will tear away the blinkers from anyone who still believes all the lies about World War II. Massive in scope, meticulously researched, brilliantly illustrated, this book addresses every single allegation head-on--and comes out tops each and every time. My personal favorite section is the part which tears apart the recent Sturdy-Colls Treblinka "forensic dig"--where she and her team claimed to have found "gas chamber tiles with Stars of David on them"--as this book shows, they are not Stars of David at all, and in fact the brand mark of a local floor tile factory in the area which still exists to the present-day. This book is so full of dramatic revelations on each page that it will take your breath away. I cannot recommend this book enough. I would give it 20 stars if I could.


Tuesday, May 6, 2014

The Suchomel “Confession” in Claude Lanzmann’s “Shoah” Movie

It is often claimed that a “confession” by a former SS man, Franz Suchomel, made in the 1985 documentary film Shoah (directed by the French Jewish producer Claude Lanzmann) “proves the existence of the Treblinka gas chambers.

There are two aspects to the Suchomel “confession” which bring it into question, namely the technical aspects of Lanzmann’s film, and secondly, the factual details of the “confession”.

(a) Technical aspects: Firstly, Suchomel is quoted in the film as asking Lanzmann not to use his name or attribute anything he says to him. Lanzman told the New York Times (October 20, 1985, page H-17) that the interview was secretly filmed with a single camera hidden in a canvas held by a female assistant.

This, Lanzman explained, was the reason why the Suchomel interview is of poor black and white blurred quality—as opposed to the rest of the movie, which is all in sharp, clear color. In actual fact, the clip showing the “confession” is not even original film, but was filmed off a TV screen, as can be seen by the characteristic horizontal lines and flicker of the filmed interview (caused by a difference in the scanning frequency between the TV and the camera making the film).

It is highly suspicious that Lanzmann would record such a supposedly important interview by filming it off a TV screen when he would have the original film material to hand. The only potential explanation for this would be that tampering is far less easy to detect in a “poor quality” film than raw original material. In this regard, a viewer of the film will also notice that while the image quality of Suchomel is extremely poor, the sound quality is perfect, something which is out of step with the overall production.

It is strange that the “interview” with Suchomel is the only part of the entire nine-and-a-half hour Shoah film which is blurred, indistinct, and so fuzzy that it is nearly impossible to even positively identify the person being interviewed.

Most importantly however, the interview with Suchomel was clearly done with more than one camera—directly contradicting Lanzmann’s claims in the New York Times. A stationary, hidden camera in a bag would only show one angle of a “secret” interview—but instead, as can be seen from the screenshots below, there are at least four different camera angles, each taken at differing focal lengths and perspectives—something that would be impossible with just one “hidden camera.”

In one scene, the camera shows Suchomel actually standing next to a display board allegedly showing the Treblinka camp layout, and holding a pointer stick picking out different locations in lecture style—an arrangement which is obviously highly unlikely for an interview which was supposedly not filmed.

There are other physical anomalies in the “confession”: although the viewer is expected to believe that Suchomel was not aware of the “hidden” camera in the bag, more than once he turns his head and looks directly into the camera.

However, when he adopts his (standing up) lecturer mode, and taps on the set-up board with the Treblinka map, the camera moves in to only a few inches away from the board, and clearly shows his pointer stick. It is far-fetched to believe that anyone holding a “hidden camera in a bag” could hold it so close to the board under such circumstances without being obvious.

The Suchomel “confession” in Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah film: made with at least four different camera angles, and not just the “one hidden camera in a bag” as claimed by the film producer.

Note also the distinctive distortion and horizontal stripe caused by filming off a TV screen. In fact, the curvature of the screen can be seen in the top left hand side of the first image.
Camera angle 1: Set up behind Lanzmann (left) and Suchomel (right).

Camera angle 2: Suchomel standing up, lecture-style, holding a pointer  next to a handily-set up board with a supposed map of Treblinka—a highly unlikely arrangement for an interview that was not even supposed to be filmed.
Camera angle 3: Suchomel and the “lecture board” –supposedly not to be filmed.
Camera angle 4: The camera moves to a few inches away from the “lecture board” and the tip of Suchomel’s pointer. It is impossible, as Lanzmann claimed, for one camera, hidden in a bag, to have produced all of these camera angles.
(b) Secondly, it is clear from Suchomel’s own words in the film—presuming that the film is genuine (and as the facts outlined above show, there is good reason to doubt that)—that there are serious errors in his memory and his recounting.

Firstly, it should be borne in mind that Suchomel had been arrested and tried during the 1965 Treblinka Trial at Dusseldorf. At that trial, he confessed to being in charge of or organizing the tailor shop at Treblinka. In line with the common defense tactic used by the accused of not denying the “mass murder” program—which is illegal under German law anyway, and would have therefore only landed him in even further trouble—Suchomel only claimed that he had had nothing to do with it.

In a superb example of how this defense tactic worked, Suchomel was only sentenced to six years in jail—and released just over two years later, in December 1967. This by itself was a sure indication that there was indeed no direct evidence linking him to any “gas chambers” or “mass murder program” at Sobibor.

In the Lanzmann “confession”, Suchomel is quoted as specifically saying that he only saw the “gas chambers” at Sobidor once during the entire time (August 1942 until late October 1943) that he was there. His account, as contained in the Lanzmann confession, is typically vague, and follows precisely the already completely discredited—and as outlined above, physically impossible Holocaust Storytellers’ version of mass gassings in minutes, bodies falling “like potatoes” and then mass cremations in a tiny area of space, with no provision for fuel—or even a single crematorium!

It is clear from this narrative alone, that even if Lanzmann did not tamper with the fuzzy film “interview”, all that Suchomel said was the typical “do-not-deny-it-happened-but-just-deny-that-I-was-involved” type confession which was the only way to avoid being caught up in further legal trouble in post-war Germany.

Finally, it is of great significance that Suchomel died in 1979—that is, six years before the film was released, and thus never saw his “confession,” and was never able to deny or refute anything which Lanzmann had attributed to him.