The “80,000 Jews Shot and Thrown in the Danube” Claim

 A relatively recent addition to the Holocaust Story has been the claim that at least 80,000 Jews were shot to death on the banks of the Danube River in the Hungarian capital of Budapest at the end of 1944 and early 1945. The bodies were, so the allegation goes, then thrown into the river.

According to the Holocaust Storytellers, these victims were Jews apparently selected from within the city at random by members of the then ruling Arrow Cross Party.

This is how the official Israeli holocaust museum, Yad Vashem, describes the events:

“Nearly 80,000 Jews were killed in Budapest itself, shot on the banks of the Danube River and then thrown into the river.” (“Historical Background: The Jews of Hungary During the Holocaust,” At the Last Moment: The Tragedy of Hungarian Jewry, Yad Vashem, January 2014).

 

The “evidence” used to “prove” this allegation is restricted to a handful of dubious “survivor” accounts, and one or two photographs. These are reviewed below.

Before that, however, it is worthwhile to understand that there are two major practical problems with the entire “mass shooting along the riverside” allegation.

 

Problem 1: The Physical Issue of 80,000 Bodies in the Danube

 

Firstly, the sheer space which 80,000 bodies would occupy, would quite literally block the Danube River, which flows through central Budapest.

The space which 80,000 bodies would take up would be around 368,000 square feet. Now it is not, of course, claimed that 80,000 bodies were dumped into the river all at once, but the cumulative effect would be the same, even if the river current washed many bodies downstream.

At some point, somewhere, a huge mass of corpses would have shown up which would make up an unquestioned body of evidence, and would be on record. There is no such evidence at all.

Secondly, the amount of ammunition needed to shoot 80,000 people would be immense. The Arrow Cross executioners would have had to use at least 80,000 rounds (if they were all clean “one shot” executions), and probably more. This would amount to well over 2,240 pounds (1,016 kilograms) of lead being dumped into the river. This would also leave an impossible-to-hide trace.

 

Problem 2: The Length of Time the Arrow Cross Controlled Budapest

 

The second major physical problem with the “mass shooting” in Budapest story is the reality that the Arrow Cross Party only had physical control of the city from 15 October to 26 December 1944—a total of 72 days.

This is because the Arrow Cross was appointed as the ruling party on October 15, following the deposing of Hungary’s long-time leader Admiral Horthy (who wanted to surrender and join the Soviets against Germany). The advancing Soviet Army surrounded and laid siege to the city on December 26, and the resultant battle was one of the bloodiest sieges of the entire war. The city surrendered on February 13, 1945, after the last Hungarian and German army units had been squeezed into a small pocket on the Castle Hill side of the river, away from the city center.

Fighting conditions, including bombardment by land artillery and constant Red Air Force air attacks would have made it impossible for “massacres” to have been carried out during the siege.

This means that if the claim of 80,000 shot dead and thrown into the Danube is true, then the Arrow Cross men would have needed to shoot dead 1,112 Jews per day, every day, or 46 per hour, 24 hours a day—if they worked full time at doing nothing else. This is highly unlikely, and such a round-the-clock massacre would leave thousands of witnesses and a huge body of evidence—all of which is absent.

 

“Eye-Witness” Accounts—The “River was Red with Blood”

 

One of the most widely quoted “eye-witnesses” to this mass shooting of 80,000 Jews is Zsuzsanna Ozsváth, who was ten years old at the time. According to Ozsváth’s account:

“Two Arrow Cross men were standing on the embankment of the river, aiming at and shooting a group of men, women and children into the Danube—one after the other, on their coats the Yellow Star. I looked at the Danube. It was neither blue nor gray but red. With a throbbing heart, I ran back to the room in the middle of the apartment and sat on the floor, gasping for air.” (“From Country to Country: My Search for Home” in Alvin Rosenfeld, ed., The Writer Uprooted: Contemporary Jewish Exile Literature, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008, p. 185–186).

This account is far-fetched, to put it mildly. To claim that the Danube had “turned red” with blood is clearly a fantasy.

Another widely quoted “eye-witness” was one Tommy Dick, who claimed to have been shot in the jaw instead of the head during one of the executions. Somehow, he survived—or so he claimed. His account is worth quoting in full, because it describes how the bodies were supposedly disposed of in the Danube:

“I remember the commander shouting, ‘Shoot!’ For just a second, a very long second, nothing happened. One couldn’t just stand there waiting to die. So I turned my head to watch the person on my right getting killed. In that moment, the Nyilas [Arrow Cross man] behind me pulled the trigger, clearly aiming at the base of my skull. He stood no more than a metre behind me. Somehow, as I turned my head, the bullet shattered my jaw instead of my skull. I have no recollection of the next moment. I was standing right at the water’s edge. I must have either fallen forward from the force of the bullet, or perhaps the Nyilas behind me gave me a kick that landed me in the river. I don’t remember falling. I must have passed out for a second or two but the ice cold water of the Danube in December revived me instantly.” (Getting Out Alive, Tommy Dick, The Azrieli Foundation, 2007).

Dick died in 1999, but for some mysterious reason, his “memoirs” were only published in 2007. This convenient fact prevents any cross-questioning of the claims. His description, however, of the victims supposedly standing so close to the river bank so that the “force of the bullet” propelled them into the water, or that they were “kicked” into the river, is important when the “photographic evidence” is reviewed.

 

“Photographic Evidence” Relies on “Caption Interpretation”

 

As is the case with so much other “photographic evidence” of the holocaust story, the “evidence” is largely based on the post-war captions given to the pictures by Holocaust Storytellers.

The two examples below, both from the US Holocaust Museum, illustrate this tactic.

The first USHM photograph, titled “Execution of Jews along the banks of the Danube river” is captioned “Arrow Cross Party members execute Jews along the banks of the Danube River. Budapest, Hungary, 1944.” This photograph appears to show a genuine execution, but the caption does not say why these Jews were being executed: was it a random murder, or was it a judicial execution for looting? We will never know.

The second, titled “Aftermath of a shooting along the banks of the Danube river,” shows a group of seven bodies on the ground, some distance from what appears to be the river. The official USHM caption reads: “This photograph shows the aftermath of a shooting along the banks of the Danube River in Budapest. Members of the pro-German Arrow Cross party massacred thousands of Jews along the banks of the Danube. Budapest, Hungary, 1944.”

This, like the first photograph, does indeed appear to show the result of an execution, as the background tree branches (visible on the right hand side of the picture) appear to be the same as in the first photograph above.

While the circumstances of these two pictures are unclear, what they do show is that the location—some distance from a river bank, contradicts the “eye-witness” accounts, which claim that the Jews were shot so close to the river bank that the “force of the bullet” (or a “kick”) was enough to propel them into the river.

The bodies in the USHM “photographic evidence” would have had to be dragged to the river by the executioners and thrown in, and therefore, were obviously not part of the claimed “mass executions.”

 

2019: Israeli Sonar Search of the Danube Finds Nothing

 

The vagueness of the shooting allegations—and the clear lack of any real evidence—obviously concerned the Holocaust Storytellers so much that they decided in 2019 to launch an official search for the remains of these 80,000 Jews supposedly thrown into the Danube.

The search, started after three years of preparation, was conducted by the official Israeli search and rescue organization, ZAKA. That organization was chosen because it also specializes in missions to find bodies for burial in accordance with Jewish customs.

The ZAKA divers were assisted in their search by a “brand new sonar device, which can descend to a depth of 150 meters and scan within 130 meters, quickly identifying objects and transferring the information and exact location to the device operator.” (“75 years after the mass shooting of Jews into the River Danube, Budapest, ZAKA divers attempt to retrieve their bones for burial,” ZAKA, 14.01.2019).

The operation was started on January 15, 2019, with ZAKA Special Units commander Haim Outmezgine launching the sonar scanner in an area of the Danube River “identified” as the major “execution” spot.

Predictably, the search found absolutely nothing: no bullets, no bones, no remains of any sort. As recounted in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, a “sonar scan of the bottom of the Danube River in Budapest revealed no human remains.” This came after weeks of build-up which involved much discussion on whether the mass of remains which they expected to find should be left alone or raised and reburied, with some Jewish leaders demanding that the expected pile of bones should be left alone. (“Sweep of the Danube riverbed finds no bones of Holocaust victims,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, January 16, 2019).

Clearly disappointed with the negative findings, ZAKA announced that they would conduct a second search in February 2019. This however, was called off after “discussions,” and the entire project abandoned.

Although no reason was given, the reason is clear: further searching was pointless, as the most likely spot to find any remains had proved negative. Further searches were equally likely to find nothing.

It was a severe embarrassment, as the search had proven that there is zero physical evidence of 80,000 Jews having been shot and thrown into the Danube. Given the amount of claimed victims, the amount of ammunition which would have had to have been expended, and the personal effects which would have remained, this can only mean that the entire episode has been invented.

 

US Holocaust Museum Slices 60,000 off the “Victim” Total

 

Finally, it is worth noting that, as usual, the Holocaust Storytellers cannot get their stories straight on this matter.

While Israel’s Yad Vashem claims 80,000 Jews were shot and thrown into the Danube, the United States Holocaust Museum (which, it will be recalled, was chartered by an Act of Congress, receives US taxpayer funding, and employs over 400 people) has casually sliced 60,000 off this number, and claims that 20,000 Jews were shot and thrown into the Danube.

The USHM provides no explanation for why this figure has been cut by two-thirds, although the reason is clear: the 80,000 figure is preposterous, even by Holocaust Storyteller standards. Although 20,000 “sounds” better, it is of course just as preposterous as 80,000, for the reasons outlined above.

 

Summary of the “Danube Shootings” Story

 

In summary then, the following conclusion can be made about the Danube shooting claim:

1. It is likely that some Jews were executed near the banks of the Danube River towards the end of 1944. While it is possible that some of these executions were random murders, it is more likely that they were the result of judicial orders for looting or other crimes.

2. The number of victims of such executions is completely unknown, as evidenced by the widely varying claims (between 80,000 and 20,000) by the Holocaust Storytellers. Given the time frame and conditions in the city, even the lower claimed figure is obviously a gross exaggeration.

3. There remains absolutely no physical evidence of such a massacre, either then or in present-day times, something which would be absolutely impossible if 80,000 (or even 20,000) bodies had been thrown into the river in the middle of Hungary’s largest city.

As a result, it is safe to say that the entire event is yet another fiction in the web of deceit which makes up the Holocaust Storytellers’ lies.

Huge Victory for Revisionists as US Holocaust Memorial Museum Admits: “Majdanek was not a Death Camp”

In what is unquestionably a highly embarrassing concession, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) has finally admitted that the Majdanek camp in Poland was not an “extermination camp” at all but merely a “storage depot” and Jewish “labor camp”—exactly as Revisionists have always said.

The latest admission—published on theUSHMM’s official website here—says that

“Though many scholars have traditionally counted the Majdanek camp as a sixth killing center, recent research had shed more light on the functions and operations at Lublin/Majdanek. Within the framework of Operation Reinhard, Majdanek primarily served to concentrate Jews whom the Germans spared temporarily for forced labor.” (Killing Centers: An Overview". encyclopedia.ushmm.org).

Of course, this admission flies in the face of decades of claims that Majdanek was a “mass extermination center” complete with “gas chambers” whose only purpose was a “killing center.”

Recognizing the significance of this admission, the USHM goes on to add by way of explanation that that the camp

“occasionally functioned as a killing site to murder victims who could not be killed at the Operation Reinhard killing centers: Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka II. It also contained a storage depot for property and valuables taken from the Jewish victims at the killing centers.”

I detailed the absurdities and lies of theMajdanek camp in Chapter 16 of The Six Million: Fact or Fiction. 

These outrageous claims included:

- That the prisoners were showered before being gassed;

- That prisoners were gassed with carbon dioxide;

- That gas chambers had glass windows . . .

and many more.

It is now clear that the weight of logic and truth has finally forced the Holocaust Storytellers to back down from this, one of the most outrageous and easily disproved lies—and admit that Majdanek was, as was obvious from the very beginning, just a transit and storage camp which also provided labor for the nearby Steyr-Daimler-Puch weapons and munitions factory, among others.

Yad Vashem Admits List of “Holocaust Victims” Isn’t “Accurate”

Yad Vashem—Israel’s official holocaust memorial center—has admitted for the first time that its “list of holocaust victims” is inaccurate and that the process of collecting names “is not 100 per cent fail-safe.”

The admission that the Yad Vashem list is made up without any evidence at all—a fact long known to holocaust students and Yad Vashem itself—came after the death of Marie Sophie Hingst—a German fantasist who pretended to be Jewish and who invented 22 “Jewish family members murdered in the Holocaust.

Hingst—who of course was given a “Golden Blogger” award for her holocaust fantasies—was originally revealed as a liar by a special report in Der Spiegel on June 06, 2019 (“The Historian Who Invented22 Holocaust Victims”).

In that report, Hingst—a German Ph.D. historian working at Dublin's Trinity College—was revealed as a fantasist who invented an entire Jewish family and submitted the names of 22 “holocaust victims” to the Yad Vashem “Pages of Testimony” database.

Hingst—whose (now deleted) blog “"Read On My Dear, Read On," apparently had 240,000 regular readers and her fantasies presented as fact won her the "Blogger of the Year 2017" award given out by the Golden Bloggers.

In a 2018 essay competition, Hingst also won the Financial Times' “Future of Europe” prize, and at the award ceremony in Dublin, she again told of the suffering endured by her allegedly Jewish family, comparing their fate with that of so-called refugees stranded on Europe's coasts.

Hingst also slightly changed the name of her great-grandfather from Josef Karl Brandl to 'Jakob Brandel' and said he was murdered along with his wife and children in Auschwitz in 1942.

Significantly, Hingst's Twitter followers were shown a photo of a letter from Yad Vashem thanking her for providing documents from her “murdered” family members. She filled out and signed 15 forms by hand on Sept. 8, 2013, and sent seven further documents by email, all of which were eagerly snapped up by Yad Vashem and included in their “list of murdered Jews” database.

As Der Spiegel reported:

Her father's family, the Hingsts, are featured in eight forms in Yad Vashem's Pages of Testimony, a memorial repository remembering the names and backgrounds of those murdered in the Holocaust. But the Stralsund City Archive has ruled out the existence of six of the people she submitted in Jerusalem. The archives have survived in their entirety and those names are nowhere to be found.

In addition to the 14 pages for the Hingst and "Brandel" families, the historian also submitted eight additional documents for people who perished in the Holocaust with the family names "Rosenwasser" and "Zilberlicht. As it happens, there are no traces of any of the people Hingst registered with Yad Vashem anywhere.

Yad Vashem had however accepted Hingst’s submission without question. Now, exposed as a hoax, they have admitted that their “Pages of Testimony” list is in fact made up precisely from random submissions.

As the Daily Mail reported (“Germanhistorian, 31, is found dead weeks after she was ridiculed for inventing 22Holocaust victims she claimed were relatives,” 1 August 2019):

Yad Vashem said that they are investigating the testimonies that Hingst submitted and added that 'the process is not 100 per cent fail-safe'. 

 The museum also said it would be removing the documents Hingst from the Pages of Testimony at the site. 

Readers of The Six Million: Fact or Fiction will recall that in "Chapter 2: The Number of Jews under Nazi Control", I pointed out that the Yad Vashem list of names was fake. I wrote as follows:

Section 11: Yad Vashem’s “Victim List” Compiled on Hearsay

Yad Vashem, Israel’s official memorial to the “Jewish victims of the Holocaust” claimed in 2014 to have a database of at least five million names of Jews who allegedly died during World War II. This list, even though it falls short of the “Six Million” (or even the “nine million”) has been compiled purely on hearsay.

Yad Vashem’s “Holocaust victims” database list is compiled online, and anyone, from anywhere, can submit a name by simply filling in an online form.

This “submission” is then automatically added to the “official death list,” a process which has resulted in almost all names appearing twice, and some as many as five times. Any submission is automatically accepted as “fact” without any further investigation.

Below is a typical Yad Vashem “Victims’ list” entry, made by someone claiming to be a nephew of a Berlin Jew. Note the complete lack of detail in this “report”—the “nephew” claims his uncle was arrested in 1941 in Berlin, and has no idea of the circumstances of his death, or any other details at all. The vast majority of entries in Yad Vashem’s register are of this nature.

Clearly, a list of names compiled under these conditions is open to the most outrageous fraud, and is no way reliable.

Despite this, Yad Vashem and the media regularly tout this “list of victims” as “proof” of the Holocaust.

New York Rabbi’s Funeral: The “Nazi Death Camp” Survivor Who was Never Even in a Concentration Camp, and Who was Only Ever Arrested by the Communists

The huge funeral of famous New York Rabbi Yisroel Avrohom Portugal has provided yet another example of the outrageous lies which the media perpetuates about the holocaust—in this case, claiming that he “survived the Nazi death camps,” even though he was never in any camp whatsoever, and in fact was only ever detained by Communists after the war.

The funeral of Rabbi Portugal, who died recently aged 95, was attended by tens of thousands of wailing Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn—but the media coverage of that event and his life provided the grotesque exaggerations which have become typical of any coverage of World War II.

First off the mark was The Jewish Press, which set the tone for the rest of the media. The Jewish Press is a weekly newspaper in New York, and describes itself as “America's Largest Independent Jewish Weekly.”

According to that newspaper’s article,titled “Skulener Rebbe, zt’l, is Laid to Rest,” Rabbi Portugal was “Born in Romania to the previous Skulener Rebbe, Rabbi Eliezer Zusia Portugal zt’l and Rebetzin Shayna Rochel, the Rebbe came to the United States as an immigrant together with his father in 1960 after having survived the Nazi death camps in World War II.”

This claim was then instantly repeated by the rest of the media. The Daily Mail, in its extensive coverage of the Rabbi’s funeral (“Tens of thousands of HasidicJews crowd Brooklyn streets for funeral of popular rabbi, 95, who survived theHolocaust and despised the internet—and no one with a smartphone could touchthe coffin”) announced that “the popular Rabbi had survived the Nazi death camps and came to the United States in 1960.”

ABC News’s local broadcaster, Eyewitness News ABC 7, followed up in its coverage (“Thousands crowd Brooklyn streets for grand rabbi's funeral; 2officers hurt”) by repeating this claim that “The rabbi came to the United States in the 1960s after surviving Nazi death camps and was a mainstay in Borough Park and Williamsburg for decades.”

News12 Brooklyn’s coverage (“Thousands line the streets ofBorough Park for rabbi's funeral”) claimed that the “rebbe survived the Holocaust and went on to lead the Skulen synagogue for many years.”

USA Today’s coverage was provided by its local affiliate, the Rockland/Westchester Journal News, (“Large crowds mourned rebbe in Monsey today”) which said that “According to the Jewish Press, Portugal was born in Romania, in what is now Moldova, and immigrated to the United States with his father, Rabbi Eliezer Zusia Portugal, in 1960 after surviving the Holocaust death camps and an imprisonment by Romanian authorities for teaching Torah. The United Nations and U.S. officials intervened on their behalf to have them released.”

However, the Jewish Daily Forward—a “left wing” Jewish paper in New York, inadvertently exposed all these controlled media claims as lies. As the Daily Forward’s headline accurately revealed (“The Last Holocaust-Era Rebbe Dies, And ANeighborhood Shuts Down To Mourn”), Rabbi Portugal was never in a concentration camp, and was never even detained by the Germans during the war.

The Daily Forward revealed that “Portugal and his father left Sculeni, the community in Moldova from which their sect derives its name, before the outbreak of the Second World War.

“They spent the war in the Ukrainian city of Chernowitz, facing persecution there from both the Germans and the Soviets, who occupied the city at different times.
“After the war they traveled to Bucharest, Romania, where they sought and cared for Jewish war orphans, and aided the small remaining Jewish communities. Portugal’s father was arrested multiple times by the Soviets, who occupied Romania until 1968.
“In April of 1959, Romanian authorities arrested both Portugal and his father for suspected treason. Jewish groups in the U.S. raised concerns about the arrest. According to a 1960 report from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, United Nations officials intervened to secure the release of the two rabbis, and the U.S. State Department offered them citizenship. They were released in September of 1959, and arrived in the U.S. in August of 1960.”

In other words, Rabbi Portugal never even saw a concentration camp, much less “survived a death camp” and was ever only detained by the Communists.

Even though the facts are readily available, the media chose instead—as always—to simply repeat the outrageous lies.

This is in keeping with their standard line on the holocaust, which is to just repeat the “six million murdered” story no matter what the facts might show, hoping that endless repetition will smother any counter arguments.

The media quoted above will also never “retract” or “correct” their lies, another typical tactic of just leaving an “impression,”something which is another long-standing ploy in their holocaust story-tellingtechnique.

Stutthof Trial: Former Guard Never Saw “Gas Chambers” or Atrocities

The 94-year-old former SS man who served as a guard at the Stutthof camp has told the court that during his two years’ service he never saw a “gas chamber” or atrocities at the camp—a truthful statement because there was no “gas chamber” at that camp, only a clothing disinfection chamber.

 Johann Rehbogen—who can only be identified as “Johann R” in German media—adopted the usual tactic of those being prosecuted in Germany for being camp personnel—that of not contesting that atrocities took place (a defense which is illegal in Germany) but rather just saying that they never saw or took part in any such activities.

A report of Rehbogen’s 18-page statement to the court, as carried in the Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper, confirmed this in its (blatantly biased) opening paragraph, where the journalist wrote that the defendant was “not remembering anything which could be dangerous.”

Rehbogen is accused of “aiding and abetting” murder in “hundreds of cases,” including the “gassing” of 100 Polish prisoners in June 1944.  Although he “does not deny being in the camp,” he says he “neither heard anything nor was involved” in any of the “crimes, the atrocities, and the murders,” the Allgemeine Zeitung said.

His statement said that he was conscripted into the SS in 1942, and while at the camp, saw the “poor conditions of the prisoners” and also “saw corpses” but knew nothing of the “crimes, the murders, the gas chamber, the shooting-in- the-neck system [of execution].”

In 1944 he was transferred out to the Western front where he served for the rest of the war, his statement ended.

Rehbogen’s denial of ever having seen a “gas chamber” at Stutthof is correct: there was no “gas chamber” at that camp, merely a small clothing disinfection chamber located close to the small camp crematorium.

This is also why the media coverage of the trial will make reference to “gas chambers” but will general shy away from showing pictures of the “gas chamber”—because it is so patently not one, despite visitors to the camp being told that it was one.

The fact that Rehbogen has denied ever seeing a “gas chamber” or any mass executions is however bad news for the Holocaust Storytellers, as they were hoping that this trial—perhaps one of the last ever—would produce a “confession.”

Obviously, it has not.

94-Year-old German to Go On Trial for Operating Clothes Disinfection Chamber at Stutthoff Camp

A 94-year-old German, identified as Johann R., a retired landscape architect from North Rhine-Westphalia, has been put on trial for “war crimes” at the Stutthof concentration camp during World War II—including “gassings” in a “gas chamber” which is obviously a clothing disinfection unit.

A report in the Deutsche Welle—a German government controlled news service—announced that a “former SS guard at a concentration camp, charged with aiding and abetting hundreds of murders, is standing trial in Münster's district court.”

The DW report goes on to state that the Stutthof camp is “less well known” than Auschwitz or the other camps, but doesn’t say why.

“According to the indictment, the guard is accused of aiding and abetting hundreds of murders. In June 1944, SS members murdered more than 100 Polish prisoners in the Stutthof gas chamber using the poison gas Zyklon B, while at least 77 wounded Soviet prisoners of war were killed a short time later using the same method,” the DW report says.

"As part of the so-called 'Final Solution of the Jewish Question,' SS members killed an unknown number of Jewish prisoners — probably several hundred — from August to the end of 1944, both in the gas chamber and in the wagons of the narrow-gauge railroad that led into the camp," reads the indictment.

The problem with the indictment is, as pointed out by David Cole, a Jewish holocaust revisionist most famous for being the first to get the camp administration in Auschwitz to admit that the “gas chamber” on display at that camp was built after the war, the Stutthof “gas chamber” is not actually a gas chamber but actually a clothing disinfection station.

Cole wrote:

“The interior of the delousing chamber shows to this day the evidence of its use as that: its walls are marked inside and out with the blue staining that comes from repeated Zyklon B usage.

“The delousing chamber as a stove outside the front door—to heat the chamber before the clothes were put in with the Zyklon-B pellets—and inside the chamber there is a clay heating conduit which runs the length of one wall.  The Zyklon pellets would be placed on the heating conduit, and the stove would be fired up. The conduit would become hot, and the granules would release their gas. The two doors would then be opened for natural ventilation.

“This is an ‘old style’ Zyklon B delousing chamber, built before the more modern chambers, like the ones at Dachau, were designed (the newer, more energy efficient chambers came equipped with Zyklon evaporators, which would heat the granules on a kind of hot plate, and blow the gas onto the clothes, mattresses. This was more energy efficient because it was a waste of fuel to heat an entire when it was only the Zyklon granules that needed to be warmed up. These Zyklon evaporators remain at Dachau today, in the delousing chambers of “Barrack X.”).

“The ‘evidence’ of homicidal usage of the Stutthof gas chamber is a ‘Zyklon B induction hole’ in the roof. We are told that the Zyklon would be poured in through this hole on the heads of the unsuspecting victims. The roof of this chamber is accessible only via ladder.”

Cole goes on to point to say  that the Stutthof Museum personnel say that this was first and foremost a delousing chamber, used as such for years, only later “converted” into a homicidal one.

“Now, let’s ask some questions,” Cole continued:

“1) The Stutthof “gas chamber” has a large floor drain right in the middle of the room, directly below the ‘Zyklon B induction hole.’ Any granules dropped through this hole would automatically go right down the drain. What’s more, the floor of this room is depressed in the middle, where the drain is, so that any water or, in this case, Zyklon granules, would automatically roll into the drain.

“What would stop the Zyklon granules from going down the drain, since they were being poured into the room directly over this drain? And, if a few granules missed the drain, wouldn’t they simply roll, or couldn’t the inmates brush them, down the drain?

“2) The roof of this room is low enough so that a tall person could reach up and block the ‘Zyklon B induction hole.’ However, the thoughtful Nazis, by installing the heating conduit that runs the length of on wall, have made it possible for anyone, of whatever height, to stand on this conduit and block the hole.

“What would stop the inmates from blocking the ‘Zyklon B induction hole,’ especially since they would be expecting foul play (this room was the official Stutthof delousing chamber, known as such by all the inmates. No Stutthof inmate would expect to be given a ‘shower’ in this room, and indeed the Stutthof Museum makes no claims about such a deception (neither do the eyewitnesses)?

“3) Why was this building—a clear ‘proof’ of Nazi crimes, what with its “Zyklon B induction hole,”— not destroyed as the Nazis evacuated the camp? Amazingly, the crematorium right next door was blown up, and, in fact, one side of the gas chamber building was actually hit by shrapnel from the exploding crematorium.

“Why would the Nazis blow up the crematorium, yet leave the ‘homicidal’ gas chamber standing?

“4) Since personal testimony is all we have to go on regarding the homicidal usage of this chamber, and since much of this testimony also mentions the ‘human soap’—which has long been officially debunked— what evidence do we have that the testimony about the Stutthof homicidal gas chamber is any more reliable than the testimony about the human soap?”

* The “human soap” story—which is also associated with the Stutthof camp, has of course been debunked as a lie by the official holocaust historians themselves. 

This “soap from Jews” myth is openly acknowledged as such by all Jewish sources as well, for example, the Jewish Virtual Library (run by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise), has been forced to engage in “damage control” on the matter to try and limit what it calls giving “ the Holocaust deniers any opportunity.”

The Jewish Virtual Library’s admission that the “soap from Jews story, which is centered on the Danzig / Stutthof camp, is false. “We don’t have any evidence that the Nazis actually manufactured soap with human bodies. . . it was a cruel rumor...”

One German from Danzig, Dr. Rudolf Spanner, was even prosecuted after the war for making this “Jewish fat soap.” Fortunately for him, the charge was quietly dropped, after much publicity so that the story became firmly embedded in the public mind. 

After the soap story was abandoned, the same “witnesses” who spoke of the “gas chamber” at Stutthof were also quietly dropped, and for many years Stutthof was ignored as an “extermination center” completely.

The front of the Stutthof delousing chamber, as can be seen today. Note the heating oven next to the door. This provided heat to a shelf on the inside of the delousing chamber to activate the Zyklon-B pellets which were laid down on the shelf.“

 The interior of the Stutthoff delousing chamber, as can be seen today. The heated shelf upon which the Zyklon-B crystals would have been spread is clearly visible.

Significantly, the accused, wheninterrogated by police in August 2017, insisted he knew nothing about thealleged atrocities in the camp, Die Welt reported.

Asked why the camp detainees were so thin, the defendant reportedly said food was so scarce for everyone that two soldiers could fit into a uniform.

The defendant will make a statement during the course of the trial, his lawyer told national news agency DPA.

The Stutthof myth makes up Appendix 4 of the best-selling book The Myth of the SixMillion: Fact or Fiction, which has banned by Amazon but is available freehere.