The CODOH Revisionist Forum

[...]When I wrote my report, I was criticized on the grounds that, although I was in the camp and saw nothing of mass gassings, that fact did not necessarily mean that there were none. All the same, I can say with certainty that there were no mass gassings at Auschwitz. I don’t write under a pen name. I even gave my address and telephone number. I have received thousands of letters and calls. Many of those who contacted me can confirm my statements, but are afraid to do so publicly. Some of those are SS men who were brutally mistreated and even tortured in Allied captivity. I also immediately contacted those who claimed to know more about mass gassings. My experiences were precisely the same as those of French professor Paul Rassinier. I have not found any eyewitnesses. Instead, people would tell me that they knew someone who knew someone else, who talked about it. In most cases the alleged eyewitnesses had died. Other supposed eyewitnesses would quickly begin to stammer and stutter when I asked a few precise questions. Even Simon Wiesenthal had to finally admit before a Frankfurt district court that he was actually never in Auschwitz. All of the reports I have heard about are contradictory. Everyone seemed to tell a different story about the gas chambers. They couldn’t even agree about where they were supposed to have been located.,This is also true of the so-called scholarly literature, which is full of contradictions. But they know more about that than I do.

I want to try to explain how such stories get started. When I tell fairy tales to my grandchildren, I often speak as if I am there in the story myself, so that the children will believe them. Many people also have a tendency to embellish what they say. Some enjoy getting others to believe their false tales. And then there are the so-called “bull stories” (Latrinenparolen). Every veteran knows about these. Those interned in prison camps particularly like to invent and spread such stories.

So I have an explanation for how the story got started that corpses were burned in open fires at Auschwitz. There were also “bull stories” at Auschwitz. My maid, Olga, once told my mother, who was visiting me at Auschwitz, about a fire in which people were being burned. I asked Olga about that. She didn’t know anything for sure, but she said that a fire could always be seen in the direction of Bielitz. I drove in that direction but found only a large industrial plant where inmates were also working. I looked over the entire camp and inspected all the fires and smoking chimneys. But I didn’t find anything suspicious. I asked my colleagues, but they answered merely by shrugging their shoulders and saying that I shouldn’t believe “bull stories.” There was indeed a crematory at Auschwitz. After all, 200,000 people lived there and every city has a crematory. Of course, people died there as well — and not just inmates. The wife of SS Lt. Col. Caesar, for example, died there of typhus. I was satisfied with those answers at the time.

When I wrote my report, I was criticized on the grounds that, although I was in the camp and saw nothing of mass gassings, that fact did not necessarily mean that there were none. All the same, I can say with certainty that there were no mass gassings at Auschwitz

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Sep 06, 2025 3:41 am

When I wrote my report, I was criticized on the grounds that, although I was in the camp and saw nothing of mass gassings, that fact did not necessarily mean that there were none. All the same, I can say with certainty that there were no mass gassings at Auschwitz

He's "certain" for the same reasons you are. He didn't see the krema. He heard second hand rumors about it while in the camp and dismissed them, for the same reasons you do.

fireofice wrote: ↑Sat Sep 06, 2025 3:43 am Thies Christopherson is not an entirely reliable witness. He got several things about the camp wrong.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... #rasschris

https://archive.is/okhrd

Even if he's not a liar, he clearly wasn't paying enough attention to be a good witness. There is also supposedly a documentary where he "admitted" to lying. However, if you read what he said, it's kind of vague. So I don't personally find that particular argument against him very convincing.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 06, 2025 8:10 am It is really simple. To prove something, you need eyewitnesses.

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 3:18 am I don't see the fuss about 'reliability' at all.

It's really straight forward. The guy didn't smell 'the stench that hung over Auschwitz and the surrounding area'. He never saw the 'great plumes of smoke'. There were no rivers and lakes of fire into which jews were thrown. If an internee was abused by staff, that staff member suffered consequences. There were no giant flames leaping from crematoria chimneys.

No 3,000 people per day being marched into 'homicidal gas chambers'. No 4,000,000 death toll. None of these things.

Even if we accept that this horror show played out at Auschwitz Birkenau, still, the smoke would have been visible. We are told pyres were burning on the daily during the 'Hungarian Aktion', and yet, nothing. Not in his account, not in the aerial reconnaissance photographs, not at all.

There is no iron blue above background levels in the morgues.

No order for these supposed executions. Nothing. In their place, we have orders to better control attrition rates and to stop killing people with 14f13, to instead give the bed ridden lighter work.

I don't see the problem with this eyewitness testimony. Even if he missed a detail here or there, he didn't fabricate anything from whole cloth. He simply couldn't find the horror show that was rumored to be playing out, and, he did look.

fireofice wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 6:55 am After reading some of the posts here, I have shifted my perspective a little bit. If it can be shown that the errors in his testimony are the result of honest mistakes rather than purposeful lying, then his testimony would count as evidence against the extermination thesis. However, it's not just about getting some aspects of the camps wrong, but also that he contradicted himself later in testimonies he gave. This could be a memory issue though. Trust me, I would like to give Thies the benefit of the doubt too. When coming across these issues in his testimony I was tempted to explain them away as well. However, I also have to ask myself if I would be consistent and give the same leeway to a holocaust witness. Using the Nessie method, I certainly could make Thies a reliable witness. But how consistent would I be? I am not entirely decided on this matter yet. I will have to do some more thinking.

....

Lying Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 7:31 am That corroboration process is how to establish truthfulness.