According to popular accounts, Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, by Jean-Claude Pressac (New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation;. We are extremely grateful to The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation for permission to present Jean-Claude Pressac’s extraordinary book AUSCHWITZ: Technique and . Les crématoires d’Auschwitz: la machinerie du meurtre de masse by Jean- Claude Pressac(Book) 17 editions published between and in French .
|Country:||Trinidad & Tobago|
|Published (Last):||14 January 2006|
|PDF File Size:||10.40 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.65 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This document is part of a periodical The Revisionist. Use this menu to find jwan documents that are part of this periodical. When Jean-Claude Pressac suddenly died at the early age of 59 on the 23 rd of JulyI was deeply moved. I had never met him personally; pressav, on account of his important role in the ‘Holocaust’ controversy, I had been involved with him sincewhen I began my own research into the subject.
Like other revisionists, I was challenged by his ideas. Of all the champions of tales of Jewish exterminations and homicidal gas chambers, Pressac, together with the long dead Jewish-English historian Gerald Reitlinger, was the only one whom I could regard with any degree of respect. Pressac was a pharmacist by profession, and like nearly all writers who support the ‘Holocaust’ tale he had no formal training as a historian.
This is true of most of those who subscribe to the official version of the fate of the Jews during the Second World War, as well as most revisionists. Pressac was not Jewish and he stood on the right politically.
For the rest of his life, Pressac was haunted by the thought of Auschwitz. At some point in his adult life he began to have doubts about the accuracy of official horror stories concerning ‘extermination camps,’ however, and so began to investigate revisionism. He made the acquaintance of Robert Faurisson, Pierre Guillaume and other French revisionists, whom he assisted for some time. The collaboration with Faurisson ended in personal animosity, which characterized all their subsequent relations.
Pressac then rejected revisionism and set out to disprove its arguments. His willingness to engage revisionists in open debate distinguished him from orthodox ‘Holocaust’ historians such as Raul Hilberg, Leon Poliakov or Lucy Dawidowicz, who categorically refused to consider scientific objections to the official version of ‘Holocaust.
This became the precise goal that he set for himself. During his collaboration with Faurisson, Pressac had visited Auschwitz several times and gained the trust of the staff of the Auschwitz Museum. He was allowed admittance to the archives, where he examined and copied a great many documents and construction plans. He soon became one of the best-informed authorities on the subject of Auschwitz. In the eyes of the defenders of orthodox lore, he was the ideal person to scientifically refute Revisionist views.
The ‘Holocaust’ profiteers and other defenders were greatly upset. In addition, in the Spring ofthe Leuchter reporter was released. Looking for someone who could refute Leuchter, the opponents of revisionism settled on Pressac. Late in he published an article identifying several weak points in the Leuchter article, although his arguments also contained mistakes. The article was impressive for two reasons.
In the first place, it proved that Pressac was undeniably talented and well informed. On the basis of construction plans, without having visited Majdanek concentration camp, he undertook an incisive analysis of its alleged homicidal gas chambers.
According to official views, Jews had been murdered there primarily with Zyklon B and to a smaller extent with carbon monoxide. Pressac proved indisputably that, because of camp design and construction alone, Zyklon B could not have been used to commit murder.
Pressac, Jean-Claude [WorldCat Identities]
He continued to argue that homicidal gassings were committed using carbon monoxide, however. Ten years later Carlo Mattogno, in his book on Majdanek,  which he co-published with me, relegated the carbon monoxide theory to the realm of legend alongside Zyklon B. With his article on Majdanek, Pressac opened to debate a central point of orthodox ‘Holocaust’ concepts. He also showed that the supporters of Jewish annihilation theory were as annoyed with him as were the revisionists.
I do not peessac whether the ‘Nazi Hunters’ Serge and Beate Klarsfeld initially contacted the maverick researcher or whether he first approached them. At any rate, collaboration now came about. The Klarsfelds provided Pressac with the necessary financial support to produce a book, which was perssac to squelch revisionism for all time, by scientifically proving beyond all doubt that exterminations of Jews really took place pgessac the fabled gas chambers of Auschwitz.
By the end of Jean-Claude Pressac’s Auschwitz: The French version was never published. The work, massive in its size and tremendous in its scope, was never available ppressac book dealers, but was privately distributed by Pressac himself. It did not deliver what its title promised. The mammoth work did indeed provide a tremendous amount of information about Auschwitz; but the new information did not concern the technique and functioning of the alleged homicidal gas chambers.
Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers is a truly exceptional and puzzling book, a treasure trove of unpublished wartime German documents, which give new insight into numerous heretofore unknown aspects of camp history. There can be no doubt as to its scientific significance. The Klarsfelds had paid Pressac to prove the reality of Jewish exterminations in gas chambers, but this is not what he did.
As far as the ‘death factory’ myth was concerned, Technique and Operation represented an interception and touchdown for the revisionist side. Pressac was honest enough to concede that he had discovered no actual documentary evidence for the existence of homicidal gas chambers.
Instead, he presented his readers with “39 criminal traces” which, in their entirety, were supposed to abolish all rational doubt about homicidal gassings. Despite strict orders to leave behind no documentary evidence of homicidal gassings, according to Pressac, they had been unable to avoid having indirect references to such crimes make their way into the written record. As evidence of this, he referred to an order for ppressac doors’ as a “criminal trace,” because to his mind a gastight door could be used for only one thing: The fact that Pressac, in order to ‘prove’ the reality claue mass gassings on a gigantic scale at this time he was still speaking of a million to a million and a half victims at Auschwitz was forced to resort to such flimsy evidence, speaks volumes about the shaky foundations on which was constructed the orthodox concept of Auschwitz.
If mass exterminations in gas chambers had really taken place, they would have left behind so much evidence that resorting to “criminal traces” would have been superfluous. Faurisson hit the bull’s-eye when he called the book a “stroke of good fortune for the revisionists and a catastrophe for the exterminationists.
In contrast to practically all orthodox ‘Holocaust’ writers, Pressac possessed enough of the scientific spirit to reject unquestioning acceptance of the statements of Auschwitz ‘gas chamber witnesses. Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambershowever, he neglected to take logical consequences into consideration.
He picked and caviled at eyewitness testimony, pointing out inaccuracies here and contradictions there, but ultimately treated most testimony as credible. In most cases he was content to arbitrarily reduce the numbers of victims claimed.
It is impossible to determine what prewsac Pressac used to judge the credibility of ‘gas chamber witnesses. Tauber also related that, as allied airplanes neared, the members of a cremation unit stuffed more than the usual number of bodies in the furnace muffles, causing huge fires to shoot out of the chimneys in an attempt to call attention to mass murders in progress. This report, allegedly written by SS Col. Alfred Franke-Griksch on the occasion of his visit to Auschwitz on 4 th May ofxlaude the ramp at Birkenau, which was not built until a whole year later.
Pressac’s tendency to ‘correct’ eyewitness reports clade only did not improve the credulity of orthodox historiography, it made it shakier. Treblinka, Belzec and “Wolzek. This version also collapsed very quickly.
How could ‘extermination camps’ have been constructed before orders went out to exterminate Jews? According to ‘Holocaust’ literature, Chelmo had begun operations around the end of and Belzec in March of In Auschwitz-Birkenau, exterminations are said to have begun in the spring of in two farmhouses, which had been converted to homicidal gas chambers. How could mass murders have been already underway in the farmhouses that were allegedly converted into gas chambers? It is obvious that orders from the highest authority would have been required for the construction of these alleged extermination facilities.
It is equally obvious that orders for mass murder would have been required before the facilities began committing such atrocities. Thus, Pressac’s new version was no more convincing than the old; it merely added to the confusion. This is not the end of his inconsistencies, however.
Pressac had studied the blueprints of the crematories carefully and had arrived at the same conclusions as the revisionists, namely that the crematories were constructed for normal sanitary purposes with no criminal intent. He decided that it was not until later that the administration of Auschwitz decided to convert them into ‘death factories’ by converting the existing morgues into homicidal gas chambers.
Apparently this theory is still prevalent in official ‘Holocaust’ literature. Raul Hilberg includes it in his book  in spite if its obvious illogicality. The first problem with the theory is that there is not a shred of documentary or scientific evidence to support farmhouse conversions. Even more significant than the lack of documentation is the following consideration: Why did they wait until they were already completed and then make necessary alterations by primitive manual means?
Is it possible that Pressac did not notice the obvious impossibilities that he was perpetuating? In his own words: If knowledge of the disastrous state of affairs had reached Berlin, this would have had unfortunate consequences for Hoess, who had recently been congratulated by Himmler and promoted in rank, and for his entourage. Pressac certainly blundered with his description of gassings in Crematories IV and V, which according to him took place as follows: He used a ladder to do this.
Since the openings were far apart and the SS man could carry only a limited amount of Zyklon B, he had to climb down after each insertion and get more Zyklon B. Then he would climb up the ladder again. Altogether this SS man had to climb up and down the ladder a total of 18 times. The men assigned to this task began complaining about the “circus act.
The camp leadership then agreed to increase the size of the holes by 10 centimeters but rejected the idea of altering the gas chamber because, in Pressac’s, words:. Whatever possessed Pressac, a trained and gifted scientist among other things, an excellent draftsman and photographerto put such claptrap down on paper?
Could it have been, in the final analysis, intended as irony? Was Pressac subtly exposing exterminationist theory to ridicule by demonstrating the absurdities inherent in official depictions of homicidal gassings? Perhaps this question will remain forever unanswered. At any rate, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers was totally useless as a weapon against revisionism.
For this reason the media ignored it whereas revisionists studied it closely. La machinerie du meurtre de masse  The Crematories of Auschwitz: Machinery of Mass Murder. This time, publication was accompanied by a noisy and well-orchestrated propaganda campaign coming from Frankfurt.
The media were delirious with enthusiasm, tirelessly repeating that revisionism had been vanquished for all time.