Sobibor - Holocaust Propaganda And Reality - Unity of Nobility ...

52 J. GRAF, T. KUES, C. MATTOGNO, SOBIBÓR
The witness with respect to these “trial gassings” is, once again,
Erich Bauer. The major part of the footnotes in the chapter about the
“gas chambers” refers to legal proceedings in Germany. It would not be
possible to demonstrate any more clearly that the “evidence” for homicidal
gassings at Sobibór was fabricated by the German judiciary decades
after the war.
Schelvis is actually unable to refer to statements made by witnesses
during or immediately after the war, because none of these witnesses
have spoken of a gassing building subdivided into several rooms in
which people were killed by engine exhaust gas. If these initial witnesses
had anything at all to say about the murder weapon, they spoke
of entirely different methods, primarily chlorine or (in the case of Pechersky)
a nondescript “black fluid.” 77 The present-day version of the
detainees being killed by means of engine exhaust gases in a building
with several gas chambers was proposed in 1947 by the “Main Commission
for the Investigation of the German Crimes in Poland” not on
the basis of witness testimony, however, but based on the Gerstein report
about Beec! 78
At the very beginning of Schelvis’ book, we have the following, truly
astounding passage:
“Shortly after the liberation of Poland in 1944, a number of survivors
gave statements about what happened in the camp, and the
criminals who operated there. Still so traumatized by the torture
they had endured, they referred to some of their torturers by name in
relation to specific crimes which, years later, they felt less sure
about. Some knew only first names. These testimonies should be regarded
as contemporary documents rather than legal indictments
where each and every comma and full stop or period must be in the
right place. Despite their inaccuracies, they are of great value because
they were given fresh from memory rather than being influenced
by later writings or statements by others.” (p. 3, English version)
Without realizing it, Schelvis, in saying this, rejects outright the value
of witness statements concerning Sobibór. If we accept the thesis
that the witnesses for the prosecution, who had come forward as early
as 1944 or shortly thereafter, no longer knew which SS-man had committed
which (alleged) specific crime, how then can we ascribe any
77
78
Cf. chapter 3.
Cf. chapter 3.