[Udo Walendy was the sixteenth witness called by the defence. He testified from Wednesday, April 6 to Monday, April 11, 1988.]
Udo Walendy was qualified as an expert witness on the grounds that he had sufficient practical experience and knowledge, gained from research and writing in respect to Holocaust-related matters, to permit him to testify and give his opinion. (28-7631)
Walendy had corresponded with Zündel since the end of the 1960s. He had known him personally since the fall of 1979 when he met Zündel in Los Angeles at the Institute for Historical Review. (27-7482, 7487) Zündel was one of the organizers of a subsequent North American lecture tour which Walendy embarked upon after the conference. Zündel travelled with Walendy on the tour, staying at the same hotels, helping Walendy with any translations that were needed, and introducing him to other people. (27-7521, 7522) Both he and Zündel were very interested in the Holocaust and in finding out what the truth was regarding the subject. They informed each other if they found anything new and discussed things with each other. They both checked sources and whether claims or information were correct or not. Zündel never showed lack of sincerity or lack of honesty about the subject; he was very conscientious and stuck to the facts and was only interested in the facts. (28-7699, 7700)
Udo Walendy had written several books dealing with the history of the Second World War, including Wahrheit für Deutschland (Truth for Germany: The Guilt Question of the Second World War], the two volume Europa in Flammen 1939-1945 (Europe in Flames 1939-1945) and Auschwitz in the I.G. Farben Trial: Holocaust Documents?. All German embassies received Truth for Germany to incorporate into their libraries. Walendy discussed the book with Zündel prior to 1981, mainly with regard to the last chapter dealing with the key documents at the Nuremberg trials. Walendy had also discussed his two volume work Europe in Flames with Zündel, especially the political problems resulting from the Second World War. Some two hundred pages from these two volumes dealt with the treatment of the Jews during the war and problems in the historical writing pertaining to this matter. Topics covered by the book included the question of whether there were gas chambers at Dachau, the Gerstein report and the problem of the six million. Walendy’s book Auschwitz in the I.G. Farben Trial: Holocaust Documents?, published in 1981, was a documentation of the I.G. Farben trial specifically dealing with the charges and defence arguments concerning Auschwitz. He had also discussed this book with Zündel. (27-7483 to 7487)
Walendy confirmed that he and Zündel commenced a correspondence in the late 1960s; they shared a lot of views about history. Admiration or respect for Adolf Hitler was never a topic of their correspondence because they were interested in the questions of what was historically true or misrepresented in history after the war. They certainly never discussed or wrote to each other concerning what political consequences should be drawn from such findings. Zündel knew that Walendy concentrated exclusively on the writing of books and had no interest in political activities. Walendy and Zündel wanted to know whether Hitler was responsible or not for the Second World War. They were interested in what the historical evidence revealed concerning that responsibility. Zündel agreed with Walendy’s position that Hitler and the National Socialists were not responsible for World War II. Walendy was not allowed to testify concerning Zündel’s political aims and goals. (28-7676, 7778, 7779)
Walendy testified that he had read the portion of Did Six Million Really Die? at page 26 which dealt with his book, Bild 'Dokumente' fur die Geschichtsschereibung?. He confirmed that the pamphlet correctly represented what he had published and reflected his true and honest opinion. Walendy published the book in 1973. The photographs shown on page 26 of the pamphlet appeared in his book and were atrocity photographs which Walendy alleged to be fake. Walendy discussed his book with Zündel prior to 1981. It was the topic of his paper given in 1979 at the Institute for Historical Review conference where he met Zündel. (27-7488, 7489)
Walendy himself had distributed Did Six Million Really Die? in Germany. The publishing rights were with an English publishing house located in Brighton, England. Walendy first saw the English and German editions of the booklet in South Africa in February of 1975. He started distributing the booklet in Germany in August or September of the same year. He was impressed with it because it came from an English source and because it was the first compiled survey of the topic that had reached the literature market. The thesis of the booklet was that there were at least doubts with respect to the belief that six million Jews were killed in the way represented by internationally published books. He published the pamphlet with the objective of making the historical truth available to the public. He felt that nations would then be in a position to talk about these matters in a factual, correct manner and in this way enable peaceful policies. The distribution of the booklet was extensive; it attracted a lot of attention with publishers as well as in public assemblies. Walendy definitely discussed his distribution of the pamphlet with Zündel prior to 1981. (27-7489, 7490 to 7494; 28-7677) The pamphlet’s format was useful; it was a short version suitable for worldwide distribution and allowed for quicker distribution to the public than books. (28-7715)
Walendy was aware that there were errors in the booklet. He felt, however, that the minor errors with respect to figures were acceptable given the fact that the booklet compiled so many important connections and relationships. He did not ask the publisher to make any changes in the text because he did not intend to publish it himself. He also knew that the English publisher was a printer and certainly would not have given permission for such changes to be made. (27-7490, 7491)
Walendy knew fairly soon after his first personal contact with the publisher that “Richard Harwood,” the name of the author of Did Six Million Really Die? was a pseudonym. He did not know whether he ever told this to Zündel or not. Walendy never met Richard Harwood and did not know who he was. (27-7495, 28-7729)
From the time he distributed the booklet in 1975, no one ever questioned its main thesis. Walendy testified that these topics were not in general discussed publicly, and even if clear evidence was provided, the official historians did not deal with it. The sole response was silence. The first few editions of Did Six Million Really Die? were not contested until around 1983. In that year, Walendy picked up copies of the booklet himself in England and attempted to bring them into Germany by car. The booklets were seized at the border but returned to him after a court action. In 1985, the booklet was again seized but was returned after a court action. (27-7491, 7492)
In the meantime, however, Thies Christophersen published his book The Auschwitz Lie. This resulted in a great deal of discussion in the media about the topic and Did Six Million Really Die? was also drawn into this discussion. In 1985, a superior court in Germany, in a completely different case, decided that whoever denied the extermination of the Jews thereby insulted the Jews and was subject to charges. As a result, the booklet was seized for a third time in 1985. Walendy went to the courts again but this time was advised not to go ahead with the trial because, on the basis of the superior court decision, there was no chance of winning the case. Walendy accepted that advice and waived the right to distribute the booklet. (27-7492, 7493)
Walendy testified that he never discussed any mistakes or errors in the booklet with Zündel because in the short time they were together they concentrated on the important topic. The subject was very extensive and comprehensive; there was a lot to write and to analyse. (27- 7493, 7494) Nor did he make the pamphlet available to Zündel; he obviously had it himself at least in 1979 when, at the conference in Los Angeles, they talked about the whole range of publications of this nature. Did Six Million Really Die? had been sold worldwide. (27-7517; German edition of Did Six Million Really Die? entered as Exhibit 107 at 27-7517)
For Walendy, the summary of facts contained in Did Six Million Really Die? was especially important because it contained varied details which the normal man in the street had never seen previously. The pamphlet was supposed to make the reader want to study more information regarding the subject and to examine whether it was a matter of fact or opinion. (28-7716) Walendy agreed that in answering a general question on the Historical Fact series he had agreed that their importance lay in the facts they contained and not the opinions. He had not written Did Six Million Really Die?, however, and with respect to that publication what was important for Walendy was that an Englishman had published this opinion on this subject. With regard to almost all publications, there was a compilation of findings which were summarized and expressed to a certain extent as an opinion of the author. There were transitional lines between a scientific fact and a scientific finding. Did Six Million Really Die? resembled an overview, a review. Walendy testified that there were flaws in its scientific analysis, but that he was not responsible for those flaws. (28-7726, 7727) Walendy would not call the booklet exactly scientific because he had some criticisms of it. (28-7717) In his own Historical Fact issues which subsequently followed, Walendy tried to be more scientific than Harwood had been in Did Six Million Really Die?. He had a stricter methodological approach. He thought the way the booklet was written was reflective of the English mentality. (28-7727, 7728)
The Crown suggested that Walendy distributed Did Six Million Really Die? because he liked the conclusion it reached, namely, that the Holocaust was a fraud used by the Jews to get money from Germany and international support for Israel. Walendy replied that it had never been a question for him how far the Holocaust could be exploited financially. The important question for him was whether the accusations were right or wrong because the position of the German people in the international scene, in living together with other peoples, was greatly affected by the accusations. Walendy believed the thesis of the pamphlet to be correct. Based on his research, it had become apparent to him that the thesis of the pamphlet was correct and that the Holocaust was a fraud. (28-7718, 7719)
The Crown suggested that the pamphlet did not deal honestly with Walendy’s work. Walendy agreed he was not a doctor as written in the pamphlet at page 26, although at times one was called that abroad if one had an academic degree. The pamphlet showed two photographs from his book and claimed that the origin of the first photograph was unknown and that the second was a photomontage. Walendy agreed that in his book, he stated that the first photograph was a forgery which was introduced in evidence at the Nuremberg trial. An anatomical study showed that probably all of the men had been painted into the photograph. There was no origin for this photo; nobody knew who the people were supposed to be, nor was the origin explained at Nuremberg. (29-7872 to 7876) Walendy was not a photo expert, but he obtained three expert opinions with regard to the photo before publishing the book. The book became the subject of a criminal investigation and the German authorities asked for an expert report from Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv confirmed the forgeries. This Israeli report ended the investigation and the prosecution of his book. (29-7874, 7875) The prosecution file number was 5 AR, 67/67. The proceedings were referred to the Federal Central Office in Ludwigsburg, and there given a new file number: AZ III/317, AR 1,330/67. It was in this dossier that the report from Tel Aviv was contained. Walendy was never officially informed of this investigation. No seizures were carried out and the investigation was closed in silence. (29-7881)
Walendy agreed that Did Six Million Really Die? left the impression that the second photograph was the photograph entered at Nuremberg. In fact, it had nothing to do with the trial; it was the first photograph which was introduced as evidence at Nuremberg. Walendy also agreed that the photomontage did not appear in the four books named by Harwood; it was the first photograph which appeared in the books. (29-7878)
Asked if Harwood had not treated his book dishonestly, Walendy testified that the reader of such a pamphlet had to check these things and satisfy himself how the photos were represented in the cited sources. Walendy did not consider the mixing up of the photographs to be a serious mistake because people who had doubts with respect to the photographs could check the cited sources. (29-7879)
Walendy’s distribution of Did Six Million Really Die? did not cause a controversy in Germany. The pamphlet was seized twice, but no reasons were given for the seizure, and after examination by the regional courts of the pamphlet’s contents, both seizures had been lifted. (28- 7720)
The only other issue of the Historical Fact series which had been seized was No. 15, which dealt with the knowledge the Allies had of the Holocaust during the war. Walendy found that the Allies had no knowledge of the Holocaust during the war. (28-7723)
Walendy used the pseudonym “Richard Harwood” for Historical Fact No. 3, on the advice of the English publisher. It was published in English. He did not think about whether or not it was dishonest to use a pseudonym. (28-7728)
Walendy never attempted to contact Harwood to tell him there were problems with the pamphlet. It was difficult to discuss further improvements to the publication with the publisher. He, himself, was not satisfied with the German translation but further changes were not carried out. It was not within his sphere of influence to make such changes. All the typesetting was done in England and the English publisher was not willing to invest any more money in the typesetting. The publisher himself did not speak German and the distribution of the pamphlet was not large enough to justify such a further investment. (28-7730, 7731)
Walendy agreed that a law existed in Germany against the defamation of minority groups. He testified, however, that the law protected only a very specific group in the population and that the German people themselves could be defamed from morning till night. Walendy did not agree with the law. It was a leftover of the Allied occupation and created two different laws for people living in Germany. The law originated in 1949 when Germany was still an occupied zone and the Allied nations created the Parliamentary Council. It was a temporary government that had to make German laws on the order of the Western Allies. That was how this particular law got into the German Criminal Code, s. 183, and where it had remained until today notwithstanding that another law made equality of all people in Germany a common principle. (28-7720, 7721)
Walendy was asked if his position, then, was that the present government of West Germany was not a legitimate government. Defence counsel objected on the grounds that it was a political question which had nothing to do with history. The objection was overruled, Judge Thomas holding: “This man’s motives, his beliefs — his beliefs — are very important to the writings that he prolifically produced in thirty-five periodicals since 1960-and-change, plus his evidence in the witness box, his views are very important to the motives and the sincerity of the opinions he holds.” (Thomas, 28-7722)
Walendy answered the question by stating that the present government of West Germany was a legitimate government which arose from the conditions extant from 1949 to 1955, but that did not mean that everything it did was right. (28-7722)
His distribution of Did Six Million Really Die? attracted attention from the international mail order public which purchased the pamphlet. However, there was no public attention in the newspapers or T.V. The public authorities took notice of the pamphlet only after the publication of Thies Christophersen’s The Auschwitz Lie. (28-7773)
Walendy introduced other pamphlets in the Historical Fact series which he had published over the years and discussed with Zündel. In The Methods of Re Education, Historical Fact No. 2, published in 1976 (English and German versions entered as Exhibit 108 at 27-7521), Walendy dealt with the inability of the German people to defend themselves concerning what really happened during World War II. He testified that after 1945 Germany had no documentation available to it. Germans were permitted to read only those publications that were officially authorized. The Nuremberg trials brought a lot of this kind of documentation to the public. The essential content of The Methods of Re-Education was that forged documents were being used by official historians, without any examination, as historical proof. Walendy printed some of these forged documents and provided evidence that they were just pieces of paper, without signatures or stamps, only a Nuremberg document number. (27-7518, 7519) Under the provisions of the London Agreement [8 August 1945], the Nuremberg court was not obliged to check the documents and did not do so. (27-7519, 7520)
Asked if Zündel appeared to accept what Walendy was saying in their discussions, Walendy testified that he would like to think that he was a publisher and scientist from whom Zündel could take the things he had published as being credible; all the more so, since Zündel knew that Walendy was not subject to any legal proceedings in Germany. (27-7519)
Walendy published The Nuremberg Trial, Methods and Significance: Historical Fact No. 3, in 1977 under the pseudonym of Richard Harwood (entered as Exh. 117 at 27-7547). The use of the pseudonym was agreed upon by Walendy and the pamphlet’s publisher, the same English publishing house in Brighton, England that published Did Six Million Really Die?. Asked if he had discussed this pamphlet with Zündel, Walendy testified that it could basically be stated that Zündel had read all the publications because they were the scientific basis for their whole political understanding. Walendy also dealt with this topic in his paper given in Los Angeles in 1979 in great detail. After presenting the paper, he went on a lecture tour around the United States and Canada, giving lectures on these topics in the presence of Zündel. (27-7496, 7497)
Walendy had informed Zündel that under the London Agreement, the Nuremberg Tribunal was not bound by any rules of evidence and that the court in fact hindered the defence to a large extent. Walendy and Zündel discussed the incorrectness of the trial procedures extensively because the trial and its results had had such an impact on the writing of history up to the present time. The London Agreement of the major powers, England, the Soviet Union, the United States and France, dealt with the basic legal rights in the occupied zones in Germany and the legal bases for the military tribunals. In these directives, it was set down that one main trial was to be carried out and all subsequent trials would have to adhere to the rulings set down in that trial. For example, in the subsequent trials, no doubts were allowed to be raised with regard to the statements of the main tribunal. Even today, the courts in the Federal Republic of Germany, via the Transitional Agreement of 1955, were required to adhere to these legal bases and rulings and could not deviate from the main tribunal at Nuremberg. This was so even though the victors, as early as 1949, were distancing themselves from the London Agreement. (27-7501 to 7503)
Walendy testified Article 21 of the London Agreement provided that the judges in Nuremberg had to recognize generally known facts which they were not allowed to investigate in detail. It was further set down that the so-called generally known facts included all official documents provided by any of the Allied governments. As a result, there were a huge number of documents that landed on the table at Nuremberg, officially delivered by one of the victors, and the tribunal had to put its stamp on them. The documents thus became officially recognized documents pertaining to historical facts. All of these so-called documents used by the prosecution were published as official documents. (27-7504)
All so-called documents brought in by the Soviets were called 'documents.' In numerous cases, they were of no historical importance, but they were labelled document X in the records. These documents were accepted without any criticism in many historical publications. Walendy himself had investigated the form and content of these documents and the circumstances which were represented as historical facts. He had gone to the Nuremberg State Archive and the Federal Archive in Koblenz and enquired about the location of the original documents. He had received the written response that the location of these documents was not known. These documents, Walendy testified, were not facsimiles, but were typed copies and copies of typed copies. (27- 7504, 7505)
Walendy had definitely discussed these matters with Zündel because he had discussed the topic during his lecture in Los Angeles in 1979 and referred to a pile of these so-called documents. There had been a lively discussion after the lecture which continued for the whole weekend. Walendy had already published with respect to these matters in the second issue of his Historical Fact series, The Methods of Re-Education and had the issue with him in Los Angeles. The first publication of his Historical Fact series was Did Six Million Really Die?. It was Walendy’s practice to send Zündel copies of his publications when they were released. (27-7543, 7505)
In The Betrayal of Eastern Europe, Historical Fact No. 4 (entered as Exh. 109 at 27 7525), Walendy discussed the changes in the European borders, especially of Eastern Europe. In his view, the changes were not carried out according to legal principles but were based on the political interests of the major powers. Walendy testified that it was to be assumed that he spoke to Zündel about this subject because, by 1981, he had already published eleven of the pamphlets in the Historical Fact series. Every pamphlet had a different topic, scientifically set up and proven. They had certainly talked about the global topic involved in the publication, because there was a definite relationship between the political decisions of the major powers in 1945 and the methods of re-education by which the German people were being blamed. Walendy told Zündel that his father came from East Prussia and that his whole family had belonged to the group of expelled persons. They also discussed Roosevelt and Churchill, the great decisions at the war conferences and the consequences. This pamphlet, along with the others, was for sale on the 1979 tour organized by Zündel for Walendy. Zündel also provided him with information about books which Walendy had not known about. In this way, they complemented each other all the time. Walendy testified that from his conversations with Zündel, he saw that Zündel himself had a vast knowledge of the subject. (27-7522 to 7525)
Coming to Grips with the History of National Socialism, Historical Fact No. 5, was published in 1979 (entered as Exh. 110 at 27-7536). This pamphlet was co-authored with Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, a judge who had been an anti-aircraft officer at Auschwitz during the war. Stäglich had published an article in a newspaper regarding his experiences in Auschwitz and later wrote the book The Auschwitz Myth. This book had gained significance very quickly. Walendy could not remember if he discussed the content of this publication in detail with Zündel. He knew that the publications were, overall, the basis of their conversations. This particular edition was of particular importance since it contained further examples of forged documents, which at that time were definitely so topical for him that Walendy spoke about them. An example was a document according to which the Germans killed 97,000 people in mobile gas vans. Walendy was able to ascertain that the original was in the Federal Archives in Koblenz under a specific registration number. He had gone to Koblenz to look at the document, only to find that it was a photocopy of a typewritten paper without a signature. Outside of these types of documents, there was no proof for this kind of allegation. In his opinion, this was not sufficient for historical research. He spoke about these details to Zündel. He told him that his conclusion regarding such documents was that one had to be very skeptical in looking at these so-called documents. One could not believe everything that was made out to be an official document. (27-7527 to 7530)
Walendy and Zündel discussed in detail the whole range of topics relating to the story of the six million Jews gassed or exterminated by the German government between 1939 and 1945. These topics included the statistics of the Jewish population in that period, the evidence brought forth by publishers to support the claim, the proof provided by individual documents, the testimony of witnesses, and the technical feasibility of the claims. Asked if he personally believed that there was a plan to exterminate six million Jews by the government of Germany in those years, Walendy replied that since 1945, he had sworn to himself never to believe anything again that could not be proven 100 percent. Evidence of a plan to exterminate six million Jews by the Reich government had not been proven; there were too many material and scientific flaws and technical impossibilities. (27-7531, 7532)
The Modern Index, Historical Fact No. 7, published in 1980 (entered as Exh. 112 at 27-7538), dealt with the practice in the Federal Republic of Germany of placing political and historical publications on the index of forbidden books by means of the laws against pornography. The topic of censorship of historical views had undoubtedly been discussed with Zündel because it was a very important factor in publishing in Germany today. At the least, Walendy had sent Zündel a copy of this issue and informed him about these things. The word “Index” in the title referred to a term from the Middle Ages, when forbidden books were put on a list and were no longer allowed to be sold. The title The Modern Index meant that books on that list could no longer be sold to young people, publicly advertised or sent through the mail. They could, however, be sold to adults. The books could not be banned outright in West Germany, but by means of the Index, the books were removed from public awareness. (27-7536 to 7538)
In Holocaust Now Underground?, Historical Fact No. 9 (entered as Exh. 113 at 27 7543): Walendy discussed the theory that the Holocaust must have proceeded underground since it was not visible in aerial photographs taken in 1944 by the American Air Force. Walendy had discussed the aerial photographs with Zündel in 1979. In 1977, Arthur Butz had already published his book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century in which he alleged that aerial photographs were taken during the war. The fact that these photographs had not been published was of particular significance since all of the Holocaust literature up till then claimed that the high point of the extermination in Auschwitz occurred in 1944. Professor Butz claimed that if the aerial photographs provided proof of the truth of the allegations, they would have been submitted at the Nuremberg trials. As a result of the publication of Professor Butz’s book, the aerial photographs were made available to the public by the American National Archives. The first publication of the photographs included insertions of text claiming that the exterminations were evident in the photographs. The aerial photographs had a large impact on the public and were a topic of discussion at the conference in Los Angeles in 1979. (27-7539 to 7541)
The front cover of Holocaust Now Underground? reproduced an enlargement of a portion of one of the aerial photographs, showing two crematories in Auschwitz Birkenau and several barracks. These enlargements showed no smoke around the crematories. Nor could any dug-out areas be seen where people were supposedly burned and buried. The Americans photographed the whole area in 1944 every ten days from a height of 6,000 metres, and not a single photograph indicated smoke coming from the crematories. Since the release of the photographs, there were more and more claims that the Holocaust had taken place underground and could not be seen from above. (27-7541, 7542)
German-Israel Facts: Historical Fact No. 10, published in 1981 (entered as Exh. 115 at 27- 7547), dealt with the basis for the foundation of the state of Israel, including the relationship between Versailles 1919, the Weimar Republic, the Jewish rise in Germany, the introduction of the Star of David and Kristallnacht. These pamphlets were part of the ongoing Historical Fact series, which had now reached number 34. None of these publications questioned the thesis of Did Six Million Really Die?, but rather confirmed it in all essential respects. (27-7544 to 7546)
In Faults in the Knowledge of the Allies: Historical Fact No. 15, Walendy examined the internationally available literature dealing with what knowledge the Allies had during the war regarding the Holocaust. The publications examined included those of Raul Hilberg, Nahum Goldmann (the President of the World Jewish Congress for many years), Bernhard Klieger and Martin Gilbert. From this literature, it became evident that neither the Western Allies nor the Soviets, up to the end of the war, had knowledge of the Holocaust. In their newspapers they published stories of a similar nature, specifically in the New York Times, as early as 1942. They themselves did not believe that information, however, and behaved completely differently than they would have if they had really believed the claims.
It had been proven that neither Churchill nor Roosevelt had knowledge, and that both statesmen expressed very clearly at the time that as soon as they had any information that the Germans were using gas as a means of waging war, they would start gas warfare immediately against Germany. There were international agreements which prohibited gas warfare and all governments had indicated that they would not start gas warfare. They would, however, retaliate with gas immediately if they learned that the enemy was using that means of war. Walendy was not permitted to answer whether or not he considered the alleged gas chambers to be a means of war. (28-7645 to 7648) Walendy reiterated that had the Allies known that the Nazis were using gas against the Jews, they would have retaliated with gas attacks on Germany. The Allies had the opportunity to inform the international public why a gas war had been started. But the fact was that neither the Allies nor the Zionists ever made a demand for such retaliation during the whole war. The Zionists had a strong organization in the United States which influenced the American government. Yet even those organizations made no demand that the United States or England carry out such an action. (28-7784, 7785) International Jewry officially declared war against Germany in 1933. Expressions of leading Zionists to that effect were published internationally, and in the post-war period, such statements were referred to in a number of publications. (28- 7648)
Asked if he had discussed Historical Fact No. 15 with Zündel, Walendy testified that Zündel had received all of his publications upon release, but he could not recall the details of subsequent conversations or correspondence right at the moment. (28 7648)
Walendy testified that Historical Fact No. 16 and No. 17 dealt with the Einsatzgruppen. The pamphlets were written after Walendy read a book which had just been published at the time by Dr. Helmut Krausnick, the head of the Institute of Contemporary History and his colleague, Hans-Heinrich Wilhelm. Walendy analysed the book and found a wealth of sources which he subsequently checked out at the Federal Archives in Koblenz. He also surveyed Soviet sources, statements of German generals from the Nuremberg trials and a book by Walter Sanning [The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry] regarding the evacuation of large numbers of the Jewish population from western Russia at the beginning of the war. Before the German army entered the Soviet Union, at least one million Jews had already been evacuated. This was a figure which could not be established with 100 percent accuracy and the number could be even higher. As a result of analysing these sources, it became apparent to Walendy that the whole topic was very difficult to analyse: there were instances where forged documents were used and in numerous documents no details were given which could be verified. (28-7649 to 7651)
Asked if he agreed that the actual number of executions by the Einsatzgruppen was approximately 100,000, as claimed by Did Six Million Really Die?, Walendy testified that it was very difficult to answer because all of the figures referred mainly to the so-called Einsatzgruppen reports. These reports were not written by the Einsatzgruppen themselves but were allegedly written in Berlin. They gave very high figures but very few details. Although they were used as evidence during the Nuremberg trials, Walendy pointed out that the Soviets who ruled over the territory in question had never been willing to co-operate in an objective investigation. For example, not a single mass grave had been found and examined in co-operation with an international commission. Walendy had not formed any opinion regarding the number of executions performed by the Einsatzgruppen because he believed it was simply not possible. The available evidence had too many flaws. (28-7653, 7654)
In Historical Fact No. 31, Walendy did a study of the first Pravda article concerning the liberation of Auschwitz, published on February 2, 1945. The Soviets had captured Auschwitz on January 27, 1945. In the article, the Soviets claimed that the Germans had killed millions of people by means of an electric conveyor belt system. This story was not maintained later on. (28-7655, 7659) After several reminders from Great Britain, the Soviets next published, on May 7, 1945, an extensive commission report which resulted from a three month investigation of Auschwitz. This report, with some abbreviations, was later introduced into the Nuremberg trial as document No. 008 USSR. The Nuremberg Tribunal accepted the report without inspection but it was never translated into English.
Walendy believed the report was nothing more than propaganda and that in reality the Soviets found nothing of what they claimed to have found. The report contained so many contradictions and impossibilities that it was never mentioned in Holocaust literature. (28-7656, 7657) In three different places in the report, the Soviets gave three different times which they claimed it took to cremate a human body. In one place they claimed it took five minutes to cremate a human body; in another place, they said it took from seven to eight minutes and in the third place, they declared that a corpse was burnt in nine minutes. Walendy testified that this was technically impossible. (28-7657) The Soviets also claimed in the report that the Germans burnt between 10,000 and 12,000 people daily in the years 1942, 1943 and 1944. Walendy pointed out that if that number of people had been killed and cremated for those years, some 11 million people would have been killed by the end of 1944. (28-7658) The Soviet report further claimed that the Germans took 200 to 300 people out of every arriving transport for labour, but gassed 2,000 to 3,000 people daily. Yet somehow the Germans maintained the camp population at 200,000. Walendy testified this obviously wasn’t possible; the camp population could not have been maintained at a constant level if thousands of people were being removed from the camp and only a few hundred brought in to replenish the labour ranks. (28-7658, 7659) Lastly, the Soviets claimed that the whole extermination at Auschwitz was not directed against the Jews but against the European nations. (28-7657) Walendy had personally translated these documents and had the original Pravda edition at his home. (28-7685)
Walendy also analyzed the official Soviet film of the liberation of Auschwitz, which had been kept secret by the Soviets for 40 years. The film contained all of the footage by the Red Army taken at the liberation in January, 1945 and some months later. (28-7685, 7686) The Soviet cameraman made the statement that the Soviet cameramen and kommandos did not know there were supposed to be gas chambers at Auschwitz, and therefore they did not take photographs of such gas chambers or their ruins. This film gave Walendy new evidence that even the Soviet leaders did not have any knowledge of the gas chambers. (28-7686, 7687)
Walendy testified that Sefton Delmer was one of the key propaganda figures during the Allied occupation of Germany immediately after the war. Delmer published the book Die Deutschen und Ich (The Germans and I) in 1962 in which he described his working methods. Walendy believed that without knowing Delmer’s methods, political developments could not be judged. (28-7659, 7660) Walendy was absolutely certain that he had discussed the topic of Sefton Delmer with Zündel because the publication of Delmer’s book and the subsequent impact on the whole of historical research was a sensation. (28-7664)
Sefton Delmer was a foreign reporter for the English Beaverbrook Press, and in that capacity accompanied Hitler on many of his election tours. After Hitler came to power, Delmer was one of the most respected foreign journalists in Berlin. In 1940, Delmer was the official news announcer on the BBC and was in a position, without even consulting the British Foreign Minister, to turn down an offer of peace made by Hitler. Subsequently, he was the propaganda leader in the British Information Ministry and had a large staff. He carried out so-called “black propaganda” after the end of the war. He was sent to the British-occupied zone in order to co- ordinate the black propaganda with the French, Soviets and Americans. (29-7883)
Delmer was the head of “black propaganda,” meaning forged documents. He managed not only groups of people working in this type of work, but also managed the relevant radio stations. He was a personal friend of the British Information Minister. In June, 1944, the Information Ministry sent out an official directive to all the higher-echelon civil servants and managers of the public media, instructing them that with the Red Army in Europe, they would have to expect incredible cruelty from which they could distract world attention only through a strengthened atrocity propaganda campaign against Germany. (28-7660, 7661)
Sefton Delmer was the head functionary who carried out this work for the British government. His main method was to lie as exactly as possible so that the lies couldn’t be uncovered right away. After the end of the war in occupied Germany, Delmer co-ordinated the “black propaganda” campaign with the French, the Soviets and the Americans. These co- ordinated lies and inventions could not be recognized as such right away. Delmer’s work in occupied Germany lasted until 1947. During that period he and his staff forged a wealth of German documents which reached official files. He described this work to a large extent in his own book. Walendy testified that most of these forged documents had the Germans committing a large number of war crimes. Delmer provided the documents to the British Ministry of Information which in turn sent them to the Nuremberg trial as official documents. The International Military Tribunal, pursuant to the London Agreement, did not check whether the documents were true or false, but simply entered them as evidence of “generally-known facts.” Because they were considered authenticated official documents, they had now been introduced into history books. In this situation, Walendy testified, even officially published documents had to be analyzed to determine whether or not they were forgeries. (28-7662, 7663)
Walendy did not believe the Nuremberg trials to be fair and impartial. All laws valid in Germany at that time were declared invalid and in their place were put the so-called Control Council laws. The Control Council laws as well as the London Agreement provided that war crimes could only have been committed by Germans or enemies of the Allies and that the military tribunals were not to be held to normal rules of evidence. This new law was codified in a political agreement between the major powers: the Soviet Union, the United States, France and England. The defence at Nuremberg did not have the possibilities of a normal defence in a regular legal dispute. The witnesses were usually prisoners themselves and were limited with regard to their freedom. The victor ruled in its own interest and ruled what were historical facts and what were not. (28-7666)
Asked if he agreed with the part of Did Six Million Really Die? which dealt with torture at Nuremberg, Walendy testified that he would have to read the individual points. In principle, however, it had become evident that what was written in the pamphlet was the truth. Even American judges had complained about such measures. (28-7666, 7667)
The Transfer Agreement was an agreement between the Reich government and an organization of German Jews and Zionists, represented by Chaim Weizmann, to make possible the emigration of Jews to Israel through joint financing and joint co operation. The agreement was never changed but was basically cancelled by the development of the war. (28-7668, 7669)
The Wannsee Conference was regarded as a key conference in the “final solution” of the Jews. The conference itself took place on January 20, 1942, with Reinhard Heydrich presiding over the fourteen state secretaries who were in attendance. The protocol of the meeting was introduced into evidence at the Wilhelmstrasse trial by Robert M.W. Kempner, but even today it was not known where these minutes originated. They were written in such a bad style that it was impossible that a German could have formulated such a protocol. There were contradictions and errors with respect to contents. In addition, not a single person who attended the conference confirmed the minutes. In Walendy’s opinion, the secretaries of state in attendance at the conference were not in a position to make a decision on those topics. (28-7669, 7670)
In his research at the State Archives in Nuremberg, Walendy found that the transports of Jews from Germany had already started in October of 1941, obviously pursuant to an order from Hitler. The reasons for this decision were based on information that concentration of the Jews was required for security reasons. The Jews were sent by rail to different labour camps and ghettos in the General Government, but not to extermination camps. (28-7670, 7671)
The Wannsee Conference met with considerable resistance. Some of the secretaries of state via their Ministers approached Hitler with the result that in May, 1942, he stopped the transports. The Wannsee Conference resulted in something completely different than was usually claimed. It was claimed that despite these orders to stop transports, there were still transports by rail. Unfortunately, there were no documents of the German Reich railway so that final answers could not be given. (28-7671)
None of the participants in the Wannsee Conference ever recognized the minutes of the meeting. Adolf Eichmann admitted at his trial in Jerusalem that he wrote the Wannsee protocols, but in Walendy’s opinion this did not constitute historical proof. Eichmann was no longer a free man in Jerusalem. His whole situation was similar to that of Rudolf Höss in Nuremberg, where Höss explained that he was responsible for the murder of 2.5 million people in Auschwitz. It later came out that this was false. Eichmann obviously didn’t have any other possibility than testifying the way he did. If the Wannsee Conference really had been about extermination, then all of the participants would have been punished as war criminals after the war. With the exception of Dr. Stuckart, that did not happen. (29-7864 to 7871)
Asked why Eichmann would lie in Jerusalem and fabricate the fact that he had participated in a meeting about exterminating Jews, Walendy testified that there were many ways and means to get a prisoner to say things that the accuser wanted him to say. This was particularly so in a state where there was only one ruling party and dictatorial methods prevailed. Walendy stated that he could not prove that Eichmann had been tortured, but he could prove that what Eichmann allegedly said contradicted all historical evidence. (29-7871, 7872)
Walendy testified that Paul Rassinier’s books were the first revisionist books regarding the concentration camps. They gave him many new insights and expanded his knowledge. Walendy testified that vis-a-vis all information he was skeptical because he belonged to that generation of Germans whose families had been expelled from East Prussia and who knew the conditions that had prevailed there. Later, however, they were told that they had been “liberated.” This contradiction was one of the essential reasons for his skepticism vis-a-vis all new information. (28-7673)
Walendy was familiar with The Holocaust Revisited: A Retrospective Analysis of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Extermination Complex (Exhibit 85). It was the first publication of the aerial photographs of the American air force. It claimed that the photographs were evidence of the Holocaust claims, but a factual study of the book indicated that these were not scientific conclusions that could be drawn from the photographs. (28-7674)
In Historical Fact No. 23, published in 1985, Walendy dealt with the topic of the Holocaust as it related to the gypsies. In Walendy' opinion, the claim that Germany killed 500,000 gypsies during the war was a complete fiction and had no factual basis. Several books had come out making this claim and referred to each other as evidence, but none of the books themselves contained any evidence to support the claim. Walendy’s purpose in analyzing the books was to determine what had really happened. He was not there, and such allegations had great political importance. Walendy concluded that there was no evidence to prove the murder of 500,000 gypsies and that the allegations were being promoted by politicians. (28-7677 to 7680)
In Historical Fact No. 24, Walendy published an article by Ingrid Weckert entitled “Mass Killings or Disinformation?.” Weckert analysed the book Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas (National Socialist Mass Killings by Poison Gas) [ edited by Kogon, Langbein and Rückerl] and determined that it contained much false information, contradictions and technical impossibilities. (28-7680, 7681) As an example, on page 115 of the book, the authors claimed that in Chelmno:
The crematoria ovens had a width of ten metres and a length of about five to six metres. They were not protruding from the ground. They had no chimneys. They tapered down towards the bottom where grates were fastened. These grates consisted of railroad tracks; the shorter rails are the grates. The longer ones, however, served the purpose of camouflaging the crematoria ovens from airplanes. These rails were placed over the pits and covered up with metal sheet. On top of each layer of dead bodies, a layer of wood logs was placed. As far as I can remember, the oven was lit from the bottom. Whoever was lighting the fire had to make his way through the opening, the ash opening to get underneath the grates. I would like to remark that an underground corridor led to the ash box serving as an air supply channel as well as for the purpose of removing the ashes. The corpses burned quickly. New corpses were constantly being thrown on top.
Walendy testified that this account was so absurd, that one shouldn’t have to give any explanations at all with respect to it. In principle, burnings of corpses could not be carried out in pits and trenches with wooden logs because the oxygen supply was insufficient. It was even less possible if the wooden logs were covered with sheet metal and the lighting was carried out from the bottom. It was not possible to continue a fire in such conditions. (28-7690 to 7693)
At page 247 of the book, the authors included an account of how gassings took place:
If a gassing was to be carried out, Roth ordered one of the camp inmates under his command, usually the witness Kanduth, to heat up a brick inside the crematoria. Often Roth carried the hot brick on a shovel into a gas cell and placed it into a gas input device consisting of an iron box with a removable lid which could be closed airtight by using wing screws and a gasket. The introduced hot brick served the purpose of vapourizing the subsequently filled-in poison gas which was bound to paper scraps using the uprising heat.
Walendy testified that the gas chambers as described in the book were so large that several hundred people were placed in them. The introduction of one brick into one of these large chambers would have had no effect in terms of the intended purpose. Furthermore, Zyklon B was produced as a pest control substance. It was delivered in closed containers in the form of grains. It had nothing to do with scraps of paper. (28-7694)
The book was of special importance, said Walendy, because it was written by three well- known authors. Eugen Kogon was a professor and a former inmate of Buchenwald. Hermann Langbein was a former inmate of Auschwitz and Rückerl was the chief prosecutor and head of the Central Office of Judicial Administration. Walendy believed it was important, from a political point of view, to know whether the allegations contained in the book were true or false. (28-7681, 7682)
In Historical Fact No. 30, Walendy analyzed claims that some 450,000 people had been forcibly sterilized by the Germans. Walendy proved that the main documents relied upon by the historian involved were forged documents taken partially from Polish archives. Many of the allegations made were not known until 1980, and Walendy questioned how these facts could have been kept hidden for forty years. (28-7683)
Walendy testified that the Final Report on the Solution of the Jewish Problem in the District of Galicia (Exhibit 118) had been compiled from different sources. Originally, it was a summary report by the chief of police from Lublin but other pages had obviously been inserted into the original document. This could be seen from the different typewriter faces as well as from texts which did not fit into context. It was also possible that different types of paper had been used. Pages 14 to 18 indicated facts that were completely out of context with the rest of the document and the content on these pages especially was factually so incredible that Walendy doubted whether it could stand up to a scientific examination. (28-7697, 7698)
Walendy testified that in his research he attempted to get a general overview of the international literature. He then checked the evidence given in that literature for historical context and authenticity. To check authenticity, Walendy examined the form of a document, the paper, the typewriter size, the context within a dossier, and the temporal context. He also examined the contents to determine whether they were correct. (28-7694)
An example of a forged document, Walendy testified, was an 83-page typewritten report which he found in the Federal Archive in Koblenz, written by the Reich medical leader, Dr. Wagner and submitted to Hitler in 1940. Walendy noticed that in the first 34 pages, the letters “ss” were used instead of the usual German letter combination of “sz.” Starting at page 35, however, the correct letters “sz” were used. Upon closer examination, Walendy found that a different typewriter and different paper had been used. This was an example of how, after the war, forged pages were inserted into original documents. (28-7695, 7696)
He had attempted, by his publications, to enable a public discussion regarding these topics to take place. If he had made false statements, it was up to other people to prove the mistakes and errors to him. But such had not happened up till now. (28 7694, 7695)
On cross-examination, the Crown suggested to Walendy that he had testified that in 1945 he swore that he would be extremely skeptical about any accusations made against Hitler and the National Socialist regime. Walendy replied that the Crown had misquoted him. He had testified that he had become very skeptical about all information of any nature. He had not referred to National Socialism. (28-7701)
Walendy was drafted into the air force in 1944. He was 18 years old in 1945. Asked if he viewed Adolf Hitler as his national leader, Walendy stated that as a student, one was forced to live in a community which determined what one had to do. “My personal opinion at the time was not asked…” The Crown suggested that as a young man, however, Walendy had viewed Hitler as a great man and leader of his country. Walendy testified that, yes, Hitler was considered not just by the students, but also by the great powers, as a world political leader. (28-7702)
Walendy testified that Hitler, Goebbels, the teachers, journalists and professors told them that they were fighting for a righteous cause. Walendy personally got a Christian blessing for this fight. He agreed that in his view he was defending Europe. The Crown suggested that he was defending his race. Walendy said he was defending his homeland. It had nothing to do with race. (28-7703)
In 1945, Walendy was a prisoner of war in a British camp in Denmark. He agreed that he regarded himself as being in the hands of the enemy. His home in East Prussia had been annexed to Poland. He agreed with the Crown’s suggestion that his home had been taken away by another enemy. (28-7703)
Walendy refused to answer hypothetical questions about whether Hitler would have been an evil man if the accusations against him were true. He testified that he always tried to check out the accusations. He pointed out that it would be wrong to make a one-sided judgment against Hitler without also looking at the behaviour of all the powers and men such as Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill. (28-7704, 7705)
The Crown told Walendy that Thies Christophersen had testified earlier that he could not be a hypocrite who cheered Hitler one moment and then turned around and admitted that he was an evil man after the war. The Crown suggested that that was true for Walendy too. Walendy replied that Christophersen was a few years older than himself and had been an army officer during the war. Walendy suggested that Christophersen probably experienced a lot more throughout this time than he had as a student; the students had been educated freely and had always expressed their opinions everywhere. He found consent and agreement to be the rule of the day. Until the end of the war, Walendy met only one person who had some reservations about National Socialism. Walendy was also skeptical of National Socialism, but he found that a whole wealth of accusations were one-sided or incorrect. (28-7705, 7706)
After the war, Walendy went back to school. The Nuremberg trials, the events of the war and the political changes in Europe were part of the course of studies, but not specifically the subject of the Holocaust. There was no reliable literature on the subject at that time. The first books by Reitlinger and others came out much later. The German people were in a spiritual upheaval and were confronted with completely new information. (28-7706, 7707)
Walendy agreed that in 1961 the trial of Adolf Eichmann took place. The Crown suggested that at that time Walendy had to decide whether he would remain loyal in his heart to National Socialism or accept the evidence that came out of Eichmann’s mouth in Jerusalem. Walendy answered that, for him, it was never a question of loyalty towards National Socialism. He was interested in clarifying historical facts. There was no point in denying German crimes only because one might want to be loyal to National Socialism. One had to recognize what happened on the German side at the time, but one also had to take into consideration what happened on the other side and how the war escalated into a terrible inferno. What became available to the public through the Eichmann trial had to be looked at skeptically today, in the same way one had to look skeptically at the Nuremberg trials. The Eichmann trial was not a neutral trial and the public was not informed of all the details. Israel was not impartial and ran the trial using unfair methods. Long before the sentence, Eichmann had been pre-sentenced in the Israeli press. (28-7707 to 7709)
The Crown suggested that after the Eichmann trial, the intellectuals in Germany; men such as Wolfgang Scheffler, Helmut Krausnick and Eugen Kogon, acknowledged the crimes of the National Socialist regime. Walendy replied that in West Germany, there was a whole group of publicly promoted professors who represented history in a one-sided manner. They used source documents and witnesses which Walendy had criticized extensively. Walendy considered them to be propagandists. (28-7710)
Walendy was aware that the government and judicial system of West Germany had tried members of the National Socialist regime for war crimes in the mid-1960s. He believed that this was an indication of the political situation in Germany and that the legal bases of these trials were not regular. (28-7710, 7711)
The Crown suggested that the National Socialists, Hitler and others, had told Walendy as a young man that Jews were liars and cheats. Walendy replied that during his most impressionable years growing up in East Prussia, this hadn’t been a topic of discussion at all because they were dealing with completely different matters. (28-7708)
Walendy had read Mein Kampf but did not agree with the Crown’s suggestion that it was clear from the book that Hitler hated Jews. Walendy testified that a hatred towards Jews could not be found in Mein Kampf. In the book, Hitler analyzed many problems relating to the Jewish issue. Walendy questioned how it was possible that Hitler received not only the majority of votes in Germany, but also international respect if, looking back, a hatred of Jews was to be found there. (28-7709)
The Crown suggested again that Walendy remained loyal in his heart to Hitler. An objection to the question on the grounds that it was a political question was overruled. Walendy testified that he had already stated several times that that was not the guiding motive of his actions. (28-7711)
From the mid-1960s, Walendy made his living by writing and publishing. His first book was Wahrheit für Deutschland (Truth for Germany), the thesis of which was that Hitler was not to blame for the Second World War. The book did not deal with the Holocaust except to say that the accusations would have to be examined closely and that the subject had nothing to do with the guilt question of the Second World War. He agreed that in the English version he had written that “killing Jews during the war was a crime which no one can deny.” But he stated that he did not say in that statement what really happened with regard to the subject. Walendy published Truth for Germany himself. He agreed it had modest success in Germany and had run into three editions. (28-7712, 7713)
Walendy also published Europa in Flammen 1939-1945 (Europe in Flames 1939 1945), a 1,000-page work which devoted about 150 pages to the Holocaust. He agreed that he found it hard to make a living writing and publishing these large books. It took much more money to print books and sales did not come about quickly enough for a small publishing house to make it economical. Asked if the intellectuals and academics didn’t take him seriously, Walendy replied that they would do so. (28-7714, 7715)
Walendy was in North America in 1979 with Thies Christophersen, but they did not make the same tour together, certainly not with respect to all the lectures. Walendy did not meet Matt Koehl in North America, but met him at a conference organized by Christophersen in Germany. Zündel was not at the conference. Asked if he knew Koehl was the leader of a neo- Nazi movement in the United States, Walendy testified that he did not know if Koehl was a leader of anything. They didn’t discuss it and Walendy wasn’t interested. Walendy didn’t know if Koehl was the editor of a newspaper. (28-7775 to 7777)
Walendy was asked why Germany acknowledged guilt for the National Socialist regime. He replied that the overall political situation of Germany had to be considered in answering this question. For four years after 1945, the Allied occupation forces ruled and organized the whole internal political structure of Germany. They ensured that only people who agreed with them were placed in official offices. After the so-called Transitional Convention of 1955, West Germany was given more freedom but this did not change anything with regard to the licensed parties and the legal principles created up to that point. The ruling parties made statements and declarations everywhere about German guilt. It was a time when the subject could not be studied scientifically. Walendy believed that it was very hard to separate history from politics. The whole was politics. (29-7885, 7888)
In the United States, Walendy’s books were distributed by the Institute for Historical Review. The person he dealt with at the Institute was Willis Carto. Walendy was not familiar with the Liberty Lobby. He knew Carto published the Spotlight newspaper and that it was somehow connected to the Liberty Lobby, but he did not know what it was. Walendy was present at the Institute’s 1979 conference, where Zündel was also present. (28-7780, 7781)
The Crown projected a copy of a document on the overhead projector, taken from the book National Socialist Mass Killings by Poison Gas, purporting to be a memorandum from Willy Just to Walter Rauff about gas vans. Walendy agreed that there was a signature on the last page of the document, that of Willy Just. Walendy believed the document was a forgery. People were not mentioned in the document. It was a typewritten piece of paper which did not bear any kind of dossier context, or any specific detail. It contained so much technical nonsense, that for those reasons alone, a scientist would not consider it to be an authentic document. (29 7817, 7818; memorandum entered as Exhibit 127).
At the Crown’s direction, Walendy read portions of the document which were translated simultaneously by the court translator:
Since December of 1941, by way of example, 97,000 were processed with three vehicles in operation, without defects to the vehicles occurring…The loading of the vehicle is normally 9 to 10 per square metre. In the larger Saurer special vehicles, use is not possible in this form, because no overloading occurs. However, the ability to negotiate the terrain is reduced. Reduction of the loading area appears necessary. It is achieved by a reduction of the compartment by about one metre. The main difficulty cannot be stopped, as was the case previously, by reducing the number of pieces when loading. The reduction of the number of pieces makes a longer operation period necessary, because the vacant areas will also have to be filled with seal. However, if in case of a reduced loading area and a completely-filled loading compartment, considerably shorter operation period is sufficient because vacant spaces are lacking. In a discussion with the manufacturing firm, this firm pointed out that a reduction of the box compartment would result in an unfavourable shifting of the weight. It was emphasized that an overloading of the front axle would occur. In fact, however, there is an unplanned balancing in the weight by the fact that the cargo in operation is predominantly to the rear in its striving towards the rear door. Consequently, an additional loading of the front axle does not occur…In order to be able to carry out a practical cleaning of the vehicle, the floor has to be provided in the middle with a drainage opening which can be tightly sealed. The drain and half of a diameter of about 200 to 300 millimeters is provided with a syphon elbow piece so that thin fluids can drain during operation. In order to avoid clogging, the elbow piece has to be provided with a sieve at the top. Thick dirts can be flushed away when cleaning the vehicle through the large drainage opening. The floor of the vehicle is to be on a slight incline towards the drainage opening. This is in order to achieve that all liquids drain immediately towards the middle. Flowing of the liquids into the tubes or pipes is thus made impossible to a large extent…However, it was found out by experience that when closing the rear door, and thus upon the occurring darkness, there was always an intense pushing with the cargo towards the door.
The Crown suggested that what the document was talking about was the need to install a drainage hole in the back of the van so that the bodily fluids of the people killed could exit. The Crown further suggested that it was a recommendation by Just to his boss, Rauff, that they leave the lights on in the back of the van because when the doors were closed and the lights were out, the people in the van panicked and rushed towards the back of the van. Walendy reiterated that the document was technical nonsense and what the Crown took from it was his business. In his opinion, the document wanted to give the impression that a vehicle had been used to gas human beings and that on the basis of some experiences, changes were required. (29-7819 to 7825)
Walendy agreed that the document indicated that it was an internal document from Amt II D but stated that one would not forge documents if one didn’t get those types of details correct. Such papers could be fabricated at any time without anyone knowing about it. In the post-war years, a whole wealth of such documents had been forged. The only way to check their authenticity was to examine the technical details contained in them. Walendy recommended again the book by Sefton Delmer, in which Delmer described in great detail his forgery methods, and the fact that in the post-war period he had co-ordinated and expanded Allied black propaganda efforts. (29-7826 to 7829)
Walendy knew that Rauff escaped to Chile after the war; in 1964, he gave an interview to investigators from West Germany. He was not familiar with the contents of Rauff’s statements during those interviews. The Crown suggested to Walendy that in a footnote on page 101 of Professor Browning’s book, Fateful Months, Browning stated that after a German extradition request to Chile for Rauff was refused, Rauff gave two interviews in 1964 to German court officials. Rauff died in 1984. Upon being informed that Browning’s book was published in 1985, Walendy testified that it was a typical case of putting words into a dead man’s mouth. This was also typical of Sefton Delmer. A dead man could not be questioned about what he had allegedly said. Walendy had not seen the interview transcript at the Berlin Document Centre, but indicated that if the statement was published in the English language in 1985, and had not been repeated in any other book so far, he could not judge it right away. (29-7830, 7835, 7836) Walendy read to the court his own analysis of the document published in Historical Fact No. 5. (29 7844 to 7859)
In Walendy’s opinion, nobody had dealt with the contents of the document and the dossier. People such as Suzman and Diamond should have made it their business to deal with such details. If they hadn’t been willing to do this so far, Walendy could only conclude that they were not in a position to do so. Asked if it hadn’t occurred to him that experts considered his opinions to be so absurd that they were not worth taking the time to respond to, Walendy replied that such a “cheap answer” was “completely unscientific.” (29-7860, 7861)
Walendy agreed that he was not an automotive engineer but stated that he had preserved his power of independent thinking. He had studied physics privately (29-7842, 7843) He agreed he was not a chemist. Asked if Zündel knew he was not an automotive engineer, Walendy testified that Zündel could rely on him completely because he knew that Walendy researched scientifically and openly published his commentaries, thereby taking the risk of being laughed at for his stupidity; that had not happened. He had informed Zündel that in areas where he had no expertise, he consulted experts in the field prior to publishing. He had never told Zündel that he was an expert in engineering or auto mechanics or chemistry. He had told him that he was a scientist. He had a scientific training, he had a degree in science and he performed his research in accordance with the scientific methods. (29-7862, 7863)
Walendy testified that the Joint Allied Declaration of December 17, 1942 was propaganda in order to involve other nations in the war against Germany. Nowhere in the declaration did the Allies specifically state where these alleged events were supposed to have happened. Poland was mentioned as the “principal Nazi slaughterhouse,” but no specific locations were named. Poland was a large country and the declaration should have named the specific locations. Walendy believed the declaration was intended to create a mentality to justify increased war measures against Germany. It was made at exactly the point in time when the strategic air war against the German civilian population was extended. He had studied the British Parliamentary debates concerning the declaration, and he believed it was not based on facts. (28-7782 to 7787)
Walendy was aware of the letter written by Winston Churchill to his Foreign Minister, Anthony Eden, in which he wrote: “There is no doubt that this is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world.” Walendy testified that the letter did not prove that Churchill was correct and pointed out that Churchill was not necessarily a man who loved truth. He had publicly declared during the war that the truth could only walk about guided by lies. Walendy did not know Churchill’s intentions in writing the letter. Asked if Churchill would write the letter to his Foreign Minister for propaganda reasons, Walendy stated that if what was written was really Churchill’s opinion, he would not have written it privately in a letter to a friend, but would have publicized it. That had not happened to his knowledge. (28- 7786, 7787)
In Historical Fact No. 5, Walendy specifically responded to criticisms made of Did Six Million Really Die? by two South Africans, Arthur Suzman and Denis Diamond, in an article published in the German paper das parliament on 29 July, 1978. (28-7732, 7733)
Walendy agreed that Suzman and Diamond pointed out that 'Richard Harwood' was a pseudonym. Walendy confirmed this in his article but was never able to determine whether or not Harwood was with the University of London because the English publisher would not give him any information regarding Harwood and would not reveal his real name. (28-7733) Walendy agreed that on page 8 of the book Six Million Did Die, Suzman and Diamond wrote:
Paul Foster Vowles, Academic Registrar of the University of London, has testified in an affidavit that no person named Richard Harwood is now, nor has ever been, a student or teacher at, or graduate of, the University of London or any of its constituent colleges.
Walendy pointed out that if the name 'Richard Harwood' was a pseudonym, it was clear that the name would not appear in the registry of the university. Whether or not Harwood was with the University of London was one opinion against another; that of Diamond against the English publisher. (28-7740, 7741)
Walendy never received any counter-publications to Historical Fact No. 5. Walendy was asked if that was his theory; that if he published something and nobody responded to it, it must be true? He replied that he made the greatest efforts to make the optimal findings and that was all he was in a position to do. (28-7736)
The Crown put the book Six Million Did Die before Walendy and asked him if he had seen it before. Walendy said yes, that could be. Walendy was aware that Suzman and Diamond had made the allegation that Did Six Million Really Die? distorted the Red Cross reports. (28-7737)
Walendy agreed his article was published in 1979 and that it was one of the publications he had sent to Zündel. He agreed that he had probably discussed the matter with him. (28-7738) He later testified that they had “certainly” talked about the Suzman and Diamond book. They had all been interested in the book because it was the first public position with regard to the publication. Asked if Zündel, in 1979, was aware of the contents of the book Six Million Did Die, Walendy stated that he didn’t know. His own article about the book was known, very probably, to Zündel. (28-7767) He could definitely recall that all the objections against the pamphlet were essentially unfounded and that he had discussed this in general terms with Zündel in 1979 during his lecture tour in America. Zündel always proved to be very informed, and that’s why Walendy assumed that he had read Historical Fact No. 5, in which Walendy answered Suzman and Diamond’s criticisms. (28-7774) Walendy later stated, when asked again about Six Million Did Die that he had already testified that the book was a topic of discussion on the 1979 North American tour but that he could not recall whether he and Zündel specifically talked about the book. (28-7790)
The Crown quoted large sections of Six Million Did Die and asked Walendy if that was what Suzman and Diamond said in their book. Walendy agreed that it was written there. Defence counsel objected, but was overruled. (28-7741 to 7744; 7767)
Walendy agreed that the book claimed to contain an excerpt from Bulletin No. 25 of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Although not read to the jury, the Bulletin was made available to it when Six Million Did Die was filed as an exhibit. The ICRC Bulletin, published on 1 February, 1978, stated:
A machination initiated years ago has gone so far that the ICRC is now entangled in its mesh. Its object is to whitewash the National Socialist system in wartime Germany of the accusation of genocide. It is nurtured essentially by the controversy about the actual number of victims, statistics wrongly attributed to the “International Red Cross” and quotations — distorted or truncated — from the report of the ICRC on its activities during the Second World War.
The conspiracy’s munitions today are a couple of specious pamphlets entitled “The Myth of the Six Million” and “Did Six Million Really Die?".
This propaganda is having some effect. More and more readers of these pamphlets write to the ICRC, most of them in the hope that they will receive confirmation of their opinion that after the war Germany was the victim of a smear campaign.
Consequently the ICRC considers it must make clear the fact that it has never published — or even compiled — statistics of this kind which are being falsely attributed to it. The work of the ICRC is to help war victims, not to count them. In any case, how could its delegates have obtained data for such statistics. They were able to enter only a few concentration camps, and then only in the final days of the war. Everything the ICRC tried to do for the inmates of those camps, and what it finally managed to do, is related in its report entitled “The Work of the ICRC for Civilian Detainees in German Concentration Camps from 1939 to 1945” (available in English, French and German).
The same propaganda scheme has recently been making use of other figures, namely the number of deaths recorded by the International Tracing Service on the basis of documents found when the camps were closed. Obviously this number bears no relation — though the authors of the propaganda pretend otherwise — to the total deaths in concentration camps; firstly because a considerable quantity of documentary material was destroyed before the departure of the Nazi administration, and secondly because many deaths were never recorded, such as those which occurred in the extermination camps where records were generally not kept.
It may therefore be said that the painstaking efforts of the ITS for the benefit of the families of victims — without any thought for the compilation of statistics — will never make it possible to give figures for the great mass of victims of the concentration camp system. There is, incidentally, something revolting about this arithmetical controversy, as if such a tragedy could be reduced to mere figures.
Walendy was asked if he agreed that Six Million Did Die set out in great detail all the things that were false about Did Six Million Really Die?. Walendy replied that the book was a very one-sided representation. Suzman and Diamond’s allegations could be rejected in most instances. Other matters dealt with were irrelevant to the overall pamphlet. For example, there was a trial between Meyer Levin and Otto Frank, but the issue was not the writing of the Anne Frank diary, but the financing of a stage play based on the book. It was an error for Harwood to say that the diary was the issue. But this normally would be changed in a new edition. Such superficial mistakes occurred in almost every book. Walendy did not know about the context of the Levin/Frank litigation at the time and so did not respond in his article to that particular allegation. It was not until years later that he was able to clarify that particular issue. (28-7750, 7768)
Walendy read to the court in its entirety the article which he had published in Historical Fact No. 5 refuting Suzman and Diamond’s criticisms of Did Six Million Really Die?. In the article Walendy dealt with Suzman and Diamond’s allegations concerning the Harwood pseudonym, the allegation that Harwood took quotes out of context, and the allegation that Harwood falsified statistics of the Red Cross. The article pointed out faults in the Suzman book itself, such as the lack of evidence concerning the gas chambers and the reliance on the Nuremberg trials to prove their case. (28-7791 to 7804) In the article, Walendy reproduced a letter which was sent by former SS statistician, Dr. Richard Korherr, to Der Spiegel in 1977:
The well-known, racially persecuted writer H.G. Adler, previously resident in Prague, now in London, wrote in the foreword to the second edition to his extraordinary book Theresienstadt 1941-1945 in 1960: “It has definitely been determined that the designation of Dr. Korherr as SS-statistician…is not true, because he never belonged to the SS and has been rehabilitated insofar as his behaviour in the National Socialist years is concerned.”
Unfortunately, Der Spiegel is publishing the claim of the English historian Irving that in the spring of 1942, at Himmler’s order, I calculated the number of Jewish victims. In fact, these figures along with the text were delivered to me in completed form by the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) with the order that not one word or figure was to be changed.
The statement that I had claimed in this regard that more than a million Jews had died as a result of special treatment in the camps in German-occupied Poland and in the Warthegau is also incorrect. I have to protest against the word “died” in this context.
It was precisely the term “special treatment” that motivated me to inquire of the RSHA by telephone what this term meant. I received the answer that it referred to Jews who would be settled in the District of Lublin.
Dr. Richard Korherr
Walendy testified that he had not seen the book Six Million Did Die before writing his article. The article had been based on a 40 page special edition of das parliament. The book was published later on in South Africa in English. Walendy never told Zündel that, based on his reading of Six Million Did Die he believed Did Six Million Really Die? was false. On the contrary, Walendy believed that the objections made by Suzman and Diamond were so weak that they could not stand up to scientific examination and that the revisionist position was not affected by the book. (29-7884; Six Million Did Die entered as Exhibit 119A )