insists that those guilty be judged for their crimes
and says that he is fully ready to serve as a witness. He hopes that the
information furnished by him will be transmitted as rapidly as possible to the
competent authorities in London. He handed over to the present assessors a note
in English, an account of seven typewritten pages, and a few bills of the firm
Degesch for the furnishing of "Zyklon B" (cyanhydric acid) to the concentration
camps. He also showed a religious pamphlet that he had written in 1938 in order
to bear witness as to his past activities. There is reason to wonder if Dr.
Gerstein should not be protected against the local Nazis.|
May 5, 1945
Signed: Major D.C.
Evans, J.W. Haught
In another connection, the reader of the
book of P. Joffroy will know (16, P. 234)
that the city of Reutlingen where Gerstein passed the front line on April 22,
1945, had been occupied the day before by the 5th Armoured Division under the
orders of Lieutenant Colonel Gambiez and that the services of the First French
Army under the command of Captain Bessy were located at Rottweil (25, p. 235).
So the "troubling
enigmas" to which Rassinier consacrates [sic] pages and pages of a sterile
gossip, instead of looking into the "Gerstein dossier" of the French Military
Justice, are hereby solved.
4. The Gerstein report at Nuremberg
There is another circumstance which, according to Rassinier, shows
that the Gerstein report is a "visible forgery" and upon which he greatly
insists in these two works, "The Real Eichmann Trial" (48, pp. 80, 224, 227) and "The Drama of the European Jews"
(41, pp. 59, 60, 64, 93): the Nuremberg
Tribunal, before which M. Dubost, the French Prosecutor, had produced the
French text of Gerstein's account, "refused to listen to the reading of it,"
which proves "that the Gerstein document was an historical forgery so false
that the Tribunal of Nuremberg itself had cast it aside as not conclusive,
January 30, 1946." This "argument" is a model of hypocrisy and outrageous
deceit typical of the procedures currently employed by Rassinier. It is a model
of hypocrisy, for God knows how much spleen Rassinier vented on the Tribunal of
Nuremberg and its decisions, how many documents admitted by the Tribunal were
declared by him to be "forged," "apocryphal," "falsified," "worthless," "not
conclusive," etc. to not take seriously his sudden and virtuous indignation
before the fact that the Gerstein document is still considered authentic and
essential. Outrageous deceit, for in reality the Tribunal, during its morning
session on January 30 did in fact "refuse to hear the reading" of the Gerstein
report, but not at all because it considered it "inconclusive," but rather for
a purely technical reason: a certificate establishing its origin, obligatorily
required by the Tribunal for every paper produced, was lacking. In the
afternoon of the same day, the British Assistant Prosecutor General declared:
(25, pp. 267 268).
"All of the documents PS belong to a series
of seized documents of which the origin and the filing were authenticated on
November 22 by Comman [