The Holocaust and the Neo-Nazi Mythomania
© 1978, The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation
Previous Page Back  Contents  Contents Page 126 Home Page Home Page  Forward Next Page 
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 […dant]


The Holocaust and the Neo-Nazi Mythomania
© 1978, The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation
Previous Page  Back Page 126 Forward  Next Page