June/July 2011
What has, after many years of research and reflection, become obvious to my mind, may come as a shock to many, namely, that orthodox professors of theology - not to speak of average Christian believers - have something strikingly fundamental in common with prominent professors and exponents of so-called Holocaust denial.
The latter claim, in brief, that there is no solid evidence to support the widely held view that Hitler ordered the physical extermination of the Jews, their Vernichtung. It simply did not happen! The former claim that there is, unquestionably, sufficient evidence, internal as well as external, to support the widely held belief that Jesus, called Christ, was indeed, a historical person.
What both parties - otherwise, perhaps, so unlike one another - share alike is a deep reluctance to face simple historical facts, and, consequently, a strong tendency to ignore or, if that cannot be done with impunity, to distort the evidence provided by available primary sources.
We are, in either case, dealing with myth as opposed to history: Just as it is a myth that the so-called Holocaust is a myth, thus it is a myth that Jesus called Christ is not a myth.
This is my claim, and it is, of course, open to debate.
So-called Holocaust deniers - who prefer to call themselves revisionists - claim that Hitler, in the end, only wanted to deport the Jews to the East, and that it is a huge lie, a hoax, a myth that there was a Hitler order, a plan, a budget or any weapons (e.g. gas vans or gas chambers) designed for the mass extermination of the Jews, 1941-1945.
These claims are, frankly speaking, based either on ignorance of extant German sources, or on obvious distortions of well-known and reliable German documents that cannot, if one is honest, just be ignored and discarded. From the well-known fact that there are, certainly, many false witnesses and dubious documents, Holocaust deniers triumphantly tend to jump to the general conclusion that the Holocaust as a whole is a myth.
Already on the very first days of Barbarossa, 22 June 1941, German police units from Tilsit and Memel executed some 526 civilians, mainly Jews, in three Lithuanian villages close to the German border: Garsden, Krottingen and Polangen. The executions were ordered from Heydrich´s RSHA in Berlin, and took place "auf Befehl des Führers" (Curilla, 2006, p. 140; see also: Der Ulmer Prozess - SS-Einsatzgruppen vor Gericht 1-3 on youtube).
On 1 December 1941, SS-Standartenführer Karl Jäger, Einsatzkommando 3, reported from Kaunas the execution of some 137.346 civilians, nearly all of the victims being Jewish men, women and children:
"Ich kann heute feststellen, dass das Ziel, das Judenproblem für Litauen zu lösen, vom EK 3 erreicht worden ist. In Litauen gibt es keine Juden mehr, ausser den Arbeitsjuden incl. ihrer Familien...".
The final solution of the Jewish problem here means the extermination of Jewish men, women and children. There is no other way to read Jäger´s words. When the news reached him, Hitler was pleased to learn that Lithuania had now become free from Jews, "judenfrei" (24 July 1942, see Picker 1989, p. 456).
Numerous mass executions of Jews are documented almost daily in the reports of the four Einsatzgruppen. One denier claims - without offering any valid reason - that these documents were "manufacted by Moscow" (Butz 1989). In fact, there can be no doubt that the reports were prepared in one of Heydrich´s offices set up in Berlin for that very purpose. Another prominent denier dr. Robert Faurisson claimed, in Tehran, in December 2006, that it was not the task of the Einsatzgruppen to kill the Jews - only to check their ID, make a few arrests, and the like. His claim has no basis in the reality of time and space.
Deniers tend to ignore the fact that the German Ordnungspolizei was also deeply involved in deporting and murdering Jews in the territories occupied by the Germans. In Poland, close to 30,000 members of the Ordnungspolizei participated in the murder of 2.3 million Jews. In the Soviet Union, more than 20,000 members of Daluege´s Ordnungspolizei - and other units under Himmler - were involved in the murder of more than 2 million Jews. We have the ipsissima words of Himmler , Heydrich, Daluege, Koch, Jeckeln, Eichmann , Hans Friedrich and many others, that this Vernichtung took place on the order of Hitler. How could it be otherwise?
There are several speeches of Hitler to the effect that the Vernichtung would take place, and several speeches of Himmler that it actually did take place. An extract from Himmler´s speech to the Generals in Sonthofen, 21 June 1944 , has been quoted below.
Naturally, already from 1942, the Nazis took great pains to remove all traces of their crimes ("Aktion 1005" etc.), and, always good at euphemisms, they likewise availed themselves of a Tarnsprache. This means that there is, today, very little physical evidence available. That evidence of crimes has been destroyed, does, of course, not permit us now to jump to the conclusion that the murders never took place. It would be highly hazardous to conclude from present absence to past non-existence. In the end, it would lead to an absolute denial of the past: What is no longer, never was!
There are, or were, so many good German witnesses to the existence and to the use of gas vans and gas chambers that one sees no reason for maintaining that they should all have lied or been mistaken about their past experience. After all, from the German point of view, gassing was, in many cases, considered more humane and efficient than starvation or execution by shooting. So why not go on with a method of extermination that had worked so well in connection with the Euthanasia program sanctioned in 1939 by Hitler - whose anti-Semitism is so well documented? This was the method of Viktor Brack, and its awful reality has never been denied. It is the natural precursor of all later forms of gassings (beginning with the gas vans of Kulmhof in December 1941).
On 24 April 1943 Himmler said to members of his SS:
"Mit dem Antisemitismus ist es genauso wie mit der Entlausung. Es ist keine Weltanschauungsfrage, dass man die Läuse entfernt. Das ist eine Reinlichkeitsangelegenheit. Genauso ist der Antisemitismus für uns keine Weltanschauungsfrage gewesen, sondern eine Reinlichkeitsangelegenheit, die ja jetzt bald ausgestanden ist." (Bradley F. Smith et al 1974, p. 200).
The Jews are like lice, and they have to be treated like lice - gassed!
One can hardly accuse Hitler and Himmler of not having been frank about their anti-Semitism! In their eyes, the Jews were the most criminal people on this earth - an echo of Seneca´s sceleratissima gens. Hitler had studied the Jewish question in history carefully, and he was adamant.
Again, the deplorable fact that there are so many false witnesses to the gas chambers, does not allow us to infer that the gas vans and chambers are but a gigantic hoax invented by the enemies of Germany.
True, some deniers must be given credit for having spotted out some of the false witnesses who often appear in the mass media. Sadly, some of them ended up being even more unreliable themselves, e.g. an American professor , when he claimed that the Jews were not at all murdered, but still there at the end of the war. In 1979, he wrote:
"The simplest valid reason for being skeptical about the extermination claim is also the simplest conceivable reason: at the end of the war they were still there" (Butz 1989, p. 318).
If this professor was right, this would mean that more than 30,000 German policemen were wrong! Even Himmler must have been wrong when he admitted in 1944:
"Es ist gut, dass wir die Härte hatten, die Juden in unserem Bereich auszurotten!"
According to the American professor, they were still there! Was HE there?
Deniers tend to focus on the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau, and have done so for very long. The motivation for this preposterous drive seems to be that if the "battleship Auschwitz" can be torpedoed, then the entire Holocaust fleet goes down along with it. The manifold issue of Vernichtung is thus reduced to a question of gas chambers in one camp, even in one building! They are seldom interested in reconstructing what actually happened - the natural task of a historian.
The numbers of victims in the camps were often exaggerated by Germany´s enemies, for sure, but there is no reason to go on repeating that fact ad nauseam. As Aristotle noted, repetition is the mark of sophistry, or apparent wisdom.
Since they seem to have decided to start out by questioning the gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau, deniers have to face an old problem that they cannot afford merely to ignore. It has to do with the fact that the Germans themselves identified Leichenkeller 1 in Krema II with a Vergasungskeller, a cellar for gassing, for Vergasung. The notorious document is known as NO-4473, Bischoff´s 29 January 1943 letter from Auschwitz to his superior, Kammler, in Berlin. If Vergasung here means gassing of human beings (i.e. Jews), this would have disastrous consequences for deniers claiming that there is no documentation for gas chambers in Auschwitz - the "symbol" or "capital" of the Holocaust. And so, to rescue their claim, they have to explain Vergasung away - so oder so.
One denier claims that Vergasung, in German, cannot mean gassing of Jews. So he attacks the language. However, there are many German documents where Vergasung is used in that sense. This French denier, to explain himself, then maintains that these Germans (e.g. Dr. Erhard Wetzel in his famous 25 October 1941 letter) did not really use the German language correctly! The same professor, who forgets to explain why Dr. Wetzel and many other Germans would want to use the German language "not without dishonesty", then claims that the correct German word would have been Gaskeller, but that the Germans never used that word.
But actually the Germans here involved did use that word, Gaskeller, and they used it in the sense of a Vergasungskeller. This can be seen from a note available in the archives of Topf & Söhne in Erfurt, who produced the ovens, the ventilation fans etc. for Krema II, including Leichenkeller 1. Sitting in his office in Erfurt, Fritz Sander on 17 February 1943 received a phone call from his colleague, engineer Karl Schultze, who was then in Auschwitz. Schultze complained that the ventilation (No. 450) for the Gaskeller in Krema II had not yet arrived there. We can be sure, from other documents, that this ventilation was for installment in Leichenkeller 1. After the war, Karl Schultze was interrogated, on 11 March 1948, and admitted that he had been present to see that everything worked well in Krema II during a first gassing of Jews - i.e. a gassing of human beings in Leichenkeller 1, which must therefore have served as a Vergasungskeller or Gaskeller. (Schüle, infra.) The Vergasungskeller, the Gaskeller, would not go away. This remained a very serious problem for deniers - perhaps the most serious of them all (see the debate on the net).
In 2000, David Irving made a fool of himself by claiming, first, that the notorious Vergasungskeller (Leichenkeller 1) mentioned in the Nuremberg document, NO-4473, was not at all used for gassing Jews, but "for fumigating objects or cadavers". Judge Gray was puzzled. Faced with the absurd implications of gassing Jews that were already dead and soon to be cremated, Irving then suddenly shifted to another explanation, even more absurd in its consequences, namely that the Vergasungskeller was intended to serve as "an air raid shelter". It was not difficult for Robert Jan van Pelt to ridicule this hypothesis. Had Irving, moreover, known how German air raid shelters were constructed in those days, he would immediately have seen that Leichenkeller 1 could not possibly have withstood a heavy air raid, the walls and the roof being far too thin for that. In other words: The Leichenkeller would have collapsed and thus become a real Leichenkeller for those seeking shelter therein! Surely, the Leichenkeller was not designed to serve as a trap for the Germans themselves!
The simple conclusion is that Leichenkeller 1 must, as said, have served as a Vergasungskeller or Gaskeller for gassing Jews - Himmler´s "lice". There was not a single member of the SS stationed in Auschwitz who denied this.
What an irony, therefore, that professor Faurisson, who prides himself of having been, in March 1976, the first to discover and later to publish the blueprints of Krema II with Leichenkeller 1, is also famous for demanding: Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber! Our French professor has the drawing in his own hands, and he has had it all along!
He is asking from others what he himself already has! Many years later, Professor Faurisson came back to Leichenkeller 1. This was on his so-called Official Blog, dated January 4, 2011, where he praised poor Fred Leuchter and his 1988 Report - forgetting, however, to remind us that it was now outdated (see Achim Trunk in Morsch 2011, infra). The French professor concluded:
"The plans showed that the place which, according to what we are told, housed a homicidal gas chamber (,) contained instead a simple depository, with the characteristic dimensions and layout for the keeping of corpses awaiting cremation."
So now, after so many years, the Leichenkeller was simply - a Leichenkeller, a morgue. But what about the fact that Bischoff had called it a Vergasungskeller, and that Sander and Schultze had called it a Gaskeller? What Bischoff, Sander, Schultze, Ertl, Höss and many, many other primary witnesses had told us, was simply IGNORED in 2011 by Faurisson who many years ago distorted or ignored the meaning of the terms Vergasungskeller or Gaskeller. So the method of professor Faurisson is, to be precise, to ignore or to distort the evidence.
One is reminded of the Buddhist philosopher, who wrote:
"You are like a man on horseback, who forgets all about the horse!"
Likewise, when the French professor demands a written order from Hitler. He must know, that there is no written Hitler order - all scholars admit that, just as they have admitted that there is little or no physical evidence for the gas chambers. So why keep on asking for what all know is no longer there? To repeat: The fact that there is now no written order, does not imply that there never was an oral order. Nevertheless, the tricky professor wants us to jump to that erroneous conclusion. What about the snowman of winters past - no longer here in summer? Was he never there?Faurisson´s insistent - even aggressive - demand for tangible evidence here and now of a written Hitler order is perfidious, for it flatly - and deliberately - ignores the simple and well-known fact that many orders from Hitler were given orally.
What about Faurisson´s other arguments - are they any better? He keeps on asking, for instance, for ONE proof that the Holocaust happened, just one proof, not two, or many. When asked for a definition of the term "proof", he answers that it is up to his opponent to define or decide what is meant by a proof. Very well, then: Since he does not say that he is prepared to accept ANY proof that his opponent may prefer, one may, to be on the safe side, choose what he himself considers a proof. Thus, in an interview that he gave in Teheran 13 December 2006, he argued that there was no order to kill the Jews. The proof, he said, was e.g. that there are cases, where SS-men were severely punished for having killed Jews. In other words: Had there been an order to kill the Jews, these SS-men would not have been severely punished for doing so. The truth, however, is that SS-men were severely punished NOT merely for killing Jews, BUT for doing so in a hateful and gruesome manner below the dignity of a German SS-man, as in the well-known case of Max Täubner (Klee 1988, pp. 187-188). A distorted argument is, in other words, what he himself considers a proof.
Or take the argument that if there are no holes (in the roof of Leichenkeller 1), there is (or was) no Holocaust. Here, the apparent lack of visible holes is offered as a proof of the thesis of there being no Holocaust. The thesis and the argument given as proof are not conclusive. First of all, we are not told why the Holocaust is limited to events that may have taken place in a cellar in Auschwitz-Birkenau. The fact that there may be problems with the roof of Leichenkeller 1 does not imply that e.g. the shootings and the gassings in Kulmhof of Jews did not take place! Moreover, we are not told enough about the holes. It may be that they are not to be seen there now, but does that mean that they never were there? We are not told. It is also unclear whether we are dealing with a statement, or with a question, or whose statement it really is. And yet, the French professor often prides himself of being "precise", of wanting to be "exact"! However, one is often not at all sure what he actually means. So when we look at what the author himself understands by a "proof" - we are left in the dark.
Again, when he claims that it was not the task of the Einsatzgruppen to kill the Jews, he gives no reason for this statement, which, as said, is contradicted by evidence. Like other deniers, he suggests that Babi Yar may be a myth. The awful photographs taken by Johannes Hähle on the spot in September/ October at Babi Yar and Lubny have another story to tell, however.
But let us not forget the holes- allegedly the strongest argument of some deniers, and still a stumbling block to some of their opponents?! How, then, are we to deal with the missing holes, that must once have been there? It has been suggested (e.g. by Robert Jan van Pelt) that they were filled in by the Germans, so as to make them invisible. But clearly it is impossible to do so without leaving any visible trace from the new concrete. Filling in the holes would thus only make them even more conspicuously visible! Alternatively, it has been claimed that the location of the holes has now been identified by computer analysis. That, again, makes no sense, for in that case one would have to verify the location independently - which cannot be done. The existence has to be established before the location can be determined. Bad arguments sometimes lead to counterarguments that are even worse!
So how are we to solve the problem of the holes? Having discussed the matter with a few friends who have experience with regard to the blowing up of concrete, there seems to be a simple explanation. The blow from an explosion starting from within the building would immediately seek the weak spots in the concrete so as to "escape", and the weakest spots would be the holes. The holes would simply be the first "victims" to be blown away, leaving no trace behind. It would, therefore, not make sense to look for the holes - i.e. the edges of the former holes - now in the ruins. In other words: As usual, Faurisson starts out from the wrong premises to reach the conclusion he has decided upon from the start. He ought to have explained how the blow of the explosion could have left the edges of the holes intact. He failed to do so. Hence his argument is not valid.
Conclusion: The author has shown himself to be a quibbler, with no interest at all in finding out what actually happened. The premises of his arguments are, as a rule, unclear, false or uncertain, and the conclusions, therefore, uncertain or wrong.
The reader who is familiar with the book of the famous Austrian prophet and "fanatical anti-Semite" cannot help being reminded of what Hitler wrote about Jewish dialectics in Mein Kampf. Hitler´s conclusion applies nicely to the deniers:
"Man wusste nicht, was man mehr bestaunen sollte, ihre Zungenfertigkeit, oder ihre Kunst der Lüge" (Hitler 1943, p. 67).
"Eine andere grosse Frage war noch notwendig zu lösen. Es war die furchtbarste Aufgabe und der furchbarste Auftrag, den eine Organisation bekommen konnte: der Auftrag, die Judenfrage zu lösen. Ich darf dies auch in diesem Kreis wieder in aller Offenheit mit ein paar Sätzen sagen. Es ist gut, dass wir die Härte hatten, die Juden in unserem Bereich auszurotten. Fragen Sie nicht, wie schwer das war, sonderen haben Sie als Soldaten - ich möchte fast sagen - Verständnis dafür, wie schwer ein solcher Befehl durchzuführen ist (...) Ebenso will ich auch eine Frage, die sicherlich gedacht wird, gleich beantworten. Die Frage heisst: Ja, wissen Sie, dass Sie die erwachsenen Juden umbringen, das verstehe ich, aber die Frauen und Kinder...?" (Bradley F. Smith et al. 1974, pp. 203-204).
It is impossible to argue that Himmler here is a jester or a liar. The truth of his words is supported by an enormous mass of independent documentary evidence, provided, above all, by statements of his own men, members of the SS, the Einsatzgruppen and the Ordnungspolizei etc.
Himmler is not merely speaking of Jews as partisans - as documented e.g. by the Kaunas report of Karl Jäger, 1 December 1941 (see Wette, infra). In this case, deniers - wisely - refrain from attempting to distort Himmler´s own plain words. Having no other option, they simply ignore them, and they are forced to do so in order to uphold their basic (but baseless) thesis that there was no order, no plan, no budget and no mass murder of the Jews etc. Thus, they exclude themselves from the society of honest and open-minded historians. At the same time, some of them complain that their right to "freedom of speech" has been taken from them! The truth is that they are depriving themselves of their own rights.
The works of prominent Holocaust deniers are, to sum up, not only full of distortions and ignorance, but also of ad hominem attacks, tedious repetitions and other kinds of quibble or pilpul. It is no doubt true that the lingua mendax et dolosa of Holocaust denial stands out as a practical problem. The irresponsibility of prominent deniers has caused much public confusion and many a personal tragedy. It is, in the final analysis, a modern form of sophistry and superstition.
In my view, ignorance and superstition should not merely be ignored or condemned. Nor should it be exploited, as is too often the case. The reasons for ignorance and superstition may be very difficult to spot, but they are there, somewhere, and they have to be identified. Failure to do so is bound to have fatal consequences, sooner or later. It is a sad fact, that incompetent historians have often failed to spot out the errors of the deniers. Deniers should be refuted - not condemned or imprisoned. I see no other way out of dangerous myths and superstitions than the old and narrow path of higher education and enlightenment. In the long run the old Sanskrit adage still applies: satyam eva jâyate - Truth will prevail - in the end.
Perhaps, before I conclude, I may quote Wolfgang Curilla, who, in 2011, summarized his own meticulous investigations concerning the Ordnungspolizei in Poland only:
"Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei wirkte bei der Durchführung des Judenmords in Polen in unvorstellbarem Masse mit. Etwa 30.000 Polizisten waren für den Tod von weit mehr als 2,3 Millionen Menschen jüdischer Herkunft mitverantwortlich."
In my video presentation Hitler's Prophecy , I suggest that a sharp distinction be drawn between, on the one hand, Vernichtung or Endlösung, the German terms, and, on the other hand, the modern term, introduced after the war, Holocaust, an old Biblical term.
The latter includes many features not present in the former, on which it is based. To some extent, Holocaust is an interpretation and exploitation of the Endlösung. Unlike other cases of mass killings, Holocaust has become a sort of modern secular world religion. This development can be compared to, on the one hand, ancient "holy scriptures", and, on the other, to the world religions and institutions that have developed on that basis.
As in the case of Holocaust denial, deception and ignorance is involved. Of course, one should study, understand and learn from the Vernichtung of the Jews - and many other groups who suffered during and after many wars. And there is certainly much to learn from such studies.
To learn from the past, however, is not at all the same as exploiting the past, for this or that purpose. Holocaust is, so to speak, the commercial version of Endlösung.
References
Evidence for a Hitler order, for a Himmler order, for mass extermination of Jews, for gas vans and gas chambers, for the removal of the physical evidence of the crimes ("Aktion 1005"), for a refutation of the superficial report of Leuchter, etc. is provided e.g. by the most recent recent works published mainly by modern German scholars.
Books
Ilja Altmann, Opfer des Hasses. Der Holocaust in der UdSSR 1941-1945. Gleichen 2008.
Andrej Angrick, Besatzungspolitik und Massenmord. Die Einsatzgruppe D in der südlichen Sowjetunion 1941-1943. Hamburg 2003.
Wolfgang Benz & Brigitte Mihok (Hg.), Holocaust an der Peripherie. Judenpolitik und Judenmord in Rumänien und Transnistrien 1940-1944. Berlin 2009.
Richard Breitman, Heinrich Himmler. Der Architekt der "Endlösung". Zürich, München 2000.
Christopher Browning, Die Entfesslung der "Endlösung". Nationalsozialistische Judenpolitik 1939-1942. München 2003.
Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin. Parallel lives. New York 1992.
Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century . Costa Meza 1989.
Wolfgang Curilla, Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941-1944. Paderborn, München, Wien, Zürich 2006.
Wolfgang Curilla, Der Judenmord in Polen und die deutsche Ordnungspolizei 1939-1945, Paderborn, München, Wien, Zürich 2011.
Günther Deschnes, Reinhard Heydrich. Statthalter der totalen Macht. Esslingen am Neckar 1977.
Joachim C. Fest, Hitler. Eine Biographie. Frankfurt a. M. 1973.
Michael Foedrowitz, Bunkerwelten. Luftschutzanlagen in Norddeutschland. Berlin 1998.
Saul Friedländer, Die Jahre der Vernichtung. Das Dritte Reich und die Juden 1939-1945. München 2006.
Ernst Gauss (Ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust. Capshaw, Alabama 2000.
Alfred Gottwaldt & Diana Schulle, Die "Judendeportationen" aus dem Deutschen Reich 1941-1945. Eine kommentierte Chronologie. Wiesbaden 2005.
Hannes Heer & Klaus Naumann (Hg.), Vernichtungskrieg. Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941 bis 1944. Hamburg 1995.
Ulrich Herbert, Best. Biographische Studien über Radikalismus, Weltanschauung und Vernuft 1903-1989. Bonn 1996.
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf. München 1943.
Heinz Höhne, Der Orden unter dem Totenkopf. Die Geschichte der SS. München 1984.
Hans Jansen, Der Madagaskar Plan. München 1997.
Ernst Klee & Willi Dressen & Volker Riess, "Schöne Zeiten". Judenmord aus der Sicht der Täter und Gaffer. Frankfurt a. M. 1988.
Ernst Klee (Hg.), Dokumente zur "Euthanasie". Frankfurt am Main 1985.
Helmut Krausnick & Hans-Heinrich Wilhelm, Die Truppe des Weltanschauungskrieges. Die Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD 1938-1942. Stuttgart 1981.
Peter Longerich (Hrsg.), Die Ermordung der europäischen Juden. Eine umfassende Dokumentation des Holocaust 1941-1945. München & Zürich 1990.
Peter Longerich, Heinrich Himmler. Biographie. München 2008.
Günter Morsch & Bertrand Perz (Hrsg.), Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas. Historische Bedeutung, technische Entwicklung, revisionistische Leugnung. Berlin 2011.
Ernst Nolte, Streitpunkte. Heutige und künftige Kontroversen um den Nationalsozialismus. Frankfurt/Main 1993.
Richard Overy, Verhöre. Die NS-Elite in den Händen der Alliierten 1945. München 2002.
Henry Picker, Hitlers Tischgespräche. Berlin 1989.
Richard Rhodes, Die deutschen Mörder. Die SS-Einsatzgruppen und der Holocaust. Bergisch Gladbach 2004.
Adalbert Rückerl, NS-Vernichtungslager. Im Spiegel deutscher Strafprozesse. München 1977.
Dieter Schenk, Der Lemberger Professorenmord und der Holocaust in Ostgalizien. Bonn 2007.
Annegret Schüle, Industrie und Holocaust, Topf und Söhne. Die Ofenbauer von Auschwitz. Göttingen 2010.
Bradley F. Smith et al, Himmler Geheimreden 1933 bis 1945 und andere Ansprachen. Berlin 1974.
Robert Jan van Pelt & Debórah Dwork, Auschwitz. Von 1270 bis heute. Zürich, München 1998.
Robert Jan van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz. Evidence from the Irving Trail. Bloomington & Indianapolis 2002.
Wolfram Wette, Karl Jäger. Mörder der litauischen Juden. Frankfurt am Main 2011.
Michael Wildt, Generation des Unbedingten. Das Führungskorps des Reichsicherheitshauptamtes.
Hamburg 2002.
Website
Massimo Arico, http://www.ordnungspolizei.org/
