Mosaic Upps!

Information about the role of Jews in our Societies

Note: Mosaic Upps only wants the truth in this matter and is not competent to be involved, apart from facilitating the discussion and informing interested persons of the issue



Requested by Jürgen Graf we hereby publish the following which is also sent to Dr. Lindtner:



Jürgen Graf                                                                                                

5 December 2011 


A challenge to Dr. Christian Lindtner


One of the most remarkable aspects of the history of Holocaust Revisionism is that there have been virtually no apostates. It is true that a few revisionists have recanted their views, but practically all of them acted under duress. The most glaring example was the young American Jew David Cole whom the thugs of the Jewish Defence League constantly terrorized, making his life a living hell until he finally threw the towel and made an abject apology in a letter to JDL chieftain Irv Rubin. Another example was the Frenchman Dr. Bruno Gollnisch, a professor of Japanese studies and leading member of the Front National. Facing a prison term for his revisionist heresy, Dr. Gollnisch abjured his convictions in order to get away with a light sentence. This is perfectly understandable and excusable; after all, not everybody is a hero.

Unlike David Cole and Dr. Bruno Gollnisch, Danish Sanscritist Dr. Christian Lindtner has renounced his former revisionist views without coercion. In July 2011, Lindtner explained his about-face in two e-mails to Dr. Frederick Toben, in which he called Holocaust Revisionism „Chutzpah“, thus forcing me to write a sharp rebuttal (The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of a Scholar: Dr. Christian Lindtner and Holocaust Revisionism), which was subsequently published by several revisionist and pro-revisionist websites.

On 24 July 2011, Lindtner wrote a reply.1 As he did not send his article to me, I was unaware of its existence until quite recently (1 December 2011). His text only came to my attention because the website „Holocaust Controversies“, which is run by the four clowns Roberto Mühlenkamp, Nick Terry, Jonathan Harrison and Sergey Romanov, had published an interview with „former denier Christian Lindtner“ 2 in which he referred to this article.

I will not bother to reply to all of Lindtner’s arguments. As for Babi Jar, the mystical „Aktion 1005“ or the case of Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, I have nothing to add to what I wrote in my first article; I will confine myself to the following eight points:

1) Wolfgang Curilla’s books about the German „Ordnungspolizei“

Lindtner points out that I have not read the two books by Wolfgang Curilla which allegedly prove that „more than four million Jews were murdered by various units of German police etc.“ (Lindtner’s first e-mail to Toben). This is quite true; I candidly admitted it in my article. In the meantime, I have ordered Curilla’s Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941-1944 (Schöning, 2006) which will be indispensable for the study about the Einsatzgruppen Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Kues and myself plan to write. (Owing to the wealth of material and the extreme complexity of the subject, our study will certainly not be ready before 2013). Having a very tight schedule, I will only be able to read Curilla’s book in the second half of January; thereupon I will write a detailed review which will be available on my website, plus the websites of the Adelaide Institute and the National Journal, by late February or early March. Should Curilla’s study have any merits, I will of course duly acknowledge them.

2) The Jäger report

Lindtner writes:

„J. G. claims that there is no German documentary evidence for the murder of Jewish women and children. But, in truth, there are hundreds of documents. Within easy reach is the report of Karl Jäger, 1 December 1941. See the recent book by Wulfram Wette, ‚Karl Jäger, Mörder der litauischen Juden’ (Frankfurt a. M. 2011). […] By 1 December, the toll had reached 137,246. Jäger wrote: ‚Ich kann heute feststellen, dass das Ziel, das Judenproblem für Litauen zu lösen, vom Einsatzkommando erreicht worden ist. In Litauen gibt es keine Juden mehr, ausser den Arbeitsjuden und ihren Familien’
(I can state today that the goal to solve the Jewish problem for Lithuania has been reached by the Einsatzkommando. There are no more Jews in Lithuania, except for the working Jews and their families).“


As a matter of fact, I never claimed that there is „no German documentary evidence for the murder of Jewish women and children“. Unfortunately it is quite probable that a certain number of Jewish women and children were indeed killed, and I evidently cannot exclude that there might be authentic documentary evidence for this. On the other hand, the statement ascribed to Jäger („There are no more Jews in Lithuania, except for the working Jews and their families“) is demonstrably false.

At the end of May 1942 there were many old people living in the ghetto of Vilnius (Lithuania), the oldest one, a woman by the name of Chana Stamleriene, had been born in 1852. There were also 3,693 children under 16 3The angel of death was not hovering over these Jewish children: As we learn from an „Anthology of holocaust literature“ authored by three Jews, more than 20 schools were founded in the first year of the existence of the ghetto. In October 1942 between 1,500 and 1,800 children were studying at these schools, and in April 1943 school attendance became compulsory 4.

In the summer and autumn of 1944 many Jews of various nationalities (also Hungarian ones who had been previously deported to Lithuania and Latvia to work for the German army) were transferred from Kaunas and Riga to the Stutthof concentration camp. On 26 July 1944 1,983 Jews, most of them Lithuanian ones, arrived at Stutthof. 850 of them were under 15 years old, which means that the oldest ones had been 12 when the Germans conquered Lithuania in the summer of 1941. 5

It goes without saying that all these old people and children would have been killed at once had there been a German policy of systematic extermination. Together with the absence of material evidence for the alleged huge slaughter, this fact definiteley refutes the Jäger report and raises doubts about its authenticity (unless Jäger deliberatedly lied, which is not impossible, but rather unlikely).

3) Dr. Josef Goebbels’ diary entry from 27 March, 1942

As it was to be expected, Lindtner tries to prove the reality of the Holocaust by quoting a famous entry from the diary of National Socialist propaganda minister Dr. Josef Goebbels. On 27 March 1942, Dr. Goebbels stated in his diary that „a barbaric method“, which he preferred not to describe, was used against the Jews, and that 60% of them would be liquidated, the other 40% would be used for labour.


No revisionist has ever been able to furnish a satisfactory explanation for this passage. But let us compare it with what Dr. Goebbels had written in the same diary only 20 days earlier, on 7 March 1942: 6
„There are about 11 million Jews in Europe.7 Later it will be necessary to concentrate them in the East. After the war some island such as Madagascar can be assigned to them.“
The deportation of the European Jews to Madagascar was not Dr. Goebbels’ brainchild. The so-called „Madagaskar-Plan“ was taken very seriously by the German leadership, but finally abandoned as unworkable..8

The argument that the National Socialists dropped the Madagascar plan between 7 and 27 March, 1942 and decided to exterminate the Jews instead – which would explain the glaring discrepancy between the two entries – would be absolutely untenable from the point of view of the orthodox Holocaust story, which Lindtner wholeheartedly endorses. According to the Holocaust historians, the first „extermination camp“, Chelmno, started to function as early as in December 1941. Since it is unthinkable that a local commander would have been allowed to set up an extermination camp without an order from the highest authorities, an extermination policy must already have existed in late 1941 if the claims about Chelmno are correct (which the revisionist of course dispute 9.) Being one of the leading figures of the Third Reich, Dr. Goebbels would certainly have been informed of such a policy, so how does Lindtner explain the fact that on 7 March 1942 the propaganda minister spoke of the concentration of the Jews in the East and advocated sending them to Madagascar, or some other island, after the war?

Let us sum up: While the revisionists are unable to explain the second entry in Goebbels’ diary, the Holocaust historians are at a loss to explain the first one!

4) The „gassing cellar“

Like legions of other Holocaust propagandists before him, Lindtner claims that the well-known letter Karl Bischoff sent to Hans Kammler on 29 January 1943, which mentions a „Vergasungskeller“ (gassing cellar) 10, proves that the morgues of Crematoria II and III at Auschwitz-Birkenau were planned as homicidal gas chambers.


While I fully agree with Lindtner’s statement that the explanations of the word „Vergasungskeller“ adduced by certain revisionist researchers – plus the pseudo-revisionist David Irving - were untenable, Carlo Mattogno’s thesis that the SS planned to use these morgues for desinfection, but later abandoned this project 11, seems possible to me. One thing I know for sure is that they could not possibly have been used as homicidal gas chambers.

Two German wartime documents quoted by C. Mattogno in one of his articles12 amply suffice to demolish the myth of the „extermination camp“ Auschwitz-Birkenau. On 20 July 1943 SS-physician Dr. Wirths asked the Central Construction Office of Auschwitz to set up provisional morgues in several sectors of the Birkenau camp. At that time, the bodies of prisoners who had died in the camp were stored in wooden sheds before being taken to the crematoria. Birkenau was infested with rats; these rodents were attracted by the bodies and feasted on them. In his letter Dr. Wirths emphasized that the rats were the carriers of flees which could spread plague, and that an outbreak of this dread disease would have dire consequences for the staff and the prisoners. On 4 August 1943 Karl Bischoff, chief of the Central Construction Office, answered that no provisional morgues were needed, as the bodies of deceased prisoners would henceforth be taken to the crematoria twice a day..13 This proves that the morgues of the crematoria could be used as such any time and were not used as homicidal gas chambers.

In May 1944 the problem arose again. On the 22th of that month the new chief of the Central Construction Office of Auschwitz, SS-Obersturmführer Werner Jothann, wrote a letter in which he stressed that the corpses of prisoners who had died in the camp would be removed every morning, so that there was no need for the construction of provisional morgues.14 The date of this letter is vitally important. According to Danuta Czech’s Kalendarium,15, 62.000 Hungarian Jews were deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau between 17 and 22 May 1944; 41,000 of them were „gassed without registration“, which means that the morgues of the crematoria must have been used as gas chambers day and night during the whole period. How could any bodies of prisoners who had died from „natural“ causes (disease, exhaustion etc.) during the same time be stored in these same morgues?

Can Lindtner claim to be ignorant of this argument? No, he cannot. On 24 January 1998, the prestigious Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende published an article by Lindtner („Holocaust i Nyt Lys“, The Holocaust in New Light) which I later translated into German for Germar Rudolf’s Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung.16 In this article, Lindtner stated: „It is very difficult to imagine that the morgues of the four crematoria at Birkenau could have been used as gas chambers. The presence of the corpses would have prevented this.“

So as early as in 1998 Lindtner knew that the „Vergasungskeller“, whatever it was, could not have been a homicidal gas chamber in one of the morgues of Birkenau! Most probably this argument was brought to his attention by Prof. Robert Faurisson who has often stressed its overwhelming importance. The fact that Lindtner now rehashes the „Vergasungskeller“ story to defend the moribund gas chamber lie unmasks him as a blatantly dishonest individual.

5) The gas vans

As for the gas vans, the existence of which I had disputed in my first article, Lindtner writes:
„Good German evidence of gassing Jews and others in vans and in chambers […] is found in the recent book edited by Günter Morsch and Bertrand Perz, ‚Neue Forschungen zu Nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas’ (Berlin 2011).


An extensive reply to this collective volume will be available by mid-December (Carlo Mattogno, Schiffbruch: Vom Untergang der Holocaust-Orthodoxie). A comparison between these two books will be highly illustrative.

6) Heinrich Himmler’s alleged speech at Sonthofen (June 1944)

In order to bolster his Holocaust claims, Lindtner refers to a speech Heinrich Himmler delivered in Sonthofen on 21 June 1944. In this speech, the Reichsführer SS allegedly said: “Es ist gut, dass wir die Härte hatten, die Juden in unserem Bereich auszurotten (It is good that we were tough enough to exterminate the Jews in our sphere of influence)“. In my critique of Lindtner, I adduced plenty of evidence that, while the Jews in most countries controlled by the Germans had indeed suffered atrociously, there had been no extermination policy. Two of my key arguments were the following:

- On 27 July 1944 the administration of Auschwitz compiled a statistics about the prisoners „temporarily quartered in the camp of the Hungarian Jews“. The documents shows that until that date 3,318 Hungarian Jews had received medical treatment at the camp hospital. 1,426 of them had undergone surgical operations.17 According to the Holocaust story, a huge number of Hungarian Jews were gassed at Auschwitz between 15 May and 9 July 1944. While not a single of these alleged gas chamber murders is confirmed by a German wartime document, the medical treatment of 3,138 Hungarian Jews until 27 July 1944 is indeed substantiated by documents.

- As Polish Holocaust historian Henryk Swiebocki has documented, 11,246 prisoners underwent surgical operations at Auschwitz between 10 September 1942 and 23 February 1944.18 
For any moderately intelligent person these undisputed facts constitute sufficient proof that Auschwitz could not possibly have been an extermination camp. Being unwilling to acknowledge the obvious, Lindtner reacts with a tergiversation:

“JG reminds us of the fact that not all Jews had been exterminated. Many survived. […] But Himmler was speaking of those that had been exterminated. Did Himmler not know what he was talking about? And what about many other statements from Himmler to the same effect? One expects a fair comment from Graf.“


The most famous of the „many other statements from Himmler to the same effect“ is doubtless the speech the Reichsführer SS made in Posen on 4 October 1943. In this speech, which was recorded on tape, Himmler allegedly said:

“I am talking about the Jewish evacuation, the extermination of the Jews. It is one of those things that are easily said. ‚The Jewish people is being exterminated, every party member will tell you, ‚perfectly clear, it is part of our program, we are eliminating the Jews, exterminating them’.“

Here at least two things should strike Lindtner as very odd:

- Why on earth should Himmler have ordered to record this bloodthirsty speech? Did he perhaps want to supply the world with irrefutable evidence for the Holocaust? (It should be borne in mind that small tape recorders which could have been smuggled into the room where Himmler made his speech did not exist in 1943.) – As a matter of fact, the recording is of very poor quality. To the best of my knowledge, it has never been examined by independant researchers whether the voice of the speaker is indeed Himmler’s voice.
The program of the NSDAP, which every SS man knew, did not demand „the extermination of the Jews“ but simply stated that no Jew could be a member of the German nation. So how could Himmler utter such nonsense?
Now let us quote from another Himmler speech. On 23 November 1942, at a time when, according to the Holocaust historians, all six „extermination camps“ were performing their grisly task around the clock, the Reichsführer SS stated in Bad Tölz::19
“The Jewish question in Europe has changed radically. […] The Jew has been evacuated from Germany and is now living in the East, where he is working on our roads, railroads etc.“
So if Lindtner uses Himmler’s Posen speech to „prove“ that in the autumn of 1943 the Jews were being exterminated, I will use his Bad Tölz speech to „prove“ that they had been resettled in the occupied Soviet territories, where they were performing manual labour! This would be in perfect agreement with the numerous German documents describing precisely such a policy.
In order to clarify the matter, it is advisable to examine some documents from the autumn of 1943. Three days before Himmler’s Posen speech, on 1 October 1943, SS-Obersturmführer Werner Jothann, chief of the Central Construction Office of the Auschwitz concentration camp, drafted a preliminary cost estimate for the enlargement of the prisoners’ hospital (Häftlingslazarett). The enlarged hospital was to comprise 114 hospital barracks (Krankenbaracken), 11 barracks for patients in need of care (Pflegebaracken) and 12 barracks for critically ill patients (Baracken für Schwerkranke). The combined cost of these 137 barracks was estimated at 5,161,329 Reichsmark.20  Quite a lot of money, especially if one considers that all these sick detainees were soon to be exterminated by gassing or lethal injection, is it not, Dr. Lindtner?

On 9 December 1943, two months and five days after Himmler’s Posen speech, Richard Glücks, inspector of the concentration camps, sent a circular letter to the commanders of all camps, including Auschwitz, in which he stated that Jewish prisoners in urgent need of surgery could be treated in the nearest hospital, but the operation had to be performed by a Jewish physician.21 Five days later, the directive was modified: In case no Jewish doctor was available, a non-Jewish physician could be used as well.22

As far as Himmler’s alleged Sonthofen speech is concerned, the situation is basically the same: For some mysterious reasons, Himmler ordered his speech to be recorded; the recording is of very poor quality; Himmler’s statement that the Jews in the German sphere of influence had been exterminated is patently false.

From these facts, any rationally thinking person will draw the following conclusion: Either these speeches are forgeries, or Himmler did indeed „not know what he was talking about“, as Lindtner says. In the latter case, the Reichsführer SS was just an gullible simpleton who naively thought that the Jews were being slaughtered in his camps and was pitifully ignorant of the fact that his SS doctors and nurses spared no effort to save the lives of the inmates, non-Jews and Jews alike!

7) My alleged methodology

Lindtner has the effrontery to write:

“JG bases his denial on the fact that there are – true – a few cases of false documents and witnesses. He then jumps to the general conclusion that all, or nearly all, documents and witnesses are false. Jumping like a ball to general conclusions is not what we expect from a serious scholar.“


Of course I never claimed that all – or nearly all - documents presented by the Holocaust historians are forgeries. In my opinion, these documents can be subdivided into three categories:

  1. Obvious forgeries, which are very rare. I can only think of three cases: The Franke-Griksch report and the two preposterous documents about gas vans (Just document and Becker document).
  2. Documents of questionably authenticity, such as the Himmler speeches and the Einsatzgruppen reports.
  3. Unquestionably authentic documents the meaning of which is deliberatedly distorted by the Holocaust historians (a good example is Adolf Hitler’s speech from 30 January, 1939).

As far as the eyewitnesses are concerned (of course I am talking about gas chamber witnesses for I never disputed that there might be trustworthy witnesses to shootings), Lindtner magnanimously concedes that there are „a few cases of false witnesses“, but he does not name a single reliable witness, neither in his two e-mails to Dr. Toben nor in his reply to my critique, because he is perfectly aware of the fact that every competent revisionist could easily demolish any testimony of a „gas chamber witness“. Having analysed the testimony of 30 key Auschwitz „gas chamber witnesses“ in one of my books 23, I know that all of them are absurd. The same applies to the self-styled „eyewitnesses“ to homicidal gassings in the other five alleged „extermination camps“. These „witnesses“ were nothing but a bunch of liars.

As I pointed out in my first critique of Lindtner, the Danish Sanscritist would have acted wisely if he had contented himself with defending the „Shoa by bullets“ story, which undeniably contains certain elements of truth and is much more difficult to refute than the „Shoa by gas“ legend. Being well acquainted with the revisionist literature, Lindtner should have been intelligent enough to understand that in the case of the gas chambers, his position was hopeless from the beginning. Indeed he is unable to quote a single reliable gas chamber witness. The only alleged documentary evidence he adduces, the Vergasungskeller letter, is worthless, as Lindtner himself implicitly admitted as early as in January 1998. So what is Lindtner’s evidence that even a single Jew was gassed in an „extermination camp“?

8) „For serious scholarship, Graf has only contempt“

About my person and the value of my revisionist work, Lindtner has the following to say:
„What about Mr. Graf himself? Graf has a rare command of many languages. To my ear, he speaks even Danish admirably well. He is a prolific writer and translator. He fights for his beliefs. …[…] With all his abilites, it is a pity that Graf has little or no training as a scholar. For serious scholarship, he has only contempt, as a dilettant often has.“


In my opinion, the criteria of serious scholarship are the following:

  1. A serious scholar presents his thesis in a well-organized and coherent way, backing up his claims with references to verifiable sources.
  2. A serious scholar does not ignore arguments which contradict his thesis, but discusses and refutes them.

Dr. Christian Lindtner definition of serious scholarship seems to coincide with mine. In his interview with the four clowns Mühlenkamp, Terry, Harrison and Romanov, he stated:

“It is not enough to defend your own thesis. You must also refute that of your opponent. In a philosophical debate, opponents should not be ignored or condemned, but refuted.“

This is precisely the method of every serious revisionist, from Wilhelm Stäglich to Robert Faurisson, from Arthur Butz to Germar Rudolf and from Carlo Mattogno to Thomas Kues. I am convinced that I am no exception.

But Dr. Lindtner does not share this view. For him, Holocaust revisionism (which Lindtner, using Jewish newspeek, calls „Holocaust denial“) is „chutzpah“. As for myself, I „only have contempt for serious scholarship“.

Let Lindtner prove these claims. I challenge him to write a detailled refutation of one of the three following revisionist books:

  1. J. Graf and C. Mattogno, „Majdanek Concentration Camp. A Historical and Technical study“, Chicago 2003.
  2.  C. Mattogno and J. Graf, „Treblinka – Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?“, Chicago 2003.
  3. J. Graf, C. Mattogno and T. Kues, „Sobibor: Holocaust Propaganda and Reality“, Washington 2010.

Incidentally, I presented the same challenge to the clown Roberto Mühlenkamp in last June. Predictably, Mühlenkamp threw the towel. But the august scholar Dr. Christian Lindtner can certainly do better. Surely it will be very easy for him to make mincemeat of a book written by people who propagate „chutzpah“ and „only have contempt for serious scholarship“!

I expect Lindtner to publish his critique by the end of April 2012. Five months should be amply sufficient for this task. Upon receiving his text, I will at once publish it on my own website, plus several other revisionist and pro-revisionist websites, even before writing a reply.

The ball is in your court, Lindtner! I will not bother to react to any articles about other subjects you might write on your own website, or the website of the four clowns, or anywhere else, because my time is of value. Just show that you are able to refute one of the above-mentioned revisionist books. Thrill me with your acumen, Lindnter!

If you do not accept this challenge, I will feel entitled to call you a charlatan and a foul-mouthed slanderer.


3) Vilnius Ghetto. List of prisoners, Volume 1, Lietuvos valstybinis muziejus, Vilnius 1996.

4) J. Glatstein, I. Knox, S. Marghoses (ed)., Anthology of Holocaust Literature, Atheneum, New York 1968, p. 90 f.

5) Archiwum Muzeum Stutthof, I-IIC-3.

6) R. G. Reuter, Josef Goebbels. Tagebücher, Band IV, München 1991.

7) A heavily inflated figure!

8) Magnus Brechtkens, “Madagaskar für die Juden.” Antisemitische Idee und politische Praxis, R. Oldenbourg Verlag, München 1998.

9) According to the revisionists, Chelmno was a transit camp. See Carlo Mattogno, Il campo di Chelmno tra storia e propaganda, Effepi, Genua 2009.

10) Archiwum Panstwowego Muzeum w Oswiecimiu, BW 30/34, p. 100.

11) Carlo Mattogno, Le camere a gas di Auschwitz,  Genua 2010, p. 47 ff.

12) Carlo Mattogno, “Die Leichenkeller der Krematorien von Birkenau im Licht der Dokumente,” in: Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, Nr. 3, 4/2003.

13) Rossiskij gosudarstvenny voyenny arkhiv, Moscow, 502-1-170, p. 262, 263.

14) Rossiskij gosudarstvenny voyenny arkhiv, Moscow, 502-1-170, p. 260.

15) Danuta Czech, Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau 1939-1945, Rowolt Verlag, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1989.

16) Christian Lindtner, „Der Holocaust in neuem Licht”, Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschungi No. 4/1998.

17) Gosudarstevenny Arkhiv Rossiskoj Federatsii, Moscow, 7021-108-32, p. 76.

18) Henryk Swiebocki, “Widerstand,” in: Auschwitz. Studien zur Geschichte des Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslagers, Band IV, Verlag des Staatlichen Museums Auschwitz-Birkenau 1999, p 330.

19) Bradley F. Smith, Agnes F. Petterson (ed.), Heinrich Himmler. Geheimreden und andere Ansprachen 1933-1945, Propyläen, Frankfurt 1974, p. 200.

20) “Erläuterungsbericht zum Ausbau des KGH der Waffen-SS in Auschwitz OS.” Rossiskij Gosudarstvenny Vojenny Arkhiv, Moscow, 502-2-60, p. 81.

21) Archiwum Glownej Komisji Badania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu, Warsaw, NTN, 94, p. 143.

22) Idem, p. 145.

23) Jürgen Graf, Auschwitz.Tätergeständnisse und Augenzeugen des Holocaust, Würenlos 1994.


Mosaic Upps home| The Dodo | The Controversy of Zion |