I spoke to Germar Rudolf about this and he recommended the following article, originally published in
The Revisionist.http://codoh.com/library/categories/1198/scroll down
Copied below, have a look.
- Hannover
http://codoh.com/library/document/1510/?lang=enThe Double Agent
By Germar Rudolf
In May of 1993 great doings were afoot at Max-Planck Institute for Solid State Physics in Stuttgart. One of the young PhD candidates there had become involved in a scandal, which was making news throughout Germany. The name of the PdD candidate was Germar Rudolf, the author of these lines. My scandalous activity consisted of having prepared, at the request of the legal defense of Major General Otto Ernst Remer, an expert report on the so-called 'gas chambers' of Auschwitz, in which I arrived at the conclusion that it was physically impossible for mass gassings to have taken place as reported by eyewitnesses. Shortly after Easter of 1993, Gen. Remer had sent thousands of copies of this report to prominent politicians, jurists, historians, chemists and the various media in Germany. As a result of this, every lobbyist and pressure group imaginable demanded that my activities as expert witness be suppressed by every means available. In that memorable springtime I received a number of telephone calls from various news media at my worksite, which displeased the business office of the Institute. The identities of the various callers and contents of conversations are of no interest here, with one exception: when the gentleman on the other end identified himself as Jean-Claude Pressac. He asked for my private telephone number, which I politely declined to give him.
I suggest that he communicate with me in writing. To this he replied that, for reasons of security, he preferred to not communicate with me in writing, because it would be dangerous for him to do so. Then he warned me that I too should be on guard. Concerning the 'Holocaust' in particular, he advised me to avoid challenging every aspect of it at one time. He said that in dealing with 'Holocaust' the only hope for success without risking personal danger was to attack it piecemeal, one aspect at a time.
Since that telephone conversation, I have been convinced that Jean- Claude Pressac believed that we revisionists are correct in principle. In view of the overwhelming might of the exterminationists, however, he arrived early at the conclusion that the 'system' had to be fought from within. His apparent defection to the ranks of 'the enemy' and service to the cause of exterminationism was his version of salami tactics. His plan was to use the 'system' in order to extract one concession after another.
If we consider his publications in chronological order, it is obvious that with each publication, Pressac came closer to one or another aspect of revisionism. His first step was simply to make public discussion of the subject possible; his second, to make the 'system' acknowledge the priority of scientific evidence over eyewitness testimony; his third, to force it to acknowledge the contradictions inherent in such testimony. With every new publication he also reduced the number of victims, while his evaluation of eyewitness testimony grew more critical. Finally, after attacking the very foundations of the 'Auschwitz Myth,' he turned upon the other so-called 'extermination camps' (see page 431.)
After the publication of his second book in 1993, he must have gradually grown frightened, since subsequent revisions of the book made him many enemies. His telephone conversation with me was not the only place where he revealed his fears. Carlo Mattogno reports that he broke off all contacts with him at that time. Prof. Faurisson reports that he suffered a near collapse during Faurisson's trial in 1995, begging the judge to excuse him from answering Faurisson's questions:[1]
"You must understand that I have only one life. You must understand that I am alone in my battle."
He refused to testify because he clearly saw that he was completely isolated and his life was in danger. The only explanation for this is the fact that a candid statement before the French court would have had severe consequences since it would have been revisionist in nature.
And so, even though his writings are scientifically suspect, Pressac was without doubt the most politically successful revisionist to date. He was in fact our double agent.
Many thanks, Jean-Claude!
But I also need to devote my time to reading real books too at this time.
