Thies Christophersen admits he lied?

[Otium]

Some believers, unable to refute Holocaust revisionists who had experience with the camps they claim "murdered" hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Jews in WW2, have tried to discredit these witnesses.

An argument I haven't heard before was that none other than Thies Christophersen admitted to lying about the Holocaust having not "happened" the way it was claimed by the believers in his famous eyewitness account 'The Auschwitz Lie'. Their proof is alleged statements Christophersen made in a 1991 German documentary entitled 'Wahrheit macht frei' when interviewed while living in Denmark. The context of the statements within the interview aren't particularly discernible due to how the documentary was cut.

See the Youtube link below, I have already time-stamped the relevant section, it's all in German with no subtitles, but I have been able to consult a German friend of mine who has provided a translation which I will quote below.



According to my friend, the segment starts:

"The most important for them [Revisionists] is Thies Christophersen, author of the Auschwitz Lie, he was SS special leader in Auschwitz, today he lives in Denmark. In Germany he is on a wanted list. He has good connections to the revisionists and the NSDAP-AO."

As far as I know, Christophersen wasn't ever in the SS, but this was a commonly repeated lie printed in Germany after his book was published in order to try and discredit his account. Of course, this argument, even if true doesn't dilute the truthfulness of Christophersen's account one bit. It would be like dismissing all Jewish accounts simply because the people making claims are Jews and stand to benefit. If anything it would make more sense to dismiss "survivor" stories, because they do stand to benefit from all sorts of lucrative monetary schemes provided by the Holocaust industry. Whereas someone like Christophersen only stands to lose, as he did, from being honest and providing a truthful account of his story he was viciously persecuted by various European governments and Left-Wing Terrorists. Who would choose such a fate with little hope of vindication? Not only that, but who would choose that fate and then claim he made the whole thing up!

Anyway.

Christophersen first says:

"I wrote nothing about gassings in my report."

and then later:

"I want to exonerate and defend us. I can't do this with what we actually did, I don't deny that. But every defendant that has something to defend will not present the incriminating (evidence). [cut?] But all of this doesn't apply to me. I still notice that I feel like a traitor to my friends if I were to revoke now."

This is supposedly the revelatory remark(s) which "prove" Christophersen admitted to lying. Yet like I said before, it's hard to discern the context. He could be talking about other allegations which have nothing to do with gassings. The documentary cut the interview up to such an extent that it really does make it hard to discern what exactly he's referring to.

Although it does appear to be true that Christophersen didn't really mention gassings in his report. The most explicit line of course that which is most often quoted:

During all the time I was in Auschwitz I never in the least observed anything that even indicated mass killings in gas chambers. Also the story of a smell of burned flesh that allegedly hovered over the camp at times was an infamous lie.

Thies Christophersen, Auschwitz Truth or Lie? (West Virginia: Liberty Bell Publications, 1975), Pp. 19.

Personally I believe this interview was intentionally cut together to twist Christophersen's words. He could've been talking about any alleged atrocities, it's by no means clear what he's actually talking about, and he doesn't mention Gas Chambers anyway.

If he did admit to "lying" one would also have to ask why? The only conclusion could be is that he no longer wanted to be persecuted and instead, wanted to conform. Yet this is hard to believe for a single incontrovertible reason. In the subsequent year, 1992, Christophersen was interviewed in German by Ernst Zundel and participated in a revisionist documentary entitled 'Zeugen wider die Gaskammer' (Witnesses against the gas chamber). You can see both videos here and here.

What does everyone else make of this? Has anyone heard of this before? I did some cursory searching and couldn't find anyone mention this alleged admission in any revisionist article or book.

[EtienneSC]

There just seem to be a few remarks from Thies Christopherson, starting at about 55.20, some of which you quote above. He is asked: "Were there gassings or were there not gassings?" To which he replies "I [wrote] nothing about gassings in my report." Then the voice-over says "In his report, Auschwitz seems more like a place of recuperation than an extermination camp." To a further question about Irving he says "I admit I am partial."

Then the narrator says: "To those who don't really want to know the truth, his Auschwitz Lie is a bible. The trick - no mention of gas chambers, with the impression that there wen't any. Why this contorsion?" This is not directly put to him on camera, but he is shown saying "I want to exonerate and defend us and I can't do that with what we really did. I don't deny that. But every defender who has someone/thing to defend [won't] cite what is burdensome/incriminating. (das Belastende aufführen.]"

The programme must be from after 1988, as it includes Fred Leuchter and the description says 1991. Germany's Criminal Code law against denial (Leugnung, s130) was introduced in 1985. So obviously he will avoid saying that he "denies" anything. I'm not quite sure what the import of the last words are. It sounds like he means that it's not his role to make accusations.

There are quite a few remarks that would be illegal on the grounds of stirring up hatred (the song at the beginning and the oath at the end).

[Archie]

As usual with their proofs, we are required to employ considerable imagination and insert an awful lot between the lines to reach that conclusion.

"what we actually did"

"if I were to revoke now"

Such language could refer to any number of things. The only reason this even looks like anything at all is because we've been trained to impose a genocide context onto everything. If you take that context away, there's nothing there.

This reminds of some comments Arthur Butz made in response to Gitta Sereny who had written an article attacking revisionists. In her article one of her big arguments was that she said Franz Stangl had admitted his guilt to her on his deathbed. Butz pointed out how incommensurate such evidence is with the scale of what has been alleged. Really we should view them having to resort to these sorts of arguments as an admission of defeat on their part.

We do not need "confessions" or "trials" to determine that the bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima, or the reprisals at Lidice following Heydrich's assassination, really took place.

Now, the extermination legend does not claim a few instances of homicide, but alleges events continental in geographical scope, of three years in temporal scope, and of several million in scope of victims. How ludicrous, then, is the position of the bearers of the legend, who in the last analysis will attempt to "prove" such events on the basis of "confessions" delivered under the fabric of hysteria, censorship, intimidation, persecution and blatant illegality that has been shrouding this subject for 35 years.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p153_Butz.html