In May of 2002 Fritjof Meyer, editor-in-chief of the magazine Der Spiegel, published in the monthly Osteuropa, whose editorial commission is headed by Rita Süssmuth, former president of the Bundestag, an article (p. 631-641) entitled"ìDie Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz. Neue Erkenntnisse durch neue Archivfunde" ("The number of victims of Auschwitz. New figures through the discovery of new archives"). Rejecting the figure of 4,000,000 victims (the official one until 1990) and that of 1,500,000 (no less official, but steadily revised since 1995), he boldly proposed the "presumed" figure of 510,000 dead, of whom probably 356,000 killed by gassing. He stated that this "genocide" had "most likely" been perpetrated "predominantly"(überwiegend) outside the camp, in the "White Farm" or "Bunker I" and the "Red Farm" or "Bunker II". For the guardians of the holocaustic faith this latter assertion contravened the dogma holding that the gassings had been carried out, very predominantly, in the four great crematories of Auschwitz-Birkenau.
From July 2002 revisionist publications announced this spectacular revision coming from an author who in his study had condemned what is called Nazi barbarism. In November The Journal of Historical Review presented an account by Mark Weber on pages 24-28 of its issue dated May-August of that year. In February 2003 the first issue of Germar Rudolf's The Revisionist carried an essay on the subject by Carlo Mattogno (p. 30-37). In Germany itself, the review Nation und Europa launched and maintained a long revisionist campaign on the theme of F. Meyer's "revisionism". Wieland Körner dealt with the matter in a brief work entitled "Die neue Sicht von Auschwitz" ("The New View of Auschwitz"), January 2004, Durchblick-Bücher, PF 33 04 04, D 28334 Bremen.
Some orthodox authors indeed found it necessary to break the silence at their end. In Die Welt of 28 August 2002 Sven Felix Kellerhof opened fire by bemoaning the fact that a "key witness of the liberal left" had lost his way and gone to the aid of the "Holocaust deniers". There followed a controversy, with F. Meyer protesting his good intentions and "antifascist" convictions. In turn Franciszek Piper, the Polish communist and former curator of the Auschwitz Museum, entered the fray. F. Meyer made a rejoinder. The affair began to grow nasty. Certain revisionists cleverly forced the German judicial authorities to explain their failure to prosecute F. Meyer. Their answer: the author had doubtless come forth with reduced figures but he had done so without minimising the gravity of the crime (for the full text of the Lüneberg public prosecutor's reply, see Recht und Wahrheit, n° 11 & 12, p. 16-17, published in Tenerife).
Eventually, with the business
nonetheless taking a more and more irksome turn for him, the editor-in-chief
of Der Spiegel preferred to throw in the towel. In a short
piece dated 12 February he stated that, in view of the profit
that the revisionists had garnered from his article and their
intention in future to persist in "instrumentalising"
his arguments, he preferred to withdraw from the public debate.
In closing, he called for a mobilisation against fascists wherever
they might be. He confided his decision to the "Information
Service against Rightwing Extremism" (Informationsdienst
gegen Rechtsextremismus) directed by Albrecht Kolthoff who, for
his part, in a text of 23 February, said that, although he understood
F. Meyer's decision, he lamented it.
6 September 2005
This text has been displayed on the Net, and forwarded to you as a tool for educational purpose, further research, on a non commercial and fair use basis, by the International Secretariat of the Association des Anciens Amateurs de Recits de Guerres et d'Holocaustes (AAARGH). The E-mail of the Secretariat is <aaarghinternational - at - hotmail.com. Mail can be sent at PO Box 81475, Chicago, IL 60681-0475, USA..
We see the act of displaying a written document on Internet as the equivalent to displaying it on the shelves of a public library. It costs us a modicum of labor and money. The only benefit accrues to the reader who, we surmise, thinks by himself. A reader looks for a document on the Web at his or her own risks. As for the author, there is no reason to suppose that he or she shares any responsibilty for other writings displayed on this Site. Because laws enforcing a specific censorship on some historical question apply in various countries (Germany, France, Israel, Switzerland, Canada, and others) we do not ask their permission from authors living in thoses places: they wouldn't have the freedom to consent.
We believe we are protected by the Human Rights Charter:
ARTICLE 19. <Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, in Paris.