The former commandant of Auschwitz, 1940-43, Rudolf Hoess, is cited often by those who profit from the "Holocaust Industry". These beneficiaries like to quote what Hoess said under conditions of torture which would never be promoted as factual from anyone else.
But this is the 'holocau$t' storyline, where facts are deemed irrelevant, where rational thought and science are considered an inconvenience.
Read on and see an excerpt from a book in progress by acclaimed Italian Revisionist, Carlo Mattogno.
I suggest using the link below to the full text of the excerpt. It was lengthy so I simply copied the Abstract and Forward along with the section titles.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the ridiculous 'holocaust' storyline is the message.
Commandant of Auschwitz
Rudolf Höss, His Torture and His Forced Confessions
By Carlo Mattogno , Rudolf Höss
From 1940 to 1943, Rudolf Höss was the commandant of the infamous Auschwitz Camp. Today’s orthodox narrative has it that during this time, some 500,000 people were killed at Auschwitz in gas chambers. Yet when Höss was captured after the war, he confessed to having killed some 2,500,000 during that time. 40 years later, it was revealed that Höss had been severely tortured by his British interrogators. This is an excerpt of the upcoming study by Carlo Mattogno. It tells the gripping story of Höss’s capture and mistreatments, and presents the texts of the various “confessions” which the British extorted from Höss while in their custody.
C. Mattogno, R. Höss, 'Commandant of Auschwitz'
In the Preface to the complete English translation of Rudolf Höss’s notes which he wrote while in Polish custody in Cracow, Steven Paskuly, editor of the work, writes that they “are perhaps the most important document attesting the Holocaust” (Paskuly, p. 11). In his introduction, he adds (ibid., p. 21):
“There are fanatical groups in the United States, France, and even Australia who call themselves ‘The Revisionist Historians.’ They actually propose that Höss never wrote these documents – that they are a fraud. They also stated that even if the documents were written by Höss, they were obviously done under duress from the ‘Communist authorities’ in Poland. The ‘research’ and the conclusions of these ‘historians’ are absolute rubbish.”
It is not worth responding to accusations apparently arising from crude ignorance, which extends even to basic notions of current orthodox Holocaust historiography, as I will show below. It is worthwhile, however, to highlight Paskuly’s statement that the former commander of Auschwitz “fails to mention that the camp regulations and punishments were formulated by Höss himself” (ibid., p. 22), where he confounds Höss’s Crakow writing titled “Lagerordnung für die Konzentrationslager” (translated by Paskuly as “Rules and Regulations for Concentration Camps”; ibid., pp. 209-218), which Höss had jotted down from memory (see Chapter III.1.), with the 1941 “Dienstvorschrift für Konzentrationslager (Lagerordnung)” (“Service Regulations for Concentration Camps (Camp Regulations)”), of which only the title page and the table of contents are known.
Already in 1987, I published a book dedicated to Höss’s various post-war statements (Mattogno 1987). It listed 60 objections characterized by internal contradictions and insurmountable contradictions to the orthodox holocaust narrative of that time, thus showing that “the former commander of Auschwitz lied on all essential points of his ‘eye-witness testimony,’ which must therefore be rejected as a vulgar fraud.” The tortures inflicted by the British on Höss at the time, which in 1987 had already been documented, were therefore not mentioned a priori in order to invalidate Höss’s declarations, but a posteriori in order to explain the contradictions and absurdities found in his statements.
In the present study, for which I had access to an enormously larger documentation, I approach the topic from a different angle. The fundamental problem which no one has ever considered is whether the core of Höss’s first statements mirrored reality, or whether it mirrored some preordained “truth” which the British questioning Höss forced him to comply with in order to “confirm” it. In other words: did those statements come from Höss or from his torturers? Hence, are they true or not? And what is the relationship between Höss’s first statements and those he made later?
This study is a well-founded and documented answer to these questions.
PART ONE: RUDOLF HÖSS’S STATEMENTS
I. Arrest and First Statement to the British
1. The Arrest
2. Statement of March 14, 1946
2.1. The Two Handwritten Versions
2.2. The Transcript
3. The Other Statements of March 1946