The Lachout Document

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:12 pm

The Lachout Document

Postby Jazz » 9 years 1 month ago (Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:57 am)

The original document:


The English translation of the Lachout document is reprinted below:

Military Police Service Vienna, Oct. 1, 1948
10th. copy
Circular No 31/48

1. The Allied Investigation Commission has established so far
that no persons were killed by the use of poison gas in the
following concentration camps: Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald,
Dachau, Flossenbürg, Gross-Rosen, Mauthausen and its
extension camps, Natzweiler, Neuengamme, Niederhagen
(Wewelsburg), Ravensbrück, Sachsenhausen, Stutthof,

In all these cases it could be proved that the confessions
were the result of torture and the testimonies were false.

This fact has to be taken into account in war crime
investigations and interrogations.

Former concentration camp prisoners testifying that persons,
especially Jews, were killed with poison gas in these
concentration camps, are to be informed of this finding by the
Allied Investigation Commissions. Should they insist in their
testimony, a charge of false testimony is to be filed against

2. Paragraph 1 of circular 15/48 can be canceled.

The commander of the
Military Police Service:
Mueller, Major

source: ... ument.html

I read what was on The Nizkor Project but it didn't really seem to go anywhere, just a bunch of Neo-Nazi name calling.

The Nikor Project wrote: B. The "Document's" Language

The official Allied languages were English, French and Russian. Also the above mentioned Allied gazette appeared with a trilingual title. Its forward read

"The 'Gazette' will appear monthly in four languages: English, French, Russian and German. The English, Russian, and French languages are official languages, and only text in these languages are authentic."[25] (_Gazette_, December 1945-January 1946, p. 24.)

Even if the Lachout "document" were only a translation into German, one can be certain that the Allies would never have used an abbreviation as "F.d.R.dA." (Für die Richtigkeit der Ausfertigung, Responsible for the correctness of the content) or "RS" (Rundschreiben, circular), which are only found in Austrian civil servant usage.[26] (The expression used by the Allies in the _Gazette_ is "Certified true copy". See _Gazette_, Dec. 1945-Jan. 1946, p. 40.)

source ... ument.html

What's your take on the document? And where can I find the thing he's referring to in his footnotes?

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Re: The Lachout Document

Postby nathan » 9 years 1 month ago (Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:37 am)

As far as I know, no leading revisionists has been ready to stand up for this document, but one can see why Faurisson was initially tempted to give it space. The forgery incorporates his own misreading of the famous Martin Broszat letter of 1960, which said, first, that no gassings took place at Dachau, Buchenwald and Belsen; and, second, said that no gassings which were part of the Final Soluton took place on German soil. It was very natural to misread this document as saying that no gassings of any kind took place on German soil, and this claim is still parroted on neo-Nazi sites as if the Broszat letter were proof of the fact.

But the Broszat letter did not actually deny, and Broszat himself elsewhere explicitly affirmed, that homicidal gassings took place at other German camps. If he had made such a denial he would have been challenging the declared findings of several British trials which in 1947 had established - to the satisfaction of the court - that there were homicidal (but not genocidal) gas chambers at Ravensbruck and Neuengamme. Broszat would never have dared to challenge these findings, and the moribund Allied War Crimes Commission of 1948 would not have had the materials or the motive to do so.

Whenever some newly discovered document seems too good to be true, from your own point of view, you may be sure that it is not true

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:50 pm

Re: The Lachout Document

Postby Ilikerealhistory » 9 years 1 month ago (Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:02 pm)

nathan wrote:As far as I know, no leading revisionists has been ready to stand up for this document, ...

If I had to take a guess, I would say it was a fake. German and Austrian police had no involvement with investigating Holocau$st crimes. The Allied forces would be the only ones involved, and if they found something, they sure as heck would not let it be known.

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10064
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: The Lachout Document

Postby Hannover » 9 years 1 month ago (Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:00 pm)

Regardless, the contents of this ca. 1948 document are essentially correct. Neither Lachout or any of the signatories were ever prosecuted for 'forgery' in a country where 'holocaust denial' is illegal. Lachout was in fact compensated by the Austria govt. for false charges against him. 'Fabrication' has never been fully demonstrated.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 12:44 am

Re: The Lachout Document

Postby Archie » 2 weeks 4 days ago (Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:47 pm)

Klaus Schwensen says this is fake.

Mauthausen is situated on northern side of the Danube River some kilometres downstream of Linz, at a straight-line distance of only 120 km from Salzburg. But since the Americans had pulled back, the camp lay in the Soviet Zone of Austria. It emerges from the so-called Lachout document, which surfaced 1987 under mysterious circumstances in Vienna, that in 1948 there was an Allied Investigation Commission consisting of representatives of the four Allied powers which investigated the camp in order to ascertain whether there had been a gas chamber or not. Robert Faurisson, who had flown to Vienna to inform himself about this document, remained skeptical. Apparently he was the first who recognized that, "if this document is genuine and if Emil Lachout is telling the truth", it would constitute a verification of Pinter´s letter (Text E), but he he had formulated this as a mere possibility and as a question yet to clarify.[32] It was not long thereafter that Emil Lachout stated that "U.S. Colonel Dr. Stephen Pinter" had been head of the Allied Commission in Mauthausen and author of a (second) Mauthausen report.[33]

However, the (leftist) "Documentation Centre of Austrian Resistance" (DÖW) had from the beginning declared the Lachout Document to be a forgery[34],[35], and a recent study has confirmed this accusation.[36] There was never an Allied Commission in Mauthausen, and therefore Pinter could not have been the head of it. This result has been confirmed by a letter (Text I) of Pinter that surfaced recently. Apparently answering a question of Robert J. Miller, the 85-year-old Pinter wrote in his curt manner: “I had nothing to do with Mauthausen.”

Pinter was a lawyer and apparently early Holo-skeptic who is known for a 1959 letter to the editor of a Catholic newspaper (which Butz quotes in Hoax).

I was in Dachau for 17 months after the war, as a US War Department Attorney, and can state that there was no gas chamber at Dachau. What was shown to visitors and sightseers there and erroneously described as a gas chamber, was a crematory. Nor was there a gas chamber in any of the other concentration camps in Germany. We were told that there was a gas chamber at Auschwitz, but since that was in the Russian zone of occupation, we were not permitted to investigate, since the Russians would not permit it.

[…] uses the old propaganda myth that millions of Jews were killed by the national socialists. From what I was able to determine during six postwar years in Germany and Austria, there were a number of Jews killed, but the figure of a million was certainly never reached. I interviewed thousands of Jews, former inmates of concentration camps in Germany and Austria, and consider myself as well qualified as any man on this subject.

Note that in essence the memo is an earlier, more official version of the Pinter letter (which Lachout was apparently familiar with).

Faurisson on the document:

Summary of Lachout's testimony in the second Zundel trial.

I wish Faurisson had been a little more circumspect on this matter and had not used Lachout in the trial, but I guess he just found it too tantalizing to pass up (which is exactly what forgers usually try to do).

On the one hand, given that orthodox historians no longer claim the German camps were extermination camps, the memo, even if true, would arguably not be that significant. But on the other hand, it actually brings up an interesting point: At what point was it acknowledged that the German camps weren't extermination centers with gas chambers? Broszat in 1960 is the standard citation (although not a formal government statement). Moreover at what point did it become known and how was this determined ? This has never been adequately explained! If it was as early as 1948 (as per the memo) that would look very bad and would prompt the question of why they did the investigation right AFTER the camp trials rather than before. And frankly it is a stretch to think the Allies would have had any interest in doing an investigation of that sort in 1948. A somewhat related issue is how they walked back the claims of gassing at Dachau yet they've never come out and admitted that they faked the Dachau gas chamber, instead making the bizarre claim that the gas chamber was never used, as if we are to believe that the Germans built the chamber at the very end of the war for no reason other than for the Americans to find it.

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1778
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: The Lachout Document

Postby Lamprecht » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Thu Jun 18, 2020 6:22 pm)

This document was included in the original Leuchter report, but now on its fifth version has a footnote stating:
Nowadays (2005), Dr. Robert Faurisson considers that document as highly dubious. Cf. Klaus Schwen-sen, “Zur Echtheit des Lachout-Dokuments,” Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung8(2) (2004), pp. 166-178.
Leuchter Report version 5 PDF:
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests