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 » 8 years 7 months 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 » 8 years 7 months 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 » 8 years 7 months 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: 9946
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: The Lachout Document

Postby Hannover » 8 years 7 months 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.

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests