Why Dr. Johann Paul Kremer’s Diary Isn’t Evidence for the Holocaust Narrative

It may come of no surprise that I often engage in discussion of the Holocaust narrative with random people on social media. I begin most of these conversations by asking for evidence of Holocaust claims. The average Holocaust believer will link an article from the United States Holocaust Memorial and Museum’s Holocaust Encyclopedia, or say their beloved relative saw it. Some will even post spooky pictures, like this one from my last article (see below). Regular readers will know that none of these things are hard evidence for the Holocaust narrative.

Occasionally I will get a Holocaust affirmer that has an above normie-level of Holocaust knowledge and that’s where the fun begins. When I ask them for evidence I never get something like “this is the report from the excavation of Treblinka,” or “here is a chemical analysis that shows hydrogen cyanide gas was present in the Birkenau homicidal gas chambers.” They don’t provide things like that because those things don’t exist. Instead they will bring up something someone said, or a document that acts as corroborating evidence if you assume certain words to mean something else. They do this because they cannot answer for the lack or physical evidence or the fact that the gas chambers could not have worked they way that officials claimed they did.

In this article I will cover two cases of Dr. Johann Paul Kremer’s diary being misrepresented by Holocaust fabulists. Before we begin be sure to check out CoDoH’s Holocaust Encyclopedia’s article on Dr. Kremer for background on this topic.

Specimen number one is a Twitter (X) user that enjoys making fun of nutty conspiracy kooks and badly defending the official Holocaust narrative. They claimed an SS guard’s diary contained writings about homicidal gas chambers:

First, Kremer was a doctor, not a guard. Second, Kremer’s diary does not mention homicidal gas chambers. Kremer did not corroborate the official Holocaust narrative until after the war, when he was facing a Soviet court in 1947. Maybe “specimen one” is just confused. Maybe they are being subversive. Maybe both.

Just so you can be assured that Kremer did not mention homicidal gas chambers, do this: Open this PDF of an English transcript of Kremer’s diary and then search for the word gas. Wow! It appears 21 times. Wait just a second… it only appears in the footnotes written by Holocaust fabulists—footnotes that are longer than the diary entries. To make the diary work as corroborating evidence for the Holocaust narrative, you have to assume that “special action” means homicidal gassing. How do we know it means that? Because Holocaust fabulists tell us so, that’s why!

In reality, there is no evidence that special action means homicidal gassings. However, there is evidence to the contrary. From CoDoH’s Holocaust encyclopedia article on “Special Treatment”:

Particularly pervasive is the term “special treatment” in documents connected with the Third Reich’s treatment of the Jews. However, in most cases, this term did not mean execution. The richest documentation in this regard has been preserved for the Auschwitz Camp. These documents, however, never mention mass killings. The orthodoxy asserts that code words were used for this, such as “special treatment,” “special measures,” “special actions,” etc. But a thorough study of hundreds of documents containing these buzz word shows that all of them, without exception, find an innocuous explanation, if seen in their proper documental and historical context. (For details on this, see Mattogno 2016a & 2016d).

The starting point is that every deportation of Jews from their point of origin via Auschwitz, either to forced-labor deployments or to resettlements, was called “special operation” (Sonderaktion). In fact, the Third Reich’s way of treating the Jews differently than anyone else was called “special treatment.” Hence, anything in connection with Jews could and often did receive the term “special” attached to it, because the Jews were not normal concentration-camp inmates, who were usually criminals, PoWs or regime opponents. That did not imply per se that a document having that term refers to something murderous.

The next specimen is Matthew Cockerill, aka History Speaks. I have previously written about him in an article about why the Holocaust is the conspiracy theory, not the questioning of it. In a debate between him and Michael Peinovich, Cockerill misrepresented the Kremer diary in real time.

Before I get into that I would like to point out how Cockerill has been threatened by academia to stop publicly debating the Holocaust. On the surface it appears that Cockerill doesn’t get the shot. The shot being that you don’t debate the Holocaust because it’s not real and debate will expose that. Cockerill believes, or pretends to believe, that he has deprogrammed deniers, a claim I doubt.

Now let’s get to Cockerill’s misrepresentation of Kremer, which starts around mark 2:10:00 of the debate. Cockerill claims that Kremer testified to having attended a gassing. Mike reads the diary entry in question, which only mentions Kremer attending a special action. Cockerill makes a big show of accusing Mike of not reading the information from his document and omitting the part where Kremer says they gassed emaciated women. During this minutes-long ordeal, Cockerill made numerous personal attacks on Peinovich’s intelligence and accused Peinovich of being dishonest.

After the debate the disconnect was revealed. The part about gassing women was made by Kremer after the war:

Here is Peinovich’s comment from Telegram about the matter:

The confusion over the Kremer document is easily explainable, though it was hard to catch at the time. The document I was referencing was Kremer’s actual diary entry from 1942 (left) [see image below], where he says he attended a special action. Matthew was referencing testimony by Kremer from 1947 (right) [see above image], where he says he attended a gassing. He was almost certainly under duress at this hearing, so the original diary is the better source. I was legitimately confused because I read the document and I knew what it said. Matthew could have cleared this up by explaining there are two different documents, one an original diary and the other a later testimony. But he instead chose to keep trying to gaslight me. This is the only place I felt actually tripped up the whole time, and it turns out I was right.

Cockerill did his best to make it look like Kremer explicitly mentioned gassing in his original diary, but his plan was foiled. All that talk about Mike being dishonest was revealed to be projection. I can see why “specimen one” could have honestly made a mistake about the Kremer diary. Cockerill, on the other hand, has no such excuse as someone that claims to be an expert in the field. Cockerill deliberately misled Peinovich in an attempt to score wins on the debate. Why would he feel the need to do this if he believes that truth is on his side?

In the end, the Kremer diary is just another Holocaust fabulist red herring that they misrepresent so it can fit into their false Holocaust narrative.