Search found 4 matches: faurisson

Searched query: faurisson

by PatrickSMcNally
Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:48 pm
Forum: 'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News
Topic: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?
Replies: 110
Views: 21456

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Thesaint wrote:"probably"?
It`s either a true,or an untrue statement that you previously made,or it is not.

Actually, it is true plain and simple. But mostly in the context of various internet debates through email which I've had with other people at different times over the years who have often shown themselves to be quite careless in mixing things together. But of course I don't keep records of all my old emails and so there really isn't any point of trying to cite them in the way you'd refer to a book and page number. It's kind of like with the 4 million number itself. I know that it was in circulation at one point because I can remember believing it in the 1990s. But when I tried to go looking through books to find one author who was viewed in academia as some kind of authority and who gave me a definitive statement of 4 million Jews, people, or whatever, killed in Auschwitz, I couldn't find it. But I know it was out there circulating in public discussion. And I know that everything which I've mentioned and which you've mentioned in turn above was also all out there in a variety of email debates that I had over the years. But if you choose not to accept that then there's no point in me fussing about it.

That's also why it is better for people who wish to make a central point about Auschwitz 4 million claims to spend their time to clarify that academic authors have generally not held to this number and, if someone is really energetic and has access to old archives of The Times or what not, to actually compile a listing of media citations or something along those lines relating to the 4 million number. Although I know that I had believed in it at one time, I'm still not actually clear on what was the overall record of the major media towards this 4 million number. It would be interesting to see a compiled list of media references where the 4 million number was mentioned.

But while this isn't as bad as some exchanges which I've had through email over the years, this is still worth mentioning as a concrete example of overdrawn assertions by someone who really should (and does wwhen he applies himself) know better:

http://www.historiography-project.com/m ... eaths.html

The first example Faurisson gives is just plain a false example and that's all. The film 'Night and Fog' shows a picture of Auschwitz in the background while flashing a claim of 9 million victims across the screen. If someone pauses to think for a moment, it's easy to surmise that the number 9 million is meant to be interpreted as spread across eastern Europe while the picture of Auschwitz is simply being used as an emblem of a larger event. That's not unusual in filmmakng. If someone was making a film about the First World War it would be not be out of line to create a scene where the line "More than 10 million soldiers died" flashes across the screen while a picture of Verdun is in the background. No one would misinterpret that as meaning that more than 10 million died in Verdun. It's clear that 'Night and Fog' is not saying that 9 million died at Auschwitz. Even if you wish to argue that on a subject as politically charged as this the filmmaker should be extra careful to seek clarity, that is a criticism of filmmaking and has nothing to do with implying that Henri Michel and Olga Wormser-Migot actually claimed that 9 million had been killed in Auschwitz.

This is an example of a kind of frivolous attitude which Faurisson sometimes shows which runs diametrically against the idea of "exactitude" that he often claims for himself. Being "exact" with relation to critiques of 'Night and Fog' should entail noting that the clear intent of the scene in question was simply to use a picture of auschwitz as an emblem for a bigger event, which is a common technique in filmmaking and perfectly justifiable.

With regards to the rest of that list, although each of the examples is interesting in itself, there really isn't much "exactitude" in the way that Faurisson has done things on this page. He places Lech Walesa on a common footing with Raul Hilberg. That isn't being very exact at all. It should be noted that errors by Hilberg, where they really occur, have much greater significance than a false statement by Walesa. Walesa is simply a politician and rational people expect that breed to make false statements. But a scholar, a leading academic at a univeristy, regarded as a pioneer in making possible our modern understanding of the Holocaust, a fundamental error by Hilberg is of much greater import than Walesa saying something. Faurisson may think that by trivializing this point and treating Hilberg on the same level as Walesa and others who are not regarded as academic authorities of any kind that he is somehow undermining the godly image of the Holocaust priests. But it's more accurate to say that he comes off as having a frivolous attitude towards something which is serious.

But Faurisson isn't as confused as others whom I've interacted on the net with over the years. Still, there's no point in making claims over stuff which I've deleted long since. That piece by Faurisson is still a worthwhile example of how he sometimes has a tendency to overdraw a point and really only undercuts his argument in the eyes of most of the public. A shame, but there's not much one can do about it.
by ASMarques
Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:17 pm
Forum: 'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News
Topic: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?
Replies: 110
Views: 21456

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
ASMarques wrote:You speak as if we had on the one hand the "old Soviet propaganda," and on the other the "academic specialists on the Holocaust."


No, I don't. But we went through all of this on another thread where I'd pointed out:

http://codoh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5c3#p37133


Who's the "we" in your "we went through all of this"? I assume you're talking to me, and I don't seem to have contributed to the thread you're quoting from.

PatrickSMcNally wrote:I have certainly never found any source which ever claimed that as many as 4 million Jews were killed in Auschwitz, and obviously you haven't either to judge from your own list.


I have just given you a score of sources, one of them for no less than 9 million people, which clearly means much more than 4 million Jews (no public disclaimer, BTW, is known on the part of the advisers to the film, historians Henri Michel and Olga Wormser-Migot). When you write "any source," am I supposed to read what you have written or to mentally edit as "any leading academic specialist source"? I find it difficult to guess your meaning at every turn. Please try to be more precise.

Let me see if you get this in equation form:

A + B = C

Where A is the acceptance of the abstract 4 million chiseled in stone; B is the acceptance that the overwhelming majority of victims at Auschwitz were Jewish; and C is the acceptance of a figure close to 4 million Jews for Auschwitz alone.

If you propagate simultaneously the A and B beliefs, you are inevitably propagating the C belief. You don't need to articulate C in close detail, nor should you attempt to, if your purpose is propagandistic.

Get the idea?

PatrickSMcNally wrote:There exists a broad spectrum which allows one to clearly place Elie Wiesel on one end and Gerald Reitlinger on the other end, with many shades in between.


Why do you place Reitlinger at one of the ends? Just because his final figure is inferior to, for instance, Hilberg's?

Reitlinger's original investigation, or any new reasoning of his applied to previous data, were mininal, compared to the efforts of some other "Holocaust" scholars, like Hilberg, even when taking into account the very weakness of Hilberg's own standards and ability as an investigator.

Reitlinger simply compiled the allegedly lowest figures for every country and added them up. That's all.

If those official or semi-official figures, and the ways they were reached in each case, were worth any trust at all -- which, of course, was not the case -- statistics alone would not recommend the systematic choice of minimal values.

Reitlinger's exercise was simply a variety of "Holocaust" figure juggling, and not, in any possible sense, an original investigation, or still less a real breakthrough such as, say, Faurisson's revelation of the crematory blueprints in the Auschwitz Museum archives never even visited by Hilberg, Reitlinger or any of the other conformist pseudo-scholarly "Holocaust" peddlers.

You should understand that the apparent convenience of any new figures for make-believe purposes ("see how indefatigable we are in our "Holocaust" fine-tuning efforts...") is not what matters.

The constant adaptation of an old lie by small steps may look tempting to those interested in ensuring its survival, but honest scholarship should be concerned neither with the big lies nor with the smaller adaptative lies.

True scholarship should be concerned with the truth, full stop. As in "there was no chain-mass murder, nor any gas chambers, at Auschwitz, and here is why..."

Given the state of our knowledge, either acceptance of, or an all-out demand for a public discussion of, such conclusions, should be acceptable scholarship. Anything else is obfuscation or flight of fancy.

PatrickSMcNally wrote:Again, the Britannica does not represent anything which would be regarded in academia as a specialist source.


You mean those "Holocaust" articles in the Britannica were in reality trusted to the tender care of the likes of Miklos Nyisly or Olga Lengyel, in spite of the usual prestigious names in the list of contributors & consultants? Wow!

You see, I quoted the Britannica because I found it convenient to give you the flavor of what the specialists were saying at a given time. I would have expected you to accept, for instance, that an article on, say, laser physics & engineering, or indeed on the Chaco war between Paraguay and Bolivia, would be a good way of recreating what was deemed to be the specialised knowledge of such topics at that particular time. But, of course, it didn't occur to me that when it comes to the supposedly historical event known as the "Holocaust," no specialised knowledge is deemed special enough...

PatrickSMcNally wrote:In the 1950s Reitlinger, Poliakov and maybe few others had just begun publishing the first few books on the purported extermination of Jews.


Just in case you think I was being unfair to Reitlinger, let's take your esteemed Poliakov and his supposedly "quality specialization" in his Bréviaire de la Haine.

He does give the reader a final figure for the Jewish victims of the Auschwitz "factory of death," but do you know how he proceeds?

Well, he quotes Nuremberg on Eichmann's alleged figure of 6 million for the Europeans Jews, then attributes the Auschwitz figure of 2,500,000 to Hoess, and, since he feels this probably includes Gypsies, and Russian or Polish Aryans, he indicates -- to be on the safe side, as he puts it -- a minimum of 2 million Jews. And that's that.

Hilberg, like other sacred cows in the "Holocaust" pasture, at least counted trains. Poliakov is more expedient: he quotes that greatest "Holocaust" investigator of all, Commandant Hoess of Nuremberg fame...

So much for the finest "Holocaust" scholarship.
by ASMarques
Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:59 am
Forum: 'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News
Topic: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?
Replies: 110
Views: 21456

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

PatrickSMcNally wrote:Fisrt point, you say "4 million people" but I had said "4 million Jews." There's a difference. The old Soviet propaganda used to claim that 4 million people of predominantly Slavic background had been killed in Auschwitz.


You speak as if we had on the one hand the "old Soviet propaganda," and on the other, in an almost adversarial position, the "academic specialists on the Holocaust."

But you forget that the old Jewish propaganda -- whenever it couldn't get away with even more staggering claims -- fully accepted the 4 million figure chiseled in stone, while at the same time claiming that the overwhelming majority of Auschwitz victims had been Jewish.

And, of course, the judeophile "specialists" you mention, even when under a certain number of commonsensical constraints to some of the crudest propaganda fancies, have not been noticeably uncooperative with the unremitting Jewish propaganda in general.

Indeed, a great deal of their efforts has been historically directed towards the containment or postponement of many, inevitably revisionist in nature, conclusions.


The respect you show for the "specialists" involved in the whole "Holocaust" farce leads you to imagine a border between the straight propaganda / religious faith on the one hand, and a supposedly precise and scientific judeophile investigation on the other.

But that is quite an illusion, for the pre-revisionist specialists were systematically working backwards, starting with the alleged "Holocaust" requirements -- give or take a few "figure corrections," generally out of the blue -- in order to reach such astounding idiocies as the calculation of whole-people "exterminations" based on incoming train schedules (whereas, BTW, outgoing train schedules had vanished, without the fact being given the slightest significance).

Just to let you perceive how ignorant and superstition-based the "specialist" rantings can be, consider that paragon of respected specialised knowledge, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, generally not considered to be an unthinking mouthpiece for Soviet propaganda, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Here is what the 1957 edition, for instance, says about Mauthausen, at the peak of the Cold War, when ordinary non-Jewish Soviet propaganda was presumably not held in high esteem: "[in Mauthausen] about 2 million people, Jewish for the major part, were exterminated between 1941 and 1945" (vol. 10, p. 288).

Does that sound to your ears like discredited Soviet propaganda, mentioned by the specialists in charge simply to make fun of it?

Well, here is what my 1986 edition says, at a time when the Auschwitz "factory of death" was the dominating myth: "out of the probable 355,000 inmates passing through Mauthausen and its satellites, more than 122,000 died from execution or privation."

On the other hand, the same 1986 edition, attributes, with all the appearance of knowledgeable precision, to the small transit camp of Sobibor -- about which next to nothing is known (with good reason) except that it functioned for 16 months -- "250,000 killed in five gas chambers" (should be "less than 35,000" according to Pressac, in 2000). No more, no less, and it even manages to assert categorically that "only about thirty people escaped."

What about the Auschwitz figures? Was the 4 million figure really a Soviet fantasy no one gave any credence to? Well, you don't seem to think Jakob Bronowky or the BBC count as knowledgeable sources, so let's see what my 1986 Britannica had to say about it.

Here it is: "Estimates of the total numbers who died at Auschwitz from all causes vary greatly, usually cited as between 1,000,000 and 2,500,000 but sometimes reaching 4,000,000" (vol. 1 p. 708).

Again, does that sound to you like the specialists were mentioning a crazy discredited Soviet propaganda claim?

And I have no earlier Britannica at hand right now, so I have to quote from the 1986 edition, with many "Holocaust" allegations already in shambles after the revisionist onslaught (by Faurisson, Butz, Stäglich etc.) that remained totally ignored by the public, but was certainly taken notice of by the judeophile "experts" you seem to respect so much...

You should note these are in no way occasional isolated lapses. Contradictions and nonsensical estimates are the rule, not the exception, in the supposedly serious judeophile sources, as in the popular literature by true or false "survivors." Every new effort on the part of the "Holocaust scholars" -- a new priesthood class for a new religion -- tends to dissimulate this very fact, instead of helping to clear up the confusing mess and pointing out the inconsistencies, with a view to establish the historical truth.

PatrickSMcNally wrote:The film does not actually claim anything of the sort. It shows a picture of Auschwitz in the background and on the screen there is a 9 million number flashed [...] You can charge the filmmaker with an abuse of artistic license


You do that, and let me know the result. Frankly, I've got better things to do.
by ASMarques
Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:55 pm
Forum: 'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News
Topic: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?
Replies: 110
Views: 21456

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

PatrickSMcNally wrote:It was never claimed by anyone that 4 million Jews had died at Auschwitz.


A simple example: Jacob Bronowski in the BBC documentary series The Ascent of Man, claiming that the ashes of some 4 million people -- the old figure we are now (falsely) told that only the crazy commies used to believe in -- had been flushed to a small backyard pond in Auschwitz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA

A few more examples of the Auschwitz figures from a long series compiled by Robert Faurisson, just to give you the flavor of the farce:

9,000,000 persons
according to the documentary film Nuit et Brouillard (Night and Fog, 1955), whose historical advisers were the historians Henri Michel and Olga Wormser-Migot.

8,000,000 persons
according to the French War Crime Research Office and the French War Crime Information Service (1945).

7,000,000 persons
according to Raphaël Feigelson (1945).

6,000,000 Jews
according to Tibère Kremer, writer of a foreword for Miklos Nyiszli (1951).

5,000,000 to 5,500,000 persons
according to Bernard Czardybon (1945), according to confessions attributed to some SS members and according to the newspaper Le Monde (1978) that added: "of whom 90% Jews".

4,500,000 persons
according to Henryk Mandelbaum (1945).

4,000,000 persons
according to a Soviet document of which the Nuremberg tribunal took "judicial notice". This figure was inscribed nineteen times, with a commentary in as many different languages, on the Auschwitz-Birkenau monument. It was repeated by many different authors, including the Polish historian Franciszek Piper, ex-curator of the Auschwitz Museum. Then, it was declared false in 1990 and replaced on the monument, in 1995, by the figure of 1,500,000 with the concurrence of the same F. Piper for whom this figure is a maximum, while the minimum figure is 1,100,000. According to Miriam Novitch (1967), of the 4,000,000 dead, 2,700,000 were Jewish. According to Rabbi Moshe Weiss (1991), more than 4,000,000 persons died at Auchwitz, of whom 3,000,000 were Jews.

3,500,000 persons
according to the Dictionnaire de la langue française published by Hachette (1991). According to Claude Lanzmann (1980), there were 3,500,000 gassed of whom 95% of Jews as well as many other deaths.

3,000,000 persons
until December 1st, 1943, according to a confession extorted from Rudolf Höss, ex-Commander of Auschwitz.

3,000,000 Jews gassed
according to David Susskind (1986) and according to Heritage, the most important Californian Jewish weekly (1993).

2,500,000 persons
according to Rudolf Vrba for the Eichmann trial (1961).

2,000,000 (?) to 4,000,000 (?)
according to the historian Yehuda Bauer (1982).

2,000,000 to 3,000,000 Jews killed as well as thousands of non-Jews
according to a confession attributed to an SS named Pery Broad.

2,000,000 to 2,500,000 persons killed
according to a confession attributed to an SS physician, Dr. Friedrich Entress (1945).

2,000,000 persons
according to the historian Léon Poliakov (1951); according to the historian Georges Wellers (1973) and according to the woman historian Lucy Davidowicz (1975).

1,600,000 persons
according to the historian Yehuda Bauer (1989), of whom 1,352,980 Jews (the latter figure is from Georges Wellers, 1983).

1,500,000 persons
this figure, chosen by Lech Walesa, replaced, in 1995, on the Birkenau monument, the previous one of 4,000,000, withdrawn in 1990.

1,471,595 persons
of whom 1,352,980 Jews, according to the historian Georges Wellers (1983).

1,250,000 persons or so
of whom 1,000,000 Jews killed and more than 250,000 non-Jews dead, according to the historian Raul Hilberg.

1,100,000 to 1,500,000 persons
according to the historians Yisrael Gutman, Michael Berenbaum and Franciszek Piper (1994).

1,000,000 persons
according to Jean-Claude Pressac (1989) and the Dictionnaire des noms propres published by Hachette (1992).

800,000 to 900,000 persons
according to the historian Gerald Reitlinger (1953).

775,000 to 800,000 persons
according to Jean-Claude Pressac (1993), of whom 630,000 were gassed Jews.

630,000 to 710,000 persons
according to Jean-Claude Pressac (1994), of whom from 470,000 to 550,000 were gassed Jews.

Please note that although in his "spontaneous" confession (with the help of "alcohol and the whip", as he himself put it) camp Commandant Rudolf Hoess, the so-called "proud technician", claimed 3.000.000, very few apparently take notice or believe him...

And we therefore reach the last generation of figures (no pun intended) with Jean-Claude Pressac who pointed out a figure of 775.000 in 1993. However, he lowered the total number to 630.000 victims -- only "470.000 to 550.000" of which Jews -- in 1994.

Of course, as soon as 08.01.1948, Welt im Film (British newsreel, nbr. 137) was indicating a figure of 300.000, but more recently it was revealed that the mortuary books (Sterbebücher) which had been kept during the war by the Auschwitz camp authorities exist at least from 27.07.1941 to 31.12.1943. Since the camp was opened in 20.05.1940 and evacuated in 18.01.1945, that period represents a little more than half the duration of the camp's existence under German authority. The books, as released after more than 40 years, thanks in part to the Zundel trials of 1985 and 1988, appear to include approximately 69,000 names.

If that doesn't give you food for a little independent thought, please consider the International Red Cross archives at Arolsen, always closed to revisionists. Can the archives of an organisation like the IRC be trusted, since neither individual "Holocaust scholars" nor the media appear to remotely know what they are talking about? Here is the figure then (17.08.1994):

-- International Red Cross at Arolsen: 66.206
Dept. of Holocaust investigations (Ref. nbr: 10824).

Perhaps not exhaustive, but could this be much nearer to the truth than the figures involving millions for Auschwitz alone?

Return to “1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?”