Ryan Faulk vs Sergey from Holocaust Controversies #ProvenAtNuremberg

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
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Ryan Faulk vs Sergey from Holocaust Controversies #ProvenAtNuremberg

Postby HMSendeavour » 6 months 2 hours ago (Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:41 am)

So, just a moment ago Ryan Faulk, publisher of the video "Proven at Nuremberg" responded to a familiar face.

Here is his response.

https://fodderposts.blogspot.com/2020/04/so-sergey-at-holocaust-controversies.html

Thoughts? I myself don't quite know what to make of this. Ryan should know more about these people and how they are are untrustworthy and have been utterly discredited in the past, this however, I doubt he knows the true extent of. Obviously he knows they're conspiracy theorists. He says as much. It's understandable, the Holocaust isn't something he focuses on.

My personal favourite comment made by Faulk directed at Sergey:

We don't know if you're a pedophile. Lots of things "we don't know".


:lol:
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Ryan Faulk vs Sergey from Holocaust Controversies #ProvenAtNuremberg

Postby HMSendeavour » 6 months 1 hour ago (Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:54 am)

Another great section:

Now what Sergey does, and this is common of the conspiracists, is to say Nuremberg doesn't matter, read the later historians. Oh this witness is making stuff up, but this witness is real. And so what you're doing is a kind of make-your-own holocaust.

Look, what if someone wanted to deny Sherman's march to the sea? How would you respond to that? Well you're bring up the direct order from Lincoln to sherman and you could reference US and Confederate military reports that it happened, you could reference reports of property damage. You wouldn't have to invent secret coded language, you wouldn't have to rely on confessions after interrogations. Because things that happen don't need giant tomes committed to proving they in fact happened.

This is why I said in the video - say someone claimed to be attacked by a dragon, you say that's impossible dragons don't exist, then he says he was attacked by a bear, well that means he wasn't attacked at all.

And at root that's what you're doing. You're trudging through the muck of lies, and pulling out plausible stories and documents and testimony to weave together an extermination program that doesn't violate the laws of physics. But the basis of your rejection of all the obviously false tales are simply that those things couldn't have possibly happened, and mainstream historians who believe the conspiracy just keep what they want.


Ryan, in this longer fashion makes the point user Sam made in the previous thread about pet theories:

Sam: Very good video. People need to remember that revisionism means revising actual claims made. We don't have to revise someone's pet theory on how the Holocaust could have happened. And do you ever notice this, most Holocaust believers have their own versions of the Holocaust (to make it seem more plausible than the actual claims that were made).


Lamprecht: For a lot of people, you can tell them exactly what their own "Holocaust" story claims and they will make up excuses out of thin air to fill the obvious gaps. These people want to believe in the "Holocaust" no matter what, they literally think it's evil and racist to question the allegation of millions of Jews being shoved into gas chambers.


And this is the nature of the Holocaust, it's true form is that of a shape shifter. It can never be "disproved" because it's basis, apart from being incredibly dogmatic is hidden behind unfalsifiable claim after unfalsifiable claim on top of mountains of assumptions. Shit that can seem true, but has no evidence in favour of it. Or, as the Conspiracy Theorist Exterminationists call it "convergence of evidence" which really means the assumption that parts which otherwise have no relation can fit together to cause a "Holocaust". The latter presumption of how it could have worked is saved from dismissal only because the Holocaust story is taken to be a self-evident fact in the first instance.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

PrudentRegret
Member
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:51 pm

Re: Ryan Faulk vs Sergey from Holocaust Controversies #ProvenAtNuremberg

Postby PrudentRegret » 5 months 4 weeks ago (Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:08 am)

Excellent post- Ryan doesn't get dragged into the weeds with Sergey and is able to restate the point of his video, which was totally unchallenged by Sergey's response. One of the key points of the video is that accusations were made against the Germans in bad faith, including accusations that the Powers presiding over the proceedings were in fact guilty of (i.e. Katyn Forest). So Sergey appealing to the fact that not all these absurd accusations made it to the judgement, only some did, does not redeem confidence in the proceedings.

Ryan is also forced to use sarcasm and a highly limited repertoire of these sorts of Revisionist facts due to YouTube censors, there is no shortage of Revisions that prove Ryan's point even beyond Nuremberg (i.e. the Majdanek and Auschwitz revisions), but he would probably get banned if he talked about those.

Sam
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2020 1:55 pm

Re: Ryan Faulk vs Sergey from Holocaust Controversies #ProvenAtNuremberg

Postby Sam » 5 months 4 weeks ago (Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:01 am)

This is great to see. Ryan is one of the best researchers in the dissident movement so him getting involved is a boon to revisionism. I'm seeing more and more dissident guys openly talking about revisionism. The tide is definitely turning.

EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Ryan Faulk vs Sergey from Holocaust Controversies #ProvenAtNuremberg

Postby EtienneSC » 5 months 4 weeks ago (Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:36 pm)

It was interesting to see Sergey renounce reliance on Raul Hilberg on plans and orders.

I am not so convinced that staying with general points and avoiding detail is ultimately persuasive. There are indeed too many details to look at them all, but you need at least to take a sample to get an impression of the level of evidence available at ground level and compare that with what is available elsewhere, or with what you would expect given the scale of events.

PrudentRegret
Member
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:51 pm

Re: Ryan Faulk vs Sergey from Holocaust Controversies #ProvenAtNuremberg

Postby PrudentRegret » 5 months 4 weeks ago (Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:06 pm)

EtienneSC wrote:I am not so convinced that staying with general points and avoiding detail is ultimately persuasive.


The problem is that going too far into details crowds out the broader point. The point of the video was to establish:

- Absurd accusations were made at Nuremberg (Not contested by Sergey).

- The history itself has been heavily revised over the years by mainstream historians (Not contested by Sergey).

- If "absurd" accusations were made and introduced as evidence in a Court of Law at Nuremberg, that should cast suspicion on the accusations that are at least more plausible (Not contested by Sergey).

These points cannot be argued against by nit-picking the details, so having the discipline to defend the arguments you are making rather than the minutiae of the evidence is more effective.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10151
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Ryan Faulk vs Sergey from Holocaust Controversies #ProvenAtNuremberg

Postby Hannover » 5 months 4 weeks ago (Tue Apr 28, 2020 2:25 pm)

Hey gents / ladies, some more examples of this Sergey 'Romanov' being demolished at this Forum. It's no contest.

Human soap & Human skin lampshades debunked:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=481

An example of Sergey Romanov's ridiculous scholarship:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3354

Sergey Romanov - problems with Filip Mueller and Rudolf Vrba:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3525

Also, the discredited "Holocaust Controversies" shredded again here:

The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”, An Analysis and Refutation of Factitious “Evidence,” Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the “Holocaust Controversies” Bloggers, By Jürgen Graf , Carlo Mattogno , Thomas Kues: https://codoh.com/library/document/3052/?lang=en
and:
Questions for Holocaust Controversies to answer/debate here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11786
and:
Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8145

This really is too easy.

- Hannover

No alleged human remains of millions in allegedly known locations, no 'holocaust'.
The claimed '6M Jews & 5M others' / 11M, equals the population of London, England.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Archie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 12:44 am

Re: Ryan Faulk vs Sergey from Holocaust Controversies #ProvenAtNuremberg

Postby Archie » 1 week 2 days ago (Sat Oct 17, 2020 3:05 am)

The "but it wasn't mentioned in the judgment" argument. I saw that one on Wikipedia a couple years ago and actually fell for it because I didn't know any better. I realized how wrong that was later on when I read Carlos Porter's book and started sampling the IMT proceedings. If you actually bother to look (the trick to seeing through Sergey's BS) you will see that Katyn was by no means a trivial part of the Soviet presentation. In IMT volume 17, the stuff on Katyn goes on for about a hundred pages over two days and that's not the only time it was brought up. This material speaks for itself. The Soviets were knowingly framing the Germans for mass murders they themselves had committed. That is shameless and indefensible. And it destroys the general credibility of the Soviet prosecution. If the USSR-54 Katyn report is pure lies, then the USSR-8 Auschwitz report is also very likely to be unreliable if not totally fraudulent.

Sergey: "The prosecution usually makes all kinds of claims, of varying credibility"

Listen to this guy. No, Sergey. Ethical prosecutors do not frame people. Presenting falsified evidence is prosecutorial misconduct. Failure to withhold exculpatory evidence is also prosecutorial misconduct.

Real court cases have specific counts, sometimes many, and the court makes an explicit judgment about each one (a very good point from Ryan). At Nuremberg there were only four counts, all very broad (e.g."crimes against humanity"). They presented months and months of sensational material. Yeah, they didn't repeat all of it in the judgment, but so what? They didn't retract any of it either. Did the public carefully read the judgment to see which precise claims were included and disregard everything else? No, they didn't. They just heard a lot of propaganda about the evil Nazis and that was the point.

User avatar
stinky
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:59 pm

Re: Ryan Faulk vs Sergey from Holocaust Controversies #ProvenAtNuremberg

Postby stinky » 1 week 2 days ago (Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:19 am)

Archie wrote:The Soviets were knowingly framing the Germans for mass murders they themselves had committed. That is shameless and indefensible. And it destroys the general credibility of the Soviet prosecution.

As I have mentioned prior, learning about the harsh punishment received by revisionists sparked my curiosity in the arguments against the holocaust narrative.
I thought, why are such heavy handed measures required to defend something that everyone knows happened?
Similarly, when reading further, another thing that struck me was learning of the (mostly now discarded) inventions of such ridiculous accusations.
What was the need to do such a thing when there were mountains of evidence proving the real, genuine, unquestionable, evil, dastardly actions of the Germans?
My conclusion;
The promoters of the hoax are not interested in truth. They lie with the intention to protect a false narrative.
A large cohort of people uncritically accept their programming. Useful idiots.
The Holocaust, as generally accepted, is a fraud.
It's easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled

PrudentRegret
Member
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:51 pm

Re: Ryan Faulk vs Sergey from Holocaust Controversies #ProvenAtNuremberg

Postby PrudentRegret » 1 week 2 days ago (Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:35 am)

Archie wrote:The "but it wasn't mentioned in the judgment" argument. I saw that one on Wikipedia a couple years ago and actually fell for it because I didn't know any better. I realized how wrong that was later on when I read Carlos Porter's book and started sampling the IMT proceedings. If you actually bother to look (the trick to seeing through Sergey's BS) you will see that Katyn was by no means a trivial part of the Soviet presentation. In IMT volume 17, the stuff on Katyn goes on for about a hundred pages over two days and that's not the only time it was brought up. This material speaks for itself. The Soviets were knowingly framing the Germans for mass murders they themselves had committed. That is shameless and indefensible. And it destroys the general credibility of the Soviet prosecution. If the USSR-54 Katyn report is pure lies, then the USSR-8 Auschwitz report is also very likely to be unreliable if not totally fraudulent.

Sergey: "The prosecution usually makes all kinds of claims, of varying credibility"

Listen to this guy. No, Sergey. Ethical prosecutors do not frame people. Presenting falsified evidence is prosecutorial misconduct. Failure to withhold exculpatory evidence is also prosecutorial misconduct.

Real court cases have specific counts, sometimes many, and the court makes an explicit judgment about each one (a very good point from Ryan). At Nuremberg there were only four counts, all very broad (e.g."crimes against humanity"). They presented months and months of sensational material. Yeah, they didn't repeat all of it in the judgment, but so what? They didn't retract any of it either. Did the public carefully read the judgment to see which precise claims were included and disregard everything else? No, they didn't. They just heard a lot of propaganda about the evil Nazis and that was the point.


I remember reading somewhere that there was significant overlap between the Soviet investigators that prepared the reports on Katyn and the investigators that prepared the reports on Auschwitz (as in, they were the same investigators). Does anyone have more information on this?

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Ryan Faulk vs Sergey from Holocaust Controversies #ProvenAtNuremberg

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 week 2 days ago (Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:00 pm)

PrudentRegret wrote:I remember reading somewhere that there was significant overlap between the Soviet investigators that prepared the reports on Katyn and the investigators that prepared the reports on Auschwitz (as in, they were the same investigators). Does anyone have more information on this?


Yes:

After the reoccupation of Katyn and Vinnytsia they (the Soviets) conducted their own “examinations,” excluding public view and participation of experts from other countries, and produced – you have three guesses – a forgery that foisted these mass murders on the Germans.

Later, after the Soviet occupation of German camps, some of these same pseudo-forensic forgers became active there as well and produced…further forgeries, for example in the case of the Auschwitz Camp, presenting “expert evidence” to the International Military Tribunal, with “forensic” methods corroborating the Soviet lie that in Auschwitz at least four million people had been murdered and burned.5

Cyrus Cox, Auschwitz - Forensically Examined (Castle Hill Publishers, 2019), Pp. 9


And:

Within the framework of the investigations in Auschwitz between February 14 and March 8, 1945, by a Soviet investigation commission, four engineers, the Polish citizen Dawidowski and the Soviet citizens Dolinski, Lavrushins and Shuer, prepared an expert report about the "gas chambers" and crematoria of Auschwitz-Birkenau. In it is a short "Appendix 1" with the title "Calculations for determining the Number of Persons liquidated by the Germans in the Camp Auschwitz".[5] On these three pages we find the genesis of the four million number. The "expert report" starts with the following premises:[6]

Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/the-four-million-figure-of-auschwitz/en/ Archive: https://archive.vn/Br8G3 See the Soviet Report here: https://codoh.com/library/document/soviet-war-crimes-report-on-auschwitz/en/ Archive: https://archive.vn/F3ZBO


Mattogno goes into more detail:

The Soviets were eager to hide their own crimes against peace (e.g. the partition of Poland and the aggression against Finland) and against humanity (e.g. the massacres at Katyn and Vinnitsa, about which the Germans had published two amply documented White Books). They now had to stupefy and terrify the world by blaming on the Germans a massacre even more horrendous than what they had thought up for Lublin Majdanek: the unbelievable massacre of four million people. For this they set up a national commission of investigation which subcontracted to numerous “experts” and “professionals” the task of dressing up the official Soviet propaganda in a “historical” cloak. The essential contribution of the Soviet Commission to the success of the propaganda tale of the gas chambers was to take over Vrba and Wetzler’s description of the alleged gassing procedure (Zyklon B being poured into the “gas chambers” through “traps”) and to place it into the actual architectural framework of the crematoria. Since the ZBL archives contained any number of blueprints of the crematoria which were shown to the witnesses who had remained at Auschwitz, such as Tauber for example, the witnesses could bolster the story already told by Vrba and Wetzler, but without the gross architectural blunders of the latter.803 Those witnesses who had previously been moved away from Auschwitz, however, were not in a position to make use of such an opportunity and continued to spread these gross mistakes (see Subchapter 17.7.).

Once the extermination procedure had been invented, it became necessary to invent the number of victims as well. As I have already illustrated in Subchapter 15.1., one of the many subcommissions of “experts” went to work and laid the foundation for the tale of the four million victims between February 14 and March 8, 1945, and on the basis of absurd and most-fantastic data. The Soviets elaborated their propagandistic framework for Auschwitz in a “Communiqué of the extraordinary national commission for the verification and investigation of the crimes of the German-Fascist invaders and their accomplices,” which was published in Pravda on May 7, 1945, and was quickly translated into various languages. The English version appeared on May 29, 1945 (Embassy 1945a); a French version followed during the same year (Embassy. 1945b). The report was later accepted by the Nuremberg Tribunal as document USSR-008.

Carlo Mattogno, The Real Case for Auschwitz (Castle Hill Publishers, 3rd ed., August 2019), Pp. 493f.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Ryan Faulk vs Sergey from Holocaust Controversies #ProvenAtNuremberg

Postby Lamprecht » 1 week 2 days ago (Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:45 pm)

PrudentRegret wrote:
Archie wrote:If the USSR-54 Katyn report is pure lies, then the USSR-8 Auschwitz report is also very likely to be unreliable if not totally fraudulent.

I remember reading somewhere that there was significant overlap between the Soviet investigators that prepared the reports on Katyn and the investigators that prepared the reports on Auschwitz (as in, they were the same investigators). Does anyone have more information on this?

Two of the signatories to USSR-8 (Burdenko and Nikolai) are the same as on USSR-54 (the Kaytn report).

Iona Nikitchenko, one of the three main drafters of the London Charter and the Soviet Union's judge at the Nuremberg trials, stated before the Tribunal convened:
"We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea [Yalta] declarations by the heads of the [Allied] governments... The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime."
and
"If... the judge is supposed to be impartial, it would only lead to unnecessary delays."
"There is a principle 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 principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Archie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 12:44 am

Re: Ryan Faulk vs Sergey from Holocaust Controversies #ProvenAtNuremberg

Postby Archie » 1 week 2 days ago (Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:55 pm)

Carlos Porter has translations of USSR-8 and USSR-54 on his website. This is valuable because USSR-54 is in the IMT documents volumes but in German translation only (I think USSR-8 is the same if it's there at all.)

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/cwporter/ussr8.htm
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/cwporter/k1.htm

Porter says: "Two of the signatories to USSR-8 (Burdenko and Nikolai) are the same as on USSR-54 (the Kaytn report); the third is the biological quack, Lyssenko."

Burdenko: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Burdenko

I googled for info on Nikolai and I found this revealing cope from who else but Sergey.

It is not clear what this is supposed to prove. The metropolitan Nikolai was obviously a figurehead. Burdenko was the head of the commission and there are reasons to think he sincerely believed in the German guilt at Katyn. But all that aside, it's not like the historians are using the Soviet report as some kind of a primary source on Auschwitz. What exactly is the point of this idiotic exercise?

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2018/04/a-not-so-short-debunking-of-holocaust.html

Ah, yes, you are "idiot" for looking into the most important Nuremberg evidence for Auschwitz and pointing out that it's JUNK. Very telling that Sergey doesn't want to actually defend USSR-8 and instead tries to diminish its importance. He suggests there are much better "primary" sources available but doesn't mention what these are. The WRB report, USSR-8, and the Hoess confession are the major early Auschwitz accounts. If those are WRONG then the story has no foundation. I'm not impressed with some new and improved version that's been pieced together by hoaxer historians decades after the war.

Another major strike against USSR-8 is that the camp was liberated in late January 1945 but the Soviets did not prepare their report on Auschwitz until May, after the American and British camp liberation propaganda. Anne Frank's step sister not long ago said the Auschwitz liberation photos are "fakes" and notes that the camp was covered in deep snow at the time of the actual liberation. None of the photos show any snow because they were taken later in the year.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13053

Additionally, the Soviets actually did publish a brief account of Auschwitz back in early February and unsurprisingly it's totally at odds with what's in their later report. Again, this doesn't inspire confidence in the Soviets. To put it mildly.

Last year, when the Red Army revealed to the world the terrible and abominable secrets of Majdanek, the Germans in Auschwitz began to wipe out the traces of their crimes. They leveled the mounds of the so-called "old" [3] graves in the Eastern [4] part of the camp, tore up and destroyed the traces of the electric conveyor belt, on which hundreds of people were simultaneously electrocuted, their bodies falling onto the slow moving conveyor belt which carried them to the top of the blast furnace [5] where they fell in, were completely burned, their bones converted to meal in the rolling mills, and then sent to the surrounding fields. In retreat were taken the special transportable apparatuses for killing children. The stationary gas chambers in the eastern part of the camp were restructured, even little turrets and other architectural embellishments were added so that they would look like innocent garages.

But even so one can see the traces of the murder of millions of people! From the stories of prisoners, liberated by the Red Army, it is not difficult to make out all that the Germans tried so carefully to conceal. This gigantic industrial plant of death was equipped with the last word in fascist technology and was furnished with all of the instruments of torture which the German monsters could devise.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Pravda020245.html

PrudentRegret
Member
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:51 pm

Re: Ryan Faulk vs Sergey from Holocaust Controversies #ProvenAtNuremberg

Postby PrudentRegret » 1 week 2 days ago (Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:12 pm)

Archie wrote:Porter says: "Two of the signatories to USSR-8 (Burdenko and Nikolai) are the same as on USSR-54 (the Kaytn report); the third is the biological quack, Lyssenko."
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Pravda020245.html


Woah, that is a fascinating TIL. Lysenko has contributed more than his fair share of disinformation to the world.

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Ryan Faulk vs Sergey from Holocaust Controversies #ProvenAtNuremberg

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 week 1 day ago (Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:57 pm)

Archie wrote:I googled for info on Nikolai and I found this revealing cope from who else but Sergey.

It is not clear what this is supposed to prove. The metropolitan Nikolai was obviously a figurehead. Burdenko was the head of the commission and there are reasons to think he sincerely believed in the German guilt at Katyn. But all that aside, it's not like the historians are using the Soviet report as some kind of a primary source on Auschwitz. What exactly is the point of this idiotic exercise?


Sergey misses the point entirely. These documents, like you mentioned were the most important in relation to the accusation that the National Socialists killed 6 million Jews. It laid the foundation for the Holocaust lie. The fact is, it is these documents that are responsible for the deaths of German defendants, for the generational wealth extractions of Germans to this very day, for the shaming of German history, and then, the shaming of Europeans as a racial group. They're responsible for this inane belief that the "Holocaust was proven at Nuremberg!".

The fact that these historians have to play patchwork to save the Holocaust myth; that were never willing to discard these documents on their own without the forceful work of revisionists demolishes their "objective credibility."

They need to maintain the myth of Nuremberg too, so it's not surprising that they've never revaluated and condemned the witch trials there. They're too important as a precedent to let go, even if the truth of the trials becomes a widely known open secret.

Lamprecht wrote:Iona Nikitchenko, one of the three main drafters of the London Charter and the Soviet Union's judge at the Nuremberg trials, stated before the Tribunal convened:
"We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea [Yalta] declarations by the heads of the [Allied] governments... The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime."
and
"If... the judge is supposed to be impartial, it would only lead to unnecessary delays."


What are the sources for these quotes?
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest