Holocaust Historians and Historical Truth

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
JLAD Prove Me Wrong
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 337
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:35 pm

Holocaust Historians and Historical Truth

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 9 months 1 week ago (Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:53 pm)

So I got this reply in a YouTube comment debate on the holocaust.

James let me jump in here...

I agree, even Irving calls himself a military historian, not a Holocaust historian. If this indeed the case then why has the man outright denied the holocaust, then changed his tune? Surely he should be sticking to the purely military side of the story?

However, as what ever type of historian you call him, he is left lacking. His only qualification seems to be a good working knowledge of the German language. He started, but failed to finish, two undergraduate degrees (one in physics and the other in political economics, neither of which (if completed) would qualify the man as a historian).

Let’s take a look at his book on the Dresden bombings as proof that his methods are often flawed. In the book he estimated the number of deaths to be between 100,000 and 250,000 even though the city officials estimated the number to be 25,000. It turns out he based this figure on the word of one source, Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister. Relying on one source is never the sign of a good historian, it’s even worse when you said “historian” relies on a propaganda minister as that single source.

Now let’s turn to your recommended “historians”. Germar Rudolf has been entirely discredited and has lied, on numerous occasions, about his own qualifications. Any “professional” who lied about qualifications cannot, by any sane minded individual, be trusted.

As for Carlo Mattogno, he has never really been held in high regard as an historian. Mattogno, himself, states that he possesses all of the aerial and surface photographs of Auschwitz from 1944. Yet, he has given three very varied accounts of what one photo (that of an open air cremation pit) contains. How does one man change is mind so much? Or this this inability to stick to a story a prerequisite for denying the Holocaust?

Then we have Jürgen Graf. Graf is openly xenophobic. He, therefore, is definitely not unbiased and, therefore, cannot make a reliable historian.

Your statement about Irving’s works being translated into more languages than any other historian, made me chuckle. I am sure his works have been translated, but do you have any figures to support this claim? Or are you just blowing smoke?
Show less


I think I should reply something like

What is your definition of a historian? Jean-Claude Pressac was a pharmacist, and Deborah Lipstadt is a professor of Jewish history. Are they qualified only because you agree with them?

How did Rudolf lie? Please be specific.

What are these three varied accounts? Please be specific.

Deborah Lipstadt is openly a Zionist. How can we trust her? She is biased and supports Israeli apartheid, so she is not neutral.

As for my claim about Irving's books, look up "DAVID IRVING CONFRONTS DEBORAH LIPSTADT".


I think this is a good reply, but feel free to add your thoughts, comments invited.
If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.

https://freespeechmonika.wordpress.com/ ... t-details/

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Holocaust Historians and Historical Truth

Postby Lamprecht » 9 months 1 week ago (Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:23 pm)

If this indeed the case then why has the man outright denied the holocaust, then changed his tune?

Irving write books WWII, not the Holocaust. He went through the documents of the time period and simply found no evidence of any alleged extermination. For a while, he was writing some revisionist articles and then he got in his court case and also was imprisoned for "thought crimes" and, seemingly as a result, flip-flopped. Remeber that Irving never wrote a book on the "Holocaust"

Irving physically assaulted, before being imprisoned:
Image


Check out:

David Irving does not represent Holocaust Revisionism
viewtopic.php?t=10608

David Irving & Mark Weber, Enemies Of Revisionism
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6681


Germar Rudolf has been entirely discredited and has lied, on numerous occasions, about his own qualifications.

Where has Rudolf been discredited? Ask for specifics.

Ask for the alleged lying about his qualifications, that's not really accurate. Rudolf discusses this here:

Character assassins
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html
McCarthy argues that every time I quote a work I have written using a pen name without expressively stating that this is me, I do so in order to use these authors' works "as authorities to bolster" my own arguments. That is untrue.

1. If I revealed a pen name every time I quoted it, what would be the use of pen names? If McCarthy agrees that using pen names is an acceptable measure to avoid social persecution and political prosecution, why then should it be dishonest not to reveal the pen name?
2. From time to time I indeed have indicated who is hiding behind certain pen names. Once you start doing so, you would have to do it always. But by doing so, I would have to expose others as well, who are hiding behind pen names and who would then immediately be exposed to heavy criminal prosecution in Europe. Does McCarthy want me to be responsible that people are being sent to prison because I have to be always honest and tell everybody the truth about every pen name? Would he have demanded this from dissident in the former USSR? Why is he demanding it from dissidents in the present People's Republic of Continental Europe?
3. Frequently I get chided for revealing my own pen names, simply because people think I should not give my readers the impression that I want to impress the public with the amount and importance of work that I am doing. So I stopped it. I don't want to appear arrogant.
4. In all cases when I refer to my own works written under a pen name, I never do it to say: "look, this expert has the same opinion as I have", but rather to say "this fact or argument was proven and published there."
5. Quoting works in science follows a certain formal procedure, as McCarthy and Dr. Green should know. The background of it is to enable the reader to find the quoted source. That means in our case that you refer to the author's name as it is to be found in the libraries' database. Giving a possible real name for a pen name that is not included in the library data is not additional data that enables anybody to find the work quoted better than without the real name given.
...
Phony Doctorates

The first revisionist publication I was involved in was a brochure with the title "Die Zeit lügt!," published in October 1992. It was a reply to two lengthy articles of a certain Till Bastian published in summer 1991 in the German weekly Die Zeit (no. 39, Sept. 18, 1992, p. 104, and no. 40, Sept. 25, 1992, p. 90). This is the fairest article about the Holocaust controversy that has appeared so far, simply for the reason that both articles of Bastian were reprinted in their entirety, and discussed afterwards. The reader always had the means to check both point of views. Nobody else has ever done that before or since -- on either side of this discussion.

Nowhere in that brochure is reference made to the special expertise and qualifications of the authors given (H. K. Westphal, Dipl.-Ingenieur, Dr. W. Kretschmer, Jurist, Dr. Ch. Konrad, Historiker, Dr. R. Scholz, Chemiker und Pharmakologe), nor would the claims and arguments brought forward in this brochure require the qualifications of these experts. Though it was certainly incorrect to do this, I would like to explain why it was done, as it was certainly not done in order to claim qualifications that are actually not present. Let me therefore be a bit more detailed.

In spring and summer 1992 I was called by several defence lawyers as an expert witness in several trials imposed on Revisionists in Germany (see footnote 103 of the brochure mentioned). In these trials -- as in all trials against Revisionists -- the judges refused to accept any evidence presented by the defence, including all expert witnesses. I had to learn that a chemist (me) was being refused because he was neither a toxicologist nor a historian, an engineer (Leuchter) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor a historian, a historian (Prof. Haverbeck) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor an engineer. My conclusions were that one obviously had to be at the same time an engineer, a chemist, a toxicologist, a historian and a perhaps even an barrister to be accepted as an expert witness at a German court. The legal process being so perverted in Germany, we decided to mock it by inventing a person with all these features, but then we realized that this would be a bit unrealistic, so we split that person into many. That is the background.
(note: there is more to be read about the topic in that link, but I would try to shift the argument away from discussing the alleged "reliability" of other people)

This is a non-argument anyway. If he is talking about Rudolf's doctorate, Germar Rudolf was denied his doctorate and forced out of the Max Plankt Institute because of his publication of a scientific forensic report which demolishes the gassings claims. It's hardly a fair argument, but ask him for specifics so you can more easily explain it.

Any “professional” who lied about qualifications cannot, by any sane minded individual, be trusted.

Seems to me he is trying to dismiss a person without even addressing a single argument he makes. Refer to the pyramid:

Image

As for Carlo Mattogno, he has never really been held in high regard as an historian. Mattogno, himself, states that he possesses all of the aerial and surface photographs of Auschwitz from 1944. Yet, he has given three very varied accounts of what one photo (that of an open air cremation pit) contains. How does one man change is mind so much?

Where is this being done? I would need more specifics. Once again, refer to the triangle. It's not an arugment, he's just attacking individuals.
Changing your mind when presented with new information suggests a lack of bias, if anything.


Or this this inability to stick to a story a prerequisite for denying the Holocaust?

:lol: pay no attention to the constantly changing death tolls, constantly changing methods of execution at various camps, etc.

Check this out:

Victories of Revisionism by Dr. Robert Faurisson
http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/200 ... onism.html
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7156


Then we have Jürgen Graf. Graf is openly xenophobic. He, therefore, is definitely not unbiased and, therefore, cannot make a reliable historian.

Everyone is biased in some way. Also, this obsession with declaring individuals "reliable" or "unreliable" without actually analyzing their arguments is pointless. If I was you, I would stick to the facts only; all of these authors do cite their sources so when you repeat a claim made in their work, you can refer to the source itself, rather than using them as a source.

Regardless, this quote from Rudolf really elaborates this well:
"To everyone who has ever suspected that revisionists are motivated by a desire to whitewash National Socialism, or restore the acceptability of right-wing political systems, or assist in a breakthrough of Nationalism, I would like to say the following:

While researching historical events, our highest goal must be at all times to discover how it actually was--as the 19th century German historian Leopold Ranke maintained. Historians should not place research in the service of making criminal accusations against, for example, Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes, nor to whitewash any of their wrong-doings. Anybody insisting that research be barred from exonerating Genghis Khan of criminal accusations would be the object of ridicule and would be subject to the suspicion that he was, in fact, acting out of political motives. If this were not so, why would anyone insist that our historical view of Genghis Khan forever be defined solely by Khan's victims and enemies?

The same reasoning applies to Hitler and the Third Reich. Both revisionists and their adversaries are entitled to their political views. The accusation that revisionists are only interested in exonerating National Socialism and that such an effort is reprehensible or even criminal, is a boomerang: This accusation has as a prerequisite that it is deemed unacceptable to partially exonerate National Socialism historically, and by so doing, always also morally. But by declaring any hypothetical exoneration based on possible facts as unacceptable, one admits openly not to be interested in the quest for the truth, but in incriminating National Socialism historically and morally under any circumstances and at all costs. And the motivation behind this can only be political. Hence, those accusing revisionists to misuse their research for political ends have themselves been proven guilty of exactly this offense. It is therefore not necessarily the revisionists who are guided by political motives--though quite a few of them certainly are--but with absolute certainty all those who accuse others of attempting to somehow historically exonerate a political system which has long since disappeared.

As a consequence, our research must never be concerned with the possible 'moral' spin-off effects of our findings in relation to politicians or regimes of the past, but solely with the facts. Anyone who argues the opposite does not understand scientific research and should not presume to condemn others on the basis of authentic research."



And finally:

Your statement about Irving’s works being translated into more languages than any other historian, made me chuckle. I am sure his works have been translated, but do you have any figures to support this claim? Or are you just blowing smoke?

Once again, I wouldn't use Irving as an example. If anything, just highlight his vicious beating and imprisonment being the catalyst for his "change of mind" really.

I notice no actual discussion of any points on the Holocaust, just discussion in the alleged biases, prejudices, and reliability of "holocaust deniers"


I suggest you change the topic of discussion to actually talking about the facts. You are not any of these people he is attacking as "unreliable" and I assume you haven't even met them personally. You need to go on the offensive here.

Ask him why, after 7+ decades of study and research on "the most documented genocide in history" we have

- NO nazi document or recording ordering an extermination of Jews
- NO nazi document, recording, or diagram confirming the existence of homicidal gas chambers
- NO nazi document or recording suggesting Zyclon-B be used for criminal purpose
- NO significant ferrocyanide traces in the alleged "homicidal gas chambers" of Auschwitz... but massive traces in the delousing/disinfectant chambers from Zyclon-B fumigation
- NO name of even one Jewish prisoner, with proof, that was killed in a Nazi gas chamber
- Multiple FAILED attempts to excavate "huge mass graves" in allegedly exactly known locations
- Over half of the 20,000 testimonies at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial declared "unreliable" the archives director, Israeli historian and Auschwitz survivor Shmuel Krakowski
- Survivors of the concentration camps, including Jews, that denied mass killings and gassings
- Documented cases of Nazi "Confessions" extracted via threats, intimidation, and torture



See also:

Debating: Responding to arguments claiming there are no "reliable/respected sources" denying the holocaust?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12190
"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

Mortimer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Holocaust Historians and Historical Truth

Postby Mortimer » 9 months 1 week ago (Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:56 pm)

If the person you are debating wants to know about someone's qualifications then I suggest you mention Walter Luftl the former president of the engineers association in Austria. He was a court recognised expert witness and his report is here - https://codoh.com/library/document/2383/
There are 2 sides to every story - always listen or read both points of view and make up your own mind. Don't let others do your thinking for you.

User avatar
TimeTraveler
Member
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:48 pm
Location: Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Holocaust Historians and Historical Truth

Postby TimeTraveler » 9 months 1 week ago (Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:50 am)

What was the conversation up until this person made this comment anyway? Did this guy just randomly pop in and say this? Because I noticed when I debated on YouTube, well it was more like I was presenting facts against the holocaust to an average Joe. These people would randomly pop into my conversation and write a book just like that comment you got. Then the whole conversation would turn into me going back and fourth for days.

I think your reply sounds good to me. These people love to bring up the credibility of revisionist historians. Because they cant debunk any facts that they present. So they just attack the messenger.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2521
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Holocaust Historians and Historical Truth

Postby borjastick » 9 months 1 week ago (Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:30 am)

Instantly debasing the comments or scientific/historical observations of a revisionist is a standard practice and one that clicks into action almost immediately. They use it like a Firewall to block or deflect incoming fire that they know they cannot rebut.

I have discussed the holocaust with people who think they are right simply because they see they are upholding the official narrative but in fact they don't know the subject at all. As soon as I get into a stride on the issue, and the opponent realises he is way out of his depth I get the 'what do you know you're not an historian' or 'why should we believe you and your science, has it ever been tested?'

They are the words of a loser and they know it.

Some like David Irving others think he is a fraud. I quite like him for what he did and said in the past. Besmirching his character and credibility because he doesn't have credentials is laughable, he could run rings around many accredited academics.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
JLAD Prove Me Wrong
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 337
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:35 pm

Re: Holocaust Historians and Historical Truth

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 9 months 1 week ago (Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:40 am)

TimeTraveler wrote:What was the conversation up until this person made this comment anyway? Did this guy just randomly pop in and say this?


Here is the context. On the video "The Nuremberg Trials - David Irving"



Micheal Carney wrote
It boggles my mind how any human can be as stupid as you lot.
·

I wrote
What specific thing makes you think we are stupid?


Micheal Carney wrote
@James You don't believe the Holocaust occurred but you do believe this prick has two brain cells to rub together. Both convictions being wrong.


I wrote
The holocaust is a myth, and David Irving is probably the greatest living WWII historian.


I also added a link
http://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/


Micheal Carney wrote
@James
The Holocaust occurred, there is more evidence than any reasonable mind-which you clearly lack-can deny and David Irving is a malicious, hate-spewing moron.


I wrote
Did you even read what I sent you?


Micheal Carney wrote
@James Yes and the entire grounds for the argument is that he doesn't believe that the Holocaust exists.


I wrote
Can you show me a specific quote from the article which you disagreed with?


Micheal Carney wrote
@James
In general, anything that implies he's remotely competent.
A few particular examples being:
"Irving is an individual of uncommonly strong scholarly integrity"
"his unwillingness to dissemble or pay lip-service to various widely-worshiped cultural totems eventually provoked an outpouring of vilification by a swarm of ideological fanatics"
"Deborah Lipstadt, a rather ignorant and fanatic professor of Theology and Holocaust Studies"
The man has never show a scrap of evidence to discredit the Holocaust's existence. He's a stupid, bigoted cunt and so is anyone who buys his shit.


I wrote
Gutter mouth, irving isn't a holocaust historian, he is a WWII military historian. His works have been translated into more languages than any other historian in the world!

For holocaust historians, I recommend Carlo Mattogno, Germar Rudolf, and Jürgen Graf.


Micheal Carney wrote
@James
1) You're a Nazi. I owe you no politeness. Eat shit and die you stupid cunt.
2) Irving's career has been primarily dedicated to promoting falsehoods about the Holocaust. There is not a single respectable historical institution in the world that would even pretend he's anything but a Nazi fetishist.
3) Those aren't "historians". They're Holocaust deniers. They're just as full of shit as Irving and you.


jcezary wrote
@James don't waste your energy. There are two types: morons and collaborators and as one can tell from the low intellectual merit comments, both are present.


I wrote
@Michael Carney
1) You're a Zionist. I owe you no politeness. Eat s__t and die you stupid c__t.
2) Lipstadt's career has been primarily dedicated to promoting falsehoods about the Germans. There is not a single rational historical institution in the world that would ever act like she's anything but a Jewish supremacist.
3) Her ilk aren't "historians". They're Zionists. They're just as full of s__t as Lipstadt and you.


Matt Munroe wrote
James let me jump in here...

I agree, even Irving calls himself a military historian, not a Holocaust historian. If this indeed the case then why has the man outright denied the holocaust, then changed his tune? Surely he should be sticking to the purely military side of the story?

However, as what ever type of historian you call him, he is left lacking. His only qualification seems to be a good working knowledge of the German language. He started, but failed to finish, two undergraduate degrees (one in physics and the other in political economics, neither of which (if completed) would qualify the man as a historian).

Let’s take a look at his book on the Dresden bombings as proof that his methods are often flawed. In the book he estimated the number of deaths to be between 100,000 and 250,000 even though the city officials estimated the number to be 25,000. It turns out he based this figure on the word of one source, Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister. Relying on one source is never the sign of a good historian, it’s even worse when you said “historian” relies on a propaganda minister as that single source.

Now let’s turn to your recommended “historians”. Germar Rudolf has been entirely discredited and has lied, on numerous occasions, about his own qualifications. Any “professional” who lied about qualifications cannot, by any sane minded individual, be trusted.

As for Carlo Mattogno, he has never really been held in high regard as an historian. Mattogno, himself, states that he possesses all of the aerial and surface photographs of Auschwitz from 1944. Yet, he has given three very varied accounts of what one photo (that of an open air cremation pit) contains. How does one man change is mind so much? Or this this inability to stick to a story a prerequisite for denying the Holocaust?

Then we have Jürgen Graf. Graf is openly xenophobic. He, therefore, is definitely not unbiased and, therefore, cannot make a reliable historian.

Your statement about Irving’s works being translated into more languages than any other historian, made me chuckle. I am sure his works have been translated, but do you have any figures to support this claim? Or are you just blowing smoke?


So with all the gutter language and name calling, is it any wonder why revisionism is growing?
If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.

https://freespeechmonika.wordpress.com/ ... t-details/

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2521
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Holocaust Historians and Historical Truth

Postby borjastick » 9 months 1 week ago (Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:20 am)

Ask them what do they believe about the holocaust because we all accept that jews were persecuted, rounded up, deported and used as forced labour in the German camp system. No one denies that but we do deny that 6m were killed or died under any circumstances and they cannot prove the 6m claims. We know that many died in the camps, jews and non jews from typhus, other diseases and starvation. Ask him what he thinks those bodies pictured at Belsen, Buchenwald and other German camps died of. Ask if he denies that diseases caused many deaths in the camps. As for him claiming all deniers/revisionists are bigoted and anti-semitic then the same could be said of holocaust promoters like Lipstadt, they are clearly singing from the jewish victim hood and zionist position so how does that affect their judgement.

Notice he immediately called you a Nazi. The one thing pricks like this one never understand is that most and perhaps all revisionists are anything but Nazis and jew haters.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Holocaust Historians and Historical Truth

Postby Hektor » 9 months 1 week ago (Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:20 pm)

JLAD Prove Me Wrong wrote:So I got this reply in a YouTube comment debate on the holocaust.
Let’s take a look at his book on the Dresden bombings as proof that his methods are often flawed. In the book he estimated the number of deaths to be between 100,000 and 250,000 even though the city officials estimated the number to be 25,000. It turns out he based this figure on the word of one source, Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister.
....

His own method is flawed. One may ask:"Why does he have to resort to lies, so he can accused Revisionists of lying".
Prior to the "Historian's commission" (with obvious political bias) lowering the figures to something over 25.000, city officials indeed gave out the figure of 250.000 - 300.000. The figure got nothing to do with Goebbels and there were several other sources for this.
Image
The "Historian's Commission" made their statements a couple of years ago, long after Irving had written the book. So the whole argument citing them is actually an anachronistic fallacy. Leaving the partially questionable methods of the Historian's Commission aside and stick to empiricism, why was there still no 'Historian's Commission" investigating Auschwitz?'
I'd say that is something people in Germany could bring up quite legally. And it would become an embarrassment to the Holocaustian establishment.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Holocaust Historians and Historical Truth

Postby Lamprecht » 9 months 1 week ago (Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:21 pm)

"However, as what ever type of historian you call him, he is left lacking"

Cut the ad hominems Matt. What is really "lacking" is the evidence for the racist conspiracy theory known as "The Holocaust" of 6 million Jews.


Tell me why, after 7+ decades of study and research on "the most documented genocide in history" we have
- NO nazi document or recording ordering an extermination of Jews
- NO nazi document, recording, or diagram confirming the existence of homicidal gas chambers
- NO nazi document or recording suggesting Zyclon-B be used for criminal purpose
- NO significant ferrocyanide traces in the alleged "homicidal gas chambers" of Auschwitz... but massive traces in the delousing/disinfectant chambers from Zyclon-B fumigation
- NO name of even one Jewish prisoner, with proof, that was killed in a Nazi gas chamber
- Multiple FAILED attempts to excavate "huge mass graves" in allegedly exactly known locations
- Over half of the 20,000 testimonies at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial declared "unreliable" the archives director, Israeli historian and Auschwitz survivor Shmuel Krakowski
- Survivors of the concentration camps, including Jews, that denied mass killings and gassings
- Documented cases of Nazi "Confessions" extracted via threats, intimidation, and torture


There is not a shred of evidence for the goofy "Holocaust" narrative you are pushing, which is why you must impute "bigoted" motives to people you've never met. As for why Irving "changed his tune" maybe it had something to do with him getting physically assaulted and the imprisoned for questioning the racist conspiracy theory known as "The Holocaust"? Truth does not fear investigation; only liars demand censorship!



Matt Munroe:
The ad hominem hey? I mean, I am not exactly "attacking" his character, I am merely pointing out the cold hard facts of the matter. i.e. his qualifications.

Just because you can list a hole heap of negatives, doesn't mean that what you claim didn't happen, didn't happen.

The Nazi's, although very good at recording and keeping records, would have destroyed any documentary evidence of their crimes. To believe this wouldn't have been the case is pure nativity. Simply look at their attempted destruction of many of the camps. Taking, as an example, the most infamous of all camps. Auschwitz.

Why, if they had done nothing illegal, did the Nazi's evacuate 60, 000 of the raining inmates and force them to march hundreds of miles in the freezing conditions? Why would they try to hide those who had suffered the most from those they knew would judge them if they had done nothing wrong?

Then we have the order from Himmler himself, sent sometime in November of 1944, ordering the destruction of the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau? Why would they wish to destroy something that wasn't "illegal" and wasn't "homicidal gas chambers"?

We know that the order for the T4 euthanasia programme was signed by Hitler. But then, after much outcry from the public, the programme was cancelled. Hitler was embarrassed due to the paper trail leading to his crime. Hitler and the other high-ranking Nazi officials transmitted potentially controversial orders orally and, when the war was seemingly lost, they sought to destroy all physical documents related to the murder of the Jews. This means that even if there ever was one written order, it was likely destroyed. Thus, it does not follow, as many deniers claim, that just because a single piece of paper cannot be found then the program of extermination never happened.

There is actually documentary evidence to state that the, as you put it, "so called homicidal gas chambers" existed. A simple look at the plans of Auschwitz will show you the words "Gaskammer" which translates as "Gas Chamber".

There are plenty of names of Jews who died at Auschwitz, try a simple google of the Auschwitz death books. Just because said books do not state, in black and white, that each victim was gassed, does not mean it didn't happen. Why would a criminal keep a record of the crime he committed? This would, surely, count as damning evidence once said criminal was caught. The criminal, therefore, covers up his crime. He uses code words and euphemisms, idioms and lies to hide what he really did. Why would the Nazi's be any different?

"NO significant ferrocyanide traces in the alleged "homicidal gas chambers" of Auschwitz... but massive traces in the delousing/disinfectant chambers from Zyklon-B fumigation". Oh dear.
The amount of Zyklon-B needed to kill a common louse is considerably, considerably higher than that needed to kill a human. I should say, considerably higher than that needed to kill a healthy human. Not a human who has been deprived of the basic necessities of life (food, water, medical care, shelter and warmth) often for some time. The quantity needed there would be somewhat less than to kill you or I. Therefore, it does not take a great leap to understand that the ferrocyanide found in the delousing chambers would be at a greater concentration than that found in the gas chambers.

We have some of the best evidence for the Holocaust in the Einsatzgruppen reports. These, in case you missed them, detailed every single Jew killed by the Einsatzgruppen in Northern Europe during Operation Reinhardt. They also recorded the exact location of all these murders. Now, are you trying to argue that a regime that would kill, in the Ukraine alone, 90, 000 Jews at close range wouldn't stoop to gassing them?

You are shutting and screaming that there is "not a shred of evidence" but, like many before you, you are failing to think laterally. You, knowing that the Holocaust happened but wanting for unknown reasons to say that it did not, are searching for a document that says, in German "We, the Nazi's, killed 6 million Jews, Signed, Hitler, Himmler, Goring, Goebbels, Speer, Reinhardt and every serving SS officer". This, of course, does not exist and can never exist. So you state that the Holocaust didn't happen. Ergo, you can jump from 1 to 5 without considering that 2, 3 and 4 exist in-between.

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that Nazi testimony of the Holocaust is unreliable and should not be considered because their testimony was gained through the use of torture. Yet, in the same breath, you are stating that the valid reason for Irving changing his tune was because he was "physically assaulted and the imprisoned"? Are these not one and the same?

Why is Irving allowed to change his tune while the confessions from the Nazis are invalid? Why did the Holocaust not happen because the Nazi's (none of whom has ever denied it, by the way) were "forced" to confess? But Irving is allowed to change his tune for exactly the same reasons?




Response:
1 - That is literally a fallacious ad-hominem though. You're obsessing over a person's qualifications rather than his actual arguments. It's really not something I care to discuss, especially since I am not that person you are attacking.


2 - What I claim didn't happen (Nazis gassing Jews) simply did not happen. There is no logical reason to believe that it did. Your insistance that it did happen, when it most certainly did not, is quite telling


3 - You claim the Nazis would have destroyed any documentary evidence of their crimes, this is incorrect. First off, allegedly 1.1 million people were murdered at Auschwitz. If that was true, the quantity of burnt cremated remains (assuming every person was cremated) would be able to cover an entire American football field over 1 foot high in burnt remains. At Treblinka, allegedly 870,000 Jews were gassed, buried in precisely known locations, dug up, burned in open air pyres, and reburied in those exactly known locations. To date, three independent excavations of Treblinka have utterly failed to substantiate this 870,000 number.

4 - You cite the Nazis' attempted destruction of the camps. This is wrong. First, the Nazis left massive quantities of documents on the entire construction and operation of the so-called Auschwitz homicidal gas chambers. Further, at Auschwitz II Birkenau, you are simply wrong: they destroyed the crematorium and ovens, but not the rooms alleged to have been gas chambers. The Main Camp gas chamber rooms at Krema I and Block 11 were 100% intact on January 27,1945, the date Soviets occupied the Camp. The two allegedly most important gas chambers of the entire holocaust myth are Leichenkeller 1 of Krema II and Leichenkeller 1 of Krema III. Leichenkeller 1 of Krema II was/is almost entirely complete, with its floor and walls untouched. The roof consisting of two layers of waterproofing and a thick concrete slab roof have partially fallen into the room below. About 35% of the room is still easily accessible. Leichenkeller 1 of Krema III was also left in a highly "inspectable" state, but with its roof completely dropped.

5 - The Germans were not destroying evidence of gas chambers but were destroying evidence of crematoria. Why? The Majdanek Camp was captured complete, without any dismantling of its facilities, including the alleged homicidal gas chamber (complete with prussian-blue staining on the walls)


6 - You ask "if they had done nothing illegal" -- where did I claim that? Nazis rounded up hundreds of thousands of people and put them in concentration camps and used them as slave labor. And what do you mean by "illegal" -- how could something be "illegal" if Hitler, the Fuhrer himself, had ordered it?

7 - In regards to the evacuations: they were laborers. Also, in many cases, it was a choice. The famous Auschwitz survivor Elie Wiesel *chose* to retreat with the Nazis rather than be "liberated" by America's gallant Soviet ally. From page 78 of Wiesel's book "Night" - "The choice was in our hands. For once we could decide our fate for ourselves. We could both stay in the hospital, where I could, thanks to my doctor, get him [the father] entered as a patient or nurse. Or else we could follow the others. 'Well, what shall we do, father?' He was silent. 'Let's be evacuated with the others,' I told him."

8 - Show me this alleged order from Nov 1944 of Himmler ordering the destruction of gas chambers. Ignoring the facts pointed out in point #4 and #5 (nazis left some gas chambers intact)... As for why they would destroy something that is not criminal in nature, that is very simple. Basically any retreating army, as a rule, destroys facilities and infrastructure, so that the advancing army will not have the advantage to use them


9 - We indeed know about the euthanasia ("mercy killing") program, there is loads of documentary evidence for it but ZERO for the alleged extermination of Jews. We also know 33 states in the USA had mandatory sterilization laws. Basically, the euthanasia program is well-documented reality, authorized in writing and widely known to the public. In contrast, the alleged genocide of 6 million jews + 5mil others is not well documented. There is no order, most of the defendants at the Nuremberg trial said they knew nothing about it until after the war.

10 - You keep claiming they destroyed all documents. Not really though, there are loads of documents on the "Final Solution to the Jewish problem" yet they universally define it as mass resettlement/evacuation of Jews; I can post plenty of them if you wish. Also, even if they did destroy every incriminating document, that doesn't excuse the utter lack of physical evidence. I could just as easily claim that YOU, PERSONALLY murdered 100 people and then destroyed any "Documentary evidence" and how would you disprove it? "Show me the bodies" you would say. Well, show me millions of pounds of burnt remains alleged to be in precisely known locations. Chemical anaylsis of the Auschwitz gas chamber walls has shown that there is negligible ferrocyanide residue, but massive quantities of residue on the delousing chamber walls.

11 - It does not follow that because documents can be destroyed, we must assume one existed that ordered the extermination of Jews -- an allegation that flies in the face of all physical evidence.

12 - Indeed, there were documents detailing delousing chambers which were used to disinfect clothing. Zyclon-B was a pesticide used to kill lice, which brought the disease typhus. You have certainly seen the piles of bodies from the camps liberated by Western Allies. Over 90% of these photographs of piles of bodies are from Buchenwald and Bergen Belsen and Dachau and the victims died of a huge typhus outbreak. At Bergen Belsen, the allied bombing disrupted the water supply in March 1945 which led to massive levels of disease spread. The Germans voluntarily turned the camp over to the British to save the lives of the inmates. Read about it in the article: "Typhus Causes a Truce," Journal of the American Medical Association (May 19, 1945) p. 220


13 - Yes, there are in fact names of people who died at Auschwitz. Indeed, people died there, there are over 66,000 recorded deaths, none from homicidal gas chambers. Please name ONE (01) with proof that was murdered in gas chambers.


14 - Nazis cannot magically cause millions of pounds of burnt remains to disappear. Sorry, but I could use the same "logic" to prove that you killed 100 people: you would have destroyed all the evidence, because you're a criminal. Why would you be any different? The lack of physical evidence, which necessarily would be there, proves that the 1.1 million allegedly murdered at Auschwitz is a gross exaggeration

15 - Your claim that more Zyclon-B is needed to kill lice is fallacious -- It's based on a false comparison. Two different measurement standards are being used, with the pretense there is only one measurement standard. The measurement standard used for the HCN killing insects is the measurement for killing every single insect. In other words, if there are a thousand insects on a piece of cloth or room, the measurement is for killing every single one of those thousand insects. With the measurement for humans, on the other hand, what's used is the measurement that can kill a single human being. This measurement is extremely low, because a small percentage of humans have a very low tolerance. In other words, if there were a thousand people in a room, that concentration could kill one person out of those thousand.

16 - At Majdanek camp, there is prussian blue staining on the walls of the alleged homicidal gas chamber. Revisionists claim about 42,200 died at Majdanek, but exterminationists now claim it is about 78,000 -- mostly not from gassing. Why is there massive amounts of blue staining on the Majdanek gas chamber walls, and massive blue staining on the Auschwitz delousing chamber walls (even outside, exposed to weathering) but not any blue staining (or significant ferrocyanide traces when compared to random brick samples in the camp barracks) at the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, which are claimed to have been subjected to more HCN gassings?


17 - These "reports" yeah, the one where they travelled 1,100 km by road to kill 857 people? Of course there are no huge mass graves to substantiate such ridiculous claims. You actually can not kill 90,000 people and magically erase all evidence of this crime.


18 - I am not asking for a document, but rather an explanation as to why you cannot locate even 1% of the alleged massive (millions of pounds) of remains that are alleged to be in exactly known locations. There is actually no shred of evidence, as pointedo ut


19 - Any "confessions" extracted via torture are, of course, unreliable and not admissible in any legitimate court of law. I am not saying that Irving changing his tune because of being imprisoned and assaulted is "valid" - I am simply suggesting that as a reason. There is a big difference here. Irving is "allowed to change his tune" because he is an individual with free will. I am not saying that what he did was rational or acceptable, but it's not a criminal act to express a belief in something... well, except in some countries where it's illegal to question the holocaust.

20 - "Why did the Holocaust not happen because the Nazi's (none of whom has ever denied it, by the way)" - This is totally wrong on every account. Many nazis did, in fact, deny it. Reich Marshal Hermann Göring denied the extermination of Jews. Ernst Kaltenbrunner called orders for homicidal gassings "impossible". Chief of the Reich Chancellery Hans Lammers said "The program [of extermination] cannot have been set up." Julius Streicher said "To this day I do not believe that 5 million were killed. I consider it technically impossible that that could have happened. I do not believe it." Alfred Rosenberg said "My personal opinion is that such inhuman things ought not and could not have been ordered." S.S. Major-General Heinz Fanslau declared "This cannot be possible, because I, too, would have had to know something about it." SS Captain Alois Brunner, according to Austrian journalist Gerd Honsik, claims he said Nazis are "victims of a great Allied propaganda lie". Gustav Franz Wagner and Kurt BOlender denied gassing jews at Sobibor. Hans Aumeier, deputy commandant of Auschwitz, said "I know nothing about gas chambers, and no prisoner was gassed in my time." Generaloberst Paul Hausser at Nuremberg also repeatedly denied atrocities attributed to the Waffen-SS. Until his death in 1981, Albert Speer steadfastly insisted that he did not know of any extermination program or gassings during the war. Auschwitz Commandant Richard Baer steadfastly denied the existence of gas chambers until he died in 1963 "in a highly mysterious way". SS commander Erich Priebke denied the gassings of millions of Jews. Karl Wolff, Himmlers adjutant, denied knowledge of an extermination of Jews. SS-Obersturmführer Robert Mulka, who was adjutant to Rudolf Hoess, denied he even knew about the gassings. Karl Höcker, Mulka's successor as adjutant of the camp commandant, believed "that inmates in Auschwitz were basically not killed."

The smoking gun:
- Dr. Horst Pelckmann, defense counsel for the SS at Nuremberg, exposed the fact that over 97% of the SS men who mentioned "The Jewish Problem" denied that it was to be solved by extermination. On 21 August 1946 (IMT Proceedings, vol. 21, p. 368): "On the question of whether the SS members recognized the destruction of Jewry as an aim of the leaders, 1,593 out of 1,637 affidavits which mention this problem state that the Jewish problem was not to be solved by killing or the so-called "final solution," and that they had no knowledge of these intentions of the leaders. They point out that the SS members were forbidden to undertake individual acts against Jews. As evidence, numerous members refer to the fact that many death or other severe sentences were passed because of crimes against Jewish persons or Jewish property."

Also:
- On July 1945, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that: "A report from the place where major German war criminals are now confined discloses that all of them have denied that the Nazis had any plans to exterminate the Jews of Europe."
"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

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2521
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Holocaust Historians and Historical Truth

Postby borjastick » 9 months 1 week ago (Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:51 am)

Another zionist shill who positively wants 6m jews to have been killed with no chance of him dispassionately looking at the evidence in front of him. He is very like a lot of these holocaust promoters who will not allow common sense, logic and forensic evidence interfere with their rabid lunacy about a simple subject. They also twist and manipulate as much as they can, mainly for the benefit of those who don't know that much about it. Remember that many new entrants to the holocaust story arrive each month and they have to go through the same journey of reading and knowledge gain that we did. Thus he says, for example, that Auschwitz inmates were force marched through freezing conditions to keep them from telling the truth about gas chambers etc to the Russians. He conveniently avoids the truth on this point that they were not forced. The evidence of many jews who left and who remained at the camp verify that they were given the chance to remain or leave. Elie Wiesel stated just that.

The jews are the world's victims, born to be persecuted and forced into a life of suffering and this chap wants to continue that path.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Holocaust Historians and Historical Truth

Postby Hektor » 9 months 1 week ago (Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:25 am)

borjastick wrote:Another zionist shill who positively wants 6m jews to have been killed with no chance of him dispassionately looking at the evidence in front of him. He is very like a lot of these holocaust promoters who will not allow common sense, logic and forensic evidence interfere with their rabid lunacy about a simple subject. They also twist and manipulate as much as they can, mainly for the benefit of those who don't know that much about it. Remember that many new entrants to the holocaust story arrive each month and they have to go through the same journey of reading and knowledge gain that we did......


Unlike most Holocaust believers or pushers, he seems to be a bit more extensively informed than there are, plus some debating skills. Strong on the rhetorical side, weak on the logic, though. The ad hominem (against Germar Rudolf) was easy to spot, but he cleverly evades this by claiming that he's "only stating facts". Well he didn't. Germar Rudolf never pretended to have qualifications he actually didn't. What he did was making up fictional characters that had qualifications of some sort. But that's something completely different than adding qualifications to your curriculum vitae you haven't earned. It's obvious that they resort to this tactic, because they struggle to refute the arguments Germar Rudolf had made or what is even more important they are unable to come up with proving their case with has been challenged.

2 - What I claim didn't happen (Nazis gassing Jews) simply did not happen. There is no logical reason to believe that it did. Your insistence that it did happen, when it most certainly did not, is quite telling


That's the point, no proof for homicidal gassing having occurred as alleged.

And then there is the pesky thing that the gassing allegation emerged from the toxic kitchen of war time propaganda and psychological warfare. This fact is something they don't like to deal with at all. That's why it's never mentioned to the audiences targeted for being made believe in the Holocaust. The later only being exposed to snippets of information that are suitable to make one believe in the Holocaust narrative. Meanwhile this is relatively easy to find out, e.g.: Eugen Kogon's standard work https://archive.org/details/EugenKogonT ... ticeOfHell even mentions his affiliation with American psychological warfare (Whose job was to lie and to badmouth the enemy). Making up claims, selecting talking points and omitting inconvenient facts, That's what sleazy salesmen do to sell you something overpriced or below standard. Hence it's always good to ask more questions and test claims being made.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Holocaust Historians and Historical Truth

Postby Lamprecht » 9 months 1 week ago (Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:10 pm)

This debate isn't really going anywhere, the guy just copy-pastes a lot of stuff from wikipedia. Then when you ask for the alleged incriminating orders, he says "use google" -- and also changes what he says a lot of the time. And of course, he truly believes the nazis just magically obliterated millions of pounds of burnt remains in some systematic ash-disposal policy, a claim for which there is no evidence.

If anyone is interested...



I feel like I will have to go into great detail on every one of the 20 points you mentioned, so settle down, get comfy and I shall begin.

1 – A) it is not fallacious (i.e. based on a mistaken believe) to say that Irving has very few qualifications. And B) it is human nature to question a persons position in any argument.Many would argue that such a sensitive topic should be subject to even more questioning. I am not “obsessing”, I am merely responding to a previous post claiming, rather erroneously, that Irving is the “best” historian in the world.

2 – Why did it not happen? You have made a blanket statement there, one without justification (although your dislike of Jews would surely point to a reason behind your claim), or merit for that matter. Have you not read Mien Kampf? Have you not seen what the Nazis had to say about the Jews? They, to a man, hated everything about the Jews, everything Jewish and everything any Jew has ever stood for. The logical reason for the mass murder of Jews, therefore, is simply their hatred of Judaism.

3 – It is not a claim, it is accepted fact that that is what the Nazis would have done. They tried to destroy all physical evidence of their crimes, so why would they not have destroyed the documentary evidence as well? You simply saying things are “incorrect” makes no sense and does not make it the case.
As for the “burnt, cremated remains”, I am not sure if you have ever burnt anything or know what happens when you do burn something, either organic or inorganic matter. A small grained, easily disposed of, excellent fertiliser known as ash is created. Ash, compared to the item that was burnt, takes up considerably less space. A human adult, for example, will create roughly 1.4kg of ash. Now, considering the average adult weighs (in Europe) 70kg, that is a loss of 68.6kg. I am aware I am concentrating on weight here, but the weight of a human being can be directly proportional to their size and, therefore, the size of their remains. There is also a portion of the cremated being that is turned to gasses, namely (but not limited to) H2O, CO2, CO, NO2, SO2, HCI and HF. So, I put it to you that you are the one relying on fallacy to explain the removal of remains. The fact that you are not the first denier to fall into this trap shall not colour my opinion of you.

4 and 5 – Why is my citation of the “Nazis attempted destruction of the camps” wrong? With this statement you are all but ignoring the actual pgysical and documentary evidence. The order from Himmler himself is well known.

The Nazis were trying to destroy all evidence of the camps, whether the buildings were directly involved in the killing process or not.

Let’s cast our net wider that Auschwitz-Birkenau (as, what you seem to be forgetting is the Holocaust was not one single evident occurring in one, single place). When the Soviets entered Treblinka (16 August,1944) the extermination zone had been levelled, ploughed over, and planted with lupins (a flower that would have been at it’s peak at the time of the Soviet’s arrival and that like acidic soil (which surely would have been present in an extermination camp).

Shortly after the uprising at Sobibor (in October, 1943), Himmler himself ordered all traces of the camp to be destroyed and the area planted with trees. The Nazis did indeed carry out his orders. This can be seen by the fact that in 2014, after an 8-year investigation, traces of the Gas Chambers were finally discovered at the Sobibor site.

During the last days of operation at Belzec, all prior mass graves were unearthed by a mechanical digger, as the result of direct orders from the Nazi leadership. All corpses were secretly dug out from the graves and then gradually cremated on long open-air pyres, part of the plan known as the Sonderaktion 1005. Bone fragments were pulverized and mixed with the ashes to hide the evidence of mass murder. The site was planted with small firs and wild lupines and all camp structures were dismantled.

in March 1943 the Germans closed the Chełmno killing centre. The SS ordered complete demolition of the Schlosslager, along with the manor house, which was levelled. To hide the evidence of the SS-committed war crimes, from 1943 onward, the Germans ordered the exhumation of all remains and burning of bodies in open-air cremation pits by a unit of Sonderkommando 1005. The bones were crushed on cement with mallets and added to the ashes. These were transported every night in sacks made of blankets to the rivers Wartaa or ner, where they were dumped into the water from a bridge and from a flat-bottomed boat.

Going back to Auschwitz, Himmler ordered gassing operations to cease in November 1944. Crematorium IV b was dismantled, and the Sonderkommando were ordered to remove evidence of the killings, including the mass graves. The SS also destroyed written records, and in the final week before the camp's liberation, burned or demolished many of its buildings. The plundered goods from the "Canada" barracks at Birkenau, together with building supplies, were transported to the German interior. On 20 January, the overflowing warehouses were set ablaze. Crematoria II and III at Birkenau were blown up on 20 January and crematorium V six days later, just one day ahead of the Soviet attack.

6 – You didn’t, necessarily, make any claims of illegality. But, just because it was sanctioned by the Nazi high command (of which Hitler was a member, so he therefore had responsibility got the orders) doesn’t actually make it legal, especially in the international sense. Are you saying that the Soviet Gulags, the Armenian/Cambodian/Rwandan Genocides were all “legal” because they were ordered and carried out by the governments in power at the time?

7 – First of all, it was not a choice in any sense of the word. SS units forced nearly 60,000 prisoners to march west from the Auschwitz camp system. Thousands had been killed in the camps in the days before the death marches began. Tens of thousands of prisoners, mostly Jews, were forced to march either northwest for 55 kilometers (approximately 30 miles) to Gliwice (Gleiwitz), joined by prisoners from subcamps in East Upper Silesia, such as Bismarckhuette, Althammer, and Hindenburg, or due west for 63 kilometers (approximately 35 miles) to Wodzislaw (Loslau) in the western part of Upper Silesia, joined by inmates from the subcamps to the south of Auschwitz. Note the use of the word “forced”.

Secondly, you have taken the quote from Elie Wiesel completely out of context, a trick that abounds in your circles. What you have failed to mention is that the inmates of the hospital could choose to go on the march or to stay in the hospital where an uncertain fate awaited them. They didn’t know if the camp was to be mined, the hospital block destroyed or the patients simply shot out of hand. In this section of the book, Wiesel is talking about the hospital, not the entirety of the camp and sub-camps of Auschwitz Birkenau.

8 – So, because I am not in a position to physically hand you the evidence, it does not exist and the event it is evidence of could not have happened? There is a thing called Google that will provide you with the information you want. But your problem is you are happy denying the truth and will never be able to accept any information that proves otherwise. “Basically any retreating army, as a rule, destroys facilities and infrastructure, so that the advancing army will not have the advantage to use them”.. Very true. But those in charge of the camps were not part of the army. They were very separate from the Wehrmacht, they were the SS. Therefore, it was not the army who destroyed the concentration camps.

9 – I am not disputing the existence of the T4 euthanasia programme. To think I was and to spend so much effort trying to prove it happened is a gross oversight on your behalf. I am merely using it as an example. It was publicly cancelled due to the embarrassment and problems it caused the Nazi leadership. Therefore, they were not going to repeat their mistakes and put orders for the Holocaust in writing.

10 – Oh dear, “universally define it as mass resettlement/evacuation of Jews” yes, this is to hide the fact of what they were actually doing. There was also a plan, at one stage, to evacuate all the European Jews to Madagascar. This sounds nice and pleasant and all, but the reason for choosing Madagascar was the climate. The Nazis believed that the Jews would not have survived the climate, would have succumbed to tropical disease or would have starved from the lack or resources.


11 – I am not saying that “because documents can be destroyed, we must assume one existed that ordered the extermination of Jews” but to say “documents can be destroyed, so it follows that there can be no such document ordering the destruction of the Jews” is absurd in the least.

12 – I shall look at your claims about Zyklon-B in section 15. You have made more claims about it there and a better argument is always based around logic, without jumping from A to D and back to B.

Someone doesn’t understand Typhus as a disease, do they? Typhus is not a water born disease. Typhus is spread by parasites, not water. Using the excuse of allied bombing raids disrupting water supplies which caused a typhus epidemic just doesn’t work. It’s like saying that you had a power cut at home so you couldn’t use your key to lock your front door. Of course you could, your front door key and electricity supply are in no way connected. Neither is water supply and a typhus outbreak. Also, typhus results in a spotty rash on the chest and midsection of anyone suffering from it, have you seen any rashes on any of the dead bodies? I am not saying there was not typhus at Bergen Belsen, but I am saying that it was not the massive cause of death that you are assuming.

13 – Please visit http://auschwitz.org/en/museum/auschwitz-prisoners/ for a list of prisoners held at Auschwitz.

14 – Refer to point 3, let’s cover one thing at a time.

15 and 16 - Whatever you claim about the measurement standard, it remains a fact that HCN is much more effective on warm-blooded animals, including humans, than it is on insects. The exposure period (to HCN) is much greater in delousing operations than in homicidal gassings. This means that a much lower concentration is necessary to kill people than to kill lice. In delousing, concentrations (that is to say the actual strength of the Zyklon-B) of up to 16,000 ppm (parts per million) are used, and exposure time can be up to 72 hours; while 300 ppm will kill people in roughly fifteen minutes.
Therefore, the HCN in the extermination chambers hardly had time to form compounds on the walls. While some claim that the gas would need a lot of time to kill, because it would have to spread all over the chamber, it simply is not true; the gas chambers were not that large (those in Krematoria II and III were about 210 square meters), and the Zyklon-B was dropped from four openings). Since the concentration used was higher than the lethal one, death was very swift. 
Furthermore, the delousing chambers are intact while the extermination chambers were blown up). Therefore, their walls have been exposed to the elements for the last 50 years. The ruins of the gas chamber of Krema II are covered with about 3 feet of water during certain periods of the year; HCN compounds easily dissolve in these surroundings. Nonetheless, so much gassing took place that some of the compound remained. 
So, to summarize this little section, the walls of the extermination gas chambers were in contact with HCN for a much shorter time then those of the delousing chambers, and for the last 45 years were exposed to surroundings which dissolve the compounds, while the delousing rooms were not. Therefore it is obvious that less traces of compounds would remain in them. 

17 – I assume, here, that you are talking about the Einzatgrupen reports? These are actual reports from the Nazis themselves, all but one are still in existence that confirm the deaths of nearly a million Jews. That is not something that can be argued against, it is simple a solid, irrefutable fact.

18 – You are looking for “an explanation as to why you cannot locate even 1% of the alleged massive (millions of pounds) of remains”. Ash decomposes in water, soil and (eventually) the air. It’s fairly simple. Burn a log, bury the ashes and come back to it 70 years later, you won’t find the ashes.

19 – If Irving is allowed to change his tune because “he is an individual with free will” then why even mention his imprisonment? There is a reason he changed his tune, and I suspect that he discovered some indisputable evidence to help him. He himself has not, that I am aware, disclosed what made him change his tune. Also, were the Nazis not “individuals with free will”, might they have chosen to tell the truth?

20 – First of all, Goering attempted to deny the Holocaust and his actions but, In his cross-examination he admitted to association with the Nazi’s anti-Semitic side. He claimed to be a moderating force that restrained many events during the regime (if he was the moderating force he claimed to be, this still meant he knew what was happening). However, this could not have been true as he was responsible for many of the decrees such as taking Jewish-owned businesses and property, declaring the Nuremberg laws, charging a fine to the Jewish population for damage, and trying to eliminate Jews completely from the German economy. Goering’s harsh behavior after the Kristallnacht riots in November of 1938 and the charging of the Jews for the damage to boost the German economy, showed his definite involvement in the anti-Semitic actions of the Nazi regime.

The quotes you have chosen, although admirable in intent, don’t actually help your case. They are saying that “orders were impossible”, “it cannot have been set up”, “I don’t believe it”, “my opinion is that [it] should not and ought not to have happened”, “cannot be possible”

There are some key words in your choice of quotes that are very, very informative and seem to have been missed by you. These are, Kaltenbrunner calling the “orders impossible” just because and order for something was seen as impossible by one man, it doesn’t mean the event did not take place. Lammers saying that killing Jews “cannot” have happened, also doesn’t mean it did not happen. Streicher didn’t “believe” it. Again, a lack of believe does not count as it never happening. Not one of these quotes actually state that the Nazis did not kill Jews. They didn’t say that it didn’t happen. And of those you claim did deny it, you have failed to provide any proof of this denial.

You are failing to realise that only 1, 593 members of the SS (which, in 1944 had a total strength of 800, 000). If your maths is up to scratch, you will see that this means 0.199125% of SS members denied “destruction of Jewry as an aim of the leaders”. Less than 2% of the SS denied that the aim of their leaders was to kill the Jews. This isn’t denial that it happened (i.e. of the Holocaust), it is simple denial that it was an aim. So, your smoking gun turns out to be more of a wet fish.



Response:

1 - of course it is not fallacious to point out a person's qualifications. It only becomes fallacious when you say "therefore, they are correct/wrong" as a result of them. It's a pointless debate, as I said, I don't care to debate the qualifications of someone else.

2 - I do not dislike Jews, I have no idea where you got that idea. I pointed out many reasons above. The most obvious is the total lack of physical evidence (ferrocyanide residue) and lack of documentation. The *only* so-called "evidence" you have is a handful of cherry picked testimonies and some [likely] torture-induced "confessions" which contradict many other nazis who denied it. Fact is, we have "testimony" of people being gassed at Buchenwald, Dachau, and Bergen-Belsen but yet historians universally agree today that those testimonies were simply wrong. Further, the buildings alleged to have been used to gas jews would have been utterly terrible at the stated purpose. The nazis weren't that stupid, they also wouldn't have made it so difficult on themselves. They would have created a highly effective murder weapon to systematically eliminate millions of people. The buildings that are claimed to have been used for that purpose simply were inefficient. Even zyclon-B was a bad choice, and it was in short supply because they used it for delousing. Yes, Nazis hated Jews, but there is no reason to think "Final solution" meant killing them. In all the documents it means forced resettlement. You hate Naizs... therefore, the logical reason for your belief in the "Holocaust" story as alleged, despite 0 evidence for it, is your hatred of "Nazis".

3 - It is not "accepted fact" it is illegal to question in many places, hence why Irving was imprisoned. Also, in much of the world, the majority of people don't believe your supposed "accepted fact" -- see the Islamic world. You're literally pushing tinfoil-hat conspiracy nonsense. "They murdered 6 million Jews and destroyed all evidence" it's fucking insane, and the total and complete lack of physical evidence, which can not be destroyed, is quite telling. Every single document on the "Final Solution" defines it as resettlement/forced deportations... NOT genocide. How do you explain that *every single document* that mentions the "Final Solution [to the Jewish problem]" defines it as resettlement/deportations?


4 & 5 - You keep obsessing over alleged "proven facts" when I pointed out that at Auschwitz (just one example) many of the so-called "Homicidal gas chambers" were not destroyed. I also pointed out the same fact at Majdanek, the whole camp was basically intact. So this totally refutes your ridiculous point, by showing it is not true. Treblinka was not an "Extermination camp" it was a transit camp, that is why 3 independent excavations of the camp have utterly failed to substantiate the 870,000 number.

Sobibor - Calling an innocuous building a "gas chamber" does not prove that nazis gassed jews. I notice you fail to mention the excavation of Sobibor... Because it totally refutes the claim that 200-250,000 people were murdered there.

You claimed: "During the last days of operation at Belzec, all prior mass graves were unearthed by a mechanical digger, as the result of direct orders from the Nazi leadership"

Please, prove it. Give me one reason to believe this.

"All corpses were secretly dug out from the graves and then gradually cremated on long open-air pyres, part of the plan known as the Sonderaktion 1005. Bone fragments were pulverized and mixed with the ashes to hide the evidence of mass murder."

There is absolutely no proof for this. This would create enormous piles of mass graves. One body, if cremated in an oven, results in 4-7 pounds of burnt remains. If cremated in open-air pyres (a baseless claim the air photo reconnaissance photos totally refute) they would have even more remains. We are talking: millions of pounds of remains, millions of teeth. Even if they were mixed with *soil* you could not simply "hide the evidence" to the point where it would be totally inexcavatable. There would necessarily be enormous quantities in the ground. This is just a huge conspiracy: The nazis murdered millions of people and then magically eradicated all evidence of this enormous crime with a layer of soil. It's absolutely absurd!

Chelmno - Once again this "order" does not exist. Further, you're just making excuses for why the enormous quantities of evidence which would be there cannot be found... by magic! Third: bone ash is totally insoluble in water, so even if you did pour millions of pounds of bone ash in rivers, they would still be there. This sort of nonsense wouldn't fly in a court of law.

"Auschwitz, Himmler ordered gassing operations to cease in November 1944"
Show me the alleged order. You're just pulling this out your ass, clearly. Or rather, copy-pastng from wikipedia (for which there are paid Zionist groups to edit it, with a clear ideological motive based on hatred)

"burned or demolished many of its buildings"
Yet, as I pointed out, basically left the two main alleged homicidal gas chambers... OOPS!

[Some of] the crematoria were destroyed, but not all of them. And crematoria do not imply mass murder, especiall those crematoria which were not designed very effectively for that purpose. Your entire "they tried to destroy all evidence" claim is utterly refuted by the near perfect preservation of Leichenkeller 1 of Krema II and Leichenkeller 1 of Krema III.

6 - This is a meaningless point. "Legal" means to be permitted by law. It makes no claim to morality or even justifies actions.

7 - There is no misquote at all. I said in "many cases" it was a choice. Elie Wiesel and his father chose, by their own volition, to evacuate with the Nazis. Primo Levi, himself, decided to stay. Friedrich Paul Berg, jewish survivor, claimed:
"The fact that hundreds of thousands of Jews preferred the company of Nazis to Soviet "liberation" is indeed supported by "survivor's" accounts including the Schindler List story. One interesting supporting story is that of the famous Primo Levi who achieved world notoriety for his classic "Survival in Auschwitz."
In the Collier Books version paperback version page 140 he explains why he CHOSE to stay in Auschwitz rather than go west with supposedly the greatest murderers of Jews in the history of the universe. "It was not a question of reasoning: I would probably also have followed the instinct of the flock if I had not felt so weak; fear is supremely contagious, and its immediate reaction is to make one try to run away." The "fear" in this case is clearly fear of the Russians."

Explain why an "extermination camp" let these sick people stay, to tell the Soviets about all the gas chambers, rather than simply killing them? The story refutes itself. There are photos of the Auschwitz liberation where the prisoners don't look sick at all, and some rather corpulent. Otto Frank also was not killed, but stayed until the liberation. It makes no sense that they would have let these people live to incriminate them, if it was true that "Thousands had been killed in the camps in the days before the death marches began"

8 - There is no order by Himmler to destroy the alleged gas chambers. I would be happy to see it, if you could post it. Give me the document citation. Give me ANY REASON TO BELIEVE IT. Sorry, but you can't make a ridiculous and incriminating claim and then just say "use google" when all the documents that exist can be referenced. Why do you resort to such dishonest methods?

9 - This is a stretch of the imagination. Obviously the euthanasia program existed. Obviously there was no extermination of jews. The "Final solution" *WAS PUT IN WRITING* in many instances. They all, unanimously, agree that it was a policy of resettlement/evacuation. The total lack of physical evidence is damning.

10 - This is totally ridiculous and laughable. They chose Madagascar because they thought the jews would die there? Utterly ridiculous. Today, Madagascar has a population of over 25 million. Compared to Israel which is just under 9 million. They wanted TOTAL GEOGRAPHICAL SEPARATION. You'll believe anything that makes nazis seem like the devil, won't you?




11 - There was no document or order for it. There was no policy either. I have asked you to provide documents you claim existed, yet you failed to... doubtless becuase they don't exist. There are many documents on the "Final Solution" but your racist, tinfoil hat conspiracy simply states that "evacuation" or "resettlement" was a "code-word" for extermination... simply laughable. This is even confirmed by diary entries. Is that a big nazi conspiracy too? What a joke

12 - You make no sense. Lack of water also contributes to lack of bathing opportuntiies, dehydration, etc... all of which contribute to the spread of the disease. No doctor will argue otherwise. This is not even up to debate, you did not read the article I cited from the JAMA? The nazis negotiated a truce with the British because of typhus, from the article (published in a 1945 American medical journal):
"By negotiations between British and German officers, British troops took over from the SS and the Wehrmacht the task of guarding the vast concentration camp at Belsen, a few miles northwest of Celle, which contains 60,000 prisoners, many of them political. This has been done because typhus is rampant in the camp and it is vital that no prisoners be released until the infection is checked. The advancing British agreed to refrain from bombing or shelling the area of the camp, and the Germans agreed to leave behind an armed guard which would be allowed to return to their own lines a week after the British arrival.
The story of the negotiations is curious. Two German officers presented themselves before the British outposts and explained that there were 9,000 sick in the camp and that all sanitation had failed. They proposed that the British should occupy the camp at once, as the responsibility was international in the interests of health."

Note -- there were absolutely testimonies that nazis gassed jews at Bergen Belsen. I can provide some if you wish. However, you will find in any source that 100% of historians agree that this was not the case. On 1 October 1948, Commander Anton Muller and his second-in-command, Emil Lachout, sent a memo from Vienna stating:
"The Allied Commissions of Inquiry have so far established that no people were killed by poison gas in the following concentration camps: Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Flossenburg, Gross-Rosen, Mauthausen and its satellite camps, Natzweiler, Neuengamme, Niederhagen (Wewelsburg), Ravensbruck, Sachsenhausen, Stutthof, Theresienstadt.
In those cases, it has been possible to prove that confessions had been extracted by torture, and that testimonies were false."


13 - Thanks for the link. I will repeat what I said, because it remains true despite your link: "[At Auschwitz] there are over 66,000 recorded deaths, none from homicidal gas chambers. Please name ONE (01) with proof that was murdered in gas chambers."


15 & 16 - It is not "whatever I claim" this is basic logic. Your measurements were nonsense. Also, your logic is backwards. You're saying the exposure period is much greater, so it needs less. The "exposure period" is the amount of time needed to gas, which is something that would be the limiting factor: if they could do it faster, they would. Zyclon-B pellets are gypsum-based HCN pellets, they need to be exposed to heat and they slowly outgas. Anyone claiming, for example, that they were gassed via dummy showerheads through pipes, is obviously lying.
That 300 ppm number is not substantiated, it is simply from a study in 1912 on rabbits. From the study: "As yet we have not conducted experiments on cats and dogs. I can make no quantitative statements about men."
Also, it is simply absurd to use the measurement of the quantity of cyanide needed to kill 1 person (which isn't even accurate) to kill thousands of people at a time. You're just copy-pasting already debunked propaganda that repeats the same mistake you already made. Like I said, it would take many hours for Zyclon-B to outgas, it's a gypsum composite.

See: http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/Image19k.gif
Evaporation rate of hydrogen cyanide from the Ercco carrier material (gypsum with some starch) at various temperatures and fine distribution, according to R. Irmscher/DEGESCH 1942.


Also, the evaporation is "seriously delayed" at high atmospheric humidity, because the evaporating hydrogen cyanide withdraws considerable quantities of energy from the liquid HCN, the carrier material, and the ambient air. Such a case would absolutely happen in "homicidal gas chamber" full of naked, sweating bodies respirating constantly. Further, the increase humidity would also result in a higher likelihood of prussian blue staining on the walls.

The goofy conspiracy theory debunks itself

17 - Sure, it can be argued against, easily. I already addressed them in another post. It is another Soviet forgery, for which they were absolutely notorious:

"Your link is utterly laughable, that "artifact" from the Jaeger report (a Soviet forgery) is quite a hoot.

- The map doesn't even show the borders that were used by the Germans at the time period. See: http://bka-roa.chat.ru/generalbezirk1.jpg also https://heiminsreich.files.wordpress.co ... _reich.jpg
- The communist Soviets 'found' the 'Jaeger Report' fifteen years after the alleged event.
- Anyone with a typewriter and German stamp, which were certainly in abundance after the war, could and did manufacture this absurd " document". The images are nothing more than a photograph of a bogus document typed by anyone to mean whatever they wanted, it would be laughed out of court. The coffins are a nice touch, LOL!
- Jaeger's group allegedly killed 133,346 people, where are the claimed mass graves of human remains to see? To verify? They simply do not exist
- Jaeger conveniently "committed suicide" in his cell before he even went to trial

According to the 'Jaeger report':
- 32 persons were shot at Mariampole on 7 July, and another 19 the next day. On the same day, they shot 6 persons at Girkalnis, which is located approximately 130 km north of Mariampole (distances by road).
- On 8 July, they shifted position to Vandziogala, which is approximately 40 km southeast of Girkalinei, to kill 38 persons. On the same day, they also appeared at Fort VII, Kaunas (approximately 30 km south of Vandziogala), where they shot 24 persons.
- On the 14th, they traveled to Mariampole (approximately 60 km southeast of Kaunas), where they killed 31 people, then, on the 17th, they appeared at Babtei (Babtai, approximately 80 km northeast of Mariampole), where they killed 8 persons, before returning to Mariampole on the 18th to shoot another 53 people.
- On 19 July, the Hamman squad traveled to Kaunas (approximately 60 km northeast Mariampole) and killed 26 people at Fort VII; two days later, they moved to Panevezys (approximately 105 km north-northeast of Kaunas), where they shot 103 persons.
- The next day, in this same locality, they killed one Jew, and on the 23rd they appeared at Kedainiai (approximately 65 km southeast of Panevezys), where they claimed 125 victims.
- On the 25th, they returned to Mariampole (approximately 105 km southeast of Kedainiai), where they killed 103 people, then, on the 28th, they again traveled to Panevezys (approximately 150 km north-northeast of Mariampole), where they shot 288 people.

At this point the raiding squad started playing a sort of ring-around-the-rosie by covering the route Panevezys-Raseiniai-Utena-Ukmerge-Kaunas twice. By this time, they had traveled almost 1,100 km by road to kill 857 people!"

18 - You're totally mistaken here. Humans don't magically turn into "ash" actually, that's wrong. "Ash" is a powdery residue left after a combustible substance is subjected to intense heat. There is coal ash, wood ash, flue ash, and many others. Cremated remains are mostly what is known as "Bone ash" (primarily calcium and phosphorus) and, as I will explain, will not simply disappear if dumped into water. From a study "Simple Method for Preparing Bone-Free Ash from Fishery Products Analyzed for Mineral Content":
"By trial and error, it was found that by adding water to the ash, the ash went into solution but not the “ashed bones”. Preliminary experiments wherein a few pieces of bone were added to the samples prior to ashing showed that the added pieces remained essentially intact and that a simple water wash dissolved all but the bone ash."

Pure tricalcium phosphate powder is also known as "synthetic bone ash". It is described as "Practically insoluble in water" on pubchem: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compou ... creen=true

Fact is, these enormous piles of remains (millions of pounds) would still be there. Cremated remains have been excavated hundreds of years after the fact. Burning a log does not produce "bone ash" which is actually just really dehydrated bones turned into powder. This stuff lasts for a very long time, that's why we have found bones from thosuands of years ago.

Your goofy conspiracy theory hinges on the belief that millions of pounds of [water-insoluble] burnt remains could magically disappear. They can't.


19 - What is the point? Irving can say and do whatever he wants, that doesn't make him correct. He likewise has the free will to lie, or be wrong/mistaken about things. If someone believes one thing, then gets viciously assaulted and imprisoned, and then comes out with a "change of mind" you can strongly suspect that it had something to do with it. I am not really interested in defending Irving, maybe James will do that with you? As I pointed out, many nazis did, in fact, deny the "Holocaust" as alleged. To be fair, many were tortured or coerced in other ways. Commandant Hoess is a great example of this. Also, Pennsylvania judge Edward L. Van Roden wrote:
"This solitary confinement proved sufficient in itself in some cases to persuade the Germans to sign prepared statements. These statements not only involved the signer, but often would involve other defendants.
Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused’s head and then punch him in the face with rubber hose. Many of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken.
All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was Standard Operating Procedure with American investigators."


20 - Nobody denies that nazis were anti-semitic and generally hated Jews. This isn't really debated. They formulated the "Final Solution" to evacuate/resettle all jews from the German living spaces. So Goering saying that "yes, we hate jews" isn't damning at all. If he claimed to be a "moderating force" it seems like he was just trying to save his own ass. Regardless, I refuted your claim that "none of whom has ever denied it" ad nauseum.

"taking Jewish-owned businesses and property, declaring the Nuremberg laws, charging a fine to the Jewish population for damage, and trying to eliminate Jews completely from the German economy"

None of which are tantamount to genocide. Nobody said that Jews did not suffer.

"showed his definite involvement in the anti-Semitic actions of the Nazi regime."

Which, once again, nobody denies at all. It's not genocide to hate jews, you have to actually kill them.

"The quotes you have chosen, although admirable in intent, don’t actually help your case"
They do, but first you must turn your brain on. The Nuremberg trials WERE NOT held to prove whether or not there was an extermination program. So-called "judicial notice" was taken on that. Article 19 stipulated:
"The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value."
And article 21: "The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United [Allied] Nations, including acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United [Allied] Nations."

Therefore, when someone says "I literally just heard about it now" it is quite telling.

Your "points" are ridiculous. These individuals were not trying to absolve the entire Nazi party of responsibility, but save their own asses. You said: "Not one of these quotes actually state that the Nazis did not kill Jews"
Nobody said nazis didn't kill Jews. Many jews were killed, executed... usually for a reason. It simply was not a genocide, there was no systematic extermination policy. The "Final Solution" as proven by all documents was resettlement/evacuation.
You're changing the goal posts. You're pretending that I am claiming that their denial of knowledge is an attempt to prove "the holocaust" (a conspiracy, and collection of assertions... not a singular event) didn't take place.

You said: "Lammers saying that killing Jews “cannot” have happened, also doesn’t mean it did not happen"
The point was to refute your ridiculous assertion that no nazi denied it, which I absolutely did.

"Not one of these quotes actually state that the Nazis did not kill Jews"
Because jews were executed. Alfred Rosenberg reiterates this point:
"I would assume that in such a gigantic struggle there would be many victims but I still don't believe this part where you allege to prove that deliberate mass extermination was practiced in this manner. I did, of course, know that in connection with our struggle there were many executions. I did not know anything about mass extermination to the extent and in the manner as you say."

"They didn’t say that it didn’t happen"
Actually, some of them did.

"you have failed to provide any proof of this denial"
These are virtually all from the nuremberg transcript. The "Smoking gun" really:

- Dr. Horst Pelckmann, defense counsel for the SS at Nuremberg, exposed the fact that over 97% of the SS men who mentioned "The Jewish Problem" denied that it was to be solved by extermination. On 21 August 1946 (IMT Proceedings, vol. 21, p. 368):
"On the question of whether the SS members recognized the destruction of Jewry as an aim of the leaders, 1,593 out of 1,637 affidavits which mention this problem state that the Jewish problem was not to be solved by killing or the so-called "final solution," and that they had no knowledge of these intentions of the leaders. They point out that the SS members were forbidden to undertake individual acts against Jews. As evidence, numerous members refer to the fact that many death or other severe sentences were passed because of crimes against Jewish persons or Jewish property."
SOURCE: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-21-46.asp


NOTE: Your point about there being 800,000 SS people is obviously grasping at straws. Not all of them were interviewed or put on trial.

"This isn’t denial that it happened (i.e. of the Holocaust), it is simple denial that it was an aim."
It is total denial of the "Holocaust" as alleged, which is the extermination of jews. If someone says "There was no nazi policy to exterminate Jews" then that is denying the Holocaust. If you say "The jewish problem was not to be solved by killing" that is "denying the holocaust" -- you're pathetically grasping at straws, it's quite sad.
I reiterate: To say that the nazis did not plan to exterminate all jews IS a denial. The "Holocaust" is the aim. Nobody denies the camps. Nobody denies the piles of bodies. Nobody denies that the nazis hated jews... You're being dishonest here, clearly.



- On July 1945, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that: "A report from the place where major German war criminals are now confined discloses that all of them have denied that the Nazis had any plans to exterminate the Jews of Europe." https://archive.is/NJgOn
"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

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2521
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Holocaust Historians and Historical Truth

Postby borjastick » 9 months 1 week ago (Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:58 am)

Lamprecht, the style of writing and dismissive position taken by your friend in that friendly discussion is very reminiscent of Dr Nick Terry of University of Exeter England or Johnny Mathis.
https://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/history/staff/terry/

You should be commended for your attention to detail and stamina when taking on this bloke. Of course you'll never change the mind of someone like this bloke because they are of a different mental approach. They don't listen, won't listen. But that's not the point. The point is that when you engage on their platform you stand a very good chance of illuminating people who perhaps might be believers but haven't cemented their ideas and beliefs yet. They might just be open to your revisionist position, and because it is irrefutable in terms of logic and process they might just buy it. They might not buy it for some time but the seed of rational thought is sown.

It's also worth considering a few key questions when starting to debate with a possible hard line believer. Just as a good car salesman knows not to waste his time on a tyre kicker by asking 'what car are you thinking of buying today?', it's always worth starting off a holocaust discussion with a question like 'do you believe six million jews perished in the holocaust?' or something similar. It'll separate the wheat from the chaff and save you a whole load of aggressive crap from some of these imbeciles.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Holocaust Historians and Historical Truth

Postby Hektor » 9 months 1 week ago (Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:53 am)

Lamprecht wrote:This debate isn't really going anywhere, the guy just copy-pastes a lot of stuff from wikipedia. Then when you ask for the alleged incriminating orders, he says "use google" -- and also changes what he says a lot of the time. And of course, he truly believes the nazis just magically obliterated millions of pounds of burnt remains in some systematic ash-disposal policy, a claim for which there is no evidence.
If anyone is interested...
....


He is trying to use several tactics:
- Use smear attacks against known Holocaust Revisionists.
- Open new cans of worms to make the debate unintelligible for observers.
- Use persuasive fallacies. They stick good with a broad audience, but are nevertheless fallacies.

You'll find that it's difficult to impossible to get them stick to certain details within the debate, e.g. a Hitler order, forensic investigations of a specific facility alleged to be a homicidal gas chamber. They won't allow the other side to pin them down on a single issue and then settle that point conclusively.

Meanwhile even orthodox historians have already admitted that there isn't a Hitler order and that there is actually chemical proof that the Auschwitz crematoria had homicidal gas chambers in them. The debate is about why this evidence is absent.

Looking at the text and also the volume he's producing, this isn't just some history boffin that likes to debate. This individual is far more vested in the issue for reasons I can't know. I'd guess he's some leftist, Jew or pro-Jewish college kid.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lamprecht, MSN [Bot] and 4 guests