Hilarious "21 Questions for Holocaust Revisionists" graphic

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
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2021
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Hilarious "21 Questions for Holocaust Revisionists" graphic

Postby Lamprecht » 9 months 2 weeks ago (Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:09 pm)

This silly graphic was posted by a "Holocaust" believer on another website. It seems to have been spread around. Mostly it is just used as a gish gallop with a bunch of irrelevant questions. But we should remember: Someone worked really hard and put a lot of effort into this :lol:

Image

For convenience, I uploaded the image to an OCR program and here is the text it produced (there may be errors, so refer to the graphic if a word doesn't make sense or link doesn't work):
21 QUESTIONS
FOR HOLOCAUST REVISIONISTS

1) What was the purpose of the 4 Einsatzgruppen units (each consisting of 500 1000 members of the SS and Gestapo) during Operation Barbarossa [1]? How were these units different than the Wehrmacht's Security Divisions (Sicherungs-Divisionen) and Guard Units (Landesschützen)?

2) Why did every defendant in the Nuremberg Trials and most of the defendants at the subsequent 11 Nazi war crime trials almost exclusively use the defense that they were just following orders ("Befehl ist Befehl")? Why didn't they deny the crimes they were accused of? Especially something as egregious as the mass murder of millions of people and facing the death penalty you would expect someone to say that the charges are completely false and try to set the record straight.

3) Why have so few Nazis (if any) involved in the holocaust recanted their testimony or signed confessions regarded the events they witnessed/participated in? Why hasn't there been an instance of this in the 70 years since the war ended?

4) Why did a supposedly scholarly organization like The Institute for Historical Review have the same mailing address as both the weekly anti-Semitic newspaper The Spotlight, and the anti-Semitic book publisher Noontide Press?

5) Why would Jews inflate the number of holocaust victims when reparations paid by West Germany after the war were based on the number of survivors and not the number killed? [2]

6) What did SS and Nazi officials in internal memos mean by the word "Special Treatment"(Sonderbehandlung) regarding Jews in their custody? [3]

7) upon liberation of Auschwitz, it was discovered that the Nazis had bagged and stored 2000 kilograms of shorn human hair in the camp. How did the Nazis get all this hair, and why did an overwhelming number of samples contain traces of hydrogen cyanide? [4]

8} A report was sent to SS-Obersturmbannführer Walter Rauff on June 5, 1942 which said that "ninety- seven thousand have been processed, using three vans, without any defects showing up in the vehicles"and that "Experience shows, however, that when the back door is closed and it gets dark inside, the load pushes hard against the door." What was the load of 97,000? What did they mean by "have been processed"? Why would the load push hard against the door? [5]

9) How could the prisoners at the Bergen-Belsen be starving to death when 3 km away the food stores for the camp contained "600 tons of potatoes, 120 tons of tinned meat, 30 tons of sugar, upwards of 20 tons of powdered milk; cocoa, grain, wheat and other foodstuffs. "[6] Why was this food withheld from the starving prisoners?

10) Why would the Nazis need to have the capacity to burn more than 80,000 corpses per month at Auschwitz as detailed in a memo written to Heinrich Himmler in September 1942? [7] This memo was written by Kurt Prüfer, senior engineer of Topf and Sons (the company which manufactured the cremation ovens that were currently installed in Crematoria II in Auschwitz) in which a Lt. Krone ( who worked in the Works and Buildings Section of the Economics and Administration Department (Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungshauptamt)) had told Prüfer that the current 80,000 per month crematoria capacity "is not yet sufficient" and "we should deliver more ovens as quickly as possible". Why where so many bodies needing to be burned?

11) If the Jews were evacuated "to the East" rather than being exterminated in Poland, what happened to them? Why have so many family members of those "evacuated" never heard from their loved ones again? Wouldn't they try to make some contact in the past 70+ years?

12) Why were warning posters [8] posted outside of the ghetto In Czestochowa, Poland (as well as outside the Warsaw ghetto(S)) that threatened the death penalty with anyone who, 1) Provided shelter to escaped Jews, 2) Supplied Jews with food, or 3) Sold food to Jews ? Why wouldn't they want Jews to receive outside food ?

13) Why were 3 airtight doors (with peep holes) ordered for Krematorium IV and Krematorium V [10] in Auschwitz for rooms named "gassing basements" (Vergasungskeller) in the construction blue prints? [11]

14) Of the approximately deportees sent to Auschwitz, only 400,000 were actually admitted into the camp [12]. What happened to the 900,000 who were not admitted to the camp? Were they sent home?

15) Was SS-Obersturmführer Or. Walter Mattner lying to his wife when he wrote her this letter [13] on October 5th, 1941? The letter he described his actions at Mogilyov, Belarus in which he wrote "I must tell you something else. I took part in a mass killing the day before yesterday....the first truck my hand trembled somewhat during the shooting, but one gets used to it. By the tenth truck I was already aiming steadily and shooting accurately at the many women, children, and babies."

16) How plausible is it the allied governments trained and deployed thousands of staff to axis controlled territory during the last year of the war to create and plant thousands of false documents, faked photographs, forged diary entries in the correct places so that they would be discovered by liberating allied personnel without their scheme being discovered and exposed over the past 70+ years?

17) Was it not Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler who said in a Posen on October 4, 1943, "I want to also mention a very difficult subject ... before you, with complete candor. It should be discussed amongst us, yet nevertheless, we will never speak about it in public...... I am talking about the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. "[14] Is this not his voice? [15]

18) Was Hitler speaking in jest when he said in a speech in front of the Reichstag on January 30, 1939 .that if a world war broke out " the result will be not the Bolshevization of earth, and thus a Jewish victory, but the annihilation (Vernichtung of the Jewish race in Europe." [161 and exactly 3 years later when he said in a speech: the war will not end as the Jews imagine it will, namely, with the uprooting of the Aryans, but the result of this war will be the complete annihilation (Vernichtung ) of the Jews. [17]

19) How were the victims of the Nazis Aktion T4 program killed? How were their bodies disposed? [18]

20) How did Typhus kill all 6000 remaining Jews in the town of Proskuriv (in Western Ukraine) on the day of November 4, 1941? [19] Why were they buried together in one pit kilometers outside of town? [20] Why did almost all have bullet holes in the back of their neck/head? Were the villagers afraid of the typhus victims turning into zombies?

21) If Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor were transit & resettlement camps and not extermination camps why would every person working at these camps have to swear an oath [21] that they would not "under any circumstances pass on any form of information, verbally or in writing, on the progress, procedure or incidents in the evacuation of Jews" and agree to "absolute prohibition on photography in the camps" and why couldn't they talk about the camps even after they left the service? It would seem to me that the Nazis would want to show Jews at these camps being happily resettled in the East.


SOURCES
[1] https://goo.gl/Ysn9JH see pages 287-290
[2] https://goo.gl/SJqgxP See pages 91-97
[3] archive.is/QFQIC
[4] archive.is/EionV
[5] archive.is/Xm1EL
[6] archive.is/uiY8Y
[7] http://i.imgur.com/d09KvVO.jpg translation available here: archive.is/CEhew
[8] archive.is/KZzj4
[9] archive.is/tHwOg
[10] http://i.imgur.com/Ikvhwvf.png
[11] https://goo.gl/ee1kGD
[12] https://goo.gl/igCHfJ page 378
[13] http://imgur.com/9hSWqUT full letter and translation here: archive.is/3sKsc
[14] https://goo.gl/Qjmkqt german version here: archive.is/5Zhlz
[15] http://y2u.be/mRO04q_lQi4
[16] archive.is/F3dRR german text here: archive.is/4laca listen to speech here: http://y2u.be/4AFhwwgL-94
[17] https://goo.gl/AbcZoM german text here: https://goo.gl/DRZJtM
[181 archive.is/PSnP5
[19] https://goo.gl/BNGQFN
[20] http://i.imgur.com/koacF3x.jpg
[21] archive.is/gfEbM

Nearly all of this stuff has already been dealt with on this website. Some questions, like #4, are just laughable and irrelevant.

I noticed also that someone posted a response graphic, rather hastily done and not very thorough:
Image

Does anyone else have something to say about any of these goofy questions? I will provide answers to the questions myself later.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Hilarious "21 Questions for Holocaust Revisionists" graphic

Postby Breker » 9 months 2 weeks ago (Wed Dec 04, 2019 10:20 pm)

Good grief, it's hard to imagine a bigger load of low level IQ musings passing as proof of the "Holocaust" mythology .
Somehow they think that a wall of loudmouth text can stand up to knowledgeable revisionists. Not a bloody chance.
I would guess the person/s who compiled these are probably clueless college freshmen who think they are being quite clever.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2021
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Hilarious "21 Questions for Holocaust Revisionists" graphic

Postby Lamprecht » 9 months 2 weeks ago (Wed Dec 04, 2019 10:29 pm)

1) What was the purpose of the 4 Einsatzgruppen units (each consisting of 500 1000 members of the SS and Gestapo) during Operation Barbarossa [1]? How were these units different than the Wehrmacht's Security Divisions (Sicherungs-Divisionen) and Guard Units (Landesschützen)?

The Wehrmacht was Germany's armed forces, perhaps analogous to the US Armed Forces (Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard)

The Wehrmacht was separated into three primary branches:
- Heer (army)
- Kriegsmarine (navy)
- Luftwaffe (air force)

The SS was different from the Wehrmacht. The SS started as a sort of political army for Hitler and the NSDAP. The Einsatzgruppen were a paramilitary branch of the SS. The Sicherungs-Divisionen and Landesschützen were divisions of the Wehrmacht, not the SS. Compared to the Wehrmacht, the SS had different structure, uniforms, training, and requirements.

Landesschützen units got their personnel from older age classes and soldiers not totally fit for frontline duties (35-45 year old men for instance). They were used to protect installations (depots, POW camps, concentration camps, bridges etc..) of all kind in the Reich and in some cases also in occupied territory. The Sicherungs-Divisionen may have had similar roles when compared to Einsatzgruppen, but once again they belonged to different organizations entirely. Sicherungs-Divisionen were Wehrmacht divisions and Einsatzgruppen were SS.

Shortly after the invasion of the USSR began (Operation Barbarossa) four Einsatzgruppen divisions became operational in the newly conquered eastern regions. These 3,000 men, including non-combat troops like drivers and interpreters, were primarily focused on the fight against partisans - or what would today be referred to as "Terrorists."

Here is a map of Jewish partisan activity in Eastern Europe from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum:

Image

The purpose of the “Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD” (task forces of the security police and the security service) was to carry out security missions and oppose the Bolshevik-organized guerrilla warfare campaign against the German armed forces, which played a large role in their eventual defeat. By 1944, the number of partisans reached half a million (Schulz, Gerhard, "Partisanen und Volkskrieg: Zur Revolutionierung des Krieges im 20. Jahrhundert ", 1985, pp. 99-101)

Tens of thousands of German soldiers were killed by these partisans, and the methodology used by soldiers against organized, armed battalion is far different than against these guerrilla warfare groups. There is nothing surprising that the Germans would have created these four small divisions for that task, but what would be surprising is to use 3,000 men to exterminate millions of Jews.

According to Chief of the Wehrmacht Alfred Jodl:
"As far as the activities of the Police are concerned, of the so-called action groups, Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos – a conception, incidentally, of which I first heard here in detail – there was never any explanation through the Fuehrer himself other than that these police units were necessary to quell uprisings, rebellions, and partisan actions before they grew into a menace. This was not a task for the Armed Forces, but for the Police, and for that reason the Police had to enter the operational areas of the Army. I have never had any private information on the extermination of the Jews; and on my word, as sure as I am sitting here, I heard all these things for the first time after the end of the war." https://archive.is/CHXzM

2) Why did every defendant in the Nuremberg Trials and most of the defendants at the subsequent 11 Nazi war crime trials almost exclusively use the defense that they were just following orders ("Befehl ist Befehl")? Why didn't they deny the crimes they were accused of? Especially something as egregious as the mass murder of millions of people and facing the death penalty you would expect someone to say that the charges are completely false and try to set the record straight.

The question is silly. How can "every" defendant "almost exclusively" do something? Most did in fact deny the claims.
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"

Countless other examples here:
"Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12287

The Nuremberg show trials took "Judicial notice" of the alleged crimes, therefore "It didn't happen" was not a reasonable defense (although some chose that route). The example you gave, dubbed "The Speer defense strategy" was quite obvious. Say what they want you to say, just deny involvement. It's like how those accused of witchcraft merely denied involvement in sorcery, but didn't claim that it didn't exist (even though that is the case). Read the above link as well as:

The Psychology of False Confessions / Why people confess to crimes they did not commit
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12804

Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial?
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=11053

Article 19 of the Nuremberg Charter: "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value."

Article 21 of the Nuremberg Charter: "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..."


3) Why have so few Nazis (if any) involved in the holocaust recanted their testimony or signed confessions regarded the events they witnessed/participated in? Why hasn't there been an instance of this in the 70 years since the war ended?

Why would someone even try to do that? Sounds like a recipe for disaster. As pointed out above, most denied it.

- Gustav Franz Wagner, deputy commandant at Sobibor, stated to the police, according to an article in the newspaper Folha de São Paulo (2 June 1978): “I never saw any gas chamber at Sobibor”
On 30 October 1980, Wagner allegedly "Committed suicide" by stabbing himself to death. Brazil citizen and former Sobibor inmate Stanislaw Szmajzner, who “confronted” Wagner at the time of his arrest, has let out that he “believes” that Wagner was in fact killed by Jewish “avengers” (Die Zeit, October 11, 1991)

- Kurt Bolender was also posted at Sobibor. In 1961 he denied the alleged exterminations in the camp. He supposedly committed suicide by hanging on October 21, 1966, just before his sentence was pronounced. According to the American magazine Time, Bolender left behind a suicide note stating that he was innocent.

- Auschwitz Commandant Richard Baer was the only defendant who did not appear at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial in 1963. He was commandant of Auschwitz I from May 11, 1944 and Auschwitz II (Birkenau) from the end of 1944 until the evacuation in January 1945. He was arrested on December 21, 1960 and, though in perfect health, he died on June 1963 "in a highly mysterious way" (according to German newspaper 'Deutsche Wochenzeitung' July 27, 1973) while in prison before the trial had begun. This is of particular interest because a Paris newspaper (Rivarol) had recorded his insistence that "during the whole time in which he governed Auschwitz, he never saw any gas chambers nor believed that such things existed," and from this statement nothing would dissuade him.

Again, see:
"Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12287


4) Why did a supposedly scholarly organization like The Institute for Historical Review have the same mailing address as both the weekly anti-Semitic newspaper The Spotlight, and the anti-Semitic book publisher Noontide Press?

Not sure what to say about this, I have nothing to do with the IHR and I do not assume any assesment of "anti-Semitic" is necessarily correct. "Anti-Semitic" is typically used just to smear anything Jews do not like.


5) Why would Jews inflate the number of holocaust victims when reparations paid by West Germany after the war were based on the number of survivors and not the number killed? [2]

Jews admitted to inflating "Holocaust" victims by 10x:
5 million gentiles / 11 million total victims - "a number without any scholarly basis" invented by Simon Wiesenthal
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12403

So it's a completely undeniable fact that [certain individual] Jews inflated so-called "Holocaust" victim numbers. And the victim numbers were not necessarily invented by Jews, but instead by the Allied governments after the war. What a goofy question.

More later...
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Hilarious "21 Questions for Holocaust Revisionists" graphic

Postby borjastick » 9 months 2 weeks ago (Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:42 am)

The poster is very silly and contains somewhat mixed messages to an audience that isn't clearly defined. No holocaust beginner is going to understand much of the contents, and anyone with a decent degree of knowledge would laugh at its simplicity.

I have picked out two of the points for answer but might add more later. I would guess the chaps here will have a field day with this nonsense

BTW the answers placed by someone on the second graphic are very good.


11) If the Jews were evacuated "to the East" rather than being exterminated in Poland, what happened to them? Why have so many family members of those "evacuated" never heard from their loved ones again? Wouldn't they try to make some contact in the past 70+ years?


Answer - Mainly the iron curtain, the rule of Russia, the cold war and the lack of freedom. It's not rocket science. People move on, jews are very good at picking up their stuff and going somewhere else to live and leaving behind all the nonsense of family. After 50-75 years how many would be alive, how many would care, how many would even try to work out where their families live now?

In my case, and this is a good example, I was divorced some 12 years ago. My ex wife then caused immense trouble in the family about me. She bad mouthed me over and over to our three children. Result = my three boys choose not to have anything to do with me and I have no idea where they live, work etc. That's how easy it can be and how hard it is to find people in a difficult situation. And that's in the UK!

15) Was SS-Obersturmführer Or. Walter Mattner lying to his wife when he wrote her this letter [13] on October 5th, 1941? The letter he described his actions at Mogilyov, Belarus in which he wrote "I must tell you something else. I took part in a mass killing the day before yesterday....the first truck my hand trembled somewhat during the shooting, but one gets used to it. By the tenth truck I was already aiming steadily and shooting accurately at the many women, children, and babies."


Answer - I doubt very much that a man at that time would write this stuff to his wife. The words don't sound real and why would he use the phrase 'by the tenth truck...'? It's false.
Last edited by Webmaster on Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: [When responding to these questions, please include the question numbers in your post to keep the responses organized. I have added them here. Thanks. Webmaster]
'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

NFrNJ
Member
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:10 am

Re: Hilarious "21 Questions for Holocaust Revisionists" graphic

Postby NFrNJ » 9 months 2 weeks ago (Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:38 am)

"what would be surprising is to use 3,000 men to exterminate millions of Jews." said Lamprecht.

should that not be "use 3,000 men to organise the mass shooting of about 1.4 million jews, using local forces, with support from the local police, army and auxiliary units"?

not millions... and not all by themselves.

[There is a separate thread for this post. Please address it here:
NFrNJ says: '1.4M Jews shot by Germans and auxillaries'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12912
- Moderator1]

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2021
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Hilarious "21 Questions for Holocaust Revisionists" graphic

Postby Lamprecht » 9 months 2 weeks ago (Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:49 am)

My last response ended on question #5, here I will quickly answer #6 and #7 and get to the rest later.

6) What did SS and Nazi officials in internal memos mean by the word "Special Treatment"(Sonderbehandlung) regarding Jews in their custody? [3]

The word "Special Treatment" is vague, on purpose. It can mean different things in different instances. Mattogno has devoted a book to this subject in regards to Auschwitz:

Special Treatment in Auschwitz—Origin and Meaning of a Term
https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=10
PDF: https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/10-stia.pdf

Also suggested:
Healthcare in Auschwitz—Medical Care and Special Treatment of Registered Inmates
https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=33
PDF: https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/33-hia.pdf

In some Auschwitz documents the term "Sonderbehandlung" was used to describe treatment for improving camp hygiene in order to reduce the death rate and in compliance with the very highest directives, such as Himmler in 1943 ordering that the death rate in the camps must be unconditionally decrease. See: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=10104#p10104

From the description of the first book:
Appearing in German wartime documents in the context of the “Holocaust,” terms like “special treatment,” “special action,” and others have usually been interpreted as code words that signify homicides. While certainly the term “special treatment” in many such documents meant at times execution, the term need not always have had that meaning in German records. This is especially true when it comes to the infamous Auschwitz camp. In Special Treatment in Auschwitz, Carlo Mattogno has provided the most thorough study of this textual problem to date. By publishing and interpreting numerous such documents about Auschwitz – many of them hitherto unknown – Mattogno is able to show that, while “special” had many different meanings in these documents, not a single one meant “execution.” [...] The entire work highlights the potency of a traditional tool of the unscrupulous propagandist: (mis-)translation, a perfidious practice of which Marie Antoinette (“Let them eat cake.”) is perhaps but the most-famous and most-unfortunate example. This important study demonstrates also the insidious allegation of the use of a “code language” by the National Socialists of Germany, imputing homicidal meanings to completely harmless documents.

The Korherr Report uses the word "Sonderbehandlung" and Korherr himself said this meant "settled in the District of Lublin." See: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=23448#p23448


7) upon liberation of Auschwitz, it was discovered that the Nazis had bagged and stored 2000 kilograms of shorn human hair in the camp. How did the Nazis get all this hair, and why did an overwhelming number of samples contain traces of hydrogen cyanide? [4]

The implication here the author is trying to make is that the Nazis gassed Jews with Zyklon-B, a pesticide that releases hydrogen cyanide, and then cut the hair off of these gassed Jews for ... some unknown reason ... before putting these gassed Jews into the ovens to be cremated.

What we know about a pile of hair is that the Nazis had a pile of hair for some reason. They would not remove the hair from gassed jews before cremating them if they had no real use for the hair. We also know that because of a massive outbreak of typhus in the camp, the Germans began using Zyklon-B -- designed to kill insects like typhus-spreading lice -- to delouse clothing and bedding. The outbreak was highest in 1942-43 but based on the Auschwitz death records, there were still hundreds of Jewish deaths per month (in some cases over 1,000) in 1944 (figures for 1945 are not available). See: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=94680#p94680

Just look at the many photographs of living prisoners from these camps and you will see a large number of them had their heads shaven. This was to protect them from the disease-spreading lice which have specifically evolved their small claws to be able to attach themselves and move around in human hair.

If the Nazis had any use for the hair, and to claim they removed it from gassed Jews would certainly imply that, they would by default fumigate the piles of hair in order to kill any disease-carrying lice that is hidden in it.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Location: Antipodes
Contact:

Re: Hilarious "21 Questions for Holocaust Revisionists" graphic

Postby HMSendeavour » 9 months 2 weeks ago (Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:01 pm)

2) Why did every defendant in the Nuremberg Trials and most of the defendants at the subsequent 11 Nazi war crime trials almost exclusively use the defense that they were just following orders ("Befehl ist Befehl")? Why didn't they deny the crimes they were accused of? Especially something as egregious as the mass murder of millions of people and facing the death penalty you would expect someone to say that the charges are completely false and try to set the record straight.


I have answered this ridiculous question before. As have many others.

MY response from: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11053

HMSendeavour wrote:
BroncoBuff wrote:Brand new to this Board - briefly my perspective: I think the Holocaust happened mostly the way popular history has recorded it, though I do understand the truism "the victors write the history books," and how that dynamic very likely resulted in exaggeration and overstatement. I believe the Jews have not been shy about playing the issue for all it's worth, and Israel (and especially Netanyahu) have played that victim card as justification for extraneous criminal treatment and bullying of neighbors.

______________

That said, my input: I've been a criminal defense attorney for most of the past 25 years, and I have a thorough if not comprehensive appreciation for the motivations and impulses of defendants on trial for crimes.

In my cursory research of the Nuremberg Trials, at least of the most serious tier of 24 defendants, I found those defendants had either 1) pleaded for mercy, 2) claimed un-involvement, or most often, 3) claimed they were merely "following orders," and that their superiors, from Heydrich on down, would have executed them had they refused.


This is a real problem for Holocaust deniers or Third Reich revisionists: When faced with criminal charges that could well result in a sentence of death and summary execution, none of them claimed "it was all a hoax." No defendants went on record claiming it was all a fiction concocted by the allies, and none of it happened. I recall two or three mentions that certain of the Jews (those the particular defendant was in charge of), were treated "well" (comparatively) because they were useful for manufacturing.

In my fairly extensive experience, I promise you people will say damn near anything to avoid even 30 days in jail, much less death.

Moreover, none of those who were convicted, served sentences and were later released, have gone on record that the Holocaust was a hoax. Albert Speer and Karl Donitz have written books on the Reich and the War, but neither made a claim of hoax, even decades later when such claims would no longer have put their lives in peril.


I cannot believe this line of reasoning has never been broached, please tell me how it's countered. I am not opposed to the idea it was a hoax, or did not occur as widely believed.


You're so wrong it's not even funny.

Prisoners would also say damn near anything when tortured. Rudolf Hoess is the prime example of this (see my post on the torture https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9066&p=92512#p92512).

If any National Socialists were to outright deny instead of play dumb then it might've lead to brutalities against them. Seeing their fellow comrades admit to things that were untrue and brought forth by brutal means when not in a position to know themselves would not lead them to definitive answers one way or the other. If you're suggesting those who were in a position to know, knew but denied their knowledge then it is simply on you to prove that this is the case. More than that, it is you who must prove what the Holocaust is, how it was done and by what means. Simply declaring it's reality through a lack of statements by the defendants isn't going to make your horror stories of Holocoasters, Electric conveyor belts, Lampshades, burning baby pits, Jewish soap, poisoned dog teeth, electric wank machines of imminent death real. Nor will Simon Rozenkier's stories of hunchback tortue and sterilising X-Rays become legitimate. Moshe Peer who claimed to have been gassed six times and survived will not be real, William Lowenbergs magic third quenching pebble, Yankel Wiernik's tales of women leaping 10 feat into the air, giant outdoor hibachis, or Morris Hubert's claim of surviving bear cage torture every day at Buchenwald. It's all rubbish and nobody with any sense would take the Holocaust as it is based on eyewitness testimony seriously https://web.archive.org/web/20190101011316/http://balder.org/judea/The-Most-Fantastic-Holocaust-Survivor-Stories-Jewish-Soap-Lampshades-Fertilizer-Mengele-Miracles.php

041f576d589adb599bd207ad024dbebe.jpg


Ribbentrop's memoirs are also quite interesting. He was a man doomed to execution, no chance of escape and yet he denied the slightest possibility that Hitler, the man himself, knew anything about any kind of killing. Granted Ribbentrop seems to have bought the idea that killing was done, but to what degree and how is left unanswered.

For the sections I'm quoting see https://web.archive.org/web/20181101142651/https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t837409/ and for the full memoirs see https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.183521

From the moment I joined the N.S.D.A.P. I tried to bring about a revision of its anti-Semitic principles, or, at least, to have the Jewish problem solved by way of evolution through a 'numerus clausus'. I also though there was a possibility that my hope for more tolerance would come true.

Germany undoubtedly had a Jewish problem even before 1933. Jews had gained considerable influence in many sectors of the life of the nation. They were almost predominant in German cultural life, the Press, the cinema, the stage and especially business and finance. A well-known Frankfurt Jew and family friend of ours of long standing frequently spoke to me about this at the time full of anxiety. He was worried lest the conduct of certain German and immigrant Jews should lead to serious conflict sooner or later.

After the promulgation of the Nuremberg Laws in September, 1935, I had a long detailed talk with the Führer about the Jewish question. It was soon after the conclusion of the Naval Agreement with Britain; the Führer had great confidence in me, and I therefore pointed out the repercussions these Laws would have abroad. His reply seemed to me to indicate that the new legislation was intended to be the concluding measure, and that the Jews, while very much restricted in their scope, would retain an altogether fair chance of Hitler and of Party headquarters up to 1936, when I left for London, appeared to be not unfavourable to the emergence of quite toleration.

When in 1938 I returned to Berlin as Foreign Minister I found an entirely new situation. The reaction of world Jewry, especially in the U.S.A., to the Nuremberg Laws had been strong, and the result had been the sharpest attacks on National Socialist Germany, especially in the foreign Press. This in turn had made the Führer much harder. The vicious circle had begun.

Following the murder by the Jew Grunspan of Legation Counsellor vom Rath in our Paris Embassy, the well-known excesses against Jews occurred in November, 1938. As soon as I heard of them I went to the Obersalzberg and told Hitler of the serious effect such illegal anti-Semitic measures were bound to have on our own German people, and the inevitable political consequences. Hitler replied in deadly earnest that it was not always possible to determine the course of events as one liked, and that everything would return to its normal course. I had the impression that Hitler himself was surprised by the extent of the reaction.
During the winter of 1938 to 1939 I repeatedly made vain representations to the Führer in favour of a complete return to the situation as it existed before the excesses. I submitted to him a plan which provided for the voluntary emigration of Jews with permission to take with them part of their property. In fact many Jews did emigrate at that time, although other countries, including the U.S.A., made the immigration of German Jews very difficult.

After the outbreak of hostilities the propaganda war between National Socialist Germany and international Jewry became increasingly bitter; this made Hitler even more inflexible and it became more and more difficult to talk to him about the Jewish question. In spite of this I indicated to him the great disadvantages from the point of view of foreign policy of the anti-Jewish policy on several occasions. American propaganda, and even that of some neutral governments, made great play with the Jewish question and made things very difficult for us. Most of this propaganda originated in the Anglo-American world. I always told Hitler that the enmity of world Jewry appeared unnecessary, and that it was tantamount to having an additional great power as an enemy.

However, Hitler's conviction that world Jewry had systematically prepared the war against Germany and was in the end responsible for its outbreak became more and more deeply rooted. In his view, the desired comprehensive settlement with Britain had been foiled by the Jews alone, in that country and in America. Moreover, before and after the outbreak of the Russian war, Hitler believed that international Jewry was also responsible for the communist threat in the East, and that it had compelled Stalin to decide first to defeat Germany by an attack from East and West and then to bolshevize her.

I repeatedly advanced my contrary opinion: I was convinced that the war had been caused by Britain's hostility to German aspirations. While Jewish influence may have contributed, it had not been the primary cause. On the contrary this lay in the anxiety of British imperialists to preserve the balance of power in Europe. When discussing these questions with Hitler I recalled that in the era of Napoleon, when the Jews exerted no appreciable influence in England (the Rothschilds only rose to eminence after Waterloo), the English nevertheless fought an embittered war against the French Emperor; and later, Britain had proclaimed the Emperor Wilhelm II as her enemy, although he was a friend of the German Jews.

Hitler was immovable and always replied that I did not understand this issue. He remained convinced that the war had been brought about by the Jews of England and France, and especially of the U.S.A. American Jews, who exercised almost complete domination over the American Press, had systematically prepared for war and driven Roosevelt into his anti-German attitude. My proposal for a change in our Jewish policy were rejected.

After the victory over Poland and France Hitler gave Himmler jurisdiction over the Jews in occupied Europe. I was only informed late and incompletely about his actions for the resettlement in the East, first of German Jews, and then of the Jews in the occupied territories. As late as 1944, the Terezein (Theresienstadt) camp, for instance, was still open to inspection by representatives of the International Red Cross. Since the Foreign Office acted as the intermediary, I received a report which described conditions as satisfactory. I heard no details, and certainly not about other camps, because the Führer had given authority over these exclusively to the Reichsführer S.S. (Himmler.) The Foreign Office was told that these matters of domestic administration, and it was thereby expressly excluded from concerning itself with Jewish questions.

When in 1943 I submitted to the Führer a memorandum with proposals for a change in our ecclesiastical and Jewish policies, Hitler replied that he thoroughly disagreed with me on all matters. Nor did a subsequent talk, which was conducted in a comparatively calm atmosphere, yield any positive result. Hitler said: 'You understand foreign policy; the Jewish question you do not understand. This question is best understood by Goebbels. The Foreign Office can do nothing; it is not its business.' I nevertheless advanced every possible argument to prove how our situation, which had become so much more difficult through the worsening of the war, could be eased by an ideological peace. Hitler replied: 'That is naïve. This is an ideological war between the Jewish-bolshevist world and the world of nations, and it cannot be won in the field of diplomacy; arms must decide.'

The Foreign Office could only try to oppose the adoption of extreme anti-Jewish measures, and it was often able to exert a calming influence. Hitler, personally, gave few instructions to the Foreign Office on the Jewish question, and those which he did send were generally concerned with representations to friendly governments, asking that more attention should be paid to the Jewish question, and that Jews should be removed form important posts. But this, too, always led to unpleasantness without allies. Thus the Führer once sent me a message to the effect that a big Jewish espionage and sabotage organization had been discovered in Italian-occupied France, and instructed me to make serious representations to Mussolini. In our diplomatic work in neutral states it became increasingly apparent that the Jews were working against us there.

In 1944, Hitler spoke even more of his conflict with Jewry and he became fanatically obstinate. But never, down to 22nd April, 1945 when I last saw him in the Reich Chancellery, did he ever mention the killing of Jews. That is why even to-day I cannot believe that the Führer ordered these killings; I believe that Himmler presented him with accomplished facts.


Goering also backs up what Ribbentrop had written in his memoirs.

With icy composure Goering cast doubts upon ail the documents and all the testimony connected with the subject. He would not venture, he said. to describe them as wholly false, but he did take into account the possibility that they might well be inconclusive or incomplete; in any case they were far too much at variance with everything he knew to be accepted. And cven if the events described by the Prosecution had taken place, he did not believe Hitler had given the order; it was more likely to have been Himmler. - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.145


Goering is notorious for believing that the alleged extermination of the Jews was an allied myth. He even said that in Nuremberg it was the first time he was ever hearing of it (again see https://web.archive.org/web/20181101142651/https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t837409/

In Chapter 7 of Fritzche's book, he talks about documents and the claims against the 21 defendants. It's quite clear that rather than believing it to be true they had no clue as to what was going on. They wanted to look through documents, but weren't granted a great deal. They weren't allowed to have meetings among themselves to discuss or cover documents for a defense,

Each of us engaged in a feverish survey of documentary evidence which was itself often anything but easy to obtain. Sauckel wanted the text of the instructions he had issued concerning the treatment of foreign workers; a year ago these instructions were to be found all over Germany, now they seemed to have vanished from the face of the earth. Streicher enquired for documents relating to a certain hostile threat to destroy, not the German Government, but the German people; they had been published in America by a Dr. Kaufmann-but how to lay hands on them in the present nruddle ? In pracl.ice there were only three sources of information at our disposal: the documents belonging to the Prosecution, which were naturally biassed; a complete set of the south German edition of the Völkischer Beobachter, which contained comprehensive references to much important evidence; and the library of Erlangen University, which would certainly not have been of great use for our purpose - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.136-137


they simply thought it was utterly useless to try and defend their own innocence because to them the mind of the public and prosecutors had been made up.

For the Prosecution at this time it seemed sufficient that the atrocities had been committed. Who was specifically responsible for the orders or for the actual deeds either came second in their estimation or simply did not interest them. No matter how slight the connection between such an occurrence and any of the prisoners the shadow of disgrace invariably fell on all twenty-one of us; and under its cover various false assertions--such as for instance that there had been a generally prevailing and virulent anti-semitism in Germany found an all too ready acceptance. No one ventured to dispute such charges; we were too conscious of the horror of that monstrous campaign of extermination. To all outward seeming the matter was closed.

Among ourselves, however, the questions persisted:
Who was involved? How was it carried out? Were such atrocious actions the outcome of strong anti-semitic feeling? What had we overlooked? Where did we arrive at wrong conclusions? What were our sins of omission? Some, for example Frick, based their defence on the plea that they knew nothing about the whole business. They were not indifferent to the immeasurable human suffering revealed at each state of the evidence; but, first and foremost they wanted to keep out of it--it was not their affair.. Others, like Seyss-Inquart, had more imagination and endured the ghastly statements of the witnesses with new and agonising life. They bowed their heads in shame and declared that it was useless to protest their own ignorance and innocence; that could be left to future historians . The present generation would never believe that any leader of the Third Reich could be unaware of the Birkenau gas chambers and the activities of the "special squads".

Others again persisted for a considerable time in doubting the authenticity of the evidence, even when this was no longer rationally possible. And a few, such as Dr. Frank, accused themselves of having through sheer indifference been content to know only half the truth, without attempting to draw the obvious conclusions from the information at their disposal.[/u][/b] Kaltenbrunner became unusually talkative at this time and assured us that he could confirm the statements about the mass murders because he himself had put a stop to them. When I asked him why, knowing these things, he had described the general accusation as absurd his answer was that the actual perpetrators were now dead. - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.137-139


Reading this far you really feel how utterly confused these men were. And it's abundantly clear that they knew nothing, and to them anyone who did was already dead. They themselves seem to have the demeanor of discovering these facts for the first time with varying degrees of skepticism and not simply outright denying it because in actuality none of these men are in positions to know anything. They're bewildered by it all.

For the first time an atmosphere of profound mutual mistrust grew up among the prisoners, and though it did not have much chance to develop in the artificial little community, each of us wondered in his own mind whether, after all, his neighbour knew more than he cared to admit. Some of us, nevertheless, got together and collected every scrap of available material and then, item by item,
checked the hideous account. Five million persons were stated to have been murdered. Was such a thing technically possible ? The capacity of the corpse-factories described by Hciss did not seem sufficient. Where were these five million-mostly Jews Supposed to have come from? Not from Germany, where in 1939 they numbered scarcely half a million. But when we got hold of information about the Jewish population of the occupied eastern territories, we saw that the numbers might tally if none had emigrated and none survived. But how had it been possible to conceal this monstrous crime from the public ? At this point every attempt at explanation failed' The majority of the twenty-one prisoners were faced with the task of explaining to the court-or rather, to the world how it was feasible that in a modern state hundreds of thousands of people could be killed without its corning to the ears of the man in the street, or to the knowledge of all members of the government and others in high places. Those who had the best right to say that such a thing was possible, and had induced happened, were the least able to prove it.--Thus for the first time we saw the road leading from the Germany that we knew to the Germany which had been hidden from many of us. - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.139,142


Whatever the nature of the 'massacres' as Fritsche describes them, he makes plain on pages 140-143 that the defendants including himself took the statements of the SS Judges Reinicke and Morgen seriously. On these pages he describes the statements made, and trots out the now defunct idea that Gas came out of shower heads. And in-fact it was the National Socialists themselves who looked into and stopped the supposed massacres.

It is open to doubt whether the Prosecution took much account of Morgen's statements; but for most of us they were conclusive. It was only after he appeared on the scene that I personally felt that in protesting my ignorance of these massacres, I was not offending against all the laws of human reason - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.142-143


This shows us that rather than having foreknowledge, the defendants were themselves convinced of the lie.

It was certainly proved beyond dispute that the butchery came to an end in the autumn of 1944 and that-however unlikely it may appear-the Jews were from that moment under the special protection of the Chancellor's S.S. - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.143


Interesting that Hitler's SS would put protection over the Jews isn't it? You see, Hitler also got word of these supposed brutalities. Hans Frank himself took his concerns to Hitler.

The rumor, however, that the Jews were being killed in the manner which is now known to the entire world would not be silenced. When I expressed the wish to visit the SS workshop near Lublin, in order to get some idea of the value of the work that was being done, I was told that special permission from Heinrich Himmler was required.

I asked Heinrich Himmler for this special permission. He said that he would urge me not to go to the camp. Again some time passed. On 7 February 1944 I succeeded in being received by Adolf Hitler personally-I might add that throughout the war he received me three times only. In the presence of Bormann I put the question to him: "My Fuehrer, rumors about the extermination of the Jews will not be silenced. They are heard everywhere. No one is allowed in anywhere. Once I paid a surprise visit to Auschwitz in order to see the camp, but I was told that there was an epidemic in the camp and my car was diverted before I got there. Tell me, My Fuehrer, is there anything in it? "The Fuehrer said, "You can very well imagine that there are executions going on-of insurgents. Apart from that I do not know anything. Why don't you speak to Heinrich Himmler about it?" And I said. "Well, Himmler made a speech to us in Krakow and declared in front of all the people whom I had officially called to the meeting that these rumors about the systematic extermination of the Jews were false; the Jews were merely being brought to the East." Thereupon the Fuehrer said, "Then you must believe that." https://web.archive.org/web/20170428180020/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-18-46.asp


There is no more eloquent testimony to the tragedy and tyranny of Nuremberg than the pathetic astonishment or outraged disbelief of the accused persons themselves at the grotesque charges made against them. Such is reflected in the affidavit of S.S. Major-General Heinz Fanslau, who visited most of the German concentration camps during the last years of the war. Although a front line soldier of the Waffen S.S., Fanslau had taken a great interest in concentration camp conditions, and he was selected as a prime target by the Allies for the charge of conspiracy to annihilate the Jews. It was argued, on the basis of his many contacts, that he must have been fully involved. When it was first rumoured that he would be tried and convicted, hundreds of affidavits were produced on his behalf by camp inmates he had visited. When he read the full scope of the indictment against the concentration camp personnel in supplementary Nuremberg Trial No. 4 on May 6th, 1947, Fanslau declared in disbelief: "This cannot be possible, because I, too, would have had to know something about it."


Source: https://www.ihr.org/books/harwood/dsmrd04.html

Have you noticed the theme? Hitler has no idea, even when broached about it at the time of it's supposed occurrence. After the war the men closest to Hitler all say that without a doubt it's more likely to be Himmler and not Hitler. These men at nuremberg know nothing and have been finding out what charges lay against them as they happen. There's no proof here that i've seen which makes the holocaust legitimate. Nothing at all.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2021
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Hilarious "21 Questions for Holocaust Revisionists" graphic

Postby Lamprecht » 9 months 2 weeks ago (Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:12 pm)

8} A report was sent to SS-Obersturmbannführer Walter Rauff on June 5, 1942 which said that "ninety- seven thousand have been processed, using three vans, without any defects showing up in the vehicles"and that "Experience shows, however, that when the back door is closed and it gets dark inside, the load pushes hard against the door." What was the load of 97,000? What did they mean by "have been processed"? Why would the load push hard against the door? [5]
There's no evidence that this "report" was ever sent to Rauff, or is legitimate at all. This silly document is addressed in the following book, section "2.2.4. The Just Document, 5 June 1942" (page 63):

The Gas Vans—A Critical Investigation
https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=26
PDF: https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/26-tgv.pdf

Rauff himself appears to have worked for the Israelis:
'Gas vans mass murderer' SS Rauff worked for the Israelis
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4195

For some it may be hard to believe that a person would type out a fake document to incriminate their enemies if there is absolutely no penalty for doing so, but when considering the alternative claim here: that individuals shoved thousands and thousands of jews into these ridiculous "gas vans" (which have never been shown or proven to exist, no blueprints or anything) it may become even more likely. I mean, if someone put a gun to you head and told you to do one or the other, which would you choose?

And forgeries were the bread and butter of the Soviet Union. See:
The Soviet Union's documented use of document forgeries, Active Measures
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12297

A better question would be, why did every document on the "Final Solution" unanimously agree that it was not a policy of extermination? See:
War-time German documents & writings mentioning the "Final Solution"
viewtopic.php?t=12296


9) How could the prisoners at the Bergen-Belsen be starving to death when 3 km away the food stores for the camp contained "600 tons of potatoes, 120 tons of tinned meat, 30 tons of sugar, upwards of 20 tons of powdered milk; cocoa, grain, wheat and other foodstuffs."[6] Why was this food withheld from the starving prisoners?
The source is a transcript from a post-war show trial and the questions are very leading. Read it yourself, and imagine that you are a prisoner who is put a revenge-trial and you're in front of this kangaroo court being asked these questions, questions where you knew exactly what answer the prosecution wanted to hear, what would you do? Note also that the star witness in this trial, Dr. Ada Bimko, a Jewess, testified that there were homicidal gas chambers at Bergen Belsen, even though historians today accept that this is not true

Kramer was originally a commandant of Auschwitz Birkenau (the alleged deadliest "extermination camp"), but later reassigned to Bergen-Belsen. Kramer initially testified that there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz - but later, he "confessed" to homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. I wonder why? In his 1949 study "Victor's Justice" historian Montgomery Belgion reported that Kramer and other "Belsen" trial defendants were tortured, sometimes to the point that they begged to be put to death. (pp. 80-81) Belgion also reported that in some cases defendants were told that their wives and children were in custody and only a "Confession" could save their lives.

Bergen Belsen was handed over to the British on 15 April 1945, but on 1 March 1945, Kramer sent a letter to Gruppenführer (General) Richard Glücks, head of the SS camp administration agency, pleading for help. He bemoaned the high death rate at the camp, and stated that supplies were not being delivered. From the report:
"This failure was due not only to difficulties of transport, but also to the fact that practically nothing is available in this area and all must be brought from outside the area... For the last four days there has been no delivery [of food] from Hannover owing to interrupted communications, and I shall be compelled, if this state of affairs prevails till the end of the week, to fetch bread also by means of truck from Hannover... The supply question must, without fail, be cleared up in the next few days. I ask you, Gruppenführer, for an allocation of transport..."

He finished the report with the statement:
"I am now asking you for your assistance as it lies in your power. In addition to the above-mentioned points I need here, before everything, accommodation facilities, beds, blankets, eating utensils – all for about 20,000 internees ... I implore your help in overcoming this situation."

Kramer also claimed that the Allied bombing had prevented supplies from getting to the camp in these pre-liberation reports. Do you think, under the present conditions in his show trial, Kramer would have thought it was a good idea to say:
"Well, I was trying to help them but YOUR PEOPLE kind of made that extremely difficult if not impossible. So thousands of deaths could have been prevented if it was not for specific actions undertaken by YOUR PEOPLE."

Even if that was actually the truth, why would he say that?
Kramer made no effort the flee for his life before the British arrived at the camp. He stated:
"When Belsen Camp was eventually taken over by the Allies, I was quite satisfied that I had done all I possibly could under the circumstances to remedy the conditions in the camp."

Check out: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=93837#p93837

Also recommended:
The Psychology of False Confessions / Why people confess to crimes they did not commit
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12804


10) Why would the Nazis need to have the capacity to burn more than 80,000 corpses per month at Auschwitz as detailed in a memo written to Heinrich Himmler in September 1942? [7] This memo was written by Kurt Prüfer, senior engineer of Topf and Sons (the company which manufactured the cremation ovens that were currently installed in Crematoria II in Auschwitz) in which a Lt. Krone ( who worked in the Works and Buildings Section of the Economics and Administration Department (Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungshauptamt)) had told Prüfer that the current 80,000 per month crematoria capacity "is not yet sufficient" and "we should deliver more ovens as quickly as possible". Why where so many bodies needing to be burned?
This document has been dealt with here:

Prufer letter / '80,000 Cremation Capacity Per Month Not Sufficient for Auschwitz'
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12465

I also recommend: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12778

Some points:
- The document is from 8 September 1942, so the Birkenau crematoria did not even yet exist

- The author of this question is hopelessly confused, referencing "ovens that were currently installed in Crematoria II" - Krema II was put into operation on March 1943, officially on the 31st of the month

- For the reasons explained, the claim of "current 80,000 per month crematoria capacity" is incorrect

- Prüfer himself stated that one body was cremated per hour during his 5 March 1946 interrogation

As for why bodies needed to be burned, check out:
Image

And the Auschwitz death records: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12865


11) If the Jews were evacuated "to the East" rather than being exterminated in Poland, what happened to them? Why have so many family members of those "evacuated" never heard from their loved ones again? Wouldn't they try to make some contact in the past 70+ years?

Ah, yes, the old "Well where did they go then?" canard.
Jews went wherever Jews are. Nobody denies that Jews, like nearly all other ethnicities in Europe, died en masse during the Second World War. I have seen some estimates that 3% of the entire human population perished in this war. Jews traditionally lived in smaller, tight-nit communities: so that some deaths of individual Jews would have resulted in dozens of other Jews having a "dead family member."

Lots of good information here (check the related links at the bottom of the OP posts)
'Where did they go?' / Jews Transited through Treblinka further refute extermination claims
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12417

Jewish Evacuations by the USSR during WWII (from Solzhenitsyn's 200YT)
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12777

How about the following question instead:
It is claimed that roughly 1.5 million Jews were killed at Treblinka 2 + Belzec + Sobibor by being: gassed, buried, dug out of "gigantic pits", burned in giant outdoor pyres made of railroad tracks, and all of the millions of pounds of burnt human remains dumped into the same "gigantic pits" and then covered with "a thick layer of sand and dirt." It is also claimed that we know the exact, precise location of many of these alleged "huge mass graves" - even down to the meter!

Can anyone show us a photograph of just one of the alleged "huge mass graves" at these camps which contains the burnt/unburnt remains of just 0.1% of the alleged 1.5 million victims? (1,500 people)

It's most likely that less than 5% of those who were sent to these camps were actually buried at these places: mostly those who died in transit from disease, attempted escapes, or were euthanized for being incurably sick (via bullet - not gas).
Recommended:
Prisoners dying in transit to the AR camps (Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka) / other deaths / expected death tolls
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12910

Or another question:
If the Nazis tried to exterminate every single Jew, why were there so many millions of "Holocaust survivors"?


12) Why were warning posters [8] posted outside of the ghetto In Czestochowa, Poland (as well as outside the Warsaw ghetto(S)) that threatened the death penalty with anyone who, 1) Provided shelter to escaped Jews, 2) Supplied Jews with food, or 3) Sold food to Jews ? Why wouldn't they want Jews to receive outside food?

Sounds like a list of things that you or I could not legally provide to people in various prisons in the West even to this day. A quick search says that it varies considerably by institution, usually if it is even permitted at all you can send food packages about twice a year. The death penalty may seem harsh, but this was the bloodiest conflict in human history. Probably, something was happening here with Jews escaping and being sheltered, or some other thing that irritated the Germans and they said enough is enough.

Sorry, but that is not a "Holocaust". Recommended reading on the ghettos:
Jewish Ghettos during WWII / Do Ghettos support the "Holocaust" story?
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12609

Exterminationist historian Peter Longerich:
"Even the establishment of ghettos was carried out so haphazardly and slowly that it would be wrong to see it as a systematic policy ultimately aimed at the physical annihilation of the Jews. It is quite clear that there was no uniform and unified policy towards the inhabitants of the ghettos."


13) Why were 3 airtight doors (with peep holes) ordered for Krematorium IV and Krematorium V [10] in Auschwitz for rooms named "gassing basements" (Vergasungskeller) in the construction blue prints? [11]

The first claim is incorrect, the document states that the door of Leichenkeller I of Krematorium III to be constructed exactly like the cellar door [Leichenkeller 1] of Krematorium II. It says nothing about Krema IV or V, the author didn't even read the document or any discussion of it.
Krema II and III were basically the only completely underground rooms which could reasonably serve as bomb shelters. It's a clear-cut reference to a typical anti-gas shelter door. Gas tight doors were a common feature of wartime German anti-gas shelters.

In interview with Walter Lüftl, one of the master builders at Auschwitz, and Walter Schreiber:
"Lutfl: Do you know anything about introduction hatches in the reinforced concrete ceilings?
Schreiber: No, not from memory. But since these cellars were also intended to serve as air raid shelters as a secondary purpose, introduction holes would have been counter-productive. I would certainly have objected to such an arrangement."
https://codoh.com/library/document/1719/

Image
More:
Hamburg WWII air raid shelter / peepholes, gas-tight doors
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=7835

Gas-tight doors and the German Air Raid Shelter Technology
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5488

Wartime Germany's Anti-Gas Air Raid Shelters
https://codoh.com/library/document/2837/

Bomb Shelters in Birkenau: A Reappraisal
https://codoh.com/library/document/904/

As for "Vergasungskeller" claim about Krema IV, I do not even see that word on the paper linked. And why would it be called a "gassing basement" if the building was entirely above ground? Probably this person is just confused and making big mistakes. The term "Gaskammer" (gas chamber) was the designation commonly used at that time for the disinfestation of personal effects. The combination of crematoria and disinfestation installations in one and the same building was very common practice at that time. At Krema IV and V these rooms probably were intended for deinfestation purposes, but never completed for the purpose, as there is no evidence that the ventilation systems required for the use of HCN were installed there.


14) Of the approximately deportees sent to Auschwitz, only 400,000 were actually admitted into the camp [12]. What happened to the 900,000 who were not admitted to the camp? Were they sent home?

The source cited in footnote #12 just makes that claim of "900,000" without one shred of evidence: no documents, no citations, nothing. It's just a number totally invented out of thin air. That's not going to fly, this loaded question is unanswerable.


15) Was SS-Obersturmführer Or. Walter Mattner lying to his wife when he wrote her this letter [13] on October 5th, 1941? The letter he described his actions at Mogilyov, Belarus in which he wrote "I must tell you something else. I took part in a mass killing the day before yesterday....the first truck my hand trembled somewhat during the shooting, but one gets used to it. By the tenth truck I was already aiming steadily and shooting accurately at the many women, children, and babies."

So you want me to believe some guy wrote, to his wife:
"The babies went flying through the air in a big arc and we shot them down as they flew, before they fell into the grave or into the water"
Because there is a piece of paper with those words typed on it? Let me guess, he was imprisoned and put on trial and "happily confessed" to its authenticity as well? :roll:

Atrocity propaganda accounts of babies being thrown in the air and impaled on bayonets, pikes, whatever have existed in every conflict since the dawn of time. It's the oldest fake story in the book.

Forget about that though, I have a bridge to sell ya :)
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Location: Antipodes
Contact:

Re: Hilarious "21 Questions for Holocaust Revisionists" graphic

Postby HMSendeavour » 9 months 2 weeks ago (Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:42 am)

6) What did SS and Nazi officials in internal memos mean by the word "Special Treatment"(Sonderbehandlung) regarding Jews in their custody? [3]


Something interesting I read recently about this.

As I have pointed out in a specific study (2016c, pp. 9f.), all terms containing the prefix “Sonder-” (“special”) were taken by the Polish investigators to be “code words” referring to homicidal gassings. For their purported “deciphering,” they started with the assumption of the existence of homicidal gas chambers in the Birkenau Crematoria and then inferred the criminal significance of the “Sonder-” terms mentioned in accordance with that assumption. Later on official historiography proceeded the other way round: starting out from the assumption that the terms in question had a criminal significance, the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz was inferred. Not even Pressac was able to extricate himself from this impotent circular reasoning when taking over the “criminal traces” listed by Dawidowski. Fact is, though, that the terms “Sonderbehandlung” (special treatment), “Sondermassnahmen” (special measures), “Sondertransporte” (special transports), “Sonderkommando” (special detail), “Sonderaktion” (special action), “Sonderkeller” (special basement), “Spezialeinrichtungen” (special installations),” “Badeanstalten für Sonderaktionen” (baths for special actions) have nothing to do with any alleged homicidal gassings (ibid., Part Two, pp. 29-105).

Source: Carlo Mattogno, The Real Case for Auschwitz, (Castle Hill Publishers, 2019), pp. 30-31


I found this specific piece of information from Mattogno enlightening when it comes to discovering how such terms were simply taken on a preconceived notion and perpetuated by mainstream historians without the slightest historical criticism. Although we don't expect much else from these people.

Such circular reasoning allows the believers in the Holocaust Myth to endlessly justify their religion without ever having to refer to real research.

Lamprecht has already linked this, but here is Mattognos debunking of "Special Treatment"

10l.png

https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=10

I don't feel as if I could end the post without mentioning the specific debunking material myself as well.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3556
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Hilarious "21 Questions for Holocaust Revisionists" graphic

Postby Hektor » 9 months 2 weeks ago (Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:32 am)

HMSendeavour wrote:
2) Why did every defendant in the Nuremberg Trials and most of the defendants at the subsequent 11 Nazi war crime trials almost exclusively use the defense that they were just following orders ("Befehl ist Befehl")? Why didn't they deny the crimes they were accused of? Especially something as egregious as the mass murder of millions of people and facing the death penalty you would expect someone to say that the charges are completely false and try to set the record straight.


I have answered this ridiculous question before. As have many others.

MY response from: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11053
....
In my cursory research of the Nuremberg Trials, at least of the most serious tier of 24 defendants, I found those defendants had either 1) pleaded for mercy, 2) claimed un-involvement, or most often, 3) claimed they were merely "following orders," and that their superiors, from Heydrich on down, would have executed them had they refused.
.....

Ah the so-called "Nuremberg-defence" of "I was only following orders". Too bad that none of the accused did use it at the trial, I at least can't think of an example right now (If someone knows an example were one of the accused used it at the IMT, please share). Still that has imprinted itself in the mind of the public and even historians, so believers argue with it.

That defence was sometimes used at other trials against lower ranking Axis personnel, where it btw, made sense. Mostly, and that includes the IMT, the accused stated that they didn't have knowledge of the accusations or that what they did was legally in line with customs of land warfare. That they didn't dispute the claims outright (Apparently some did, though) makes perfect sense, since they weren't in a position to "know everything" or even to research it. At a 'trial' it only makes sense to dispute points you yourself are accused of and not any other claims being made.

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Location: Antipodes
Contact:

Re: Hilarious "21 Questions for Holocaust Revisionists" graphic

Postby HMSendeavour » 9 months 2 weeks ago (Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:38 am)

Hektor wrote:Ah the so-called "Nuremberg-defence" of "I was only following orders". Too bad that none of the accused did use it at the trial, I at least can't think of an example right now (If someone knows an example were one of the accused used it at the IMT, please share). Still that has imprinted itself in the mind of the public and even historians, so believers argue with it.

That defence was sometimes used at other trials against lower ranking Axis personnel, where it btw, made sense. Mostly, and that includes the IMT, the accused stated that they didn't have knowledge of the accusations or that what they did was legally in line with customs of land warfare. That they didn't dispute the claims outright (Apparently some did, though) makes perfect sense, since they weren't in a position to "know everything" or even to research it. At a 'trial' it only makes sense to dispute points you yourself are accused of and not any other claims being made.


The Exterminationists love to go on claiming that no Germans denied the Holocaust. Which we know is false, but have any of these same supposed Germans come out to criticize the Revisionists and reaffirm the Holocaust? I've Never heard of such a thing occurring.

The Holocausters make these claims that "no Germans after the war came out to say the Holocaust didn't happen" but none it seems came out to say it did and they had a part in it, directly challenging claims made by revisionists. Perhaps they published memoirs? Like the German who Rudolf mentioned in his "Chemistry of Auschwitz" documentary, claimed to have seen different coloured smoke based on the particular corpses burned! And supposed blue gas!

I could be totally wrong on this, but the thought just popped into my head.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Hilarious "21 Questions for Holocaust Revisionists" graphic

Postby borjastick » 9 months 1 week ago (Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:26 am)

16) How plausible is it the allied governments trained and deployed thousands of staff to axis controlled territory during the last year of the war to create and plant thousands of false documents, faked photographs, forged diary entries in the correct places so that they would be discovered by liberating allied personnel without their scheme being discovered and exposed over the past 70+ years?


AS we know from the Russian manipulations and documents they provided at Nurmeberg they almost single handed invented the holocaust. They were masters of false documents, claims and witness statements.

When people claim this isn't so they should look at the media both MS and social today and see how Russia is interfering in western politics even today.
'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
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2021
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Hilarious "21 Questions for Holocaust Revisionists" graphic

Postby Lamprecht » 9 months 1 week ago (Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:12 am)

borjastick wrote:
16) How plausible is it the allied governments trained and deployed thousands of staff to axis controlled territory during the last year of the war to create and plant thousands of false documents, faked photographs, forged diary entries in the correct places so that they would be discovered by liberating allied personnel without their scheme being discovered and exposed over the past 70+ years?

AS we know from the Russian manipulations and documents they provided at Nurmeberg they almost single handed invented the holocaust. They were masters of false documents, claims and witness statements.

When people claim this isn't so they should look at the media both MS and social today and see how Russia is interfering in western politics even today.

Yes, #16 is just silly. It's a complete strawman. Who ever claimed that?
Surely they can list these "thousands of documents" revisionists supposedly claim are false, right? And which forged diary entries? "Thousands"? :roll:

Meanwhile all of the documents mentioning the "Final Solution" refute the "Holocaust" narrative. Just "code words" where "deport" means "gas" and "resettle" means "shoot into a large pit" :roll:

War-time German documents & writings mentioning the "Final Solution"
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12296

And they wouldn't have to "discover" anything. Soviets were notorious document forgers:
The Soviet Union's documented use of document forgeries, Active Measures
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12297

All you need is a paper, a typewriter, a German speaker, and not even 5 people willing to lie about it. It's simple. The CIA exposed various Soviet document forgeries on numerous occasions, so it's not like such a thing is impossible ... unless the CIA was lying?
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2021
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Hilarious "21 Questions for Holocaust Revisionists" graphic

Postby Lamprecht » 9 months 1 week ago (Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:12 pm)

17) Was it not Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler who said in a Posen on October 4, 1943, "I want to also mention a very difficult subject ... before you, with complete candor. It should be discussed amongst us, yet nevertheless, we will never speak about it in public...... I am talking about the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination [*** Ausrottung ***] of the Jewish people. "[14] Is this not his voice? [15]

In 1993, Robert Wolfe, supervisory archivist for captured German records at the National Archives admitted that a more precise translation of Ausrottung (here translated as "extermination") would be extirpation or tearing up by the roots. Wolfe also pointed out that in Himmler's handwritten notes for the speech, that Himmler used the term, Judenevakuierung, or evacuation of the Jews, not extermination.

More on "Ausrottung" here: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=91947#p91947

At Nuremberg, SS general Gottlob Berger (who was present at the speech) first denied that it was Himmler's voice, then said "might be Heinrich Himmler’s voice".
The quality is not good enough to be subjected to voice analysis.
Berger also denied that any talk of exterminating Jews ocurred at this speech. (IMT, vol XIV, p. 531-2, "The Ministries Case")

SS officer Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski similarly stated: "With regard to Himmler's Poznan speech, he does not think that the word 'extermination' was used with regard to Jews." (IMT, vol XIV, p. 321-2, "The Ministries Case")

The SS officer Udo von Woyrsch testified that he was present during the speech and denied that anything was said about the extermination of the Jews. (IMT, vol XIV, p. 538, "The Ministries Case")

Lots of discussion on the Posen speech: https://forum.codoh.com/search.php?keywords=posen

and: https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Posen_speeches

18) Was Hitler speaking in jest when he said in a speech in front of the Reichstag on January 30, 1939 .that if a world war broke out " the result will be not the Bolshevization of earth, and thus a Jewish victory, but the annihilation (Vernichtung of the Jewish race in Europe." [161 and exactly 3 years later when he said in a speech: the war will not end as the Jews imagine it will, namely, with the uprooting of the Aryans, but the result of this war will be the complete annihilation (Vernichtung ) of the Jews. [17]


He was not "speaking in jest" but that is not any sort of "We want to literally kill every single Jew if another war starts" - it's merely a prophecy. Not even the standard "Holocaust" story claims this is any sort of call to genocide. I suggest my post in this thread:

Hitler Quote ? - 30 January 1939 Reichstag speech
viewtopic.php?p=93430#p93430

Others who referenced this "Prophecy" (yes, that is all it was, a "prophecy") interpreted it as forcing the Jews out of Europe.

Justice Gray at the Irving trial:
“It is common ground between the parties [Irving and Lipstadt’s team of Holocaust experts] that, until the latter part of 1941, the solution to the Jewish question which Hitler preferred was their mass deportation.

The anti-revisionist experts at the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial further admitted:
“…that in the 1930s Hitler should not be understood to have been speaking in a genocidal terms."

19) How were the victims of the Nazis Aktion T4 program killed? How were their bodies disposed? [18]

Not really too concerned about that, since T4 has nothing to do with the "Holocaust" story at all. I suggest:

Evidence for the German Euthanasia Program Compared to the Holocaust
http://www.unz.com/article/evidence-for-the-german-euthanasia-program-compared-to-the-holocaust/

"I have been asked the question: Why do you think the German euthanasia program happened during World War II, but not the Holocaust? This article will show that the evidence for the German euthanasia program is overwhelming, while the evidence to support the Holocaust story is severely lacking."

(By the way, check the comments in that article, they are very revealing)

20) How did Typhus kill all 6000 remaining Jews in the town of Proskuriv (in Western Ukraine) on the day of November 4, 1941? [19] Why were they buried together in one pit kilometers outside of town? [20] Why did almost all have bullet holes in the back of their neck/head? Were the villagers afraid of the typhus victims turning into zombies?

What does typhus have to do with anything?
Where is the actual evidence that they were:
- Jews
- Killed by Nazis
- Jews killed by Nazis solely for being Jews

A caption on a photograph? A statment by the Soviets, the same Soviets who blamed their own Katyn massacre on the Germans?

This is also discussed here:

Proskurov mass grave
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2527

Khmelnitski Proskurov
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=7316


21) If Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor were transit & resettlement camps and not extermination camps why would every person working at these camps have to swear an oath [21] that they would not "under any circumstances pass on any form of information, verbally or in writing, on the progress, procedure or incidents in the evacuation of Jews" and agree to "absolute prohibition on photography in the camps" and why couldn't they talk about the camps even after they left the service? It would seem to me that the Nazis would want to show Jews at these camps being happily resettled in the East.

The last sentence really, really proves how little you understand the revisionist position.
You hear "Resettlement" and think "just harmless train rides" but that is the opposite of the reality, complete opposite.

It was quite brutal in many cases, this is not denied by revisionists. A good example is in this thread:
Prisoners dying in transit to the AR camps (Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka) / other deaths / expected death tolls
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12910

The idea that "Unless they were mass murdering people by the hundreds of thousands, there would be no reason to want to keep it a secret."
Yet anyone who has worked for the military, as a contractor or anything, knows that is simply not the case.

And the reality is that the documents actually show that this mass resettlement program was very controversial. First, a document on Operation Reinhardt showing that it was, in fact, a resettlement plan that included also the massive plundering of Jewish wealth:

5 January 1944 Globocnik Report to Himmler (4024-PS) on Operation Reinhard(t)
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12359

Nothing about killing or extermination there, but still you could easily argue that what they did was "evil" or "wicked" or "barbaric" despite it not being a policy of genocide or mass extermination.

There is also this document:
3244-PS Martin Bormann on the solution of the Jewish Problem
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=9280
Preparatory Measures for the Solution of the Jewish Problem in Europe-Rumors About the Position of the Jews in the East.
V.I. 66/881 of the 9 Oct., 1942

In the course of the work on the final solution of the Jewish problem, discussions about "very strict measures" against the Jews, especially in the Eastern territories, have lately been taking place within the population of the various areas of the Reich. Investigations showed that such discussions-mostly in a distorted and exaggerated form-were passed on by soldiers on leave from various units committed in the East, who had the opportunity to eye-witness these measures. It is conceivable that not all "Blood Germans" are capable of demonstrating sufficient understanding for the necessity of such measures, especially not those parts of the population which do not have the opportunity of visualizing bolshevist atrocities on the basis of their own observations. In order to be able 'to counter-act any formation of rumors in this connection, which frequently ark of an intentional, prejudiced character, the following statements are issued for information about the present state of affairs:
...
Since even our next generation will not be so close to this problem and will no longer see it clearly enough on the basis of past experiences and since this matter which has now started rolling demands clearing up, the whole problem must still be solved by the present generation.

A complete removal or withdrawal of the millions of Jews residing in the European economic space [Wirtschaftsraum] is therefore an urgent need in the fight for the security of existence of the German people.

So, there's nothing about this that is inconsistent with the revisionist position.
A typical canard used by "Holocaust" promoters is to claim that Revisionists "deny" the existence of everything about the Jews' experience in WWII, the camps, deportations, ghettos, etc. But no one says that: it's a classic false, strawman argument.

Revisionists do not "deny" that Jews were deported to labor camps and encouraged to leave Europe. There is no question that the National Socialists wanted the Jews out of Europe; The Zionists also wanted the Jews out of Europe.

What Revisionists do "deny" is:
- The unfounded and frankly, laughable '6,000,000'
- The ridiculous & irrational allegations of homicidal 'gas chambers'
- The unsubstantiated claim of a state planned genocide of Jews

And The Industry can't prove any of these things actually happened.

I guess that's it for this hilarious, amateur-level infographic :P
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

forasanerworld
Member
Member
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:37 am

Re: Hilarious "21 Questions for Holocaust Revisionists" graphic

Postby forasanerworld » 8 months 2 days ago (Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:26 am)

11) If the Jews were evacuated "to the East" rather than being exterminated in Poland, what happened to them? Why have so many family members of those "evacuated" never heard from their loved ones again? Wouldn't they try to make some contact in the past 70+ years?

Here's a point on that, made contact a couple years ago:
Holocaust Survivor, 102, Meets Nephew He Never Knew He Had

Eliahu Pietruszka thought his brother, Volf, who was the visitor’s father, had died in a labor camp after losing contact with him following the murder of their brother and parents in the Holocaust

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/holocaust-survivor-102-meets-nephew-he-never-knew-he-had-1.5722231

A young man in Warsaw fled to Russia leaving twin younger brothers and parents. One brother also fled to Russia and the two initially had contact bu they lost contact and the older brother assumed he had died in a Gulag (also assuming of course the other had been murdered). Having migrated to Israel contact was eventually established; of course although one brother had obviously not been murdered by the Russians the rest remained assumed murdered by the Germans, cognitive dissonance I'd call it.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests