Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Table 1: Distribution of claimed Holocaust
victims according to murder site
LOCATION HILBERG39 DAWIDOWICZ40
Auschwitz: 1,000,000 2,000,000
Treblinka: 750,000 800,000
Belzec: 550,000 600,000
Sobibor: 200,000 250,000
Chelmno: 150,000 340,000
Majdanek: 50,000 1,380,000
CAMPS TOTAL: 2,700,000 5,370,000
other locations: 2,400,000 563,000
Such a table could be compiled using many more mainstream Holocaust historians, and the figures would be just as wildly divergent. So how come that all these authors end up with basically the same total, when they disagree on everything else, and not a single one of them proves what they claim with incontestable sources?
Source: Rudolf: Lectures on the Holocaust
- Valuable asset
- Posts: 2463
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
- Location: Northern California
Why is "39" and "40" in there?
Those are the numbers for the footnote sources:
39 Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, Holmes & Meyer, New York 1985, p. 1219.
40 Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews, Holt, New York 1975, p. 149
I too have been reading Rudolf's latest book. I highly recommend it - especially if, like me, you find the breathtaking lack of logic related to all things holocaust and anti-revisinist to be one of the most compelling reasons to support revisionism. It has some great observations which were new to me.
Bergmann wrote:They both claim that the Holocaust resulted in between five and six million murdered Jews. Yet if you compare how both authors allocate these victims to the various sites of the claimed mass murder, it turns out that they do not agree on anything.
The historians' breakdowns are discrepant because their conclusion is based on demographic issues and not the means or locations of killing. In other words, they start from their conclusion and develop the "facts" to support it instead of letting the conclusion follow from the facts.
This is the way the Holocaust is "supposed" to be done. French Professors Vidal-Naquet and Poliakov, and signed by 32 of their colleagues, explained it this way:
Historian's Manifesto wrote:It should not be asked how, technically, such-and-such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible given that it took place. That is the starting point obliged of any historical investigation into this subject. This truth, it belonged to us to point out simply: there is not, there cannot be debate on the existence of gas chambers.
Le Monde 21 FEB 1979
That's not the way that I was taught science or historiography.
Yes, dishonesty is the operative word here; from Van Pelt, this 'Dr.' Green crank, Reitlinger, Hilberg, etc., to all the phoney gas chamber eyewitnesses. And they don't even seem to mind when they are exposed as liars, they think they are superior and lying is ok if it serves their purposes. Then they demand laws to prevent any questioning of their lies and put the heretics in jail.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests