CODOH's Summer Campus Campaign

[Hannover]

Read below as Bradley Smith announces his “Eisenhower” ad. One more nail in the bogus 'holocaust' story line's coffin.

- Hannover

Friend:

We’ve kicked off the summer edition of our Campus Campaign, sending our new “Eisenhower” ad to student newspapers that have a substantial summer press run. The new ad presents a new take on our fabled gas-chamber question.

Is it true that Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote his 582-page Crusade in Europe, his own story about leading the war in the West against Germany, and did not mention gas chambers? Yes, he did write the book. No, he did not mention gas chambers. Why not? That is the question. Why not?

We then ask the academics who read the ad to provide, with proof, the name of one person killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz. We ask students to ask their professors to provide such a name. We leave it there. No argument. No accusations. Just the
question. Everyone who reads the ad will understand the implications of the ad, the implications of the question.

With your help our Eisenhower ad will reach tens of thousands of students and thousands of academics and university staff. With your help revisionist arguments with regard to the gas-chamber question will become part of a natural back and forth on our university campuses, and the Holocaust Marketing Industry will lose one more tool in its incessant campaign to further the concept of the “unique monstrosity” of the Germans.

So we are taking off, but not without you. This campaign is yours.We need your participation. Please contribute, be part of the journey and we will keep you up-dated via my blog.

Thanks,

Bradley Smith

You can view the new Eisenhower ad here:
http://codoh.c.topica.com/maam9SgabQUKLbJ7tNVbafpTId/

Please contribute at:
http://codoh.c.topica.com/maam9SgabQUKMbJ7tNVbafpTId/

[Lamprecht]

How many takers do you think there will be?

[KostasL]

Read below as Bradley Smith announces his “Eisenhower” ad. One more nail in the bogus 'holocaust' story line's coffin.

EISENHOWER.jpg

- Hannover

Friend:

We’ve kicked off the summer edition of our Campus Campaign, sending our new “Eisenhower” ad to student newspapers that have a substantial summer press run. The new ad presents a new take on our fabled gas-chamber question.

Is it true that Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote his 582-page Crusade in Europe, his own story about leading the war in the West against Germany, and did not mention gas chambers? Yes, he did write the book. No, he did not mention gas chambers. Why not? That is the question. Why not?

We then ask the academics who read the ad to provide, with proof, the name of one person killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz. We ask students to ask their professors to provide such a name. We leave it there. No argument. No accusations. Just the
question. Everyone who reads the ad will understand the implications of the ad, the implications of the question.

With your help our Eisenhower ad will reach tens of thousands of students and thousands of academics and university staff. With your help revisionist arguments with regard to the gas-chamber question will become part of a natural back and forth on our university campuses, and the Holocaust Marketing Industry will lose one more tool in its incessant campaign to further the concept of the “unique monstrosity” of the Germans.

So we are taking off, but not without you. This campaign is yours.We need your participation. Please contribute, be part of the journey and we will keep you up-dated via my blog.

Thanks,

Bradley Smith

You can view the new Eisenhower ad here:
http://codoh.c.topica.com/maam9SgabQUKLbJ7tNVbafpTId/

Please contribute at:
http://codoh.c.topica.com/maam9SgabQUKMbJ7tNVbafpTId/

Very impressive appeal to people's common sense.

[vincentferrer]

Bradley Smith is a great American.

He is almost single handedly taking on the hoax industry, with pennies, while he faces down power brokers, with untold millions and influence in all media venues.

[Lupa]

I know about another document without any mention of gaschambers or mass killings of inmates.



This book is the result of the interrogations made to Heinz Linge and Otto Guensche by the NKVD , the report was concluded in 1949 , starting the interrogations of the two captives just in summer of 1945. Linge and Günsche where the valets of Hitler and presented most , if not all the personal conversations Hitler held with his party and military collaborators.

http://www.booksamillion.com/product/9781586484569

Only one ore two mentions of the concentration camp of Buchenwald , in a context of Hitler being angry with a subordinate who didn´t obey an order in the way Hitler wanted him to.

That´s all what two persons which shared the secrets at the cuppola of the regime have heard about concentration camps in the words of Hitler.

[KostasL]

I know about another document without any mention of gaschambers or mass killings of inmates.



This book is the result of the interrogations made to Heinz Linge and Otto Guensche by the NKVD , the report was concluded in 1949 , starting the interrogations of the two captives just in summer of 1945. Linge and Günsche where the valets of Hitler and presented most , if not all the personal conversations Hitler held with his party and military collaborators.

http://www.booksamillion.com/product/9781586484569

Only one ore two mentions of the concentration camp of Buchenwald , in a context of Hitler being angry with a subordinate who didn´t obey an order in the way Hitler wanted him to.

That´s all what two persons which shared the secrets at the cuppola of the regime have heard about concentration camps in the words of Hitler.

A book published by the NKVD, should be considered credible ?

[PatrickSMcNally]

A book published by the NKVD, should be considered credible ?

If I understood the original poster correctly, I don't think it ever was published by the NKVD. The description given suggested that it was a private report for Stalin, which of course is more reliable than something put together for public consumption.

[Lupa]

A book published by the NKVD, should be considered credible ?

If I understood the original poster correctly, I don't think it ever was published by the NKVD. The description given suggested that it was a private report for Stalin, which of course is more reliable than something put together for public consumption.

Exactly that is the point! Stalin wanted an absolute true report about Hitler and his life , and gave the order to the highest ranks of the NKVD at the time. It was "for his eyes only". The interrogations of Günsche and Linge where made separately , both didn´t meet each other during the whole elaboration of the report. So it is impossible for them to tune their declarations. On the other hand , the writers of the report surely would not make the mistake of ommitting parts of the declaration, because Stalin probably would not be very amused about that. With fatal consecuences.

For me it is a reliable source of historic facts.

[KostasL]

A book published by the NKVD, should be considered credible ?

If I understood the original poster correctly, I don't think it ever was published by the NKVD. The description given suggested that it was a private report for Stalin, which of course is more reliable than something put together for public consumption.

Of course it was not published by the NKVD. The NKVD was merely the author.

And being a "private" report for Stalin makes it seem more credible.

But should it be considered credible ?

Anyway Lupa made a good point.

[PLAYWRIGHT]

Umm...if I was a smart-ass college kid - and I was - and I had read the book, I suppose I'd point out that Eisenhower never mentioned gas chambers because he never saw one.

Eisenhower does mention the "horror-camp", as he calls it, at Ohrdruf, which he toured and where there was no gas chamber. There is other mention of concentration camps, but since the book is directed at his actions as CINC-SHAEF, and his conduct of the war, it actually seems logical that it would not mention gas chambers, for he never saw or toured one, and was not responsible for setting national policy or the national war object, only objectives within his theatre of operations. Within those limitations, there would be a lot that he wouldn't mention, as irrelevant to the topic of his book.

Hell, he wasn't informed of the Manhatten Project and the A-Bomb until a few days before it was used.

That point is rather glaring, and I have to note this is actually a pretty lame ad. It doesn't explain the revisionist positions at all. Even if I was just in college to drink and get laid, I wouldn't find the ad convincing.

[KostasL]

Umm...if I was a smart-ass college kid - and I was - and I had read the book, I suppose I'd point out that Eisenhower never mentioned gas chambers because he never saw one.

Exactly !

Nobody has ever seen one.

If there was somebody that saw one, it should have been Ike.

[PatrickSMcNally]

That point is rather glaring, and I have to note this is actually a pretty lame ad.

I agree that the ad does badly overstate things when it refers to Eisenhower as having written "a history of the war." Like you say, Eisenhower never really claimed to be writing a general history of the war. The book was an account of his own personal involvement in the war. Churchill's books, on the other hand, really are presented as a multi-volume general history of the war. I don't recall Churchill having mentioned anything about gas chambers either. That would be more of an odd omission than Eisenhower's failure to mention them.

But I'd also agree that quibbling about the failure of a politician-or-general-turned-author to mention gas chambers is more of a side issue than anything else. When all else fails, the Anti-Defamation League will simply explain this as a subtle influence of antisemitism, not even consciously felt by the author. On the other hand, someone already acquainted with primary revisionist arguments can see the failure to mention gas chambers as reflecting their non-existence.

What first made me begin doubting all the stories about gas chambers and crematoria used as a tool of mass-extermination was the anomalous nature of all the descriptions of how gassings could be performed, how fast bodies could be made to disappear, how easily the devices used for these purposes could be readied for another repeat performance very promptly, and the like. If one accepts just that much, then it's not really odd that there would be no bodies left for one to diagnose as having died from poison gas. Between the time that the last alleged gas chambers were shut down in November 1944 and the time that the camps were captured by Soviet forces, one would expect all the remaining bodies to have been turned to ash, if we initially accept what is commonly claimed about how fast the bodies could be cremated away. The more essential problem lies in the claims which are typically made about cremation processes, rather than in the existence or absense of a specific body with a cause of death identifiable as poison gas.

[KostasL]

That point is rather glaring, and I have to note this is actually a pretty lame ad.

I agree that the ad does badly overstate things when it refers to Eisenhower as having written "a history of the war." Like you say, Eisenhower never really claimed to be writing a general history of the war. The book was an account of his own personal involvement in the war. Churchill's books, on the other hand, really presented as multi-volume general history of the war. I don't recall Churchill having mentioned anything about gas chambers either. That would be more of an odd omission than Eisenhower's failure to mention them.

But I'd also agree that quibbling about the failure of a politician-or-general-turned-author to mention gas chambers is more of a side issue than anything else. When all else fails, the Anti-Defamation League will simply explain this as a subtle influence of antisemitism, not even consciously felt by the author. On the other hand, someone already acquainted with primary revisionist arguments can see the failure to mention gas chambers as reflecting their non-existence.

What first made me begin doubting all the stories about gas chambers and crematoria used as a tool of mass-extermination was the anomalous nature of all the descriptions of how gassings could be performed, how fast bodies could be made to disappear, how easily the devices used for these purposes could be readied for another repeat performance very promptly, and the like. If one accepts just that much, then it's not really odd that there would be no bodies left for one to diagnose as having died from poison gas. Between the time that the last alleged gas chambers were shut down in November 1944 and the time that the camps were captured by Soviet forces, one would expect all the remaining bodies to have been turned to ash, if we initially accept what is commonly claimed about how fast the bodies could be cremated away. The more essential problem lies in the claims which are typically made about cremation processes, rather than in the existence or absense of a specific body with a cause of death identifiable as poison gas.

Fortunately, this ad is targeting common people, NOT people like you.

I repeat that i find this ad to be a very impressive appeal to people's common sense.

[PatrickSMcNally]

Fortunately, this ad is targeting common people, NOT people like you.

Just be aware that anyone who takes a basic interest in looking into the matter will very quickly realize that Eisenhower's book was about his own personal experiences and it's not a priori obvious that he should mention gas chambers in eastern Europe, if any hypothetically existed. At best the fact that Eisenhower doesn't mention such is a small point worth noting, without pretending that it can decide very much.

I repeat that i find this ad to be a very impressive appeal to people's common sense.

Common sense is also where the rebuttal to it is to be found. It's common sense that since all of the gas chambers are claimed to have been in Poland, since Eisenhower is not writing a comprehensive history of the war but only an account of his own personal experiences, since Eisenhower never served in military operations on Polish territory, it's common sense that he might have felt no reason to mention things which occurred outside of his theater of operations. Common people will be able to figure that much out for themselves, if they take an interest in the issue. It's not rocket science.

[PLAYWRIGHT]

Common sense is also where the rebuttal to it is to be found. It's common sense that since all of the gas chambers are claimed to have been in Poland, since Eisenhower is not writing a comprehensive history of the war but only an account of his own personal experiences, since Eisenhower never served in military operations on Polish territory, it's common sense that he might have felt no reason to mention things which occurred outside of his theater of operations. Common people will be able to figure that much out for themselves, if they take an interest in the issue. It's not rocket science.

Gas chambers simply had nothing to do with his job as CINC-SHAEF. A simple way of stating a common sense rebuttal to the ad, when presented with "Eisenhower never mentioned gas chambers - WHY NOT?" two possible college student replies are "SO WHAT?" or "WHY WOULD HE?".

Any answer I can think of is so totally lame as to look quite foolish. An ad built on the nonsense around the Reinhardt camps would have been better.