1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
patriot9878
Member
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:40 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby patriot9878 » 1 decade 1 month ago (Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:36 pm)

Everyone should do everything in their power to get these movies to the schools like Bradley Smith. Someone should make copies and sell them just enough to cover costs. But when they declare martial law I don't know if we'll be able to pass them around so freely.
I've read all the evidence and how people believe this nonsense of a holocaust is beyond me. When you look at how they transported them and the Germans had to stop the trains to allow the people to go to the bathroom and get food and water every 4 or 5 hours or they would have died on the hot trains going to Poland. Why would the Germans wait to cull the Jews until the got to the camps. The easiest way was to cull them as they loaded them.
But they can't allow the people to learn the truth about the holocaust.

PatrickSMcNally
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:47 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 1 month ago (Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:48 pm)

Thesaint wrote:"probably"?
It`s either a true,or an untrue statement that you previously made,or it is not.

Actually, it is true plain and simple. But mostly in the context of various internet debates through email which I've had with other people at different times over the years who have often shown themselves to be quite careless in mixing things together. But of course I don't keep records of all my old emails and so there really isn't any point of trying to cite them in the way you'd refer to a book and page number. It's kind of like with the 4 million number itself. I know that it was in circulation at one point because I can remember believing it in the 1990s. But when I tried to go looking through books to find one author who was viewed in academia as some kind of authority and who gave me a definitive statement of 4 million Jews, people, or whatever, killed in Auschwitz, I couldn't find it. But I know it was out there circulating in public discussion. And I know that everything which I've mentioned and which you've mentioned in turn above was also all out there in a variety of email debates that I had over the years. But if you choose not to accept that then there's no point in me fussing about it.

That's also why it is better for people who wish to make a central point about Auschwitz 4 million claims to spend their time to clarify that academic authors have generally not held to this number and, if someone is really energetic and has access to old archives of The Times or what not, to actually compile a listing of media citations or something along those lines relating to the 4 million number. Although I know that I had believed in it at one time, I'm still not actually clear on what was the overall record of the major media towards this 4 million number. It would be interesting to see a compiled list of media references where the 4 million number was mentioned.

But while this isn't as bad as some exchanges which I've had through email over the years, this is still worth mentioning as a concrete example of overdrawn assertions by someone who really should (and does wwhen he applies himself) know better:

http://www.historiography-project.com/m ... eaths.html

The first example Faurisson gives is just plain a false example and that's all. The film 'Night and Fog' shows a picture of Auschwitz in the background while flashing a claim of 9 million victims across the screen. If someone pauses to think for a moment, it's easy to surmise that the number 9 million is meant to be interpreted as spread across eastern Europe while the picture of Auschwitz is simply being used as an emblem of a larger event. That's not unusual in filmmakng. If someone was making a film about the First World War it would be not be out of line to create a scene where the line "More than 10 million soldiers died" flashes across the screen while a picture of Verdun is in the background. No one would misinterpret that as meaning that more than 10 million died in Verdun. It's clear that 'Night and Fog' is not saying that 9 million died at Auschwitz. Even if you wish to argue that on a subject as politically charged as this the filmmaker should be extra careful to seek clarity, that is a criticism of filmmaking and has nothing to do with implying that Henri Michel and Olga Wormser-Migot actually claimed that 9 million had been killed in Auschwitz.

This is an example of a kind of frivolous attitude which Faurisson sometimes shows which runs diametrically against the idea of "exactitude" that he often claims for himself. Being "exact" with relation to critiques of 'Night and Fog' should entail noting that the clear intent of the scene in question was simply to use a picture of auschwitz as an emblem for a bigger event, which is a common technique in filmmaking and perfectly justifiable.

With regards to the rest of that list, although each of the examples is interesting in itself, there really isn't much "exactitude" in the way that Faurisson has done things on this page. He places Lech Walesa on a common footing with Raul Hilberg. That isn't being very exact at all. It should be noted that errors by Hilberg, where they really occur, have much greater significance than a false statement by Walesa. Walesa is simply a politician and rational people expect that breed to make false statements. But a scholar, a leading academic at a univeristy, regarded as a pioneer in making possible our modern understanding of the Holocaust, a fundamental error by Hilberg is of much greater import than Walesa saying something. Faurisson may think that by trivializing this point and treating Hilberg on the same level as Walesa and others who are not regarded as academic authorities of any kind that he is somehow undermining the godly image of the Holocaust priests. But it's more accurate to say that he comes off as having a frivolous attitude towards something which is serious.

But Faurisson isn't as confused as others whom I've interacted on the net with over the years. Still, there's no point in making claims over stuff which I've deleted long since. That piece by Faurisson is still a worthwhile example of how he sometimes has a tendency to overdraw a point and really only undercuts his argument in the eyes of most of the public. A shame, but there's not much one can do about it.

Thesaint
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: England

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby Thesaint » 1 decade 1 month ago (Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:44 pm)

I see PatrickSMcnally,you`ve decided to just re-tread over your old talking points and totally ignore your previous gross misrepresentation:

PatrickSMcnally:"...there are many either uneducated people or just plain stupid ideologues who very casually repeat the falacy that the orthodox history of the Holocaust fable has rested on the claim of 4 million Jews being killed at Auschwitz."

A patently untrue statement.A statement I consider just as misleading as saying something like "Revisionism suffered a mortal blow when David Irving lost his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt".
"We didn't call survivors," says Lipstadt, "because first of all we didn't want to subject them to cross-examination by this guy. He (Irving) would have destroyed them."
- Jerusalem Post 6/16/00

PatrickSMcNally
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:47 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 1 month ago (Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:02 pm)

Thesaint wrote:PatrickSMcnally:"...there are many either uneducated people or just plain stupid ideologues who very casually repeat the falacy that the orthodox history of the Holocaust fable has rested on the claim of 4 million Jews being killed at Auschwitz."

A perfectly true statement, though many of the worst examples which I've run across of this are in long-deleted emails and there's no point in my fussing over that. But I noticed how you did what was probably a very bad misrepresentation of a book and then sort of quietly slithered away from it. A book that was partly online, edited by Hauptmann & Motin, was charged by you with being a school textbook that taught the 4 million Auschwitz number. I was interested enough to start looking at parts of the book online (Google doesn't make the entire book available, there are pages missing from the online text). It became clear that the book was broken into sections and that one specific section was billed as being made up of survivor testimonies.

That section did have an essay by a purported survivor which made the claim of 4 million being killed at Auschwitz (he did not say 4 million Jews, just people). But looking through the table of contents and some other parts I noticed that the other sections, as opposed to the section devoted to 'survivor testimonies,' carried titles which implied that the essay's author was discussing issues and problems in the use of eyewitness testimony as historical evidence. It was clearly just from the table of contents that the book's editors were not attempting to claim that eyewitness testimony is necessarily accurate, but had included some eyewitness testimony essays as a sampling for students to be exposed to. I stopped trying to comb alll of the pages since the book was only partly online and it was irritating reading and then finding a page missing. But I'll look it up eventually.

I would not be surprised, however, if the editors have included some discussion where students are warned about inflated numbers at Auschwitz being circulated by 'survivors' and a reference to something like Hilberg's 1.1 million number is made with due notice to the 4 million story. I'll have to eventually check the entire book to see what exactly they say and if students are properly warned of this. But you didn't even try to either check such or to even discriminate between the inclusion of a purported 'survivor testimony' which made the 4 million claim versus determining whether or not the book actually tries to teach students to believe that 4 million died in Auschwitz. That's precisely the kind of mental sloppiness which many average people see and which leads them to assume that people questioning the orthodox Holocaust story are of below average intelligence.

Now I'm sure that there are many more substantive criticisms which can be made of this book, regardless of whether or not it cautions the reader to be wary of witnesses who swear by the 4 million number. But that will actually take some time to eventually look at the text and better determine what they really claim. Does the text assert that diesel exhaust was used at Treblinka? Does it evade the issue and avoid saying anything specific? Does its bibliography refer students to books which do claim that diesel was used? If so, do the editors caution students about this? There are a lot of other questions one could raise in any examination of the book. But your way of just quickly referring to a line in a testimony where the person claimed 4 million dead at Auschwitz was sloppy no matter how this turns out.

Pepper
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:47 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby Pepper » 1 decade 1 month ago (Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:19 pm)

PSM:

But are you certain that he said 4 million Jews, rather than 4 million people?



Absolutely. My teachers were very sloppy with the facts.


You never addressed this Patrick (note - the following has been edited):


The Nuremberg “tribunal” found Hoess guilty of murdering 300,000 non Jews and “at least” 2.5 million Jews. That’s “at least” 2.8 million “murders” with “at least” 89.5% of the “murdered” being Jews - by Hoess alone.

However, that figure was just for those allegedly murdered by Hoess during May 1, 1940 to December1, 1943, and May 8, 1944 and beyond. That figure doesn’t include the number of those allegedly murdered during the 159 day absence of Hoess during the very height of “the final solution.” (And we all know who was supposed to have been the primary target of “homicidal gassings” at Auschwitz during the height of “the final solution to the Jewish problem,” don’t’ we Patrick?)

The “tribunal” used those figures to come up with the “not less than” 4 million dead figure for Auschwitz, conveniently leaving out an exact death count for the Jews alone. Extrapolating the above percentage, “not less than” four million minus 10.5% equals “at least” 3.58 million. (Jews) I.e. – of the “not less than” 4 million dead, “most” were Jews.

The figures have always been intentionally obscured by the Jews with the use of words like “about,” “at least,” “most,” etc. Since the definition of “most” can vary from 50.1 % to 99.9%, “most” is maliciously left up to the mind of the unenlightened to determine. However, the term “most” usually implies (especially to the emotionally stunned) - the vast majority, i.e. 85 – 95 %. (If not more.) The new plaque claims that of the “about” 1.5 million “murders,” the “victims” were “mostly” Jews. That is an important aspect of the Jews deceptive shell game. Just as it was always implied that “most” of the “at least” 4 million figure were Jews.

Now let’s ask Patrick a simple question:

What is “at least” 2.5 million plus “most” of 1.2 million?

Remember also, it was only ever “proven” at Nuremberg that 300,000 non Jews died at Auschwitz, which implicitly “proved” that “not less than” 3.7 million Jews were killed there. And do remember, the total claim was 4.1 million as often as it was 4, so it can be correctly stated that it was “proven” at Nurmeberg that 3.7 – 3.8 million Jews died at Auschwitz.

How many people personally saw the Auschwitz plaque between 1948 and 1995?

How many times between 1948 and 1995 did the Jews demand that the Auschwitz museum replace the plaque claiming 4 million deaths with one containing an updated figure?

Can "at least" 4 million be interpreted to mean "possibly 4.2 million?

Can "not less than" 4 million be interpreted to mean possibly 4.2 million?

Can "most / mostly" be interpreted to mean 95?

Thesaint
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: England

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby Thesaint » 1 decade 1 month ago (Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:53 am)

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
Thesaint wrote:PatrickSMcnally:"...there are many either uneducated people or just plain stupid ideologues who very casually repeat the falacy that the orthodox history of the Holocaust fable has rested on the claim of 4 million Jews being killed at Auschwitz."

But I noticed how you did what was probably a very bad misrepresentation of a book and then sort of quietly slithered away from it. A book that was partly online, edited by Hauptmann & Motin, was charged by you with being a school textbook that taught the 4 million Auschwitz number. I was interested enough to start looking at parts of the book online (Google doesn't make the entire book available, there are pages missing from the online text). It became clear that the book was broken into sections and that one specific section was billed as being made up of survivor testimonies.

That section did have an essay by a purported survivor which made the claim of 4 million being killed at Auschwitz (he did not say 4 million Jews, just people). But looking through the table of contents and some other parts I noticed that the other sections, as opposed to the section devoted to 'survivor testimonies,'

Yet another highly disingenuous statement.I explicitly said I had "just looked it up" and that it was a self-proclaimed "holocaust teaching aid" thereby reinforcing my point about the 4 million(Jews or not is unimportant)figure still being used.
Back on topic,why did you make this highly disingenuous statement PatrickSMcnally:

"...there are many either uneducated people or just plain stupid ideologues who very casually repeat the falacy that the orthodox history of the Holocaust fable has rested on the claim of 4 million Jews being killed at Auschwitz."

and then try and weasel out of it by saying this:

"If you simply wish to dispose of that as a paraphrase, fine. It probably gives too much credit to suggest that something that concise has ever been formulated"?
"We didn't call survivors," says Lipstadt, "because first of all we didn't want to subject them to cross-examination by this guy. He (Irving) would have destroyed them."
- Jerusalem Post 6/16/00


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 3 guests