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

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 5 months ago (Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:32 am)

Thesaint wrote:The constant harping on about the significance of the fact that only 1 million Jews are alleged to have been gassed at Auschwitz by Hilberg and his merry band of "elite" hoaxsters,thereby excusing said hoaxsters from ever having to account for the previously alleged(ooohhhh,but not by them Patrick,not by THEM!) extra 3 million saved souls by shrugging them off as never-existing,non-important,non-dead Jews,that in no way interfere with the orthodox "theory" of how the alleged Auschwitz extermination machinery operated.

With stupic caricatures like that drawn by people posing as revisionist advocates, it's no wonder that the Holocaust fable lasts as long as it does. Maybe we should call it Thesaint Stupidity.

This subthread has absolutely nothing to do with if or how the alleged "Auschwitz extermination machinery operated." It began when another ill-informed poster tried to make a demographic argument about Jews having perhaps emigrated, basing their argument upon the change in the plaque (which they got wrong anyway), and I had just casually pointed out that such an argument holds no water. Now you've taken umbrage over this simple true point to get riled up with charges that I'm allegedly protecting the orthodox history. You should change the "saint" part of your name to "idiot" and then it will fit better.

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

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 5 months ago (Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:42 am)

neugierig wrote:Thanks for the information on the new Gilbert book, ASMarques. F. Berg send me this today, also about a new book, titled: “Holocaust: The Ignored Reality”, by Timothy Snyder.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22875

Well, whatever I may disagree with it was an interesting article. Thanks. One passage from the article which stood out as having relevance to some other points on this thread was this one:

Yet for Stalin, the mass murder of Jews had to be seen as the suffering of "citizens." Grossman helped to compile a Black Book of German crimes against Soviet Jews, which Soviet authorities later suppressed. If any group suffered especially under the Germans, Stalin maintained wrongly, it was the Russians.

The same pattern of stressing Russians over Jews continued under later Soviet leaders, even after Khrushchev had denounced Stalin in relation to other matters. No one moderately informed about Soviet politics ever interpreted the 4 million number on the famous Auschwitz plaque to mean 4 million Jews.

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby neugierig » 1 decade 4 months ago (Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:15 am)

PatrickSMcNally, the writer of the article I linked to, Timothy Snyder, writes nonsense, period. What I found interesting is that there is yet another attempt made to shift at least some of the alleged crime scene further east.

Snyder writes: “All in all, as many if not more Jews were killed by bullets as by gas, but they were killed by bullets in easterly locations that are blurred in painful remembrance”. This is, in part, all about numbers, trying to somehow substantiate the 5 to 6 million. It also seems to be an attempt to move away from the Gaskammern and place more importance on “crimes” in “…eastern locations, blurred in…remembrance”.

Just a little about the Auschwitz 4 million lie. I found what Pan Piper of Auschwitz museum fame wrote in his reply to F. Meyer to be of interest. We have to remember that Herr Meyer had asserted that no more than 500 000 could have been killed at Auschwitz, 350 000 of them Jews. That, ahem, admission came to early for the Industry, the ground had not been prepared. Thus Pan Piper was called in and he wrote:

“Polish crime investigators and the Supreme National Tribunal in Poland, which tried the Auschwitz prisoners, also accepted the figure of 4,000,000. Established by the prosecutorial authorities rather than by researchers, this number gained acceptance by the public and became canonical knowledge on the subject of Auschwitz for many years, in Poland and elsewhere[…]This does not mean that all researchers agreed on the figure of 4,000,000 in their publications. Jewish researchers in particular, who were fully aware that Jews made up the decided majority of the victims of Auschwitz, had significant reservations about this figure—above all because, when added to the number of Jews killed at other extermination sites, it more than doubled the overall loss of Jewish lives, set at 5,000,000 to 6,000,000[…]”

The last part is what is interesting. What Piper is saying here is that Jewish researchers rejected the 4 million Jews killed at Auschwitz because the sum total would have gone over the set limit of 5 to 6 million Jews. That is to say that they would have accepted the 4 million if it would not have gone beyond that set limit. It will be interesting to see how the numbers will be juggled when more importance is placed on the alleged “blurred” killings in the east. Will Meyer’s Auschwitz number be accepted and the difference moved east?

Time will tell, but this continued changing of the story should make even the most brainwashed start to ask questions. And then again, probably not, for all will again be very professionally packaged.

Regards
Wilf

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 4 months ago (Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:48 am)

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
Address your query in that direction: "ASMarques, what on earth does the hypocritical attitude of Jewish groups have to do with whether or not the change of the plaque allows a real demographic conclusion to be drawn about world Jewish population and immigration?"


At last we seem to be making some progress! :cheers:

1) The short reply, underlining the all-important word "real": :thumbright:

Not much, except in the sense that the "hypocritical attitude of Jewish groups" is real enough, and helps real demographic conclusions to remain unattainable while based on surreal fantasies like the 4 million, the 1.5 million or the 6 million figures. All one can do is to point out the inconsistencies of the silly successive (or even simultaneous!) fantasies and the Jewish indulgence, promotion, and profiting in them.

2) The longer reply, trying to get away from the silly, amusing but à la longue tedious and rather infantile PatrickSMcNally's seesaw argument: :bounce: :confused1:

I assume that by "the hypocritical attitude of Jewish groups" you mean the "anything goes, as long as Jews are made to look good, duly victimized, and consequently compensated" attitude, including, of course, the 4 -- or nearly 4, or 1.5, or nearly 1.5, or 6, or 9, or whatever -- million claim.

We absolutely agree on that one.

But you should add a second kind of more sophisticated hypocrisy that seems to elude your attention, "the hypocritical attitude of the judeophile 'Holocaust' scholars," who didn't and don't emit the slightest audible protest squeak (not to be confused with a few possible entries in half-secret diaries, or academic buried bottles to be discovered in the far future by the public), often found instead doing their utmost, for as long as possible, to facilitate the larger kind of "hypocritical attitude of Jewish groups" through their silences and professionally fine-tuned obfuscations and postponements.

You should understand that the "Holocaust" has been -- and continues to be -- an "anything goes" orgy of Jewish exploitation, historical misrepresentation and, at best, indifference to justice and non-Jewish suffering, valid both for those you call "the Jewish groups" at large, and the much smaller group that we may call the judeophile "Holocaust scholarship" community.

Of course, an important point you seem to completely miss is the simple fact that the level of toleration of our stupid societies, stupid as they are and are likely to go on being "Holocaust"-wise, for the vast outdoor orgy of the larger "Jewish groups" could not possibly be expected to be strictly identical to the one shown to the much more specialized and constraint-filled indoor orgy of the "Holocaust" pseudo-scholars.

In short: when it comes to the religion of the "Holocaust" Golden Calf, you cannot expect the learned calfology of the priesthood, specializing in the many branches of the principle of the scholastic harmony of logical contraries, to be identical to the lack of sophistication of the "gimme!" host at large.

But neither should you use that obvious distinction -- that could never have been expected not to exist -- to pretend that the priesthood has been denouncing the miracles of the Golden Calf and insisting that they be scientifically investigated.

You cannot confuse the miracle of the jewification of the indistinct sacred relics, with the miracle of the gentilification of the no-longer sacred relics, the miracle of the morphing of the many relics into the vastly fewer relics, the miracle of the dejewification of the exploitation of the relics, or the even more astounding miracle of the total vanishing of the relics.

And still less to pretend that the priests & theologians of the Golden Calf are the ones who have been trying their best to throw light on the matter, with no one noticing until the heretical revisionist onslaught made a reluctant aggiornamento of the creed absolutely necessary to prolong its life.

To the priesthood those are all separate miracles, never to be considered together --indeed that's the first commandment directly given by the Golden Calf himself to the high-priesthood on Mount Israel -- and the only ones who have been trying to examine the whole matter of the relics both in overall context and detail are the religious skeptics, vilified and persecuted, not promoted and incensed like the priesthood and the sainted theologians.


Hope that helps. I have to go now. :tongue3:

Do something more creative and less repetitive, PatrickSMcNally, like starting a new thread on the efforts of the "Holocaust scholars" to promote and popularize in academe the Leuchter and the Rudolf reports on the (empty) holy reliquaries. :toothy2:
Last edited by ASMarques on Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:58 am, edited 10 times in total.

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

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 4 months ago (Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:09 am)

neugierig wrote:PatrickSMcNally, the writer of the article I linked to, Timothy Snyder, writes nonsense, period.

His point that Soviet authorities accented Russians as victims rather than Jews is not nonsense at all.

What I found interesting is that there is yet another attempt made to shift at least some of the alleged crime scene further east.

Interesting undoubtedly, but a totally separate issue from the point I was dealing with.

Thus Pan Piper was called in and he wrote:

“Polish crime investigators and the Supreme National Tribunal in Poland, which tried the Auschwitz prisoners, also accepted the figure of 4,000,000. Established by the prosecutorial authorities rather than by researchers, this number gained acceptance by the public and became canonical knowledge on the subject of Auschwitz for many years, in Poland and elsewhere[…]This does not mean that all researchers agreed on the figure of 4,000,000 in their publications. Jewish researchers in particular, who were fully aware that Jews made up the decided majority of the victims of Auschwitz, had significant reservations about this figure—above all because, when added to the number of Jews killed at other extermination sites, it more than doubled the overall loss of Jewish lives, set at 5,000,000 to 6,000,000[…]”

So Piper tells us quite openly that Jewish researchers did not accept the 4 million figure, just like I said. What deserves some further emphasis is the fact that the "Polish crime invesutigators and ... Jewish researchers" who Piper is talking about are in relation to pre-1991 Poland under Soviet domination. In that context to say that people had "significant reservations" about something usually meant that they consider it bollocks but thought it unwise to say so openly. Authors in the west such as Poliakov, Hilberg, Reitlinger, Browning and others could all be more open and never accepted the 4 million number at any time. Like your own quote says there, the alleged 6 million number was never based upon the 4 million claim and, as I had pointed out to another posted before started flipping out, attempts to make a demographic argument that the change on the Auschwitz plaque should mean a modification of the 6 million number are offbase. Whatever other problems there are with this proclaimed 6 million, the Auschwitz plaque is not one of them.

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

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 4 months ago (Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:38 am)

ASMarques wrote:the simple fact that the level of toleration of our stupid societies, stupid as they are and are likely to go on being "Holocaust"-wise, for the vast outdoor orgy of the larger "Jewish groups" could not possibly be expected to be stricly identical to the one shown to the much more specialized and discrete indoor orgy of the "Holocaust" pseudo-scholars.

You're shifting things very far afield to another dimension, perhaps possessed by the Dread Dormammu. Get help from Dr. Strange and he can bring you back to Earth.

This whole bit began when another poster attempted to make the claim that a 1.1 million number which they had heard of (but which does not appear on the current plaque saying 1.5 million, they must have mixed that up) and the older number of 4 million which they obviously knew had once been on the plaque and had since been changed (to 1.5, not 1.1) somehow allowed them to argue for a demographic alteration in the famed 6 million number. I pointed out that this is a false deduction based on false premises. I might have also added that people taking an amateur interest in revisionism have often made fools of themselves in debates with this type of argument. It's worse than an ad which claims that Eisenhower wrote a "history of the war" (his book was about his own involvement in the war, not the general war history). Nobody has produced anything to contradict that basic point which I made. Instead we've seen people flailing around simply taking umbrage at the fact that anyone would even bother to point out when a particular argument that is commonly repeated on internet emails is wrong.

If one is going to focus on something like correcting any possible misconceptions which may still exist among the general public, if any do, about the Auschwitz 4 million number, then you may as well go work for the Holocaust Memorial Museum. They can certainly use some help in clearing up any misconeptions. I think most ordinary people who begin taking an interest in Holocaust revisionism will get their first impressions from Michael Shermer and some related authors. It's not likely that by the time any of them comes to debate anyone advocating a revisionist view that they will still believe, if they ever did believe it, that 4 million died in Auschwitz. You won't be creating any special shock for them by telling them the Auschwitz plaque was changed. In fact, outside of amateur revisionist internet discussions, I doubt that you'll ever hear about the 4 million number from anyone except Shermer et al. So the assumption that you'll creating a grand revelation for anyone by telling them about the change in the plaque it totally wrong. The only possible significance which the plaque could have in developing a revisionist argument would be if you could cite examples of a prominent orthodox historian having once used it as a source. If you speak to a high school graduate, now becoming a college freshman, who has gone through a web of Holocaust Studies in his high school (and may see more in college, perhaps) and try telling him about the Auschwitz plaque, he won't have any reason to regard it as more than the last final failing of the old Soviet order in eastern Europe. If you try telling him to look back on what people used to say, then he will look back at Reitlinger, Poliakov, Hilberg and others. Not at what an old Soviet plaque used to have on it. You won't have presented him with any reason at all for doubting the general demographic claim of supposedly 6 million.

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 4 months ago (Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:09 am)

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
ASMarques wrote:the simple fact that the level of toleration of our stupid societies, stupid as they are and are likely to go on being "Holocaust"-wise, for the vast outdoor orgy of the larger "Jewish groups" could not possibly be expected to be stricly identical to the one shown to the much more specialized and discrete indoor orgy of the "Holocaust" pseudo-scholars.


Oops, sorry. Again my fault: I often post, re-read, change a few words to make a given point look clearer, correct what looks like the worst mistakes in my English, and re-post. Alas, when I finish this, I notice that you've already sent an almost instantaneous response!

:hiding:
No wonder, I guess, since you seem to be reading from a libretto with a single leitmotiv throughout.

:occasion9:
Again no major problem, since there is no alteration of meaning, just a clarification. This is just to let you notice a minor change in the words you quoted, from "the much more specialized and discrete indoor orgy of the 'Holocaust' pseudo-scholars" to "the much more specialized and constraint-filled indoor orgy of the 'Holocaust' pseudo-scholars".

I'll try in the future to avoid your lightning draw by re-reading more carefully before posting, hopefully on your forthcoming thread on the efforts of the "Holocaust scholars" to promote and popularize in academe the Leuchter and the Rudolf reports on the (empty) holy reliquaries...
Last edited by ASMarques on Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:38 am, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 4 months ago (Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:37 am)

ASMarques wrote:new thread on the efforts of the "Holocaust scholars" to promote and popularize in academe the Leuchter and the Rudolf reports on the (empty) holy reliquaries...

Changing the subject again? Well at least you've made progress in that you now speak of a new thread. What this little subthread started from was an error which an earlier poster had made in regards to what can be concluded from the change in the Auschwitz plaque about Jewish demogrphics and immigration. Nothing else. You can probably find some older threads devoted to either the Leuchter or Rudolf reports. Feel free to revive one of those threads if you have something to add.

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 4 months ago (Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:52 am)

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
ASMarques wrote:new thread on the efforts of the "Holocaust scholars" to promote and popularize in academe the Leuchter and the Rudolf reports on the (empty) holy reliquaries...

[...] You can probably find some older threads devoted to either the Leuchter or Rudolf reports.


How about the part on the efforts to promote them in academe?

PatrickSMcNally wrote:Feel free to revive one of those threads if you have something to add.


Aren't you the one who feels he has something to add on the efforts of the "Holocaust scholars"? :drunken:
Last edited by ASMarques on Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.

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

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 4 months ago (Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:02 pm)

ASMarques wrote:Aren't you the one who feels he has something to add on the efforts of the "Holocaust scholars"?

No, why should I? You are the one who appears obsessed with perpetually changing the subject off from the simple point which I had made in response to someone else's post. They referred to the Auschwitz plaque and suggested that a change in the plaque could be used as part of a demographic argument over Jewish emigration and the like. I simply pointed out that such reasoning was totally wrong. You have had not nothing to respond with but endless shifts of the subject to completely different matters, while you sound like a raving ideologue accusing a member of the church of heathenism for having pointed out an error in the Pope's speech.

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby neugierig » 1 decade 4 months ago (Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:12 pm)

PatrickSMcNally, you are missing the point I am making, concerning Pan Piper, completely. So, one more kick at the cat. Piper wrote that Jewish researchers had “significant reservations” re. the 4 million, “above all” because it would not fit into the set number, the 5 to 6 million. In other words, they would have happily gone with it if at all possible.

A little about the numbers, again from Pan Piper:

“[T]hus various figures for the number of Auschwitz victims appeared in the literature: at least 900,000 (Reitlinger), 1,000,000 Jews (Hilberg), 2,000,000 Jews (Gilbert), 2,500,000 Jews (Weiss), 3,500,000 – 4,500,000 (Kogon)[…]”

If you call this scholarship, be my guest, fact is they are pulling numbers out of a hat. The 4 million was accepted, as well as the contention that most of them were Jews. The western Holo-Scribes did nothing to dispel the lie, in Germany one would thread on dangerous ground doubting it.

In Auschwitz we have gone from 4 million to around 1 million and now we have Timothy Snyder telling us:

“[A]uschwitz, generally taken to be an adequate or even a final symbol of the evil of mass killing, is in fact only the beginning of knowledge, a hint of the true reckoning with the past still to come[…]”

This has all the markings of another reduction in numbers. The 200 scientists who had gathered in Berlin, to combat those pesky Revisionists, had a bit of a hard time with the mythical Gaskammern. In a newspaper article we read that they had to admit that there is no solid evidence for them, that they are fictional. Therefore the “crime scene” needs to be moved further east, again from Snyder:

“[T]he second most important part of the Holocaust is the mass murder by bullets in eastern Poland and the Soviet Union[…]”

An obvious reference to the book by the frog priest “Holocaust by Bullets” or something like it. Also, Snyder calls it “the second” part, are we to take this to also mean half of the numbers? We’ll just have to wait and see, but as soon as the film about Schmulchen Schievelbeiner appears in cinemas, I for one will know that the second Ostwanderung of the “crime scene” is about to take place.

Armes Deutschland.

Regards
Wilf

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

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 4 months ago (Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:12 pm)

neugierig wrote:PatrickSMcNally, you are missing the point I am making, concerning Pan Piper, completely.

neugierig, you are missing the point I had made a couple pages ago, concerning the relation of the 4 million plaque to Jewish demographics, complletely. I don't like to kick cats since I have several (and just got back from my taking my neighbor's dogs for a walk), but let's if things can be straightened out.

they would have happily gone with it if at all possible.

They would have happily gone with steam chambers at Treblinka if at all possible, nevertheless that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the change of the plaque can serve as a basis for demogrqphic conclusions. It can't, and your own citations support that fact. As you say, to make the claim of 4 million Auschwitz dead we would either have to accept the older Soviet claim that the victims were predominantly Russian (or otherwise non-Jewish victims) or else raise the 6 million to an even more astronomic figure. In other words, the change on the plaque is itself perfectly consistent with the 6 million figure and can't be used as a basis for claiming that the 6 million should be lowered.

A little about the numbers, again from Pan Piper:

“[T]hus various figures for the number of Auschwitz victims appeared in the literature: at least 900,000 (Reitlinger), 1,000,000 Jews (Hilberg), 2,000,000 Jews (Gilbert), 2,500,000 Jews (Weiss), 3,500,000 – 4,500,000 (Kogon)[…]”

Whether I call it scholarship or mud is totally irrelevant. It is called scholarship at all the colleges and universities across the USA (across the world actually) and any college freshman who comes in determined to find out what the whole debate is about that Holocaust he was told about will indeed be looking at sources like Reitlinger or Hilberg, and they will see a clear difference between that and a plaque which used to be maintained in the old Soviet bloc. That distinction does need to be recognized in turn by any would-be revisionist critic. The only point to add is that, without having a text in front of me, I'm willing to bet you that if you look up Kogon you will find that he does not assert that the inflated number which he put down consisted primarily of Jews. I notice that you used the word "Jews" when listing some of the numbers, but not others, and not Kogon's. I'd be willing to make a guess that Kogon never claims that the bulk of the alleged victims were Jewish.

The 4 million was accepted, as well as the contention that most of them were Jews.

As I recall from my own experience, I can remember thinking as late as 2002 that 4 million people had been killed at Auschwitz, but I always presumed that at least half of them must been Soviet prisoners or Slavs of some kind. In any event, questions about what was or was not accepted in the public domain have nothing to do with the issue of whether or not demographic conclusions can be based upon the change of the plaque as had been implied by the first poster that I was responding to. You're simply changing the issue again to a question of what was believed by the media-influenced non-academic public before the plaque was changed. That has no bearing on whether or not a demographic conclusion about the 6 million can be made based on the plaque.
Last edited by PatrickSMcNally on Sun Jul 05, 2009 4:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 4 months ago (Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:58 pm)

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
ASMarques wrote:Aren't you the one who feels he has something to add on the efforts of the "Holocaust scholars"?


No, why should I? [...] referred to the Auschwitz plaque and suggested that a change in the plaque could be used as part of a demographic argument over Jewish emigration and the like. I simply pointed out that such reasoning was totally wrong.


Not true at all.

You went much further than that. Here are the concrete allegations of yours that I responded to [quoted in blue]:

[McNally] It was never claimed by anyone that 4 million Jews had died at Auschwitz. The old Soviet propaganda used to maintain that 4 million people of primarily Slavic extraction had been murdered at Auschwitz.

What you are implying here is not a somewhat secondary distinction, but a radical incompatibility on the practical level, between Soviet propaganda (lots of communist victims) and Jewish propaganda (lots of Jewish victims), when in fact such an incompatibility never existed.

Your a posteriori fancy view of the "Holocaust" scam and its reluctant "tiny drop by tiny drop" revision, amounts to having two gluttonous pigs -- the Soviet pig and the Jewish pig -- eating their way through a common manger, and when they've had enough -- well, one of them seems to -- pretending that the first one had behaved like a real slob, while the second one had in reality behaved like a distinguished guest with the most refined manners. :snorting: brushteeth

[SIDENOTE: I truly hate to involve any pigs -- noble, intelligent and clean animals, for sure -- in this, but sometimes we have to indulge in a few concessions to popular clichés for the sake of clarity. In fact, we might even add a couple more animals to the tale, such as the unbelievable Western pig that does the noisiest slurping sounds in order for the Jewish pig to get away with a double ration plus some choice bits of western ham, the German pig who looks on and always licks the empty manger and a certain curled object with a disciplined smile on his snout, and so on. But that's beyond our present topic, and no offense intended to any pigs or innocent human individuals].

[McNally] After 1991 the Auschwitz museum changed its old plaque from saying 4 million to saying 1.5 (not 1.1) million. The plaque still does not identify Jews as the predominant group of alleged victims,

Again false.

The current version states the following: "[...] the Nazis murdered about one and a half million men, women, and children, mainly Jews from various countries of Europe."

See here the English version of the multilingual tale:
http://www.awesomestories.com/images/us ... bd6d31.jpg

While the vagueness of the original plaque was most convenient for everybody concerned -- including, of course, both the Soviets and the non-Soviet Jews -- the current plaque could no longer be expected to enshrine so much imprecision, since it was designed to give the Jews a further post-revisionist, post-Soviet, "Holocaust" run.

[McNally] but it is more in line with what authors in the west have traditionally maintained.

Completely false.

This is why I sent the list of extraordinary figures your way. They look extraordinary now that the silent revisionist struggle has forced the judeophile "Holocaust" lobby to save face, not by backing down, but by shamelessly adopting a good deal of reluctant corrections to the ocean of confusion and straight lies it used to delight in, and claiming them as their own while promoting censorship and punishment of "denial".

But at the time the pot-pourri of unchallenged "Holocaust" myths managed to be imposed with no visible resistance -- i.e. basically in the pre-Internet days, when isolated people like Rassinier, Faurissson, Butz or Stäglich were the only defenders of the truth -- your "authors in the West" were delighted to propagate every bit as many lies and to promote as large a confusion as any "authors in the East" you can think of.

[McNally] Western authors such as Gerald Reitlinger had always maintained that the total victim count at Auschwitz was about 1 million, with Jews as the predominant group. While it's true that there were major emigrations of Jews after the war, this is a different issue.

You now seemed to restrict your previous allegation about the tradition of "Holocaust" writing by your (unqualified) "authors in the west" by naming a single (allegedly scholarly) western author. See what I think of his investigative "scholarly" tradition here:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5631#p37421

PatrickSMcNally wrote: You have had nothing to respond with but endless shifts of the subject to completely different matters, while you sound like a raving ideologue accusing a member of the church of heathenism for having pointed out an error in the Pope's speech.


To use your metaphor, you didn't "point out an error in the Pope's speech." You took the long jump from correcting a possible very minor error in the speech of an interested newcomer to the faith [*], to conveying several sensational false claims of your own making about a few demonstrable facts.

I simply corrected your own errors and put you in your place, while hopefully replying to his intelligent questioning.
_____________________

[*] See here what I mean by the true faith:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5343&p=34955#p34955
Last edited by ASMarques on Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 4 months ago (Sun Jul 05, 2009 5:04 pm)

ASMarques wrote:What you are implying here is not a somewhat secondary distinction, but a radical incompatibility on the practical level, between Soviet propaganda (lots of communist victims) and Jewish propaganda (lots of Jewish victims), when in fact such an incompatibility never existed.

It did indeed exist, but was not played up as much you're wishing it had been. Soviet propaganda within the Soviet bloc was fundamentally incompatible with what has been maintained both in western academia (ala Raul Hilberg) and political figures (ala Abe Foxman). Of course that's not surprising, since the Soviet Union supported Arab states which Israel considered as its enemies, while the Anti-Defamatio League is rabidly pro-Israel.

Again false.

The current version states the following: "[...] the Nazis murdered about one and a half million men, women, and children, mainly Jews from various countries of Europe."

Ah, well that real is an actual slip of mine after all these pages. Of course we're not talking here about the 4 million plaque, which was my real point.

This is why I sent the list of extraordinary figures your way.

Your list included a mish-mash of different things. The citing of the 'Night and Fog' film was simply incorrect, as the film never claimed that 9 million were killed in Auschwitz. There was a lot of variance among the other things you cited, but none of them ever claimed 4 million Jews killed at Auschwitz and the academic sources (as opposed to 'eyewitness' celebrities, a different phenomenon) generally leaned towards estimates of 2.5 million or lower.

They look extraordinary now

Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the 6 million number ever depended for its demographic data on the 4 million number and in particular on a 4 million Jews number. It clearly did not, and every reference which other people have tried producing on this board has supported that fact.

your "authors in the West" were delighted to propagate every bit as many lies and to promote as large a confusion as any "authors in the East" you can think of.

They obviously are not "my" authors, they just are authors who live in geo-politio-cultural domain which people have called "the west" as a shorthand for a long time. And whatever else they may be accused of, it can't be said that any of them ever claimed that 4 million Jews were killed at Auschwitz.

You now seemed to restrict your previous allegation about the tradition of "Holocaust" writing by your (unqualified) "authors in the west" to a single (allegedly scholarly) western author.

Not at all, it's just tedious to try typing out a whole list of names every time. Using a single author as representative of a general phenomenon is common enough. But I forgot! You're the own who gets confused when a film screen flashes "9 million" and shows Auschwitz in the background and thinks it means that the whole 9 million is supposed to have been done at Auschwitz! Most people, however, understand the concept of a "generic example." You're welcome to replace Reitlinger with Christopher Browning or a number of others, but not with Elie Wiesel or the Pope.

See what I think of his investigative "scholarly" tradition here:

If you wish to revive a thread on Reitlinger then by all means feel free to do so. The only relevance of Reitlinger here in this context is that he was an early author whose work would today be regarded in academia as dated but nevertheless still viewed as someone who made an allegedly significant contribution to the early studies of the subject. Whether that judgment is deserved is totally immaterial to the matter at hand. What is relevant here is that if you wish to argue that the change on the Auschwitz plaque can be used to argue that the purported 6 million should be reduced by a similar amount then you are obligated to produce an example of an author such as Browning, Reitlinger or whoever and show that when tallying their alleged Jewish death toll they made their argument depend upon the assumption that about 4 million Jews had died in Auschwitz. None of them do make such an assumption however, and all give numbers that are significantly less than 4 million.

a possible very minor error in the speech of an interested newcomer to the faith

No, the error that the change in the Auschwitz plaque can be used to deduce a reduction in the alleged 6 million is a very stupid error which has made fools of new-be revisionist enthusiasts many times.

conveying several sensational false claims

Yet the only point which you've been able to find so far where I made any kind of authentic slip was over the issue of whether or not the current plaque stresses Jews. I had the image of the old one fixed in my mind and run off typing too fast. That's the only actual mistake after several pages of typing on the fly which you've been able to pick out. Instead you've repeatedly resorted to shifting the topic.

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby neugierig » 1 decade 4 months ago (Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:51 pm)

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
“[I]n any event, questions about what was or was not accepted in the public domain have nothing to do with the issue of whether or not demographic conclusions can be based upon the change of the plaque[…]”

“The Holocaust” is about demographics, real or imagined. If those demographics would be based on solid research, the 4 million Auschwitz figure should never have appeared, along with various other overblown numbers that are now being corrected. Also, even western “historians et al” could not agree on an Auschwitz number, their guesstimates ranging from 900 000 (Reitlinger) to 4.5 million (Kogon), to just name two. In reality the 4 million had been looked upon favourably, with no disclaimer published, no correction on History Channel. All sorts of dignitaries, from the west, paid homage to the 4 million.

When this number, lie, could no longer be maintained it was dropped and we are now told to believe that it never mattered. Well it did, and if you believed that a portion of the 4 million were others, good for you but you are in a minority. Fact is, as soon as “The Holocaust” had been established, it took some years, other victims no longer mattered, it was all about the Jews.

So to say that no importance was placed upon the 4 million, no “demographic conclusions” based on it is simply dishonest. True, Jewish researchers were a little apprehensive, for if someone would have added the numbers the “canonical” 6 million would have been surpassed. But they were not concerned enough to correct the numbers, not until the 4 million could no longer be upheld.

This whole Holy-Holo is make believe and the 4 million was part of it all, maybe not officially used for demographics but used as part of the overall Greulpropaganda. It is the dishonesty of it all that is the topic here. When I read that the 4 million, burned into my mind, had been lowered to 1.5 million my first question was: If such a horrendous mistake is possible, where else have mistakes been made. Thus I decided to take a closer look and found out very soon that the story as told can not be substantiated.

Other tales, lies, have been dropped without explanation and with this one we are told the 4 million was never accepted by serious historians (whose numbers are all over the place), and that it never mattered. Nice try and I am sure those who want to believe are satisfied. It does nothing for a skeptic, however, because it is too obviously just another spin attempt.

Armes Deutschland.

Regards
Wilf


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests