GurtKerstein wrote:The point I am making is that everything points away from an extermination policy: the large number of survivors...
A large number and not one name?
Moderator: Moderator
GurtKerstein wrote:The point I am making is that everything points away from an extermination policy: the large number of survivors...
Lohengrin wrote:The name of ONE PERSON who was transferred to (and later without any doubt from) Treblinka, was no less than the Kid from that World Famous photograph, the one with his little hands up, walking along those terrible Nazi's on his way to Treblinka to be 'gassed', as the whole Holocaust Media etc. told and showed us as long as 65 years now.
This boy (and his family!) happens to be Tsvic Nussbaum, nowadays a very successful Doctor in New York, USA.
If this child wasn't 'gassed' in Treblinka, he surely was resettled anywhere else, or not, Wahrheit? Or do you have a 'Third' possibility?
Wahrheit wrote:"If there was such "fierce suppression" and some overarching conspiracy controlling Europe, revisionism would not have existed as long as it has today. The many books put out by VHO are a "living proof of that." Also, suppressed memoirs usually have a way of surfacing, in some way or another."
GurtKerstein wrote:Once again, according to your logic, my story wins and should be written in history books.
This is where your logic completely fails. The Holocaust is and should be treated as a murder case. Since the allegations are that the Germans committed the worst war crime in human history, a mass murder of 11 million people, it should be proven beyond reasonable doubt that such murder occurred. A "flimsy" case won't do it. I believe that 99% of people, once there is open debate and they hear the revisionists' side, would agree that there is very reasonable doubt, despite having been indoctrinated in schools and having assumed a-priori that the Holocaust is a "fact" and that the Germans are guilty.
Thesaint wrote:Wahrheit:
When revisionists use the term "transit camp," it is not within the context of sending hundreds of thousands of Jews to other camps in Poland; rather, it clearly refers to a 'resettlement program', one in which these Jews were sent into the occupied Soviet territories.
Then why call the thread "The transit camp Treblinka challenge" thread,and not the "Treblinka transit camp re: Soviet-area resettlement" thread?
For my part as a revisionist,the issue of whether there was or was`nt Jewish resettlement in the Soviet areas has no bearing on whether Treblinka was a transit camp,seeing as there is evidence that there were at least inter-camp transfers,and no, repeat NO evidence of extermination at Treblinka.
If on the other hand you have revisionists saying explicitly that the Treblinka transit camp theory is wholly dependent on there being resettlement into the occupied Soviet territories,then please provide us with the quotes.
f. The Thesis of the Transit Camp
The revisionist studies mentioned to this point have restricted themselves exclusively to refuting the official picture of Treblinka as an "extermination camp." An alternative interpretation of its function has not appeared in these studies, which of course is the direct consequence of the complete lack of contemporary documents. Yet some notable revisionist authors have proposed the thesis that Treblinka was a transit camp for Jews. The American scholar Prof. Dr. Arthur R. Butz suggested in his revisionist classic The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, which appeared for the first time in 1976, that Treblinka simultaneously served as a labor camp as well as a transit camp for Jews resettled to the east,[109] and Prof. Robert Faurisson also supports the transit camp thesis.[110]
Finally, US historian Mark Weber, together with US lawyer Andrew Allen, wrote an excellent article about Treblinka in 1992, in which the two authors summarized all the familiar arguments made to that point in time against the thesis of the 'extermination camp,' introduced new viewpoints in the field, and wrote concerning the actual nature of the camp:[111]
"If Treblinka was not an extermination center, what was it? [...] the balance of evidence indicates that Treblinka II - along with Belzec and Sobibor - was a transit camp, where Jewish deportees were stripped of their property and valuables before being transferred eastwards into German-occupied Soviet territories."
Since Treblinka was much too small to be able to accommodate the large number of Jews deported there at the same time, the transit camp thesis is, in fact, the single plausible alternative to the conventional picture of the extermination camp. Tertium non datur - no third possibility is given.
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/t/2.html
Wahrheit:
Also, where is my own admission that I am a 'biased hoaxster'?
Wahrheit:
Therefore, 'exterminationists' should provide positive evidence for gas chambers (as I believe they have)
Lamprecht wrote:Gert:Untrue8. The Holocaust is the only claimed genocide that will get you excommunicated (best case) or jailed (worst case) if you doubt its veracity.
http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/index.php?id=148&listid=56782It envisages prosecution for public denial of the Holodomor Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine as a fact of genocide of the Ukrainian people and of the Holocaust as the fact of genocide of the Jewish people. The draft law foresees that public denial as well as production and dissemination of materials denying the above shall be punished by a fine of 100 to 300 untaxed minimum salaries or an imprisonment of up to two years.
ginger wrote:Wahrheit - What are you talking about when you say those who argue for the existence of gas chambers have actually put out evidence to support their belief? Are you persuaded by their arguments? What are their arguments? Can you summarize?
Wahrheit wrote:For Auschwitz-Birkenau, a thread does exist, and I have explained some of my problems with 'revisionist' evidence.
Wahrheit wrote:I don't see any admission that I am a 'hoaxster', but a simple statement that those who argue for the existence of gas chambers have actually put out evidence to support their belief.
Wahrheit wrote:have cited documents, witness testimony, and the on-site investigations by the Poles and Soviets to substantiate their claims/beliefs.
Gébé Tremblay wrote:Wahrheit wrote:For Auschwitz-Birkenau, a thread does exist, and I have explained some of my problems with 'revisionist' evidence.
And again you faint to not understand, still pretending revisionnists have evidence. You can't have problems with revisionists' evidence because revisionist's dont present evidence, they only show abscence of the claimed evidence of the exterminationists.
Wahrheit wrote:'Revisionists' have tried to present evidence (samples of gas chamber walls),
Wahrheit wrote: in an attempt to negate other evidence (eye-witness testimony, for instance).
Wahrheit wrote:Please discuss in the proper thread if you wish to add your input to the A-B chemistry subject or respond to me on the subject.
Wahrheit wrote:What revisionists really don't do is present a coherent, substantiated alternative.
Heydrich wrote:You don't get it. It is not the job of Revisionists to present an alternative, but the job of the accuser to present coherent, substantiated evidence of their accusations. Revisionists do not have to prove anything at all. Only accusers like you have to prove. As you don't do that, you are the "denier" of logic and truth here.
You cannot even answer the most simple questions in regard to your accusations. You failed.
Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests