95 year old former medic at Auschwitz to stand trial

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9898
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: 95 year old former medic at Auschwitz to stand trial

Postby Hannover » 3 years 1 month ago (Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:39 pm)

hermod wrote:I agree with onetruth. Primo Levi's quote implies that staying in hospital amounted to escaping evacuation and that being among the healthy prisoners amounted to being evacuated. I understand Primo Levi's quote as meaning that those two Hungarian patients could decide to stay in hospital and not be evacuated or to leave hospital and be evacuated, NOT that the healthy prisoners could decide to stay at Auschwitz or leave the camp. What doesn't mean that the healthy prisoners could not decide to stay or leave. But neither Primo Levi's words nor Elie Wiesel's words help to know if that was the case or not. Assuming their words could help on any topic anyway...

That contradictory paragraph makes no sense in lieu of the fact that thousands of healthy Jews were not hospitalized, stayed, were not forcefully evacuated.

and:
- You have also dodged photos and captions that were placed by your brethren in the profitable 'holocaust' Industry. You are contradicting the very story tellers you try to defend.
- You have dodged the thousands of Jews who were healthy who chose to stay behind, even your video shows that, regardless of the alleged 'fattening up', which would have have taken quite a long time, if the tale was true.
- You have dodged the fact that if the Germans were trying to conceal their 'crimes' they would have never left thousands of Jews behind who could then talk. Your communist video show endless examples.
- You have presented no proof that the thousands who stayed were too sick to leave.
- You have dodged the fact that MOST Jews decided to leave with the SS, who are said to have been 'murderous beasts'.
- You have dodged the fact that according to the 'holocaust' storyline these thousands of Jews should have all been murdered ... if the lies were fact,

- Hannover

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the laughable 'holocaust' storyline is the message.

"Truth is hate to those who hate the truth."
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: 95 year old former medic at Auschwitz to stand trial

Postby hermod » 3 years 1 month ago (Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:25 pm)

Hannover wrote:
hermod wrote:I agree with onetruth. Primo Levi's quote implies that staying in hospital amounted to escaping evacuation and that being among the healthy prisoners amounted to being evacuated. I understand Primo Levi's quote as meaning that those two Hungarian patients could decide to stay in hospital and not be evacuated or to leave hospital and be evacuated, NOT that the healthy prisoners could decide to stay at Auschwitz or leave the camp. What doesn't mean that the healthy prisoners could not decide to stay or leave. But neither Primo Levi's words nor Elie Wiesel's words help to know if that was the case or not. Assuming their words could help on any topic anyway...

That contradictory paragraph makes no sense in lieu of the fact that thousands of healthy Jews were not hospitalized, stayed, were not forcefully evacuated.


I've seen no evidence of that, nor of the contrary.

What's contradictory in my comment?

and:
- You have also dodged photos and captions that were placed by your brethren in the profitable 'holocaust' Industry. You are contradicting the very story tellers you try to defend.
- You have dodged the thousands of Jews who were healthy who chose to stay behind, even your video shows that, regardless of the alleged 'fattening up', which would have taken quite a long time, if the tale was true.
- You have dodged the fact that if the Germans were trying to conceal their 'crimes' they would have never left thousands of Jews behind who could then talk. Your communist video show endless examples.
- You have presented no proof that the thousands who stayed were too sick to leave.
- You have dodged the fact that MOST Jews decided to leave with the SS, who are said to have been 'murderous beasts'.
- You have dodged the fact that according to the 'holocaust' storyline these thousands of Jews should have all been murdered ... if the lies were fact,



Wasn't that video a mere re-enactment?

Where is the proof that most Jews decided to leave with the SS? What makes it a fact?

I agree that leaving 8,000 (if memory serves me right) eyewitnesses behind, was not consistent with an alleged Top Secret extermination.

Impact and Future of Holocaust Revisionism, By Robert Faurisson:

Churchill and the British as Masters of War Propaganda

During the First World War, the British cynically exploited all the resources of propaganda based on wholly fictitious atrocity stories. note 50 During the Second World War they remained true to form.

Today people widely condemn Neville Chamberlain for his policy of "appeasement" in dealing with the Germans, whereas people hold, or pretend to hold, Winston Churchill in high esteem for his determination to carry on war against Germany. It is not yet certain that history, with time, will uphold this judgment. New discoveries concerning Churchill's personality and wartime role raise questions about the dubious justifications for that determination, along with questions about the fruits of his policies. At least Chamberlain had foreseen that even a British victory would entail disaster for his country, her empire, and for other victors as well. Churchill did not see this, or did not know how to see it. He promised "blood, toil, tears, and sweat," to be followed by victory. He did not anticipate the bitter morrow of victory: the hastened disappearance of the empire he held dear, and the handing over of nearly half of Europe to Communist imperialism.

During an address given several years ago, David Irving, Churchill's biographer, showed the illusory nature of the justifications given by Churchill, first, to launch his countrymen into the war, and then to keep them in it. The business, if one may so term it, was carried out in four phases.

In the initial phase, Churchill assured the British that it was their obligation to go to the aid of a Poland that had fallen victim to Hitler's aggression but, two weeks into the war, this motive was nullified by the Soviet Union's aggression against the same ally.

In the next phase, he explained to his countrymen that they must carry on the war in order to safeguard the British empire. He rejected Germany's repeated peace proposals, and in May 1941 he had the peace emissary Rudolf Hess incarcerated. Whereas Germany wanted to preserve and maintain the British empire, he chose to conclude an alliance with the empire's worst possible enemy: the American Franklin Roosevelt. Thus the second motive was then nullified.

In a third phase, Churchill told the British that they were duty-bound to fight for Democracy, including its most paradoxical variety: the Soviet Socialist. He held that a second European front must be opened to relieve the burden on Stalin. This of course meant aiding a dictatorship that had assaulted Poland on September 17, 1939, and which was preparing a new conquest of that country.

As late as one month before the end of hostilities in Europe (May 8, 1945), British propaganda was generally lacking in coherence, while many British and American soldiers were appalled to learn the extent to which their bombers had ravaged Germany.

It was then that suddenly, in April 1945, there occurred a miracle that enabled Churchill to find his fourth, and really good motive: the discovery of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp prompted him to assert that, Britain's difficult fight over nearly six years, wreaking and enduring so much havoc, was for no less a cause than that of civilization itself. To be sure, on more than one occasion he had already spoken to his countrymen, in his customarily high-flown rhetoric, about Britain as the cradle of a civilization threatened by the Teutonic hordes (the "Huns," as he called them), but these oratorical devices no longer worked so well. The godsend was the discovery in April 1945 of a pestilence-ravaged camp: a boon for Churchill and for British propaganda.

At Bergen-Belsen, the British Introduce the 'Nazi Crime' Media Spectacle

Situated near Hannover, Bergen-Belsen was originally established as a camp for wounded soldiers. In 1943 it became a detention center for European Jews who were to be exchanged for German civilians held by the Allies. In the middle of the war, Jews were transferred from that camp to Switzerland or, by way of Turkey, even to Palestine (yet another proof, as may be pointed out in passing, of the absence of an extermination program).

Until the end of 1944, conditions for inmates at Bergen-Belsen were about normal: then, along with a convoy of deportees brought from regions in the East facing the imminent Soviet onslaught, there arrived epidemics of dysentery, cholera, and exanthematic typhus. The resulting disaster was aggravated by the Anglo-American bombing raids that severely hampered deliveries of medicine, food, and -- most devastating of all -- water. The rail transports of Jews from the East no longer took just two or three days to reach the camp, but rather one or two weeks. Because of Allied air bombardment and strafing, the trains could proceed only at night. As a result, the trains arrived containing only dead and dying, or exhausted men and women unfit to withstand such epidemics. On March 1st, 1945, camp commandant Josef Kramer sent a letter to General Richard Glücks, chief of concentration camp administration, in which he described this "catastrophe" in detail, concluding with the plea: "I implore your help in overcoming this situation." note 51

Germany, on its last legs, could no longer deal with the influx of its own eastern refugees arriving by the millions. It could no longer manage to supply its army with weapons and ammunition, or its population with food. Finally, it could no longer remedy the tragic conditions in camps where even guards were dying of typhus. Himmler authorized Wehrmacht officers to establish contact with the British to warn them that they were approaching, in their advance, a frightful den of infection. Negotiations followed. A wide truce area was declared around Bergen-Belsen, and British and German soldiers decided, by mutual consent, to share the task of camp surveillance.

But what they found in the camp, including barracks and tents flooded with excrement, and the unbearable odor of decomposing bodies, quickly had the British feeling indignant. They came to believe, or were allowed to believe, that the SS had deliberately chosen to kill the inmates or to let them die. And, despite their own best efforts, the British were unable to curb the terrible mortality rate.

Then, like a swarm of vultures, journalists swooped down on the camp, filming and photographing every possible horror. They also proceeded to arrange certain scenes of their own making: a famous one, shown for example in the film "Night and Fog," is that of a bulldozer pushing corpses into a large pit. Many viewers have been led to believe that they are seeing "German bulldozers." note 52 They didn't notice that the bulldozer (just one) is driven by a British soldier who, doubtless after a body count, is pushing the corpses into a large trench that had been dug after the camp's liberation. The Jew Sydney Lewis Bernstein, London head of the Home Office cinema section, called on Alfred Hitchcock to make a film on these "Nazi atrocities." Hitchcock accepted, but, in the end, only fragments of his film were made public, probably because the complete version contained assertions that might cast doubt on its authenticity. note 53

On the whole, the "shock of Bergen-Belsen" was a great success for Allied propaganda. In every possible way, the media exploited it to show dead and dying camp inmates to the world at large, but while at the same time leading viewers, through commentary, to think that these inmates had been killed, murdered, or exterminated, or else were walking corpses condemned to perish as victims of killing, murder, or extermination. Thus, on the basis of the ghastly conditions in a camp that, as already noted, had neither crematories nor (as conventional historians acknowledge) any homicidal gas chamber, was built the general myth of the existence and use, at Auschwitz and elsewhere, of "gas chambers" coupled with crematories.

Among the most famous casualties of epidemics in that camp were Anne Frank and her sister Margot who, for nearly 40 years, were widely and persistently said to have been gassed at Auschwitz (from where, in fact, they had been brought), or killed at Bergen-Belsen. Today, it is generally conceded that they died of typhus at Bergen-Belsen in February-March 1945.

The "shock of Bergen-Belsen" was very quickly imitated by the Americans who, turning to Hollywood, shot a series of motion pictures on the liberation of the German camps. After editing the extensive footage (6,000 feet of film, of a total of 80,000), they produced a film that was shown on November 29, 1945, at the Nuremberg trial. Everyone, including most of the defendants, found it quite disturbing. A few of the defendants sensed the deceit, but it was too late: the great lie's bulldozer had been set in motion. It is still running today. The viewers of all the many horror films on the "Nazi camps" have, over time, been conditioned by the choice of images and the commentary. A section of wall, a heap of shoes, a smokestack: it has taken no more than these for the public to believe that they have seen a chemical slaughterhouse.

Fifty-two years after the liberation of the Bergen-Belsen camp, Maurice Druon, secrétaire perpétuel of the Académie française, testified at the trial of Maurice Papon, accused of "collaboration" in the "Final Solution." Here is an extract of his deposition mentioning gas chambers at that camp (which, as all historians today acknowledge, had none), the famous bulldozer, and the "hair shorn from the dead to help make some ersatz or other": note 54

When speaking today of the camps, one has in one's eyes, and the jurors present have in their eyes, those horrid images that the films and the screens offered and offer to us; and it is quite right to do so [that is, to show them], and they ought to be re-shown each year to every secondary school graduating class. But those images, of the gas chambers, of the mounds of hair shorn from the dead to help make some ersatz or other, of those children playing among the corpses, and of those bodies so great in number that they had to be pushed into a pit by a bulldozer, and of those troops of skeletons, staggering and haggard, in striped pajamas, with death in their eyes, those images, and I hereby bear witness, I was, in my modest capacity of information officer, one of the 20 Allied officers to "view" them first, when the uncut footage, as it is called, arrived just after the liberation of Bergen-Belsen by the English. But that was in the spring of 1945. Until then, no one knew. -- We must not judge with our trained eyes [sic] of today, but with our blind eyes of yesterday.

Maurice Druon, in reality, had "trained eyes" yesterday and has "blind eyes" today. More than 50 years of propaganda have blinded him. But already during the war, were not he and his uncle Joseph Kessel, both Jewish, blinded by their hatred of the German soldiers when they wrote the atrocious "Partisans' Song," which includes the exhortation "Killers by bullet and by knife, kill quickly!"?

The Americans and the Soviets Outdo the British

In 1951, anyway, the Jewish scholar Hannah Arendt had the honesty to write: note 55

It is of some importance to realize that all pictures of concentration camps are misleading insofar as they show the camps in their last stages, at the moment the Allied troops marched in ... The condition of the camps was a result of the war events during the final months: Himmler had ordered the evacuation of all extermination camps in the East, the German camps were consequently vastly overcrowded, and he was no longer in a position to assure the food supply in Germany.

Let us once more recall that the expression "extermination camps" is a creation of Allied war propaganda.

Eisenhower thus followed Churchill's lead and set about building, on an American scale, such a propaganda edifice, based on atrocity stories, that soon everything and anything came to be allowed, as much in regard to the vanquished as to the simple, factual truth. In news reports about the German camps there were added to the true horrors, as I have said, horrors truer than life. Eliminated were the photographs or film segments showing inmates with beaming faces, such as that of Marcel Paul, note 56 or those in relatively good health despite the severe shortages or epidemics, or, as at Dachau, the healthy Hungarian Jewish mothers with their babes-in-arms. Instead, the public was only shown images of the sickly, the wasted, the human rags, who were actually just as much victims of the Allies as of the Germans, for the former, with their carpet-bombing of the whole of Germany and their systematic aerial strafing of civilians -- even of farm workers in the fields -- had brought about an apocalypse in the heart of Europe.

Respect for the truth will oblige one to remark that neither Churchill, nor Eisenhower, nor Truman, nor de Gaulle was impudent enough to lend credence to the tales of chemical slaughterhouses. They left that job to their propaganda specialists and to the judges of their military tribunals. Appalling tortures were inflicted on the Germans who, in the eyes of the Allies, were guilty of all of those "crimes." Reprisals were carried out against German prisoners and civilians. As late as 1951 German men and women were being hanged. (Even in the 1980s, the Soviets were still shooting German or German-allied "war criminals.") British and American soldiers, at first quite taken aback at the sight both of the German cities reduced to rubble, and of their inhabitants turned into cave-dwellers, could return home with peace of mind. Churchill and Eisenhower were there to vouch for the Truth: the Allied forces had brought down Evil; they embodied Good; there was to be a program of "re-education" for the defeated Germans, including the burning by the millions of their bad books. All told, the Great Slaughter had come to a happy ending, and had been carried out for a righteous cause. Such was the fraud made holy by the Nuremberg show-trial.

A Fraud at Last Denounced in 1995

It took no less than 50 years for a historian, Annette Wieviorka, and a filmmaker, William Karel, to reveal to the general public, in a documentary entitled Contre l'oubli ("Against Forgetting"), the 1945 American and Soviet stagings and fabrications carried out in the context of the liberation of the camps in East and West.

Wieviorka, a French Jew, and Karel, an Israeli who has lived in France since 1985, have manifestly been influenced by the French revisionist school. Although quite hostile toward the latter, they have nonetheless admitted that the time has at last come to denounce some of the exterminationist propaganda's most glaring fictions. On this subject one may refer either to an article by the journalist Philippe Cusin note 57 or, especially, to another article that Béatrice Bocard prepared for the repeat broadcast of "Against Forgetting" on Antenne 2 television, a piece whose title alone says a great deal: "The Shoah, from reality to the spectacle. The indecent stagings by the liberators in the face of the deportees' accounts." note 58 In it Bocard wrote:

With only slight exaggeration, it might be said that the liberation of the concentration camps introduced the reality shows ... The first signs of the genre of spectacles that television channels like CNN were to make commonplace 50 years later were already there, with attempts to outdo [one another] at indecency, at voyeurism, and with recourse to staging ... The least infirm of the survivors were made to repeat their script before the cameras: "I was deported because I was Jewish," says one of them. Once, twice ... Not to be outdone by the American "show," the Soviets, who had done nothing at the time of the Auschwitz camp's liberation, shot a "fake liberation" a few weeks afterwards, with Polish extras enthusiastically greeting the soldiers ... "William Karel is the first to have dissected these false images that we had always been told, until quite recently, were genuine," says Annette Wieviorka. How had it been possible to accept them? "People are not in the habit of questioning images as they question texts," the historian explains. "The example of the [purported] mass graves at Timosoara [Romania, December 1989] is not too distant."

It goes without saying that, in this article by Bocard, the manipulations were presented as being offensive ... for the internees. Some German soldiers and civilians denounced this sort of fakery as early as 1945 but, instead of being believed, they were accused of Nazism or anti-Semitism.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n1p-2_Faurisson.html
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3361
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: 95 year old former medic at Auschwitz to stand trial

Postby Hektor » 3 years 1 month ago (Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:33 pm)

borjastick wrote:The key word here seems to me to be 'evacuate'. Evacuate suggests care and concern and a system designed to take care of the evacuees. By using that word Weasel clearly knows that it's going to be ok and the best choice, for that's what it was, is to go on the evacuation with all the others.

If he thought both choices were riddled with danger and potential for disaster he wouldn't have used that word but perhaps 'forced relocation' or 'death march'.

Actually I'd say that the term "evacuate" (evakuieren) is pretty value neutral and concise. In terms of people it's just transporting them from A to B for whatever reason. Just imagine an ordinary prison where prisoners are removed from for whatever reason. That would also be called "evacuate". And actually concentration camp inmates were INDEED people under arrest in a jail like situation. So why pretend that there are such big differences?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9898
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: 95 year old former medic at Auschwitz to stand trial

Postby Hannover » 3 years 1 month ago (Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:48 pm)

hermod:
Primo Levi's quote implies that staying in hospital amounted to escaping evacuation and that being among the healthy prisoners amounted to being evacuated. I understand Primo Levi's quote as meaning that those two Hungarian patients could decide to stay in hospital and not be evacuated or to leave hospital and be evacuated, NOT that the healthy prisoners could decide to stay at Auschwitz or leave the camp. What doesn't mean that the healthy prisoners could not decide to stay or leave. But neither Primo Levi's words nor Elie Wiesel's words help to know if that was the case or not. Assuming their words could help on any topic anyway..."

hermod asks:
What's contradictory in my comment?

This is, you said:
... NOT that the healthy prisoners could decide to stay at Auschwitz or leave the camp. What doesn't mean that the healthy prisoners could not decide to stay or leave.

So which is it for you?

and:
Wasn't that video a mere re-enactment?

"Re-enactment"? Of what?
The video is communist propaganda with text added after the fact that tries to deflect from the fact that so many healthy Jews were found at Auschwitz.

and:
Where is the proof that most Jews decided to leave with the SS? What makes it a fact?

The fact that most Jews did leave with the SS while thousands of healthy Jews did not.

and:
I agree that leaving 8,000 (if memory serves me right) eyewitnesses behind, was not consistent with an alleged Top Secret extermination.
Indeed.

Cheers, Hannover

Jews have been marketing the '6,000,000' lie since 1869:

Image
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2520
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: 95 year old former medic at Auschwitz to stand trial

Postby borjastick » 3 years 1 month ago (Sat Sep 24, 2016 2:39 am)

Here's why I think the choice of the word evacuate is key to this statement and the context in which it was made.

evacuate
verb /iˈvӕkjueit/


to leave or withdraw from (a place), especially because of danger
évacuer
The troops evacuated their position because of the enemy’s advance.


to cause (inhabitants etc) to leave a place, especially because of danger
évacuer
Children were evacuated from the city to the country during the war.
evacuation noun

évacuation


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... h/evacuate
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

onetruth
Member
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:53 am

Re: 95 year old former medic at Auschwitz to stand trial

Postby onetruth » 3 years 1 month ago (Sat Sep 24, 2016 7:55 am)

Kingfisher wrote:Hannnover:
Onetruth's challenge is that you have not produced evidence for your assertion that those not in the hospital had a choice. Your last post did not produce any such evidence as far as I can see.

A supercilious and scoffing tone is a poor substitute for reasoned argument and evidence.



I would add that there is no shortage of evidence if one really looks for it ,rather than bring us testimonies and try to argue they say exactly the opposite of what they actually say.

Many Auschwitz survivors described the evacuation day in their memoirs. Non of them says they where given a choice.

Here is one out of many :

" When the Russians reached the camp a week or so later they freed those who still lived as well as the handful of nonpatient who'd taken the grave risk of remaining behind in hiding. Though the SS have ferreted out and killed most of those who tried to hide in the barracks , they did not find them all , even with their dogs. In such a hasty departure it was impossible to examine every nook and cranny.
I too had planned to hide , since i knew better than most how to go about it .But there was no time. But there was no time . All at once we were surrounded by menacing soldiers and told to move fast "

Sam Kessel

Memoir of survival

https://books.google.co.il/books?id=8Se ... ng&f=false

~

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9898
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: 95 year old former medic at Auschwitz to stand trial

Postby Hannover » 3 years 1 month ago (Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:34 am)

onetruth:
I would add that there is no shortage of evidence if one really looks for it ,rather than bring us testimonies and try to argue they say exactly the opposite of what they actually say.

Many Auschwitz survivors described the evacuation day in their memoirs. Non of them says they where given a choice.

Here is one out of many :

" When the Russians reached the camp a week or so later they freed those who still lived as well as the handful of nonpatient who'd taken the grave risk of remaining behind in hiding. Though the SS have ferreted out and killed most of those who tried to hide in the barracks , they did not find them all , even with their dogs. In such a hasty departure it was impossible to examine every nook and cranny.
I too had planned to hide , since i knew better than most how to go about it .But there was no time. But there was no time . All at once we were surrounded by menacing soldiers and told to move fast "

Sam Kessel

Memoir of survival

https://books.google.co.il/books?id=8Se ... ng&f=false

~
Don't make me laugh, oneruth.
As Revisionists have shown repeatedly, so called 'memoirs'/'survivor testimonies', meant to sound legal & legit, when in fact it's made up out of whole cloth and not given in a court of law with cross examinations and verbatim text, they are better described simply as lies, IF they were made at all and not conjured up by the propagandists like the phantom 'Sam Kessel'.

We have 'testimonies' of human skin lampshades & human soap, and gassings which are simply impossible, claims of mass graves which do not exist, etc., etc. :lol:
see:
'short list of 'holocaust' absurdities / via Carlos Porter'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10587

Your quoted 'statement' contradicts the photos and film that were presented. There were countless healthy Jews & others that were still there, not "freed". Review previous posts.
Where are the Soviet photos of all of this alleged mayhem? Don't even try telling me they didn't have cameras. This would have been a huge opportunity for them, IF the tales were fact.
Where are human remains for all these murdered Jews?
The quote blows it again when speaking of a "hasty departure". The Germans knew for months that the Soviets were coming.
If he SS was killing as many Jews as possible before they left, then why did thousands of Jews choose to leave with the SS?

again:
- You have also dodged photos and captions that were placed by your brethren in the profitable 'holocaust' Industry. You are contradicting the very story tellers you try to defend.
- You have dodged the thousands of Jews who were healthy who chose to stay behind, even your video shows that, regardless of the alleged 'fattening up', which would have taken quite a long time, if the tale was true.
- You have dodged the fact that if the Germans were trying to conceal their 'crimes' they would have never left thousands of Jews behind who could then talk. Your communist video show endless examples.
- You have presented no proof that the thousands who stayed were too sick to leave.
- You have dodged the fact that MOST Jews decided to leave with the SS, who are said to have been 'murderous beasts'.
- You have dodged the fact that according to the 'holocaust' storyline these thousands of Jews should have all been murdered ... if the lies were fact,

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: 95 year old former medic at Auschwitz to stand trial

Postby hermod » 3 years 1 month ago (Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:58 am)

Hannover wrote:hermod asks:
What's contradictory in my comment?


This is, you said:

... NOT that the healthy prisoners could decide to stay at Auschwitz or leave the camp. What doesn't mean that the healthy prisoners could not decide to stay or leave.


So which is it for you?


Not contradictory. The first part expressed MY understanding of Primo Levi's statement, while the second part expressed my suspicion about the probative value of Primo Levi's words and of any testimonial 'evidence' in general.

For me, it is "I don't know." That's why I was/am trying to get reliable information and strong evidence.

and:
Wasn't that video a mere re-enactment?

"Re-enactment"? Of what?


Of the Soviet capture/liberation of Auschwitz.

The video is communist propaganda with text added after the fact that tries to deflect from the fact that so many healthy Jews were found at Auschwitz.


How do we know that so many healthy Jews were found at Auschwitz if the pictures we see are not pics of the liberation but pics of a later staged re-enactment?

and:
Where is the proof that most Jews decided to leave with the SS? What makes it a fact?

The fact that most Jews did leave with the SS while thousands of healthy Jews did not.


I'd like to have strong evidence that thousands of HEALTHY Jews did not leave with the SS.
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

sweetie pie
Member
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 2:49 pm

Re: 95 year old former medic at Auschwitz to stand trial

Postby sweetie pie » 3 years 1 month ago (Sat Sep 24, 2016 1:53 pm)

hermod wrote:
Hannover wrote:
and:

The fact that most Jews did leave with the SS while thousands of healthy Jews did not.


I'd like to have strong evidence that thousands of HEALTHY Jews did not leave with the SS.


There is no evidence that thousands of healthy jews stayed behind at Auschwitz and did not go to Buchenwald. That's why Hannover will never supply it.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9898
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: 95 year old former medic at Auschwitz to stand trial

Postby Hannover » 3 years 1 month ago (Sat Sep 24, 2016 1:56 pm)

hermod... and sweetie pie:

- So why would the Soviets need to "re-enact" their arrival at Auschwitz?
Why wouldn't they just show us footage of what they initially found?
answer:
Because they didn't find anything like the later propaganda claimed, so they needed to "re-enact" 'facts', that's why.

- The pictures posted are not of the 're-enactment". Read the captions supplied by the 'The Industry', they are the day of the Soviet arrival.
-The film displays multitudes of healthy Jews which could not have possibly recovered so quickly , if the tale was fact.

- The evidence is the photos and film.
- The evidence is both Wiesel & Levi speaking of a "choice".
- There is no proof that the thousands that stayed were all too sick to leave, quite the contrary.

Hannover

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the laughable 'holocaust' storyline is the message.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

sweetie pie
Member
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 2:49 pm

Re: 95 year old former medic at Auschwitz to stand trial

Postby sweetie pie » 3 years 1 month ago (Sat Sep 24, 2016 2:48 pm)

Hannover wrote:hermod... and sweetie pie:

- So why would the Soviets need to "re-enact" their arrival at Auschwitz?
Why wouldn't they just show us footage of what they initially found?
answer:
Because they didn't find anything like the later propaganda claimed, so they needed to "re-enact" 'facts', that's why.

- The pictures posted are not of the 're-enactment". Read the captions supplied by the 'The Industry', they are the day of the Soviet arrival.
-The film displays multitudes of healthy Jews which could not have possibly recovered so quickly , if the tale was fact.

- The evidence is the photos and film.
- The evidence is both Wiesel & Levi speaking of a "choice".
- There is no proof that the thousands that stayed were all too sick to leave, quite the contrary.

Hannover


Hannover, There is no film from Jan.27, or even Jan. 28th. See https://jan27.org/the-liberation/; scroll down to the sub-heading "It was a hushed-up affair -" :

On 28 January, 1945, the day after the camp was liberated by the Red Army, Adolf Forbert was one of the first Polish soldiers to arrive. Forbert stayed to film everything he could, but with only 300 meters of film, a camera of the Bell and Howell type manufactured by the Russians, and one Leica, the possibilities were limited.

He said there were 500 sick women in the women’s hospital in Birkenau. The fate of Forbert’s film and photographs of Auschwitz is not known.

The film “Chronicles of the Liberation of Auschwitz,” made in 1945, is attributed to four Soviet army filmmakers. The majority of the now well-known stills of the liberation are taken from this film.


So the very first filming and photographing at the time of the so-called liberation did not survive. What a surprise. It was all filmed later by official Soviet filmmakers, supervised by Soviet political propagandists who knew what they wanted to convey.

You are also all wet about Wiesel. His book Night makes it clear he was given the choice only because he was a hospital patient and his father had permission to stay in the hospital and look after him. It was a common practice in Auschwitz-Birkenau for family members to be allowed to do that. Not that I believe Night is a true account - it isn't. Nor is Levi's -- although we are sure he was actually there. But these two people do not prove your point.

All you have left is "no proof that those who stayed were all sick." Lack of proof on the other side is not proof for your position. It's a silly argument.
Last edited by sweetie pie on Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9898
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: 95 year old former medic at Auschwitz to stand trial

Postby Hannover » 3 years 1 month ago (Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:10 pm)

sp:

Of course there is no film described as the actual day of the Soviet arrival.
But the photos are labelled by 'The Industry' themselves. I'm just the messenger here.

As I said, there was nothing there which supported the propaganda, hence the need for a "re-enactment" / spin job / voice over laid upon the footage taken during their arrival which tries to post-date it and label the healthy inmates as being 'recovered', which as I said could not have occurred in such a short period ... if the storyline was factual.

There is no proof that the thousands that stayed were all too sick to leave. Produce it, if you can, sweetie.
There are no mass graves to be found for those who onetruth alleges were murdered by the SS.

Here's Germar Rudolf from:
http://www.rense.com/general62/auclibn.htm
Was Auschwitz Liberated Or
Merely Occupied By
The Red Army?
When the Russians were about to overrun Auschwitz in January 1945, both Elie and his father "chose" to go west with the retreating 'Nazis' and SS rather than be "liberated" by America's greatest ally. They could have told the whole world about Auschwitz within days--but, both Elie and his father as well as countless thousands of other Jews chose instead to trek west with the 'Nazis' on foot at night in the middle of one of the coldest winters and continue working for the defense of the Reich thereafter. In effect, they chose to collaborate.

Some of Wiesel's exact words in "Night" are (p. 78):

"The choice was in our hands. For once we could decide our fate for ourselves. We could both stay in the hospital, where I could, thanks to my doctor, get him [the father] entered as a patient or nurse. Or else we could follow the others. 'Well, what shall we do, father?' He was silent. 'Let's be evacuated with the others,' I told him."

Elie's tale in this regard is corroborated by other "survivor" accounts including that of Primo Levi. In Levi's book "Survival in Auschwitz," we have his words for January 17th, 1945:

"It was not a question of reasoning: I would probably also have followed the instinct of the flock if I had not felt so weak: fear is supremely contagious, and its immediate reaction is to make one try to run away."

But he's talking here about running away with the 'Nazis'--and not 'Nazis' who were mere rank and file party members but supposedly the worst of the worst. He's talking here about running away with the same 'Nazis' and SS who had supposedly carried out the greatest imaginable mass murders of Jews and others in the entire history of the universe. He's talking about running away with the people who supposedly did the actual killings of thousands daily for several years. But, according to his own words he would probably have gone with them nonetheless, except that he was not feeling good that day; he was feeling weak. The "fear" that he overcame was clearly fear of the Russians and not the 'Nazis;' there is no mention of fear of what the 'Nazis' and SS might do when the evacuees entered the forest or sometime later.

The choices that were made here in January 1945 are enormously important. In the entire history of Jewish suffering at the hands of gentiles what moment in time could possibly be more dramatic than this precious moment when Jews could choose between, on the one hand, liberation by the Soviets with the chances to tell the whole world about the evil 'Nazis' and to help bring about their defeat--and the other choice of going with the 'Nazi' mass murderers and to con tinue working for them and to help preserve their evil regime. In the vast majority of cases, they chose to go with the 'Nazis'.

The momentous choice brings Shakespeare's Hamlet to mind:

"To remain, or not to remain; that is the question:" to remain and be liberated by Soviet troops and risk their slings and rifles in order to tell the whole world about the outrageous 'Nazis'--or, take arms and feet against a sea of cold and darkness in order to collaborate with the very same outrageous 'Nazis'. Oh what heartache--ay there's the rub! Thus conscience does make cowards of us all.


- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9898
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: 95 year old former medic at Auschwitz to stand trial

Postby Hannover » 3 years 1 month ago (Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:28 pm)

Further confirmation of "choice":
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Auschwitz ... ation.html

According to Otto Frank, the father of Anne Frank, the prisoners were given a choice between staying in the camps until the Soviet troops arrived or going on a 50-kilometer fast hike through two feet of snow to the border of the old German Reich where they would be put on trains and taken to camps in Germany.

Elie Wiesel, the most famous survivor of the Holocaust, was in a hospital at Monowitz, recovering from an operation on his foot, when he chose to join the march out of the camp, and eventually ended up at the Buchenwald camp.

In his book entitled "Night," Elie Wiesel wrote the following regarding his decision to join the Germans on the march out of Auschwitz:

"The choice was in our hands. For once we could decide our fate for ourselves. We could both stay in the hospital, where I could, thanks to my doctor, get him (his father) entered as a patient or nurse. Or else we could follow the others. "Well, what shall we do, father?" He was silent. "Let's be evacuated with the others," I told him."

Around 60,000 prisoners chose to go with the Germans and many of them didn't survive the march. Those who couldn't keep up were shot and their bodies were left in the snow. Many more died on the trains taking them to Dachau, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen or Mauthausen. Otto Frank chose to stay in the camp and he survived.

There were 611 children in the Birkenau camp who stayed behind when the camp was evacuated on January 18, 1945. According to Danuta Czech, the evacuation began in the early morning hours when 500 women with children were escorted out of the camp by SS guards. They reached Wodzislaw on January 21st. The men arrived the next day and all were loaded onto open box cars and taken to Germany.

The prisoners at Monowitz and all the prisoners in the sub-camps marched to the four concentration camps at Gleiwitz near the German border, arriving on January 21st. They were then taken on trains to Buchenwald, Dachau, Sachsenhausen or Mauthausen.

There were 4,428 women and girls and 169 boys who stayed behind. Around 2,000 prisoners were left behind in the men's camp at Birkenau; there were around 1250 men in the main camp who did not join the march out of the camp and 850 who chose to stay behind at Monowitz.

and from Dr. Faurisson at:
http://codoh.com/library/document/2688/
Image
Elie Wiesel. In his autobiographical work "Night" he relates that in January 1945, as a prisoner at Auschwitz, he and his father were given the choice of remaining behind in the camp to await the imminent arrival of Soviet liberators, or to leave with their German captors. After discussing the matter, father and son decided to leave with their "exterminators."

Elie Wiesel, in his autobiographical testimony Night, published in 1958, does not mention the gas chambers of Auschwitz even once. He says that the Jews were exterminated in huge fires or in crematory furnaces! In January of 1945 the Germans gave him and his father as well the choice of leaving for the heart of Germany with them or of waiting on the spot for the Soviets. After due consideration, the father and son decided to flee with their German "exterminators" rather than wait for their Soviet liberators. All this is clearly spelled out in Night, and needs only to be read with attention.[15]
- 15. E. Wiesel, Night (Avon/Discus pb. edition)

and: F.P. Berg at:
http://codoh.com/library/document/421/
When the Russians were about to overrun the Auschwitz camp in January 1945, both Elie and his father “chose” to go west with the retreating Nazis and SS rather than be “liberated” by America’s greatest ally. They could have told the whole world about Auschwitz within days—but, both Elie and his father as well as countless thousands of other Jews chose instead to trek west with the Nazis on foot at night in the middle of one of the coldest winters and continue working for the defense of the Reich thereafter. Some of Wiesel’ s exact words in Night (page 78 of the Bantam paperback edition, 1960)are:

“… The choice was in our hands. For once we could decide our fate for ourselves. We could both stay in the hospital, where I could, thanks to my doctor, get him [the father] entered as a patient or nurse. Or else we could follow the others. ‘Well, what shall we do, father?’ He was silent. ‘Let’s be evacuated with the others,’ I told him.”

Elie’s choice is corroborated by other “survivor’ accounts including that of Primo Levi and most notably by the “survivors” from Schindler’s List. In their well-known story, as the Russians were about to overrun Plaszow just thirty miles down the road to the east from Auschwitz in November 1944, Schindler and more than a thousand Jews chose to go west with the retreating Nazis rather than hang back and be “liberated” by the Soviets. Some even spent the next several weeks at Auschwitz--but none were gassed, not even in the movie. The hoax has certainly had its day.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: 95 year old former medic at Auschwitz to stand trial

Postby hermod » 3 years 1 month ago (Sun Sep 25, 2016 10:41 pm)

Hannover wrote:Further confirmation of "choice":
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Auschwitz ... ation.html

According to Otto Frank, the father of Anne Frank, the prisoners were given a choice between staying in the camps until the Soviet troops arrived or going on a 50-kilometer fast hike through two feet of snow to the border of the old German Reich where they would be put on trains and taken to camps in Germany.

Elie Wiesel, the most famous survivor of the Holocaust, was in a hospital at Monowitz, recovering from an operation on his foot, when he chose to join the march out of the camp, and eventually ended up at the Buchenwald camp.

In his book entitled "Night," Elie Wiesel wrote the following regarding his decision to join the Germans on the march out of Auschwitz:

"The choice was in our hands. For once we could decide our fate for ourselves. We could both stay in the hospital, where I could, thanks to my doctor, get him (his father) entered as a patient or nurse. Or else we could follow the others. "Well, what shall we do, father?" He was silent. "Let's be evacuated with the others," I told him."

Around 60,000 prisoners chose to go with the Germans and many of them didn't survive the march. Those who couldn't keep up were shot and their bodies were left in the snow. Many more died on the trains taking them to Dachau, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen or Mauthausen. Otto Frank chose to stay in the camp and he survived.

There were 611 children in the Birkenau camp who stayed behind when the camp was evacuated on January 18, 1945. According to Danuta Czech, the evacuation began in the early morning hours when 500 women with children were escorted out of the camp by SS guards. They reached Wodzislaw on January 21st. The men arrived the next day and all were loaded onto open box cars and taken to Germany.

The prisoners at Monowitz and all the prisoners in the sub-camps marched to the four concentration camps at Gleiwitz near the German border, arriving on January 21st. They were then taken on trains to Buchenwald, Dachau, Sachsenhausen or Mauthausen.

There were 4,428 women and girls and 169 boys who stayed behind. Around 2,000 prisoners were left behind in the men's camp at Birkenau; there were around 1250 men in the main camp who did not join the march out of the camp and 850 who chose to stay behind at Monowitz.


Looks like the proof I was requesting. As far as I know, there was no hospital, quarantine area, or recovery block at Monowitz. Only factories and laborers. So only healthy prisoners able to work. What the source of this figure? Where do these numbers come from?
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

onetruth
Member
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:53 am

Re: 95 year old former medic at Auschwitz to stand trial

Postby onetruth » 3 years 1 month ago (Mon Sep 26, 2016 5:07 am)

hermod wrote:Elie Wiesel, the most famous survivor of the Holocaust, was in a hospital at Monowitz, recovering from an operation on his foot, when he chose to join the march out of the camp, and eventually ended up at the Buchenwald camp.

Looks like the proof I was requesting. As far as I know, there was no hospital, quarantine area, or recovery block at Monowitz. Only factories and laborers. So only healthy prisoners able to work. What the source of this figure? Where do these numbers come from?



read the text again . It says on the second paragraph :

"Elie Wiesel, the most famous survivor of the Holocaust, was in a hospital at Monowitz, recovering from an operation on his foot, when he chose to join the march out of the camp, and eventually ended up at the Buchenwald camp. "

Monowitz did have a hospital :

The Prisoner Infirmary in the Buna/Monowitz Concentration Camp – History and Setup

http://www.wollheim-memorial.de/en/der_ ... und_aufbau


Primo Levi had come down with scarlet fever on January 11, 1945 and he had been put into the hospital at Monowitz, so he was not able to join the march out of the camp on January 18, 1945. He wrote that he was being treated in the hospital with sulpha drugs.

Legacy of promo levi page 179

https://books.google.co.il/books?

id=Kf3FAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=monowitz+primo+levi&source=bl&ots=SFvpaCDHIm&sig=7L0KZfkRfosxvIu2VI113RuuwbQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj55IC15KzPAhVoIcAKHbf_Ca44ChDoAQgZMAA#v=onepage&q=monowitz%20primo%20levi&f=false

~


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

Who is online

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