Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
One of the ace arguments of the antirevisionists is the testimony of Einsatzkommandos, Jewish menial workers in the crematoria. They should have been crown witnesses of the end result of the gassing process: halls full of dead bodies which they had to carry to the ovens. It is said that they were regularly killed off and replaced so as to remove witnesses, part of the well-known SS policy of carrying out the genocide in secret. However, these workers knew what was in store for them, and to counteract the SS secrecy, they wrote out their testimonies, put them in bottles and buried them. And some of them were indeed dug up afterwards, by coincidence, thus providing first-class direct testimony of the gassings.
Now, I don't want to waste your precious time, but on revisionist websites I have so far found precious little information on or refutation of these claims. So, may I trouble the experts?
What they cannot claim is evidence to suport the assertions made, I assume...in these bottles...what a dumb, silly story.
There is much to the allegations which come under such topics as:
alleged 'gas chambers'
alleged cremation rates
lack of physical evidence
lack of orders
damning aerial photos
absurd diesel 'gas vans'
lack of mass graves as alleged
I suggest a search of our Forum for insights.
The bizarres stories by alleged eyewitnesses have been completely debunked. I suggest you present one at a time and you will see lies dismembered, one after the other. Give us names and specifics about what they allege and you will learn quickly how ridiculous it all is.
Liars like 'eyewitnesses' Tauber, Muller, & Vrba; they're cited often, but when you dissect their stories they fall like a house of cards.
'One of the ace arguments of the antirevisionists is the testimony of Einsatzkommandos, Jewish menial workers in the crematoria. ... they wrote out their testimonies, put them in bottles and buried them. And some of them were indeed dug up afterwards, by coincidence, thus providing first-class direct testimony of the gassings.'
The crematorium workers aren't called Einsatzkommandos, they're called Sondercommandos.
As for the notes found in bottles which you describe as "first class' evidence? Do you have any you would like to post up here and make a case for the first class?
'Dear list members and lurkers,
One of the ace arguments of the antirevisionists is the testimony of Einsatzkommandos, Jewish menial workers in the crematoria. ...'
Now that you bring up the 'ace' word it brings to mind the state of the Holocaust controversy.
Revisionist have the Royal Flush and the anti-revisionists have less than a pair of deuces.
Keep an eye out for how revisionists address individual 'survivor eyewitness testimonies' and notice how they make deuces out of what you call aces.
with "Sonderkommando Manuscripts" on p.80-82. He fills these two pages with attacking the counterarguments (alleging fabrication and deliberate pro-communist mistranslation) by Staeglich and Faurisson. He also shows that one of four identified bottle manuscripts, dug up between 1945 and 1970, was signed by a French Jew whose deportation data are known from the Drancy records and confirmed in the text itself. Of that witness, it is said that he was among a hundred who were registered upon entry while nine hundred were at once sent for gassing. While another bottle text is quoted as describing a German sadist shooting prisoners and throwing them alive into burning-pits, the French reference is the only one quoted by Zimmerman to mention gassing. And this not as an eyewitness account: the newly arrived prisoner saw the nine hundred being taken away "for gassing". Could it be that they were taken away elsewhere and that prisoners filled in an explanation themselves based on rumors about gassing?
But of course, Zimmerman's failure to quote an actual description of a gassing event need not prove its non-existence, merely Z's tendency to lose himself in polemical diatribes? I must say that to the lay reader, he does make strong points here and there, e.g. the thesis of systematic destruction of records is buttressed by the finding (allegedly admitted by Mattogno) that there are no records of cremations in Auschwitz (p.232).
see Zimmerman demolished here:
I challenge Attila to start a separate thread on any specific point by Zimmerman or anyone else that he considers credible. Will Attila meet the challenge?
I don't have any of these original bottle testimonies, but I have the book Holocaust Denial by John C. Zimmerman, which deals
Holy Cow - 'Zimmerman'? That's enough to incite one to go into that Abbot and Costello skit - 'ZIMMERMAN FALLS! Slowly I turn, step by step, inch by ...'
You are the first person I have ever seen refer to Zimmerman's book. That would include having had extensive exchanges with anti-revisionists during the two years or so since Zimmerman's book appeared.
That would also include exchanges with persons involved with THE HOLOCAUST HISTORY PROJECT of which Zimmerman is associated with.
Zimmerman even has a pre-book treatment on THE HOLOCAUST HISTORY PROJECT.
One can even point out right to his associates that no one ever refers to Zimmerman or ask them why no one ever refers to Zimmerman and they don't answer.
Zimmerman's work is an embarrassment so huge that it compromises via stigma all Holocaust literature in general.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests