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!
wtfhappenedtohess
Member
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:41 am

1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby wtfhappenedtohess » 1 decade 5 months ago (Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:54 am)

I heard rumors a while ago that Auschwitz may be in the making?

Anyone know if this can be confirmed/denied?
Last edited by wtfhappenedtohess on Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mojo
Member
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby Mojo » 1 decade 5 months ago (Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:06 pm)

Wasn't David Coles' video focused on Auschwitz?

User avatar
widmann
Member
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 6:22 pm

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby widmann » 1 decade 5 months ago (Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:07 pm)

Mojo wrote:Wasn't David Coles' video focused on Auschwitz?

Yes it was. The video in question is "David Cole Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper." Piper was a director at Auschwitz at the time of the video. Cole's work shows that the 'gas chamber' at Auschwitz was not original but 'rebuilt' years later in contradiction to what was generally told to visitors.
A "1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz" would be a welcome addition to the revisionist videos / films on the subject.

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 5 months ago (Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:22 pm)

Well, get ready for the gas chambers of the Maly Trostinets extermination camp (near Minsk).

Yup, the gas chambers of Maly Trostinets: you read it right. Those gas chambers have just been discovered in Martin Gilbert's "The Routledge Atlas of the Second World War", London 2008.

Not really a surprise to me. I've been noticing Gilbert's efforts to further confuse things and displace the concentration camp "Holocaust" eastwards, ever since he tried the "extermination camp" game (with Maly Trostinets near Minsk and Jungerhof near Riga) in the "Times Atlas of the Second World War," at the time the Auschwitz flagship started to dangerously list and the gas chambers to take in water...

Alas, it's a bit of a problem to push the Auschwitz fairy tales into the mysterious East, without at the same time destroying even further the Reinhardt fairy tales according to which the deportation of the western Jews into the East was only make-believe...

Wait and see. One of these days Gilbert and his fellow propagandists will manage to find the nazi gas chambers in the midst of the Antarctic...

User avatar
ginger
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:52 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby ginger » 1 decade 5 months ago (Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:24 pm)

David Cole did me a great service in his video of Auschwitz. Tim Cole, in his book "Selling the Holocaust", acknowledged that the reconstruction of the gas chamber at the museum site was "shoddy".

What interests me is that in 1990 the number of deaths at Auschwitz had been significantly reduced - from 4 million to 1.1 million (according to Wikipedia). In 1990 I wasn't paying close attention so I missed it. There should have been a party, a celebraton, to let this country know that 2.9 million people escaped extermination at Auschwitz.

Mojo
Member
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby Mojo » 1 decade 5 months ago (Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:08 pm)

Ahh, sorry I misunderstood that another film was possibly in the works, similar to the Treblinka/Sobibor/Belzec 1/3rd movie. :oops:

I thought David Coles movie was great, as well as 1/3rd. The Phil Donahue Show that Cole did is worth watching too if you haven't seen it. Of course Donahue pulls the usual tactics but, what struck me was the 'eyewitness' testimony of survivor Edith Glueck. At the end of her horror tales when they went to commercial, it looked like she was relieved that she pulled the story off again and wasn't called on the carpet. The woman has a look of shame in her eyes where there should be a look of defiance. Also interesting she was being coached by an audience member (her sister i think?). Is the Bradley Smith from the Donahue show the same Bradley Smith that founded CODOH? Either way, the Mr. Smith on the Donahue show has a lot more patience than I do, hat's off to you sir.

While I'm at it, hat's off to all the revisionists that are willing to go public and go loudly at that. The more I learn about this, the more I understand how dangerous it can be.

I hope someone does produce an Auschwitz movie that combines all the legitimate revisionist discoveries.

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 5 months ago (Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:27 pm)

ASMarques wrote:Well, get ready for the gas chambers of the Maly Trostinets extermination camp (near Minsk).


Not to be confused, by the way, with the mobile "gas vans" allegedly used on occasion at Maly Trostinets and elsewhere, in the classic "Holocaust" literature. Gilbert is clearly seeking to enlarge -- and, of course, confuse -- the range of the alleged extermination camps with mass murder facilities beyond the famous league of the "big six".

I suppose he feels it necessary to compensate the progressive loss of Auschwitz's status as the "gigantic factory of death" par excellence by spreading more and more rumors of obscure gas chambers all over the landscape...
Last edited by ASMarques on Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
widmann
Member
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 6:22 pm

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby widmann » 1 decade 5 months ago (Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:53 pm)

Mojo wrote:Is the Bradley Smith from the Donahue show the same Bradley Smith that founded CODOH?


That of course is an affirmative. You are new to this my friend!
I heartily recommend that you read Bradley's Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist.

Best of luck in your studies!

User avatar
ginger
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:52 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby ginger » 1 decade 5 months ago (Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:35 pm)

Another thought on the reduced numbers of deaths at Auschwitz, from 4 million to 1.1 million, was that perhaps the 2.9 million emigrated from Europe after the war, rather than died.

In the video 1/3 the Holocaust, in the last segment, the author stated emphatically that millions, not thousands, emigrated to Israel after the war. I have tried to find some corroboration for that statement - that millions emigrated to Israel after the war, but without success. Still, it would make sense and help account for the absence of Jews in Europe after the war.

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 (Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:21 pm)

ginger wrote:Another thought on the reduced numbers of deaths at Auschwitz, from 4 million to 1.1 million, was that perhaps the 2.9 million emigrated from Europe after the war, rather than died.

This has come up before and seems to create confusion. 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. 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, but it is more in line with what authors in the west have traditionally maintained. 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.

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 5 months ago (Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:55 pm)

PatrickSMcNally wrote:It was never claimed by anyone that 4 million Jews had died at Auschwitz.


A simple example: Jacob Bronowski in the BBC documentary series The Ascent of Man, claiming that the ashes of some 4 million people -- the old figure we are now (falsely) told that only the crazy commies used to believe in -- had been flushed to a small backyard pond in Auschwitz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA

A few more examples of the Auschwitz figures from a long series compiled by Robert Faurisson, just to give you the flavor of the farce:

9,000,000 persons
according to the documentary film Nuit et Brouillard (Night and Fog, 1955), whose historical advisers were the historians Henri Michel and Olga Wormser-Migot.

8,000,000 persons
according to the French War Crime Research Office and the French War Crime Information Service (1945).

7,000,000 persons
according to Raphaël Feigelson (1945).

6,000,000 Jews
according to Tibère Kremer, writer of a foreword for Miklos Nyiszli (1951).

5,000,000 to 5,500,000 persons
according to Bernard Czardybon (1945), according to confessions attributed to some SS members and according to the newspaper Le Monde (1978) that added: "of whom 90% Jews".

4,500,000 persons
according to Henryk Mandelbaum (1945).

4,000,000 persons
according to a Soviet document of which the Nuremberg tribunal took "judicial notice". This figure was inscribed nineteen times, with a commentary in as many different languages, on the Auschwitz-Birkenau monument. It was repeated by many different authors, including the Polish historian Franciszek Piper, ex-curator of the Auschwitz Museum. Then, it was declared false in 1990 and replaced on the monument, in 1995, by the figure of 1,500,000 with the concurrence of the same F. Piper for whom this figure is a maximum, while the minimum figure is 1,100,000. According to Miriam Novitch (1967), of the 4,000,000 dead, 2,700,000 were Jewish. According to Rabbi Moshe Weiss (1991), more than 4,000,000 persons died at Auchwitz, of whom 3,000,000 were Jews.

3,500,000 persons
according to the Dictionnaire de la langue française published by Hachette (1991). According to Claude Lanzmann (1980), there were 3,500,000 gassed of whom 95% of Jews as well as many other deaths.

3,000,000 persons
until December 1st, 1943, according to a confession extorted from Rudolf Höss, ex-Commander of Auschwitz.

3,000,000 Jews gassed
according to David Susskind (1986) and according to Heritage, the most important Californian Jewish weekly (1993).

2,500,000 persons
according to Rudolf Vrba for the Eichmann trial (1961).

2,000,000 (?) to 4,000,000 (?)
according to the historian Yehuda Bauer (1982).

2,000,000 to 3,000,000 Jews killed as well as thousands of non-Jews
according to a confession attributed to an SS named Pery Broad.

2,000,000 to 2,500,000 persons killed
according to a confession attributed to an SS physician, Dr. Friedrich Entress (1945).

2,000,000 persons
according to the historian Léon Poliakov (1951); according to the historian Georges Wellers (1973) and according to the woman historian Lucy Davidowicz (1975).

1,600,000 persons
according to the historian Yehuda Bauer (1989), of whom 1,352,980 Jews (the latter figure is from Georges Wellers, 1983).

1,500,000 persons
this figure, chosen by Lech Walesa, replaced, in 1995, on the Birkenau monument, the previous one of 4,000,000, withdrawn in 1990.

1,471,595 persons
of whom 1,352,980 Jews, according to the historian Georges Wellers (1983).

1,250,000 persons or so
of whom 1,000,000 Jews killed and more than 250,000 non-Jews dead, according to the historian Raul Hilberg.

1,100,000 to 1,500,000 persons
according to the historians Yisrael Gutman, Michael Berenbaum and Franciszek Piper (1994).

1,000,000 persons
according to Jean-Claude Pressac (1989) and the Dictionnaire des noms propres published by Hachette (1992).

800,000 to 900,000 persons
according to the historian Gerald Reitlinger (1953).

775,000 to 800,000 persons
according to Jean-Claude Pressac (1993), of whom 630,000 were gassed Jews.

630,000 to 710,000 persons
according to Jean-Claude Pressac (1994), of whom from 470,000 to 550,000 were gassed Jews.

Please note that although in his "spontaneous" confession (with the help of "alcohol and the whip", as he himself put it) camp Commandant Rudolf Hoess, the so-called "proud technician", claimed 3.000.000, very few apparently take notice or believe him...

And we therefore reach the last generation of figures (no pun intended) with Jean-Claude Pressac who pointed out a figure of 775.000 in 1993. However, he lowered the total number to 630.000 victims -- only "470.000 to 550.000" of which Jews -- in 1994.

Of course, as soon as 08.01.1948, Welt im Film (British newsreel, nbr. 137) was indicating a figure of 300.000, but more recently it was revealed that the mortuary books (Sterbebücher) which had been kept during the war by the Auschwitz camp authorities exist at least from 27.07.1941 to 31.12.1943. Since the camp was opened in 20.05.1940 and evacuated in 18.01.1945, that period represents a little more than half the duration of the camp's existence under German authority. The books, as released after more than 40 years, thanks in part to the Zundel trials of 1985 and 1988, appear to include approximately 69,000 names.

If that doesn't give you food for a little independent thought, please consider the International Red Cross archives at Arolsen, always closed to revisionists. Can the archives of an organisation like the IRC be trusted, since neither individual "Holocaust scholars" nor the media appear to remotely know what they are talking about? Here is the figure then (17.08.1994):

-- International Red Cross at Arolsen: 66.206
Dept. of Holocaust investigations (Ref. nbr: 10824).

Perhaps not exhaustive, but could this be much nearer to the truth than the figures involving millions for Auschwitz alone?

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 (Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:00 pm)

Oh cripes! We went through all of this in detail on another thread, but let's start again.

ASMarques wrote:A simple example: Jacob Bronowski in the BBC documentary series The Ascent of Man, claiming that the ashes of some 4 million people

Fisrt point, you say "4 million people" but I had said "4 million Jews." There's a difference. The old Soviet propaganda used to claim that 4 million people of predominantly Slavic background had been killed in Auschwitz. The old plaque at Auschwitz never said anything about Jews. So attempts to use the change in the plaque as a way of deducing something about Jewish demographics are meaningless. It was never claimed by anyone, not by anyone at all, that 4 million Jews had died at Auschwitz.

Second point, the authors in the west who, whether deservedly or not, are commonly held as "the leading academic specialists on the Holocaust," never at any time claimed the 4 million in any form, not for Jews, Slavs or anyone else. By "leading academic specialist" I do not mean a BBC show. That does not count as such. I mean Gerald Reitlinger, Raul Hilberg, Leon Poliakov, Christopher Browning, Ian Kerhsaw, RIchard Evans and a host of other similar names you could look up. Now there are many things which you can find that are twisted, contradictory, inadequate and what not in the works of such authors and I have no reason to want to make a special brief for them. But in the interests of accuracy it is important to note that none of them ever made the 4 million claim for Auschwitz. If you have a citation for any of them, Reitlinger, Hilberg, whoever, where they give a claim of 4 million dead at Auschwitz then please let's hear it, with title, author, year of publication, publisher and page number. But only something from someone recognized within major universities as a leading authority on the subject is relevant here. No BBC shows, no high school textbooks written by "specialists in education," just a reference from someone who would be regarded as some type of recognized specialist in the field of Holocaust studies. The closest thing I was ever able to find was Lucy Dawidowicz who claimed a death toll of 2 million at Auschwitz (not all Jews, of course). I think that Yehuda Bauer may have in one claimed an open-ended range from 1 to 3.5 million, with the clear understanding that the possible extra 3.5 - 1 = 2.5 million (to which he did not at all commit himself) were non-Jews. If you can find better let's hear it.

the old figure we are now (falsely) told that only the crazy commies used to believe in

No, you're twisting the issue there. I know for a fact that I had heard of and believed the 4 million number at least as late as 2002 (maybe 2003, I forget when was the last time I thought of it with real belief). But as soon as I became interested in the issue and began reading orthodox texts by people who were supposedly the leading experts, it became obvious that, although I could find other things wrong with what they wrote, not a single one of them claimed anything like the 4 million number, and certainly not 4 million Jews (in relation to Auschwitz that is).

9,000,000 persons
according to the documentary film Nuit et Brouillard (Night and Fog, 1955), whose historical advisers were the historians Henri Michel and Olga Wormser-Migot.

The film does not actually claim anything of the sort. It shows a picture of Auschwitz in the background and on the screen there is a 9 million number flashed, but it is not actually made clear to the viewer whether this is meant to imply 9 million kiled specifically at Auschwitz, or just 9 million killed all over Europe with Auschwitz sort of emblamatic of the whole thing. You can charge the filmmaker with an abuse of artistic license, as I'm sure many people did get the impression that it meant 9 million killed exactly at Auschwitz. But the film does not actually say anything of the sort, and the artistic abuse involved would be something outside of the range of responsibility of Henri Michel and Olga Wormser-Migot. Now if you could produce an example of a paper, published in a recognized historical academic journal, where Michel or Wormser-Migot made the claim that 4 million were killed at Auschwitz, then that would be very different. But I doubt that you'll ever find any.

2,000,000 (?) to 4,000,000 (?)
according to the historian Yehuda Bauer (1982).

As I recall, I think he gave 1 to 3.5 million as the range of possibility, but I'd have to go and look it up. It was clear that the bulk of hypothetical Jewish victims were intended to be contained within the 1 million, with the remainder being possible non-Jews. Dawidowicz actually does put the 2 million (not all Jewish) number down for Auschwitz, and that is the highest I've ever seen definitively claimed in any book whose author could be characterized in the conventional sense as "a recognized authority" (whether or not that recognition is really deserved is a separate issue).

2,000,000 persons
according to the historian Léon Poliakov (1951); according to the historian Georges Wellers (1973) and according to the woman historian Lucy Davidowicz (1975).

Yes, Dawidowicz gives the 2 million number. That's the highest I've ever seen given in such an academic book. But as a word of caution, one should still avoid assuming that "2 million" means "2 million Jews" and one should be wary of attempts to use the "2 million" number in demographic arguments such as "if it's admitted that it was really more like 1 million instead of 2 million then we should change the 6 million to 5 million." Although the 6 million itself is mainly derived from hearsay, one should't blindly attempt to argue for a change in that number based upon assumptions that older claims about Auschwitz involved only Jews. In fact the original claim was that millions of every racial type were being exterminated by Nazis. As the old passions died down the charges with regards to Slavs and other non-Jewish groups became more low-key and Jewish groups started lobbying to keep intact their special claims. At that point the charges about Jews started coming to the fore, and today it is maintained the majority of victims in the alleged extermination camps were Jewish. You should not assume that older sources which give a higher number of deaths are specifically claiming Jewish deaths, and you should be very wary of attempts to use this as a way of arguing about Jewish demographics.


If that doesn't give you food for a little independent thought,

No it doesn't, because you've missed the whole point and I'm perfectly well acquainted with the majority of references you gave. Only a few of them were from actual "recognized academic scholarship," those which were fell in the lower range of 2 million or less, and none of those non-academic sources which you listed as giving higher numbers ever attempted to claim that 4 million Jews died at Auschwitz. You need to pay more attention.

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 5 months ago (Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:59 am)

PatrickSMcNally wrote:Fisrt point, you say "4 million people" but I had said "4 million Jews." There's a difference. The old Soviet propaganda used to claim that 4 million people of predominantly Slavic background had been killed in Auschwitz.


You speak as if we had on the one hand the "old Soviet propaganda," and on the other, in an almost adversarial position, the "academic specialists on the Holocaust."

But you forget that the old Jewish propaganda -- whenever it couldn't get away with even more staggering claims -- fully accepted the 4 million figure chiseled in stone, while at the same time claiming that the overwhelming majority of Auschwitz victims had been Jewish.

And, of course, the judeophile "specialists" you mention, even when under a certain number of commonsensical constraints to some of the crudest propaganda fancies, have not been noticeably uncooperative with the unremitting Jewish propaganda in general.

Indeed, a great deal of their efforts has been historically directed towards the containment or postponement of many, inevitably revisionist in nature, conclusions.


The respect you show for the "specialists" involved in the whole "Holocaust" farce leads you to imagine a border between the straight propaganda / religious faith on the one hand, and a supposedly precise and scientific judeophile investigation on the other.

But that is quite an illusion, for the pre-revisionist specialists were systematically working backwards, starting with the alleged "Holocaust" requirements -- give or take a few "figure corrections," generally out of the blue -- in order to reach such astounding idiocies as the calculation of whole-people "exterminations" based on incoming train schedules (whereas, BTW, outgoing train schedules had vanished, without the fact being given the slightest significance).

Just to let you perceive how ignorant and superstition-based the "specialist" rantings can be, consider that paragon of respected specialised knowledge, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, generally not considered to be an unthinking mouthpiece for Soviet propaganda, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Here is what the 1957 edition, for instance, says about Mauthausen, at the peak of the Cold War, when ordinary non-Jewish Soviet propaganda was presumably not held in high esteem: "[in Mauthausen] about 2 million people, Jewish for the major part, were exterminated between 1941 and 1945" (vol. 10, p. 288).

Does that sound to your ears like discredited Soviet propaganda, mentioned by the specialists in charge simply to make fun of it?

Well, here is what my 1986 edition says, at a time when the Auschwitz "factory of death" was the dominating myth: "out of the probable 355,000 inmates passing through Mauthausen and its satellites, more than 122,000 died from execution or privation."

On the other hand, the same 1986 edition, attributes, with all the appearance of knowledgeable precision, to the small transit camp of Sobibor -- about which next to nothing is known (with good reason) except that it functioned for 16 months -- "250,000 killed in five gas chambers" (should be "less than 35,000" according to Pressac, in 2000). No more, no less, and it even manages to assert categorically that "only about thirty people escaped."

What about the Auschwitz figures? Was the 4 million figure really a Soviet fantasy no one gave any credence to? Well, you don't seem to think Jakob Bronowky or the BBC count as knowledgeable sources, so let's see what my 1986 Britannica had to say about it.

Here it is: "Estimates of the total numbers who died at Auschwitz from all causes vary greatly, usually cited as between 1,000,000 and 2,500,000 but sometimes reaching 4,000,000" (vol. 1 p. 708).

Again, does that sound to you like the specialists were mentioning a crazy discredited Soviet propaganda claim?

And I have no earlier Britannica at hand right now, so I have to quote from the 1986 edition, with many "Holocaust" allegations already in shambles after the revisionist onslaught (by Faurisson, Butz, Stäglich etc.) that remained totally ignored by the public, but was certainly taken notice of by the judeophile "experts" you seem to respect so much...

You should note these are in no way occasional isolated lapses. Contradictions and nonsensical estimates are the rule, not the exception, in the supposedly serious judeophile sources, as in the popular literature by true or false "survivors." Every new effort on the part of the "Holocaust scholars" -- a new priesthood class for a new religion -- tends to dissimulate this very fact, instead of helping to clear up the confusing mess and pointing out the inconsistencies, with a view to establish the historical truth.

PatrickSMcNally wrote:The film does not actually claim anything of the sort. It shows a picture of Auschwitz in the background and on the screen there is a 9 million number flashed [...] You can charge the filmmaker with an abuse of artistic license


You do that, and let me know the result. Frankly, I've got better things to do.
Last edited by ASMarques on Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:41 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 5 months ago (Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:14 am)

ASMarques wrote:You speak as if we had on the one hand the "old Soviet propaganda," and on the other the "academic specialists on the Holocaust."

No, I don't. But we went through all of this on another thread where I'd pointed out:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5584&p=37133&sid=e48347feb8d18be1f3ea0658c7d2b5c3#p37133

There are at least 4 different types of issues which you've casually mixed together in the last few posts. There are issues of:

1) Source criticism. This in itself need not imply rejection of an author's conclusions. It is actually possible to agree with an author's conclusions, but argue that they have used a poor source-base when drawing those conclusions.

2) Rejection of someone's conclusions. This has the reverse form. In some cases one may even believe that the sources which an author has used are perfectly valid, but that the author has drawn a wrong conclusion from them through poor reasoning.

3) Criticism of academics who, rightly or wrongly, are regarded as the "top experts" at major universities and colleges around the world. On the subject of Holocaust allegations, this would include Christopher Browning but not Elie Wiesel.

4) Criticism of influential publicists who don't really claim to have any academic specialization on a subject, but exert a strong influence on many people's thinking about it. Elie Wiesel would fall in that category, as would Simon Wiesenthal, Claude Lanzmann, Alain Resnais, Steven Spielberg, each of the Popes, and quite a few others.

All of the above types of critiques are significant, but one should clearly distinguish each relevant task from the others. Now this point of debate opened up when someone rahashed the claim that it has once been claimed that 4 million were killed at Auschwitz and so the change on the plaque should mean that we deduct an equal total from the purported six million. For that argument to stick in that form, one must focus strictly upon points (2) & (3) above.

What you are doing is muddling the distinction between points (3) and (4) in this list.

But, of course, you forget that the "old Jewish propaganda" -- whenever it couldn't get away with even more staggering claims -- fully accepted the 4 million figure chiseled in stone, while at the same time claiming that the overwhelming majority of Auschwitz victims had been Jewish...

I don't know what you classify as "old Jewish propaganda," but I can guarantee that the stress on Jews as victims did not begin to emerge until the 1970s, and mainly in response to the fact that older scare stories were starting to fade and Jewish groups found it necessary to reinforce there specific claims to victimhood. I have certainly never found any source which ever claimed that as many as 4 million Jews were killed in Auschwitz, and obviously you haven't either to judge from your own list. In the first 2 or 3 decades after the war the general sentiment was that the Nazis were the enemy of everyone and that was why they had to be fought, and such was the context in which claims of 4 million were tossed around. None of your own examples made any suggestion of 4 million Jews killed at Auschwitz, and I doubt you ever will find any which say such.

And, of course, the respect you show for the "specialists" involved in the whole "Holocaust" farce

Cripes, this is getting silly. Where did I suggest any particular "respect" for anyone? You come off sounding like a high school teacher who fails the entire class but when asked by parents as to the cause of the failing of their particular child doesn't recall who did what in the class. Even if the entire class fails, it is still the responsibility of the teacher to know the differences in the performances of each student. It's just a fact that qualitative differences do exist between Steven Spielberg and Raul Hilberg. One doesn't need to accept either one, but if you simply lump them all together then you come off as ignorant.

leads you to imagine a border between the straight propaganda / religious faith on the one hand,

No, that border is your own invention. There exists a broad spectrum which allows one to clearly place Elie Wiesel on one end and Gerald Reitlinger on the other end, with many shades in between. But if one is going to attempt a revisionist critique of anything then observing specifics is important. Such specifics do require that we recognize such shades of difference, even if we don't accept any of the variations.

Just to let you perceive how ignorant and superstition-based the "specialist" rantings can be, consider that paragon of respected specialised knowledge, the Encyclopedia Britannica,

Again, the Britannica does not represent anything which would be regarded in academia as a specialist source. The Britannica follows a pattern like most encyclopedias where they simply attempt to summarize whatever is currently interpreted as the general wisdom. In the 1950s Reitlinger, Poliakov and maybe few others had just begun publishing the first few books on the purported extermination of Jews. Anyone would expect that the Britannica would lag behind (as it does on every other point of controversy) and publish a general summary which was not representative of even the early works published by Reitlinger et al.

let's see what my 1986 Britannica had to say about it. Here it is (vol. 1 p. 708): "Estimates of the total numbers who died at Auschwitz from all causes vary greatly, usually cited as between 1,000,000 and 2,500,000 but sometimes reaching 4,000,000."

So a general statement in an encyclopedia which is not written with the intent or responsibility of sorting through controversial details simply mentions that the estimates vary greatly, are usually cited as between 1 and 2 million, and then happens to mention in a further comment that the number 4 million is sometimes tossed around. That's really lame, and it gets far away from the original issue. No one reading that passage would have taken it to mean "perhaps as many as 4 million Jews killed at Auschwitz." The passage clearly indicates to the reader that they may view the 4 million number with some skepticism, but it's not the responsibility of an encyclopedia to sort out different claims beyond indicating what is usually cited, as they did in this case. Anyone reading the passage would know that if, by some chance it may be possible that as many as 4 million were killed at Auschwitz, then we should assume the bulk of these victims to be Slavs, not Jews. That was how I always read the story long ago when I once believed that there were 4 million victims at Auschwitz. No one ever tried to suggest to me that the bulk of these 4 million, if they gave that number at all, were Jews, and your encyclopedia doesn't either. It doesn't even give the number 4 million as anything authoritative, but merely mentions it without slamming it as fully as it could. That's what one expects from an encyclopedia, minimization of controversy and just generic statements which may lead one to try to find out more.

but was certainly taken notice of by the Judeophile "experts" you respect so much...

You really are souunding like a moron. What does recognizing a clear distinction between Alain Resnais and Christopher Browning have to do with respecting either of them? It's just a matter of seeking some precision, which you apparently don't care about.

You do that, and let me know the result. Frankly, I've got more important things to do.

Except that you're the one who brought the matter up in the first place. If you've got more important things to do then there's no reason to raise the issue at all. But if one is going to raise the matter, then one shouldn't misrepresent what the film carries. It has a scene where Auschwitz is in the background, and it flashes the claim of 9 million across the screen. It never actually says that these 9 million are to be interpreted as having been killed at Auschwitz alone, but it is possible for someone casually watching the film to get such an impression. An informed film critic would suggest that the single shot of Auschwitz be replaced by a splicing of the screen into maybe 16 (4-by-4) different pictures with Auschwitz as just one picture among several, to better create the sense that this is supposed to be all over Europe. But I doubt very much that Olga Wormser-Migot or any other academic ever told Resnais that 9 million had been killed in Auschwitz alone. This is an issue of filmmaking technique, not historical dispute.

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 5 months ago (Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:17 pm)

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
ASMarques wrote:You speak as if we had on the one hand the "old Soviet propaganda," and on the other the "academic specialists on the Holocaust."


No, I don't. But we went through all of this on another thread where I'd pointed out:

http://codoh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5c3#p37133


Who's the "we" in your "we went through all of this"? I assume you're talking to me, and I don't seem to have contributed to the thread you're quoting from.

PatrickSMcNally wrote:I have certainly never found any source which ever claimed that as many as 4 million Jews were killed in Auschwitz, and obviously you haven't either to judge from your own list.


I have just given you a score of sources, one of them for no less than 9 million people, which clearly means much more than 4 million Jews (no public disclaimer, BTW, is known on the part of the advisers to the film, historians Henri Michel and Olga Wormser-Migot). When you write "any source," am I supposed to read what you have written or to mentally edit as "any leading academic specialist source"? I find it difficult to guess your meaning at every turn. Please try to be more precise.

Let me see if you get this in equation form:

A + B = C

Where A is the acceptance of the abstract 4 million chiseled in stone; B is the acceptance that the overwhelming majority of victims at Auschwitz were Jewish; and C is the acceptance of a figure close to 4 million Jews for Auschwitz alone.

If you propagate simultaneously the A and B beliefs, you are inevitably propagating the C belief. You don't need to articulate C in close detail, nor should you attempt to, if your purpose is propagandistic.

Get the idea?

PatrickSMcNally wrote:There exists a broad spectrum which allows one to clearly place Elie Wiesel on one end and Gerald Reitlinger on the other end, with many shades in between.


Why do you place Reitlinger at one of the ends? Just because his final figure is inferior to, for instance, Hilberg's?

Reitlinger's original investigation, or any new reasoning of his applied to previous data, were mininal, compared to the efforts of some other "Holocaust" scholars, like Hilberg, even when taking into account the very weakness of Hilberg's own standards and ability as an investigator.

Reitlinger simply compiled the allegedly lowest figures for every country and added them up. That's all.

If those official or semi-official figures, and the ways they were reached in each case, were worth any trust at all -- which, of course, was not the case -- statistics alone would not recommend the systematic choice of minimal values.

Reitlinger's exercise was simply a variety of "Holocaust" figure juggling, and not, in any possible sense, an original investigation, or still less a real breakthrough such as, say, Faurisson's revelation of the crematory blueprints in the Auschwitz Museum archives never even visited by Hilberg, Reitlinger or any of the other conformist pseudo-scholarly "Holocaust" peddlers.

You should understand that the apparent convenience of any new figures for make-believe purposes ("see how indefatigable we are in our "Holocaust" fine-tuning efforts...") is not what matters.

The constant adaptation of an old lie by small steps may look tempting to those interested in ensuring its survival, but honest scholarship should be concerned neither with the big lies nor with the smaller adaptative lies.

True scholarship should be concerned with the truth, full stop. As in "there was no chain-mass murder, nor any gas chambers, at Auschwitz, and here is why..."

Given the state of our knowledge, either acceptance of, or an all-out demand for a public discussion of, such conclusions, should be acceptable scholarship. Anything else is obfuscation or flight of fancy.

PatrickSMcNally wrote:Again, the Britannica does not represent anything which would be regarded in academia as a specialist source.


You mean those "Holocaust" articles in the Britannica were in reality trusted to the tender care of the likes of Miklos Nyisly or Olga Lengyel, in spite of the usual prestigious names in the list of contributors & consultants? Wow!

You see, I quoted the Britannica because I found it convenient to give you the flavor of what the specialists were saying at a given time. I would have expected you to accept, for instance, that an article on, say, laser physics & engineering, or indeed on the Chaco war between Paraguay and Bolivia, would be a good way of recreating what was deemed to be the specialised knowledge of such topics at that particular time. But, of course, it didn't occur to me that when it comes to the supposedly historical event known as the "Holocaust," no specialised knowledge is deemed special enough...

PatrickSMcNally wrote:In the 1950s Reitlinger, Poliakov and maybe few others had just begun publishing the first few books on the purported extermination of Jews.


Just in case you think I was being unfair to Reitlinger, let's take your esteemed Poliakov and his supposedly "quality specialization" in his Bréviaire de la Haine.

He does give the reader a final figure for the Jewish victims of the Auschwitz "factory of death," but do you know how he proceeds?

Well, he quotes Nuremberg on Eichmann's alleged figure of 6 million for the Europeans Jews, then attributes the Auschwitz figure of 2,500,000 to Hoess, and, since he feels this probably includes Gypsies, and Russian or Polish Aryans, he indicates -- to be on the safe side, as he puts it -- a minimum of 2 million Jews. And that's that.

Hilberg, like other sacred cows in the "Holocaust" pasture, at least counted trains. Poliakov is more expedient: he quotes that greatest "Holocaust" investigator of all, Commandant Hoess of Nuremberg fame...

So much for the finest "Holocaust" scholarship.
Last edited by ASMarques on Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests