Things changed for me... [MAYBE NOT] Muehlenkamp

[Pepper]

Mulakamp

Err, I accepted the "challenge"... more than a year ago, on 12 July 2008.

Looks like Mulankamp is admitting that just one grave - just 1/10 of 1% is too hard for him to prove.

So he's had 15 months to submit his "evidence" on Treblinka and Sobibor to skeptic magazine.

I wonder what's taking him so long?

Did he get cold feet?

What is he afraid of?

How much easier can nafcash make it?

They lowered it from 1% to just 1/10 of 1% just for him, didn't they?

They can't go down any lower than "just one grave."

Maybe they could make it "just 1/100 of 1%" for him?

Does Mulenkamp think he can do that I wonder?

[Drew J]

Kristallnacht
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5310

by Friedrich Paul Berg » Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:29 pm

I am sure Ingrid Weckert is quite right and that pseudo-revisionists like David Irving are completely wrong about Kristallnacht.

Irving has claimed that he copied pages from Goebbels' Diary in Moscow for the days November 11 and 12 of 1938, at least one of which supposedly contains admissions that Goebbels orchestrated the event. Ingrid Weckert had seen the text provided by Irving but thought the German was so poor that it must have been a forgery. She asked Irving to please provide a copy from the original glass plates that he had supposedly copied, but he never sent her a copy.

One point that I have always thought very important was that Hershel Grynspan who triggered the event by shooting and killing Von Rath in Paris had, supposedly, been upset and furious that his Polish-Jewish parents (Polish citizens) were kicked out of Germany and sent back to Poland. If Nazi Germany had been anything like the terrible place for Jews that has been repeatedly alleged, Hershel should have been ecstatic that his parents were finally out of such a horrible place--but he wasn't happy at all. He was, supposedly, so unhappy about their forced departure that, in his rage, he shot and killed a German diplomat in Paris. No doubt, many Germans thought the circumstances were bizarre and intolerable.

Small wonder that many Germans thought it was high time to remove Jews from Germany. No matter what the Germans did or how well or badly the Jews were treated, it was never enough to satisfy the Jews--so they should leave.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com

[Drew J]

Weber's use of Goebbels for partial holocaust
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5269

I read Mark Weber's essay.

http://www.ihr.org/weber_revisionism_jan09.html

Weber uses Goebbel's diary for his belief that killing happened in the East, that "millions lost their lives." What would people say about that here? Do we know the diary couldn't have been tampered with? Some thoughts that come to me, is where Hannover asks (in various threads here) where are the graves then. Or where Arthur Butz mentions that the deaths of so many people wouldn't hinge on a diary entry or a book entry, that instead there'd be a mountain of evidence.

There is good reason to believe that the Goebbel's diary is suspect and without a doubt has been wildly misinterpreted.

- The complete original diaries have supposedly 'never been found', right. Reminds me of the Himmler diaries which we never read about but are supposedly in Israeli hands. They're hiding something.

also see:
'The Goebbels diary: a forgery?'
viewtopic.php?t=3793
and:
'Grubach debunks Jeffrey Herf and the 'Final Solution' canard'
viewtopic.php?t=4685

And the coup de grace for claims about the suspicious Goebbel's diary is the fact that no mass graves as alleged can be shown. If the shady interpretation that Weber and the Industry believe in for Goebbel's incomplete diary was correct then these mass graves could be shown.

- Hannover

Wilfred von Oven, Goebbels personal adjutant right to the end, tells us in his “Finale Furioso” that of every type-written page a micro-copy (Mikrokopien) was later made, able to fit into a small case instead of filling a library (p.67). On April 18.1945, Goebbels told secretary Otte (Geheimsekretär), the only one familiar with the content since he typed all, to destroy the rest of the typewritten pages (v. Oven witnessed this). Thus, only the three micro copies remained (three because Goebbels categorized his diary by three subjects), stored in three steel cases which were buried (p.647).

Sadly, von Oven died, just recently, before I was able to contact him, having just found this book.

Regards
Wilf

Weber is falling into the "excessive moderation" trap, not in the sense of acknowledging truths that almost no revisionist denies (such as the barbaric character of many WW2 operational practices that gradually became current on both sides), but of morphing the tone of legitimate concession into a type of discourse that sounds to the ignorant ear like a confirmation of the general lines of the official "Holocaust," naturally with due care to never explicitly say so.

Nevertheless he is one of the most able historian revisionist investigators ever, so due homage should be paid to his competence, even though doubts may be expressed as to his current tactical presentation of the "Holocaust" matter (i.e. the + or - 6 million, intention, gas chambers). A hoax is a hoax is a hoax. Full stop. Niceties come after this basic datum that any rational mind should recognize as inescapable.

I have some difficulty avoiding repetition, so -- with apologies in case I'm repeating myself on this forum -- I would like to offer newcomers my own reading of the Goebbels diaries as powerful evidence against the alleged "Holocaust," by transcribing part of an intervention on the Richard Dawkins Forum:

From Comment #170250 on the Richard Dawkins Forum:

II) THE QUOTE FROM DR. GOEBBELS.

As often happens, you assume the quote without looking up the original German and the wider context. I don't speak German, but I have some lights into the language, I know how to use dictionaries, and I have often compared my own opinions with those of people who speak German as a first language. Here is the original German you're quoting in translation, from the entry in the Goebbels Diaries for March 27, 1942:

"Aus dem Generalgouvernement werden jetzt, bei Lublin beginnend, die Juden nach dem Osten abgeschoben. Es wird hier ein ziemlich barbarisches und nicht näher zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt, und von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig. Im großen kann man davon feststellen, daß 60 Prozent davon liquidiert werden müssen, während nur 40 Prozent bei der Arbeit eingesetzt werden können. Der ehemalige Gauleiter von Wien, der diese Aktion durchführt, tut das mit ziemlicher Umsicht und auch mit einem Verfahren, das nicht allzu auffällig wirkt."

And here is a word-by-word translation that sounds awkward in places but facilitates the understanding of the original German meaning (my italics):

"Out of the General Government will now, beginning by Lublin, the Jews to the East be deported. It will be used a pretty barbaric and not proper to describe here process, and of the Jews properly it will not be left a great remnant. Generally speaking, one can foretell of the process that 60% are likely to become liquidated as a result of it, while just 40% we will be able to put to work. The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is to carry this measure through, is doing it with considerable circumspection and according to a method that does not attract too much attention."

Now compare. The worst mistranslation concerns the words "davon" and "müssen," because "davon liquidiert werden müssen" does not mean "we must kill them." It means "they are almost certain to get liquidated from... (what has gone before), i.e. to be dead and gone due to... (what has gone before)." If you were writing the same in English, in your own diary, the equivalent would be something like "60% of them are likely to be goners (from the deportation)."

Obviously if the "liquidiert" is "davon" (from it), it means it's the deportation -- clearly acknowledged as a "pretty barbaric one" -- that is expected to be the cause of the shrinking numbers of Jews, not any secret gas-chambering disguised as a false deportation to the East, as the "Holocaust" tale requires you to believe. So, once again, it is not "we will have to liquidate them", but "the deportation process is expected to make them goners". The "nur" ("just", "only", "not more than") in the last sentence even implies that Goebbels would have liked more surviving Jews. I guess the more usable forced labour for a longer time, the better.

Your "not much more remains of the Jews themselves," is also misleading. The correct translation is "it will not be left a great remnant of Jews," which, of course, means not many Jews will be left in Lublin or the General Government (not Europe or the whole World!), after Operation Reinhardt (the deportation). What Goebbels is describing is the phased deportation through and from the General Government to the labour camps in the East, such as the ghetto complex of Maly Trostynets we have only recently begun to hear about, and not to any gas chambers that are supposed to have been operating within the General Government itself, not outside of it.

He is also estimating round symbolic percentages (40/60) in his rambling thoughts, and not referring to any precise secret statistics. Certainly no "planned extermination percentages" have ever been claimed to have existed. He is simply saying in an informal fashion that he believes a majority of the deportees (the "60%") will not survive the rough conditions they will be exposed to in the East, but he actually acknowledges the rest will survive (the "40%"). Hardly a description of a secret extermination program if one was up!

Also note that the former Gauleiter of Vienna he is referring to is Odilo Globocnik, who was SS and Police Leader in the Lublin district of the General Government at the time. If you read the passage with this in mind, it's clear that what Goebbels is saying is the deportation process has begun with the Lublin district and the local man in charge there is managing to achieve it without too much civil disturbance or revolt, not that he hopes to exterminate an entire race through a vast net of locally improvised weirdly conspiratorial methods in the forlorn hope that no one would ever notice such a necessarily visible event, as "Holocaust" peddlers would have it...

Obviously if a real extermination program was on, the result would be 0% and 100% , not 40% and 60%. The 40/60 rough indication is his own manner of speaking of what he feels to be a barbaric but necessary process, not an unheard-of historical extermination to be attempted. He might be talking about the effects of incendiary bombings on enemy civilian targets, or indeed about wholesale barbaric deportations into Siberia or Kazakhstan if he were an Allied leader and had some human feelings concerning what was going on. Nothing new here. No special unheard-of gas chamber "Holocaust" devised to secretly remove an entire race from the face of the World.

Altogether a glaring confirmation that the Germans were concerned with winning the War and getting the Jews out of Germany, not with turning them into soap bars or vaporising them in burning pits. Deporting entire families out of their homes into adverse life conditions in labour camps during a savage war is indeed a barbaric procedure. I wonder what Churchill, Roosevelt or Truman wrote in their personal diaries when they ordered entire cities scratched from the map. Maybe even Stalin had some misgivings every now and then, but I don't think he wrote any personal diaries...

So this is how Goebbels's perfectly unequivocal talk of a deportation program is twisted into a vague mention of an outlandish extermination that is assumed to be there in "coded" form, even though this is Goebbels talking to himself in his own private diary... without a single mention of any gas chamber mass-murdering program!

Here are some more quotes from Goebbels's diaries around the time of your citation (February to December 1942), in order to see what's going through his mind when he mentions the violent suppression of the Jews.

**********
1942, Feb 5: "The Jewish question is again giving us a headache; this time, however, not because we have gone too far, but because we are not going far enough. Among large sections of the German people the idea is gaining headway that the Jewish question cannot be regarded as solved until all Jews have left the Reich."

Why does he say "until all Jews have left the Reich," instead of "until all Jews have been killed"? Is he hiding dark secrets from himself in his own unedited personal diary?

*********
1942, Feb 14: "The sufferings of the Russian people under Bolshevism are indescribable. This Jewish terrorism must be radically eliminated from all of Europe. That is our historic task. World Jewry will suffer a great catastrophe at the same time as Bolshevism. The Fuehrer once more expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness."

He is now speaking in the most violent language about "this Jewish terrorism of Bolshevism." He is supposed to be utterly contemptuous of every Slavic Untermensch, and yet he speaks about "the sufferings of the Russian people." He equates "Jews" with "Communists" and speaks of the defeat and destruction of both in the sense of an European "clean-up," not of a piecemeal extermination, individual by individual. And, of course, even though he mentions "cold ruthlessness," still no gas chambers in sight...

**********
1942, Mar 6: "The Partisan danger is increasing week by week. The Partisans are in command of large areas in occupied Russian and are conducting a regime of terror there. The national movements, too, have become more insolent than was at first imagined. That applies as well to the Baltic States as to the Ukraine. Everywhere the Jews are busy inciting and stirring up trouble. It is therefore desirable that many of them must pay with their lives for this. Anyway, I am of the opinion that the greater the number of Jews liquidated, the more consolidated will the situation in Europe be after this war."

Unmistakably speaking about insurgency, subversion and the Partisan War, not of a program to exterminate innocent people in any gas chamber slaughterhouses. Indeed he is even speaking of a limited war against the Jews ("the greater the number" not "all," as would be appropriate to any hoped for racial extermination), with no sign of any "Holocaust," just the mention of a tremendous guerrilla / subversive war in the eastern occupied territories, wishing maximum casualties were inflicted to those he sees as insidious enemies.

**********
1942, Mar 16: "I read a report of the SD about the situation in the occupied East. The activity of Partisans has increased noticeably during recent weeks. They are conducting a well-organised guerrilla war. It is very difficult to get at them because they are using such terrorist methods in the area occupied by us that the population is afraid of collaborating with us loyally any longer. The spearheads of this whole Partisan activity are the political commissars and especially the Jews. It has therefore proven necessary once again to shoot more Jews. There won't be any peace in these areas as long as any Jews are active there. Sentimentality is out of place here. Either we must renounce the lives of our own soldiers, or we must uncompromisingly prevent further propaganda by criminal and chaotic elements in the hinterland."

Again he is speaking of the war in the hinterland behind the front lines and the Jewish role in the Partisan War, and not of any program to process the lot of the European Jews in the alleged gas chambers within the General Government or the Reich itself.

**********
1942, Mar 27: "It's a life-and-death struggle between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime would have the strength for such a global solution of this question. Here, too, the Fuehrer is the undismayed champion of a radical solution necessitated by conditions and therefore inexorable. Fortunately a whole series of possibilities presents itself for us in wartime that would be denied us in peacetime. We shall have to profit by this. The ghettos that will be emptied in the cities of the General Government now will be refilled with Jews thrown out of the Reich. This process is to be repeated from time to time. There is nothing funny in it for the Jews, and the fact that Jewry's representatives in England and America are today organising and sponsoring the war against Germany must be paid for dearly by its representatives in Europe - and that's only right."

He is now elaborating on what he said immediately before (your citation from this date's entry), namely that the "barbaric" deportation process starting with Lublin consisted of sending the Jews eastwards to the labour ghettos and camps, not westwards (Lublin is located in the Eastern part of the General Government, while Auschwitz is to the West).

The emptied ghettos, he now says, will be progressively repopulated by Jews from the Reich, and these will subsequently be sent eastwards too. This is as clear a description of the deportation process as one might wish for. You can only slip the gas chambers in if you assume he is using "East" for "West" and speaking in coded words to himself in his own personal diary...

**********
1942, Apr 29: "The danger of the Partisans continues to exist in unmitigated intensity in the occupied areas. The Partisans have, after all, caused us very great difficulties during the winter, and these difficulties have by no means ceased with the beginning of spring. Short shrift is made of the Jews in all eastern occupied areas. Tens of thousands of them are liquidated."

Again clearly speaking with virulence about the results of the Partisan War in the East against what he sees as the irregular forces of the communists and Jews, not about any gas chambers in Poland.

**********
1942, May 15: "As far as I am concerned, it would be best if we either evacuated or liquidated all eastern Jews still remaining in Paris."

Note this carefully: "all eastern Jews still remaining in Paris." During the war the French-born Jews were generally left alone. Out of 350,000 (minimum) Jews living in France -- many of them eastern immigrants -- 75,721 (according to Arno Klarsfeld himself) were deported, i.e. 22% of the total number, overwhelmingly of non-French eastern origin -- including those deported for violent or terrorist activities ("resistance") -- while 78% were not disturbed. This seems to go well with the deportation of perceived enemies, and not at all with any real "extermination" plans for the entire Jewish race. See an interesting article (in French)"Vous avez dit 'Extermination'?" by Pierre Guillaume here:

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/archVT/bullVT/bullVT10a.html#anchor549984

**********
And finally here is an amazing entry if one assumes a real "Holocaust" is going on in Poland:

1942, Dec 15: "Generally speaking, the Jewish propaganda has become extraordinarily active of late. The Jews in London proclaimed a day of mourning for the atrocities allegedly committed on Jews in Poland by us."

Get it? Allegedly!

He has described a process of deportation to the East because this process is real. He has also described the difficult Partisan War (in words today's Americans will easily recognise after all the "body counts" their Armed Forces indulged in in Vietnam and elsewhere) because that too was real.

When it comes to atrocities in Poland, however, he uses the doubtful conditional form "allegedly." Does this sound like he is thinking of the extermination that he is supposed to have been refering to all the time in his allegedly coded wordings concerning in reality a deportation?

Where is, in Goebbels' writings, any mention to the genocide supposedly being carried out in the so-called "extermination camps" within the General Government?

Note that he sounds furious and is certainly not mincing his words. As I said, one wonders whether the Allied leaders ever described in their own unedited personal diaries their deportations of innocent people and their air warfare campaigns as "barbaric." They may have, since they weren't any more stupid than the Nazis, and they knew very well what they were doing.

Nobody really manages to hide the true prosaic mass murders that result from wartime national policies forever. What the clever mass murderers do is to attribute outlandish holocausts without end to the opposite side, thus putting public opinion behind themselves and making everybody their accomplices in the overall killing. The day you understand this will be the day you'll cease to believe in the silly gas chambers tale. You'll also understand why feeding us the "Holocaust" hoax and prohibiting any investigation into it is of such paramount importance to the powers that be, and especially to Israel, the only country that dared to demand universal censorship at the United Nations General Assembly.

[Drew J]

Well it seems our old buddy Roberto Muehlenkamp is trying once again to give an appearance of authenticity to the alleged Goebbels diaries. Check his latest blog entry.

http://www.holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/

Friday, February 26, 2010
Showpieces of "Revisionist" stupidity/mendacity ...
... are being discussed in the RODOH forum's thread Was Goebbels out of the Extermination loop?, where "Thomas Dalton" is being quoted by his fellow "Revisionist" Ralph Gordon. See my posts nos. 11943, 11945 and 11949.

Sorry but I have not reproduced hyperlinks here as codoh will not allow rodoh links to go unsubstituted with the old 'aliceinwonderland' thing. In 11943 he gets all hung up on the German. Which is a good thing. But as already shown on page 7 here, the problem is that these diaries simply can not be trusted and have no good reason to be taken as real like David Irving took them. In post 11943 he says, "See how Goebbels had no compunction in writing about death and executions? " But that's just the whole problem. There seems to be no good reason to think those are authentic Goebbels diaries. We know the truth and I think deep down Roberto knows we know. But he'll never admit it. I think the real question to ask is WAS GOEBBELS OUT OF THE GOEBBELS DIARY LOOP? The most likely answer, is yes.

[Drew J]

Roberto is at it again. Claiming there was never any tampering with Goebbels' diaries. Which is not the case. If anyone bothered to check at a bare minimum these two threads I linked to earlier,
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4685
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3793
they would see that some entries are problematic. Namely, the ones that allegedly point to a Jewish holocaust.

Let's look at 11943. What is the German that Muehlenkamp provides for us?

Aus dem Generalgouvernement werden jetzt, bei Lublin beginnend, die Juden nach dem Osten abgeschoben. Es wird hier ein barbarisches, nicht mehr zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt, und von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig. Im großen und ganzen wird man wohl feststellen, daß 60% davon liquidiert werden müssen, während nur noch 40% in die Arbeit eingesetzt werden können. Der ehemalige Gauleiter von Wien (Globocnik), der diese Aktion durchführt, tut das mit ziemlicher Umsicht und auch mit einem Verfahren, das nicht zu auffällig wirkt. An den Juden wird ein Strafgericht vollzogen, das zwar barbarisch ist, das sie aber vollauf verdient haben. Die Prophezeiung, die der Führer ihnen für die Herbeiführung eines neuen Weltkrieges mit auf den Weg gegeben hat, beginnt sich in der fürchterlichsten Weise zu verwirklichen, man darf in diesen Dingen keine Sentimentalitäten obwalten lassen. Die Juden würden, wenn wir uns ihrer nicht erwehren würden, uns vernichten. Es ist ein Kampf auf Leben und Tod zwischen der arischen Rasse und dem jüdischen Bazillus. Keine andere Regierung, kein anderes Regime könnte die Kraft aufbringen, diese Frage generell zu lösen. Auch hier ist der Führer der unentwegte Vorkämpfer und Wortführer einer radikalen Lösung, die nach Lage der Dinge geboten ist und deshalb unausweichlich erscheint. Gottseidank haben wir jetzt während des Krieges eine ganze Reihe von Möglichkeiten, die uns im Frieden verwehrt wären. Die müssen wir ausnutzen. Die in den Städten des Generalgouvernements freiwerdenden Ghettos werden jetzt mit den aus dem Reich abgeschobenen Juden gefüllt, und hier sollte sich dann, nach einer gewissen Zeit, der Prozeß erneuern. Das Judentum hat nichts zu lachen.

And what is the English that he provides us?

The Jews are now being pushed out of the General Government, beginning near Lublin, to the East. A pretty barbaric procedure is being applied here, and it is not to be described in any more detail, and not much is left of the Jews themselves. In general one may conclude that 60% of them must be liquidated, while only 40% can be put to work. The former Gauleiter of Vienna [Globocnik], who is carrying out this action, is doing it pretty prudently and with a procedure that doesn't work too conspicuously. The Jews are being punished barbarically, to be sure, but they have fully deserved it. The prophesy that the Fuhrer issued to them on the way, for the eventuality that they started a new world war, is beginning to realise itself in the most terrible manner. One must not allow any sentimentalities to rule in these matters. If we did not defend ourselves against them, the Jews would annihilate us. It is a struggle for life and death between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime could muster the strength for a general solution of the question. Here too, the Fuhrer is the persistent pioneer and spokesman of a radical solution, which is demanded by the way things are and thus appears to be unavoidable. Thank God, during the war we now have a whole series of possibilities which were barred to us in peacetime. We must exploit them. The ghettos which are becoming available in the General Government are now being filled with the Jews who are being pushed out of the Reich, and after a certain time the process is then to renew itself here. Jewry has nothing to laugh about...

And where does he get both from? Right here.
http://br.groups.yahoo.com/group/Holoca ... essage/838

Now keep in mind the yahoo German.

Aus dem Generalgouvernement werden jetzt, bei Lublin beginnend, die Juden nach dem Osten abgeschoben. Es wird hier ein barbarisches, nicht mehr zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt, und von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig. Im großen und ganzen wird man wohl feststellen, daß 60% davon liquidiert werden müssen, während nur noch 40% in die Arbeit eingesetzt werden können. Der ehemalige Gauleiter von Wien (Globocnik), der diese Aktion durchführt, tut das mit ziemlicher Umsicht und auch mit einem Verfahren, das nicht zu auffällig wirkt.

And the German another poster gave earlier in this topic by user ASMarques.

Aus dem Generalgouvernement werden jetzt, bei Lublin beginnend, die Juden nach dem Osten abgeschoben. Es wird hier ein ziemlich barbarisches und nicht näher zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt, und von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig. Im großen kann man davon feststellen, daß 60 Prozent davon liquidiert werden müssen, während nur 40 Prozent bei der Arbeit eingesetzt werden können. Der ehemalige Gauleiter von Wien, der diese Aktion durchführt, tut das mit ziemlicher Umsicht und auch mit einem Verfahren, das nicht allzu auffällig wirkt.

Notice the difference. But let's keep our eyes on the third sentence since that is key and talks about liquidation.

The yahoo English is as follows:
In general one may conclude that 60% of them must be liquidated, while only 40% can be put to work.

Here is what Roberto says:

The term "will have to be liquidated" ("liquidiert werden müssen") refers to an active progress of something done to the Jews, not to something that will incidentally happen to them in the course of "ethnic cleansing" (which would also hardly have been referred to by Goebbels as a "pretty barbaric procedure" that was "not to be described in any more detail" let alone as a the Führer’s "prophecy" coming true "in the most terrible manner", by the way). If he had written something like "will have to be written off" ("abgeschrieben werden müssen"), you might be able to argue that he was referring to passive mortality rather than active killing.

He is right. The term liquidiert werden müssen does appear. Not only in the yahoo German but also in ASMarques' German. Roberto says it means will have to be liquidated. However, earlier ASMarques disputed that and this dispuates Roberto's German. A refresher from ASM.

Now compare. The worst mistranslation concerns the words "davon" and "müssen," because "davon liquidiert werden müssen" does not mean "we must kill them." It means "they are almost certain to get liquidated from... (what has gone before), i.e. to be dead and gone due to... (what has gone before)." If you were writing the same in English, in your own diary, the equivalent would be something like "60% of them are likely to be goners (from the deportation)."

Now what does google translation say:

davon liquidiert werden müssen turns into need to be liquidated
liquidiert werden müssen turns into have to be liquidated.

So Roberto would seem to be more correct about the German than ASMarques. However, that is not the final hurtle while Roberto is pretending it is. How do we know that entry is really his? Because of what he said in 1946 as seen below? Hardly. That would be an incredibly low standard. How about some sort of textual analysis. Handwritten or typewriter analysis. Searching to see if key phrases, footers, openings, any kind of styles are used despite changes between handwriting and typing. Especially since a poster below, was quoted as saying basically, 'oh how convenient is it that all these nasty Goebbels diary entries extermatination theorists like to talk about don't come from a handwritten source,' And I think that's something that must be taken into consideration.


Let's also take a refresher from here. The topic, which I gave out earlier before I bumped this topic back up, is called, The Goebbels diary: a forgery?

1941: July
Goebbels began dictating his diaries to secretary Dr Richard Otte.
Question: Is it not possible that there is a hoax, and that Goebbels never ceased writing his own diaries? Arthur Butz, Hoax of the Twentieth Century, has expressed doubt as to whether the story of how Otte transcribed the diary is true. See http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/10.html
1942 >
'While going through the Goebbels diaries [Irving] found that from about 1942 on Goebbels repeatedly said things like "We have crimes on our book. We can't go back. We can only go forward."' - Frank Miele.
http://www.skeptic.com/02.4.miele-holocaust.html#fire
Comment: No sooner does Goebbels stop handwriting his own diaries than they begin including passages in which G. betrays consciousness of being a 'criminal' - which is precisely the way the Allies were determined to depict him! How very obliging Herr Goebbels was!
1942: March 27
Goebbels diary entry (typewritten)
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Goebbels/Tgb_27034 ... 2a_600.jpg

Yes. Very interesting. That's just part of it. That very date is the same one concerning this entry I'm talking about now. And it's not handwritten. That whole damn topic is a good read. We later come to another entry in that same topic that is a quote from Stäglich's book The Auschwitz Trial. A Judge looks at the evidence. He denies the authenticity of that passage. So it seems that while Roberto is getting hung up on the German, he takes that entry for granted. An entry that probably wasn't even willingly written or dictated by Goebbels. This was the point I made based off of what driansmith revealed about how the "Goebbels diaries" changed format. Not only that but I have within those two topics the work of Grubach, Weckart and Rudolf to back me and the rest of codoh up on our skepticism. In other words, after Roberto's tirdade, which was written without him bothering to read my old post I made before I bumped the topic (which contained those two old codoh topics as I said), we see that we are back to square one. In other words he repeats his same old tired arguments without looking at old, still un-refuted evidence that we have to date. Roberto can try and claim victory on the German all he wants, but that's not proof enough it came from Goebbels I'm afraid. That's the very issue at hand that he seems to sidestep. Well he sort of deals with it. When RalphGordon started asking questions, Roberto responded with a pathetic, fallacious, argument from ignorance.

ralphgordon wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely you are not suggesting that Goebbels is actually saying that most Jews will have to be "liquidated", in terms of an intentionial extermination program?
Roberto:
Why not? Your heroes were sometimes quite explicit in correspondence they sent to each other within the scope of the program's organization and execution, and Goebbels was not even writing for anybody else. He was writing for his own private diary.
ralphgordon wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is surely absurd that Goebbels would put that in his diary, because if there was an actual extermination program, Goebbels would not have wanted it known by future generations, who would read his diary.
Roberto:
Why not? Apart from the chances of "future generations" reading his diary being remote, future generations in the event of German victory could be expected to understand the great service that the Nazi government had done to Germany in wiping out the Jews. Your argument is rather puerile, but that’s also no surprise.

In other words, "if you can't prove a negative, being my question WHY NOT?, then that alone proves my positive assertion that he wrote everything attributed to him. Textual analysis by the likes of Weckart, Rudolf, Grubach and poster drainsmith be damned." Good one Roberto.

In his post of Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:09 am, Drew J spins silly
conjectures about Goebbels' diaries not being authentic. The only "indication" he can offer is that in a certain diary entry I mentioned (which was brought to my attention by Drew J's fellow believer "Thomas Dalton" via a lower-ranking rambler who calls himself Ralph Gordon, see my RODOH post 11943) Goebbels shows no compunction to write about death and executions, as I pointed out. For Drew J this suggests that Goebbels' diaries are not authentic. Why Goebbels should not have called things by their proper names in his own private diary entry - a document not meant for public disclosure - Drew J doesn't explain, instead turning to imbecilic "Robert knows deep down inside but will never admit it" - accusations and babbling that "There seems to be no good reason to think those are authentic Goebbels diaries.".

Um, clearly, the older stuff I posted in the last post I made in this current topic I'm typing in now before I bumped it, which lead to those two older codoh topics had more than enough reason to cast doubt on whether or not Goebbels actually wrote that stuff attributed to him that claim a final solution plan of execution. That's the very issue at hand. Of course you ignore it. Not that I'm surprised you'd do that Roberto since you can't handle people challenging your foundational beliefs that you so desperately demand we take for granted.

That the diary entries fit the historical context in which they were written in a manner suggesting contemporary insider knowledge (for instance, the diary entry of 27.03.1942 was written ten days after the start of deportations from Lublin to Belzec extermination camp and mentions the head of Aktion Reinhard(t), Odilo Globocnik, as "the former Gauleiter of Vienna"), that they were never used for propaganda purposes (one doesn't make forgeries to keep them in the drawer) but gradually became known as historians analyzed them and realized their significance, that neither historians nor criminal justice authorities referring to these diary entries (the entry of 27 March 1942 is mentioned, for instance, in the judgment at the Sobibor trial in Hagen in 1966) have found any reason to doubt the authenticity of these diaries (that includes erstwhile "Revisionist" favorite David Irving, who pointed out that he had personally been in Moscow and examined the originals of the diaries), plus his own inability to point out indications of forgery (Goebbels' having written about deaths and executions is none) - all this is no "good reason" for Drew J to "think those are authentic Goebbels diaries". His lack of arguments makes his forgery claims look increasingly desperate.

Yeah as if that Hagen trial is worthy of believing. Second of all, claiming David Irving admits them to be real does you no good Roberto beacuse you are sidestepping what was in those two old codoh topics I brought up. Not surprising. As I said you not only recycle your bottles, you also recycle the same old refuted, and dealt with arguments.

What is especially funny is that, while on the one hand "Revisionists" like "Dalton" and Gordon are pathetically trying to explain away the incriminating content of Goebbels' diaries, including but not limited to the one of 27 March 1942, other followers of the "Revisionist" creed such as Drew J are yelling "forgery" and thereby confirming that they consider Goebbels diary entries to have incriminating contents incompatible with their articles of faith. For if they didn't consider these diary entries to have incriminating contents, why would they be claiming that they are not authentic? A discussion between the two schools of "Revisionist" nonsense ("Dalton"/Gordon vs. Drew J/Heink) should be most amusing to watch.

I too have noticed that people disagree on the German. So what? This just proves that revisionism is a diverse field and we're not all of one mind as you like to paint us out to be.

The one good thing about Drew J is that he still seems to disagree with the cowardly disfigurement of links to the RODOH forum, which like other CODOH practices speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of their claim to "open debate". Drew J wrote:

Sorry but I have not reproduced hyperlinks here as codoh will not allow rodoh links to go unsubstituted with the old 'aliceinwonderland' thing.

I wonder long will it take for Drew J to also swallow this "thing" and fully tow the party line.

Hmmm. Why don't you take this post of mine, and the posts of mine where I showed people how to circumvent that aliceinwonderland trick, and read them again, I MEAN REALLY READ THEM, and then mull on it, I MEAN REALLY MEDITATE ON IT, and then decide if someone who shows how to circumvent something really agrees with it? God, are you really that thick? Now, Roberto talks about Hoess.

Drew J's obsession with this writer furthermore shows in his post of Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:09 am, where he writes the following:

Let's talk about how Hoess was tortured and how other nazis were tortured to say things to fit the propaganda. I went over this many times with Roberto Muehlenkamp, but he refuses to acknowledge reality. He eventually budged but said Hoess wasn't tortured. Just MISHANDLED. Can you believe that?

Drew J's claim that he "went over this" with me is funny insofar as the discussion took place on two different forums (me writing on the RODOH forum, where Drew J wouldn't show up, he writing on the CODOH forum where I was not allowed to write). The "budged" crap shows Drew J's eagerness to convince himself that he gained the upper hand (he must be so desperate to have an experience of success that he claims them in the absence of any). As to the "tortured" vs. "mishandled" thing, I'd call that a false dilemma as it doesn't matter which of the two terms one uses for the treatment that Hoess received at the hand of his British captors,

Actually it does matter, because one is more euphemistic and tries to hide the reality. It tries to soften the blow of what really happened. Torture implies intent. Mishandled sounds like an accident. Big difference Roberto. Nice try but no cigar.

which Hoess himself described as follows in the memoirs he later wrote in Polish captivity (from the translation by Constantine FitzGibbon published by Phoenix Press under the title "Commandant of Auschwitz", pages 173f.):

I was arrested on 11 March, 1946.
My phial of poison had been broken two days before.
When I was aroused from sleep, I thought at first I was being attacked by robbers, for many robberies were taking place at that time. That was how they managed to arrest me. I was maltreated by the Field Security Police.
I was taken to Heide where I was put in those very barracks from which I had been released by the British eight months earlier.
At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it. Alcohol and the whip were too much for me. The whip was my own, which by chance had got into my wife’s luggage. It had hardly ever touched my horse, far less the prisoners. Nevertheless, one of my interrogators was convinced that I had perpetually used it for flogging the prisoners.
After some days I was taken to Minden-on-the-Weser, the main interrogation center in the British Zone. There I received further rough treatment at the hands of the English public prosecutor, a major.

What matters, as I remember having pointed out to Drew J as we "went over this", was that Hoess stated nothing under the influence of this mishandling or torture (whichever term is Drew J's preference)

Now pretending he doesn't know which term I prefer even though I explicitly said that he was tortured and that mishandled was a bullshit trick. Very cute.

that he didn't state, even in more detail, on later occasions when he was far removed from the influence of physical violence, namely in his testimony for the defence of Kaltenbrunner before the IMT and in his writings in Polish captivity, including his notes under the title The Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Auschwitz.

And what day did this testimony happen? Monday, 15 April 1946. So in other words, Hoess's words here in 1946 were in no way influenced by any tortures or threats he may have received earlier. Well that's bullshit obviously. Let's just look again at what I exposed Hoess went through. What I have, as I have already shown, and as Roberto seems to deny, BEEN OVER THIS.
viewtopic.php?p=39164#p39164

Stuff from page six.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2&start=75

by xcalibur on 08 Aug 2003, 10:57
It seems apparent that Hoess' testimony was to one degree or another coerced (and by that standard alone should never have been allowed to be entered into evidence in any trial against any defendant). We have spoken here of his possible motivation or "agenda" for making the statements he did and the suggestion that he made them truthfully because he knew that he faced the noose has been suggested. On the other hand, we also have the fact that Hoess had been told repeatedly that his family faced deportation to the Russians should he not be compliant. Coercion enough. This in and of itself should have been enough (using the legal standards of the day) to impugn his testimony regardless of its veracity.
Having said that, legalities are one thing and truth is another. Was he a complete liar? I think not. His part in the brutalisation of prisoners and killings at Auschwitz are indeed very hard to ignore. His testimony before the IMT, his sworn statements, etc. all seem oddly weighted to proving that there was no ill treatment of prisoners (as though this was where he felt his main guilt lay), and yet he then goes on very dispassionately about gassing transports. In short, he seems to deny vehemently the smaller crimes and can't wait to talk volubly about and confess to the larger one.

Now we're on page seven.

by demonio on 09 Aug 2003, 02:20
To suggest that the Hoess memoirs are written under duress and false is absurd.
Yes he was in custody
Yes he copped several beatings mainly from the British
Yes he was more like an exotic pet on show whilst in custody.

An interogation is an interogation.
Memoirs are memoirs
His timeline at the back of the book does reconcile with an acceptable amount of victims. ie A total of 1.5 to 2.5 million destroyed in the camp by various means.
If it said 4 million, then i would think that its rubbish. Or the Russians got him
Another thing worth mentioning is that his tone comes across as sincere and from the heart.
Also there are many footnotes throughout the text where the press trys to sanitise his ideals and demonise him. Why do they do it ? Because they want you to believe that this man is incapable of human love. But why you ask ? Because the book is written from the heart and goes a long way to humanise a monster. Hoess life is full of ironies.
This monster was one of us and supposed to become a priest.(disiplined ?)
He had murdered already murdered someone in his youth (lack of disipline ?)
He also loved animals and was a family man (but ok to shove other families in the gas)
He would take his children to swim in the Sola river (the same river they disposed of the ashes in).

I am starting another thread inviting professional psychiatrists to analyse Hoess memoirs and provide their professional opinion on the state of mind of the writer. Such a person could easily spot if the book was written under duress.

by michael mills on 09 Aug 2003, 02:46
Demonio, like many others, is failing to distinguish between Hoess's autobiography, written early in 1947 after the completion of his pre-trial investigation, while he was waiting for the trial to start, and the statements he made late in 1946 as part of the pre-trial investigation, which are attached to the published memoirs as appendices.
The autobiography was produced by Hoess pretty much in isolation, but the appendices are statements produced by a process of interrogation, with all that implies in the way of "guidance".
With the autobiography, Hoess was basically left to his own devices, but he did take up many of the things he had said in his pre-trial statements and try to put a spin on them that put him in the best possible light, eg the Gypsies, without actually repudiating them in toto.
The difficulty with both the autobiography and the pre-trial statements is eliminating the distortions and falsehoods, both those that are self-serving and those arising from a need to comply with his interrogators pre-conceptions, so as to arrive at the data that is trustworthy.
One of the least reliable part of Hoess's writings, both from the point of view of self-exculpation and complying with his interrogators' pre-conceptions, is everything he said about Eichmann.

Not only that but there was also what Austin App revealed in his book THE SIX MILLION SWINDLE. In the topic BELIEVER TACTICS, I gave many resources to how Hoess was tortured.

MARK TURLEY ON THE HOESS CONFESSION.
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4860
THE TORTURE OF RUDOLF HOESS
http://christianparty.net/hoess.htm
AN AUSCHWITZ REVALUATION
http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/200 ... 8b6d6ec615
THE SIX MILLION SWINDLE
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=311959
The Myth of the Justice of Nuremberg
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/tfmomi/2.html#anchor525130

Now let's take this all in. Torture occured. It was admitted by the Jew named Clarke AS I HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED AND ROBERTO HAS READ BUT OBVIOUSLY IGNORED. Hoess and his family was threatened with deportation to the Soviets if he didn't comply. Hmmm. That kind of reminds me of what they did to other nazis such as this one that App talked about.

Page 25-26
Quote:
How Affidavits were Extorted and Perjury Encouraged
Affidavits, like those to which Time refers, are unreliable, often outright frauds, like the figure of six million itself. With a few heroic exceptions, all affidavits by Jews are in part or whole perjured, often well rewarded, and altogether unreliable. Affidavits from Germans, including from former Nazis, were rather customarily obtained by threatening the witness with hanging if he did not incriminate his superior sufficiently for hanging.
After Simon Wiesenthal, one of the best known prosecutors and persecutors of Germans is Dr. Robert Kempner, who seems to exploit dual American and German citizenship...After the war, he turned up as a prosecutor of Germans at Nuremburg, a particularly unscrupulous one, who is still at it. His nasty method of extorting incriminating affidavits against the more important Nazi leaders is illustrated in the case of Dr. Friedrich Gaus, many years a minor official in the German foreign office. Dr. Kempner wanted him to testify falsely in order to get his superior Ribbentrop hanged. When Gaus complained that he could not honestly to testify, Kempner replied:
The Russians are very interested in you, Mr. Gaus! For your violation of International Agreements! The only way for you to save your head, is that you tell the truth. Or do you wish as the right hand of Ribbentrop to go to the gallows? You know the old German saying, 'Captured with him, hanged with him!' Who were after Ribbentrop, the most guilty in the Foreign Office. Just say it; it serves no purpose, to spare these people.
Whereupon the terrified Gaus incriminated Ribbentrop as Kempner wished; - and thereby secured immunity! He was immediatly released from solitary arrest and moved to the witness portion of the Nuremburg court. (See: "U.S. Anklaeger Kempner schwer belasted." Deutsche Wochenzeitung Fed. 23, 1973).

Threats and blackmail. Documented right there. Let's read further from Roberto.

In the latter he even told his captors where they could stick their 4 million figure for the death toll of Auschwitz-Birkenau. From the translation in "Commandant of Auschwitz", pages 193 and following (emphasis added):

I myself never knew the total number and I have nothing to help me make an estimate of it.
I can only remember the figure involved in the larger actions, which were repeated to me by Eichmann or his deputies.
From Upper Silesia and Polish territory under German rule … 250,000
Germany and Theresienstadt … 100,000
Holland … 95,000
Belgium … 20,000
France … 110,000
Greece … 65,000
Hungary … 400,000
Slovakia … 90,000
I can no longer remember the figures for the smaller actions, but they were insignificant in comparison with the numbers given above.
I regard a total of two and a half millions [stated by Hoess earlier interrogations including his IMT deposition - RM] as far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive possibilities.
Figures given by former prisoners are figments of the imagination and lack any foundation.

Those Poles must have been squeezing Hoess's balls like hell for him to write this.
The figures given by Hoess add up to 1,130,000.
The figure estimated by the Soviet investigation in 1945, on the basis of the theoretical capacity of the installations and the depositions of former captives, was 4,000,000. This figure was officially upheld by the Polish government until 1992.
What Hoess was doing here was to directly challenge the reliability of his captors’ other sources, of their and the Soviet investigation commissions and of the eyewitnesses on which these commissions had relied. The latter he attacked in the strongest terms, calling them "figments of the imagination".
Why would the Poles let Hoess get away with this, if they had been bent on dictating his statements?

All I can say is thanks Roberto for doing some work for the revisionists. This just proves the tricky games the Allied powers were up to when they had their hands on him. Clarke knew what was up to say the least. They tortured and threatened him until he said four million at Auschwitz. The Poles get about one million out of him. There goes the six million number. More interestingly, that's the same figure that revisionists came up with years later only to be called holocaust deniers. Yet they got this out of the mouth of the director of the Auschwitz museum Dr. Piper.
But you come back and say, "But he admitted to killing one million instead of four Drew J. He admitted it. He's guilty. You lose."
In Roberto's mind, apparently allied and Soviet threats expire after a couple of years so therefore Hoess was in the clear. You really don't think they would keep in eye on his trial to make sure that he didn't weasel out of admitting to a holocaust? You really think they wouldn't take him out if he started to completely flip flop?

Page 23-24
Quote:
What About The Hoettl, Hoess, and Eichmann Testimony?
The only evidence that Talmudists and their stooges ever pretend to offer for the six million figure is what Hoettl and Hoess, under threat of their lives, claimed to have heard Eichmann one time say. Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl was a colonel in the security services, not a very high rank, a subordinate of Eichmann's, who himself said, "I was merely a cog in the machinery." Hoettel himself claims to have been a British agent sometime during the war. The London paper Weekend (January 25, 1963) confirms this. It also reveals that when Hoettl gave his affidavit he had been threatened with delivery to the Hungarian Communists. This must be interpreted as a promise of immunity if he gave sufficient damning testimony against his superior, Eichmann, but hanging if he didn't.
According to the British at Flensburg, he declared he had one time heard Eichmann say that four million Jews died in concentration camps and another two million elsewhere as reprisals and so on. He was then rushed to the Nuremburg Trials, where he dutifully repeated his hearsay. But oddly enough, theough the German attorney for the Defense, one Dr. Kaufmann, repeatedly requested that he be called for cross-examination, the Nuremburg lynchers did not dare expose this key evidence to cross-examination. Again, at the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem the legal lynchers were afraid to expose him to cross-examination. And during the same trial Eichmann insisted that Hoettl had twised his casual remark and that he had in fact never named figures to Hoettel because he could not know such figures. (See: Heinrich Haertl, Freispruch fuer Deutschland, Goettingen, 1965, p. 190-01).
Here in lies the truth of the matter. Neither Eichmann nor Hoettl could know the figures. And Hoettl got immunity for what was almost certainly a perjured affidavit. Yet on it rests almost the whole myth of the six million. The only other testimony advanced is that of Rudolf Hess. He was for awhile commander at Auschwitz. Again, threatened with the noose of he did not incriminate his superiors, he testified at Nuremburg that two and a half million Jews died there. Even Gerald Reitlinger accuses Hoess of "perverse magalomania" for this figure. To show how unreliable poor freightened Hoess had been, when he later was delivered to the Poles he reduced the two and one half million to only 1.13 million. The Poles thereupon irately hanged him! Eichmann himself declared:
Since the war I read that 2,500,000 Jews were physically liquidated under Hoess' command. I find this figure incredible. The capacity of the camp argues against it. Many of the Jews confied there were put to work details and survived. After the war the Auschwitzers sprouted like mushrooms out of the forest floor after a rain. Hundreds of thousands of them are today in the best of health."
(See:Life Magazine, November 28, 1960)
...
To show the guess work and the shameful unreliability involved, Time Magazine (June 6 1960) reported Eichmann said, "Five Million Jews"; the Jewish Newsweek, however (June 6 1960), hiked the figure to "six million Jews." That is how Jewish throw a million Jews around - when it serves their blackmail!
Page 25
Quote:
Not Hoettl, Not Hoess, Not Eichmann Could or Did Attest the 6 Million Figure
Essentially, on this off-the-cuff remark of Eichmann's, never properly probed, the whole swindle of the six million rests. Be it noted first that Eichmann said five million, not six; secondly, he referred to "Enemies of the Reich"; not Jews; thirdly, he was at the time talking casually, not professionally, and authoritatively. Furthermore, he said far more officially, "I would like to stress again, however, that my department never gave a single annihilation order. We were responsible only for deportation..." Eichmann ordered no Jews killed, nor anyone else...In short, Eichmann could not in any way know the number of Jewish casualties, and Hoettl and Hoess did not pretend to know but, under extoration to incrinimate Eichmann, attributed conflicting words to him!
Page 25-26
Quote:
How Affidavits were Extorted and Perjury Encouraged
Affidavits, like those to which Time refers, are unreliable, often outright frauds, like the figure of six million itself. With a few heroic exceptions, all affidavits by Jews are in part or whole perjured, often well rewarded, and altogether unreliable. Affidavits from Germans, including from former Nazis, were rather customarily obtained by threatening the witness with hanging if he did not incriminate his superior sufficiently for hanging.
After Simon Wiesenthal, one of the best known prosecutors and persecutors of Germans is Dr. Robert Kempner, who seems to exploit dual American and German citizenship...After the war, he turned up as a prosecutor of Germans at Nuremburg, a particularly unscrupulous one, who is still at it. His nasty method of extorting incriminating affidavits against the more important Nazi leaders is illustrated in the case of Dr. Friedrich Gaus, many years a minor official in the German foreign office. Dr. Kempner wanted him to testify falsely in order to get his superior Ribbentrop hanged. When Gaus complained that he could not honestly to testify, Kempner replied:
The Russians are very interested in you, Mr. Gaus! For your violation of International Agreements! The only way for you to save your head, is that you tell the truth. Or do you wish as the right hand of Ribbentrop to go to the gallows? You know the old German saying, 'Captured with him, hanged with him!' Who were after Ribbentrop, the most guilty in the Foreign Office. Just say it; it serves no purpose, to spare these people.
Whereupon the terrified Gaus incriminated Ribbentrop as Kempner wished; - and thereby secured immunity! He was immediatly released from solitary arrest and moved to the witness portion of the Nuremburg court. (See: "U.S. Anklaeger Kempner schwer belasted." Deutsche Wochenzeitung Fed. 23, 1973).
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=311959

As long as that two year old threat was hanging over his head, he couldn't completely turn around. He's not the free spirited rebel you are making him out to be.

P.S.
I see you demanded to have your account re-activated since your 'away time' has expired at codoh. And you want me, on your behalf to ask for it back. Well okay. Mods, I think Roberto should be allowed back here. I had no problem with him being here before.

[Drew J]

From earlier in this topic.

The one good thing about Drew J is that he still seems to disagree with the cowardly disfigurement of links to the RODOH forum, which like other CODOH practices speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of their claim to "open debate".

Sorry but I have not reproduced hyperlinks here as codoh will not allow rodoh links to go unsubstituted with the old 'aliceinwonderland' thing.

I wonder long will it take for Drew J to also swallow this "thing" and fully tow the party line.

Hmmm. Why don't you take this post of mine, and the posts of mine where I showed people how to circumvent that aliceinwonderland trick, and read them again, I MEAN REALLY READ THEM, and then mull on it, I MEAN REALLY MEDITATE ON IT, and then decide if someone who shows how to circumvent something really agrees with it? God, are you really that thick?

My my my, what an either short memory, or deliberately deceptive man Roberto is. Let's look at an older exchange we had. You can see it in BELIEVER TACTICS.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5725
Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:11 pm

Drew JMy point was that you were making a non issue of my being at rodoh or vnn since whether I'm there or here at codoh, you still take the time to quote and respond to me. Since that's what ultimately matters, the venue DOES NOT matter.

It does in that the people who see Drew J's crap don't necessarily see my reply and vice-versa, actually.

He has subtly accused me of mis-representing his posts. But that doesn't matter because ultimately it poses problems for his claim that I and others have had Muehlenkamp on the brain. In fact, when I have responded to rodoh people, I have always provided links to rodoh. In fact, I circumvented what codoh does with rodoh links and spread the link apart for others to put back together so that you could get a proper url instead of the aliceinwonderland thing that happens. Muehlenkamp knows I do this but he covers it up and refuses to give me credit for linking back to the original source.
Now who's really interested in the truth about things? Is it really Roberto? How can we be expected to believe it when he engages in deception like this?

So in the past Roberto has seen me circumvent the aliceinwonderland thing to help lead people back to rodoh. Why do I do it? because I am just that nice. Recall a few months previous he saw my response where I proudly stated I circumvented it to lead people back to rodoh as he so wishes. Out of rhetorical motivations rather than truthful accurate ones, Roberto, months later decides to rehash a subtle accusation that I will change my tune and toe the party line and agree with the aliceinwonderland thing. Of course he has no basis for this apparent, yet to occur, change of heart in me other than his crazy imagtion. This accusation that if I don't agree with url meddling, then I will later is of course baseless and an attempt to wrongly claim I will end up supporting link meddling. It's absurd to accuse me of harbouring such tendancies given the anti aliceinwonderland circumvention I did months ago. Again, this is just a pathetic rhetorical ploy on his behalf to make up for his lack of proof that those typed diaries are in fact of Goebbels. So you're German was correct and ASMarque's was not. Big deal. Small battle. But you haven't won the war. Prove those actually came from Goebbels because as already stated on here in many places I have given links back to, there seems to be no good reason to believe such. Thus, overall, it seems like Roberto has been caught in yet another deliberate lie/smear against me by bringing style to the table instead of substance. Typical.

[Moderator3]

Too much of this thread involves, excuse my French, a pissing contest. Let's refrain from such efforts and concentrate on Muehlenkamp's 'holocaust' allegations. There's plenty at this forum that Muehlenkamp has posted for everyone to see.

[Drew J]

Let's refrain from such efforts and concentrate on Muehlenkamp's 'holocaust' allegations

Muehlenkamp's claims about the authenticity of Goebbels' diaries and his refusal to deal with what I have brought up is a holocaust allegation. So is his rendering of the German in that March 27 entry. I granted him having the more correct German over ASMarques. But that still avoids the basic issue. What about those typed diaries. What about the problems of Irving's claim of them being authentic as brought up by Weckart, Rudolf and others? Roberto is trying to put icing (correct German) on a cake (the authenticity of the diaries) that isn't there. But I promise I will not waste anymore time on him when he complains anymore about me not being on his rodoh board for example. I have already exposed and refuted it for the hollow excuse that it is.

Let's refrain from such efforts and concentrate on Muehlenkamp's 'holocaust' allegations. There's plenty at this forum that Muehlenkamp has posted for everyone to see.

True. But interestingly, he has been prevented from doing so thus far. His account suspension is supposed to be over too according to his website.

[Hannover]

Here's another nice thread on the thoroughly discredited 'Roberto Muehlenkamp', aka 'Cortavagatas':

'Does anyone remember Roberto Muehlenkamp's other username?'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5215

As for his being booted:

He posted at this forum and got demolished. It's embarrasing really. He booted himself by engaging in spamming and namecalling. He had his chance to debate, floundered, and in utter frustration went berserk.

Again, a few examples:

R.Muehlenkamp: 'gas chambers' were hosed down, so no cyanide'
viewtopic.php?t=3706

'Those Prussian Blues Just Won't Wash'
viewtopic.php?t=4600

'Roberto Muehlenkamp: no fuel required for Auschwitz ovens'
viewtopic.php?t=3703

'Roberto Muehlenkamp shredded on 'gassings' & cyanide'
viewtopic.php?t=224

'Roberto Muehlenkamp debunked on 3.5kg of coke cremations'
viewtopic.php?t=420

'Cremation patent & 3.5 kg of coke per corpse debunked'
viewtopic.php?t=88

This is too easy.

- Hannover

[Drew J]

Always ready with the old topic references. I love it. I have only read about the coke and the hosing of the chambers. Now I have more to read. Thanks Hannover. Always there for us.

[Drew J]

They seem to be worried now.

http://r odohforum.yuku.com/reply/244414/t/This-little-Drew-J-freak-seems-to-be-really-pissed-about-me-.html#reply-244414

Jonathan Harrison 11-Mar-2010 13:54 #37

Does it not occur to Drew that those links posted are to threads that have been edited in his favour?

This is a very nice ploy. However Harrison refuses to clarify what he means and use more specific examples and more precise language. Plus he refuses to give us anything in the way of proof. I assume it is because he and other true believers are pissed that Roberto was nailed on the issue of hosing down the chambers and how the witness statements were exposed as scientific frauds.

R.Muehlenkamp: 'gas chambers' were hosed down, so no cyanide'
viewtopic.php?t=3706

'Those Prussian Blues Just Won't Wash'
viewtopic.php?t=4600

If Jonathan had counter proof to the destruction of Roberto's claims, he would provide it. Period!

Mods, Muehlenkamp's ban period is over at this place. I say let him post more regularly on the condition he deals with the arguments in these two topics specifically and nothing else. Like, give him a chance to stay on topic and stick to the issue and avoid namecalling. Kind of like another probation period. See how hard, if it all, he will squirm when he is forced to deal with the excellent responses to his work in those topics.

[Moderator3]

Mods, Muehlenkamp's ban period is over at this place. I say let him post more regularly on the condition he deals with the arguments in these two topics specifically and nothing else. Like, give him a chance to stay on topic and stick to the issue and avoid name calling. Kind of like another probation period. See how hard, if it all, he will squirm when he is forced to deal with the excellent responses to his work in those topics.

Muehlenkamp was warned repeatedly about his foul language and spamming, to no avail. His views, via his unedited posts, are here to read. We will not let him back in given his pathetic behavior. He's had many chances, the problem is Muehlenkamp, not this forum. Thanks.

[Drew J]

I just looked through a bunch of old stuff on here from Sergy Romanov and Andrew Mathis. Wow. You guys aren't kidding. They were demolished and they always contradicted themselves when they were forced to change their stories. A couple examples.

Here, Sergy contradicts what holocaust witnesses themselves claimed about seeing the inside of a gas chamber by saying no one who saw a gas chamber interior lived.
viewtopic.php?p=22779&#p22779

Here, Sergy is completely destroyed on the RJF versus RIF issue of the soap bars.
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=16227#p16227

And of course the anti mathis library
viewtopic.php?p=27991&#p27991

Edit:
A few more posts over at rodoh. Boy they are really shitting their pants now. Roberto claims to have updated those old posts of his that he says it's "just a bunch of hogwash that does not stand up as I once thought it did." That's his excuse? Maybe my memory is shot but while he was here, he had all the opportunity to update those old refuted arguments of his (he just admitted they don't stand up), and I don't recall him doing it. That must be the case since he didn't give out anything like that when he could have just now in the post at r o d o h I am quoting. Guess he better get a move on. We can't assume he didn't know where to find them as he is very resourceful and has kept tabs on this place even after his first ban. Funny how he always squanders opportunities and then blames us for his failure. He could make a blog entry where he updates his old refuted stuff here on codoh that hannover brought back, but he hasn't. And I doubt he will. More puffing of smoke and hot air from Roberto.

nexgen586 is also a piece of work. "I'm getting bored of playing CODOH mailman for delusional revisionists like Drew J." Funny, I never asked him to be since I know how to check Roberto's blog and rodoh from time to time. I wash my hands of these people. That is until I see two things.

1. An update on Roberto's admittedly refuted work on here that Hannover brought up.
2. They deal with the problems of Irving refusing to provide proof to Weckart of the authenticity of those TYPED Goebbels diaries and of the questionable nature of those diaries in general.

That's okay. I think we at codoh should all do something more constructive. Like waiting for hell to freeze over.

Edit 2:
I withdraw my hell to freeze over comment. Roberto it seems has replies to these topics. You can see them and discuss them in a completely different topic over here.
viewtopic.php?p=41400&#p41400

[Balsamo]

Two remarks about this topic

- Do you think it is fair to fake a debate with someone who is not allowed to intervene on this forum ?

- AS for the Goebbels diaries, are they fake or not ? If they are fake, why are you talking about it ? Mostly, why do you want to use them to prove anything ?
If they are authentic, then this kind of interpretations are a joke

1942, Mar 6: "The Partisan danger is increasing week by week. The Partisans are in command of large areas in occupied Russian and are conducting a regime of terror there. The national movements, too, have become more insolent than was at first imagined. That applies as well to the Baltic States as to the Ukraine. Everywhere the Jews are busy inciting and stirring up trouble. It is therefore desirable that many of them must pay with their lives for this.


Unmistakably speaking about insurgency, subversion and the Partisan War, not of a program to exterminate innocent people in any gas chamber slaughterhouses. Indeed he is even speaking of a limited war against the Jews ("the greater the number" not "all," as would be appropriate to any hoped for racial extermination), with no sign of any "Holocaust," just the mention of a tremendous guerrilla / subversive war in the eastern occupied territories, wishing maximum casualties were inflicted to those he sees as insidious enemies.

This one even more

1942, Mar 16: "I read a report of the SD about the situation in the occupied East. The activity of Partisans has increased noticeably during recent weeks. They are conducting a well-organised guerrilla war. It is very difficult to get at them because they are using such terrorist methods in the area occupied by us that the population is afraid of collaborating with us loyally any longer. The spearheads of this whole Partisan activity are the political commissars and especially the Jews. It has therefore proven necessary once again to shoot more Jews. There won't be any peace in these areas as long as any Jews are active there. Sentimentality is out of place here. Either we must renounce the lives of our own soldiers, or we must uncompromisingly prevent further propaganda by criminal and chaotic elements in the hinterland."

Again he is speaking of the war in the hinterland behind the front lines and the Jewish role in the Partisan War, and not of any program to process the lot of the European Jews in the alleged gas chambers within the General Government or the Reich itself.

Goebbels says : "Anyway, I am of the opinion that the greater the number of Jews liquidated, the more consolidated will the situation in Europe be after this war."
He does not say, the greater the number of jewish partisans are liquidated...The Jew is not said to be a partisan, but to organize the troubles...without Jews as a whole and the commissars...So one have to get rid of both of them if one want peace...which is pure nazi logic!

1942, May 15: "As far as I am concerned, it would be best if we either evacuated or liquidated all eastern Jews still remaining in Paris."

Note this carefully: "all eastern Jews still remaining in Paris." During the war the French-born Jews were generally left alone. Out of 350,000 (minimum) Jews living in France -- many of them eastern immigrants -- 75,721 (according to Arno Klarsfeld himself) were deported, i.e. 22% of the total number, overwhelmingly of non-French eastern origin -- including those deported for violent or terrorist activities ("resistance") -- while 78% were not disturbed. This seems to go well with the deportation of perceived enemies, and not at all with any real "extermination" plans for the entire Jewish race. See an interesting article (in French)"Vous avez dit 'Extermination'?" by Pierre Guillaume here:

So Goebbels want all the French jews to be treated like the Partisans of the eastern front, right ? But he can't. Hitler signed a deal with Pétain, and the "zone libre" was still "libre" until nevember of that year! And even after that, the Germans kind of respected the Vichy regime, at first anyway. Nor the Vichy regime Nore the Italian fascists had extermination policy, as a matter of fact.

Anyway, all it proves is that Goebbels was not part of the Holocaust process in any way. And i admit that proofs of mass killings through gas chamber cannot be directly be found in them.

But if the diaries are fake, none of this matters!

So fake or not ?

[Drew J]

From Roberto:

Of course Drew J has read my post 11981 and thus knows very well that I’m not refusing to deal with whatever he has brought up. I’m just refusing to roam old CODOH threads for that, and thus demanding that he post his "evidence" of forgery, which must be damn strong if it is to prevail over the evidence for authenticity I have provided, on the thread he is now shooting the bull on.

"Of course Drew J has read my post 11981 and thus knows very well that I’m not refusing to deal with whatever he has brought up."

Good so then you can prove their authenticity and do what irving never could for Weckart.

"I’m just refusing to roam old CODOH threads for that"

Contradiction. Or is it? How does he explain it away?

It is merely "demanding that he post his "evidence" of forgery, which must be damn strong if it is to prevail over the evidence for authenticity I have provided"

Roberto again, loves to make straw men and reverse the burden of proof. I never said they were forgeries. I simply asked where is proof of authenticity. Again Roberto, agnosticism not atheism. Get that through your head. This is like the fourth time I have explained this. Now Roberto will say, "I'm not reversing the burden of proof, I have given proof of authenticity already." Okay, let's see how you could fulfill what Irving never could for Weckart.

viewtopic.php?p=38553&#p38553

Drew J Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:58 pm


Kristallnacht
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5310

by Friedrich Paul Berg » Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:29 pm

I am sure Ingrid Weckert is quite right and that pseudo-revisionists like David Irving are completely wrong about Kristallnacht.

Irving has claimed that he copied pages from Goebbels' Diary in Moscow for the days November 11 and 12 of 1938, at least one of which supposedly contains admissions that Goebbels orchestrated the event. Ingrid Weckert had seen the text provided by Irving but thought the German was so poor that it must have been a forgery. She asked Irving to please provide a copy from the original glass plates that he had supposedly copied, but he never sent her a copy.

P.S.
'The Goebbels diary: a forgery?'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3793

'Grubach debunks Jeffrey Herf and the 'Final Solution' canard'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4685

Back to Roberto.

...and thus demanding that he post his "evidence" of forgery, which must be damn strong if it is to prevail over the evidence for authenticity I have provided, on the thread he is now shooting the bull on. I even put my demands in bold sometimes, so he wouldn’t miss them:

So let's see your proof of authenticity.

Who is supposed to have manipulated the diary entry of 27 March 1942, Drew J? Whoever discovered the fragments in 1948 containing the 1942/43 dictations (assuming it was in there)?
If so, how would that person have known the aforementioned historical context of the diaries?
Why was this smoking gun never published solo but together with a lot of other material, leaving it to chance whether someone ever spotted it and realized its significance?
Why didn’t the supposed forger tout his “discovery”, or make it available to whoever would make a big deal out of it?
The Soviets (assuming it was in the microfiches or pre-microfiches in their possession?
If so, why did they never publish it as proof of Nazi crimes?
Why did they wait until 1969 until they sent their microfiches to the GDR?
The East Germans?
If so, why didn’t they make a big deal of this important evidence to Nazi crimes?
Why did they keep it a secret until they sold it in 1972 to the FGR, where apparently no one cared much about it either until David Irving mentioned it in Hitler’s War?
Elke Fröhlich?
If so, why does the text in her collection obviously not differ from the one used by Irving in his book?
And as we’re with her, are we asked to believe that a researcher working for the German Institute of Contemporary History and in charge of putting together a collection of Goebbels’ diary entries wouldn’t at least check whether the style of the typewritten entries matched that of the handwritten entries and could thus be assumed to be from the same person, and whether the diary entries fit into the historical context in which they were written?
I’m looking forward to your answering the above questions, Drew J.

That's not scientific textual analysis, exegesis, comparing of entries with earlier diaries, looking for styles, phrases, any nooks and crannies to compare, see differences in, etc carried out in a lab, to determine whether the typed diaries are from Goebbels himself. These are just rhetorical questions are you asking to try and put me on the spot to take yourself off the spot in order to compensate for what Weckart revealed about Irving's lack of forthcoming proof. When the reality of this sinks in, you resort to these tricks when you addmitedly state that you are going to refuse to go through those old codoh topics I brought back up. You are scared of what you will find inside. Chicken.

So far I have only seen the “I think Goebbels wouldn’t have written this” baloney (dismissed) and the “diaries changed format” thing (I’d like to see how exactly they “changed format”, unless this just means that from a certain time on they were typewritten instead of handwritten – big deal – and have an explanation as to what that “change of format” would imply. I expect Drew J to provide such explanation instead of referring to past threads in the Cesspit).

You have also seen Irving refuse to prove his claim to Weckart. You have to put up real hard evidence for claims in the field of holocaust research given all the exposed frauds surrounding it such as forged documents like this: 9.8.2. "10 Gas Detectors". Not to mention people reading things into German that simply aren't there like this Bischoff letter.

But it's not over folks. How does Roberto counteract the proper statement that Irving was not forthcoming? Right, he does says, well, it fits the picture.

On the contrary I’m looking forward to Drew J’s throwing Weckert’s and Rudolf’s and some other fool's “text analysis” against all the converging indications of authenticity. Quote them so I can laugh about them, buddy.

It fits the picture. Depends on the picture buddy and whether that has enough proof to stand up before you add another thing to the picture. I mean what if the picture was the truth of alien abductions and subsequent releases. And the witnesses told us aliens had technology to control the weather. And that is why it didn't rain the other day. They all describe similar ships, similar aliens and similar weapons they claimed to have seen. But does that make it true? Does that mean that one more 'converging' piece of evidence will prove it true? Hardly. See folks, this is what these holocaust hucksters are reduced to. When solid lack of proof is lacking in the authenticity of the Goebbels diaries as Burg and Weckart pointed out, they have to try new tactics and say, "Oh well it fits. That makes it authentic." Sorry but for something to be real, hard, rigid, scientific evidence, it has to stand alone, in isolation away from everything else and examined IN AND OF ITSELF. The better it looks under those conditions, the more likely it can be real and thus pass for evidence.

He’s refusing to deal with my evidence and arguments, that’s what’s happening.

No. Rememeber, all you gave me above was a bunch of questions. You tried to put me on the spot to save face because you can't prove the diaries are real in and of themselves in isolation away from everything else. I mean let's say you walk into a crime scene and you find a dead body and a knife with something red on it on the floor. I would say, "It could be ketchup so to be sure, let's take it to the lab and analyze it ISOLATED FROM EVERYTHING ELSE. Prove it's a knife with blood IN AND OF ITSELF." Whereas Roberto would say, "Before you can do that, you have to prove to me it doesn't fit with the picture. It's a body. It's a knife. It's a red substance. Until you can prove to me why I should think it's not blood, I'm just going to assume it is without doing any tests."

That is how Roberto is treating the Goebbels diaries and that is very unscientific. We already saw above how he admitted he wasn't going to go around in those old codoh topics I gave regarding the Goebble's diaries. Remember he said, "I’m just refusing to roam old CODOH threads for that."

So if he's going to refuse to read arguments from the likes of Burg, Weckart, Rudolf and other codoh posters from the past, then why would he suddenly flip flop and change his tune like he actually wants to read them?

On the contrary I’m looking forward to Drew J’s throwing Weckert’s and Rudolf’s and some other fool's “text analysis” against all the converging indications of authenticity. Quote them so I can laugh about them, buddy.

I thought Roberto just said he wasn't going to read their old stuff I brought back with old codoh topics for him to read. Now he contradicts himself again. That's the way these hucksters operate.

Shift burden of proof. Shift goalposts. Make strawman. Demand you prove negatives. Argue from ignorance. Only accept, untested, converging claims. Well since Roberto has been spanked on all the above issues and his contradictions and evasvive tacitcs have been exposed I'm going to assume he'll never fulfill his burden of proof that he assumed. I'm guessing he'll never accept that he's behaving like the Roberto in the crime scene example and admit how wrong it is to take something for granted like that by arguing from ignorance and demanding proof of negatives from others instead of furnishing proof of a positive he himself made.