Belzec Beauties

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9833
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Belzec Beauties

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Dec 02, 2003 3:02 am)

Here's some of Belzec finest 'eyewitnesses'. Get ready for floors that sink into water and Jews are electrocuted; read where quicklime is a weapon of mass murder. No joke, this is considered 'evidence'.

Dr. Stefan Szende, a Swedish-based Jew of Hungarian origin, described the alleged mass extermination at the Belzec camp as follows:

"The death factory comprises an area approximately seven kilometres in diameter. (...) The trains filled with Jews entered the underground rooms of the execution factory. (...) The naked Jews were brought into gigantic halls. Several thousand people at one time could be filled into these halls. The floor was of metal and was submergible. The floors of these halls, with their thousands of Jews, sank into a water basin which lay beneath - but only far enough so that the people on the metal plate were not entirely under water. When all the Jews on the metal plate were in the water to over their hips, electrical current was sent through the water. After a few moments, all the Jews, thousands at once, were dead. Then the metal plate was raised out of the water. On it lay the corpses of the murdered victims. Another shock of electrical current was sent through, and the metal plate became a crematory oven, white hot, until all the bodies were burnt to ashes. (...) Each individual train brought three to five thousand, sometimes more, Jews. There were days on which the lines to Belzec supplied twenty or more trains. Modern technology triumphed in the Nazi system. The problem of how to exterminate millions of people was solved."
(Stefan Szende, Der letzte Jude aus Polen, Europa Verlag, Zurich-New York 1945, p. 290 ff.).


At Belzec the Jews were killed according to eyewitness Jan Karski as follows:
"The floors of the car had been covered with a thick, white powder. It was quicklime. Quicklime is simply unslaked lime or calcium oxide that has been dehydrated. Anyone who has seen cement being mixed knows what occurs when water is poured on lim. The mixture bubbles and steams as the powder combines with the water, generating a large amount of heat. Here the lime served a double purpose in the Nazi economy of brutality. The moist flesh coming in contact with the lime is rapidly dehydrated and burned. The occupants of the cars would be literally burned to death before long, the flesh eaten from their bones. Thus, the Jews would "die in agony"", fulfilling the promise Himmler had issued "in accord with the will of the Fuehrer", in Warsaw, in 1942.

Secondly, the lime would prevent decomposing bodies from spreading disease. It was efficient and inexpensive - a prefectly chosen agent for their purposes. It took three hours to fill up the entire train by repetitions of this procedure. It was twilight when the forty six (I counted them) cars were packed. From one end to the other, the train, with its quivering cargo of flesh, seemed to throb, vibrate, rock, and jump as if bewitched. There would be a strangely uniform momentary lull and then, again, the train would begin to moan and sob, wail, and how. Inside the camp a few score dead bodies remained and a few in the final throes of death. German policemen walked around at leisure with smoking guns, pumping bullets into anything that by single motion betrayed an excess of vitality. Soon, not a single one was left alive. In the now quiet camp the only sounds were the inhuman screams that were echoes from the moving train. Then these, too, ceased. All that was now left was the stench of excrement and rotting straw and a queer, sickening, acidulous odour which, I thought, may have come from the quantities of blood that had been let, and with which the ground was stained.
As I listened to the dwindling outcries from the train, I thought of the destination toward which it was speeding. My informants had minutes described the entire journey. The train would travel about eighty miles and finally come to a halt in an empty, barren field. Then nothing at all would happen. The train would stand stock-still, patiently waiting until death had penetrated into every corner of its interior. This would take from two to four days."

- Jan Karski, Story of a Secret State, The Riverside Press

This Jan Karski was, by the way, appointed to chair a committee for "Scientific Research on the Holocaust". Really, he was.

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

trtsk
Member
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:29 am

Re: Belzec Beauties

Postby trtsk » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Dec 02, 2003 7:58 am)

Hannover wrote:No joke, this is considered 'evidence'.


No it's not. It hasn't been considered evidence for a long long time.

Direct question to Hannover. Can you find three sources no more than ten years old that use this Belzec stuff as evidence?

Tom

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9833
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Dec 02, 2003 10:46 am)

Are these guys lying?

Nut case Jan Karski is a highly touted 'eyewitness' to this day. Go ahead Google him.

'Eyewitness' Stefan Szende's lies are just another example of 'everybody knows it's true' crap that's shoved down our throat. Go ahead Google him, he's still used today.

Why do you only want to look at the last 10 years of 'holocau$t' mythology? Has the story changed?

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

trtsk
Member
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:29 am

Postby trtsk » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Dec 02, 2003 1:12 pm)

Hannover wrote:Are these guys lying?


Probably not. I'm sure they believed what they said when they said it. As for the first case there is nothing to suggest he's an eyewitness. As for the second case he was living in Communist controlled Poland where he had to stick by the idiocies of the Black Book.

Nut case Jan Karski is a highly touted 'eyewitness' to this day. Go ahead Google him.


I'm sure no one respectable quotes these portions on Belzec which are demonstrably false.

'Eyewitness' Stefan Szende's lies are just another example of 'everybody knows it's true' crap that's shoved down our throat. Go ahead Google him, he's still used today.


Where does it say he's an eyewitness?

Why do you only want to look at the last 10 years of 'holocau$t' mythology? Has the story changed?


No Hannover. Historiography changes as subsequent generations investigate what are believed to be facts. In 60 years no mainstream Holocaust historians has ever disproved gas chambers. Human soap was disproved by Israeli historians and by Dr. Piper of Auschwitz.

We look at the last ten years so we can tell what is still being used and what is not. If it's older than ten years old like Hilberg it will be cited in works over the last ten years. For you to drag out Belzec stuff like this is about as useful as me cutting and pasting from Austin App. No revisionists use App anymore.

Note to Moderator: Hannover has not answered the direct questions pointed to him. He must now answer or leave the thread. Correct?

Tom

Guptalicious
Member
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 12:47 am

Postby Guptalicious » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Dec 02, 2003 1:58 pm)

Historiography changes as subsequent generations investigate what are believed to be facts.


Yes, indeed. However, in this particular instance even attempting to criticize received facts - which you acknowledge can change over time - is grounds for persecution and jail time.

In 60 years no mainstream Holocaust historians has ever disproved gas chambers.


In fairness, no mainstream Holocaust historian has ever tried to prove them, either. The two relevant historians at the Irving trial, Browning and Van Pelt, only debatably did so. Browning recognized his dependence on eyewitnesses and court judgments, and did not really attempt to prove anything, only to say that the evidence at his disposal indicated that people were sent there, and bodies were disposed there. Van Pelt's report and later book relied on eyewitnesses and the same small number of witnesses that revisionists have written about for years, and yet even here he was unable to reasonably account for the absence of the holes in the roof.

It also should be said however that no one will ever be able to prove that no one was ever gassed. As long as there's a can of Zyklon somewhere, someone will be able to say that someone was gassed (the same goes for any engine other than diesels that produce reasonable quantities of carbon monoxide.)

What revisionists have to focus on is the reasonableness of the accusation that _millions_ of people were executed in these ways. However, to all but the blind, the revisionists have settled this issue.

Human soap was disproved by Israeli historians and by Dr. Piper of Auschwitz.


In fairness also, credit has to be given to revisionists because they doubted these claims for decades before the mainstream historians got around them.

The same also goes for the revisionist theme concerning the use of the Holocaust for financial and political purposes - the revisionists had this nailed long before Peter Novick and Norman Finkelstein chose to write about it.

[/quote]

Guptalicious
Member
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 12:47 am

Postby Guptalicious » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Dec 02, 2003 2:01 pm)

I meant to add that Van Pelt relied on the same small number of DOCUMENTS.

In this regard the latest book by Mattogno and Graff provides several documents that settle the issue of "Sonderbehandlung" once and for all.

trtsk
Member
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:29 am

Postby trtsk » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Dec 02, 2003 2:12 pm)

Guptalicious wrote:
Historiography changes as subsequent generations investigate what are believed to be facts.


Yes, indeed. However, in this particular instance even attempting to criticize received facts - which you acknowledge can change over time - is grounds for persecution and jail time.


That doesn't prove something as true or false however.

In 60 years no mainstream Holocaust historians has ever disproved gas chambers.


In fairness, no mainstream Holocaust historian has ever tried to prove them, either. The two relevant historians at the Irving trial, Browning and Van Pelt, only debatably did so. Browning recognized his dependence on eyewitnesses and court judgments, and did not really attempt to prove anything, only to say that the evidence at his disposal indicated that people were sent there, and bodies were disposed there. Van Pelt's report and later book relied on eyewitnesses and the same small number of witnesses that revisionists have written about for years, and yet even here he was unable to reasonably account for the absence of the holes in the roof.


Read van Pelt's book on the trial. At the end he says that since the trial the holes have been found.

I'm not aware of Browning's testimony. He was more I thought an expert on Einsatzgruppen and not gas chambers.

It also should be said however that no one will ever be able to prove that no one was ever gassed. As long as there's a can of Zyklon somewhere, someone will be able to say that someone was gassed (the same goes for any engine other than diesels that produce reasonable quantities of carbon monoxide.)


True. It's also true that you can't disprove a negative.

What revisionists have to focus on is the reasonableness of the accusation that _millions_ of people were executed in these ways. However, to all but the blind, the revisionists have settled this issue.


And yet revisionists are a tiny minority and there are none among mainstream historians. Even in the United States. Why is that?

Human soap was disproved by Israeli historians and by Dr. Piper of Auschwitz.


In fairness also, credit has to be given to revisionists because they doubted these claims for decades before the mainstream historians got around them.


Not really. The revisionists were questioning everything. That they were right about the soap doesn't mean much. A stopped clock is still right twice a day.

The same also goes for the revisionist theme concerning the use of the Holocaust for financial and political purposes - the revisionists had this nailed long before Peter Novick and Norman Finkelstein chose to write about it.


True again. That clock is right twice a day as I said. Emphasis on twice.

Tom

Guptalicious
Member
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 12:47 am

Postby Guptalicious » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Dec 02, 2003 2:23 pm)

Persecution of revisionists doesn't make them right - although it is conceded that they have been found right at least twice - but it does make them worth defending.

Read van Pelt's book on the trial. At the end he says that since the trial the holes have been found.


So where are they?

And yet revisionists are a tiny minority and there are none among mainstream historians. Even in the United States. Why is that?


There have been several German historians who have expressed sympathy for revisionism, and have even declared revisionist positions, including Ernst Nolte, Joachim Hoffman, and Helmut Diwald. In his book, Diwald explicitly endorsed revisionist positions on Auschwitz but the government ordered the book altered and then destroyed.

Mayer is surely a revisionist for saying that more Jewish victims died from natural as opposed to unnatural causes.

Goethe
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 3:41 am

Postby Goethe » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Dec 02, 2003 2:52 pm)

Poster trtsk asked for sources on Karski and Szende. Goodness, there's an endless stream of references to both on the WWW as Mr. Hannover stated. Trying to deny the fact that these fellows are still referenced is simply uninformed.

trtsk
Member
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:29 am

Postby trtsk » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Dec 02, 2003 11:40 pm)

Guptalicious wrote:Persecution of revisionists doesn't make them right - although it is conceded that they have been found right at least twice - but it does make them worth defending.

Read van Pelt's book on the trial. At the end he says that since the trial the holes have been found.


So where are they?


Read the book. He mentions the authors of a report on the holes.

And yet revisionists are a tiny minority and there are none among mainstream historians. Even in the United States. Why is that?


There have been several German historians who have expressed sympathy for revisionism, and have even declared revisionist positions, including Ernst Nolte, Joachim Hoffman, and Helmut Diwald. In his book, Diwald explicitly endorsed revisionist positions on Auschwitz but the government ordered the book altered and then destroyed.


Nolte and Hoffmann to my knowledge have never taken revisionist positions regarding gas chambers, the body count or there being a planned killing of Jews. They are instead moral relativists who place the Holocaust within the larger German-Russian conflict as part of "total war".

That leaves Diwald. What university or institute is he affiliated with?

Mayer is surely a revisionist for saying that more Jewish victims died from natural as opposed to unnatural causes.


Those quotes need to have their context. I have the book. Page numbers would be helpful.

Tom

Guptalicious
Member
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 12:47 am

Postby Guptalicious » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Dec 02, 2003 11:50 pm)

I know "about" the report of the holes - which claims to have found three of them - but I haven't seen it anywhere. More to the point, the problem is that the roof has been inspected by dozens of interested parties, and while there are clearly holes in it, NO ONE, except those who prepared this unavailable report, and Charles Provan, claims that they are there. What's more, these two ex nihilo parties cannot even agree on which holes or cracks are THE holes.

Everyone else - this includes not only all revisionists (obviously) but also Pressac, Van Pelt, the Poles who went looking for the holes during the trial, and an Englishman who accompanied them - ALL said the holes in the roof did not correspond to the necessary holes.

Nolte and Hoffman have both endorsed Rudolf's report and defended his longer book. Beyond that, I don't know what they have written. Diwald died a few years ago, you should do a search on him.

I already directed you on Mayer.

trtsk
Member
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:29 am

Postby trtsk » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Dec 02, 2003 11:54 pm)

I can't answer for why the report hasn't appeared. I know less about it than you. But why would van Pelt make such an allegation about the holes unless he'd seen the report?

It's an interesting question I admit.

I think the report has been talked about here. I was lurking quite a while before I began posting. For a very quick reference just check the end matter of van Pelt's book on the case. He only mentions the holes report there.

Tom

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Postby Moderator » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Dec 03, 2003 12:39 am)

The thread is about Belzec gentleman, let's stay on topic.

- Moderator
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lamprecht and 2 guests