Merged General Holocaust denial discussion Part IV

[Saggy]

Robert Van Pelt, respected hoax academic admits that there is no physical evidence for 99% of the hoax ...

A case for letting nature take back Auschwitz


There is no physical evidence of the holocaust. No bodies, no murder weapons ('gas chambers'), no documents, no photographs, no intercepted communications (although the Allies broke the German encryption codes). There is only 'testimony'. This was admitted by one of the most respected holohoax scholars, Robert Jan Van Pelt, arguing that Birkenau should not be preserved, Pelt states

"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge. I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony. . ."

Van Pelt is right in that there is no physical evidence of the holocaust, but as for other historical events, like WW II for example, he may have overlooked a few things !

 

[Saggy]

and all the history books have been re-written,

My daughter took 8th grade history last year, and her text had a page on the hoax, that contained two whoppers that were easily demonstrated, the 11 million figure for the total # of victims (Lipstadt revealed that the # was made up by Wiesenthal) and that the US liberated several 'death camps' (all the hoax death camps were in Poland and none were liberated by the US/Brits).

I emailed the published and told them of the errors. They took the matter under consideration. They changed the text and "We have updated our online text and will update the print the next time we go to press."

 

[Hans]

Van Pelt is right in that there is no physical evidence of the holocaust, but as for other historical events, like WW II for example, he may have overlooked a few things !

Ah but Saggy you are lying again - and very ineptly

Here is what he actually said:

So you had this very weird landscape – and you still have that – where you get these small, primitive brick chimneys rising three metres out of the ground. They don't have any other bracing and if you have a storm they blow over. But of course the chimneys themselves – altogether there are hundreds of them – create a very powerful symbolic landscape because we associate Birkenau with the chimneys of the crematoria. Those crematoria aren't there anymore, they were blown up by the Germans and one of them was blown up by the prisoners in 1944. So because there are only these ruins of the crematoria and because people expect to see chimneys in some way, that field of small chimneys that are the leftovers of the barracks creates a kind of landscape that people in some way associate with the killing and the burning of the bodies of the victims.

By allowing nature to take over the site, do we run the risk of allowing humanity to forget what happened and set the stage for future questioning of the Holocaust?
You might be interested in

Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge.

I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony. . . . We are very successful in remembering the past in that manner. That's how we know that Cesar was killed on the Ides of March. To put the holocaust in some separate category and to demand that it be there – to demand that we have more material evidence – is actually us somehow giving in to the Holocaust deniers by providing some sort of special evidence.

Why do all of Hitler's fan boys tell clumsy lies?

 

[Hans]

My daughter took 8th grade history last year, and her text had a page on the hoax, that contained two whoppers that were easily demonstrated, the 11 million figure for the total # of victims (Lipstadt revealed that the # was made up by Wiesenthal) and that the US liberated several 'death camps' (all the hoax death camps were in Poland and none were liberated by the US/Brits).

I emailed the published and told them of the errors. They took the matter under consideration. They changed the text and "We have updated our online text and will update the print the next time we go to press."

Minor errors in text books are to be expected, on the second item, changing the term to concentration camp is easy. You already brought this up before by the way. Again it has no affect on the reality of German war crimes and genocide.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Saggy is now dodging questions about what his attempted insults mean; which post he referred to as "in your face preposterous lies"; how a video by David Cole made decades ago proves that members of this forum are "hasbara"; and about Polish and German testimony on early Krema 1 and other gassings. Presumably because, er, hasbara!

 

[abaddon]

Robert Van Pelt, respected hoax academic admits that there is no physical evidence for 99% of the hoax ...

A case for letting nature take back Auschwitz


There is no physical evidence of the holocaust. No bodies, no murder weapons ('gas chambers'), no documents, no photographs, no intercepted communications (although the Allies broke the German encryption codes). There is only 'testimony'. This was admitted by one of the most respected holohoax scholars, Robert Jan Van Pelt, arguing that Birkenau should not be preserved, Pelt states

"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge. I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony. . ."

Van Pelt is right in that there is no physical evidence of the holocaust, but as for other historical events, like WW II for example, he may have overlooked a few things !

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/xuRRlQr.jpg[/qimg]

You tried this crap before. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

Where on earth are you dredging this bollocks from?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Minor errors in text books are to be expected, on the second item, changing the term to concentration camp is easy. You already brought this up before by the way. Again it has no affect on the reality of German war crimes and genocide.

What Saggy has described is routine for textbook publishers, something they do day in and day out, because their materials often contain many errors, statements open to different interpretations, debatable use of terminology, statements which parents and others just plain object to.

If Saggy found just two errors in his daughter's book, good for that publisher: textbook publishers usually don't have a very good record on mistakes in their materials.

 

[Saggy]

Why do all of Hitler's fan boys tell clumsy lies?

I quoted the article, so, take it up with whoever implemented the cut-and-paste operation on my computer.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I quoted the article, so, take it up with whoever implemented the cut-and-paste operation on my computer.

Pelt's book, The Case for Auschwitz, supported by Dwork & Pelt's book Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present, details the evidence which Pelt uses to prove mass murder of Jews in Auschwitz and will make clear how dishonest are deniers when they cherrypick this quotation out of the newspaper article. See also The Pelt Report here.

Anyone who can read Pelt's Irving trial report or his books and still think that Pelt's a good person to cite to claim lack of evidence for Auschwitz has powers of imagination I cannot personally fathom.

 

[LemmyCaution]

For those who are interested in the context for Saggy's correction of his daughter's textbook on "the 11 million figure for the total # of victims" (5 million of them non-Jews), it's not as simple as Saggy wants readers to believe; here is the first part of HC's discussion of Wiesenthal's estimate and issues involved - defining "victims" and "perpetrators":

Now, how many non-Jews actually died at the hands of the “Nazi killing apparatus”, as defined above? While a more or less exact number is difficult if not impossible to establish, the order of magnitude demonstrably exceeds the five million “invented” by Simon Wiesenthal.

In part two, a country by country tabulation of victims, according to the definitions proposed in part one, is given. The conclusion is that Wiesenthal's made-up estimate of non-Jewish victims fell short by over 2 million:

According to the above estimates (rounded up or down to the nearest thousand), the total number of non-Jews who perished through criminal violence by Nazi Germany and its allies during World War II, i.e. of non-Jews who died at the hands of the Nazi “killing apparatus” as defined in Part 1 of this article, is the following:

Soviet Union 5,030,000 to 5,800,000
Poland 1,000,000
Czechoslovakia 33,000
Yugoslavia 260,000
Romania 51,000
Hungary 28,000
Greece 150,000
Italy 76,000
France 147,000
Belgium 17,000
Netherlands 75,000
Norway 2,000
Denmark 1,000
Austria 16,000
Germany 245,000
Total 7,131,000 to 7,901,000

Even the lowest of these totals (7,131,000) exceeds by far not only the 5 million non-Jewish victims “invented” by Simon Wiesenthal but also the highest estimates (around 6 million) of Jews who died at the hands of the Nazi “killing apparatus”. If we consider Nick Terry’s minimum estimate of ca. 5,364,000 Jewish victims of Nazi persecution, the minimum total of people who died at the hands of the Nazi “killing apparatus” would be 5,364,000 + 7,131,000 = 12,495,000, thereof 43 % Jews and 57 % non-Jews.

I am guessing, first, that Saggy didn't request the textbook publisher to increase its stated 5 million non-Jewish victims to the more accurate estimate of over 7 million and, second, that Saggy never even attempted to work any of this out.

 

[Hans]

I quoted the article, so, take it up with whoever implemented the cut-and-paste operation on my computer.

No you misquoted the article and tried to make it say something it didn't. You got caught as you always do.

Failure after failure.

LOL

 

[Jeffk 1970]

I will refrain from such idiotic exchanges in the future.

So, does that mean you are going to stop posting?

 

[Jeffk 1970]

My daughter took 8th grade history last year, and her text had a page on the hoax, that contained two whoppers that were easily demonstrated, the 11 million figure for the total # of victims (Lipstadt revealed that the # was made up by Wiesenthal)

The number is probably larger, depending on the definition you want to use. It's unfortunate that Wiesenthal felt the need to be inclusive, to make it less about the Jewish victims and more about including all of the victims of Nazi aggression.

and that the US liberated several 'death camps' (all the hoax death camps were in Poland and none were liberated by the US/Brits).

That also depends on the definition you want to use. A better term for the Polish camps is "extermination camps," all of the concentration camps were "death camps" to a degree. I often mix them up myself.

I emailed the published and told them of the errors. They took the matter under consideration. They changed the text and "We have updated our online text and will update the print the next time we go to press."

Good for you, Saggy.

 

[Elagabalus]

Robert Van Pelt, respected hoax academic admits that there is no physical evidence for 99% of the hoax ...

A case for letting nature take back Auschwitz


There is no physical evidence of the holocaust. No bodies, no murder weapons ('gas chambers'), no documents, no photographs, no intercepted communications (although the Allies broke the German encryption codes). There is only 'testimony'...

Really, Saggy? How about the official documents of the SS and Police Supreme Court in Munich dealing with the case against SS-Untersturmführer Max Täubner, dated the 24th of May, 1943. He stood accused of not only taking part in "actions" against Jews (in Alexandriya, Ukraine) with a "special cruelty" but also taking unauthorized photographs of the killings and then taking the negatives back to Germany to have them developed and showed the pictures to his wife and friends. This was considered to be a grave risk to the Sercurity of the Reich. Here is an excerpt from the verdict of the SS and Police Supreme Court in Munich:

1. The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against
the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the
Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should
have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of
Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should
be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take
part in the extermination of Jewry himself. Real hatred of the Jews
was the driving motivation for the accused. In the process he let
himself be drawn into committing cruel actions in Alexandriya which
are unworthy of a German man and an SS-officer. These excesses cannot
be justified, either, as the accused would like to, as retaliation
for the pain that the Jews have caused the German people. It is not
the German way to apply Bolshevic methods during the necessary
extermination of the worst enemy of our people. In so doing the
conduct of the accused gives rise to considerable concern. The
accused allowed his men to act with such vicious brutality that
they conducted themselves under his command like a savage horde...

2. By taking photographs of the incidents or having photographs
taken, by having these developed in photographic shops and showing
them to his wife and friends, the accused is guilty of disobedience.
Such pictures could pose the gravest risks to the security of the
Reich if they fell into the wrong hands...


Dismissal of the case against the remaining parties, 1 June 1943

The following has been established on the basis of the main trial
of SS-Untersturmfuehrer Max Taubner...
The following men were party to the punishable acts committed or
ordered by SS-Untersturmfuehrer Max Taubner:

1. SS-Unterscharfuehrer Walter Muller particularly stood out during
the shootings of Jews with the brutality with which he tore small
Jewish children from their mothers. He held these children in
front of him with his left hand and then, with his right hand,
shot them with a pistol.

.
. [three more SS-personnel accused]
.

Allowances have been made for the fact that the accused were, without
exception, acting on the orders of and under the responsibility
of Untersturmfuehrer Max Taubner. In this respect, their own
culpability may be described as slight...

The cases against these accused have therefore been dismissed.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/t/taubner.max/taubner-1943-verdict

From the ['The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press,
NY, 1988, p, 196-207]

Here are two of Täubner's pictures:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_tkm9v4opNG8.../s1600-h/Max+Taubner+-+Holocaust+pictures.jpg

The Court documents also included testimony from witnesses, namely other SS officers. Here's the testimony of SS-Mann Ernst Göbel:

“The victims were shot by the firing-squad with carbines, mostly by shots in the back of the head, from a distance of one metre on my command. Before every salvo Taubner gave me the order – ‘Get set, fire!’ I just relayed Taubner’s command ‘Aim! Fire!’ to the members of the firing squad, and then there was a crack of gunfire. Meanwhile Rottenfuhrer Abraham shot the children with a pistol. There were about five of them. These were children whom I would think were aged between two and six years. The way Abraham killed the children was brutal. He got hold of some of the children by the hair, lifted them up from the ground, shot them through the back of their heads and then threw them into the grave. After a while I just could not watch this anymore and told him to stop. What I meant was he should not lift the children up by the hair, he should kill them in a more decent way.”

https://loosendsdotme.com/2015/08/24/a-squeamish-executioner-squirms/

There is much more about this in "The Good Old Days"including other witnesses who corroborate what happened. Your trip to the library awaits!

 

[smartcooky]

My refrain is there is no physical evidence for the hoax

100% right. Can I quote you on that?

On the other hand, there are shiploads of physical evidence of the Holocaust, while there is absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever that anyone made the whole thing up.

So far, you have spectacularly failed to bring a single shred of evidence to the table that backs up any part of your absurd claims

CLUES

► Calling people liars is not evidence
► Highlighting minor discrepancies is not evidence
► Making unsupported assertions that documents have been forged is not evidence.
► Your failure to understand the difference between a Polish Catholic and a German Jew is not evidence.

But I'll tell you what is, or would be, evidence...

► documentation showing the transportation of thousands of Dutch Jews who were taken to Auschwitz and then onward to your claimed transit camps?
► proof that any of the millions of Jews of the "Yiddishland" who disappeared between 1939 and 1945 without leaving a trace, were alive and well after the war.

The problem is that you won't address any of these real issues because you can't.

 

[LemmyCaution]

► Your failure to understand the difference between a Polish Catholic and a German Jew is not evidence.

But referring to about 100 German documents and German and Polish witnesses as a pack of Jewish lies is evidence . . . of the bankruptcy of Holocaust denial.

 

[Dash80]

Robert Van Pelt, respected hoax academic admits that there is no physical evidence for 99% of the hoax ...

A case for letting nature take back Auschwitz


There is no physical evidence of the holocaust. No bodies, no murder weapons ('gas chambers'), no documents, no photographs, no intercepted communications (although the Allies broke the German encryption codes). There is only 'testimony'. This was admitted by one of the most respected holohoax scholars, Robert Jan Van Pelt, arguing that Birkenau should not be preserved, Pelt states

"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge. I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony. . ."

Van Pelt is right in that there is no physical evidence of the holocaust, but as for other historical events, like WW II for example, he may have overlooked a few things !

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/xuRRlQr.jpg[/qimg]

Holy quote mine Batman!

 

[Saggy]

Physical evidence for the holohoax .....

Physical evidence I gassed my dog, or that the US gassed the Japanese in camps in CA .....

 

[Dash80]

Physical evidence for the holohoax .....

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/1KIXApu.jpg[/qimg]

Physical evidence I gassed my dog, or that the US gassed the Japanese in camps in CA .....

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/VgE1BIl.jpg[/qimg]

Are you done being childish?

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/index-of-published-evidence-on.html?m=1

 

[LemmyCaution]

Are you done being childish?

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/index-of-published-evidence-on.html?m=1

It appears that someone is getting frantic at his inability to muster replies for what is posted in this thread and his abject failure to deal with sources and arguments and interpretations of evidence.