There is not a single mass grave of holohoax victims.

[Meadmaker]

Now, you tell me, how would you characterize the persons at the Jewish Virtual Library who posted the picture above with the caption?

Hmmm...let's examine the picture. women and children. At Auschwitz. No men, and no women who look strong. None are emaciated, though, so they probably haven't been in the camp very long. That means the selection has already taken place, and the old, the women, and the children have been separated from those capable of hard labor.

I would characterize the people who captioned the picture as "very likely correct".

 

[kerikiwi]

Saggy, is it a good thing or a bad thing that the holocaust didn't happen?
Does the question scare you?
Why are you ignoring it?

 

[Saggy]

I would characterize the people who captioned the picture as "very likely correct".

Well, contrary to what I might hope, Irish people can be fools too.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

The Nazis shouted their intentions from the rooftops.

That whole post was terrific. I didn't know so many other papers picked up on the speech at the time. I have saved this post and will use it ( and credit you accordingly). Well done. Don't worry about Saggy. You have done a greater benefit in improving the knowledge of regular members here who argue against the holocaust deniers.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

How would you characterize the persons who posted the picture and caption, you miserable coward?

Saggy, Nick stood up and destroyed your position using evidence. You didn't even stand up to fight. Why is Nick a "miserable coward" for using evidence?

 

[Nick Terry]

Posts like Nick Terry's demonstrate something.

People like Saggy cannot, of course, be convinced that the holocaust was real in any sense. They are beyond rational thought. However, I think there are people, possibly including Dogzilla, who are somewhat different.

Saggy has just demonstrated that he is not capable of participating in a coherent discussion. Accordingly, <plonk>

There is no point wasting time on the totally irrational.

In response to my point that Nazi leaders publicly announced their determination to exterminate the Jews, the nitwit posted a picture from the 'Auschwitz album' and made great hay out of a website caption. The picture dates from the summer of 1944 and is one of many photos in a long sequence portraying the arrival of a transport or transports from Hungary.

Not only has Saggy committed - almost literally - the snapshot fallacy, not only has he exalted a single photo into the supposed disproof of everything, all evidence for the Holocaust, which seems a pretty tall order for any one photo, he has shown himself to be utterly ignorant of the historical context.

Hungary was an Axis state, and its press did not report much if at all on the persecution of the Jews elsewhere in Nazi-controlled Europe. There were no significant underground oppositional newspapers and whatever Jewish press was left after the passing of numerous antisemitic ordinances was censored. The Hungarian Jews were accordingly the absolute last people in Europe to have stood a chance of learning anything about Auschwitz, which was not the subject of repeated radio broadcasts from the outside world.

Many Hungarian survivors report knowing nothing about the true nature of Auschwitz until they had been stripped, deloused, shaved and issued their zebra stripes, at which point someone might take pity on them and tell them their relatives who they saw heading in the opposite direction had just been gassed and were now likely in the puff of smoke they coiuld see over the fence of whichever sector of Birkenau they were held in.

The Auschwitz Album, incidentally, clearly shows one such puff of smoke rising in the background of a photo of 'Kanada II' from the direction of one of the known open air cremation sites; several air photos taken by the USAAF at other points in time during the summer of 1944 also show smoke rising from the known sites of open air cremations.

Indeed, the lack of knowledge among Hungarian Jews has been the subject of an ongoing controversy since the 1950s if not before, indicting the Hungarian Jewish leadership, especially Kastner, who was eventually assassinated in Israel for his supposed refusal to spread the news - which we can document that he knew. In fact, none other than Oskar Schindler informed the Hungarian Jewish leadership about the death camps, while on a business trip.

I write this not in response to Saggy, but for the benefit of others, so they can appreciate the depths of ignorance to which one must plumb in order to brandish the photo from the Auschwitz album and claim it trumps every single other source.

The only shame is that he didn't quite manage to come up with a Stundie.

 

[Nick Terry]

That whole post was terrific. I didn't know so many other papers picked up on the speech at the time. I have saved this post and will use it ( and credit you accordingly). Well done. Don't worry about Saggy. You have done a greater benefit in improving the knowledge of regular members here who argue against the holocaust deniers.

The diary quotes are recapitulated in Saul Friedlander's Years of Extermination. The Manchester Guardian quote is from Richard Bolchover, British Jewry and the Holocaust, London 1993/2003, p.10.

There are more quotes typed out here with some more references
http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/2457

but this is a fraction of the total number. For German readers, Bernward Doerner's book Die Deutschen und der Holocaust is highly recommended; at nearly 900pp it covers a hell of a lot of ground, including public death threats against Jews, the evidence of diaries written by German, the records of the People's Court and the SD, as well as postwar statements from the great and small.

An opinion survey found that 60% of the German population said they had some knowledge of the mass murder of the Jews during the war, which seems entirely plausible given the number of SD reports commenting on public opinion which mention such knowledge, and the number of soldiers who came home on leave to report what they had seen in the east.

The Nazi press didn't report on the persecution of the Jews in any serious fashion after 1941. Even the deportations, which deniers are supposed to accept, were too touchy to be written up in the Nazi press. It simply ranted and quoted Hitler, the Gauleiters and other Bonzen ululating Ausrottung and Vernichtung.

I have to say that if the Nazis were simply resettling the Jews to the heated swimming pool equipped camps in the east, then they did just about the worst PR job ever in the history of mankind. If the leadership keeps ranting in public and nothing is forthcoming about the fate of neighbours who have disappeared, wtf are people supposed to think, especially when their relatives return from the Eastern Front to report on what they have seen or even show photos (and there are not a few which surfaced after the war from German private collections).

 

[kerikiwi]

Saggy, what is your problem with answering a very simple question?
I haven't read all your posts in detail ,but is ME correct in saying you called someone else a coward?
And you haven't the guts to respond to my repeated question?
Do you think it a good or bad thing that the holocaust never happened?

 

[tsig]

One thing about you offends me, not your idiocy. That's par for the course. But you claim to be Irish. You're LYING.

Now, you tell me, how would you characterize the persons at the Jewish Virtual Library who posted the picture above with the caption?

Truthful.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Saggy, what is your problem with answering a very simple question?
I haven't read all your posts in detail ,but is ME correct in saying you called someone else a coward?
And you haven't the guts to respond to my repeated question?
Do you think it a good or bad thing that the holocaust never happened?

Maybe it just needs to be asked a few more times and Saggy will suddenly notice the question. Let's try:

Saggy, do you think it a good or bad thing that the holocaust never happened?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Saggy, do you think it a good or bad thing that the holocaust never happened?

 

[Dogzilla]

Both these books are essential. You can't synopsize Butz, you gotta read it (except for the demographics stuff), both for the narrative, how and by whom the hoax was created in the US government, and the perspective, which is top down. The 'First Holocaust, Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns with Holocaust Claims During World War One', you just have to read the title and accept that it is documented with numerous reprints from the NYT. Both books are available free online. You should also read Mein Kampf, the first book, free online.[/QUOTES]

I know I should read Butz's book. I have probably skimmed parts of every chapter but I haven't been able to get through it cover to cover. I found The First Holocaust book as a PDF online and started reading it. I know that stories about six million Jews being murdered or about to be murdered had made it into the popular press more than once prior to WWII. Starting in 1943 we began to read about six million Jews being killed and in early 1945, we learned that six million had indeed been slaughtered--as if accurate body counts were possible in the chaos of the war.

Those look like interesting books but I still think that reading the traditional holocaust history books with an open mind is all you need. When you know what the historians really say about the holocaust the whole thing debunks itself.

First, you totally avoided the question. Where did the implausible 'facts' in the confessions come from? By chance the Auschwitz commandant confessed to killing 3 million (2.5?) Jews? Second, it was 1940, they were just creating absurd war time propaganda, they didn't expect it to stand the test of time.

Hoess didn't confess anything until 1946 after he was captured.

If you think the confessions contain implausible 'facts', consider the chimney to the hoax gas chamber at Auschwitz, build by the Soviets after the war. It's sitting right on the ground, connected to nothing.

I know that chimney! When I visited the Auschwitz camp, back before I had any inkling that the holocaust has some serious problems, I noticed the chimney and thought it was a little odd but I didn't ask our tour guide about it. I wish I had but I was completely blind to the truth back them. I even thought a display case full of human hair is evidence that Jews were gassed!

Or the shrunken heads the US supplied at Buchenwald. The hoax was crazy, but it didn't materialize out of the ether, the Jews, and the US, British, and Russian psych warfare units, created it.

See, we're using different definitions of a conspiracy. I know that the World Jewish Congress and the War Refugee Board and psych warfare units manufactured evidence for the war crimes trials. I know that this evidence is now used to prove the holocaust. I know that Jewish organizations are at the forefront of promoting this myth today. But I don't believe there is a group of Jews who know that the holocaust is a lie who are working together behind the scenes to deceive the world into believing in a lie.

Is AIPAC, the ADL, etc, part of a Jewish conspiracy. Well, duh. One difference is that there are Jews that pretend to oppose AIPAC, and ADL, etc., and maybe one or two that actually do as they see their efforts as counter-productive, but there are essentially no Jews (no more than 3) that oppose the holohoax, but its a Jewish conspiracy for sure.

If you want to call groups of Jews working towards a common goal a conspiracy, then yes, there is a conspiracy. You should really get to know more Jews. I don't know what you mean by saying that there are no more than three Jews who oppose the holocaust. Jews disagree with each other about the nature of the holocaust, the meaning of the holocaust, the importance of the holocaust in modern Jewish life, etc.

Let me ask you this: Do you think that most Jews know deep down in their hearts that nobody was ever gassed at Auschwitz and that Nazi Germany didn't intend to physically exterminate the Jews? Do you really think that most Jews know the truth about what happened to European Jewry during World War II but they are all part of a cover up?

 

[Wildy]

You can read German?

I honestly doubt that.

Are you a complete fool? You can quote as many Zionist flack, or journalists, or historians, or books, as you like. It's just nothing but crap.

So there is no evidence in the world that would convince you that you are wrong.

 

[Dogzilla]

Hey Saggy, what was the picture you posted? It was removed for violating a couple of rules. Don't post it again because the rules are the rules. Can it be found elsewhere?

 

[Dogzilla]

The plausibility of coercion decreases exponentially with every extra person who had to be coerced (or whatever is being claimed).

If you belonged to an organisation which was being accused of perpetrating mass murder in a variety of contexts, as the SS were in 1945, then you would try your damndest to present evidence to refute these accusations, if they were not true. You would not roll over and beg as the deniers seem to believe these SS officers and NCOs did in 1945. Given the fact that SS men generally fled west in order to avoid falling into Soviet hands, the accusation of coercion is being levelled at the British and Americans, who took the SS men prisoner.

Even if one hypothesises initial arm-twisting in 1945 taking place under Anglo-American captivity, then one would expect as more and more SS men were freed from internment or prison that there would have been a flood of recantations or these men would have offered some form of alibi evidence against what is a monstrous accusation. This was never forthcoming. The SS force involved in perpetrating the Holocaust has never denied it in any systematic fashion, and on the contrary has admitted it time and again, long after they need fear any further repercussions.

The moment when a rebuttal should have been forthcoming, if ever one was going to be forthcoming, was after 1949 (foundation of the Federal Republic) or after 1955 (restoration of renmaining sovereignty in West Germany). Excuse-making about NATO presence or continued US bases ignores the fact that West Germany has been a liberal democracy since its inception, and any monitoring of old SS men or their families would create a vast bureaucracy, itself at risk of producing whistle-blowers, and is simply implausible given the strength of right-wing sentiment in post-1949 West Germany.

I hate to admit it but you have a pretty compelling argument. The ease with which a negative is proven is so obvious that we never even covered the topic in debate class. So of course, anybody who wanted to prove the holocaust didn't happen could easily do so, if it had not happened.

All you need is evidence that something isn't. Germans would have welcomed anybody who could refute the holocaust if anybody could. The right wing sentiment and abhorrence for bureaucracy that made any sort of denazification program absolutely out of the question right after the war was still alive and well in 1949. The findings of the International Military Tribunal were binding on all subsequent war crimes trials in all four occupation zones and upon the Germans themselves when the took over the prosecutions themselves. But so what? This means that only in a war crimes trial were the crimes of the holocaust unchallengeable. Any SS man was free to come out of the closet and tell the world that nobody was holocausted, if nobody had been holocausted, as long as he didn't do it in court.

And, as you pointed out, after 1955, Germans enjoyed unfettered freedom of speech so saying that nobody was holocausted during the Nazi era would have been allowed, even encouraged except in a court.

And what could possibly be inhibiting former Nazis from telling what they knew? By 1955, Eichmann had already been captured and brought back to Israel for a heroes welcome. The Auschwitz Trials of 1964 had come and gone by 1955. The Treblinka trials of 1964 and 1970 were nothing more than pages in the history book by 1955 as well.

Any former SS man who wanted to refute the holocaust after 1955 could look no further than Wilhelm Staglich and Thies Christopherson to see how challenging the official narrative was a sure ticket to fame and fortune.

Remarkably, even living in the United States isn't a barrier to enjoying the benefits of holocaust refutation. Right now, at this very moment, in the year 2010, John Demjanjuk is reaping the benefits of having been lucky enough to have been a low level guard at Treblinka or maybe Sobibor or maybe somewhere else. And he's not even denying ANYTHING! Can you imagine how great life would be for him if he just came out and said that the holocaust is a pack of lies? He'd be sipping a Mai Tai on his private island and knocking it out with a different supermodel every night!

Instead he's.......I forget. Where is Demjanjuk right now?

No, you're right. If the holocaust were a lie, there would be a floodgate of old Nazis refuting it. Extending the statute of limitations on prosecution for war crimes indefinitely only guarantees the safety of anybody stepping forward. And since the German penal code guarantees freedom of speech as long as you don't say anything that would challenge the victim mentality of the German Jew or cause him to believe that he is not recognized as a victim by the non-Jew, anybody can deny the holocaust.

Thank you Nick Terry. Your arguments become more and more persuasive every day.

I think all this could be graphed to show the exponential decrease in probability of the impossibly vast conspiracy of silence over time - even if one conceded a hypothetical 90%+ chance in 1945, it has long sunk to next to zero probability.

You're right. The hoax is obviously a matter of spirit, of shared comprehension, of consonance and synchronization. It's not a conspiracy.

 

[Dogzilla]

This isn't a response to what I wrote, sorry Saggy.

Kaltenbrunner, in any case, admitted knowledge of extermination at Auschwitz, so he's useless for your silly conspiracy theory.

What I said earlier about your brilliant insights? What I meant was you haven't even heard of the holocaust, have you?

Maybe I'm not understanding your point here. When you say Kaltenbrunner admitted knowledge of extermination at Auschwitz, did you mean that he denied any knowledge of any extermination policy and said that it was impossible that he ordered anything remotely related to exterminating anybody? Because that's what he said.

 

[Dogzilla]

Prove it.

Tons of photographs, a two mile high stack of captured German documents, confessions by perpetrators and victims, shall I go on?

 

[Dogzilla]

and, doofus, Kaltenbrunner then testified he went to Himmler who confirmed it was true. That was his own testimony.

Do we believe him? No, we don't. He was already involved in organising deportations to Auschwitz immediately after his appointment as head of the RSHA. His HSSPF command received copies of the Einsatzgruppen reports, a fact that did not help Gauleiter Baldur von Schirach. Schirach, incidentally, later testified to learning about Chelmno from Gauleiter Greiser. Kaltenbrunner was delaying his 'initiation' for tactical, legal defense reasons.

He was also the only active-duty SS man on trial at IMT - other branches of the Nazi government had less need-to-know on the gruesome details than did the SS. Nonetheless, aside from Schirach, Frank had to admit knowledge, too. One would neither expect chapter and verse from ministers nor for their protestations of innocence to be entirely believable. They are a red herring to the point I was making, namely that SS officers and NCOs from top to bottom, admitted to participating in genocide.

You may comfort yourself with the thought that at IMT, it was 'only' Ogruf von dem Bach-Zelewski, Ogruf Pohl, Gruf Ohlendorf, Ostubaf Hoess, Hstuf Wisliceny and Stubaf Morgen who were brought to the witness stand to give evidence, while Ostubaf Mildner and Ostubaf Hoettl submitted affidavits.

Alas, IMT was not the only place where SS men were giving evidence, and nor was it the last such place.

In the 1960s, Jochen Peiper, war hero of the Leibstandarte, testified to witnessing a trial gassing in 1939 conducted in Fort VII of Poznan - he was then serving as Himmler's adjutant. (Cue predictable lies about the Malmedy investigation/trial from Saggy, who will ignore the 20 year time lag...)

There were 32 trials in the 1960s and 1970s involving the use of gas vans - hundreds of witnesses spoke of their use.

Whatever idiocy you claim in order to handwave away these statements, it will be (a) unsourced and unsupported by any actual evidence and (b) more and more implausible the more such SS witnesses we add to the pile, requiring an ever greater number of men in black to enforce the diabolical will of your fantasy hoaxters.

Yet by 1955, any SS man could have come out and denied the holocaust. Jesus Motherghuqing Christ. What color is the sky on your planet?

 

[Dogzilla]

What a shock ! Kaltenbrunner testified in English. Let's see the original German.

Saggy, Saggy, Saggy. Hoess wrote an entire statement in English! Why couldn't Kaltenbrunner testify in English?

 

[Dogzilla]

You quoted Richard Butler from his book. Bernard Clarke never said anything. Richard Butler, after Clarke's death wrote in a book that Bernard Clarke described how he and five other British soldiers tortured the former commandant " However, Richard Butler forgot that Hoess was photographed two days after this and forgot that other people were in the room with Bernard Clarke. Here is a direct quote from Private Ken Jones, of the fifth Royal Horse Artillery.....
We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance," said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out for exercise, he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Höss finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities

Here is a photo of Hoess during the three days of interrogation.
http://www.cwporter.com/SCAN 40/beeld-15.jpg

Here is a photo of Hoess at the IMT.
http://www.cwporter.com/hoess.jpg
Can you explain why there are no marks on his face if he was beaten around the head with axe-handles?

Because he wasn't beaten around the head with axe-handles? Read your quote. It doesn't say he was beaten with axe handles.

Holocaust Deniers don't read evidence and pretend that Hoess was simultaneously beaten with axe-handles and given figures by the British concerning the number of victims. That's because they don't read the IMT transcripts where the court queries the figures. Read this.

DR. KAUTFFMANN: Is it true that you, yourself, have made no exact notes regarding the figures of the number of those victims because you were forbidden to make them?
HOESS: Yes, that is correct.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Is it furthermore correct that exclusively one man by the name of Eichmann had notes about this, the man who had the task of organizing and assembling these people?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Is it furthermore true that Eichmann stated to you that in Auschwitz a total sum of more than 2 million Jews had been destroyed?
HOESS: Yes.

I can't speak for all deniers but I read the evidence. I don't misread it however. If it doesn't say he was beaten with axe-handles, I don't read the words to say he was.

What is the point of this text? That Hoess didn't know the numbers because he was forbidden to keep tracks?

Your strawman is showing. I never said he was beaten with axe handles. Nothing you provided says he was beaten with axe handles. I never said he was fed numbers by the British either.

Lets us look at German documents from the period concerning Treblinka.
1) Hofle Telegram "713,500 sent to Treblinka" by Dec 1942.
2) 1945 Polish Report into Treblinka "human tissue, ash found"
3) SS internal document "330,000mens overcoats" ( 800,000 people's clothing were shipped from Treblinka to Warsaw after their execution)
4) SS Internal document on gold from teeth ( 18 to 36kilos each month.)

You have previously stated that the Hofle Telegram does not mention "extermination" however you have missed the text in the telegram that states "for Operation Reinhard". Please read what Operation Reinhard is on this link. http://www.holocaust-history.org/operation-reinhard/

Like I said, no contemporary wartime document says extermination. Sorry but Aktion Reinhard means extermination only if you presume that. The Poles found evidence of human tissue at Treblinka? So? They didn't find any evidence (or they didn't document any evidence) of 700,000 bodies. Overcoats? How does that prove extermination? Teeth?????

Why do you think the Holfe Telegram states 1,274,166 people have arrived at the Operation Reinhard camps as at 30Dec42? Where do you think the 713,000 people sent to Treblinka went next?

I don't know where they went. One thing for certain is that if they were killed there, buried there, dug up there, and incinerated there, it would be impossible to completely erase the evidence. We could easily find that evidence today.

Yes there is hard evidence of the Nazis making soap from humans. ( Russian prisoners). However only a couple blocks were made and it was never intended to move towards industrial manufacture. Here is a photo
http://furtherglory.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/soap.jpg?w=527&h=288
You can see the IMT evidence number on the top of each container. Little Grey Rabbit, an Australian Holocaust denier states the evidence was faked by the Russians however Warsaw Agricultural University has re tested the soap recently and it is made from humans.

You would be correct in saying it was not made from Jews and it was never intended for industrial production and really is just a Nazi, Dr Spanner, making soap from humans as a low key general experiment. For this reason is is not really part of the holocaust.

1) The soap has not been "recently" tested. 2) If it's not part of the holocaust, why are we talking about it? 3) If it's not part of the holocaust, why are fat Jews allowed in the classroom to tell children about soap being made from the fat of murdered Jews in the holocaust?

The Soviets didn't wait for the Germans to hide the evidence as they were destroying Army Group Centre before the winter set in. The Germans ran out of time. Here is a photo of Treblinka as "liberated"
http://www.ovimagazine.com/images/treble01_400.jpg
Would you please please please quote holocaust denier, Richard Krege's report into Treblinka proving otherwise?

Sorry but Krege's report hasn't been published. It might not even exist. Can you please please please quote any holocaust scholar who has conducted any sort of test to prove that there were ever any giant burial pits at the camp? Can you please please please show me where you see evidence of 700,000 bodies in this photograph?

Do you really think you have given me anything that is evidence of the holocaust?