General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Belz...]

It mightn't matter to you but the obvious double standards and blatant hypocrisy displayed at Nuremberg disturb a lot of people. Accusing defendants of torture while some of them were tortured themselves. Accusing defendants of ethnic cleansing while at the same time ethnic cleansing of over 10 million Germans was going on in eastern Europe.

Ah, the "two wrongs make a right" school of thinking.

One standard for the Allies and one for the defendants. Nuremberg was a show trial.

You don't know what a show trial is if you think so.

You talk a lot of "evidence". What about the charges that were absurd?

Such as ? List them here.

 

[Nick Terry]

Speculation as you describe it is never valid in a logical sense, in that it never excludes the possibility of error. However, I agree with you that we have to loosen our requirements and let the evidence speak. When we focus on individuals, their deeds and thoughts, there is a greater place for deductive reasoning. A piece of paper with writing on it and certain information about provenance proves that Mr X had such and such a thought, for example. There have been considerable changes in my lifetime in the nature of narrative history. Formerly, a historian was expected to be a story teller, with a certain license to shock, but also with privileged access to witnesses as a member of a particular community (John Prebble, AJP Taylor to some extent). Now there is more of an approximation to science at least in presentation, but I think there are limitations to the ability to challenge an entrenched narrative.

The relations of the holocaust narrative to other disciplines ought also to be raised in relation to considering one thing in isolation from others. It is significant that two philosophers have noticed the difference between the holocaust narrative and other history. Berel Lang (from New York) in Act and Idea in the Nazi Genocide (Chicago, 1990) states that it introduces a new idea of evil into history. Emil Fackenheim has made similar observations and regards this as a challenge to moral philosophy. Both of these individuals accept the narrative, but see it something different to other historical narratives, where the agents have some understandable motive which they realise or make steps towards, etc.

I have noticed this myself in Richard Evans books on the Third Reich, where the Germans are described like zombies. One thing about the Nazis is that they were young and enthusiastic, but that never comes across. This is in contrast to Evans' book about the Irving trial, where the style is lively, even though he clearly dislikes Irving, for understandable reasons.

It is as though a concept of metaphysical evil is accepted as having explanatory force and this is something other than, or in addition to, empirical history backed up by a view of human action as aiming at some (apparent) good.

I think you are mixing up three issues here, the first concerns general historical methodology, the second is misreading Lang and Fackenheim and the third is a strawman of Holocaust/NS-historiography.

Regarding narrative and evidence, you might profit from reading Allan Megill's Historical Knowledge, Historical Error, which contains a number of very good essays on this subject. The issue of narrative has been a dominant concern in the philosophy of history since the 1960s or so, ever since the 'covering law model' school ran into a brick wall and fell out of favour with historians. Megill's collection has an essay asking whether narrative has a cognitive value, which it does in some senses and does not in other senses. Other philosophers of history have asked different questions; most famously, Hayden White, but also the likes of Frank Ankersmit, both from a more aestheticist perspective, whereas Arthur Danto placed narration squarely at the centre of his analytical philosophy of history.

Lang and Fackenheim are both philosophers, so are not necessarily especially trustworthy guides to the inner workings of history-writing. The idea that the Nazis/Holocaust pose a problem to moral philosophy is quite self-evident. the NS-era really ought to pose such a problem, without Godwinning the subject.

It's true that some historians slip into such rhetoric, especially in their introductions or conclusions. But this usually means they make a lot of rhetorical gestures to the supposed radical break, then use essentially conventional narrative forms to tell the story. This is something noted by Dan Stone in Constructing the Holocaust, which explored Holocaust historiography from the perspective of the philosophy of history, albeit not always very successfully.

There's been a massive amount of attention paid to Saul Friedlander's book The Years of Extermination by critics and historical theorists, not least because he adopted a rather 'modernist' style of narration, using a sparse presentation which preferred diaries over postwar testimonies and rarely intervened with an authorial voice at all. Years before, Friedlander wrote the introduction to the English translation of Gerald Fleming's Hitler and the Final Solution, and has obviously been influenced by that book, since Fleming also used a very elliptical form of presentation to considerable effect.

Evans' trilogy is a mixed bag; the middle volume is the best, with the final volume on the war something of a flat narrative and rather disappointing given his background in German social history.

Your point about the youth of the Nazis comes over loud and clear in the work of Goetz Aly, who also 'domesticates' some of the driving forces behind the Holocaust by pointing up the role of greed. Many other German historians have a good feel for the generational factors, eg Michael Wildt, and have a much more nuanced feel for motivation. This is probably especially the case for work written since reunification, since the past 20 years also coincides with the Nazis becoming a grandfather generation to today's writers, and that is something worked out over and over and over again in recent German historiography.

I think you are being exceedingly sloppy in talking at all about 'the holocaust narrative'. The connotation when this phrase is used by revisionists is that the narrative is fictional, and this easily tips over into implying that all narratives are fictional. Certainly one can argue that historical narratives are constructed and have an aesthetic component, but this then applies, literally, to all historical narratives, or so people like Hayden White and Frank Ankersmit argue. A history book will always be a 'historical representation' (Ankersmit) on some level. A political science book would also be a 'political representation'; indeed Ankersmit has worked on the role of representation in politics as well.

Hayden White focused on the 'emplotment' of historical narratives, which was in principle not entirely stupid, but then limited his appeal by identifying only four 'emplotments', which offended most historians who didn't especially like beign told that they could only write history-as-tragedy or history-as-farce. The concept of 'emplotment' was obviously borrowed from literary theory, in particular Northrop Frye's work. And on some level it could well be true that there are only so many types of 'story'.

Obviously, it does not say very much to identify the Holocaust as fitting into the emplotment of tragedy, since the same applies to Stalinism, the Khmer Rouge, Mao or indeed, to how Orlando Figes represented the Russian Revolution in A People's Tragedy.

How the mass murder of Jews has been narrated and told historically even today varies considerably. Many historians tell the stories of the Nazi occupation of specific countries and regions, and narrate the Holocaust in Reichskommissariat Ukraine (eg Karel Berkhoff), Belorussia (Christian Gerlach, Bernhard Chiari), or the Radom district (Robert Seidel) or occupied France (Richard Vinen, and many others) as one part of a larger story. This approach goes back all the way to the war years itself, when many books were written about countries under Nazi occupation, and they tended to bracket crimes against Jews with other crimes. Indeed, Raphael Lemkin in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe did this explicitly in his treatment of Nazi genocide. So, of course, did the Nuremberg trials, which were not narrowly Holocaust trials.

In recent years, the Holocaust has also been narrated as one part of a more complex story of Eastern Europe in the first half of the 20th Century, eg by Alexander Prusin in The Lands Between, and in particular by Timothy Snyder in Bloodlands, which has received an awful lot of discussion. This mode is quite different to the older school of writings on totalitarianism, but instead combines the narratives of Nazi and Soviet rule in Eastern Europe. It fits quite well with a wider trend to see WWI and WWII as wars that did not 'end' neatly, and to narrate beyond the cliched caesura dates. Chad Bryant in his book Prague in Black went from 1939 to 1948 and considered not only the Nazi occupation of the Czech lands, but also the postwar expulsions, having discussed the Holocaust in the context of Nazi occupation.

Obviously, the Holocaust has also been analysed in parallel to other cases of genocide in a variety of ways; some of these analyses use a loose narrative structure or identify phases to aid their comparisons about causation and outcomes, while others simply compare in series. A very good example of a parallel-analysis is Jacques Semelin, Purify and Destroy, by a French social scientist who compares the Armenian genocide, Holocaust and war in Bosnia, identifying a large number of similarities and differences in his study of 'massacre' as a political weapon. His treatment of motivation is quite nuanced. (Incidentally, other French academics like Michel Wieviorka have been trying to analyse evil sociologically.)

On the other hand, one finds that most scholarly studies of concentration camps avoid what might be regarded as a conventional narrative form, and tend to present an anatomy-style analysis which is often heavily influenced by sociological considerations. Thus, virtually every history of a KZ is broken up into chapters on the prisoners/inmate society, living conditions, resistance, executions, etc. It does not really matter whether the KZ did or did not have gas chambers, nor if they are written by Polish or German historians, they nearly all use this presentational mode. Some do use a narrative structure and often achieve greater results in clarity by doing so. But this could also be observed for many other subjects in contemporary history; not everyone aspires to be Orlando Figes or AJP Taylor, and many group or institutional studies seem to work better when using a more analytical structure.

The KZ field also has quite a few pure chronicles and many general studies often includes material of a chronicle-like nature, or then present mini-narratives on the different themes. There are also a growing number of biographies or group biographies of the camp SS (eg Dirk Riedel's bio of Hans Loritz, Karin Orth's study of all camp commandants, or the studies of women Aufseherinnen in various camps, or a study of the Sachsenhausen Kommandanturstab members) which then tend to use a biographical-prosopographical approach that emphasises narrative in the overall presentation.

If by 'holocaust narrative' you mean to imply there is a common interpretation, then this is obvious nonsense. The old division between intentionalists and functionalists refutes such a claim, and also undermines the claim that a concept of metaphysical evil is consistently at work. The entire field has revolved around a debate over the relative weight of ideological and materialist/pragmatic or institutional factors for at least the last 34 years. While the narrowly defined debate was over a long time ago, the variety of explanations and interpretations advanced is still considerable.

I would highlight as a good example of interpretative sophistication a book such as Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men, which is anything but metaphysical in the way it analyses the social psychology of perpetrators, and refuses to put the Nazis on a pedestal outside of time by comparing their actions with other crimes quite extensively. One comes away a little shaken by the inevitable question, 'what would I have done in their shoes', and realising that it's not so simple to reduce Nazi behaviour to the tautology that they behaved as they did because they were Nazis. This year is the 20th anniversary of the original publication of Ordinary Men, and it has had an absolutely enormous influence on not only this field, but the study of other eras, even being cited quite routinely in the recent historiography of the French wars of religion.

There is no such thing strictly as British law, but English and Scots law and the English rules of evidence were applied at the Manstein trial. The French criminal system is not adversarial but inquisitorial and so the comparison is less close. The English rules of evidence seem fairly developed as described by Paget and included considerations of duress as well as hearsay. He also describes interpretation of evidence as a significant aspect of the defence case. As a result, the verdict of the Manstein trial (guilty, but on greatly reduced charges) was significantly different to the earlier trials. So much so that it gave rise to the 'myth of the clean Wehrmacht' which the holocaust narrative has had to contend with ever since.

If you are going to compare IMT with the Manstein trial then you should also compare with the successor NMT Nuremberg trials run by the Americans. All of the trials, even in Poland, saw increasingly less harsh verdicts issued, not least because the really major war criminals tended to be tried first, but also because as the body of case law in the war crimes trials grew, there were many more precedents and examples to draw upon. Thus, the NMT trials produced relatively few death sentences, many more acquittals, than IMT. The trials could also be prepared at greater leisure, with for example German defense lawyers being flown to Washington, DC, to research in the captured German records.

Judge Musmanno, presiding over the Einsatzgruppen trial, came up with what was dubbed the 'Penguin Rule', which said that anything up to the sex life of penguins could be introduced by the defense if it aided their defense, and if the lawyers could make an argument that the sex life of penguins was relevant, then that could be included, too.

Manstein's sentence, as well as the subsequent reduction then early release, was really no different to the sentences given out at the High Command trial by American judges; indeed, Manstein's chief of staff Woehler was only given 8 years, essentially for the same offences committed by 11th Army, whereas Manstein got 18 years which were reduced to 12. The High Command trial took place only a year earlier, in late 1948.

Political lobbying from the newly established Federal Republic of Germany (especially regarding their willingness to rearm to help defend against the new Soviet threat) meant that the generals were all released early, with even the SS men not far behind.

I do not think, however, that the supposed absence of rules of evidence hurt the defendants at IMT. The Nuremberg charter incorporated what were the absolute key procedural issues necessary to guarantee the possibility of a defense against a charge, namely the right to a defense lawyer, and the ones they got were not idiots. The defense was given twice the court time of the prosecution, and fielded twice the number of witnesses.

Another significant aspect of the earlier trials was the failure of the defence to cross examine witnesses.

The claim that defense lawyers did not cross-examine witnesses is nonsense. You can see defense lawyers doing this all the time at IMT with the witnesses that mattered to their client's defense. In particular, other defense lawyers queued up at IMT to cross-examine other defendants and other defendants' witnesses to try and reinforce whatever demarcations they wanted to establish regarding lines of responsibility.

You can certainly find some un-cross-examined witnesses, for example the Treblinka survivor Samuel Rajzman was not cross-examined by any defense lawyer. But there was absolutely no point them doing so. Treblinka was a crimes that could only be laid at the feet, however indirectly, of a handful of defendants. Hans Frank, obviously. Ribbentrop, Kaltenbrunner, Goering, maybe Streicher had an indirect interest. For anyone else to have instructed their defense lawyer to start grilling Rajzman would have drawn attention to a possible connection between them and the crime of Treblinka. Rajzman's testimony was entirely irrelevant to defendants like Keitel, Jodl, Speer or Sauckel.

The record is quite clear that the defense lawyers all had the opportunity to cross-examine Rajzman, and chose not to, whereas they were quite happy to cross-examine prosecution witnesses like von Paulus, Ohlendorf, Wisliceny, von dem Bach-Zelewski, Franz Blaha and others, many of whom had equally damning testimony (especially from a 'revisionist' perspective) and admitted to the Final Solution, gassing and mass murder. Of course, the same applies to many defense witnesses, like Hoess...

Cross-examination is not a magical procedure of witness validation but a forensic tactic in the courtroom. It's often better not to cross-examine than to do so. One might add that the track record of bullying defense lawyers such as Hans Laternser or indeed, Douglas Christie, is shockingly poor. Badgering witnesses unnecessarily or aggressively tends to alienate judges and juries, and get clients convicted.

I have to advise you that I will have limited time to carry on this discussion in the immediate future, educational though it is

Same with me. But you keep making observations which relate to issues that I deal with day in day out in class and elsewhere, so you may continue to get large wodges of text in reply, as above...

 

[Robrob]

It mightn't matter to you but the obvious double standards and blatant hypocrisy displayed at Nuremberg disturb a lot of people. Accusing defendants of torture while some of them were tortured themselves. Accusing defendants of ethnic cleansing while at the same time ethnic cleansing of over 10 million Germans was going on in eastern Europe. One standard for the Allies and one for the defendants. Nuremberg was a show trial.

Pretending your above claims were true, it would matter how (in regards to the Germans having conducted the Holocaust)?

 

[Dcdrac]

The Allies did not set out to exterminate entire ethnic and reigious groups Mondial the Nazis did.

 

[Clayton Moore]

15 minutes of "Holocaust" truth.
They had money to buy cigarettes and other things in the cantina.
They got paid in coupons.
The camp had a library.
They played soccer games.

Holohoax Survivors who Tell the Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm8UmMuRSSw&bpctr=1350129085

 

[Clayton Moore]

Same with me. But you keep making observations which relate to issues that I deal with day in day out in class and elsewhere, so you may continue to get large wodges of text in reply, as above...

Have you explained to your students how soccer games were played by the Jewish inmates just yards away from "gas chambers" where Jewish children, Jewish women, and Jewish men were screaming with fear and agony?

 

[Nick Terry]

Have you explained to your students how soccer games were played by the Jewish inmates just yards away from "gas chambers" where Jewish children, Jewish women, and Jewish men were screaming with fear and agony?

seeing as how the soccer match is testified to by the same Sonderkommandos who testify to gassings and gas chambers, what is your point?

 

[Nick Terry]

Have you explained to your students how soccer games were played by the Jewish inmates just yards away from "gas chambers" where Jewish children, Jewish women, and Jewish men were screaming with fear and agony?

one thing I have explained to my students week in week out for 4 weeks now is the importance of citing a source. Got one?

The next thing is the importance of reading a source properly. Got any proof that the soccer match was claimed as taking place simultaneously to a gassing?

Clayton, feel free to find a 500 word extract of any primary source you like, and write 1000 words on the source analysing the source (for content, provenance, language, meaning, context, corroboration). Then I'll grade you.

That's what students have to do on history special subject courses no matter what the topic. Can you manage it?

 

[Belz...]

Holohoax Survivors who Tell the Truth

I find it odd that they only tell the truth when you agree with them.

 

[000063]

Clay, I think you should not be addressing only the last line, which is minutae, instead of the actual factual/logical assertions which make up the bulk of the post. Why are you avoiding the in-depth discussion Doc Terry presented?

 

[Tommy1234]

Let's first go over the initial comment on both 000063's and TSR's responses to me, simultaneously, then I'll address each of my opponents individually.

I thought this was common knowledge, TSR:
"Four of the largest five entertainment giants are now run or owned by Jews. Murdoch's News Corp (at number four) is the only gentile holdout -- however Rupert is as pro-Israel as any Jew, probably more so." - Los Angeles Jewish Times, 'Yes, Virginia, Jews Do Control the Media,' Oct. 29-Nov. 11, 1999, p. 14.

"Time-Warner, Disney, Viacom-CBS, News Corporation and Universal rule the entertainment world in a way that the old Hollywood studio chiefs only dreamed of. And, after all the deals and buyouts, four of the five are run by Jews. We're back to where we started, bigger than ever." - Jewish Week, 9-17-1999, 12.

...
Wow. A 13 year old pair of articles. I have a niece and nephew who can walk, talk, and cross the street who were born after those were published. Who runs them now? And why are you conflating the studios with the media? Even in 1999, the Internet was a significant presence. How does owning media companies mean they necessarily have control over the news? Do these companies own all academic publishing houses and universities as well? What about all the years where those companies weren't owned by Jews?

These questions are all rhetorical, BTW.

I thought this was common knowledge, TSR:

Your "thoughts" don't count here. What can you *prove*? For example:

"Four of the largest five entertainment giants are now run or owned by Jews. Murdoch's News Corp (at number four) is the only gentile holdout -- however Rupert is as pro-Israel as any Jew, probably more so." - Los Angeles Jewish Times, 'Yes, Virginia, Jews Do Control the Media,' Oct. 29-Nov. 11, 1999, p. 14.

Only hit on this exact quote, antisemetic sites such as David Duke dot com.

Care to try again?

"Time-Warner, Disney, Viacom-CBS, News Corporation and Universal rule the entertainment world in a way that the old Hollywood studio chiefs only dreamed of. And, after all the deals and buyouts, four of the five are run by Jews. We're back to where we started, bigger than ever." - Jewish Week, 9-17-1999, 12.
Ditto, ditto.

Five companies -- five *publicly held companies, which anyone can buy a share and therefore some control of* do not "rule the entertainment world," no matter what you read on Prison Planet.

We went over this back in the day -- is it really still your "A" game?

Where do we begin?

Start with Neal Gabler's 1988 book, "An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood". It pretty much irrefutably demonstrates the absolute Jewish monopoly on the American image-factory that dominated the first half of the 20th century.

Take it from acclaimed actor Marlon Brando in 1996, who was among those most familiar with the industry: "Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews."

What kind of impact can Hollywood have on the minds of the masses? Consider Steven Spielberg, who not only produced such wonderfully anti-German films such as the Indiana Jones series (depicting Germans as sadistically evil and striving for unholy world domination) or Schindler's List, which is an obvious propagation of the 'Holocaust' storyline.

Spielberg didn't stop there. His Academy-Award Winning film "The Last Days" is a documentary featuring several Holocaust 'survivors' who tell their tragic tale of Nazi 'gassings', 'evil doctor' experimentation and more. This film is so chock-full of absolute, horrendous nonsense that I'd be doing all of you a disservice by spoiling the hilariously pathetic lies that are debunked beyond belief in Eric Hunt's documentary "The Last Days of the Big Lie", available for free viewing and download on the HolocaustHandbooks website. I highly recommend it for "movie night". You won't be disappointed.

The media, including the major news networks, and virtually every other key American institution are absolutely dominated to an overwhelming disproportion by Holocaust-loving Jewish influences but, you know what? Don't take it from me. Take it from the peer-reviewed European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.28 No.1 (2012), pp. 35-41:

Proof of Jewish Media Domination
Today, seven Jewish Americans run the vast majority of US television networks, the printed press, the Hollywood movie industry, the book publishing industry, and the recording industry. Most of these industries are bundled into huge media conglomerates run by the following seven individuals:

- Gerald Levin, CEO and Director of AOL Time Warner
- Michael Eisner, Chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney Company
- Edgar Bronfman, Sr., Chairman of Seagram Company Ltd
- Edgar Bronfman, Jr, President and CEO of Seagram Company Ltd and head of Universal.
- Sumner Redstone, Chairman and CEO of Viacom, Inc.
- Dennis Dammerman, Vice Chairman of General Electric
- Peter Chernin, President and Co-COO of News Corporation Limited

Those seven Jewish men collectively control ABC, NBC, CBS, the Turner Broadcasting System, CNN, MTV, Universal Studios, MCA Records, Geffen Records, DGC Records, GRP Records, Rising Tide Records, Curb/Universal Records, and Interscope Records.
Most of the larger independent newspapers are owned by Jewish interests as well. An example is media mogul is Samuel I. "Si" Newhouse, who owns two dozen daily newspapers from Staten Island to Oregon, plus the Sunday supplement Parade; the Conde Nast collection of magazines, including Vogue, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Allure, GQ, and Self; the publishing firms of Random House, Knopf, Crown, and Ballantine, among other imprints; and cable franchises with over one million subscribers." I could add that Michael Eisner could depart Disney tomorrow but the company will remain in the hands of Shamrock Holdings, whose principal office is now located in Israel.

Television Networks
CBS
- Sumner Redstone - chairman of board and CEO of CBS and Viacom, "world's biggest media giant" (Economist, 11-23-02). Viacom owns Viacom Cable, CBS, and MTV all over the world, Blockbuster Video Rentals, and Black Entertainment TV
- Mel Karmazin - CBS corporation president and CEO
- Leslie Moonves (great-nephew of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion) - president of CBS Television
- David Poltrack - executive vice-president, Research and Planning
- Jeff Fager - executive director of “60 Minutes II.”

NBC
- Jeff Zucker - president of NBC Entertainment
- Neil Shapiro - president of NBC News
- Jeff Gaspin - executive vice-president, programming NBC
- Max Mutchnik and David Kohan - co-exec. producers of NBC’s “Good Morning, Miami”
- Lloyd Braun - chair of NBC Entertainment.

ABC
- Michael Eisner - major owner of Walt Disney, Capital Cities, and ABC
- David Westin - president of ABC News.

FOX
- Rupert Murdoch (Jewish mother, hence legally Jewish) - owner of FOX TV, New York Post, London Times, and News of the World
- Sandy Grushow - chair, FOX Entertainment
- Peter Chernin - second in command at Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., owner of FOX TV
- Gail Berman - president of FOX Entertainment.

CNN
- CEO Jonathon Klein
- Wolf Blitzer - host of CNN’s Late Edition.


Hollywood Movie Studios
- Sony Corporation of America: Howard Stringer - chief
- Columbia Pictures: Amy Pascal - chair
- Warner Bros.: Barry Meyer - chair; Jordan Levin - pres. of Warner Bros. Entertainment.
- Miramax Films: Harvey Weinstein - CEO
- Paramount: Sherry Lansing - president of Paramount Communications and chair of Paramount Pictures’ Motion Picture Group.
- DreamWorks: Stephen Spielberg, David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg (owners)
- MTV Entertainment: Brian Graden - president
- Turner Entertainment: Brad Siegal - president
- Clear Channel Communications: Robert Sillerman - founder
- PBS: Ben Wattenberg - moderator, PBS ThinkTank

Newspapers
- Samuel Newhouse Jr. and Donald Newhouse own Newhouse Publications, which includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities. The Conde Nast Magazine Group includes the New Yorker, Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplements, American City Business Journal, business newspapers published in more than 30 major cities in America, and interests in cable television programming and cable systems serving one million homes.
- Wall Street Journal: Peter R. Kahn, CEO
- New York Times, Boston Globe, and other publications: published by Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.
- New York Daily News: Mortimer Zuckerman, owner Village Voice, New Times and network of alternative weeklies: Owned by David Schneiderman
- Washington Post: Donald Graham, chair and CEO, son of Katharine Graham Meyer, former owner of Washington Post
- San Francisco Chronicle: Ron Rosenthal, managing editor; Phil Bronstein, exec. editor
- AOL-Time Warner Book Group: Laurence Kirshbaum, editor

Magazines
- US News & World Report: Mortimer Zuckerman, owner and chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish-American Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups
- New Republic: Marty Peretz, owner and publisher (NR openly identifies itself as pro-Israel.)
- Barron’s: Peter R. Kahn, CEO
- National Review: Michael Ledeen, editor
- Business Week: Bruce Nussbaum, editorial page editor
- Newsweek: Donald Graham, chair and CEO, and Howard Fineman, chief political columnist
- Weekly Standard: William Kristol, editor, also executive director, Project for a New American Century, (PNAC)
- The New Yorker: David Reznik, editor; Nicholas Lehman, writer; Henrick Hertzberg, “Talk of the Town” editor

"Four of the largest five entertainment giants are now run or owned by Jews. Murdoch's News
Corp (at number four) is the only gentile holdout -- however Rupert is as pro-Israel as any Jew,
probably more so."

Jewish American Journalists
Journalsits are playing major role for moulding opinion of the people and for this domination of media
the Jewish media owners are working and pay lot of money all over the world. Here is the list of jewish
journalists who are trying their best for West domination Specialy USA.

- Carl Bernstein — Washington Post.
- David Brooks — New York Times
- Aaron Brown — CNN's Newsnight with Aaron Brown, ABC's World News Now, and ABC's World News Tonight Saturday
- Matt Drudge — The Drudge Report.
- Giselle Fernández — Access Hollywood.
- Thomas Friedman — New York Times.
- Bernard Goldberg — CBS News.
- Jeffrey Goldberg The New Yorker.
- Seymour Hersh — investigative journalist.
- Paul Krugman — New York Times.
- Dave Marash — Washington-based anchor of Al-Jazeera's English language 24 hour news
channel..
- Frank Rich — New York Times.
- Geraldo Rivera — Fox News.
- Steven V. Roberts — U.S. News and World Report. William Safire — The New York Times.
- Daniel Schorr — National Public Radio.
- Joel Siegel — film critic.
- Gloria Steinem — feminist editor and writer, founder of Ms. magazine.
- I. F. Stone — NY Post, PM, The Nation and I.F. Stone's Weekly.
- Mike Wallace — 60 Minutes.
- Barbara Walters — media personality, a regular fixture on morning television shows (Today
and The View), evening news magazines (20/20), and on The ABC Evening News, as the first female
evening news anchor.
- Gideon Yago — MTV reporter.

[...]

If we took a glance we conclude that the global media market is dominated by west, most of which are based in the United States.

It is undeniable that the Jewish influence in Western culture is supreme. They certainly have the means. Take it from old-school "twoofer" Malcolm X:

"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses."

... The only forensic report submitted into Nuremberg isn't related to the 'Holocaust'? ...

Related, yes. Part of it, no.

It was the murder of Poles by Soviets. Russia proceeded to lie about it until 1990. It was an open secret in the West, but they had to hide it for political purposes. And those charges of a massacre were dismissed, in the end, which is entirely inconsistent with a conspiracy to pin everything on the Nazis.

In fact, it's also inconsistent with the idea that They would be able to conceal the evidence for seventy years.

So, because one instance of fraudulent Nazi-atrocity claims proving elaborate, politically-motivated conspiracy against Germany by the Soviets post-war was recognized as legitimate but not "accepted" by the Tribunal, even though the equally-accredited 'gas chambers' were, this means that the Soviets were somehow still a credible source of documentary and testimonial evidence?

It is more than obvious that certain affiliations were more than willing to flat-out lie for their anti-German agenda.

... Revenge-seeking, political motives are more than plausible. ...

That's funny. I thought you said they were "highly apparent".

It would be extremely difficult to find even a single impartial judge in Europe or North America.

"More than plausible" includes "highly apparent".

How does it being "extremely difficult to find even a single impartial judge" support the notion that justice was served? Who appointed these judges?

You claim there are traces of deadly gas "only in" those chambers used for 'gassing'. This is the most absurd statement yet. Where did you get your information? From what can be shown with forensic evidence, there were copious amounts of iron-cyanide in every delousing chamber and extremely low, non-incriminating quantities in all alleged 'gas chambers'.

Forensic evidence you do not produce. Have your quotes abandoned you? Is iron-cyanide the only deadly gas in existence?

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Do some homework, then come ask me a serious question.

Rooms full of personal effects? It is well-documented that standard hygienic procedures were enforced at all camps (delousing chambers are a noteworthy example). Disease was rampant nearing the end of the war and clothing may have been isolated from inmates for sanitation and fumigation purposes. Most Jews that had prepared for deportation would have been likely to bring several items of clothing when possible. "Personal effects" prove nothing in this context.

I'm noticing a complete lack of sources here.

I've made informed speculation. I'm noticing a lack of argument on your part. Should we simply assume this is evidence of 'gassing'?

Have any of these alleged 'bullet sites' produced the requisite mass graves to show evidence of German atrocities?...

Requisite under whose standards? Because mass graves have been found. We also have eyewitness testimony and records.

Oh, believe me, I've heard all about your testimony and records. 'Mass graves' to fit the Nazi 'extermination' claims have not been found. The standard that Revisionists have set is that of a critical and informed mind. If your preferred standard is that of major social institutions, then, by that standard, any evidence supporting "Holocaust denial" is automatically dismissed. If I had a prerequisite faith in such standards, we wouldn't be having this debate.

- Missing pages, questionable origin.
- SS General Gottlob Berger, former head of the SS administrative department, Himmler's personal liaison with Rosenberg's Ministry for the Occupied East, and chief of POW affairs toward the end of the war was present during the Posen speech. He testified in direct examination that not only did he know nothing of an extermination plan, but that the so-called "transcript" of Himmler's speech was missing key elements that he had remembered specifically.

Argument from ignorance, not evidence of alteration.

An appeal to ignorance is required to believe in this document, not to dispute it's alleged implications.

- YIVO, Yiddish Research Institute, was very active in the Rosenberg Ministry to process documents for submittal to Nuremberg.

Poisoning the well.

The well has poisoned itself. I can cite more quotes from deliberate 'Holocaust' liars, if you'd like.

- A lack of orders and physical evidence to support the required assumptions.

I do find it interesting how you like to use testimony right up until it doesn't support you, then you switch to evidence and physical records.

I'd much rather stick to forensic evidence but Believers tend to address what has been claimed far more than what can be proven.

... I haven't read "Other Losses" and I've only briefly reviewed Bacque's arguments but I find it hard to believe it is any less substantiated than the magical 'Holocaust'. ...

So you know almost nothing about them, yet you are sure they are wrong. That's confirmation bias.

Finding it "hard to believe" is a bit different than being "sure". The 'Holocaust' is one of the most developed delusions of all time. I don't think Bacque could beat it if he tried.

Maybe "babies used as targets for machine gunners" and 'evil doctor schemes' are more believable when you're accustomed to getting on your knees for a magical-man-in-the-sky.

You're on a skeptic forum. Most people here are atheist.

Not the one I was addressing.

There are fringe members of any group.

You don't actually say he's wrong or a "fringe member", I note.

I haven't taken enough of an interest in Irving to have an informed opinion on him. Since his behavior following the embarassing defeat at the Lipstadt trial, from what I gather, he's fallen overboard to most Revisionists.

That's a good point, though, TSR. I wonder how many exterminationalists believe in 6 million versus 4 or 5 million Jewish deaths. For that matter, how many believe in 'gas chambers' at Mauthausen or Ilse Koch's "skin lampshades"?

Very few with any real historical knowledge whatsoever. Also, Tu quoque. Also, would 4 mil be significantly better?

In the academic world, the suppression of Revisionism is handled by an all-out ban of these views. With the general population, this task is achieved by mass propaganda. Nonsensical claims such as "skin lampshades" are still propagated en masse as recently as late 2010 in both "New York Magazine" and Britain's daily, "The Sun", which feature references to the recently published book: "The Lampshade: A Holocaust Detective Story from Buchenwald to New Orleans".

It's not "tu quoque" if I'm citing an apparent lack of consistency of 'incriminating' aspects of Holocaust historical record as portrayed by mainstream historians, SS confessions and other highly-acclaimed voices, since many of these voices, themselves, are regarded as evidence to the assertions made. Most importantly, such inconsistency demonstrates the long-standing inadequacy of the world-renowned "6 million" claim. Dr. Robert Faurisson, in an article entitled "Auschwitz: The Dwindling Death Toll", presents the steep variation of Auschwitz numbers given by authoritative figures over the years:

Number of Victims - Source

9,000,000 - persons according to the documentary film Nuit et Brouillard (Night and Fog, title used in the English-speaking world) (1955), whose historical advisers were the historian Henri Michel and the woman historian Olga Wormser-Migot[11]

8,000,000 - persons according to the French War Crime Research Office and the French War Crime Information Service) (1945)[12]

7,000,000 - persons according to Raphaël Feigelson (1945)[13]

6,000,000 - Jews according to Tibère Kremer, writer of a foreword for Miklos Nyiszli (1951)[14]

5,000,000 to 5,500,000 - persons according to Bernard Czardybon (1945), according to confessions attributed to some SS members and according to the newspaper Le Monde (1978), which was adding: "of whom 90% of Jews".[15]

4,500,000 - persons according to Henryk Mandelbaum (1945)[16]

4,000,000 - persons according to a Soviet document of which the Nuremberg tribunal took "judicial notice". This figure was inscribed nineteen times, with a commentary in as many different languages, on the Auschwitz-Birkenau monument. It was repeated by a sizable number of persons, including the Polish historian Franciszek Piper. It was to be declared false in 1990 and replaced, on the monument, in 1995, by the figure of 1,500,000 with the concurrence of the same F. Piper for whom this figure is a maximum while the minimum figure is of 1,100,000. According to Miriam Novitch (1967), of the 4,000,000 dead, 2,700,000 were Jewish. According to Rabbi Moshe Weiss (1991), more than 4,000,000 persons died at Auchwitz, of whom 3,000,000 were Jews.[17]

3,500,000 - persons according to the Dictionnaire de la langue française, published by Hachette (1991). According to Claude Lanzmann (1980), there were 3,500,000 gassed of whom 95% of Jews as well as many other deaths[18]

3,000,000 - persons until December 1st, 1943, according to a confession extorted from Rudolf Höß, ex-Commander of Auschwitz[19]

3,000,000 - Jews gassed according to David Susskind (1986) and according to Heritage, the most inmportant Californian Jewish weekly (1993)[20]

2,500,000 - persons according to Rudolf Vrba for the Eichmann trial (1961)[21]

2,000,000 (?) to 4,000,000 (?) - according to the historian Yehuda Bauer (1982)[22]

2,000,000 to 3,000,000 - Jews killed as well as thousands of non-Jews according to a confession attributed to an SS in charge, Pery Broad[23]

2,000,000 to 2,500,000 - persons killed according to a confession attributed to an SS physician, Dr. Friedrich Entress (1945)[24]

2,000,000 - persons according to the historian Léon Poliakov (1951); according to the historian Georges Wellers (1973) and according to the woman historian Lucy Davidowicz (1975)[25]

1,600,000 - persons according to the historian Yehuda Bauer (1989), of whom 1,352,980 Jews[26] (the latter figure is from Georges Wellers, 1983).

1,500,000 - persons this figure, chosen by Lech Walesa, replaced, in 1995, on the Birkenau monument, that of 4,000,000 which had been withdrawn in 1990[27]

1,471,595 - persons of whom 1,352,980 Jews, according to the historian Georges Wellers (1983)[28]

1,250,000 - persons or so, of whom 1,000,000 Jews killed and more than 250,000 non-Jews dead, according to the historian Raul Hilberg.[29]

1,100,000 to 1,500,000 - persons according to the historians Yisrael Gutman, Michael Berenbaum and Franciszek Piper (1994).[30]

1,000,000 - persons according to Jean-Claude Pressac (1989) and according to the Dictionnaire des noms propres, published by Hachette (1992).[31]

800,000 to 900,000 - persons according to the historian Gerald Reitlinger (1953).[32]

775,000 to 800,000 - persons according to Jean-Claude Pressac (1993), of whom 630,000 were gassed Jews.[33]

630,000 to 710,000 - persons according to Jean-Claude Pressac (1994), of whom from 470,000 to 550,000 were gassed Jews.[34]

510,000 - persons according to Fritjof Meyer (2002), of whom 356.000 were gassed Jews.[35]

Dr. Faurisson isn't allowed to present this argument nor others without being persecuted throughout Europe.

You've got me. I haven't even heard a clear definition of what Mr. Terry believes the "Holocaust" was.

In other words, you can't even get Doc Terry's claims right.

Mr. Terry supports highly conjectural testimony and documentation while dismissing testimony and documentation that suggests a more realistic narrative. This includes, but is not limited to, forensic evidence that shows these 'gas chambers' (murder weapon) could not have been used for their alleged purpose.

I'm sure the message would have gotten out somehow, considering there were at least 500 recorded escapees from Auschwitz.

From a prison camp with hundreds of thousands of people, yes.

Did any of these people tell the neighborhood and world press about the 'gassings' they'd witnessed, directly or indirectly? If so, how did such rumors compliment the 'gassing' process for new arrivals?

This isn't the only evidence supporting that these rumors were floating throughout the camps and is at odds with the fact that near-absolute cooperation would have been required from victims as they enter the so-called 'chamber'.

No, it wouldn't. You can force people in there with guns. You can psychologically demoralize them. You can starve them so they can't resist. The only people claiming "near-absolute cooperation" as necessary are revisionist. You don't have any actual evidence, just "anomalies".

The alleged process was dependent on these Jews being unaware of their fate. According to all available testimony, there was only a handful of SS present during the entire 'gassing' process, which means cooperation was the rule rather than the exception. If there had been any amount of 'gassing' rumor circulating, it is not believable that a room with no soap dispensers nor drain that was gradually filling with two-thousand people standing alongside their family members and children, would not have led to an immense panic each and every time. Then we are supposed to believe these people were contained in what they now knew to be a 'gas chamber' behind a relatively tiny *wooden* gas-tight door and simply sat calmly, accepting their fate, rather than panicking and forcing their way toward the exit, pressing thousands of pounds of pressure against the single small-frame wooden door (which would have probably been destroyed), as with any other panicked crowd in a sealed room with a single exit. The flimsy, alleged 'Zyklon-B columns' would have also required repairs, if not total replacement after each 'gassing'. There is no record nor testimony that addresses these factors.

... "The people were herded in so tightly that there was no possibility even to put in one more. It was a great amusement for the SS to throw in children above the heads of those who were packed tightly into these rooms." - Dr. Charles Bendel

Considering that they packed in people like sardines on the trains to Auschwitz without any noteworthy resistance, your point?

Being forced onto a train as a prisoner which fits the expressed intent of the Nazi party is vastly different than having your greatest fears confirmed as you are backed into a known 'death chamber'.

Regarding the total number of 'gassed' at Auschwitz-Birkeneau, Dr. Bendel, whom you've just defended, makes the assertion:

During the month of June the number of gassed was 25,000 every day.

Care to sustain that?

These camps were predominantly Jewish; most 'eyewitnesses' were Jewish. On account of the extremely harsh conditions at these camps, I think it's also safe to assume many of them were very angry at Germany. ...

So they had reasons to want the Nazis punished. If the events actually happened, they could do that very efficiently by, y'know, telling the truth.

That's a very big "if", considering the 'Holocaust' depends almost entirely on this testimony with as many holes as you would expect from such an obvious lie.

Each of these prisoners could have individually told unique lies to get even with specific Germans they disliked --or-- they could attempt a collective, massive lie to persecute all of Germany in a similar way to how all of "Jewry" had been treated. "Eye for an eye", no doubt. These prisoners had plenty of time to interact and discuss ideas of exactly what they would like to do to the Germans with the means available to them and many had enough connections to lobby and organize the subsequent accusations that followed the war.

Foreign governments who contributed documentary 'evidence' had ample motive and means to fabricate documents which would ultimately become the "smoking gun" for "6 million" deaths. No forensic evidence? I'd love to see that episode of CSI. Moreover, these opposing governments have a noted history of conspiracy pertaining to war including Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin incident in the United States and, once again, the fraudulent Katyn Report submitted by the Soviets as "evidence" to this same trial where their other documentation is now weighed so heavily.

At least, did most of the judges, witnesses and trial staff consist of primarily neutral parties? We all know how this story ends.

Now, how many mass graves from other genocides have be excavated to your personal asatisfaction?

How many mass graves from other 'genocides' do we know the alleged exact locations of?

Quite a few, actually. But that's a sidetrack, seeing as you never actually answered TSR's question.

Take a good look at the ongoing excavations of the mass graves found at Srebrenica, where not only have they unearthed more than 7,000 of the 8,100 missing persons but have DNA tested all of them and were able to identify 6,838 individuals as of July 2012 using nothing but *bone samples*. These excavations are being conducted by the International Commission on Missing Persons, ICMP, an agreeably neutral organization with member states including: "Canada, Czech Republic, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, The Holy See, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, The United Kingdom, The United States of America and The European Union".

Now take a look at 'Holocaust' excavations. Try not to laugh.

Which 'Holocaust' mass graves have been excavated? Can you draw out the *exact* location? Is there actual evidence of 'extermination', or just cremated remains?

Would you care to make a point, or are you going to continue to argue by loaded question and quote?

The point is, there are no 'mass graves' with any evidence of innocent Jews having been systematically slaughtered by the evil Nazis. All it would take is a short trip to Treblinka, where approximately 870,000 bodies ('enough to fill ten Wembley Stadiums') are alleged to have been 'gassed', then buried there, then dug up, then cremated, then buried again. Just think about that for a moment. Let it simmer.

Here are the basics:

- Treblinka received 5,000 death-sentenced Jewish inmates per day, in addition to the regular 700-1,000 Jews who conducted the physical labor of 'extermination'.
- These more than 6,000 Jews on any given day were up against "20-35 Germans" and "90 to 130 Ukrainians".
- This vast outnumbering has been justified with claims that this camp was specially-designed with a 'surprise extermination' pathway for all new-arrivals.
- In all, the Nazis 'gassed' and buried close to one million bodies.
- Heinrich Himmler decided the Nazis needed to cover-up the evidence.
- Himmler ordered the digging up of these 870,000 bodies, followed by open-air cremation, then crushing the remnants, then re-burying.
- This leaves roughly 8 million pounds (3.6 million kg) of evidently crushed human remains after cremation, making such an astronomically daunting "cover-up" essentially futile and an utter failure.
- There is no record of a possible fuel source for such a massive cremation.
- A 'surprise extermination' design is impossible to prove since the camp was conveniently destroyed without a trace.

Well...no, Jesus Christ hasn't.

[From Wikipedia:]

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[11][12][13][14][15][16] Most scholars hold that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.[8][17][14] Scholars have offered competing descriptions and portraits of Jesus, which at times share a number of overlapping attributes, such as a rabbi, a charismatic healer, the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a sage and philosopher, or a social reformer who preached of the "Kingdom of God" as a means for personal and egalitarian social transformation.[18][19][20][21] Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life.[3][5][22][23]

Note how that's not the same as believing the guy from Galilee was the Messiah. Also note how there are differing interpretations of particular facts. Almost as if they're researching independently or something.

Like the 'Holocaust' and any other religion, the most extravagant claims rely exclusively on hearsay, coincidence and downright lies. There is not a single contemporary writing that even mentions Jesus. The four canonical gospels of the Bible account for the primary source of information pertaining to Jesus, yet no one knows who wrote them. They are only attributed to Jesus and no original manuscripts exist. Instead, we have copies of copies of copies. If this is your standard for documentary evidence, I can fully understand why you follow 'Holocaustianity'.

My assertion that there is no sustaining evidence to support an 'extermination plan' has already been proven. I don't need to prove 'the Holocaust' as-alleged didn't happen, only that you have no sustaining evidence to show it did.

Wow. Incorrect. Very incorrect.

Since when did the first assertion not require the first proof? Are Revisionists supposed to disprove every fanatical claim made by Believers? We're back into circular logic:

Is the Holocaust proven?-->
Yes, the historical record says so-->
How do we know the record is empirically accurate?-->
Because the Holocaust happened.^

Is God real?-->
Yes, the Bible says so.-->
How do we know the Bible is true?-->
Because God said so.^

I'd like to know of which of these "pretty much every single country in the West" you believe doesn't have a disproportionate Jewish influence in the propaganda industry.

Poisoning the well. "Oh, they're owned by Jews! That means the Jews must be controlling them!" You've only provided evidence that most of the five main media companies in America were owned - not run - by Jews in 1999. Nothing about Canada, or Europe. I'd really like to see evidence of orders down the line not to report any of the "truth" about the Holocaust, which not one of the millions of people those companies employ running to the holocaust deniers.

Jews have run American media since there has been an American media. I'd challenge you to show me one time period in which there wasn't a vastly disproportionate Jewish dominance in this industry. Not only are CEOs the most influential people in any of these companies, but the subordinate positions are similarly overwhelmed with Jewish representation:

"In addition to the corporate chieftains, a huge number of Jewish people participate in the entertainment industry. [...] the group’s influence, connections and power produce a vast ripple effect, and other Jewish actors, writers, editors, technicians, directors, and producers follow in their footsteps."
- Steven Silbiger, The Jewish Phenomenon: Seven Keys to the Enduring Wealth of a People (Atlanta: Longstreet Press, 2000), 108.

While most of the civilized world is greatly influenced by American media, such as Zionist Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation that includes more than 800 media companies in 50 different countries, European-based companies are no exception to the worldwide standard for mass Judeo-influence. I'll cite a few examples:

- In 1992, reporter Mark Honigsbaum of the London Evening Standard, for the 'London Life' feature on 21 January, 1992, ran an article on the tightly-woven Jewish clique controlling British media. The sub-headline refers to David Elstein, Michael Green, Charles Saatchi, Alan Yentob and Michael Grade: "David was at school with Michael who plays snooker with Charles who knows Alan who is a friend of Michael. Together these five men form a powerful group who have a massive influence on what you will be watching on television today."

- All3Media, Britain's largest independent television production company in the country, is run by CEO and Jewish co-founder Steve Morrison.

- Haim Saban owns the largest television broadcaster in Germany, ProSiebenSat.1, which puts him in control of the rough equivalent of CBS, ABC, TBS and Nickelodeon. According to Saban: "That level of ownership would never be allowed in the U.S. [...] It would be too much concentration.". Saban makes his intentions clear: "I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel".

Remember, folks: 1.8% in the United States, roughly 0.5% worldwide. Just ponder on it.

Judeo-supremacy has us 'by the balls'.

I'd also like to know which university you believe would allow me to host open debate on the 'Holocaust'.

TSR said "universities, schools or in genuine intellectual discourse." not "open debate". Straw Man.

It was Mr. Terry's post and this is not a straw man. 'Holocaust Denial' is not allowed on campus at any major universities or schools. Since these locations are the "official" sites for "genuine intellectual discourse", Revisionists don't have the opportunity to participate. "Denial" is illegal in 13 European countries, entirely, not only in academic environments.

Mr. Terry points fingers to social institutions where Revisionists are not present while completely disregarding the fact that these views have been suppressed more than any other in the last century.

Cremations during both a major war and a disease outbreak don't prove anything but death, certainly not 'extermination'. Can you point out the exact location of these graves? Are there corresponding 'gas chambers' to fit the claims, if applicable?

Appeal to impossible perfection.

Absolutely false. If an excavation has been conducted, the exact location can be shown. If these bodies were 'gassed' on-site, there will be 'gas chambers'. Not a single shred of 'gassing' evidence can be shown nor the location of any 'mass graves' to account for anything remotely close to the numbers alleged. Add this to the fact that only Israel-approved or sponsored excavations are allowed on any of these sites and you have yourself a gaping hole in physical evidence that is unlikely to ever be fulfilled.

Another good example of what has been "noticed" is an overwhelming lack of iron-cyanide residue in all alleged 'gas chambers'. Care to address that, Mr. Terry? You've only dodged it about fifty times. Documents can be forged; forensic evidence cannot.

Wait, come to think; when was this evidence collected? Are you quoting the Leuchter report, from 1988, by a guy with a Bachelor of Arts degree at a holocaust denial trial?

Leuchter chiefly cited the absence of Prussian blue in the homicidal gas chambers in support of his view that they could not have functioned that way. However, residual iron-based cyanide compounds are not a categorical consequence of cyanide exposure. By not discriminating against that, Leuchter introduced an unreliable factor into his experiment, and the outcome was seriously flawed as a result. In contrast, fair tests conducted by Polish forensic scientists (who discriminated against iron-based compounds) confirmed the presence of cyanide in the locations and manner in accordance with where and how it was used in the Holocaust. In addition, the report also showed that Leuchter overlooked critical evidence, such as documents in the SS architectural office which directly contradicted him, indicating the mechanical operation of the gas chambers, and verifying the rate at which the Nazis could burn the bodies of those gassed.

Clearly you haven't looked into the "study" you're referring to, as I've already addressed it. The Markiewicz et. al. "study" consisted of a deliberate exclusion of stable iron-cyanide compounds, measuring only free-form cyanide which fades drastically over time. By the time these measurements were taken, a half-century after the alleged events, any free cyanide left on these samples had diminished to a point so close to zero that it is impossible to determine the original quantities. This was the way in which Markiewicz et. al. was able to proclaim that the delousing chambers and the 'gas chambers' had similar exposure, thereby "proving" gassings. According to Germar Rudolf: "the Polish authors of this work did such a sloppy job that their attempt to refute Leuchter not only fails but calls into question their scientific credentials. Furthermore, it will be demonstrated that the unscientific methodology applied by these Poles can only be called fraudulent". As Rudolf subsequently demonstrates, measurement of stable iron-cyanide compounds is the only practical method of determining long-term cyanide exposure.

The amount of slander against Leuchter can be described as nothing other than a pathetic attempt by various Jewish institutions to discredit the expert opinion of the foremost gas chamber expert in the United States: Fred Leuchter. While it's true that his only academic credential is a BA in History from Boston University, much of Leuchter's vast mechanical experience has been conveniently dismissed by Believers:

- He did post-graduate study in celestial navigation mechanics at the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
- Since 1965, Leuchter has worked on engineering projects pertaining to electrical, optical, mechanical, navigational and surveying problems.
- From 1965 through 1970 he was the technical director for a firm in Boston, where he specialized in airborne, opto-electronic, and photographic surveillance equipment.
- He designed the first low-level, color, stereo-mapping system for use in a helicopter, which has become an airborne standard.
- In 1970, he formed an independent consulting firm where he designed and built the first electronic sextant and developed a unique, light-weight, compact and inexpensive optical drum sector encoder for use with surveying and measuring instruments.
- He built the first electronic sextant for the US Navy and has worked on and designed astro trackers utilized in the on-board guidance systems of ICBM missiles.
- He designed a computerized transit for surveying use.
- From his variety of experience in these earlier works, he developed an extensive knowledge of surveying, geodetic measuring, map-reading and cartography.
- Since 1978, Leuchter had been a consultant to several state governments on equipment used to execute convicted criminals, including hardware for execution by lethal injection, electrocution, gassing and hanging.
- He designed a new gas chamber for the state of Missouri. He also designed and constructed the first lethal injection machine for New Jersey.
- He has been a consultant for execution procedures in various states.
- He has held a research medical license from both state and federal governments, and has supplied the necessary drugs for execution programs.
- In 1987, he formed Fred A. Leuchter Associates, a consulting engineering firm that specializes in general consulting and the design and construction of prototype hardware.
- He has testified as an expert forensic engineer consultant in courts in the United States and Canada.
- Leuchter's unmatched expertise in the field of execution hardware rendered him the most qualified to conduct his investigation.
- He has worked on and designed facilities used to kill condemned criminals with hydrogen cyanide gas -- the same gas alleged to have been used to kill millions of Jews.
- His reputation as "the nation's leading expert in the mechanics of execution" has been abundantly confirmed by various publications and qualified sources.

I also note how you keep referring to him as Mr. Terry, not Doctor. I assume this is a deliberate attempt to needle him.

Nick Terry has dedicated himself to an ongoing smear-campaign against Revisionist authors. He debates with them regularly, yet asserts that there is no debate to be had -- hence, according to him, the reason Revisionism isn't present in the academic community. While he is very knowledgeable about a wide array of micro-issues pertaining to WWII, his "big picture" is distorted in his refusal to accept an entire category of evidence. From his perseverance in contributing to the suppression of intellectual progress that includes Revisionist views, I find it inappropriate to deem him a title that should be reserved for those who truly have a passion for truth and progress in academia.

It is quite possible that Mr. Terry remains in denial because of his obsession with 'Holocaust hero' prestige. Right now, he has it on easy street: defend a lie, get lots of praise. If he were to acknowledge the integrity of Revisionist arguments, he'd put himself in a very bad spot. He could lose his job, be outcasted from the academic community or even be physically assaulted while walking his poodle in the park, just like poor Dr. Faurisson.

Considering the verbatim German transcripts aren't even available for this document, that there are several documents that contradict the entire 'extermination' hypothesis including the Schlegelberger letter and the Luther memo, along with all available forensic evidence supporting the Revisionist stance with a virtually endless record of expressed intent to *deport* not exterminate, I'm going to have to reject your 'gas chamber', Jew-hunting fairytale.

And where were they deported to? Did the Nazis not get around to that? Did the mass cremations occur after, whoops, shedloads of people just happened to die in the camps?

First we have to prove there were people murdered in the camp. Got any proof?

The Nazis "didn't get around to it" because Hitler didn't want them to. Surely, you've heard of the Schlegelberger memo? I mentioned it earlier:

"Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over."

The plan was to end the war then proceed with deportations.

It doesn't matter what I argue, either possibility holds better ground than "extermination". ...

Well, yes, it does. See, you have been discounting evidence on the grounds that we don't have the originals to look up, including the evidence in question. But when your side makes claims about the exact same documents, without the originals, its perfectly fine.

Your "side" has the motive, means and history to fabricate documents. Your "side" is the one that relies so heavily on limited and unverifiable documents. There's no forensic evidence to support such ridiculous claims and since the testimony is often, at best, inconsistent with physical evidence, if not downright stupid, ambiguous documents are really all your "side" has. We may then filter out documents that, regarding 'extermination' implications, require a confirmation bias that leads to assertions such as 'code words' and other absurdities.

It's when we hear about the sources who presented these documents or consider the more rational contexts or proper translation, their scarcity, or even their general observed implications that we begin to see the reality: there is no evidence to support the imaginative 'extermination' hypothesis in place of a much more rational explanation.

Does it all point to 'extermination' despite the fact that this accusation relies almost entirely on testimony and trials from biased parties?

False. There is also physical evidence and records.

Do tell... I'm ready to Believe.

Not with the alleged 'gas vans'.

Whoop de doo.

Believers rely on instances of "code words" in the interpretation of documents such as the Korrher report -- a secret statistical report by Nazi statistician Richard Korherr on "The Final Solution to the European Jewish Problem" -- that shows what can only be interpreted as a record of arrivals with no mention of an "exterminated" figure. Believers have it all figured out, though. You see, wherever it says "arrivals", it actually means "exterminated".

There are quite a few noteworthy documents with these 'special meanings' that Mr. Terry and others include as part of the Believer repertoire.

Yet they preferred written orders for everything else of this magnitude.

Everything else? No Nazi ever gave a verbal order on any other subject? You're sure? I can't, say, produce evidence of such?

Are you asserting the Nazis had a common practice of administering verbal, undocumented orders for high-priority initiatives?

We know "perfectly well" what happened? How many Jews were exterminated, Mr. Terry? Where are the 'gas chambers'? Revisionists include all but the ludicrous 'extermination plan' (e.g. mass deportations, Jewish imprisonment and maltreatment, widespread disease). Do you need evidence of these things?

Yes, in a historical context. In a debate, not so much, since, as you say, both sides agree with that as a premise. Incidentally, a denier or two here has attributed German starvation of their Prisoners, which we hold was part of the "extermination", to the harsh conditions of a certain German winter. When it was pointed out that the period in question was nine months long, they never mentioned it again.

Were they supposed to stick by their evidently false claim, just as Believers do? A "denier or two" taking a bad guess while trying to determine the best possible explanation for available evidence is nothing, particularly in contrast to flat-out liars that fabricate absolute garbage and tell it as "fact". On that note, let's have a look at Arnold Friedman in his book, "Death Was Our Destiny", p. 49-50, Vantage Press, 1972:

"I stayed in the hospital [At the Flossenburg camp] for three days and had good food and a rest. The S.S. would come in twice a day and take away some men. A few times they would come past my bed, but they would take the man next to me. Then one evening, a lot of S.S. walked into the room and they ordered us to follow them. They ordered us into a room and locked the door. I heard a noise like a snake hissing, and then I heard the slave laborers shouting, 'They are gassing us!' [...] The smell of the gas got stronger. I coughed, and choked, and put my face to the keyhole and kept inhaling a little air from the outside.

They let him recuperate and gave him good food, then decided to gas him -- but he survived by breathing ...through a keyhole.

What a beautiful story!

Maybe you can give me some evidence as to what really happened in your beloved 'gas chambers'. There certainly weren't any 'gassings' going on. Without that, we might as well wipe our asses with the Nuremburg transcripts, questionable and scarce documents, etc.

Based on your nonsense and incorrect report by an unqualified man who was laughed out of court, whose forensic examination consisted of stealing bricks, and had to lie to one of his own witnesses, who contradicted him?

You've demonstrated you aren't even yet familiar with the work of Germar Rudolf and his subsequent responses to Richard Green, the Markiewicz et al study for the Jan Sehn Institute nor of the qualifying credentials of Fred A. Leuchter as an expert in execution technology. Please, do some homework before you return.

You cite these proposed theories as if they were ever the "official" stance for Revisionist beliefs, in perpetuity. Unlike Believers, we don't have a cure-all based on fabricated testimony that we can refer to, so that every discrepancy automatically pertains to 'extermination'.

There isn't such a belief for the official story. People are still arguing over certain facts even today. In general, however, they agree.

They agree so long as the implications don't suggest a policy that doesn't include 'extermination'.

Among the only general consensus in Revisionism is that there has been absolutely no sustaining evidence of homicidal 'gas chambers' nor an 'extermination plan', as alleged.

Also incorrect. I've also noticed the curious reluctance to address the evidence in relation to other evidence, in toto. You can speculate about why individual pieces don't count, but you can't actually prove anything.

[...had to cut out the list since I can't post URLs...]

Revisionists often make positive assertions that the Holocaust was a hoax, not just that it's not supported by evidence. Some of those are even Christian, which seems bizarre. I had never seen anyone actually using "Joo" before that last link. I thought it was a joke.

So you can't even get the claims of "revisionists" right, much less the "other side".

I notice you've compiled a list of internet loons with bad grammar and have attempted to pass them off as representative of Revisionism as a whole.

Excellent work.

The only forensic report submitted into Nuremberg isn't related to the 'Holocaust'?

Nope. Since it wasn't submitted nor more importantly *accepted* at the IMT, nor was anyone convicted there of participation in crimes at Katyn, it has nothing whatever to do with what *real* historians consider the Holocaust.

As you have been told before, you *might* have the beginnings of a point if you could cite a pop source which does not laugh at this "forensic report" -- maybe one of those five companies that control entertainment?

But you cannot, so you do not.

This isn't even really a disputed issue. Despite having no trials at Nuremberg exclusively for this charge, the Katyn Report was, in fact, accepted and sustained by the Nuremberg court. What's important is:

1) That it was presented in the first place and
2) who presented it.

"This kangaroo court at Nuremburg was officially known as the 'International Military Tribunal.' That name is a libel on the military profession. [...] One of the judges came from the country which committed the Katyn Forest massacre and produced an array of witnesses to swear at Nuremberg that the Germans had done it." - Rear Admiral, U.S.N. Dan V. Gallery, Thompson, and Strutz ed., pp.XXI-XXII.

What grade did Mr. White get on this paper, and what did his professor have to say about that citation?

What were the names of that "array of witnesses" who swore under oath during the IMT about Katyn?

I'm assuming you Googled my reference? It didn't come from Mr. White's paper. The book is "Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Re-appraisal" from Amber Publishing.

Although there were no trials at Nuremberg involving direct examination of phony Katyn witnesses, such witnesses had been listed on the report who would have testified, if necessary:

The Commission consists of the following persons:

Member of the Special State Commission, Academician N.N. BURDENKO (President of the Commission);

Member of the on the Special State Commission, Academician ALEKSEJ TOLSTOI;

Member of the Special State Commission, Mythropolitos NIKOLAI;

President of the AllSlavic Committee, Lieutenant General GUNDOROW A.S.;

President of the Executive Committee of the Association of the Red Cross and Red Half Moon, POLESNIKOW S.A.;

People's Commissar for Education of the RSFSR <Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic>, Academician POTEMKIN W.P.;

Chief of the Forensic Head Office of the Red Army, CoronelGeneral SMIRNOW E.I.;

President of the Executive Committee for the Region of Smolensk, MEINIKOW R.E..

To deal with the tasks laid before the Commission, the Commission called upon the following forensic experts:

Superior Forensic Expert of the People's Commissariat for Health Matters of the USSR, Director of the Scientific Research Institute for Forensic Medicine PROZOROWSKI W.I.; head of the Professorship of Forensic Medicine of the 2nd Moscow Medical Institute, Doctor of Medical Sciences, SMOLJANINOW W.M.; eldest scientific expert of the State Scientific Research Institute for Forensic Medicine of the People's Commissariat for Health Matters of the USSR, SEMENOWSKI P.S.; eldest scientific official of the State Scientific Research Institute for Forensic Medicine of the People's Commissariat for Health Matters of the USSR, Professor SCHWAIKOWA M.D.; chief pathologist of the Major Front of the Medical Service, Professor WYROPAIJEW D.N..

The extensive material laid before his associates and the forensic medical experts who arrived in the city of Smolensk on 26 September 1943, immediately after the liberation of the city, and who conducted the preliminary study and investigation of the circumstances of all atrocities committed by the Germans, was made available to the Special Commission by Member of the Special State Commission, Professor BURDENKO N.N..

[...]

Similar statements were made by the witnesses:

SOLDATENKOW, former village elder of the village of Borock,

KOLATSCHEW A.S., doctor of the city of Smolensk,

OGLOBLIN A.P., priest,

SERGEEW T.I. railway master

SMIRJAGIN P.A., engineer,

MOSKOWSKAJA A.M., resident of the city of Smolensk,

ALEKSEJEW A.M., foreman of the collective farm of the village of Borock,

KUTZEW I.W., technician of the water services,

GORODEZTKIJ W.P., priest,

BASEKINA A.T., bookkeeper,

WITROWA E.N., teacher,

SAWWATEJEW I.W., duty officer at the railway station at Gnesdowo, among others.

The list goes on with a highly-detailed set of witness statements, all pertaining to alleged events-within-an-event that never really happened.

Second hand sources at best.

We've been over this -- can you quote these people directly as deniers?

"Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other prisoners gassed. The gas chamber in Dachau was never entirely finished or put 'into operation'."—Dr. Martin Broszat "Keine Vergasung in Dachau" (No Gassing in Dachau) Die Zeit, 1960.

"It is true that there were no extermination camps on German soil and thus no mass gassings such as those that took place at Auschwitz, Treblinka and other camps."—Simon Wiesenthal, "Gassings in Germany," The Stars and Stripes, European Edition, Sunday, January 24, 1993 pg. 14.

What do those documents actually *say* about steam chambers, or hasn't the close to twenty years been enough to read them rather than parrot what you were told they said.

You must have missed it on my last post:

Late in April 1942, the erection of the first three chambers was finished in which these general massacres were to be performed by means of steam. Somewhat later the erection of the real "death- building" was finished which contains ten death chambers. It was opened for wholesale murders early in autumn 1942... In these camps the Jews were put to death in their thousands by hitherto unknown, new methods, gas and steam chambers as well as electric current employed on a large scale.

Electric, gassy, steamy goodness...

Speaking of...

No one was speaking of desperate accusations by someone facing the death penalty for supervising the killing of more than 100 POWs to produce evidence which was never used at his trial.

Was there a reason you felt this was significant?

You just skimmed right past that reference to the London Cage, I take it?

There is no reason to believe these were merely "desperate accusations" by Hoess. Oswald Pohl reportedly experienced a similar degree of maltreatment. It is possible that Hoess was either offered a deal that did not follow through (considering that he wrote the memoirs at the suggestion of prosecuting attorney Jan Sehn) or he may have been psychologically broken down so greatly that he actually blamed himself for the many atrocities attributed to his peers:

"Since I was Commandant of the extermination camp Auschwitz I was totally responsible for everything that happened there, whether I knew about it or not. Most of the terrible and horrible things that took place there I learned only during this investigation and during the trial itself. I cannot describe how I was deceived, how my directives were twisted, and all the things they had carried out supposedly under my orders." - Rudolf Hoess, Paskuly, Death Dealer: the Memoirs of the SS Commandant at Auschwitz (Buffalo/NY: Prometheus, 1992)

It is not unreasonable to wonder if, perhaps, Hoess was providing some "extra help" in bringing "justice" to the alleged perpetrators of crimes he'd only just become aware of. In either case, his testimony shows several inconsistencies that strongly suggest coercion.

"During the first interrogation [the British Field Security Police] beat me to obtain evidence. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear." - Rudolf Hoess, "The Memoirs Of The Ss Kommandant At Auschwitz", Da Capo Press, Mar 22, 1996

And again, what evidence was obtained? Oh, that's right: his real name.

And how do we know this?

Because, apparently, he was tortured into telling us, years afterwards.

Just like he was apparently tortured to give a death toll he was responsible for which was quite a bit less that his captors were saying.

You never got around to telling us why they would have done this...

That's quite a bit of speculation. The meeting cited here was not for Hoess' name, it was for the highly suspect Document NO-1210. The point is, he admits torture had been used to extract information.

"...a great majority of the official investigators [...] were persons with a preconceived dislike for these enemy aliens, and their conduct was such that they resorted to a number of illegal, unfair, and cruel methods and duress to secure confessions of guilt and to secure accusations by defendants against other defendants." - Honorable Edward Leroy Van Roden, President Judge, Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 67.

Still haven't learned to cite, have you?

Nor to stop talking about Van Roden, who was referring to a completely different trial on a completely different crime and whose statements were found to be without merit.

In this segment, Roden was referring to "the entire program of War Crimes Trials". His statements clearly illustrate his perception of injustice at these trials.

Revenge-seeking, political motives are more than plausible.

If by "plausible", you still mean "I really want this to be true, in spite of all of the evidence which could not possibly have been collaborated on by countries who had no earthly reason to cooperate in such a conspiracy", I suppose.

No reason to cooperate? They shared a common enemy and despite having different reasons, the same goal: make Germany look "evil" to glorify ourselves. A recent article provides an example of such cooperation with recent documents that prove the US knew about the Soviet-led Katyn massacre since 1943:

"The Katyn forest massacre of around 22,000 Polish officers and other prisoners by the Soviets were kept under wraps by US government officials, according to documents released Monday, the Associated Press reported. [...] Though the evidence could have changed the course of the Soviet treatment of Poland, it was instead buried by American officials at the highest levels of government."
- GlobalPost, 'Katyn forest massacre documents kept under wraps by US: report', Talia Ralph, Sep. 10, 2012

We can hereby determine the Soviets told intricate lies and the US was willing to cover their tracks.

"The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome [...] Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe's hatreds and prejudices." - Presiding Nuremburg Judge, Iowa Supreme Court Justice Charles F. Wennerstrum

So, no one from Europe, where the crimes were committed, should have been allowed a voice?

Who said they shouldn't be "allowed a voice"? That's what eyewitnesses are for; Wennerstrum is referring to more than just 'eyewitnesses'. If this biased presence is so strong that it affects the "entire atmosphere" in a way that can be described as "unwholesome" by a respected Iowa Supreme Court Justice and president judge, there is likely a problem with the trial, itself.

This is confirmed by Senator Dodd's mention of the trial staff at Nuremberg being approximately "seventy-five percent Jewish" and further supported by the fact that Colonel David Marcus, a fervent Zionist, selected the majority of judges, prosecutors and lawyers for the NMT trials.

You claim there are traces of deadly gas "only in" those chambers used for 'gassing'. This is the most absurd statement yet. Where did you get your information? From what can be shown with forensic evidence, there were copious amounts of iron-cyanide in every delousing chamber and extremely low, non-incriminating quantities in all alleged 'gas chambers'.

"Non incriminating?"

And which of those delousing chambers showed "copious amounts"?

Show your work, please.

All of the delousing chambers with any amount of exposed brick, mortar, cement or other iron-rich compound showed massive amounts of iron-cyanide residue. This is what was so mind-blowing about the analysis conducted by Markiewicz et al: they appear to have deliberately excluded these compounds from analysis.

Germar Rudolf addresses this in his report:

In fact, the exclusion of Prussian blue from analytical detection must result in much lower cyanide traces for the delousing chambers, as non-iron cyanide compounds are not very stable and would therefore hardly be present after fifty years. The same is true for every room ever exposed to hydrogen cyanide. In fact, values close to the detection level must be expected. These are generally so unreliable that a proper interpretation is close to impossible. It can therefore be expected that the analysis of samples tested with such a method would deliver similar results for nearly every sampling of material that is many years old. Such an analysis would make it practically impossible to distinguish between rooms massively exposed to hydrogen cyanide and those which were not: all would have a cyanide residue of close to zero.

Here is a breakdown of the data collected by Markiewicz, both in 1990 and 1994, along with that of Leuchter, Rudolf and Ball:

IFRC Markiewicz et al.from 1990
Cyanide WITHOUT iron cyanide in mg CN-/kg
delousing chambers : 0.09 to 1.47
gas chambers: one sample contained 0.06 (the other samples did not contain traceable levels)

IFRC Markiewicz et al.from 1994
Cyanide WITHOUT iron cyanide in mg CN-/kg
delousing chambers: 0-0.8
gas chambers': 0-0.6

Leuchter:
TOTAL CYANIDE in mg CN-/kg
delousing chambers: 1025
gas chambers': 0-8

Rudolf
TOTAL CYANIDE in mg CN-/kg
delousing chambers: 1,000-13,000
gas chambers': 0-7
inmate barracks: 0.1-2.7

Ball
TOTAL CYANIDE in mg CN-/kg
delousing chambers: 2,780-3,170
gas chambers': 0-1.2

Rooms full of personal effects? It is well-documented that standard hygienic procedures were enforced at all camps (delousing chambers are a noteworthy example). Disease was rampant nearing the end of the war and clothing may have been isolated from inmates for sanitation and fumigation purposes. Most Jews that had prepared for deportation would have been likely to bring several items of clothing when possible. "Personal effects" prove nothing in this context.

So you can document that, oh, let's say, eyeglasses were "isolated" for "sanitation purposes" such that the reports of such that refer to these having been confiscated from the death *all* misspoke?

You're forgetting that all of this was during a major war. I can think of several reasons why clothing would be isolated or stockpiled and none have to do with 'gassings'. We can use common sense. Dr. Robert Faurisson lays it out for us in an interview:

One could go on and on listing the very crudest procedures of this propaganda rooted in atrocity stories. Thus it is that we’re cunningly shown piles of shoes and eyeglasses or heaps of hair as if they were evidence that the people they came from were gassed; here the propagandists are sure to avoid reminding us that, in a Europe subjected to blockade and reduced to general penury, nothing was thrown away: everything was recovered and recycled, including hair, which served a particular purpose in the textile industry. There were countless workshops recycling leather, glass, metal or wood, both in the camps and in the towns and villages.

Have any of these alleged 'bullet sites' produced the requisite mass graves to show evidence of German atrocities?

You can document that such mass graves have ever been required from any other genocide?

I could easily document the fact that several mass graves have been excavated over the last century and none that can corroborate the massive 'Jewish extermination' claims made by Believers. If everyone wants the "truth to be known", why would they object to excavations, especially for what is supposed to be the worst genocide in recent history?

For the alleged Einsatzgruppen mass graves, there should be roughly 2 million 'exterminated' Jewish bodies. That's either hundreds of graves that are tens of thousands of bodies in size, or thousands of graves with thousands of bodies, or tens of thousands with hundreds of bodies. Why haven't any of these been found? Where are the Jews?

- In 1993, Robert Wolfe, supervisory archivist for captured German records at the National Archives admitted that a more precise translation of 'ausrottung' would be extirpation or tearing up by the roots. Wolfe also pointed out that in Himmler's handwritten notes for the speech, that Himmler used the term, 'judenevakuierung', or evacuation of the Jews, not 'extermination'.

Citation? And while you're trying to find it, you might as well ask for evidence that Wolfe was a native speaker -- that being your claim.

Wolfe's handwritten note with the term 'judenevakuierung' is available on the National Archives website under the title: "Notes of Heinrich Himmler, Chief of Nazi Guard (SS), for a Speech to SS Generals, 10/04/1943".

Wolfe's translation of 'ausrottung' as 'extirpation' is available on the "National Holocaust Poster Exhibit", featured in a review by CW Porter and available here:
National Archives Trust Fund, NEDC, P.O. Box 100793, Atlanta Ga. 30384. ITEM # 6059, HOLOCAUST EXHIBIT. ISBN 0-911333-92-4.

Although he was not a native speaker, Wolfe was the head of the National Archive which gives him some level of authority on the interpretation of these records.

Yet another example: "Ausrotten" is used figuratively by Hitler in his famous Berlin Sportpalast speech of February 1933: "den Marxismus und seine Begleiterscheinungen aus Deutschland auszurotten" — "to extirpate Marxism and its accompanying phenomena from Germany".

- From a 1935 speech by Rudolf Hess (well before any claims of an 'extermination plan'):
"National Socialist legislation has now introduced corrective measures against this over-alienization. I say corrective, because the proof that the Jews are not being ruthlessly rooted out [AUSGEROTTET] is that in Prussia alone 33,500 Jews are working in manufacturing and industry, and 89,800 are engaged in trade and commerce; and that with only 1 per cent of the population Jewish, 17.5 per cent of our attorneys and in Berlin nearly half the registered doctors are still Jewish."

Citation? In German, please.

Oh, sorry -- you don't read German. But since you're prepared to accept what others tell you it says anyway...

Rede von Herrn Reichminister Hess, Am 14. Mai 1935 in Stockholm:

Ich sage korrigierend, denn daß im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland das Judentum nicht etwa rücksichtslos ausgerottet wurde, beweist die Tatsache, daß heute in Industrie und Handwerk 33500, in Handel und Verkehr 89800 Juden allein in Preußen tätig sind - beweist weiter die Tatsache, daß bei einem Anteil der Juden an der Bevölkerung Deutschlands von 1%, noch immer 17,5% aller Rechtsanwälte Juden sind und zum Beispiel in Berlin noch immer fast 50% Nichtarier zur ärztlichen Kassenpraxis zugelassen sind..

- There is a 1936 (once again, well before 'extermination' claims) anti-German book by Leon Feuchtwanger and others entitled "DER GELBE FLECK: DIE AUSROTTUNG VON 500,000 DEUTSCHEN JUDEN". Were a half-million Jews already 'gassed'?

Nice try at redirect. No one has claimed that "ausrottung" == "gassing".

Bonus question: what *was* Feuchtwanger talking about? You'll find it easier to answer this question if you spell his first name correctly...

"What was Feuchtwanger talking about"? Unless your claim is that he spoke of an 'extermination' of 500,000 Jews, it is irrelevant.

- Missing pages, questionable origin.

Because you say so? There's an Internet meme making the round which contains two words, the last of which is ", please" which would seem to apply.

Revisionist-turned-Semi-Believer David Irving seems to think so after personally reviewing the document:

He mentions Himmler's famous October 1943 speech in Posen to the SS generals, but he has not spotted what I have -- that the page where Himmler makes his damning admission about killing the Jewish women and children too is a retype, done on a different typewriter, on different paper, by a different typist.

- SS General Gottlob Berger, former head of the SS administrative department, Himmler's personal liaison with Rosenberg's Ministry for the Occupied East, and chief of POW affairs toward the end of the war was present during the Posen speech. He testified in direct examination that not only did he know nothing of an extermination plan, but that the so-called "transcript" of Himmler's speech was missing key elements that he had remembered specifically.

And these were? And during which trial?

NMT, vol 13. p. 457-487

- YIVO, Yiddish Research Institute, was very active in the Rosenberg Ministry to process documents for submittal to Nuremberg.

And ... ?

There is a well-established motive and set of evidence to support an intent to portray a false account. Any contact between primarily Jewish institutions and compelling documentation must be, at the very least, "taken with a grain of salt". More on this, later.

Too bad your quote-mining has taken the most absurd segments of a lengthy document that is only alleged to be Himmler's exact words and presents them as out-of-context as possible.

Too bad that I cited a complete transcript, made from a recording.

Really, I thought you'd've gotten better at this by now...

Your excerpt is from one of the several Posen recordings and/or transcripts which total to more than three hours in length. It would be a fair estimate to say the alleged 'extermination' segment consists of significantly less than 1% of these speeches. The audio recording appeared mysteriously, decades after the war, on a kind of tape that was no longer used in Germany at the time and the written transcript has pages missing, various non-sequitors, segments re-typed. Deliberate manipulation probably occurred to some degree, particularly when we consider the extent some opposing groups have gone to utilize such tactics. Even if we were to assume the "worst", that these transcripts and recordings were stated verbatim by Himmler, the context to any of these has to be carefully considered in relation to the many events that were occuring at the time including not only the evacuation of the Jews but also issues such as Einsatzgruppen efforts to combat guerilla warfare.

In either case, jumping to the conclusion that these brief comments with ambiguous wording are the "smoking gun" for the 'Holocaust' is beyond ridiculous. It becomes even more absurd when we review the implication that such a "secret speech" was openly discussing "extermination" and recorded despite the fact that written orders couldn't even be used for the "Final Solution", itself. We could argue that these speeches were uniquely important and therefore needed to be on-record but then how would they not be remembered during Himmler's "destroy all evidence" initiative? Perhaps this could be explained if we had a reliable source as to how these recordings came about which, of course, is very vague and conspicuous.

When we see how desperate Believers are to redefine the context of these limited records, and the way documents such as the Korherr Report, the Schlegelberger letter, the Luther Memo, the Hossbach Protocal and many others are dismissed for their explicit content, often instead being purported as legitimate proof of a 'Holocaust' without so much as a resemblance to an 'extermination' reference, the story told by liars collapses on itself.

Maybe "babies used as targets for machine gunners" and 'evil doctor schemes' are more believable when you're accustomed to getting on your knees for a magical-man-in-the-sky.

Maybe. But neither of these has anything to do with the Holocaust, either, I am again curious why you bring them up.

Elie Wiesel was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for this 'tragic truth'. And, well, it just wouldn't quite feel like a 'Holocaust' without the eerie tales of Dr. Mengele and the other 'mad scientists' as told by 'eyewitnesses'.

I'd love to hear which arguments you claim have had their users 'banned'. I'll tell you what, let me know which argument you believe to be the strongest for "the Holocaust" and I'll post it for you. Rather, I'll leave up to our readers to join the site, themselves, and see whether or not they are 'banned' for participating.

Ah, so you pay no more attention there than you do to history.

Shall, I get you, say, Scott Smith's email and you can ask him?

You can tell me which argument the moderators of CODOH were so afraid of that they were compelled to 'ban' him, like I had initially asked, if you'd like.

We could inquire as to how several Believers that are well-known to the forum have retained long-standing, active memberships on the site. Or, we can just ask Mr. Terry to forward these compelling arguments for us. His membership has been working just fine.

254 of 400 witnesses commented on gassings with 44 (11%) having directly witnessed them? Didn't they tell their friends and family to stay away from that tricky "shower room"? I'm sure the message would have gotten out somehow, considering there were at least 500 recorded escapees from Auschwitz. This isn't the only evidence supporting that these rumors were floating throughout the camps and is at odds with the fact that near-absolute cooperation would have been required from victims as they enter the so-called 'chamber'.

That near-absolute cooperation was obtained at the point of many guns.

How did this escape your notice?

See above response to 000063.

The problem with saying Jews are the owners of media chains is that it doesn't really help the denier side. It's just a baby step towards an ad hominem rather than an actual argument.

Assuming you have a complete and total disregard for the influence of news media and propaganda on popular worldview, confirmation bias and public record, then, yes, I can see why you feel that way.

 

[Loss Leader]

Your realize, of course, that the people at the end of the movie putting stones on the grave were the actual surviving Schindlerjuden.

 

[Croydon Bob]

- Rupert Murdoch (Jewish mother, hence legally Jewish) - owner of FOX TV, New York Post, London Times, and News of the World

Well, it's easy to "prove" that teh evil jooz run the media if you just make up a bunch of lies.

Rupert Murdoch's mother is very not Jewish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Murdoch_(philanthropist)

You've quoted a work of fiction. 0/10 - fail, must try harder.

 

[Tommy1234]

Your realize, of course, that the people at the end of the movie putting stones on the grave were the actual surviving Schindlerjuden.

Special Guest Stars?

 

[Nick Terry]

It was Mr. Terry's post and this is not a straw man. 'Holocaust Denial' is not allowed on campus at any major universities or schools. Since these locations are the "official" sites for "genuine intellectual discourse", Revisionists don't have the opportunity to participate. "Denial" is illegal in 13 European countries, entirely, not only in academic environments.

Mr. Terry points fingers to social institutions where Revisionists are not present while completely disregarding the fact that these views have been suppressed more than any other in the last century.

I'm going to comment on a couple of points where I am mentioned by name, the rest I and others may well respond to over the foreseeable future. It'd probably help if you separated out some of these issues into distinct posts, creating sub-threads, as not only would the posts be more readable, the discussion would be easier to follow.

Holocaust denial is 'excluded' from academia because it was never included in academia, and that's because it never rose to meet academic standards. The same 'exclusion' has variously happened to flat-earth theory, belief in an epoch-spanning conspiracy of the Illuminati, creationism, 9/11 Truth, and many other fringe theories.

One of the problems which revisionists never acknowledge is that their belief system has a long history; there were revisionist writers in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, and most of them were, frankly, ignorant cranks. Their output appeared overwhelmingly through publishing houses of the extreme right, and these pamphlets and books are quite hilariously bad. They certainly were not academic-quality works. By no stretch of the imagination can they be considered as such. The few authors in the US who were qualified and would theoretically have been capable of writing academic-quality material, i.e Barnes and Hoggan, exclusively wrote pamphlets which were quite shoddy indeed.

Thus, by the time that revisionism tried to gentrify itself with Butz, the IHR and Faurisson, it was already too late, as the doctrine of revisionism had long been codified, there was a growing awareness of its tenets, and its roots in political propaganda were crystal clear (eg Staeglich and Walendy being NPD, Harwood being National Front, and Christophersen having his own right-wing party).

The IHR itself was a complete joke, with directors in the 1980s with no visible academic qualifications who wrote essentially nothing of substance in the journal. Mark Weber eventually became director, but he had a masters' only, and his writings became more and more journalistic. The same can be said for Faurisson, who with very few exceptions has not written a substantive piece since the early 1990s. In the 1980s, he seemed semi-capable of writing polemic articles which referred to sources, but this stopped being the case 20 years ago.

Butz, meanwhile, wrote one book in 1975 which is obviously out-dated, and has penned a few articles from time to time, contributing almost nothing to the development of revisionist ideas since the 1970s, and in many cases digging his heels in to cling to ideas and claims which had since been refuted by other revisionists (eg his ludicrous interpretation of the Hungarian Action).

What, precisely, is academia meant to include here? Revisionism as a school is completely incoherent, sprawling over at least 3 generations of writings, most of which seem to have been superseded by more recent arguments as the current gurus abandon them.

Revisionist journals have since the foundation of the Journal of Historical Review never achieved a consistent level of quality or focus, consisting of a grab-bag of articles on a wide range of themes, with articles on non-Holocaust issues invariably lacking any visible primary source research, while most of the Holocaust articles likewise lack any visible evidence of the author having visited an archive. There are exceptions, but they are drowning in a sea of utter guff.

By contrast, academic standards in the field of history are pretty clear: historians are trained through undergraduate, masters and doctoral degrees, which require the student to use primary sources at dissertations at all three levels. The results of historical research are written up in journals which generally expect the authors to demonstrate a grasp of archival research. Likewise, academic monographs in history, whether they are the products of doctoral dissertations or later works, use primary sources.

Non-academics are welcome to participate in this conversation, but the price of entry into academia is generally to demonstrate a grasp of the sources and to use them. This means many popular historians, especially in military history, are excluded from serious consideration too.

Unlike revisionists, however, popular military historians write books with beginnings, middles and ends, and can at the very least tell a story. This highlights one of two further problems with revisionism, in that its doctrines are entirely unteachable, because the whole premise of revisionism isn't revisionism, it's negationism. Revisionism hasn't replaced the conventional understanding with a new, better account. It's utterly failed to induce a paradigm shift because the new paradigm is never spelled out. Revisionists can compare themselves to Galileo all they like, but they have not started a Copernican Revolution in the historiography of WWII/the Holocaust.

The idea of courses on not-history or anti-history makes zero sense within the academy. Either something is worth teaching and researching, or it's not. The academy long ago decided that the Holocaust is worth teaching and researching, and none of the missives written by revisionists offer convincing reasons why it shouldn't be. Indeed, if revisionist arguments were applied more generally to history, the entire discipline would grind to a halt entirely.

The second problem is that revisionist output is essentially unreadable; on a technical level it simply doesn't rise to recognised commercial or academic standards of writing, presentation, formatting or structuring. Indeed, most recent revisionist books violate copyright on a massive scale by including numerous verbatim quotes from other works.

There is nothing stopping revisionist authors from writing better books which conform to current academic expectations. If they intend to convince academics, then it would behove them to try and do this. But time after time they screw this up.

Unsurprisingly, in Britain and America, where revisionism is NOT criminalised, the doctrine has hitherto won virtually no academic converts. Considering there are 750,000 faculty at PhD-granting universities (i.e. research universities) in the US, the fact that there are currently three nutters who believe in denial who teach at US universities - Butz, in electrical engineering; Siddique, a professor of media/English; and the pseudonymous Dalton, assuming for the sake of argument that he really has taught humanities at university level.

This failure did not spring up overnight; it describes a prolonged failure to measure up dating back at least to the 1970s. And that is ultimately why revisionism is currently excluded; because after a certain point, you no longer give cranks the benefit of the doubt, and simply reject the crankery for what it is.

Nick Terry has dedicated himself to an ongoing smear-campaign against Revisionist authors.

I really have turn this around on you, even though I criticised you for doing the same thing up-thread, because the amount of projection involved in your assertion is quite colossal. Revisionist authors have dedicated themselves to an ongoing smear-campaign against historians. That revisionist smear-campaign, symbolised by the denier obsession with Hilberg which dates back to Rassinier in the early 1960s, is of course another reason why revisionism has been excluded; because its output is liberally strewn with ad hominem arguments and has been largely structured as a series of polemics against mainstream historians, as well as amateur critics of denial.

You are of course entitled to your delusion that what I have been doing is a 'smear campaign' against revisionist authors. Most people would consider what I have been doing to be offering criticism of revisionism. Are revisionist authors immune to criticism, is that it?

Not long ago I participated in a major critique of the three remaining denier authors of any note, Mattogno, Graf and Kues, a critique which one of the three practically invited from us in two separate email challenges. The critique was written by four non-academics and myself.

Of course, if the criticisms we made were so trivial, then revisionists all over could have leapt to MGK's defense and shown us up without the big guns needing to be fired at all. But that hasn't happened all year, and isn't going to happen.

I get it; you're frustrated that academia, myself included, won't simply roll over and swallow revisionist nonsense. You seem to think that's massively unfair, and must be caused by vast conspiracies and by corruption. All because you are incapable of looking objectively at the output of your belief system and accepting that it's complete pants.

He debates with them regularly, yet asserts that there is no debate to be had -- hence, according to him, the reason Revisionism isn't present in the academic community.

But internet forum debates aren't academic debates. CODOH or RODOH aren't universities. They are internet forums. I have indeed debated with revisionists on many different forums, although I do that less and less. I have found that revisionists on the internet are cursed with a near-total lack of comprehension of how academia works. Therefore, I explain how academia works, and what academic standards are, rather too often to online deniers.

I am in fact often to be found explaining and pointing out the kinds of things which would be necessary to hear from deniers if their views were to get a look-in within the academy. But despite all my generous advice, there's no sign of any awareness in the revisionist community that a rethink may be in order.

While he is very knowledgeable about a wide array of micro-issues pertaining to WWII, his "big picture" is distorted in his refusal to accept an entire category of evidence.

What category of evidence? What on earth are you talking about?

Revisionism isn't a 'category of evidence', it's at best a school of interpretation evolved by amateurs with political axes to grind. I am under no obligation to 'accept' something I don't think measures up to basic academic standards, any more than I am under any obligation to 'accept' work produced by academics which falls short of those standards.

From his perseverance in contributing to the suppression of intellectual progress that includes Revisionist views,

More nonsense. Revisionists, and no one else, are the ones who are obligated to present their ideas in such a manner that people will listen to them. They are the ones who have to sell their ideas in the best way possible, and they have failed to do that. I have merely been pointing up a wide variety of flaws in this doctrine, howlers and errors which are in many cases self-evident to the informed lay person. The blame for revisionism's failure lies squarely on the shoulders of revisionists.

I find it inappropriate to deem him a title that should be reserved for those who truly have a passion for truth and progress in academia.

What you find appropriate is actually rather irrelevant to social niceties. My doctorate exists whether you like it or not. Calling me Mr Terry is a calculated attempt to belittle my qualifications, and everyone knows this. It doesn't bother me, because it makes you look rather petty.

It is quite possible that Mr. Terry remains in denial because of his obsession with 'Holocaust hero' prestige.

I'm sorry what? I remain in denial about what precisely? Revisionism?

To my knowledge, I am one of maybe a dozen people on the planet who has read essentially every revisionist work written since the 1940s, and I am including other revisionists in this. If I reject revisionism then it's not for want of giving them a chance to convince me.

And what is this obsession with 'Holocaust hero' prestige you are talking about? I am obsessed with heroes of the Holocaust like Schindler or Wallenberg? Because if that's your claim then no I'm clearly not obsessed by such people.

I am obsessed with becoming a Holocaust hero? Is that it? Because if that's your claim, then you can demonstrate no such thing. Dealing with revisionism whether academically or on the internet is not much different to being a sewage worker, not a great way to become heroic.

Right now, he has it on easy street: defend a lie, get lots of praise. If he were to acknowledge the integrity of Revisionist arguments, he'd put himself in a very bad spot. He could lose his job, be outcasted from the academic community or even be physically assaulted while walking his poodle in the park, just like poor Dr. Faurisson.

Ah so now I'm in denial about revisionism's intellectual merits, according to you. I'd love to see you demonstrate this. What claims of revisionism do I 'secretly' accept then?

Remember, I've almost certainly read more revisionist works than you have. I can and do discuss revisionist works fluently and at will, whereas most internet deniers seem only capable of going 'revisionism, ra ra ra'.

I've even specified, repeatedly, what it would take to convince me to become a revisionist: convincing and conclusive evidence of a conspiracy or convincing and conclusive evidence of 'transit'/survival. I've specified these things because they are the only things that could possibly falsify the accepted account at this stage. And I would not be alone in changing my views, were such evidence to be presented.

 

[Nick Terry]

For the alleged Einsatzgruppen mass graves, there should be roughly 2 million 'exterminated' Jewish bodies. That's either hundreds of graves that are tens of thousands of bodies in size, or thousands of graves with thousands of bodies, or tens of thousands with hundreds of bodies. Why haven't any of these been found? Where are the Jews?

One of the reasons why revisionists are not taken seriously is because it is not that difficult to ascertain that thousands of mass graves were identified from 1943 onwards across Eastern Europe after liberation, precisely when they should have been.

Yet again and again, we have deniers flatly asserting that there were no graves at all or resorting to arguments from ignorance about them.

It should be perfectly obvious that if you are interested in the question of mass graves, the proper place to start looking would be into what was carried out by way of war crimes investigations in the relevant countries, i.e. the Soviet Union and Poland. Then one would find out about things like the Soviet Extraordinary Commission (see here for an overview of their files and the localities investigated) or the Polish Commission for the Examination of Nazi Crimes, which still exists today as part of the Institute of National Memory and has expanded its remit to include Soviet crimes since the collapse of communism.

One might then read more about them, and/or come across reports such as this one on the mass grave in Drobitskii Yar outside Kharkov. A little googling would then reveal that the opened mass grave was filmed, that still images from the film circulate some of which look weird because of Soviet reprographic practices in the era, but the same image is there on film, so no fakery.

A modicum of honesty might lead the would-be mass graves revisionist to learn about the mass shootings and learn East European geography, in order to find out what happened in which towns and then start reading up on the histories of these localities and learning about the sources and literature. There the would-be mass graves revisionist might read works by historians who cite from the reports and who discuss them. This alone might well be enough to assuage the rampant paranoia and moderate the incredulity of the would-be mass graves revisionist.

In an ideal world - or should I say in cloud-cuckoo-land, since this will clearly never happen, the would-be mass graves revisionist would eventually realise that they need to learn the material in German, Polish and Russian, which is unsurprising since those are the relevant languages.

If nothing else, the would-be mass graves revisionist will eventually have to accept that there are reels and reels of microfilmed reports and files on the mass graves in question, which can be accessed in archives such as USHMM which are open to the public, as well as in the archives in Moscow, where one can find even more such reports; and that there are similar files for Poland.

Perhaps the would-be mass graves revisionist will then play the 'spoonfeed me' game and assert that all of these many thousands of reports must be translated into English, written up in the form of an OPCA-style magical incantation, or 'verified' all over again to assuage the doubts of the tiny minority of deniers in 2012. Or they might simply fall back on well-poisioning, handwaving, or another cliched denier response, once the extent of the horror to be found written down or typed out in Cyrillic, or in Latin script with way too many z's, is clear.

What will not change, however, is the existence of those reports, nor will the would-be mass graves revisionist look any less silly for having made the blithe assertion that the graves haven't been found, when thousands upon thousands of such graves were quite clearly found.

 

[Nick Terry]

Take it from the peer-reviewed European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.28 No.1 (2012), pp. 35-41:

this article? Written by three people but running to a mere seven pages?

Global Media and the Domination of West, 35-41
A. Waseem Khattak, Muhammad Nasir and Aftab Ahmad




A. Waseem Khattak
M Phil Mass Communication, Lecturer/Coordinator
Communication and Media Studies
Sarhad University of Science and Information Technology
Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa Peshawar Pakistan

Muhammad Nasir
Registrar Sarhad University of Science and Information Technology
Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa Peshawar Pakistan

Aftab Ahmad
Press Club Coordinator, Internews Peshawar
Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa Pakistan



This journal is run out of the Seychelles, with an editorial board consisting of hardly any Europeans, and spewed out volumes 27 to 33 in nine months of this year.

The article's sudden lurch into discussing 'Proof of Jewish Media Domination' is entirely unsourced and massively out-dated. Seagram hasn't been in the entertainment business since 2000. Eisner was booted out of Disney in 2004. The claim that Rupert Murdoch's mother is Jewish has been shot down already. The listing reads like it was taken directly from jewwatch.com. Gloria Steinem is listed, but sold Ms magazine (with its whopping few 10s of 1000s of subscribers) in 1987, a quarter of a century ago.

Heck, the article, published in January 2012, manages to mention as one of 14 Jewish journalists "trying their best for West domination Specialy USA" (sic) people like I.F. Stone, who died in June 1989, William Safire, who died in September 2009, and film critic Joel Siegel, who died in June 2007.

 

[LSSBB]

The media, including the major news networks, and virtually every other key American institution are absolutely dominated to an overwhelming disproportion by Holocaust-loving Jewish influences but, you know what? Don't take it from me. Take it from the peer-reviewed European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.28 No.1 (2012), pp. 35-41:


It is undeniable that the Jewish influence in Western culture is supreme. They certainly have the means.

The article you quote in no way proves any objective measure of Jewish influence in Western Culture, especially in such a way as to prove a case for a conspiracy to fabricate the Holocaust. There is no context whatsoever in the listing of Jewish individuals. How many ran how many magazines out of how many total magazines? How many had executive positions out of how many media conglomerates controlling what percentage of the market, at what times? And in any case, background of an individual by no means proves "they done it". Are there Jews in Hollywood? Sure. Do they exert more influence than Christians? Prove your case, please.

 

[TSR]

Let's first go over the initial comment on both 000063's and TSR's responses to me, simultaneously, then I'll address each of my opponents individually.

Of course. you could have actually quoted us individually and dealt with things point by point in a way that made it easy to step back through the thread, but anyway...

Where do we begin?

Start with Neal Gabler's 1988 book, "An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood". It pretty much irrefutably demonstrates the absolute Jewish monopoly on the American image-factory that dominated the first half of the 20th century.

If by "Jewish", one means "had Jewish ancestors".

How many of these men actually *practiced* Judaism?

Take it from acclaimed actor Marlon Brando in 1996, who was among those most familiar with the industry: "Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews."

And also went on to say "...I will be the first one who will appraise the Jews honestly and say 'Thank God for the Jews.'"

What kind of impact can Hollywood have on the minds of the masses? Consider Steven Spielberg, who not only produced such wonderfully anti-German films such as the Indiana Jones series (depicting Germans as sadistically evil and striving for unholy world domination) or Schindler's List, which is an obvious propagation of the 'Holocaust' storyline.

Do you think that all Germans are Nazis, then? And you *are* aware that "Schindler's List" is based on and fairly faithful to the book ""Schindler's Ark", by non-Jew Thomas Keneally (although inspired by Leopold Page, who was one of the people Schindler helped save. From whom? Why, the Nazis...)?

Spielberg didn't stop there. His Academy-Award Winning film "The Last Days" is a documentary featuring several Holocaust 'survivors' who tell their tragic tale of Nazi 'gassings', 'evil doctor' experimentation and more. This film is so chock-full of absolute, horrendous nonsense that I'd be doing all of you a disservice by spoiling the hilariously pathetic lies that are debunked beyond belief in Eric Hunt's documentary "The Last Days of the Big Lie", available for free viewing and download on the HolocaustHandbooks website. I highly recommend it for "movie night". You won't be disappointed.

That would be the Eric Hunt, convicted felon who tried to kidnap Elie Wiesel?

Why don't you bring specific points here to discuss?

The media, including the major news networks, and virtually every other key American institution are absolutely dominated to an overwhelming disproportion by Holocaust-loving Jewish influences but, you know what? Don't take it from me. Take it from the peer-reviewed European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.28 No.1 (2012), pp. 35-41:

You should really learn what peer review means in academic terms.

So, because one instance of fraudulent Nazi-atrocity claims proving elaborate, politically-motivated conspiracy against Germany by the Soviets post-war was recognized as legitimate but not "accepted" by the Tribunal, even though the equally-accredited 'gas chambers' were, this means that the Soviets were somehow still a credible source of documentary and testimonial evidence?

It was *not* found "legitimate", and they are credible when their evidence can be collaborated.

That's how history works.

It is more than obvious that certain affiliations were more than willing to flat-out lie for their anti-German agenda.

Once again: German != Nazi.

I haven't taken enough of an interest in Irving to have an informed opinion on him. Since his behavior following the embarassing defeat at the Lipstadt trial, from what I gather, he's fallen overboard to most Revisionists.

It is amuzing to see how that lot eats their dead...

The alleged process was dependent on these Jews being unaware of their fate.

No.

According to all available testimony, there was only a handful of SS present during the entire 'gassing' process, which means cooperation was the rule rather than the exception.

No.

If there had been any amount of 'gassing' rumor circulating, it is not believable that a room with no soap dispensers nor drain that was gradually filling with two-thousand people standing alongside their family members and children, would not have led to an immense panic each and every time.

Soap dispensers?

Really?

And why do you pretend that the guns played no part?

Then we are supposed to believe these people were contained in what they now knew to be a 'gas chamber' behind a relatively tiny *wooden* gas-tight door and simply sat calmly, accepting their fate, rather than panicking and forcing their way toward the exit, pressing thousands of pounds of pressure against the single small-frame wooden door (which would have probably been destroyed), as with any other panicked crowd in a sealed room with a single exit.

If they had just arrived, how would the "know" this?

The flimsy, alleged 'Zyklon-B columns' would have also required repairs, if not total replacement after each 'gassing'. There is no record nor testimony that addresses these factors.

And your basis for this assertion is ... ?

Being forced onto a train as a prisoner which fits the expressed intent of the Nazi party is vastly different than having your greatest fears confirmed as you are backed into a known 'death chamber'.

Regarding the total number of 'gassed' at Auschwitz-Birkeneau, Dr. Bendel, whom you've just defended, makes the assertion:

Care to sustain that?

Is it collaborated?

Then no.

That's how history works.
I'll let '63 address these

Clearly you haven't looked into the "study" you're referring to, as I've already addressed it. The Markiewicz et. al. "study" consisted of a deliberate exclusion of stable iron-cyanide compounds, measuring only free-form cyanide which fades drastically over time. By the time these measurements were taken, a half-century after the alleged events, any free cyanide left on these samples had diminished to a point so close to zero that it is impossible to determine the original quantities. This was the way in which Markiewicz et. al. was able to proclaim that the delousing chambers and the 'gas chambers' had similar exposure, thereby "proving" gassings. According to Germar Rudolf: "the Polish authors of this work did such a sloppy job that their attempt to refute Leuchter not only fails but calls into question their scientific credentials. Furthermore, it will be demonstrated that the unscientific methodology applied by these Poles can only be called fraudulent".

And Dr. Gerner .. um no, Dr. Konrad .. oops! Dr. jur. Kretschmer .. uh, Mr Gauss, no wait: Rudolf knows all about fraud...

The amount of slander against Leuchter can be described as nothing other than a pathetic attempt by various Jewish institutions to discredit the expert opinion of the foremost gas chamber expert in the United States: Fred Leuchter.

Really? How many gas chambers that he designed were ever actually used?

While it's true that his only academic credential is a BA in History from Boston University, much of Leuchter's vast mechanical experience has been conveniently dismissed by Believers:

Mostly because it is fake or irrelevant.

- He did post-graduate study in celestial navigation mechanics at the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

He bought a ticket to one of their presentations.

- Since 1965, Leuchter has worked on engineering projects pertaining to electrical, optical, mechanical, navigational and surveying problems.

Not in MA, he hasn't -- not since he agreed to stop calling himself an engineer to avoid prosecution.

- From 1965 through 1970 he was the technical director for a firm in Boston, where he specialized in airborne, opto-electronic, and photographic surveillance equipment.
- He designed the first low-level, color, stereo-mapping system for use in a helicopter, which has become an airborne standard.
- In 1970, he formed an independent consulting firm where he designed and built the first electronic sextant and developed a unique, light-weight, compact and inexpensive optical drum sector encoder for use with surveying and measuring instruments.
- He built the first electronic sextant for the US Navy and has worked on and designed astro trackers utilized in the on-board guidance systems of ICBM missiles.
- He designed a computerized transit for surveying use.
- From his variety of experience in these earlier works, he developed an extensive knowledge of surveying, geodetic measuring, map-reading and cartography.

All of which relates to gas chambers ... how?

- Since 1978, Leuchter had been a consultant to several state governments on equipment used to execute convicted criminals, including hardware for execution by lethal injection, electrocution, gassing and hanging.

No, he stopped using the "hire me or I'll testify your equipment is cruel and unusually punishing" scam in 1988, when he was laughed out of court trying to be an "expert witness" for Unka Ernie.

- He designed a new gas chamber for the state of Missouri.

... which was never built nor used due to flaws in that design ...

He also designed and constructed the first lethal injection machine for New Jersey.

... which was itself found to be cruel and unusual ...

- He has been a consultant for execution procedures in various states.

Nope.

- He has held a research medical license from both state and federal governments, and has supplied the necessary drugs for execution programs.

Nope.

- In 1987, he formed Fred A. Leuchter Associates, a consulting engineering firm that specializes in general consulting and the design and construction of prototype hardware.
- He has testified as an expert forensic engineer consultant in courts in the United States and Canada.

Nope.

- Leuchter's unmatched expertise in the field of execution hardware rendered him the most qualified to conduct his investigation.

... and the basic methodological flaws in his "investigation" are well known ...

- He has worked on and designed facilities used to kill condemned criminals with hydrogen cyanide gas -- the same gas alleged to have been used to kill millions of Jews.

... and how many of his gas chambers were ever put into use?

- His reputation as "the nation's leading expert in the mechanics of execution" has been abundantly confirmed by various publications and qualified sources.

... who then quietly retracted or ignored his blunders.

Are you asserting the Nazis had a common practice of administering verbal, undocumented orders for high-priority initiatives?

Yes. I''ll retract when you show me the written order to carry out Operation Barbarossa.

You've demonstrated you aren't even yet familiar with the work of Germar Rudolf and his subsequent responses to Richard Green, the Markiewicz et al study for the Jan Sehn Institute

Those would be the responses where he was backed so far into a corner of his own making that he was forced to concede that "...chemistry is not the science which can ... refute any allegations about the Holocaust 'rigorously'"?

nor of the qualifying credentials of Fred A. Leuchter as an expert in execution technology.

Such an expert that he was forced to stop marketing himself as such after being laughed out of court.

Please, do some homework before you return.

Pfffft.

This isn't even really a disputed issue. Despite having no trials at Nuremberg exclusively for this charge, the Katyn Report was, in fact, accepted and sustained by the Nuremberg court. What's important is:

1) That it was presented in the first place and
2) who presented it.

No, it was neither accepted nor sustained.

You just skimmed right past that reference to the London Cage, I take it?

No, since Hoess did not claim to have been put in it, it is irrelevant.

It is not unreasonable to wonder if, perhaps, Hoess was providing some "extra help" in bringing "justice" to the alleged perpetrators of crimes he'd only just become aware of. In either case, his testimony shows several inconsistencies that strongly suggest coercion.

Nor is it unreasonable to note that there is no evidence that these were crimes he'd only just become aware of, and that if he was coerced into writing his memoirs, why did they coerce him into talking about the mistreatment of the Brits, and ridicule the then-used death toll number in the Eastern Block.

That's quite a bit of speculation. The meeting cited here was not for Hoess' name, it was for the highly suspect Document NO-1210. The point is, he admits torture had been used to extract information.

No, mean he was *coerced* into that admission...

In this segment, Roden was referring to "the entire program of War Crimes Trials". His statements clearly illustrate his perception of injustice at these trials.

And he was there at each of them to witness this?

Do tell...

No reason to cooperate? They shared a common enemy and despite having different reasons, the same goal: make Germany look "evil" to glorify ourselves.

What more glory was needed from a completely vanquished foe?

A recent article provides an example of such cooperation with recent documents that prove the US knew about the Soviet-led Katyn massacre since 1943:

And contemporary documents as well.

We can hereby determine the Soviets told intricate lies and the US was willing to cover their tracks.

So *that's* why all those Nazis were convicted of the killings at Katyn -- the US was ...

No, wait ...

Who said they shouldn't be "allowed a voice"? That's what eyewitnesses are for; Wennerstrum is referring to more than just 'eyewitnesses'. If this biased presence is so strong that it affects the "entire atmosphere" in a way that can be described as "unwholesome" by a respected Iowa Supreme Court Justice and president judge, there is likely a problem with the trial, itself.

And the legal systems in the countries where these crimes were committed should be disregarded?

This is confirmed by Senator Dodd's mention of the trial staff at Nuremberg being approximately "seventy-five percent Jewish" and further supported by the fact that Colonel David Marcus, a fervent Zionist, selected the majority of judges, prosecutors and lawyers for the NMT trials.

You can, of course, document the actual numbers involved?

All of the delousing chambers with any amount of exposed brick, mortar, cement or other iron-rich compound showed massive amounts of iron-cyanide residue.

We heard you the first time.

Show your work.

This is what was so mind-blowing about the analysis conducted by Markiewicz et al: they appear to have deliberately excluded these compounds from analysis.

... because the way in which the gas chambers were used (short term exposure, relatively low concentrations, cleaned after each use) prevented the formation of such compounds.

Germar Rudolf addresses this in his report:

Thoroughly trashed by Green ...

You're forgetting that all of this was during a major war. I can think of several reasons why clothing would be isolated or stockpiled and none have to do with 'gassings'.

Once again, no one cares what you can think of. What can you *document*?

We can use common sense. Dr. Robert Faurisson lays it out for us in an interview:

Great! Then show us the piles of personal effects in any Allied occupied country.

I could easily document the fact that several mass graves have been excavated over the last century and none that can corroborate the massive 'Jewish extermination' claims made by Believers.

And yet you don't.

If everyone wants the "truth to be known", why would they object to excavations, especially for what is supposed to be the worst genocide in recent history?

Because they would not add anything to the overall knowledge of these events, and such has never been required to document any other genocide.

For the alleged Einsatzgruppen mass graves, there should be roughly 2 million 'exterminated' Jewish bodies. That's either hundreds of graves that are tens of thousands of bodies in size, or thousands of graves with thousands of bodies, or tens of thousands with hundreds of bodies. Why haven't any of these been found? Where are the Jews?

Back at you: where are the Jews that history shows were killed?

With evidence, please.

Wolfe's handwritten note with the term 'judenevakuierung' is available on the National Archives website under the title: "Notes of Heinrich Himmler, Chief of Nazi Guard (SS), for a Speech to SS Generals, 10/04/1943".

Wolfe's translation of 'ausrottung' as 'extirpation' is available on the "National Holocaust Poster Exhibit", featured in a review by CW Porter and available here:
National Archives Trust Fund, NEDC, P.O. Box 100793, Atlanta Ga. 30384. ITEM # 6059, HOLOCAUST EXHIBIT. ISBN 0-911333-92-4.

And what does "extirpation" mean, again?

Although he was not a native speaker, Wolfe was the head of the National Archive which gives him some level of authority on the interpretation of these records.

Yet another example: "Ausrotten" is used figuratively by Hitler in his famous Berlin Sportpalast speech of February 1933: "den Marxismus und seine Begleiterscheinungen aus Deutschland auszurotten" — "to extirpate Marxism and its accompanying phenomena from Germany".

Ah, but this was referring to Marxism, not Marxists. Conversely, Hoess talks about "jüdischen Volkes" -- the Jewish folk, not Judentum, Judaism as a practice.

Try again.

Rede von Herrn Reichminister Hess, Am 14. Mai 1935 in Stockholm:

See above.

"What was Feuchtwanger talking about"? Unless your claim is that he spoke of an 'extermination' of 500,000 Jews, it is irrelevant.

So, you don't know -- or don't want to say.

Revisionist-turned-Semi-Believer David Irving seems to think so after personally reviewing the document:

And the personal opinion of this liar is significant because ... ?

There is a well-established motive and set of evidence to support an intent to portray a false account. Any contact between primarily Jewish institutions and compelling documentation must be, at the very least, "taken with a grain of salt". More on this, later.

And you can document that this grain of salt was *not* taken by historians?

Do tell.

Your excerpt is from one of the several Posen recordings and/or transcripts which total to more than three hours in length. It would be a fair estimate to say the alleged 'extermination' segment consists of significantly less than 1% of these speeches. The audio recording appeared mysteriously, decades after the war, on a kind of tape that was no longer used in Germany at the time and the written transcript has pages missing, various non-sequitors, segments re-typed.

I see lots of assertions, but no actual evidence to support it.

Funny, that.

Deliberate manipulation probably occurred to some degree, particularly when we consider the extent some opposing groups have gone to utilize such tactics.

Which groups are those, and what specifically was their influence on modern historians?

Even if we were to assume the "worst", that these transcripts and recordings were stated verbatim by Himmler, the context to any of these has to be carefully considered in relation to the many events that were occuring at the time including not only the evacuation of the Jews but also issues such as Einsatzgruppen efforts to combat guerilla warfare.

And these considerations change the facts ... how?

In either case, jumping to the conclusion that these brief comments with ambiguous wording are the "smoking gun" for the 'Holocaust' is beyond ridiculous. It becomes even more absurd when we review the implication that such a "secret speech" was openly discussing "extermination" and recorded despite the fact that written orders couldn't even be used for the "Final Solution", itself. We could argue that these speeches were uniquely important and therefore needed to be on-record but then how would they not be remembered during Himmler's "destroy all evidence" initiative? Perhaps this could be explained if we had a reliable source as to how these recordings came about which, of course, is very vague and conspicuous.

What specifically do you find at once vague and conspicuous?

What is conspicuous is your penchant for arguing from personal incredulity.

When we see how desperate Believers are to redefine the context of these limited records, and the way documents such as the Korherr Report, the Schlegelberger letter, the Luther Memo, the Hossbach Protocal and many others are dismissed for their explicit content, often instead being purported as legitimate proof of a 'Holocaust' without so much as a resemblance to an 'extermination' reference, the story told by liars collapses on itself.

Citations to this explicit content?

 

[swright777]

I usually leave this thread to the trained professionals (like DOCTOR Nick Terry), but this quote you posted is too much.

...
"It is true that there were no extermination camps on German soil and thus no mass gassings such as those that took place at Auschwitz, Treblinka and other camps."—Simon Wiesenthal, "Gassings in Germany," The Stars and Stripes, European Edition, Sunday, January 24, 1993 pg. 14.
...

You quote someone that says there were no mass gassings ON GERMAN SOIL such as the mass gassings that took place at Auschwitz, Treblinka and other camps and try to use this as evidence that there were no mass gassings in Poland?

It is true that there were no extermination camps on German soil and thus no mass gassings (on aforementioned German soil) such as those that took place at Auschwitz, Treblinka and other camps.

I added the part in parenthesis to make it more readable for the comprehension impaired.