• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks. So much for the 'camera never lies' lol.

.......

......

Do you call that "honest" information of the people?.

.......

Do you call that "honest" information of the people?.

Thank you for pointing out the usual lies and fabrications.

Yes, after the War ended and news of the Holocaust became public there were exaggerations, manipulations and publication of altered photos. You are right about that.

Meanwhile serious academic study has reported the truth. You would be unwise to base any conclusion of media reports and gossip.
 
A decisive topic? Yes, despite this, I am mostly saddened by some of the views presented in this thread!!

I maintain an opinion which I feel is formulated by fact and not fiction, nor by the need to agree simply because it is now considered popular to do so. I would instead welcome factual evidence from deniers which clearly disprove popular belief which is supported be a vast collection of evidence.

This a personal perspective only!

Do you know that discussion of the history of the Holocaust may put you in prison in many countries?

Did you know that the legendary champion for Holocaust remembrance, Elie Wiesel, after being in Auschwitz during the
alleged the gas chamber exterminations, chose to leave Auschwitz with the bloodcurdling subhuman Nazis rather than be liberated by the Russians?

Did you know that the legendary champion for Holocaust remembrance, Elie Wiesel, never mentioned GAS CHAMBERS in his book "Night"?


And where is Elie Wiesel's tattoo?
http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/wp-content/themes/whiteboard/images/xxxtatoo02.jpg

http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would instead welcome factual evidence from deniers which clearly disprove popular belief which is supported be a vast collection of evidence.

Nobody can prove that something did not happen. Therefore the burden of proof always is on the side of those saying it did. I would be mucb happier if those alleged tons of evidence proving the event would be reliable evidence and not the kind of evidence as shown above. It must be asked why those claiming that vast amounts of evidence exist only present the "fishy" ones, disclosing the real evidence. Thats what I am still waiting for. To myself it would prove that I didn't trust the wrong people for more than 50 years. Nobody would be happier than I would be myself about that fact.

I'll give you one more example:

The protocol of the notorious "Wannsee Conference" (also on the Wikipedia/Holocaust page):

Two sentences from page one and the original (non edited) translation:

Der Wunsch des Reichsmarschalls, ihm einen Entwurf über die organisatorischen, sachlichen und materiellen Belange im Hinblick auf die Endlösung der europäischen Judenfrage zu übersenden, erfordert die vorherige gemeinsame Behandlung aller an diesen Fragen unmittelbar beteiligten Zentralinstanzen im Hinblick auf die Parallelisierung der Linienführung.

Die Federführung bei der Bearbeitung der Endlösung der Judenfrage liege ohne Rücksicht auf geographische Grenzen zentral beim Reichsführer-SS und Chef der Deutschen Polizei (Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD)



Translation:
The wish of the Reichsmarschall to send him a draft concerning organisatory, factual and material aspects under regard of the final solution of the European Jewish question requires a prior treatment of all directly participating central agencies under regard of the parallelization of line drawing.

The leadership of the treatment of the final solution of the Jewish question without regard on geographical borders will centrally be in the hands of the Reichsführer SS and Chief of German Police (Chief of Security Police and SD).

End of translation

Comment
Not only are the sentences meaningless nonsense (parallelization of line drawing), the author also had grammatical problems with German relative sentences: not the participating agencies have to be treated, but the question requires treatment by all perticipating agencies. First graders in German schools are laughing about those mistakes (The Sheriff shot the robber because he was an a..hole).
That however is not all: the author obviously was unaware that "Reichsführer SS and Chief of German Police" (Heinrich Himmler) and "Chief of Security Police and SD" (Reinhard Heydrich) were two different persons (If the meaning of the sentence would be "the task is in the hands of Himmler and Heydrich" it would oppose its own meaning, the task centrally being in one hand only). That at least is strange under the aspect that Heydrich himself was the alleged leader of the conference.

Without counting again: On the Wikipedia/Holocaust page 20 proofs are presented of which more than half are fabrications, the rest being maps, dead people or people on starvation, nobody knowing where the images had been taken or photographs of contemporary monuments.
I still believe that there are tons of reliable evidence of the Holocaust. All I ask for: present it. Remove the fabrications. Then call again.


http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/dokumente/wannseekonferenz/
 
Do you know that discussion of the history of the Holocaust may put you in prison in many countries?

Not true. Denial is illegal in some countries. Discussing the history and the likes of mis-captioned photos and the disagreement over numbers killed is not illegal.

Did you know that the legendary champion for Holocaust remembrance, Elie Wiesel, after being in Auschwitz during the
alleged the gas chamber exterminations, chose to leave Auschwitz with the bloodcurdling subhuman Nazis rather than be liberated by the Russians?

Chose? Even if he did the Nazis had not exactly painted a rosy picture of the advancing Soviet Army. Then many Jews survived by keeping their head down and either cooperating or at least not fighting back. Plus, heading west with the Nazis would have meant heading towards home and the Allies.

Did you know that the legendary champion for Holocaust remembrance, Elie Wiesel, never mentioned GAS CHAMBERS in his book "Night"?

Which you keep bringing up as if it is significant evidence of something.



No idea. Maybe he has not been entirely truthful? It happens and proper academic study takes that into consideration. Indeed you were not entirely truthful at the top of this post. Therefore nothing you say should be believed going by your standard.
 
Nobody can prove that something did not happen. Therefore the burden of proof always is on the side of those saying it did. I would be mucb happier if those alleged tons of evidence proving the event would be reliable evidence and not the kind of evidence as shown above. It must be asked why those claiming that vast amounts of evidence exist only present the "fishy" ones, disclosing the real evidence. Thats what I am still waiting for. To myself it would prove that I didn't trust the wrong people for more than 50 years. Nobody would be happier than I would be myself about that fact.

Unfortunately the "fishy" not entirely accurate evidence has remain in popular culture since it first started to appear. Meanwhile there has been significant academic study.

I'll give you one more example:

The protocol of the notorious "Wannsee Conference" (also on the Wikipedia/Holocaust page):

Two sentences from page one and the original (non edited) translation:

Der Wunsch des Reichsmarschalls, ihm einen Entwurf über die organisatorischen, sachlichen und materiellen Belange im Hinblick auf die Endlösung der europäischen Judenfrage zu übersenden, erfordert die vorherige gemeinsame Behandlung aller an diesen Fragen unmittelbar beteiligten Zentralinstanzen im Hinblick auf die Parallelisierung der Linienführung.

Die Federführung bei der Bearbeitung der Endlösung der Judenfrage liege ohne Rücksicht auf geographische Grenzen zentral beim Reichsführer-SS und Chef der Deutschen Polizei (Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD)



Translation:
The wish of the Reichsmarschall to send him a draft concerning organisatory, factual and material aspects under regard of the final solution of the European Jewish question requires a prior treatment of all directly participating central agencies under regard of the parallelization of line drawing.

The leadership of the treatment of the final solution of the Jewish question without regard on geographical borders will centrally be in the hands of the Reichsführer SS and Chief of German Police (Chief of Security Police and SD).

End of translation

Comment
Not only are the sentences meaningless nonsense (parallelization of line drawing), the author also had grammatical problems with German relative sentences: not the participating agencies have to be treated, but the question requires treatment by all perticipating agencies. First graders in German schools are laughing about those mistakes (The Sheriff shot the robber because he was an a..hole).
That however is not all: the author obviously was unaware that "Reichsführer SS and Chief of German Police" (Heinrich Himmler) and "Chief of Security Police and SD" (Reinhard Heydrich) were two different persons (If the meaning of the sentence would be "the task is in the hands of Himmler and Heydrich" it would oppose its own meaning, the task centrally being in one hand only). That at least is strange under the aspect that Heydrich himself was the alleged leader of the conference.

I do not speak German, but I am sceptical of your translation which casts suspicion on one word. Yours is typical denier/revisionist behaviour, find a supposed minute fault and then try and discredit the whole so completely ignoring all the other evidence. That is a smear tactic, not proper academic research.

Without counting again: On the Wikipedia/Holocaust page 20 proofs are presented of which more than half are fabrications, the rest being maps, dead people or people on starvation, nobody knowing where the images had been taken or photographs of contemporary monuments.
I still believe that there are tons of reliable evidence of the Holocaust. All I ask for: present it. Remove the fabrications. Then call again.


http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/dokumente/wannseekonferenz/

Even school kids are advised on using Wikipedia for proper academic research. It is a bad example.

Nick Terry's posts contain proper academic research. So read the thread scanning for them. That would be a start for you to do to ignore the drivel.
 
Did you know that the legendary champion for Holocaust remembrance, Elie Wiesel, after being in Auschwitz during the
alleged the gas chamber exterminations, chose to leave Auschwitz with the bloodcurdling subhuman Nazis rather than be liberated by the Russians?

How many times do I have to explain this to you? Wiesel left with the Nazis because they were sure the Nazis would kill everyone who didn't go, and only afterwards learned that those who remained behind were liberated by the Russians. I even quoted the relevant passages in Night where he says all this!
 
Do you know that discussion of the history of the Holocaust may put you in prison in many countries?
Completely wrong. Why don't you know that?

Did you know that the legendary champion for Holocaust remembrance, Elie Wiesel, after being in Auschwitz during the
alleged the gas chamber exterminations, chose to leave Auschwitz with the bloodcurdling subhuman Nazis rather than be liberated by the Russians?
Fleeing the Russians and moving toward the West was generally considered a smart move at the time. Why don't you know that?

Did you know that the legendary champion for Holocaust remembrance, Elie Wiesel, never mentioned GAS CHAMBERS in his book "Night"?
Completely meaningless. Why don't you know that?

In law, if your client is obviously guilty and the evidence is against you the classic move is to attack the witness.
 
Do you know that discussion of the history of the Holocaust may put you in prison in many countries?

Did you know that the legendary champion for Holocaust remembrance, Elie Wiesel, after being in Auschwitz during the
alleged the gas chamber exterminations, chose to leave Auschwitz with the bloodcurdling subhuman Nazis rather than be liberated by the Russians?[...]
For the love of-I discussed this recently, the last time you tried it. The Jews were forced to go with Nazis on a death march, or die. Wiesel says so. Did you miss my post? Did you forget? Or is the reason something else?

#000063bookmark, holocaust, elie wiesel night
 
An update !

Its been a long while since i last posted but I left off requesting from the Deniers some details of the alleged centers Jews were sent to from the "transit" camp at Treblinka.?
There would be a very reasonable expectation I believe of documented evidence of these centers from those Jews sent there and from SS or Wehrmacht detachments who had oversight of their "welfare". Red Cross accounts would also be helpful as am sure the Nazis would of been anxious to let the world see the real truth about the the " final solution".
At the time there was no satisfactory response to my query.Now's the chance to try once more and set the record straight.
Also deniers if you will, a list of SS or SD Officers or personnel who actually have come forward and and agreed with you that the Holocaust never happened.? Ones who e.g dispute Franz Stangl's accounts of his position and work at Treblinka.?
 
Its been a long while since i last posted but I left off requesting from the Deniers some details of the alleged centers Jews were sent to from the "transit" camp at Treblinka.?
There would be a very reasonable expectation I believe of documented evidence of these centers from those Jews sent there and from SS or Wehrmacht detachments who had oversight of their "welfare". Red Cross accounts would also be helpful as am sure the Nazis would of been anxious to let the world see the real truth about the the " final solution".
At the time there was no satisfactory response to my query.Now's the chance to try once more and set the record straight.
Also deniers if you will, a list of SS or SD Officers or personnel who actually have come forward and and agreed with you that the Holocaust never happened.? Ones who e.g dispute Franz Stangl's accounts of his position and work at Treblinka.?

Check the monthly Journal of the Association of Jewish Refugees Archive. All issues starting from January 1946 are freely downloadable as pdf files from


http://www.ajr.org.uk/pdfjournals

The places mentioned most frequently are Auschwitz (693 times) Theresienstadt (393 times), Riga (157 times) and Treblinka (112). Sobibor (41 times), Majdanek (18) and Belzec (24 times) are not so frequent.


(The word "claim" is mentioned 616 times, "claims" has 714 hits within the same time period).
 
Check the monthly Journal of the Association of Jewish Refugees Archive. All issues starting from January 1946 are freely downloadable as pdf files from

http://www.ajr.org.uk/pdfjournals

The places mentioned most frequently are Auschwitz (693 times) Theresienstadt (393 times), Riga (157 times) and Treblinka (112). Sobibor (41 times), Majdanek (18) and Belzec (24 times) are not so frequent.

(The word "claim" is mentioned 616 times, "claims" has 714 hits within the same time period).

ROFLMAO, and this is meant to answer Mynott's question?

The first hit for Treblinka in November 1946 is in a short article on 'the fate of the Leipzig Jews', noting that 300 Jews were deported from Leipzig to 'Lublin, Belcyce and the extermination camps of Treblinka and Maidanek', before noting that only 2 came back. The second hit is from 10 years later, in a review of Leon Poliakov and Josef Wulf's classic document collection Das Dritte Reich und die Juden.

It doesn't look very likely that the hitherto unknown accounts by SS officers of how they ran Happy-Happy Joy-Joy camps which sent smiling Jews on their merry way to a new life somewhere else are going to be found in the pages of the AJR Journal.
 
Check the monthly Journal of the Association of Jewish Refugees Archive. All issues starting from January 1946 are freely downloadable as pdf files from


http://www.ajr.org.uk/pdfjournals

The places mentioned most frequently are Auschwitz (693 times) Theresienstadt (393 times), Riga (157 times) and Treblinka (112). Sobibor (41 times), Majdanek (18) and Belzec (24 times) are not so frequent.


(The word "claim" is mentioned 616 times, "claims" has 714 hits within the same time period).

MaxMurx, of the 112 issues that mention the Treblinka camp, can you tell us which ones contain the details Mynott is asking for regarding documented evidence of the other centers that Jews were sent to from the Treblinka "transit camp", and from SS or Wehrmacht detachments who had oversight of their "welfare"
 
Check the monthly Journal of the Association of Jewish Refugees Archive. All issues starting from January 1946 are freely downloadable as pdf files from
http://www.ajr.org.uk/pdfjournals

The places mentioned most frequently are Auschwitz (693 times) Theresienstadt (393 times), Riga (157 times) and Treblinka (112). Sobibor (41 times), Majdanek (18) and Belzec (24 times) are not so frequent.

Max, Did you simply enter the word "Treblinka" into the PDF's search engine and not actually read the articles?

The first reference to Treblinka is states that the Jews from Leipzeig were sent to the extermination camp at Treblinka. That hardly supports your holocaust denial beliefs.
 
In Holocaust-History.org an inventory list of "Krematorium III" from Auschwitz Birkenau is presented (it seems to be a template for ordering inventory items with pre selected items for which the number of items to be ordered was added).

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/19430624-inventory/

That list in the link is called, quote: This inventory is absolute and irrefutable proof of the existence of a gas chamber fitted with dummy showers in Krematorium III.
End of quote

The source is given with: This document is reproduced in Pressac, Jean Claude, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, 1989, p. 432. Its source is given as Auschwitz State Museum Archive reference BW 30/43, p. 24.

If the statement of being an "irrefutable proof" is from the original source or is an own conclusion or statement of the authors of the page in the link is not clearly visible.

The statement is based on the fact that the order list contains 14 "Brausen", no water piping, that 14 shower heads are not enough for a room of such size, quote: As Pressac points out (p. 429), there are no water pipes to the showerheads, nor is 14 anywhere near enough showers for such a large room. Therefore, these items were: ...DUMMY SHOWERS, made of wood or other materials and painted, as stated by several former members of the Sonderkommando End of quote

In addition the addition of a "gas tight door" to the order is seen as proof that the room labeled as "Leichenkeller I" (Morgue I) was a gas chamber.

Comment:

1. The German word for "shower" is "Dusche". "Brause" means "sprinkler" and "soda" (In North German slang "Brause" is used for "Dusche". Auschwitz however is not in North Germany). The order therefore most likely was for 14 hand sprinklers, common in any morgue in the world. The absence of an order of water piping material simply is explained by those pipings being present is any raw building and not necessary to be ordered later. If those would be "dummies from painted wood" that fact certainly would have to be mentioned on a template (but isn't).
2. The order of a gas tight door is following the German routine of all air raid shelter doors being gas tight, as shown in "Gasschutz und Luftschutz" (Gas Protection and Air Raid Protection) 4/33 page 96: How to render common air raid shelter doors gas tight.
Rooms being changed into air raid shelters received a pre produced steel door with rubber fittings and a peep hole for fears of air raids with gas containing ammunition and to check if the outer area still would be contaminated (see all other issues of Gasschutz und Luftschutz from 1931 until 1945 in the link below).

http://www.bbk.bund.de/DE/Service/F... und Luftschutz/Gasschutz_und_Luftschutz.html

3. The order from Ausschwitz also contains 31 "Kugellampen" (ball shaped lamps). According to Dötzer, Walter: Entkeimung, Entseuchung und Entwesung, Arbeitsanweisung für Klinik und Laboratorium des Hygieneinstituts der Waffen SS, Berlin, Heft 3, Urban & Schwarzenberg Publishers, Berlin, Wien, (Year Illegible) Preussische Verlagsdruckerei Berlin, page 107, chapter: Disinfestation by chemical measures , disinfestation by highly toxical chemicals (Disinfection, sterilization and disinfestation. Instructions for clinic and laboratory from the Insitute of Hygiene of the Waffen SS, Berlin) quote (translation below): Offenes Licht ist von dem Kammerbereich fernzuhalten. Desgleichen ist das Rauchen, die Benutzung von offenem Feuer (Streichhölzer, Feuerzeuge usw.) verboten.
Elektrisches Licht darf nicht in der Kammer selbst, sondern nur unter Verwendung explosionssicherer Spezialleuchten ausserhalb der Kammer vor einem eingelassenen Fenster angebracht werden

End of quote

Translation: The use of open lights has to be kept away from the chambers. Also smoking and the use of open fire (matches, lighters etc.) is prohibited. Electrical lighting must not be used in the chamber itself but must be provided by explosion safe special lamps from outside through a countersinken window.
End of quote

The order of 31 standard ball shaped lamps nebst the general unfeasibility of a crematory to be used as a gas chamber is more a proof for what the room not was intended to be used: as a gas chamber.

http://nsl-archiv.com/Buecher/Bis-1...uchung und Entwesung (1943, 177 S., Scan).pdf
...
 
In a prior posting I have emphasized that there is no reason to hate Jews or to be anti semitic simply for Jews believing what all other people believe too. Removing fabricated or "doctored" evidence is for the simple sake of purifying the truth, which is an ethical principle of enlightenment. That statement was censored. I therefore hereby repeat it hoping it will pass censorship this time.
 
In a prior posting I have emphasized that there is no reason to hate Jews or to be anti semitic simply for Jews believing what all other people believe too. Removing fabricated or "doctored" evidence is for the simple sake of purifying the truth, which is an ethical principle of enlightenment. That statement was censored. I therefore hereby repeat it hoping it will pass censorship this time.

Max? You seem concerned about fabricated claims. Can you now explain your post that linked to the Journal of the Association of Jewish Refugees Archive. What was your aim in that post? Can you explain in detail.
 
MaxMurx, of the 112 issues that mention the Treblinka camp, can you tell us which ones contain the details Mynott is asking for regarding documented evidence of the other centers that Jews were sent to from the Treblinka "transit camp", and from SS or Wehrmacht detachments who had oversight of their "welfare"

Or better yet, where are the survivors and the descendants of the survivors? If they were resettled into new communities, they should be easily found in these communities, right?
 
Its been a long while since i last posted but I left off requesting from the Deniers some details of the alleged centers Jews were sent to from the "transit" camp at Treblinka.?
There would be a very reasonable expectation I believe of documented evidence of these centers from those Jews sent there and from SS or Wehrmacht detachments who had oversight of their "welfare". Red Cross accounts would also be helpful as am sure the Nazis would of been anxious to let the world see the real truth about the the " final solution".
At the time there was no satisfactory response to my query.Now's the chance to try once more and set the record straight.
The situation remains unsatisfactory, but there is a lengthy essay on the subject in the following document (pages 645-802):
http://codoh.com/library/document/3052
Also deniers if you will, a list of SS or SD Officers or personnel who actually have come forward and and agreed with you that the Holocaust never happened.? Ones who e.g dispute Franz Stangl's accounts of his position and work at Treblinka.?

Disputing crimes against humanity is itself a crime under s130 of the German criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch). Generally, those who did not plead guilty confined themselves to denying personal knowledge. However, this includes those who would have been bound to know if the events alleged had occurred. One such is Robert Mulka, deputy adjutant of Auschwitz:
http://youtu.be/uwcjf1JGMxk
As for outright denial, this would include Erich Priebke, who died recently in Italy where he admitted participated in an SS reprisal shooting:
http://morbusignorantia.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/das-letzte-interview-mit-erich-priebke-vom-juli-2013/
http://olodogma.com/wordpress/2013/10/12/0421-la-mort-derich-priebke-livre-un-important-message/
He also refers to statements made by Goering and Kaltenbrunner at the time of the Nuremberg trials.

I'm not aware of specific denial by those at Treblinka, though I see that Kurt Franz wrote in his album that his time there was "the best days of my life", which seems an unlikely description for an involvement in systematic mass murder with a sideline in sadistic atrocity:
http://holocausthistorychannel.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screenshot-301.png
But then, the usual laws of psychology are suspended in holocaust studies, along with the laws of physics, chemistry, etc, so it's a weak argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom