9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

[9/11-investigator]

Then the Höfle Telegram, which demonstrates the murder of over a million Jews is sufficient as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Höfle_Telegram

Guess what I do in such a case (never heard of that telegram):

google inurl:fpp.co.uk Höfle Telegram

Here is Irvings comment on the telegram (scroll to the bottom):

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Auschwitz/Hebden300903.html

David Irving comments

I am worried about that telegram, very worried. You say the possibility of forgery is unthinkable, and I would like to agree, but cannot dismiss it entirely.

Some key Holocaust documents are forged, or they were only selectively copied at Nuremberg.

This particular item is certainly one of a kind: I cannot think of any other decodes that give such global statistics in such a handy form, and in a manner so easily identifiable by experts on the "Reinhardt camps."

EichmannHow handy that Adolf Eichmann himself is one of the parties ("for the attention of ..."). I have examined the original decode, as you know, and I spotted at once what other authors did not, or kept quiet about, that it has been inserted in the bound volume at a later date, and its first page accidentally placed at the end - not an easy thing to spot in such a muddled heap of single-spaced decodes typed on rice-paper, but there is no doubt that the "trailing" page 1 is in fact the page 1 that is missing at the front, so to speak. Now, how did that happen, to this of all documents? It is a rare occurrence indeed in these volumes of decodes.

I sign off. Have a good weekend all.

 

[Simon39759]

Interesting!

Questions for you:

1) do you confirm after reading the real report that the ICRC did indeed visit Auschwitz on a regular basis?
2) if so, do you confirm that the ICRC did not report extermination practices?

1) No. The visits were rare, 'on a regular basis' is misleading.
2) The IRC knew about the gaz chambers, at least very strongly suspected their existence but could not confirm their existence definitively. There are historical documents were they mention that they were not able to confirm the existence of the gaz chambers. Definitively, there were enough rumours for the IRC to pick up on them.

Also, answers to the questions you carefully avoided asking:
3) The IRC visitors did not exactly went to hiking through Auschwitz. Each visit was tightly organized and controlled. The IRC was expressively forbidden to go to the areas where the extermination process was taking place. You said it yourself, Auschwitz is a big place.
4) In fact, the tour was planned to take the visitors through the best maintained area of the camp, apparently kept in good maintenance for just that purpose.
5) The IRC was not at the time concerned with civilians. Their primary mission was to insure that war prisoners were not mistreated.
6) The IRC's policy was, and still is, one of appeasement. They are not willing to antagonize the local governments, because then their action would be impaired and the prisoners would be the first to suffer (this attitude, by the way is what caused the creation of the NGO medecins without borders). It was particularly obvious in the case of Auswitchz were the Jews were not the IRC primary concern, as mentioned earlier.


So... No, you loose again.

 

[Emerson Street]

What I don't get, and please excuse me if this is off topic, is, what is to be gained by the denial of numbers, if the holocaust deniers are telling the truth, that the numbers are wrong, but many Jews where killed, then what is the point? what do they hope to gain?

It wouldn't absolve the Nazi's of guilt, it wouldn't change anything, so what is the ultimate goal?

The only thing I can see this pointless exercise achieving is a thin end of the wedge strategy, that is to say that once you change the number once you can change it again, and again and again until you can say that NO Jews where killed, which is clearly wrong, so again, what is the point?

 

[IDB87]

That's possible. But the Brits were second to none in their ability of decripting messages. They knew almost anything and the Germans did not suspect that their codes had been broken. Rather unlikely. I refer to the link a few pages earlier about eavesdropping on Auschwitz communications written by Irving.

OK, but the article dealt with messages that could not be intercepted and deciphered (other than manually intercepting a courier or a message via letter). Your reply above does not deal with the possibility of phyiscal communiqués. Would you entertain the idea of physical messages of incriminating nature?

There are now several ways to go from here:

1)We can assume that Auschwitz was never used as a death camp, but that is unlikely since there is a literal mountain of evidence to the contrary. I have not seen any solid evidence supporting this idea, and would ask you to share with the forum your 'smoking gun'.

2)We can assume the Germans never sent any incriminating evidence over mointored lines (which the Brits would most assuredly intercept) because that is the most logical course considering the actions the Ordnungspolizei took in 1941. Would it be illogical to apply this policy to the SS?

Good point. And even if they were able to bomb the lines it is rather unlikely that this would have great effect on the transports. A railway line can be repaired in a matter of days.

Depends on the situation - were engineer companies available to repair/maintain these rail lines as they were taken out?

 

[Jungle Jim]

My own Saxon Dutch father was deported in 1944 to Poland to participate in the Arbeitseinsatz. He had amongst others to help clean up the mess in Dresden a few days after the Allies carried out their barbarous attack that claimed a comparable number of lives (135,000) in 1 night intentionally as all the people that died in all the camps combined over 3 years (270,000)!

He never experienced any barbarous act by the Germans.

I realize this is a personal matter, but since you raised the issue I am curious about your above post. To wit:

1. Your father was Saxon Dutch. Does that mean he was a citizen of the Netherlands? Is this the country from which he was deported?
2. Why was he deported to Poland in 1944?
3. How did he come to be in Dresden, Germany in February 1945?

 

[Uzzy]

Lunacy

So, when you're confronted with evidence that you've not heard of, the first thing you do is head over to your prophet Irving and see what he has to say about it... and it turns out that all he can do is JAQ off? That's hysterical.

 

[Cactus Wren]

On the other hand, Khrushchev famously predicted to bury American capitalists. Not much of the sort happened in this direction. Saying something and doing something are two different things.

Indeed, and why is the phrase "thousand-year Reich" springing to my mind?

 

[lionking]

Even if this troll was taken back by a time machine to witness the Holocaust himself he would still claim it was staged. Arguing with a stubborn bigot is pointless.

 

[Satra]

ethical more than historical relevance

For me the question about history doesn't make much sense any more, especially here.
I don't think the clue is if people "believe" in the Holocaust or not.

It's really ok in my eyes not to believe in anything you haven't experienced and to practicate scepticism without frontiers (it's a little strange to sustain claiming something didn't take place when you really weren't there and so much witnesses etc etc tell the contrary, but ok...?).

The clue, for me, and so the only point really worth of attention, is if the person is d'accord with the nazi-values or not. Is it ok for him to discriminate or even kill somebody for his belief / origins / sexuality?
How does or would he react when experiencing such cases in life?
The rest is not decisively tangible and not essentially relevant in the present.

 

[lionking]

English not your first language?

 

[Satra]

mine?

yessss^^

 

[lionking]

Wow.

 

[Satra]

( Yeah, I experienced that with some more or less basic English a French native speaker with relatively good Latin notions can sometimes impress just in the moments he-she comes to his-her linguistical limits ^^ )

 

[Thunder]

Even if this troll was taken back by a time machine to witness the Holocaust himself he would still claim it was staged. Arguing with a stubborn bigot is pointless.

you got it.

 

[Simon39759]

For me the question about history doesn't make much sense any more, especially here.
I don't think the clue is if people "believe" in the Holocaust or not.

It's really ok in my eyes not to believe in anything you haven't experienced and to practicate scepticism without frontiers (it's a little strange to sustain claiming something didn't take place when you really weren't there and so much witnesses etc etc tell the contrary, but ok...?).

The clue, for me, and so the only point really worth of attention, is if the person is d'accord with the nazi-values or not. Is it ok for him to discriminate or even kill somebody for his belief / origins / sexuality?
How does or would he react when experiencing such cases in life?
The rest is not decisively tangible and not essentially relevant in the present.

First language or not, you make your point clear and it is, indeed, interesting.
Regardless of your interest for history (and I have to disagree with you here and believe historical accuracy is worth pursuing for its sake) it is revealing to note that, by and large, holocaust deniers in the West, the vast majority of them, have strong ties with the far right.

Ivring, Faurisson, the Stormfront website we have seen quoted here a few time, 9/11 himself who, I believe, has made his vitriolic racism and anti-semitism quite clear... For every Harry Elmer Barnes and Paul Rassinier, there are uncounted numbers of neo-nazis.

On the other hand, with have the works of Muslims deniers, people like Ahmadinejad that make no secret of their hatred for Israel and their wish to see the country destroyed.

It is quite clear, indeed, by simply looking at the people practising Holocaust denial that the objective rarely is too promote an actual knowledge of history. In truth, one can often wonder if the deniers really believe what they are pelleting of if they are just lying to advance their political cause.
And that the scariest part, as their whole objective could be summarize by the aphorism:"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".




*Au fait, être d'accord se dit: 'to agree' or 'to be in agreement' *

 

[Chaos]

It is quite clear, indeed, by simply looking at the people practising Holocaust denial that the objective rarely is too promote an actual knowledge of history. In truth, one can often wonder if the deniers really believe what they are pelleting of if they are just lying to advance their political cause.

And just as tellingly, those who call themselves "skeptics" are only ever "skeptical" about the crimes of the Nazis... or even only specifically about what the Nazis did to the Jews.

I am so sure it is totally a coincidence that none of these fine souls ever directed their "skepticism" at, for example, the Turkish genocide of Armenians, or the Rape of Nanking, or ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, or the massacres committed by Genghis Khan´s hordes....

And that the scariest part, as their whole objective could be summarize by the aphorism:"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

Oh, I´m sure they remember the past - why else would they so rabidly and internally inconsistently deny it?

 

[FineWine]

you got it.

These monsters point triumphantly to Anne Frank's death by typhus: you see, we didn't kill the little girl--she died of natural causes. Uh, why was she imprisoned in the first place? She had committed no crimes.

They desperately want to show that their heroes murdered "only" a million or so Jews, not the six million that accords with population estimates before and after the war. What point can they possibly imagine they're making?

 

[Simon39759]

Maybe they know nobody in his right mind would accept to believe the Holocaust to be pure fiction.
Then, the best they can hope for is for people to say: 'Well, maybe there were some slight exagerations in the numbers'.
Then, they will switch the 'debate' to how many exactly, and over time they hope to make the holocaust as just a minor disturbance, a 'detail of history'.

 

[drkitten]

Guess what I do in such a case (never heard of that telegram):

google inurl:fpp.co.uk Höfle Telegram

Here is Irvings comment on the telegram (scroll to the bottom):\

You go check the website of the one Holocaust denier person proven in court to have a track record of lying, cheating, and misrepresenting documents?

Wow, that's rich. That's like making a point of getting financial advice from a bankrupt or legal advice from a disbarred lawyer.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

These monsters point triumphantly to Anne Frank's death by typhus: you see, we didn't kill the little girl--she died of natural causes. Uh, why was she imprisoned in the first place? She had committed no crimes.

They desperately want to show that their heroes murdered "only" a million or so Jews, not the six million that accords with population estimates before and after the war. What point can they possibly imagine they're making?

Now that's the Big lie. Vladimir Lenin also said "a lie often told becomes truth".