Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Kevin.Silbstedt]

Can you explain, Mr Silbstedt, why the performance of these ovens seem so massively more efficient than Topf animal incinerators of that era

Why would I have to? This (again) has nothing to do with the documents.

You are, like your buddies, going the creationist way by trying to find holes in the official explaination, no matter how stupid, and than going the slippery slope by claiming it all to be a fake. If you want to proof, that these documents were faked, than prove it, but don't **** around with this kind of crap.

But to your "question":
1. Lets start with the fact, that they were designed for a completly different purpose. To obvious?
Nowhere in your quote does it say, that it is impossible to build an oven with a bigger capacity, it just says that this oven has its limits.

2. Your quote is not complete and the source is missing.

3. You are trying to prove a document to be faked by showing another document. God, I hope you are really just a troll, because I cannot say how incredibly stupid that is.

Yet these miracle ovens of Birkenau seemed to burn 10 times as many people with only the tenth of the coke used.

What is the chemical secret of Jews that makes them so uniquely flammable?

You know, I'm no expert, but fat burns. No kidding.
I guess you know the testimonies of the Sonderkommando and the reason why they would burn the fat bodies and women first. And even after heating the ovens up with coke, most, if not all the heat, could come from the burning of the bodies, (you know, the burning of bodies releases energy, yeah incredible isn't it?) Yeah, but that doesn't fit your argument, because you can't make a strawman out of it, but something tells me, that you will keep trying.

Lets never forget though, that Krema II and III were - as you are well aware - nothing more than bakeries.

Prove it! Give us testimonies, plans, photos, documents, anything that proves your claim. And while you're at it, explain, why the nazis then would destroy these buildings, which is proven by testimony and air photos. Did they found a secret recipe in them, that makes bread fresh and tasty no matter how old it gets? Damn it, those damn soviets...

 

[Clayton Moore]

I'd like to ask that our new friend answer these three points:

(1) In a letter written January 29, 1943, to SS Colonel Hans Kammler, Karl Bischoff, an SS captain and architect at Auschwitz-Birkenau, mentions a room in Krema II at Auschwitz-Birkenau that he refers to as a "Vergasungskeller." He is referring to the room that the blueprints for Krema II designate as a "Leichenkeller" (morgue). It has been suggested that the "Vergasungskeller" could have been a gas production cellar or a gas attack shelter for the Nazis. However, it would have been foolish to place a gas production cellar so close to the crematory ovens in Krema II, and certainly the word for a gas attack shelter would have the word "Schutz" in there somewhere. Complicating the matter is the fact that a letter from Erhard Wetzel, a Nazi adviser on Jewish Affairs, to Heinrich Lohse, Reichkommissar for Ostland, stationed at Riga, mentions the "Vergasungsapparate" that had been used in the T-4 Euthanasia program in Berlin. So clearly "Vergasung" can mean "to kill with gas."

How would you explain this document if the room being referred to in Bischoff's letter is not a gas chamber?

(2) During an "action" against Jews on the Eastern Front during the war, an SS man named Max Täubner was brought up on criminal charges for, as an officer, shooting Jews himself, as well as photographing the "action" and showing the photos to people back in Berlin. He was tried before an SS court in Munich, which rendered its verdict on May 24, 1943. The judge wrote, in part:

"The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself."

If there was no program to exterminate the Jews, then what was this judge in Munich talking about when he rendered his verdict?

(3) By the end of 1942, Nazi statistician Richard Korherr estimated that 2.5 million Jews had already been killed since the beginning of the war. The so-called Reinhard camps would continue to operate into the following year, Kulmhof would not close until 1944, and Auschwitz-Birkenau stopped killing prisoners in November 1944. Given the census that the Nazis themselves took for their conference at Wannsee, chaired by SS General Reinhard Heydrich, in January 1942 -- a census that concludes that there were, at that time, 11 million Jews in Europe and areas under Jewish control (primarily North Africa and the Middle East), is it ridiculous to suggest that the number of Jews killed could have been at least twice that many by May 8, 1945?

Hold the presses. News flash. As per Nazi statistician Richard Korherr the Germans had supposedly exterminated 2.5 million Jewish children, women, and men by May 24, 1943.
Yet one German SS soldier killing Jewish people drew the attention of his SS superiors even though an alleged extermination of millions of Jewish children, women, and men had been in progress for many years?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Are you aware that you come across as a very unfriendly person?

The Holocaust hoax has great value. Why else would it be dredged up 40, 50, 60, 70 years after ad nauseam, world wide? Why would there be laws against discussion of possible exaggerations and outright lies of testimonies?

People get upset when something of great value in their possession is jeopardized.

 

[dafydd]

The Holocaust hoax has great value. Why else would it be dredged 40, 50, 60, 70 years after up ad nauseam, world wide? Why would there be laws against discussion of possible exaggerations and outright lies of testimonies?

People get upset when something of great value in their possession is jeopardized.

One of the main reasons is that dickheads keep denying that it happened. It is also a lesson that will reverberate down the years. Do not let fascist eejits take over your country. Why do you hate Jews?

 

[Craig4]

Hold the presses. News flash. As per Nazi statistician Richard Korherr the Germans had supposedly exterminated 2.5 million Jewish children, women, and men by May 24, 1943.
Yet one German SS soldier killing Jewish people drew the attention of his SS superiors even though an alleged extermination of millions of Jewish children, women, and men had been in progress for many years?

You didn't really read the whole quote did you? You did notice the bit in the verdict about how Jews had to be exterminated and it was the duty of special unit to do it? The issue here appears to be that it was unseeingly for an officer to do it.

This is the typical weak scholarship I've come to expect from your kind.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Hold the presses. News flash. As per Nazi statistician Richard Korherr the Germans had supposedly exterminated 2.5 million Jewish children, women, and men by May 24, 1943.
Yet one German SS soldier killing Jewish people drew the attention of his SS superiors even though an alleged extermination of millions of Jewish children, women, and men had been in progress for many years?

Have you read an account of this case? It wasn't the fact of one German SS soldier, Max Taubner, participating alongside many other Germans that drew the SS's attention . . . Wroclaw even made it easy for someone with your reading difficulties, by citing the court opinion, to understand the issues in Taubner's case:

The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such.

So it wasn't Taubner's participation in the killing action that got him in court. The court even explained that

The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself.

So it was his acting without orders, outside channels, and "on his own initiative" that was a concern. In fact, the court praised Taubner for his "true hatred for Jews" even while objecting to his wild behavior.

The additional problem for Taubner, besides his acting without discipline, was his taking and sharing photographs of the action, which, according to he court was "shameless and utterly revolting" as well as a possible source for enemy propaganda. As the court judgment stated, "By taking photographs of the incidents or having photographs taken, by having these developed in photographic shops and showing them to his wife and friends, the accused is guilty of disobedience. Such pictures could pose the gravest risks to the security of the Reich if they fell into the wrong hands . . ." Taubner was found to have publicized and spread to non-participants what was not to be shared beyond those who participated or had to know: he disobeyed orders to maintain confidentiality, a very different matter from how you stated it.

So Wroclaw's point still needs to be dealt with: Again,why did the SS court in Munich note that "The Jews have to be executed," but in a disciplined, cohesive, and orderly manner?

 

[Moss]

Prove it! Give us testimonies, plans, photos, documents, anything that proves your claim. And while you're at it, explain, why the nazis then would destroy these buildings, which is proven by testimony and air photos. Did they found a secret recipe in them, that makes bread fresh and tasty no matter how old it gets? Damn it, those damn soviets...

This is actually the most interesting part about the rabbit's continued attempts at reframing those buildings. Why would the nazis destroy perfectly harmless and innocent buildings? Why waste explosives that could be used otherwise? Why destroy documentation that would be essentially worthless to the victors?
The next claim will possibly be that the nazis never did it and that that was just another part of the Great Jewish Plot.

It's also interesting that the rabbit tries to argue that said document is giving an estimate of capacity when it actually just states "we don't guarantee anything if you go over...". I'm not convinced the SS was anal retentive about keeping the warranty intact.

 

[LemmyCaution]

The Holocaust hoax has great value. Why else would it be dredged up 40, 50, 60, 70 years after ad nauseam, world wide? Why would there be laws against discussion of possible exaggerations and outright lies of testimonies?

People get upset when something of great value in their possession is jeopardized.

Why do we still study slavery in the Americas? WWI? The civil rights movement? The Russian revolution and Stalinism? The American colonies, Revolution, and Constitutional period? Indian removal and wars against the native people of the Americas? The Spanish conquest of the southern Americas?

Why is there a law in Russia banning Scientology? Why did the National Socialists ban Marxist literature?

You are neither well informed nor in the least bit logical in your thinking.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Why is there a law in Russia banning Scientology? Why did the National Socialists ban Marxist literature?

Neither are or were historical topics.

 

[ddt]

wrong, wrong and wrong.

eines Tieres im Gewicht von etwa 600 kg täglich hintereinander vorgenommen

hintereinander has no implication of allowing the oven to cool down - in fact it quite quite explicitly contradicts it.

It explicitly says the incineration of one animal per day.

You won't use more than 360 kilograms of coke and maximum yield is 600 kg a day - although if you keep opening the furnace to burn smaller amounts you could expect lesser efficiency.

The cooling down from opening the furnace for shoving in another corpse is insignificant compared to heating up the furnace.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Neither are or were historical topics.

You didn't answer my question. The point is that state limits on the discussion of something--a historical topic, a theory, a religion--have no direct bearing on the legitimacy, or not, of that thing. Can you help Gene Alley out and explain for us why the Germans enacted a law against hate speech and Holocaust denial? I mean, by citing specifics from the period in which such a law was enacted to support your explanation.

 

[ddt]

I'm almost certain that you have spent more time researching these topics, staring at your screen and banging away angrily at your keyboard in the last couple months than I ever have or will for the rest of my life. The same can no doubt be said about many of these revisionists who have done years of research, written numerous books on the subject and travel the world attending conferences with the ADL up their asses trying to ruin their careers and discredit them in any way possible. I just got here and already feel like I'm being cajoled into making this my life's mission by a few of you holo-experts.

It looks to me like about fifty hours of homework in research and writing just answering the barrage of questions that have been hurled at me in the last few hours. Luckily for me, I have many other activities in life that I find more important and enjoyable than to submerge myself into total holocaustia for the remaining 20-30 years of my life. I'll leave that to all you experts and bona fide holocaustial enthusiasts.

Meanwhile, if it's OK with you, when I find the time, I'll ask you good people some questions that I find compelling like I did this morning. Right now, I'd like to see a link to a photograph of these uber cremators and some specs regarding how much fuel it sucked up on a daily basis. Is that too much to ask?

Thanks

For the impatient lurkers here, the Cliff Notes version of the above is:
"I don't want to invest time to read about all the evidence, so I don't believe the standard historical, evidence-based narrative of the Holocaust but instead the claims of a couple of fringe people who deny it took place".

Let's make a few parallels.
"I don't want to invest time to read the NIST report, so I don't believe that the WTC was brought down by Muslim terrorists flying airplanes into it, but instead believe it was a controlled demolition ordered by the president."

"I don't want to look at his actual birth certificate, so I don't believe Obama was born in Hawaii, but instead believe Orly Taitz' claim he was born in Kenya."

"I don't want to read any book about Medieval Europe, so I don't believe Charlemagne was a human, but instead believe he was a shape-shifting lizard."

Give me a day to photoshop the "evidence" for the latter.

Really, Gene, do you think that's a sensible position?

 

[Saggy]

Why would the nazis destroy perfectly harmless and innocent buildings?

The hoax gas chambers were not destroyed, Krema I was not touched as it had been converted to a bomb shelter, and you can stand in the Krema II hoax gas chamber today. The roof has collapsed in places but not in others. The ovens at Krema II were dismantled an the crematorium bombed to rubble when the Nazis left, in an effort to stem the 'gas chamber' propaganda lies that the Soviets had been generating since the capture of Majdanek. But, apparently the Nazis didn't quite get it, that the morgue rooms were supposed to be 'gas chambers', as these were not destroyed, and, as noted, you can stand in them today.

 

[LemmyCaution]

. . . The ovens at Krema II . . .

At Bäckerei II?

 

[TSR]

Your snyde little attempts to insult my intelligence at the opening and close of your comment are duly noted.

.
Speed of reading or typing have nothing to do with intelligence per se, but do advance the point I was making, which was (see below) while highlighting your rather creative redefinition of "barrage".
.

Thanks for that, I guess. However as outrageous as it may seem, I haven't spent the whole twelve hours since I posted my first comment here reading about the holocaust. I actually got out of the house for several hours, visited with some freinds, excercised, watched a replay of the British Open and a baseball game.

.
While I made a dinner of Chow Mein, fried rice and egg rolls from scratch (okay, I bought the skins -- Dad's not set up in his kitchen to get the thickness and uniformity required correct) for most of the troop (I'm one of seven, and only one of my sibs has fewer then two children) whiile finalizing plans for Grand Mère's 100th birthday party later today, took a short trip after dinner down the road to the lake with the youngsters for 'wet time', read two stories to the wee ones for bed time, shared reading of a few more chapters of the book I'm going over with the adolescents and then back to my novel while waiting for my partner to come to bed.

What I did *not* do was jump into the middle of a conversation you were having by stating that a good case can be made that the Yankees had been threatened into throwing the Series (c'mon: three ex-Cubs in the lineup, and Pittsburgh won? The fix was in...) and then stating that I was going to need several hours before I was even going to make the attempt to support that statement, while ignoring or snarking about legitimate questions regarding Mazeroski's home run, whining that I really hadn't studied Maz's work at second base.
.

Are you aware that you come across as a very unfriendly person?

.
Are you aware that you come across as a very disingenuous, "not having studied the matter" yet knowing enough to whinge about a common and well deserved perception of the Cesspit?
.

 

[ddt]

That along with the outrageous actions of those who would support arresting and imprisoning people for advancing and arguing different historical perspectives regarding the holocaust in civilized so called "western democracies" is a huge red flag. Especially since it has been brought to my attention that our government here in the US and Canada have cooperated with these book burners by extradicting people to Germany for violating these draconian, totalitarian laws.

Could you be more specific what these laws against Holocaust denial are, and in which countries?

As you mention specifically Germany, I'll help you. The relevant article is art. 130 StgB (Strafgesetzbuch, Penal Code). Could you point out where it says "Holocaust denial"? And here is the relevant article in the Dutch Penal Code, art. 137d Sr. Could you also point out where it mentions Holocaust denial?

It isn't there. Those articles are against hate speech and incitement to hatred against religious and ethnic groups, in German called "Volksverhetzung". They're not specifically against Holocaust denial. In fact, the Dutch courts have explicitly acknowledged that scientific literature of "revisionist" nature is excluded from such hate speech - see, e.g., this verdict of the Hoge Raad, the Dutch Supreme Court, in a criminal case against Florrie Rost van Tonningen, who distributed the pamphlet "Sechs Millionen Juden vergast-verbrannt?". AFAIK, the German courts take the same stance.

The reason that such "revisionist literature" that is scientific does not exist is simply that the thesis that the Holocaust did not take place is utterly indefensible.

 

[Gene Alley]

1. Nobody gives a rats ass about what your "friend" thinks.

That is an inaccurate statement, and rather prickish in my opinion. No need for that.

We got a document here which is direct proof for the mass extermination at Auschwitz-Birkenau. You cannot explain that away, because you dont know the technical details.

That is correct. I can not "explain it away" because at this point I am not familiar with it. Upon further review however I may not even want to simply "explain it away" but rather draw the same conclusions from it that you have. Or perhaps I may have other questions regarding this document and exactly what it proves. I was under the impression that this was what this discussion forum was all about. There is certainly no need for all of the hostility that you have displayed towards me.

2. Your "friend" works in mortuary business, not in the mass extermination business. For today cremation process you have to cremate one corpse at a time and after that you take the ashes of this corpse, put it in an urn or something after the oven cooled off. The ovens in modern crematories are build for that purpose. But Topf und Söhne build their ovens for a different pupose: to get rid of thousands of corpses every day. There was no need to let them cool off, the ashes were collected in masses and thrown in a nearby river or the swamps and they were throwing multiple corpses at once in the ovens:

Agreed

No historian ever said, that this was a normal cremation process, that's another strawman which is also typical for deniers.

Not my strawman.

3. These were the ovens at Krematorium II, capable of cremating 1440 corpses in 24 hours according to the document I posted:


This is a list of parts needed for the same ovens:

QUOTE]

Thanks for the photo and the specs. Were there two other units like this at the compound? That would certainly bring the capacity up to the 4700 figure that was mentioned earlier.

 

[Gene Alley]

Could you be more specific what these laws against Holocaust denial are, and in which countries?

As you mention specifically Germany, I'll help you. The relevant article is art. 130 StgB (Strafgesetzbuch, Penal Code). Could you point out where it says "Holocaust denial"? And here is the relevant article in the Dutch Penal Code, art. 137d Sr. Could you also point out where it mentions Holocaust denial?

It isn't there. Those articles are against hate speech and incitement to hatred against religious and ethnic groups, in German called "Volksverhetzung". They're not specifically against Holocaust denial. In fact, the Dutch courts have explicitly acknowledged that scientific literature of "revisionist" nature is excluded from such hate speech - see, e.g., this verdict of the Hoge Raad, the Dutch Supreme Court, in a criminal case against Florrie Rost van Tonningen, who distributed the pamphlet "Sechs Millionen Juden vergast-verbrannt?". AFAIK, the German courts take the same stance.

The reason that such "revisionist literature" that is scientific does not exist is simply that the thesis that the Holocaust did not take place is utterly indefensible.

That's your strawman. You are the one who brought up the term "holocaust denial", not me. In my opinion the term is being misused. A holocaust denier to me would suggest someone who allegedly participated in the burning of human beings and is denying his guilt. What's your point?

 

[A'isha]

That's your strawman. You are the one who brought up the term "holocaust denial", not me. In my opinion the term is being misused. A holocaust denier to me would suggest someone who allegedly participated in the burning of human beings and is denying his guilt. What's your point?

His point would be that, contrary to your assertion, there are no laws about "arresting and imprisoning people for advancing and arguing different historical perspectives regarding the holocaust in civilized so called 'western democracies'".

 

[Cyrix686]

Saggy

"The hoax gas chambers were not destroyed, Krema I was not touched as it had been converted to a bomb shelter, and you can stand in the Krema II hoax gas chamber today. The roof has collapsed in places but not in others. The ovens at Krema II were dismantled an the crematorium bombed to rubble when the Nazis left, in an effort to stem the 'gas chamber' propaganda lies that the Soviets had been generating since the capture of Majdanek. But, apparently the Nazis didn't quite get it, that the morgue rooms were supposed to be 'gas chambers', as these were not destroyed, and, as noted, you can stand in them today."

It's almost as if this wasn't a human being, almost and someone had stuck a quarter in...and this peculiar spiel had spat itself out. Do you feel better Saggy?