Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[SanityGap]

Sources noted in this essay.

Thanks

Thanks for the wall of nazi text plus some very dodgy references.
Care to try again with a primary source.

 

[TSR]

Are you suggesting that all of the cited incidences of torture and coercion by British, US and Soviet officials are false?

.
No, I am flat out stating that the 'citations' you have offered are not citations, but mere claims which do not hold up under scrutiny.
.

If any of them are true, it blows the hell out of your mass gassing theory, doesn't it?

.
It is not *my* anything, nor is the mass gassing by the Nazis a mere theory. But I'm glad to see that you have dropped the pretense of "looking at both sides" although I doubt having done so will prevent you from claiming that you are in the future.

But for the sake of argument, *if* your claims of torture and coercion were true, it would not blow anything out of anything, since (I'll type this slow for you)

T h e . n o r m a t i v e . h i s t o r y . o f . t h e s e . e v e n t s . d o e s . n o t . d e p e n d . s o l e l y . o n . t h e . t e s t i m o n i e s . o f . t h e s e . p e o p l e .
.

 

[SanityGap]

Are you suggesting that all of the cited incidences of torture and coercion by British, US and Soviet officials are false? If any of them are true, it blows the hell out of your mass gassing theory, doesn't it?

Even if there were incidences of abuse (and I don't doubt it) it does not automatically change prior history. This is typical CT methodology, try to find one fault with the narrative and thus render the whole to be false. Doesn't work that way.

 

[Gene Alley]

Crowell was already wrong in 1997 as it happens, but his essay is now completely obsolete because there has been a lot more research on the subject in the past 14 years.

There would have been a lot more research anyway because 14 years is a long time in academia, and because of the technological changes in that time. 14 years ago there were barely any e-journal databases, you did not have newspapers archived online, and digital cameras were very expensive. Heck, laptops had only just become laptops back then. Today many archives have microfilm readers hooked up to scanners, or you can take your copies to a decent scanner and digitise the material. Today you can search library catalogues worldwide on the internet, which you could not do back then. All of these changes have had an effect on what can be achieved in historical research, and will go on having an impact for many decades to come.

The other reason why 1997 is dated for Holocaust research is because 22 years ago, the Cold War ended. Access to materials from Eastern Europe, and in this case especially Poland, suddenly became much easier. In 1997 that process was only a few years old, today it is a well established process. A new generation of Polish historians has appeared who are taking much more of an interest in the Holocaust than was the case under communism. They live and work right next to the archives and can get an awful lot done. In turn, western historians can visit Poland, or read the results of Polish research, or see copies of documents whose originals are in Poland, on microfilm in western archives and research centres. So this has massively stimulated the amount written on the subject.

Frankly, 14 years is also a large chunk of the time elapsed since the Holocaust began in earnest - it's 20% of the time. The Holocaust happened within what is still living memory, and it is no surprise that we should be still finding out lots about events in 20th Century history, since this also happens for WWI, WWII, the Soviet Union, imperialism, the Cold War etc.

It certainly appears that a massively funded holocaust industry has been furiously working on damage control 24-7-365 in the last 14 years and beyond. There has also been a big push worldwide to silence, persecute and imprison those who challenge the official dogma. Even your Tony Blair indicated that he would like to see holocaust denial outlawed in the UK a few years back.

Fortunately as always, the search for the truth marches forward despite all of the threats and rhetoric. It will be interesting to see how many of this "new generation of Polish historians has appeared who are taking much more of an interest in the Holocaust", end up in German courtrooms and jails. What is encouraging is that there are still places like this forum, IHR, CDOH, and RODOH that facilitate the free exchange of ideas regarding this topic. Onward!!

 

[Gene Alley]

Thanks for the wall of nazi text plus some very dodgy references.
Care to try again with a primary source.

In your world regarding the sacred holocaust

nazi text = inconvenient facts

 

[Gwynpaine]

Confessions of Belsen staff

Thanks to Grey Rabbit. I am as it happens familiar with Alan Moorehead’s 1945 book ECLIPSE and I do consider it good evidence for coercion. The passage that is often recycled (p236 of 19 67 edition) would be even better evidence if Mark Weber had quoted it in full.


I am also very familiar with the unpublished trial archives at Kew and I happen to think they too contain good evidence for coercion. But I am interested here in any documentation to support coercion of the Belsen staff that has already been published.

 

[Gene Alley]

Thanks to Grey Rabbit. I am as it happens familiar with Alan Moorehead’s 1945 book ECLIPSE and I do consider it good evidence for coercion. The passage that is often recycled (p236 of 19 67 edition) would be even better evidence if Mark Weber had quoted it in full.


I am also very familiar with the unpublished trial archives at Kew and I happen to think they too contain good evidence for coercion. But I am interested here in any documentation to support coercion of the Belsen staff that has already been published.

If indeed there was torture and coercion used to extort perjured testimony as to the mass extermination policy, surely anything else that spews forth from that cesspool must be considered extremely suspect, to say the least.

Thanks

 

[SanityGap]

Thanks indeed to the Rabbit. We can now see how that paragraph from Eclipse was edited.

"Same thing in the next cell and the next, where the men, who
were bleeding and very dirty, were moaning something in German.
"You had better see the doctor" the captain said. "He s a nice
specimen. He invented some of the tortures here. He had one trick
of injecting creosote and petrol into the prisoners* veins. He used to
go round the huts and say "Too many people in here. Far too
many" Then he used to loose off his revolver round the hut. The
doctor has just finished his interrogation."
The doctor had a cell to himself.
"Come on. Get up," the sergeant shouted. The man was lying in
his blood on the floor, a massive figure with a heavy head and a
bedraggled beard. He placed his two arms on to the seat of a
wooden chair, gave himself a heave and got half-upright. One more
heave and he was on his feet. He flung wide his arms towards us.
"Why don t you kill me?" he whispered. "Why don t you kill me?
I can t stand any more."

I guess now it becomes "degenerate lies".

 

[SanityGap]

If indeed there was torture and coercion used to extort perjured testimony as to the mass extermination policy, surely anything else that spews forth from that cesspool must be considered extremely suspect, to say the least.

Thanks

My post above shows who is attempting to deceive with selective editing. Anything from those sources must be considered extremely suspect to say the least.

 

[SanityGap]

I am as it happens familiar with Alan Moorehead’s 1945 book ECLIPSE ....

Primary source given. Not hard is it Gene.

 

[Gene Alley]

Primary source given. Not hard is it Gene.

See that, I knew it would be right up.

 

[Clayton Moore]

.
No, I am flat out stating that the 'citations' you have offered are not citations, but mere claims which do not hold up under scrutiny.
.

.
It is not *my* anything, nor is the mass gassing by the Nazis a mere theory. But I'm glad to see that you have dropped the pretense of "looking at both sides" although I doubt having done so will prevent you from claiming that you are in the future.

But for the sake of argument, *if* your claims of torture and coercion were true, it would not blow anything out of anything, since (I'll type this slow for you)

T h e . n o r m a t i v e . h i s t o r y . o f . t h e s e . e v e n t s . d o e s . n o t . d e p e n d . s o l e l y . o n . t h e . t e s t i m o n i e s . o f . t h e s e . p e o p l e .
.

T h e . n o r m a t i v e . h i s t o r y . o f . t h e s e . e v e n t s . d o e s . n o t . d e p e n d . s o l e l y . o n . t h e . t e s t i m o n i e s . o f . t h e s e . p e o p l e .

What's with the invisible periods?

The eventual overall leniency of the post war sentences prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, to moral people, that the so called confessions were coerced.

 

[TSR]

.
They're to give you a lame excuse to ignore the point of my post, which is that the normative history of these events does not depend solely on the testimony of these people.

Meanwhile, your use of lies in a lame excuse to hand wave away THHP renders your opinion about what is moral or not rather suspect.

Found the names of those 13 people with crushed testicles yet?
.

 

[Hans]

Some of the discussion above reminds me of the CT that surrounded the sinking of the Kormoran and HMAS Sydney. As only the German crew of the raider Kormoran had survived CT'ers ridiculed their story as to what had happened. Just a few years ago the wrecks of both ships were found and the physical evidence verified the German story, except for one thing, the Sydney had not fired torpedoes at the German ship towards the end of the engagement. Other than that the story reflected what the physical evidence showed.

Now the discussion above seem to be focused on the one flaw in the narrative, and this flaw seems to some to not only disprove the rest of the narrative but also dismisses the fact the Kormoran sank an Australian cruiser....

 

[Nick Terry]

Have you seen the site www.belsenbergen.co.uk - does this contain most of the interrogations available at Kew, or are there more.

As for signs of coercion - leaving aside the fact that Kramer initially denied any homicidal gas chambers, then provided an affidavit that suggested there was one crematorium and one gas chamber and finally on the stand said there were four crematoria and four gas chambers - we have the testimony of British journalist Alan Moorehead

As we approached the cells of the SS guards, the [British] sergeant's language become ferocious. "We had had an interrogation this morning," the captain said. 'I'm afraid they are not a pretty sight.' ... The sergeant unbolted the first door and ... strode into the cell, jabbing a metal spike in front of him. "Get up," he shouted. "Get up. Get up, you dirty bastards." There were half a dozen men lying or half lying on the floor. One or two were able to pull themselves erect at once. The man nearest me, his shirt and face spattered with blood, made two attempts before he got on to his knees and then gradually on to his feet. He stood with his arms stretched out in front of him, trembling violently.

"Come on. Get up," the sergeant shouted [in the next cell]. The man was lying in his blood on the floor, a massive figure with a heavy head and bedraggled beard ... "Why don't you kill me?" he whispered. "Why don't you kill me? I can't stand it any more." The same phrases dribbled out of his lips over and over again. "He's been saying that all morning, the dirty bastard," the sergeant said.

Sounds like coercion to me.

Lovely to see bunny's standards of evidence - a single testimony is supposedly 'well documented'. I understand it's hard for you to be honest, so just keep on shooting yourself in the foot, there's a good rabbit.

and no, the website doesn't have the complete statements from the Belsen pre-trial investigation.

 

[Nick Terry]

Thanks to Grey Rabbit. I am as it happens familiar with Alan Moorehead’s 1945 book ECLIPSE and I do consider it good evidence for coercion. The passage that is often recycled (p236 of 19 67 edition) would be even better evidence if Mark Weber had quoted it in full.


I am also very familiar with the unpublished trial archives at Kew and I happen to think they too contain good evidence for coercion. But I am interested here in any documentation to support coercion of the Belsen staff that has already been published.

I'm sorry but the excerpt/quote is in no way 'good evidence for coercion' in any kind of meaningful sense. There is actually no direct evidence for coercion to make anyone say anything in particular. Without that - this is in essence the missing link - then all one has is apparent evidence of rough treatment by guards, which is sadly nothing unusual for prisoners in captivity.

The timing of the account would seemingly place the testimony - again it is really rather amazing how deniers seize on anything that suits them, when elsewhere they tell us over and over and over again that testimonies are not to be trusted - immediately after liberation. The Belsen pre-trial investigation lasted some time and there were many months before the trial, which was conducted in public with reporters present.

Moreover both before the trial and during the trial, the defendants did what one would expect - defend themselves against accusations. Guards denied having beaten prisoners, Kramer brought out his violin and claimed he was unable to do anything about the humanitarian catastrophe at Belsen, and so on.

It is really no more than magical thinking which allows deniers to try and parlay extremely vague report of maltreatment circa the first week of May 1945 with no names and no corroboration, into a very targeted coercion which forced SS men to lie exclusively about gas chambers while denying other crimes, and forced them to lie despite the presence of the world press. Even the defendants at the Moscow show trials in the 1930s recanted on the stand on occasion.

The logistics of this world-beating conspiracy become all the more absurd when the many other interrogations of Auschwitz SS going on at precisely the same time are taken into consideration. Not only is there not a peep of coercion for those interrogations - absolutely no evidence, not even a testimony to be quote-mined - but their sheer number decreases the prior and posterior probability of any such scenario.

That's before we even consider the impossible-to-explain matches. Poor bunny will bleat about me repeating this one, but I have always loved the idiotic allegation made by Carlo Mattogno that 'the Poles' got on the horn to 'the British' and made them coerce Hans Aumeier into using the term 'Bunkers' to describe the first gas chambers at Birkenau. This claim is advanced without a shred of evidence, and actually contradicts the documented chronology of Polish-British cooperation over war crimes, which got underway somewhat later. The glaring absence of evidence is evidently not enough to stop Charlie the chimp-in-chief from pausing to realise his own intellectual bankruptcy.

I'm sorry, but it's not enough to glom onto a single quote out of context which doesn't actually connect up with where you want it to go. You have to explain the totality of the evidence. End of story.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I'm sorry but the excerpt/quote is in no way 'good evidence for coercion' in any kind of meaningful sense. There is actually no direct evidence for coercion to make anyone say anything in particular. Without that - this is in essence the missing link - then all one has is apparent evidence of rough treatment by guards, which is sadly nothing unusual for prisoners in captivity.

The timing of the account would seemingly place the testimony - again it is really rather amazing how deniers seize on anything that suits them, when elsewhere they tell us over and over and over again that testimonies are not to be trusted - immediately after liberation. The Belsen pre-trial investigation lasted some time and there were many months before the trial, which was conducted in public with reporters present.

Moreover both before the trial and during the trial, the defendants did what one would expect - defend themselves against accusations. Guards denied having beaten prisoners, Kramer brought out his violin and claimed he was unable to do anything about the humanitarian catastrophe at Belsen, and so on.

It is really no more than magical thinking which allows deniers to try and parlay extremely vague report of maltreatment circa the first week of May 1945 with no names and no corroboration, into a very targeted coercion which forced SS men to lie exclusively about gas chambers while denying other crimes, and forced them to lie despite the presence of the world press. Even the defendants at the Moscow show trials in the 1930s recanted on the stand on occasion.

The logistics of this world-beating conspiracy become all the more absurd when the many other interrogations of Auschwitz SS going on at precisely the same time are taken into consideration. Not only is there not a peep of coercion for those interrogations - absolutely no evidence, not even a testimony to be quote-mined - but their sheer number decreases the prior and posterior probability of any such scenario.

That's before we even consider the impossible-to-explain matches. Poor bunny will bleat about me repeating this one, but I have always loved the idiotic allegation made by Carlo Mattogno that 'the Poles' got on the horn to 'the British' and made them coerce Hans Aumeier into using the term 'Bunkers' to describe the first gas chambers at Birkenau. This claim is advanced without a shred of evidence, and actually contradicts the documented chronology of Polish-British cooperation over war crimes, which got underway somewhat later. The glaring absence of evidence is evidently not enough to stop Charlie the chimp-in-chief from pausing to realise his own intellectual bankruptcy.

I'm sorry, but it's not enough to glom onto a single quote out of context which doesn't actually connect up with where you want it to go. You have to explain the totality of the evidence. End of story.

More double talk.



The eventual overall leniency of the post war sentences prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, to moral people, that the so called confessions were coerced.

 

[Nick Terry]

It certainly appears that a massively funded holocaust industry has been furiously working on damage control 24-7-365 in the last 14 years and beyond.

You consider research in the humanities to be massively funded? LOL.

There has also been a big push worldwide

No.

to silence, persecute and imprison those who challenge the official dogma. Even your Tony Blair indicated that he would like to see holocaust denial outlawed in the UK a few years back.

You're doing that time-machine thing again, aren't you? Blair's government considered and then rejected the idea of criminalising Holocaust denial, in its first term in office. Labour won two more elections after that, and have since been replaced.

Fortunately as always, the search for the truth marches forward despite all of the threats and rhetoric. It will be interesting to see how many of this "new generation of Polish historians has appeared who are taking much more of an interest in the Holocaust", end up in German courtrooms and jails.

And you are deeply familiar with the research of Robert Kuwalek, Alina Skibinska, Adam Pulawski, Bogdan Musial, Jacek Mlynarczyk and dozens of other Polish historians who have written about the Holocaust since 1990?

What is encouraging is that there are still places like this forum, IHR, CDOH, and RODOH that facilitate the free exchange of ideas regarding this topic. Onward!!

IHR doesn't have a forum. In case you didn't notice, the director of the IHR, Mark Weber, asked in January 2009 how relevant Holocaust revisionism was and concluded it wasn't. He is now officially an apostate in the eyes of the other 'revisionists', as is David Irving.

That's Holocaust denial: going round and round in ever decreasing circles.... swirling down the plughole.

I just wish Faurisson would snuff it as it'd make a great ending to my book.

 

[MG1962]

More double talk.



The eventual overall leniency of the post war sentences prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, to moral people, that the so called confessions were coerced.

Yes I am sure all those who were hung by the neck till dead would disagree with you

 

[TSR]

The eventual overall leniency of the post war sentences prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, to moral people, that the so called confessions were coerced.

.
It's interesting to me that you continue to make this "appeal to morality" when your own base dishonesty demonstrates that if you know what it actually is to be moral you choose not to be.

Or are you prepared to explain your lying about THHP?
.