I mock anybody who gets full of themselves, claims perfection in thought and intellect and yet is as flawed and complicated as the people they complain about!
I'm only human, which means I'm flawed. I never implied I was perfect
Your saying that doesn't make it so. You are the one who has something to prove, yet you haven't proven anything.
I don't have anything to prove. Many researchers have already proven this beyond reasonable doubt.
So I make a spelling mistake in my third language every now and then. Do you never make any errors when using your second or third language? Do you even speak more than one language?
It's easier than I thought to get you off-balance. Do try to calm down.
I was hardly agitated when I wrote that. I was merely pointing out the silliness of mocking a man for spelling mistakes in his third language.
And yes, I speak a few languages. What's your first?
My native tongue is Dutch, my second language is French, my third is English and my fourth is German. My knowledge of French could be better, though, and my knowlegde of German is only fairly basic. My girlfriend is fluent in all four languages, though.
Technically I could also add Latin to that list as I studied 6 years of Latin in high school, but I lost most of my knowledge of that language due to not using it.
So produce the evidence.
I already gave a few arguments. You could always do some reading if you want more.
Seems to me that most people disagree with your views, here and elsewhere, and that includes some of the architects behind the program you claim didn't exist.
Most contemporary people disagree with me because they've been indoctrinated from childhood with the claims that Germany mass-murdered the Jews. None of the so-called "architects" agree with this. Where are you getting this lie from?
You, as the resident Holocaust-denier, are in minority here, just as you are in the outside world, and your problem is that most people just aren't closet nazis or racists, easily swayed by some so-called academics using pseudonyms to back up their own lack of credibility, and so they won't automatically buy your bullshit even if you, on the surface, seem like a reasonable, if incredibly naive, young man. If you want to change something, you need to produce the evidence. The burden is on you.
What a load of rubbish...
How the hell did you measure suicide rates from a thousand years ago?
We can measure suicide rates for cultures that exist today. Can you mention a single culture with a higher suicide rate than the Western world today?
Answer Pyraxis' question first. We're all dying to know.[/quote]
I'm not familiar with any suicide rates for civilisations that disappeared 3000 years ago, if that's what you want me to say. Suicide rates are but one indicator of overall happiness, so I fail to see why this is so relevant to you.
Statistics? I'd rather have your alternative version on what actually happened to the people that disappeared, then. And don't stop at the Jews. Plenty of other people disappeared, too. But please start by telling us what happened to these Jews (numbers are estimates from the US Holocaust Museum):
* Poland: 3,000,000
* Soviet Union: 2,525,000
* Romania: 980,000
* Germany: 525,000
* Hungary: 445,000
* Czechoslovakia: 357,000
* Great Britain: 300,000
* Austria: 250,000
* France: 220,000
* Netherlands: 160,000
* Lithuania: 155,000
* Latvia: 95,000
These numbers are just pulled out of thin air. There is no proof for these figures. In fact, I've seen several Holocaust publications that use completely different figures. Coincidentally, however, the totals always approximate the magical number of 6,000,000, no matter how they're assembled.
Anyway, the total number of Jews in the world approximated 15,000,000 individuals both before and after the war. There is no room for 6,000,000 dead. While it is true that the number of Jews in continental Europe decreased significantly between 1933 and 1945, most of it was due to migration to countries like the US, the UK, Palestine, Australia or Canada.
Actually there's a lot of documentation left behind by the Nazis, from blueprints to photographs to films to memos. And, of course, witness accounts from all sides of the story.
There is indeed a lot of documentation and witness accounts. Those simply don't prove there ever was an extermination plan.
I think most of them used jargon such as "resettlement". They did realise that "extermination" wouldn't look good if the documents became public. The documentation left by the Nazis, the witnesses, photographs, etc, in general offer little doubt as to what was actually meant.
It offers little doubt indeed, at it all proves that "resettlement" meant resettlement and not extermination.
Didn't you mention somewhere that you've visited Auschwitz? I don't know which one of the camps you visited but I suspect Birkenau, in which case you should have have seen a gas chamber with your own eyes.
I've visited three camps :
* ) Auschwitz (Auschwitz I) : the so-called "gas chamber" you mentioned is little more than a basic empty room with a few holes in the ceiling. Dr. Piper (head of the Auschwitz museum) acknowledged that this room was in fact an air raid shelther when the Russians arrived in the camp and that it was modified quite crudely (tearing out all walls and putting holes in the ceiling) to make it look like a "gas chamber". Of course, officially the Russians just "re-constructed" the room.
* ) Birkenau (Auschwitz II) : all that is left of the so-called "gas chamber" is a pile of rubble.
* ) Majdanek : the gas chamber was just like in Auschwitz nothing but an empty room. Here too it looks like everything was torn out. Remarkable is the "operating room" located next to the "gas chamber" that was seperated from the "gas chamber" by nothing but a metal grid. If people had truely been gassed in the "gas chamber", this would have been fatal for the operator too. Another remarkable thing is that these rooms are located at quite a distance from the crematoria, requiring dead bodies to be transported between various inmates' barracks.
You should get your facts straight.
The videotape on which Piper makes his revelations was taken in
mid-1992 by a young Jewish investigator, David Cole. It has
just been released, on January 1, 1993, although Cole announced
his project at the 11th International Revisionist Conference at
Irvine, California last October.
The small gas chamber of Krema I was used for gassing for a short
time, and then converted into an air-raid shelter; after the war,
it was reconstructed to look as it did when it was used for
gassing, as Dr. Piper notes in his letter of response to the Cole
video.
I don't see where David Cole supposebly distorted Piper's claims. It is a fact that the room in question was nothing but an air raid shelter when the Russians arrived and that it was later modified to look as what the Russians thought a gas chamber would look like. There is, however, no evidence that the room in question had ever been anything but an air raid shelther before the Russians arrived in the camps. The fact that the room is not in its orriginal state is also something that's hidden from visiting tourists.
* ) The vast majority of SS-men up to the very end of their life reject the idea that Hitler wanted to murder Jews both in public and in private.
* ) Höss used an inflated number for the amount of Jews that died at Auschwitz during his testimony to corroberate the claim that 4 million died at Auschwitz. Currently, the official death toll of Auschwitz is about 1,500,000. This obvious mistake is likely the result of torture as there are various indications that Höss was tortured
You might want to read this, re Höss's memoirs.
You might want to read Hoggan's rebutal of the Höss memoirs :
The concept of the death camp as a means of liquidating Jews returns us to Auschwitz. Poliakov's Harvest of Hate placed great stress on Polish lanquage memoirs, Wspomnienia, by Rudolf Hoess, which were later published in English as Commandant of Auschwitz (Cleveland, 1960). Hoess was the commander of what is supposed to have been the greatest death camp in world history.
The fact that these memoirs were published under Communist auspices makes it utterly impossible to, accept their authenticity without decisive reservations. Furthermore, the statements made by Hoess both to British security officers at Flensburg under third-degree conditions and under torture at Nuremberg makes it very difficult to believe that anything attributed to Hoess after his capture in 1946 bears much relation to actual facts. Even Gerald Reitlinger, who grasps at every straw to document the extermination program, rejects the Nuremberg trial testimony of Hoess as hopelessly untrustworthy.
The purpose in examining the Hoess material here is to decide to what extent, if any, a plausible narrative has been presented under Communist auspices. The atrocity photographs in the English-language edition are "supposed" to have been taken, by an "unknown SS man" who received "special permission." They were allegedly found by a Jewish woman in the Sudetenland and sold to the Jewish museum in Prague. There is nothing whatever about these photographs to render plausible their authenticity. They are undoubtedly akin to the pictures of the piles of corpses alleged to have been civilians slain by the Germans during their eastern campaigns during the First World War but were later proved to be Jews and others killed in pogroms carried out by the Russians under the Tsar, years before 1914.
The introduction to the American edition of Hoess's memoirs was written by the Germanophobe Lord (Edward F.) Russell of Liverpool. He is the author of The Scourge of the Swastika (N.Y., 1954) which contains a brief survey of the atrocity evidence presented at Nuremberg. The survey ends with obsolete claims about Dachau as a death camp. These claims about Dachau had been repudiated and disproved years before, by Cardinal Faulliaber of Munich.
Russell, after mentioning the fact, in introducing Hoess, that there were very few camps and prisoners in Germany at the outbreak of World War II, claimed that not less than five million Jews died in German concentration camps during the war. He discussed other estimates, and, after satisfying himself that he was between those who claim six million and those who claim four million, concluded: "The real number, however, will never be known". One can only add that he had no right to claim "not less than five million". One might have expected that there would be more interest than there apparently has been in persuading, even at this late date, such countries as the United States, Great Britain, the USSR, and the Communist satellites to count and report their Jewish populations.
The site at Auschwitz was allegedly selected for a concentration camp in 1940, in addition to the availability of good transportation facilities, because it was a fearfully
unhealthy place. This is totally untrue. The Neue Brockhaus for 1938 indicated a population of 12,000 in the town of Auschwitz including 3,000 Jews. Although the place was not a popular health resort, it did enjoy a reputation for a healthy and bracing Upper Silesian climate.
Hoess began the story of his life in convincing fashion with his account of a happy boyhood in the German Rhineland. His first disturbing experience was a violation of confessional by a Catholic priest who informed on him to his father for a minor dereliction. Hoess succeeded in joining the German army at an early age in 1916. He was sent to Turkey and served at the fronts in Iraq and 1?alestine. At the age of seventeen he was an NCO with extensive combat experience and the iron cross. He had his first love affair with a German nurse at the Wilhelma hospital in Palestine. The end of the war found him in Damascus. Three months of independent traveling at the head of a group of comrades brought him home and thus enabled him to escape the fate of internment.
Hoess was unable to adjust to the post-war life at home with his relatives, and he joined the Rossbach Freikorps for service in the East. Hoess was arrested on June 28, 1923, for participating in the murder of a Communist spy. He was sentenced to ten year's in prison on March 15, 1924, and was amnestied on July 14, 1928. Although he had a brief period of mental breakdown while in solitary confinement, Hoess emerged with the record of a model prisoner.
Hoess spent ten exciting days in Berlin with friends after his release before turning to farming. He believed that National Socialism would best serve the interests of Germany, and he had become Party Member no. 3240 at Munich as early as November, 1922. He joined the Artamanen farming fraternity, to which Himmler also belonged, in 1928. He married in 1929 and was persuaded by Himmler to join the SS. In 1934 he agreed to serve at the Dachau concentration camp.
At first, Hoess was bewildered by the philosophy of hostile reserve toward the prisoners at Dachau, which was indoctrinated into the SS guards by a local commandant, later replaced. Hoess himself had been a prisoner, and be tended to see all questions from the inmate's viewpoint. Nevertheless, he believed that the concentration camps were a necessary transitional phase in the consolidation of National Socialism, and he was greatly attracted to the black SS uniform as a symbol of quality and prestige. After a few years he was transferred to Sachsenhausen, where the atmosphere, was more favorable.
The outbreak of war in 1939 brought a new phase of experience to the SS men on concentration camp service. The enemies of Germany had sworn to annihilate the National Socialist Reich. It was a question of existence, and not merely of the fate of a few provinces. The SS were supposed to hold the ramparts of order until the return of peace and the formulation of a new code of laws. A high-ranking SS officer, whose laxity had made possible the escape of an important Communist prisoner, was executed by his comrades on direct orders from Himmler. This brought home the seriousness of the situation to all of the SS men at Sachsenhausen. Some of the prisoners were amnestied in 1939 when they agreed to serve in the German armed forces.
An untoward incident occurred in 1939 when some Cracow University professors were brought to Sachsenhausen, but they were released a few weeks later through intervention by Goering. Hoess had extensive contacts at Sachsenhausen with Pastor Martin Niemoeller, a much-respected opponent of National Socialism.
Hoess went to Auschwitz with high hopes early in 1940. There was no camp there as yet, but he hoped to organize a useful one which would make an important contribution to the German industrial war effort. He had always been idealistic and sensitive about prison conditions, and he hoped to establish housing and supply conditions for the prospective inmates which would be as normal as possible for wartime. Hoess ran into all the irritating obstacles of red tape and shortage of supplies in his early work of organizing the camp, and he bitterly criticized the inadequate qualifications of many of his colleagues.
Polish prisoners constituted the largest single group in the camp during the first two years, although many inmates were also brought to Auschwitz from Germany. Russian contingents began to arrive late in 1941 in poor condition after long marches. From mid-1942 the Jews constituted the main element in the camp. Hoess recalled that the small groups of Jews at Dachau had done very well with their canteen privileges in the early days of the system. There had been virtually no Jews at Sachsenhausen.
It is at this very point that the hitherto highly plausible Hoess narrative becomes highly questionable. The manner in which the alleged deliberate extermination of the Jews is described is most astonishing. A special large detachment of Jewish prisoners was allegedly formed. These men and women were to take charge of the contingents, either newly arrived or from within the camp area, who had been selected for destruction. The role of the SS was to be limited to the most general supervision and to the release of the Zyklon-B gas pellets through the shower fixtures of the supposed extermination sheds.
The actual taking of the clothes and the leading of the Jews into the pre-extermination sheds was to be done by this special group of Jews. Later they were to dispose of the bodies. If the "doomed" Jews resisted, they were beaten or forced to comply in other ways by the "privileged" Jews. Allegedly, the latter did their work so thoroughly that it was never necessary for the SS guards to intervene. Hence most of the SS personnel at the camp could be left in complete ignorance of the extermination action. Of course, no Jew would ever be found to claim to be a member of this infamous "special detachment." Hoess was released from his post at Auschwitz at the end of 1943, and he became a chief inspector of the entire concentration camp system. He supposedly concealed his earlier activities from his SS colleagues.
It should be pointed out that no Auschwitz inmate has ever personally claimed to have witnessed the actual operation of these so-called "gas chambers." The explanation has been that those who were victims did not survive, and those who were accomplices had good motives not to admit anything.
The Communist editors of the Hoess memoirs obviously did everything in their power to make the account plausible. Much effort was made to show that the individual in the SS counted for nothing, orders for everything. The evident timidity of Hoess in voicing his criticism of the hostile rather than friendly attitude of the SS leadership toward the Dachau prisoners in the early years was exploited to lend credence to the supposition that be would have been willing to accept any excesses, including the massacre of huge numbers, even millions, of captive Jews. The same account depicts Hoess as a highly sensitive and gifted man living a normal family life with his wife and children throughout his period at Auschwitz.
Hoess is supposed to have said that the Jehovah's Witnesses at Auschwitz favored death for all Jews because Jews were the enemies of Christ. This was a staggering slip on the part of the Communist editors. It must be remembered that a bitter struggle against the Jehovah's Witnesses is waged today by the Communists throughout all Satellite countries, and especially in the Soviet zone of Germany. One cannot escape the conclusion that this special defamation of the Jehovah's Witnesses was introduced by the Communist editors.
It is, hence, impossible to avoid the conclusion that these so-called memoirs of Hoess have been subjected to an editorial supervision by Communists and others sufficiently extensive to destroy their validity as an historical document. They have no more validity than the alleged Memoirs of Eichmann. The claim that there is a hand-written original of these supervised memoirs can scarcely be regarded as relevant. The Communists are notoriously successful in obtaining "confessions," and they possessed an amplitude of techniques which could be used to persuade Hoess to copy whatever was placed before him. The evidence of hand-writing in this case is no more convincing than the famous after-the-event gas chamber film of Joseph Zigman, "The Mill of Dealth," used at the Nuremberg Trial. The so-called Hoess memoirs end with the irrelevant statement that the Nuremberg documents had convinced the defendant that Germany was exclusively to blame for World War II.
It is important to note that Hermann Goering, who was exposed to the full brunt of the Nuremberg atrocity propaganda, failed to be convinced by it. Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales (London, 1953, p. 145) related that Goering, even after hearing the early Ohlendorf testimony on the Einsatzgruppen and the Hoess testimony on Auschwitz, remained firmly convinced that the mass extermination of Jews by firing squad and gas chamber was entirely propaganda fiction.
Fritzsche pondered this question, and he concluded that there had certainly been no thorough investigation of these monstrous charges. Fritzsche, who was acquitted at the trial, was a skilled propagandist. He recognized that the alleged massacre of the Jews was the main point in the indictment against all defendants. Ernst Kaltenbrunner, the SID (SS Security Service) chief, was on trial as main defendant for the SS because of the suicide of Himmler, just as Fritzsche was representing Goebbels for the same reason. Kaltenbrunner was no more convinced of the genocide charges than was Goering, and he confided to Fritzsche that the prosecution was scoring apparent successes because of their effective technique in coercing the witnesses and suppressing evidence. It was easier to seize a German and force him to make an incriminating confession by unmentionable tortures than to investigate the circumstances of an actual case.
It's pretty obvious even to the most casual observer that there would be very few first-hand accounts of the gas chambers from surviving inmates.
True. Yet, one often hears that there are millions of witnesses who "prove" the existence of "gas chambers", which is utter rubbish.
Funny how you state the few survivor's accounts are "laughable" but do not say why, or show how they were proven to be liars.
They are laughable because they're full of eg. impossibilities and inner contradictions. One of the most obvious examples is Avraham Bomba (the barber of Treblinka), whom I already mentioned earlier. See
this page for details.
* ) Red Cross reports from during WW2 found no evidence of mass murders in any of the camps. They did, however, find cases of starvation and typhus that were blamed destruction of German transports and transportation lines by allied bombings.
* ) Autopsy reports on the piles of dead bodies in Bergen-Belsen and Dachau (used to make the most horrific Holocaust pictures) indicate typcus and starvation as the main causes of death.
* ) Concentration camp documents show various attempts to save people (including Jews) from typhus and starvation.
So you don't know what was done with most of the dead bodies from the gas chambers? Cremation was one option, mass burial another. Consider the time frame: Treblinka's gas chamber, to take but one example, ceased operation in late 1943, and the victims had been disposed of long before the camp actually fell into Allied hands.
How is this an argument against the fact that everything points to typhus and starvation as main causes of death in the camps? What is the evidence that mass gassing took place? Where are all the ashes and mass graves? If the German ways of disposing bodies were even half as efficient as Holocaust propagandists claim, why didn't they clean up all those bodies at Bergen-Belsen and Dachau? Why did the Americans literally stumble on piles of dead (with autopsy showing typhus and starvation as causes) if they could have disposed of these bodies so easily?
They tried that, silly. That, and lots of other methods. Why do you think it's called the FINAL solution? But ffs, do the math and consider your own silliness. There was a war effort going on, too.
Are you saying that transporting people thousand miles away and gassing them to death was more efficient than just shooting them in the head?
* ) Insufficient traces of cyanide have been found in any of the so-called "gas chambers" for them to have been used as such
* ) ....
You might want to read this:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/
I guess here it's the word of one scientist against another.
I have. You are a kook, as are the "academics" you so admire. Try http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/revisionism-qa.shtml.
What a load of rubbish again...
A more objective description of Holocaust Revisionists comes from Libertarian David Botsford :
The purpose of the present paper is not in any way to defend Holocaust denial, but simply to give an accurate description of what it is and what it is not, and to describe efforts in other countries to use the law against it. I will then put forward an argument, based on the nature of historical inquiry, in defence of the right of Holocaust revisionists (as they call themselves) to express their beliefs without civil or criminal law being brought into action against them. No part of this paper should be interpreted as either supporting or opposing any particular historical or other idea, except the universal right of freedom of expression and the free market in ideas. I am essentially adding factual information and arguments to the position already taken, as we have seen above, by various public figures. My concern is that a form of censorship may come in by the back door through the Rune case which would have a devastating effect on intellectual freedom, the concept upon which, as Sir Karl Popper and numerous other philosophers have amply demonstrated, all human progress ultimately depends.
It is commonly believed that Holocaust revisionism is promoted solely by neo-Nazis, racists and anti-semites. While such individuals have certainly taken up such ideas and promoted them extensively, they did not initiate them. Most of the authors of books denying that the Holocaust occurred have no connection with such movements. Paul Rassinier was a French Socialist Party member and pacifist academic who was arrested in 1943 and imprisoned in the German concentration camps at Dora and Buchenwald for his non-violent activities in the French Resistance. After the war he was elected as a Socialist member of the Constituent Assembly, decorated by the French government for his work in the Resistance, and went on to write a series of books denying that the Nazis had carried out any policy of extermination in their concentration camps. Some Holocaust revisionists are academics, such as Professor Arthur R. Butz, associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science at Northwestern University, Illinois, and Dr Robert Faurisson, formerly professor of French literature at the University of Lyons-2, who have simply published their considered opinions based on the research they have carried out, and are not known to have any political affiliation or agenda. The best-known historian who has associated himself with these arguments is David Irving, author of numerous books about the second world war, and especially the Third Reich. In 1977, in his book Hitler's War, Irving argued that Hitler knew nothing about the extermination of the Jews, and he gradually became convinced that no such exterminations at all occurred in the concentration camps. Another is a retired German judge, Dr Wilhelm Staeglich, who claims to have been stationed at Auschwitz during the war, and who wrote a book arguing that no exterminations occurred there. Another is Fred A. Leuchter, an American specialist in execution technology, who visited Auschwitz and wrote a report stating that the building presented to visitors at Auschwitz as a homicidal gas chamber could not have been used for that purpose. There are Palestinian, Moroccan, Saudi Arabian, South American and Japanese Holocaust revisionists, as well as American blacks associated with the Nation of Islam. In France, Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit and Claude Karnoouh are both Jewish Holocaust revisionists with left-wing political beliefs. Bezalel Chaim, of the Revisionist Press of Brooklyn, is an American Jew who argues that the Holocaust "myth", as he calls it, has created divisions between Jews and Gentiles, encouraged a belligerent ancient alien nationalism, and is used to justify the Israeli oppression of the Arabs. (David Cole, another American Jew, produced a video about Auschwitz which claimed that no gassings occurred there, but has since recanted his views and now accepts that the Holocaust occurred.) Extraordinary as it may seem, the late Josef Ginsburg, a German Jew who spent the entire second world war in Germany and Romania, and who was imprisoned in several Nazi concentration camps, wrote several books under the pseudonym J. G. Burg denying that any extermination of the Jews had been carried out by the Nazis. Professor Pierre Vidal-Naquet, the most outspoken French academic critic of the Holocaust revisionists, states that:
In several countries ... revisionism is the speciality not of the racist and anti-Semitic extreme right, but of several groups of individuals coming from the extreme left. This is the case in Sweden following the intervention on Robert Faurisson's behalf of the extreme left-wing sociologist Jan Myrdal, whose intervention was on behalf not merely of the man but, in part, of his ideas; in Australia, following the action of the former secretary of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties, John Bennett; and even in Italy, where a small Marxist libertarian group invokes its debt to Paul Rassinier. (11)
Other Holocaust revisionists are American libertarians who have associated themselves with the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), the California-based organisation which denies that the Holocaust occurred, as well as promoting other revisionist views about twentieth-century history. Professor James J. Martin, the author of numerous studies of nineteenth-century libertarianism and anarchism, as well as revisionist studies of the two world wars and the cold war, and who has contributed three times to the Encyclopedia Britannica, is closely associated with the IHR. The IHR has published one of his books, The Man Who Invented Genocide, a biography of Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term "genocide" to describe what the Nazis were doing to the Jews in wartime Europe. The radical libertarian Samuel Edward Konkin III is also a supporter of the IHR, has spoken at its conferences and provided a platform for Holocaust revisionism in his magazine New Libertarian, although I do not know his exact position, if any, on the Holocaust. L. A. Rollins, the American author of the philosophical pamphlet The Myth of Natural Rights, which has caused considerable controversy in libertarian circles, is another Holocaust denier. It is difficult to classify Rollins' views in terms of conventional political labels, but he is an anti-authoritarian individualist and certainly no kind of National Socialist or fascist.
One of the most active American Holocaust revisionists is Bradley R. Smith, a libertarian journalist and playwright who was convicted for selling a banned erotic novel, Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer, in his Los Angeles bookshop in 1960-61. In 1983 his play The Man Who Stopped Paying, dealing with tax resistance, was favourably reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, which described it as the work of a "libertarian-anarchist". In 1979 he first became convinced that the Nazi extermination of the Jews never happened, as a result of reading an article by Professor Robert Faurisson which appeared in Le Monde. He subsequently formed the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, and has promoted Holocaust revisionism on hundreds of radio and television talk shows, placed advertisements in college newspapers and spoken at universities throughout the US. In an interview with the radical American publisher Loompanics Unlimited, Smith explained his motives for doing so:
In 1960-61 I was arrested, jailed, tried and convicted of selling a book banned by the U.S. Government, Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer. At that time the best people among the progressive forces supported my refusal to participate in censoring Miller's book in this country. Today it's the progressive forces who work with such dedication to suppress the Revisionist critique of the Holocaust orthodoxy. The progressive forces will go to the wall for sexual freedom. What they balk at is free inquiry into the foundations of their own world view. ... I reject the authoritarian ideal in every form, but particularly as it is expressed by the State. ... My interest is in the ideals of free inquiry, an open society and, if you will, my own moral being. As a writer, how do I stand aside from the issues that I see corrupting public discourse, and thus the lives of my friends and neighbors? As a man, how do I stand aside from them? ... Almost thirty years ago, the night I got the word that a bookseller on Hollywood Boulevard was going to be arrested and prosecuted for selling Miller's Tropic, my first reaction was to remove the book from my store window. When I went to the window to take the book out something caused me to pause. ... The next morning I took a walk along the Boulevard and looked over the display windows in the other bookshops. Tropic wasn't in any of the windows any longer. That was good enough for me. I went back to my own shop and climbed into the window but I couldn't bring myself to remove the display stack. ... That same afternoon I was arrested by a couple of L.A.'s finest in plain clothes and the stage was set for the longest civil trial to have taken place in the city up to that time.
It wasn't First Amendment idealism that made it impossible for me to remove Miller's book from my window. ... It made me ashamed to think of removing a book from my displays that I respected and that I had gotten so much pleasure and encouragement from. ... [W]hen the State put me to the test to declare myself publicly, I chose my heart's desire hands down and told the State to shove it along. ... I feel something similar for Revisionist scholarship. While I have no love for the work, to not stand up for it now that I know what it is would make me ashamed. That's why I can't "just drop the subject." Hostility is easy to face when the alternative is shame. (12)
A pen name of Germar Rudolf, one of your fellow kooks. Rudolf used references to articles by this Dr Konrad to back up his work. He's got others as well. It's fucking hilarious but also a little sad since kooks like you actually buy his thinly veiled neo-nazi bullshit.
So Rudolf used pseudonyms. That doesn't discredit what he was actually saying.
Besides that, the Botsford article illustrates how ridiculous it is to label Holocaust reviosinism as "neo-nazi bullshit".
Actually, your claims are just about as ridiculous as it gets.
What's ridiculous, is your pathetic counterarguments against my claims.
Your spelling error is telling but of no real consequence. And anyway, English isn't my first language either.
What's your first language, if I may ask?
Here is an eyewitness, Dr. Nyiszli, who saw a working gas chamber, Illusion:
About this testimony :
A deeper look into one of the most (in)famous Auschwitz eyewitnesses, Miklos Nyiszli,[34] is also worthwhile here, because when reading it carefully, it indirectly confirms Mattogno's assessments, although Mattogno himself went at length - and quite successfully so - to show that Nyiszli's testimony is a fraud otherwise.[35] Miklos Nyiszli's testimony had already been looked at cautiously by Paul Rassinier, who in April 1951 wrote a letter in regards to the early extracts of Nyiszli's writings published in French translation by Le Temps Modernes, only to receive an indirect answer the following October in the form of a letter from "Nyiszli" transmitted by Tibère Kremer. Rassinier was later informed that Nyiszli had died well before the initial French translation of his testimony was published, sometime around 1949-50. This did, for a time, set off a wave of speculation as to whether such a person had ever existed.[36] Eventually questions shifted to the disappearance of the "real Nyiszli." Also pertinent, though, is the query as to why so little interest was shown in Nyiszli by the official handlers of his book. The difference in style between Yehuda Bauer's foreword to Filip Müller's propaganda[37] novel[38] Eyewitness Auschwitz[39] versus Bruno Bettelheim's foreword and Richard Seaver's introduction with regards to Nyiszli is apparent. Bauer presents some brief sketchy outline of Müller's post-war life:[40]
"He returned to his Czechoslovak home after the war. A summary of his testimony was included in a book on Czechoslovakia in 1946 (published in English in 1966 as The Death Factory, by O. Kraus and E. Kulka). He was moved to write again by the effect of his testimony at the 'Auschwitz trial' at Frankfurt, in 1964. Afterwards he began writing up what he had jotted down, had it translated into German, then looked for a publisher."
No similar sketch is provided by Bettelheim or Seaver. Rather, they each combine amateur philosophy with references to Nyiszli's claimed war-time experience. Nor do they refer to any question hanging in the air of unknown post-war details. The closest thing to a biographical detail, produced by Seaver, is the reference to "his city, Oradea-Nagyvarad."[41] This raises some flags, if only just because the final page of a dissertation written under this name of Nyiszli claims that "I, Nicolaus Nyiszli, was born on June 17, 1901 in Simleul-Silvaniei," a locale that is distinctly to the northeast of Oradea-Nagyvarad. In addition, the book's first appearance seems to have been in the Budapest newspaper World from February 16 to April 5, 1947, with repeated references to a Hungarian doctor from Nagyvarad.[42] This blurring of 'where is he from and where did he go?' would normally excite curiosity from purported academics, yet it has clearly been buried as an issue in the various 'introductions' and advertisements.
On July 28, 1945, according to the records of the Nuremburg Tribunal, a deposition entitled "Deposition: Miklof Nyifcli A Physician from Nagyvarod in Hungary" was written by someone.[42] Though major doubts have been cast on the validity and the source of the Nuremberg Documents, we are generally meant to assume that this "Physician from Nagyvarod in Hungary" was, in fact, the same person with "Place of birth: Simleul, Rumania." Alternatively, if one was to cast dispersion on this early document as a possible fabrication by the Nuremberg Tribunal, then the query would have to be 'At what point did Nyiszli himself become a part of the project leading to the later book that came after the deposition, given that purported friends of his did claim to have witnessed him writing the book personally?' With this in mind, there's no denying that such an origin for the original document would explain much about the seeming errors in it. This would also explain such testimonial comments as "From the prisoner's doctors, of which we had several ones, I only knew Dr. Niczly by name. He was an imposing presence, a bit fat" by Milton Buki of Poland; and "a companion, who was helping with the carrying of the corpse, commented she had recognized Dr. Nyiszlit Miklos, a deported physician, as she said, she knew Nyiszlit still from Nagyvara" from Mrs. Jozsef Sabo of Hungary. This recurring of "Nagyvara" as a consistently recalled detail, even as the spelling of "Miklos Nyiszli" fluctuates, is highly consistent with a quick manufacture of evidence by a bureaucratic machine such as the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Even so, Nyiszli's book has been held up on many an occasion as a powerful example of "Holocaust testimony" and, as such, deserves to be noted. Some pertinent details to note are the following. When describing an alleged attempt by "860 members of the kommando to try and force their way out of the camp" on October 6, 1944, Nyiszli asserts:[43]
"The plans seemed all the more feasible to me for the simple reason that the only crematorium working was number one. And even it would knock off work at 6:00 P.M., which meant that the Sonderkommando night shift would not go on duty that evening."
Although made in the manner of an out-of-the-way comment, this would seem to reflect, even in a novel produced for political propaganda purposes, the reality that a 12-hour operating shift had been recommended on March 17, 1943, and that the crematoria were going dead nevertheless. In other words: Mattogno's maximized cremation figures are probably too high, because the crematories did not operate 24/7 - with some interruption for cleaning, maintenance, and repairs - as he assumed. According to Nyiszli, there was no need to have the crematories work around the clock...
Charles D. Provan is self-classified as being
"a revisionist and an exterminationist [...] who believes in the gas chambers. [...] Intrigued by the numerous criticisms of Dr. Nyiszli in the revisionist literature, I decided to undertake a study of his book to determine if it could be substantiated. I got more than I bargained for."
Provan can therefore not be called an 'official handler' of Nyiszli. Provan was able to contact his granddaughter Monica and obtain "Information about Nyiszli's subsequent life":[42]
"Dr. Nyiszli and his wife Margareta had one daughter, Susanna, born in 1929, while Dr. Nyiszli was attending medical school in Breslau. Susanna had indeed married a gentile, a Romanian cavalry officer, in 1952, and their daughter (and Nyiszli's granddaughter) Monica was born in 1955. Miklos Nyiszli passed away on May 5, 1956; his daughter Susanna passed away in 1983. Before his death, the Romanian secret police placed Nyiszli under investigation for 'cosmopolitanism,' perhaps in part because of his correspondence with people in the West. About fifteen years after Nyiszli's death, when Monica was around sixteen, the secret police confiscated some of his papers, including a map he had drawn of Birkenau. It was not returned."
This raises some questions in itself, since Nyiszli's harassment by the Rumanian secret police was never widely publicized in the manner of the Raoul Wallenberg legend,[44] not even during the Cold War at a time when Rabbi Meir Kahane received funding from the CIA's Jay Lovestone and the Syndicate's Meyer Lansky.[45] This was an era when the Holocaust Memorials across the United States were built with falsified versions of the Martin Niemoller quote,[46] falsifications which served the Cold Warriors and ancient aliens alike. One might easily have expected a campaign around Nyiszli's fate by Elie Wiesel. Instead, on the contrary, the introduction by Tibère Kremer in March 1951 gave the impression of a Hungarian Jew, not a Rumanian.[47] Even where the history of territorial shifts in World War I and the possession of what is now northern Rumania by what was until 1918 Austria-Hungary, is taken into account[48] as a technical point, it doesn't explain the absence of quick elaboration on this query of 'was Nyiszli Hungarian or Rumanian?' One would expect a brief commentary, similar to Bauer's note on Müller, to intersect Nyiszli in Rumania in the foreword and introduction to Nyiszli's assumed book.
Yet one possibly pertinent statement is furnished by the testimony of Grace Pratt, or rather of her friend. The latter has supposedly asserted:[49]
"Six days after Jack Ruby's funeral was publicized in the press, Grace called me very excited and said, 'I was just watching the news. They turned the TV camera on a ramp up to a plane loading for Israel from New York, and who do you think went up the ramp? I screamed to George in the other room, calling him and saying, 'Come quickly! Jack Ruby is boarding that plane!'' At the top of the ramp he stopped, turned around, and looking straight into the camera he tipped his hat and entered the plane."
However one wishes to ultimately assess this story, it points towards at least one plausible explanation in regards to Nyiszli. If Nyiszli really had become alienated from the Jewish community in his region after his record as a war-time collaborator with the enemy of that era, then he certainly would have had incentive to seek redemption. In the general time-frame for Nyiszli's death that was given originally to Rassinier, between the writing of Nyiszli's post-war manuscript and the initial French translation, Stalin was still going through a political motion in regards to his attitude towards Zionism. Starting with a secret Czech arms deal,[50] which supported the ancient alien settlers in Palestine in the 1948 war, Stalin moved towards the "Doctor's Plot."[51] But this political shift did not occur overnight. Although the version of Nyiszli being placed under the watch of the Rumanian Stalinist police for "cosmopolitanism" fits perfectly well within 1956, the image of Nyiszli, or someone writing in his name, being offered around 1949-50 a trip from Eastern Europe to Israel as part of an agreement that his book would support the general popular-frontist line of Moscow, and that Tel Aviv would help to market the book, is just as consistent as many another given explanation. To really answer these two related questions, of what happened to Nyiszli and why did the World Jewish Congress and related organizations treat the matter as they did, will require a much more detailed probing that has not yet been done.
On February 14, 1947, advertisements for the soon-to-be-published serialized book of "Dr. Miklos Nyiszli of Nagyvarad" began appearing in the Budapest World newspaper. By April 10, Nyiszli was responding to reader's criticism, "In the Communist Party, of which I am a member, they call me 'Comrade Doctor,' and that's the way it should be." One would assume here that the Rumanian Communist Party is what is meant, even with the serialization being promoted in Hungary rather than Rumania. Yet again one must ask 'why this specific promotion in Hungary rather than Rumania?' Certainly a plausible conjecture would follow from the hypothesis that "Miklos Nyiszli" had, in fact, been assigned the job of legitimizing something that was originally written in his name by the Nuremberg Tribunal, so that the new task required specifically publicizing the book in those areas that were identified by the earlier deposition statement. On September 30 it was announced by World newspaper that the author of "the extremely interesting novel" had been summoned by the Soviet delegate to the Nuremberg Tribunal, E. E. Minskoff. With this summons, the card catalogs of the Nuremberg records now describe Nyiszli as "Dr. Nicolae Nyiszli, born [...] in Simleul-Silvanei, requested [...] by Minskoff."[42] The difference here between "Miklos" and "Nicolae" is much more along the lines of a translation between languages than some of the other divergences of the name "Miklos Nyiszli" which are very similar to simple typographical errors. Yet, somehow, the effect of this identification of Nyiszli's locale of birth doesn't seem to be reflected in later publications, which relentlessly return to the emphasis on "his city, Oradea-Nagyvarad" without an attempt at biographical detail or explanation. The card listing "Simleul-Silvanei" faded quickly, perhaps, in part, because Nyiszli was not actually called to testify on this summons, despite his taking a trip to Nuremberg.
This hypothesis is in some ways further encouraged by the evidence that there likely were at least two "Lee Harvey Oswalds." The number of selectively consistent yet broadly conflicting reports of Oswald sightings prior to November 22, 1963, has pointed to this as a likely explanation.[52] If one translates the same phenomenon to Miklos Nyiszli, then many of the apparent inconsistencies between stories of Nyiszli being dead by 1950 versus alive until 1956 could be resolved. With such an assumption made, the question would be posed as to whether both "Nyiszlis" died at the indicated dates, one in 1949 and another in 1956, or whether something else happened with one of them.
Here is another account of the gas chamber at Auschwitz:
That's not an eyewitness account but a bunch of propaganda. The facts are misrepresented and so are the arguments of Holocaust revisionists, which is quite typical for this sort of propaganda literature.
By the way, here is a photo of a stockpile of Zyklon B at Majdanek.
Here is a close-up:
It is a generally accepted fact that Zyklon B was a pesticide used for saving lives. It was used to treat clothes and bedsheets in special facilities (not the so-called homicidal gas chambers but different facilities generally accepted as such) in an attempt to kill lyce. Lyce were the common cause of typhus. Heads were also shaved for this same reason.
I hate to say this, but from a doubters perspective, all you have done is shown they were killing.
Thusfar, my oponents failed to show even that.
This picture shows quite skinny people, which corroberates the claim that typhus and starvation were the main causes of death.
A pile of glasses doesn't prove anything. People had to give up their clothes and had their hair shaven, so a pile of clothes and hair was to be expected. I'm not sure if they had to give up their glasses too, but in the case they didn't the pile could have come from people dying from other causes. Do you even know what camp this picture was made in?
A bunch of typhus and starvation victims. Although the name of the files mentions Auschwitz, this picture was probably taken at Bergen-Belsen or Dachau.
I assume we're looking at clothes. I already explained that people had to give up their clothes and had their hair shaven, so a pile of clothes and hair was to be expected.
Where do these pictures come from? What do we know of the cause of death of the people in the picture? I've been pictures of the horrible Dresden bombing with bodies positioned in a similar way.
Still not convinced Illusion...?
Hardly. Do you honestly think this sort of pictures is new to me? I have quite a number of Holocaust publications at home, so I'm quite familiar with the visuals used by Holocaust propagandists. None of these visuals prove anything, save for the fact that people were in fact interned in concentration camps and there were large death rates in some of these camps. All of this has been explained by Holocaust Revisionists in a way far more logical and consistent with the available evidence than the official story.
