Martin Gilbert: The devil is in the detail

[Basil Fawlty]

Whilst reviewing some of the witness testimonies connected with Treblinka I was reminded of this rather well-known example of misrepresentation.

In his statement, Kurt Gerstein describes, amongst other things, how he witnessed a homocidal gassing including the dimensions of the gas chamber, the numbers of people contained therein, and the time it took to complete the process and some other details.

In a short note from 1987,Revisionist historian Robert Faurisson reports two passages in two separate works by Martin Gilbert where the latter has falsfied the dimensions reported by Gerstein.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n5p-7_Faurisson.html
Gerstein states that:
Die Menschen stehen einander auf den Füssen, 700-800 Menschen auf 25 Quadratmetern in 45 Kubikmetern ... 750 Menschen in 45 Kubikmetern. ("The people stand on each other's feet, 700-800 people on 25 square meters in 45 cubic meters ... 750 people in 45 cubic meters.")
Gilbert changes the square meterage on two ocassions:
In his 1979 book, Final Journey: The Fate of the Jews in Nazi Europe (New York: Mayflower Books, p. 91), here is how Gilbert quoted Gerstein: "The naked people stand on each other's feet. About seven to eight hundred people in an area of about a hundred square meters."
and then again,
In a 1986 work, though, Gilbert revises this, quoting Gerstein as saying: "Seven to eight hundred people in ninety-three square meters."
The Holocaust: The Jewish Tragedy, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, p. 427 My question is, why does Gilbert change the dimensions?

The revisionists have proposed that he has changed the figures to make the testimony on this point seem more plausible. If we do the calculations we are left with this:

It is obviously impossible for 700 to 800 people to stand on a surface of 25 square meters and inside a space of 45 cubic meters. That would be the same as trying to fit 28 to 32 persons in a space that is one square meter in surface area, and 1.8 meters high.
It seems pretty obvious that defenders of the holocaust story will not want to admit that Gilbert is lying so they will have to come up with some other explanation as to why he has changed Gerstein's testimony.

I have seen this question debated many times in various places but I have yet to see the defenders of the story come up with a satisfactory explanation for this blatant case of doctoring of sources and so misleading the reader. Perhaps someone here might have something new to add?

[cerberus]

Faurisson is some man to be pointing the finger at anyone , if he is your bench mark for honesty Basil , your standards are very low.
This is the man who said the Anne frank Diary was a forgery , a fake.
he had to eat his hat on that one.
This is the man who attempted to mislead pressac on the matter of prisoners being gassed.
Pull the other one basil , bells ring.:deadhorse:

[Globus]

Whilst reviewing some of the witness testimonies connected with Treblinka I was reminded of this rather well-known example of misrepresentation.

In his statement, Kurt Gerstein describes, amongst other things, how he witnessed a homocidal gassing including the dimensions of the gas chamber, the numbers of people contained therein, and the time it took to complete the process and some other details.

In a short note from 1987,Revisionist historian Robert Faurisson reports two passages in two separate works by Martin Gilbert where the latter has falsfied the dimensions reported by Gerstein.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n5p-7_Faurisson.html
Gerstein states that:
Gilbert changes the square meterage on two ocassions:
and then again,
My question is, why does Gilbert change the dimensions?

The revisionists have proposed that he has changed the figures to make the testimony on this point seem more plausible. If we do the calculations we are left with this:


It seems pretty obvious that defenders of the holocaust story will not want to admit that Gilbert is lying so they will have to come up with some other explanation as to why he has changed Gerstein's testimony.

I have seen this question debated many times in various places but I have yet to see the defenders of the story come up with a satisfactory explanation for this blatant case of doctoring of sources and so misleading the reader. Perhaps someone here might have something new to add?

1. Making any assumptions about any human being estimating the number of people crammed into a confined space is useless. He could have estimated the size incorrectly as well as the number of people. Concocting a motive for a lie, which you've yet to even document, by an historian because you think he'll be sensitive to a such an estimate is much more likely to be denier wishful thinking.

2. What source does Gilbert cite for each publication?

3. Why would this occupy much of your time?

[Basil Fawlty]

Faurisson is some man to be pointing the finger at anyone , if he is your bench mark for honesty Basil , your standards are very low.
This is the man who said the Anne frank Diary was a forgery , a fake.
he had to eat his hat on that one.Did he really? And what is your source for that?

We are discussing Gilbert's misrepresentation of Gerstein here not Robert Faurisson.

[Basil Fawlty]

1. Making any assumptions about any human being estimating the number of people crammed into a confined space is useless. He could have estimated the size incorrectly as well as the number of people. Concocting a motive for a lie, which you've yet to even document, by an historian because you think he'll be sensitive to a such an estimate is much more likely to be denier wishful thinking.Irelevant. My question was about Gilbert's falsification of Gerstein's dimensions, not whether or not you think 28-32 people can be crammed into the said space.
2. What source does Gilbert cite for each publication? The Nuremberg document PS-2170, as you know.
3. Why would this occupy much of your time?Don't you find it just a little bit disturbing when a leading historian falsifies a source like that?

[Burrhus]

Basil Fawlty: Don't you find it just a little bit disturbing when a leading historian falsifies a source like that?

The sad fact of the matter is, Basil, that these people don't care even a little bit about the falsification of history.

If they did, they would be revisionists.

[cerberus]

Basil.Did he really? And what is your source for that?
Yes Basil , he did really.
Check out Lipstadt's "Dnying the Holocaust" and the Anne Frank House website.

[Basil Fawlty]

Basil.
Yes Basil , he did really.
Check out Lipstadt's "Dnying the Holocaust" and the Anne Frank House website.I asked you for your source for this. What we get is a reference to a know propagandist and directions to a commerical operation which has has a vested interest in preserving this sham.

2004 = 1 million visitors at Adults 7.50 Euro a head; children 3.50.

"Museumkaart" not valid. No group discount. Payment cash or with Maestro or through Visa- or Mastercard, at the entrance.

That's a lot of vested interest in preserving a fraud. Doubtless you have never looked at the evidence against.

****

The topic of this thread is Gilbert's falsifications of evidence. Are you going to address that or continue with your non-sequitirs?

[Globus]

Did he really? And what is your source for that?

We are discussing Gilbert's misrepresentation of Gerstein here not Robert Faurisson.

Faurisson happens to be your source!

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus
1. Making any assumptions about any human being estimating the number of people crammed into a confined space is useless. He could have estimated the size incorrectly as well as the number of people. Concocting a motive for a lie, which you've yet to even document, by an historian because you think he'll be sensitive to a such an estimate is much more likely to be denier wishful thinking.

Irelevant. My question was about Gilbert's falsification of Gerstein's dimensions, not whether or not you think 28-32 people can be crammed into the said space.

Not irrelevant in the least. Your argument, or I should say the denier Faurisson's argument, rests in part on the seemingly exaggerated nature of the estimate which is offered as a motive for the alledged falsification.

Quote:
2. What source does Gilbert cite for each publication?

The Nuremberg document PS-2170, as you know.

No, I did not know, as you couldn't possibly know. Have you see PS-2170?

Quote:
3. Why would this occupy much of your time?

Don't you find it just a little bit disturbing when a leading historian falsifies a source like that?

You haven't shown he's falsified anything.

[Globus]

I asked you for your source for this. What we get is a reference to a know propagandist and directions to a commerical operation which has has a vested interest in preserving this sham.

Spoken like a true conspiraloon!

Lipstadt is hardly a propagandist.

That's a lot of vested interest in preserving a fraud.

The circular argument of a conspiraloon.

Doubtless you have never looked at the evidence against.

And doubtless you're quite good at sound and fury but you've shown little real understanding of even denier arguments.

Why don't you tell us about this evidence against, hmmm?

Meanwhile, you'll find Faurissons lies about the Anne Frank Diary at IHR, home of the "scholars". Try their search engine.


The topic of this thread is Gilbert's falsifications of evidence.

Then it would be good for you to make your case for falsification. So far you've quoted Faurisson.

[Basil Fawlty]

Then it would be good for you to make your case for falsification. So far you've quoted Faurisson.No, I have quoted Gilbert and Faurisson, so far.
No, I did not know, as you couldn't possibly know. Have you see PS-2170?Yes, you do know because this is not the first time you have come across this, I am quite sure. Also the supposed source (2170) is given in each of the Gilbert texts so you can't play dumb. And yes, I have seen the text of 2170, have you? That you even ask me that question betrays that you know what part of the problem is here. ;)

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus
Then it would be good for you to make your case for falsification. So far you've quoted Faurisson.

No, I have quoted Gilbert and Faurisson, so far.

Gilbert is not evidence. So far you have quoted Faurisson and otherwise shot your mouth off.

Quote:
No, I did not know, as you couldn't possibly know. Have you see PS-2170?

[quote]Yes, you do know because this is not the first time you have come across this, I am quite sure.

No, I do not know, and your attempts at clairvoyance are as bad as your attempts at history.

Also the supposed source (2170) is given in each of the Gilbert texts so you can't play dumb.

I don't each of Gilbert texts. Just who is dumb?

And yes, I have seen the text of 2170, have you?

No, show it to us!

It's beginning to appear you don't have an argument other than Faurisson says so.

[Basil Fawlty]

No, I do not know, and your attempts at clairvoyance are as bad as your attempts at history.Let's just get this straight before we move on - are you claiming this is the first time you have ever discussed this matter?

[Globus]

Let's just get this straight before we move on - are you claiming this is the first time you have ever discussed this matter?

What I said is quite clear from the posts.

Show us PS-2170.

[Basil Fawlty]

What I said is quite clear from the posts.Why wont you answer the question: are you claiming this is the first time you have ever discussed this matter?
Show us PS-2170.As soon as you answer the question - a simple yes or no will suffice.

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus
What I said is quite clear from the posts.

Why wont you answer the question: are you claiming this is the first time you have ever discussed this matter?

Your stupid claim is irrelevant.

Quote:
Show us PS-2170.

As soon as you answer the question - a simple yes or no will suffice.

So what I'm told about you is true. You're all talk.

[Basil Fawlty]

Your stupid claim is irrelevant.



So what I'm told about you is true. You're all talk.You are being evasive. I asked you to clarify your claim that you have never discussed this matter before. You refuse, instead resorting to insult.

I am ready to post the relevant text from 2170 (I have it here ready to go) as soon as you give a simple yes or no to my question.

Why is this so difficult for you? The gallery will draw its own conclusions failing a simple answer from you.

[Globus]

You are being evasive.

Bullshit.

Put up or shutup, troll.

And I'm not interested in what you post. I want to see the document, either in the original or translation. That is the first step. Then you can begin to support your claims.

[Basil Fawlty]

Bullshit.

Put up or shutup, troll.Now, now, keep a civil tongue in your head. :nono:
And I'm not interested in what you post. Then why do you keep responding?
I want to see the document, either in the original or translation. That is the first step. Then you can begin to support your claims.I asked you a very simple question based on your apparent claim to be ignorant about the Gilbert-Gerstein question. You refuse to answer and are becoming more and more offensive in the process. I would like to clear this up, to establish your sincerity in this matter before we proceed.

***

Don't worry you will get the text of 2170, that I promise. I just want to see an answer to my simple question; yes or no?

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus
Bullshit.

Put up or shutup, troll.

Now, now, keep a civil tongue in your head.


5. Sticks and Stones -- If you're being wiped out with evidence and reasoning you cannot refute, you can always take refuge in complaining about the language being used by your adversaries. For example, if they say, "I've already explained that it takes less gas to kill people than lice, and therefore there are fewer cyanide residues remaining on the gas chamber walls than on the delousing chamber walls, you moron," you can respond by complaining about their use of the word "moron."

You can actually evade quite a bit of serious discussion by spending a lot of time condescendingly lecturing the newsgroup about their use of trashy language. But this approach doesn't work very well in building credibility. You may view yourself as an arbiter of social discourse but you'll actually come off like a den-mother scurrying around excoriating the little Cub Scouts to behave themselves.


'How To Be A Revisionist Scholar
http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/revisionism.html


Quote:
And I'm not interested in what you post.

Then why do you keep responding?

Because you claim you're going to demonstrate something other than the obvious pratfall you've performed so far.

So where's the document? Or are you really all talk?

[Basil Fawlty]

So where's the document? Or are you really all talk?Why won't you answer my question, what are you afraid of?

[Winston]

What a nice little case study into holocaustomania. Why not just admit that Gilbert played a little trick on his readers? You attack Irving for less...

[eggheadbanga]

Surely a more interesting question is why Basil is still splashing around in the 1940s with the Gerstein report when there are many newer books he could be reading. Perhaps he could offer some comments on the following citations?

6.8.42: Note of Neumann, director of agriculture in Generalgouvernement: “Brigadeführer Katzmann machte Mitteilung, dass es innerhalb eines halben Jahres im Generalgouvernement keine freien Juden mehr geben wird. Die Leute werden teils ausgesiedelt, teils in Lager verbracht. Die in den Städten konzentrierten Juden werden in Grossaktionen teils liquidiert, teils ausgesiedelt, teils in Arbeitslager zusammengefasst”
citied in Pohl, Ostgalizien, p.212

26.9.42: Report of Propaganda department of Distrikt Lublin:
“Unter den Cholmer Juden geht das Gerücht, dass die Ausrottung des Judentums künftig durch Sterilisation erfolgen würde. Diese Methode sei zwar humaner als die seitherige, würde aber trotzdem die Ausrottung des Judentums bedeuten. Die Juden mussten sich eben mit dieser Tatsache abfinden.”
cited in Hilberg, German edition, p.519, emphasis mine.

26.10.42: Report of Propaganda department of Distrikt Galizien:
“Die Umsiedlung der Juden, die zum Teil Formen annimmt, die eines Kulturvolkes nicht würdig sind, fordert direkt dazu heraus, die Methoden der Gestapo mit denen der GPU zu vergleichen. Die Transportzüge sollen in einem derart schlechten Zustand sein, dass es unmöglich sei, das Ausbrechen von Juden zu vermeiden. Die Folge davon ist, dass sich auf den Durchfahrtsstationen wilde Schiessereien und regelrechte Menschenjagden abspielen. Auch wird berichtet, dass die Leichen erschossener Juden tagelang auf den Strassen herumliegen. Trotzdem die reichsdeutsche und auch die fremdvölkische Bevölkerung von der Notwendigkeit der Liquidierung aller Juden überzeugt ist, wäre es doch angebrachter, diese auf eine weniger Aufsehen und Anstoss erregende Art durchzuführen.”
cited in Hilberg, German edition, pp.522-3

9.12.42: Hans Frank at Regierungssitzung: “Es ist klar, dass der Arbeitsprozess erschwert wird, wenn mitten in dieses Arbeitsprogramm der Befehl kommt, alle Juden sind der Vernichtung anheim zu stellen. Die Verantwortung hierfür trifft nicht die Regierung des Generalgouvernements. Die Weisung der Judenvernichtung kommt von höherer Stelle”
Diensttagebuch, p.588

[Basil Fawlty]

Surely a more interesting question is why Basil is still splashing around in the 1940s with the Gerstein report when there are many newer books he could be reading.Gerstein is not the issue here, Gilbert is (check thread title). Why are you guys trying to avoid this, what with attacks on Faurisson, myself, or attempts to change the subject?
Going off the topic results in marks being deducted in exams. How many students lose out because they answer a different question from the one they are asked? :nono:

[Globus]

Why won't you answer my question, what are you afraid of?

Post the document "all mouth".

[Globus]

What a nice little case study into holocaustomania. Why not just admit that Gilbert played a little trick on his readers? You attack Irving for less...

Admit what you can't even show?

Is that the logic of Holocaust denial, as is making silly words out of Holocaust the quality of argument?

[Globus]

Gerstein is not the issue here, Gilbert is (check thread title). Why are you guys trying to avoid this, what with attacks on Faurisson, myself, or attempts to change the subject?

LOL! You are surely delusional!

We're trying to get you to do what you said you were going to do. Prove Gilbert lied. Since all you've done is copy and past a paragraph from Faurisson, a known liar, he is pertinent to the thread.

So you ran away from the Treblinka debate, leaving your associates to get creamed, and now you're doing everything you can to avoid supporting what came out of your mouth.

[Basil Fawlty]

LOL! You are surely delusional!

We're trying to get you to do what you said you were going to do. Prove Gilbert lied. Since all you've done is copy and past a paragraph from Faurisson, a known liar, he is pertinent to the thread. It is now clear that you will not answer the simple question - have you ever discussed this matter before yes or no - after insinuating that you hadn't. I just want you to clarify with a simple no (or yes you have if there has been a misunderstanding), that you have never discussed this matter. You refuse a categriocal yes or no answer. Let the gallery draw their own conclusions from your insolent evasions.

*****

Before we come on to look at the text of 2170 I want to pose one simple question based on what we have so far. Let's see if we can clarify this one first.

In Final Journey Gilbert has Gerstein give the floor dimensions as "about 100 sq meters" and cites 2170 as the source.

In The Holocaust he has Gerstein give the floor dimensions as "93 sq meters" and cites 2170 as the source.

Now what is going on here? Remember, Gilbert is not paraphrasing, he is quoting (check it out if you doubt it) and stating the source of this quote as the Gerstein statement PS-2170. So, there is a contradiction here before we even look at 2170, to which we will shortly turn.

Suggestions as to how to resolve this contradiction?

[Globus]

It is now clear that you will not answer the simple question

You mean saying I was going to you wasn't clear!!

Before we come on to look at the text of 2170

There will be nothing before that.

But you've already given ample evidence that you simply like to talk.

[eggheadbanga]

Gerstein is not the issue here, Gilbert is (check thread title). Why are you guys trying to avoid this, what with attacks on Faurisson, myself, or attempts to change the subject?
Going off the topic results in marks being deducted in exams. How many students lose out because they answer a different question from the one they are asked? :nono:

Using out-dated works is also a surefire way to get marks deducted, Basil. Surely you know that. Because your 'question' isn't about Gilbert, it's about historians of the Holocaust in general, isn't it?

The simple answer to your question is: ask Gilbert. Or ask his publishers, editors, the subs, the galley proofers. How the fuck should I know why an obvious error crept in?

Now, on a related issue of exaggeration, please explain why Leuchter pretended that six million had been gassed at Auschwitz in order to create a strawman for his 'engineering' arguments.

[Kriger]

Before we come on to look at the text of 2170 I want to pose one simple question based on what we have so far. Let's see if we can clarify this one first.

In Final Journey Gilbert has Gerstein give the floor dimensions as "about 100 sq meters" and cites 2170 as the source.

In The Holocaust he has Gerstein give the floor dimensions as "93 sq meters" and cites 2170 as the source.

Now what is going on here? Remember, Gilbert is not paraphrasing, he is quoting (check it out if you doubt it) and stating the source of this quote as the Gerstein statement PS-2170. So, there is a contradiction here before we even look at 2170, to which we will shortly turn.

Suggestions as to how to resolve this contradiction?

Basil, you are asking for suggestions from one who reported he answered a question from post #403 in post #508. The problem being that he made this statement in his #471 post. There is no post #508.
Anyone who can perform mental thought processes such as this can come up with any number of suggestions, none of them being valid unless one believes in illogical thought processes.

[Globus]

Basil, you are asking for suggestions from one who reported he answered a question from post #403 in post #508. The problem being that he made this statement in his #471 post. There is no post #508.

And I provided the correct number for the post, which demolished #403.

Nuf said! Or in your case, nothing else to say.

[Kriger]

And I provided the correct number for the post, which demolished #403.

Nuf said! Or in your case, nothing else to say.

Bossy, aren't you?

[Globus]

Bossy, aren't you?

Not much to say, eh.

[Basil Fawlty]

You mean saying I was going to you wasn't clear!!Could you rephrase that in English please?

[Basil Fawlty]

Using out-dated works is also a surefire way to get marks deducted, Basil. Surely you know that. Because your 'question' isn't about Gilbert, it's about historians of the Holocaust in general, isn't it? Not quite. Its about why do they doctor evidence in their presentations.
The simple answer to your question is: ask Gilbert. Or ask his publishers, editors, the subs, the galley proofers. How the fuck should I know why an obvious error crept in? Oh the innocence, its! You think this is a typesetters error do you?
But I have to at least acknowledge your decency in not flatly denying the problem, unlike some people.
Now, on a related issue of exaggeration, please explain why Leuchter pretended that six million had been gassed at Auschwitz in order to create a strawman for his 'engineering' arguments.Stop trying to change the subject.

So we have one suggestion so far. Its all down to typographic error. We will return to this and see, alas, why this is not a credible suggestion in due course.

[Kriger]

Not much to say, eh.

You phrased your "correction" in such a manner that the implication was that you were correcting Burrhus and not yourself, when in truth Burrhus was the one correcting you.

[eggheadbanga]

Not quite. Its about why do they doctor evidence in their presentations.


What a surprise. Please give me another example of a blatant mistake in Gilbert's work, then.

Oh the innocence, its! You think this is a typesetters error do you?

Who knows? Gilbert was working in the pre-computer age.

Quite honestly there is neither rhyme nor reason why 93 m2 would have been chosen, therefore something as crass as a typing/sub-editors/typesetters error compounded by lack of corrections in subsequent editions is as valid as assuming that Gilbert thought this was the one-and-only piece of evidence for a gas chamber (which it is not) or even the gas chambers at Belzec (which it is not), and it had to be credible, otherwise the Jooos would be rumbled in their little scam, therefore he should fake the figures deliberately.

As I said, Gerstein is soo... 1940s. I honestly have to say that I hear about him more from deniers than I do from real historians. Thus my quote taken from the work of Dieter Pohl. You do know who Dieter Pohl is, don't you Basil?

Stop trying to change the subject.

No, the subject is errors in people's work is it not? Therefore my question about Leuchter is entire apposite. I thought my quotes about the Final Solution in the Generalgouvernement were also appropriate, might even elicit a cry of 'tampered with!' from the man who stupidly claimed to cerberus that only a few documents had been 'tampered with' according to revisionists. Could have fooled me, judging by both the published screeds and the online incarnations.

[Globus]

You phrased your "correction" in such a manner that the implication was that you were correcting Burrhus and not yourself,

No I didn't.


when he was the one correcting you.

Also not accurate. I was correcting his claim that I had not responded.

Time to run along. You have nothing to offer.

[Basil Fawlty]

What a surprise. Please give me another example of a blatant mistake in Gilbert's work, then.Well let's deal with this one first.



Who knows? Gilbert was working in the pre-computer age.

Quite honestly there is neither rhyme nor reason why 93 m2 would have been chosen, therefore something as crass as a typing/sub-editors/typesetters error compounded by lack of corrections in subsequent editions is as valid as assuming that Gilbert thought this was the one-and-only piece of evidence for a gas chamber (which it is not) or even the gas chambers at Belzec (which it is not), and it had to be credible, otherwise the Jooos would be rumbled in their little scam, therefore he should fake the figures deliberately.Your hypothesis might be in the running if it were just one error, but is it a coincidence that exactly the same detail is falsified in two separate publications albeit with different figures? But what really sinks your hypothesis is the fact that Leon Poliakov is the probable source for Gilbert's falsification. I think Gilbert took his Gerstein statement from Poliakov rather than directly from source, or else he just hit on the 93 figure by coincidence after abandoning the 100 as to round a figure. Now is it likely that Poliakov's printers were attacked by the same gremlins as plague the hapless Gilbert?

I am ignoring the latest attempts to take us off topic.

[Globus]

Could you rephrase that in English please?

Learn to read, then when someone tells you they're not going to answer you'll understand.

Where's the document "all mouth"?

[Globus]

So we have one suggestion so far. Its all down to typographic error. We will return to this and see, alas, why this is not a credible suggestion in due course.

Of course that is a blatant lie. He said no such thing.

So it is clearly true what they say about Basil. All mouth.

[Basil Fawlty]

Of course that is a blatant lie. He said no such thing.Not my problem if you are illiterate.

Egg said "Quite honestly there is neither rhyme nor reason why 93 m2 would have been chosen, therefore something as crass as a typing/sub-editors/typesetters error compounded by lack of corrections in subsequent editions is as valid as assuming that . . "

Typographic error is a suggestion. I am not saying that Egg is supporting this one, just that he is suggesting it as a possible explanation. At least he has come up with something, all you can do is rant and rave.

[Globus]

Your hypothesis might be in the running if it were just one error, but is it a coincidence that exactly the same detail is falsified in two separate publications albeit with different figures? But what really sinks your hypothesis is the fact that Leon Poliakov is the probable source for Gilbert's falsification. I think Gilbert took his Gerstein statement from Poliakov rather than directly from source, or else he just hit on the 93 figure by coincidence after abandoning the 100 as to round a figure.

Except, of course, that Poliakov cites a different document. Which doesn't mean Gilbert didn't use Poliakov and then the wrong document was cited. Lots of potential reasons for this, as eggheadbanga indicated.

So this is the end of the road for poor Basil's much ballyhooed, attention grabbing gambit.

[Globus]

Not my problem if you are illiterate.

Not my problem if you wish to lie.

Egg said "Quite honestly there is neither rhyme nor reason why 93 m2 would have been chosen, therefore something as crass as a typing/sub-editors/typesetters error compounded by lack of corrections in subsequent editions is as valid as assuming that . . "

Which is pointing that one hypothesis is as valid as another without evidence.

That's not what you said. You lied.

Where's the document Basil old boy!

[eggheadbanga]

Well let's deal with this one first.

Your hypothesis might be in the running if it were just one error, but is it a coincidence that exactly the same detail is falsified in two separate publications albeit with different figures? But what really sinks your hypothesis is the fact that Leon Poliakov is the probable source for Gilbert's falsification. I think Gilbert took his Gerstein statement from Poliakov rather than directly from source, or else he just hit on the 93 figure by coincidence after abandoning the 100 as to round a figure. Now is it likely that Poliakov's printers were attacked by the same gremlins as plague the hapless Gilbert?


Wow, Basil. I stand corrected. So far you've presented a strong case that Gilbert copied straight out from Poliakov, something which people aren't supposed to do, but happens all the time anyway, not least among revisionists incidentally.

So shouldn't you have titled the thread 'Leon Poliakov: the devil is in the detail?'

While we're at it, we seem to be up to 4 unanswered questions from Basil:

1. Why did Leuchter exaggerate the death toll at Auschwitz to a figure of six million?
2. Who is Dieter Pohl?
3. What does our intrepid revisionist adventurer think of the excerpted quotes on the Final Solution in the Generalgouvernement?
4. Has Basil found another blatant mistake in Gilbert's work and if so, how does this compare to the number of footnotes in the book in question?

All of which are highly germane questions to this discussion.

[NeoNietzsche]

Now, on a related issue of exaggeration, please explain why Leuchter pretended that six million had been gassed at Auschwitz in order to create a strawman for his 'engineering' arguments.
What document that Leuchter was citing, or of which he unquestionably had knowledge, was revised by him, after the fashion of Gilbert, in allegedly "pretending" six million?

I ask out of a sense of Leuchter's innocent honesty, gained from having spoken with him in 1988, when he seemed terribly naive, earnest, and somewhat irked at having been lied to about the hollow "Holocaust" - and when he also seemed to have no sense of the personal ruin that inevitably lay before him for having promoted heresy with an imperfect first attempt at this sort of analysis.

[Globus]

Wow, Basil. I stand corrected. So far you've presented a strong case that Gilbert copied straight out from Poliakov, something which people aren't supposed to do, but happens all the time anyway, not least among revisionists incidentally.

So shouldn't you have titled the thread 'Leon Poliakov: the devil is in the detail?'

Of course he would then have to confront the reality that Faurisson made the same charge against Poliakov that he is making against Gilbert, in response to which Poliakov sued Faurisson for libel and won a financial victory.

Not that Gilbert would think a charge coming from Basil would be taken seriously by anyone.

[Globus]

What document that Leuchter was citing,

None.

or of which he unquestionably had knowledge,

There is no such document. Leuchter's an idiot.

[NeoNietzsche]

Leuchter's an idiot.
That's not the affirmation that APE was looking for - you've holed his argument below the waterline. He now thinks you're the idiot.

[Basil Fawlty]

Here is the relevant passage for PS-2170 with translation.

Die Menschen stehen einander auf dem Fuessen, 700-800 Menschen auf 25 Quadrametern . . .

The people are stepping on each others feet, 700 - 800 persons to 25 square meters, 45 cubic meters

Here is a facsimilie of the page from the National Archive copy of PS-2170 included in the appendices of Henri Roque The 'Confessions' of Kurt Gerstein IHR, 1989: 274-287

I have indicated the passage with red lines. http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/2981/ps217056zg8.jpg


The most well known text of the Gerstein statement is PS-1553 which can be found here - http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/01/NMT01-T865.htm

The figures are the same in 1553, 25 square meters.

****

As for Poliakov as possible source for the Gilbert falsification with the 93 figure, see:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.py?people//g/gerstein.kurt/poland.002

PS-1553 is given as the source and there the 93 figure is plain to see.

Excerpted from
Poliakov, Leon. Harvest of Hate: The Nazi Program for the
Destruction of the Jews of Europe. Syracuse University Press.,
1956.

[Basil Fawlty]

Wow, Basil. I stand corrected. So far you've presented a strong case that Gilbert copied straight out from Poliakov, something which people aren't supposed to do, but happens all the time anyway, not least among revisionists incidentally.That's all well and fine. It might account for the 93 falsification, but then what about the earlier 100 sq meter claim?

So now we have a second suggestion - Gilbert cogged the 93 from Poliakov. Problem: that still leaves us with the 100 claim, and the Poliakov question of course. We can bracket that for now.

[Burrhus]

No I didn't.

Also not accurate. I was correcting his claim that I had not responded.

Time to run along. You have nothing to offer.

Mark the calender ladies and gentlemen, at last, a tid-bit of truth from gl*b*s.

He was correcting me by informing me that he had responded to me, a response which I had missed. But in doing so he incorrectly directed me to a non-existent post. I then corrected him on his careless error.

Sorry for the digression. It's all on the Secret Overlords of the 'holocaust' thread. See that thread for my refutation of post 420.

Stop gl*b*s, argue it there not here.

[eggheadbanga]

That's all well and fine. It might account for the 93 falsification, but then what about the earlier 100 sq meter claim?


The 100m2 is easily produced by someone mentally calculating 4 chambers of 25m2, especially if their mind rejects the figure of 750 people in 25 square metres. No, Gilbert and others who've followed suit shouldn't have done this, and should have paused the text - or footnoted, or commented afterwards - to say that one of these numbers was wrong. Slap wrists.

Now, would Basil care to comment on this letter from Gerstein before the end of the war?

Dear Friend Ubbink
You are one of the first to whom I shall send greetings. Let me congratulate you from the bottom of my heart on the liberation of your country from our brood of vipers and criminals. However dark our fate may now be, those terrible people could not be allowed to win. Ask your people if, now at least, they believe what went on in Belzec, etc. I thank God that I did everything in my power to cut through this abscess on the body of humanity.

http://www.annefrank.dk/Gerstein/new_page_4a.htm

And this report which was passed via Gerstein to the Dutch resistance?

http://www.deathcamps.org/belzec/gersteinnl.html

If not, then please provide the extra mistake in Gilbert. Gilbert, Gerstein, Generalgouvernement or errors - which _exactly_ is your favourite topic here, Basil?

[Basil Fawlty]

The 100m2 is easily produced by someone mentally calculating 4 chambers of 25m2, especially if their mind rejects the figure of 750 people in 25 square metres. No, Gilbert and others who've followed suit shouldn't have done this, and should have paused the text - or footnoted, or commented afterwards - to say that one of these numbers was wrong. Slap wrists.No, you have taken your eye off the ball. The problem is that Gilbert is quoting Gerstein, not summarising, not paraphrasing, not mentioning or referring, but quoting. Gerstein never says 93 sq meters, not in 2170, not in 1553, and not in the other four versions of his statement in which the consistency of these figures is maintained throughout, i.e. 25 sq meters. Your right about one thing here: ". . . their mind rejects the figure of 750 people in 25 square metres."
This is Faurisson's suggestion. They ramped the figure upwards to make the claim seem more plausible. He accuses them in this of mendacity.
Now, would Basil care to comment on this letter from Gerstein before the end of the war?No, Egg. I have already said at least twice that I will not be diverted. If you want to discuss this other stuff by all means open a dedicated thread, I find Gerstein to be an interesting subject. Here, however, I will be staying on topic - Gilbert's falsified sources and the reason why. I will only consider how other holocausters have used this particular piece of text. You should know that Poliakov and Gilbert are not the only ones to be playing games with this one.

[Globus]

That's not the affirmation that APE was looking for -

How about it applies to you too!

[Globus]

Here is the relevant passage for PS-2170 with translation.

Here is a facsimilie of the page from the National Archive copy of PS-2170 included in the appendices of Henri Roque The 'Confessions' of Kurt Gerstein IHR, 1989: 274-287

There is nothing that indicates that is PS-2170.

The most well known text of the Gerstein statement is PS-1553 which can be found here - http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/01/NMT01-T865.htm[/quote]

The best place to see the entire document is here:

http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/hitskwds.php?display=0&SearchType=keywords&keywords=gerstein&scope=anywhere&srch=Keywords&FieldFlag=9&DI=1&case_setting=AC&view_setting=A&display_setting=10


The figures are the same in 1553, 25 square meters.

They may be, but you haven't shown us that your quote comes from PS-2170

As for Poliakov as possible source for the Gilbert falsification with the 93 figure, see:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.py?people//g/gerstein.kurt/poland.002

PS-1553 is given as the source and there the 93 figure is plain to see.

That had already been established. We're where we were before your late and worthless revealing of your ace card.

It appears Gilbert took the data from Poliakov. When the liar Faurisson accused him of lying, he lost a libel suit. So you have hardly presented anything other than that Gilbert may have used a incorrect number from Poliakov.

Much ado about nothing.

Is this about your quota of contribution to Holocaust denial here? One old rehashed bit of foolishness every 4 or 5 months?

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus
No I didn't.

Also not accurate. I was correcting his claim that I had not responded.

Time to run along. You have nothing to offer.


Mark the calender ladies and gentlemen, at last, a tid-bit of truth from globus.

Actually, completely true Burlap. Unlike a broken clock, you can't even be correct twice a day.

[Basil Fawlty]

There is nothing that indicates that is PS-2170.Here's the cover sheet.
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/5909/ps217013backcoveryy7.jpg

You must be hard up for objections.
That had already been established. We're where we were before your late and worthless revealing of your ace card.Really?
It appears Gilbert took the data from Poliakov. When the liar Faurisson accused him of lying, he lost a libel suit. So you have hardly presented anything other than that Gilbert may have used a incorrect number from Poliakov.Perhaps, but that does not explain a) Gilbert's initial falsification of 100 meters in the earlier publication, and b.) Poliakov's falsification.
We'll explore the implications of all this later.

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus
There is nothing that indicates that is PS-2170.

Here's the cover sheet.
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/590...ckcoveryy7.jpg

Still kind of dodgy, eh Basil!

You must be hard up for objections.

Coming from a mindless denier who has nothing but forced objections, that is rich!

Quote:
That had already been established. We're where we were before your late and worthless revealing of your ace card.

Really?

Yeah.

Quote:
It appears Gilbert took the data from Poliakov. When the liar Faurisson accused him of lying, he lost a libel suit. So you have hardly presented anything other than that Gilbert may have used a incorrect number from Poliakov.

Perhaps, but that does not explain a) Gilbert's initial falsification of 100 meters in the earlier publication,

You haven't shown any falsifications, stupid.

You've merely declared it, as deniers always do.

All you got Basis?

[Basil Fawlty]

Still kind of dodgy, eh Basil!
Coming from a mindless denier who has nothing but forced objections, that is rich!
Yeah.
You haven't shown any falsifications, stupid.
You've merely declared it, as deniers always do.
All you got Basis?It appears once again that denial is your speciality. Deny the contradiction that everyone else can see in the Bischoff matter, and now deny the text even when it is shown to all in facsimilie form. Poor Egg must be really embarassed to have a loon like you on the same team.

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus
Still kind of dodgy, eh Basil!
Coming from a mindless denier who has nothing but forced objections, that is rich!
Yeah.
You haven't shown any falsifications, stupid.
You've merely declared it, as deniers always do.
All you got Basis?

[quote]It appears once again that denial is your speciality.

It appears that you are a serial liar.

Deny the contradiction that everyone else can see in the Bischoff matter,

There is no contradiction, which is why you can't express it in a single sentence. Far better than you have tried to make that stupid case I'm afraid.

and now deny the text even when it is shown to all in facsimilie form.

More dishonesty. No one has denied the text, but the source is still unclear.

Poor Egg must be really embarassed to have a loon like you on the same team.

Why don't you ask him stupid!

In the meantime, when you claim a falsification you simply lie.

You've really done nothing at all. I can see why your associates were not sad at you cutting and running from the Treblinka debate.

[Basil Fawlty]

. . you are a serial liar. . . you have tried to make that stupid case . . . More dishonesty. . . stupid! . . . you simply lie.What do you hope to achieve with this kind of thing, you silly little man?

[Globus]

What do you hope to achieve with this kind of thing, you silly little man?

What do you hope to achieve with lies, pathetic old man?

Where's the proof of your assertion? Or do you think people don't notice?

[Basil Fawlty]

No one has denied the text, but the source is still unclear.Ok, what's the problem so?

[Basil Fawlty]

What do you hope to achieve with lies, pathetic old man?

Where's the proof of your assertion? Or do you think people don't notice?What people have noticed is that you lack even basic civility.

[Keystone]

What people have noticed is that you lack even basic civility.
Basil I must commend you on your composure. I've been reading this thread on and off, and you have the patience of a stone with some of the snotty posters who insult and evade direct questions like the plague.

I'm not really concerned with Holocaust debate, but you at least try to remain civil and on topic.

[Globus]

Ok, what's the problem so?

I've already told you.

[Globus]

What people have noticed is that you lack even basic civility.

What makes you think your kind deserves civility?

You've spent all this time on the equivalent of a pimple on the ass of an elephant. It signifies both your amateurship grasp of historiography as well as complete inability to construct and defend anything other than the most simplistic proposition.

[Globus]

Basil I must commend you on your composure. I've been reading this thread on and off, and you have the patience of a stone with some of the snotty posters who insult and evade direct questions like the plague.

Yeah, and Basil hasn't evaded questions, insulted, and more importantly, lied.

He's going to need more blind support like this.

[Keystone]

Yeah, and Basil hasn't evaded questions, insulted, and more importantly, lied.

He's going to need more blind support like this.
It's not blind. I can read.

I don't believe the Jewish WWII narrative whole cloth, just as denying Jews weren't deliberately killed by the Nazis would be naive. There's always truth in the middle ground. It's just that the defenders of the Holocaust as writ can be just as shrill and ridiculous as the "Holo-hoaxer" branch of the debate.

Basil presents his arguments very well. I guess we disagree on that.

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus
Yeah, and Basil hasn't evaded questions, insulted, and more importantly, lied.

He's going to need more blind support like this.

It's not blind. I can read.

Oh, and you're the only one.

I don't believe the Jewish WWII narrative whole cloth,

The Holocaust isn't a Jewish narrative, let along a WWII narrative. It's proven history, by historians from all over the world, including Germany.

just as denying Jews weren't deliberately killed by the Nazis would be naive.

Or just as denying the facts of the Holocaust, which is not some Jews being killed by Nazis.

There's always truth in the middle ground.

Oh, so the earth is not flat, but it's not an oblate spheroid either, but something in between?

That's a ridiculous statement. The middle ground between truth and lies is not truth.

It's just that the defenders of the Holocaust as writ can be just as shrill and ridiculous as the "Holo-hoaxer" branch of the debate.

Not in the least. If you could get any of these pansies to actually discuss the history, or if they knew enough about it to discuss it, we wouldn't have to waste all this time fending off idiotic claims based on nothing but ideology.

Basil presents his arguments very well.

Show me one argument he has presented?

[Kriger]

Oh, so the earth is not flat, but it's not an oblate spheroid either, but something in between?

That's a ridiculous statement. The middle ground between truth and lies is not truth.


The sheer volume of invalid statements that you attempt to profess to be truth is staggering, to say the least.
The Earth is not flat, and neither is it an oblate spheroid. It is a combination of physical attrubtes that cannot accurately be summed up into either unrealistic absolute category. In case you had not noticed, there are mountains, canyons, oceans, abysses, just to name a few.
Your statements of truth are so ridiculous as to be extremely amusing. It becomes even more amusing when you believe that you are believed. It becomes hilarious when you maintain your "superiority" based on your inaccurate portrayals of reality.

"The middle ground between truth and lies is not truth".
I believe you have outdone yourself with this one. The valid points made by either side are truths in their own right, not to be compromised by absolutes.

The fact remains that there are certain historical inconsistencies that your beloved legion of historians need to address to find the truth of the matter.

It is certainly not the first time in history that the historians had it wrong.

In the meantime, you really need to work on your grammar and diction. It's atrocious, as is your "logic and reason".

I would expect a higher degree of proficiency from someone as "learned" as you proclaim yourself to be.

[Basil Fawlty]

That's a ridiculous statement. The middle ground between truth and lies is not truth.Its not ridiculous. What's ridiculous is your vicious misrepresention of what he said.

He said: There's always truth in the middle ground.

You have twisted that around to something totally different: "The middle ground between truth and lies is not truth". You have some nerve calling people liars.

[Basil Fawlty]

I don't believe the Jewish WWII narrative whole cloth, just as denying Jews weren't deliberately killed by the Nazis would be naive. There's always truth in the middle ground. It's just that the defenders of the Holocaust as writ can be just as shrill and ridiculous as the "Holo-hoaxer" branch of the debate.I agree with this very much. But fanatics like Globus demand that you accept everything, all the nonsense and lies included, or else you are an evil denier deserving of abuse and, in real life, persecution. He will deny the last of course but he is a fanatic through and through and fanatics are capable of anything.

[eggheadbanga]

No, you have taken your eye off the ball. The problem is that Gilbert is quoting Gerstein, not summarising, not paraphrasing, not mentioning or referring, but quoting.


I was referring to the moment of transcription from an IMT volume/a document to the notes preparatory. Please tell me that you always transcribe perfectly and don't, for example, skip a sentence when doing so. I know I have to check my work when transcribing, and I have a computer, which Gilbert did not in the 1970s and early 1980s when writing the 'offending' books.

Your right about one thing here: ". . . their mind rejects the figure of 750 people in 25 square metres."

There are two possible explanations for why the error entered the text. One is that it was sub-conscious, the other that it was conscious. You would be a fool not to accept the possibility of both. But no, Basil wants to jump up and down with glee because he found a measly error in what he deludedly thinks is the primary piece of witness evidence for a gassing. Which this patently is not.

This is Faurisson's suggestion. They ramped the figure upwards to make the claim seem more plausible. He accuses them in this of mendacity.

Faurisson is in no position to accuse anyone of mendacity. His record of mendacious quote-mining (as can be read in Nadine Fresco's article The Denial of the Dead, online here http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/Fresco81a/ ) and mendacious logical distortions (as can be further read in Vidal-Naquet's criticisms here http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet92a/ ) are enough to disqualify him from any consideration as a serious thinker. He is less the Pope than the buffoon showman of revisionism.

No, Egg. I have already said at least twice that I will not be diverted. If you want to discuss this other stuff by all means open a dedicated thread, I find Gerstein to be an interesting subject. Here, however, I will be staying on topic - Gilbert's falsified sources and the reason why. I will only consider how other holocausters have used this particular piece of text. You should know that Poliakov and Gilbert are not the only ones to be playing games with this one.

If you are solely intent on reducing any discussion of a) Gilbert, b) Gerstein, c) Belzec, d) the mass murder of Jews in the Generalgouvernement or e) blatant mistakes in historiography to this one issue alone, then you are intellectually bankrupt.

I mean, where is all this going, Basil?

Let me speculate, based on what I have read of the many revisionist critiques of Gerstein:

1) you wish to discredit Martin Gilbert as a historian. Fine, except I have never read and never intend to read 'Final Journey', and I don't see it widely cited by other historians. As far as I'm aware or concerned, it's a populist work. I have read 'The Holocaust' but regard it also as a populist work and don't see it cited ad nauseam in the work of other historians. This particular mistake is not in 'Auschwitz and the Allies', which is still generally usable albeit quite out-dated - it is a quarter of a century old, what a surprise. There are at least two entirely different mistakes in 'Auschwitz and the Allies', neither of which are critical in the slightest, and neither of which rests on a blatant misinterpretation of the sources.

2) you wish to discredit Poliakov. Fine. Except I have never read Poliakov, and don't know anyone who has. That one is really out-dated. It barely made it out of the French-speaking world.

3) you wish to discredit historians such as Dawidowicz, Morse, Toland and others who have garbled the Gerstein report, these being the names listed in the typical revisionist critiques of the handling of the report. All are populists and not generally cited except in literature reviews.

4) you wish to call into question the handling of the Gerstein report in general by implication and insinuation. Except Hilberg, Browning, Rueckerl and other prominent historians have gone on the record explaining why they handled it as they did, and making firm statements that they regard many parts of the report as exaggerated.

The next generation to write works will be even more explicit, which is - oh joy! - an immense victory for 40+ years of Holocaust denial.

5) you wish to imply that all historians of the Holocaust are mendacious in their handling of the sources, except you won't be drawn on what other blatant distortions have been made, nor will you answer queries about why revisionists falsify the evidence to an equal or even greater extent.

6) you wish to pretend that the sum total of historiography of the Holocaust amounts to the likes of Gilbert, which is patently false, and which point you conveniently dodged by ignoring my enquiry about whether you had read the works of Dieter Pohl, who just so happens to have written on both the Lublin and Galicia districts, i.e. on those areas which fed Belzec, and in a language which you claim to be able to read. I'll leave aside those writing in Polish, shall I?

7) you wish to cast doubt on the Gerstein report itself in its entirety. Which means you promptly ignore two links to wartime documents that corroborate the essential content of the report - that Gerstein witnessed a gassing in 1942 at Belzec. You know the rest of the corroborating evidence postwar, and also the arguments relating to why he exaggerated his numbers, this exaggeration hardly disqualifying the underlying tenor of what he saw, which is confirmed by many other accounts.

8) you wish to cast doubt on Belzec, which is somewhat pointless since the sum total of the evidence consists of considerably more than just Gerstein.

9) you wish to cast doubt on all witness statements relating to similar phenomena (gassings, gas chambers, mass killings), except you then ignore wartime documentary evidence offered relating to the mass murders committed in the self-same region - the Generalgouvernement, more specifically the Lublin and Galicia districts which fed Belzec.

And you have already gone on record denying that revisionists claim that hundreds or thousands of documents are forgeries, which leaves you in a pretty cleft stick, doesn't it Basil? Because the three quotes offered so far are just the start, if you want to get into a war of quibbling and attrition.

10) you wish to argue that Gerstein was the Urquelle of witness statements relating to gassings, which is nonsensical, since there were many others which had already entered the public record before the end of the war, and even more which became known before Gerstein's account was entered into the record at IMT. Nor could you prove collusion or circulation of Gerstein's account as a template for other witness statements gathered in 1945 by separate investigators.

So what is it you're driving at, Basil? Whatever it is, it doesn't amount to anything more than a pimple on an elephant, as Globus rightly pointed out.

[NeoNietzsche]

4) you wish to call into question the handling of the Gerstein report in general by implication and insinuation. Except Hilberg, Browning, Rueckerl and other prominent historians have gone on the record explaining why they handled it as they did, and making firm statements that they regard many parts of the report as exaggerated.
This, however, is to minimize the impression that the "report" makes of hysteria and insanity. It may be the case that it has corroborative support in contemporary sources, but those sources, themselves, become suspect by virtue of association with so extraordinary a document - which even now you have to deal with euphemistically (as merely "exaggerated").



5) you wish to imply that all historians of the Holocaust are mendacious in their handling of the sources, except you won't be drawn on what other blatant distortions have been made, nor will you answer queries about why revisionists falsify the evidence to an equal or even greater extent.
Piper:


This does not mean that all researchers agreed on the figure of 4,000,000 in their publications. Jewish researchers in particular, who were fully aware that Jews made up the decided majority of the victims of Auschwitz, had significant reservations about this figure—above all because, when added to the number of Jews killed at other extermination sites, it more than doubled the overall loss of Jewish lives, set at 5,000,000 to 6,000,000. Since these researchers did not know, in turn, the number of persons from other ethnic groups deported to the camp they frequently refrained from attempting to establish the total number of victims, and limited themselves to Jewish losses.

Thus various figures for the number of Auschwitz victims appeared in the literature: at least 900,000 (Reitlinger), 1,000,000 Jews (Hilberg), 2,000,000 Jews (Gilbert), 2,500,000 Jews (Weiss) , 3,500,000 – 4,500,000 (Kogon).

In the early 1950s, Reitlinger, unlike other researchers, attempted to estimate the number of victims of Auschwitz on the basis of the incomplete information then available about the number of deportees to Auschwitz and other death camps from specific countries. None of the other researchers named above attempted a more detailed analysis or provided any justification for their estimates. It would seem that researchers generally repeated the numbers (from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000) to which Höss testified at various times in Germany and Poland in 1946 and 1947.

...

Georges Wellers was the first researcher to make a detailed analysis of this issue...Wellers published his findings in Le Monde Juif in late 1983

...

The foregoing considerations can be summed up in the following conclusions:

1.It is a fact that an inflated figure for the number of Auschwitz victims, up to 4,000,000, was often cited in the literature over several postwar decades on the basis of the prosecutorial and judicial authorities and the testimony of former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss. However, scholars who researched the problem more closely while following the principles of the historian’s craft—the comparison of various sources and the evaluation of their credibility—defined and continue to define the number of Auschwitz victims as somewhere between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000.

However, as Piper inadvertently reveals, "scholars" - highly qualified as such by Piper - were a distinct minority of academics dealing with the subject:


None of the other researchers named above attempted a more detailed analysis or provided any justification for their estimates. It would seem that researchers generally repeated the numbers (from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000) to which Höss testified at various times in Germany and Poland in 1946 and 1947.

[NeoNietzsche]

... nor will you answer queries about why revisionists falsify the evidence to an equal or even greater extent.
Did you wish to patch Globby's torpedo hole in your battlewagon bearing Leuchter as an example?

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus
Oh, so the earth is not flat, but it's not an oblate spheroid either, but something in between?

That's a ridiculous statement. The middle ground between truth and lies is not truth.


The sheer volume of invalid statements that you attempt to profess to be truth is staggering, to say the least.

Well let's see what you're able to do.

The Earth is not flat, and neither is it an oblate spheroid. It is a combination of physical attrubtes that cannot accurately be summed up into either unrealistic absolute category.

LOL! The earth is an oblate speroid, and that fact is not changed by noticing that it also has other physical attributes.

In case you had not noticed, there are mountains, canyons, oceans, abysses, just to name a few.

Which doesn't change the overall shape of the planet from anywhere in space.

As I suspected, you didn't really have anything other than a desire to disagree.

"The middle ground between truth and lies is not truth".
I believe you have outdone yourself with this one. The valid points made by either side are truths in their own right, not to be compromised by absolutes.

Then here is your confusion, based as it is no doubt in ignorance. Deniers do not have any valid points. They are liars. Therefore the point stands.

The fact remains that there are certain historical inconsistencies that your beloved legion of historians need to address to find the truth of the matter.

List a few and tell us how they differ from any historical event without giving rise to denial?

It is certainly not the first time in history that the historians had it wrong.

Really? How many other major events of this magnitude and recency can you cite?

In the meantime, you really need to work on your grammar and diction. It's atrocious, as is your "logic and reason".

You need to work on actually knowing something about the subject you're speaking about. As for logic, looks like it held up pretty well against something who thinks truth can be discovered by splitting the difference!

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus
That's a ridiculous statement. The middle ground between truth and lies is not truth.

Its not ridiculous. What's ridiculous is your vicious misrepresention of what he said.

He said: There's always truth in the middle ground.

Which can be applied to a specific situation to show its idiocy. I did it with flat earth nuts, and it applies to Holocaust denial as well. Holocaust denial is lies. You cannot split the difference between lies and fact.

You have twisted that around to something totally different: "The middle ground between truth and lies is not truth". You have some nerve calling people liars.

Not different at all. If the silly statement is to have an meaning it must be applicable. Showing instances in which it clearly doesn't produce truth exposes its lack of validity.

[Globus]

I agree with this very much. But fanatics like Globus demand that you accept everything, all the nonsense and lies included, or else you are an evil denier deserving of abuse and, in real life, persecution.

Imagine a Holocaust denier calling someone else who happens to think that what the historical profession has proven is normative a fanatic. You're the fanatic Basil, and trying to redefine this well established history as the Nazis killing some Jews is another example of the based dishonesty of deniers.

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by eggheadbanga

4) you wish to call into question the handling of the Gerstein report in general by implication and insinuation. Except Hilberg, Browning, Rueckerl and other prominent historians have gone on the record explaining why they handled it as they did, and making firm statements that they regard many parts of the report as exaggerated.

This, however, is to minimize the impression that the "report" makes of hysteria and insanity.

As it should because those historians know very well that the hysteria and insanity of what Gerstein witnessed was real. The piles of shoes and other belongings he saw were not as high as he related, but there were piles of belongings taken from the murdered Jews, deloused, and shipped to Germany by the railroad car load. The numbers of those murdered were not as high as he surmised, but they were massive. The truth of what he saw has not been deniable for many decades.

It may be the case that is has corroborative support in contemporary sources, but those sources, themselves, become suspect by virtue of association with so extraordinary a document - which even now you have to deal with euphemistically (as merely "exaggerated").

A corroborative piece of evidence is not "associated" with another piece of evidence merely because it covers the same subject. It is associated with the event it describes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eggheadbanga

5) you wish to imply that all historians of the Holocaust are mendacious in their handling of the sources, except you won't be drawn on what other blatant distortions have been made, nor will you answer queries about why revisionists falsify the evidence to an equal or even greater extent.

Piper:


Quote:
This does not mean that all researchers agreed on the figure of 4,000,000 in their publications. Jewish researchers in particular, who were fully aware that Jews made up the decided majority of the victims of Auschwitz, had significant reservations about this figure—above all because, when added to the number of Jews killed at other extermination sites, it more than doubled the overall loss of Jewish lives, set at 5,000,000 to 6,000,000. Since these researchers did not know, in turn, the number of persons from other ethnic groups deported to the camp they frequently refrained from attempting to establish the total number of victims, and limited themselves to Jewish losses.

What does the incorrect estimate by the Soviets have to do with "historians mendaciously handling their sources"?

[Kriger]

Really? How many other major events of this magnitude and recency can you cite?

If you seriously have to ask a question like this, you need to do a major reality check.
In the meantime, I have never professed to be an expert on this whole issue, but I do know inconsistencies when I see them.
I will no longer allow you to use my observations of your own inconsistencies and distortions of reality as an excuse to diverge from the topic at hand.
He's all yours, Basil.

[Globus]

[QUOTE=Shirt]If you seriously have to ask a question like this, you need to do a major reality check.

In other words you were talking out of your ass.

In the meantime, I have never professed to be an expert on this whole issue, but I do know inconsistencies when I see them.

Then list some man, list some and let's see how they affect the basic historical narrative of the Holocaust as established by historians. Then we can begin to see in application your splitting the difference theory of truth!

I will no longer allow you to use my observations of your own inconsistencies and distortions of reality as an excuse to diverge from the topic at hand.

So you didn't really have anything to contribute beyond trying to help Basil.

[NeoNietzsche]

What does the incorrect estimate by the Soviets have to do with "historians mendaciously handling their sources"?
1) The USSR, of Katyn mendacity and infamy, as a source.
2) Hoess, of contradictory, extorted testimony, as a source.
3) No other sources

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus

What does the incorrect estimate by the Soviets have to do with "historians mendaciously handling their sources"?

1) The USSR, of Katyn mendacity and infamy, as a source.

The Soviets weren't the source. An assessment of crematoria throughput based primarily on testimonial evidence is the source.

2) Hoess, of contradictory, extorted testimony, as a source.

Hoess provided tons of evidence that was not at all extorted, and far from being contradictory, he provided a estimate of just about 1.1 million.

3) No other sources

Rubbish. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Nachman Blumental - 1946 Hoess trial - 1.3 million - 1.5 million based on deportation data.

Gerald Reitlinger - early 1950's - 840,000 - deportation data

Raul Hilberg - 1960 - approximately 1 million

George Wellers - late 1970's - 1.5 million - based on deportation data.

Piper - 1990 - 1.13 million - deportation data.

[NeoNietzsche]

Piper:


This does not mean that all researchers agreed on the figure of 4,000,000 in their publications. Jewish researchers in particular, who were fully aware that Jews made up the decided majority of the victims of Auschwitz, had significant reservations about this figure—above all because, when added to the number of Jews killed at other extermination sites, it more than doubled the overall loss of Jewish lives, set at 5,000,000 to 6,000,000. Since these researchers did not know, in turn, the number of persons from other ethnic groups deported to the camp they frequently refrained from attempting to establish the total number of victims, and limited themselves to Jewish losses.

Thus various figures for the number of Auschwitz victims appeared in the literature: at least 900,000 (Reitlinger), 1,000,000 Jews (Hilberg), 2,000,000 Jews (Gilbert), 2,500,000 Jews (Weiss) , 3,500,000 – 4,500,000 (Kogon).

In the early 1950s, Reitlinger, unlike other researchers, attempted to estimate the number of victims of Auschwitz on the basis of the incomplete information then available about the number of deportees to Auschwitz and other death camps from specific countries. None of the other researchers named above attempted a more detailed analysis or provided any justification for their estimates. It would seem that researchers generally repeated the numbers (from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000) to which Höss testified at various times in Germany and Poland in 1946 and 1947.

...

Georges Wellers was the first researcher to make a detailed analysis of this issue...Wellers published his findings in Le Monde Juif in late 1983

...

The foregoing considerations can be summed up in the following conclusions:

1.It is a fact that an inflated figure for the number of Auschwitz victims, up to 4,000,000, was often cited in the literature over several postwar decades on the basis of the prosecutorial and judicial authorities and the testimony of former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss. However, scholars who researched the problem more closely while following the principles of the historian’s craft—the comparison of various sources and the evaluation of their credibility—defined and continue to define the number of Auschwitz victims as somewhere between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000.

However, as Piper inadvertently reveals, "scholars" - highly qualified as such by Piper - were a distinct minority of academics dealing with the subject:


None of the other researchers named above attempted a more detailed analysis or provided any justification for their estimates. It would seem that researchers generally repeated the numbers (from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000) to which Höss testified at various times in Germany and Poland in 1946 and 1947.
This accounts for the few as opposed to the many for whom there were no other sources.

[NeoNietzsche]

The Soviets weren't the source. An assessment of crematoria throughput based primarily on testimonial evidence is the source.
Done by the Soviets, and accepted on its face:

Piper:

None of the other researchers named above attempted a more detailed analysis or provided any justification for their estimates.



Hoess provided tons of evidence that was not at all extorted, and far from being contradictory, he provided a estimate of just about 1.1 million.

Piper:

It would seem that researchers generally repeated the numbers (from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000) to which Höss testified at various times in Germany and Poland in 1946 and 1947.

Hoess also firmly testified to "mass gassings" having started in "summer '41".

[Globus]

This accounts for the few as opposed to the many for whom there were no other sources.

Which is a meaningless statement, because the many did not bother to study what Blumental, Rietlinger, Wellers and finally Piper studied.

This is true for all history. Facts are discovered by a few, who publish their work for review and discussion. Others confirm or disagree. The notion that all facts of history have to be proven anew whenever an historian uses them is ridiculous.

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus

The Soviets weren't the source. An assessment of crematoria throughput based primarily on testimonial evidence is the source.

Done by the Soviets, and accepted on its face:

Which is not what you claimed. You said they were the source. They were not. And it was not accepted on its face. Commandant Hoess offered a different figure. And at Hoess' trial in Poland in 1946-47 Blumental's estimate of 1.3 -1.5 million used. And Reitlinger a few years later came up with an even lower number.

Quote:
Piper:

None of the other researchers named above attempted a more detailed analysis or provided any justification for their estimates.

Which makes a statement about the above named, not your charge that it was accepted on its face. It clearly wasn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus

Hoess provided tons of evidence that was not at all extorted, and far from being contradictory, he provided a estimate of just about 1.1 million.

Quote:
Piper:

It would seem that researchers generally repeated the numbers (from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000) to which Höss testified at various times in Germany and Poland in 1946 and 1947.

He testified to Eichmann's number of 3 million and his own of 1.1 million. Your claims about contradictions are false.

Hoess also firmly testified to "mass gassings" having started in "summer.

That's correct, but not at Auschwitz. I've already educated you on this.

Why do deniers just keep repeating the same lies?

[NeoNietzsche]

I note that you continue to pretend, apparently for the attention of newcomers to the thread who do not know your pattern, to respond with other than lies, distortions, and irrelevancies.

Will anyone who found Globby's response to Piper (Ace Exterminationist) to be true, coherent, and pertinent please affirm as much, so that efforts to deal with the issue might involve someone amenable to a discussion that does not involve the rankest mere pretense at an exchange a' la Globby? [I will be curious to see whether APE, in response to whom Piper was adduced, will risk such credibility as he has in an effort to bathe and dress his intellectually derelict confederate.]

[Basil Fawlty]

I've already told you.No you haven't. You made some snide inuendoes, that's about it. State the problem as you see it so I might address something of substance. I am entirely willing to consider that there may be a problem but I can't until you state it clearly. Seriously.

[Globus]

I note that you continue to pretend, apparently for the attention of newcomers to the thread who do not know your pattern, to respond with other than lies, distortions, and irrelevancies.

On the contrary NEO, I respond by pointing out your lies, distortions and irrelevancies, and I will continue to do so.

Will anyone who found Globby's response to Piper (Ace Exterminationist) to be true, coherent, and pertinent please affirm as much, so that efforts to deal with the issue might involve someone amenable to a discussion that does not involve the rankest mere pretense at an exchange a' la Globby?

I didn't respond to Piper, I responded to your distorted use of what he said, pointing out clearly why. That you don't really have a reply, as you don't for your continued lying about Hoess saying gassing started at Auschwitz in the summer of 1941, has become quite clear.

[Globus]

No you haven't.

Yes I have.

Seems like the wind has been taken out of your sails, eh!

[Basil Fawlty]

Yes I have.

Seems like the wind has been taken out of your sails, eh!Dream on, sunshine.

[Globus]

Dream on, sunshine.


You've sputtered and stalled your way through a thread to establish what should have been done in two or three posts, including what relevance you could possibly attach to an obvious careless mistake.

[NeoNietzsche]

On the contrary NEO, I respond by pointing out your lies, distortions and irrelevancies, and I will continue to do so.

I didn't respond to Piper, I responded to your distorted use of what he said, pointing out clearly why. That you don't really have a reply, as you don't for your continued lying about Hoess saying gassing started at Auschwitz in the summer of 1941, has become quite clear.
Persuade APE to agree with you. Let us have his hearty endorsement so that his reputation (of which you understandably have none) might lie on the line in regard to your response to Piper and my use of him. [Unlike you, APE avoids being shamelessly caught in lies and contradictions, so he minimizes the damage by not responding to questions that further pursue the issue. He does not insist on seeming to "win" a debate by having a last word that has necessarily become nonsensical, mendacious, or radically distortionate.]

[NeoNietzsche]

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p389_Weber.html


During cross-examination the Crown attorney read aloud at length from the apparently incriminating testimony of Oswald Pohl, the head of the SS agency responsible for the concentration camp system (WVHA), at his Nuremberg trial (Case No. 4), and questioned me about this. When I first mentioned that Pohl had been tortured by the Allies, Crown attorney Pearson asked me to cite my source for this statement. When I replied that, unfortunately, I could not remember the source off hand, Pearson seemed quite pleased with himself However, over the weekend I was able to obtain a copy of the statement about his treatment by the British and American military that Pohl wrote after he was tried at Nuremberg but before he was finally executed by the Americans.

In this statement, which is dated June 1, 1948, Pohl described his mistreatment in 1946 by British soldiers, who kicked and repeatedly beat him. He lost two teeth in these beatings before he was turned over to the American military. Because Pohl held the rank of general in the German armed forces, his treatment by the British and Americans was therefore completely illegal according to the international agreements on the treatment of prisoners of war. "aAs a result of the brutal physical mistreatment in Nenndorf and the treatment in Nuremberg, I was emotionally a complete wreck," Pohl wrote: "l was 54 years old. I had served my country for 33 years without dishonor, and I did not feel that I had committed any crime."

Pohl was intensively interrogated for more than a half a year in sessions that lasted for hours. There were about 60 to 80 interrogation sessions altogether. He reported that although he was generally not physically mistreated in Nuremberg as he had been at Nenndorf, he was nevertheless subjected to the less noticeable but, as he put it, "in their own way much more brutal emotional tortures." During his interrogation by the Americans, Pohl was accused of killing 30 million people, and of condemning 10 million people to death. The interrogators themselves knew very well that such accusations were lies and tricks meant to break down his resistance, Pohl declared. "Because I am not emotionally thick-skinned, these diabolical intimidations were not without effect, and the interrogators achieved what they wanted: not the truth, but rather statements that served their needs," he wrote.

During this period of interrogation he had no access to an attorney or any other help, and he was never formally charged with anything, nor even told precisely why he was being interrogated. Pohl also pointed out that the American prosecution at his trial used false affidavits which he had been forced to sign: "This is how affidavits were produced and presented which contain provable errors of fact regarding essential points." Pohl cited specific examples of phony affidavits that had been produced for the trial by others. He pointed out that German defense attorneys were not allowed free access to the German wartime documents, which the prosecution was able to find and use without hindrance.

The total number of those who died of all causes in all the German concentration and labor camps between 1933 and 1945 was 200,000 to 250,000, Pohl wrote. They were not victims of any extermination program, he explained, and most perished during the chaotic final months of the war. The practice of using torture to produce incriminating statements was certainly not limited to German prisoners, I said. It is well established that such torture techniques have been and are being systematically used by many governments around the world today.

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus

On the contrary NEO, I respond by pointing out your lies, distortions and irrelevancies, and I will continue to do so.

I didn't respond to Piper, I responded to your distorted use of what he said, pointing out clearly why. That you don't really have a reply, as you don't for your continued lying about Hoess saying gassing started at Auschwitz in the summer of 1941, has become quite clear.

Persuade APE to agree with you.

Irrelevant, whoever he is.

Let us have his hearty endorsement so that his reputation (of which you understandably have none

YOu don't anyone's reputation. You only know and spout what fits your disgusting ideology.

Your little tank is empty.

[NeoNietzsche]

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p219_Buchner.html

In stark contrast to what R. Höss supposedly had written, stands the testimony given by Richard Baer -- the last commandant of Auschwitz (1944 - 1945). E. Aretz[20] reports on pages 58 and 59 some of what is known. Here are some essentials: Baer had been arrested in October 1960. At that time he declared that no gas chambers had existed in Auschwitz. He believed - on that basis - that he must be found innocent. However, he died a mysterious death at the age of 51 in perfectly good health on 17 June 1963 in prison. The post mortem revealed that poison could not be excluded as cause of death. However a man believing in his own innocence has no reason to commit suicide. And a former Auschwitz commandant would (at least in 1960) hardly have even contemplated convincing a West German court (with the Zionist Bauer as Attorney General of Hesse) that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz in operation unless this was his rock-solid knowledge. Their former commandant's sudden death must have served as an impressive message to the rest of the defendants. There only remains to be reported that the first Auschwitz trial could finally start immediately after Baer had died and his name and testimony were never mentioned in the proceedings of the court -- or in the Holocaust theory. W. Stäglich[11] who is well qualified as former judge to evaluate court matters, was, in 1976, refused access to the court's proceedings (which he had sought while writing his book on Auschwitz) on the grounds that the protective interests of those involved in the court proceeding had priority over Dr. Stäglich's private interests in a scientific evaluation of the proceedings (page 374). This is quite an interesting statement (from the Hessian Minister of justice) since during the actual Auschwitz trial "those involved" in the proceedings were apparently much less protected. For some detail the reader is referred to H. Laternser[21] who was the defense lawyer for Richard Baer and others. He never came to defend his client but he spoke out on the general witness situation at the first Auschwitz trial.[/quote]

[NeoNietzsche]

Irrelevant, whoever he is.
Approved Professor Eggheadbanga

[cerberus]

Basil.I asked you for your source for this. What we get is a reference to a know propagandist and directions to a commerical operation which has has a vested interest in preserving this sham.
Basil no more a commecial enterprise than many of the museums I have been in , be they in Normandy or uk.
BasilThat's a lot of vested interest in preserving a fraud. Doubtless you have never looked at the evidence against.
And doubtless you are going to say that the Netherlands institute for War Documentation evaluation and their extensive report of the Frank Diary is in error ?

Of course Basil you will describe Lipstadt as a "propagandist" :deadhorse:

Remind me Basil , didn't Faurisson end up losing in Court against the Frank Huis and others ?

Sir martin Gilbert stands head and shoulders above wannabe historians like Faurisson and Irving.

[Globus]

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p389_Weber.html

I don't know why you are posting yet another off topic subject in a thread about Gilbert.

This is just another tired old denier distortion.

The only evidence that Pohl was tortured is Pohl's claim. Pohl was convicted in November of 1947. His statement was not made until 7 months later in June of 1948. It just so happens that shortly thereafter the Pohl case was re-opened at the request of the court to allow all defendents to make additional arguments. The court dealt with those, including Pohl's claim.

http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/05/NMT05-T1178.htm

Much point has been made of Pohl's alleged mental and physical condition, arising from claimed brow beating and abuse, at the time he signed the numerous affidavits which were submitted in evidence. The evidence of such abuse is insinuated into this case by quoting from Pohl's testimony in Case No. 2 before another Tribunal more than 6 months after rendition of the judgment in this case. Each of the several affidavits signed by Pohl contained immediately before his signature the following statement:

"I have read the above statement consisting of 3 (three) pages in the German language and declare that this is the full truth according to my best knowledge and belief. I have had the opportunity to make alterations and corrections in the above statement. I have made this statement of my own free will without any promises of reward whatsoever and I was not subjected to any kind of threat."

This repeated affirmation by Pohl makes the Tribunal somewhat skeptical of the tale of the effect of claimed abuse on a "highly emotional and sensitive person" (p. 25) like himself, but passing that, if every affidavit of Pohl was deleted from the record or had never been offered in evidence, the tremendous volume of credible proof remaining would be more than ample to establish his guilt of the crimes of which he was convicted. It would be equivalent to removing a bushel of sand from a carload.
=====================

It's always amusing to see on what little evidentiary basis deniers make decisions of fact when it suits their denial, while ignoring or adopting outlandish standards for the mass evidence easily proving the Holocaust.

[Globus]

Approved Professor Eggheadbanga

He's read my posts and is free to disagree with them at any time.

I'm sure he doesn't feel it necessary to respond to your distortions of what he says. I'm not even sure he bothers to read your claptrap. Probably a wise decision.

[Globus]

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p219_Buchner.html

In stark contrast to what R. Höss supposedly had written, stands the testimony given by Richard Baer -- the last commandant of Auschwitz (1944 - 1945). E. Aretz[20] reports on pages 58 and 59 some of what is known. Here are some essentials: Baer had been arrested in October 1960. At that time he declared that no gas chambers had existed in Auschwitz.

More off topic posts from our desperate little NEO!

That is not what Baer said at all.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/ftp.py?people/b//baer.richard/admits-gassings-birkenau

In "Nazi Mass Murder", Yale Uni. Press, 1993, on page 142, a
statement of Baer from Dec. 22, 1960, is quoted, with the
full source: "I commanded only Camp I at Auschwitz. I had nothing
to do with the camps where the gassings took place. I had no
influence over them. It was in Camp II, at Birkenau, that the
gassings took place. That camp was not under my authority".

Remember, Baer arrived at Camp I only at 1944; by that time,
there was indeed no gassing in Krema I in that camp - that
took place only in 1941-2, till the much bigger gas chambers
in Birkenau were built.
==================

Just how many falsehoods do you think it will take to change the facts of history?

[NeoNietzsche]

He's read my posts and is free to disagree with them at any time.

I'm sure he doesn't feel it necessary to respond to your distortions of what he says. I'm not even sure he bothers to read your claptrap. Probably a wise decision.
Dear Professor Eggheadbanga,

Please endorse Globby's contributions to this thread in general and his response to Piper in particular. May we take his words for your own?

Sincerely,

NeoNietzsche of the Nazis

And:

Dear Basil Fawlty,

Please endorse Neo's contributions to this thread in general and his response to APE in particular. May we take his words for your own?

Sincerely,

Globus of the Sayanim

[Globus]

Dear Professor Eggheadbanga,

Please endorse Globby's contributions to this thread in general and his response to Piper in particular. May we take his words for your own?

Whose words do you take for your own, NEO!!

It's a sad denouement, eh NEO.

[eggheadbanga]

Originally Posted by NeoNietzsche
Dear Professor Eggheadbanga,

Please endorse Globby's contributions to this thread in general and his response to Piper in particular. May we take his words for your own?

Globus is his own man. What he says is his business.

[NeoNietzsche]

More off topic posts from our desperate little NEO!

That is not what Baer said at all.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/ftp.py?people/b//baer.richard/admits-gassings-birkenau

In "Nazi Mass Murder", Yale Uni. Press, 1993, on page 142, a
statement of Baer from Dec. 22, 1960, is quoted, with the
full source: "I commanded only Camp I at Auschwitz. I had nothing
to do with the camps where the gassings took place. I had no
influence over them. It was in Camp II, at Birkenau, that the
gassings took place. That camp was not under my authority".

Remember, Baer arrived at Camp I only at 1944; by that time,
there was indeed no gassing in Krema I in that camp - that
took place only in 1941-2, till the much bigger gas chambers
in Birkenau were built.
==================

Just how many falsehoods do you think it will take to change the facts of history?

Another clumsy forgery or lies put in Baer's mouth.


http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005189

The SS authorities established three main camps near the Polish city of Oswiecim: Auschwitz I in May 1940; Auschwitz II (also called Auschwitz-Birkenau) in early 1942; and Auschwitz III (also called Auschwitz-Monowitz) in October 1942.

...

In November 1943, the SS decreed that Auschwitz-Birkenau and Auschwitz-Monowitz would become independent concentration camps. The commandant of Auschwitz I remained the SS garrison commander of all SS units assigned to Auschwitz and was considered the senior officer of the three commandants. SS offices for maintaining prisoner records and managing prisoner labor deployment continued to be located and centrally run from Auschwitz I. In November 1944, Auschwitz II was reunified with Auschwitz I. Auschwitz III was renamed Monowitz concentration camp.

Commanders of the Auschwitz concentration camp complex were: SS Lieutenant Colonel Rudolf Hoess from May 1940 until November 1943; SS Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Liebehenschel from November 1943 until mid-May 1944; and SS Major Richard Baer from mid-May 1944 until January 27, 1945. Commanders of Auschwitz-Birkenau while it was independent (November 1943 until November 1944) were SS Lieutenant Colonel Friedrich Hartjenstein from November 1943 until mid-May 1944 and SS Captain Josef Kremer from mid-May to November 1944. Commandant of Monowitz concentration camp from November 1943 until January 1945 was SS Captain Heinrich Schwarz.

As we see, Baer was "senior officer of the three commandants," and "SS offices for maintaining prisoner records and managing prisoner labor deployment continued to be located and centrally run from Auschwitz I."

And Baer was commandant of the unified Auschwitz I and II (Birkenau) for two months until the end of January '45, when he led the evacuation.

And:


For instance, in his book, "The Auschwitz Myth," former German Judge Wilhelm Staeglich writes:
Particularly noteworthy is the fate of the most prominent of the defendants, Richard Baer, the last commandant of Auschwitz. He did not live to see the beginning of the trial. In December of 1960, Baer was arrested in the vicinity of Hamburg, where he was employed as a lumberjack. He died in June of 1963 under mysterious circumstance while being held in pre-trial custody, According to various sources, which, in turn, rely on reports that appeared in the French press, Baer adamantly refused to confirm the existence of "gas chambers" at the camp he once administered.

And:


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/aus1-a27.shtml

Richard Baer, the last camp commandant of Auschwitz, declined to give any testimony during the preliminary investigations to the Frankfurt proceedings. He died in detention while investigations were pending and all legal action against him was dropped. The Frankfurt trials were therefore only concerned with some lower level assistants to these camp commanders.

Finally, we reason that if the "quotation" of Baer is authentic, he becomes just another Nazi disclaiming responsibility for "crimes" to the commission of which, by others, he accedes. Thus Baer would never have been the subject of extraordinary attention such as evidently he received at the time. Only in the instance of his denial of the fact of something having taken place, not his denial of responsibility for its having taken place (as was the routine presumption with regard to all the defendants) would his conduct have been worthy of comment. And, as has been done, we further reason that his only expectation of acquittal would be that of an innocent man, believing that no crime happened where his responsibility could not be disclaimed per the ridiculous (as to fact, though not to form) statement attributed to him, above.

[NeoNietzsche]

http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/05/NMT05-T1178.htm

Much point has been made of Pohl's alleged mental and physical condition, arising from claimed brow beating and abuse, at the time he signed the numerous affidavits which were submitted in evidence. The evidence of such abuse is insinuated into this case by quoting from Pohl's testimony in Case No. 2 before another Tribunal more than 6 months after rendition of the judgment in this case. Each of the several affidavits signed by Pohl contained immediately before his signature the following statement:

"I have read the above statement consisting of 3 (three) pages in the German language and declare that this is the full truth according to my best knowledge and belief. I have had the opportunity to make alterations and corrections in the above statement. I have made this statement of my own free will without any promises of reward whatsoever and I was not subjected to any kind of threat."
And you are the Tooth Fairy.

[Globus]

Another clumsy forgery or lies put in Baer's mouth.

Watch this!





http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php...uleId=10005189

The SS authorities established three main camps near the Polish city of Oswiecim: Auschwitz I in May 1940; Auschwitz II (also called Auschwitz-Birkenau) in early 1942; and Auschwitz III (also called Auschwitz-Monowitz) in October 1942.
...

In November 1943, the SS decreed that Auschwitz-Birkenau and Auschwitz-Monowitz would become independent concentration camps. The commandant of Auschwitz I remained the SS garrison commander of all SS units assigned to Auschwitz and was considered the senior officer of the three commandants. SS offices for maintaining prisoner records and managing prisoner labor deployment continued to be located and centrally run from Auschwitz I. In November 1944, Auschwitz II was reunified with Auschwitz I. Auschwitz III was renamed Monowitz concentration camp.

Commanders of the Auschwitz concentration camp complex were: SS Lieutenant Colonel Rudolf Hoess from May 1940 until November 1943; SS Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Liebehenschel from November 1943 until mid-May 1944; and SS Major Richard Baer from mid-May 1944 until January 27, 1945. Commanders of Auschwitz-Birkenau while it was independent (November 1943 until November 1944) were SS Lieutenant Colonel Friedrich Hartjenstein from November 1943 until mid-May 1944 and SS Captain Josef Kremer from mid-May to November 1944. Commandant of Monowitz concentration camp from November 1943 until January 1945 was SS Captain Heinrich Schwarz.

As we see, Baer was "senior officer of the three commandants," and "SS offices for maintaining prisoner records and managing prisoner labor deployment continued to be located and centrally run from Auschwitz I."
[/quote]

The fact that he was the senior to the other two doesn't mean he was in charge of Birkenau and Monowitz, stupid. But it is irrelevant to what he actually testified, and which you lied about.

And Baer was commandant of the unified Auschwitz I and II (Birkenau) for two months until the end of January '45, when he led the evacuation.

Which merely shows he was attempting to get out of responsibility.

Feeble attempt, NEO!

You claimed he said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. You lied. He didn't say any such thing. He "claimed" responsibility only for Auschwitz I, and testified that the gassing went on at Birkenau.

Twisting and distorting will not hide you lies.

[cerberus]

NeoAt that time he declared that no gas chambers had existed in Auschwitz.
Can you confirm Neo the period (dates) he is referring to.
To the best of my knowledge the gassing stopped in November 44 , at Birkenau.
Auschwitz 1 much earlier as Birkenau became of age.
More word play and slight of hand.

[NeoNietzsche]

Can you confirm Neo the period (dates) he is referring to.
To te best of my knowledge the gassing stopped in November 44.
"At that time he declared that no gas chambers had existed in Auschwitz."

This means he is claiming that at no time were there such facilities at Auschwitz.

[NeoNietzsche]

He "claimed" responsibility only for Auschwitz I, and testified that the gassing went on at Birkenau.
But his supposed statement is an implicit denial, on the same terms, of the gassing that allegedly went on at Auschwitz I. Either way, Baer is correctly credited with having denied a gas chamber, if not all such facilities.

Further but: if you are going to deny one gas chamber that really was there, why not deny all of them - unless there had been no chamber at Auschwitz I (it was an air-raid shelter which supposedly had served as a chamber before "conversion" :rofl: ), and he could count on that fact, hoping to deny responsibility for the other camp.

And if there was no chamber at Auschwitz I, we are inclined to believe that there were none at Auschwitz II.

This is to make the least case for Bauer, however, since his responsibility for Auschwitz as a whole was undeniable, and he evidently believed in and maintained his innocence regarding the whole and the absence of morgue-based gas chambers.

[NeoNietzsche]

Globus is his own man. What he says is his business.
As expected, no endorsement from APE.

And, of course, Globby is being implicitly damned by this remark, given the necessity for APE's having to extend himself on Globby's behalf by misstating the case in his favor - because, as we all have been told, the Holocaust is everybody's business and responsibility.

And Globby has been doing his business all over the place.

[Globus]

Neo
Can you confirm Neo the period (dates) he is referring to.

It doesn't matter what period he was referring to. He was in charge of Auschwitz I and his self-serving, exculpatory statement was there was no gassing at Auschwitz I, but that the gassing occurred at Auschwitz II/Birkenau. He was correct for the period he was in charge of Auschwitz I.

Deniers like NEO mindlessly post an old denier canard in which they lie and alter his testimony to make it appear he was saying there was no gassing at "Auschwitz", meaning the entire camp.

[Globus]

"At that time he declared that no gas chambers had existed in Auschwitz."

Meaning Auschwitz I. He then went on to say the gassing occurred in Birkenau.

This means he is claiming that at no time were there such facilities at Auschwitz.

LOL!

How stupid or dishonest can you be. First of all, he wouldn't have had any idea what was going on before he arrived. Secondly, according to your quote he specifically says: "At that time". And third, he was referring to Auschwitz I, the main camp, and then went on to say the gassing occurred in Birkenau.

Thanks for yet another example of the dishonesty of Holocaust denial.

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus

He "claimed" responsibility only for Auschwitz I, and testified that the gassing went on at Birkenau.

But his supposed statement is an implicit denial,

Nope, his statement is a direct admission that gassing was going on at Birkenau.


Baer is correctly credited with having denied a gas chamber, if not all such facilities.

He denied gas chambers at Auschwitz I. The gas chamber at Auschwitz I was taken out of commission when the gas chambers of the Birkenau crematoria came on line. He then admitted that gassing facilities were at Birkenau.

Further but: if you are going to deny one gas chamber that really was there, why not deny all of them

Because his denial was true. The denial you would have had him make was a lie. He was smarter than you are.

- unless there had been no chamber at Auschwitz I (it was an air-raid shelter which supposedly had served as a chamber before "conversion" ),

Which the facts indicate, and which has nothing to do with what you claimed.

So you lied about Baer's testimony, as deniers do all the time.

Don't like being exposed, do you!

But I like it!

[NeoNietzsche]

Meaning Auschwitz I. He then went on to say the gassing occurred in Birkenau.

LOL!

How stupid or dishonest can you be. First of all, he wouldn't have had any idea what was going on before he arrived. Secondly, according to your quote he specifically says: "At that time". And third, he was referring to Auschwitz I, the main camp, and then went on to say the gassing occurred in Birkenau.

Thanks for yet another example of the dishonesty of Holocaust denial.
I'm not going to waste time responding to this moronic confusion of the discussion unless someone else seems to think that Globby has done otherwise than misunderstand, forget, or simply be indifferent to the context of the statement in question.

[Globus]

As expected, no endorsement from APE.

As expected he felt no need to comment on my statements. Unlike deniers, we don't need the endorsement of others to buttress our cases. We rely on the evidence we present. Deniers, on the other hand, only get the support of other deniers.

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus

Meaning Auschwitz I. He then went on to say the gassing occurred in Birkenau.

LOL!

How stupid or dishonest can you be. First of all, he wouldn't have had any idea what was going on before he arrived. Secondly, according to your quote he specifically says: "At that time". And third, he was referring to Auschwitz I, the main camp, and then went on to say the gassing occurred in Birkenau.

Thanks for yet another example of the dishonesty of Holocaust denial. [quote]

[quote]NEO
I'm not going to waste time responding to this moronic confusion of the discussion unless someone else seems to think that Globby has done otherwise than misunderstand,

In other words, your defense of your original lie has been destroyed. You could have just admitted that you were misled by a long standing denier lie, but you chose to defend it, making the lie your own.

When you claimed that Baer said there were no gassing facilities at Auschwitz, you lied. Baer said there were gassing facilities at Birkenau.

The end!

[NeoNietzsche]

There seems to be no depth to which Globby will not descend.

Now he truncates my sentences in order to change their meaning and so object to them.

[NeoNietzsche]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus

Meaning Auschwitz I. He then went on to say the gassing occurred in Birkenau.

LOL!

How stupid or dishonest can you be. First of all, he wouldn't have had any idea what was going on before he arrived. Secondly, according to your quote he specifically says: "At that time". And third, he was referring to Auschwitz I, the main camp, and then went on to say the gassing occurred in Birkenau.

Thanks for yet another example of the dishonesty of Holocaust denial.



In other words, your defense of your original lie has been destroyed. You could have just admitted that you were misled by a long standing denier lie, but you chose to defend it, making the lie your own.

When you claimed that Baer said there were no gassing facilities at Auschwitz, you lied. Baer said there were gassing facilities at Birkenau.

The end!
More nonsensical pretense at a response.

[Globus]

There seems to be no depth to which Globby will not descend.

More rhetoric in lieu of evidence or argument.

Now he truncates my sentences in order to change their meaning and so object to them.

Didn't change the meaning, or the lie you told. You lied about Baer and gas chambers and you are once again exposed.

It will continue for as long as you lie.

[Globus]

More nonsensical pretense at a response.

More inability to respond at all.

Pretty frustrating for ya, isn't it!

[NeoNietzsche]

Since Globby has proven to be a propagandist of the lowest stripe, making a sensible exchange impossible within the bounds of a reasonable and dignified extension of oneself in straightening out his seemingly deliberate confusion and misrepresentation of discussions, my present interest in the Baer issue involves responding to any questions others may have in this regard.

I will not bother with responses to nonsense offered in bad faith or as the product of irredeemable stupidity. It should be evident, by now, that I respond conscientiously, and with concession where due, to properly offered arguments.

It should also be evident that this does not characterize Globby's performance. He has, however, proven to be a tireless fanatic (and something of a clown).

[Globus]

Since Globby has proven to be a propagandist of the lowest stripe,

Says the man who has been shown to be a liar over and over again.

I will not bother with responses to nonsense offered in bad faith or as the product of irredeemable stupidity.

In other words, another lying denier has been battered even more senseless than he was, and he'll try to run from discussions which invariably expose him and Holocaust denial.

NEO can do whatever he wishes. His lies will still be pointed out.

[NeoNietzsche]

As expected he felt no need to comment on my statements. Unlike deniers, we don't need the endorsement of others to buttress our cases.

But you do, for the reasons previously stated:


Persuade APE to agree with you. Let us have his hearty endorsement so that his reputation (of which you understandably have none) might lie on the line in regard to your response to Piper and my use of him. [Unlike you, APE avoids being shamelessly caught in lies and contradictions, so he minimizes the damage by not responding to questions that further pursue the issue. He does not insist on seeming to "win" a debate by having a last word that has necessarily become nonsensical, mendacious, or radically distortionate.]

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus

As expected he felt no need to comment on my statements. Unlike deniers, we don't need the endorsement of others to buttress our cases.

But you do, for the reasons previously stated

You're supposed reasons are just excuses for the beatings you've taken, and the factual rebuttal of nearly everthing you've said.

There can be no better evidence for your now desperate state than the fact that you ask others to endorse your pathetic arguments.

It will not get better, NEO!

[NeoNietzsche]

You're supposed reasons are just excuses for the beatings you've taken, and the factual rebuttal of nearly everthing you've said.

There can be no better evidence for your now desperate state than the fact that you ask others to endorse your pathetic arguments.

It will not get better, NEO!
I look forward to your first prolonged display of intellect, Globby. When might we expect that, at the latest?

[Basil Fawlty]

@eggheadbanga - I will reply in kind to your earlier substantial post tomorrow.

[NeoNietzsche]

Further with regard to Baer, testimony for the Eichmann Show Trial:


From around mid-May 1944 until evacuation and dissolution, I was Commandant of the Auschwitz I concentration camp. Auschwitz I included only the camp which was situated close to the town of Auschwitz. I was therefore not the Commandant of all the camps which belonged to the Auschwitz complex, but merely Commandant of this one camp. In addition, during my time there were two other independent camps: Auschwitz II (Birkenau), under Commandant Hauptsturmführer Kramer, and Auschwitz III (Monowitz), under Commandant Hauptsturmführer Schwarz. As far as I know, this arrangement of these three camps, existing independently of one another, each under its own Commandant, was only introduced when I became Commandant of Auschwitz I; it certainly was not introduced later. As far as I know, the Commandants who had held office previously, Hoess and Liebehenschel, had been in charge of the entire complex, but I am not entirely sure of this. My rank was SS Sturmbannführer in the Waffen-SS, but when I took over the command, I was only a Hauptsturmführer. I do not remember what ranks Hoess and Liebehenschel held. They were either Sturmbannführer or Obersturmbannführer. The ranks I have indicated for Kramer and Schwarz are, I believe, ranks in the Waffen-SS. I do not know whether the two of them had a rank in the general SS. I myself did not.

When I took over the command, Hoess was there. However, at that time Hoess was a bureau chief in the Economic- Administrative Head Office, Bureau Group D. He was not a Commandant any longer. Before I arrived, Hoess had ceased being Commandant - Liebehenschel had taken over this post, previously occupied by Hoess. However, when I took up my office, Liebehenschel was not present and did not hand matters over to me.

I do not know the Accused, Adolf Eichmann, nor did I have anything to do with him. I also did not know of him as someone in the Head Office for Reich Security.

I do not wish to answer any further questions. [of a list of questions having to do with, inter alia, matters related to gassings.]

[Globus]

I look forward to your first prolonged display of intellect, Globby. When might we expect that, at the latest?

Obviously, you wouldn't recognize it if you saw it. Meanwhile you're bleeding like a stuck pig!

[NeoNietzsche]

I was enquiring about a prolonged display - not soliciting a prolonged delay.

[Globus]

Further with regard to Baer, testimony for the Eichmann trial:


Quote:
From around mid-May 1944 until evacuation and dissolution, I was Commandant of the Auschwitz I concentration camp. Auschwitz I included only the camp which was situated close to the town of Auschwitz. I was therefore not the Commandant of all the camps which belonged to the Auschwitz complex, but merely Commandant of this one camp. In addition, during my time there were two other independent camps: Auschwitz II (Birkenau), under Commandant Hauptsturmführer Kramer, and Auschwitz III (Monowitz), under Commandant Hauptsturmführer Schwarz. As far as I know, this arrangement of these three camps, existing independently of one another, each under its own Commandant, was only introduced when I became Commandant of Auschwitz I; it certainly was not introduced later. As far as I know, the Commandants who had held office previously, Hoess and Liebehenschel, had been in charge of the entire complex, but I am not entirely sure of this. My rank was SS Sturmbannführer in the Waffen-SS, but when I took over the command, I was only a Hauptsturmführer. I do not remember what ranks Hoess and Liebehenschel held. They were either Sturmbannführer or Obersturmbannführer. The ranks I have indicated for Kramer and Schwarz are, I believe, ranks in the Waffen-SS. I do not know whether the two of them had a rank in the general SS. I myself did not.

When I took over the command, Hoess was there. However, at that time Hoess was a bureau chief in the Economic- Administrative Head Office, Bureau Group D. He was not a Commandant any longer. Before I arrived, Hoess had ceased being Commandant - Liebehenschel had taken over this post, previously occupied by Hoess. However, when I took up my office, Liebehenschel was not present and did not hand matters over to me.

I do not know the Accused, Adolf Eichmann, nor did I have anything to do with him. I also did not know of him as someone in the Head Office for Reich Security.

I do not wish to answer any further questions. [of a list of questions having to do with, inter alia, matters related to gassings.]

So what do we see from this.

1. NEO posts something which contradicts his earlier attempt to say that Baer was not just in charge of Auschwitz I.

2. Baer in fact confirms that someone else was in charge of Birkenau, which is why he testified that although there was no gassing at Auschwitz, the gassing was done in Birkenau.

3. Baer refused to answer the remaining questions because he did not want to incriminate himself.

4. This written response to questions was from 1961. The testimony which I have already quoted in which he admits gassing at Birkenau was from 1960. Full citation:

--from Baer's deposition, Dec. 22, 1960, Zentralstelle der
Landesjustizverwaltungen 402 AR-Z 37/58 cited in Kogon, et al., _Nazi
Mass Murder_ (New Haven: Yale UP, 1993) p. 142.

5. This testimony doesn't in any way contradict his earlier testimony.

The facts have already been demonstrated, NEO. No amount of distortion is going to change it.

[Globus]

I was enquiring about a prolonged display - not soliciting a prolonged delay.

You should be inquiring about remedial education courses.

[NeoNietzsche]

More Tales of the Holocaust:


At this point, the reader probably wants to know why an analysis that concludes that "gas chambers" did not exist in certain camps is suddenly discontinued as soon as, for example, Auschwitz is discussed. Why, on one hand, is the critical spirit awakened, and then, on the other hand, is it allowed to collapse into lethargy? After all, as far as the "gas chamber" of Ravensbrück is concerned, we have many points of "evidence" and "undeniable eyewitness accounts," beginning with repeated and extensive eyewitness accounts by Marie-Claude Vaillant-Couturier or Germaine Tillion.

It gets even better. Several years after the war, before both British and French tribunals, the camp officials of Ravensbrück (Suhren, Schwarzhuber and Treite) repeatedly confessed to the existence of a "gas chamber" in their camp. They even vaguely described its operation. Eventually, those who did not commit suicide were executed because of this alleged "gas chamber." The same "confessions" were given prior to their deaths by Ziereis for Mauthausen (Austria) and by Kramer for Struthof-Natzweiler (Alsace).

Today, one can see the alleged "gas chamber" of Struthof-Natzweiler and in the same place one can also read the unbelievable "confession" of Kramer. This "gas chamber," which is designated as an "historical monument," is a complete fraud. The slightest amount of critical spirit will be sufficient to convince oneself that a gassing in this small room, without any sealing whatsoever, would have been a catastrophe for the executioner as well as for the people in the vicinity. In order to make this "gas chamber" (which is guaranteed to be "in its original condition") believable, someone has gone so for as to clumsily knock a hole into the thin wall with a chisel, and thereby break four tiles. The hole was so arranged that Josef Kramer would have dumped through it the mysterious "salts" (about which he could give no further details and which, when mixed with a little water, killed within one minute!). How could salts and water make such a gas? How could Kramer have prevented the gas from coming back out the hole? How could he see his victims from a hole which would have let him see no more than half the room? How did he ventilate the room before opening the rudimentary door, made from rough-cut lumber? Perhaps one must ask the civil engineering firm in Saint-Michel sur-Meurthe (Vosges), which after the war altered the place which today is presented to visitors "in its original condition"?

Even long after the war, prelates, university professors, and some ordinary citizens gave eyewitness descriptions regarding the terrible reality of the "gas chambers" of Buchenwald and Dachau. With regard to Buchenwald, the "gas chamber" gradually disappeared from the minds of the people who had previously maintained that there was one in this camp.

[Globus]

More Tales of the Holocaust:

You mean another cut and paste of denier bullshit which you don't know anything about. There isn't even a single assertion of evidence to even dispute. Just drivel--made up facts with nothing behind them.

Spamming completely off topic crap will not alter the numerous posts you have made which have been thoroughly debunked.

[NeoNietzsche]

You should be inquiring about remedial education courses.
Excellent suggestion, Globby. I recommend remedial logic as your first.

[Globus]

Excellent suggestion, Globby.

Of course it is!

Just look at your performance on the Baer sub-thread!

[NeoNietzsche]

So what do we see from this.

1. NEO posts something which contradicts his earlier attempt to say that Baer was not just in charge of Auschwitz I.
I am introducing evidence for examination.



2. Baer in fact confirms that someone else was in charge of Birkenau, which is why he testified that although there was no gassing at Auschwitz, the gassing was done in Birkenau.
You should have learned, from your disaster with the Bischoff "letter," the distinction between the truth and what a Show Trial document says. "Baer" is simply ink on a page reproduced on your screen. The living individual, Richard Baer, now dead, does nothing here.


The only defendant who did not appear at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial in 1963 was Richard Baer, the successor of Rudolf Hoess as commandant of Auschwitz. Though in perfect health, he died suddenly in prison before the trial had begun, “in a highly mysterious way” according to the newspaper; Deutsche Wochenzeitung (July 27th, 1973). Baer’s sudden demise before giving evidence is especially strange, since the Paris newspaper Rivarol recorded his insistence that “during the whole time in which he governed Auschwitz, he never saw any gas chambers nor believed that such things existed,” and from this statement nothing would dissuade him.

As was explained earlier, the "Baer," who testified as Kogon's citation would have it, is no more than a typical responsibility-denying "Nazi War Criminal" amongst countless others, who would thus have attracted no such attention.



3. Baer refused to answer the remaining questions because he did not want to incriminate himself.
As previously remarked, Baer's alleged statements did not exculpate him, and served merely to reduce him to a defense ("Oh yeah, zillions of victims, just like you said - but I didn't do it, no Sir!") that had proven repeatedly ineffective. He was, in fact, administratively responsible for I and II.



4. This written response to questions was from 1961. The testimony which I have already quoted in which he admits gassing at Birkenau was from 1960. Full citation:

--from Baer's deposition, Dec. 22, 1960, Zentralstelle der
Landesjustizverwaltungen 402 AR-Z 37/58 cited in Kogon, et al., _Nazi
Mass Murder_ (New Haven: Yale UP, 1993) p. 142.
"Cited in Kogon" (a highly partisan source) rather than simply referenced in archival terms suggests the arbitrary unavailability for examination, of the document, that Staeglich encountered. This contributes to suspicion.



5. This testimony doesn't in any way contradict his earlier testimony.
The specification of gassings is missing.

[NeoNietzsche]

Globby? You there?

I just made another contribution to the thread, Globby!

This is your cue to honk your nose, squirt your flower, and trip over your out-sized shoes again!

Globby?

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus

So what do we see from this.

1. NEO posts something which contradicts his earlier attempt to say that Baer was not just in charge of Auschwitz I.

I am introducing evidence for examination.

Evidence which contradicts your earlier claim.


pquote]Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus

2. Baer in fact confirms that someone else was in charge of Birkenau, which is why he testified that although there was no gassing at Auschwitz, the gassing was done in Birkenau.

You should have learned, from your disaster with the Bischoff "letter," the distinction between the truth and what a Show Trial document says.[/quote]

There was no show trial. You should have learned that calling something a show trial, like calling documents forged and witnesses lying is just the desperate tactic of a denier, who has no argument.

"Baer" is simply ink on a page reproduced on your screen. The living individual, Richard Baer, now dead, does nothing here.

Do you actually thing you've said something?


Quote:
The only defendant who did not appear at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial in 1963 was Richard Baer, the successor of Rudolf Hoess as commandant of Auschwitz. Though in perfect health, he died suddenly in prison before the trial had begun, “in a highly mysterious way” according to the newspaper; Deutsche Wochenzeitung (July 27th, 1973).

So NEO now quotes a Holocaust denier pamphlet!

There was nothing mysterious about his death. And what does him dying have to do with the lie you told about his testimony before he died? Hmmm?

Still trying to run away I see, rather than just admitting you were hoodwinked by a denier canard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus

3. Baer refused to answer the remaining questions because he did not want to incriminate himself.

As previously remarked, Baer's alleged statements did not exculpate him,

If you "previously remarked this" you were wrong then as well. Not incriminating yourself is not the same as exculpating yourself.

Baer's testimony on gassing indicates it was occurring in Birkenau. You posted a quote which changed his testimony. Your refusal to admit it makes you complicit in the lie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus

4. This written response to questions was from 1961. The testimony which I have already quoted in which he admits gassing at Birkenau was from 1960. Full citation:

--from Baer's deposition, Dec. 22, 1960, Zentralstelle der
Landesjustizverwaltungen 402 AR-Z 37/58 cited in Kogon, et al., _Nazi
Mass Murder_ (New Haven: Yale UP, 1993) p. 142.

"Cited in Kogon" (a highly partisan source)

LOL! Typical denier desperation. What was the source of your lie which began this discussion, eh NEO!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus

5. This testimony doesn't in any way contradict his earlier testimony.

The specification of gassings is missing.

Because he refused to answer questions, stupid. That is not a contradiction.

Baer testified to gassing, contrary to your lie.

[NeoNietzsche]

Watch where you're squirting that thing, Globby!

[Globus]

Watch where you're squirting that thing, Globby!

This must be an example of the cogent arguments and facts Illusion says you deniers post!

Battleship Baer has been sunk.

[NeoNietzsche]

Did I hear a honk?

[Globus]

Did I hear a honk?

I think all we need to do now is remind ourselves of what NEO tried.

He posted the following from that "scholarly publication": The Journal of Historical Review.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p219_Buchner.html

In stark contrast to what R. Höss supposedly had written, stands the testimony given by Richard Baer -- the last commandant of Auschwitz (1944 - 1945). E. Aretz[20] reports on pages 58 and 59 some of what is known. Here are some essentials: Baer had been arrested in October 1960. At that time he declared that no gas chambers had existed in Auschwitz. He believed - on that basis - that he must be found innocent. However, he died a mysterious death at the age of 51 in perfectly good health on 17 June 1963 in prison. The post mortem revealed that poison could not be excluded as cause of death.

======================

Notice that NEO is not at all bothered by Baer's later death as it applies to the claim from three years earlier that no gas chambers had existed at Auschwitz.

But what did Baer actually say in 1960?

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people...sings-birkenau

In "Nazi Mass Murder", Yale Uni. Press, 1993, on page 142, a
statement of Baer from Dec. 22, 1960, is quoted, with the
full source: "I commanded only Camp I at Auschwitz. I had nothing
to do with the camps where the gassings took place. I had no
influence over them. It was in Camp II, at Birkenau, that the
gassings took place. That camp was not under my authority".

So Baer did not say there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. In fact he said there were, at Auschwitz II.

After beating NEO over the head with the simple fact of the JHR's lie, he finally, in desperation, returns to the Baer's death three years later as having some relevance to what he said in 1960, a relevance he didn't see when he believed the JHR's version of the testimony.

Why wouldn't anyone who wishes to be honest about history simply admit that the JHR got it wrong, and that Baer did indeed testify to gassing at Auschwitz?

[Basil Fawlty]

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people...sings-birkenauThis links to No such file or directory: people...sings-birkenau

[NeoNietzsche]

"I commanded Auschwitz until December 1, 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total dead of about 3,000,000."

http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/ourpalnietzsche/photos/view/b567?b=1

http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/ourpalnietzsche/photos/view/b567?b=2

=================================================

"I regard a total of 2.5 million as far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive capabilities."

http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/ourpalnietzsche/photos/view/b567?b=1

=================================================

"I commanded only Camp I at Auschwitz. I had nothing to do with the camps where the gassings took place. I had no
influence over them. It was in Camp II, at Birkenau, that the gassings took place. That camp was not under my authority".


In November 1943, the SS decreed that Auschwitz-Birkenau and Auschwitz-Monowitz would become independent concentration camps. The commandant of Auschwitz I remained the SS garrison commander of all SS units assigned to Auschwitz and was considered the senior officer of the three commandants. SS offices for maintaining prisoner records and managing prisoner labor deployment continued to be located and centrally run from Auschwitz I. In November 1944, Auschwitz II was reunified with Auschwitz I.

=================================================

During my earlier interrogations I gave the number of 2.5 million Jews who arrived at Auschwitz to be exterminated. "This figure was given to me by Eichmann, who had given this figure to my superior, SS General Glucks, when Eichmann was ordered to make a report to Himmler shortly before Berlin was surrounded. Eichmann and his deputy, Gunther, were the only ones who had the necessary information to calculate the total number of Jews annihilated."

http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/ourpalnietzsche/photos/view/b567?b=2

"I regard a total of 2.5 million as far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive capabilities."

http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/ourpalnietzsche/photos/view/b567?b=1

[Globus]

This links to

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/ftp.py?people/b//baer.richard/admits-gassings-birkenau

[Globus]

"I commanded Auschwitz until December 1, 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total dead of about 3,000,000."

During my earlier interrogations I gave the number of 2.5 million Jews who arrived at Auschwitz to be exterminated. This figure was given to me by Eichmann, who had given this figure to my superior, SS General Glucks, when Eichmann was ordered to make a report to Himmler shortly before Berlin was surrounded. Eichmann and his deputy, Gunther, were the only ones who had the necessary information to calculate the total number of Jews annihilated. According to the orders given by Himrnler, all information concerning the number of victims involved was to be burned after each action at Auschwitz.
As head of Department D 1, I personally destroyed every bit of evidence which could be found in my office. The other department heads did the same.
According to Eichmann, Himmler and Gestapo Headquarters had also destroyed all their files.
Only his personal notes contained this information. It is possible that because of the negligence of some departments a few isolated documents, teleprinter messages, or wireless messages remain undestroyed, but they could not give enough information to make a calculation.
I myself never knew the total number, and I have nothing to help me arrive at an estimate.
I can only remember the figures involved in the larger actions, which were repeated to me by Eichmann or his deputies.

From Upper Silesia and the General Gouvemement 250,000
Germany and Theresienstadt 100,000
Holland 95,000
Belgium 20,000
France 110,000
Greece 65,000
Hungary 400,000
Slovakia 90,000
[Total 1, 130,000]

1 can no longer remember the figures for the smaller actions, but they were insignificant by comparison with the numbers given above.
I regard a total of 2.5 million as far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive capabilities.

Death Dealer
The Memoirs of the SS Kommandant at Auschwitz
Rudolph Hoess
Da Capo Press
p. 39

======================

Next will your head starting turning 360 degrees?

[NeoNietzsche]

"I...estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims...

Not "I was given the number"

Please.

[Basil Fawlty]

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/ftp.py?people/b//baer.richard/admits-gassings-birkenau
In "Nazi Mass Murder", Yale Uni. Press, 1993, on page 142, a
statement of Baer from Dec. 22, 1960, is quoted, with the
full source: "I commanded only Camp I at Auschwitz. I had nothing
to do with the camps where the gassings took place. I had no
influence over them. It was in Camp II, at Birkenau, that the
gassings took place. That camp was not under my authority". He is not claiming to know first hand about it, in fact he is strictly denying that ("I had nothing to do with the camps where gassings took place". This is 1960, he has heard about gas chambers for c.15 years.
Clearly he is placing maximum distance between himself and Birkenau.
Denying the existence of gas chambers altogether would cancel out his defence strategy (their existence was a matter taken under judicial notice).
His statements about gas chambers are heresay.

[NeoNietzsche]

His statements about gas chambers are heresay.
He didn't make these statements - they were made for him - just as Hoess' contradictory and false statements are those of his captors.

[See message #150]

[Globus]

[FONT=Verdana] He is not claiming to know first hand about it, in fact he is strictly denying that ("I had nothing to do with the camps where gassings took place".

And he is not claiming to not know first hand. Furthermore, he's just protecting his ass.

But this has nothing to do with the lie told by the JHR. Isn't that correct Basil?

This is 1960, he has heard about gas chambers for c.15 years.

There is nothing to indicate that he is giving anything other than his own knowledge.

Clearly he is placing maximum distance between himself and Birkenau.
Denying the existence of gas chambers altogether would cancel out his defence strategy (their existence was a matter taken under judicial notice).

Nope, not at all. All he had to say is "I don't know what was going on at Birkenau, but there was no gassing in my camp, Auschwitz I.

To deny his knowledge of gassing when everyone knew about it wouldn't have gotten him very far.

The existence of WWII is also a matter of judicial notice. Maybe it's a myth?

His statements about gas chambers are heresay.

A statement for which not a shred of evidence has been presented. This must be the fact based arguments Ille is always claiming from deniers?

[Globus]

He didn't make these statements - they were made for him

More outrageous denier claims based on no evidence.

The statement he didn't make was the lie told by JHR and you.

Still no admission, eh.

- just as Hoess' contradictory statements are those of his captors.



Hoess 200+ page memoir was written by his captors?

Again, nothing but mindless denial. Damn, that thing called evidence keeps getting in the way, don't it NEO!

[Globus]

"I...estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims...

Not "I was given the number"



On the contrary, he said he was given the number. Two estimates from Hoess, one based on Eichmann's numbers, one based on his own, both given during the same time period.

Please yourself!

[NeoNietzsche]

"During my earlier interrogations I gave the number of 2.5 million Jews who arrived at Auschwitz to be exterminated. This figure was given to me by Eichmann..."

[There were no "two estimates"]

Honk for me again, Globby! Make the flower squirt!

[Basil Fawlty]

And he is not claiming to not know first hand. Furthermore, he's just protecting his ass.The quoted statement is not making any claim than can be construed as being a knowledge claim.
But this has nothing to do with the lie told by the JHR. Isn't that correct Basil?We shall return shortly to the JHR statement.
To deny his knowledge of gassing when everyone knew about it wouldn't have gotten him very far.He cannot deny the existence of the gas chambers because that would destroy his defence strategy.
The existence of WWII is also a matter of judicial notice. Maybe it's a myth?What court has taken judicial notice of WWII?
A statement for which not a shred of evidence has been presented. This must be the fact based arguments Ille is always claiming from deniers?The statement is the evdience. It cannot be construed as a first-hand knowledge claim. Can you show any statements where he claims to have direct knowledge of gas chambers?

[Globus]

"During my earlier interrogations I gave the number of 2.5 million Jews who arrived at Auschwitz to be exterminated. This figure was given to me by Eichmann..."

[There were no "two estimates"]

Of course there was NEO. I posted it for you. Is what denial is, sticking your head in the ground and pretending?

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus
And he is not claiming to not know first hand. Furthermore, he's just protecting his ass.

The quoted statement is not making any claim than can be construed as being a knowledge claim.

Of course it is. The only question is where the knowledge came from.

Quote:
But this has nothing to do with the lie told by the JHR. Isn't that correct Basil?

We shall return shortly to the JHR statement.

LOL! One of Basil's famous promises to something, someday.

Quote:
To deny his knowledge of gassing when everyone knew about it wouldn't have gotten him very far.

He cannot deny the existence of the gas chambers because that would destroy his defence strategy.

He wasn't under indictment or even charged when he made the statement. And as I pointed out, he didn't have to deny, just say he wasn't aware of it.

He would have looked ridiculous, of course.

Quote:
The existence of WWII is also a matter of judicial notice. Maybe it's a myth?

What court has taken judicial notice of WWII?

Hundreds. Mouthing the mindless mantra of Judicial notice gets you nowhere. All courts take judicial notice of common facts.

Quote:
A statement for which not a shred of evidence has been presented. This must be the fact based arguments Ille is always claiming from deniers?

The statement is the evdience.

It contains no evidence for your claim.

It cannot be construed as a first-hand knowledge claim.

Of course it can. The most one can say is it is not conclusive.

Your claim is unsupported by the statement or any evidence. It is typical denier pseudo-logic.

[Trojan]

He is not claiming to know first hand about it, in fact he is strictly denying that ("I had nothing to do with the camps where gassings took place". This is 1960, he has heard about gas chambers for c.15 years.
Clearly he is placing maximum distance between himself and Birkenau.
Denying the existence of gas chambers altogether would cancel out his defence strategy (their existence was a matter taken under judicial notice).
His statements about gas chambers are heresay.



That's not hearsay Basil.

"I had nothing to do with the camps where gassings took place". Is a statement. If he said "I heard it took 10 minutes to kill" - that would be hearsay.

[Basil Fawlty]

That's not hearsay Basil.

"I had nothing to do with the camps where gassings took place". Is a statement. If he said "I heard it took 10 minutes to kill" - that would be hearsay.The gassing claim is heresay or "common knowledge". Of course this all presupposes that these really are his words.

[Trojan]

The gassing claim is heresay or "common knowledge". Of course this all presupposes that these really are his words.

Common knowledge is not equivalent to hearsay.

[Globus]

The gassing claim is heresay or "common knowledge".

The statement doesn't indicate he heard from anyone else or that it was a matter of common knowledge.

Basil practices a little of Faurisson's "Ajax method", inventing meaning where it doesn't exist.

Of course this all presupposes that these really are his words.

Ah, my favorite denier tactic. If you don't believe my convoluted attempt to change the meaning of the evidence, I'll simply declare it a forgery!

[NeoNietzsche]

Of course there was NEO. I posted it for you. Is what denial is, sticking your head in the ground and pretending?
Show me your BIG shoes, Globby! You probably have the biggest shoes of any clown in town, don't you, Globby? Do that stumble for me, again - I love it when you trip yourself.

[Basil Fawlty]

Of course it is. The only question is where the knowledge came from.:nono: Hoess's statements take the from of knowledge claims about gassings, these do not.
LOL! One of Basil's famous promises to something, someday.I can't access the Yahoo area at the moment (post150), it wont accept my pwd.
He wasn't under indictment or even charged when he made the statement. And as I pointed out, he didn't have to deny, just say he wasn't aware of it.That would complicate his inevitable defence. "I wasn't aware of any gassings" says the senior officer for the area. Not as plausible as saying "I had nothing to do with any of it."
He would have looked ridiculous, of course.Precisely.
Hundreds. Mouthing the mindless mantra of Judicial notice gets you nowhere. All courts take judicial notice of common facts.Non responsive. I asked for the name of just one, not "hundreds".
It contains no evidence for your claim.It certainly does.
Of course it can. The most one can say is it is not conclusive.Of ocurse it is, for he makes no first hand knowledge claim, for he merely repeats "common knowledge."
All of this presuppose that the statement really is his.

[NeoNietzsche]

"I commanded Auschwitz until December 1, 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total dead of about 3,000,000."

http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/ourpalnietzsche/photos/view/b567?b=1 [4 Milln Plaque]

http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/ourpalnietzsche/photos/view/b567?b=2 [1.5 M Plaque]

=================================================

"I regard a total of 2.5 million as far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive capabilities."

http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/ourpalnietzsche/photos/view/b567?b=1 [4 Milln Plaque]

=================================================

"I commanded only Camp I at Auschwitz. I had nothing to do with the camps where the gassings took place. I had no
influence over them. It was in Camp II, at Birkenau, that the gassings took place. That camp was not under my authority".


In November 1943, the SS decreed that Auschwitz-Birkenau and Auschwitz-Monowitz would become independent concentration camps. The commandant of Auschwitz I remained the SS garrison commander of all SS units assigned to Auschwitz and was considered the senior officer of the three commandants. SS offices for maintaining prisoner records and managing prisoner labor deployment continued to be located and centrally run from Auschwitz I. In November 1944, Auschwitz II was reunified with Auschwitz I.


The only defendant who did not appear at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial in 1963 was Richard Baer, the successor of Rudolf Hoess as commandant of Auschwitz. Though in perfect health, he died suddenly in prison before the trial had begun, “in a highly mysterious way” according to the newspaper; Deutsche Wochenzeitung (July 27th, 1973). Baer’s sudden demise before giving evidence is especially strange, since the Paris newspaper Rivarol recorded his insistence that “during the whole time in which he governed Auschwitz, he never saw any gas chambers nor believed that such things existed,” and from this statement nothing would dissuade him.

=================================================

During my earlier interrogations I gave the number of 2.5 million Jews who arrived at Auschwitz to be exterminated. "This figure was given to me by Eichmann, who had given this figure to my superior, SS General Glucks, when Eichmann was ordered to make a report to Himmler shortly before Berlin was surrounded. Eichmann and his deputy, Gunther, were the only ones who had the necessary information to calculate the total number of Jews annihilated."

http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/ourpalnietzsche/photos/view/b567?b=2 [1.5 M Plaque]

"I regard a total of 2.5 million as far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive capabilities."

http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/ourpalnietzsche/photos/view/b567?b=1 [4 Milln Plaque]

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globus
Of course it is. The only question is where the knowledge came from.

Hoess's statements take the from of knowledge claims about gassings, these do not.

Nope, not the case at all. At best, you can say that his statement does not explicitly say he knew personally. You claim the opposite, that his statement clearly says he didn't have first hand knowledge. That is simply creating out of whole cloth, and is not supported by the plain words.

Quote:
LOL! One of Basil's famous promises to something, someday.

I can't access the Yahoo area at the moment (post150), it wont accept my pwd.

What yahoo area?

Quote:
He wasn't under indictment or even charged when he made the statement. And as I pointed out, he didn't have to deny, just say he wasn't aware of it.

That would complicate his inevitable defence. "I wasn't aware of any gassings" says the senior officer for the area. Not as plausible as saying "I had nothing to do with any of it."

You've stated two defences. Having the option of two defences doesn't complicate. It gives you more flexibility.

Quote:
He would have looked ridiculous, of course.

Preisely.

Precisely. And the result could have obtained simply by saying he knew nothing about Birkenau.

Quote:
Hundreds. Mouthing the mindless mantra of Judicial notice gets you nowhere. All courts take judicial notice of common facts.

[quote]Non responsive.

Too bad. Looking for a way out eh!

Quote:
It contains no evidence for your claim.

It certainly does.

As I've shown, it certainly does not.

Quote:
Of course it can. The most one can say is it is not conclusive.

[quote]Of ocurse it is, for he makes no first hand knowledge claim,

It's not clear what kind of claim he's making, and even if he were not, it wouldn't mean the opposite. Simple logic Basil. Of course if your delusions don't work, remember you can call his statement forged!

[Basil Fawlty]

Common knowledge is not equivalent to hearsay.It can be and in this circumstance it is. He is repeating something that is common knowledge. That is heresay not a first hand knowledge claim.

If in 2002 someone poses the question "where exactly is Saddam hiding the WMD's", that he has them is "common knowledge" and the speaker talks as if it is known that they exist even though they do not have any first hand knowledge of them. Someone else says "I have seen his stock of WMD's" is a knowledge claim.

[Globus]

It can be and in this circumstance it is.

He says nothing about common knowledge.

He is repeating something that is common knowledge.

A pure fiction. See how far deniers will go in self-delusion in the fact of clear evidence!

[Basil Fawlty]

The only defendant who did not appear at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial in 1963 was Richard Baer, the successor of Rudolf Hoess as commandant of Auschwitz. Though in perfect health, he died suddenly in prison before the trial had begun, “in a highly mysterious way” according to the newspaper; Deutsche Wochenzeitung (July 27th, 1973). Baer’s sudden demise before giving evidence is especially strange, since the Paris newspaper Rivarol recorded his insistence that “during the whole time in which he governed Auschwitz, he never saw any gas chambers nor believed that such things existed,” and from this statement nothing would dissuade him.Well, there dos not seem to be much point anymore in discussing the epistemic status of the statement so.

[Basil Fawlty]

What yahoo area?So you haven't even bothered following the links Neo posted in post 150?

[Globus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoNietzsche
The only defendant who did not appear at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial in 1963 was Richard Baer, the successor of Rudolf Hoess as commandant of Auschwitz. Though in perfect health, he died suddenly in prison before the trial had begun, “in a highly mysterious way” according to the newspaper; Deutsche Wochenzeitung (July 27th, 1973). Baer’s sudden demise before giving evidence is especially strange, since the Paris newspaper Rivarol recorded his insistence that “during the whole time in which he governed Auschwitz, he never saw any gas chambers nor believed that such things existed,” and from this statement nothing would dissuade him.

Well, there dos not seem to be much point anymore in discussing the epistemic status of the statement so.

Especially since you've been crushed!

Notice that the denier Basil did not ask for the source of this quote. The source is worthless, as it happend. Baer never made any such statement as this denier pamphlet claims. What he did state has been posted.

So Basil, JHR and Arthur Butz lied, didn't they?

[NeoNietzsche]

Hoess, Broad, Eichmann (the expert) each give an "estimate" of some 2.5/3 Mil total Auschwitz (but it supposedly turns out that Hoess' was Eichmann-the-expert's number) - three times the (now-) approved figure.

So the number was obviously assigned to all, and we have Hoess lately inform us that his wildly erroneous but synoptic "estimate" was given to him by Eichmann-the-expert.

Baer's "statement" is, to all appearances, likewise the product of his captivity. Globby is multiply an idiot for Show Trial documents.

Thus:

Hoess' "testimony" was, to judge from its falsehoods, contradictions, and his captivity, extorted from and fabricated for him.

Baer's "testimony" was, to judge from the attention that the reported lack thereof received and from his captivity by the same hostiles, fabricated for him.

[Globus]

So you haven't even bothered following the links Neo posted in post 150?

You mean cut and past from the denier pamphlet Did Six Million Really Die?

Absolute fabrication.

Baer's statement has been posted. JHR and Butz, not to mention paramecium
NEO are lying about the historical facts. To support this lie you are willing to post any crap some other denier said.

[Basil Fawlty]

Absolute fabrication.So you say, but your say-so is worthless.

[Basil Fawlty]

But let's get back on topic. Is there any reason for doubting the authenticity of the photocopies of PS-2170 that have been posted?

Only one person seems to have a problem with it so far but seems unable to articulate what that might be.

[Globus]

So you say, but your say-so is worthless.

On the contrary, the only people shown to lie here are you and the deniers you quote.

You've simply gone from one fabrication to another. You are absolutely unconcerned about the source of what you posted merely because you were getting pasted and were finding it hard to avoid admitting that the JHR and Arthur Butz are out and out liars.

Here's a hint for ya. There is no source for that quote, a well known canard.

A defendent who never reached the Frankfurt trial was Richard Baer, the last commandant of Auschwitz. He had died before the proceedings began. This allowed deniers to float a whole series of conspiracy theories that he died under "mysterious circumstances." Staglich quoted non cited French press sources that "Baer adamantly refused to confirm the existence of 'gas chambers' at the camp he once administered." According to Butz, Baer "insisted that the Auschwitz gas chambers were a myth." The non cited source of this speculation appears to be Paul Rassinier, who that Baer declared that there had never been any gas chambers at Auschwitz while he was in command. He cited no source.

Holocaust Denial
John Zimmerman
University Press of America
p. 110

So we have a denier Paul Rassinier making an unsourced declaration about Baer. This unsourced claim is picked up by other deniers who change the wording in some instances, and one of them even makes up a different source, French press sources, or a French publication, but again, no source that can be checked.

And yet Mr. skeptic Basil is happy to embrace this further lie to escape the embarrassment of the earlier lie he was defending.

[Globus]

But let's get back on topic. Is there any reason for doubting the authenticity of the photocopies of PS-2170 that have been posted?

Your source is quite unclear. But you're just spinning your wheels, while running away from your other debacle. There is no significance to your thread whatsoever. Of course you promised some time ago to enlighten us on that. Another of your many promises?

[Basil Fawlty]

On the contrary, the only people shown to lie here are you and the deniers you quote.

You've simply gone from one fabrication to another. You are absolutely unconcerned about the source of what you posted merely because you were getting pasted and were finding it hard to avoid admitting that the JHR and Arthur Butz are out and out liars.

Here's a hint for ya. There is no source for that quote, a well known canard.



Holocaust Denial
John Zimmerman
University Press of America
p. 110

So we have a denier Paul Rassinier making an unsourced declaration about Baer. This unsourced claim is picked up by other deniers who change the wording in some instances, and one of them even makes up a different source, French press sources, or a French publication, but again, no source that can be checked.

And yet Mr. skeptic Basil is happy to embrace this further lie to escape the embarrassment of the earlier lie he was defending.These are just opinions and allegations, yours and Mr. Zimmerman's, equally worthless.

[Globus]

These are just opinions and allegations, yours and Mr. Zimmerman's, equally worthless.


More mindless denial. Not opinions, facts. Would you care to show us sources? Of course not. You know it's a lie, and that doesn't make you much of a human being.

Busted!

[Basil Fawlty]

Your source is quite unclear.I don't see how, I gave the requisite bibilographical information and even scanned the cover page of the photocopy of PS-2170 on foot of your request for more info.

I think you just don't want to deal with this - for obvious reasons - so just deny everything and scream abuse in the hope that we'll be distracted by such crude and barbaric ploys. Not likely.

Where does Poliakov get his figure of 93 sq meters because its not in PS-1553 which he gives as his source for that falsification?

[Basil Fawlty]

More mindless denial. Not opinions, facts.There are no facts there just opinions and allegations. Completely worthless and insubstantial, a bit like you really.

[Globus]

There are no facts there just opinions and allegations. .

You lie again. Facts. No sources. Just denier lies fabricated. And you know it, which is why you produce no sources.

Looks like you need a little more seasoning before you're much of a denier. Perhaps some time at CODOH!

But the case has been made.

[Globus]

I don't see how, I gave the requisite bibilographical information and even scanned the cover page of the photocopy of PS-2170 on foot of your request for more info.

Scanned it from where?

[Basil Fawlty]

And you know itI know that you are grasping at straws and becoming hysterical.

Carry on with your tantrum now. :deadhorse:

[Basil Fawlty]

Scanned it from where?I just said that the necessary bibliographical information is in the post I made. :rolleyes:

[Globus]

I know that you are grasping at straws and becoming hysterical.

A perfect description of you.

What are the sources for the lies about Baer, Basil, hmmm!

[NeoNietzsche]

So we have a denier Paul Rassinier making an unsourced declaration about Baer. This unsourced claim is picked up by other deniers who change the wording in some instances, and one of them even makes up a different source, French press sources, or a French publication, but again, no source that can be checked.

And yet Mr. skeptic Basil is happy to embrace this further lie to escape the embarrassment of the earlier lie he was defending.

...the Paris newspaper Rivarol recorded his insistence that “during the whole time in which he governed Auschwitz, he never saw any gas chambers nor believed that such things existed,” and from this statement nothing would dissuade him.

The quote is here "sourced" - though I do not pretend to be able to confirm this. It seems we are also at a loss regarding the Kogon citation, since the document is evidently unavailable for inspection as to authenticity (presumably lacking such, given its captivity).

[Basil Fawlty]

What are the sources for the lies about Baer, Basil, hmmm!Neo has posted the sources for the claim that the statement is not his, why do you persist with your silly and hysterical questions?

[Globus]

Neo has posted the sources for the claim that the statement is not his, why do you persist with your silly and hysterical questions?

Another lie. He has posted no source for the claim about statements made from a Paris press source. The orginal article doesn't contain a source.

[Globus]

The quote is here "sourced" - though I do not pretend to be able to confirm this.

No, it is not sourced. You can't be this stupid. Simply writing "according to fjfjfjfjf" is not a source. No date. No title. No author. Nothing. No source.

[Basil Fawlty]

Another lie. He has posted no source for the claim about statements made from a Paris press source.He just did, look up ^.

[Basil Fawlty]

These are yet more lunatic attempts to evade the PS-2170 and PS-1553 question and the Gilbert/Poliakov falsifcations thereof.

[Basil Fawlty]

@Globus - I see you have opened a thread about the Baer question.

Could ye kindly confine all those posts to that thread and leave this clear for the 2170/1553 discussion?

[NeoNietzsche]

No, it is not sourced. You can't be this stupid. Simply writing "according to fjfjfjfjf" is not a source. No date. No title. No author. Nothing. No source.
It is not the source we would like to have, but it is a source representing the beginning point of a potential investigation, as are the details specified, which would further facilitate that investigation. One can declare even these details "not a source" because the only true source was Baer himself, in captivity.

[Globus]

He just did, look up ^.

He provides no source. THe claim he is copying from a denier text has no source. Do you know what a source is?

[Globus]

These are yet more lunatic attempts to evade the PS-2170 and PS-1553 question and the Gilbert/Poliakov falsifcations thereof.

A falsification which the liar has yet to show.

[Globus]

@Globus - I see you have opened a thread about the Baer question.

Could ye kindly confine all those posts to that thread and leave this clear for the 2170/1553 discussion?

Direct your kind request to the person who began the off topic posting of Baer and Pohl, etc.

[Globus]

It is not the source we would like to have,

No it is not a source at all.

Whoever wrote what you posted hasn't not provided a source. Where did he qet the quote?

[Basil Fawlty]

He provides no source. Read Neo's last post on this matter.

[Basil Fawlty]

Direct your kind request to the person who began the off topic posting of Baer and Pohl, etc.You will notice that I asked 'ye'. Where I come from we sometimes still use this as the plural of you.

[Globus]

Read Neo's last post on this matter.

The author provides no source. Apparently you don't know what a source is.

"According to the Calcutta Tandori Press, denier Basil Fawlty admitted "I've been denying the Holocaust for a number of years, not because I don't know that it actually occurred, but because I hate Jews and love National Socialism".

What's the source?

[Globus]

You will notice that I asked 'ye'. Where I come from we sometimes still use this as the plural of you.

Ask the person who started the subjects.

[Basil Fawlty]

A falsification which the liar has yet to show.Nizkor has the source for the Poliakov falsifcation and I posted the photcopy of 2170. What delaying tactic will you come up with next? Oh yes, I know, shriek away at me with 'liar!', 'denier!' 'moron!' Very erudite and scholarly contributions no doubt. :rofl:

.

[NeoNietzsche]

He provides no source. THe claim he is copying from a denier text has no source. Do you know what a source is?
More pretense from Globby, as if failure to meet the formal specifications for "source" means that there had been nothing provided that can be used as the basis for an admittedly more involved investigation - an investigation leading back several steps to Baer in any case. Since the publication is specified and the approximate year is evident, we have a primitive sourcing that nevertheless serves the credibility of the claim, prima facie.

[Basil Fawlty]

What's the source?The same as for most of the nonsense posted under your name: your back passage.

[Globus]

Nizkor has the source for the Poliakov falsifcation

Your charge is against Gilbert old boy. And Faurisson made the same charge you are making against Poliakov and lost in court.

So you haven't demonstrated any falsification on anyone's part.

Don't you feel foolish nitpicking these idiotic denier entrails?

[Globus]

The same as for most of the nonsense posted under your name: your back passage.

So there is no source.

Just an unsourced quote.

[Basil Fawlty]

More pretense from Globby, as if failure to meet the formal specifications for "source" means that there had been nothing provided that can be used as the basis for an admittedly more involved investigation - an investigation leading back several steps to Baer in any case. Since the publication is specified and the approximate year is evident, we have a primitive sourcing that nevertheless serves the credibility of the claim, prima facie.I would have thought this was the reasonable postion to take on this matter pending further investigation rather than rabid denunciations.

[Basil Fawlty]

So there is no source.

Just an unsourced quote.No, its just a sophistical example of what you regularly pull out your ass.

[Basil Fawlty]

Your charge is against Gilbert old boy. And Faurisson made the same charge you are making against Poliakov and lost in court.Tell us more about this court case, why don't you. In particular, tell us what Poliakov's excuse was for his dishonesty.

The Poliakov matter bears directly on the Gilbert question.

[Globus]

More pretense from Globby, as if failure to meet the formal specifications for "source" means

Formality has nothing to do with it you poor fool. There is no source. Saying, according to xyz is not sourcing. Furthermore, the claimed quote does not contradict his known statement in which he says gassing occurred in Birkenau during his tenure.

Since the publication is specified and the approximate year is evident,

There is no date. It is worthless and clearly was meant to keep anyone from checking it. There is no reason to accord credibility to such a claim from a denier publication over a official statement memorialized in a respected historical work which doesn't even contradict that statement's comments about gassing at Birkenau.

You just keep going backwards, NEO!

[Globus]

Tell us more about this court case, why don't you.

Do some research. You might not make such a fool of yourself and defend liars like Butz.

[Globus]

No, its just a sophistical example of what you regularly pull out your ass.

No, it's just an unsourced denier statement that doesn't even contradict Baer known, official statement that gassing was occurring in Birkenau.

Pathetic!

[Basil Fawlty]

Do some research. I know about it, but you have produced it as if it somehow settles things, which it certainly does not. So why don't you produce the goods, motor mouth?

[Globus]

I would have thought this was the reasonable postion to take on this matter pending further investigation rather than rabid denunciations.

Of course it's a convenient and stupid position considering the source is a well known denier publication which is nothing but lies, and since it doesn't even contradict Baer's statement regarding gassing at Birkenau, making the JHR's claim and Butz' lies.

[NeoNietzsche]

The author provides no source. Apparently you don't know what a source is.

"According to the Calcutta Tandori Press, denier Basil Fawlty admitted "I've been denying the Holocaust for a number of years, not because I don't know that it actually occurred, but because I hate Jews and love National Socialism".

What's the source?

BF,

I realize now that he knows that the "source," as above, is from Did Six Million Really Die, and so he wants to crow that it is from just another "denier pamphlet". His disingenuousness in denying the "source" having been evident in these terms accounts for the confusion.

[Globus]

I know about it,

Sure you do!

Where's your evidence of falsification? Or are you in avoidance mode again.

We've only been waiting for what, three days for you to prove it.

[Globus]

BF,

I realize now that he knows that the "source," as above, is from Did Six Million Really Die, and so he wants to crow that it is from just another "denier pamphlet".

Of my God!

DSMRD published the quote, dummy. They are not the source of it. They provided no source.

And there probably isn't a more dishonest and silly piece of denier trash ever written. No one with any pretense to "scholarly" denial would ever cite it.

[NeoNietzsche]

Of course it's a convenient and stupid position considering the source is a well known denier publication which is nothing but lies, and since it doesn't even contradict Baer's statement regarding gassing at Birkenau, making the JHR's claim and Butz' lies.
Like I just said.

[Globus]

Like I just said.

You just said that it doesn't even contradict Baer's known statement?

Then what are you whining about , NEO!

By the way, Rivarol is a far right, tiny French publication which likes to publish stuff by Jean-Marie Le Pen, the founder of France's far-right National Front.

[NeoNietzsche]

Of my God!

DSMRD published the quote, dummy. They are not the source of it. They provided no source.

And there probably isn't a more dishonest and silly piece of denier trash ever written. No one with any pretense to "scholarly" denial would ever cite it.
So you've changed the definition of "source" as you earlier apparently illustrated it. Now that you revert to the 'scholarly' specification of "source," I refer you to my comment in that regard for rational reconsideration.

But meanwhile, give us another honk, Globby!

[NeoNietzsche]

You just said that it doesn't even contradict Baer's known statement?
No, I was remarking to BF that I had anticipated you.

[NeoNietzsche]

By the way, Rivarol is a far right, tiny French publication which likes to publish stuff by Jean-Marie Le Pen, the founder of France's far-right National Front.
Just in case it turns out that Rivarol published Baer's comments, as claimed, right? Then you can fall back to the claim that Rivarol is lying, right?

See, you do have a source after all!

Give us a little squirt, Globby!

[Globus]

So you've changed the definition of "source" as you earlier apparently illustrated it.

I haven't changed anything.

And even your dubious quote doesn't contradict Baer's known statement. So you what you posted when you started this off topic sub-thread has been shown to be false.

[Globus]

No, I was remarking to BF that I had anticipated you.

Since I pointed that out long ago, all you were doing is catching up.

So why did you post a lie about Baer's testimony?

[Globus]

Just in case it turns out that Rivarol published Baer's comments, as claimed, right?

I quote which does not affect the lie you introduced in the beginning poor old fool! Funny how you forget that.

And there is no source.

[Basil Fawlty]

Sure you do!Which is why you don't want to introduce it except by inuendo.

[Basil Fawlty]

We've only been waiting for what, three days for you to prove it.We? You are the only one to have made an issue out of the source documents. We still don't know what your problem is. You seem to be having difficulties stating it.

[Globus]

Which is why you don't want to introduce it except by inuendo.

What are you talking about. I introduced the fact that the same charge you ignorantly and dishonestly make caused another denier to lose a libel case.

[Globus]

We? You are the only one to have made an issue out of the source documents.

Diversion!

Not what the point was. You're problem is your mouth says things you can't support. It's been at least three days since you were going to share the significance of this little pimple on the ass of an elephant. At the same time you defend blatant lies by the JHR and Arthur Butz.

[Basil Fawlty]

What are you talking about. I introduced the fact that the same charge you ignorantly and dishonestly make caused another denier to lose a libel case.Yes, and I want you to introduce the details of this case so you can make the point directly rather than by inuendo. Then we can discuss Poliakov's lame excuses which the court chose to believe without any supporting evidence.


In other words, if you are claiing that Poliakov did not falsify the figures, prove it becasue as things stand, his claims are contradicted by his stated source. PS-1553 does not mention 93 sq meters, but Poliakov does. That is a prima facie case of falsification.

[Globus]

Yes, and I want you to introduce the details of this case so you can make the point directly rather than by inuendo.

There is no innuendo. The court found Faurisson's charges false. The fact that you might like introduce a little of the old denier reality to the plain facts is not relevant, and certainly not relevant to your charge against Gilbert which has even less going for it.

[Basil Fawlty]

Diversion!That's all you have been doing. Now state your problem or explain why Gilbert is not supported by 2170.

[NeoNietzsche]

I quote which does not affect the lie you introduced in the beginning poor old fool!
Just in case it turns out that Rivarol quoted Baer correctly.

A sad clown you are, Globby.

[Basil Fawlty]

There is no innuendo. The court found Faurisson's charges false.Prove it, don't just refer to some court case.

[Globus]

That's all you have been doing.

Bullshit.

Where's you're evidence he falsified anything?

Where's you insightful analysis of the signifance you promised days ago?

Talk about a constipated brain!

[Globus]

Prove it, don't just refer to it.

So now you're denying this too!

Pathetic.

Read some history.

[Globus]

Just in case it turns out that Rivarol quoted Baer correctly.

A sad clown you are, Globby.

The quote doesn't contradict your lie, poor old fool.

Why do you persist in a lie about Baer? Is lying all denial has?

[Basil Fawlty]

Bullshit.Your full of it, with loads to spare.
Where's you're evidence he falsified anything?Neither he nor Gilbert's version of Gerstein is supported by the documents.

[Basil Fawlty]

So now you're denying this too!Prove what you claim or deal with the real issue here.

**
What's your problem with 2170?

[Globus]

Your full of it, with loads to spare.

I've shown quite clearly that it's you whose full of shit, Basil.

Where's you evidence of falsification? Where's your thesis on significance? All talk, aren't you.

[Globus]

Prove what you claim or deal with the real issue here.

Prove your charge and tell us the significance. You've stalled long enough. It's clear to the blind that you just like to shoot your mouth and in fact don't know anything about the history you deny.

[Basil Fawlty]

Where's you evidence of falsification?Everyone else can see it except you. Just like the Bischoff contradiction.

I understand your position though. Concede corner cutting or forgery in even one instance and the whole thing is up in the air. That's why you have to paint yourself into a corner and make a spectacle of yourself. Your a real martyr for the cause.

[Globus]

Everyone else can see it except you.

No they can't. You've presented none.

Just like the Bischoff contradiction.

A contradiction that is a figment of your imagination, which is why you can't even state what the contradiction is. You know you'd be exposed on that issue immediately as well.

I understand your position though.

What I understand is that you're an empty blowhard who in a thread with more than 240 posts still hasn't begun to show falsification or significance.

Were you ever any better than this?

[Trojan]

It can be and in this circumstance it is. He is repeating something that is common knowledge. That is heresay not a first hand knowledge claim.

If in 2002 someone poses the question "where exactly is Saddam hiding the WMD's", that he has them is "common knowledge" and the speaker talks as if it is known that they exist even though they do not have any first hand knowledge of them. Someone else says "I have seen his stock of WMD's" is a knowledge claim.

Common knowledge is more closely associated with judicial notice. I've never seen nor heard of common knowledge associated with hearsay.

judicial notice
n. the authority of a judge to accept as facts certain matters which are of common knowledge from sources which guarantee accuracy or are a matter of official record, without the need for evidence establishing the fact. Examples of matters given judicial notice are public and court records, tides, times of sunset and sunrise, government rainfall and temperature records, known historic events or the fact that ice melts in the sun.

hearsay
n. 1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her. 2) a common objection made by the opposing lawyer to testimony when it appears the witness has violated the hearsay rule. 3) scuttlebutt or gossip.

[Panzerfaust Boy]

i have to applaud the patience and will of the good people in this thread for their bothering to debate a obvious troll and obviously revolting charcter like "globus".

i would just have ignored him or try to have him banned, but then again, when he constantly litters himself, he is counterproductive to his brainwash holocaust worship act, and it is more entertaining to expose this bozo procedure of his to the gallery. :D