So Where Did They Go, Revisionists? [Archive]

eggheadbanga

11-05-2006, 05:40 PM

Despite the woeful failure of the revisionist collective on this board to answer the question of who orchestrated the alleged hoax, it seems only fair to give them one more chance to redeem themselves.

That is to say, to provide an alternative explanation for the fate of between 5-6 million European Jews if they were not gassed, shot, starved or beaten to death at some point between 1939 and 1945. If as is alleged monotously, there was no Holocaust and the Jews were not killed, something else must have happened to them, since the Jewish population of postwar Europe was evidently somewhat depleted.

It is generally accepted even by revisionists that a very large number of Jews were deported from their home countries and home towns to certain camps, which however they argue were not death camps but instead 'transit camps' for onward resettlement somewhere to 'the east'.

One can find statements to this effect in the works of Arthur Butz, Carlo Mattogno, Juergen Graf, Jean-Marie Boisdefeu, Enrique Aynat, Mark Weber, Andrew Allen, Steffen Werner and many other revisionists here: http://vho.org/

However, the above-named revisionists seem to want to spend more time attacking the existing evidence and very little on providing back-up evidence for their alternative hypothesis. Now, revisionists, here's your chance to rectify this gaping hole in denier logic!

The problem

As is well known, there were the following alleged extermination camps with gassing facilities:
Auschwitz (Upper East Silesia)
Treblinka (Warsaw)
Belzec (Lublin)
Sobibor (Lublin)
Majdanek (Lublin)
Chelmno (Warthegau)
Maly Trostinets (Belarus)

which collectively took in more than 2.5 but less than 3 million Jews. The remainder died in ghettos, labour camps and by mass shootings.

and here is a reminder of the nationalities that were deported to one of the above locations:

Norwegian
Dutch
Belgian
French
Italian
Greek (Salonikan, Thracian, Macedonian, Athenian)
Croatian
Austrian
German
Hungarian
Slovakian
Czech (Protectorate)
Romanian
Polish
Belorussian
Ukrainian
Lithuanian

nationalities referring to their citizenship as of 22.6.41 :D that were recorded as deported to one of the seven camps listed above

Since revisionism usually concedes some deaths from starvation and some deaths from executions, we shall leave these subjects to one side, and simply focus on the deportees to the camps.

So, the question is, where did they go, revisionists?

The solution?

If it is of any help, here are the German and Romanian administrative occupation districts lying to the 'east', in their German titles

Military Administration
Heeresgruppe Nord (Russia)
Heeresgruppe Mitte (Russia, Belorussian SSR)
Heeresgruppe B (Russia, Ukrainian SSR)
Heeresgruppe A (Russia, Caucasus, Crimea)

Civil Administration
Reichskommissariat Ostland
- Generalkommissariat Estland (Estonia)
- Generalkommissariat Latvien (Latvia)
- Generalkommissariat Litauen (Lithuania)
- Generalkommissariat Weissruthenien (Belorussian SSR)
Reichskommissariat Ukraine
- Generalkommissariat Kiew
- Generalkommissariat Dnjepropetrowsk
- Generalkommissariat Nikolajew
- Generalkommissariat Shitomir (part Belorussian SSR)
- Generalkommissariat Wolhynien-Podolien (part Belorussian SSR)

Transnistrien (Romanian administration)

Generalgouvernement
Distrikt Galizien
Distrikt Lublin
Distrikt Warschau
Distrikt Radom
Distrikt Krakau

'incorporated territories'
Distrikt Bialystok
Regierungsbezirk Zichenau
Warthegau
Ostoberschlesien

Ideally, someone will give me chapter and verse which would place the Salonikan ghetto population at location x, instead of sailing down the Vistula as ashes after being gassed and cremated at Auschwitz, and which would similarly find a happy home for the population of the Warsaw ghetto at location y, instead of turned to a festering pile of putrefying corpses at Treblinka in time to be subjected to the biggest Nazi barbecue party of all time in 1943.

Or...

Alternatively, you can simply answer some questions which I will put to the brave questors after historical truth from time to time. Starting with...

1. How come we know the names of the alleged 'transit camp' commandants such as Stangl but have absolutely no idea who was in charge of the camps at the other end?

2. Who was in charge of the supposedly resettled Jews at the other end? SS, Wehrmacht, civil administration?

3. Why were the resettled Jews stripped of all their clothing before the alleged onward transit? Did the SS issue stripey pajamas, allow them to keep one change to wear, or send them onwards naked?

4. Did any of the allegedly resettled Jews work when they got to the other end?

5. How were the allegedly resettled Jews fed?

6. Did the allegedly resettled Jews move into existing camps or newly built ones?

That should keep you going for the meantime.

Don't forget...

And remember, this 'resettlement thesis' is endorsed by none other than Mattogno, Graf, Butz, Faurisson, Boisdefeu, Aynat, Werner, Irving, and many other 'name' revisionists. So don't pretend it isn't what revisionism argues. It is.

So how about it? Have you got the balls to prove your alternative explanation of the fate of European Jews? I'm so intrigued as to what answers you'll come up with, I'm even going to take NeoNietzsche off 'ignore'.

N.B. negating existing evidence for the extermination camps is NOT proof of the alternative explanation.

NeoNietzsche

11-05-2006, 08:22 PM

Despite the woeful failure of the revisionist collective on this board to answer the question of who orchestrated the alleged hoax, it seems only fair to give them one more chance to redeem themselves.
Apparently you are so innocent of the elementary logic of political economy that the anonymity of the plutocratic governors of a hypocracy is, for you, the equivalent of their non-existence. It is rather your remark that invites instruction.

That is to say, to provide an alternative explanation for the fate of between 5-6 million European Jews if they were not gassed, shot, starved or beaten to death at some point between 1939 and 1945. If as is alleged monotously, there was no Holocaust and the Jews were not killed, something else must have happened to them, since the Jewish population of postwar Europe was evidently somewhat depleted.
By how much and according to whom? Jews and Communists? Show-Trial-processed documents?

It is generally accepted even by revisionists that a very large number of Jews were deported from their home countries and home towns to certain camps, which however they argue were not death camps but instead 'transit camps' for onward resettlement somewhere to 'the east'.
How many is "a very large number," and how many are allegedly missing, and who credibly claims to be missing them?

One can find statements to this effect in the works of Arthur Butz, Carlo Mattogno, Juergen Graf, Jean-Marie Boisdefeu, Enrique Aynat, Mark Weber, Andrew Allen, Steffen Werner and many other revisionists here: http://vho.org/

However, the above-named revisionists seem to want to spend more time attacking the existing evidence and very little on providing back-up evidence for their alternative hypothesis. Now, revisionists, here's your chance to rectify this gaping hole in denier logic!
It is not a logical hole, it's an evidentiary one. And these Revisionists can answer for their own theses. I take the absence of the supposed murder weapon, aside from the general context of lies, extortion, forgery, and propaganda - characteristic of the whole perverse Allied enterprise in the war - to raise serious questions as to how many deportees there were, in fact, and whether such individuals as are to be held "missing" were not simply dumped in occupied territory and suffered various unaccountable fates. For it is a highly-interested coalition of parties that had and have an interest in the sustenance of a variety of falsehoods, myths, and belief systems regarding the period - and who have had and have the power to create, suborn, extort, and destroy "evidence". There should be no surprise at the lack of material supportive of a thesis contrary to the interest of those who control the aftermath of the event.

The problem

As is well known, there were the following alleged extermination camps with gassing facilities:

.....

which collectively took in more than 2.5 but less than 3 million Jews. The remainder died in ghettos, labour camps and by mass shootings.
Is this attested to by documents that were not once in the possession of, nor were perhaps the creation of, Jews and/or Communists (i.e., notorious liars)? Perhaps some copies of German documents of the period, discovered by Neo-Nazis in Argentina, never having fallen into the hands of said liars?

Since revisionism usually concedes some deaths from starvation and some deaths from executions, we shall leave these subjects to one side, and simply focus on the deportees to the camps.

So, the question is, where did they go, revisionists?
East of Auschwitz.

Ideally, someone will give me chapter and verse which would place the Salonikan ghetto population at location x, instead of sailing down the Vistula as ashes after being gassed and cremated at Auschwitz, and which would similarly find a happy home for the population of the Warsaw ghetto at location y, instead of turned to a festering pile of putrefying corpses at Treblinka in time to be subjected to the biggest Nazi barbecue party of all time in 1943.
Sorry, but the burden of any demonstration falls on you, in the aftermath of the lying that involved the Western Powers in the war, of the loss of their ostensible war objectives that desperately required a propaganda rationalization for the defeat thereof, of the conduct of the shameful Show Trials, and of the worldwide thought-policing and propaganda that support an egalitarianist myth structure and belief system (Hitler/Racism=Devil/Evil) defensive of the regnant Judeo-Communist oligarchy and alliance that, in fact, won the conflict.

Alternatively, you can simply answer some questions which I will put to the brave questors after historical truth from time to time. Starting with...

1. How come we know the names of the alleged 'transit camp' commandants such as Stangl but have absolutely no idea who was in charge of the camps at the other end?
There were no camps at the other end, or evidence of their existence was destroyed.

2. Who was in charge of the supposedly resettled Jews at the other end? SS, Wehrmacht, civil administration?
The SS, who (I would speculate) shot them or turned them loose.

3. Why were the resettled Jews stripped of all their clothing before the alleged onward transit? Did the SS issue stripey pajamas, allow them to keep one change to wear, or send them onwards naked?
Naked.

4. Did any of the allegedly resettled Jews work when they got to the other end?
No.

5. How were the allegedly resettled Jews fed?
They weren't

6. Did the allegedly resettled Jews move into existing camps or newly built ones?
Neither.

And remember, this 'resettlement thesis' is endorsed by none other than Mattogno, Graf, Butz, Faurisson, Boisdefeu, Aynat, Werner, Irving, and many other 'name' revisionists. So don't pretend it isn't what revisionism argues. It is.
And they can answer for it.

So how about it? Have you got the balls to prove your alternative explanation of the fate of European Jews? I'm so intrigued as to what answers you'll come up with, I'm even going to take NeoNietzsche off 'ignore'.
Then you missed the embarrassing exposure of the LK I's as unsuitable for homicidal gassings. The fruits of 'ignore'-ance.

NeoNietzsche

11-05-2006, 08:52 PM

http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/html/eng/aktualnosci/news_big.php?id=563

Polish crime investigators and the Supreme National Tribunal in Poland, which tried the Auschwitz prisoners, also accepted the figure of 4,000,000. Established by the prosecutorial authorities rather than by researchers, this number gained acceptance by the public and became canonical knowledge on the subject of Auschwitz for many years, in Poland and elsewhere.

The absence of the most important of the statistical sources that the Germans kept in Auschwitz made it practically impossible for historians to research the issue of the number of victims. The reluctance to research this issue also resulted from a conviction of the impossibility of drawing up a full list of transports reflecting the total number of deportees, and above all of the people who were consumed by the gas chambers and crematoria with no registration or records. This view finds expression in some veterans’ groups to this day.

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.

There are various opinions about the origins and purpose of the widely-circulated figure of 4,000,000 Auschwitz victims. Some regard this number as a product of wartime horror propaganda. They assume that the people who set and announced this figure were aware that it was inflated. The same would apply to those who later accepted and publicized it.

If we take into account the extent, or rather the lack, of original camp records on the number of both deportees and people who were murdered, along with the highly suggestive nature of eyewitness accounts speaking of “uncounted victims” or “millions of people who were murdered,” then we should accept 4,000,000 as a figure that, according to the best knowledge of the members of both the Soviet and Polish commissions, and subsequently of the prosecution investigators and the authors of various publications, reflected the actual human losses in Auschwitz.

The Germans signed the capitulation on the day the Soviet commission issued its communiqué. There were therefore no reasons to treat the Nazi crimes as an instrument of wartime propaganda or an inducement to fight against the enemy. About one thing there can be no doubts: no one knew or could have known the true number of Auschwitz victims at the time, while the method that the Soviet commission used in arriving at its estimate still finds approval today, both among those who would maintain or even raise that estimate, and among those who would lower it.
Supposedly, Hoess had the numbers essentially correct as of his testimony at the IMT Show Trial ('46). By implication, and as suspected, those numbers, essentially those of the currently-approved ones, were a fabrication - since "no one knew or could have known the true number...at the time":

There is nothing fictional about the numbers and the agreement between one complete set of estimate at 1.1 million and an incomplete set at 1.13 million is a figment of your imagination.

As can be seen below, the incomplete Hoess estimates [left column] of deportation totals does not equal Piper's estimate[right column]

From Upper Silesia and the General
Gouvemement............................. 250,000-------------------300,000

Germany andTheresienstadt .... ....100,000 -------------------103,000

Holland..................................... 95,000 ---------------------60,000

Belgium..................................... 20,000---------------------25,000

France..................................... 110,000 --------------------69,000

Greece...................................... 65,000 --------------------55,000

Hungary................................... 400,000 -------------------438,000

Slovakia.................................... 90,000 --------------------27,000

Yugoslavia---------------------------------------------------10,000

Italy----------------------------------------------------------7,500

Norway--------------------------------------------------------690

Non-Jews----------------------------------------------------200,000

Totals--------------------------1,130,000-------------------1,295,190

Wow, Hoess was given the essentials of the now-approved official story in his "memoir" [in '47, and in the Gilbert fabrication of '61 as to Nuremberg '46, NN] - and his outside number of 1.5 million is now on the Auschwitz plaque! Hoess' "memory," as above, was so accurate (in terms of "estimates") and essentially complete that he could never have truthfully failed to firmly, testimonially, reject, as the fiction that it is, the Eichmann number of 2.5 Million as the specifically Auschwitz total - so Hoess was unquestionably lying, out of extortion, in multiple respects about his confessional, Nuremberg, "estimate" of 2.5 million, as we deduced from the evidence, earlier.

NeoNietzsche

11-05-2006, 09:02 PM

We are thus involved in an imposture in the reckoning of the number of deportees and thus as to the number of "missing".

cerberus

11-05-2006, 10:17 PM

NeoEast of Auschwitz.
Which camps Neo ?
Are we to take it that Treblinka is included in this vague statement of yours ?

The first reply you made - does not really mean anything, to me at any rate.

If there is so much money to be made and the Jews are so good at obtaining it , why are there not more surivors from the Transit camps like Treblinka coming forward ?
Perhaps you might address this point with particular reference to Treblinka ?
if it wsa a simple transit camp , one would assume that lots of people eager to claim compensation would be able to say "Yes I passed through Treblinka" .

Now if many surivors did pass through Treblinka and have not mentioned it who told them not to say so and why ?
Or if they did pass through Treblinka why have they not mentioned it ?

Did they pass through Treblinka without knowing it ?

Just curious Neo - perhaps you might educate me as I seem to invite it ?

eggheadbanga

11-05-2006, 10:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

Despite the woeful failure of the revisionist collective on this board to answer the question of who orchestrated the alleged hoax, it seems only fair to give them one more chance to redeem themselves.

Apparently you are so innocent of the elementary logic of political economy that the anonymity of the plutocratic governors of a hypocracy is, for you, the equivalent of their non-existence. It is rather your remark that invites instruction.

Oh, we can come back to the mechanisms of the alleged hoax in another thread if you want. Brass tacks, mind - explanations for simultaneous-translation telepathy across Europe in 1945, that sort of thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

That is to say, to provide an alternative explanation for the fate of between 5-6 million European Jews if they were not gassed, shot, starved or beaten to death at some point between 1939 and 1945. If as is alleged monotously, there was no Holocaust and the Jews were not killed, something else must have happened to them, since the Jewish population of postwar Europe was evidently somewhat depleted.

By how much and according to whom? Jews and Communists? Show-Trial-processed documents?

This is for you to decide. Burden of proof is on you/revisionism to come up with a coherent narrative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

It is generally accepted even by revisionists that a very large number of Jews were deported from their home countries and home towns to certain camps, which however they argue were not death camps but instead 'transit camps' for onward resettlement somewhere to 'the east'.

How many is "a very large number," and how many are allegedly missing, and who credibly claims to be missing them?

That is for you to decide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

One can find statements to this effect in the works of Arthur Butz, Carlo Mattogno, Juergen Graf, Jean-Marie Boisdefeu, Enrique Aynat, Mark Weber, Andrew Allen, Steffen Werner and many other revisionists here: http://vho.org/

However, the above-named revisionists seem to want to spend more time attacking the existing evidence and very little on providing back-up evidence for their alternative hypothesis. Now, revisionists, here's your chance to rectify this gaping hole in denier logic!

It is not a logical hole, it's an evidentiary one. And these Revisionists can answer for their own theses.

They might, eventually, if ever a 'name' denier actually answered any criticisms.

I take the absence of the supposed murder weapon, aside from the general context of lies, extortion, forgery, and propaganda - characteristic of the whole perverse Allied enterprise in the war - to raise serious questions as to how many deportees there were, in fact, and whether such individuals as are to be held "missing" were not simply dumped in occupied territory and suffered various unaccountable fates. For it is a highly-interested coalition of parties that had and have an interest in the sustenance of a variety of falsehoods, myths, and belief systems regarding the period - and who have had and have the power to create, suborn, extort, and destroy "evidence". There should be no surprise at the lack of material supportive of a thesis contrary to the interest of those who control the aftermath of the event.

So someone - the Soviets presumably - swallowed up several million people and 'disappeared' them without trace. Is that your argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

The problem

As is well known, there were the following alleged extermination camps with gassing facilities:

.....

which collectively took in more than 2.5 but less than 3 million Jews. The remainder died in ghettos, labour camps and by mass shootings.

Is this attested to by documents that were not once in the possession of, nor were perhaps the creation of, Jews and/or Communists (i.e., notorious liars)? Perhaps some copies of German documents of the period, discovered by Neo-Nazis in Argentina, never having fallen into the hands of said liars?

Were there Jews in Europe as of 1939, Neo? Yes or no? Please, let's start with that one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

Since revisionism usually concedes some deaths from starvation and some deaths from executions, we shall leave these subjects to one side, and simply focus on the deportees to the camps.

So, the question is, where did they go, revisionists?

East of Auschwitz.

That is what is alleged by revisionism, yes. Where exactly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

Ideally, someone will give me chapter and verse which would place the Salonikan ghetto population at location x, instead of sailing down the Vistula as ashes after being gassed and cremated at Auschwitz, and which would similarly find a happy home for the population of the Warsaw ghetto at location y, instead of turned to a festering pile of putrefying corpses at Treblinka in time to be subjected to the biggest Nazi barbecue party of all time in 1943.

Sorry, but the burden of any demonstration falls on you, in the aftermath of the lying that involved the Western Powers in the war, of the loss of their ostensible war objectives that desperately required a propaganda rationalization for the defeat thereof, of the conduct of the shameful Show Trials, and of the worldwide thought-policing and propaganda that support an egalitarianist myth structure and belief system (Hitler/Racism=Devil/Evil) defensive of the regnant Judeo-Communist oligarchy and alliance that, in fact, won the conflict.

Poetic but meaningless as always, Neo. Burden of proof is very firmly on you to come up with a coherent, factual and dare I say it sourced explanation. Rhetoric does not count.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

Alternatively, you can simply answer some questions which I will put to the brave questors after historical truth from time to time. Starting with...

1. How come we know the names of the alleged 'transit camp' commandants such as Stangl but have absolutely no idea who was in charge of the camps at the other end?

There were no camps at the other end, or evidence of their existence was destroyed.

Which? Did such 'resettlement camps' beyond Treblinka et al exist or not?

Quote:
2. Who was in charge of the supposedly resettled Jews at the other end? SS, Wehrmacht, civil administration?

The SS, who (I would speculate) shot them or turned them loose.

Shot them or turned them loose? Interesting. So theoretically, you would deny the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz based on your harebrained nitpicking, but concede mass slaughter by SS machine-guns. Or that the Germans would let loose several million supposedly dangerous Jews (according to open-source published pronouncements in the Voelkische Beobachter of the era, i.e. unless you are completely insane, absolutely incontrovertible statements of enmity towards European Jews emanating from Berlin between 1939-45) behind the front.

Quote:
3. Why were the resettled Jews stripped of all their clothing before the alleged onward transit? Did the SS issue stripey pajamas, allow them to keep one change to wear, or send them onwards naked?

Naked.

:rofl:

Quote:
4. Did any of the allegedly resettled Jews work when they got to the other end?

No.

Why not?

Quote:
5. How were the allegedly resettled Jews fed?

They weren't

why not?

Quote:
6. Did the allegedly resettled Jews move into existing camps or newly built ones?

Neither.

Which?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

And remember, this 'resettlement thesis' is endorsed by none other than Mattogno, Graf, Butz, Faurisson, Boisdefeu, Aynat, Werner, Irving, and many other 'name' revisionists. So don't pretend it isn't what revisionism argues. It is.

And they can answer for it.

Very interesting. So Neo considers that revisionism is a purely rhetorical gesture of negationism which cannot be considered a science, but is instead pure ideology, since he is unwilling to offer any detail whatsoever to confirm or deny the 'resettlement thesis' offered by all name revisionists as their pathetic little fig-leaf of an explanation for what happened to the Jews that were not killed in the camps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

So how about it? Have you got the balls to prove your alternative explanation of the fate of European Jews? I'm so intrigued as to what answers you'll come up with, I'm even going to take NeoNietzsche off 'ignore'.

Then you missed the embarrassing exposure of the LK I's as unsuitable for homicidal gassings. The fruits of 'ignore'-ance.

No, Neo, I checked in every so often using 'view post'. It was rather embarrassing reading the results.

I am not interested in your metaphysical musings, Neo. You have precisely one more post to come up with the glimmers of an answer to my question or you're back on 'Ignore'.

In this thread, the burden of proof is very firmly on you and/or any other revisionist to come up with something coherent. If there was no 'Holocaust' and were no gas chambers, what instead happened?

eggheadbanga

11-05-2006, 11:13 PM

Globus

11-06-2006, 12:14 AM

Two words: Slave Labour.

Then you should have no trouble providing evidence that the Soviets took in millions of Jews for slave labor.

Or do you admit that you are merely engaging in denial of proven history by substituting wild assertions that are not supported by any historical evidence?

NeoNietzsche

11-06-2006, 12:26 AM

Which camps Neo?
No camps, as I indicated.

Are we to take it that Treblinka is included in this vague statement of yours?
No.

If there is so much money to be made and the Jews are so good at obtaining it, why are there not more surivors from the Transit camps like Treblinka coming forward?
This would be to expose the Hoax as such and diminish the prospects for extortion.

Perhaps you might address this point with particular reference to Treblinka ?
if it wsa a simple transit camp , one would assume that lots of people eager to claim compensation would be able to say "Yes I passed through Treblinka".
To the contrary, as immediately above.

NeoNietzsche

11-06-2006, 01:36 AM

This is for you to decide. Burden of proof is on you/revisionism to come up with a coherent narrative.
It is for you credibly to show that someone is missing, particularly as to the sense in which this is the case, according to your claim - hence my questions for you to answer. I note that you repeatedly refuse to answer as to the specifics of your claim, thus you present no challenge, after all. I recall that Cerberus likewise avoided the issue as approached from the standpoint of the missing-ness issue to which you both seem to have been reduced. I accepted the challenge and asked to have the issue refined in those terms, as I have just done here. He chose to respond merely and somewhat hysterically by anxiously retracing the familiar attempts to prove that they were all murdered. You respond nonsensically, by asking me to refine your thesis.

Beyond that consideration, I do not claim "resettlement," as I have explained. And a coherent narrative would be nice, but it's not necessary for avoidance of a charge of murder where the supposed means has proven not to have been up to spec. Or perhaps you would like to reproduce that diagram of the major murder weapon that your confederate can't seem to produce.

So someone - the Soviets presumably - swallowed up several million people and 'disappeared' them without trace. Is that your argument?
It would seem to be your argument, as yet lacking untainted support, that "several million" are to be accounted for. I have speculated that the missing-ness of an unspecified number of individuals is due to their having been dumped in occupied eastern territory and left to their own devices, shot, joined the partisans, reached Soviet lines, drifted back with the German retreat, etc.

That is what is alleged by revisionism, yes. Where exactly?
Where is East of Auschwitz? The occupied USSR. Where exactly are the 2.5 million of the 4 million?

Poetic but meaningless as always, Neo. Burden of proof is very firmly on you to come up with a coherent, factual and dare I say it sourced explanation. Rhetoric does not count.
I see that you are a "denier" of your own stripe with regard to the context of rank mendacity that I related for the sake of perspective. You're just a more sophisticated propagandist than these amateurs.

Which? Did such 'resettlement camps' beyond Treblinka et al exist or not?
I believe not.

Shot them or turned them loose? Interesting. So theoretically, you would deny the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz based on your harebrained nitpicking, but concede mass slaughter by SS machine-guns. Or that the Germans would let loose several million supposedly dangerous Jews (according to open-source published pronouncements in the Voelkische Beobachter of the era, i.e. unless you are completely insane, absolutely incontrovertible statements of enmity towards European Jews emanating from Berlin between 1939-45) behind the front.
I note the unsuitability for the alleged purpose of the facilities in question and I do not dispute the shooting of Jews in the East. As I have noted, periodic expulsion and massacre of Jews are to be expected. I believe a significant number of them, massed on the Eastern Mediterranean littoral, are presently involved, themselves - and are seriously involving Greater Judea - in resisting such a fate.

Very interesting. So Neo considers that revisionism is a purely rhetorical gesture of negationism which cannot be considered a science, but is instead pure ideology, since he is unwilling to offer any detail whatsoever to confirm or deny the 'resettlement thesis' offered by all name revisionists as their pathetic little fig-leaf of an explanation for what happened to the Jews that were not killed in the camps.
It is a history that addresses, foremost, the question of homicide. The question of missing persons is trivial, incomplete or otherwise. If you care what happened to persons who did not perish in fictional facilities, be on about your business.

No, Neo, I checked in every so often using 'view post'. It was rather embarrassing reading the results.
For whom? I will be very interested to have your response on the point. I will consider it a test of your pretensions to competence and honesty, in the face of an inescapable conclusion.

I am not interested in your metaphysical musings, Neo. You have precisely one more post to come up with the glimmers of an answer to my question or you're back on 'Ignore'.
No - not that - not the IGNORE button!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In this thread, the burden of proof is very firmly on you and/or any other revisionist to come up with something coherent. If there was no 'Holocaust' and were no gas chambers, what instead happened?
Expulsion and massacre, as usual.

NeoNietzsche

11-06-2006, 01:47 AM

Okay, here's another question.

If we are to believe many revisionist arguments, the missing Jews disappeared into the Soviet Union somewhere after being 'transported on' from the non-death camps.

Which begs a question:

why would the Soviets allow 200,000+ Polish Jews, mostly coming from eastern Poland (i.e. annexed in 1939) to be repatriated to Poland in 1945-46, but keep several million other Polish and other European Jews hidden away?
Again, the question arises as to what documents, untainted by handling by Jews and Communists, give us "millions" to account for. And such Jews as we might imagine to have made it to Soviet lines, not having retreated with the Germans, would be regarded as sympathizers rather than captives.

Trojan

11-06-2006, 01:59 AM

Again, the question arises as to what documents, untainted by handling by Jews and Communists, give us "millions" to account for. And such Jews as we might imagine to have made it to Soviet lines, not having retreated with the Germans, would be regarded as sympathizers rather than captives.

Its clear from your answers that nothing exists that is not "tainted" - such is your belief.

By your reasoning, the millions of Jews never existed in the first place.

eggheadbanga

11-06-2006, 10:07 AM

It is for you credibly to show that someone is missing, particularly as to the sense in which this is the case, according to your claim - hence my questions for you to answer.

Not my burden of proof. I am asking enlightenment from believers (I think the word is appropriate here) in the alternate thesis regarding the fate of Europe's Jews, i.e. that the greater mass of 5-6 million were not killed.

I note that you repeatedly refuse to answer as to the specifics of your claim, thus you present no challenge, after all.

Because it is not my burden of proof. I am seeking enlightenment as to the revisionist position.

I recall that Cerberus likewise avoided the issue as approached from the standpoint of the missing-ness issue to which you both seem to have been reduced. I accepted the challenge and asked to have the issue refined in those terms, as I have just done here. He chose to respond merely and somewhat hysterically by anxiously retracing the familiar attempts to prove that they were all murdered. You respond nonsensically, by asking me to refine your thesis.

No, I am asking you to refine the revisionist thesis.

Beyond that consideration, I do not claim "resettlement," as I have explained. And a coherent narrative would be nice, but it's not necessary for avoidance of a charge of murder where the supposed means has proven not to have been up to spec.

This is not a court of law, but a matter of history. You are not Hitler's defense lawyer, but discussing the events of 1939-45 some 61-67 years later.

Or perhaps you would like to reproduce that diagram of the major murder weapon that your confederate can't seem to produce.

We're not discussing claims of extermination. We're discussing claims of non-extermination.

Now, to make it easier for you, here are some examples of revisionist arguments along the lines that I described.

Here's Juergen Graf admitting that this issue is a 'problem' for revisionism:

We revisionists should not be content merely to refute the official "Holocaust" story; we should also attempt to explain, as clearly as possible, what actually did occur. Naturally, this involves the question of the whereabouts of the missing Jews.

Jürgen Graf, Insights on the 1944 Deportations of Hungarian Jews: What Happened to the Jews Who Were Deported to Auschwitz but Were Not Registered There?, JHR, VffG
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/19/v19n4p-4_Graf.html

Here's Mattogno making a specific claim as to the numbers deported to Auschwitz who went missing. In other words, he accepts that this many arrived at the camp, he disputes that they were gassed there, therefore they must have gone onwards somewhere else.

The sole piece of evidence he cites is a protocol of a meeting between SS general Pohl and a minister who was not in the loop as to the ultimate fate of Europe's Jews in 1942, and therefore is worthless as disproof of extermination.

As far as the fate of the 611,000 missing Jews is concerned, there are various documents indicating that they were deported further to the east. Reichsminister Albert Speer talked about this in this connection with specific reference to Auschwitz in an important document of the "Ostwanderung" (eastward migration).[43]

Carlo Mattogno, The Four Million Figure of Auschwitz. Origin, Revisions and Consequences.II. Franciszek Piper and The Number of Victims of Auschwitz, TR, VffG
http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/4/Mattogno393-399.html

Here's Granddaddy Butz, also accepting that the documentary evidence for deportation is so overwhelming that he'd better acknowledge some degree of resettlement. He even names some probable destinations.

On account of certain political problems and the priority of war requirements, the resettlement program was only partially carried out and, of course, nowhere near six million Jews were involved. Excluding Polish and Romanian Jews, perhaps 750,000 Jews were resettled, primarily in the Ukraine, White Russia, and Latvia. Not all Polish Jews fell under German domination. Apart from those who managed to flee before or after the German occupation, several hundred thousand or perhaps a million Jews had been deported from Poland by the Russians in 1940 and had been dispersed in the Soviet Union. For the most part, the Polish Jews who came into German hands were crowded into ghettoes in eastern Poland (1939 boundaries).

Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/5.html

Mattogno and Graf are so exercised by the question that they devoted about 150pp of their book on Treblinka to the question of 'resettlement'

Carlo Mattogno and Jürgen Graf, Treblinka (Book)
Chapter VIII: Indirect Transports of Jews to the Eastern Territories
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/t/9.html
Chapter IX: Transit Camp Treblinka
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/t/10.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

So someone - the Soviets presumably - swallowed up several million people and 'disappeared' them without trace. Is that your argument?

It would seem to be your argument, as yet lacking untainted support, that "several million" are to be accounted for. I have speculated that the missing-ness of an unspecified number of individuals is due to their having been dumped in occupied eastern territory and left to their own devices, shot, joined the partisans, reached Soviet lines, drifted back with the German retreat, etc.

Speculation is not enough, Neo. I want proof. Indeed, to cite Faurisson, just one proof - one single proof - would do me.

Show me or draw me a Nazi resettlement camp 'in the East'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

That is what is alleged by revisionism, yes. Where exactly?

Where is East of Auschwitz? The occupied USSR.

That seems to be the revisionist consensus. But where exactly? Marina Gorka? That was seriously argued by Steffen Werner, albeit using absolutely zero evidence (witness, archaeological or documentary).

Steffen Werner, The Second Babylonian Captivity. The Fate of the Jews in eastern Europe since 1941 (Book)
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/tsbc/index.html#TOC

Did Werner get it right?

Or maybe Galicia. That was argued by Jean-Marie Boisdefeu:

Jean-Marie Boisdefeu
LES GRANDES DEPORTATIONS DE 1942 C - PREUVES DE LA REIMPLANTATION A L'EST
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/bsdf/bdf2/preuves.html

He even cites what at first glance looks like some evidence. But is it enough? You can find an English summary of Boisdefeu's arguments in Mattogno and Graf.

Or perhaps Lublin? That was emphasised by Enrique Aynat, whose ideas were then picked up by Mattogno and Graf again.

Where exactly are the 2.5 million of the 4 million?

You tell me, Neo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

Poetic but meaningless as always, Neo. Burden of proof is very firmly on you to come up with a coherent, factual and dare I say it sourced explanation. Rhetoric does not count.

I see that you are a "denier" of your own stripe with regard to the context of rank mendacity that I related for the sake of perspective. You're just a more sophisticated propagandist than these amateurs.

That's rhetoric, Neo. Care to answer the questions posed more coherently now you have some crib-sheets from VHO?

Quote
Originally Posted by cerberus

Which? Did such 'resettlement camps' beyond Treblinka et al exist or not?

I believe not.

Then Butz, Mattogno, Graf, Faurisson et al will be very upset to learn that you're clearly not a very dutiful student of so-called scientific 'historical revisionism'. Now we can all agree that none of these gentlemen are perfect in their answers :rofl: but it doesn't speak volumes for a school of thought if its adherents are allowed to opt for the make-it-up-as-they-go-along approach, does it?

Neo, both sides of the argument (in print) accept that deportations took place. Not my burden of proof to outline the evidence which is accepted by both sides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

Shot them or turned them loose? Interesting. So theoretically, you would deny the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz based on your harebrained nitpicking, but concede mass slaughter by SS machine-guns. Or that the Germans would let loose several million supposedly dangerous Jews (according to open-source published pronouncements in the Voelkische Beobachter of the era, i.e. unless you are completely insane, absolutely incontrovertible statements of enmity towards European Jews emanating from Berlin between 1939-45) behind the front.

I note the unsuitability for the alleged purpose of the facilities in question and I do not dispute the shooting of Jews in the East. As I have noted, periodic expulsion and massacre of Jews are to be expected.

How many shot Jews do you not dispute?

I believe a significant number of them, massed on the Eastern Mediterranean littoral, are presently involved, themselves - and are seriously involving Greater Judea - in resisting such a fate.

How many Jews are in Israel, Neo?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

Very interesting. So Neo considers that revisionism is a purely rhetorical gesture of negationism which cannot be considered a science, but is instead pure ideology, since he is unwilling to offer any detail whatsoever to confirm or deny the 'resettlement thesis' offered by all name revisionists as their pathetic little fig-leaf of an explanation for what happened to the Jews that were not killed in the camps.

It is a history that addresses, foremost, the question of homicide. The question of missing persons is trivial, incomplete or otherwise. If you care what happened to persons who did not perish in fictional facilities, be on about your business.

Pretty-sounding, but rather meaningless. So I take it that it's not important for people to study

- the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II
- dekulakisation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak

just to name two rather violent processes involving deportations, camps and no gas chambers that resulted, by general consensus, in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

These are the sort of events that the Holocaust is already compared to by today's scholars. They see it as just another forced deportation/forced migration, only with gas chambers at the end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

No, Neo, I checked in every so often using 'view post'. It was rather embarrassing reading the results.

For whom?

For you. See Petr's response to the continued persistence of the debate: 'oh God, is this still going on?'

I will be very interested to have your response on the point. I will consider it a test of your pretensions to competence and honesty, in the face of an inescapable conclusion.

Sorry, my test has been set first. I too consider the test to be an important gauge of your honesty and competence, as it would be for any revisionist.

I asked much the same questions of IlluSionS667 before he left us, and he failed.

I have asked much the same questions of Basil Fawlty, and he's dodged them,

I have asked much the same questions of all the revisionists at RODOH and received shambling jelly-monster answers.

No one has yet given me a coherent answer. That doesn't speak volumes about the competence and honesty of online revisionism to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

I am not interested in your metaphysical musings, Neo. You have precisely one more post to come up with the glimmers of an answer to my question or you're back on 'Ignore'.

No - not that - not the IGNORE button!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now you have a crib-sheet, you're spared. So, will you tell me what aspects of Butz et al you think stand up, and which do not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

In this thread, the burden of proof is very firmly on you and/or any other revisionist to come up with something coherent. If there was no 'Holocaust' and were no gas chambers, what instead happened?

Expulsion and massacre, as usual.

How many? This is not an unreasonable request.

NeoNietzsche

11-06-2006, 01:46 PM

Not my burden of proof. I am asking enlightenment from believers (I think the word is appropriate here) in the alternate thesis regarding the fate of Europe's Jews, i.e. that the greater mass of 5-6 million were not killed.
As I have stated, I am not defending someone else's thesis in that regard. If you want mine in greater specificity, my preliminary questions as to the missing-ness approach will have to be answered. The Hoax is exposed by examining it for its contradictions and absurdities, as your confederate has discovered on multiple occasions.

Speculation is not enough, Neo. I want proof. Indeed, to cite Faurisson, just one proof - one single proof - would do me.

Show me or draw me a Nazi resettlement camp 'in the East'.
You mean devise something for you that did not exist - like a homicidal gas chamber such as you cannot show or draw in terms of its vital ventilation system?

That's rhetoric, Neo. Care to answer the questions posed more coherently now you have some crib-sheets from VHO?
I'm curious as to this reference. Please reproduce a VHO "crib-sheet" for us - I've never seen one. What makes you think I have such an item?

Then Butz, Mattogno, Graf, Faurisson et al will be very upset to learn that you're clearly not a very dutiful student of so-called scientific 'historical revisionism'. Now we can all agree that none of these gentlemen are perfect in their answers :rofl: but it doesn't speak volumes for a school of thought if its adherents are allowed to opt for the make-it-up-as-they-go-along approach, does it?

Speaking of which:

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.

How many shot Jews do you not dispute?
Any number you want.

How many Jews are in Israel, Neo?
Does it matter?

Pretty-sounding, but rather meaningless. So I take it that it's not important for people to study.
No, you don't. It is not important for me - do as you wish.

just to name two rather violent processes involving deportations, camps and no gas chambers that resulted, by general consensus, in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

These are the sort of events that the Holocaust is already compared to by today's scholars. They see it as just another forced deportation/forced migration, only with gas chambers at the end.
The sort of thing upon which I do not morbidly dwell, a' la organized Jewry.

For you. See Petr's response to the continued persistence of the debate: 'oh God, is this still going on?'
Just to make sure: your faculties are so obstructed that you cannot see what was evident even to Pressac regarding the unsuitability and need for imaginative "repair" of LK I?

Sorry, my test has been set first. I too consider the test to be an important gauge of your honesty and competence, as it would be for any revisionist.
If you cannot acknowledge the point regarding the construction of LK I, your judgment of my qualities has the weight of one of Metacosmologist's brain depletion episodes.

No one has yet given me a coherent answer. That doesn't speak volumes about the competence and honesty of online revisionism to me.
What of my answer is incoherent? I would put its incompleteness down to your failure to answer my questions.

Now you have a crib-sheet, you're spared. So, will you tell me what aspects of Butz et al you think stand up, and which do not?
I have been spared the IGNORE button because of a "crib sheet" supposedly in my possession? Explain.

Re the Revisionists, I don't much rely on them - I mostly make use of Hoaxer material for its exposure. Allen was wonderfully useful in stupidly providing the LK I diagram - Holocaust-history.com betrayed the Bischoff forgery by being cagey about the authorship of same-day documents - Pressac ludicrously confirmed the unsuitability of the LK I's - and Piper has been embarrassingly forthcoming about the incompetence of Auschwitz propaganda.

How many? This is not an unreasonable request.
Nor were my preliminary questions.

NeoNietzsche

11-06-2006, 01:58 PM

Where exactly are the 2.5 million of the 4 million?

You tell me, Neo.
They are presently consigned to a miscalculation based upon a combination of incomplete information, unconscionable acceptance and production of misinformation, and vicious ideological prejudice. Do you recall the name of the Revisionist responsible for this gross and enduring misrepresentation of the case?

Globus

11-06-2006, 02:07 PM

They were using their own people for slave labour, they took millions of Germans as slave labour, why not a few Jews also?

Well, I'm afraid that is not evidence to support your point. Nor does it answer the question of what happened to them.

Globus

11-06-2006, 02:11 PM

eggheadbanga

11-06-2006, 02:50 PM

As I have stated, I am not defending someone else's thesis in that regard. If you want mine in greater specificity, my preliminary questions as to the missing-ness approach will have to be answered. The Hoax is exposed by examining it for its contradictions and absurdities, as your confederate has discovered on multiple occasions.

Wrong, Neo. You are engaged in typically fallacious negationist reasoning. All we ever hear from deniers is nitpick, nitpick, nitpick. Almost never do we get a coherent alternative narrative which would offer:

a) an explanation for the fate of Europe's Jews and
b) an explanation for why this alleged hoax was so successfully perpetrated on the world

If you wanted to convince anyone outside of the true-believer circles, then these two explanations must be forthcoming, and they must stand up to critical scrutiny.

You mean devise something for you that did not exist - like a homicidal gas chamber such as you cannot show or draw in terms of its vital ventilation system?

Keep digging, Neo. I'm very happy that you're so strongly in agreement with me that the resettlement thesis is nonsense.

I'm curious as to this reference. Please reproduce a VHO "crib-sheet" for us - I've never seen one. What makes you think I have such an item?

I posted multiple links to the site and to writings found within it. Obviously you're not interested in discussing revisionism's ideas. Shame. Why is it that it's OK to carp on orthodox historiography but revisionism must seemingly never be exposed to scrutiny? This is pure hypocrisy.

Any number you want.

Pick one, and justify it. Otherwise there is no possibility of rational debate. It's all very well conceding on the basis of probability due to your ideological prejudices that some shootings must have occurred. You guys do that all the time. It's just that you never come out and admit to what evidence there is to back up this concession.

Eyewitnesses eg Russian bystanders?
Einsatzgruppen reports/Ereignismeldungen?
Wehrmacht reports?
Soviet forensics on mass graves?

And even if you do concede some but declare the rest 'exaggerated' or 'massaged', what then? What is your pain threshold? 300,000? 500,000? 1 million? 1.3 million? 2 million? Why is some evidence to be accepted/tolerated but not other evidence?

Does it matter?

If one wishes to be seen to be engaging in rational debate, yes.

No, you don't. It is not important for me - do as you wish.

The sort of thing upon which I do not morbidly dwell, a' la organized Jewry.

Tell that to German nationalists who morbidly dwell on the fate of the Vertriebene or to anti-communists who harp on Stalin's crimes. You'll have to do a better job if you want to avoid the charge of double standards.

What of my answer is incoherent? I would put its incompleteness down to your failure to answer my questions.

You haven't even given me an answer, Neo. You snipped my listing of past efforts by those who believe in revisionist theology.

I can relate that Illie used to rely on 'could haves' and simply offer alternative possibilities, without providing concrete backup for these possibilities. This technique is by the way fairly typical of revisionist argumentation; apparently if a gas chamber could have been an air-raid shelter or whatever is claimed this week, this is sufficient to disprove what it was. Doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.

Basil has assured me on several occasions that there must be missing train records showing onward transit from Auschwitz, Treblinka et al.

I'm genuinely curious as to what our newest exponent of revisionism, Calvin, has to say on the subject.

I have been spared the IGNORE button because of a "crib sheet" supposedly in my possession? Explain.

Because I wanted to see if you would go scurrying off to see what the gurus had to say on this matter of revisionist theology. I'm not sure whether it's to your credit or not that you decided to ignore the Scriptures according to Butz et al. As I've said above, if you agree with me that the 'resettlement thesis' espoused by their ilk is nonsense, then you're doing me a big favour.

Re the Revisionists, I don't much rely on them - I mostly make use of Hoaxer material for its exposure.

<efforts to change the subject back to Auschwitz snipped>

So you'll join with me in critiquing revisionist writings, then, Neo? All those dozens of books and articles - they're all worthless?

Nor were my preliminary questions.

The very fact that you absolutely insist on turning the discussion back to gas chambers and won't even countenance discussing any other aspect of this alleged Hoax of yours is rather telling.

But thanks for agreeing with me that this seriously espoused revisionist argument about resettlement is bullshit. :D

NeoNietzsche

11-06-2006, 02:52 PM

Actually what we've discovered is that you are unable to answer any questions, or more likely afraid to since it would reveal that nothing supports your notion that the Jews aren't missing, or exist somewhere, or are keeping quiet about some conspiracy involving millions of people.

Claiming contradictions where there are none, or absurdities based on self-serving needs has no effect whatsover on evidence.

But this thread highlights quite well the furious tap dancing deniers engage in when trying to deal with real questions of history.
I'm thinking of devising a "Certificate of Merit for Services Rendered to the Cause of Revisionism". How would you like your title styled?

Globus

11-06-2006, 03:09 PM

I'm thinking of devising a "Certificate of Merit for Services Rendered to the Cause of Revisionism". How would you like your title styled?

I don't know, but a book would be better. You could title it:"My delusions and how they slayed the Holocaust".

NeoNietzsche

11-06-2006, 03:58 PM

Wrong, Neo. You are engaged in typically fallacious negationist reasoning. All we ever hear from deniers is nitpick, nitpick, nitpick. Almost never do we get a coherent alternative narrative which would offer:

a) an explanation for the fate of Europe's Jews and
b) an explanation for why this alleged hoax was so successfully perpetrated on the world

If you wanted to convince anyone outside of the true-believer circles, then these two explanations must be forthcoming, and they must stand up to critical scrutiny.
"b)" is easy, and I have already summarized it for you to dismiss as "rhetoric".

I mean, the Auschwitz 4 million propaganda was spread round the world by Judeo-Communist facilities, despite the supposed academic better-knowing of your element from decades ago.

And thanks for the advice about "convincing anyone" - but my goal is to know and speak the truth. You are evidently concerned with making propaganda.

Keep digging, Neo. I'm very happy that you're so strongly in agreement with me that the resettlement thesis is nonsense.
I, however, am mildly disappointed that you have proved a mere propagandist.

I posted multiple links to the site and to writings found within it. Obviously you're not interested in discussing revisionism's ideas. Shame. Why is it that it's OK to carp on orthodox historiography but revisionism must seemingly never be exposed to scrutiny? This is pure hypocrisy.
Excuse me, but do you mistake the present discussion in which I am involved with you for something other than such an exposure? I asked you to explain the "crib sheet" to which you refer and which you mistakenly allege that I have. Get a grip, professor.

Pick one, and justify it. Otherwise there is no possibility of rational debate. It's all very well conceding on the basis of probability due to your ideological prejudices that some shootings must have occurred. You guys do that all the time. It's just that you never come out and admit to what evidence there is to back up this concession.
Because none of it is to be trusted, given its chain of possession. Thus larger and less specific considerations come into play in assessing the likely course of events.

And even if you do concede some but declare the rest 'exaggerated' or 'massaged', what then? What is your pain threshold? 300,000? 500,000? 1 million? 1.3 million? 2 million? Why is some evidence to be accepted/tolerated but not other evidence?
This "pains" me not at all. Please be specific about "some evidence".

If one wishes to be seen to be engaging in rational debate, yes.
It is not evident why the number of the current population of Lesser Judea is relevant. I assume that some millions live there. Look it up yourself. My point, clearly stated, was that Jews are always in jeopardy, forever being expelled and massacred. One episode involved the Third Reich. Now we have Iraq and Iran having wanted to do them in.

Tell that to German nationalists who morbidly dwell on the fate of the Vertriebene or to anti-communists who harp on Stalin's crimes. You'll have to do a better job if you want to avoid the charge of double standards.
I don't think so. I had a discussion with you about the number of Stalin's victims among his own people, whereupon I was satisfied with your account as to specifics. If you hold me thus as "harping on Stalin's crimes" where otherwise I have mentioned them not at all, you display an undignified prejudice. I will not be held responsible for the remarks of others.

You haven't even given me an answer, Neo. You snipped my listing of past efforts by those who believe in revisionist theology.
Having not given you an answer, I have not been incoherent.

I can relate that Illie used to rely on 'could haves' and simply offer alternative possibilities, without providing concrete backup for these possibilities. This technique is by the way fairly typical of revisionist argumentation; apparently if a gas chamber could have been an air-raid shelter or whatever is claimed this week, this is sufficient to disprove what it was. Doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.
And I'm asking you to rectify the situation by providing an account of the vital ventilation system of LK I as supposedly modified for homicidal purposes. Feel free to speculate as a preliminary response.

Basil has assured me on several occasions that there must be missing train records showing onward transit from Auschwitz, Treblinka et al.
How interesting.

I'm genuinely curious as to what our newest exponent of revisionism, Calvin, has to say on the subject.
Curiosity is the mark of a scholar.

Because I wanted to see if you would go scurrying off to see what the gurus had to say on this matter of revisionist theology. I'm not sure whether it's to your credit or not that you decided to ignore the Scriptures according to Butz et al. As I've said above, if you agree with me that the 'resettlement thesis' espoused by their ilk is nonsense, then you're doing me a big favour.
As has your confederate done the Revisonist cause a service in exposing the Hoaxer material. I can hardly take credit for the flaws therein that are an inevitable part of the attempt to sustain a fiction combining multi-sourced myth-making. Don't much need any other assistance - no need to scurry in pursuit of the truth.

So you'll join with me in critiquing revisionist writings, then, Neo? All those dozens of books and articles - they're all worthless?
Since I seem to have dismissed a major Revisionist contention right here, I consider myself already so involved. What, specifically, would you like to have accounted worthless?

The very fact that you absolutely insist on turning the discussion back to gas chambers and won't even countenance discussing any other aspect of this alleged Hoax of yours is rather telling.
But the alleged gas chambers are the Hoax. You can't seem to grasp that I'm allowing you to shoot as many Jews as you want. You can call the "resettlement camps" a Revisionist hoax, if it pleases you.

But thanks for agreeing with me that this seriously espoused revisionist argument about resettlement is bullshit. :D
One of us is always subject to reason.

cerberus

11-06-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted (Asked) by cerberus

If there is so much money to be made and the Jews are so good at obtaining it, why are there not more surivors from the Transit camps like Treblinka coming forward?

(Answered by Neo) -"This would be to expose the Hoax as such and diminish the prospects for extortion".

This is the bit I can't understand Neo - are you saying that all knowledge of Treblinka has been knowinglt supressed and that there are people alive today who are knowingly withholding information about it ?

People who were in "transit" through Treblinka - is it they who are witholding or have they been told to "forget" it and told what to remember and what not to remember ?

This answer of yours seem to lead back to Sulla's question "Who are the Lords and Masters of the Holocaust" ?

Tell me how this protection and preservation of the Holocaust works and who contols it ?
Who exactly - name names and organisations.

If you can't name and explain or at least explain how this control and filtration of history and people's lives and experiences can so completlely be achieved your teroy falls at the first hurdle.

Who dreamnt up the Treblinka / externmination gambit ?
How was it implemented ?
How was it controlled ?
Why was treblinka singled out as a mass extermination centre that never was ?
Do you (Neo) believe that it will shortly be exposed as the fraud that it is ?
( "Is" , that "is" according to you ).

This just does not compute Neo , unless you can clarify and provide detailed information and evidence of your theory , evidence which has been accepted I must consider you to be pulling my leg.

Can you name say ten epole who have been through Treblinka who made the "mistake" of saying it was a transit camp ?
name the camps you say the peole wne to and provide some evidence of peoples existance there - existance which reflects the mass moeveemet of people both in and out of Treblinka ?

calvin

11-06-2006, 04:37 PM

Revisionism is a refutation of the claim that Hitler caused millions of Jews to be gassed during WWII. Nothing in MVH’s original post contributes to this debate.

Would demographic proof of the disappearance of millions of Jews lend credibility to holocauster claims about fast drying gas chamber paint, the magical “German method”, geysers of Jewish blood and fat collected from blazing pyres?

Where are the missing millions? That’s what both parties want to know. Around 600,000 of them are supposed to have been buried, unburied and then burnt at Treblinka, the only GPR study undertaken on this site shows no soil disturbance, Where’s the counter study?

After their shenanigans with the Auschwitz plaque, you would think that demography would be the last place holcausters would seek refuge.

eggheadbanga

11-06-2006, 04:56 PM

"b)" is easy, and I have already summarized it for you to dismiss as "rhetoric".

Have you? I must have missed the posts where you explained how the Polish underground, government-in-exile, the Czechoslovak government-in-exile, the Dutch Red Cross and all manner of other bodies, as well as 1000s of individuals of all manner of ethnicities and political beliefs, all conspired between 1941 and 1948 to produce the alleged 'hoax'.

I mean, the Auschwitz 4 million propaganda was spread round the world by Judeo-Communist facilities, despite the supposed academic better-knowing of your element from decades ago.

Funny, on the demand for Hoess's extradition, the Polish government said 2 million in 1946. The historical expert witness at Hoess's trial in 1947 tried to perform the first calculation, and came up with 1.3-1.5 million.

How do you think the New York Times and the Times of London reported Hoess's testimony, by the way?

And thanks for the advice about "convincing anyone" - but my goal is to know and speak the truth. You are evidently concerned with making propaganda.

Truth is not a preserve of individuals but shared on a social basis. The means for determining the truth are those of logic, rules of evidence and the appropriate social or natural scientific methodologies to discuss the question at hand. Try obeying them.

I, however, am mildly disappointed that you have proved a mere propagandist.

It is not 'propaganda' to demand of a proposed major alteration in our historical understanding that it conforms to the normal rules of evidence and logic.

Excuse me, but do you mistake the present discussion in which I am involved with you for something other than such an exposure? I asked you to explain the "crib sheet" to which you refer and which you mistakenly allege that I have. Get a grip, professor.

I'm not sure I can discern a coherent response to the preceding post in any of these sentences.

Because none of it is to be trusted, given its chain of possession. Thus larger and less specific considerations come into play in assessing the likely course of events.

On the contrary, unless one can demonstrate a likely scenario in which coordination of information and details took place, the fact that a document captured by the US corroborates evidence presented orally to a Soviet investigation, means one can and should trust both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

And even if you do concede some but declare the rest 'exaggerated' or 'massaged', what then? What is your pain threshold? 300,000? 500,000? 1 million? 1.3 million? 2 million? Why is some evidence to be accepted/tolerated but not other evidence?

This "pains" me not at all. Please be specific about "some evidence".

I already have been. But here they are again, with a few things I forgot last time.

1. eyewitnesses (Russian, German bystanders, German perpetrators) relating their accounts in both the west and the east
2. Einsatzgruppen reports captured in the west
3. Other SS documentation captured in the west and in the east
4. Wehrmacht documentation captured in the west
5. Soviet forensic reports in 1943-45
6. signal intercepts decoded by British intelligence in 1941

Which can be found used, critically, by the several hundred historians who have written about these events.

It is not evident why the number of the current population of Lesser Judea is relevant. I assume that some millions live there. Look it up yourself. My point, clearly stated, was that Jews are always in jeopardy, forever being expelled and massacred. One episode involved the Third Reich. Now we have Iraq and Iran having wanted to do them in.

I wanted to see if you would ever accept any statistic relating to Jews as accurate. Clearly that's beneath you.

I don't think so. I had a discussion with you about the number of Stalin's victims among his own people, whereupon I was satisfied with your account as to specifics. If you hold me thus as "harping on Stalin's crimes" where otherwise I have mentioned them not at all, you display an undignified prejudice. I will not be held responsible for the remarks of others.

Keep digging, Neo. Your remarks will be very useful when discussing these issues with others of superficially like mind. The next time a supposed revisionist drags in the Vertriebene or Stalin, I'll tell them that the great NeoNietzsche thinks these issues are irrelevant.

:thanks:

You haven't even given me an answer, Neo. You snipped my listing of past efforts by those who believe in revisionist theology.

Having not given you an answer, I have not been incoherent.

By your own standards, you have been absolutely consistent. By anyone else's, all over the place in your reasons for silence.

<latest desperate attempt to change the subject back to Auschwitz snipped>

Since I seem to have dismissed a major Revisionist contention right here, I consider myself already so involved. What, specifically, would you like to have accounted worthless?

Ideally, all of it. But in this instance I'll settle for your agreement that it is nonsensical to argue that large numbers of Jews were transported onwards from the death-camps to a completely unknown location in the east, a resettlement which has hitherto, after more than 60 years, left nary a trace in the historical record, whether in terms of documents, contemporary accounts/diaries, eyewitnesses, or archaeological evidence.

I mean, I know Russia's a big place, but it's not that big. And there's been more than 60 years to go looking for this putative alibi; 15 of them since the collapse of the USSR when westerners can travel much more easily in Russia than they could before, and when westerners have been given access to the Soviet archives. If there had been a camp, some babushka who can remember the war years would surely have come forward by now and said 'yes! I remember when all the Jews from Salonika were crammed into the field next to my village and then died of starvation/were liberated by the Red Army and taken to Siberia!'

But the alleged gas chambers are the Hoax. You can't seem to grasp that I'm allowing you to shoot as many Jews as you want. You can call the "resettlement camps" a Revisionist hoax, if it pleases you.

Then you have a problem, Neo. Because you'll have to account for the disappearence of hundreds of thousands of Jews per camp, in some other fashion.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's leave aside for the moment the question of proof that x 100,000 were so deported to Auschwitz, Treblinka et al. That can come later. This entire thread is after all an examination of a hypothesis. We are seeing whether the revisionist hypothesis is falsifiable or simply a matter of faith.

So far, Neo and I seem in general agreement that if 2.5-3 million Jews were as is claimed sent to Auschwitz, Treblinka et al, then it is thoroughly implausible that this mass of people were sent onwards to destinations further east and simply vanished without any trace from the historical record.

A 'conspiracy' or 'hoax' to fake gas chambers is one thing, surely, but a cover-up of the whereabouts of that many people....? Is surely another.

So if - repeat, if - that many people were indeed deported to the camps, and were not transited onwards, and were not gassed, what happened to them?

If you have no logical explanations for their fate, then we can move on to the question of proving that the deportations were so large. But only if you have no logical explanations, Neo. Not until you say 'uncle'.

But thanks for agreeing with me that this seriously espoused revisionist argument about resettlement is bullshit.

One of us is always subject to reason.

That would be me, Neo. Because you have just maneuvered yourself into a logical and evidentiary trap.

eggheadbanga

11-06-2006, 05:03 PM

Revisionism is a refutation of the claim that Hitler caused millions of Jews to be gassed during WWII. Nothing in MVH’s original post contributes to this debate.

So you'd like to think, but you're clearly too dim to see this.

Would demographic proof of the disappearance of millions of Jews lend credibility to holocauster claims about fast drying gas chamber paint, the magical “German method”, geysers of Jewish blood and fat collected from blazing pyres?

Yep. Fails to see the wood for the trees, in typical denier fashion.

Where are the missing millions? That’s what both parties want to know.

He almost gets it! So - tell me, where did they go? I've outlined without caricature the revisionist hypothesis that many hundreds of thousands (at least) of Jews were transported onwards from Poland to various destinations to the east of the camps.

Around 600,000 of them are supposed to have been buried, unburied and then burnt at Treblinka, the only GPR study undertaken on this site shows no soil disturbance, Where’s the counter study?

Where are Krege's results published, Calvin? Until they're actually published and can be verified as relating to Treblinka at all, they're worthless.

After their shenanigans with the Auschwitz plaque, you would think that demography would be the last place holcausters would seek refuge.

Whereas deniers use gems like

1. the 'World Almanac' gambit :rofl:

2. Faked ICRC figures :rofl:

3. Misinterpreted ITS Arolsen figures :rofl:

4. Misinterpreted census data:rofl:

just to get us started.

Calvin, how did the New York Times and the Times of London report Hoess's testimony at Nuremberg? Who was identified in the press reports as having fallen victim at Auschwitz?

Let's start with that, and see if we can get you chasing your tail again.

Trojan

11-06-2006, 05:29 PM

... the only GPR study undertaken on this site shows no soil disturbance, Where’s the counter study?

What study to you refer to Calvin? Can you produce this study? Why should there be a counter study to an unexisting study?

calvin

11-06-2006, 05:56 PM

cerberus

11-06-2006, 06:07 PM

CalvinRevisionism is a refutation of the claim that Hitler caused millions of Jews to be gassed during WWII. Nothing in MVH’s original post contributes to this debate.
And how has revisionism managed so far to enhance this claim ?
So far it remains only a claim , an unsubstansuiated one at that - this is the best I can say about this claim.
This may sound like opinion , but it is nonetheless factually based.
CalvinWould demographic proof of the disappearance of millions of Jews lend credibility to holocauster claims about fast drying gas chamber paint, the magical “German method”, geysers of Jewish blood and fat collected from blazing pyres?

can you produce the whereabouts of these people calvin , including the estiamted one third of the victims who were shot by Heydrich's mobile killing squads ?
You imply that the gas chambers were painted between gassings.
touching up paint work to disguise what took place - do you think this might be closer to the truth - the extensive decoration which you imply may not have taken place at all - it is what you wnat to take from it .
That’s what both parties want to know.
this again calvin is what you want and need to take from the arguement .
historians know where they are and what took place - the SS described what they were about - ez. gruppen records detail what they did , where they did it and to whom.
Himmler and Hitler even described the cover story in advance of a single killing.
After their shenanigans with the Auschwitz plaque
So you have a problem with te historical record being reviewed in the light of new information ?
I thought that historians have been doing this for years - it is nothing new .

Trojan

11-06-2006, 06:10 PM

eggheadbanga

11-06-2006, 06:11 PM

"What study to you refer to Calvin? Can you produce this study? Why should there be a counter study to an unexisting study?"

Richard Krege's study. The simplest way to refute this study or to affirm its non-existence would be to conduct another study and show evidence of substantial soil disturbance.

Where is Richard Krege's study, Calvin? Please point us to it.

"So you'd like to think, but you're clearly too dim to see this"

Ad hom.

and still clearly too dim to use the quote function.

Would you like to discuss the demographics of European Jewry between 1939-45, Calvin? It's quite an interest of mine. You first.

"Yep. Fails to see the wood for the trees, in typical denier fashion"

And again.

Because you indeed failed to see the wood for the trees. Which as stated is quite typical for 'revisionists', deniers, negationists and all other related species of flora and fauna.

'The Holocaust' is not about geysers of blood or any of your denier strawmen, it is about whether people were or were not murdered en masse. Geysers of blood etc are embellishments, they are not the essence. Thus, it is possible that a witness who mentioned such a thing could be - gasp! - exaggerating on this peripheral detail but telling the truth on the rest. Or, if the claim is so integral to the eyewitness account, that the witness did not in fact see what he or she claimed.

But then you'd still be confronted with what to do with all the witnesses that didn't mention anything outlandish, never mind the documents, archaeological evidence and so forth. I'd like to see you offer an explanation that can explain them all away.

"He almost gets it! So - tell me, where did they go?"

No idea.

So that's two deniers who haven't a clue what happened to European Jews deported to the death camps. Nice one, Calvin.

Can you tell me where the forensic or archeological evidence for the mass burials at Treblinka is?

It can be found in Warsaw, in the AGK. A summary is published here:
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/gcpoltreb1.htm
On-site inspection immediately after the war.

"Where are Krege's results published, Calvin? Until they're actually published and can be verified as relating to Treblinka at all, they're worthless"

And until you publish yours, you are in the same boat.

Um, no, Calvin, because we are discussing the publications of others. I could just as easily turn around and say 'I refuse to listen to the great Calvin because he has not published anything in the Journal of Historical Review, The Revisionist or as a brochure via Castle Hill Press'.

But I'm not an idiot asshole making unreasonable demands, so all I would demand would be pointers to where I can read this great study of Krege's. Don't revisionists put everything online anyway? Surely you can give me a URL.

calvin

11-06-2006, 06:44 PM

“Where is Richard Krege's study, Calvin? Please point us to it”

There is widespread belief, in revisionist circles, in the existence of a GPR study that disproves the claim that Treblinka was a place of mass-extermination. If Lipstadt and the people who fund her were truly interested in dispelling revisionist allegations they could easily and inexpensively dispel this belief by conducting their own study, bit cheaper than a chain of holocaust museums too.

“and still clearly too dim to use the quote function”

I can use it. I choose not to.

“Would you like to discuss the demographics of European Jewry between 1939-45, Calvin? It's quite an interest of mine. You first”

It’s a matter of supreme indifference to me.

'The Holocaust' is not about geysers of blood or any of your denier strawmen, it is about whether people were or were not murdered en masse. Geysers of blood etc are embellishments, they are not the essence. Thus, it is possible that a witness who mentioned such a thing could be - gasp! - exaggerating on this peripheral detail but telling the truth on the rest. Or, if the claim is so integral to the eyewitness account, that the witness did not in fact see what he or she claimed”

Hopelessly locked into Aristotelian absolutism aren’t you? You say these things “are” embellishments and exaggerations. What you mean is “could be” embellishments or exaggerations. They could also be lies.

“But then you'd still be confronted with what to do with all the witnesses that didn't mention anything outlandish”

Six million people murdered with insecticide; “not” outlandish?

“So that's two deniers who haven't a clue what happened to European Jews deported to the death camps. Nice one, Calvin”

Explain to me what the “German method” is and I might even begin to believe that you have a clue what happened to them.

“But I'm not an idiot asshole making unreasonable demands, so all I would demand would be pointers to where I can read this great study of Krege's”

That comment says nothing about me and quite a lot about you.

Trojan

11-06-2006, 07:26 PM

“Where is Richard Krege's study, Calvin? Please point us to it”

There is widespread belief, in revisionist circles, in the existence of a GPR study that disproves the claim that Treblinka was a place of mass-extermination. If Lipstadt and the people who fund her were truly interested in dispelling revisionist allegations they could easily and inexpensively dispel this belief by conducting their own study, bit cheaper than a chain of holocaust museums too.

Now this is precious, there is a belief in revisionist circles that a study exists, they just can't prove that the study exists.

:rofl: :rofl:

Six million people murdered with insecticide; “not” outlandish?

Calvin

Who, specifically, claims that six million were murderded with insecticide?

eggheadbanga

11-06-2006, 07:28 PM

“Where is Richard Krege's study, Calvin? Please point us to it”

There is widespread belief, in revisionist circles, in the existence of a GPR study that disproves the claim that Treblinka was a place of mass-extermination.

:rofl:

This is too funny. So... you take it on faith alone that this study exists?

If Lipstadt and the people who fund her were truly interested in dispelling revisionist allegations they could easily and inexpensively dispel this belief by conducting their own study, bit cheaper than a chain of holocaust museums too.

That's where you fall into the heffalump trap. Forensic archaeologists have examined Belzec and are currently examining Sobibor. They go together like a set with Treblinka. At Belzec, they found mass graves of the correct dimensions, i.e. waaaay too big for 'minor' burials, with layers of human remains in varying states - some bodies right at the bottom layers of ash and bone (incl teeth), in other words completely in conformity with everything that has ever been alleged about the site. The results have been published by Professor Andrzej Kola. I understand that the Sobibor excavations showed similar features, though these have not been published.

So that's 1-0 against revisionist contentions, going on 2-0.

“and still clearly too dim to use the quote function”

I can use it. I choose not to.

Why? Because you want everyone else to have eyesore?

“Would you like to discuss the demographics of European Jewry between 1939-45, Calvin? It's quite an interest of mine. You first”

It’s a matter of supreme indifference to me.

Yet you were bold enough to confidently state above that why should 'holocausters' wish to fall back on demographics. Are you making it up as you go along? I'm rather getting that impression.

'The Holocaust' is not about geysers of blood or any of your denier strawmen, it is about whether people were or were not murdered en masse. Geysers of blood etc are embellishments, they are not the essence. Thus, it is possible that a witness who mentioned such a thing could be - gasp! - exaggerating on this peripheral detail but telling the truth on the rest. Or, if the claim is so integral to the eyewitness account, that the witness did not in fact see what he or she claimed”

Hopelessly locked into Aristotelian absolutism aren’t you? You say these things “are” embellishments and exaggerations. What you mean is “could be” embellishments or exaggerations. They could also be lies.

Thank you for parsing my grammar. Now let's parse your logic. A claim - such as the hoary old chesnut so beloved by online denier trolls, 'geysers of blood' - appears in a statement by someone. The statement presumably contains other facts, in this instance that large numbers of Jews were mown down by machine-guns at Babiy Yar in late September 1941.

So, the question is then: who made this claim, and are they the sole witness to an undocumented event? The answer is that Elie Wiesel quoted it in a speech, thus it's second-hand hearsay. Elie Wiesel never claims to have been at Babiy Yar and is also a novelist. Thus we could dismiss this as pure confabulation on the part of a fiction-writer. This then leaves the question open of where he got the story from.

Answer: a bystander witness, not Jewish, who saw the aftermath of the shooting as well as the actual event. Is this witness the sole witness to the event? No. There are many other witnesses who did not mention this specific claim. Not only that, but there are a series of documents - at least 10 - which reported directly on the events at Babiy Yar.

So you see how utterly absurd your argument is already. If one person passes on a remark by hearsay that is reported by one eyewitness out of many, big fucking deal. At best, you have one witness that might be lying. So what? There are other witnesses who don't mention this detail. And let's not forget, you'd still have to explain away the documents.

But it gets better. If you remember the foot & mouth epidemic in the UK at the turn of the millennium, you'll know that large amounts of livestock were buried in landfill sites, some prior to mass incineration and some in lieu thereof. Well, here's the Telegraph of April 28, 2001:

THE carcasses of 1,500 sheep slaughtered five weeks ago because they were infected with foot and mouth are to be dug up and burned by Maff after blood was found bubbling up from the ground.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/04/28/nfnm328.xml

So now the basic incredulity looks rather foolish. Bury large quantities of decomposing mammal flesh into a pit, and it is not an unknown phenomenon for fluids and blood to bubble up through the soil. It is not a common phenomenon, but then there isn't some plethora of 'geysers of blood' claims relating to every single site in Eastern Europe.

Which brings the initial 'sceptical' claim down to the level of quibbling over the size of what is meant by 'geyser', which seems really rather irrelevant to me.

That's an embellishment, Calvin.

“But then you'd still be confronted with what to do with all the witnesses that didn't mention anything outlandish”

Six million people murdered with insecticide; “not” outlandish?

Oh dear, Calvin, you really don't know very much about the Holocaust, do you?

Please fill in the following manners of death with what you think are the numbers generally acknowledged by all known institutions dealing with the Holocaust, whether USHMM, Yad Vashem, Wikipedia, you name it. Go on, use :google:

1. Gassed using Zyklon B at Auschwitz and Majdanek.......
2. Gassed using carbon monoxide at Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka.....
3. Starved or worked to death in camps and ghettos.....
4. Shot in mass executions or gassed with carbon monoxide in vans......

I'll give you a target figure of 5.1 million, which is the Hilberg calculation. If you can get within half a million of the generally accepted figures for each of the four categories, I might bother to continue this discussion. Otherwise, there's not much point me wasting my time. Or in you attacking the 'accepted account' when you haven't a clue what it has been for longer than you've been alive.

“So that's two deniers who haven't a clue what happened to European Jews deported to the death camps. Nice one, Calvin”

Explain to me what the “German method” is and I might even begin to believe that you have a clue what happened to them.

No, I think you ought to provide your source for where you came across the term, just so we know we're on the same page. Oh, forgot, Calvin doesn't do sources.

“But I'm not an idiot asshole making unreasonable demands, so all I would demand would be pointers to where I can read this great study of Krege's”

That comment says nothing about me and quite a lot about you.

Says the man who offers his belief in the existence of a study.

:rofl:

BTW, I'll dial back my language if you eschew any ad hominem of your own such as 'holocausters' or any other related slogan. In other words, don't be a hypocrite.

NeoNietzsche

11-06-2006, 07:56 PM

Have you? I must have missed the posts where you explained how the Polish underground, government-in-exile, the Czechoslovak government-in-exile, the Dutch Red Cross and all manner of other bodies, as well as 1000s of individuals of all manner of ethnicities and political beliefs, all conspired between 1941 and 1948 to produce the alleged 'hoax'.
Then you missed a post that you mistakenly imagine necessary and which thus was not produced.

Funny, on the demand for Hoess's extradition, the Polish government said 2 million in 1946. The historical expert witness at Hoess's trial in 1947 tried to perform the first calculation, and came up with 1.3-1.5 million.
And Hoess was convicted on another number, and he swore to the 3 million of his "confession" at Nuremberg while supposedly testifying to Gilbert as to 1.5 million. But the world knows the number as the 4 million on the plaque, as is the point regarding the spreading of the Hoax.

How do you think the New York Times and the Times of London reported Hoess's testimony, by the way?
I would imagine as to one of the two contradictory numbers, both of which have been forgotten for the official number of 4 million.

Truth is not a preserve of individuals but shared on a social basis. The means for determining the truth are those of logic, rules of evidence and the appropriate social or natural scientific methodologies to discuss the question at hand. Try obeying them.
Good advice. Got any good brownie recipes, Grandma?

It is not 'propaganda' to demand of a proposed major alteration in our historical understanding that it conforms to the normal rules of evidence and logic.
Yes, it would be nice to have you demonstrate that your plugged pistol can shoot someone. But you refuse to explain how LK I killed anyone with a plugged vent system.

I'm not sure I can discern a coherent response to the preceding post in any of these sentences.
I think you're playing stupid, but I don't feel like going back and retracing the exchange on the point about "crib sheets".

On the contrary, unless one can demonstrate a likely scenario in which coordination of information and details took place, the fact that a document captured by the US corroborates evidence presented orally to a Soviet investigation, means one can and should trust both.
Such coordination is the presumption of the context.

I already have been. But here they are again, with a few things I forgot last time.

.....

Which can be found used, critically, by the several hundred historians who have written about these events.
And which "evidence'' am I supposedly, selectively, disputing?

I wanted to see if you would ever accept any statistic relating to Jews as accurate. Clearly that's beneath you.
Clearly you are the rankest of propagandists, if you are not merely clumsy, in so characterizing the exchange on the point. There was no question as to a statistic shown to be relevant. Lesser Judea was remarked to be an example, whatever the number, of the historic principle of periodic Jewish subjection to expulsion and massacre. You asked for the population number. I asked the relevance of the number. You now respond contemptibly.

Keep digging, Neo. Your remarks will be very useful when discussing these issues with others of superficially like mind. The next time a supposed revisionist drags in the Vertriebene or Stalin, I'll tell them that the great NeoNietzsche thinks these issues are irrelevant.
Another mischaracterization of an exchange, which was as to duplicity rather than relevancy. Your credibility quotient is sinking fast.

By your own standards, you have been absolutely consistent. By anyone else's, all over the place in your reasons for silence.
Interesting - a supposed academic who refers to "anyone else's" standards in reproof. The propagandist betrays himself again.

Ideally, all of it. But in this instance I'll settle for your agreement that it is nonsensical to argue that large numbers of Jews were transported onwards from the death-camps to a completely unknown location in the east, a resettlement which has hitherto, after more than 60 years, left nary a trace in the historical record, whether in terms of documents, contemporary accounts/diaries, eyewitnesses, or archaeological evidence.

I mean, I know Russia's a big place, but it's not that big. And there's been more than 60 years to go looking for this putative alibi; 15 of them since the collapse of the USSR when westerners can travel much more easily in Russia than they could before, and when westerners have been given access to the Soviet archives. If there had been a camp, some babushka who can remember the war years would surely have come forward by now and said 'yes! I remember when all the Jews from Salonika were crammed into the field next to my village and then died of starvation/were liberated by the Red Army and taken to Siberia!'
There were, to my knowlege, no such camps.

Then you have a problem, Neo. Because you'll have to account for the disappearence of hundreds of thousands of Jews per camp, in some other fashion.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's leave aside for the moment the question of proof that x 100,000 were so deported to Auschwitz, Treblinka et al. That can come later. This entire thread is after all an examination of a hypothesis. We are seeing whether the revisionist hypothesis is falsifiable or simply a matter of faith.

So far, Neo and I seem in general agreement that if 2.5-3 million Jews were as is claimed sent to Auschwitz, Treblinka et al, then it is thoroughly implausible that this mass of people were sent onwards to destinations further east and simply vanished without any trace from the historical record.

A 'conspiracy' or 'hoax' to fake gas chambers is one thing, surely, but a cover-up of the whereabouts of that many people....? Is surely another.

So if - repeat, if - that many people were indeed deported to the camps, and were not transited onwards, and were not gassed, what happened to them?

If you have no logical explanations for their fate, then we can move on to the question of proving that the deportations were so large. But only if you have no logical explanations, Neo. Not until you say 'uncle'.
Please move on to proving that the deportations were so large, with reference to untainted documents and testimony. I do not agree as to the implausibility of as many people being removed from the camps and further transported as were transported and placed in the camp in the first place. Nor do I agree that a "cover-up" was involved in any such disappearance, as Jews, of those who sensibly no longer wished to identify themselves as such.

That would be me, Neo. Because you have just maneuvered yourself into a logical and evidentiary trap.
It is definitely not you, in your refusal to acknowledge the LK problem. And I can never be "trapped" by the truth, because I am always released from a faulty thesis by acknowledging a sound one. You, the propagandist, have to worry about a trap, as you have just made evident.

Globus

11-06-2006, 08:01 PM

Then you missed a post that you mistakenly imagine necessary and which thus was not produced.

And Hoess was convicted on another number, and he swore to the 3 million of his "confession" at Nuremberg while supposedly testifying to Gilbert as to 1.5 million. But the world knows the number as the 4 million on the plaque, as is the point regarding the spreading of the Hoax.

I would imagine as to one of the two contradictory numbers, both of which have been forgotten for the official number of 4 million.

Good advice. Got any good brownie recipes, Grandma?

Yes, it would be nice to have you demonstrate that your plugged pistol can shoot someone. But you refuse to explain how LK I killed anyone with a plugged vent system.

I think you're playing stupid, but I don't feel like going back and retracing the exchange on the point about "crib sheets".

Such coordination is the presumption of the context.

And which "evidence'' am I supposedly, selectively, disputing?

Clearly you are the rankest of propagandists, if you are not merely clumsy, in so characterizing the exchange on the point. There was no question as to a statistic shown to be relevant. Lesser Judea was remarked to be an example, whatever the number, of the historic principle of periodic Jewish subjection to expulsion and massacre. You asked for the population number. I asked the relevance of the number. You now respond contemptibly.

Another mischaracterization of an exchange, which was as to duplicity rather than relevancy. Your credibility quotient is sinking fast.

Interesting - a supposed academic who refers to "anyone else's" standards in reproof. The propagandist betrays himself again.

There were, to my knowlege, no such camps.

Please move on to proving that the deportations were so large, with reference to untainted documents and testimony.

It is definitely not you, in your refusal to acknowledge the LK problem. And I can never be "trapped" by the truth, because I am always released from a faulty thesis by acknowledging a sound one. You, the propagandist, have to worry about a trap, as you have just made evident.

All of this tapdancing instead of just saying you have no evidence for what happened to the missing Jews of Europe.

Is this what you call "revisionism"?

eggheadbanga

11-06-2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

Have you? I must have missed the posts where you explained how the Polish underground, government-in-exile, the Czechoslovak government-in-exile, the Dutch Red Cross and all manner of other bodies, as well as 1000s of individuals of all manner of ethnicities and political beliefs, all conspired between 1941 and 1948 to produce the alleged 'hoax'.

Then you missed a post that you mistakenly imagine necessary and which thus was not produced.

Oh, we'll come back to the Dutch Red Cross later.

And Hoess was convicted on another number, and he swore to the 3 million of his "confession" at Nuremberg while supposedly testifying to Gilbert as to 1.5 million. But the world knows the number as the 4 million on the plaque, as is the point regarding the spreading of the Hoax.

Please tell us what figures were written into Reitlinger (1953) and Hilberg (1961), the two standard overviews in the English-speaking world for the greater part of the rest of the 20th Century.

How do you think the New York Times and the Times of London reported Hoess's testimony, by the way?

I would imagine as to one of the two contradictory numbers, both of which have been forgotten for the official number of 4 million.

and who did these numbers refer to?

Truth is not a preserve of individuals but shared on a social basis. The means for determining the truth are those of logic, rules of evidence and the appropriate social or natural scientific methodologies to discuss the question at hand. Try obeying them.

Good advice. Got any good brownie recipes, Grandma?

That I leave to Grandma. Do you have any?

< repeated attempt to shift the discussion back to Auschwitz snipped >

On the contrary, unless one can demonstrate a likely scenario in which coordination of information and details took place, the fact that a document captured by the US corroborates evidence presented orally to a Soviet investigation, means one can and should trust both.

Such coordination is the presumption of the context.

Whose presumption? Yours?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

I already have been. But here they are again, with a few things I forgot last time.

.....

Which can be found used, critically, by the several hundred historians who have written about these events.

And which "evidence'' am I supposedly, selectively, disputing?

You tell me. I just related the categories of evidence and brought up one method by which the evidence can be confirmed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

I wanted to see if you would ever accept any statistic relating to Jews as accurate. Clearly that's beneath you.

Clearly you are the rankest of propagandists, if you are not merely clumsy, in so characterizing the exchange on the point. There was no question as to a statistic shown to be relevant. Lesser Judea was remarked to be an example, whatever the number, of the historic principle of periodic Jewish subjection to expulsion and massacre. You asked for the population number. I asked the relevance of the number. You now respond contemptibly.

We were meant to be discussing demographics, directly or indirectly. It would be nice to know ahead of time if you're just going to label any numbers you don't like as suspect.

Keep digging, Neo. Your remarks will be very useful when discussing these issues with others of superficially like mind. The next time a supposed revisionist drags in the Vertriebene or Stalin, I'll tell them that the great NeoNietzsche thinks these issues are irrelevant.

Another mischaracterization of an exchange, which was as to duplicity rather than relevancy. Your credibility quotient is sinking fast.

:rofl:

As I have said a few times above, I'm happy with some of your replies, Neo.

By your own standards, you have been absolutely consistent. By anyone else's, all over the place in your reasons for silence.

Interesting - a supposed academic who refers to "anyone else's" standards in reproof. The propagandist betrays himself again.

No, it simply points out that your standards are, well, your own. No one else's, that I can determine.

There were, to my knowlege, no such camps.

Good. That's at least three times you've denied resettlement camps. Thanks.

Please move on to proving that the deportations were so large, with reference to untainted documents and testimony.

I will do so, in the next post.

It is definitely not you, in your refusal to acknowledge the LK problem. And I can never be "trapped" by the truth, because I am always released from a faulty thesis by acknowledging a sound one. You, the propagandist, have to worry about a trap, as you have just made evident.

Well, let's see if we can bring the Neo horse to water on the subject of deportations, shall we?

eggheadbanga

11-06-2006, 09:29 PM

As promised, here is an overview of the evidence regarding deportations, which will come either from 'untainted' sources or be corroborated by sources that cannot be easily demonstrated to have been coordinated between different nation-states, NGOs or private individuals

I will keep this to one country at a time, to allow for proper discussion and querying by Neo. Though some of the principles and cross-references are the same, so we shall start with a longer explanation of some key points.

1. NETHERLANDS

We shall start with pre-war censuses wherever possible, to illustrate that there were indeed Jews inhabiting the countries in question. No revisionist has yet to my knowledge queried the results of such censuses, nor can any logical objection be advanced against them, since in all cases they were conducted without the expectation of being invaded by Nazi Germany. Where possible, they can be compared with pre-1933 censuses, just to underscore this point.

The 1909 census showed 106,409 Jews in the Netherlands
The 1930 census showed 111,917 Jews in the Netherlands

Shortly thereafter, German Jewish refugees began to arrive, swelling the population. In 1941, the Dutch authorities (Secretaries-General) were ordered to conduct a census; this showed 118,455 Dutch Jews and 21,790 German and foreign Jews. A second census by the Dutch Jewish council showed 118,295 Dutch Jews and 22,252 foreign Jews. Thus, a total of 140,000 Jews were present under German occupation as of 1941.

Both documents were found in the Netherlands after the war and thus never fell into the hands of the US, UK or Soviet Union.

The deportation records were also discovered in the Netherlands after the war. These record every transport to the east, with complete lists of names, and were used by the Dutch Red Cross in the postwar years to identify the missing.

A summary of the records to be found in the Dutch national archives on camps, deportations, transport lists as well as correspondence relating to missing persons can be read here (in Dutch, but I think you can puzzle out the really critical words):
http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/images/3_9566.pdf

The results were published circa 1947:

Netherlands > Sobibor 19 known survivors of 34,313 deportees
Netherlands > Auschwitz
selected at Cosel 181 known survivors out of 3540 selected there
July-Feb 1943, Birkenau 85 known survivors out of 42,915
Aug 43 – Sept 44, Birkenau 786 known survivors out of 13,630
Netherlands > Mauthausen 1 known survivor of 1700 (deported in 1941-2)
Netherlands > Theresienstadtca. 1950 survivors of 4870 deportees
Netherlands > Bergen Belsen 2050 known survivors of 3751 deportees
NL > various KLs ? known survivors of ca. 350 deportees

Data taken from Gerhard Hirschfeld's chapter in Dimensionen des Voelkermords edited by Wolfgang Benz; cf also
http://www.cympm.com/Westerbork.html

The small number of Sobibor survivors come either from among those who escaped in the October 1943 revolt, or who were selected for labour and immediately transported onwards to Majdanek, a very small minority indeed.

Theresienstadt deportees died not only inside the ghetto there of 'natural causes' (hunger and disease) but most often from deportation onwards to Auschwitz. These figures are not duplicated in the NL > Auschwitz figures.

Mauthausen deportees are completely uncomplicated, since these were deported in 1941, all died of 'routine' brutality and exhaustion.

Bergen-Belsen deportees are equally uncomplicated, since they died of starvation and disease in the final phase of the war.

Almost all Dutch Jews (including German and other foreign Jews found in Holland) were deported from an internment camp at Westerbork; for which there are other records; and for which one could root around and find bystander witnesses from among the Dutch population if you were that fussed.

There are also photos of departing transports, as can be seen from the above link http://www.cympm.com/Westerbork.html

The total number of missing is therefore almost exactly 100,000. This is not to be taken as the number immediately killed upon arrival, or in an alternate revisionist hypothesis, transported onwards to another 'unknown destination'.

For Auschwitz, the transport lists can be cross-referenced numerically with the so-called Smolen list, which was spirited out of the Political Department in Auschwitz-Birkenau in late September 1945. In other words, at the precise moment the transport lists were found in the Netherlands, the war was a matter of only weeks over, and there was the chaos of Germany in the war. The Smolen list shows the registration numbers of each transport, big and small, to arrive at Auschwitz, identifying them by place of origin.

The Smolen list was first seen in the west during Case 12 of the successor Nuremberg trials, the OKW trial, when it was used as evidence against Colonel-General Reinhardt, whose 3rd Panzer Army had deported several thousand Belorussians from around Vitebsk to Auschwitz as reprisals for partisan activity.

The list is the basis for the Kalendarium and produces the 'discrepancies' between external sources such as the Dutch Red Cross-published documents showing how many were deported to Auschwitz and the numbers registered.

The registration numbers also allow a swift check on the veracity of a survivor testimony. If they give a registration/tattoo number which corresponds to the transports from their point of origin, then this is further corroboration that both are telling the truth on the date of their arrival at Auschwitz.

In practical terms it is absurd to speculate that a copy of the Smolen list was issued to all escapees and survivors of Auschwitz in the late war and postwar years, since the list was used as court evidence in Poland and in Nuremberg, and was not publicly available until the 1960s in the Hefte von Auschwitz; or by accessing the US archives in Alexandria, Virginia, in the late 1950s.

More to the point: it would beggar belief that this list was duplicated and distributed to every possible location where a survivor might be residing, so that they could corroborate their time in the camp. Furthermore, almost all survivors were evacuated to another camp by the end of January 1945, and most were then re-registered in these camps; for which we have other records.

Of the 60,000 Dutch Jews deported to Auschwitz, approximately 12-13,000 were registered at the camp or were identified as being selected for the labour camp at Cosel nearby. Registered inmates could well of course expire of exhaustion etc either in Auschwitz or another camp, or they could be selected for the gas chambers from within the camp. But 'internal selections' is a separate issue.

Thus, we have ca. 47,000 missing from Auschwitz and ca 34,000 missing from Sobibor, i.e. ca. 81,000 Dutch Jews who, according to the orthodox account, were gassed upon arrival. Another 19,000 Dutch Jews died of other causes in various camps.

So, the questions to Neo:

1. In the light of the fact that any survivor giving his or her tattoo number can have this number corroborated by the Smolen list, and that there are many 10s of 1000s of survivors across more than a dozen nation-states in postwar Europe, can we take the Smolen list as accurate? If not, why not?

2. Is the Dutch Red Cross an untainted organisation? If not, why not?

3. If you have answered 'no' to the above two questions, please outline an alternative explanation for the existence of these records and documents, and why they match the many 10s of 1000s of Auschwitz survivors as a whole, and the circa 1000 Dutch survivors of deportation to Auschwitz and Sobibor-Majdanek, and the photos of departing transports. Please also explain the methods used to orchestrate all of the above information down to the individual survivor level.

4. If you have answered 'yes' to (1) and (2), you will agree that there were deportations from the Netherlands of the stated order of magnitude, and that an alternative destination for the circa 81,000 absolutely missing deportees must be nominated, unless you wish to concede that there were indeed gas chambers, which I presume you don't yet want to do. If not, then care to name one? Or more?

Empress Cheesatine

11-06-2006, 09:39 PM

As is well known, there were the following alleged extermination camps with gassing facilities:
Auschwitz (Upper East Silesia)
Treblinka (Warsaw)
Belzec (Lublin)
Sobibor (Lublin)
Majdanek (Lublin)
Chelmno (Warthegau)
Maly Trostinets (Belarus)

Just wondering at how you arrived at this list, since I have read countless testimonies and some confessions of Germans who SWORE there were death camps/gassing centers in Germany proper. Is it that those who testified/confessed about the camps in the Reich were liars but those who testified/confessed about those in the East were not? And what to do with conflicting testimonies from survivors in each camp, which related opposite stories?
This is all a real muddle!

cerberus

11-06-2006, 09:44 PM

CalvinIf Lipstadt and the people who fund her were truly interested in dispelling revisionist allegations they could easily and inexpensively dispel this belief by conducting their own study, bit cheaper than a chain of holocaust museums too.

Calvin , why fund a report ?
You forget that penguin Publishers and Lipstadt always funded an extensive research project to counter the Germar rudolf papers which Davifd irving used to secure his appeal .
Now as I understand it - David Irving would under law of "discovery" had a copy of the rebuttal which was prepared and he pulled the plug on his QC presenting Rudolf - report - done already and the revisionist cause folded.

Germar Rudolf wanted to appear for irving and it is a cause of much regret that irving did not take him up on his offer - I love a good crusifixication.:rofl:

cerberus

11-06-2006, 09:52 PM

CheesyPieJust wondering at how you arrived at this list, since I have read countless testimonies and some confessions of Germans who SWORE there were death camps/gassing centers in Germany proper
This is no secret CheesyPie - they were used to murder the sick and handicaped under the T4 program , was it these wretched plaes that your "confessions" referred to ?
In short CheesyPie some 70,000 murders all killed in Germany / Austria many by C02 gassing all covered by lies and all done with the blessing of the Fuhrer.

There is no muddle if you know what you are talking about or if you are not trying to create a fiction to try and sabotage a fact.
If you are confused Sulla or Egghead will be only too happy to unconfuse you / orientate you.

eggheadbanga

11-06-2006, 09:55 PM

Just wondering at how you arrived at this list, since I have read countless testimonies and some confessions of Germans who SWORE there were death camps/gassing centers in Germany proper. Is it that those who testified/confessed about the camps in the Reich were liars but those who testified/confessed about those in the East were not?

This is all a real muddle!

Not really, because there were also the following camps with gas chambers inside Greater Germany, that were not 'extermination camps', because the gas chambers were used only briefly or for specific groups, such as Soviet POWs.

Stutthof
Sachsenhausen
Ravensbrueck
Neuengamme
Natzweiler
Mauthausen-Gusen

while the following other camps never had any gas chambers

Gross-Rosen
Flossenbuerg
Buchenwald
Dora-Mittelbau (where Rassinier was imprisoned)
Bergen-Belsen

and the following camp had a gas chamber constructed starting very late, January 1945, which was most likely never used:

Dachau

One witness claimed that gassings were carried out there, which is in legal terms an irrelevancy. So the court cases involving Dachau heard the evidence but didn't conclude that there had been any.

Because prisoners were transferred from camp to camp, and because the entirety of the Auschwitz inmate population that survived was evacuated to another camp in Germany after January 1945, you get the occasional 'false positive' when someone was sure that their final camp had a gas chamber but in fact it didn't. Thus the occasional reference in 1945 to a gas chamber at Belsen, because many liberated at Belsen had been at Auschwitz beforehand.

Some of this confusion got reported in the postwar press, in part because journalists didn't take proper notes of what was being said at some of the trials. I mean, hacks are hacks and the 1940s hacks were no different to today's reporters, i.e. they made mistakes.

A very few survivors were so confused that they described something they never saw, in a camp which never had a gas chamber. A French prisoner did so for Buchenwald in a very early postwar memoir. But this is one guy out of 39 memoirs published in France from Buchenwald survivors between 1945-48. I believe the rate of mental illness in the average population can reach as high as 10% over the average lifespan, and even the most cynical would concede that there must have been serious PTSD going round among some of the camp inmates after the war. B.F.D. if one out of 39 memoir writers made a false claim. That just means the one guy was deluded.

calvin

11-06-2006, 10:02 PM

“This is too funny. So... you take it on faith alone that this study exists?”

Yes quite! It’s normally the case that individuals who post their diatribes with much attendant swagger, ad hom and bombast, tend to be rather dim. You have a choice, you can either read carefully with your brain engaged (not a problem for most people) or you can send me your address and I can write to you in crayon with diagrams. I said, “There is widespread belief, in revisionist circles, in the existence of a GPR study that disproves the claim that Treblinka was a place of mass-extermination”. I am advising you that revisionist believe something and am recommending a course of action that would confirm or affirm that belief. You are extrapolating from that, that I believe, based on faith alone, that such a report exists. Waffle! I am suggesting that the fact that holocausters have failed to replicate the methods that this purported report is based on, indicates fear of failure on their part.

“That's where you fall into the heffalump trap. Forensic archaeologists have examined Belzec and are currently examining Sobibor. They go together like a set with Treblinka. At Belzec, they found mass graves of the correct dimensions, i.e. waaaay too big for 'minor' burials, with layers of human remains in varying states - some bodies right at the bottom layers of ash and bone (incl teeth), in other words completely in conformity with everything that has ever been alleged about the site”

Do you really expect that the influential forces that have made holocaust apostasy an imprisonable offence are capable of conducting or allowing an honest investigation? There are two points of view, let there be two studies. David Irving is banned from Auschwitz; Fred Leuchter had to employ subterfuge in his investigations. Monopolisation of the evidence coupled with monopolisation of the right to promote your viewpoint hardly combine to create an impression of honesty.

“Elie Wiesel never claims to have been at Babiy Yar and is also a novelist.”

Leave out the word “also” and that’s the first part of your diatribe I think I agree with.

“Which brings the initial 'sceptical' claim down to the level of quibbling over the size of what is meant by 'geyser', which seems really rather irrelevant to me”

I think that that’s a fair point. You say geyser, I say small puddle of blood. You say six million, I say a few hundred thousand. In the first instance we know your bullshitting and in the second instance……………. Geyser out of a puddle; mountain out of molehill and shinola out of shit, same difference to me dude.

“Oh dear, Calvin, you really don't know very much about the Holocaust, do you?”

It’s hard to keep track off, what with these small alterations, like the four million slain at Auschwitz being transformed into one and a half million. Sorry! Did I just “quibble” again? What’s a two and a half million deficit between historians, right?

“for each of the four categories”

Yup! The good ship gas chamber has been holed so many times that it’s being slowly pensioned off. It should enjoy a happy retirement sitting on the porch with the vacuum chamber and the steam chamber. I don’t blame you for ditching that turkey

“No, I think you ought to provide your source for where you came across the term, just so we know we're on the same page. Oh, forgot, Calvin doesn't do sources”

Next time you duck that low would you mind licking my boots Milhouse? You know what the “German method” refers to and you know that it is bona fide, 24 carrot holocauster bullshit

“BTW, I'll dial back my language if you eschew any ad hominem of your own”

Set the benchmark where you want and I’ll lower myself to your level sunshine.

calvin

11-06-2006, 10:25 PM

CERBERUS: “You imply that the gas chambers were painted between gassings.
touching up paint work to disguise what took place - do you think this might be closer to the truth - the extensive decoration which you imply may not have taken place at all - it is what you wnat to take from it”

Boom! Straight out of the traps and flat on their faces.

“Once the gas chamber had been cleared, it must be hosed free of all traces of blood and excrement - but mainly blood - and then it must be whitewashed with a quickdrying paint. This step is crucial, and it is done each time the gas chamber is emptied, for the dying have scratched and gouged the walls in their death throes. The walls are embedded with blood and bits of flesh, and none on the next transport must suspect that he is walking into anything other than a shower. This takes two or three hours"

"The Holocaust Odyssey of Daniel Bennahmias"

Three hours for a hose down and a quick touch up; must have had a lot of fag breaks these Sonderkomandos. Unfortunately the work manual for this crew fell into the hands of British council employees after the war.

Globus

11-06-2006, 10:32 PM

cerberus

11-06-2006, 10:36 PM

Three hours for a hose down and a quick touch up; must have had a lot of fag breaks these Sonderkomandos. Unfortunately the work manual for this crew fell into the hands of British council employees after the war.
Calvin , you caught me out , you know way too much about this for me.
You have managed to convince me that there never was a Holocaist and it is all lies.
I am going to take the State of Israel to court for the trauma and injury that I have just experienced .:tease: :rolleyes: :p
You forgot calvin nothing happened until the area was ventilated and the bodies removed.
Now did the man actually have a watch ?
How long after the event did he write is acount ?
Human error can be expected ?
Try harder Calvin.

eggheadbanga

11-06-2006, 10:54 PM

“This is too funny. So... you take it on faith alone that this study exists?”

Yes quite!

Oh, this is going to be good.

It’s normally the case that individuals who post their diatribes with much attendant swagger, ad hom and bombast, tend to be rather dim.

Looked in the mirror lately?

You have a choice, you can either read carefully with your brain engaged (not a problem for most people) or you can send me your address and I can write to you in crayon with diagrams.

Or you can post the URL of the published study, couldn't you? Or a link to an online bookshop where the Krege study can be bought, couldn't you? I mean, these are hardly taxing exercises for an intrepid revisionist.

I said, “There is widespread belief, in revisionist circles, in the existence of a GPR study that disproves the claim that Treblinka was a place of mass-extermination”. I am advising you that revisionist believe something and am recommending a course of action that would confirm or affirm that belief. You are extrapolating from that, that I believe, based on faith alone, that such a report exists. Waffle!

Nope. You believe, in common with revisionists, that there is this thing called the Krege report. Since you committed such a hilarious faux pas as to refer to a belief among revisionists, who are supposed to be hard-nosed scientifically-minded intrepid searchers after truth, ranged against what they often derisively call 'Believers', this was just too good to pass up. For me orTrojan.

So where is it? Where is the Krege report? Simple question I should have thought. Please, URL of the online version or to the relevant page of the online bookshop where it can be bought.

I am suggesting that the fact that holocausters have failed to replicate the methods that this purported report is based on, indicates fear of failure on their part

:rofl:

Oh, Calvin, you're priceless. Why use GPR when you can get permission to conduct actual excavations? As, I have told you already, have taken place at Belzec and Sobibor.

Do you really expect that the influential forces that have made holocaust apostasy an imprisonable offence are capable of conducting or allowing an honest investigation?

By my count, Holocaust denial is permitted in something like 95% of the countries in the world with a corresponding proportion of the world's population. Evidently the 'influential forces', whoever they are, are not that powerful.

There are two points of view, let there be two studies.

Ah, but you have claimed that there is this possibly mythical Krege study of Treblinka, I have pointed to a real study of Belzec, an ongoing study of Sobibor. So that's two studies. One has been published, one will presumably soon be published, and one seems to be unpublished. Oops! That's the denier study.

You are aware, also, that the Poles investigated all the sites in 1945, aren't you? What was wrong with their investigations?

Also, there is a whacking great memorial on the Treblinka site, positioned above the location of the mass graves. It is a field of stones. Did Krege scan there, in between the stones?

David Irving is banned from Auschwitz;

What's so special about Auschwitz? There are a hundred archives related to the subject, and Irving had the run of many of them even at his most 'persecuted'. Shame that he managed to make a complete fuckup of interpreting the documentary evidence that was available in those archives. He only took an interest in Auschwitz after endorsing the Leuchter report, despite its obvious failings. A researcher of his stature circa 1987, before Leuchter, could easily have got access. After all, a French pharmacist did; Faurisson did in the 1970s. But the idiot went and trumpeted Leuchter as the answer to everything and did so before he'd examined any of the evidence. That doesn't speak volumes for Irving's common sense or objectivity; under those circumstances, I'm not surprised he was banned.

Fred Leuchter had to employ subterfuge in his investigations.

And investigated with such a degree of incompetence that people have hardly stopped laughing ever since.

:rofl:

Monopolisation of the evidence coupled with monopolisation of the right to promote your viewpoint hardly combine to create an impression of honesty.

No such monopolisation exists. The evidence is available in many open-access archives, and guess what? revisionists sometimes go and consult them. Though strangely enough, they barely did so before about 1983, after revisionism had been a going concern for about a quarter of a century, which rather speaks volumes for their fidelity to historical truth.

“Elie Wiesel never claims to have been at Babiy Yar and is also a novelist.”

Leave out the word “also” and that’s the first part of your diatribe I think I agree with.

I don't have much time for Wiesel. Nor do most people working on the history of this era. So please don't bring up crap he said as if it's somehow gospel that must be believed. It's not. It's another denier strawman.

“Which brings the initial 'sceptical' claim down to the level of quibbling over the size of what is meant by 'geyser', which seems really rather irrelevant to me”

I think that that’s a fair point. You say geyser, I say small puddle of blood.

Nope,Idon't say 'geyser', a witness did.

You say six million, I say a few hundred thousand.

Nope, I don't say six million, I say 5.3 million as it happens. Am I therefore 9% of a denier?

In the first instance we know your bullshitting and in the second instance……………. Geyser out of a puddle; mountain out of molehill and shinola out of shit, same difference to me dude.

So let's recap on this 'geysers of blood' thing. Unless you've read something by Wiesel where he made this statement, you've got this third-hand, from a revisionist publication or an internet site, quoting Wiesel, quoting a witness. The witness originally gave the statement in another language.

So please, explain, what does your personal incredulity about the statement 'geysers of blood' actually say about anything? And why should anyone give a flying monkey's?

“Oh dear, Calvin, you really don't know very much about the Holocaust, do you?”

It’s hard to keep track off, what with these small alterations, like the four million slain at Auschwitz being transformed into one and a half million. Sorry! Did I just “quibble” again? What’s a two and a half million deficit between historians, right?

Please show me any reputable historian who has ever claimed that four million Jews died at Auschwitz.

“for each of the four categories”

Yup! The good ship gas chamber has been holed so many times that it’s being slowly pensioned off. It should enjoy a happy retirement sitting on the porch with the vacuum chamber and the steam chamber. I don’t blame you for ditching that turkey

Translation from waffle to plain English: Calvin doesn't know the first fucking thing about what he thinks he's disputing.

“No, I think you ought to provide your source for where you came across the term, just so we know we're on the same page. Oh, forgot, Calvin doesn't do sources”

Next time you duck that low would you mind licking my boots Milhouse? You know what the “German method” refers to and you know that it is bona fide, 24 carrot holocauster bullshit

Actually, I don't know any such thing until you can identify what you are talking about. It's not an unreasonable request. Use :google: if you've forgotten which denier screed you read about this in.

“BTW, I'll dial back my language if you eschew any ad hominem of your own”

Set the benchmark where you want and I’ll lower myself to your level sunshine.

You may be interested to know that there's been quite a debate by PM among some of us here as to just how hopelessly ill-informed on this subject you actually are. We're also debating what to name the award that we think is yours by right, for displaying revisionist incompetence above and beyond the call of online trolling duty. Maybe you'd like to help out? We're thinking either the Leuchter Award, or perhaps the Blue Stain Award for B.S., or maybe we'll just call it the Calvin Award. Because, man, you are the sorriest denier we have ever come across.

calvin

11-06-2006, 11:30 PM

"You forgot calvin nothing happened until the area was ventilated and the bodies removed"

How many bodies? How big a workforce? Let's have a breakdown of the work involved, the size of the workforce, the amount of time required to accomplish that work and then decide on that basis how many people could be processed and then see how this compares to official figures.

Empress Cheesatine

11-06-2006, 11:41 PM

CheesyPie
This is no secret CheesyPie - they were used to murder the sick and handicaped under the T4 program , was it these wretched plaes that your "confessions" referred to ?
In short CheesyPie some 70,000 murders all killed in Germany / Austria many by C02 gassing all covered by lies and all done with the blessing of the Fuhrer.

There is no muddle if you know what you are talking about or if you are not trying to create a fiction to try and sabotage a fact.
If you are confused Sulla or Egghead will be only too happy to unconfuse you / orientate you.

There is a muddle which I pointed out some time ago, which remains, even among authors and historians. Bergen-Belsen is a fine example. Stories of mass gassings of inmates by false shower heads still float around. Jewish historian Max Dimont also wrote of mass gassings at this camp, yet other sources such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Jewish Historiography Project, etc, say that was no so.

The Trial proceedings for this camp did not include any prosecutions for (or even accusations of) mass gassings, or even individual ones at this camp.

I've read of claims of 80,000 "gassed and burned to death" in one night at Bergen-Belsen (according to a Jewish physician published by the AP in 1945,) and I've also read that most of the dead at these camps died due to the epidemics that raged toward the end of the war and after the war as well, including German guards who already had typhus and other diseases when the camps were liberated.

I've not found anything that says Bergen-Belsen was a T4 killing center, so that would not apply to this camp.

I did find on the US Holocaust Memorial Site a woman who was there that said this (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005224):

Bella Jakubowicz Tovey
Describes conditions in Bergen-Belsen [1990 interview]

Bergen-Belsen was, was not a, was not like Auschwitz. There were no gas chambers. They didn't need any gas chambers, it was a really death camp. I remember we were brought into a big, empty barrack. There was only straw on the floor. We were pushed into that barrack so that you could not stretch your legs. We were sitting with our knees practically up to our...you know, next to our chins. And, uh, and you couldn't stretch your legs, and it was cold and we were hungry. Uh, I want to tell you that it didn't take long and we could stretch our legs, because people were...people were dying. Almost immediately people were dying all around us. And, uh, we had to take out the dead people and we had to carry them out on a...outside there were always big piles of dead bodies and I...I carried many. I don't know how I kept going. I tell you I...people have some way of protecting themselves. I know that I never, never looked at the faces, just didn't look at the faces.

Then we have Moshe Peer (http://www.scrapbookpages.com/BergenBelsen/BergenBelsen04.html) who claims to have survived at least 6 gassings at Bergen-Belsen, and also claimed to have seen body parts lying about.

Mass gassings to no gassings? Yeah that's a bit muddled.

cerberus

11-06-2006, 11:43 PM

Look at it this way calvin .
In Gas Chambers II and II , the lift to take the bodies up was small , it took time to move perhaps a few hundred bodies ( or many more) up to the ovens to be burnt.
Now when people die as these people died they don't lie doen in neat rows , it has been described as a tangled heap , which had to be torn apart - for perhaps a hundred people this is still exhausting work and its not a five or ten minute job.

I have to ask Calvin , just how much have you bothered to find out about the killings ?
IV and V - all on the level but equally as time consuming.

cerberus

11-06-2006, 11:49 PM

CheesyPieMass gassings to no gassings? Yeah that's a bit muddled.

It is as muddled as your own ignorance makes it - as I have said before - I am oly a general reader of the Holocaust but it is not so hard to sort out what took place where.
As with all history - don't read in isloation - that way you will find out more and confusion will be less likely.
Where did you read Bergen -Belsen was a T4 killing centre ?

Empress Cheesatine

11-06-2006, 11:55 PM

...while the following other camps never had any gas chambers

Gross-Rosen
Flossenbuerg
Buchenwald
Dora-Mittelbau (where Rassinier was imprisoned)
Bergen-Belsen

and the following camp had a gas chamber constructed starting very late, January 1945, which was most likely never used:

Dachau

One witness claimed that gassings were carried out there, which is in legal terms an irrelevancy. So the court cases involving Dachau heard the evidence but didn't conclude that there had been any.

Because prisoners were transferred from camp to camp, and because the entirety of the Auschwitz inmate population that survived was evacuated to another camp in Germany after January 1945, you get the occasional 'false positive' when someone was sure that their final camp had a gas chamber but in fact it didn't. Thus the occasional reference in 1945 to a gas chamber at Belsen, because many liberated at Belsen had been at Auschwitz beforehand.

Some of this confusion got reported in the postwar press, in part because journalists didn't take proper notes of what was being said at some of the trials. I mean, hacks are hacks and the 1940s hacks were no different to today's reporters, i.e. they made mistakes.

A very few survivors were so confused that they described something they never saw, in a camp which never had a gas chamber. A French prisoner did so for Buchenwald in a very early postwar memoir. But this is one guy out of 39 memoirs published in France from Buchenwald survivors between 1945-48. I believe the rate of mental illness in the average population can reach as high as 10% over the average lifespan, and even the most cynical would concede that there must have been serious PTSD going round among some of the camp inmates after the war. B.F.D. if one out of 39 memoir writers made a false claim. That just means the one guy was deluded.

Rassinier also spent time at Buchenwald, which is there most of the controversy about him lies: whether or not there were gas chambers at that camp.

I have no doubt of journalistic sloppiness/stupidity, but to leave out that some of those people may have just flat out lied is a bit too rosy. I really don't think Moshe Peer was "confused" and thought they were trying to gas him 6 times at Bergen-Belsen when they really weren't...

Empress Cheesatine

11-06-2006, 11:57 PM

CheesyPie

It is as muddled as your own ignorance makes it - as I have said before - I am oly a general reader of the Holocaust but it is not so hard to sort out what took place where.
As with all history - don't read in isloation - that way you will find out more and confusion will be less likely.
Where did you read Bergen -Belsen was a T4 killing centre ?

Er, I just said that I couldn't find anywhere that it was a T4 killing center, but I responded to that because you mentioned that thousands of deaths in Germany came due to that program. It has no impact on Bergen-Belsen at all.

Trojan

11-07-2006, 12:01 AM

Er, I just said that I couldn't find anywhere that it was a T4 killing center, but I responded to that because you mentioned that thousands of deaths in Germany came due to that program. It has no impact on Bergen-Belsen at all.

Cheesypie

Do you agree with Calvin? Specificaly, there is a belief in a study by Krege, etc. etc.

:bitchfight:

Do you agree with him? yes or no, be honest

Empress Cheesatine

11-07-2006, 12:04 AM

Cheesypie

Do you agree with Calvin? Specificaly, there is a belief in a study by Krege, etc. etc.

:bitchfight:

Do you agree with him? yes or no, be honest

Im not familiar with what he was saying, as I havent read most of the lengthy arguments on this thread. Generally speaking I do not believe in an extermination program nor mass gassings. I don't doubt there were medical experiments as this is something all the powers seem to have participated in - and still do.

cerberus

11-07-2006, 12:07 AM

CheesyPieI've not found anything that says Bergen-Belsen was a T4 killing center, so that would not apply to this camp.

CheesyPie - You did mention that gassing centres in germany - make no mistake about it CheesyPie - the Holocaust was not a jewish only experince and Hitler and Himmler were killing Germans before they were gassing Jews - thin end of the same wedge.

Sorry to educate you on this point but you did ask .
BTW 14f13 the process by which Himmler had T4 enter the concentration camps - and do you think that the camps in Germany were exempt , think again.

calvin

11-07-2006, 12:50 AM

Trojan

11-07-2006, 01:18 AM

Im not familiar with what he was saying, as I havent read most of the lengthy arguments on this thread. Generally speaking I do not believe in an extermination program nor mass gassings. I don't doubt there were medical experiments as this is something all the powers seem to have participated in - and still do.

Ah no ... Krege is a Australian revisionists, suppose to be an engineer, who is suppose to have done a Ground Penetrating Radar study of Treblinka. The claim is that this study refutes Treblinka in its entirety. No sign of mass graves, no sign of the camp for that matter.

Problem is, this study was suppose to have been performed in 1999. Here we are seven years later and Krege has NEVER published his study.

Yet many desperate and intellectually bankrupt revisionists cling to this claim of a study as proof that Treblinka did not exists.

Calvin has summarized the Krege study as ... "There is widespread belief, in revisionist circles, in the existence of a GPR study that disproves the claim that Treblinka was a place of mass-extermination."

So the ultimate question is, does an unpublished study constitute proof?

It would seem to be a very simple question, yet many revisionists are unable to give an honest answer.

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 01:26 AM

“Nope. You believe, in common with revisionists, that there is this thing called the Krege report” This is what Milhouse claims to be my position.

This is what I actually said, “There is widespread belief, in revisionist circles, in the existence of a GPR study that disproves the claim that Treblinka was a place of mass-extermination” Nope, an ox hasn’t just crapped crap in your hallway, that smell of bullshit is emanating from Milhouse’s post. Good old fashioned lying; a great way to start an outstandingly inept post.

Are you backpedalling, hair-splitting or simply incapable of realising when you're being made fun of? Or maybe you know you're being made fun of but think bluster is the way out.

Now, for the last time: please provide a URL for this magical study or its publication.

Because I'm quite well aware that revisionists talk about the much-vaunted 'Krege study', but it seems not to exist in the same way that you can, quite easily, point me to the Leuchter report or Rudolf report.

That's why this 'belief' you refer to is so goddamn hilarious.

It gets better.

“Looked in the mirror lately?”

Brilliant! I haven’t heard that since 1st grade.

You made it that far?

“Oh, Calvin, you're priceless. Why use GPR when you can get permission to conduct actual excavations?”

Has anyone told Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that? I think the Iranians would be very interested in conducting excavations.

(Yawn.) Are you another sand whigger?

“By my count, Holocaust denial is permitted in something like 95% of the countries in the world with a corresponding proportion of the world's population. Evidently the 'influential forces', whoever they are, are not that powerful”

Or perhaps they concentrate only on powerful countries that have international influence?

:rofl:

USA, UK, Russia, China - completely legal to talk crap about history
That's 4 out of 5 permanent members of the Security Council.

Now, will you identify the pressures brought by the 'influential forces' to bring about the loi Gayssot, revise Article 130 in Germany and which evidently were ultra-swift in enshrining such a provision in Austria as early as 1947.

And you'll no doubt be able to read my mind and tell whether I agree with such laws or not. After all, you're such a genius that it should be a doddle for you.

“Ah, but you have claimed that there is this possibly mythical Krege study of Treblinka, I have pointed to a real study of Belzec, an ongoing study of Sobibor. So that's two studies. One has been published, one will presumably soon be published, and one seems to be unpublished. Oops! That's the denier study”

So you go to these camps, find the site of a communal grave; bore a couple of holes and Bingo! Holocaust proved case closed! Bollocks!

Care to explain what happened instead, Calvin? Your appeal to personal incredulity ('bollocks') isn't much of an argument. Have you even read the Kola study? Nope, of course not. That would be far too tedious for you. Much easier to mouth off on the internet and feel oh-so-dangerous and radical.

“And investigated with such a degree of incompetence that people have hardly stopped laughing ever since”

Yeah! That’s right, the test audience were laughing so hard at the Dr Death documentary that it had to be re-edited because so many of them believed Leuchter's conclusions to be correct.

Care to explain why both times the Leuchter report has been tested in court, once in front of a jury - how did the 'influential forces' pack that one, I wonder? - and indirectly at the Irving trial, it was laughed out of the proverbial?

Come to think of it, since when was Leuchter a qualified chemist, hydrologist-geologist or engineer?

Oh, that's right, the entire denier nonsense about Prussian Blue was invented by a non-chemist. Hmmmmmm.

“I don't have much time for Wiesel. Nor do most people working on the history of this era. So please don't bring up crap he said as if it's somehow gospel that must be believed”

Ahh! The holocaust chameleon sloughs off more dead skin. Poor Wiesel and his geysers get chucked into the big dustbin marked “no longer useful” beside the steam chambers, shrunken heads and vacuum chambers.

I can recommend a very enlightening article about the shrunken head singular.

As for the other strawmen, keep going. To save you wasting your time tilting at windmills, I've never read anything by Wiesel, Wiesenthal, the Anne Frank Diary, seen Schindler's List, set foot in the *exhibition* part of the USHMM or the permanent exhibition at the IWM, or any of the other pieces of fluff that you guys seem so worked up about.

Incidentally, since the Dutch and German police - remember, Holocaust denial is legal in the Netherlands, though libel is not - forensically tested the Anne Frank diary and proved that it was genuine, will we ever get a retraction from Fauri, Irving, Felderer and all the other nutjobs who lied about it being a fake?

“Actually, I don't know any such thing until you can identify what you are talking about. It's not an unreasonable request”

The person who asserts that I know “fuck all” about the holocaust seems to know “fuck all” about the “German method”. Why not take your own advice and Google, “German method” holocaust, ? Too lazy or just hoping in vain that I was talking out of my arse?

No, I'm seeing whether you will, on request, identify the source of your reference. Come to think of it, what was the source of your 'geysers of blood' reference?

C'mon, these are things you read at some point in denier publications online. It's not like you can't refind them 12 months or 12 weeks or 12 days later using :google:

It's also called honest discussion, Calvin. You make a claim or reference, I ask you to back it up, I make a claim, you ask me to back it up. That's how these discussions are supposed to work.

Or alternatively I may be completely uninterested. I’ll put your “stupidest denier” award on my mantelpiece right next to my “racist prick” award.

Yep. As suspected, a troll.

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 01:31 AM

Rassinier also spent time at Buchenwald, which is there most of the controversy about him lies: whether or not there were gas chambers at that camp.

I have no doubt of journalistic sloppiness/stupidity, but to leave out that some of those people may have just flat out lied is a bit too rosy. I really don't think Moshe Peer was "confused" and thought they were trying to gas him 6 times at Bergen-Belsen when they really weren't...

As I said, there is a proportion of any population that is mentally ill. Do you accept this? Moshe Peer is a liar writing almost 40 years after the fact. Does that mean all survivors of concentration camps are liars? I fail to see how this logically follows.

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 02:53 AM

4. If you have answered 'yes' to (1) and (2), you will agree that there were deportations from the Netherlands of the stated order of magnitude...
That is not the implication of what has been demonstrated. You have seemingly accounted for some 31-32 thousand Dutch Jewish deportees, as registered (12-13K) or as the victims of other than supposed gassings (19K) - not 100,000. You cannot afford to lose two-thirds of your deportees to the lack of registration of each one of them.

Your "proof" of the number of deportees, total and per transport, seems to be confined, apart from pretenses, to the following remarks:

The deportation records were also discovered in the Netherlands after the war. These record every transport to the east, with complete lists of names, and were used by the Dutch Red Cross in the postwar years to identify the missing.

A summary of the records to be found in the Dutch national archives on camps, deportations, transport lists as well as correspondence relating to missing persons can be read here (in Dutch, but I think you can puzzle out the really critical words):
http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/images/3_9566.pdf

Questions for MVH:

1) Who allegedly generated these deportation records?

2) If the records were German, why were they not seized or turned over as the Allied forces passed through the Netherlands?

2) By whom were they supposedly "discovered"?

3) What is the chain of custody of these documents thereafter?

4) Where is the evidence that the Dutch Red Cross checked for the authenticity of all 100,000 names?

6) Explain why Piper estimated 60K, as below, or account for an error in the attribution to Piper: [We will later investigate the question of how Hoess was given the now-official number consistent with 1.5M and yet "confessed" and swore at trial to his (which was also Broad's) "estimate" of 3M, the particulars of which only Eichmann could have known, according to Hoess.]

Originally Posted by Globus

There is nothing fictional about the numbers and the agreement between one complete set of estimate at 1.1 million and an incomplete set at 1.13 million is a figment of your imagination.

As can be seen below, the incomplete Hoess estimates [left column] of deportation totals does not equal Piper's estimate[right column]

From Upper Silesia and the General
Gouvemement............................. 250,000-------------------300,000

Germany andTheresienstadt .... ....100,000 -------------------103,000

Holland..................................... 95,000 ---------------------60,000

Belgium..................................... 20,000---------------------25,000

France..................................... 110,000 --------------------69,000

Greece...................................... 65,000 --------------------55,000

Hungary................................... 400,000 -------------------438,000

Slovakia.................................... 90,000 --------------------27,000

Yugoslavia---------------------------------------------------10,000

Italy----------------------------------------------------------7,500

Norway--------------------------------------------------------690

Non-Jews----------------------------------------------------200,000

Totals--------------------------1,130,000-------------------1,295,190

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 03:23 AM

Globus

11-07-2006, 04:11 AM

So let's look at the numbers in perspective:

Hoaxer: approx 100,000 deportees = 81K gassed + 19K other deaths + 5400 survivors who chose to resume their identities. Only 5% survive, of which an even lesser percentage of the total are formerly desperately-needed workers.

Denier: approx 32,000 deportees = 19K other deaths + 5400 survivors who chose to resume their identity + 7600 hypothetical survivors who chose not to resume their identity and/or were dumped in Russia and are "missing". 20-40% of deported Dutch Jews survive, a representative number of which survive for their value as workers.

Piper: approx 60,000 deportees = confusion of the issue

Which account rings true?

You know, it would help if you actually knew something about the history you so idiotically comment on.

Here's a perfect example of you not even knowing how to approach answering a question you pose merely for purposes of denial.

The Piper estimate, coming as it does from his article on a death toll for Auschwitz, concerns deportations to Auschwitz.

Did it occur to you that all the deportees from Holland did not go to the Auschwitz camp!!

If deportees were "selected" for work or extermination, why were so many of what must have been great numbers of workers exterminated, according to the Hoaxer account?

Because this was just one nation of many, and there were at the time plenty of workers.

Are we to believe that a defeatist orientation to production was permitted toward the end of the war such that it was concluded and admitted that production being abandoned would never resume and thus disemployed Jewish workers should be killed in a desperate final act contrary to the spirit of the supposedly impending "final victory"?

You really love these run on sentences, don't you!

Most of the deportations from Holland did not occur near the end of the war.

And what you choose to believe has nothing to do with what the evidence shows.

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 04:20 AM

Did it occur to you that all the deportees from Holland did not go to the Auschwitz camp!!
It does, now that you point it out. I took Hoess' 95K to correspond to the official 100K total, hence my mistake in forgetting the context confined to Auschwitz.

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 04:29 AM

Because this was just one nation of many, and there were at the time plenty of workers.

Most of the deportations from Holland did not occur near the end of the war.

You redeem my little Dummheit by being provoked to multiple and massive ones. :thanks:

Globus

11-07-2006, 04:30 AM

You redeem my little Dummheit by being provoked to multiple and massive ones. :thanks:

Anything else you need to know?

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 04:35 AM

Anything else you need to know?
Since I make a mistake like that maybe once every ten years, I think you can stand down for a while.

Globus

11-07-2006, 04:37 AM

Since I make a mistake like that maybe once every ten years, I think you can stand down for a while.

You make mistakes all the time. That is, when you're not just deliberately distorting the facts.

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 08:46 AM

That is not the implication of what has been demonstrated. You have seemingly accounted for some 31-32 thousand Dutch Jewish deportees, as registered (12-13K) or as the victims of other than supposed gassings (19K) - not 100,000. You cannot afford to lose two-thirds of your deportees to the lack of registration of each one of them.

Registered inmates also died; and as has been explained above, there were other camps (Mauthausen, Theresienstadt, Belsen) where no gassings of Dutch Jews were involved. Thus, strictly speaking you were double-counting.

Questions for MVH:

1) Who allegedly generated these deportation records?

primarily Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei Niederlande, some from Hoeherer SS- und Polizeifuehrer Niederlande; some from the camp staff at Westerbork under HSSPF Niederlande, cross-referencing with each other.

in other files than those listed in the pdf: a great deal that would be cross-referencable with Dutch civil service records and other German departmental records concerning... the disposition of property.

Indeed, one could, theoretically, go through property deeds, rental agreements, sales of shares on the Amsterdam stock market, and so forth to identify yet more of a paper trail. But doing so would be exceedingly tedious, of interest primarily to those examining the expropriation of Jewish property, though there are several studies on this theme that I have not read.

There were also public notices in the contemporary press relating to property matters, decrees and the like.

2) If the records were German, why were they not seized or turned
over as the Allied forces passed through the Netherlands?

Blame the Canadians :p

Because they liberated the north of the Netherlands where the records were stored. Obviously too wishy-washy and not sufficiently under the thumb of ZOG :p

2) By whom were they supposedly "discovered"?

You'd have to ask the Dutch national archives for that detail.

3) What is the chain of custody of these documents thereafter?

You'd have to ask the Dutch national archives for that detail. It seems rather redundant to allege tampering when there are also a large quantity of other records that can cross-reference the disappearence of the respective family from Dutch society and the economy starting in 1942.

4) Where is the evidence that the Dutch Red Cross checked for the authenticity of all 100,000 names?

In the Dutch Red Cross publications from the later 1940s they would no doubt talk of the procedures followed; the pdf file indicates correspondence concerning missing persons from the camps. Even allowing for padding, a 16pp finding guide indicates more than a few files on such matters.

I understand that relatives, insurance companies, coroners and others have used the name lists to correlate with the aforementioned property records.

The names appear as part of a 1950s official Dutch government publication, multi-volume, listing the name of every single person who died under German occupation. The Jewish names take up the largest proportion of the publication.

6) Explain why Piper estimated 60K, as below, or account for an error in the attribution to Piper:

Simple, as explained to you alread, 60,000 were deported to Auschwitz, the rest to other camps.

Now, the other questions I put to you, Neo?

Panzerfaust Boy

11-07-2006, 11:26 AM

die charging arab bunkers, holocaustianites! :)

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 11:56 AM

die charging arab bunkers, holocaustianites! :)

as flames go, that was actually quite funny.:)

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 12:19 PM

Now, the other questions I put to you, Neo?
Which ones? (#1/2/3 of the 4 were answered by implication of choosing #4).

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 12:25 PM

The names appear as part of a 1950s official Dutch government publication, multi-volume, listing the name of every single person who died under German occupation. The Jewish names take up the largest proportion of the publication.
How many Jews are named as having died?

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 01:17 PM

Please tell us what figures were written into Reitlinger (1953) and Hilberg (1961), the two standard overviews in the English-speaking world for the greater part of the rest of the 20th Century.

and who did these numbers refer to?
Perhaps you refer to the diversionary questions, above, as those yet to be answered.

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

1) I have already quoted Piper multiple times as to Reitlinger at 900K and Hilberg at 1M:

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.

So don't pretend, professor, that there was some public or even academic consensus on the number other than the Soviet Communist 4 million dogma, emplaqued and spread round the world by Judeo-Communist propaganda facilities, and adhered to by academics in general and historians in particular outside a small group who failed to persuade anyone otherwise of their variable version of the truth.

Piper fails to explain what prompted him to become a revisionist - note that even he does not credit Hilberg or Reitlinger as the convincing basis for his review:

There are various opinions about the origins and purpose of the widely-circulated figure of 4,000,000 Auschwitz victims...I reopened the research on this problem in the 1980s, as part of the work on the five-volume Auschwitz monograph. I knew full well that the findings of the prosecutors and judicial authorities on this question in the 1940s rested on inadequate documentation.

2) The Hoess 3 million (2.5M supposedly gassed) and the later Hoess 1.5 million (1.13M Jews) were the numbers given to him for confessional, prosecutorial, testimonial, and memorial purposes, regarding the total number of deaths at Auschwitz, Jew and non-Jew. Evidently the hasty revision of the absurd "testimony" beaten into Hoess and for which Broad was rewarded was prompted by the following:

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.

calvin

11-07-2006, 01:33 PM

Milhouse

“Are you backpedalling, hair-splitting or simply incapable of realising when you're being made fun of?”

In future could you preface your attempts at humour with the word JOKE so that I can distinguish them from your STRAWMAN arguments? Cheers!

“Because I'm quite well aware that revisionists talk about the much-vaunted 'Krege study', but it seems not to exist in the same way that you can, quite easily, point me to the Leuchter report or Rudolf report”

Leuchter’s career is in ruins and Rudolf and Irving are in prison, not likely to see Krege skipping of to the printers any time soon, are we?

“You made it that far?”

And that would be another example of your rib-splitting humour?

”Are you another sand whigger?”

Ad hom, strawman and now racism, brilliant stuff Milhouse.

“USA, UK, Russia, China - completely legal to talk crap about history
That's 4 out of 5 permanent members of the Security Council”

It’s not a crime in China for the simple reason that 99% of the population of China could care less if six or sixty million gweilo got gassed last century, non-issue, period! In America there’s a little inconvenience called “The Constitution” that makes denial laws impossible. This doesn’t stop holocaust “deniers” from being deported to countries where they can be imprisoned any more than it stops terror suspects from being deported to places where torture is legal.

“Have you even read the Kola study?”

Quote your source, as you are so fond of saying, and we can dissect this report together.

“Care to explain why both times the Leuchter report has been tested in court, once in front of a jury - how did the 'influential forces' pack that one, I wonder? - and indirectly at the Irving trial, it was laughed out of the proverbial?”

”indirectly at the Irving trial”….So your benchmark for estimating the veracity of evidence is whether or not that evidence was used by Irving in his libel action? LOL. To answer your question, it has never been tested in court and unless you can provide me with the details of the Leuchter trial, your woofing into an empty cave (once again).

“As for the other strawmen, keep going. To save you wasting your time tilting at windmills, I've never read anything by Wiesel, Wiesenthal, the Anne Frank Diary, seen Schindler's List, set foot in the *exhibition* part of the USHMM or the permanent exhibition at the IWM, or any of the other pieces of fluff that you guys seem so worked up about”

We’ve already established that you are a proponent of the “New Improved Holocaust”.

“Incidentally, since the Dutch and German police - remember, Holocaust denial is legal in the Netherlands, though libel is not - forensically tested the Anne Frank diary and proved that it was genuine, will we ever get a retraction from Fauri, Irving, Felderer and all the other nutjobs who lied about it being a fake?”

“Libel is not”, so it’s a bit like the UK’s, denial illegal by default, system? So Ms Frank really did die of typhus, and your point is?

“No, I'm seeing whether you will, on request, identify the source of your reference. Come to think of it, what was the source of your 'geysers of blood' reference?”

It couldn’t possibly be Eli Wiesel could it?

“It's also called honest discussion, Calvin. You make a claim or reference, I ask you to back it up, I make a claim, you ask me to back it up. That's how these discussions are supposed to work.”

Hmmm! Let me see, nope, I can’t seem to find your source for the Kola study.

“Yep. As suspected, a troll”

Which one of us decided to leaven his posts with racist epithets, expletives and racist insults, me or you? You wasted all of that time on your lengthy and detailed initial post simply because you are not mature enough to debate in a civil manner. Poor Milhouse

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 01:36 PM

Blame the Canadians :p

Because they liberated the north of the Netherlands where the records were stored. Obviously too wishy-washy and not sufficiently under the thumb of ZOG :p
Does that shit-eating grin of yours tell us that it cannot be shown that the Canadians were typically derelict in their seizure of the Devil's documents - as they facilitated the onrush of the peace-loving and democratic Communist-driven pillagers and rapists by stabbing his minions in the back?

And does this not prompt suspicion as to the existence, in their present form, of the documents in question, at the time that the Canadian goyim, themselves, were being stampeded across Europe?

Globus

11-07-2006, 01:57 PM

Does that shit-eating grin of yours tell us that it cannot be shown that the Canadians were typically derelict in their seizure of the Devil's documents - as they facilitated the onrush of the peace-loving and democratic Communist-driven pillagers and rapists by stabbing his minions in the back?

And does this not prompt suspicion as to the existence, in their present form, of the documents in question, at the time that the Canadian goyim, themselves, were being stampeded across Europe?

LOL!

The only thing you're suspicous of is all the evidence which proves the Holocaust. As you are forced to deny more and more of it, people will begin to see that your reluctance is motivated by a conclusion you wish to reach, not one dictated by what the evidence shows.

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 02:01 PM

Which ones? (#1/2/3 of the 4 were answered by implication of choosing #4).

So you accept that
- the Smolen list is accurate
- the Dutch Red Cross are untainted by any connection with a major power
- the documentation is cross-ways corroborated to Sundays
- there are up to 100,000 missing Dutch Jews

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 02:06 PM

Does that shit-eating grin of yours tell us that it cannot be shown that the Canadians were typically derelict in their seizure of the Devil's documents

Canada prosecuted virtually no war criminals, and took no part in wider investigative programs.

- as they facilitated the onrush of the peace-loving and democratic Communist-driven pillagers and rapists by stabbing his minions in the back?

The Canadian frontline stayed essentially static along the Dutch stretch of the Rhine until the very end. If anything, it was a waste of Allied combat power. :p

And does this not prompt suspicion as to the existence, in their present form, of the documents in question, at the time that the Canadian goyim, themselves, were being stampeded across Europe?

No.

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 02:07 PM

How many Jews are named as having died?

All of them.

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 02:21 PM

So you accept that
- the Smolen list is accurate
- the Dutch Red Cross are untainted by any connection with a major power
- the documentation is cross-ways corroborated to Sundays
- there are up to 100,000 missing Dutch Jews
The first two, not three and four.

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 02:37 PM

All of them.
All 100,000 - no MIA??????????

If so, they merely reproduced the list of alleged deportees, minus their account of survivors!!!!!!!!!

Same stupid, prejudicial presumption as the Soviets in generating the 4 million myth!

So let's be clear, professor: was every one ("all") of the listed deportees recorded as killed, except for the 5422 survivors that they account for? There was no allowance for an unaccountable missing-ness of even one individual?

If the answer is "yes," yet another Certificate of Merit for Services Rendered in the Cause of Revisionism will have to be generated to honor our latest collaborator.

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 03:00 PM

Canada prosecuted virtually no war criminals, and took no part in wider investigative programs.
And seized no documents, as is the question?

The Canadian frontline stayed essentially static along the Dutch stretch of the Rhine until the very end. If anything, it was a waste of Allied combat power. :p
Duly noted.

No.
Credulous in the service of the agenda, then. No sense of the context of lies, of the operation and cooperation of the interests involved. Except for Katyn, everything was copacetic, Allied-wise. I've got a bridge...

Globus

11-07-2006, 03:04 PM

Credulous in the service of the agenda, then. No sense of the context of lies, of the operation and cooperation of the interests involved. Except for Katyn, everything was copacetic, Allied-wise. I've got a bridge...

A bridge, but no evidence of anything, it appears.

Just how is it that Holocaust denial can have no evidence and think it poses a threat to actual history?

Trojan

11-07-2006, 03:29 PM

The first two, not three and four.

Please demonstrate how the Dutch Red Cross is tainted.

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Milhouse Van Houten

Please tell us what figures were written into Reitlinger (1953) and Hilberg (1961), the two standard overviews in the English-speaking world for the greater part of the rest of the 20th Century.

and who did these numbers refer to?

Perhaps you refer to the diversionary questions, above, as those yet to be answered.

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

1) I have already quoted Piper multiple times as to Reitlinger at 900K and Hilberg at 1M:

Quote:
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.

So don't pretend, professor, that there was some public or even academic consensus on the number other than the Soviet Communist 4 million dogma, emplaqued and spread round the world by Judeo-Communist propaganda facilities, and adhered to by academics in general and historians in particular outside a small group who failed to persuade anyone otherwise of their variable version of the truth.

Incorrect, Neo. The picture is much more complicated than you would allow for.

Let's look at the figures in date order and with reference to in what context they were given, and what level of knowledge the writers had.

Eugen Kogon (1946-7) was writing in the immediate aftermath of the war, about the KZ system as a whole. Estimate: 3.5-4.5 million. Kogon's numbers are all ludicrous. None of them have been accepted in many decades. Kogon is typical of the 'emotive' school that unsurprisingly characterised the end of the war. Kogon's numbers refer to total victims, thus are completely irrelevant for any discussion of a Holocaust death toll

Leon Poliakov(1951): was writing about the persecution of the Jews as a whole, and used a figure of 2 million, out of you tell me how many, presumably something close to six million. I might even deign to see if I can find this in my university library and how he correlated things. The book was translated to English shortly thereafter but has had virtually no major circulation in the Anglosphere. I don't even know if Poliakov's figure refers to Jews or to total victims.

Gerald Reitlinger (1953) was writing about the 'Final Solution' as a whole. He was the first in the West to adduce a total for Auschwitz based on the addition method of compiling what was known about transports. Lacking access to the complete range of documentary sources which were later available, and opting for the most conservative figures possible, he calculated a maximum of 840,000 Jews.

Edward Crankshaw (1956), a wartime member of the Bletchley Park Police Decode Section and involved in the IMT Nuremberg trial, gave a figure of 1 million in his book 'The Gestapo'. I don't know if that was total victims or Jews.

Raul Hilberg (1961) repeated the addition method using an expanded source base. He concluded 1 million Jews.

Reitlinger and Hilberg henceforth became the pre-eminent monographs on the subject of the Final Solution in the Anglosphere and also in Wewst Germany, which had largely arrived at the same conclusions as Hilberg, undoubtedly based on Reitlinger's earlier work.

This can be demonstrated by:

Wolfgang Scheffler (1961), Judenverfolgung im Dritten Reich 1933-1945, gave a figure of 1 million Jews dying at Auschwitz.

Scheffler was affiliated with the Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte so I'd be curious to see what was being said in the works of Martin Broszat, Hans Mommsen et al.

Heinz Hoehne (1966), The Order of the Death's Head, reprinted Hilberg's figures (5.1 million by country, by camps and methods as given in Hilberg). This was soon translated into English and became the pre-eminent one-volume monograph on the SS. I read it in my mid-teens at the start of the 1980s and it would have probably been my first encounter with any figures relating to the camps or the Holocaust. Thus, 1 million Jews.

Ino Arndt and Wolfgang Scheffler (1976) wrote an article for the Viertelsjahreshefte fuer Zeitgeschichte which responded to the early stirrings of denial in West Germany (Thies Christopherson, Heinz Roth, Paul Rassinier were mentioned), and repeated Scheffler's 1961 figure of 1 million Jews.

The most striking characteristic of those that after 1961 persisted with higher claims is that they were almost wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwall Jewish writers.

Joseph Billig (1973), Les camps concentrationaire dans l'economie du Reich Hitlerien, gave a figure of 2 million Jews gassed and 230,000 registered inmates dying. The French influence of Poliakov and, no doubt also of Kogon, in a work about the camps as a whole, is apparent.

Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1974) gave a spread of 1 to 2.5 million Jews. This shows all the usual panache and authoritative research of the typical encyclopedia. It also shows the obvious signs of splitting the difference between the lower Hilbergian end and the higher Polish claims.

Lucy Dawidowicz (1975) gave a figure of 2 million, probably lifted from Poliakov. I gather she hated Hilberg with a passion. She also repeated the 1944 first claim of 1.5 million for Majdanek. Indeed one suspects she was wilfully stupid. Unsurprisingly, her profession in later life was journalism. :p

Georges Wellers (1983) in Le Monde juif, wrote the first publication exclusively dealing with calculating the number of victims of Auschwitz, and came to a total of 1.6 million, 1.43 million Jews and the rest non-Jews. His main mistake was to overestimate the number of Polish Jews deported there, inflating them to 600,000 instead of the 300,000 calculated by Piper. Eliminate this exaggeration and Wellers' calculation is basically in line with Piper's.

Aharon Weiss (1984) wrote in an essay in an edited collection discussing the role of camps in the execution of the Final Solution that 1 to 2.5 million died at Auschwitz. This was probably lifted wholesale from Encyclopedia Judaica.

Yehuda Bauer (1985) contributed an article to another edited collection, and gave a figure of 2.5 million. Again, probably lifting the higher total from Encyclopedia Judaica and being overconscious of the Polish claims, as was not uncommon among Israeli historians.

Martin Gilbert (1986) in 'The Holocaust' gave a figure of 1.5 million Jews. Gilbert was primarily a biographer of Winston Churchill and only secondarily a coalface researcher on the Holocaust. The upwards slip is therefore typical of many who at this 'late' stage were aware of East European claims, compared them with the figures of Hilberg and many other German historians, and 'revised' them upwards without performing any kind of systematic calculation.

Gilbert gave a different figure in 'Auschwitz and the Allies' (1981), in fact he endorsed a figure of 2 million Jews and 2 million non-Jews. That he did so is almost insane, since he had spent almost every other chapter of his book identifying precise transports using data from the Hefte von Auschwitz, which gave the correct Hilberg-Piper level figures. I.e., Gilbert could have pre-empted Piper by a decade or reaffirmed Hilberg 20 years later, but screwed up.

In fact, Gilbert did get the number basically right, because in the first edition of 'Atlas of the Holocaust' (1982), his maps illustrated the numbers deported from specific towns to Auschwitz. If added up, these totalled the Piper figure of 1.1 million, whereas the introduction/statistical summaries said 2 million.

Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1990) sat on the fence and offered the figure of 1.6 million Jews.

Piper fails to explain what prompted him to become a revisionist - note that even he does not credit Hilberg or Reitlinger as the convincing basis for his review:

He explains his reasons in the introduction of Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz. The primary reason was the discrepancy between the East Bloc rhetoric of the higher figure, and the obviously much lower numbers recorded in the ongoing research on the chronicle, first published in the Hefte von Auschwitz from the end of the 1950s.

In short, Piper was spurred to make the precise calculation for the same reasons that Reitlinger and Hilberg gave their lower numbers: awareness of the actual documentation indicating how many had been transported from which territory. This was also the same reason that Gilbert's Atlas of the Holocaust gave the same calculation as Piper (1.1 million) in 1982, while the introduction resorted to plucking a VLN out of the ass.

The long and the short of it is that most historians are neither statisticians nor demographers. Despite the boom in econometric history in the 1970s, no one participating in that school thought to apply statistical analyses to the documentary sources relating to the Holocaust or other Nazi crimes. Economic historians such as Richard Overy avoided the subject of the Holocaust like the plague for as long as possible. Those writing about the Holocaust wished to explore qualitative aspects of the subject rather than quantitative aspects.

Combine the genuine propaganda emanating from the East Bloc agitating for the higher number, the persistence on library shelves of works which were influenced by such agitation or by incompetence, and the taboo of applying 'soulless' statistics to a matter as critical for western Jewish culture as the mass murder of 1/3 of the preceding generation worldwide, and it is really no surprise that the first person to give a detailed statistical overview was a Pole.

< Hoess tedium snipped >

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 03:36 PM

All 100,000 - no MIA??????????

If so, they merely reproduced the list of alleged deportees, minus their account of survivors!!!!!!!!!

Same stupid, prejudicial presumption as the Soviets in generating the 4 million myth!

So let's be clear, professor: was every one ("all") of the listed deportees recorded as killed, except for the 5422 survivors that they account for? There was no allowance for an unaccountable missing-ness of even one individual?

If the answer is "yes," yet another Certificate of Merit for Services Rendered in the Cause of Revisionism will have to be generated to honor our latest collaborator.

How long before someone who is a missing person is declared legally dead, Neo?

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 03:37 PM

The first two, not three and four.

that the documentation is cross-corroborated to a fare-thee-well is beyond dispute.

I therefore fail to see how any reasonable person cannot accept that there were indeed 100,000 Dutch Jews 'missing'.

As to the documentation of their exact fate, this is another question.

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 03:46 PM

How long before someone who is a missing person is declared legally dead, Neo?
After they are merely presumed dead, if they existed in the first place, as is the point.

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 03:58 PM

And seized no documents, as is the question?

Not that I am aware of. You can always ask NIOD and the Canadian national archives.

Duly noted.

It wasn't a very active front.

No sense of the context of lies, of the operation and cooperation of the interests involved.

Whereas you seem to have no sense of the institutional, bureaucratic and investigative context that existed in one country, let alone 15 across Europe.

Except for Katyn, everything was copacetic, Allied-wise.

I see far more evidence of incomprehension by the respective Allied powers than active conspiracy.

Credulous in the service of the agenda, then.

On the contrary, I have bent over backwards to show how one can cross-check different sources against one another. Almost all documents are either the result of compiling yet more documents or can be ticked off in comparison to further documents still. They can then be matched to live people capable of explaining themselves and what happened to them, i.e. eyewitnesses.

To take the documentation for the Herzogenbosch and Westerbork > Auschwitz transports, there are 68 full name lists. Every survivor, and we have seen that there were more than 1000 Dutch survivors of Auschwitz, corroborates the Smolen list. Furthermore every survivor's testimony as to the size of the transport will corroborate the name lists. They may well even name their relatives, friends, acquaintances and so forth in their testimonies. The DRC took such testimonies in order to ascertain missing persons' fates.

A conspiracy to disinform would necessarily have to involve all such survivors. Since this involves upwards of 1000 people this is already utterly implausible. It would then have to forge 68 documents matching the survivors' accounts both before and after the discovery date of the documents. It would further have to place many thousands more documents in a variety of run-of-the-mill archives in the Netherlands to tie in with the 68 documents listing 60,000 names, the documents to range from property deed transfers to records of communal activities inside Westerbork to arrest records. Then someone would have to find a place to hide whatever proportion of the 60,000 people one wishes not to have been deported to Auschwitz.

Conclusion: 60,000 Dutch Jews were deported to Auschwitz. A proportion were registered therein. Only 1000 returned from these journeys. These 1000 survivors can all testify to the separation of the able bodied from the unfit, elderly and pregnant at Auschwitz.

Therefore, the fate of the completely 'missing', unregistered Jews deported from the Netherlands to Auschwitz must necessarily involve one of the three options

a) they were as is accepted gassed
b) they were transferred to another camp in Germany
c) they were 'transited to the east'

The only other possibility I can think of is that a conspiracy mind-meld took place inside Auschwitz-Birkenau among the 10s of 1000s of survivors of all nationalities, which would blot from their memories some alternative delivery location for parts of the transport. It is theoretically possible that after leaving Westerbork, a transport dropped off small packets of deportees at a series of locations, finally arriving at Auschwitz with the fit, hardy remnant. But this is really only a variation on hypothesis (b), transfer to another camp, and seems wholly improbable in the light of the sheer number of testimonies and their unanimous description of a selection process at the final destination, Auschwitz-Birkenau.

So, can we move on to discuss these hypotheses?

a) they were as is accepted gassed
b) they were transferred to another camp in Germany
c) they were 'transited to the east'

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 04:01 PM

Incorrect, Neo. The picture is much more complicated than you would allow for.

But you've wasted everyone's time pretending that this obscure material is what is generally believed of the Hoax. I explained that the Judeo-Communist media spread the Auschwitz 4 million myth world-wide, as was your question, and you pretend to have pertinently responded by correcting Piper as to the elaborate details of the variable story amongst the Holocaustians, whose work was inexcusably denied by the Holocaustian plaque and propaganda for four decades. Your apologetics merely add to the discreditability of the Hoax account, since your ludicrous argument is that we really knew all along, but we never made a point of using our confederates in the public eye to correct the record until it became intolerably embarrassing.

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 04:09 PM

that the documentation is cross-corroborated to a fare-thee-well is beyond dispute.
Merely ostensibly so. I believe you informed us that this is presently under study. And have the manipulators of documents only lately realized that cross-corroborative documents need to be manipulated in a coordinated fashion? I believe you have answered my next question by referring me to Dutch authorities as to the chain of custody of the documents involved, having not determined the integrity of the material yourself.

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 04:28 PM

But you've wasted everyone's time pretending that this obscure material is what is generally believed of the Hoax.

Heinz Hoehne, Edward Crankshaw, Raul Hilberg and Gerald Reitlinger were far from obscure, certainly within the British book market. As I explained, Hoehne was probably the first book I read on the subject, and a broader one it was than simply the Holocaust, since there was a chapter on almost every aspect of the SS. It has been reprinted and reissued multiply since the 1960s.

Hilberg was the first book directly on the Holocaust that I read, in my school library, and was the only book out of any of the titles listed to give any form of cross-referencing (by country and by 'method') on a systematic basis.

I explained that the Judeo-Communist media spread the Auschwitz 4 million myth world-wide, as was your question,

Incorrect. The communist media, namely the Poles, spread the 4 million myth, which applied to Poles, Soviet POWs, gypsies and Jews alike.

Jewish sources seem if anything to have accepted a figure of ca. 2 million. The discrepancy is also the discrepancy between the 'six million' VLN and Hilberg's 5.1 million.

and you pretend to have pertinently responded by correcting Piper as to the elaborate details of the variable story amongst the Holocaustians, whose work was inexcusably denied by the Holocaustian plaque and propaganda for four decades.

The Auschwitz plaque was the work of the communist Poles. There were essentially no Jews left in Poland by this time.

Your apologetics merely add to the discreditability of the Hoax account, since your ludicrous argument is that we really knew all along, but we never made a point of using our confederates in the public eye to correct the record until it became intolerably embarrassing.

Incorrect. There were three competing numbers, one generated by the East Bloc in reverence for the back-of-the-envelope calculations of the Soviets and for the wildly exaggerated claims of the survivor-witnesses; one middling figure generated by a sense of 'compromise' (because all sources indicated that it was awful, but surely not as awful as those untrustworthy Soviets said it was), and one correct figure which was endorsed by the scholars of the issue who have remained credible. Dawidowicz is car-boot-sale fodder these days. Hilberg is not.

In one case, we even have a scholar giving the correct figures in three separate publications, but disaggregated into their component parts, while offering three different 'global' figures in each successive publication.

One could just as easily turn this 'attack' around and say: why did no revisionist writer examine the statistical data and statistical sources relating to Auschwitz systematically until 2000? A mere nine years after Piper and a whopping four decades after Hilberg and Reitlinger.

Trojan

11-07-2006, 04:29 PM

After they are merely presumed dead, if they existed in the first place, as is the point.

So now you claim the original census from 20 years before the war is a fraud as well?

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 04:37 PM

Merely ostensibly so. I believe you informed us that this is presently under study.

The Dutch total hasn't changed since the late 1940s.

And have the manipulators of documents only lately realized that cross-corroborative documents need to be manipulated in a coordinated fashion?

Hardly, since many of the cross-corroborative documents were necessary for day-to-day purposes such as settling property claims in the 1940s and 1950s.

I believe you have answered my next question by referring me to Dutch authorities as to the chain of custody of the documents involved, having not determined the integrity of the material yourself.

One factor common to the Netherlands, France, Belgium and indeed Norway and Denmark is that governments-in-exile and provisional governments arrived more or less simultaneously with the liberating Allied armies. I strongly suspect there were agreements in place concerning custody of documentation; it would have been a gross violation of Dutch sovereignty for a Canadian intelligence officer to have impounded records of one of the Secretaries-General. Moreover, any Allied military presence in the respective countries after May 8 1945 was purely logistical in nature, there were no US, British or Canadian military governments in the sovereign states of western Europe.

Thus, we can increase the complexity of the putative alleged Hoax by several states. Britain, the US and France each had their occupation zone of Germany. Belgium and the Netherlands did not, but they nonetheless discovered independent evidence which corroborated materials being discovered in Allied-occupied West Germany.

So at the very least, we have a five-power conspiracy simply relating to Western Europe alone; which is doubled when Eastern Europe is added in, and tripled when southern and Northern Europe is also considered.

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 04:51 PM

To take the documentation for the Herzogenbosch and Westerbork > Auschwitz transports, there are 68 full name lists. Every survivor, and we have seen that there were more than 1000 Dutch survivors of Auschwitz, corroborates the Smolen list. Furthermore every survivor's testimony as to the size of the transport will corroborate the name lists. They may well even name their relatives, friends, acquaintances and so forth in their testimonies. The DRC took such testimonies in order to ascertain missing persons' fates.
Let's see:

We have 68 lists totalling 60,000 names.

We have 1000+ "survivors" who collectively swear to having been accompanied by 58,000 other Jews. And not one of them made a mistake in corroboration of transport size/name list, as we wonder at the absurdity of the Germans having informed every, or any, transportee of the size of his transport.

And we have the "testimony" of the same sort of Jews who swore a blue streak that poor Demjanjuk was "Ivan".

Do we have that right?

I see now that I have, indeed, been "trapped" in being led to concede, prima facie, the Smolen list - which I took to be a list of the registered at Auschwitz - and in presuming the integrity of the DRC. The perfection of the corroborative "testimony" suggests that the DRC "led" ignorant witnesses to their affirmations - if they did not merely presume the specified accompaniment of these poor victims now sanctimoniously armed with all the moral authority on earth - as it was merely presumed of all non-survivors that they were simply killed ("died under German occupation").

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 05:10 PM

So at the very least, we have a five-power conspiracy simply relating to Western Europe alone; which is doubled when Eastern Europe is added in, and tripled when southern and Northern Europe is also considered.
Sounds familiar. We'll make a conspiracy theorist of you yet.

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 05:24 PM

So, can we move on to discuss these hypotheses?

a) they were as is accepted gassed
b) they were transferred to another camp in Germany
c) they were 'transited to the east'
Seems little point to it, since you want to deal with 100,000 alleged deportees, and I have serious reservations about that number, thanks to your detailed revelations, a' la your confederate's excellent work of exposure in behalf of Revisionist truth. If we assume your number, we already know the implication. If we assume a third of that, the gas chambers disappear.

So I suggest you deal with another national episode.

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 05:33 PM

Heinz Hoehne, Edward Crankshaw, Raul Hilberg and Gerald Reitlinger were far from obscure, certainly within the British book market. As I explained, Hoehne was probably the first book I read on the subject, and a broader one it was than simply the Holocaust, since there was a chapter on almost every aspect of the SS. It has been reprinted and reissued multiply since the 1960s.

Hilberg was the first book directly on the Holocaust that I read, in my school library, and was the only book out of any of the titles listed to give any form of cross-referencing (by country and by 'method') on a systematic basis.

Incorrect. The communist media, namely the Poles, spread the 4 million myth, which applied to Poles, Soviet POWs, gypsies and Jews alike.

Jewish sources seem if anything to have accepted a figure of ca. 2 million. The discrepancy is also the discrepancy between the 'six million' VLN and Hilberg's 5.1 million.

The Auschwitz plaque was the work of the communist Poles. There were essentially no Jews left in Poland by this time.

Incorrect. There were three competing numbers, one generated by the East Bloc in reverence for the back-of-the-envelope calculations of the Soviets and for the wildly exaggerated claims of the survivor-witnesses; one middling figure generated by a sense of 'compromise' (because all sources indicated that it was awful, but surely not as awful as those untrustworthy Soviets said it was), and one correct figure which was endorsed by the scholars of the issue who have remained credible. Dawidowicz is car-boot-sale fodder these days. Hilberg is not.

In one case, we even have a scholar giving the correct figures in three separate publications, but disaggregated into their component parts, while offering three different 'global' figures in each successive publication.

One could just as easily turn this 'attack' around and say: why did no revisionist writer examine the statistical data and statistical sources relating to Auschwitz systematically until 2000? A mere nine years after Piper and a whopping four decades after Hilberg and Reitlinger.
A passable job of framing your response as if answering the actual point put to you.

Trojan

11-07-2006, 06:01 PM

Seems little point to it, since you want to deal with 100,000 alleged deportees, and I have serious reservations about that number, thanks to your detailed revelations, a' la your confederate's excellent work of exposure in behalf of Revisionist truth. If we assume your number, we already know the implication. If we assume a third of that, the gas chambers disappear.

So I suggest you deal with another national episode.

Neo

If the 100,000 number is wrong, tell us why it is wrong. Stating you do not believe it is not evidence.

Globus

11-07-2006, 06:28 PM

Seems little point to it, since you want to deal with 100,000 alleged deportees, and I have serious reservations about that number, thanks to your detailed revelations, a' la your confederate's excellent work of exposure in behalf of Revisionist truth. If we assume your number, we already know the implication. If we assume a third of that, the gas chambers disappear.

So I suggest you deal with another national episode.

In other words, you have no rational reason for not accepting what is accepted by historians and demonstrated by the evidence.

But most humorous is your claim that on the number of deportees from Holland the reality of gas chambers hinges!

A perfect example of denier scholarship!

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 07:38 PM

Let's see:

We have 68 lists totalling 60,000 names.

We have 1000+ "survivors" who collectively swear to having been accompanied by 58,000 other Jews. And not one of them made a mistake in corroboration of transport size/name list, as we wonder at the absurdity of the Germans having informed every, or any, transportee of the size of his transport.

No, Neo, it's more simple than that. If a witness says 'about a thousand', and it was actually 850 or 1100, then they are within a reasonable frame of estimation. It means that they didn't say 250, the number registered after selection upon arrival. If a witness says 'I arrived on a small transport', and it was indeed a smaller than usual transport, 'and they picked out 120 of us', when they picked out 109, then only a complete moron would continue nitpicking.

People round numbers out, do they not? That is human nature.

And we have the "testimony" of the same sort of Jews who swore a blue streak that poor Demjanjuk was "Ivan".

A simple issue here, Neo: that was more than 30 years later.

Do we have that right?

No.

I see now that I have, indeed, been "trapped" in being led to concede, prima facie, the Smolen list - which I took to be a list of the registered at Auschwitz -

The Smolen list indicates the *number* of those registered at Auschwitz from each transport. Names come later, if a survivor steps forward and says 'I was number 111002'. Cross-reference number against transport, and against statement, and you have corroboration on at least one essential detail: did the witness indeed arrive at Auschwitz at all?

and in presuming the integrity of the DRC. The perfection of the corroborative "testimony" suggests that the DRC "led" ignorant witnesses to their affirmations

Did I say anything about 'perfect'?

And why would the Dutch Red Cross lead witnesses on? What was in it for them, for Holland as a state or for Dutch society? Please, advance a motive that is convincing for once, instead of the usual J-C blether.

< follow-on gibberish snipped >

It might help the clarity of your argument if you sometimes shortened your sentences, Neo.

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 07:40 PM

Sounds familiar. We'll make a conspiracy theorist of you yet.

I doubt it, I do like to have something called evidence.

NeoNietzsche

11-07-2006, 07:52 PM

Neo

If the 100,000 number is wrong, tell us why it is wrong. Stating you do not believe it is not evidence.

I am sceptical of its dimension for the following primary reasons:

1) Virtually every alleged deportee is allegedly killed by gas or other means, despite the alleged "selection" for, and desperate need for, labor in the war effort.

2) Every one of 100,000 Dutch Jews is quite improbably accounted either "survivor" or "died under German occupation" - with no allowance for the unaccountably missing, as we would expect.

3) Every one of the alleged deportees is quite improbably informed or manages faultlessly to secretly count the number of his fellow transportees, averaging close to 1000 per transport, and the survivors amongst whom then faultlessly relate these numbers to the DRC, years later.

4) Thus is evident a climate of philo-semitic credulity, prejudice, and sanctimony as to the dimensions of the event, apart from the question, constantly deflected here, of how one kills Dutch Jews with plugged pistols.

5) By virtue of #4, we are reminded of the basis for the Soviet Communist 4 million myth of Auschwitz, which the Holocaustians were forced to radically revise, without acceptable excuse for the dereliction of four decades.

6) And it occurs to me that Jews so clever as to faultlessly corroborate the number of their company in deportation were so lacking in ingenuity as not to have avoided having two-thirds of themselves transported to a highly questionable circumstance in another country.

Globus

11-07-2006, 08:12 PM

I am sceptical of its dimension for the following primary reasons:

1) Virtually every alleged deportee is allegedly killed by gas or other means, despite the alleged "selection" for, and desperate need for, labor in the war effort.

Merely a function of your ignorance.

1.Almost 35,000 of the deportees went to Sobibor. There were no selections for labor at the AR camps.

2. The fact that most of the deportees were killed does not mean none were selected for labor. Danuta Czech notes the following for the first two transports which arrived on July 17th.

"In two transports of the RSHA, 2000 Jews arrive from Westerbork and Amersfoort camps in Holland. ...After the selection, 1,251 men and 300 women are admitted to the camp....The other deportees are killed in the gas chambers".

Being selected for labor didn't mean you survived. Inmates were worked to death, starved, and often were victims of the selections for gassing which went on in the camp.

2) Every one of 100,000 Dutch Jews is quite improbably accounted either "survivor" or "died under German occupation" - with no allowance for the unaccountably missing, as we would expect.

But we wouldn't expect that at all. The Nazis knew how many Jews there were and who they were shortly after overrunning Holland. They were in control of them from then on.

3) Every one of the alleged deportees is quite improbably informed or manages faultlessly to secretly count the number of his fellow transportees, averaging close to 1000 per transport, and the survivors amongst whom then faultlessly relate these numbers to the DRC, years later.

This has already been addressed. The deportees did not necessarily know or remember the exact numbers. You're constructing a strawman.

It should be remembered, however, that in the East the numbers of deportees per car was written in chalk on the outside of the boxcar.

4) Thus is evident a climate of philo-semitic credulity, prejudice, and sanctimony as to the dimensions of the event, apart from the question, constantly deflected here, of how one kills Dutch Jews with plugged pistols.

Rhetoric and gibberish.

5) By virtue of #4,.

Well, we can forget this one!

6) And it occurs to me that Jews so clever as to faultlessly corroborate the number of their company in deportation were so lacking in ingenuity as not to have avoided having two-thirds of themselves transported to a highly questionable circumstance in another country.

An incomprehensible collection based on a repetition of an earlier, erroneous point.

As we can see, NN has no logical basis for his skepticism.

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 08:20 PM

Milhouse

“Are you backpedalling, hair-splitting or simply incapable of realising when you're being made fun of?”

In future could you preface your attempts at humour with the word JOKE so that I can distinguish them from your STRAWMAN arguments? Cheers!

Spotting the difference ought to be easy for the great genius Calvin.

“Because I'm quite well aware that revisionists talk about the much-vaunted 'Krege study', but it seems not to exist in the same way that you can, quite easily, point me to the Leuchter report or Rudolf report”

Leuchter’s career is in ruins and Rudolf and Irving are in prison, not likely to see Krege skipping of to the printers any time soon, are we?

How is this an answer to my request for a URL to the online report or an online bookshop where it can be bought?

Is the existence of the Krege study 'offenkundig'?:rofl:

“You made it that far?”

And that would be another example of your rib-splitting humour?

Please, don't hurt yourself on my account.

”Are you another sand whigger?”

Ad hom, strawman and now racism, brilliant stuff Milhouse.

Phorites who constantly invoke the Islamic world on account of its antisemitism are known around here as sand wiggers. Ask Charlie Burns or Starr if you don't believe me. Last I checked, wigger wasn't deemed racist. Derogatory, yes, but racist, no. So if there's a new PC commandment, do direct me to it.

“USA, UK, Russia, China - completely legal to talk crap about history
That's 4 out of 5 permanent members of the Security Council”

It’s not a crime in China for the simple reason that 99% of the population of China could care less if six or sixty million gweilo got gassed last century, non-issue, period! In America there’s a little inconvenience called “The Constitution” that makes denial laws impossible.

That still leaves Russia, the UK, and an explanation from you as to why the 'influential forces' have signally failed to pass any sort of laws restricting the right to talk

This doesn’t stop holocaust “deniers” from being deported to countries where they can be imprisoned any more than it stops terror suspects from being deported to places where torture is legal.

Lesson #1 of how not to piss off the INS/ICE: remember to turn up for appointments and don't go on the lam.

“Have you even read the Kola study?”

Quote your source, as you are so fond of saying, and we can dissect this report together.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/05/carlo-mattogno-on-belzec.html

Already dissected. Now go find me the Krege study.

“Care to explain why both times the Leuchter report has been tested in court, once in front of a jury - how did the 'influential forces' pack that one, I wonder? - and indirectly at the Irving trial, it was laughed out of the proverbial?”

”indirectly at the Irving trial”….So your benchmark for estimating the veracity of evidence is whether or not that evidence was used by Irving in his libel action? LOL. To answer your question, it has never been tested in court and unless you can provide me with the details of the Leuchter trial, your woofing into an empty cave (once again).

Ummm, no, Calvin. Here's the history of the Leuchter report vis-a-vis criminal justice.

In 1988, Fred Leuchter submitted a supposed expert report on behalf of Ernst Zuendel in Canada. The Canadian court did not accept his expertise because Leuchter could not demonstrate the appropriate qualifications. The court nonetheless heard oral testimony from him, and he was shredded by the prosecutor. The jury - yes, one of them - found against Zuendel.

The next year, David Irving published the Leuchter report, despite witnessing at least part of Leuchter's demolition in court. He proclaimed himself now a convinced Holocaust opponent and nailed his flag to the mast of revisionism. In 1993, Deborah Lipstadt wrote about this 'conversion' after 1988 in a book. Irving got upset, sued Lipstadt, and lost his case. The Leuchter report was discussed directly and indirectly in this civil trial. Had the Leuchter report been any good, then Irving might have stood a better chance with his case. But it was shite, and Irving paid the price for endorsing an absolute lemon.

“As for the other strawmen, keep going. To save you wasting your time tilting at windmills, I've never read anything by Wiesel, Wiesenthal, the Anne Frank Diary, seen Schindler's List, set foot in the *exhibition* part of the USHMM or the permanent exhibition at the IWM, or any of the other pieces of fluff that you guys seem so worked up about”

We’ve already established that you are a proponent of the “New Improved Holocaust”.

Much as we've established that you don't know zip about the history.

“Incidentally, since the Dutch and German police - remember, Holocaust denial is legal in the Netherlands, though libel is not - forensically tested the Anne Frank diary and proved that it was genuine, will we ever get a retraction from Fauri, Irving, Felderer and all the other nutjobs who lied about it being a fake?”

“Libel is not”, so it’s a bit like the UK’s, denial illegal by default, system? So Ms Frank really did die of typhus, and your point is?

Otto Frank only died in 1980. He sued General Remer for libel for alleging that the diary was fake.

And in case you're confused about the Irving libel case, Irving sued Lipstadt. Quite why he thought he had a case is beyond me.

“No, I'm seeing whether you will, on request, identify the source of your reference. Come to think of it, what was the source of your 'geysers of blood' reference?”

It couldn’t possibly be Eli Wiesel could it?

Which book, Calvin? Do you honestly expect me to believe that you actually read an Elie Wiesel book? Was this the moment of your 'conversion'?

Or did you in fact read about this on a revisionist site?

“It's also called honest discussion, Calvin. You make a claim or reference, I ask you to back it up, I make a claim, you ask me to back it up. That's how these discussions are supposed to work.”

Hmmm! Let me see, nope, I can’t seem to find your source for the Kola study.

You hadn't asked me for it until now. Whereas I have now asked you for three references, in some cases three times.

1. the URL to the Krege study or a bookshop online where it can be bought
2. the reference for 'German method'
3. the reference for 'geysers of blood'

I'll help you out with (3). All I did, was use :google: and hey presto, the first hit from a revisionist site was this:

http://www.historiography-project.org/nonsense/19720000geysers.html

though hits #1 and 2 were Nizkor

Now, you try!

'German method'. Where was it you read this phrase?

'Richard Krege Treblinka'. Let me know what you find, won't you?!

“Yep. As suspected, a troll”

Which one of us decided to leaven his posts with racist epithets, expletives and racist insults, me or you? You wasted all of that time on your lengthy and detailed initial post simply because you are not mature enough to debate in a civil manner. Poor Milhouse

If you responded to my requests for references, actually answered the questions put to you instead of dodging them, and otherwise engaged in rational debate, you would deserve civility.

calvin

11-07-2006, 09:52 PM

Not having much luck with your demographic weapon of mass revisionist destruction, are you Milhouse? I’ve ignored the flame portion of your dismal repudiation.

On the subject of Leuchter, here are a couple of quotes from Wiki.

with their simpler structures and slower metabolisms, insects are more resistant to such gross metabolic poisons than mammals. Both toxicological study and practical experience demonstrate that it takes a much higher concentration of cyanide (16,000 parts per million) to kill insects than to kill humans (300 PPM), as well as an exposure time of many hours rather than only minutes

In February of 1990, Professor Jan Markiwicz, Director of the Forensic Institute of kracow redid the analysis.

the categorical results were that cyanide was found where expected in both the gas chambers and the delousing facilities, and not found in the living quarters, supporting the hypothesis that the gas chambers were exposed to high levels of cyanide like the delousing facilities, and not low levels for routine fumigation, like the living quarters

The two statements are contradictory. If far smaller ammounts of cyanide are required to kill humans than are required to kill lice, as the first statement asserts, why would you find that gas chambers for humans were exposed to similar levels of cyanide as gas chambers for insects?

The prosecution at the Zundel trial argued that Leuchter was wrong on the basis that only a minimnal amount of cyanide was needed to kill humans (16,000 parts per million to kill insects, 300 PPM to kill humans), and that this explained the results of the Alph Lab analysis.

The Forensic Institute of Krakow argue that concentrations of cyanide in the morgues were similar to levels found in delousing facilities.

So are there minimal traces because of high toxicity to humans, or are there massive traces that Leuchter failed to detect? It sounds like the affirmers just jumped on the first horse out of town with the human/insect toxic disparity explanation and then swiftly realised that a low residue hypothesis could be attributed to routine fumigation, so low exposure was ditched in favour of the Krakow Institute hypothesis.

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 10:07 PM

If you've nothing to contribute to the subject of this thread, can't be bothered to respond to reasonable requests for references on what were side-issues to begin with, and then bring up yet more side-issues, then goodbye.

Start a new thread about Leuchter vs Krakow. You have completely ignored the fact that the purpose of this one is to ask revisionists, 'OK, so let's for the sake of argument say that you're right about the gas chambers. So fill me in on what happened instead'. Because an honest argument would offer such an explanation.

Petr

11-07-2006, 10:18 PM

Start a new thread about Leuchter vs Krakow. You have completely ignored the fact that the purpose of this one is to ask revisionists, 'OK, so let's for the sake of argument say that you're right about the gas chambers. So fill me in on what happened instead'. Because an honest argument would offer such an explanation.
I would agree that this is a very reasonable thing to inquire.

(I also know how hard it is to pin down NN with his hyper-slippery rhetoric...)

Petr

eggheadbanga

11-07-2006, 10:30 PM

I would agree that this is a very reasonable thing to inquire.

(I also know how hard it is to pin down NN with his hyper-slippery rhetoric...)

I can only presume from the lack of detail on offer from the resident revisionist genii, that 'Jews' must be some sort of figment of the collective imagination, a nightmare to terrorize poor little Nazis that didn't really exist, and had to be invented for this precise purpose. Or that there was a mass ascension to heaven at the end of the rail-lines. Or perhaps that they tunnelled to Australia. Or disappeared into a puff of smoke.

Mackie

11-07-2006, 10:31 PM

I would agree that this is a very reasonable thing to inquire.

(I also know how hard it is to pin down NN with his hyper-slippery rhetoric...)

Petr
Yeah, but why does he have to answer properly to the question when the holocaust worshippers dont?

The quality of discussion has certainly gone down around the whole subject, with all the jib-jabbing and flaming and stepping around issues alltogether.

calvin

11-07-2006, 11:12 PM

“The quality of discussion has certainly gone down around the whole subject, with all the jib-jabbing and flaming and stepping around issues alltogether.”

Mackie

I can honestly say that I am a holocaust agnostic, my responses were measured and (within the context of this board) polite. I have conceded points when I thought that I was outclassed. The people who have lowered the tone have been Globus and Milhouse, who have both introduced a tone of sneering condescension. Their main problem is that they don’t like getting some back. Milhouse was more than happy to discuss Leuchter on this thread when he thought that he had me by the balls but as soon as he realised he was clutching at nothing more than straws he called uncle. Trojan has exposed me to far more telling cross-examination without things degenerating into abuse, why might that be?

Mackie

11-07-2006, 11:30 PM

Globus

11-07-2006, 11:36 PM

Mackie

11-07-2006, 11:40 PM

I think the whine meter just went off!

It is inevitable with deniers who claim, against all reason, to be "agnostic" about the history they deny at every turn.
I think its the case of him wondering wether there is (a part) history to be denied in the first place.

Globus

11-07-2006, 11:45 PM

I think its the case of him wondering wether there is (a part) history to be denied in the first place.

That's a novel though. Mackie is positing that there is no history to deny!!

Mackie

11-08-2006, 12:14 AM

That's a novel though. Mackie is positing that there is no history to deny!!
No, I was saying that to me it seems calvin is wondering wether there is (a part) history to be denied in the first place (Wether the alleged actions took place or not, and from the answer to that he decides if he agrees or disagrees).

Trojan

11-08-2006, 12:18 AM

Yeah, but why does he have to answer properly to the question when the holocaust worshippers dont?

The quality of discussion has certainly gone down around the whole subject, with all the jib-jabbing and flaming and stepping around issues alltogether.

If you have a particular issue regarding the Holocaust that you feel has not been properly addressed, please feel free to start a new thread.

Mackie

11-08-2006, 12:20 AM

If you have a particular issue regarding the Holocaust that you feel has not been properly addressed, please feel free to start a new thread.
Na, I dont.

'spose the more important part of that post was the last part.

Globus

11-08-2006, 12:34 AM

No, I was saying that to me it seems calvin is wondering wether there is (a part) history to be denied in the first place

Well, I guess you consider that to be a more insightful comment.

Mackie

11-08-2006, 12:51 AM

Well, I guess you consider that to be a more insightful comment.
Yes, that is what I think.
Also that you consider that I consider it to be a more insightful comment. :p

Kolchab

11-08-2006, 03:02 AM

So Where Did They Go, Revisionists?
You have completely ignored the fact that the purpose of this one is to ask revisionists, 'OK, so let's for the sake of argument say that you're right about the gas chambers. So fill me in on what happened instead'. Because an honest argument would offer such an explanation.
I have been through this type of exercise before.

Many times.

On other forums.

Do you really expect an answer that would be satisfactory to you?

Kolchab

Trojan

11-08-2006, 03:06 AM

I have been through this type of exercise before.

Many times.

On other forums.

Do you really expect an answer that would be satisfactory to you?

Kolchab

Hell, speaking for myself, I'd be happy with an answer that you were willing to stand behind.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 05:11 AM

To take the documentation for the Herzogenbosch and Westerbork > Auschwitz transports, there are 68 full name lists.
The authenticity of the 60,000 names therein to be established by the following considerations:

Every survivor, and we have seen that there were more than 1000 Dutch survivors of Auschwitz, corroborates the Smolen list.
Which establishes the authenticity of 1000+ names - 58,000 to go.

Furthermore every survivor's testimony as to the size of the transport will corroborate the name lists... The DRC took such testimonies in order to ascertain missing persons' fates.
This presents a problem. If every testimony was corroborative, the survivors were being informed of, rather than interrogated as to, the transport sizes. There was no reason to interrogate the survivors on that point. The DRC would rather be interested, as you say, in the names of people of whom the survivors knew the fate, not a survivor's speculation as to the number of transportees already precisely specified on lists or a number otherwise merely speculative.

A conspiracy to disinform would necessarily have to involve all such survivors.
It would involve none of them if they were being informed rather than interrogated - as Hoess was supplied with the 2.5/3M number which he, self-admittedly, pretended was his own estimate.

It would further have to place many thousands more documents in a variety of run-of-the-mill archives in the Netherlands to tie in with the 68 documents listing 60,000 names, the documents to range from property deed transfers to records of communal activities inside Westerbork to arrest records. Then someone would have to find a place to hide whatever proportion of the 60,000 people one wishes not to have been deported to Auschwitz.
None of this follows if the 60,000 names are fictional. No one is looking for or has dealings with non-existent individuals. Of 100,000 supposed deaths, 81,000 were cavalierly accounted merely as "died under German occupation," suggesting that no one has investigated the authenticity of 100,000 names. The Dutch government would, however, be concealing a census with a surplus of some 66,000+ persons who were not transported - which would not be a spectacular feat of deceit.

cerberus

11-08-2006, 08:57 AM

NeoThe authenticity of the 60,000 names therein to be established by the following considerations:
A "catch -22" at all times Neo - so what is new ?
Last night I watched one of the BBC DVD - "Auschwitz -The Nazis and "The Final Solution" , on it a lady named her family from a photograph which was taken from "The Auschwitz Album", her sister along with her children , her mother - she gave their names and their ages and stated that in the selection process they were seperated , she never saw them again.

Now as all deniers do Neo you will cry " name them" , "prove they died" , "the fact that she named them means nothing , it does not prove they were killed" , " a photograph proves nothing" , "Prove this was taken at Auschwitz" , along with other lame dog excuses as they spring to mind.

You see what bugs me just a little Neo is that this selection is common to all surivors , the people seperated from them (all) consistantly seem to disappear off the face of the earth , the SS themselves say they were killed by gassing , the sondorkommando surivors describe the gassing , as did the SS , as do the palns which have surived , this is supported by the wealth of aterials sent back to the Reich , the clothing , the money , the valuables , the gold , diamonds transportable wealth of a people turned into a mobile slave workforce , (even the Gold and wealth stolen by Odilo Gobocnik - didn't Himmler say they "had kept nothing for themselves" ??) , the false limbs spectacles , all that could be "recycled" ( Stolen is a more accurate term ).
All this supports what historians have proven to have taken place , what surivors say took place , what the SS themselves say took place and still Neo you say it did not take place.

You demand ever more proof of murder and killing , yet no proof will ever satisfy - if confronted by the bodies of thsoe shot in Russia you will deem them all children included to have been "partisans" and if the ash were to be dumped in front of you dredged from the ample river systems around the Birkenau area you would say "prove to me this came from the camp" , or "prove to me this is human ash" , or "prove to me this is Jewish ash".
Always proof is demanded - requested , asked for , a total "catch -22" exists- the beauty of denial - no proof will ever be considered to be adequate.

The ultimate Neo is to say that it never took place - and to say that you believe this and beacuse you believe it does not make it a lie , because you believe this .

Basil went with this one - it is a method of telling lies to yourself Neo - the only person you fool is yourself and I wonder just how well you fol yourself at the back of it all ?

So many "revisionists" believe that the "Holocaust" , "holohoax" or whatever soundbite they wish to call it is "bound to be exposed" and is "falling apart" , is "full of holes" or is "sinking fast" or whatever soundbite they / you may wish to apply - again a "catch -22" for the easily led who wish to pardon and excuse Hitler goverment.

So what has been said that is really new and griound breaking - by "the revisionists" , not a single word , not one , the excuses become increasingly more obvious - but when you are in denial that is not a problem.
It has ben stated by some revisionists on this forum that until all the papers are released that a complete picture of events can never be and this claim is used to support that all legal trials have to date been " show trials" - all worthless - all "ZOG" tools to prove and induce a feeling of guilty so as to extort money.
Neo - you have yourself sated that "Treblinka" has been lied about and the surivors who passed throguh the "transitcamp" (Treblinka) have beeen either told to kep quiet or had their accounts suppressed so as not to "expose the extortion."
Utter tripe Neo , utter tripe , but you believe it so it is not a lie.
I have been rounded on with words like "how dare you call me a liar" , "how dare you say I excuse murders" , all "Tommy rot" - all hidden behind what is " believed to be true" - excuses and more excuses Neo - no shortage of them.

Everything hinges on documents and eye witnesses accounts.
The eye witnesses acounts - all are judged to be unreliable - no matter what source - Calvin plays around with words and plays the fool who cannot use a quote system , but can produce a signature - calvin has done all this before - that is what I think anyway. ( Noa Ad. hom calvin - an observation which is accurate).
No matter - all must be discounted .
This leaves documents - "Some me an order" is an old chessnut - , "show me where this is written down" - the historical term for this I have given up to you - it is not unique to the Ho,ocaust - although you would have us believe that it is - another lie , another generalisation which can be emplyed at tissue thin level at least to endorse your self delusional beliefs , if in fact you actually believe them at all , which I do doubt - as I doubt Zundel , Leutcher , Rudolf ( and his many trade names) , Irving , Faurisson , Cole, Smith and the holy host.

As far as documnets and equipment go - the destruction of the physical evidence - one would almost think that no effort had been made to cover it up and destroy the evidence.
"Lists of names" - many have been destroyed - it is quickly assumed that they never existed .
Documents which are surfacing are quickly discounted as being "forged" or if they come from Russia as being "unreliable" or "tainted" and this from the same people who say that a complete picture of events cannot be obtained beacuse the papers are not all known or released ?
Playing poacher and game keeper seems to be ther name of the game.
So many lies , so many self deluding word games to play , seems to me to be the name of the game.

Lastly proof .
What is proof ?
Proof is that which you need to deny , that which always must be subject to doubt, and rightly so , but when proved you will not accept it - you darenot beacuse you cannot.
This is when what you " believe" becomes a lie and a lie is what you are attempting to sell.
And when historians do not buy the lie then they are deemed to be "Court Historians" bought and paid for .
The conspiracy theory ever lurks beneath - Neo has already hinted at it - "extortion" and making money - a very "Jewish" preoccupation.
Whatever you do - deny and keep on denying - it is all you have.

eggheadbanga

11-08-2006, 10:14 AM

I have conceded points when I thought that I was outclassed.

No, Calvin, you never really conceded anything. You just changed the subject if you didn't like a question put to you.

The people who have lowered the tone have been Globus and Milhouse, who have both introduced a tone of sneering condescension. Their main problem is that they don’t like getting some back. Milhouse was more than happy to discuss Leuchter on this thread when he thought that he had me by the balls but as soon as he realised he was clutching at nothing more than straws he called uncle.

Nope. I think if you look back over the exchanges you'll find that I asked you three times for sources for your statements.

When you dodged the request for the fourth time with yet more irrelevant blethering this is what I wrote:

If you've nothing to contribute to the subject of this thread, can't be bothered to respond to reasonable requests for references on what were side-issues to begin with, and then bring up yet more side-issues, then goodbye.

I'm not interested in debating with someone who is so intellectually lazy as to be unable to answer a simple request for a source. Cheesypie managed to cite a web-page for one of her claims a few pages pack without even really being prompted. Why are you exempt?

And why, when asked a perfectly reasonable question - what happened to the Jews if they were not gassed? - is the revisionist response alwaysto shift the subject back to fucking gas chambers within as short a time as possible?

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

You're on Ignore.

eggheadbanga

11-08-2006, 10:16 AM

I have been through this type of exercise before.

Many times.

On other forums.

Kolchab

Go on, Kolchab, post the 'ghetto map' you and Claudia Rothenbach love so much.

Do you really expect an answer that would be satisfactory to you?

Why, yes, I do actually.

Petr

11-08-2006, 10:28 AM

And why, when asked a perfectly reasonable question - what happened to the Jews if they were not gassed? - is the revisionist response alwaysto shift the subject back to fucking gas chambers within as short a time as possible?
This is comparable to the way evolutionists always try to move the discussion into theology, like the interpretation of Genesis, when some of the glaring deficiencies in their own paradigm (like the impossibility of spontaneous generation) are brought up...

Petr

eggheadbanga

11-08-2006, 10:35 AM

The authenticity of the 60,000 names therein to be established by the following considerations:

Which establishes the authenticity of 1000+ names - 58,000 to go.

No, it actually establishes the authenticity of the Smolen list, raising the number to 10,000 already. There is no reason to dispute the accuracy of the Smolen list when it has been corroborated by 10s of 1000s of names, not simply the 1000 Dutch survivors.

This presents a problem. If every testimony was corroborative, the survivors were being informed of, rather than interrogated as to, the transport sizes.

This does not follow at all.

There was no reason to interrogate the survivors on that point. The DRC would rather be interested, as you say, in the names of people of whom the survivors knew the fate,

That is generally how it was done. The DRC was working from what were effectively checklists - do you know anything about the fate of Mr X? did you travel with your family? what happened to them?

not a survivor's speculation as to the number of transportees already precisely specified on lists or a number otherwise merely speculative.

The survivors would as previously explain say something like 'I left Westerbork on a train with 1000 people' and the number might in fact be 954. The survivors would be well aware of how many carriages made up each train, they would have seen the numbers embarking as you can see here:

http://www.cympm.com/train.html

Your attempt to poison the well of authenticity of witnesses + documents matching is nonsensical.

It would involve none of them if they were being informed rather than interrogated - as Hoess was supplied with the 2.5/3M number which he, self-admittedly, pretended was his own estimate.

This is a completely ludicrous line of argument, Neo.

None of this follows if the 60,000 names are fictional. No one is looking for or has dealings with non-existent individuals.

:rofl:

Of 100,000 supposed deaths, 81,000 were cavalierly accounted merely as "died under German occupation," suggesting that no one has investigated the authenticity of 100,000 names.

The authenticity of the names of all deportees was investigated in Holland, for multiple purposes: missing persons enquiries, insurance claims, property claims, social security benefits, death duties, taxes, military service and all of the other manners in which individuals in a west European society interact with government and commerce. One simply does not remove 100,000 people from the governmental and commercial records of a west European society of this era without leaving a paper trail. When moreover there are not only family members - bear in mind that there are also 40,000 surviving Dutch Jews who were never deported, but whose relatives and friends might well have been - but also an NGO actively investigating the whereabouts of the missing persons, then it is quite simply absurd to assert that no one investigated the authenticity of the names.

The Dutch government would, however, be concealing a census with a surplus of some 66,000+ persons who were not transported - which would not be a spectacular feat of deceit.

:rofl:

For what purpose? On orders of which Judeo-Communist tentacle?

Petr

11-08-2006, 10:44 AM

By how much and according to whom? Jews and Communists? Show-Trial-processed documents?
The January 1939 census in USSR showed a little over 3 million Jews there. Back then there were almost 3,5 million Jews in Poland, about 250,000 Jews in Baltic states and about 250,000 Jews in Moldova, province of Romania.

About seven million in total.

In the January 1959 census, 2,268,000 Jews were counted in the enlarged USSR, which by then included the Baltic states and Moldova. By this time, Poland had less than 100,000 Jews.

(I recall statistics that immediate post-war Poland had about 250,000 Jews, Soviet returnees included. Most of those 250,000 moved to Israel in the late 1940s.)

So, in the combined USSR-Poland area there were about 7 million Jews in 1939, and about 2,5 million in 1959. A deficit of about 4,5 million Jews in this area alone. I do not think that emigration to Israel or elsewhere can cover it all.

It was this simple math that originally made me conclude that Holocaust promoters might actually have some concrete evidence going for them.

Petr

eggheadbanga

11-08-2006, 11:03 AM

The 1939 census in USSR showed a little over 3 million Jews there. Back then there were almost 3,5 million Jews in Poland, about 250,000 Jews in Baltic states and about 250,000 Jews in Moldova, province of Romania.

About seven million in total.

In the January 1959 census, 2,268,000 Jews were counted in the enlarged USSR, which by then included the Baltic states and Moldova. By this time, Poland had less than 100,000 Jews.

(I recall statistics that immediate post-war Poland had about 250,000 Jews, Soviet returnees included.)

So in the combined USSR-Poland area there were about 7 million Jews in 1939, about 2,5 million in 1959. A deficit of about 4,5 million Jews in this area alone. I do not think that emigration to Israel or elsewhere can cover it all.

It was this simple math that originally made me conclude that Holocaust promoters might actually have some concrete evidence going for them.

Petr

Indeed.

The alternative explanations for this deficit offered by revisionists are all preposterous. Some of them are as follows.

1. that Soviet/Polish Jews assimilated at an astonishing pace before the 1959 census. This is simply improbable when one considers how demonstrably antisemitic Soviet/Polish society was after WWII. One should also note that when emigration became possible for Soviet Jews, many ethnic Slavs promptly pretended to be Jews in order to flee the sinking ship.

2. An organised reclassification of ethnicities to meet a propaganda claim of millions of missing persons is equally improbable, and has no evidence to back it up. The cover-up would not escape the notice of dissident elements in Soviet society, or indeed other observers.

3. the excess Jews were stashed out of sight in the GULag/in Siberia. This is flatly contradicted by the GULag statistics and exile statistics. Even if reclassified the numbers do not add up. Some deniers have resorted to pointing to Soviet 'secret cities', yet fail to appreciate that when the census originals have been examined, it is possible to discern that these secret cities were dispersed into the surrounding province's statistics, in other words that this is simply a variant of (2) and has equally little proof.

4. Stalin killed them. This was first asserted by Austin App and is sometimes floated as a diversion by deniers today. However the last denier to try and articulate this coherently on CODOH was shot down in flames by Hannover, which says a lot about the logic and evidence available to assert that the Soviets carried out a mass extermination program instead of Hitler.

5. The missing Jews filtered out of Iran to Israel/the west. The most serious attempt to try this one on was made by Sanning, who couldn't juggle the numbers to make more than 100,000 escape this way, and even this was a fraudulent piece of hocus-pocusery, relying on ignorance of the actual censuses taken in Persia/Iran in the 20th Century.

6. The missing Jews flooded west as DPs. This is again irrelevant since there are no fewer than three sets of statistics: Soviet documenting repatriations to Poland, Polish statistics documenting arrivals and departures, and the Jewish community's population post-1945; and finally Allied statistics for DPs. The numbers indicate only that 200,000 went west in this fashion, and these are as Petr indicated already accounted for by existing understanding of the question.

The usual trick is to engage in double-counting so that the same DPs are held to be both concentration camp survivors as well as the refugees from the east. But this relies on ignoring the change over time between 1945-48, and is thus little more than a shell game.

Incidentally, west European survivors of all ethnicities were repatriated virtually instantaneously. French survivors of Buchenwald were bussed back to Paris within 8 days of liberation, French survivors of Belsen within 2 months, French survivors liberated by the Soviets were repatriated via Odessa by the autumn of 1945.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 02:06 PM

No, it actually establishes the authenticity of the Smolen list, raising the number to 10,000 already. There is no reason to dispute the accuracy of the Smolen list when it has been corroborated by 10s of 1000s of names, not simply the 1000 Dutch survivors.
Yes, we have already agreed to 12-13K registered at Auschwitz.

This does not follow at all.
In my judgment, if every (and we will allow that we are talking about nearly every) testimony of 1000+ survivors as to transport numbers is in the ballpark as compared to the 68 lists, we are dealing with an imposture quickly explained, a' la, the Hoess "estimate," as information supplied to, rather that obtained from, the putative source of the number. If it had been claimed that "most" or a "significant number" of testimonies were corroborative, this aspect of the episode would not raise suspicion.

That is generally how it was done. The DRC was working from what were effectively checklists - do you know anything about the fate of Mr X? did you travel with your family? what happened to them?
Very good - we agree as to the logic of the situation. Thus the question, again, as to why the DRC would ask for transport size if it already knew it, or would rely upon a survivor's mere speculation if it didn't, when what it needed to know were specific names and not anonymous numbers. More suspicion.

The survivors would as previously explain say something like 'I left Westerbork on a train with 1000 people' and the number might in fact be 954. The survivors would be well aware of how many carriages made up each train, they would have seen the numbers embarking as you can see here:

http://www.cympm.com/train.html
I'm sorry, but you're making a Jessica Fletcher of each survivor, where we would obviously expect those being evacuated to be extremely anxious - panicked even - about their personal circumstances and hardly involved in calmly surveying the scene and making calculations as to transport totals. You have each of the transportees anticipating a Holocaustian's need for corroborative testimony, where we might accept that some of them had, in effect, done so. More suspicion.

Your attempt to poison the well of authenticity of witnesses + documents matching is nonsensical.
Then your judgment is defective.

This is a completely ludicrous line of argument, Neo.
Ah, no substantive objections, then. The Hoess "testimony" is an unanswerable embarrassment and precedent.

The authenticity of the names of all deportees was investigated in Holland, for multiple purposes: missing persons enquiries, insurance claims, property claims, social security benefits, death duties, taxes, military service and all of the other manners in which individuals in a west European society interact with government and commerce.
This would involve only the authentic names - some 25,000, I believe. No one "misses" non-existent persons or is otherwise involved according to the other examples.

One simply does not remove 100,000 people from the governmental and commercial records of a west European society of this era without leaving a paper trail. When moreover there are not only family members - bear in mind that there are also 40,000 surviving Dutch Jews who were never deported, but whose relatives and friends might well have been - but also an NGO actively investigating the whereabouts of the missing persons, then it is quite simply absurd to assert that no one investigated the authenticity of the names.
But that is not the assertion. We have reason to believe that only a third or fourth of the names offered a pretext for investigation by related individuals or interests - not all 100,000.

For what purpose? On orders of which Judeo-Communist tentacle? Perhaps on orders from the very body from which "the Judeo-Communist tentacle(s)" extend. Ever heard of the Bilderbergers?

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 02:23 PM

Indeed.

The alternative explanations for this deficit offered by revisionists are all preposterous. Some of them are as follows.

1. that Soviet/Polish Jews assimilated at an astonishing pace before the 1959 census. This is simply improbable when one considers how demonstrably antisemitic Soviet/Polish society was after WWII. One should also note that when emigration became possible for Soviet Jews, many ethnic Slavs promptly pretended to be Jews in order to flee the sinking ship.

2. An organised reclassification of ethnicities to meet a propaganda claim of millions of missing persons is equally improbable, and has no evidence to back it up. The cover-up would not escape the notice of dissident elements in Soviet society, or indeed other observers.

3. the excess Jews were stashed out of sight in the GULag/in Siberia. This is flatly contradicted by the GULag statistics and exile statistics. Even if reclassified the numbers do not add up. Some deniers have resorted to pointing to Soviet 'secret cities', yet fail to appreciate that when the census originals have been examined, it is possible to discern that these secret cities were dispersed into the surrounding province's statistics, in other words that this is simply a variant of (2) and has equally little proof.

4. Stalin killed them. This was first asserted by Austin App and is sometimes floated as a diversion by deniers today. However the last denier to try and articulate this coherently on CODOH was shot down in flames by Hannover, which says a lot about the logic and evidence available to assert that the Soviets carried out a mass extermination program instead of Hitler.

5. The missing Jews filtered out of Iran to Israel/the west. The most serious attempt to try this one on was made by Sanning, who couldn't juggle the numbers to make more than 100,000 escape this way, and even this was a fraudulent piece of hocus-pocusery, relying on ignorance of the actual censuses taken in Persia/Iran in the 20th Century.

6. The missing Jews flooded west as DPs. This is again irrelevant since there are no fewer than three sets of statistics: Soviet documenting repatriations to Poland, Polish statistics documenting arrivals and departures, and the Jewish community's population post-1945; and finally Allied statistics for DPs. The numbers indicate only that 200,000 went west in this fashion, and these are as Petr indicated already accounted for by existing understanding of the question.

The usual trick is to engage in double-counting so that the same DPs are held to be both concentration camp survivors as well as the refugees from the east. But this relies on ignoring the change over time between 1945-48, and is thus little more than a shell game.

Incidentally, west European survivors of all ethnicities were repatriated virtually instantaneously. French survivors of Buchenwald were bussed back to Paris within 8 days of liberation, French survivors of Belsen within 2 months, French survivors liberated by the Soviets were repatriated via Odessa by the autumn of 1945.
How do you officially identify as "Jewish" every Jew who might want to deny his identity as such? Was Communist USSR/Poland interested in betraying resident Jews as such, having established the Auschwitz myth?

I do not dispute the alleged deficit, but I would like to understand a firm basis for establishing it.

eggheadbanga

11-08-2006, 02:31 PM

How do you officially identify as "Jewish" every Jew who might want to deny his identity as such?

How can someone called Shtern deny their Jewishness?

Was Communist USSR/Poland interested in betraying resident Jews as such, having established the Auschwitz myth?

That is a 'have you stopped beating your wife question'.

I do not dispute the alleged deficit, but I would like to understand a firm basis for establishing it.

The firm basis is exceedingly simple. There are censuses from the relevant countries before the war, giving statistics for ethnicity. There are censuses from after the war doing the same. There is a discrepancy. It should be explained.

As I see it, one side has evidence galore which explains this deficit (namely that they were killed by a variety of means), the other has nothing except conjecture and appeals to sources suppressed by an all-powerful conspiracy, a.ka. dog-ate-my-homework excuses.

eggheadbanga

11-08-2006, 02:45 PM

Yes, we have already agreed to 12-13K registered at Auschwitz.

Then say so, rather than reducing the stipulated number back down the hill to 1K.

In my judgment, if every (and we will allow that we are talking about nearly every) testimony of 1000+ survivors as to transport numbers is in the ballpark as compared to the 68 lists, we are dealing with an imposture quickly explained, a' la, the Hoess "estimate," as information supplied to, rather that obtained from, the putative source of the number. If it had been claimed that "most" or a "significant number" of testimonies were corroborative, this aspect of the episode would not raise suspicion.

Guess what, Neo: I haven't read every single witness statement given by a Dutch Jew. I doubt anyone has. So, if you wish to claim that all were reading off a prepared script, off you go to NIOD, USHMM, Yad Vashem and Auschwitz, and let us know what you find.

Very good - we agree as to the logic of the situation. Thus the question, again, as to why the DRC would ask for transport size if it already knew it,

Many statements are literally that, someone writing out their experiences, mini-memoirs. Come on, do you seriously think that someone prompted every witness with Q&As?

or would rely upon a survivor's mere speculation if it didn't, when what it needed to know were specific names and not anonymous numbers. More suspicion.

Unwarranted suspicion. The corroborating information - in this instance, transport size - would typically be volunteered.

I'm sorry, but you're making a Jessica Fletcher of each survivor, where we would obviously expect those being evacuated to be extremely anxious - panicked even - about their personal circumstances and hardly involved in calmly surveying the scene and making calculations as to transport totals.

I should think that a multi-day journey from Westerbork to Auschwitz would be more than sufficient time for most people to register that they were travelling as a bloc of x100 or 1000 people.

You have each of the transportees anticipating a Holocaustian's need for corroborative testimony, where we might accept that some of them had, in effect, done so. More suspicion.

No, I don't have each of the deportees so anticipating.

Then your judgment is defective.

:p

Ah, no substantive objections, then. The Hoess "testimony" is an unanswerable embarrassment and precedent.

I'm not going to discuss multiple issues simultaneously. That is a typical revisionist tactic that is un-scientific and un-logical. Consider anything off-topic as ignored and left to one side.

This would involve only the authentic names - some 25,000, I believe. No one "misses" non-existent persons or is otherwise involved according to the other examples.

Then please explain the disappearence of 75,000 people inside the Netherlands.

But that is not the assertion. We have reason to believe that only a third or fourth of the names offered a pretext for investigation by related individuals or interests - not all 100,000.

Elaborate these reasons, and point to something concrete that would explain the discrepancy.

Perhaps on orders from the very body from which "the Judeo-Communist tentacle(s)" extend. Ever heard of the Bilderbergers?

Ah yes, the group whose founder joined the Reiter-SS and worked for IG Farben in the 1930s.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 02:53 PM

Neo
A "catch -22" at all times Neo - so what is new ?
Last night I watched one of the BBC DVD - "Auschwitz -The Nazis and "The Final Solution" , on it a lady named her family from a photograph which was taken from "The Auschwitz Album", her sister along with her children , her mother - she gave their names and their ages and stated that in the selection process they were seperated , she never saw them again.

Now as all deniers do Neo you will cry " name them" , "prove they died" , "the fact that she named them means nothing , it does not prove they were killed" , " a photograph proves nothing" , "Prove this was taken at Auschwitz" , along with other lame dog excuses as they spring to mind.

You see what bugs me just a little Neo is that this selection is common to all surivors , the people seperated from them (all) consistantly seem to disappear off the face of the earth , the SS themselves say they were killed by gassing , the sondorkommando surivors describe the gassing , as did the SS , as do the palns which have surived , this is supported by the wealth of aterials sent back to the Reich , the clothing , the money , the valuables , the gold , diamonds transportable wealth of a people turned into a mobile slave workforce , (even the Gold and wealth stolen by Odilo Gobocnik - didn't Himmler say they "had kept nothing for themselves" ??) , the false limbs spectacles , all that could be "recycled" ( Stolen is a more accurate term ).
All this supports what historians have proven to have taken place , what surivors say took place , what the SS themselves say took place and still Neo you say it did not take place.

You demand ever more proof of murder and killing , yet no proof will ever satisfy - if confronted by the bodies of thsoe shot in Russia you will deem them all children included to have been "partisans" and if the ash were to be dumped in front of you dredged from the ample river systems around the Birkenau area you would say "prove to me this came from the camp" , or "prove to me this is human ash" , or "prove to me this is Jewish ash".
Always proof is demanded - requested , asked for , a total "catch -22" exists- the beauty of denial - no proof will ever be considered to be adequate.

The ultimate Neo is to say that it never took place - and to say that you believe this and beacuse you believe it does not make it a lie , because you believe this .

Basil went with this one - it is a method of telling lies to yourself Neo - the only person you fool is yourself and I wonder just how well you fol yourself at the back of it all ?

So many "revisionists" believe that the "Holocaust" , "holohoax" or whatever soundbite they wish to call it is "bound to be exposed" and is "falling apart" , is "full of holes" or is "sinking fast" or whatever soundbite they / you may wish to apply - again a "catch -22" for the easily led who wish to pardon and excuse Hitler goverment.

So what has been said that is really new and griound breaking - by "the revisionists" , not a single word , not one , the excuses become increasingly more obvious - but when you are in denial that is not a problem.
It has ben stated by some revisionists on this forum that until all the papers are released that a complete picture of events can never be and this claim is used to support that all legal trials have to date been " show trials" - all worthless - all "ZOG" tools to prove and induce a feeling of guilty so as to extort money.
Neo - you have yourself sated that "Treblinka" has been lied about and the surivors who passed throguh the "transitcamp" (Treblinka) have beeen either told to kep quiet or had their accounts suppressed so as not to "expose the extortion."
Utter tripe Neo , utter tripe , but you believe it so it is not a lie.
I have been rounded on with words like "how dare you call me a liar" , "how dare you say I excuse murders" , all "Tommy rot" - all hidden behind what is " believed to be true" - excuses and more excuses Neo - no shortage of them.

Everything hinges on documents and eye witnesses accounts.
The eye witnesses acounts - all are judged to be unreliable - no matter what source - Calvin plays around with words and plays the fool who cannot use a quote system , but can produce a signature - calvin has done all this before - that is what I think anyway. ( Noa Ad. hom calvin - an observation which is accurate).
No matter - all must be discounted .
This leaves documents - "Some me an order" is an old chessnut - , "show me where this is written down" - the historical term for this I have given up to you - it is not unique to the Ho,ocaust - although you would have us believe that it is - another lie , another generalisation which can be emplyed at tissue thin level at least to endorse your self delusional beliefs , if in fact you actually believe them at all , which I do doubt - as I doubt Zundel , Leutcher , Rudolf ( and his many trade names) , Irving , Faurisson , Cole, Smith and the holy host.

As far as documnets and equipment go - the destruction of the physical evidence - one would almost think that no effort had been made to cover it up and destroy the evidence.
"Lists of names" - many have been destroyed - it is quickly assumed that they never existed .
Documents which are surfacing are quickly discounted as being "forged" or if they come from Russia as being "unreliable" or "tainted" and this from the same people who say that a complete picture of events cannot be obtained beacuse the papers are not all known or released ?
Playing poacher and game keeper seems to be ther name of the game.
So many lies , so many self deluding word games to play , seems to me to be the name of the game.

Lastly proof .
What is proof ?
Proof is that which you need to deny , that which always must be subject to doubt, and rightly so , but when proved you will not accept it - you darenot beacuse you cannot.
This is when what you " believe" becomes a lie and a lie is what you are attempting to sell.
And when historians do not buy the lie then they are deemed to be "Court Historians" bought and paid for .
The conspiracy theory ever lurks beneath - Neo has already hinted at it - "extortion" and making money - a very "Jewish" preoccupation.
Whatever you do - deny and keep on denying - it is all you have.

Explain how anyone was killed with a plugged pistol, please. Presumably, you "deny" that it was plugged. Unplug it for us. Such evidence as we have, as even Pressac agrees, shows it plugged by the alleged gassing process - and with no such "repair" as Pressac devised (and as I had earlier specified) for its unplugging. Again, please be so kind as to unplug it for us, and feel free to speculate as to your idea of how it would have been done. I presume that you agree that the LK I's had to have served as murder machines.

And since we have shown that the LK I's were not designed as such, but would have had to be adapted to the purpose, do we not accordingly reject the thesis that the Krema's as a whole were designed with extermination in mind, and the corollary thesis that the Krema's were excess cremation capacity in anticipation of exterminations? Certainly Allen's elaborate thesis as to the purpose-designed gas chambers is trash, given the embarrassment of his own reproduction of a drawing which depicted the obviously pluggable ventilation system of the LK I's. Can you think of other aspects of the Hoax that must be junked in consequence of the showing that the LK I's were not designed with exterminations in mind?

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 03:05 PM

How can someone called Shtern deny their Jewishness?
By spelling and pronouncing it differently.

That is a 'have you stopped beating your wife question'.
Which is legitimate if you have been beating your wife.

The firm basis is exceedingly simple. There are censuses from the relevant countries before the war, giving statistics for ethnicity. There are censuses from after the war doing the same. There is a discrepancy. It should be explained.
If the responsible authority wants it explained, as is the consideration which you just failed to address to the support of your position.

As I see it, one side has evidence galore which explains this deficit (namely that they were killed by a variety of means), the other has nothing except conjecture and appeals to sources suppressed by an all-powerful conspiracy, a.ka. dog-ate-my-homework excuses.
The other has a diagram of the vent system of LK I. Does that count as hard evidence?

Globus

11-08-2006, 03:08 PM

Explain how anyone was killed with a plugged pistol, please. Presumably, you "deny" that it was plugged. Unplug it for us. Such evidence as we have, as even Pressac agrees, shows it plugged by the alleged gassing process

Pressac shows no such thing. That is simply a standard denier canard. What Pressac does is dismiss the claim by a denier that the vents of the gas chamber would be blocked.

And since we have shown that the LK I's were not designed as such, but would have had to be adapted to the purpose,

You mean historians have shown that. I'm afraid you had nothing to do with it!

do we not accordingly reject the thesis that the Krema's as a whole were designed with extermination in mind,

Non sequitur. This does not follow from the fact that they might have been adapted.

and the corollary thesis that the Krema's were excess cremation capacity in anticipation of exterminations?

? You mean corpse capacity? This is a thesis with no support. The evidence shows what the rooms were used for, gassing humans.

Certainly Allen's elaborate thesis as to the purpose-designed gas chambers is trash,

Not that anyone has shown. It is a defendable thesis which must be addressed by people who actually study the issue, historians.

given the embarrassment of his own reproduction of a drawing which depicted the obviously pluggable ventilation system of the LK I's.

If the system were "pluggable" there would be evidence that it was plugged. Got any?

Can you think of other aspects of the Hoax that must be junked in consequence of the showing that the LK I's were not designed with exterminations in mind?

Only if you ignore the obvious changes in the design and the large amounts of evidence for how they were used.

eggheadbanga

11-08-2006, 03:13 PM

By spelling and pronouncing it differently.

And no doubt by entering one of the numerous Soviet plastic surgery clincs open to all citizens, I suppose.

:rofl:

Which is legitimate if you have been beating your wife.

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g212/nickterry/question_begging.jpg

If the responsible authority wants it explained, as is the consideration which you just failed to address to the support of your position.

We are discussing history, Neo. Best and most complete account wins. That's how historiography works. Contrary to the usual insinuations, history is neither written solely by the victors nor is it dictated by the state as a matter of routine. It is written by historians. Now offer me a historical explanation instead of conspiracy-mongering.

< latest attempt to divert discussion back to gas chambers snipped >

cerberus

11-08-2006, 03:17 PM

NeoExplain how anyone was killed with a plugged pistol, please. Presumably, you "deny" that it was plugged. Unplug it for us. Such evidence as we have, as even Pressac agrees, shows it plugged by the alleged gassing process - and with no such "repair" as Pressac devised (and as I had earlier specified) for its unplugging. Again, please be so kind as to unplug it for us, and feel free to speculate as to your idea of how it would have been done. I presume that you agree that the LK I's had to have served as murder machines.

And since we have shown that the LK I's were not designed as such, but would have had to be adapted to the purpose, do we not accordingly reject the thesis that the Krema's as a whole were designed with extermination in mind, and the corollary thesis that the Krema's were excess cremation capacity in anticipation of exterminations? Certainly Allen's elaborate thesis as to the purpose-designed gas chambers is trash, given the embarrassment of his own reproduction of a drawing which depicted the obviously pluggable ventilation system of the LK I's. Can you think of other aspects of the Hoax that must be junked in consequence of the showing that the LK I's were not designed with exterminations in mind?

Neo - What pistol and what plug are you going on about ?
I am at a loss , is it a water pistol ?
What is a "LK1" ?
I know what an EK 1 is but an LK1 ?
I am at a loss.:confused: :confused:

You have mentioned Pressac - something to so with gas chambers - I am assuming , do I assume wrong ?:confused:

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 03:51 PM

Then say so, rather than reducing the stipulated number back down the hill to 1K.
My apologies for upsetting you.

Guess what, Neo: I haven't read every single witness statement given by a Dutch Jew. I doubt anyone has. So, if you wish to claim that all were reading off a prepared script, off you go to NIOD, USHMM, Yad Vashem and Auschwitz, and let us know what you find.
I take it, then, that you withdraw the claim that all testimonies were corroborative. How many do you now choose to claim?

Many statements are literally that, someone writing out their experiences, mini-memoirs. Come on, do you seriously think that someone prompted every witness with Q&As?
That's just my point - why would the DRC ask pointless questions as to transport size, the answers to which you seem to need to support your case.

Unwarranted suspicion. The corroborating information - in this instance, transport size - would typically be volunteered.
In how many cases - now that we have extracted by logical analysis what seems to be your confession that you are not informed as to all of the testimonies, as claimed - and now that we must determine what can be demonstrated of transport totals, according to alleged testimony.

I should think that a multi-day journey from Westerbork to Auschwitz would be more than sufficient time for most people to register that they were travelling as a bloc of x100 or 1000 people.
Ah, so we now agree that it must be, as I previously indicated was a question of good judgment, a matter of "most" or a "significant number" - rather than "all," as you claimed - in order to be credible. So, how many survivors so testifying, and what transport numbers to which they testify, do you now choose to claim?

No, I don't have each of the deportees so anticipating.
I believe that we take the implication of your "all" to mean each, collectively.

I'm not going to discuss multiple issues simultaneously. That is a typical revisionist tactic that is un-scientific and un-logical. Consider anything off-topic as ignored and left to one side.
I recall that you failed to handle the Hoess thing satisfactorily when it was the immediate point. So I think the rest of us can take it, now, for its instructive content.

Then please explain the disappearence of 75,000 people inside the Netherlands.
The Dutch government, among others, has an interest in supporting the Hoax.

Elaborate these reasons, and point to something concrete that would explain the discrepancy.
Again, the reason is that only an actual name and person have these connections you specify, such that a name and person interests anyone in investigating the case of a listed name. Tens of thouands of fictional names prompt no one to action, because any intererested party ignores all but the names they recognize.

Ah yes, the group whose founder joined the Reiter-SS and worked for IG Farben in the 1930s.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
When you tire of rolling on the floor, please reformulate your claims for us.

Globus

11-08-2006, 04:06 PM

My apologies for upsetting you.

I take it, then, that you withdraw the claim that all testimonies were corroborative. How many do you now choose to claim?

That's just my point - why would the DRC ask pointless questions as to transport size, the answers to which you seem to need to support your case.

In how many cases - now that we have extracted by logical analysis what seems to be your confession that you are not informed as to all of the testimonies, as claimed - and now that we must determine what can be demonstrated of transport totals, according to alleged testimony.

Ah, so we now agree that it must be, as I previously indicated was a question of good judgment, a matter of "most" or a "significant number" - rather than "all," as you claimed - in order to be credible. So, how many survivors so testifying, and what transport numbers to which they testify, do you now choose to claim?

I believe that we take the implication of your "all" to mean each, collectively.

I recall that you failed to handle the Hoess thing satisfactorily when it was the immediate point. So I think the rest of us can take it, now, for its instructive content.

The Dutch government, among others, has an interest in supporting the Hoax.

Again, the reason is that only an actual name and person have these connections you specify, such that a name and person interests anyone in investigating the case of a listed name. Tens of thouands of fictional names prompt no one to action, because any intererested party ignores all but the names they recognize.

When you tire of rolling on the floor, please reformulate your claims for us.

I think we can see that NN has long ceased to engage in any substantive discussion and is merely thowing up rather childish and erroneous reasons for refusing to accept well established evidence.

So much for "scholarly revisionism" and its pursuit of truth.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 04:13 PM

Neo - What pistol and what plug are you going on about ?
I am at a loss , is it a water pistol ?
What is a "LK1" ?
I know what an EK 1 is but an LK1 ?
I am at a loss.:confused: :confused:

You have mentioned Pressac - something to so with gas chambers - I am assuming , do I assume wrong ?:confused:
This is a discussion of the diagrammed depiction of the vital ventilation systems of the semi-underground Leichenkeller I's of Krema's II and III. We are supposed to regard them as the major murder weapons as alleged in the current version of the Hoax:

http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0.htm

[Pressac writes:]

ANNEX

GAS 3000 PEOPLE IN LEICHENKELLER I OF KREMATORIUM II?
IMPOSSIBLE, THE BODIES WOULD HAVE BLOCKED
THE LOWER AIR EXTRACTION ORIFICES

(Reply to the argument in a letter from a revisionist)

Following the exchange of letters and telephone calls with a correspondent who doubts the reality of the gas chambers, I have extracted two of his arguments that appear to me valid.

Describing the ventilation system of Leichenkeller I [of the future Krematorium II as per the cross-section on drawing 933], he pointed out to me that the air entered through the upper orifices, then was extracted through the lower ones, and concluded:

["He" writes:]

"This arrangement is perfectly suitable if the room is used as a morgue: the air entering cools, becomes denser, and is extracted from the lower part"..

[Pressac writes:]

He then asked me to imagine:

["He" writes:]

“the situation in the LK 1 after the gassing of a large number of people: the corpses are heaped on top of one another; they block most of the air extraction orifices; the room is full of warm toxic gas; how can there be rapid and efficient mechanical ventilation? I would say that it is not possible...”

[Pressac writes:]

These remarks mean that Leichenkeller I used as a gas chamber had a poorly designed ventilation system and in the case of large-scale gassings [3000 people in 210 m² according to Nyiszli, or 13.3 per square meter], the lower orifices being blocked ventilation would become impossible [a model visible at the Museum illustrates this “maximum” case, though there are probably no more than one thousand victims depicted].

The figure of 3000 is theoretical and exaggerated, but if we take it as correct [or if we merely take 1000 as correct - see immediately above - NN], then so is my correspondent's hypothesis and the ventilation is blocked and cannot work.

What would the SS have done in the case of such an “incident”?

They would have proceeded in two stages:

1. Open wide the doors giving basement access through the north yard and those of the undressing room, whose ventilation system working at full power would prevent the basement being contaminated:

Before putting on their gas masks, the SS would have then ordered two to four members of the Sonderkommando to put on masks, open the gas chamber door and drag bodies out into the vestibule until several of the air extraction orifices had been cleared. Then the gas-tight door would have been closed again, the ventilation restarted, and to improve its efficiency all that was required was to open the Zyklon-B introduction covers, but not until that moment. After verifying by means of a gas detector that there was no longer any danger of hydrocyanic acid intoxication outside the gas chamber, operations would have resumed their “normal” course.
2. Once the gas chamber had been emptied, a squad of fitters or bricklayers would have fixed at the end of the chamber, in the southeast corner a steel duct of about 20 cm diameter and 2 meters high or built a brick chimney of about the same dimensions connecting with or protecting one of the lower air extraction orifices and enabling it to take in warm contaminated air from above. The time taken for the “repair” would not have been longer than an afternoon. Such an incident would not have interrupted the “operation” of the Krematorium. As the documents we possess at present make no mention of such work we can assume for the moment that the case of the “3000” never occurred, the number of victims from a convoy always being less than this.

The initial ventilation system of Leichenkeller I, which was designed for a basement morgue, is not a “definitive” obstacle to using the room as a gas chamber.

So much for the thesis of a purpose-designed gas chamber, Boys and Girls. Their own witness is discredited, their "repair" did not happen, and there is no showing that less than 1000 of the potential 3000, in occupancy, would not have been driven to the relatively fresh air of the extraction vent(s), as I logically depicted it (Post #45), thus blocking the system with but a tiny fraction of the body capacity of the facility.

To have envisioned the use of this facility, as constructed, as a homicidal gas chamber would have been engineering idiocy - quite aside from the absolute absurdity of designing it thus, as the Hoaxers here insistently urge, with such use in mind. And the Holohoax account of the episode highlights the ridiculousness of their own attempt to rationalize the situation when they assert that the supposed overhead cladding of the air-introduction ducting was intended to protect it from the imprisoned victims (Post #48) - from which allegation we recognize the concern, a priori, with interference with the ducting. Yet the exhaust venting is immediately recognizable as requiring elaborate "repair" measures to avoid precisely this event, when operation is merely envisioned by Hoaxer and Revisionist alike. And we also note that the Hoaxer "repair," as imagined, involved precisely that non-existent chimney that I had previously specified (Post #41) as requisite for a workable homicidal gaskammer.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 04:18 PM

I think we can see that NN has long ceased to engage in any substantive discussion and is merely thowing up rather childish and erroneous reasons for refusing to accept well established evidence.

So much for "scholarly revisionism" and its pursuit of truth.
Ah, Globus! Perhaps you can reformulate Egghead's claims for us while I have him incapacitated with mirth.

Globus

11-08-2006, 04:22 PM

Ah, Globus! Perhaps you can reformulate Egghead's claims for us while I have him incapacitated with mirth.

The only one "reformulating" his claims is you!

Your denial of the evidence for deportations from Holland to known destinations is a feat of self delusion, but one you must insist upon because you know that admitting the truth leads you to a place you don't want to go.

Easier to feign an ill defined and defended pseudo-skepticism.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 04:31 PM

The only one "reformulating" his claims is you!

Your denial of the evidence for deportations from Holland to known destinations is a feat of self delusion, but one you must insist upon because you know that admitting the truth leads you to a place you don't want to go.

Easier to feign an ill defined and defended pseudo-skepticism.
Ah, Globus - it's you again! I seem to recall your remark that the Hoax does not hang on the Dutch Jews, with which I agree and is the implication of my preliminary stipulations. I prefer, however, not to waste time toward the satisfaction of my curiosity by retracing the Hoaxer argument with which we are all familiar as to the implication of 100,000 Dutch deportees. As we see, the illogic of the Hoaxer account occurs earlier in the story, evidenced by the confession we have gently extracted from professor Egghead.

Globus

11-08-2006, 04:36 PM

Ah, Globus - it's you again! I seem to recall your remark that the Hoax does not hang on the Dutch Jews, with which I agree and is the implication of my preliminary stipulations. I prefer, however, not to waste time toward the satisfaction of my curiosity by retracing the Hoaxer argument with which we are all familiar as to the implication of 100,000 Dutch deportees. As we see, the illogic of the Hoaxer account occurs earlier in the story, evidenced by the confession we have gently extracted from professor Egghead.

More of NN's delusions about supposed confessions and illogic, none of which he can even point to.

The deportations from Holland, as from other European nations, are well established and all the circumlocutions and free verse paragraphs of unsupported conclusions and speculations do not change that.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 04:46 PM

More of NN's delusions about supposed confessions and illogic, none of which he can even point to.

Globus, my dear fellow - let me guide your lovely eyes to the following testimony by our useful professor:

Furthermore every survivor's testimony as to the size of the transport will corroborate the name lists

Guess what, Neo: I haven't read every single witness statement given by a Dutch Jew. I doubt anyone has.

Trojan

11-08-2006, 04:54 PM

Ah, Globus - it's you again! I seem to recall your remark that the Hoax does not hang on the Dutch Jews, with which I agree and is the implication of my preliminary stipulations. I prefer, however, not to waste time toward the satisfaction of my curiosity by retracing the Hoaxer argument with which we are all familiar as to the implication of 100,000 Dutch deportees. As we see, the illogic of the Hoaxer account occurs earlier in the story, evidenced by the confession we have gently extracted from professor Egghead.

I fail to see any illogic in the account - and you have given us nothing from a revisionist perspective to account for the missing.

At least Egghead (MVH) provides us with honest narrative - rather than question after question with no substance provided.

cerberus

11-08-2006, 05:03 PM

NeoThis is a discussion of the diagrammed depiction of the vital ventilation systems of the semi-underground Leichenkeller I's of Krema's II and III. We are supposed to regard them as the major murder weapons as alleged in the current version of the Hoax:
So I have since discovered Neo - when you started on about pistols you had me for a second.

Yes the ventolaition system - yes Neo it did lend itself to the process - it is no secret that the structures were not initially designed as gas chambers and were converted to that use - the nazis had constructed gas chambers of a "homocidal" nature before and has some practical experience of their operation - this expereince was no doubt called upon when the conversion work was made.
Did these structures work ( Units II , III , IV and V- yes , very well in fact.
No claim being made here Neo , its cold hard fact - the "claims department" is , in fact all yours.
You see neo this is one of the claims areas which you might be able to clear up.

Fred Toben in his easily to be seen free download video in which he exposes the "holohoax" and myth of Auschwitz claims that the high standard of german engineering and "state of the art" lice killing units were used to reduce the dea toll within the camps and to control typhus and other diseases.
He claimed that this action is at odds with the aims of genocide and is proof positive that no gassings took place.
Toben went on to claim that coke as a fuel for crematon would be impossible.
he showed some film footage of the exterior of a modern crematorium and then he showed an interview of an unnamed man who said that coke could not be used as a fuel for cremation.
The viewer was meant to assume that the "expert" ( unidentified and unnamed , no mention of his qualifications or experience ) had something to do with the crematorium - (which was also not identified ).
Toben further claimed that it was possible to work out exactly how many bodies could have been burnt as he knew how much coke it would take and the records existed to say how much coke had been delivered.
On the strength of this he was able to dismiss body disposal as described.

Some flaws - he plays poacher and game keeper on the strengths of German engineering - which he described as being state of the art - when he can so easily demonstrate why such brillant engineers would employ such a useles method of cremation and body disposal.
his claim about knowing what amount of coke was actually delivered was a lie -the records detailing what was delivered are incomplete - even though Toben actually lied to endorse his claim.
Another thing when we are discussing claims - Faurission also lied to Pressac did he not when he tried to suppress direct evidence of gassings - he attempted to mislead Pressac and he was caught out .
Is this not a fact Neo ??

He dismissed cremation pits , he employed a "pyrotechnics expert" to do a controlled experiemnt of a sientific basis to prove that it was impossible.
The conttrolled experiment was most intersting.
A masked man ( unidentified , no mention of his qualifications or experience) dug a small hole in the ground , put a telephone book in , squirted lighter fuel on it and lit it ) - most impressive - a "phyrotechnics expert" at work - I was most impressed.

Now to return to Mr "Firey" Fred Toben - he also told a lie about the need to preserve workers and was less than honest in his dismissing the use of gas chambers.
he somehow forget to mention the selection process which went on at one level or another on an almost daily basis - one which ruled simple matters like life and death , especially so when a new transport arrived.

Now Neo - as far as claims go I see the claims department as being yours , claims like this which are based on utter lies , distortions and untruths.

That you may want or need to believe lies is your affair Neo - why do you think men like Fred Toben have to peddal them ?
And make no bones about it fred Toben is a liar and I don't really care that he knows it or not.
"Liar , liar pants on fire" !:rofl:

The only persons making claims Neo are the revisionists ( deniers) , Egghead , Torjan and I are not making claims - if you wish to discuss claims just be sure who is making them.
facts are not claims and much as basil and you may wish to say that these matters are still the subject of contention - this again is a claim made by you .

TrojanI fail to see any illogic in the account - and you have given us nothing from a revisionist perspective to account for the missing.

True Trojan - MVH ( Egghead) does provide a narrative which is honest and not dependant on claims , assumption, ommisions , dismassals or conspiracy - all of which are vital components of the revisionist cause and te asnwers to be found therin.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 05:06 PM

I fail to see any illogic in the account - and you have given us nothing from a revisionist perspective to account for the missing.
Your failure is not surprising. It will come to you when you can explain why Egghead lied.

Globus

11-08-2006, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Globus

More of NN's delusions about supposed confessions and illogic, none of which he can even point to.

Globus, my dear fellow - let me guide your lovely eyes to the following testimony by our useful professor:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MVH

Furthermore every survivor's testimony as to the size of the transport will corroborate the name lists

Quote:
Originally Posted by MVH

Guess what, Neo: I haven't read every single witness statement given by a Dutch Jew. I doubt anyone has.

LOL!

You are not even talking about the same "set" of data, NN.

And you've done what you usually do, avoid the evidence and attack the person who happens to be undressing you in public.

An embarrassment for Holocaust denial it is.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 05:16 PM

Yes the ventolaition system - yes Neo it did lend itself to the process - it is no secret that the structures were not initially designed as gas chambers and were converted to that use.
Describe the conversion of the vital ventilation system, please, and explain why Pressac's and my easy and obvious "repair" was not performed. And tell us when the decision to convert was made and by whom. Please explain and account for the mistakes in Marcus Thad Allen's elaborate thesis as to the intent, since '41, to create the Krema's as extermination units.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 05:19 PM

LOL!

You are not even talking about the same "set" of data, NN.
Reduced to bold-faced lying again, eh, Globus.

Globus

11-08-2006, 05:33 PM

Reduced to bold-faced lying again, eh, Globus.

The two sets are different.

But more importantly, what does this have to do with the mounds of evidence you simply ignore out of wilful self-delusion?

Trojan

11-08-2006, 05:33 PM

Your failure is not surprising. It will come to you when you can explain why Egghead lied.

Since Egghead does not seem to be on line at the moment, please point me to the lie.

cerberus

11-08-2006, 05:47 PM

NeoDescribe the conversion of the vital ventilation system, please, and explain why Pressac's and my easy and obvious "repair" was not performed. And tell us when the decision to convert was made and by whom. Please explain and account for the mistakes in Marcus Thad Allen's elaborate thesis as to the intent, since '41, to create the Krema's as extermination units.
A short cut Neo.
Van Pelt appeared as an expert witness in the Irving fiasco - he was explaining amongest other things the gas chamber aspect - including in this Units 1-5 at Auschwitz - now if as you claim - the ventilation system is flawed and could not do what it did why did this not come out in the trial ?
Why did it not come out in "the great holocaust trial" so often trumpeted ?

I leave the claims to you Neo - I will leave it for you to explain why - the claim is yours - make it and defend it.
I have Robert Van Pelt and Deborah Dwork's "Auschwitz" on my bookcase - from memory it does explain how the system operated.

Claims Neo - that's your end of the stick - I am not making claims.

TrojanSince Egghead does not seem to be on line at the moment, please point me to the lie.
Me too Neo , I see you didn't answer any of the claims made by Toben's freebie Video Downlaod , you have to admit - it was pretty dire.

eggheadbanga

11-08-2006, 06:12 PM

It seems NN is in need of enlightenment and some correction as to his overzealous interpretation.

The allegedly offending statement:

Furthermore every survivor's testimony as to the size of the transport will corroborate the name lists

every testimony by a survivor that mentions the size of the transport, not the testimony of every survivor.

'every time someone says x, ....'

Moreover, we are faced with a situation of 68 transports - 1000 witnesses. Those for 1942 have less survivors, so therefore there may even be - gasp!- some transports for which there is no witness corroboration, in other cases 10 or more might have survived and left a testimony.

Once the number of transports corroborated in some fashion by witnesses gets above a certain level, then there is no reason to doubt the remainder.

But it's Neo's burden of proof to debunk this, so off he should go to NIOD, USHMM, Yad Vashem and Auschwitz, to prove that there was an obvious pattern of orchestration, coordination and disinformation, instead of simply asserting that one exists.

Trojan

11-08-2006, 06:14 PM

But it's Neo's burden of proof to debunk this, so off he should go to NIOD, USHMM, Yad Vashem and Auschwitz, to prove that there was an obvious pattern of orchestration, coordination and disinformation, instead of simply asserting that one exists.

But in the revisionist world, assertion is proof, at least as far as their claims go.
:deadhorse: :deadhorse:

Globus

11-08-2006, 06:20 PM

It seems NN is in need of enlightenment and some correction as to his overzealous interpretation.

The allegedly offending statement:

every testimony by a survivor that mentions the size of the transport, not the testimony of every survivor.

'every time someone says x, ....'

Yup, two different sets.

Moreover, we are faced with a situation of 68 transports - 1000 witnesses. Those for 1942 have less survivors, so therefore there may even be - gasp!- some transports for which there is no witness corroboration, in other cases 10 or more might have survived and left a testimony.

And for the transport carrying 35,000 to Sobibor in 1943 we would expect no survivors.

Once the number of transports corroborated in some fashion by witnesses gets above a certain level, then there is no reason to doubt the remainder.

Unless you need a diversion from the evidence!

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 07:50 PM

It seems NN is in need of enlightenment and some correction as to his overzealous interpretation.

The allegedly offending statement:

every testimony by a survivor that mentions the size of the transport, not the testimony of every survivor.

'every time someone says x, ....'

So, rather than suggesting more than you could claim by writing:

Furthermore every survivor's testimony as to the size of the transport will corroborate the name lists

You should have written:

"Furthermore every survivor's testimony as to the size of the transport will corroborate a name list."

As you now interpret your mis-statement for us, it claims nothing of fact, since it did not affirm that there even was a testimony as to size. And since you raised the point with this vacuous weasel-wording suggesting that all lists were corroborated, it seems appropriate that you now rectify the impression and fact of deception (perhaps inadvertent) on your part by specifying how many, if any, survivors allegedly testified/were prompted as to size, and how many lists were supposedly corroborated thereby.

Globus

11-08-2006, 07:54 PM

So, rather than suggesting more than you could claim by writing:

You should have written:

"Furthermore every survivor's testimony as to the size of the transport will corroborate a name list."

As you now interpret your mis-statement for us, it claims nothing of fact, since it did not affirm that there even was a testimony as to size. And since you raised the point with this vacuous weasel-wording, it seems appropriate that you now rectify the impression and fact of deception (perhaps inadvertent) on your part by specifying how many, if any, survivors allegedly testified/were prompted as to size, and how many lists were supposedly corroborated thereby.

The deceptions, weasel wording, and dishonesty are all yours.

And still, NN addresses no evidence, and presents no evidence. That's because he is an intellectual nihilist who has convinced himself that this kind of behavior is the only way to combat the facts of history.

Trojan

11-08-2006, 08:01 PM

So, rather than suggesting more than you could claim by writing:

You should have written:

"Furthermore every survivor's testimony as to the size of the transport will corroborate a name list."

As you now interpret your mis-statement for us, it claims nothing of fact, since it did not affirm that there even was a testimony as to size. And since you raised the point with this vacuous weasel-wording suggesting that all lists were corroborated, it seems appropriate that you now rectify the impression and fact of deception (perhaps inadvertent) on your part by specifying how many, if any, survivors allegedly testified/were prompted as to size, and how many lists were supposedly corroborated thereby.

I have to say that I am just speachless after this evasion.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 08:09 PM

I have to say that I am just speachless after this evasion.
Because you fail (your pattern) to realize that he is now offering his statement as a mere hypothetical in order to save the interpretation he wishes to place upon it in avoidance of an explicit lie. He eliminates the lie by, in effect, claiming that he said nothing of fact. He is the one involved in evasion.

Empress Cheesatine

11-08-2006, 08:12 PM

My understanding is that numbers of dead are based on train records. Since train records are missing (and/or hidden in Russian archives) how can we come to a number?

Globus

11-08-2006, 08:18 PM

Globus

11-08-2006, 08:20 PM

My understanding is that numbers of dead are based on train records. Since train records are missing (and/or hidden in Russian archives) how can we come to a number?

The records under discussion are not under Russian control and are not train records.

See post number 40 in this thread.

Trojan

11-08-2006, 08:27 PM

He's offering the statement just as he did before. It was you who were unwilling or unable to distinguish between two sets of survivors. And your caviling fails to address the evidence which incontrovertibly shows the deportation of 100,000 Dutch Jews.

What happened to them?

I would like to see any revisionist here provide a direct answer to this question!!

What happened to them?

They were there (in the Netherlands) in 1941 and were not there in 1945.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 08:29 PM

He's offering the statement just as he did before.
Which is either vacuous or a lie.

I naturally took it to be intended as a statement of fact, in which terms it is a lie suggestive of the corroboration of "the (i.e., all) lists".

He now offers it as a hypothetical (if/where there is a statement as to size, it corroborates a list). There is no quantification of that statement, hence it is merely hypothetical and non-factual.

Your choice: lie or bullshit.

Trojan

11-08-2006, 08:38 PM

Neo, I'll repeat - what happened to them??

Globus

11-08-2006, 08:42 PM

Which is either vacuous or a lie.

No, the lie is yours.

And you continue to evade the overwhelming evidence for the transportation of 100,000 Dutch Jews.

What happened to them?

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 08:45 PM

I would like to see any revisionist here provide a direct answer to this question!!

What happened to them?

They were there (in the Netherlands) in 1941 and were not there in 1945.
I am suggesting that three-fourths of them may have remained in the Netherlands and were there in '45, concealed as to census by the government. I am suspicious of a claim as to the very small percentage of workers (less than 5% of the total) surviving the episode, given the labor needs of the Reich. I consider much more reasonable a 20% survival based upon some 25,000 deportees (19K+(12K-6K)) that does not involve fictional gas chambers as a convenient statistical dumping ground that supposedly accounts for every last Dutch Jew allegedly deported.

Trojan

11-08-2006, 08:55 PM

I am suggesting that three-fourths of them may have remained in the Netherlands and were there in '45, concealed as to census by the government. I am suspicious of a claim as to the very small percentage of workers (less than 5% of the total) surviving the episode, given the labor needs of the Reich. I consider much more reasonable a 20% survival based upon some 25,000 deportees (19K+(12K-6K)) that does not involve fictional gas chambers as a convenient statistical dumping ground that supposedly accounts for every last Dutch Jew allegedly deported.

Direct answer - thank you.

Now, if they were there in 1945, how and why were they in hiding after the war and why have they remained in hiding ever since?

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 09:06 PM

eggheadbanga

11-08-2006, 09:08 PM

Because you fail (your pattern) to realize that he is now offering his statement as a mere hypothetical in order to save the interpretation he wishes to place upon it in avoidance of an explicit lie. He eliminates the lie by, in effect, claiming that he said nothing of fact. He is the one involved in evasion.

No, I'm afraid it was you that began the process of totalising and absolutising the evidence, and expecting that it conform to your wholly irrational understanding that every single witness would mention the exact number on a train.

Let's actually look at an example, albeit not from Holland, shall we?

Here's Szlama Dragon testifying on May 10, 1945

Nach Auschwitz kam ich am 7. Dezember 1942 mit der Eisenbahn in einem Transport mit 2500 Juden unterschiedlichen Geschlechts und Alters aus dem Ghetto im Mlawa.

As it happens, after two and a half years he gets the date wrong by one day, it was actually December 6. The fact that he was off by one day actually increases the veracity of the rest of his statement, since someone who was reading off a script, e.g. was told that according to the Smolen list the Mlawa train came in on December 6, would have got it right. In general most witnesses get their day of arrival correct, some are off by a day and some give a month or a season. Pretty much what you'd expect in terms of the range of human memory abilities.

He then describes the selection:

Bereits auf dem Bahnhof fuehrten sie [die SS] eine Selektion durch und teilten Frauen und Kinder der einen und die Maenner der anderen Gruppe zu. Aus der Gruppe der Maenner wurden 400 Personen ausgesucht. In dieser Gruppe befand auch ich mich.

In fact, 406 men were selected and given the tattoo numbers 80262 to 80667. Dragon himself had the number 80359 which is recorded at the top of his statement. No women were selected out of this transport.

Dragon (and his brother Abraham, who also testified around this time IIRC) is telling the truth about one very basic thing, that he was on a particular transport. His estimate of 2500 Jews is to be taken as just that, an estimate. It may well have been 2397 or 2560 or who knows. There are other witness sources conforming to this figure, but in this case no transport list document.

There are I understand other written sources directly relating to the Mlawa ghetto which make the figure plausible; moreover there is the fact that the two Korherr reports, when correlated, produce a figure of 76,818 Jews deported from the so-called 'incorporated territories' in 1942, which happens to include Mlawa. This is produced by excluding the statistic for the Warthegau (i.e. Chelmno). That statistic in turn has yet more documentary and witness corroboration. There is also further documentary corroboration relating to Ostoberschlesien district. All of the 76,818 Jews deported from the 'incorporated territories' in 1942 went to Auschwitz. Only 8063 were registered there. 68,755 were killed on arrival.

Thus, it doesn't actually matter if Dragon was over- or under-estimating his claim of 2500, because it is one statistic contributing to another aggregated statistic, and that moreover in a document which was completely unavailable to the Polish investigators in May 1945.

The idea that the Korherr report was forged in the west as a statistical checklist to accomodate all the witness statements and to back up other documents in the east is gibbering nonsense.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 09:13 PM

Direct answer - thank you.

Now, if they were there in 1945, how and why were they in hiding after the war and why have they remained in hiding ever since?
If the circumstance is as I have suggested, they have not had to "hide". It would merely be a case of the government not being forthcoming about true census statistics, as I imagine the case. Perhaps you can think of other difficulties?

And the reason for the discretion on the part of the government would be the preservation of the Hoax that has justified the war and the post-war policy of all western nations.

Trojan

11-08-2006, 09:24 PM

If the circumstance is as I have suggested, they have not had to "hide". It would merely be a case of the government not being forthcoming about true census statistics, as I imagine the case. Perhaps you can think of other difficulties?

And the reason for the discretion on the part of the government would be the preservation of the Hoax that has justified the war and the post-war policy of all western nations.

The Netherlands was invaded by Germany without provocation on May 10, 1940 - they needed no justification for the war.

Just the same, your conspiracy theory would also require the individual Jews to remain silent, in fact the whole Jewish community.

Was there a mass flyer or was the conspiracy done word of mouth?

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 09:25 PM

No, I'm afraid it was you that began the process of totalising and absolutising the evidence, and expecting that it conform to your wholly irrational understanding that every single witness would mention the exact number on a train.
It is yourself who contributed this (mis)-"understanding" and to which I explicitly objected on principle, thus pursuing and exposing the vacuity of your pretension to have offered factual information on the point. I think that you now argue in very bad faith and have turned to a propaganda tactic in order to seem to be responsive and to recover from your serious mis-step.

<lengthy attempt at diversion snipped>

eggheadbanga

11-08-2006, 09:26 PM

Also, there is the suspicion raised by Egghead's tactic of claiming that the issue, as always, is all neatly wrapped up with a ribbon on top, by the cross-referencing and mutual corroboration of documents and testimonies, such that an imposture is impossible for the coordination and conspiracy that would be involved.

We have been examining that tactic in the present instance and finding that all is not so neat as his pretensions would have it. It is evident that much less would be involved in having a part of the Hoax realized in the context of the Dutch deportees. There has been less corroboration than he has led us to believe. In fact, he now claims none, other than hypothetically, as to witness testimony and lists aside from the Smolen, where he had us believing that all lists had been accounted for.

(Yawn.)

Let's remind Neo of what he's up against again, just in the case of Auschwitz deportations from Holland.

1. 68 lists of the names of deportees on transports to Auschwitz
2. the Smolen list indicating the numbers of those registered.
3. eyewitness testimonies given postwar, corroborating (1) and (2)

furthermore:

4. documentation relating to the camps at Westerbork and Herzogenbosch
5. documentation from the office of BdS Niederlande (Harster)
6. documentation from the office of HSSPF Niederlande (Rauter)
7. documentation from RSHA IV B 4 (Eichmann)
8. the records of the Jewish Council of the Netherlands

and finally

9. Dutch civil service documentation
10. Dutch commercial documentation (property, insurance etc records

Categories 4-10 were already mentioned at the start of this wild goose chase, but I think it's time Neo was reminded of them again.

Among the historians who have worked on this can be named:
Gerhard Hirschfeld (Germany)
Johannes Houwink ten Cate (Holland)
Marnix Croes (Holland)
Anna Hajkova (Czech Republic)
Louis de Jong (Holland)
Bob Moore (Britain)
Gerhard Peters (Holland)

and many others, all of whom must be completely stupid to not notice the subtle pattern of orchestration and spin-doctoring that some unknown agencies, perhaps associated with the Bilderbergers :rofl:, have woven into the historical record.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 09:31 PM

The Netherlands was invaded by Germany without provocation on May 10, 1940 - they needed no justification for the war.
You seem to assume I wrote something in this regard.

Just the same, your conspiracy theory would also require the individual Jews to remain silent, in fact the whole Jewish community.
Hard for you to imagine? Strikes me as to have been expected. Are Dutch Jews stupid?

Was there a mass flyer or was the conspiracy done word of mouth?
You mean a conspiracy to do the sensible thing?

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 09:45 PM

(Yawn.)

Let's remind Neo of what he's up against again, just in the case of Auschwitz deportations from Holland.

1. 68 lists of the names of deportees on transports to Auschwitz
2. the Smolen list indicating the numbers of those registered.
3. eyewitness testimonies given postwar, corroborating (1) and (2)
We're good on "2)" for 12K, corroboration-wise - but you left "1)" completely unsupported in your attempt to have us accept the corroboration of all of it.

furthermore:

4. documentation relating to the camps at Westerbork and Herzogenbosch
5. documentation from the office of BdS Niederlande (Harster)
6. documentation from the office of HSSPF Niederlande (Rauter)
7. documentation from RSHA IV B 4 (Eichmann)
8. the records of the Jewish Council of the Netherlands
This is probably your best case, since it does require the multiplication of documents in various detail. This consideration might tip me in favor of the Hoaxer case re Holland.

and finally

9. Dutch civil service documentation
10. Dutch commercial documentation (property, insurance etc records
I think this is where fictional names are not exposed for lack of interest, as explained. There seems nothing here to corroborate the Hoax.

Among the historians who have worked on this can be named:
Gerhard Hirschfeld (Germany)
Johannes Houwink ten Cate (Holland)
Marnix Croes (Holland)
Anna Hajkova (Czech Republic)
Louis de Jong (Holland)
Bob Moore (Britain)
Gerhard Peters (Holland)

and many others, all of whom must be completely stupid to not notice the subtle pattern of orchestration and spin-doctoring that some unknown agencies, perhaps associated with the Bilderbergers :rofl:, have woven into the historical record.
Oooh, you lost big credibility points here! I spent too much time in academia to have regard for the ability of academics to notice subtle patterns, professor.

eggheadbanga

11-08-2006, 09:53 PM

It is yourself who contributed this (mis)-"understanding" and to which I explicitly objected on principle, thus pursuing and exposing the vacuity of your pretension to have offered factual information on the point. I think that you now argue in very bad faith and have turned to a propaganda tactic in order to seem to be responsive and to recover from your serious mis-step.

<lengthy attempt at diversion snipped>

The 'diversion' will be reposted at the appropriate time.

As to your accusations: my original post on this subject (Dutch Jews) identified many other categories of sources. You ignored all of these, and focused on one only, and so we were led (by your questioning) down the garden path you now complain about. Which was solely a product of your caricaturing of what I said.

I deliberately avoided sending you to the library at the start of this discussion, but I fear it is now time to do so. If you were to deign to read the accounts of the historians named who has written on this subject (Dutch Jews), you would have a better understanding of the way in which the historical evidence documenting the deportations interlocks. That is the normal historiographical methodology used by all historians of any subject. Historians are notoriously fond of playing 'snap!' when it comes to comparing sources; because one source might not contain the full story, several taken together however will give a fuller picture of the event under examination.

The fact is that historical evidence of all stripes (documentary, eyewitness) relating to Nazi-occupied Europe, deportations therefrom, and the persecution of the Jews in individual territories and countries does interlock, and interlocks repeatedly and endlessly, for the simple reason that it reflects historical reality.

Globus

11-08-2006, 10:02 PM

I am suggesting that three-fourths of them may have remained in the Netherlands and were there in '45, concealed as to census by the government.

And you could just as convincingly suggest they sailed to Greenland on a big raft. Just what place does baseles nonsense like that have in establishing history?

{I am suspicious of a claim as to the very small percentage of workers (less than 5% of the total) surviving the episode, given the labor needs of the Reich. [/quote]

But of course the Reich had reams of workers at the end of the war. Your suspicions are baseless. They are merely excusing for ignoring evidence.

You must deal with the evidence of be seen as just mindlessly denying what is inconvenient for you.

eggheadbanga

11-08-2006, 10:12 PM

In dispute here is the simple corroboration that 60,000 Dutch Jews were sent to Auschwitz:

1. 68 lists of the names of deportees on transports to Auschwitz
2. the Smolen list indicating the numbers of those registered.
3. eyewitness testimonies given postwar, corroborating (1) and (2)
4. documentation relating to the camps at Westerbork and Herzogenbosch
5. documentation from the office of BdS Niederlande (Harster)
6. documentation from the office of HSSPF Niederlande (Rauter)
7. documentation from RSHA IV B 4 (Eichmann)
8. the records of the Jewish Council of the Netherlands
9. Dutch civil service documentation
10. Dutch commercial documentation (property, insurance etc records

Let's start with (7). RSHA documents indicate that Eichmann expected much bigger quotas to be 'fulfilled' for deportation programs in 1942 from western Europe. One has to say that if Eichmann asks for 60,000 Dutch Jews to be deported as a first quota, then it is unlikely that he or anyone else would have been happy by an under-performance of under 10,000 in 1942. You don't fulfil a quota of 60,000 by sending penny-packets of a few hundred at a time, you do your damnedest to send as many as you can. Which is what happened; and which left a paper-trail in (5), (6), (8) and to an extent (9).

In the end, the Korherr report shows that 38,571 Jews were deported from the Netherlands by the end of 1942, and a futher 13,832 in the first quarter of 1943, which overlaps with the start of the successive series of deportations to Sobibor. All such RSHA-level documentation was captured by the US and discovered progressively over the immediate postwar period.

(5) and (6), documents of the SS and SD in the Netherlands, were found in the Netherlands after liberation in May 1945, and never left the country. Indeed, the US National Archives has copies microfilmed from NIOD, not the other way around. These documents include cc's of some of the RSHA orders determining quotas already discussed above. There are moreover monthly reports which cover part of the period, giving further corroboration to the scale of the deportations.

Category (8) includes further statistical material indicating the scale of the deportations, as well as innumerable case-files, requests for exemption, names of those initially exempted then later deported, and so forth. A new cache of Jewish Council material has recently been located at the ITS Arolsen, it has essentially been sat on by the ICRC since the war.

Categories (9) and (10) simply give further individual names and cases; also further detail on such matters as the quantity of money raised from selling property, shares etc, which is of indirect value.

The historians who have worked on this material have not only produced an extensive literature in Dutch, German and English, but have even begun computer analyses of the statistics, thus being able to break down the deportees by province and various other measurements.

Category (3) is thus hardly the only measure of scale, it does however add to the growing pile of material relating to individuals which can also be found under (5) - arrest reports/correspondence on exemptions, (8) - exemptions, pleas, petitions and the like, (9) and (10) government and commercial documents relating to individuals.

For obvious space reasons, no historian can ever use more than a handful of such individual case studies as anything other than emblematic illustration, which in the wider arena of popular understanding ends up with 'symbolic'/pseudo-representative survivors, in the case of the Netherlands, Anne Frank - dead in Belsen; father Otto Frank - survived; Etty Hillesum - left diary behind and vanished into Birkenau.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 10:14 PM

But of course the Reich had reams of workers at the end of the war. Your suspicions are baseless. They are merely excusing for ignoring evidence.
Speer's Munitions Ministry and the Wehrmacht were in a desperate fight over workers/soldiers being needed for production or the battlelines. 150,000 Germans were being lost at the front every month, and Germany was being seriously out-produced by a multiple. Any other wisdom you want to dispense?

eggheadbanga

11-08-2006, 10:15 PM

Speer's Munitions Ministry and the Wehrmacht were in a desperate fight over workers/soldiers being needed for production or the battlelines. 150,000 Germans were being lost at the front every month, and Germany was being seriously out-produced by a multiple. Any other wisdom you want to dispense?

What is the economic utility of an Jewish pensioner or toddler, Neo?

Trojan

11-08-2006, 10:18 PM

You seem to assume I wrote something in this regard.

You claimed they (the Netherlands) needed a justification - they needed none - they were invaded.

Globus

11-08-2006, 10:22 PM

Speer's Munitions Ministry and the Wehrmacht were in a desperate fight over workers/soldiers being needed for production or the battlelines.

Not for lack of workers. For lack of fit workers. And for that fiasco you can look no further than the bureaucracy which ran the camps in such a manner that those who didn't die were in no shape to work. More bodies wouldn't have helped. Furthermore, most of the transports from Holland occurred at a time when there was not a desperate need for workers.

Deniers seem to have a problem with the necessarily contingent nature of history, and simple things like timelines cause them a great deal of problems when thinking about history.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 11:16 PM

You claimed they (the Netherlands) needed a justification - they needed none - they were invaded.
You misunderstood something I wrote or have me confused with someone else. I don't know what you are talking about. Justification for what?

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 11:18 PM

What is the economic utility of an Jewish pensioner or toddler, Neo?
Merely as one of your tactics, Egg.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 11:23 PM

The fact is that historical evidence of all stripes (documentary, eyewitness) relating to Nazi-occupied Europe, deportations therefrom, and the persecution of the Jews in individual territories and countries does interlock, and interlocks repeatedly and endlessly, for the simple reason that it reflects historical reality.
That or the fact that Hoaxers have had several decades in which to "discover" documents and try to get their story to stick together.

We will see.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 11:27 PM

Not for lack of workers. For lack of fit workers. And for that fiasco you can look no further than the bureaucracy which ran the camps in such a manner that those who didn't die were in no shape to work. More bodies wouldn't have helped. Furthermore, most of the transports from Holland occurred at a time when there was not a desperate need for workers.

Deniers seem to have a problem with the necessarily contingent nature of history, and simple things like timelines cause them a great deal of problems when thinking about history.
Your claim was that there were enough workers. I corrected you. Now you say there were not enough workers, as if correcting me.

Globus

11-08-2006, 11:35 PM

That or the fact that Hoaxers have had several decades in which to "discover" documents and try to get their story to stick together.

We will see.

No we won't. Because your conspiracy theory is nonsense, and there will never be any evidence to support it. It is a tactic for denying history, an obvious one that accounts for the pathetic view people have of Holocaust denial.

Globus

11-08-2006, 11:38 PM

Your claim was that there were enough workers.

And there were.

Your claim tried to move a need late in the war to the time period of Dutch deportations to Auschwitz which occurred in 1942. I was therefore required to educate you as to situation late in the war, which is as I described, as well as educate you on your ignorance of the timeline of history.

There was no desperate shortage of workers when the transports went to Auschwitz.

Glad I could enlighten you.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 11:41 PM

As to your accusations: my original post on this subject (Dutch Jews) identified many other categories of sources. You ignored all of these, and focused on one only, and so we were led (by your questioning) down the garden path you now complain about. Which was solely a product of your caricaturing of what I said.
You would be much more convincing if you would own up to your mistakes and the weaknesses in your argument. The anxious pretense (betrayed by your propaganda tactics) that yours is gaplessly perfect, and your tendency to overreach in your claims, hardly allows of a caricature of that which is already one.

Globus

11-08-2006, 11:46 PM

You would be much more convincing if you would own up to your mistakes and the weaknesses in your argument.

Actually you'd do well to take your own advice. You'd have a little credibility then, given the number of mistakes and just how weak your arguments are.

His argument is that there are numerous types of corroborating evidence that prove the deportation of 100,000 Dutch Jews. Your argument is that its all a conspiracy. He has evidence. You have nothing.

cerberus

11-08-2006, 11:49 PM

NeoI am suggesting that three-fourths of them may have remained in the Netherlands and were there in '45, concealed as to census by the government. I am suspicious of a claim as to the very small percentage of workers (less than 5% of the total) surviving the episode, given the labor needs of the Reich. I consider much more reasonable a 20% survival based upon some 25,000 deportees (19K+(12K-6K)) that does not involve fictional gas chambers as a convenient statistical dumping ground that supposedly accounts for every last Dutch Jew allegedly deported.

Neo to sum up - Egghead produces facts and you reply with "suggesting" and "supposedly" and "allegedly" ?
Not much basis to you answer and this is to avoid the fact that these people have been killed ?
A poor excuse Neo.:nuts:
Originally Posted by NeoNietzsche
I am suggesting that three-fourths of them may have remained in the Netherlands and were there in '45, concealed as to census by the government.

Strange Neo "may have remained" has become and were there in 45 what happened to "may still have been there in 45" - you go from may to and were there in '45, concealed as to census by the government.

You have no proof of this and yet your word play moves from idea to form in less than less than 10 words and not a shread of proof to back it up.

Egghead / MVHWhat is the economic utility of an Jewish pensioner or toddler, Neo?
I wonder will Neo employ the term "useless eater" ?
Bottom line was if you can't work you die, perhaps neo might be able to enlarge on this ?
Neo - you may well be aware that the workforce had already been well raided for soldiers and the new recruits were mostly underaged lads - who had not worked in industry and who had more than likely served on flak guns.
NeoThat or the fact that Hoaxers have had several decades in which to "discover" documents and try to get their story to stick together.
Neo - this is just consipracy theory - it is opinion and paranoid opinion - nothing more.
Egghead has produced fact- you have failed to answer in a similar form - in short its a wipe out.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 11:54 PM

And there were.

Your claim tried to move a need late in the war to the time period of Dutch deportations to Auschwitz which occurred in 1942. I was therefore required to educate you as to situation late in the war, which is as I described, as well as educate you on your ignorance of the timeline of history.

There was no desperate shortage of workers when the transports went to Auschwitz.

Glad I could enlighten you.
Less than half of the alleged Dutch deportations had taken place by the end of '42. So 60K+ were yet to leave by the ending of the Stalingrad disaster and Goebbels' call for Total War. There was thereafter desperate need for workers and soldiers by that time, (Sixth Army was GONE) and many more Jewish workers should have survived, in various production places, of that majority of Jews supposedly deported after '42.

NeoNietzsche

11-08-2006, 11:58 PM

Neo

Neo to sum up - Egghead produces facts and you reply with "suggesting" and "supposedly" and "allegedly" ?
Not much basis to you answer and this is to avoid the fact that these people have been killed ?
A poor excuse Neo.:nuts:
I am probing the opposing case and appropriately couching my language. You and Egg have zip against the critical plugged-pistol thesis, to date.

Trojan

11-09-2006, 12:04 AM

You misunderstood something I wrote or have me confused with someone else. I don't know what you are talking about. Justification for what?

Are these your words? pst #178

And the reason for the discretion on the part of the government would be the preservation of the Hoax that has justified the war and the post-war policy of all western nations.

Again, the Netherlands did not need to justify the war - they were a nuetral nation until they were invaded.

Globus

11-09-2006, 12:08 AM

Less than half of the alleged Dutch deportations had taken place by the end of '42. So 60K+ were yet to leave by the ending of the Stalingrad disaster and Goebbels' call for Total War.

Again, I've already educated you on this, and yet you yammer about the same points. Most of the transports after 1942 went to Sobibor. Selections for labor did not occur at the pure death camps.

Furthermore, as I already educated you, transports to Auschwitz did have people selected for labor. The fact that they weren't alive at the end of the war is irrelevant.

There was thereafter desperate need for workers and soldiers by that time,

Nope, your citation was for much later, and if there had been more of a need for labor through Auschwitz in 1942 they would have gassed fewer immediately upon arrival and saved more for labor.

Additionally, transports from Holland were not the only transports and selections for labor could have been made from many others.

So you make a number of erroneous assumptions.

1. That large numbers of Jews from Holland after 1942 went to a camp where labor selections were made.

2. That there was a desperate need for labor in 1942 when the Dutch transports went to Auschwitz, a camp from which labor selections were made.

3. That selections for labor were not made from Dutch transports to Auschwitz.

4. That any selection rate from a single small source of transportees like Holland would have to be at some level for the overall labor selection rate to be sufficient.

All in all, one of your greater stretches.

Globus

11-09-2006, 12:10 AM

I am probing the opposing case and appropriately couching my language. You and Egg have zip against the critical plugged-pistol thesis, to date.

LOL! The plugged-pistol thesis! Is that a form of intellectual constipation?

cerberus

11-09-2006, 12:41 AM

NeoYou and Egg have zip against the critical plugged-pistol thesis, to date.

Which you have mentioned withouit explaination or link , I take it you are going to keep us / me in the dark ?

And so far Neo you have not really produced anything remotely evidence based.:confused:

NeoNietzsche

11-09-2006, 12:45 PM

Again, the Netherlands did not need to justify the war - they were a nuetral nation until they were invaded.
Indeed, if the expulsion of the Germans from Holland were the only policy issue involved in the war and its aftermath. I think the Dutch would still like to rationalize, per the Hollywood History of the Second World War and per the HoloHoax, the loss of Poland, half of Europe, and the Continental Balance of Power - for which the war was ostensibly fought - to captivity behind the Soviet Iron Curtain. These were shocking developments, contrary to the propaganda picture of the USSR promoted during the war, that provoked the McCarthy Era in Greater Judea and the Spycatcher episode in Great Britain. So one can hardly justify these events in terms of the recovery, for Judeo-Communism, of Dutch territory, or even of Western Europe as a whole.

Trojan

11-09-2006, 12:56 PM

Indeed, if the expulsion of the Germans from Holland were the only policy issue involved in the war and its aftermath. I think the Dutch would still like to rationalize, per the Hollywood History of the Second World War and per the HoloHoax, the loss of Poland, half of Europe, and the Continental Balance of Power - for which the war was ostensibly fought - to captivity behind the Soviet Iron Curtain. These were shocking developments, contrary to the propaganda picture of the USSR promoted during the war, that provoked the McCarthy Era in Greater Judea and the Spycatcher episode in Great Britain. So one can hardly justify these events in terms of the recovery, for Judeo-Communism, of Dutch territory, or even of Western Europe as a whole.

The Dutch were not prepared to go to war for Poland or even to an open allegiance with the French and British before the war, indeed, the Dutch were neutral during the WWI and were intent on repeating that until they were invaded.

I cannot imagine how the Dutch government would be so invested and indebted to the Jews as to contribute to your Holohoax theory to such a degree as to hide a majority of its Jewish citizenry from public view and claim those citizens were deported to and executed by the evil Nazi.

NeoNietzsche

11-09-2006, 01:13 PM

Again, I've already educated you on this, and yet you yammer about the same points. Most of the transports after 1942 went to Sobibor. Selections for labor did not occur at the pure death camps.
So goes the story. The need for labor, then, precisely brings into question an account that has the Germans merely exterminating Jews "after 1942" - i.e., after Stalingrad, after the call for Totaler Krieg.

Furthermore, as I already educated you, transports to Auschwitz did have people selected for labor. The fact that they weren't alive at the end of the war is irrelevant.
It is the very consideration being examined.

Nope, your citation was for much later, and if there had been more of a need for labor through Auschwitz in 1942 they would have gassed fewer immediately upon arrival and saved more for labor.
We are referring to after '42, when, according to the story and crediting the Korherr report, more than 60K Jews were yet to be deported. Thus sending them to supposed pure death camps contradicts the story we accept of Jews having been used for labor prior to that, when later they are more needed than ever.

Additionally, transports from Holland were not the only transports and selections for labor could have been made from many others.
But you still have but a fraction of the 5% of survivors as laborers making it out of the war alive - which makes no sense.

So you make a number of erroneous assumptions.

1. That large numbers of Jews from Holland after 1942 went to a camp where labor selections were made.
No, we are deducing, from the need for labor, that the work-worthy portion thereof was put to work somewhere until the end of the war. Of 60K we would expect maybe 15-25%, 10-15K, to have been useful and to have been survivors.

2. That there was a desperate need for labor in 1942 when the Dutch transports went to Auschwitz, a camp from which labor selections were made.
No, this was not assumed. Again, the period in question is post-'42, the period of most of the alleged deportation of Dutch Jews.

3. That selections for labor were not made from Dutch transports to Auschwitz.
No, the contrary has been assumed.

4. That any selection rate from a single small source of transportees like Holland would have to be at some level for the overall labor selection rate to be sufficient.
No, that was not assumed nor is its relevance evident.

NeoNietzsche

11-09-2006, 01:19 PM

The Dutch were not prepared to go to war for Poland or even to an open allegiance with the French and British before the war, indeed, the Dutch were neutral during the WWI and were intent on repeating that until they were invaded.

I cannot imagine how the Dutch government would be so invested and indebted to the Jews as to contribute to your Holohoax theory to such a degree as to hide a majority of its Jewish citizenry from public view and claim those citizens were deported to and executed by the evil Nazi.
It is not evident what you think the penalty is for doing as we have imagined might be the case. In fact, I would expect the Dutch government to be inclined to mere discretion in a census figure on behalf of preserving the poor Jews from any future harm. And the Dutch government seems, at best, indistinct from other western nations in their coordination by the JWO, if not distinguished by being the seat of various such organs.

Kolchab

11-09-2006, 01:25 PM

Go on, Kolchab, post the 'ghetto map' you and Claudia Rothenbach love so much.
You mean:
The Nazis ran over 10,000 [ten thousand] concentration camps, subcamps,
ghettos, and work camps. http://www.jewishgen.org/Forgottencamps/Camps/MainCampsEng.html
and
Here is a map of some of the ghettos and camps in eastern Poland and western Russia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/Ghettos.png
Caption:
“Ghettos established by the Nazis in which Jews were confined, and later shipped to concentration camps.”
Source: Wiki

I have to assume that the Jews were deported to some of these camps.
If you don't agree with this, then please ntell me why not?

Dr. Richard Korherr, author of the Korherr report, told the “Der Spiegel”:
“Tatsächlich wurden diese Angaben [Anzahl der jüdischen Opfer] vom Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA) fix und fertig samt Text mir geliefert mit der Auflage, keine Zahl und kein Wort ändern zu dürfen.”
My translation:
I actually received the data about the number of Jewish victims from the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA) complete, including the text, with the request, that no number or word can be changed.

Source:
http://fpp.co.uk/History/General/Korherr/Spiegel250777.html

If this is correct, it would indicate that the SS kept meticulous book about the deportations of the Jews.

So I ask, what happened to those SS files, those documents which the SS prepared and kept about the deportation of the Jews? They may give us some information, either way, about what happened to those Jews you are looking for!
Were these documents destroyed during the war?
Or are they locked up in some archive in Moscow, Tel Aviv, Washington or Germany?

Do you really expect an answer that would be satisfactory to you?

Why, yes, I do actually.And I thought that you were just teasing.

Kolchab

NeoNietzsche

11-09-2006, 01:29 PM

Neo

Which you have mentioned withouit explaination or link , I take it you are going to keep us / me in the dark ?

And so far Neo you have not really produced anything remotely evidence based.:confused:
We are referring to the corpse-plugged exhaust ports of the LK I's, as discussed at length in the reproduced Pressac material. Thus we are dealing with the equivalent of a plugged pistol - a supposed murder weapon incapable of murder.

If someone will unplug that pistol, we can dispense with all the elaborate demography that does not prove that you killed someone with a plugged pistol.

Globus

11-09-2006, 01:50 PM

So goes the story.

No, an established fact of history. You know you completely foolish when your only defense is to deny everything to do with a history.

The need for labor, then, precisely brings into question an account that has the Germans merely exterminating Jews "after 1942" - i.e., after Stalingrad, after the call for Totaler Krieg.

There is no such account.

It is the very consideration being examined.

No, what's being examined is your conclusion that because they weren't alive at the end of the war they weren't selected for labor. Many died performing labor, and many were gassed after living in the camp and not being shipped out for labor. Them's just the facts.

We are referring to after '42, when, according to the story and crediting the Korherr report, more than 60K Jews were yet to be deported.

You're a little slow I see. You were educated that after 1942 the vast majority of the deportees didn't go to a camp from which labor selections were made. Had they needed more labor at Auschwitz, they could have sent them there.

Thus sending them to supposed pure death camps contradicts the story we accept of Jews having been used for labor prior to that, when later they are more needed than ever.

It contradicts nothing but your fictionalized account of history. The need for labor was not constant, and more could have been sent to Auschwitz if needed.

But you still have but a fraction of the 5% of survivors as laborers making it out of the war alive - which makes no sense.

So you claim. But genocide makes no sense either. Putting 60,000 Jews on a death march out of Auschwitz in January of 1945 made no sense either. Why weren't those people shipped out earlier to do labor? You see, the Nazis did lots of things which make no sense. That is not an excuse for denying proven history.

[No, we are deducing, from the need for labor, that the work-worthy portion thereof was put to work somewhere until the end of the war. Of 60K we would expect maybe 15-25%, 10-15K, to have been useful and to have been survivors.[/quote]

Useful doesn't mean survivors. We have the example of how the workers were in fact used. They were used up. Once again, what YOU would expect or think makes sense has nothing to do with what actually happened.

No, this was not assumed. Again, the period in question is post-'42, the period of most of the alleged deportation of Dutch Jews.

Then your contention about selections of Dutch Jews at Auschwitz make no sense.

No, the contrary has been assumed.

Then you're concerns make no sense.

No, that was not assumed nor is its relevance evident.

Of course it was, otherwise a lower than expected rate of selection from a single country who supplied a tiny percentage of all deportees couldn't have been logically seen by you as making no sense.

Globus

11-09-2006, 01:52 PM

We are referring to the corpse-plugged exhaust ports of the LK I's, as discussed at length in the reproduced Pressac material.

Of course there is no evidence they were plugged.

NeoNietzsche

11-09-2006, 04:35 PM

Of course there is no evidence they were plugged.
Since Pressac supplied it, and I quoted it in this and other threads, I'm not going to waste any more time responding to your antics. If someone else wants to pooper-scoop the arena trailing your passage through it, they are welcome to the task.

And feel free to claim, as you will - and no one will credit - that you have thus had the best of the argument.

Egghead is the only one who is scoring points here for your side.

Trojan

11-09-2006, 04:51 PM

It is not evident what you think the penalty is for doing as we have imagined might be the case. In fact, I would expect the Dutch government to be inclined to mere discretion in a census figure on behalf of preserving the poor Jews from any future harm. And the Dutch government seems, at best, indistinct from other western nations in their coordination by the JWO, if not distinguished by being the seat of various such organs.

Cards on the table - other than your own summation, do you have anything to back up this assertion?

Globus

11-09-2006, 05:18 PM

Of course there is no evidence they were plugged

Since Pressac supplied it, and I quoted it in this and other threads,

He supplied no evidence whatsoever. He answered a theoretical denier excuse and noted that obviously no such problem occurred.

I'm not going to waste any more time responding to your antics.

You mean you have nothing but your speculations, which have been rather convincingly dismissed as nothing serious.

Egghead is the only one who is scoring points here for your side.

On the contrary, you are being systematically devasted from all sides.

cerberus

11-09-2006, 06:43 PM

NeoWe are referring to the corpse-plugged exhaust ports of the LK I's, as discussed at length in the reproduced Pressac material. Thus we are dealing with the equivalent of a plugged pistol - a supposed murder weapon incapable of murder.

If someone will unplug that pistol, we can dispense with all the elaborate demography that does not prove that you killed someone with a plugged pistol.
Neo , thanks for your explaination of the "pistol" - I note that van pelt / Dwork describe KL1 as being an efficent killing method - about 900 at a time, although it did present something of a problem in terms of keeping the killing secret.
No major problem of a plugged ventilation ssytem is mentioned ,are you sure it was such a major problem , or do you wish it to be a major problem ?

If KL1 was a pistol , 2-5 must have had the firepower of an MP-40.

As far as Egghead winning points go I am glad that your acknowedge the state of affairs , my only question is when are you going to win a few points yourself ?

cerberus

11-09-2006, 08:27 PM

Millhouse / Egghead Okay, here's another question.

If we are to believe many revisionist arguments, the missing Jews disappeared into the Soviet Union somewhere after being 'transported on' from the non-death camps.

Which begs a question:

why would the Soviets allow 200,000+ Polish Jews, mostly coming from eastern Poland (i.e. annexed in 1939) to be repatriated to Poland in 1945-46, but keep several million other Polish and other European Jews hidden away?
Millhouse - just saw this post of yours.
The answer to your question has been provided by Dr. Fred Toben of the "Adelaride Institute" , a seat of learning.
Dr.Toben mentioned that the mising Jews may simply have decided to cease being Jewish and that is why they can't be found .:rofl:

This is what a leading revisionist postulates , the man who gave us the soundbite " Remember , no holes , no holocaust".:rofl:

Same man who took his home made model of the Auschwitz gas chambers to do a series of University talks in Iran.

No wonder no points are being won here.:rofl:

I asked Neo for some comments on his ravings but Neo didn't want to reply.

NeoNietzsche

11-11-2006, 02:43 PM

Cards on the table - other than your own summation, do you have anything to back up this assertion?
I suppose I could research the subject for recovery of specifics that have given me that impression over many years past. But I do not rely upon that thesis and have yet to have an explanation as to the penalties involved in simply being discrete about census numbers. In general I have an impression of Dutch culture and policy as very liberal - a characteristic that we firmly associate with philo-semitism. And, in any case, we are merely exploring a hypothesis as to a plausible alternative to the Hoaxer deportation of 100K Dutch Jews, and we are looking for characteristic inconsistencies and implausibilities in that account.

Globus

11-11-2006, 02:49 PM

I suppose I could research the subject for recovery of specifics that have given me that impression over many years past. But I do not rely upon that thesis and have yet to have an explanation as to the penalties involved in simply being discrete about census numbers. In general I have an impression of Dutch culture and policy as very liberal - a characteristic that we firmly associate with philo-semitism. And, in any case, we are merely exploring a hypothesis as to a plausible alternative to the Hoaxer deportation of 100K Dutch Jews, and we are looking for characteristic inconsistencies and implausibilities in that account.

But no inconsistencies or implausibilities have been shown, and the deportation of 100,000 Jews from Holland is solidly supported by evidence.

Perhaps Millhouse should simply move on to another region, and then another, and then another, until he has shown just how conclusive the facts of those deported from various regions are. Then we can have the fun of getting explanations for what happened to them!

NeoNietzsche

11-11-2006, 03:15 PM

Neo , thanks for your explaination of the "pistol" - I note that van pelt / Dwork describe KL1 as being an efficent killing method - about 900 at a time, although it did present something of a problem in terms of keeping the killing secret.
No major problem of a plugged ventilation ssytem is mentioned ,are you sure it was such a major problem , or do you wish it to be a major problem ?
Van Pelt acknowleged, at the Irving/Lipstadt event, that there were, indeed, no evident "holes". He is not troubled by physical impossibilities, as am I and others. He is a believer, to judge by his own comments, and the Holocaust is his religion.

If KL1 was a pistol , 2-5 must have had the firepower of an MP-40.
You seem to be confusing Leichenkeller with Krema. Or do you mean, by "KL," Konzentrazionslager - in which case you also confuse the issue. Did you even read the Pressac material?

As far as Egghead winning points go I am glad that your acknowedge the state of affairs , my only question is when are you going to win a few points yourself ?
My points mount as your team fails to deal with the alleged murder weapon. We could also enhance my score by going back over the lying and contradiction involved in the vital and various Hoess/Broad testimonies, the Gilbert fabrication of Hoess' contradiction of his sworn testimony, the forgery of the "Vergasungskeller" letter, the various alleged bases of the Auschwitz 4 million myth, of which the mythical Hoess 3 million was taken to be supportive, the photographs of the LK I at Krema II that do not depict what they are supposed to show, the complete lack of any equipment in evidence allegedly used for extermination that was not allegedly an "adaptation" of equipment created for other purposes, etc.

Globus

11-11-2006, 03:30 PM

Van Pelt acknowleged, at the Irving/Lipstadt event, that there were, indeed, no evident "holes". He is not troubled by physical impossibilities, as am I and others. He is a believer, to judge by his own comments, and the Holocaust is his religion.

Let's look at what Van Pelt actually said, rather than NN's "interpretation" of it.

<25> MR IRVING: Professor van Pelt, we are wasting our time really,
<26> are we not? There were never any holes in that roof.

. P-185
< 1> There are no holes in that roof today. There were never
< 2> four holes through that roof. They cannot have poured
< 3> cyanide capsules through that roof. The concrete evidence
< 4> is still there. You yourself have stood on that roof and
< 5> looked for those holes and not found them. Our experts
< 6> have stood on that roof and not found them. The holes
< 7> were never there. What do you have say to that?
< 8> A. I would just say why do we not put up the picture of the
< 9> roof and look at the roof in the present condition? The
<10> roof is a mess. The roof is absolutely a mess. A large
<11> part of the roof is in fragments. The concrete has many
<12> different colours. You pretend that you are talking about
<13> a piece which is intact. It is not.
<14> Q. Can I remind what you have written in your book?
<15> A. It is impossible to determine nowadays what was the
<16> situation of that roof in 1945.
<17> Q. Can I remind what you have written in your expert report
<18> for this case?
<19> MR JUSTICE GRAY: Page?
<20> MR IRVING: I have page 295, my Lord, but that is my copy which
<21> I printed out again.
<22> MR JUSTICE GRAY: I imagine it is the same page for us too, is
<23> it not.
<24> MR IRVING: I would not bank on it.
<25> MR JUSTICE GRAY: It obviously is not.
<26> MR IRVING: Would the witness kindly read out the paragraph

. P-186
< 1> I have outlined beginning with "Today the four holes
< 2> cannot be found". < 3> A. Can I -- I just want to let -- I will try to find the page
< 4> number. It is in the Leuchter interrogation.
< 5> MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, I am in your hands about time.
< 6> You remember I said I would rise whenever was convenient
< 7> to you after a quarter to 4.
< 8> MR IRVING: My Lord, you may apprehend that the trap is now
< 9> sprung and it would be a pity to put the mouse back in its
<10> cage.
<11> MR JUSTICE GRAY: The trap is what you have just asked?
<12> MR IRVING: Precisely it, my Lord. There are no holes in that
<13> roof. There were never any holes in that roof. All the
<14> eyewitnesses on whom he relies are therefore exposed as
<15> liars.
<16> MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am just identifying the trap.
<17> A. OK. Now if I am sitting in the trap I will take a little
<18> longer to look for the information because ----
<19> MR IRVING: Take as long as you like.
<20> A. --- because I prefer to remain in the trap and eat the
<21> cheese while it lasts! OK, we are here at page 518, my
<22> Lord.
<23> MR IRVING: 518?
<24> A. Yes. The bottom two lines: "Today, these four small holes
<25> that connected the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys
<26> cannot be observed in the ruined remains of the concrete

. P-187
< 1> slab. Yet does this mean they were never there? We know
< 2> that after the cessation of the gassings in the fall of
< 3> 1944 all the gassing equipment was removed, which implies
< 4> both the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys. What would
< 5> have remained would have been the four narrow holes and
< 6> the slab. While there is no certainty in this particular
< 7> matter, it would have been logical to attach at the
< 8> location where the columns had been some formwork at the
< 9> bottom of the gas chamber ceiling, and pour some concrete
<10> in the hole and thus restore the slab." <11> Q. Hold it there. So what you are saying is with the Red
<12> Army just over the River Vistula ever since November 1944
<13> and about to invade and, as we found out earlier this
<14> morning, the personnel of Auschwitz concentration camp in
<15> a blue funk and destroying their records and doing what
<16> they can, some SS Rottenfuhrer has been given the rotten
<17> job of getting up there with a bucket and spade and
<18> cementing in those four holes, in case after we have blown
<19> up the building they show?
<20> A. I would like to point out that the gas chamber was removed
<21> in November 1944.
<22> Q. The gas chamber was removed?
<23> A. The gas chamber, the installations were removed. The
<24> installations in the gas chambers were removed. Also
<25> during the month of November and December 1944, because
<26> the Germans were still confident that they could hold back

. P-188
< 1> the Bolshevik hoard from the East, they were creating gas
< 2> type air raid shelters in Auschwitz at that moment. They
< 3> had started constructing these things just before. So
< 4> there was still some local, small-term, small site
< 5> construction activity going on. This was very primitive,
< 6> but certainly the SS would have been able in November
< 7> 1944, even December 1944, to repair the roof and to remove
< 8> the evidence of the holes. The invasion, the offensive,
< 9> only started on January 12th, as we have established
<10> before.

He didn't say there were no evident holes. He said it was difficult find them in the ruins of the roof.

Since this testimony the holes have been found as detailed in an article in the scholarly journal _Holocaust and Genocide Studies_.

http://hgs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/1/68

Research Note

The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau
Daniel Keren, Jamie McCarthy and Harry W. Mazal
Combining engineering, computer, and photographic techniques with historical sources, this research note discusses the gas chambers attached to crematoriums at Auschwitz I and the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp. Among other things, the authors identify the locations of several of the holes in the roofs through which Zyklon B was introduced: five in Crematorium I and three of the four in the badly damaged Crematorium II. The authors began their project before David Irving's libel suit against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt, proceeding simultaneously with, but independently of, the trial. The defense presented the first version of the authors' report during Irving's subsequent application to appeal. Irving's application was rejected by the court.
-------------------
Van Pelt gives no weight to denier claims about "physical impossibilities" because they deserve no consideration. And religion more properly describes the mindless denial of evidence in favor of a preconceived desire to disbelieve which forms the very basis for Holocaust Denial.

My points mount as your team fails to deal with the alleged murder weapon.

In fact, every point you've made has been soundly refuted.

Basil Fawlty

11-11-2006, 03:48 PM

Let's look at what Van Pelt actually said, rather than NN's "interpretation" of it.Let's look at what Van Pelt actually said, rather than Globus's "interpretation" of it.
He didn't say there were no evident holes.
"Today, these four small holes
that connected the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys cannot be observed in the ruined remains of the concrete slab."
He said it was difficult find them in the ruins of the roof.No he doesn't, he advances a counter-factual as a hypothesis for why the holes "cannot be observed ":
While there is no certainty in this particular matter, it would have been logical to attach at the location where the columns had been some formwork at the bottom of the gas chamber ceiling, and pour some concrete in the hole and thus restore the slab."

Globus

11-11-2006, 04:16 PM

Let's look at what Van Pelt actually said, rather than Globus's "interpretation" of it.

We already have. NN's attempt to use Van Pelt's testimony as evidence of no holes clearly fails.

No he doesn't, he advances a counter-factual as a hypothesis for why the holes "cannot be observed ":

He says he has been unable to visually see the holes today in the rubble. Further efforts with the employment of modern techniques has found the holes.

He also correctly notes that not being able to visually observe holes today in the rubble doesn't indicate they weren't there in 1945, as numerous, different types of evidence prove.

Rather than trying to rescue NN, why don't you respond to the outstanding question to you about Treblinka?

Or is this yet another case of shying away from a discussion of the Holocaust which requires a little more than your idle speculations?

cerberus

11-11-2006, 04:23 PM

NeoYou seem to be confusing Leichenkeller with Krema. Or do you mean, by "KL," Konzentrazionslager - in which case you also confuse the issue. Did you even read the Pressac material?
An english copy of his book is hugely expensive and more than i would be willing to pay.
On line reading - I hope it is not the future of the written word.
read it all only in part - so Neo if you are not talking about the gas chambers , what are you discussing ?

Neo - correct me if I am, wrong , but did not Judge Grey not point out that a denail of the holocaust would be taotally at odds with the evidence which was heard ?
Irving lost his case - it was a fiacso - totally so.
He even withdrew his appeal evidence when faced with a total rebuttal of his evidence from Germar Rudolf.
Neo you are flogging a dead horse and still you delude yourself in this point scoring exercise you have embarked on.
Neo do you actually say that no one was gassed period ?
Funny beacuse david Irving now disagrees with you - so where does this leave you if you are trying to quote David Irving , whom no doubt Basil is now pointing out "that he was not a holocaust historian".
I looked in Van Pelts book on Auschwitz and found no mention of block ports.
The experts mentioned "our experts" would Irving mena Mr. Toben by any chance who can via various revisionist sites be seen in his nice clean sporst jacket and slacks seaching for the holes in the rooof as he tries to keep himself clean - Neo you are making yourself a laughing stock by depending on David Irving and the false hope of saying "no holes no holocaust" - which is Mr. Toben's sound bite for the day.

Thank you to Globus for the quote from the Iving fiasco and for pointing out again the time honoured distirtion of fact upon which you depend.
The only point you have managed to make Neo is your dependence on a broken stick - some advice "A Song for Europe " - Norway score more points than you do .:rofl:

NeoMy points mount as your team fails to deal with the alleged murder weapon

Neo you have failed to deal with the policy of murder and the wapons of murder at all stages.
If I might borrow Irvings words "our experts" ( read this as being "your experts") , did Irving or did he not withdraw Rudolf's papers as he did all his appeal court evidence - leaving himself with no case to present ?
Neo - you don't have to be coy - it seems "your" experts are the ones who cannot deal with the murder weapons in any form - consider your bluff to have been called - a bluff is what your case amounts to , such is the impact which it has had on the historical community in general.
This is not opinion Neo , it is fact.
Basil I have you on ignore so whatever points you think you are making are being ignored.
A man who regarded "Canada" as nothing but a recycling exercise deserves to be ignored.

Basil Fawlty

11-11-2006, 04:25 PM

Further efforts with the employment of modern techniques has found the holes.No, that's just a computer generated model based on what you want.
Rather than trying to rescue NN, why don't you respond to the outstanding question to you about Treblinka?You should mind your own business. I put a question to Sulla for which I await and answer.

Kriger

11-11-2006, 04:26 PM

Does anyone know anything about the Relief Council for Jews in Poland? I am understanding that there were many similar organizations orchestrated by jews and jew sympathizers in "war torn" countries such as France, USSR, et al.

Globus

11-11-2006, 04:27 PM

No, that's just CG.

And your comment is just nonsense.

You should mind your own business.

And if not you'll what?

I put a question to Sulla for which I await and answer.

Nah, what you did was evade and run. That's what you always do, when you're not whining.

Basil Fawlty

11-11-2006, 04:48 PM

Nah, what you did was evade and run. That's what you always do, when you're not whining.To say that you are an arrogant windbag would be to merely state what everyone here already knows.

Globus

11-11-2006, 04:58 PM

To say that you are an arrogant windbag would be to merely state what everyone here already knows.

To do anything other than hurl insults is beyond your limited capabilities, as we saw when you ran from the Treblinka debate.

And you don't speak for eveyone here, poor boy.

It must be frustrating not being able to deal with one of the worst manifestations of an ideology you share?

Basil Fawlty

11-11-2006, 05:00 PM

To do anything other than hurl insults is beyond your limited capabilities . . .The sentence that opens your biography.

Globus

11-11-2006, 05:05 PM

The sentence that opens your biography.

It is your epitaph.

And people willing to discuss get discussion.

That doesn't include you, as "everyone here knows".

Basil Fawlty

11-11-2006, 05:07 PM

It is your epitaph.

And people willing to discuss get discussion.

That doesn't include you, as "everyone here knows".You don't for a moment expect us to believe that your barbarous mode of exchange could be described as "discussion", do you? That really would be traducing language, yet again.

Globus

11-11-2006, 05:10 PM

You don't for a moment expect us to believe that your barbarous mode of exchange could be described as "discussion", do you? .

Says the man in describing the "only" mode of exchange he engages in, while giving proof of it by his habit of ignoring substantive discussions, but being ever ready to hurl his feckless invective whenever anyone points out that he is incapable of anything else.

It must frustrate the hell out of you.

Kriger

11-11-2006, 05:13 PM

To do anything other than hurl insults is beyond your limited capabilities, as we saw when you ran from the Treblinka debate.

And you don't speak for eveyone here, poor boy.

It must be frustrating not being able to deal with one of the worst manifestations of an ideology you share?

Quite frankly, you are the one who resorts to hurling insults when you cannot answer definitve statements and valid inquiries. The truth is that Basil continuously seeks to address the topic with relevant information, and you continuously seek to discredit Basil on unfounded personal grounds.

You, Globus, are the one who dodges valid inquiry with personal subterfuge. The whole time you seek to put off your own inadequacies onto the one who presents valid information.

Back to topic, old boy. What about the Relief Council for Jews in Poland?

Basil Fawlty

11-11-2006, 05:13 PM

It must frustrate the hell out of you.Actually it is you who is so incensed that he can't even get the quote function right - trembling with rage at all these vile "Jew-hating Nazis" you have to vanquish, that have the temerity to answer back! :rofl:

Globus

11-11-2006, 05:15 PM

Quite frankly, you are the one who resorts to hurling insults when you cannot answer definitve statements and valid inquiries.

Quite frankly you're full of it.

Any valid inquiry you've made has been addressed. You were so startled you immediately lost your cool and started hurling insults and making demands. You remind quite a bit of Basil.

Basil Fawlty

11-11-2006, 05:18 PM

You remind quite a bit of Basil.Yes, someone else who has your full measure.

Kriger

11-11-2006, 05:21 PM

Quite frankly you're full of it.

Any valid inquiry you've made has been addressed. You were so startled you immediately lost your cool and started hurling insults and making demands. You remind quite a bit of Basil.

You call sources for alleged allegations a demand? You call questioning the conclusions of an unknown hurling insults?

Heh. Quite frankly, you are full of it.

In the meantime, back to the subject of the thread. What about the Relief Council for Jews in Poland? If you don't have a clue what I am talking about just say so instead of attempting to discredit both me and Basil for your own ignorance.

guy

11-11-2006, 05:21 PM

Honestly, I don't get why these debates always seem to deteriorate into insults. I mean, the phora has the lounge if you really can't control yourselves. Why get so emotional about this anyway?

Globus

11-11-2006, 05:22 PM

Yes, someone else who has your full measure.

LOL!

Someone else who has exhibited through his posting to have no more idea what he's talking about than you.

Just look at how furiously you post when you're in the gutter where you thrive, and yet cannot answer why so many people died at Treblinka as to cause a stench noticeable many miles away.

A clear proof what you are incapable of, and comfortable with.

Kriger

11-11-2006, 05:35 PM

In the meantime, what about the Relief Council for Jews in Poland?

Another keyword: Zegota

Globus

11-11-2006, 05:38 PM

In the meantime, what about the Relief Council for Jews in Poland?

Another keyword: Zegota

What about them? Don't be shy!

Geist

11-11-2006, 05:41 PM

Maybe you guys could take this to PM? If the insults in these Holocaust threads go on I see no reason not to close them.

Kriger

11-11-2006, 05:48 PM

Maybe you guys could take this to PM? If the insults in these Holocaust threads go on I see no reason not to close them.

I only ask that a close look be taken as to who is attempting to introduce facts contrary to the "official" version of the Holocaust, and who resorts to personal insults in attempts to stifle valid inquiry.

Globus

11-11-2006, 05:50 PM

I only ask that a close look be taken as to who is attempting to introduce facts contrary to the "official" version of the Holocaust, and who resorts to personal insults in attempts to stifle valid inquiry.

Show us the facts you want to discuss.

The personal insults started with Basil and you jumped in.

But demonstrate you wish to discuss something factual.

Introduce something and discuss.

calvin

11-11-2006, 05:53 PM

Why get so emotional about this anyway?

The emotion seems to be confined to the Kosher side of this debate. I can only assume that their sphincters are twitching at the prospect of their immanent public exposure.

Globus

11-11-2006, 05:55 PM

The emotion seems to be confined to the Kosher side of this debate. I can only assume that their sphincters are twitching at the prospect of their immanent public exposure.

As we can see, the emotion comes from Calvin here, and Basil.

I guess Calvin thinks his views are Kosher.

Do you have any history to discuss?

Kriger

11-11-2006, 05:59 PM

As we can see, the emotion comes from Calvin here, and Basil.

I guess Calvin thinks his views are Kosher.

Do you have any history to discuss?

I asked a question about does anyone know about the Relief Council for Jews in Poland and similar organizations throughout "war torn" countries. I have yet to hear a word about it.

Globus

11-11-2006, 06:02 PM

I asked a question about does anyone know about the Relief Council for Jews in Poland and similar organizations throughout "war torn" countries. I have yet to hear a word about it.

It's been answered.

Let's see what you do with your newfound knowledge.

guy

11-11-2006, 06:07 PM

It's been answered.

Then why not answer it again, or at least copy and paste the answer?

Seriously, dude, you are making the pig-eaters look good.

NeoNietzsche

11-11-2006, 06:44 PM

Neo
An english copy of his book is hugely expensive and more than i would be willing to pay.
You need only read what was reproduced on this thread.

On line reading - I hope it is not the future of the written word.
read it all only in part - so Neo if you are not talking about the gas chambers , what are you discussing ?
The LK I's, the alleged murder weapons with the supposed greatest body count.

Neo - correct me if I am, wrong , but did not Judge Grey not point out that a denail of the holocaust would be taotally at odds with the evidence which was heard ?

He would be correct to the extent that correction of the historical record with respect to alleged gas chambers would contradict some of the purported evidence.

Irving lost his case - it was a fiacso - totally so.
It was determined that he had not been libelled.

He even withdrew his appeal evidence when faced with a total rebuttal of his evidence from Germar Rudolf.
Irving's account of the withdrawal points to legal technicalities involved. And there was and is no "total rebuttal" in consequence of Green's objections. Rudolph had already conceded that considerations of chemistry could not absolutely exclude exterminations. Thus "rebuttal" of the case for no gas proves nothing beyond the mere possibility, not the actuality, of gassings having taken place.

Neo do you actually say that no one was gassed period ?
No, but my judgment currently is that the case for major facilities so involved is unproven.

Funny beacuse david Irving now disagrees with you - so where does this leave you if you are trying to quote David Irving , whom no doubt Basil is now pointing out "that he was not a holocaust historian".
I will respond on this point where it is shown that I am quoting Irving.

I looked in Van Pelts book on Auschwitz and found no mention of block ports.
The experts mentioned "our experts" would Irving mena Mr. Toben by any chance who can via various revisionist sites be seen in his nice clean sporst jacket and slacks seaching for the holes in the rooof as he tries to keep himself clean - Neo you are making yourself a laughing stock by depending on David Irving and the false hope of saying "no holes no holocaust" - which is Mr. Toben's sound bite for the day.
And you multiply mischaracterize what I have said. I do not rely upon Toben or Irving, so you seem to be at a loss to counter the point I am making.