Holocaust or Holohoax?

[eggheadbanga]

Since the subject comes up again and again... and since Dan Dare has been asking me questions...

... a poll on whether the Holocaust happened or was a Hoax.

I'd also be interested in when people who voted for the Revisionist option became convinced the official account was wrong.

N.B. I'd expect the numbers to go heavily against the official version....

[Daniel Shays]

By "official", you mean the state sponsored, endorsed, and enforced dogma?

http://img271.imageshack.us/img271/8629/thomasmachtfrei1gw.jpg

The Einsatzgruppen were real and wasted a lot of Jews and Communists, the rest is bullshit.

[eggheadbanga]

You mean the state sponsored, endorsed, and enforced dogma?

No. The academically accepted version of events. This isn't a poll about whether it's a Dogma or not, just whether your understanding of the events leads you to accept the consensus or dispute it.

There are enough choices for fence-sitters.

I could have chosen a better word than Official.....

[WFHermans]

"Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected."

This will bias the poll to the zionist option because doubters go to jail in many countries. Israel said it would punish all holohoax disbelievers, even Americans.

[eggheadbanga]

"Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected."

This will bias the poll to the zionist option because doubters go to jail in many countries. Israel said it would punish all holohoax disbelievers, even Americans.

oh shut the fuck up, no one knows who you are and no one cares. Now vote!

[grump]

When Holocaust deniers start publishing their works in peer revieved journals, then I'll start taking them a little seriously.

[Starr]

When Holocaust deniers start publishing their works in peer revieved journals, then I'll start taking them a little seriously.


You are under the assumption that they would be allowed to do so?:rofl:

[Daniel Shays]

When Holocaust deniers start publishing their works in peer revieved journals, then I'll start taking them a little seriously.
It's a crime to publish anything questioning the Holocaust in most G-8 nations.

---

Why is there an exclamation point for "HoloHoax"?

[eggheadbanga]

It's a crime to publish anything questioning the Holocaust in most G-8 nations.

which are the G-8 nations? If I got one wrong, apologies. I forget whether G-8 includes Russia as extra to the old G-7.

USA - legal
UK - legal
Russia - legal
Italy - legal
Japan - legal
Canada - has been illegal, now legal;
France - illegal
Germany - illegal

so nearly 3/4 of G-8 nations do not prohibit the publication of Revisionist literature nor do they punish Revisionist opinions in court.

[eggheadbanga]

Why is there an exclamation point for "HoloHoax"?

why not? Emphasis. I.e, definitely 100% untrue, a complete hoax.

[Daniel Shays]

why not? Emphasis. I.e, definitely 100% untrue, a complete hoax.
Why not have a "Holocaust!" option then? I.e., definitely 100% true, a complete fact?

[Fade the Butcher]

My attitude towards The Holocaust ranges from skeptical to not really interested. I immediately hear red sirens going off whenever I see people being prosecuted for their thoughts about history.

[eggheadbanga]

My attitude towards The Holocaust ranges from skeptical to not really interested. I immediately hear red sirens going off whenever I see people being prosecuted for their thoughts about history.

I keep trying to tell ZOG that their strategy is backfiring....:mad:

[Starr]

even in counties where it is not exactly illegal, anyone doing so would be labeled simply as a dangerous anti-semite, the jews would cry, and their career and life would be destroyed and almost no one would bother to take them seriously.

My attitude towards The Holocaust ranges from skeptical to not really interested. I immediately hear red sirens going off whenever I see people being prosecuted for their thoughts about history.

this sums me up pretty well, also.

[eggheadbanga]

Why not have a "Holocaust!" option then? I.e., definitely 100% true, a complete fact?

well, sue me.

[eggheadbanga]

even in counties where it is not exactly illegal, anyone doing so would be labeled simply as a dangerous anti-semite, the jews would cry, and their career and life would be destroyed and almost no one would bother to take them seriously.

I also kept trying to tell ZOG that their campaign against Irving was unseemly. :green



My attitude towards The Holocaust ranges from skeptical to not really interested. I immediately hear red sirens going off whenever I see people being prosecuted for their thoughts about history.

this sums me up pretty well, also.

IMO, if there weren't such laws, 90% of interest in Revisionism would vanish overnight.

[Daniel Shays]

IMO, if there weren't such laws, 90% of interest in Revisionism would vanish overnight.
Then maybe you should spend more time trying to change the laws and less being an e-goy of Nizkor.

[Meursault]

UK - legal

Technically, however someone who "denies" the holocaust is liable for prosecution and imprisonment for "inciting racial hatred".

Despite that, I think that there was a deliberate effort to kill millions of Jews, and that several million were killed.

It's also worth pointing out that in France, there was a Jew historian who was prosecuted for denying the Armenian genocide, so the outlawing of "denial" doesn't prove that the government in question has something to hide, only that it doesn't value free speech.

Bits of the official version might be wrong, and the H has certainly been exploited by Jewish organisations, and used as a political club to beat everyone who isn't 100% kosher, but I don't think the whole thing is a sham.

For a start, the holocaust was accepted as fact by historians before Israel was really an ally of the US. As Norman Finkelstein documents in his book 'The Holocaust Industry', it wasn't until after the Six Day War, when it was in America's interest to cast Israel in the best possible light, that the shoah business really got going.

If it was made up to guilt trip whites as much as possible and financially expoilt Swiss banks, then I doubt the Jews would've waited decades before doing that.

Skeptical, leaning towards official version.

[Vindex]

I believe, and I'am thankful.:jam:

[eggheadbanga]

Then maybe you should spend more time trying to change the laws and less being an e-goy of Nizkor.

It's a conclusion I've been coming to, but one had to engage in debates and discussions to find that out. Sadly, I doubt the German government will listen to me. :mad:

[Ixtab]

Even if the Holocaust were true it would have to be disproved because it makes Germans feel ashamed.

[Daniel Shays]

Even if the Holocaust were true it would have to be disproved because it makes Germans feel ashamed.
My people (Chicanos) are proud and our history, culture, and race is celebrated... even by top politicians in Gringoland that meet with La Raza. I pity the Aryan tribes, especially the Germans.

[Fade the Butcher]

I keep trying to tell ZOG that their strategy is backfiring....:mad:

Jewish conspiracies are not necessary to explain bizarre European legislation. Europeans have a long history of intolerance towards unorthodox, impious views: the suppression of paganism after the fifth century, the Condemnation of 1277, the Albigensian Crusade, the Inquisition, the incineration of Giordano Bruno, the execution of Jan Hus, the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the trial of Galileo, the witch craze of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the show trials of the Soviet Union. Thomas Aquinas thought heretics should be killed outright. St. Augustine, an honorary European, was a supporter of torture. It's not like there is anything new about heresy, book burning, or blacklisting in Europe.

http://www.wga.hu/art/l/lippi/flippino/carafa/1hereti.jpg
Filippino Lippi's Triumph of St. Thomas

[Eisenhans]

Nobody will know for sure, but I think that many jews did indeed die, but not as many as exagerated by the Zionist bastards who started the hoax. I'd say the total number of dead jews is around 1000 at most.

[cerberus]

This will bias the poll to the zionist option because doubters go to jail in many countries. Israel said it would punish all holohoax disbelievers, even Americans.
WFH , you probably don't know this but you are raving , howling dog mad.:nuts:

[Dan Dare]

Sceptical about much of the standard account.

As to what brought this about, it was the accumulated effect of an increasing unease with all the loose ends, anomalies, contradictions and downright physical impossibilities that one is required to overlook as an uncritically accepting believer, plus the shrill cacophony of axe-grinding in the background from those with vested interests in the matter, and the concerted internationally-coordinated efforts to marginalise and silence dissenters.

It just don't smell right.

[Eisenhans]

"There was smoke 24/7 over the Auschwitz camp-probably from the burning of jews."

Here is an aerial surveillance photo of Auschwitz:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/images/auschwitz_recon1.jpg

Where is the smoke?


Also, if the ashes were all dumped in one spot (or any spot for that matter), then where are the ash deposits? According to the jews: That is to "be explained."

[Crowley]

I despise the Jews for sidelining the other millions of deaths of the shameful period in question. Jews and their suffering, jews and their suffering, etc. etc. I have jew suffering burnout. Fuck em. But yes, I believe about a million jews probably died and I also believe such a powerful term as Holocaust should sanctify under its name ALL the innocent victims of the period, not just one little wealthy cry baby lobby group, such as they are.:nopity:

[Ahknaton]

I think the "official account" is more or less correct, but I am skeptical of some of the more fantastical details, like soap made from human fat or lampshades from human skin. I believe the soap story has already been debunked and is now accepted even by mainstream historians to be war propaganda.

What is of more concern is the mythos surrounding the Holocaust as "the greatest crime ever committed in the history of humanity" and the implication that Nazi crimes somehow forfeit the right of all White European people to assert their racial identity without being guilty by association. The whole world is made guilty for "not doing enough" to stop Hitler, and the Holocaust is framed as representing the culmination of centuries of persecution carried out by White Gentiles. This collective guilt is used as justification for advocating policies that strip White Gentiles of their racial and ethnic identities by making it illegal or taboo to assert these identities in a political context, in the name of preventing its reoccurrence.

I've also noticed that there is a trend amongst many Zionist Jews to try and implicate the UK in the Holocaust by insinuating that Churchill deliberately avoided bombing the railway lines to Auschwitz in order to maximise the camp's throughput, and tacitly approved of Hitler's policy (the fact that FDR would have had more of a say is overlooked). This is also alleged to be the motivation for the British turning away Jewish refugees from Palestine. If you think I'm exaggerating the extent to which some Israelis hate Britain, think again.

[Kodos]

Holocaust... with the proviso I think closer to 4 million died.

[Kodos]

I think the "official account" is more or less correct, but I am skeptical of some of the more fantastical details, like soap made from human fat or lampshades from human skin. I believe the soap story has already been debunked and is now accepted even by mainstream historians to be war propaganda.

What is of more concern is the mythos surrounding the Holocaust as "the greatest crime ever committed in the history of humanity" and the implication that Nazi crimes somehow forfeit the right of all White European people to assert their racial identity without being guilty by association. The whole world is made guilty for "not doing enough" to stop Hitler, and the Holocaust is framed as representing the culmination of centuries of persecution carried out by White Gentiles. This collective guilt is used as justification for advocating policies that strip White Gentiles of their racial and ethnic identities by making it illegal or taboo to assert these identities in a political context, in the name of preventing its reoccurrence.

Good post as usual.


I've also noticed that there is a trend amongst many Zionist Jews to try and implicate the UK in the Holocaust by insinuating that Churchill deliberately avoided bombing the railway lines to Auschwitz in order to maximise the camp's throughput, and tacitly approved of Hitler's policy (the fact that FDR would have had more of a say is overlooked). This is also alleged to be the motivation for the British turning away Jewish refugees from Palestine. If you think I'm exaggerating the extent to which some Israelis hate Britain, think again.

The old english much like the jews get blamed by everyone for something...

[Meursault]

Like Ahknaton, I have also known of Jews complaining that the British did not do enough. Losing millions of our finest men just doesn't reach their high standards.

I'm sure Israel will be sending its soldiers to die in Zimbabwe to save white people any day now...

[Winston]

"There was smoke 24/7 over the Auschwitz camp-probably from the burning of jews."

Here is an aerial surveillance photo of Auschwitz:

Where is the smoke?

Also, if the ashes were all dumped in one spot (or any spot for that matter), then where are the ash deposits? According to the jews: That is to "be explained."

I don't believe in the gas chambers and selected the bottom hoax option on the poll, but this kind of argument isn't very good one. A claim that the skies were constantly dark with smoke could be taken as hyperbole, with the sky being in reality dark with smoke a significant amount of time, but not always. And the photographs are just a split-second moment in time that don't have to show every single claimed occurrence in the camp for those things to have truthfully happened.
There are much better arguments to use.

[Kodos]

Like Ahknaton, I have also known of Jews complaining that the British did not do enough. Losing millions of our finest men just doesn't reach their high standards.

After the jews the Brits seem to be the world's most popular scapegoat for everything wrong in history...

[Daniel Shays]

I don't believe in the gas chambers

Same.

The "Final Solution" was to end the Jewish influence/presence in Europe, not the total "genocide" of Jews. This entailed encouraged resettlement from 1933 onward which can be read about more here :

Zionism and the Third Reich (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html)

Total number of Jews killed by Germany is somewhere between 700,000 and one million. This takes those that starved into account.

[Dan Dare]

Holocaust... with the proviso I think closer to 4 million died.

Sorry Otto, but that puts you firmly in the denier camp.

Must try harder.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

I object to using the term "holocaust" for the German camps thing. I think that the term should be used instead for the Russian genocide. More died in Russia. In Germany the Jews actually got some instant karma for perpetrating the Russian Holocaust, which was bigger and more cruel. The Jews are the masters of genocide going way back.

It's ridiculous that they have us all chanting "Holocaust" -- with a capital 'H' -- for their German camps experience. Their sins as a race, going way back, are greater than the Germans'. When Jews have perpetrated genocide, they've done it up big.

[Kodos]

Sorry Otto, but that puts you firmly in the denier camp.

Must try harder.

Shirer is of this opinion as are many mainstream historians( I think even Irving says > 1 million).

[Dan Dare]

Irving conceded 1.5 million for the Einsatzgruppen, 97,000 for the Chelmno gas-vans, several hundred thousand at A-B, as well as an unspecified number in the AR camps, the ghettos and labour camps. All much to the chagrin of Faurisson et al.

But that didn't spare him from being labelled as a Holocaust Denier by the High Court.

It's the whole enchililada or nothing I'm afraid.

The bidding starts at 5 million (right Nick?)

[Kodos]

I think the grounds that they nailed Irving on was denial of the existence of the gas chambers... I don't personally do that. I just tend to think 4-4.5 million were killed( excluding those executed as communists etc who would have gotten it anyway)...

[Dan Dare]

No Irving got it in the neck because he flunked two of three: no homicidal gas chambers and no Hitler Order, even though the numbers themselves might have passed muster.

Your four million might just squeak in if you could also sign up for the other two.

But we'll have to wait for Nick to know for sure.

[The Retard]

The number of Jews killed by the Germans probably ranged between 100 to 300 people. Auschwitz was like a bath and spa.

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7063/auschwitzpool9ne.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

swimming pool

http://img173.imageshack.us/img173/7885/theater7sx.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

theatre

http://img423.imageshack.us/img423/8409/sshospital025qi.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

hospital

what more could you want?

[Sinclair]

Remember that the 6 million figure refers only to Jews. Some figures for the total dead, outside of just Jews, go to 11 million...

I find myself looking at the "official" view and generally agreeing with it. I think, from what I've seen, that as a historical event it occurred.

[Kodos]

No Irving got it in the neck because he flunked two of three: no homicidal gas chambers and no Hitler Order, even though the numbers themselves might have passed muster.

Your four million might just squeak in if you could also sign up for the other two.

But we'll have to wait for Nick to know for sure.

Who is Nick, I think Hitler gave oral orders but didn't right anything down( though its possible it was destroyed).

[Gorilla]

Antisemitic nazis? Nah, no way.

[Ahknaton]

Like Ahknaton, I have also known of Jews complaining that the British did not do enough. Losing millions of our finest men just doesn't reach their high standards.

I'm sure Israel will be sending its soldiers to die in Zimbabwe to save white people any day now...
I found these links posted on another forum:

http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/05/british-governmental-guidance-of.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/05/britain-silent-partner-in-holocaust.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/05/british-troops-told-to-stand-aside-as.html

British foreign policy has been anti-Israel for many years. The bias of the British press and electronic media towards Israel, to a great extent guided by officials and the use of psychological warfare techniques, has successfully produced a large segment of British public opinion that can rightfully be called "Nazi." This fanatic prejudice is very potent among some of the intelligentsia, such as the poet Tom Paulin, who writes regularly for the Guardian. Paulin told an Egyptian newspaper that "Brooklyn Jews" living on the "West Bank" ought to be shot. And Paulin wrote a poem about the conflict of Arabs and Jews that is reminiscent of the Nazi Horst Wessel Lied. The intense Judeophobic, Israelophobic bias of the BBC is widely recognized. The BBC has of course done a great deal to produce the current Nazi mood so prevalent nowadays in Britain.

Britain was a silent partner in the Holocaust. Some may be shocked but this conclusion is supported by a wealth of documentation and well known facts. Such events as Britain's role in the Munich Pact [1938] are well known. Other facts are known to few. Some supports for this statement are directly documented. Others are circumstantial. The Second World War started as a result of Munich, through the surrender to Hitler of Czechoslovak defenses in the "Sudetenland." Without the War, could there have been a Holocaust?

[IlluSionS667]

To those who believe the official story, I ask this :

What I would like to see, is :
- some documents that explicitly mention the killing of jews, where it's clear that these jews were not killed for reasons other than being jewish. These documents must at least have the appearance of normal 3rd reich reports, unlike the so-called "coffin map".
- a few eyewitness testimonies given before 1950 (and preferrably before the Nuremberg trials) that agree with the official version of history and that contain no contradictions within themselves or the physical evidence.
- an explanation for why the Majdanek concentration camp "gas chambers" are located hundreds of meters away from the crematorium.
- an explanation for why the Russians orriginally lied about the Auschwitz "gas chamber" being in its orriginal state.
- an explanation why the 4,000,000 figure for Auschwitz was accepted at Nuremberg, even though it has always been obvious to anyone that this number was way too high.
- an explanation why the 600 page Red Cross report from 1948 agrees with the findings of revisionist historians, even though this was published AFTER Nuremberg.
- an explanation why no order from Hitler for the so-called extermination plan has been found, while the Einsatzgruppen reports are so numerous. How selective were they in cleaning up the evidence, I wonder?
- an explanation why many thousands of people were released from camps such as Majdanek (erected in 1942!) during the war.
- an explanation why the Germans allowed the camps be run by other inmates. If any of then would suspect they were targetted for extermination, they would not have behaved in a "Standord prison experiment" kind of way, but rather plotted revolts.
- an explanation why the German government bothered to print beautifully decorated ghetto and KZ money.
- an explanation why a camp like Auschwitz had its own internal prison, with isolation chambers, an execution wall, a courtroom, ...? Why not just put criminals in the oven immediately?
- an explanation why there was never an autopsy on the many emaciated bodies found in the concentration camps? What happened to the many victims of typhus and starvation about which inmates and liberators have testified and of which camp documents speak?
- an explanation why jewish children and elderly people were not instantly killed. Why are some of these children still alive today?
- an explanation why the top secret "Wannsee Protocols" were written in "code language", while the equally top secret Einsatzgruppen reports were not.
- an explanation why the German government bothered to build a swimming pool within the perimeters of the prisoner area of Auschwitz I, why there were so many trees, an orchestra, ...
- an explanation why the German government bothered to cure people in camp hospitals.
- an explanation why people's heads were shaven, bedsheets delyced, ... other than to save lives from epidemic typhus, which spreads most easily through lice. If they did it so save lives, why that effort? Why not just let them die?
- an explanation how a man who's known as an idealist, a nature lover and a vegitarian animal lover (Hitler) fits the profile of a mass murderer.
- an explanation for why Hoess lied at Nuremberg other than him being tortured. If he was tortured, why was he?


Anyway, I've been having a pretty much endless discussion with the starter of this thread in out here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6892). If anyone feels up for it, go check out the arguments that have been brought up so far.

[Starr]

It's also worth pointing out that in France, there was a Jew historian who was prosecuted for denying the Armenian genocide, so the outlawing of "denial" doesn't prove that the government in question has something to hide, only that it doesn't value free speech.

I have never thought the outlawing of denial is coming solely because they fear "the truth", it is also coming because if they allow people to sway at all from the official story, the sacred nature surrounding it also will lessen and it will begin to loose the grip it has over people and it will become just another event in history. This is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's angle, I think. When people say it is like a religion, not much could be closer to the truth. The idea that anything that questions the official story is evil points to this and it is just odd.

[eggheadbanga]

Jewish conspiracies are not necessary to explain bizarre European legislation. Europeans have a long history of intolerance towards unorthodox, impious views: the suppression of paganism after the fifth century, the Condemnation of 1277, the Albigensian Crusade, the Inquisition, the incineration of Giordano Bruno, the execution of Jan Hus, the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the trial of Galileo, the witch craze of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the show trials of the Soviet Union. Thomas Aquinas thought heretics should be killed outright. St. Augustine, an honorary European, was a supporter of torture. It's not like there is anything new about heresy, book burning, or blacklisting in Europe.

A more recent piece of historical context would be that continental European states have long enshrined principles of collective libel. In Wilhelmine Germany one could insult the Prussian officer corps and be jailed, in the Bundesrepublik Deutschland one can insult the victims of Nazism and be jailed.

This is IMO sufficient proof that contrary to my joke ZOG does not exist:222:

[IlluSionS667]

A more recent piece of historical context would be that continental European states have long enshrined principles of collective libel. In Wilhelmine Germany one could insult the Prussian officer corps and be jailed, in the Bundesrepublik Deutschland one can insult the victims of Nazism and be jailed.

This is IMO sufficient proof that contrary to my joke ZOG does not exist:222:

There is a difference between libel and giving a dissident opinion on history.

My people would feel offended when you tell them that their victory in 1302 against the French was pretty insignificant, aince they got pretty much butchered shortly after. Still this is the truth, despite the fact that the "battle of the golden spores" has gone into history as a heroic battle and victory for the Flemish people to remember for eternity.... or something like that.

Similiar will Americans be offended if you remind them of the fact that their founding fathers were slave owners, who have a rather selective idea on who should be free and who shouldn't. Nevertheless, that was reality.

The truth about history can offend people, because it changes the romantic view they have about that era, whether it deals with great suffering or great victories. Nevertheless, only one specific aspect of history is treated with special care and only one specific ethnic group is protected by it. I wonder why......

[Sulla the Dictator]

There is a difference between libel and giving a dissident opinion on history.


General Paul Aussaresses was put on trial in France for "acting as an apologist for war crimes" in Algeria. Do you now disbelieve Algerian allegations of French atrocities?

[IlluSionS667]

General Paul Aussaresses was put on trial in France for "acting as an apologist for war crimes" in Algeria. Do you now disbelieve Algerian allegations of French atrocities?

I am not aware of the evidence either in favor of or against these allegations, so I don't have an opinion on those.

The reason for not believing the official version of the holocoax is not it being illegal to say it is wrong, but the inconsistencies within the official story and the evidence in favor of revisionist history. Revisionism being illegal in several countries only makes everything more suspicious, since truth does not fear investigation. Only lies do.

Further, I wonder how old the law is that got general Aussaresses punished. Some countries just extenced their censorship laws to other recognised genocides to not have them conflict with anti-discrimination laws.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I am not aware of the evidence either in favor of or against these allegations, so I don't have an opinion on those.


The academic community is pretty decided on the issue that the French used unothodox and harsh tactics in Algeria. It strikes me as strange that someone from Flanders would know about the Holocaust, American actions in Iraq, American actions in Vietnam, but be totally unaware of what its neighbor had been doing in Algeria. Particularly when it was pretty well reported at various times in Europe. In fact, it was raised as a fairly significant issue in 2000 and 2001.

It actually seems convenient.


The reason for not believing the official version of the holocoax is not it being illegal to say it is wrong


Blame a European sensitivity to the issue. You're not arrested for any such thing in the United States. Something you people deliberately ignore.


but the inconsistencies within the official story and the evidence in favor of revisionist history.


Thats utterly false. The Holocaust is an established fact on this board.


Revisionism being illegal in several countries only makes everything more suspicious, since truth does not fear investigation.


Actually thats the only thing you people complain about. Rather than being a 'support' for anything, its THE ONLY thing.


Further, I wonder how old the law is that got general Aussaresses punished. Some countries just extenced their censorship laws to other recognised genocides to not have them conflict with anti-discrimination laws.

Do Algerians control the French academic and legal institutions?

[Ahknaton]

You're not arrested for any such thing in the United States. Something you people deliberately ignore.
This is not an exclusively American forum.

[Sulla the Dictator]

This is not an exclusively American forum.

It isn't, but WNs have identified us as the "belly of the beast", as it were. Their allegations should be even more true here, as a consequence.

[IlluSionS667]

The academic community is pretty decided on the issue that the French used unothodox and harsh tactics in Algeria. It strikes me as strange that someone from Flanders would know about the Holocaust, American actions in Iraq, American actions in Vietnam, but be totally unaware of what its neighbor had been doing in Algeria. Particularly when it was pretty well reported at various times in Europe. In fact, it was raised as a fairly significant issue in 2000 and 2001.

I guess I was busy back then. The history of former Northern-African French colonies isn't exactly my speciallity.

Blame a European sensitivity to the issue. You're not arrested for any such thing in the United States. Something you people deliberately ignore.

The only reason for that is your constitution that makes it practically impossible to make such laws, especially since "the people vs. Larry Flint" and the Skokie case. Freedom of speech is almost as holy in your country as Muhammed is in Iran. Unfortunately, this is not the case in other countries, where such laws are much easier to pass.

Thats utterly false. The Holocaust is an established fact on this board.


If you're referring to the Phora forum, then this poll says otherwise.
Current poll results :
Holocaust ---------------------------------- 28.13%
Sceptical, Leaning towards Official Version --- 15.63%
No Opinion ---------------------------------- 6.25%
Sceptical, Leaning away from Offical Version -- 31.25%
Holohoax! ------------------------------------18.75%
(total votes : 32)

That is exactly 50% (or 16 members) supporting or leaning towards the revisionist version of history and 43.75% (or 14 members) supporting or leaning towards the official version.
Further, I'd like to add that it's also an established fact on a creationist forum that evolution is bunk. That doesn't make it true.
Third, I'd like to add that is also used to be an established fact that we were surrounded by an "ether", that the earth was flat and that the sun evolved around the earth. About 99% of the people believed this. Guess what : science proved them wrong.


When scientists come up with an alternative theory of what happened, they should have the right to bring forward this theory, their evidence and have an open debate. That's how science usually works. In science, there are only establisched facts until they are proven wrong. Otherwise, it's dogma. The official version of the holocaust is far more like unproven dogma than scientific fact.

Actually thats the only thing you people complain about. Rather than being a 'support' for anything, its THE ONLY thing.

What are you talking about? I support animal rights. I support Flemish nationalism. I support national socialism. I support Iran's struggle against the NWO. etc.

Do Algerians control the French academic and legal institutions?

Naah. Da joos doo.

Like I said, though, some countries just extenced their censorship laws to other recognised genocides to not have them conflict with anti-discrimination laws. This was just a way of bypassing those laws (that blocked anti-revisionist laws in the same way your constitution would). They didn't really care too much about the other recognised genocides.

[Trojan]

To those who believe the official story, I ask this :

What I would like to see, is :
- some documents that explicitly mention the killing of jews, where it's clear that these jews were not killed for reasons other than being jewish. These documents must at least have the appearance of normal 3rd reich reports, unlike the so-called "coffin map".
- a few eyewitness testimonies given before 1950 (and preferrably before the Nuremberg trials) that agree with the official version of history and that contain no contradictions within themselves or the physical evidence.
- an explanation for why the Majdanek concentration camp "gas chambers" are located hundreds of meters away from the crematorium.
- an explanation for why the Russians orriginally lied about the Auschwitz "gas chamber" being in its orriginal state.
- an explanation why the 4,000,000 figure for Auschwitz was accepted at Nuremberg, even though it has always been obvious to anyone that this number was way too high.
- an explanation why the 600 page Red Cross report from 1948 agrees with the findings of revisionist historians, even though this was published AFTER Nuremberg.
- an explanation why no order from Hitler for the so-called extermination plan has been found, while the Einsatzgruppen reports are so numerous. How selective were they in cleaning up the evidence, I wonder?
- an explanation why many thousands of people were released from camps such as Majdanek (erected in 1942!) during the war.
- an explanation why the Germans allowed the camps be run by other inmates. If any of then would suspect they were targetted for extermination, they would not have behaved in a "Standord prison experiment" kind of way, but rather plotted revolts.
- an explanation why the German government bothered to print beautifully decorated ghetto and KZ money.
- an explanation why a camp like Auschwitz had its own internal prison, with isolation chambers, an execution wall, a courtroom, ...? Why not just put criminals in the oven immediately?
- an explanation why there was never an autopsy on the many emaciated bodies found in the concentration camps? What happened to the many victims of typhus and starvation about which inmates and liberators have testified and of which camp documents speak?
- an explanation why jewish children and elderly people were not instantly killed. Why are some of these children still alive today?
- an explanation why the top secret "Wannsee Protocols" were written in "code language", while the equally top secret Einsatzgruppen reports were not.
- an explanation why the German government bothered to build a swimming pool within the perimeters of the prisoner area of Auschwitz I, why there were so many trees, an orchestra, ...
- an explanation why the German government bothered to cure people in camp hospitals.
- an explanation why people's heads were shaven, bedsheets delyced, ... other than to save lives from epidemic typhus, which spreads most easily through lice. If they did it so save lives, why that effort? Why not just let them die?
- an explanation how a man who's known as an idealist, a nature lover and a vegitarian animal lover (Hitler) fits the profile of a mass murderer.
- an explanation for why Hoess lied at Nuremberg other than him being tortured. If he was tortured, why was he?


Anyway, I've been having a pretty much endless discussion with the starter of this thread in out here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6892). If anyone feels up for it, go check out the arguments that have been brought up so far.

Why do I get the feeling that if someone sat down and answered all these question you would just come back with a new list?

[Kodos]

If you're referring to the Phora forum, then this poll says otherwise.
Current poll results :
Holocaust ---------------------------------- 28.13%
Sceptical, Leaning towards Official Version --- 15.63%
No Opinion ---------------------------------- 6.25%
Sceptical, Leaning away from Offical Version -- 31.25%
Holohoax! ------------------------------------18.75%
(total votes : 32)


There was a formal debate with primary sources and everything, Sulla and Potyi pwn3d the opposition( Sorry Dan).

[IlluSionS667]

Why do I get the feeling that if someone sat down and answered all these question you would just come back with a new list?

Perhaps... but it would definitely make me doubt.

Anyway, I'm waiting for eggheadbanga's reply. He seems to be the only one of this forum remotely capable of anwsering these questions. I'm curious how well he does.

There was a formal debate with primary sources and everything, Sulla and Potyi pwn3d the opposition( Sorry Dan).

I haven't seen Sulla come forward with any proper arguments on this site yet, just sarcastic remarks. I don't know the other guy. Eggheadbanga is pretty much the best opponent I've had on this topic, though, but most of his arguments still evolve around trying to discredit the other side rather than argumenting against revisionist claims.

Could you link to this other thread? I'm curious to see how much and how these guys pwn3d Dan.... Most arguments I've seen in favor of the official theory are just pathetic.

[Kodos]

Formal Holocaust debate

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4511

[Trojan]

Perhaps... but it would definitely make me doubt.

Anyway, I'm waiting for eggheadbanga's reply. He seems to be the only one of this forum remotely capable of anwsering these questions. I'm curious how well he does.



Yes, egghead is very good at what he does.

For another good debate, that went further down the road, may I suggest RODOH.

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm23

[Fade the Butcher]

A more recent piece of historical context would be that continental European states have long enshrined principles of collective libel. In Wilhelmine Germany one could insult the Prussian officer corps and be jailed, in the Bundesrepublik Deutschland one can insult the victims of Nazism and be jailed. This is IMO sufficient proof that contrary to my joke ZOG does not exist:222:

The Catholics and Arians spent years going at each over whether or not Jesus Christ was homoiousios (of similar substance, but inferior, to God the Father) or homoousios (of the same substance of God the Father; a co-equal member of the Godhead). Arianism was ultimately repressed in the Late Roman Empire, as was critical thinking generally, when Orthodox Christianity was imposed on the Empire by force during the reign of Theodosius and his successors. It took over a thousand years for the principle of freedom of thought to win the battle against dogmatism and authority in Europe.

Many of those pushing The Holocaust though want to make it a crime to ask questions about history. The "deniers" are engaging in "collective libel" (i.e., blasphemy) when they refuse to respect the sacred truth of The Holocaust. I refuse to give de facto respect to the claims of any group that requires force, as opposed to reason and evidence, to win arguments about the nature of reality. If anything is true, that makes me more skeptical about their claims and more likely to agree with those who say The Holocaust is in need of critical examination.

[Fade the Butcher]

No Irving got it in the neck because he flunked two of three: no homicidal gas chambers and no Hitler Order, even though the numbers themselves might have passed muster.

It's the whole Trinity or prison, David.

[eggheadbanga]

It's the whole Trinity or prison, David.

actually, it was because he tried pretending he had reconverted after reading the Eichmann memoirs in the early 90s... forgetting he'd been suing Lipstadt and trying to disprove Auschwitz in toto during 2000. That didn't go down to well with the judge.

I think there should have been a prisoner swap, like in the days of the Cold War. Trade that Afghan apostate for Irving. See how he likes it in Kabul.:nopity:

[IlluSionS667]

Formal Holocaust debate

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4511

I would love to further that discussion, but I guess that'll have to be for another time. My discussion with eggheadbanga has already taken too much of my time, and I do really have a life, you know....

One thing I would like to add, though : how can anyone possibly take those pictures seriously? Some pictures are too blurry to make up anything. Other show wonderfully clean bones that look like the come from no more than one man, if they are even human at all. That's hardly proof for mass murder. The supposed picture from Majdanek does should clearly recognicable human remains, but it shows no background. The skulls too are wonderfull decomposed and seem to be stacked for display. When and why would the Germans have done that? If it were not the Germans who did it, what is real about that picture in the first place?

At least the pictures of emaciated bodies that are usually displayed, are real. These look like Sovjet propaganda, as they are very different from what one would expect.

Like I said, I don't have time to discuss the rest, but I would still like some comments on this.

[Ravenheart]

I have no opinion on the Holocaust debate, as I am simply not informed enough. It is preposterous that people like Irving are put in jail though.

[The Retard]

Formal Holocaust debate

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4511

We need more Holocaust debates so we can keep it fresh in the filthy goyims mind. :bbbat:

[Meursault]

actually, it was because he tried pretending he had reconverted after reading the Eichmann memoirs in the early 90s...

Really? I thought he was imprisoned for something that happened in the 80s.

[eggheadbanga]

Really? I thought he was imprisoned for something that happened in the 80s.

It was, IIRC, but it's a bit of a cheek to say in 2006 that you stopped being a naughty boy in 1993, when your behaviour from 1993 to 2006 says otherwise.

I still think the best solution, given the existence of the Austrian laws, would have been to have given him a suspended sentence and booted him out the country.

[IlluSionS667]

You still need to reply to the questions I posed. You seem to have time to to many other posts, but not to answer these critical questions..... makes me wonder.

[Kodos]

We need more Holocaust debates so we can keep it fresh in the filthy goyims mind. :bbbat:

Why are we having another one, we had a formal one the deniers got trounced LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO this is not scholarship its crankdom. Okay so if you don't like jews and you admire Hitler... have the intellectual balls to say "too bad he missed a few"( I don't agree but this shit is annoying and gets old).

[IlluSionS667]

Why are we having another one, we had a formal one the deniers got trounced

I see only one revisionist dealing with two people supporting the official story, writing the type of posts that require at least two hours two write, extra research excluded. I suggest Dan Dare explains us why he no longer replied to that post, but I'm pretty sure a lack of time has anything to do with it. It's not exactly like the arguments of Sulla and the other guy were tight. I would really like to further Dan Dare's task in that thread myself, but I currently have too much work to do for that. Perhaps I will do so in a month, when I expect to have some more time.... I actually have a life, you know?!?

LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

As if..... I haven't found a single historian who can give a proper explanation for all the holes in the official story. eggheadbanga doesn't seem to have a problem with doing other replies, but doesn't somehow seem to have the time to answer my questions concerning those discrepancies.... Hmmmm.... makes me wonder.

Perhaps they should actually allow this types of discussions to take place in real life. As you should know by now, that is even illegal in many European countries. How convenient.

this is not scholarship its crankdom.

Orthodox history is, perhaps, but revisionist history is pretty well-documented.

Okay so if you don't like jews and you admire Hitler... have the intellectual balls to say "too bad he missed a few"( I don't agree but this shit is annoying and gets old).

This article (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7843) will explain you very well how little holocaust revisionism and anti-semitism or national socialism are connected. Spare me the nonsense that revisionists are by default antisemites or national socialists...

[Starr]

Okay so if you don't like jews and you admire Hitler... have the intellectual balls to say "too bad he missed a few"( I don't agree but this shit is annoying and gets old).

revisionists secretly want to kill all jews and that is why they deny "mass murder" of the Jews. This is such an illogical argument and yet it keeps getting repeated.

[Lenny]

The facts bear out that it is a hoax. 6 million Jews were not killed by the Germans. maybe 1 million from all causes, of which hundreds thousands were killed by the Germans in various circumstances, but not in any attempted genocide. If any were gassed it was not on some mammoth industrial scale

Do not listen to characters like Sulla the Dictator, it is bad for your health. :slap:. :jew:

[Dan Dare]

I see only one revisionist dealing with two people supporting the official story, writing the type of posts that require at least two hours two write, extra research excluded. I suggest Dan Dare explains us why he no longer replied to that post, but I'm pretty sure a lack of time has anything to do with it. ...

Since you ask, let me set the story straight for you as well as the gallery.

First, and despite Emperor Palpatine's witterings, we need to recall that the discussion about Treblinka was never intended to be a official debate, with a formal motion, winners and losers. There were to be four participants, two on the offical side and two on the revisionist side, without any specific rules for what had to be discussed and when. As you have seen, one of the participants on the rev side has not appeared, so a number of areas that we had planned to explore in detail such as the contradictory witness testimony and the various alleged murder weapons will not now be covered.

You appear to asking why I have not responded to Sulla's contribution. The short answer is he provided little if any factual content to respond to that does not appear in Potty's original submission, and which I have already dealt with.

I do intend, at some point to add a summarisation from the rev side and will do so as other commitments permit. At that time I will include a brief response to Sulla.

In the meantime there is nothing to prevent you raising any related issues in a separate discussion as you seem to be doing quite effectively already.

[Geist]

To be fair I think its fair to say Potty won that paticular debate hands down.

My own view is 'Sceptical, Leaning towards Official Version,' as Im simply doubful that so many people died, the numbers seem excessive and I especially dislike the censoring of research no matter how childish, insensitive or whatever it is.

[Dan Dare]

Re the poll:

Interesting that the largest grouping is neither "exterminationists" nor "negationists", but sceptics of one leaning or the other.

What does this tell us?

[Meursault]

What does this tell us?

That the Jews have milked it far too much, thus making people question much of what is claimed?

Classifying anyone who had ever eaten a bagel as a holocaust survivor was a bit OTT.

[Trojan]

To be fair I think its fair to say Potty won that paticular debate hands down.



Yes he did.

[Fade the Butcher]

Yes he did.

That's wasn't the impression I got.

[Dan Dare]

That's wasn't the impression I got.

Ah but you probably did more than look at the pictures.

[Fade the Butcher]

Ah but you probably did more than look at the pictures.

I noticed Potyondi cited quite a few sources in his initial post; primary sources that appear relatively inaccessible. It looked to me like he was simply copying footnotes from other sources and passing this off as his own research. Is that the impression you got?

[Trojan]

I noticed Potyondi cited quite a few sources in his initial post; primary sources that appear relatively inaccessible. It looked to me like he was simply copying footnotes from other sources and passing this off as his own research. Is that the impression you got?

Then what did the rebuttal argument show that you find remarkable?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Then what did the rebuttal argument show that you find remarkable?

Dan's list of questions rather than responses must have left a big impression.

[Fade the Butcher]

Then what did the rebuttal argument show that you find remarkable?

Potyondi never responded to Dan.

[Trojan]

Dan's list of questions rather than responses must have left a big impression.

They never realize it is much easier to sit back and ask questions then it is to research and find answers.

Debates go both ways - both sides need to provide evidence, not sit back and wait for the other side to answer their questions to their artifical standards.

I see very little evidence in Dan's reply, I can poke holes in any historical event using the same tactics.

[Dan Dare]

I noticed Potyondi cited quite a few sources in his initial post; primary sources that appear relatively inaccessible. It looked to me like he was simply copying footnotes from other sources and passing this off as his own research. Is that the impression you got?

In order to respond to this question, it is necessary to turn our attention back to an earlier thread (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4132) which, in a sense, seems to have provided the impetus for Potty’s later efforts. I think it’s fair to say that our hero does not cover himself with glory in this encounter, and admirers of his later exposition might wish to review his performance in that particular joust.

After some initial sabre-rattling, Potty starts to excavate his own personal burial pit in Post #15 with comments about “...Allied aerial reconnaisance photographs [that] clearly show the camp having been demolished and re-tilled, especially the quarry”. Then he proceeds to deepen the hole with additional claims about the“...hundreds of thousands of kilos of stone were shifted from one camp to the other, if only to build roads, and Krege found no evidence at all. How mysterious.” (post #22)

As if this were not enough, in the very same post, a yet lower stratum is attained without much need for supplemantary excavation effort. Here Potty proclaims to have pwned Jack-Boot of Stormfront fame by having establishing that coke, not wood, was the fuel used to stoke the crematory pyres at Treblinka. So yah-boo to old Jack_Boot.

Continuing on, two posts later Potty, almost halfway to China at this point, assures us all that the coke was provisioned by Topf und Sohne, not only coke-merchants of repute but also, somewhat incidentally, purveyors of crematorium apparata to another quite well-known establishment several hundred kilometers away from Treblinka.

Starting then again in Post #26, and in response to my query about how the hundreds of thousands of kilos of stone that Potty earlier claimed had been extracted from the (gravel) quarry at T1 were utilised in the 0.25 sq km area of T2, Potty displays a very surprising unfamiliarity with the metric system for someone who lives in Canada and is, apparently, an undergraduate at a top university. Anyway, I’m happy to note the confusion was eventually cleared up by yours truly in Post #36.

Posts # 49-55. Wretched coke again.

In post #56, Potty discovers the Philosophers’ Stone that transmutes stone into gravel. Handy that, not to mention convenient.

And then, at last! Post #57:

... It has turned out that I've made a mistake. I confused two aspects of the Holocaust and placed one where it should not have been because of my lack of proximity to the research. I'd even forgotten that I knew who Arad was (ages ago). That is my fault, for assuming that my recollection of my own Holocaust investigations was still accurate after 2 or so years.

I would like to recommence, addressing Krege specifically and using the older work that Sulla has thankfully recovered for me. Since I have access to the sources now, there should be no more mix-ups. I apologise for my rashness.

So Potty draws back and shuts off the excavator, just a few meters ( 1 m = 39.37”) shy of breaking through into the centre of Tianenman Square. Thank God for that! The only problem is that Sulla takes the latter part of this post as carte blanche from Potty to indulge himself in his excavator fetish – brrmm, brrmmmm! Fortunately that was easily discredited as can be seen later in the thread.

And so on and on, seemingly ad infinitum, for a further 200 or more additional postings.

And yet, most curiously, the time that elapsed between Potty’s grovelling apology in Post # 57 on February 18th, in which he more-or-less publically acknowledged his hopelessly inadequate grasp of the subject matter, and the appearance of his much-lauded magnum opus Ziel Treblinka (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4511) was a mere nine days.

How’d that happen?

Ghostwriters in the Sky?

Nick Terry and His RODOH Aficiandos?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[Sulla the Dictator]

So Potty draws back and shuts off the excavator, just a few meters ( 1 m = 39.37”) shy of breaking through into the centre of Tianenman Square. Thank God for that! The only problem is that Sulla takes the latter part of this post as carte blanche from Potty to indulge himself in his excavator fetish – brrmm, brrmmmm! Fortunately that was easily discredited as can be seen later in the thread.


Actually anyone can see how that discussion ended up, with Dan having a temper tantrum and leaving in a huff.

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4132&page=25

Followed by Dan more or less responding to Potyondi's post in the Treblinka thread with an interview. Two threads on Treblinka abandoned by the opposition.

[Thomas777]

That the Jews have milked it far too much, thus making people question much of what is claimed?

Classifying anyone who had ever eaten a bagel as a holocaust survivor was a bit OTT.

Agreed, but that is a different issue. The claim: Organized Jewry has exploited the war crimes of the Third Reich for continuing political gain is different than the claim: The Third Reich did not execute mass numbers of Jewish civillians.

The former is obvious, the latter is not.

[Dan Dare]

Actually anyone can see how that discussion ended up, with Dan having a temper tantrum and leaving in a huff.

Perhaps so, if that's how it suits you to see it.

I also left the thread without seeing any evidence from you that the excavators in question were operating in the so-called Totenlager at T-II.

Please feel free to bring forward any new evidence to support your supposition.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Perhaps so, if that's how it suits you to see it.


I saw your shifting alternate explanations which couldn't even stand against cursory examination.

[Dan Dare]

I saw your shifting alternate explanations which couldn't even stand against cursory examination.

Examination by cerberus and your good self is akin to being savaged by a sheep.

No fresh evidence to hand then?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Examination by cerberus and your good self is akin to being savaged by a sheep.


Whatever you say Dan. Your Monty Python immitation is spot on.

http://69.49.140.245/mp/_pictures/grail/large/HolyGrail021.jpg

"Where do you think you're going? Come back, I'm not finished with you Sulla! Coward!"

--Dan Dare

[eggheadbanga]

Irving conceded 1.5 million for the Einsatzgruppen, 97,000 for the Chelmno gas-vans, several hundred thousand at A-B, as well as an unspecified number in the AR camps, the ghettos and labour camps. All much to the chagrin of Faurisson et al.

But that didn't spare him from being labelled as a Holocaust Denier by the High Court.

It's the whole enchililada or nothing I'm afraid.

The bidding starts at 5 million (right Nick?)

Actually, I think the High Court observed that Irving was time and time again forced to modify his position from what it had been before, so the judgement referred as much to his past rep as what his position was when cornered by expert witnesses. Given half a chance Irving would have ignored all the evidence he was forced to 'accept'. Stupid idiot never should have brought suit.

The middle ground is a no man's land. As Irving's gymnastics in the courtroom indicate, conceding anything higher than 1 million upsets the revisionists, anything lower than 5 million the orthodox-minded. But then there are a few who accept the camps but not the full extent of the shootings, like Michael Mills. He's just plain weird, though.

[Dan Dare]

...Stupid idiot never should have brought suit.

I'm not so sure about that. IMO the three strategic blunders he made were (a) representing himself, (b) not insisting that the defence define the terms 'Holocaust' and 'denier' right at the beginning of the trial, and (c) underestimating the scale of the resources that would applied to defeat him.

I'm in the middle of reading Debbie's account about 'Her Day in Court' at the moment. It's surprisingly illuminating, the main motivation for most of the principals (Penguin apart) turns out not to have been 'the defence of history and free speech' but rather the defeat of anti-semitism.

[IlluSionS667]

I really don't know what to think of Irving.

In example, Irving calls the document, first published in French in 1959, and in English in 1961 as Hitler's Last Testament, with an Introduction by Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper a fake because of the unreliability of the owner of the "orriginal", François Genoud (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Testament/byGenoud.html). He has no problem with "Table talk", though, even though the source is also François Genoud and some other sources (http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/tabletalk/tabletalk.html) do deny the authenticity of that document.

Another thing that got me wondering about Irving, is what I found in the "net losses" section of Birdman Bryant's site (http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Index-NetLoss.html).

Still, I don't really know what to think about the guy, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was a government pawn used to incriminate revisionism.

[eggheadbanga]

C'mon, Irving was a mighty friend of the IHR for over a decade. He was in effect goaded into a more revisionist position by Faurisson.

Revisionism has only itself to blame for allying with a huckster like Irving, who brought a pointless suit, puffing himself up as Revisionist #1, who then disintegrated under pressure.

[IlluSionS667]

C'mon, Irving was a mighty friend of the IHR for over a decade. He was in effect goaded into a more revisionist position by Faurisson.

That doesn't change a thing. By the way, I have my personal reservations about Weber too. The IHR has done quite some good work, though.

Revisionism has only itself to blame for allying with a huckster like Irving, who brought a pointless suit, puffing himself up as Revisionist #1, who then disintegrated under pressure.

I never allied myself with this guy. I can only speak for myself.

By the way, didn't you say several times that there were no prominent revisionists with a PhD in history? What about Barnes, Hoggan and Martin (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=97557#post97557)?

[eggheadbanga]

Originally Posted by eggheadbanga
C'mon, Irving was a mighty friend of the IHR for over a decade. He was in effect goaded into a more revisionist position by Faurisson.

That doesn't change a thing.

Doesn't it? Revisionists were very happy to bask in the reflected glory of the bestselling popular historian for decades. His bio still appears at revisionists.com.

By the way, I have my personal reservations about Weber too. The IHR has done quite some good work, though.

Why reservations about Weber? I suppose one would be that he has never managed to make it to a book-length argument.

Revisionism has only itself to blame for allying with a huckster like Irving, who brought a pointless suit, puffing himself up as Revisionist #1, who then disintegrated under pressure.

I never allied myself with this guy. I can only speak for myself.

Yet you're happy to invoke Barnes and Hoggan as your allies below.

By the way, didn't you say several times that there were no prominent revisionists with a PhD in history? What about Barnes, Hoggan and Martin (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=97557#post97557)?

And since then?

[IlluSionS667]

Doesn't it? Revisionists were very happy to bask in the reflected glory of the bestselling popular historian for decades. His bio still appears at revisionists.com.

So what?!? Like I said, I can't speak for other revisionists. They may appreciate the guy and his work, but I don't.

Why reservations about Weber? I suppose one would be that he has never managed to make it to a book-length argument.

I was more referring to the issues between him and Carto as well as his "friendship" with Kevin Strom, who tried a similar coup at the National Alliance office a while ago.

Yet you're happy to invoke Barnes and Hoggan as your allies below.

I don't see why not.... though I didn't call them my allies. I was merely pointing out that your claim that there were no prominent revisionists with a PhD in history is false.

And since then?

I guess most historians learned from history not to speak out against official dogma. They're historians after all.....

This whole thing is reminiscent of the issue with the Gizah pyramid. I've found authors from the 1920's already demanding a revision in history concerning the Gizah pyramid, yet about 80 years their pleas are still ignored by orthodoxy, while amateurs like Graham, Bauval and West (the unholy trinity?) are repeating their research.

[eggheadbanga]

So what?!? Like I said, I can't speak for other revisionists. They may appreciate the guy and his work, but I don't.

Yet above you were calling him a possible Zionist agent. That seems a little extreme a rejection of a personality who was exalted by the organised Revisionist movement for two decades.

Who else is a black sheep in your eyes?

I was more referring to the issues between him and Carto as well as his "friendship" with Kevin Strom, who tried a similar coup at the National Alliance office a while ago.

The IHR 'management coup' was a bit embarrassing for them, yes.

I don't see why not.... though I didn't call them my allies. I was merely pointing out that your claim that there were no prominent revisionists with a PhD in history is false.

I'll split hairs and point out I used the present tense in the original context; I was specifically referring to the current crop of 'gurus'. But if you want to broaden the category to include all revisionists past and present mentioned on revisionists.com, then whoppee, you've got three, all dead.

So I've conceded my mistake. Will you do the same elsewhere?

I guess most historians learned from history not to speak out against official dogma. They're historians after all.....

How is it official dogma in the United States? Hardly anyone in the US even wrote about the persecution of the Jews in the 1950s and 1960s, Hilberg was advised not to touch the subject for his dissertation.

This whole thing is reminiscent of the issue with the Gizah pyramid. I've found authors from the 1920's already demanding a revision in history concerning the Gizah pyramid, yet about 80 years their pleas are still ignored by orthodoxy, while amateurs like Graham, Bauval and West (the unholy trinity?) are repeating their research.

This comparison does not reflect well on Revisionism.

[IlluSionS667]

Yet above you were calling him a possible Zionist agent. That seems a little extreme a rejection of a personality who was exalted by the organised Revisionist movement for two decades.

Who else is a black sheep in your eyes?

Irving, Zuendel and Weber are the three revisionists I have my doubts about... especially the first two, who seen more like patsies intended to discredit revisionism than anything else.

The IHR 'management coup' was a bit embarrassing for them, yes.

Embarrassing and remarkably similar to what happened at the National Alliance headquarters a while ago.

But if you want to broaden the category to include all revisionists past and present mentioned on revisionists.com, then whoppee, you've got three, all dead.

So I've conceded my mistake. Will you do the same elsewhere?

Sure. We all make mistakes, don't we?! ;)

How is it official dogma in the United States? Hardly anyone in the US even wrote about the persecution of the Jews in the 1950s and 1960s, Hilberg was advised not to touch the subject for his dissertation.

It became an official dogma only after people like Barnes and Rassinier started disagreeing with the official views that back then everyone just accepted to be true. While the US cannot impose these views by law due to their constitution, there are enough pressure groups to pretty much destroy a person's career for coming out as a revisionist... or they just leave it to the other historians, who don't like to see such major changes in accepted history in the first place.

This comparison does not reflect well on Revisionism.

Well, I'm not exactly a fan of Graham, Bauval and West, but they do make some interesting observations that orthodox historians just tend to ignore. The pyramids were definitely more than just tombs. Most likely, they were some sort of temples where esotetic rituals took place. The argument that pyramids were used as burial tombs for pharaos is not argument against them also being used for rituals, since many catholic cathedrals also have a king, bishop, count or other highly placed person buried in them.

And of course there's the issue with the sfynx of Gizah, that has an erosion pattern that implies a far older date than 3000 BC as its building date. Its head being the head of a must more recent pharao is a poor argument, since the head shows all signs of being carved later than the body. Again, orthodox historians turn a blind eye.

In case you wonder.... The origin of civilisation used to be my passion at the age of 17. I just gave it up, because there is too little and too fragmentary evidence to create a whole picture of how civilisation orriginated. I can say, though, that I'm no less sceptical about the official version of history on that era than I am on the official version of WW2.

[eggheadbanga]

Irving, Zuendel and Weber are the three revisionists I have my doubts about... especially the first two, who seen more like patsies intended to discredit revisionism than anything else.

They do that without any assistance from the other side. I find the blind adulation of Zundel utterly bemusing: his transmogrification from nutter to political prisoner, the Mandela of Revisionism, is unsurprising from an instrumental point of view but the man himself, gawd. Unfortunately many of the personalities involved in Revisionism are showmen and attention-seekers. Irving's egotism is quite breathtaking. This doesn't hold true for all. I can respect Mattogno for the way he conducts his research and presents his findings, even if I disagree with his conclusions.

However: aren't there things from the Zuendel false news trials in the 80s that you would endorse? It's a frequently-heard claim, not least among other prominent revisionists, that the trial proved Vrba was a liar, showed up Hilberg as a paper tiger, etc.

Embarrassing and remarkably similar to what happened at the National Alliance headquarters a while ago.

We don't hear much about Greg Raven these days. He's sort of been written out of (revisionist) historiography. Can't even find any biographical details on him anywhere.

Sure. We all make mistakes, don't we?! ;)

And in the big scheme of things, stating that there are no prominent revisionists with a PhD in history, when the 3 in question are dead and of the preceding generation, is not much of a mistake.

It became an official dogma only after people like Barnes and Rassinier started disagreeing with the official views that back then everyone just accepted to be true. While the US cannot impose these views by law due to their constitution, there are enough pressure groups to pretty much destroy a person's career for coming out as a revisionist... or they just leave it to the other historians, who don't like to see such major changes in accepted history in the first place.

Why is it there seems to be no middle ground between the Revisionist and the orthodox position? In most other controversies, there's someone taking an in-between position. Here, not. Revisionists were exceedingly unhappy with Irving for 'conceding' so many Jewish deaths, though Irving has often plucked suitably low numbers out of the air, so it's not even as if Irving was seriously arguing for 2.5 or 3 million deaths.

Why have Revisionists not written a regional study as opposed to a camp study? The typical academic work on the Holocaust since the start of the 1990s has taken a single region or country and examined it in detail. This has not been forthcoming from Revisionists. It would go a long way to proving or disproving their case.

Well, I'm not exactly a fan of Graham, Bauval and West, but they do make some interesting observations that orthodox historians just tend to ignore. The pyramids were definitely more than just tombs. Most likely, they were some sort of temples where esotetic rituals took place. The argument that pyramids were used as burial tombs for pharaos is not argument against them also being used for rituals, since many catholic cathedrals also have a king, bishop, count or other highly placed person buried in them.

And of course there's the issue with the sfynx of Gizah, that has an erosion pattern that implies a far older date than 3000 BC as its building date. Its head being the head of a must more recent pharao is a poor argument, since the head shows all signs of being carved later than the body. Again, orthodox historians turn a blind eye.

The question is what conclusions are drawn from the (reasonable) observations that the pyramids were more than just tombs. One can accept that they had a religious function without endorsing the spiritual worldviews that might endow the pyramids with past or present occult power. Moreover the recurrence of pyramids in other cultures is inevitably suggestive and thought-provoking.

I haven't read Graham - isn't he the author who's been selling books by the truckload this past decade or so? or any similar books, what little I've read dates back a long while. I vaguely remember Daniken incorporating them into his alien-visitation theory. In general I find this school of thought a wonderful source of material for science fiction and other imaginative capers. I'm an absolute sucker for stories about ancient civilisations, but have very little interest in the 'science' of them.

In case you wonder.... The origin of civilisation used to be my passion at the age of 17. I just gave it up, because there is too little and too fragmentary evidence to create a whole picture of how civilisation orriginated. I can say, though, that I'm no less sceptical about the official version of history on that era than I am on the official version of WW2.

The difference is the volume of evidence. Medievalists can fit much of their written sources onto a single CD-ROM for specific countries, IIRC. You can't even fit the whole of the Auschwitz trial in 1960s Germany onto a CD-ROM.

[IlluSionS667]

They do that without any assistance from the other side. I find the blind adulation of Zundel utterly bemusing: his transmogrification from nutter to political prisoner, the Mandela of Revisionism, is unsurprising from an instrumental point of view but the man himself, gawd. Unfortunately many of the personalities involved in Revisionism are showmen and attention-seekers. Irving's egotism is quite breathtaking.

Zuendel and Irving definitely are showmen and attention-seekers. This is one of the reasons I have a problem with them, next to their unreliable statements on WW2 history. Another one is the media seeming to be very willing to mention them in their headlines, while usually ignoring people like Verbeke or Rudolf (who also have been jailed for their views). I wonder what other revisionists you place under that category of showmen and attention-seekers.

However: aren't there things from the Zuendel false news trials in the 80s that you would endorse? It's a frequently-heard claim, not least among other prominent revisionists, that the trial proved Vrba was a liar, showed up Hilberg as a paper tiger, etc.

There were some positive things about the trials, just like there were positive things about Iving's trials. However, what's more important is the impression the masses (who identify revisionism with Zuendel and Irving) have about revisionism. That definitely didn't improve.

We don't hear much about Greg Raven these days. He's sort of been written out of (revisionist) historiography. Can't even find any biographical details on him anywhere.

I can't say I've ever heard of him myself. Any more info on the guy?

And in the big scheme of things, stating that there are no prominent revisionists with a PhD in history, when the 3 in question are dead and of the preceding generation, is not much of a mistake.

It is a bit misleading, since your statement implies that holocaust revisionism is and always has been the work of amateurs.

Why is it there seems to be no middle ground between the Revisionist and the orthodox position? In most other controversies, there's someone taking an in-between position.

There is an in-between position. The extreme intentionalists are one hand, while revisionists are on the other. In the middle are those who state that there was a plan to exterminate jews, but not before the Wannsee Conference. Revisionists are the only ones who cannot legally defend their claims in 10 different European countries and who risk their job for it in other countries.

Revisionists were exceedingly unhappy with Irving for 'conceding' so many Jewish deaths, though Irving has often plucked suitably low numbers out of the air, so it's not even as if Irving was seriously arguing for 2.5 or 3 million deaths.

Irving is just not to be taken serious these days. That is what revisionists hold against him.

Why have Revisionists not written a regional study as opposed to a camp study? The typical academic work on the Holocaust since the start of the 1990s has taken a single region or country and examined it in detail. This has not been forthcoming from Revisionists.

Because revisionist historians focus on different issues, such as the authenticity or interprettation of certain documents, the nature of certain buildings or the accuracy of certain witness testimonies.... issues which orthodox historians tend to take for granted.

The question is what conclusions are drawn from the (reasonable) observations that the pyramids were more than just tombs. One can accept that they had a religious function without endorsing the spiritual worldviews that might endow the pyramids with past or present occult power.

One can, indeed. Are you saying that everyone who makes such observations also supports the ancient Egyptian religion? If not, then what are you implying?

Moreover the recurrence of pyramids in other cultures is inevitably suggestive and thought-provoking.

I'm not sure if it really means anything, but it is definitely thought-provoking.

I haven't read Graham - isn't he the author who's been selling books by the truckload this past decade or so?

I'm sorry. Graham is his first name. My mistake. The trinity I was talking about, are John West, Graham Hancock en Robert Bauval.

I vaguely remember Daniken incorporating them into his alien-visitation theory.

A theory that would make a lot of sense if you just replace "aliens" with "advanced civilisation"... Anyway, Von Daeniken's first books were pretty interesting, but the quality of his work severely fell when he realised he had his a goldmine with his theories.

In general I find this school of thought a wonderful source of material for science fiction and other imaginative capers.

Aren't the "Stargate" film and series pretty much based on Von Daeniken's theories?!?

I'm an absolute sucker for stories about ancient civilisations, but have very little interest in the 'science' of them.

I'm only interested in non-fiction when it involves history. Dan Brown may write some good stories, but Jac. P. van Term's "Van Heidendom tot Paganisme; Studiën over Vrijmetselarij" (eng. From Heathendom to Paganism; Studies on Freemasonry) from 1925 is a far more interesting non-fiction book on similar topics.

The difference is the volume of evidence. Medievalists can fit much of their written sources onto a single CD-ROM for specific countries, IIRC. You can't even fit the whole of the Auschwitz trial in 1960s Germany onto a CD-ROM.

Yet the evidence for the estermination theory is still pretty poor.

[eggheadbanga]

Zuendel and Irving definitely are showmen and attention-seekers. This is one of the reasons I have a problem with them, next to their unreliable statements on WW2 history. Another one is the media seeming to be very willing to mention them in their headlines, while usually ignoring people like Verbeke or Rudolf (who also have been jailed for their views). I wonder what other revisionists you place under that category of showmen and attention-seekers.


Other showmen?

Increasingly, Faurisson. He started out 'impressively', but has not really progressed beyond articles. They seem a bit repetitious to me. I found his dismissal of Mattogno's work on Majdanek a bit petulant. It seemed as if he felt that he'd been shown up as more talk than trousers. But Faurisson does act as a good focus for what is a fairly productive French revisionist scene, so he's not purely an attention-seeker.

Mattogno is really the only Revisionist that I respect for having put his nose to the archival grindstone. I'm quite sure he has indeed been through every page of the Zentralbauleitung records.

There were some positive things about the trials, just like there were positive things about Iving's trials. However, what's more important is the impression the masses (who identify revisionism with Zuendel and Irving) have about revisionism. That definitely didn't improve.

The moment when Irving addressed the judge as 'mein Fuehrer' did more damage overnight than a dozen Nizkors. :rofl:

I can't say I've ever heard of him myself. Any more info on the guy?

He was in on the IHR scene. I think he participated in Weber's putsch against Carto. He had a website but it is dead AFAIK. I'm not even sure he's still alive. He was very much Mr Usenet back in the day.

It is a bit misleading, since your statement implies that holocaust revisionism is and always has been the work of amateurs.

Yet when McCalden, Hoggan and Barnes were trying out Holocaust Revisionism for size, they wrote works of slim length compared to the doctor of electrical engineering, Arthur Butz.

There is an in-between position. The extreme intentionalists are one hand, while revisionists are on the other. In the middle are those who state that there was a plan to exterminate jews, but not before the Wannsee Conference. Revisionists are the only ones who cannot legally defend their claims in 10 different European countries and who risk their job for it in other countries.

The differences between extreme intentionalists, i.e. Jewish nationalists, and functionalists is not nearly as great as that between functionalists and revisionists. To the best of my knowledge not even the most extreme functionalist denies that gas chambers were used or that millions died.

I was really referring to someone who genuinely sat in the middle, eg someone who accepted the gas chambers but denied the majority of the mass shootings, or someone who accepted the shootings and the starvation but did not accept the gas chambers except perhaps on an experimental scale. The latter position would be almost akin to Arno Mayer's in Why The Heavens Did Not Darken? but since he didn't include a single footnote in the book he was dismissed as much for scholarly inadequacy as for his views.

Irving is just not to be taken serious these days. That is what revisionists hold against him.

Much sour grapes, yes.

Because revisionist historians focus on different issues, such as the authenticity or interprettation of certain documents, the nature of certain buildings or the accuracy of certain witness testimonies.... issues which orthodox historians tend to take for granted.

The accuracy of witness testimonies lies at the heart of what historians have been doing for the past 30+ years. Many of the debates within the mainstream have revolved around how to interpret witness testimonies, especially of the SS. Otto Ohlendorf argued for a 'general order' to exterminate the Jews before the start of 'Barbarossa' as a defence strategy at the Einsatzgruppen trial, Case IX, at Nuremberg. This was supported by many historians, but others disagreed, pointing to the obvious defence of superior orders that was being proffered. The consensus now is that there was no initial order to escalate the shootings, but that Himmler spread the order orally through the individual formations while on inspection tours in the summer of 1941, which accounts for the differences in timing.


One can, indeed. Are you saying that everyone who makes such observations also supports the ancient Egyptian religion? If not, then what are you implying?

No, but from what I am dimly aware of re: the likes of Hancock, there are some authors who do take the religious aspects seriously, usually connecting the dots with some other aspect of ancient religion.

I'm not sure if it really means anything, but it is definitely thought-provoking.

Didn't separate ancient civilisations also invent the wheel independently of each other? Certain shapes just work well.

I'm sorry. Graham is his first name. My mistake. The trinity I was talking about, are John West, Graham Hancock en Robert Bauval.

That's right. I'd forgotten too. Hancock has written a zillion books and I get the impression some are very silly (albeit probably good reads, cf below).

A theory that would make a lot of sense if you just replace "aliens" with "advanced civilisation"... Anyway, Von Daeniken's first books were pretty interesting, but the quality of his work severely fell when he realised he had his a goldmine with his theories.

Daniken certainly enlivened one of my teenage years, back when I had my phase of being interested in the entire gamut of weird possibilities.

Aren't the "Stargate" film and series pretty much based on Von Daeniken's theories?!?

I think so, but a better example of a 'creative' detournement would be the Alien vs Predator movie. IMO that was a neat adaptation of the aliens-visiting-earth theory, tying it in with pyramids/ziggurats, Antarctica theories and human sacrifice. Shame the rest of the movie was so trashy. The computer game was fun though.:p

I'm only interested in non-fiction when it involves history. Dan Brown may write some good stories, but Jac. P. van Term's "Van Heidendom tot Paganisme; Studiën over Vrijmetselarij" (eng. From Heathendom to Paganism; Studies on Freemasonry) from 1925 is a far more interesting non-fiction book on similar topics.

I did enjoy THBATHG as a teenager, though the 'Dossiers Secretes' were exposed as forgeries.

Yet the evidence for the estermination theory is still pretty poor.

It's infinitely more extensive than for the existence of Jesus Christ on this earth. :p

Here is a quote from the Gospel according to the Clubfooted One:

Goebbels, 2.3.43: “sich vollkommen im klaren darüber, was uns allen drohen würde, wenn wir in diesem Kriege schwach würden… Vor allem in der Judenfrage sind wir ja so festgelegt, dass es für uns gar kein Entrinnen mehr gibt. Und das ist auch gut so. Eine Bewegung und ein Volk, die die Brükken hinter sich abgebrochen haben, kämpfen erfahrungsgemäss viel vorbehaltloser als die, die noch eine Rückzugsmöglichkeit besitzen.”

[IlluSionS667]

Other showmen?

Increasingly, Faurisson. He started out 'impressively', but has not really progressed beyond articles. They seem a bit repetitious to me. I found his dismissal of Mattogno's work on Majdanek a bit petulant. It seemed as if he felt that he'd been shown up as more talk than trousers. But Faurisson does act as a good focus for what is a fairly productive French revisionist scene, so he's not purely an attention-seeker.

So that still leaves us with two guys.... two guys whom I happen to find pretty suspicious.

Mattogno is really the only Revisionist that I respect for having put his nose to the archival grindstone. I'm quite sure he has indeed been through every page of the Zentralbauleitung records.

Yet you and he still disagree? Why?

The moment when Irving addressed the judge as 'mein Fuehrer' did more damage overnight than a dozen Nizkors. :rofl:

Exactly my point.

Yet when McCalden, Hoggan and Barnes were trying out Holocaust Revisionism for size, they wrote works of slim length compared to the doctor of electrical engineering, Arthur Butz.

Just like with a penis, it's not the size that matters but what you do with it.

The differences between extreme intentionalists, i.e. Jewish nationalists, and functionalists is not nearly as great as that between functionalists and revisionists. To the best of my knowledge not even the most extreme functionalist denies that gas chambers were used or that millions died.

Perhaps that's because they can lose their job and/or their freedom because of such a statement? The gas chambers and the 5,000,000 mark are just dogmas you cannot ignore without all hell breaking loose on you.

I was really referring to someone who genuinely sat in the middle, eg someone who accepted the gas chambers but denied the majority of the mass shootings, or someone who accepted the shootings and the starvation but did not accept the gas chambers except perhaps on an experimental scale.

Revisionists say exactly the latter, although they do dismiss the starvation as being intentional and the shootings as being focussed primarilly on race.

The consensus now is that there was no initial order to escalate the shootings, but that Himmler spread the order orally through the individual formations while on inspection tours in the summer of 1941, which accounts for the differences in timing.

Having an order spread orally seems to be contradictory with the meticulous fashion of keeping records within the German government, yet is very convenient for orthodox historians when it comes to explaining the lack of evidence for such an order.

Didn't separate ancient civilisations also invent the wheel independently of each other? Certain shapes just work well.

We don't really know who invented the wheel, do we?

Like I said, the occurance pyramid shape within temples accross the world is definitely thought-provoking but doesn't necessarilly mean anything. A pyramid just happens to have the shape of a mountain, which itself has always fascinated man. Pyramids could just have been artificial mountains that were built by different cultures because different cultures had a fascination with mountains.... but of course, that's just guessing. They could just as well have all derived from the same ancient culture.

That's right. I'd forgotten too. Hancock has written a zillion books and I get the impression some are very silly (albeit probably good reads, cf below).

I've never read any books of him or his trinity collegues, but the documentary about their common theory was pretty interesting. Yet, I'm perfectly aware of the fact that Hancock does tend to come to conclusions waaaay too easily, which is why I do not consider myself a fan of his.

I think so, but a better example of a 'creative' detournement would be the Alien vs Predator movie. IMO that was a neat adaptation of the aliens-visiting-earth theory, tying it in with pyramids/ziggurats, Antarctica theories and human sacrifice. Shame the rest of the movie was so trashy. The computer game was fun though.:p

I just love the games (especially AVP2), but I still have to see the film. With Paul WS Anderson directing the film, I expected no more than thrash. I do kinda enjoyed the Alien Quadrillogy and Predator films, though, regardless how poor Predator 2 and some of the Alien sequels really were from a film-technical point of view.

Yeah, I'm a movie buff too ;)

I did enjoy THBATHG as a teenager, though the 'Dossiers Secretes' were exposed as forgeries.

I must say that I have never had the opportunity to read the book. Until now, I thought it was just fiction - like Dan Brown's books.

I wonder how well it has proven those 'Dossiers Secretes' are really fiction, though? Just as well as the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Sion" have been proven to be fiction?! ;_

Anyway, I prefer reading pre-WW2 non-fiction on such topics, especially well-sourced ones. Jac. P. van Term's 1925 book "Van Heidendom tot Paganisme; Studiën over Vrijmetselarij" (eng. From Heathendom to Paganism; Studies on Freemasonry) is considered to be an authority on the history and origins of freemasonry (stretching back to Vedic and ancient Mesopotamian priests, although only indirectly of course), citing no less than 1000 different quotes from various sources of which many are masonic of origin. I have no idea if it is ever translated, though.

It's infinitely more extensive than for the existence of Jesus Christ on this earth. :p

I'm still waiting for that evidence.

Here is a quote from the Gospel according to the Clubfooted One:

Goebbels, 2.3.43: “sich vollkommen im klaren darüber, was uns allen drohen würde, wenn wir in diesem Kriege schwach würden… Vor allem in der Judenfrage sind wir ja so festgelegt, dass es für uns gar kein Entrinnen mehr gibt. Und das ist auch gut so. Eine Bewegung und ein Volk, die die Brükken hinter sich abgebrochen haben, kämpfen erfahrungsgemäss viel vorbehaltloser als die, die noch eine Rückzugsmöglichkeit besitzen.”

What part of this quote would you consider proof for the extermination theory? It may be just my poor German skills, but I fail to find that in this quote.

[eggheadbanga]

So that still leaves us with two guys.... two guys whom I happen to find pretty suspicious.


oh, you want other blatant showmen on a par with Zundel and Irving? I think those are the two worst offenders.

Among the lesser breeds who've done Revisionism considerable damage because of their technical incompetence: Leuchter and Richard Krege spring to mind. Leuchter because his report was so flimsy, Krege because despite the great 'publicity stunt' of GPR scans, he neither published the findings nor do they even vaguely show what is claimed. Several construction engineers of my acquaintance, sceptical and otherwise, have pointed this out on repeated occasions.

The Revisionists who I think are serious, and worthy of a rebuttal: Mattogno, Rudolf, Sanning, Graf, Faurisson, Butz, in that order, with Mattogno being the most serious and Butz the least. I'm sure you can think of others, but those be the main ones.

Yet you and he still disagree? Why?

Because he hasn't read through the documents I've read through... :D

I've mentioned a few other reasons before. His technical calculations relating to body disposal are horseshit. I'm sorry, but I remember Britain going through a foot & mouth epidemic and having to open-air incinerate huge herds of culled cattle a few years ago. The technical achievement of setting large piles of animal/human flesh on fire is nowhere near as difficult as Mattogno and others would like to make out, nor does it consume nearly as much fuel as one might think. Did you know that bones have the same BTU as brown coal?

Just like with a penis, it's not the size that matters but what you do with it.

I'll take a look at Hoggan et al later. I have saved off one thing from Hoggan before but not got around to looking at it. From what I remember, Hoggan greatly influenced the Harwood pamphlet. So chances are there'll be a lot of arguments in there that aren't very coherent.

Perhaps that's because they can lose their job and/or their freedom because of such a statement? The gas chambers and the 5,000,000 mark are just dogmas you cannot ignore without all hell breaking loose on you.

Reitlinger calculated 4.5 million, albeit back in the early 1950s, as an ultra-cautious estimate based on what could be documented. But more documents have become available since his day.

Revisionists say exactly the latter, although they do dismiss the starvation as being intentional and the shootings as being focussed primarilly on race.

I'd say that feeding adult Jews the same rations as children of other ethnicities counts as deliberate malnutrition, and as evidence of potentially lethal racial persecution. Those were the regs in the Soviet Union.

Having an order spread orally seems to be contradictory with the meticulous fashion of keeping records within the German government, yet is very convenient for orthodox historians when it comes to explaining the lack of evidence for such an order.

Yet when one has a written entry in Himmler's appointment diary, a witness statement from an Einsatzkommando leader saying 'he told me to up the ante, and a paper-trail of increased bodycounts, the conclusion is highly logical. Coupled with a staggered pattern of escalation, it looks more likely that an oral order was delivered than a written order was issued that has since been destroyed for all four Einsatzgruppen and four HSSPF staffs involved.

Heydrich issued a stream of Einsatzbefehle which survive; they go into double figures. The early ones mention orally given framework orders that had been passed by word of mouth before the start of 'Barbarossa'. The Kommissarbefehl was similarly to be delivered orally below a certain level in the chain of command.

We don't really know who invented the wheel, do we?

Like I said, the occurance pyramid shape within temples accross the world is definitely thought-provoking but doesn't necessarilly mean anything. A pyramid just happens to have the shape of a mountain, which itself has always fascinated man. Pyramids could just have been artificial mountains that were built by different cultures because different cultures had a fascination with mountains.... but of course, that's just guessing. They could just as well have all derived from the same ancient culture.

Part of me quite wants there to be some evidence of a super-civilisation, human or otherwise, that held sway across the earth millennia ago. It appeals to the sci-fi buff in me.

I've never read any books of him or his trinity collegues, but the documentary about their common theory was pretty interesting. Yet, I'm perfectly aware of the fact that Hancock does tend to come to conclusions waaaay too easily, which is why I do not consider myself a fan of his.

I quite appreciate the audacity of wild logical leaps. It's why I found THBATHG so fascinating, because by the end of the book you'd practically forgotten the wild-goose-chase you were on, so you went... 'hang on? what the hell were they on about?!?' You can achieve the same effect by reading Hegel but it's not nearly as fun.:p

I just love the games (especially AVP2), but I still have to see the film. With Paul WS Anderson directing the film, I expected no more than thrash. I do kinda enjoyed the Alien Quadrillogy and Predator films, though, regardless how poor Predator 2 and some of the Alien sequels really were from a film-technical point of view. Yeah, I'm a movie buff too ;)

AVP the movie is pretty short, but the backstory moment (which is what I was describing) is excellent. The rest has some good conceits and some bad ones. The setting in Antarctica is fairly cool, it reminds me of another lost-civilisation/alien-civilisation novel called Decipher by Stel Pavlou.

I prefer reading pre-WW2 non-fiction on such topics, especially well-sourced ones. Jac. P. van Term's 1925 book "Van Heidendom tot Paganisme; Studiën over Vrijmetselarij" (eng. From Heathendom to Paganism; Studies on Freemasonry) is considered to be an authority on the history and origins of freemasonry (stretching back to Vedic and ancient Mesopotamian priests, although only indirectly of course), citing no less than 1000 different quotes from various sources of which many are masonic of origin. I have no idea if it is ever translated, though.

How does freemasonry relate to, uh, various conspiratorial forces?

I'm still waiting for that evidence.

for Jesus or for the Holocaust?

You never responded to my prod about the Himmler Posen speech. There's an audio recording of it somewhere online, IIRC.

What part of this quote would you consider proof for the extermination theory? It may be just my poor German skills, but I fail to find that in this quote.

When Goebbels says, 'Vor allem in der Judenfrage sind wir ja so festgelegt, dass es für uns gar kein Entrinnen mehr gibt' -in effect, No Turning Back, he is acknowledging that something irrevocable has happened. Were this simply a resettlement program it could always be reversed.

I read Goebbels' diary entry for the day after Anthony Eden made the UN declaration of 17 December 1942 in the House of Commons, but I am not sure where my notes are on it. Mainly I remember him fulminating against Eden for being 'Jewish', which is ironic given that many Jewish historians consider Eden to be an antisemite, but it would be an interesting litmus test of how the regime reacted to being called on its conduct. IIRC there was not that much of a reaction and more of a silence. Goebbels started up another anti-Semitic propaganda campaign the next spring, after the declaration of total war; which will obviously be recorded.

Some work has been done on seeing how the bombing campaign was linked, in the official press as well as the popular imagination within Germany, to the persecution of the Jews. The connection was fairly strong, in both directions, i.e. seeing the murder of Jews as justifiable revenge for the bombing of German cities, as well as seeing the bombing campaign as Jewish revenge for the murder of Jews.

[IlluSionS667]

Because he hasn't read through the documents I've read through... :D

Or vice versa :p

I'm sorry, but I remember Britain going through a foot & mouth epidemic and having to open-air incinerate huge herds of culled cattle a few years ago. The technical achievement of setting large piles of animal/human flesh on fire is nowhere near as difficult as Mattogno and others would like to make out, nor does it consume nearly as much fuel as one might think. Did you know that bones have the same BTU as brown coal?

I must say that I'm far from an expert in this, however I'd say cremation experts should be able to provide fairly accurate data on this.

[QUOTE=eggheadbanga]I'd say that feeding adult Jews the same rations as children of other ethnicities counts as deliberate malnutrition, and as evidence of potentially lethal racial persecution.

Wha documents are there that show the Germans were doing such things?

Yet when one has a written entry in Himmler's appointment diary, a witness statement from an Einsatzkommando leader saying 'he told me to up the ante, and a paper-trail of increased bodycounts, the conclusion is highly logical. Coupled with a staggered pattern of escalation, it looks more likely that an oral order was delivered than a written order was issued that has since been destroyed for all four Einsatzgruppen and four HSSPF staffs involved.

I need more details to provide a proper reply to this. Any of the content of the mentionned testimony and documents available online?

Part of me quite wants there to be some evidence of a super-civilisation, human or otherwise, that held sway across the earth millennia ago. It appeals to the sci-fi buff in me.

There are many indications, however no smoking gun.

How does freemasonry relate to, uh, various conspiratorial forces?

Let me give you a short introduction :

- Vedic Buddhism and Mesopotamian religion are the most ancient religions currently known to man. It is likely for both to have been in contact with one another. Of both religions, there was an esoteric and an exoteric version : one for the priest caste and one for the masses. The priest caste were the enlightened ones of those days, who had both a great deal of scientific and a great deal of spiritual knowlegde. The masses were just kept busy with some mumbo-jumbo or multiple Gods and whatever.
- Ancient Egyptian religion and the jewish Kaballa are derived from the Mesopotamian religion. Ancient Greek religion is derived from ancient Egyptian religion. Ancient Roman religion is derived from ancient Greek religion.
- Several hundreds of years after the fall of the West-Roman empire, during the crusades, the Templar Knights came accross some of the arcane knowledge that has been preserved in the Middle-East for thousands of years. The elite of the Templar Knights started to delve into this.
- As the Templar Knights got more and more powerful, the Church and Filip the Fair got envious and conspired against the Templar Knights. THey had the order banned, its members executed and their goods confiscated.
- Surviving Templar Knights went underground. They are likely to have had an emormous impact on the Rosicrusians and the trend of alchyimism at the time.
- Rosicrusians and alchymists infliltrated in free mason guilds. Eventually, these guilds would have nothing more in common with their orriginal purpose. This was the beginning of freemasonry.
- Ever since the destruction of the Templar Knights, these people with the arcane knowledge had the burning desire to destroy the power of the traditional order: arristocracy and church. The French revolution and the enlightenment are instigated by them for that very purpose.

This is where the origin for the New World Order lies.

for Jesus or for the Holocaust?

Guess :p

You never responded to my prod about the Himmler Posen speech. There's an audio recording of it somewhere online, IIRC.

The Posen speech is very controversial. Some claim it's fake, while others do a hell of a lot of effort to show that "Ausrotting" does not necessarilly refer to physical destruction. I personally haven't figured out what to think of it, but I do know that this is definitely not enough to draw my conclusions.

I hope this is not the best you're got.

When Goebbels says, 'Vor allem in der Judenfrage sind wir ja so festgelegt, dass es für uns gar kein Entrinnen mehr gibt' -in effect, No Turning Back, he is acknowledging that something irrevocable has happened. Were this simply a resettlement program it could always be reversed.

Could it? Imagine them just allowing all German jews to come back to Germany and to get away with any race laws. Do you really think that the jews would just forget about what happened and become outstanding citizens?

From the very moment the Nuremberg race laws were created, there was no more turning back.

[Globus]

The Posen speech is very controversial. Some claim it's fake, while others do a hell of a lot of effort to show that "Ausrotting" does not necessarilly refer to physical destruction. I personally haven't figured out what to think of it, but I do know that this is definitely not enough to draw my conclusions.

There is really nothing controversial about it. You really need to come to grips with calling things controversial just because a tiny band of deniers deny something.

The idea that Germans couldn't in 60 years point out that ausrottung doesn't mean what all historians say it means is ludicrous.

Here is the pertinent section in English.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/SS2.htm

I also want to talk to you, quite frankly, on a very grave matter. Among ourselves it should be mentioned quite frankly, and yet we will never speak of it publicly. Just as we did not hesitate on June 30th, 1934 to do the duty we were bidden, and stand comrades who had lapsed, up against the wall and shoot, them, so we have never spoken about it and will never [p. 65] speak of it. It was that tact which is a matter of course and which I am glad to say, is inherent in us, that made us never discuss it among ourselves, never to speak of it. It appalled everyone, and yet everyone was certain that he would do it the next time if such orders are issued and if it is necessary.

I mean the clearing out of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish race. It's one of those things it is easy to talk about-" The Jewish race is being exterminated", says one party member, "that's quite clear, it's in our program-elimination of the Jews, and we're doing it, exterminating them." And then they come, 80 million worthy Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. Of course the others are vermin, but this one is an A-l Jew. Not one of all those who talk this way has witnessed it, not one of them has been through it. Most of you must know what it means when 100 corpses are lying side by side, or 500 or 1000. To have stuck it out and at the same time-apart from exceptions caused by human weakness-to have remained decent fellows, that is what has made us hard. This is a page of glory in our history which has never been written and is never to be [p. 66] written, for we know how difficult we should have made it for ourselves, if-with the bombing raids, the burdens and the deprivations of war-we still had Jews today in every town as secret saboteurs, agitators and trouble-mongers. We would now probably have reached the1916/17 stage when the Jews were still in the German national body.

We have taken from them what wealth they had. I have issued a strict order, which SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl has carried out, that this wealth should, as a matter of course, be handed over to the Reich without reserve. We have taken none of it for ourselves. Individual men who have lapsed will be punished in accordance with an order I issued at the beginning, which gave this warning ; Whoever takes so much as a mark of it, is a dead man. A number of SS men-there are not very many of them-have fallen short, and they will die, without mercy. We had the moral right, we had the duty to our people, to destroy this people which wanted to destroy us. But we have not the right to enrich ourselves with so much as a fur, a watch, a mark, or a cigarette or anything else. Because we have exterminated a bacterium we do not want, in the end, to be infected by the bacterium and die of it. I will not see so much as a small area of sepsis appear here or gain a [p. 67] hold. Wherever it may form, we will cauterize it. Altogether however, we can say, that we have fulfilled this most difficult duty for the love of our people. And our spirit, our soul, our character has not suffered injury from it.

I hope this is not the best you're got.

Ah, the old denier canard about best evidence. It's usually used in conjunction with the idea of single proof!

[eggheadbanga]

Or vice versa :p

Auschwitz killed 'only' 1.1 million people according to the orthodox version. I've seen documentation about mass shootings that adds up to more than this number, and I've seen a volume of supporting documentation that is more extensive than the ZBL etc collections.

I must say that I'm far from an expert in this, however I'd say cremation experts should be able to provide fairly accurate data on this.

Cremation experts don't know shit about mass incineration of animal/human remains. They do however point out several phenomena relating to the cremation of human remains that are routinely ignored by Revisionists, namely the extremely high combustibility of fat and the high BTU of bones. In the case of bodies pulled from mass graves a la Treblinka et al, there is also the decomposition process to consider, which would properly be the speciality of forensic scientists/forensic anthropologists, and is testified to often enough.

Wha documents are there that show the Germans were doing such things?

The directives ordering that Jews in the occupied Soviet Union be fed the same rations as children are as follows:

Besondere Anordnungen Nr 44: grams/day
Bread Potatoes Meat Fat Calories
Workers 214 571 14 14 1200
Hvy Workers 285 714 28 21 -
Nonworker 214 286 0 10 850
Children and Jews 107 143 0 5 420

Wirtschaftsstab Ost, Besondere Anordnungen Nr. 44, 4.11.41, NA T77/1576/478-80

simultaneous order in:

Oberkommando des Heeres, Generalstab des Heeres, Generalquartiermeister, Abteilung Kriegsverwaltung, Ernährung der Zivilbevölkerung im Operationsgebiet, 4.11.41, gez. Wagner., NA T77/1196/571-6

and we also find the order issued by subordinate formations:

Nach den ‘BA Nr 44’ des WiStabes Ost ist es Aufgabe der Wirtschaftsstellen die Ernährung der Bevölkerung sicherzustellen, soweit es ohne Beeinträchtigung der deutschen Belange möglich ist. Eine Versorgung der Landbevölkerung ist nicht vorgesehen. Da die Bevölkerung vielfach noch über Vorräte verfügt, weil die vorhandenen Bestände nach dem Abzug der russischen Wehrmacht verteilt oder geplündert sind, sind die Rationen in der ersten Zeit möglichst niedrig zu halten.
Wochenhöchstsätze in Gramm
Falls keine nennenswerte Arbeit geleistet wird/ Für nützliche Arbeit / Für Schwerarbeit
Fleisch und Fleischwaren keine 100g 100g
Fett 70g 100g 100g
Brot 1500g 2000g 2500g
Kartoffeln 2000g 4000g 5000g
Kinder und Juden erhalten die Hälfte der 1. Staffel.
Kommandeur des rückwaertigen Heeresgebietes 559 Quartiermeister/ Abteilung IV Wi[rtschaft], Verpflegung der Zivilbevölkerung in den besetzten Gebieten, 17.11.41, NA T501/43/152-3

(also in:)
Panzergruppe 3 Oberquartiermeister, Anordnungen für die Versorgung Nr 29, 18.11.41, NA T313/237/8503148

There should be up to 26 copies at senior HQ level and potentially, a further 200 references in corps and division records. *Army* records!

I think this is one of those things that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I need more details to provide a proper reply to this. Any of the content of the mentionned testimony and documents available online?

I hope you've read the expert witness reports from the Irving trial:

http://www.hdot.org/ieindex.html

(frames, click on 'evidence')

Evidence For The Implementation Of The Final Solution
Professor Browning

Hitler's Role in the Persecution of the Jews by the Nazi Regime
Professor Longerich

The Systematic Character of the National Socialist Policy for the Extermination of the Jews
Professor Longerich

Browning and Longerich might have minorly different takes on the developments in 1941 to me, but in essence they argue the same point I did, namely that one can observe a staggered escalation through the summer of 1941. Pay attention to whether Browning and Longerich cite the Dienstkalendar of Heinrich Himmler, whose appointments diary survives for this period, and what witness statements they cite from individual Einsatzkommando leaders.

The Posen speech is very controversial. Some claim it's fake, while others do a hell of a lot of effort to show that "Ausrotting" does not necessarilly refer to physical destruction. I personally haven't figured out what to think of it, but I do know that this is definitely not enough to draw my conclusions. I hope this is not the best you're got.

I think the Posen speech is far more explicit than just another document mentioning 'Ausrottung' or 'Vernichtung'.

Could it? Imagine them just allowing all German jews to come back to Germany and to get away with any race laws. Do you really think that the jews would just forget about what happened and become outstanding citizens?

If the Jews had been alive, there would have been a potential for 'turning back', because even had they been deported to some temporary reservation, they could have resumed emigrating after the war, or resettled in Birobidzhian or some similar 'homeland' marked out for them by the Nazis, who would of course have trumpeted its existence as positive propaganda, much as they did with the Potemkin Village of Theresienstadt.

From the very moment the Nuremberg race laws were created, there was no more turning back.

That seems a little 'intentionalist'. No twisted road to Auschwitz then?:p

[cerberus]

Where is the smoke?
Sturmwaffen - how long do you want this smoke to be there for 24 hours , 12 hours , or 2 hours ?
Clearly the photo was taken either before or after the reported smoke .
For a moment or two I thought you were watching for a new pope to be elected.:p

[IlluSionS667]

Basically, the discussion has lead to the following conclusions :

If all of the documents you've referred to are genuine (which I will have to assume for now), then we can say that :
- Jews were treated with less care than non-jews in occupied Sovjet territory. From 1942 on they even didn't receive any more food packages, endangering the lives of about 1.2 million jews.
- The concentration camps were being evacuated in the end of 1944. Some parts of the camps were being dismantled, such as the crematoria and the supposed "gas chambers" within these facilities.

All of this is quite besides the issue, though, and I really don't have the time to continue a statement-by-statement argument nor do any further research for possible counter-arguments on the claims for which I currently have none. So let me please ask you focus on the main issues. Provide me an answer to the questions I posed you several days ago. Provide me a logical explanation for what appear to be inconsistenties with the official story and try to show me that there truely were gas chambers used to murder jews. You somehow keep avoiding the main issue, which makes me seriously question how much you believe in it yourself.

[eggheadbanga]

Basically, the discussion has lead to the following conclusions :

Since we've been discussing things on multiple threads, there is no 'basically' to it.

If all of the documents you've referred to are genuine (which I will have to assume for now),

Burden of proof of forgery is on you, yes.

then we can say that :
- Jews were treated with less care than non-jews in occupied Sovjet territory.

in addition to being shot, yes.

From 1942 on they even didn't receive any more food packages, endangering the lives of about 1.2 million jews.

in the Generalgouvernement, but they were gassed long before they all wilted from starvation.

- The concentration camps were being evacuated in the end of 1944. Some parts of the camps were being dismantled, such as the crematoria and the supposed "gas chambers" within these facilities.

true but it seems like you're sidestepping the many points I have made in this thread and others.

All of this is quite besides the issue, though, and I really don't have the time to continue a statement-by-statement argument nor do any further research for possible counter-arguments on the claims for which I currently have none. So let me please ask you focus on the main issues. Provide me an answer to the questions I posed you several days ago.

I find it nigh on impossible that you have missed the fact that I posted those yesterday, in a thread entitled 'Questions and Answers'.

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7976

Provide me a logical explanation for what appear to be inconsistenties with the official story

If the 'inconsistencies' were of the calibre of the swimming-pool gambit and the ICRC report mis-citation, then asked and answered. Otherwise?

I really do urge you to read Pressac's book and van Pelt's report. They summarise a great many details which have never been satisfactorily explained away by Revisionists.

and try to show me that there truely were gas chambers used to murder jews.

I don't have to. I can simply ask for a credible alternative explanation of what transpired to the 2.5 million deported Jews that were unregistered at the six death camps if they were not gassed at these camps.

Every transport that cannot be shown to have travelled past Auschwitz or Treblinka by Revisionist research, increases the plausibility of the eyewitnesses to the gas chambers, survivor or SS.

This is Occam's Razor at work: seek the simplest explanation.

And the simplest explanation is that the eyewitnesses are not lying, the incriminating documents mentioning 'Vergasungskeller' and cremation capacity are not forged, and that the scientific tests conducted repeatedly corroborate the other evidence.

Because otherwise, instead of accounting for, what? seven facilities at Auschwitz and five more in the other camps, you now have to account for the fate of about 2,000 trainloads of people, identify locations to which they were sent, arrive at conclusions as to how many survived until liberation and then explain their disappearence from sight after 1945.

Never mind all the evidence you have to wish away about the mass shootings...

You somehow keep avoiding the main issue, which makes me seriously question how much you believe in it yourself.

Since I answered 'the main issue', which was really a dozen smaller issues, yesterday, no avoidance.

Have you been introduced to the term convergence of evidence yet? Here is van Pelt citing Michael Shermer discussing it in kindergarten terms.

Holocaust deniers have, however, found ways to address this question by trying to deny that there is a convergence of evidence. Michael Shermer described the way they respond to the evidence.

We have an eyewitness account by a survivor who says he heard about gassing Jews while he was at Auschwitz. The revisionist says that survivors exaggerate and that their memories are unsound. Another survivor tells another story different in details but with the core similarity that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz. The revisionist claims that rumors were floating throughout the camps and many survivors incorporated them into their memories. An SS guard confesses after the war that he actually saw people being gassed and cremated. The revisionist claims that these confessions were forced out of the Nazis by the Allies. But now a Sonderkommando—a Jew who helped Nazis load dead bodies out of the gas chambers and into the crematoria—says he not only heard about it, and not only saw it happening, he actually participated in the process. The revisionist explains this away by saying that the Sonderkommando accounts make no sense—their figures of bodies are exaggerated and their dates are incorrect. What about the camp commandant, who confessed after the war that he not only heard, saw, and participated in the process, but that he orchestrated it!? He was tortured, says the revisionist. But what about his autobiography written after his trial, conviction and sentencing to death, when he had nothing to gain by lying? No one knows why people confess to ridiculous crimes, explains the revisionist, but they do.
No single testimony says “Holocaust” on it. But taking many together the story begins to unfold. And now the revisionist’s defense is beginning to unravel. Instead of the historian having to present “just one proof,” the revisionist must now disprove five pieces of historical data, with five different methods of disproof. But there is more. We have the blueprints for both the gas chambers and the crematoria—huge structures built for processing large numbers of bodies. Those were used strictly for delousing, claims the revisionist, and thanks to the Allies’ war against Germany, the Germans were never given the opportunity to deport the Jews to their own homeland, and instead had to put them into overcrowded camps where disease and lice were rampant. What about the huge orders of Zyklon-B gas? It was strictly used for delousing all those diseased inmates. What about those speeches by Hitler, Himmler, Frank, and Goebbels talking about the “extermination” of the Jews? Oh, they really meant “rooting out,” as in deporting them out of the Reich. What about Eichmann’s confession at his trial? He was coerced. Hasn’t the German government confessed that the Nazis attempted to exterminate European Jewry? Yes, but they lied so they could rejoin the family of nations.
Now the revisionist must rationalize no less than 14 different bits of evidence that “jump together” to a specific conclusion. But our convergence continues. If six million Jews did not die, where did they go? They are in Russia, and America, and Israel, and scattered throughout the world. But why can’t they find each other? They do—haven’t you heard the occasional stories of long lost siblings making contact with each other after many decades?
What about those photos and newsreels of the liberation of the camps with all those dead bodies and starving/dying inmates? Those people were well taken care of until the end of the war when the Allies were mercilessly bombing German cities, factories, and supply lines that were feeding those camps—the Nazis tried valiantly to save their prisoners but the combined strength of the Allies was too much. But what about all those accounts by prisoners of the brutality of the Nazis—the random shootings and beatings, the deplorable conditions, the freezing temperatures, the overwork, etc.? This is war. The Americans put Japanese in camps. The Japanese imprisoned Chinese. The Russians tortured Poles and Germans. War is hell. The Nazis are no different from anyone else.
Post Hoc Rationalization.
We are now up to 18 proofs all converging toward one conclusion. The revisionist is desperately swinging away at them all, steadfastly determined not to give up his belief system. He is relying on what might be called post hoc rationalization—an after-the-fact reasoning to justify contrary evidence. In addition, the revisionist then shifts the burden of disproving all this evidence to the historian by mistakenly demanding that each one of these pieces of evidence independently prove the Holocaust.

And here's an even more extensive instance of the same principle in action, from a debate about Auschwitz which I strongly urge you to read through in its entirety:

CONCLUSION

We of the Veritas team anticipate, further to our past experience debating Revisionists, that the response of the Negationist team to this opening statement will be to ignore the bulk of our argument, instead zeroing in on two or three items of evidence that we have cited and highlighting the problems with those items in the belief that our entire case will be seen as discredited if they are able to cast doubt on their reliability with hypothetical possibilities or alternatives. If this is the case, it will only demonstrate how woefully they misunderstand our argument, and, indeed, the whole manner in which the study of history is conducted.

The Negationists may well say that Hoess was tortured or coerced into writing his memoir (1). We doubt they will support it, but they may well say it. Regardless, can they say the same about Broad (2), Dejaco (3), Baer (4), and the other 65 SS witnesses to gas chambers at Auschwitz (5-69)? All 69 of these individuals coerced to provide the same false testimony, yet no evidence available of such a systematic effort of coercion and not a single coerced witness ever claiming coercion or changing his story.

Even if one were credulous enough to believe this possibility without proof, are we to also assume that Tauber (70) was lying? Perhaps, he might have made up stories to condemn his hated captors, but shall we then assume that the very same of Vrba (71), Wetzler (72), Mordowicz (73), and Rosin (74), believing as well that these lies just happen to corroborate with the buried accounts of Herman (75), Gradowski (76) and Lewenthal (77), not to mention the depositions of Jankowski (78) and Dragon (79), Lettich (80) and Bendel (81), Buki (82), Filip and Dov Paisikovic (83,84), Müller (85), Avram Dragon (86), Szyja Rosenblum (87) and Dr. Miklos Nyiszli (88), as well as the Polish mechanic Michael Kula (89) among others? All of them telling the same untruth, corroborating all of the same particulars, yet with no evidence of co-ordination or conspiracy?

Let’s say this is still plausible. We have Bischoff’s memo (90). Perhaps, as Revisionists sometimes argue, “Vergasungskeller” means something totally different and innocuous. Is it mere coincidence, then, that this term was used in reference to the very room where all of the above witnesses - unaware of this document - concur that gassings took place? Maybe there is another, innocuous explanation for the gas tight door with the peep hole (91) or the induction shafts ordered in the manifests and seen in aerial photos and ground photos (92), than those which the witnesses mention. Regardless, it is clear that the witness statements pass when tested in comparison to the “scientific-technical” data on hand. Maybe there is a reasonable explanation for the excessive cremation capacity relative to other camps (93), and the various aerial and ground photos of massive cremations (94) might simply be recording isolated instances of high mortality that only happen to coincide with the periods when both victim and perpetrator witnessess concur that the killing was at its height. Maybe the traces of Zyklon B in incriminating places consistent with witness testimony (95) is due only to fumigation that, coincidentally and for some unknown reason, was performed in the rooms identified by witnesses as gas chambers more frequently than in others. It could all be just a great big misunderstanding, in which case something else - we don't know what - happened to the people who are documented as having been delivered to Auschwitz and not registered (96) and there must be some other, unknown, undocumented explanation for the decimation of Europe's Jewish population (97). Surely, the bloodthirsty declarations of Himmler (98), Hitler (99), Goebbels (100) and Hans Frank (101) towards the Jews - citing them as an evil principle that must be and were being destroyed - were all just talk, and shed no light whatsoever on the plausibility of all that has just been described.

101 items of evidence, and this is only a sample of what has been presented even in this post, let alone of what’s out there. And in order for the Negationist position to stand, all must be lies, all coerced, all coincidence, each and every one subject to a different alternative interpretation.

The principle of Occam's Razor can be summarized as follows: the simplest explanation (that is, the one that requires the fewest additional assumptions) that takes all of the evidence into account must be taken as correct.

This accurately describes our explanation for the above evidence. All of the above evidence is explained by the theory that gas chambers were used for the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Jews at Auschwitz. No unsupported assumptions are required to maintain this theory, and no other theory has yet been proposed that takes all of the evidence into account.

On the other hand, the revisionist alternative - in light of only the sample of evidence we have presented - requires at least 101 additional rationalizations. 69 SS perpetrators, each successfully coerced into falsely confessing to the same story without ever recanting, 18 victim accounts all fabricated to coincide without any evidence of conspiracy, multiple items of documentary and physical evidence each of which must have some other possible explanation and just happen randomly to coincide with the witnesses’ stories. And in the end, this alternative still leaves unanswered the basic questions with which we are confronted: How can we best determine what happened at Auschwitz? What happened to Europe’s Jews, particularly those documented as having been delivered to Auschwitz who were never registered and who never returned?

The Veritas team submits that when all of the evidence cited above is taken into account, the existence and use of gas chambers for the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people stands proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

(from VT opening statement)
http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm23

[Globus]

Basically, the discussion has lead to the following conclusions :

If all of the documents you've referred to are genuine (which I will have to assume for now), then we can say that :
- Jews were treated with less care than non-jews in occupied Sovjet territory.

Jews were purposely treated with less care, because they were Jews, and their demise from such treatment was fully in accord with a two track Nazi strategy: kill those unable to work productively, and create working conditions that would likely result in the death from starvation and disease of a large number of the rest, relying on a gunshot, or the gas chamber, for any who managed to survive.

From 1942 on they even didn't receive any more food packages, endangering the lives of about 1.2 million jews.

The lack of food packages did not endanger their lives, the deliberate acts of Nazi Germany threatened their lives.

- The concentration camps were being evacuated in the end of 1944. Some parts of the camps were being dismantled, such as the crematoria and the supposed "gas chambers" within these facilities.

In other words, those elements of the camps associated with mass murder were destroyed in order to coverup the policy.

All of this is quite besides the issue, though,

In fact all of this bears directly on comments you have made in your attempts to swing wildly at any evidence presented which does not fit your desire to disbelieve.

and I really don't have the time to continue a statement-by-statement argument nor do any further research for possible counter-arguments on the claims for which I currently have none.

And yet without much knowledge on the subject (I'm being charitable) you offer up one excuse after another for ignoring evidence. Strange that is.

Provide me a logical explanation for what appear to be inconsistenties with the official story and try to show me that there truely were gas chambers used to murder jews.

Let's begin with Auschwitz. The evidence starts with the admissions of the perpetrators.

The first Auschwitz trials were held in Poland in 1947, in the cities of Warsaw and Krakow, and involved 40 members of the Auschwitz SS. Hoess and 23 others received death sentences, 6 were sentenced to life, and all but one of the rest received sentences ranging from 3 to 15 years in prison.

Subsequently, over 600 Auschwitz SS were tried in district courts in Krakow,Wadowice, Raciborz, Cieszyn, Sosnowiec, Gliwice, Bytom, and Katowice. 590 were convicted and sentenced, including 8 death sentences and 3 life sentences.

And then in the early 1960's in Frankfurt an additional 22 defendents were tried for their crimes at Auschwitz. What follows is an incomplete list of those Germans who admitted that Jews were gassed in the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

Baretzki

Lucas

Kaduk

Stark

Hoffman

Broad

Klehr

Morgan

Kremer

Mulka

Bock

Glaser

Hoess

Hege

Siebald

Wildermuth

Wilks

Wilhelmy

Hocke

Munch Prufer

Sander

Schultze

Stark

Hoeblinger

In addition we have the testimony of Sonderkommandos who were intimately acquainted with the process of gassing and cremation, men such as Tauber, Dragon, Jankowski, Mueller, Nyszli, Olere, and as many as a dozen others.

The testimonial evidence alone is very powerful evidence, coming as it does from those who were the perpetrators and those who were forced to participate in some way. In particular, the testimonies of Commandant Hoess and Dr. Johann Kremer are very strong. Hoess testified as a defense witness for Kaltenbrunner at Nuremberg, at his own trial in Poland and then wrote a memoir which contains two long chapters on the evolution of the gassing program at A/B over the years, an evolution supported by the Auschwitz construction office documents. Kremer's evidence is both documentary and testimonial. His contemporaneous diary, captured after the war, provides many instances of individual gassing actions and this written evidence was corroborated and elaborated on in his post war testimony.

As for the physical structures themselves, documents from the construction office of the camp detail the gas proofing of rooms supposed to be morgues. Memoranda exist requesting the construction of gas tight doors and windows, and these are then listed as part of the inventory documents for the Kremas. A letter exists requesting the acquisition of "cyanide gas detectors" for these rooms. The inventory for Krema II lists wire mesh insertion devices, the means by which the Zyklon B was introduced into Kremas II and III as testified by numerous witnesses. Michael Kula, a Pole who worked in the metal workshop and who constructed these devices gave a precise description of their structure in post war testimony. They are also visible on wartime Nazis photos and Allied aerial photographs. Written correspondence exists identifying rooms as gassing cellars (vergasungskellar) and gas chambers (gaskammer). And post war forensic tests in 1945 and again in the 1990's confirm the presence of HCN gas traces in these same rooms equipped with gas tight doors and windows, the same rooms in which many witnesses tell us the gassings took place, the same rooms which were part of buildings specifically constructed with an incineration capacity sufficient to incinerate the projected maximum camp population of 150,000 in just over one month, all located in a camp to which 1.1 million people were shipped and were then never accounted for.

Now you can start swinging away!