Understanding 911 - Does The Holocaust Matter?

[Alulim]

My experience with Irving's writing is that he tends to draw from tangible, verifiable original sources in a way very few other authors in the field do. I have yet to find anybody who directly refutes the salient points which I find to be significant in his work. When I have presented the material to others, all efforts to deny the validity of his assertions have been ad hominem attacks on Irving, and have never directly addressed the material in question.

[Dogsmilk]

Freedom of speech as long as Dogsmilk agrees with it

I haven't bothered to grind through your entire piece, in detail, but this paragraph stands out:

He also says Chomsky "has a point" on the freedom of speech issue. Not quite the tearful hand wringing over a complete nob like Zundel you might want, but there you go.

So 'nobs' don't deserve a fair trial, but others are allowed to say what they like about the never-shrinking 6,000,000 even thought it has been proved, by the massive downward adjustment of the Jewish death toll at Auswitch alone, that the figure is not accurate.

That kind of quote says it all: you are concerned about free speech, as long as you agree with the person speaking.

Don't be ridiculous. The whole point of freedom of speech - and this is what Chomsky says - is that you support the right for free speech of those you despise. I regard Zundel as being a complete tw&t but nevertheless do not think he should be imprisoned. I do, however, reserve the right to sneer at him.
Ever shrinking Auschwitz death toll my arse. Show me the academic (Western) historical works that stated four million died at Auschwitz and show me how they subsequently fudged their figures. Your denier pals should have demonstrated this or else you'd have to be seriously gullible to accept this argument on the basis of some museum plaque.

The whole point of Irving's lies is quite clearly explained - he quite demonstrably ignores, omits or twists information he is aware of consistently in one direction. I don't think anyone realistically thinks Evans found every instance of..."errors" in 30 books in the time he had. More than that, as he points out, Irving routinely dismisses survivor testimony but is more than happy to uncritically accept the postwar recollections of Hitler's entourage which is totally inconsistent..in a way that also supports his claims. For God's sake - all this evidence-free stuff about Goebbels making stuff up in his diary that implicates Hitler just because Irving doesn't want to see it - it's pathetic. Evans' telling lies about Hitler gives a nice succinct account of these issues if you're interested.. As far as I'm concerned, if you can look at the example I posted earlier on this forum and call it a simple error, I'd say that's just wishful thinking.
I wouldn't unequivocally say no lies have been told about the Holocaust (and there are certainly plenty of errors or disputed assertions. Naturally.) - given the volume of stuff there is, how could I be sure? But from where I'm sitting, the stinky brown river seems to flow strongly downhill from camp denial.
Alulim - Curiously, one of the criticisms made is that his sourcing is often opaque - e.g. lacking page references. If you present material people lack the means to directly check, you might find you get unsatisfactory answers. And actually, I don't think anyone is saying his work is totally useless - just it shouldn't be taken seriously. If you want to trust such obviously shoddy work, that's your business.

If Rodin wants to bang on about his Stalin fantasy yet again, again citing his obviously tongue in cheek newspaper 'revelation', I say go for it. Has it occurred to you Stalin's mum 'could' have met (and shagged) a lot of people around at that time?
Yet again, the Holocaust didn't happen, but it doesn't matter how tenuous your 'Jews everywhere' assertions are, they're still apparently fact.

I want to know about these Nazi lies about German women. Show me or draw me a woman raped by the Soviets. The fact you ignore this malevolent Germanic lie just shows me how deep your anti-Soviet brainwashing goes.

[brian]

The logic of the Dogsmilk's -

"It is not necessary to ask how technically such mass murder was possible. It was technically possible, seeing that it took place. That is the required point of departure of every historical inquiry on this subject. This truth it behooves us to remember in simple terms: there is not and there cannot be a debate about the existence of the gas chambers."


So no matter if such a crime was technically impossible, impossible is by decree possible.

Forget the abject absence of evidence for gas chambers.

Forget the impossibility of disposing of so many bodies with limited fuel, concentrate on the euphemisms.

Then apply the same reasoning to Sept 11 and easy peasy - such structures can easily defy the laws of physics.

"Great masters of lies" is somewhat misleading. The lies are weak, it's the enormity of them that gives them strength.

[Anthony Lawson]

Alulim:
I agree. Each time there has been an outburst about Irving, I have tried to find out why he is so vilified. Recently, I read “Hitler’s War” and I could find nothing to suggest that he was doing anything other than recounting history, as he interprets it. Was the following written by an admirer of Hitler; an apologist for Hitler’s animosity towards the Jews?

Hitler’s War – P. 422

The spirit inspiring Hitler in his war against the European Jews is clear from the entry in Hewel’s diary on July 10:
He says, ‘I feel like the Robert Koch of politics. . . It is I who have discovered the Jews as the bacillus and ferment that causes all decay in society. What I have proved is this – that nations can survive without Jews… and in fact better. That is the cruellest blow I have dealt the Jews.’
He reverted to this surgical imagery a few days later, explaining to the Croatian defence minister: ‘If just one country tolerates one Jewish family in its midst, then this will become the seat of a fresh bacillus infection. Once there are no more Jews in Europe the unity of the European nations can no longer be disrupted. It is unimportant where the Jews are sent – whether to Siberia or to Madagascar.’ He planned, he said, to confront each country with this demand.

Is reporting boasting and bragging a sign of admiration?

Hitler’s War – P. 420

Hitler was overheard to remark: ‘I entered this war a nationalist, but I shall come out of it an imperialist.’ Once, he had been heard to brag: ‘Mr. Chamberlain likes to take weekends in the country; I shall take countries in the weekend!’

Is having the following opinion of how far Hitler was prepared to go, with violent and cruel acts a sign of admiration?

Hitler’s War – P. 747

There was no act of violence that Hitler was not prepared to commit to keep Hungary – his only remaining petroleum supplier – within his domain, his ‘minimum economic region.’

What about this?

Hitler’s War – P. 790

Goebbels proposed that Germany abandon the Geneva Convention and execute one Allied prisoner henceforth for every German civilian killed in air raids. Hitler liked the idea. ‘This constant snivelling about humanity will cost us the war,’ he complained.

Hitler’s War – P. 798

One day early in April 1945 Bormann read to Hitler an Allied newspaper report about German troops having saved an American bomber crew about to be lynched by angry townsfolk after a raid. Hitler was furious and looked around at General Koller, standing to the left of his chair. ‘These are the men who are murdering German women and children! It’s incredible!’ He turned to Kaltenbrunner: ‘I order that all bomber crews shot down these last few months or in the future are to be turned over to the SD at once and liquidated.’

Could this be David Irving’s “hero” as some would have it, being portrayed, by him, as someone who would have no compunction in killing prisoners of war? To me, these are not the kinds of episodes or remarks which indicate admiration for Hitler; they appear to reveal his character, as many others have portrayed it.

It is impossible to guess which passages, in such a book, are so objectionable to those who do not doubt that the holocaust happened exactly the way that they have been taught that it happened, but the following section would be a good candidate, I should think:

Hitler’s War – P. 449

Whatever Hitler himself had understood by judenfrei, the endemic Russian Jews had few champions among his subordinates. There was almost no German army opposition to their summary liquidation – even Manstein regarded it as a salutary preventive measure, wiping out the reservoirs of possible partisans before they became active. Reichenau justified it as part of the German mission to rid Europe permanently of the ‘Asiatic Jewish danger.’ In a message to his troops he proclaimed:

In the east each soldier is not only a warrior abiding by the usual rules of war, but also the uncompromising bearer of a pure German ideal and the avenger of the bestialities committed against Germans and related races.
This is why the soldier must understand why we have to exact a harsh but just retribution from the Jewish sub-humans. This serves the added purpose of stifling at birth uprisings in the rear of the Wehrmacht, since experience shows that these are always conceived by Jews. . .

Hitler considered the proclamation ‘excellent,’ and Quartermaster General Eduard Wagner circulated it to other commands as an example. No direct report by Himmler or Heydrich to Hitler on the barbarous massacres of Russian Jews that they themselves had witnessed has ever come to light. At supper on October 5, for example, Himmler, who had just returned from an extended tour of the Ukraine during which he had visited Kiev, Nikolaiev, and Cherson, related to Hitler his impressions of Kiev. Werner Koeppen, who was a guest at Hitler’s table that evening, recorded Himmler’s comments: ‘In Kiev . . . the number of inhabitants is still very great. The people look poor and proletarian, so that we could “easily dispense with 80 or 90 percent of them!”’ ‘All the Jews are to be removed,’ Hitler stated over lunch on the fifth, referring to those still within the Reich. ‘And not just to the Generalgouvernement [Poland] but right on to the east. It is only our pressing need for war transport that stops us doing so right now.’ (Koeppen took the note.)
Himmler drew freely on this higher authority for his operations. To Friedrich Uebelhör, the unhappy governor of the city of Lodz where the sixty thousand Jews from the Reich were being dumped, Himmler wrote brusquely on the tenth that this was ‘the Führer’s will.’ Hitler’s surviving adjutants, secretaries, and staff stenographers have all testified, both under penetrating post-war interrogation and in interviews with this author, that never once was any extermination of either the Russian or European Jews mentioned – even confidentially – at his headquarters. Colonel Rudolf Schmundt appears to have suspected what was going on; for when Hitler’s movie cameraman Walter Frentz accompanied Himmler to Minsk on an outing with stage designer Benno von Arent, he found himself the horrified witness of a mass open-air execution on August 17; Schmundt counselled him to destroy the one colour photograph he took, and ‘not to poke his nose into matters that did not concern him.’ bold emphasis added

You just can’t get away with making a statement like the one in bold, above, and not be called a dirty, rotten holocaust denier, because everyone should know that the Final Solution meant the physical extermination of the Jews, and that it was Hitler’s idea; the embarrassing fact that extermination gas chambers do not appear to have existed, notwithstanding.

[Dogsmilk]

I shall reply to these last two posts either later or tomorrow, time permitting.

However, what is rather exasperating about this thread is that it seems people are just opting to totally ignore what I post and just chucking more stuff out.

For example, Anthony you just throw out some ridiculous, baseless argument based on some museum plaque and just totally ignore my request for you to back it up. You also just totally ignore the example of Irving stating a clear falsehood of a highly significant nature (that British intelligence invented the Holocaust as a psyop) I posted earlier and just avoid saying whether or not you agree he is quite obviously lying about it. Instead, it's straight on to something else without batting an eyelid.
Brian just totally ignores my entire previous reply to him and chucks out some statement from years ago (which he doesn't even bother to reference), baselessly asserting I agree with it ("the logic of the Dogsmilks"), totally omitting that he knows full well the possibility of mass murder in the manner stated has been extensively explored in subsequent years (even if he disagrees with its conclusions).
e.g.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -disposal/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -mattogno/
Alulim claims hard evidence is being "manufactured". On what basis? No, he can't be bothered with such trifles as backing that up.

Is there actually any point whatsoever in me giving any replies if what I say is simply ignored?

[Anthony Lawson]

As requested

Ever shrinking Auschwitz death toll my arse. Show me the academic (Western) historical works that stated four million died at Auschwitz and show me how they subsequently fudged their figures. Your denier pals should have demonstrated this or else you'd have to be seriously gullible to accept this argument on the basis of some museum plaque.

Archive/File: pub/camps/auschwitz/press/death-toll-estimate-reduced Last-Modified: 1996/01/01
Source: The Washington Times, Tuesday, July 17, 1990
Poland reduced Auschwitz death toll estimate to 1 million
By Krysztof Leski and Ohad Gozani London Daily Telegraph

LONDON - Poland has cut its estimate of the number of people killed by the Nazis in the Auschwitz death camp from 4 million to just over 1 million.
The vast majority of the dead are now accepted to have been Jews, despite claims by the former Polish communist government that as many Poles perished in Hitler's largest concentration camp.

The revised Polish figures support claims by Israeli researchers that Poland's former communist government exaggerated the number of victims by inflating the estimate of non-Jews who died.
The new study could rekindle the controversy over the scale of Hitler's "Final Solution."

Shevach Weiss, a death camp survivor and Labor Party member of the Israeli Parliament, expressed disbelief at the revised estimates, saying: "It sounds shocking and strange."

But other Israeli experts said evidence to support the lower estimate has been mounting for some time.

Auschwitz, 30 miles southwest of Krakow, was established in 1940 as a camp for political prisoners. It was later expanded with a huge extermination complex at Birkenau, which included gas chambers and ovens.

Franciszek Piper, director of the historical committee of the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum, said yesterday that, according to recent research, at least 1.3 million people were deported to the camp, of whom about 223,000 survived.

The 1.1 million victims included 960,000 Jews, between 70,000 and 75,000 Poles, nearly all of the 23,000 gypsies sent to the camp and 15,000 Soviet prisoners of war. Mr. Piper stressed that the figures are minimum estimates but said the total number of dead was unlikely to exceed 1.5 million.

Shmeul Krakowsky, head of research at Israel's Yad Vashem memorial for Jewish victims of the Holocaust, said the new Polish figures were correct.

"The 4 million figure was let slip by Capt. Rudolf Hoess, the death camp's Nazi commander. Some have bought it, but it was exaggerated."

Mr. Krakowsky accused Poland's former communist government of perpetuating the false figure in an attempt to minimize the Holocaust and support claims that Auschwitz was not exclusively a Jewish death camp. He said that at most 300,000 non-Jews perished there.

The latest Polish research is based on studies of prisoners' personal numbers, transport documents and data about Jewish ghettos.

Plaques commemorating the deaths of 4 million victims were removed from the Auschwitz museum earlier this month. But the Polish authorities said accurate estimates of the number killed could only be made by studying German documents seized by the Soviet Union. But Moscow has refused to return the archives.

According to Mr. Krakowsky, 5,860,000 Jews perished in the Holocaust, mostly in Auschwitz and five other Polish death camps. There were extermination camps in other occupied countries, including Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aus ... te-reduced

This is not the only link which carries the same or similar information. So what about your crude, anatomically dismissive statement now? Are you going to write: "Gosh, I didn't know that," or will you try to wriggle your way out of your obvious ignorance, by implying that this is not what you meant by "academic (Western) historical works" because it comes out of newspaper archives?

[Alulim]

Alulim:
I agree. Each time there has been an outburst about Irving, I have tried to find out why he is so vilified. Recently, I read “Hitler’s War” and I could find nothing to suggest that he was doing anything other than recounting history, as he interprets it. Was the following written by an admirer of Hitler; an apologist for Hitler’s animosity towards the Jews?

Perhaps this?

Hitler’s War – P. xxv

"I didn't, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from October 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany." [in a letter from Dr. Heinrich Brüning (who preceded Hitler as chancellor), to Winston Churchill]

Or what is shown in the image found on page 9?

[Dogsmilk]

Anthony -

I'm going to write that you haven't answered my question -

Show me the academic (Western) historical works that stated four million died at Auschwitz and show me how they subsequently fudged their figures

Instead you post a newspaper article relating to what the Polish government said. I already knew that - the four million figure was actually arrived at by the Soviets using a deeply flawed methodology. The Polish government endorsed the figure, but this was not (with I believe one or two exceptions) ever endorsed by Western historians (and many in the East - I don't know the full story there but e.g. Dr Piper was one of those pushing for the plaque to be changed). Hence, they did not need to downscale a death toll they never believed anyway.
For example, in the 1961 edition of the destruction of the European Jews, Raul Hilberg puts the death toll for all the death camps combined at 3 million (just over a million at Auschwitz IIRC) - so what 'downscaling' did he need to do?
I'm not interested in newspapers, I'm interested in you showing me how historians changed en masse the figures they came to in their published works. If your deniers have omitted such an obvious analysis, you might wish to ask yourself why.
The whole point of the argument is that the Auschwitz death toll was universally held to be four million and this was abandoned - if historians did not think it was four million in the first place, the argument is irrelevant, irrespective of what the Polish government may choose to say.

You also conveniently choose not to focus on this paragraph

Mr. Krakowsky accused Poland's former communist government of
perpetuating the false figure in an attempt to minimize the
Holocaust and support claims that Auschwitz was not
exclusively a Jewish death camp. He said that at most 300,000
non-Jews perished there.

I'm not sure about that - but then I don't get my history from newspapers

Now...was Irving blatantly lying about the rather significant matter of British intelligence inventing the Holocaust or was he not?

[simplesimon]

Dogsmilk wrote:

Look sparky... for f*cks sake...pretty f*cking obvious...For God's sake...study the f*cking subject...What the f*ck...
For God's sake...Jesus... For crying out loud...

Climate of fear Dogsmilk?

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... e06857cd4f

BTW you do seem to be ignoring me in that thread, having said that you were not.

Look sparky, you go rewriting German all you like and totally ignore the resulting incoherence if it makes you happy. I mean, for f*cks sake,

Quote:
It is plainly, manifestly deceptive. Yes I did miss that statement, focussing as I was on the blatant lies no-one can fail to notice. Since you mention it though, 5 1/2 minutes of 3 hours? 3.1% ? Mmmm....

So you have trouble following what they're saying and it's some kind of "deception"? I wasn't deceived and neither was Bushwacker because it's pretty f*cking obvious what they mean.

To me "uproot" with "evacuate" is more coherent than "exterminate" with "evacuate", but maybe that's just me.

I wasn't deceived, I noticed the attempt to deceive. I was pointing out that they say one thing in the title: "The Complete Text of the Poznan Speech" and backtrack in the first sentence. I didn't have any trouble spotting that, nor that they say "What you are hearing" when you're reading.

It's a bit like getting a junk mail through the post embazoned with "You have won £100,000!" and then opening it to see that you haven't. It's a lie.

Do you really, really think you (and HHP) want three hours of Himmler speaking with the interesting five minutes stuck somewhere in the middle????

I don't like being lied to so blatantly. It makes me suspicious. And given your stated views on the importance of rigorous academic scholarship, I find it surprising that you brush this aside so lightly. They call themselves the "Holocaust History Project" after all. If a revisionist did the same thing I expect you'd be all over it and questioning their credibility. And if one accepts the speech as genuine (which I don't, because I have no way of knowing), it would surely be useful to be able to read the whole speech. That the supposed "interesting five minutes" are only 3.1% of the supposed speech raises obvious questions to the curious reader. Further, why don't they give us an mp3 of the whole speech? Or the complete text if they're short of money for hosting? (lol).

BTW I haven't watched the movie yet as I don't have Quicktime installed at present, but it will be interesting to see what visuals they lay it over.

For God's sake, they even tell you how you can get a copy of the whole thing if you're that bothered.

I imagine I could get a copy of the complete document supposedly implicating George Galloway that the Telegraph conveniently found in Baghdad if I tried hard enough. I do have a complete copy of the "Dodgy Dossier". I imagine I could see with my own eyes the actual copy of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion deposited in the British Museum in 1906. Would that impress you? I think not. Proves exactly nothing. Same for audio recordings.

There is nothing deceptive whatsoever. You have simply ignored everything else but the fact you can't get your head round the concept of there being a five minute excerpt from a three hour speech and deciding it's some kind of deception. What blatant lies?

The title of the page is a blatant lie, as the first sentence confirms. Saying "What you are hearing", when you are reading, is a blatant lie. Saying it has not been edited is an assertion, just as Irving asserts that the text is doctored.

So, I can only assume that the answer to my question is "none at all".
Assume away. you'd be wrong, except I don't really think in terms of "conspiracies" more in terms of things that don't stack up for me.

That looks a little defensive, as though you have realised the implications of the questions I have asked you. But if you prefer, please tell us what official truths "don't stack up" for you, (other than 911) starting with the one that least "stacks up", and please provide links to your relevant posts. I know you're "lazy", but it wouldn't take more than 2-3 minutes.

Well with all these "euphemisms" and so much "coded speech", there would seem to be plenty of room for different interpretation. "Sending them to the East" apparently doesn't obviously mean send them to the er, East. Who holds the key to this mysterious code?

Splash out, buy some key texts, and study the f*cking subject.

One person's "key text" is another's "bullsh*t propaganda" as you well know. I've been studying it for a while now, and the more I do, the less it "stacks up". To paraphrase one of your own posts, perhaps you just need official truth to be sacrosanct to make your belief system work.

Quote:
From "Hoax or Holocaust", Jurgen Graf:
There are no original texts of the speeches. Himmler is allegedly supposed to have
had the text of these (and other) speeches written down later with a typewriter -- for
whom? For posterity? To ensure that posterity would finally possess unequivocal
proof of a Holocaust? As noted by the British historian David Irving, the critical
passages, i.e., the passages which "prove the Holocaust", were inserted later, as may
be seen from the different indentations on the pages concerned (25).

See - there we go - this is exactly why HHP are keen to point out the recording has not been edited.

Or, why Jurgen Graf is so keen to point out that the critical passages were inserted later.

On one hand you're saying the speech is perfectly innocent, on the other it's a fake. Typical denier logic.

As you have done so many times, you misrepresent what I said. I never said I accepted it as genuine, let alone innocent. I simply showed that Graf says that Irving says the critical passages were inserted later. Typical holocaustian tactics.

On one hand there's no evidence for the Holocaust, on the other incredulousness that such evidence exists - despite the fact it's - er - totally innocent. Typical denier logic.

On the one hand there's precious little evidence (other than frequently manifestly false witness statements, confessions extracted under torture and duress, victor's official history, and "re-constructed" "gas chambers"), on the other complete credulousness when it comes to "official truth". Typical holocaustian dogmatism.

Just chucking out assertions with no concern whatsoever as to whether they're consistent with one another

I did no such thing.

because truth is simply not your concern.

It most certainly is

You're learning this Holocaust denial malarky fast, I'll give you that.

You've had lifelong exposure to this holocaustian malarky, I'll give you that. Same as me. Same as all of us.

Actually that was a perfectly genuine compliment.

It would be churlish not to take that at face value, so er, thanks. But it'd be much easier if you show how nice you are by being less rude, patronising, sarcastic, misrepresenting, ad-hom'ing etc.

I've always kinda liked Rodin, despite his messed up views, because he constructed his own arguments based on 'evidence' and I think that's actually debating rather than just posting something and saying "read that" and pretending you're making a case.

Messed up views. lmfao. Not "politically correct" maybe, but the better for that in my view. It's ridiculous to criticise people for posting others work, particularly when you do so frequently yourself. They may agree with it, not agree, or be saying "look, here's something I found convincing or interesting or relevant".

But "part of your strategy" What the f*ck is that supposed to mean?

I'll hold on that for now, at least until I've read more of your posts, and learned what "doesn't stack up" for you.

Can you actually have a conversation without trying to read something into everything anyone says???

Generally yes, of course. Depends who they are, whether I trust them, and my experience of dealing with them.

No wonder you can't follow HHP's website -you're probably too busy trying to deduce the malign subtext 'they' put there just for you.

I can follow it fine thanks, I just don't take it as gospel.


snip hand wringing and wailing.

You know why I asked you why you keep saying Chutzpah.

I can take a guess.
Didn't work though.
I will continue to use whatever words I choose, those I think appropriate. However, if you are able to tell me of any other word, in any language, which conveys the same idea, I'll think about using that as well.

I haven't read the ICRC report so don't know much about it. I realise you find them 'suspicious' on the grounds they're international - you presumably would prefer the Nationalist Isolationist Red Cross

I think it's a shame that any such organisation is needed, and that the wars which justified it's formation were fomented by "internationalists", "globalists", "international bankers" et al and etcetera.

To frame opposition to internationalism as isolationism is pure tosh.

- if it's happening abroad, that's their problem!

I have at least as much compassion for my fellow human beings as you, and your attempt to suggest otherwise is feeble. However, "international aid" is merely aid for internationalism, and "international development" is merely development of internationalism. Problems abroad are frequently caused to justify our intervention. "International" aid is never to help the victims, and frequently is to their direct detriment. It is always given in the interests of the elites who decide to give it. It serves mainly to enslave the recipient in debt, create dependency, destroy traditional non monetary cultures, make bankers even richer, prop up the dictators who are their local enforcers, guarantee contracts for donor country or international corporations, provide globalist "consultancy", propagandise for globalism, etc.

If there is any left, they spend it on making pop videos about how great water privatisation is.

If you don't agree with the above, try this: How naive do you have to be to believe that our government could care less about the welfare of ordinary Africans, for example, when they hold us in such contempt?

On the ICRC report:

You originally said the same thing... - Yet the article in question says... -Which is simply not saying what you're saying it does.

I said that I had read that: the report does not mention gas chambers.
I said that I searched <red cross no mention gas chambers> and first hit was the 100% affirmer: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/l/ ... py?people/ l/lipstadt.deborah//citations/red-cross.report
I said that the page there shifts the issue to whether the report denied the existence of gas chambers.
I said that I was left with the impression that the Red Cross report makes no mention of gas chambers.
I said that this (if correct) is suspicious.

Which do you dispute?

Look Simon, if you seriously think I am going to get into some debate about whether the Internationalf*ckingJew was some sort of accurate reflection of da jooos you are seriously dreaming.

Well you said...

I'd personally say Churchill vastly exaggerates the role of Jews in Bolshevism...

...and I offered evidence to the contrary. You could have challenged the evidence, offered evidence to support your position, or justified your claim to know more about it than Churchill, contemporary writers cited, or indeed Henry Ford. But instead, you chose to have a hissy fit.

What next? the Rabbi's speech?! Houston Stewart Chamberlain? the eternal Jew?

Never heard of any of them, but will try to read up.

I have better things to do than kick around the 911 Nazi fun palace.

It's interesting that you try to smear me with that, when you yourself could fairly be described as a "Nazi" of sorts, if one takes what you have said elsewhere as true. You are opposed to one world governmnet, and are politically on the left. To that extent, you are a nationalist, and a socialist, and therefore a "national socialist". Of sorts.

And therefore a "Nazi" and therefore want to kill all the jews? Manifestly not. That would be absurd. As to whether "the" Nazis did, the more I "study the f*cking subject", the more I doubt it.

It's Ian Neal I really feel for.

Really? Why?

Re your sig comparing "deniers" to flat earthers: It's a laughably inappropriate comparison, I'd be embarrassed. The writer certainly has plenty of "Chutzpah" to conflate the hard sciences with history and consensus reality. Nevertheless, at one time the following questions were seriously debated: Will we ever be able to build a ship with sufficient range, stock and and crew it such that we could sail to the edge of the world? Would it fall off? Would the benefits justify the risk?

[Alulim]

This is really a pointless conversation as long as the historical orthodoxy is enforced at gunpoint. Nonetheless, I did discover an interesting anomaly which exemplifies the absurdity of the orthodox history. The Anchor Atlas of World History: Volume II, by Hermann Kinder and Werner Hilgemann, 1978, shows 233,000 people exterminated at Auschwitz.

It also shows 160,000 people exterminated in the territory of pre-war Germany. That is curious because it is now a generally accepted fact among orthodox historians that no exterminations took place in Germany, proper.

Hence the law of conservation of victims. It doesn't matter how you do the math, or what statistics you draw from, you have to come up with 6,000,000 people exterminated. And if you are to be completely pious, you shall come up with 6,000,000 dead Jews and between 3 and 5 million dead Gypsies, homosexuals, Poles, and other "undesirables".

[Dogsmilk]

ou have to come up with 6,000,000 people exterminated. And if you are to be completely pious, you shall come up with 6,000,000

So how come Hilberg got away with 5.1 million for so long? I thought he was very pious.

[Alulim]

We are talking religion, not science. It doesn't have to make sense as long as it has the proper psychological impact. If you real reports in Israeli news papers discussing The Holocaust(TM) you will find that they almost always claim 6,000,000 Jews were exterminated.

[gruts]

interesting photos....

first of all - as I think has already been pointed out - the 4 million figure was made up by the soviets in their efforts to hype up the evils of fascism. it was only after the overthrow of soviet rule in poland that it was possible to replace this figure with one that was more realistic. I've actually visited Auschwitz before and after the fall of communism in Poland so I've seen both versions.

secondly - the 4 million referred to the total number of victims - jews plus non-jews. they never claimed that 4 million jews died at auschwitz.

I'm not an expert on the holocaust so I'm unaware if such a figure was ever accepted by holocaust scholars. after all, it wouldn't be fair to blame them for false numbers produced by soviet propaganda.

as far as I'm aware, raul hilberg was the first person to publish a detailed study of the holocaust back in 1961. does anyone know what his initial figure was for the number of jewish victims of auschwitz and if he changed it in subsequent editions?

are there any other examples of holocaust scholars initially claiming that 4 million jews died at auschwitz and then subsequently changing the figure to 1 million?

if there are, then it should be quite easy to find them....

[ian neal]

Can I ask Alulim, Antony, Brian, Rodin and any other HRers what would be your best estimate or range for the number of who suffered and died at the hands of the nazi murderers between 1940-1945 in Europe?

[Alexander]

Number of Alleged Dead in Auschwitz

9,000,000 Cited by the French documentary, Night and Fog, which has been shown to millions of school students worldwide.

8,000,000 The French War Crime Research Office, Doc. 31, 1945.

7,000,000 Also cited by the French War Crime Research Office.

6,000,000 Cited in the book “Auschwitz Doctor” by Miklos Nyiszli. It has since been proven that this book is a fraud and the "doctor" was never even at Auschwitz, even though the book is often cited by historians.

5,000,000 to 5,500,000 Cited in 1945 at the trial of Auschwitz commander Rudolf Hoess, based on his “confession” which was written in English, a language he never spoke.

5,000,000 Cited on April 20, 1978 by the French daily, Le Monde. Also cited on January 23, 1995 by the German daily Die Welt. By September 1, 1989, Le Monde reduced the figure to 1,433,000.

4,500,000 In 1945 this figure was cited by another witness at the aforementioned Hoess trial.

4,000,000 Cited by a Soviet document of May 6, 1945 and officially acknowledged by the Nuremberg War Crimes trial. This figure was also reported in The New York Times on April 18, 1945, although 50 years later on January 26, 1995 (see below), The New York Times and The Washington Post slashed the figure to 1,500,000 citing new findings by the Auschwitz Museum officials. In fact, the figure of 4,000,000 was later repudiated by the Auschwitz museum officials in 1990 (see below) but the figure of 1,500,000 victims was not formally announced by Polish President Lech Walesa until five years after the Auschwitz historians had first announced their discovery.

3,500,000 Cited in the 1991 edition of the Dictionary of the French Language and by Claude Lanzmann in 1980 in his introduction to Filip Muller's book, “Three Years in an Auschwitz Gas Chamber.”

3,000,000 Cited in a forced confession by Rudolf Hoess, the Auschwitz commander who said this was the number of those who had died at Auschwitz prior to Dec. 1, 1943. Later cited in the June 7, 1993 issue of Heritage, the most widely read Jewish newspaper in California, even though three years previously the authorities at the Auschwitz museum had scaled down the figure to a minimum of 1,100,000 and a maximum of 1,500,000. (see below).

2,500,000 Cited by a famous "witness to the Holocaust," Rudolf Vrba, when he testified on July 16, 1981 for the Israeli government's war crimes trial of former SS official Adolf Eichmann.

2,000,000 Cited by no less than three famous Holocaust historians, including Leon Poliakov (1951) writing in “Harvest of Hate”; Georges Wellers, writing in 1973 in “The Yellow Star at the Time of Vichy”; and Lucy Dawidowicz, writing in 1975 in “The War Against the Jews.”

2,000,000 to 4,000,000 Cited by Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer in 1982 in his book, “A History of the Holocaust.” However, by 1989 Bauer revised his figures and determined that the actual number was lower: 1,600,000.

1,600,000 This is a 1989 revision by Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer of his earlier figure in 1982 of 2,000,000 to 4,000,000, Bauer cited this new figure on September 22, 1989 in The Jerusalem Post, at which time he wrote' 'The larger figures have been dismissed for years, except that it hasn't reached the public yet."

1,500,000 In 1995 this was the “official" number of Auschwitz deaths announced by Polish President Lech Walesa as determined by the historians at the Auschwitz museum. This number was inscribed on the monument at the Auschwitz camp at that time, thereby "replacing" the earlier 4,000,000 figure that had been formally repudiated (and withdrawn from the monument) five years earlier in 1990. At that time, on July 17, 1990 The Washington Times reprinted a brief article from The London Daily Telegraph citing the "new" figure of 1,500,000 that had been determined by the authorities at the Auschwitz museum. This new figure was reported two years later in a UPI report published in the New York Post on March 26, 1992. On January 26, 1995 both The Washington Post and The New York Times cited this 1,500,000 figure as the new "official" figure (citing the Auschwitz Museum authorities).

1,471,595 This is a 1983 figure cited by historian Georges Wellers who (as noted previously) had determined, writing in 1973, that some 2,000,000 had died. In his later calculation, Wellers decided that of the 1,471,595 who had died at Auschwitz, 1,352,980 were Jews.

1,433,000 This figure was cited on September 1, 1989 by the French daily, Le Monde, which earlier, on April 20, 1978, had cited the figure at 4,000,000.

1,250,000 In 1985, historian Raul Hilberg arrived at this figure in his book, “The Destruction of the European Jews.” According to Hilberg, of those dead, some 1,000,000 were Jews.

1,100,000 to 1,500,000 Sources for this estimate are historians Yisrael Gutman and Michael Berenbaum (later of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum) in their 1984 book, “Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp”; also Dr. Franciszek Piper, the curator of the Auschwitz Museum, writing a chapter in that book. This estimate was later also cited by Walter Reich, former director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, writing in The Washington Post on September 8, 1998. The upper figure of 1,500,000 thus remains the "official" figure as now inscribed at Auschwitz, with the earlier figure of 4,000,000 having been removed from the memorial at the site of the former concentration camp.

1,000,000 Jean-Claude Pressac, writing in his 1989 book “Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers.” This is interesting since he wrote his book to repudiate so-called "Holocaust deniers" who were called that precisely because they had questioned the numbers of those who had died at Auschwitz.

900,000 Reported on August 3, 1990 11, by Aufbau, a Jewish newspaper in New York.

800,000 to 900,000 Reported by Gerald Reitlinger in his 1953 book, “The Final Solution.” This figure is notable, considering the fact that it reduces the Auschwitz death total from the 4,000,000 figure that was widely in vogue in 1953.

775,000 to 800,000 Jean-Claude Pressac's revised figure, put forth in his 1993 book, “The Crematoria of Auschwitz: The Mass Murder's Machinery”, scaling down the figure from Pressac's 1989 claim of 1,000,000 dead. At this juncture, Pressac said that of the new number, 630,000 were Jews.

630,000 to 710,000 In 1994 Pressac scaled his figure down somewhat further; this is the figure cited in the German language translation of Pressac's 1993 book originally published in French. Again, this is substantially less than Pressac's 1989 figure of 1,000,000.

73,137 This figure was reported in The New York Times on March 3, 1991 and was based entirely on the wartime German concentration camp records that had been captured by the Soviets and just recently released. According to this figure, of those dead, 38,031 were Jews. These records state that the total of all persons who died in the ENTIRE German prison camp system from 1935 to 1945 were 403,713. To repeat: a total of 403,713 persons of all races and religions was officially recorded to have died (of all causes. typhus, old age, measles, etc.-and execution) in the entire prison camp system over a 10 year period. Of those 403,713 a total of 73,137 died at Auschwitz. Of those 73,137 who died at Auschwitz, 38,031 were Jews.

And of course Frijhof Meyers alleged 500,000.

[Alexander]

Of course, the believers have to find the "missing murdered millions" at the other alleged "extermination camps". Their attempts are laughable...

http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/

Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners....just for you Ian Neal..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIB-Q6sH ... re=related

[karlos]

Can I ask Alulim, Antony, Brian, Rodin and any other HRers what would be your best estimate or range for the number of who suffered and died at the hands of the nazi murderers between 1940-1945 in Europe?

First you have to define some caveats.
It is a fact that Croatia, Hungary and Romania carried out atrocities during the war do you include these?
If you agree then why havent Croatia, Hungary or Romania been asked for compensation in the same shakedown racket?
Do you count gays, disabled, Roma gypsies, Slavs, etc as being of equal status to Jews?
Do you consider the 150,000 members of Germany's armed forces who were themselves either Jewish or of Jewish pregeny and who served during 1939-1945?
Finally do you use pre war census figures as your starting point?

Anyone who looks objectiely at the history we have been taught and the actual facts will come to the same conclusion. As Norman Finklestein says in his channel 4 documentary.

[GVideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=0[/GVideo]

[TonyGosling]

Ian is defending free speech - nothing more or less

I'm thinking of changing this thread title to

"Nazi Holocaust discussion"

any objections?

Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners....just for you Ian Neal..

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIB-Q6sH9vY[/youtube]

[blackbear]

The present day holocaust:
Zionism & Genocide: The Historical Perspective

From an extremely important and well-done piece of research on Zionism's historical context:

The Hidden History of Zionism--Ralph Schoenman

Zionist Objectives

The objective of Zionism has never been merely to colonize Palestine – as was the goal of classical colonial and imperial movements during the 19th and 20th centuries. The design of European colonialism in Africa and Asia was, essentially, to exploit indigenous peoples as cheap labor while extracting natural resources for exorbitant profit.

What distinguishes Zionism from other colonial movements is the relationship between the settlers and the people to be conquered. The avowed purpose of the Zionist movement was not merely to exploit the Palestinian people but to disperse and dispossess them. The intent was to replace the indigenous population with a new settler community, to eradicate the farmers, artisans and town-dwellers of Palestine and substitute an entirely new workforce composed of the settler population.

In denying the existence of the Palestinian people, Zionism sought to create the political climate for their removal, not only from their land but from history. When acknowledged at all, the Palestinians were re-invented as a semi-savage, nomadic remnant. Historical records were falsified – a procedure begun during the last quarter of the 19th century but continuing to this day in such pseudo-historical writings as Joan Peters’ From Time Immemorial.

The Zionist movement would seek alternative imperial sponsors for this bloody enterprise; among them the Ottoman Empire, Imperial Germany, the British Raj, French colonialism and Czarist Russia. Zionist plans for the Palestinian people anticipated the Ottoman solution for the Armenians, who would be slaughtered in the first sustained genocide of the 20th century.

Zionist Plans for the Palestinian People

From its inception, the Zionist movement sought the “Armenianization” of the Palestinian people. Like the Native Americans, the Palestinians were regarded as “a people too many”. The logic was elimination; the record was to be one of genocide.

This was no less true of the Labor Zionist movement, which sought to provide a “socialist” patina for the colonial enterprise. One of the principal theorists of Labor Zionism, a founder of the Zionist party Ha’Poel Ha’Tzair (The Young Worker) and a supporter of Poale Zion (Workers of Zion), was Aaron David Gordon.

Walter Laqueur acknowledges in his History of Zionism that, “A. D. Gordon and his comrades wanted every tree and every bush to be planted by Jewish ’pioneers’.” [14]

Gordon coined the slogan “conquest of labor” [Kibbush avodah]. He called upon Jewish capitalists, and the Rothschild plantation managers, who had obtained land from absentee Turkish landlords over the heads of the Palestinian people, “to hire Jews and only Jews”. He organized boycotts of any Zionist enterprise which failed to employ Jews exclusively, and prepared strikes against the Rothschild colonists, who allowed Arab peasants to sharecrop or to work, even as cheap labor.

Thus, the “Labor Zionists” employed the methods of the workers’ movement to prevent the use of Arab labor; their objective was not exploitation but usurpation.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... hp?t=16258

AlicetheKurious

Many years ago, I helped to organize a visit to my university by Ralph Schoenman, though I didn't know anything about him. It was soon after the Sabra and Shatila massacres, and Dr. Schoenman and his wife were among the very first to go into the camps. The horrific photos of what they found there formed the core of a North American university tour, where they discussed the massacres and the events leading up to them.

He took no speaker's fee, only that basic accommodation be provided (we couldn't afford anything else, anyway). His lecture was punctuated by shouts from kippa-wearing hecklers yelling "what did your Jewish mother ever do to you?" and various insults, all of which he dealt with calmly and patiently.

The lecture itself was fascinating, and those who chose to ignore the rude boneheads, learned a great deal. Although I'll always remember the profound effect his visit had on me, I haven't read anything by him since then. So thanks, BottleImp.

[Alulim]

Can I ask Alulim, Antony, Brian, Rodin and any other HRers what would be your best estimate or range for the number of who suffered and died at the hands of the nazi murderers between 1940-1945 in Europe?

As I said before: this is really a pointless conversation as long as the historical orthodoxy is enforced at gunpoint.

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/show ... ust-Denial

The man who published this is sitting is solitary confinement right now for the "crime" of making it available to you: http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndstats.html

[chek]

Ian is defending free speech - nothing more or less

I'm thinking of changing this thread title to

"Nazi Holocaust discussion"

any objections?

How about "Nazi Holocaust - It Wasn't So Bad Really, When You Think About It"?

[Alulim]

How about "The Holocaust:History or Hoax?"

[ian neal]

How about "the holocaust why does it matter?" especially in relation to 9/11 and the truth movement. I've yet to hear a convincing argument why the holocaust warrants such attention.

[TonyGosling]

I hope the new headline is to your liking

the old one didn't reflect the discussion here

How about "the holocaust why does it matter?" especially in relation to 9/11 and the truth movement. I've yet to hear a convincing argument why the holocaust warrants such attention.

[Alulim]

I hope the new headline is to your liking

the old one didn't reflect the discussion here

How about "the holocaust why does it matter?" especially in relation to 9/11 and the truth movement. I've yet to hear a convincing argument why the holocaust warrants such attention.

Doubleplusgood duckspeak.

[Alulim]

Connection between Frank Lowy and Nazi Holocaust
Connection between Frank Lowy and WTC Privatization Agreement

[Alulim]

Connection between Larry Silverstein and Nazi Holocaust
Connection between Ronald S. Lauder and Nazi Holocaust
Connection between Ronald S. Lauder and WTC Privatization Agreement

[Anthony Lawson]

Change of Thread Heading

Tony Gosling has got a lot of gall, changing the title of a thread which has developed into seven pages of posts.

The heading:

Understanding 9/11 - Why The Holocaust Matters

bears no relationship to the original:

"Compulsive": Zionist Propaganda.!

The sense of the two headings are completley different, the new one flying in the face of what many of the contributers to the original thread are concerned about, namely that the true facts of the holocaust have been, and will continue to be buried under Zionist prodaganda unless people are made aware of what is happening.

Talk about re-writing history!

Change it back, or I'm out of here.

I'll find somewhere else to discuss 9/11 and other serious issues without someone retrospectively deciding what I have been writing about.

[Alulim]

Anthony,

I appreciate your position on the issue of changing the subject header. Although, in this particular instance, you seem more concerned about it than I am, there have been similar instances on other boards where such changes have significantly modified the apparent meaning of my words so as to not reflect my intent. My objection to the new subject header is that it implicitly presupposes the truth of The Holocaust(TM).

I would very much regret you leaving this forum. There are tragically few honest and clear-headed people around. You happen to be one of the few. All I can say about the situation is that I have seen worse. Far worse.

I have been able to post more on this forum without censure than I have on all the other 9/11 forums I have participated in, combined.

[ian neal]

On the thread title, it should only change with the agreement of the thread author. That is agreed procedure.

On reflection I would ask: " The 'holocaust': does it matter?" but it's not my thread.

Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners....just for you Ian Neal..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIB-Q6sH ... re=related

It's nice of you to think of me Alexander although I'm surprised, given what I have said previously on the need for HR to clearly separate itself from an association with fascists if it ever expects to be taken seriously by the wider truth movement, that you choose to direct me towards a film by David McCalden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_McCalden