Post: #176

(01-03-2017 05:33 AM)Wreckingball Wrote:  "Believers" cannot also explain, congruently, the data and the number 6 million (which apparently never keeps on changing even though the number of victims at Auschwitz goes from 4.5 million to 1.5 million in a couple decades).
IHR is not a reputable academic source but is combining several credible sources that do contradict each other, constantly. If you notice, each article has several sources, that you can use google scholar to read them.

Look, it's really simple. When the extent of the Holocaust was first discovered, scholarship was inhibited by the fact of the Iron Curtain. That is, the Soviets had certain records and pieces of information that were not released to the West until far later. That's how history works. More recent scholarship has had access to materials that earlier scholarship did not. You have to examine each of those sources in turn with the sources available at the time in mind.

Post: #177

(01-03-2017 01:10 PM)brick tamland Wrote:  Let's say I've heard about something called The Holocaust, and every time I've heard about it, it's been said that 6 million Jews were killed in a genocide. So one day I decide to find a list of the 6 million deceased, in particular the NAMES of the deceased, and WHERE they died.
But over 70 years later a search shows that there are only estimates of the number of dead. There is neither a single commonly accepted list of the number of dead Jews, nor a single commonly accepted list of names of the deceased.

The Nazi records are notoriously incomplete, with a significant number of them destroyed during the end of World War II, either intentionally or unintentionally. The other issue is that the Nazis didn't exactly keep records of everybody they murdered.

Prior to the establishment of the Aktion Reinhard camps, Jews were executed by being taken out into the woods, forced to dig their own graves, and shot. Even with the development of the extermination camps, only those selected for labor were recorded, not the ones who were gassed immediately after arrival.

Post: #178

The thing is, the records are not there, the documentation simply is not there for a people and a reich that would not do anything without extensive paperwork. Rogue dealings in one camp, perhaps, but to expect a huge industrialized killing of millions, it needs to have processes, rules, inventory lists, repair lists and so on.

In fact, the Wansee conference, where it is claimed the Holocaust was put in order has nothing at all about killing jews, only one ambigious paragraph:

Quote:Anstelle der Auswanderung ist nunmehr als weitere Lösungsmöglichkeit nach entsprechender vorheriger Genehmigung durch den Führer die Evakuierung der Juden nach dem Osten getreten.

Diese Aktionen sind jedoch lediglich als Ausweichmöglichkeiten anzusprechen, doch werden hier bereits jene praktischen Erfahrungen gesammelt, die im Hinblick auf die kommende Endlösung der Judenfrage von wichtiger Bedeutung sind.

https://eudocs.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Wannsee-Protokoll

That's it.

It says something along the lines off (not sure about translation, maybe Parzival or German can confirm):

Quote:Another possible solution of the problem has now taken the place of emigration, i.e. the evacuation of the Jews to the East, provided the Fuehrer agrees to this plan.

Such activities are, however, to be considered as provisional actions, but practical experience is already being collected which is of greatest importance in relation to the future final solution of the Jewish problem.

Is it me or is that paragraph not exactly a smoking gun?

That's it?

That's the best you got for the industrialized genocide of 6 million people.

Unlikely to me.

Post: #179

Am I the only one questioning how a ridiculously small number of German soldiers are standing in the middle of shovel wielding jews that don't have a care in the world?

No offense to the Jews but I would like to think rather than dig my own grave and be shot, I would hit the German fellow with his weapon down in the back of the head and then be shot.

Post: #180

There must be recordings. Train schedules, fuel supply delivery notes for the trains, and so on.
There are these death books in Ausschwitz. I wonder wheter they were checked statistically. If the mainstream is right then these books should look different than if the revisionists are right. (selection on arrival vs no selection)

Post: #181

(01-03-2017 05:48 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  The thing is, the records are not there, the documentation simply is not there for a people and a reich that would not do anything without extensive paperwork. Rogue dealings in one camp, perhaps, but to expect a huge industrialized killing of millions, it needs to have processes, rules, inventory lists, repair lists and so on.

Well some of that exists.

Keep in mind that a lot of German stuff got the shit blown out of it by bombs and artillery. Maybe all those records were in a room somewhere that got blown up.

Aloha!

Post: #182

(01-03-2017 01:13 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  I'm a professional historian in my life outside RVF. If someone can convincingly show that the mainstream narrative of something is wrong, he'll guarantee himself a career. If any of the so-called "revisionists" could demonstrate that their account of events is even remotely more plausible, there would be a revolution in Holocaust studies.

No there wouldn't, and there hasn't been and I can think of VERY $trong motivations going by Normal Finklesteins "The Holocaust Industry"... essentially the amount of money the Jewish American groups are making off the holocaust.

Quote:If you want to argue that the events of the Holocaust have been (ab)used for the sake of the Jewish people and the state of Israel, then you can go ahead and make that argument. That issue has no bearing on the nature or the fact of the Holocaust

Wrong. Facts are clearly skewed to outrageous proportions by the man HE considers the ultimate authority on the holocaust, and that was Raul Hilsburg, and it seems the facts are skewed precisely for monetary and political gain.

Also, Noam Chomsky defended the french intellectual Robert Faurisson who lost his position at a university because of his questioning of the holocaust. from wikipedia "After the passing of the Gayssot Act against Holocaust denial in 1990, Faurisson was prosecuted and fined, and in 1991 he was dismissed from his academic post."

Holocaust denial? You can't even investigate the damn thing without being called a 'denialist' and being fired from your job in France. Wow.

Seems to me quite a few people have a lot invested in keeping something hidden.

It should be pointed out that Chomsky wanted the French writers rights to express himself to be respected, and that he was not necessarily defending his thesis, just his right to express himself.

Post: #183

(01-03-2017 10:11 AM)Gorgiass Wrote:  

Quote:At higher concentrations it [CO2] leads to an increased respiratory rate, tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmias and impaired consciousness. Concentrations >10% may cause convulsions, coma and death.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16499405

The abstract does say "may cause".

The body’s response to carbon dioxide exposure varies depending on the concentration and length of time exposed. Inhaled concentrations of >2% carbon dioxide can be expected to cause adverse effects. As the concentration increases further, the effects become more marked (table I), leading to death at concentrations >17%.
Table I


Conclusions are not very coherent with the exposure section (and table I), as the author mentions "At concentrations >5% it can have undesirable effects and is lethal at concentrations >10-17%".
For what it's worth it has been referenced 71 times.

If you have a study for Carbon Monoxide, I would be interested in reading that as well.

I'm pretty sure that stuffing a potato into a tailpipe is different from "exhausting" into a contained environment. If it is possible to inject/release CO2 to a contained environment why is it not possible to exhaust it from a tailpipe? Serious question.

To be honest, I had never heard about the diesel engines story until I saw it mentioned on another RFV thread. And i'm particularly interested in WW2 topics.

(01-03-2017 04:19 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(01-03-2017 05:33 AM)Wreckingball Wrote:  "Believers" cannot also explain, congruently, the data and the number 6 million (which apparently never keeps on changing even though the number of victims at Auschwitz goes from 4.5 million to 1.5 million in a couple decades).
IHR is not a reputable academic source but is combining several credible sources that do contradict each other, constantly. If you notice, each article has several sources, that you can use google scholar to read them.

Look, it's really simple. When the extent of the Holocaust was first discovered, scholarship was inhibited by the fact of the Iron Curtain. That is, the Soviets had certain records and pieces of information that were not released to the West until far later. That's how history works. More recent scholarship has had access to materials that earlier scholarship did not. You have to examine each of those sources in turn with the sources available at the time in mind.

That's what we're trying to do. No one is denying the suffering, which is clear it existed in the camps, just questioning numbers, methods and "propaganda" of both.

(01-03-2017 12:29 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

(01-03-2017 05:33 AM)Wreckingball Wrote:  "Believers" cannot also explain, congruently, the data and the number 6 million (which apparently never keeps on changing even though the number of victims at Auschwitz goes from 4.5 million to 1.5 million in a couple decades).

This is easily explainable. The "4 million dead at Auschwitz" plaque was regarded from the beginning by Western historians as Soviet propaganda. It never figured into serious calculations of Jews killed during the Holocaust. As early as 1950, Raul Hilberg was saying that no more than 1.1 - 1.3 million Jews were killed at Auschwitz.

Sure, shouldn't then the number have gone from 9M to 6M? Not that it matters much, but still...

Post: #184

Still on the exhaust fumes topic, just came across this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_van

"A gas van or gas wagon (Russian: душегубка (dushegubka); German: Gaswagen) was a vehicle equipped as a mobile gas chamber. [b]The vehicle had an air-tight compartment for victims, into which exhaust fumes were transmitted while the engine was running[b]. The victims were gassed with [b]carbon monoxide[b], resulting in death by monoxide poisoning and suffocation."
This means that a gas chamber in a camp could (and should) be air tight for the tank exhaust fumes to be effective.

Wiki Image

Another wiki entrance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgru...to_gassing

Same van, quite different caption.
Apparently no vans survived.

On this reference, from wikipedia, http://ww2today.com/16th-may-1942-ss-dis...ssing-vans
There is a letter from Dr August Becker to SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Rauff, 16 May 1942
"Besides that, I ordered that during application of gas all the men were to be kept as far away from the vans as possible, so they should not suffer damage to their health by the gas which eventually would escape. I should like to take this opportunity to bring the following to your attention: several commands have had the unloading after the application of gas done by their own men."
Exhaust fumes, are fairly harmless in an open environment as they dissipate quite quickly.

Post: #185

I have no doubt the main facts of the Holocaust occurred essentially the way history records them due to the fact that many of the main engineers of the slaughter, such as Rudolf Hoss, were quite proud of their work.

https://www.amazon.com/Commandant-Auschw...1842120247

It doesn't require any conspiracy on the part of the Allies to commit an exaggeration of the Holocaust when so many members of the former Nazi regime were so eager to tell the story themselves.

Allies: "We're going to tell the world what you've done! We can say anything we like."

Hoss: "No, no, don't you dare. I'll tell the story myself. Whatever you could come up with would never do the efficiency of my work justice!"

If there was any exaggeration on the scope of the Holocaust, it was due to the embellishment of the perpetrators themselves, not anyone who was left to pick up the pieces.

It must be a comforting illusion that White Europeans could never be guilty of such a crime. But the guilt is, nonetheless.

Quote:ANNE:
Villain, thou know’st not law of God nor man.
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity.

RICHARD:
But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
- Richard III

Addendum: The true crime of the other nations of the West is that we allied with the Soviets and essentially allowed them to stick an "Under New Management" sign on the very same camps with very little protest. Upon the destruction of the Nazi regime and the liberation of Europe, the next step for the nuclear-equipped Americans and British should've been to ally with the newly free European people, and complete the push to Moscow to evict Hitler's butt-buddy Stalin.

If we'd told the Red Army that was what the plan was, probably half would've signed on for the task immediately.

Post: #186

^I will agree to that last sentence. The death toll of that complicity was considerably higher than the entire wartime losses of soldiers and civilians alike.

Post: #187

(01-07-2017 10:42 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  ^I will agree to that last sentence. The death toll of that complicity was considerably higher than the entire wartime losses of soldiers and civilians alike.

I admit I am not a conspiracy theorist. I believe that JFK was gunned down by a lone, reject, wannabe Communist Oswald, that it wasn't too huge a problem with the tech of the time to land some guys on the moon in the late 1960s in little capsule, that the Holocaust played out essentially the way history records it, and that Islamic terrorists boarded some planes in the early morning of 9/11/2001 and crashed them into the WTC, which subsequently collapsed due to the fuel-rich fire weakening the structure.

It doesn't mean that real conspiracies don't exist - they're just not the ones that most people on the Internet talk about.

But yes, where the Allies really dropped the ball was allying with Stalinist Russia. Whether our complicity in that actually made a difference in how many millions were killed under both the Nazi and Stalinist regimes during the 20th century is definitely something I'm unsure of. Hitler would've invaded Russia either way, and likely been defeated by Russia, no matter what.

Meanwhile the US might have completed the Manhattan project in 1943, used it on one target, and essentially dictated any terms to anyone we wanted.

Post: #188

(01-07-2017 10:11 PM)XPQ22 Wrote:  I have no doubt the main facts of the Holocaust occurred essentially the way history records them due to the fact that many of the main engineers of the slaughter, such as Rudolf Hoss, were quite proud of their work.

https://www.amazon.com/Commandant-Auschw...1842120247

It doesn't require any conspiracy on the part of the Allies to commit an exaggeration of the Holocaust when so many members of the former Nazi regime were so eager to tell the story themselves.

Allies: "We're going to tell the world what you've done! We can say anything we like."

Hoss: "No, no, don't you dare. I'll tell the story myself. Whatever you could come up with would never do the efficiency of my work justice!"

If there was any exaggeration on the scope of the Holocaust, it was due to the embellishment of the perpetrators themselves, not anyone who was left to pick up the pieces.

It must be a comforting illusion that White Europeans could never be guilty of such a crime. But the guilt is, nonetheless.

That bold part has nothing to do with the discussion.

Many Nazis involved with the concentration camps denied the claims made in the "official" story. If we're taking the word of Nazis into account, you cannot simply ignore the dissenters and believe the people who say what you want them to say. That is the definition of confirmation bias.

I can counter your example of Rudolf Hoess "proudly" saying what happened--which is an exaggeration, as I saw when I read his actual testimony--with Josef Mengele, who went to his grave claiming his innocence. And there were many prisoners who testified that Mengele was kind to them. The Mengele story is based on the testimony of Miklos Nyiszli, a Jew who supposedly worked under Mengele as a doctor in the camp. If you start poking into his (various) stories, you'll find all kinds of holes and inconsistencies. Plenty of people jumped on the bandwagon accusing Mengele, but it's funny how there's a distinct lack of evidence of his thousands of terrible experiments. Like, for example, several reams of paper full of notes and data. I've done scientific research. You quickly find yourself ass-deep in notes and data even doing minor research.

Incidentally, I'm not going to take your linked book as a good source when it was, at best, a coerced account ("Captured by the British after the war, tried, and sentenced to death, he was ordered to write his autobiography in the weeks between his trial and his execution") written immediately before the man was going to be executed. And if you do want to accept Hoess's words, he says he was tortured after his capture by the British once they realized who he was! There are accounts from British soldiers who admit they threatened his family directly and tortured Hoess as well.

Confessions affirming the official story--mostly obtained from captured prisoners under duress, often held by the Soviets--plus cherrypicked "eyewitness" testimony from inmates are the entire basis of the official holocaust genocide story.

The physical evidence supporting the official story is laughable, and the more I study the matter, the more problems I find with the Auschwitz gas chamber narrative specifically. I'm not ready to present a full explanation because I keep finding even more threads to tug but suffice to say the method of gassing as presented in the official story is ludicrous and the "gas chamber" was wholly inadequate to safely kill thousands of people a day. I already talked about the crematoria bottleneck in this thread as well.

Setting aside the confessions and testimony entirely, I don't see how anyone with significant scientific knowledge could look into the claims made about the mass killings in the holocaust from a purely objective standpoint and not find endless questions and problems. The most disturbing thing is only "holocaust deniers" seem to have asked these questions. And that wraps it up with a neat little bow, doesn't it? If you ask questions and point out inconsistencies, you're a denier, and thus should be ignored as a kook. And if you live in the wrong country, you should go to prison for daring to question the narrative.

Let me repeat that I went into this with no reason to doubt the official holocaust story. I do not worship the Nazis in any way and if I'd been alive during WWII I would've been over there kicking their asses myself. But I'm not going to pretend the official story of the holocaust makes a damn lick of sense just because the Nazis were the bad guys in WWII from the American perspective.

Post: #189

Scorpion's post about the five factions with equal and strong motive to exaggerate the gas chamber aspect of the death camps officially turned me into a Holocaust Revisionist. It fits too well with Scott Adam's idea that rigging always happens when the motive is sufficient, and the odds of getting away with it are high.

Post: #190

The Holocost.

Post: #191

(01-07-2017 10:55 PM)XPQ22 Wrote:  where the Allies really dropped the ball was allying with Stalinist Russia. Whether our complicity in that actually made a difference in how many millions were killed under both the Nazi and Stalinist regimes during the 20th century is definitely something I'm unsure of. Hitler would've invaded Russia either way, and likely been defeated by Russia, no matter what.

The mistake was not to ally with Russia, but to treat them like equals and give them all the spam and Studebaker trucks they needed to overrun Eastern Europe, AFTER it was already clear that the Nazis had failed to knock out the major Soviet cities and industrial base.

And to imagine this was happening at the same time we had all but shafted the Nationalist Chinese in their fight against both Japan and the communists, you have to seriously wonder what kind of people were running the State Department.

Post: #192

I was trying to find a good pdf copy of Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews and in the process stumbled across a couple of extremely in-depth "one stop shop" revisionist sites. If you're willing to spend a few hours going down the rabbit hole reading through these sites will be highly informative. There's an absolute ton of info to dig into here, but having it all in one place makes it much easier to sort through and weigh the evidence logically for yourself. The sites:

https://holocaustdeprogrammingcourse.com/

http://www.takeourworldback.com/holohoaxdemolished.htm

Post: #193

(01-08-2017 01:51 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Scorpion's post about the five factions with equal and strong motive to exaggerate the gas chamber aspect of the death camps officially turned me into a Holocaust Revisionist. It fits too well with Scott Adam's idea that rigging always happens when the motive is sufficient, and the odds of getting away with it are high.

The thing that convinces me the most is that European governments criminalize holocaust denial, and that holocaust skeptics in the US with first amendment protections actually got kidnapped and brought to Europe so they could be prosecuted.

You don't criminalize believing in bullshit because it just makes people suspect the bullshit is actually true. You only criminalize bullshit if it isn't actually bullshit, as a last resort to suppress information and use social pressure to keep people from studying it.

Post: #194

It's not just Holocaust skeptics who get hounded by governments and Jewish organizations.

Back in the 90s Jean-Pascal Delamuraz, Swiss president at that time, shot back at Jewish groups who sought money left in Swiss bank accounts during the war. He was absolutely destroyed in the media for suggesting to set up an investigation into the matter and for referring to the whole process as "blackmail".

Post: #195

Got to the Holocaust denial materials pretty young for the first time (14-15 I think). Personally met a guy who has the biggest denial website in CZ translating mostly materials from other denialists like German Rudolf, David Cole etc. from the start it served me like apology for Nacional Socialism but now I don't really care if it happened.

Needless to say I have been in Auschwitz three times, spoke to self-proclaimed holocaust survivor and one of my relatives has been in Auschwitz.

Live in pretty historically diverse region - Germans, Poles, Czechs, Jews etc. one of my ancestors was Polish university professor of Math, for some reason he ended up in Auschwitz, survived and after he got out, he ate a big deer steak and died.

In the high school we were for about two nights in Terezin which served as ghetto and transfer camp from the Reich to camps in the east. At the end of our trip we had a lecture with an old czech-jewish woman who claimed to go through Terezin, Auschwitz and ending up in Bergen-Belsen or somewhere.
I asked her three questions during that lecture
- "Did you see somebody getting killed?" - She said that she never saw a "murder" but she saw some people getting killed by the electric fence.
- "What was the worst and best experience with the guards?" - She said that the worst were the jews selected to run the barracks and the best was when Ukraininan-German SS man fell in love with a jewish women, tried to sneak her out but got caught and executed (After I googled it and it seems to be known case. There is article about it only in czech and german on wiki https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Pestek)
- "Was there any persecution from the side of local population?" - She replied that no, before she was taken to camps nobody did nothing serious besides writing something on their fence.

Even after being in Auschwitz three times I never saw there anything that would prove it to me.

Post: #196

(01-12-2017 12:51 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  It's not just Holocaust skeptics who get hounded by governments and Jewish organizations.

Back in the 90s Jean-Pascal Delamuraz, Swiss president at that time, shot back at Jewish groups who sought money left in Swiss bank accounts during the war. He was absolutely destroyed in the media for suggesting to set up an investigation into the matter and for referring to the whole process as "blackmail".

Yes, little known story, but what happenes was that jewish organizations for "survivors" sued the Swiss to get the so called Nazi gold, at the same time effectually ending bank secrecy in Switzerland.

Post: #197

Excerpt from a good write-up by Germar Rudolf:

Quote: Why should I take Holocaust revisionism any more seriously than the claim that the earth is flat?

There is no topic where dissent is taken more seriously than when it comes to the Holocaust. The United Nations have issued a number of resolutions against it (11 January 2005; 26 January 2007; 27 January 2009), and an increasing number of nations prosecute Holocaust revisionism as a crime, punished with up to 20 years in prison (see question 15. Is Holocaust revisionism illegal?). The comparison is therefore wrong. In fact, the shoe is on the other foot. It was once illegal to proclaim the truth that the earth is a sphere and revolves around the sun, a crime punished by the Catholic Church with imprisonment or even death, as Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei found out the hard way. Today flat-earthers may be laughed at, but they are not persecuted beyond that. Holocaust revisionism, however, is being taken extremely seriously, because if it were not suppressed, it would spread like a wildfire and threaten the powers that be, just as Bruno’s and Galilei’s theories did.

Whether an unusual claim ought to be looked into and maybe taken seriously should be judged by what is at stake. Let me give a few examples:

1. What would be the political and social repercussions if it turns out the earth is flat? I cannot see any. So why bother? And why would anyone claim in the first place the earth is a sphere, if it’s not?

2. Take, on the contrary, the events of 9/11/2001. What would be the repercussion if it wasn’t a Muslim terror act, but a false flag operation by the U.S. government? It would have ginormous effects, so it’s worth our time looking into the arguments of both sides.

3. Or take the claim that no man ever landed on the moon. Other than leaving the LB Johnson and Nixon administrations with egg in their faces, and a dent in the U.S.’s self-confidence, the issue is more academic than impactful. Although it is an admittedly interesting challenge.

4. Last but not least we have the climate change debate. What if climate change is – rightly or wrongly – assumed real, and we implement drastic measures to counter it? Then worldwide carbon emission limits might cause a major economic crisis at worst. On the other hand, what if climate change is erroneously assumed a hoax, and we keep spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? Then a mass extinction event may happen on earth, wiping out most life as we know it, including all humans. Which brings up the issue of risk assessment. Any side in any debate can be wrong. The question then is: which side can claim to err on the side of caution? If the answer is as extremely clear as in the climate debate, it should be clear which end of the stick we should pick, no matter what.

Coming back to the Holocaust, the question is what is at stake here. Some of it was touched upon in the answer to question 3. Why is Holocaust revisionism necessary? This in not the place for a thorough political and sociological analysis of the Holocaust’s place in modern western society. Suffice it to say that the powers that be prove ultimately with their unparalleled and unprecedented persecution and suppression that this is THE MOST IMPORTANT TOPIC about which they are hell-bent at keeping an absolute control over our minds. That’s fishy enough to warrant a closer look.

In addition to this, here are a few observations highlighting the importance of this greatest of all taboos:

• The Holocaust was and is the justification for the creation of Israel, and the ethnic cleansing of Arab Palestinians from territories under its control.
• The Holocaust is with a distance the most important aspect of modern, predominantly secularized Jewish identity.
• The Holocaust is abused as a justification for any human rights violations and violations of international law committed by Israeli authorities.
• The Holocaust is the moral justification for the special relationship between the US and other western nations on one hand and Israel on the other, resulting in almost unanimous and unconditional support for whatever Israel does.
• The Holocaust is in extension used to support and justify the “war on terror,” which is to a large degree a war of the West against the Arab and Muslim world as Israel’s potentially most dangerous opponents and enemies.
• The Holocaust is with a distance the most important aspect of modern, predominantly secularized GERMAN identity. It makes the German nation defenseless against any claims usually resisted by self-confidant nations. Germay’s Holocaust cult is a suicidal death cult. This has become crystal clear with the 2015 refugee crisis.
• The Holocaust is abused to undermine any attempt at self-preservation by individual European nations, or by Europe in general, thus threatening the entire continent to be turned into an assembly of failed third world countries.

The last two bolded bullet points are key to why the lie of the gas chambers must be exposed. The Holocaust is being used as a psychological weapon of mass destruction against the European people. I will write a longer post on that when I have more time.

Another excerpt of Rudolf's from a short introductory essay on Revisionism:

Quote:Political Correctness and Revisionism

Many people are bewildered when they first hear Holocaust Revisionist arguments. The arguments appear to make sense, but “How is it possible?” The whole world believes the Holocaust story. It’s just not plausible that so great a conspiracy to suppress the truth could have functioned more than half a century.

To understand how it could very well have happened, one needs only to reflect on the intellectual and political orthodoxies of medieval Europe, or those of National Socialist Germany or the Communist-bloc countries. In all of these societies the great majority of scholars were caught up in the existing political culture. Committed to a prevailing ideology and its interpretation of reality, these scholars and intellectuals felt it was their right, and even their duty, to protect every aspect of that ideology. They did so by oppressing the “evil” dissidents who expressed “offensive” or “dangerous” ideas. In everyone of those societies, scholars became the “Thought Police.”

In our own society, in the debate over the question of political correctness, there are those who deliberately attempt to trivialize the issues. They claim that there is no real problem with freedom of speech in our society, and that all that is involved with PC are a few rules which would defend minorities from those who would hurt their feelings. There is, of course, a deeper and more serious aspect to the problem. In American society today there is a wide range of ideas and viewpoints which the mass media will not allow to be discussed openly. Even obvious facts and realities, when they are politically unacceptable, are denied and suppressed. One can learn much about the psychology and methods of the Thought Police by watching how they react when just one of their taboos is broken and Holocaust Revisionism is given a public forum.

First they express outrage that such “offensive” and “dangerous” ideas were allowed to be expressed publicly. They avoid answering or debating these ideas, claiming that to do so would give the Revisionists a forum and legitimacy. Then they make vicious personal attacks against the Revisionist heretics, calling them political names such as “hater,” “denier,” “anti-Semite,” “racist,” “terrorist,” or “neo-Nazi,” even suggesting that they are potential mass murderers. They publicly accuse the Revisionists of lying, but they don’t allow the dissenters to hear the specific charge against them or to face their accusers so that they can answer this slander.

Revisionists are frequently accused of being hate filled people who are promoting a doctrine of hatred. But Revisionism is a scholarly process, not a doctrine or an ideology. If the Holocaust promoters really want to expose hatred, they should take a second look at their own doctrines, and a long look at themselves in the mirror.

Post: #198

(01-09-2017 05:33 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 10:55 PM)XPQ22 Wrote:  where the Allies really dropped the ball was allying with Stalinist Russia. Whether our complicity in that actually made a difference in how many millions were killed under both the Nazi and Stalinist regimes during the 20th century is definitely something I'm unsure of. Hitler would've invaded Russia either way, and likely been defeated by Russia, no matter what.

The mistake was not to ally with Russia, but to treat them like equals and give them all the spam and Studebaker trucks they needed to overrun Eastern Europe, AFTER it was already clear that the Nazis had failed to knock out the major Soviet cities and industrial base.

And to imagine this was happening at the same time we had all but shafted the Nationalist Chinese in their fight against both Japan and the communists, you have to seriously wonder what kind of people were running the State Department.

This guy...despite being the Treasury Secretary and not with the State department...

Henry Morgenthau Jr.

[...]was the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. He played a major role in designing and financing the New Deal. After 1937, while still in charge of the Treasury, he played the central role in financing US participation in World War II.[1] He also played an increasingly major role in shaping foreign policy, especially with respect to Lend Lease, support for China, helping Jewish refugees, and proposing (in the "Morgenthau Plan") to prevent Germany from again being a military threat by wrecking its industry and mines[...]

Post: #199

Nobody has yet refuted Oskar Groening's testimony: again, why would he lie with absolutely nothing to gain - except jail as a 94 year old, to fight against people with views similar to that in this thread - saying something he did personally is a lie? Same with Speer's admissions in his private letters after he was released from jail. Can't be bothered linking, as they've been available in this thread and various others where I've mentioned them.

Post: #200

Oskar Groening's claims are obvious bullshit.

An example from Groening's account:

Quote:One night towards the end of 1942, Gröning and his comrades in their SS barracks on the outskirts of Birkenau were awakened by an alarm.[3]:166–167 They were told that a number of Jews who were being taken to the gas chambers had escaped and hidden in the woods. They were ordered to take pistols and search the woods.[3]:167 When his group arrived at the extermination area of the camp they saw a farmhouse, in front of which were SS men and the bodies of seven or eight prisoners who had been caught and shot.[3]:167 The SS men told Gröning and his comrades that they could go home but they decided to hang around in the shadows of the woods.

They watched as an SS man put on a gas mask and emptied a tin of Zyklon B into a hatch in the cottage wall. Gröning said the humming noise from inside "turned to screaming" for a minute, then to silence.[3]:167 A comrade later showed him the bodies being burnt in a pit. A Kapo there told him details of the burning, such as how gases developed in the body and made the burning corpses move.[3]:167

That account is inconsistent with physical reality. Zyklon B would not work as described there.

Zyklon B is HCN adsorbed to the surface of a carrier material. It's hard to find comfirmable specifics about the actual behavioral characteristics of the product but here's what I know, more or less. Some of my details may not be exactly right but in general, I think my assumptions are sound.

1. HCN has a boiling point of about 78 degrees F. Below that, minimal HCN will evaporate.

2. Evaporation of HCN will chill the Zyklon B, naturally inhibiting spontaneous outgassing of HCN from the carrier material.

3. Desorption of HCN from the carrier material can't be that spontaneous in normal conditions because...
----3a. If it was, tins of Zyklon B would be ticking poison gas bombs waiting to blow. They were instead routinely stored in barracks buildings in various camps, not special hazardous material depots.
----3b. And, it would be incredibly dangerous to handle Zyklon B at all. You don't have to breathe in HCN, it can get into your body through your skin if it's in liquid form.

4. Therefore, I conclude that it takes a fair amount of energy to desorb much HCN from the carrier material. Desorption is not spontaneous, you have to put energy into the system to make it happen (in this case). I'm unclear on the exact kinetics of Zyklon B HCN desorption because I can find dick all for references on it.

5. That point is consistent with the actual confirmed delousing chambers in various concentration camps which have heated blowers that were used to heat the Zyklon B pellets to release the HCN gas. No such heated blower exists in the Auschwitz "gas chamber", nor is the use of one described in "eyewitness testimony".



That's a picture of the heater in one of the delousing chambers at Dachau.

6. There was certainly no such heating contraption at the cottage.

7. Zyklon B doesn't just stop giving off HCN if the conditions are right to desorb the gas. While humans will die very quickly at 1000+ ppm HCN concentration (a modern estimate is on average people die at ~550 ppm after 10 minutes), if you want to rapidly achieve 1000 ppm of HCN concentration to kill your victims in the quoted "about a minute" you have to dump a lot of material into the room. And then the material will keep giving off more and more gas until it either runs out of HCN to desorb or the conditions change. Either way, the final concentration of HCN is going to be very high.

8. Thus being anywhere near a typical unsealed cottage with an extremely high concentration of HCN gas inside would be suicide, gas mask or not. Gas masks of the day were not magic, and the filters had relatively short lives around high concentrations of gas. Gas masks are so you can GTFO of the poison, not so you can hang out and work in it for a long time.

Another point that's not really definitive but worth considering:

9. What about HCN precipitation in the room and on the bodies? It would be incredibly dangerous to enter any room where you just gassed a bunch of people with HCN in the manner described without doing repeated hot-air atmosphere exchanges to get as much HCN as possible out of the room. That takes a good amount of time even if you have the setup to do it. The cottage certainly didn't have that sort of setup. Neither did the "gas chamber" at Auschwitz.

-----

I have found other serious problems with the actual "gas chamber" setup at Auschwitz but that's not the subject of this discussion.

Further, in Groening's own account the SS men had already shot some of the prisoners. Why would they go with an incredibly hazardous method of killing the rest in the cottage by using HCN gas in an unsealed structure? Why not just shoot them? It's absurd, and that absurdity is found throughout the whole holocaust narrative.

How do you reconcile Nazis being okay with bashing babies' heads in right in front of their mothers with those same Nazis being unwilling to simply shoot prisoners?

The stories these "eyewitnesses" tell often match the official story even when it's fucking nonsense that the Nazis would've done things that way in a given situation. That tells me they're all just following a script. Many other "eyewitnesses" were also obviously lying because they made even more ridiculously impossible claims than Herr Groening here.

...And once again, if you're going to build your story on eyewitness testimony instead of physical evidence, you don't get to just ignore the witnesses and accused-participants who deny your version of events.

-----

I don't need to explain why Oskar Groening made his claims anymore than I need to explain why some "UFO abductee" crackpot makes his claims. If his story is obvious bullshit, I don't have to stop to wonder much about his motives to decide he's lying.

And at some point, when you've researched a topic enough to conclude that the whole official story is a crock of shit based on the physical evidence and primary sources available, you stop paying attention to "eyewitnesses" who claim the story is true. Eyewitness accounts are very weak on the evidence heirarchy, after all.

However, the first question I would ask regarding his motives is: does he have a family? I see he wrote memoirs "for his family" so I assume so. Maybe he's lying to protect them, because he knows if he denies the holocaust happened as the narrative claims he, and his family by extension, will be even further reviled.

Or maybe he's senile and actually believes the official narrative now, after hearing about it for 70+ years.

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

Two long essays worth reading regarding the holocaust eyewitness testimony:

Witnesses to the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz by Robert Faurisson

The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust by Manfred Köhler

I don't take everything I read from revisionists as gospel. I prefer to do my own investigation, as much as is practical. But I've found very little to object to in the approach taken by most of the holocaust revisionists whose works I've read. They are logical, rigorous, and well sourced. Meanwhile I find most pro-holocaust rebuttals laughable and best described as attempts to baffle the audience with pseudoscientific bullshit.