Post: #76

Great...Hey 1993 I want my outrage back goddamit!

Post: #77

The fact that this thread exists is a fucking disgrace. The Holocaust happened, like it or not. If you don't like Jews, that's an issue that operates independently of whether or not the Holocaust happened.

Post: #78

(12-31-2016 08:11 PM)Teedub Wrote:  I'm sorry Scorpion, but you answer some questions and avoid others where you don't have a real rebuttal.

This is the argument by question fallacy.

Scorpion is getting peppered with questions by at least three people. It takes much longer, and much more effort, to answer a question than to ask one. His inability to fully engage every single point brought up is not therefore some sort of proof that his arguments are wrong, or that he's dodging questions.

(12-31-2016 11:56 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  The fact that this thread exists is a fucking disgrace. The Holocaust happened, like it or not. If you don't like Jews, that's an issue that operates independently of whether or not the Holocaust happened.

Did you actually read the thread? The question is exactly what and how things happened, not whether some sort of holocaust-like event happened at all.

Post: #79

(12-31-2016 11:18 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  This gets more and more fanciful.

So now the nazis build Auschwitz complete with gas chambers - to kill Polish political prisoners? Why the need for gas chambers for that?

You seem to be taking the view that the Nazis were only interested in mass killings of Jews. The evidence is pretty damn clear that while the Final Solution might have been the bureaucratic euphemism for the extermination of Jews under the Reich, the Nazis were also pretty keen on killing as many Poles they could lay their hands on. This was also part of the eugenics they were practicing: in Poland, you got a chance to live if you happened to have blue eyes and blonde hair. Most Poles were thought of as Slavs and therefore degenerate. Pilecki's report in the early years is speaking of mass roundups of Poles.

(12-31-2016 11:18 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Besides, I see no credible proof of this report being authentic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold%27s_Report

Quote:The first publication of Witold's Report took place in 2000, 55 years after the war.[citation needed] An English translation was published in 2015 under the title The Auschwitz Volunteer: Beyond Bravery.[16]

Show me credible of this report being contemporary.

Leaving aside that the assertion Witold's Report was first published in 2000 is not itself referenced - and therefore on the wilds of Wikipedia is suspect - click on that Wikipedia link.

Have a look at the image that is appended to that article.

It's authored by the Polish government-in-exile, dated December 1942, addressed to the UN, and deals with the mass extermination of Jews in German-occupied Poland. The image itself links to the PDF of the report to the UN. The Polish government was getting its reports from Witold Pilecki and other ZOW groups.

Jan Karski corroborates Pilecki's report, and he published in 1944, around the same time.

On top of that, Pilecki was re-interrogated over his Auschwitz accounts during the Communist show trial of 1948. He spoke about the reports he had made then.

I grant you it's not easy to access a PDF copy of the original untranslated Polish version of Pilecki's reports, but I don't see anyone arguing about its veracity or suggesting, as you do, that it was produced well after the event or is a forgery.

And lastly, for evidence of Nazis' institutional murder if not gas chambers, try General Patton's diary entries and autobiography about what he saw when he went to Ohrsdruf, a subcamp of Buchenwald. Patton despised Jews, but he also was pretty meticulous about what he observed there.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #80

From Wikipedia--

After his visit, Eisenhower cabled General George C. Marshall, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington, describing his trip to Ohrdruf:[1]

... the most interesting—although horrible—sight that I encountered during the trip was a visit to a German internment camp near Gotha. The things I saw beggar description. ...The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said that he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to 'propaganda.'

Gee, I wonder if people are doing that now....

Hitler was a talented speaker and severely personality disordered man and a speed freak who developed amphetamine psychosis costing many lives.

Read his Secretary's diary about when he fired his doctor/supplier. It sounds very much like he he collapsed in withdrawal, unable to leave his room or speak to anyone, until he hired the guy back again in about three days.

Just another destructive narcissist speed freak with more talent thus leaving more bodies behind.

Post: #81

I'm an old man by the standards of this forum today. I've met holocaust survivors, I've met soldiers both German, British and American that have personally seen concentration camps. If the holocaust was a hoax it would be one of the best coordinated propaganda efforts in history, spanning multiple nations and enlisting tens of thousands of people to retell a lie. Things they have allegedly not seen but yet individually can all retell with great accuracy.

Even if we were to believe holocaust denialists arguments about the efficiency of gas chambers and similar what are we really arguing here? That the nazis could only kill 4 million Jews? 2? 1? Are the crimes any less horrific even if we would assume such a low number?

Someone mentioned WWII being a soviet holocaust and that's partially right. Stalin during his long reign killed far more people. Atrocities by communists have been largely smoothed over in history though. Ask any regular high schooler if they can detail the Genocide of the Red Khmers and they'll give you a blank look. This does in no way however take away the scope of the holocaust.

Post: #82

(01-01-2017 03:16 AM)Vicious Wrote:  I'm an old man by the standards of this forum today. I've met holocaust survivors, I've met soldiers both German, British and American that have personally seen concentration camps. If the holocaust was a hoax it would be one of the best coordinated propaganda efforts in history, spanning multiple nations and enlisting tens of thousands of people to retell a lie. Things they have allegedly not seen but yet individually can all retell with great accuracy.

...And this is the strawman fallacy.

Quote:Even if we were to believe holocaust denialists arguments about the efficiency of gas chambers and similar what are we really arguing here? That the nazis could only kill 4 million Jews? 2? 1? Are the crimes any less horrific even if we would assume such a low number?

Why shouldn't we discuss the details of the holocaust? Why shouldn't we question why it's considered so wrong to do so?

Why do some people find this discussion so threatening? If the holocaust happened as described, surely it can stand on its own, yes? So why do some people not even want the questions asked?

If the questioners are ridiculous, then surely they will fail without being forced to shut up. Is it not, in fact, better and more convincing to prove the veracity of your position against the questions of skeptics rather than trying to shut down any discussion of the matter at all?

Once upon a time I was a geologist. Do you think I broke a sweat worrying about questions from flat earthers or creationists?

I find the resistance to even allowing other people to talk about the subject pretty suspicious. "Heretical" is the word scorpion used for questions about the details of the holocaust, and it fits like a glove.

Post: #83

I find nothing threatening about the discussion, I find it lacking merit.

Kinda like saying something is "a strawman" somehow would make it less true.

Post: #84

(01-01-2017 03:50 AM)weambulance Wrote:  Why shouldn't we discuss the details of the holocaust? Why shouldn't we question why it's considered so wrong to do so?

Why do some people find this discussion so threatening? If the holocaust happened as described, surely it can stand on its own, yes? So why do some people not even want the questions asked?

If the questioners are ridiculous, then surely they will fail without being forced to shut up. Is it not, in fact, better and more convincing to prove the veracity of your position against the questions of skeptics rather than trying to shut down any discussion of the matter at all?

Once upon a time I was a geologist. Do you think I broke a sweat worrying about questions from flat earthers or creationists?

I find the resistance to even allowing other people to talk about the subject pretty suspicious. "Heretical" is the word scorpion used for questions about the details of the holocaust, and it fits like a glove.

I think it's a distinct minority of people in this thread who actually are proposing that we don't talk about this at all. And one of the few guys who is has said it should be shut down for fear of prosecution of Roosh in Europe. Which, I've got to say, is something of a hysterical fear; if the Man wants to come for Roosh there's plenty of other more obvious trumped-up charges it could go for.

That said, there is an awful tendency in this debate -- and I'm not singling out any particular person here, in fairness -- to inappropriately generalise, strawman, or introduce irrelevant matters into the discussion.

Let me take your metaphor of geology for a second: it's simple enough to dismiss flat earthers or creationists, simply because geology, a physical science simply measurable, is easily verifiable scientifically. The rock doesn't need to talk to you to tell you it was there for four and a half million years after the Autobots' Ark crashed into it. You have high-precision instruments and methods for measuring its age that can tell that for itself. Or if the rock is shattered, you generally have a record of where it's found so you can go dig up the one that was right next to it. The data does not alter.

Human memory and human experience is not quite so non-malleable. First, history is as difficult as hell to winnow out from the agendas of those living at the time and those who are writing about it. In TL;DR terms, Churchill's famous quote: "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." Every man who's been watching the culture war has been personally witness to an ongoing war by feminism to alter the perception of historical events in such a way to remove the truth from them. If they win this war, human existence will be far poorer for it and far darker. QC's jousting with one of the Zuckerberg clones is the tip of the iceberg.

Second, history, from Thucydides on, is written from fragments -- in all cases. Until the video camera came along, nobody left behind an impartial recording of events (and these days even that can be faked.) Perhaps the most powerful example of this I've ever seen is to compare the JFK Zapruder footage with Zapruder's testimony to the Warren Commission. Zapruder shot the most famous home movie in history, basically the first time that an assassination was captured on film, but Zapruder himself was an absolute emotional wreck on the witness stand -- mainly because he'd seen a man gunned down right in front of his eyes, and his vague, contradictory testimony shows it.

The problem being that we sometimes don't remember the fragmentary nature of history, or that well-intentioned eyewitnesses can nonetheless be wrong, or that a failure of memory or contradiction in one aspect of evidence makes the person entirely incredible in all other matters, i.e. just because a guy can't remember the colour of young Hans Gruber's boots does not mean that one of those boots did not get planted in Samuel Fuckowitz's face at some time in 1943 or that Fuckowitz's wife and daughter were gunned down in front of him at roughly the same time.

On the other hand, I suspect part of the annoyance is concern with the slippery-slope effect, the suggestion that if any element of the grim story (I won't call it the Holocaust) is proven not to be credible, the entire story collapses by degrees. This is not a paranoid belief: the slippery slope is real, the Left has been using it against the West for the better part of forty years or more.

Panning all of the contributions to the thread to date, I don't think outright denial of a program against the Jews and many others is what's being said here in sum.

In my opinion you would be stretching reality to an entirely unbelievable result to conclude that Hitler's regime was not out to get the Jews in Germany and anywhere else he overran. In my view, there is simply too much material to conclude that.

So ask some basic questions about this debate: are we arguing that Hitler was anti-Jew, was anti-Jew and acted on it, was anti-Jew and acted on it but not as badly as has been made out? Are we now arguing precise specifics of how those killings were carried out?

And on that point, related to any tendency to bow down to historical documents or German efficiencies? Do we really expect precise down-to-the-last-six-year-old-boy figures of how many were killed, by what method, and where? For real? We're going to argue the definition of German words around this subject when even a sociopath like Stalin, killer of far more of his own people than Hitler could ever dream of, still referred to extrajudicial killings by the euphemism of "special duties"?

If so, at the risk of resort to the Hillary Defence, what difference does it make?

Is the point that the killings were used as propaganda by the Jews/Poles/Soviets/US to justify the creation of Israel? Come on: that UN Security Resolution Obama has been shitting his pants over is essentially a non-binding resolution by the UN that Israel has essentially been breaking the Geneva Convention in that it's ethnically cleansing Palestine with its settlers to the tune of 500,000 settlers since 1978 or so. Whether the Holocaust happened or not, whether there were gas chambers or not, Israel has no excuse for that shit.

If tomorrow there were conclusive evidence that not one gas chamber ever existed in Germany (and there's no such thing as conclusive evidence when it comes to human affairs, that's why the criminal standard is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt) it would not make the slightest difference to Israel's legitimacy as a nation in practical terms. Israel and its however-many Jews are there now. They have US support and in a pinch are a friendly port in the Middle East where all the oil is. This situation was fucked up long before 1948, simply because moral and law break down once you have guns big enough to detonate entire cities. Welcome to realpolitik.

Is the point that Germany renders Holocaust denial criminal? Okay, I can get behind anti-censorship movements, but if that's the real point of the debate -- and I think it is -- why don't we get into the specifics of what the German law says first, talk about why it sucks, and how it should be changed?

There's also frankly what I think is the utter insanity of trying to argue this shit thoroughly or methodically on an internet message board. People can assert they've had hours and hours of work into the subject, people can assert they've spoken to Holocaust survivors, we can do all this shit and more till the cows come home but it won't mean much when they do show up for milking. This is a massive subject. It's been seventy years, scholars have crawled over the subject end to end, libraries of books repeating the incomplete/fragmentary/political evidence/data/facts have been written from every historical perspective available, five to ten guys are not going to solve this shit conclusively in our spare time on the Internet.

Nobody on this thread is going to come up with a memo from Herr Hitler's notepad dated 30 April 1945 reading "Oh by the way, bros, here's my letter to IG Farben specifying that I needed enough Zyklon-B at a super-high concentration to kill every Jew in Germany in the space of 12 months".

Conversely, nobody on this thread is going to come up with a memo from Herr Hitler's notepad dated 30 April 1945 reading "Oh, by the way, bros, I was really distressed about hunger conditions in Auschwitz, Birkenau, Buchenwald, I hope nobody thinks those efficient delousing chambers we built was for killing people en masse."

So with that epic rant said, I think I'm out on this issue, expressing a mea culpa for jumping in on the subject of Witold Pilecki. Personal prejudice on that one: I have a dog in this fight, my grandmother was Polish, Christian, was in one of the work camps, received compensation from the German government for it, lost her first husband in 1939 when the Nazis decided to Go East Young Man, and met her second in the camp. But this is just a black hole of a debate. Maybe it's profitable to have it, but I query the profit margin, not the fact of the debate.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #85

(01-01-2017 04:22 AM)Vicious Wrote:  I find nothing threatening about the discussion, I find it lacking merit.

Good thing nobody is forcing you to participate.

Quote:Kinda like saying something is "a strawman" somehow would make it less true.

Do you know what a strawman is?

Post: #86

Norman Finkelstein, who is a Jewish author and professor (who had members of both his father's and mother's family fall victim to the holocaust) wrote an controversial, yet interesting, book back in the year 2000 on why this topic has become so politicised.





From wikipedia:

Quote:The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering is a 2000 book by Norman G. Finkelstein, in which Finkelstein argues that the American Jewish establishment exploits the memory of the Nazi Holocaust for political and financial gain, as well as to further the interests of Israel. According to Finkelstein, this "Holocaust industry" has corrupted Jewish culture and the authentic memory of the Holocaust.

According to Finkelstein, his book is "an anatomy and an indictment of the Holocaust industry". He argues that "'The Holocaust' is an ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust".

In the foreword to the first paperback edition, Finkelstein notes that the first hardback edition had been a considerable hit in several European countries and many languages, but had been largely ignored in the United States. He sees The New York Times as the main promotional vehicle of the "Holocaust industry", and notes that the 1999 Index listed 273 entries for the Holocaust and just 32 entries for the entire continent of Africa.

Interview with him here:

Post: #87

(12-31-2016 11:56 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  The fact that this thread exists is a fucking disgrace. The Holocaust happened, like it or not. If you don't like Jews, that's an issue that operates independently of whether or not the Holocaust happened.

You know I respect your views as much as anyone on the forum. So I ask respectfully...why do you immediately cry out that this topic is a "fucking disgrace"? What is special about it above all others? Why do you regard it in religious/heretical terms? For example, we've had debates over the resurrection of Christ and I've never seen anything but calm and measured responses from you.

Why is it a "fucking disgrace" to simply question the existence of a particular historical method of execution (gas chambers) during the second world war?

Why is it even illegal to do so in most of Europe?

Why is this topic immediately shouted down and/or treated most gingerly with kid gloves?

No one is denying the persecution of Jews at the hands of the Nazis. No one is denying the vast amount of human suffering that took place. No one is saying that Jews are supervillians knowingly engaged in a vast conspiracy. I'm simply saying: "Hey, that gas chamber story? Pretty sure that was wartime atrocity propaganda that took on a life of its own and was subsequently utilized for political purposes by the Zionists (to help justify the establishment of Israel), the American and the Soviets (to sweep their own war crimes under the rug in contrast with the ghastly accusations against the Nazis).

Post: #88

(12-31-2016 09:29 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  Why did the Germans spend all this money and manpower on this "final solution" ? For a country that was pretty much bankrupt from 1918 until 1933 from expensive world war I reparations and insane hyperinflation , and then fighting multiple wars on multiple fronts all across Europe from 1939 until 1945, it seems crazy to waste all these very expensive resources and endless years just to arrest and kill all members of particular religious group. Simple anti seminitism does not explain this real paradox.

You just have to read Hitlers book to find out. Interesting enough, if you run around in Germany and tell people, Hitler did what he did because of Bolshevik Jews, you are called an anti-semite. Although the revolution in Russia was very Jewish. Also, the revolution in Munich was very Jewish (Räterepublik).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic


So Hitler knew what was happening in Russia and what would maybe sweep across Europe.
This Rabbi get's it.

Post: #89

(12-31-2016 12:57 PM)scorpion Wrote:  1) The official Holocaust™ narrative ("Six million Jews were systematically murdered in gas chambers and their bodies incinerated") as it it taught and commonly believed is false. It simply did not happen. Period. There were no gas chambers.

What does your "research" consist of? I posted that interview with THREE SS men that were in Auschwitz. One of them even did the phenol injections into prisoners hearts.

All of them confirm the existence of gas chambers and crematoria. We had a HUGE trial in German in the 60ies against perpetrators. ALL the material is available, transcripts, everything.
He1. Auschwitz Trialre.

Also, here you have Heinrich Himmler personally talking about the extermination of the Jews in Posen, Poland. Yes it's him, yes he talks extermination (don't gimme some bullshit halfwit understanding of German, like "root out" means something different)

Post: #90

(01-01-2017 09:39 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 11:56 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  The fact that this thread exists is a fucking disgrace. The Holocaust happened, like it or not. If you don't like Jews, that's an issue that operates independently of whether or not the Holocaust happened.

Why is this topic immediately shouted down and/or treated most gingerly with kid gloves?

Because it´s still fresh and close to home for many people. But obviously should be discussed freely. Even though you can´t blame people who lost family members in the camps to be passionate about it. I would be to.

(And another six "Over 60 million people were killed"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)

Post: #91

It's been about 70 years.

Just about everyone involved is dead of old age.

Sure as hell there is nobody on this forum that actually suffered directly.

"Feelz" is not a relevant argument for shutting this discussion down.

If people want to make a thread discussing why the sky is actually down and the ground is actually up then more power to them. Stifling discussion has long been demonstrated to compound ignorance and breed discontent.

It is always better to air this stuff and bring evidence to light.

Post: #92

This thread is a shame. Not because you guys question one of the biggest crimes in mankind, but because it shows how degernarte modern men are.

My grand-grandfather was part of the SS. My grandfather was send to war at the age of 15.

My grandpa tried to explain to me the "advantage" of those chambers, before he died:
To them it, it seemed as the most efficient and "humane" way to kill - not for the victims, but for the germans. Open door - close door - burn the corpses.

Can any of you alpha-guys imagine what it is like to shoot hundreds of ppl with a machine gun? I guess not. Its no fun.

Anyway - this shows the final degeneration of this forum. Its forbidden to discuss things like p2p, but holocaust denial is allowed.

Don't waste your time answering me or calling me brainwashed - I will now quit this place.

Post: #93

The holocaust is fresh for people the same way American slavery is fresh. It's never going to not be fresh because it's just too useful.

Post: #94

(12-31-2016 02:43 PM)scorpion Wrote:  [quote='HighSpeed_LowDrag' pid='1475669' dateline='1483210287']

This interpretation hinges on the translation of ausrottung as being extermination, implying killing. But the word could just as accurately be translated as extirpation, meaning uprooting or permanent removal. The speeches are very long and those are tiny excerpts. I find it unlikely that a genocide program of such scale (and secrecy, apparently) would be glossed over in such a cursory fashion. A more detailed look at this: http://codoh.com/library/document/891/

Are you a native German speaker? Because it's 100% clear to me that Himmler did not talk about some hypothetical transfer of Jews. In this context he is 100% clear to kill every single one so they will never again be a problem for Germany.

Also here is Adolf Eichmann, again in German, talking to Willem Sassen in Argentina. He clearly states that they estimated 10.3 Million Jews in Europe, and he saw it as his duty to kill every single one.

Post: #95

(01-01-2017 10:08 AM)CameraXL Wrote:  This thread is a shame. Not because you guys question one of the biggest crimes in mankind, but because it shows how degernarte modern men are.
...

Anyway - this shows the final degeneration of this forum. Its forbidden to discuss things like p2p, but holocaust denial is allowed.

Don't waste your time answering me or calling me brainwashed - I will now quit this place.

Pursuing historical accuracy: Degenerate.

Discussing the ins and outs of buying sex: Enlightened.

Welcome to Germany, 2017.

Post: #96

(12-31-2016 03:30 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  Like I said since the beginning of this thread, the holocaust and the gas chambers are 100% real, but the numbers of those killed was exaggerated by both the Soviet Union and communist governments ruling eastern Europe covering up their own horrible crimes, and various groups in the west pushing their own agendas.

I don't think so. They interview with the three SS men I posted, they clearly stated up to 2000 or 3000 people went in there. There are huge transports at times from Hungary. The trains would come in, at the end were crematoria 3 & 4. People were selected, then moved, gassed and burned.
Roughly 30% were put to work, 70% of arrivals directly into the gas.

Post: #97

(01-01-2017 10:07 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  It's been about 70 years.

Just about everyone involved is dead of old age.

Sure as hell there is nobody on this forum that actually suffered directly.

"Feelz" is not a relevant argument for shutting this discussion down.

If people want to make a thread discussing why the sky is actually down and the ground is actually up then more power to them. Stifling discussion has long been demonstrated to compound ignorance and breed discontent.

It is always better to air this stuff and bring evidence to light.

Your distorting what I wrote. And your being intelectually dishonest for the sake of winning an argument.

I didn´t say" directly" but family members. I don´t expect a survivor camp to be posting in RVF.

There was already a family member who mentioned an aunt being killed. This for me is both fresh and close to home.

Secondly didn´t advocated the discussion being shut down. I actually said:
"But obviously should be discussed freely. " The fact it´s illegal to discuss it works against it. Because it gives a vibe of something to hide.

You can´t reproach people who had innocent family members killed getting passionate about a discussion of how they´re were killed. Since the important is they were killed. If by gas or bullets can be discussed. But it´s irrelevant in the bigger picture. Even if the number is less (like the red cross report). It´s still a massacre. The fact the numbers are less doesn´t take away the monstrosity of the event.

What I would like to understand is both nazism and communism can de defeated. Most improtant than forbidding the holocaust discussion would be to forbidden communism. Because communism is the root of all evil. And probably was the cause of Nazism. Which was the cause of the spread of communism. Sooner than later I hope to be possible start spending money to defeat communism and any form of excessive statism.

Post: #98

(12-31-2016 10:41 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  









^Evidence.

Do you believe that the troops that came across this scene were going to organize an autopsy of the tens of thousands of corpses that hadn't even yet been burned to determine whether they died from starvation, typhus, TB or Zyklon B? It's absurd to even suggest such a thing. We're fortunate enough to have footage like above to refute denialist claims. Nobody in this thread has made the argument that 6 million were gassed, and many are open to the possibility that not even that number were killed, but to say that the only evidence for murder approaching that scale is a couple speeches does nothing for one's credibility.

Mainstream Holocaust scholars (aka non-revisionists) will tell you that the camps liberated by the Americans were NOT "death camps" and did NOT contain gas chambers. So no, those pictures do not show anyone who died from Zyklon B gassing. Those are clearly prisoners who were suffering from starvation and/or Typhus. Also, according to the official Holocaust narrative, prisoners at death camps were led directly off trains into showers and gas chambers. They would not have time to starve and become emaciated as seen in those pictures. The very evidence you present as supposedly showing gas chamber victims shows the exact opposite: these were prisoners who had been at the camps for an extended period of time.

(12-31-2016 10:41 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  Gas doesn't have to dissipate, Jews and NAZI supervisors emptying the chambers were equipped with gas masks.

This is one of those answers that satisfies people on the surface, but which falls apart when you actually think about it. "Oh, they just wore gas masks. Easy." The problem is that there is conflicting testimony regarding the wearing of gas masks. In fact, the most credible "eyewitness" to the gas chambers whose testimony was cited as evidence in the Irving trial by Deborah Lipstadt makes no mention of gas masks worn by Sonderkommados at all:

Quote: David Olere, a French-Jewish deportee to Auschwitz in 1943, is one of the most important eyewitnesses to the operation of the gas chambers. In his own words, the sketches of Olere "provide a very important visual record of the design and operation of the gas chamber and incinerators of Crematorium 3"7 Indeed, throughout his entire study he attempts to demonstrate that Olere is a credible eyewitness by showing how his sketches are consistent with physical evidence.

Jean-Claude Pressac also claimed that the drawings of Olere that will be examined in this article are an important visual record of the operation of the homicidal gas chambers.8 And last but not least, Deborah Lipstadt attempts to convince her readership that Olere is a credible eyewitness by showing how his claims are consistent with the physical evidence. In this regard, she refers to the "drawings by Sonderkommando David Olere, who, upon liberation sketched the gas chambers.

The sketches, Robert Jan [van Pelt] noted, were fully corroborated by the architectural plans in the Auschwitz Central Construction Office and the aerial photos."9

Thus, Lipstadt, Pressac and van Pelt claim that Olere is perhaps the most important eyewitness to the alleged mass gassings, and his sketches, paintings and drawings provide the world with an accurate description of the technique and operation of the Auschwitz gas chambers. But is this so? Professor van Pelt's omission and inclusion suggest otherwise.

Let us begin with van Pelt's omission. In his book van Pelt published some of Olere's more important sketches regarding the structure and operation of the alleged gas chambers, but failed to include one of his most important drawings. It is the painting showing the Sonderkommmandos opening the gas chamber door and pulling the bodies out after a mass gassing. In the painting, the inmates are shirtless, and they are not wearing any gas masks, rubber gloves or protective suits.

Taken from: http://www.rense.com/general69/gasccm.htm

Also, a gas mask is not a magical device. They are clumsy, uncomfortable, easy to use improperly, and difficult to wear for long periods of time, especially while engaging in physical labor. The idea that men would just easily put on gas masks then walk into a highly poisonous room and engage in rough physical labor (lifting and carrying hundreds of bodies) for months on end without any difficulty or incident defies belief.

(12-31-2016 10:41 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  An unresearched statement masquerading as fact. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/ho...om.685796/
A single person in a 20x30 foot room would survive for 12 days before being killed by CO2 levels. If you crammed 260 people in that room (note that I have deducted 1.76 cubic feet of mass per human to allow for displaced air with this number) they would all survive for an hour before suffering the end result which could be achieved in minutes with gas.

Starving requires space which could be used to house productive slave labor. Machine gunning indoors is messy, expensive, and "hands-on". Outdoors is visible to others and still hands on.

All resources were in short supply. Metals and engineering were primarily devoted to the war effort. Why would anyone with an endless supply of free human labor devote precious materials to some elaborate hydraulic platform under these circumstances?

Unfortunately for your case, we have ever-reliable eyewitness testimony from the Gerstein report that contradicts what you're saying:

Quote:The text which follows is a portion of the Gerstein statement as given in the English translation of Harvest of Hate by Leon Poliakov. Aside from a rather brazen "error" on the part of Poliakov, namely the claim that 700 to 800 bodies were crowded into 93 square meters instead of only 25 square meters (which is the way the original documents actually read) it is probably no worse a translation than any of the other versions which can be found. (fn. 6)

SS men pushed the men into the chambers. "Fill it up," Wirth ordered, 700-800 people in 93 [sic] square meters. The doors closed. Then I understood the reason for the "Heckenholt" sign. Heckenholt was the driver of the Diesel, whose exhaust was to kill these poor unfortunates. SS Unterscharführer Heckenholt tried to start the motor. It wouldn't start! Captain Wirth came up. You could see he was afraid because I was there to see the disaster. Yes, I saw everything and waited. My stopwatch clocked it all: 50 minutes, 70 minutes, and the Diesel still would not start! The men were waiting in the gas chambers. You could hear them weeping "as though in a synagogue," said Professor Pfannenstiel, his eyes glued to the window in the wooden door. Captain Wirth, furious, struck with his whip the Ukrainian who helped Heckenholt - The Diesel started up after 2 hours and 49 minutes, by my stopwatch. Twenty-five minutes passed. You could see through the window that many were already dead, for an electric light illuminated the interior of the room. All were dead after thirty-two minutes! Jewish workers on the other side opened the wooden doors. They had been promised their lives in return for doing this horrible work, plus a small percentage of the money and valuables collected. The men were still standing, like columns of stone, with no room to fall or lean. Even in death you could tell the families, all holding hands. It was difficult to separate them while emptying the room for the next batch. The bodies were tossed out, blue, wet with sweat and urine, the legs smeared with excrement and menstrual blood. (fn. 7)

It was not a peephole through which Prof. Pfannenstiel supposedly looked into the gas chamber-it was a window. And it was a window in a wooden door-not a steel, gas-tight door as one might expect. Apparently, there were wooden doors on two sides of at least one of the gas chambers. We are told that the intended victims were still alive after almost three hours in the gas chambers before the Diesel even started. Surely, there must have been many air leaks into the chambers or else the Jews would have been asphyxiated without the aid of any Diesel.

From here: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v05/v05p-15_Berg.html

The reality is this: if these alleged gas chambers were used at anywhere near the capacity the eyewitness accounts and alleged victim numbers propose, poison gas would not have been necessary at all. These people were allegedly crammed in like sardines with standing room only. The Nazis could have done away entirely with all the logistical, operational and safety problems associated with the use of poison gas. They could have simply sped the asphyxiation process along by pumping inert gas (such as helium or argon) into the chamber. The people inside would be dead within minutes.

(12-31-2016 10:41 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  You rail against the eyewitness testimony of thousands of people and immediately give three examples of eyewitness testimony (one of the which could best be described as a "house Jew") of your own as if that counters volumes?

My contention is that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence available. Any trial attorney or judge will tell you as much. An operation on the scale of the alleged gas chambers should not need eyewitness testimony to confirm. The physical evidence and documentary should be overwhelming. But it is simply not there.

(12-31-2016 10:41 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  I'm certain that every one of those books could be picked apart as in the first example above if one wanted to invest the time to do so. I disagree strongly with most Jews politically and am not especially close to any, but Holocaust denialism is simply an example of "commitment and consistency" gone awry.

What if you're wrong? Have you ever even considered the possibility? What sort of evidence (or more accurately, what lack of evidence) would it take for you to entertain the possibility that the Nazis never employed gas chambers as a means for the mass murder of Jews? Remember, this is a historical inquiry, not a test of religious dogma. If the events actually took place, we should have ample historical evidence to settle the debate one way or another. No sane person questions whether or not the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. Nor is it illegal to question that fact. There is no question that the event occurred. Yet in the case of the gas chambers, we have no similar evidence despite the massive scale of the operation, and the events are illegal to question. Don't you see something wrong with that picture?

Post: #99

(01-01-2017 10:08 AM)CameraXL Wrote:  This thread is a shame. Not because you guys question one of the biggest crimes in mankind, but because it shows how degernarte modern men are.

My grand-grandfather was part of the SS. My grandfather was send to war at the age of 15.

My grandpa tried to explain to me the "advantage" of those chambers, before he died:
To them it, it seemed as the most efficient and "humane" way to kill - not for the victims, but for the germans. Open door - close door - burn the corpses.

Can any of you alpha-guys imagine what it is like to shoot hundreds of ppl with a machine gun? I guess not. Its no fun.

Anyway - this shows the final degeneration of this forum. Its forbidden to discuss things like p2p, but holocaust denial is allowed.

Don't waste your time answering me or calling me brainwashed - I will now quit this place.

You should probably get off the internet anyway, go outside and do something about the hordes of Muslims invading your country and raping your women in the streets. The 70 years of Holocaust propaganda that have turned men like you into useless cucks who don't view their own people as worthy of existence is the major reason your country is falling apart at the seams. You'd rather scold me on the internet and run away to a safe space rather than confront the truth (or confront Achmed outside when he fondles your girlfriend right in front of you for that matter). So run away and look for your balls and your brain, you've clearly lost possession of both.

By the way, your grandfathers would regard you as a spineless pussy unworthy of carrying the family name. Have a nice day.

Post: #100

(01-01-2017 10:19 AM)not-a-pua Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 03:30 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  Like I said since the beginning of this thread, the holocaust and the gas chambers are 100% real, but the numbers of those killed was exaggerated by both the Soviet Union and communist governments ruling eastern Europe covering up their own horrible crimes, and various groups in the west pushing their own agendas.

I don't think so. They interview with the three SS men I posted, they clearly stated up to 2000 or 3000 people went in there. There are huge transports at times from Hungary. The trains would come in, at the end were crematoria 3 & 4. People were selected, then moved, gassed and burned.
Roughly 30% were put to work, 70% of arrivals directly into the gas.

Have you actually been to Auschwitz (or any of the other death camps) and seen the ruins of the gas chambers ?

The actual gas chamber basement space can't physically fit thousands or even hundreds at one time. Impossible. These people went in there more or less voluntarily thinking they were going to have a disinfectant shower. They had to have enough personal space around them to not panic, get claustrophobic, and overthrow the guards as a group beforehand. Some knew or guessed what was going to happen, but most did not. It was done in a very calm and ice cold blooded way.

Now, if they were killing all day long from morning until night over 4 gas chambers, you can get to a few thousand per day....but not in 1 gassing in 1 chamber. Both logistically and physically impossible.

Here is a photo from a birds eye view to give you some perspective on the actual size.