Post: #301

(09-05-2017 06:08 PM)britchard Wrote:  So the documents that show Nazi officials discussing the camps in thinly veiled terms mean nothing? I've met a holocaust survivor. I know when a man is lying. He wasn't.

The attempts to show Auschwitz as having a swimming pool and play areas are ridiculous. It used to be a Polish army barracks, the Germans commandeered it to turn it in to a death camp.

The only questions I have are over the specific numbers. I think 6 million is too high. More like 1.5 to 2 million, when you look at the maths. Doesn't make the crime any less heinous.

Lastly, one or two weird eyewitness accounts that support holocaust denial theories don't overrule the thousands of accounts that back up the accepted version of events.

Agree with everything you've said Truth Teller. Apt username.

Actually it makes the crime about 4 to 4.5 million "less heinous".

Post: #302

Is it possible to estimate the number of dead by adding up figures and estimates from the various camps?

Post: #303

(09-05-2017 07:36 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Truth Teller, I believe the fundamental error you are making is looking at the Holocaust as just another event in history. Your first instinct is thus to look to the opinions of fellow historians and the views of the established literature. This is an understandable approach for a historian, but it is the wrong one if you are trying to understand what actually happened in this specific case. The Holocaust is not a remote historical event of antiquity, it is something that occurred in living memory, and it is an event which has been politicized to a greater degree than literally any other in the history of mankind. This politicization has resulted in a situation where public dissent from the established historical narrative can be met with literal imprisonment in much of the West. In countries where you won't be tossed in prison for challenging the consensus view, you will be certainly blacklisted from academia and all forms of traditional media, and even with established tenure you risk getting fired and tarred with the label of anti-Semite for life. Given this situation, it should be completely unsurprising that all mainstream historians steer clear of the Holocaust minefield (look what happened to the previously well-respected David Irving when he made the case). There's simply no incentive whatsoever to go there. It is therefore the height of foolishness to rely on historians to inform us of the truth of the Holocaust. Luckily, we don't require their expertise, most of which, by the way - as those who do the research themselves have found - is simply based on the testimony of the same few dozen individuals. Given that these events happened in the 1940s and not 4000 B.C., we have an incredible amount of extant evidence to examine for ourselves, without being forced to rely on (the heavily politicized and disincentivized) opinions of historians. The correct approach is therefore to treat the Holocaust as a crime. You're playing historian when you should be playing detective.

I'm not saying that we should only defer to the views of people who are professional historians. That would be a slightly more advanced form of an argument from authority. What I am saying is that, when the consensus of professional historians is one way (and nobody with a relevant degree thinks otherwise), then there are probably some very good reasons to hold to that view. In terms of the number of accounts, you're misrepresenting the number by saying "a few dozen." There are literally hundreds of thousands, from guards, commandants, prisoners, etc.

On a less important note, David Irving was never all that well-respected. He wrote one good book, about the V-Weapons project, and pretty much everything else he's written is either pro-German apologetics or historically shoddy.

(09-05-2017 07:36 PM)scorpion Wrote:  As detectives, we are interested primarily in evidence. Any working detective or prosecutor will tell you that physical and forensic evidence are the grade-A standard for securing a conviction. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable and often breaks down under cross examination. What I have essentially been doing in this thread is cross-examining the eyewitness testimony of Holocaust survivors who claim to have seen gas chambers, ghoulish medical experiments, blood geysers, human lampshades and other such heinous things. As I have shown repeatedly, almost all of this testimony has serious flaws for a number of reasons. Further, when examining the actual forensic evidence we have from the alleged death camps, we find nothing that would indicate the existence of gas chambers. These forensic tools include chemical analysis of the alleged gas chamber walls, the inadequate construction and design of the crematoria and "gas chambers" to physically accommodate the number of victims proposed, ground penetrating radar used on the site of alleged mass graves and the numerous claims which are simply physically impossible (i.e. burning thousands of bodies in pits with the fat from the bodies themselves as the only fuel, gassing and cremating multiple thousands of persons per day in camps with only 8 crematory ovens, gassing and burying hundreds of thousands of people and then later exhuming the bodies and burning them, etc...).

Yes, you're basically doing what I'm accusing you of: casting doubt on the narrative but not really providing any cogent alternative. I've been hammering at that point for the entire thread, by the way. In addition, much of your counter-evidence is either a) discredited or b) problematic. You're relying on the Leuchter Report, which has been pretty systematically taken apart, as shown here:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/i...-research/

Post: #304

(09-05-2017 08:35 PM)Laska Wrote:  Is it possible to estimate the number of dead by adding up figures and estimates from the various camps?

Yes, it is. That's been done here: https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php...d=10008193

Post: #305

TT just more or less said "You should unquestioningly believe me and others because you don't have a relevant degree and I do".

You keep linking to sites that swallow hook line and sinker said historians.

Do you really not see the issue with this TT?

What a crock of circuler logic.

Post: #306

(09-05-2017 08:52 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 08:35 PM)Laska Wrote:  Is it possible to estimate the number of dead by adding up figures and estimates from the various camps?

Yes, it is. That's been done here: https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php...d=10008193

Thanks Truth Teller. I went to the site and according to it's statistics, added up a total of 5,751,500, give or take a few thousand. If anyone else wants to add up numbers in similar fashion using different sources, it'll be very interesting. Of course, remember to cite your sources.

Post: #307

The point is, we just ask TT and other historians to show us the primary sources and we never seem to get it.

Note, I pointed out the Wannsee conference protocols in detail here, and TT has not responded. The Wannsee protocols are claimed to be where the nazis planned the Holocaust but few people read it. Then when you actually read it, it's nothing like historians would have you think.

Show us the primary sources.

Post: #308

Truth Teller's link shows the following in its numbers:

"Deaths in ghettos: at least 800,000"

Why did people in the ghettos die? I don't remember hearing anything about this. Was it allied bombing, general starvation in Germany, firing squads, what was it?

Post: #309

(09-05-2017 09:12 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Note, I pointed out the Wannsee conference protocols in detail here, and TT has not responded. The Wannsee protocols are claimed to be where the nazis planned the Holocaust but few people read it. Then when you actually read it, it's nothing like historians would have you think.

You're getting to a good issue and one that I'd like to discuss. In Holocaust studies (which is a subfield of history), there are two broad camps, called functionalism and intentionalism. Intentionalism supposes that the process was "top down," Hitler gave orders to the SS/SA/Wehrmacht generals, they gave orders down the hierarchy and then the killings started. This was a very popular view between (roughly) 1945 and the 1970s/early 80s. This is where a lot of the question of "was there a specific written order?" comes from, and that's why that question (of specific documentary evidence) was pursued for so long, apparently to no avail.

The other view is that of functionalism, that the process was basically bottom up. So far as I can tell (this is not my subfield; my subfield is something else, actually), this is the majority view today. This view supposes that the process really didn't start with Hitler and the Nazis, it started at the grassroots level, as many anti-Semitic movements have throughout the ages.

Wikipedia is not a good source, but the article is actually decently referenced. If I were forced to classify myself, I'm between the synthetic view and the moderate intentionalist view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional...#Synthesis

The Wannsee conference minutes are known to be misleading, as there was a desire to avoid putting references to mass genocide in it.

What primary sources do you want to see? 99% of them are available online.

Post: #310

(09-05-2017 09:21 PM)Laska Wrote:  Truth Teller's link shows the following in its numbers:

"Deaths in ghettos: at least 800,000"

Why did people in the ghettos die? I don't remember hearing anything about this. Was it allied bombing, general starvation in Germany, firing squads, what was it?

I'm not a Holocaust specialist (I can ask my colleague who is), but it came down to two or three factors:

1. Starvation, the rations for those inside the ghettos were pretty much non-existent. I recall a Warsaw Ghetto resident saying that the ration was something like 800 calories a day.

2. Disease: the ghettos were overcrowded, often fitting 10,000 plus people in the "Jewish quarter" of town, an area that was designed for maybe 1,000 or so people at the most.

3. Random violence/internal violence: The Ghetto (at least in Warsaw) was often a place of conflicting factions. One group in the Warsaw Ghetto actively attacked "German collaborationists," like the Ghetto Police or Group 13. Overall, this was a small(er) percentage of deaths.

Post: #311

(09-05-2017 11:02 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 09:12 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Note, I pointed out the Wannsee conference protocols in detail here, and TT has not responded. The Wannsee protocols are claimed to be where the nazis planned the Holocaust but few people read it. Then when you actually read it, it's nothing like historians would have you think.

You're getting to a good issue and one that I'd like to discuss. In Holocaust studies (which is a subfield of history), there are two broad camps, called functionalism and intentionalism. Intentionalism supposes that the process was "top down," Hitler gave orders to the SS/SA/Wehrmacht generals, they gave orders down the hierarchy and then the killings started. This was a very popular view between (roughly) 1945 and the 1970s/early 80s. This is where a lot of the question of "was there a specific written order?" comes from, and that's why that question (of specific documentary evidence) was pursued for so long, apparently to no avail.

The other view is that of functionalism, that the process was basically bottom up. So far as I can tell (this is not my subfield; my subfield is something else, actually), this is the majority view today. This view supposes that the process really didn't start with Hitler and the Nazis, it started at the grassroots level, as many anti-Semitic movements have throughout the ages.

Wikipedia is not a good source, but the article is actually decently referenced. If I were forced to classify myself, I'm between the synthetic view and the moderate intentionalist view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional...#Synthesis

The Wannsee conference minutes are known to be misleading, as there was a desire to avoid putting references to mass genocide in it.

What primary sources do you want to see? 99% of them are available online.

Two fields of study trying to make a narrative without evidence work is all i'm reading here. "Since there's no evidence of a top down order then let's see if we can make a bottom up narrative work". Then just say "Ze germans were being careful not to note their genocidal plans formally". You can't prove a negative so of course this unprobvable claim is the cornerstone of the reasoning.

Sounds to me like an academic thesis created because it's a slam dunk for getting a Ph.d

Subfields of Holocaust study? Give me a break. This gets more absurd by the minute.

Imagine for a moment; Nazis who think they are going to rule the world carefully avoiding any written references to killing off all the jews only just in case they....fail in ruling the world.

Everything else was carefully accounted for but not that!

These Germans only used their incredible efficiency to destroy all evidence of their very inefficient mass genocide methods.

This is what happens when you have historians creating narratives; they know nothing about actual logistics.

How do you explain away Scorpion's point about all the coal needed to incinerate all of these millions of bodies? And during a war being fought on multiple fronts?

Could they be that stupid to divert those sorts of resources just to exterminating people they had already nuetralized?

What about the discrepancies in the Anne Frank Diary?

You don't acknowledge any of that.

Post: #312

(09-05-2017 08:49 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  You're relying on the Leuchter Report, which has been pretty systematically taken apart, as shown here:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/i...-research/

Interesting, are these the Polish authors mentioned here?-

http://vho.org/GB/c/GR/Fraudulent.html

If so - here's the first paragraph of that site:

Quote:It is more than twelve years ago that an American technician went to Auschwitz concentration camp and made the first forensic research ever conducted by an independent researcher. His expert report triggered a broad and sometimes heated debate, as it was not in line with the generally excepted view held about Auschwitz. Under such circumstances one would expect that many scholars would get involved in this matter trying to refute Leuchter’s thesis. But in all these years only one scientific paper has been published in a fairly unknown Polish journal addressing the chemical questions raised by Leuchter. However, the Polish authors of this work did such a sloppy job that their attempt to refute Leuchter not only fails but calls into question their scientific credentials. Furthermore, it will be demonstrated that the unscientific methodology applied by these Poles can only be called fraudulent. Under normal circumstances, these Polish authors would be expelled from the scientific community for their unethical behavior.

This though, has me in shock. I almost can not believe what is written here:

Quote:Doing forensic research in a murder case is something quite normal in modern criminology and science. The more severe a crime is, the more it is likely that such investigations are being done. Just look at what is going on in Kosovo after the war ended: An international commission was created that is in charge with trying to find the sites of alleged mass murder. They try to salvage material evidence of when, how, how many, and who was murdered, and naturally to find out, who the perpetrators were. But, this has not been the case regarding Auschwitz and other Eastern European sites of factual or alleged mass murder. Not a single forensic study by an international commission about mass graves and remainders of any murder weapons was ever conducted and presented to the public. The world waited 43 years for Fred Leuchter to come along and get it started. So, wouldn’t we expect to see an international commission being formed right after Leuchter’s controversial report was published? Or at least that many experts would come forward to refute or confirm in scientific studies what Leuchter claimed: chemists, engineers, architects? Nothing of the sort happened.

Seriously? This is absolutely ridiculous, I can hardly believe it.


If this is the case, I'm kind of speechless.

Post: #313

(09-05-2017 11:02 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  The Wannsee conference minutes are known to be misleading, as there was a desire to avoid putting references to mass genocide in it.ne.

As shown where?

Post: #314

Look I'm not deep like you guys, but I've never been told why they rebuilt the damn death camp?

When my simple ass went on the tour I swear the lady said " you can still smell the death" or something like that. Then, they only tell you its rebuilt if you ask them?

Then she says "look these are the ovens" but again, fake.

Somebody help me out. I'm not saying bad shit didn't happen, but why do that?

Aloha!

Post: #315

For anybody who seriously wants to understand the shakiness of the evidence related to the Holocaust, check out this video.

It is called "One Third of the Holocaust" and was created in circa 2003-2004 by an anonymous person.

This video is very long (over 4 hours long) but totally worth it. I've watched it a couple of times myself.

The creator of the video focuses on the Operation Reinhard Camps (Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka) and analyses all of the available evidence in extreme detail.

Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dxsVSzL4HE

Post: #316

I'm satisfied with Truth Teller's information so far. If he's correct, it even means that Hollywood, news media, and governments have been hyping things up, and that the truth isn't as bleak as we've been presented in the movies. If he's right, then the average Holocaust historian must be frustrated with the media sensationalism.

Post: #317

(09-05-2017 08:49 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Yes, you're basically doing what I'm accusing you of: casting doubt on the narrative but not really providing any cogent alternative. I've been hammering at that point for the entire thread, by the way. In addition, much of your counter-evidence is either a) discredited or b) problematic. You're relying on the Leuchter Report, which has been pretty systematically taken apart, as shown here:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/i...-research/

Due to the controversy surrounding the Leuchter Report and the criticisms directed at Leuchter himself for not having sufficient background and training to conduct his experiments (being that he was an expert on gas chambers and not a scientist), Germar Rudolf undertook his own chemical analysis of the Auschwitz "gas chambers". Who is Germar Rudolf? From his wiki:

In 1991, Rudolf began work on a paper entitled Report on the formation and verifiability of cyanide compounds in the Auschwitz "gas chambers" on behalf of the Düsseldorf attorney Hajo Herrmann, a former Luftwaffe pilot. In 1993, this work was reported in the media, and Rudolf was told not to enter the Max Planck Institute again without permission. When he did so, his employment was terminated without notice. In 1994, this dismissal was converted into a termination by mutual agreement. In 1996, the University of Stuttgart asked Rudolf to withdraw his application for a final PhD examination, or it would be denied, rendering his PhD thesis worthless. The legal basis for this is a German law which allows universities to deny or withdraw academic degrees where the candidate has used his academic credentials or knowledge to commit a crime. Rudolf subsequently withdrew his application.

In short, he was a PhD candidate chemist who was persecuted for applying his knowledge to the forensic study of the Holocaust. In addition to being denied his PhD, he has actually served prison time for holocaust denial. And despite these setbacks, he refused to back down from his findings, in which he showed that the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz could not have existed in the manner that the narrative claims.

A summary of his report is here: http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndgcger.html

The detailed report is here: http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html

I encourage everyone to at least read the summary, and dig into the detailed report if time permits.

Post: #318

(09-05-2017 05:11 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  There are a few significant issues with this account of events. First, he automatically assumes that all Jews who died were gassed; that there was no "Holocaust by bullets" as it were, and that nobody died of starvation/disease/etc. This is a straw man, and it's the same straw man that David Irving used during his defamation suit against Barbara Lipstadt. Anyone who knows anything about the Holocaust would know that Aktion Reinhard, the systematic use of gas chambers and concentration camps, did not start until mid-1942. However, as is entirely evident in documentary sources (c.f. Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men: Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland), mass executions of Jews were carried out long before that.

Essentially, the Germans would capture the area, the rear guard would come up, and a designated unit would gather all the Jews in a central area. They'd be sent on a forced march (often into a ravine/forest/etc.), forced to dig their own graves, and shot. It's estimated that this "Holocaust by bullets" killed between 1.5 and 2 million Jews.

In terms of the "lack of physical evidence" that scorpion is claiming, you have to keep in mind that the Nazis want to cover up evidence of their crimes. The large scale cremation of bodies occurs because of the fallout of the Katyn Forest massacre, which (as the Nazis saw) almost drove a wedge between the Soviets and the Western Allies. The "preposterous eyewitness testimony" remark is an attempt to cast aspersion on the thousands of verified accounts, as well as ignores the fact that the commandant of Auschwitz himself, Rudolf Hoss, wrote an autobiography in which he discussed the events of the Wannsee conference and the actions carried out at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

It's funny that you mention this tactic of executing entire villages in the woods which has been thoroughly described by David Irving. Irving even interviewed Nazi military commanders who acknowledged those things - it was standard practice on the Eastern front and it did not stop in 1942. In fact Irving estimates that at least 50% of his estimated 3.5-4 mio. Jewish deaths were done in exactly this manner.

Most of the arguments made here by guys is as Samseau put it not a "DENIAL OF A JEWISH HOLOCOUST", just a reassessment of what actually happened.

Here some good articles:

https://www.henrymakow.com/2017/09/Josef-Burg.html



https://www.henrymakow.com/2017/09/sefto...1420930233

Henry Makow had family dying during the Holocoust and he is Jewish. And I guess if he does not believe the full story, then he is a Holocoust-denier as well?

Post: #319

(09-06-2017 12:13 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  As shown where?

Eichmann's testimony, among others.

Post: #320

(09-06-2017 09:22 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  It's funny that you mention this tactic of executing entire villages in the woods which has been thoroughly described by David Irving. Irving even interviewed Nazi military commanders who acknowledged those things - it was standard practice on the Eastern front and it did not stop in 1942. In fact Irving estimates that at least 50% of his estimated 3.5-4 mio. Jewish deaths were done in exactly this manner.

Where does he say that? In the documentation from his libel case against Deborah Lipstadt (which has a 330 or so page judgment attached), Irving consistently puts forward the case that six million Jews were killed by gassing.

Extermination of villages in Belarus, Poland, and Ukraine was fairly commonplace. Belarus had 600 or so villages destroyed during the course of German occupation.

Post: #321

(09-06-2017 12:42 AM)Laska Wrote:  I'm satisfied with Truth Teller's information so far. If he's correct, it even means that Hollywood, news media, and governments have been hyping things up, and that the truth isn't as bleak as we've been presented in the movies. If he's right, then the average Holocaust historian must be frustrated with the media sensationalism.

Absolutely. I think there's a lot of room for criticism as to how the Holocaust is portrayed in popular culture and used as a political tool. Arno Mayer's Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? is a very good examination of this particular issue.

Post: #322

(09-05-2017 11:43 PM)Zep Wrote:  

Quote:Doing forensic research in a murder case is something quite normal in modern criminology and science. The more severe a crime is, the more it is likely that such investigations are being done. Just look at what is going on in Kosovo after the war ended: An international commission was created that is in charge with trying to find the sites of alleged mass murder. They try to salvage material evidence of when, how, how many, and who was murdered, and naturally to find out, who the perpetrators were. But, this has not been the case regarding Auschwitz and other Eastern European sites of factual or alleged mass murder. Not a single forensic study by an international commission about mass graves and remainders of any murder weapons was ever conducted and presented to the public. The world waited 43 years for Fred Leuchter to come along and get it started. So, wouldn’t we expect to see an international commission being formed right after Leuchter’s controversial report was published? Or at least that many experts would come forward to refute or confirm in scientific studies what Leuchter claimed: chemists, engineers, architects? Nothing of the sort happened.

Seriously? This is absolutely ridiculous, I can hardly believe it.


If this is the case, I'm kind of speechless.

First, this is not the case, and your source is not reliable. Second, Leuchter's "study" was done so incompetently that nobody really felt the need to refute it. If you plod through what he says, he certainly has no knowledge of the architecture of the gas chambers.

Post: #323

(09-06-2017 09:59 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 09:22 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  It's funny that you mention this tactic of executing entire villages in the woods which has been thoroughly described by David Irving. Irving even interviewed Nazi military commanders who acknowledged those things - it was standard practice on the Eastern front and it did not stop in 1942. In fact Irving estimates that at least 50% of his estimated 3.5-4 mio. Jewish deaths were done in exactly this manner.

Where does he say that? In the documentation from his libel case against Deborah Lipstadt (which has a 330 or so page judgment attached), Irving consistently puts forward the case that six million Jews were killed by gassing.

Extermination of villages in Belarus, Poland, and Ukraine was fairly commonplace. Belarus had 600 or so villages destroyed during the course of German occupation.

He mentions it in his books and in interviews. He did interview Nazi commanders and talks about those exterminations of entire villages. So in effect he talked to soldiers who did the actual killing and admitted it to him personally.

Also when asked about his estimation of Jewish deaths he speaks of 3.5-4 mio.

But I guess it is denying when you deny that some things were exaggerated.

Post: #324

(09-06-2017 09:49 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:13 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  As shown where?

Eichmann's testimony, among others.

Eichmann captured by the Mossad and most definitely tortured.

Not credible.

Who are the "among others"?

Listen, I want primary sources, show me the Eichmann trials, have you seen it?

Post: #325

The problem with this thread is every time someone presents primary sources/quotes, it's dismissed by denialists as "taken under duress" etc.

But, Albert Speer wasn't under duress when he wrote (privately), decades after the war, this.

"There is no doubt - I was present as Himmler announced on October 6 1943 that all Jews would be killed".

You know what this thread reminds me of, liberals and Islamists. The insistence that people who are proud of what they did...and people then questioning their intentions because they don't like the answers.

Liberal: Why do you blow people up?
Islamist: We kill you because you're not Muslims
Liberal: No you don't, you kill us because of foreign policy
Islamist: No, we kill you because you're not Muslims.
etc.

Nazi: Yes, the regime I worked for killed Jews using gas chambers.
Revisionist: Even though you were there, and openly admit it, I don't believe you.
Nazi: I worked at [insert death camp name here], trust me, we did do what they say we did.
etc.

Anyway, I've given enough responses way earlier in the thread about Eichman, Himmler, Speer etc, as well as Oskar Groening. I can't be bothered repeating what I've already been over on numerous occasions in numerous threads, I'm not reposting link after link. As Truth Teller discusses above, I believe it was functionalism, of a sort. Hitler never gave an order, in fact, he proposed various different solutions....however under the governance structure he had of "working towards the Fuhrer", Himmler and his subordinates took it upon themselves to devise the plan. The idea of the Nazi regime as some kind of complete control government is not true. Hitler was terrible at 'administration', if we want to boil this down to that.

Yes, the numbers are probably exaggerated—I'll concede that. But it does seem, as I've previously written about, that many people don't want it to be true in any way because to do so would be to admit "fair enough, Jews had it tough", which would make it hard for them to be so anti-semitic. This will be my last post on this thread. If anyone wants further discussion, PM me.