[scorpion]

(12-31-2016 01:32 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

Scorpion, how do you discount all the accounts from Nazis and SS officers etc? For example, Hoess, who tells of Himmler visiting Auschwitz and witnessing one "processing" (arrival, categorisation, gassing, burning) from start to finish. Obviously, those that could work did, but those that were unfit were supposedly killed pretty quickly. These Nazi offers are proud of what they did, in a very German way, as if they were building a great bridge of something. Therefore, I see no reason that they would llie about it. I don't believe these were forced testimonies either - although I can agree with others that perhaps they were encouraged to exaggerate the numbers. There's simply too much first hand anecdotal evidence for me to believe there were no gas chambers.

The Nuremberg Trials were a total farce when measured by Western standards of jurisprudence. They were little more than show trials. The goal of the trial was not to discover the truth, it was to discredit and demonize the German leadership. By accusing your enemy of committing ghastly war crimes, you can more easily gloss over your own. The "confessions" obtained at Nuremberg were extracted through torture, including the crushing of the mens' testicles, as well as threats against their families lives.

Read about Nuremberg here: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_webera.html

Specifically in regards to Hess: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p389_faurisson.html
http://codoh.com/library/document/237/

In short: I entirely discount all "confessions", as they were almost universally obtained by means of torture, extortion or extreme duress. For a systematic genocide operation on the scale of the alleged Holocaust, there should be no need for confessions. The evidence should be overwhelming and incontrovertible. We should have no shortage of gassed bodies. We should have surviving infrastructure (very convenient it was all destroyed). We should have scads of logistical paperwork and engineering documentation. We should NOT have millions of "survivors" if this was a systematic organized attempt at genocide sponsored by a highly disciplined, regimented and competent state apparatus.

The only "evidence" the proponents of the official narrative can present is forced confessions obtained through torture and eyewitness testimony (the same eyewitness testimony that also told about execution through masturbating machines, pedal-driven brain bashers, human skin lampshades, electrified floors and all sorts of other nonsense).

[scorpion]

(12-31-2016 01:51 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

How do you account for the Posen speeches of Heinrich Himmler, where he, on multiple occasions, explicitly refers to "die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes", or "the extermination of the Jewish people"?

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/

(12-31-2016 01:51 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

Or the repeated references to exterminating Jews in the diaries of Joseph Goebbels?

Here is a good article on Goebbel's Diary by David Irving (the noted scholar mentioned earlier in the thread): [url=http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n1p-2_irving.html]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n1p-2_irving.html

I think that Goebbels certainly knew about and approved of violence against Jews. The question is on what scale? I've seen nothing from him that would lend credence to the stories of gas chambers. And that is really my central objection to the Holocaust story: the fiction of the gas chambers.

If you told me that tens or even hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered by the Nazis through deliberate starvation or directly by machine gunning them into pits, that would strike me as believable. But when you tell me that six million Jews were murdered in gas chambers (that were conveniently destroyed) and their bodies incinerated into fine ash (without a single gassed body remaining anywhere) and that zero surviving logistical, architectural, engineering or other written documentation exists to support that claim, I am highly skeptical. All we're left with is fragments of speeches and diaries taken out of context, confessions obtained through torture and preposterous eyewitness testimony. Honestly, for an alleged crime of this magnitude, shouldn't the evidence be utterly overwhelming? You find more hard evidence for a single murder. This is six millions alleged murders. Why is hard evidence so difficult to come by? Doesn't anyone else find it bizarre that you're reduced to proving the alleged murder of six million people in an industrial-scale genocide operation by quoting from a speech? Is that really the best evidence available? What does that say about the claim, if so?

[scorpion]

(12-31-2016 01:46 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Model in the Auschwitz museum.
Left is the underground undressing area, right the underground gas chamber. Above the house and crematoria.
The model has used way too many victims at one time. No way would they have killed that many people in one single gassing...you would need way too many armed guards to control that kind of crowd.

This is an important picture for people to see. It gives away the gas chamber lie in the most obvious manner: what kind of German design is this? It makes no sense.

You march a thousand plus people downstairs into a basement and murder them with poison gas...and then what? You've got a thousand lifeless corpses laying in your basement. Now you've got to haul them upstairs one by one (how long to you wait until the poison gas dissipates?) and place each body individually in one of your five crematoria. Then you have to wait a few hours for each body to be incinerated. And according to this design, this was all done by hand.

What kind of ridiculous systematic genocide machine is this? Why wouldn't they just starve them or machine gun them? The Jews were completely unarmed at that point and totally at their mercy. It's completely preposterous to think the Nazis would gas thousands of Jews at a time in a basement then carry them back upstairs one by one and cremate them. If this genocide plan was years in the making by German Nazis, you would expect a literal assembly line of death. You would expect to see a gas chamber with a floor on hydraulics that could simply lift up and dump bodies onto a conveyor belt emptying into a giant pool of acid. Now that is an industrial death machine. But we don't have that. We just have a regular basement with crematoria upstairs. And by the way, if the basement "gas chambers" were filled with that many people at one time, they would all quickly die of asphyxiation when all the oxygen in the airtight chamber had been respirated. You wouldn't even need poison gas at all. The more you look at the gas chamber story logically, the more it falls apart. It just doesn't hold water. This is why they make it illegal to question the narrative: the evidence doesn't support the claim, and that becomes obvious with a little research and basic logic.

[ivansirko]

(12-31-2016 11:34 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 10:26 AM)ivansirko Wrote:  

If the Holocaust is to be "denied", then is the below a lie?

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

https://witoldsreport.blogspot.com/2008/...rt-by.html

Pilecki and what happened to him came out publicly after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The worst part is the Allies knew what was going on and didn't bomb the rail station to Auschwitz.

Thanks for sharing this. What a hero Pilecki is. I've studied Nazi Germany both academically and for a hobby and have never heard of him until now.

I first read about him in the Black Book of Communism because of what happened after the war. He was literally erased from history at one point and during his trial the future PM of Communist Poland Cyrankiewicz (survivor of Auschwitz) testified against him in the sham trial.

[weambulance]

Yeah, the first thing I thought when I saw that building blueprint that it was an awful design for killing lots of people as explained. Hardly up to German engineering standards.

[Teedub]

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderkommando and as for why they didn't use bullets - gassing was cheaper and more efficient to kill large numbers whilst continuing to bring more in. I feel a bit ill writing about all this sick stuff.

[ivansirko]

(12-31-2016 12:24 PM)Nascimento Wrote:  

I visited Auschwitz and I was told by the guides there that even though the Allies knew about what was happening, they couldn't realistically put a stop to it at that stage in the war.

Any bombing raid on a rail station or railroad track wasn't proven successful because any damage would be immediately repaired in a matter of days. Not to mention that bombing raids over the region was incredibly risky as it was deep in German territory.

The solution was to bomb the gas chambers themselves, because rebuilding a destroyed gas chamber isn't as easy as repairing a broken railroad or shuttling prisoners from another station. Problem was, the risk of killing POW's was so high since it was impossible to be accurate with the assault. Those in charge didn't want that mistake on their conscience, so they mostly discarded it (I think they did do at least one raid on the place, but my memory fails me).

I am curious if the Soviets knew what was going or cared about it before Auschwitz was liberated.

[ivansirko]

(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?

Besides, I see no credible proof of this report being authentic.

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

You would actually have to read it before you can see the proof that it is authentic. Otherwise you just have your eyes shut.

[Teedub]

I'll repeat again the words of the 94 year old ex-SS officer who outed himself to challenge deniers, and got a prison sentence as a result:

Quote:

He had always refused to talk about Auschwitz even to his own family but now he wanted to give witness against the Holocaust deniers, such as friends at his local philately club, who had insisted the camps were all a lie. That was why he said on film: "I would like you to believe me. I saw the gas chambers. I saw the crematoria. I saw the open fires. I was on the ramp when the selections took place. I would like you to believe that these atrocities happened, because I was there."

Why on earth would he make it up?

Like I said at the start of this thread, nobody is going to be changing anyone's mind on this subject.

[ivansirko]

(12-31-2016 03:14 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

What kind of ridiculous systematic genocide machine is this? Why wouldn't they just starve them or machine gun them? The Jews were completely unarmed at that point and totally at their mercy. It's completely preposterous to think the Nazis would gas thousands of Jews at a time in a basement then carry them back upstairs one by one and cremate them. If this genocide plan was years in the making by German Nazis, you would expect a literal assembly line of death. You would expect to see a gas chamber with a floor on hydraulics that could simply lift up and dump bodies onto a conveyor belt emptying into a giant pool of acid. Now that is an industrial death machine. But we don't have that. We just have a regular basement with crematoria upstairs. And by the way, if the basement "gas chambers" were filled with that many people at one time, they would all quickly die of asphyxiation when all the oxygen in the airtight chamber had been respirated. You wouldn't even need poison gas at all. The more you look at the gas chamber story logically, the more it falls apart. It just doesn't hold water. This is why they make it illegal to question the narrative: the evidence doesn't support the claim, and that becomes obvious with a little research and basic logic.

Then who built it? Who designed it? And what is considered "German Engineering" in the 1930's that does not represent itself within the building you speak of that require "little research" and "basic logic"? Or were they trying to hide something?

[ivansirko]

(12-31-2016 03:26 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

Like I said at the start of this thread, nobody is going to be changing anyone's mind on this subject.

^This.

[Mercenary]

(12-31-2016 03:14 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 01:46 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Model in the Auschwitz museum.
Left is the underground undressing area, right the underground gas chamber. Above the house and crematoria.
The model has used way too many victims at one time. No way would they have killed that many people in one single gassing...you would need way too many armed guards to control that kind of crowd.

This is an important picture for people to see. It gives away the gas chamber lie in the most obvious manner: what kind of German design is this? It makes no sense.

You march a thousand plus people downstairs into a basement and murder them with poison gas...and then what? You've got a thousand lifeless corpses laying in your basement. Now you've got to haul them upstairs one by one (how long to you wait until the poison gas dissipates?) and place each body individually in one of your five crematoria. Then you have to wait a few hours for each body to be incinerated. And according to this design, this was all done by hand.

What kind of ridiculous systematic genocide machine is this? Why wouldn't they just starve them or machine gun them? The Jews were completely unarmed at that point and totally at their mercy. It's completely preposterous to think the Nazis would gas thousands of Jews at a time in a basement then carry them back upstairs one by one and cremate them. If this genocide plan was years in the making by German Nazis, you would expect a literal assembly line of death. You would expect to see a gas chamber with a floor on hydraulics that could simply lift up and dump bodies onto a conveyor belt emptying into a giant pool of acid. Now that is an industrial death machine. But we don't have that. We just have a regular basement with crematoria upstairs. And by the way, if the basement "gas chambers" were filled with that many people at one time, they would all quickly die of asphyxiation when all the oxygen in the airtight chamber had been respirated. You wouldn't even need poison gas at all. The more you look at the gas chamber story logically, the more it falls apart. It just doesn't hold water. This is why they make it illegal to question the narrative: the evidence doesn't support the claim, and that becomes obvious with a little research and basic logic.

The model is accurate, except for the number of people undressed and killed at any one time. If you visit Auschwitz and see the basement ruins of the 4 seperate crematoria/gassing buildings, a much more realistic number considering the actual space available would be anywhere between 20 and 75 people at any one time for each crematoria. Obviously, other death camps had different layouts and other setups, but the overall size of the killing space was similiar.

The gas chambers were developed because normal German troops machine gunning down thousands of innocent unarmed civilians each week (including women and small children) were going insane from that kind of job and they needed these men fighting allied troops, instead of in hospitals with permanent mental disorders.

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.

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

(12-31-2016 02:43 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

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/

This is wilfully misleading. Ausrotten can only have the translation of "permanent removal or uprooting" in the context of non-living things or abstract ideals - things that cannot literally be killed. When referring to people, it means 'complete destruction.' One need only look at a basic German-English dictionary to demonstrate this:



To put this into context for English-speakers, it would be like attempting to claim that exterminate, with its roots in the Latin words ex (meaning 'out of') and terminus (meaning "borders"), is synonymous with "deportation." Any fluent English speaker will tell you that is non-sensical. Native German holocaust deniers themselves admit that ausrotten in the context of Himmler's speeches means 'to exterminate.'

I would even point out that your definition of 'extirpate' is misleading as well.

I dare you to take that translation of Himmler's speech to any of the fluent German speakers on this forum if you are so certain of it.

Quote:

But when you tell me that six million Jews were murdered in gas chambers (that were conveniently destroyed)

False strawman. No serious Holocaust scholar claims 6 million Jews were gassed to death. At least half of the Jews murdered were killed outside of the extermination camps, either by the Einsatzgruppe death squads on the Eastern Front, or by systematic ghettoization, or by deaths in the other concentration camps. And I would point out that the Nazis were not completely successful in covering up everything - the Madjanek extermination camp was captured virtually intact, gas chambers, crematoria and all.

Quote:

All we're left with is fragments of speeches and diaries taken out of context, confessions obtained through torture and preposterous eyewitness testimony.

If you want to disregard the testimony of all the defendents and witnesses at the Nuremburg Trials, fine. Set aside the fact that Rudolf Hoss, who you earlier mentioned, wrote entire memoirs about the killings at Auschwitz and testified about them in multiple other forums.

Since you seem to discard all testimonies of survivors as either hearsay or fabrications, how do you account for the testimonies of dozens of former SS guards, like Josef Klehr, or Oswald Kaduk, or, Oskar Groening - men who openly admitted to the roles that they played in the killing process, as well as to the purposes of the extermination camps?

[Lunostrelki]

I hate communism, but the Soviet Union's Great Patriotic War (and the various Eastern European resistance wars) needs to be studied with the utmost respect for the nations who were quite literally going to be wiped out to the last brick if they lost.

The Holocaust was terrible, but even more terrible was Generalplan Ost, aka Hitler's plans to destroy all traces of Slavic civilization and most of the people living there. I can't think of a single more evil scheme in the 20th century that came as close to fruition. Even the Great Leap Forward in China (which may have killed 60 million people if all the provincial archives are ever released) was the result of harebrained economic fantasy, not pure murderous intent. The Jews' monopolization of "never again" is a massive affront to pretty much everyone in Eastern Europe.

[scorpion]

(12-31-2016 03:49 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

This is wilfully misleading. Ausrotten can only have the translation of "permanent removal or uprooting" in the context of non-living things or abstract ideals - things that cannot literally be killed. When referring to people, it means 'complete destruction.' One need only look at a basic German-English dictionary to demonstrate this:



To put this into context for English-speakers, it would be like attempting to claim that exterminate, with its roots in the Latin words ex (meaning 'out of') and terminus (meaning "borders"), is synonymous with "deportation." Any fluent English speaker will tell you that is non-sensical.

I dare you to take that translation of Himmler's speech to any of the fluent German speakers on this forum if you are so certain of it.

Again, I would like to point out for everyone that this is the extent of the "evidence" for the Holocaust: quibbles over the precise grammatical meaning behind a single word in a speech. I find this preposterous evidence in the face of the enormity of the accusation at hand. We have a criminal case with allegedly six million dead bodies and the best evidence to be marshaled is a dictionary definition. What is wrong with this picture? If you're on a jury, is this enough to convict?

(12-31-2016 03:49 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

False strawman. No serious Holocaust scholar claims 6 million Jews were gassed to death. At least half of the Jews murdered were killed outside of the extermination camps, either by the Einsatzgruppe death squads on the Eastern Front, or by systematic ghettoization, or by deaths in the other concentration camps. And I would point out that the Nazis were not completely successful in covering up everything - the Madjanek extermination camp was captured virtually intact, gas chambers, crematoria and all.

It doesn't matter how many millions were supposedly killed in gas chambers (and the number seems to be in constant decline). What matters is whether the gas chambers existed at all, because if they didn't then the entire story falls apart.

(12-31-2016 03:49 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

If you want to disregard the testimony of all the defendents and witnesses at the Nuremburg Trials, fine. Set aside the fact that Rudolf Hoss, who you earlier mentioned, wrote entire memoirs about the killings at Auschwitz and testified about them in multiple other forums.

Since you seem to discard all testimonies of survivors as either hearsay or fabrications, how do you account for the testimonies of dozens of former SS guards, like Josef Klehr, or Oswald Kaduk, or, Oskar Groening - men who openly admitted to the roles that they played in the killing process, as well as to the purposes of the extermination camps?

What do you have to say about the many thousands of people who testify that they were abducted by aliens? I don't say that flippantly. I'm merely pointing out that it's not exactly uncommon for people to testify that something happened to them when in reality it did not occur. People lie about things like that for all sorts of reasons. Besides, there are also eyewitnesses whose testimony contradicts the official narrative. Like Paul Rassinier, who was himself imprisoned at Buchenwald. Or Esther Grassman. Or Maria Vanherwaarden and Marika Frank:

Quote:

An Austrian woman, Maria Vanherwaarden, testified about her camp experiences in a Toronto District Court in March 1988. [16] She was interned in Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1942 for having sexual relations with a Polish forced laborer. On the train journey to the camp, a Gypsy woman told her and the others that they would all be gassed at Auschwitz. Upon arrival, Maria and the other women were ordered to undress and go into a large concrete room without windows to take a shower. The terrified women were sure that they were about to die. But then, instead of gas, water came out of the shower heads.

Auschwitz was no vacation resort, Maria confirmed. She witnessed the deaths of many fellow inmates by disease, particularly typhus. She saw some take their own lives. But she saw no evidence at all of mass killings, gassings, or of any extermination program.

A Jewish woman named Marika Frank arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau from Hungary in July 1944, when 25,000 Jews were supposedly gassed and cremated daily. She likewise testified after the war that she heard and saw nothing of gas chambers during the time she was interned there. She heard the gassing stories only later.

Or how about Mr. Holocaust himself, Elie Wiesel, who never mentioned gas chambers in his memoirs, but talked about fabricated nonsense like watching babies being thrown into burning pits and geysers of blood spurting out of the ground?

[scorpion]

(12-31-2016 03:30 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

The model is accurate, except for the number of people undressed and killed at any one time. If you visit Auschwitz and see the basement ruins of the 4 seperate crematoria/gassing buildings, a much more realistic number considering the actual space available would be anywhere between 20 and 75 people at any one time for each crematoria. Obviously, other death camps had different layouts and other setups, but the overall size of the killing space was similiar.

The gas chambers were developed because normal German troops machine gunning down thousands of innocent unarmed civilians each week (including women and small children) were going insane from that kind of job and they needed these men fighting allied troops, instead of in hospitals with permanent mental disorders.

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.

The math doesn't add up. You don't build giant gas chambers to kill 20 people at a time. A larger chamber requires more gas, and the gas has to be vented after every use to allow people inside safely to remove the bodies. That takes time. These gas chambers were supposedly killing thousands of people per day, according to the official narrative. There simply isn't time to kill and cremate nearly that many people.

Further, the idea that the Nazis had to utilize gas chambers because murdering people with machine guns causes the executioners to go insane makes no sense. First of all...because the official story also contains claims that around a million Jews were murdered with machine guns. So what gives? Can you murder people with machine guns or not? Secondly, we have historical evidence that at least a minority of people have no qualms about murdering thousands of people by shooting them. This lovely fellow was Stalin's executioner:

Quote:

Blokhin initially decided on an ambitious quota of 300 executions per night; and engineered an efficient system in which the prisoners were individually led to a small antechamber—which had been painted red and was known as the "Leninist room"—for a brief and cursory positive identification, before being handcuffed and led into the execution room next door. The room was specially designed with padded walls for soundproofing, a sloping concrete floor with a drain and hose, and a log wall for the prisoners to stand against. Blokhin would stand waiting behind the door in his executioner garb: a leather butcher's apron, leather hat, and shoulder-length leather gloves. Then, without a hearing, the reading of a sentence or any other formalities, each prisoner was brought in and restrained by guards while Blokhin shot him once in the base of the skull with a German Walther Model 2 .25 ACP pistol.[13][14][15] He had brought a briefcase full of his own Walther pistols, since he did not trust the reliability of the standard-issue Soviet TT-30 for the frequent, heavy use he intended. The use of a German pocket pistol, which was commonly carried by German police and intelligence agents, also provided plausible deniability of the executions if the bodies were discovered later.[16]

An estimated 30 local NKVD agents, guards and drivers were pressed into service to escort prisoners to the basement, confirm identification, then remove the bodies and hose down the blood after each execution. Although some of the executions were carried out by Senior Lieutenant of State Security Andrei Rubanov, Blokhin was the primary executioner and, true to his reputation, liked to work continuously and rapidly without interruption.[14] In keeping with NKVD policy and the overall "wet" nature of the operation, the executions were conducted at night, starting at dark and continuing until just prior to dawn. The bodies were continuously loaded onto covered flat-bed trucks through a back door in the execution chamber and trucked, twice a night, to Mednoye, where Blokhin had arranged for a bulldozer and two NKVD drivers to dispose of bodies at an unfenced site. Each night, 24–25 trenches, measuring eight to 10 meters (24.3 to 32.8 feet) total, were dug to hold that night's corpses, and each trench was covered up before dawn.[17]

Blokhin and his team worked without pause for 10 hours each night, with Blokhin executing an average of one prisoner every three minutes.[3] At the end of the night, Blokhin provided vodka to all his men.[18] On 27 April 1940, Blokhin secretly received the Order of the Red Banner and a modest monthly pay premium as a reward from Joseph Stalin for his "skill and organization in the effective carrying out of special tasks".[19][20] His count of 7,000 shot in 28 days remains the most organized and protracted mass murder by a single individual on record,[3] and saw him being named the Guinness World Record holder for 'Most Prolific Executioner' in 2010.[4]

Note: that is what a systematic murder operation really looks like. No need to complicate things with poison gas. You just shoot them.

[Jim Kirk]

Wow @ Mercenary -

All those nice photographs from the Auschwitz museum no less. I can see it now. I definitely see in those photographs and blueprints and the ruins - evidence of a homicidal gas chamber that could kill hundreds, or even thousands at a clip all day and all night (oh wait - it only kills less than 70 people at a time). I see the machinery for deploying the gas into the room - those holes in the roof they were able to drop the gas through down into the room in sufficient quantities to kill all the people. I see apparatus to close off the vents to make the bunker air-tight so the men delivering the gas were not killed during deployment. Then I see all the venting equipment for the gas after its deadly application that could render it inert and make the corpses safe for handling too! All in a matter of minutes, as opposed to hours!!!!!! Then I see the great big oven that could cremate hundreds of bodies at the same time! And I see the fuel source for the oven - all those massive piles of coal and wood so the fires could just burn all those corpses up into ash! In fact, I just checked, in Allied fly over photographs of the camp during WW2 - you can totally see huge plumes of smoke rising from all 4 crema - and you can geysers of blood spurting out of the ground, and, I see lines of people qued up to enter the building . . . and, hey I bet they've done lots of chemical testing of the bricks that made up the death chamber and found chemical penetration showing the brick was exposed to Zyclon B many times in sufficient strenhth so as to be able to kill humans! Then I checked the memoirs of Winston Churhill and Charles DeGaulle and Dwight Eisenhower and . . . .and . . . and - there were all these notes about homicidal gas chambers .

"The model is accurate, except for the number of people undressed and killed at any one time. If you visit Auschwitz
and see the basement ruins of the 4 separate crematoria/gassing buildings, a much more realistic number considering
the actual space available would be anywhere between 20 and 75 people at any one time for each crematoria."

My Goodness - a museum exaggerate the number of people that could be gassed at one time!!!! You must be mistaken they MINIMIZED the number of people that could be killed during one gassing.

"The gas chambers were developed because normal German troops machine gunning down thousands of innocent
unarmed civilians each week (including women and small children) were going insane from that kind of job and they
needed these men fighting allied troops, instead of in hospitals with permanent mental disorders."

This comment is so laughable - just like during WW1 - the Huns were bayoneting Belgian children and during the first Iraq war - the elite Republican Guard went into the pediatric units in Kuwati hospitals to destroy premature baby incubators and neo-natal pediatric medical equipment killing the babies inside as part of the process. Civilian massacres by Nazi troops were committed by units that were largely not regular army. Einsatzgruppen would be one but many of the civilians were not innocent but were partisans. As per research by David Irving again - very large numbers of civilian massacres were committed by NAZI FLAGGED troops drawn from ethnic units that joined the Nazis as they took over Eastern Europe. There were 'German' volunteer units consisting completely of various Eastern European, Russian and Ukrainian ethnics. A Nazi tank unit consisting of ethnic Russians committed so many atrocities his German commander had him executed on the eastern front. Also, large numbers of civilian killings were committed by Ukrainian mercenaries in the service of Nazi Germany - most particularly in the Bug River camps in Eastern Poland. Regular German army troops were not machine gunning thousands of civilians on a weekly basis - I mean really. Thanks for outing yourself.

[Kona]

When I was a kid this guy came to our school and gave us speeches. He was a holocost survivor. Or so he said.

His story was pretty intense. He was some type of fresh out of college engineer when he was captured. Then he was sent to Auschwitz where he was some type of machine repair man. When the war was ending they tried to move the remaining prisoners somewhere else, but the British army found them and let them go, or something like that.

It was a really moving story, and the guy had picture boards and little artifacts, and a tattoo on his arm. It was for me of those things that really sunk in and I remember think "man Hitler was a dick" and "this guys an inspiration" and things like that.

Then I went to college in st. Louis MO. This exact same dude was a teacher at the college. He taught classes about bad shit happening to Jews and whatnot. I went to his office.

If you ever meet politicians, our meeting was just like that. Once I told him he had spoken at my school, it was like he remembered me specifically. It was as though he'd known me for years. I was like "how about that holocost" and he told me about his research.

Well then he died.

It turned out, that when people were gonna write about this fascinating Jewish man, they found some real holes in his story. He probably just joined up with the Jews right before the British found them.

I was devastated. This guy was going around for years saying he's Johnny Holocost and he was full of shit. I couldn't believe that along the way somebody didn't do somesimople vetting to see this. I guess that's part of the problem. You're the dick if you question it.

There's articles from the st. Louis post-dispatch but their website sucks.it would be called washu professor holocost lies or something like that.

Aloha!

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

(12-31-2016 04:39 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Again, I would like to point out for everyone that this is the extent of the "evidence" for the Holocaust: quibbles over the precise grammatical meaning behind a single word in a speech. I find this preposterous evidence in the face of the enormity of the accusation at hand. We have a criminal case with allegedly six million dead bodies and the best evidence to be marshaled is a dictionary definition. What is wrong with this picture? If you're on a jury, is this enough to convict?

That is a complete non-sequitur which fails to refute my original contention. It is but one piece of evidence in the voluminous records of the Holocaust that any interested party can search for online. That being said, it is an important piece of evidence in demonstrating that a) the Holocaust was a deliberate policy of annihilation; and b) that Hitler was both aware of and ordered it to happen.

Quote:

It doesn't matter how many millions were supposedly killed in gas chambers (and the number seems to be in constant decline). What matters is whether the gas chambers existed at all, because if they didn't then the entire story falls apart.

Did you not read the text you quoted? At least one of the extermination camps, at Madjanek, was captured virtually intact. You can even see in the photo below the Prussic blue residue left behind from usage of Zyklon B.



I will also add that forensic evidence gathering by the Institute of Forensic Research in Krakov proves that Zyklon B was utilized in the Auschwitz gas chambers in the appropriate concentrations for mass killings of human beings.

Quote:

Further, the idea that the Nazis had to utilize gas chambers because murdering people with machine guns causes the executioners to go insane makes no sense. First of all...because the official story also contains claims that around a million Jews were murdered with machine guns. So what gives? Can you murder people with machine guns or not?

But I though the 'official story' was that six million were gassed....

That being said, it makes perfect sense. At the beginning of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, the SS utilized mass shootings during the summer/fall of 1941. As time went on, they decided that the previous methods of massacre they were utilizing were both inefficient and were inflicting too high a toll psychologically on their soldiers - thus they decided that alternate means of killing were required. Hence the transition to gas vans, and eventually the extermination camps, by 1942.

Is it that difficult to comprehend the thought that the Germans were continually re-evaluating their methods and seeking to increase their efficiency of killing?

[scorpion]

(12-31-2016 05:54 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

Did you not read the text you quoted? At least one of the extermination camps, at Madjanek, was captured virtually intact. You can even see in the photo below the Prussic blue residue left behind from usage of Zyklon B.

Preparing to head out for New Years so I'll just address this point quickly. That is a picture of what is called chamber III at Majdanek. Here is a picture of it with better lighting. That is not a homicidal gas chamber. That is a delousing room for clothes and bedding. This is a homicidal gas chamber. Notice a difference? (Hint: Not quite the airtight seal I'd be looking for on that wooden door at Majdanek if I was going to be murdering hundreds of people inside with enormous concentrations of poison gas - and yes, that is the original door).

Carlo Mattogno wrote an entire book about Majdanek. The examination into the plausibility of using the delousing rooms as homicidal gas chambers is here.

To anyone who really wants to go deep down the rabbit hole on this, the entire Holocaust Handbooks series is available free in pdf form. There are literally entire books written examining the technical details of each camp and other aspects of the Holocaust narrative in order to separate fact from fiction.

[Teedub]

I'm sorry Scorpion, but you answer some questions and avoid others where you don't have a real rebuttal. And you know I don't have a problem with you, as evidenced by our recent private communication. Most of the links you provide are to specific holocaust denial sites, not to anything else. Equating testimonies from people who were at these places (SS officers, Kommandants etc) to alien abductions is completely ridiculous, despite the additional things you said.

As you and I both mentioned, nobody on either side will change their opinions, because I think there's an ideological slant to all of this.

[robreke]

That there was a systematic method in place in Germany and conquered territories by the Nazis to exterminate many jews (as many as possible?) I don't think can be denied.

Are the numbers exaggerated and some of the stories? Possibly.

Extermination and death camps weren't the only methods employed though they are the most infamous and widely portrayed.

Don't forget Himler's "Killing Groups" aka, Einsatzgruppen. Watch the footage. Real as it gets:

[Dr. Howard]

This is an interesting thread. There are a number of layers as well.

1. Of all of the topics we discuss here on RVF, this is the only one that members of multiple countries could be jailed for. This, a wartime event from what, nearly 70 years ago?

2. My skepticism starts just at the name "THE holocaust"...why not "a holocaust" or "a genocide" terms which are perfectly acceptable for other large scale murders.

3. I had a jewish great aunt, a concentration camp survivor, she had the tattoo. She spoke of machine gun killings and burnings but not gas chambers.

4. I don't think "the horror" of the jewish genocide comes from the supposed numbers killed. No one gets the same heebie jeebies from 'regular ol' genocides' that are house to house hack n slash, mass grave roundups. The shock comes from the alleged systematization/automation. I bet it wouldn't be as large of a stamp on history if they were all just shot or starved to death to a total of 6 million. The coldness of it is what scares people.

But, my major issue, whether it happened or not, is that the treatment of THE holocaust by media, culture and history as if every gassed jew weighed as equally or greater than 10 other human deaths in the same war (remember 60 million total WWII dead vs. 6 million alleged jews). That or the idea that THE holocaust was the first genocide ever to happen on planet earth, like the jews were the OGs of genocide victims. Why does this event get the big title?

[ivansirko]

(12-31-2016 09:12 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

This is an interesting thread. There are a number of layers as well.

1. Of all of the topics we discuss here on RVF, this is the only one that members of multiple countries could be jailed for. This, a wartime event from what, nearly 70 years ago?

2. My skepticism starts just at the name "THE holocaust"...why not "a holocaust" or "a genocide" terms which are perfectly acceptable for other large scale murders.

3. I had a jewish great aunt, a concentration camp survivor, she had the tattoo. She spoke of machine gun killings and burnings but not gas chambers.

4. I don't think "the horror" of the jewish genocide comes from the supposed numbers killed. No one gets the same heebie jeebies from 'regular ol' genocides' that are house to house hack n slash, mass grave roundups. The shock comes from the alleged systematization/automation. I bet it wouldn't be as large of a stamp on history if they were all just shot or starved to death to a total of 6 million. The coldness of it is what scares people.

But, my major issue, whether it happened or not, is that the treatment of THE holocaust by media, culture and history as if every gassed jew weighed as equally or greater than 10 other human deaths in the same war (remember 60 million total WWII dead vs. 6 million alleged jews). That or the idea that THE holocaust was the first genocide ever to happen on planet earth, like the jews were the OGs of genocide victims. Why does this event get the big title?

All good points.

To my understanding acknowledging the Armenian Genocide in Turkey can gain you jailtime. I wonder what the penalty is for discussing the Rwandan Genocide. The systematic depopulation of Paraguay during the War of the Triple Alliance? Baghdad in the winter of 1258 wasn't pleasant either. There were signs in Kiev during the Holodomor asking people to not practice cannibalism.

The winners get to write the history books.

[Gorgiass]

(12-31-2016 02:12 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

The Nuremberg Trials were a total farce when measured by Western standards of jurisprudence. They were little more than show trials. The goal of the trial was not to discover the truth, it was to discredit and demonize the German leadership. By accusing your enemy of committing ghastly war crimes, you can more easily gloss over your own. The "confessions" obtained at Nuremberg were extracted through torture, including the crushing of the mens' testicles, as well as threats against their families lives.

Read about Nuremberg here: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_webera.html

The passage referencing testicle crushing you're referring to can be found here: https://www.darkmoon.me/2015/torture-and...nuremberg/

Here is a screencap of the page -


Note the way the page is laid out, firstly saying Scotland "openly admitted" to the torture in a memoir and then placing the "quote" below. Problem is, this isn't a quote from him at all. In fact, in his memoir, Scotland specifically denied the allegations of torture.

Quote:

At his war crimes trial, SS General Fritz Knoechlein claimed that he was tortured, which Scotland dismisses in London Cage as a "lame allegation".[19] According to Knoechlein, he was stripped, deprived of sleep, kicked by guards and starved. He said that he was compelled to walk in a tight circle for four hours. After complaining to Scotland, Knoechlein alleges that he was doused in cold water, pushed down stairs, and beaten. He claimed he was forced to stand beside a hot gas stove before being showered with cold water. He claimed that he and another prisoner were forced to run in circles while carrying heavy logs.[1]

Even IF these allegations were true it's certainly a far cry from crushing testicles. Barely a step above waterboarding, which I assume you're in favor of, as am I. This type of deliberate misleading of readership and spreading of outright falsehoods is endemic among the denialism movement, this is just one example that jumps right out. I have to get out as well tonight so will leave it at that for now.

IHR is almost unanimously ruled unreliable as well, but dealing with arguments and audiences like this it becomes impossible to prove a sources validity, or lack thereof, to some because unless one goes through point by point as above, simply quoting another source that calls them lying antisemites will only lead to allegations of Jewish controlled media on the part of the first source.

(12-31-2016 02:43 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

If you told me that tens or even hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered by the Nazis through deliberate starvation or directly by machine gunning them into pits, that would strike me as believable. But when you tell me that six million Jews were murdered in gas chambers (that were conveniently destroyed) and their bodies incinerated into fine ash (without a single gassed body remaining anywhere) and that zero surviving logistical, architectural, engineering or other written documentation exists to support that claim, I am highly skeptical. All we're left with is fragments of speeches and diaries taken out of context, confessions obtained through torture and preposterous eyewitness testimony. Honestly, for an alleged crime of this magnitude, shouldn't the evidence be utterly overwhelming? You find more hard evidence for a single murder. This is six millions alleged murders. Why is hard evidence so difficult to come by? Doesn't anyone else find it bizarre that you're reduced to proving the alleged murder of six million people in an industrial-scale genocide operation by quoting from a speech? Is that really the best evidence available? What does that say about the claim, if so?

^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.

(12-31-2016 03:14 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

This is an important picture for people to see. It gives away the gas chamber lie in the most obvious manner: what kind of German design is this? It makes no sense.

You march a thousand plus people downstairs into a basement and murder them with poison gas...and then what? You've got a thousand lifeless corpses laying in your basement. Now you've got to haul them upstairs one by one (how long to you wait until the poison gas dissipates?) and place each body individually in one of your five crematoria. Then you have to wait a few hours for each body to be incinerated. And according to this design, this was all done by hand.

Gas doesn't have to dissipate, Jews and NAZI supervisors emptying the chambers were equipped with gas masks.

This is also an example of a double standard. You say it's inefficient to kill people in a basement here, while specifically praising someone who used a far less efficient method, also in a basement, here -

(12-31-2016 02:43 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Secondly, we have historical evidence that at least a minority of people have no qualms about murdering thousands of people by shooting them. This lovely fellow was Stalin's executioner:

Quote:

Blokhin initially decided on an ambitious quota of 300 executions per night; and engineered an efficient system in which the prisoners were individually led to a small antechamber—which had been painted red and was known as the "Leninist room"—for a brief and cursory positive identification, before being handcuffed and led into the execution room next door. The room was specially designed with padded walls for soundproofing, a sloping concrete floor with a drain and hose, and a log wall for the prisoners to stand against.
...
An estimated 30 local NKVD agents, guards and drivers were pressed into service to escort prisoners to the basement, confirm identification, then remove the bodies and hose down the blood after each execution.
...
Note: that is what a systematic murder operation really looks like. No need to complicate things with poison gas. You just shoot them.

This method employed 30 (non-slave) workers to kill 300 people per night. That is a single pass through a gas chamber. Yet you call this model out as an example of efficiency while calling out the gas chamber model as inefficient to the point of unbelievability. Also, one reason these killers don't operate in the town square is because that would eliminate false hope of survival, decrease incentives for productive slave labor, and increase likelihood of uprising.

(12-31-2016 03:14 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

What kind of ridiculous systematic genocide machine is this? Why wouldn't they just starve them or machine gun them? The Jews were completely unarmed at that point and totally at their mercy. It's completely preposterous to think the Nazis would gas thousands of Jews at a time in a basement then carry them back upstairs one by one and cremate them. If this genocide plan was years in the making by German Nazis, you would expect a literal assembly line of death. You would expect to see a gas chamber with a floor on hydraulics that could simply lift up and dump bodies onto a conveyor belt emptying into a giant pool of acid. Now that is an industrial death machine. But we don't have that. We just have a regular basement with crematoria upstairs. And by the way, if the basement "gas chambers" were filled with that many people at one time, they would all quickly die of asphyxiation when all the oxygen in the airtight chamber had been respirated. You wouldn't even need poison gas at all. The more you look at the gas chamber story logically, the more it falls apart. It just doesn't hold water. This is why they make it illegal to question the narrative: the evidence doesn't support the claim, and that becomes obvious with a little research and basic logic.

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?

(12-31-2016 04:39 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

What do you have to say about the many thousands of people who testify that they were abducted by aliens? I don't say that flippantly. I'm merely pointing out that it's not exactly uncommon for people to testify that something happened to them when in reality it did not occur. People lie about things like that for all sorts of reasons. Besides, there are also eyewitnesses whose testimony contradicts the official narrative. Like Paul Rassinier, who was himself imprisoned at Buchenwald. Or Esther Grassman. Or Maria Vanherwaarden and Marika Frank:

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?

(12-31-2016 08:00 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Preparing to head out for New Years so I'll just address this point quickly. That is a picture of what is called chamber III at Majdanek. Here is a picture of it with better lighting. That is not a homicidal gas chamber. That is a delousing room for clothes and bedding. This is a homicidal gas chamber. Notice a difference? (Hint: Not quite the airtight seal I'd be looking for on that wooden door at Majdanek if I was going to be murdering hundreds of people inside with enormous concentrations of poison gas - and yes, that is the original door).

The door in your own linked picture is clearly steel. The ceiling, walls, and floor are concrete (ceiling looks like wood only because it was poured in place). The door is also ajar and 75 years old. Quite likely for the concrete to have shifted and rubber seals deteriorated in that time.

(12-31-2016 08:00 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

To anyone who really wants to go deep down the rabbit hole on this, the entire Holocaust Handbooks series is available free in pdf form. There are literally entire books written examining the technical details of each camp and other aspects of the Holocaust narrative in order to separate fact from fiction.

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.