Evidence that the Holocaust DIDN'T happen?

A) 1/3 of the Jews were selected for forced labor, placed on starvation rations and worked to death, this was deliberate, they were not intended to survive and as the Wansee conference transcripts make clear as day that those who did survive were to be executed once they had served their purpose:


Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution
the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East.
Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in
large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the
course of which action doubtless a large portion will be
eliminated by natural causes.

The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly
consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated
accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and
would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival
(see the experience of history.)

In the course of the practical execution of the final
solution, Europe will be combed through from west to east.
Germany proper, including the Protectorate of Bohemia and
Moravia, will have to be handled first due to the housing problem
and additional social and political necessities.

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/wansee-transcript.html

B) The people who were not selected for immediate extermination and actually registered at the camps received death certificates, less than 300,000 death certificates were issued, 2/3's of the Jews were selected for immediate extermination, the overwhelming majority of Jews killed were either shot, hung, or gassed.

 

[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb-dN98VfDk[/VIDEO
I highly suggest watching this video.

 

typical bullcrap by disengenous pinheads attempting to re-write history by distortions, lies and minutiae.

If you can't see the BLATANT misrepresentations in that video, its no wonder you are a denier.

 

But but but it's on youtube and their peer review process and fact checking is second to none!

 

Huh? You provide a Red Cross report from the camps that 300,000 were recorded as dying, so therefore some other number you made up were gassed?

Is this supposed to be funny?

Further the Wannsee transcripts are of dubious accuracy.

 

Not according to Eichmann. do you have ANY evidence to suggest they are forgeries? ANY evidence at all?

Of course not.

As a denier all you can do is to deny evidence. You cannot produce a single scrap of hard evidence to prove that the holocaust didn't happen, that gas chambers weren't used, that it wasn't a deliberate extermination plan, etc etc.

All you can produce is the truly stupid evidence of denialists. Leuchter, Mottogno, Cole, Webber, Rudolph, Butz, faurisson, krege, Ball and the rest of that sorry gang of neo-nazis, white power clowns and jew haters.

You are clearly out of your depth around here. I have been a vociferous opponent of denialists for a couple of decades and know just about every major piece of their so-called evidence, every bogus investigation, etc. My experience has led me to believe that denialists consistently punch far below their own weight classes.

 

The only thing funny here is your lack of ability to follow a conversation, the point I was making is that natural deaths were in fact recorded by the Nazi's those who were immediately selected for extermination were never recorded, and we know from the transfer records from their places of origins approximately how many Jews were sent to the extermination camps and how many were never recorded, the question is not whether 5 - 6 million Jews were exterminated that is an indisputable fact as I have already proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, the debate was how many died of gassing, shooting, and hanging vs. how many died of starvation and disease and that citation proves conclusively that the overwhelming majority did not die of starvation and disease, and; furthermore, the Wansee Transcripts prove conclusively that those who did starve to death and died of diseased were never going to be allowed to live and after they no longer were needed were to be liquidated.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*), Mod Edit ~ Rule 2 , you have already been shown the testimony of SS Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann the man who took the minutes of the conference who confirmed them as authentic during his trial under questioning from his defense attorney's Robert Servatius and Dieter Wechtenbruch:in the German:

http://www.ghwk.de/ghwk/engl/texts/eichmanns-testimony.pdf

[video=youtube;kPFcMy1oLIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPFcMy1oLIA[/video]

[video=youtube;m3TqRrAK4e0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3TqRrAK4e0[/video]

The only thing of dubious accuracy is the nonsense you spew.

 

Irving wasn't anywhere near a jail in 1995 when he gave an interview to a reporter from an Australian radio news service in which he put the Jewish death toll during the Holocaust at +/- four million. It caused a great rift between Irving and Faurisson that continues to fester to this very day.

 

The other thread concerning the veracity of homicidal gassing claims appears to have been closed while I was in Montreal this week, but I'd like to resume the Treblinka part of that thread, since the existing documentary evidence, some of which I include here, along with their archival locations, confirms the murderous role of the Aktion Reinhard camps and puts the lie to their supposed purpose as mere 'transit camps'. In Christopher Browning's Expert Witness Report for the Irving vs. Lipstadt/Penguin libel action, Evidence for the Implementation
of the Final Solution, Professor Browning, the foremost authority on Nazi documentation living today, summarises the case for gassing at Treblinka and the other Aktion Reinhard camps with extensive reference notes (from section V onwards). His report, in its entirety, can be found here or on Professor Lipstadt's site.

If these documents have been forged, the onus would be on the deniers and Nazi apologists to provide evidence of same.

 

All of these points have been covered. Please review the thread. Please pay especial attention to the original German transcripts of the Eichmann interview rather than 'Life Magazine'.

Thanks.

 

Evasion noted.

In fact, the specific evidence Browning presents concerning Treblinka have not]/u] been 'covered'; neither in this thread nor the other one. Oh, there was some half-hearted pooh-poohing of Eichmann's interview with Sassen, based on the fact that it was published in a popular magazine of the day-- an interview edited and corrected by Eichmann himself-- but its salient points were not addressed by you or any other Holocaust denier or Nazi apologist posting here.

So we're back to where I began: I posted some specific evidence provided by Browning concerning Treblinka. If you're reluctant to deal with the evidence honestly that's your lookout, but people reading the thread will notice your failure.

 

No you're wrong and they have been addressed.

Thanks.

 

In a sense they have been. In the libel action David Irving brought against Professor Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books. He didn't do so well, though he put up a far more spirited argument concerning them than you have thus far. If the specific evidence Browning presents has been 'addressed' on this site, it should be no difficulty for you to link to it. If you don't, the reason will be obvious.

If I were in your position, I'd forget Eichmann because his testimonial evidence does Holocaust 'revisionism' no favours whatever. Deal with the documentary evidence, if you can; or at the very least, link to the pages on this site where it's been conclusively debunked by 'revisionists'.

 

I would point anyone genuinely interested in the debate over the existence of gas chambers in the Aktion Reinhard Camps to download this free white paper on the subject. Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.

It's high time the deniers and Nazi apologists hereabouts invested some time and mental energy in the history they're attempting to whitewash instead of relying on the nonsense their anti-Semitic betters are spoon-feeding them. But I predict they won't. It's why it's called denial after all.

 

I know it was real, because I was there. I had just killed another 2 nazi's with my pistol when I caught a glimpse of Hitler running into his bunker, I was about to give chase when my computer crashed. I was going to reload Wolfenstein 3d and finish the job, but DOS said the file was corrupted and I couldn't find the install disk, so I never got to go into the bunker and kill Hitler, but I heard later on that he committed suicide in there anyway. Apparently I scared him pretty badly...no need to thank me for my service, if you really want to pay me back, don't let people spread these lies that it didn't happen, because I was there, and I saw the carnage in 640x480...

 

One could probably also speak of the nonsense of pro-Semitic betters.

And of course your vague book reference can simply be countered with the response.

http://translate.google.com/transla...han-harrison-e-sergey-romanov-nicholas-terry/

Would you care to extract any specific points?

 

I don't believe you've had time to read the full text of the PDF I posted a link to. If you had, you'd find that the authors of the work tend to cite documentary and academic historical sources, the majority of which were submitted for peer review before their publication.

I don't believe you've read the work you're linking to either, or you'd understand that it's some robotic online translator's estimation of its content. My Italian's pretty rusty, so I'll leave it to someone in the international historical milieu to make this case, if indeed there's a case there to make. A great deal of the translation comes out as gibberish.

I do note, however, that Graf, Kues and Mattogno tend not to cite academic historical works or documentary evidence nearly so much as they cite documented liars like Leuchter and Faurisson as well as referencing themselves and each other, á la Germar Rudolf. Nor is anything they've written here or elsewhere ever submitted for peer review by competent historians. .

I might, if I had access to a translation that's not dependent on the caprices of machine algorithms. Why? Is there something in your link you'd care to defend?

I'll keep looking for a better translation. In the meantime, Why not point me to the place on this site where the Browning evidence I posted is 'addressed', to use your word for it. All I've seen from you thus far has been knee-jerk denial sans proof. You're making the Führer cry in Valhalla with all this constant waffling and evasion of yours.

 

I'm pretty sure that nobody gives a damn what you believe. Can you extract some points from the book you referenced. Surely I don't need to explain why 'this book agrees with me' isn't an argument.

 

I have done, more than once. Dr. Terry and company rely in part on Browning. That's evidence you seem unable to deflate. Rather, like deniers everywhere, you simply wave it away as having been 'addressed'.

I see. But isn't that what people like me are supposed to take away from Youtube videos created by non-historians?

 

The same tired gang of pseudo historians that couldn't even get past a peer review made up of room temperature IQ illiterates.

I find it rather amusing that you put so much stock in such bafflegab.

 

Graf: no academic credentials in history (linguistics, former school teacher works as a translator in Moscow)

Kues: claims no academic credentials in history (literature, linguistics, works as a translator in Sweden)

Mattogno: no academic credentials in history (or anything else, apparently)

Nick Terry, on the other hand: Doctorate in history, lecturer in history at Exeter in the UK. "I undertook my doctoral work at King’s College London, researching German occupation policy in Belorussia and Russia during the Second World War, in particular focusing on the policies of the German Army towards the Soviet civilian population. While completing my PhD, I held a Charles H. Revson Fellowship at the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. I taught history at King’s College London, Queen Mary, University of London and the University of Bristol before coming to Exeter in 2010."

Of the two camps, which might possess the best training in the discipline of historiography to offer the most plausible conclusions as to the fate of the Jews sent to the Aktion Reinhard camps, given that Graf, Kues and Mattogno are documented anti-Semites and Nazi apologists?

Doesn't surprise me in the least. Birds of a feather, and all that. Their hobby horse has been dying for decades under the weight of evidence that wasn't previously available back when simply gainsaying the then-sketchy historical details was considered sufficient response to instill doubt, even among the reasonably intelligent.

Professional 'revisionists' have lowered their ambitions significantly since then and this new cadre of True Believers, of which our present antagonist is an example, are all the front-line troops professional Jew-haters have to work with at present. Fortunately, they're relatively uninformed by their handlers as to the state of current scholarship, so defeating their claims with evidence of which they're unaware is a relatively simple matter. Oh, they'll gnash their teeth, rend their garments and make themselves generally unwelcome on forums where matters of history are discussed, but their anti-Semitic ship has well and truly sailed, and they know it. That's why they're utterly unable to present an internally-consistent alternative theory of events that takes the totality of the evidence into account that's even remotely plausible.

 

Yes actually you are correct we haven't been over Browning. Please go ahead and describe his evidence.

 

Authority, abuse, and cheerleading. Yawn. How about making a convincing case before this.

 

I realise it was a long time ago I posted a part of Browning's evidence as it pertains to Treblinka. See post number 134 of this thread.

It's on the previous page.

 

I'm not making an appeal to authority; I'm simply pointing out the degree of historiographic competency each side has attained and the relative worth of their arguments based on that criterion.

You'll have to point out any 'abuse' I may have engaged in because for the life of me I can't see it. I suggest you report me for abuse, in the event that someone on the board's staff might have seen it. I'm beginning to think that you'd define 'abuse' as anything resembling simple disagreement with your incomplete and biased view of history.

I just checked the rules. Apparently, 'cheerleading' isn't proscribed.