The Holocaust revised!!!!

The World can never recover

 

Ready? Here comes shot #7:

It must have taken every ounce of brains for Hitler and his Generals to meet the challenges all around.

 

Almost there! Shot #8:

I'm glad it is over!!!

 

Shot # nine brings a rhyme:

... Sounds familiar?

It sure hits the nail!

 

Yeah... we made it to over one thousand (1000) posts!!!

Many thanks to all of you lovely people!



The link:
http://rense.com/general83/dett.htm

 

xxxxxxxx

 

I posted a link to the document in full, you are Nazi with an agenda who refuses to look at the facts presented to you!


80,000 Cremation Capacity Per Month Not Sufficient for Auschwitz - New Document

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/topf/

Do the math, even if we use that 80,000 figure which was not sufficient production capacity then between September 1942 to the liberation of Aushwitz in January 1945 we come to the figure of 2.25 million deaths using the low 80,000 figure and for only a single camp.

The only one lying here is you as PROVEN by the Nazi's own documentation:



80,000 Cremation Capacity Per Month Not Sufficient for Auschwitz - New Document

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/topf/

Now address the point I made or kindly (*)(*)(*)(*) off.

 

There was no system set up to deliberately kill them for the sake of ridding the world of their presence. That is why the Holocaust is true and must be remembered, so it does not happen again.

 

I have already told you the/your figures are out, they are today and were then an impossibility.

With the equipment they had it would have taken 117 years at 12 hours a day 7 days a week to cremate six million people. That is the Maths. Are you telling me they have suddenly found 1,000 more Camps or something ?

- - - Updated - - -

I have already told you the/your figures are out, they are today and were then an impossibility.

With the equipment they had it would have taken 117 years at 12 hours a day 7 days a week to cremate six million people. That is the Maths. Are you telling me they have suddenly found 1,000 more Camps or something ?

 

I do know that you're a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Nazi who refuses to address the census figures and the Nazi's own documents which prove conclusively that an 80,000 crematoria rate was not sufficient at Aushwitz IE they needed to cremate MORE bodies than 80,000 a month your refusal to address either of the points that I make PROVES that you are not interested in anything other than your Nazi propaganda. There were 5 ovens at Aushwitz of the Gusen double muffle construction, each muffle was capable of cremating 26 bodies per hour, that is 26 x 2 x 5 which is 260 bodies even accepting your blatant fabrication that it took an entire hour to cremate a body, that's 260 per day not your made up number of 120 per day and again as we see from the documentation the Nazi's needed a cremation capacity of more than 80,000 per MONTH!

One of the central areas of contention in Mattogno's reply deals with cremation capacity. I wrote (Body, 4) that Mattogno had stated that the original six Auschwitz ovens could only burn a total of 120 bodies per day, or 20 per oven even though he was familiar with a document showing that 26 per muffle could be burned in the Gusen ovens which were of the same construction. Mattogno writes (Reply, 6) that the "Zimmerman falsification consists in the omission of factors which permit such a cremation capacity" and he goes on to cite from his writing in the same source I quoted from that under certain conditions an oven could burn a body in 40 minutes when there was an intake draft system. However, he did not cite any evidence to this effect nor did he provide evidence that the Gusen oven had any features that differed from the Aushcwitz ovens. The cost sheet for the Gusen double muffle oven installed in October 1941 lists no such item.50

My Response to Carlo Mattogno

By John C. Zimmerman
Associate Professor
University of Nevada, Las Vegas


To the Memory of Mark Van Alstine

Last October I had a study published on this website which examined the Auschwitz body disposal theories of Holocaust denier Carlo Mattogno. The title of the study is Body Disposal at Auschwitz: The End of Holocaust Denial, hereafter referred to as Body.1 The material appearing in the Body study is drawn from a book which will be published later on this year by the University Press of America entitled Holocaust Denial: Demographics, Testimonies and Ideologies. About a month after the study appeared, Mattogno issued a reply on the CODOH website, hereafter referred to as Reply in this essay.2

I realize that my response to Mattogno is late in coming. However, upon reading Mattogno's reply I realized that there was more information needed for my book and response. It took several months to obtain key documents. After receiving the documents, I decided that it was necessary to complete my book before issuing this response. Also, Mattogno's reply necessitated that I expand certain portions of my book to deal with issues he has raised in the past with which I was not familiar when writing the body disposal study. The book has been completed. Now to Mattogno.

Terminologies
Throughout the body disposal study I referred to the Auschwitz Central Construction Agency as the Bauleitung. I also called it the Auschwitz Construction Agency. Mattogno (Reply, complained about this, noting that the correct term is the Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung. I have similarly used this abbreviated term Bauleitung in my forthcoming book. Mattogno is more adept at preaching the correct terminology than actually using it since in 1996 he referred to "[t]he archives of the Auschwitz Bauleitung" and the "archives of the Bauleitung."3

Apparently, Mattogno believes that he is exempt from having to use the correct terminology.
In my study (Body, 15) I was critical of Mattogno's claim that the Birkenau ovens were not overhauled because there were no documents to that effect. I noted that there had not as yet emerged any documents showing even a single cremation at Auschwitz to which I noted: "According to Mattogno's logic this must mean that no cremations took place at Auschwitz." Mattogno's response is that "[p]erhaps Zimmerman finds this idiocy amusing; for me it is only pathetic." (Reply, 15) In fact, I got the idea for this "pathetic" analogy from Mattogno himself. In a 1994 article discussing the criticism that cremation capacity of the Auschwitz ovens far exceeded what would be needed at the camp, he stated that in 1939 German crematoria had the capacity to cremate 14 times more than the number of people who died in Germany that year. He then writes: "perhaps this shows that the Nazis intended to exterminate Germany's civilian population." 4 Once again, Mattogno gives himself an exemption from "idiotic" and "pathetic" analogies.

Lack of Records
Since writing the body disposal study I have obtained more information about the problem of oven durability that Mattogno raised when he wrote about the lack of documentation about oven overhaul. This will be discussed later on in this response. One of the key points I was making when raising this issue is that there is no information about how any of the 52 ovens in Auschwitz operated and that there had not as yet emerged a single documented instance of a cremation occurring at the camp. Mattogno's response (Reply, 15, 16) was to cite a report from August 1940 on the first cremation. The document, which I have obtained, states: "The local building authority reports that the erection work on the cremation oven was completed on August 15, 1940. The test cremation of the first body took place the same day."5

According to Mattogno -- and I believe him -- he has read all 88,200 pages in the archives of the Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung held in Moscow.6 Yet in all of this reading, he is only able to document an instance of a single cremation, and that cremation tells us nothing about how the ovens functioned. He does not cite evidence that even a single cremation took place in any of the 46 Birkenau ovens.

One of the key points I made in the body disposal study was the incriminating implications of the lack of such information. Mattogno never bothered to address this point. In fact, the lack to date of any such information is more incriminating than all of the evidence that does exist on Auschwitz. I cited a large number of eyewitness testimonies to the fact that these records were destroyed by the authorities who were seeking to conceal their crimes; statements that are supported by the absence of such documents. (Body, 30, 31). In fact, there was a separate section of the Auschwitz Political Division that was entrusted with these tasks. It was called the "Registry Office and Crematorium Administration" [Standesamt und Krematorium - Verwaltung].7 Therefore, it can indeed be wondered how it is possible that there can be thousands of documents on the building of these structures and none on how they actually functioned, especially since there was a separate section created by the camp authorities to deal with these issues.

Mattogno has begun to hint that the Soviets have suppressed the records. This is the only denier argument which can be offered to "explain" why there are no records. The only other explanation is that the records were destroyed by the Germans. The claim is made as part of Mattogno's "40 points" delivered by his associate Russ Granata to the convention on "Real History", sponsored by David Irving, in Cincinnati on September 26,1999. The tape is entitled Russ Granata Reports on Carlo Mattogno and is sold commercially by Russ Granata. I obtained a copy.

Mattogno blames Soviet "culling" for the lack of information on oven testing, suggesting that the Soviets weeded out documents they didn't like. This is not surprising. Elsewhere he has argued -- without any proof -- that the Soviets had altered a document from the captured Bauleitung archives to attempt to link Zyklon B to Krema II.8 He has also argued -- again without any proof --that the Soviets suppressed the "correct" version of the Bauleitung report of June 28, 1943, which states that 4756 bodies could be incinerated in a 24 hour period. Mattogno theorizes that this report was corrected in a subsequent report.9

Mattogno knows that the advantage of making absurd arguments like these is that it is impossible to prove a negative. That is, to prove that the Soviets did not tamper with these documents. However, there is very strong evidence that the Soviets never touched these documents. This comes from the interrogations the Soviets made of the Topf engineers they captured.

The interrogations occurred in March 1946. Engineer Kurt Prufer, who built the Auschwitz ovens, stated that the Birkenau ovens could incinerate one corpse per hour and that brick lining on the ovens was damaged after six months because of the enormous strain being placed on the ovens. 10 Prufer's statements directly contradicted a Soviet report on this issue. In May 1945 the Soviets submitted a report to the International Military Tribunal hearing war crimes trials. The report claimed that the ovens could incinerate 279,000 per month or 9,000 per day. This comes out to about 7 1/2 minutes per corpse working non- stop for a period of 24 hours each day without any rest. The report claims that the Birkenau ovens had the capacity to cremate over 5 million corpses during the time they functioned. In other words, the Soviets claimed that the ovens had an unlimited burning capacity. 11 These claims were being directly contradicted by Prufer's statements to the interrogator. The contents of these interrogations would have been the obvious choice of suppression or alteration since they were directly contradicting the official Soviet view of these ovens.

Moreover, if the Soviets were really anxious to suppress unfavorable information then the more likely candidate would have been the Auschwitz Death Books. As is well known, these books -- which are incomple

 

There were actually 6 double muffle Gusen style ovens at Aushwitz with a 26 body capacity for each muffle, that is 26 x 2 x 6 per hour which comes out to 312 bodies burned per hour even accepting the lower burn rate of an hour when in actuality it was more like 40 to 45 minutes.

 

Were thet running three shifts? The labor and fuel costs must have been astronomical.

 

You are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ridiculous, there were 6 double muffle ovens at Aushwitz of the Gusen contruction which were capable of a 26 body load per muffle with a burning rate of appx. 45 minutes per load, so thanks for (*)(*)(*)(*)ing playing.

 

And now we have another shifting of the goal posts.

 

And they had time for this between band practice and machine shop? Amazing!!!

They had yer Gusen Double Muffle 26 Body Deluxe Models that could toast em up in 45 minutes, eh champ...Did that come with the automatic loaders or were they doing it by hand? You know where I can get my hands on one of those beauties next week?

You guys are a riot.

 

1, Neither Leuchter nor Faurisson is an expert in what Irving calls "an exact science". And their attempt to explain away the absurd conclusions of Leuchter has been thoroughly and completely debunked by ........ actual experts. Ever wonder why IHR didn't pull out their pet "chemist" Rudolph, in this kneejerk premature reaction - it wouldn't have mattered, because when he did get around to it and comment, his commentary was also completely trashed.


2. I have already linked to the IFFR Crackow report and it does not corroborate the idiotic leuchter trash. IN fact, the IHR at its most spurious and purile best, published anout 10% of the report and as such has totally skewed the actual findings.
Perhaps you should compare the report on IHR and the actual final IFFR report.
this link is the foreward to the findings of the IFFR report and provides links to the actual report:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/iffr/

this link discusses Leuchter and rudolph's lame attempts at "exact science".

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/iffr/

This is what wiki has to say, (I followed the trial closely since it was in my hometown and this entry relates the facts)
\
The compiled report was published as The Leuchter Report: An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek, Poland, by Zündel's Samisdat Publications, and as Auschwitz: The End of the Line. The Leuchter Report: The First Forensic Examination of Auschwitz by Focal Point Publications, David Irving's publishing house.[2]:163 However, the court accepted the report only as evidentiary display and not as direct evidence; Leuchter was therefore required to explicate it and testify to the veracity of his findings under oath in the trial.[3]

Before Leuchter could do this, he was examined by the court. It soon became apparent that Leuchter's credentials were seriously lacking. He admitted that he was not a toxicologist and dismissed the need for having a degree in engineering, to which the judge responded abruptly:

THE COURT: How do you function as an engineer if you don't have an engineering degree?
THE WITNESS: Well, I would question, Your Honour, what an engineering degree is. I have a Bachelor of Arts degree and I have the required background training both on the college level and in the field to perform my function as an engineer.

THE COURT: Who determines that? You?
—Exchange between Leuchter and Judge Thomas, Her Majesty the Queen vs. Ernst Zündel, District Court of Ontario 1988, p. 8973.[2]:164
Leuchter admitted under oath that he only had a bachelor of arts degree and implicitly suggested that an engineering degree was unavailable to him by saying that his college did not offer an engineering degree during his studies. Boston University actually offered three different kinds of such qualification when he was a student there.[2]:165 The defence continued to obfuscate Leuchter's credentials. When asked by the court if the B.A. he obtained was in a field that entitled him to operate as an engineer, he confirmed that this was so, even though his degree was in history.165 Similarly, Leuchter claimed that he obtained most of his research material on the camps (including original crematoria blueprints) from the Auschwitz and Majdanek camps' archives, and testified that these documents had a far more important role in shaping his conclusions than the physical samples he collected did, yet after the trial the director of the Auschwitz museum categorically denied that Leuchter had received any plans or blueprints.[2]:165

Judge Ronald Thomas began to label Leuchter's methodology as "ridiculous" and "preposterous", dismissing many of the report's conclusions on the basis that they were based on "second-hand information", and refused to allow him to testify on the effect of Zyklon B on humans because he had never worked with the substance, and was neither a toxicologist nor a chemist.[2]:166 Judge Thomas dismissed Leuchter's opinion because it was of "no greater value than that of an ordinary tourist", and in regards to Leuchter's opinion said:

His opinion on this report is that there were never any gassings or there was never any exterminations carried on in this facility. As far as I am concerned, from what I've heard, he is not capable of giving that opinion....He is not in a position to say, as he said so sweepingly in this report, what could not have been carried on in these facilities.

—Judge Thomas, Her Majesty the Queen vs. Ernst Zündel, District Court of Ontario 1988, p. 9049-9050.[2]:166

When questioned on the functioning of the crematoria, the judge also prevented Leuchter from testifying because "he hasn't any expertise".[2]:166 Leuchter also claimed that consultation relating to sodium cyanide and hydrogen cyanide with DuPont was "an on-going thing". DuPont, the largest American manufacturer of hydrogen cyanide, stated that it had "never provided any information on cyanides to persons representing themselves as Holocaust deniers, including Fred Leuchter", and has "never provided any information regarding the use of cyanide at Auschwitz, Birkenau or Majdanek."

But wait there's more:
http://www.hdot.org/en/learning/myth-fact/leuchter

The claim that objective science proves the non-existence of the Holocaust began with the Leuchter Report. In his introduction to that report, David Irving writes: "Unlike the writing of history, chemistry is an exact science. . . . The truly astounding results are as set out in this report: while significant quantities of cyanide compounds were found in the small de-lousing facilities of the camp . . . no significant trace whatsoever was found in the buildings which international opinion--for it is not more than that--has always labeled the camp's infamous gas chambers . . . Forensic chemistry is, I repeat, an exact science." 1

The Leuchter Report

First published in 1989 and submitted as evidence during the trial of German-Canadian Holocaust denier and neo-Nazi, Ernst Zündel, the Leuchter Report is one of the cornerstones of Holocaust denial. For his trial, Zündel commissioned self-proclaimed execution-chamber specialist Fred Leuchter to conduct a forensic examination of the gas chambers in Auschwitz. Leuchter went to Auschwitz, where without any official permission, he chipped away samples of brick and stone, which he then sent to a forensics laboratory for investigation.
His report concluded that, "There were no execution chambers at any of these locations." He continued by saying that, in his opinion, "the alleged gas chambers at the inspected sites could not have then been, or now, be utilized or seriously considered to function as execution gas chambers." 2
Zündel submitted the Leuchter Report as evidence in his trial and wanted Fred Leuchter to be a witness for his defense. However, when Leuchter was questioned by the court about his credentials as an expert witness it was discovered that he wasn't licensed as an engineer, his degree was in the humanities, and he had no expertise in chemistry, toxicology or incineration--all subjects he had weighed in on in the Report. The court, therefore, did not let the report be entered as the work of an expert.

The Major Falsifications Of The Leuchter Report

•"The exposed porous brick and mortar would accumulate the HCN [hydrogen cyanide] and makes these facilities dangerous to humans for several years." 3

Zyklon-B was the product name for the blue-green chalk pellets soaked in hydrogen cyanide (HCN). In addition to its uses as a powerful pesticide and in other industrial applications, the Nazis used it to administer death in death camp gas chambers.
The walls and ceilings of the gas chambers were plastered and whitewashed as numerous eyewitnesses have testified. By the time Leuchter arrived at the camp to take his samples, the plaster was gone and the exposed brick had been exposed to 40 years of rain, sun and snow. As HCN leaves only a thin blue chemical residue on surfaces, any "Prussian Blue" residue from the HCN would have collected on the surface of the plaster and would not have left a substantial presence on the bricks and mortar or concrete underneath.

Leuchter's Sample Collection Process, Although Touted As "Scientific," Was Deeply Flawed

Leuchter collected 31 handful-sized samples of bricks and mortar from the cremas and one control sample from the delousing chamber in Birkenau. By the time he crawled into the ruins of Crema 2, the plaster was long gone and only the bricks and mortar and concrete remained. Cremas 4 and 5 were constructed entirely of brick. They were totally destroyed before the end of the war. Only the concrete foundations remain and bricks have been gathered from around the area and loosely stacked up to show the general outline of the floor plan of the buildings. The bricks that Leuchter sampled did not necessarily come from anywhere near the gas chamber rooms.

The Testing Of The Samples Was Also Flawed

In the laboratory the individual samples were ground up into powder. Any trace of the HCN residue that might have been there became a miniscule part of the entire sample. A more appropriate method would have tested only the surfaces of the sample.
Testing the total amount of the ground up powder was like trying to analyze the color and chemical structure of paint on the inside of a wall by looking for it in the boards and masonry behind the drywall. In the case of Cremas 4 and 5, it would like analyzing the materials from another room entirely.

The Leuchter Report Announced That the Results of the Tests Showed an "absence of any consequential readings" Of Hydrogen Cyanide [HCN].4

Leuchter concluded that the small amounts of HCN residue that did show up in the samples could be accounted for by an occasional delousing of the buildings using Zyklon-B, a common procedure to kill the lice that contributed to typhus epidemics in the camp. Given Leuchter's unscientific collection and testing processes, it is remarkable that even "inconsequential traces" of HCN were found. 5

The Tests On The Samples From The Delousing Chamber Showed Significantly Higher Amounts Of HCN Residue.6

This is not surprising. Although, Leuchter calculated that it required 3,200 parts per million (ppm) to kill a human being,7 In reality, it requires a maximum of only 300 ppm 8 whereas, to kill lice, beetles, etc. requires at least 16,600 ppm of HCN. It is understandable, therefore that the walls of the delousing chamber are heavily stained with "Prussian Blue" because of the much higher concentration of HCN that was needed and by the much longer periods of time it took to kill insects.
The gas chambers used much lower concentrations of HCN, were quickly aired out and were not always in continuous use. After each gassing, the walls and floors were washed down with water. Furthermore, Cremas 2, 3, 4 and 5 are in ruins and had been exposed to the elements of sun, rain, ice and snow for 43 years when Leuchter took his samples. The delousing building, on the other hand, is still standing so the walls with the "Prussian Blue" residue are protected from the elements.

A properly authorized and meticulously conducted, rigorously scientific study done by Polish authorities in 1994 found that "in spite of the passage of a considerable period of time (over 45 years) in the walls of the facilities which once were in contact with hydrogen cyanide the vestigial amounts of the combinations of this constituent of Zyklon B had been preserved. This is also true of the ruins of the former gas chambers." 9

•"There is no provision for gasketed doors, windows or vents . . . no evidence of doors or door frames has been found." 10

The Auschwitz Museum archives, which Leuchter did not visit, contain proof to the contrary. A letter from Karl Bischoff, the head architect at Auschwitz, to the German Armament Works dated March 31, 1943 orders "three gas tight doors" for Crema 3 following "exactly the size and construction of those already delivered" for Crema 2. Bischoff reminded the manufacturer that the doors had to have a spy-hole of double 8-mm glass "with a rubber seal and metal fitting." The order was characterized as "very urgent." 11

In the archives there is also a request for a "handle for the gastight door" (Order No. 162, 6 March 1943) and a request for "twenty-four-gastight anchoring screws for gas tight doors" for Cremas 4 and 5 (Order No. 280, 6 April 1943).12

Finally, there are also many photographs of actual gas-tight doors that were found all over Auschwitz immediately after the war. One, which had been used in either Crema 4 or 5, had a peep-hole covered with a heavy mesh screen and still had a gas-tight seal still around the edge, just as Bischoff's letter requested.13

•"There were no exhaust systems to vent the gas after usage . . ." 14
The blueprints for Crema 2 show ventilation ducts in the walls (labeled 'Entlüftung') and the remains of the ducts can still be seen in the ruins.15 Henryk Tauber, a member of the Sonderkommando in Crema 2, testified after the war that "ventilation was installed in the walls of the gas chamber. . . . This ventilation system . . . was driven by electric motors in the roof space of the crematorium." 16
•". . . those throwing Zyklon B in the roof vents and verifying the death of the occupants would themselves die from exposure to HCN." 17

Researchers have determined that rooms the size of the gas chambers in Crema 2 and 3 (both of which had a ventilation system) would have been able to have been entered after only 30 minutes without any adverse symptoms. Therefore, the Sonderkommando wouldn't have needed masks in these facilities unless the room was opened very soon afterward.18

In Cremas 1 (in the Main Camp) and 4 and 5 and the two peasant cottages in Birkenau, the Sonderkommando did wear gas masks when removing bodies from the rooms because they had no ventilation system. Shlomo Dragon, a member of the Sonderkommando for Bunker 2 (one of the peasant cottages at the back of the camp) reported after the war about his work clearing the bodies from the gas chambers: "We were all given masks, and were led through the door into the cottage." 19

Survivors Explain
Henryk Tauber arrived in Auschwitz on January 19, 1943. He was assigned to a Sonderkommando which burned the bodies and assisted in the gas chamber operations in Cremas 1, 2, and 4. Tauber recalled the gas chambers in Crema 4 after the war: "The gas chambers were about two meters high and had an electric lighting installation on the walls but they had no ventilation system, which obliged the Sonderkommando who were removing the bodies to wear gasmasks." 20 The SS guards regularly wore gas masks when pouring the Zyklon-B pellets into the gas chambers.
Filip Müller, a Slovak Jew who arrived in Auschwitz in April 1942, was put to work as an oven stoker in Crema 1. Müller's job was to drag the corpses from the morgue-turned-gas chamber to the ovens and sort and remove valuables from the abandoned clothing. Later, he was transferred to Birkenau to work in the crematoria and burning pits there.
Müller gave a detailed description of the process of murder in both the Main Camp and Birkenau. He recalled one such gassing in Crema 1: "When the last one had crossed the threshold, two SS leaders slammed shut the heavy iron-studded door which was fitted with a rubber seal, and bolted it . . . the Unterführers on duty had gone onto the crematorium roof . . . They removed the covers from the six camouflaged openings. There, protected by gas-masks, they poured the green-blue crystals of the deadly gas into the gas chamber." 21

Conclusion
The Leuchter Report is junk science. Furthermore, the small traces of HCN found in Leuchter's samples from Cremas 1 through 5 actually demonstrate the opposite of what Leuchter supposedly "proved"--that is, the traces of HCN proves that the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau did exist.


Sorry marlowe, but the IHR commentary on the Leuchter report and the attempt to link its "findings" to the IFFR report are ludicrous, disengenuous and intellectually dishonest. Exactly reflective of the entire holocaust denial movement and its proponents.

come back when you actually have some EVIDENCE, as opposed to inept bumbling psuedo-science.

(Marlowe - I know you'll love this even more )

 

Gee Jack, it seems you are upset because the allies were absolutely appalled by the conditions they found in the camps. That they were stuck by the fact that Hitler actually followed thru on his musings about jews. If hitler had written about left handed people being the scourge of the world, it would have been memorials to the holocaust of left handed people.

But no, Hitler and his gang were pretty damn explicit on who they felt was responsible for their sorryassed lives. Even the majority of the German people were horrified at the depths of depravity their own had sunk too.

When the third Reich decided that the FINAL SOLUTION was the liquidation of the jews, they sealed their own fate and made those six million jews martyrs in the eyes of the world.

Seems you're just pissed because the Nazi's in trying to erase the jews, merely enshrined their suffering in the annals of history.

thats karma for you.

the millions of russians? Killed by russians and the ones doing the killing were victorious.
the atomic bombs on Japan? Killed by the victors in a "total" war the japanese actually started.
The dresden bombings? Perpetrated by the victors in a state of total war.

If worldwide reverence of the Holocaust is getting under you skin so much, you might want to lay the blame where it actually belongs. Hitler and his gang of overreaching socio/psychopathic thugs. Seems their reach exceeded their grasp and as a result, we have dozens of holocaust museums around the world.

I just love the fact that history thanks the jewhating nazi pond scum for giving civilization such a dramatic icon of depravity (and vehicle for exploitive guilt by the jews) as the holocaust. As a minor personal satisfaction, they are also the cause of making your blood pressure increase on a regular basis.

Now that's rich.

 

Let's see...... who can fairly say this dollop of hitlerian vomit turned out to be not true?..........hmmmmmmmm.

Gee that's a poser................

I know. about 6 million palestinians of which about 3.5 million are multi-generational refugees and 2.5 million are subjugated in their own land.

Sometimes your hatred makes you look like a fool. You are better than that jackie. Or at least you should be.

 

Did Hitler have an English, French, American, or Russian dentist? Who had his dental records? Berlin looked pretty much bombed out.

 

Hugo Blaschke

 

OK, answer this: Is Auschwitz physically large enough to handle 80,000 people?

 

Marlowe ol' chap, you didn't learn that from this thread.

What you should have come away with, is that facts matter and if you refuse to acknowledge them, then you will get intellectually pummelled by those that care about the facts.

When a person relies on such pathetic little creatures like Leuchter and Krege and Rudolph to provide the "facts" of "scientific investigation" then they are exposing either their own ignorance and gullibility or the fact that they have an agenda that is actually completely independent of fact.

Holocaust deniers present "evidence" that is simply inadequate.

Any real evidence that would stand up to scrutiny would be ACCEPTED by the academic/scientific community REGARDLESS of the implications of that evidence and the re-writing of the narrative it would necessitate.

There are hundreds of examples that demonstrate this aspect of academic integrity. Why, even the history of the creation of Israel has been re-written to expunge many of the myths and to circumscribe the extent of many actions, making that history more accurate, compelling and in large part mitigate a fair chunk of the bias that existed.

If it can be accepted for Israeli history, it can be accepted for the holocaust. The "evidence" provided by the wingnuts of holocaust denial simply does not stand up to that professional scrutiny and therefore, it does not change the narrative to one which favours the personal perspectives of jewhaters and national socialist ********s.

Very simple
Very obvious

 

I seriously doubt that the proposed ovens could have handled that many corpses. Besides, how did they get the fuel?

 

What did they use for fuel?