One Third Of The Holocaust:More Compelling Evidence It Never Happened

I remember helping an old man move furniture when I was a young kid,I noticed he had numbers tatooed across his arm asked him about it and he didn't wish to comment,so yes I believe something happened to what extent I don't know,to deny it would be claiming ignorance

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Auschwitz murdered the remainder. It was at first estimated, based on Hoess's interrogation, that 3 million Jews had been gassed at Auschwitz, this has been since radically revised and it is agreed that the number was about 1.5 million.

Sorry, not according to recent revisals by mostly non-revisionists.

Dissecting the Holocaust page 221 and onwards:

In 1990, the number of victims for Auschwitz, which had been set at approximately 4 million by (63) the Polish authorities ever since the time of the IMT trials, was officially reduced to one million.In early 1993, the Polish Historical Society advised lowering the figure by another 400,000, since the air photos taken by Allied reconnaissance planes had shown that the extermination of the Hungarian Jews had never taken place. (43)
The alleged mass extermination, they say, must therefore have been discontinued in May 1944 at the latest. In 1993, Pressac as begun to advocate the theory that the mass extermination did not start until 1942, half a year later than assumed to date, for which reason the number of victims, including the murdered Hungarian Jews, should be reduced to 630,000 gas chamber victims. (41).

If one draws the obvious conclusions from these two publications namely, the later beginning and earlier end of the killings then the approximately 1 million victims must be reduced by 370,000 (according to Pressac) and by another 400,000 (according to the Polish Historical Society). We are thus left with only 230,000 alleged victims of the gas chambers. In the German edition of his latest book, Pressac reduces the number of gas chamber victims to about 500,000. (64).

As I stated here in the first edition of this book, it seemed to be only a matter of time (65) until the next downward revision of this continuously shrinking figure would be made, and in fact, this downward revision came in 2002: only 510,000 total victims are now claimed, 356,000 of them alleged gassing victims. (66)

41) J. C. Pressac, Les crématoires d´Auschwitz, la machinerie du meurtre de masse, Édition du CNRS, Paris 1993, p. 147, cites the Yad Vashem without giving any further details; acc. to findings of J. Graf and C. Mattogno in the archives of the former camp of Stutthof, only 25,000 Jews were deported (cf. J. Graf, C. Mattogno, Concentration Camp Stutthof and its Function in National Socialist Jewish Policy, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2003; online: vho.org/GB/Books/ccs). Perhaps the rest was sent to other labor camps. Cf. also the report about Hungarian Jews as forced laborers in the Volkswagenwerke in Wolfsburg: H. Mommsen, M. Grieger, Das Volkswagenwerk und seine Arbeiter im Dritten Reich, Econ, Düsseldorf 1996; P. Bölke, Der Führer und sein Tüftler,Der Spiegel 45 (1996), p. 138f.

43) Cf. J. C. Ball, Air Photo Evidence, Ball Resource Services Ltd., Delta, BC, 1992; cf. his chapter in the present volume, as well as J. Konieczny, The Soviets, but not the Western Allies, should have bombed the Auschwitz camp, Polish Historical Society, PO Box 8024, Stamford, CT 06905, April 1993.

63) Cf. Jüdische Allgemeine Wochenzeitung, July 26, 1990; Der Spiegel 30/90, 111; Süddeutsche Zeitung, Sept. 21, 1990; Die Tageszeitung, July 18 and 19, 1990; cf. also F. Piper, Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz, Verlag Staatliches Museum in Oswiecim, Auschwitz 1993.

64) J.-C. Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz. Die Technik des Massenmordes, Piper, Munich 1994, p. 202.

65) For a general critique of the alleged Auschwitz death toll, see Robert Faurisson, How many deaths at Auschwitz?, The Revisionist 1(1) (2003), pp. 17-23 (online: vho.org/tr/2003/1/Faurisson17-23.html); Werner Rademacher, Die Wandlungen der Totenzahl von Auschwitz,ibid., pp. 256-267 (online: vho.org/VffG/1999/3/Rademacher256-267.html).

66) F. Meyer, Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz, Osteuropa, 52(5) (2002), pp. 631-641.

67) E. Nolte, Streitpunkte, Propyläen, Berlin 1993, p. 312.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Prior to the arrival of the crematoria, the bodies were first buried, then when this was considered too messy, the bodies were disinterred and burned in open pits. It is highly labour intensive to do this, so Topf and Son provided purpose built crematoria.

I think you are confusing Auschwitz with Treblinka at this point. Topf & Söhne did provide the ovens in the crematoria of Auschwitz though. And you can easily calculate the number of maximum bodies which could be processed according to the specs and even by asking modern day crematoria specialists. (...)

Continued on next page.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Carbon Monoxide was more commonly used, but as you say Zyklon B was a highly dangerous chemical and proved effective. There is sufficient testimony from both sides to support the belief that it was used.

I´m not quite sure what that sufficient testimony from boths sides is. If you are referring to Zyklon-B being used as fumegant and delousing agent, no contest. Carbon Monoxide produced from Diesel engines: see previous posts in this thread.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
As to its running out at the end of the war, well there could be a number of reasons for that. Supply lines being cut

Very true.

Also by 1944 at the latest most investors in the Nazis had realised that their horse was on to a losing streak. As they would have known what Zyklon B was used for (and it wasn't just to kill bugs) do you think that they may have wanted to distance themselves from the killing process? I certainly think that the Board of Directors would have seen a halt in production as a shrewd move - of course by default it makes them culpable for all those that subsequently died as a result of pestilence. Collateral damage?

Sorry, but speculations will not help here.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Denied or refuted?

Denied on grounds of the fact that the mass-exterminations are to be considered "common knowledge". Please read Rudolf´s story and trial transcript. Or Zündel´s or Irving´s.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
This type of revisionism doesn't - in fact it serves quite the opposite purpose. It actually detracts attention from the crimes that they themselves committed during this period in history, by proliferating it you are helping them to do this.

Your opinion - not mine.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
If you're seeking the truth, you're going to have to dig a little deeper, you haven't even scratched the surface! And really you need to research the entire history. If you already think you know the answer you are blind and will never see what it right before your eyes.

By all means I think I might finally have started to unravel this enigma and am getting a lot closer to what actually happened in the East during WWII and shortly after. I´m quite sure I am already up to my neck into this and not blind at all. I have been blind for years though, starting at highschool where I have been spoonfed information about the Holocaust along with millions and millions of others.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Best wishes

Same here! Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by Oldtimer2
I remember helping an old man move furniture when I was a young kid,I noticed he had numbers tatooed across his arm asked him about it and he didn't wish to comment,so yes I believe something happened to what extent I don't know,to deny it would be claiming ignorance

So you are basically saying that because that old man was silent the mass-exterminations and testimonies must have been a reality? I don´t blame you, but this seems very ignorant myself. Silence is not evidence.

Should we ignore and neglect scientific research and historical review because we pity the survivors of the concentration camps?

Maybe we should pity the Palestinians who have lived under Israëli suppression for 60 years now instead? I couldn´t care less about the Palestinians myself, but I do care about injustice and plain lies, especially if it impacts my life and the ones around me.

Originally posted by Truth4hire
Sorry, not according to recent revisals by mostly non-revisionists.

Sorry, you are totally right. I was trying to remember the numbers off the top of my head - demonstrates perfectly though how these mistakes are made in the first place though.

To correct myself, 1.1 million people died in Auschwitz in total. In 1942, 2.7 million Jews were murdered of those 200,000 were killed at Auschwitz, 1.65 million in the Action Reinhard camps and 850,000 by mobile killing units (Einzatsgruppen). In 1943 500,000 jews were murdered, about half at Auschwitz (Sobibor, Belzec and Treblinka having been already dismantled).

Incidently Pressac who is mentioned in the article you cite is responsible for many of the number ratifications - he is an awesome researcher, I have read some of his papers and they are fantastically detailed. I don't think he has ever been arrested or accused of holocaust denial. He is actually highly respected in his field. I've said it before but the numbers are not really that important. How many have to die for it to qualify as a genocide for you? Why do you find it so hard to believe that 3 million jews were murdered in a two year period and that 10 million individuals were murdered in total from 1934 to 1945 by varying means and for various reasons?

The numbers are greater than ever before but genocide is nothing new.

Originally posted by Truth4hire

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Prior to the arrival of the crematoria, the bodies were first buried, then when this was considered too messy, the bodies were disinterred and burned in open pits. It is highly labour intensive to do this, so Topf and Son provided purpose built crematoria.

I think you are confusing Auschwitz with Treblinka at this point. Topf & Söhne did provide the ovens in the crematoria of Auschwitz though. And you can easily calculate the number of maximum bodies which could be processed according to the specs and even by asking modern day crematoria specialists. (...)

There is eye witness testimony from both the SS and non-Jewish sonderkommando to the use and capacity of the crematoria that were installed at Auschwitz. They were purpose built and purpose designed. Those mentioned above are therefore the only available experts, other than the manufacturers. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of their version of events.

The crematoria installed at Auschwitz was originally intended for Madjanek, but when it was decided that Madjanek was unsuitable as a death camp it was re-routed to Auschwitz. They liked it so much they ordered some more. So whether it was able to process 100 bodies a day or 1000 they needed the capacity to dispose of more bodies.

I do not understand your point regarding my confusing Treblinka and Auschwitz – could you clarify your meaning please?

Originally posted by Truth4hire
I´m not quite sure what that sufficient testimony from boths sides is. If you are referring to Zyklon-B being used as fumegant and delousing agent, no contest. Carbon Monoxide produced from Diesel engines: see previous posts in this thread.

So you are willing to accept that people were gassed to death using carbon monoxide but not with Zyklon B? Interesting, could you explain why this distinction is so important to you? I have read countless accounts of Zyklon B use, how it was used, in what quantities and the experiments that led them to the correct dosage. If you also look at the fumigation process as described by Jewish inmates, non-Jewish inmates, SS Camp Personnel and Civilian Personnel you will find that Zyklon B was seldom used for this purpose. There is much documentation between organisations within the SS discussing the problems associated with Carbon Monoxide and instructions to individuals such as Bouhler to find alternative methods. There is similarly documentation relating to the tests carried out using Zyklon B as an alternative.

However, I am happy to only discuss the use of carbon monoxide if you prefer as this method was used more extensively and for a significantly longer period (from 1934 to 1942-3 or 45 if you discount Zyklon B.

Originally posted by Truth4hire

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
As to its running out at the end of the war, well there could be a number of reasons for that. Supply lines being cut

Very true.

Also by 1944 at the latest most investors in the Nazis had realised that their horse was on to a losing streak. As they would have known what Zyklon B was used for (and it wasn't just to kill bugs) do you think that they may have wanted to distance themselves from the killing process? I certainly think that the Board of Directors would have seen a halt in production as a shrewd move - of course by default it makes them culpable for all those that subsequently died as a result of pestilence. Collateral damage?

Sorry, but speculations will not help here.

Perhaps you can explain why you are so certain that those particular supply lines were cut. Do you know the process involved in producing Zyklon B and it’s composite ingredients? If you do then yes you can be sure that those particular supply lines were cut – otherwise it too is mere speculation.

Originally posted by Truth4hire

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Denied or refuted?

Denied on grounds of the fact that the mass-exterminations are to be considered "common knowledge". Please read Rudolf´s story and trial transcript. Or Zündel´s or Irving´s.

It is “Common Knowledge”. I have repeatedly stated that I do not agree with these trials and laws, but nor do I agree with tax payers money being spent calling witnesses to testify to “prove” that one of the most well documented genocides in history took place. I don’t think that these laws benefit anyone least of all the victims of the genocides themselves and are a complete waste of the court’s time and money. With the slight exception of Irving, these people are pseudo-historians who have set out with the intent to disprove and have ignored all evidence that contradicts their own. Quite the opposite of Pressac who’s work has actually changed public perception through thorough examination and comparison of the information available.

Originally posted by Truth4hire
By all means I think I might finally have started to unravel this enigma and am getting a lot closer to what actually happened in the East during WWII and shortly after. I´m quite sure I am already up to my neck into this and not blind at all. I have been blind for years though, starting at highschool where I have been spoonfed information about the Holocaust along with millions and millions of others.

This is my favourite argument. I was never “taught” the holocaust, in fact I was never taught WW2 history, we did the First War. They cannot teach us everything in school. There is an awful lot out there to learn if you are willing to seek it out for yourself. Formal education is just the starting block. I never thought that WW2 was being kept from me. I have learnt far more in my lifetime than they ever had the time to teach me at school.

There is no secret as to what happened in the East, it is not highly publicized but there are countless books that recount in detail what happened there. You do have to read a lot of these books before you get a full enough picture to understand what exactly occurred, most people demure at saying it out loud and it is often over-simplified.

The main problem with the situation in the East is that it could have been avoided and the Allies do not want that to enter into the public consciousness. Over the next twenty years, documents are due to be released that will shed a little more light on the subject, but the implication already exists.

In my opinion what is so unique about the actions in the East (as opposed to those in the Reich itself and the Balkans), is that while genocide is commonplace, the Germans attempted to commit it as humanely as possible (they undoubtably failed of course). To Himmler’s twisted sense of chivalry, it was beneath a German to inflict suffering (which is why Ukrainian Nationalist were so widely ustilised, they had no such “moral dilemma” and were quite eager to kill Jews). The SS though were a superior breed and most were not cut out for such brutality. Even Odilo Globocnik, who surpasses Hoess as Himmler’s greatest mass murderer, suffered a nervous breakdown in the latter stages of Action Reinhard. Himmler personally oversaw his rehabilitation and treatment.

Globocnik’s team was drawn from the T4 process and were all experienced in “euthanasia” and this is what Action Reinhard was considered to be in the eyes of Himmler. Wirth and Bouhler both had extensive experience of mass killing and this experience was used to design the apparatus of death in the East. All of those directly involved in the killing process conveniently met their deaths before they could be interrogated. Globocnik and Himmler while in British custody. Based on recently released documents it is accepted amongst some historians that Himmler was actually “aided” in his death by British agents.

Can you imagine if post-war it had been common knowledge that every death after spring 1941 in Europe was completely avoidable? Retrospect can be a terrible thing and Britain for one had some enormous secrets to hide.

If you are willing I would be interested to hear your theories regarding the East, it is a subject that I am very interested in and as you have studied it closely we may be able to learn from each other. My mind is open if your’s is.

All the best.

Nope. The PBS footage I saw of bulldozers filling in mass graves of skeletal Jews in black and white was some strange cruel hoax of the poor innocent well meaning Nazis. What could I have been thinking. Please!
Dusting off my armband tomorrow. Anyone see the pbs special 'the war'? The bataan? death march of 78,000 American soldiers left out to dry in the Phillipines? It was a party for sure. Can't believe we are on such good terms with Japan to this day.

I'm going to say this as delicately as possible with regard to my point status. "Are you totally insane?!"

Oh yeah, forgot, we nuked the s out of them into capitulation. God we are such a deviant society/ prototype evolutionism. No wonder they fly by they really didn't see us.

Like a bad Springer/Maury show. Who's your daddy?

Originally posted by Quicksilver
4million dead or 6 million dead. Does it really matter?

You are absolutely correct.

Yet I challenge you to mention 4mio in you next conversation with zionist sympathizers. You will never be able to talk to them again.

It is shameful to argue about numbers of the genocide. Ahmedinajad is careful how he mentions it, but the fact he mentions it at all... serves a purpose.

The purpose is to weaken the zionists.

Zionism is not a kosher ideology ;-)

No need to instrumentalise the holocaust!

But, yes, we must always mention the crimes.

Germans on their part are WELL EDUCATED about their crimes and there are more of their crimes to be uncovered in the (police) archives. These crimes cannot be atoned, one can only LIVE JUSTLY. Germans on the whole are giving it a try.

FYI there was another interesting attempt at a homeland for zionists:

the JEWISH OBLAST in Russia.

Originally posted by jpm1602
Nope. The PBS footage I saw of bulldozers filling in mass graves of skeletal Jews in black and white was some strange cruel hoax of the poor innocent well meaning Nazis. What could I have been thinking.

You were thinking what you were taught to think. The Nazi´s had buthered all these people, look! see here for yourself!

The cruel hoax is the fact that tyfus and starvation ran rampant in the concentrations camps before, during and even after liberation of the camps, especially the ones which came under Soviet control.

The pictures you so eloquently describe probably were from Bergen-Belsen, and became the world famous stick to hit the Germans with. Strangely enough, after Allied medics had examined those mass graves it turned out that the majority of those victims has died from... pectoral tyfus.

There were no where near enough resources near the end of the war to keep the camps sane.

On April 11, 1945, American troops entered Buchenwald concentration camp. Four days later, British troops reached Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. In the weeks that followed, the Anglo-Americans liberated other camps, including Dachau (April 29) and Mauthausen (May 5). To the victorious soldiers, all these concentration camps represented scenes of horror. The Jewish historian Walter Laqueur reports in this regard:

“On April 15, units of a British regiment entered Bergen-Belsen concentration camp following a ceasefire negotiated with the local German
commander. Colonel Taylor, who commanded the regiment, wrote following an initial investigation of the camp in the laconic language of an
official report: ‘As we walked along the main street of the camp, we were greeted with jubilation by prisoners and saw the condition of the inmates for the first time. Many were little more than living skeletons. Men and women lay in rows on both sides of the street. Others crawled slowly and aimlessly around with emaciated, expressionless faces.’ Tens of thousands of corpses, many in advanced stages of decomposition, lay piled on top of each other.”

Following the soldiers came a swarm of photographers and journalists; the world was immediately filled with horrifying images of piles of bodies and walking skeletons. Now, at long last, the Allies had the long-sought proof that the Americans had been fighting the embodiment of Evil, a diabolical enemy against whom any and all methods of warfare had been permitted, including the barbaric terror bombings of German cities.

From the very outset, to be sure, a few sober observers recognized that the mass deaths in the recently liberated National Socialist concentration camps were not the result of an extermination policy on the part of the Germans, but were due to mass epidemics.

The Chicago-based Journal of the American Medical Association, for example, reported on May 19, 1945:

“By negotiations between British and German officers, British troops took over from the SS and the Wehrmacht the task of guarding the vast concentration camp at Belsen, a few miles northwest of Celle, which contains 60,000 prisoners, many of them political. This has been done because typhus is rampant in the camp and it is vital that no prisoners be released until the infection is checked.”

Dissecting The Holocaust, Pages 284, 285.

Obviously, the fact that no remains were found (not a single one in any of the camps) being killed by either Zyklon-B or Carbon Monixide poisoning was not so prominently presented by the contemporary reporters.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Truth4hire]

KilgoreTrout:

In Treblinka supposidly 250.000 bodies were exhumed by order of Himmler and then burned on grilles made of old railroad tracks and fueled with wood logs. In Auschwitz there were bodies exhumed to be burned in the Crematoria, but on a much smaller scale (according to historians)

About Diesel: Please read previous posts on how Diesel engines (like the old submarine engine supposidly used in Treblinka) cannot have been used to exterminate inmates on a large scale because it is a simple scientific fact that Diesel does not produce Carbon Monoxide in sufficient enough quantities to poisen humans. Please read previous post.

Overall, if you really are interested in the subject I invite you to read the transcript from an actual trial about the Holocaust (Actually about a publication) and then give your opinion.

Please download:

Full transcript of the Zündel trials: Did six million really die?

Please read pages 51 to 197 where the attorney for the defense Douglas Christie cross-examines Raul Hilberg. Hilberg is author of the three volume work The Destruction of the European Jews and is regarded as the leading expert on the Holocaust.

Your comments please, if you still feel like doing so after reading this.

Again, this is not public (sic:common) knowlegde for a very good reason.
There is also a reason why noone has been allowed to present any evidence or witnesses in Holocaust denial trials ever since this trial.

Unbelievable? Please read.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Truth4hire]

Bergen-Belsen: The famous mass-grave footage and pictures

More proof of Tyfus, an explanation of the differences between Tyfus and Typhoid and even more chilling reasons for starvation.

Dr. Russel Barton was a medical student (psychiatrist) who entered the liberated Bergen-Belsen camp on May 2, 1945.

Here is part of what he testified as having seen and experienced first hand.

Dr. Russell Barton was the third witness called by the defence. He testified on Wednesday, March 9, 1988.
Dr. Russell Barton testified that he was the same Russell Barton referred to in Did Six Million Really Die? and confirmed that the quotes from his article in Purnell's History of the Second World War (vol. 7, no. 15) dealing with his experiences as a medical student at Belsen camp after its liberation were correct and consistent with his recollections of the event. (21-5137 to 5141)

Barton testified that he arrived at Belsen concentration camp on May 2, 1945. He had the view of most people at the time regarding Belsen; that it was a camp in which people had been ruthlessly exterminated and deliberately starved to death. (21-5153) The impression of the camp he first gained was one of "horror"; some inmates were dead and piled up outside the huts, others were in various stages of dying, disease and dehydration. In one hut, the inmates were in relatively good condition, they could get up and walk. (21-5154) In other huts, there was the pervasive smell of feces, vomit and decay. People were crying for doctors. Many could not feed themselves. (21-5155)

The death rate when Barton first came was about 300 to 500 people a day. The inmates pushed dead people out of the huts because the lice which carried typhus left dead bodies and went to the living. Everybody was terrified of getting typhus, including the British. The bodies were in a state of severe malnutrition, and very few were clothed. A fire burned constantly at Belsen, upon which the clothes of the dead were thrown to burn the lice. Other garbage was also thrown into the fire, as there was no garbage collection. A dreadful smell permeated the camp which could be smelt about three miles away. (21-5156, 5157, 5158)

Barton testified that typhus was a febrile disease which was caused by the bite of the human louse. The louse bite the skin, which itched. When the individual then scratched the itch, he scratched into the spot the feces which the louse had defecated onto the area where it had bitten. It was like a bacteria, but not quite a bacteria. It then spread throughout the body. It was essentially a disease of the blood vessels. The bacteria ate away within the lining of the blood vessels, thereby causing symptoms. For example, they often hit the blood vessels in the brain, causing a very severe headache. It sometimes caused pneumonia and often, gangrene. Victims of typhus lost weight very rapidly because of nausea. The individual felt terribly tired and exhausted. Other symptoms were pneumonia and skin falling off. In 1945, there was no cure for typhus. Today, there was; chloramphenicol was fairly specific. (21 5171, 5172)

Typhoid was a different disease. It was caused by salmonella, an organism which affected the guts and the gall bladder, causing diarrhea, dysentery, and so forth, but it didn't interfere with the blood vessels in the way typhus did. (21-5172) Many of the inmates died because the British soldiers gave them food and their stomachs burst; the medical students were giving them a mixture of glucose and flour and milk powder which made the inmates vomit. When they vomited, they often inhaled and died because they were so weak. (21-5158) Later they fed them a
powdered milk gruel. (21-5159)

Although the vast majority of the inmates were emaciated, some were quite plump and well-fed, and this puzzled Barton from the first day. (21-5159) He asked questions to determine the reason for this and was told that if there were a majority of Poles or French or Russians in one hut, that group would command all the food which was left outside the door of the hut. They would take what they wanted and leave the rest for distribution among the rest of the inmates. There was no overseeing by the camp staff and there hadn't been since before Christmas of 1944. Before that time, the food had been distributed reasonably and everybody was getting a fair share. "It was a terrible internal tyranny that...developed," said Barton. (21-5160) He got the impression that at least 50 percent of the inmates were Jewish because of the prayers and religious exercises they carried out. (21-5173) Barton was made an unofficial dietitian and found the camp had a kitchen set up with 450-kilo vats that were steam heated. (21-5160) There were four in one room and four in another. He also found record books listing the food that had been cooked and distributed going back to about 1942. Each of the different hut's larders listed the amount of food that had been sent in the big churns for distribution. He mentioned to his colleagues that if there had been a deliberate policy of extermination, why should there be this elaborate kitchen equipment? This, however, was not a popular view. (21-5161)

Barton made inquiries with inmates, including Jewish doctors, who told him that Belsen had not been too bad until the autumn of 1944. Then, as the Russian armies were advancing, they said they had been given the choice of remaining in the camps about to be overrun by the Soviets or being repatriated back to Germany. Many chose to return to Germany. As a result, from the autumn of 1944 to early 1945, some 53,000 people were moved into Belsen, which had room for only 3,000 inmates. The overcrowding was gross and the staff at the camp resented it. Josef Kramer, the commandant of Belsen, felt he had a responsibility to his 3,000 inmates but was apparently angry about the 53,000 that were dumped into the camp. Dr. Klein, the medical doctor at the camp, didn't know what to do. (21-5162, 5163)

Barton spoke to his superior, Dr. Meiklejohn, about the way the camp had been run. Meiklejohn felt it was best not to look into these things too deeply, that in the time of "fervour and distress" Barton's views would not make him very popular. This proved to be correct. (21- 5163, 5164)

Continued next post.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Truth4hire]

Barton testified that on May 21st, it was decided to burn the camp down and to have the scene filmed for the purpose of showing the British to be "white knights" coming in to clear up the dreadful situation. Everything was arranged; work stopped for the whole of that morning. The flame throwers were ready in the tanks but the film makers hadn't got their cameras rolling yet. Suddenly, one of the tank commanders, in apparent enthusiasm, blew a flame into the hut that was to be burned, resulting in "tremendous consternation." They had to rush and put the flames out and start over again. That was but one example of what went on; there was the arranging of scenes that were pictured. (21-5164, 5165)

Barton felt such artificial filming of the camp was the presentation of something which had no real purpose because the facts spoke for themselves; what worried him more, as he got towards the end of his stay at Belsen on June 1st, was the lack of integrity in dealing with the situation as it really was. (21-5165, 5166)

He believed the old view that Belsen was an "extermination camp" was now largely corrected, but it depended to whom one spoke. A.J.P Taylor, the English historian, realized it when Barton talked to him after the furor came with the Purnell article. (21-5167) Barton was asked to contribute the article to Purnell's. He wasn't "keen" to do it, but it didn't seem to be a very big magazine so he did what he thought was the correct thing: to write without fear or favour. Having experienced the results of writing as he did on the subject, however, Barton testified that he would not do it again for publication in his lifetime. (21-5167) He was dubbed "Belsen-Not-So-Bad Barton" by Scientology magazine, and this name continued to be quoted. The London Times used the inflammatory headline "Belsen Not So Bad, says Psychiatrist." (21-5168) There were letters to the Times criticising him. (21-5173) He wrote letters rebutting the more stupid and accusatory letters; there were television interrogations and other debates. The matter was "hot and furious." (21-5173, 5174) Years later, when he was on a talk show in America, speaking on Scientology, one of the ministers of the church charged: "This man killed 15,000 Jews." It was an attempt to discredit what Barton was saying but it nevertheless had repercussions. Even today, when he gave evidence in murder trials, the lawyer on the opposing side would often attack him collaterally by bringing up the Purnell article or alleging that: "He agrees he killed 15,000 Jews." (21-5169) He agreed that nothing he had ever said or written had caused him as much injury as had the Purnell article. (21-5170) His objective in writing the article was simply to give his evidence, not about the whole of Germany or people in Germany, not about all concentration camps, but about what he had actually seen and the conclusions he thought a reasonable person might come to. It was a terrible outbreak of typhus and the death of, he thought, some 30,000 people. He didn't think that it was going to be a public issue. (21-5179, 5180)

Ernst Zündel trial transcript 1988, pages 386-388

I will remind you that this is neither a neo-nazi publication, nor a revisionist publication. This is an actual trial transcript.

Just one man´s opinion? I might say the same for Elie Wiesel. Read it all if you wish to see the whole picture and why testimonies pertaining to the Holocaust are no longer allowed in court. Link to transcript in previous post.

I will stop researching revisionist views and trials once the world stops denying the truth and putting scientists and researchers in jail for questioning the mass-extermination policies. Until then I am telling this to as many people as I can, because this simply is not right.

One of my most favorite parts about ATS is reading the posts from people who believe that everything that is considered the truth by the vast majority is really a lie or false and the real answer is a conspiracy. I say let’s make a contest and the first person to find an event that everyone agrees the same to and has no conspiracies around it WINS!

Can you all understand that even if 1% are conspiracies we are all totally and utterly screwed. If there were secret organizations out there that could do this to the level we so love to post about on ATS there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Stand up in defiance with your pea shooter WOOPIE! What can anyone or group do against this type of power. You might as well join them but I would bet you would have a hard time finding them to join.

Now just maybe an event like the holocaust actually happened and was accurately documented, now wouldn’t that be a conspiracy!! Some of you need to step back a minute and view things outside of your very narrow views of the world and really just rethink from a fresh look at things. On this subject maybe if some of you noticed the mountain of documented facts and stopped picking a few bits and pieces of information that just happens to fit nicely into your conspiracy, but most of the time is all based on just someone’s opinion or hypothesis with no foundation then just maybe you can for once believe something that was actually real.

One thing that I have learned from ATS is no matter what the subject everyone can spin the truth any direction they want, and it is funny how things are never spun in the direction of a good thing. Can a conspiracy actually have a good ending? Maybe that would be a good contest too to find a conspiracy with a happy ending hehe.

Sorry, this is the mother of all conspiracies. Anything else is but a side-show. JFK, JFK Jr, Aliens, Moon, NWO (Well...), UFO, MK-Ultra, even 9/11 are considered to be in another league than the Holocaust.

The Holocaust is the single most influential event in modern history, if it turns out that the mass-extermination plans was a (Soviet or Zionist) lie this must be corrected. Look at Israël and the who Middle-East issue.

6 Million times 5.000 Marks in retrobutions?

It must be researched and cannot simply be taken for granted as-is.

Exactly eight months ago I would have applauded you and viciously attacked any "denier" myself, but if you knew what I know now you would most likely agree with me.

If you want to know what I know you know what to do. If not I do not know what else I can say?

Originally posted by Truth4hire

There were no where near enough resources near the end of the war to keep the camps sane.

Since the Nazis rounded up all the Jews and other groups from all over occupied countries and put them in concentration, death and slave work camps by the millions isn’t the death of every Jew whether they died by being shot in their own house or street, died in the cattle cars, died in the slave work camps, died in the death camps, died in the concentration camps by the Nazis or even from other prisoners all due to the actions of the Nazis, and this number is as at least 4 million?

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Truth4hire


From the first page of the transcript;

“Did six million Jews really die pursuant to a systematic policy of extermination?”

No they did not, pick up any book written by a reputable historian in the last twenty years and you will find that this too is common knowledge. As I have explained, 2.7 million Jews were murdered in Action Reinhard. The remaining 2-3 million died as a result of disease, starvation, brutality, slavery and experimentation, along with a further 5-6 million non-Jews. There were also an unknown number of non-Jewish slavs murdered during Action Reinhard, but since they were taken directly to the death camps and therefore not processed through camps there is no way of confirming numbers. Similarly many, including jews were shot as partisans according to Hitler’s direct orders and no record exists to numbers as they were not processed and assigned numbers.

I have read a number of these so-called revisionists works, I have no real problem with what they have to say, unfortunately much of their research is based on their own ignorance and not on a full examination of the subject. The key exception is David Irving, who I have enormous respect for and I am therefore willing to listen to arguments that he presents. Though he may possess a political bias, his books are incredibly well researched and were ground-breaking at the time they were written. Many historians have now fallen in step with Irving’s findings.

If you yourself had read the plethora of recent research available to you, from both sides of the fence you would understand that no one is hiding anything. Serious credible research has been carried out. Read Pressac’s studies and you will understand how radically this particular researcher has changed the holocaust landscape. I repeat Pressac has never been prosecuted.

Faurisson and Irving have both suffered from questioning the established view of WW2 history, as a result they have become embittered. Faurisson’s work is intentionally inflammatory and based more on opinion than emperical research although he does on occasion make some salient points. His works are aimed at the generally ignorant not the serious student who will already agree with much that he has to say.

I believe I asked you to outline your opinions and findings, I did not want the regurgitated opinions of others. As I have (sigh) repeatedly stated I do not agree with the denial laws, they are a waste of everyone’s time, effort and money. I prefer, as a reasonably intelligent individual to read the works themselves and draw my own conclusions.

Much of the problem lies in ‘inherited’ information. With one author simply ‘copying’ what someone said before. Immediately following the end of the war, the knowledge of what had occurred in Europe was unknown or misunderstood. There were also some authors that had an agenda to push and were working for government agencies – for example of those considered the leading historians of the period I can name at least three who were employed by British Intelligence both during and after the war.

Their works, however well written, must be viewed as promoting an agenda and the contents should be carefully filtered for ‘half-truths’. These three historians are highly respected and highly cited in other works – hence these half-truths snowball into fact. And this is only the British. Similarly, the US, France, Belguim, Russia, Israel etc etc etc have produced historians that promote their own bias and cover their own secrets.

In terms of Hilberg’s cross-examination, I do not see your point. Hilberg was open and honest in his testimony, the point remains and I agree with him wholeheartedly – without footnotes that enable the reader to cross-check, any piece of “historical research” is worthless – especially when concerning such contentious issues. I haven’t read Hilberg’s book so cannot comment on his authority but I agree in principle with his critical stance. As most of his testimony is in defence of his own book I cannot comment, although I note that Trevor-Roper one of the afore-mentioned British Intelligence employees is used against him.

You will find that after you have read a couple of hundred books on the subject you will recognize who has done their work, who has copied/inherited information and who has an agenda. For example, I no longer read Martin Gilbert. A very fine writer but as Churchill’s official biographer he has a job to do and he skirts too many other issues. I could name others but I must myself consider libel!!!

If you are capable of putting your findings into you own words then please do so and then we can discuss the topic coherently. Point by point if you like, I am not promoting an agenda other than my own opinions, I have nothing to gain or lose by being proven right or wrong. I wasn’t there, I do not know anyone who was, this is not personal, you cannot shatter my perceptions, I am only a student of the subject, nothing more.

What I do not understand is why so many people choose to attack the Jews in particular. They were by no means the only ones to suffer at the hands of Nazi Germany, there were at least 5 million others who were murdered directly or indirectly at the hands of the Nazis. Why is it only the Jews that are liars?

Admittedly, I have not read many ‘general’ works on the Jewish Holocaust. I do not therefore know how the history is presented in these works. I have read a great deal about Auschwitz but obviously the murder of the Jews was a relatively minor aspect of these camps and represents a few months in its 5 years of life and approximately 50% of those that died there. Similarly, Belsen, Dachau, Ravensbruck, Schandelah, Natzweiler, Neuengamme, Schandelah, Mauthausen – to name the few I can remember off the top of my head, were not directly involved in the genocide of the Jews and have other stories to tell.

This is an intensely complicated period of history of which the genocide of the Jews is a small part. I therefore find it amazing that while people fervently criticise the accounts of Jews they say nothing to explain the other 5 to 6 million who died in and around these camps. Perhaps you can explain to me why it is the “Jewish Question” that so troubles you and not the “Slavic Question” for example?

Diesel engines were not used in the “gassings” as far as I have read – I have looked but I can find no reference. I have only found that at various stages either bottled carbon monoxide was used and old motorbike engines as a delivery method. While Porsche, Bosch and Krupp were developing engines (in conjunction with General Motors) for use with diesel this was mainly for armament production, the killing squads and camps I would doubt had access to these engines. Most of the engines that they used would have been requisitioned from civilians and captured armed forces. If you can clarify the primary source it would be most helpful.

These techniques were developed in the T4 Euthanasia programmes and used in this capacity for over six years before being applied to the camps.

Again, in terms of deaths from Typhus, compared to by ‘gassings’ I can only suggest that you read some more up to date books on the topic. There is no secret here, many died of Typhus related infections, water based infections and starvation. There is a large body of work that covers these issues all of it within the public domain.

Perhaps you should consider the photographs of the plump and healthy guards beside the emaciated and sick inmates. Who ate all the pies or in this case the Red Cross parcels?

If and when you can present an argument of your own, instead of reproducing that of others we can discuss the matter in detail and reach some conclusions. You need however to get over your obsession with the Jews or you will never understand what occurred in the East, as I have said (repeatedly) this is only one part of the story.

Finally, no one received 6 million times 5,000 marks. Israel received it’s share of the reparations agreement based up on those that they absorbed post-war based on the estimate that 6 billion marks worth of property was expropriated from the Jews. Other countries who accepted Jewish refugees also received a portion. You really should research these details for yourself instead of accepting verbatim the work of pseudo-academics.

The main issue as far as reparations are concerned is the failure of those organisations who benefited from the use of slave labour (Jewish and non-Jewish) to pay out – not to mention the Vatican who benefited from the plunder of Serbian Orthodox Christians and participated in the laundering of the “booty”. This problem is currently being addressed in the courts and pertains to those victims who found themselves behind the iron curtain and without the freedom to seek legal recourse until recently.

All the best.









[edit on 27-9-2007 by KilgoreTrout]

From the first page of the transcript;

“Did six million Jews really die pursuant to a systematic policy of extermination?”

No they did not, pick up any book written by a reputable historian in the last twenty years and you will find that this too is common knowledge. As I have explained, 2.7 million Jews were murdered in Action Reinhard.

Truly, I have no idea where you get the information from that 2.7 million Jews were murdered? see below.

The remaining 2-3 million died as a result of disease, starvation, brutality, slavery and experimentation, along with a further 5-6 million non-Jews.

Your numbers are absolutely preposterous, and are well revised in 2002. You are trying to tell us that 5-6 million plus 2-3 million plus 2.7 million people dies under the hands of the nazi´s. That would be at least 9.7 million deaths and at most 11.7 million deaths. You keep telling me to do my research, but you are failing to accept revised numbers by established historians like J.C. Pressac? I really do not understand you or your motives KilgoreTrout. It is now established that a total of maximum 1.2 million people died in the camps under Nazi influence, this includes Jewish victims. 1.2 million. For whatever reason. These sources telling you otherwise need to start listening to their own proclaimed specialists and revise downwards.

There were also an unknown number of non-Jewish slavs murdered during Action Reinhard, but since they were taken directly to the death camps and therefore not processed through camps there is no way of confirming numbers.

But there is: numbers and transports were very well documented, for example in of of the Oxford Journals there is a publication Die "Judendeportationen" aus dem Deutschen Reich 1941-1945: Ein kommentierte Chronologie.

Similarly many, including jews were shot as partisans according to Hitler’s direct orders and no record exists to numbers as they were not processed and assigned numbers.

I´m again totally lost with regards to what you mean by "many" were shot as partisans. I must assume you mean Hitler´s order to the Einsatzgruppen to kill all Jewish-Bolshewik Commissars in Russia "on the spot"? Please reveal the source of your information so I can understand you conslusion.

I have read a number of these so-called revisionists works, I have no real problem with what they have to say, unfortunately much of their research is based on their own ignorance and not on a full examination of the subject.

Well again, your statement makes me highly doubtful as to what you have read. The books I have read seem to be ridden with actual facts, backed up by thousands of footnotes referring to mainstream historical publications. The more technical works like the Rudolf Report are highly scientific and well researched works.

The key exception is David Irving, who I have enormous respect for and I am therefore willing to listen to arguments that he presents. Though he may possess a political bias, his books are incredibly well researched and were ground-breaking at the time they were written. Many historians have now fallen in step with Irving’s findings.

Even so, my problem with Irving is that he has right-wing extermists ties. His last trial was a travesty in which he tried to back down from earlier findings just to please the court. That was cowardly in my opinion, him not standing by his own findings for fear of harsher sentencing. On the other hand, cannot really blame him!

If you yourself had read the plethora of recent research available to you, from both sides of the fence you would understand that no one is hiding anything.

But I did read "the plethora of recent research", both revisionist work and mainstream historical work from Hilberg AND books from survivors. What more would you like me to research?? What gives you the impression I did not read recent research? Because I disagree with Your findings? You keep telling me to research and do my homework, but I get the impression that it is you who has not researched the revisionist material nearly far enough to get a complete picture.

Serious credible research has been carried out. Read Pressac’s studies and you will understand how radically this particular researcher has changed the holocaust landscape. I repeat Pressac has never been prosecuted.

No, because Pressac has never stated he doubts the mass-extermination policy. Yes the holocaust was well revised with regards to the death toll, but the six million number still stands strong even today. Why?

Faurisson and Irving have both suffered from questioning the established view of WW2 history, as a result they have become embittered. Faurisson’s work is intentionally inflammatory and based more on opinion than emperical research although he does on occasion make some salient points. His works are aimed at the generally ignorant not the serious student who will already agree with much that he has to say.

"the generally ignorant" Wow, how sweeping can you get. I think that is an insult to anyone trying to find out the truth.

I believe I asked you to outline your opinions and findings, I did not want the regurgitated opinions of others.

I have given my opinion more than once in this very thread, and then I get heat. Then I try to show WHY I came to this conclusion by providing research and actual provable documentation and then you say I present "regurgitated opinions of others". How is an actual trial transcript containing massive amounts of data and arguments "regurgitated opinions". I cannot win here can I KilgoreTrout? Why do you keep pushing around in circles? No matter what I present or argue, you will still find a way to spin it.

As I have (sigh) repeatedly stated I do not agree with the denial laws, they are a waste of everyone’s time, effort and money.

No, they are not. You are trying to trivialize the denial laws, which have imprisoned people over the last decade for simply questioning the mass-exterminations under the guise of "inciting hatred". It is not a waste of time or money to the powers that be, it is a fascist way to silence those who endanger the mass-extermination story.

Continued next post.

I prefer, as a reasonably intelligent individual to read the works themselves and draw my own conclusions.

And I do not? Please, do give me a break with this spin nonsense You seem to keep trying to discredit me in every way possible. What is this???

Much of the problem lies in ‘inherited’ information. With one author simply ‘copying’ what someone said before. Immediately following the end of the war, the knowledge of what had occurred in Europe was unknown or misunderstood. There were also some authors that had an agenda to push and were working for government agencies – for example of those considered the leading historians of the period I can name at least three who were employed by British Intelligence both during and after the war.

Again you are saying two things at once. If you read the testimonies by first hand witnesses the information is not inherited. This goes for both sides. As far as inherited information goes, the whole mass-extermination dogma is a splendid example of information being "copied".

Their works, however well written, must be viewed as promoting an agenda and the contents should be carefully filtered for ‘half-truths’.

Ehm, what agenda? Neo-Nazi by any chance? Anti-Semitism, White supremacy, NWO? When a reputable scientist or historian does research and publishes I listen. Who else am I going to listen to? This goes for both sides of the camp. After that - having listened to both sides - I draw my own conclusions. In this case my conclusions are quite clear and leave no room for doubt, reasonable or not.

These three historians are highly respected and highly cited in other works – hence these half-truths snowball into fact.

You are contradicting yourself again. If a historian is highly respected he will avoid publishing half-truths at all cost. If not how can they be a respected historian if the half-truths are that obvious?

And this is only the British. Similarly, the US, France, Belguim, Russia, Israel etc etc etc have produced historians that promote their own bias and cover their own secrets.

Please do give examples and sources.

In terms of Hilberg’s cross-examination, I do not see your point. Hilberg was open and honest in his testimony, the point remains and I agree with him wholeheartedly – without footnotes that enable the reader to cross-check, any piece of “historical research” is worthless – especially when concerning such contentious issues. I haven’t read Hilberg’s book so cannot comment on his authority but I agree in principle with his critical stance. As most of his testimony is in defence of his own book I cannot comment, although I note that Trevor-Roper one of the afore-mentioned British Intelligence employees is used against him.

Hilbergs work is considered as main authority on the Holocaust. It is too bad you did not see my point, especially as he admits that he only used parts of witness testimony in his work, disregarding testimony which would negate his findings. Furthermore he made claims based on hearsay only, like the supposed two orders Hitler himself gave for the extermination policy of the Jews. Let´s not forget he quotes witnesses like Kurt Gertstein, whose testimony is considered by even the most orthodox Holocaust historians as "fabrications" and "clearly insane". By your statements I must deduct that I have serious doubts you have read even beyond the first paragraph of the cross-examination, which contained the footnote issue.

You will find that after you have read a couple of hundred books on the subject you will recognize who has done their work, who has copied/inherited information and who has an agenda.

Oh yes, very much so. It is the exterminationalists who have a clear agenda, which is to keep the mass-extermination myth alive under pain of law at all costs. As you seem to have read hundreds of books on the subject of the Holocaust, it strikes me as odd you are not familiar with the work of Raul Hilberg.

For example, I no longer read Martin Gilbert. A very fine writer but as Churchill’s official biographer he has a job to do and he skirts too many other issues. I could name others but I must myself consider libel!!!
If you are capable of putting your findings into you own words then please do so and then we can discuss the topic coherently. Point by point if you like,

I am all for that, but then you must stop expressing views without references. I am willing to listen to you, but please make references as to where you get your information from, like the numbers you keep writing about.

I am not promoting an agenda other than my own opinions, I have nothing to gain or lose by being proven right or wrong. I wasn’t there, I do not know anyone who was, this is not personal, you cannot shatter my perceptions, I am only a student of the subject, nothing more.

Hear, hear. This goes for me just the same.

What I do not understand is why so many people choose to attack the Jews in particular. They were by no means the only ones to suffer at the hands of Nazi Germany, there were at least 5 million others who were murdered directly or indirectly at the hands of the Nazis. Why is it only the Jews that are liars?

I do not believe I have singled out the Jews ever as liars. If I did then I must have been wrong, because not all Jews are Zionists. I am laying the blame on the small group of Zionist individuals who wanted a Jewish state "at whatever cost" and got it in 1947 mainly due to the mass-extermination myth.

Admittedly, I have not read many ‘general’ works on the Jewish Holocaust. I do not therefore know how the history is presented in these works.

Well, then you should. Start with Hilberg´s The Destruction Of The European Jews I would suggest.

I have read a great deal about Auschwitz but obviously the murder of the Jews was a relatively minor aspect of these camps and represents a few months in its 5 years of life and approximately 50% of those that died there.

Source please.

Continued next post.