The Real Aushwitz

reply to post by JanusFIN


I find it really interesting that the very countries that sit quietly by and watched Hitler relocate millions and kill them are now suggesting it was just an isolated event that was used as 'propaganda' by the Allies. And its the same mindset that suggests the 9/11 was something other than what it was.

Back to WWII. So there are no mass graves in or near Treblinka. This is explained in several posts and throughout propaganda, though I admit to calling it history texts. Between 1944 and the end of the war, Hitler had loose control over his entire crumbling empire. Himmler saw the writing on the wall and initiated a policy of CYA. This included killing as many of the prisoners as possible, and disposing of them. When liberating forces swept through Europe, Nazi commanders of the camps were instructed to abandon them and disappear into the woodwork. This was to insure deniability. If there were no Nazis, then the Jews did it to themselves. Apparently this mindset is alive and well in segments of ATS members............

So Janus, in one sentence you say you are a witness to 'the evilness of human kind', but also say that you didnt agree with the big picture. So you want to talk from both sides of your mouth and have your cake and eat it too? Again, your notions raise more questions on what you really believe.

Okay, so Jews may have fought in WWII as Nazis. There are several documented cases. Its not so different than the kapos at the concentration camps that volunteered to kill their own just to live. Big deal. If faced with a death camp (assured death) or joining the Nazi army, Id venture to think I would join the Nazi army. At least then you have a chance to live, where as the odds in Auchwitz were not as good.

From your post you also wonder what the continued blame of Germany does. Well from a clearly emotional standpoint, could it be the fact that as a nation, they were active in a program of genocide? Germany today still has alot of guilt because of its actions. The second reason is to keep Germany as an example of how easy it is to engage in genocide. I mean in the US, blacks and minorities were lynched regularly as early as 30 and 40 years ago. Africa has its own genocide problem as well. It is an example what hate can do.

So, your suggesting that Hitler was actually a great guy who was misunderstood? You can think that, but the accepted truth is that he was an evil bastard. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam are all roasting in a special place in hell. I really doubt Hitler was fighting for anything other than ultimate power for himself.

Heres something to ponder.

No one denies the historical texts that the Nazis attacked countries in Europe.

No one has done extensive research to prove that the Battle of Britain never happened.

No one seeks to refute the Nazi campaign in North Africa, and the subsequent defeat of Rommel.

No one denies the historical texts that the Nazis killed millions of Russians treating them as sub-human.

Not one text will ever be found denying the D-Day landings.

I've never read anything attempting to deny groups of villagers being shot in France as reprisals for resistance operations.

The Blitz? all documented. Happened. No one denies it.

Slave labour at Peenemunde making V1's, V2's and Jet planes - yep. Everyones ok with that.

Heres a list of some more atrocities that no one denies

And yet.... people deny that the holocaust happened.

Theres only one reason why they do that - and its a very ugly one - and it really has no place in a civilised society where everyone is equal.

Originally posted by neformore
And yet.... people deny that the holocaust happened.

Theres only one reason why they do that - and its a very ugly one - and it really has no place in a civilised society where everyone is equal.

Cool, clear and concise. Very, very well put.

I study this period for the conspiracy value and there are
hundreds of secret and lies to be uncovered, though some may touch up on the genocide, in most part they do not. The greatest truth that exists is that 6 million people died simply because of indifference and the fact that no one wanted to feed them. Not Germany, not the US, the UK or Palestine. For me there lies the lesson for us all. Our governments will kill the occupants of the countries they invade and if necessary, they will kill us. The second world war marked the beginning of the wars against civilian non-combatants, as Iraq and elsewhere demonstrate, this practice is now commonplace. So long as we blame the Jews for their own misfortune we fail to see in ourselves that we too could be the victims of the profiteers and the war mongers. We fail to stop it because as long as it isn't us, and that we are safe it is easier to look away and blame the victims for the accident of birth that is nationality, race and status in life.

reply to post by neformore


Histories and the details of your list of events are challenged in books, documenters all the time. The fresh views of those writers are not
labeled, the rantings of a hate criminal!
Only the Holocaust has been turned into a, official orthodox version. The
details of which can not to be questioned. This in itself, smacks of a conspiracy.
Is it the rantings of a few crazies, that deny there ever was any concentration camps, they are afraid of? No, it's little pebbles of truth,
that make waves, that rocks their boat of orthodoxy. That is what they are afraid of.
I didn't read any post that denied that anything happened. Yet that is how you are labeled. If you suggest one alternate explanation, that challenges the official version.
I believe it is an act of terrorism. To threaten people who challenge your version of the events of history. With a "hate crime".

[edit on 14-4-2008 by Howie47]

Originally posted by Howie47
I believe it is an act of terrorism. To threaten people who challenge your version of the events of history. With a "hate crime".

No one's been accused of a "hate crime".

But - as you've piqued my curiosity - please tell me why you choose to challenge the history that is established in witness testimony, survivor testimony and the records of the Nazi's themselves.

Just what are you getting out of it?

Originally posted by Howie47
reply to post by neformore

 

Histories and the details of your list of events are challenged in books, documenters all the time. The fresh views of those writers are not
labeled, the rantings of a hate criminal!
Only the Holocaust has been turned into a, official orthodox version. The
details of which can not to be questioned. This in itself, smacks of a conspiracy.
Is it the rantings of a few crazies, that deny there ever was any concentration camps, they are afraid of? No, it's little pebbles of truth,
that make waves, that rocks their boat of orthodoxy. That is what they are afraid of.
I didn't read any post that denied that anything happened. Yet that is how you are labeled. If you suggest one alternate explanation, that challenges the official version.
I believe it is an act of terrorism. To threaten people who challenge your version of the events of history. With a "hate crime".

[edit on 14-4-2008 by Howie47]

Do you read many books on second world on history? I would guess not, because if you did you would know that some events are questioned, amended and re-investigated all the time. It is now, for example, widely acknowledged that Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz is an unreliable source. He had a very poor memory for times and events, and since he was forbidden from keeping a diary of the events (on orders from Himmler) he got things mixed up. The beauty, is that his reports can be matched to Himmler's diary (only fairly recently rediscovered c1999), they can be compared to the Ultra intercepts, again not released until relatively recently. The opening up of the Russia archives has proved a treasure trove and has created a great wave of scholarlt activity up dating our record, not only of the holocaust but of the entire period. The rediscovery of Goebbels diaries from 1942 to 1945, which are still in the process of being examined, will further add to the dimensions of our knowledge.

Although some writers do suffer difficulties because they are uncovering infromation that the British and US governments feel is still too sensitive, those that have amended or enhanced our knowledge of these events have not been penalised. And there is a very simple reason for this, their work is based up on thorough research, it is properly referenced and it does not resort to blaming the victims. It is as objective and as unemotional as a Jane's manual. As a result of some of this work, the figures for Auschwitz and Aktion Reinhard in general have been ratified. On Hoess' testimony the death count was 3.5 million, this has now been reduced to 1.5 million. However, with the fall of the iron curtain, and the release of SOME Ultra intercepts, it has also been acknowledge that the figures of the death squads (Einsatzgruppen and Waffen SS) have been largely under-estimated. Many scholars in the field feel that the figure of 6 million Jews and 11 million victims over all, is conservative.

It is all swings and round abouts. No one is penalised and punished for questioning history. The denial laws are just that, laws against denial. If you claim that the holocaust was the fault of the Jews themselves you will be accused, quite rightly, of racism. If you say it didn't happen, you will be accused of inciting hatred. If you hear to the contrary, remember that spin is not confined to politics.

reply to post by neformore


I am not an expert on this subject. Neither am I overly interested in it.
The only thing that upsets me. Is when they make it illegal to present alternate explanations of the evidence on any subject. Or when people are accused of being antisemitic, (which is a hate crime), in this case.
Some people are actually interested in History; just for Histories sake! I myself believe history should be presented as unbiased and as factually as possible. Do you believe that could be true?
Further it should not be illegal for amateur historians, from writing books and papers, without fear of being jailed. As has happened, concerning the Holocaust.
I suppose that is my main beef with this subject. But also the
insistence that we must blindly accept the dictates of scholars on any subject. I find repugnant.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I don't know how the law is written in Germany. But the use of the
term, "holocaust denial", is very ambiguously applied here.
From Wiki:

Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust[1]—did not occur in the manner and to the extent described by current scholarship.

Originally posted by DisInfo
Power_Semi,

As far as the whole firebombing issue, you need to get some basics on what the USAAFs tactics and procedures were. There were several different tactics used in all the many theaters in the war. Firebombs were used when there was CLOUD COVER over the intended target. If the bomber crews couldnt target whatever it was with accuracy using standard explosive ordinance, the firebombs were mixed in to ensure that the target was directly or indirectly affected. The USAAF used firebombing far less than the RAF. And while weather reports at the time were mostly guess work, and fairly unreliable, that passed as state of the art. Hell, where I live they are constantly calling for rain, even though it doesnt. Seems predicting the weather is easier in hindsight.

Oh, I caught this little gem in your last post that made me chuckle:

Originally posted by Power_Semi
dropping firebombs on civilian targets to inflict death of civilians on a massive scale is wrong no matter how you might try to justify it. The next logical conclusion from your rather foolish comment is that the Nazis invented Death camps, so its okay if we do it too - they deserved it because they did it first?

Yeah, dropping firebombs was bad. Again, Eisenhower should be debated on the merits of such a tactic, as I cant speak for the Supreme Allied Commander at the time. But your last point on the acceptance of death camps is nice. I mean just because the Germans started it, doesnt make it right? If you read a good portion of the posts on this entire site, you will see all kinds of suggestions that that very thing is happening in our world as we speak. Heck, there are even some posts that suggest it is okay because the Nazis started it.

I think I understand what your getting at in your posts. You think there should be refection on the facts of the Holocaust, real or exaggerated as we know them today. I get it, but suggesting that the Holocaust did NOT happen at all is silly. There are far more documents proving it than disproving it. Though, I would surmise that you need video and audio proof of Hitler discussing it at length to maybe considering it is true.



[edit on 4/14/2008 by DisInfo]
Christ alive, you STILL haven't read my posts have you? I NEVER said that the holocaust didn't happen, I said that you don't know for sure what happened because you didn't witness it & there is a clear & obvious case for the holocaust being invented or exagerated for other purposes. The point is that because of the obvious possibility of that occuring, documents produced by those very people who might want to exaggerate or invent it count for little, this isn't just a comment on the holocaust, its on ANY event where the bulk of the evidence comes from 1 side only.

Again, I NEVER said anything about the USAAF dropping firebombs either, yet you still drone on about it as though I did - it was YOU who first mentioned the USAAF.

I could give you a perfect example of historical inaccuracy that has later been accepted as fact, where an early reference book paraphrased, incompletely, a patent. Subsequent reference books & research papers used the first incorrect book as source material, books & papers subsequent to that used all of the previous material as source material, until eventually academics incorrectly accepted the previous erroneous conclusions as fact. It wasn't until 10 years ago, over 100 years after the 1st book, that someone went & investigated properly & found the error.

The consequence is a raft of research, inference, & conclusion all drawn from supposedly solid sources that were all WRONG.

So, the point is that you cannot simply rely upon one source of information as gospel, you need to see all of the evidence from all sides or witness it yourself to know for sure what the truth is.

If you can't grasp that then I pity you.

Originally posted by Howie47
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

 

I don't know how the law is written in Germany. But the use of the
term, "holocaust denial", is very ambiguously applied here.
From Wiki:

Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust[1]—did not occur in the manner and to the extent described by current scholarship.

You're right that isn't particularly clear. I have to admit that I am not to keen on these laws, I think they give the kooks far more credence than they deserve and create an atmosphere of conspiracy. As far as I can tell they are not really supported by the Jewish community either. However, the cases that I am aware of, Zundel in particular, have revolved on the denial of the apparatus of mass extermination. Few for example deny the activities of the Einsatzgruppen and Waffen SS, and are mainly concerned with whether the gas chambers existed. The Rudolf report makes similar claims.

Taking the definition on Wiki I would therefore assume that the manner and extent applies to the denial of Aktion Reinhard. There is no question that the Concentration Camp system existed, there is no question that the mass shootings occured (although David Irving has repeatedly attempted to downplay these activities too), it is simply, the Aktion Reinhard camps (Sobibor, Belzec and Treblinka) that are in question and that the laws are enforced to protect the memory of this action.

While there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Aktion Reinhard occured, it was only a small part of the killing process and encompassed a period of no more than 18 months. There is a plethora of evidence to support the veracity of this operation. Auschwitz, first and foremost, was a forced labour camp serving a number of SS industries as well as the IG Farben complex (which was privately owned). During action Reinhard, it was equipped with crematoria and Block 11, previously the punishment facility was adapted to 'gas' those Jews who were currently being held in the eatern ghettos. It was quickly established that Blcok 11 was unsuitable for this purpose (it was too close to the inmates barracks) and a block was purpose built alongside the tracks where the transports arrived. The crematoria was incorporated to this building. Those that were gassed essentially never entered the camp itself.

When defeat was imminent, Himmler ordered that all evidence of these facilities be destroyed. The 'gas chamber' and some of the crematoria were 'blown up'. When Rudolf conducted his experiments on the 'gas chambers', he did so on a building that was a ruin and had been exposed to the elements for some fifty years. Rudolf in his report does not explain the background, he does not use a control and he has no experience that would qualify him to conduct such and experiment and enable him to correctly interprete the results. In short the man is a quack who like the Nazis themselves uses pseudo-science to proliferate his own predjudice and racism.

Another holocaust denier or revisionist and racist, Robert Faurisson, seeing the limitation of Rudolf's scientific abilities employed the services of an actual chemist, Jean-Claude Pressac to conduct experiments on the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Pressac, contrary to Faurisson's expectation though confirmed that the building had been exposed to prussic acid and subsequently became a respected researcher and an expert in the field of holocaust research. Though it may be argued that he was bought, Pressac himself expected to find nothing, he had previously shared Faurisson's predjudices, and through his own integrity was unable to suppress his findings.

Faurisson himself has faced prosecution for his beliefs, which stem from a position of admiration for Hitler's Germany, he recieved a convinction in 2005 following an interview he gave in Iran, where he once again stated that he had seen no evidence that suppoted the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. Obviously ignoring Pressac's research that he himself had funded.

David Irving too, received his convinction for holocaust denial and the excessive ban from him entering Germany, for denying the existence of the gas chambers. This I feel is a great shame, as I think Irving is a brilliant historical researcher. Sadly he does have a enormous ego and a little too much admiration for the Nazi ideal.

As I said before, I don't agree with the laws, but from what I can gather they are, on the most part only used in extremis. There are exceptions, and the greatest travesty to me has been the vilification of Norman Finkelstein, who wrote a book called I think, the Holocaust Industry (something like that), which criticises those who have exploited their experiences for financial gain. Finklestein I believe has since lost his job as a direct result of his views, which having read the book, are completley founded.

Originally posted by neformore
... And yet.... people deny that the holocaust happened.

Theres only one reason why they do that - and its a very ugly one - and it really has no place in a civilised society where everyone is equal.

Here, you imply that the ONLY reason someone could deny the holocaust happened is because of racism.

I have issued this challenge many, many times in debates like this. No one has ever posted their findings on any of the message boards that I have issued this challenge on.

Here is the challenge.

1) Pick a camp where jews were cremated.
2) Find out how many were allegedly cremated.
3) Find out how many cremation ovens were at those camps.
4) Find out how long those ovens were said to be in use.
5) Call your local mortuary, and find out how long it takes to cremate a body using TODAY'S technology.
6) Do the math, and see if it was PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE to cremate the number of victims in the alloted time, using the existing ovens.

Simple math. I believed in the holocaust. I did the math. Something didn't add up. Was my math wrong, or was someone monkeying with history? You be the judge.

reply to post by sir_chancealot


I've just mentioned his work in my post but Jean-Claud Pressac has carried out such a study. Perhaps you should read it and see if it answers your questions.

www.holocaust-history.org...

reply to post by sir_chancealot


But these are two different things - are bodies in crematory giving service to community stuffed together, with certain fat vs thin ratio? Because this is what happened in the camps.
You can not compare something designed for speed and "efficiency" with something designed to be as aesthetic and environmental-friendly as possible.
Local modern workshop will still make less tanks per month then a German old-technology factory.

reply to post by sir_chancealot


Heres a challenge for you.

Find me a modern "shower unit" with gas tight doors that are sealable from the outside by being screwed shut.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

I have issued this challenge many, many times in debates like this. No one has ever posted their findings on any of the message boards that I have issued this challenge on.

Here is the challenge.

1) Pick a camp where jews were cremated.
2) Find out how many were allegedly cremated.
3) Find out how many cremation ovens were at those camps.
4) Find out how long those ovens were said to be in use.
5) Call your local mortuary, and find out how long it takes to cremate a body using TODAY'S technology.
6) Do the math, and see if it was PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE to cremate the number of victims in the alloted time, using the existing ovens.

Simple math. I believed in the holocaust. I did the math. Something didn't add up. Was my math wrong, or was someone monkeying with history? You be the judge.

People have said over the years the great minds ... alike thing.

I asked this very question back in the mid 70's to a camp survivor. I thought how could all the bodies be burned when x amount of bodies divided by x number of ovens.

The short answer is not every body was put in ovens. They couldn't handle the loading. Trenches were dug in the surrounding area and bodies were burned in them. Specifically in the Birkenau area of the camp complex.

To complete this line of thought, I also asked about the gas chambers killing an average number of prisoners a day to meet the number that was projected from the Auschwitz complex. Was this a realistic number.

The total body count included the dead on the trains as unloading took place, disease and sickness, random shootings, or punishment details resulting in death. Medical experiments did not take that many people in the whole scheme of things. Not everyone went to the gas chambers to die. Hundreds died every day from other reasons.

People often confuse death camps with concentration camps. Yeah, seems silly, but the concentration camps were not the death factories. Auschwitz was a work camp that happened to kill several million people.

The death camps had the industrial machines in place for the heavy body disposal work. German efficiency at it's finest.

Originally posted by hinky
The death camps had the industrial machines in place for the heavy body disposal work. German efficiency at it's finest.

If there is one thing Germans are good at its building great cars. If there are two things Germans are good at, its building great cars and ovens.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Here, you imply that the ONLY reason someone could deny the holocaust happened is because of racism.

Hmm. Seems I did.

Thats because its true.

You can dress it any way you want. You can try and hide behind manipulations of figures. You can try and make excuses and discredit information (using "evidence" from minority sources that people are, apparently supposed to believe when you present it, but you don't offer them the same courtesy when they present much better evidence from compelling majority sources) but when it boils down to it, when you think about it properly the ONLY reason that people deny the holocaust and go to such lengths to try and discredit it is because of race.

Because - really - it either boils down to the fact that deniers either dislike jews because they see them the same way that the Nazi's did, or they dislike jews because they claim the holocaust is jewish propaganda to serve the zionist cause and its milked for all its worth.

Either way the common link is Jewish people, and disliking them.

Now if thats not racially motivated, what is it?

Unless, of course, you are trying to tell us that the Nazi's were just really nice people and were totally misunderstood, in which case you are denying WW2 ever happened - and I'd like some of what you are on if thats the case

"Its springtime, for Hitler...in Germany......"

Originally posted by neformore
Heres a challenge for you.
Find me a modern "shower unit" with gas tight doors that are sealable from the outside by being screwed shut.

Theres one in California. Though at San Quentin, they dont call it a shower unit, but the doors are sealed from the outside.

Originally posted by neformore
You can dress it any way you want. You can try and hide behind manipulations of figures. You can try and make excuses and discredit information (using "evidence" from minority sources that people are, apparently supposed to believe when you present it, but you don't offer them the same courtesy when they present much better evidence from compelling majority sources) but when it boils down to it, when you think about it properly the ONLY reason that people deny the holocaust and go to such lengths to try and discredit it is because of race.

Because - really - it either boils down to the fact that deniers either dislike jews because they see them the same way that the Nazi's did, or they dislike jews because they claim the holocaust is jewish propaganda to serve the zionist cause and its milked for all its worth.

Either way the common link is Jewish people, and disliking them.

Now if thats not racially motivated, what is it?

Unless, of course, you are trying to tell us that the Nazi's were just really nice people and were totally misunderstood, in which case you are denying WW2 ever happened - and I'd like some of what you are on if thats the case

"Its springtime, for Hitler...in Germany......"

I like what you are saying, and I think its something I have been trying to convey on this thread as well. I guess Americans arent good with words....

I get so irritated that the deniers like to play games with the numbers. I will admit, whatever the number of actual people killed during WWII, be it anywhere from 50 to 100 million people is a staggering number. Now depending again on the source, the Holocaust itself is anywhere from 5 to 15 million. Its tragic that an organization was able to wipe out that many people.

The problem now is that because of the recent release of Soviet era documents that change the whole dynamic for some people. In reality, the Soviet documents are even more proof as to the destructive nature of war, and in particular the Nazi war machine. I would agree that the Russian reaction was different than that of the rest of the Allied powers. Hell, Stalin saw promise in the efficiency of the camps and is probably a bigger mass murder than Hitler was.

Everyone that denies the Holocaust has an ax to grind against Jews. A direct result of the Holocaust was the official creation of Israel. I dont know if it was right or wrong, but thats what happened. The hatred against the Jews could be jealousy or just racism at the core. What became Israel was a wasteland. The Arabs didnt care about it, as there was and is no oil there. Israel built an society and became for the most part, self sustaining. Israelis managed to build farms and develop the wasteland into something that worked.

The Arabs that surround Israel now dont care about bettering their societies for the future generations. They thrive on the hate they feel for the Jews. When Israel gave up lands back to Palestinian control, they destroyed the farms and greehouses.

I seem to have gone off on a rant. Denying the Holocaust is racist, as already stated.

The concentration camps were not the only means of eliminating what the Nazis regarded as subhuman and inferior races.

There were also the feared Einsatzgruppen (Special Action Groups), extermination squads that went in behind the invading army

“and whose sole objective was the wholesale slaughter of the Jews. . . . Moving close behind the advancing front line so that few could evade their net, the Einsatzgruppen brutally shot, bayoneted, burnt, tortured, clubbed to death or buried alive almost half a million Jews in the first six months of the campaign.”

—Hitler’s Samurai—The Waffen-SS in Action, by Bruce Quarrie.

Is that figure hard to believe? Not really. It works out to an average of less than one murder per day per member of the 3,000 member group.

When these special action groups reached the Soviet territories, partial death tolls give a figure of

“more than 900,000, accounting for only about two thirds of the total number of Jewish victims in mobile operations.”

—The Destruction of the European Jews, by Raul Hilberg.