Only one percent of the Holocaust claims can be proven - Says Holocaust Scholar and Expert

Having read the entire article I am left wondering why it is headlined in the way it is. The article is about the debate as to whether to continue to preserve Auschwitz, why take that one sentence out of context other than to create sensationalism?

Van Pelt quite correctly states that once the last survivor has died it will lose it's personal significance and that nature should be allowed to reclaim it, as it will be remembered no matter what as an event in history. Genocide is ordinary, it happens every day, retaining Auschwitz as a memorial holds no historical value to anyone other than those that suffered there or lost their families there. People will always deny the events, it is easier to do so, yet every day people continue to die in their thousands as a result of conflict and oppression. We see it on the news, we do nothing, just as our grandparent's did nothing, because there is very little we can do. Better to deny it, than to feel completely powerless to stop it.

As Van Pelt says in the interview, to preserve the camps is to give credence to the deniers, there is nothing to be proven, nothing to be denied, it happened, it is a part of all our history and will remain so. That we learnt nothing from it, and continued throughout the 20th century to allow the genocide and murder of civilians proves without doubt that Auschwitz has not real preventative power, no educational power. The blind remain blind to the simple truth that we as people are all expendable, and that the weak will always be exploited by the bullies that are in charge if there is a good economic argument for doing so, and that there will always be those willing to murder their neighbours for a pay packet and a sense of superiority.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Beancounter72
It would be one thing if the german laws prohibited anyone spreading lies about the holocaust but a lawyer is not even allowed to present documented FACTUAL evidence FROM JEWISH SOURCES no less, that questions the holocaust myth. In other words, even the truth is illegal. How bizarre is that?

It's not bizarre at all if one assumes that this was forced on German people by TPTB in order to protect a certain agenda. I feel sorry for the Germans.

Like the Southern United States, Germany still exists under a form of Military Occupation with only a limited form of sovereignty to govern itself within parameters dictated to it by the allied powers who won the war.

At times places like Berlin were completely hostage to the whims of the Soviets and Americans who kept Charlemagne’s ancient capitol of the Holy Roman Empire divided in a game of tug-of-war and cat and mouse that the German’s have in fact suffered immensely under.

The cruelties inflicted on the Germans in the immediate aftermath of the war were equal to if not greater than any the German Military, Security and Prison Complex committed during the war. The Russians who initially had the capitol to themselves allowed the citizens to starve for months on end while the women were raped at will and random with some suffering as many as 25 rapes a day, day after day, for months and months on end. Many German women in fact committed suicide to avoid that fate. At the same time they were starving they were forced to do menial labor at gunpoint to clean up and restore the war smashed city. Hundreds of thousands of Germans starved to death or were killed through capricious and arbitrary violence against them.

In many ways the Germans were transformed into a permanently disarmed slave population that the Cold War would fight over to propel the Military Industrial Complexes of the World to permanent preeminence and work in a fashion that their labors would help to fund and enrich the new Zionist Israeli State.

The War in Germany was not actually officially over until the Berlin Wall fell in 1991. Up until that time a German citizen brandishing so much as a steak knife could be shot to death on sight by any of the allied soldiers no questions asked.

Even today though huge military bases like Ramstein exist with huge concentrations of especially American Troops.

The German people have had to bear an incredible burden and price for the manipulations of the Powers that Be and Rome in that drive to keep the world a heavily armed and violent place ruled by the Military Industrial Complex and the Bankers that finance that costly and deadly initiative and practice.

Much of this sorry state of affairs depends on the Germans not questioning the Holocaust as so many justifications for the Zionists and the Military Industrial Complex depend on it’s continue myth remaining sacrosanct.

This has all been dictated to the Germans by heavily armed occupying forces that have never left to this day.

Most of what we are in fact told is grossly exaggerated propaganda aimed at controlling not just the Germans but in fact us all.


[edit on 7/1/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by sezsue


It just proves that it can be done. 300 years old or not, it was done. If they could do it then, they could do it again.

My point is that in Germany, there was no such word as ethics or morals. Scientists did what interested them. It is kind of like a real life version of the video game bio only that it was an actual nation. Russian soldiers testified to seeing soap factories that made small numbers of soap, and other atrocities done for the interest of seeing what could be done. What is unquestioned is the fact that people had organs removed to see the effects, children were sewn together, and that the Germans were trying to basically create super soldiers. Soap and lamps are based on personal testimony of the soldiers and civilians, which I trust more than any professional could say otherwise.

reply to post by shakespear1


Oh dude, I have no doubt that the eugenics movement violently poked into the US government in the days. There are evidences that they sterilized many people just for being unfit. Ford DID give money and build for the Nazis, and many were loving what Germany was doing. The sheer fact that the American Eugenics supported Hitler proves that he was doing stuff that was bad. Luckily, the media wasn't 100% bad in those days, and let lose the truth of what Hitler was doing the the public eye. Once the public hated eugenics, the eugenics movement in America failed, and thank God indeed.

Yeah, I agree it is strange....it made me think about I read somewhere that the winner of war writes history. But than again what about those concentration camps fitted with gas-chambers and ovens?

Many people go balistic if you say that the holocaust didn't happen and in some countries you can be fined or thrown in jail for saying such a thing.

So what is going on here?

reply to post by Gorman91


Sorry I don't give much credence to what soviet soldiers claim they saw. Even the Head of the jewish nazi-hunting organization has said that the claims that the nazis made soap and lamp shades from dead jews is untrue.

During WW1, allied propoganda claimed that the German 'Hun' threw babies up in the air so that german soldiers could impale them on their bayonets. After that war, representatives of the British government apologized to the German people for those allegations among others.

No such apologies were ever offered after WW2 for any of the numerous propoganda claims made by the allies. And given how the Soviet government has a history of lying to their own people, anything they say with respect to the nazis has to be taken with a grain of salt. Keep in mind that Auschwitz and other camps in eastern europe fell within the soviet zone of occupation and therefore they had ample opportunity to fabricate evidence such as the alleged gas chamber at auschwitz.

I also want to expand on the implications of the 3.5 million holocaust survivors who are still receiving compensation from the German government. Clearly the concentration camps could not possibly have housed millions of people at the same time. If they did, they would be the size of cities instead of the size of an industrial complex or large resort. In order to qualify for compensation, the claimant has to prove that either a) they themselves had been sent to one of the camps or b) that a parent, sibling or child had been sent to one of the camps or C) that the claimant had been forced to flee either Germany or lands occupied by German forces either before or during WW2. Because so much time has now passed, the remaining 3.5 million recipients for the most part had to be children during the war. If we make an assumption that the average jewish family had 3.5 children, which as an average is pretty high, and then add back two parents for each 3.5 children, you then get a total of 5.5 million jews, most of whom HAD to have fled somewhere else to avoid german occupation because the camps weren't big enough to house more than several hundreds of thousands at any one time ie. at the end of the war. So even if we assume that half a million jews were liberated from all concentration camps at the end of the war, that still leaves 5 million out of the prewar population of 7.5 million jews (if you include Russia) that were NOT killed. If you assume a lower average number of children per family, then the total number of jews who escaped death is even higher because you would need more than 2 million adults added to the 3.5 million figure.

I know that it's easier to just stick you heads in the sand and pretend that the official story is true but the discrepancy in the numbers is so large that it can't be explained away.

Thankfully, as a Christian, our motto is, "Love your enemies" and "As we forgive them that trespass against us".

The corollary is,
" 'An eye for an eye' makes the whole world blind."

War is terrible - everyone suffers and that's why we work so hard to avoid it. Once bloodlust is loosed, are we supposed to turn if off as a light switch?

"The holocaust" is a marketing term, coined for a fund raising campaign in the 1960s +/-. What happened to the Jewish people of the Nazi Empire is no worse than what happens to losers from time immemorial:

The men are slaughtered; if they are lucky, the women and children are enslaved. If not so lucky, they are slaughtered with their men.

This is the way of the world. It is ugly and we want to avoid it as it obviously means death.

But it is hardly unique to the Jews. Their insistence on their own special uniqueness of suffering is an affront to my human dignity and the sufferings of my own forefathers. It goes a long way to explaining "antisemitism" as well, although PC would prohibit us from daring even to question it. Q.E.D.

Originally posted by whitewave

The motto of the Jews:
WE WILL NEVER FORGET!

[edit on 7-1-2010 by joeofthemountain]

OK

This

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The cruelties inflicted on the Germans in the immediate aftermath of the war were equal to if not greater than any the German Military, Security and Prison Complex committed during the war. The Russians who initially had the capitol to themselves allowed the citizens to starve for months on end while the women were raped at will and random with some suffering as many as 25 rapes a day, day after day, for months and months on end. Many German women in fact committed suicide to avoid that fate. At the same time they were starving they were forced to do menial labor at gunpoint to clean up and restore the war smashed city. Hundreds of thousands of Germans starved to death or were killed through capricious and arbitrary violence against them.

In a thread where people are questioning the holocaust is laughable.

Anyone care to try and figure out where I'm coming from when I say that?




[edit on 7/1/10 by neformore]

I agree with shamhat that the title of the thread might be a little misleading in reference to what was claimed in the Toronto Star article, however, at this date, I grant that it is undoubtedly difficult to actually prove with evidence that you can wave in people's faces most claims about the holocaust. Does that mean it didn't happen much as advertised? Personally, I don't think so.

If people will pardon a Wikipedia citation, it is interesting to see Adolf Eichmann's reaction to the charges against him.

en.wikipedia.org...

When the prosecution rested, Eichmann's defense lawyers, Robert Servatius and Dieter Wechtenbruch, opened up the defense by explaining why they did not cross-examine any of the prosecution witnesses. Eichmann, speaking in his own defense, said that he did not dispute the facts of what happened during the Holocaust. During the whole trial, Eichmann insisted that he was only "following orders"—the same Nuremberg Defense used by some of the Nazi war criminals during the 1945–1946 Nuremberg Trials. He explicitly declared that he had abdicated his conscience in order to follow the Führerprinzip. Eichmann claimed that he was merely a "transmitter" with very little power. He testified that: "I never did anything, great or small, without obtaining in advance express instructions from Adolf Hitler or any of my superiors."

During cross-examination, prosecutor Hausner asked Eichmann if he considered himself guilty of the murder of millions of Jews. Eichmann replied: "Legally not, but in the human sense ... yes, for I am guilty of having deported them". When Hausner produced as evidence a quote by Eichmann in 1945 who stated: "I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction." Eichmann countered the claim saying that he was referring only to "enemies of the Reich".

I haven't researched this subject in any great detail, but have read numbers ranging from 2 million to 6 million killed in concentration camps or as a result of ill-treatment in ghettos, as forced laborers, etc.

When one says 99 percent of claims or 95 percent of claims without actually specifying what claims in particular one is talking about, and these are not specified in the Toronto Star article, the statistic becomes meaningless.




[edit on 7-1-2010 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by neformore


Personally I am not of the opinion anything regarding war is laughable which is why I think it’s important that people try to understand all the social, geopolitical, financial and corporate interests that are involved in fighting them.

The only thing I can tell for sure, no disrespect intended as far as where you are coming from based on that very cryptic one line and your Avatar is from England and that possibly you are a Who fan in the vein of the Kids Are Alright?

Anything else, please elaborate further for us, I certainly am interested in hearing the point you are trying to make.

Thanks.


[edit on 7/1/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Well as you missed the blatantly obvious I'll explain it to you.

You are using history to explain something in a thread that has taken a turn to denying it.

And while what you posted may be right - to the people who are questioning the holocaust its junk. After all, they don't believe in one World War 2 related event, so why would they believe in another?

See my point?

[edit on 7/1/10 by neformore]

Just out of curiousity. Has the government of Israel or any jewish organization ever come up with a list of 6 million names for jewish holocaust deaths?

Originally posted by Beancounter72
Just out of curiousity. Has the government of Israel or any jewish organization ever come up with a list of 6 million names for jewish holocaust deaths?

Why?

Has anyone ever named everyone killed by Pol Pot in Cambodia?
Has anyone ever named everyone killed in the Batan Death March?

I doubt it.

Would you question both of those on that basis?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by sezsue

 

It just proves that it can be done. 300 years old or not, it was done. If they could do it then, they could do it again.

My point is that in Germany, there was no such word as ethics or morals. Scientists did what interested them. It is kind of like a real life version of the video game bio only that it was an actual nation. Russian soldiers testified to seeing soap factories that made small numbers of soap, and other atrocities done for the interest of seeing what could be done. What is unquestioned is the fact that people had organs removed to see the effects, children were sewn together, and that the Germans were trying to basically create super soldiers. Soap and lamps are based on personal testimony of the soldiers and civilians, which I trust more than any professional could say otherwise.

Of COURSE it proves it CAN be done, but it does not prove that it WAS done.

How does "IF they could do it then, they could do it again" prove in this case that it WAS done?

It has been disproved by professionals, who tested some of the items, and you believe soldiers and citizens instead of the professionals?????

And you have "I choose science and logic" as part of your description of yourself? Maybe you should add, But only sometimes.

Seems a little hypocritical to me.....

[edit on 7-1-2010 by sezsue]

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Well as you missed the blatantly obvious I'll explain it to you.

You are using history to explain something in a thread that has taken a turn to denying it.

And while what you posted may be right - to the people who are questioning the holocaust its junk. After all, they don't believe in one World War 2 related event, so why would they believe in another?

See my point?

[edit on 7/1/10 by neformore]

I see your point but your point also in part is aimed to how to deal with the lowest possible common denominator amongst people by barring discussion amongst the highest possible common denominator that might confuse the lowest possible common denominator.

It’s based on the premise in my humble opinion that people must accept certain things to be fact regardless of how factual they are as a starting point for credible discussion.

That’s a deliberate and wishful attempt to overcome the fact that for all people their individual perceptions become their individual reality, which in my humble opinion is simply not possible amongst a species that has freewill.

It is nothing but a wish for all people to have a common base shared reality and for people not to discuss or debate anything that might prevent that common base shared reality from uniformly forming to ensure conformity amongst the lowest possible common denominator.

That in my humble opinion then is nothing but an orchestrated attempt to lower the highest possible common denominator down towards the lowest possible common denominator to make sure that an enforced shared reality is accepted by all.

Yet who is forming the information that the lowest possible common denominator must accept and to what end are they forming it and for what purpose? How credible is it and they? How can we tell, simply through the emotional insistence that blind trust be employed which negates freewill and eliminates the thinking and questioning minds that ultimately are the ones who not only move humanity forward but then try to elevate the lowest possible common denominator.

Freewill and freedom both dictate that people be allowed to judge for themselves and weed out what they feel is valid and invalid based on their own inherent wisdom, world view and aspirations and goals in life.

I reject the point you are tying to make as being one of a teacher or a nanny chastising those whose ideas or opinions aren’t to your personal liking, or a group or party’s affiliated views.

Democracy is about every human being putting forth their ideas and opinions to discuss them and ultimately the war of Muslim attrition being fought in the Middle East is to promote democracy.

Dogmas are dogmas and the only way people discover what dogma is and fallacy is by discussing it openly and honestly.

If that is offensive to someone’s world view and beliefs to the extent that they attempt to use emotional domination to stifle such discussion that is simply an indication of an attempt at dominance and is not necessarily indicative of the truth.

People must be allowed to freely discuss all angles and aspects and to make up their own minds for better or worse, otherwise we are destined to fall under the boots of one tyrant after another when humanity is purposefully kept in such a malleable and pliable state.

Do you see my point friend?

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I see your point but your point also in part is aimed to how to deal with the lowest possible common denominator amongst people by barring discussion amongst the highest possible common denominator that might confuse the lowest possible common denominator.

Not at all.

Its simple logic

How can historical accuracy of a period justifiably be questioned by quoting history from the period?

Or let me put it another way.

Why don't people question any other of the facts about World War 2 as vociferously as this one?

reply to post by neformore


The difference is that the Cambodians did it to their own people and therefore the Cambodian people aren't being vilified as mass murderers and the world has not blamed the Japanese people for the brutality of their military during WW2. There are all kinds of memorials with names for war dead including the 50,000+ killed in Vietnam. Considering how traumatized the jewish people are regarding the holocaust, don't you find it strange that the survivors and relatives of holocaust victims haven't insisted on some kind of official list to make sure that their relatives' death's are properly recorded?

by the way, the Illinois holocaust memerial website says that 'up to 2.7 million' jews died in nazi concentration camps. I'm starting to wonder if there is a general, low key, campaign to very quietly bring the total number of deaths down by jewish holocaust organizations. First the Auschwitz plague went from 4 million to 1. 5 million and now the Illinois mermorial website says "Up To" 2.7 million.

reply to post by neformore


I am guessing you didn’t read my post 4 or 5 pages back where I questioned all the facts of the Federal Reserve Act, World War I and World War II or the several compliments a number of posters gave it.

I try to get the bulk of my history written and told through contemporary events unfolded, not through the often politicized and propagandized retelling of history then later for politics, control and profit.

Some people are better at separating the wheat from the chafe than others in part because of their objectivity and the absence of a specific agenda.

It’s just like the X-Files my friend, the truth is out there and those who want to know it will find it, those who want to exploit it will, and those who want to suffer from not knowing or to cause others to suffer by withholding it shall too.

Look at it this way my friend; compare war to a nasty breakup between lovers. In the initial aftermath when emotions run high both of their perspectives regarding events are colored by those emotions. They fight like cats and dogs and accuse one another of their worst fears. As time and distance cool those passions and more information is inspected and internalized and analyzed they are then able to talk about things more honestly with out the recriminations and accusations and fears and hopes intermingled playing a destructive part in that dialogue.

It really is time for the world to come to grips with its violent recent past and separate the wheat from the chafe without the emotional dogmas and enforced and instilled politically correct mindsets and diatribes involved.

Trust me when I say that no one suffers from the truth, people suffer from lies.

If what is purported to be true really is history and the surviving records and accounts will bear that out. The Germans were meticulous record keepers by the way.

It’s a demon for many people that ultimately the only way to vanquish is by honestly dealing with it and that will in fact bring out the exaggerators and the liars and manipulators on both polar opposite sides looking to exploit the issue for power, profit and control.

Yet the intelligent will be able to separate the wheat from the chafe and ATS is the place where intelligence congregates and the lowest possible common denominator can be privy to the ideas and thoughts and discussions of the highest possible common denominator.

Water seeks its own level friend, the human spirit should not be damned in that process.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Beancounter72
the Illinois holocaust memerial website says that 'up to 2.7 million' jews died in nazi concentration camps. I'm starting to wonder if there is a general, low key, campaign to very quietly bring the total number of deaths down by jewish holocaust organizations. First the Auschwitz plague went from 4 million to 1. 5 million and now the Illinois mermorial website says "Up To" 2.7 million.

I guess you haven't read through this thread.

The number of people killed at the designated Concentration Camps is routinely used by Holocaust Deniers to try to create doubt on the 6 Million figure.

There were also official and unofficial execution/death camps. Most significantly, under Nazi supervision throught countries like Poland, Hungary, Romania, regional Jews were rounded up shot, bodies, burned and buried in mass graves accounting for maybe half of the genocide.

As also mentioned, a French priest is currently documenting for the first time vast burial sites of regional Jews in the Ukraine and Belarus where local farmers still recall being given one bullet per Jew by German military for public executions.

Deniers conveniently ignore overwhelming data and massive testimony in favour of finding things like calculation inconsistencies to convince people Jews have falsified the actual numbers.




[edit on 7-1-2010 by mmiichael]

I've gone back and read some posts that were made when I was asleep. Two things struck me. One is the charge that EVERYONE, who challenges the official story is an anti-jewish racist. That kind of wholesale condemnation is akin to racist itself. I do not hate or dislike jews as a people. I have had very positive personal experiences with jews. When I have criticized zionists, I have tried to make the distinction between zionism as a political ideology and jewish religion. Criticizing jewish bankers like the Rothschilds for exploiting their wealth and power at everyone else's expense (including other jews) is not a comdemnation of the jewish people anymore than criticizing the mafia is a condemnation of the Italian people.

The other thing that struck me is the overlooked story of german resistance to nazism. Hitler and nazis came to power in an election were the majority of voters voted for other non-nazi parties. Hitler managed to survive multiple assassination attempts. By the time the nazi police state was at it's most oppressive, most of the people who disappeared in the middle of the night were non-jews. Ordinary germans who either were in fact disgusted by the nazis or were simply accused of being so by a disgruntled neighbor. Most of the regular german army officers detested the Nazis and didn't want to have anything to do with them. They kept on fighting to keep the Russians from overruning Germany. By early 1945, there was a lot of support in the military to simply stop fighting on the western front and shift all military units to the east to keep the soviets away long enough for the americans and british to take control of Germany because the Germans believed they would protect the German civilians instead of brutalizing them as the soviets eventually did. So my point here is that the tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of germans who were also shipped to concentration camps and suffered the same fates, because of their opposition to the nazi regime, have earned the right for the Truth (whatever that turns out to be) to come out in place of unsubstantiated and unproven allegations.