Calling all Debunkers, and anyone who thinks Holocaust Denial is offensive, debunk this!

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

Originally posted by explosivo
*sigh*, so many misguided souls in here trying to set facts where in reality these facts are nothing more than mere speculations, and that's being generous.

This thread could've ended long ago.

You say the holocaust never happened? That's strange, because Adolf Eichmann (...for those of you that don't know - Eichmann was a high-ranked officer in charge of many issues regarding the camps, that was caught and kidnapped by the Israeli Mossad in 1960 and was brought to Israel for a trial...) admitted to all sorts of accusations in his trial while his defense was that he only recieved orders.

Why would Eichmann say such a thing if the holocaust never happened? Must be a Zionist conspiracy! ...
[edit on 9-8-2010 by explosivo]

Sigh, I think your "facts" are misguided and I'm surprised nobody has pointed this out yet.
Eichmann is a perfect example of why you can't use torture to extract confessions. Eichmann signed a confession to killing some 5 million. This Auschwitz, and I already posted a court ruling establishing 300,000 died at is obviously a complete lie, there were nowhere near 5 million killed at Auschwitz.

In spite of all the international commotion and the vast barrage of irresponsible print which has flooded the world on Eichmann since May, 1960, there is not the slightest substantial evidence that Eichmann ever deliberately ordered even one Jew gassed in a German concentration camp, to say nothing of having ordered and supervised the extermination of six million Jews

link
Before you start busting others' chops about learning the facts, maybe you should learn some real history yourself first.

Eichmann was never at Auschwitz; he was never based at any camp.

Eichmann was a member of SS-SD (Sicherheitsdienst), itself a part of the RSHA (Reichsicherheitshauptamt - Reich Main Security Office), an umbrella organisation that had under its wing all Nazi intelligence services, including elements of the SS and the Gestapo.

Eichmann was never put on trial for killing individual people with his own hands or through any act of brutality; he was put on trial for signing away the lives of millions with the strokes of his pen. Eichmann, along with Himmler and to a lesser extent Heydrich (who was more involved in anti-partisan work), was one of the true architects of the holocaust and was given the task of drawing up the rail timetables and physical plans for the perpetration of the holocaust.

I don't know what source you are quoting from, but Eichmann's involvement in the Holocaust is one historical element that, regardless of your status as a revisionist or otherwise, cannot be subject to debate. By his own admission, and more importantly, by virtue of a mountain of physical evidence incriminating him, Eichmann was the logistical architect of the holocaust.

For someone who castigates others for "not knowing history", you yourself show an ironic ignorance to historical fact.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


Well, I see no point in taking up individual claims as they are all sourced and you really need the study as a whole to realize the ridiculousness of claimed numbers of cremations vs. real number of possible cremations.
Here is a link to a response from Mattogno that destroys most or all of Zimmerman's refutation.
vho.org...
His webpage lists his other papers as well.
vho.org...

Edit to add that it is funny that many of Zimmerman's gripes/refutations of Mattogno's original piece are based on/because of his own lack of understanding the documents that were sourced and his own documents that in many cases seems to be second hand information, rather than original sources that Mattogno used. How can you criticize somebody for your own lack of understanding/comprehension?

[edit on 11-8-2010 by PplVSNWO]

reply to post by PplVSNWO


I posted a link where the whole debate is documented a re-asnwer from Zimmerman. Mattogno has yet to respond, just to make that clear.

I have to go now I'll read your whole post later.

reply to post by duality90


I don't really have a clue what you are asking me. Which part of my post do you need a source for?

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


Nope, the articles you posted were from Oct, 1999 and Dec, 2000 respectively. The one I just linked to has a last modified of Aug, 2007 and I believe is a response to Zimmerman's original refutation and "My Response to Carlo Mattogno" refutation. I may be wrong, however, this response is labeled as a supplementary response to "BODY DISPOSAL AT AUSCHWITZ".

reply to post by filosophia


Tens of thousands of people were there and saw the atrocities. I've met a few of them in my life...it happened. If you don't believe it then that's fine but you're lining up on the wrong side of history along with a lot of arab gutterballs. Grow up.

reply to post by aspx


I sit very much on the fence on this topic and always try to handle any info on it in an objective and critical manner.

How can we be sure that all or any the corpses in those pics are Jewish?

Those bodies all bear the hallmarks of chronic malnutrition.Why go to all the trouble of gassing when they are already dying of malnutrition?

Why not cut off the food and water,keep the bullets and furnace fuel for the war effort,and avoid having to spend a dime on gas?

Alternatively,slow acting poison could have been administered in food which would have been devoured in minutes.

Before anyone decides to fire the old anti- Semitism charge my way,my mother is a Sephardic Jew,albeit secular.I am an atheist for the record.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by duality90

 

I don't really have a clue what you are asking me. Which part of my post do you need a source for?

Sorry mate, I was actually trying to respond to the person who had quoted you previously and said "that's why you can't trust confessions...et c".

Wasn't trying to take a stab at you - you had the right info all along and I was trying to support your argument. Apologies for the mixup.

Originally posted by blah yada
reply to post by aspx

 

I sit very much on the fence on this topic and always try to handle any info on it in an objective and critical manner.

How can we be sure that all or any the corpses in those pics are Jewish?

Those bodies all bear the hallmarks of chronic malnutrition.Why go to all the trouble of gassing when they are already dying of malnutrition?

Why not cut off the food and water,keep the bullets and furnace fuel for the war effort,and avoid having to spend a dime on gas?

Alternatively,slow acting poison could have been administered in food which would have been devoured in minutes.

Before anyone decides to fire the old anti- Semitism charge my way,my mother is a Sephardic Jew,albeit secular.I am an atheist for the record.

To the best of my knowledge, any photographs of malnourished corpses are just that - photographs of malnourished corpses. Prisoners were not kept for slave labor and then later gassed (at least, I do not think that this was a widespread practice. At the large death camps in Poland you were either pressed into slave labor or sent to the gas chambers immediately, although I think at any of the other camps except Auschwitz, no purpose was to be served there except immediate liquidation, as Auschwitz-III Monowitz was where the prisoners interned at II-Birkenau went to work).

My point being here of course is that the argument that it makes no sense to gas people who are already on death's door is nonsensical because it presumes entirely that the only people who appear in the photographs were gassed and malnourished.

reply to post by duality90


Ok, sorry. It may have been a misunderstanding on my part. I am using firefox in Linux and it doesn't format this forum correctly. I have to switch to Opera to sometimes to figure out what is being quoted by whom.

Originally posted by duality90
To the best of my knowledge, any photographs of malnourished corpses are just that - photographs of malnourished corpses. Prisoners were not kept for slave labor and then later gassed (at least, I do not think that this was a widespread practice. At the large death camps in Poland you were either pressed into slave labor or sent to the gas chambers immediately, although I think at any of the other camps except Auschwitz, no purpose was to be served there except immediate liquidation, as Auschwitz-III Monowitz was where the prisoners interned at II-Birkenau went to work).

Good point there. If you read Risposta, about half way down under section called 'The Typhus "myth"'
It was again, a response to Zimmerman's "debunking".
"

Zimmerman asserts that during the typhus epidemic the sick detainees were killed en mass. Let us see what happened during the month when the typhus epidemic reached its peak: August 1942.

3 August: 193 "gassed"
10 August: an indeterminate number of "gassed"
29 August: 746 "gassed."

We can say that the round figure is 1,500 "gassed."

All other deaths were therefore due to "natural" causes. Now in August 1942 there were 8,600 deaths overall, of which 7,100 were due to "natural" causes. What caused this extremely high mortality if it was not typhus? As we see, this "myth" is truly fatal.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by PplVSNWO]

[edit on 12-8-2010 by PplVSNWO]

reply to post by filosophia


I've lived in Israel as a non jew and frankly while I wasn't impressed with the attitude of many jews I meet, (I got bloody fed up with the dam holier than tho attitude so many have) I can't believe that something terrible didn't happen not only to them but to many others as well, and frankly it doesn't do anything to help those still getting over it, including nations.
Maybe not as many died as they said, or in as horrific ways but that fact remains many many died. There are many people still alive today that have never seen their parents, brothers, sisters or family alive after being taken. And to say to them that it didn't happen is at the least disrespectful and at the worst down right disgusting.
In war there are no innocents, no one nation was any better than any other, all committed atrocities, it's just some got away with it.
Maybe the Nazis weren't quite as bad as we have been led to believe and maybe the allies weren't as heroic, but it's a moot point really. The only ones who really know are dead or ain't talking, so maybe it's time to let it be and learn from the past to be better in the future.

My grandma's first husband died in a concentration camp...so please understand, YOUR THREAD IS OFFENSIVE AND COMPLETE HOGWASH!

reply to post by PplVSNWO


My asnwer to your citing of Mattogno.

Mattogno, as far as I can discern, has two lines of argumentations. One line of argumentation makes the point that "Sonderbehandlung" - when referring to Auschwitz - did not mean "Extermination". I will take up this claim in this post.

The second line of argumentation coming from Mattogno is very technical and pertains to the operational capapbilites of the gassing chambers and especially the crematoria. If you want to go there, I see no way of discussing the topic wholesale. All I can say to that is that I have about 5 replies to Mattogno that do seem to refute most of his points. I find this way of arguing to be laughable though as i) no one ever reads the whole links provided and ii) it would be rather easy to go through this claim-by-claim so that anyone reading this thread can determine for himself which side presents more valid arguments.
So let us both agree on some sort of better way to discuss this in a different manner the the "wholesale link argument".

---

Concering the term "Sonderbehandlung".

Mattogno's contention is that "SB" can also mean " Schutzblock" - which would mean as much as "sent to reconvalescent camp". I will demonstrate that this is not the case in the following post.

The first and best reason to believe that "Sonderbehandlung" in most cases meant "extermination" is to be found in Edwin Blacks "IBM and the Holocaust", page 365. Footnotes are provided.

There Black cites a document that lists all terms that were entered on Dehomag punch cards. The document clearly establishes that "SB" means Sonderbehandlung. The books is a must-read for anyone, but the document itself can be viewed in this blog:

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com...

It's located at the end. Search for "Edwin Black" and you'll end up seeing the document.

Further I want to argue that there are several documents coming from Auschiwtz which tend to corroborate this view. It doesn't really matter though, because the document establishes with out a doubt that "SB" refers to Sonderbehanldung and not "Schutzblock".

Have a look at this document:

vho.org...

It talks about receiving transports of "Jewish armaments workers". It states that 1750 Jews were received by transport.

Of these, 200 women were made forced laborers. While 918 "women and children were borught to SB".

At the end of the document, it is noted that "if the transports continue with this quality of Jews - mainly women, children, old and sickly men - not much will be got out of them pertaining to "Einsatz" (meaning forced labor).

Basically at the end he says: "Send us better Jews or we can't significantly increase the working force @ Buna (Auschwitz-Monowitz)."

If "SB" in this document would refer to reconvalescene, then logic dictates that after getting better the Jews designated "SB" would later be incorporated within the forced labor population. But this interpretation makes no sense because it specifically states that "women, children and old Jews" were not fit for "Einsatz" (forced labor) and therefore, if Berlin wanted to have more outpot from forced laborers, they would need to send more "Jews fit for work".

As you can see, this document makes no sense if you are to read "SB" as simply "medical or delousing treatment". The document specifically states that there was a selection made between those deemed fit for "Einsatz" and those only fit for "SB". If the "SB's" were later to be made forced laborers, it makes absolutely no sense for them to demand "more fit for Einsatz".

This interpretation is consistent with most other documents - notably all documents that are omitted from any discussion by Mattogno.

A list of those documents can be found here:

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com...

Further corroboration as to the meaning of "SB" comes from the first hand witness, SS Dr. Johann Paul Kremer who maintained a diary while at Auschwitz.

Some exceprts:

www.holocaust-history.org...

September 2, 1942

For the first time, at 3:00 A.M. outside, attended a special action. Dante's Inferno seems to me almost a comedy compared to this. They don't call Auschwitz the camp of annihilation for nothing!

September 5, 1942

In the morning attended a special action (note by Nichirasu: "special action" = "Sonderbehandlung" in the german original) from the women's concentration camp (Muslims); the most dreadful of horrors. Master-Sergeant Thilo (troop doctor) was right when he said to me that this is the anus mundi. In the evening towards 8:00 attended another special action from Holland. Because of the special rations they get a fifth of a liter of schnapps, 5 cigarettes, 100 g salami and bread, the men all clamor to take part in such actions. Today and tomorrow (Sunday) work.

As to the nature of what "SB" means, I think the case is closed. I can, as others have, demonstrate that Mattogno's "Schutzblock" argument can only be maintined by omitting discussion of many implicit documents.

So let's find a way to discuss the technical details. I think that combined with this post would then refute most of his claims.


[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

In this post I will post parts of the debate between Mattogno and Zimmerman.
This post shall illustrate that line of argumentation followed by Mattogno. As an example, I have chosen the debate about open air cremations, because I believe that regarding this topic the inconsistency of Mattogno's arguments can be pointed out quite well. To point this out I will have to post a long quote though.

In the body disposal study I had erroneously claimed that Mattogno never addressed the issue of open air burnings. In his reply, he called my attention to a publication entitled My Banned Holocaust Interview where he discussed these issues. At the time of writing the study I was unaware of this publication -- and for good reason: it is very difficult to obtain and not as accessible as Mattogno's other publications. However, thanks to John Drobnicki of "The Holocaust History Project", I was finally able to obtain a copy of this tract.

Much of argument on the issue of open air burnings centers around the May 31, 1944 photo. In my body disposal study I had supposed that Mattogno received any information he had about this topic from John Ball. In the article Mattogno wrote with Franco Deana he had twice referred his readers to an article by Ball when discussing the gravesites in the area outside of the camp that appear on the May 31 photo. He wrote: "John C Ball demonstrates in the present volume that the air photos taken of Auschwitz by the Allies show no traces of mass incineration in pits."13

I was able to show that Ball has lied consistently about those photos. Mattogno now states (Reply, 3) that he possesses all of the aerial and surface photographs of Auschwitz from 1944. This is quite a revelation since he has given no less than three different versions of what is on this photo. Mattogno writes that "f I change opinion concerning interpretation of specific points, that depends only upon progression of my studies, and not due to the fact that later books have published documents which I have already possessed." (Reply, 3) But since he already had these photos, one wonders what could have changed on them to give varying accounts of their contents. Did he actually examine them or did he rely on Ball? I strongly suspect that Mattogno was deceived by Ball but is now too embarrassed to admit it.

The first version was in his 1994 monograph when he wrote that this photo does not show "a trace of smoke, no trace of pits, crematory or otherwise...no trace of dirt extracted from pits." 14 In my body disposal study I quoted extensively from a report by photo imagery expert Carroll Lucas that proves that Mattogno's original claims concerning this photo are outright false. Mattogno has not addressed Lucas's report in his reply -- possibly because he relied on Ball's false account of the photos' contents. The full text of this report will be reproduced in Appendix IV of my forthcoming book. Mattogno already had the May 31 photos, so I wonder how he could have missed the pits near Krema V since he has copies of "all the Auschwitz aerial photographs..." (Reply, 3) The late Mark Van Alstine told me that he was able to identify these pits from the aerial photo reproduced in John Ball's book.

In 1994 the photo was published in a volume of essays entitled The Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp where smoke was identified in the area of the Krema V. In his second explanation, which appeared in 1995 -- and quoted in the body disposal study -- Mattogno now claimed that the smoke was most probably from "trash incineration." Mattogno vehemently denies making any such statement. He writes: "This is false. I never wrote such a thing; not in that booklet or elsewhere." (Reply, 3). What is particularly disconcerting about Mattogno's denial is that he only needed to go to the denier website where his article appears to find that he wrote the following:

"The small column of smoke rising from the courtyard near Crematory V which appears in the aerial photograph is consistent with outside trash incineration..." (italics added).15

It is one thing when Mattogno denies the Holocaust, but quite another when he denies his own writings. However, he still did not address the issue of pits near Krema V

His third version appeared in the 1996 tract, which I recently learned of and acquired. Here he admits that there may have been some open air burnings in the area of Krema V but "supposing that the smoke comes from a [outdoor] cremation facility" meant only that "there was a shortfall for coke in the crematory ovens or when the crematoria were shut down for repairs." 16 Mattogno's problem was to explain why outdoor burnings would be needed at a time when 437,000 Jews were being deported from Hungary to Auschwitz if the ovens were functioning so he tried to argue that the ovens were probably not functioning. He did not present one shred of evidence to support the assertion that the ovens were not functioning.

The source Mattogno cited in support for the possibility of the crematoria not functioning was Danuta Czech's, Auschwitz Chronicle entry for August 2, 1944, three weeks after the Hungarian operation had been concluded. He describes the entry as "cadavers of Gypsies alleged to have been homicidally gassed on 2 August, 1944, were cremated out in the open because the crematory ovens at that time were not working." However, he could cite no sources which mention any oven failures during the Hungarian operation from mid May to mid July 1944. Moreover, he used a technique that, as noted in the body disposal study, he had utilized when trying to justify positions he was advocating for which he could not cite the original source. One of the principal sources Czech used for the crematoria not operating on August 2, 1944 -- not mentioned by Mattogno -- and therefore necessitating outdoor burnings was eyewitness testimony. I obtained this testimony from the Auschwitz State Museum. It was given in Polish by native Poles. My thanks to Dr. William Samelson of THHP for translating this testimony for me.

This testimony cited by Czech, when read in its entirety, discusses the gassing of prisoners. Czech describes the testimony as follows: "Trucks drive into the camp and 2,897 defenseless women, men and children are driven to the gas chambers. After the gassing the corpses of the murdered are incinerated in the pit next to the crematorium, since the crematorium ovens are not operating at the time." 17

Mattogno had to argue that the crematoria were not functioning, otherwise he would be unable to offer any justification for outdoor burnings. Why? Assuming that Kremas II and III were operating and further assuming that each of them could only burn one body per hour in a 20 hour period, it would mean that they had the combined capacity to burn 600 bodies, a number which has been advanced by Mattogno on the capacity of the 30 ovens of Kremas II and III. 18 Why would it be necessary to utilize open air burnings if there was a capacity to burn 600 bodies? Such open air burning would be consistent with mass murder. Even if only one of the Kremas was operating there would not be a need for open air burnings absent mass murder.
Mattogno also has another problem which he avoided in My Banned Holocaust Interview. In the article he wrote with Franco Deana and cited throughout the body disposal study, he had admitted to outdoor burnings in the area outside of the camp, but only for the period prior to the building of the crematoria in March 1943. This area, as noted by Mattogno, is visible on the May 31, 1944 photo. The problem is as follows: since there already was an area available for these burnings, why was it necessary to create a second area near Krema V? Why not simply use the site that was available and used previously? The fact that there are two such areas visible on the May 31 photo is consistent with mass murder. (... Nichirasu)

[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]