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

Originally posted by filosophia


The thread is about debunking the videos, they are the explosive evidence, and so far you haven't convinced me.

Well, to be fair, so far you have not brough forward anything that is "explosive" or "refutes the Holocaust" that I haven't answered.

The plaque, which once stated 4 million now states 1.5 million, and it's not as you say because one lists only Jews and the other lists Jews and Poles. That is wrong.

Are you saying that the first plaque does mention Jews? The first plaque only talks about victims, as far as I can remember.

The second talks about "mainly Jews". Is that not correct? Sorry I'm working from memory here as this is a 20 year old argument.

I will try to explain it again. The 4 million number is a number propagated by the Soviets. Since Auschwitz was on territories belonging to the UDSSR, they had to tout the official line, the propaganda of Stalin that insisted on 4 million killed.

The second plaque came after "liberation" from the Soviets, and was based on modern scholarship of that time. In the mid-80's there was increased access to Soviet archives and the consensus from those sources tended to be around 1 million - a number that many scholars have been propagating since the 1950's.
After the archives were completely opened, 1 million became the new " perliminary total" - based on the sources some people felt that it was the best guess.

Where is the conspiracy or inconsistency in that? Before the fall of the UdSSR, the plaque was not historic nor scientific, it was simply there to spout the UDSSR-party line propagandistic interpretation.

I hope we cleared this debate now.

I can read the plaque and I know that your views on this are wrong.

If that's the case you should have an argument, and not just the mere assertion that it is so. See part above.

Next, I gave you linguistical evidence that perhaps you could not comprehend. Cole uses "quotations" around certain words, as like you do when you say that Zundel believed it was a "forced retraction," you see, you are subconsciously refusing to believe this said retraction, because it interferes with your previously held beliefs.

Has David Cole retracted on this letter? Please provide proof.

If not, it is quite clear that it is the other way around: The only evidence we have is the letter from David; no following comments from him.

Give me one reason to disbelieve the letter - I have already given you at least 3 reasons that show why your version is implausible.

Before accusing me of being distracted by "cognitive bias", look at yourself. All there is the retraction from David - no word since.
Yet you refuse to believe that the retraction is authentic (even though I have proven that most revisionist think it is legit) without giving any reasons. Perhaps it is your personal beliefs - not mine - that stand in the way of seeing it as it is?

As I said. Give me evidence that David was killed, or that he was forced to write that letter.
I'll give it a look and I'll let you know how plausible that is. As long as you don't do that, I have absolutely no reason to believe the letter to be anything else as that which it is presented to be.

Thus, you put the statement in quotations to mean it sarcastically, like you doubt it existed. Why then, would Cole use that same technique against his own documentary which he obviously believed exist if he made it?

It's not meant to be sarcastic. I can not find any evidence in those videos that would convince me that the H. didn't happen or happened totally differently. That's why I call it "evidence". Evidence is only evidence when it is reproducable, this means that several informed people must be able to come to the same conclusion based on it. If it does not meet this standards it is "evidence" - merely an opinion touted to be "evidence" by someone.

I do this to clarify my stance, not to ridicule David Cole.

The only possibilities is that either the letter was forged or that Cole wrote it in such a way to demean himself and get his critics off his back, and that is still writing under coercion.

Really. Are those the ONLY two possibilities? Really? There is no chance in the world that it went differently than what you write? How come? Do you have more than your simple opinion to back that up?

And oh - how does this establish wheter the Holocaust happened or not? I thought you were going to make the case? And now we are debating the letter again?
I simply pointed to the letter because it shows that even the guy who used to peddle these videos has given up claiming that they are "evidence that it didn't happen". I found that to be relevant; but I did post that because individual claims were lacking. Of course we can discuss David COle the whole day, it just won't help you prove that it didn't happen.

Furthermore, you still have not commented on the fact that Zyklon B residue was found in the delousing chamber and not the gas chamber itself.

In that case you have not been following the thread. That this statement is not true has been demonstrated by various links from other posters. Perhaps you should read YOUR whole thread before commenting on such things?

If you simply refuse to look at the refutations of these claims then you have no chance. But the above staement of yours, based on the Leuchter Report, has been debunked several times since. There's plenty of links in the beginning of the thread if I remember correctly.

Furthermore, the video clearly shows the director of the museum admitting that the walls were removed in order for it to look more like a gas chamber, because otherwise people would see it as multiple rooms, not one giant room.

You seem to be lacking a basic understanding of the Holocaust in general and Auschwitz in special. Please read the WHOLE thread as this issue has been adressed several times.

I would want to shortly note that i) this is a RECONSTRUCTION, not an operating facility and ii) this is, most likely, not the place where the majority of the gassings have taken place. I'll have to look into the videos afterwards as I am not sure which part you are referring to but as far as I remember from watching 10 years ago this was not filmed in the ruins of the 2 Bauernhäuser where the majority of the gassings took place. In fact, of those 2 buildings only the fundaments remain.

Is that so hard to get? Posts like these makes me honestly question how deep you have looked into this. I'll have to consult the video though to be sure, something for which I don't have the means right now.

The walls were added when the building was used as an air raid shelter. So they have removed whatever evidence of Zyklon B would have been on the walls. But since the building did not get damaged in the war, and it was used as an air raid shelter so further proof it was stabilized, there would have been evidence of Zyklon B on the ceilings and floor.

See above. I think you are misunderstanding the scholarly argument. You are basically attacking the Soviet view of things, not the scholarly view. No one ever took the Soviets claims all to serious.

This is not the case. In addition, the door into the back chamber has glass in it, hardly a air tight chamber.

Again. This would already have been cleared up if you would have followed the thread. Other people have adressed it. I have neither the time nor the patience to spoon-feed you things that are openly accesible in here.

Basically you are adressing a reconstruction; not the real thing. But you'll find that out when you go looking through the links of the people who have actually refuted this claim.

I'm not convinced you have successfully debunked any of these claims.

And I am not convinced that you are even following your own thread

[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

IMHO, my last post established that Mattogno has, in some instances been i) intellectually dishonest and ii) been proven to make claims that are demonstratebly false.
Zimmerman, I will admit, has, as has Van Pelt, made some grave mistakes in his arguments too. But those mistakes, as far as I can discern, don't pertain to the open-pit debate.

I believe the opposite is true. I don't think you have read his "Risposta" yet as that already re-addresses the issues you have. Just scroll down and start reading after the "OPEN AIR BURNING" section.
I think it's clear that Zimmerman is the one who has trouble understanding German language and the meanings of the documents presented. He has resorted, in some cases, to using 2nd and 3rd hand information where Mattogno has used original and 1st hand information where possible.
Please read "Risposta" thoroughly, as it addresses Zimmerman's original AND follow up responses.

Thank you.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


Ok. i will read risposta as soon as I have the time.

Could you in the meanwhile please point me to any document that Zimmerman has mistranslated?

Since I am a native double-speaker I think I am competent to decide on this matter and I'd be interested to see this. Up to now, I have only seen linguistic mistakes by Mattogno, as provieded in my post about the meaning of SB.

But, as I have written before; I have already noticed mistakes from Zimmerman, he is surely not viewed as gospel by me.

Apart from reading riposta, which I will do as soon as I have the time - do you have any claim that you would want to present and pursue?

I'd be very interested.... The holes in one's one reasoning always are most apparent when one tries to refute counter-claims. I find this very educational as to the parts that are yet unclear in my mind. I'd be glad to see you take up and individual claim from Mattogno that refutes the traditional narrative in your view.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Edited to add: I just sighted risposta. It will take more than just a few hours on one vening to determine the vailidity of its contents - as I'll not only have to read all of that document but also all of Zimmerman's.

Maybe in the meantime we could focuse on the meaning of "SB"?

[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by filosophia
Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin


babelfish.yahoo.com...

On yahoo babel fish, Schutzblock does not translate as "sent to reconvalescent camp", but translates as Protection block. They must have been practicing some heavy double speak if they call an extermination camp a Protection block.



[edit on 12-8-2010 by filosophia]

[edit on 12-8-2010 by filosophia]

How dense are you?

"Schutzblock" literally translates as "protection block". Mattogno's claim is that this should be understood as "protection from disease and contamination; i.e. reconvalescent camp".

Honestly, do you even read the things people post? Or just jump out at the first perceived inconsistency?

It is not my claim that "Schutzblock" means that, but Mattogno's. How superficial can you be? Honestly. Are you even reading the stuff that is posted?

If you would have understood the whole post you would not have been able to write such a snippy answer. Even if it was Mattogno's claim that "protection block" was to be understood literally, it would not refute my argument. If one was "protection" and the other one was "einsatz", how come the majority of "protected" people didn't end up in "Einsatz"?

And how does this refute the NAZI document that clearly states that SB means Sonderbehandlung?

Are you honestly lecturing me on my knowledge of german by using Babelfish?

Mit jedem post denn du hier postest hab ich noch mehr dass Gefühl, dass du absolut keine Ahnung hast, wovon du sprichst. Du merkst nicht mal, dass die schnippische Antwort die du gerade geposted hast absolut nichts an der Aussagekraft meines Arguments ändert. Woraus man schliessen könnte, dass du das Argument nicht verstanden hast.

Babelfish that, smartypants.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


I am not a German speaker myself. The "Risposta" points out Zimmerman's errors though. Some seem to not be simple translation errors, but meanings.
Example, Mattogno points out that Zimmerman translates the word that was used to mean "work" to mean "repair", such that he would make an incorrect assumption that furnaces were being repaired when in reality they may have been doing maintanence or just generally working around the furnances.
I could post specific examples, but it is all in the paper and would probably be best viewed in it's context anyway.

PS, you would probably need to obtain copies of the original documents that are being cited as a misinterpretation in order to verify for yourself who is wrong.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


Well to be fair, the site that Zimmerman posts on has links to most, if not all documents. So one can go to see for oneself. I find that to be the most handy format.

As far as I can discern, Mattogno's modus operandi is different. But that does not necessarily denigrate Mattogno's credibility, maybe this can be explained by the simple fact that the website Zimmerman posts for has better funding and there more capablities.

But, to be honest, the mistakes that Mattogno refers to in the beginning of "Risposta" do seem to be honest mistakes by Zimmerman, and, as far as I have read he does admit to them. Most of them are not simple translation errors (although the one you referred to, "work", may be counted as one) but more errors in the sources themselves. Like using a copy from a document that is dated wrongly etc.

I would have to agree with Zimmerman though that Mattogno seems to present the high-end of revisionist arguments. I'm still not convinced that he is more honest than the rest; but he surely writes better and way more academic than the rest of the crew.
I'm still confused as to the order of things. Either I have got the timeline wrong or Mattogno doesn't adress the majority of Zimmerman's criticism.
I'm still reading.


[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

STUPID IS
AS STUPID DOESText RedText

Open Air Incinerations in Auschwitz: Rumor or Reality?
Another source, this one from 2003, shows documentation on water levels at Auschwitz. The high ground water table debunks the open air burnings and mass grave pits from another angle.

By the early summer of 1944, the ground water level, which had fallen at the beginning of the year, had risen again. This is evident in a telegram from Jothanns to Kammler dated June 2, 1944. Jothann stated that he had refused approval, on hygienic grounds, for the use of 14 barracks located in Building Segment III of Birkenau Camp, adding:[31]

"The barracks are only partly covered, the terrain is marshy, and not leveled in any way. There is a danger of pollution of the ground water and the creation of other hotbeds of epidemics."

For this reason, any two pits, two to three meters deep, dug in the north courtyard of Crematoriums V, would certainly have struck water at the bottom. The ground water level was even higher in the area near the so-called "Bunker 2", located outside the grounds of the camp, rendering the excavation of pits of this depth absolutely impossible.

Here's a supplementary experiment for the open air pits debate:
Combustion Experiments with Flesh and Animal Fat

5.4. Conclusions

1. The experiments show that animal fat, when heated to a temperature that can be reached by means of a wood fire, will burn readily.

2. Experiment 3 demonstrates that animal fat, when in contact with glowing embers, will ignite. Consequently, in a cremation trench, the human fat oozing out of the corpses and dripping through the burning wood, possibly reaching the layer of embers at the bottom of the trench, would burn without being able to flow over the bed of embers towards the alleged reservoirs. This was confirmed later by the experimental incineration in a furnace as described above, during which the fat dripping from the flesh into the ash tray ignited immediately and burned.

3. Experiment 2 demonstrates that any liquid fat, hypothetically dripping down below the embers into the alleged recovery channels, would burn under the effect of radiation from the glowing embers and by contact with them.

4. Experiment 1 demonstrates that human fat, hypothetically flowing into the recovery reservoir would, on account of the heat radiation from the fire, burn with bright and high flames, making it impossible not only to recover the fat, but also to get anywhere near the edge of the trench.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by PplVSNWO]

reply to post by Tiger5


So if someone were to claim that 6 million blacks or Roma gypsies died in concentration camps in WWII, anyone who claimed the figure was ridiculous as there were simply not that many blacks or gypsies in Europe at the time is obviously a racist? He could not possibly say this because the believed the 6 million figure was historically inaccurate? He must be a racist?
And no one can argue the 6 million number claimed by the jews for any reason other than antisemitism. Is this what you are saying?
Please, I thought this was an attempt to discuss this intelligently.

Flames and Smoke from the Chimneys of Crematoria

This experiment seems to further aid in Mattogno's original report on Auschwitz Crematoria as well as his responses to Zimmerman. It demonstrates how photos show no smoke from the Crematoria during a period that Zimmerman claims they where in heavy use.
I know, a ascaled down experiment isn't necessarily representative of what really happened. However, the photo of the chimney clearly shows heavy soot at the top, and you won't get much soot without smoke.

In any case, the injection of cold air into the muffles (the Topf ovens at Auschwitz did not possess any device for preheating the combustion air) would have caused nothing but a worsening of the problem and yet more smoke. Prüfer's explanation is technically unfounded. His attempts at reducing the smoke not only did not reduce it, they made matters worse.

With respect to the specific topic of the Topf ovens at Auschwitz, it would be technically erroneous and in contradiction with obvious facts to maintain that they did not smoke. These ovens, as we have seen, were not equipped with the technical devices to monitor the production of smoke (flue gas analyzers) or to prevent it (such as the recycling loop to burn smoke as used at Dessau), which civilian ovens possessed. Their coarse and simple design invariably led to smoke generation.

reply to post by hangerhead


Well that explains the ball point pen?????????????

Another goodie from Carlo Mottogno, The Four Million Figure of Auschwitz.
This is particularly good read for those claiming that it doesn't matter what the real figures for deaths where(ie what does it matter whether it was 4million or 300,000?)

excerpt from section 4, "The Consequences of Giving Up the Propaganda Figure of Four Million"-

Whoever thinks that the propaganda figure of four million can be dropped without punishment deceives himself completely. This figure is closely connected with the thesis of mass extermination in Auschwitz and cannot be thrown overboard without bringing the whole artificial building into sway. Regardless of the futile efforts of Jean-Claude Pressac to prove this thesis of mass extermination by documents, it is up to this day based exclusively on statements of alleged eye witnesses, and Pressac himself had to make use of those when he tried to describe the first alleged homicidal gassing in crematorium II of Birkenau.[37]

As already said, the witness testimonies and the four million figure were intimately woven together right from the start, in a way that the refutation of the witness testimonies would have been equivalent to a refutation of this figure and vice versa; at the same time, the entire thesis of mass extermination in Auschwitz would become untenable.

Thus this 'critical spirit' of the Auschwitz museum, who reduced the number of victims of the camp to almost a quarter, opportunistically invented a cremation capacity, which was eight times above the actual capacity! F. Piper of course knows exactly that the credibility of his 'eyewitnesses' goes down the drain if he would state the true capacity of the ovens, and this would also render all the allegations about homicidal gassings from these same witnesses untrustworthy. This is the reason why the Auschwitz museum is and continues to be an authority on superstition and prefers fairy tales of 'eyewitnesses' over science.

I will start with the first point that I got a grip on from the Mattogno-Zimmerman debate.

For this I will referr to the work of Sergey Romanov, as can be found by this post in the axis history forum:

One example will suffice. In his "Supplementary Response" to Zimmerman Mattogno writes:

www.russgranata.com...

Zimmerman writes on p.19 of Body Disposal:

«Kurt Prufer, builder of the ovens, was asked why the brick linings of the ovens were damaged so quickly. He replied that the damage resulting after six months was "because the strain on the furnaces was enormous." He recounted how he had told Topf's chief engineer in charge of crematoria, Fritz Sanders, about the strain on the furnaces of so many corpses waiting to be incinerated as a result of the gassing. Sanders stated that he had been told by Prufer and another Topf engineer that the "capacity of the furnaces was so great because three [gassed] corpses were incinerated [in one oven] simultaneously.»

He adds:

"Prufer said that two bodies were simultaneously incinerated in his presence" (note 122).

The reference is to the interrogations of the Topf engineers on the part of a Soviet inquiry of SMERSH between 1946 and 1948. The records were published by Gerald Fleming,7 from which Zimmerman takes his citations (notes 121 and 122).

In reality Kurt Prufer stated the very opposite of what Zimmerman attributed to him by means of a despicable manipulation.

On page 200 of the cited work, this is how Fleming summarizes part of the interrogation which K.Prufer underwent on 5 March 1946:

"Normal crematoria 8 work with prewarmed air 9 so that the corpse burns quickly and without smoke. As the crematoria in the concentration camps were constructed differently, this procedure could not be used.10 The corpses burned more slowly and created more smoke, necessitating ventilation.
Question: How many corpses were incinerated in Auschwitz per hour?
Answer: In a crematorium with five furnaces and fifteen muffles, fifteen corpses were burned." [my emphasis]

During the interrogation of 19 March, K.Prufer declared:

"I spoke about the enormous strain on the overused furnaces. I told Chief Engineer Sander: I am worried whether the furnaces can stand the excessive usage. In my presence two cadavers were pushed into one muffle instead of one cadaver. The furnaces could not stand the strain." 11 [my italics]

Recapitulating, Kurt Prufer stated that:

1. The cremations in the concentration camp ovens took place "more slowly" than in civilian ovens.

2. In Krema II and Krema III of Birkenau (5 three-muffle ovens) it was possible to cremate 15 cadavers in one hour, that is, the duration of a single cremation was one hour.

3. The attempt to simultaneously cremate two cadavers failed because "the furnaces could not stand the strain."

These three statements alone constitute a radical refutation of Zimmerman's thermotechnical fantasies.

I summarize and conclude that:

a. in order to prove the thesis of "multiple" cremations, Zimmerman quotes a second-hand declaration of Prufer and omits the primary declaration of Prufer himself;

b. for the same motive, Zimmerman quotes Prufer's statement in which he "said that two bodies were simultaneously incinerated in his presence," but omits the statement which follows: "The furnaces could not stand the strain."

These surgical omissions are unequivocal proof of Zimmerman's complete and deliberate deceptiveness.



Here's my translation of the excerpts sent to me by Mattogno:

pub86.ezboard.com... ... =177.topic

I was telling Sander that I attended testing of ovens in crematorium in concentration camp Auschwitz, that I came to conclusion that crematoriums could not cope with such a number of corpses, which were there to be burned, because the ovens of the crematoriums are of low capacity. At that, gave an example to Sander, that when I were in Auschwitz, in my presence two-three corpses were being pushed into crematoria muffles instead of one, and even then crematorium's ovens did not cope with that load, because there were too many corpses to burn. At the same time I said to Sander that the corpses seen by me were killed in gas chambers earlier.



Ans some comments:

There are certain subtle nuances in Russian interrogation protocol, that might or might not have existed in Pruefer's original statements, so we must be cautious about them. These nuances, however, do not support "revisionist" interpretation of the document.

1) "...two-three corpses were being pushed into crematoria muffles instead of one..."

It is not clear from this phrase whether Pruefer is talking about continuous shoving of the corpses into muffles, or about the multiple instances of such at one time (2-3 corpses in the first muffle, 2-3 corpses in the second muffle, etc.).

2) "...and even then..." [Russian "i to"]

I'd say that it implies that Pruefer thought of multiple cremations as more efficient than single cremations.

"- And "even then", even when 2-3 corpses were pushed into one muffle, ovens couldn't cope with the load. So if they would push just one corpse into one muffle, they would certainly get nowhere".

3) "...ovens did not cope with that load..."

Sometimes wrongly translated as "ovens couldn't stand the strain", which might even imply physical damage. It's clear from the text that Pruefer talks about the difficulty of burning the overall number of corpses, not about the supposed damage done to the ovens by 2-3 corpses in an oven. This intepretation is supported by the following two phrases:

a) "...I came to conclusion that crematoriums could not cope with such a number of corpses, which were there to be burned, because the ovens of the crematoriums are of low capacity..."

Here Pruefer explains what is that "load" the ovens could not cope with, and why.

b) "...and even then crematorium's ovens did not cope with that load, because there were too many corpses to burn..."

Here Pruefer explains again why ovens did not cope with the load.

Thus, Pruefer did not say that multiple cremations failed.



The finishing touch is the letter to me from Mattogno, in which he said:

As far as I knew the Russian language, I understand that the passage you point out is ambiguous. However it is important to consider that both Pr?fer and Sander stated that the crematory ovens in Birkenau could incinerate one corpse per muffle per hour. (emphasis mine)

So I'm not sure how things stand as far as quote mining goes. This seems to be a clear example of quote mining by Mattogno in order to support his view. What I find expecially telling is the last paragraph, taken from Romanov's correspendence with Mattogno.

Do you notice the total contradiction? He basically admits to the ambiguity yet he scolds Zimmerman to be a deliberate liar. IMHO, the quoted part above does clearly show that it is bogus to cite these Smersh interrogation transcripts in support of the "1 per oven or bust" argument.

From my reading; and this won't surprise you, Zimmerman's interpretation of those transcripts seems way more honest. At least Zimmerman notes the amiguity. But overall I would say it is pretty obvious that Prüfer was talking about the inability of the whole machinery to dispose of "such a number of corpses" and did not say that you could only put one corspe into the oven at a time or it would bust.

I say this part supports the "official/traditional" view (as you call it), but it probably is to ambigious to be a "smoking gun". This should count for the revisionist side too, especially when Mattogno admits to the ambiguity.

Well, the relevant parts are all quoted above. Anyone can form his own opinon.




[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

I'm late getting into this debate but people seem to not see the bigger picture.

1. Every Jewish business and property was taken from them not only in Germany but occupied areas as well.

2. Every Jew that could be found was put in horrendous camps that slowly starved them and created cesspools of sickness.

These two events alone is a holocaust in my book.

When you add systematic genocide to it all we have people here who want to argue about whether the number was somewhere between 1 and 6 million when none of you can really comprehend just what this really means when we are dealing with millions.

Let’s take just YOU and put you in a scenario where you own a bakery and the Nazis come by and take your business and house. They then send you and your family to different camps to never see each other again, and you spend a few years watching people die around you daily as you fight to survive as you slowing starve and freeze to death. You then start to see ash in the air that you know is human flesh as this program continues to the final solution, but by the grace of god you do survive and find yourself with no family, house, money, job, sanity and a short life expectancy due to the harsh nature you just lived through AND people want to suggest the holocaust was not that bad because just maybe 6 million were not gassed…geez

reply to post by neformore


For your consideration:
The Jews usually say things like "the actual numbers do not matter" and "of course we recognize that others besides Jews were killed in the camps"
Yet..........
If the numbers do not matter why have various Jewish groups helped push through laws all over Europe demanding fines for those who question the numbers and prison for those who refuse to stop questioning these numbers that do not matter?
If you acknowledge many different groups of people were killed in the holocaust then why are those attempting to argue some of the 'facts' assumed to be anti-semitic but never anti-gypsy or anti-Polish etc?
Why do some people get upset when the term 'holocaust' is associated with any other genocide beside the Jews? What is wrong with the term 'Armenian holocaust'?
Considering all the genocidal holocausts that have taken place in the world even in modern times, why does 'holocausts studies' in schools always refer to a 'Jewish holocaust'?
Can we stop pretending that the Jews are not attempting to claim some special status as victims because they were part of one of many attempted genocides? Get over yourselves guys. There have been many people hunted down and exterminated simply for their race or beliefs. Welcome to the club
I read recently that they are claiming there are still a million Jewish concentration camp survivors alive. How many of the original New Zealanders are still alive? Are they not more deserving of sympathy when the subject of genocide comes up. They escaped total extinction by how many? Yet no one is suggesting prison for any who deny that genocide took place. No laws have been passed against questioning the Armenian holocaust. Do you begin to see the difference?
Is it a hate for Jews that is behind the questioning of the holocaust or a hate of the attempt at thought control and laws barring the asking of questions? An instinctive back-lash against government mandated belief systems?
Can you get past your automatic whine 'you hate Jews, you are anti-semitic' long enough to admit their may be other possible motives for questioning the Jewish version of this history? Perhaps, even, a simple desire to know the truth?

3 arguments for open pit burning:

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com...

(...Nichirasu)

However, while reading through Franciszek Piper's Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz, I came across the following citation on p.77, taken by Piper from reports of the Polish Delegatura, i.e. the shadow government under Nazi occupation:

"Der Massenmord an den Juden geht weiter - vor allem Frauen .... Waehrend der Vergasung von 30 000 Juden aus dem Dabrowa-Gebiet kamen die Krematorien nicht mit dem Verbrennen der Leichen nach, so dass sie auf Scheiterhaufen verbrannt wurden, und die Kinder wurden lebendig ins Feuer geworfen"


Translation:

The mass murder of the Jews continues - women above all. During the gassing of 30,000 Jews from the Dabrowa region, the crematoria could not keep up with the burning of the bodies, so that they were burned on pyres and the children were thrown alive into the fire.


Piper cites the 1968 Polish publication Oboz koncentracyjny Oswiecim w swietle akt Delegatury, p.142, so there is no case to argue that this citation has been dredged up to counter 'revisionist' contentions. It is, in fact, 38 years old in its published form.

(...Nichirasu)

Ah, you might say, but the underground report is hearsay. Yet we also have Hoess's own testimony, which I quote again:

"Number IV [Kr 5] had to be repeatedly shut down, since after its fires had been burning for from four to six weeks, the ovens or the chimneys burnt out. The gassed bodies were mostly burnt in pits behind crematorium IV [Kr V]”


In his magnum opus, Pressac reinterpreted this as a reference to the resumption of open-air cremation during the Hungarian Action; in fact, it should now be read as also referring to the earlier, August 1943 stop-gap use of the open-air pits. Both common sense as well as the underground report corroborate this interpretation.

(...Nichirasu)

www.holocaust-history.org...

It was at this time that a series of Allied aerial reconnaissance missions flew over the camp to photograph the I.G. Farben industrial works at the Buna (Auschwitz III) complex. Starting in April 1944 and ending in January 1945, these images inadvertently contained the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination complex during the final phases of the camp, including the extermination of the Hungarian Jews 6. In their 1979 publication entitled The Holocaust Revisited: A Retrospective Analysis of the Auschwitz -Birkenau Extermination ComplexDino Brugioni and Robert Poirier analyzed and presented highly magnified images from this footage 7. These photos exposed much of the daily life at Auschwitz-Birkenau: columns of prisoners marching in the camp, recent arrivals being led to the gas chambers, and the eventual demolition and evacuation of the camp in early 1945. One photo taken on June 26,1944 shows several pits just northwest of Krema V, precisely where eyewitness accounts claim bodies were burned

# Stanley II, Roy M. World War II Photo Intelligence. New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, " " 1981 p 346.

# Brugioni, Dino A. and Poirier, Robert G. The Holocaust Revisited: A Retrospective Analysis of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Extermination Center. Washington D.C.: Central Intelligence Agency, " " 1979. Document Number NTISUB E 280 002.

# Mueller, Filip. Eyewitness Auschwitz. New York : Stein and Day, " " 1979. pp 136-139

# Hoess, Rudolph. Quoted in Nazism: A History in Documents and Eyewitness Accounts, 1919-1945. ed. by J. Noakes and G. Pridham. New York: Shocken Books, " " 1988. p 1181

The article mentioned in the above link (including the high res photos)

Several indications of extermination activities can be identified in the camp. Smoke can be seen near the camp's main filtration facility. While this is to be expected near the camp crematoria, where bodies had to be burned in open pits during the hectic days of the Hungarian Jewish influx, it is a surprise to see it here. There are a number of ground traces near Gas Chambers and Crematoria IV and V which could also be connected with extermination activities.

www.globalsecurity.org...

The reports seem rather consistent. I'm aware that there is debate about when exactly open-pit-burning was used. I'll have to read more but it seems to be more or less documented for all the years between 1942 to 44. The smoke from the open field in the pics would temporally coincide with the action against the Hungarian jews at Auschwitz.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by ken10


Check your sources. The revision did not drop the number to 1.5 million jews, it dropped the number to 1.5 million TOTAL deaths so you should also subtract the number of all non-Jewish people who died at that camp.

Originally posted by Puck 22
reply to post by neformore

 

If the numbers do not matter why have various Jewish groups helped push through laws all over Europe demanding fines for those who question the numbers and prison for those who refuse to stop questioning these numbers that do not matter?

Can you point me to any law that says that 6,000,000 people died? If not why do you keep repeating that?

Can you name one person prosecuted and convicted for arguing about simple numbers?

These laws are against blanket denial. If you do not agree with this statement, why don't you prove your point?

You act as if the number was prescribed in the law when it is clearly not. No one has ever been indicted for simply "debating the numbers". We are doing it now. I don't see any cops, do you?
By your logic half of the historians I cited in this thread would be convicted fellons. None of them wrote 6,000,000 in their books. Why aren't they in jail if you're telling the truth?

Why no evidence?

One of the most interesting questions that has been alluded to in this thread is the absence of a clear picture. Is this simply due that the whole story was made up?
Or is it possible that there are other reasons why there is "only so much" evidence?

From the handling of the Wannsee conforence notes, we can learn that the Nazis were extremely cautios whenever they wrote down things concerning the Holocaust. In fact, members were allowed to make notes but were not allowed to take them home. Instead, official minutes were distributed to all members. The minutes had "top secret" status. Of all the copies, I think there were 16, only 1 copy survived the war. The rest was smart enough (or just simply still alive) to destroy them.

That's just one examples of many.

Another good insight into the effort put into the secretiveness of the Nazis concerning the Holocaust is "Sonderaktion 1005".

Of course deniers (including Mattogno) will tell you that this is simply an "invention of Soviet propaganda". But this claim can be demonstrated to be false, as has been done here:

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com...

For a detailed discussion of Sonderaktion 1005 see:

Shmuel Spector's article "Aktion 1005 - Effacing The Murder of Millions" (Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 1990, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 157-173)

a pdf version of which can be found here:
www.rodoh.us...

Wiki article on 1005:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Sonderaktion 1005, also called Aktion 1005, or Enterdungsaktion (English: Exhumation action) was conducted during World War II to hide any evidence that millions of people had been murdered by Nazi Germany in Aktion Reinhard in occupied Poland.

As the war progressed, it was later used to conceal the evidence of massacres committed by SS-Einsatzgruppen Nazi death squads that murdered hundreds of thousands of Jews, Roma and Russian civilians in Eastern Europe.

What were the Nazis so worried about? If Typhus was all that there was to the whole story of Auschwitz and the camps, why Sonderaktion 1005?



[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by Xtrozero

I'm late getting into this debate but people seem to not see the bigger picture.

1. Every Jewish business and property was taken from them not only in Germany but occupied areas as well.

2. Every Jew that could be found was put in horrendous camps that slowly starved them and created cesspools of sickness.

But what if the bigger picture was the original intention to send all these jews to Palestine to create the Zionist state that is Israel.

I don't think any jews who had successful businesses would have voluntarily packed up to start afresh in a Desert........And i don't think a state could be justified for just a few.

Just more things to consider.