World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Monstrous » Wed Jul 13, 2016 8:10 pm


User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4475
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Jeff_36 » Wed Jul 13, 2016 8:28 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:But you are really missing the point. The Luther memo really disproves nothing. It is true that the German policy was generally (in their eyes) focused on deporting the Jews to the east to work as slave laborers. What is not mentioned in the memo (but is mentioned in many other German documents) is that a feature of this policy is the murder of non working Jews. We know this.

Really? The Germans considered the mass murder of the non-workers to be a detail so small that it was not worth mentioning in a document on the general German policy on Jews?


In the memo, Luther makes no mention at all of the fate of the Jews deported to their destinations. His silence is absolutely deafening. We have many other official documents, like the Brack letter and some minutes from the GG administration that fill in the blanks more than aptly. There is also no evidence whatsoever of any German policy of resettling Jews anywhere in the east.

Monstrous has looked at this again.

"The deportation to the Government General is a provisionary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given."

This is completely incompatible with the Holocaustianity version!


And that explanation is incompatible with reality. Do you propose that the Jews were just parked in the GG? where were they gathered then? and why is this supposed massive influx of Jews into the GG not mentioned in official population statistics from that period?

On the contrary, we have records showing a massive influx of Jews on one way transports to the AR camps, followed by reports of mass killings there, followed thereafter by the disappearance of the Jews sent there. Add it up

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4475
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Jeff_36 » Wed Jul 13, 2016 8:33 pm

The Koherr report stated that the Jews listed as "specially treated in the camps of the GG and Warthgau" (later changed to "sifted though the camps of the GG and Warthgau") were recorded as "Not in Ghettos or concentration camps". Where were they? In hotels? in the parking lots of Schwarma restaurants?

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1176
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Wed Jul 13, 2016 9:31 pm

Denying-History wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:But you are really missing the point. The Luther memo really disproves nothing. It is true that the German policy was generally (in their eyes) focused on deporting the Jews to the east to work as slave laborers. What is not mentioned in the memo (but is mentioned in many other German documents) is that a feature of this policy is the murder of non working Jews. We know this.

Really? The Germans considered the mass murder of the non-workers to be a detail so small that it was not worth mentioning in a document on the general German policy on Jews?


In the memo, Luther makes no mention at all of the fate of the Jews deported to their destinations. His silence is absolutely deafening. We have many other official documents, like the Brack letter and some minutes from the GG administration that fill in the blanks more than aptly. There is also no evidence whatsoever of any German policy of resettling Jews anywhere in the east.

Monstrous has looked at this again.

"The deportation to the Government General is a provisionary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given."

This is completely incompatible with the Holocaustianity version!


Monstrous has proven selective in his sources. He would again need to give us a [sic] or proven unmodified quote, and also link to his resource of where he got this quote. This source should also exclude his own brain (metapedia). We have plenty of documents which are supposed to mean "resettlement" in his own words. The most important being the Hofle telegram and Korherr Report. Sadly enough for Monstrous there are no documents which speak of people leaving these camps, and the few survivors the deniers can argue were not killed were only transfers. They would enter these camps in the thousands and would leave in the hundreds. They also were not sent east, as they were generally sent south to areas like Lublin and Majdanek, especially the transfers mentioned by Eric Hunt. Monstrous should show evidence with a cited source.

Now Monstrous, since you generally have a tendency to lie or use awful sources were exactly did you get this quote?

The bold and italicized text should read "they would enter these camps in the hundreds of thousands and would leave in the hundreds" But even the way you wrote it begs the question: where did all those bodies go?

You're basing your entire argument on a misreading of a select few documents and the testimony of hundreds, maybe even thousands, of eyewitness accounts. By relying so heavily on eyewitness accounts, you completely ignore what we know about eye witnesses. They get it wrong, all the time. What we perceive is not always what we know. It is also what we expect, what we want, or what we imagine. If a person WANTS to see a gas chamber, and they see a nondescript shower room, then their brain will tell them they have seen a gas chamber.

This is why physical evidence is important. When the physical evidence doesn't support the eyewitness accounts of hundreds of thousands of bodies being buried at one time at these camps (which it doesn't), the eyewitnesses lose.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 875
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby nickterry » Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:25 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:But you are really missing the point. The Luther memo really disproves nothing. It is true that the German policy was generally (in their eyes) focused on deporting the Jews to the east to work as slave laborers. What is not mentioned in the memo (but is mentioned in many other German documents) is that a feature of this policy is the murder of non working Jews. We know this.

Really? The Germans considered the mass murder of the non-workers to be a detail so small that it was not worth mentioning in a document on the general German policy on Jews?


In the memo, Luther makes no mention at all of the fate of the Jews deported to their destinations. His silence is absolutely deafening. We have many other official documents, like the Brack letter and some minutes from the GG administration that fill in the blanks more than aptly. There is also no evidence whatsoever of any German policy of resettling Jews anywhere in the east.

Monstrous has looked at this again.

"The deportation to the Government General is a provisionary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given."

This is completely incompatible with the Holocaustianity version!


The quoted passage is on p.18 of the memorandum and concerns the live issue of the impending deportation of Jews from core Romania. But Luther had received a report from the embassy in Bucharest (Eichmann trial document T/1023, stamped all over with Foreign Office document numbering) just two days before he wrote the memo of 21.8.1942 (Eichmann trial document T/196, similarly stamped all over with Foreign Office document numbering) in which he was told that:

Es ist vorgesehen, die Juden aus Rumaenien, beginnend etwa mit dem 10.9.42, in laufenden Transporten nach dem Distrikt Lublin zu verbringen, wo der arbeitsfaehige Teil arbeitseinsatzmaessig angesetzt wird, der Rest der Sonderbehandlung unterzogen werden soll.


This was what the embassy in Bucharest had been informed by Eichmann - a clear statement that the deported Jews would be separated into two groups on the basis of fitness for work. Yet Luther interpreted this as:

Der Abtransport nach dem Generalgouvernement ist eine vorlaeufige Massnahme. Die Juden werden nach den besetzten Ostgebieten weiterbefoerdert, sobald die technischen Voraussetzungen dazu gegeben sind.


Nothing in here about a separation into fit for work and unfit for work, instead we have a blurring and fudging, in a memo written by someone who was not calling the shots.

A month later, on 26-28 September 1942, German and Romanian railway officials met to plan the transports (Eichmann Trial document T/37-313 and T/1284). The trains from Romania would go via Cernauti-Czernowitz across the border of the Generalgouvernement at Sniatyn in eastern Galicia and the destination station was Belzec. The same conference planned out 5 daily trains to deport Polish Jews from four districts of the Generalgouvernemt to Belzec and Treblinka, while from 1 November 1942, after the completion of engineering works, 3 trains a day would go from two districts to Sobibor. Not a word was mentioned about onward transports from Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka to the occupied eastern territories.

Antonescu and the Romanian leadership then decided not to hand over Romanian Jews to the Nazis, so all of this was simply planning.

That means Luther's weasel words here:

Der Abtransport nach dem Generalgouvernement ist eine vorlaeufige Massnahme. Die Juden werden nach den besetzten Ostgebieten weiterbefoerdert, sobald die technischen Voraussetzungen dazu gegeben sind.


never happened, because they applied exclusively to the Romanian Jews.

Earlier in the memo, Luther waffled his way around the other deportations as follows:

p.8 the Slovaks were asked for 20,000 young and strong Jews for deportation 'nach dem Osten' in order to meet labour requirements.
Reality: the first transports were sent to Auschwitz, Majdanek and the Lublin district and were indeed put to work. The 'Osten' here meant Silesia not the Donbas.
p.9 then the remaining Slovak Jews were to be deported 'nach dem Osten' in order to make Slovakia Jew-free
Reality: all further transports went to Auschwitz or the Lublin district, some directly to Sobibor. There are literally zero sources from beyond the Bug river about Slovak Jews turning up.

pp.10-12 Luther manages to discuss the negotiations with Croatia about the deportation of its Jews without saying a single word about where they went

p.12 Luther discusses the deportation of Jews from France in the context of Italian interventions in the Croatian case, and again fails to say a single word about where French Jews were deported to

pp.13-15 Luther discusses the Bulgarian case and takes 3 pages to use the same vague formula, 'nach dem Osten', which he forgot to mention in the Croatian and French cases.

p.16 Luther discusses Hungary who won't join in.

pp.16-17 Luther begins discussing Romania and notes that the Romanian government had given their assent for the Nazis to deport Romanian citizens of Jewish origin from Germany and 'the occupied territories', which is precisely what happened in France in the following weeks. But Luther again fails to explain to where Jews of Romanian origin were deported if they were deported from Germany or the occupied territories.

The Netherlands and Belgium aren't even mentioned.

Not a word in the memo about the Jews of Poland, whether in the Government-General or the 'incorporated territories'; neither required the assistance of the Foreign Office who had no jurisdiction or say-so in these essentially annexed territories.

Ergo, the Luther memo doesn't support any claims that Dutch, Belgian or French Jews were deported beyond Auschwitz - no destinations are mentioned for the transports from these countries. Nor does it cover Croatia.

The Slovakian case is pegged as 'the east', without saying anything further about where in 'the east' the trains were going to. All the other documents say Auschwitz, Majdanek or the Lublin district, no further east than that.

The only suggestion in the Luther memo of 'onward transport' concerns the Romanian Jews, and that was a plan that ended up never being carried out. Plus it is contradicted by two other documents regarding the plans for Romanian Jews.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Denying-History » Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:52 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:But you are really missing the point. The Luther memo really disproves nothing. It is true that the German policy was generally (in their eyes) focused on deporting the Jews to the east to work as slave laborers. What is not mentioned in the memo (but is mentioned in many other German documents) is that a feature of this policy is the murder of non working Jews. We know this.

Really? The Germans considered the mass murder of the non-workers to be a detail so small that it was not worth mentioning in a document on the general German policy on Jews?


In the memo, Luther makes no mention at all of the fate of the Jews deported to their destinations. His silence is absolutely deafening. We have many other official documents, like the Brack letter and some minutes from the GG administration that fill in the blanks more than aptly. There is also no evidence whatsoever of any German policy of resettling Jews anywhere in the east.

Monstrous has looked at this again.

"The deportation to the Government General is a provisionary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given."

This is completely incompatible with the Holocaustianity version!


Monstrous has proven selective in his sources. He would again need to give us a [sic] or proven unmodified quote, and also link to his resource of where he got this quote. This source should also exclude his own brain (metapedia). We have plenty of documents which are supposed to mean "resettlement" in his own words. The most important being the Hofle telegram and Korherr Report. Sadly enough for Monstrous there are no documents which speak of people leaving these camps, and the few survivors the deniers can argue were not killed were only transfers. They would enter these camps in the thousands and would leave in the hundreds. They also were not sent east, as they were generally sent south to areas like Lublin and Majdanek, especially the transfers mentioned by Eric Hunt. Monstrous should show evidence with a cited source.

Now Monstrous, since you generally have a tendency to lie or use awful sources were exactly did you get this quote?

The bold and italicized text should read "they would enter these camps in the hundreds of thousands and would leave in the hundreds" But even the way you wrote it begs the question: where did all those bodies go?

You're basing your entire argument on a misreading of a select few documents and the testimony of hundreds, maybe even thousands, of eyewitness accounts. By relying so heavily on eyewitness accounts, you completely ignore what we know about eye witnesses. They get it wrong, all the time. What we perceive is not always what we know. It is also what we expect, what we want, or what we imagine. If a person WANTS to see a gas chamber, and they see a nondescript shower room, then their brain will tell them they have seen a gas chamber.

This is why physical evidence is important. When the physical evidence doesn't support the eyewitness accounts of hundreds of thousands of bodies being buried at one time at these camps (which it doesn't), the eyewitnesses lose.


So far Mary, monstrous hasn't relied off any documents or sources for Belzac, Sobibor, or Treblinka.. He just links the Nazi version of Wikipedia. If you watch the video linked then again you will see I have requested these "hundreds of thousands" of testimonials. Well Mary? Where are the Jews that says they went to Siberia?

Also as for physical evidence, just visit the site. You can find bones quite easily on these sites.

Sobibor
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n5Du2wULidU

Belzec
Image

(Name not provided but its from AR)
Image

1960's dig at treblinka.
Image

As well, perhaps we should also quote Colls who clearly said.

Caroline Sturdy Colls: The effect of burying something in the ground can either boost plant growth or it can limit it, and we’re seeing a lot on this particular site that there are areas where very little grows at all, and the kind of plants that do grow don’t have any roots, they just sit on the surface, so we can tell straight away just by looking that there’s going to be something buried under that, it’s a fact, the actual vegetation …

JC: So that means there’s something under here which preventing vegetation being rooted?

CSC: Essentially, yes, and also if you imagine that what the Germans were doing was mixing the ashes of the victims with the very sandy geology in this area and then putting it back into the earlier graves, then obviously that kind of combination of burned soil, burned sand, ashes, all together, is not a very nice environment for plants to grow, and nothing has reestablished itself since the war.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/01/thomas-kues-on-recent-archaeological.html

According to our witnesses as well the bones at these sites were cremated on Dresden style grills.

1) How were theses grill created.

2) How many bodies were placed on these grills.

3) What is the claimed cremation Time.

So to answer the very first point we have the following testimony from the first Treblinka trial.

SS Oberscharführer Heinrich Matthes

"The cremation took place in such a way that railway lines and concrete blocks were placed together. The corpses were piled on these rails. Brushwood was put under the rails. The wood was doused with petrol. In that way not only the newly accumulated corpses were cremated, but also those taken out from the graves".


So we now we should make a guess of how many corpse could be cremated every day. According to a witness from Dresden their grills were able to hold 400 to 500 bodies.

"On top of the grill were heaped the corpses, four or five hundred at a time, with more straw between each layer".

(Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden by David Irving pp. 234, 235.)

Cremation time, according to SS-man Heinrich Gley a worker at Belzec.

"The gassings, as far as I remember, were stopped at the end of 1942, when there was already snow on the ground. Then began the general exhumation and burning of the corpses; it should have lasted from November 1942 until March 1943. The burnings were carried out day and night without interruption, first at one and then at two fireplaces. One fireplace allowed for burning about 2,000 corpses within 24 hours. About two weeks after the beginning of the burning action the second fireplace was erected. Thus on average there were burned about 300,000 bodies at the one fireplace over a period of 5 months and 240,000 bodies at the other fireplace over a period of 4 months."

So one grill would burn 2,000 bodies. So I will take the max number given from Dresden, which is 500, which would mean ever 1/4 of a day 500 bodies would be cremated. So 6 hours to cremate 500 bodies.

I think that you should be able to do the math from here.

6 hours for each grill = 500 bodies And the cremation process operated form March 1943 to October 1943.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCEOmjhuop0


Treblinka's cremation operation went from March 1943 to October 1943. That is between 214 days to 244 days

Belzec started in Autumn 1942 to the end of June 1943. 303 days to 333 days

Sobibor started in Autumn 1942 to the 17th October 1943. 411 days

(Polish Autumn starts in September, this is why I used the 1st of that month)

We will just assume that all these sites used 2 grills. This would make a daily cremation rate of 4,000 bodies every day.

Treblinka is said to have killed between 700,000 to 900,000 people.

4,000 X 214 = 856,000 Bodies cremated.

4,000 X 244 = 976,000 Bodies cremated.

At Belzec 434,508 were murdered.

4,000 X 303 = 1,212,000

(Shouldn't have to do the next calculation)

At Sobibor 170,165 people were killed, based off the estimates of Jules Schelvis and the Hofle telegram.

4,000 X 411 = 1,644,000

I know better then to claim that every body was cremated... but the math is rather revealing.
« Oral history is a complex field. After all, memory can be a distorting mirror, as anyone who has ever worked with memoir literature knows very well...They may be imperfect, and, at times, inaccurate as the narrator tries to cast himself in the most favorable light, but all sources are imperfect. Even an archival document reflects how the person who drafted it understood something and remains something less than the unvarnished truth. »
- James Mace

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 875
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby nickterry » Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:53 pm

Hadding Scott's blog post cites Butz in a footnote querying whether Heydrich wrote to Ribbentrop on 24 June 1940

. According to Professor Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, "In section 4 the date of June 24, 1940, for document Pol XII 136 appears, from the context, to be in error; it should be 1941." In the context of Luther's memorandum "emigration" (to Madagascar) and "territorial solution" are presented as antitheses. In section 2 of Luther's memorandum we read that Heydrich submitted the Madagascar Plan "directly to the Reich Foreign Minister in August 1940...." If the date "June 24, 1940" is accepted, it produces the unlikely result that Heydrich submitted the Madagascar Plan after he had proposed that a "territorial solution" would be better. To have Heydrich propose the "territorial solution" immediately after the commencement of Barbarossa, when the prospective of an alternative to Madagascar had just become apparent, makes much more sense.


This is rather amusing, since the document in question is T/173 in the Eichmann trial docs, as usual containing obvious Foreign Office document registration stamping and numbering, and is very clearly dated 24 June 1940, which is when RSHA-Foreign Office joint discussions about the Madagascar plan began. The document is also reproduced in Rolf Vogel, Ein Stempel hat gefehlt (1977), pp.312-3 and is discussed by Magnus Brechtken in 'Madagaskar fuer die Juden' on p.233, citing from file PA AA Inland IIg 177.

The revisionist author Carlo Mattogno cites this document in Treblinka, p.180, note 510, without noting that Butz had tried to cast doubt on the date.

Ergo Butz never bothered to check this out further and did not realise that the entire paper trail refuted his stupid speculation, even though his book shows he knew the Eichmann trial, where the document was first discussed.

And later revisionists silently abandoned the claim.

Yet Hadding Scott thought this drivel was worth repeating in a blog post written five years after Mattogno and Graf's Treblinka was published in English, and seven years after it appeared in German.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Denying-History » Thu Jul 14, 2016 12:25 am

Wanted to make some corrections on my math

Treblinka's cremation operation went from March 1943 to October 1943. That is between 214 days to 244 days

Belzec went "November 1942 until March 1943" 120 days

Sobibor started in Autumn 1942 to the 17th October 1943. 411 days

(Polish Autumn starts in September, this is why I used the 1st of that month)

We will just assume that all these sites used 2 grills. This would make a daily cremation rate of 4,000 bodies every day.

Treblinka is said to have killed between 700,000 to 900,000 people.

4,000 X 214 = 856,000 Bodies cremated.

4,000 X 244 = 976,000 Bodies cremated.

At Belzec 434,508 were murdered.

4000 X 130 = 480,000

At Sobibor 170,165 people were killed, based off the estimates of Jules Schelvis and the Hofle telegram.

4,000 X 411 = 1,644,000


(Still looking for the dates for Sobibor.
« Oral history is a complex field. After all, memory can be a distorting mirror, as anyone who has ever worked with memoir literature knows very well...They may be imperfect, and, at times, inaccurate as the narrator tries to cast himself in the most favorable light, but all sources are imperfect. Even an archival document reflects how the person who drafted it understood something and remains something less than the unvarnished truth. »
- James Mace

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1176
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Thu Jul 14, 2016 2:09 pm

Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:But you are really missing the point. The Luther memo really disproves nothing. It is true that the German policy was generally (in their eyes) focused on deporting the Jews to the east to work as slave laborers. What is not mentioned in the memo (but is mentioned in many other German documents) is that a feature of this policy is the murder of non working Jews. We know this.

Really? The Germans considered the mass murder of the non-workers to be a detail so small that it was not worth mentioning in a document on the general German policy on Jews?


In the memo, Luther makes no mention at all of the fate of the Jews deported to their destinations. His silence is absolutely deafening. We have many other official documents, like the Brack letter and some minutes from the GG administration that fill in the blanks more than aptly. There is also no evidence whatsoever of any German policy of resettling Jews anywhere in the east.

Monstrous has looked at this again.

"The deportation to the Government General is a provisionary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given."

This is completely incompatible with the Holocaustianity version!


Monstrous has proven selective in his sources. He would again need to give us a [sic] or proven unmodified quote, and also link to his resource of where he got this quote. This source should also exclude his own brain (metapedia). We have plenty of documents which are supposed to mean "resettlement" in his own words. The most important being the Hofle telegram and Korherr Report. Sadly enough for Monstrous there are no documents which speak of people leaving these camps, and the few survivors the deniers can argue were not killed were only transfers. They would enter these camps in the thousands and would leave in the hundreds. They also were not sent east, as they were generally sent south to areas like Lublin and Majdanek, especially the transfers mentioned by Eric Hunt. Monstrous should show evidence with a cited source.

Now Monstrous, since you generally have a tendency to lie or use awful sources were exactly did you get this quote?

The bold and italicized text should read "they would enter these camps in the hundreds of thousands and would leave in the hundreds" But even the way you wrote it begs the question: where did all those bodies go?

You're basing your entire argument on a misreading of a select few documents and the testimony of hundreds, maybe even thousands, of eyewitness accounts. By relying so heavily on eyewitness accounts, you completely ignore what we know about eye witnesses. They get it wrong, all the time. What we perceive is not always what we know. It is also what we expect, what we want, or what we imagine. If a person WANTS to see a gas chamber, and they see a nondescript shower room, then their brain will tell them they have seen a gas chamber.

This is why physical evidence is important. When the physical evidence doesn't support the eyewitness accounts of hundreds of thousands of bodies being buried at one time at these camps (which it doesn't), the eyewitnesses lose.


So far Mary, monstrous hasn't relied off any documents or sources for Belzac, Sobibor, or Treblinka.. He just links the Nazi version of Wikipedia. If you watch the video linked then again you will see I have requested these "hundreds of thousands" of testimonials. Well Mary? Where are the Jews that says they went to Siberia?

Also as for physical evidence, just visit the site. You can find bones quite easily on these sites.

Sobibor
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n5Du2wULidU

Belzec
Image

(Name not provided but its from AR)
Image

1960's dig at treblinka.
Image

Yeah right, we can't do any archeological investigations at these sites without special permission from the chief rabbi of poland because halachic rules prevent disturbing the buried remains of Jews but nobody has a problem with tourists walking all over the bones of Jews that are scattered all over the surface. If you believe that I have a gas chamber in Auschwitz I'd like to sell ya.

As well, perhaps we should also quote Colls who clearly said.

Caroline Sturdy Colls: The effect of burying something in the ground can either boost plant growth or it can limit it, and we’re seeing a lot on this particular site that there are areas where very little grows at all, and the kind of plants that do grow don’t have any roots, they just sit on the surface, so we can tell straight away just by looking that there’s going to be something buried under that, it’s a fact, the actual vegetation …

JC: So that means there’s something under here which preventing vegetation being rooted?

CSC: Essentially, yes, and also if you imagine that what the Germans were doing was mixing the ashes of the victims with the very sandy geology in this area and then putting it back into the earlier graves, then obviously that kind of combination of burned soil, burned sand, ashes, all together, is not a very nice environment for plants to grow, and nothing has reestablished itself since the war.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/01/thomas-kues-on-recent-archaeological.html

Yeah right, if nothing has reestablished itself since the war, how did the Nazis cover up the evidence of mass graves by planting all those trees?

According to our witnesses as well the bones at these sites were cremated on Dresden style grills.

1) How were theses grill created.

2) How many bodies were placed on these grills.

3) What is the claimed cremation Time.

So to answer the very first point we have the following testimony from the first Treblinka trial.

SS Oberscharführer Heinrich Matthes

"The cremation took place in such a way that railway lines and concrete blocks were placed together. The corpses were piled on these rails. Brushwood was put under the rails. The wood was doused with petrol. In that way not only the newly accumulated corpses were cremated, but also those taken out from the graves".


So we now we should make a guess of how many corpse could be cremated every day. According to a witness from Dresden their grills were able to hold 400 to 500 bodies.

"On top of the grill were heaped the corpses, four or five hundred at a time, with more straw between each layer".

(Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden by David Irving pp. 234, 235.)

Cremation time, according to SS-man Heinrich Gley a worker at Belzec.

"The gassings, as far as I remember, were stopped at the end of 1942, when there was already snow on the ground. Then began the general exhumation and burning of the corpses; it should have lasted from November 1942 until March 1943. The burnings were carried out day and night without interruption, first at one and then at two fireplaces. One fireplace allowed for burning about 2,000 corpses within 24 hours. About two weeks after the beginning of the burning action the second fireplace was erected. Thus on average there were burned about 300,000 bodies at the one fireplace over a period of 5 months and 240,000 bodies at the other fireplace over a period of 4 months."

So one grill would burn 2,000 bodies. So I will take the max number given from Dresden, which is 500, which would mean ever 1/4 of a day 500 bodies would be cremated. So 6 hours to cremate 500 bodies.

I think that you should be able to do the math from here.

6 hours for each grill = 500 bodies And the cremation process operated form March 1943 to October 1943.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCEOmjhuop0


Treblinka's cremation operation went from March 1943 to October 1943. That is between 214 days to 244 days

Belzec started in Autumn 1942 to the end of June 1943. 303 days to 333 days

Sobibor started in Autumn 1942 to the 17th October 1943. 411 days

(Polish Autumn starts in September, this is why I used the 1st of that month)

We will just assume that all these sites used 2 grills. This would make a daily cremation rate of 4,000 bodies every day.

Treblinka is said to have killed between 700,000 to 900,000 people.

4,000 X 214 = 856,000 Bodies cremated.

4,000 X 244 = 976,000 Bodies cremated.

At Belzec 434,508 were murdered.

4,000 X 303 = 1,212,000

(Shouldn't have to do the next calculation)

At Sobibor 170,165 people were killed, based off the estimates of Jules Schelvis and the Hofle telegram.

4,000 X 411 = 1,644,000

I know better then to claim that every body was cremated... but the math is rather revealing.

What would be even more revealing is showing the world some evidence of mass graves at these campsites.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4475
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Jeff_36 » Thu Jul 14, 2016 2:14 pm

Yeah right, we can't do any archeological investigations at these sites without special permission from the chief rabbi of poland because halachic rules prevent disturbing the buried remains of Jews but nobody has a problem with tourists walking all over the bones of Jews that are scattered all over the surface. If you believe that I have a gas chamber in Auschwitz I'd like to sell ya.


Clearly the difference is that these individuals were civilians acting of their own accord on an off-reservation basis, quit a different scenario from archaeologists conducting an official mission.

User avatar
NathanC
Poster
Posts: 491
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:19 am

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby NathanC » Thu Jul 14, 2016 2:30 pm

I'm glad I have Maryzilla on ignore. One of the best decisions of my life.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19616
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:10 pm

It gets tiresome having to teach an 11yo how to wipe their butt over and over again, doesn't it.
Hi, Io the lurker.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1176
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:38 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:
Yeah right, we can't do any archeological investigations at these sites without special permission from the chief rabbi of poland because halachic rules prevent disturbing the buried remains of Jews but nobody has a problem with tourists walking all over the bones of Jews that are scattered all over the surface. If you believe that I have a gas chamber in Auschwitz I'd like to sell ya.


Clearly the difference is that these individuals were civilians acting of their own accord on an off-reservation basis, quit a different scenario from archaeologists conducting an official mission.

Who are "these individuals" of whom you speak?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19616
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Jul 14, 2016 5:40 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:...halachic rules prevent disturbing the buried remains of Jews but nobody has a problem with tourists walking all over the bones of Jews that are scattered all over the surface...

Why would you complain about not being allowed to examine the buried remains when, according to you, plenty other remains are "scattered all over the surface"?
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Monstrous » Thu Jul 14, 2016 5:50 pm

nickterry wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:But you are really missing the point. The Luther memo really disproves nothing. It is true that the German policy was generally (in their eyes) focused on deporting the Jews to the east to work as slave laborers. What is not mentioned in the memo (but is mentioned in many other German documents) is that a feature of this policy is the murder of non working Jews. We know this.

Really? The Germans considered the mass murder of the non-workers to be a detail so small that it was not worth mentioning in a document on the general German policy on Jews?


In the memo, Luther makes no mention at all of the fate of the Jews deported to their destinations. His silence is absolutely deafening. We have many other official documents, like the Brack letter and some minutes from the GG administration that fill in the blanks more than aptly. There is also no evidence whatsoever of any German policy of resettling Jews anywhere in the east.

Monstrous has looked at this again.

"The deportation to the Government General is a provisionary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given."

This is completely incompatible with the Holocaustianity version!


The quoted passage is on p.18 of the memorandum and concerns the live issue of the impending deportation of Jews from core Romania.

That is a dubious interpretation. Luther is clearly here at the end of the document writing about the "deportations" in general. Not just those from Romania.

The whole last section "11" starts with "At the request of the governments concerned, the legations in Bratislava, Zagreb and Bucharest have been assigned advisors for Jewish affairs." Thus, Luther is writing about several countries and not just Romania (Bucharest).

Furthermore, the whole critical, penultimate paragraph is "The projected deportations are a further stop forward on the way of the total solution and are in respect to other countries (Hungary) very important. The deportation to the Government General6 is a provisionary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given."

It makes no sense that the deportation just from Romania would be important for influencing Hungary. Obviously Luther is arguing that the deportations in general from many countries (not just Romania) would influence Hungary to do the same.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Denying-History » Thu Jul 14, 2016 6:18 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:But you are really missing the point. The Luther memo really disproves nothing. It is true that the German policy was generally (in their eyes) focused on deporting the Jews to the east to work as slave laborers. What is not mentioned in the memo (but is mentioned in many other German documents) is that a feature of this policy is the murder of non working Jews. We know this.

Really? The Germans considered the mass murder of the non-workers to be a detail so small that it was not worth mentioning in a document on the general German policy on Jews?


In the memo, Luther makes no mention at all of the fate of the Jews deported to their destinations. His silence is absolutely deafening. We have many other official documents, like the Brack letter and some minutes from the GG administration that fill in the blanks more than aptly. There is also no evidence whatsoever of any German policy of resettling Jews anywhere in the east.

Monstrous has looked at this again.

"The deportation to the Government General is a provisionary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given."

This is completely incompatible with the Holocaustianity version!


Monstrous has proven selective in his sources. He would again need to give us a [sic] or proven unmodified quote, and also link to his resource of where he got this quote. This source should also exclude his own brain (metapedia). We have plenty of documents which are supposed to mean "resettlement" in his own words. The most important being the Hofle telegram and Korherr Report. Sadly enough for Monstrous there are no documents which speak of people leaving these camps, and the few survivors the deniers can argue were not killed were only transfers. They would enter these camps in the thousands and would leave in the hundreds. They also were not sent east, as they were generally sent south to areas like Lublin and Majdanek, especially the transfers mentioned by Eric Hunt. Monstrous should show evidence with a cited source.

Now Monstrous, since you generally have a tendency to lie or use awful sources were exactly did you get this quote?

The bold and italicized text should read "they would enter these camps in the hundreds of thousands and would leave in the hundreds" But even the way you wrote it begs the question: where did all those bodies go?

You're basing your entire argument on a misreading of a select few documents and the testimony of hundreds, maybe even thousands, of eyewitness accounts. By relying so heavily on eyewitness accounts, you completely ignore what we know about eye witnesses. They get it wrong, all the time. What we perceive is not always what we know. It is also what we expect, what we want, or what we imagine. If a person WANTS to see a gas chamber, and they see a nondescript shower room, then their brain will tell them they have seen a gas chamber.

This is why physical evidence is important. When the physical evidence doesn't support the eyewitness accounts of hundreds of thousands of bodies being buried at one time at these camps (which it doesn't), the eyewitnesses lose.


So far Mary, monstrous hasn't relied off any documents or sources for Belzac, Sobibor, or Treblinka.. He just links the Nazi version of Wikipedia. If you watch the video linked then again you will see I have requested these "hundreds of thousands" of testimonials. Well Mary? Where are the Jews that says they went to Siberia?

Also as for physical evidence, just visit the site. You can find bones quite easily on these sites.

Sobibor
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n5Du2wULidU

Belzec
Image

(Name not provided but its from AR)
Image

1960's dig at treblinka.
Image

Yeah right, we can't do any archeological investigations at these sites without special permission from the chief rabbi of poland because halachic rules prevent disturbing the buried remains of Jews but nobody has a problem with tourists walking all over the bones of Jews that are scattered all over the surface. If you believe that I have a gas chamber in Auschwitz I'd like to sell ya.


:lol: So many exhumations have been done there is no reason for you to even do one. You also haven't helped monstrous in anyway so your entire argument here is a joke. Just like all your evidence. A Joke. The evidence shown above is enough.

You want evidence look into Kola's investigation of Belzec, look at Wojciech Mazurekm for Sobibor, and the most recent I could link you to is Caroline Sturdy Colls for treblinka..

As well, perhaps we should also quote Colls who clearly said.

Caroline Sturdy Colls: The effect of burying something in the ground can either boost plant growth or it can limit it, and we’re seeing a lot on this particular site that there are areas where very little grows at all, and the kind of plants that do grow don’t have any roots, they just sit on the surface, so we can tell straight away just by looking that there’s going to be something buried under that, it’s a fact, the actual vegetation …

JC: So that means there’s something under here which preventing vegetation being rooted?

CSC: Essentially, yes, and also if you imagine that what the Germans were doing was mixing the ashes of the victims with the very sandy geology in this area and then putting it back into the earlier graves, then obviously that kind of combination of burned soil, burned sand, ashes, all together, is not a very nice environment for plants to grow, and nothing has reestablished itself since the war.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/01/thomas-kues-on-recent-archaeological.html

Yeah right, if nothing has reestablished itself since the war, how did the Nazis cover up the evidence of mass graves by planting all those trees?


Mary... You're and idiot. This is a photograph from the 1960's....

Image

This shows hardly any growth and according to rabbit the trees were "PLANTED".

The Lesser Rabbit:
This aerial photograph of the memorial at T2 dating from c.1970—before many of the trees now on the site were planted


According to our witnesses as well the bones at these sites were cremated on Dresden style grills.

1) How were theses grill created.

2) How many bodies were placed on these grills.

3) What is the claimed cremation Time.

So to answer the very first point we have the following testimony from the first Treblinka trial.

SS Oberscharführer Heinrich Matthes

"The cremation took place in such a way that railway lines and concrete blocks were placed together. The corpses were piled on these rails. Brushwood was put under the rails. The wood was doused with petrol. In that way not only the newly accumulated corpses were cremated, but also those taken out from the graves".


So we now we should make a guess of how many corpse could be cremated every day. According to a witness from Dresden their grills were able to hold 400 to 500 bodies.

"On top of the grill were heaped the corpses, four or five hundred at a time, with more straw between each layer".

(Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden by David Irving pp. 234, 235.)

Cremation time, according to SS-man Heinrich Gley a worker at Belzec.

"The gassings, as far as I remember, were stopped at the end of 1942, when there was already snow on the ground. Then began the general exhumation and burning of the corpses; it should have lasted from November 1942 until March 1943. The burnings were carried out day and night without interruption, first at one and then at two fireplaces. One fireplace allowed for burning about 2,000 corpses within 24 hours. About two weeks after the beginning of the burning action the second fireplace was erected. Thus on average there were burned about 300,000 bodies at the one fireplace over a period of 5 months and 240,000 bodies at the other fireplace over a period of 4 months."

So one grill would burn 2,000 bodies. So I will take the max number given from Dresden, which is 500, which would mean ever 1/4 of a day 500 bodies would be cremated. So 6 hours to cremate 500 bodies.

I think that you should be able to do the math from here.

6 hours for each grill = 500 bodies And the cremation process operated form March 1943 to October 1943.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCEOmjhuop0


Treblinka's cremation operation went from March 1943 to October 1943. That is between 214 days to 244 days

Belzec started in Autumn 1942 to the end of June 1943. 303 days to 333 days

Sobibor started in Autumn 1942 to the 17th October 1943. 411 days

(Polish Autumn starts in September, this is why I used the 1st of that month)

We will just assume that all these sites used 2 grills. This would make a daily cremation rate of 4,000 bodies every day.

Treblinka is said to have killed between 700,000 to 900,000 people.

4,000 X 214 = 856,000 Bodies cremated.

4,000 X 244 = 976,000 Bodies cremated.

At Belzec 434,508 were murdered.

4,000 X 303 = 1,212,000

(Shouldn't have to do the next calculation)

At Sobibor 170,165 people were killed, based off the estimates of Jules Schelvis and the Hofle telegram.

4,000 X 411 = 1,644,000

I know better then to claim that every body was cremated... but the math is rather revealing.

What would be even more revealing is showing the world some evidence of mass graves at these campsites.


Or could just walk along the surface and see all the evidence that's needed.
« Oral history is a complex field. After all, memory can be a distorting mirror, as anyone who has ever worked with memoir literature knows very well...They may be imperfect, and, at times, inaccurate as the narrator tries to cast himself in the most favorable light, but all sources are imperfect. Even an archival document reflects how the person who drafted it understood something and remains something less than the unvarnished truth. »
- James Mace

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1176
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Thu Jul 14, 2016 9:23 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:...halachic rules prevent disturbing the buried remains of Jews but nobody has a problem with tourists walking all over the bones of Jews that are scattered all over the surface...

Why would you complain about not being allowed to examine the buried remains when, according to you, plenty other remains are "scattered all over the surface"?

Your question shows that you have completely missed the point. Why are people bothered about the possibility of disturbing the human remains buried in a Jewish cemetery when the surface of the Jewish cemetery is littered with human remains?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19616
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Jul 14, 2016 9:45 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:...halachic rules prevent disturbing the buried remains of Jews but nobody has a problem with tourists walking all over the bones of Jews that are scattered all over the surface...

Why would you complain about not being allowed to examine the buried remains when, according to you, plenty other remains are "scattered all over the surface"?

Your question shows that you have completely missed the point. Why are people bothered about the possibility of disturbing the human remains buried in a Jewish cemetery when the surface of the Jewish cemetery is littered with human remains?

You're now talking specifically about the concrete/stone covered symbolic cemetery at Treblinka museum?

AFAIK, none of the sites have been declared official Jewish cemeteries? (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

But thanks for accepting that human remains are still to be found in large numbers on the ground(s).
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Denying-History » Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:41 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:...halachic rules prevent disturbing the buried remains of Jews but nobody has a problem with tourists walking all over the bones of Jews that are scattered all over the surface...

Why would you complain about not being allowed to examine the buried remains when, according to you, plenty other remains are "scattered all over the surface"?

Your question shows that you have completely missed the point. Why are people bothered about the possibility of disturbing the human remains buried in a Jewish cemetery when the surface of the Jewish cemetery is littered with human remains?

You're now talking specifically about the concrete/stone covered symbolic cemetery at Treblinka museum?

AFAIK, none of the sites have been declared official Jewish cemeteries? (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

But thanks for accepting that human remains are still to be found in large numbers on the ground(s).


The sites have been labeled "Polish Holy ground". I don't know if this helps or not, but it practically entitles a cemetery... And a Jewish one especially when the majority of victims were Jews.
« Oral history is a complex field. After all, memory can be a distorting mirror, as anyone who has ever worked with memoir literature knows very well...They may be imperfect, and, at times, inaccurate as the narrator tries to cast himself in the most favorable light, but all sources are imperfect. Even an archival document reflects how the person who drafted it understood something and remains something less than the unvarnished truth. »
- James Mace

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1176
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Fri Jul 15, 2016 4:02 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:...halachic rules prevent disturbing the buried remains of Jews but nobody has a problem with tourists walking all over the bones of Jews that are scattered all over the surface...

Why would you complain about not being allowed to examine the buried remains when, according to you, plenty other remains are "scattered all over the surface"?

Your question shows that you have completely missed the point. Why are people bothered about the possibility of disturbing the human remains buried in a Jewish cemetery when the surface of the Jewish cemetery is littered with human remains?

You're now talking specifically about the concrete/stone covered symbolic cemetery at Treblinka museum?

No,

AFAIK, none of the sites have been declared official Jewish cemeteries? (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

AFAIK, there isn't any one person or group of persons or organization of any sort that is universally recognized by all Jews as the final arbiter in conferring an "official" designation to Jewish cemeteries. So your question makes no sense.

But thanks for accepting that human remains are still to be found in large numbers on the ground(s).

I never said that. But thank you for acknowledging that Jewish law does not impose any restrictions on disturbing human remains.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Denying-History » Fri Jul 15, 2016 4:48 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:...halachic rules prevent disturbing the buried remains of Jews but nobody has a problem with tourists walking all over the bones of Jews that are scattered all over the surface...

Why would you complain about not being allowed to examine the buried remains when, according to you, plenty other remains are "scattered all over the surface"?

Your question shows that you have completely missed the point. Why are people bothered about the possibility of disturbing the human remains buried in a Jewish cemetery when the surface of the Jewish cemetery is littered with human remains?

You're now talking specifically about the concrete/stone covered symbolic cemetery at Treblinka museum?

No,

AFAIK, none of the sites have been declared official Jewish cemeteries? (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

AFAIK, there isn't any one person or group of persons or organization of any sort that is universally recognized by all Jews as the final arbiter in conferring an "official" designation to Jewish cemeteries. So your question makes no sense.

But thanks for accepting that human remains are still to be found in large numbers on the ground(s).

I never said that. But thank you for acknowledging that Jewish law does not impose any restrictions on disturbing human remains.


Right here we can examine Mary's attempts to revive an argument. Except she clearly said in her own post.

disturbing the human remains buried in a Jewish cemetery when the surface of the Jewish cemetery is littered with human remains


Mary here try's to say that she never said the ground was covered with human remains, when I have even shown they were on the surface. Here is one example of a large number of bone fragments from the surface.

Image
« Oral history is a complex field. After all, memory can be a distorting mirror, as anyone who has ever worked with memoir literature knows very well...They may be imperfect, and, at times, inaccurate as the narrator tries to cast himself in the most favorable light, but all sources are imperfect. Even an archival document reflects how the person who drafted it understood something and remains something less than the unvarnished truth. »
- James Mace

User avatar
Cerdic
Poster
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:55 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Cerdic » Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:27 pm

The First Korherr Report
Secret Reich Material

-The Inspector of Statistics for the Reichsfuhrer SS

These figures indicate that the Jewish population of Europe has already been reduced by 4 million. On the European continent (after Russia with c. 4 million) only Hungary (750,000, Rumania (302,000) and possibly France have large Jewish populations.

In addition to the abovementioned figures, if one takes into account the Jewish emigration, the excess mortality in the non-German countries of Middle and Western Europe and the unavoidable double-counting due to the fluctuation of the Jews, then the reduction of the Jewish population of Europe from 1937 to the beginning of 1943 could be estimated at 4 and a half million.


Have deniers created any semi-convincing answers to this passage yet? The last paragraph makes clear the 4 million figure does not include emigration.
„(...) Wenn wir irgendetwas beim Nationalsozialismus anerkennen, dann ist es die Anerkennung, daß ihm zum ersten Mal in der deutschen Politik die restlose Mobilisierung der menschlichen Dummheit gelungen ist.“ Kurt Schumacher 23. Februar 1932

Vote Your Conscience.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1176
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Fri Jul 15, 2016 4:19 pm

Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:...halachic rules prevent disturbing the buried remains of Jews but nobody has a problem with tourists walking all over the bones of Jews that are scattered all over the surface...

Why would you complain about not being allowed to examine the buried remains when, according to you, plenty other remains are "scattered all over the surface"?

Your question shows that you have completely missed the point. Why are people bothered about the possibility of disturbing the human remains buried in a Jewish cemetery when the surface of the Jewish cemetery is littered with human remains?

You're now talking specifically about the concrete/stone covered symbolic cemetery at Treblinka museum?

No,

AFAIK, none of the sites have been declared official Jewish cemeteries? (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

AFAIK, there isn't any one person or group of persons or organization of any sort that is universally recognized by all Jews as the final arbiter in conferring an "official" designation to Jewish cemeteries. So your question makes no sense.

But thanks for accepting that human remains are still to be found in large numbers on the ground(s).

I never said that. But thank you for acknowledging that Jewish law does not impose any restrictions on disturbing human remains.


Right here we can examine Mary's attempts to revive an argument. Except she clearly said in her own post.

disturbing the human remains buried in a Jewish cemetery when the surface of the Jewish cemetery is littered with human remains


Mary here try's to say that she never said the ground was covered with human remains, when I have even shown they were on the surface. Here is one example of a large number of bone fragments from the surface.

Image

So then why does Jewish law forbid disturbing the buried remains of dead Jews but has no problems with the remains of Jews being scattered all over the ground and trampled on?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Denying-History » Fri Jul 15, 2016 7:37 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:...halachic rules prevent disturbing the buried remains of Jews but nobody has a problem with tourists walking all over the bones of Jews that are scattered all over the surface...

Why would you complain about not being allowed to examine the buried remains when, according to you, plenty other remains are "scattered all over the surface"?

Your question shows that you have completely missed the point. Why are people bothered about the possibility of disturbing the human remains buried in a Jewish cemetery when the surface of the Jewish cemetery is littered with human remains?

You're now talking specifically about the concrete/stone covered symbolic cemetery at Treblinka museum?

No,

AFAIK, none of the sites have been declared official Jewish cemeteries? (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

AFAIK, there isn't any one person or group of persons or organization of any sort that is universally recognized by all Jews as the final arbiter in conferring an "official" designation to Jewish cemeteries. So your question makes no sense.

But thanks for accepting that human remains are still to be found in large numbers on the ground(s).

I never said that. But thank you for acknowledging that Jewish law does not impose any restrictions on disturbing human remains.


Right here we can examine Mary's attempts to revive an argument. Except she clearly said in her own post.

disturbing the human remains buried in a Jewish cemetery when the surface of the Jewish cemetery is littered with human remains


Mary here try's to say that she never said the ground was covered with human remains, when I have even shown they were on the surface. Here is one example of a large number of bone fragments from the surface.

Image

So then why does Jewish law forbid disturbing the buried remains of dead Jews but has no problems with the remains of Jews being scattered all over the ground and trampled on?


There is problems with picking up the bones... It still is against *Jewish Religious Law*, but they cannot really do much about it... This is rather irrelevant.
« Oral history is a complex field. After all, memory can be a distorting mirror, as anyone who has ever worked with memoir literature knows very well...They may be imperfect, and, at times, inaccurate as the narrator tries to cast himself in the most favorable light, but all sources are imperfect. Even an archival document reflects how the person who drafted it understood something and remains something less than the unvarnished truth. »
- James Mace

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1176
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:31 pm

Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:...halachic rules prevent disturbing the buried remains of Jews but nobody has a problem with tourists walking all over the bones of Jews that are scattered all over the surface...

Why would you complain about not being allowed to examine the buried remains when, according to you, plenty other remains are "scattered all over the surface"?

Your question shows that you have completely missed the point. Why are people bothered about the possibility of disturbing the human remains buried in a Jewish cemetery when the surface of the Jewish cemetery is littered with human remains?

You're now talking specifically about the concrete/stone covered symbolic cemetery at Treblinka museum?

No,

AFAIK, none of the sites have been declared official Jewish cemeteries? (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

AFAIK, there isn't any one person or group of persons or organization of any sort that is universally recognized by all Jews as the final arbiter in conferring an "official" designation to Jewish cemeteries. So your question makes no sense.

But thanks for accepting that human remains are still to be found in large numbers on the ground(s).

I never said that. But thank you for acknowledging that Jewish law does not impose any restrictions on disturbing human remains.


Right here we can examine Mary's attempts to revive an argument. Except she clearly said in her own post.

disturbing the human remains buried in a Jewish cemetery when the surface of the Jewish cemetery is littered with human remains


Mary here try's to say that she never said the ground was covered with human remains, when I have even shown they were on the surface. Here is one example of a large number of bone fragments from the surface.

Image

So then why does Jewish law forbid disturbing the buried remains of dead Jews but has no problems with the remains of Jews being scattered all over the ground and trampled on?


There is problems with picking up the bones... It still is against *Jewish Religious Law*, but they cannot really do much about it... This is rather irrelevant.

How about picking up the bones and giving them a proper burial instead of letting thousands of Israeli schoolchildren trod upon them?

I'll answer for you: There are no bones on the surface so of course nobody is going to care about bones on the surface. There isn't any evidence of hundreds of thousands of people having been buried under the ground at one time there either. But because it would be so easy to prove that no massive burial pits exist with a few simple core samples, we can't allow that to be done so we pretend Jewish law prevents disturbing Jewish remains.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Denying-History » Fri Jul 15, 2016 9:42 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:...halachic rules prevent disturbing the buried remains of Jews but nobody has a problem with tourists walking all over the bones of Jews that are scattered all over the surface...

Why would you complain about not being allowed to examine the buried remains when, according to you, plenty other remains are "scattered all over the surface"?

Your question shows that you have completely missed the point. Why are people bothered about the possibility of disturbing the human remains buried in a Jewish cemetery when the surface of the Jewish cemetery is littered with human remains?

You're now talking specifically about the concrete/stone covered symbolic cemetery at Treblinka museum?

No,

AFAIK, none of the sites have been declared official Jewish cemeteries? (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

AFAIK, there isn't any one person or group of persons or organization of any sort that is universally recognized by all Jews as the final arbiter in conferring an "official" designation to Jewish cemeteries. So your question makes no sense.

But thanks for accepting that human remains are still to be found in large numbers on the ground(s).

I never said that. But thank you for acknowledging that Jewish law does not impose any restrictions on disturbing human remains.


Right here we can examine Mary's attempts to revive an argument. Except she clearly said in her own post.

disturbing the human remains buried in a Jewish cemetery when the surface of the Jewish cemetery is littered with human remains


Mary here try's to say that she never said the ground was covered with human remains, when I have even shown they were on the surface. Here is one example of a large number of bone fragments from the surface.

Image

So then why does Jewish law forbid disturbing the buried remains of dead Jews but has no problems with the remains of Jews being scattered all over the ground and trampled on?


There is problems with picking up the bones... It still is against *Jewish Religious Law*, but they cannot really do much about it... This is rather irrelevant.

How about picking up the bones and giving them a proper burial instead of letting thousands of Israeli schoolchildren trod upon them?

I'll answer for you: There are no bones on the surface so of course nobody is going to care about bones on the surface. There isn't any evidence of hundreds of thousands of people having been buried under the ground at one time there either. But because it would be so easy to prove that no massive burial pits exist with a few simple core samples, we can't allow that to be done so we pretend Jewish law prevents disturbing Jewish remains.


No bones on the surface... That's a really idiotic claim... Especially when you have even seen it on footage.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n5Du2wULidU

So of course your being dishonest as always... But what else should one expect.

As for evidence there is plenty, it's called testimony, and last time I checked the Germans who worked at Treblinka fully admit to the crime.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_yfxnB_5AiU

Even Krege, someone generally turned to by more radical deniers admitted that he did not scan the entire camp.... Saying this area could hold 10,000 bodies, but this is according to denier logic.... He never scanned the entire camp... So we can assume Colls to be correct. As well more evidence comes from the Gold rush in Treblinka.

As well according to the most accurate number I could spin up was 780,863 people killed at Treblinka. That's in the hundreds of thousands.

For Sobibor I got 170,165... Still over one hundred thousand....

For Belzec we know 434,508 people died...

This means that in total 1,385,536 people were killed in total.

Though Pressac says it was a much lower number.

There still isn't evidence for your claim that it was a transit camp Mary.
« Oral history is a complex field. After all, memory can be a distorting mirror, as anyone who has ever worked with memoir literature knows very well...They may be imperfect, and, at times, inaccurate as the narrator tries to cast himself in the most favorable light, but all sources are imperfect. Even an archival document reflects how the person who drafted it understood something and remains something less than the unvarnished truth. »
- James Mace

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19616
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:23 pm

It's no use D-H. "Mary" is just trolling the usual... "700,000 in one grave at one time" and "not enough remains" of that initial asininity.



ETA: Mary, how are your efforts coming along regarding the help Hunt requested in accounting for the missing Warsaw Jews?
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Denying-History » Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:44 am

This is very true, but there is not much else to expect from Mary. The response was a quick type up. So I think I will pretty much just copy it as a retort to her. The more she says the less I will have to type in the future. That's how I'm looking at it.
« Oral history is a complex field. After all, memory can be a distorting mirror, as anyone who has ever worked with memoir literature knows very well...They may be imperfect, and, at times, inaccurate as the narrator tries to cast himself in the most favorable light, but all sources are imperfect. Even an archival document reflects how the person who drafted it understood something and remains something less than the unvarnished truth. »
- James Mace

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:36 am

Denying-History wrote:This is very true, but there is not much else to expect from Mary. .
Mary AKA Dogzilla is just really really stupid. He still gets confused between the two Treblinka camps.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Monstrous » Wed Jul 27, 2016 1:39 pm

Monstrous wrote:
nickterry wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:But you are really missing the point. The Luther memo really disproves nothing. It is true that the German policy was generally (in their eyes) focused on deporting the Jews to the east to work as slave laborers. What is not mentioned in the memo (but is mentioned in many other German documents) is that a feature of this policy is the murder of non working Jews. We know this.

Really? The Germans considered the mass murder of the non-workers to be a detail so small that it was not worth mentioning in a document on the general German policy on Jews?


In the memo, Luther makes no mention at all of the fate of the Jews deported to their destinations. His silence is absolutely deafening. We have many other official documents, like the Brack letter and some minutes from the GG administration that fill in the blanks more than aptly. There is also no evidence whatsoever of any German policy of resettling Jews anywhere in the east.

Monstrous has looked at this again.

"The deportation to the Government General is a provisionary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given."

This is completely incompatible with the Holocaustianity version!


The quoted passage is on p.18 of the memorandum and concerns the live issue of the impending deportation of Jews from core Romania.

That is a dubious interpretation. Luther is clearly here at the end of the document writing about the "deportations" in general. Not just those from Romania.

The whole last section "11" starts with "At the request of the governments concerned, the legations in Bratislava, Zagreb and Bucharest have been assigned advisors for Jewish affairs." Thus, Luther is writing about several countries and not just Romania (Bucharest).

Furthermore, the whole critical, penultimate paragraph is "The projected deportations are a further stop forward on the way of the total solution and are in respect to other countries (Hungary) very important. The deportation to the Government General6 is a provisionary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given."

It makes no sense that the deportation just from Romania would be important for influencing Hungary. Obviously Luther is arguing that the deportations in general from many countries (not just Romania) would influence Hungary to do the same.

Long time, no reply. The Luther memo disproves the Holocaust Orthodoxy.

Is it just a coincidence that Martin Luther did the something similar?

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4475
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Jeff_36 » Wed Jul 27, 2016 3:40 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
nickterry wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:But you are really missing the point. The Luther memo really disproves nothing. It is true that the German policy was generally (in their eyes) focused on deporting the Jews to the east to work as slave laborers. What is not mentioned in the memo (but is mentioned in many other German documents) is that a feature of this policy is the murder of non working Jews. We know this.

Really? The Germans considered the mass murder of the non-workers to be a detail so small that it was not worth mentioning in a document on the general German policy on Jews?


In the memo, Luther makes no mention at all of the fate of the Jews deported to their destinations. His silence is absolutely deafening. We have many other official documents, like the Brack letter and some minutes from the GG administration that fill in the blanks more than aptly. There is also no evidence whatsoever of any German policy of resettling Jews anywhere in the east.

Monstrous has looked at this again.

"The deportation to the Government General is a provisionary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given."

This is completely incompatible with the Holocaustianity version!


The quoted passage is on p.18 of the memorandum and concerns the live issue of the impending deportation of Jews from core Romania.

That is a dubious interpretation. Luther is clearly here at the end of the document writing about the "deportations" in general. Not just those from Romania.

The whole last section "11" starts with "At the request of the governments concerned, the legations in Bratislava, Zagreb and Bucharest have been assigned advisors for Jewish affairs." Thus, Luther is writing about several countries and not just Romania (Bucharest).

Furthermore, the whole critical, penultimate paragraph is "The projected deportations are a further stop forward on the way of the total solution and are in respect to other countries (Hungary) very important. The deportation to the Government General6 is a provisionary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given."

It makes no sense that the deportation just from Romania would be important for influencing Hungary. Obviously Luther is arguing that the deportations in general from many countries (not just Romania) would influence Hungary to do the same.

Long time, no reply. The Luther memo disproves the Holocaust Orthodoxy.

Is it just a coincidence that Martin Luther did the something similar?


MONSTROUS!!! I never thought I would say this but THANK GOODNESS you showed up! This forum was becoming nothing more than a Rizttrolli-fest polluted by deniers who run from confrontation and contend themselves with spewing fluff. You, despite your extremely low IQ and clear mental illness, at least attempt to discuss the history of the period, with comical results every time. That is a clear step up. Although you are still absolutely a moron, you are somewhat more creative in your retardation than Jim and his inbred clan.

Now....To the topic.

Dr. Terry's interpretation is far from dubious. He is a tenured history professor who specialized in this period and has viewed the entire document many times. The section that you discuss, section 11, is the final paragraph and is the only section of the document that broadens the scope beyiond Romania. The section that you previously quoted, on page 18, was about deportations from Romania alone.

The Memorandum doesn't prove much if anything. We know that Luther had received information at this time that the Jews were to be divided into working and non-working groups, with the working Jews subjected to extermination. The passage that you fawn over must be viewed in this context: the working Jews who would still be alive at war's end would be deported to some hellhole far away where they would presumably die. Nowhere is the fate of nonworking Jews mentioned in this document and nowhere does he give an indication of the status of Jews sent to the GG.

In fact, even if we accept that "The deportation to the Government General was a provisional measure", that just means that exterminations used there were not expected by Luther to be the final arrangement. We have enough evidence to state for certain that the Jews sent to the GG were mostly exterminated - Eichamann's Telex, his later testimony in Argentina, the Frank Minutes, Brandts letter to Hitler, Brack's letter, some Foreign office docs from the Netherlands, Warsaw train records, the Ostrow report ect.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 875
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby nickterry » Wed Jul 27, 2016 3:42 pm

Monstrous wrote:Long time, no reply. The Luther memo disproves the Holocaust Orthodoxy.


No, it doesn't, because there are multiple possible explanations for why Martin Luther wrote as he did, starting with the fact that the intended audience of the memo included senior Foreign Office officials who did not necessarily have 'need to know'. The Foreign Office was not responsible for the pointy end of the Final Solution but was responsible for obfuscating parts of it when foreign diplomats made enquiries. We know from other documents written in 1942-3 that the Nazis were going out of their way to censor and euphemise details of the Final Solution in internal correspondence.

As already noted, Luther received a memo from the Bucharest embassy two days before he wrote his memo, saying that the Jews of Romania would be deported to the Lublin district where some would be put to work and some would be subjected to Sonderbehandlung. This was based on information provided from another Berlin-based set of bureaucrats, Eichmann's IV B 4 office of the RSHA. Since IV B 4 were the main point of contact for the Foreign Office when liaising with the SS and both were in Berlin, then it cannot be argued that Luther had superior knowledge. Nor is there anything that says a change of policy took place on August 20, in between the two memos.

The two memos contradict each other but they were also written for different audiences with differing levels of hand-on knowledge, and for different purposes. One was short and the other long. The long memo was written for the files as a CYA memo - Luther was booted out only a few months later and landed in a concentration camp for plotting against Ribbentrop.

One single document cannot in any case prove or disprove anything on its own. The Luther memo doesn't even begin to suffice as evidence to prove resettlement to the east. For that you need actual evidence *from the east*. Otherwise we might as well be reading 'the cheque's in the mail' and wondering why we never find the cheque. You can have a whole chorus of people in Berlin or western Europe saying 'the cheque's in the mail' or 'the Jews are being resettled to the east', but unless you have people in the east saying, 'I received the cheque' or 'the Jews have arrived' it's not confirmation that this actually happened.

Monstrous, please absorb two things about how history works and how one 'does' history

1. no matter what the subject, history books regarding the modern era cite multiple sources. In this particular case, we can see that the 3rd edition of Raul Hilberg's Destruction of European Jews (2003) had 4,711 references, including to the Luther memo in several places; meaning that this example of what you call the 'Holocaust orthodoxy' was relying on several thousand sources, not just one.

2. by contrast, a frequent training exercise for history students is the source analysis, which typically runs to 500, 1000 or 2000 words and artificially isolates a document for sustained close-in analysis and criticism. But any source analysis of a standalone document that does not take into consideration what other relevant sources are saying and that does not display the slightest awareness of the literature on the subject, or which ignores the author and audience, is going to fail, irrespective of the topic.

Grow up.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Monstrous » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:49 pm

nickterry wrote:1. no matter what the subject, history books regarding the modern era cite multiple sources.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_ ... f_evidence

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5750
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Thu Dec 22, 2016 2:22 pm

Ok, Monstrous. This has been fun but I've gotta get back to work.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:37 pm

Monstrous wrote:
nickterry wrote:1. no matter what the subject, history books regarding the modern era cite multiple sources.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_ ... f_evidence

From your stupid-ass link:
Paul Grubach

The revisionist Paul Grubach has written that "The following example will illustrate to the reader how questionable “convergence of evidence” proofs for the traditional view of the Holocaust really are. In their article on the Treblinka concentration camp, historian Mark Weber and attorney Andrew Allen collected six pieces of evidence that point to the conclusion that Jews and others were murdered in steam chambers at the site.[13] Let us note each of them: [...]
Here we have a convergence of evidence from six sources. The eyewitness testimony is substantiated by the onsite, hands-on investigation of the Polish authorities. This convergence of evidence is even better than the one that Judge Gray heard because it has an onsite, expert study of the murder weapon itself that “conclusively proves” the existence of the steam chambers. Therefore, the Germans must have murdered people in steam chambers at Treblinka. Lo and behold, the pitfalls of such a conclusion!
Historians now tell us there were no steam chambers at Treblinka. The convergence of evidence that “proves” their existence is entirely false. Over the years, the story changed and today it is alleged that Jews and others were murdered with carbon monoxide gas, generated from captured Soviet diesel tank engines.[20] Neither Judge Gray or Lipstadt and company’s team of world renowned Holocaust experts have ever explained why the convergence of evidence for Treblinka steam chambers points to a false conclusion and the convergence of evidence for the Auschwitz gas chambers allegedly points to a true conclusion."[3]

Oh my, discussed at length here, and also a bit in this subforum, where you (and David) have been told that Grubach tried passing off six reports tracing back to a single source as an example of convergence, with the aim of "proving" Treblinka used steam to kill. Been-there at Rodoh for once had the decency, when confronted with the evidence for each of Grubach's points, to admit he'd {!#%@} up on this. Here your are keeping at it.

More on "Treblinka steam" here in HC blog article (and here). None of you wise-asses has seen fit to deal with this blog piece. Figures. Feel free to keep ignoring the blog piece. It would ruin your day.

Or are you the one who is going to step up and discuss "steam" with us?
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Denying-History » Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:37 pm

Monstrous wrote:
nickterry wrote:1. no matter what the subject, history books regarding the modern era cite multiple sources.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_ ... f_evidence


Lol, way to confirm Nicks assertion.
« Oral history is a complex field. After all, memory can be a distorting mirror, as anyone who has ever worked with memoir literature knows very well...They may be imperfect, and, at times, inaccurate as the narrator tries to cast himself in the most favorable light, but all sources are imperfect. Even an archival document reflects how the person who drafted it understood something and remains something less than the unvarnished truth. »
- James Mace

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19616
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:46 pm

...today it is alleged that Jews and others were murdered with carbon monoxide gas, generated from captured Soviet diesel tank engines.[20]...

Who but He-Who-Cannot-Sign-In and our David keeps going on about diesel engines?
Hi, Io the lurker.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 875
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby nickterry » Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:57 am

Monstrous wrote:
nickterry wrote:1. no matter what the subject, history books regarding the modern era cite multiple sources.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_ ... f_evidence


Moron, the standard practice in history-writing of citing multiple sources to formulate an argument, construct a narrative or interpret an important document has nothing whatsoever to do with the term 'convergence of evidence'.

The 'convergence of evidence' was a phrase coined by Michael Shermer, who is not a historian but is trained in the philosophy of science. He was trying to explain the implicit underpinnings of how historians and, implicitly, other commentators (lawyers, journalists etc) might reach the conclusions they do using diverse types of source material.

The concept is valid, but here's the catch: with vanishingly few exceptions, historians don't use the term and it's not taught as part of historical theory. Historians weigh and assess all available source material on a particular issue, and use probabilistic language to signal the confidence they have in their conclusions. The degree of certainty or uncertainty is based on the relative proximity of the source material to the events, measured in time and space, and the reliability of the source material. Corroboration using multiple sources of whatever type raises the degree of confidence in these sources, and helps eliminate the uncertainties caused by the almost inevitable existence of contradictory sources. The principles involved are generally known as the historical method - a good summary of principles outlined decades before the Holocaust by 19th and early 20th Century historians can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica ... ry_sources

These principles and methods can be easily applied to the Luther memorandum. Nazi policies towards the Jews in 1942 are recorded in multiple sources originating from several different agencies, either central authorities like the Foreign Office or RSHA, or regional authorities like the Governor-General of Poland. There are meeting protocols, memoranda, reports, speeches, diaries and other contemporary sources, alongside later testimonies by protagonists. These sources display patterns but also contradictions, some of which are best explained by looking to the intended audience or recipients. Hitler said one thing in a public speech, Heydrich another in a closed meeting, and Luther yet another thing in a memo intended for other Foreign Office diplomats.

Exalting a single document to sum up the whole of Nazi Jewish policy in 1942 during the 'Final Solution' commits the snapshot fallacy, runs the risk of underinterpreting the significance of the document's author and/or their institutional point of view, and finally can misinterpret the language used by ignoring context as well as the possibility of circumspection, euphemism and other standard features of bureaucratic and political communications.

Source criticism means being skeptical of the content of the source even after the source has been verified as genuine. The well known saying that someone is being "economical with the truth" most certainly applies to all bureaucratic and political documents, which are classified as intentional sources. A memorandum for the files is a classic example of this. Non-intentional sources are the only ones that can be interpreted literally - train timetables, receipts, etc, and some of those could turn out to be intentional if other evidence showed someone was cooking the books. (But only if other evidence shows this, otherwise hyperskepticism destroys the possibility of saying anything about the past at all.)

An intentional source like the Luther memo that refers vaguely to 'the east' cannot be taken literally under any circumstances: the vagueness means we have to ask where in the 'east' was meant. Other sources might help us answer this question - and they do answer the question. The 'east' meant Auschwitz, Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor and a few other killing sites such as Maly Trostenets near Minsk. These are the destinations recorded in other Nazi documents.

As usual, this isn't really meant for Monstrous....

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19616
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:22 am

Your clear and concise rundowns are very much appreciated. Thanks, Nick. :-D
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:54 am

Nick knows better than anyone else here . . . but my two cents: in all my years studying history, indeed, I never heard the phrase "convergence of evidence." The first I heard it was in debates with ... deniers, which led me to go through Shermer's stuff too at some point. But I did learn of the concept of "consilience of inductions" along the way - and I recall when: it was at a conference on Darwinian science, with leading evolutionary scientists and philosophers of science, which I talked my way into getting credentials for. One of the papers, I can't recall given by whom, referred to this concept, which is closely related to convergence, and described William Whewell's inductive methodology.

Whewell's consilience is sometimes defined more or less as the unification of knowledge across the different branches of learning. This is very important: like Whewell, Shermer means for evidence from different spheres to converge. He doesn't mean 6 eyewitness accounts, as deniers seem to think.

In one of the links I gave above you will find that I wrote this on the topic:
First things first, I am not a big Shermer fan, or even a little one. But let's be fair to the man: he is not a "Holocaust historian" but was trained, I believe, as a historian of science. He is a popularizer and enterprising skeptic, first and foremost, and in this capacity he's dealt with a variety of "controversial" subjects, the Holocaust among them. But not as a specialist in the history of the Holocaust.

Second, I was trained as a history graduate student to look at the full range of evidence available and, utilizing a variety of types of sources (documents, physical evidence, testimonies, etc - and relevant disciplines, economics, sociology, psychology, the law, and so on), to construct the interpretation best explaining the available evidence. I was also taught, of course, to look for new evidence and thus widen what is available, as it were. I wasn't trained in the convergence of evidence. Again, to be fair to Shermer, his concept convergence is close to what I was trained in as a history graduate student; his concept is distinctly not, however, to assemble a handful of "pieces of evidence" and draw hasty conclusions.

Again, in undergraduate and graduate history study I never heard the term convergence, just like Nick said, and I first came across the concept, as consilience, in the context of science, as Nick also indicated.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Balsamo, Upton_O_Goode and 3 guests