Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Discussions
User avatar
Saggy
Account Locked
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:58 am

Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Saggy » Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:29 pm

Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness to the holocaust, that is, the mass killing of Jews in Nazi gas chambers? And if there is, what is his/her name? Where is his/her account available? Can you provide a synopsis?

Acknowledgment: this topic is a variation of one suggested by Focus.

User avatar
brauneyz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:13 pm
Location: Everywhere, USA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by brauneyz » Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:09 am

Saggy, with this stellar logic, why don't you just wait a decade or two and they will have all died off and you'll win by default? :roll:
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." ~ Bertrand de Jouvenel

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Martin Brock » Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:16 am

Recorded testimony of a deceased witness is acceptable. There must be thousands.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Martin Brock » Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:24 am

People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Saggy
Account Locked
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:58 am

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Saggy » Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:40 am

Martin Brock wrote:Recorded testimony of a deceased witness is acceptable.


Agreed.

Martin Brock wrote:http://www.pacwashmetrodiv.org/events/h ... eisler.htm


Let's look at the account of Michael Preisler. He is not a witness to the holocaust, as he says that the executions in the gas chamber were done "without differentiation as to national or religious group". This is not the holocaust.

Further, he never states that he actually saw a gas chamber much less an execution in a gas chamber. He is by his own account not an eyewitness to gas chamber executions.

He spent four years at Auschwitz and was not killed? He came down with typhus and was treated for it in the hospital.

His account is at variance with the holohoax in that he says nothing of prisoners being taken off the train to the gas station. According to the holohoax, ONLY prisoners taken directly off the train were gassed, as death certificates were written for the other prisoners that died.

http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/new/index.p ... =EN&id=357

Preisler also produces some additional phantasmagoria ... "Besides murdering prisoners in gas chambers, the Germans also used to inject them with gasoline, as well as with phenol." How does he know this? Did he witness it? Does it make any sense whatever?

More phantasmagoria ... "The most drastic of punishments in use was being locked up in the Starvation Death Bunker, which was in use since 1941." One prisoner spent 15 days in the starvation bunker and still had to be injected with gasoline to kill him.

More phantasmagoria ... "In September 1944, a plan called “Plan Molla”, came into existence to obliterate Auschwitz and all of its standing structures, and to slaughter all of its inmates." This is absurd on its face.

The document was written sometime after 1979. The prisoner did not witness mass executions of Jews, he did not witness a gas chamber, he did not witness gas chamber executions, and his account is full of obvious phantasmagoria.

And, he wasn't a Jew !

Please vet the suggested witnesses to some basic believability checks.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Martin Brock » Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:25 am

Saggy wrote:Let's look at the account of Michael Preisler. He is not a witness to the holocaust, as he says that the executions in the gas chamber were done "without differentiation as to national or religious group". This is not the holocaust.


First, did Hitler definitively make the statements attributed to him at the top of the account?

I agree that "Holocaust" conventionally denotes an orchestrated campaign to exterminate all Jews in the territories under Nazi occupation; however, the conventional history doesn't claim that only Jews were exterminated. Prieisler could only be throwing a bone to other groups to broaden the umbrella here.

Saggy wrote:Further, he never states that he actually saw a gas chamber much less an execution in a gas chamber. He is by his own account not an eyewitness to gas chamber executions.


He implies that he somehow knew of gas chambers, and he says he saw people assembled for extermination, but I agree that he's not an eyewitness to the extermination. He also says that people he saw were assembled for extermination because they were sick or unwilling to work. This rationale for extermination is not the conventional Holocaust either.

Saggy wrote:He spent four years at Auschwitz and was not killed? He came down with typhus and was treated for it in the hospital.


Obviously, if we expect "eyewitness" testimony, we're presuming some survivors, so this criticism hardly seems valid.

Saggy wrote:His account is at variance with the holohoax in that he says nothing of prisoners being taken off the train to the gas station. According to the holohoax, ONLY prisoners taken directly off the train were gassed, as death certificates were written for the other prisoners that died.


Let's avoid prejudicial terms like "holohoax". The question is whether millions of Jews primarily were systematically exterminated, for being Jews, primarily by gas, in the concentration camps. Agreed? We want eyewitnesses to this systematic extermination. Whether an account agrees with some conventional wisdom is not necessarily relevant.

Saggy wrote:Preisler also produces some additional phantasmagoria ... "Besides murdering prisoners in gas chambers, the Germans also used to inject them with gasoline, as well as with phenol." How does he know this? Did he witness it? Does it make any sense whatever?


If he doesn't say that he witnessed it, we can assume that it's hearsay. As a means of execution, I don't know how much sense it makes, but I suppose an injection of gasoline could be fatal.

Saggy wrote:More phantasmagoria ... "The most drastic of punishments in use was being locked up in the Starvation Death Bunker, which was in use since 1941." One prisoner spent 15 days in the starvation bunker and still had to be injected with gasoline to kill him.


Here again, terms like "phantasmagoria" are prejudicial. We aren't simply assuming that the stories are false a priori, right? You want to be taken seriously, and I'm taking you seriously. A starvation death bunker hardly seems a means of execution that the pride of German efficiency would use, but we do have this report of it. I agree that it's not the conventional Holocaust.

Saggy wrote:More phantasmagoria ... "In September 1944, a plan called “Plan Molla”, came into existence to obliterate Auschwitz and all of its standing structures, and to slaughter all of its inmates." This is absurd on its face.


I've read other accounts of death camps destroyed to erase evidence. Treblinka is the premier example. Why is this destruction absurd on its face? I agree that "all the evidence was destroyed" is not itself evidence of anything.

Saggy wrote:The document was written sometime after 1979. The prisoner did not witness mass executions of Jews, he did not witness a gas chamber, he did not witness gas chamber executions, and his account is full of obvious phantasmagoria.


I agree that it doesn't qualify as an eyewitness account of the Holocaust.

Saggy wrote:And, he wasn't a Jew !


Your question specifies a Jewish witness, but this characteristic hardly seems relevant.

Saggy wrote:Please vet the suggested witnesses to some basic believability checks.


The testimony is not incredible on its face, but it's also not an eyewitness account of "the Holocaust" as defined above. It is an account of ghastly and sometimes murderous mistreatment.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

Focus
Poster
Posts: 296
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:23 pm

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Focus » Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:46 pm

J.C. Pressac said in his seminal work on Auschwitz entitled Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers: "... demonstrates the complete bankruptcy of traditional history, a history based for the most part on testimonies, assembled according to the mood of the moment, truncated to fit an arbitrary truth and sprinkled with a few German documents of uneven value and without any connection with one and another." He then stated later: "Can we alter the course? It demonstrates the complete bankruptcy of traditional history, a history based for the most part on testimonies, assembled according to the mood of the moment, truncated to fit an arbitrary truth and
sprinkled with a few German documents of uneven value and without any
connection with one and another."

The reason that revisionism is growing by leaps and bounds is because of the plethora of blatant lies foisted on the trusting world. There is no convergence of evidence.

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth,
he will either quit being mistaken or cease being honest.

Unknown



Is the new face of Nazism, Zionism?

User avatar
Saggy
Account Locked
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:58 am

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Saggy » Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:08 pm

Martin Brock wrote:The testimony is not incredible on its face


The reason this testimony does not appear incredible on its face to you is that you have been conditioned by years of intense propaganda to believe any absurdity connected to the Nazis. The whole holohoax is absurd phantasmagoria. The 'gas chamber' mechanism for mass killings is so preposterous that not even Hollywood will attempt to depict it. We see endless debates if the walls of a room that has a large glass window contain cyanide residue and was or was not used as a gas chamber. The whole debate is absurd beyond words. We have endless debates whether or not the Nazis burned people, alive and dead, in below ground pits, when no fool would attempt to burn anything in a pit. We have Elie Weisel describing how the Nazis used Jewish babies for skeet shooting. He received a Nobel prize for his degenerate lies. We have Yankel Weirnik relating how Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka tore babies in half with his bare hands. We have John Demjanjuk prosecuted in a Israli court as Ivan the Terrible and identified by five Jewish eyewitnesses, when he had never set foot in Treblink. In Butz's words, the holohoax is a cornucopia of absurdities. Calling it a hoax is not 'prejudicial', it is accurate.

And, of course, we're still waiting for our one credible Jewish eyewitness.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Martin Brock » Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:13 pm

Saggy wrote:
Martin Brock wrote:The testimony is not incredible on its face


The reason this testimony does not appear incredible on its face to you is that you have been conditioned by years of intense propaganda to believe any absurdity connected to the Nazis.


No. The testimony does not appear incredible on its face, because it isn't. You posed a reasonable question, and I did a quick Google search and didn't find the testimony you suggested, but this source does testify to brutally inhumane treatment. You'd think that more definitive eyewitness testimony would be easier to find.

Saggy wrote:The whole holohoax is absurd phantasmagoria.


I'm willing to take you seriously here, but I'm not interested in the preaching.

Again, is the Hitler quote at the top of the page accurate or not?

“On August 22, 1939, just before the outbreak of the Second World War, Hitler made a speech to the Generals of the “Wehrmacht” at Obersalzberg. He said:

'... I have so far ordered the formation of the Totenkopf Units in the East, enjoining them to kill relentlessly and without mercy, men, women, and children of Polish origin and speaking the Polish language. Only in this way will we gain the territory we need in order to live… Poland is going to be depopulated and settled with Germans.'”

I don't pretend to know. Do you?

Supposing that Hitler made this statement, if these orders were carried out against non-Jewish Poles as well as Jews, would the acts then not qualify as "the Holocaust", even if most victims happened to be Jewish? If most victims were shot rather than gassed, is "the Holocaust" contradicted? I want a more precise sense of what you mean by "the Holocaust" here.

If the Nazis systematically killed people in the camps who were sick or otherwise unproductive and if most of these people were Jewish and if the killed numbered in the millions, is "the Holocaust" contradicted?

If the Nazis systematically executed people in the camps who were sick or otherwise unproductive and if most of these people were Jewish and if millions died in the camps but most died of starvation or disease rather than execution, is "the Holocaust" contradicted?
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Saggy
Account Locked
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:58 am

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Saggy » Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:08 pm

Martin Brock wrote:No. The testimony does not appear incredible on its face, because it isn't.


I'll repeat - the reason the testimony doesn't appear incredible to you is that you have been propagandized to believe any absurdity about the Nazis. This is not hyperbole, this is the fact of the matter. Weisel got a Nobel prize for saying that Nazi MACHINE GUNNERS used Jewish babies for skeet shooting practice.

Martin Brock wrote:Again, is the Hitler quote at the top of the page accurate or not?


Your efforts to change the subject are noted. We're not interested in Hitler quotes in this thread.

Now, we're still waiting for one credible Jewish eyewitness.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Martin Brock » Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:09 pm

Saggy wrote:I'll repeat - the reason the testimony doesn't appear incredible to you is that you have been propagandized to believe any absurdity about the Nazis.


No. There's nothing intrinsically incredible in the account. No laws of nature are violated for example. People do terribly inhumane things to other people. I haven't witnessed the most terrible of these things, but I hear enough credible reports to believe that such things happen.

Saggy wrote:This is not hyperbole, this is the fact of the matter.


Your reference to me in this regard is hyperbole. I'm not Weisel. Why not deal with me as an individual?

Saggy wrote:Weisel got a Nobel prize for saying that Nazi MACHINE GUNNERS used Jewish babies for skeet shooting practice.


I don't know what he said it or why he got a Nobel prize, but this account doesn't say anything about skeet shooting. I didn't link an account of Jewish lampshades either. Please stay on point and don't confuse the issue. I'm trying to take your point seriously here. I've already agreed that the account doesn't qualify as an eyewitness account of the Holocaust of popular imagination (millions of Jews systematically gassed to death and then incinerated), but it does describe terrible inhumanity in the camps, and you only dismiss it prejudicially here. Are you suggesting that nothing improper occurred in these camps?

Saggy wrote:Your efforts to change the subject are noted. We're not interested in Hitler quotes in this thread.


I haven't changed the subject. You asked me to find an eyewitness account. I googled for "+holocaust +eyewitness" and found this page, titled "Eyewitness Account of a Survivor of Auschwitz". A very damning quotation attributed to Hitler appears at the top of the page. Do you know this quotation to be accurate or not? It's a reasonable question and doesn't divert the discussion from the point at all. If Hitler issued such an order and the order was carried out, the fact is relevant to the validity of claims of a "Holocaust" broadly defined, even if the statement doesn't refer to an extermination of Jews specifically. Were Jews not disproportionately, even overwhelmingly, among the people in Polish concentration camps?

Saggy wrote:Now, we're still waiting for one credible Jewish eyewitness.


That's true. We are. I expect to find many if the conventional Holocaust story is true.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Saggy
Account Locked
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:58 am

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Saggy » Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:38 pm

Martin Brock wrote:No. There's nothing intrinsically incredible in the account. No laws of nature are violated for example.


You have a very high threshold for incredibility ! Sheep flying, let's see ...., well there are flying squirrels, so, maybe .......?????

Why not produce another bogus credible Jewish eyewitness? I mean, in the words of Focus ..... let's focus.

The alternative is to admit the truth, that there is not a single credible Jewish eyewitness to the holohoax.

User avatar
brauneyz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:13 pm
Location: Everywhere, USA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by brauneyz » Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:59 pm

Not sure what Saggy would consider a credible eyewitness, as he seems to discount every source cited. Maybe he'd believe it only from the lips of those who perished? :?

Like, Martin, I did a quick search and came up with a few examples, which I suppose Saggy will discredit for some reason or other.

This first example is interesting because it addresses Saggy's fascination with the windows. I am not saying this is proof, only that it cites an explanation for what he finds so incredible.
"The gas chamber, about 20 feet by 20 feet, bears all the characteristics of an ordinary communal shower room with about fifty shower sprays in the roof, cement ceiling and cement floor. But there is not the usual ventilation, and the sprays squirted poison gas. One noticed that the doors, as well as the small window, were rubber-lined and that there was a conveniently situated glass-covered peephole to enable the controller to see when the gas could be turned off. From the lethal chamber a door leads to the crematorium. We inspected the elaborate controls and gas pipes leading into the chamber. Behind the crematorium there was an execution place for those who had to die by rifle fire; and there were ample signs that this place had been in frequent use." From a Report on Dachau Concentration Camp, signed by C.S. Coetzee and R. J. Montgomery who visited the camp on or about 7 May 1945.


http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScr ... tions.html

This one speaks for itself. The full narrative, linked, addresses a child who survived the gassing only to be shot to death in order to prevent any eyewitnesses.

A Jew and a medical doctor, the Auschwitz prisoner Miklos Nyiszli - No. A8450 - was spared death for a grimmer fate: to perform autopsies and 'scientific research' on his fellow inmates at Auschwitz under the supervision of Josef Mengele, the chief provider for the gas chambers.

Miraculously, Nyiszli survived to give an horrifying and sobering account, one of the first books to bring the full horror of the Nazi death camps to the public - Auschwitz: A Doctor's Eyewitness Account. You find this account pp. 114-120:

"In number one's crematorium's gas chamber 3,000 dead bodies were piled up. The Sonderkommando had already begun to untangle the lattice of flesh. The noise of the elevators and the sound of their clanging doors reached my room. The work moved ahead double-time. The gas chambers had to be cleared, for the arrival of a new convoy had been announced.


http://www.auschwitz.dk/Nyiszli.htm
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." ~ Bertrand de Jouvenel

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Martin Brock » Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:34 pm

Saggy wrote:You have a very high threshold for incredibility ! Sheep flying, let's see ...., well there are flying squirrels, so, maybe .......?????


The account has nothing about sheep flying. What specific claim in the account do you find incredible?

Saggy wrote:Why not produce another bogus credible Jewish eyewitness? I mean, in the words of Focus ..... let's focus.


O.K. We've already agreed that the witness is not Jewish and that he is not an eyewitness to the systematic gassing of Jews for being Jewish. You just can't agree with some people.

Saggy wrote:The alternative is to admit the truth, that there is not a single credible Jewish eyewitness to the holohoax.


Precisely, what truth have I denied? Why must the eyewitness be Jewish? Because you don't want to discuss the testimony of Nazis themselves?
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Saggy
Account Locked
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:58 am

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Saggy » Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:50 pm

Martin Brock wrote:The account has nothing about sheep flying. What specific claim in the account do you find incredible?


As I have explained, the whole gas chamber mechanism for mass executions is so absurd that not even Zionist HOLLYWOOD will attempt to depict it. The gasoline in the veins is preposterous. The starvation bunker is preposterous. The fellow who spent fifteen days in the starvation bunker and still required an injection of petrol is doubly preposterous. However, if you have absorbed the years of propaganda, there is nothing exceptional at all about these absurdities. You don't see it because the years of propaganda have made the absurd normal for Nazis. "Led away to the gas chamber" - sure, why not, happens every day in the camps, I just saw it on TV yesterday. The propaganda effect is profound, but you don't even think about it for one second. You don't see it until you've transcended it.

Martin Brock wrote:Precisely, what truth have I denied?


????

Martin Brock wrote: Why must the eyewitness be Jewish? Because you don't want to discuss the testimony of Nazis themselves?


Yes. The testimony of the Nazis is equally absurd, and I've spent some time deconstructing Hoess's 'testimony'. But it falls in a different category. They were bargaining for their lives, and they usually lost. Let's hear from one of the thousands of JEWISH eyewitnesses. Not like those at the Demjanjuk trial however, they were pathological liars.

User avatar
Wolfie
BANNED
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:22 pm

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Wolfie » Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:54 am

Martin Brock wrote:
Saggy wrote:
Martin Brock wrote:The testimony is not incredible on its face


The reason this testimony does not appear incredible on its face to you is that you have been conditioned by years of intense propaganda to believe any absurdity connected to the Nazis.


No. The testimony does not appear incredible on its face, because it isn't. You posed a reasonable question, and I did a quick Google search and didn't find the testimony you suggested, but this source does testify to brutally inhumane treatment. You'd think that more definitive eyewitness testimony would be easier to find.

Saggy wrote:The whole holohoax is absurd phantasmagoria.


I'm willing to take you seriously here, but I'm not interested in the preaching.

Again, is the Hitler quote at the top of the page accurate or not?

“On August 22, 1939, just before the outbreak of the Second World War, Hitler made a speech to the Generals of the “Wehrmacht” at Obersalzberg. He said:

'... I have so far ordered the formation of the Totenkopf Units in the East, enjoining them to kill relentlessly and without mercy, men, women, and children of Polish origin and speaking the Polish language. Only in this way will we gain the territory we need in order to live… Poland is going to be depopulated and settled with Germans.'”

I don't pretend to know. Do you?

Supposing that Hitler made this statement, if these orders were carried out against non-Jewish Poles as well as Jews, would the acts then not qualify as "the Holocaust", even if most victims happened to be Jewish? If most victims were shot rather than gassed, is "the Holocaust" contradicted? I want a more precise sense of what you mean by "the Holocaust" here.

If the Nazis systematically killed people in the camps who were sick or otherwise unproductive and if most of these people were Jewish and if the killed numbered in the millions, is "the Holocaust" contradicted?

If the Nazis systematically executed people in the camps who were sick or otherwise unproductive and if most of these people were Jewish and if millions died in the camps but most died of starvation or disease rather than execution, is "the Holocaust" contradicted?


This version of the alleged Hitler speech purportedly made at Obersalzberg on August 22, 1939, was first published in 1942 in a book entitled "What About Germany?" authored by Louis Lochner.

Mr. Lochner cited an unnamed informant as his source for a document called "Contents of Speech to the Supreme Commanders, and Commanding Generals, Obersalzberg, August 22, 1939". He further stated that he obtained a copy of this speech one week prior to Hitler's 1939 invasion of Poland. The origin of this document has never been disclosed, investigated, or credibly established. It is interesting to note that, in Lochner's unnamed informant's documents, there is not a single direct or implied reference to the Jewish people. The statement referred to Hitler's impending invasion of Poland and to the fate he envisioned for its citizenry; it had absolutely nothing to do with his plans for the Jews of Europe.

The Nuremberg transcripts clearly demonstrate that the Tribunal rejected Lochner's version of Hitler's Obersalzberg speech in favor of two more official versions allegedly found in confiscated German military records. These two records are, respectively, the detailed notes of the August 22, 1939 meeting taken down by Admiral Hermann Boehm, Chief of the High Seas Fleet, who was in attendance (Document No. 798-PS) and a memorandum in two parts which provides a detailed account of Hitler's August 22, 1939, remarks at Obersalzberg (Document No. 1014-PS).

You can research these documents at your leisure and upon doing so, you will note that neither mention "enjoining them to kill relentlessly and without mercy, men, women, and children of Polish origin and speaking the Polish language".

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Martin Brock » Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:04 am

Saggy wrote:The gasoline in the veins is preposterous. The starvation bunker is preposterous. The fellow who spent fifteen days in the starvation bunker and still required an injection of petrol is doubly preposterous.


Writing "preposterous" beside an assertion is not evidence of falsehood. Why precisely do you dispute an injection of gasoline to kill a person for example? Are you saying it wouldn't be effective? Are you saying it would have been too costly or too costly compared with other options? Gasoline wasn't available? It can't be injected for some reason? "Starvation bunker" presumably is a pejorative dreamed up by inmates of the camps, but if the witness says that inmates were subjected to solitary confinement and improperly fed, what's so incredible about this report? Inmates were found emaciated and starving in these camps. There's plenty of documentary evidence of that.

Saggy wrote:However, if you have absorbed the years of propaganda, there is nothing exceptional at all about these absurdities.


Years of propaganda are not the issue here. We're discussing this specific account, and you're dismissing its assertions prejudicially without any real analysis. "It's all preposterous" is not an analysis. It's an avoidance.

Saggy wrote:Yes. The testimony of the Nazis is equally absurd, and I've spent some time deconstructing Hoess's 'testimony'. But it falls in a different category. They were bargaining for their lives, and they usually lost. Let's hear from one of the thousands of JEWISH eyewitnesses. Not like those at the Demjanjuk trial however, they were pathological liars.


If all of the testimony disputing your position is pathological lying by assumption, then we're wasting our time here.

So here's a counter question. Where are the Jewish eyewitnesses saying that the camps really weren't so bad, that working conditions were tolerable, that people typically received adequate shelter, nutrition, medical care and the like? Why do all survivors of these camps tell the same horrific stories, even if none testify to mass extermination using gas chambers specifically?
Last edited by Martin Brock on Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:14 am, edited 4 times in total.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Martin Brock » Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:07 am

Wolfie wrote:You can research these documents at your leisure and upon doing so, you will note that neither mention "enjoining them to kill relentlessly and without mercy, men, women, and children of Polish origin and speaking the Polish language".


Thanks. That's the sort of information I'm after.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:20 am

Martin Brock wrote:
Wolfie wrote:You can research these documents at your leisure and upon doing so, you will note that neither mention "enjoining them to kill relentlessly and without mercy, men, women, and children of Polish origin and speaking the Polish language".


Thanks. That's the sort of information I'm after.


Dear Martin

I support the conventional historical view on the holocaust. I initally had problems understanding "the flow" of the holocaust deniers arguments. May I suggest you read the Nizkor web page on Holocaust Deniers argument methods. Pyyrho allowed us to post three conventional and three non-conventional websites as a locked first posting. In general Nizkor has updated rebutals for each holocaust denier claim.

Nizkor also points out the obvious. In an earlier thread the deniers said that a 1939 document that only mention Jewish emmigration proved the Nazis did not execute jews, however Nizkor points out german legislation prohibited jewish emmigration just after this and that the holocaust deniers knew this on their own websites.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Martin Brock » Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:51 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Martin Brock wrote:
Wolfie wrote:You can research these documents at your leisure and upon doing so, you will note that neither mention "enjoining them to kill relentlessly and without mercy, men, women, and children of Polish origin and speaking the Polish language".


Thanks. That's the sort of information I'm after.


Dear Martin

I support the conventional historical view on the holocaust. I initally had problems understanding "the flow" of the holocaust deniers arguments. May I suggest you read the Nizkor web page on Holocaust Deniers argument methods. Pyyrho allowed us to post three conventional and three non-conventional websites as a locked first posting. In general Nizkor has updated rebutals for each holocaust denier claim.

Nizkor also points out the obvious. In an earlier thread the deniers said that a 1939 document that only mention Jewish emmigration proved the Nazis did not execute jews, however Nizkor points out german legislation prohibited jewish emmigration just after this and that the holocaust deniers knew this on their own websites.


I'm a skeptic by nature and don't much support the conventional view of anything. On this particular point, Hitler either made the quoted statement (translated into English), or he didn't. I'm skeptical that he said it but not because I think he was a sweet, grandfatherly old man with only love for all mankind in his heart. He obviously wasn't. He indisputably made plenty of fiendishly antisemitic speeches, and he led Germany into multiple, insanely ill-conceived wars.

All history is subject to revision. Truth is the first casualty of war, and victors write history. The "Good War" is no exception. We must expect much of the history to be laced with self-serving propaganda, particularly allied propaganda. This fact alone does not support any revision of conventional history, but Saggy's question is not unreasonable. If millions of Jews were systematically gassed and then incinerated in concentration camps, there should be no shortage of credible eyewitnesses; otherwise, this history is an incredible conspiracy theory. I take seriously the notion that few Jews died in precisely this way. By "few", I mean far fewer than six million, possibly even less than a million.

I don't take seriously the idea that few Jews died or that Jews weren't singled out for persecution and subjected to murderous brutality by the Nazis. I suppose most people in these camps died from starvation and illness brought on by brutality and neglect, and I suppose others were deliberately executed simply because they were bodies that the Nazis couldn't effectively put to use for their purposes. If not, then I wonder how so many survived the brutality in order to be gassed. No one claims that six million were gassed and millions more died otherwise. Some "deniers" only dispute the precise number gassed.

No one knows the precise number that died. Six million is close enough for government work, but a scientific historian, as opposed to a politician, doesn't demand zealous adherence to a particular historical statistic. In the course of time, the most credible history may prevail, but even after so many decades, we're still too close to these events to discuss them dispassionately, and people aren't dispassionate by nature anyway. They'll debate the details of Nero's atrocities with the same propagandistic fervor two thousand years later.

I also take seriously that idea that fewer Jews might have died if the U.S. had never entered the war and had instead permitted, even encouraged, liberal Jewish immigration. I take very seriously the idea that the U.S. would be richer today if it had. I take seriously the idea that Hitler's regime then would have collapsed of its own weight ultimately anyway. I take seriously the idea that Jews who immigrated to Israel instead would have been better off immigrating to the U.S., which was their first choice anyway, and I take seriously the idea that the modern state of Israel is a fundamentally unstable imposition that could easily lead to yet another catastrophe for Jewish people.

But my crystal ball is no clearer than anyone else's, so I prefer to stick to the historical details.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Saggy
Account Locked
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:58 am

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Saggy » Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:53 pm

Martin Brock wrote:
Years of propaganda are not the issue here. We're discussing this specific account, and you're dismissing its assertions prejudicially without any real analysis. "It's all preposterous" is not an analysis. It's an avoidance.


Try to think a little about this. I mean really put on the old thinking cap.

If I read a story that the US soldiers created shrunken heads of the Japanese prisoners in the camps in CA, and there is not a shred of evidence, then I, and you, would call that story preposterous. We would 'know', and we would feel, that the story was not true. I know it right now, don't you? The US guards did not create shrunken head in the CA camps. It's preposterous to say that they did. Yet we read stories exactly like that for years about the Nazis, the stories were preposterous, but we believed them. Now, because of years of conditioning, no one feels that any statement about the Nazis is preposterous. If I told you that the US military injected gasoline into the Japanese prisoners on Okinawa, you would say it's preposterous. Not because it is physically impossible, but because it doesn't make any sense to begin with and is contrary to everything you know. And because you have not been conditioned to believe any absurdity about US soldiers.


Saggy wrote: Let's hear from one of the thousands of JEWISH eyewitnesses. Not like those at the Demjanjuk trial however, they were pathological liars.


Martin Brock wrote:If all of the testimony disputing your position is pathological lying by assumption, then we're wasting our time here.


They identified Demjanjuk as Ivan the Terrible of the Treblinka camp. He was sentenced to death based on their testimony. He had never set foot in Trebinka. One, Rosenburg, I think, had testified in a previous trial that he witnessed the death of Ivan the Terrible, yet still managed to identify Demjanjuk as Ivan the Terrible in the new trial. Demanjuk was deported from the US using documents forged by the Soviets. The Jewish 'eyewitnesses' were pathological liars. Do you disagree?

Still waiting for one credible Jewish eyewitness. Looks like it might be a long wait.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Martin Brock » Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:11 pm

Saggy wrote:If I read a story that the US soldiers created shrunken heads of the Japanese prisoners in the camps in CA, and there is not a shred of evidence, then I, and you, would call that story preposterous.


We aren't discussing shrunken heads in a Japanese internment camp. We're discussing the personal testimony of an Auschwitz prisoner alleging that his captors used injections of gasoline to execute people. The account itself is a shred evidence. Why do you find this specific evidence incredible? You aren't addressing this question at all. You're repeatedly changing the subject.

Saggy wrote:We would 'know', and we would feel, that the story was not true.


No. I don't "feel" the truth myself. A suspicion that the story is not credible might lead me to investigate, but my suspicion is not itself evidence of anything. If I had multiple reports of the mistreatment of Japanese prisoners in these camps, I would take the reports seriously.

Saggy wrote:I know it right now, don't you?


No. I don't. John Wayne Gacy's neighbors were shocked to discover that he raped and killed 33 boys and buried them in his backyard, and some of the neighbors probably "knew" it couldn't be true until police dug up the yard.

Saggy wrote:Yet we read stories exactly like that for years about the Nazis, the stories were preposterous, but we believed them.


Reams of credible evidence supports Nazi brutality toward Jews and others. The most virulent antisemitism fills Hitler's speeches, whether or not millions of Jews died in gas chambers. I'm asking you to address a specific account of specific acts, and you're simply dancing around the account. It's one thing to question conventional history. It's something else to pretend that the Nazis were guilty of nothing.

Saggy wrote:If I told you that the US military injected gasoline into the Japanese prisoners on Okinawa, you would say it's preposterous.


If I saw pictures of inmates in these camps similar to the pictures of Nazi concentration camps? If I had voluminous testimony of brutality in the camps? If I found mass graves near the camps? If the camps themselves maintained records of countless deaths? Sure, I'd believe it. Why wouldn't I?

Saggy wrote:Not because it is physically impossible, but because it doesn't make any sense to begin with and is contrary to everything you know.


Your writing "it doesn't make sense" is no evidence that it doesn't make sense. I'm asking you specifically about the account of gasoline injections, and you're avoiding the issue.

Saggy wrote:And because you have not been conditioned to believe any absurdity about US soldiers.


Where are the similar charges against guards at Japanese internment camps? Japanese Americans should never have been interred, and the U.S. government rightly awarded them reparations, but you're simply ignoring the fact that a record of Nazi brutality in these camps exists very credibly, whether or not it supports the gassing of millions of Jews.

"What soon gave me cause for very serious consideration were the activities of the Jews in certain branches of life, into the mystery of which I penetrated little by little. Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light."

Hitler definitely wrote these words. They're in Mein Kampf. Do you dispute the translation? Where does Roosevelt say anything similar about Japanese Americans? You simply ignore reams of irrefutable evidence that a visceral, dehumanizing hatred of Jews pervaded the Nazi movement.

Saggy wrote:They identified Demjanjuk as Ivan the Terrible of the Treblinka camp. He was sentenced to death based on their testimony. He had never set foot in Trebinka.


Demjanjuk does not appear in the account. He is not the issue you're avoiding. He is the avoidance.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Saggy
Account Locked
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:58 am

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Saggy » Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:22 pm

Martin Brock wrote:We aren't discussing shrunken heads in a Japanese internment camp.



Well, I couldn't agree more with you, I got a little off topic.

So, how about that one credible Jewish eyewitness?

If no one can name a credible Jewish eyewitness, I will consider my suspicion, that there are none, confirmed.

User avatar
brauneyz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:13 pm
Location: Everywhere, USA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by brauneyz » Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:13 pm

Saggy wrote:If no one can name a credible Jewish eyewitness, I will consider my suspicion, that there are none, confirmed.


Because a couple of cyber-pals cannot produce what only you deem credible evidence, you win? Saggy proves the Holohoax. Case closed.

Good god, if I had to live using only this kind of logic, I'd shoot myself! :mrgreen:

Kudos to you Martin, for hanging in as long as you did. :thumbsup:
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." ~ Bertrand de Jouvenel

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Martin Brock » Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:26 pm

http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/viewer/wlc ... d=RMC0289F

http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/viewer/wlc ... d=BTB0635F

http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/viewer/wlc ... d=SIG0131M

http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/viewer/wlc ... d=DBD0629M

You may need to download Realplayer to view the video.

Added after the following post: All four are Jewish. All testify to mass deaths, including death by starvation or suffocation in a boxcar while in transit to a camp. Two testify to gassing. One testifies to building a gas chamber and witnessing it being filled to capacity before a gassing.
Last edited by Martin Brock on Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:36 pm, edited 7 times in total.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Saggy
Account Locked
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:58 am

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Saggy » Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:27 pm

brauneyz wrote:Because a couple of cyber-pals cannot produce what only you deem credible evidence, you win? Saggy proves the Holohoax.


Thus far no one has produced a Jewish eyewitness at all. And no one including Martin considers the one witness produced a witness to the holohoax (mass gassings of Jews.)

So, my conclusion is that the hoaxers on this board can't name a single Jewish eyewitness.

What a lame bunch !

Wait a minue, Martin has made a post ..... he's on topic ....... congratulations ..... let's evaluate ... first we have Ruth Meyerowitz, who claims says "and of course we could smell the uh first the gas when it was left." That's the extent of her witnessing of the holohoax. This doesn't constitute anything. Perhaps you could narrow your list to one person that actually witnessed mass executions of Jews in gas chambers. Or at least witnessed some aspect of this procedure. Then we can focus on the testimony of that witness.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Martin Brock » Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:45 pm

Saggy wrote:... first we have Ruth Meyerowitz, who claims says "and of course we could smell the uh first the gas when it was left." That's the extent of her witnessing of the holohoax.


No, it isn't. She discusses a sequence of events including the smell of gas after doors of a chamber are opened, the smell of burning flesh from a crematorium and the sound of the crematorium being emptied of remains. The "uh" reflects the fact that she's not a native English speaker, so her English is broken.

That's one of four. Here's one you don't discuss.

"The gas chamber was also a hall just like this one, with two chutes, two, uh, like chimneys going all the way to the top, with perforated metal. Had holes about a quarter of an inch all around, all four corners, and it was two or three sheets of metal, one into the other with holes. That chute went all the way up to the roof, which was almost flat to the ground outside. That's where the SS men were standing as soon as the bunker was filled in, yeah wait a minute.... When they filled in the bunker with all the women they put the men in. And sometimes they had 20 or 30 extra people that they couldn't get in, so they always held back children. And when the bunker was already so filled they couldn't put no more people, no more...they made the kids crawl on the top of the heads, all the way in there, just kept on pushing them in, to fill them all in. When the door was slammed behind them, was a thick door, was about six inches thick. I built it myself and I know what it's like: three bolts, three iron bars were across. The bars were laid over and then screwed tight. The men, the SS men were standing outside with a Red Cross wagon and they had the gas can...cans in the truck, in the...in the ambulance. He put a mask on, had to put a mask on, tore the lid off of the gas...of the...of the, um, the gas canister, threw it down the chute, through the chimney into the gas chamber. The crematorium two and...and three had two gas chutes. And as soon as he threw the gas in he slammed the lid shut, so the gas wouldn't escape. And all you could hear is one loud sound, 'Shema...' [the Jewish declaration of faith] and that was all. And that took about five to ten minutes. In the door they had a little peephole with four or five layers of glass in between, and it was with bars so nobody could break the glass through. And when they turned on the light into the...in the...in the bunker, you could see whether the people were already dead or not."

That's a Jewish eyewitness. The only thing you have to hang a rebuttal on is your own subjective sense of credibility.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
brauneyz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:13 pm
Location: Everywhere, USA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by brauneyz » Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:09 pm

Another 'eyewitness' bites the dust. Too timely to ignore...
DES MOINES, Iowa - James Hoyt, one of four U.S. soldiers who discovered the Buchenwald concentration camp as World War II neared its end, has died.

Buchenwald, one of the largest concentration camps established by Nazi Germany, was liberated in April 1945. It is estimated that 56,000 prisoners lost their lives at Buchenwald between 1937 and 1945.

"There were thousands of bodies piled high," Hoyt said in a 2005 interview. "I saw hearts that had been taken from live people in medical experiments. ... Seeing these things, it changes you."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080815/ap_ ... /obit_hoyt
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." ~ Bertrand de Jouvenel

User avatar
Saggy
Account Locked
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:58 am

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Saggy » Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:37 pm

Martin Brock wrote:That's one of four. Here's one you don't discuss.


Now we're getting somewhere ! Sam Itzkowitz does claim to have witnessed the holohoax. Now, is he credible?

He gave the interview in 1991. A little late, it would be interesting to know his history. But, let's assume he has told the same story since 1945. This would need to be verified to establish credibility.

He describes a lot of detail about the gas chamber. He describes metal chutes and a six inch door with bolts and bars that he built ! This is an interesting detail that can be checked. Did prisoners construct the kremas? He is referring to one of the Auschwitz crematoriums, referred to as kremas, that supposedly contained gas chambers. Hoess describes them as containing fake shower fixtures, but Itzkowitz doesn't mention this.

Now, here we have descriptions of physical evidence. The crematoriums were blown up with explosives by either the Nazis or the Russians, but the remains are still there. We would expect to find the metal chutes. No such chutes are to be found. We would expect to find the door with the bars and bolts. No such door is found. I'll also note that none of Hoess's fake shower fixtures were not found either. There is NOTHING to indicate that the rooms in the kremas were anything other than morgues.

So, that part of Itzkowitz's 'testimony' is contradicted by the physical evidence. Holohoax testimony is NEVER supported by physical evidence.

Next Itzkowitz goes into how the Nazis packed the Jews into the chamber. This is pure phantasmagoria, and not to my knowledge part of the standard account. The passing of the babies over the heads of the packed-in prisoners is a particularly absurd touch. How is Itzkowitz supposed to have known this? To begin to have credibilty, he would have to tell us how he came by this knowledge. According to the standard account the Jews went willingly into the rooms because they were told they were going to take showers. Itzokowitz' account is incompatible with that version. Neither Itzkowitz's or the standard account is believable.

Next he describes a truck with a red cross containing SS men. Did the Nazi medics have red crosses on their trucks? This is a detail that can be checked. In the standard account it is medics, or de-infestation personnel, that applied the Zyklon.

Itzkowitz says that the Nazis donned gas masks to toss the Zyklon into the chutes, and in five to ten minutes it was all over. Zyklon was a commercial insecticide and released the HCN gas slowly over the period of an hour, so, Itzkowitz account is absurd. Even under optimum conditions in a US gas chamber, gassings have taken up to 18 minutes. Again, Itzkowitz seems to have been omniscient at Auschwitz, he gives no clue as to how he 'knows' this information. It has no credibility because Zyklon could not have disseminated through the room, much less killed all the people (up to 2000?), in five or ten minutes. He adds that when the light was turned on in the bunker you could see if the people were dead or not. How would he know this? He does not say. His description has no authority or credibility.

Itzkowitz gives an account as if he were omniscient at Auschwitz, describing details of processes there is no way he could have observed, and giving no sources for his information. His story is contradicted by the physical evidence. It includes obvious phantasmagoria at odds with the standard account.

For the reasons mentioned, I don't regard Itzkowitz as a credible witness.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Martin Brock » Sat Aug 16, 2008 4:43 am

You'll never regard any witness as credible, so the exercise is pointless.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10072
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by landrew » Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:01 am

To any denialist:
No one is credible if you doubt everything they say by default. i guess you have to, otherwise you'd have to admit you were wrong. It's instant gratification being "right" all the time, but catch is that you live your whole life without the benefit of learning from your mistakes. A mind is a terrible thing to waste that way.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Wolfie
BANNED
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:22 pm

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Wolfie » Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:33 am

landrew wrote:To any denialist:
No one is credible if you doubt everything they say by default. i guess you have to, otherwise you'd have to admit you were wrong. It's instant gratification being "right" all the time, but catch is that you live your whole life without the benefit of learning from your mistakes. A mind is a terrible thing to waste that way.


One of the main problems with Holocaust study is the willingness of those who support it to accept claims by survivors such as Mrs. Meyerson as a stated fact, with no proof of its accuracy. Statements by survivors are simply that..."statements". Mrs. Meyerson never appeared in a court of law and never underwent cross examination.
After the war, camp internees were interviewed by various agencies and their statements were written down. The terminology used regarding these statements later changed and afterward they were called "testimonies" implying testimony in a court of law.

The Nuremberg process was rife with these survivor testimonies which were read into the court docket, again, without any substantiation of claims or proof of its accuracy or truth.

Here is an excerpt from Nuremberg Document USSR-008, which presents the findings of the Soviet Extraordinary Commission regarding Auschwitz.
The witness EDWARD DE VIND testified:

"After the occupation of Holland by the Germans, a purge of the state apparatus, the governmental installations, and educational institutions took place in November 1940. Three of us university assistants were expelled., I moved to Amsterdam. A Dutch fascist was found murdered in a residential block. As a reprisal, the Germans arrested 400 hostages, including myself. They grabbed me on the street and sent me to this camp."

The witness JACKOV GORDON from Vilnius testified:

"... I was sent to the Auschwitz camp on 22 January 1943. In all, there were 3,650 people in the train. Of these, 265 men and 80 women were sent into the camp; the rest were sent to the crematorium immediately, where they were gassed and burnt. Among the victims were my wife, Matilda, a nurse by profession, my son, 4 1/2 years old, and my father (73 years old), as well as my mother (64 years old).

The witness EMILIE DESSANTI, an Italian, testified:

"...On 12 September 1944, the Hitlerians deported us from Italy and sent us to Auschwitz camp. In all, they sent 500 Italians to the camp. Of these, 30 remained alive. The rest were brutally tortured to death and killed in the camp."

The witness DAVID SURES testified:

"... I came from Greece on 3 April 1943 with a trainload of Greeks, together with more than 2,500 other persons, including my mother, 53 years old, and my sister and her child. Approximately 300 persons of the 2,500 were sent into the camp, while the remaining, among them my mother, my sister, and her five-year old child, were sent straight from the train to be burnt in the crematorium."

The witness GEORG KITMAN from Roumania testified:

"...In June 1944, I and my parents were sent to Auschwitz, together with other people, old people, women and children, in a railway train. When we got out, all the old people and mothers with small children were separated from the strong ones, sent to the crematorium, and burnt. Among them were my father, 42 years old, and my mother, 48 years old. Of the 3,000 persons, not more than 350 were sent into the camp."

The witness ZISKA testified:

"...I arrived in February 1943 with 1100 other people from France. On the same day, 205 strong people were selected and sent to the barracks and the other 895 -- old people, women, and children -- were sent to the gas chamber, where they were asphyxiated."

The former inmate, ANNA KEPPICH, a Hungarian from the city of Cluj, testified:

"...I arrived in Auschwitz camp in June 1944 with 3,000 Hungarian prisoners. After our arrival in the camp, 500 strong people were selected for work in the camp, while the other 2,500 were sent for extermination in the gas chambers."

Professor BERTHOLD EPSTEIN of the University of Prague reported to the Commission:

"Selected prisoners were sent to the gas chambers for extermination. For several months, we saw long lines of people sent to their death in the crematorium. Specially large groups were killed in May, June, and July 1944. During this time the crematorium worked day and night, as we could see from the flames which shot out of the chimneys. We often smelled the stench of burning flesh, hair, and nails. In this time, we saw two gigantic fires in the open, which blazed brightly during the night, in addition to the flames that shot out of the crematorium chimneys. Shrieks and cries as well as the barking of SS watch dogs could be heard throughout the night. The unfortunate victims, who were sent to death in the open fires in long rows due to the overfilled crematoria, anticipated the fate that awaited them..."

"I knew that my nearest relatives had shared this fate, and that I, too, would not succeed in escaping it. Approximately every two weeks, the camp doctor, MENGELE, selected the people who were to be killed in the crematorium. Thus, approximately 500 children were killed in one day. Heart-breaking scenes occurred when these children were taken away, since everyone knew, where they were going ?>. The SS men and their accessories showed special brutality in this procedure. When we arrived in Auschwitz, I was separated from my wife and never saw her again. Later I heard that she was never even accepted into the camp. My wife was no doubt killed in the usual manner. In March 1944, SS men murdered my wife's sister with her two children and my niece 38 years old. In July 1944, my sister also died."

While tragic and possibly true, these accounts were not given in a court of law, they were statements taken by Soviet interrogators and read into the Nuremberg Transcripts as fact.
The full document from which this excerpt was drawn can be read here: http://www.codoh.com/trials/triussr8.html

Here is Mrs. Meyerson's brief account as posted at the original link above.

The crematorium was just a uh few minutes away. We could see the
chimneys from uh...uh wherever we were and of course we could smell
the uh first the gas when it was left...let out from uh the gas
chambers, and, and then we could smell the burning of the bodies,
the human flesh burning. And then they cleared the grates and we
could hear the grates uh being cleaned, and it's similar to what
your own oven would be like when you move the grates around except
in a much, it was much noisier that we could hear it all the way in
the barracks. And, uh, to this day when I clean my own oven, I am
reminded of that noise of the cleaning of the grates in the
crematorium.


Just looking at these few words raises a few questions.
First, she claims she could smell the gas as it was released.
Since Auschwitz had disinfestation chambers and regularly used Zyklon to fumigate the barracks, how could she determine the source of the "smell of gas she alludes to?"

Here is a brief excerpt of an exchange between David Irving and expert witness Professor Van Pelt during Irving's libel trial against Deborah Lipstadt.
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/i/ ... /day010.13

MR IRVING: Let us see if you can talk in round figures. If it
was being used for fumigation purposes, it would be used
for two fumigation purposes, would it not, for fumigating
barracks and for fumigating clothing and objects, shall we
say?
A. Yes, you are right.
Q. For that purpose they had a purpose built fumigation
chamber in Auschwitz, the one that we have seen with the
blue stains on the outside walls?
A. There are a number of them, in fact. There was one
building ----
Q. B W 5?
A. Also in Auschwitz I there was a building with two
fumigation rooms but they were probably used consecutively
in Auschwitz. Then there was a fumigation or delousing
facility in Canada
I which we discussed yesterday, where
the hair was found and we have a fumigation capability in
Zyklon, I am now talking only about Zyklon, in Birkenhau,
in the women's camp.


Clearly there were other sources in her immediate area that could have produced the smell of gas.
As far as the crematoria and the smell of burning flesh, yes, that could certainly be true.
When the epidemics swept through Auschwitz, as many as 3000 people per day were dying.
The first method of body disposal used was to simply bury them. This proved disastrous as the diseases associated with open burial contaminated the groundwater which ultimately infected the drinking water of the town (Auschwitz) sickening its inhabitants. It was determined that burning was the only sure method of destroying the diseased corpses, so a plan was devised to greatly increase crematory capacity.
There is nothing ominous about the process.

One of the origins of the "gas chamber stories" was a leaflet campaign used by the Allies to foment revolt at the camps.
Allied planes dropped large numbers of leaflets, written in Polish and German, on Auschwitz and the surrounding areas which claimed that people were being gassed in the camp. The Auschwitz gassing story, which was an important part of the Allied wartime propaganda effort, was also broadcast to Europe by Allied radio stations.
source: Nuremberg document NI-11696. NMT “green series,” Vol. 8, p. 606

It is your choice to to accept claims at face value without verification and I defend your right to believe what you wish.
For myself however, I prefer research and substantiation of facts before I accept anything as truth. As for Mrs. Meyerson, I can easily see how she could attribute the smell of gas and burning flesh to what she believed were horrific atrocities she believed were committed by the Germans. Perhaps she obtained a copy of the leaflets or heard the claims on the underground radios in the camp. Since she was never cross examined, I guess we will never know.

User avatar
Saggy
Account Locked
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:58 am

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Saggy » Sat Aug 16, 2008 11:39 am

Martin Brock wrote:You'll never regard any witness as credible, so the exercise is pointless.


Great Scott, just when it looked like it might be a teeny weeny bit interesting, MB takes a powder. You appeared to be reasonable in analyzing the 'testimony' of the first hoax eyewitness. What happened?

I only want to add that I'm pretty sure the Red Cross truck can be shown to be pure BS, at least that's the impression I have from a little googling.

What is remarkable is that even in 1991 they tried to pass that stuff off as 'evidence'.

Well, I guess MB, to my regret, has earned a holohoaxer send off ....

http://www.whydidthechickencrosstheroad ... cluck6.wav

See ya.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9823
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Pyrrho » Sat Aug 16, 2008 1:26 pm

Saggy wrote:
Martin Brock wrote:You'll never regard any witness as credible, so the exercise is pointless.


Great Scott, just when it looked like it might be a teeny weeny bit interesting, MB takes a powder. You appeared to be reasonable in analyzing the 'testimony' of the first hoax eyewitness. What happened?

I only want to add that I'm pretty sure the Red Cross truck can be shown to be pure BS, at least that's the impression I have from a little googling.

What is remarkable is that even in 1991 they tried to pass that stuff off as 'evidence'.

Well, I guess MB, to my regret, has earned a holohoaxer send off ....

http://www.whydidthechickencrosstheroad ... cluck6.wav

See ya.

Please do not indulge in mockery. You've been asked not to do this.

Warning issued.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
rrichar911
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4853
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:03 pm
Location: Texas, God's country USA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by rrichar911 » Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:31 pm

Saggy

I have known several survivors. They are all dead now, but they told me a few stories.

Manny was a child when he went in, and survived because a guard seemed to like him and gave him the job of feeding the pigs. Thus he was able to "steel" a hand full of pig slop to eat now and then.

Because he found some food, he was able to stay relatively fit compared to most, and thus was not targeted for extemination as he could do work.

Manny said that extermination was a every day thing, that the cremation dust settled on everything in the camp, even on the pig slop. So he ate the dust of dead bodies.
What really intrest me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the universe ~ Albert Einstein

User avatar
Saggy
Account Locked
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:58 am

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Saggy » Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:28 pm

rrichar911 wrote:Manny said that extermination was a every day thing, that the cremation dust settled on everything in the camp, even on the pig slop. So he ate the dust of dead bodies.


Surely you recognize that this is pure phantasmagoria. What is remarkable is that this sort of nonsense is 'taken seriously' by anyone. This sort of degenerate lie constitutes the bulk of the 'evidence' for the holohoax.

User avatar
brauneyz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:13 pm
Location: Everywhere, USA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by brauneyz » Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:41 pm

Batting a thousand here, folks! :aargh:
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." ~ Bertrand de Jouvenel

User avatar
Anchor of Life
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 5:59 am

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Anchor of Life » Sat Aug 16, 2008 11:05 pm

Four holocaust survivors and one daughter of a survivor, shared their life-changing stories at Saddleback Church April 14, 2008.

http://www.saddlebackcivilforum.com/hol ... index.html
"This hope is a strong and trustworthy anchor for our souls." (Hebrews 6:19)

User avatar
Saggy
Account Locked
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:58 am

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Saggy » Sat Aug 16, 2008 11:39 pm

Anchor of Life wrote:Four holocaust survivors and one daughter of a survivor, shared their life-changing stories at Saddleback Church April 14, 2008.


The video didn't play on my computer (PC running XP). It started and lasted about 2 seconds and faded out and quit. I did note that it was 132 minutes long. Did any of the 'survivors' claim to have witnessed mass gas chamber executions? Can you provide a brief synopsis of their situations/testimony. If I can get the video to play, AND, if you indicate the relevant parts of the tape, I'll check it out. Otherwise ..... it's a non-starter for me.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Is there one credible Jewish eyewitness?

Post by Martin Brock » Sun Aug 17, 2008 3:09 am

Wolfie wrote:It is your choice to to accept claims at face value without verification and I defend your right to believe what you wish.


The challenge was to present to a single "credible" Jewish eyewitness account. The problem is that "credible" provides enough wiggle room to dismiss any conceivable account, including every account you quote, particularly if one begins with the premise that all accounts must be false since the events never occurred.

Wolfie wrote:For myself however, I prefer research and substantiation of facts before I accept anything as truth.


I've said nothing about accepting anything as truth.

Wolfie wrote:As for Mrs. Meyerson, I can easily see how she could attribute the smell of gas and burning flesh to what she believed were horrific atrocities she believed were committed by the Germans.


The Nazis indisputably committed horrific atrocities, regardless of gas chambers. Herding people into prison camps for the crime of belonging to an ethnic group they hated is an horrific atrocity all by itself. If these people hadn't been sleeping in group quarters, two and three to a bed, severely malnourished with inadequate sanitation and medical care, there would have been no typhus epidemics.

Wolfie wrote:Perhaps she obtained a copy of the leaflets or heard the claims on the underground radios in the camp. Since she was never cross examined, I guess we will never know.


Perhaps she described what she witnessed. If you're running a concentration camp in which thousands of people are dying of a contagious disease carried from person to person by lice, if all of these people are in poor health generally, the infected and uninfected alike, if you're routinely delousing people in a delousing chamber to prevent infection, particularly people in the poorest health, if many of these people are dying during or soon after a trip to the chamber, if these people are then being cremated, then everything this woman says she observed would have been occurring.

And if you also decide to euthanize the laziest of the inmates ("typhus" descends from Greek meaning "lazy" because it induces lethargy, even among well fed victims), because you know you don't have the means to prevent their further deterioration and also don't have sufficient resources to provide even for the healthy inmates, how shocking is that? If you're a convinced eugenicist who regards all of these people as subhuman degenerates parasitizing, like "a maggot in a putrescent body", the more highly evolved people you're charged with protecting, this remedy seems even less shocking.

So if that's the Holocaust, then that's the Holocaust, but it's no hoax.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.