Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2371
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:43 am
- Location: USA, West of the Pecos
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/ ... 92/tab-pdf
"Quantifying the Holocaust: Hyperintense kill rates during the Nazi genocide."
Vol. 5, no. 1, eaau7292
02 Jan 2019
The George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences
TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY
Prof. Lewi Stone has some interesting charts and graphs. Perhaps someone should e-mail the good professor at Tel Aviv University and ask him how these people were killed and disposed of exactly.
“Now we have forced Hitler to war so he no longer can peacefully annihilate one piece of the Treaty of Versailles after the other.”
historian – England
As long ago as the Winter of 1984, Prof. Robert Faurisson was raising similar questions.
You can read them in their entirety here.
Here is a small excerpt:
Prof. Robert Faurisson wrote:I am now going to reproduce in its entirety a passage in which Irving tried to define his position. I emphasise the words in it which seem to me especially worthy of note -- either because they frankly show the lack of certainty of the author, or because they call for explanations that are not forthcoming; from this comes the general impression that David Irving is making some accusations which are very serious, and yet about which he himself is not entirely sure, at least at this time. He says, as a matter of fact:
We would love to learn from Irving the facts about precisely how many such "locations" there were and at what geographical points? How many "Nazi criminals" in this matter were there, and what were the specific responsibilities of each? If they acted "probably without direct orders from above," does that mean that they perhaps acted with indirect orders or perhaps even without orders at all? What does "from above" mean? About which level(s) of the hierarchy is Irving thinking here, if he is not alluding to Adolf Hitler alone? What were the processes of physical liquidation that were used? How large were those groups of victims? If, on the one hand, Irving has the honesty -- rare among historians -- to tell us: "I can't prove it, I haven't got into that, I haven't investigated that particular aspect of history" and if, on the other hand, he mentions "the documents I have seen," I can allow myself to deduce the following: David Irving has studied some documents which are not the ones that he would have studied if his research had dealt with the exterminations. In that case, not having carried out research on that aspect, he is not able to say very much about it. He can simply express his "feelings."David Irving wrote:(p. 42): I would say I am satisfied in my own mind that in various locations [?], Nazi criminals [?] acting probably [?] without direct [?] orders from above, did carry out liquidations of groups [?] of people including Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally incurable people and the rest. I am quite plain about that in my own mind. I can't prove it, I haven't got into that, I haven't investigated that particular aspect of history but from the documents I've seen, I've got the kind of gut feeling which suggests to me that that is probably accurate.
...I will now present a final sentence from David Irving's presentation. On p. 51, after quoting the person who wrote to Eichmann on 16 July 1941, along with a comment from Hans Frank, he addresses himself to the revisionist historians. Using a word that I find very appropriate, he calls them the "dissident" historians. He says:
Here is my response to David Irving:David Irving wrote:... it's sufficient to make me suspect that there was some kind of major crime going on at the initiative of the local criminals on the spot. This, I think, is the line that dissident historians should take.
"You are right to be suspicious. In historical investigation, suspicion is the beginning of wisdom. But what you consider to be in some sense a finish line, a line which must be maintained in order to continue the inquiry, I consider to be the starting line. Start with that suspicion if you wish, but do not stop there. Let that suspicion be a stimulus for an investigator like you. Do not hesitate to question it when you need to. You yourself frankly say that you 'haven't investigated that particular aspect of history.' You even say that you 'haven't got into that.' Let someone like me, who has gotten into that subject for many long years and who has conducted some investigations which few others have conducted, investigations as materialist in character as possible, let me tell you that the moment has come for a historian of your importance to get into the subject and to study it for yourself in your own fashion."
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
And what are your tales of horror based on? Please try to tell us why you are not just another greedy QUACK "historian." But what irks me most of all, Mr. Irving--is that you are still trying to make money spreading the dirtiest anti-German propaganda imaginable--you are a racist LOW-LIFE and helping the Jews, of course.
Even for someone as demented as David Irving (and he certainly is a "nutcase"), the utter failure of the enigma decrypts to support any gassing scenarios or mass extermination theories should have been a major revelation that something was at least wrong with the Holocaust. But no, for David Irving it is merely some kind of a problem. Those decrypts which the Brits have so proudly bragged about since the war as a demonstration of British brilliance compared to German stupidity are almost entirely ignored--at least as far as the holocaust is concerned. It was even said repeatedly in the postwar media that German field commanders could have gotten their orders quicker from the British than from their own superiors in Berlin--and that the Brits could read the minds of Germans. Wow!
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 27 guests