dear member of CODOH and RODOH forums,
I hope you're doing well.
I know you consider yourself a very smart and intelligent person, not to mention that you all want to look as truth tellers, brave investigators and forensic scientists, seeking only for the hidden truth.
I would like to say some words to you, and I'm hoping I will do it speaking in your own language.
I guess you've said a thousand times so far in your life that 'There is not such a thing like the perfect crime', correct?
You probably have said also that 'every crime leaves behind traces'. That even 'every person leaves traces, whenever he or she goes. He always leaves a part of himself in the crime scene. And he always takes a part of the spot he went with him when he leaves the place'.
You said those things a thousand times, right?
So, if there's such a crime like 6.000.000 murders, there must be forensic evidence and traces and stuff left behind.
I guess you've said a thousand times 'there is no credible or verifiable evidence that any genocide against the Jews actually took place' and you want proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' -how did it you say it? oh, yes- 'prove -with the same standard of proof applied in U.S. criminal courts', right?
Are you happy so far with my analysis?
I'm noticing on the internet very often a 'challenge' entitled 'CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION CHALLENGE', including 50 'questions-challenges' on Holocaust, for anyone that 'has the courage, integrity and character'.
I've seen it for over 1300 times (!) in your little deniers' echo chamber:
I read a non-existent entity that goes by the name NAFCASH runs this 'challenge'. I read somewhere that NAFCASH stands for 'National Association of Fish-Wives, Cretins and Screaming Hysterics' but I don't believe it.
And I see in this very important challenge 30 times or more the phrase 'prove - with the same standard of proof applied in U.S. criminal courts'.
And none took this challenge, until now. None seems to have the 'courage, integrity and character'.
So, you must be thinking that 'believers' are afraid of, or maybe that they know they will lose, and that's the reason they don't want to touch it.
Well, the truth is different, and I'll show it to you in a minute.
Well said, we can go even further. We can establish a Special Grand Jury, and bring in front of it the ultimate case: We'll choose 12 random US citizens and let them decide: 'Did Holocaust happen?'
After all, why not? These 12 persons maybe aren't qualified historians or archives scientists or professors of anything, but does it mean that they can't decide if Holocaust happened? The same way they can decide if a murder or a rape took place, according to the evidence, the exact same way they can decide if a genocide took place. Why do we have a judiciary system, after all, if not for justice to be served by ordinary people, right?
The only thing is that History is not a 50 minutes perfectly written scenario, where a mystery can be solved by one single detail. These things don't happen in the real world. Not to mention that what you see in the CSI shows, -you have to know it-, it's not either real police work. These are fantasy concepts, that happen only in someone's imagination, someone whose job is to invent such stories.
In real life, there are real people with real flaws. Real History cases with real difficulties for a historian to find out 'what happened there at that time?'.
There are also -if you want to talk about this irrelevant issue, but let it be- real judges and real jury who deal with real evidence and perhaps they make verdicts with real flaws.
In real life, there are people who make real mistakes because nothing is perfect like it is in the movies.
But, in your twisted logic, you still want to solve 'the Holocaust case' with 'scientific and forensic criteria', as those you think you know from the TV court drama shows.
There isn't such thing as 'the perfect situation', either. Historians deal with archives. They struggle to find a piece of evidence and then they torture themselves to find the appropriate context to put this evidence into, in order for the narrative to be stable and unquestionable, and to make sense to other historians and to all rational audiences.
Bringing the CSI 'logic' in such difficult issues that deal with the past isn't science.
It's not History either.
It's simple stupidity.
And bringing CSI style kind of questions when dealing with complex historical matters of the past, as if the whole case is a Matlock style court show, doesn't make you a historian.
Do you really believe that you have the skills and the credentials to be the guys who can establish the standards of evidence?
I doubt it.
Can you tell the difference between real historian's work and your CSI-style mambo-jumbo rejecting kind of randomly shooting other people's digging in the archives?
Well, allow me.
Now, what was the process in proving the Holocaust? How do we know about it?
First, there were physical evidence, what the liberators found in 1945.
Then we had:
- Eyewitness testimonies -accounts from survivors, Kapos, Sonderkommandos, SS guards, commandants, local towns' people, bystanders, and even upper-echelon Nazis who did not deny the Holocaust - FIT
Then we had:
- The camps themselves -many concentration camps, work camps, and death camps are still extant in varying degrees of originality and reconstruction. - FIT
Then we had:
- Mass graves, like those found in the East. We had also autopsies by Soviet coroners, i.e. you can see them in the film 'The Unseen Holocaust' when doctors were examining skulls of the victims and the holes from bullets and trajectories etc. - FIT
Then we had:
- Written documents -hundreds of thousands of letters, memos, blueprints, orders, bills, speeches, articles, memoirs, and confessions. - FIT
Then we had:
- Photographs -official military and press photographs, civilian photographs, secret photographs taken by survivors, aerial photographs, German and Allied film footage, etc. - FIT
Then we had:
- Negative evidence -if five to six million Jews were not killed, where did all those people go? - FIT
We have millions of details like the above. For real historians, all those data converge to one conclusion: Holocaust happened.
We present these details to the deniers, and they reject them, kind of Sherlock Holmes who shoots randomly whenever he can. But not always or on every subject.
You see, in forty years of effort, deniers have been unable to produce a counter-narrative to the inherited history of Holocaust or even for Auschwitz alone. The deniers claim to be revisionist historians, but they have yet to produce a history that offers a plausible fact-checked real-looking explanation of the events in question. Real historians work hard to find evidence and proof. The denier all he has to do is find one inconsistency, one error, one mistake, or one contradiction, and he thinks he can dissolve the whole case. Someone has to challenge you to present a counter-narrative. Because in the real narrative all the evidence becomes intelligible, while if we assume it was a hoax, most of the evidence does not make any sense.
Real historians have reconstructed the facts, day by day. The whole chain of the facts.
Real historians do have a complete, full and precise overall narrative.
Do you also have a complete, full and precise and overall narrative that covers all aspects, in every single angle, in every country and at any given time?
And every new single piece of evidence confirms the real narrative, for example:
And every other archive and piece of evidence found ever since 1945,- In the 60s, Salmen Lewenthal Sonderkommando handwritings were found - FIT
- In the '80s, the Auschwitz Album with the 193 photographs was found - FIT
- in 1980, a thermos flask with 12 pages written in 1944 by the Greek Sonderkommando Marcel Nadjari was found in Birkenau soil, at crematorium 3 - FIT
- In the 90s, there was the opening of the Eastern bloc's archives - FIT
- New photographs discovered for the roof - FIT
- 242 witnesses on homicidal gassings in the first Frankfurt Auschwitz trial 1963-1965, there of 64 from former SS personnel, 169 from former prisoners and 10 from others like civilians and former British army personnell, from which 239 witnesses (99%) testified affirmative on homicidal gassings, while three witnesses (1%) claimed they had no knowledge and not a single witness (0%) who doubted or denied that homicidal gassings were carried out in Auschwitz - FIT
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... kfurt.html
- As you can see, the case for every new piece of evidence is FIT- FIT- FIT- Index of Published Evidence on Mass Extermination in Auschwitz and Auschwitz-Birkenau
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ce-on.html
Real historians do offer an explanation for everything.
What do the deniers offer in real historical terms?
Do they have anything else?
They only cast a doubt here and there, they 're playing a game with the minor details, they set a partial objection whenever they can, but can they tell the whole overall story?
Using lies and twisting information can't nullify the key aspects of the Holocaust just because some irrelevant details are not perfectly explained. Some of these details will probably never be fully explained. But it's really not needed looking at the full picture.
Robert Jan van Pelt wrote:
Deniers don't care to produce a narrative. They think of all these very difficult historical subjects as a 'case in court'. I'll find the crucial detail and I'll win the case, Matlock style. 'Oh, the door opened both ways, case closed, Mr Shermer'. Then 'Oh, the brick hasn't any cyanide, you're busted Mr Hillberg'. Then 'Oh, you can't find me an autopsy, I beat you, Mr Evans'.«[Deniers] see themselves as successors of Sherlock Holmes, looking for clues that give access to the hidden truth. Their confidence that they can do so is based on their assumption that the 'Hoax' that is the Holocaust centers on the premise that Auschwitz was an extermination camp, and the assumption that Auschwitz was an extermination camp centers on the premise that it was equipped with homicidal gas chambers, and that our knowledge of the gas chambers is based on only a very few and very unreliable sources: mainly hearsay and a few scraps of paper. Therefore, they assume that the whole 'legend' will dissolve when one can show one error, one mistake, one inconsistency, or one contradiction.
The assumption that the discovery of one little crack will bring the whole building down is the fundamental fallacy of Holocaust Denial. It would be a legitimate argument if indeed our knowledge of the Holocaust depended on our knowledge of the extermination installations of Auschwitz, and if the existence and operation of the gas chambers was proved by very few bits of information. This is obviously nonsensical. First of all there is the fact that if we assume the Holocaust to have happened more or less as told, all the evidence becomes intelligible, while if we assume it was a hoax, most of the evidence does not make any sense. When this was the case, the father of 'debunkment,' Lord Bolingbroke, counselled to desist and accept a fact as true. 'Force your imagination as much as you please, you will find insurmountable difficulties in your way, if you suppose the fact to be invented: but all these difficulties vanish when you suppose it true.' Furthermore, our knowledge of the Holocaust depends on tens of thousands of individual pieces of information, many of which have nothing to do with Auschwitz, and if we do consider Auschwitz, then we may safely state that our knowledge of the gas chambers depend on thousands of individual pieces of evidence of different kinds and classes. All those data converge to a conclusion. Even if one can point at erroneous information, inconsistencies and contradictions -normal occurrences in everyday historical practice- this does not mean that these disprove the existence of the gas chambers, or the Holocaust.
At the moment nothing exists even resembling this. Certainly, the negationists have shown great creativity in inventing many alternative explanations for each aspect of the camp’s history that seems to point to a deliberate program of genocide, but none of them are reconciled in one plausible narrative-a history that would force the negationists to choose between the many options they have imagined, to seriously engage with issues of relevancy and causation, and to apply judgement».
All the important pieces of the great evidence-puzzle point at the direction of the genocide. You can look at the entire picture or you can hook up instead to some details, trying to find oddities from the event, and force these oddities to support your predetermined conclusion, that 'the holocaust didn't happen' is just a tactic that leads you nowhere.
Actual evidence has been provided and convinced historians, governments and criminal justice authorities of the relevant facts. That won't be changed by any denier's lame attempt to dismiss such evidence as, in order to mask the fact that he has neither an explanation for such evidence nor any evidence that would support a competing narrative.
But you are totally unable and unqualified to understand these simple concepts. You insist that «it was a hoax» and that only a few Jews died and then «war-time atrocity propaganda was used to 'win the peace', to exact revenge, to demonize the vanquished and to justify Allied crimes».
But this is not a scholar's answer.
This is an answer from a boy who watched too many CSI shows and learn a couple of difficult words in the internet.
Well, you asked for it.
I know you and all your co-thinkers all first of all qualified CSIs for sure, I'm betting my head on this. I can see it when you're talking about empiricism, without understanding fully what it means.
I'm sure each one of you deniers (and not just 'skeptics') have watched over 10.000 hours of police mystery solving shows.
(But how many real History books have you read combined all of you? Probably less than zero, but let's move on).
OK with the CSI and the court stuff and the 'crime details' and 'standard of proof applied in US criminal courts', but as I asked you before, where's History in all this thing?
(I can't say 'in your 'writings' because it would be an insult to the words 'write, writers, literature' etc)
Here's a challenge for you.
If you have the 'courage, integrity and character', as one of your ilk used to told us.
Write your own History.
Produce your own complete, full and precise and overall narrative that covers all aspects, in every single angle, in every country and at any given time.
But, keep in mind: You have to include EVERYTHING in it.
No more excuses, no more weasel dodging, no more selective approach, no more games, no more appeals to 'Jewish conspiracies' whenever you're on a dead-end.
If you want to be taken seriously, you have to address each and every fact, detail, event, situation, word, item, document, EVERYTHING.
You should have all the answers to all issues. Not only to questions like 'Where did the Jews sent East go?'. I guess you're familiar with that issue. No harm to remember it:
And, if, let's say, there was a 'Resettlement to the East', what about all these (copy from Skeptics' StatMech's post)?«[...] if the Jews were evacuated to the east rather than being exterminated in Poland, what happened to them?
Why didn't even one of them come forward after the war and tell historians they have got it all wrong?
That the Nazis merely helped his family safely relocate from Europe to Russia?
Prove one Jew had his clothes deloused in Treblinka, Belzec or Sobibor, given a hot bath and then 'evacuated' out of Reich occupied territories (rather than somewhere else within occupied territory such as Majdanek) via free one-way train ticket into Russia!»
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... onist.html
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 79#p604379
Any account of the supposed resettlement of the Jews proposed by deniers will need to be at least as comprehensive and will need to cite a range of evidence.Looking at actual, historical population relocations - ones that occurred during WWII, during the period we are interested in - we have planning and execution documents; business and bureaucracy transaction records; testimonies from authorities, those moved and observers; population studies; inventories; news reports; health reports; registration and census counts; etc. that enable us to answer basic questions about most of the following aspects of such operations:
* Planning and participants, feasibility studies
* Communication plan and distribution, briefings, bureaucratic participation
* Identification of groups to be moved
* Where relocated groups were to be moved from, numbers involved
* Deliberations, preparations relative to relocation places/sites, transactions as to land etc
* Reception preparations and processes including housing and infrastructure
* Disposition of property of relocated people, luggage permitted/taken with them
* Authorities in charge of relocation, transports, and reception
* What happened at the deportation locations
* Actual dates of relocation operations, arrival dates
* Conditions of journey
* Routes of transports and mode/means of transportation; arrangement for transport
* Registration of newcomers, census data, demographic composition, language issues, etc
* Authorities in charge of relocation site
* Conditions in new location on arrival
* Living arrangements – rentals, purchases, construction, furnishing
* Food and other basic supplies – on arrival, longer term
* Coordination with local authorities, implication for local government (citizenship etc)
* Economic factors – skills of relocated population, jobs and income in new home, etc
* Communication (postal etc) of relocated population to relatives, friends, etc
* News stories and public notice of relocation
* Problem solving and management of relocation process by authorities in charge
* Reactions of local authorities/agencies and population to newcomers
* Long term description of new settlements – where these people ended up in the long run
I knew it.
So, you should have all the answers not only to the above question, but also to issues such as:
- Why members of the Einsatzgruppen killings shooting squads suffered from 'hysterical crying', 'health breakdown', and why 'their nerves were subjected to tremendous strain' or even 'sexual impotence' being 'totally drunken, often up to 40% loss due to breakdown of the nerves', if not by the stress that their participation in brutal executions caused them? It was another reason? Name it.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... eport.html
- Why afterwards, there were tests with explosives on Jews if not for finding an effective way of mass-murder, avoiding the previous mentioned nervous breakdowns of the killers? It was another purpose? Name it.
- Why next the experts of euthanasia project T4 were given orders to go secretly to the death camps, if not for sharing their know-how on death devices? How can you explain this, especially when at the time Goebbels published one of his most violent, repulsive and 'death predicting' articles of all times («The Jews are receiving a penalty that is certainly hard, but more than deserved. World Jewry erred in adding up the forces available to it for this war, and now is gradually experiencing the annihilation that it planned for us, and would have carried out without a second thought if it had possessed the ability. It is perishing according its own law: 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.'»)? It was another purpose? Name it.
http://web.archive.org/web/200102111910 ... /goeb1.htm
- Why at the end of August 1941 (during the Einsatzgruppen killings in the East), Gestapo leader Heinrich Muller sent a telegram to Einsatzgruppen, where he told them to «prevent people from crowding during massive executions»? We know that at the end of August 1941 the fields of killing in the East were a terrible public spectacle and not yet a carefully guarded secret; since many thousands of German conscripts and women, if they did not participate, nevertheless watched the massacres occurring everywhere from the Baltic countries to southern Ukraine. Muller admitted it and was taking measures. Contemporary deniers deny it?
- Why Heydrich blocked the emigration of Spanish Jews residing in France to Spanish Morocco because, in Heydrich's words, «these Jews would also be too much out of the direct reach of the measures for a basic solution to the Jewish question to be enacted after the war», if not because he wanted them near him for easy extermination? According to deniers, Jews were only 'resettled'. Why Heydrich blocked this particular 'resettlement'?
- What exactly was this 'Separate accommodation' in Auschwitz, if not the 'accommodation' in Krematoria I, II, III, IV, V and the red and white house?
This is very important, and yet nobody has offered an 'alternative' explanation. Where exactly did the Jews were 'accommodated' after the 'selection'? What do you think happened to those who weren't selected for work duty (Arbeitseinsatz)? Did they get to sit around all day in the camp twiddling their thumbs? As the documents state, they were 'gesondert untergebracht', which translates to 'accommodated separately' or received 'special accommodation'. Every single evidence points to the one and only truth: that 'Separate accommodation' was a code word for extrajudicial executions, see here
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... hwitz.html
- Why there were different orders for the majority of Jews on one hand and for the elite minority of Jews who were kept as hostages for trade, regarding their fate, on the other? Since all of them were meant to kept alive, why such distinctive handling? Himmler wanted to establish a special labour camp, in which he wanted to keep in life some 10.000 elite Jews from France, Hungary etc or rich Jews with relatives in the US, in order to exchange them with exchange money and gold from abroad. Hitler agreed, and Himmler ordered Muller «do it, make this special camp, put them to work but keep them alive and healthy». Himmler also asked Hitler if this practice (elite and rich Jews for money from abroad), should be followed more in general for all Jews, not only from France. So, two groups of Jews for two different approaches, the first group goes to its 'abschfallen', the second must be kept alive. The deniers say that no Jew was meant to be killed, that everyone will be kept alive. Then why for the second group should exist particularly the specific order «to keep [the Jews] alive»? We know the reason: The fact that such an exemption should be specifically approved by Hitler is further proof of the control exercised by him in the whole extermination process.
(See, for example «Two groups of Jews, one for 'abschfallen', one must kept alive»)
- Why Belzek, Sobibor and Treblinka were closed during the summer and autumn of 1942, if not for expanding their killing facilities, as the numbers of the murdered Jews show us before and after? It was another purpose? Name it.
- If the Treblinka ground photos show no criminal activity, what is the logical explanation for there being giant excavators digging around Treblinka, located in the far end of Poland where there is no mining, no rare earths, no mineral deposits, no building projects, unless of course these cranes served a nefarious purpose, which is digging, or in this case, unearthing mass graves. It was another purpose? Name it.
- If it was meant for all Jews to stay alive, then why only a portion of them were registered with tattoo numbers? For example, from my hometown Thessaloniki (Salonica), Greece, from 47.000 deported Jews, only 11.700 were registered.
http://web.archive.org/web/201004102058 ... dix_II.htm
- In Salonica, there were at least 6.000 Jewish kids going to elementary school in 1941. In 1943 there were 4.500 kids under 6 years old, and a total of 12.000 under 16. Why not a single one of all the deported kids survived, except of 11 from the 'Bergen-Belsen VIP Jewish families for exchange'?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 68#p566868
- Since many concentration camps were equipped with delousing facilities, why does the prussian blue staining only appear in Auschwitz, Majdanek and Stutthof? Why don't Dachau's or Mauthausen's delousing facilities show this coloration?
- What happened to the Dutch Jews? Nazi registration of Jews, enabled by the efficient Dutch civil service recorded 139,717 Jews, mostly Dutch but with a few thousand German refugees. By 1945 that figure was around 35,000.
Deniers expect others to blindly accept that around 100,000 Dutch Jews voluntarily decided not return to a wealthy, safe, tolerant society and instead move to places unknown (usually suggested to be Israel or the USA).
https://www.ushmm.org/online/hsv/source ... ceId=31949
Then, on finding out they had been declared missing, presumed dead, decided to keep quiet.
https://www.holocaustnamenmonument.nl/e ... s/&lang=EN
- Why has Richard Krege still not published the findings of his report, the Treblinka and Belzec GPR scan? We have been waiting 20 years for his report. How can you claim Richard Krege did a legitimate archaeological investigation of Treblinka and found 'the soil undisturbed', while at the same time claiming Treblinka was a transit camp where structures were erected and then dismantled, claiming all of this left behind no trace at all?
- This letter, sent by Willy Just to Walter Rauff on June 5, 1942: What type of process the «ninety-seven thousand Jews that have been processed» went through? What was the use of these special vans, and what is the meaning of words like 'capacity, load, cargo' if not for describing the gassing murders of ninety-seven thousands Jews? Ninety-seven thousands have been brushed aside, rationalized away, their lives and deaths of less concern than the smooth functioning of an engine from the Nazi mobile gassing installations. This letter, sent by Willy Just to Walter Rauff on June 5, 1942, describes in great detail the 'Spezialwagen' (special vans) and their operation in the gassing murders of thousands. This report on mass murder stresses safety. Just was in section II D 3 a, the automotive organization of the Security Police. The letter's recipient, SS Lieutenant-Colonel Rauff, was the Director of section II D. What was this all about if not for mass murder? Come on, tell me some fiction.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150905054 ... zialwagen/
- Why did Nazis such as Franz Suchomel said the gassings were real, decades after the war?
- And why Oskar Groening, a loyal SS who until now justifies the killings of the Jews, did go against Holocaust deniers, ten years before his indictment, saying to them, when he gave interview to a BBC journalist, exactly these:
- The same goes with Josef Klehr and Oswald Kaduk, SS personnel who have criticised Holocaust denial:«I saw everything: The gas chambers, the cremations, the selection process. One and a half million Jews were murdered in Auschwitz. I was there. People [called me and sent me letters] tried to prove that what I had seen with my own eyes, what I had experienced in Auschwitz was a big, big mistake, a big hallucination on my part because it hadn't happened. I would like you to believe me. I saw the gas chambers. I saw the crematoria. I saw the open fires. I would like you to believe that these atrocities happened because I was there»?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Gr% ... ust_denial
- The same with Dr.Hans-Wilhelm Munch, former SS doctor in Auschwitz (Bernhard Frankfurter ed., Die Begegnung: Auschwitz-Ein Opfer und ein Tater im Gesprach, Vienna: Verlag fur Gesellschaftskritik, 1995, p. 102):«There are voluminous amounts of testimony from thousands of survivors of the Holocaust, as well as the testimony of captured Nazi officers at the Nuremberg Trials and other times. Holocaust deniers discount the testimony of officers claiming that these witnesses were tortured or that Rudolf Hoss allegedly signed a confession written in a language he did not understand (English) or that the Nuremberg Trial did not follow proper judicial procedures. However, Hoss's testimony did not consist of merely a signed confession; while in jail he also wrote two volumes of memoirs and gave extensive testimony outside of the Nuremberg proceedings. Further, his testimony agrees with that of other contemporary written accounts by Auschwitz officials, such as Pery Broad, an SS man stationed at Auschwitz while Hoss was the commandant and the diary kept by SS physician at Auschwitz Johann Kremer, as well as the testimony of hundreds of camp guards and victims.
In addition, former SS personnel have criticised Holocaust denial. SS-Oberscharfuhrer Josef Klehr has said that anyone who maintains that nobody was gassed at Auschwitz must be 'crazy or on the wrong'. SS-Unterscharfuhrer Oswald Kaduk has stated that he does not consider those who maintain such a thing as normal people.».
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism ... estimonies
And something that you probably won't understand, but I'm giving it to you for future food for thought:- Frankfurter: 'Dr. Munch, what would you say to those who say today that all of this did not happen, that Auschwitz is a lie, that Auschwitz is a hoax?'
- Munch: 'When someone tells that Auschwitz is a lie, that it is a hoax, I feel hesitation to say much to him. I say, the facts are so firmly determined, that one cannot have any doubt at all, and I stop talking to that person because it has no use. One knows that anyone who clings to such things, which are published somewhere, is a malevolent person who has some personal interest to want to bury in silence things that cannot be buried in silence.'
«I, Dr. Hans Munch hereby attest that as an SS physician on duty in Auschwitz in 1944, I witnessed the selection process of those who were to live and those who were to die. Other SS physicians on duty in the camps made selections at the barracks. I was exempt from performing selections because I had refused to do so.
I further attest that I saw thousands of people gassed here at Auschwitz. Children, old people, the sick and those unable to work were sent to the gas chambers. These were innocent human beings: Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Hitler's political opponents...anyone who did not fit Hitler's idea of a pure Aryan race.
I am signing this paper of my own free will to help document the cruel intolerance of my fellow SS.
I, a former SS Physician, witnessed the dropping of Zyklon B into simulated exhaust vents from outside the gas chambers. Zyklon B began to work as soon as it was released from the canisters. The effects of the gas were observed through a peephole by an assigned doctor of the SS officer on duty. After three to five minutes, death could be certified, and the doors were opened as a sign that the corpses were cleared to be burned.
This is the nightmare I continue to live with fifty years later.
I am so sorry that in some way I was part of it. Under the prevailing circumstances I did the best I could to save as many lives as possible. Joining the SS was a mistake. I was young. I was an opportunist. And once I joined, there was no way out».
https://candlesholocaustmuseum.org/lear ... munch.html
- Why the word 'liquidation' means one thing when the Nazis used them for the Jews, and another -totally different- thing when they used it for the Poles? For example, inn German Katyn videos (like the documentary 'Im Wald von Katyn'), the commentator makes references to 'liquidation' meaning 'killings'. But when the Nazis said the same word for the Jews, are you serious they meant just 'transportation'? Impossible, and no need to mention especially the fact that even the merciless Goebbels was referring to it as «a pretty barbaric procedure, not to be described».
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ation.html
I won't tell you more of these cases. I assume you have good History knowledge, and that you've read perhaps all of the History books, so it would be an easy task for you to find all these little or bigger facts and organize them in a convincing complete, full and precise narrative. You'll have to explain EVERYTHING in a historical perspective, and not leaving out the issues you don't want to talk about. Even the most simple detail has to be addressed, all of them, and at the end, we have to know all reasons, consequences, «why's and how's». I guess it'll be a piece of cake for you to show us in each and every case what 'separate accommodation' took place and how, right?
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... hwitz.html
Until now, you're good only in one thing but we all know your ridiculous 'method': if by chance you find any source reporting about an event wrong, then you'll try to doubt the event itself (perhaps the most common tactic of denial, a tactic which is almost a rule).
No more, my dear denier.
Now you have to forget about errors in sources or other people's work, and from now on, it's your duty to tell us the correct real version of ALL these events. For each and every event in the whole time-frame, for the whole Europe and for each and every country, and, most of all, in a way that makes sense.
Then, I will suggest, my dear CSI denier, to be accepted in world's best Universities and -who knows?- maybe in the future you'll become a respectful professor.
But we're not done. There's another task that you have to complete before your 'dissertation' try.
You have first to prove me it was a hoax until 2020.
You have to tell us how the hoax was organized.
A conspiracy like that should had left behind some traces, isn't it?
Surely if people were employed to fabricate mountains of evidence as you claim, you must know a lot of details about a lot of these forgery acts. If you have discovered this grand hoax that has fooled the world for 70 years, then surely a few names and places must be a minor feature for such geniuses as you, my dear deniers.
http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust- ... hoax.shtml
You have to tell us how they managed to do it.
I'm sure you'll have a lot of evidence and traces left behind like notes saying:
Or you can give us a single piece of evidence from the similar work of the team that prepared the Nazis in Nuremberg and in dozens of other trials to give detailed accounts about the mass killings.- Dear Isaac - please don't forget to leak Document 495B-14 to the London Times on August 13, as we agreed. Signed, Abraham.
Or you could try to answer this question, if you're so good as you say you are:
And this question:- If the Anne Frank story is a hoax, why did the storytellers give her a very revisionist death (transferred AWAY from Auschwitz, to die later of typhus in Bergen Belsen) rather than symbolically attributing this innocent life's demise to the gas chambers? Why needlessly complicate the story and diminish its climax? Unless of course, the story of Anne Frank is not a story at all, but reality which is told exactly the way it happened.
And, of course, the census question about the population of Jews before and after the war. Was the pre-war census data hoaxed, and the post 1949 census data accurate?- If people's careers are ruined for questioning the numbers of dead in the concentration camps, why is it no longer claimed that mass gassings took place in Dachau? Why was there even a debate about it? And why did Auschwitz and Majdanek receive drastic reductions of the death toll? None of this was the result of Faurisson and friends' meddling, it was done without their involvement. So why weren't the people who did this incarcerated? In fact, if a worldwide Jewish conspiracy needed the holocaust to legitimize the existence of Israel, why would revisions like these even be permitted? Maybe, just maybe, there is a difference between legitimate revisionism as performed by level-headed scholars, and the time wasting activity that holocaust deniers like to engage themselves with and call 'research', which is just an elaborate term for flat-out denial.
If so, you have to back it up. The Jews were that kind of masterminds that had been planning from the birth of the zionist movement onward to get Israel gifted to them via gaining world sympathy by creating an artificial culling of their people to occur in the mid 1940s, and therefore started artificially inflating the Jewish census data from whenever they came up with the plan upto the 1940s, and then resumed counting accurately 1949 onward and therefore showed the world millions had disappeared; is this what you're saying? Or the millions of pre-war Jews are all still alive but not showing up in any census data anymore, and how did this happen? Or the millions of pre-war Jews are all still alive, just changed their religion and therefore disappeared from the census, and if so, what kind of global authority has kept giving all the countries around the world secret orders to artificially keep the Jewish numbers down in their census data listing Jews for all the past decades? Or did the Jews continued to live in Europe of 1933-1945 by different names and new religion or making mass conversions by millions, and that was kept a secret and nobody ever found out? Or did they left Europe 1933-1945 as non Jews new immigrants in their new countries although they must be several millions but never recorded in post-war census data?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 28#p573728
Of course, you'll have to explain and put in historical perspective every single issue here, as well. If there was a conspiracy going back in 1942, how the Soviets, the British and the Americans continue for 50 years covering up each other and why? How can you explain Stalin himself an antisemite and other antisemites in UK and USA, why would they agree to cover it up and how? A lot of other countries, too, how did they rope into the conspiracy and why. And if they manage to make such forgeries, how hard would it be to fake a Hitler order? Or a mass gassing? An efficient conspiracy would have these things put into place before rolling it out, along with other documents to tie the whole thing together.
You'll have to forget about your usual excuses, and you won't be able to use anymore as your 'final word' false 'reasoning' like:
And most of all, it is not possible anymore to hide every thing that doesn't fit your narrative.- coincidence
- torture, coercion, intimidation
- Jews say so
- anything I can't explain is dismissed as propaganda
- how do you know these were euphemism and code words? Do you have the code?
- your proof from the 40s or the 50s won't stand with today's forensic techniques and I know that I don't have anything solid from these decades in my hands to prove you wrong, but I still can apply higher standards to you because you have something and I have zero
- if I find one contradiction/exaggeration/mistake to your theory, that's enough to reject it all, but if you find thousands contradictions/exaggerations/mistakes to mine, still I can ask for more physical evidence
- if the testimonial evidence comes from a victim, he is a paid shill, and if it comes from a perpetrator, he was tortured, -or accuse either party of insanity
- now I'm moving the goalpost again
- OK, all evidence converge to it, but where's the physical evidence?
- I don't have proof for what I've just said, but where is yours to prove me wrong?
- I need confirmation from a third party
- if this third party is a high source of authority/power of the post-war establishment, I still can reject it
- I trust only Nazi or Nazi-friendly sources who exonerate the nazis, everything else is not acceptable
- now I'm changing again my own rules to fit my today's hypothesis
- they declared they will kill thousands of times, they took all the measures, they said it, deaths happened, they recorded it in their own reports of dozens copies, Hitler and others checked them OK, but still I see no plan
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ation.html
- this Nazi didn't mean it this way, I know better what he wanted to say and I always know better than the person who wrote it/said it/did it
- Jewish plot
- you are part of a conspiracy
- now I will ignore all the evidence that you have presented to me, and I will ask the exact same questions all over again
For the first time in your life, you'll have to approach the Holocaust issue with honesty, even in the most minor detail.
Your aim isn't anymore to win an argument by any mean. Forget about it, too.
You have to examine all evidence and all facts and situations and events, and you have to take in consideration every little bit of information available to build the greater picture and to try to reconstruct the events.
You can't anymore focus only in what you can use to take down the 'orthodox' narrative.
No more tricks and hiding evidence.
Go ahead and do it.
So, you have to decide.
What are you?
Are you CSIs?
Are you intellectuals?
(Or are you a bunch of mentally teens or even stupid neonazis and antisemitic racists who steal people's time with your garbage? Sure you are, but again, let's move on).
You believe, I guess, 'There is not such a thing like the perfect crime', correct?
It's easy and it's 'CSI compatible', and how did you deniers say it? -'prove it with the same standard of proof applied in U.S. criminal courts', right?
Start right now and here, since 'every person leaves traces, whenever he or she goes. He always left a part of himself in the crime scene. And he always takes a part of the spot he went with him when he leaves the place'.
And something more:
You'll leave out of it all of your traditional antisemitic stereotypes and imagery. No more 'the Jews can buy all the truths of the world' excuses. If you know that 'a Jew bought some truth' here and there, you have to prove it 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I won't offer you money as a prize. If you do it, I'll make the arrangements for your 'book' to be published by a respectable publishing house. My offer also includes a desk in a University and an apology from all us are waiting you.
Go ahead and do it. We can wait to see.
But if it's too difficult for your intellectual and scholar skills, I can offer you another option. But more on this, later.