Contemporaries who denied what is now called 'THE Holocaust'

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Contemporaries who denied what is now called 'THE Holocaust'

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé » Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:43 pm

Nessie wrote:
The best you have so far, a denial of a rumour to someone clearly not involved in or aware of AR. Presenting evidence from a Nazi who was not part of AR, which was a secret operation, is hardly a denial. Why not present evidence from a German lady who never left Hamburg during the war, who states she was told there were no gas chambers? :roll:
That's exactly what prosecutors at the NMT Pohl trial said to refute the testimony of a former member of the German Judiciary about the Gestapo denying gassings. Only kidding, the prosecutors weren't idiots.
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 27927
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Contemporaries who denied what is now called 'THE Holocaust'

Post by Nessie » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:38 am

theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:43 pm
Nessie wrote:
The best you have so far, a denial of a rumour to someone clearly not involved in or aware of AR. Presenting evidence from a Nazi who was not part of AR, which was a secret operation, is hardly a denial. Why not present evidence from a German lady who never left Hamburg during the war, who states she was told there were no gas chambers? :roll:
That's exactly what prosecutors at the NMT Pohl trial said to refute the testimony of a former member of the German Judiciary about the Gestapo denying gassings. Only kidding, the prosecutors weren't idiots.
There is still no denial by a Nazi, who was at an AR camp or other place where the evidence is gassings took place, who denies gassings. Anyone else who denies gassings, but was not at a place where there were gassings, is either lying or mistaken. Hitler, Himmler etc did not specifically deny gassings, indeed they never mentioned gassings at all.

There is nothing in this thread to evidence that there were no mass gassings.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Contemporaries who denied what is now called 'THE Holocaust'

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé » Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:58 am

Hitler, Himmler etc did not specifically deny gassings, indeed they never mentioned gassings at all.
IMO, Hitler refers to the mass gassings of Jews in his political testament after clearly referencing his "prophecy" speech 30 January 1939. What else could he have meant when he says the Jewish race was punished for the war Jewish financiers brought, but by a "more humane means" than the German women and children killed in air-raids?
ADOLF HITLER, My Political Testament [29 April 1945] wrote:
I never left any doubt about it: should the nations of Europe again be regarded only as the portfolio of stocks of these international monetary and financial conspirators, then the race would be held responsible that actually is guilty in this murderous struggle: Jewry! Further, I made it perfectly clear that this time that millions of grown men would not die and hundreds of thousands of women and children would not burn in the cities or die under the rain of bombs without a punishment’s being inflicted on the guilty, although by more humane means.

p.3059f.
Alternative trans. in 3569-PS
ADOLF HITLER, My Political Testament [29 April 1945] wrote:
I have also made it quite plain that, if the nations of Europe are again to be regarded as mere shares to be bought and sold by these international conspirators in money and finance, then that race, Jewry, which is the real criminal of this murderous struggle, will be saddled with the responsibility. I further left no one in doubt that this time not only would millions of children of Europe's Aryan peoples die of hunger, not only would millions of grown men suffer death, and not only hundreds of thousands of women and children be burnt and bombed to death in the towns, without the real criminal having to atone for this guilt, even if by more humane means.
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8859
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Contemporaries who denied what is now called 'THE Holocaust'

Post by been-there » Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:44 am

theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:58 am
Hitler, Himmler etc did not specifically deny gassings, indeed they never mentioned gassings at all.
IMO, Hitler refers to the mass gassings of Jews in his political testament after clearly referencing his "prophecy" speech 30 January 1939. What else could he have meant when he says the Jewish race was punished for the war Jewish financiers brought, but by a "more humane means" than the German women and children killed in air-raids?
ADOLF HITLER, My Political Testament [29 April 1945] wrote:
I never left any doubt about it: should the nations of Europe again be regarded only as the portfolio of stocks of these international monetary and financial conspirators, then the race would be held responsible that actually is guilty in this murderous struggle: Jewry! Further, I made it perfectly clear that this time that millions of grown men would not die and hundreds of thousands of women and children would not burn in the cities or die under the rain of bombs without a punishment’s being inflicted on the guilty, although by more humane means.

p.3059f.
Alternative trans. in 3569-PS
ADOLF HITLER, My Political Testament [29 April 1945] wrote:
I have also made it quite plain that, if the nations of Europe are again to be regarded as mere shares to be bought and sold by these international conspirators in money and finance, then that race, Jewry, which is the real criminal of this murderous struggle, will be saddled with the responsibility. I further left no one in doubt that this time not only would millions of children of Europe's Aryan peoples die of hunger, not only would millions of grown men suffer death, and not only hundreds of thousands of women and children be burnt and bombed to death in the towns, without the real criminal having to atone for this guilt, even if by more humane means.
I agree that the words "by more humane means" could be a reference to death by gassing in a short time (a matter of minutes) by an odourless, invisible gas under the pretence of being showered.
That would certainly be a great deal more “humane” than being terrorised for hours and then blown-to-bits or injured, and then roasted/burnt alive and or crushed to death by falling masonry, and/or bleeding to death, and/or being asphyxiated in the way Churchill and Roosevelt agreed to deliberately mass-murder millions of innocent civilian Germans, at the behest of the Jewish advisor to Churchill, Lord Lindemann by carpet bombing of civilian areas of cities.

But then if this were a reference to a vengeful policy of mass-gassing, then the questions that naturally follow are, where did this occur and to how many people and what happened to their remains?
If we accept the holocaust industry's narrative, then Birkenau is the scene of the largest act of mass-murder in known history. So where are the signs of that using forensic research? How do we explain the absence of these signs? If over a million people died/were killed there and were then cremated, where is the evidence commensurate with such a total?
As we all here should know by now, teeth are not destroyed by the cremation process, nor are all the bones. So that is over 32 million teeth and tons of ashes including bone fragments that should exist there somewhere. And as anyone who has visited Birkenau will know, the signs maintain that the cremains of all these alleged 'holocausted' people where thrown in small pools and in one large one called 'the pond of ashes'.

Its so obviously not credible that only a people in the grip of a collective delusion can explain why more people are not expressing disbelief, that these pools could contain all these alleged cremains.

Image

Image

Image

Image
'The pond of ashes' and other pools that visitors to Birkenau are told contain the cremains of approximately 1 million people.

Germany's treatment of all the Jews in German occupied territory WAS undoubtedly brutal even within the context of that uniquely destructive and mass-murderous war. To round up millions of people and remove them from their homes, seperate them from their loved ones and incarcerate them in concentration camps where they were forced to perform labour was harsh and racist. That their conditions worsened as the war progessed is also clear. That when those conditions worsened, it seems irrefutably clear that the Jews in large camps were at the bottom of the pecking order when supplies were limited.
That many hundreds of thousands of Jews thus suffered great privations including death from disease and hardship towards the war's end is irrefutable.
If those that didn't perish had been transported into Soviet territory and then left to fend for themselves, that can hardly be called humane in normal conditions. But WW2 was NOT normal conditions.

If Aktion Reinhard was a policy to deprive Jews of their valuables and then cast them out unprotected and penniless into the wilderness of Russia, then that was undoubtedly harsh.
Einsatzgruppen policy of mass-murdering whole Jewish communities for suspicion of supporting partisan, was likewise extremely harsh.
BUT... even if we include everything that was brutally done to the Jews of Europe BESIDES the mass-gassing allegation, I can myself still see how from Hitler's perspective that could STILL be argued to have been more “humane” than what was happening to the people in the deliberately mass-murderous terror bombing which culminated in the Allied atrocities of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagazaki, etc. They at least got a chance to live.

Over 50 million civilians died in that war. And, from Hitler's perspective that was an unnecessary war, which he had repeatedly attempted to avoid BEFORE Britain declared it. And it was from Hitler's perspective an unwanted waste of human life and resources which he had repeatedly attempted to end by appealing for an armistice right up to 1941.
Letting those European Jews live, despite the uneccessary deaths of so many soldiers and civilians who had died because of international Jews in positions of power and influence wanting a war, and letting them fend for themselves exiled from Europe would still be regarded as more "humane".
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 5 guests