http://home.att.net/~whitesox/israel/Auschw3.jpg

A look at Auschwitz (http://home.att.net/~whitesox/israel/Auschwitz.htm)


.
.

Is this the real Jake? I think this may be more "Laconas bull****".

Methinks the real Skunkola would have posted it in music and pictures to entertain those of us who are artisically inclined.

Seems to be the only missing item ! :D
Liked the ghost of Irma , this makes the grass grow tall in Texas. ;)

Some actual proof would be nice. Like, y'know, references.

Because anybody can take a picture and post information next to it.

Some actual proof would be nice. Like, y'know, references.

Because anybody can take a picture and post information next to it.

You mean like piles of dead bodies and the "information" that they were "gassed"?
Or like piles of shoe-creme cans, hair, glasses and the claim that they belonged to "murdered Jews"?

Or like a picture of an SS-Mann with the caption "He murderd 10.000 Jews single handedly" blah blah blah.

What reference do you need for a red-cross report? Or Aushwitz-Money?
How stupid do you have to be not to recognize a swimmingpool? Dou you need a certificate of an olympic gold-medal winner in swimming, that it realy is a swimming-pool?

Hey, I need a "reference" that you are NOT AN IDIOT, because you post haven't convinced me otherwise yet.

This must be that "mature and civilized discussion" I've heard about!

So what if it's a swimming pool? Does that mean it's a swimming pool FROM AUSCHWITZ? What proves that? It would be nice if this site provided what is known as "sources". You may have heard of them. They would be, after all, familiar to someone so versed in intelligent and civilized debate as yourself.

And just because the other side does things that are disingenous, does not mean that your side is any better. Them being wrong is not the same as you being right.

So what if it's a swimming pool? Does that mean it's a swimming pool FROM AUSCHWITZ? What proves that? It would be nice if this site provided what is known as "sources".

Yes, certainly some sources would be nice. However, nothing shown on that site is actually controversial; embarassing to the official story, but not controversial. Holocaustians dismiss the significance of such facilities by saying that the Auschwitz complex was huge (it was) and that the gassing/burning facilities in Birkenau were so separate and secret that people everywhere elsewhere oblivious to what was happening.

Utter nonsense because they contradict themselves with tales about a permanent cloud hanging over the area, that it was obvious to all what was going on etc. Incidentally, there were no screens or walls around the Krema complexes in Birkenau contrary to the official story as can be seen in any of the ground level photos. These facilities were visible to the outside world. If they were up to no good, surely they would have erected screens etc?

But why would the Nazis take trouble making conditions nice for groups that they had been railing against for years?

Are there any actual *references* to support the idea that things there were so peachy-keen? Because that's a damn sight more "controversial" than the claim that gas chambers weren't as widespread as thought (which later became that they didn't exist).

They show you pictures, REAL pictures of a swimming-pool, camp-money, a theatre ect. and you need "authentication".
They haven't shown us a single document that Hitler ordered the execution of all Jews. They haven't shown us a single photo of Jews being gassed, of an autopsy report of "gassed Jews" sayn "this man died becuase of gas poisoning...". All they have shown you is a pile of rubble, claiming that was once a "gas Chamber" and that is enough to make you happy.

Why don't you cut the crap and simply say "I haven't the slightest clue about these things and all I wan't to do is parrot the party line. The Truth doesnt interest me, because Im to lazy and cowardly to make up my own mind! I don't want to believe you!"

But why would the Nazis take trouble making conditions nice for groups that they had been railing against for years?


Conditions were not "peachy keen," nor were they intended to be. The purpose of the camps was to ghettoize Jews and exploit their labor, with the ultimate goal of removing them from German soil. Starving, disease-ridden people don't work very well, so a semblance of normalcy was maintained in what used to be called "concentration camps." Now, they are referred to as "death camps."

The gas chambers existed. Except they used to be called delousing chambers. They were used in POW camps too, and you can read about inmates getting deloused in The Great Escape.

As the war progressed, the German government began diverting more resources to support its military. Given a choice between feeding Germans (and American and British POWs) and feeding untermensch, the government fed the former. As a result, many concentration camp inmates starved, caught disease, and died.

There are a few things that I find really crazy about all the Holohoax stories:

1- The ovens that are supposed to have been used to burn a few millions inmates are ridiculous: really old fashioned ones for 1940-45 (it was at the same time than the first intecontinental balistic missiles...) ,very few and very small. I always told mself that they wouldn't have sufficed to cook the daily bread for the camp. Look at the official photos of these ovens and though at it again, it very weird.

2- All the horror-movie style imagery built around the Auschwitz Lager is founded on the few pictures of skelettic inmates they found after the defeat. This is volontarily confused by the propagandists with the gassing theory to show us how "horrible" was the situation there. Though, by definition, there can be no picture and no witnesses of any gassing through gas chambers.

The dead and skelettic inmates were in this state because in the last weeks, due to the war situation, the food was made vey rare and it's normal that the ennemies of the regime were negliged in a sitation of total chaos and defeat.

So, the Holocausters are trying to impress the uninformed people of today with the pics of these deads by typhus and hunger (the well-know moment with the bulldozer, etc) and in the same time they are propagating their theories of the gassings, for which there is no proof. So, THIS is where is the chance of the Holocausters: these few pics! Our problem is only a mediatic one, I even would say a marketing one.

The end of Auschwitz was nothing else than a marketing management error. Should the guards had a little more time to bury or incinerate the typhus victims, the impact would have been a lot weaker. All this would have been considered like any other war story. Weren't the soldiers of WWI gassed for real? No medias are speaking anymore about this, though.

The SS could eventualy have burned 50,000,000 people, we wouldn't speak about it today, because there would be no proof, no material to impress the minds. Sadly, the Holocausters were malign enough to use the weak materials they found.

I agree, pictures of hungry prisonners are pitiful for the western public opinion, but it's nothing else than daily life in half of Africa or Bangladesh.

We should for example make public in comparison the fact that when Richelieu won over the fortress of La Rochelle near Bordeaux, he had made an embargo around this port during a few months, and the inhabitants never wanted to surrender, eating horses, then rats, then nothing. When they finally opened the dorrs of the city, the witneses of this time (and it's a real fact, attested by the time's writers and historians) looked exactly the same, if not worse, than the most awful out of Auschwitz. Richelieu had no less statues eriged in his honor for that.

I fail to see how conditions in Africa or during the siege of La Rochelle have anything to do with the conditions in death camps.

Even if there were no gas chambers, even if there was no extermination order, the fact is that huge numbers of people were herded into camps and used as slave labour, for being Jews, homosexuals, Communists, Masons, dissidents, Slavs, whatever. Why does this central fact always get ignored?

And the revisionists/deniers seem just as fixated on the Jewish dead as does the Holocaust Industry. Why do we never hear about "Gypsy lies", or "Polish lies", or "dissident lies"?

More here:

http://www.******free.com/~ohrdruff/main.html



------------

Even if there were no gas chambers, even if there was no extermination order, the fact is that huge numbers of people were herded into camps and used as slave labour, for being Jews, homosexuals, Communists, Masons, dissidents, Slavs, whatever. Why does this central fact always get ignored?

No one ignores this. But internment is something entirely different from mass murder. The Holocaust story is about the alleged mass murder of 6 million Jews. No gas chambers, no Holocaust.

The internment was real and is another story.


And the revisionists/deniers seem just as fixated on the Jewish dead as does the Holocaust Industry. Why do we never hear about "Gypsy lies", or "Polish lies", or "dissident lies"?

Because we never hear them. We only get gassing stories from Jewish ex-inmates. From other categories we hear about internment and labour etc, but not gassing. The first Revisionist, Paul Rassinier, was an inmate of a concentration camp. The Holocaust Industry is a Jewish business.

Look at the trains - Not the boxcar with barbwire ?



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/patf2/Holocaust%20trains/Holoca12.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/patf2/Holocaust%20trains/Holoca13.jpg


Lets look at the Real Auschwitz (http://home.att.net/~whitesox/israel/Auschwitz.htm)


.
.

When one examines denier "science," one finds that every one of these rules are violated. Some simply assumed that it would have taken just as much cyanide to kill people as it took to kill lice. That's false; lice take much more cyanide to kill and they need to be exposed to it for a lot longer. Some also seems to have assumed that gassings took place much more often than they really did, apparently taking the abnormal conditions at the peak of the Hungarian deportations as being typical of the entire time at Birkenau.

Also, it has been argumented that not enough coals were brought in to burn all those bodies. This also can be countered by the fact that they didn't need so many coals since the human fat secreted from the burned bodies serves as fuel for the burning after the temperatures get higher.

Some Hitler Quotes then?:
In Hitler's speech of January 30, 1939, he said:

Today I want to be a prophet once more: If international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.

In September, 1942, Hitler recalled:

In my Reichstag speech of September 1, 1939 [above, wrong date here], I have spoken of two things: first, that now that the war has been forced upon us, no array of weapons and no passage of time will bring us to defeat, and second, that if Jewry should plot another world war in order to exterminate the Aryan peoples in Europe, it would not be the Aryan peoples which would be exterminated but Jewry. . . .

At a public speech in Munich, November 8, 1942, Hitler told his audience (see Jaeckel, 1989 for this and above Hitler quotes):

You will recall the session of the Reichstag during which I declared: If Jewry should imagine that it could bring about an international world war to exterminate the European races, the result will not be the extermination of the European races, but the extermination of Jewry in Europe. People always laughed about me as a prophet. Of those who laughed then, countless numbers no longer laugh today, and those who still laugh now will perhaps no longer laugh a short time from now. This realization will spread beyond Europe throughout the entire world. International Jewry will be recognized in its full demonic peril; we National Socialists will see to that.

From his earliest political ramblings to the final Goetterdammerung, Hitler had it in for the Jews. On April 12, 1922, in a Munich speech later published in the Voelkischer Beobachter, he told his audience (Snyder, 1981, p. 29):

The Jew is the ferment of the decomposition of people. This means that it is in the nature of the Jew to destroy, and he must destroy, because he lacks altogether any idea of working for the common good. He possesses certain characteristics given to him by nature and he never can rid himself of those characteristics. The Jew is harmful to us.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/skeptic-magazine/skeptic-10.html

It's not rocket science to read between the lines here. obviously Hitler disliked the jews very much and does speak of some sort of "final solution"(endlosung) here.

... obviously Hitler disliked the jews very much and does speak of some sort of "final solution"(endlosung) here.

duhhhhh - he did't like Jews! :rolleyes:

So he's going to publicly announce that he is going to commit genocide and at the same time keep it "top secret" so no one else except the involved participants know about it? Uh hu - real smart!

It's also a matter of translation isn't it? He speeks of "rooting out" ("Ausrotten") which means a lot of things in German.. Rooting them out and sending them to the East would also be a "final soloution", wouldn't it?

You know how much easyer it would have been to simply kill them on the spot, instead of ferrying them around across entire europe, to then kill them on one spot?
they recently commemorated the victioms of the Partisan-Village in St.Anna/North Italy, where our SS alledgedly executed over 500 civilians. A survivor said on TV, it didn't take very long and was finished withing 5 Minutes . Boy, how easy it is to kill people with just guns, instead of wastin billions on resources to build killingfactories, wasting precious cargo-room which would be needed for the front, instead of dferrying a bunch of old jews around.

And what makes you think that Jews who were killed didn't deserve it? Or are they holy people in your eyes?
Just looking at Palestine is enough reason to execute the entire "Israeli" Goverment, all their "soldiers" and every one of those bloodthirsty settlers.... for starters.
What makes you think they have changed over the millenia? Read "the book Esther", how they sloughtered 75000 persian nobles and celebrate it untill this day?
Who gives a damned if some filthy ghettojews died in a war, where Millions of inoccent white woman and children perished.

Instead of bemoaning the Jews, show more concern for their victims. How many massacres did they create in Palestine to drive the Arabs off their land? How many are they commiting today? Every day they are murdering and torturing people, threatening to bomb other countries, inciting wars, spreading lies.
If the "Holocaust" did happen, then it would have been a service to humanity which mankind should eternaly be greatfull to us for.

Yes, the problem is not the number of Jews killed or not, but the exploitation they make of it.

When one examines denier "science," one finds that every one of these rules are violated. Some simply assumed that it would have taken just as much cyanide to kill people as it took to kill lice. That's false; lice take much more cyanide to kill and they need to be exposed to it for a lot longer. Some also seems to have assumed that gassings took place much more often than they really did, apparently taking the abnormal conditions at the peak of the Hungarian deportations as being typical of the entire time at Birkenau.
You seem to know a bit about chemistery, so maybe you have an idea about why the KL administration did not use carbon monoxyde for example instead of a random choosen insecticide. I really always wondered why not carbon monoxyde? It has the reputation to kill in 5 min whithout any pain. It can also be generated in huge quantities with the combustion of a small quantity of gasoline. So why use "Zyklon B" which took about 15 min to kill and which cost probably much more than gasoline?

You seem to know a bit about chemistery, so maybe you have an idea about why the KL administration did not use carbon monoxyde for example instead of a random choosen insecticide. I really always wondered why not carbon monoxyde? It has the reputation to kill in 5 min whithout any pain. It can also be generated in huge quantities with the combustion of a small quantity of gasoline. So why use "Zyklon B" which took about 15 min to kill and which cost probably much more than gasoline?

Diesel engines, unlike gasoline engines, do not produce large amounts of carbon monoxide (CO) under normal operation, and it is extremely difficult to get them to produce levels of CO sufficient to cause death within a short period of time. The victims would sometimes suffocate sooner than actually die of poisening.

duhhhhh - he did't like Jews! :rolleyes:
So he's going to publicly announce that he is going to commit genocide and at the same time keep it "top secret" so no one else except the involved participants know about it? Uh hu - real smart!

Hitler was a demagogue of the people. Germany lay in ruins for other reasons than the Jews. The measurments taken by the allied after their defeat in WWI had a great deal to do with the state Germany was in at the time. Hitler knew this very well and proved this by his actions.
He used the jews as a scapegoat. The people needed something tangible to point fingers at. Jews have always and always been persecuted in History, so it's easy to mark them as the black sheep. His speeches were meant to make this clear to the people that the jews are a pestilence upon the face of Europe. This way he could unite his people for the tasks he had in mind. One race, one unity and one common foe to battle.

It's also a matter of translation isn't it? He speeks of "rooting out" ("Ausrotten") which means a lot of things in German.. Rooting them out and sending them to the East would also be a "final soloution", wouldn't it?

I'm sorry, let me interprete it again then by giving the following quote:

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/evidence/pl237.asp

"3. His formulation, that "World Jewry" is "now" succumbing to "a gradual process of extermination", made clear the fate which awaited the Jews who were being deported from the German cities for the past few weeks. Two days later, Rosenberg spoke at a press conference of the Ministry of the Eastern Territories of what was to come - the "eradication"of the Jews of Europe:

There are still about six million Jews in the East and this question can only be solved through a biological eradication of all of Jewry in Europe. The Jewish Question will only be solved for Germany, when the last Jew has left German territory; and for Europe, when there is no longer a Jew left standing on the European continent - up until the Urals [...] And for this it is necessary to push them over the Urals, or otherwise eradicate them. "

Sending them to the east and putting them in camps was indeed a part of the solution, but as can be read from the above article that was not the end of it. Hitler would have never ever allowed to let his foes be alive in another country and one day come back to fight him. Marx knew this, Hitler knew this, Stalin knew this, Mao knew this, etc.

You know how much easyer it would have been to simply kill them on the spot, instead of ferrying them around across entire europe, to then kill them on one spot?

the avrage german wouldn't have agreed with that at the time. They know compassion as well. Also, if they didn't keep it a secret then they were sure to receive alot of blame in case they would not triumph. The avarage german would have had blood on his/her hands as well.

they recently commemorated the victioms of the Partisan-Village in St.Anna/North Italy, where our SS alledgedly executed over 500 civilians. A survivor said on TV, it didn't take very long and was finished withing 5 Minutes . Boy, how easy it is to kill people with just guns, instead of wastin billions on resources to build killingfactories, wasting precious cargo-room which would be needed for the front, instead of dferrying a bunch of old jews around.

Shooting every jew would have cost alot of ammo, which was very precious to the germans since they were also fighting a war in the mean time. the jews, along with other citizens, would have revolted far more frequently and more desperately would the germans have decided to kill every jew where they stand. Being sent to a camp leaves room to guess what would happen to them and maybe even survive what would happen there. The avarage citizen did not know exactly what was going on(i.e. the fate of the jews was not common knowledge).

And what makes you think that Jews who were killed didn't deserve it?

Explain to me how a jewish child deserves to be shot?

Or are they holy people in your eyes?

They were more often than not avarage citizens just trying to make a living like everyone else. They were not all manipulative bankers and whatnot.

Just looking at Palestine is enough reason to execute the entire "Israeli" Goverment, all their "soldiers" and every one of those bloodthirsty settlers.... for starters.

This is a Non Sequitur

What makes you think they have changed over the millenia? Read "the book Esther", how they sloughtered 75000 persian nobles and celebrate it untill this day?

Esther you say? Hmm, seems like generalisation and scapegoating is nothing new :P

"King Ahasuerus gave authority to Haman to kill all Jews in the Persian Empire. Haman was King Ahasuerus prime minister. Haman called for this ruling to be given because Mordecai refused to bow to Haman. Haman felt ridiculed and stripped of his authority by Mordecais refusal to bow down to him and so he went to the king to claim that all Jews were the same and should be killed.

In this day in age it was not wise for anyone to go before the king without permission, not even the Queen, but Esther having heard of what was being planned risked her life and position as Queen to go before Ahasuerus in behalf of her self and her people. Esther went before the King and asked him if he knew that his order to kill all the Jews would also extend to her since she was a Jew! Upon King Ahasuerus hearing this he over turned the order and Haman and his sons were hanged on the very same gallows that he had planned on using for Mordecai and the rest of the Jews. "

Who was planning to kill who here Wehr?

Who gives a damned if some filthy ghettojews died in a war, where Millions of inoccent white woman and children perished.

I don't agree with killing others, be it white, black or purple.

Instead of bemoaning the Jews, show more concern for their victims. How many massacres did they create in Palestine to drive the Arabs off their land? How many are they commiting today? Every day they are murdering and torturing people, threatening to bomb other countries, inciting wars, spreading lies.

I'm not agreeing with the current afairs of Israel, but by your logic many many more countries deserve the same fate as you would have them have.

If the "Holocaust" did happen, then it would have been a service to humanity which mankind should eternaly be greatfull to us for.

that's a matter of interpretation. Why would be be better off with nearly 6 million jews less and god knows how many more germans, americans, russians, etc less? How are we better off with the pagan ritual of burning literature and art?

be greatfull to us for
Us? were you there at the time. Did you decide policy?

Jews have always and always been persecuted in History, so it's easy to mark them as the black sheep.

Yes, any thoughts as to why that might be so?

I'm sorry, let me interprete it again then by giving the following quote:

Do you think that quoting out of context pieces used by holocaust promoters resolves anything? Ausrotten is an ambiguous term. Perhaps we shoud look at Grimm rather than those hucksters.
The quote "solved through a biological eradication of all of Jewry in Europe" can be understood in the context of the laws forbidding intermarriage combined with mass expulsion to the east. In other words, the Jews and their gene pool will be removed from Europe, i.e. biological eradication. Doesn't require mass-murder to achieve this.

"no longer a Jew left standing on the European continent - up until the Urals [...] And for this it is necessary to push them over the Urals, or otherwise eradicate them. " It would be nice to see the German text. Also, this is Goebbels, so it is propagandistic and cast in dramatic language. If pushing over the Urals is 'eradication' [from Europe], then some other measure, other than pushing over the Urals could mean a variety of things, not necessarily mass murder.

Hitler would have never ever allowed to let his foes be alive in another country and one day come back to fight him.

Simply not true, Hitler gave the order to allow the BEF to retreat to England at Dunkirk because he admired the English so much.

the avrage german wouldn't have agreed with that at the time.

How do you know what the average German at the time would have agreed with or otherwise?

The avarage german would have had blood on his/her hands as well.

And yet this is precisely what holocaust promoters like Goldhagen and even Browning would have us believe.

Shooting every jew would have cost alot of ammo, which was very precious to the germans since they were also fighting a war in the mean time.

That's what I would have thought, and yet we are expected to believe that they shot anything up to three million people before the "gassing facilities" were put in place (the usual figure is c. 1.5 million shootings). At least three rounds shot (because of machine guns etc) for every kill makes between 4.5 and 9 million rounds of ammunition and that's conservative.

The avarage citizen did not know exactly what was going on(i.e. the fate of the jews was not common knowledge).

This is a big problem for the holocaust promoters. On the one hand they want to portray it all as ultra-secret, on the other we have these very public speeches using words like ausrotten!
They want it both ways, as it suits their argument at any particular time.

Explain to me how a jewish child deserves to be shot?

Do you have any evidence that any were - apart from the the ususal witness statements, confessions, and dodgy Made in the USSR documents? In other words, there is not one scintilla of evdience that would stand up in any normal court that these mass shootings of men, women and children ever took place!

They were more often than not avarage citizens just trying to make a living like everyone else. They were not all manipulative bankers and whatnot.

Any Jews shot by the Einsatzgruppen on the Eastern Front were shot according to the guidlines laid down in Heydrich's July 1941 document detailing the categories of person to be shot - partisans, commissars, snipers etc. In other words, they were not shot simply for being Jews.

King Ahasuerus gave authority. . .

Who wrote the Book of Esther?

Try Joshua while on the subject of the Bible; a depressing catalogue of genocides one after the other by the Chosen Ones.


I'm not agreeing with the current afairs of Israel, but by your logic many many more countries deserve the same fate as you would have them have

You're probably right but no other people in the world have thrived by whining about imagined atrocities against them whilst committing real ones against others!

Diesel engines, unlike gasoline engines, do not produce large amounts of carbon monoxide (CO) under normal operation, and it is extremely difficult to get them to produce levels of CO sufficient to cause death within a short period of time. The victims would sometimes suffocate sooner than actually die of poisening.

And yet according to the official story we are expected to believe that the Germans gassed millions using diesel engines in the hitherto never seen gas vans and in places like Belzec and Treblinka!

And yet according to the official story we are expected to believe that the Germans gassed millions using diesel engines in the hitherto never seen gas vans and in places like Belzec and Treblinka!

only one of the 'Operation Reinhard' death camps used a diesel engine? (At Belzec and Sobibor, petrol engines were used.)

I'll reply to other stuff later.

I'll reply to other stuff later.

Oh goody! I ran out of sleeping pills and that might be a good substitute! :D

only one of the 'Operation Reinhard' death camps used a diesel engine? (At Belzec and Sobibor, petrol engines were used.)

And your evidence for this is . . . ?

only one of the 'Operation Reinhard' death camps used a diesel engine? (At Belzec and Sobibor, petrol engines were used.)

I'll reply to other stuff later.

Since when? Gerstein claims Diesels were used at all of the camps.

Anyway, I completly destroyed Sulla in an argument about the technical ability of Diesel engines to produce enough CO to kill people, proving that it couldn't be done without completly destroying the engine and it certainly couldn't be done in the short time reported in the eyewitness testimony (many hours being required to kill). I don't really want to go through it again (maybe fade has the archive?).

And your evidence for this is . . . ?

- Yitzhak Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. The Operation Reinhard Death
Camps (Bloomington, IN, 1987).

- Adolf Eichmann's private papers.

- Also see the Irving vs. Lipstadt trial.

Anyway, I completly destroyed Sulla in an argument about the technical ability of Diesel engines to produce enough CO to kill people, proving that it couldn't be done without completly destroying the engine and it certainly couldn't be done in the short time reported in the eyewitness testimony (many hours being required to kill). I don't really want to go through it again (maybe fade has the archive?).

You are talking about the Friedrich Berg Paper?

For a full technical detail on gassing with Diesel/petrol engines:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/appendix-3-01.html

Yes, any thoughts as to why that might be so?

I have no clue. What could be sufficient reason to commence in the destruction of the entire European jewish community?

Do you think that quoting out of context pieces used by holocaust promoters resolves anything? Ausrotten is an ambiguous term. Perhaps we shoud look at Grimm rather than those hucksters.
The quote "solved through a biological eradication of all of Jewry in Europe" can be understood in the context of the laws forbidding intermarriage combined with mass expulsion to the east. In other words, the Jews and their gene pool will be removed from Europe, i.e. biological eradication. Doesn't require mass-murder to achieve this.

All of the above you mentioned did happen. Including killing jews on a mass scale. Do you deny that many hundred of thousands of unarmed jews were murdered just for being jewish?

It would be nice to see the German text. Also, this is Goebbels, so it is propagandistic and cast in dramatic language. If pushing over the Urals is 'eradication' [from Europe], then some other measure, other than pushing over the Urals could mean a variety of things, not necessarily mass murder.

You can probably google up the german tekst. If we look at the Hilter quotes we can clearly see what Hitler's intentions were:

"on May 26th, 1944, Hitler painted a vivid picture of what a German loss would mean:
"Meine Herren Offiziere, wir stehen in einem Kampf auf Leben und auf Tod. Wenn in diesem Kampf unsere Gegner siegen, würde das deutsche Volk ausgerottet werden. Der Bolschewismus würde Millionen und Millionen und Millionen unserer Intellektuellen abschlachten. Was nicht durch Genickschuß stürbe, würde abtransportiert. Die Kinder höherer Schichten würden wegkommem und beseitigt werden. "

In English:
My dear generals, we are fighting a battle of life and death. If our enemies are victorious in this struggle, the German people will be extirpated. The Bolsheviks will butcher millions upon millions of our intellectuals. Those who escape the bullet in the back of the neck will be deported. The children of the upper classes will be taken away and got rid of.

Hitler's aim in this part of the speech was to emphasize the total destruction which awaited defeat, and to make it appear so horrible that no one could do anything but fight to the very end.

And how did Hitler describe this butchery? What word did he choose to underscore the horrible slaughter of millions, to communicate the brutality which awaited the German Volk?
...das deutsche Volk ausgerottet werden.
...the German people are to be extirpated.
"Ausgerottet werden" is the present passive infinitive of the verb "ausrotten.""

Recall that Hitler said repeatedly: [3]
[...] it would not be the Aryan people which would be ausgerottet, but Jewry [...]

[...] the result will not be the Ausrottung of the European races, but the Ausrottung of Jewry in Europe.

--
See for example the 1906 edition of the Muret-Sanders enzyklopädisches englisch-deutsches und deutsch-englishes Wörterbuch, published in Berlin-Schöneberg by Langenscheidtsche Verlagsbuchhandlung:
aus-rotten I v/a. (21) b. sep. 1. [...] Volksstämme, Wölfe zc.: to exterminate.

Translation:

aus-rotten 1. [...] Tribes or races of people, wolves, etc.: to exterminate.

Or, Der Sprach-Brockhaus. Deutsches Bildwörterbuch für jedermann, published in Leipzig by F. A. Brockhaus in 1935 (this is the complete entry):

die Aus rottung, -/-en,
voellige Vernichtung.

Translation:

die Aus rottung, -/-en,
complete annihilation.


http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/ausrotten/ausrotten-19440526-01.html

Simply not true, Hitler gave the order to allow the BEF to retreat to England at Dunkirk because he admired the English so much.

What did Hitler do to all possible political adversaries? What did he do to the SA for instance?

How do you know what the average German at the time would have agreed with or otherwise?

I've spoken with german people myself about this subject, both old and young.


And yet this is precisely what holocaust promoters like Goldhagen and even Browning would have us believe.

Some germans are to blame back then and most aren't. That is my opnion. I believe most german citizens were not to blame.


That's what I would have thought, and yet we are expected to believe that they shot anything up to three million people before the "gassing facilities" were put in place (the usual figure is c. 1.5 million shootings). At least three rounds shot (because of machine guns etc) for every kill makes between 4.5 and 9 million rounds of ammunition and that's conservative.

What's your reference material for this?


This is a big problem for the holocaust promoters. On the one hand they want to portray it all as ultra-secret, on the other we have these very public speeches using words like ausrotten!
They want it both ways, as it suits their argument at any particular time.

I've just proven the usage of the word Ausrotten in the above argument.
The difference you must make is that the killings iteself were secret, but his plans to do so were not. Also this is because of reasons I gave in earlier arguments.


Do you have any evidence that any were - apart from the the ususal witness statements, confessions, and dodgy Made in the USSR documents? In other words, there is not one scintilla of evdience that would stand up in any normal court that these mass shootings of men, women and children ever took place!

LOL, You serious? Try reading up on Irving vs. Lipstadt
Perhaps Eichmann memoires? Goebels diaries? should I go on? Post pictures maybe?

Any Jews shot by the Einsatzgruppen on the Eastern Front were shot according to the guidlines laid down in Heydrich's July 1941 document detailing the categories of person to be shot - partisans, commissars, snipers etc. In other words, they were not shot simply for being Jews.

According to evidence this is not what happened all the time in reality is it now? Heydrich (Heydrich was appointed to head the Reich Central Office for Jewish Emigration.) was not going to write down on a paper:"kill all jews".
Also I haven't seen many jewish childre take on the profession of sniper, partisan and whatnot? How were they guilty according to Heydrich?

Who wrote the Book of Esther?

I was directed at the book of Esther by Dr. Brandt. Who wrote it is not important for this argument. It was recommended reading material of Dr. Brandt.

Try Joshua while on the subject of the Bible; a depressing catalogue of genocides one after the other by the Chosen Ones.

Please, indulge me.

You're probably right but no other people in the world have thrived by whining about imagined atrocities against them whilst committing real ones against others!

No doubt they are commiting attrocities themselves.
But can't you see that by generalising all jews for the actions of some you are giving them reason to mark people as anti-semite and whatnot? As long as you mark every single person for things others did they can rightious, in the eyes of the international community, every anti-semite legislation made.
It would be endlessly more constructive to critisice those who are doing it.

I went through that paper and a bunch of others.

If you'll read the link I gave you, you will read that it is possible to kill using diesel/petrol engines.

Oh goody! I ran out of sleeping pills and that might be a good substitute!


Try Cyanide :D

Thinking they used fossil fuels to kill people is just stupid. Germany is not a petroleum rich country. There's no way they would waste fuel on killing people.

Thinking they used fossil fuels to kill people is just stupid. Germany is not a petroleum rich country. There's no way they would waste fuel on killing people.

That's some example of a flawed psychological arguments you supplied. Please, if you even bothered to read material I supplied you wouldn't have made this silly argument.
Are you actually saying that the Nazis wouldn't have committed mass murder with diesels because they would have been too afraid to run out of fuel in time to kill them all??
By your definition they maybe shouldn't have used airplanes, tanks, cars, ships, submarines and whatnot because they all use petrol.

That's some example of a flawed psychological arguments you supplied. Please, if you even bothered to read material I supplied you wouldn't have made this silly argument.
Are you actually saying that the Nazis wouldn't have committed mass murder with diesels because they would have been too afraid to run out of fuel in time to kill them all??
By your definition they maybe shouldn't have used airplanes, tanks, cars, ships, submarines and whatnot because they all use petrol.


I didn't read it. In a time of war, one doesn't waste fuel. Very simple. Using diesel exhaust fumes to try to kill people is not efficient and probably not even effective. The whole holocaust thing is a joke.

I didn't read it. In a time of war, one doesn't waste fuel. Very simple. Using diesel exhaust fumes to try to kill people is not efficient and probably not even effective. The whole holocaust thing is a joke.

again the psychological argument. The Nazis tried diesels because they were available. They probably never realized how stupid they were. It made sense to the people who did it. It worked. That's all they needed or cared to know. They were killers, not diesel engineers.

Are you also hearing what you are saying? You are stating that they wouldn't have commenced in mass murder because the fuel might run out on some point??

"
However, as the eminent revisionist historian Greg Raven, associate editor of the Journal for Historical Review says:"
It is sophistry to proclaim that something must have happened a certain way because your "reason" demands it."

is not efficient and probably not even effective.

Furthermore, diesel fuel is cheaper to make than gasoline. It's not so highly refined. So when Cosmo argues that there were better methods, he's only talking from a technical standpoint. When looked at from the viewpoint of an economist, suddenly it makes a lot more sense.

Because Cosmo has a scientific "theory" that "proves" that diesel gas chambers are "stupid," all eyewitness testimony should be dismissed??
someone once "proved" that bumblebees cannot possibly fly. Do you see bumblebees walking everywhere?"

(http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/appendix-3-06.html)

Paul, your logic of Germans were "stupid" therefore they used notoriously lacking killing methods when the whole Treblinka killing is based on T34 Diesel engines is pretty cheap.
Diesel might be cheaper than gasoline yet German war industry was funneled towards gasoline and not diesel. German hardware ran on gasoline, not diesel.

But is the whole situation necessarily based on logic? I mean, if the German leadership in WWII had been more logical, they would have done better in the war. People are not inherently logical.

Wasn't one of the reasons German Panzers used gas engines because they were intended to be able to refuel at civilian gas stations?

Diesel was the reserve of the navy.
All kreigsmarine ships ran on diesels , power plants could be had .
When you look at the resourses devoted to the mass movement of people to the camps on rolling stock , the time and volume of trains it is was waste of men and materials.

Exactly...and it only would make sense in that you are shipping them as slave workers whose life you do not give a damn about. You are right in that it does not make sense gather hunderds of thousands all across Europe to send them for days on a train in order to just gass them in a polish village. Yes, only Grand Strategic reasons, like slave worker gathering, would make sense in what seems a huge waste of very scarce and precious rolling stock in mids of a titanic war with the Soviets.

Paul, your logic of Germans were "stupid" therefore they used notoriously lacking killing methods when the whole Treblinka killing is based on T34 Diesel engines is pretty cheap.

The germans were pioneers when it came to modern day mass killings. In current day society we can think of much more effective ways, but you have to realise that back then they didn't have this knowledge. They explored several options and found several options that worked. Given into account economics, etc it's, from their perspective, logical to use cheap diesel, which was also being produced on a large scale for several other things.
Also they used the T34 engines because they were readily available for nothing. They didn't have to pay a single thing to ge t those engines. they stripped the russian tanks and when they broke down they were easily replaced. It's true they sometimes used T34 tanks for their own purpose, but the vast majority of engines were available for other things.

Diesel might be cheaper than gasoline yet German war industry was funneled towards gasoline and not diesel. German hardware ran on gasoline, not diesel.

There are enough vehicles and whatnot that ran on Diesel, even today that still is the case. diesel would have been available in plenty amounts, also I have to argue again that "being afraid to one day run out of Diesel would have never stopped them from commencing mass murder".
They then would have resorted to other means. Don't forget in several camps did they use standard petrol engines as their means.

Furthermore, diesel fuel is cheaper to make than gasoline. It's not so highly refined. So when Cosmo argues that there were better methods, he's only talking from a technical standpoint. When looked at from the viewpoint of an economist, suddenly it makes a lot more sense.


Diesel fuel is cheaper than petrol. However, Germany saved scarce petrol for the war effort. Diesel fuel is certainly not cheaper than producer gas, which can be made from wood, coal etc. AND is highly toxic AND was used in vermin control.

again the psychological argument. The Nazis tried diesels because they were available. They probably never realized how stupid they were. It made sense to the people who did it. It worked. That's all they needed or cared to know. They were killers, not diesel engineers.


Your argument is just stupid. Why not put the diesel in a bulldozer, dig a big hole in the ground, push all the undesirables in it, and bulldoze the earth over top of them? There, one operation, done.

Paul replies;

- Yitzhak Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. The Operation Reinhard Death
Camps (Bloomington, IN, 1987).

- Adolf Eichmann's private papers.

- Also see the Irving vs. Lipstadt trial.

Evene a leading holocaust promoter like Arad can't help you out here;

"Gerstein's mission did not bring about any changes in the gassing system in the Operation Reinhard death camps. Carbon monoxide, supplied by truck or tank engine, as introduced by Wirth, remained the means of killing used in these camps. The fact that Gerstein witnessed in Belzec a breakdown of the diesel engine that supplied gas . . ." (My emphasis)

P. 104 of Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka

As for Treblinka; The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust says the following;

"Once the victims were locked inside the gas chambers, which had the appearance of shower rooms, the diesel engine was started and the carbon monoxide poured in."

Israel Gutman (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, 4 vols., Macmillan, New York 1990, vol. 4, pp. 1481 - 7.

For Sobibor we find this reference;

“Dieselmotor mit 250 PS” (diesel engine with 250 hp), “Sobibor”, vol. 3, p. 1332 “200 PS-Motor” (engine with 200 hp)

in, Eberhard Jäckel, Peter Longerich, Julius H. Schoeps (eds.), Enzyklopädie des Holocaust. Die Verfolgung und Ermordung der europäischen Juden, 3 vols., Argon Verlag, Berlin 1993.


Eichmann's private papers and Irving vs Lipstadt are too vague, please specify.

Anyway, if you have any evidence that petrol engines were used, we're all ears.

I have no clue. What could be sufficient reason to commence in the destruction of the entire European jewish community?

A hypothetical question I'm sure for we are not talking about anything that actually happened, or, at least, can be shown to have happened.

All of the above you mentioned did happen. Including killing jews on a mass scale. Do you deny that many hundred of thousands of unarmed jews were murdered just for being jewish?

I'll start believing in it when you or anyone else can show me evidence that proves it.


http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/ausrotten/ausrotten-19440526-01.html

Nizkor can't help you out here. It might work on those who don't know this game.

My little Langenscheidt here has 'root out' and extirpate' along with 'eradicate' and 'exterminate'. Btw, Hitler was right about the treatment of a defeated Germany, they were 'extirpated', from Poland and from the Sudetenland, perhaps three million died in the process. In this sense exitirpate means 'root out', remove, today the term is 'ethnic cleansing'.

What did Hitler do to all possible political adversaries? What did he do to the SA for instance?

Now you are shifting the goal posts, originally you said;

Hitler would have never ever allowed to let his foes be alive in another country and one day come back to fight him.

But as you bring it up, The Night of the Long Knives was a measured response (some thought Hitler too merciful) to an attempted coup d'etat by the Roehm faction of the SA, possibly with French assistance. Their fate was the fate of all traitors everywhere.

I've spoken with german people myself about this subject, both old and young.

So have I - but it doesn't entitle us to make such sweeping statements.

What's your reference material for this?

"By the spring of 1943, the Einsatzgruppen and Order Police battalions had killed over a million Jews" http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/

"According to historian, Raul Hilberg, the mobile killing units murdered 1.4 million Jews between 1941 and the end of the war in 1945." http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/einsatz.html

"According to those reports approximately 1,500,000 people were murdered."
http://www.holocaust-history.org/intro-einsatz/

As for the upper estimates of 3 million mentioned, this figure is not accepted by most holocausters but I have seen it come up. I can't find the reference but when I do . . .

As for the ammunition expenditure. I base this conservative estimate, on the likely amount used. I base this on my own military experience and reading the accounts of the actual shootings, weapons used etc. On three rounds per kill, and 1.5 million, that's 4.5 million rounds.

LOL, You serious? Try reading up on Irving vs. Lipstadt
Perhaps Eichmann memoires? Goebels diaries? should I go on? Post pictures maybe?

You have to be specific, it is meaningless to just say 'look at Irving vs Lipstadt'.

As for pictures, you must take us for complete idiots! But by all means, post the photos, I've seen them all anyway.

According to evidence this is not what happened all the time in reality is it now? Heydrich (Heydrich was appointed to head the Reich Central Office for Jewish Emigration.) was not going to write down on a paper:"kill all jews".
Also I haven't seen many jewish childre take on the profession of sniper, partisan and whatnot? How were they guilty according to Heydrich?

You are getting confused. Heydrich was the head of RSHA, Eichmann was head of emigration.

and,

Also I haven't seen many jewish childre

Well, I'm still waiting for hard evidence of this happening. Hint: I am actually familiar with the evidence served up by the holocausters. We can discuss that but do please be specific.


But can't you see that by generalising all jews for the actions of some you are giving them reason to mark people as anti-semite and whatnot? As long as you mark every single person for things others did they can rightious, in the eyes of the international community, every anti-semite legislation made.
It would be endlessly more constructive to critisice those who are doing it.

I'm not generalising about all Jews, however most of them do support Israel which raises the loyalty question. This forum is full of posts on this topic so I won't go any further.