*sigh*

I hate to start this all over from scratch but I never go to finish the debate last time. Did the Holocaust happen? Yes or no?

Yes. I find it hard to believe that all the jews got together including children and came up with a fairy tale to make the Germans look bad and somehow managed to get bajaillions of non Jews to say they say it happen to.

Why is it that twenty million people died in WWTwo but when someone asks if the holocaust happened it is assumed automatically that the subject is dead Jews? Demonstrates conclusively the totalitarian control media ownership exercises over memory.

Why is it that twenty million people died in WWTwo but when someone asks if the holocaust happened it is assumed automatically that the subject is dead Jews? Demonstrates conclusively the totalitarian control media ownership exercises over memory.

You forgot the other 35 million people who died in WW2. The 20 million were Soviets.

*sigh*

I hate to start this all over from scratch but I never go to finish the debate last time. Did the Holocaust happen? Yes or no?

Yes if you don't want to make semantic bullshit out of the term.

Why did it take the world almost twenty years to discover 'The Holocaust' had happened in WW2? Why does no German document refer to 'The Holocaust'?

Because they didn't invent the word. Writers after the war did. Whatever the fuck one calls it, I believe that various groups, such as Gypsies, Jews, Communists, Slavs, homosexuals, dissidents, Jehovah's Witnesses, Masons, etc were put into camps, and large numbers died. Less may have died than the conventionally accepted figures, but not that much less than the accepted figures.

Gas chambers and so forth may or may not have been used, the arguments for either case tend to be incredibly biased, because nobody who becomes involved in the issue is impartial.

My main interest in the topic is the "Holocaust Industry" of Jewish groups that exploit the suffering (and they hardly ever mention that anyone but Jews suffered) for political and financial means. It is disgusting that these groups screw over non-Jewish victims, Jewish victims (the groups often pocket large amounts of reparations money and whatnot, and do their best to give as little as possible to victims), and generally shake down, often more than once, various sources of money, all the while using the suffering of victims, dead and alive (and again, you hear about the 6 million Jews, but not the conventionally accepted number of 5 million others), as a club.

Why did it take the world almost twenty years to discover 'The Holocaust' had happened in WW2?

Simply because the term wasn't applied doesn't mean the world didn't know Jews were being murdered. Howard K. Smith's Last Train from Berlin was published in September 1942, and it goes on for pages with accusations of persecution and -- yes -- the murder of Jews.


Then, they were marched in the darkness to suburban railrway stations, for the exodus. Morning after morning at half-a-dozen stations, long trains of dilapidated unheated coaches waited for them. The Jews were packed inside to more than double the normal capacity of a railway coach, and most of them had to stand in cramped corridors without sleep and without food for the long exodus to the East lasting, over rails congested with military traffic, forty-eight to seventy-two hours. Toilets in the filthy, ancient coaches were clogged and most natural urges had to be answered out of windows, for the odours of the toilets were stifling, and the corridors were too jammed for passengers to elbow their way to them.

Some were lucky, and were stuffed, after a trip of two days, in disease ridden ghettos of Eastern Poland. Starvation was almost certain for the weakest of them, but they had a fighting chance. The others were shipped to Russia to work themselves to death, more quickly and more painfully. They wdre settled in towns wrecked by war, where there was no plumbing, no heating and houses were skeletons of wood left precariously standing by Blitzkrieg. Together with Soviet civilians they worked on roads twelve, fouteen, fifteen hours a day. Their weak thinning bodies were nourished on thin watery gruel, with no bread or anything solid, thrice a day. Many of them soon died; many more must have died in the bitter eastern winter that followed, which they suffered in their skimpy clothing, made for the western cities they had lived in all their lives. If any fool dreamed of escape, well, the yellow star was over his heart and easy to spot for a gunner. But escape was purposeless anyhow, for the land was bare of food. It was only in the Nazi road camps that there was anything to eat at all.

Howard K. Smith, Last Train from Berlin p. 189-190
Published September 8, 1942
The copy I've got was the Sixth Printing, October 1942





Why does no German document refer to 'The Holocaust'?

Does any document from the 1890s refer to it as the "Gilded Age?"
Should we not call the Middle Ages, the Middle Ages?
I'm not following your reasoning here.

Simply because the term wasn't applied doesn't mean the world didn't know Jews were being murdered.
The term did not come into general use until years after the war was over, specifically, in the aftermath of the '67 war when Israel came close to being destroyed. It was only at that point that we began to hear over and over again about 'The Holocaust'. I propose that 'The Holocaust' is simply a fiction created years later, mostly by Jews, and projected backwards into the past.

Howard K. Smith's Last Train from Berlin was published in September 1942, and it goes on for pages with accusations of persecution and -- yes -- the murder of Jews.
I notice this was written in 1942. Tell me. Where was this individual during the war? What did he do during the war? What are the sources of his information?

Does any document from the 1890s refer to it as the "Gilded Age?"
The above has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of 'The Holocaust'. Regardless, I doubt many historians would deny the 'Gilded Age' is merely a social construct.

Should we not call the Middle Ages, the Middle Ages? I'm not following your reasoning here.
Its very simple. 'The Holocaust' did not exist until years after the war was over. It is not mentioned in any German document whatsoever. It never happened. It is merely a social construct, created with a polemical intent, invented years after the war and projected backwards upon the past.

I am positive that countless people throughout history have burned a sacrificial offering to their god, countless times.

I am positive that countless people throughout history have burned a sacrificial offering to their god, countless times.
http://www.rictus.com/bman-97/male-totem.jpg

EX 30:20 When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not: or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire to the LORD.
EX 30:21 So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations.
EX 30:22 Moreover the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
EX 30:23 Take thou also to thee principal spices, of pure myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half as much, even two hundred and fifty shekels, and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty shekels,
EX 30:24 And of cassia five hundred shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, and of olive-oil a hin:
EX 30:25 And thou shalt make it an oil of holy ointment, an ointment compound after the art of the apothecary: it shall be a holy anointing oil.
EX 30:26 And thou shalt anoint the tabernacle of the congregation with it, and the ark of the testimony,
EX 30:27 And the table and all its vessels, and the candlestick and its vessels, and the altar of incense,
EX 30:28 And the altar of burnt-offering with all its vessels, and the laver and its foot.
EX 30:29 And thou shalt sanctify them, that they may be most holy: whatever toucheth them shall be holy.

Why did it take the world almost twenty years to discover 'The Holocaust' had happened in WW2? Why does no German document refer to 'The Holocaust'?

So Himmler's diary doesn't count?

Does Himmler's diary reveal that the National Socialists were actually burning all the Jews in a sacrificial offering to Odin?

Does Himmler's diary reveal that the National Socialists were actually burning all the Jews in a sacrificial offering to Odin?

Could've. I don't read evil..... I mean German.

So, you're citing something which you refuse to read as proof of your assertion.

WTG.

So, you're citing something which you refuse to read as proof of your assertion.

WTG.

Of course. Historians without the name David Irving are liars. :)

So Himmler's diary doesn't count?
Where in Himmler's diary is 'The Holocaust' mentioned?

The term "holocaust", capitalize it if one wishes, is used to refer to the events. The fact that the word was coined later doesn't mean that the events the word was coined to represent didn't occur.

If someone writes in his diary, that he hates Jews and thinks they should be kicked out of Germany, that isin the eyes of the "believers" proof of Massmurder.

BTW: Himmler wrote a diary when he was a little boy and uneversety student. Later he didn't have time for that. But hey, maybe they will find his diary written with ball-point pen like lil Annes. :rolleyes:

I am firmly of the opinion that fade is completely and utterly correct. ;)
Are we going to go another 20 pages of word play , who gives you the right , who made you this or that , law , what is a war crime , define a war crime , what is proof , etc.
I say again if this is a hoax get the facts out now , write the book Fade and don't waste it here.
if you do think it never happened Fade provide the cold hard facts and then explain why you have not presented them to the worlds historians for study.
I say , if you hold it didn't happen the onus is on you to provide the proof and to present your facts as I have outlined.

My argument is basically this: there are no such thing as 'facts' (much less 'cold hard facts'), there are only linguistically based interpretations. This is an argument that stems from my appropriation of Nietzschean epistemology and my rejection of the Enlightenment. What is known as 'The Holocaust' is thus also a linguistically based interpretation created by a particular perspective. Thus, it is not something that 'happened' at all and to deny it happened makes perfect sense. It is a social construct, something created (years after the war, at that). For instance, think of 'The Holocaust' as being a type of symbolic map (or a narrative). Now a map is not the thing it describes just as a book about a war is not the war itself. For instance, the symbol of a rest area on a road map is not a rest area, merely a representation of it. Got it? This is where the confusion arises. Cerberus keeps asserting that 'The Holocaust' was an event, something that in fact happened, something real. This can easily shown to be not true as no one ever referred to it at the time. It was only years later that 'The Holocaust' was created (as a discourse) and only years after that when the general public realized (after its objectification) that 'The Holocaust' happened in the Second World War. On the basis of this argument, I have denied 'The Holocaust'. It is not incumbant upon me to *prove* the Holocaust did not happen (as it is impossible anyway to provide positive evidence of non-existence). Cerberus has asserted that it *did* happen, so it is incumbant upon Cerberus (as the burden of proof rests upon he who asserts a positive) to make his case.

Fade,
I promised myself I was not going be drawn into this thread again. For you its not really a matter of the Holocaust , or whatever you might wish to call it .
Its more about displaying your own knowledge of Nietzschean epistemology.
Now that sounds very highbrow and beyond mere mortals but it is probably rather less complicated.
I say whatever " proof" , "facts" , " evidence" that may be set before you you will reject each and everyone in turn saying that it "proves nothing".
You reject the process known as " the holocaust" ever happened and you will reject all " facts" as you have already done in your post.
You have already acknowledged that when you say you can't prove that which never happened , so what I am being asked to enter into is a mere circus for your pleasure , it is ultimately a circle it , has no beginning and no end.
As I have termed it before Fade this is an act of masturbation , it will produce nothing it serves only to massage your ego and nothing else.
I am not going to enter this dance , others may do so it is their choice .
My stall is simple Fade , historians have examined in a critical manner the evidence for and against what is known as " the Holocaust" , (you can call it "Zeebleb" for all I care ) .
They would say this process of mass murder did take place , it has been challanged by various individuals who have produced " experts" to plead their case and have used " science" to prove that it was "impossible".
On each and every occasion the case to say "This did not happen " has been found wanting.
Some at this stage enter the conspiracy camp and see Allied powers of all political persuasions , "Jewish lies" , the media and press ( all Jewish controlled of course) falling in line to support this great Hoax , this massive untruth which has been hoisted upon history and mankind.

Words like murder you don't want to hear , after all you have already declared it to be a nonevent and say "prove it" in a world were you say that facts don't exist.

To speak of road maps and symbols is fine but abstract , its divorces that which is historical fact from reality.
Dealing with murder on these terms is a cop out from the real world.
Just liked "Fade the Butcher" , you answer to this ID but I doubt if you sign your cheque book as "Fade the Butcher".
( I certainly don't sign " Cerberus" on mine ).

As I said in the previous version I have no major contest with what is historical fact and am quite happy that it is kept under review and that it is not something that goes stale .
History is far from stale , to me there is life in it.
Abstract again Fade , but its our window on the past a link with who and what we were and what we became and what we might become again.
It has been said that the Nazis are our warning from history.
I suggest you have your middle ear exaimed Fade , for you are to some extent deaf , the warning from history is lost on you you either will not or cannot hear it.

No Fade if you want to go a 20 page game of word play , away you go I have no intention of playing it with you.
I will read it but , hey that's elementary.

What do nomenclature and postmodernist-style philosophy (seriously, is there anybody not on a college campus who pays attention to it?) have to do with historical events?

"The Holocaust" might carry certain connotations (for example, it usually associates itself with 6 millon dead, all Jews, no others, etc), but it is the name that has stuck.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. All this talk of social constructs and interpretations just shows the reason why nobody except college students and faculty give a shit about philosophy anymore: It's all become a bunch of wanky nonsense, devoted to making itself confusing so as to exclude as many "outsiders" as possible.

Fade, I promised myself I was not going be drawn into this thread againNo one here is forcing you to reply to this thread. You are entirely free to avoid this discussion.

For you its not really a matter of the Holocaust , or whatever you might wish to call it .Here is what it is really about, Cerberus. It is about people like yourself making up a story and then declaring this story to be something that actually happened in the past, when that was clearly not the case. You are confusing a narrative about reality with reality itself and when people like myself point this out to you its hard for you to accept it.

Its more about displaying your own knowledge of Nietzschean epistemology.Epistemology is hardly irrelevant to the question of 'The Holocaust'. How do we know 'The Holocaust' happened? What is that, Cerberus? It is an epistemological question. Advocates of 'The Holocaust' rely upon the bankrupt epistemology of the Enlightenment which has since been discredited since the mid-twentieth century.

Now that sounds very highbrow and beyond mere mortals but it is probably rather less complicated.Its not really complicated at all. When you say 'The Holocaust' happened because of this, this, and this, and so on, you are relying upon certain epistemological preconceptions. My argument is that these epistemological conceptions have been discredited, and by extension, your case for 'The Holocaust'. The new epistemological paradigm can demonstrate that the Holocaust is a social construct.

I say whatever " proof" , "facts" , " evidence" that may be set before you you will reject each and everyone in turn saying that it "proves nothing".Lets sit here and think about this for a second. What is a 'fact', Cerberus? Who decides what 'facts' are and how does one go about doing this? Who decides what is and what is not evidence? What is proof? You see, that is my point. All these are epistemological issues which you take for granted. Before we discuss the question of 'The Holocaust', we must address these issues. There is no neutral, objective way to go about this at all. And that is certainly apparent in your case. You are presenting your case (as I am) from a definite perspective that is hardly independent of your own personal values. This perspective filters out what you choose and do not choose to present when making your case, what you find significant and do not find significant. Any attempt to establish any objective sort of criterion is an epistemological dead end. So what's the point, Cerberus? The point is that you are relying upon bankrupted epistemological assumptions which undermine your case for 'The Holocaust'.

You reject the process known as " the holocaust" ever happened and you will reject all " facts" as you have already done in your post. There are no 'facts' in the first place. There are only socially and historically situated, linguistically structured perspectives. 'The Holocaust' is a demonstration of this. 'The Holocaust' never happened in World War 2. It is a social construct that was created years after the war was over. It is not a fact at all. It is an interpretation of the Second World War that you have projected backwards into the past.

You have already acknowledged that when you say you can't prove that which never happened It is logically impossible to prove a negative, Cerberus. Regardless, it is not incumbant upon me to prove anything. I have not argued that 'The Holocaust' happened in the Second World War -- you have.

so what I am being asked to enter into is a mere circus for your pleasure , it is ultimately a circle it , has no beginning and no end.This is hardly a circus, Cerberus. To suggest that this debate is a circus only demonstrates your own intellectual bankruptcy. You see, it is not me, but you, who are taking certain assumptions for granted here. Your case for 'The Holocaust' rests upon these assumptions, so in order to defend your case, you must address the epistemological issues I have brought up.

As I have termed it before Fade this is an act of masturbation , it will produce nothing it serves only to massage your ego and nothing else.I disagree. It is highly productive to address the epistemological presuppositions of Holocaust advocates. By doing this, we can clearly see that their (well, your) entire case rests upon thin ice. You are taking certain assumptions for granted which you cannot properly defend.

I am not going to enter this dance , others may do so it is their choice .Why did you reply to this thread?

My stall is simple Fade , historians have examined in a critical manner the evidence for and against what is known as " the Holocaust" , (you can call it "Zeebleb" for all I care ) .These 'historians' who have examined 'The Holocaust' hardly do so in a neutral, objective, value-free manner (although they pretentiously hold that they do). This can also be demonstrated as well. This is a rough sketch of the epistemological model you are relying upon:

Naive Empiricism

The beliefs which historians have traditionally held about their capacity to discover what happened in the past are just commonsense beliefs which most people accept most of the time without question. They still do so without much harm. Strictly speaking, however, these commonsense beliefs are not warranted, as will be seen. The beliefs are as follows:

1. Our senses mirror the world. Well, more precisely, the world is as we sense it. It contains the objects we sense, with the features we sense them to have: the shapes and colours we see, the sounds we hear, the smells we detect and the textures we feel (a theory of sensation).

2. On the basis of our sensations and our knowledge of both language and the world we identify the things we sense, and draw inferences about their nature (a theory of perception).

3. A description of what we perceive is true if what we describe really is the thing we describe it to be, with the characteristics we describe it as having. If it does have those characteristics, then we say it 'corresponds' to our description of it. Strictly speaking, its having those characteristics warrants our description of it and our assertion that it exists (a correspondence theory of truth).

4. It follows from 1, 2, and 3 that historians can sense and know what evidence of the past is before them, and can describe it truly.

5. There are forms of inference, such as statistical inferences and arguments to the best explanation, which allows historians to draw true conclusions about the past from the evidence available to them. To say that the historical descriptions are true means that the things described really exist and that they really had the characteristics they are described as having.

This is an empiricist theory because it bases historians' knowledge of the world upon their sensory experience or the evidence available to them. It is a naive theory because it takes no account of the criticisms which have been leveled against it.

Destruktion of Naive Empiricism

1. We have no uninterpreted access to the world. Even our simplest sensations are structured according to concepts we possess: for example we see people and trees, not just shapes and colours. The concepts we use to structure our perceptions are provided by our culture: we are taught to perceive things in terms of them.

Furthermore, we are prone to exaggerate slightly the characteristics of things that interest us and ignore things that do not.

Consequently, it is wrong to say that the world is simply as we sense and perceive it.

2. We interpret our experiences linguistically, and our knowledge of the world is constituted by our descriptions of it. So our knowledge of the world is not something we discover, but something we create.

3. Our knowledge of the world is something we construct, on the basis of our concepts and according to our language. We have no way of knowing wht the world is 'really' like, independent of our own culturally determined percpetions and descriptions of it.

4. Consequently, the correspondence theory of truth is useless, since we can never know whether there are things in the world with precisely the characteristics we preceive them to have and describe them as having.

Critics of naive correspondence theory often argue that there is no good reason for believing any descriptions of the world to be true. Common reasons for their skepticism are as follows:

5. The only sense in which we can show a description of the world to be true is a coherence sense, in that we can show it coheres well with other beliefs commonly held about the world.

6. There are common forms of argument for drawing inferences about the past from descriptions of evidence, but there is absolutely no way of proving that the conclusions are reached by means of them are true, as we have no independent access to the world to check their truth. The forms of inference are taught by the culture and accepted as standards of rationality within it.

7. Consequently, there is no good reason to suppose that historical knowledge reached by means of inferences is true or correct. The most one can say about historical knowledge is that it conforms to current standards of rationality.

There are further reasons for being skeptical about historical knowledge:

8. The meaning of words and sentances cannot be fixed and, consequently, their truth cannot be ascertained. Words and sentances acquire their meaning by their relations with other words and sentances. Words and sentances are defined by their implications, synonyms and contrasts, and also by their associations. There is no known limit to these. So the meaning of words is found in other words; and that meaning is, as they say, constantly deferred and consequently quite imprecise. Therefore one cannot be quite sure what historical descriptions are affirming.

9. Whenever historians explain the causes of past events, or find patterns of significance among them, the account they present reflects their theoretical preconceptions and interests. Their interests direct their attention to some matters rather than others; and their preconceptions determine what causes and effects of events they notice and describe. Consequently historical interpretations and explanations do not truly represent the past, but are constructions which reflect the historian's culture.

They would say this process of mass murder did take place , it has been challanged by various individuals who have produced " experts" to plead their case and have used " science" to prove that it was "impossible".How can so many different 'experts' interpret the same event in such different ways? My argument accounts for this. These different 'experts' produce different interpretations precisely because they are approaching the phenomena under observations from a particular vantagepoint -- socially and historically situated, linguistically mediated perspectives. I discredited the correspondence theory of truth above.

On each and every occasion the case to say "This did not happen " has been found wanting.Question: Who declared on all these 'occasions' that such claims have been 'found wanting'? On what basis were such decisions reached? A deconstructionist would respond by pointing out that no individual whatsoever has unmediated access to reality, so logically, the above individual does not have the grounds to make such an argument.

Some at this stage enter the conspiracy camp and see Allied powers of all political persuasionsYou are setting up a straw man argument. I have not argued that there was ever a 'Jewish conspiracy'.

"Jewish lies" There are Jews who have lied about 'The Holocaust' for emotional, ethnically based reasons.

the media and press ( all Jewish controlled of course) falling in line to support this great Hoax , this massive untruth which has been hoisted upon history and mankind.A conspiracy is not required in the slightest to explain this phenomena. And yes, there are certain topics that are taboo to discuss in the mainstream media. These taboos are determined by what Foucault describes as 'archives' (an institutional site within a discursive formation) which structure 'fields of knowledge' in accordance with the distribution of power within a given society.

Words like murder you don't want to hear , after all you have already declared it to be a nonevent and say "prove it" in a world were you say that facts don't exist.Murder is unlawful killing. If you are saying that Jews were murdered, then show them laws that were broken and the criminal penalties that follow from violating them. 'Genocide' did not even exist until well into the Second World War. It did not become part of the body of international law until the war was over. For Christ sake, aggressive war was not even illegal under international law at the time!

To speak of road maps and symbols is fine but abstract , its divorces that which is historical fact from reality. The point is a very simple one (so even you should be able to understand it). A phenomena and a representation of a phenomena are not the same thing. The map example was meant to serve as an illustration of that. 'The Holocaust' is an interpretation of the Second World War, a discursive representation of it. It is not something that happened in WW2. It is hardly a 'historical fact'. Such things do not even exist in the first place. There are only historical interpretations.

Dealing with murder on these terms is a cop out from the real world.What is the 'real world'? Have you ever given that question any thought? I doubt it. :p

Just liked "Fade the Butcher" , you answer to this ID but I doubt if you sign your cheque book as "Fade the Butcher". ( I certainly don't sign " Cerberus" on mine ).Do I call myself Cerberus though? What if I died and then everyone referred to me as Cerberus, even though I never did so myself. You see. That is precisely what you are doing here with 'The Holocaust'. You are taking a constructed category and projecting it backwards in time.

As I said in the previous version I have no major contest with what is historical fact and am quite happy that it is kept under review and that it is not something that goes stale .
I deconstructed your epistemological model above.

History is far from stale , to me there is life in it.
I am not the one here who has assumed that history is something out there waiting for us to discover it.

Abstract again Fade , but its our window on the past a link with who and what we were and what we became and what we might become again.
The epistemological model you keep using is hardly perennial. It is the product of a specific social and historical context. It has recently been thoroughly discredited in that it leads directly to nihilism.

It has been said that the Nazis are our warning from history.
Some people say that, yes. Others say National Socialism was the greatest thing to ever happen in the twentieth century.

I suggest you have your middle ear exaimed Fade , for you are to some extent deaf , the warning from history is lost on you you either will not or cannot hear it.
LMAO tell me. What is wrong about National Socialism? I disagree. Its not me who needs to get my ears checked. Its you. Its you who cannot see how you are so utterly a product of your own pacifist culture.

No Fade if you want to go a 20 page game of word play , away you go I have no intention of playing it with you. I will read it but , hey that's elementary.
If you don't want to defend your epistemological preconceptions, then that is fine with me. Simply do not respond to this post.

Pardon me for wussing out on this one, but my country has a bullshit law which criminalizes anyone who publicly doubts the 'accepted' version of the so called holocaust. As a jurist, I really should respect the laws of the land, no matter how silly they are, and laws can't get much sillier than this one. Therefor, I am not gonna speak out about what I think really happened back then, but I trust that the smarter members of the messageboard who read this post can make a guess about what my beliefs on this topic are by now.

No problem Fade , no further comment to make , case closed as far as I am concerned.

Do you know anyone who has ever went to prison for heresy, constantinus?

In Belgium, noone effectively went to jail for it yet, as far as i'm aware, although it is possible to lock up ppl for it. People have gotten hefty fines for it already tho.

I think it's pretty clear that Jews and many others were persecuted in WWII, but I seriously doubt they were systematically gassed. I think they were merely put into camps, and many were used for slave labor. Many died from Typhus or other diseases. In this respect, no, I don't think the Holocaust happened.

Another reason why I doubt the official version of events is the fact that the Jews in several countries have made it a criminal offense to question the Holocaust dogma. That strikes me as a very Jewish way to defend a lie.

This is the law against denying it in Belgium:

Tekst Inhoudstafel Begin
Artikel 1. Met gevangenisstraf van acht dagen tot een jaar en met geldboete van zesentwintig frank tot vijfduizend frank wordt gestraft, hij die onder één der omstandigheden bepaald bij artikel 444 van het Strafwetboek, de genocide die tijdens de tweede wereldoorlog door het Duitse nationaal-socialistische regime is gepleegd, ontkent, schromelijk minimaliseert, poogt te rechtvaardigen of goedkeurt.
Voor de toepassing van het vorige lid, dient de term genocide te worden begrepen in de zin van artikel 2 van het Internationaal Verdrag van 9 december 1948 inzake de voorkoming en de bestraffing van genocide.
(De veroordeelde kan bovendien overeenkomstig artikel 33 van het Strafwetboek tot de ontzetting worden veroordeeld.) <W 1999-05-07/57, art. 3, 002; Inwerkingtreding : 05-07-1999>
Art. 2. In geval van veroordeling wegens overtreding van deze wet, kan worden bevolen dat het vonnis in zijn geheel of bij uittreksel in een of meer dagbladen wordt bekendgemaakt, alsmede dat het wordt aangeplakt, een en ander op kosten van de veroordeelde.
Art. 3. Hoofdstuk VII van het eerste Boek van het Strafwetboek en artikel 85 van hetzelfde Wetboek zijn op deze wet van toepassing.
Art. 4. Het Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en racismebestrijding, alsmede iedere vereniging die op het ogenblik van de feiten ten minste vijf jaar rechtspersoonlijkheid geniet, en die zich, op grond van haar statuten, tot doel stelt de morele belangen en de eer van het verzet of van de gedeporteerden te verdedigen, kunnen in rechte optreden in alle rechtsgeschillen waartoe de toepassing van deze wet aanleiding van geven.
Art. 5. Deze wet treedt in werking de dag waarop ze in het Belgisch Staatsblad wordt bekendgemaakt.
Kondigen deze wet af, bevelen dat zij met 's Lands zegel zal worden bekleed en door het Belgisch Staatsblad zal worden bekendgemaakt.
Gegeven te Brussel, 23 maart 1995.
ALBERT
Van Koningswege :
De Minister van Justitie,
M. WATHELET
Met 's Lands zegel gezegeld :
De Minister van Justitie,
M. WATHELET

Article 1 stipulates that you risk 8 days to a year in jail and a 130 to 25000 euro fine (such short jailterms are never actually imposed in Belgium, so in reality you only suffer the fine) for the people who deny, minimalize or justify the so called genocide committed by the national-socialist regime. To define what this genocide is, the law refers to some treaty of 1948.
Article 2 is a bitch: it tells that whoever is convicted runs the risk of seeing his conviction printed in the press. Try finding a job after that :s
Article 4 stipulates that the antiracism agency is allowed to start the prosecution. In belgian criminal law, a victim can actually force the magistrates to start a criminal procedure. This article stipulates that the agency is considered to be the victim of a negationist 'crime'. Try finding logic in that one.

In Spain we have the laws and people have actually been sent to prison for denying the Holoco$t.

Pedro Varela, owner of a Bookstore (Who I personally know) was thrown into jail after a raid on said bookstore for:
Inducing to genocide and hate (two year sentence) and promoting discrimination, hatred and violence against social minorities due to racist and anti-semitic motives (Three years more) plus a fine of 6000 Euros.
He was in an Austrian prison for a year due to having attended a Hitler rememberance meeting.

Ebusitanus, I don't know how hard it is to find, but do you have any idea what the maximum sentence is you can get for it in Spain?

No idea at this time and as usual its not a single accusation. Normally it arrives along with a battery of other hate law infractions like I have pointed out above. Jewish groups in Spain like "Amical Mauthausen" are seeking 24 years for him, so go figure.

fucking hell, 24 years, you have got to be kidding me, murderers sometimes get less than 24 years, jesus christ, this is insane

Greetings all, this is my first post to this forum.

There is a simple solution (pardon the pun) to the question about the Holocaust. Look at the evidence presented in support of the story. Does it hang together or not. Under close scrutiny the story starts to fall apart. It is full of inconsistencies, contradictions, falsifications, and downright impossibilities.

Here is just one example. Its an e mail exchange between Brian Renk (Revisionist) and Christopher Browning, the distinguished holocaust historian and one of the expert witnesses at the Iriving trial. The argument is about how witness testimonies concerning gassing/burning figures converge on the Soviet fabrications presented at Nuremberg:

quote:

Holocaust expert cannot explain "convergence of falsehood"

by B. Renk

An e-mail written to Christopher Browning on February 27, 1999:
Quote:

Dear Dr. Browning, I have studied the evidence of the homicidal gas chambers
at Auschwitz, Poland for many years. Perhaps the subject is not specifically
your field of expertise, but I would very much appreciate your helpfulness
in clarifying the following: At the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Report of the
Soviet War Crimes Commission of May 6, 1945 (USSR-008) put forth the
assertion that approximately 10,000 people were killed at Auschwitz on a
daily basis, 279,000 a month, four million total.
The often-referred-to testimonies of Rudolf Höss, Filip Müller, Dr. Myklos
Nyisli, the alleged report of SS-officer Franke-Gricksch, and other sources
corroborate these Soviet figures. In 1989, Dr. Yehuda Bauer reported to the
Jerusalem Post that more like one million people died at Auschwitz, and I
understand the historical community does not contest Dr. Bauer's official
revision.
My question is, if it is understood that the Soviets deliberately inflated
the Auschwitz death toll, what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports which
impossibly reported 10,000 daily murders/deaths at Auschwitz? Jean-Claude
Pressac has extensively written of the Auschwitz crematoria capacities as
having been substantially lower, and more in accord with the revised death
toll figures. Also, is the historical community aware that two of the Soviet
Commissions' members (Burdenko and Nikolai) were also members of the Special
State Commision which submitted the fabricated reports on German guilt for
the Katyn massacres (USSR-054)?
In sum, where does the truth lie with regard to Auschwitz concentration
camp? What reports or trial testimonies should one consult to find
corroboration for the death toll as it is understood today? Pressac has
written that the testimony of Nyisli must be divided by four to arrive at a
true figure, for example.
Forgive me, but I would tend to think that testimonies which corroborate the
discredited exaggerations of post-war Soviet intelligence do not serve well
as testimonies to "what really happened and why" at Auschwitz. I understand
that the history of Auschwitz concentration camp must be very delicately
revised for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, shouldn't future references to
the subject note the implausibility of witness claims I've mentioned? If so,
how do we interpret the testimony of Rudolf Höss, for example? Can we
continue to regard the May, 1943 report of Franke-Gricksch as a veracious
account, despite the fact that it mentions 10,000 cremations a day and
500,000 victims at Auschwitz within two months of the Birkenau crematoria
becoming functional?
I do not question [herein] the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in
the Holocaust. I do believe, however, that the historical community must
find a way to come to terms with the testimonies to falsehood which have
been presented as representative of truth in the historical texts to date.
Does it suffice to say "Oh yes, such and such gave a very accurate account
of what really happened, we need only divide his or her exaggerated figures
by four or five to arrive at a truer figure"? Is there a single witness
testimony or deposition which corroborates the idea that one million people,
mostly Jews, were murdered or died over the five year period of the Nazi
concentration camp, or that the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria reduced about
two thousand people a day to ashes in peak periods? I only know of the
higher, discredited figures having been put forth. I look forward to your
reply.

Best Regards, Brian Renk



Dr. Browning responded to this letter on April 6, 1999 with the following:
Quote:

Dear Mr. Renk,

The current figure for deaths at Auschwitz was already reached by Raul
Hilberg in his 1961 book by working from the documentary (not eyewitness)
base of the number of Jews transported to Auschwitz and a reasonable
estimate of the number of survivors. No serious historian (from Reitlinger
in the 1950's and Hilberg in the 1960's to the present) has even accepted
the Soviet figure of 4 million, which was based on the erroneous method of
estimating maximum capacity for burning bodies and then falsely assuming
that that maximum capacity was in reality realized every single day that the
gas chamber/crematorium complexes were in existence.
Given the Soviet understanding of history as functional rather than
truthful, once given, the estimate was never corrected or revised.
Historians like Hilberg, and the newer estimates, are not based on the
eyewitness estimates, because though such witnesses could accurately report
that part of the procedure of killing they actually witnessed, they were not
in a position to make accurate calculations concerning the overall and
cumulative killing operations. The search for the single witness or single
document that proves or disproves all is framing the research question
wrongly. It is out of a series of documents, i.e. that different deportation
lists, and a reasonable estimate for the countries (especially Poland) for
which we do not have accurate lists that the process must start.

Christopher Browning



I submitted a response to Browning's letter on April 17, 1999:
Quote:

Dear Dr. Browning,

Thank you for your letter of 6 April (Re: Nuremberg document USSR-008) in
response to my letter of 27 February.
In your letter, you explained that "no serious historian (from Rietlinger in
the 1950's and Hilberg in the 1960's to the present has even accepted the
Soviet figure of 4 million [Auschwitz victims]". Concerning eyewitness
acounts, you wrote: "Historians like Hilberg, and the newer estimates, are
not based on the eyewitness estimates, because though such witnesses could
accurately report that part of the procedure of killing they actually
witnessed, they were not in a position to make accurate calculations
concerning the overall and cumulative killing operations".

I agree that the Holocaust historians have based their estimates for the
number of victims on empirical data such as train deportation lists and,
more recently, the declassified documents of the Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung
in Moscow [note- i.e. coke consumption and cremation theory]. I would also
agree that "the search for the single witness or single document that proves
or disproves all is framing the research question wrongly" and that
conclusions have been drawn from a confluence of data. I do not question the
validity of the historical methodology in the absence of direct proof, and
would not expect you or a colleague to refer to a single document or
testimony to "prove or disprove all".
In the Report of the Soviet War Crimes Commission of 6 May, 1945, the
following is written:

"The Germans killed and burned between 10,000 and 12,000 human beings daily
[at Auschwitz-Birkenau]". The Soviet report refers to the testimonies of
witnesses Dragon and Tauber ("who worked in a special commando servicing the
gas chambers") as ratification for the estimated number of daily victims,
based on "theoretical" crematory throughput.
Of Tauber's testimony, Jean-Claude Pressac wrote in his 1989 study (p. 494):
"Here we find the famous multiplication factor of four, of which Dr. Myklos
Nyisli made such abundant and lamentable use in his book that his
credibility was long contested...we do arrive at the [standard] figure of
four million victims in all. This type of imposed falsehood has to be
excused, I would stress, because of the political climate of the period
1945-1950".
Pressac is correct to stress the minimum fourfold exaggerations of Tauber,
Nyisli, and Dragon (p. 171). As members of the Sondercommando, these direct
witnesses would certainly have been "in a position to make accurate [or
"ballpark"] calculations concerning the overall and cumulative killing
operations".
Filip Müller, whose book was published in 1979, also referred to "the
incineration of up to 10,000 corpses in 24 hours" in the crematoria (p. 97),
and SS-officer Franke-Gricksch is alleged to have written in a report for
Himmler in May, 1943:

"Current capacity of the "resettlement action" ovens: 10,000 in 24 hours"
(Pressac, p. 239).

My question remains: what credibility can we ascribe to these testimonies
which can only have served to "validate" Soviet post-war falsehoods as to
crematory capacities and actual numbers of victims? What reports or
testimonies should one consult to find corroboration for the death toll as
it is understood today?
The aforementioned "imposed falsehood" (Pressac) cannot be excused as
resulting from the post-war political climate, because Müller's account was
published in 1979 and Franke-Gricksch's account dates from 1943. There
appears to be a convergence of evidence to Soviet falsehood and no
testimonies or contemporaneous documents I would consider as representative
of a death toll of one million, excluding the revised confession of Rudolf
Höss, which was not based on documentary sources. This would encompass the
bodies of evidence I have mentioned.
Should it not be the subject of a future colloquy to address this element of
falsehood within such texts? British historian Gerald Fleming, in assessing
the Franke-Gricksch text, wrote:

"The account of the SS officer and the former concentration camp prisoner
[Mueller] concur on one fact: that the cremation capacity of the camp
reached up to 10,000 corpses per twenty four hours" (from "Hitler and the
Final Solution" [1984] p. 145). It is the citation of such figures as valid
which needs redress. Pressac alluded to a "famous multiplier" (pp. 171, 483,
494) which has never been discussed in historical accounts to my knowledge.
If the Holocaust historians have always disregarded the Soviet claim of four
million, why have the testimonies cited above been regarded as accurate
representations of the number of victims?
The Soviets broke the four million figure down to a monthly rate of 279,000
average, and a daily rate of 10,000-12,000.

Brian Renk



Professor Browning tried to answer this letter with a very interesting
response on April 20:
Quote:

Dear Brian Renk,

I think the 10,000 per day figure testified to by Mueller and others was the
maximum reached during the Hungarian deportations, with the use of open pit
burning as well as crematoria. The Soviet report then took this figure and
treated it as a daily average over the whole period of the camp gassings,
when this figure was a maximum reached only on occassion at the height of
the Hungarian deportations. Thus an eyewiteness report that claims that
10,000 Jews were killed at Auschwitz in one day is not a confirmation of the
Soviet figure of 4 million.

Chris Browning



Very appreciative of Professor Browning's willingness to address this
matter, I wrote again on April 23, requesting a response to the specific
arguments I had made:
Quote:

Dear Dr. Browning,

Thank you very much for your letters of April 6 and April 20.

In your letter of April 20, 1999, you wrote:

"I think the 10,000 per day figure testified to by Müller and others was the
maximum reached during the Hungarian deportations, with the use of open-pit
burning as well as cremations. The Soviet report then took this figure and
treated it as a daily average over the whole period of the camp gassings,
when this figure was a maximum reached only on occasion at the height of the
Hungarian deportations".

The Soviet report of 1945 specifically refers to "the total capacity of all
five crematoria" as "279,000 bodies per month. Since the Germans also burned
great numbers of bodies on pyres, the capacity of the installations for the
extermination of human beings in Auschwitz must be considered to be much
higher in fact than this figure would suggest".
At the conclusion of the report, the capacity of the ovens themselves as
10,000 per day is augmented by a given monthly capacity for each cremation
facility and in the independent reference to the open-air cremations as
having occurred prior to the Birkenau crematoria constructs of 1943, when
the combined death toll "far exceeded the capacity of the crematory ovens"
[of the main camp, which was 340 per day]. The Soviets mention shut downs
and repairs to the Birkenau crematoria in connexion with the open-air
incinerations at later dates.

The exaggerated figures compiled by the Soviet commission are not, as you
suggested, in themselves a problem for the historian-- they are regarded as
false. The problem lies in the corroborative witness testimony.
The Soviet commission's "interrogation" of Genrich (Henryk) Tauber elicited
the following statement: "All the crematoria incinerated 10-12,000 bodies
per day". Pressac correctly states that Tauber's figures are "connected with
the [Soviet] propaganda of the immediate post-war period" (1989, p.494).
The witness S. Dragon was also "following the tendency to exaggerate which
seems to have been the general rule at the time of the liberation and which
is what gave rise to the figure of four million victims for the K.L.
Auschwitz, a figure now considered to be pure propaganda. It should be
divided by four to get close to reality [p.171]".
Myklos Nyisli also expressly referred to the crematorium capacity in itself:
"In all up to 10,000 men could be brought from the gas chambers into the
crematory ovens every day".

Filip Müller wrote in 1979:
"The increase in the number of ovens by nearly eight times in comparison to
those of the Auschwitz [main camp] crematorium...enabled the incineration of
up to 10,000 corpses in 24 hours".
Alfred Franke-Gricksch is alleged to have "reported" in May, 1943 (when only
Kremas II and IV were operative): "Current capacity of the "resettlement
action" ovens: 10,000 in 24 hours".

Your hypothesis, namely that "the 10,000 figure testified by Müller and
others was the maximum reached during the Hungarian deportations, with the
use of open-pit burning as well as crematoria" does not correlate to the
specific reference to crematory oven capacity as 10,000/day in each of the
testimonies cited. Tauber and Dragon were "interrogated" by the Soviet
commission and confirmed the Soviet exaggerations verbatim. Franke-Gricksch
is alleged to have given the figure as "jetzige kapazität" (current
capacity) when two Birkenau crematoria were not even completed and the main
camp facility retired (May 1943). Mueller's statement was published in 1979,
and was reiterated in the film "Shoah", where he says that up to 3,000
people were gassed and cremated in 3-4 hours, and that this was repeated
several times in a single day.
In your letter of April 20, you wrote that "an eyewitness report that claims
that 10,000 Jews were killed at Auschwitz in one day is not a confirmation
of the Soviet figure of 4 million". The reports mentioned directly refer to
unrealistic crematory capacities in themselves and, in this regard,
represent a convergence of evidence to a deliberate falsehood.
The minimum fourfold exaggeration of overall deaths could not have existed
without a correspondingly exaggerated average daily figure. I would welcome
evidence to the contrary.

Brian Renk



Browning seems to have been reluctant to respond to this last letter, in
which I clarified what it was that I wished for him to address. After having
awaited his response for one month, I wrote again, attaching the letter of
April 23 to which he had not responded:
Quote:

Dear Dr. Browning,
I have not yet received your response to my letter of 23 April (attached).
Do you disagree with Jean-Claude Pressac's analyses of the testimonies cited
as corroboration of the Soviet exaggerations as your previous letter
suggests? The US Army air photos of 1944 do not show evidence of thousands
of bodies being cremated in open-air incinerations on any of the known dates
and Pressac states (p. 239) that the combined crematoria capacity was about
3,000 per day max.
I think the 10,000 figure should be regarded as an exaggeration regardless
of circumstance. Once again, is Pressac wrong or not? If so, why?

Brian Renk



Browning was, evidently, not prepared to carry this correspondence any
further. On May 18, 1999 he wrote what would be his final e-mail in this
exchange:
Quote:

Dear Mr. Renk,

The tone of our correspondence seems to have changed from exchange to
interrogation, in which you feel entitled to demand answers at your
convenience to an unending series of questions. Now it is my turn to pose
some questions. Who are you? What is your agenda?

Christopher Browning



I did not respond to Browning's final letter. I had respectfully asked very
specific questions, and he was clearly not prepared to answer them. I don't
think my "agenda" is relevant. I was asking a question about the
significance of a specifically false reference in the witness testimony.
It's a very interesting exchange. I asked simple questions and received
simple answers. However, when it was unequivocally spelled out that Dr.
Browning's answers failed to address the subject I was specifically
interested in, he did not wish to continue the correspondence. Typical.

end quote

Here you get an idea of what happens when a bit of sceptical and critical analysis is applied to the story and how the official defenders resort to silence. It becomes obvious why they have to resort to Orwellian laws and other forms of persecution to preserve the H.

That's it for now

*sigh*

I hate to start this all over from scratch but I never go to finish the debate last time. Did the Holocaust happen? Yes or no?
Define "The Holocaust" and I will answer your question.

Define "The Holocaust" and I will answer your question.

Very simple. That 6 million Jews were put to death by way of mass shooting/gas vans/stationary homocidal gas chambers/. That their remains were incinerated, and all this, as a matter of state policy.

The above is what is in contention by Revisionist historians. When someone asks you did the Holocaust happen, or, do you believe that it happened, that is what is meant.

Very simple. That 6 million Jews were put to death by way of mass shooting/gas vans/stationary homocidal gas chambers/. That their remains were incinerated, and all this, as a matter of state policy.

The above is what is in contention by Revisionist historians. When someone asks you did the Holocaust happen, or, do you believe that it happened, that is what is meant.
Thanks. I am more curious as to how Fade would define the term.

:: Define "The Holocaust" and I will answer your question.

Hmm. To be honest, I do not like definitions. This is because, in my view, definitions attempt to freeze concepts that are constantly evolving. So I will not 'define' the Holocaust, since there is no 'essence' of the Holocaust in the first place. Instead, I will attempt to describe it: a lie, a myth, a metanarrative, an idol, a social construct, a discourse, a moral story about the Jewish experience during the Second World War.

Then I can’t answer your question. It would be like asking if I believe in UFOs without defining what is meant by a UFO.

However, I did purchase a 1965 World Book Encyclopedia yesterday at a used book store (I love old books and it was priced at 25 cents). The Holocaust is not mentioned. It is odd that The Holocaust is more prominent 60 years after the event than it was 20 years after the event.

Hmm. To be honest, I do not like definitions. This is because, in my view, definitions attempt to freeze concepts that are constantly evolving. So I will not 'define' the Holocaust, since there is no 'essence' of the Holocaust in the first place. Instead, I will attempt to describe it: a lie, a myth, a metanarrative, an idol, a social construct, a discourse, a moral story about the Jewish experience during the Second World War.

Yes, I agree with you, particularly the last part, however the danger of leaving the definition diffuse is clear; it leaves the holocaust promoters too much room to quietly revise their claims in the face of revisionist success. Anyway, the onus of 'defining the holocaust' is not on you, it is on those who make the claim. Do you believe that as a matter of policy or otherwise, the Germans shot, gassed and burned 6 million Jews?

The Auschwitz authorities changed the plaques claiming four million deaths down to one and a half million but didn't bother to inform anyone of this. They also claim a building to be a gas chamber but quietly admit that it is in fact a 'reconstruction', yet do not inform the tourists. The old soap claims were denounced as false by none other than the director of Yad Vashem in '90 or '91, and the quiet revision downward of figures goes on - yet the holy 6 million figure never changes. The 90's saw the rise of the claims concerning slave labour, and, with the publication of books like Browning's 'Ordinary Men' in '93, a shift in emphasis from gas chambers to mass shootings in the occupied East: clearly they are spreading their bets. As the gas chamber stories collapse in the face of cold scientific inquiry, they can turn and talk about mass shootings (which in turn are untenable stories dependent almost entirely on dodgy documents produced by the Soviets, and 'confessions') and so on. One day they may even turn around and say, 'Gas chambers? What gas chambers? We exposed those years ago.'

It is important to deny them this free space to chop and change the story according to what 'the market can bear'. Holocaust - holokaustos - means 'burnt offering', a sacrifice to the god/s. 'The Holocaust' means what they have claimed it to mean: the mass shooting, gassing and burning of six million Jews. It is their definition, their claim, their outrageous lie and they must be held to it.

In my opinion, what is wrong with the accusation of 'holocaust' is the (overtly or not) exaggeration of the figures and the events.

This doesn't mean that there were no mass murders, but words like 'holocaust' and 'genocide' are being purposedly used to create a shocking effect of the events.

I remember, back in the days when I still didn't know well the Germanic/Nordic folk and I showed sympathies for them, attending a conference at Chelsea Hall in London where the speakers were historical revisionists Zundel, Irving and a French. Another speaker was a North American who had been (or was) an expert on extermination methods on behalf of the US Government.

I had the chance to talk to Zundel --rofl... you Canadians shouldn't be very fond of him--, to whom I picked up from the airport, and during Irving's talk to this North American person.

He told me that he had been commisioned by the US Government to do some research in Auschwitz's gas chambers. He assured me that he had not found any traces of zyklon-b or any other lethal gas in those 'showers', and that if had ever been any, he would have been able to find it even 50 years after the last time they were used. His report was filed and dimissed by the US Goverment. When I asked him about his political affiliation or sympathies, he too assured me that he had none, neither at the time of the research nor at the time we were speaking.

Do I believe him? Well, to be fair I didn't find any reason why he would be lying, not even today since who contacted him and organized such conference was not any dubious and/or obscure Germanic/Nordic individual, but an Italian person with very strong Catholic views. He never delivered his talk. We knew that the judish lobby had pressed to him not to enter the UK (he sneaked in by car through France), and as soon as he came out on the speech forum a number of policemen quickly took him away.

Having said this, I do believe that much wrong was commited, though not to the extent that it is being told. Also, I do not believe that what happened could be blamed on an ideology alone, but on an ideology realized by a particular group of people, namely the Germanic peoples.

This, for the record (and to avoid forseeable and purposedly twisting of my words by the Fades or Erikssons), does not imply any hatred to Germanic and/or Nordic folk. I'm not saying that Germanic/Nordic folk are murderous by nature, but maybe they are a bit... how would I say this so that it sounds politically correct to the audience and the anti-med nordish admins... very little refined? One only had to compare the events with those which happened in Castile, Aragon, Portugal, or Venice almost 500 years earlier to realize the difference between the Germanic/Nordic volk and the Mediterranean gentem. Not only in refinement, but also in effectiveness.

I don't think this insinuation about northern Europeans is really going anywhere, after all we could adduce all sorts of examples of the Iberian love of blood sports and the activities of the Conquistadores.

I do believe that much wrong was commited

Yes, it was called World War II. Tens of millions were killed on all sides in this brutal and needless conflict. The point is that 'The Holocaust' stands apart from the universal carnage as something special - unparalleled evil etc.

It boils down to this: Do you believe that as a matter of policy or otherwise, the Germans shot, gassed and burned 6 million Jews?

If the answer is no, then no Holocaust. In that case the demonisation of the Germans is entirely unjust and is itself a monstrous crime of unparalleled proportions . . .

I don't think this insinuation about northern Europeans is really going anywhere
There are no insinuations but analyses and logical conclusions. After this, I suspect that having clarified my belief in that Germanic/Nordic (or Northern Europeans) are not murderous by nature, will not be enough to avoid my words being the subject of ill-intentioned interpretations and further twisting, just as they were intentionally faked only some days ago.

after all we could adduce all sorts of examples of the Iberian love of blood sports
The issue has been discussed before, and I have no problem whatsoever in you, or anyone else, bringing it back to life. If the best you have to offer to apologize for the killing of humans is the killing of animals in a fight between the man and the beast, you have already lost the battle before even starting.

Hopefully, you will not forget to comment on other sports such as brutal and bleeding dog fights or fox hunting by the English, or any other non Iberian examples.

and the activities of the Conquistadores.
Please, do. Let us see and compare the deeds of brave men in the XVIth century with events happened in the XIXth and XXth centuries. And, since it is obvious that the discussion will extend to the entire period of Spanish domination in The Americas, we will also have the chance to compare it and its effects with the domination of the nordish in North America.

We are already accustomed to deal with these and other attempts to slander Spaniards and other Mediterranean or Southern European nations and gentem. Nothing new.

Yes, it was called World War II. Tens of millions were killed on all sides in this brutal and needless conflict.
And just who was refering to WWII, or any other war for that matter?

The point is that 'The Holocaust' stands apart from the universal carnage as something special - unparalleled evil etc.

It boils down to this: Do you believe that as a matter of policy or otherwise, the Germans shot, gassed and burned 6 million Jews?
I won't ask you to read my entire post. Only the first line. It should be self containing, really. But if you don't find it clear, the rest of the post clearly explains what I belief it was.

If the answer is no, then no Holocaust. In that case the demonisation of the Germans is entirely unjust and is itself a monstrous crime of unparalleled proportions . . .
As I suspect that you will have already guessed through my previous post, my answer to the existance or not of a 'holocaust' or, rather, to how the whole story is being told, is no. In fact I even bring in my personal testimony to support the denial. Which is not like saying that nothing never happened.

In case this has not been perfectly understood, I'll use an example to the style of Fade, though with my personal touch (i.e. without using the example as a convenient exaggeration to hide any falsenesses): if a man breaks into a house where there is a family with 6 girls, and he sexually forces one or two of those girls, accusing him of raping and killing the entire family is a brutal and unjust accusation. But still, that does not mean that the rapes did not take place and that they are not abhorrent acts.

Note: yes, I too hate this example. But perhaps this way some people will realize that lying and maliciously twisting words is not a noble way to act.

By the way I am not 'Germanic/Nordic' myself.

I'm not saying that Germanic/Nordic folk are murderous by nature, but maybe they are a bit... how would I say this so that it sounds politically correct to the audience and the anti-med nordish admins... very little refined?

Is this not a chauvinistic statement? This is what I was taking issue with, and I see very little "refinement" in the slaughter of American Indians by either Iberians or by Anglo-Saxons. The message here is don't throw stones in glass houses.

On to the substance of this thread;

[/QUOTE]As I suspect that you will have already guessed through my previous post, my answer to the existance or not of a 'holocaust' or, rather, to how the whole story is being told, is no. In fact I even bring in my personal testimony to support the denial. Which is not like saying that nothing never happened.[QUOTE]

Yes, I understand that you do not believe in the "Holocaust" but my point is different. If there was no "Holocaust" as the promoters would have us believe, what exactly was the crime of the Germans, i.e. the "nothing never happened" bit?

Oh, I seem to have missed something;

If the best you have to offer to apologize for the killing of humans is the killing of animals in a fight between the man and the beast, you have already lost the battle before even starting.

If you don't believe in the Holocaust then what are you talking about? Where have I apologised for the killing of human beings? Believe me, if the Holocaust was as they say it happened, I would condemn it totally. As it happens it is a demonstrable lie, and that is what I condemn.

EYTYXEITE!
Dear FadeTheButcher, sorry to say , you are a blasphemus! At least, let's try to respect the memory of all these billions creatures!
Holocaust DID happen! Here the evidence in attachment!
Kindest Regards!

P.S.: Even to think about it is a crime against Logic!*sigh*

I hate to start this all over from scratch but I never go to finish the debate last time. Did the Holocaust happen? Yes or no?

Did the holocaust happen? honestly I don't know for certain either way, but my logic compels me to the revisionist side. I certaintly don't condone "extermanation" of any group and I don't think that any group of people would be able to mass slaughter other human beings when they have already unconditionally given up. The best evidence for the revisionist side lies in the a book called "Dissecting the Holocaust" an excellent collection of the main arguments and its even avalible free online.

Racialist said;

Did the holocaust happen?

There's the problem - "did the holocaust happen?" is an impossible question, rather like asking, did the Renaissance happen. Both terms name a complex series of sometimes quite diparate events, and both terms were applied later. I believe that the better question to ask here is this;

were six million Jews shot/gassed and their bodies burnt? In other words, were 1.5 million shot by roving squads of killers in the East; and were the balance - 4.5 million gassed in mobile and fixed homocidal gas chambers? These questions can be addressed because they comprise of specific claims which can be further specified, clarified and investigated. That is the business of holocaust revisionism.

For example, did gassing occur, as alleged, at Belzec, one of the Aktion Reinhard camps (Treblinka and Sobibor were the others)? Well, surely we should look at all the evidence pertaining to Belzec. We could look at all the claims, examine the area were the camp was located, and study the properties of diesel exhaust fumes - "ideal for torture, absurd for murder" as the diesel expert Friederich Berg puts it (I'm anticipating!).

For Belzec all that survives is testimonies, there are no structural remains, unlike Auschwitz were chemical analysis can and has been done on various walls with devastating results for the holocaust story. The testimonies for Belzec do not stand up, they are composed of contradictory and absurd claims which never make into the pages of the official holocausters accounts. For example, compare the full statement of Kurt Gerstein - a crucial key witness for the holocausters - with the edited and sometimes falsified version used by the holohucksters.

Racialist is right to recommend Dissecting the Holocaust, a superb and comprehensive account of the holocaust by various revisionist experts in different fields and is available online (as are a lot of other important books and articles on this topic) http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/found.html

EYTYXEITE!
Dear FadeTheButcher, sorry to say , you are a blasphemus! At least, let's try to respect the memory of all these billions creatures!
Holocaust DID happen! Here the evidence in attachment!
Kindest Regards!

P.S.: SIZE=7]Even to think about it is a crime against Logic[/SIZE]!

ROFL. I can see a lost cause movement when I see it.

(well, hopefully no one will accuse me of anti-N/G this time). ;)

By the way I am not 'Germanic/Nordic' myself.

Lucky you. ;)

(again, sorry for this late reply).


Is this not a chauvinistic statement?

Let's just say that the statement comes with a slightly chauvinistic, though healthy at that, remark.


This is what I was taking issue with, and I see very little "refinement" in the slaughter of American Indians by either Iberians or by Anglo-Saxons. The message here is don't throw stones in glass houses.

Many died from viruses which Spaniards carried on with them and for which they were not immune. Others died in the mines or in wars (usually wars of conquest where Spaniards instigated some Indian nations/tribes against others... most refined). But the truth is that today the Spanish and Portuguese Americas are literally plagued with Amerindians. While most tribes in Anglo-Saxon/Germanic America were slaughtered to the last man.

To this point I find it funny that the entire world accuses Germans of being genocidal, if a 'genocide' means the extermination (or near extermination) of an entire people. In Spanish Law there is 'attempt to murder' or 'frustrated murder'. Change 'murder' for 'genocide' and probably one of both will be nearer to the truth.

It is the North Americans (Anglo-Saxon Germanics nevertheless) who should be charged with 'genocide' instead.


On to the substance of this thread;

As I suspect that you will have already guessed through my previous post, my answer to the existance or not of a 'holocaust' or, rather, to how the whole story is being told, is no. In fact I even bring in my personal testimony to support the denial. Which is not like saying that nothing never happened.

Yes, I understand that you do not believe in the "Holocaust" but my point is different. If there was no "Holocaust" as the promoters would have us believe, what exactly was the crime of the Germans, i.e. the "nothing never happened" bit?

See the two legal terms above.

Add to it ineffectiveness (I know they can't be charged with that, but they should :D).

If you don't believe in the Holocaust then what are you talking about?

Engross the numbers, make some films telling of personal tragedies, give it a sounding name and... voilà, the effects are as desired, even better than expected. Now don't forget (rather don't let others forget) to make a new film every other year, a memorial from time to time, associations of victims, etc. All well seasoned with touchy personal tragedies... litlle children sell better for tragedies, even better if the child is a girl. That's what the Holocaust is about, or at least what I believe it to be.

Does that mean that the Germans didn't act with inusitated brutality (as expected... sorry, I can barely help these comments ;)), and that there were not many crimes commited which could (should) have been avoided? NO.

Is this not a chauvinistic statement? This is what I was taking issue with, and I see very little "refinement" in the slaughter of American Indians by either Iberians or by Anglo-Saxons. The message here is don't throw stones in glass houses.

That bolded bit has just reminded me of the black legend of Spain in The Americas and of all the slanders and lies against The Empire, Spain, and against the Spanish people by Anglo-Saxon Germanic writers through hundred of years and until well recently in history.

Only in present times, mostly English and North American historians (and, I believe, one or two German too), have joined the movement of so called Hispanist historiography, started by men like Menéndez Pelayo and Menéndez Pidal over a century ago, and which is reviewing and rewriting the history of Spain with fairness.

Many books are being published by many Hispanist historians, which I call sometimes Hispanic Revisionists but the extension of the damage done by the Anglo-Saxon Germanic writers in the past is such and has endured for so long that there is little chance, if any, that the old lies and created myths and legends will endure in people's minds for many years to come.

Apply this to Holocaust revisionists and you will realize that they all have a long way to walk... to nowhere for a long time to come. And the attempt by some to deny everything at any cost, I would say that will work more against than in favour of a general acceptance of Holocaust revisionism.

So relax and enjoy it as we have done (on our own) for a long, long time.

My main objection with the efforts to "revise" information about the Holocaust (or whatever the hell you call it) is that eventually, complete deniers show up. And of course a lot don't give a **** about what actually happened, but just are against Jews. People who, if the Jews were the ones denying the Holocaust took place ("The Jews would never let themself be attacked like that!"), would be posting long threads about how IT DID TOO HAPPEN.

My opinion is that Jews, JH's, Freemasons, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, dissidents, and so on, were targeted for persecution by the government, and were herded into camps where they were used as slave labour and lived in greatly substandard conditions. There may have been a concerted effort to wipe groups out, or there may have just been on-the-spot events. The deaths of all groups combined was something in the millions.

The fact is that the people who argue that it's all a lie, are the same people who probably mutter "But they deserved it regardless".

The living conditions in KZs shouldn't be expected to be great. You must take into account that with a war going on there was shortage in foodstuffs and other basic goods (some say that they managed to solve the problem of soap shortage though :D). While a nation in war is responsible for its prisoners, feeding the army and the people comes first.

This, however, does not excuse whatever else aggravated the living conditions of the prisoners.

But it was not the first time that some nation points to others as untermenschen, puts them in camps, and commits brutal acts. Take as an example the British KZs during the Boer War in South Africa. The English didn't consider the Afrikaner people anything better than Negroes, and put their wives and children in KZs where they allowed them to die from starvation:
http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/hellkamp.htm
http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/kind1.gif

I wonder when revisionists will start denying the Boercaust. How about a new forum, 'Boer Studies'? ;)

aaaaaaaaaa

Sinclair said;

My opinion is that Jews, JH's, Freemasons, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, dissidents, and so on, were targeted for persecution by the government, and were herded into camps where they were used as slave labour and lived in greatly substandard conditions. There may have been a concerted effort to wipe groups out, or there may have just been on-the-spot events. The deaths of all groups combined was something in the millions.

With all due respects your (or anybody's) opinion is irrelevant. All that matters is the facts of history. The facts tell against your beliefs. We have ration scales and menus from Auschwitz, and paid workers worked with forced workers as can be demonstrated. We also have records of releases from Auschwitz and other places of people who had finished custodial sentences. Your brutal slave labour scenario is all part of the holocaust script. "There may have been concerted efforts to wipe groups out", o.k., would you like to give reasons for why you think this is a possibility? You say the "deaths of all groups combined was something in the millions." What do you base this on? Would you care to produce some evidence for this assertion?

Sinclair said;

The fact is that the people who argue that it's all a lie, are the same people who probably mutter "But they deserved it regardless".

Nonsense. How can you say on the one hand that X did not happen, and on the other X happened? You are just insinuating the usual holohoax promoter propaganda that Revisionism is just antisemitism/neo-nazi. All very conevenient for those who cannot deal with the facts.

Face it, your gas chambers are a demonstrable lie.

Does that mean that the Germans didn't act with inusitated brutality (as expected... sorry, I can barely help these comments ), and that there were not many crimes commited which could (should) have been avoided? NO.

Someone has actually studied the relative performances of all the belligerents in WWII against the existing international law environment and has discovered that the Germans fought the cleanest war. If I come across the details again I will post them.



Many books are being published by many Hispanist historians, which I call sometimes Hispanic Revisionists but the extension of the damage done by the Anglo-Saxon Germanic writers in the past is such and has endured for so long that there is little chance, if any, that the old lies and created myths and legends will endure in people's minds for many years to come.

This is very interesting. Are such works available in English, if so, can you recommend any titles or authors?

The fact is that the people who argue that it's all a lie, are the same people who probably mutter "But they deserved it regardless".
Nonsense.Don't dismiss it so quickly. He has a much valid point. Just look at that last paragraph together with his first paragraph, and try to analyze it:My main objection with the efforts to "revise" information about the Holocaust (or whatever the hell you call it) is that eventually, complete deniers show up. And of course a lot don't give a **** about what actually happened, but just are against Jews.There is much truth in all of it. As an example, I said that I thought that in the construct around the holocaust there is an exaggeration of figures and events. Your answer to it was:It boils down to this: Do you believe that as a matter of policy or otherwise, the Germans shot, gassed and burned 6 million Jews?

If the answer is no, then no Holocaust. In that case the demonisation of the Germans is entirely unjust and is itself a monstrous crime of unparalleled proportions . . .And here is where I find that his point is very valid. You are not trying to review the entire story to let the truth come out. What you are trying to do is to review and revise some points of it and, in the hope to find one flaw somewhere, deny the entire story.

It is very typical. Someone takes a true story, and for a number of reasons or interests distorts the story, magnifying the events and adding to the figures in order to make it sound worse than it was in the hope to increase the calculated reaction to the story. And it works. It always does.

A master piece. But a master piece with one important flaw. If there is no one questioning the entire construct around the events, everything is fine and the story sells successfully like one big package.

But all of a sudden someone else decides to refute the claims, and for it he reviews the entire construct, piece after piece. It is important here to notice that this second person also has, as had the other person, a number of reasons or interests to deny the story. And when this second person finds those flaws in the construct around the story, instead of simply unveiling the flawed parts in the construct, i.e. the lies, he uses them to produce a complete denial of the entire story.

Does it work? Only time will tell, but I much doubt it will. He is commiting the same error commited by person #1, constructing with added falsities around around some truth. The same method that person #2 has used to debunk person #1 will be used to debunk person #2.


Returning to the original statement, that 'the people who argue that it's all a lie, are the same people who probably mutter "But they deserved it regardless" ', you must concede that he is right too. While this is not the case for every 'holocaust denier', there are far too many people with less than half a brain who even go to lengths of bragging about ideas of genocide, while at the same time deny that it ever happened.

How much credibility do you think that the denial of the holocaust can have, when a number of those who support the denial are seen as psychopaths?

On a global view, for the outsider, a board like the phora where this type (the psycho) is not all that common, is only one among many other sites where to look for examples of holocaust deniers. And even here I could point to some example of negative image which, however, I will not as it would involve singling out one member, and starting more trouble. (Funnily enough, I must keep some self-styled political correctness here to avoid being constantly accused by the board staff.) :p


How can you say on the one hand that X did not happen, and on the other X happened? You are just insinuating the usual holohoax promoter propaganda that Revisionism is just antisemitism/neo-nazi.Face it. That's how it is seen by the vast majority, and for obvious reasons. Revisionism supporters are found among the antisemitist and neo-nazi movements.

Face it, your gas chambers are a demonstrable lie.Admited. Though it is not that easy to demonstrate. And if you could cast a shadow of doubt among the general public about the existance of gas chambers, trying to dismiss the whole story on that slight shadow portrays you as a supporter of another demonstrable lie.


Depressing, isn't it? ;)

I said that I thought that in the construct around the holocaust there is an exaggeration of figures and events.

How do you exaggerate gassing stories? Either gassing took place or it did not. Either the Final Solution as a policy meant physical extermination or it meant expulsion.

You are not trying to review the entire story to let the truth come out. What you are trying to do is to review and revise some points of it and, in the hope to find one flaw somewhere, deny the entire story.

No, I am responding in a post to specific questions. I have reviewd the whole story (myself) going right back into the pre-WW I period. This kind of inquiry requires an understanding of modern German history, the history of Zionism, an understanding of how and why the NSDAP came to power; how and why the NSDAP pursued anti-Jewish policies; the interantional response and so on. All this before you even get onto the holocaust story itself. Of course it actually happens the other way around - you discover the fraudulence and then you broaden the inquiry.

My role here is not pedagogical, I would expect that people who want to take part in holocaust discussions are interested in the topic (everyone ought to be interested in it) and as such, would be familiar, to some extent, with the sources, the official version woven out of those sources, and revisionist rebuttals and refutations.

Someone takes a true story, and for a number of reasons or interests distorts the story, magnifying the events and adding to the figures in order to make it sound worse than it was in the hope to increase the calculated reaction to the story.

But what here is the "true story"? That the NS as a matter of policy removed Jews from public life in Germany and were working towards a policy of expulsion not only from Germany but from all of Western Europe and that in the meantime they were putting them large numbers of them to work in all sorts of war-related industrial projects. Now turning this into a tale about extermination is not "magnifying" it as you say, it is out and out falsification. Its not that this makes it "worse", it is that this tale is substantially and essentially different from the former.

It is important here to notice that this second person also has, as had the other person, a number of reasons or interests to deny the story.

How about the obvious one - a love of truth and outrage at injustice?

instead of simply unveiling the flawed parts in the construct, i.e. the lies, he uses them to produce a complete denial of the entire story.

That is a straw-man. This is the situation;

1. Final Solution = Physical Extermination

2. Final Solution = Expulsion

Revisionists are not disputing anything except those elements that are used to construct the extermination tale. By the way, Revisionism also brings to light evidence which has been suppressed - for example, the one day boycott of Jewish business's in March 1933. Everyone is told about this, but we are never told that this was in reponse to an international Jewish boycott movement that was launched from NY and which had a significant impact on the German economy - "Judaea Declares War on Germany". Now why are we never told about this?

Does it work? Only time will tell, but I much doubt it will. He is commiting the same error commited by person #1, constructing with added falsities around around some truth.

That's a prima facie defamation of Revisionism as a movement - would you like to detail some of the "added falsities" or are you just shooting the breeze?

While this is not the case for every 'holocaust denier', there are far too many people with less than half a brain who even go to lengths of bragging about ideas of genocide, while at the same time deny that it ever happened.

So what? What has that to do with the painstaking work of historiographical inquiry?

How much credibility do you think that the denial of the holocaust can have, when a number of those who support the denial are seen as psychopaths?

How much credibility can anything have when it is misused by such people?
Everything can be abused.

Face it. That's how it is seen by the vast majority, and for obvious reasons.

The reason should be stated no matter how obvious - the holocaust story reigns supreme in the public sphere, in other words, public consciousness is compounded out of a lie. Nothing new there. Explains why the holocosters have to resort to intimidation, Orwellian laws and the like to shield the masses from the truth.

Revisionism supporters are found among the antisemitist and neo-nazi movements.

Yes - there is a reason why people become "antisemites" TM - before I stumbled into holocaust studies I held many of the normative views on these things. What I discovered led me onto other things - a much broader historical inquiry - and a bad opinion about Jewish behaviour was the result.

As for nazism as a political movement. Its only anathema because of the "evil of the holocaust" etc. Take that away and it starts to look very different. Doesn't mean that you become one but at that point it does cease to be the devil incarnate.

Admited. Though it is not that easy to demonstrate.

On the contrary I think it is very easy to demonstrate as a propostiion itself. That people are open to demonstration is another matter. Proving that there were not witches in covenant with satan must have been a tricky job but in hindsight, we marvel at how anyone could have believed such nonsense. Sometimes I blush when I remember how I once believed in this holocost nonsense.

And if you could cast a shadow of doubt among the general public about the existance of gas chambers, trying to dismiss the whole story on that slight shadow portrays you as a supporter of another demonstrable lie.


"Another demonstrable lie" which is?


Depressing, isn't it?

Only if you are overly concerned about how it "looks" to the general public. Once you start worrying about what people will think you are lost.

For you it seems to be all or nothing. And since the truth lies in some intermediate point, denying the whole story in the light of a number of errors is doomed to failure from start.

I'm sure that you can see that too, and it is all I meant to explain.

For you it seems to be all or nothing. And since the truth lies in some intermediate point, denying the whole story in the light of a number of errors is doomed to failure from start.

I was very specific about what is in dispute, you have chosen to ignore that and you have ignored the rest of what I have said and avoided all my questions.

I'll take that as a sign of incapacity or unwillingness to engage. You seem intent on pursuing your anti-nord drive to the detriment of historical accuracy.

Reinhold,
Having looked over this thread it has something in common with the parallel discussion we are having in that it is all or nothing with you.
And yes , you are obessed with Gas Chambers , the Final Solution and all that it was is a Catch -22.
The certainty is that you will deny everything which links any killing or criminal act to the NSDAP Goverment of Germany.

Your denial is so complete as to say that nothing criminal took place in Auschwitz .

Having looked over this thread it has something in common with the parallel discussion we are having in that it is all or nothing with you.
No, either gas chambers existed or they did not. Do you think they both can and cannot exist?
And yes , you are obessed with Gas Chambers , the Final Solution and all that it was is a Catch -22.
No, the holocost peddlers have made it an issue by insisting that the Germans gassed the Jews. If they stop lying I will never mention gas chambers again.
The certainty is that you will deny everything which links any killing or criminal act to the NSDAP Goverment of Germany.
I never did. I asked you to define what you mean by criminal, you have evaded my question, as usual.
Your denial is so complete as to say that nothing criminal took place in Auschwitz.
Criminal is a legal term, I have repeatedly asked you to tell me what you understand as criminal. Do not start listing things, just tell me was you mean by the term criminal.

If an example of slave labour and the murder of 115 people (by way of example ) is not enough , ugluy enough in that they died / were killed to further racial reserach is not criminal well i don't know what you want.
Slave labour , theft and murder.

If an example of slave labour and the murder of 115 people (by way of example ) is not enough , ugluy enough in that they died / were killed to further racial reserach is not criminal well i don't know what you want.
Slave labour , theft and murder.
You assume this to be the case. I prefer to look at the evidence and then decide.

If an example of slave labour and the murder of 115 people (by way of example ) is not enough , ugluy enough in that they died / were killed to further racial reserach is not criminal well i don't know what you want.
Slave labour , theft and murder."Slave labour , theft and murder". Sounds like an excellent brief summary of the Allies' postwar occupation of Germany.

Nothing the Third Reich did in the 12 years of its existence added up to as much murder, looting, rape, enslavement, expulsion, and destruction of property as was accomplished during the Allies' 4 or 5 year official "peacetime" rule of Germany.

"Slave labour , theft and murder". Sounds like an excellent brief summary of the Allies' postwar occupation of Germany.

Nothing the Third Reich did in the 12 years of its existence added up to as much murder, looting, rape, enslavement, expulsion, and destruction of property as was accomplished during the Allies' 4 or 5 year official "peacetime" rule of Germany.ROFL

Fade, do you still intend to post a full rebuttal to that thesis of James Bacque, compiled by Wintermute?

Here:

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4220&page=1&pp=10&highlight=bacque


Petr

Fade, do you still intend to post a full rebuttal to that thesis of James Bacque, compiled by Wintermute?

Here:

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4220&page=1&pp=10&highlight=bacque


Petr
Sure. I guess I lost track of that debate while I was arguing with NeoNietzsche. Where is he, btw? Thanx for reminding me. Most of his stuff is crap off the internet anyway. There is a lot of crap about Ambrose in there. The source, of course, is James Bacque.

Yes , a good one liner but Hitler and Co. did it so much better , they did it with style.
For that matter regarding the Holocaust and genocide , if you are going to tell a lie tell a big one.
Denial is best done as a complete and absolute exercise , sorry your 12 years of Hitler worship , of all the nations occupied , who would ahev you back ?
That speaks for itself.
The dust bin of history and the ash can of indifference that is the residence of NSDAP.
Only ROTFL when you have the last laugh .

i think that the fact any of you are conversing this is ridiculous. :D

Yes , a good one liner but Hitler and Co. did it so much better , they did it with style.
For that matter regarding the Holocaust and genocide , if you are going to tell a lie tell a big one. The "Holocaust" is the Big Lie of all time.
Denial is best done as a complete and absolute exercise , sorry your 12 years of Hitler worship , of all the nations occupied , who would ahev you back ?
That speaks for itself.Who would want to be occupied by anyone????? What's that supposed to mean? Would the US have the British back, or Algiers, the French?

There's no point in blaming the occupation of European countries on Hitler and co.,though, since the root cause of it was the war plotted and carried out by the Allies and World Jewry. If you still think those countries were occupied out of some maniacal desire to conquer the world on Hitler's part, or even a considered policy of "Lebensraum", you're still stuck on the outer layer of the puzzle, accepting the conclusions you're meant to accept in order to keep you from looking further.
The dust bin of history and the ash can of indifference that is the residence of NSDAP.Only if the conspiracy continues to be successful, which it may or may not be in the end. Since the money available to enforce the deception is almost unlimited it would be naive to suggest that truth will necessarily triumph in the end.

Only if the conspiracy continues to be successful, which it may or may not be in the end. Since the money available to enforce the deception is almost unlimited it would be naive to suggest that truth will necessarily triumph in the end.
I understand your caution but the cat is out of the bag. Sooner or later the lie will crumble. Who can tell how the world situation will change?

I think Leichinlinie is spot on.

My last word ( I promise) , both here and else where on the subject.
In the end its a circle.

I think Leichinlinie is spot on.
So you think you are being ridiculous?

To question yourself now and again and ask "why".
P.S. I don't think I am the only one being ridiculous .

To question yourself now and again and ask "why".
P.S. I don't think I am the only one being ridiculous .
You may speak for yourself only.

As you do.

As you do.
Quite so. That is, you think this is ridiculous.

Does my thinking that Leichenline has a point cause a problem ?
I don't deny my own thoughts on the matter.

Does my thinking that Leichenline has a point cause a problem ?
I don't deny my own thoughts on the matter.
O.k. I'll spell it out. If you think you are being ridiculous that's fine. I don't believe that discussing the facts of the H is ridiculous.

Reinhold,
Fine by me , this from a man who believes that nothing criminal ocurred at Auschwitz.
To that I find the "R" word not to be out of place.
Your own views don't cause me particular grief , I can't agree with them, no major issues.
Case closed , time will tell.

Fine by me , this from a man who believes that nothing criminal ocurred at Auschwitz.
Don't distort now. By criminal we mean genocidal etc. You yourself saw the quality of evidence for the gas chamber claims.
To that I find the "R" word not to be out of place.
Ridiculous is he who still insists on believing a lie despite the evidence of his own senses.

My bottom.
The quality of the evidence, I will not take this as read nor will I agree that mass murder did not take place.
By criminal I did not merely mean murder.
Yu know as well as I do that Auschwitz - Birkenau was a major supplier of slave labour and that this was a major function of the camp.
Containment and enslavement were primary purposes.
Extermination of those who could not work was seen as a natural process , economical use of resources.
You seemed to argue that the records of SS courts would say all that was illegal.
Murder , theft , slave labour , unethical medical experiments,forced sterilisation, sorry I believe it all.

My bottom.
My arse!
When are you going to produce some proof for your gas chambers?

I don't really see that I have to , it is an historical fact , it happened.
Now I can be sure if i am to spend several eveings putting together facts , figures and quotes for you it will be a waste of my time complete and utter.
You may say that i know nothing about history , well if it pleases you Reinhold.
As I pointed out before the Holocaust is not a primary interest for me , the huge misery and suffering I find hard to ignore but as far as WW2 goes its background.
Now my passing interest may mean more to you , so you may judge on a passing interest if you wish it troubles me not the least.
what you still yearn for is a total vindication of Hitlers germany .
Dream on Reinhold you will grow old and never see it , the verdict is in.
BTW " My Arse" is that a quote from "Father Ted" ;)

I don't really see that I have to , it is an historical fact , it happened.
Well you do because it is contentious, it is in disupte, the evidence does not bear up under scrutiny.
Now I can be sure if i am to spend several eveings putting together facts , figures and quotes for you it will be a waste of my time complete and utter.
You may say that i know nothing about history , well if it pleases you Reinhold.
If you spent some time doing that it would be great because then we could look at each item piece by piece and see what comes out of it. But you are unwilling to do that.
As I pointed out before the Holocaust is not a primary interest for me , the huge misery and suffering I find hard to ignore but as far as WW2 goes its background.
Oh yes, that's your fall back to scuttle to.
what you still yearn for is a total vindication of Hitlers germany .
How many times do I have to tell you to stop misrepresenting me?
Dream on Reinhold you will grow old and never see it , the verdict is in.
The verdict is a lie and you are a wilful liar if you continue to parrot it after having the contrary evidence pointed out to you.

If it is so clear cut that there were gas chambers; why can't you prove it?

You seemed to argue that the records of SS courts would say all that was illegal.
Murder , theft , slave labour , unethical medical experiments,forced sterilisation, sorry I believe it all.

SS Men caught in illegalities were punished harshly. Look up the case of Karl Koch (Commandant of Buchenwald)

-k0nsl

SS Men caught in illegalities were punished harshly. Look up the case of Karl Koch (Commandant of Buchenwald)

-k0nsl
No chance of that. He doesn't allow incovenient things like facts to get in the way.

SS Men caught in illegalities were punished harshly.
That's a rather amusing claim to make, considering that their leaders were war criminals.

That's a rather amusing claim to make, considering that their leaders were war criminals.
What's even more amusing is seeing someone who clearly doesn't know what they are talking about displaying the fact;
"That there were instances of German cruelty, however, is clear from the testimony of Dr. Konrad Morgen, a legal investigator attached to the Reich Criminal Police, whose statements on the witness stand at Nuremberg have never been challenged by proponents of the Jewish Holocaust story. Dr. Morgen informed the court that he had been given full authority by Heinrich Himmler, commander of Hitler's SS and the dread Gestapo, to enter any German concentration camp and investigate instances of cruelty and
corruption on the part of camp personnel.
As he explained in sworn testimony at Nuremberg, Dr. Morgen investigated 800 such cases, resulting in more than 200 convictions. Punishments included the death penalty for the worst offenders, including Hermann Florstedt, commandant of Lublin (Majdanek), and Karl Koch (Ilse's husband), commandant of Buchenwald."
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n4p18_Okeefe.html
---
While your at it you might like to define 'war crime' as a legal term during the relevant period and tell us of what they were guilty.

By prove it , you mean disgard the accounts of those who were in the camps.
By prove it you mean dispute the evidence of Germar Rudolf , as a non chemist how do I do that ?
Do I employ someone to repeat the research , compare and contrast the results have the same process repeated by an independent office and tell you the results ?
Seems the only way to me .

Other than that you will discount every piece of evidence put to you and will at worst call them lies.
Reinhold , I can see a waste of time coming.

What you describe as being contentious is what you believe , that does not make it true.
(And yes you can say the same thing of me. Only difference is I am not alone in this a great many historians seem to believe it as well. Therein lies the difference.)
And PS I am not attempting to do rehab. on Hitler , his racial policies and their eventual outcome.


"Fall back" , if you want to say that , fine by me I have no issue with it.
( I am much more interested in the Kriegsmarine , who to the best of my knowledge did not use gas chambers). ;)

I do not misrepresent you.
Your views on Hitlers conduct of the war in the east and of the holocaust speak volumes.
Remember nothing criminal in Auschwitz ?

Wilful liar. Again that is up to you. Nothing criminal in Auschwitz.
I will not call you a "wilful liar" , I just beg to differ .

Small things like facts and law.
Reinhold, I again revist to you laws like "Blood and Honour" and that beauty of Nazi morality T4.
Now don't talk wet when you mention small things like facts anad illegalities.
These could be re-defined and changed by Hitler as and when he wanted to set the standard.
I refer you again to Wheatfield and Overy when they describe over 200 secret laws passed by Hitler , no fail safes , no questions asked.
What I say goes , no ethics or morality involved.
When you are describing this sort of legal system and this standard of principles and morality I think you are flogging a dead horse to serve your purpose.
And you have the wit to hold up jews as being porno kings and have the right to say to me that I care little for the moral decline you attribute to "Jews" and "porn"
Catch a grip.

By prove it , you mean disgard the accounts of those who were in the camps.
Very dishonest of you yet again. I said in previous posts that we must look very carefully at the testimonies of those who claimed to have witnessed gassings. You are the one who disregards this.
By prove it you mean dispute the evidence of Germar Rudolf , as a non chemist how do I do that ?
Are you lying now or just showing ignorance? - he is a trained industrial chemist who was denied his PhD for political reasons. His title is doctorandus.
Do I employ someone to repeat the research , compare and contrast the results have the same process repeated by an independent office and tell you the results ?
You might like to use your brain for a change.
Other than that you will discount every piece of evidence put to you and will at worst call them lies.
I only call those things lies which can be proved to be lies.
Reinhold , I can see a waste of time coming
The waste of time is your continued insistence to make these vague and fact-free posts.
What you describe as being contentious is what you believe , that does not make it true.
If someone claims that they saw something which contravenes the laws of nature, then that is a contentious claim; surely even a moron like you can see that?
I do not misrepresent you.
Yes you do, all the time. I have to constantly correct your misrepresentations of my position. Its became very tiresome a long time ago.
Your views on Hitlers conduct of the war in the east and of the holocaust speak volumes.
How would you know? By your own admission you are not interested and have not looked at the evidence.
Remember nothing criminal in Auschwitz ?
That's right, in the sense in which I have stated, which I will once more for the nth time restate: the claim that there were homocidal gas chambers/gas vans/mass shootings of Jews because they were Jews and all of this as part of a policy of extermination, is what I dispute. Do you think you could actually get that straight for once?
Wilful liar. Again that is up to you.
No, it is up to you. If you continue to twist and distort someone elses postion after repeatedly being corrected, then you are being dishonest. You can differ from me all you like, you can believe the moon is made of cheese for all I care, but you cannot misrepresent another with impunity. Its up to you.

Small things like facts and law.
You are evading the question. Its very simple - criminal is a legal defintion - tell me what crimes the NS regime were guilty of at the international level as you used the term 'war criminal'.

What I say goes , no ethics or morality involved.
And just who do you think you are to say 'what I say goes?'

That's a rather amusing claim to make, considering that their leaders were war criminals.

That's not a claim, that is a fact. Look up the case of Karl Koch. Who decided that their leaders were 'war criminals'?

Reinhold,
I would not trust anything that I.H.R. have to say in relation to Auschwitz or the Holocaust , not one thing.
War Crimes , the murder of people by way of shooting , gassing and willful neglect.
The camps purpose was both criminal and immoral.
My interest in them is in pasing but its better informed than yours , I don't subscribe to the fairy godmother or that no murders took place there.
I have no intention of wasting my time looking up what historians regard as factual information to have you rubbish it and regard it as lies.
Waste your own time if you wish.
Reinhold far from educating me you have provided me with an insight , a valuable one, for that I thank you most sincerely.
You place a great deal by way of hague etc , but are quite willing to set aside what are quite common laws , murder means nothing to you.
Reinhold you ask me to use my few grey cells , I don't honestly believe that you can escape the straight jacket of your rigid views and entrenched mind set that Hitlers Goverment acted in good faith , Jews deserved what they got , and special treatment and re settlement in the east was what it says it was.
Reinhold there is a well used saying ;
"If you can't blind them with facts, baffle them with bullshit".
Your views on what was mass murder and the law as per Third Reich , makes the grass grow tall in Texas.
Now use your own brain to work that out.

Reinhold,
Reinhold there is a well used saying ;
"If you can't blind them with facts, baffle them with bullshit".
Your views on what was mass murder and the law as per Third Reich , makes the grass grow tall in Texas.
Now use your own brain to work that out.

What you Believe in is easily shown to be bullshit,

-k0nsl

I would not trust anything that I.H.R. have to say in relation to Auschwitz or the Holocaust , not one thing.
How very convenient for you.
War Crimes , the murder of people by way of shooting , gassing and willful neglect.
They were not actually war crimes - go read the transcripts of the Nuremberg trials - they are on line you know. They invented a new catgory for thoise called 'crimes against humanity'. You ignorance about this topic is proportional to your arrogance.
The camps purpose was both criminal and immoral.
Which you have yet to prove.
My interest in them is in pasing but its better informed than yours
Bollox, you knew F-all about the topic as you have claimed all along.
I have no intention of wasting my time looking up what historians regard as factual information to have you rubbish it and regard it as lies.
There si something truly distasteful about your stance, its called intellectual cowardice.
Reinhold far from educating me you have provided me with an insight , a valuable one, for that I thank you most sincerely.
You place a great deal by way of hague etc , but are quite willing to set aside what are quite common laws , murder means nothing to you.
Look, when you say the Germans committed war crimes, then you must realise that 'war crime' is a techinal legal term which has a defintion - like all legal terms. You consistently flee every time I ask you to define these crimes and then give instances of where the Germans were guilty. When you accuse someone of a crime you had better first of all know what crime it is you are accusing them of, and, secondly, you had better show some proof. You are accusing the Germans of gassing Jews and yet you can't produce a shred of proof. I suspect it has now dawned on you how threadbare the gassing stories really are but you don't have the honesty or simple decency to admit that. Don't you realise that if those stories are lies as I have argued then a terrible and monstrous evil has been committed against the Germans? That you are not willing to even consider this for a moment is abundant proof that you are an anti-German bigot as well as an intellectual coward.

Reinhold.
Knew F all about them.
Not exactly true. Let's call it a white lie.
True I have not read about the subject as one would " a specialist subject in "Mastermind" I have never felt the desire to.
To me it was part of what went on in them occupied lands and I was aware of it , had seen and read about it.
I saw no reason to dismiss it then and I see none now.

I am really grateful to you for informing me about the " Crimes against humanity" ...do you know I never knew that , its totally new to me.
Well this is a white lie as well , just like your assumption on a number things .
Arrogance and patronising, give me a break look in the mirror friend.

After WW2 the Allies had guite a task , crimes of this nature what became know as genocide were new , "Crimes Against Humanity" , it was quite well worded.
Yes I have seen these on line. I have read something of the war crimes trials.
I don't totally agree with them but by and large the major players got what they deserved.
Oh that's right I am supposed to be "Anti-German" at this point should I not be saying "hang the b*******s" or something like that ?
Yet to prove , look here Reinhold if you need proof that the Nazi race laws which allowed people to be deported by force to a concentratipon camp system , people who had not been guilty of any crime save being Jewish or Communist or Homosexual , of Jeh. Witness or Quakers , or being political opponents of Hitler and his gang of thugs you are a lame brain of the first order.
Children for God's sake man what crime did they do ?
The genertaion of "avengers" which Himmler talked about , when he told the men of the EZ Groups to be hard and that they were doing work.
In short " a ditry job but you are the lucky men to be doing it".
Criminal and immoral , a man who when asked if every country needed an Auschwitz today demanded to know what I meant , has answered that for himself, of course the camp system was immoral and it was criminal.
What crime did the Soviet POWs gassed at Auschwitz plead guilty to ?
I know how the transportation system worked , I know how the selection process worked , I know how the extermination process worked, I know Reinhold that this took place . OK.
Now to you this is pure " H.C.A. "

I am not a chemist by profession and I am most certainly not going to accept Rudolfs research as binding. "Baffle who you like with the Bullshit , I will wait until something independent comes along.
You are willing to say that the NSDAP had anti -jewish policies ( Historical Fact) , you are a cowrad in that you can't face the totality of what that policy was by means of its enforcement , the isolation of Jews from society , the theft from them , the deporting ( oh yes you admit that this might not have been legal ) , you see nothing else wrong.
Now if it was wrong, everything else which followed was also wrong , or is that too simple.
That's right , only a moron might think that , but then I'm a moron.
Reinhold , those ramps at Aucshwitz - Birkenau existed , the selection process started there and then.
Those who could not be deemed able to work were marked for death at this point.
The photographs you say did not prove anything of gas chambers proved the selection process , I saw none of these people (who were going to be so well looked after) having any of their property with them.
Their porperty you may have seen was still at the track side being unloaded for sorting by the prisoners under the watchful eyes of the SS.
Bullshit Reinhold , those people died within hours of their arrival.

War crimes , murder and theft are most certainly war crimes and Hitler was excellent at promoting both. His principles and morality speak for themselves.

Slave labour , you say the workers , deported from all over Europe were paid.
Bull shit again Reinhold.
The camp system provided workers to major industries and they were paid nothing SLAVE LABOUR Reinhold , its a cold hard fact .
It is also a crime.
It was organised by the Nazi Party , the goverment of the day.
It supplied workers not only to industry but to farms in Germany.
No volunteers Reinhold young people transported without choice.
SLAVE LABOUR Reinhold.
You said at one point that Speer was a slave master. yes he was , he was supplied with workers by who ?
Go on force yourself , you know the answer as well as I do.
And on whose authority did the master Slaver act on , go on Reinhold ask yourself , you know the answer .
Arrogance, go ask yourself some questions about the formulation of the Hilter Goverment and how it got into power , how Hitler cemented himself there and how he demolished Germany as a democratic country.
How did he make law and on what morality did he base those laws. ( His own , the Fuhrer set the standard. I quoted frank to you on this, you ignored it ).
Criminal acts and immorality , Ye Gods and you have the gall to talk about pornography and Jews. Destruction of values, perhaps not , the fuhrer had set the standard and this was backed up by his very efficent Minister of Propaganda.
Reinhold you are without doubt the most blinkered person I have ever had the misfortune to try and talk to.
Like Lord Nelson "I see no Fleet" ( He at least had an excuse).
You are a kidney of the first order .
You tell me that I am an intellectual coward.
Listen here , I knwo a porky pie when I hear one and you tell them so well You can almost make them sound good , almost but not quite.
credibility Reinhold , your entire case lacks it , it also lacks integreity and honesty.

Proof of gas chambers , tell em reinhold, thepoeple in the Auschwitz photogarphs , just one group of people from one train , where did they go ?
Where did all the others go ?
Prove to me they were not killed?
Also tell me who nade this " Holohoax up , which individuals , when and where?
How did they get so many people on their sides ?
What time frame was this all planned executed under ?
What Goverment officials coluded with them and when ?
How many liars are involved Reinhold ?
Credibility , let me tell you this Reinhold, I have seen people tell their experiences , there is more credibility in any one of their accounts than in anything you have produced so far.

Blaming the German People.
No I don't balme the german people only those who knew about and assisted and promoted this mass genocide.
Did the man who made " The Eternal Jew" know what his wonderful film was being used to do ? Perhaps ?
"Trust no Fox" are you seriously going to tell me that such a book served any purpose than to promote the hatred which would make the destruction of the Jews possible ?
Reinhold you are blinkered , for you its "hook line and sinker".
You really can't grasp it can you.
From the outset it was crude hatred based on what race and blaming, crude propaganda which the ignorant swallowed and which intelliegent people promoted.
The killing , T4 , the insane , the handicaped , the pseudo science of a master race , the "Jewish Question" , the removal of all who might question the State and the direction of its goverment and its increasingly racist and expansionist policies.
A war which Hitler wanted but which he could not control , and then what to do with the Jews.
wansee was what it was Reinhold , no question , and the Final Solution was what it was.
Crude to being with but increasingly more industrial in its implementation and in its demand for human life.
The transport lists exist , the bodies do not.
You can deny until your heart is content and you can say all you want is proof , proof will never be enough Reinhold , never.
Proof can be described as lies and as you " explained" to Sulla describes the solution can be called "discredited" and be deemed invalid.
The voices of those who endured the camps ,what do you say to them .
The Jews made to scrub streets those who endured Cyrstal Night and many more nights and days like it.
Do you tell them you were not actually Germans , your citizenship has been revoked by law , it is all legal no crime , when you leave Germany take nothing with you , it is legal no crime.
When the citizens of other nations were deported from their homes on racial grounds what do you say to them , it was legal there is no crime.
No crime.
Reinhold , you need a good day in the bog.
And by the way I have had a few there myself.
Arrogrance , the elderly man who lives near me , who saw Belsen.
Your excuse for it , your denial of the inhumanity , your plea for the correct behaviour of the SS and the grave punishments they would recieve if they did anything illegal.
Reinhold , you have the gall to call me a moron ?
I don't pretent for a minute that you are a stupid man , but I know that you are completely incapible of being the impartial judge of history you say you are.
Listen , you can wax lyrical about the wrongs done to Hitler and his band of merry men from now until the cows come home , you make the grave mistake of transferring this guilt to the German People.
They were victims of Hitler as well , lied to and led by the nose into a war which destroyed Europe , a war which Hitler engineered the circumstances for.
The main causes of WW2.
Hitler and Stalin , Stalin gave what was a blank cheque to Hitler.
He used it well.
Enough , your excuses for that creature disgust me, that creature and what he left to mankind. " The Warning From History".
And for the record Stalin was every bit a disgusting creature as well.
PS MAT I really care very little for any poorly written paragraphs or typing errors.
Good night gentlemen and whatever time you go to bed sleep well.
PPS You too Edana.
You may not like it Reinhold but it is a fact the Gassing did take place and Hitler ordered it and knew about it.
Your kidney like preformace on historical fact is admirable but its futile.
If you want to know what I mean look up the properties of renal function.

Reinhold,
By chance , a late night programme on BBC-2 .
Experiences of deaf people ( Germans) in Hitler's germany.
Seems that they ended up at the sharp end of the stick as well.
One lady explained how she attempted to trace her family after the war.
She found her father had died in Belsen in 1942 , Starvation would you believe.
How efficent the RAF was at destroying the supply system so early in the war.
Her mother was gassed , but then you know this was impossible.
Her brother was dead his fate unknown .
What would you tell her Reinhold.
" Don't worry , I can assure you nothing criminal took place. I am sure it was all legal , the camp guards would be most severly punished if they dare harm anyone"
Perhaps her mother drowned in the swiming pool , or perhaps her father was too well fed, perhaps her brother sustained a football injury and died as a result.
She suspects that he was probably gassed along with his mother.
She may be right , she may bewrong.
I am sure she will be much happier in the knowledge that nothing criminal took place.
On her behalf I thank you for your reassuring statement of the fuhrer's goodwill towards the less than perfect .
In the scheme of things Reinhold , this matters little to you , so go on play the impartial historian only interested in facts and evidence.
By the way reinhold this lady was German , her family was German , her mother , father and brother died as germans , at the hands of germans under orders of the Fuhrer who in killing them broke his oath of office .
You are familiar with his oath of office I take ?
I am sure you would not want a moron to remind you fo it , so look it up and come back to meon it.
BTW can you explain how the deaths of this mother , father and son were in the interests of the german people , given that they were Germans ?
Filtration , secretion and selective reabsorbtion.

Cerberus, when are going to post up some of this evidence for your gas chambers? Do you think anyone is interested in your sermons? Do you think your prejudices are a substitute for evidence and proper arguments? Do you think I have the time to respond to your empty waffle? Put up or shut up.

By chance , a late night programme on BBC-2 .
The British Broadcasting Corporation is of course is an impartial and objective source of historical information. I said at the start of all this that you get your history from the idiot box, I was right.
She suspects that he was probably gassed along with his mother.
She may be right , she may bewrong.
Because she believes in gas chambers. Her relatives died in one of the ways that millions of others died in the war. How many tens of millions died in that terrible war?
Your becoming even more ridiculous now.

Reinhold,
Whatever you wish.
BTW BBC does not write history , I listened to about five minutes of it , this one account.
I put more store by her experience than I do the words of Mr. Weber et al. and your rational for there being no genocide.

I do not regret to say Reinhold that your assumptions are again your guide.

BTW BBC does not write history
That's right, it is an organ of state. A state that has a vested interest in mainting its version of WWII.
I put more store by her experience than I do the words of Mr. Weber et al. and your rational for there being no genocide.
That's nice for you.
I do not regret to say Reinhold that your assumptions are again your guide.
No, war atrocity propaganda is your guide. You know that the British claimed the Germans were turning people into soap during WWI? The difference is that Lloyd-George stated in parliament after the war that it was just war atrocity propaganda and apologised to the Germans. I suppose you still believe the incubators in Kuwait story even though it was repudiated after the war.

Reinhold,
"An organ of state".
You do recall a very public and damaging conflicit between the BBC and the British Goverment relating to "45 minutes" ?
You may also recall the BBc giving air time and carrying the case of the British Red cap who was asked to hand over his body armour , one who was later killed , his widow took the Goverment to task and the BBc exposed how poorly prepared and resourced the british Army which was sent to Iraq really was.
"An organ of state" would not be doing this.

The people of Kuwait said it happened , the BBc did not invent it, they also reported that it had not happened when they knew otherwise.
"People into soap"/ "poor little Belgium" the penny dreadful propaganda was waged by both sides.
Do you still believe that Churchill ordered that "Athenia" be sunk and blamed on the Germans ?
Do you think there is any truth in Donitz making Lemp change and his KTB to support what the party wanted to pump out via their "organ of state" to cover the sinking up ?
This is one of many lies told by the German " Organ of State", and before you get on your high horse I am well aware of the British control of information in WW2 and the propaganda they went with.

Reinhold,
I care little what you think , period.
What i do know is your selective understanding of what the holocaust is riddled with your self serving ideation and denial of the totality of the policy.
You have no idea what is legal or otherwise and if you were not quite so full of BS you would almost be entertaining.
What makes you less than entertaining your total contempt for human life and the suffering experienced by so many at the hands of the Hitler goverment, people of all races including the German people themselves.
But that's right , it was legal to take away their citizenship , "no crime" .
It was quite legal to deport ther Jews of europe , citzens of other nations , again quite legal " no crime".
( Perhaps I am not being completly fair here , you did say that the deporting might not have been legal , but you have no problem with what happened after that. A strange moral statement and standard).
Reinhold you have no idea of morality , none at all.
I don't find that funny at all , I find it pityful , that and your complete lack of insight.

"An organ of state".
Yes that is what it is. Do you think the BBC is a private broadcaster?
You do recall a very public and damaging conflicit between the BBC and the British Goverment relating to "45 minutes" ?
I recall a complete red-herring which resulted in strengething Blair's position. That and the Hutton tribunal was a complete distraction from the depths of lying that were going on and are still going on.
You may also recall the BBc giving air time and carrying the case of the British Red cap who was asked to hand over his body armour , one who was later killed , his widow took the Goverment to task and the BBc exposed how poorly prepared and resourced the british Army which was sent to Iraq really was.
That's pretty harmless stuff. Its not like the BBC were saying that the whole war is based on utter fabrications and lies. I remeber seeing that highly paid prat from Newsnight interviewing Blair and not once did he come even close to hitting him with the kind of questions that would have sunk him.
"An organ of state" would not be doing this.
This is precisely what an organ of state does. Propaganda does not have to be crude. You should read Chomsly's 'Manufacture of Consent' to see how it works, esp. the concept of false opposition.
The people of Kuwait said it happened , the BBc did not invent it, they also reported that it had not happened when they knew otherwise.
And you evidently still believe it despite the retraction later!
"People into soap"/ "poor little Belgium" the penny dreadful propaganda was waged by both sides.
But you don't have the wit to draw the obvious conclusion. Soap? Btw, the director of Yad Vashem formally repudiated the WWII soap stories, but I guess you will go on believing them anyway.

I care little what you think , period.
Then why do you keep replying to my posts? Why do you waste your time?
What i do know is your selective understanding of what the holocaust is riddled with your self serving ideation and denial of the totality of the policy.
You know nothing.
You have no idea what is legal or otherwise and if you were not quite so full of BS you would almost be entertaining.
I have forgotten more than you will ever know.
What makes you less than entertaining your total contempt for human life
And yet I uncompromisingly defended the sanctity of life in this very forum, or have you forgotten that as well. You are getting into slander now.
and the suffering experienced by so many at the hands of the Hitler
More lies. I have acknowledged the suffering by all during WWII.
But that's right , it was legal to take away their citizenship
You think it was illegal? Idiot, the NS were the government, they made the laws!
It was quite legal to deport ther Jews of europe , citzens of other nations , again quite legal " no crime".
Did you know that the Slovaks paid the Germans to take away their Jews? Now why do you think that was?
( Perhaps I am not being completly fair here , you did say that the deporting might not have been legal , but you have no problem with what happened after that.
What happened after that?
Reinhold you have no idea of morality , none at all.
The statement that finally demonstrates beyond all doubt that you are a complete moron.

A total waste of time yes , I agree.
You seem to be somewhat at odds with the morality you project and the catch 22 of no crime in that as long as it was "legal" , law making process and the morality of that law is really of no consequence.
A strange double standard , perhaps jews don't count , they are human after all.
Yes a waste of time complete and utter. I agree without question.
BTW people =soap = don't be daft.
More than you ever knew, whatever floats your little boat, just don't name it Athenia.

A total waste of time yes , I agree.
And yet you are still here!
You seem to be somewhat at odds with the morality you project and the catch 22 of no crime in that as long as it was "legal" , law making process and the morality of that law is really of no consequence.
Now you are confusing a couple of things here (hardly suprising). Law and morality are two different things. You were talking about crimes. Crime is a legal term not a moral term, got it?
Yes a waste of time complete and utter. I agree without question.
And yet you are still here! What does that make you?
BTW people =soap = don't be daft.
Daft? Blame the propgandists who invented the soap stories; who were also the people whon invented the lampshade stories and the gas chamber stories.
Did I ever tell you about the steam chambers? What about the vacuum chambers? Or the electrocution chambers? And what about the pedal operated brain bashing machine? Or perhaps the spanking machine? Yes, folks, its all in the transcripts of the Nuremeburg kangaroo court!

Reinhold,
I know its like bad drug , one has the insight but the drug clouds judgement.
Steam chambers , etc, I never saw them in print, seems that the serious historians ignored this and not without good reason.
Why have you not started a thread to show this up as well , perhaps Rudolf and FL might do a paper on to endorse the holohoax.
Another string to the bow.
Crime, legal , morality , values , questioning right and wrong , making ethical judgement I regret to say they are linked.
If you cannot grasp this well its too bad for you.
If Hitler had passed a law saying that the death sentence would fall on anyone who was a fault in a minor motoring accident or if their dog fouled the pavement , would you say its the law pull out a gun and shoot them?
daft I know but you will defend anything that is "legal " , morality , right or wrong mean nothing , as long as its "legal".
Funny Stalin had the same problem , he made murder legal as well , all those oficers shot for crimes which did not exist.
When you tell the judges that from now on I am te supreme judge and you can be independent as long as you do what I tell you and as long as justice servees the state first and not the people , you can make anything legal.
Now I must go to rehab.
( Some of the folks I meet there make a lot more sense than you do ;) )

I know its like bad drug , one has the insight but the drug clouds judgement.
What are you babbling about now?
Steam chambers , etc, I never saw them in print, seems that the serious historians ignored this and not without good reason.
Do you doubt it?
"In the spring of 1942 an extermination camp was established at Treblinka. It contained 10 death chambers and opened up for business in the early autumn of 1943. Death was inflicted here by gas and steam, as well as by electric current."
http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/05/NMT05-T1133.htm
From the transcripts of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal.
Now why do you suppose your historians dont like to talk about the steam/electrocution chambers?
Crime, legal , morality , values , questioning right and wrong , making ethical judgement I regret to say they are linked.
How are they linked? Your saying so does not make it so.
If Hitler had passed a law saying that the death sentence would fall on anyone who was a fault in a minor motoring accident or if their dog fouled the pavement , would you say its the law pull out a gun and shoot them?
But he didn't so your idiotic example falls.
Now I must go to rehab.
I see, that explains everything.

Reinhold.
You be aware of the Reichs Justcie Minister Gurtner ( 2 x "." over the "u").
When he looked into some less than legal goings on in relation to the Reich's provision for care of the "health care" of the mentally ill he found that Hitler was behind the drive to have them liquidated.
He became aware that it was not the party faithful who were at work but the Fuhrer , the maker and breaker of laws and of "Reichs Minister for Justice" , he abandoned attempts to block the killings on legal grounds.
( Gruchmann , "Euthanasie" , page 242).
Who prompted this look by the "Reichsminister For Justice".....

A district Judge called Lothar Kreyssig who had written directly to Gurtner to protest against this process of liquidation (liquidation/ killing / murder/ deaths , I leave choice of word up to you Reinhold , just remember your morality issues when picking a word which describes the killing of physically healthy , but mentally ill or handicaped persons. As these people were not physically ill or in physical pain the term " mercy killing" or any related term does not apply) .
What troubled Kreyssig was the illegality of the killings , remember that word "illegality" , its central to what followed.

When Kreyssig was shown Hitler's authorization had exclaimed that even on the basis of "positivist legal theory" wrong could not be turned into right.
The Reichs Minister of Justice gave a simple reply:
" If you cannot recognize the will of the Fuhrer as a source of law , as a basis of law , then you cannot remain a judge".
Kreyssig's notice of retirement followed soon afterwards.

Would you say that the Fuhrer had undermined the legal system ?
Had he enhanced it ?
Would you obey it or question law as directed by the Fuhrer ?

He had after all prior to this told the Judicial system that he , the Fuhrer would be the supreme Judge in Germany.
Now Reinhold when you see no link between moraltity and the law I have to ask you what you are "babbling on about".
I say to you again " no crime" is not a "catch -22" to excuse murder or other crimes either at home or abroad.
The Fuhrer had set the standard and as I said to you before , the more you find out about the vile system the more sickening it becomes.
Hitler could make anything legal , either by verbal or none verbal means.
Within his / this morality murder was made legal and you see nothing wrong ?
And you call me blind ?
Here's a tip Reinhold , when you are selling matches , shake the box , that way you can know there is something in it if you need a guide dog , try that "organ of state" the "British Broadcasting Corporation" , " Blue Peter" might be able to put a word in for a guide dog.
Remember that key word "illegality" , it a new word , you might wish to write it down so you don't forget it.

Here's a tip Reinhold , when you are selling matches , shake the box , that way you can know there is something in it if you need a guide dog , try that "organ of state" the "British Broadcasting Corporation" , " Blue Peter" might be able to put a word in for a guide dog.
I thought you were the one selling matches on account of blindness caused by self-abuse?
You don't actually expect us to discuss anything, do you? After all you have consistently ignored everything I have posted.

How unkind reinhold.
I was just reminding you of the leaglsituation you are so fond of avoiding.
catch -22 if you like.
Self abuse ...your not going to go all christian brother on me are you :p

How unkind reinhold.
I was just reminding you of the leaglsituation you are so fond of avoiding.
catch -22 if you like.
Self abuse ...your not going to go all christian brother on me are you :p
The legal situation? You are the one who has consistently avoided that question from the start. Don't you think I haven't noticed how you have tried to shift the ground from your original charge of war crimes to the question of the executive-legistlative situation of NS Germany? You are consistent in one thing: your avoidance of everything I have presented.

And yet you are still here!


He seems intent on helping you become a rational human being, which I can assure him is a waste of time.


Now you are confusing a couple of things here (hardly suprising). Law and morality are two different things. You were talking about crimes. Crime is a legal term not a moral term, got it?


LMAO What a meaningless quibble. What violates the law usually offends morality of decent human beings. Child molestation, for example, offends both law and morality, and is a crime in both arenas.

A crime usually violates law and morality. Hence:

crime ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krm)
n.
An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources.



And yet you are still here! What does that make you?


It makes him persistent.


Daft? Blame the propgandists who invented the soap stories; who were also the people whon invented the lampshade stories and the gas chamber stories.


Soap was a rumor spread by particularly vile Germans, the lampshade was quite real.

The gas chambers were not only real but frequent.


Did I ever tell you about the steam chambers? What about the vacuum chambers? Or the electrocution chambers? And what about the pedal operated brain bashing machine? Or perhaps the spanking machine? Yes, folks, its all in the transcripts of the Nuremeburg kangaroo court!

I require you to name a single person found guilty of killing people with any of these things.

If the spanking-machine was real, I sorta pity the poor Nazi criminal-scientist who fled after '45. While all the other guys were going to South America to design guns or rockets or whatever, he ended up operating the Buenos Aires Fetish Hut.

Reinhold,
In case you failed to notice its you on the hook here not me.
I presented you with a specific instance were a Judge questioned the legality and the morality of the actions of the state which was resulting in the death of german citizens with the full knowledge and blessing of the Fuhrer.
He presented his concerns to the ReichsMinister for justice.
He quoted a quite reasonable point of legal theory which defeats your rubbish completely. " The Dogs in the Street " know it Reinhold, you don't.
Read again what took place and reflect on your "catch -22" , your " no crime" and your joke saying that morality and law are not linked and cannot be so.
You can make anything legal , but that does not make it right and you cannot make a wrong a right.
That is what I said , that is what Judge Kreyssig voiced his concern over.
Reichs Minister for Justice Gurtner and Reinhold take the view that if its law it is " catch -22" , "no crime" , nothing illegal, no murder, with this blank chque book its easy to see why "nothing criminal took place in Auschwitz".
The Fuhrer had set the standard and the Reichs Minister for Justice was prepared to see the most vunerable section of German Society killed, murdered, liquidated , extingushed rather than question the standrad of law set by the Fuhrer ?
Reinhold , it has been a pleasure talking to you and I can only say to you again that the more one learns about the morality of the Hitler Goverment the more rotten and vile it becomes.
This made the Holocaust possible , now answer the questions raied by Henry.
A few names , after all "you forgot more than I ever knew" so a few names should be easy peasy .

Sinclair,
I did LMAO when I read your post. :D
Yes , the poor man was short changed but he probably runs a fettish empire now and is quids in.
Still when you think of the "The Sturmvogel" , "The Kommet" and the
"Spanking Machine".
Bombing Peenemunde must have been ordered to destroy " Der Spanking machine" there can be no other reason , sounds like a "Conservative Party" sex toy .
Excellent !! :D

I wonder how many Germans died as a result of the 'Gruel Propaganda'?

http://www.cwporter.com/pg15.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/pg16x.html

You seem to forget that Hitler ( in Common with "Uncle Joe") had no problem with killing their own people , none at all.
Hitler , ( from Austria) , killing German's , perhaps not his own people.
Nice links but Henry M. did ask , a reasonable question.

A crime is that forbidden by law. Some things which are immoral are neverthless not crimes therefore crime and immorality are not identical.
Soap was a rumor spread by particularly vile Germans,
Soap belonged to the propagandists kit of war atrocity stories that ended up becoming "facts".
the lampshade was quite real.
Any proof of that?
The gas chambers were not only real but frequent.
Have you any proof of gas chambers?
I hope you have something better than Munch.
I require you to name a single person found guilty of killing people with any of these things.
Did you know that no one was convicted of using gas chambers at Nuremberg? IMT/NMT never unambiguoulsy committed itself to any specific murder weapon - proof in itself of its status as kangaroo court. No one was convicted of anything in the proper sense of the word - the outcome of a proper trial where guilt is established in accordance with civilised norms of legality and proof.

In case you failed to notice its you on the hook here not me.
What I have noticed is that you are an idiot.
That you have wilfully ignored everything I have posted preferring to spout mindless sermons in return means that our exchange is at an end - something I made clear to you last week, and yet you persist. Do you think I have time to waste on you?

Nice links but Henry M. did ask , a reasonable question.
See what I mean? Cynically ignores evidence. The same man who has the nerve to lecture us about morality.

Did you know that no one was convicted of using gas chambers at Nuremberg?

The phoney 'Gas Chambers' we hear the 'Holocaust' Industry Spokesmen waxing about today is a revision of their previous lies. The Germans at Nuremberg went to the gallows for having 'Gassed' to death (systematically) Jews in "steam chambers", "electrical chambers", "vacuum chambers", though none of that is Believed today, only amongst the really fanatical Believers.

The 'Zyklon B' Gas Chambers are their last resort. It is known that Germans had delousing chambers which rather saved lives, but the liars are trying to have us Believe that these were 'homocidal' Gas Chambers. I can't even keep track of all their phoney stories, it keeps changing so much.

-k0nsl

Sinclair,
I did LMAO when I read your post. :D
Yes , the poor man was short changed but he probably runs a fettish empire now and is quids in.
Still when you think of the "The Sturmvogel" , "The Kommet" and the
"Spanking Machine".
Bombing Peenemunde must have been ordered to destroy " Der Spanking machine" there can be no other reason , sounds like a "Conservative Party" sex toy .
Excellent !! :D

"With the internet, we'll see who has the last laugh, isn't that right Wernher you asshole?"

Reinhold,
I did not wilfully ignore it , I said I did not agree with it. Until an expert ( neutral) looks at Rudolfs findings and the cricumstances he took them under I don't feel bound because you quote them that I should accept them.

Reinhold I am more than happy to be regard by you as an idiot , for me that is a positive remark.
Dr. Brandt just called me a jew , does this mean I have got promotion ?
In good old " Northern Ireland ( sorry) terms can I ask for some " clarrification" , I am willing to settle for a Jewish Idiot but that's my final offer.

Laws are usually passed to regulate criminal activity.
Hitler passed them to make criminal activity legal.
He wanted to make the "wrong" a "right".
Just beacuse its legal does not make it right.
I refer you back to the Judges questioning of the "Reichsminister for Justice".
You are show boating on this Reinhold.

Sinclair I don't suggest that this is "the last laugh" , the standard of the law and Fuhrer decrees were and remain questionable to say the least.
BTW Who is Wernher ?

Reinhold,
Laws are usually passed to regulate criminal activity.
Hitler passed them to make criminal activity legal.


Which laws are you refering to? Specifics please.

-k0nsl

Reinhold,
[QUOTE]I did not wilfully ignore it , I said I did not agree with it. Until an expert ( neutral) looks at Rudolfs findings and the cricumstances he took them under I don't feel bound because you quote them that I should accept them.
But you are ignoring things; remember I posted Dr Green as well (who is not neutral but that is a new condition you have added). At this stage I have no inclination in discussing anything serious with you. I have never expected you to accept them. My expectation of you (and of anyone) all along has been to look at the evidence pro and con rather than uncritically accepting the official story. Your total unwillingness to do that deprives you of the right to say anything about morality. We don't listen to lectures about morality from moral bankrupts.
Reinhold I am more than happy to be regard by you as an idiot , for me that is a positive remark.
Proving once again to the world your idiocy.
Dr. Brandt just called me a jew , does this mean I have got promotion ?
I'm sure he meant that spirutually rather than literally, that is, assuming that you are not in the literal sense.
snip something about the occupied six counties.
Laws are usually passed to regulate criminal activity.
Hitler passed them to make criminal activity legal.
That is a contradiction. Crimes are defined by law which are made by the executive/legislature.
He wanted to make the "wrong" a "right".
Moral sermonising again.
Just beacuse its legal does not make it right.
That's an argument that you would have to make.
I refer you back to the Judges questioning of the "Reichsminister for Justice".
You are show boating on this Reinhold.
I am not dealing with any third party material you post because you don't deal with anything I post.
Sinclair I don't suggest that this is "the last laugh" , the standard of the law and Fuhrer decrees were and remain questionable to say the least.
BTW Who is Wernher ?
Could you have the simple good manners to split the posts?

Reinhold,
Next Sunday " Letter from Auschwitz" Paul Clarke interviews two Jewish sisters from Belfast about their experiences as inmates of that camp.
Now this might not perhaps fit in with your view of that camp but you will find it on UTV if you wish to see it.
I will be back in England but might get it taped.
Regarding Greens views he is probably happy with his reply to Rudolf , you are not , I am neutral.
The contradiction you point out is not mine alone , I refer you back to the Judge who had concerns about the illegality of the law which was being enforced.
A waste of time , complete and utter , Reinhold don't hold your breath waiting for the world to fall into your view of how you would like things to be.

A waste of time , complete and utter , Reinhold don't hold your breath waiting for the world to fall into your view of how you would like things to be.
As I have said numerous times so far. All I ask of anyone is to to look themselves at the evdience for and against and make up their own mind instead of swallowing the official story.
That this has proved too much for you shows you to be contemptible.

Wernher von Braun. You know, made the V-2, blah blah blah, ended up joining the US space project, all of the stuff about his using slave labour conveniently getting forgotten.

There's the great Tom Lehrer's song about him:

Gather round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun
A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience
Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown
"Ha, Nazi schmazi," says Wernher von Braun

Don't say that he's hypocritical
Say rather that he's apolitical
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun

Some have harsh words for this man of renown
But some think our attitude should be one of gratitude
Like the widows and cripples in old London town
Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun

You too may be a big hero
Once you've learned to count backwards to zero
"In German oder English I know how to count down
Und I'm learning Chinese," says Wernher von Braun

See what you mean Sinclair.
Reinhold would perhaps believe that the workers at the Dora Complex were all paid and didn't mind doing their bit for the Fuhrer, after all the use of Slave Labour would be immoral and perhaps even illegal, but maybe some "law" might have been passed to make this labour system legal.
( Much better than being " liberated by the Russians" ).
How would you class the deaths of these workers Reinhold , as industrial accidents ?
Would they be able to claim compensation perhaps ?
Do you think the SS " risk assessed " the plant ?

See what you mean Sinclair.
Reinhold would perhaps believe that the workers at the Dora Complex were all paid and didn't mind doing their bit for the Fuhrer, after all the use of Slave Labour would be immoral and perhaps even illegal, but maybe some "law" might have been passed to make this labour system legal.
( Much better than being " liberated by the Russians" ).
How would you class the deaths of these workers Reinhold , as industrial accidents ?
Would they be able to claim compensation perhaps ?
Do you think the SS " risk assessed " the plant ?
What has any of this to do with the subject of this thread - the so-called holocaust?

You asserted the belief that the prisoners , inmates were well looked after that they had medical care and even recreation fields.
Do you think that the experiences of the slave labour force are exempt from the "holocaust".
Reinhold , take off the rose tinted specs.
I would also remind you that you said these people were paid , as far as I can see they were not paid , Himmler and the SS got paid , the industry got a wage free work force and the workers got slave labour conditions and ill treatment.
Very much part and parcel of the Holocaust.
PS Remember to see Paul Clake's interview next Sunday on UTV.
As an expert you can telephone UTV to expose any "lies" which you might be able to see through.
Poor fools like me , well might just swallow them in my ignorance.
Remember illegality / slave labour / crime. All part of "holocaust".

See what you mean Sinclair.
Reinhold would perhaps believe that the workers at the Dora Complex were all paid and didn't mind doing their bit for the Fuhrer,
There you go again, misrepresenting me. I have not commented anywhere on Dora. You have no respect for truth or accuracy.

You asserted the belief that the prisoners , inmates were well looked after that they had medical care and even recreation fields.
There was a hospital at Auschwitz - even Elie Wiesel testifies to having been a patient there as well as his father. According to the official story, anyone unfit for work was 'gassed', but then the holocaust story is full of such glaring contradictions; none of which causes you to so much as blink. In the light of this, I am being charitable when I call you an idiot.
Do you think that the experiences of the slave labour force are exempt from the "holocaust".
Holocaust is not my term; it means the systematic extermination of the Jews by means of gas and mass shooting.
I would also remind you that you said these people were paid
No I didn't, I said that there were also voluntary workers who were of course paid in additon to the Farben employess who were relocated to Auschwitz to work at Monowitz.
Very much part and parcel of the Holocaust.
It gets tagged on by depserados like you who cannot prove the existence of extermination - "Evidence for gas chambers are rare and unreliable." is actually an understatement by Yehuda Bauer, Jewish Professor for Holocaust Research, Vad Yashem, Israel.
PS Remember to see Paul Clake's interview next Sunday on UTV.
I have better things to do than watch the idiot box. I'll leave that up to dupes like you. You might like to watch this though:
http://www.yourforum.org/documents/cole.ram
In this documentary made by the young Jewish revisionist David Cole, watch how in an interview, the director of the Auschwitz museum Dr. Piper admits that the so-called 'gas chamber' in Krema I (the plans you were touting here last week, remember? The one which says Leichenkeller?) is what he calls a "reconstruction" made by the communists after the war. You can also hear him flatly contradict himself over the daily gassings figures.
I expect you will ignore all this as is your usual cowardly style.

Ita a long downlaod , will try and capture it later in the week , when I am off work.
First five minutes give the impression of something of a propaganda exercise.
As you said propaganda does not have to be crude .
I will look at it but it will take time to capture it.
BTW its your defination of the holocaust to exclude the slave labour workers.
the paid workers , so these are not prisonsers merely those who ran the plants , something of a red herring don't you think , either the prisoners got paid or they didn't ?
No need to lay smoke screens of voluntary workers , its the slave labour popluation which is the point.
Do you have any photos of the prisoners playing football or using the swimming pool ?
can you quote your sorce from the Yad Yasham , seems you cherry pick here , you quote this but say you are unwilling to accept other information as it hardly neutral and they are Jewish.
Do you regard this video clip as an idiot box ?
Reinhold you have still not resolved the problem of te morality of the law which brought these places about and led to murder , you are playing Pilate.

First five minutes give the impression of something of a propaganda exercise.
As you said propaganda does not have to be crude .
Its shot on a shoestring - the highlight is when the chief guide and then the director of the A museum admit that your 'gas chamber' is a 'reconstruction.'
BTW its your defination of the holocaust to exclude the slave labour workers.
the paid workers , so these are not prisonsers merely those who ran the plants , something of a red herring don't you think , either the prisoners got paid or they didn't ?
I told you right at the start, I am concerned with the extermination claims.
The slave issue is popular at the moment becasue of all those opportunists coming out of the woodwork looking for a slice of the action from the big payout.
Do you regard this video clip as an idiot box ?
It is not television.
Reinhold you have still not resolved the problem of te morality of the law which brought these places about and led to murder , you are playing Pilate
You have not presented the problem so what is there to comment on? Do you think that making emotive appeals constitutes a satisfactory response in this?

Reinhold , you have been given it both emotive and other wise and from the pages of history which record valid concerns made by A German Judge as to the standard of law in his own country.
The slave labour situation may not interest you , but these slaves came from the same system in which you proclaim to have forgotten more than I ever knew.
The basis of this dismissal is that they are on board for " the big pay out" , for one who has a corrective interst the "wrong done" I find this strange.
Surely exposing "the myth" would include this , its after all part of the one "hoax , the same scam" is it not ?

For my part Reinhold I don't include such places as Auscwhitz-Birkenau Belsen, Dachau or Treblinka or their like as having any place in any civilized society nor do I see them as being the product of a reasonable goverment.

I asked you some time back if you saw the need for any such estiblishments in modern society and you took some umbridge.

The reconstruction is hardly ground break news , I direct you to the ones destroyed includinmg that destroyed in the prisoners revolt , it was not destroyed beacuse it was a flea killing operation.

My FINAL word is very simple , the Concentration camp system and the extermination centres were not the product of a goverment which had any moral standard,the laws which allowed their existance and their operation cannot be looked upon acceptable or reasonable to any society either then or now.
If you have a problem with this then I cannot agree with your standard of morality which governs that which you see as being right or wrong.
If you are comfortable with the immorality and illegality which produced these camps then you and I are very different and I am grateful for the difference.

The basis of this dismissal is that they are on board for " the big pay out" , for one who has a corrective interst the "wrong done" I find this strange.
It is right that genuine claimants should receive something but there are a great deal of frauds there as well. The whole business is complicated by the lack of a clear account of what really happened. Until the truth about everything that happened is brought out, then I will be sceptical about these claims.
Surely exposing "the myth" would include this , its after all part of the one "hoax , the same scam" is it not ?
There is an order of priorities which surely even you can see. Clealry the most serious charge of all is that of extermination.
For my part Reinhold I don't include such places as Auscwhitz-Birkenau Belsen, Dachau or Treblinka or their like as having any place in any civilized society nor do I see them as being the product of a reasonable goverment.
No one is saying that these places were fun or that everyone interned was justly treated but are you saying that a state does not have the right to intern its political enemies when it is under threat?
I asked you some time back if you saw the need for any such estiblishments in modern society and you took some umbridge.
The question was and is still idiotic. You also ignore the fact that many prisoners were under court sentence and were released at the end of their terms.
Clearly such places do exist - the British ran internment camps in the occupied six counties in the 1970's, the state possesses all sorts of extraordinary powers under the PTA (as does this state- the OSA). The US runs two truly appalling institution called Gunatanamo Bay and Abu Graib and they ran internement camps during WWII just as the Brits did.
While you are at it, you might like to review the history of concentration camps especially during the Boer War where your beloved Brits committed immensly worse crimes than did the Germans.
The reconstruction is hardly ground break news , I direct you to the ones destroyed includinmg that destroyed in the prisoners revolt , it was not destroyed beacuse it was a flea killing operation.
But then why did you post the plans of the "reconstructed" one? Also are you happy to accept a Soviet recionstruction? Btw, the Soviets are the source of all your gassing stories - clearly you are happy to believe Soviet lies.
If you have a problem with this then I cannot agree with your standard of morality which governs that which you see as being right or wrong.
You know nothing about what I consder moral or immoral - you don't even know what moral means as your refusal to define it shows.
If you are comfortable with the immorality and illegality which produced these camps then you and I are very different and I am grateful for the difference.
You have yet to clearly define what is meant by legal, moral, and the relation between these two. In fact you are yet to define anything!

"Nothing criminal took place at Auschwitz!.
Just what did the prisoners destroy when they revolted , something for killing fleas and lice ?
Internment yes it takes place , but to "intern" a whole section of the community , homosexuals , quakers etc.
The internment issue is hardly an equitable comparrison.
(Apart from which is it legal to use interned people as slave labour , let alone work them to death ?
How many interned people in the Dora complex making V-1 and V-2's ?)
Extermination is important and it was not made up , where did the children in the photos go , where did the elderly go , where did the victims of Heydrich's "Special Action Groups" go ?

Plan's existed along with the papers to say who tendered for the structures and the cremation ovens.
The Brits interned Boers but they did not do so to kill them , the same diseaes which killed Boers killed Brits as well.
Again an anglophobic comparison , huge difference.
A defination , pick any text book you like and away you go , I don't need to define it.
What you might be prepared to accepot and I would be prepared to accept would be unique to ous as individuals.
I think enough has been said about the morality and the illegality of law as passed by the Hitler Goverment.Its what they acceoted as law which is important , not what I would demand.
Slave labour was a crime then , as was murder.
AS Friessler screamed " Murders , Murders , what murders ?"
If you are asking the same question you sit in very poor company, the very figure head of Hitler's legal system.
Do you think the Judge was wrong to question it ?
I don't.
Reinhold this will go on as long as this forum runs .
I am not prepared to accept Rudolf's findings just as they are quoted as being accurate.
Nor am I going to accept that everything that was placed in front of the courts was a lie.
Nor am I going to believe that the food supply was disrupted by the Allies , not when German industry was still producing.
Long term starvation does not happen at once.
Why did the germans not involve the Red Cross if the situation was so dire , and the red Cross said such glowing things about Auschwitz etc ?
Seems that the care you describe was lacking .
The seperation of labour from camp as and when you like it is cherry picking, its all part of the same line which started with the Blood and Honour Laws etc.
Sorry Reinhold I just don't buy into this massive hoax , money making conspiracy theory which is of international proportions.
The end. No more to say.

"Nothing criminal took place at Auschwitz!.
Why do you keep repeating this? Are you perhaps playing to the gallery, hoping that someone who has not been following this futile exchange might read it wrongly? So for their sake let us clarify what cerberus is dishonestly doing here - by nothing illegal, was defined in reference to the unsubstantiated claims that the Germans were gassing Jews to death.
Just what did the prisoners destroy when they revolted , something for killing fleas and lice ?
Those would be the communists you are referring to?
Internment yes it takes place , but to "intern" a whole section of the community , homosexuals , quakers etc.
Be precise, I ahve had enough of your blanket claims prodiuced without evidence. Homosexuals were sentenced to prison terms everywhere at this time. You can consult the records for the precise numbers. Do you think the Germans should not have incarcerated men for corrupting minors?
The internment issue is hardly an equitable comparrison.
Oh but it is. What is the differnce? None.
(Apart from which is it legal to use interned people as slave labour , let alone work them to death ?
1) Show the legal situation of the time by reference to Hague and Geneva
2) Ahow how the Germans cointravened the terms of these treaties.
If you can do this then you are entitled to talk about illegalities. By all means do, go ahead.
Extermination is important and it was not made up ,
For the Nth time: prove it so. If you are so sure, prove it. If it is so certain then it must be the easiest thing in the world to prove. Why haven't you done soi? Why hasn't anyone done so?
where did the children in the photos go , where did the elderly go ,
What do you mean? Immediately after the photo was taken or now? Either they were processed and assigned qurters or they were shipped on to other industrial units. Auschwitz was the hub of a large industrial zone in the Generalgouvernement.
where did the victims of Heydrich's "Special Action Groups" go ?
What vicitims? Have you any proof of thoise allegations? Has ther been a mass grave discovered since we talked last? Strange that the Russians can find NKVD mass graves now but not EG graves?
Plan's existed along with the papers to say who tendered for the structures and the cremation ovens.
But we are not talkng about crematories, we are talking about gas chambers, remember?
The Brits interned Boers but they did not do so to kill them
They most certainly did. Time to accuse you of what you have accused me of: you are being immoral, you are coveriung up a deliberate policy of inflicting death on defencelesss women and children.
They were the families of the men fighting, they were used as hostages.
Again an anglophobic comparison , huge difference.
Yes, the Brits can do no wrong in your book, bloody hypocrite.
I am openly anti-British, you are lying about your anti-German bias.
A defination , pick any text book you like and away you go , I don't need to define it.
Yes you do, otherwise, shut up about morality.
What you might be prepared to accepot and I would be prepared to accept would be unique to ous as individuals.
Nonsense. We are obliged to be reasonable which means that we must give our assnet to rational arguments in support of moral principles. If it is a mtter of perosnal taste thenthere is no such thing as morality. That you don't understand this further convinces me of your morally dubious character.
I think enough has been said about the morality and the illegality of law as passed by the Hitler Goverment.
That's right, back-pedal away as fast as you can. It was you who dragged in morality in the first place.
Its what they acceoted as law which is important , not what I would demand.
Round in circles we go: what law are you talking about? You insist on talking about German law, which is a weak case for you, whilst ignoring the stronger case which I have hinted to you many times now. Hague and Geneva? But you have to do the work, you have to find out whether or not the Germans were in breach of those treaties and how.
Do you think the Judge was wrong to question it ?
I don't.
And what is your expertise for making such an assessment? Have you validated any of his claims independently? Have you studied German law of the time? Have you consulted any studies of this question? No, you are just getting all emotional about some book you read or heard about.
Reinhold this will go on as long as this forum runs.
It can stop right now; don't respond to this post.
I am not prepared to accept Rudolf's findings just as they are quoted as being accurate.
Which is why I posted Dr Green giving the opposing view (can't get any fairer than that) - why do I have to repeat this point to you so often?
Nor am I going to accept that everything that was placed in front of the courts was a lie.
Neither do I, which is why I like investigate all these claims one by one, to discover which stand up and which are Soviet or US/UK manufactured lies.
Nor am I going to believe that the food supply was disrupted by the Allies , not when German industry was still producing.
You doubt that the Allies had total air superority from late 1944? You don't know what that means?
Long term starvation does not happen at once.
A few short months.
The end. No more to say.
Oh good, because this has been the most futile exchange I think I have ever been in.
As you like talking about morality so much let me leave you with this thought.
The necessary condition for moral action must be a good will and an unswerving committment to truthfulness. Truthfulness requires that one does not gloss over uncomfortable pieces of evidence or conclusions to be drawn from certain known facts. Truthfulness means accepting the consequences of evdience and logic etc no matter what the consequnces for one self or the wider world. The essence of being a good historian or scholar generally is truthfulness and a sense of justice. Both these virtues are rare in academia (I speak from experience), but that is precisely where they shuould be. Professor Robert Faurisson embodies both these virtues to the highest possible degree, he is that rare type that Nietzsche refers to in the essay 'Schopenhauer as Educator' where he lists the 14 kinds of motivation for scholars and philosophers and puts a sense of justice as the last and rarest.
Faurisson could have stayed quiet, remained within his speciality and achieved the usual accolades and rewards that go to successful academics, but he chose the better part. He chose to serve truth and justice and has suffered constant legal attacks as well as physical attacks by Jewish thugs.
Compare Faurisson's situation with that of a holocaust peddler like Browning, feted and celebrated by the chattering classes on both sides of the Atlantic, rewarded with honours and promotions, and the kind of financial reward that comes from authoring bestsellers.
Who is the moral hero here? The one who goes for worldy success and accolade by playing the game (no matter what it is, it can be any line of business), or, the one who throws everything to the wind to pursue his vision of truth and justice?

I refer you to the words "The end" and when you seek a champion of truth think of Judge Kreyssig.

I refer you to the words "The end" and when you seek a champion of truth think of Judge Kreyssig.
For a discussion of that photo see http://www.yourforum.org/revforum/viewtopic.php?t=1111&highlight=einsatzgruppen
and also a full analysis http://www.codoh.com/daspiktur.html which is down at the moment.
But here is the full photo which you wont see at any of your holocost promotion sites:

This creates interesting questions. Apart from the usual ones like why is she hovering off the ground, and, will the soldier's rifle blow up if he fires it (the muzzle twists upwards), what do you imagine those people in the corner are up to? They seem to be quite busy and quite oblivious to what is happening on the left. Its not a trick question btw, it has everyone who has seen it stumped.
A strange picture but then the holocost story is full of oddness.
[If anyone wants to examine it closely I can give you the full 9 mb version which you can blow up and examine closely.]

Staged?

Staged?
LOL! You really are making a complete fool of yourself.
What are we looking at here? A little old lady walking along with at least three children. So what?

cerberus, wow. I cannot wait for more pictures. What next? Jews at picknick in Sachsenhausen?

Silly 'Holocaust', indeed. If that picture count for 'holocaust' proof then surely even you, cerberus, can see how uttery laughable it is.

-k0nsl

Employed as what ?

Employed as what ?
What in this photo justifies the misleading caption "soon to die children?"
You have become truly pathetic.

Soon to die people.

Reinhold,
Have you visited the Axis History Forum Holocaust and war crimes Section ?
You might not want to , some of the well informed there pull Germar Rudolf apart as far as his qualifications , his co-authored publications , his research standards.
Reinhold having spend several hours there its evident that you are a master at flogging a dead horse.
You will even find the answer there why David Irving withdrew Rudolfs "Report" , its not worth the paper its written on pure and simple.
I am not going to repeat the complex answers here , those who wish can take a trip over to read them. You might even learn and add to your vast amount of knowledge and expertise , or find something else to deny , you never know.
Seems Reinhold in spite of what you might wish to believe quite a lot that was criminal did take place at Auschwitz -Birkenau , a lot of it would carry capital punishment as its price.
But then your comfortable in the standard of the law within which such places operated.
The children in the jpeg I post did die , not that I denied it for a second .
Look at them Reinhold, the old lady , probably her grandchildren with her.
They lived,were loved had a future until they were murdered.
These people were gassed like rats and their bodies burned , that is the cruel hard fact. "Emotive" I hear you moan , but the fact is true.
These are the murders that Judge Roland Friessler ranted about and mocked , no different from the ones that Judge Kreyssig protested about.
Nothing more to say just wanted to pass this chance to have your questions answered, I don't have any at present , not any that you can give an accurate answer to.
Your reality is somewhat threadbare Reinhold , the evidence you depend upon is bankrupt of fact but not of ideology.
That name in case you forget it Reinhold.
Kreyssig.
BTW Won't be replying to you Reinhold , I can't learn anything from you.
Don't waste your time and most importantly don't waste mine.

Have you visited the Axis History Forum Holocaust and war crimes Section ?
You might not want to , some of the well informed there pull Germar Rudolf apart as far as his qualifications , his co-authored publications , his research standards.
LOL! Don't make me laugh. That place is ridiculous. They don't allow what is termed 'holocaust denial' so they can say what they like without fear of being refuted.
Reinhold having spend several hours there its evident that you are a master at flogging a dead horse.
Look if you want to see debate go to http://pub86.ezboard.com/brodohforum
where you will see very well informed people on BOTH sides having REAL debate.
You will even find the answer there why David Irving withdrew Rudolfs "Report" , its not worth the paper its written on pure and simple.
I am not going to repeat the complex answers here
No of course not! You know I will slice you up nice. :D
Seems Reinhold in spite of what you might wish to believe quite a lot that was criminal did take place at Auschwitz -Birkenau , a lot of it would carry capital punishment as its price.
More of your vapid posturings. I want facts and argumnents based on facts, not your sentimental musings.
But then your comfortable in the standard of the law within which such places operated.
You have no idea what I am 'comfortable' with.
The children in the jpeg I post did die , not that I denied it for a second .
You have not the slightest shred of proof for such a statement, do you?
Look at them Reinhold, the old lady , probably her grandchildren with her.
They lived,were loved had a future until they were murdered.
These people were gassed like rats and their bodies burned , that is the cruel hard fact. "Emotive" I hear you moan , but the fact is true.
You really are a sad and sorry individual. Trying to evoke pity with photos that show nothing but a little old lady with some children. You really are desperate, aren't you!
Nothing more to say just wanted to pass this chance to have your questions answered, I don't have any at present , not any that you can give an accurate answer to.
Oh really? This coming from the man who consistently flees from every single question I put to him.
Your reality is somewhat threadbare Reinhold , the evidence you depend upon is bankrupt of fact but not of ideology.
You should stand in front of a mirror when you say that - little old ladies as proof of gas chambers!!
BTW Won't be replying to you Reinhold , I can't learn anything from you.
Don't waste your time and most importantly don't waste mine.
Hallelujah! Good riddance to ya!

As for your most recent photogaphic offerings.
Firstly a question. Do you imagine for a moment that I am unfamiliar with all these images? Do you think that I am seeing them for the first time?
The first one looks a bit rum. What are we looking at? Some naked men standing over a trench surrounded by a group of armed men. There are some more naked men in the background and a boy of around 7. It is not clear from this picture who any of these people are; some have uniforms (2) or half uniforms (1) whilst the rest (4) are clearly in civilian attire. There is nothing to indicate who they are, where this is, what the circumstances are or anything that would be really interesting. The odd and striking thing about the picture is that everyone seems very calm which suggests that it might be posed. You of course will see what ever you want to see.
---
The second is truly silly even by your standards. There are three naked ladies who appear to be walking/running forward. In the background there are a large group of clothed people who don't appear to be taking any notice of the naked ladies. Perhaps this is a naturist's convention somewhere and they are taking part in an egg and spoon race.

Don't be daft.

Don't be daft.
To see all four different versions of this photo and discussion see http://www.yourforum.org/revforum/viewtopic.php?t=441&highlight=photo
Why do you continue to make a fool of yourself in this way?

Proof that aliens visit us in flying saucers:

That you believe in this photograph , I saw nothing in your one liner to say otherwise.
I honestly thought you had never seen any of these before , I must be talking to an authority on the subject. I am most impressed.
It never fails to surprise me that how on the law of averages all the photographic evidence is proved to be false when all the paper work is there to say it happened.
( But then some of us say " proof that Aliens vist us in flying saucers" and post up a photo to prove it :rolleyes: )

Another fake , surprise me yet again. :rolleyes:
I take it the brains which splashed on Himmler were fake as well ? :rolleyes:

That you believe in this photograph , I saw nothing in your one liner to say otherwise.
I knew you would come back with something corny like that. Your so predicatable.
I honestly thought you had never seen any of these before , I must be talking to an authority on the subject. I am most impressed.
Oh come on, if you study the H you end up becoming familiar with all the photos pretty quickly, there are not that many.
It never fails to surprise me that how on the law of averages all the photographic evidence is proved to be false when all the paper work is there to say it happened.
PLease start posting the paper work - if you dare - that would be much more worthy of serious attention than photos of who knows what.
( But then some of us say " proof that Aliens vist us in flying saucers" and post up a photo to prove it :rolleyes: )
The point in case you have missed it is this: my photo has the same evidentary value as yours, i.e. none.

Another fake , surprise me yet again. :rolleyes:
I take it the brains which splashed on Himmler were fake as well ? :rolleyes:
Did I say these photos are fake? The pistol one almost certainly is but the others perhaps, perhaps not. The problem with the pictures is that they do not prove anything. I wonder whether you can grasp that simple point or not?
This picture looks pretty much like an execution by firing squad. The problem is this: who is shooting who and why? The photo cannot answer those questions neither can a caption written by some holohoaxer at the Wiesenthal Centre.
The brains on Himmler story comes from a testimony which I challenge you to post up, then we can discuss it.

Don't be daft.

Obviously if the photo is true, what we are seeing is a legit execution of Partisans (horrible people, hence the creation of the Einzatsgruppen)

-k0nsl

k0nsl- The scene from "Full Metal jacket" , the door gunner with the M-60 .
"Anyone who runs is a VC, anyone who stands still is a well diciplined VC"
It springs to mind , everyone was a "Partisan".


Pardon my bad manners but the space between will I trust satisfy.




Why bother Reinhold, I only posted the photos because I honestly can't be bothered looking anything up, I know what the answer will be and no , its not proof of an empty arguement.
That was really smart , you know the symbolic meaning of the saucer etc , went right by me , must come from being thick.
Just where is Katyn Wood , any trees in it ?
BTW Why do you think I am trying to prove anything , I am only illustrating.

k0nsl- The scene from "Full Metal jacket" , the door gunner with the M-60 .
"Anyone who runs is a VC, anyone who stands still is a well diciplined VC"
It springs to mind , everyone was a "Partisan".
You really are something! You don't seem to be able to distinguish between fact and fiction, 'Full Metal Jacket' s a fiction film not a documentary ; you must have been confused by the central character being a military journalist.
Pardon my bad manners but the space bwteeen will I trust satisfy.
Why do you apologise for bad manners and then go ahead and do what you are apologising for?




Why bother Reinhold, I only posted the photos beacuse I honestly can't be bothered looking anything up, I know what the answer will be and no , its not proof of an empty arguement.
Why do you never discuss anything you post?
Why do you never respond to questions, I ask, mindful that you probably wont answer?
That was really smart , you know the symbolic meaning of the saucer etc , went right by me , must come from being thick.
Could be or else you were just being puerile in your sarcasm.
Just where is Katyn Wood , any trees in it ?
The wood refers to the contents of your head.

k0nsl- The scene from "Full Metal jacket" , the door gunner with the M-60 .
"Anyone who runs is a VC, anyone who stands still is a well diciplined VC"
It springs to mind , everyone was a "Partisan".


Pardon my bad manners but the space bwteen will I trust satisfy.

Two holocaust survivers are fighting over the "honor' of being the little ghetto boy

http://www.shoah.dk/Pics/images/pic32.jpg

geesh...
-------------

He is usually touted as one of the many nameless victims of the jews that were gassed. The fact is, that the Little Ghetto Boy had been singled out for stealing and was later released unharmed to his parents.

He survived the war to become a wealthy London Doctor named Israel Rondel.

ref: Barnes review...page 27 "all holocaust issue"

but hold on a minute

Tsvi C. Nussbaum, a physician living in Rockland County in upstate New York, USA, [claims] was the then seven-year old little boy. He told how he and his aunt were arrested in front of a Warsaw hotel, where Jews with foreign passports had gathered to find a way to escape Poland.

He remembered the date, July 13, 1943, and how he was told to put his hands up: I remember there was a soldier in front of me, he told the newspaper, recalling the picture, and he ordered me to raise my hands

So who is it?

As for symbolism.... The New York Times on May 28, 1982, reported, that some individuals,convinced that the symbolic power of the picture would be diminished were the boy shown to have survived.

Are these people sick or what?

Logically, Isn't it good news to report that "Little Ghetto Boy" is alive.....? The holohucksters are so wharped and so exploitive no matter what the situation. This is so sad and obvious.

A quick search revealed not much for internet links...If you have some links on this discrepancy, please provide it...One thing for sure, we know yet another holocaust survivor is lying through his teeeth, as is the standard of any so-called 'Holocaust survivor'.

Two holocaust survivers are fighting over the "honor' of being the little ghetto boy

http://www.shoah.dk/Pics/images/pic32.jpg

geesh...
-------------

He is usually touted as one of the many nameless victims of the jews that were gassed. The fact is, that the Little Ghetto Boy had been singled out for stealing and was later released unharmed to his parents.

He survived the war to become a wealthy London Doctor named Israel Rondel.

ref: Barnes review...page 27 "all holocaust issue"

but hold on a minute

Tsvi C. Nussbaum, a physician living in Rockland County in upstate New York, USA, [claims] was the then seven-year old little boy. He told how he and his aunt were arrested in front of a Warsaw hotel, where Jews with foreign passports had gathered to find a way to escape Poland.

He remembered the date, July 13, 1943, and how he was told to put his hands up: I remember there was a soldier in front of me, he told the newspaper, recalling the picture, and he ordered me to raise my hands

So who is it?

As for symbolism.... The New York Times on May 28, 1982, reported, that some individuals,convinced that the symbolic power of the picture would be diminished were the boy shown to have survived.

Are these people sick or what?

Logically, Isn't it good news to report that "Little Ghetto Boy" is alive.....? The holohucksters are so wharped and so exploitive no matter what the situation. This is so sad and obvious.

A quick search revealed not much for internet links...If you have some links on this discrepancy, please provide it...One thing for sure, we know yet another holocaust survivor is lying through his teeeth, as is the standard of any so-called 'Holocaust survivor'.
Two? Is that all? They see the $ signs in their eyes. Did you hear about the showing of Swindler's Mist when the girl with the red coat appeared, this woman in the audience jumped up and shouted "That's me!" - she went on to write a be$tseller. These are the liars, scamsters and fraudsters that our friend desperately wants to believe in.

Who blew up this and why , if it was for killing fleas ?

Who blew up this and why , if it was for killing fleas ?
We already discussed this or have you forgotten that as well?

Can't have been such a good system if there was such a lot of this about?
No wonder it was blown up .
Everyone had a hand in its destruction except the S.S. :rolleyes:
A large family on arrival at Auschwitz. ( The Guards would not have been so inhuman as to break up a family ).
Funny there are never any fit men and younger women in these famalies.
What sort of work would you see these people doing ?
Does the term "useless eaters" mean anything to you ?

Can't have been such a good system if there was such a lot of this about?
No wonder it was blown up .
Everyone had a hand in its destruction except the S.S. :rolleyes:
A large family on arrival at Auschwitz. ( The Guards would not have been so inhuman as to break up a family ).
Funny there are never any fit men and younger women in these famalies.
What sort of work would you see these people doing ?
Does the term "useless eaters" mean anything to you ?
Are there any facts you would like to discuss or are you just going to go on posting silly pictures of eastern Europeans walking around Auschwitz? Why don't you post something useful like an account of what supposedly happened to groups like this? Do you think these pictures prove anything more than your abysmal failure to understand the nature of evidence and proof?

Reinhold,
Do you really think that its worth asking or saying ?
I doubt that it is , so much has been posted up in the past and from fade's openning post I think he has had about enough of it as well.
No closure will result from anything posted .

Walking about Auschwitz , free and unhindered with nothing to fear or a worry in the world , if you say so ?
Would you have changed places with them had you been alive then ?
What would your main wories have been as an inmate ?

Do you really think that its worth asking or saying ?
Yes, if you post something you must take responsbility for it and not cut and run onto the next piece of nonsense. Defend what you post or dont post.
I doubt that it is , so much has been posted up in the past and from fade's openning post I think he has had about enough of it as well.
You speak for others as well?
No closure will result from anything posted.
Who said anything about closure? I am happy if anyone has become sceptical of the H story and takes up the inquiry for themselves, that's what interests me.
Walking about Auschwitz , free and unhindered with nothing to fear or a worry in the world , if you say so ?
But I don't because I said nothing of the kind.
What would your main wories have been as an inmate?
Getting stuck in a bunk next to an eejit like you.

" Is that right Ted !".

As good as , when you say it shows an old lady going for a walk well its not too much of a stretch of the imagination to say that imates would have nothing to fear.
From what you say they would not be executed or exterminated and would be well treated , not abused or subject to any criminal act.
Medical attention , playing fields , seems that it could have been worse.
You still have not told me what work these more elderly and child prisoners would be doing ?
Why are they always seen apart from the more able bodied ?
Closure , there won't be any and as far as making people sceptical goes , well call me an eejit if you like , I 'm too easily fooled by the estiblishment liars and the like , sure I never question anything.
Seems reinhold that you just fall short of explaining what the nasty side of the camp syatem actually was.
You have hinted at the good medical care , the playing fields , swiming pool, which inmates could use .
As you seen very aware of the common photos from the Paul Popper and other archives , can you tell me have you ever seen any photos of the inmates usuing the swimming pool or the Auschwitz "1st team" playing football ?

If you look at Fade's openning post , its pretty obvious that he has had it up to the neck with this subject.
Defend what you post, you mean defend what is fact against what is the product of pseudo science and a massive conspircay theory.
Reinhold , head , hitting , brick and wall are all that this conjures up to me.
Open an "X" file seems the next step and call in FBI.
( That's probably not possible as they are in on it as well no doubt.).

Main worries as an inmate , you say I don't answer / Pot -kettle black.
Judge Kreyssig , remember this name Reinhold.
PS Know you have seen this before but it sort fo makes you wonder why they didn't make people carry and sort their own belongings ?
Do you think there was the intention that the inmates would never get their cases returned to them again ?
Why is everything dumped in such a disordered fashion ?
Why are the cases being openned ?

As good as , when you say it shows an old lady going for a walk well its not too much of a stretch of the imagination to say that imates would have nothing to fear.
I don't "say" it shows that - it shows that; or perhaps you have special vision that can see more than what is in the picture?
well call me an eejit if you like , I 'm too easily fooled by the estiblishment liars and the like , sure I never question anything.
Well, you have certainly shown no evidence of a a sceptical critical attitude toawards anything except sceptical critical attitudes. You have spent the last month or so defending the official westren allied version of history.
You do this with such dedicatioin that you consistently avoid discussing any piece of evidence that proves awkward to that story; which involves you ignoring questions and ignoring rebuttals of all this stuff you have posted.
Seems reinhold that you just fall short of explaining what the nasty side of the camp syatem actually was.
It seems that you have a comprehension difficulty. For the nth time - I am interested in the extermination story.
If you look at Fade's openning post , its pretty obvious that he has had it up to the neck with this subject.
Its not obvious, that's your warped interpretation, this is what he said;
"*sigh*

I hate to start this all over from scratch but I never go to finish the debate last time. Did the Holocaust happen? Yes or no?"
He is expressing fatigue at the prospect of recommencing a discussion from the start, he is not expressing what you are trying to impute to him. What is your problem, why do you consistently misrepresent everything anyone says?
Defend what you post, you mean defend what is fact against what is the product of pseudo science and a massive conspircay theory.
If it were a fact, we would not be having this discussion. What makes you think that you can make contentious statements but not have to back them up?
Main worries as an inmate , you say I don't answer / Pot -kettle black.
I told you some time ago that on account of your unresponsive attitude I am no longer seriously dealing with anything you post, we can't have double standards in this matter.

I do recall a reply in the last forum in which fade and I agreeded that it was one which would run forever.
The sigh could well have meant that.
Perception Reinhold .
You have said that you are only interested in the extermination aspect of Auschwitz , which you say never took place and are ignoring all else , you are not interested in any other aspects, that is cherry picking what these camps were about.
You say that I ignore , well reinhold , you are more than good at it as well.
As far as ignoring goes, I said I would not take Rudolf as read , you do not agree with greens reply , I said a neutral opinion would be of benefit.
You wanted to continue on the basis of Rudolf / Green , I see the need for an " expert witness" to interpid the facts as per theses two points of view.
I don't see this as being unreasonable.
Some day this will come forward.
Until then you can run this round as much as you like on the basis of Rudolf.
To date you have said nothing which can make me sceptical about the " estiblishment western view".
Your own view is to want to discuss extermination or not an d you see this as the holocaust complete, you say that I should consider why the Jews were so hated / unpopular when i asked you to consider the issues of jews scrubbing streets , etc propaganda and " education" via books for children and films which brand jews and seek to make them so alien to the 1930's German society.
You see nothing wrong with this say that its not " illegal" say "Eternal jew should be made again only updated.
You have no notion as to the illegality and immorality of laws passed , anything can be made legal according to you and you see no problems ?
You want to discuss just extermination ,but ignore the proces which gave birth to it.
You are fully of contridictions, porn and Jews is of more interst to you and the immorality of that ( according to you) than the immorality of laws passed by a one man legal syatem.
Joke reinhold

I do recall a reply in the last forum in which fade and I agreeded that it was one which would run forever.
Except that is not the claim you made, this is what you said;
"If you look at Fade's openning post "
The sigh could well have meant that.
Perception Reinhold .
In this case it is yet another example of your lack of respect for accuracy. You don't really care what you say because you are never going to stand over your words and defend them, you just move on.
You have said that you are only interested in the extermination aspect of Auschwitz , which you say never took place and are ignoring all else , you are not interested in any other aspects, that is cherry picking what these camps were about.
"What the camps were about" - now why should I be interested in the camps per se? My discussions are not about these camps as such but only insofar as they bear on the extermination question. To that end I am interested in the Einsatzgruppen and police units which do not involve camps but bear directly on the extermination allegations. That is what I am interested in because these are the most serious allegations; shooting, gassing and burning 6 million Jews (and 5 million others - although the industry has quietly dropped those claims)? What could be more serious than that?
You say that I ignore , well reinhold , you are more than good at it as well. As far as ignoring goes, I said I would not take Rudolf as read[QUOTE]
I never once asked you to take him as read so don't start that.
[QUOTE], you do not agree with greens reply , I said a neutral opinion would be of benefit.
Neutral opinion would be nice and as it happens we have that in the form of Dr. William Lindsey, an American research chemist employed for 33 years by the Dupont Corporation who was an expert witness in the great Zundel trial of 1985. The conclusions from his examination of the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz was categorical:
"I have come to the conclusion that no one was willfully or purposefully killed with Zyklon B [hydrogen cyanide] in this manner. I consider it absolutely impossible."
Of course now you are going to say he is not "neutral" because he does not support your beliefs.
You wanted to continue on the basis of Rudolf / Green , I see the need for an " expert witness" to interpid the facts as per theses two points of view.
I don't see this as being unreasonable.
I never said it wss. But that you yourself call for a neutral party to give an opoinon testifies to your scepticism about the official story! If it were all clear cut and factual as you claim, why appeal to a neutral party? True believers have never accepted the proposal you are making, I guess you are a sceptic after all! Welcome to the club.
Some day this will come forward.
I tell you a open public scientific debate will never happen as long as the H story is the effective propaganda weapon that it is.
Until then you can run this round as much as you like on the basis of Rudolf.
I don't move around on the basis of Rudolf (btw, Rudolf himself has said that you must review all the evidence not just chemical) - I look at the full range of sources, the holocaust historians treatment of those sources, and the revisionist's treatment of sthe sources and their critique of the official historian's accounts. I have told you this a number of times already.
To date you have said nothing which can make me sceptical about the " estiblishment western view".
Actually I have, your selective amnesia is kicking in again. E.g. I showed you the problem with Munch, the problem with the plans of Krema I and I directed you to Dr Piper, the Director of the Auschwitz museum who admitted that Krema I is a "reconstruction." I could show you mountains of more stuff, all of which you would ignore in your usual fashion. I pointed you to the Renk/Browning correspondence which is posted at this site but you have ignored that as well.
Your own view is to want to discuss extermination or not an d you see this as the holocaust complete
That is what the holocaust is - the allegation that 6 million Jews were shot/gassed and then burned. Holokaustos is the Greek word for a 'burnt offering' a sacrifice to the gods. So that is literally what is meant by the Holocaust regardless of what you would like it to mean
, you say that I should consider why the Jews were so hated / unpopular when i asked you to consider the issues of jews scrubbing streets , etc propaganda and " education" via books for children and films which brand jews and seek to make them so alien to the 1930's German society.
Yes, of course. If you want to undertsand why the NS had an anti-Jewish policy that is what you would have to do. What's your problem?
You see nothing wrong with this say that its not " illegal" say "Eternal jew should be made again only updated.
Once you have carried out the investigation into the Jews and their history you might end up agreeing with me, assuming, that is, you are not a Jew.
You have no notion as to the illegality and immorality of laws passed , anything can be made legal according to you and you see no problems ?
You are the one without a notion of this. You don't understand the nature of law and sovereignty and you don't understand what morality is and how it can be of no help to you here. If you think that the will of the Fuhrer is no basis for law then you are saying that all the kingdoms and principalities of the past were also evil regimes, which is ludicrous. You are so very lazy, you spit these slogans out but it is clear you have not exerted yourself in the slightest as to what any of it actually means.
So tell us; what is law? What is sovereignty? What are the limits to a ruler, and how are they to be established?
What is morality? What is the connection between morality and the state?
You want to discuss just extermination ,but ignore the proces which gave birth to it.
This is one of those "have you stopped beating your wife" type statements. If there was no extermination there was no process that gafve birth to it. There was however a policy against the Jews which sought to remove them from Europe and yes, we must look into that, why are the Jews so unpopular everywhere and in all times, so much so that the Slovaks paid the Germans to take them away!
You are fully of contridictions, porn and Jews is of more interst to you and the immorality of that ( according to you) than the immorality of laws passed by a one man legal syatem.
You have not shown a single contradiction. Just saying it does not make it so.

Reinhold,
Thank you once agin for your lecture, which I found to be most constructive and directive.
Lack of respect for accuracy , is my name Fred by any chance , did I say I was anything to do with state correctional facalitiies , did I say I was an engineer.
With regard to the gent from Du Pont, it depends what his expertice is.
As I can recall Zundel lost , which must have said enough about the evidence you are quoting and the acceptance of the evidence he put forward.

Clear cut, well its you who has a problem with fact not me , its you who wants to create a " history as I would like it to be " type of delusion.

Your point about accuracy.
"More serious than that".

I would say working people to death was quite serious in fact pretty fatal.
Can I ask you again about the term "useless eaters" , have you heard it before ?
May I also ask if you can explain what industry gives employ to children and old people as well as babies / infants ?
You have failed to mention where they went to .
The morality which brought forward the term I asked you about would not tolerate people who could not work as slaves.
I would again ask you if you ever saw any photos of inmates using the swimming pool and the recreation fields ?

I refer you to the Judge Kreyssig once again if you need any reminding of the link betwen morality and law.
I would also remind you that it is you who is ever quick to claim that " it was legal".
For a prime example of Justice in action I erfer you to the "People's Court" , a joke if ever there was.
Any tissue thin law is enough for you and the devil take the questions asked by Judge Kreyssig.

Reinhold , please spare me your lectures it may seem to endorse your own position but I am not impressed.
Reviewing all the evidence, depends what you describe as evidence, the will motive , track record all count , you discount these.
You suggest that i read about what a horrible people the jews are and then I will have some insight into the anti-semetic policies of the Hitler Goverment.
Reinhold , I think this sort of tip sort of hits your objectivity right on the head.
( Dump any ideas of your being objective or searching for the truth.)

Mountain of evidence , to date Reinhold you have not produced a mountain of evidence.
You may think you have but what you have shown has been rejected by the acid test of evidence produced at law for expert examination and interpidation .
I have since read that irving was going to produce Rudolfs report as a basis for his appeal , he dropped it .
had he been so cast iron sure as you are he would have gone ahead.
I think it is to be regretted that he did not do so.
Reinhold , if you seriously have to ask all these questions regarding the powers of a ruler etc , well its obvious that you don't understand what a dictator is and how corrupted he made the law in germany.
If you can't see this no amount of reasoning will make you see it.
Kreyssig , seems you have not learnt the name nor been able to take in what he was saying.
Spare me the lectures Reinhold and the are you an "idiot" or an "eejit" , you are making yourself look a twat.

Reinhold , contradictions , I wish Zundel or Irving had called you as an expert.
Your kidney like preformance is really quite good.

Lack of respect for accuracy , is my name Fred by any chance , did I say I was anything to do with state correctional facalitiies , did I say I was an engineer.
No, you just consistently distort what people say.
With regard to the gent from Du Pont, it depends what his expertice is.
Clearly, if he was an expert witness in a court he was adjudged competent in the matters at hand.
As I can recall Zundel lost ,
Zundel was found guilty in the 1985 trial, but the verdict was set aside by the provincial appeals court. It ruled that the judge in that trial had, among other things, given improper instructions to the jury, and had improperly excluded defense evidence. In May 1988, at the conclusion of the second Zundel trial, the jury declared him guilty. A few days later, he was sentenced to nine months imprisonment. On appeal, Canada’s Supreme Court threw out the conviction, declaring on August 27, 1992, that the archaic “false news” law under which he had been convicted was a violation of the country’s Charter of Rights.
which must have said enough about the evidence you are quoting and the acceptance of the evidence he put forward.
Says more about your gullibility and failure to know a witch hunt when you see one.
Clear cut, well its you who has a problem with fact not me , its you who wants to create a " history as I would like it to be " type of delusion.
I have a problem with demonstrable lies. When someone claims Zyklon B discharges in 3 minutes and kills hundreds of people that is a lie because we already know that it is pohysically impossible - unlkess you believe that it was a miracle.
I refer you to the Judge Kreyssig once again if you need any reminding of the link betwen morality and law.
But that is all you ever do 'refer' and make groundless assertions. I have yet to see a single argument from you about anything.
Reinhold , please spare me your lectures it may seem to endorse your own position but I am not impressed.
You will continue to receive lectures until you stop sermonising and engage in serious discussion.
Reviewing all the evidence, depends what you describe as evidence, the will motive , track record all count , you discount these.
I discount nothing as I am sick of reminding you.
You suggest that i read about what a horrible people the jews are and then I will have some insight into the anti-semetic policies of the Hitler Goverment.
I suggested that you inquire into their history in order to understand why they have been unpopular everywhere and with everyone, something I noticed you have not denied.
Reinhold , I think this sort of tip sort of hits your objectivity right on the head.
( Dump any ideas of your being objective or searching for the truth.)
No it doesn't. When I came to understand the nature of the H myth that led me to to look at the Jews in a new light. I started to study them as well. You would be right if it were the other way round.
Mountain of evidence , to date Reinhold you have not produced a mountain of evidence.
Cant' you read? I said I could but that you would just ignore it as you have everything else. Why have you ignored the Renk/Browning correspondence? Whay have you ignored the admission about Krema I?
You may think you have but what you have shown has been rejected by the acid test of evidence produced at law for expert examination and interpidation .
A law court is not a place to settle historiographical questions. Do you understand what is meant about judicial notice? WQhen a court takes judicial notice of a fact it means that the court deems such a thing to be a fact. If the court takes judicial notice of gas chambers then there is nothing you can do. This is the situation with legal actions and why the supporters of Holocostology love court rooms, although it all backfired on them in the Zundel trials when star witness to gas chambers Rudolf Vrba was exposed as a liar, and king of the holocosters Hilberg made a fool of himself.
I think it is to be regretted that he did not do so.
I agree.
if you seriously have to ask all these questions regarding the powers of a ruler etc , well its obvious that you don't understand what a dictator is and how corrupted he made the law in germany.
Evasive. You presume a lot. You simply refer to things to try and cover up for your lack of knowledge and ability to make a case.
If you can't see this no amount of reasoning will make you see it.
I see it, I doubt you can though, that is the point of the questions. In other words support your contentions for once and stop this spinelessness.
Kreyssig , seems you have not learnt the name nor been able to take in what he was saying.
Look, you will have to do better than that. These are one man's memoirs, do you have any evidence apart from that to support your assertions?

Reinhold,
Are you familiar with the word astomosis ?
You are I fear an oral , rectal example.
You may take from this what you will.
I thank you once again for your lecture which is a complete and utter waste of your time and more importantly mine.
You have introduced nothing new the former is a surgical term for the joining of two sperate areas.

Are you familiar with the word astomosis ?
You are I fear an oral , rectal example.
You may take from this what you will.
Have you been negelecting your medication again?
I thank you once again for your lecture which is a complete and utter waste of your time and more importantly mine.
Then why the hell do you keep responding? If this is a waste of time, do something else, no one is forcing you to take part.

Seems like a bad drug, after a reply to you one really has to ask was it worth ?
The insight has been the most valuable knowledge gained , but I think I told you this before.
PS Don't miss your "P.O.P.A." and stick with your own medication , you know how important it is to take it on a regular basis. :eek:

Seems like a bad drug, after a reply to you one really has to ask was it worth ?
The insight has been the most valuable knowledge gained , but I think I told you this before.
PS Don't miss your "P.O.P.A." and stick with your own medication , you know how important it is to take it on a regular basis. :eek:
Is that all you can come up with? Just simply reverse the comment? Such lack of imagination . . .

cerberus doesn't seem interested in debating the specifics of his peculiar belief in the 'holocaust'...

-k0nsl

cerberus doesn't seem interested in debating the specifics of his peculiar belief in the 'holocaust'...

-k0nsl
Because he can't. Irrational beliefs cannot stand the light of inquiry.

Reinhold " Cerberus" has had quite enough of this hogwash.
I don't hold the Holocaust as an "article of faith" and I am prepared to review reasonable factual information but I am not prepared to believe in the tooth fairy and conspiracy theories.
You may seek " truth" as much as you like but at the moment you are a victim of propaganda.
You must find someone else to talk down to and to "impress" , your "knowledge" and "insight" is simply wasted on this "eejit".

You can and have been fooled that much is patently obvious,the next time I see Edward Woodward in "The Wicker Man" I will think of you.

Attached one of the janus figures of history.
On one hand a good family man and on the other the angel of death for millions.

Reinhard Heydrich was a former naval officer who joined the SS in 1932, after his dismissal from the navy. He headed the SS Security Service ( SD ), a Nazi party intelligence agency. In 1933-1934, he became head of the political police, also known as the Gestapo and later of the criminal police, or the Kripo. He combined Gestapo and Kripo into the Security Police ( SIPO ). In 1939, Heydrich combined the SD and SIPO into the Reich Security Main Office. He organized the Einsatzgruppen which systematically murdered Jews in occupied Russia during 1941-1942. In 1941, he was asked by Goering to implement a "Final solution to the Jewish Question." During the same year, he was appointed protector of Bohemia and Moravia. In January 1942, he presided over the Wannsee Conference*, a meeting to coordinate a "Final Solution." On May 29, 1942, he was assassinated by Czech partisans who parachuted in from England.

* Wannsee Conference - ( January 20, 1942 ) Lake near Berlin where the Wannsee Conference was held to discuss and coordinate the "Final Solution." It was attended by many high-ranking Nazis, including Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichmann.

" Cerberus" has had quite enough of this hogwash.
So why do you keep posting?
I don't hold the Holocaust as an "article of faith" and I am prepared to review reasonable factual information
Pah! Nonsense, you consistently ignore all the problems with the evidence reviewed here so far. Do you still believe in Munch? Do you still believe in the Soviet commission's submissions at Nuremberg? Do you believe that Zykon B discharges within 3 minutes contrary to the laws of physics?
If you have had enough, why do you keep coming back?

http://www.rense.com/general59/hho.htm

By Jürgen Graf 11-14-4

CHAPTER IV - What If The Revisionists Are Right?

Let's just assume that the official "truth" on the Holocaust is a lie, and that the revisionists are right. The result would be a recognition that there was indeed a PERSECUTION OF JEWS under the Third Reich, but no deliberate EXTERMINATION OF JEWS; that the gas chambers and gas vans were an invention of atrocity propaganda, just like the children with their hands chopped off during the First World War; that not five to six million, but less than one million Jews died in the areas under German control; that of these Jewish victims, only a small percentage were killed, while the rest died chiefly of epidemics and deprivation in the camps and ghettos. What would be the result of this revelation? They are easy to imagine:

- a worldwide wave of anti-Jewish feeling;

- a wave of nationalism in Germany: politicians, intellectuals, historians and journalists would be held up to contempt by their own people;

- the renewed possibility of an objective, factual discussion of National Socialism. We might, as a result, even be able to borrow some of their constructive measures in dealing with the problems of unemployment, the declining birth rate, and wide-spread drug addiction;

- nationalism, in the sense of a true representation of national interests and a defence of the national identity, would regain its legitimacy. The Germans could again say, without shame, "Germany for the Germans!" The French could again say, without shame, "France for the French!". The psychological and political factors which have enabled mass invasion from the Third World, would disappear;

- the rulers and manipulators of public opinion would be discredited, not only in Germany, but throughout the West. People would ask themselves why this whole charade had to be propped up with censorship and brute force for so many decades, and in whose interests. Trust in the ruling cliques would be seriously shaken -- at a time of serious social and economic crisis to which the "democracies" have no answer.

We see that a general realization that Holocaust is a lie would have devastating implications, not only for international Jewry and the state of Israel, but for the political and intellectual ruling cliques of the entire Western world -- particularly in Germany! The result would be an re-evaluation of all values, to borrow a term from Friedrich Nietzche. Everything would be different. Everything would have to re-examined.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?

Prior to 1941: The Reichs Government demands Jewish emigration

The Jewish policies of the NSDAP, from the very outset, aimed at continually reducing Jewish influence in Germany and at encouraging as many German Jews to emigrate as possible. This initial objective was pursued from 1933 onwards by means of numerous laws and decrees which limited the number of Jews among lawyers, doctors, etc. by means of quotas, and which restricted the economic and political rights of the Jews. This continued, until at least 1938, practically without violence; until the Night of Broken Glass (1), not one Jew was ever sent to a camp just for being a Jew. If Jews were sent to camps, it was for militant anti-governmental political activity or for common crime (2).

To encourage Jewish emigration, the National Socialists worked closely with Zionist organizations, which were interested in encouraging the emigration to Palestine of as many Jews as possible. This National Socialist-Zionist cooperation has been fully documented by several authors (3), and to our knowledge is not disputed by anyone.

Since the British mandate over Palestine effectively prevented Jewish immigration of Jews to that country, Jewish emigration took place very slowly; the majority of German Jews preferred other immigration countries, particularly the USA. But the USA also placed obstacles in the path of Jewish immigration (4).

By 1941, however, the great majority of German and Austrian Jews had gone into exile.

After 1941: Mass deportation to camps and ghettos

In 1941, Jewish emigration was officially prohibited. This prohibition was not, however, consistently implemented in practice. The deportation of Jews to work camps and ghettos began in 1941. This occurred for two reasons in particular: first, the Germans needed their labour, since a majority of German men were at the front. Secondly, the Jews indisputably represented a security risk. The Jew Arno Lustiger, a former resistance fighter and survivor of several camps, has proudly boasted that Jews represented 15% of all active resistance, yet the percentage of Jews in the French population at that time was no more than 1%. The Communist "Red Orchestra" espionage organization, which did caused Germany enormous harm, was made up mostly of Jews (6).

Other states have interned suspicious minorities with far less justification: thus, in the USA, all persons of Japanese ancestry, even those with American passports, were interned in camps (7). This was done even though there was never a single case of espionage or subversion by Japanese-Americans, as admitted by Ronald Reagan decades later.

The Jews in individual German-ruled countries suffered from the deportation to a widely varying extent. Disproportionately hard-hit were the Dutch Jews, of whom more than two thirds were deported. On the other hand, according to Serge Klarsfeld, only 75,721 Jews were deported from France. This corresponds to approximately one fifth of the total Jewish population at that time (8); of these, a great many were deported, not on the grounds of their religion or race, but for being resistance fighters or criminals. This often led to deportation for non-Jews as well.

The death rate in the camps and its causes

The death rate in the camps was extremely high most of the time. A majority of these fatalities were due to disease. The most dangerous of these was epidemic typhus, a disease carried by lice. The insecticide Zyklon B, together with other products, was used to combat lice.

In Auschwitz, the largest concentration camp -- the term "extermination camp" is not the correct expression -- epidemic typhus was especially dangerous in late summer and autumn. The epidemic reached its climax between 7-11 September 1942, with an average of 375 inmate deaths a day. By the first half of January 1943, the Germans succeeded in reducing the death rate to 107 a day; but by mid-May, it rose again to 298 fatalities a day (9).

In the Western camps, the worst period was during the final phase of the war, when mass deaths from epidemic disease claimed tens of thousands of victims. At the same time, the German infrastructure totally collapsed as a result of Allied terror bombing, leading to shortages in the camps of medications, food, housing, and everything else. In his memoires, Chuck Yeager, the first pilot to break the sound barrier, describes how his squadron had orders to shoot at everything that moved (10):

"Germany could not so easily be divided into innocent civilians and guilty soldiers. After all, the farmer on his potato patch was feeding German soldiers."

This means that the resulting starvation was deliberately created by the Allies through their cruel and illegal mass terror bombings; these same Allies then hypocritically set themselves up as judges over the defeated enemy for failing to supply enough food to concentration camp inmates!

Particularly horrible conditions, including thousands of unburied bodies and living skeletons, were found in April 1945 by the British at Bergen-Belsen. These photographs are kept constantly before the public eye in ceaseless propaganda campaigns to this very today. What are the facts?

Belsen Camp commander Josef Kramer repeatedly and vehemently protested to his superiors that new inmates were constantly being sent to the hopelessly overcrowded camp of Belsen; his protests went unheard. Instead of simply abandoning the inmates in the Eastern camps to the Soviets, the National Socialists evacuated them to the West and allocated them among the Western camps to prevent their manpower from falling into the hands of the Soviets. Since the railways had been almost entirely destroyed, the evacuation process often lasted weeks; many inmates died en route from the bitter cold winter weather. In the camps which were compelled to receive the remainder, conditions worsened by the day.

Kramer's protests went unheard. In Belsen, typhus and dysentery spread everywhere, and food shortages became acute.

What should Kramer have done? Release the inmates to spread epidemics among the civilian population? Who would have fed them then if he had? Should he have released dangerous criminals -- who were imprisoned together with other inmates interned for political and racial reasons -- to prey upon the population? Kramer decided to wait it out. He could have attempted to escape to South American with money stolen from the prisoners, but he trusted to British "fair play". He was to pay dearly for his naivete. Branded as "The Beast of Belsen" in the Allied press, he was executed after a legal farce (11).

Disproportionately great numbers of victims died in the last months of the war in the other camps as well. At Dachau, a total of 15,389 people died between January and April 1945, i.e., more deaths in 3 months than in 5 years of war -- 12,060 inmate deaths from 1940 to 1944. Another 2,000 died even after the liberation of Dachau by the Americans (12).

Since the Holocaust, i.e., the planned extermination of the Jews, is supposed to have stopped in the autumn of 1944 (13), the mass deaths in the camps in 1945 prove nothing with regards to any "mass extermination". The mass deaths depicted in photographs were the tragic, but inevitable, result of the German collapse, and had nothing to do with any planned genocide -- quite in contrast to the Allied bombing war against the German (and Japanese) civilian population. The destruction of one small city like Pforzheim alone, shortly before the end of the war, caused 17,000 deaths (14). More people died in Pforzheim in one February evening in 1945 -- most of them burnt alive -- than in Dachau in 9 years, from late 1933 to late 1944.

Of course, Jews died outside the concentration camps as well. According to one Jewish source, a total of 43,411 people died in the ghetto of Lodz between the autumn of 1939 and the autumn of 1944. There were 26,950 recorded fatalities in the Warsaw ghetto even before the outbreak of the uprising (spring 1943) (15). Some of these people, of course, would have died of natural causes (for example, old age) in any case. Other Jews died in combat or during the evacuation.

Mass shootings on the Eastern front

Finally, it would never occur to any revisionist to dispute that many Jews were shot on the Eastern front. But what exactly is meant by the word "many"? 20,000? 50,000? 100,000?. We do not know, due to the absence of reliable source material. (The Einsatzgruppen reports, which are supposed to prove that millions of murders were committed on the Eastern front, will be discussed below.) These shootings were the inevitable reaction to the murderous, illegal partisan war unleashed by the Soviets behind the German lines. The Germans reacted exactly like the French in Algeria, the Americans in Viet Nam, and the Soviets in Afghanistan: with ruthless brutality, causing many deaths among the civilian population. Of course, partisans were executed (which is permitted by international law); of course, there were also frequent shootings of hostages, involving many more Jews than non-Jews. Many other Jews were killed as "suspected Bolsheviks", even if they were neither partisans nor hostages -- exactly as the Americans, decades later, bombarded "Viet-Cong suspected zones" with napalm, slaughtering innumerable harmless civilians with bestial cruelty in the process.

In the USSR as elsewhere, the Jewish percentage of armed partisans far exceeded their percentage share of the population; this fact is stressed with pride in Jewish literature (16). The reason why Jews in the German occupied areas of the Soviet Union suffered so many deaths was partisan warfare, not racial murder.

To sum up: Jews did indeed suffer severely during the Second World War and did indeed endure heavy losses. But people suffer and die in every war. The 250,000 people burnt alive or crushed under the rubble of Dresden in a single night suffered too; so did the hundreds of thousands of starving Russians in Stalingrad, or the 180,000 Poles who died in the crushing of the uprising of the Warsaw ghetto. Concentration camp inmates were not the only people who suffered; German and Russian soldiers at the front suffered, too.

Is Jewish suffering during WWII "unique"? Are the percentage losses of the Jews far higher than those of the other peoples especially hard hit by the war? In order to answer these questions, we must now turn to the proof for the alleged "Holocaust". ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:

1) On the Night of Broken Glass, see, as standard work of the orthodox historiography, H. Graml's Der 9 November 1938. 'Reichskristallnacht', Bonn, 1958, and as the revisionist depiction, see Ingrid Weckert's Feuerzeichen (Grabert, 1981).

2) That no Jew was deported to a concentration camp during the early years of the NS regime, is confirmed by an unimpeachable source, namely the Jewish professor Arno Mayer (Der Krieg as Kreuzzug, Rowohlt, 1989, p. 200).

3) The two standard works on the National Socialist-Zionist cooperation are Edwin Black's The Transfer Argreement (New York/London, 1994), as well as Francis Nicosias' Hitler und der Zionismus (Druffel, Leoni, 1989). A short summary of the imprortant factors is given by Ingrid Weckert in Auswanderung der Juden aus dem Dritten Reich (Nordwind Verlag, Molevej 12, Kollund/DK). Heinz Hoehne also discusses the topic in his standard work on the SS (Der Orden unter dem Totenkopf, Gondrom, 1990).

4) In this regard, compare Ingrid Weckert, Auswanderung... (see note 3).

5) Spiegel, no. 7/1993.

6) On the "Red Orchestra", see for example, Gerd Sudholt, Das Geheimnis der Roten Kapelle, Druffel, Leoni, 1979.

7) Historische Tatsachen, no. 41.

8) Serge Klarsfeld, Le Memorial de la Deportation des Juifs de France, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, Brussels/New York, 1982.

9) On the mortality figures in Auschwitz, see Jean-Claude Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz, Piper, 1994, p. 193.

10) Chuck Yeager, Yeager: An Autobiography, Bantam Books, New York, 1985, p. 79.

11) On Bergen-Belsen and Josef Kramer, see Journal of Historical Review, Post Office Box 2739, New Port Beach, CA, USA, spring 1995, as well as Robert Lenski, Der Holocaust vor Gericht, Samisdat Publishers, 206 Carlton Street, Toronto, Canada, 1993, p. 197, ff.

12) On the Dachau mortality statistics, see Paul Berben, Dachau, The Official History, The Norfolk Press, London, 1975.

13) According to the Enzyklopaedie des Holocaust (p. 118), the gassings at Auschwitz were stopped in October 1944.

14) Erich Kern, Verbrechen am deutschen Volk, K.W. Schuetz, 1983, p 150/151.

15) Historische Tatsachen, no. 36.

16) Compare the description in the Enzyklopaedie des Holocaust, p. 1584 ff.

http://www.ety.com/HRP/booksonline/graf/chap1.htm

This man is surely only playing at being dead.

This man is surely only playing at being dead.
Now cerberus, what point, if any, are you trying to make with this picture?
I thought you had had enough of this? Why are you here?

Reinhold having read your reply to the question of anti-semetism / racial issues I am really surprised by your answer . :rolleyes:
You are from your post one who has no time for the jews , ie you appear to be anti-semetic .( You see Jews as being "Vampires" who feed off others , "Vampires cannot feed off themselves" along with other quite harsh views on the Jewish race.

You post here saying that all you want is a balanced view of the Holocaust fair and objective , hogwash.
How can you even pretend to give this when you hold such prejudiced views ?
Reinhold you preach at me saying that i unquestioningly am stupid enough to take the " estiblishment line" as an "article of faith" , that I can't look at " evidence" , that I "don't want to know about" etc , " run away from" etc , etc , etc.
Reinhold , time for you to face fact , given your anti-semetic views as expressed in another thread , its impossible for you to view the Holocaust in an objective or critical manner.
Its actually you who has as an "article of faith" eg " this did not happen".
Given the words of your own mouth it is impossible for you to deliver a fair and untarnished view of the past.
" Why do I "misrepresent you" , you do it yourself with little encouragement.

Pot to kettle "Are you black or is it just me "

Why do I come back , purely for the entertainment value of your "holier than thou" misrepresentation of your neutral and even handed approach to the Holocaust.
My primary diagnosis stands .

Reinhold having read your reply to the question of anti-semetism / racial issues I am really surprised by your answer . :rolleyes:
You are from your post one who has no time for the jews , ie you appear to be anti-semetic .( You see Jews as being "Vampires" who feed off others , "Vampires cannot feed off themselves" along with other quite harsh views on the Jewish race.
Why don't you put this reply to that thread?
You post here saying that all you want is a balanced view of the Holocaust fair and objective , hogwash.
I have told you a number of times already that exploding the Holocaust myth opened my eyes to the nature of the Jews - I was reasonably well-disposed to them as a people before that. I am still well-disposed towards some of them as individuals, but Talmudic Judasim preaches hatred against non-Jews and places us in a state of enmity on that account.

Btw, you still haven't answered the question; what point are you trying to make in posting that last pic?

Btw Did you read the caption under the photograph , or do I need to spell it out ?
The caption was lifted with the photograph but I think it says enough.
You will note that the wording does not say "Germans" when referring to the responsibility , it mentions Nazis , I read this as being Hitler goverment and its component parts.

You say I am "Anti- German" , you must divorce Hitler et al. from the German people to understand this.
Reinhold , your explaination of your opinion of the Jews is a rationalisation of your anti-semetic views , to any reasonable examination it does not hold water.
Quoting Jewish scripture and applying it via what you percieve and want history to be is a poor explaination at best.
If we were to look back into the past of Christianity and seek reasons to hate Christians my God there would be plenty.
This reference to scripture is really feeble
You are placing the egg before the chicken.
Egg to chicken , "How the hell did you get here".

Btw Did you read the caption under the photograph , or do I need to spell it out ?
LOL! We have been over the question of captioning of photos already. Captions are written by someone not by the photo. The photo shows a man holding onto barbed wire, possibly dead, its not clear - we know nothing about the circusmtances of this, we don't know who he is etc etc. Do we have to go through this yet again? I could post a picture of dead Germans and caption it as follows "Victims of American atrocities; innocent German civilians slaughtered by US troops" and by your logic that would then prove that these people were killed by US troops"!!
I thought you said you had had enough? Why are you still here?
Reinhold , your explaination of your opinion of the Jews is a rationalisation of your anti-semetic views , to any reasonable examination it does not hold water.
Do you understand even the most simple thing about causality? When you discover that something is a lie and moreover that lie has been used to justify brutal colonialism as well as massive moral blackmail and financial fraud, it does not leave you with a very good opinion of the people doing it. This is compounded when you start to look closely at them and their history.
Quoting Jewish scripture and applying it via what you percieve and want history to be is a poor explaination at best.
If we were to look back into the past of Christianity and seek reasons to hate Christians my God there would be plenty.
There are two distortions here. You are mistaking the professed beliefs of Christians with their actions. There is nothing in their gospels to support their bad behaviour, when they behave badly they are being unchristian.
With the Jews the situation is different - their scriptures and especially the Talmud actually enjoins them to hatred and wickedness against non-Jews.
This reference to scripture is really feeble
You are feeble, feeble-minded.
I thought you said you had had enough, why are you still here?

I most certainly am Reinhold , your ability to lecture , and talk down are most entertaining, actually its quite funny from this end. :D ( And you this is on the basis of "faith" alone , nothing which stands up to serious examination eiter by historians , the legal system , or the scientific community).
Before you embark on another cirus about the law and history , remeber that Zundel paraded all the "Revisionist" "Big Guns" out to back him up and still lost , all the way down the line , even on retrial and on appeal and like Irving was told you have no further grounds to appeal again.
Going back to IHR.
Have you ever heard the name Mel Mermelstein ?
Well you probably won't hear Mark Weber mention him to often.
IHR have 90, 000 reasons not to mention him all have a $ (U.S) mark on them .
It appears that the IHR put $50,000 on the line and said that they would pay up this amount to anyone who could provide proof that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz and that they had lost a family member via the said gasing.
Well guess what Reinhold , Mel Mermelstein came forward and provided the proof.
Well guess what Reinhold , the IHR refused to pay.
Well guess what Reinhold , Mel Mermelstein was more than annoyed.
Well guess what Reinhold , Mel took them to law on the matter.
Well guess what Reinhold , the IHR lost .
Well guess what Reinhold , the IHR to pay Mel Mermelstein $50,000.
Well guess what Reinhold , the IHR had to pay him $40,000 damages.
Well guess what Reinhold , to my simple mind that makes a total of $90,000.

Now Reinhold to recap Mel Mermelstein had to prove that gassing took place , he also had to prove that he had a relative killed by gassing at a Nazi run extermination camp known as Auschwitz -Birkenau.
He was able to do both , therefor the IHR which had refused to pay , as they said they would had to pay up a total of $90,000.
How come IHR could not given all thier evidence and proof could not refute the evidence and experts of one Jewish surivor of the Holocaust / "Holohoax" ?

How come photos can't write ?
So you say what ?
Go back to that barn I mentioned Reinhold , you remember the one ?
The one in which over 1,000 Poles and Russians were killed and burnt ?
The one in which you said " well they don't look as if they had been burnt alive" ?
That is the point you are trying to make , you tried and failed then and are playing the same game again, gues what Reinhold just like IHR !


Seems that the Judge in the Irving trial took irving to task saying that aanyone who went to trial depending of Fred Leutchers report as the basis of proof was very unwise ?
I think Reinhold you might find that this is why he did not include Rudolf in his evidence for an appeal .
Now Reinhold work it out for yourself and think again about " articles of faith", the cost of an article of faith can be anything from $90,000 to over £1.5 million pounds sterling.
WOnder why the gent with the $300,000 for anyone who could refute the aerial photos theory put such restrictions in the small print to the fact that only he could ecide who might be an expert ?
Seems some people can't trust their articles of faith to expert examination.
Are some articles of faith little more than idols to be worshiped and sustained in the face of what serious historians see no need to question ?
"LOL" all you want Reinhold , its a hollow "L".

Have you ever heard the name Mel Mermelstein ?
Well you probably won't hear Mark Weber mention him to often.
Idiot! There is a book about this for your education;
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres3/pipermel.pdf

Also, why are you still here, I thought you said you had had it up to your ears?

Reinhold,
$90,000 buys a lot of books but quite often you know the quality of a potential purchase by the publishing house which did the printing.
I know BS when I see , hear and smell it .
I like the "Idiot" , you sound just like "Rene" when "Edith" finds him red handed with his arms around "Meme La bonk".
Told you Reinhold reading your posts , a laugh a minute , hard to ignore . :rolleyes:
Remember the names Reinhold , Kreyssig , Mermelstein and the sum $90,000.
What was the name of the pastor who protested against T4 , he caused quite a sink from what I recall ?
Go on Reinhold , remind an "idiot" , from your vast depth of knowledge and experience . :rolleyes:

Reinhold,
$90,000 buys a lot of books but quite often you know the quality of a potential purchase by the publishing house which did the printing.
I know BS when I see , hear and smell it.

Yet you Believe in the silly 'holocaust'. Maybe you are, as Reinhold said, feeble-minded?

-k0nsl

Well tell me k0nsl , what type of triangle or Star would you put on my uniform ?

Can I give you a name as well , Manfred Bernhardt .
Manfred was just one of the children judged to be a "useless eater" ( feeble minded ) who died in the T4 .

I did look at the link Reinhold provided but it produces little apart from propaganda and excuse which you would have to be feeble minded to swallow.
eg. The bombing destroying everything from sewage treatments to anything that moved. (The side swipe at the Allied bombing shows a crude inability at best to nail the colours to the mast. Not very impressive , even to this "idiot" :rolleyes: ).
I would question this when German industry was still producing an amazing out put of fighters and tanks and that on the slipways shipyards in Northern Germany the XXI U-boat production was still in hand even at the end of the war ?
Something of a contridiction as we see no evidence in Berlin of starving people only in the likes of Belsen.
The armed services didn't actually find themselves short of material , only the fuel to run them and the experienced soldiers to use them.
Perhaps I am an "idiot" but BS is obvious yet Reinhold does produce answers which are an "article of faith".

You say
Told you Reinhold reading your posts , a laugh a minute , hard to ignore . :rolleyes:
but earlier you said,
Cerberus" has had quite enough of this hogwash
and
I doubt that it is , so much has been posted up in the past and from fade's openning post I think he has had about enough of it as well.[my emphasis]
that is,
its pretty obvious that he has had it up to the neck with this subject.
So, when were you lying? When you said you had had enough or when you said this was entertaining you?

Have you ever heard the name Mel Mermelstein ?

Well you probably won't hear Mark Weber mention him to often.
IHR have 90, 000 reasons not to mention him all have a $ (U.S) mark on them .
It appears that the IHR put $50,000 on the line and said that they would pay up this amount to anyone who could provide proof that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz and that they had lost a family member via the said gasing.
Well guess what Reinhold , Mel Mermelstein came forward and provided the proof.
Well guess what Reinhold , the IHR refused to pay.
Well guess what Reinhold , Mel Mermelstein was more than annoyed.
Well guess what Reinhold , Mel took them to law on the matter.
Well guess what Reinhold , the IHR lost .
Well guess what Reinhold , the IHR to pay Mel Mermelstein $50,000.
Well guess what Reinhold , the IHR had to pay him $40,000 damages.
Well guess what Reinhold , to my simple mind that makes a total of $90,000.

Mermelstein proved nothing, the judge took 'judicial notice'; meaning the judge prevented a weighing of the evidence against the alleged 'gas chambers' and forced unsubstantiated propaganda upon the court. No proof came forward in that case to support the alleged gas chambers and evidence against the 'gas chambers' was censored by the judge.

Ultimately the case was dumped by the Los Angeles Superior Court and then by the California Court of Appeal.
see:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p25_Okeefe.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n1p-7_Mermelstein.html

Rather like the sham trials of Nuremberg, where no forensic study was ever presented to prove bizarre allegations of cyanide and diesel gas chambers.
However, the communist Soviets did present a laughable, detailed study on 'steam chambers'.

It is these lying 'eyewitnesses' that the 'holocau$t' scam relies upon. Unfortunately for The Believers, Revisionists research what these shysters actually say. The more you look the worse it gets for the pathetic story, hence the intimidation and jail sentences of anyone who scrutinizes the specifics.

Which meant that the court thought it would be a waste of time to go through the hoops to arrive at what they already knew was sound solid fact.
If this gent took a case for $11,000,000 well I would agree with you he would have been wrong to do so.
If he could sustain that he had a relative gassed at Auschwitz , he should get his $90,000.
You are saying he didn't get it ?
Now IHr seemed pretty happy with the result , yet when other results like Zundel and irving are mentioned , well its sour grapes on anything that ever reached a court room.
As far as proving that Auschwitz never was a centre for extermination , IHR have no ability for proving this , read David Irving and his non production of Rudolf, also see Judge Grey's summing up.

As far as daft ideation goes , I refer you back to the bombing issue.

Which meant that the court thought it would be a waste of time to go through the hoops to arrive at what they already knew was sound solid fact.
Question begging. What is the point of trying to prove or disprove something if you are told in advance that what you are trying to prove/disprove is in fact, a fact/non-fact, merely on the basis that a corrupt or fearful judge without any knowledge of the field, says so?
I'm sure a great moralist like you sees nothing wrong with this kind of travesty.
---
Think about the implications of this while you are at it;
Article 19 of the Nuremberg Charter
"The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value."

Which meant that the court thought it would be a waste of time to go through the hoops to arrive at what they already knew was sound solid fact.


Perhaps cerberus would care to present evidence for these alleged 'gas chambers' which 'they already knew was sound solid fact'?

-k0nsl

Seeing as we are now talking about the value of trials, look at this. The Nuremberg findings and verdicts are to be regrded as indisputable by German courts which makes them extensions of the original kangaroo court.

Anyone approaching the subject of holocaust revisionism needs to study the sources for the claims made, the Nuremberg proceedings and the lesser trials by the allies but also one needs to look at the nature of the contemporary German state and how it came about. In particular one needs to understand why it is effectively impossible to mount a proper defence if you are charged with NS period crimes as well as it being impossible to inquire and discuss freely and properly the facts of the holocaust story.

What follows below was originally posted at the Revisionist Forum by ClaudiaRothenbach and it shows how the German state and every German court is bound by allied imposed laws to accept as incontestable fact all the findings and judgements of the allied trials in the post-1945 period.

This means that even with the best will in the world, no German court could accept a defence which contests the factuality of any of the bizarre and impossible claims made at Nuremberg. If a chemistry expert comes forward to testify as to the impossibility of the gassing stories as they stand, not only will his evidence be rejected but he too will face criminal prosecution. This is precisely the situation of research chemist Germar Rudolf who now lives in exile. Many others who challenge the holocaust story are either in jail or living in exile.
(see the post by ClaudiaRothenbach and Fugazi’s translation at the Revisionist Forum http://www.yourforum.org/revforum/viewtopic.php?t=1235&highlight=germany )

Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof
June 2003

Contracts on the binding nature of the judgements of the Nuremberg Trials

"Contract on the settling of questions arising from the war and occupation as at 26 May 1952"

So-called "Handover contract"

Article 7

(1) All judgements and decisions in criminal cases already made or made in future by a court of the 3 Powers or of one of those powers, remain in every respect in force according to German law and are to be treated accordingly by German courts and government departments. (End Article 7(1))

Source: Federal Law Publication Part II (International Contracts) 1955, Nr. 8, Bonn, 31. March 1955, "Contract on the settling of questions arising from the war and occupation", First Part including Article 7 (page 413)


Explanation:

The judgements of the International Military Tribunals of the victorious powers in Nuremberg in the so-called Nuremberg Trials are judgements and decisions in the sense of Article 7(1) above.

German culture ministries and subordinate positions are government departments in the sense of Article 7(1) above. They provide the acceptable guidelines for teaching at universities and schools and issue permits for the resources used in teaching, including school history books.

The International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg was, according to Article 19 of its statutes, not bound by the rules of evidence. According to Article 20 of the same statutes, the Tribunal could decide whether evidence was admissable or not. In this way, evidence brought by the defence was often not considered in the judgement statements of the Tribunal.

The judgement statements of the Nuremberg Tribunal include representations of events regarding the causes of the Second World War and the behaviour of the German armed forces in the Second World War. These representations of events are part of the judgements. According to Article 7(1) they are not open to dispute by German courts and government departments, even by the presentation of new evidence. The culture ministries are also bound by this article, with reference to the school book contents.

This legal situation was confirmed again in 1990 and extended to cover the new German states (former east Germany). In connection with the 2-plus-4 contract of 1990, the following agreement was made between the Federal Republic of Germany and the 3 powers on the 27th/28th of September 1990:

"Agreement of 27/28. 9. 1990"

1. (Complete suspension of the so-called Germany Contract)

2. (Part suspension of the so-called Handover Contract)

3. However, the following conditions of the Handover Contract remain in force: First Part: (Single clauses from Articles 1 through 5) Article 7 Clause 1.

Source: Federal Law Publication II page 1386.

Explanation: Because the validity of Article 7(1) of the Handover Contract is maintained in the Agreement in Connection with the 2-plus-4 Contract, the judgements and decisions of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, including the findings regarding prewar and wartime history, remain binding for the German authorities.

This subject is included among other subjects in the following books:

German Naval Rearmament in the Years from the Treaty of Versailles to the Beginning of the Second World War, and its Representation and Treatment in the Nuremberg Trial of 1945/6, Carl Dreessen, Verlag E. S. Mittler, Hamburg 2000 (page 293)

1939, The War with Many Fathers: the Long Run-up to the Second World War, Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof, OLZOG-Verlag, Munich 2003 (page 12F)

Talking about Nuremberg Trials, Let's not forget that the Soviets submitted a detailed report about the Katyn forest [which was the scene of the murder of thousands of Polish officers], putting blame on the Germans (!).

There were 'documents', 'eyewitnesses, 'confessions', executions of Germans; everything.

But in 1989 the communist Soviet government finally admitted responsibility. So much for the Nuremberg 'Trials'.

-k0nsl

Talking about Nuremberg Trials, Let's not forget that the Soviets submitted a detailed report about the Katyn forest [which was the scene of the murder of thousands of Polish officers], putting blame on the Germans (!).

There were 'documents', 'eyewitnesses, 'confessions', executions of Germans; everything.

But in 1989 the communist Soviet government finally admitted responsibility. So much for the Nuremberg 'Trials'.

-k0nsl
Yes, quite - and the authors of that Soviet report on Katyn were none other than the authors of their Auschwitz report!
In a proper court, when evidence from a source is found to be false, all their testimony is dumped and they are charged with perjury.

Yes, quite - and the authors of that Soviet report on Katyn were none other than the authors of their Auschwitz report!

Correct. Here is a small comparison between Katyn and Auschwitz:

Katyn:
Russian prosecutors submitted their 'Soviet Katyn War-Crimes Report' (Document USSR-54) written by Burenko, Tolstoi, and Nikolai, with excerpts of written statements from over 100 "eye-witnesses" who said the Germans murdered 11,000 Polish officers in the Katyn forest in Autumn, 1941. It also had results of the October, 1944 Soviet Katyn investigation with 8 receipts dated 1941 supposedly found on the corpses.

Auschwitz:
Russian prosecutors submitted their 'Soviet Auschwitz War-Crimes Report' (Document USSR-8) written by Burenko and Nikolai who also wrote the Katyn report, and a third man Lyssenko. It had excerpts from written statements of dozens of "eye-witnesses" who described sadistic medical experiments, torture, gassings and other murders. 10,000 were said to have been gassed and cremated daily for a total of 4 million.

Katyn:
U.S. and British prosecutors had the lengthy German 1943 forensic report with irrefutable proof Soviets murdered the officers in April 1940, so they recognized the Soviet 1944 and 1946 reports were both frauds. Prosecutors did not discuss this decision in court but dropped the charges, for if they admitted the Germans were innocent it would have meant the Soviets were guilty.

Auschwitz:
U.S. and British prosecutors did not order forensic experts to visit Auschwitz and prepare a report, which they could have done, and German defenders were prevented from sending their own forensic team to Auschwitz as it was in the Soviet zone. The Soviet charges were therefore adopted without the Germans being able to properly defend themselves.

Katyn:
Document USSR-54 is a fraud as admitted by the Russians. In 1992 the Soviets released a letter dated March 5th, 1940 from Security Chief Laventi Beria and signed by Stalin, Molotov, Voroshilov, and Mikoyan ordering the execution of 25,700 Polish army officers, policemen, landowners, priests, state officials, and other community leaders as "potential threats to the future Soviet-Polish state". A 1959 Russian police report stated that 21,857, or 85%, were executed in 1940.

Auschwitz:
The Katyn and Auschwitz reports were both written by the same 2 men using excerpts from supposed "eye-witness" descriptions. In 1946 German forensic studies showed the Katyn report was a fraud. And 50 years later in the 1990's study by researchers and scientists have proved what the Germans were prevented from proving in 1946, that the Auschwitz report is also a fraud as it would have been impossible for inmates to have been murdered and cremated as described in Document USSR-8.

References:
Katyn Document USSR-54: http://www.codoh.com/trials/trikatyn.html (unavailable now, it seems.)
Auschwitz Document USSR-8: http://www.codoh.com/trials/triussr8.html (also unavailable)

-k0nsl

I think you will find that the british and the Poles knew who did what to whom in Katyn before the end of the war.
Yes , the Soviets had everything to gain from passing it off as a Nazi crime.
if it was such a kangaroo court as you say it would have been passed as such.
Auschwitz , of cousre there was never any gas chambers there and nothing illegal took place , everybody knows that. :rolleyes:
Even the children and elderly got jobs working for benevolent industrial companies who were good enough to set up shop next to the camps , a form of industrial therapy for the prisoners , allowing them to work , and to feel valuable.
I think this form of rehabilation was certainly a major step forward as it helped in the social reintergration of Jews as valuable members of society in the new order , it would have helped their self esteem to no ends.
Another example of the ground breaking health and social reforms of the German Goverment as run by Hilter "Hitler - The man we loved and why". :rolleyes:
Now if the S.S. had not killed the mentally ill it would certainly have put them well on the way to a major international health care prize.

Well I will leave you senior members of the "Hitlerjugend" to your mutual pleasures and folly a deu.
( Think I got that right , no doubt Reinhold will be able to let me know otherwise :rolleyes: )

I think you will find that the british and the Poles knew who did what to whom in Katyn before the end of the war.
Yes , the Soviets had everything to gain from passing it off as a Nazi crime.
if it was such a kangaroo court as you say it would have been passed as such.
What would you call a court that is not bound by any rules of evidence?
Even kangaroo courst have to retain some level of credibility with the public - everyone knew about Katyn so if they accepted that it would have undermined the credibility of the whole thing in the eyes of all observers. Surely even you can grasp that.

The Holohoax is used for the Jews greed and I am sick of seeing in the news of their complaining and still getting every memorial possible before every jew from that era is dead. We do not see memorials for all every army existing or every mass death that has occured in history for any type of person. The Jews on the other hand. . . I am not a revisionist really. God payed the Jews back for being greedful and stingy to the European people.If the Holocaust did happen 6 million did not die. That is rounded to the nearest millionth Jew. C'Mon Now!!! The Germans got God's will. I have sinned for saying this(by using God's name), but I believe that is true.

The Holohoax is used for the Jews greed and I am sick of seeing in the news of their complaining and still getting every memorial possible before every jew from that era is dead. We do not see memorials for all every army existing or every mass death that has occured in history for any type of person. The Jews on the other hand. . . I am not a revisionist really. God payed the Jews back for being greedful and stingy to the European people.If the Holocaust did happen 6 million did not die. That is rounded to the nearest millionth Jew. C'Mon Now!!! The Germans got God's will. I have sinned for saying this(by using God's name), but I believe that is true.
Maybe you would like it to be true?
I can assure you though, if you look at the evidence you will see that it is a tapestry of lies. You use the word holohoax yourself!

Lets try the "People's court" a shining lie if ever there was .
One plea , and usual punishment was death .

Maybe you would like it to be true?
I can assure you though, if you look at the evidence you will see that it is a tapestry of lies. You use the word holohoax yourself!

I never have examined your quotes before or never seen any Jewish revised quotes before and I just looked at yours as I read that lol. Yes, I am a revisionist(so I take that back) and if it was "real" I was saying the numbers rounded are totally unbelieveable for someone to believe a flat out 6 million. There are no Irish famine memorials are there. It is a shame isn't it. How about Catholic-Protestant War memorials. Are there those. I am sure Irish citizens do not beg for those. Jews do not stop. You have Simon The Weasel thal,The ADL,etc.

I think you will find that the british and the Poles knew who did what to whom in Katyn before the end of the war.
Yes , the Soviets had everything to gain from passing it off as a Nazi crime.
if it was such a kangaroo court as you say it would have been passed as such.
Auschwitz , of cousre there was never any gas chambers there and nothing illegal took place , everybody knows that. :rolleyes:
Even the children and elderly got jobs working for benevolent industrial companies who were good enough to set up shop next to the camps , a form of industrial therapy for the prisoners , allowing them to work , and to feel valuable.
I think this form of rehabilation was certainly a major step forward as it helped in the social reintergration of Jews as valuable members of society in the new order , it would have helped their self esteem to no ends.
Another example of the ground breaking health and social reforms of the German Goverment as run by Hilter "Hitler - The man we loved and why". :rolleyes:
Now if the S.S. had not killed the mentally ill it would certainly have put them well on the way to a major international health care prize.

Well I will leave you senior members of the "Hitlerjugend" to your mutual pleasures and folly a deu.
( Think I got that right , no doubt Reinhold will be able to let me know otherwise :rolleyes: )

Why are you so obsessed with euthanasia? Legal euthanasia/mercy killings occur in many countries, to this very day.

-k0nsl

There are no Irish famine memorials are there. It is a shame isn't it.

In NYC, the Irish Famine Memorial is about 300 yards from the Holocaust memorial.

http://www.batteryparkcity.org/ihm.htm

In NYC, the Irish Famine Memorial is about 300 yards from the Holocaust memorial.

http://www.batteryparkcity.org/ihm.htm

Ahh, that is awesome. I never knew. The sad thing is NYC slaves to the Jews more than anything. They have considered a Half Jew memorial there. The Irish are not complaining for more Irish famine memorials either. I think they are building a Half Jew memorial. There is a website as well, but I forgot the address for it. Bloomberg is behind it all. :jew: :mad:

k0nsl,
You miss the point. These people were not terminally ill, there was no physical sufferring involved.
I explored "euthanasia" and the related ethical issues with a colleague who works in the Netherlands , there is absolutely no way that their own ethics are compromised and there is no parrallel in this wide world which can be drawn to T4 .
I am not obessed with T4 , it was to all intents and purposes the start of removing the less than perfect from German society and was a sign post to what was possible and what did take place.
It was murder and it was with the consent and full knowledge of the Fuhrer who in allowing and encouraging this first broke his oath of office and became a murderer of the most vunerable memebers of German society.
This is my issue , the total illegality of it all and the bankrupt morality which made this "legal" that which is used to hide behind , " It was legal" so how can it be a crime ?
Remember Hitler knew , he ordered , he consented , he allowed , he concealed and he was guilty of murder.
He may not have done the act in person but he is as guilty as sin.
The sign post to the future was cemented at this point in time.
Kreyssig. Remember the name and remeber the reply I quoted from the reichs Minister of Justice , perhaps Reinhold will supply the name of the cleric who was so vocal in applying pressure tomhave these killing stopped ?
Kidney function good ?

k0nsl,
You miss the point. These people were not terminally ill, there was no physical sufferring involved.


If you say so.

-k0nsl

k0nsl,
I don't "say so" , it "is so" and "was so".

k0nsl,
I don't "say so" , it "is so" and "was so".

Just like 'the holocaust', too. Right? With it's preposterous assertions which doesn't stand up against critical scrutiny.

-k0nsl

Just like 'the holocaust', too. Right? With it's preposterous assertions which doesn't stand up against critical scrutiny.

-k0nsl
He never supplies evidence for any of his assertions - unless you count the memoirs of some judge - and never provides arguments. He posts and runs on to the next piece of nonsense.

Reinhold,
I refer you again to "Euthanasie in NS-Staat. Die Vernichtung lebensuwerten Lebens " ( E. Klee) 1983 .
Judge Kreyssig letter can be referenced there as well as information relating to Bishop Galen of Munster who protested about T4 .
You can perhaps remember his name as well as Judge Kreyssig's and if you ant another name Manfred Bernhardt one of the children murdered by Brandt , Hitler et al.
You might like to know that Reichs Ministery Propaganda circulated the belief that hitler stopped this as soon as he heard of it.
Damage control , the damge which was to be controlled was the fact that Hitler signed the order which murdered Manfred and children like him .
k0nsl you may say again " if you say so".
Well not me the ink from Hitler's pen actually.
But what does this matter , the morality of killing children who were not in any way terminally ill is not a problem as long as its legal.
And morality and law have no links , so why should you concern yourselves with the death of this child , " a useless eater ".
Alongside such a term you still cling to the tales of food supply disruption and Belsen / other Concentration Camps ?

The proof you have , what does it matter you will still deny it.
The death of children like Manfred mean nothing to you , yet they are part of the Holocaust and number amongest its dead.
What would you say to Manfred's family ?
Murder by state Policy.
The Fuhrer was a child murderer , a murderer of German Children.
Remember the name Bishop Galen of Munster a man who knew and a man who spoke out.
He shook the confidence of the Fuhrer a man who had set himself up above the law simply because he though he could make anything legal .

Reinhold,
I refer you again to "Euthanasie in NS-Staat. Die Vernichtung lebensuwerten Lebens " ( E. Klee) 1983 .
Judge Kreyssig letter can be referenced there as well as information relating to Bishop Galen of Munster who protested about T4 .
You can perhaps remember his name as well as Judge Kreyssig's and if you ant another name Manfred Bernhardt one of the children murdered by Brandt , Hitler et al.
You might like to know that Reichs Ministery Propaganda circulated the belief that hitler stopped this as soon as he heard of it.
Damage control , the damge which was to be controlled was the fact that Hitler signed the order which murdered Manfred and children like him .
k0nsl you may say again " if you say so".
Well not me the ink from Hitler's pen actually.
But what does this matter , the morality of killing children who were not in any way terminally ill is not a problem as long as its legal.
And morality and law have no links , so why should you concern yourselves with the death of this child , " a useless eater ".
Alongside such a term you still cling to the tales of food supply disruption and Belsen / other Concentration Camps ?

The proof you have , what does it matter you will still deny it.
The death of children like Manfred mean nothing to you , yet they are part of the Holocaust and number amongest its dead.
What would you say to Manfred's family ?
Murder by state Policy.
The Fuhrer was a child murderer , a murderer of German Children.
Remember the name Bishop Galen of Munster a man who knew and a man who spoke out.
He shook the confidence of the Fuhrer a man who had set himself up above the law simply because he though he could make anything legal .

Oh please. Start a new thread on your silly euthanasia-obsession. The subject of this thread is the alleged 'holocaust'. You have been challenged to present evidence for the alleged 'gas chambers'.

Please present verifiable evidence to support your superstition.

-k0nsl

You are "Joe King" arn't you .

When you are talking about serious historians like Kershaw and Overy we are not talking about David Irving and the like.
I have given you the name of the book and the page number go look yourself , unless you think I made the title up or the authors made it up.

It is an established fact the paper exists , Hilter put pen to paper for T4,the murders took place.

If you want to play silly game like "prove the sun is hot" that's up to you.
You forget this issue has been proved , it is a fact , it took place .
Serious historians may review it but there is no basis to question it , the fact has been sorted from the propaganda be it Nazi or Soviet.
Your assertion is that it did not take place , to date the "Big Guns" of the so called "Revisionist Historians", and the word historian is doubtful at best have failed to present anything of note and nothing of historical value.

Waste your own time if you wish or as i said to reinhold , get your proof out into the open , get it published does not have to be in Germany , France or Italy.
Present it without the anti-semetic overtones which it is always dressed up in , that which it really is ( if you can).
No need to hide it on an internet forum .
So far this proof has had its outings in various legal systems which tested it examined it ( by expert historians and qualified individuals) and its always been found wanting , it proved nothing that it set out to.
Not a single thing.
Don't waste my time , waste your own.
Even when you have something which Hitlers finger prints are all over you deny it , why should I waste my time going through books etc to have you do it all over again.
Not a mission pal.

You are "Joe King" arn't you .

When you are talking about serious historians like Kershaw and Overy we are not talking about David Irving and the like.


Who the heck is talking about 'serious historians' and who is even talking about David Irving? David Irving is almost clueless about the alleged 'holocaust'. He has written no books at the subject.

I'm also interested as to who it is that decides who is a 'serious historian', and most of all if they can support their assertions about the alleged 'holocaust' with verifiable evidence.

This thread is about the alleged 'holocaust' and you have been challenged to support your superstition with verifiable evidence, and it seems as if you cannot do this but blabber about things which is of no value at all and is not even the subject of this thread.

Are you trying to divert the subject of this thread or something? Nobody in this world (As for as I know) denies the existence of the euthanasia-programme (http://www.vho.org/D/gdvd_3/III1.html), it is the absurd assertions within the silly 'holocaust' story that we question.

-k0nsl

When you are talking about serious historians like Kershaw and Overy
Now that's a joke.
If you want to play silly game like "prove the sun is hot" that's up to you.
You forget this issue has been proved , it is a fact , it took place .
And yet you are the very same person who admitted to not knowing about the gassing allegations in connection with T4 at Hartheim Castle, and yet here you are displaying such vehement certainty - sorry, I can't take you seriously for a moment.
Serious historians may review it but there is no basis to question it , the fact has been sorted from the propaganda be it Nazi or Soviet.
So you believe - but then you believe all sorts of stuff without being able to substantiate your beliefs.
Once again it is time to spell things out: we are discussing the so-called Holocaust etc etc, no one disputes that there was a euthanasia prgramme in Germany at the time - we may quibble over the details of it however.
So cut this nonsense out and address yourself to the real issue here: the Holohoax.

This just seen at the Rev forum;
---
Nov. 15, 2004
http://www.vho.org

Dear friends:

Last week I received the final decision of the INS Board of Appeals regarding my case: They simply refused to look at it and confirmed the decision by the INS court "without opinion".

The decision of the INS court was handed down in summer 2003: They claim I filed a frivolous application, resulting in: unvoluntary departure (=in handcuffs to Germany), banned for a lifetime (I can never return to the US), and no remedy (even my current marriage or anything else can change that). This verdict is similar to what Ernst Zündel faced in February 2003.

We now have to file an appeal to a Federal Court until early December. There is a slim chance that this court will refuse to hear my case as well. If that happens, I will be in a German dungeon early next year. In case they do hear my case, they will probably decide later next year. Whether it will result in a chance of having a remedy (my marriage) needs to be proven. Theoretically they have to throw all due process laws into the dust bin to deny me that right, because legally speaking I was sentenced for a crime (frivolous application = forgery of evidence) of which I was neither accused during the trial, nor does the verdict claim to have any evidence for it. To compare what the INS has done with a penal parallel: They accused me of theft during the trial, but in the written verdict they suddenly sentenced me for murder, without even claiming that there is any evidence that I murdered anyone. But it would not be the first time that courts break the law in order to do exactly that: getting rid of revisionists. I therefore do not have too many illusions.

Since all of my IDs have expired, I sit in a trap here without another chance to go elsewhere. So if that appeal to the Federal Court fails, the worldwide productivity of revisionism will go down 90% for five years to come (I hope they put all of my thought crimes into one case, or otherwise it may result in ten years plus...).

During the next several days I will get in touch with some of you in order to make sure, that my website and all other vital life signs of revisionism as created by me keep buzzing should I go lop-sided.

Thanks

Germar
chp@vho.org

That is the point , what value is this thread.
I place no value on it at all.
Its a total waste of time.
Reinhold , children were both gassed and killed by way of lethal injection.
Value , yes what is the value.
You admit that childfren were gassed and killed , children who were not physically ill , the mentally ill went the same way. Mercy killing a way to dress up murder .
This is part of the holocaust , its part and parcel of it , it was not a Jews only thing.
As far as proving it goes , sorry the jury came back in a long time ago.
You guys are on your own , prove away to your hearts content , I know no matter what is put to you the out come is the same .
The "article of faith" , its yours lads , take it.
BTW When your Fuhrer killed thousands of children and mental patients , its enought to hang the little so and so ten times over.
Bullet in the skull , best thing he ever did .

That is the point , what value id this thread.
i place no value on it at all.
Its a total waste of time.
Are you lying again? You said it was entertaining yesterday.
Do you think you have any credibility at all?

Up to a point, you can only listen to the same jokes so often and they become stale.
That point has been passed.
Get your proof out into the open for God's sake , and when its rejected please don't try to be too broken hearted.
Worse things could happen you , you could be siting next to a Jew or I could be treating like Dr. Brandt treated other healthy people.
Good luck and take care in the shower.
Watch the soap , you never know who is in there

Up to a point, you can only listen to the same jokes so often and they become stale.
You became stale long ago.

That is the point , what value is this thread.
I place no value on it at all.
Its a total waste of time.

That's quite funny. Let's summarize:

1. You place no value at all on this thread
2. It's a total waste of your time

Hmm. But you carry on each day anyway? Even though you have been spanked numerous times. You've been challenged to support your superstition with verifiable evidence, but you can't.

I think if anything, you are wasting our time.

-k0nsl

But not a skeptic.

But not a skeptic.
Spoken like a true believer! Five hundred years ago you would have believed in witchcraft because it had "been proven by respected authorities"

Spoken like a true believer! Five hundred years ago you would have believed in witchcraft because it had "been proven by respected authorities"

Yep, 'everyone knew' witches/sorcery were proven fact, governments mandated belief in them, there were 'confessions', there were 'trials' and 'testimony'.

-k0nsl

Might be that I consider you are always asking me to do something like "prove the world is round".
Its a daft remark to begin with , the gulf is you can't even see it.
The constant is your blind "article of faith" that the Hitler Goverment was the best thing since the sliced pan loaf , you will brook no criticsm of it or will you see the slightest wrong in anything done by this goverment.
You see no crime at any stage beacause " everything was legal", you cannot question the morality of any law no matter how twisted or transparent.
This greatly if not totally undermines you credibility as one who takes a balanced and objective view.
In return you say the same of me , quoting that I want to "know nothing" of "Allied war crimes" , this is a cop out on your part.
(I have been critical of Allied wrong doings on this forum).
Likewise you embark on the poor standard of justice handed out at Nuremberg , but do so without the slightest question of the laws as passed by Adolf Hitler and his misuse of the law to remove all other political parties from Germany and to deny the German People any other choice.
You play both poacher and game keeper and do so very badly if I might say.
BTW When you say goverments mandated their existance , behind every "goverment" there was fear , ignorance and the church.
if you translate this to Hitlers germany you could play them as the govermnt ( led by Hitler ) , the Nazi party ( "the church") and ignorance which the Goverment and the party pushed at all levels to imprint their standards of morality and beliefs ( Jews are evil , dirty , exploiting, sexual predators, outcasts , communists, enemies of german blood and culture , etc , etc , etc)dogma if you like , the new religion from a man who was elevated to cult status by his own propaganda ministry. Not unlike one Joe Stalin.
Nothing new in what you say except that you cannot apply it with an even hand.
I refer you back to your need at all times to protect the integrity of one Adolf Hitler.
You credibility is lacking. pot to kettle " Are you black or is it just me ?"
BTW Don't poke out your other eye or you will be totally blind, look I warned you ...watch that chair ...well pick yourself up of the floor and learn brail. :rolleyes:

The constant is your blind "article of faith" that the Hitler Goverment was the best thing since the sliced pan loaf
Here we go again, your persistent distortion of what others say. Where has anyone said that it was the best thing since sliced bread?
, you will brook no criticsm of it or will you see the slightest wrong in anything done by this goverment.
Criticism yes, but lies and distortions no, not about NS Germany, not about anywhere or anything.
You see no crime at any stage beacause " everything was legal", you cannot question the morality of any law no matter how twisted or transparent.
We have pointed out intsances of illegalioty. You have failed to show even the slightest knowledge of the legal situation of NS Germany or of international law at the time.
This greatly if not totally undermines you credibility as one who takes a balanced and objective view.
Your credibility went long ago with your lies, distortions and hypocrisy.
We are talking about the so-called holocaust; when are you going to post some proof of this event you so ardently believe in?

That's why its so entertainging Reinhold.
You seem to have some problem with what were german responsibilities and how Hitler abdicated them along with no understanding how Hitler made Ad Hoc law as and when he felt the need with no checks or balances to regulate .
I refer you again to Kreyssig who had the guts to speak up.
Reinhold , "the sliced pan loaf " it comes across with much of what you say , including that which is half baked.
It was Hitler I think you will find who had little idea of morality and legality.
When you defend him and some of his orders from the Commisar & Commando orders down to the T4 and Final Solution of the Jewish Question , that which you say never took place in the form that it is recognised and accepted to have been you display the same ignorance yourself.

You seem to have some problem with what were german responsibilities and how Hitler abdicated them along with no understanding how Hitler made Ad Hoc law as and when he felt the need with no checks or balances to regulate .
I have no problem with German responisibilities, it is you have the problem; the problem of showing evidence for your claims.
Now, let's see some evidence for your claims about gas chambers.

I did mention to you where material could be found, seems you want nothing that might be considered " jewish" and the efforts of "estiblishment historians" is out as well.

So in effect you want only that which will satisfy e.g. Germar Rudolf , Zundel , Irving , Weber .etc.
They don't impress me at all but there is no acounting for taste.
Sort of a closed shop as far as anything goes.
What you want I can't give you according to your own exclusion clauses.
Now at this point you will say "no,no I want to see your proof".
When a court of law sees no need to challange a historical fact , does that not tell you something ? ( Now we go into "conspiracy mode").
Why is it then that seats of learning accept what you describe as the
"estiblishment view" , are you saying that proof of a "hoax" is willingly and with knowledge being supressed , if so by whom ?
Who , name the individuals who started this "hoax" to being with ?
That is what I want to know name name and name goverment officials , home and abroad.
german responsibilities , yes you do have a problem.
For example which Army group was largely none active in the implementation or ignoring of the Commissar order.
Would it surprise you to know that it was Army Group Centre ?
The same officers whom I quoted to you from Overy's "The Dictators".
the same officers who attempted to and who came so terribly close to blowing up Hitler above Russia ?
In the discourse you played poacher and game keeper and you are still doing so.
You do have a problem with German Responsibilities , ones which were largely set aside by the edicts of Hitler and his irk.
What you do is minimise them and make them of no consequence , your " it was not illegal" plea is still little more than a cop out.
Reinhold I affored you too much respect for too long , but no longer.

I did mention to you where material could be found, seems you want nothing that might be considered " jewish" and the efforts of "estiblishment historians" is out as well
You are lying again. I have said numerous times that one needs to look at the original sources, the official historians, and the revisionists
So in effect you want only that which will satisfy e.g. Germar Rudolf , Zundel , Irving , Weber .etc.
Stop this straw man nonsense it is tiresome and deceives no-one.
They don't impress me at all but there is no acounting for taste.
Sort of a closed shop as far as anything goes.
What you want I can't give you according to your own exclusion clauses.
There are no exclusion clauses, liar.
Reinhold I affored you too much respect for too long , but no longer.
You have been insulting and patronising from the start, don't think for a moment that I am fooled by your affable idiot routine.
Now, post up some evidence for the gas chambers and we can set to work and cut out this boring and dishonest charade you have maintained for weeks.

Might be that I consider you are always asking me to do something like "prove the world is round".


Excuse me, but that is hogwash. I am simply asking you to substantiate your belief in the 'holocau$t' with vertifiable evidence.

-k0nsl