Did the Holocaust happen?

Which it isn't. No-one claims everyone who died in the Holocaust, however defined (i.e. whether it just includes Jews, or all killed by Nazi killing policies), was killed in the gas chambers. That number is more like 3 million. 2.5 million if you want to be really pedantic and point out that Chelmno and Maly Trostinets used vans rather than chambers for gassings.

Common sense says that the Holocaust happened.

Common sense is the set of prejudices we acquire by age 18. (Albert Einstein)

People on here have referred to this wide body of evidence about the Holocaust, the admissions of guilt, the evidence, the eyewitnesses. Well don’t refer to a “general body of evidence”. That is smoke and mirrors. Refer to specifics.

First let’s start with these witnesses:

Simon Wiesenthal – A proven liar - http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Migration/article178775.ece

Irene Zisblatt – Need I say more, for those who never looked outside the box, just look up her unedited accounts on YouTube and make up your own mind.

Elie Wiesel – Complete imposter. Was not even the correct age to be the person in the famous bunk beds photo he claims to be and he has been outed by a former Auschwitz inmate (Miklos Gruner)



Now let’s go to the Nuremberg trials:



Nazi German cable (1943) from the SS in Berlin to the heads on concentration camps showing concentration camp population statistics and death tolls. The document states that the death toll is up to 10% in the worst camps. The cable orders the heads of concentration camps to reduce the death toll.





















Nazi German cable (1943) ordering the heads of concentration camps to cut the death tolls.











Nazi German cable (1943) ordering a change of purpose of Sobibor from a transit camp to a factory to dismantle captured armaments. This is very much in opposition with the popular story that Sobibor was a "Death camp".













Dr. Tadeusz Cyprian, Polish Deputy Representative on the United Nations War Crimes Commission submitted to the International Military Tribunal (IMT) document with evidence code 3311-PS. The document states that at Treblinka, claims that the Germans would "steam people to death like lobsters in 10 steam chambers at treblinka."





















The International Red Cross, formally and officially reported that less than 300,000 internees of all nationalities in the German camps died of all causes, including old age. When the Red Cross interviewed thousands of freed camp inmates at the end of the war, asking whether they had witnessed alleged "gassings," the response was universally negative. "The detainees themselves have not spoken of them." (IRC document #9925, June 1946). However, in 1997, the International Red Cross apologised to the world for "being silent about the Holocaust".





I could go on and on and on. But ill leave you with this, the "Blood Fountain" which is just symptomatic of the ridiculousness of the claims made which include human lampshades, soap made of humans, people skinned for their tattoes.



EqkhdZORjSc

Why are the documents in English and not German?

What about the Wansee Conference?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference

What about first hand accounts?

Where did the several million people who were killed go?

You never explained why you agreed with the holocaust?

Why are the documents in English and not German?

What about the Wansee Conference?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference

What about first hand accounts?

Where did the several million people who were killed go?

You never explained why you agreed with the holocaust?

There's no point arguing with CycleofSpin. I've come across him before under many different names (refuse_censor, spikeyteeth etc) and he is like a religious zealot in that he never takes any counter-arguments on board. His tactic is to take individual points out of context and turn them into grand claims.

"Holocaust deniers" are the ones who concern themselves with source facts not derivatives of derivatives of information and information synthesised 80 years later or propaganda.

"Holocaust deniers" are not the ones who argue by labelling people they disagree with, getting them fired or making laws to get them jailed.

You will see in my last post that I responded point by point to the points made by the poster that I responded to. I have not used anecdotal or minor points for example the minutes of the Nazi Wannsee conference is not a minor point.

You may not like the points I raise or the implications. You need to ask yourself why that is.

Posted from TSR Mobile

"Holocaust deniers" are the ones who concern themselves with source facts not derivatives of derivatives of information and information synthesised 80 years later or propaganda.

"Holocaust deniers" are not the ones who argue by labelling people they disagree with, getting them fired or making laws to get them jailed.

You will see in my last post that I responded point by point to the points made by the poster that I responded to. I have not used anecdotal or minor points for example the minutes of the Nazi Wannsee conference is not a minor point.

You may not like the points I raise or the implications. You need to ask yourself why that is.

Posted from TSR Mobile

The documents are certified translations of Nazi cables from a wider set used in IMT and Nuremberg trials. They are also available in German. They are searchable at:

http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/

Most first hand accounts (99%+) do not say anything that resembles the Zyklon B /gas story.

People seem to want to refer to the Wannsee conference as meeting where the systematic slaughter of Jews was decided. In fact the Final Solution was the deportation of Jews facilitated by increased levels of economic sanctions and civil disturbance against Jews. Here are the minutes from the Wannsee conference of 1942:

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/Wannsee/wanseeminutes.html

People talk about this missing several million. Objectively who is missing from where and what is the hard measure for this. (A Raul Hilberg quote is not an objective hard measure).

I don't like putting people into labour camps or having political prisoners but I can understand the motivation of states to do it particularly during times when opposing factions are violently facing off to each other. Let's not delude ourselves that all Jews and everyone else put in Nazi concentration camps and Labour camps were saints. Many were involved in political agitation and the communist political agitation typically involves an ethos of winning at any cost.

Clearly the Nazi state did not put all
Jews in camps because there are Jewish Ghetto German currency coins stuck in the 40's:



Most Jews were in Nazi Germany were in the Jewish Ghetto because Hitler considered that it was too difficult to deport the Jews during the war and that the Jewish Question would have to be dealt with after the war.

People please just take an hour to watch this documentary by a young American Jew who went to Auschwitz and destroyed the official narrative.



We must stand up and demand the truth!


When you accept that this story of Jews being exterminated is a lie it will awaken conciousness and you will start to question what is happening in the world today and who is behind it. We have to revision this war and why it happened.

Even Russia's leader Vladamir Putin came out and said the first Soviet Union was majority Jewish. The Soviet Union was evil, beyond that of the Nazi's imo. But there were even Jewish Nazi's....

They are masters of propaganda why else do you think they practically own all media? The Soviet Union's propagandists were Jews. They even put out propaganda to encourage mass rapes of Germans.

Germans probably suffered a greater Holocaust than these Jews...
Why not post all those photos of Germans murdered and burnt to death by fire bombings?

Since it war that cost the lives of tens of millions of Europeans, we have a right to question this. It is not just being used against Germans, but all Europeans who died fighting the Nazi's.

Nazi's killed many people, showing us a photo of a few hundred Jews shot to death is not proof of a 6 million Holocaust. Showing is a photo of Allied forces bulldozing thousands of Jewish (and some non-Jews) typhus victims is not genocide. It is all manipulation.

OK, let's have a look at one of your documents - the translation of 1469-P6. It appears to suggest that the Nazis were more interested in saving the lives of camp inmates than in killing them. In this you would be correct, but you don't bother explaining the reason why that is the case.

The author of the document, Pohl, was in charge of labour camps - not extermination camps. He was appointed to this role in 1942 after Hitler ordered in late 1941 that Russian PoWs were to be deployed elsewhere, so Himmler was short of workers. Himmler responded in January 1942 by ordering Jews to be used instead for 'major economic tasks'. In the same month, Rosenberg had emphasised that some Jewish workers were to be retained for war work and told regional governors to cooperate with Himmler. In April 1942 Pohl reported to Himmler that the emphasis in the camps was now on production. However, on the same day he wrote to the commanders of those camps he was responsible for stating that the work was to be 'exhausting in the true sense of the word'. In practice this meant working many inmates to death.

By September 1943 the Nazis knew they were in trouble militarily - the Stalingrad disaster had happened six months prior and the Soviets had just won a huge victory at Kursk. Himmler therefore needed greater production from his workforce to try to mitigate the impact of losses on the battlefield and from Allied bombing. He therefore ordered a respite in the previous policy in a bid to help save the Reich from impending disaster - as apparently evidenced in your document. What does it prove? Certainly not that the Nazis were benign to the camp inmates. if that is what you are trying to suggest. It is interesting though that a death toll of 10% per month was reported for December and 8% for January - certainly not sustainable if you want your workforce to produce anything.

By the way, please don't try to talk down to me. FWIW, I disagree with the laws to which you refer.

yes

next

As you can see.cycle of spin is just writing Crap and hoping nobody questions it

Specifically which part do you not believe? Do you not believe that there was a British Auschwitz football team that took part in a football league there?


Posted from TSR Mobile

I hear your argument that the scope of those mortality figures in the cable only refers to Labour camps not “death camps”. The problem with this is that the sum of the facts contradict themselves. Broadly speaking this is what people accept:

http://www.theholocaustexplained.org/ks3/the-camps/types-of-camps/#.VVjVkMtFDIU

Why is Auschwitz in the list as a single entry for men and women if it refers to multiple entries meaning a combination of Labour camps and “death camps”. Surely it would have a specific entry for a sub-camp if this was the case but it refers to Auschwitz in aggregate. Why does Sobibor get listed as a “death camp” when the cables say it was a transit camp then converted into a Labour camp for munitions. Why does Irene Zisblatt claim that she passed through Auschwitz-Birkenau, Sobibor and Maidanek which are apparently solely for the extermination of Jews when she is a Jew and is still alive? Elie Wiesel claims to have been saved from a “Gas Chamber” at Buchenwald. There are gas chambers reported to be a Dachau. Therefore the facts that are regarded to be true are completely in contradiction with each other. In any case, you have managed to deconstruct my argument to the point where things are a muddle, but this is just on a single dimension, the claim that documented mortality rates apply to a specific type of camp.

x
Posted from TSR Mobile

You ask why Sobibor is listed in the cable you cite as a 'transit camp' (later converted to a work camp) when it is usualy regarded as a death camp. OK, let's have an evidence-based deconstruction of that one now...

Sobibor was a death camp. Two cables sent on 11th January 1943 by an SS major called Hoefle in Lublin to Eichmann in Berlin and Heim in Cracow list the running death totals in the Aktion Reinhardt camps (Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka and Majdanek). The total for Sobibor is 101,370 and for all the camps 1,274,166. In his diary entry of March 27,1942 Goebbels described the 'pretty barbaric procedure' being carried out by Globocnik (head of Aktion Reinhardt) in the camps he controlled (ie including Sobibor). Goebbels estimated that only 40% of Jews could be used for work; the rest were being 'liquidated'. In addition, one of the senior officers at Sobibor has gone on record to state it was a death camp. In July 1943 Himmler ordered that Sobibor should be changed into a labour camp, a point on which we agree.

That leaves the issue of its description in your cable as a 'transit camp'. Given the evidence above, it is quite clear that this is another instance of the Nazis' well-known use of euphemisms in official correspondence to hide what they were doing. For example, on 9th April 1942 Himmler wrote to Kaltenbrunner regarding a report on 'the Final Solution of the Jewish Question'. He said, 'I regard this report for the purposes of camouflage'. The next day Rudolf Brandt, a member of Himmler's staff, gave instructions to the inspector of statistics to tell him that the word for 'special treatment' [of Jews] had to be eliminated from his reports and replaced by more anodyne phrases.

More examples.... In the same diary entry mentioned above, Goebbels descibes Globocnik as carrying out his action 'pretty prudently' and not 'conspicuously'. At his trial, Eichmann stated that the language used in the minutes to the Wannsee conference did not reflect the words used by the participants, who spoke openly of 'killing, elimination and annihilation'.

The only conclusion that a rational person can come to from the above is that Sobibor was a death camp and that the Nazis habitually hid such facts in their official documents. This not only wrecks your point about Sobibor, but also has general implications every time you choose to present such documentation in support of your case. In other words, your supposed evidence has damaged your own argument.

I can't be bothered to counter you in detail on Larson and the Red Cross. I have done so before on other threads and you have clearly failed to take anything on board.

This is one thing I find so frustrating about people such as yourself who continually put up the same arguments over and over again - and the reason I described you as being akin to a religious zealot. When you raise points I look into them. I don't just read my own 'conventional' resources but also examine denier websites such as the one you cite, or David Irving's. (I have read his book Hitler's War, though I no longer have it.) Deniers such as yourself, however, just swim in their own murky waters. I have challenged such people before on here to read something like Peter Longerich's very detailed book Holocaust, or even the overviews by Richard Evans and Ian Kershaw.

Why don't you do that?

My grandfather was one of the first to storm Bergen-Belsen. When the town officials were asked about the camp, all of them fervently denied the very existence of it. When the camp was inspected, there was bodypits everywhere, thousands of dead bodies ans many prisoners were still living but some barely. Some prisoners were walking skeletons, their heads were shaved and they were naked, it was almost impossible to tell which gender they were as all most of the discernible physical traits were lost in the fact that they were essentially skin and bone. There were prisoners who were physically too weak to eat and were too traumatized by experiences with SS doctors to receive injections or be fed with equipment and many were subject to manic episodes when trying to be helped.

Now I understand this was not one of the extermination camps but the one time he opened up about it, he said there was things he saw that he would take to the grave with him. And the horror on grief on his face when he described his experience will stay with me forever.