Evidence that the Holocaust DIDN'T happen?

Groovy. Then where is the evidence that they were transported elsewhere from Treblinka?

There are a lot of 'maybes'. I prefer to deal in what's actually known. What's known is that they were transported to Treblinka. What else is known is that many thousands of individuals were murdered there by gas. What's also known is that many thousands of cadavers were subsequently exhumed and incinerated by the Nazis in order to cover up the murders. his is without question.

'Maybe' all of the denizens of Treblinka were allowed by the Nazis to leave the camp of their own accord and decided, to a man, never to try to communicate with any of their friends or families at the war's end. Or maybe they were abducted by aliens.

And you're an expert on Third Reich documents, are you? Well then, perhaps you wouldn't mind pointing out just what, specifically, is suspect about the facsimile of the report. While you're at it, note that the page I cited contains not only the earlier, longer report, but also a facsimile copy of the shorter one requested by Himmler, in addition to facsimiles of correspondence between Himmler and Koherr concerning it.

I am the historical one, in this conversation anyway. I'm relying on facts from historical sources and providing the evidence from which those historical conclusions are derived; while you're simply repeating the wishful 'maybes' of deniers more famous than yourself-- and as they do, not providing a scintilla of evidence in support of those 'possibilities'. So stop fiddling about with airy-fairy 'maybes' and stick to the facts.

If I'm sometimes guilty of rubbing your nose in your ignorance and it appears unseemly to you, you can eliminate this 'cheerleading', as you call it, altogether-- by simply acknowledging that you're woefully unversed in the period of history under discussion.

 

We all know its impossible for you to prove this nonsensical claim. I suspect you do as well.

I find it amusing that you ignore the mountains of evidence, including eyewitnesses, confessions, scientifically collected forensic evidence, cross referenced documentation, photographic evidence, etc.. You posit this airy fairy story about nazis moving a million or so jews into soviet territory and who subsequently vanished without a trace and yet cannot offer a shred of supporting evidence.

All you offer is the denialist garbage that you seem entirely comfortable in regurgitating as per the playbook.

I suppose it doesn't faze you that your responses are entirely predictable?

what personal abuse?

I was abusing your sources as jew hating pond scum not you.
I was advising you that when using such sources, you might be lumped in with them, as the old saw about the company you keep just happens to be true.

Yet another tactic in the play book.

 

Well, there's you fundamental error. Your comment should read: "Specific Jews were transported by the Nazis on trains to a particular place, in this instance, Treblinka. Homicidal gassing is known to have been a method of mass murder in that location. Since there is no record of those individuals going anywhere beyond that point, in total absence of evidence to the contrary it's highly probable that they met their deaths there, in that manner."

How is that 'probable'? A far higher probability exists that they were murdered, along with many thousands of others in that place, since there's absolutely no record of anyone being transported elsewhere.

I wasn't aware that you were on staff here.

 

There's no evidence of mass gassings.

 

Okay then. It's known how many individuals were transported there. And then all record of their existence ends. We've yet to see you posit anything plausible as to what might have happened to them subsequently. Perhaps you're waiting to make a big reveal. When can we expect it?

 

When you say 'yet another tactic in the playbook', does it mean anything? It seems like meaningless nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

Work camps. I already said. Are you admitting there's no evidence of gassing?

 

Which work camps? How many individuals were sent from Treblinka to each? And over which time periods? The Nazis were positively obsessive about prisoner transport records, you know (or as you would know, if you had the slightest idea what you're talking about).

No, just doing more of my trademark 'cheerleading'.

 

No, I asked for evidence of gassing and courtesy demands you address that first.

 

And they get hung if they do, yet they did.

 

I have begun it pages ago with the Browning evidence, which you've scarcely even scratched the surface of disproving. When you have dealt with it, I'll continue to post evidence of gassing as it's understood by academic historians. Browning's hardly the be-all and end-all of proof for gassing at Treblinka. I simply began with him because his referenced sources were convenient and not easily waved away, as you and your fellow-anti-Semites are wont to do.

 

Yes it means something. I have posted this a few times for your enlightenment but alas and alack it appears you dimiss this exactly as you dismiss actual evidence.


Some of us have been around a long time shredding jew haters, neo-nazis, white power pinheads et.al. for their pathetic attempts at revising history to suit their hatred and warped admiration for nazi pond scum.

It is more than evident from this thread that some of us know way more than you about the denialist arguments and how absurd, ridiculous, stupid, ignorant and pathetic they are.


this is from 1996 and is as applicable today as it was then.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Exhib/HowtoEngl.html

<snip>
... it requires no preparation or scholarly research. Simply follow the guidelines below, as the revisionists on this newsgroup have done, and you'll quickly be on the road to deluding yourself that someone out there takes you seriously, and that you are valiantly fighting the evil forces of some undefined, implausible conspiracy.

1. Creamed Mush with Fog Sauce -- Never provide evidence for your assertions. In fact, respond to demands for evidence the way Dracula responds to crucifixes. Do anything you can to avoid it. Throw insults. Change the subject. Obfuscate. Laugh derisively. Claim you already gave the evidence or that someone else did. But never provide any evidence yourself (unless you provide an incomplete or incomprehensible citation along with it).

2. Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose -- Demand that all evidence for the Holocaust be proved genuine (dodging any discussion of what that proof would consist of), and also demand that all your unsubstantiated assertions be proved false. That way, you never bear any burden of proof. (originally posted by Mike Stein)

3. Hello, I'm a Cremation Expert -- Claim that the 52 Auschwitz furnaces could not have had the capacity to burn 4,756 corpses per day because modern commercial crematoriums don't have such a capacity. When its pointed out to you that there's no comparison between ordinary commercial crematoriums and those built in the camps, for a variety of reasons -- e.g. coffins were not used, one can cremate more than one corpse in a single retort, etc. -- ignore this and repeat the claim.

4. And I'm a Chemist too! -- Express a series of doubts and claims about the properties of Zyklon-B, the gas used to kill people in Auschwitz gas chambers. For example, claim that Zyklon-B is not an ideal agent for mass gassing, and therefore the Nazis shouldn't have used it and thus they *didn't* use it. Even better, claim that they *couldn't* have used it because the gas lingering in the chamber after the murders would have killed anyone trying to enter the chambers to remove the corpses. When someone explains to you (countless times) that some of the gas chambers had powerful ventilation systems to remove the gas and in other cases people entering wore gas masks, argue that despite the ventilation there would still somehow be enough residual gas in the chambers to kill people.

Keep waving a DuPont brochure around in an attempt to ward off those who know more about chemistry than you do. Also claim that ventilating the gas would cause problems to individuals downwind. When someone explains to you that the gas is lighter than air, just quietly go away for awhile or change the subject or complain about a mean word they may have used.

5. Sticks and Stones -- If you're being wiped out with evidence and reasoning you cannot refute, you can always take refuge in complaining about the language being used by your adversaries. For example, if they say, "I've already explained that it takes less gas to kill people than lice, and therefore there are fewer cyanide residues remaining on the gas chamber walls than on the delousing chamber walls, you moron," you can respond by complaining about their use of the word "moron." You can actually evade quite a bit of serious discussion by spending a lot of time condescendingly lecturing the newsgroup about their use of trashy language. But this approach doesn't work very well in building credibility. You may view yourself as an arbiter of social discourse but you'll actually come off like a den-mother scurrying around excoriating the little Cub Scouts to behave themselves.

6. Oh Sorry, I Ate the Last One -- Claim that Jews and other prisoners were not intentionally starved, that they were victims of food shortages just like everybody else. When it is pointed out that neither the camp guards nor people living in the vicinity of the camps starved to death, just claim that this does not prove there was an intentional starvation policy, and that if there is no piece of paper with a written order to starve people, then no starvation occurred.

7. The "What's It Mean?" Spiral of Infinity -- Try to keep your opponents off balance by constantly shifting or questioning the definitions of words. For example, if your opponent states that historians generally agree that 1 million Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz during the Holocaust, you can ask, what do you mean by "historian" or what do you mean by "Jew" or what do you mean by "agree?" Alternatively, when confronted with the evidence that Himmler called for the "ausrotten" of the Jews, argue that ausrotten doesn't really mean extermination. When proof of that definition is provided by German dictionaries and German speakers on the newsgroup, just ignore it.

8. Now You See It, Now You Don't -- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because they are not still standing. Of course, by this logic, the Mayflower, Carthage, Jimmy Hoffa, and large portions of the Great Wall never existed. When this is pointed out to you, ignore it.

9. Kafka Was Here -- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because there are no photos or drawings of them. When you are presented with photos and drawings, state that they could not possibly be actual photos/drawings of gas chambers because the gas chambers never existed because there are no photos/drawings of them because they never existed because...

10. Fun With Math -- Charge the anti-revisionists with playing numbers games while engaging in them yourself. For example, argue that the "holohoaxers" have changed the estimated number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million. When it's pointed out to you that the 4 million figure was supplied by the Soviets and refers to the total number of victims, not just Jews, and has always been considered ridiculously inflated by non-Soviet historians who have never varied from the 1 million figure for Jews, just repeat that the holohaoxers have changed the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million and that the Holocaust is therefore a hoax. The point of this tactic, of course, is to try to make ALL the death figures questionable. If 4 million is unreliable, then 1 million is likewise unreliable, and you just keep revising the numbers downward until you reach zero, and then - poof! - no Holocaust!

11. The Great Leap -- This tactic goes like this: If one piece of testimony about the Holocaust seems unreliable, then ALL testimony about the Holocaust is unreliable. If one Holocaust witness may have recanted something on the stand, then all other Holocaust witnesses are liars. If some camp prisoners did not starve to death, then NONE of them starved to death. etc. But be careful. This is a double-edged sword -- someone may use the well-documented lies of other revisionists to conclude that YOU are a liar as well.

12. But I'm Not Anti-Semitic -- Try to find examples of misdeeds by an individual Jewish person, then imply that this makes all Jews look bad. When you are asked why you think one Jew represents all Jews but that one Christian doesn't represent all Christians, ignore the question.

13. Grab Bag of Idiocy -- Here are a few quick claims you can easily make, although be forewarned that they will immediately make you look like an imbecile:

a) Claim that "the Jews" declared war on Hitler (whatever that means), and that anything he did to them was an act of self-defense;
b) With absolutely zero supporting evidence, claim that the corpses in the Auschwitz furnaces would have exploded, damaging the furnaces and thereby bringing the corpse cremation figures into question;
c) Argue that because the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC has a small model of a gas chamber and not a full-scale model, this somehow proves that gas chambers did not exist during WWII;
d) Argue that the existence of a brothel in Auschwitz means there could not have been gas chambers there.

14. If you don't want to look like a total buffoon, there's always the pseudo-academic, above-the-fray approach. With a huge dose of arrogance and superiority, explain that you are neither a revisionist nor any other "label", merely someone with a healthy skepticism about everything, including Holocaust history (ALL of it), and that you are conducting your own research to determine for yourself whether certain Holocaust incidents actually took place. Pretend to be totally impartial (despite the avalanche of Holocaust evidence you would encounter the minute you actually began any legitimate research), but in your posts only question the Holocaust historians' statements, not revisionists' statements.

15. Alternatively claim that:

a) the Jews in the camps died as a result of allied bombing;
b) the Jews weren't killed in the camps but were sent to Russia; and
c) the Jews never even went to the camps because the railroad capacity was insufficient. When someone points out that these are mutually exclusive, and that it would be a neat trick for allied bombs in 1944 to result in the deaths of Jews in 1942, ignore it.

16. As for the motive behind the Holocaust "hoax", claim that the Holocaust was invented near the end of WWII by people who foresaw the establishment of the state of Israel, and also foresaw that Israel would face years of conflict with its neighbors, and also foresaw the consequent need for U.S. military and financial aid to Israel, and also foresaw possible public opposition to such aid, and so they invented a huge hoax with thousands of phony witnesses and documents so that those who might oppose the aid to Israel would feel sorry for Jews and wouldn't oppose the aid. When someone points out to you that this is sheer idiocy and that acts of genocide do not automatically turn on the aid spigot to the victims, ignore them.

17. Although all of your arguments will be consistently blown to smithereens, just wait a few days or weeks and then re-post them.

18. Remember that the revisionist community is peopled mainly by racists, white-supremacists, Israel-bashers, and Nazis. This means that everyone except these kinds of people will dismiss you. But don't let that stop you. Don't let your Fellini-esque, internally inconsistent, un-researched, hypocritical distortions and lies prevent you from continuing to post. After all, you're fighting for the truth (as you'd like it to be).

 

800,000 Jews shipped to Treblinka.

None reported shipped out of Treblinka.

Maybe a few thousand found when it was liberated.

Where did the rest go?

 

Actually, Treblinka wasn't liberated by the Allies as, say, Auschwitz was. The Nazis had already ceased all activity there in late 1943, when the camp was dismantled following a revolt of prisoners, of whom only a couple hundred were able to escape alive. Buildings were subsequently destroyed and acres of trees were planted by the Nazis in order to disguise the camp's former purpose. A Ukrainian-German caretaker was hired and housed in a newly constructed 'farmhouse' on the property to discourage the local Polish population from digging the place up in search of gold and other valuables they believed to be hidden away there. This was well before the advance of Soviet troops into the region.

As for where the many hundreds of thousands of human beings whose last known location was Treblinka might have gone, the convergence of evidence would indicate that they went to their deaths on-site, since no plausible alternative explanation exists.

 

(from post #162)
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=336026&page=17&p=1063691726#post1063691726

I only looked at a few of these.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/sitreptoc.html

They talk about Jews being shot for leaving the ghetto, etc. The revisionists don't dispute this. Is there anything in there about the gas chambers?

I just tuned in to this thread after being gone for a while. Is there anything about the gas chambers in those testimonies?

I'll have some time to look at the rest of the stuff you posted this weekend. For now, what do you think of the info in this video?

"Black Holocaust Lies"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bTzvOmIcDc&list=PL2281319AA67405E6

 

God save us, yet another (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Youtube video! Do you ever crack a book, Scott?

How many Nazis were hanged or imprisoned based on the accounts made by these individuals? And what on earth would their racial origins have to do with anything?

Meanwhile, on the subject of Treblinka: http://www.worldwarhistoryonline.co...-revealing-the-hidden-graves-of-the-holocaust

Collis' bio:

 

This response of yours doesn't make the info in that video go away. That video makes a pretty good case that some pretty big lies were told right after the war and exposed later.

That video deals with this issue.

The Dachau Gas Chamber
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4nY6T46aGA#t=1474

Let's hear what the pro-official version people say about it.

 

Not that any account of the Holocaust narrative is in any way 'official', but you won't hear it from me, for the same reason you won't hear me support or condemn any historical film Hollywood pumps out for the blathering masses. I mean, Hollywood cast John Wayne as Genghis Khan, ffs.

History doesn't come from films, Scott, least of all from ideologically-driven homemade Youtube knock-offs, but from books. And books of history tend to be long ponderous affairs with lots and lots of big words, footnotes, and hardly any pictures in them. The better ones are written by actual historians, people who've put in the years of grunt work required to attain academic credentials in their field.

All else is the work of hobbyists, authors of 'historical' fiction or people with political axes to grind, or any combination thereof.

 

Where did you post evidence of gassing?

Do not call me an 'anti Semite'. I am entirely neutral although I sure many in this debate are pro Semite. Pointing out organised criminality with a Jewish ethnic theme isn't 'anti' anything, it's a statement of fact.

 

neutral my ass. You hate Jews with a passion.

 

Like I say, pointing out the crimes of organised Jewry isn't 'anti Semitic' anymore than pointing out the crimes of the British empire is 'anti British'. 'Anti' implies some deviation from a neutral analysis of facts. It doesn't mean I hate 'all people with Jewish ancestry' or that I'm 'anti Semitic'.

 

Oh, I'm sorry. I should have been more specific, that you ONLY hate Organized Jewry, the Jew Devil, Jewish music producers, Jewish bankers, and Jews in general.

 

This would get you laughed out of the debating hall.

You seem to be afraid of the info in these videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bTzvOmIcDc&list=PL2281319AA67405E6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4nY6T46aGA#t=1474

The info's being in video form doesn't automatically invalidate it. You have to show why it's invalid whether it's from a book, or a video.


Here's a book by David Irving.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/2001/HW_Web.pdf

Do you automatically believe what it says because it's in book form?

Here are some more books that contradict what mainstream books say.
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/David Hoggan-The Forced War.pdf
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/
http://www.johnkaminski.info/pages/the_next_chapter/pdf/the_nameless_war.pdf
http://www.watchmenfaithministries....World_War_Vol._1_-_Before_Sarajevo__1928_.pdf

The info is in book form so it must be true, right?


You can pretend all you want. If you don't give your analysis of the info in those videos, you're going to look like the loser of the debate trying to handwave away the info that's got you cornered.

 

I've scarcely done anything else since coming here. Take your blinders off and learn to read for comprehension.

 

Link to one post.

 

I have, more than once. Read the damn thread. Start with Browning. Once you've dealt with that evidence we can proceed to more damning evidence.

MOD EDIT >>>Off Topic Removed<<<

So forget the 'maybes' you've been spoon-fed and deal with the facts presented.