French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson dies at 89

If you had read my entire post you would have noted that I did bring up "...the facts of WW2" that refute the standard holocaust narrative which you are apparently unable to refute.

Your hollow & pedantic pronouncement that:

would include everyone here, yourself included.

 

No, it didn't. The only thing the post I quoted talked about besides Holocaust exploitation for money and Holocaust exceptionalism was the fact that Hitler's army was racially diverse and had Jews in it. This, just like the other red herrings, is completely irrelevant to the genocide itself and the evidence that supports it. What the hell does the number of blacks or Jews in the Nazi army have to do with death camps???

So at no point did your post even address the official Holocaust narrative.

You refuted absolutely nothing.

At no point on this thread did I talk about anything besides Holocaust denial laws and historical evidence for the Holocaust.

So no, I never let ideology interfere with historical facts, unlike many others on this thread.

Fail.

 

The Mueller document - first published in 1987 - is most probably a fake. There's absolutely no documentary evidence of a military police service in charge of the security of Allies in Austria in 1948, or of a Vienna Guard Battalion. Lachout himself was born in 1928. Could he really have been a lieutenant in 1948?

I never accused the German people. Or do you think that "Nazis" and "German people" are synonyms?

Don't forget that the Nazis were not alone, they had allies fighting their war for them and providing them with valuable resources free of charge. Romanian oil, for instance. Romanians also killed close to half a million Jews and Roma, by the way, contributing to the final solution. Romanian troops fought on Soviet soil against the Red Army.

Truth is rarely what we want it to be.

 

Your only question seems to be:

It refutes the standard holocaust narrative on which reparation payments have been established.

The standard holocaust narrative is that all Jews & other non Aryans were either executed, rescued or sent to "death camps" however, since many Jews not only served in Hitler's military but rose to the highest ranks (Generals, Admirals etc) and were awarded Germany's highest military honors, that narrative is false.

Consequently millions have been intentionally deceived into believing that all German Jews either escaped or suffered a dismal fate in a "death camp" & $ Billions have been extracted based on a false narrative.

 

I dont know a few thousend probably spread out over the world by now.
Considering its 80 years ago

 

I'm not sure if millions of witness accounts were recorded... Millions of survivors seems like an awful lot of survivors to have considering the Germans had to have been killing them virtually on sight to be racking up such numbers in such a period of time while they were being pressed upon by allied forces while they were having grievous shortages of manpower, equipment, and oil.

 

Yes, you do need to give a pretty thorough and precise explanation when suggesting something so grand and atrocious. It's not personalized, I'm asking pretty simple questions. I asked "mass graves of whom", meaning how do I know these bodies are all the bodies of Jews if they are actually still finding mass graves to the extent you seem to imply? You simply push towards validating the idea you have in your idea while I ask for clear proof that what you present as evidence is actually evidence.

But it should be rather simple. Give me some clear proof of that the Holocaust happened to the extent said. You say there is mountains of evidence somit shouldn’t be hard to find a stone or two.

 

Not millions of survivors. Millions including survivors: soldiers from several armies, civilians who witnessed persecutions of Jews, Nazis and their allies (either through testimonies in court or documents), surviving family members, and of course the quiet testimony from the corpses in mass graves. Not sure what the actual number is, but it's an awful lot of people anyway.

Yes, one can tell whether the dead in the mass graves were Jews or not. DNA. Sounds familiar?

Nazis tried to get rid of evidence of their crimes before their downfall. That's why the killings didn't stop until the very end. Ever heard of the death march? Starvation? Didn't need too many resources for it, did they?

 

The air must be awfully thin up there.

Of course wall street has a lot to do with the death of a scumbag denier and virulent jew hater, which it seems you can plainly see even if nobody else on the planet can.

Great super power there bud.

 

So naturally the intellectual giants of denialism consider that since the wannsee conference wasn't the start of the final solution just another step in its development, that it is all a hoax.


Typical demonstration of how denialists repeatedly deny reality in their repeated attempts at tilting at windmills.

I was delighted to hear that yet another denier has been jailed in Germany. A Canadian former green party candidate went to visit her brother and got arrested for spouting her bullshit. She got 10 months, her german citizen brother got 3 years. At least the Germans don't put up with such utter depraved bullshit.

 

About half of them were killed in extermination camps using poison gas.
The rest were shot or left to die of exhaustion and hunger.

The Nazis killed approx. 2/3 of the Jewish population of Europe. If they had 2 or 3 years more time, they would probably have killed them all and blurred all traces.

Nazis believed in a race war. They considered the Jews an evil anti-race. They believed that the Jews would destroy them if they did not wipe them out in time. They were totally crazy. They were not sadists, they did not like the killings. But they considered it their duty to save future generations from the evil Jew.

 

Get this straight, Alexa: I was born and raised in Germany. I was ten years old when the war was over. My memory of that time is still very good... better than remembering what I did yesterday!

 

So you are 83 years old now? Sorry, bad maths, 77-8

 

This seems to be about it and why they believed they had not done wrong - though did know enough that they had indeed done wrong as shown by their intent to hide the evidence.

 

Deniers are particular breed of bigot with an obvious dogmatic approach. Truth and facts are not necessary but distortion, fallacy and bullshit are certainly the order of the day.

There are other inhabitants of the intellectual cesspool to be sure, but denier's are right at home.


https://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Exhib/HowtoEngl.html

HOW TO BE A REVISIONIST SCHOLAR

By Michael Philips. First-Published: January 3, 1996 (alt.revisionism)

Hey lurkers! After browsing through alt.revisionism posts for awhile, you may already have figured out how to become a Holocaust revisionist. It's easy.

For those of you considering such a move, be assured that 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).

 

The Nazis believed that the world would not understand, not even their own people. They knew that mass murder was not morally grounded. Therefore, the holocaust should be kept secret as much as possible.

 

Yeah? My father was 13 living in Berlin on Kristallnacht. He was a mischling. His JEWISH father had "gotten outta dodge" two weeks earlier with the assistance of his good friend and non-jew potsdam chief of police.

I bet you have very vivid memories of the war, its terror, its depravity and its agonizing aftermath. You are one of hundreds of millions who lived thru that reality. As a person who was a hitler youth in their formative years I can also understand your reluctance to accept the horrific facts about your beloved fuhrer and the nazi regime. Those bastards did deliberately and methodically attempt to erase an entire people off the face of the earth - the true manifestation of the glorious German Nationalist dream.

 

I am not sure about the keeping it from their own people. The death camps possibly. There has been a lot of work done looking up old papers and even letters between families which seems to suggest that they were well aware of how the Jews and others were being treated even to mass murders. Letters between family members indicate that they were often divided on whether they supported it or not but certainly that it was a lot more widely known than was originally thought - though with the possibly exception of the death camps.

 

This is from the Guardian, April 2017

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/apr/18/opening-un-holocaust-files-archive-war-crimes-commission

 

The Nazis would have eventually wiped out most of the Germans if they had won the war. Totalitarian movements are anti-human. Hitler and eventually Stalin believed that Jews were the ultimate threat to their crafty evil nihilist schemes.

"The famous "Right is what is good for the German people" was meant only for mass propaganda;
Nazis were told that "Right is what is good for the movement,"" 7
and these two interests did by no means always coincide. The Nazis did not think that the
Germans were a master race, to whom the world belonged, but that they
should be led by a master race, as should all other nations, and that this
race was only on the point of being born. Not the Germans were the dawn
of the master race, but the SS.69 The "Germanic world empire," as Himmler
said, or the "Aryan" world empire, as Hitler would have put it, was in any
event still centuries of.70 For the "movement" it was more important to
demonstrate that it was possible to fabricate a race by annihilating other
"races" than to win a war with limited aims."
The Origins of Totalitarianism, by HANNAH ARENDT, Meridian Books , A MERIDIAN HOOK, Cleveland and New York, 1958.
https://archive.org/stream/TheOriginsOfTotalitarianism/The-Origins-of-Totalitarianism_djvu.txt

 

Operation Reinhart was a "closely held secret" except there is no such thing when you have literally tens of thousands of conspirators spread all over the Reich. Rumors and whispers everywhere. Many chose not to believe them.

 

They certainly seem to have known a fair amount. For instance

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/feb/17/johnezard

To some extent I am interested because I think we are in a similar political situation today where people are going along with ideas it would have been impossible even a few years ago to believe they would. Basically about how they get people to collude. We had a thread which moved into this only a couple of weeks ago and I read that German Soldiers were not forced to carry out the mass murders of for instance Jewish women and children. They were given the option of saying no with no consequences but of a group of 500 soldiers only 15 said no and even after they had done it once only about 20% could not do it the second time. They may have carefully chosen the men to ask but it also suggestes they had managed to get them to believe that those they were doing it to were indeed a danger to them.

Of course the Nazis had been 'softening' them using the same kinds of words towards Jews and Roma as we now hear those on the right use towards Muslims. That seems to be what it is a kind of softening whereby little by little people will accept these things.

So later work apparently believed that rather than Germans being under a severe authoritarian regime, to some extent things were going from the bottom up - that that was the only way this could have happened. I will provide a link. It is from a review of a book by Barry Gewen.

He also talks about how there was dissent in Germany, people would carry on doing things which they knew were not allowed but at the same time they would not complain about what was being done to the left, to Gays, to Jews, Roma and others and that it was the left who the Nazis saw as most dangerous and came for first.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/feb/17/johnezard

I think one of the things I find most concerning at the moment is that we seem to be going through a similar reorientation of values and people seem to be unaware of where their talk actually goes just like is described above.

 

Why would he smile? Anti-Semites are them right wingers who also don't like Muslims.

 

Still no evidence, just faith in the people who claim to have evidence. I wonder how many people have denied seeing the Holocaust and if their testimony counts as well?

Well, I think there is no evidence clearly suggesting the extent of these things that will be shown here. People were shot and killed, sure. They probably died in a variety of ways, sure. But, again, there’s no evidence of the extreme, industrialized genocide of Jews.

 

Sure thing. No evidence of industrialized killing except for that mountain range blocking your view.