Calling all Debunkers, and anyone who thinks Holocaust Denial is offensive, debunk this!

Originally posted by ken10
Just more things to consider.

Like the 400 anti-jewish laws passed by the Reich in the years 1933-1939?

Or are you suggesting that Hitler was simply aiding and abetting the "zionist agenda" ?

reply to post by neformore


So tell me is there any evidence linking Hitler to any known Zionists ?

A simple yes or no will do.

reply to post by brutalsun


So if I visit the camps as you suggest I will KNOW that six million died and that anyone who suggest a different number should go to prison.
If I visit the camps I will know that the windows on the roof could still have been used to drop the gas pellets on the poor Jews below even though they were not added to the structure until several years after the war.
If I visit the camps I can just allow my emotions to replace my common sense and be freed from the need to deal with petty things like facts.
Thank you for making it all so clear.

reply to post by ken10


You tell me.

You're claiming the zionist jews set themselves up to get a state of their own.

reply to post by superluminal11


If you don't mind, I prefer the term Euro-American

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
So I'm not sure how things stand as far as quote mining goes. This seems to be a clear example of quote mining by Mattogno in order to support his view. What I find expecially telling is the last paragraph, taken from Romanov's correspendence with Mattogno.

Do you notice the total contradiction? He basically admits to the ambiguity yet he scolds Zimmerman to be a deliberate liar. IMHO, the quoted part above does clearly show that it is bogus to cite these Smersh interrogation transcripts in support of the "1 per oven or bust" argument.

From my reading; and this won't surprise you, Zimmerman's interpretation of those transcripts seems way more honest. At least Zimmerman notes the amiguity. But overall I would say it is pretty obvious that Prüfer was talking about the inability of the whole machinery to dispose of "such a number of corpses" and did not say that you could only put one corspe into the oven at a time or it would bust.

I say this part supports the "official/traditional" view (as you call it), but it probably is to ambigious to be a "smoking gun". This should count for the revisionist side too, especially when Mattogno admits to the ambiguity.

Well, the relevant parts are all quoted above. Anyone can form his own opinon.

This is not the only reason that Zimmerman was wrong when claiming outrageous capacities for the Crematoria, it's only a small piece to the puzzle. What about all the real world data that shows there is no time or fuel savings for burning more than one body per baffle? Especially in the Appendix of Risposa, he addresses fuel savings and other issues. In the real world, it takes about twice as long and twice as much coke fuel to burn two bodies as it does one, you get no apparent advantage(and most likely disadvantage) to burning more than one body per baffle. According to sources Mattogno cited, you can't even perform cremations in modern gas fired furnaces as quickly as Zimmerman is claiming for these old coke fired Crematoria.
This dialog being cited is only one angle(and a very small one at that) of why it's not reasonable to burn more than one body per baffle at a time. The biggest reason is the lack of fuel and time savings which would negate the whole argument in favor of burning multiple bodies per baffle.
For those reasons, I think Zimmerman is off-base.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by PplVSNWO]

reply to post by neformore


No, I proposed a possibility that there could have been an ORIGINAL intention to send jews (who may not have volunteered) to Palestine to create the Zionist state that is Israel.

Now IF Hitler had involvement with any known Zionists, then that possibility exists.........Does it not ?

reply to post by PplVSNWO



Let's just keep to the parts I quoted. It is your contention that Prüfer categorically stated that it is impossible to put 2 bodies into 1 oven?

I don't think so.

I'll have to look into the rest, I'm not that far yet. There's literally dozens of ways in which they could have burned the victims. (Combinations of cycles etc.)...

But can I extrapolate from your answer that the argument is that there was not enough fuel at Auschwitz to burn that many victims?

Pluse I think open pit burning is pretty much undeniable at this point. But anyways.


[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
3 arguments for open pit burning:

I have already post arguments agains open pit burning above on why there where no mass open pit burnings, especially during the alleged time frame.
I see no evidence in your excerpts that refutes Mattagno's findings on open air burnings, just hearsay ie Here's photos of pits where eye witnesses where said to have seen open pit burnings.
Where is the proof of these mass burnings?

reply to post by HomerinNC


So the tattoos on the arms of the elderly Jews you took care of PROVED that the number was six million?
It PROVED they were gassed and did not die from disease or starvation after the allies bombed the rail lines that were used to provide their rations?
It PROVED that such tattoos did not exist on the arms of gypsies, gays and other non-Jews?
Once more an attempt to deflect the argument to emotions rather than having to deal with pesky facts

reply to post by ken10


Many successful Jewish folk were already immigrating to Palestine well before World War II, it was part of the Zionist movement, a return to Zion (hence the name.) It's not out of the question for successful businessmen to pack up and start life anew in the holy land, especially if they were zionists and believe doing so is fulfilling the prophecy of the coming of the messiah.

Also, the Third Reichs plans for the Jews originally did not involve Israel or extermination, it was deportation. Originally they tried to export them to other countries; nobody would take them. The US even turned back a freighter of 3,000 jews fleeing Europe because they had already filled "immigration quotas." The Reich then wanted to ship them all to a "New Zion" in Madagascar. After the North Africa front was lost, that no longer became a viable alternative.

reply to post by duality90


Sounds great. Tell it to the people of Gaza

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


Please don't reduce Mattogno's research on Sanderkation 1005 to just he would you say it's Soviet propaganda. How about reading why it's known to be Soviet invention. Linked from a book by Mattogno: Chapter VII:The Role of the Einsatzgruppen in the Occupied Eastern Territories
It's too long to post, so you have to go to section 4. Operation 1005.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
3 arguments for open pit burning:

I have already post arguments agains open pit burning above on why there where no mass open pit burnings, especially during the alleged time frame.
I see no evidence in your excerpts that refutes Mattagno's findings on open air burnings, just hearsay ie Here's photos of pits where eye witnesses where said to have seen open pit burnings.
Where is the proof of these mass burnings?

What proof, additional to eyewitness testimony of perpetrators victims and civilian do you have in mind?
What proof besides the aerial photos that clearly document large stakes burning on the camp grounds?

Are you implying that they are all lying? Or that they saw something different burning and that that is what the aerial photographs document?


Funny how Dejaco admitted to having drawn the plans for open pyres when they didn't exist, isn't it?

www.rodoh.us...

But let me guess. That was tortured out of him... Le cèrcle continue ...

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

 

Please don't reduce Mattogno's research on Sanderkation 1005 to just he would you say it's Soviet propaganda. How about reading why it's known to be Soviet invention. Linked from a book by Mattogno: Chapter VII:The Role of the Einsatzgruppen in the Occupied Eastern Territories
It's too long to post, so you have to go to section 4. Operation 1005.

Isn't the content of the link you just gave me that which is refuted in the link I gave you?

reply to post by duality90


Nazis and Zionist
Leaders of both groups make the claim that they are the most superior of all races on the earth
Leaders of both groups, while they may label all other races as inferior humans, label one particular group living amongst them as not even an inferior race but actual sub-humans
Leaders of both groups called for the removal of these sub-humans from their territories
And you have trouble understanding why some people suggest a similarity?
Not all Jews agree with these views. Not all Jews are Zionist.
Not all Germans agreed with Hitler. Not all Germans were Nazis.
And?

reply to post by WolfofWar


Thanks for the input,

I don't know the whole story ( does anyone ?),merely trying to fit some of the pieces of the jigsaw together. And i'm trying to find a scenario that could encompass most ? What i find telling is a refusal of Israel to release Eichmann's memoirs.......Could he have provided within these memoirs proof the final destination of the jews were to be Palestine ?.

Its speculation i know, but as with the whole of this story nothing is proven as far as i can see.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by PplVSNWO

 

Let's just keep to the parts I quoted. It is your contention that Prüfer categorically stated that it is impossible to put 2 bodies into 1 oven?

I don't think so.

No, neither I nor Mattogno has said it is impossible to burn two bodies in one baffle? Is that what you are extrapolating from Mattogno's paper?

I'll have to look into the rest, I'm not that far yet. There's literally dozens of ways in which they could have burned the victims. (Combinations of cycles etc.)...

None of which there is any proof of. Is "eyewitness" testimony all you have for alternative cremation methods?

But can I extrapolate from your answer that the argument is that there was not enough fuel at Auschwitz to burn that many victims?

Sure, there seems to have been enough fuel for the cremations that there is record of, but not enough fuel for anywhere near the claimed number of cremations.

Pluse I think open pit burning is pretty much undeniable at this point. But anyways.

See, there isn't any denying that open pit burning took place. There is just absolutely no evidence, and in fact there is evidence to the contrary, that large numbers(ie en masse) of bodies where burned in deep open air pits. I have posted two different papers in a post a page back that refutes the open air cremations fables at Auschwitz.
Now, while you accuse me of posting information that you think you have already posted a refutation too, it seems you are starting to make a habit of it yourself.

Edit- Why is somebody following you and giving a star for everyone one of your posts, even when there is no real content? Others have been making good posts and get no stars? Somebody using Megaphone possibly?

[edit on 12-8-2010 by PplVSNWO]

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
So the bottom line for me at this point in time is that yes jews were systematically killed by the nazis, that 2.5-3.5 million were killed and no, gas chambers were not used for killing. Does it matter if the number is 2.5 million instead of 6 million? Yes I think it does. The truth is horrible enough. It doesn't have to be exaggerated and the German people don't deserve to be vilified(and pay compensation) forever for deaths that did not occur.

I agree. It doesn't matter, if the number is only 100 000 or 1 million. We still can't deny the photos of mounds of dead people that either died from starvation or disease that were ostracized and confined in camps.

reply to post by PplVSNWO

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

No, neither I nor Mattogno has said it is impossible to burn two bodies in one baffle? Is that what you are extrapolating from Mattogno's paper?

Well, help me out here. We were talking about Fürlers testimony. Does Mattogno not use his testimony to establish that putting more than one bodies in the oven would break it?

I never claimed that was the whole point. I'm trying to discuss the details here, something you seem very resolute not to do.

None of which there is any proof of. Is "eyewitness" testimony all you have for alternative cremation methods?

What other possible evidence is there besides eyewitness testimony when it comes to the methods implemented to dispose of the bodies? It seems to me that pertaining to the actual process there is no other possible evidence.

Sure, there seems to have been enough fuel for the cremations that there is record of, but not enough fuel for anywhere near the claimed number of cremations.

Ah. So there were cremations? At least something. I'll adress the fuel question later. It's dissapointing that you're not willing to lay it out for me. It would save so much time.

See, there isn't any denying that open pit burning took place. There is just absolutely no evidence, and in fact there is evidence to the contrary, that large numbers(ie en masse) of bodies where burned in deep open air pits. I have posted two different papers in a post a page back that refutes the open air cremations fables at Auschwitz.

How can the evidence for "some open pit burning" be discriminated against evidence for "open pit burning en masse"?

This claim seems rather disingenious to me. What exactly is the testimony you accept as evidence for open pit burning? Am I to extrapolate that some testimony is true, some is false?

How can you come to the conclusion that "some" took place while "en masse" did not?

It's not as if they found some ashes, just not much of it. Somehow you seem to contradict yourself. I have presented the evidence for open-pit-burning. Only by selective discounting a part of that evidence can you speak of "only some". I would not know what the basis is for that discounting.

I'm not concerned with how efficient the process was. It's clear that your link establishes that it was absolutely not efficient nor practical to dispose of the bodies that way.

No historian claims it was efficient or practical. It was a Notmassnahme, a special measure whenever the Crematoria where overwhelmed. You refute the idea by quoting a technical argument saying that bodies would not be fully reduced by such low-intensity fires. Which historian has ever claimed that they would be fully reduced?

It's rather naive to think that the SS burned some people in open pits, then saw the results and went...

"Well, Hans - look this doesn't do the job. There's still remains of the bodies left... Let's not use this method anymore".

Considering how things were at the camp at that time burning the corpses to indistuinguishable blobs would have been absolutely sufficient for the SS. Their goal, after all, was not to have a nice pile of ashes that they could put in an urn and then send to the family.

Now, while you accuse me of posting information that you think you have already posted a refutation too, it seems you are starting to make a habit of it yourself.

That's why I have consistently asked you to present individual claims. It's so much easier. But you don't seem to be interested in that - and I can understand you, since that is very time intensive. But if all you do is make the argumentum ad linkum, *snicker", I will reply with the same in order to give the interested reader both sides of the debate. ( I will point out again that I would prefer taking up individual claims since this would enable said reader to form an opinion without leaving the thread.

Edit- Why is somebody following you and giving a star for everyone one of your posts, even when there is no real content? Others have been making good posts and get no stars? Somebody using Megaphone possibly?

An honest and dedicated effort will always be appreciated on and by ATS. jealous? or just paranoid?

[edit on 12-8-2010 by PplVSNWO]



[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]