web analytics

THE HOLOCAUST IS A MYTH?

By David Vance On February 24th, 2012

The UN has eyes WIDE closed re the above. Here is a rather good insight by Rich Lowry..

“In March 1945, Adolf Hitler gave his infamous Nero Decree, essentially calling for the destruction of Germany. After the first U.S. atomic attack on Hiroshima, the Japanese war minister mused about how wonderful it would be if his nation were destroyed “like a beautiful flower.” It is in this tradition that former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — a relative pragmatist — said that “even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”

The danger that Iran represents is there for all to see. Rich is right in suggesting that Iran will behave rationally but it’s rationality is steeped in cataclysmic fanaticism.

60 Responses to “THE HOLOCAUST IS A MYTH?”

  1. According to some of your visitors here.

  2. bomb them, bomb them now!

  3. Mahons, are you calling for drone attacks on Aberdeen?

    Playing loose with the history of the Holocaust, when there’s no benefit for him, when he knows nothing about it and when it’s a very well documented historical fact, is in itself sufficient proof that Amd. is a madman.

  4. Noel – Aberdeen itself was last bombed in World War II, but of course that wasn’t the last time anyone in Aberdeen was bombed. For myself, I wish that fair city nothing but peace love and understanding.

  5. Rich is right in suggesting that Iran will behave rationally

    This assumes that the election-stealing, lying, murdering, terrorist-supporting, raping theocracy which rules in the name of Allah (peace be upon his name) is united.

    But the evidence suggests that it is riven by factions and that it resembles a bag of fighting cats. Some of which may be rational, others of which undoubtedly believe in the final coming of their Shia sky-god on the day of destruction. So it could be a question of which faction gets its finger on the nuclear trigger, assuming they succeed in getting one.

  6. Rafsanjani is correct. A nuclear attack on Israel would greatly harm the islamic world. He’s also a very influential politician and a much smarter man than Ahmadinejad.

  7. a much smarter man than Ahmadinejad

    Well yes, not a difficult feat. But Rafsanjani (a pragmatistist in the context of Iranian mullah politicians) is 77 years old and not in power and has been succeeded by the hardline Khamenei who oversaw the stolen election of 2008 and the murderous response of the raping regime to the protests that followed.

  8. It’s not so much that the holocaust is a myth: it’s that for Israel, it’s its own sine qua non. No holocaust = no Israel. For that reason alone, Zionists who control the institutions of many western countries have used their malign influence to have enacted laws which prevent examination of the campaign against Jews known as the holocaust. But why are such laws enacted and imposed so rigorously? If it were declared that all of Chemistry/Physics/Engineering is known and that no further research into each field is permitted, would that make sense? So why, across all of the domain of modern history is one subject, and only one subject, the matter of pain of imprisonment if it were researched and the ‘wrong’ outcome were declared? Is there something to hide, something that David Cole (jewish) found when he visited Auschwitz and asked questions which required him to withdraw from public life following (real) death threats?

    The colonisation of palestine by the millions of jewish survivors of the holocaust was based on the belief that, following the persecution of Jews by Europeans, Jews had to have their own redoubt. The problems here are:
    1. the jews from Europe were European and had absolutely no genetic linkage to the middle east, although the indigenous jews did and do, and they are semitic unlike the millions of incomers
    2. the jews from Europe brought the very same supremacist outlook from which they claimed to be fleeing – don’t just ask the arabs, ask the sephardic jews too.
    3. It wasn’t their land but somebody else’s.

    As for Rich Lowry, he doesn’t know very much at all, but he is a journalist and they don’t know very much about anything. The advocate of the destruction of Germany wasn’t Hitler, it was Henry Morgenthau, and his pronouncements motivated the Germans to fight with greater vigour.

    Btw, is Rich Lowry Jewish?

  9. Morgenthau was an evil bastard.

  10. Allan

    I accept that the current evidence suggests that approximately six million European Jews died at the hands of the Nazis in WW2. I’m not sure what figure you would accept.

    No-one in the free world is restricting research into the holocaust. Some European countries have made it illegal to deny that it happened. I think that is an outrageous denial of free speech, but there are no such laws in either the UK or Ireland or the USA, and its worth noting that France has recently passed a similar law with regard to the Armenenian massacres of 1915, to the enormous rage of Turkey, which is still in denial about its genocide, unlike Germany.

    I agree with your second paragraph. And no sane person on the planet could disagree that the creation of Israel in 1948 has had profoundly destabilising results not just for the region, but for the world, however well-meaning the motives of its founders and supporters.

  11. Morgenthau was an evil bastard.

    Yes, an “evil bastard” who tried his best to save victims of the holocaust:

    “Once confronted by the Holocaust, the Allied Powers reacted slowly. Refusing the initial appeal of Jewish organizations for Allied countries to deliver food and medicine to the ghettos of Europe, the British and U.S. governments argued that supplies would be diverted for the Germans’ personal use or would be granted to the Jews just to free the Third Reich from its “responsibility” to feed them. A license granted in December 1942 for such shipments had minimal effect. In 1943, the Treasury Department approved the World Jewish Congress’ plan to rescue Jews through the use of blocked accounts in Switzerland, but the State Department and the British Foreign Office procrastinated further. Morgenthau and his staff persisted in bypassing State and ultimately confronting Roosevelt in January 1944, along with increasing calls from Congress and the public for a presidential rescue commission; the eventual result was the executive creation of the US War Refugee Board in January 1944. The “Bergson Group” led by Hillel Kook was the most vocal group of activists calling for rescue, had considerable support in Congress and Senate as well from Eleanor Roosevelt and prepared the ground for Roosevelt’s eventual decision. The Board sponsored the Raoul Wallenberg mission to Budapest and allowed an increasing number of Jews to enter the U.S. in 1944 and 1945; as many as 200,000 Jews were saved in this way.[13]“

  12. An evil bastard who intended to de-industrialise tens of millions of Germans down to permanent agrarian poverty.

  13. As a “peaceful” protest to Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon,

    Why don’t we all head off to Barnes & Noble or Watersones, buy a Koran and set it alight in the town square.

    Of course, we’d have to video-record the event and upload it to YouTube so Akma-dipshit-ajad could view it.

  14. Peter – I used to accept the ‘6 million’ until very recently. The problem with the 6 million is that it is firstly a sacred number to certain so-called Jewish groups to justify zionism – 6 million shall perish before you return – as a translation of a jewish text suggests. Another is that the International Committee of the Red Cross had access to all concentration camps and these records show 300,000 – 500,000 deaths, due in great majority to starvation and typhus, and these were towards the end of the war as a result of the collapse of the German logistics system (no food and no de-lousing: Zyklon B was for de-lousing, yet the Germans had copious stocks of nerve gases). Accepting the 6 million means that the ICRC was in on the holocaust yet that has never been suggested nor could it be given that these records are available.

    The game-changer for me was the videos by David Cole (jewish) who visited Auschwitz wearing his yarmulka in order that he couild ask the questions that no gentile would dare – more later no doubt. But here is Gilad Atzmon on the Wannsee Conference:

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-the-wannsee-conference-truth-and-myth.html

    – However, Haaretz concedes that, like any historical document, the Wannsee document should be read carefully. The words “death” or “murder” do not appear in the conference protocol. Instead, it refers to “natural diminution”, “appropriate treatment”, “other solution options” and “different forms of solutions.” In fact, the only explicit references in the document deal with deportation rather than extermination. Even the famous table attached to the protocol that counts the Jews in each occupied country, does not state that those Jews are destined to be destroyed.

    – Just a few days ahead of Holocaust Memorial Day, a Hebrew paper found the courage to admit that “decades of Holocaust research could not find a clear and explicit command made by high-level Nazi officials to engage in systematic mass extermination of Jews.” –

    Now, as we know, when the Germans intended to kill people, the orders were clear. Taking the political Commissars of occupied-Soviet Union, the orders signed by General Jodl (to his final detriment at Nuremburg) stated that clearly. additionally, at the time of Wannsee, the German Army was in the ascendancy in Russia, so there were no worries about losing.

  15. Stephen Walt fairly nails it here: A Martian view of the Iran debate

    Indeed he points out that according to the US, Iran’s nuclear ambitions fall long way short of weapons

  16. Stephen Walt fairly nails it here: A Martian view of the Iran debate
    http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/10/a_martian_view_of_the_iran_debate

    Indeed he points out that according to the US, Iran’s nuclear ambitions fall long way short of weapons
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0223/1224312241744.html

  17. Allan

    In the off chance that your disbelief is legitimate….

    Visit Birkenau, the death camp right next to Aushwitz. I’ve been there.

    It is a very big place.

    And not all the Jews died in concentration camps or death camps.

  18. Phantom,

    My comments aren’t appearing. Could you check it out please?

  19. I see them caught in the spam filter.

    I don’t know how to free them from there.

    David may be able to do it

  20. Phantom – over and above those who died in the camps, tens of thousands of jews were murdered (shot) as the German Army swept through the Soviet Union, but it’s a bit late to be backing off from Auschwitz being a death camp – for the holocaust narrative, Auschwitz is THE death camp. We have been told, time and again, that the trains would draw into Auschwitz and the captives would go directly to the gas chambers. Yet when the Frank family was sent to Auschwitz in late 1944, Ann Frank and her sister were not murdered and, after a few months, were sent to another camp in Germany, where they both died of typhus as a result of no available de-lousing agents (the Zyklon B). Otto Frank caught typhus in the death camp but he recovered in the hospital and was released when Soviet troops expelled the Germans. It should be noted that the ‘diaries’ hadn’t been published so the Franks didn’t have the VIP status enjoyed by Leon Blum.

    The consequences of the holocaust being revealed as a hoax are incalculable. The Germans have been shaken down for decades by Israel (it assumes itself as the national embodiment of jewry), ordinary Jews themselves would realise that Zionists have used them as a diversion (from control of money and, through corruption, of western politicians), and the arabs expelled by the colonisation of trans-Jordan would demand retribution.

    Bizarrely, I will be accused of ‘racism’ (jews are not a race and the majority are European – look at them) and ‘anti-semitism’ (most jews are not semitic). That’s what happens when a population has been force-fed a narrative which has shut down their faculties of independent thought.

  21. The consequences of the holocaust being revealed as a hoax are incalculable.

    But it wasn’t a hoax. Even if the figures are way off and the toll was two or three million (highly unlikely – the six million is well supported by evidence) does it really change anything in terms of the conclusions we must draw from it? To my mind the answer is a categorical no.

  22. Aushwitz was a concentration camp? The intent there was to wrk you to death

    Birkenau was a death camp. The goal was to kill all residents as fast as posible

  23. The trouble with Allan is that he is clearly a very intelligent, concise and excellent commenter, with a real talent for mining the Internet to give weight to his views, but he seems so intent on prmoting and ‘proving’ some very undesirable and unsavoury suppositions.

  24. he is a kook Colm, and kooks tend to be very smart, but I have no time for the nonsense that spews from him and 2 or 3 other anti american, anti jew voices that post here.

    They hold the same view as the Persians, America is the Big Satan, and Israel is the Little Satan

  25. Wot about Britain ?. Ain’t we some sort of middle sized Satan too ?

  26. How common are such views among the Ron Paul cabal?

    Hmm

  27. Colm – He searches the internet for more kooky stuff, bullshit isn’t “weight”.

  28. The “Ron Paul cabal” has been found out.

    Drat!

  29. Mahons

    Don’t we all search the Internet for kooky stuff… late at night… when everyone else has gone to bed :)

  30. your Satans foot stool…. happy

  31. Colm – why search the internet for kooky stuff? it is all here.

  32. Troll

    Nah, We’re Satan’s Brain and you lot are Satan’s Brawn ;)

  33. oh OK

  34. Mahons

    True – All human traits can be found at this Tangled Web. Sticky bits, stringy bits, strong hold it all together bits, and a wise old spider (The Vance) in the middle holding it all together !

  35. There are no records showing any inmates being gassed – none whatsoever. There are no aerial photographs showing any mass extermination operations or consequential evidence. If there were, they would be linked. Note that the size of the nearby industrial area meant that Auschwitz-Birkenau was over-flown regularly and without notification. Here is the video from David Cole who went into Auschwitz and confronted the narrative directly:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-YsBXEueoU&feature=related

    For anyone open-minded enough to watch, it will be seen that David Cole is jewish and European by race. Link this to Haaretz’s report on the Wannsee Conference as discussed by Gilad Atzmon (jewish) and the narrative begins to fall apart. all that’s left are the insults.

  36. Allan people like you are the reason why the rest of us must stay twice as vigilant

  37. I believe that one of the other members of the Ron Psul clique recently questioned why there was a need for a Holocaust Museum I’m Washington.

    Well, people like Allan are the answer. There will always be Neo Nazis , conspiracy theorists and their fellow travelers among us. That us why the truth must be told to all generations.

  38. never again

  39. Yes Phantom – let’s have the truth.

  40. Couldn’t post this earlier so thought I’d give it another go. Stephen Walt: A Martian view of the Iran debate

    http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/10/a_martian_view_of_the_iran_debate

  41. Phantom –

    Yes, I am that member of the Ron Paul Secret Society of Dastardly Acolytes who queried why Washington DC needs a Holocaust Museum. Washington has no more connection with it than does a Bolivian mountain top.

    “That us why the truth must be told to all generations.”

    Oh you don’t want to go there. Despair and disappointment lie in wait for truth-seekers who are mentally and emotionally unprepared for that journey.

  42. The world is an interconnected place, Pete.

    Berlin is not the only place that needs to know this history.

    Allan should go there, or to one of the Other holocaust museums in the world.

    Perhaps there should be one in Aberdeen.

  43. Phantom –

    The world needs to know history, however we need to be sure of what it is we think we know and that we are not being told something for either A) political reasons, or B) because it is accepted fact because it is accepted fact.

    No, before you attribute to this Grand Wizard of the High Order of Ron Paulians a diabolical scheme to soft soap the National Socialists, you can set that all aside.

    It’s that I’m a history junkie addicted to my drug to an extent which many would find weird. Where most would have a jolly nice walk through the English countryside on a summer’s day admiring the countryside, I obsess about the field patterns, whether the hedgerows mark medieval parish boundaries, the route west by which Saxons founded that village over there, whether the church on that hill stands on a pagan holy place (the graveyard will give that secret). I walk along a street in any town and think mainly of its origin and how it came to be named and why it’s on its alignment and why its this length.

    Others have films or World of Warcraft or some other hobby, but I am wholly addicted to history, and it’s taught me that much of what we think we know is either bunk or a little bunkfull. Much of what we think we know is a story told for a reason. Most of all, it’s taught me that if history cannot be backed up with demonstrable facts and evidence then its unwise to believe all that you’re being told.

    The world doesn’t need a string of museums telling the same story, it simply needs the facts and evidence.

  44. Well said Pete.

    Let’s have truth above myth, in all things. And that applies to science as much as it does to history.

  45. Pete

    OT, are you going to the match tomorrow? I think the Sperz are well up for it.

  46. Peter –

    Yes indeed, in science also. Did you happen to see that Richard Lindzen (atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the MIT) recently said, in the House of Commons:

    Claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a Greenhouse Effect, and that man’s activity have contributed to warming are trivially true but essentially meaningless.”

    Interesting, no? Reported by The Independent too! Also this:

    How to explain the procession of eminent opinion leaders – some even in our own Royal Society – who advance the tenets of catastrophic global warming? “It is science in the service of politics,” he said.

    If Lindzen is right, we will never be able to calculate the trillions that have been spent on the advice of “scientists in the service of politics”.

    “It is science in the service of politics”. I dunno about you, but I think it’s time we heeded eminent scientists.

  47. Peter –

    I’ll be there, mainly cowering behind the fat bloke in front of me. If the Sperz aren’t well up for it they their heads looking at. It’s obvious this is the wrong game at the wrong time for us.

    A gooner told me today that Sperz would be happy with a point. He must be joking. I’d take a point now if offered it.

  48. Let’s have truth above myth, in all things. And that applies to science as much as it does to history

    Indeed Peter. I take it that you are aware that Tesla’s patents were suppressed once he revealed that the energy from successful development would be effectively beyond tariff?

  49. Pete

    The melting glaciers all over the world are all the evidence anyone needs to see that the planet is warming. The only question is what cause or mixture of causes are responsible.

    I can accept that there is still debate about causes. But anyone who attempts to claim that there has been no warming in the past 150 years is not worth arguing with. Quite often, they turn out to be creationists as well, i.e. well beyond the reach of rational debate.

  50. Yes, anything less than a Sperz win tomorrow will be a result for the Arse and Wenger :)

  51. Peter –

    I have no reason to doubt the planet has warmed over the last 150 years. Legitimate questions can be asked why, but few seem to ask, in the event that AGW is correct, what the correct course of action should be. I’d suggest, as I long have suggested, that government action is the very last thing we need on anything.

    I haven’t commented on Chelsea. If there’s a reason why I should have done it’s because I was in the pub this afternoon watching the rugby, managed to avoid the final results and they’re not up yet on MOTD.

  52. Nice thoughts, Pete. I suspected as much.

    “Most of all, it’s taught me that if history cannot be backed up with demonstrable facts and evidence then its unwise to believe all that you’re being told. ”

    There is a suprising amount of unknows, or uncertainty, in history, and we are often just getting used to the satisfaction of having a certain piece of the jigsaw in place when someone comes along and revises or even overturns it.
    That is true for most stories of the past in most countries.

    However, when you get people picking over the inevitable uncertainties in some particular story and expanding on them in an attempt to present the whole tale as uncertain, you can always be sure there is some agenda at work.
    This happened recently with the revisionist school of Irish history, when large – and rather phoney – question marks were placed over, e.g. the Famine and the popularity or otherwise of the Republican revolt in the early 20th C.

    And of course the same is true of the Holocaust.
    We have records, photographs, victim and neutral eye witnesses, confessions by the perpetrators, material evidence and massive unaccounted-for gaps in the Jewish population of Europe.
    This kind of evidence would be enough for us to accept any other story, but with the Holocaust it’s all ignored. Instead, the deniers concentrate on things like the lack of written orders and the few incongruities, as if such a vast undertaking, and during a huge war, could be expected to be regular and precisely recorded.

    Anyone who’s looked in any detail at this time and the people involved on all sides will realise that the inconsistencies are in fact historically relevant and only explain the crime all the more.
    For example, Allen points at the famous Frank family not being murdered, and seems to think this suggests that no murdering took place at all; whereas those in the know will remember that German Jews were generally treated “better” than those of other western countires, and the unfortunate Jews of eastern Europe were treated worst of all.
    Another: he latches on to the Wansee Conference, and says that because the minutes don’t explicitely mention a decision to murder the Jews, then no murdering took place.
    Fact: the Wansee conference wasn’t nearly as important as people think. The decision to extermainate all Jews had been made serveral months before, and probably around 1 m Jews had already been murdered by then. Those attending were well aware of the decision, the conference was merely to order them to prepare their departments for the big logistic operation leading to the mass murder, an event that is everywhere between the lines in the record.

    Now on to much nicer topics. Pete’s comment reminded me of this great poem by John Hewitt

    ULSTER NAMES

    I take my stand by the Ulster names,
    each clean hard name like a weathered stone;
    Tyrella, Rostrevor, are flickering flames:
    the names I mean are the Moy, Malone,
    Strabane, Slieve Gullion and Portglenone.

    Even suppose that each name were freed
    from legend’s ivy and history’s moss,
    there’d be music still in, say, Carrick-a-rede,
    though men forget it’s the rock across
    the track of the salmon from Islay and Ross.

    The names of a land show the heart of the race;
    they move on the tongue like the lilt of a song.
    You say the name and I see the place
    Drumbo, Dungannon, or Annalong.
    Barony, townland, we cannot go wrong.

    You say Armagh, and I see the hill
    with the two tall spires or the square low tower;
    the faith of Patrick is with us still;
    his blessing falls in a moonlight hour,
    when the apple orchards are all in flower.

    You whisper Derry. Beyond the walls
    and the crashing boom and the coiling smoke.
    I follow that freedom which beckons and calls
    to Colmcille, tall in his grove of oak,
    raising his voice for the rhyming folk.

    County by county you number them over;
    Tyrone, Fermanagh …I stand by a lake,
    and the bubbling curlew, the whistling plover
    call over the whips in the chill daybreak
    as the hills and the waters the first light take.

    But you have as good a right as I
    to praise the place where your face is known,
    for over us all is the selfsame sky;
    the limestone’s locked in the strength of the bone,
    and who shall mock at the steadfast stone?

    So it’s Ballinamallard, it’s Crossmaglen,
    it’s Aughnacloy, it’s Donaghadee,
    it’s Magherafelt breeds the best of men,
    I’ll not deny it. But look for me
    on the moss between Orra and Slievenanee.

  53. Noel Cunningham –

    “However, when you get people picking over the inevitable uncertainties in some particular story and expanding on them in an attempt to present the whole tale as uncertain, you can always be sure there is some agenda at work.”

    Certainly, but with an absolute certainty, something which is expected to be accepted as truth, I want to to see the evidence.

    “The Holocaust = 6 million dead” is just such an absolute certainty. In this and other such cases I don’t expect the onus to be on those who wish to subtract from the expectation. Given the weight of global acceptance and expectation of the supposed facts of the Holocaust, I expect that it be possible to build and demonstrate, from zero to six million, an unimpeachable case for this astonishing crime.

    Don’t you?

    If that case cannot be demonstrated, that six million were murdered in a systematic way, in the ways claimed, then it’s a problem. It’s probably just as well to state again here that we can all set aside thoughts of the National Socialist regime. We know that many millions were extremely unfortunate to live under it. For the avoidance of doubt (because there’s a certain kind you throw extreme insults to those who dare doubt any official word) I don’t doubt that the National Socialist regime were particularly vicious to Slavs, gypsies, the handicapped, jews and others.

    But there is one particualr problem. Four of the six million dead were attributed to Auschwitz, based on evidence presented the Soviet Union almost immediately after the town was run over. This is clearly rubbish from a regime which never spoke a word of truth. Twenty years ago the ‘official’ (and still accepted) death toll at Auschwitz was revised down to about 1 million. So 3 million were ‘lost’ from the six million death toll. So why hasn;t the death toll been revised down the three million?

    That, of course, would still be a monstrous crime. However, considering that the equally monstrous Soviet regime overran most of the camps and that Soviet ‘evidence’ was accepted immediately in the post-war period (evidence which still is mostly accepted without question by people who have no idea that it is Soviet evidence) and that it is demonstrably true that Moscow’s word could not be accepted about anything at all, I’d suggest that a fresh review of what is “known” about the period is long overdue.

  54. Noel – I hope you don’t think I’m picking on you but your comment above is challengeable line-by-line:

    NC – We have records, photographs, victim and neutral eye witnesses, confessions by the perpetrators, material evidence and massive unaccounted-for gaps in the Jewish population of Europe.

    A@A – There are no records of mass gassings, no photographs of mass gassings and the RAF photographs cited by David Cole show the absence of any murderous activities, no apparatus or equipment which could support mass gassings and any gap in the jewish population OF EUROPE is balanced by the numbers who appeared in the middle east and the rest of the world – and the World Almanac shows barely a decline in the world Jewish population:

    World Almanac, 1938, pg. 510 — world Jewish population = 15,748,091, with 240,000 in Germany

    World Almanac, 1949, pg. 289: World Jewish Population — 15,713,638

    World Almanac, US News & World Report, 1983 population of Jews — 16,820,850

    Noteworthy is the absence of the holocaust in the memoirs of the main players:
    “I’ve checked out Churchill’s Second World War and the statement is quite correct” not a single mention of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war. This is astonishing. How can it be explained? Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle’s three-volume Memoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.”

    Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus,
    University of Ulster, December 5, 2005

    NC – This kind of evidence would be enough for us to accept any other story, but with the Holocaust it’s all ignored. Instead, the deniers concentrate on things like the lack of written orders and the few incongruities, as if such a vast undertaking, and during a huge war, could be expected to be regular and precisely recorded.

    A@A – For such a huge undertaking as wiping out 6 million people, one would expect there to be some documentary evidence such as orders.There were written orders to kill Soviet political commissars so why not for 6 millions Jews?

    NC – Anyone who’s looked in any detail at this time and the people involved on all sides will realise that the inconsistencies are in fact historically relevant and only explain the crime all the more. For example, Allen points at the famous Frank family not being murdered, and seems to think this suggests that no murdering took place at all; whereas those in the know will remember that German Jews were generally treated “better” than those of other western countires, and the unfortunate Jews of eastern Europe were treated worst of all.

    A@A – There were no special segregation gates at the arrival at Auschwitz for ‘western’ Jews. The Frank family arrived and were processed in the same manner as all other captives. If none of them were gassed, then exactly who were gassed? There is absolutely no evidence that anybody was gassed. The ‘eye-witness’ testimony has been refuted:

    http://sites.google.com/site/spielbergshoax/

    Watch this – Spielberg is shown as either a fraud or a dupe, and his ‘witnesses’ as fantasists and liars. Make/wake up your own mind

    NC – Another: he latches on to the Wannsee Conference, and says that because the minutes don’t explicitely mention a decision to murder the Jews, then no murdering took place.
    Fact: the Wansee conference wasn’t nearly as important as people think.

    A@A – The Wannsee Conference has been a fulchrum of the holocaust infrastructure and it is a bit late now to downplay that fact. Moreover, I didn’t focus on the absence of evidence from the Wannsee conference: Haaretz did, which is why I linked to its report. The story of all ‘final solution’ being ‘extermination’ is a fabrication.

    Final words from David Cole will follow.

  55. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n2p11_Cole.html

    On the issue of the Holocaust — and perhaps uniquely on this issue — we are told: “Close the books, there will be no more learning, no more discussion, no more questions. Not only will no questions be tolerated, but anyone who dares to ask such questions will be slandered and viciously attacked.”

    Now as someone who believes that part of being human is to learn something new everyday, I respond: “How dare you tell me there will be no more learning?” The establishment that maintains the Holocaust story on life support admits that there is no direct proof of homicidal gassings. No order, no document, no pictures, only “eyewitnesses.”

    And what of these eyewitnesses? The Holocaust lobby insists that this is convincing evidence. But what kind of evidence is this? In some European countries, a person who denies the gas chambers can be jailed, fined, or physically attacked. He might lose his job, his standing in the community, maybe even his life. Something similar has happened in Canada . In the United States , he might be attacked and villified. And if he says that he comes by his knowledge from first-hand experience — in other words from helping to run the camps during the war years — then he might easily find himself deported to Israel or eastern Europe, where he might be sentenced to death or at least stripped of his US citizenship and denied due process.

    In other words, we only hear of eyewitnesses from one side because witnesses from the other side have been strong-armed into silence. This is governmental coercion of the worst kind, and on a worldwide scale no less. One kind of eyewitness is encouraged, the other is warned that his words might lead to deportation, imprisonment, loss of livelihood, property, and even life. Some great victory for the Holocaust lobby: The game has been fixed!

    Let people speak! If only no one else, I demand this for my own sake. I want to know what happened during World War Two, and yet how can I if those who might have firsthand knowledge are told : “Speak only the official line, or suffer the consequences.” I insist on my human right to learn.

    There are those who say, “Okay, so maybe the Holocaust is a bit exaggerated, but do we really want to destabilize society by openly talking about all this, possibly encouraging hostility against Jews?” This raises an important philosophical question: Do you believe mankind to be so inherently cruel and stupid that people must be lied to in order to make them behave? If so, then the lies you tell them are only a small bandage to cover up a much greater evil: Lack of confidence in mankind’s ability to handle the truth. And if you truly believe that people cannot handle the truth, but instead need a “Big Brother” to handle it for them, then surely democracy is the most dangerous thing on earth.

    Of course, I understand that people can be cruel and stupid, but I also believe in the human ability to learn, and to grow with each new piece of knowledge. Rather than censor information that we subjectively perceive to be “dangerous,” we should teach our children to think critically, to remain open-minded, and to look for truth rather than cling to emotionally appealing falsehoods.

    And that is just about all we can do: teach our children and hope for the best, realizing that people cannot be programmed like robots. Eighty years of failed Communism should have taught us that. To use the power of the state to force men to be what the state defines as “good” creates a world far more hellish than the one that is supposedly being prevented. I would rather live in a world where people are free to be cruel and stupid than one in which “goodness” is enforced at gun point.

    Keep in mind also that truth, objective truth, does not need threats and intimidation to prevail. We Holocaust Revisionists are often likened to those who said that the earth was flat. But just the reverse is true: It is the other side that acts like a Holy Inquisition, institutionalizing one viewpoint and punishing heretics. Remember: We only accepted that the earth is round after the debate was opened. And since then, the round-earth adherents have not needed false news laws, hate crimes laws, and libel or slander laws to protect the truthfulness of their view. Likewise, all we ask is that the Holocaust story either stand or fall according to the evidence — or lack of it.

  56. But there is one particualr problem. Four of the six million dead were attributed to Auschwitz, based on evidence presented the Soviet Union almost immediately after the town was run over.
    Bullshit.
    This is clearly rubbish from a regime which never spoke a word of truth.
    True.
    Twenty years ago the ‘official’ (and still accepted) death toll at Auschwitz was revised down to about 1 million.
    Bullshit.
    So 3 million were ‘lost’ from the six million death toll. So why hasn;t the death toll been revised down the three million?
    Bullshit.

  57. Pete & Peter,

    “Did you happen to see that Richard Lindzen (atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the MIT) recently said, in the House of Commons:”

    RIchard Lindzen has been saying things for some time, and you’ll often find if you look a bit closer it is misleading or simply false. Here he is giving a very similar talk in 2010 (the slides are pretty much identical to the ones he used in Westminster).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Sh1B-rV60

    The difference is that another eminent scientist, Andrew Dessler, is debating him, so Lindzen doesn’t have it all his own way. It’s a long talk but worth the watch – Lindzen and Dessler are on for about the first hour and 30mins.

    And of course Lindzen is able to get away with the claims he makes on the speaking circuits, especially when speaking unopposed to the credulous ‘sceptics’. In the scientific literature, not so much. He is also the best that the ‘sceptics’ have to offer, by a long way.

  58. FO –

    Bullshit? Maybe the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum website is bullshit too?:

    On May 8, 1945, the Soviet commission issued a communiqué presenting the results of its investigations. One of them most important findings was the figure of 4 million people who died or were killed in the camp, which quickly became fixed in the public mind and served as an impediment to later research on the issue.

    I don’t believe any Soviet propaganda. Particularly when it’s about National Socialist, crimes I really don’t believe it without strong evidence. Considering that the Soviets had entered the town less than four months earlier then only a fool (or fellow allies at Nuremburg who had a job to do) should accept that figure. In fact no-one with any serious interest in the truth of what happened now accepts that report, yet it’s one of the foundations for the overall death toll of 6 million which is still fixed in the public consciousness.

  59. The Soviets exaggerated the number of people killed at Auschwitz, but the Soviet figure was never widely accepted by historians and didn’t form any basis fro the overall estimate of 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust- because unsurprisingly a lot of people knew the Soviet Union were liars and propagandists back in the 1940s too.

  60. Keep talking’ , Paulites.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.