"In 1942, the crematorium area was constructed next to the main camp. It included the old crematorium and the new crematorium (Barrack X) with a gas chamber. There is no credible evidence that the gas chamber in Barrack X was used to murder human beings. " Dachau ("https://www. ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005214") You need to ask questions regardless of the topic, because your statements are in direct contradiction to (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM)) yea, I backpacked Europe too, I also visited a few historical sites lol.
“Jewish Bolsheviks” “Hitler was a great man” “I’m not denying the holocaust I’m just asking questions” God I’m like one or two away from winning anti semite bingo Yeah I have a habit of avoiding cranky conspiracy YouTube videos that are light on citations and heavy on wild jumps in logic and contradictory opinions with those who are actually professionals in the field. The holocaust happened it’s well documented. Are there things that are sensationalized or probably misrepresented (yes that always happens) but the basic facts are Hitler did systematically try to murder an entire race of people and actively butchered millions of non Jewish people of the countries Germany occupied. The internal memos are there. Thousands upon thousands of hours of video testimony. Confessions from those taking part. The bodies and mass graves which were found. The open declarations and actual laws passed to systematically round up the Jewish people. The records of revolution efforts and efforts to fight back by Jewish people. The American soldiers who witnessed these atrocities. The list goes on and on of proof that there was systematic attempt to murder an entire religious group. The people who claim they are just asking questions are never just asking questions. They’re attempting to put enough doubt on the topic to discredit the mountain of evidence we have showing what happened. It’s a pretty blatant attempt to revitalize the image of fascism and Nazi germany. This is a common tactic of extremely far right full blown neo Nazi types and they even have a phrase for it. It’s called hiding your power levels. I’m not claiming this is what landrace is doing cause I don’t know what’s in the guys heart but he’s clearly fell for a lot of garbage. If you want to learn read the thousands of scholarly works on the topic which have really primary sources backing up their claims and aren’t just stupid YouTube conspiracy theories which are almost always funded by holocausy denying groups or neonazi groups.’ Sorry if I’m a little sensitive about a fucking genocide of my ethnic minority and family members being questioned.
LMAO!!!, Native that's hilarious lol There are no official Nazi Memo that ordered the final solutions, these are exactly the inconsistancity i'm articulating; thank you for proving my point! "The origin of the "Final Solution," the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jewish people, remains uncertain." This is the first sentence from the United Stated Holocaust Memorial Museum. SRC:The "Final Solution" https://www.ushmm.org|/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007704 Once again thank you, for proving my point. The institute of historical review cites: "Former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss was tortured by British officials into signing a false and self-incriminating "confession" that has been widely cited as a key document of Holocaust extermination. His testimony before the Nuremberg Tribunal, a high point of the proceeding, was perhaps the most striking and memorable evidence presented there of a German extermination program. /73 Höss maintained that two and half million people had been killed in Auschwitz gas chambers, and that another 500,000 inmates had died there of other causes. No serious or reputable historian now accepts either of these fantastic figures, and other key portions of Höss' "confession" are now generally acknowledged to be untrue. /74" SRC:The Nuremberg Trials (part 2) http://www.ihr.org|/jhr/v12/v12p167_Weberb.html
Yes many historians have done just this and found over and over again what happened was an attempt at ethnic genocide. Additionally there was eugenics based genocide, massive war crimes such as murdering intellectuals in German occupied territories and mass rapes of the women in these territories. All of these things are well documented and backed up using in depth primary sources. If the people just asking questions actually spend a tenth of the time reading the actual major works they would come to understand the evidence is pretty damn concrete. Are there smaller details we could work out or got wrong sure. But the overarching idea is accurate.
Lenin's First Purge "Lenin cannily eliminated an intellectual threat to the Bolshevik regime" I think you're confused; Communist killed the intellectual, however the Nazi enslaved the intellectuals (apparently) or so I was told. Once again these inconsistency are the purpose of my questions, I think because their is so much hyperbole many people are willing to permit myths and fables to the search for truth?
Man - without even getting into it this is just nuts lol “There is no credible evidence that the gas chamber in Barrack X was used to murder human beings. " Right!! They used it to murder squirrels! No - wait - fumigate lice ridden people? Maybe it was the BINGO room? Wackos. J
Oh friggin really??? Which statements? You need to get a life dude and not spend so much time thinking you know everything. J
Lol you seen very insecure. What do you mean about having a life? I'm not allowed to questions things? I don't know everything, that's the point of me asking questions. So let me get this right: Because i asked questions, I think I know everything? Fascinating logic lol Dude, you're just upset I pointed out with credible evidence theirs a contradiction.
@landrace and @NorseMythology. More for Norse because I don’t think any level of evidence will Be sufficient for landeace. Here is a lengthy article outlining the evidence of the third reich’s Genocidal efforts and debunks a lot of claims of holocaust revisionism/denial. Almost every claim is cited to actual primary documents or sources themselves which contain primary documents unlike hacky YouTube videos which are light on sources and heavy on ridiculous claims. How to Refute Holocaust Denial 1. What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or deliberately killed six million Jews? IHR Says: None. The only evidence is the postwar testimony of individual "survivors." This testimony is contradictory, and no "survivor" claims to have actually witnessed any gassing. There are no contemporaneous documents and no hard evidence whatsoever: no mounds of ashes, no crematoria capable of disposing of millions of corpses, no piles of clothes, no human soap, no lamp shades made of human skin, no records, no credible demographic statistics. Nizkor Replies: Lie piled upon lie, with not a shred of proof. This is as good a place as any to present some detailed evidence which is consistently ignored, as a sort of primer on Holocaust denial. It will make this reply much longer than the other sixty-five, but perhaps the reader will understand the necessity for this. Let's look at their claims one at a time: Supposedly the only evidence, "the postwar testimony of individual survivors." First of all, consider the implicit conspiracy theory. Notice how the testimony of every single inmate of every Nazi camp is automatically dismissed as unconvincing. This total dismissal of inmates' testimony, along with the equally-total dismissal of the Nazis' own testimony (!), is the largest unspoken assumption of Holocaust-denial. This assumption, which is not often spelled out, is that the attempted Jewish genocide never took place, but rather that a secret conspiracy of Jews, starting around 1941, planted and forged myriad documents to prove that it did; then, after the war, they rounded up all the camp survivors and told them what to say. The conspirators also supposedly managed to torture hundreds of key Nazis into confessing to crimes which they never committed, or into framing their fellow Nazis for those crimes, and to plant hundreds of documents in Nazi files which were never discovered until after the war, and only then, in many cases, by sheer luck. Goebbels' diary, for example, was barely rescued from being sold as 7,000 pages of scrap paper, but buried in the scattered manuscript were several telling entries (as translated in Lochner, The Goebbels Diaries, 1948, pp. 86, 147-148): February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness. March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor. Michael Shermer has pointed out that the Nazis' own estimate of the number of European Jews was eleven million, and sixty percent of eleven million is 6.6 million. This is fairly close to the actual figure. (Actually, forty percent was a serious overestimate of the survival rate of Jews who were captured, but there were many Jews who escaped.) In any case, most of the diary is quite mundane, and interesting only to historians. Did the supposed Jewish conspiracy forge seven thousand pages to insert just a few lines? How did they manage to know Goebbels' affairs intimately enough to avoid contradictions, e.g. putting him or his associates in the wrong city at the wrong date? As even the revisionist David Cole has admitted, revisionists have yet to provide a satisfactory explanation of this document. Regarding postwar testimony from Nazis, were they all tortured into confessing to heinous crimes which they supposedly did not commit? This might be believable if only a few Nazis were captured after the war, or maybe if some had courageously stood up in court and shouted to the world about the supposed attempt to silence them. But hundreds testified regarding the Holocaust, in trials dating from late 1945 until the 1960s. Many of these Nazis testified as witnesses and were not accused of crimes. What was the basis for their supposed coercion? Many of these trials were in German courts. Did the Germans torture their own countrymen? Well, Holocaust-deniers sometimes claim that the Jews have secretly infiltrated the German government and control everything about it. They prefer not to talk too much about this theory, however, because it is clearly on the lunatic fringe. The main point is that not one of these supposed torture victims -- in fifty years, not one -- has come forth to support the claim that testimony was coerced. On the contrary, confirmation and reconfirmation of their testimony has continued across the years. What coercion could have convinced Judge Konrad Morgen to testify to the crimes he witnessed at the International Nuremberg Trial in 1946, where he was not accused of any crime? And to later testify at the Auschwitz trial at Frankfurt, Germany, in 1963-65? What coercion was applied to SS Doctor Johann Kremer to make him testify in his own defense in 1947, and then, after having been convicted in both Poland and Germany, emerge after his release to testify again as a witness at the Frankfurt trial? What coercion was applied to Böck, Gerhard Hess, Hölblinger, Storch, and Wiebeck, all former SS men, all witnesses at Frankfurt, none accused of any crime there? Holocaust-deniers point to small discrepancies in testimonies to try to discredit them. The assumption, unstated, is that the reader will accept minor discrepancies as evidence of a vast, over-reaching Jewish conspiracy. This is clearly ludicrous. In fact, the discrepancies and minor errors in detail argue against, not for, the conspiracy theory. Why would the conspirators have given different information to different Nazis? In fact, if all the testimonies, from the Nazis' to the inmates', sounded too similar, it is certain that the Holocaust-deniers would cite that as evidence of a conspiracy. What supposed coercion could reach across four decades, to force former SS-Untersturmführer Dr. Hans Münch to give an interview, against the will of his family, on Swedish television? In the 1981 interview, he talked about Auschwitz: Interviewer: Isn't the ideology of extermination contrary to a doctor's ethical values? Münch: Yes, absolutely. There is no discussion. But I lived in that environment, and I tried in every possible way to avoid accepting it, but I had to live with it. What else could I have done? And I wasn't confronted with it directly until the order came that I and my superior and another one had to take part in the exterminations since the camp's doctors were overloaded and couldn't cope with it. Interviewer: I must ask something. Doubters claim that "special treatment" could mean anything. It didn't have to be extermination. Münch: "Special treatment" in the terminology of the concentration camp means physical extermination. If it was a question of more than a few people, where nothing else than gassing them was worthwhile, they were gassed. Interviewer: "Special treatment" was gassing? Münch: Yes, absolutely. And what supposed coercion could reach across four decades, to force former SS-Unterscharführer Franz Suchomel into giving an interview for the film Shoah? Speaking under (false) promises of anonymity, he told of the crimes committed at the Treblinka death camp(from the book Shoah, Claude Lanzmann, 1985, p. 54): Interviewer: You are a very important eyewitness, and you can explain what Treblinka was. Suchomel: But don't use my name. Interviewer: No, I promised. All right, you've arrived at Treblinka. Suchomel: So Stadie, the sarge, showed us the camps from end to end. Just as we went by, they were opening the gas-chamber doors, and people fell out like potatoes. Naturally, that horrified and appalled us. We went back and sat down on our suitcases and cried like old women. Each day one hundred Jews were chosen to drag the corpses to the mass graves. In the evening the Ukrainians drove those Jews into the gas chambers or shot them. Every day! Ask the deniers why they shrug off the testimony of Franz Suchomel. Greg Raven will tell you that "it is not evidence...bring me some evidence, please." Others will tell you that Suchomel and Münch were crazy, or hallucinating, or fantasizing. But the fantasy is obviously in the minds of those who choose to ignore the mass of evidence and believe instead in a hypothetical conspiracy, supported by nothing but their imaginations. That total lack of evidence is why the "conspiracy assumption" almost always remains an unspoken assumption. To our knowledge, there has not been one single solitary "revisionist" paper, article, speech, pamphlet, book, audiotape, videotape, or newsletter which provides any details about this supposed Jewish/Zionist conspiracy which did all the dirty work. Not one. At best, the denial literature makes veiled references to the World Jewish Congressperpetuating a "hoax" (in Butz 1976) -- no details are provided. Yet the entire case of Holocaust-denial rests on this supposed conspiracy. As for the testimony of the survivors, which the "revisionists" claim is the only evidence, there are indeed numerous testimonies to gassings and other forms of atrocities, from Jewish inmates who survived the camps, and also from other inmates like POWs. Many of the prisoners that testified about the gassing are not Jewish, of course. Look for instance at the testimony of Polish officer Zenon Rozansky about the first homicidal gassing in Auschwitz, in which 850 Russian POWs were gassed to death, in Reitlinger, The Final Solution, p. 154: Those who were propped against the door leant with a curious stiffness and then fell right at our feet, striking their faces hard against the concrete floor. Corpses! Corpses standing bolt upright and filling the entire corridor of the bunker, till they were packed so tight that it was impossible for more to fall. Which of the "revisionists" will deny this? Which of them was there? Which of them has the authority to tell Rozansky what he did or did not see? The statement that "no 'survivor' claims to have actually witnessed any gassing" is clearly false; this was changed to "few survivors" in later versions, which is close to the truth. But we do not need to rely solely on testimony, from the survivors, Nazis, or otherwise. Many wartime documents, not postwar descriptions, specifically regarding gassings and other atrocities, were seized by the U.S. armed forces. Most are in the National Archives in Washington, D.C.; some are in Germany. Regarding the gassing vans, precursors to the gas chambers, we find, for example, a top secret document from SS Untersturmführer Becker to SS Obersturmbannführer Rauff (from Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, 1946, Vol. I, pp. 999-1001): If it has rained for instance for only one half hour, the van cannot be used because it simply skids away. It can only be used in absolutely dry weather. It is only a question now whether the van can only be used standing at the place of execution. First the van has to be brought to that place, which is possible only in good weather. ... The application of gas usually is not undertaken correctly. In order to come to an end as fast as possible, the driver presses the accelerator to the fullest extent. By doing that the persons to be executed suffer death from suffocation and not death by dozing off as was planned. My directions now have proved that by correct adjustment of the levers death comes faster and the prisoners fall asleep peacefully. And Just wrote of the gas vans to Rauff, on June 5, 1942, in a letter marked both "top secret" and "only copy". This is a horrific masterpiece of Nazi double-talk, referring to killing as "processing" and the victims as "subjects" and "the load." (See Kogon, Nazi Mass Murder, 1993, pp. 228-235.) Since December 1941, for example, 97,000 were processed using three vans, without any faults occurring in the vehicles. ... The normal capacity of the vans is nine to ten per square meter. The capacity of the larger special Saurer vans is not so great. The problem is not one of overloading but of off-road maneuverability on all terrains, which is severely diminished in this van. It would appear that a reduction in the cargo area is necessary. This can be achieved by shortening the compartment by about one meter. The problem cannot be solved by merely reducing the number of subject treated, as has been done so far. For in this case a longer running time is required, as the empty space also needs to be filled with CO [the poison exhaust gas]. ... Greater protection is needed for the lighting system. The grille should cover the lamps high enough up to make it impossible to break the bulbs. It seems that these lamps are hardly ever turned on, so the users have suggested that they could be done away with. Experience shows, however, that when the back door is closed and it gets dark inside, the load pushes hard against the door. The reason for this is that when it becomes dark inside, the load rushes toward what little light remains. This hampers the locking of the door. It has also been noticed that the noise provoked by the locking of the door is linked to the fear aroused by the darkness. Slip-ups occurred in written correspondence regarding the gas chambers themselves, some of which, fortunately, escaped destruction and were found after the war. A memo written to SS man Karl Bischoff on November 27, 1942 describes the gas chamber in Krema II not with the usual mundane name of "Leichenkeller," but rather as the "Sonderkeller" "special cellar." And two months later, on January 29, 1943, Bischoff wrote a memo to Kammler, referring to that same chamber as the "Vergasungskeller." (See Gutman, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, 1994, pp. 223, 227.) "Vergasungskeller" means exactly what it sounds like: "gassing cellar," an underground gas chamber. Holocaust-deniers turn to Arthur Butz, who provides a specious explanation for the Vergasungskeller: "Vergasung," he says, cannot refer to killing people with gas, but only to the process of converting a solid or liquid into gas. Therefore, he says the "Vergasungskeller," must have been a special room where the fuel for the Auschwitz ovens was converted into gas -- a "gasification cellar." There are three problems with this explanation. First, "Vergasung" certainly can refer to killing people with gas; Butz does not speak German and he should not try to lecture about the language. Second, there is no room that could possibly serve this function which Butz describes -- years after writing his book, he admitted this, and helplessly suggested that there might be another building somewhere in the camp that might house a gasification cellar. Third, the type of oven used at Auschwitz did not require any gasification process! The ovens burned solid fuel. (See Gutman, op. cit., pp. 184-193.) So what does the term "gassing cellar" refer to? Holocaust-deniers have yet to offer any believable explanation. An inventory, again captured after the war, revealed fourteen showerheads and one gas-tight door listed for the gas chamber in Krema III. Holocaust-deniers claim that room was a morgue; they do not offer to explain what use a morgue has for showerheads and a gas-tight door. (See a photograph of the document, or Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation, 1989, pp. 231, 438.) A memo from the Auschwitz construction office, dated March 31, 1943, says Hilberg, Documents of Destruction, 1971, pp. 207-208): We take this occasion to refer to another order of March 6, 1943, for the delivery of a gas door 100/192 for Leichenkeller 1 of Krema III, Bw 30a, which is to be built in the manner and according to the same measure as the cellar door of the opposite Krema II, with peep hole of double 8 millimeter glass encased in rubber. This order is to be viewed as especially urgent.... Why would morgues have urgently needed peepholes made out of a double layer of third-of-an-inch-thick glass? The question of whether it can be proved that the cyanide gas was used in the Auschwitz gas chambers has intruiged the deniers. Their much-heralded Leuchter Report, for example, expends a great deal of effort on the question of whether traces of cyanide residue remain there today. But we do not need to look for chemical traces to confirm cyanide use (Gutman, op. cit., p. 229): Letters and telegrams exchanged on February 11 and 12 [1943] between the Zentralbauleitung and Topf mention a wooden blower for Leichenkeller 1. This reference confirms the use of the morgue as a gas chamber: Bischoff and Prüfer thought that the extraction of air mixed with concentrated prussic acid [cyanide] (20 g per cu m) required a noncorroding ventilator. Bischoff and Prüfer turned out to be wrong, and a metal fan ended up working acceptably well. But the fact that they thought it necessary demonstrates that cyanide was to be routinely used in the rooms which deniers call morgues. (Cyanide is useless for disinfecting morgues, as it does not kill bacteria.) Other captured documents, even if they don't refer directly to some part of the extermination process, refer to it by implication. A captured memo to SS-Brigadeführer Kammler reveals that the expected incineration capacity of the Auschwitz ovens was a combined total of 4,756 corpses per day (see a photograph of the document or Kogon, op. cit., p. 157). Deniers often claim that this total could not be achieved in practice (see question 45). That's not the point. These crematoria were carefully designed, in 1942, to have sufficient capacity to dispose of 140,000 corpses per month -- in a camp that housed only 125,000. We can conclude that massive deaths were predicted, indeed planned-for, as early as mid-1942. A camp designed to incinerate its full capacity of inmates every four weeks is not merely a detention center. Finally, apart from the abundant testimonies, confessions, and physical evidence of the extermination process, there is certainly no want of evidence of the Nazis' intentions and plans. Here are just a few examples. Hans Frank’s diary (from Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, 1946, Vol. I, pp. 992, 994): But what should be done with the Jews? Do you think they will be settled down in the 'Ostland' [eastern territories], in [resettlement] villages? This is what we were told in Berlin: Why all this bother? We can do nothing with them either in the 'Ostland' nor in the 'Reichkommissariat.' So liquidate them yourself. Gentlemen, I must ask you to rid yourself of all feeling of pity. We must annihilate the Jews, wherever we find them and wherever it is possible, in order to maintain the structure of the Reich as a whole. ... We cannot shoot or poison these 3,500,000 Jews, but we shall nevertheless be able to take measures, which will lead, somehow, to their annihilation.... That we sentence 1,200,000 Jews to die of hunger should be noted only marginally. Himmler's speech at Posen on October 4, 1943 was captured on audiotape (Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1948, Vol. XXIX, p. 145, trans. by current author): I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. This is one of those things that is easily said: "the Jewish people are being exterminated," says every Party member, "quite true, it's part of our plans, the elimination of the Jews, extermination, we're doing it." The extermination effort was even mentioned in at least one official Nazi court verdict. In May 1943, a Munich court wrote in its decision against SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner that: The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself. And Hitler spoke quite clearly in public on no fewer than three occasions. On January 30, 1939, seven months before Germany invaded Poland, he spoke publicly to the Reichstag(transcribed from Skeptic magazine, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 50): Today I want to be a prophet once more: if international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevation of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe. By the way, this last phrase is, in German, "die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa," which German-speakers will realize is quite unambiguous. In September, 1942: ...if Jewry should plot another world war in order to exterminate the Aryan peoples in Europe, it would not be the Aryan people which would be exterminated but Jewry... On November 8, 1942: You will recall the session of the Reichstag during which I declared: if Jewry should imagine that it could bring about an international world war to exterminate the European races, the result will not be the extermination of the European races, but the extermination of Jewry in Europe. People always laughed about me as a prophet. Of those who laughed then, countless numbers no longer laugh today, and those who still laugh now will perhaps no longer laugh a short time from now. There are many other examples of documents and testimonies that could be presented. Keep in mind that the IHR#&146;s answer to "what proof exists?" is "none." It has certainly been demonstrated already that this pat answer is totally dishonest. And this is the main point we wish to communicate: that Holocaust-denial is dishonest. We continue by analyzing the remaining, more-specific, claims about what evidence supposedly does not exist. "No mounds of ashes" is an internal contradiction. In an article in the journal published by the same IHR that publishes these Q&A, the Journal's editor reported that a Polish commission in 1946 found human ash at the Treblinka death camp to a depth of over twenty feet. This article is available on Greg Raven's web site. (Apparently some survivors claimed that the corpses were always thoroughly cremated. Because uncremated human remains were mixed with the ash, the editor suggested that the testimonies were false. Amazingly, he had no comment on how a twenty-foot layer of human ashes came to be there in the first place. Perhaps he felt that to be unworthy of mention.) There are also piles of ashes at Maidanek. At Auschwitz-Birkenau, ashes from cremated corpses were dumped into the rivers and swamps surrounding the camp, and used as fertilizer for nearby farmers' fields. "No crematoria" capable of disposing of millions of corpses? Absolutely false, the crematoria were more than capable of the job, according to both the Nazis' own internal memos and the testimony of survivors. Holocaust-deniers deliberately confuse civilian, funeral-home crematoria with the huge industrial ovens of the death camps. This is discussed in much detail in the replies to questions 42 and 45. "No piles of clothes"? Apparently, the IHR considers piles of clothes to be "hard evidence"! This is strange, because they do not deny the other sorts of piles found at Nazi camps: piles of eyeglasses, piles of shoes (at Auschwitz, Belzec, and Maidanek), piles of gold teeth, piles of burned corpses, piles of unburned corpses, piles of artificial limbs (see Swiebocka, Auschwitz: A History in Photographs, 1993, p. 210), piles of human hair (ibid, p. 211), piles of ransacked luggage (ibid, p. 213), piles of shaving-brushes (ibid, p. 215), piles of combs (ibid), piles of pots and pans (ibid), and yes, even the piles of clothes (ibid, p. 214) that the IHR claims do not exist. Perhaps the authors of the 66 Q&A realized that it was dangerous for them to admit that these piles were hard evidence, because then they would also be forced to admit a number of other things as "hard evidence." Perhaps this is why they removed this phrase from the revised 66 Q&A. If items were not generally found in mass quantities, it is only because the Nazis distributed them to the German population. A memo on this was captured, revealing that they even redistributed women's underwear. "No human soap"? This is true, but misleading. Though there is some evidence that soap was made from corpses on a very limited experimental scale, the rumored "mass production" was never done, and no soap made from human corpses is known to exist. However, there is sworn testimony, never refuted, from British POWs and a German army official, stating that soap experiments were performed, and the recipe for the soap was captured by the Allies. To state flatly that the Nazis did not make soap from human beings is incorrect. "No lamp shades made of human skin?" False -- lampshades and other human-skin "ornaments" were introduced as evidence in both trials of Ilse Koch, and were shown to a U.S. Senate investigation committee in the late 40s. We know they were made of human skin because they bore tattoos, and because a microscopic forensic analysis of the items was performed. (A detailed page on this is being prepared.) "No records"? This is nonsense (which may explain why this claim was removed from the "revised" versions of the 66 Q&A). True, extermination by gassing was always referred to with code-words, and those victims who arrived at death camps only to be immediately gassed were not recorded in any books. But there are slip-ups in the code-word usage that reveal the true meanings, as already described. There are inventories and requisitions for the Krema which reveal items anomalous with ordinary use but perfect for mass homicidal gassing. There are deportation train records which, pieced together, speak clearly. And so on. Several examples have been given above. "No credible demographic statistics"? This is the second internal contradiction -- see question 2 and question 15. The Anglo-American committee who studied the issue estimated the number of Jewish victims at 5.7 million. This was based on population statistics. Here is the exact breakdown, country by country: Germany - 195,000 Austria - 53,000 Czechoslovakia - 255,000 Denmark - 1,500 France - 140,000 Belgium - 57,000 Luxemburg - 3,000 Norway - 1,000 Holland - 120,000 Italy - 20,000 Yugoslavia - 64,000 Greece - 64,000 Bulgaria - 5,000 Romania - 530,000 Hungary - 200,000 Poland - 3,271,000 USSR - 1,050,000 Total Number Jews Killed - 5,721,500 (This estimate was arrived at using population statistics, and not by adding the number of casualties at each camp. These are also available -- for instance, a separate file with the ruling of a German court regarding the number of victims in Treblinka is available. The SS kept rather accurate records, and many of the documents survived, reinforced by eyewitness accounts). Some estimates are lower, some are higher, but this is the magnitude in question. In an article in CMU's student newspaper, the head of CMU's History Department, Peter Stearns, is quoted as saying that newly discovered documents -- especially in the former USSR -- indicate that the number of victims is higher than six million. Other historians claim not much over five million. The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust uses 5,596,000 as a minimum and 5,860,000 as a maximum (Gutman, 1990, p. 1799). In summary: "Revisionists" often claim, correctly, that the burden of proof is on historians. The proof, of course, has been a matter of public record since late 1945, and is available in libraries around the world. The burden has been met, many, many times over. You've just seen a brief presentation of some of the highlights of that immense body of proof; much more is readily available. To even argue that the Holocaust never happened is ludicrous. To claim straight-faced that none of this proof even exists is beyond ludicrous, and it is a clear example of "revisionist" dishonesty.
If Jews had even one tenth of the power that anti semites and holocaust deniers claimed they have maybe they wouldn’t have been persecuted for almost 4 millennia. Like ffs the level of conspiracy required to fake the holocaust and mass genocide is so unreasonable. Think about the fact that much simpler government conspiracies from the 60’s for example were discovered. It’s very hard to organize such a massive conspiracy theory that would involve coordinating stories with forged documents for literally tens of thousands of survivors, german/allied soldiers, and all of other witnesses. Is it more likely that the mountains of evidence we have showing this thing happened or that an international Jewish canal aided by the US made the whole thing up so they could form a Jewish state. You can believe that the state of Israel is illegitimate and also not go down the crazy anti Semitic rabbit hole of holocaust revision.
No man - the single very last thing I am is insecure - so I ask you again… Which statements of mine were false?? Can’t wait to hear this. It’s amazing how many clowns there are in this world - although I suppose if I think “percentagewise” it is inevitable. J
I know you're trying to be all super bad ass holocaust denier and nazi sympathizer here, but your statement is false. The article says there's no evidence that the chamber was used to kill anyone, that doesn't mean no one died there. Seriously, arguing with people like you is like arguing with a flat-earther. There really is no point, unless you're just in it for a bit of fun.
I never said no one died, I think you're being disingenuous, I'm pointing out a contradiction that stated no one died from gassing at dashu << Emphasis is on "gassing" and those aren't my words that's from the united states national holocaust memorial website.
The following excerpt from United States Holocaust Memorial Museum @ Dachau States under Dachau, that there is no credible evidence gassing occurred, fair so the Nazi used a different method to slaughter all those people, what was that method? how exactly is this question so harmful? These questions are important to help prevent other Genocides right, we need to know to prevent this from every occurring again.... @Continuum. @nativetongues Lol I honestly, think you guys are overreacting and these are the inconsistency i'm talking about lol I'm not denying anything, i'm pointing out inconstancies with what we've all been told. The truth doesn't fear scrutiny; i'm not saying the holocaust is a racket used to extort the people of western nations. Though i may appear so to the uneducated person, i'm simply trying to get this critical historical event correct. I think i'm being more than reasonable.
Native, interesting I greatly appreciate the attempted corrections to the anomalies from your previous post lol. You stated public record, I used those very same public record from the united states national holocaust memorial museum to correct your own indiscretion about the holocaust in support of my argument that their are some inconstancies from your previous post. I read your really long book (lol) now please watch a short 10minutes video. please watchthe title is misleading)
I’ve heard the same and it doesn’t even matter - who cares at that point - people were mass murdered by the Nazis during this period and that’s all that matters. Who cares how or where - to pick it apart now is doing no one any good. If they weren’t gassed at Dachau or any of the other camps then they were killed another way and if you think it’s worth arguing over then do it with someone else. J
You are in no way posting anything with this statement that shows an inconsistency with the link I posted. I didn’t post all 66 questions from that link just the first but question four is perfectly in line with what you’re saying in this one instance and has an answer to your question if you would actually read it. It appears the gas chambers in dachau may have never been used to kill people in the concentration camps while some historians believe it may have been used for small scale testing. Either way it’s clear that an entire ethnic group was rounded up, killed in massive numbers (through starvation, hanging, firing squads, gassing in many camps, and disease caused by the terrible conditions of the camps), and stripped of basic liberty and freedom. 4. If Dachau was in Germany and even Simon Wiesenthal says that it was not an extermination camp, why do thousands of veterans in America say that it was an extermination camp? IHR Says: Because after the Allies captured Dachau, thousands of G.I.s were led through Dachau and shown buildings alleged to be gas chambers, and because the mass-media widely, but falsely, stated that Dachau was a "gassing" camp. Nizkor Replies: In the sense that tens of thousands of people were starved to death and sporadically killed in it, yes, Dachau was a death camp. The term "extermination camp" should probably not be applied to Dachau, because that is generally taken to mean one of the large camps in occupied Poland where mass gassings were performed (see question 3). What is not in question is that the gas chamber did exist. The Allies captured the memo sent from Dr. Sigmund Rascher at Dachau to Himmler, which read (see Kogon et al., Nazi Mass Murder, 1993, p. 202): As you know, the same facilities [gas chambers] have been built at the Dachau concentration camp as at Linz Hartheim]. Whereas the "invalid transports" end up in certain chambers anyway, I ask whether we cannot test some of our various combat gases on specific persons who are involved in the action. Up till now there have only been animal tests or accounts of accidental deaths in the manufacture of these gases. Because of this paragraph, I have sent this letter marked "Secret." An American reporter made a movie showing the gas chamber very soon after the camp's capture, showing how it was labelled "Brausebad" ("showers") despite having no shower facilities. The question of whether the gas chamber can be proved to have been used has not been definitively answered. Some historians say that there is no question: it was never used. Some say that the question is still open. It comes down to two testimonies: that of a British officer named Payne-Best who says he heard Dr. Rascher speak of gassings, and that of Dr. Franz Blaha, who testified under oath to experimental gassings. For more information, see Kogon et al., op. cit., pp. 202-204, and Blaha's testimony in Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1947, vol. V, pp. 167-199. Holocaust-deniers, of course, only present the point of view which says that it was never used. They often quote from a 1960 letter written by the director of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute for Contemporary History), in Munich (see Die Zeit, August 19, 1960, p. 16): No Gassing in Dachau Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other prisoners gassed. The letter of course confirms that mass gassing did take place in the larger camps. Holocaust-deniers don't like to mention that part. They also don't like to mention that, since 1960, the Institut has performed more research and has come to a new conclusion. They now say: ...a gas chamber was established [in Dachau] in which...a few experimental gassings were undertaken, as more recent research has confirmed. Finally, the "mass media," for the most part, states the facts: that Dachau was used for gassing on a very small scale. Whether the term "gassing camp" is appropriate would probably depend on context. If the IHR can present a cite in which a newspaper or magazine has printed an inaccuracy, let them do so. It won't be the first time, nor the last, that something was erroneously printed. If Holocaust-deniers think errors in newspapers help prove that the Holocaust did not occur, they are obviously deluded. Quibbling over small details like this is not interesting and is almost always the tactic of someone like David Irving who is attempting to put enough doubt into people’s minds to disregard the massacre of an entire people as a Jewish conspiracy. Especially because as you point out the UHMM and my links also agree that Dachau maybe shouldn’t be described as a death camp. It doesn’t change the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in cold blood at death camps all around Europe. It also doesn’t change the fact that they were rounded up, stripped of all their personal belongings, and sent to prisons (often to do brutal forced labor) with some of the worst conditions imaginable. Please show me instances where you believe that mainstream sources like UHMM are wronf. Please do so in your own words or quote actual articles because I’m not watching videos on YouTube from cranks like David Irving. Also you wonder why I think you’re a holocaust denier when your sources are people like David Irving. From Wikipedia Over the years, Irving's stance on the Holocaust changed significantly. From 1988, he started to espouse Holocaust denial openly: he had previously not denied the Holocaust outright and for this reason, many Holocaust deniers were ambivalent about him.[60] They admired Irving for the pro-Nazi slant in his work and the fact that he possessed a degree of mainstream credibility that they lacked, but were annoyed that he did not openly deny the Holocaust. In 1980, Lucy Dawidowicz noted that although Hitler's War was strongly sympathetic to the Third Reich, because Irving argued that Hitler was unaware of the Holocaust as opposed to denying the Holocaust, that his book was not part of the "anti-Semitic canon".[61] In 1980, Irving received an invitation to speak at a Holocaust-denial conference, which he refused under the grounds that his appearance there would damage his reputation.[60] In a letter, Irving stated his reasons for his refusal as: "This is pure Realpolitik on my part. I am already dangerously exposed, and I cannot take the chance of being caught in flak meant for others!"[60] Though Irving refused at this time to appear at conferences sponsored by the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review (IHR), he did grant the institute the right to distribute his books in the United States.[60]Robert Jan van Pelt suggests that the major reason for Irving wishing to keep his distance from Holocaust deniers in the early 1980s was his desire to found his own political party called Focus.[60] In a footnote in the first edition of Hitler's War, Irving writes, "I cannot accept the view… [that] there exists no document signed by Hitler, Himmler or Heydrich speaking of the extermination of the Jews". In 1982, Irving made an attempt to unify all of the various neo-Nazi groups in Britain into one party called Focus, in which he would play a leading role.[42]Irving described himself as a "moderate fascist" and spoke of plans to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.[62] The effort failed due to fiscal problems.[42] Irving told the Oxford Mailof having "links at a low level" with the British National Front.[42] Irving described The Spotlight, the main journal of the Liberty Lobby, as "an excellent fortnightly paper".[42] At the same time, Irving put a copy of Hitler's "Prophecy Speech" of 30 January 1939, promising the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe" if "Jewish financiers" started another world war, onto his wall.[63] Following the failure of Focus, in September 1983, Irving for the first time attended a conference of the IHR.[60] Van Pelt has argued that, with the failure of Irving's political career, he felt freer to associate with Holocaust deniers.[60] At the conference, Irving did not deny the Holocaust, but did appear happy to share the stage with Robert Faurisson and Judge Wilhelm Stäglich, and claimed to be impressed with the allegations of Friedrich Berg that mass murder using diesel gas fumes at the Operation Reinhard death camps was impossible.[64] At that conference, Irving repeated his claims that Hitler was ignorant of the Holocaust because he was "so busy being a soldier".[65] In a speech at that conference, Irving stated: "Isn't it right for Tel Aviv to claim now that David Irving is talking nonsense and of course Adolf Hitler must have known about what was going in Auschwitz and Treblinka, and then in the same breath to claim that, of courseour beloved Mr. Begin didn't know what was going on in Sabra and Chatilla".[65] During the same speech, Irving proclaimed Hitler to be the "biggest friend the Jews had in the Third Reich".[66] In the same speech, Irving stated that he operated in such a way as to bring himself maximum publicity. Irving stated that: "I have at home... a filing cabinet full of documents which I don't issue all at once. I keep them: I issue them a bit at a time. When I think my name hasn't been in the newspapers for several weeks, well, then I ring them up and I phone them and I say: 'What about this one, then?'"[65] A major theme of Irving's writings from the 1980s was his belief that it had been a great blunder on the part of Britain to declare war on Germany in 1939, and that ever since then and as a result of that decision, Britain had slipped into an unstoppable decline.[62] Irving also took the view that Hitler often tried to help the Jews of Europe.[62] In a June 1992 interview with The Daily Telegraph, Irving claimed to have heard from Hitler's naval adjutant that the Führer had told him that he could not marry because Germany was "his bride".[62] Irving then claimed to have asked the naval adjutant when Hitler made that remark, and upon hearing that the date was 24 March 1938, Irving stated in response "Herr Admiral, at that moment I was being born". Irving used this alleged incident to argue that there was some sort of mystical connection between himself and Hitler.[67] In a 1986 speech in Australia Irving argued that photographs of Holocaust survivors and dead taken in early 1945 by Allied soldiers were proof that the Allies were responsible for the Holocaust, not the Germans.[68] Irving claimed that the Holocaust was not the work of Nazi leaders, but rather of "nameless criminals",[68]and claimed that "these men [who killed the Jews] acted on their own impulse, their own initiative, within the general atmosphere of brutality created by the Second World War, in which of course Allied bombings played a part."[68] In another 1986 speech, this time in Atlanta, Irving claimed that "historians have a blindness when it comes to the Holocaust because like Tay-Sachs disease it is a Jewish disease which causes blindness".[69] By the mid-1980s, Irving associated himself with the IHR, began giving lectures to groups such as the far-right German Deutsche Volksunion (DVU), and publicly denied that the Nazis systematically exterminated Jews in gas chambers during World War II.[70] Irving was a frequent speaker for the DVU in the 1980s and the early 1990s, but the relationship ended in 1993 apparently because of concerns by the DVU that Irving's espousal of Holocaust denial might lead to the DVU being banned.[16] In 1986, Irving visited Toronto, where he was met at the airport by Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel.[71] According to Zündel, Irving "thought I was 'Revisionist-Neo-Nazi-Rambo-Kook!'", and asked Zündel to stay away from him.[71]Zündel and his supporters obliged Irving by staying away from his lecture tour, which consequently attracted little media attention, and was considered by Irving to be a failure.[71]Afterwards, Zündel sent Irving a long letter in which he offered to draw publicity to Irving, and so ensure that his future speaking tours would be a success.[71] As a result, Irving and Zündel became friends, and Irving agreed in late 1987 to testify for Zündel at his second trial for denying the Holocaust.[72] In addition, the publication in 1987 of the book Der europäische Bürgerkrieg 1917–1945 by Ernst Nolte, in which Nolte strongly implied that maybe Holocaust deniers were on to something, encouraged Irving to become more open in associating with Zündel.[71] Expanding upon his thesis in Hitler's War about the lack of a written Führer order for the Holocaust, Irving argued in the 1990s that the absence of such an order meant that there was no Holocaust.[88] In a speech delivered in Toronto in November 1990 Irving claimed that Holocaust survivors had manufactured memories of their suffering because "there's money involved and they can get a good compensation cash payment out of it".[16] In that speech, Irving used the metaphor of a cruise ship named Holocaust, which Irving claimed had "... luxury wall to wall fitted carpets and a crew of thousands… marine terminals established in now virtually every capital in the world, disguised as Holocaust memorial museums".[89] Irving went on to assert that the "ship" was due for rough sailing because recently the Soviet government had allowed historians access to "the index cards of all the people who passed through the gates of Auschwitz", and claimed that this would lead to "a lot of people [who] are not claiming to be Auschwitz survivors anymore" (Irving's statement about the index cards was incorrect: what the Soviet government had made available in 1990 were the death books of Auschwitz, recording the weekly death tolls).[89]Irving claimed on the basis of what he called the index books that, "Because the experts can look at a tattoo and say 'Oh yes, 181, 219 that means you entered Auschwitz in March 1943" and he warned Auschwitz survivors "If you want to go and have a tattoo put on your arm, as a lot of them do, I am afraid to say, and claim subsequently that you were in Auschwitz, you have to make sure a) that it fits in with the month you said you went to Auschwitz and b) it is not a number which anyone used before".[89] On 17 January 1991, Irving told a reporter from The Jewish Chronicle that "The Jews are very foolish not to abandon the gas chamber theory while they still have time".[90] Irving went on to say that he believed anti-Semitism will increase all over the world because "the Jews have exploited people with the gas chamber legend" and that "In ten years, Israel will cease to exist and the Jews will have to return to Europe".[90]In his 1991 revised edition of Hitler's War, he had removed all references to death camps and the Holocaust. In a speech given in Hamburg in 1991, Irving stated that in two years time "this myth of mass murders of Jews in the death factories of Auschwitz, Majdanek and Treblinka... which in fact never took place" will be disproved (Auschwitz, Majdanek, and Treblinka were all well established as being extermination camps).[91] Two days later, Irving repeated the same speech in Halle before a group of neo-Nazis, and praised Rudolf Hess as "that great German martyr, Rudolf Hess".[91] At another 1991 speech, this time in Canada, Irving called the Holocaust a "hoax", and again predicted that by 1993 the "hoax" would have been "exposed".[89] In that speech, Irving declared, "Gradually the word is getting around Germany. Two years from now too, the German historians will accept that we are right. They will accept that for fifty years they have believed a lie".[89]During that speech given in October 1991, Irving expressed his contempt and hatred for Holocaust survivors by proclaiming that: Yeah I wonder why you may not be so pure in your motives of just asking questions when you post hacks like David Irving who clearly tailor their message to holocaust deniers and has been shown to be a lying pos over and over again. So once again I ask for a single written source expressing your disagreements with the historical record and what you think my source as well as the UHMM have gotten wrong. What questions are you looking to answer? I’ve already answered your question about Dachau so what else is burning you up inside that you have to answer
Obviously having a conversation of this magnitude is distasteful, however bringing to light these discrepancies are important. Understanding these nuisances are critical to prevent these actions from occurring. One thing I hate is to spread fake news about these events in history, what if someone were to investigate this along the line and concluded, because of this one inconsistency it's all "fake news" we need to be able to deal with the reality head on in our society to preserve the historical context. Like I stated before the truth never fears scrutiny, it seems a bit odd at the mere opposition in a question which revealed an inconsistency you had and were spreading fake news. I think it's a cop out to state "people were mass murdered by the Nazis during this period and that’s all that matters." any lost of human life is always tragic, but you will never grow intellectually if you haven't explore these controversial topics and also admit when you had your facts wrong. I think it's a dis-services for the victims of the Nazi to not find the truth.
LOL I've stated exactly what the United States holocaust memorial museum has stated: "there is no credible evidence the gas chambers were used to murder human beings" I notice you're restating exactly what i've sourced and appended "some historian" in the end, I'm not stating their is no credible evidence, that's the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum that made that claim, unless you have some new evidence that's unknown to USHMM then present said evidence. I think you're spin is merely to save space and attempt to push a narrative. I mean weren't you the one that stated their was official Nazi memos that existed that showed Nazi Methodically plan for the final solution, when at Numbremberg trials no evidence was ever presented and thereafter. So I understand your need to push a context, but it doesn't explain these inconsistency you have.