History of the Holocaust

[spidergoat]

That son of a bitch Leuchter did no real scientific investigation, he's a hack and a liar. There's a movie about him that exposes his fraud.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Fred Leuchter

Ah, Fred Leuchter.

the first man to carry out a forensic investigation of the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek

admits to having no formal training in toxicology, biology or chemistry.[2]

Leuchter not only lacks an engineering license but has neither an engineering degree nor any other relevant professional certification or recognized credential - his education consists of a BA in history, which he completed in 1964.

The first man? In 1964?

In February 1990, Professor Jan Markiewicz, Director of the Forensic Institute of Cracow, redid the analysis.[2][36] Markiewicz decided that the Prussian blue test was unreliable because it depended on the acidity of the environment, which was low in the gas chambers. Markiewicz and his team used microdiffusion techniques to test for cyanide in samples from the gas chambers, from delousing chambers, and from living areas elsewhere within Auschwitz. The living quarter samples (negative controls) tested negative, while cyanide residue was found in both the delousing chambers and the gas chambers. The amount of cyanide found had a great variability (possibly due to 50 years of exposure to the elements to varying degrees[37]), but even so, the categorical results were that cyanide was found where expected in both the gas chambers and the delousing facilities, and not found in the living quarters, supporting the hypothesis that the gas chambers were exposed to high levels of cyanide like the delousing facilities, and not low levels for routine fumigation, like the living quarters.

And all from Wiki.

 

[quadraphonics]

And don't worry, I have no underlying motive to disrespect those who suffered or diminish what they went through.

I'll post in good faith, I promise.

There is no good-faith, respectful way for you to create a thread with the premise that the Holocaust is an open question, amenable to original analysis by yourself.

 

[noodler]

Correction: there is no way to discuss the Holocaust or its attendant holocaust or even ask questions about it, in a modern setting.

But then the question remains, why is this subject so non-amenable to discussion? Why is it so sensitive? Some people got persecuted, this has happened many times in human history, so why is this one such a big deal, is one question I would like to be able to ask, without the usual vitriol being directed at the question.

Is it OK to question the reasons people anywhere are persecuted, and what the rationale behind persecution and oppression might be? If it is, why is the Jewish case not OK to ask about?

For instance what's wrong with asking why the Jewish state was founded, and what part the Nazi persecution played in this? Isn't there a more or less direct connection? What would the odds be for a modern day Israel if the Holocaust hadn't happened, for instance?

Pointing out the blindingly obvious, "hey, it happened", doesn't address the issue underneath: why did it mean they got a "homeland" given to them, to do with as they pleased? Or is it the case that the Holocaust played no part in its establishment?

 

[James R]

I recommend the Institute for Historical Review for further information and sources.

The Institute for Historical Review is populated entirely by holocaust deniers. David Irving, who I think may be currently in jail for holocaust denial in Germany, is one of the Institute's leaders.

You couldn't find a more biased and inaccurate source if you tried.

 

[StrawDog]

I recommend the Institute for Historical Review for further information and sources.

So far, in my opinion, the papers, in particular regarding the Holocaust, presented by the IHR, although superficially compelling, do not stand up to rigid scrutiny. Minor discrepancies in the record are identified, given to experts to validate or corroborate, and then blown out of all proportion in the face of utterly overwhelming contrary evidence.

 

[S.A.M.]

There is no good-faith, respectful way for you to create a thread with the premise that the Holocaust is an open question, amenable to original analysis by yourself.

That would be true, if there was such a premise. There isn't.

The premise is, what do we know of the Holocaust and what are the sources that have led to this knowledge?

The premise is an a priori acceptance of the standard narrative and a desire to take a look at what is the basis for it.

The premise is that many people may have doubts about the Holocaust because it has become taboo to ask questions and this in itself is a disservice to the victims.

I will attempt to control the direction of the thread as much as I can. James will probably take care of the rest.

So far, in my opinion, the papers, in particular regarding the Holocaust, presented by the IHR, although superficially compelling, do not stand up to rigid scrutiny. Minor discrepancies in the record are identified, given to experts to validate or corroborate, and then blown out of all proportion in the face of utterly overwhelming contrary evidence.

Indeed. For example, there was an allegation that the Diary of Anne Frank was not written during the war because it contained ball point pen notations and ball points were not in existence until after the war. When examined it was found that the ball point notations were loose sheets of annotations added by an historian [?] who had inserted them in the diary after the war and were not pages of the diary at all

The origin of the "ballpoint myth" is the four-page report that the Federal Criminal Police Office (the Bundeskriminalamt or BKA) in Wiesbaden, which was published in 1980. In this investigation into the types of paper and ink used in the diary of Anne Frank it is stated that "ballpoint corrections" had been made on some loose sheets. The BKA’s task was to report on all the texts found among the diaries of Anne Frank, and therefore also on the annotations that were made in Anne’s manuscripts after the war. However, the Dutch investigation by the Forensic Institute in the mid-1980’s shows that writing in ballpoint is only found on two loose pages of annotations, and that these annotations are of no significance for the actual content of the diary. They were clearly placed between the other pages later. The researchers of the Forensic Institute also concluded that the handwriting on these two annotation sheets differs from the writing in the diary "to a far-reaching degree." Photos of these loose annotation sheets are included in the NIOD’s publication (see The Diary of Anne Frank: The Revised Critical Edition, 2003, pages 168 and 170). In 1987, a Mr Ockelmann from Hamburg wrote that his mother had written the annotation sheets in question. Mrs Ockelmann was a member of the team that carried out the graphological investigation into the writings of Anne Frank around 1960.


http://www.annefrank.org/content.asp?PID=794&LID=2

So yes, there is a wide gap between fact and opinion.

Which is why it would be best to stick to the actual sources rather than opinions about the actual sources.

 

[StrawDog]

1. How many people died at the hands of the Nazis?
2. How was the religious identity of the victims determined?
3. What are the records used to study the holocaust?
4. Who kept these records?
5. How was the authenticity of the records determined?
6. What is the evidence supporting the desire of Germans to eliminate the Jewish population?
7. Where did the 6 million figure come from?
8. Which records are available to the public?
9. What is the evidence of the methods used by the Nazis?
10. What efforts were made to compensate other victims of the Nazis?

note: I am not denying the holocaust or its popular narrative. I am interested in the factual information available for discrete analysis.

A Survey of Interpretive Paradigms in Holocaust Studies and a Comment on the Dimensions of the Holocaust - Steven R. Welch

(http://yale.edu/gsp/publications/Holocaust.doc)

Read this paper as a basic outline, and then follow the footnotes for further research and study. Most notably the seminal work - "Dimension des Völkermords" - Wolfgang Benz - condensed and translated into English as - "The Holocaust: A German Historian Examines the Genocide".

 

[CheskiChips]

So far, in my opinion, the papers, in particular regarding the Holocaust, presented by the IHR, although superficially compelling, do not stand up to rigid scrutiny. Minor discrepancies in the record are identified, given to experts to validate or corroborate, and then blown out of all proportion in the face of utterly overwhelming contrary evidence.

So why in your own source (Which I somehow doubt you even read) does it say the following statements:

In one of the first scholarly attempts to quantify the overall scope of the Holocaust, Gerald Reitlinger in 1953 gave a minimum figure of 4,194,200 and a maximum of 4,581,200 Jewish victims.1 Raul Hilberg in his standard work estimated the total at 5.1 million.2 In an Appendix to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust the number of Jewish victims is placed at 5,860,000.3

The most thorough and authoritative examination of the scope of the Holocaust, however, is contained in the 1991 study published by the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich, Dimension des Völkermords.1
...
The study arrives at a minimum figure of 5.29 million and a maximum of just over six million. These figures may now need to be revised (probably upward) on the basis of material from the archives of the former Soviet Union. Benz’s book, however, should be considered as the most thorough and reliable study now available.

Numbers nearly identical to every study that doesn't withstand "rigid scrutiny".

 

[Bells]

The premise is, what do we know of the Holocaust and what are the sources that have led to this knowledge?

The premise is an a priori acceptance of the standard narrative and a desire to take a look at what is the basis for it.

I think the question that needs to be asked at this point is do you doubt that it even happened? Do you doubt the figures of those who died? Do you doubt the evidence of the survivors, the images that came out of those camps, the factual representation of those who witnessed it first hand? Do you doubt the Nazi's who openly implemented the final solution?

The premise is that many people may have doubts about the Holocaust because it has become taboo to ask questions and this in itself is a disservice to the victims.

Many people also believe that there are fairies at the bottom of their gardens.

It should not be taboo to ask questions.

However there is a fine line between asking questions and asking questions in an attempt to deny the event itself. Many of those who ask the questions believe it is a conspiracy, that it never happened at all. That it was all made up. Now where does that belief stem from?

There are a plethora of such sites where people who, as you claim yourself, doubt the Holocaust. Not because they feel it is taboo to ask questions, but because of some underslying hatred of Jews. Many of these people also consider Hitler to be a hero. A visit to some neo-nazi hate sites and forums such as Storm front might shed some light on the phenomena.

Truth be told, I doubt we will ever be able to determine the true figure of those who perished at the hands of the Nazis, simply because of the manner in which so many perished and the way their remains were disposed of.

Again, the question needs to be asked.. Are people questioning the Holocaust because they simply do not know? Or are they questioning it because they have a hatred of Jews?

After the genocide in Rwanda, there was also a lot of questions raised about the true death toll. It should be noted that many of those who asked those questions, doubted the toll itself or deny it happened were Hutus or Hutu sympathisers.

 

[S.A.M.]

I think the question that needs to be asked at this point is do you doubt that it even happened? Do you doubt the figures of those who died? Do you doubt the evidence of the survivors, the images that came out of those camps, the factual representation of those who witnessed it first hand? Do you doubt the Nazi's who openly implemented the final solution?
.

No, the question that needs to be asked is, is it necessary for any person who asks a question about the holocaust to be treated as a denier?

e.g. if I were to ask, how many children were involved in the Stolen Generation?

Would you doubt if I believed this happened?

The fact is that after almost 50 posts, no one [except Straw Dog and spidergoat] has simply come forward and provided any responses without assigning motive to the asker. And I am still waiting for any direct responses from the ones who have much to say about why the question is being asked but little to provide in the form of responses.

It is this attitude which creates doubt in the peoples minds. This is not just true for the holocaust it would also be true if I asked the same questions of the Tasmanians or the Native Americans and it was treated the same way

i.e. what do they have to hide? So my question is, do YOU doubt it happened as they say? Do YOU have doubts that the questions can be answered or that there is any evidence for the numbers and motives and methods? If not, what exactly are you worried about?

 

[leopold]

hitler stated in his book "mein kampf" that he would exterminate the jews.
he had the will and the means.
the only real questions concerns the numbers.

This letter, marked Secret, is thus one of the important links in the chain leading directly from the murder by gas of mentally and physically handicapped German citizens to the murder by gas of Jews behind the Eastern Front. It is especially valuable because, unlike most communications regarding the Final Solution, it refers to gassing using that word, rather than a euphemism.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/19411025-wetzel-no365/

and this:
http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/resour...nt/DocBelz.htm


And, finally, there are the words of the Fuehrer himself. In Hitler's speech of January 30, 1939, he said:

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 Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.

in September, 1942, Hitler recalled:

In my Reichstag speech of September 1, 1939 [above, wrong date here], I have spoken of two things: first, that now that the war has been forced upon us, no array of weapons and no passage of time will bring us to defeat, and second, that if Jewry should plot another world war in order to exterminate the Aryan peoples in Europe, it would not be the Aryan peoples which would be exterminated but Jewry.

 

[S.A.M.]

Thats good, I was not aware of these letters.

One of your links led me to this one here, on reliability of witness testimony:

How then can the reliability of such testimony be evaluated? One method is to compare it to other testimony on the subject. Is the testimony consistent overall when compared to other testimony on the same event? Another method is to compare the testimony to other corroborative evidence. Is there some documentary evidence that supports the testimony? For example, Miklos Nyiszli was a Jewish doctor who was part of the Hungarian transports deported to Auschwitz from May to July 1944. His memoirs were written in March 1946 and published in Budapest in 1947. A copy of the original Hungarian is at the UCLA main library. They were translated into English in 1960. Nyiszli served as a prisoner doctor to the notorious Joseph Mengele. He witnessed the bodies of dead gassing victims and the burnings of bodies in the Crematoriums. He also witnessed the burning pits dug by the Auschwitz authorities to dispose of the murdered victims. How can his testimony be evaluated? His testimony can be classified as victim testimony, the essentials of which have been verified by other victims. Perpetrators have also verified the essential aspects of his testimony. 6 But there is other evidence by which the veracity of his testimony can be evaluated. Nyiszli wrote that while he was at Auschwitz there were 860 special commando prisoners assigned to the four crematoriums to dispose of the murdered victims. 7 This is a very large number and is consistent with what the camp authorities would need to dispose of victims who were being murdered en masse. A camp labor deployment list dated August 29, 1944 shows 874 special workers assigned to the four crematoria. They are evenly divided among those installations and divided again into day and night shifts. 8 Thus, Nyiszli is a very credible witness based on this independent corroboration.

So they used corroboration from multiple victims and perpetrator testimonies.

 

[Anti-Flag]

That reminds me I must go shopping. I need juice and fire-lighters.

 

[fedr808]

That reminds me I must go shopping. I need juice and fire-lighters.

haha

 

[quadraphonics]

That would be true, if there was such a premise. There isn't.

The premise is, what do we know of the Holocaust and what are the sources that have led to this knowledge?

The premise is an a priori acceptance of the standard narrative and a desire to take a look at what is the basis for it.

The premise is that many people may have doubts about the Holocaust because it has become taboo to ask questions and this in itself is a disservice to the victims.

I will attempt to control the direction of the thread as much as I can. James will probably take care of the rest.

Many talking weasels may have doubts about your convictions.

The only question in my mind is how long you can last until you resume posting links to hate sites.

 

[S.A.M.]

Many talking weasels may have doubts about your convictions.

The only question in my mind is how long you can last until you resume posting links to hate sites.

Probably the same talking weasels who wouldn't pay for a subscription to see the paper from the original site and wouldn't believe you without evidence they could check for themselves.

And not for the first time, I am not surprised by what doesn't get moderated by the same overzealous moderators in threads like this.

 

[StrawDog]

So why in your own source (Which I somehow doubt you even read) does it say the following statements:





Numbers nearly identical to every study that doesn't withstand "rigid scrutiny".

I think you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position. What is your point?

 

[superstring01]

Probably the same talking weasels who wouldn't pay for a subscription to see the paper from the original site and wouldn't believe you without evidence they could check for themselves.

Well, accessibility proof is a de facto requirement in establishing said proof.

Though, this "weasel" actually defended you the last time it came up for debate. It won't happen again.

~String

 

[Gustav]

ja, revenge is sweeeet!