Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

[Anonymouse]

Well, if you can't stand a cordial discussion and blame everything that contradicts your dearly held views as "You have personal reasons", then obviously there is no room for a discussion. Since when was the discussion of any point in history for 'personal reasons'? Just run along now...

[Darorinag]

Ignoramus, how deep more you want to fall? I am telling you go READ the reports before coming here and playing your smart. The plasters taken by Cracow have nothing to do with the plaster wall that Rudolf supposes have existed. Rudolf supposes that a plaster wall which increased the PH was responsible of the reaction when he compared with his Church theses. THERE WAS NO SUCH PLASTER WALL that ever existed. How far will you show your ignorance Dan one just wonder? Now the next time come back after you have read the reports because obviously you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

We are talking about the same "plaster" issue.

--
"Even a single gassing with hydrocyanic acid can be instructive. A fascinating instance of a one-time gassing is that of a church which was treated with HCN to rid the woodwork of bore beetles. A few months later intense blue patches began to show on the walls, and eventually all the plaster had to be removed to get rid of the Prussian Blue. The significance of this is clear: even a single gassing can result in the formation of large remnants of cyanide. It should be noted that the interior church walls had been freshly plastered some weeks before they were exposed to HCN, and that the chemical reaction producing Prussian Blue stopped only a year later, confirming the long-term action of the process.

Professor Richard Green, a chemist, joined the discussion -- against the "deniers," as he calls them -- about the conditions under which Prussian Blue is formed. While accepting that cyanide compounds of iron are present in the delousing chambers, he disputes whether they would have formed in the "homicidal gas chambers." Green regards Rudolf's "church" example as an exception rather than the rule, and believes that the Jan Sehn Institute's 1994 report "provided real information."

--
Fadi, do you know what Dr. Green is saying? He is saying that the blue stains on the walls could've been the result of people painting the walls....

Fadi, the walls were plastered. Dr. Green is not arguing about that. Do you even know what plastering means?

Plastering walls makes them more resistant to fire and other damage.

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Well, if you can't stand a cordial discussion and blame everything that contradicts your dearly held views as "You have personal reasons", then obviously there is no room for a discussion. Since when was the discussion of any point in history for 'personal reasons'? Just run along now...

Hoohoo heheee you're a joke. Maybe you and Dan can go on a lunch date and figure out why one of you is a pseudo-intellectual and the other a homo KKK member. You have a lot to talk about.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by patlajan The gas chamber plan is more efficient, and does not seem elaborate to me. The alternative would be to have common soldiers killing civilians many times over. The psychological effects would be devastating and some might refuse to do it. On the other hand having the dirty work be in the hands of a few specialy picked people is more plausable. Flipping a gas chamber switch is a lot easier than looking someone in the eye.

I would argue that the contrary is true. Gas chamber killings are more gruesome. Death is death. You might as well just shoot the guy in the head and be done with it, rather than do it some other way, if you have to. "Some might refuse to do it"? Yet no Nazis refused to fight? Or take part in the camp "gassings"? Removal of thousands of bodies? Cremating them? Just a few dozen people? I don't think so...

Moreover, Germany wasn't sure it would win the war. There were no guarantees. In such a case, it would be easier to hide the fact that you exterminated Jews by killing them rather than taking them all to camps. Camps would work as evidence against them later on, large scale executions would not, not to the extent the camps would would if there were indeed proofs that the Jews were gassed there. Why build so many structures, spend so much money, feed them, transport them, order tons of Zyklon B for the gassings, only to kill them all off in the end?

Of course, that doesn't prove that they didn't do it. I am replying to you in the same way you are asking those questions. Logically speaking, concentration camps for purposes extermination are illogical. Unless they were 100% sure they were gonna win the war, and were having fun with the resources they had, torturing people, etc.

[Darorinag]

Maybe you and Dan can go on a lunch date and figure out why one of you is a pseudo-intellectual and the other a homo KKK member. You have a lot to talk about.

I am not a KKK member. KKK is a piece of utter trash.

If you can't be nice in this thread, just observe or don't read the thread at all.

[Anonymouse]

The moderators need to do their moderating and delete worthless posts that have nothing to do with the said discussion, that means most of the drivel that Felix and patlajoke and to a lesser extent Dan, post.

[Darorinag]

Worthless posts, Anon? None of my posts contain personal attacks or irrelevant material... Anyway - getting back on-topic (while the exterminationists desperately try to get this thing off-topic)...

Btw, Fadi, you might want to edit the following in the genocide bill mssg at the other forum:

"I am writing you concerning the Private Members Motion M-880 & M-877 by Ms. Dalphond-Guiral. I strongly approve of this motion, and I count on you to support it and NOT take the side of those who deny war crimes and genocide. "

I thought it was M-380 and M-377.

Also,

"It is time for Canada to refer to those events with the proper term - genocide. And, if Canada does not do so, she will take the defense of the deniers of genocide. Canada will be the defender of the Irvings, Flaurissons and Zundels of this world."

It's FAURISSON (not FLaurisson), and Zündel, not Zundel.

Besides the fact that you are using a fallacy right there, guilt by association. Anyway, I did not send that e-mail. I have no interest in lobbying for the recognition of something I have been told and taught, the details of which I do not know, and hence am unable to judge for myself the validity of those claims.

Anyway, just thought I'd point that out, since I can't post on the other forum...

[Fadix]

Dan, dan, dan, stop playing the diapered baby. At least in a revisionist forum people know of what they are talking about, while you on the other hand, you are an ignorant and a liar, sorry it is not a personal attack, if you are offended that is your problem. So Danny knows German.

“And what makes us sure that he was telling the truth? And sorry to disappoint you, but I'm no idiot. Maybe you should work on correcting your English though. What proof is there that he was saying the truth? He took back what he said later on, did he not? What makes us sure that he was saying the truth rather than saying just anything to save his *ss? First sentenced to death, then to life in prison, then let go in 10 years... hmmm... I wonder why!”

Danny boy, what “proof” you have that he was lying? Do you have any proof? And where have he taken back what he was telling? No one forced him to write his diary right? How do you explain that a report of late 1942 in his diary is clarified? Was there a Nuremberg in 1942 ?

“Fadi boy, do post it here. That's what I've been asking for.”

Are you telling me that you have not read it?

“And how is his confession proven to correctly decode his diary entry? If he took back what he said later on, would it not have been possible that he was lying?”

Where?

“It's pure and simple. A justice system should not take as absolute proof any confessions of guilt. Many people have confessed to things they didn't do to avoid being sentenced for life to prison due to lack of other evidence, and them being the only suspects in the case. This has happened many a time. Later on, it has been proven that the confession was indeed wrong, and that it was done to do some damage control.”

How many write in their diary the same thing they confess Danny boy?

“Was it? ”

Yes it was.

“You seem to have read the guy too much, that you have referred to him as "Flaurisson" rather than "Faurisson" twice. Well done. ”

Yes! and I have referred to his name that way for years, did always that same mistake, run a search on the Turkish board where I participate you will find me using that name 4 years back. As well, I am not the only making that mistake; many French works name him that way, because Faurisson is not a word that sounds right in French.

“Oh, so now we are asked to interpret "outside" as meaning "outside bunkers"... hmmm, I wonder why he didn't take care to write "outside bunkers" instead of just "outside." Damn, I like this guy, he has some neat coding techniques.”

Danny. He tells us BUNKER in his testimony, he leave for outside like he describe and later use the word Bunker, I am sure that you have the IQ needed to understand here that if he has to go outside to visit the bunker the bunker must be outside.

“At another instance, Kremer claims that while he sat waiting for the gassings to take place, an orderly carried gas masks for oxygen just in case any of the SS men who were poisoned needed to be "revived." And so they entered and brought the bodies out right away.... Without any ventilation. That is impossible, Fadi boy. He also claims that those who took out the (2000+) bodies were "eating and smoking" while doing their job, which means that they weren't wearing any gas masks... ”

Oh man, using again retarded claims coming from the net. Danny, they were outside, the bunker was wide open, beside that, the gas used was probably carbon monoxide. Here you claim will as well discredit Dr. Said at the Red Crescent hospital and his uses of poisonous cans imported from Germany to poison Armenians at the Red Crescent hospitals. People were not wearing masks to take the Armenian bodies out and then put them in boats to be later dumped into the sea. That is because those gases are volatile, the door outside are wide open to leave the gas out before entering and taking the bodies out. So again, your claim has no scientific ground, it is only suppositions coming from idiots discussing on the internet and you thought that you could just recycle what they say.

“How do you know that he referred to that for that reason? Maybe he really was referring to some other outside "special action"? How do you know he wasn't referring to something else? It is also notable how those "sonderaktions" coincided with new arrivals coming in.. so what makes us sure that the "special action" wasn't getting those new arrivals sorted out? Or some other thing, such as taking care of those who had died of disease overnight? ”

Danny you jerk, he refers to the special action being in the bunker, he tells he had to go outside(because the bunker was outside). Given that your English is better than mine and that here it is clear cut what he is talking about, I have no other conclusion than you are doing it on purposes.

“Carbon monoxide (CO) gas, however, will be considered briefly at this point. CO gas is a relatively poor execution gas in that it takes much too long to effect death, perhaps as long as 30 minutes, and if poorly circulated, longer. In order to utilize CO, a quantity of 4,000 ppm would be required making it necessary to pressurize the chamber at approximately 2.5 atmospheres with CO. Additionally, CO2 (carbon dioxide) has also been suggested. CO2 is even less effective than CO. These gasses, it has been alleged, were produced by diesel engines. Diesel engines produce exhausts which contain very little carbon monoxide and would require that the execution chamber be pressurized with the air/gas mixture in order to have sufficient gas to cause death. Carbon monoxide in quantities of 3000 ppm or 0.30% will cause nausea and headache after exposure for one hour and perhaps some long term damage.

Concentrations of some 4000 ppm and above will prove fatal for exposure times of over 1 hour. The author would submit that a chamber filled to capacity with persons occupying approximately 9 square feet or less (the minimum area required to ensure gas circulation around the occupants), that the occupants would die of suffocation due to their own exhaustion of the available air, well before the additional gas would take effect. Thus, simply closing the executees in this confined space would obviate the need of either CO or CO2 from an external source.”

The next time you would want to quote from Leutcher report Danny boy at least have the honesty to post the source and not make it pass as yours because you will be blamed for the mistakes. BTW! Thanks for giving me the chance to correct Mr. Leutcher.

Leutcher claims that it would take 4000 PPM to pressurise the chamber at 2.5 atm. With CO, this is a basic chemistry mistake. At 2.5 atm the concentration would be a lot higher than 4000 PPM, more exactly about 10 times higher(would take above 30% concentration for 2.5 atm). So the claim of the pressure to have the wanted concentration is erroneous from the start. Of course in this case we did even not needed to make a calculation to know this claim is ridiculous because we know that CO action is a lot more devastating than what this trash coming from Leutcher report claims. Furthermore, Leutcher supposes that the Diesel engines were used as-is, while anyone knowing basic mechanic could be able to modify the air/CO mix. A concentration of about 8000 PPM out with a 3/1 efficiency would give all it is needed for the above 4000 PPM to be efficiently used as gas chamber, at those concentrations no pressurised chambers are needed(since here Leutcher makes a basic mistake with his 2.5 atm). With those conditions it would have taken under 20 minutes to cause death.

"On 2 September 1942, at 3 a.m. I was already assigned to take part in the action of gassing people. These mass murders took place in small cottages situated outside the Birkenau camp in a wood. These cottages were called 'bunkers' (Bunker) in the SS men's slang. All SS surgeons, on duty in the camp, took turns to participate in the gassings, which were called 'Sonderaktion' (special action-Editor's note). My part as surgeon at the gassing consisted in remaining in readiness near the bunker. I was brought there in a car. I sat in front with the driver and an SS hospital orderly (SDG) sat in the back of the car with an oxygen apparatus to revive SS men, employed in the gassing, in case any of them should succumb to the poisonous fumes. When the transport with people, who were destined for gassing, arrived at the railway ramp the SS officers selected from among the arrivals persons fit to work and the rest- old people, all children, women with children in arms and other persons not deemed fit to work-were loaded upon lorries and driven to the gas-chambers. I used to follow behind the transport till we reached the bunker. Here people were first driven to barracks where the victims undressed and then went naked to the gas-chambers. Very often no incidents occurred, as the SS men kept people quiet, maintaining that they were to bathe and be deloused. After driving all of them into the gas-chamber the door was closed and an SS man in a gasmask threw the contents of a Cyklon tin through an opening in the side wall. Shouting and screaming of the victims could be heard through that opening and it was clear that they fought for their lives [Lebenskampf]. These shouts were heard for a very short time. I should say for some minutes but I am unable to give the exact span of time."

This is the Sep 2 report not Sep 5. So yes! you were making it up.

“The Nazis themselves had cases of dyphteria, dysentery, and in some cases typhus. Read the diary entry by Kremer. The Nazis also gave haircuts for sanitary reasons (not for using women's hair for socks, as alleged but not proven, as usual)... Despite that, however, there were swimming pools, orchestras, etc. in the camps. Food was scarce, it was war. German nationals themselves had been suffering from starvation and exposure in many many cases. The situation with the camp inmates was not all that bad. There were less than 900,000 Jewish victims in all camps. Let's say 200,000 were shot by the Nazis. That leaves us 700,000 for the epidemic, a very normal and predictable number. More Germans died than 700,000 Jews inside camps...

And FYI, cadavers were burned. ”

Stop that s.t Dan, the NAZI contracted those diseases from the victims waiting the concentration camps. As for swimming pools, orchestras, more you post more you “show” how much of both sides you have read. Of course there were swimming pools and orchestras in the camps, when those camps were build they were not supposed to be used as killing factories, the NAZI took the decision after their defeat from the Soviet front… So the situation in the camps was not all bad? You must be suffering of brain damage Dan, typhus is spread because of bad conditions. As for your numbers, support them with sources or shut the fk off.

Oh, I am still waiting you know what…

[Darorinag]

Danny boy, what “proof” you have that he was lying? Do you have any proof? And where have he taken back what he was telling? No one forced him to write his diary right? How do you explain that a report of late 1942 in his diary is clarified? Was there a Nuremberg in 1942 ?

What proof do you have that he wasn't lying? Again, people's accounts can be very easily manipulated, and people can very easily lie. His diary does not reveal anything. It is not proof. It is an interpretation. What report was "clarified" in his diary?

Are you telling me that you have not read it?

I never said anything of the sort. You said:

Shall you go read it or shall I post it here to embarrass you ever further Danny boy?

I answered: "Fadi boy, do post it here. That's what I've been asking for. "

Where do you see in there an admission that I haven't read it?

Where?

You claimed that the diary was referring to "bunkers" by saying "outside."

Here's what you said:

"Danny boy, the gassing in question happened outside in one the two Auschwitz gassing bunkers because the Krematorium was closed in July 1942 to be reopened for March 1943, while the “special operation” here is reported in September, when the “inside” gas chamber was closed to be replaced by two “outside” bunkers. Kremer use the word bunkers and outside because the gassing during that period were done outside."

The gassing bunkers, Fadi?

Here's what Kremer had to say later on, in 1960.

Judge: Where did the gassings take place?

Kremer: Some old farms had been transformed into a bunker and provided with a sliding door for secure closing. Upstairs was located a dormer window. The people were brought in undressed. They entered quietly; only some of them balked; they were taken aside and shot. The gas was released by an SS soldier. For that he went up on a ladder.

--Note the singular, BUNKER (not BUNKERS, contrary to what you referred to - two bunkers)

Also note, he says, some of them balked. Are we to assume that they couldn't force them in? What if all of them had "balked"? Did the Nazis have enough men ready on the spot to kill all of them if they had attacked them, if there were so many in number? 800 / gassing (assuming that they were not well fed and too strong, but 800 vs. how many Nazis, Fadi?) This is an example of drama, of making it sound more dramatic than it would've if they were just taken in and gassed. Kremer, Fadi, talks about "old farms" being transformed into A (one, singular) bunker. Where are the two bunkers as interpreted?

How many write in their diary the same thing they confess Danny boy?

First off, the writings in the diary can be interpreted in many many ways, so the confession does not "support" it absolutely. What they tried to do was complement the disqualification of the diary as "proof" with his "testimony" to "support" their interpretations. However, they failed even in that. Again, the testimony, Fadi, could've been easily manipulated. The guy was sentenced to death, then released in 10 years. Do you think he did what he did for the sake of saving his *ss? And why did Sehn decrease the "penalty"?

A 1 March 1943 entry in the diary:

"Went today to shoemaker Grevsmühl to be registered and saw there a leaflet sent him from Kattowitz by the Socialist Party of Germany. The leaflet informed that we had already liquidated 2 million Jews, by shooting or gassing."

Do you consider this propaganda or not, Fadi? And notice how detached he is from the "informed that we had already liquidated 2 million Jews, by shooting or gassing."

Why does he not comment on the gassing? Why does he only refer to it by "informed"? Why the "had already liquidated 2 million Jews", as if they hadn't? Why, Fadi? You see, it is all interpretative, Fadi boy. And note that not even exterminationists use this in any of their arguments that Kremer's diary is correct. Why, Fadi? Do they realize it was propaganda by opposing parties, Fadi? If it were such an obvious evidence to the gassings, why not refer to the most blunt expression used in the diary - "gassing"?

Need I go into more detail about his diary entries and "testimony"?

People might ask why the word Muslim here is used, “Muslims” was a term used by the NAZI to define those condemned to die.

I said: Was it?
You said: Yes it was.

Fadi boy, this refers to Moslem (Bosnian) women. There were many Moslem volunteers in the SS as well.

Yes! and I have referred to his name that way for years, did always that same mistake, run a search on the Turkish board where I participate you will find me using that name 4 years back. As well, I am not the only making that mistake; many French works name him that way, because Faurisson is not a word that sounds right in French.

That still doesn't mean that you have read the works. Anyone who has read the work and claims to know it in such detail would not misspell the name (and this was not just a spelling mistake). Anyway, I do hope you can correct that, because you misspelled it in the "genocide bill" e-mail as well.

He tells us BUNKER in his testimony, he leave for outside like he describe and later use the word Bunker, I am sure that you have the IQ needed to understand here that if he has to go outside to visit the bunker the bunker must be outside.

He does not say bunker in that entry in his diary though, Fadi. Testimony and diary are two different things, Fadi, you ought to know this. Diary was written before the trials. Testimony happened during the trials.

Oh man, using again retarded claims coming from the net. Danny, they were outside, the bunker was wide open, beside that, the gas used was probably carbon monoxide.

He claims they used Zyklon B, Fadi. This during the testimony:

"After driving all of them into the gas-chamber the door was closed and an SS man in a gasmask threw the contents of a Cyklon tin through an opening in the side wall. Shouting and screaming of the victims could be heard through that opening and it was clear that they fought for their lives."

Probably? Probably what, Fadi? Probably means proof?

Here you claim will as well discredit Dr. Said at the Red Crescent hospital and his uses of poisonous cans imported from Germany to poison Armenians at the Red Crescent hospitals. People were not wearing masks to take the Armenian bodies out and then put them in boats to be later dumped into the sea.

Fadi, do you have proof of that? If not, it doesn't matter if it's concerned with Armenians or Turks or Arabs or Germans or Ukranians.

That is because those gases are volatile, the door outside are wide open to leave the gas out before entering and taking the bodies out.

Fadi, you know that gassing using CO could not happen quickly, right?

Kremer claims they used Zyklon B. Either he knew or didn't know. Pick either one. You can't pick both.

Danny you jerk, he refers to the special action being in the bunker, he tells he had to go outside(because the bunker was outside).

The bunker was outside of what, Fadi? Outside where they were? Seems obvious that there couldn't be a bunker inside a room, right? Why would he take special care to say that, then?

Given that your English is better than mine and that here it is clear cut what he is talking about, I have no other conclusion than you are doing it on purposes.

I am not doing anything on purpose, Fadi. And I didn't mean to use the part that you should improve your English as a derogatory remark. It was well-intentioned. I have many sources in French as well, I do understand some of it. I am sure there are many translations of these works into different languages.

Furthermore, Leutcher supposes that the Diesel engines were used as-is, while anyone knowing basic mechanic could be able to modify the air/CO mix.

Well, how do you know they modified it?

Fadi boy, just because you take your sources from places not available on the net doesn't mean you need not cite the source. You know that, don't you? Nice try.

Moreover, you are not taking into account the fact that this is a chamber that doesn't have 1 person in it. There were up to 800 (?) people according to some eyewitness accounts.

Not that this is relevant. It is clear that Kremer refers to Zyklon B in his testimony.

This is the Sep 2 report not Sep 5. So yes! you were making it up

Making what up, Fadi? I thought we were talking about the Sonderaktion on Sept. 2 (the one that took place at 3 am - his first presence durign a sonderaktion, Fadi. Cocentrate).

Stop that s.t Dan, the NAZI contracted those diseases from the victims waiting the concentration camps.

And what exactly does that prove, Fadi? They contracted it from them. So what? They were vulnerable too. if they had wanted to kill them off, and hated them so, why put themselves in such a risk of contracting diseases from their inmates? Makes no sense, Fadi.

I am aware of what exterminationists claim with regards to the swimming pools, btw, and moreover, they also claim that the swimming pools were used to drown babies and other inmates, which is also far from being proven)...

Of course there were swimming pools and orchestras in the camps, when those camps were build they were not supposed to be used as killing factories, the NAZI took the decision after their defeat from the Soviet front…

When were the Nazis defeated on the Eastern Front, Fadi? Do tell me. When did the Soviet counter-offensive start, Fadi? And when did the Germans surrender in Stalingrad?

As Simon "we forge photos" Wiesenthal center reports,

"During the Operation Reinhard liquidation, from July through September 1942, nearly 300,000 Jews were deported from Warsaw to the killing center at Treblinka."

And when did the Chelmno camp start its operation? According to Simon Wiesenthal Center, Dec. 8, 1941.

And Fadi, are you saying that the swimming pools were built for the political prisoners / spies? Oh how lucky those spies were!!!

You must be suffering of brain damage Dan, typhus is spread because of bad conditions.

Yes, and? Is there any proof that the bad conditions were indeed forced? How do you know it wasn't out of necessity? And why would the Nazis have put themselves in risk of catching typhus, as they had to deal closely with the Jews in concentration camps?

As for your numbers, support them with sources or shut the fk off.

What, what, I sense some bitterness and anger here. Is this the way you go on "discussing", Fadi? I am surprised. Such an intellectual as you claim to be, using words like "shut the fk off"? Tsk tsk.

More on Jewish population and number of victims in the following post.

[Darorinag]

Total Number of Jews living in pre-war Europe: 6,500,000 (Chambers Encyclopedia)

Between 1933 and 1945: 1,500,000 Jews emigrated to Britain, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Australia, China, India, Palestine and the United States. (Baseler Nachrichten)

400,000 from Germany emigrated before September 1939. (World Jewish Congress)

220,000 (of the total 280,000) Austrian Jews had emigrated by September, 1939.

260,000 Jews from former Czechoslovakia emigrated.

That leaves us with: 360,000 Jews in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia after September 1939.

500,000 from Poland had emigrated prior to the outbreak of war.

Jewish emigrants from other European countries: 120,000.

Subtracting from the 6.5 million of alleged Jews in Europe, we would have about 5 million.

Jews who fled to the Soviet Union (after 1939) from Poland: 1,250,000. (those were evacuated further east when the Nazis invaded)

300,000 other European Jews to Soviet Union between 1939 and 1941.

Total emigrants to the Soviet Union: 1,550,000.

Number of Jews remaining: Approximately 3.5 million.

Subtract from this the Jews living in neutral European countries: 413,128.

We now have: Approximately 3 million Jews in Europe.

Between 650,000 and 850,000 Soviet Jews were under German control. (Reitlinger)

100,000 were killed by Germans as partisans and Bolshevik commissars. The 100,000 figure includes non-Jews as well.

Jewish Joint Distribution Committee's figure claims 1,559,600 survivors after the war.

Jewish world population (1938): 16,588,259 (The World Almanac)

NY Times presented the number of Jews in the world (1948) as follows: a minimum 15,600,000 and a maximum of 18,700,000.

15.5 million - (minus) 6 million = 9.5 million.

This means that there was a net increase of 7 million Jews in the time period of 10 years.

http://www.ihr.org/books/harwood/dsmrd02.html

Now make use of a calculator, and divide 7,000,000 by 3650, and you will get about 1917.8

This means that there were about 1918 births per day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, for 10 years.

Possible or impossible? YOU decide.