Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

[Sip]

Originally posted by Fadix ... Now Dan, let show you how you disprove the Shoah. You must disprove the hardest evidences brought, and THE evidences open to the public is mostly found in Hilbergs works, Hilberg is the Dadrian of the Shoah, it is like a Turkish denialist claiming that there is no evidences to "prove" the Armenian genocide when he has not read Dadrian works. In order for a Turk to claim the evidences are non-existant he must disprove what Dadrian brought in his works, no Turks were able to do that.

That seems to just about answer Anonymouse's concern above too.

[Darorinag]

As for the rest of your post, it is not what I asked you, your intimidations try them elsewhere.

In an effort to stop you from ruining this thread, this will be my LAST reply to you, and I recommend that anyone who wants this thread to stay on topic and not turn out to be like the Race thread full of intimidations and personal attacks (psychotic, etc.), to do the same. You are incapable of holding a non-fallacious, on-topic, non-competitive, non-arrogant, non-intimidating discussion about something. You are evading my questions and instead are asking other questions. What's more, you are accusing me of intimidating you whereas I have done nothing of the sort. Few people use Hilberg's book these days to "prove" that the holocaust took place. It doesn't prove much. Even the numbers HE presents have been proven to be wrong. He has tried to be "popular" with both revisionists and anti-revisionists by holding a middle ground with regards to the number of "victims." Statistics and emigration documents show that there were 5 million Jews in Europe overall after the start of WWII, and I mentioned this in my first few posts in this thread.

The proof provided by Rudolf IS scientific. Documents can be forged, and have been. The Rudolf report provides enough proof to disqualify all that your "shoah"-believers and anti-revisionists and zionists claim.

You ignored my claims about the Simon "we forge photos" Wiesenthal Center, didn't you? Typical. I can bring proof after proof that all those documents have been forged and the confessions taken under torture or manipulated psychological circumstances.

Having read that book, Fadi, I can safely say that it is NOT a prerequisite for discussions about the holocaust. It proves little if anything at all. Hilberg also avoided the very controversial issue of the human soap by claiming that it was "probably not" true.

Hilberg, on another occasion, said: "There are 250 million people in this country, and if you include Europe and the rest of North America you have about 800 million. Are you surprised that somebody says there is no Holocaust? People say all kinds of things." That is not what a historian who respects the truth (and the truth has been proven by many scientists and revisionists!) would say, is it? That doubting the holocaust is based not on historical truth and revisionist proofs, but on the nature of human beings. He also (unsuccessfully) testified for the prosecution in the Ernst Zundel case.

On another occasion, he said: "He [Zundel] would have been unknown and he would have been lost had the survivors not made him a cause celebre. If you ignore them they starve, if you attack them they grow even more." Without having proven Zundel's claims as false, he is implying that revisionists should've been ignored. Ignorance in "proofs" is hardly credible. You can "prove" all you want, but as long as you are ignoring the solid proofs on the other side of the fence, your proofs are null and void. That is why revisionists hold the higher ground when it comes to historical debate. Because not only do they prove that the photos, documents are fake, they also prove that what those documents claim could not have existed scientifically. While every day brings new "holocaust" documents, revisionists debunk them one by one, and prove that they are fakes. There have been MANY, MANY fake photos, and the rest of the photos that haven't been proven to be touched-up provide no proof that there were any gas chambers. A caption that claims that the women were walking to the gas chamber doesn't prove that they were.

Hilberg also says that the revisionists "don't care whether they win or lose. When you attack them they become heavier and stronger because of all the publicity. It's just like those 'Star Trek' movies in which an alien life form is encountered and when they shoot lasers at it, it feeds on it and gets larger. That is the revisionist movement. I think it is completely wrong strategy to fire heavy artillery on mosquitoes."

Summary: Hilberg is inviting exterminationists to ignore revisionists. Exterminationists do that. Revisionists further debunk exterminationist claims and challenge them to hold a public debate on the "holocaust." Exterminationists refuse, saying they have nothing to prove, and that there are already proofs that the holocaust did indeed take place. Revisionists prove that exterminationists have no interest in historical truth, but rather in political agendas.

Your views on the "$hoax" are prompted by your "moral" position with regards to the Armenian genocide. But you must realize that being a revisionist of the Jewish "holocaust" doesn't mean that you have to be a revisionist of the Armenian genocide. Revisionis, as I said before, is not a universal label that you carry with you wherever you go. It's simply a movement that is interested in historical truth. A revisionist can also debate the Armenian genocide with Turks and prove that they are wrong, if there is any such thing. Besides, would you want everyone to believe that the Armenian genocide has happened even if you know it hasn't happened? I am not saying that it hasn't happened (I know you will put words into my mouth here, so stop right there), but IF the case were just like the Jewish "holocaust" and the photos were proven to be fake, would you still go on with the "game" and insist that the genocide took place? Besides, I know why many Armenians are against revisionism. They think if you claim that Nazis were only deporting Jews outside their territories, Turks or Armenian genocide denialists would also claim that. But that is irrelevant. We both know it is. This false analogy and appeal to sympathy on the part of the Jews when it comes to Armenians is just another cunning tactic on part of exterminationists. And while you continue supporting the zionist lies, zionists continue to exert pressure for the denial of the Armenian genocide. You are feeding the fire you are trying to put out.

[Fadix]

http://www.codoh.com/reference/brightshinning.html

Here is from where your critics of Hilberg come from, all your quotes come from there. And you just rewroded the critic by retranscripting it. Now present me quotes from the book with the pages Dan.

I asked you a SIMPLE question Danny boy. Yet! You divert it.

I must say that you amaze me Dan. First on the other thread you asked me to "prove" the non-existance of something when it was for you to "prove" its existance. And now here you are trying to "prove" the non-existance of something and refuse to debate on the evidences.

Danny boy, I am asking you here to discuss about one ghetto in particulare, you see I told you previously that I was not interested to discuss about this issue anymore, but here I am offering you something and you are refusing. Have I talked about the soaps? The gas chambers? NOPE!!! We will start with THAT ghetto in particular Dan.

Now you have two choices, or you start a review of Hilberg book from YOUR own(that mean your quotations from the book and your analysis) or we cover point by point by starting now with the Ghetto.

I hope that you are more knowledgeble regarding this subject than the other, because unfortunitly for you I am more knowledgeble about this subject compared with the other.

Oh and, as well I advice you to get Hitlers war by Irving since after we finish with Hilberg we will start with him(one thing at a time Dan).

Mind you here that I claim the Shoah happened it is this time my turn to provide the evidences and for you to disprove them, and not for you to "prove" the non-existance of something when you don't even know in the first place what are my claims and what evidences I will be providing.

[Darorinag]

I must say that you amaze me Dan. First on the other thread you asked me to "prove" the non-existance of something when it was for you to "prove" its existance. And now here you are trying to "prove" the non-existance of something and refuse to debate on the evidences.

Evidence? Heh... If you consider Hilberg's claims evidence, then I've got nothing more to say. Again, those quotes were from trials and interviews with Hilberg, it doesn't matter where it comes from, it's in the public arena, it doesn't belong to any particular author. I was not rewording anything. Your "skill" at google searching is not all that impressive. My post on human soap was written by myself and myself only, only the quotes were taken from other sources.

And again, you are diverting the issue at hand. My outline was clear, and I will repeat it for the sake of reminding you (and everyone else):

-Was there a holocaust?
-Were there deportations?
-Were there camps?
-Wre there extermination plans?
-Were there extermination acts?
-Were there deaths in the camps?
-Were there gas chambers?
-Were there any other methods of mass killing?
-Are the eyewitness accounts reliable?
-Is the Anne Frank diary a fake?
-Did 6 million really die?

Nowhere have I mentioned the question of ghettos and what the purposes behind them COULD'VE been. It's all interpretations, and any documents that come to aid those interpretations come from "confessions" that have been conducted under torture. Would you consider any of Eichmann's "confessions" (after he was whisked away to Israel and tried there) to be historical "facts"? There were "confessions" about the human soaps. Yet Yad Vashem declared that the human soap question was wrong and that human soap was never made, and that it was all rumours circulated by Nazis. How can they prove that the rumours were circulated by Nazis? It was the Jews fighting tooth and nail for the "factualisation" of the human soap claims, not the Nazis. So where does that leave the "confessors"? And all those documents about human soap? Again, this is very relevant because once it is proven that the documents used in trials have been proven to be wrong or fake, all the documents would have to undergo scrutiny in order to prove that they are not fakes.

And again, you are trying to "disqualify" my sources because they come from revisionist websites. Guess what sources Nizkor quote? The ADL. How's THAT for historical "proof"?

This is going in circles. If you've got nothing more to say about the points I outlined above, I will consider your posts irrelevant to my intentions in this thread. Like I said, start a new thread about Hilberg's book, and I will be more than glad to discuss it with you. I am not running away from anything. I am simply trying to make this thread one of scientific proofs against all the claims of extermination methods and their existence in the first place, as well as the number of victims. I have gone on for quite a long time answering you in this thread, despite the fact that I said I wouldn't answer you if you continue with your intimidations. I don't have the book with me so I can't open it and make direct quotations from Hilberg, and my memory is not all that great, I haven't memorised his quotations, but I do remember, vaguely, what he was talking about. But I am asking YOU, what does it prove? Answer this in a new thread, please (recommended anyway). I want to keep this thread clean of arguing about books and who has read more and who has read less. Thanks.

Please keep your discussions to the point and address one thing at a time in each post rather than going head-on about everything anti-revisionists claim.

[Fadix]

"Your "skill" at google searching is not all that impressive. My post on human soap was written by myself and myself only, only the quotes were taken from other sources."

All your sources are google sources Danny, on my other thread I have quoted from books which I have, and you could have done a google search and would have found none of those quotes, all the studies I posted were from my personal research and you could have done a google search you would not have found the research but only its title(which says nothing about the results I quote). Yet you claimed that I have only google skills, when that would fit you perfectly.

Now I come again and repeat, you CAN NOT! "prove" the non-existance of something. What you can do is to bring evidences which can discredit the evidences that support its existance. You have yet no idea of the evidences I will be bringing and you are slandering Hilberg and discrediting the author; this is weak and is done by weak people. If you remember well every time I have attacked a character or an author I have actually discussed about his claims, Rushton was an example I had in my posession his own studies which are NOT found on google regarding his calculations of cranial capacity and have quoted them.

I have in my possession countless numbers of studies regarding the issue at hand and I can post quotes and you could type on google you will find NONE!!! I have books that I can quote here, studies memoirs etc... This is what a study is Dan.

Dan, you told me that you have read Hilberg work, yet I have asked you a simple question and you have diverted it, this question was fondamental since it discredit one of the major claims found in Irvings work regarding Hitlers war, if you really have done the research you claim having done you would have jumped and tried to answer Hilbergs opinion regarding NAZI intention of building that Ghetto.

You have not criticised Hilberg on the bases of facts Dan, you have used what others say, but from every materials criticizing Hilbergs book, none have ever dared touching the foundations of the work but rather peripherial evidences that when discredited won't discredit the theses of genocide.

So I repeat and repeat Dan, I am the one that must bring evidences to support the existance of something, you can not bring evidences that could "prove" the non-existance of this something, what you can do is to discredit the evidences brought by me(and not by others) by bringing other evidences.

So, lets continue with the discussion, my first evidences is regarding one Ghetto in particular that is covered in Hilbergs work and considered as one of the four special problems, what I want you to do is to take Hilbergs book Volume 2 at pages 430-439 and read it(because OBVIOUSLY you did not) and then comment about it(is Hilberg theses regarding the intention of building that Ghetto accurate?), later on we will compare it with one of Irvings central points made in his "Hitlers War," THEN you will understand why I brought that, of course if you had read the two books you would right away know why I am bring that up. And guess what, you wont find the answer in google... no revisionists will dare adventuring in those directions.

Will you be answering or diverting Dan?

[Anonymouse]

Hilberg has already stated that he admits there are no documents to prove the Nazi gas chambers or a planned extermination process. The only thing that exists are survivor testimonies. He says it was all oral and a mental and spiritual coming together of Nazi minds that took place. Which I don't claim is far off, but the method in which the Nazis engaged in murder is the question.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Darorinag I think you misunderstood there. The link about the confessions was from Zundel. He's in jail for that publication. Rudolf IS the one who conducted those studies. I alread provided the link to his 16 MB book that has all the studies and results of cyanide residues, etc. It IS THE book to read if you want scientific insight on the holocaust. Robert Van Pelt's claims and findings have been proven to be not-so-scientific. This can be found in The Rudolf Report, the link to which I also provided. You can download the e-books for free.

I didn't misunderstand. I couldn't actually open the e-books (probably just because they were too big and it was taking forever, but I read the pieces by Zundel and by Rudolf. All I was saying is that I'd like to see the actual report that Rudolf gave, and his research, perhaps even his notes, along with the Leuchter report. I'd like to take a look at some of the chemistry myself, rather than just take Rudolf's word on everything. He comes across as pretty angry, and while it may be justified, it still makes it difficult to take his word at face value.

We are not talking about quantity here, we're talking about quality. It doesn't matter if the whole world said it, if it can't be proven, it can't be proven. Confessions are irrelevant, as they can be (and HAVE BEEN) extracted by torture and other techniques. Bottom line is, exterminationists cannot prove that the gas chambers existed. The best they could do was with the Van Pelt report, which was completely debunked by Germar Rudolf. Moreover, the Allies were there when they liberated the camps. That gives little or no insight into what had actually happened before they got there.

Still, Dan, all you have offered as proof that the men were tortured into making their confessions is the eyewitness testimony of one man and hearsay from Senator McCarthy. Quantity does matter, because a thousand people are less likely to all lie than are two men. If you are going to dismiss eyewitness testimony from US and Soviet soldiers and from Jewish survivors and Nazis themselves, in the name of fairness you should also dismiss the testimony of the one man who testified to the torture of Hoess and whoever else confessed and implicated his superiors at Nuremberg. If you have more evidence to support this assertion, then by all means, post it, but as of now, you have only offered the testimony of one man, and hearsay from McCarthy, which can be properly dismissed as hearsay.


Now Fadix, please don't exclude those who simply want to learn. This isn't meant to be a thread where you and Dan just argue. Please present your facts. If you are going to refer to books, post what is in the book, or a link that discusses the book or at least the specific topic you are on. I'd like to see the evidence that you have. Dan has shown his; you should show yours.

[Fadix]

Louseyourname, what you ask me is impossible. First of all, this subject is huge, adventuring in it requires basic readings, this is not only about bringing evidences, from my part it will require a lot of energy which I don’t have. I have thousands of pages accumulated over the years and I am not kidding here and some that know me here will confirm what I affirm. So when I want to discuss about such a topic, the other party is supposed to have read the basic so that I can ask him/her about his opinions, critics and comparisons without me needing to post the entire reference which I am referring. I mean, Dan here claim he can prove there was no Shoah, yet the only thing he has done is post things that anyone can find from the web, he claim having written an essay, yet every references in it comes from the web. He can here not claim that those works are censured in his library because he can use the interloaning system to track any works he want; to use the system he could ask his university to grant him the right if he does not already have it.

When someone ignore something I can understand, when someone talk about a subject which he ignore, I can still understand him, but when he claim having read a book which he did obviously not read, this I don’t understand neither can accept that. Here are the essential works regarding the Shoah that any denialist must read before claiming that he/she claims there was no Shoah.

http://www.anti-rev.org/biblio/

If you ask me if I have read them, the answer to that is YES! Every single one there I have and have read every major revisionist works. Now you see Dan coming here shouting he can “prove” there was no Shoah and want to discuss about it and think that by the collection of those materials he has accumulated from the web he will have a discussion. How am I supposed to take that? I will ask him a question a reference and will not have any answers because Mr. would even not know the existence of those references and even less, read them, what he know is the peripheral things he has read about the subject from where? From revisionist sites. Give me one valuable reason why I should waste my time with him? I bet everything that he does even not master the history of World War II fully, which is a prerequisite here. Dan research is not a research, it is a full load of trash accumulation, there is so much mistakes and fallacy in his claims that I have no idea where to start, he just shout them one after the other like that. And this is precisely why I asked him a simple question, because the only thing for me would be to start point by point. My goal here is not to disprove his “prove” of non-existence, this would be stupid from my part, my goal is to treat the subject point by point, cut by its simplest forms, and the second I smell that Dan don’t have a clue of the basics I will leave him some chances but if it end up that his knowledge of this subject is as limited as the one regarding “races”, I will stop, I have no time neither the energy to waste on such a huge subject, I don’t even have all the energy for the Armenian genocide anymore.

On a last note, this time I will give him a chance and will post the 9 pages from Hilbergs book, but I won’t do the same for Irvings one, that one he MUST read it, I am not his teacher.

[Anonymouse]

A funny world we live in in which we only read the books we agree with. Beyond that, to claim that a discussion is the only way one can debate and what the author of one book states is "fact" without having to reproduce the evidence, is the last refuge.

Raul Hilberg has only visited the Nazi concentration camp once. He admits that there is no physical evidence or extermination order, and only eyewitness testimony. Compare the eyewitness testimony of the survivors who claim people were dying of gassings, and compare the U.S. government version of how gas is used on the death penalty. Someone is obviously lying. Moreover, during the Zundel trials of 85, Hilberg clearly committed perjury on the stand. There goes his credibility.

[Darorinag]

I couldn't actually open the e-books (probably just because they were too big and it was taking forever, but I read the pieces by Zundel and by Rudolf. All I was saying is that I'd like to see the actual report that Rudolf gave, and his research, perhaps even his notes, along with the Leuchter report. I'd like to take a look at some of the chemistry myself, rather than just take Rudolf's word on everything.

Yes, what I was trying to say is that Rudolf's book has all the chemical experiment results in it. And this has been confirmed by experiments from others.

Still, Dan, all you have offered as proof that the men were tortured into making their confessions is the eyewitness testimony of one man and hearsay from Senator McCarthy.

Not really, loseyourname. I have also shown that many of the "eyewitness" accounts against the Nazis were found to be fake. The defendents "confessed" that there were gas chambers. It has now been proven that there could NOT have been any gas chambers. The defendents "confessed" that they made soap from Jewish fat. It has now been declared that there was in fact no human soap and no attempts to make any. What I am trying to say is that the "eyewitness" testimonies AND the confessions cannot be counted on as proof.

Quantity does matter, because a thousand people are less likely to all lie than are two men.

Not if the thousand people are all Allies. Or Jews. We both know that there could've been many political agendas behind it. A million Jews claimed that they had seen human soap being made, and had themselves used it. That still doesn't make it right, does it?

If you are going to dismiss eyewitness testimony from US and Soviet soldiers and from Jewish survivors and Nazis themselves, in the name of fairness you should also dismiss the testimony of the one man who testified to the torture of Hoess and whoever else confessed and implicated his superiors at Nuremberg.

That is what I was trying to say. If you're going to disqualify one side, you should disqualify the other too. Hence why my chief aim in this thread is to stick to scientific experiments to prove the non-existence of gas chambers or any such pre-planned extermination methods.

you have only offered the testimony of one man, and hearsay from McCarthy, which can be properly dismissed as hearsay.

Loseyourname, 10 million Jews around the world repeated the human soap lie for decades. Even if millions said it, that still doesn't mean it's not hearsay, or that it's not a lie. The masses are very easy to convince of anything that appeals to them. That is why stories of "triumph through suffering" have gained such wide popularity in Jewish "holocaust" literature. That is why Elie Wiesel fictionalised his "eyewitness" stories. Because it appeals to the masses. And the human soap lie is nothing more than that. It has been proven. Even Jews admit to it, although they now blame the Germans for spreading rumours about it, which, as always, they are yet to prove.

Dan here claim he can prove there was no Shoah, yet the only thing he has done is post things that anyone can find from the web

Wrong. Not anyone can find Rudolf's book on the web. I've spent almost a year trying to find any revisionist material, and only very recently did I find his book. Revisionist material has also been filtered out of search engines more than once, especially in Germany, having been counted as "hate literature" and "false reports" (note that this is the reason Zundel was in court until the ruling got overturned and the "false reports" claim was deemed unconstitutional).

I challenge you to debate with me anything in Rudolf's book and disprove any of his claims, bring any studies that disprove his chemical findings about the impossibility of gas chambers having existed. The best you can do is the Van Pelt report, which has been completely debunked by revisionists.

He can here not claim that those works are censured in his library because he can use the interloaning system to track any works he want

What are you talking about?
Find ONE revisionist book in my university's library (York) - I'm not talking about other universities - the very fact that there are no revisionist books in THIS library and that there are more than 400 holocaust books is enough to give a good idea about what is really going on. And here we're not talking about books ABOUT revisionists trying to "debunk" their claims and proofs, but books BY revisionists that question the holocaust.

http://www.library.yorku.ca/

Again, I am not going to go through all the trouble of requesting books from another campus. U of T seems to have a couple of books on the topic, but again, many universities, including mine, don't, and are making no effort to add those books (some of them have been published for a while now) to the library catalogue. This is not very encouraging of free speech and historical truth, is it? Add to that the fact that the university administration recently shut down the Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights group on-campus. So what really is your point? That the two sides have the same freedom to express their views and hold discussions?

but when he claim having read a book which he did obviously not read, this I don’t understand neither can accept that.

Again, you are yet to prove that I have not read the book. You have changed the entire thread into a competition of what books you've read and what books I haven't. Let's get past the childishness now, and get into some serious discussion, shall we? Assuming that I am ignorant about the topic, what are you so afraid of? I mean, if I'm so ignorant, you'd be able to prove that I am wrong, right? You are creating excuses and saying that you won't discuss anything with anyone who hasn't read those books. Good luck finding one who has read all that. And you know you won't. But nice try anyway.

If you ask me if I have read them, the answer to that is YES! Every single one there I have and have read every major revisionist works. Now you see Dan coming here shouting he can “prove” there was no Shoah and want to discuss about it and think that by the collection of those materials he has accumulated from the web he will have a discussion. How am I supposed to take that?

It matters not what books one has read. If you're going to argue about something, you must state your claims. Surely you're not gonna say, turn to page 55 of this book, or page 100 of that book and tell me to disprove that, are you? I don't see your point. Having read or not read that book or any other book is irrelevant. As long as I can prove something using credible scientific findings, there's nothing much you can do about it.

I will ask him a question a reference and will not have any answers because Mr. would even not know the existence of those references and even less, read them, what he know is the peripheral things he has read about the subject from where? From revisionist sites.

No. In fact, I've spent tons of time on Nizkor and I've read quite a lot of "holocaust" literature, "non-fictional" accounts and claims and arguments. You still haven't said anything significant in this thread that proves that the holocaust did indeed take place.

Give me one valuable reason why I should waste my time with him?

Then don't. But at the same time don't be a pain in the *ss when I post proofs in the thread. If you're not gonna take part, just observe. You don't have to post.

I bet everything that he does even not master the history of World War II fully, which is a prerequisite here.

Who are you to set "prerequisites" for any discussion? If I can argue and prove my point of view without having ANY knowledge of WWII, does it matter if I haven't read anything?

Dan research is not a research, it is a full load of trash accumulation, there is so much mistakes and fallacy in his claims that I have no idea where to start, he just shout them one after the other like that.

Prove that it's a "full load of trash accumulation." Go ahead. O, but you're not gonna waste time with an "ignorant" psychotic, eh? That is enough to prove that the "shoah" took place, no? Let's not get emotional here. I am trying to be as detached from subjectivism as possible. I am ready to take a look at what anti-revisionists have to offer, and if possible, try to disprove them. So far, you have not provided anything. All you have done is try to "test" my knowledge of a book.

And this is precisely why I asked him a simple question, because the only thing for me would be to start point by point.

Look here, we are not questioning who knows more and who knows less here. So stop questioning like we're in an interrogation room. I don't have to answer any of your questions that "test" my knowledge. Put forth your theories and claims, and I will disprove them. Is that too hard? Start point by point. You are trying to manipulate me by getting an answer from me in advance before you post your "proof", so that, if possible, you can hold my reply against me. But that's not gonna work here. Play by the rules of discussion. Rules are, no interrogation. No personal attacks. No inflammatory remarks. No intimidations.

My goal here is not to disprove his “prove” of non-existence, this would be stupid from my part, my goal is to treat the subject point by point

We are not talking about the history of what COULD'VE happened - that is speculation. We are talking about whether or not it did happen. Whether or not the gas chambers existed. Either you can prove that they existed, or you can't prove. Take your pick.

his knowledge of this subject is as limited as the one regarding “races”

Again, intimidation. Trying to gain sympathy from the observers. I will refrain from arguing with you about what I think about your "proofs" in the other thread, as that would take the thread off-topic, which is what you are trying to do in order to avoid replying to my claims. Of course, you don't have to (if you don't want to), it's just that it would be more fun.

On a last note, this time I will give him a chance and will post the 9 pages from Hilbergs book, but I won’t do the same for Irvings one, that one he MUST read it, I am not his teacher.

Don't bother posting anything. I have read the book. I know what you are talking about. Start a new thread if you want to talk about books themselves rather than the claims they make. Both are strictly historical speculations, and they provide no proof whatsoever about the existence of any of the methods of extermination. I have read almost all of Irving's books. And that, too, is irrelevant, as it doesn't prove much both ways.

People lie. Science doesn't.