Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

[Anonymouse]

Let's have a look at Nuremberg, when the crimes of the Germans were supposedly presented.

Excluding the problem of evidence, cherry picking, ex post facto, what was the German defense case?

[Darorinag]

Excluding the problem of evidence, cherry picking, ex post facto, what was the German defense case?

Anon, as I mentioned above, the German defense team was not allowed to conduct forensic experiments on the Auschwitz camps because they were in the "Soviet zone."

http://www.codoh.com/trials/trials.html

[Anonymouse]

It's funny how loser said that none of the Germans denied their crimes. Denial was not a defense at Nuremberg. The IMT took judicial notice of the alleged crimes and simply accepted them without having to prove anything. From then on it was a one-sided ex post facto clobbering, making laws after the facts. In addition only the prosecution controlled the documents so anything which was said was admitted as 'evidence'. That is hardly the behavior of an impartial court and the Soviets had a field day admitting all sorts of nonsense and pinning it on the Germans such as the Katyn massacre.

[Darorinag]

In the words of Edgar Eisenhower:

"I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world...I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground, but rested their position on the fact that in their opinion, the parties convicted were guilty...This action is contrary to the fundamental laws under which this country has lived for many hundreds of years, and I think cannot be justified by any line of reasoning. I think the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann is exactly in the same category as the Nuremberg trials. As a lawyer, it has always been my view that a crime must be defined before you can be guilty of committing it. That has not occurred in either of the trials I refer to herein."

Edgar N. Eisenhower, American Attorney, brother of President Dwight D.Eisenhower
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.168.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag Anon, as I mentioned above, the German defense team was not allowed to conduct forensic experiments on the Auschwitz camps because they were in the "Soviet zone."

http://www.codoh.com/trials/trials.html

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh my Gosh Danny boy, stop being so predictable... Danny some of the accused had memoirs and Dairies supporting their testemonies during the Nuremberg.

The SS Dr. Kremer call Auschwitz an extermination camp in his dairy in his report of September 2, 1942, during his testmony he refers to his own diary and clarify it(regarding the gassing of people).

He even gives a better picture of what was Auschwitz when he claims that Dante's inferno compared with what was happening there would be a commedy.

His memoirs and testemonies are amazingly similar to the German employee of the American consulate at Aleppo, Mr. Bernau, who was commissioned to inspect the stations during the extermination of the Armenians of that region, when the Turks have set a huge concentration camp right on that place.

Danny boy, why would the German defense have to examine the place, when the gassing was admitted... and here diaries and memoirs that had nothing to do with the Nuremberg tribunal support that the camp was used as an extermination camp.

BTW Danny boy, I am waiting and waiting and waiting... I guess now Mr. Danny has learned a new name and will put in practice his google skills.

[Darorinag]

In reply to plaster issue:

where is the plaster Dan? No plaster found

Fadi, are you saying there were no plaster walls? Sheesh.. you really need to read more exterminationist material...


Majdanek Death Camp Gas Chamber
"Nail marks from prisoners are visible in the plaster wall"

"Therefore, one can hardly assume that traces of cyanic compounds could still be detected in construction materials (plaster, brick) after 45 years, after being subjected to the weather and the elements (rain, acid oxides, especially sulfuric and nitrogen oxides)."

-INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC RESEARCH
In the name of Prof. Dr. Jan Sehn, Krakow
Division of Forensic Toxicology

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/holocaust/usa/leuchter/part01/

An official Polish report on the Auschwitz 'gas chambers'
Krakow Forensic Institute Confirms Leuchter's Findings

"A barely detectable trace of cyanide compound was found in the eighth remaining "positive" sample, which was sample No. 15 from the alleged homicidal "gas chamber" in Krema building II in Birkenau. Significantly, this is the only sample taken from any of the supposed extermination gas chambers that showed any trace of cyanide. The presence of an almost indetectable trace in this sample is entirely in keeping with Leuchter's conclusion that the room from which it was taken must have been deloused with Zyklon at one time or another.

In an apparent attempt at "damage control," the authors of the Institute's report sought to play down or negate the significance of their own findings by asserting that any cyanide traces would have disappeared long ago under the impact of the weather and the elements."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p207_Staff.html

--

In reply to Kremer issue:

Very predictable of you, Fadi. Don't you think? Every exterminationist, when out of proofs, provides Dr. Kremer's "diary" as "proof."

With regards to the diary, it is established that the word "Vergasung" only once with regards to fumigating a barracks, which is also the case with "Zyklon B" being mentioned in the diary.

Talk about the alleged mention of "gassings" in the diary started in 1947 while Kremer was being tried. Only then did he claim that the gassing referred to human beings, not disinfestation.

In 1957, after being released from Polish custody, Kremer renounced his statements about the diary while on trialin West Germany. The repudiation was rejected by the W. German authorities. Also notable is the fact that Jan Sehn (the judge at the 1947 Cracow trial) was Jewish.

"A document from December 1942 indicates that the civilian workers at Birkenau underwent a "Sonderaktion" before being allowed to take a two week Christmas vacation. How is that possible, if "Sonderaktion" is supposed to mean extermination?"

Note that exterminationists insist that the word Sonderaktion (Special Action) was used by Kremer to refer to the gassings of human beings.

In the words of Jan Sehn:

“A declaration of innocence would have been incompatible with what the accused had written [in his private diary]”

So we are to conclude that Jan Sehn decided that Kremer's diary was written in a coded language that he could decode... Again, no proof. Just interpretations.

Brilliant, Fadi.

Your next "evidence"?

[Anonymouse]

Is Johann Paul Kremer the best proof for Auschwitz as an 'extermination camp'? He makes no mention of gassings or gas chambers, and the word Vernichtung was used, not Vernichtungslager which means extermination, but which also didn't exist in German language during WWII.

[Fadix]

Danny boy, the next time you do a google research read the results before posting them.

The plaster theses of Rudolf has nothing to do with the existance of plasters at the camps or delousing chambers, it has to do with a plaster IN the gas chambers which would modify the PH. Those plasters DON'T exist.

So again of course you could not know of what I am talking about because it is obvious that neither have you read Rudolf "report" neither Krakow report which does not support Leutcher but reject it, the support is only on one observation, but reject the rest as well as the interpretation. But since you have not read both of Cracow(Krakow) reports neither Leutcher neither Rudols report you are once more falling deeper and deeper.

Now comming to Kremer, I must be slow to not make you fall deeper and expose your ignorance more, because as a result you might ignore me yet again and finding reasons to do it.

Danny boy, you have no clue of what you are talking about, it is evident that yet again you just typed to word on google.

Danny boy the uses of the word once for the Bunker(or Barracks) is known to be a revisionist lie... the camp is called an extermination camp, it is not only used once for the Bunker... here is what it says in its original form: "Das Lager der Vernichtung" which means the camp of extermination, destruction etc... Auschwitz, he name the camp, "Auschwitz" in the sentence Danny boy.

More Danny boy, as I said the word extermination or destruction that was used to name the concentration camp like I said was "Vernichtung" and NOT the questioned word: "Sonderaktion"

Furthermore, the Bunker in question that was supposedly cleaned and that was for what the gas was used is contradicted by Kremer himself when he report that at 3 AM doctors were awakened for what he calls euthanasia when the so-called "cleaning" was supposed to happen Danny boy... go do more google search if you think you can "debunk" me, as the word "Sonderaktion this time refers to what he considers as euthanasia.

During the testemony he clarify and refers to the gassing.

"So we are to conclude that Jan Sehn decided that Kremer's diary was written in a coded language that he could decode... Again, no proof. Just interpretations."


Let refers to your quote: “A declaration of innocence would have been incompatible with what the accused had written [in his private diary]”

Now I will give you a homework Danny boy, read the entire part by Jan Sehn and come later. If you wonder why, once you read it you will understand, I am not here to teach you everything.

[Fadix]

ah and btw, I am still waiting you know what....

[Darorinag]

The plaster theses of Rudolf has nothing to do with the existance of plasters at the camps or delousing chambers, it has to do with a plaster IN the gas chambers which would modify the PH. Those plasters DON'T exist.

Even the Institute of Forensic Research of Cracow admits that there are plasters. They do exist. Do read more about this.

But since you have not read both of Cracow(Krakow) reports neither Leutcher neither Rudols report you are once more falling deeper and deeper.

Oh now, not only have I not read exterminationist material, I have also not read revisionist material? Wow... how appropriate of you to dismiss my "knowledge" as the result of google search... heh...

Danny boy, you have no clue of what you are talking about, it is evident that yet again you just typed to word on google.

Find the google result that I took it from, then. You are making baseless claims.

here is what it says in its original form: "Das Lager der Vernichtung" which means the camp of extermination, destruction etc... Auschwitz, he name the camp, "Auschwitz" in the sentence Danny boy.

And that means what? That there was destruction in the camps? Destruction of what? Lice? Dead bodies? Ants? Fish? Do you realize that you are interpreting it as you want?

More Danny boy, as I said the word extermination or destruction that was used to name the concentration camp like I said was "Vernichtung" and NOT the questioned word: "Sonderaktion"

Both were used. Even exterminationists admit that the word sonderaktion was used; they claim that the word "sonderaktion" means extermination. Go read more exterminationist material for more about this.

contradicted by Kremer himself

So if Kremer lied, what makes you sure that he didn't lie in the first place, in his so called, obviously "evidential" diary? If Kramer is so unreliable and contradictory, how can you even take any of what he said or wrote to be "proof"? Double standards? I mean, even if he wrote clearly that there were gassings, would you believe ANY of his claims after he contradicted himself (as you claim?), if you were a neutral viewer? Seems like there was a double standard, Faddi boy. And double standards hardly qualify as absolute proof.

read the entire part by Jan Sehn and come later. If you wonder why, once you read it you will understand, I am not here to teach you everything.

Oh? I thought you were going to "send me to school" with your so-called knowledge? Damn... I'm disappointed now...

A declaration of innocence would have been incompatible with what the accused had written [in his private diary]”

Personal diaries, dear lad, can be highly interpretative. They are not proofs that the gassings took place. Moreover, this seems to be a very neatly coded diary, it seems to me... heh... if you've seen the movie Chicago, you will know the parody about the diary as "proof."

I am glad to see that you have refrained from using explicit personal attacks in this post.