Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by patlajan I wonder what the treatment for obsessive compulsive question everything understand nothing and believe no one disorder is....

Obsessive compulsive. Schizophrenic. Psychotic.

Does everyone see the pattern? Have you and Fadi run out of names for disorders yet?

Now let's get back on-topic. Either you have a point or you don't. Do you? So far, you haven't made any with regards to the historicity of the holocaust.

[Darorinag]

Another false witness - Rudolf Vrba.

As reported by the Toronto Sun, on January 24, 1985.

Survivor never saw actual gassing deaths

A concentration camp survivor yesterday admitted he never witnessed anybody being gassed to death and his book about Auschwitz-Birkenau in only "an artistic picture ... not a document for a court."

Rudolf Vrba, now an assistant professor at the University of B.C., told the Ernst Zündel trial that his written and pictorial descriptions of the Auschwitz crematoria and gas chambers are based on "what I heard it might look like."

[...]

Vrba yesterday admitted he was never inside that particular bunker, after Christie suggested it was the roof of a mortuary Vrba had seen, not a gas chamber.

Vrba also admitted some of the thousands of women, elderly and children he claimed were marched directly to gas chambers upon arrival might have been going to the camp's bathhouse.

"Yes. Some of them actually went there (bathhouse) and more went to the gas chambers," said Vrba, who claimed many babies were gassed to death.

[...]

Vrba, who escaped the camp in Poland in 1944 with a mission to warn one million Hungarian Jews of their impending slaughter, insisted he'd made accurate ["within 10%"] estimates of 1,765,000 mass-murder victims up to that point.

He said some narrative passages in his book I Cannot Forgive are based on accounts from others.

One Vrba acount says it took 90 minutes to burn a corpse, another said it took 20 minutes.

[...]

When Christie pointed out that ["Nazi government"] documents say nothing about gas chambers, Vrba replied: "It might be a typing error."

[...]

Vrba also said increasing estimates of the Auschwitz death toll in the decades after World War II "just shows that better scholars with better methods are constantly improving the information."

He defended "errors in good faith" in his 1944 Auschwitz accounts, which he made two weeks after escaping, as due to "great urgency" to warn Jews.

http://www.corax.org/revisionism/admissions/19850124vrba.html

--

Let's celebrate the survivors, and commemorate the "holocaust"! Where is Rudolf Vrba now? Prisoner of his conscience, I hope.

And what about field marshal Milch, Fadi? Shall we take a look at who he was? And what about, oh what about the Jews who were in charge of nearly 100,000 of the Nazi troops? I suppose Hitler wanted to exterminate all Jews, not those with Bolshevik tendencies and affiliations, eh? But I still don't understand the case with Milch, Fadi. And the case with the hundreds and thousands of Jewish soldiers in the Nazi army. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to find an explanation for this from the Simon Wiesenthal Center? Surely, as someone who has read Irving's work, you ought to know this, Fadi boy?

[Darorinag]

Now let us see what Simon Wisenthal Center has to tell us about Erhard Milch, shall we?

Milch was a Field Marshal in the Luftwaffe, and State Secretary in the Reich Air Ministry. He tried unsuccessfully to convince Hitler to increase fighter plane production. He was sentenced at Nuremberg to life imprisonment, but his sentence was commuted in 1951 to 15 years. Released in 1954, he died in 1972.

http://motlc.wiesenthal.org/pages/t050/t05052.html

No mention of Milch's Jewish descent, Fadi? But why, Fadi? Pray tell me.

No mention of the affidavit by Milch's mother denying that Milch's Jewish father was his real father.

In fact, now let's look at a Nazi's diary, Fadi. Milch claims that the Nuremberg transcripts were changed where suitable, and significant portions of it chopped off.

Upon inquiry into these claims, Fadi, by listening to wire records of the trials and the printed transcripts, it was discovered that there were quite important changes in the transcripts.

Of course, if you had read Irving, you would've known this. But sure you have, Fadi.

And what about the plasters, Fadi boy? You never answered that, did you?

[Fadix]

Dan, jerk, you are again in an acute phases of psychosis. You CAN NOT!!! Ask someone to prove that the testimony was a lie, that person claimed, it is FOR YOU to present evidences that he lied. Have you ANY evidences he lied? No suppositions, NO insinuations, no That is weird” etc… now if you have no evidences he lied… then it is not for me to “prove” he did not lie, it is for you to prove he did. Again we are at square one. I can not prove the negative, I can not prove the none-lie, it is for you to prove the lie… in this case you can’t. You can yap, yap, yap… but you will not be able to present any evidences that will show he lied. This is the end of the story. Yet again, you can post trash and interpretations coming from revisionists’ sites, but the best that would do is to show how “both side” in fact you have read jerk.

“I never said anything of the sort. You said”

If you have read it, then you have lied by selectively quoting that part, when the rest of it makes it say entirely differently. So here I shall add one more lie in my list of your lies.

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

Dan, you copy pasted it with the accolades from the quotations from a denialist site, and not the transcription version of the trial. So again you are lying Dan, because you took the same interpretation that revisionists sites present by selectively quoting it. So I ask you again Dan, have you or have you not read the entire sentence? Now! Have in mind that if you say yes this time, and that I quote it, that would make you a liar by presenting that quote as saying something that it does not say. So, I ask you again and again… have you read the entire sentence?

“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) ”

Dan, who gives a s.t what was transformed into a bunker… was it a bunker or not? Was it outside or not? Is he not reporting gassing in it or not? Here there is nothing that would contradict that there was two bunkers, since he report show that bunker was build… so again you are just typing to show you have something to say… here the question is… was this bunker outside? YES! So end of the story. You can yap, yap, yap and yap… it won’t change the fact that the bunker was outside and that is why he went outside for the special operation.

“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? ”

This is irrelevant to the discussion, you were not there, so your insinuations regarding if the NAZI could have handled if it were to happen is irrelevant. The same could be said about the fact that the Armenian concentration camps were guarded by few, and the mass burning were prepared by few soldiers and yet the Armenians could have decided to attack and defend themselves… why they did not do it, or if it were to happen what would have had happened… if the Ottomans guards were prepared… all those things are speculations. Ah and, the two bunkers here does not come from Kremer, so again don’t build arguments from the other side to “debunk” them… two bunkers were reported, but Kremer describe one of those two.

“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"?”

Dan, dan, dan… I am yet to see any “proof” he lied, I am yet to see that the fact that the diary and the testimony concordance is just a question of interpretation or a product of manipulation… you claim it was a lie, it is for you to prove he lied. Can you? YOU CAN NOT!!!

“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"?”

Jerk, the point here is about if he admits it rather than the way he does it… he does say 2 million exterminated, the rest is interpretation, he gives clearly the number and the fact that they were destroyed, the rest is YOUR interpretation. Kremer was a doctor, he had nothing to do with the orderings, neither was he aware of the numbers… so here the fact that he detach himself does say nothing.

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

Jerk, stop using google and start using your neurons… are you suggesting that the SS were separating the Muslims from other women in the camp? Known as Muslims? Stop farting.

“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.”

For you that do not know French, it is easy to say something dumb like that, but Faurisson is a modified family name which does not sound right in French… as for me having read the works, jerk, coming from someone that has exposed himself of not having read anything about the subject, it is surprising… let give a try if in fact I have read his works idiot… present me any quotes from him and I will give you the page from the French version of his works… that will require me having the books right? Because of course probably Danny ignore that Flaurisson(yeh again my mistake) is considered THE #1 revisionist in Europe, so anyone wanting to do any basic research regarding the topic would start by him…

“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.”

Jerk, the word “outside” was used in his diary which confirms the gassing in the bunker…

"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."

You are mixing two different testimonies Dan, where it says that those bodies were taken out without masks?

“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.”

Dr. Said colleagues prepared a report to be presented to the military tribunals Danny… so using your logic Armenians were not gassed because the bodies were taken out without masks.

“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. ”

No jerk, you are mixing two different testimonies, the one without the mask does not refer to the same thing.

“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? ”

Jerk, he was inside to go at the bunker he had to go outside… stop playing the bonehead all your present post is irrelevant.

“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. ”

Jerk, it takes under a hour to modify a Diesel engine, if the NAZI were to use a diesel engine, they would have modified it.

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

Show me he was referring to it for the personal without masks.

“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).”

The women gassing was Sep. 5 not Sep. 2

“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. ”

Jerk, Turkish soldiers contradicted typhus from the Armenian convoys, I guess that would mean they cared for the Armenians… all your present post has absolutely no content.

“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)... ”

Jerk, don’t play that game with me, you have used the swimming pools in order to show us that the NAZI cared for the prisoners… when everyone knows that the camps were not build to exterminate people, but that they were used later after the NAZI took the decision during their defeat in the Soviet front. Only a distorter like you would use such pathetic trash. And now the ignorant that does even not know the name of the NAZI moving squat is asking me dates… Jerk, from someone that has shown a total ignorance of anything regarding the subject you are very badly placed to ask me questions. When I referred to the defeat in the Soviet front I was not talking about the major defeat but rather when Germany tried to invade to realise that it was impossible so it lunched its Barbarosa operation by sending the Einsatzgruppem in late June 1941 when it was decided open that the concentration camps which were not build to exterminate will be used to kill. Now Jerk will start searching the word “Einsatzgruppem” on google to realise that it was the “shooting” organisation in question, which the word he has never heard about.

“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?”

Jerk, it was not the NAZI that were in contact with the Jews, but the Jewish KAPO(another word for ignoramus to search on google). Jews were selected and used in exchange of liberty. And still the NAZI still were infected… here in Canada and more importantly in the US, where camps were build for Japanese no similar problems were reported.

Now coming to the numbers… Jerk, the numbers of Jews in Europe exclude the Jews in the Soviet which were victims of the NAZI shooting organization, this distortion tactic similar to the one used by the Turks, which tries to pass “Anatolia” as Ottoman empire to order to minimise the Ottoman Armenian population. There is one thing as well; the Jews were known to inflate their world population after the war in order to justify the construction of Israel, when before the war they were collecting money to buy. The Armenians did the exact same thing during the Paris Peace conference when they inflated the Armenian populations whom emigrated and tried to minimise the losses in order to justify the construction of an Armenia which could possibly contain a population which would constitute a majority of Armenians. And now the Turks are using those sources to do just what you are doing here.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag Now let us see what Simon Wisenthal Center has to tell us about Erhard Milch, shall we?

http://motlc.wiesenthal.org/pages/t050/t05052.html

No mention of Milch's Jewish descent, Fadi? But why, Fadi? Pray tell me.

No mention of the affidavit by Milch's mother denying that Milch's Jewish father was his real father.

In fact, now let's look at a Nazi's diary, Fadi. Milch claims that the Nuremberg transcripts were changed where suitable, and significant portions of it chopped off.

Upon inquiry into these claims, Fadi, by listening to wire records of the trials and the printed transcripts, it was discovered that there were quite important changes in the transcripts.

Of course, if you had read Irving, you would've known this. But sure you have, Fadi.

And what about the plasters, Fadi boy? You never answered that, did you?

Hey Jerk, if you want to start a book competition here and have your head on the sand, go ahead, I have Irvings book just next to me... try me ignoramus...

As for the plaster... I repost.

"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."

[patlajan]

Enough already Fadix. Leave the hypocrites to themselves.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by patlajan Enough already Fadix. Leave the hypocrites to themselves.

This Dan has really no life, 24/24 on the internet, answer just afterward whatever one post, it is really sick... I go out return and see of course he has answered... you take a look at his answers this guy is still up 2 AM or ever more... well I have to leave now, because I have a life, unlike some here... I'll bet everything that he will have answered when I come back... the obsessed little kid. I pitty him.

[Sip]

Originally posted by Fadix This Dan has really no life, 24/24 on the internet, answer just afterward whatever one post, it is really sick... I go out return and see of course he has answered... you take a look at his answers this guy is still up 2 AM or ever more... well I have to leave now, because I have a life, unlike some here... I'll bet everything that he will have answered when I come back... the obsessed little kid. I pitty him.

Come on now with this one I have to go on Dan's side. You have a point above but this one is irrelevant.

[Darorinag]

Ask someone to prove that the testimony was a lie, that person claimed, it is FOR YOU to present evidences that he lied.

No Fadi jan, that's not the way it works. You present your proof and prove that it is reliable proof. Otherwise anyone could write anything on paper and forge a stamp and there you go. Or Germans could bring Germans to testify in defense for them. Were they allowed to? No. Why? Do tell me, Fadi boy.

Have you ANY evidences he lied? No suppositions, NO insinuations, no That is weird” etc… now if you have no evidences he lied…

Do you have any evidence he didn't lie? YOU are the one bringing the evidence and claiming that it's TRUE what he said, so now prove that it was true. Testimonies need to be proven. That is why they are not proofs.

I can not prove the negative, I can not prove the none-lie

You are begging the question here. You have to prove it is a non-lie, and you can't prove that by claiming that it is non-lie. You are using as a given what you have to prove. And yes, YOU have to prove that it is true. Hoss's confessions, Fadi boy, were not extractd in public. You ought to have known this. It cannot, I repeat, it CANNOT be taken as EVIDENCE, because anything could've gone on in the interrogation room.

in this case you can’t. You can yap, yap, yap… but you will not be able to present any evidences that will show he lied.

Fadi, you ought to have known this, but witnesses who have took to the stand and told their "witness" stories in major criminal cases have been proven to have lied, on more than one occasion. Getting up on the witness stand and weaving a story in no way means it is the correct one, and in case you didn't know, in any just justice system, people are not sent to prison based on such testimonies if there is no forensic proof supporting the case. Not enough evidence to support charges. Have you ever heard of that, Fadi boy?

This is the end of the story. Yet again, you can post trash and interpretations coming from revisionists’ sites, but the best that would do is to show how “both side” in fact you have read jerk.

Jerk? Hmmm, seems like you're losing your calm... What's the matter, Fadi boy?

If you have read it, then you have lied by selectively quoting that part, when the rest of it makes it say entirely differently. So here I shall add one more lie in my list of your lies.

While I present quotes, you present nothing. Care to elaborate how I quoted selectively?

Dan, you copy pasted it with the accolades from the quotations from a denialist site, and not the transcription version of the trial.

Post the trial version then, and quit b*tching. It is the same one. And FYI, it was taken from a book. There are different translation versions of it. Now post your version, and let's compare them.

So again you are lying Dan, because you took the same interpretation that revisionists sites present by selectively quoting it.

So now it's not the issue of white supremacist sites, it's the issue of revisionist sites. Can you disprove that, Fadi boy? Can you disprove what those revisionist sites claim? No you can't. So quit b*tching about where it came from.

So I ask you again Dan, have you or have you not read the entire sentence?

I have read it all. Quit your interrogation style tactics to make it seem like you're on the winning side.

Now! Have in mind that if you say yes this time, and that I quote it, that would make you a liar by presenting that quote as saying something that it does not say. So, I ask you again and again… have you read the entire sentence?

Post it. Prove that I lied. Prove that I took it out of context. GO! Do it.

Dan, who gives a s.t what was transformed into a bunker… was it a bunker or not? Was it outside or not?

It doesn't say anything about the BUNKER being outside. Nor does it say in that specific entry in the diary, that it was a bunker. And if he was referring to a bunker, why would he take special care to say it was outside? Isn't a bunker outside a room anyway? Answer my question. Quit giving evasive answers.

was this bunker outside? YES! So end of the story. You can yap, yap, yap and yap… it won’t change the fact that the bunker was outside and that is why he went outside for the special operation.

See above, Fadi boy. bunker was outside. he didn't say "bunker" in the diary. He said it in the testimony. The diary only has the word "outside." In other words, he gave an exterminationist twist to his testimony, by willingly interpreting his own writing to refer to "outside" as "bunker." And assuming that he was right in saying that, how does that prove that there was a gassing in the bunker? What makes you sure that he didn't lie in ONE of his claims, while saying the truth in another of his claims? What makes you so sure, Fadi? This is no proof. If it can be questioned, it's not a proof. It's an interpretation.

This is irrelevant to the discussion, you were not there, so your insinuations regarding if the NAZI could have handled if it were to happen is irrelevant. The same could be said about the fact that the Armenian concentration camps were guarded by few, and the mass burning were prepared by few soldiers and yet the Armenians could have decided to attack and defend themselves… why they did not do it, or if it were to happen what would have had happened… if the Ottomans guards were prepared… all those things are speculations.

And what exactly does that prove, Fadi? Do you have proof that the Armenian genocide took place? Again, you want double standards in what you can present as proof and what I cannot. You are saying, how could Kremer have lied in his testimony? I am asking you, why would he have not? Again, Fadi, you see, your double standard techniques don't work here, Fadi boy. You can use that on denialist Turks (who know nothing yet deny the genocide - which is downright dumb) but not on revisionists who have spent considerable amounts of time studying these things.

Ah and, the two bunkers here does not come from Kremer, so again don’t build arguments from the other side to “debunk” them… two bunkers were reported, but Kremer describe one of those two.

I never said it was reported as such. I was referring to what you mentioned when you said the two bunkers.

Dan, dan, dan… I am yet to see any “proof” he lied,

I am yet to see any proof that he did not. So you see, Fadi boy, it's my word against yours. Which disqualifies any such testimonies, Fadi boy. You ought to know that. You can't see the fine line between "it's been proven that it happened because he confessed about it" and "he was sentenced for life in prison because he confessed about it." Confessions do not necessarily imply truth, Fadi.

I am yet to see that the fact that the diary and the testimony concordance is just a question of interpretation or a product of manipulation…

It IS a question of interpretation. That you and I can interpret it in two completely different ways is proof to that. It IS highly interpretative. And no, it does not qualify as proof. Of course, in the Zundel trial, the Nuremberg documents could not qualify as proof used by the defense, because they were "incomplete." So you see, Fadi, justice is a highly manipulated system, Fadi boy. Why were the Nuremberg documents barred from being used, Fadi boy? If they were so complete as to prove the holocaust and send so many men to their deaths, why were they not allowed to use it to defend themselves?

you claim it was a lie, it is for you to prove he lied. Can you? YOU CAN NOT!!!

No. You claim it is a proof.

Dear lad, here is a definition of "proof."

proof
n.

The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true;

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proof

So you see, Fadi boy, it is up to you to prove the truth behind the "proof." If I went and testified for the defense during the trials, it does not mean it is proof. And no, the responsibility to prove that I am saying the truth is not up to YOU to prove. It is up to me to furnish documents that prove that I was there at the specified time and place.

Jerk, the point here is about if he admits it rather than the way he does it… he does say 2 million exterminated, the rest is interpretation, he gives clearly the number and the fact that they were destroyed, the rest is YOUR interpretation. Kremer was a doctor, he had nothing to do with the orderings, neither was he aware of the numbers… so here the fact that he detach himself does say nothing.

The "fact" that they were destroyed? Where is that leaflet, if I may ask? Does he provide a copy of it along with his diary? And besides, you claim he was not aware of the numbers. According to his testimony and other diary entries, he seems to be aware of the numbers, 1600 arrivals, 800 deaths, yada yada.

Jerk, stop using google and start using your neurons… are you suggesting that the SS were separating the Muslims from other women in the camp? Known as Muslims? Stop farting.

I was referring to the Muslim women who had volunteered to do camp service. Now, according to your "proof" procedures, it's up to you to disprove my claim that it is the truth. So prove that my proof is wrong, Fadi. Fact is, you can't. You can only do that by providing an interpretation of the diary.

For you that do not know French, it is easy to say something dumb like that, but Faurisson is a modified family name which does not sound right in French…

It doesn't matter if it doesn't sound right in French. That gives you no right to change his surname.

as for me having read the works, jerk, coming from someone that has exposed himself of not having read anything about the subject

It seems like you have found a new personal attack word. Congratulations. Your English is improving by strides. As for being "exposed" for not having read any of the works, that is yet another one of your intimidation tactics. You have not exposed anything I have said so far.

[Darorinag]

I will give you the page from the French version of his works… that will require me having the books right?

That doesn't prove that you have read the book, does it? There is a difference between copying and pasting, and having read the entire book.

Because of course probably Danny ignore that Flaurisson(yeh again my mistake) is considered THE #1 revisionist in Europe, so anyone wanting to do any basic research regarding the topic would start by him…

#1 revisionist according to who? There are many great revisionists. who decides who's better? You're saying the same thing as you did in the case of Hilberg. Anyway, this will be my last reply with regards to the issue of who has read what.

Jerk, the word “outside” was used in his diary which confirms the gassing in the bunker…

How does it "confirm the gassing in the bunker"? He has not referred to any gassing in that entry, or a bunker, for that matter. Only "outside." Now "outside" refers to both "gassing" and "bunker"? Gee, I was right, I guess, about him being a genius in coding.

You are mixing two different testimonies Dan, where it says that those bodies were taken out without masks?

No Fadi. Concentrate with me, Fadi. Here is the testimony.

"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. 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."

KL Auschwitz seen by the SS, p. 214

Dr. Said colleagues prepared a report to be presented to the military tribunals Danny… so using your logic Armenians were not gassed because the bodies were taken out without masks.

If it is impossible, it is impossible. Period. Doesn't matter in whose case it was (Armenian, Jew, etc.). Note, Fadi, what was mentioned in the court:

"When no more sign of life was shown, the defendant was taken back to his lodging by the Health Service car. The gas chambers were opened a short moment afterwards."

Short moment, Fadi? Zyklon B? Ventilation, perhaps? Ooops, I suppose they forgot. Damn...

No jerk, you are mixing two different testimonies, the one without the mask does not refer to the same thing.

No need to call me a "jerk," Fadi. As presented above. Concentrate now. You are making huge claims, Fadi. And it is up to you to prove that there were two different testimonies, right? By your logic of "proof" systems. Right, Fadi?

Jerk, he was inside to go at the bunker he had to go outside… stop playing the bonehead all your present post is irrelevant.

How does the diary prove that he was going outside BECAUSE the bunker was outside? He only says outside. He doesn't say both outside and bunker. Does he? As I said, diary came before the war. Testimony came after the war. Two different circumstances, Fadi. Two different psychological states, Fadi. You cannot mix the diary with the testimony without admitting that the problem of interpretation comes in.

Jerk, it takes under a hour to modify a Diesel engine, if the NAZI were to use a diesel engine, they would have modified it.

But you forget, Fadi, that we are not talking about IFs and WOULD HAVE's here. We are talking about what really happened. So tell me, Fadi. What proof do you have that they made modifications?

Show me he was referring to it for the personal without masks.

No-o, Fadi, you see, you cannot have double standards, can you? It's up to you to prove that it wasn't referring to that. Right?

The women gassing was Sep. 5 not Sep. 2

Hold on, hold on, Fadi. I think you are confused (note that I would be considered paranoid if I said you were trying to confuse me)... I was not referring to the women's gassing. I was referring to Sept. 2, the first sonderaktion Kremer was present at.

Tracing this discussion to point 0, here it is:

ME: Moreover, he claims to have sat in the car while the alleged gassings took place. How could he have described it as "terrible scenes"?

YOU: You are making that up.

ME: I am not.

Here you go:

"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. 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."


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

ME: 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).

YOU: The women gassing was Sep. 5 not Sep. 2

Now concentrate, Fadi. Where did I say anything about Sept. 5 entry?

Jerk, Turkish soldiers contradicted typhus from the Armenian convoys, I guess that would mean they cared for the Armenians… all your present post has absolutely no content.

I never said they cared for them. But it doesn't mean that they had food and didn't give it to them. It's possible that they didn't have enough food to give them in order that they could stay as healthy as before. It's up to you to prove that there was enough food and they didn't give it to them. I am not the one making those claims.

you have used the swimming pools in order to show us that the NAZI cared for the prisoners… when everyone knows that the camps were not build to exterminate people, but that they were used later after the NAZI took the decision during their defeat in the Soviet front.

And what, Fadi? So they built swimming pools for the spies they would catch?

And now the ignorant that does even not know the name of the NAZI moving squat is asking me dates…

Where did I say I didn't know the name?

Jerk, from someone that has shown a total ignorance of anything regarding the subject you are very badly placed to ask me questions.

Where did you prove my ignorance?

When I referred to the defeat in the Soviet front I was not talking about the major defeat but rather when Germany tried to invade to realise that it was impossible so it lunched its Barbarosa operation

You said: the NAZI took the decision after their defeat from the Soviet front…

Operation Barbarossa was not the result of a defeat, but a change in strategies. You clearly referred to defeat. Stop changing your words.

in late June 1941 when it was decided open that the concentration camps which were not build to exterminate will be used to kill.

"decided open that the concentration camps [...] will be used to kill"? how do you know this?

Now Jerk will start searching the word “Einsatzgruppem” on google to realise that it was the “shooting” organisation in question, which the word he has never heard about.

I know what EinsatzgruppeN is. So stop your unfounded accusations.

Jerk, it was not the NAZI that were in contact with the Jews, but the Jewish KAPO(another word for ignoramus to search on google). Jews were selected and used in exchange of liberty. And still the NAZI still were infected… here in Canada and more importantly in the US, where camps were build for Japanese no similar problems were reported.

They weren't? Are you saying that Jews were given guns? How weren't they in contact? Weren't there hospitals in the camps?
And if they weren't in contact, what then explains the fact that the Nazis contracted typhus and other such diseases? Wouldn't that PROVE (and you just walked right into this), that they too didn't have enough nutrition and lived in the same conditions as the Jews? (note Kremer's reference to flies, etc.,)

Now coming to the numbers… Jerk, the numbers of Jews in Europe exclude the Jews in the Soviet which were victims of the NAZI shooting organization

I am not counting the number of times you said "jerk" in this thread, but if I did, it would not be more than the number of Jewish victims of "extermination plans".

Btw, you did not notice this?

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

This is subtracted from the overall number of Jews in Europe. That means that the report is not considering the Soviet Union to be part of Europe. And it was not. The Jews in the Soviet Union were moved further east after the German offensive. Again, the Jews who were shot by the Germans were Bolsheviks. And that is covered by the conventions of war. If your enemy is resisting, you can shoot them. Fair and square. Similar to what happened in many of the ghettos. This is covered by the rules of warfare, incuding in the rules of British and American warfare. I already mentioned, "100,000 were killed by Germans as partisans and Bolshevik commissars. The 100,000 figure includes non-Jews as well." The rest of the Jews survived.

this distortion tactic similar to the one used by the Turks, which tries to pass “Anatolia” as Ottoman empire to order to minimise the Ottoman Armenian population.

You are saying the exact opposite of what you were supposed to say. You claimed that the Soviet Union was not considered part of Europe in order to minimize the number of Jews in Europe, and then you compare that to the Turkish case where Anatolia was considered part of the Ottoman empire in order to minimize the Ottoman Armenian population.

Either you're trying to play the fool by making false analogies, or your language being French is not helping you at all. Either way, clarify your point, please.

There is one thing as well; the Jews were known to inflate their world population after the war in order to justify the construction of Israel, when before the war they were collecting money to buy.

The Jews inflated their world population to justify the construction of Israel? What proof do you have of that? And wouldn't that also mean that anyone who is able to lie about the overall population would also lie about the number of victims? Do the Jews admit this? And what proof do they present that it is THIS number that they manipulated rather than the holocaust number?

The Armenians did the exact same thing during the Paris Peace conference when they inflated the Armenian populations whom emigrated and tried to minimise the losses in order to justify the construction of an Armenia which could possibly contain a population which would constitute a majority of Armenians.

Oh now it's the number of emigrating people who is inflated. Decide, Fadi. You can't compare apples to oranges. Even taking their own deflated victim numbers, the birth rate is still impossible.

And now the Turks are using those sources to do just what you are doing here.

Quit making the comparisons between the two. You obviously have biased reasons for being an exterminationist. don't worry, the two are separate events. You don't have to spend so much time and energy to defend the Jewish cause (in vain), just because the Turks are doing the same thing. And the Turks doing the same thing doesn't mean that what holocaust revisionists are doing is wrong and not the truth. There is a good AND a bad use to everything.