Auschwitz dilemma for German football team

[Marilyn]

....... blah blah predictable blah ....

In fact, so weak is the evidence of a deliberate plan of genocide by the Nazis, that the authorities in several major European countries have been forced to make it illegal to conduct a critical examination of the evidence for fear of the inadequacies therein becoming widely exposed. So, stop your pompous posturing before someone pops you like an overinflated balloon, you pompous old windbag!

Yes, Papa Luigi .. do stop it. You've been flattened so many times, but like all egocentric WNer frauds you just roll out the same old deniar routine. Yes, 16 countries said STFU to frauds like you. Only in the UK can you persist with your idiocy and it is welcome to have you. Stay there.

[the recidivist]

Okay, let's see the contents of this 'confidential letter'. I ask, only because Faurisson's famous for having such secret documents in his personal possession that he hasn't even allowed other deniers to see them!

One misfortune awaited Prosecutor John Pearson: Raul Hilberg, in spite of repeated requests, refused to appear again. The defense, having heard rumors of an exchange of correspondence between Pearson and Hilberg, demanded and got the publication of the letters they exchanged and in particular of a "confidential" letter by Hilberg which did not hide the fact that he had some bitter memories of his cross-examination in 1985. He feared being questioned again by Douglas Christie on the same points. To quote the exact words of his confidential letter, Hilberg wrote that he feared "every attempt to entrap me by pointing out any seeming contradiction, however trivial the subject might be, between my earlier testimony and an answer that I might give in 1988." In fact as I have already mentioned, Hilberg had committed perjury and he may have feared being charged with that crime.

*****


Here you'll find more background, in French: an explanation as to why he might well, in 1988, have been charged with perjury for what he'd stated in 1985 on the subject of interpretation of the German word Entwesung (from Ecrits révisionnistes (1974-1998), p. 1892-1895 – the very last article in volume IV), with two references to the 1985 Toronto trial transcript and three others (note 4) to his The Destruction... :

"L'autodestruction de Raul Hilberg"


http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.it/1...l-hilberg.html

[Marilyn]

Such an ignominious life .....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Faurisson

[sidmouth]

PaLu, as you are demanding Tillerman do your bidding once again, perhaps you could provide us with evidence of any survivor or Nazi perpetrator of war crimes who was heard at Nuremburg subsequently retracting their statements and claiming that they either deliberately lied about the Holocaust (because they were told to by the Jews in order to get rich) or that the evidence they gave was under duress.

Or any good, solid evidence at all to support the claim that the Holocaust was invented by the Jews, eg - some document on headed Jewish notepaper, detailing the fraud and how it was to be carried out, signed by known Jews would do fine.

If you are unable to then the only conclusion we can draw is that you're making it all up again, as usual.

[Tillerman]

... an explanation as to why he might well, in 1988, have been charged with perjury for what he'd stated in 1985 on the subject of interpretation of the German word Entwesung (from Ecrits révisionnistes (1974-1998), p. 1892-1895 – the very last article in volume IV), with two references to the 1985 Toronto trial transcript and three others (note 4) to his The Destruction...

I'm well aware of Faurisson's take on the Hilberg matter and his interpretation of the trial transcripts, among others, including Zündel's. I don't believe him because he, like Zündel, is a documented liar. These aren't just people who make erroneous statements; they lie quite deliberately and they continue to do so even when their lies are exposed. Faurisson often claims to be privy to 'secret' documents' that never seem to materialise when push comes to shove. This has turned even some of the more die-hard 'revisionists' against him. In this case, all claims of a secret letter from Hilberg to Canadian judge trace back to Faurisson.

If you'd like to discuss whether or not Hilberg's statements on the witness stand amount to perjury or not I'd be open to that, but not by relying on an edited version of that testimony as interpreted by the likes of 'secret letter' Faurisson or Zündel. I'd want to look at the actual transcripts.

[the recidivist]

Let's use Auschwitz as an example of evidence for homicidal gassing, since it's what's most often demanded by these doubting 'seekers after truth'.

The first Auschwitz trials were held in Poland in 1947, in the cities of Warsaw and Krakow, and involved 40 members of the Auschwitz SS. Rudolf Höss, camp commandant during the relevant time period, and 23 others received death sentences, 6 were sentenced to life, and all but one of the rest received sentences ranging from 3 to 15 years in prison.



The testimonial evidence alone is very powerful evidence, coming as it does
from those who were the perpetrators and those who were forced to participate in some way. In particular, the testimonies of Commandant Höss and Dr. Johann Kremer are very strong. Höss testified as a defense witness for Kaltenbrunner at Nuremberg, at his own trial in Poland and then wrote a memoir which contains two long chapters on the evolution of the gassing program at A/B over the years, an evolution supported by the Auschwitz construction office documents. Kremer's evidence is both documentary and testimonial: his contemporaneous diary, captured after the war, provides many instances of individual gassing actions and this written evidence was corroborated and elaborated on in his post war testimony. This evidence is widely available on the net.

As for documentary evidence, there are the deportation schedules drawn up in Berlin in Eichmann's Division for Jewish Affairs at the Main Office for Reich Security (RSHA) in Berlin and handed over to the German Railways administration (DR) giving a detailed account of the number of people transported to and from Auschwitz during its time as a concentration/death camp. These documents indicate that some 1,500,000 of the people-- not all of them Jews-- transported to Auschwitz were never seen or heard from again. In the camp construction offices, which the fleeing Nazis neglected to destroy with explosives, as they had the Kremas, were found the construction diagrams of gas chambers indicating oversized air-intake (Belüftung) and air-extraction (Entlüftung) systems, as well as the physical presence of gas-proof doors and windows. There exist blueprints and construction diagrams of the combined gas-chamber cremation facilities at Auscwhitz-Birkenau indicating last minute changes in architectural details such as a chute for bodies replaced by a revolving stairwell to a clearly labeled subterranean "Vergasungskammer" (another good word for our 'revisionist' German scholars to look up on the net.)


.

How you can quote Hoss and Kremer with a straight face after the treatment they received is beyond belief.

[Tillerman]

Says the guy who's willing to use Faurisson's fantasies as evidence of anything!


I've explained the alleged Höß 'torture' allegations here a number of times. Perhaps you missed those posts, or perhaps you've blocked them out.

But let's see what you know about Kremer. Allegations? Whip 'em out.

[Tillerman]

Now you know Tillerman, that you can't prove any of the claims you make here. You know full well that if I challenge you to provide irrefutable documentary evidence you will be unable to and you will dissolve in a fit of pique again.

Facts in evidence are irrefutable enough to satisfy academic historians who submit their findings and conclusions for peer review. If this isn't to the satifaction of a single anti-Semitic Nazi apologist on an internet backwater whose only recourse appears to be knee-jerk gainsaying, try to imagine how little damage that does to the current state fo the Holocaust narrative.

If you decide to declare each and every document presented a forgery because it could be, without any evidence to support such a claim, you've already lost the debate.

Similarly, if you decide to doubt any and all perpetrator testimony on the basis that it might have been elicited by torture or threat, again without evidence to support such a claim in the instance being discussed, you lose again.

That's how debate works in the real world. It isn't my problem that you have no knowledge of the period being discussed and no evidence to back up any of your laughable counter-claims, but I won't permit you to reduce every debate about the events of the Holocaust into a hollow declaration of 'victory' on your part because you can't deal intelligently or honestly with evidence that's presented.

As we all know, there have been so many spurious lies told

And as we all know, no Nazi was ever convicted on survivor testimony or copnfession alone. Or didn't you know that?

and so many known forgeries of alleged WWII documents,

I'm not aware of these 'many known forgeries of alleged WWII documents'. I challenge you to demonstrate your knowledge of the topic by listing some of these 'many' suspicious documents' and delineating how they are forgeries and who is responsible for having forged them. The only documentary forgery relating to the Holocaust of which I'm aware is the so-called 'Lachout document' and its forger is well known.

that it is not possible for you to prove your case irrefutably and all you are left with is your unfailing desire to make us believe what you want to be regarded as the truth, rather than what you can prove.

I see you're setting up yet another parody of Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch in which you're reduced to saying "Is NOT!!" to any and all evidence you're confronted with, rather than dealing with it like a man, let alone an intelligent man. It's rather like a child plugging its ears and saying "la-la-la-la. I can't hear you!" This is why I've described you as dishonourable and if you repeat that rather sad dialectical tack, you'll simply confirm my opinion of you to anyone reading the thread.

Clearly, Jewish survivors of the camps have a vested financial interest in maintaining that there was a deliberate plan by the Germans to commit genocide;

But there was, you see. It took on different forms in various times and various places from 1940-45, but from the onset of war until its very end, the Nazis set about ending the lives of as many Jews as they possibly could using various methods. That's beyond question.

Clearly lots of people, including many Jews did die in ghastly conditions in many of the concentration camps during the final months of the war; and

That's a rather back-handed admission. It's a set up for the Nazi apologist's standard line of shït that the Nazis were taking perfectly good care of their charges until the evil Allies interferred. Would you like to see evidence of the basic caloric count of food distributed to prisoners? Would you like to see stats for typhus deaths long before the camps were anywhere near the theater of war? For comparison purposes, would you care to see stats for typhus deaths of SS guards in those same camps? Of course you wouldn't. Because you have no background in the history you're so eager to whitewash, all you could do with that kind of information is wish it away with something like, "Those stats could have been forged, so they must be forgeries!" Sans evidence, of course. In short, your entire argument, such as it is, comes from ignorance.

Clearly some Jews and other Allied soldiers and civilians will have suffered sporadic acts of atrocity committed by the Germans;

There was nothing 'sporadic' about it. Nazi atrocities committed against innocents began long before the war commenced and continued up until its very end.

But none of this proves a deliberate and systematic policy of genocide against the Jews by the Germans.

Not if you require a signed order from Hitler to prove such a thing. But ask yourself why, if there are supposedly so 'many known forgeries' to support the Holocaust narrative, some enterprising forger didn't simply grind one out.

The evidence that you claim is so irrefutable;
Was garnered together by investigators for the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, a disproportionate number of which were biased as they were Communists and Jews;

Very little of what we know today about the Holocaust is based on the evidence provided at those trials. The majority took place only a year or two after the war's end. Research has been ongoing for nearly seven decades since then-- not by investigators mandated to secure a conviction, but by thousands of academic historians compiling an internally-consistent narrative of events. Most of what we know today about the Holocaust is based on evidence that simply wasn't available in 1946-47.

Consists of a number of dodgy looking, fake looking documents, most with no official marks, letter heading or proper signatures;

So you keep insisting, without evidence of any kind and displaying a complete lack of understanding of historiography or the processes involved in the authentication of documentary evidence from that period.

Was obtained under turture, following threats to the famillies of the accused and/or some other form of duress; and

In all cases? I'd be most interested in seeing you prove that. Just because threats or torture could have been inflicted doesn't suggest that it definitely was. Suspicion on your part proves nothing, especially if you're seeing the name of a self-confessed perpetrator for the first time and you just can't be ärsed to investigate the conditions under which he was incarcerated. You seem to be inordinately willing to discount the fact that the perpetrator's confession on the witness stand might be motivated by genuine remorse.

Was obtained at a time when the German population was living under a reign of terror, JCS 1067, the Morgenthau Plan for the veritable destruction of Germany and the German people, a reign of terror which itself resulted in the deaths through starvation and worse, of several million innocent German civilians between 1945 and 1948.

The plan was to eliminate a resurgence of the country's ability to wage another war and to set out a plan for occupation to see to it that that aim succeeded. You won't get an argument out of me if you declare Morganthau a vengeful idiot, but nothing he did or said makes the events of the Holocaust any less real or any more justifiable

In fact, so weak is the evidence of a deliberate plan of genocide by the Nazis, that the authorities in several major European countries have been forced to make it illegal to conduct a critical examination of the evidence for fear of the inadequacies therein becoming widely exposed. So, stop your pompous posturing before someone pops you like an overinflated balloon, you pompous old windbag!

If so, it won't be as a result of any compelling counter-evidence provided by you!

The reason several European countries, democracies all, have enacted laws proscribing minimisation, trivialisation and defamation with regard to the Holocaust have been made quite plain and public. If you choose to believe that the legislation is a result of insufficient evidence, well, it just further demonstrates your lack of familiarity with 20th century history.

Explain why I shouldn't interpret that last sentence as a threat upon my person.

[Smell the Coffee FFS]

Now you know Tillerman, that you can't prove any of the claims you make here. You know full well that if I challenge you to provide irrefutable documentary evidence you will be unable to and you will dissolve in a fit of pique again.

Can you prove to the same standards that they didn't take place? Do you have witnesses to them not taking place? Can you prove to the same standards that any German military commanders were hung or executed after the war crimes tribunals? I don't think a single German was killed after 1945; it's all spin and propaganda by the losing Nazi's.

[Papa Luigi]

Facts in evidence are irrefutable enough to satisfy academic historians who 'submit their findings and conclusions for peer review'.

No, who wish to continue getting their books published by Jewish publishing companies. That's the truth of the matter.

If this isn't to the satifaction of a single anti-Semitic Nazi apologist on an internet backwater ...

Don't mock Tillerman, I'm so important to you that you return here time and time again. Judging by the effort you put into this forum, it must be one of the most important things in your life. You sad person!

If you decide to declare each and every document presented a forgery because it could be, ...

I don't, I simply state that such documents cannot be regarded as proof of anything, because of the high probability that they are forgeries.

Similarly, if you decide to doubt any and all perpetrator testimony on the basis that it might have been elicited by torture or threat, ...

Again I don't. I doubt such testimony based upon the high probability that it will have been elicited under duress. Furthermore, I don't lose at all by doing this. It is you and those like you that desperately want people to believe in the Holocaust narrative that lose because apathy in this respect plays into our hands, not yours. Holocaust fatigue strikes fear in the hearts of you boyz.

I'm not aware of these 'many known forgeries of alleged WWII documents'. I challenge you to demonstrate your knowledge of the topic by listing some of these 'many' suspicious documents' and delineating how they are forgeries and who is responsible for having forged them. The only documentary forgery relating to the Holocaust of which I'm aware is the so-called 'Lachout document' and its forger is well known.

Don't you remember from the last time we discussed this? ... the Hitler Diaries?

I see you're setting up yet another parody of Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch in which you're reduced to saying "Is NOT!!" to any and all evidence you're confronted with, rather than dealing with it like a man, let alone an intelligent man. It's rather like a child plugging its ears and saying "la-la-la-la. I can't hear you!" This is why I've described you as dishonourable and if you repeat that rather sad dialectical tack, you'll simply confirm my opinion of you to anyone reading the thread.

That's a laugh coming from you. There is no honour in the positions you take.

... from the onset of war until its very end, the Nazis set about ending the lives of as many Jews as they possibly could using various methods. That's beyond question.

However, this is inconsistent with your previous post in which you claimed that the Nazis did not kill all Jews as soon as they possibly could. Furthermore, as I have previously stated, the alleged method of 'extermination' is so inefficient as to be positively 'Heath Robinson' in configuration. If the Nazis intended to kill as many Jews as possible, their normal organisational efficiency must have completely deserted them. In five minutes flat I could suggest a far more efficient method of extermination that would entail none of the logistical difficulties that the Nazis would have had to contend with if they had indeed set about gassing all the Jews.

Would you like to see evidence of the basic caloric count of food distributed to prisoners?

I have and the calorific value was higher than that provided by the rations on which British civilians had to survive the war.

The reason several European countries, democracies all, have enacted laws proscribing minimisation, trivialisation and defamation with regard to the Holocaust have been made quite plain and public. If you choose to believe that the legislation is a result of insufficient evidence, well, it just further demonstrates your lack of familiarity with 20th century history.

Not so. If the arguments of so called 'deniers' are so weak and so easily refuted, the authorities would invite 'deniers' into schools and places of learning in order that learned teachers etc could dissect their arguments for the edification of the students. But they don't, do they?

Explain why I shouldn't interpret that last sentence as a threat upon my person.

Don't be stupid Tillerman, you post on here using a name that you have adopted from a Cat Stevens record. You claim to live on a continent that is more than 2,000 miles from where I live and I have not the faintest idea who you really are. It is just your ego that I find so easy to 'pop'. Your feelings may be hurt, but rest assured your physical safety is not in danger.