Sid Walker Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 (edited) If you really wish to have this question answered (I may be able to do so... or may not), I must ask that you cite a specific eyewitness account. The first eyewitness account was provided by Rudolf Vrba (Walter Rosenberg). The son of a sawmill owner, he was born in Slovakia on 11th September, 1924. At the age of fifteen he was expelled from his high school in Bratislava, under the Slovak puppet state's version of the Nazis' Nuremberg Laws. After the outbreak of the Second World War, Vrba, like other Jews in countries occupied in Nazi Germany, was rounded up and sent to concentration camps. In 1942 Vrba arrived in Auschwitz. On 9th April 1944, Vrba and his friend, Alfred Wetzler, managed to escape. The two men spent eleven days walking and hiding before they got back to Slovakia. Vrba and Wetzler made contact with the local Jewish Council. They provided details of the Holocaust that was taking place in Eastern Europe. They also gave an estimate of the number of Jews killed in Auschwitz between June 1942 and April 1944: about 1.75 million. In June, 1944, the 32-page Vrba-Wetzler Report was published. It was the first information about the extermination camps to reach the free world and to be accepted as credible. In September 1944 Vrba joined the Czechoslovak partisans and was later decorated for bravery. After the war he read biology and chemistry at Charles University, Prague, took a doctorate and then escaped to the west. He worked in Israel from 1958 to 1960 at the biological research institute in Beit Dagan. He then moved to Britain and worked for the Medical Research Council. Vrba's memoirs, I Cannot Forgive, appeared in 1963. They were later republished as I Escaped from Auschwitz. In 1967 Vrba became professor of biochemistry in the pharmacology department of the medical school of the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Canada. Rudolf Vrba died of cancer on 26th March, 2006. This is a passage from Vrba's 1944 report. The crematorium contains a large hall, a gas chamber and a furnace. People are assembled in the hall, which holds 2,000. They have to undress and are given a piece of soap and a towel as if they were going to the baths. Then they are crowded into the gas chamber which is hermetically sealed. Several SS men in gas masks then pour into the gas chamber through three openings in the ceiling a preparation of the poison gas maga-cyclon. At the end of three minutes all the persons are dead. The dead bodies are then taken away in carts to the furnace to be burnt. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWvrba.htm Dr Vrba's testimony at the first Zundel Trial is HERE At least, I understand it's an accurate transcript of the court proceedings. if anyone disputes that, do please let me know. I provided a quotation about Dr Vrba's trial in a previous post on this thread. Anyone who's interested can read the original testimony on which that comment was based. It's not a short transcript and I doubt many folk will find time. It is also rather gruesome in parts - because very gruesome claims made by Dr Vrba are subjected to rigorous cross-examination. Those that do read it can make their own assessment about the credibility of Dr Vrba as a witness. An extract follows below, with emphases added. One final comment about Dr Vrba. His book, published in 1963, carried the title "I Cannot Forgive". It was co-authored with Alan Bestic. "I cannot forgive" is not an expression typically found acceptable in western culture, with our two-millenia deep Christian heritage. We have learnt, over the millenia, not to glorify emotions such as vengefulness and hatred. Dr Vrba's book title is, in fact, quite typical of Shoah literature, in that it provides apparent justification for ongoing hatred and bitterness. This is not, in my opinion, a positive cultural influence. Moreover, in Dr Vrba's case, it appears from his own court testimony that the utterly heinous crimes he was apparently unwilling to forgive were actually events he failed to witness in person - contrary to his initial, very influential claims in the mid-1940s and his own memoirs published in the early 1960s. Had Dr Vrba had been more truthful - to himself and to the world - about his own experiences and recollections, he may well have enjoyed his life more fully, forgiving more and hating less. Fo a similar reason on a grander scale, I believe that rigorous, thorough and intellectually honest reappraisal of the alleged "eye-witness testimonies" of Vrba and others is long-overdue. THE COURT: Proceed, Mr Christie.MR CHRISTIE: Thank you, sir. Q. I would just like to ask you if this part of the book is true. It's attributed, on page two, to your co-author, Alan Bestic, and it says--- THE COURT: Page .... MR CHRISTIE: Sorry. Page 2. Q. It says: "I would like to pay tribute to him ..." and that was you, sir, wasn't it? A. Yes. Q. Okay. "....for the immense trouble he took over every detail; for the meticulous, almost fanatical respect he revealed for accuracy; and for the courage which this cold-blooded survey of two ghastly p. 1396 years demanded." Have I read correctly, sir, from that? A. Yes, you did. Q. Would you say that was true for the degree of respect you had for accuracy? A. That was true for Alan Bestic who estimated my accuracy in his own personal way. You may question now Alan Bestic if my accuracy could stand up to your requirement or not. Q. Well, would you say that in your opinion that was true about your respect for accuracy? A. Out of modesty, would you kindly allow me not to make judgments about myself? Q. Okay. In things that you said in this book that you said you saw, were you telling the truth? A. To the best of my knowledge, ability, the truth as I could perceive it, being in Auschwitz for two years. Q. So when you said you perceived things, or saw things in this book, you actually did see them with your own observations. A. This is nowhere stated in the book that I actually saw them. In the book there are a number of things which I heard from my friend and I have included it in the book, because a book was not meant to be a testimony to the Court which I have to sing [sign], but impressions which I collected from number of friends, some of whom are dead, for whom I wanted the voice to be heard even after their martyr's death. Q. I'm sorry, I still don't understand p. 1397 but do you mean to say, for example on page 10 where you say: "This time I was glad to see him arrive", for example, and I will read the rest of it, if you wish do you mean that you actually did see this? A. I see arrive what? Q. Well, here is what you said in the book. A. Yes. Q. "Heinrich Himmler visited Auschwitz Camp again in January, 1943. This time I was glad to see him arrive". A. Yes. Q. Now, I can read the whole thing, or two pages, or ten pages. A. Yes, continue, because I don't know what it should mean. Q. You don't know. You don't know. A. No. Q. I will ask you, do you mean to say, when you saw him arrive in January '43, or is this just --- A. In September '43 or in January '43? Q. Well, the book says January '43. A. No. I saw him arrive in July 1943 [1942--p. 1398--], and then at one occasion in 1943 --- Q. It says here, "January '43". A. It must be an error. Q. It's an error? A. Yes. Q. Oh. But you did see him arrive on p. 1398 this occasion? A. On the first occasion I saw him arrive, because he was approximately in the vicinity as you are to me. Q. He was as close to you as I am. A. Approximately. Q. I see. And you were --- A. He took one step further out of politeness to me. Q. I see. A. However, on the second occasion, I saw him going by in a car which was the same car I saw before. He used a black Mercedes with all the sycophants around that he carried around, but I saw him only for a distance of about six hundred yards, and I have heard it is him; but he didn't, on this occasion, come to shake hands with me and introduce himself. So it might be him; it might be someone who stood in instead of him, and don't think that it makes a great difference. Q. Was this the occasion when he was as far from you as I am? A. No. That's the second occasion. The second occasion when he was as far from me as you are, almost as far, this was in July 1942. Q. '42. A. Yes. Q. And that was in Auschwitz camp? A. That was in Auschwitz camp I. Q. In your book you say: "Heinrich Himmler visited Auschwitz camp again in January 1943. This time I was glad to see p. 1399 him arrive." Right? A. Probably I wasn't glad of him seeing him arrive as my best friend. Read on in the book. I cannot remember now why I should be glad to see him here. Maybe I said it tongue-in-cheek, where I have a right to say it in the book; not in the Court, but in the book I can. Q. Would you tell the public something in the book that wasn't true? A. I would say in the public in a way when the truth is complicated, I would use the technique of the painter, which is here working, that the general impression should come as close as possible to the truth within the requirements of my abilities which are, of course, limited. Q. As Dostoevsky or Shakespeare, yes, I understand. You don't --- A. I said I don't have. Q. All right. I will ask you some more questions. I will read you pages ten, 11 and 12 and I will ask you some questions about that. A. And you are not going to miss some paragraphs? Q. Well, you watch me and see that I don't. A. Can we have a copy of the book? Q. I am producing for you, provided by the Crown, a hardcover copy. I hope it is the same as mine. A. I hope so, too. Q. Well, I have another copy. Do you p. 1400 recognize that as the paperback version of your book; do you? A. Yes. It was published without my permission and without my perusal. Q. So it's without your permission and your perusal? A. That's right. You see, I would have to sue the people who done it, and I couldn't afford to sue; but for this book I peruse. This is the first edition. Q. So you figure this one could be false, then somebody might have twisted your words around? A. I didn't have any influence on it, and I didn't see the proof of the book, and I didn't see the account for it, either, for your private information. Q. You've never read it? A. I would say no. Q. You would say no. A. No. But I read the original. Q. What do you mean? You haven't read --- A. This is the first edition. You see, I have never signed any contract with the publisher of this paperback. Q. This Grove Press edition published March 1964, copywright by Rudolf Vrba and Alan Bestic, this is not yours? A. This is not Grove edition. Q. This is published by Bantam Books. A. That's right. p. 1401 Q. So you say this is a pirated edition, do you? A. I didn't use those words. They are your words. Q. Let's find the part in your edition, then, so in case it is different we can see how it's different. I am going to have to give this book to someone to look at while I cross-examine. A. Good advice. Q. Well, I will ask you specifically questions of fact which you can tell me if these statements are true or not. Do you believe that Heinrich Himmler visited the camp in January '42 ['43]? Okay, now I think I found the spot where I wanted to begin. I am going to read and you read along with me. Make sure I don't make any mistakes. I am going to read two, almost three pages okay? and I am going to ask you some questions about it. A. Yes. Q. "Heinrich Himmler visited Auschwitz Camp again in January 1943". Is that the same in your book? A. Yes. Q. All right. A. If there is a difference I will turn your attention to it. Q. All right. Thank you very much. "This time I was glad to see him arrive, though not because I still nursed any faint hope that he would improve our lot through benevolence or any sense of justice. His presence was welcome to us all p. 1402 merely because it meant that for one day there would be no unscheduled beatings or killings. "Once more we were lined up, spic and span, with the sick in ---" A. Excuse me, please. Would you read it in a way that everybody can understand the sense of the sentence? Q. I'll try, sir. Okay. If anybody doesn't understand the sense of the sentences in the jury, please hold up your hand and I will stop. Okay? And if you find that I am not reading sensibly, you will tell me too, won't you? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. Okay. "Once more we were lined up, spic and span, with the sick in the rear and the healthy well to the front. Once more the band played and the heels clicked and the jack boots danced in the luster shed by the master. Once more he inspected the camp inch by inch running a podgy pedantic finger over the mantlepiece of Auschwitz and examining it for dust. And this time there was no Yankel Meisel to drop his tiny personal grain of sand into the smooth machinery. "Though he conducted his tour of the camp with his usual thoroughness, it was, however, no more than an aperitif for the meal that was to follow. The main purpose of his visit was to see for himself the bricks and mortar which had sprung from the plans he had outlined in Auschwitz seven months earlier. "He was to watch the world's first conveyor belt killing, the inauguration of Kommandant p. 1403 Hoess' brand new toy, his crematorium. It was truly a splendid affair, one hundred yards long and fifty yards wide, containing fifteen ovens which could burn three bodies each simultaneously in twenty minutes, a monument in concrete, indeed, to its builder Herr Walter Dejaco." Am I reading correctly? A. Quite right. Q. "Auschwitz survivors who, like myself, were the slave labourers who built it ---" A. "Who worked to build it". Q. Yes. ".... who worked to build it , ...." Sorry, I made a mistake. ".... may be interested to learn, incidentally, that Herr Dejaco still practises his craft in Reutte, a town in the Austrian Tyrol. In 1963 he won praise from Bishop Rusk of Innsbruck for the fine new presbytery he had built for Reutte's parish priest. "In 1943, however, there was a war on and he was concerned with more practical demonstrations of his skill. The extermination industry was still in its infancy, but thanks to his efficiency, it was about to make its first really dramatic stride towards greatness that morning when Himmler came to visit us. "He certainly saw an impressive demonstration, marred only by a timetable that would have caused concern in many a small German railway station. Kommandant Hoess, anxious to display his new toy at its most efficient, had arranged for a special transport of 3,000 Polish Jews to be present for slaughter in a modern, German way. "Himmler arrived at eight o'clock that p. 1404 morning and the show was to start an hour later. By eight forty-five, the new gas chambers with their clever dummy showers and their notice 'Keep Clean', 'Keep Quiet' and so on, were packed to capacity. The S.S. Guards, indeed, had made sure that not an inch of space would be wasted by firing a few shots at the entrance. These encouraged those already inside to press away from the doors and more victims were ushered in. Then babies and very small children were tossed on to the heads of the adults and the doors were closed and sealed. "An S.S. man, wearing a heavy service gas mask, stood on the roof of the chamber, waiting to drop the Zyklon-B pellets which released a hydrogen cyanide gas. His was a position of honour that day, for seldom would he have had such a distinguished audience and he probably felt as tense as the starter of the Derby. "By eight fifty-five, the tension was almost unbearable. The man in the mask was fidgeting with his boxes of pellets. He had a fine full house beneath him. But there was no sign of the Reichsfuhrer who had gone off to have breakfast with Kommandant Hoess. "Somewhere a phone rang. Every head turned towards it. A junior N.C.O. clattered over to the officer in charge of the operation, saluted hastily and panted out a message. The officer's face stiffened, but he said not a word. "The message was: 'The Reichsfuhrer hasn't finished his breakfast yet.' ["] Everyone relaxed slightly. Then another phone call. Another dash by a perspiring N.C.O. Another message. The officer in charge swore to himself and p. 1405 muttered to those of equal rank around him. "The Reichsfuhrer, it seemed, was still at breakfast. The S.S. man on the roof of the gas chamber squatted on his haunches. Inside the chamber itself frantic men and women, who knew by that time what a shower in Auschwitz meant, began shouting, screaming and pounding weakly on the door; but nobody outside heard them because the new chamber was sound-proof as well as gas-proof. "Even if they had been heard, nobody would have taken any notice of them, for the S.S. had their own worries. The morning dragged on and the messengers came and went. By ten o'clock the marathon breakfast was still under way. By half past ten the S.S. men had become almost immune to false alarms and the man on the roof remained on his haunches even when the distant telephone rang. "But by eleven o'clock, just two hours later, a car drew up. Himmler and Hoess got out and chatted for a while to the senior officers present. Himmler listened intently, as they explained the procedure to him in detail. He ambled over to the sealed door, glanced casually through the small, thick observation window at the squirming bodies inside, then returned to fire some more questions at his underlings. "At last, however, everything was ready for action. A sharp command was given to the S.S. man on the roof. He opened a circular lid and dropped the pellets quickly on to the heads below him. He knew, everyone knew, that the heat of those packed bodies would cause these pellets to release their gasses in a few minutes, and so he closed the lid quickly. p. 1406 "The gassing had begun. Everything waited for a while so that the poison would have circulated properly, Hoess courteously invited his guest to have another peep through the observation window. For some minutes Himmler peered into the death chamber, obviously impressed, and then turned with new interest to his Kommandant with a fresh batch of questions. "What he had seen seemed to have satisfied him and put him in good humour. Though he rarely smoked, he accepted a cigarette from an officer, and as he puffed at it rather clumsily, he laughed and joked. "The introduction of this more homely atmosphere, of course, did not mean any neglect of the essential business. Several times he left the group of officers to watch progress through the peep hole; and, when everyone inside was dead, he took a keen interest in the procedure that followed. "Special lifts took the bodies to the crematorium, but the burning did not follow immediately. Gold teeth had to be removed. Hair, which was used to make the warheads of torpodeos [torpedoes] watertight, had to be cut from the heads of the women. The bodies of wealthy Jews, noted early for their potential had to be set aside for dissection in case any of them had been cunning enough to conceal jewellery diamonds perhaps about their person." I will stop there. A. Well, it is only very little --- Q. --- to the end? I will read to the end. A. I will appreciate it. p. 1407 Q. Sure. Certainly: "It was indeed, a complicated business, but the new machinery worked smoothly under the hands of skilled operators. Himmler waited until the smoke began to thicken over the chimneys and then he glanced at his watch. "It was one o'clock. Lunch time, in fact. He shook hands with the senior officers, returned the salutes of the lower ranks casually and cheerfully and climbed back into the car with Hoess. "Auschwitz was in business. And on a scale that would have made little old Yankel Meisel shake his head in wonder and disbelief. He had never been a very ambitious man and the thought of streamlined mass-destruction would have been quite beyond his simple mind. "But then he had never heard of the Final Solution, let alone of the part which Auschwitz was to play in it." Now, have I read correctly from the point where I ended? A. Yes, you did. Q. All right. And that is a statement. Do you say that that was the true statement? A. I would say that it was as true as true is the picture which is depicted by the artist in this room. Q. Okay. A. This means --- Q. Never mind what it means. A. You asked me one question, if you p. 1408 will allow me to finish my answer. Q. Yes, sir. A. This means it conveyed truthfully the atmosphere existing in Auschwitz during the gassing procedure in the presence of a very highly positioned VIP. Q. Mm-hmmm. A. What was missing for the explanation and which distorts the sense of your carefully selected passage is that in your passage, twice the name of Yankel Meisel has been mentioned, and because the listeners do not know who that Yankel Meisel actually is, but that Yankel Meisel is named in the same chapter, some confusion might arise from your whole reading, or so it conveyed reasonably well as far as possible for a second-grade artist to describe the atmosphere which existed during the gassing of those unfortunate victims. Q. Right. Okay. Now, you used an anology by saying that the artist in Court, drawing his picture, was in the same way you were writing this article. A. About. Otherwise --- Q. Yeah. Okay. A. Otherwise I would have to be in the position of the Judges in Frankfurt who had to write eighty books in order not to be in the position of the artist; but to be in the legal position where he can stand up behind every word of the eighty books. Q. Let's not worry about some judge in Frankfurt. You used the analogy of the artist in Court, and I put it to you that the artist has seen a real p. 1409 man in a real stand namely, you. Right? A. Right. Q. And you are telling this Court you actually saw Heinrich Himmler peeping through the doors of the gas chamber; you told us that? A. No, I didn't say I was present when he was peeping through the gas chamber, but I have put together a story which I've heard many times from various people who were there present and who related it to me. What I could see was the following, that a transport of eight thousand Jews from Krakow on that occasion --- Q. Eight thousand, eh? You counted them? A. By knowledge of the trucks, as I explained to you yesterday, and by knowledge of the number of wagons which arrived to Auschwitz, we knew reasonably well how many of the victims arrived on that day. Q. Where does it say that there were eight thousand Jews arrived that day in your book? A. Well, if it doesn't say, I remember it. Q. Ah. A. But I do not say that I have written in the book all I remember, because if I would have write in the book all I remember, I would have had to write all those eighty-one books. Q. Well, what I am asking is about this specific incident that you described in your book. A. Yes. Q. You describe it as saying, "This p. 1410 time I was glad to see him arrive", and then you go on and tell us what you say happened. A. Yes. Q. Well, I put it to you, you were what eighteen or nineteen years old? A. At that time it was in '43. I was nineteen years old. Q. Well, do you tell us that you are standing between Heinrich Himmler and Hoess and hearing their conversation and looking with them or somewhere in the area where they were looking onto a gas chamber? Is that what you are telling me? A. No. I am telling you that they were looking into the gas chamber, that there were a number of Sonderkommando present, that there were a number of S.S. present. Q. Were you present? A. No. I was in the quarantine camp at that time and I spoke with a number of them and listened to them, and I knew that those unfortunate victims were being gassed with a great delay because the VIPs didn't come, so they were being kept in the gas chamber. Q. Well, in your book you indicate that you saw, and you don't indicate that you heard from other people the story that you related. A. In this particular case the story is related. Q. And you say that these things happened as you described, even though you acknowledged they were on the basis of hearsay; right? A. Yes. p. 1411 Edited February 26, 2007 by Sid Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Some time ago, Stephen Turner started a thread called "The Holocaust, tragedy, or Zionist lie., Sorry everybody but this needs nailing."I asked what evidence there was that Hitler condemned millions to death in purpose-built gas chambers. He replied: Well Sid it all depends on what you will except as evidence, but how about. .....The indivdual documentation of the Holocaust. Thousands upon thousands of documents, and punch cards used in IBM tabulating machines. Docments that reveal how the Jews, and other enemies of the Nazi state were locate, their treatment, transportation, and the implementation of the final solution, many from the highest levels of the Nazi leadership urging the camp comendants on to greater efforts of extermination. Documents which betray the beaurocratisation, and beastiality of this particular madness. all of which you must prove false, or forged. I replied:You suggest there are a lot of these documents (thousands?).How about one? One original, genuine, verifiable document that "reveals... the highest levels of the Nazi leadership urging the camp comendants on to greater efforts of extermination." Stephen subsequently said he would email me with the requested reference. Then he said he was busy on something else. I'm still waiting. I have no intention of joining this debate, but a little word on revisionism. Sid, at your suggestion we communicated by PM on this matter, I freely admitted to you that at the time I had been unable to locate any FIRST GENERATION documents, so please stop trying to make me look like a piker. I have plenty of photo copies, but as they come mainly from Jewish Holocaust sites I have not bothered to present them for one simple reason, you would not accept them, thats fair enough, but damed if I am going to waste my time......Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Walker Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 (edited) Some time ago, Stephen Turner started a thread called "The Holocaust, tragedy, or Zionist lie., Sorry everybody but this needs nailing."I asked what evidence there was that Hitler condemned millions to death in purpose-built gas chambers. He replied: Well Sid it all depends on what you will except as evidence, but how about. .....The indivdual documentation of the Holocaust. Thousands upon thousands of documents, and punch cards used in IBM tabulating machines. Docments that reveal how the Jews, and other enemies of the Nazi state were locate, their treatment, transportation, and the implementation of the final solution, many from the highest levels of the Nazi leadership urging the camp comendants on to greater efforts of extermination. Documents which betray the beaurocratisation, and beastiality of this particular madness. all of which you must prove false, or forged. I replied:You suggest there are a lot of these documents (thousands?).How about one? One original, genuine, verifiable document that "reveals... the highest levels of the Nazi leadership urging the camp comendants on to greater efforts of extermination." Stephen subsequently said he would email me with the requested reference. Then he said he was busy on something else. I'm still waiting.STEPHEN REPLIED: Sid, at your suggestion we communicated by PM on this matter, I freely admitted to you that at the time I had been unable to locate any FIRST GENERATION documents, so please stop trying to make me look like a piker. I have plenty of photo copies, but as they come mainly from Jewish Holocaust sites I have not bothered to present them for one simple reason, you would not accept them, thats fair enough, but damed if I am going to waste my time......Steve. Stephen I thought I'd already heard all imaginable rationalizations for failing to provide supporting evidence for one's claims. Apparently not. Today Stephen Turner informs me that he could present the references he promised... but he won't, because, in his own words "...you would not accept them, thats fair enough, but damed if I am going to waste my time" In other words, there's no point debating me on this topic... because I won't accept evidence anyway, because of its source! That is rich from someone who, I suspect, routinely eshews key revisionist texts such as the writings of Butz, Rassinier and Faurisson (and who certainly shows indications of never having read any of them). Is this the level of historical analysis and debate that now prevails in Cambridge? The town has moved on! I wonder how Russell, Keynes - and other former denizens known for original thought and intellectual independence - would fit in these days? What would they say to Richard Evans over port in the Great Hall? Edited February 27, 2007 by Sid Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Walker Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 (edited) I want to make a more serious point, as the thread may not survive for long on past experience. Stephen believed (still believes?) he can produce at least "one original, genuine, verifiable document that "reveals... the highest levels of the Nazi leadership urging the camp comendants on to greater efforts of extermination."" But he hasn't produced it here so far. John Geraghty wrote: Do you consider the jews that were forced to tend to the gas chambers and assist in the genocide to be liars? Do they play a role in a cover-up of sorts? I am interested to hear how Irving and others account for the personal accounts of the jews who were forced to assist the nazis in concentration camps in return for their lives. It may be quite easy to deate the forensice evidence, but the personal accounts present a significantly more difficult story to the holocaust deniers. Yet so far at least in this thread, the strongest eye-witness testimony offered to us has not proved substantial at all. Now, who is right and who is wrong about this vexatious issue? Paraphrasing Mao, perhaps it's too early to tell? That's what historical analysis is about. No-one has a monopoly of wisdom. The past is open to debate. The more open and complete the debate, the better chance an accurate consensus will develop. That's the way we typically discuss topics on this forum. Someone proposes the Apollo moon landings are faked. Others claim they weren't. Each party to the debate presents evidence and/or counter-evidence. Readers draw their own conclusions about the credibility of the various cases presented. It is, however, precisely that type of process that has been DENIED to the western world, since 1945, on the topic of the atrocities (real or imagined) of the Nazis durng World War Two. All manner of very silly arguments - arguments that sensible people would normally not accept for a moment - have been advanced to close down debate on this topic. The process probably began with Paul Rassinier, a French socialist, who soon after the war expressed doubts about the extent of alleged German atrocities. For his pains, this wartime member of the French Resistance who was actually interned in a German concentration camp for subversive activities, was branded a 'fascist'. The same reflex accusation has been used ever since to shout down other dissidents. We are now - in 2007 - on the brink of completely losing the chance of reviewing this important historical topic. It is already illegal to do so in a dozen countries. In all western nations, anyone taking up the issue is liable to suffer career difficulties at minimum. Here in Australia, there have been successful prosecutions by the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council under the 'Equal Rights and Opportnities Act". There is a push right now to enact Europe-wide legislation that would ban open debate about the events of World War Two. There are moves afoot in the US Congress to enact 'hate crimes' legislation that would have a similar effect. The lights are going out on free debate - fast! It's really a last call for those who care for intellectual freedom. Wake up and do something about it! Use it - or lose it! Meanwhile, people like Ernst Zundel (a life-long pacifist) and Germar Rudolf (a chemist who, like Leuchter, got sucked into the issue when asked to appear as an expert witness... and refused to give false testimony) rot in jail. For protesting that - and above all for committing the the cardinal sin of showing that their dissent may have some rational basis - folk like me are branded "racists", "neo-Nazis" and worse. Duane on this forum, who apparently believes there were no lunar landings, may believe he's not taken seriouslyor given a fair hearing. He may even be right. But his freedom is not in jeopardy for stating his heterodox case. That basic right is denied folk like Zundel and Rudolf. It's time to end this appalling injustice - and to openly resist the betrayal of core western values. Edited February 27, 2007 by Sid Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 It is clear that we could give Sid Walker 6 million reasons why holocaust denial is nonsense. I am afraid however he doesn't want to listen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Some time ago, Stephen Turner started a thread called "The Holocaust, tragedy, or Zionist lie., Sorry everybody but this needs nailing."I asked what evidence there was that Hitler condemned millions to death in purpose-built gas chambers. He replied: Well Sid it all depends on what you will except as evidence, but how about. .....The indivdual documentation of the Holocaust. Thousands upon thousands of documents, and punch cards used in IBM tabulating machines. Docments that reveal how the Jews, and other enemies of the Nazi state were locate, their treatment, transportation, and the implementation of the final solution, many from the highest levels of the Nazi leadership urging the camp comendants on to greater efforts of extermination. Documents which betray the beaurocratisation, and beastiality of this particular madness. all of which you must prove false, or forged. I replied:You suggest there are a lot of these documents (thousands?).How about one? One original, genuine, verifiable document that "reveals... the highest levels of the Nazi leadership urging the camp comendants on to greater efforts of extermination." Stephen subsequently said he would email me with the requested reference. Then he said he was busy on something else. I'm still waiting.STEPHEN REPLIED: Sid, at your suggestion we communicated by PM on this matter, I freely admitted to you that at the time I had been unable to locate any FIRST GENERATION documents, so please stop trying to make me look like a piker. I have plenty of photo copies, but as they come mainly from Jewish Holocaust sites I have not bothered to present them for one simple reason, you would not accept them, thats fair enough, but damed if I am going to waste my time......Steve. Stephen I thought I'd already heard all imaginable rationalizations for failing to provide supporting evidence for one's claims. Apparently not. Today Stephen Turner informs me that he could present the references he promised... but he won't, because, in his own words "...you would not accept them, thats fair enough, but damed if I am going to waste my time" In other words, there's no point debating me on this topic... because I won't accept evidence anyway, because of its source! That is rich from someone who, I suspect, routinely eshews key revisionist texts such as the writings of Butz, Rassinier and Faurisson (and who certainly shows indications of never having read any of them). Is this the level of historical analysis and debate that now prevails in Cambridge? The town has moved on! I wonder how Russell, Keynes - and other former denizens known for original thought and intellectual independence - would fit in these days? What would they say to Richard Evans over port in the Great Hall? Perhaps I was too subtle in my last post addressed to your good self, please allow me to be plain. LEAVE ME OUT OF IT. You dragged my name into a thread I was not interested in pursuing by revealing details of a PM I sent to you, at your request. I ceased to debate this issue when a member (Peter Lemkin) indicated it was causing him distress, and told me I should be ashamed of myself for starting a thread which gave deniers a chance to spread their beliefs, I cant now say I find him in error. So, one last time. Please LEAVE ME OUT OF IT..Regards, Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Sid, The name I was trying to think of was indeed 'SONDERKOMMANDO'. I have a few names of survivng sonderkommando, most of them being killed every so often so that the reality of what was going on was not too widely known. I am compiling some information. I don't have too muc time at the moment, so I can't post with the immediacy of yourself or other members, I'm afriad that you will just have to wait. This thread comes somewhere down my list on things to do, behind editing a newspaper, doing course reading and researching and writing an essay of Ireland's 1933 elections. I will get back to you. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Walker Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Anyhow, this interesting discussion will soon come to an end, if one is to believe the FT: EU aims to criminalise Holocaust denial Defenders of the orthdox version of World War Two history will no longer suffer the indignity of scratching for evidence to defend their position in rational debate And so it was that the Enlightenment in Europe came to an end... not with a bang, but a whimper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 Reasonably sane people have had little reason to doubt that what occurred under Nazi rule in the 1930s and 1940s was that one set of human beings subjected another set of human beings to extreme forms of victimization, privation, servitude and, finally, extermination.Some views expressed in this thread suggest that the victims in the case should have been (and should still be) put on trial and cross-examined about these claims of being abused. Additionally, those views suggest that the victims ought to be more charitable and forgiving, as good Christians should. What a perverse and ghastly pile of feces such ideas are. I agree with you entirely Daniel and would add that the only possible motivation behind denying the holocaust is to attempt to rehabilitate the ideology of National Socialism to the mainstream. We should remember that the Nazis who were tried at Nuremburg didn't "deny" their crimes - their "defence" was that they were following orders. The ultimate calumny of denial is left to present day Nazis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Walker Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 (edited) Reasonably sane people have had little reason to doubt that what occurred under Nazi rule in the 1930s and 1940s was that one set of human beings subjected another set of human beings to extreme forms of victimization, privation, servitude and, finally, extermination.Some views expressed in this thread suggest that the victims in the case should have been (and should still be) put on trial and cross-examined about these claims of being abused. Additionally, those views suggest that the victims ought to be more charitable and forgiving, as good Christians should. What a perverse and ghastly pile of feces such ideas are. I agree with you entirely Daniel and would add that the only possible motivation behind denying the holocaust is to attempt to rehabilitate the ideology of National Socialism to the mainstream. We should remember that the Nazis who were tried at Nuremburg didn't "deny" their crimes - their "defence" was that they were following orders. The ultimate calumny of denial is left to present day Nazis. There is a motivation that you conveniently skip over, Andy. That is the motivation to establish the TRUTH. You claim to know it already. In your belief system, everyone who doesn't accept your version of the truth regarding World War Two is either bad or mad. I have met folk who think this way before, occasionally on the doorstep. As they believe they already know the truth (usually they are members of a religious cult), there is little use debating with them. Most of them, however, do not presume to incarcerate other people who do not share their beliefs - nor do they advocate laws that have that effect. I gather, by contrast, that you and Daniel do. Furthermore, you brand those who oppose this repressive behaviour as 'fascists'. Sweet irony! Daniel wrote: Some views expressed in this thread suggest that the victims in the case should have been (and should still be) put on trial and cross-examined about these claims of being abused. Additionally, those views suggest that the victims ought to be more charitable and forgiving, as good Christians should. I presume Daniel may be referring to my views. If so, he misrepresents them. He also misrepesents what was actually going on at the trials where witnesses such as Dr Vrba and Mel Mermelstein were cross-examined under oath. In both cases, they were PROSECUTION witnesses. They were testifying AGAINST other people or organizations. They had no NEED to carry out those prosecutions or be party to them. The suggestion that Vrba, Mermelstein and other 'Holocaust survivors' should "be more charitable and forgiving, as good Christians should" is not one I often hear, although IMO it may well be a good idea (for them and for us all). At this stage, it's not clear what they really experienced during World War Two - and therefore what they might 'forgive'. Their own testimony about their alleged experiences has been shown to be riddled with falsehoods. Even though they did well on the lecture circuit, their testimonies fell apart when they were under oath (and hence exposed to the risk of perjury) and subjected to serious cross-examination by the defence. Foregiveness is meaningless in such circumstances. As the South Africans showed the world a few years ago, genuine reconcliation must be based on TRUTH. Edited April 21, 2007 by Sid Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 There is a motivation that you conveniently skip over, Andy.That is the motivation to establish the TRUTH. You claim to know it already. In your belief system, everyone who doesn't accept your version of the truth regarding World War Two is either bad or mad. I have met folk who think this way before, occasionally on the doorstep. As they believe they already know the truth (usually they are members of a religious cult), there is little use debating with them The truth about the deliberate extermination of millions of jews, socialists, communists, homosexuals, gypsies and other victims of the holocaust is well established. One does not have to be a member of a "cult" religious or otherwise to accept this truth. Rather one merely has to be a sentient rational member of the human race with just a smidgeon of respect for genuine historical enquiry and evidence. The mental health and well being of those who seek to deny the holocaust should surely be something of an immediate concern. Especially when it has to be be added, as in your case Sidney, to an apparent pathological hatred of jews which leads you to the most fantastic jewish conspiracy theories based I might add on not one shred of evidence, and an oft expressed penchant for French Nazis. Your attempted projection of your fixed belief insanity onto me is not something which surprises me. If someone like you "turned up on my doorstep" I would have to set the hounds on you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Walker Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 There is a motivation that you conveniently skip over, Andy.That is the motivation to establish the TRUTH. You claim to know it already. In your belief system, everyone who doesn't accept your version of the truth regarding World War Two is either bad or mad. I have met folk who think this way before, occasionally on the doorstep. As they believe they already know the truth (usually they are members of a religious cult), there is little use debating with them The truth about the deliberate extermination of millions of jews, socialists, communists, homosexuals, gypsies and other victims of the holocaust is well established. One does not have to be a member of a "cult" religious or otherwise to accept this truth. Rather one merely has to be a sentient rational member of the human race with just a smidgeon of respect for genuine historical enquiry and evidence. The mental health and well being of those who seek to deny the holocaust should surely be something of an immediate concern. Especially when it has to be be added, as in your case Sidney, to an apparent pathological hatred of jews which leads you to the most fantastic jewish conspiracy theories based I might add on not one shred of evidence, and an oft expressed penchant for French Nazis. Your attempted projection of your fixed belief insanity onto me is not something which surprises me. If someone like you "turned up on my doorstep" I would have to set the hounds on you The more vitriol, scorn and deliberate misrepresentation you mete out, Andy, the more you make my point. On this topic, you avoid substantive issues and simply hurl abuse. Meanwhile, the BBC reports that European Interior Ministers have reached agreement on new laws that will "make incitement to racism an EU-wide crime, but... stopped short of a blanket ban on Holocaust denial". How this overtly innocuous proposal would be applied in practice is the big question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 The more vitriol, scorn and deliberate misrepresentation you mete out, Andy, the more you make my point. But you haven't "a point" on this topic.... if anyone here has noticed "a point" I have missed other than the one about dear old Sidney being a Nazi apologist I would be delighted if they would point it out to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 (edited) I agree with you entirely Daniel and would add that the only possible motivation behind denying the holocaust is to attempt to rehabilitate the ideology of National Socialism to the mainstream. We should remember that the Nazis who were tried at Nuremburg didn't "deny" their crimes - their "defence" was that they were following orders. The ultimate calumny of denial is left to present day Nazis. Andy, the immediate evidence of genocide at the time appears to have been overwhelming, doesn't it? The only reasonable "plea" was the necessity of following orders from above. And it's not as if, since then, the "plea" issue in itself hasn't generated a multitude of discussions in the areas of philosophy, politics, history, religion, etc, etc, about the nature of moral responsibility, right? So what's all this really about, except apologetics for Nazism and its variations?I guess once all the "primary sources" have departed from this life, we can expect the fight to be carried on in the realm of photographic manipulation, "Zionist"-influenced government coverups, and so on. I agtee as well but, Andy, I think you are partly wrong in this. "the only possible motivation behind denying the holocaust is to attempt to rehabilitate the ideology of National Socialism to the mainstream." Fascism has never come to power by appealing to the mainstream, but rather by appealing to a particular mindless grouping that is prone to the seduction of supremacy ideology. Hence the mythology, the rituals, and base barbarism. IOW Hitler came to power in a series of stages, none of which was a free election. Rather the Nazi goon squads terrorised and exterminated in stages its opposition. The attempts to elevate Holocaust denial into a historical theme, (other than what it is as a facet of Fascism in Political Science, or perhaps a subset of Abnormal Psychology), is there for those who are prone to follow 'the strong supreme leader', or seek to become a staff member, ie a kind of dis ease that in itself is not readily understood and dealt with. The potential of the discontented mob combined with the provocateur, underpins the necessity to keep the memory and teaching of the holocaust free from denial. It's a fact that it happened, and it's a fact that there exist people who, in recognising the horror of it to the balanced masses, seek to deny it. Those who hear the denial and choose to accept it USE democracy as a tool to disseminate this lie, only with the clearly stated aim of Hitler in Mein Kamph, to ultimately DESTROY that democracy. Edited April 22, 2007 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now