Antisemitism is Wicked Ungodly
John R. Houk
© March 18, 2016
VIDEO: The Nazi Gas Chambers
Posted by lizardboy347
Uploaded on Mar 23, 2008
This is an animation of the three methods of gasing the nazi’s used during WWII. I created this to go with my presentation for a class project- sorry about the text going so fast. I had to do it to fit most of the info in. A lot of the info was left out though because i couldn’t fit it all into the animation.
-And no I’m not a nazi, no I’m not trying to insult anyone, and no I do not think its funny. Its serious and I can easily understand why some people would find this very offensive and harmful. I’m terribly sorry about that….Feel free to leave your comments of emotion… Simply…. “Pass the knowledge”
-A lot of the walking parts of the animation are pretty messed up, I know. I was rushing to finish because I was behind schedule..
Jyrki Soini wants me to examine Germar Rudolf a convicted Holocaust denier. It is my opinion that if Germar Rudolf denies the existence of the Holocaust or denies that Adolf Hitler was evil is a dangerous proposition. The Holocaust was an evil agenda of Nazism that cannot be dismissed. So let’s profile Germar Rudolf,
So let’s look at Holocaust deniers deny. I will show a series of excerpts of actual science and eye-witness collected testimony (which includes Nazi guards not just survivors).
While Auschwitz is the best known of the death camps, this is because it was also a large slave labour camp, so there are more survivors from it. The dedicated death camps ofAktion Reinhard represented the most deadly part of the Nazi’s mass murder operations and are far less known largely because virtually everyone who entered these camps – Belzec, Chemlno, Sobibor and Treblinka – were gassed or shot. Holocaust deniers try to pretend these camps were simply “transit camps”, but testimony from guards, Nazis, a few surviving prisoners and locals all prove that this is nonsense.
Between 2010 and 2012 a British archaeological team uncovered extensive evidence that the Treblinka camp was indeed a mass murder centre. Ground penetrating radar detected three huge mass graves on the site, one of which is 26m long, 17m wide and at least 4m deep. Using aerial photos from the 1940s, GPS technology and modern remote sensing equipment, the archaeologists were also able to detect the brick remains of the gas chambers, which the Nazis had dismantled when they abandoned the site. Bone fragments and ash deposits on the site also clearly indicate the disposal of thousands of corpses at Treblinka, as attested by all witnesses.
Secondly, we have forensic evidence that clearly demonstrates that cynide gas was used in the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Following claims by amateur hobbyist Fred Leuchter, which were touted by Holocaust deniers David Irving and Ernst Zundel as “proof” no Zyklon B was used to gas people at Auschwitz, the Institute for Forensic Research (IFRC) in Kraków undertook forensic examinations of the relevant areas of the five crematoria. After factoring in elements that Leuchter had not calculated for, the IFRC concluded that, in fact, there were expected traces of cyanide gas in all relevant areas and that this was not due to them having been fumigated against a typhus outbreak. (Is there physical scientific proof that Jews were gassed to death in Nazi concentration camps? By Tim O’Neill; Quora)
Here’s a Birkenau (aka Auschwitz II) eyewitness account:
Regarding the liquidation of the Czech family camp in section BIIb, the following quote is from Don Moore’s article in the Sun-Herald:
“They told everyone in Camp B2B we were going to be sent to Germany as slave laborers, but we had to clean up and shower first and we’d be issued new uniforms,” he said. “When we reached what the guards said were the ‘showers’ there was a commotion going on. I could speak a little German and I heard the guards say something was ‘kaput.'”
He learned later the apparatus that filled the showers with poison gas was ‘kaput.’ The prisoners from B2B had escaped death. They were marched back to their barracks. Three days later they were marched back to the gas chambers to die.
“We were just about to go into the gas chambers once more and there was another commotion out front.
“A train with 10,000 Jews from Hungry had just arrived. They had no place to put them. We were sent back to our barracks once again. They marched all 10,000 Hungarian Jews into the three gas chambers at Auschwitz and killed them all in 24 hours.” (Auschwitz II – Birkenau: History of a man-made Hell; ScrapBookPages.com; last updated 2/10/10)
Millions killed at Auschwitz-Birkenau:
On May 14, 1946, the former Commandant of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Rudolf Höß, also known as Rudolf Hoess, signed a sworn affidavit in which he stated that two million Jews had been gassed at Auschwitz-Birkenau between 1941 and 1943 while he was the Commandant. This did not include the period, during which Hoess was not the Commandant, when over 300,000 Hungarian Jews were gassed during a period of 10 weeks in the Summer of 1944, according to the Auschwitz Museum.
The English translation of the German text in the affidavit reads: “I declare herewith under oath that in the years 1941 to 1943 during my tenure in office as commandant of Auschwitz Concentration Camp 2 million Jews were put to death by gassing and a 1/2 million by other means. Rudolf Hoess. May 14, 1946.” The confession was signed by Hoess and by Josef Maier of the US Chief of Counsel’s office.
In the last days of World War II, shortly before Berlin was surrounded by Soviet troops, Eichmann told Hoess that 2.5 million Jews had been murdered at Auschwitz Birkenau. Eichmann was an SS Lt. Col. who was the head of Department IV, B-4, the section of the Reich Central Security Office (RSHA) in Berlin, which was responsible for deporting the Jews. It was Adolf Eichmann who was in charge of deporting the Jews on the trains to the death camps.
On April 12, 1947, just before his execution, Rudolf Hoess signed the following Final Statement, in which he admitted his shame for committing Crimes Against Humanity and for participating in the genocide perpetrated by the Third Reich:
My conscience is forcing me to make also the following assertion: In the isolation prison I have reached the bitter understanding of the terrible crimes I have committed against humanity. As a Kommandant of the extermination camp at Auschwitz, I have realized my part in the monstrous genocide plans of the Third Reich. By this means I caused humanity and mankind the greatest harm, and brought unspeakable suffering, particularly to the Polish nation. For my responsibility, I am now paying with my life. Oh, that God would forgive me my deeds! People of Poland, I beg you to forgive me! Just now in the Polish prisons have I recognized what humanity really is. In spite of everything that happened I have been treated humanely, which I had never expected, and this has made me feel deeply ashamed. Would to God…that the fact of disclosing and confirming those monstrous crimes against mankind and humanity may prevent for all future ages even the premises leading to such horrible events. (Auschwitz-Birkenau: History of a man-made Hell; ScrapBookPages.com; last updated 1/10/10)
Next let’s look at what Holocaust Deniers might consider a work of holiness exposing the Holocaust as a hoax. Pamphlet was published by the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) entitled “66 Questions & Answers About the Holocaust”. The pamphlet is simply a bunch of pseudo-science disinformation derived from idiotic speculation or simple downright lies. The Jewish Virtual Library has a quite excellent refutation to this work of Antisemitism by Ben S. Swanson entitled “Holocaust Denial: How to Refute Holocaust Denial”. The refutation is quite lengthy because it refutes each of the 66 points of the IHR pamphlet. Here I am posting the point one refutation with the links to the other 65 points or you can simply go to the Jewish Virtual Library to read the entire refutation at your leisure. Do not be fooled by Neo-Nazi Antisemitic propaganda. There is no Jewish New World Order to dominate the globe. Even Israel exists as a homeland where the world’s practicing Jews and non-practicing Jews can live in the land of their heritage in which they KNOW their government will never persecute them for their faith or their ancestral heritage.
This post is going to end up to be quite lengthy because I am including excerpts of the links that Yurki1000 sent to me to examine the Holocaust denial Germar Rudolf. I have to be honest I was a bit surprised Yurki1000 wanted me to examine Rudolf thoughts because I’ve known him to be a staunch Christian in principle with only some minor disagreements on theology. In the fairness of the open mind request I am posting Rudolf musings after my expression of displeasure with Holocaust Deniers which I frankly consider to be a bit low-brow even though many of these guys try to place a flavor intellectualism in their Antisemitic delusions. That which is sad is these fellows for the most part truly believe the Antisemitic ideology about Jewish extermination and Nazi principles.
Holocaust Denial: How to Refute Holocaust Denial
By Ben S. Austin
This page contains a point-by-point refutation of the half-truths and outright lies published in a pamphlet entitled “66 Questions & Answers About the Holocaust” published as a bible for Holocaust denial by the Institute for Historical Review (IHR).
The IHR’s questions and answers have been reproduced unaltered. Nizkor, a website devoted to combatting Holocaust denial, follows their answers by refuting the 66 claims.
Click on Any Question to Reveal the Answer:
None. The only evidence is the postwar testimony of individual “survivors.” This testimony is contradictory, and no “survivor” claims to have actually witnessed any gassing. There are no contemporaneous documents and no hard evidence whatsoever: no mounds of ashes, no crematoria capable of disposing of millions of corpses, no piles of clothes, no human soap, no lamp shades made of human skin, no records, no credible demographic statistics.
Lie piled upon lie, with not a shred of proof.
This is as good a place as any to present some detailed evidence which is consistently ignored, as a sort of primer on Holocaust denial. It will make this reply much longer than the other sixty-five, but perhaps the reader will understand the necessity for this.
Let’s look at their claims one at a time:
Supposedly the only evidence, “the postwar testimony of individual survivors.”
First of all, consider the implicit conspiracy theory. Notice how the testimony of every single inmate of every Nazi camp is automatically dismissed as unconvincing. This total dismissal of inmates’ testimony, along with the equally-total dismissal of the Nazis’ own testimony (!), is the largest unspoken assumption of Holocaust-denial.
This assumption, which is not often spelled out, is that the attempted Jewish genocide never took place, but rather that a secret conspiracy of Jews, starting around 1941, planted and forged myriad documents to prove that it did; then, after the war, they rounded up all the camp survivors and told them what to say.
The conspirators also supposedly managed to torture hundreds of key Nazis into confessing to crimes which they never committed, or into framing their fellow Nazis for those crimes, and to plant hundreds of documents in Nazi files which were never discovered until after the war, and only then, in many cases, by sheer luck. Goebbels’ diary, for example, was barely rescued from being sold as 7,000 pages of scrap paper, but buried in the scattered manuscript were several telling entries (as translated in Lochner, The Goebbels Diaries, 1948, pp. 86, 147-148):
February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.
March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.
Michael Shermer has pointed out that the Nazis’ own estimate of the number of European Jews was eleven million, and sixty percent of eleven million is 6.6 million. This is fairly close to the actual figure. (Actually, forty percent was a serious overestimate of the survival rate of Jews who were captured, but there were many Jews who escaped.)
In any case, most of the diary is quite mundane, and interesting only to historians. Did the supposed Jewish conspiracy forge seven thousand pages to insert just a few lines? How did they manage to know Goebbels’ affairs intimately enough to avoid contradictions, e.g. putting him or his associates in the wrong city at the wrong date?
As even the revisionist David Cole has admitted, revisionists have yet to provide a satisfactory explanation of this document.
Regarding postwar testimony from Nazis, were they all tortured into confessing to heinous crimes which they supposedly did not commit? This might be believable if only a few Nazis were captured after the war, or maybe if some had courageously stood up in court and shouted to the world about the supposed attempt to silence them. But hundreds testified regarding the Holocaust, in trials dating from late 1945 until the 1960s.
Many of these Nazis testified as witnesses and were not accused of crimes. What was the basis for their supposed coercion?
Many of these trials were in German courts. Did the Germans torture their own countrymen? Well, Holocaust-deniers sometimes claim that the Jews have secretly infiltrated the German government and control everything about it. They prefer not to talk too much about this theory, however, because it is clearly on the lunatic fringe.
The main point is that not one of these supposed torture victims — in fifty years, not one — has come forth to support the claim that testimony was coerced.
On the contrary, confirmation and reconfirmation of their testimony has continued across the years. What coercion could have convinced Judge Konrad Morgen to testify to the crimes he witnessed at the International Nuremberg Trial in 1946, where he was not accused of any crime? And to later testify at the Auschwitz trial at Frankfurt, Germany, in 1963-65? What coercion was applied to SS Doctor Johann Kremer to make him testify in his own defense in 1947, and then, after having been convicted in both Poland and Germany, emerge after his release to testify again as a witness at the Frankfurt trial? What coercion was applied to Böck, Gerhard Hess, Hölblinger, Storch, and Wiebeck, all former SS men, all witnesses at Frankfurt, none accused of any crime there?
Holocaust-deniers point to small discrepancies in testimonies to try to discredit them. The assumption, unstated, is that the reader will accept minor discrepancies as evidence of a vast, over-reaching Jewish conspiracy. This is clearly ludicrous.
In fact, the discrepancies and minor errors in detail argue against, not for, the conspiracy theory. Why would the conspirators have given different information to different Nazis? In fact, if all the testimonies, from the Nazis’ to the inmates’, sounded too similar, it is certain that the Holocaust-deniers would cite that as evidence of a conspiracy.
What supposed coercion could reach across four decades, to force former SS-Untersturmführer Dr. Hans Münch to give an interview, against the will of his family, on Swedish television? In the 1981 interview, he talked about Auschwitz:
Interviewer: Isn’t the ideology of extermination contrary to a doctor’s ethical values?
Münch: Yes, absolutely. There is no discussion. But I lived in that environment, and I tried in every possible way to avoid accepting it, but I had to live with it. What else could I have done? And I wasn’t confronted with it directly until the order came that I and my superior and another one had to take part in the exterminations since the camp’s doctors were overloaded and couldn’t cope with it.
Interviewer: I must ask something. Doubters claim that “special treatment” could mean anything. It didn’t have to be extermination.
Münch: “Special treatment” in the terminology of the concentration camp means physical extermination. If it was a question of more than a few people, where nothing else than gassing them was worthwhile, they were gassed.
Interviewer: “Special treatment” was gassing?
Münch: Yes, absolutely.
And what supposed coercion could reach across four decades, to force former SS-Unterscharführer Franz Suchomel into giving an interview for the film Shoah? Speaking under (false) promises of anonymity, he told of the crimes committed at the Treblinka death camp (from the book Shoah, Claude Lanzmann, 1985, p. 54):
Interviewer: You are a very important eyewitness, and you can explain what Treblinka was.
Suchomel: But don’t use my name.
Interviewer: No, I promised. All right, you’ve arrived at Treblinka.
Suchomel: So Stadie, the sarge, showed us the camps from end to end. Just as we went by, they were opening the gas-chamber doors, and people fell out like potatoes. Naturally, that horrified and appalled us. We went back and sat down on our suitcases and cried like old women. Each day one hundred Jews were chosen to drag the corpses to the mass graves. In the evening the Ukrainians drove those Jews into the gas chambers or shot them. Every day!
Ask the deniers why they shrug off the testimony of Franz Suchomel. Greg Raven will tell you that “it is not evidence…bring me some evidence, please.” Others will tell you that Suchomel and Münch were crazy, or hallucinating, or fantasizing.
But the fantasy is obviously in the minds of those who choose to ignore the mass of evidence and believe instead in a hypothetical conspiracy, supported by nothing but their imaginations.
That total lack of evidence is why the “conspiracy assumption” almost always remains an unspoken assumption. To our knowledge, there has not been one single solitary “revisionist” paper, article, speech, pamphlet, book, audiotape, videotape, or newsletter which provides any details about this supposed Jewish/Zionist conspiracy which did all the dirty work. Not one.
At best, the denial literature makes veiled references to the World Jewish Congress perpetuating a “hoax” (in Butz 1976) — no details are provided. Yet the entire case of Holocaust-denial rests on this supposed conspiracy.
As for the testimony of the survivors, which the “revisionists” claim is the only evidence, there are indeed numerous testimonies to gassings and other forms of atrocities, from Jewish inmates who survived the camps, and also from other inmates like POWs. Many of the prisoners that testified about the gassing are not Jewish, of course. Look for instance at the testimony of Polish officer Zenon Rozansky about the first homicidal gassing in Auschwitz, in which 850 Russian POWs were gassed to death, in Reitlinger, The Final Solution, p. 154:
Those who were propped against the door leant with a curious stiffness and then fell right at our feet, striking their faces hard against the concrete floor. Corpses! Corpses standing bolt upright and filling the entire corridor of the bunker, till they were packed so tight that it was impossible for more to fall.
Which of the “revisionists” will deny this? Which of them was there? Which of them has the authority to tell Rozansky what he did or did not see?
The statement that “no ‘survivor’ claims to have actually witnessed any gassing” is clearly false; this was changed to “few survivors” in later versions, which is close to the truth.
But we do not need to rely solely on testimony, from the survivors, Nazis, or otherwise. Many wartime documents, not postwar descriptions, specifically regarding gassings and other atrocities, were seized by the U.S. armed forces. Most are in the National Archives in Washington, D.C.; some are in Germany.
Regarding the gassing vans, precursors to the gas chambers, we find, for example, a top secret document from SS Untersturmführer Becker to SS Obersturmbannführer Rauff (from Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, 1946, Vol. I, pp. 999-1001):
If it has rained for instance for only one half hour, the van cannot be used because it simply skids away. It can only be used in absolutely dry weather. It is only a question now whether the van can only be used standing at the place of execution. First the van has to be brought to that place, which is possible only in good weather. …
The application of gas usually is not undertaken correctly. In order to come to an end as fast as possible, the driver presses the accelerator to the fullest extent. By doing that the persons to be executed suffer death from suffocation and not death by dozing off as was planned. My directions now have proved that by correct adjustment of the levers death comes faster and the prisoners fall asleep peacefully.
And Just wrote of the gas vans to Rauff, on June 5, 1942, in a letter marked both “top secret” and “only copy”. This is a horrific masterpiece of Nazi double-talk, referring to killing as “processing” and the victims as “subjects” and “the load.” (See Kogon, Nazi Mass Murder, 1993, pp. 228-235.)
Since December 1941, for example, 97,000 were processed using three vans, without any faults occurring in the vehicles. …
The normal capacity of the vans is nine to ten per square meter. The capacity of the larger special Saurer vans is not so great. The problem is not one of overloading but of off-road maneuverability on all terrains, which is severely diminished in this van. It would appear that a reduction in the cargo area is necessary. This can be achieved by shortening the compartment by about one meter. The problem cannot be solved by merely reducing the number of subject treated, as has been done so far. For in this case a longer running time is required, as the empty space also needs to be filled with CO [the poison exhaust gas]. …
Greater protection is needed for the lighting system. The grille should cover the lamps high enough up to make it impossible to break the bulbs. It seems that these lamps are hardly ever turned on, so the users have suggested that they could be done away with. Experience shows, however, that when the back door is closed and it gets dark inside, the load pushes hard against the door. The reason for this is that when it becomes dark inside, the load rushes toward what little light remains. This hampers the locking of the door. It has also been noticed that the noise provoked by the locking of the door is linked to the fear aroused by the darkness.
Slip-ups occurred in written correspondence regarding the gas chambers themselves, some of which, fortunately, escaped destruction and were found after the war. A memo written to SS man Karl Bischoff on November 27, 1942 describes the gas chamber in Krema II not with the usual mundane name of “Leichenkeller,” but rather as the “Sonderkeller” “special cellar.”
And two months later, on January 29, 1943, Bischoff wrote a memo to Kammler, referring to that same chamber as the “Vergasungskeller.” (See Gutman, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, 1994, pp. 223, 227.) “Vergasungskeller” means exactly what it sounds like: “gassing cellar,” an underground gas chamber.
Holocaust-deniers turn to Arthur Butz, who provides a specious explanation for the Vergasungskeller: “Vergasung,” he says, cannot refer to killing people with gas, but only to the process of converting a solid or liquid into gas. Therefore, he says the “Vergasungskeller,” must have been a special room where the fuel for the Auschwitz ovens was converted into gas — a “gasification cellar.”
There are three problems with this explanation. First, “Vergasung” certainly can refer to killing people with gas; Butz does not speak German and he should not try to lecture about the language. Second, there is no room that could possibly serve this function which Butz describes — years after writing his book, he admitted this, and helplessly suggested that there might be another building somewhere in the camp that might house a gasification cellar. Third, the type of oven used at Auschwitz did not require any gasification process! The ovens burned solid fuel. (See Gutman, op. cit., pp. 184-193.)
So what does the term “gassing cellar” refer to? Holocaust-deniers have yet to offer any believable explanation.
An inventory, again captured after the war, revealed fourteen showerheads and one gas-tight door listed for the gas chamber in Krema III. Holocaust-deniers claim that room was a morgue; they do not offer to explain what use a morgue has for showerheads and a gas-tight door. (See a photograph of the document, or Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation, 1989, pp. 231, 438.)
A memo from the Auschwitz construction office, dated March 31, 1943, says Hilberg, Documents of Destruction, 1971, pp. 207-208):
We take this occasion to refer to another order of March 6, 1943, for the delivery of a gas door 100/192 for Leichenkeller 1 of Krema III, Bw 30a, which is to be built in the manner and according to the same measure as the cellar door of the opposite Krema II, with peep hole of double 8 millimeter glass encased in rubber. This order is to be viewed as especially urgent….
Why would morgues have urgently needed peepholes made out of a double layer of third-of-an-inch-thick glass?
The question of whether it can be proved that the cyanide gas was used in the Auschwitz gas chambers has intruiged the deniers. Their much-heralded Leuchter Report, for example, expends a great deal of effort on the question of whether traces of cyanide residue remain there today. But we do not need to look for chemical traces to confirm cyanide use (Gutman, op. cit., p. 229):
Letters and telegrams exchanged on February 11 and 12  between the Zentralbauleitung and Topf mention a wooden blower for Leichenkeller 1. This reference confirms the use of the morgue as a gas chamber: Bischoff and Prüfer thought that the extraction of air mixed with concentrated prussic acid [cyanide] (20 g per cu m) required a noncorroding ventilator.
Bischoff and Prüfer turned out to be wrong, and a metal fan ended up working acceptably well. But the fact that they thought it necessary demonstrates that cyanide was to be routinely used in the rooms which deniers call morgues. (Cyanide is useless for disinfecting morgues, as it does not kill bacteria.)
Other captured documents, even if they don’t refer directly to some part of the extermination process, refer to it by implication. A captured memo to SS-Brigadeführer Kammler reveals that the expected incineration capacity of the Auschwitz ovens was a combined total of 4,756 corpses per day (see a photograph of the document or Kogon, op. cit., p. 157).
Deniers often claim that this total could not be achieved in practice (see question 45). That’s not the point. These crematoria were carefully designed, in 1942, to have sufficient capacity to dispose of 140,000 corpses per month — in a camp that housed only 125,000. We can conclude that massive deaths were predicted, indeed planned-for, as early as mid-1942. A camp designed to incinerate its full capacity of inmates every four weeks is not merely a detention center.
Finally, apart from the abundant testimonies, confessions, and physical evidence of the extermination process, there is certainly no want of evidence of the Nazis’ intentions and plans.
Here are just a few examples. Hans Frank’s diary (from Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, 1946, Vol. I, pp. 992, 994):
But what should be done with the Jews? Do you think they will be settled down in the ‘Ostland’ [eastern territories], in [resettlement] villages? This is what we were told in Berlin: Why all this bother? We can do nothing with them either in the ‘Ostland’ nor in the ‘Reichkommissariat.’ So liquidate them yourself.
Gentlemen, I must ask you to rid yourself of all feeling of pity. We must annihilate the Jews, wherever we find them and wherever it is possible, in order to maintain the structure of the Reich as a whole. …
We cannot shoot or poison these 3,500,000 Jews, but we shall nevertheless be able to take measures, which will lead, somehow, to their annihilation….
That we sentence 1,200,000 Jews to die of hunger should be noted only marginally.
Himmler’s speech at Posen on October 4, 1943 was captured on audiotape (Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1948, Vol. XXIX, p. 145, trans. by current author):
I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. This is one of those things that is easily said: “the Jewish people are being exterminated,” says every Party member, “quite true, it’s part of our plans, the elimination of the Jews, extermination, we’re doing it.”
The extermination effort was even mentioned in at least one official Nazi court verdict. In May 1943, a Munich court wrote in its decision against SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner that:
The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself.
And Hitler spoke quite clearly in public on no fewer than three occasions. On January 30, 1939, seven months before Germany invaded Poland, he spoke publicly to the Reichstag (transcribed from Skeptic magazine, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 50):
Today I want to be a prophet once more: if international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevation of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.
By the way, this last phrase is, in German, “die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa,” which German-speakers will realize is quite unambiguous.
In September, 1942:
…if Jewry should plot another world war in order to exterminate the Aryan peoples in Europe, it would not be the Aryan people which would be exterminated but Jewry…
On November 8, 1942:
You will recall the session of the Reichstag during which I declared: if Jewry should imagine that it could bring about an international world war to exterminate the European races, the result will not be the extermination of the European races, but the extermination of Jewry in Europe. People always laughed about me as a prophet. Of those who laughed then, countless numbers no longer laugh today, and those who still laugh now will perhaps no longer laugh a short time from now.
There are many other examples of documents and testimonies that could be presented.
Keep in mind that the IHR#&146;s answer to “what proof exists?” is “none.” It has certainly been demonstrated already that this pat answer is totally dishonest. And this is the main point we wish to communicate: that Holocaust-denial is dishonest.
We continue by analyzing the remaining, more-specific, claims about what evidence supposedly does not exist.
“No mounds of ashes” is an internal contradiction. In an article in the journal published by the same IHR that publishes these Q&A, the Journal’s editor reported that a Polish commission in 1946 found human ash at the Treblinka death camp to a depth of over twenty feet. This article is available on Greg Raven’s web site.
(Apparently some survivors claimed that the corpses were always thoroughly cremated. Because uncremated human remains were mixed with the ash, the editor suggested that the testimonies were false. Amazingly, he had no comment on how a twenty-foot layer of human ashes came to be there in the first place. Perhaps he felt that to be unworthy of mention.)
There are also piles of ashes at Maidanek. At Auschwitz-Birkenau, ashes from cremated corpses were dumped into the rivers and swamps surrounding the camp, and used as fertilizer for nearby farmers’ fields.
“No crematoria” capable of disposing of millions of corpses? Absolutely false, the crematoria were more than capable of the job, according to both the Nazis’ own internal memos and the testimony of survivors. Holocaust-deniers deliberately confuse civilian, funeral-home crematoria with the huge industrial ovens of the death camps. This is discussed in much detail in the replies to questions 42 and 45.
“No piles of clothes”? Apparently, the IHR considers piles of clothes to be “hard evidence”! This is strange, because they do not deny the other sorts of piles found at Nazi camps: piles of eyeglasses, piles of shoes (at Auschwitz, Belzec, and Maidanek), piles of gold teeth, piles of burned corpses, piles of unburned corpses, piles of artificial limbs (see Swiebocka, Auschwitz: A History in Photographs, 1993, p. 210), piles of human hair (ibid, p. 211), piles of ransacked luggage (ibid, p. 213), piles of shaving-brushes (ibid, p. 215), piles of combs (ibid), piles of pots and pans (ibid), and yes, even the piles of clothes (ibid, p. 214) that the IHR claims do not exist.
Perhaps the authors of the 66 Q&A realized that it was dangerous for them to admit that these piles were hard evidence, because then they would also be forced to admit a number of other things as “hard evidence.” Perhaps this is why they removed this phrase from the revised 66 Q&A.
If items were not generally found in mass quantities, it is only because the Nazis distributed them to the German population. A memo on this was captured, revealing that they even redistributed women’s underwear.
“No human soap”? This is true, but misleading. Though there is some evidence that soap was made from corpses on a very limited experimental scale, the rumored “mass production” was never done, and no soap made from human corpses is known to exist. However, there is sworn testimony, never refuted, from British POWs and a German army official, stating that soap experiments were performed, and the recipe for the soap was captured by the Allies. To state flatly that the Nazis did not make soap from human beings is incorrect.
“No lamp shades made of human skin?” False — lampshades and other human-skin “ornaments” were introduced as evidence in both trials of Ilse Koch, and were shown to a U.S. Senate investigation committee in the late 40s. We know they were made of human skin because they bore tattoos, and because a microscopic forensic analysis of the items was performed. (A detailed page on this is being prepared.)
“No records”? This is nonsense (which may explain why this claim was removed from the “revised” versions of the 66 Q&A). True, extermination by gassing was always referred to with code-words, and those victims who arrived at death camps only to be immediately gassed were not recorded in any books. But there are slip-ups in the code-word usage that reveal the true meanings, as already described. There are inventories and requisitions for the Krema which reveal items anomalous with ordinary use but perfect for mass homicidal gassing. There are deportation train records which, pieced together, speak clearly. And so on. Several examples have been given above.
“No credible demographic statistics”? This is the second internal contradiction — see question 2 and question 15. The Anglo-American committee who studied the issue estimated the number of Jewish victims at 5.7 million. This was based on population statistics. Here is the exact breakdown, country by country:
Germany – 195,000
Austria – 53,000
Czechoslovakia – 255,000
Denmark – 1,500
France – 140,000
Belgium – 57,000
Luxemburg – 3,000
Norway – 1,000
Holland – 120,000
Italy – 20,000
Yugoslavia – 64,000
Greece – 64,000
Bulgaria – 5,000
Romania – 530,000
Hungary – 200,000
Poland – 3,271,000
USSR – 1,050,000
Total Number Jews Killed – 5,721,500
(This estimate was arrived at using population statistics, and not by adding the number of casualties at each camp. These are also available — for instance, a separate file with the ruling of a German court regarding the number of victims in Treblinka is available. The SS kept rather accurate records, and many of the documents survived, reinforced by eyewitness accounts).
Some estimates are lower, some are higher, but this is the magnitude in question. In an article in CMU’s student newspaper, the head of CMU’s History Department, Peter Stearns, is quoted as saying that newly discovered documents — especially in the former USSR — indicate that the number of victims is higher than six million. Other historians claim not much over five million. The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust uses 5,596,000 as a minimum and 5,860,000 as a maximum (Gutman, 1990, p. 1799).
“Revisionists” often claim, correctly, that the burden of proof is on historians. The proof, of course, has been a matter of public record since late 1945, and is available in libraries around the world. The burden has been met, many, many times over. You’ve just seen a brief presentation of some of the highlights of that immense body of proof; much more is readily available.
To even argue that the Holocaust never happened is ludicrous. To claim straight-faced that none of this proof even exists is beyond ludicrous, and it is a clear example of “revisionist” dishonesty.
- If Dachau was in Germany and even Simon Wiesenthal says that it was not an extermination camp, why do thousands of veterans in America say that it was an extermination camp?
- Auschwitz was in Poland, not Germany. Is there any proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz?
Trivializing the Holocaust; Blaming the Jews
- How did German concentration camps differ from American relocation camps which interned Japanese-, German- and Italian-Americans during WWII?
The Fate of the Jews
- If Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, why did the commandant, Rudolf Hoss, confess that it was?
- Is there any evidence that it was American, British, French, and Soviet policy to torture German prisoners in order to exact confessions before the trials at Nuremberg and elsewhere?
- Auschwitz commandant Hoss said that his men would enter the gas chamber ten minutes after the Jews had died and remove them. How do you explain this?
- Hoss said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after gassing. Isn’t Zyklon-B explosive?
- If Jews scheduled for execution knew the fate in store for them, why did they go to their death without fight or protest?
- Many Jewish survivors of the “death camps” say they saw bodies being piled up in pits and burned. How much gasoline would have to be used to perform this?
- “Holocaust” authors claim that the Nazis were able to cremate bodies in about 10 minutes. How long does it take to incinerate one body according to professional crematory operators?
- Given a 100% duty cycle of all the crematoria in all the camps in German-controlled territory, what is the maximum number of corpses it would have been possible to incinerate during the entire period such crematoria were in operation?
- Do Allied wartime photos of Auschwitz (during the period when the “gas chambers” and crematoria were supposed to be in full operation) reveal gas chambers?
Trivializing Anti-Jewish Laws
- What was the role of the Vatican during the time the six million Jews were alleged to have been exterminated?
- What about the numerous photographs and footage taken in the German concentration camps showing piles of emaciated corpses? Are these faked?
- About how many books have been published which refute some aspect of the standard claims made about the “Holocaust”?
- What happened when a historical institute offered $50,000 to anyone who could prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz?
- Has the IHR suffered any retaliation for its efforts to uphold the right of freedom of speech and academic freedom?
- Where can I get more information about the “other side” of the “Holocaust” story as well as facts concerning other areas of WWII Historical Revisionism?
Revisionist Germar Rudolf
Sent by yurki1000
3/15/2016 6:29 PM
As I understand Germar Rudolf was captured because he needed answers.
“Germar Rudolf is a scientist dissident who was recently torn from his young wife and baby in the United States and extradited to his native Germany to stand trial for a scientific investigation of Auschwitz, the best-selling Rudolf Report. “
Over My Dead Body
March 22, 2012
The following is a letter I wrote on August 27, 2006, as a response to a question asked by Israel Shamir. I had received Shamir’s inquiry via a third person while sitting in a German prison for my peaceful historical views. If I remember correctly, Shamir had asked me, why I am so interested in WWII history and what compelled me to voice my opinions in spite of the government persecution which it triggered.
It is astounding that this my letter, which Shamir received and published online, made its way out of the German prison in the first place. Usually, letters from political prisoners with such highly charged, political content get confiscated by the prison censors, but since it was written in English, and because the German authorities are notoriously short of staff capable of reading foreign languages, my foreign language correspondence (English, French, Spanish) seems to have never been censored by anyone. So here we go:
I can not only understand Mr. Shamir’s disinterest in WWII as such, I actually share it. For some reason people think that WWII is a main focus of my intellectual interest because I got my life entangled in Holocaust studies.
The truth is that I never cared for the history of any war as such. I do have an interest in understanding how and why wars get to be, the intrigues, schemes, lies, and propaganda used by all sides to justify it, and of course how this propaganda is afterwards maintained by the victorious side. People keep sending me books on WWII history into prison, and after reading just one of them – a study of Patton’s campaigns, which was also the first book I ever read on battle history – I decided that this is quite enough. I didn’t touch any of the others that were sent my way and put the general message out to put a stop to that. I must admit that I do have a friend whose entire life centers around WWII, as he is a book dealer with the sole focus on WWII. Although he has thousands of titles on the topic and is quite an expert, we never talk about WWII when we meet, and I also never looked into – or received – a book of his collection, nor did I ever ask.
Holocaust propaganda is an ideological issue, not a historical one. I never focused on the actual aspects of persecution of minorities, Jewish or not, during WWII. It’s not a pleasant topic, nor is there a need to deal with it, as there are plenty of scholars worldwide who make a profitable business out of doing nothing else but this.
No, it’s propaganda – prewar, wartime, and postwar propaganda – I am interested in, and how to distinguish it from reality.
I could very briefly answer to the question what makes me tick by pointing to my respective essay I wrote back in 1995/96 and which I have added as an appendix to my expert report, which can be read online at (www.vho.org/GB/b/trr) in HTML format or as pdf at (www.vho.org/dl/ENG/trr.pdf)
That is, at age 18 (!), where my newly awakened interest in history started: The expulsion of 12 million Germans from East Germany and Eastern Europe. At age 18-23 I was a very patriotic German, still within the mainstream – I thought – yet at the right edge of it. This started to fade slowly later, for one thing due to stress during my university studies, but also because it became boring.
I never touched upon the Holocaust topic in any of those years. The usual claims about it seemed indubitable, undeniable to me, truth chiseled in stone, self-evident.
This changed in 1989 by pure accident, as I was handed a book written by Paul Rassinier, a former communist, partisan fighter against the German occupation in France during WWII, and eventually inmate in Buchenwald and Dora concentration camps. I probably would never have allowed any German to raise doubts within me about the prevailing view on the Holocaust, because I would have suspected him of bias and self-interest, but a Communist, Partisan-fighter, former inmate? He opened my eyes and allowed doubts.
Not more, just doubts. But that was enough to trigger a chain reaction, because I obviously had been raised in my German society to feel guilty if I doubt the truth in this regard. I actually did feel guilty for doubting, and that made me mad, because it contradicted everything I was taught: question authorities, don’t take paradigms at face value, criticism is noble, and all the other ideals of the enlightenment.
Now that they have destroyed my life, I’ll have no other way but to prove that I’m right, and the fact that more and more historians change sides – for now behind the scenes only, but that’ll change – and that these powers that be get increasingly frantic is proof enough for me that it’s working.
The postwar and the New World Order were erected on the Holocaust, and together with it, they’ll come down. But that’s not important, because it’ll come down anyway, if only because they ruin the planet and drive world economics against the wall.
For me it’s simple: I am sure I’m right, and unless one convinces me with rational, scientific arguments that I am wrong, I am not going to give in. If you like the comparison, I am kind of a human intellectual pit-bull terrier, and they made the mistake to provoke the blood out of me by persecuting me.
That’s it. No negotiations any more. It’s me or them now.
My father didn’t manage to break me with stick, whip, fists or by using me as a missile, and so they won’t break my will with violence either. It only gets stronger with every beating.
That’s my personality: a contrarian with enormous will power, stubbornness, if need be, when not reason is used to talk to me but brute force. Pressure causes counter pressure. In this way I am a simple physical principle. Here is my human right to doubt, research, scrutinize, disagree, dispute, refute, challenge, question. The only way to take this away from me is by killing me. Period.
And that is the strongest motivation: Anybody who punishes me for merely exercising my human right of being a human = a creature able to doubt and explore, will meet my utmost unbreakable resistance. I won’t allow anybody to reduce me to a submissive slave. Nobody.
Israel Shamir commented my letter as follows:
“In my view, Holocaust approval is an approval of Jewish superiority and exclusivity, while Holocaust denial is a rejection of this exclusivity claim, and thus a duty of non-racist and/or a Christian. Germar Rudolf is a scientist dissident who was recently torn from his young wife and baby in the United States and extradited to his native Germany to stand trial for a scientific investigation of Auschwitz, the best-selling Rudolf Report. Born in 1964, he is one of the youngest high-profile Revisionists who came out of the post-war generation – young folks as a rule brutally brain-washed with conventional Holocaust lore. Germar, as we know, is different.”
104: An Introduction to Historical Revisionism
In the following text you will find the questions which are most frequently asked about Holocaust Revisionism. You will find my answers by simply clicking on the question. I also have a leaflet for free download which summarizes Holocaust Revisionism in a nutshell. This is the good flyer for a brief introduction and as a handout to others. I wish you a lot of worthwhile discoveries while browsing through the following page.
Questions and Answers
- Does it matter how many Jews were killed during the Third Reich since even one thousand would have been too many?
If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask.
- What is revisionism?
The word “Revisionism” is derived from the Latin word “revidere,” which means to view again. The revision of long held theories is entirely normal. It occurs in the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, to which the discipline of history belongs. Science is not a static condition. It is a process, specifically the creating of knowledge by searching for evidence. When ongoing research finds new evidence, or when critical researchers discover mistakes in old explanations, it often happens that old theories have to be changed or even abandoned.
By “Revisionism” we mean critically examining established theories and hypotheses in order to test their validity. Scientists need to know when new evidence modifies or contradicts old theories; indeed, one of their main obligations is to test time-honored conceptions and attempt to refute them. Only in an open society in which individuals are free to challenge prevailing theories can we ascertain the validity of these theories, and be confident that we are approaching the truth. For a fuller discussion of this, the reader should acquaint himself with the essay by Dr. C. Nordbruch in the Neuer Zürcher Zeitung of 12 June 1999.
- Why is Historical revisionism important?
Like other scientific concepts, our historical concepts are subject to critical consideration. This is especially true when new evidence is discovered. We must constantly re-examine historical theories, particularly in case:
- We are dealing with events which occurred in the far distant past. In this case our problem is that we have very little evidence on which to base our theories.
- We are dealing with events which occurred in the recent past. In this case, our problem is that we must contend with political influence, which derives from these events.
When we are dealing with the distant past, even a small piece of new evidence can profoundly change our views. As for the recent past, the truism “the victor writes the history of the war” still holds; and victor is hardly ever objective. Revision of victor-history is usually not possible until the confrontation between victor and vanquished has ceased to exist; and sometimes these confrontations last for centuries. Since historiography has negligible monetary significance, almost all historical institutes are financed by their respective governments. Free and independent historical institutes are practically nonexistent. In contemporary history, in which individual governments have huge political interests, we must be skeptical toward the official historiography. Another truism reminds us that “he who pays the piper, calls the tune.” These reasons explain why Historical Revisionism is important and why the rulers of the world tend to oppose it.
Holocaust Deprogramming (It Just Never Happened)
Posted by Joseph Pede
March 14, 2016 10:10 pm
Joseph Pede Poetry
“Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers… or seek to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument.”
— ‘Guidelines for Teaching about the Holocaust’ at the Stockholm International Forum, 2000
“One should not ask, how this mass murder was made possible. It was technically possible, because it happened. This has to be the obligatory starting-point for any historical research regarding this topic. We would just like to remind you: There is no debate regarding the existence of the gas chambers, and there can never be one.”
— “34 reputable historians” published in the prominent French daily Le Monde on February 21, 1979
Free yourself from a lifetime of Holo-brainwashing about “Six Million” Jews “gassed” in “Gas Chambers Disguised as Shower Rooms” —
An Introduction to Holocaust Revisionism
“The Holocaust is a deeply anchored belief even in people who know very little about it. We can see that not only does disbelief in the Holocaust myth threaten modern Jewish identity as shaped by political Zionism, but for others it brings into question the credibility of those in authority who told everyone it was true: the state, the churches, the schools, and media of every kind. These sources are the same ones people trust and depend on every day for information. If these trusted authorities are wrong about the Holocaust, what else are they wrong about? What other dishonesties are they promoting?”
– John Weir, The Holocaust as Myth: Betraying the Public Trust
VIDEOS & DOCUMENTARIES
The ‘Gas Chambers’ not demonstrated at the Nuremberg Tribunal This is a bi-lingual video from Vincent Reynouard. The narration is in French, with English sub-titles. At Nuremberg, the existence of the “gas chambers” was never demonstrated.
HOLOCAUST Handbook Series, Vol. 2
The Rudolf Report
Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects
of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz
This Expert Report–online version– is dedicated to Ernst Zündel who, at the time when this document was released, was held in jail as a result of his dissenting historical views.
Still. I’m no specialist. Simply I try be an open-minded person.
Holocaust Denial is Antisemitic
John R. Houk
© March 18, 2016
Holocaust Denial: How to Refute Holocaust Denial
Copyright © 2016 American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise
Revisionist Germar Rudolf
Edited by John R. Houk
Links sent by Yurki1000