Everyone should be watching developments in Israel

The Righterzpen · Aug 12, 2019

Nige55 said:
WOW, still struggling to get past the first point ?? Still ? I'll say it again- NO !! -
"Does not the main thrust of the conventional holocaust narrative state that the vast majority of these 6 million deaths occurred in gas chambers? That is the claim set forth by the historians who support this narrative - is it not?
- NO ! NO ! It's not !! If you don't understand that about WW2, then I think you need to start from the beginning ! I've ALREADY stated that you will not find any statements claiming this - it's one of the first things we learn !
"So again, I present you with the question of: If the majority did not die in gas chambers; how did they die? (That would leave you to invent a second narrative that conventional holocaust historians do not claim.)" -
- 'INVENT' ?? - Have you not even read any material on WW2 ? Do you really think that the claim is that the Jews were ONLY killed in the gas chambers ? Dear Lord ! For starters, the killing of the Jews was spread across the following countries - Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Belgium, Luxemburg, Norway, Holland, Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland,
USSR - not all locations of Concentration camps and death camps. I'll let you ponder that one yourself.

Next- "One of the interesting facts that history has referenced is that very few of the German generation who actually lived through the 1930's will "confess" to the conventional holocaust narrative." - Why do you think that is ? I'll give you a hint, even the Jews were convinced that they were valued, - as labour. I have personally spoken to Germans who have lived through it, - most have a hard time considering what was done to the Germans themselves, they can barely face the guilt of what the Jews (and others) faced). Most of them didn't actually know the full extent, many buried their heads in the sand. I can still see families I know struggle with it now.

Next- "And I came to the conclusion that they were correct. If there is no forensic evidence; to ask if a crime was actually committed is a legitimate question!" -
-Dead bodies are usually a good starting point as evidence. I'm sure they have them on CSI too

"I'm 48 years old. I'm not "the YouTube generation."" - Oh yes you are. I'm just a few years younger, and I definitely am, as are most of a similar age.

"What I did with those statistics is commonly done in statistical analysis. And if you are unaware of that; maybe you need to go look that up too." -
- In order for statistical analysis to be reliable, sound evidence - the people collecting and processing the data need to factor in contextual factors, and not go by sweeping assumptions. Exactly as you have done. Instead of having had the humility to ask more, - you jump to assumptions and make your conclusions from incomplete evidence. Case in point - I stated that my Friends Great Grandfather had killed approx. 240,000 mentally ill people across Germany. You assumed that these people were simply the people actually in mental institutions in Germany at that time. It's very surface analysis.

"Well, again; what you're saying doesn't make sense. If your whole family and village was barbarically massacred by the Germans during the war; there'd be no genealogical records to look up to "verify" their deaths. If that's what really happened; the best you could conclude is that they are in a mass grave somewhere. Yet the archeological evidence that is surfacing today is that the majority of mass graves they are finding are not full of Jews; but German civilians."

OK, how so ? Why woukld you conclude that ? Why would there be no records ? (By the way, 'whole' doesn't mean 100% ;-) ).
The last sentence of that - you're not seriously suggesting that the bodies being found across Europe and Eastern Europe are not actually the bodies of the people that lived there, but instead the bodies of Germans who were, presumably - transported there ?? And you got this from a Netflix 'documentary' ?

"Your family changed their name when they left Eastern Europe - why; (probably because they cooperated with the Germans - which is usually the reason. And I don't want anyone to find out my family history because they might come after me for war crimes! Whether I committed them or not!)
The winners write the history books and sometimes the "winners" are actually the war criminals!"

And here we go, the conspiracy narrative. 'They cooperated with the Germans!!' "It's usually the reason"! - A flimsy, whimsical statement. I'll help you out here - (it's much simpler that you'd think) - names were very often changed for 2 reasons,
1). Good old basic linguistics. Upon arriving, they were asked their names, which were written and recorded by English speakers - they would write then name as they heard it, or often changed it to a simplified or anglicised form of the name. This was then extend further in work & employment, especially given the numbers arriving of people who's names no one could say of spell.
You're example of Alaskan natives is similar in concept, however in the case of post WW2, education doesn't trump linguistic leaps.
This was certainly the case of many/ most of those arriving in Scotland for example.
2). To give their families the best chance possible. To give their kids a break from the ties of WW2 connections, to give them a more level playing field. I know many Korean families in Japan who took the same approach. In many cases, it's was also an emotional clean slate, as still to this day, many Jews struggle to face the horrors that they survived, but their families didn't.
Sure, there will have been some who took this route for the reasons you stated, but it's pretty audacious to level that at my family when you know zero about them, and I have substantial research.

The 'winners' in WW2 were not the Jews, they were the survivors. They were in no position to pressure, coerce or force the Nazis on trial into claiming responsibility for crimes they did not commit.
Some of those on trial over the decades not only claimed responsibility for the atrocities, but wish they had carried out more. Alois Brunner is a clear example of this, he wished he had murdered more Jews !
Your conclusions have the daunting task of facing the thousands of documents & records collected and compiled by the IMT, with input from 23 different countries. I'm not sure I'd bank on CSI and Netflix to counter that research, but that's just me.

Well, apparently you don't grasp the points I'm making and I am not going to convince you; so there's no point in discussing this any further.

If you are going to convince me; that will require hard evidence! I don't care what people "say" happened. Not all of what people claim happened is true!

As per the "6 million gassed" number according to every source of the conventional holocaust story; they claim 6 million Jews were killed in camps. Some sources claim 11 million people were killed in camps. Some claim 2 million were shot.

Yet, the bulk of deaths is still claimed to be due to gassing in camps. Yet if there is no forensic evidence that the "gas chambers" were actually used as gas chambers; than how were in excess of 4 million people gassed? You have yet to answer that question with solid documentation from the war itself.

As to your objection with my use of comparative statistics between the US and Germany; your objection would be valid if I was comparing Britain and Japan. The US and Germany though are almost as closely culturally related as the US and the UK; as the second largest segment of the American population is of German ethnicity. So there would be no reason to conclude that the per capita numbers of Germans confined to asylums would be that much higher (more than two times higher according to the alleged numbers that this friend of yours grandfather allegedly personally killed?) as the per capita percentages of the US are mere 30 years earlier.

Now I did some number crunching for you to illustrate a point:

Let's say 1938-1945 is 7 years.
7 years is 2555 days.
So if one were to kill 240,000 mentally ill people in institutions in a 7 year period. That would require one to kill 93.99 people a day (94 people).
Which equates to 4 people an hour around the clock for 7 years!

It takes about 2.5 hours in today's modern computer controlled crematoriums to cremate one body. Bodies are only cremated one at a time. That is true today and it was true in WWII. Cremation temp used today is about 1800 degrees Fahrenheit using liquid fuel. Concentration camp crematoriums never got that hot because they were using Coke (derived from coal) as fuel. 2.5 hours does not include down time for maintenance of the system. "Cool down time" is at least an hour. So one modern cremation unit could cremate 7 bodies a day if it was run around the clock; never being shut down for maintenance. (How likely do you really believe that would be?)

So in order for your friend's grandfather to kill 93 people a day; means that where ever he went, he'd have to have an average of 13 cremation chambers in close proximity running non stop to cremate 93 people a day.

Almost 3 million people a year die in the US of a population of 300 million. About 50% of them are cremated. That's 1.5 million people to cremate a year. There are about 2100 creameries operating in the US today which cremate about 714 bodies each a year. That's roughly 2 bodies a day.

There were roughly 20 main concentration camps run by the Germans. Auschwitz was the largest, and it's entire complex (housing some 20,000 people at max capacity) had 46 individual cremation chambers.

Allegedly 4200 people a day were killed at Auschwitz. This means that each cremation chamber would have had to cremate 93 people a day. That's mathematically impossible.

To have cremated 4200 people a day would have required 600 cremation chambers running around the clock non stop at 7 bodies a day.

So thus yes: I still firmly believe you just flat out made those "mentally ill deaths" numbers up!

The Nuremberg trials were all "hearsay evidence". All of the convictions were based on "eye witness testimony".

Matter of fact, much of what was alleged to be presented as "material evidence" mysteriously "disappeared" before the trial. Like "evidence" of people being made into soap and lamp shades made out of human skin, shrunken heads etc. All of which were "facts alleged" at the end of the war which have all now proven to be debunked.

"Testimony" from people like Brunner and Eichmann was obtained both post war and under duress. The allies starved millions of German soldiers who surrendered because Eisenhower refused to acknowledge them as POW's; thus mandating particular protocols for the treatment of POW's set up by the Geneva convention.

They beat confessions out of people because they had no evidence to present from a documentation stand point. Again the allies had all the "chatter" coming out of Germany. They had the reconnaissance photos. None of what had been collected during the war; supported that narrative.

Matter of fact, if you actually read some of the "testimony" from the Nuremberg trails; it's ridiculous and some of it is down right bizarre. They allegedly "steamed" Jews to death. They chased Jews up trees and cut down the trees so all these people would die. LOL They first tried to "gas" people with diesel exhaust from a captured Russian sub; (which the Russians didn't even have subs at that time in the war - and besides diesel exhaust creates CO2, which is in no way lethal. We exhale CO2!).

As per CSI and "dead bodies". A dead body does not prove a murder. If all the dead bodies to be found have been proven to have died of Typhus; that's not gassing; that's not murder.

I will acknowledge that you are correct on one point. In times of mass immigration; the US authorities did shorten people's names on ledgers of (for example); who was coming from what area, off of which boat upon entrance.

They did shorten my Great Grandfather's name from Mackovetski (or something of that semblance) to "Mack". But that didn't mean one had to keep the shortened form; nor did it mean that people like my GGF did not know how to spell their own sir name.

My GGF opted to keep the shortened name because he was of the belief that now that he was in America, he was American. Once he learned English he refused to speak Polish. My mother stated that she remembered conversations between he and her grandmother where she'd speak in Polish, he'd respond in English, she's respond in Polish, he'd respond in English and they'd carry on conversation like that. They both knew both languages; but according to mom, GG never felt very confident of her use of English, so she always opted to speak Polish when she could. They came in through Ellis Island which I know was some time before WWI, because my grandmother who I believe was the oldest surviving child; was born in the US in 1913.

As far as ethnic Germans living in Eastern Europe. The countries in Eastern Europe didn't exist as independent "ethnic identifiers" until after WWI. Prior to that, they'd always been part of other larger empires; one of which was the Germanic empire. So yes, ethnic Germans had been living in Eastern Europe for centuries. (Just like Poland had been predominately Roman Catholic for centuries!)

So no! No one "imported" people from Germany just to kill them and put them in mass graves. There was a lot of "ethnic cleansing" going on from the late 20's through WWII. The most noted of which was Stalin in the Ukraine. If you want to look for millions murdered and their killers, look at the Soviet Union!

Have a nice day.

Nige55 · Aug 13, 2019

The Righterzpen said:
If you are going to convince me; that will require hard evidence! I don't care what people "say" happened. Not all of what people claim happened is true!

As per the "6 million gassed" number according to every source of the conventional holocaust story; they claim 6 million Jews were killed in camps. Some sources claim 11 million people were killed in camps. Some claim 2 million were shot.

Yet, the bulk of deaths is still claimed to be due to gassing in camps. Yet if there is no forensic evidence that the "gas chambers" were actually used as gas chambers; than how were in excess of 4 million people gassed? You have yet to answer that question with solid documentation from the war itself.

Until you actually face for yourself the fact that the evidence and trials were not based on only verbal accounts, but also thousands of written accounts and documents (much of which from the Germans themselves), then I'm wasting even more time.
It's amazing that you stick to a first premise that I have corrected 3 times now, and yet you still make claims that even basic Wiki could straighten out. I really suggest reading and looking up the breakdown of the numbers, the breakdown of killing methods, the geographical spread just for starters.
Maybe it would help to know who 'they' are, as you've never stated where this supposed consensus came from, or who the 'some claim' are. Going by mainstream sources, you will clearly see that they put the numbers killed in the extermination camps at over just over 3 million, and this includes mass shootings, gas vans, and a large percentage of carbon monoxide chambers. Deaths outside of the camps came from mass shootings, pogroms, einsatzgruppen, and other areas of concentration such as the Warsaw Ghetto. Both Jewish and secular mainstream sources are consistent with their figures, and you can look them up. And you really should, because you're beating the drum to a song that no one is singing.

Good day.

The Righterzpen · Aug 13, 2019

Nige55 said:
but also thousands of written accounts and documents (much of which from the Germans themselves),

Send me Internet links that show these alleged documents that you claim exit from during the war; and I will believe you! I will even issue you a public apology. Show me the evidence!

(PS - I can also speak and read German. So you don't have to worry about me not understanding the documents.)

Nige55 said:
yet you still make claims that even basic Wiki could straighten out.

The numbers I quoted you of the conventional holocaust narrative came from Wikipedia!

Nige55 said:
Maybe it would help to know who 'they' are, as you've never stated where this supposed consensus came from, or who the 'some claim' are.

The "they" of the numbers I quoted you were also from US national holocaust museum. (But it doesn't surprise me because I've noticed at this point that you mix things up and don't seem to read very carefully what was actually written!)

Nige55 said:
they put the numbers killed in the extermination camps at over just over 3 million, and this includes mass shootings, gas vans, and a large percentage of carbon monoxide chambers. Deaths outside of the camps came from mass shootings, pogroms, einsatzgruppen, and other areas of concentration such as the Warsaw Ghetto. Both Jewish and secular mainstream sources are consistent with their figures, and you can look them up.

So now your saying the total numbers killed were 3 million? What happened to the 6 million? You are now saying something different than "they" are. (Note the news paper articles below quote the 6 million number.)

Are you becoming a revisionist! WOW!

Nige55 said:
And you really should, because you're beating the drum to a song that no one is singing.

Holocaust revisionism is a growing field of study.

31% of Americans believe less than 2 million Jews were killed in WWII. 41% of millennials (18-34 y.o.) believe less than 2 million Jews were killed in WWII.

Holocaust Is Fading From Memory, Survey Finds

19% of British people surveyed believe less than 2 million Jews were killed in WWII. 45% of Brits say they don't know how many Jews were killed in WWII.

One in 20 denies Holocaust took place

The Internet is the leveler of many things.

"And you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free"
Jesus Christ

Nige55 · Aug 14, 2019

The Righterzpen said:
The numbers I quoted you of the conventional holocaust narrative came from Wikipedia!

So now your saying the total numbers killed were 3 million? What happened to the 6 million? You are now saying something different than "they" are. (Note the news paper articles below quote the 6 million number.)

Dear Lord ! Let me help you -
The Holocaust
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Between 1941 and 1945, across German-occupied Europe, Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews, around two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population.[a][c] The murders were carried out in pogroms and mass shootings; by a policy of extermination through labour in concentration camps; and in gas chambers and gas vans in German extermination camps, chiefly Auschwitz, Bełżec, Chełmno, Majdanek, Sobibór, and Treblinka in occupied Poland.[5]

And from - Extermination camp - Wikipedia
Death toll[edit]
The estimated total number of people executed in the Nazi extermination camps in the table below is over three million:

Camp Estimated
deaths Operational Occupied territory Current country of location Primary means for mass killings
Auschwitz–Birkenau 1,100,000 [68] May 1940 – January 1945 Province of Upper Silesia Poland Zyklon B gas chambers
Treblinka 800,000 [69] 23 July 1942 – 19 October 1943 General Government district Poland Carbon monoxide gas chambers
Bełżec 600,000 [70] 17 March 1942 – end of June 1943 General Government district Poland Carbon monoxide gas chambers
Chełmno 320,000 [71] 8 December 1941 – March 1943,
June 1944 – 18 January 1945 District of Reichsgau Wartheland Poland Carbon monoxide vans
Sobibór 250,000[72] 16 May 1942 – 17 October 1943 General Government district Poland Carbon monoxide gas chambers
Majdanek at least 80,000 [73] 1 October 1941 – 22 July 1944 General Government district Poland Zyklon B gas chambers
Maly Trostinets 65,000 [74] Middle of 1941 to 28 June 1944 Reichskommissariat Ostland Belarus Mass shootings, gas van[75]
Sajmište 23,000 [76] 28 October 1941 – July 1944 Independent State of Croatia Serbia Carbon monoxide van
Total 3,115,000 – 3,215,000 [77][78]

"So now your saying the total numbers killed were 3 million? What happened to the 6 million?"

- Please go back and actually READ what I wrote, In fact I'll quote myself from post #182-
"you will clearly see that they put the numbers killed in the extermination camps at over just over 3 million" I then went on to list the killings that happened outside of the camps totalling the approx. 6 million.

:doh:

I'm not even going near the outlandish insinuation that the thousands of German documents collected by the IMT did not originate from during the war - presumably faked during the 2 months after the war but before the trails by .... ?

Nige55 · Aug 14, 2019

Apologies to the OP for diverging off from the original post & topic

The Righterzpen · Aug 14, 2019

Nige55 said:
Going by mainstream sources, you will clearly see that they put the numbers killed in the extermination camps at over just over 3 million, and this includes mass shootings, gas vans, and a large percentage of carbon monoxide chambers.

"Carbon monoxide chamber" and "gas vans" were not alleged to be used "in the camps" though. So, your original post here is a bit ambiguous.

Nige55 said:
"you will clearly see that they put the numbers killed in the extermination camps at over just over 3 million" I then went on to list the killings that happened outside of the camps totalling the approx. 6 million.

I will admit that I do now see a distinction that you were trying to make between what was alleged to have happened "in camp" and what was alleged to have happened "outside of camps". But the fact that you mixed together some of the elements between the two in that explanation; clouded what you were trying to say.

The 6 million figure though is what was originally claimed to have happened "in the camps". At one point, allegedly 4 million were claimed to have been killed in Auschwitz alone. (They changed the sign in the early 90's.)

The alleged reason for the change is stated as they realized "oopse that's 3 million too many" Now changing the story that the 4 million number included Poles. (So what, they killed 1 million Jews and 3 million Poles?) Because now the alleged number is like 999,999. Jews. ?????? So what; they didn't kill any Poles; or are we now not counting the 3 million Poles first alleged to be killed?

From a "political" stand point; the argument used to be that "Well, most of the gassings happened in the eastern camps; not the western ones." But when the Soviet Union fell apart and the Iron Curtain fell, suddenly this allegation was open to scrutiny.

And thus - wha-la - the numbers "in the camps" keep being adjusted "down" as the decades pass.

So.... we have "gas chambers" that were never "used as gas chambers" and no forensic evidence to prove there ever were gas chambers.

We now have the allegation that "Well, the Nazis killed more Jews 'in the field' through ghettos, shootings, and "progroms" (Progroms by the way was a pre-WWII allegation against primarily Czarist Russia (and Iran).)

Yet now that people are excavating these mass graves, they are finding they aren't Jews at all. The mass graves are full of either indigenous ethnic Germans, or indigenous people period (like in the Ukraine.) So consequently, governments in Eastern Europe are now changing their war memorials from "holocaust memorials" to general casualties of WWII monuments. Which is upsetting people claiming "They are not remembering the Jewish suffering!"

Is this due to the fact that they are coming to the conclusion that they eventually will have to admit that none of this was true in the first place? Jews were not over represented as a targeted population to be "genocide(ed)" in WWII at all. Yeah, Jews died; and there certainly was a lot of discrimination and "anti-Semitism" in the world in the 1930's; but there was discrimination against many other groups and lots of people died.

Plaques Changed at Auschwitz-Birkenau

Nige55 said:
I'm not even going near the outlandish insinuation that the thousands of German documents collected by the IMT did not originate from during the war - presumably faked during the 2 months after the war but before the trails by .... ?

You don't even have to "go near it". If it was really there; it would be on the Internet and you could very easily prove your point. If the IMT had actually produced verifiable documents from the war; this would have been dead a long time ago. Yet, they didn't. And four 70 years revisionists have been saying "Show me the documents from during the war! And they have yet to materialize.

Go watch the Nuremberg trials yourself. They are on YouTube (even in their entirety)! (Gotta love the .... dam... Internet!) They do not produce any material documentation that was generated by the German leadership during the war. They produce "eye witness testimony" and confessions that were coerced from camp staff.

The first argument concerning documents was "The Germans destroyed them all". Yet allies, you have the reconnaissance photos and you have the chatter coming out of Germany during the war, with no evidence of a systematic genocide going on there. Plus you have all the "hard copies" captured after the war. Nothing there either!

The second argument was "Well, the Soviets have it all." Well since the Soviet Union has collapsed; I guess the Soviets didn't have it! And so we all sit and wait for documentation to materialize. And while we wait; more and more people come to the conclusion that it never existed in the first place!

The Internet is the leveler of many things!

Nige55 · Aug 15, 2019

The Righterzpen said:
We now have the allegation that "Well, the Nazis killed more Jews 'in the field' through ghettos, shootings, and "progroms" (Progroms by the way was a pre-WWII allegation against primarily Czarist Russia (and Iran).)

Is this due to the fact that they are coming to the conclusion that they eventually will have to admit that none of this was true in the first place? Jews were not over represented as a targeted population to be "genocide(ed)" in WWII at all. Yeah, Jews died; and there certainly was a lot of discrimination and "anti-Semitism" in the world in the 1930's; but there was discrimination against many other groups and lots of people died.

Plaques Changed at Auschwitz-Birkenau

You don't even have to "go near it". If it was really there; it would be on the Internet and you could very easily prove your point. If the IMT had actually produced verifiable documents from the war; this would have been dead a long time ago. Yet, they didn't. And four 70 years revisionists have been saying "Show me the documents from during the war! And they have yet to materialize.

Go watch the Nuremberg trials yourself. They are on YouTube (even in their entirety)! (Gotta love the .... dam... Internet!) They do not produce any material documentation that was generated by the German leadership during the war. They produce "eye witness testimony" and confessions that were coerced from camp staff.

The first argument concerning documents was "The Germans destroyed them all". Yet allies, you have the reconnaissance photos and you have the chatter coming out of Germany during the war, with no evidence of a systematic genocide going on there. Plus you have all the "hard copies" captured after the war. Nothing there either!

The Internet is the leveler of many things!

Ok, firstly, you haven't even bothered to subtract 3,115,000 or 3,215,000 from 6,000,000, - it's less than 3,000,000. Meaning the numbers killed outside of the extermination camps was SLIGHTLY LESS than those who died in the camps, not more. That is not hard to understand.

Secondly, - "Jews were not over represented as a targeted population to be "genocide(ed)" in WWII at all. Yeah, Jews died; and there certainly was a lot of discrimination and "anti-Semitism" in the world in the 1930's"
- Erm, no. And there's one simple fact that discounts this re-writing of history, - the Nazis were addressing the 'Jewish problem'. Whilst they were indeed introducing Nazi eugenics to rid Germany of 'undesirables', such as Gypsies, the mentally ill etc, - it was the 'JEWISH problem' that they were addressing.
Let's take an example from the horses mouth-

"If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!" (quoted in John Toland, Adolf Hitler. London: Book Club Associates, 1977, p.116)"

Hitler again -

"For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst. (Applause)

Source: D Irving, The War Path: Hitler's Germany 1933-1939. Papermac, 1978, p.xxi

So to pretend that they weren't the main target to eradicate is simply twisting the evidence in your own head. There's also no need for 'antisemitism' in inverted commas as if it's conjecture - everyone can see it came straight from the horses mouth.

And finally, addressing - "Go watch the Nuremberg trials yourself. They are on YouTube (even in their entirety)! (Gotta love the .... dam... Internet!) They do not produce any material documentation that was generated by the German leadership during the war. They produce "eye witness testimony" and confessions that were coerced from camp staff."

- I think what I 'Gotta love' is having the understanding of what I'm looking at. The video of the trials are exactly that - the video of eyewitness accounts, cross examining those on trial, with the accusations levelled from the MATERIAL gathered as evidence against those standing. There were contributors from 23 countries, had everyone been briefed and every witness, every shred of evidence aligned to match one narrative ? For then Nazis like Alois Brunner years later to not only claim his responsibility, but be proud of it !!! If you think all those who stood trial, were found GUILTY and executed were wrongly convicted, then be my guest - campaign for them.

As regards the no material documentation, I'd maybe start here -
The Holocaust - The National Archives
Or here - German Holocaust archive puts millions of documents online
which leads you here-
Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution

Relating to the documents used in prosecution during the trials -

https://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/
Or here - Papers of the International Military Tribunal and the Nuremberg Military Tribunals - Archives Hub
(As with many examples, this is one you would actually have to visit to view the physical documents themselves, I guess the internet is maybe not such a great leveller after all).So much for there not being any material documentation, come over to Southampton and we can go and have a look at the documents together

MS 200 Papers of the International Military Tribunal and the Nuremberg Military Tribunals | Special Collections | University of Southampton
You might want to keep your eye on this also (as they continue and update the scanning of one million pages worth of documents), - Nuremberg Trials Project: A Digital Documents Collection
"The documents include trial transcripts, briefs, document books, evidence files and other material."
Or this - https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/imt.asp#cited
These focus more on the material and less on the trials themselves, follow the links in the page,-
https://go.fold3.com/holocaust_records

The Righterzpen · Aug 15, 2019

Nige55 said:
Ok, firstly, you haven't even bothered to subtract 3,115,000 or 3,215,000 from 6,000,000, - it's less than 3,000,000. Meaning the numbers killed outside of the extermination camps was SLIGHTLY LESS than those who died in the camps, not more. That is not hard to understand.

You miss the point that over the decades; the numbers keep mysteriously changing? (The "in camp" deaths continue to decline as credible documentation is continuously uncovered.)

So.... why is that?

Nige55 said:
- Erm, no. And there's one simple fact that discounts this re-writing of history, - the Nazis were addressing the 'Jewish problem'.

The term "Jewish problem" had been stated by Hitler (as well as Zionists actually).

Both sides agreed that "Jews" (Zionist specifically - since Zionism is a Jewish nationalism political movement.) did not belong in Germany because they were not simply "Germans of the Jewish religion" but people who wanted specifically to declare their own national identity as being "Jewish". Both the German National Socialist Party and the Zionists recognized that these two groups didn't mesh well together; so they came up with a "solution".

Do you know what his solution to the "Jewish problem" actually was?

It was the 1933 Transfer Agreement. Do you know what the Transfer Agreement is? (Haavara Agreement)

Zionism and the Third Reich

(Unless you prefer to read Wikipedia?)

Haavara Agreement - Wikipedia

Nige55 said:
"If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!" (quoted in John Toland, Adolf Hitler. London: Book Club Associates, 1977, p.116)"

OK, I did some digging on this. This "passage" is allegedly from Hitler's speech in the Hofbrauhaus in Munich on Friday August 20, 1920

I researched the speech and any English translations to see if this passage is actually in it. I found the speech translated into English. I read the entire thing and didn't find this passage there at all!

So, I wondered, did I miss something? Is there something in the translation? Is there a similar passage actually in this speech? I copied the speech, put in "Open Office" and did a "word search" on it to see if I could find where this passage allegedly was "suppose" to be? I searched "Munich" first. "Munich" appears twice in the speech. Neither two mentions of Munich related to hanging anyone. I searched "hanged". It appeared in the speech once and was not in reference to hanging any Jews!

I will post in a minute the paragraph the word "hanged" is in. I also looked up the word "Jew" which of course is in multiple places in the speech.

First though; a little context of this speech. It is an anti communist political speech. It is very typical of anti-Jewish political / economic rhetoric of the time. You'd see very similar statements in writings by Henry Ford. The Zionists had their own form of this Anti-German rhetoric. (I will give you some examples of that in a minute.)

Here is the paragraph the word "hanged" is in:

Then you declare further that Lenin made some mistakes. We are grateful that at least you admit that your pope has made mistakes. (Laughter) But then you declare you would not make these mistakes. For one thing, when 300,000 people are hanged in Germany and when our whole economy is shattered after their pattern, then your statement that you would not make the same mistakes is not enough. You seem to have a poor idea of what the Bolshevik system really means. It will not improve the situation, but it is put there in order to destroy the races with these errors. (Hear, hear) When you declare today that one did so in Russia up until now, this is a sorry excuse; when you first exterminate a race, first totally ruin a national economy; and finally this state lives practically only by the mercy of Tsarist officers who, driven by force make conquests for it, then, in my opinion, it’s a strange policy. (Hear, hear.) One thing I know is that if we do not have the iron will to stop war madness – that mutual tearing one another to pieces – we’ll perish.

Now the reference he's making here is to the Bolsheviks and the Marxists communists; who were overwhelmingly atheistic Jews. Now most Germans at the end of WWI saw communism as a very real threat to Germany. (That was not an uncommon sentiment in the west.) And so thus being a political movement founded by atheistic Jews; the anti-Semitic rhetoric carries over.

Here is the entire speech:
"Why We Are Antisemites" - Text of Adolf Hitler's 1920 speech at the Hofbräuhaus | Carolyn Yeager

Now the other element in this political wash are the Zionists themselves; and here's what they have to say about Germany:

Perspective of Jewry – Historical Tribune

Nige55 said:
"For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst. (Applause)

Source: D Irving, The War Path: Hitler's Germany 1933-1939. Papermac, 1978, p.xxi

First off; before I get into the research on this "quote"; do you know who David Irving is? He is probably the primary authority on World War II in the world.

David Irving is a Holocaust Revisionist!

Now, to this "quote" you gave me. It took some digging to find this; but this quote is apparently from a "secret speech" that Hitler allegedly gave in Salzburg in August of 1920. There's no record of the whole speech and there is no recording of the speech. David Irving had gotten his hands on an "unpublished shorthand transcript" of which he describes as "one faded fragile copy".

Now David Irving is a pretty through and scrupulously careful collector of primary source WWII documents. He had befriended a lot of Germans who came to entrust him with their personal war era documents. The first book he published that gave him notoriety was about the bombing of Dresden. After that book was published and Germans came to the conclusion that Irving was sincerely interested in telling the whole story of the war; they began to bring him personal family documents for research and publication.

Yet when this information began to go public and started to show a much more complex and complete story of WWII (as well as demonstrating the propaganda that wasn't proven); Jewish holocaust groups started coming after him. He was a key witness in Ernst Zundel's trial (in Canada in the early 80's) which got him on the "hit list" as a "holocaust denier". Prior to this, Irving's books were selling extremely well and he was the foremost noted historian on WWII.

Now here is all of what is known of the transcript of this speech. Why this is all that exists? I don't know?

Keep in mind too; this is a "jotting down of notes" in shorthand of someone's record of the speech. So, what the person found of interest is what made it into this transcript and probably should be understood as not necessarily a word for word record of what Hitler may have actually said but the idea the writer took away from what was said. The "note taker" is not identified.

This snippet does represent rhetoric that is of the same venue as the other quoted speech and note that just like the other speech; the bulk of the content is addressing communism; and since the belief was that the Jews were responsible for that, is why you get the anti-Jewish contextual "over generalization" to the content.

Secret Salzburg Speech transcript:

This is the first demand that we must raise and do raise: that our people
be set free, that these chains be burst asunder, and that Germany be once
again captain of her soul and master of her destinies, together with all
those who want to join Germany. (Applause).

The fulfillment of this first demand will then open up the way for all
the other reforms. And here is one thing that perhaps distinguishes us from you as far as our program is concerned, although it is very much in the spirit of things: our attitude to the Jewish problem.

For us, this is not a problem we can turn a blind eye to – one to be
solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated.

Don’t be misled into thinking you can fight a disease with-out killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don’t think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis.

This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst.
(Applause).

A Note on the Millennium Edition

The millennium edition of Hitler’s War brings the narrative up to date with
the latest documents discovered, primarily in American and former Soviet
archives, since the 1991 edition was published. I was in 1991 the first author permitted by the Russians to exploit the microfiched diaries of Dr
Joseph Goebbels, which contain further vital information about Hitler’s
role in the Röhm Purge, the Kristallnacht of 1938, the Final Solution, and
other matters of high historical importance. From a Californian source I
obtained the original Gestapo interrogations of Rudolf Hess’s staff, con-
ducted in the first few days after his flight to Scotland. The British secret
service has now released to the public domain the intercepts of top secret
messages sent in code by Himmler and other SS commanders.

These are just a few examples of the new materials woven into the fabric of this story. I am glad to say I have not had to revise my views as originally expressed: I was always confident that if one adheres to original documents, one will not stray far from the truth. The new archival material has however made it possible to refine the narrative, and to upgrade the documentary basis of my former assertions.

David Irving
London, February 2001

(His "former assertions" being that the conventional holocaust narrative is not supported by historical documentation or war era evidence.)

chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://ia600607.us.archive.org/13/items/DavidIrvingHistorianAndPoliticalPrisonerBorn19381/HitlersWarAndTheWarPathByDavidIrving-974.pdf

Nige55 said:
So to pretend that they weren't the main target to eradicate is simply twisting the evidence in your own head. There's also no need for 'antisemitism' in inverted commas as if it's conjecture - everyone can see it came straight from the horses mouth.

Well, here's another "horse's mouth" for you to take a look at!

Allied Forensic Autopsies Confirm Disease, Not Gas

And how about this "horse's mouth":

Stalin’s Order #0428 – a picture is worth a thousand words… is it really?

Or this one:

Myths & Fallacies – Historical Tribune

As per the rest of your sources? I will investigate them later.

Nige55 · Aug 16, 2019

The Righterzpen said:
You miss the point that over the decades; the numbers keep mysteriously changing? (The "in camp" deaths continue to decline as credible documentation is continuously uncovered.)

So.... why is that?

The term "Jewish problem" had been stated by Hitler (as well as Zionists actually).

Both sides agreed that "Jews" (Zionist specifically - since Zionism is a Jewish nationalism political movement.) did not belong in Germany because they were not simply "Germans of the Jewish religion" but people who wanted specifically to declare their own national identity as being "Jewish". Both the German National Socialist Party and the Zionists recognized that these two groups didn't mesh well together; so they came up with a "solution".

Do you know what his solution to the "Jewish problem" actually was?

It was the 1933 Transfer Agreement. Do you know what the Transfer Agreement is? (Haavara Agreement)

Zionism and the Third Reich

(Unless you prefer to read Wikipedia?)

Haavara Agreement - Wikipedia

OK, I did some digging on this. This "passage" is allegedly from Hitler's speech in the Hofbrauhaus in Munich on Friday August 20, 1920

I researched the speech and any English translations to see if this passage is actually in it. I found the speech translated into English. I read the entire thing and didn't find this passage there at all!

So, I wondered, did I miss something? Is there something in the translation? Is there a similar passage actually in this speech? I copied the speech, put in "Open Office" and did a "word search" on it to see if I could find where this passage allegedly was "suppose" to be? I searched "Munich" first. "Munich" appears twice in the speech. Neither two mentions of Munich related to hanging anyone. I searched "hanged". It appeared in the speech once and was not in reference to hanging any Jews!

I will post in a minute the paragraph the word "hanged" is in. I also looked up the word "Jew" which of course is in multiple places in the speech.

First though; a little context of this speech. It is an anti communist political speech. It is very typical of anti-Jewish political / economic rhetoric of the time. You'd see very similar statements in writings by Henry Ford. The Zionists had their own form of this Anti-German rhetoric. (I will give you some examples of that in a minute.)

Here is the paragraph the word "hanged" is in:

Then you declare further that Lenin made some mistakes. We are grateful that at least you admit that your pope has made mistakes. (Laughter) But then you declare you would not make these mistakes. For one thing, when 300,000 people are hanged in Germany and when our whole economy is shattered after their pattern, then your statement that you would not make the same mistakes is not enough. You seem to have a poor idea of what the Bolshevik system really means. It will not improve the situation, but it is put there in order to destroy the races with these errors. (Hear, hear) When you declare today that one did so in Russia up until now, this is a sorry excuse; when you first exterminate a race, first totally ruin a national economy; and finally this state lives practically only by the mercy of Tsarist officers who, driven by force make conquests for it, then, in my opinion, it’s a strange policy. (Hear, hear.) One thing I know is that if we do not have the iron will to stop war madness – that mutual tearing one another to pieces – we’ll perish.

Now the reference he's making here is to the Bolsheviks and the Marxists communists; who were overwhelmingly atheistic Jews. Now most Germans at the end of WWI saw communism as a very real threat to Germany. (That was not an uncommon sentiment in the west.) And so thus being a political movement founded by atheistic Jews; the anti-Semitic rhetoric carries over.

Here is the entire speech:
"Why We Are Antisemites" - Text of Adolf Hitler's 1920 speech at the Hofbräuhaus | Carolyn Yeager

Now the other element in this political wash are the Zionists themselves; and here's what they have to say about Germany:

Perspective of Jewry – Historical Tribune

First off; before I get into the research on this "quote"; do you know who David Irving is? He is probably the primary authority on World War II in the world.

David Irving is a Holocaust Revisionist!

Now, to this "quote" you gave me. It took some digging to find this; but this quote is apparently from a "secret speech" that Hitler allegedly gave in Salzburg in August of 1920. There's no record of the whole speech and there is no recording of the speech. David Irving had gotten his hands on an "unpublished shorthand transcript" of which he describes as "one faded fragile copy".

Now David Irving is a pretty through and scrupulously careful collector of primary source WWII documents. He had befriended a lot of Germans who came to entrust him with their personal war era documents. The first book he published that gave him notoriety was about the bombing of Dresden. After that book was published and Germans came to the conclusion that Irving was sincerely interested in telling the whole story of the war; they began to bring him personal family documents for research and publication.

Yet when this information began to go public and started to show a much more complex and complete story of WWII (as well as demonstrating the propaganda that wasn't proven); Jewish holocaust groups started coming after him. He was a key witness in Ernst Zundel's trial (in Canada in the early 80's) which got him on the "hit list" as a "holocaust denier". Prior to this, Irving's books were selling extremely well and he was the foremost noted historian on WWII.

Now here is all of what is known of the transcript of this speech. Why this is all that exists? I don't know?

Keep in mind too; this is a "jotting down of notes" in shorthand of someone's record of the speech. So, what the person found of interest is what made it into this transcript and probably should be understood as not necessarily a word for word record of what Hitler may have actually said but the idea the writer took away from what was said. The "note taker" is not identified.

This snippet does represent rhetoric that is of the same venue as the other quoted speech and note that just like the other speech; the bulk of the content is addressing communism; and since the belief was that the Jews were responsible for that, is why you get the anti-Jewish contextual "over generalization" to the content.

Secret Salzburg Speech transcript:

This is the first demand that we must raise and do raise: that our people
be set free, that these chains be burst asunder, and that Germany be once
again captain of her soul and master of her destinies, together with all
those who want to join Germany. (Applause).

The fulfillment of this first demand will then open up the way for all
the other reforms. And here is one thing that perhaps distinguishes us from you as far as our program is concerned, although it is very much in the spirit of things: our attitude to the Jewish problem.

For us, this is not a problem we can turn a blind eye to – one to be
solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated.

Don’t be misled into thinking you can fight a disease with-out killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don’t think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis.

This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst.
(Applause).

A Note on the Millennium Edition

The millennium edition of Hitler’s War brings the narrative up to date with
the latest documents discovered, primarily in American and former Soviet
archives, since the 1991 edition was published. I was in 1991 the first author permitted by the Russians to exploit the microfiched diaries of Dr
Joseph Goebbels, which contain further vital information about Hitler’s
role in the Röhm Purge, the Kristallnacht of 1938, the Final Solution, and
other matters of high historical importance. From a Californian source I
obtained the original Gestapo interrogations of Rudolf Hess’s staff, con-
ducted in the first few days after his flight to Scotland. The British secret
service has now released to the public domain the intercepts of top secret
messages sent in code by Himmler and other SS commanders.

These are just a few examples of the new materials woven into the fabric of this story. I am glad to say I have not had to revise my views as originally expressed: I was always confident that if one adheres to original documents, one will not stray far from the truth. The new archival material has however made it possible to refine the narrative, and to upgrade the documentary basis of my former assertions.

David Irving
London, February 2001

(His "former assertions" being that the conventional holocaust narrative is not supported by historical documentation or war era evidence.)

chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://ia600607.us.archive.org/13/items/DavidIrvingHistorianAndPoliticalPrisonerBorn19381/HitlersWarAndTheWarPathByDavidIrving-974.pdf

Well, here's another "horse's mouth" for you to take a look at!

Allied Forensic Autopsies Confirm Disease, Not Gas

And how about this "horse's mouth":

Stalin’s Order #0428 – a picture is worth a thousand words… is it really?

Or this one:

Myths & Fallacies – Historical Tribune

As per the rest of your sources? I will investigate them later.

"
You miss the point that over the decades; the numbers keep mysteriously changing? (The "in camp" deaths continue to decline as credible documentation is continuously uncovered.)

So.... why is that?" - The numbers will be adjusted and updated after any genocide on this scale, particularly so when evidence is hidden, destroyed and discoveries continue to be made. It's absolutely normal. Now, as for this 'credible documentation', - let's see some please.
It's a common train of thought for people who lean towards conspiracy theories to find elements of figures that change or are adjusted over time, and leap to a 'it never happened!!' stance.
Even if the numbers continued to drop - what's your agenda ? To discount the value of the lives lost ? To formulate some sort of cover up ? It's a horrific, devastating tragedy, and a stain on humanity whichever way you look at it.

"Do you know what his solution to the "Jewish problem" actually was?

It was the 1933 Transfer Agreement. Do you know what the Transfer Agreement is? (Haavara Agreement)

Zionism and the Third Reich

(Unless you prefer to read Wikipedia?)

Haavara Agreement - Wikipedia"

I'm well aware of the Haavara agreement, however it was neither a solution nor an answer, and actually was a good deal of time before antisemitism grew to the levels it did years later. It was also a reasonably small number, only 60,000 Jews.
It's also interesting regarding the Haavara agreement that during Hitlers meeting with Khalid al-Hud al-Gargani, he stated "because we were jointly fighting the Jews. This led him to discuss Palestine and the conditions there, and he then stated that he himself would not rest until the last Jew had left Germany. Kalid al Hud observed that the Prophet Mohammed [...] had acted the same way. He had driven the Jews out of Arabia"
However he hid the fact that he had up until that time helped incite Jews to palestine.
You can attempt to paint the hatred of the Jews as simply political and social differences, and not hatred at all. But let's be honest, - you would have to revise that entire time period to do that. The actual hatred of the Jews was everywhere, and I don't think you'll convince anyone that it wasn't (you even begrudgingly admitted this to be the case with your inverted comma antisemitism reference).

"Walter Warlimont, who was involved in military alliances with some Arabs, reports that many German officers believed:

... the only real political rallying point among the Arabs was their common hatred of the Jews, while "Arab nationalist movements" as such, because of the diversity of interests in the various Arab countries, existed only on paper.[23]"

Regarding my first quote of Hitlers -
"I researched the speech and any English translations to see if this passage is actually in it. I found the speech translated into English. I read the entire thing and didn't find this passage there at all!"

Firstly - how reliable is the English translation itself ? Who translated it, and when ? I'll have to have a look at home, it's being blocked as hate speech at work ;-) Funny, as it's an IT policy from a German company
I'm happy to read the German version in it's original form, as you mentioned you're find with reading in German, maybe we should also compare notes on the original text ?

Oh, and finally, yes I had a chuckle at quoting David Irving, I knew that would get you going !

The only thing I need to do is to correct myself, it's the discredited historian David Irving, the same chap who was found in court to have " deliberately misrepresented historical evidence to promote Holocaust denial", and who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence"

Quite like Evans quote from his libel case (which he not only lost, but also uncovered more of of his 'work' which had managed to evade public scrutiny until that point)
-"Irving (...) had deliberately distorted and wilfully mistranslated documents, consciously used discredited testimony and falsified historical statistics. (...) Irving has fallen so far short of the standards of scholarship customary amongst historians that he does not deserve to be called a historian at all."

Sorry, I must correct myself once again, - racist, antisemitic discredited historian David Irving

"11th November 2005, "the Austrian police in the southern state of Styria, acting under the 1989 warrant, arrested Irving. Irving pleaded guilty to the charge of "trivialising, grossly playing down and denying the Holocaust". Irving stated in his plea that he changed his opinions on the Holocaust, "I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now. The Nazis did murder millions of Jews." Irving had obtained the papers from Hugo Byttebier, a Belgian who had served in the SS during the war and had escaped to Argentina."

I'm kind of glad that you jumped on the topic of him, It fascinates me. Would be quite happy delving into his past further, however I feel almost rude now as we have seriously hijacked this entire thread.

I tend to resist visiting my usual websites over the weekend and have family time, so I'll catch up next week. Have a good one, and Shabbat Shalom

The Righterzpen · Aug 16, 2019

Nige55 said:
Even if the numbers continued to drop - what's your agenda ? To discount the value of the lives lost ?

You can't discount lives lost that weren't actually lost. And no one discounts the lives that were actually lost! The dispute is about the number of lives and the alleged methods they were supposed to be lost.

Nige55 said:
I'm well aware of the Haavara agreement, however it was neither a solution nor an answer, and actually was a good deal of time before antisemitism grew to the levels it did years later.

This statement is true and historically accurate.

Nige55 said:
It was also a reasonably small number, only 60,000 Jews.

This is also true and part of the reason it was not larger had to do with a couple of different sociological factors. Some of the immigration issues of Jews leaving Europe were issues of political wrangling between US and Britain.

But the majority of the "problem" was that most Jews, pretty much just wanted to stay where they were. Even today there are a lot of "incentives" and certain social pressures for Jews to move from the US to Israel and a lot of them don't. Why should I move? I'm happy where I'm at. And that's a valid sociological factor.

At the end of WWII there were so many people of all different ethnic backgrounds who'd come into Western Europe that it took years (even at least a decade) to figure out who was going to "end up" where. A lot of Germans moved to South America. Large numbers of Jews came to the US. The first wish of the vast majority of refugees is to go back to where they came from; but none of these people wanted to live under Soviet occupied E.Europe either.

There's a chapter in the book "Against Our Better Judgement" By Allison Weir that talks about Jews in Western Europe after the war. There were groups of Zionist thugs who'd come through these resettlement camps and threaten rabbis and community leaders in attempts to forcefully repatriate people into the Middle-East. That was not a popular place Eastern European Jews wanted to go! Some of that was - Well prospects in the US look better for me than living on some Kubutz in Palestine.

Some of it was a conflict with actual religious beliefs (especially among Orthodox Jews who believe they aren't to reenter the promised land until the messiah appears.

Nige55 said:
It's also interesting regarding the Haavara agreement that during Hitlers meeting with Khalid al-Hud al-Gargani, he stated "because we were jointly fighting the Jews. This led him to discuss Palestine and the conditions there, and he then stated that he himself would not rest until the last Jew had left Germany. Kalid al Hud observed that the Prophet Mohammed [...] had acted the same way. He had driven the Jews out of Arabia"
However he hid the fact that he had up until that time helped incite Jews to palestine.

This is also true; they had a common goal; neither wanted these people in their countries. And this was also an issue with Britain and the US. No body wanted these people period. Stay in Eastern Europe. You don't like the communists; you take them out!

It's the same sentiment today. You don't like the corruption, drug lords and economy in Central America; stay there and change it. Why should you become our issue to deal with.

The same thing can be said about Middl-Eastern and African migrants in Europe. Nationalist movements in Europe are starting to reemerge and there's a lot of conflict going on over there right now. And I see their point.

If Jews assert the opinion that Israel is suppose to be for Jews; why isn't Europe suppose to be for Europeans?

Nige55 said:
You can attempt to paint the hatred of the Jews as simply political and social differences, and not hatred at all. But let's be honest, - you would have to revise that entire time period to do that. The actual hatred of the Jews was everywhere, and I don't think you'll convince anyone that it wasn't (you even begrudgingly admitted this to be the case with your inverted comma antisemitism reference).

I find it interesting that of any ethnic group on earth "Jews" have been kicked out of more countries than anyone ever in the history of humanity. Why is that? There's a lot of historical reasons; but also sociologically speaking (especially orthodox Jews) don't assimilate particularly well into the surrounding society.

There was a Jewish movement in the 19th century for Jews to assimilate into the nations they lived in and adopt the national identity of the nation they lived in. Millions did that and that trend still exists among reformed and secular Jews. Large percentages of Jews converted to Christianity. Now granted much of the "cultural conversions" of the 19th century was influenced by concepts of Social Darwinism. (The idea that the fittest culture is the one that survives so; adopt it.) That was a popular idea in the 19th century. Matter of fact, so many Ashkenazis blended into European and American societies that a rather high percentage of European people have Ashkenazi DNA. My son has Ashkenazi DNA; which had to come from his father's side of the family (because I don't have it). Yet none of his side of the family identified as "Jewish".

But when Zionism began to take root as a political idea; assimilation was not a popular idea with Zionists and especially converting to Christianity! Jews who become Christians, depending on what background and how strict their family is; can have just as many issues as Muslims who convert. I.E. their lives can be in danger! So because that was not popular with Zionists; as Zionism grew; more and more pressure was put on less committed Jews to conform to Zionist ideas.

Nige55 said:
Firstly - how reliable is the English translation itself ? Who translated it, and when ? I'll have to have a look at home, it's being blocked as hate speech at work ;-) Funny, as it's an IT policy from a German company
I'm happy to read the German version in it's original form, as you mentioned you're find with reading in German, maybe we should also compare notes on the original text ?

Well, I gave you the link. The link tells you who translated it.

I did see books / booklets on the Internet written in German that were from the 30's that had printed versions of Hitler's speeches in them. I don't know if there are PDF formats of those books / booklets available on the Internet? Those would be the most reliable because they are era sources. Maybe somewhere PDF versions exist? I do know some people on the Internet I could ask; that if they do exist, they would know. Hitler speeches in German, especially in Europe are a "taboo subject" and may be hard to find.

As far as David Irving goes and your accusations of him being "anti-Semitic", "racist"? I think the accusation of "racist", "anti-Semite" etc is so overused at this point it's meaningless. I know people who would identify themselves as "white power" / "white nationalists" etc. (I don't think I know anyone personally who's in any groups like the KKK.) But I know all kinds of people that I would personally says are racists and some of them are of African and Jewish lineage. There are a lot of racist Jews I've seen! And that's why I sometimes use the term "anti-Semitism".

To me anyone who thinks a particular race is superior to any other race; or is seen more favorably in God's eyes than any other race is "racist"! That's my definition of "racist"! OR someone who says "Well because you are.... (usually European ethnicity), you have to be racist". That in and of itself is racist! And that drives me crazy. Social Marxist ideology. They don't see their own racism!

I don't see someone who points out the faults of the Jews as necessarily racist. Is what anyone says about a particular group true? (Some of that's a matter of perspective. Some of it's a matter of degree.) People who say "All Jews are...", or "All Italians are..." or "All Russians are...." are just making stupid over generalizations. And because "racism" and "anti-Semitism" don't really mean anything today; that's why I used "---".

Nige55 · Aug 19, 2019

The Righterzpen said:
You can't discount lives lost that weren't actually lost. And no one discounts the lives that were actually lost! The dispute is about the number of lives and the alleged methods they were supposed to be lost.

This statement is true and historically accurate.

This is also true and part of the reason it was not larger had to do with a couple of different sociological factors. Some of the immigration issues of Jews leaving Europe were issues of political wrangling between US and Britain.

But the majority of the "problem" was that most Jews, pretty much just wanted to stay where they were. Even today there are a lot of "incentives" and certain social pressures for Jews to move from the US to Israel and a lot of them don't. Why should I move? I'm happy where I'm at. And that's a valid sociological factor.

At the end of WWII there were so many people of all different ethnic backgrounds who'd come into Western Europe that it took years (even at least a decade) to figure out who was going to "end up" where. A lot of Germans moved to South America. Large numbers of Jews came to the US. The first wish of the vast majority of refugees is to go back to where they came from; but none of these people wanted to live under Soviet occupied E.Europe either.

There's a chapter in the book "Against Our Better Judgement" By Allison Weir that talks about Jews in Western Europe after the war. There were groups of Zionist thugs who'd come through these resettlement camps and threaten rabbis and community leaders in attempts to forcefully repatriate people into the Middle-East. That was not a popular place Eastern European Jews wanted to go! Some of that was - Well prospects in the US look better for me than living on some Kubutz in Palestine.

Some of it was a conflict with actual religious beliefs (especially among Orthodox Jews who believe they aren't to reenter the promised land until the messiah appears.

This is also true; they had a common goal; neither wanted these people in their countries. And this was also an issue with Britain and the US. No body wanted these people period. Stay in Eastern Europe. You don't like the communists; you take them out!

It's the same sentiment today. You don't like the corruption, drug lords and economy in Central America; stay there and change it. Why should you become our issue to deal with.

The same thing can be said about Middl-Eastern and African migrants in Europe. Nationalist movements in Europe are starting to reemerge and there's a lot of conflict going on over there right now. And I see their point.

If Jews assert the opinion that Israel is suppose to be for Jews; why isn't Europe suppose to be for Europeans?

I find it interesting that of any ethnic group on earth "Jews" have been kicked out of more countries than anyone ever in the history of humanity. Why is that? There's a lot of historical reasons; but also sociologically speaking (especially orthodox Jews) don't assimilate particularly well into the surrounding society.

There was a Jewish movement in the 19th century for Jews to assimilate into the nations they lived in and adopt the national identity of the nation they lived in. Millions did that and that trend still exists among reformed and secular Jews. Large percentages of Jews converted to Christianity. Now granted much of the "cultural conversions" of the 19th century was influenced by concepts of Social Darwinism. (The idea that the fittest culture is the one that survives so; adopt it.) That was a popular idea in the 19th century. Matter of fact, so many Ashkenazis blended into European and American societies that a rather high percentage of European people have Ashkenazi DNA. My son has Ashkenazi DNA; which had to come from his father's side of the family (because I don't have it). Yet none of his side of the family identified as "Jewish".

But when Zionism began to take root as a political idea; assimilation was not a popular idea with Zionists and especially converting to Christianity! Jews who become Christians, depending on what background and how strict their family is; can have just as many issues as Muslims who convert. I.E. their lives can be in danger! So because that was not popular with Zionists; as Zionism grew; more and more pressure was put on less committed Jews to conform to Zionist ideas.

Well, I gave you the link. The link tells you who translated it.

I did see books / booklets on the Internet written in German that were from the 30's that had printed versions of Hitler's speeches in them. I don't know if there are PDF formats of those books / booklets available on the Internet? Those would be the most reliable because they are era sources. Maybe somewhere PDF versions exist? I do know some people on the Internet I could ask; that if they do exist, they would know. Hitler speeches in German, especially in Europe are a "taboo subject" and may be hard to find.

As far as David Irving goes and your accusations of him being "anti-Semitic", "racist"? I think the accusation of "racist", "anti-Semite" etc is so overused at this point it's meaningless. I know people who would identify themselves as "white power" / "white nationalists" etc. (I don't think I know anyone personally who's in any groups like the KKK.) But I know all kinds of people that I would personally says are racists and some of them are of African and Jewish lineage. There are a lot of racist Jews I've seen! And that's why I sometimes use the term "anti-Semitism".

To me anyone who thinks a particular race is superior to any other race; or is seen more favorably in God's eyes than any other race is "racist"! That's my definition of "racist"! OR someone who says "Well because you are.... (usually European ethnicity), you have to be racist". That in and of itself is racist! And that drives me crazy. Social Marxist ideology. They don't see their own racism!

I don't see someone who points out the faults of the Jews as necessarily racist. Is what anyone says about a particular group true? (Some of that's a matter of perspective. Some of it's a matter of degree.) People who say "All Jews are...", or "All Italians are..." or "All Russians are...." are just making stupid over generalizations. And because "racism" and "anti-Semitism" don't really mean anything today; that's why I used "---".

I agree with much of what you have written here, I could address the age old questions regarding that bottom line - the Jews as God's chosen people (not favoured, there's a difference), but we're then steering down another road again. Maybe keep that for a new thread.
Regarding Irving, - you could take out the word racist from my post ( I agree - a word that's flung around to the point where it's lost it's meaning) - he's still someone who is a publicly discredited 'historian', and was found by a court of law to have "deliberately distorted and wilfully mistranslated documents, consciously used discredited testimony and falsified historical statistics"
This is after you claimed in post #188 - "do you know who David Irving is? He is probably the primary authority on World War II in the world."
Just seems like addressing the racist accusation was like taking a bee sting out of your leg when one arm is hanging off.

The Righterzpen · Aug 19, 2019

Nige55 said:
I could address the age old questions regarding that bottom line - the Jews as God's chosen people (not favoured, there's a difference), but we're then steering down another road again. Maybe keep that for a new thread.

Actually, if you read the rest of this thread; the question of who is actually Israel is addressed extensively and by many posters.

The "chosen people" were never those who disobeyed. Those who disobeyed always perished regardless of what ethnicity or who's descendants they were!

One who was simply a Jew of the flesh was not chosen of God just because they were genetic descendants of Abraham.

Nige55 said:
Regarding Irving, - you could take out the word racist from my post ( I agree - a word that's flung around to the point where it's lost it's meaning) - he's still someone who is a publicly discredited 'historian', and was found by a court of law to have "deliberately distorted and wilfully mistranslated documents, consciously used discredited testimony and falsified historical statistics"

Yet Irving was considered one of the primary authorities on WWII; that was of course until he became a holocaust revisionist.

So, just because a human court says something about someone; doesn't mean what they say is true. Many an innocent man has been condemned by a human court.

Matter of fact there was some dude who was crucified some 2000 years ago for such outlandish accusations. What was his name?

Nige55 · Aug 20, 2019

The Righterzpen said:
Actually, if you read the rest of this thread; the question of who is actually Israel is addressed extensively and by many posters.

The "chosen people" were never those who disobeyed. Those who disobeyed always perished regardless of what ethnicity or who's descendants they were!

One who was simply a Jew of the flesh was not chosen of God just because they were genetic descendants of Abraham.

Yet Irving was considered one of the primary authorities on WWII; that was of course until he became a holocaust revisionist.

So, just because a human court says something about someone; doesn't mean what they say is true. Many an innocent man has been condemned by a human court.

Matter of fact there was some dude who was crucified some 2000 years ago for such outlandish accusations. What was his name?

As regards your first paragraph, yeah I don't fall into that category. I'm not a replacement theologian.
I don't share your belief in the matter, and there are many others here who don't either.
I have my reasons for my understanding of that, but let's not go down that route here. The OP was focused on current events in Israel, if you believe they are of no relevance, why post ?

Regarding your response to the Irving topic, - do you have any grounds or evidence, clues that he may have been wrongly trialled ? Or is it more clinging to a hope that he didn't actually do any of the things levelled at him ? What about his own admission ? - "I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now. The Nazis did murder millions of Jews."

If you're using a Jesus analogy, - did Jesus ever say 'I said I was the Son of God, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now' ?
I'd always be cautious about drawing a parallel between the sinless Son of God almighty, the saviour of the world, and a man, a sinner, a person (as we all do) who fails, who has lied (as we all have).
I think they're pretty big shoes to fill.

The Righterzpen · Aug 20, 2019

Nige55 said:
I'm not a replacement theologian.

Those who are elect from the foundations of the world have never been replaced by anyone. "Replacement theology" is a misnomer.

Those who are the Israel of God are and always have been those who obey Him; regardless of where on the timetable they lived. Keep in mind that prior to Moses there essentially was no "nation of Israel". And come the end of the 1st century, the disobedient Jews who have not converted to Christianity are destroyed by the Romans.

Of the adherents to Rabbinic Judaism today; a very small percent are actually Semitic by genetic standards. I think it ranges somewhere between 5 and 15% depending on what percent of Semitic DNA is "counted". And for those who have the genetic markers; the origins of their Semitic lines can not be proven. Arabs and Edomites are also Semitic, although not of the line of Jacob. The Semitic markers of Jews who have them; are the same Semitic markers half the people in the Middle East have. There are political reasons why certain aspects of the Human Genome Project are not widely published.

Nige55 said:
I have my reasons for my understanding of that, but let's not go down that route here.

We could talk about what the Scripture actually say about dispensationalism; which was also covered by many people in this thread.

Nige55 said:
The OP was focused on current events in Israel, if you believe they are of no relevance, why post ?

If you read the original post that I'd made. The question wasn't about relevance, it was about our perception of those current events in relation to the Scriptures.

Nige55 said:
Regarding your response to the Irving topic, - do you have any grounds or evidence, clues that he may have been wrongly trialled ?

The courts assert there were gas chambers but have no forensic evidence of such; so yes, Irving was wrongly trialed.

Nige55 said:
What about his own admission ? - "I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now. The Nazis did murder millions of Jews."

Irving apparently said this as an attempt to reduce his sentence from his Austrian trial. As far as I know he has thus recanted this. Irving doesn't deny Jews died. Again, the question is the numbers as well as the intent of the killing. There's a difference in intended slaughter (such as firing squad) and people dying of disease.

If you want to read what Irving really thinks of the Eichmann papers and his alleged "recanting":

The Suppressed Eichmann and Goebbels Papers

Nige55 said:
If you're using a Jesus analogy, - did Jesus ever say 'I said I was the Son of God, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now' ?
I'd always be cautious about drawing a parallel between the sinless Son of God almighty, the saviour of the world, and a man, a sinner, a person (as we all do) who fails, who has lied (as we all have).
I think they're pretty big shoes to fill.

The statement was not a comparison between the characters of Jesus and Irving; the point was that human courts are flawed and Jesus is the utmost illustration of that!

Nige55 · Aug 21, 2019

The Righterzpen said:
Those who are elect from the foundations of the world have never been replaced by anyone. "Replacement theology" is a misnomer.

Those who are the Israel of God are and always have been those who obey Him; regardless of where on the timetable they lived. Keep in mind that prior to Moses there essentially was no "nation of Israel". And come the end of the 1st century, the disobedient Jews who have not converted to Christianity are destroyed by the Romans.

Of the adherents to Rabbinic Judaism today; a very small percent are actually Semitic by genetic standards. I think it ranges somewhere between 5 and 15% depending on what percent of Semitic DNA is "counted". And for those who have the genetic markers; the origins of their Semitic lines can not be proven. Arabs and Edomites are also Semitic, although not of the line of Jacob. The Semitic markers of Jews who have them; are the same Semitic markers half the people in the Middle East have. There are political reasons why certain aspects of the Human Genome Project are not widely published.

We could talk about what the Scripture actually say about dispensationalism; which was also covered by many people in this thread.

If you read the original post that I'd made. The question wasn't about relevance, it was about our perception of those current events in relation to the Scriptures.

The courts assert there were gas chambers but have no forensic evidence of such; so yes, Irving was wrongly trialed.

Irving apparently said this as an attempt to reduce his sentence from his Austrian trial. As far as I know he has thus recanted this. Irving doesn't deny Jews died. Again, the question is the numbers as well as the intent of the killing. There's a difference in intended slaughter (such as firing squad) and people dying of disease.

If you want to read what Irving really thinks of the Eichmann papers and his alleged "recanting":

The Suppressed Eichmann and Goebbels Papers

The statement was not a comparison between the characters of Jesus and Irving; the point was that human courts are flawed and Jesus is the utmost illustration of that!

I'm well aware of your remarks regarding replacement theology (I'll repeat it as I still believe it to be exactly that). I've heard many, many times the points you're presenting, and yet I still have my reasons for disagreeing with many of them. As I'm sure you have, I've been in many many debates about this, gone through various Church environments where doctrine & belief lies on one side or the other of this topic. And yet, - I am firm in my understanding after many years of looking into both sides of the page.

I'll say again, - I'm not discussing it here. There's plenty of threads covering that very topic, it should be taken there.

Going back to Irving, - "The courts assert there were gas chambers but have no forensic evidence of such; so yes, Irving was wrongly trialed."
What you have been claiming all along is that there were not enough residual levels of ZyklonB evident to account for the deaths claimed by those chambers, or have I got that wrong ?
If you could counter with he indeed did NOT actually falsify, twist and misrepresent his own accounts, then perhaps there might be some mileage, but the court were assessing the accuracy and authenticity of Irvings' deductions from the research - that is what was under scrutiny.

And your final point - "the point was that human courts are flawed" - an odd statement. In some cases they may be flawed, but in many cases they are absolutely right, and accurate. In many cases they are a decent and honourable upholding of justice here on Earth. Sure, not in every case.
There are many versus in scripture that refer to courts of law, and their place.

It's also a very selective statement, - used when the person in question is someone you want to believe in.

The Righterzpen · Aug 21, 2019

Nige55 said:
If you could counter with he indeed did NOT actually falsify, twist and misrepresent his own accounts, then perhaps there might be some mileage, but the court were assessing the accuracy and authenticity of Irvings' deductions from the research - that is what was under scrutiny.

Irving did not falsify the fact that there is no forensic evidence for gas chambers. The court could not refute it, so they threw the presented evidence out saying you can not question the conventional narrative.

That's what all these court cases do. You are not allowed to bring evidence into the court that proves the conventional narrative is wrong. You are only left with pleading guilty that you denied the conventional narrative; or you plead innocent to denying the conventional narrative.

Either way you're guilty.

That's not justice!

Nige55 said:
In some cases they may be flawed, but in many cases they are absolutely right, and accurate. In many cases they are a decent and honourable upholding of justice here on Earth. Sure, not in every case.
There are many versus in scripture that refer to courts of law, and their place.

Scripture speaks of unjust balances and unjust courts being an abomination to God!

Nige55 said:
I'll say again, - I'm not discussing it here. There's plenty of threads covering that very topic, it should be taken there.

Now in regards to your dispensational beliefs?

Nige55 said:
It's also a very selective statement, - used when the person in question is someone you want to believe in.

Would you be willing to go to jail for them?

Nige55 · Aug 22, 2019

The Righterzpen said:
Irving did not falsify the fact that there is no forensic evidence for gas chambers. The court could not refute it, so they threw the presented evidence out saying you can not question the conventional narrative.

That's what all these court cases do. You are not allowed to bring evidence into the court that proves the conventional narrative is wrong. You are only left with pleading guilty that you denied the conventional narrative; or you plead innocent to denying the conventional narrative.

Either way you're guilty.

That's not justice!

Scripture speaks of unjust balances and unjust courts being an abomination to God!

Now in regards to your dispensational beliefs?

Would you be willing to go to jail for them?

You seem to be having a really hard time facing the Irving case, -

"Irving did not falsify the fact that there is no forensic evidence for gas chambers. The court could not refute it, so they threw the presented evidence out saying you can not question the conventional narrative.

You've really managed to twist your own understanding of this - the court did not 'throw out' the presented evidence due to questioning a narrative - it was found that Irving had ""deliberately distorted and wilfully mistranslated documents, consciously used discredited testimony and falsified historical statistics" - I.e. - He's untrustworthy, and he's been found to have falsified, distorted and manipulated evidence. He's discredited because he clearly felt he needed to distort and lie in order to maintain HIS own narrative. The moment you need to take such an approach discredits your own case.

You can go on believing he's been wrongfully trialled, but unless you have the documents that the courts found him guilty of falsifying, and can prove them to be genuine, accurate and unblemished by Irving, then good luck with that.

"That's what all these court cases do." - Is it really ? A sweeping generalisation some might say.

"Scripture speaks of unjust balances and unjust courts being an abomination to God!"
Indeed ! I don't think you'll find anyone here that disagrees. However maybe read my post again, I think you'll find I was actually for true cases of justice. I think you'll also find that scripture can support this also -
Proverbs 24:24-25
24 Whoever says to the guilty, “You are innocent,” will be cursed by peoples and denounced by nations. 25 But it will go well with those who convict the guilty, and rich blessing will come on them.

Isaiah 61:8-9
8 “For I, the LORD, love justice; I hate robbery and wrongdoing

The Righterzpen · Aug 22, 2019

Nige55 said:
You seem to be having a really hard time facing the Irving case, -

"Irving did not falsify the fact that there is no forensic evidence for gas chambers. The court could not refute it, so they threw the presented evidence out saying you can not question the conventional narrative.

You've really managed to twist your own understanding of this - the court did not 'throw out' the presented evidence due to questioning a narrative - it was found that Irving had ""deliberately distorted and wilfully mistranslated documents, consciously used discredited testimony and falsified historical statistics" - I.e. - He's untrustworthy, and he's been found to have falsified, distorted and manipulated evidence. He's discredited because he clearly felt he needed to distort and lie in order to maintain HIS own narrative. The moment you need to take such an approach discredits your own case.

You can go on believing he's been wrongfully trialled, but unless you have the documents that the courts found him guilty of falsifying, and can prove them to be genuine, accurate and unblemished by Irving, then good luck with that.

"That's what all these court cases do." - Is it really ? A sweeping generalisation some might say.

"Scripture speaks of unjust balances and unjust courts being an abomination to God!"
Indeed ! I don't think you'll find anyone here that disagrees. However maybe read my post again, I think you'll find I was actually for true cases of justice. I think you'll also find that scripture can support this also -
Proverbs 24:24-25
24 Whoever says to the guilty, “You are innocent,” will be cursed by peoples and denounced by nations. 25 But it will go well with those who convict the guilty, and rich blessing will come on them.

Isaiah 61:8-9
8 “For I, the LORD, love justice; I hate robbery and wrongdoing

I never denied that there are courts that operate the way they are suppose to; but that's not all of them.

And that wasn't what happened in Irving's case. It's not what happens in any of these "holocaust denial" cases. You are not allowed to bring evidence that contradicts the conventional narrative. (Well, why not?)

The ruling that you're not allowed to bring evidence that contradicts the conventional narrative came down after the first Ernst Zundle case. (Now, why was that?)

You can't say there were no gas chambers and actually bring the forensic evidence to prove that. (Well, why not?)

You can't say 6 million didn't die and actually present the historical documents of the death records from the camps themselves. Or the Red Cross or the allied forensic pathologist(s) who autopsied deceased camp inmates. (Well, why not?)

Which all of these do exist. The Germans kept track of who died and actually issued death certificates. But you can't use any of that to defend yourself in these types of cases. (Well, why not?)

You can't present any of that actual war documentation. (Well, why not?)

The truth does not need laws to protect it.

And they know where the records are. Contrary to what the narrative tells you. The Germans didn't destroy that stuff. I think by this point; just about everything that was confiscated at the end of the war is recorded in archives. Now granted, there may be things in archives the Russians have that they don't know they have. That was the case with Goebbels diary / memoirs. And I'm sure there's stuff related to WWII that's still "classified" by various governments.

Again, if the conventional narrative claims X number were gassed and there's no forensic evidence to support that. There's no actual wartime documentation to support that. Then yeah, in order for the court to find you guilty, they have to say you falsified documents and altered statistics. (Throw out the evidence presented that contradicts the narrative.) How else are you going to be found guilty?

It's not justice if you can't defend yourself using the real evidence that's there.

Again, the truth doesn't need laws to protect it. If this really happened, than where's the evidence?

Nige55 · Aug 22, 2019

The Righterzpen said:
I never denied that there are courts that operate the way they are suppose to; but that's not all of them.

And that wasn't what happened in Irving's case. It's not what happens in any of these "holocaust denial" cases. You are not allowed to bring evidence that contradicts the conventional narrative. (Well, why not?)

The ruling that you're not allowed to bring evidence that contradicts the conventional narrative came down after the first Ernst Zundle case. (Now, why was that?)

You can't say there were no gas chambers and actually bring the forensic evidence to prove that. (Well, why not?)

You can't say 6 million didn't die and actually present the historical documents of the death records from the camps themselves. Or the Red Cross or the allied forensic pathologist(s) who autopsied deceased camp inmates. (Well, why not?)

Which all of these do exist. The Germans kept track of who died and actually issued death certificates. But you can't use any of that to defend yourself in these types of cases. (Well, why not?)

You can't present any of that actual war documentation. (Well, why not?)

The truth does not need laws to protect it.

And they know where the records are. Contrary to what the narrative tells you. The Germans didn't destroy that stuff. I think by this point; just about everything that was confiscated at the end of the war is recorded in archives. Now granted, there may be things in archives the Russians have that they don't know they have. That was the case with Goebbels diary / memoirs. And I'm sure there's stuff related to WWII that's still "classified" by various governments.

Again, if the conventional narrative claims X number were gassed and there's no forensic evidence to support that. There's no actual wartime documentation to support that. Then yeah, in order for the court to find you guilty, they have to say you falsified documents and altered statistics. (Throw out the evidence presented that contradicts the narrative.) How else are you going to be found guilty?

It's not justice if you can't defend yourself using the real evidence that's there.

Again, the truth doesn't need laws to protect it. If this really happened, than where's the evidence?

I can see a lot of this comes down to belief. From the outset, you believe that there is forensic evidence demonstrating the lack of significant Zyklonb levels, calling into question the entire gas chamber accounts.
It assumes that further studies done, and subsequent research is null and void. It requires believing a particular study over another, and it requires a trust in the scientific assumptions from that particular report. How solid are Leuchters' credentials as an engineer and execution expert ?

It also requires you to position a scientific assumption over and above documentation, photos, plans, memos, eyewitness testimony (including from the Sonderkommando) as well as admission from German officers themselves. I mean, there was actually a 'zyklonb trial' in March, 1946, which found the owners of a company producing the gas were proven to have known of it's effect and usage.
And yet you claim there is 'no' evidence ?
Wollheim Memorial

http://www.worldcourts.com/imt/eng/decisions/1946.03.08_United_Kingdom_v_Tesch.pdf

It also detracts (as I've mentioned before) from the fact that addressing zyklonb levels doesn't answer the parallel cases of other forms of gassings, including carbon monoxide as used in the gas vans, and other camps. That's why you can't bring one form of evidence directed at some of the gas chambers - and claim that NONE of them existed. You've only (supposedly) answered part of your own puzzle.
It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It all requires an almost conspiracy theory level of mental acrobatics as it must assume that every allegation, every document, map, photo or plan levelled at Nazi soldiers and hierarchy has been consistently fabricated, and the eyewitness accounts from doctors, soldiers, inmates have all been perfectly aligned to follow a narrative created, presumably by the Brits, American, Russian and other countries & nations, who ALSO have their 'narratives' also perfectly aligned.
I don't believe for one second that the Germans documented every single death, nor do I believe that they never attempted to destroy any of the evidence ("the Germans didn't destroy that stuff") -
Come on- it's well documented that the Russians and Americans caught the Nazi's attempting to dismantle the camps and hide the evidence.
I think that you'd have to be pretty naive to believe at the moment of loosing the war, regular German soldiers (with families and loved ones) would not attempt to destroy evidence in the hope of avoiding prosecution, jail or possibly even death.
And this started long before the war came to an end - look up Sonderaktion 1005.
Sonderaktion 1005 - Wikipedia

The Righterzpen · Aug 22, 2019

Nige55 said:
It assumes that further studies done, and subsequent research is null and void.

There were no further studies done. There were only two studies done looking for Zyclon B in "gas chambers" and they didn't find any. No one ever did any follow up studies to prove these were wrong; forged or produced any studies contradicting them. If there were gas chambers with Zyclon B in them; that would certainly be easy enough to prove!

Nige55 said:
photos,

Photos of people who died of diseases.

Nige55 said:
plans,

They've yet to find them.

Nige55 said:
memos

They've yet to find these too.

Nige55 said:
eyewitness testimony

Not all eyewitness claim to have seen gas chambers. Not all eyewitnesses tell the truth.

Explain these peoples' experiences:
The Holocaust Testimonies You DIDN'T Hear : CODOH - Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Nige55 said:
admission from German officers themselves.

It's known coercion was used.

Nige55 said:
including carbon monoxide as used in the gas vans, and other camps.

Research for yourself. Can you actually kill someone with diesel exhaust. Matter of fact; you actually can't.

Gas Wagons - fiction or fact?

Everyone should be watching developments in Israel

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Newbie

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Newbie

Newbie

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Newbie

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Newbie

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Newbie

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Newbie

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Newbie

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Newbie

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Newbie

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Similar threads