Adolf Hitler Was Gay

[johnsmith]

@Atman Are you sure Hitler wasn't funded by Jewish bankers? I heard that these bankers are so powerful that they often fund both sides of wars, WW1 and 2 included; conflict simply quickens their agenda.

I view whats going on these days with carona virus and black lives matter as being the same sort of thing; conflict is quickening the agenda of many powerful groups of people.

Well, if there is some moron on the internet that says so it must be true. I guess all the historians that have evaluated tens of thousands of pages of primary evidence are all involved in the big conspiracy trying to cover up that the Nazis were actually the good guys. Can you name a few historians that support your "there is actually little evidence that the Germans systematically killed anyone"?

David Irving is one of the more well known Historians who were holocaust revisionists, and he was ostracized greatly for it. It's very difficult to be a holocaust revisionist out in the open without having your house bombed, life threatened and freedom at risk, let alone make a living out of it.

Ernst Zundel was a well known Canadian revisionist who spent a lot of time in jail in Canada over the issue, and ended up being deported to Germany where he then spent 5 years in jail. There's lots of outrageous things that happened to him and his associates.

Look up a term called 'cognitive dissonance'. I tend to pay extra close attention whenever someone says something that's contrary to what's normally said; I think that's how a lot of us ended up on this forum.

The truth doesn't need laws to back it up, lies do.

History is written by the victors.

What we're led to believe is often 180 degrees from the truth.

 

[MatheusPN]

@Atman Are you sure Hitler wasn't funded by Jewish bankers? I heard that these bankers are so powerful that they often fund both sides of wars, WW1 and 2 included; conflict simply quickens their agenda.

I view whats going on these days with carona virus and black lives matter as being the same sort of thing; conflict is quickening the agenda of many powerful groups of people.



David Irving is one of the more well known Historians who were holocaust revisionists, and he was ostracized greatly for it. It's very difficult to be a holocaust revisionist out in the open without having your house bombed, life threatened and freedom at risk, let alone make a living out of it.

Ernst Zundel was a well known Canadian revisionist who spent a lot of time in jail in Canada over the issue, and ended up being deported to Germany where he then spent 5 years in jail. There's lots of outrageous things that happened to him and his associates.

Look up a term called 'cognitive dissonance'. I tend to pay extra close attention whenever someone says something that's contrary to what's normally said; I think that's how a lot of us ended up on this forum.

The truth doesn't need laws to back it up, lies do.

History is written by the victors.

What we're led to believe is often 180 degrees from the truth.

Wasn't Ernst Zundel the guy who loved Hitler?
Direct from Mein Kampf:
"If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the nation had been subjected to poison gas, such as had to be endured in the field by hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers of all classes and professions, then the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain."

Hitler had the hate and the power to commit the Holocaust, he said he would do, so why he wouldn't do it @michael94?
Or the book was modified to Hitler be judged as the terrible guy?

 

[Kvothe]

David Irving is one of the more well known Historians who were holocaust revisionists, and he was ostracized greatly for it. It's very difficult to be a revisionist out in the open without having your house bombed, life threatened and freedom at risk, let alone make a living out of it.

Irving later removed all of his claims about the holocaust because it was so damn easy to show the falseness of all his claims. He said in his earlier books that Hitler never knew anything about the extermination of the jews, and Himmler and Heydrich did it all without his knowledge or permission

Ernst Zundel was a well known Canadian revisionist who spent a lot of time in jail in Canada over the issue, and ended up being deported to Germany where he then spent 5 years in jail. There's lots of outrageous things that happened to him and his associates.

The well known revisionist... He was a graphic designer that supported a crazy Canadian Nazi calling himself the Canadian Führer.

What a list of respectable scholars you have here.

 

[johnsmith]

@Kvothe Yea I heard Irving retracted his earlier views. I'm guessing he did it because he was getting old and he had no more fight in him. It's a hard life doing what he did.

One of the main things to notice about the Zundel case is the amount of jail time that he did simply for voicing his views on what happened. There's no other historical event where you get thrown in jail for disputing the details of.

 

[LUH 3417]

@Kvothe Yea I heard Irving retracted his earlier views. I'm guessing he did it because he was getting old and he had no more fight in him. It's a hard life doing what he did.

One of the main things to notice about the Zundel case is the amount of jail time that he did simply for voicing his views on what happened.

If you really felt deeply about something being true and were a person of character, age would most likely serve to strengthen your resolve. Especially when death and growing old were no longer as consequential.

 

[Kvothe]

It's a hard life doing what he did.

Yeah, I guess being a fascist pig must be tough.

There's no other historical event where you get thrown in jail for disputing the details of.

That's the only point on which we can agree. No one should have to fear legal consequences for voicing their opinion on a scientific/historical debate, no matter how retarded it is.

 

[michael94]

@Kvothe Yea I heard Irving retracted his earlier views. I'm guessing he did it because he was getting old and he had no more fight in him. It's a hard life doing what he did.

One of the main things to notice about the Zundel case is the amount of jail time that he did simply for voicing his views on what happened. There's no other historical event where you get thrown in jail for disputing the details of.

If you really felt deeply about something being true and were a person of character, age would most likely serve to strengthen your resolve. Especially when death and growing old were no longer as consequential.

Irving later removed all of his claims about the holocaust because it was so damn easy to show the falseness of all his claims. He said in his earlier books that Hitler never knew anything about the extermination of the jews, and Himmler and Heydrich did it all without his knowledge or permission

Yea Irving backpedaled and it didn't even save the mob from coming after him. There are people who have done better and more consistent work: Carlos Porter, Germar Rudolf, Fred Leuchter/Ernst Zuendel (for retesting the Gas chambers), Carlo Mattogno, Juergen Graf.

Here is Germar Rudolf's website, someone who has also served prison time for simply writing about the Holocaust.
303: Auschwitz Lies

Taken from wikipedia:

Spoiler

On 15 March 2007, the Mannheim District Court sentenced him to two years and six months in prison for inciting hatred, disparaging the dead, and libel. Rudolf accepted the verdict, and copies of his "Lectures on the Holocaust" were confiscated and destroyed. The prosecution's initial request to confiscate €214,000 was reduced to €21,000, the total turnover from the sales of the book.[9] He was released from prison on 5 July 2009 and now lives in the US with his wife and daughter.

Wasn't Ernst Zundel the guy who loved Hitler?
Direct from Mein Kampf:
"If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the nation had been subjected to poison gas, such as had to be endured in the field by hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers of all classes and professions, then the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain."

Hitler had the hate and the power to commit the Holocaust, he said he would do, so why he wouldn't do it @michael94?
Or the book was modified to Hitler be judged as the terrible guy?

He is talking about how men were dying on the Western Front from poison gas while Jews (and other Traitors ) back at home were sabotaging the war effort with no skin in the game. Yes one has to be careful with translations and double and triple check they were done in good faith.

@Atman Are you sure Hitler wasn't funded by Jewish bankers? I heard that these bankers are so powerful that they often fund both sides of wars, WW1 and 2 included; conflict simply quickens their agenda.

There is no proof of Hitler ever being funded by Jewish Bankers, there is evidence of contributions from German industry that's it. The Warburg document is offered as explaining the alleged transfers to Hitler but no proof is ever provided and people who have dug deeper into this subject only found evidence for German industry giving him money. We are told the Warburg document mentions undisclosed financial dealings which are proof it is not a fraud, but even if that were true it would just mean someone had insider info about the German economy NOT that the Warburg document is telling the truth about contributions to Hitler.

Also, foreign companies investing into Germany does not mean Hitler was secretly controlled by these interests. Germany was one of the main industrial producers in the world so of course she would receive foreign investments of all kinds, but again no proof of transfers to Hitler.

Never mind that Germany was getting rid of the Gold trading standard ( which Banks profited hugely off ) and putting Sovereign Capital in service of the worker rather than unearned incomes. It's almost as if Germany risked infecting the world with the truth that Money is a product of the State and get it's value from productive labor output and the country's natural resources, and need not be dependent on ad-infinitum-interest-bearing -loans foreign or domestic.

 

[MatheusPN]

He is talking about how men were dying on the Western Front from poison gas while Jews (and other Traitors ) back at home were sabotaging the war effort with no skin in the game. Yes one has to be careful with translations and double and triple check they were done in good faith.

My response in the section containing your name, was more directly towards you, principally in relation to these two from you:
"It is the Holocaust (mainly) and other lies about those time periods which have made discussing these things an impossibility."
And
"The testimony against Mengele is about as believable as the other Holocaust allegations which is to say not at all. Never any proof"
Bolded by me

 

[michael94]

My response in the section containing your name, was more directly towards you, principally in relation to these two from you:
"It is the Holocaust (mainly) and other lies about those time periods which have made discussing these things an impossibility."
And
"The testimony against Mengele is about as believable as the other Holocaust allegations which is to say not at all. Never any proof"
Bolded by me

Josef Mengele was considered guilty based on testimony. People can and will lies about their enemies.

 

[Whichway?]

 

[Energizer]

Has anyone else noticed the weaponizing of immigrants to serve certain talking points or agendas? It's clear to me that Russia is a complicated country with a complicated history, thus I don't think the history of the Soviet Union and Russia can be summed up in such a black and white perspective by some bitter emigres. Of course those who leave will often leave with a bitter taste in their mouth. But what about the perspectives of those who stayed in the Soviet Union? Rarely are those views aired in the West.

And no doubt some of these defectors themselves are handled by the CIA and mi6, because they are good lackeys for the Empire. If they serve the agenda of capitalism and Western endless expansion, they automatically are lauded as heroes. The opposite of course, those journalists who defend Russia from hyperbolic criticism and expose the Russophobic politics of America and it's allies are usually quickly assassinated or, in some cases just completely ignored by the mainstream. Real investigative journalists dig so deep that they often become a threat and they are usually taken out. They aren't show-boated on the History channel or Western TV that just only promotes anti-Russian sentiments.

It's ironic to me that Western people get so swept up in the anti-Russian narrative of Russia and formerly, the Soviet Union, with communism being the big boogeyman. Modern Russia has largely embraced capitalism more than ever, and it can hardly be argued that Modern Russia is a better time than Soviet Union except by spreading lies and myths about things and attributing them to the effects of communism when they had nothing to do with communism itself. Those who research actual Soviet history will be aware that it's not a perfect country just as America isn't but it also isn't some hellscape of barbarism as it's often portrayed in Western media. Even the term "Russophobia" which has existed for a long time in Russia, over a hundred years, is somehow considered evidence of "Russian inflitration" in Western media. They say, if someone uses the word "Russophobe" they must automatically be a "Russian bot" or "disinfo agent". Ironically, Russia's actual disinformation and propaganda that it does spread could not hold a candle to the sheer output from Western media via mostly government funding that is spent on anti-Russian thinktanks.

In America, it's easy for people to get their panties in a bunch over partisan nominees (for example, when Democrats became upset over Trump being elected), but they are a symptom of the country's attitudes. The arrogance of the Democratic loyalists and mouthpiece mainstream media before the election was many of them were so self-assured that Trump would not win the election. It then later came to light that many were accusing Russia of colluding to help Trump get into office, despite there never being any concrete evidence of this. Since Trump was himself a wild card in a way for the ruling class, the media did not give him an easy time into office. I interpreted this as, whatever the establishment sees as a threat, they will not hesitate to muckrake and spread rumors and lies about. Although Trump of course ended up filling the swamp largely rather than draining as it was claimed that he would, there was a least the small positive thing about him being opposed to war with Russia.

Russia, with its different attitudes and resistance to cowtowing to every whim of Washington and its allies directives, goes against the ruling class of course so all the powers-that-be can do is just resort to propaganda, in the same way that in Russia, there are some propaganda outlets that just spread misinformation about America and its allies (This isn't to express my support for a particular political candidate, because I don't really care for electoral politics or getting emotionally invested in a particular candidate or thinking a political savior will come along to save the day). Naturally, it takes two to tango, but it's important to recognize, Americans and Western allies are not angels on the world-stage either, far from it. So the hypocrisy becomes more clear the more you compare the foreign policy of imperialist expansion in the US and its allies and Russia's foreign policy in which it tends to play dice so to speak, more defensively.

In the same way, it's easy for Americans and other Westerners to point their finger at Putin as the face of everything bad about Russia and to get swept up in anti-Russian sentiments that often have little to do with legitimate criticisms of Russia and the former Soviet Union. Things are always more complicated than a Youtube video and always more complicated when they are presented to outsiders. As someone who studies Russian history, I can say that like America, Russia has its faults, but these faults are often distinct from the very prodigious output of anti-Russian lobbies and thinktanks often themselves funded by the Pentagon so be aware that much of the anti-Russian sentiment doesn't always come from a reasonable perspective and is often just to serve an agenda.

And if you want an accurate history of Russia, you won't find it from Russophobes who see everything in black-and-white terms. You also probably won't find it in the West although there are some Western scholars with a more balanced perspective. Russians themselves are often their own worst critics (they even have a word for this flavor of cinema and art, called chernukha), but this has increased in recent times due to the fractionalization of political movements and expansion of the anti-Russian lobby. There were even politicians who also spread lies about the Soviet Union to just serve their own agenda within Russia, for example former president Nikita Kruschev. He had no issue making a lot of sweeping claims about Stalin's era that simply were to serve Kruschev's own popularity by distancing himself and his politics from Stalin's but had nothing to do with reality. This isn't to say that Stalin was an angel, no politician ever was, but the claims made were not about the truth, and had more to do with sensationalism and muckracking, which incidentally is what American mainstream media does best, especially with foreign governments whose politics it disagrees with.

Outside Russia you also have organizations like Radio Free Europe, a CIA front that funds dozens of newspapers in Russian that churn out anti-Russian, anti-communist propaganda. It's like if I were to emigrate from America, and just say America was the worst country in the world and the president was the worst president. I would probably face a lot of flak from Americans for taking such an extreme stance (and rightfully so). It's important to consider the source when you're investigating Soviet history and research their background. I am automatically suspicious when a so-called "historian" is an emigre from Soviet Union or somewhere else and has nothing but bad things to say without counter-balance. To me, this reveals the inherent bias in the speaker when they take this approach.

 

[burtlancast]

The Holocaust was a lie - don't you feel the least bit embarrassed or ashamed when you say such horrific nonsense?

Could you please put on pause for the moment your shame and enlighten me on some easily verifiable facts about the official account of the Holocaust that somehow trouble me:

"On 2 February, Pravda published an article by its correspondent Boris Polevoi titled “The Death Complex at Auschwitz,” (5 days earlier, on 27 January 1945, the vanguard of the Soviet 100th Infantry Division forming part of the 60th Army of the First Ukrainian Front reached the Auschwitz- Birkenau complex, now abandoned by the Germans.) in which, among other things, we read the following:

“They [the Germans] leveled the mounds of so-called ‘old’ mass graves in the eastern area, blew up and destroyed the traces of their electrical conveyor belt [elektrokonvejera] where hundreds of inmates had been murdered simultaneously by electrical current [elyektriceskim tokom]; the bodies were placed on a slowly moving conveyor belt which brought them to a pit furnace [shiachtnuju pječ ], where the bodies were burnt completely.”

How could Russian intelligence mistake gas chambers for conveyors belts killing by electrocution ? I mean almost a week after discovering the camp and having talked with the survivors ?


Then we have the curious Polish documents by Dr Tadeusz Cyprian (the Polish Deputy Representative on the United Nations War Crimes Commission in London) during the Nuremberg trial, submitted on the 14 décember 1945 (audience number US-293) by Commander Walsh, US Substitute Attorney, flatly stating that in Treblinka, steam chambers were used to kill Jews:

"Document 3311-PS, Exhibit USA-293. This is an official Polish Government Commission report on the investigation of German crimes in Poland. The document describes the concentration camp at Treblinka; and from Page 1, Paragraph 3 and 4, I read as follows:

"In March 1942 the Germans began to erect another camp, Treblinka B. in the neighborhood of Treblinka A, intended to become a place of torment for Jews.

"Late in April 1942 erection was completed of the first chambers in which these general massacres were to be performed by means of steam. Somewhat later the erection of the real death building, which contains 10 death chambers, was finished. It was opened for wholesale murders early in autumn 1942."

"All victims had to strip off their clothes and shoes, which were collected afterwards, whereupon all victims, women and children first, were driven into the death chambers. Those too slow or too weak to move quickly were driven in by rifle butts, by whipping and kicking, often by Saner himself. Many slipped and fell; the next victims pressed forward and stumbled over them. Small children were simply thrown inside. After being filled up to capacity, the chambers were hermetically closed and steam was let in. In a few minutes all was over. The Jewish menial workers had to remove the bodies from the platform and to bury them in mass graves. By and by, as new transports arrived, the cemetery grew, extending in an easterly direction.

From reports received it may be assumed that several hundred thousands of Jews have been exterminated in Treblinka."

Now remember, due to the special rules in effect for the Nuremberg trial (rule 19 and 21) , these were immediately admitted as true facts not to be challenged in their veracity.
How could the Polish intelligence possibly be so mistaken as to believe steam was used instead of Gas ? These camps were on their territory and they had direct access to them.

Then we have an article published on The New York Times February 7, 1943 (pg 16) by Sholem Asch and titled “IN THE VALLEY OF DEATH" stating that besides gas chambers, blood poisoning stations were used to kill Jews:
"...gas chambers and blood poisoning stations which are established in the outlying countryside, where steam shovels prepare community graves for the victims.”

And i end up with 1986 Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel, who in the first 1969 edition of his book "The Night" wrote that Jews were killed not by gas chambers but by throwing them in open air fire furnaces.

"Not far from us, flames were leaping from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered its load – little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it – saw it with my own eyes ... Those children in the flames. (Is it surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep has fled from my eyes."

How is it possible that Wiesel, who stated to have been an inmate in Auschwitz and Buchenwald, never mentioned gas chambers in the first edition of his book ?

And how likely is it that faced with the early 1945 incoming takeover of the Birkenau camp by Russian forces where Wiesel was treated for a foot infection, Wiesel and his father voluntarily chose to flee with their German captors rather than wait for his liberators (pg 93 of the book)?

In conclusion, Electrocution, steam chambers, blood poisoning and open fires were advertised by official sources to have killed Jews in concentration camps.

Strange.

Even stranger is the fact no physical evidence of gas chambers was presented at the Nuremberg trial: their existence was proved only through oral testimony ( this is possible because the special rules of evidence nr 19 and 21 introduced for the event)

This is why the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, has decided not to provide any physical representation of a German homicidal gas chamber: the Museum's Research Director, Michael Berenbaum stated in the presence of witnesses, that "the decision had been made not to present any physical representation of a Nazi gas chamber."

Still stranger are the declarations of Dr Martin Broszat, official director of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute for Contemporary History) in Munich from 1972 until his death, and widely considered as one of the world's most eminent scholars of Nazi Germany.[1].

He wrote in the Hamburg weekly Die Zeit, edition of August 19, 1960 (it appeared in the US edition of August 26, 1960, p. 14), the headline "No Gassing in Dachau" ("Keine Vergasung in Dachau") stating no concentration camp on German soil ever gassed Jews, and that it only concerned Polish ones, which totally invalidates the conclusions of the Nuremberg trial.

"Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other prisoners gassed. The gas chamber in Dachau was never entirely finished or put “into operation.” Hundreds of thousands of prisoners who perished in Dachau and other concentration camps in the Old Reich [that is, Germany in its borders of 1937] were victims, above all, of the catastrophic hygienic and provisioning conditions: according to official SS statistics, during the twelve months from July 1942 through June 1943 alone, 110,812 persons died of disease and hunger in all of the concentration camps of the Reich. The mass extermination of the Jews by gassing began in 1941-1942 and occurred exclusively in a few facilities selected and equipped with appropriate technical installations, above all in the occupied Polish territory (but at no place in the Old Reich): in Auschwitz-Birkenau, in Sobibor on the Bug [river], in Treblinka, Chelmno and Belzec.

It is at those places, but not in Bergen-Belsen, Dachau or Buchenwald, where the mass extermination facilities, spoken of in your article [in an earlier issue of Die Zeit], were built and disguised as shower baths or disinfection rooms. This necessary differentiation does not, of course, change anything regarding the criminal character of the facility that was the concentration camp. However, it may perhaps help eliminate the annoying confusion that arises from the fact that some ineducable people make use of a few arguments that, while correct, are polemically torn from the context, and that, rushing to respond to them are other people who, although they have the correct overall view, rely upon false or mistaken information.

Dr. M. Broszat
Institute for Contemporary History
Munich"

Incredibly, these statements were later twice backed at 15 and 33 years interval by none other than Simon Wiesenthal himself : in a 1993 letter published in the January issue of The Stars and Stripes, a newspaper for US military service personnel, stating that “there were no extermination camps on German soil” during the Second World War, and earlier in a letter published in the April 1975 issue of the British periodical Books and Bookmen.

Now, how can contradictory official sources possibly co-exist without someone resolving the contradictions ?

Let's remember the conclusions of the Nuremberg trial were used to put people to death.

And how come neither Broszat nor Wisenthal were prosecuted and jailed for contradicting these official conclusions ?

To end my concerns, i cite the strange fact that from all the genocides in these last 2 centuries, the Holocaust is the only one protected by laws, and the only one where direct reparations are awarded: officially, these monetary reparations amount so far to 1 million dollars per victim (and counting).

How much money did the Australian Aborigines, or the American Indians receive in comparison ?

Strange, as i said.

This is not to imply the official account of the Holocaust is untrue, of course.

That would be illegal.






(And shameful)

 

[not_James_Bond]

@burtlancast Thanks for your post above, very interesting.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

@burtlancast

There is nothing curious or unknown about the fact that the KZs on Territory of the Deutsches Reich were different in design and purpose than to those in conquered areas in the east.
The KZs were labor camps and designed for punishment and torture of political enemies of the regime and people they deemed unworthy because of ethnic or biological traits.

The Camps like Auschwitz were Vernichtungslager, plain and simple. Extinction facilities designed to kill Jews.
(Though there were killings and extinctions in the labor camps too, but another dimension and other methods entirely)

Why did Hitler and Himmler would have those not in German soil? Because even in the 40s Germans in their majority were not prepared nor inclined to kill Jews in masses, despite all the years of propaganda. The majority of Germans were not anti-Semitic to an extent of being willing to simply kill innocent people, women and children and men.
This is not to whitewash German atrocities. Many could have known at some point of these mass killings, but the means of Protest and revolt were never sufficient even if some would have wanted to.

Hitler was a pathological, sick killer that hated Jews before all. This fixation and fetish wasn’t in any way a common or normal phenomena.

 

[Energizer]

Could you please put on pause for the moment your shame and enlighten me on some easily verifiable facts about the official account of the Holocaust that somehow trouble me:

"On 2 February, Pravda published an article by its correspondent Boris Polevoi titled “The Death Complex at Auschwitz,” (5 days earlier, on 27 January 1945, the vanguard of the Soviet 100th Infantry Division forming part of the 60th Army of the First Ukrainian Front reached the Auschwitz- Birkenau complex, now abandoned by the Germans.) in which, among other things, we read the following:

“They [the Germans] leveled the mounds of so-called ‘old’ mass graves in the eastern area, blew up and destroyed the traces of their electrical conveyor belt [elektrokonvejera] where hundreds of inmates had been murdered simultaneously by electrical current [elyektriceskim tokom]; the bodies were placed on a slowly moving conveyor belt which brought them to a pit furnace [shiachtnuju pječ ], where the bodies were burnt completely.”

How could Russian intelligence mistake gas chambers for conveyors belts killing by electrocution ? I mean almost a week after discovering the camp and having talked with the survivors ?


Then we have the curious Polish documents by Dr Tadeusz Cyprian (the Polish Deputy Representative on the United Nations War Crimes Commission in London) during the Nuremberg trial, submitted on the 14 décember 1945 (audience number US-293) by Commander Walsh, US Substitute Attorney, flatly stating that in Treblinka, steam chambers were used to kill Jews:

"Document 3311-PS, Exhibit USA-293. This is an official Polish Government Commission report on the investigation of German crimes in Poland. The document describes the concentration camp at Treblinka; and from Page 1, Paragraph 3 and 4, I read as follows:

"In March 1942 the Germans began to erect another camp, Treblinka B. in the neighborhood of Treblinka A, intended to become a place of torment for Jews.

"Late in April 1942 erection was completed of the first chambers in which these general massacres were to be performed by means of steam. Somewhat later the erection of the real death building, which contains 10 death chambers, was finished. It was opened for wholesale murders early in autumn 1942."

"All victims had to strip off their clothes and shoes, which were collected afterwards, whereupon all victims, women and children first, were driven into the death chambers. Those too slow or too weak to move quickly were driven in by rifle butts, by whipping and kicking, often by Saner himself. Many slipped and fell; the next victims pressed forward and stumbled over them. Small children were simply thrown inside. After being filled up to capacity, the chambers were hermetically closed and steam was let in. In a few minutes all was over. The Jewish menial workers had to remove the bodies from the platform and to bury them in mass graves. By and by, as new transports arrived, the cemetery grew, extending in an easterly direction.

From reports received it may be assumed that several hundred thousands of Jews have been exterminated in Treblinka."

Now remember, due to the special rules in effect for the Nuremberg trial (rule 19 and 21) , these were immediately admitted as true facts not to be challenged in their veracity.
How could the Polish intelligence possibly be so mistaken as to believe steam was used instead of Gas ? These camps were on their territory and they had direct access to them.

Then we have an article published on The New York Times February 7, 1943 (pg 16) by Sholem Asch and titled “IN THE VALLEY OF DEATH" stating that besides gas chambers, blood poisoning stations were used to kill Jews:
"...gas chambers and blood poisoning stations which are established in the outlying countryside, where steam shovels prepare community graves for the victims.”

And i end up with 1986 Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel, who in the first 1969 edition of his book "The Night" wrote that Jews were killed not by gas chambers but by throwing them in open air fire furnaces.

"Not far from us, flames were leaping from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered its load – little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it – saw it with my own eyes ... Those children in the flames. (Is it surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep has fled from my eyes."

How is it possible that Wiesel, who stated to have been an inmate in Auschwitz and Buchenwald, never mentioned gas chambers in the first edition of his book ?

And how likely is it that faced with the early 1945 incoming takeover of the Birkenau camp by Russian forces where Wiesel was treated for a foot infection, Wiesel and his father voluntarily chose to flee with the Germans rather than wait for his liberators (pg 93 of the book)?

In conclusion, Electrocution, steam chambers, blood poisoning and open fires were advertised by official sources to have killed Jews in concentration camps.

Strange.

Even stranger are the declarations of Dr Martin Broszat, official director of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute for Contemporary History) in Munich from 1972 until his death, and widely considered as one of the world's most eminent scholars of Nazi Germany.[1].

He wrote in the Hamburg weekly Die Zeit edition of August 19, 1960 (it appeared in the US edition of August 26, 1960 (p. 14), the headline "No Gassing in Dachau" ("Keine Vergasung in Dachau") stating no concentration camp on German soil ever gassed Jews, and that it only concerned Polish ones, which totally invalidates the conclusions of the Nuremberg trial.

"Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other prisoners gassed. The gas chamber in Dachau was never entirely finished or put “into operation.” Hundreds of thousands of prisoners who perished in Dachau and other concentration camps in the Old Reich [that is, Germany in its borders of 1937] were victims, above all, of the catastrophic hygienic and provisioning conditions: according to official SS statistics, during the twelve months from July 1942 through June 1943 alone, 110,812 persons died of disease and hunger in all of the concentration camps of the Reich. The mass extermination of the Jews by gassing began in 1941-1942 and occurred exclusively in a few facilities selected and equipped with appropriate technical installations, above all in the occupied Polish territory (but at no place in the Old Reich): in Auschwitz-Birkenau, in Sobibor on the Bug [river], in Treblinka, Chelmno and Belzec.

It is at those places, but not in Bergen-Belsen, Dachau or Buchenwald, where the mass extermination facilities, spoken of in your article [in an earlier issue of Die Zeit], were built and disguised as shower baths or disinfection rooms. This necessary differentiation does not, of course, change anything regarding the criminal character of the facility that was the concentration camp. However, it may perhaps help eliminate the annoying confusion that arises from the fact that some ineducable people make use of a few arguments that, while correct, are polemically torn from the context, and that, rushing to respond to them are other people who, although they have the correct overall view, rely upon false or mistaken information.

Dr. M. Broszat
Institute for Contemporary History
Munich"

Incredibly, these statements were backed by none other than Simon Wiesenthal in a letter published in a January issue of The Stars and Stripes, a newspaper for US military service personnel, stating that “there were no extermination camps on German soil” during the Second World War. He made the identical statement in a letter published in the April 1975 issue of the British periodical Books and Bookmen.

Now, how can contradictory official sources possibly co-exist without someone resolving the contradictions ?

Let's remember the conclusions of the Nuremberg trial were used to put people to death.



To end my concerns, i cite the strange fact that from all the genocides in these last 2 centuries, the Holocaust is the only one protected by laws, and the only one where direct reparations are awarded: officially, these monetary reparations amount so far to 1 million dollars per victim (and counting).

How much money did the Australian Aborigines, or the American Indians receive in comparison ?

Strange, as i said.

This is not to imply the official account of the Holocaust is untrue, of course.

That would be illegal.






(And shameful)

Consider the Israeli / Zionist lobby, Australian Aboriginal people and American Indian people have no such level of power or advocacy. Perhaps that is the main reason for the restitution for Holocaust survivors, but not for other disenfranchised groups. It seems Germans also just have a greater sense of shame, which I don't really see to the same degree in America when it comes to genocide of other groups.

After all, how can anyone have shame when they don't know what's going on, when they are in a constant state of amnesia, when there is no free press? I am not excusing the behavior, but simply trying to understand the psychology of the American personality, and I think the abstract American personality is one of arrogance and ignorance. When the Middle East is being bombed to rubble including innocent people, Americans largely do nothing. The Pentagon and their allies know they are doing things that are simply inexcusable, but perhaps they have rationalized their actions.

Israeli military forces are guilty of war crimes against Palestinians as well, but it seems the Pentagon and Israeli powers think they are above international human rights laws and above having any morality in annexing, torturing, and killing Palestinians. It seems now that power is nearly absolute for the US and its NATO allies, the sense of conscience or guilt for wrongdoings is just not there. So, is it all that strange now, that the rich and powerful can get away with their war-crimes with impunity, that they would continue to do so? Let us consider that the elites that are largely in power, often do not have a conscience. And I think we are seeing that the ruling class is becoming more bold in the ways in which they are abusing their power without pushback.

 

[burtlancast]

Why did Hitler and Himmler would have those not in German soil? Because even in the 40s Germans in their majority were not prepared nor inclined to kill Jews in masses, despite all the years of propaganda.

Be careful: you're entering illegal territory by contradicting the conclusions of the Nuremberg trial.

I don't want to cause you any legal troubles.

 

[michael94]

The KZs were labor camps and designed for punishment and torture of political enemies of the regime and people they deemed unworthy because of ethnic or biological traits.

The piling on of accusations is going to be the downfall of the Holocaust story. Once people realize that so much of the Confessions and Survivor testimony has turned out to be false or contradictory they will not view the rest so trustingly!

203: The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Be careful: you're entering illegal territory by contradicting the conclusions of the Nuremberg trial.

I don't want to cause you any legal troubles.

I do no such thing and I don’t know I’ve youve read what I wrote: there was a conceptual difference between KZs on German territory and the extinction camps on conquered territory like Ausschwitz, which were designed with one purpose in mind: Killing Jews by the masses.
And still: people were exterminated also in labor camps on German territory.

 

[Atman]

@burtlancast

Hitler was a pathological, sick killer that hated Jews before all. This fixation and fetish wasn’t in any way a common or normal phenomena.

Where does this notion come from that Hitler was obsessed with jews and the killing of them? It's because this is the only thing which is conveyed in the media, so people have this warped view of history.
Have you ever read his books or listened to some of his uncut speeches (which are deleted from youtube btw because historical documents are hate speech)?
Then you would know that the jewish question makes up less than 5% of the content of his speeches.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

I‘ve read some and heard some of the speeches.
That Jews are not the foremost topic of his public announcements isn’t proof that he wasn’t obsessed.
It proves the contrary: that he was fully aware that his pathological fixation and Mordlust weren’t shared by the majority of the populace and that if he openly would have admitted his plans to exterminate Jews would have endangered his reign.

I recommend Sebastian Haffners books on the matter. A Zeitzeuge and observer, s conservative German that was friends and in the same social class as many academic German jews.
His views on Hitler are very differentiated, maybe a tad to positive on certain aspects of Hitlers character and traits, but eventually he dismantles the disgusting core of that man.

„Anmerkungen zu Hitler“
Also a good read: „Geschichte eines Deutschen“ -Haffners personal account on his experiences in Germany in Weimar and after 33 before Hafner emigrated to England