astro3 wrote:So, what’s all the fuss about, chaps? Well, glad you asked. A year or so ago I posted a couple of articles – carefully researched, from months poring over books in the British Library, every reference checked
Eh?!?!?!?
So how come you just come out with a bunch of standard, unoriginal Holocaust denial canards of startling age and implausibility?
I mean -
come on. You state -
Rudolf Höss, the former Commandant of Auschwitz, signed on March 15, 1946, a document averring that he had overseen the slaughter of two and a half million Jews, and this was read out on 15th April at Nurnberg. That day signified the birth of Auschwitz’s horror-myth. Two weeks earlier, Höss had remarked
Certainly, I signed a statement that I killed two and half million Jews. I could just as well have said it was five million Jews. There are certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not.
Decades later, an account was published of how Höss had been tortured for three days and nights without sleep by a British army team in order to extract that statement.[51] In a letter to his wife, Höss apologised for his ‘confessions’ and explains that they had been extracted from him under torture[52]. The victorious Allies could not have their ‘truth’ come out at Nuremberg, without the assistance of torture.
Yet you also state
You can read the Hammer-horror account in, e.g., Auschwitz by Lawrence Rees (2005)
Clearly implying you've read it. Yet if we turn to page 363 of
that very book we read -
There are Holocaust deniers who point to the abuse Hoess suffered at the hands of British soldiers immediately following his arrest and claim that this discredits his confession. But whilst it could be argued that his inital statement was tainted, during his subsequent imprisonment and interrogation...there is no evidence that Hoess was mistreated again. It was during this subsequent period that he wrote his memoirs - indeed, he remarks in them how grateful he is to his captors for giving him the chance to write his personal history - and neither then, nor in the witness box when he had the open opportunity to do so, did he recant any of his original confession, though he did feel secure enough to record that he had initially been beaten by his British captors
They even dramatised his being beaten up on capture for the accompanying BBC documentary series.
Indeed, his memoir is totally explicit about his torture, yet this totally central piece of evidence to his torture - much firmer than a 'remark he made to someone' - is totally ignored by you. It's a standard denier tactic because his memoir, rather inconveniently, is also totally explicit about gas chambers.
It's a banal point about a banal denier claim. You
could try to argue his memoir was forged, altered, he was mind controlled, replaced by a compliant Stepford Hoess android - the usual fare. But no. You inevitably cite
Legions of death (page 101 of
how to be an internet Holocaust denier), repeat a canard that doesn't actually serve to contradict 'official history' as stated in a book you sneer at, then tell us how amazingly meticulous you are.
I could go on with other examples (and as always I'm keen to stress I am no expert on this subject. Far from it. Actually, I recall noticing you'd offered out your detractors to a debate on the subject, yet I see no evidence you've actually tried to debate the subject anywhere people really know what they're talking about (so obviously not CODOH). Another standard tactic - steer clear of the actual historical expertise (or ban and/or censor them if you're CODOH)). In fact, I started on a couple of others, but I'm wary of sparking people off on another Holocaust debate and flouting moderation policy*. Though - by crikey - why anyone would concoct an argument from incredulity about how come the Nazis weren't taking holiday snaps of their genocidal actions (after they banned taking pics of
einsatzgruppen actions for reasons that would be obvious to anyone) is beyond me.** In fact, given e.g. stuff about concerns about death rates coming to the fore is already well accounted for in 'official history' (and which you again ignore rather than refute) I wonder what the f*ck you've actually bothered to read beyond the same predictable bunch of tired old denial tracts.
But basically what you've written in the article posted here is "I've read a lot of Holocaust denial material, me". Nothing more. It is totally unoriginal, is 'information' any numpty could pull off the net with little effort and which anyone with a brain and some time could easily locate a plethora of standard counter arguments against, arguments you neither acknowledge nor attempt to refute. It is thus 100% worthless as "research". Yet you write it, stick your real name on it and post it on the net.
Why?
What were you trying to accomplish?
Then you cite as references a who's who of crackpots, Nazis and anti-semites. You even cite k0nsl. Have you actually read his posts at RODOH? The guy is a dick - it makes you look about as credible as citing Killtown would. You cite his website which links to - among other unsavoury sites - Stormfront. And you wonder why you're being called a Nazi (!?). And, as I previously said, opt for the likes of Nazi clown Zundel and blatant anti-semitic propaganda site JudicialInc among your other 'sources'. But then I can't understand why anyone flaunting their academic credentials would see fit to cite articles on Rense as a source and expect to be taken remotely seriously. You'd be better off citing articles in
woman's own
Why?
Now you start digging yourself into a bigger hole by trying to backpedal and totally drop yourself in it re JohnnyVoid's last post, apparently assuming nobody will be looking closely at what you've previously said.
Why?
(Btw - re your 'only Germans were exterminated' claim - let's ignore that by uncritically citing Bacques' claims in
other losses you've again simply ignored all critiques of work you cite. It's as if you simply haven't noticed people actually do talk about this stuff outside the insular fantasy bubble of CODOH)
I just can't understand where you're at.
edit - In fact, can I ask - which non-Holocaust denial historical works or other non-Holocaust denier material did you read during this period of rigorous research of which you speak?
*I hope mods are ok with Holocaust points made in the context of this particular thread, mainly to express my bemusement at Astro's claim of academic rigour. I will not start debating the subject again. But if blackcat can post 'information' about Ann Frank's diary he clearly hasn't even bothered to check out elsewhere, I feel I should be able to make a couple of points in the context of this particular thread and to make a particular point.
**Just for the record (and OTTOMH), there is a claim that an inmate
did manage to take a picture of corpses in a chamber and hide the film by burying it. Obviously, this was never found so can only be regarded as a totally uncorroborated story, possibly totally apocryphal. There are those famous couple of Auschwitz pictures which were taken at great risk that did get out but obviously don't show gas chambers. Deniers 'debunk' them. Though, Astro, you presumably believe the Jews could easily have taken a few snaps on their mobile phones or - given your claims about a kind of Auschwitz/Butlins - simply purchased a fun camera from the camp Superdrug between lounging by the pool and watching films. But - of course - it was obviously a piece of piss to go round photographing nonsense in the gas chambers and then simply e-mail jpgs to the
times from the Auschwitz internet cafe wasn't it?
