[Rich]

I've never thought free speech was a good idea.

Well less free speech would have saved the Socialist workers party a lot of embarrassment recently. More seriously though the Soviet holocaust of 32/33 could have been stopped if there had been free speech. Its natural that Communists and Fascists should oppose free speech as free speech would interfere with the perpetration of their terrible crimes.

Just on the Nazis, it may not be their greatest crimes but I mention it because I've never seen it mentioned by anyone else. We should condemn the Nazis for their evil and wicked support for getting Jews to emigrate to Palestine before the war and their attempts to get Jews to emigrate to Madagascar. Their policies show a racist and callous disregard for the well being of the indigenous populations.

It doesn't matter whether millions of people are destroyed though deliberately genocide or through callous disregard in the pursuit of selfish ideological fantasy as seems to have been the case in the Soviet holocausts of 1921 and 33/34. However the Nazis had a plan of genocide that intended to kill off tens if not hundreds of millions of people. This was not a a noble campaign against the international banking industry as some people seem to believe. Sadly they had they power to start enacting their desires. The Jews, Gypsies, Ukrainians and Poles suffered a holocaust. It was totally right to stop them even though extreme measures were required. The killing of innocent life that the Nazi lover Irving complains about in the deliberate fire-bombing of German cities, was most certainly tragic, but that we were prepared to do what is necessary is something for which we can feel deeply proud, while the Neutrality of Switzerland and Sweden and the pacifism of Gandhi were shameful policies. Its time to face responsibility. It is also wicked of people to condemn 9/11 as an immoral tactic. 9/11 should be opposed because it was done to spread and entrench Islam. Flying planes into office buildings can of course be a totally legitimate and respectful tactic when done for the right cause. This attitude feeds the Irving's of this world. Similarly the firing of Hamas rockets, there is nothing inherently wrong with area bombing whether with missiles or from planes. Hamas should be condemned for being murderous Muslim tyrants not for using immoral tactics.

Opposition to the Nazis should not be based on some kind of ignorant and pathetic, simplistic moralism. I don't know if the British committed genocide against the Mau Mau or whether its fair to say they suffered a holocaust. But long term even for them it would probably worse if the Nazis had won. In the mid thirties the Nazis may have treated Jews no worse than Southern Americans treated Blacks. In fact the German public didn't support the public lynching of Jews as White southerners did to Blacks. But again long term a Nazi victory would have been worse for Southern American Blacks. Even for the Palestinians it would have almost certainly been worse if the Axis and Japan had won.

As to the the so called holocaust deniers. I welcome their contributions. We gain knew knowledge through the posing of difficult questions. We don't learn through the imposition of totalitarian dogma. I take a similar attitude to 9/11 truthers. While I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job the truthers have undoubtedly done us a great service by forcing the establishment to provide far more detailed explanations. Did millions die in gas chambers? Its an extraordinary claim and it is right to demand a high level of explanation, evidence and detail, of course its utterly academic to our attitude towards the Nazis.

[Smilin' Dave]

The trial claim is more serious. The claim in that trial was that he exaggerated in places, not that he was an outright liar, and I think he lost the his claim because the judge went with the reasonable view of most academics about the holocaust when Irving is obviously a revisionist historian with whom most academics wouldn't agree. I wouldn't mind looking up that judgment properly though.

Richard Evans took the point of view that none of Irving's work could be trusted after studying it for two years. I don't recall specific examples but I'm pretty sure Evans found instances where Irving had drawn on a source for evidence, but deliberately omitted information from the same source which didn't support or directly countered his claims.

I believe you can find the transcripts for the trial online, though from memory they can be a bit of a chore to read as they aren't sorted by topic etc.

The one argument I found compelling is the samples of the brick work at the gas chambers.
I've seen people dismiss this saying that 50 years of rain and weather eroded any evidence...but then why did the cloths de-louser chamber show such high results?

For someone just asking questions, you seem to show more and more detailed knowledge of denialist research as this discussion goes on. All of this come from that one book you're wife is reading?

As to the varied concentrations of cyanide in the gas chambers vs. the delousing chambers

A later investigation, carried out by a G. Rudolf (4), confirmed the high concentrations of cyanogen compounds in the facilities for clothes disinsectization. This may be so since, being undamaged, these facilities were not exposed to the action of weather conditions, especially rainfall. Moreover, it is known that the duration of disinsectization was relatively long, about 24 hours for each batch of clothes (probably even longer), whereas the execution with Zyklon B in the gas chambers took, according to the statement of the Auschwitz Camp Commander Rudolf Hoess (7) and the data presented by Sehn (6), only about 20 minutes.

The delousing chambers would have experienced greater concentrations, and weren't as exposed to the weather in the following decades. Make sense?

The numbers don't fit with the claims.

I asked you to propose numbers you think more realistic. I'm still waiting.

The methods promoted and touted (gas chambers) don't have the capacity to have executed so many people.

You haven't demonstrated this.

You also haven't explained how the Aktion Reinhardt camps were supposed to have any practical function when they clearly didn't have accomodation for so many people.

The arguments AGAINST those who question are automatically and uniformly the same..."ANTI-SEMITE".

This is a strawman argument. I find your engagement with this discussion suspect (use of loaded questions which you are careful to make clear are not your own, your detailed knowledge that emerges when challenged etc.), have I certainly haven't called you an anti-semite. People believe things that are incorrect for all sorts of reasons.

what is generally found is that the absolute truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle of the 2 view-points

Actually it tends to be the side with the better evidence. None of yours has really stood up to scrutiny, and you dodge questions that would cause your complete collapse.

More seriously though the Soviet holocaust of 32/33 could have been stopped if there had been free speech.

1. Free speech in itself doesn't stop famines. All the prouncements and publications had little impact on the Irish Potato famine for example.
2. Free speech doesn't stop armed expropriations. Words are not a good match for bullets.
3. I've been over this so many times - there isn't any hard evidence that the Great Famine was deliberately inflicted to starve people. The whole accusation boils down to a correlation that can't be shown to be specific to the regions the famine affected. There's no equivilent of the Posen Speeches etc. in the Soviet case. There is more evidence to support the contention that Soviet authorities did something unbelievably stupid in their eagerness/ignorance (with a dash of Stalin's paranoia).

But that last point is a topic for another thread.

As to the the so called holocaust deniers. I welcome their contributions. We gain knew knowledge through the posing of difficult questions.

Difficult questions are fine. Posing what are essentially trick questions (ie. "did six million die in gas chambers?" when we know that plenty of people were killed by other means), or asking questions that have been answered again and again are simply opportunities to spread propaganda or otherwise distort useful discourse.

[Quercus Robur]

I've got hold of the judgment here. Have only selected a few parts of it. It looks very interesting and detailed on the history many interesting claims are made and justified. Good old English libel law Haven't read through them yet, but here's the general case and how it specifically relates to what he said on Aushwitz.

1.2 The essential issues in the action can be summarised as follows: Irving complains that certain passages in the Defendants' book accuse him of being a Nazi apologist and an admirer of Hitler, who has resorted to the distortion of facts and to the manipulation of documents in support of his contention that the Holocaust did not take place. He contends that the Defendants' book is part of a concerted attempt to ruin his reputation as an historian and he seeks damages accordingly. The Defendants, whilst they do not accept the interpretation which Irving places on the passages complained of, assert that it is true that Irving is discredited as an historian by reason of his denial of the Holocaust and by reason of his persistent distortion of the historical record so as to depict Hitler in a favourable light. The Defendants maintain that the claim for damages for libel must in consequence fail.

2.15 Adopting the approach set out earlier, my conclusion is that the passages complained of in their context and read collectively bear the following meanings all of which are defamatory of him:

that Irving is an apologist for and partisan of Hitler, who has resorted to the distortion of evidence; the manipulation and skewing of documents; the misrepresentation of data and the application of double standards to the evidence, in order to serve his own purpose of exonerating Hitler and portraying him as sympathetic towards the Jews;
that Irving is one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial, who has on numerous occasions denied that the Nazis embarked upon the deliberate planned extermination of Jews and has alleged that it is a Jewish deception that gas chambers were used by the Nazis at Auschwitz as a means of carrying out such extermination;
that Irving , in denying that the Holocaust happened, has misstated evidence; misquoted sources; falsified statistics; misconstrued information and bent historical evidence so that it conforms to his neo-fascist political agenda and ideological beliefs;
that Irving has allied himself with representatives of a variety of extremist and anti-semitic groups and individuals and on one occasion agreed to participate in a conference at which representatives of terrorist organisations were due to speak;
that Irving , in breach of an agreement which he had made and without permission, removed and transported abroad certain microfiches of Goebbels's diaries, thereby exposing them to a real risk of damage.
that Irving is discredited as an historian.

4.17 The main corpus of evidence for the Defendants was provided by academic historians whose evidence was by consent admitted as expert evidence. Written and oral evidence was submitted by the following:

(i) Professor Richard Evans, who is Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge and has written many historical works about Germany. He gave evidence principally about Irving 's historiography, his exculpation of Hitler and hiis denial of the Holocaust .

(ii) Professor Robert Jan van Pelt, who is a Professor of Architecture in the School of Architecture, University of Waterloo in Canada. Professor van Pelt is an acknowledged authority on Auschwitz, about which he has written extensively, and this was the subject of his evidence.

(iii) Professor Christopher Browning, who is a Professor of History at Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, Washington. He gave evidence on the evidence about the implementation of the Final Solution, covering the shooting of Jews and others in the East and the gassing of Jews in death camps (apart from Auschwitz).

(iv) Dr Peter Longerich, who is Reader in the Department of German at the Royal Holloway College, University of London and a specialist in the Nazi era. He gave evidence of Hitler's role in the persecution of the Jews under the Nazi regime and of the systematic character of the Nazi policy for the extermination of the Jews.

(v) Professor Hajo Funke, who is Professor of Political Science at the Free University of Berlin. He gave evidence of Irving 's alleged association with right-wing and neo-Nazi groups and individuals in Germany.

[--]

The general case for the Defendants

5.2 At p161 of Denying the Holocaust Lipstadt attributes to scholars the description of Irving as a "Hitler partisan wearing blinkers". That phrase, importing the suggestion that Irving deliberately ignores what is revealed by the historical record, encapsulates one of the main defamatory meanings of which Irving complains and which the Defendants seek to justify.

5.3 The way in which the Defendants summarise their plea of justification on this part of the case is as follows:

"that the [Claimant], driven by his obsession with Hitler, distorts, manipulates and falsifies history in order to put Hitler in a more favourable light, thereby demonstrating a lack of the detachment, rationality and judgment necessary for an historian".

In their Summary of Case the Defendants highlight claims made by Irving as to Hitler's friendship for and leniency towards Jews, which claims they assert ignore a large and powerful body of contradictory evidence. The Defendants contend that Irving

"misstates, misquotes, falsifies statistics, falsely attributes conclusions to reliable sources, relies on books and sources that directly contradict his arguments, quoting in a manner that completely distorts the author's objectives, manipulates documents to serve his own purposes, skews documents and misrepresents data in order to reach historically untenable conclusions, bends historical evidence until it conforms to his ideological leanings and political agenda, takes accurate information and shapes it to confirm his conclusion and constantly suppresses or deliberately overlooks sources with which he is familiar because they contradict the line of argument which he wishes to advance".

5.4 The Defendants advance a similar case against Irving in relation to his account of the Nazi persecution of the Jews, culminating in the genocide which they assert took place in the gas chambers, and his claims as to the extent of Hitler's involvement in that persecution. I shall deal with that part of the defendants' plea of justification in sections VI to VIII below. The present section is confined to certain specific instances where the Defendants attack Irving 's historiography.

5.5 The principal protagonist amongst the Defendants' witnesses of the view that Irving persistently and deliberately falsifies history is Evans. In seeking to make good this full-blooded assault on Irving 's historiographical approach, Evans included in his lengthy written report multiple examples of the way in which in his opinion Irving portrays Hitler in a manner which is utterly at odds with the available evidence. He cited numerous occasions when, so he alleged, Irving distorted the historical record by one means or another; suppressed evidence; made uncritical use of unreliable sources and arrived at perverse irrational conclusions about events and documents. Evans also drew attention to occasions when Irving has written in inappropriately flattering terms about him. One example is Irving 's description of the Fuhrer in Hitler's War as "a friend of the arts, benefactor of the impoverished, defender of the innocent, persecutor of the delinquent". Evans considers that the consistent bias in favour of Hitler which is manifested in Irving 's works may stem in part from Irving 's identification with Hitler and from his professed intention to write Hitler's War from Hitler's perspective. Irving has himself written that he sees himself as having acted as Hitler's "ambassador to the afterlife" when he was engaged upon writing his biography of Hitler. On the evidence of what Irving has written and what he has said in his talks and speeches, Evans concludes that Irving remains an ardent admirer of Hitler despite the overwhelming evidence which condemns him.

5.6 Evans does not stand alone in making these harsh criticisms of Irving 's historical method. In the narrower fields covered by their evidence van Pelt, Browning and Longerich level similar criticisms at him.

5.7 The Defendants based their attack on Irving 's historiography upon a number of selected episodes. They contend that a detailed analysis of the evidence which was available to Irving supports their case that in his account of those episodes Irving has persistently and deliberately falsified, manipulated and suppressed documents so as to presents a picture which is skewed and misleading. The Defendants focus their attention on a "chain of documents" which Irving has relied, initially on BBC television in June 1977 and on several later occasions, in support of his view that Hitler opposed the persecution of the Jews and sought to protect them from the excesses advocated by other Nazis. I shall consider the parties' arguments in relation to each of the incidents to which the chain of documents relates.

5.8 Evans's detailed examination of those documents reveals, so he alleged, consistent falsification of the historical record on the part of Irving . Evans expressed the opinion that what he described as Irving 's "egregious errors" were calculated and deliberate. He accepted that anyone can make mistakes but pointed out (as did Browning) that, where all the so-called mistakes are exculpatory of Hitler, the natural inference is that the falsification of the record is intentional. Evans did not resile in his oral evidence from the view expressed in his written report that Irving does not deserve to be called an historian.

5.9 As I have already observed, Irving regards the imputation that he has deliberately falsified the historical record as one of the most serious which can be levelled against an historian. He testified that he had never knowingly or wilfully misrepresented a document or misquoted or suppressed any document which would run counter to his case. He repudiated each and every one of the Defendants' allegations of misquoting, misconstruing, mistranslating, distorting or manipulating the evidence.

5.10 Irving denied any obsession with Hitler, as he denied any falsification of history so as to portray Hitler in a more favourable light. Irving argued that he has every right to praise Hitler where praise is merited. Other historians, such as AJP Taylor, have taken a similar line. Irving also resents the claim made by Lipstadt that he has placed above his desk a self-portrait of Hitler. In fact it is nothing more than a postcard-sized sketch which is not on display, although he occasionally shows it to visitors.

5.11 Irving drew attention to the fact that in Hitler's War, as well as in his other published works, he frequently includes material to the discredit of Hitler and other senior Nazis and makes criticism of them. He pointed out that he has expressly drawn his readers' attention to crimes committed by Hitler. In his closing submission he included a list of derogatory references which has made about Hitler. He refuted the notion that these critical references were inserted for tactical purposes, that is, to enable him to point to them in the event of commentators accusing him of being a Hitler partisan. He has made no attempt to conceal from his readers the rabid anti-semitism displayed by Hitler in the early days. In his use of material obtained in his interviews with Hitler's former adjutants or their widows, he has included information provided by them which reflects adversely on Hitler.

5.12 As Evans acknowledged, Irving has uncovered much new material about the Third Reich. He has researched documents not previously visited by historians, for example the Himmler papers in Washington and the Goebbels diaries in Moscow. He has tracked down and interviewed individuals (such as Hitler's adjutants or their widows) who participated in or observed some of the events which took place during Hitler's regime. Irving pointed out that, when he uncovers new documents or sources, he habitually makes them publicly available by placing them on his website or by some other means. Irving argues that no duplicitous historian would behave in this way, for he would be providing the evidence of his own duplicity to other historians. Irving advances a similar general argument in rebuttal of the claim that he has deliberately misrepresented or skewed or mistranslated documents. Irving said that he invariably indicates in a footnote where the document is to be found and often quotes the document in the original German. Irving contended that a historian intent on misleading his readers would not so forthcoming with the evidence of his own disreputable conduct.

5.13 Irving rejected the attack upon his historiography mounted by Evans: the criticisms are sweeping but the instances cited in support of them are, he claimed, relatively insignificant. Evans takes no account, Irving complained, of the quality of the historical work displayed in his many published works many of which have been favourably reviewed by fellow historians. Irving was critical of frequency with which Evans resorted to "the consensus amongst historians" by way of support for his attack on Irving . He suggested that many of the criticisms advanced by Evans were derived by him from the work of Professor Broszat, who had personal reasons for writing corrosively about him. Irving stressed that he should be judged by the use which he made of the evidence which was available to him at the time of writing and not by reference to evidence which has come to light more recently.

5.14 Irving was, understandably, indignant that Evans included in his report a reference to his having been required by the British Museum to read Hitler's War in the section of the library reserved for pornographic material. By way of rejoinder he stated that the librarian of the Widener Library in New York apparently thinks well enough of him to stock forty-seven of his books.

5.15 Irving 's general response to this part of the Defendants' case of justification is that, when the pertinent documentary evidence is subjected to "rigid historical criteria" (i.e. when due account is taken of the authenticity and the reliability of the evidence, the reason for its existence and the vantage point of the source or author), a relatively slim dossier of evidence emerges which does indeed show Hitler intervening in every instance to mitigate or lessen the wrongdoing against the Jews. Few, if any, documents point in the opposite direction.

Identifying the issue

13.68 When the trial started, it appeared from Irving 's written statement of case that he was adhering to the position often adopted in his speeches about Auschwitz, namely that no gas chambers were commissioned or operated at the camp and that in consequence no Jew lost his or her life in gas chambers there.

13.69 As I have already observed in paragraph 7.11 above, in the course of the trial Irving modified his position: he accepted that there was at least one gas chamber (or "cellar") at Auschwitz, albeit used solely or mainly for the fumigation of clothing. He also accepted that gassing of Jews had taken place at the camp "on some scale". He did not indicate on what scale. Irving firmly denied the claim advanced by van Pelt that 500,000 Jews were killed in morgue 1 of crematorium 2. The case for the Defendants on the other hand was, as I have said, that almost one million Jews were put to death in the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

13.70 In these circumstances the central question which, as it appears to me, falls to be determined is whether or not the evidence supports the Defendants' contention that the number of deaths ran into hundreds of thousands or whether Irving is right when he claims that the killing by gas was on a modest scale.

The scale of the killing of Jews in the gas chambers

13.71 I have to confess that, in common I suspect with most other people, I had supposed that the evidence of mass extermination of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compelling. I have, however, set aside this preconception when assessing the evidence adduced by the parties in these proceedings.

The "convergence" of evidence

13.72 The case for the Defendants, summarised above, is that there exists what van Pelt described as a "convergence" of evidence which is to the ordinary, dispassionate mind overwhelming that hundreds of thousands of Jews were systematically gassed to death at Auschwitz, mainly by the use of hydrogen cyanide pellets called Zyklon-B. I have set out at paragraphs 7.15 to 7.74 above the individual elements which make up that convergence of evidence. I have done so at some length (although not at such length as did van Pelt in his report) because it appears to me to be important to keep well in mind the diversity of the categories and the extent to which those categories are mutually corroborative.

13.73 I recognise the force of many of Irving 's comments upon some of those categories. He is right to point out that the contemporaneous documents, such as drawings, plans, correspondence with contractors and the like, yield little clear evidence of the existence of gas chambers designed to kill humans. Such isolated references to the use of gas as are to be found amongst these documents can be explained by the need to fumigate clothes so as to reduce the incidence of diseases such as typhus. The quantities of Zyklon-B delivered to the camp may arguably be explained by the need to fumigate clothes and other objects. It is also correct that one of the most compromising documents, namely Muller's letter of 28 June 1943 setting out the number of cadavers capable of being burnt in the incinerators, has a number of curious features which raise the possibility that it is not authentic. In addition, the photographic evidence for the existence of chimneys protruding through the roof of morgue 1 at crematorium 2 is, I accept, hard to interpret.

13.74 Similarly Irving had some valid comments to make about the various accounts given by survivors of the camp and by camp officials. Some of those accounts were given in evidence at the post-war trials. The possibility exists that some of these witnesses invented some or even all of the experiences which they describe. Irving suggested the possibility of cross-pollination, by which he meant the possibility that witnesses may have repeated and even embellished the (invented) accounts of other witnesses with the consequence that a corpus of false testimony is built up. Irving pointed out that parts of some of the accounts of some of the witnesses are obviously wrong or (like some of Olere's drawings) clearly exaggerated. He suggested various motives why witnesses might have given false accounts, such as greed and resentment (in the case of survivors) and fear and the wish to ingratiate themselves with their captors (in the case of camp officials). Van Pelt accepted that these possibilities exist. I agree.

The documentary evidence

13.75 Vulnerable though the individual categories of evidence may be to criticisms of the kind mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, it appears to me that the cumulative effect of the documentary evidence for the genocidal operation of gas chambers at Auschwitz is considerable.

13.76 The nature of the redesign in 1942 of crematorium 2 appears to me, for the reasons summarised in paragraph 7.59 to 7.63 above, to constitute powerful evidence that the morgue was to be used to gas live human beings who had been able to walk downstairs. Few and far between though they may be, documents do exist for which it is difficult to find an innocent explanation. I have in mind for example the minute of the meeting of 19 August 1942 (paragraph 7.66 above), which refers to Badenanstalten fur Sonderaktionen ("bath-houses for special actions") and the so-called Kinna report (paragraph 7.67 above). As to Muller's letter about the incineration capacity of the ovens (see paragraphs 7.69 and 7.106 above), it does not seem to me that, despite its unusual features, a dispassionate historian would dismiss it out of hand, as did Irving , as a forgery. Van Pelt believed it to be genuine. He pointed out that there are two copies in different archives (in Domburg and in Moscow, where it has been since 1945). It was used at the trial of Hoss in 1948.If it had been forged before 1948, it would have been unlikely that the capacity would have been given as 4,756 corpses per day since that is a lower figure than the figures published by the Russians and the Poles at the end of the war. I accept the reasoning of van Pelt. If the Muller document is authentic, it is further cogent evidence of genocidal gassing because the capacity to which Muller refers cannot have been needed to incinerate those who succumbed to disease. Finally, there is the scientific evidence gathered by the Polish Central Commission in 1945-7 (paragraph 7.2 above) and the evidence of the Markiewicz report (see paragraphs 7.73 to 7.74 above).

The eye-witness evidence

13.77 Whilst I acknowledge that the reliability of the eye-witness evidence is variable, what is to me striking about that category of evidence is the similarity of the accounts and the extent to which they are consistent with the documentary evidence. The account of, for example, Tauber, is so clear and detailed that, in my judgment, no objective historian would dismiss it as invention unless there were powerful reasons for doing so. Tauber's account is corroborated by and corroborative of the accounts given by others such as Jankowski and Dragon. Their descriptions marry up with Olere's drawings. The evidence of other eye-witnesses, such as Hoss and Broad, would in my view appear credible to a dispassionate student of Auschwitz. There is no evidence of cross-pollination having occurred. It is in the circumstances an unlikely explanation for the broad similarity of the accounts in this category.

13.78 My conclusion is that the various categories of evidence do "converge" in the manner suggested by the Defendants. I accept their contention which I have summarised in paragraph 7.75 above. My overall assessment of the totality of the evidence that Jews were killed in large numbers in the gas chambers at Auschwitz is that it would require exceedingly powerful reasons to reject it. Irving has argued that such reasons do exist.

The Leuchter report

13.79 The reason why Irving initially denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz was, as has been seen, the Leuchter report. I have summarised in some detail the findings made by Leuchter at paragraphs 7.82 to 7.89 above. I will not repeat myself. I have also set out at paragraphs 7.104 to 7.108 above the reasons why van Pelt on behalf of the Defendants dismissed the Leuchter report as flawed and unreliable. Those reasons were put to Irving in cross-examination. It is a fair summary of his evidence to say that he accepted the validity of most of them. He agreed that the Leuchter report was fundamentally flawed. In regard to the chemical analysis, Irving was unable to controvert the evidence of Dr Roth (summarised at paragraph 7.106 above) that, because the cyanide would have penetrated the brickwork and plaster to a depth of no more than one tenth of the breadth of a human hair, any cyanide present in the relatively large samples taken by Leuchter (which had to be pulverised before analysis) would have been so diluted that the results on which Leuchter relied had effectively no validity. What is more significant is that Leuchter assumed, wrongly as Irving agreed, that a greater concentration of cyanide would have been required to kill humans than was required to fumigate clothing. In fact the concentration required to kill humans is 22 times less than is required for fumigation purposes. As indicated in paragraph 7.105 above, and as Irving was constrained to accept, Leuchter's false assumption vitiated his conclusion. Irving conceded the existence of many other factual errors in the Leuchter report.

13.80 In the light of the evidence of van Pelt and Irving 's answers in cross-examination, I do not consider that an objective historian would have regarded the Leuchter report as a sufficient reason for dismissing, or even doubting, the convergence of evidence on which the Defendants rely for the presence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. I have not overlooked the fact that Irving claimed that Leuchter's findings have been replicated, notably in a report by Germar Rudolf. But that report was not produced at the trial so it is impossible for me to assess its evidential value.

Holes in the roof of morgue 1 at crematorium 2?

13.81 The strength of the criticisms of the Leuchter report may explain why, as the trial progressed, the emphasis of Irving 's case on Auschwitz appeared to shift from the absence of cyanide in the brick and plaster to the roof of morgue 1 at crematorium 2. As I have explained in paragraphs 7.91 to 7.93 above, Irving argues that there is no evidence of the presence of the chimneys or ducts by means of which, on the Defendants' case, Zyklon-B pellets were poured down from the roof of morgue 1 into the gas chamber below (where the Defendants claim most of the deaths occurred). In particular Irving relied on a photograph of part of the collapsed roof which displayed no evidence of the apertures through which the chimneys would have protruded.

13.82 As the Defendants point out, this argument has some curious features. Firstly, Irving embraced it relatively recently in late 1998 (so that it cannot have been the basis for his denials before that date of the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz). Secondly, Irving appeared at one stage to accept that there was a gas chamber in morgue 1 at crematorium 2, albeit one that was used for fumigation and not for killing. In that case it would seem that ducts or some other form of aperture would have been required to introduce the pellets into the chamber, since the morgue had no windows and a single gas-tight door. Thirdly, the argument is confined to morgue 1 at crematorium 2. Although Irving spent hardly any time in his cross-examination of van Pelt on the evidence that gassing took place elsewhere at Auschwitz, it is the Defendants' case that gassing took place in other gas chambers, notably at crematorium 3.

13.83 Despite those curious features, Irving 's argument deserves to be taken seriously. I have summarised the Defendants' response to it at paragraphs 7.109 to 7.111 above. In the end, the task for an historian is to weigh the evidence of the absence of signs of holes in the roof of the morgue against the opposing evidence that there were chimneys running through the roof. In my view van Pelt is right in his opinion that it is after so many years difficult to verify whether or not holes at one time existed in a roof which collapsed as long ago as 1944. It is unclear how much of the roof can be seen in the photograph on which Irving relies. The roof is in a bad state, so that it is hard to tell if there were holes in it. There is a possibility that the holes were backfilled. There is the evidence of eye-witnesses who observed or at least described pellets being poured down through the roof of the morgue. Olere's drawing depicts clearly the chimneys running up towards the roof the gas chamber. Their appearance in his drawing corresponds with the description of them by Tauber and others. Photographs taken in 1942 (or 1943) and 1944, whilst difficult to interpret, are consistent with the presence of protruding chimneys. In these circumstances, I consider that an objective historian, taking account of all the evidence, would conclude that the apparent absence of evidence of holes in the roof of morgue at crematorium 2 falls far short of being a good reason for rejecting the cumulative effect of the evidence on which the Defendants rely.

Gas chambers for fumigation purposes or to serve as air raid shelters

13.84 I have no doubt that Irving is right that there was throughout a need to have fumigation facilities at the camp. There is documentary evidence of concern about the effect on the labour supply of prevailing mortality levels. As van Pelt accepted, ovens would have been required to cremate the large number who succumbed to disease. But in my judgment there is ample evidence which would have convinced an objective commentator that there were also gas chambers which were put to use to kill humans. In the first place there is the eye-witness evidence to which I have referred. Secondly, there is the evidence of van Pelt that the redesign of crematorium 2 in late 1942 was intended to cater for live human beings to walk down to an undressing room before being led into the chamber and to do away with the corpse-slide previously used to convey dead bodies downstairs. Thirdly, there is evidence that a camp doctor asked in January 1943 for the provision of an undressing-room, which would have been unnecessary if the crematorium were intended for corpses. Finally there is the evidence of the letter dated 31 March 1943 in which Bischoff requisitions, as a matter of urgency, a gas-tight door with a spy-hole of extra thickness. It is difficult to see why a spy-hole would be necessary in the door of a chamber used only for fumigating corpses or other objects. For these reasons I do not accept that an objective historian would be persuaded that the gas chambers served only the purposes of fumigation. The evidence points firmly in the direction of a homicidal use of the chambers as well.

13.85 I turn to Irving 's alternative argument that the redesign work carried out in early 1943 was to convert crematorium 2 (and crematorium 3) for use as an air-raid shelter. I accept his claim that there was at the time some concern about Allied air-raids in the region. I am prepared to assume in Irving 's favour that it was standard practice to equip shelters with gas-tight doors opening outwards and equipped with a peephole (although probably not with a metal grille on the inside). Nevertheless there appear to me to be cogent pragmatic reasons for a historian to conclude that the evidence does not support the air-raid shelter argument.

13.86 If the redesign was to convert the buildings to air raid shelters, there would have been no reason why the drawings and associated documents should not say so. But there is no hint in the documents that such was the intention. The question arises for whose benefit such shelters would have been built. It appears to me to be unlikely that the Nazis would be concerned to shelter the camp inmates. In any case the shelters would have been too small to accommodate more than a fraction of them. But the shelters would not have been suitable for SS personnel either, since the SS barracks were about one and a half miles way. So I cannot accept that this argument comes anywhere near displacing the conclusion to be drawn from the convergent evidence relied on by the Defendants for their contention as to the object of the redesign work.

"Death books"; decrypts and coke consumption

13.87 Irving advanced a number of subsidiary arguments. I can deal with them briefly because they did not impress me. I do not consider that they would have impressed a dispassionate historian either.

13.88 Irving relied on the fact that the camp registers or "death books" released by the Russians record deaths at Auschwitz, but make no mention of any deaths by gassing. The short answer to this point is that, according to the unchallenged evidence of a large number of witnesses, the books record only the deaths of those who were formally registered as inmates of the camp. The Jews who were selected on arrival to die were taken straight to the gas chambers without being registered. One would not therefore expect to find mention of the cause of death of those Jews in the death books.

13.89 Reports were sent regularly from the camp to Berlin in cypher. They were intercepted and decoded at Bletchley Park. Although these reports often gave the cause of death, they did not mention gassing. In my judgment there are two reasons why little significance is to be attached to this: the first is that there was a strict rule of secrecy about the gassing and the second is that, like the death books, these reports related to registered inmates only.

13.90 Irving argued that the quantity of coke required to burn one body would have been 35kg. He contended that the amount of coke which is recorded as having been delivered to Auschwitz is nothing like enough to kill the number of Jews who the Defendants say lost their lives in the gas chambers. But I accept that the evidence of van Pelt, which was based on contemporaneous documents (see paragraph 7.125 above), that, if the incinerators were operated continuously and many corpses were burnt together so themselves providing fuel, no more than 3.5kg of coke would have been required per corpse.

Conclusion

13.91 Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied on by the Defendants, it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.

[Rich]

1. Free speech in itself doesn't stop famines. All the prouncements and publications had little impact on the Irish Potato famine for example.
2. Free speech doesn't stop armed expropriations. Words are not a good match for bullets.
3. I've been over this so many times - there isn't any hard evidence that the Great Famine was deliberately inflicted to starve people. The whole accusation boils down to a correlation that can't be shown to be specific to the regions the famine affected. There's no equivilent of the Posen Speeches etc. in the Soviet case. There is more evidence to support the contention that Soviet authorities did something unbelievably stupid in their eagerness/ignorance (with a dash of Stalin's paranoia).

Certainly not all famines or all, huge scale atrocities would be stopped by free speech. However the Bolshevik regime was in a war against the majority of its population. The NEP was a kind of uneasy truce. THe Bolsheviks could not have spread consolidated or held on to power without the complete suppression of free speech. The Nazis were certainly far more popular within Germany than the Bolsheviks within the Russian empire. There is no doubt that the majority of Germans were happy with dominating expansion. However the death camps and many other things would not have been politically sustainable with even a moderate level of free speech. I agree with you, that the idea of deliberate genocide by the soviets for major nationalities like the Ukrainians strikes me as highly improbable.

Difficult questions are fine. Posing what are essentially trick questions (ie. "did six million die in gas chambers?" when we know that plenty of people were killed by other means), or asking questions that have been answered again and again are simply opportunities to spread propaganda or otherwise distort useful discourse.

I don't find most of the discourse in the West, which seems to focus so heavily on the Jewish part of the holocaust particularly useful. Lets be clear the American and Zionist establishment uses the Nazi holocaust with utter disregard for the truth or concern for the victims. The Holocaust Museum still sensors Communists out of Niemolah quotation, I believe it used to start with "first they came for the Jews". There has been considerable attempts by Zionists to deny the Nazi Gypsy holocaust. But most important there has been the wicked campaign of denial waged in America for the last sixty years to deny that Conservatives committed this terrible holocaust. Even in its original Martin Niemollah's poem is a lie. The Nazis never came for most Germans. Hitler had overwhelming support from German Conservatives and classical Liberals until the end. Conservatives across Europe were always first to want to surrender and were happy to collaborate. No doubt the Jew hating Polish Conservative would have loved to accept defeat and collaborate with Hitler if they'd been given the chance. It was mainly hard core Communists that remained intransigently opposed to Hitler through out. It was the Soviets that liberated Eastern and central Europe and brought the Nazi holocaust to an end. Even after Hitler declared war on America in December 1941 many American Conservatives were in no hurry to commit major resources to the war against Hitler.

Its time we put an end to all the anti German nonsense as well. Romanian Conservatives were just as bad as Germans when it came to murdering Jew and Gypsies. The Estonians were worse than the German ones. And lets be clear on the Conservative nature of this. Traumatic times which undermine the Conservative's identity allow plebian weido's to rise to positions of power that they wouldn't get in more prosperous and stable times, but they can only lead because their driven to power by the mass of ordinary Conservatives. The people who supported the Nazis, the Iron Guard and the Jew hating Polish National Democratic Party, are the same people who today vote for the United Kingdom Independence party or back the Tea party in America. It was these Conservative bigots that brought on the horror of the first world war the second world war and its accompanying holocaust. In the last battle for Berlin over half the troops fighting for Hitler weren't German. When Nazi Germany finally surrendered, Croatian Conservatives fought on for another week.

[Buzz62]

For someone just asking questions, you seem to show more and more detailed knowledge of denialist research as this discussion goes on. All of this come from that one book you're wife is reading?

Ya nice try but...my comments about the gas chambers were based in the Irving clip posted earlier. Had you been paying attention, instead of searching for a way to work in your "denialist" bullshit accusations, you have known that.
Allot of this stuff IS in the book my wife is reading. It's a Czech book. I'd be happy to get the title for you if you please?

A later investigation, carried out by a G. Rudolf (4), confirmed the high concentrations of cyanogen compounds in the facilities for clothes disinsectization. This may be so since, being undamaged, these facilities were not exposed to the action of weather conditions, especially rainfall. Moreover, it is known that the duration of disinsectization was relatively long, about 24 hours for each batch of clothes (probably even longer), whereas the execution with Zyklon B in the gas chambers took, according to the statement of the Auschwitz Camp Commander Rudolf Hoess (7) and the data presented by Sehn (6), only about 20 minutes.

Actually yes that does make sense.
I would have to say the entire issue needs further investigation.
For instance, were all of the chambers sufficiently destroyed or damaged as to let weather enter unfettered?
For instance this...

The German chemist Germar Rudolf, who worked at the Max Plank institute for Solid State Physics, is now in jail, because he likewise measured the high levels of the cyanide in the walls of the de-lousing chambers. It happens that this gas bonds permanently with iron, and iron is present in all the cement etc of stone walls. Whereas, he found none in the walls of what were supposed to be the "gas chambers" which were mainly shower units. He thereby confirmed the work of Leuchter who likewise only found remains of the cyanide gas-insecticide in the de-lousing chambers.[3]

After Rudolf's report was published in 1993, he lost his job and was prevented from completing his doctorate, then a few years later he was given a jail sentence. He is now in a high-security prison near Stuttgart, for the crime of not finding cyanide in the "gas chambers[4]," echoing Leuchter's cyanide residue investigations.

[Link deleted - SD]
Poor Rudolph.
Gee...think his knowledge of how cyanide bonds with the iron in cement, had anything to do with unfortunate turn his professional life took afterwards?

I asked you to propose numbers you think more realistic. I'm still waiting.

*sigh* You're gonna force me to do research huh? OK...

Contrary to the figure of over 9 million Jews in German-occupied territory put forward at the Nuremberg and Eichmann trials, it has already been established that after extensive emigration, approximately 3 million were living in Europe, excluding the Soviet Union. Even when the Jews of German-occupied Russia are included (the majority of Russian Jews were evacuated beyond German control), the overall number probably does not exceed four million. Himmler's statistician, Dr. Richard Korherr and the World Centre of Contemporary Jewish Documentation put the number respectively at 5,550,000 and 5,294,000 when German-occupied territory was at its widest, but both these figures include the two million Jews of the Baltic and western Russia without paying any attention to the large number of these who were evacuated.

However, it is at least an admission from the latter organization that there were not even six million Jews in Europe and western Russia combined. Nothing better illustrates the declining plausibility of the Six Million legend than the fact that the prosecution at the Eichmann trial deliberately avoided mentioning the figure. Moreover, official ( Jewish estimates | estimates ) of the casualties are being quietly revised downwards. Our analysis of the population and emigration statistics, as well as the studies by the Swiss Baseler Nachrichten and ( Professor Rassinier, | Rassinier, ) demonstrate that it would have been simply impossible for the number of Jewish casualties to have exceeded a limit of one and a half million. ( Professor Rassinier | Rassinier )

[Link deleted - SD]

The colours will become clear later ion this post...

You haven't demonstrated this.

Dude...I believe we've already covered this.
Again...if you'd READ the thread, instead of looking for excuses to exercise your "canned accusations" you wouldn't ask such silly questions.

This is a strawman argument. I find your engagement with this discussion suspect (use of loaded questions which you are careful to make clear are not your own, your detailed knowledge that emerges when challenged etc.), have I certainly haven't called you an anti-semite. People believe things that are incorrect for all sorts of reasons.

Well...since I DID bring it up, I suppose it only fair to read a little about it...don't ya think?
Personally, I find this whole post of yours "suspect" as you have twice now taken the opportunity to try to discredit my motives and background knowledge. Hell you don't even like my questions or the way I word them.
Tell me Dave...what exactly bothers you about someone seeking to straighten out some rather lingering issues about the subject at hand?

Actually it tends to be the side with the better evidence. None of yours has really stood up to scrutiny, and you dodge questions that would cause your complete collapse.

I see...gee Dave...you might find this "interesting" then...

we downloaded the web-pages for the book "Did Six Million Really Die?" by Richard Harwood, from [Link deleted - SD]

We then compared these pages to the original from the Institute for Historical Review [Link deleted - SD]. The results may interest you and are presented below.

Where the text has changed from the original, both the original and changes have been placed in parentheses with the original in blue text and the changes in red text, for example,

In dealing with this comprehensive, three-volume Report, it is important to stress that the delegates of the International Red Cross found no evidence ( whatever at the camps in Axis occupied Europe of a deliberate policy to exterminate the Jews. | whatsoever of 'gas chambers'. ) In all its 1,600 pages,...........

Hmmm...now why do you suppose "someone" would knowingly change the wording of someone elses work?
To avoid being accused of blatant plagiarism? Doubtful in this case...
Makes one curious...don't it...
Makes one wonder..."Which side of this argument REALLY has the truth on their side?" doesn't it Dave...

Difficult questions are fine. Posing what are essentially trick questions (ie. "did six million die in gas chambers?" when we know that plenty of people were killed by other means), or asking questions that have been answered again and again are simply opportunities to spread propaganda or otherwise distort useful discourse.

Indeed I agree completely.
And it does not serve useful discourse to go about CHANGING the words of another's research documents.
Nor does it serve useful discourse to exaggerate the number of Jewish people who were actually IN EUROPE AT THE TIME.
Does it Dave...

As I said...the truth of this resides somewhere in the middle of both side's arguments.
As I am only interested in the truth, I will continue to examine and call "BULLSHIT" on BOTH SIDES when I see it.

[marjy]

Why can't anyone refute these questions/ideas?

Why are you so interested in this particular subject and why come here of all places for answers?

There's plenty of information out there in the world and yet you choose this particular platform for a "fact seeking" mission?

Any "fact" presented by anyone can, and will be, challenged by someone else with a different axe to grind.

You will never find the truth here and neither will anyone else.

For example, you've yet to "prove" to anyone that your wife can actually read.

You get my point?

[Smilin' Dave]

Guys, holocaust denial is actually not allowed on this forum. Don't link to organisations that are known denialist groups like CODOH or the IHR. We're going to have to issue warnings, bans etc. next time.

I would have to say the entire issue needs further investigation.

No it doesn't really. Your basis for further investigation are the ineffective studies of Germar Rudolf, which the study I have referred you to specifically had refuted. The only reason it would need more study in your eyes it seems is the result of the superior study doesn't meet your desired outcome, which is a pretty stupid way to approach intellectual enquiry.

Poor Rudolph.

The narrative of why Rudolf was imprisoned is actually misleading. The basis of his imprisonment was the "Rudolf Report" which went beyond simple scientific conclusions. If you haven't picked it by now, your denialist sources are ridiculously biased. Or you have figured that out, which is why you've failed to cite a single source from 'the other side' despite your claims that you want to take on lies from both groups.

You're gonna force me to do research huh?

You wanted everyone else to do the research for you, seems pretty reasonable. Unless you think you're special?

In response to your 'alternative numbers' (which I note don't actually provide an exact total, only a dispute of the figure of six million), I point you to the Nazis own estimate of 11 million in Europe from the Wannsee Protocol:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/places/germa ... glish.html
While the figure includes territories that the Nazis had no control over (like England) the vast majority were either under German control, were members of the Axis or can otherwise be shown to have cooperated with the Nazis over the Holocaust (eg. Vichy France).

You might also like to note that Rassinier's research is hardly current, since he's been dead since 1967. Or that the Korherr Report contained such gems as:
- Noting that the decline in the Jewish population of Europe was also due to what was labelled 'excess mortality'.
- That the figures for Soviet territories were not fully recorded.
- That the idea that Jews might have emigrated to Asian parts of Russia were just an assumption in the report.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korherr_Report

Dude...I believe we've already covered this.

No I don't believe it has. I think you are ducking the question.

Personally, I find this whole post of yours "suspect" as you have twice now taken the opportunity to try to discredit my motives and background knowledge.

That's how discussions normally work mate. I didn't come into this thread with the lame old ruse of "I'm just asking questions..." when the questions are clearly call pointing to your intended conclusion. I've been totally upfront about what I'm doing here
- Disproving the usual Holocaust denial tripe (and before you whine about it, remember you've been the one saying they aren't your questions, but someone elses)
- Pointing out that you are not the impartial enquirer you purport to be

I see...gee Dave...you might find this "interesting" then...

Ah, the International Red Cross claim and "Richard Harwood". Let's pick that one apart.
- Once again you're relying on a massively out of date piece of 'scholarship' - "Harwoods" pamphlet was published in 1974.
- Richard Harwood was actually Richard Verrall of the British National Front, a far-right racist political party.
- The IRCR reporting was pretty difficult seeing as the German arm of the organisation was compromised/limited. Here's what they had to say about the period:

In December 1939, the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) approached the German Red Cross to arrange for ICRC delegates to visit the Jews from Vienna who had been deported to Poland. He met with a refusal, as the German authorities did not under any circumstances want to enter into a discussion on the fate of these people.

On 29 April 1942, the German Red Cross informed the ICRC that it would not communicate any information on " non-Aryan " detainees, and asked it to refrain from asking questions about them.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/docum ... 020205.htm

The Red Cross has long acknowledged its awareness of the treatment of Jews during World War II, maintaining that if it had disclosed what it knew, it would have lost its ability to inspect prisoner of war camps on both sides of the front.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/19/us/re ... e-war.html - you'll note this in from 1996, well after Verrall's pamphlet had been published. Hence the importance of using current research.

And of course at the Nuremburg Trials former Nazi officers were quite clear as to how these reports etc. could be manipulated. Dr Hans Munch:

I repeatedly witnessed guided tours of civilians and also of commissions of the Red Cross and other parties within the camp, and I was able to ascertain that the camp leadership arranged it masterfully to conduct these guided tours in such a way that the people being guided around did not see anything about inhuman treatment. The main camp was shown only and in this main camp there were so-called show blocks, particularly block 13, that were especially prepared for such guided tours and that were equipped like a normal soldier's barracks with beds that had sheets on them, and well-functioning washrooms.

Or this memo

The bordello and the crematories are not to be shown during camp visits. These installations are not to be mentioned to persons visiting the camp...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar51.html

As I said...the truth of this resides somewhere in the middle of both side's arguments.

Except that's a fucking stupid way to find the truth. Consider this scenario - we were both at the scene of a murder to investigate, with a body on the floor and I say one person is dead, and you said nobody is dead, is the logical conclusion that only half a person died? Would you still persist in telling me there was no victim when I pointed to the body?

Compromise is more about keeping everyone happy. I'm not interesting in you being happy, I'm interested in the facts. Why don't you do some research that doesn't revolve entirely around sources of Holocaust denial then come back?

However the Bolshevik regime was in a war against the majority of its population. The NEP was a kind of uneasy truce. THe Bolsheviks could not have spread consolidated or held on to power without the complete suppression of free speech.

NEP was well and truly over by the time of the 1932-1933 famine, and there was no uprising on the scale of Tambov etc. during that period. Suggesting there was a state of war is pretty misleading.

[Buzz62]

Guys, holocaust denial is actually not allowed on this forum. Don't link to organisations that are known denialist groups like CODOH or the IHR. We're going to have to issue warnings, bans etc. next time.

Hmmm...how convenient...

No it doesn't really. Your basis for further investigation are the ineffective studies of Germar Rudolf, which the study I have referred you to specifically had refuted. The only reason it would need more study in your eyes it seems is the result of the superior study doesn't meet your desired outcome, which is a pretty stupid way to approach intellectual enquiry.

The narrative of why Rudolf was imprisoned is actually misleading. The basis of his imprisonment was the "Rudolf Report" which went beyond simple scientific conclusions. If you haven't picked it by now, your denialist sources are ridiculously biased. Or you have figured that out, which is why you've failed to cite a single source from 'the other side' despite your claims that you want to take on lies from both groups.

You had asked about the book my wife is reading that prompted me to start this post. It's called "Treblinka" and contains some rather interesting points. For instance, the lack of mass graves, or the lack of de-forestation in the vicinity. 1 VERY interesting thing I took from skimming it and discussions with my wife is...the book...as indeed most documents that question the Holocaust...does not DENY the horror ever took place...only the conclusions and numbers.
HOWEVER...a quick look on the web shows the following concerning the graves:

The Polish State Prosecutor’s Office and the Main Commission for the Investigation of the German Murders in Poland examined the Treblinka site in November 1945:

In their final report they noted that they found several graves, the largest of which was 6 meters deep (about 20 feet). In the walls of the largest crater was "a large quantity of ashes as well as human remains." Further excavations revealed ". . . countless human bones . . . often still covered with tissue remains.
In addition, the sand covering an area of about 20,000 square meters or about 215,278 square feet was mixed with human ashes, turning it gray and granular. The soil smelled intensely of decay and burning as did the air 325 feet away from the graves. The pertinent part of their report about Treblinka is available at http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... linka.html.

http://www.hdot.org/en/learning/myth-fact/graves1

In response to your 'alternative numbers' (which I note don't actually provide an exact total, only a dispute of the figure of six million), I point you to the Nazis own estimate of 11 million in Europe from the Wannsee Protocol:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/places/germa ... glish.html
While the figure includes territories that the Nazis had no control over (like England) the vast majority were either under German control, were members of the Axis or can otherwise be shown to have cooperated with the Nazis over the Holocaust (eg. Vichy France).

You might also like to note that Rassinier's research is hardly current, since he's been dead since 1967. Or that the Korherr Report contained such gems as:
- Noting that the decline in the Jewish population of Europe was also due to what was labelled 'excess mortality'.
- That the figures for Soviet territories were not fully recorded.
- That the idea that Jews might have emigrated to Asian parts of Russia were just an assumption in the report.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korherr_Report

Good enough.
And here are some additional stats.

The Jewish communities of eastern Europe were devastated. In 1933, Poland had the largest Jewish population in Europe, numbering over three million. By 1950, the Jewish population of Poland was reduced to about 45,000. The Soviet Union had the largest remaining Jewish population, with some two million Jews. Romania's Jewish population fell from about 980,000 in 1933 to about 280,000 in 1950. Most of these demographic losses were due to the Holocaust, the rest to postwar emigration from Europe.

Poland - 3,000,000
USSR - 500,000 (1933 USSR Estimate 2.5 Million) http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005161
Romainia - 700,000

The Jewish population of central Europe was also devastated. Germany had a Jewish population of 565,000 in 1933 and just 37,000 in 1950. Hungary had 445,000 in 1933 and 190,000 in 1950. Czechoslovakia's Jewish population was reduced from about 357,000 in 1933 to 17,000 in 1950 and Austria's from about 250,000 to just 18,000.

Germany - 500,000
Hungary - 200,000
CZ - 300,000
Austria - 200,000

In western Europe, the largest Jewish communities remained in Great Britain, with approximately 450,000 Jews (300,000 in 1933) and France, with 235,000 (225,000 in 1933). In southern Europe, the Jewish population fell dramatically: in Greece from about 100,000 in 1933 to just 7,000 in 1950; in Yugoslavia from about 70,000 to 3,500; in Italy from about 48,000 to 35,000; and in Bulgaria from 50,000 in 1933 to just 6,500 in 1950 (the reduction in the Bulgarian Jewish population resulted from postwar emigration). The demographic focus of European Jewry thus shifted from eastern to western Europe.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005687
GB - Increase
France - Increase
Greece - 90,000
Yugoslavia - 65,000
Italy - 12,000
Bulgaria - Nill

Totals:
1933 - 6 Yearr Prior to WWII
~ 9,000,000 Jewish people
1950 - 5 Years After WWII
5.5 Million

Please take into account that the populations would have risen for the 6 years directly prior to the onset of WWII, and that the final numbers DO NOT reflect emigration (except Bulgaria) and are from 5 years AFTER the end of WWII. Thus it should be safe to assume that a significant number of the remaining Jewish population simply left for North America South America or Palestine...which in fact is what happened.

Most of the surviving remnant of European Jewry decided to leave Europe. Hundreds of thousands established new lives in Israel, the United States, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, South America, and South Africa.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005687

5.5 Million killed.
And that's REALLY STRETCHING IT because I've essentially classified every missing Jewish person as having been the victim of genocide at the hands of the Nazis. REALITY would probably put the number closer to 4.5 million...if I were to venture a guess...

That's how discussions normally work mate. I didn't come into this thread with the lame old ruse of "I'm just asking questions..." when the questions are clearly call pointing to your intended conclusion. I've been totally upfront about what I'm doing here
- Disproving the usual Holocaust denial tripe (and before you whine about it, remember you've been the one saying they aren't your questions, but someone elses)
- Pointing out that you are not the impartial enquirer you purport to be

Unfortunately Dave...I AM JUST ASKING QUESTIONS.
Hell I can see you don't like the questions...but your attempt to label me as some sort of Holocaust Denier is simplistic and an opaque effort to silence me with personal attacks.
BTW...I didn't say they weren't my questions, I said my wife is reading this book and I want to discuss it with her.
But nice try anyways...

Ah, the International Red Cross claim and "Richard Harwood". Let's pick that one apart.
- Once again you're relying on a massively out of date piece of 'scholarship' - "Harwoods" pamphlet was published in 1974.
- Richard Harwood was actually Richard Verrall of the British National Front, a far-right racist political party.
- The IRCR reporting was pretty difficult seeing as the German arm of the organisation was compromised/limited. Here's what they had to say about the period:

In December 1939, the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) approached the German Red Cross to arrange for ICRC delegates to visit the Jews from Vienna who had been deported to Poland. He met with a refusal, as the German authorities did not under any circumstances want to enter into a discussion on the fate of these people.

On 29 April 1942, the German Red Cross informed the ICRC that it would not communicate any information on " non-Aryan " detainees, and asked it to refrain from asking questions about them.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/docum ... 020205.htm

The Red Cross has long acknowledged its awareness of the treatment of Jews during World War II, maintaining that if it had disclosed what it knew, it would have lost its ability to inspect prisoner of war camps on both sides of the front.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/19/us/red-cross-admits-knowing-of-the-holocaust-during-the-war.html - you'll note this in from 1996, well after Verrall's pamphlet had been published. Hence the importance of using current research.

Granted.
Please try to remember...this is a learning exercise for me.
And what you say ... or quote ... about the Red Cross having troubles getting access to Jews during the war, and having to be very careful as to not sour their relations on either side...makes perfect sense.
Good Point.

And of course at the Nuremburg Trials former Nazi officers were quite clear as to how these reports etc. could be manipulated. Dr Hans Munch:

I repeatedly witnessed guided tours of civilians and also of commissions of the Red Cross and other parties within the camp, and I was able to ascertain that the camp leadership arranged it masterfully to conduct these guided tours in such a way that the people being guided around did not see anything about inhuman treatment. The main camp was shown only and in this main camp there were so-called show blocks, particularly block 13, that were especially prepared for such guided tours and that were equipped like a normal soldier's barracks with beds that had sheets on them, and well-functioning washrooms.

Or this memo

The bordello and the crematories are not to be shown during camp visits. These installations are not to be mentioned to persons visiting the camp...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar51.html

Except that's a fucking stupid way to find the truth. Consider this scenario - we were both at the scene of a murder to investigate, with a body on the floor and I say one person is dead, and you said nobody is dead, is the logical conclusion that only half a person died? Would you still persist in telling me there was no victim when I pointed to the body?

Speaking of stupid...pretty "thin" comparison there Buddy...

Compromise is more about keeping everyone happy. I'm not interesting in you being happy, I'm interested in the facts. Why don't you do some research that doesn't revolve entirely around sources of Holocaust denial then come back?

I have...you don't see that 'cause you seem to be too busy trying to achieve your own little agenda.
Really Dave...it's one thing to pursue the truth...it's quite another to pursue an agenda...

So far, I find this:

The Holocaust was a tragedy.
Not the largest or even the most brutal, historically speaking...but that would have to be debated too I suppose...but never the less it was a tragic event. A testament to the brutality man is capable of.
However I also find that there is a good deal of "embellishment" on both sides of the Holocaust debate.
On the one side you have people who will exaggerate numbers and on the other side you have those who will completely ignore certain inconvenient facts. I find one side is as bad as the other...regardless of whatever "emotional attachment" many on both sides have to this issue.

I also find the imposition of laws and regulations designed to squelch healthy debate of the topic...is a "tool" used by one side in order to eradicate such healthy debate. This I find the most objectionable manipulation of all.

[marjy]

You had asked about the book my wife is reading that prompted me to start this post. It's called "Treblinka" and contains some rather interesting points.

Gee whiz, for someone who has a lot of "questions" you sure have a lot of "facts" to hand don't you?

If you or your wife have problems understanding either the book, or indeed each other, perhaps you could take it up directly with the author?

Better yet, why not try reading other books on the subject and draw your own conclusions? After all, there are thousands of books on the subject to choose from.

I don't think anyone is going to invest too much effort spoon-feeding your professed ignorance though.

330 views and 48 replies suggests people aren't terribly interested and I fear you might be on your own on in your quest for "truth".

With regard to the book, it could just be a matter of comprehension of course. You could try reading it yourself for starters.

I mean, you still haven't proved your wife can read properly.

Any ideas about how we might prove that?

[Smilin' Dave]

Hmmm...how convenient...

1. It's a problem of European law.
2. If you don't like the rules and policies of this forum, you're free to leave.

It's called "Treblinka" and contains some rather interesting points. For instance, the lack of mass graves, or the lack of de-forestation in the vicinity.

On mass graves.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01 ... 08814.html

As to deforestation

The realistic possibility of wood supplies being mostly brought into the camp by rail and/or truck renders irrelevant Revisionist considerations about the incompatibility of cremation wood requirements with available woodcutting labor and deforestation around the camp observable on air photos[164], as it means that only a part of the required wood had to be cut by each camp’s own inmate lumbering teams.

1 VERY interesting thing I took from skimming it and discussions with my wife is...the book...as indeed most documents that question the Holocaust...does not DENY the horror ever took place...only the conclusions and numbers.

Holocaust deniers never start their narrative with outright denial. They would rightly be laughed at. Instead they start by creating a false sense of doubt. They assume the audience doesn't have a detailed knowledge of the Holocaust, then they start in with seemingly very technical questions which they contend they are qualified to answer (some are qualified... many are not). They 'just ask questions' but they always have the answer formulated. The next step is usually to say that based of their 'findings' clearly the existing historical records can't be trusted... then they expect you to feed off their information stream which just gets weirder and weirder. Other common tactics include negationism and playing with definitions (so they'll acknowledge a holocaust, but what they acknowledge may bear no resemblance to what actually happened).

Please take into account that the populations would have risen for the 6 years directly prior to the onset of WWII

Not necessarily. The six years prior to WWII were years of economic downturn (effecting some groups and nations more than others) which can have an impact on births and infant mortality. Consider also that in 1933 (ie. six years prior) the USSR was on the tail end of a massive famine which also would have had an impact on demographics. Making estimates for population based on a gap of 17 years during great upheavals and over a large geographic area is problematic.

5.5 Million killed.
And that's REALLY STRETCHING IT because I've essentially classified every missing Jewish person as having been the victim of genocide at the hands of the Nazis. REALITY would probably put the number closer to 4.5 million...if I were to venture a guess...

Raul Hilberg gives a fairly conservative estimate of 5.1 million. I'm told his breakdown of these figures is very detailed and not adjusted for demography etc. You or your wife might like to read 'The Destruction of the European Jews' next as a counterpoint to the previous text.

Hell I can see you don't like the questions

If it were that simple I wouldn't be replying to you, would I?

Speaking of stupid...pretty "thin" comparison there Buddy...

Hey don't worry about those facts, numbers or quality of research - according to you, the truth is always somewhere in the middle, irrespective of how wild the claims may be or if you prefer irrespective of who can better substantiate their position. I'm glad you find my example absurd, because maybe you'll now see why your proposal that I compromise isn't acceptible.

I have...you don't see that 'cause you seem to be too busy trying to achieve your own little agenda.

And what agenda would that be?

However I also find that there is a good deal of "embellishment" on both sides of the Holocaust debate.

You haven't actually provided a clear example of embellishment by the non-denialist side. Even your own guesstimate alternative figure falls pretty close to the bounds of figures Hilberg published way back in 1961.

Every specific exaggeration discussed in this thread has come from the denialists. On the other side we only have these vague claims that the numbers must be somehow too high... but when asked for numbers your don't massively differ from current orthodox scholarship on the topic.

I also find the imposition of laws and regulations designed to squelch healthy debate of the topic...is a "tool" used by one side in order to eradicate such healthy debate.

I've been posting here a long time, even before the imposition of the ban on denialist sites. I'm here to tell you the pre-ban debate was far from healthy - it was an absolute shit show full of Nazis vaguely pretending not to be Nazis and lunatic conspiracy theorists. I support the ban not just for practical reasons, but because it's cut the crap out of the debates we do have.

[Quercus Robur]

To be honest I would probably drop the term "holocaust denial" altogether. The politics behind organizations that give a platform to Irving sometimes are organised by or attended by Nazi sympathisers, or those who sympathise with similar far-right racial politics to the Nazis. I can understand that they should be suppressed when it's coupled with an anti-semitism of the order of the Nazis because their speech is painful and intimidating to Jewish communities, especially those countries in which the Nazis were a political force. I don't understand when it's somebody who's performed a concerted research effort like Irving, who was recognised for the effort before he betrayed his Nazi sympathies, tempers his pro-Nazi statements and, while a racist, is not a racial activist using the holocaust to that end. "Holocaust denier" is too broad if it encompasses the latter. It technically extends to someone without any pro-Nazi, far right-wing or racial politics who doubted the official numbers or locations of the holocaust in a way that does not augment its legend D:

[Buzz62]

To be honest I would probably drop the term "holocaust denial" altogether. The politics behind organizations that give a platform to Irving sometimes are organised by or attended by Nazi sympathisers, or those who sympathise with similar far-right racial politics to the Nazis. I can understand that they should be suppressed when it's coupled with an anti-semitism of the order of the Nazis because their speech is painful and intimidating to Jewish communities, especially those countries in which the Nazis were a political force. I don't understand when it's somebody who's performed a concerted research effort like Irving, who was recognised for the effort before he betrayed his Nazi sympathies, tempers his pro-Nazi statements and, while a racist, is not a racial activist using the holocaust to that end. "Holocaust denier" is too broad if it encompasses the latter. It technically extends to someone without any pro-Nazi, far right-wing or racial politics who doubted the official numbers or locations of the holocaust in a way that does not augment its legend D:

Yup...good point.

Gee whiz, for someone who has a lot of "questions" you sure have a lot of "facts" to hand don't you?

If you or your wife have problems understanding either the book, or indeed each other, perhaps you could take it up directly with the author?

Better yet, why not try reading other books on the subject and draw your own conclusions? After all, there are thousands of books on the subject to choose from.

I don't think anyone is going to invest too much effort spoon-feeding your professed ignorance though.

330 views and 48 replies suggests people aren't terribly interested and I fear you might be on your own on in your quest for "truth".

With regard to the book, it could just be a matter of comprehension of course. You could try reading it yourself for starters.

I mean, you still haven't proved your wife can read properly.

Any ideas about how we might prove that?

Prove my wife can read properly?
I got news for ya Marjy...from the tone and intellectual content of your posts... ...'nough said Marjy?

BTW...I don't appreciate your little "back-handed" insults.
IMO, people who fling insults at those not able to defend themselves, are...well they can be classified under all sorts of unflattering categories...
I'll leave you to pick which one you prefer...

1. It's a problem of European law.
2. If you don't like the rules and policies of this forum, you're free to leave.

Well the law is...shitty. Yet is the law is such...how is it those sites are not being prosecuted?

I think I'll just stay put Dave. Someone has to question "accepted" ideas...

On mass graves.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01 ... 08814.html

Dave...

The Red Cross has long acknowledged its awareness of the treatment of Jews during World War II, maintaining that if it had disclosed what it knew, it would have lost its ability to inspect prisoner of war camps on both sides of the front.

and...

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/19/us/red-cross-admits-knowing-of-the-holocaust-during-the-war.html - you'll note this in from 1996, well after Verrall's pamphlet had been published. Hence the importance of using current research.

And I read you link and then replied...

Granted.
Please try to remember...this is a learning exercise for me.
And what you say ... or quote ... about the Red Cross having troubles getting access to Jews during the war, and having to be very careful as to not sour their relations on either side...makes perfect sense.
Good Point.

What this MEANS is that I read your post and the link you posted and agree with it.
Interestingly enough...you seem to have missed/ignored that part.
Wha's 'a matter Dave...not able to debate on an even keel with those who may post things you don't like?
Like I said...a couple times now...

it's one thing to pursue the truth...it's quite another to pursue an agenda...

So I'm gonna call an end to this debate/discussion.
Obviously you are not capable of discussing topics you find "uncomfy"...and quite frankly, I don't wanna get booted from this site.

However...for those of us who wonder WHY there are people like me who will question accepted ideas and challenge even those things that are quite obviously held as "sacrosanct" by many...the answer is simple.
We have found that these "sacrosanct" ideas are quite often thus in order to squelch those like me. To discourage the questioning of such things.
And THAT, my friends, is the thing that concerns me the most.

[ThereBeDragons]

So I'm gonna call an end to this debate/discussion.

Thank god we won't have to read this Holocaust-denial trainwreck anymore. The only shame here is that Smilin' Dave wasted so much time to engage you with facts and sources which you summarily ignored.

To discourage the questioning of such things.

Smilin' Dave has the forbearance of a saint. He has answered all of your questions and continued to engage your points with his, in a place where posters irritated by backhanded insults would have left long ago.

[Buzz62]

Thank god we won't have to read this Holocaust-denial trainwreck anymore. The only shame here is that Smilin' Dave wasted so much time to engage you with facts and sources which you summarily ignored.

Yes except I didn't IGNORE anything and even acknowledged when Dave was right.
But hey...at least this "uncomfy" topic won't bother you so much anymore...eh?

Smilin' Dave has the forbearance of a saint. He has answered all of your questions and continued to engage your points with his, in a place where posters irritated by backhanded insults would have left long ago.

[ThereBeDragons]

Yes except I didn't IGNORE anything

Except for the part where you regularly don't even respond to even half of what Dave has to say.

But hey...at least this "uncomfy" topic won't bother you so much anymore...eh?

Of course. I could just do myself the favor of not reading it, but it's like a trainwreck. Very hard to look away.

[Siberian Fox]

Moderation note:

The last three posts removed. It is not necessary to post just for the sake of getting in "the last word". Especially when:

• The posts are just one-liners.
• The posts are padded with emotions to look more substantial than they are.
• The posts add nothing at all to the topic.

Well the law is...shitty. Yet is the law is such...how is it those sites are not being prosecuted?

If you have any questions about the policies of our community please post them in The Basement forum. Thank you.