Re: RR Finally comes out

Roadrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> "David Iain Greig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Frank Reichenbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Records are quite incomplete and not clear on the matter.  These numbers
>> > have been changing all the time quite radically.
>>
>> The numbers have been consistent in the millions since 1945.  I don't
>> think any historian would argue otherwise.
> 
> Try some different sources.  The number has not been consistent.

Please define 'changing radically' and 'not consistent'.  Since
Hoss originally claimed something like 3 million killed in Auschwitz,
the nummber was reduced by scholarship to the current value of 
something like 1.1 to 1.5 million.  As far as I know this number
has been pretty static for a number of years.  (I'm writing this
at work, my references are at home, sorry.)

>> > The propaganda on the
>> > matter is is of a gigantic proportion and deriving mostly from
>> > American(Jewish reports and sources (not German's that is).
>>
>> Most of the documentation used to develop the body counts is German.
>> The Germans themselves have the Institute for NS-Crimes who research
>> the Holocaust and agree with the work done by others.
> 
> Any idea how incomplete these are? True, the Germans kept meticulous records
> about things, but in the end much of it has been destroyed also.

Much was destroyed by the SS, yes, to cover their tracks, just like
they dynamited the gas chambers.  But the remaining documentation is
still voluminous.  Have you read the Korherr report, for example?

>> > 'Experts' at
>> > the Nürnberg trials testified they had 'evidence' that soap was produced
>> > from human bodies at the camps, as well as lampshades of their skin
> (both
>> > were physically presented on the tapes). Now, this is not accepted as
> being
>> > true anymore.  There were also rumours that human hair was used to fill
> upp
>> > pillows.
>>
>> Human hair was apparently collected and used for felt.  The hair was
> washed
>> and dried in the attics of the Crematoria.  The Russians found huge
> amounts
>> of human hair when they captured the death camps.
> 
> What does that prove?  It were also the Russians who 'restored' the
> gaschambers at Auschwitz (correct me if I'm wrong)

The hair was there when they captured the camp in 1945.  Over
7,000 kilos of it, apparently.

>> > Ever heard of Russian concentration camps where German's were taken
> shortly
>> > after WWII, history books are in complete silence about that. Any idea
> how
>> > many died there and in what manner?
>>
>> A lot; a friend's father was in the Waffen-SS and captured at Stalingrad.
>> He was held in a camp in Siberia for a decade, only released when it was
>> thought he had terminal TB.  He doesn't talk about it.  Almost nobody
>> captured at Stalingrad came back.
>>
>> However, Soviet treatment of German prisoners (or, in the West, Allied
>> treatment of German prisoners) can not be used to somehow make up
>> for German crimes.   The Soviets killed millions in the name of
>> Communism; how does this justify killing 6 million Jews, as well
>> as millions of Poles and Russians?
> 
> Your interpretation, I never concluded that.  I didn't even think about a
> justification, why do you?  My whole point is that much attention is on this
> 'holocaust', but little on some other indeed horrible history.  Be little
> more critical about things.

And my point is, it is wrong to deny ANY such crime against humanity.
The Nazis should be condemned, as should the Soviets.  But the topic
we were discussing was your apparent ideas about the Nazi attempt
to exterminate the Jews, and your refusal to give a clear summary 
or evidence to support your statements.

>> > German records only speak about some 'final solution', this can be
>> > interpreted anyway you choose.
>>
>> German records speak about a lot more than just the 'final solution':
>> they talk of 'resettlement', 'special treatment', 'dragging them through
>> the camps', 'transfer', etc.  Why don't you go talk to some of the
>> people who went through Westerbork and see what happened to them when
>> they were 'deported to the East'.
>>
>> To seriously claim that the 'final solution' wasn't, by 1942, mass murder
>> of the Jews in Nazi-controlled Europe, is to totally ignore almost 60
>> years of careful scholarship by *many* researchers, Jewish or not.
> 
> I never denied anything of all that, why do you assume that?

RR, you claimed above the term 'final solution' could mean anything.
I pointed out it only meant one thing, genocide.   Therefore,
your claim it could 'be interpreted anyway you choose' is wrong, unless
clearly, you deny it can only be interpreted as genocide.

Which is it?  Does 'final solution' mean the extermination of the 
Jews or not? 

>> > Ever read the Talmud?  How the jews regard non jews?  Can you be
> objective
>> > and rational about this matter, no don't think so.  The point is that
> you
>> > act like a Nazi as per your shown behaviour.  I per definition do not!
>>
>> You are making radical claims about the Holocaust without giving any
>> evidence to support them.  If you want to show that the claims made
>> today are wrong, you need to show evidence why.  The fact that estimates
>> of the dead in the camps was less accurate in 1950 than today is
>> true, and understandable - researchers *now* are still finding documents
>> buried in the voluminous archives left by the Nazis - David Irving,
>> who is a revisionist, has made his career out of finding new documents
>> in the archives.  He has a good reputation as a researcher, IMHO, even
>> while he is properly criticized for misinterpreting his findings.
> 
> Error, I do not make any claims. I supply information deriving from various
> sources.  The holocaust has been question by more then one person.  Don't be
> fixated, deal with it!

I do deal with it; the people who deny the Holocaust are, simply, liars.
They ignore evidence of the existence of the gas chambers, and they 
ignore the evidence that millions of people were shipped to them, 
never to return.

>> > Where do nowaday jews descent from?  From those talked about in the
> bible
>> > stories?  Do your research on that!
>>
>> Again, this has literally nothing to do with the factuality of the
>> Holocaust, does it?
> 
> Indirectly it does, apparently you do not see that.

No, it doesn't.  The Jews killed by the Germans were 'nowaday jews'.
Those *people* who the Germans killed are the ones I am concerned with
here.  Your refusal to acknowledge their murder is what is  the
topic here, not where their ancestors came from.  Unless you have 
some theory that could justify the murder of 6 million people based
on their ancestry?

>> > Now what happened with David Cole?  Instead of disproving meticulously
> and
>> > in scientific fashion his information he got a truly vicious attack from
> the
>> > jews front, and now he has disappeared into thin air? And this shortly
> after
>> > he renounced everything because of jewish pressure. He is assumed dead I
>> > believe.  By the way, he was also a jew himself.
>>
>> David Cole was a confused person, and hardly central to any sort
>> of serious attack on historical research.
> 
> If that is so, then it would have been easy enough to prove him wrong with
> contrary information and evidence, this however was not done.
> 
>> Further, I have no
>> information about his death; after his letter renouncing revisionism,
>> I don't think anyone has heard about him.  Do you have a cite
>> for the stories of his death?
> 
> Not anymore, you will probably find them if you look for combination "David
> Cole" and "holocaust" on altavista or something

I did; I can't find anything except his letter of retraction.  

>> > Everytime something like this happens I get suspicious, evolutionism
>> > responses in the same manners.  Why not introducing creational ideas
> into
>> > the schools?
>>
>> The above has nothing to do with your views on the Holocaust, so I
>> hope you will not mind me ignoring them.
> 
> I do not give my views on the holocaust, I post information, get this into
> your head!  It has to do with how one deals with information, Nazi Germany
> and evolution doctrines have relevances in their approach, which I assume
> now you do not see.

If you have no interest in defending your 'information', then why
do you post it?  

>> >  It is assumed that students are stupid apparently.  Fact is if
>> > you have 'right' nothing can prove you wrong, so why being afraid about
> it!
>> > Ideas of grown-ups are simply forced upon our youth, excluding
> automatically
>> > other viewpoints and information.  This is the world George Orwell
> describes
>> > in '1984'.
>> >
>> > Alright, YOUR behaviour re this and that of some others simply has the
>> > result that people are afraid to be scientific about it. NOTHING can be
>> > allowed to be questioned, and those who do question ANYTHING at all are
>> > stamped as jewhater or something like that.  So you and your kind attemp
> to
>> > rule out ANY opposition before there is any!  And this my friend is Nazi
>> > behaviour.  History shows that jews were made subject to his kind of
>> > behaviour in those years foregoing the war in Nazi Germany.
>>
>> Nonsense.  If you would actually give evidence to support your claims
>> people would not have to make unfounded assumptions.
> 
> The subject of 'evidence' is utterly subjective.  If I would say elevation
> is a fact and I would show you 100 people swifting up into the air, you
> still would say that it has to be a trick.  Why? Because it will not fit in
> your preformed ideas about how things are supposed to be.

Nonsense.  If you could levitate 100 people, you would overturn a lot of 
current physics and become famous.  I'd love it.

>> > So 'believe' evolution to be a fact or be stamped as an 'idiot'!  Now,
>> > that's the world you and your kind have created!  And this my dear Nazi
>> > friend is living a 'LIE'!
>> >
>> > By the way, I am giving this information not for you but for all those
> who
>> > read these threads.  There IS a backside of history!
>>
>> Yes;  I would hope that those who believe they have evidence to
>> contradict evolution or Holocaust research would be free to
>> speak about it.
> 
> You will not be open for this information.  Explained earlier.

You are totally wrong; when I was younger, I believed the 'soap' and
'lampshade' stories, since they were the sort of things that people
gossiped about.  When, years later, I decided to look into the 
actual facts of the Holocaust, I learned that many of the things I
had believed were not, in fact, true.  For example, I had always
assumed that Dachau and Buchenwald were death camps.  They were not.
Researchers dig up new archival documents on the Holocaust from time
to time, each provides new insight into it.

The only person here who seems unable to accept that historians
have done this sort of careful work is you.

>> But RR has continually avoided making any specific claims other than
>> he doesn't believe everything.  Scepticism is fine, but he gives
>> no reasons for being so.  He also doesn't seem to have done much
>> research or reading into the Holocaust, at least from actual
>> historians.  He does seem to have trawled revisionist sites and
>> propaganda.
> 
> That's your opinion, I hardly 'trawled' anything at all.  I gave expression
> to my critical and analytical mind.  No more, no less.

I thought you said you had only 'provided information' here?  Now
your claiming you expressed your mind?  Which is it?  Please 
try to keep your story straight.  What you have done is give
vague statements about marginal revisionist ideas (which a 
number of people here seem to know far more about than you),
and refused to support your statements.  This isn't the sign
of someone who is serious about their work, it is the sign of
a troll.

In summary, you have repeatedly raised arguments made by Holocaust
deniers, then fled when asked to explain what you mean.  This is
intellectual cowardice of the lowest order.

--D.