Auschwitz Museum Director Reveals 'Gas Chamber' Hoax

polishpaddy

in a dramatic and unprecedented videotaped interview, Dr. Franciszek Piper, senior curator and director of archives of the Auschwitz State Museum admitted on camera that 'Krema 1,' the alleged 'homicidal gas chamber' shown off to hundreds of thousands of tourists every year at the Auschwitz main camp, was, in fact, fabricated after the war by the Soviet Union -apparently on the direct orders of Josef Stalin. What Piper said - in effect and on camera - was that the explosive 1988 Leuchter Report was correct: no homicidal gassings took place in the buildings designated as 'homicidal gas chambers' at Auschwitz.

http://www.rense.com/general53/aauz.htm

I knew all this already but now you have another person who's saying it.

zuroph

polishpaddy wrote: »

http://www.rense.com/general53/aauz.htm

I knew all this already but now you have another person who's saying it.

old and debunked.
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/p/piper.franciszek/press/daily.texan.1093

Morlar

zuroph wrote: »

old and debunked.
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/p/piper.franciszek/press/daily.texan.1093

How is that debunked exactly ?

This Dr gave a video taped interview to a jewish student where they said that the gaschamber on public display in auschwitz was built postwar by the soviets.

You post the response from the Dr to the video. In the response to the interview the Dr in question gave this :

Cole maintains that I first time admitted the allegedly
unknown fact the Nazis adapted the crematorium in question in
which the gas chamber were located for air-raid shelter, the fact
allegedly unknown even for Museum guides. It is un truth. See
enclosed copies of pages from the books which constitute the
fundamental reading for Auschwitz guides. In book by T-an Sehn
"Concentrat Camp Ogwiqcim-Brzezinka (Auschwitz-Birkenau)Warsaw 1957,
You may read on the page 152-"In May 1944 the old Crematorium
I in the base camp was adapted for use as an air raid shelter

The Fact is also confirmed in the book by Jean Claude Pressac
"Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers,
published by The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1989 (515
Madison Avenue). On the page 157 you may read: "With part of the
building converted to an air raid shelter, this is the state in which
the SS abandoned Krematorium I in January 1945" Repeating what
Pressac had written I told what was the nature of the
adaptation works carried out by the Nazis and what one had to do to
remove those changes in order to regain the previous appearance.

That seems to confirm not debunk that they were in fact built by the soviets after the war.

This was also the testimony of some german soldiers who were russian prisoners and claimed to have been forced into carrying out the construction while in captivity after the war. From what I understand not just a crematoria but either one or 3 smoke towers also. In addition this was re-inforced by a Dr Cessari (director of the Wiener library (spelling?) who in an article in the Guardian confirmed they were in fact built in 1948. The article in question discussed the dilemna facing restorers of the site and the lack of original architecture. So in other words I do not think it's as straightforward as you make out.

zuroph

polishpaddy wrote: »

http://www.rense.com/general53/aauz.htm

I knew all this already but now you have another person who's saying it.

Morlar wrote: »

How is that debunked exactly ?

This Dr gave a video taped interview to a jewish student where they said that the gaschamber on public display in auschwitz was built postwar by the soviets.

no homicidal gassings took place in the buildings designated as 'homicidal gas chambers' at Auschwitz.

that part is false. they were simply adapted to gas chambers, then returned to chamber state afterwards.

marcsignal

I found this again on you tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ0vAa5Vo2E&feature=PlayList&p=9F43CEC3EE810D14&index=0

like coles video it asks some interesting questions, and for some 'unknown' reason:rolleyes: you tube keep deleting it.

some parts are poorly done, and some of the comparison 'experiments' they do are, admittedly, not 'fair' comparisons in my opinion.

however, check it out before it disappears again

Morlar

Cheers - I had seen that before, the production quality is chronic but aside from that there is some useful information nevertheless. Particularly in part 3 & part 4 I thought.

PS like the sorbiror one I doubt time team will go within a mile of a former concentration camp ! You can just imagine the production team meeting and the deadly silence filling the room when some new intern suggests that one

Tony EH

It was after Cole's video that the museum felt the need to put up signs clearly stating that the "gas chamber" was a 'reconstruction' and not the genuine article it had been passed off as for years.

A friend of mine visted Auschwitz in 1988 and was told that hundreds of thousands of people had been gassed in that building.

Morlar

Tony EH wrote: »

It was after Cole's video that the museum felt the need to put up signs clearly stating that the "gas chamber" was a 'reconstruction' and not the genuine article it had been passed off as for years.

A friend of mine visted Auschwitz in 1988 and was told that hundreds of thousands of people had been gassed in that building.

I think there are a lot of things about that place that most people would not be aware of, including that auschwitz had an olympic sized swimming pool. I read that somewhere once and could not believe it, I remember googling it and finding out it was correct. I don't have the links at the moment but can probably check later (if no one else can find it).

Wolff

the point of this thread seems to imply is that stalin "fabricated" somehow the gas chambers

Surely he just made sure they were reconstructed - Christchurch Cathederal is reconstructed - HMS Victory is reconstucted lots of historical sites have been reconstructed at one stage or another. Look at New Grange or the Sphinx

The nazis blew up most of the gas chambers.

Cant imagine Stalin as a big Pal of Israel willing to "Fabricate" anything to help them


The holocaust happened

Deal with it...

Morlar

Wolff wrote: »

the point of this thread seems to imply is that stalin "fabricated" somehow the gas chambers

Surely he just made sure they were reconstructed - Christchurch Cathederal is reconstructed - HMS Victory is reconstucted lots of historical sites have been reconstructed at one stage or another. Look at New Grange or the Sphinx

The nazis blew up most of the gas chambers.

Cant imagine Stalin as a big Pal of Israel willing to "Fabricate" anything to help them


The holocaust happened

Deal with it...

Don't forget the communists were always top-heavy with jewish people (particularly commissars - hence the commisar order). As a result one of the first orders/decrees of the russian communist revolution was to supprss christianity while making anti-semitism punishable by death.

Stalin aside - I think trying to get some of the relevant facts right does not equate to 'not being able to deal with it' If anything the people 'not being able to deal with it' tend to be the ones who prefer zero discussion of this event in any context. Just my opinion.

mike65

Fups sake get back to the Conpstipation tHEOIES FOUMN WILL YA!

Wolff

Well have a look at Polishpaddys other posts - I think this belongs back in conspiracy theories to be honest where he started a similar thread

As for Stalin - why leave him aside - did he fabricate the gas chambers as is suggested - this is the fact that is being put forward

Why would he support the Jews - stalin was a long way from the revolution at the end of the war all religions were effectively supressed at that stage

So was Stalin fabricating the gas chambers and to what end ?

Interested in the replies....

Morlar

Wolff wrote: »

Well have a look at Polishpaddys other posts - I think this belongs back in conspiracy theories to be honest where he started a similar thread

You can look through this persons other posts - to be honest I have no intention of doing that.

Wolff wrote: »

As for Stalin - why leave him aside - did he fabricate the gas chambers as is suggested - this is the fact that is being put forward

I suppose that is the point of this discussion isn't it ?

You are asking me to give a point blank/ definitive answer to a historical question on which it is practically illegal to have any kind of open discussion/debate of across europe ?

That is a bit of a tall order for 5:40pm on a random thursday.

In the sense of giving an informed, answer to that historical question arrived at after an informed, open debate ? Neither I nor you have all the details on that closed subject considering it is an issue on which it is illegal to openly debate across swathes of Europe. With that in mind I hold the right to reserve judgement on the finer details of this subject.

I suppose for the purposes of this thread it revolves around the difference between 'built' and 're-built'. I genuinely do not know the answer to that. I doubt you do either despite what you may think.

Wolff wrote: »

Why would he support the Jews - stalin was a long way from the revolution at the end of the war all religions were effectively supressed at that stage

There are a lot of theories on that, probably too many to go into here without opening this thread up to a whole new direction. The more credible ones would be to speed up the de-nazification process. To divert attention and outcry from the considerable Soviet warcrimes etc.

Wolff wrote: »

So was Stalin fabricating the gas chambers and to what end ?

Interested in the replies....

That is kind of covered above.

Tony EH

Morlar wrote: »

I think there are a lot of things about that place that most people would not be aware of, including that auschwitz had an olympic sized swimming pool. I read that somewhere once and could not believe it, I remember googling it and finding out it was correct. I don't have the links at the moment but can probably check later (if no one else can find it).

That's not on the tour.

marcsignal

mike65 wrote: »

Fups sake get back to the Conpstipation tHEOIES FOUMN WILL YA!

I don't see any problem with asking legitimate questions about this. If we just accepted these things, and others, then we (Irish people) would have to accept the British version of Bloody Sunday for example.

Questioning things is a principle i've lived by all my life, and I don't believe anyone has the right to say, what questions I can, and cannot ask, about the holocaust. In fact I believe it's extremely dangerous to give something a taboo status that forbids such questions. Ironically it's a rather 'Nazi' way of trying to stifle objective opinion. 'Thought Policing' if you will.

Wolff wrote: »

As for Stalin - why leave him aside - did he fabricate the gas chambers as is suggested - this is the fact that is being put forward.........

Much of what we have been told about the Holocaust is born out of the period just after WW2, and cold war, generally. The Russians, and Stalin in particular, hated the Germans, and with good reason, their country had been destroyed, twice over, firstly in the German advances of 1941&42, and again in the German retreat of 1943-45. They had also lost approx 26 million people as a result.

The Americans, in order to stabilize the newly conqured Germany, had to get the country functioning again, and consequently, the first West German Government (apart from some window dressing, like Konrad Adenauer, who was an anti-fascist), was largely made up of former Nazis. These included doctors, legal people, petty bureaucrats, admin personnell, etc.

Stalin, hugely distrustful of the Western Allies, did everything to try to suggest that the Americans in particular, were now aligning themselves with former Nazis, and consequently was keen to highlight Nazi atrocities.

The Russians destroyed the remaining 'gas chambers' at Auschwitz, not the retreating Germans. Why didn't they take detailed photographs of them beforehand, showing the hollow metal grid pillars that were 'supposedly' used to administer the Zyklon B canisters ?? There is no trace of these hollow metal pillars in the ruins.

Wolff wrote: »

Why would he support the Jews - stalin was a long way from the revolution at the end of the war all religions were effectively supressed at that stage.

So was Stalin fabricating the gas chambers and to what end ?

Interested in the replies....

Historians now generally accept that the Jews had a considerable hand in the rounding up and killing of Ukrainians by the Russians before the war, and that, as Morlar eludes, there was considerable Jewish influence in the Russian leadership, before the war. This certainly contributed to revenge atrocities carried out on Jews by the 14th SS Division Galicia, The Ukrainian Self Defence League, and The Nightingale Batallion, who were made up exclusively of Ukranian vollunteers, and heavily implicated in the supression of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

It's also not widely known, that that 14th SS Division 'Galicia' was shipped, in it's entirity, to England after the war, on the ok of, the then Prime Minister "Clement Attley", and that many of it's members were used by western secret service agencies, for covert cold war operations behind the Iron Curtain, because of their expertese in the language and local knowledge. Many of the members of this unit were heavily implicated in war crimes, and have never stood trial. In many provincial towns in the U.K. there are former members, or relatives of former members of this Division living peacefully today.

The initial Russian claim that 4 million people died in Auschwitz is another example. A claim that in 1989 was reduced to 1.5million, by the Russians. Where did the missing 2.5 million people go ? and how does it affect the 'generally accepted' figure of 6million ?? Even renound Holocaust expert Raul Hilberg, before his death, raised questions about the 6million figure, much to the anger of the Wiesenthal Centre, the ADL, and WJC.

Now there is absolutely no doubt, historically, idealogically, or otherwise, that the Nazis hated Jews, and that hundreds of thousands of Jews were singled out, rounded up and shot in pogroms all over Eastern Europe. There is plenty of newsreel showing this to be the case, particularlly the mass executions, and pograms by locals, in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuainia.

The Typhus factor must also be given serious consideration, in terms of the death toll. There was an epidemic in Europe at the time.

As for homicidal gas chambers, well I hate to break the bad news, but the gas chamber in Dachau is a fake, constructed by the Americans after the war. I spent 8 months living down the road from the camp, and can tell you catagorically, there is a plaque on the entrance of the chamber saying so. This was not a surprise for me personally, because having 6 years, first hand experience, working with Hydrogen Cyanide Gas, it's the most unsuitable place for a chamber using Hydrogen Cyanide gas, unless you wanted to cause a gigantic explosion, killing prisoners, executees, and anyone else in the vacinity, because only a small room, without a gas tight door, seperates the gas chamber from the room containing the crematory ovens.
In short, explosive gas and naked flames are not good bedfellows.

This considered, i'm reluctant to believe, without further independent scientific scrutiny, the suitability of the Auchwitz gas chambers in Birkeneau, for gassing executions. How do you get a chemical that requires a tempreature of 25degreec C to give off the toxic gas, and work, in an underground structure in Poland, in the middle of November, where the tempreature can drop to -10C?

When I used Hydorgen Cyanide to Fumigate Grain Silos, Warehouses, Ships & Aircraft, we had to leave the chemical for 24hours to dissolve, and kill pests, and you couldn't smoke within 50mts of the building/ship/aircraft, for fear of explosion. Ventilation was also a huge problem, and took hours, fully masked up with a respirator, to complete safely.

This time factor considered, how did the Nazis gas hundreds of people every hour? and how did they ventilate the 'supposed' gas chamber in Auschwitz I without killing the SS guards in the surrounding barracks 30feet away? The only workers that would enter a room full of Hydrogen Cyanide to remove bodies after a gassing, would, in my opinion (having worked with this chemical), be 'kamakazi' workers, on a suicide mission themselves.

If you break the claims down logistically, scientifically, and mathemathically, there are holes large enough to sail a fully laden Aircraft Carrier through, and for that reason, I believe further, independent & apolitical investigation is necessary.

Wolff wrote: »

The holocaust happened

Deal with it...

Yes it did, it's just a question of degree, method, expediency, feasibility and historical accuracy. If you remove the Homicidal Gas Chambers, and accept the ever downwardly revised figures that keep coming out, the Holocaust 'could' boil down to mass shootings (which definitely did happen) good old fashioned localised pogroms, death through disease, kangaroo courts and shootings in camps for stealing etc, suicide, old age, and natural causes.

The Mass Gassings are a better horror story though, aren't they? and let's be honest, there's no business quite like 'Shoah Business' is there ? Just ask the Jewish organisations who screwed the Swiss and German Banks for compensation, and didn't bother passing on that money to the survivors, but used it to build more Holocaust Memorial Museums all over the U.S. instead, where the event didn't even happen.

You often don't have to lie to decieve someone, you just don't have to tell them all of the facts, that's all. There's a difference.

jimmmy

marcsignal wrote: »

If you remove the Homicidal Gas Chambers, and accept the ever downwardly revised figures that keep coming out, the Holocaust 'could' boil down to mass shootings (which definitely did happen) good old fashioned localised pogroms, death through disease, kangaroo courts and shootings in camps for stealing etc, suicide, old age, and natural causes.

And nobody in the camps died from malnutrition ? And the hundreds of thousands of survivors / witnesses of the death camps are lying about the gas chambers ? And the evidence of the chemicals supplied and used in the camps was all fabricated? And I suppose the photos and newsreel images of some of the camps when they were liberated just show images of people on diets...maybe a bit thin you may say, but that was their own choice, I suppose you will say next. Shame on you.

marcsignal

Firstly, I'm not saying NOBODY was ever gassed in a concentration camp by the Nazis. I am simply questioning the numbers, and disputing whether Zyklon B was used to gas hundreds of thousands of people at Auschwitz, because given the evidence I cannot see how it was logistically possible. If anything, I'm actually looking for answers here.

jimmmy wrote: »

And nobody in the camps died from malnutrition ?

The whole of Germany and the conquered territories were starving, and suffering from malnutrition. Most of the transport infrastructure had been destroyed by the last year of the war (farming, food production, transoprt etc.) What was left of the economy was geared towards arms production, and the majority of what little food was available was allocated to the front to feed soldiers. However you are right to add malnutrition to the list, omitting it from my previous post was simply an oversight.

jimmmy wrote: »

And the hundreds of thousands of survivors / witnesses of the death camps are lying about the gas chambers ?

If there were hundreds of thousands of witnesses/survivors, then who exactly was gassed??? Look through the documentary evidence carefully and find me 1 witness that can say they SAW a mass gassing take place.

jimmmy wrote: »

And the evidence of the chemicals supplied and used in the camps was all fabricated?

Zyklon B is a pestecide, it was used to kill Lice and Rats, and still is today. Lice and Rats spread Typhus, and the use of Zyklon B was ongoing in the camps for this purpose. It also leaves a blue staining on the wall surfaces of any structure it is repeatedly used in. There is no blue staining in the walls of the 'Gas Chamber' in Auschwitz I, nor is there any blue staining on the walls in what remains of the 'Gas Chamber' in Auschwitz II. If hundreds of thousands of people were gassed in these buildings there would be a coating of blue residue on the walls that would be VERY clearly visible, even today, because it permeates the pourus surface of concrete at mollecular level.

Zyklon B will not work in tempratures under 25Degrees C. I have worked with this chemical for six years, and if you have a way to change the laws of Physics to make the chemical react in tempratures lower than that, I'd like to know what it is, because I'd be a millionaire presenting your technique to every Pest Control company on planet Earth. It would save them a fortune in time and effort, in the course of their daily work.

There is every possibility the Nazis tried using Zyklon B to gas people, but it is not a suitable chemical at all, for gassing executions. Even under the right conditions, it simply takes too long to work. They attempted to use it to gas Russian POWs in 1942, in the basement of Block 11 in Auschwitz I, and the fiasco ended in disaster.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p193_Mattogno.html
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/atfg/
http://www.zundelsite.org/faurisson/articles/the_gas_chambers_of_auschwitz_appear_to_be_physically_inconceivable.html

jimmmy wrote: »

And I suppose the photos and newsreel images of some of the camps when they were liberated just show images of people on diets...maybe a bit thin you may say, but that was their own choice, I suppose you will say next. Shame on you.

Concentration Camps were not holiday camps, NOWHERE in anything I have ever posted ANYWHERE, did I infere that they were. They were brutal places where people died every day for the reasons I have already stated in my previous post. I am simply asserting that mass gassings of hundreds of thousands of people using Zyklon B, is logistically impossible given the timeline of the existance of the Auschwitz complex.

Here is an arial photograph of Auschwitz taken in August 1944. The Crematorium is located on the RHS. The chimney stacks can be clearly seen. Can you explain to me why there is no smoke coming out of them?? Surely if hundreds of thousands of people were being gassed and burned, they would be in use 24/7 and there would be a smoke plume visible somewhere.

There is evidence to suggest the Nazis used Carbon Monoxide Gas in other camps like Chelmno, Sobibor Treblinka and Majdanek, but the numbers were nothing like the numbers claimed, because again, it is not a suitable chemical for gassing executions, and the delivery systems used (Diesel Engines) were totally inefficent. The Nazis did kill disabled people with Carbon Monoxide gas from Gas Tanks before, and up to the early part of the war in the T4 Programme, that fact is documented. This programme had to be stopped because of objections from the Church and because of negative public outcry.

Finally, before you write me off as some Holocaust denier nut job, consider this.

Simon Wiesenthal before his death in 2005 put the number of remaining Holocaust survivors at 10 to 15'000. By the figures cited in their own claims alone, the World Jewish Congress (WJC) and the Anti Defamation League (ADL) who sought Holocaust compensation monies from the Swiss banks and German industrialists in the 90's, actually became the worlds leading Holocaust deniers themselves, by claiming the amount of money they said they were entitled to.

How ?

Well in order to claim the money, they had to claim there were all of these needy Holocaust survivors out there. The odd thing is, that since they began this shakedown (because that's what it was), the numbers of survivors, according to their figures, has gone UP. They have even claimed that by the year 2025, tens of thousands of Holocaust survivors will still be alive. Thats 90 years after the end of WW2. Now heres the tricky bit. If you start increasing the numbers of survivors, and you have an absolute number of population, the only way for that claim to stand up is to decrease the number of victims. If that's not Holocaust denial, I don't know what is ?

The reason they did this was simple, increasing the numbers of survivors would entitle them to claim more money, money they didn't even have the common decency to pass on to the actual number of survivors.
The money they have claimed to date has run into billions, and the average survivor was given $2'500 for their trouble........... Nice eh??


However, don't take my word for that, you can read all about it in the book 'The Holocaust Industry' by Jewish Professor "Norman Finkelstein"

Also, here is an interesting video link, examining the logistics about the subject, for your perusal. It's cheaply made and the editing is poor, but you can understand why Hollywood producers & directors weren't exactly queueing up to take the job on, can't you.

Fuinseog

Auchwitz (why don't they call it by its Polish name. i mean we don't say Danzig or Breslau anymore, do we?) has become something of a money spinning circus. A Jew called David Cole caused quite a stir when he made a documentary on the place and asked awkward questions. it can be seen on youtube.

To question anything on the ever changing made to measure version of events of auchwitz is it would appear rather dangerous.

Fuinseog

Tony EH wrote: »

It was after Cole's video that the museum felt the need to put up signs clearly stating that the "gas chamber" was a 'reconstruction' and not the genuine article it had been passed off as for years.

A friend of mine visted Auschwitz in 1988 and was told that hundreds of thousands of people had been gassed in that building.

people were also gassed at Dachau also it never had any gas chambers.

why is it, with very few exceptions, that only the extreme right dare to question the holocaust?

Fuinseog

there is something not quite kosher about the shoah industry.

when "the Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' first came out it was marketed as a true story.
even Anne Frank's diary was heavily edited after the war. interestingly, she was at auchwitz, although auchwitz was an extermination camp. once you went there you were murdered. from there she was sent to belsen.

simon wiesnthal was at 11 different concentration camps.

i think i will write my memories of the holocuast. the fact that I was born 30 years after the war shouldn't get in the way.

marcsignal

hats off Fuinseog

there are questions to be asked alright, and all I propose, is that we have the right to ask them..........

we're not living in Nazi Germany after all :pac:

marcsignal

zuroph wrote: »

that part is false. they were simply adapted to gas chambers, then returned to chamber state afterwards.

If you believe that, you have never worked with gas.... end of

ejmaztec

Good old Hollywood! Where would we be without it?

marcsignal

ejmaztec wrote: »

Good old Hollywood! Where would we be without it?

I fully agree Hollywood have certainly made a meal out of this, but, again, I have to reitterate here, before the ADL or Mossad trace my IP, and burn my house down, with me in it.

I completely acknowledge that the Nazi mistreatment and persecution of Jews, Gypsies, the Disabled, Freemasons, Jehovas Witnesses, Homosexuals, Political Opponents, and anybody else they didn't like was ABSOLUTELY MORALLY WRONG, FULL STOP.

Kristallnacht, the burning of Synagogues, stealing and dispossesion of businesses and property, beatings, mass shootings, hangings, medical experiments, flogging, torture, working to death, pogroms, incarceration in concentration camps, splitting up of families, etc etc etc was ALL horrible, disgusting, abhorrent, inexcusable and WRONG, FULL STOP.

These FACTS are documented, and only an idiot or complete Anti-Semitic bastard would deny them, or try to justify them.

However, there is something 'not right' about some of the claims that have been made, they simply dont add up. Something smells dodgy here, and its not the smell of crushed almonds.


.

gizmo555

Fuinseog wrote: »

when "the Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' first came out it was marketed as a true story.

This is a complete falsehood. Or maybe you can provide a reference to where the author, the publishers, the makers of the film version, or anyone else connected with this book claimed it was a true story?

marcsignal

gizmo555 wrote: »

This is a complete falsehood. Or maybe you can provide a reference to where the author, the publishers, the makers of the film version, or anyone else connected with this book claimed it was a true story?

I had heard there was an issue about the way the book was marketed in the U.S. There was enough concern for Rabbi Benjamin Blech to write this article highlighting the ambiguity surrounding the launch of the book, because he was concerned the story would find its way into students theses who were studying the Holocaust.

gizmo555

marcsignal wrote: »

I had heard there was an issue about the way the book was marketed in the U.S..

As I asked Fuinseog, can you provide a reference please?

marcsignal wrote: »

There was enough concern for Rabbi Benjamin Blech to write this article highlighting the ambiguity surrounding the launch of the book, because he was concerned the story would find its way into students theses who were studying the Holocaust.

In the article you reference Rabbi Blech absolutely does not say the book claimed to be true - rather, he acknowledges the reverse:

John Boyne is to be commended for tackling a frightening story that needs to be told to teenagers today in The Boy in the Striped Pajamas -- a fictional account of the Nazi era that uses the powerful device of a tale told from the perspective of its nine year old hero. (my emphasis)

Blech is very critical - and rightly in my opinion - of the way the book distorts and sanitises the reality of Auschwitz. But that's a completely different point.

marcsignal

gizmo555 wrote: »

In the article you reference Rabbi Blech absolutely does not say the book claimed to be true - rather, he acknowledges the reverse:

Hold the phone, I never claimed it was marketed as a 'True Story' I said there was 'concern' it could be 'misinterperted' as a true story, because of ambiguity surrounding the launch of the book.

How should one react to a book that ostensibly seeks to inform while it so blatantly distorts? If it is meant as a way of understanding what actually happened -- and indeed for many students it will be the definitive and perhaps only Holocaust account to which they will be exposed

ejmaztec

marcsignal wrote: »

I fully agree Hollywood have certainly made a meal out of this, but, again, I have to reitterate here, before the ADL or Mossad trace my IP, and burn my house down, with me in it.

I completely acknowledge that the Nazi mistreatment and persecution of Jews, Gypsies, the Disabled, Freemasons, Jehovas Witnesses, Homosexuals, Political Opponents, and anybody else they didn't like was ABSOLUTELY MORALLY WRONG, FULL STOP.

Kristallnacht, the burning of Synagogues, stealing and dispossesion of businesses and property, beatings, mass shootings, hangings, medical experiments, flogging, torture, working to death, pogroms, incarceration in concentration camps, splitting up of families, etc etc etc was ALL horrible, disgusting, abhorrent, inexcusable and WRONG, FULL STOP.

These FACTS are documented, and only an idiot or complete Anti-Semetic bastard would deny them, or try to justify them.

However, there is something 'not right' about some of the claims that have been made, they simply dont add up. Something smells dodgy here, and its not the smell of crushed almonds.


.

I think that there are things that don't add up. I remember reading on some website that the numbers didn't add up, for a start, although many critics would say that the statistics arrived at on the particular site, were not "kosher". If I can find the site, I'll post a link.

Someone had calculated the pre-war and post-war Jewish population of Europe, taking into account migration to Israel, the US etc etc, and came to the conclusion that there was no shortfall of anywhere close to 6 million. This figure was a Russian estimate based on their findings at Auschwitz. At the time, the rest of the allies had calculated two to three million, but went with the Russian estimate.

I probably posted something about this before, but consider that the Shoah experience wouldn't be anywhere near the vast commercial enterprise which it became.

I have a feeling that, since the war, it has been the only time during the last two thousand years, that 99% of people have felt sorry for the jews. In the past, they were tolerated, sometimes kept at a distance, exiled, or the victims of pogroms, but never sympathised with.

They can't be blamed for milking it, but they can be blamed for leaving many Jewish survivors in the lurch, by hanging onto the media, and other commercial spoils.

I've visited Terezin a couple of times, where after the war, a huge cross was erected as a memorial. Now, as well as the cross, there's an equally huge Star of David, and a number of Hebrew-speaking guides trailing tourists around the place. That place has housed all manner of prisoners, including Gavrilo Princip, Archduke Ferdinand's assassin. It also housed German prisoners at the end of WW2, not to mention political prisoners, anti-communists etc, since. The monopolising sticks out like a sore thumb.

Nulty

marcsignal wrote: »

........Something smells dodgy here, and its not the smell of crushed almonds.


.

LOL

Read the whole thread just now and It's all new to me but very informative. God bless boards.ie

gizmo555

marcsignal wrote: »

Hold the phone, I never claimed it was marketed as a 'True Story' I said there was 'concern' it could be 'misinterperted' as a true story, because of ambiguity surrounding the launch of the book.

There is no concern expressed in the article expressed in the article you reference about the "launch" or the "marketing" of the book. There is some robust and in my view deserved criticism of the book itself, but I repeat, that is a completely separate point.

As for Blech's claim that "indeed for many students it will be the definitive and perhaps only Holocaust account to which they will be exposed", well if that is the case, it's hardly John Boyne's fault. That's more a criticism of wilfully ignorant readers than Boyne and how anyone could take a book which is described on its title page as "a fable" as being factual is beyond me.

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think that there are things that don't add up. I remember reading on some website that the numbers didn't add up, for a start . .

Someone had calculated the pre-war and post-war Jewish population of Europe, taking into account migration to Israel, the US etc etc, and came to the conclusion that there was no shortfall of anywhere close to 6 million . . .

Could you be a bit vaguer, by any chance?

ejmaztec

gizmo555 wrote: »

Could you be a bit vaguer, by any chance?

Why the unfounded sarcasm?

If you look really closely, you might find that I mentioned posting a link when I relocated the source.:rolleyes:

marcsignal

gizmo555 wrote: »

There is no concern expressed in the article expressed in the article you reference about the "launch" or the "marketing" of the book. There is some robust and in my view deserved criticism of the book itself, but I repeat, that is a completely separate point.

Hold on, let's just slow down a bit here. The article I posted was not the one I was originally looking for, but I clearly remember reading an article at the time that book was launched in the States, that spoke about confusion in the US as to whether 'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' was a true story. I'm digging around for the said article, but it was a long time ago. As soon as I find reference to it I will post it. However, I didn't surprise me at all, because I've met plenty of people in Ireland who were under the impression it was a true story, and like you, I couldn't believe anyone could be so stupid.

gizmo555 wrote: »

As for Blech's claim that "indeed for many students it will be the definitive and perhaps only Holocaust account to which they will be exposed", well if that is the case, it's hardly John Boyne's fault. That's more a criticism of wilfully ignorant readers than Boyne and how anyone could take a book which is described on its title page as "a fable" as being factual is beyond me.

Jewish people are very touchy about gentiles writing anything about the Holocaust, I'd call that concern, that's why I posted that article, and imo thats why Rabbi Blech said : "indeed for many students it will be the definitive and perhaps only Holocaust account to which they will be exposed" but I totally agree, It's certainly not John Boyne's fault.

However, I will continue digging around for the original article I mentioned , or similar, that's closer to the point. I think this is just a case of crossed wires here.

.

Fuinseog

marcsignal wrote: »

Hold on, let's just slow down a bit here. The article I posted was not the one I was originally looking for, but I clearly remember reading an article at the time that book was launched in the States, that spoke about confusion in the US as to whether 'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' was a true story. I'm digging around for the said article, but it was a long time ago. As soon as I find reference to it I will post it. However, I didn't surprise me at all, because I've met plenty of people in Ireland who were under the impression it was a true story, and like you, I couldn't believe anyone could be so stupid.

.

they did try at first to market it as a true story. there was another story about a guy falling in love with his wife to be in one of the camps. brilliant stuff and an excellent memoir. unfortuantely he made the while thing up and when it was exposed sales dropped. i guess they did not want to risk the same thing happening with the stripped pyjamas

marcsignal

Fuinseog wrote: »

they did try at first to market it as a true story. there was another story about a guy falling in love with his wife to be in one of the camps. brilliant stuff and an excellent memoir. unfortuantely he made the while thing up and when it was exposed sales dropped. i guess they did not want to risk the same thing happening with the stripped pyjamas

There have been so many stories written, and movies made about the subject, it's hard to keep track "The Grey Zone", "Sophies Choice", "Triumph of the Spirit", "Schindlers List", the 1970s series "Holocaust", "Escape from Sobibor" are just a few. However with all due respect to gizmo555, I will continue searching for the article I mentioned earlier, as I think with such a serious subject like this, all claims made by any poster really need to be backed up with references, because there seems to be enough confusion and disimformation out there about the Holocaust, as it is.

There are a few things I mentioned so far that, for me anyway, don't add up about this, so I think the easiest one to approach first is the 'basic maths' one.

When I was growing up in the 70's, watching 'The World at War' the accepted Holocaust figure was always 6 million Jewish victims, along with 5 million others (who were hardly ever mentioned) So the 'given' figure was always 11 million victims in total.


This is a picture of the plaque that was laid in Auschwitz by the Russians, claiming the Nazis murdered 4 million in that camp alone...


In 1989, this plaque suddenly appeared, with the figure reduced to 1.5 million.


Then these articles started to appear in papers around the world form 1990 reducing the total to just over 1 million.

Now I'm no Maths major, but I do know, that 11 million - 2.5 million doesn't equal 11 million.
Today, in 2009, the figure cited universally for Holocaust victims is still, 6 million Jews and 5 million others, as in, Holocaust victims = 11 million in total.

see where i'm going with this ??

.

Fuinseog

when I was in school one spoke about an estimated 6 million, actually the holocaust wasn't that big an issue until the nineties.

i came across a few holocaust photos online that are clearly fake. one of the most famous ones is the picture of the german soldier with a rifle shooting a mother and child. unfortuantely i didn't save the site address.

victims of the holocaust are those who were in the camp and died (whether that be pre or post 1945). thus the numbers increase every year.

I find it frightening that this issue can never be debated publicly, least of all in this country.

Fuinseog

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/fake/SWCsmokeFake.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/30/holocaust.hoax.love.story/index.html

marcsignal

Fuinseog wrote: »

when I was in school one spoke about an estimated 6 million, actually the holocaust wasn't that big an issue until the nineties.

There were many reasons for that, the Cold War being one, but is is strange that it's the only historical event that you seem to hear more about, as time moves on.

Fuinseog wrote: »

i came across a few holocaust photos online that are clearly fake. one of the most famous ones is the picture of the german soldier with a rifle shooting a mother and child. unfortuantely i didn't save the site address.

that photo is on this thread somewhere, the original and the 'cropped' version used later.

Fuinseog wrote: »

victims of the holocaust are those who were in the camp and died (whether that be pre or post 1945). thus the numbers increase every year.

According to 'Holocaust Scholars' (most of them Jewish), anyone who had to flee Europe between 1939 & 1945 is, by their definition, a Holocaust survivor.

So, that considered, anyone who got out before the war, with most or all of their material posessions, is a Holocaust survivor. Henry Kissinger is one well known living example, even though he has even been heard to say, that there is too much focus put on the event as a whole.

Fuinseog wrote: »

I find it frightening that this issue can never be debated publicly, least of all in this country.

there are plans afoot to make it an EU wide law. What will be next ? Questioning your taxes, to become a crime ?? Asking questions about political corruption, to become a crime ??

Something tells me Bertie, for one, will welcome that law coming in.

Fuinseog wrote: »

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/fake/SWCsmokeFake.html

Good example, the funny thing is, if that was an original photograph, taken at the Top end of the Ramp in Auschwitz, the smoke would be BEHIND the photographer, not in front of him, because that's where the crematoria were located in relation to where the photo was taken.

Fuinseog wrote: »

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/30/holocaust.hoax.love.story/index.html

Very tactful of CNN to include a link to 'The real horrors of Buchenwald Concentration Camp' in that article. After all, they wouldn't want to be accused of printing something pertaining to 'Holocaust Denial' would they ??

.

Fuinseog

it never ceases to amaze me how emotional Irish people, especially the younger generation get about the holocaust.
they couldn't care less about Cambodia, Rwanda or Serbia or even the potato Famine but the mere mention of the holocaust unleashes an irrational reaction.

marcsignal

Fuinseog wrote: »

it never ceases to amaze me how emotional Irish people, especially the younger generation get about the holocaust.
they couldn't care less about Cambodia, Rwanda or Serbia or even the potato Famine but the mere mention of the holocaust unleashes an irrational reaction.

Whenever I'm out for a few pints, my mates, and strangers that end up in our company are always asking me questions about the war, so much so that my mates all call me 'Deutsch Marc' , but I'm very reluctant to discuss the Holocaust socially, for 2 reasons. Either you are dealing with someone who doesn't like Jews and they're looking for reassurance to justify their Anti-Semitism, or you're dealing with a 'Germanophobe' who thinks it's chic to hate Germany and all things German, or saw 'Inglorious Bastards', or dare I say it 'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' and think they're for real.

I've actually turned and politely walked away, from some of the people you describe above, tbh, I've met plenty of them.

.

Fuinseog

i persoanlly never discuss the holocaust in public. its something I would not dare touch upon. it would ruin a good evening and my job would be at risk. do so at a public debate and the crowd would lynch you.

bigeasyeah

This was a good thread until the debate about a film/book.
I dont anyone is denying the holocaust but for the sake of history disturbing questions must be answered.

gizmo555

marcsignal wrote: »

However with all due respect to gizmo555, I will continue searching for the article I mentioned earlier, as I think with such a serious subject like this, all claims made by any poster really need to be backed up with references, because there seems to be enough confusion and disimformation out there about the Holocaust, as it is.

I couldn't have put it better myself. Which is why my hackles are raised when claims are supported by nothing at all or "I remember reading on some website sometime . . ." That said, I don't have any problem with anyone having a healthy skepticism about the received wisdom in any area.

This is a good example of why it's important to insist on references - so one can judge for oneself their reliability:

Fuinseog wrote: »

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/fake/SWCsmokeFake.html

fpp.co.uk is the website of David Irving, of whom UK High Court Judge Gray said in his judgement in the failed libel case Irving brought against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books:

Irving is anti-Semitic. His words are directed against Jews, either individually or collectively, in the sense that they are by turn hostile, critical, offensive and derisory in their references to Semitic people, their characteristics and appearances ... Irving has made claims that the Jews deserve to be disliked; that they brought the Holocaust on themselves. He speaks regularly at political or quasi-political meetings in Germany, the United States, Canada and the New World. The content of his speeches and interviews often displays a distinctly pro-Nazi and anti-Jewish bias. He makes surprising and often unfounded assertions about the Nazi regime which tend to exonerate the Nazis for the appalling atrocities which they inflicted on the Jews. He is content to mix with neo-facists and appears to share many of their racist and anti-Semitic prejudices.

The charges which I have found to be substantially true include the charges that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/apr/11/irving1

Tony EH

marcsignal wrote: »

There have been so many stories written, and movies made about the subject, it's hard to keep track "The Grey Zone", "Sophies Choice", "Triumph of the Spirit", "Schindlers List", the 1970s series "Holocaust", "Escape from Sobibor" are just a few. However with all due respect to gizmo555, I will continue searching for the article I mentioned earlier, as I think with such a serious subject like this, all claims made by any poster really need to be backed up with references, because there seems to be enough confusion and disimformation out there about the Holocaust, as it is.

There are a few things I mentioned so far that, for me anyway, don't add up about this, so I think the easiest one to approach first is the 'basic maths' one.

When I was growing up in the 70's, watching 'The World at War' the accepted Holocaust figure was always 6 million Jewish victims, along with 5 million others (who were hardly ever mentioned) So the 'given' figure was always 11 million victims in total.


This is a picture of the plaque that was laid in Auschwitz by the Russians, claiming the Nazis murdered 4 million in that camp alone...


In 1989, this plaque suddenly appeared, with the figure reduced to 1.5 million.


Then these articles started to appear in papers around the world form 1990 reducing the total to just over 1 million.

Now I'm no Maths major, but I do know, that 11 million - 2.5 million doesn't equal 11 million.
Today, in 2009, the figure cited universally for Holocaust victims is still, 6 million Jews and 5 million others, as in, Holocaust victims = 11 million in total.

see where i'm going with this ??

.

Yes, but the caveat these days is that nobody ever believed the 4 million figure at Auschwitz, so therefore the 6 + 5 = 11 stills stands. However, a cursory glance over some holocaust books from before 1990 shows that up to be false. One of the darlings of holocaust study, Martin Gilbert clearly states the 4 million figure in his book 'Auschwitz and the Allies'.

The problems with the 6 mil figure are numerous, for a start, it was first stated just after the war ended. Which, in opinion, is grounds for concern right away. There couldn't possibly have been the research needed to come up with a figure of any real accuracy, yet it was already being spouted at IMT in Nuremburg.

Also, I've heard that there probably wasn't 6 million Jews within the Third Reich territory even at the height of its power. Not so sure about that though, but it is interesting none-the-less.

Bottom line though, is that numbers are bunkum when first hand evidence is so hard to come by, no matter what the area of study is and the insistance on the 6 million mantra should be a cause of worry for everyone. Why must it be 6 million? Especially, when holocaust scholars don't even agree on the figure. Raul Hilberg said it was 5 million. Is he right or wrong.

Mahatma coat

The one that gets me, I've seen a few of the survivors of the camps, they have numbers tatooed on their arms, these numbers corespond to records kept by the Nazis, surely it would be fairly straightforward for someone who was sent to the camps in the last months of the war to come forward and show their tatoos, if 11 milion were killed then at leaast 5 more million survived, thats an eight digit number, the most I've seen on survivors is 6 digits, and in some cases digits and letters but still no one has the '10 millionth serial number', surely an organisation as ruthlessley eficient as the Nazis would have taken pride in their clerical skills

ejmaztec

gizmo555 wrote: »

I couldn't have put it better myself. Which is why my hackles are raised when claims are supported by nothing at all or "I remember reading on some website sometime . . ."

If you're referring to my comment, my hackles are raised when People half-read my posts before launching into hyper-criticism.

gizmo555

ejmaztec wrote: »

If you're referring to my comment,

I am, but not exclusively to your comment - here's a couple more prime examples since my post which bothered you so much:

Fuinseog wrote: »

they did try at first to market it as a true story.

(Who are "they"? How did "they" try to "market it as a true story"? Could you give us an example Fuinseog, or else withdraw this claim?)

Tony EH wrote: »

Also, I've heard that there probably wasn't 6 million Jews within the Third Reich territory even at the height of its power.

(Where did you hear this Tony? How was the figure arrived at? If there weren't six million, how many were there?)

ejmaztec wrote: »

my hackles are raised when People half-read my posts before launching into hyper-criticism.

Hyper-criticism? Hyper-sensitive would be nearer the mark. If you're going to make unsupported claims on such a controversial topic, you'd better grow a thicker skin. (Still waiting for the link you've promised twice now!)

marcsignal

I'm not taking any sides on this one lads, but I do think, and I've already said so, that all claims, made by any poster, including me, really need to be backed up with an acedemic, or even a Wiki reference, where possible, or at least a link to a site, even if it's a site that some may consider, bias, for or against the arguement, or any point raised. In my opinion, it's the only way to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Let's be honest with each other here, there's a lot of shit on the interweb about the Holocaust, coming from both sides of the divide, and if we don't agree on this, then to anyone else reading this thread, we're just going to sound like a gang of 'Jew-Hating Stormfronters' slapping each other on the back.

Between us, we may disagree on figures here, but nevertheless, millions of people did die.
It's a serious business we're discussing, let's treat it with the respect it deserves.

Lets just keep it civil, and factual, That's just my feeling on it anyway

.

ejmaztec

marcsignal wrote: »

I'm not taking any sides on this one lads, but I do think, and I've already said so, that all claims, made by any poster, including me, really need to be backed up with an acedemic reference, or at least a link to a site, even if it's a site that some may consider, bias, for or against the arguement, or any point raised.
In my opinion, it's the only way to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Let's be honest with each other here, there's a lot of shit on the interweb about the Holocaust, coming from both sides of the divide, and if we don't agree on this, then to anyone else reading this thread, we're just going to sound like a gang of 'Jew-Hating Stormfronters' slapping each other on the back.

Between us, we may disagree on figures here, but nevertheless, millions of people did die.
It's a serious business we're discussing, let's treat it with the respect it deserves.

Lets just keep it civil, and factual, That's just my feeling on it anyway

.

I'll get back to my usual civilised self when I've finished sending God knows how many tax returns to the Revenue before the 31 Oct deadline, after which time I'll try and track down the links.:D

marcsignal

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'll get back to my usual civilised self when I've finished sending God knows how many tax returns to the Revenue before the 31 Oct deadline, after which time I'll try and track down the links.:D

LOL

Tony EH

gizmo555 wrote: »

(Where did you hear this Tony? How was the figure arrived at? If there weren't six million, how many were there?)

Nothing concrete I'm afraid gizmo, which is why I said that I wasn't sure on it.

But, it was from a Ch4 documentary many moons ago, I don't even think it was about the holocaust. Some demographer chap was commenting on how difficult it was to gain truly accurate information in a population census for a single country in modern times, so gaining an overall view on numerous countries in Europe would have been impossible. He then said something along the lines of even at the point in 1942/43 when Germany controlled an area from France to North Africa to Stalingrad, that A. there wasn't the time needed to round up 6 milion Jews or B. there possibly wasn't even 6 million Jews within that territory to begin with. I don't recall any other figure being offered though.

I'm paraphrasing now, of course, but it was something that struck me as I'd never even thought of that before.

Like I said, I can't place too much credence on it. But, I do take his point about accurate census taking and the extreme difficulty it presents.

Either way, I really couldn't care less if the number was 3 million, 4 million, 5 million, or 6 or 10. But, what I do find suspicious (and objectionable) is the absolute insistance on a particular rounded figure. Why is unquestioning belief of this figure so central to the holocaust tenet?

As I also said earlier, numbers are bunkum and they are usually part of a political take on things. Accurate numbering is such a difficult task, that I find anyone that clings to an absolute figure to be somewhat foolish. It's incredibly difficult to say with absolute certainty how many "x" died in "x".