Pseudo-historians

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

The real 1553 says 25 sq meters where Poliakov and Nizkor say 93:

Oh sigh ... very good Eriugena, you nearly had me until I actually noticed that this page you are quoting is reproduction of a alt.revisionist usenet converstation :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It was not published by Nizkor, or written by Nizkor. It would be like saying Boards.ie is responsible for what is written here.

In fact Kurt Gerstein is only mention on 2 pages of the actually Nizkor published material, and neither mention the 25 or 93 mis representation.

Do you really want me to start dragging up all the completely ridiculous and anti-sememtic comments and "publishings" posted on alt.revisionist. Because trust me it would hurt your case a lot more than it would strenghten it.

And you give out about holocaust historians mis representing the true :rolleyes:

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

Oh sigh ... very good Eriugena, you nearly had me until I actually noticed that this page you are quoting is reproduction of a alt.revisionist usenet converstation :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Thisis what Nizkor have "700-800 people in 93" at
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/*people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gerstein.kurt/poland.002

It was not published by Nizkor, or written by Nizkor. It would be like saying Boards.ie is responsible for what is written here.

It is on their site as a source. They post everything to alt.revisionism and then archive it. They transcribed this (see "Transcription note") from the named source at the bottom.
"Poliakov, Leon. Harvest of Hate: The Nazi Program for the
Destruction of the Jews of Europe. Syracuse University Press.,
1956."

In fact Kurt Gerstein is only mention on 2 pages of the actually Nizkor published material, and neither mention the 25 or 93 mis representation.

Look at the link

Do you reallywant me to start dragging up all the completely ridiculous and anti-sememtic comments and "publishings" posted on alt.revisionist. Because trust me it would hurt your case a lot more than it would strenghten it.

Go right ahead because it is also a rich source of holohuxters lies. Go on, post away by all means.

Eriugena

You might also check out this. By all means check the Gilbert quotes, I have and they are correctly represented here.

How Historian Gilbert Falsifies and Invents
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n5p-7_Faurisson.html
Robert Faurisson
British historian Martin Gilbert is a falsifier. While he is best known as the official biographer of Winston Churchill, he has also written several widely-lauded works on the "Holocaust." Gilbert, who is Jewish, staunchly defends the thesis of the so-called extermination of the Jews, an extermination allegedly carried out in particular by means of homicidal "gas chambers" and homicidal "gas vans." To defend this thesis he falsifies and invents.

Falsifying the 'Gerstein Document'
In his distortion of the "Gerstein Document" in 1979 and 1986, Gilbert showed that he is capable of falsification. The various postwar confessions of SS officer Kurt Gerstein, known collectively as the "Gerstein Document" are completely devoid of any scholarly value, as Paul Rassinier showed in the 1960s and as the studies of Henri Roques in France (with my collaboration) and Carlo Mattogno in Italy established in 1985. (See: H. Roques, The "Confessions" of Kurt Gerstein, published by the IHR.) But just like French Jewish historian Léon Poliakov, Martin Gilbert used these confessions to support his thesis. Here I will show how he did that and, for the sake of clarity here, I am adding emphasis to some of the figures mentioned.

Speaking about the alleged gas chamber at Belzec, Kurt Gerstein wrote:

Die Menschen stehen einander auf den Füssen, 700-800 Menschen auf 25 Quadratmetern in 45 Kubikmetern ... 750 Menschen in 45 Kubikmetern. ("The people stand on each other's feet, 700-800 people on 25 square meters in 45 cubic meters ... 750 people in 45 cubic meters.") (Source: page 5 of Nuremberg document PS-2170, as Gilbert indicates.)

It is obviously impossible for 700 to 800 people to stand on a surface of 25 square meters and inside a space of 45 cubic meters. That would be the same as trying to fit 28 to 32 persons in a space that is one square meter in surface area, and 1.8 meters high. The fact that Gerstein made such a statement to the Allies, who held him as their prisoner, shows what his mental condition was. He always used these same figures, repeating them on several occasions. But Gilbert completely changed these numbers in an effort to make Gerstein's tale believable. He even changed them in one way in 1979 and in another way in 1986.

In his 1979 book, Final Journey: The Fate of the Jews in Nazi Europe (New York: Mayflower Books, p. 91), here is how Gilbert quoted Gerstein: "The naked people stand on each other's feet. About seven to eight hundred people in an area of about a hundred square meters."

Among other distortions, Gilbert quadrupled the surface of the gas chamber, removed the mention of the cubic meters and likewise left out the number 750. Finally, he left out the repetition by Gerstein of the mention of cubic meters. If he had retained the mention, made twice, of the 45 cubic meters, we would have had a gas chamber of around 100 square meters and of 45 cubic meters, that is to say a room containing around 700 to 800 persons standing that would have been less than a half meter high.

In a 1986 work, though, Gilbert revises this, quoting Gerstein as saying: "Seven to eight hundred people in ninety-three square meters." (Source: The Holocaust: The Jewish Tragedy, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, p. 427. On page 864 Gilbert indicates as his source: "Kurt Gerstein, statement of May 6, 1945, Tübingen: International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, document PS-2170.")

In this case, the number 25 has been replaced with the number 93. A precise figure was apparently chosen to give the impression of exactitude and rigor. Once again, all references to cubic meters have disappeared.

For this reason alone we must conclude that Gilbert deliberately falsified the writings of Gerstein. He falsified them in a number of other ways as well, most notably by editing the text so as to hide other nonsensical things Gerstein said. (That's also the method used by Léon Poliakov.)

Inventing 'Gassing' Figures
In his effort to sustain the invented story that masses of Jews were gassed at Belzec, Treblinka and elsewhere, Gilbert engages in a deceitful manipulation of figures. In his 1981 book, Auschwitz and the Allies (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, p. 26), he wrote:

The deliberate attempt to destroy systematically all of Europe's Jews was unsuspected in the spring and early summer of 1942: the very period during which it was at its most intense, and during which hundreds of thousands of Jews were being gassed every day at Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka.

For the moment, let's not concern ourselves with the fact that no one was ever gassed at those camps, nor in any other camp either. Instead, let us focus on Gilbert's use of figures. Let us suppose that "hundreds of thousands" means only 200,000. That would make 200,000 Jews gassed per day, and therefore 1,400,000 each week. If during the spring and the early summer we have four months, or 17 weeks -- that makes 1,400,000 a week, times 17 weeks, for a total of 23,800,000 Jews gassed in just those four small camps, and during a period of just four months!

More can be said about Martin Gilbert, about his ignorance of history, his dishonesty and even his empty productivity. On December 3, 1986, I wrote to him to ask for some explanations about the way he reproduced the Gerstein texts. He never answered.

-- March 4, 1987

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

There is no contradiction between saying that it was not a major feature of policy and there being a deportation plan. The Irish government deports illegal aliens but it is not a major policy issue for them.

Don't be ridiculous, they wanted to deport all the Jews in Europe Eriugena. It would be like the Irish government deporting all Protestants, after rounding up every single one, destroying there economic base, killing a large number of them and sticking them in camps.

Or it is like saying apartheid wasn't that big a policy of the South African government. Completely ridiculous :rolleyes:

Eriugena wrote:

Oh really? And your evidence for this is?

Look up "Operation T4" and the use of "+" or "-" on medical records to signify the disabled person would live or die. Also look up Hitlers own quotes about the need for secretcy and how things are easier carried out in war time.

Or do you claim that no mental disabled people were excuted in Nazi german as well :rolleyes:

Eriugena wrote:

So even if they didn't mass murder the Jews they are still guilty of mass murdering the Jews, anyway?

Even if they didn't gas the Jews (which most evidence says they did), they are still guilty of mass murder of Jews, along with rape tourture and ecomonic destruction. Or did the Jews actually like going on a little trip to eastern europe :rolleyes:

Eriugena wrote:

Can you produce so much as one shred of evidence to supoort the assertion that there was a code language?

The fact that the things discribed in the documents didn't happen the face value way they are written. The Jews weren't transported to "hopistals" for "medical treatment". It an be argued that they weren't transported to gas chambers either, but something happened to them, and it wasn't what was describe in the documents.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

You might also check out this. By all means check the Gilbert quotes, I have and they are correctly represented here.

Why do you keep fixating on Gilbert? Last time I checked you brought him into the coverstation. Is that they only way you can prove the holocaust historians are a liers, by finding on that no one else has quoted and going to town on him.

Do you want me to start reposting the things Lecturer said about his time "consulting" with the North Caroline prision service???

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

Why do you keep fixating on Gilbert? Last time I checked you brought him into the coverstation. Is that they only way you can prove the holocaust historians are a liers, by finding on that no one else has quoted and going to town on him.

Is that all you have to say? Your very quick to accuse people of dishonesty without evidence but as soon as you are presented with demonstrable dishonesty you want to change the subject. I think you have blown it completely now.

Do you want me to start reposting the things Lecturer said about his time "consulting" with the North Caroline prision service???

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Post whatever you like. But first you can address what has already been posted: evidence of dishonesty for Gilbert, Poliakov, Hilberg, and Nizkor.

robindch

> you are driven to making silly insulting statements [...]

Which statements concerning your own status as an anti-semite and Nazi apologist, I can hardly fail to notice that you do not refute. Nor, as expected, do you criticize Hitler whom I now believe to be a hero of yours. Please disagree if he's not.

> It is off topic.

'fraid not. The topic is 'pseudo-historians' and you are a pseudo-historian, as are the other Nazi apologists and goose-stepping nationalists on the IHR website you've quoted above.

- robin.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

Is that all you have to say? Your very quick to accuse people of dishonesty without evidence but as soon as you are presented with demonstrable dishonesty you want to change the subject. I think you have blown it completely now.

Oh dear oh dear.

Why would I defend Gilbert, I have never claimed anything he said was true. You on the other hand have claimed that Rassinier and Lecturer are not liers, while at the same time saying that we should be skeptical of holocaust historians because they are liers. When asked to explain this double standard you change the subject and start talking about how much a lier Gilbert is, an historian you brought into the converstation.

When presented with the fact that Rassinier has claimed to interview hundreds of Jews without any real documentation you said don't believe what you read on Nizkor, completely dodging the question as to if Rassinier recorded his converstation or not (did he or didn't he, simple question). When pressed about why we should ignore Nizkor you link to a report that wasn't even published by them, and go back to droning on and on about how much a lier Gilbert is. At which stage, I imagine, you hope we have all forgot about the actually question, where is Rassiniers evidence?

Eriugena wrote:

Post whatever you like. But first you can address what has already been posted: evidence of dishonesty for Gilbert, Poliakov, Hilberg, and Nizkor.

No, first you have address the original questions about Rassinier and Lecturer and the double standard you hold with relation to holocaust deniers vs other historians. You introducted both Gilbert and Poliakov to deflect from actually have in answer the questions (a bit like a child who has been caught doing something bold say "but miss timmy was spitting at girls" as if that in any way deminishes the child responsibility).

By the way you still haven;t show Hilberg has ever lied or mislead anyone, when pressed on this point you introduced Gilbert. Are Hilberg and Gilbert the same person? You also haven't soon that Nizkor have ever lied about anything, the piece you linked to was a usenet correspondence, and I am pretty sure I can find plent of them that claim Jews actually ran the Nazi party :rolleyes:

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

> you are driven to making silly insulting statements [...]

Which statements concerning your own status as an anti-semite and Nazi apologist, I can hardly fail to notice that you do not refute. Nor, as expected, do you criticize Hitler whom I now believe to be a hero of yours. Please disagree if he's not.

> It is off topic.

'fraid not. The topic is 'pseudo-historians' and you are a pseudo-historian, as are the other Nazi apologists and goose-stepping nationalists on the IHR website you've quoted above.

- robin.

You have decended into being a cheap little slanderer.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

Oh dear oh dear.

Why would I defend Gilbert, I have never claimed anything he said was true.

Who asked you to defend Gilbert? That's not the point.
Sir Martin Gilbert is a best-selling, distinguished holocaust historian and biographer of Churchill who is cited as an authority everywhere. He is a conultant for this and that BBC series and on it goes. This means a great many people have had their knowledge and views influenced by him and others like Hilberg. I am not asking you to defend him. Such carry-on is clearly indefensible. The original contention of the revisionist question is this: are their solid grounds for scepticism? I have given the board a number of examples of such grounds. Yet you ignore them and fall back on the cowardly device of tryng to semar me as a nazi and/or antisemite. A case of shooting the messenger. Perhaps you don't have the guts to inquire into this objectively? Perhaps you are not prepared to have your beliefs shaken? I don't know, that's a matter for you and your conscience. Are you wilfully ignoring the implications of someone like this being a falsifier of evidence?

You on the other hand have claimed that Rassinier and Lecturer are not liers,

No, I have said that you have failed to prove that they are liars. You have made the charge but you have failed to deliver with the proof. What does that say to any reasonable person? If this were a libel trial, you would be facing hefty damages at this point.

while at the same time saying that we should be skeptical of holocaust historians because they are liers.

I have given solid evidence of why we should be sceptical at the very least. You have not been able to refute that so your failure to register scepticism means that you prefer to cling to irrational beliefs.

When asked to explain this double standard you change the subject and start talking about how much a lier Gilbert is, an historian you brought into the converstation.

You have to substantiate your charges in the same way that I have substantiated mine. In other words: put up or shut up.

When presented with the fact that Rassinier has claimed to interview hundreds of Jews

You presented no evidence, just an assertion.

without any real documentation you said don't believe what you read on Nizkor,

I have already given just one example of why Nizkor is not to be trusted.

completely dodging the question as to if Rassinier recorded his converstation or not (did he or didn't he, simple question).

You tell me with proper proof, after all you are the one making the claim, not me.

When pressed about why we should ignore Nizkor you link to a report that wasn't even published by them,

It was transcribed and published at alt.revisionism by them. That is how they do it. You clearly don't know much about Nizkor. There are volunteers who transcribe stuff like that and it all put through usenet. and go back to droning on and on about how much a lier Gilbert is.

At which stage, I imagine, you hope we have all forgot about the actually question, where is Rassiniers evidence?

We are still eagerly waiting to see evidence of your charges.

By the way you still haven;t show Hilberg has ever lied or mislead anyone,

Inever said he lied, I showed how he dishonestly selects from the evidence what he will and will not use. His association with Lanzmann's film is very damning as well, and I will show you exactly how if you like.

when pressed on this point you introduced Gilbert. Are Hilberg and Gilbert the same person?

They are playing pretty much the same deception game as I have shown. There's loads more on them as well.

You also haven't soon that Nizkor have ever lied about anything,

I will be posting details of their dodgy funding schemes and their denials of same when I get a moment.
You no doubt will continue to post nothing but invective and smear.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

ISAW wrote:

How's your German?

Go to the end of the article. [snip]
I belive this was the basis of Lachout's claim.
http://www.vho.org/VffG/2003/3/Heyne422-435.html
the matter comes in a summary of Parliamentary questions

[isaw] A parliamentary question is NOT a court judgment. Again you mix up the motivation for taking a case and the recorded judgement. This is not a judgement. YOU claimed a judgement in Lachouts favour where is it?

http://normative.zusammenhaenge.at/faelle/at/buergerschutz96.html
Info about the damages claim itself was given to me without citeable source, so I am asking the source for info about that. Watch this space.

[ISAW] In other words you have made a wholly unsupported claim about Lachout. YOU said ther was a judgement for damages in his favour in respect to his doccument not being a fraud. You claimed that and you now aDMIT YOU cant support that claim I am now asking you to withdraw the claim until you can produce supporting evidence. this is what a sceptic does. A sceptic does not watch any space. a true sceptic withdraws claims that can not be supported.

I will bet a pound to a penny you will not withdraw you unsupported claim.
Watch this space folks for a non withdrawal of an unsupported claim.
I am reminded of Samuel Beckett.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Eriugena wrote:

[ISAW] In other words you have made a wholly unsupported claim about Lachout. YOU said ther was a judgement for damages in his favour in respect to his doccument not being a fraud. You claimed that and you now aDMIT YOU cant support that claim I am now asking you to withdraw the claim until you can produce supporting evidence. this is what a sceptic does. A sceptic does not watch any space. a true sceptic withdraws claims that can not be supported.

I will bet a pound to a penny you will not withdraw you unsupported claim.
Watch this space folks for a non withdrawal of an unsupported claim.
I am reminded of Samuel Beckett.

I told you I would get back on to you about that. I have to consult the person who told me about that detail. The rest is documented. I see you have nothing to say about the hounding and bullying of that man.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Eriugena wrote:

It isn't all Nizcor stuff as you claim. Please show how all of the following references are biased. There are 64 footnotes.

Are you trying to be funny? Do you think I have nothing else in my life than to undertake an investigation into 64 references. We could turn it around and I could ask you if you have investigated all those claims to the point where you can claim to know the issue rather than just trusting a Nizkor document. I'm not asking you that because it would be unreasonable.

As to being supported by the Isaac ZIERING FOUNDATION . Amnesty International was founded by the former chier of staff of the IRA. Are you claiming Amnesty are invalid because the founder was part of what is a current terrorist organisation?

No, but I would dismiss AI because it is hypocritical in its approach to political persecution and who it deems to be a political prisoner. The point is that AI is a biased outfit as is the Ziering Foundation

Readers note: In reference to the History and Philosophy of science there are ontological and epistemological issues here. What is a reference? How do we catagorise knowledge? What is a fair test? These are valid questions.

They certainly are but they are the work of a lifetime.

Can we accept one approach to a particular event as valid and ignore it in another instance?

I entirely agree with the approach to documents set out in the piece you linked to. My point is that the holocausters never adhere to it in respect of various crucial documents which have qustion marks hanging over them. They are being hypocrtical, quelle suprise!

Can we say that one mall piece of evidence is valid or invalid but ignore all the other cases?

I'm not sure what you mean here. If something is invalid then it is invalid.

Can we say our interpretation or perception of the facts (history) is the same as the reality itself (the past)?

Now that is a very intersting question. Let us suggest that here is no such thing as an objective account of history against which everything can be measured, like a standard of calibration. There is however a distinct method appropriate to each of the various historiographical disciplines.

In the above example the suggestion is made that because some of the references are made by jewish people or by organisations supported by money paid by jews then the WHOLE of the references are not to be accepted.

Not quite. The point is that these are intersted parties. Surely we would be cautious if a self-professed fan of Hitler was also a revisionist historian. It would not do to dismiss such a persopn a priori, but a degree of cautioon would be needed. Similarly with Jewish organistaions that have a material and ideological interest in sustaining the holocaust story. Have you read Norman Finkelsetin's book The Holocaust Industry?

One must ask that if a Catholic voices an opinion on the Crusades whether this opinion is to be seriously considered (particularly when supported by independently verified evidence) or whether we can dismiss it on the basis that the author is a Christian? Do we question for example that Christians were thrown to the Lions. To be consistent in his approach Eriugena would have to suggest that we do consider that the whole idea of Christians being persecuted should be questioned.

I would suggest that we be caustious with the persecution claims. Indeed if you look to see what the sources are you would realsie that caution is called for in this case. For example, Eusebius is known to have falsified the text of Josephus so as a source Eusebius should be regarded with suspicion.

But one does not witness such strong arguments that the Crusades never happened or that the Romans never executed or persecuted Christians in an orgainised way.

The latter claim is a matter of some controversy.

Might you be woindering why these arguments are not made to the degree that the denial of the WWII mass organised slaughter of Jews and others is made?

I have always said to people who express an interest in the holocaust that they should look carefully at the primary sources, e.g. the Nuremberg documents, they should also look at holocaust histories and revisionist histories and make up their own mind on these matters. The primary sources are the most important factor.

ISAW

[QUOTE=Eriugena[snip]
The original contention of the revisionist question is this: are their solid grounds for scepticism? I have given the board a number of examples of such grounds. Yet you ignore them

[/QUOTE]

Nope. You have it the wrong way around. It is still unclear what you are claiming. How about the following ? It is from the Institute for historical review
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/30faurisson.html

Under the heading : Alleged Extermination of the Jews

An over head appears headed by the title holocaust which shows the differences between the holocaust believers and the revisionists. I have seperated thwm by /'s

Holocaust

Revisionism /Exterminationism

Concentration Camps / Extermination Camps
Disinfection Gas Chambers / Homicidal Gas Chambers
Ordinary Gas Vans / Homicidal Gas Vans
Zyklon B to Protect / Zyklon B to Kill
Territorial Final Solution / Homicidal Final Solution
Crematories for Dead Bodies / Crematories for Living Persons

Now do you subscribe to the ones on the left hand side and deny the ones on the right hand side? I will call the people who agree with the left hand side holocaust deniers.

Furthermore you have also been asked about your position as regards "Aryans" as opposed to other "races". Do you believe in this philosophy? Do you subscribe to it? What basis do you have that "race" exists?

That seems like a good place for a sceptic to start.

If we look into a claim like "the Moon landings were faked " although we could, we do not begin by addressing whether dust on lunar Rovers could land in the way it did. We have a better approach in my opinion begin by assessing whether it was possible using the technology of the day to travel to the Moon and whether you accept modern cosmology.

Constantly producing some unsupported statment that suggest say N Armstrong said it was all a hoax ( I am not aware he made any about the thing being a hoax) does not mean that the Moon landings did not happen.

Now there is far more evidence for the holocaust than there is for the Moon landings. More people are alive today that suffered through the holocaust than landed on the Moon. How come you are not sceptical of the Moon landings?

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Nope. You have it the wrong way around. It is still unclear what you are claiming. How about the following ? It is from the Institute for historical review
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/30faurisson.html

I don't see how it is the wrong way round. If someone claims to have seen 700-800 people in a space the size of my living room, my reaction goes beyond scepticism. Yet the man who claimed such a thing (and many other absuridities) is a key witness for gassing claims at Belzec and Treblinka. When holocaust historians are highly selective with his statement, that should arouse suspicion. When holocaust historians like Poliakov and Gilbert actually falsify his testimony to make it sound more plausible. Then we are in the presence of fraud. Do you think anything I have said so far is unreasonable?

Under the heading : Alleged Extermination of the Jews

An over head appears headed by the title holocaust which shows the differences between the holocaust believers and the revisionists. I have seperated thwm by /'s

Holocaust

Revisionism /Exterminationism

Concentration Camps / Extermination Camps
Disinfection Gas Chambers / Homicidal Gas Chambers
Ordinary Gas Vans / Homicidal Gas Vans
Zyklon B to Protect / Zyklon B to Kill
Territorial Final Solution / Homicidal Final Solution
Crematories for Dead Bodies / Crematories for Living Persons

Based on my own study of the primary sources I am obliged to go with Prof. Faurisson.

Now do you subscribe to the ones on the left hand side and deny the ones on the right hand side? I will call the people who agree with the left hand side holocaust deniers.

I eschew that terminology. The term 'holocaust denier' is a polemical term. It is a weapon used in an ideologically driven battle to preserve a falsified version of history. When I see the term 'holocaust denier' I respond with the counter-term 'holocaust peddler.' I prefer the term 'exterminationist' and 'revisionist'. They are the least rhetorically loaded I have come across.

Furthermore you have also been asked about your position as regards "Aryans" as opposed to other "races".

I don't recall being asked about this. My position, if you can all it that, is based on the current state of research into the pre-history of the Indo-European peoples. The term Aryan (which means 'noble') refers to an Indo-European tribe that passed through the Caucasus and settled in Iran (which is derived from the word Aryan) and India. The Celts, Germans, Dorians, Slavs, and Aryans were all related peoples. All European languages bar Finnish and Basque are Indo-European languages. Recent research has shown that the blond blue-eyed Nordic type pre-exists the arrival in Europe of the IE tribes. The genetic mapping of Europe is throwing up all sorts of nteerstingand suprising data.

Do you believe in this philosophy?

What philosophy?

Do you subscribe to it?

You would have to tell me what it is first.

What basis do you have that "race" exists?

You would have to refine the question particularly in the light of the new science of genetics. What do you mean by 'race'?

If we look into a claim like "the Moon landings were faked " although we could, we do not begin by addressing whether dust on lunar Rovers could land in the way it did. We have a better approach in my opinion begin by assessing whether it was possible using the technology of the day to travel to the Moon and whether you accept modern cosmology.

You would also have to ask whether there is any reason why it should be doubted and whether anyone actually does.

Constantly producing some unsupported statment that suggest say N Armstrong said it was all a hoax ( I am not aware he made any about the thing being a hoax) does not mean that the Moon landings did not happen.

I'm not sure what your point is about this moon landing example.

Now there is far more evidence for the holocaust than there is for the Moon landings.

I dispute that. The evdience for the holocaust does not bear scrutiny.

More people are alive today that suffered through the holocaust than landed on the Moon. How come you are not sceptical of the Moon landings?

Because I haveno reason to doubt them, the moon landings are not a political weapon used to extract political and economic power ro to claim and exert moral heegmony. You do not get sent to prison for disputing moon landings. You do not get abused and insulted (nazi! antisemite!) and beaten up for doubting the moon story.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

ISAW wrote:

The quote above says - Extreme scepticism is called for when approaching the event known as the holocaust - that's what I'm saying. Have you got a problem with that?

I have a problem with you not answering the question:

Are you seriously claiming the nazis did not view jews and others as "undermenchen"? are you also suggesting that the Nazis did not purposfully seek to destroy these groups? are you suggsting there was no Nazi plan to remove jews gypsies etc. from society (and I mean through killing them off here)?

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

Emil Lachout was a lieutenant in the Military Police Service in Austria in 1948.


[ISAW] Could you explain what Military Police Service in Austria in 1948? Wjo was the commander of this ? what was it's organisation? I do not seem to be able to find any reference to the existance of an Austrian military police service from 1948? do you mean military of the occupying allied powers? The Austrians didnt have any did they? Do you mean civil police and NOT military? Wow first line and you are hitting problems.


His job was to accompany the Military Police and members of the Allied War Crimes Commission during the arrests of alleged war criminals to ensure that the suspects were not tortured or abused.

[isaw] The Allied Council decided to publish a monthly gazette at their meeting on December 18,
1945, The "Gazette of the Allied Commission for Austria" published (February, 1946) regulations for public security which apparently states page 8:

"b) Austrian Civilian Police may be included in Inter-
Allied Police or Military Patrols."

The March 1946 edition published the personnel lists of the
Allied Military Missions in Austria and apparently stated page 18:

"2. The Allied Council decided that Allied Missions in
Vienna, whether military or political, should not include
military guards, and that their protection should be
assured by the Austrian police except where non-military
guards are required."


Lachout was also involved in the investigation of the Austrian camps, including Mauthausen. (29-7890 to 7895)

[isaw] what do these numbers signify?


In 1944, Lachout had been a member of the German Military Police. (29-7948)


[isaw] apparently Lachout maintains interned POWs were accepted for occupying duty in 1945 and with an officer's rank. to my knowledge NO evidence exists for this. Allies accepted Austrians, or
former Austrians, into their service if they had either worked
for one of the Allied authorities or had been part of one of
the Allied military units while in emigration, and were known
to be trustworthy. The Soviet military power did not accept
former Austrians into the service of the occupying authorities
at all.


The Allied War Crimes Commission was composed of two military police investigators from each country and two Austrian observers, himself and Major Müller.
[ISAW]
http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/Leaflets/ri2027.htm
4. The Investigation of War Crimes in Europe
quote: In Austria, investigations were conducted by the British Military Police and, subsequently, by a War Crimes Section of the Judge Advocate General's Branch, British Troops in Austria

...
In Austria, a War Crimes Group (South East Europe) was created in 1947 to deal with investigations both in Austria and in Italy.

Case Files of the War Crimes Group (NWE) are in WO 309. Care to state where a major Muller is in that? Or where Lachout is? When you dig out the reference to Lachout from the official records we can continue. Otherwise strike three and you are out on this one.



[snip]

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Eriugena wrote:

I have a problem with you not answering the question:

Are you seriously claiming the nazis did not view jews and others as "undermenchen"? are you also suggesting that the Nazis did not purposfully seek to destroy these groups? are you suggsting there was no Nazi plan to remove jews gypsies etc. from society (and I mean through killing them off here)?

Look, that is the second time you have used the term 'undermenschen', its Untermenschen. This tells a lot about the state of your knowledge of this topic if you cannot get the terms right.

I would have thought there was no need for you to ask these questions of you read my posts here and in the other thread.

There is no documented plan to exterminate anyone.
There is no Fuhrerbefehl (Furher order) ordering such a plan to commence.
There is no Fuhrerbefehlordering it to cease.
There is no document, blueprint, technical plan or photgraph anywhere showing a homicidal gas chamber (don't bother linking to the interior shot of Krema I, the Auschwitz authorities have admitted that is what they call a "reconstruction" built by the Soviet Polish puppet regime in 1947. Of course they don't bother telling the tourists that piece of information.)
There are no holes to be seen in the surviving roof slab of Krema II where it is alleged Zyklon B was inserted through 4 (although the number varies depending on which witness you choose to go with).
There are no gas vans in existence, no plans of such, and no photos either.
There are no mass graves exhumed and no forensic post mortem examination carried out since 1945 on any remains alleged to have been killed by the Germans.
The evidence for the extermination claims consists largely of documents interpreted according to some esoteric theory of telepathy, witness statements, which often contradict each other wildly, and confessions.

I hope this answers your questions.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Eriugena wrote:

Emil Lachout was a lieutenant in the Military Police Service in Austria in 1948.


[ISAW] Could you explain what Military Police Service in Austria in 1948? Wjo was the commander of this ? what was it's organisation? I do not seem to be able to find any reference to the existance of an Austrian military police service from 1948? do you mean military of the occupying allied powers? The Austrians didnt have any did they? Do you mean civil police and NOT military? Wow first line and you are hitting problems.


His job was to accompany the Military Police and members of the Allied War Crimes Commission during the arrests of alleged war criminals to ensure that the suspects were not tortured or abused.

[isaw] The Allied Council decided to publish a monthly gazette at their meeting on December 18,
1945, The "Gazette of the Allied Commission for Austria" published (February, 1946) regulations for public security which apparently states page 8:

"b) Austrian Civilian Police may be included in Inter-
Allied Police or Military Patrols."

The March 1946 edition published the personnel lists of the
Allied Military Missions in Austria and apparently stated page 18:

"2. The Allied Council decided that Allied Missions in
Vienna, whether military or political, should not include
military guards, and that their protection should be
assured by the Austrian police except where non-military
guards are required."


Lachout was also involved in the investigation of the Austrian camps, including Mauthausen. (29-7890 to 7895)

[isaw] what do these numbers signify?


In 1944, Lachout had been a member of the German Military Police. (29-7948)


[isaw] apparently Lachout maintains interned POWs were accepted for occupying duty in 1945 and with an officer's rank. to my knowledge NO evidence exists for this. Allies accepted Austrians, or
former Austrians, into their service if they had either worked
for one of the Allied authorities or had been part of one of
the Allied military units while in emigration, and were known
to be trustworthy. The Soviet military power did not accept
former Austrians into the service of the occupying authorities
at all.


The Allied War Crimes Commission was composed of two military police investigators from each country and two Austrian observers, himself and Major Müller.
[ISAW]
http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/Leaflets/ri2027.htm
4. The Investigation of War Crimes in Europe
quote: In Austria, investigations were conducted by the British Military Police and, subsequently, by a War Crimes Section of the Judge Advocate General's Branch, British Troops in Austria

...
In Austria, a War Crimes Group (South East Europe) was created in 1947 to deal with investigations both in Austria and in Italy.

Case Files of the War Crimes Group (NWE) are in WO 309. Care to state where a major Muller is in that? Or where Lachout is? When you dig out the reference to Lachout from the official records we can continue. Otherwise strike three and you are out on this one.



[snip]

You have all the references both for and against on this one. Its not my problem if you can't read German, I'm not going to waste my time translating stuff for you. Try an online translator although the results can be pretty hilarious.
The Austrian documents show the state of the Lachout question from the official point of view. If he had fabricated evidence he would have been in the slammer long ago. They had to drop it eventually. In Germany and Austria people are locked up for much less in this area. The Verfassungschutz (thought police) in Germany averages about 10,000 prosections a year ("propaganda offences"). That's a very bad joke because Verfassungschutz means literally, Defense of the Constitution which is ridiculous as Germany does not have a constitution. There is not even a peace treaty which means the war is technically still on.

robindch

> You have decended into being a cheap little slanderer.

I do take issue with the term 'slanderer' -- I've asked you to state whether or not you are an anti-semite or not, and whether or not you're a Nazi apologist. You've declined on many occasions to answer these questions, from which I've publicly stated, some weeks back, as well as more recently, that we can safely conclude that you are both; you haven't reacted to this conclusion either, until today and I'm surprised at this sudden reaction! If you do wish to answer the questions I've posed previously about your political views, I'm sure we'd like to hear the answers, even at this late stage.

And 'cheap'? Puuhhleeze!

> Look, that is the second time you have used the term
> 'undermenschen', its Untermenschen. This tells a lot
> about the state of your knowledge of this topic if
> you cannot get the terms right.

Your own postings are littered with numerous misspellings; please don't criticize others for not doing what you can't do either.

Anyhow, to the point at hand, and taking four recent assertions:

> There are no gas vans in existence, no plans of such, and
> no photos either.

See this page for links to a photo of one, testimony from SS officers, details of alterations required; or you can try this page for further details of their operation.

> The evidence for the extermination claims consists
> largely of documents interpreted according to some
> esoteric theory of telepathy

See this page which doesn't require any 'esoteric theories' for interpretation, telepathic or otherwise.

Or, from your latest posting:

> Germany does not have a constitution

The text, in German, of the German Constitution is here, while the English Text is here.

> the war is technically still on

See The German Surrender Documents of World War II, which, including the phrase 'unconditional surrender', would perhaps indicate that the war is technically over.

I hope these answers help in your continuing researches!

- robin.

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

> You have decended into being a cheap little slanderer.

I do take issue with the term 'slanderer'

Then you should give up slandering people.

-- I've asked you to state whether or not you are an anti-semite or not, and whether or not you're a Nazi apologist.

I think I have already told you that this is a gross impertinence. Have I asked you whether or not you are a Jew? No, that would be impertinent and irrelevant

I have asions to answer these questions, from which I've publicly stated, some weeks back, as well as more recently, that we can safely conclude that you are both; you haven't reacted to this conclusion either, until today and I'm surprised at this sudden reaction!

I don't like your weasely and cowardly insinuations. I am not going to dignify such with a response.

If you do wish to answer the questions I've posed previously about your political views, I'm sure we'd like to hear the answers, even at this late stage.

Political views have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

And 'cheap'? Puuhhleeze!

Yea, real cheap.

> Look, that is the second time you have used the term
> 'undermenschen', its Untermenschen. This tells a lot
> about the state of your knowledge of this topic if
> you cannot get the terms right.

Your own postings are littered with numerous misspellings; please don't criticize others for not doing what you can't do either.

Its a consistent misspelling whih discloses an ignorance of the language.
Anyhow, to the point at hand, and taking four recent assertions:

> There are no gas vans in existence, no plans of such, and
> no photos either.

See this page for links to a photo of one, testimony from SS officers, details of alterations required; or you can try this page for further details of their operation.

What makes you think that is a photo of a gas van? All you have is a caption to tell you that.
Try Friedrich Berg who knows all about diesel engines and will show you in great detail why those stories are nonsense becuse they contravene the known properties of diesel exhaust.
http://fpberg.yourforum.org/archive/index.html

> The evidence for the extermination claims consists
> largely of documents interpreted according to some
> esoteric theory of telepathy

See this page which doesn't require any 'esoteric theories' for interpretation, telepathic or otherwise.

It does require a suspension of all critical faculties in order to believe anything Munch says.

Q. Mr. Witness, you already mentioned that it was an irrefutable fact
that mass exterminations were carried out in Auschwitz. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you describe briefly where this extermination was carried
out, particularly the locality?
A. The extermination plant was located at Birkenau. The crematoria and
gas chambers were located one to one and a half kilometers southwest
of the Birkenau camp, camouflaged in a small woods.
For Munch's Nuremberg testimony see
NMT Vol. VIII, p 312 ff
which you can find at http://www.mazal.org/

Problem is Munch clearly has no idea what he is describing. The point he indicates with those directions is a small village. You know that he was freed after testifying against others?
Do you actually read anything that you post?
Here is what Munch claims in his whacko statement of 1995:

“The effects of the gas were observed through a peephole by an assigned doctor or the SS officer on duty. After three to five minutes, death could be certified, and the doors were opened as a sign that the corpses were cleared to be burned.”

This is utter nonsense. Physically impossible. The behaviour of Zyklon B is well understood an it takes up to two hours for it to discharge depending on temperature and moisture content. Vast amounts would be required to achieve anything remotely approaching those times given by Munch (greater amounts would mean more discharging but still at the same time rate.). Even the holocausters were embarassd by this.

Or, from your latest posting:

> Germany does not have a constitution

The text, in German, of the German Constitution is here, while the English Text is here.

The Grundgesetz is not a constitution it is the Basic Law. Have you actually read it?

> the war is technically still on

See The German Surrender Documents of World War II, which, including the phrase 'unconditional surrender', would perhaps indicate that the war is technically over.

Wrong again. No peace treaty exists. The war is still technically on. Quite apart form the disputes over whether or not the surrender was legal from the German point of view at the time.

I hope these answers help in your continuing researches!

Yes, it reveals more to me about the silliness of those who take on topics they clearly know nothing about.

robindch

> Then you should give up slandering people.

<grin> -- as I said, I wasn't slandering anyone

> Have I asked you whether or not you are a Jew?

Nope, but just for the record: no, I'm not a Jew.

> Political views have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

I'm afraid to point out that they most certainly do. Most people, on this thread as well as elsewhere, are quite happy that the integrity of historians can be safely inferred from their political views. You have refused to state yours, consequently, most people infer quite reasonably that you have something that you wish to hide.

> Its a consistent misspelling whih discloses an ignorance of the language.

Indeed!

> Try Friedrich Berg who knows all about diesel engines

Ah, yes. Friedrich Berg, the well-known holocaust denier, valued contributor to the pro-Nazi IHR site, and father of the Berg Spittle Index. It does require a suspension of all critical faculties in order to believe anything Berg says.

> The Grundgesetz is not a constitution it is the Basic Law.

ROTFL! You just don't have a clue, do you?

> No peace treaty exists. The war is still technically on.

Oh, my dear Eriugena, you do make me laugh!

You'll probably recall that Germany was dismembered at the end of the war in accordance with the protocols agreed at the The Yalta Conference, so there wasn't really a Germany to have a war *with*, or once the German High Command had flung its hands in the air, to conclude a peace-treaty with either, since the UK, the USA and the USSR retained "supreme authority" over what used to be 'Germany'. Now, you can't have a peace treaty with something you already control, can you? That would be just silly!

I hope this helps to clear up some of your confusion on the topic!

- robin.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

I have stated no such thesis. Of course he had plans for them. This is very well documented. The final solution was to be the deportation of all Jews out of western Europe. People like Hilberg have to take such documents and come up with elaborate and arcane theories of code langauge and telepathy to make these documents say something else.


You are trying to foist a ridiculous view on me. No one disputes that the NS had an animosity towards the Jews.

Nope. The case here is not animosity. It is the deliberate planned extermination of jews and others. YOU claimed that this didnt happen. In this particular case YOUR WORDS - I don't see any proof for the existence of homocidal gas chambers in any of that MK stuff.-

MK is Hitlers Mein Kampf. The Mein Kampf stuff you refer is Hitlers plan for the jews and others. Now it has just been shown to you above that Hitler announced the outline of these plans well BEFORE the WWII. There are plenty more statments like this:
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/statements.htm
Now that source is a university. I asked you if you thought this was a source controlled by a jewish conspiracy and you accused me of asking purile questions. I will ask you again. Is this source (the university of Bristol) an acceptable source and if not why not?


YOU also claimed that Lachout had a decision for damages in his favour which to some extent validated the Lachout Document. YOU stated you would produce evidence for this. You produced several thousand words in German which were NOT evidence for that claim. I pointed out to you that at the official records in Kew you should be able to find Ll. Lachout and the Major Muller you claim were part od the Military Police. You have not provided ANY reference of them from the records.

YOU also began the pseudohistorians thread thus changing the topic from whether the holocaust happened to whether some parts of the history of (namely certain historians accounts of parts of the holocaust) WWII could be revised. I am not interested in discussing that. There is ample evidence the WWII holocaust happened. Just as there is ample evidence that people landed on the Moon or a probe landed on Titan. You seem to be switching the issue from the past to history to particular historians.

In any case thank you for stating you are not in any party or social movement. would you mind now stating that you have nothing against jews gypsies communists or homosexuals in so far as they have a right to peacefully co exist in your country and go about their business as they see fit as long as they do not break the law?

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

ISAW wrote:

I told you I would get back on to you about that. [the claim that Lachout had a judgement in his favour] I have to consult the person who told me about that detail. The rest is documented. I see you have nothing to say about the hounding and bullying of that man.

In otherwords you wont withdraw an unsupported claim even when you admit you have not wsupport for it?

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

> Try Friedrich Berg who knows all about diesel engines

Ah, yes. Friedrich Berg, the well-known holocaust denier, valued contributor to the pro-Nazi IHR site, and father of the Berg Spittle Index. It does require a suspension of all critical faculties in order to believe anything Berg says.

The same Fridrich Berg who has been show to lie and miss represent the truth about witness statements and how gassing took place (bit like Gilbert, no Eriugena?? Double standard anyone)

http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/diesel-01.html

Oh but that is right, we can't believe Nizkor because it is a propaganda site ... not like say VHO.org or IHR.org :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

> Then you should give up slandering people.

<grin> -- as I said, I wasn't slandering anyone

Yes you are, through insinuation and impertinent questions.

> Have I asked you whether or not you are a Jew?

Nope, but just for the record: no, I'm not a Jew.

I never asked you.

> Political views have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

I'm afraid to point out that they most certainly do. Most people, on this thread as well as elsewhere, are quite happy that the integrity of historians can be safely inferred from their political views.

Then they would be guilty of a form of argmentum ad hominem. How do polictial views affect the handling of a topic? If they do, someone would ahve to show how they do. Simply saying that a historian is a Jew or a nationalist does not constitute a critique of their work.

You have refused to state yours, consequently, most people infer quite reasonably that you have something that you wish to hide.

I have nothing to hide. You have asked impertinent questions and have earned my contempt.

> Its a consistent misspelling whih discloses an ignorance of the language.

Indeed!

That is a typo not a misspelling.

> Try Friedrich Berg who knows all about diesel engines

Ah, yes. Friedrich Berg, the well-known holocaust denier, valued contributor to the pro-Nazi IHR site, and father of the Berg Spittle Index. It does require a suspension of all critical faculties in order to believe anything Berg says.

You have hardly heard of him before I mentioned him and you are certainly not in a position to assess his work. Take recourse in the cowardly ad hominem route by all means. Your Berg spittle index is nonsesne, there is only one historian mentioned there - Berg. It is a smear site. Do you know anything about those people, mentioned there? No, you are taking the word of some website you stumbled across. No show us how his technical reports on diesel engines are flawed or affected by his professed policial beliefs.

> The Grundgesetz is not a constitution it is the Basic Law.

ROTFL! You just don't have a clue, do you?

You are the clueless one. Do you even know how the BRD was set up? Do you know that under the UN Charter the allied powers still reserve the unconditional right to do whatever they please against Germany and the other defeated countries?

Article 53
The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.
The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.

Article 107
Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action.

> No peace treaty exists. The war is still technically on.

Oh, my dear Eriugena, you do make me laugh!

Do you understand anything about this issue? There is no formal treaty ending the war. Look at the Charter extracts above.

You'll probably recall that Germany was dismembered at the end of the war in accordance with the protocols agreed at the The Yalta Conference, so there wasn't

Contrary to international law and all precedent. Perhaps you subscribe to "might makes right?" Unconditional surrender had no precedent and contributed to many more deaths due to stiffened resistance.

really a Germany to have a war *with*, or once the German High Command had flung its hands in the air, to conclude a peace-treaty with either, since the UK, the USA and the USSR retained "supreme authority" over what used to be 'Germany'. Now, you can't have a peace treaty with something you already control, can you? That would be just silly!

I doubt you have even the most primitive grasp of logic. The surrender comes first, then you have a state to make peace with. The allies created a state but never had a peace treaty with it. They still do not. I suppose you supported the illegal war against Iraq, you don't seem to have any knowledge or respect for international law.

I hope this helps to clear up some of your confusion on the topic.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

The same Fridrich Berg who has been show to lie and miss represent the truth about witness statements and how gassing took place (bit like Gilbert, no Eriugena?? Double standard anyone)

http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/diesel-01.html

Oh but that is right, we can't believe Nizkor because it is a propaganda site ... not like say VHO.org or IHR.org :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

This is truly pathetic. Can you point to any lies or errors or can all you do is repeat Nizkor smear?

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Eriugena wrote:

In otherwords you wont withdraw an unsupported claim even when you admit you have not wsupport for it?

I told you I would get back to this when I get the relevant information. If that proves fruitless then we will discuss withdrawls. Do you think you can dictate the rules of discourse here or what?

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Nope. The case here is not animosity. It is the deliberate planned extermination of jews and others.

The animosity is disputed by no one but the extermination allegation is.

YOU claimed that this didnt happen. In this particular case YOUR WORDS - I don't see any proof for the existence of homocidal gas chambers in any of that MK stuff.-

So what's your problem? Let me explain now for the umpteenth time.
I have looked closely at a lot of the primary sources for this and have come to the conclusion that the revisionists are essentially correct: no extermination. I'm quite happy to post up here specific pieces of evidence from NEUTRAL sources (even from holocaust promotion sites!) to show exactly what I base my disbelief on. Can't get any fairer than that, can I? If you are genuinely interested in pursuing this I will collate stuff from holocaust promotion sites (e.g. HHP or Nizkor) and neutral sites (e.g. Avalon) and post it here to show precisely why I do not believe in the holocaust extermination story.

YOU also claimed that Lachout had a decision for damages in his favour which to some extent validated the Lachout Document.

I didn';t ay that at all. I said that 1.) the charges were dropped (and this has already been shown) 2.) he received damages for the distress caused (this is yet to be shown)

YOU stated you would produce evidence for this. You produced several thousand words in German which were NOT evidence for that claim.

I said it was evdience for claim 1 - which it is. Not nmy problem that you cannot read German - try Babelfish, the results will be pretty hilarious, but you will probably get the gist.

I pointed out to you that at the official records in Kew you should be able to find Ll. Lachout and the Major Muller you claim were part od the Military Police. You have not provided ANY reference of them from the records.

Becasue I am not in Kew, I'm about 300 miles away! Anyway, how do you know whether there is or is not evidence in Kew to support or refute the document?

YOU also began the pseudohistorians thread thus changing the topic from whether the holocaust happened to whether some parts of the history of (namely certain historians accounts of parts of the holocaust) WWII could be revised. I am not interested in discussing that.

Then ignore this thread.

There is ample evidence the WWII holocaust happened. Just as there is ample evidence that people landed on the Moon or a probe landed on Titan. You seem to be switching the issue from the past to history to particular historians.

You are doing your fallacious argument by analogy again.

In any case thank you for stating you are not in any party or social movement. would you mind now stating that you have nothing against jews gypsies communists or homosexuals in so far as they have a right to peacefully co exist in your country and go about their business as they see fit as long as they do not break the law?

How could I, or anyone else, have a difficulty with anyone who goes about their business without harming others? What relevance has any of that to whether or not there was a policy of extermination?
If you showed more interest in the technical evidence for gas chambers rather than insinuating Political Correctness into this discussion we could make progress. Kindly keep your political orientations to yourself.

robindch

> Contrary to international law and all precedent.
> Perhaps you subscribe to "might makes right?"

Good heavens, where's all this sudden respect for international law coming from? Didn't Hitler ignore virtually all the treaties signed after WWI in the buildup to WWII? And didn't his armies invade Poland (a nice demonstration of his belief that 'might is right')?

Double standards again, I'm afraid!

> The surrender comes first, then you have a state to make peace with.

Not if you dissolve the state concerned

> The allies created a state ...

Very good; we're getting there, slowly but surely!

> ...but never had a peace treaty with it.

Excellent! And here's the reason: because there was no state to have a peace treaty with! The two *new* states created, after the dismemberment of Germnay, never declared war upon anyone, since they were under the control of the UK, USA and USSR. Now, since the new states weren't in a state of war, there wasn't really a whole lot of point in signing a peace treaty. Make sense? It's really quite easy to follow the logic!

> You are the clueless one. [...] I doubt you have
> even the most primitive grasp of logic. [...] You
> have asked impertinent questions and have earned
> my contempt. [...] you don't seem to have any
> knowledge or respect for international law [...]
> give up slandering people [...] gross impertinence
> [...] weasely and cowardly insinuations

Er, could you tell us more about your disdain for "argumentum ad hominem"?

- robin.