söndag 30 oktober 2011

Dr. Toben ALSO needs YOUR Help!

Dr. Toben´s October 2011 comments go to show that I was not wrong in making the claim that "Holocaust Denial is Chutzpah".

He clearly claims that it is not for Prof. Faurisson to prove anything at all, for Prof. Faurisson does not make any claims himself.

But actually Prof. F. makes numerous claims, some of them even being quoted by Dr. Toben himself, e.g.,  "Neither here or elsewhere did there exist any order to kill the Jews."

That is a nice case of Chutzpah, or sophistry: To make a claim, and then claim that you make no claim.

I posed several questions to Prof. Faurisson without receiving any answer. Dr. Toben then turned up, but, alas,  also failed to answer my questions. He simply ignored them, coming up with a few  personal insults instead.

That, too, is a nice case of Chutzpah.

Dr. Toben launches a "definition" of the "Holocaust". I do not accept this poor definition, for it  is far too narrow, and not in accordance with what actually happened. It would be like defining a car, leaving out the engine, the doors, the wheels, the windows  etc. The cheap trick is to invent a stupid definition and then ascribe it, wrongly and dishonestly , to your opponent.

That, too, is a nice case of Chutzpah.

Dr. Toben also makes false inferences when asking for a Hitler order. From the fact that there is no WRITTEN order here and now, he infers that there never was any order at all. But there is good evidence that there was an ORAL order, as has often been pointed out by myself and others.
Thus, he not only ignores available evidence of  an oral order, but also resorts to a false inference.

That, too, is a nice case of Chutzpah.

Finally, Dr. Toben makes various claims with regard to various trials, but they too, are - mere claims without any proofs being offered.

Dr. Toben is, of course, welcome to make all these false or empty claims. At the same time it ought to be clear to him that it is he himself - not his opponent - who is preventing an open debate on the Holocaust.

So, if he deplores that there is no open debate, that, too, is a nice case of Chutzpah.

A personal note: A friend of mine finds that I am wasting far too much time on "these nuts". One should, instead, just ask these "mad deniers" to explain what Himmler had in mind when he stated, in July 1941, and in  June 1944:

1. "Sämtliche Juden müssen erschossen werden. Judenweiber in die Sümpfe treiben!" (All Jews must be shot. Jewish women must be pushed into the swamps)

2. "Es ist gut, dass wir die Härte hatten, die Juden in unserem Bereich auszurotten." (It is good that we had the hardness, to eradicate the Jews in our areas)

32 kommentarer:

Michael Hoffman sa...

Dr. Lindtner writes:

"Dr. Toben launches a ‘definition' of the “Holocaust.' I do not accept this poor definition, for it is far too narrow..."

Dear Dr. Lindtner

“Holocaust” has no precise definition and you exploit the ambiguity of this Newspeak.

What makes the tragic World War II experience of Judaics under Hitler supposedly different from the tragic World War II experience of Russian Christians under Stalin, or German civilians under RAF firestorms, is the Six Million figure and the so-called gassings.

If one subtracts those two claims from the horrors the Nazis inflicted on the Judaics, then that horror is on approximately the same level as what Stalin and Churchill perpetrated against Christians and Germans.

If however, you seek to preserve this special ontological category, this unprecedented “Holocaust,” you must focus precisely where Dr. Toben has indicated: Six Million casualties and millions gassed.

Yes, there were other facets of the persecution and extrusion of Judaics by the Nazis, but nothing that is exceptional in 20th century history, since German civilians experienced them during and after World War II.

It is this exceptionalism that is the hallmark of both “The Holocaust” and the religion of Judaism itself, with its exceptional Holy People above all other nations of the world.

If you refuse Toben’s focus on the legend's exceptional claims, you have nothing left with which to buttress your Orwellian Holocaust Newspeak.

Michael Hoffman

michael santomauro sa...

Hello Michael,

This is so annoying, I've tried to respond to Dr. Lindtner, and it returns some message in Thai, because I live in Thailand, and Google doesn't seem to realise that Thailand has a huge expatriate population that can't make head nor tail of Thai writing, even if they can say a few words in the language..

Here's my comment:

Dr. Lindner is kidding, right?

"But there is good evidence that there was an ORAL order, as has often been pointed out by myself and others."

Well, give us the evidence, don't tell us that you have often pointed it out.

Famed movie producer, Sam Goldwyn has been credited with saying: "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on." Well, Dr. Lindner, an unrecorded oral order carries much the same legal weight. None at all.

Had Hitler given the Germans such an order, I doubt that it would have been executed in the haphazard way that the various camp commandants claimed they had carried it out, after having been tortured into such admissions, prior to the Nuremberg trials, as I have illustrated in my video:
"Holocaust, Hate Speech & Were the Germans so Stupid? — Updated & Revised" which is still on Vimeo.

Give my full name, and whatever.

Take care,

Anthony Lawson

Holocaust Denial is Chutzpah sa...

Hello Mr. Lawson,

Who in the world would say that Hitler gave the order "to the Germans"?
What a silly idea!

All serious scholars are aware that the oral order was given to the RFSS, Himmler, and to Heydrich of the RSHA,later on, by Hitler himself, to Kube. Himmler and Heydrich passed on the Führerbefehl on to numerous SS and police officers (Daluege et al.), HSSPF, SSPF, and others. They followed the order, as evidence shows.
You will find the German evidence of the oral Führerbefehl presented and carefully discussed in Wolfgang Curilla, Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941-1944, Paderborn 2006, pp. 86-123.
Please understand that it will be a bit too much for me to translate all these pages (with the 284 notes with references) for you into Thai (or even English).
Some mad deniers claim that all this German evidence was fabricated later on etc. But most often they simply ignore it - which goes to show that they are not scholars at all.
With regard to Höss: Do I really need to repeat that just because Höss may well have been falsus in uno, this does not mean that he was falsus in omnibus!
Just because you spell my name wrongly, I do not claim that you spell all words wrongly!
Really, Mr. Lawson!
Finally, do feel free to comment on the two quotations from Himmler.
It could be fun to hear what you have to say!
Regards
Christian Lindtner

Holocaust Denial is Chutzpah sa...

Dear Dr. Hoffman,

Thanks, I appreciate your comments.
As may be seen e.g. from my video "Hitler´s Prophecy", I try to introduce a sharp distinction between, on the one hand, Endlösung, the German term, which refers to the Vernichtung of the Jews that actually did take place, and which is still the field of research of a rather narrow group of often highly specialized scholars, especially German ones.

On the other hand, we have "the Holocaust" (a term not used by the Nazis, of course). This popular or modern term (with Biblical roots, as known) is based on the facts of the Endlösung, but also contains new elements or ideas, such as uniqueness, guilt, shame, recompensation, suppression, education, belief in chosenness, prophecy, etc. Holocaust plainly has religious, commercial, propagandistic, ritualistic and several other elements absent in the historical Endlösung as the actual historical event.

Holocaust thus becomes an object of study in itself (as can now be seen from various handbooks on modern religions etc.)
For me as a historian of Hellenistic religions it is quite natural to make this distinction. For instance, we have , on the one hand, Christians and Buddhists who cherish a belief in Jesus and Buddha as historical "saviours", "sons of God" etc. , but on the other hand we also have a small group of historians of Hellenistic syncretism, who claim that Jesus and Buddha were not at all historical persons (like you and me) , but, on the contrary, merely literary figures, like Serapis, Zeus or Mithras.

Most people do not find the time, or have no interest in consulting erudite scholarly books. Scholars, we must agree on that, have a duty to keep the public informed, but all too often they fail to do so.

Under these unhappy circumstances, there is bound to be certain tensions and misunderstandings on both sides. There is a breach of communication.
It is a great pity that so-called Holocaust deniers often ignore or distort the serious scholarly work that has been done, especially in Germany.

I would, finally, be happy to have your comments on the two quotations from Heinrich Himmler, from July 1941, and from June 1944. They are, unfortunately, often ignored or distorted by deniers.

Kind regards

Dr. Christian Lindtner

michael santomauro sa...

Genocide By Telepathy, Hilberg Explains

Robert Faurisson

Excerpt:

Hilberg summarized his new thesis before an audience of nearly 2,700 at Avery Fischer Hall in New York City: the entire German policy for the physical destruction of the Jews was to be explained by mind reading! No document attesting to this criminal policy could be found, because no such document existed. For several years, the entire German bureaucratic machinery operated through a kind of telepathy. As Hilberg put it:Note 4

But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They [these measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus -- mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.

Let us note again those final words: "an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus -- mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy."Note 5

Two years later, Hilberg confirmed those words and this explanation during the first "Holocaust trial" of Ernst Zündel in Toronto. He did this under oath during his cross-examination by Zündel's lawyer, Douglas Christie, whom I was assisting.Note 6

That same year (1985) the "revised and definitive" edition of his book appeared. In it, the University of Vermont professor did not use the expression "consensus" or "mind reading." And yet he wrote:Note 7

In the final analysis, the destruction of the Jews was not so much a product of laws and commands as it was a matter of spirit, of shared comprehension, of consonance and synchronization.

He also wrote of "countless decision makers in a far-flung bureaucratic machine" without "a basic plan." He mentioned "written directives not published," "oral directives and authorizations," and "basic understandings of officials resulting in decisions not requiring orders or explanations." There had been "no one agency," he wrote, and "no single organization directed or coordinated the entire process." The destruction of the Jews, he concluded, was "the work of a far-flung administrative machine," and "no special agency was created and no special budget was devised to destroy the Jews of Europe. Each organization was to play a specific role in the process, and each was to find the means to carry out its task."Note 8

For me, this is like explaining what would have been a huge criminal undertaking of industrial proportions based, in particular, on a weapon (a chemical slaughterhouse using an insecticide), operating through the intervention of the Holy Ghost, all of which had been conceived and created through a kind of spontaneous generation.

I refuse to believe that which is not believable. I refuse to believe in the incredible. I refuse to believe in what Hilberg himself calls "an incredible meeting of minds." I refuse to believe in mind reading or telepathy, just as I refuse to believe in the intervention of the Holy Ghost or in spontaneous generation. I take exception to any historical thesis, any system of historical explanation, based on such hare-brained notions.

More:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n1p15_Faurisson.html

michael santomauro sa...

FROM: Amelia: aaremia@nc.rr.com

I have not heard of Dr. Lindtner until his controversy with Dr. Toben, who is not a footnote among the groups of academia. Besides other historians/revisionists, Dr. Toben made a serious and thorough study of facts and found evidence that showed such a holocaust as presented could not have existed. Dr. Lindtner sets up a weak example for his attack which is a disgrace to himself, and a disservice to Dr. Toben and those who did a thorough research of facts and evidence against all the facts presented. doubt, proved. without a doubt, the misleading facts which the Holocaust “believers” do not substantiate their exaggerated and mythical stories of what happened in the Labor Camps. This is not a denial that killings did take place in these camps, that were relabeled as Concentration Camps or Death Camps, but that it was not a planned system of genocide.

Why is it that the simplistic of truths are seldom accepted as willingly as distorted facts or falsehoods, or outright lies? Hitler’s “systematic” plan, The Final Solution, was to deport the troublesome Jews to other countries in Europe and around the world. Many countries refused to accept them, including the United States, and they had to be returned to Germany where they where placed in the Labor Camps. Killings did not start until the Polish Jews began their attacks on the Nazi and SS troops which were welcomed in Poland and other Eastern European countries and made the people feel safer with the Nazi and SS Troops than with the Soviet armies.

The real Holocaust was the 58 Millions killed during WWII. Whether or not this number included the Germans who perished was never mentioned.

Around 1985 events began to happen where the Berlin Wall once stood. These events were not so significant as they continued to grow while the few dedicated academics for freedom in a free market tried to bring back the failing economy....An arrogant, internationalist powerful elite continue to conspire in their new world production commodities as the growing global industries and businesses multiply in Europe and in other western, industrialized nations once capable of producing their own goods and needs, that would keep out continuing inflation and the higher costs of daily living as prices and wages chase each other up their planned economic ladder....hardly aware outside of Wall Street.

The post war reconstruction of Europe was successfully moving along until the weakened special-interest groups and all kinds of new pressure groups were successfully developing. The group of internationalist, socialistic power elite coolly grows more powerful as it spreads its collective will, and Europe’s debit crisis becomes a global responsibility.

Historical revisionism is a legitimate academic right—not a denial, anti-Semitic, or bigotry group, but sincere academics and intellectuals intent on giving the world the truth before the bigotry of the Jewish Holocaust destroys the entire world, and then become the master race of divine gods to whom they believe the world belongs...It can be done through a united and concerted effort to put together a thesis that will enlighten the people of the world by buying space in the major newspaper to spread their conclusions...those who follow their findings can help by making a contribution towards the expense of such an “ad.” For surely, no paper will publish such an editorial warning the unsuspected that the approaching dawn of a happier, freer life is coming, rather than what is really happening...a descending night of slavery.

APA
Amelia aaremia@nc.rr.com

michael santomauro sa...

An Interview with ex-denier Christian Lindtner
OCTOBER 19, 2011

Excerpt:

When I first became aware of "Holocaust Revisionism" more than twenty years ago, I was also struck by the paradoxes. At that time I had no reason to question "the official version". I then heard that there were people like Professor Faurisson, claiming that there was no scientific evidence for a Hitler order, no plan, no budget, no weapons of mass destruction etc. In 1998 I invited Danish historians, in public, to refute his claims. Moreover, along with some friends, we invited nearly all the "Holocaust revisionists" to visit Denmark and present their case without having to fear persecution, imprisonment etc. To cut a long story short: In 2006 I was invited to Iran. Here, I could report that Danish historians had failed to refute the claims of the Holocaust Revisionists. Often, they had even made fools of themselves in attempting to do so.

MORE:

LINK:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/10/interview-with-ex-denier-christian.html

Nathan sa...

Hi, Dr. Lindtner, Can I join in on the fun?

- Well, Dr. Lindner, an unrecorded oral order carries much the same legal weight. None at all-

These people live in a fantasy world. I spend each day in a corporate setting where every little task has major repercussions. In the real world, snap decisions have to be taken, and it would be impractical to always wait for the order to be written down.

Just the other day, my boss orally ordered me to carry out an essential task. He also laid down a basic parameter: if a process is down, you always restart. He made it clear that we should drill that into our heads and should be able to do it by ourselves. A couple of weeks ago, we carried out a major task and only received instructions through teleconference.

During an emergency, My superior spoke to the Man in charge through the phone. The oral "yes, go ahead" was all we needed to go ahead with the task that we needed to do.

This is the real world. Get used to it.

- Bluster from Santomauro cut-

Why does Santomauro focus on a single, old work instead of addressing the latest research? Because he's a straw man builder?

Good luck, Dr. Lindtner!

Nathan sa...

- Killings did not start until the Polish Jews began their attacks on the Nazi and SS troops which were welcomed in Poland and other Eastern European countries and made the people feel safer with the Nazi and SS Troops than with the Soviet armies.-

Ahh, yes, good old fashioned projection. You can't live without it.

- Why is it that the simplistic of truths are seldom accepted as willingly as distorted facts or falsehoods, or outright lies? Hitler’s “systematic” plan, The Final Solution, was to deport the troublesome Jews to other countries in Europe and around the world. -

For info on what the "Final Solution" really was, according to the Nazi's own words, see the Korherr report

Holocaust Denial is Chutzpah sa...

Hello Nathan,
Welcome you are!
You are quite right: The boss says: go ahead!
That was what Hitler must have done, when the Führerbefehl was given to Himmler, Heydrich, Daluege et al.
He expected them to be able to make their own decisions, now and then consulting specific issues with him, if needed.
There is a lot of good German evidence for this, as known. -
But there is another thing, namely what Heydrich called "the old problem".
Here Hitler had to interfere and come out of the closet:
Already in 1939, Wehrmacht officers were complaining about the brutal and unworthy behaviour of the SS and the German police in Poland. This was a serious practical problem. Hence Himmler & Heydrich had to have their backs free.
And so, to cut a long story short, in March 1941,Hitler decided (with the Richtlinien auf Sondergebieten zur Weisung Nr. 21), that RFSS, Himmler, could act "selbständig und in eigener Verantwortung", which also included executions of civilians (Jews etc.).
With this "order" in his hands, Himmler would no longer have to listen to complaints from the Wehrmacht or other German institutions.. He, RFSS, could now say, sorry, it´s a Führerbefehl. But still: "Es ist gut, dass wir die Härte hatten, die Juden in unserem Bereich auszurotten."
Himmler often speaks of a Weisung or Auftrag given to the SS to that effect, i.e. to the Vernichtung.
Of course, Hitler did not need to repeat himself in giving a new and specific order on paper to gas the Jews in vans or chambers etc. A call would do, had he any special wishes. -
Finally, yes, there are some strange and rather complicated "projections" in the vogue among " deniers" these days.
Regards,
Chr. Lindtner

michael santomauro sa...

Part 2 of My Holocaust Problems:

5) Why after sixty years have historians been unable to come up with a single German document that points to a holocaust? Should we believe the likes of Raul Hilburg that in the place of written orders there was an "incredible meeting of the minds" by the literally tens of thousands of people who would have had to coordinate their actions in order to carry out an undertaking of this magnitude.

6) How come it is still insisted upon that six million Jews were killed when the official Jewish death toll at Auschwitz, the flagship of the Holocaust gulag, has been reduced from an immediate post war figure of 3 million, to a figure of somewhat less than one million? Why do many respond to this observation by saying, " what's the difference whether it's six million or one million". The answer is that the difference is five million. Another difference is that saying so can get you three years in an Austrian jail...just ask David Irving!

7) All of Germany's wartime codes were compromised including the one used to send daily reports from Auschwitz to Berlin. The transcripts of these messages make no mention of mass executions or even remotely suggest a genocidal program in progress. Furthermore it has been insisted that the Germans used a kind of euphemistic code when discussing their extermination program of the Jews e.g. final solution, special treatment, resettlement, etc. Why was it necessary for them to use such coded euphemisms when talking to one another unless they thought their codes had been cracked by the Allies?

8) The water table at Auschwitz lies a mere 18 inches below the surface which makes claims of huge burning pits for the disposal of tens of thousands of victims untenable.

9) Initially claims were made that mass executions in homicidal gas chambers had taken place in camps located within the boundaries of the old Reich e.g. Dachau, Bergen-Belsen. "Evidence" to that effect was every bit as compelling as what was offered for other camps, located in occupied Poland, yet without explanation in the early sixties we were told that this was not the case and that all the "death camps" were located in the East i.e. Poland outside (some would say conveniently) of the probing eyes of western scholars.

michael santomauro sa...

Part 3 0f My Holocaust Problems:


10) No one has been able to reconcile the eyewitness accounts that personnel entered the gas chambers after twenty minutes without any protective gear and the fact that Zyclon B was a "time release" fumigant that would have had a lethal capability for at least another twenty-four hours. And that even after twenty-four hours the corpses would have themselves remained sufficiently contaminated by the hydrogen cyanide gas that they would have had the capacity to kill anyone who touched them who were not wearing protective gear.

11) Why do we no longer hear claims that the Germans manufactured soap, lamp

shades and riding britches from the bodies of dead Jews - could it be that in the light of modern forensics and DNA knowledge these claims are totally untenable?

12) Why do we no longer hear claims that huge numbers of Jews were exterminated in massive steam chambers or electrocuted on special grids - "evidence" of this was presented at Nuremberg - evidence that sent men to the gallows.

14) Elie Wiesel has been described as "the Apostle of Remembrance" yet in his memoir, "Night" which deals his stay at Auschwitz he makes no mention of the now infamous homicidal gas chambers. Isn't this a bit like one of the Gospels making no mention of the Cross?

15) Virtually every survivor who was examined at Auschwitz says that he or she was examined by the infamous Dr. Mengele.

16) According to survivor testimony, hundreds of thousands of Jews were executed at Treblinka and then buried in mass graves in the surrounding area. Why is it that extensive sonar probing of these burial grounds reveals that this alleged final resting place for Holocaust victims has remained undisturbed since at least the last ice age?

17) "Proof" of the holocaust rest primarily on survivor testimony; there little if any hard evidence. The best of this has been described by Jean Claude Pressac as merely "criminal traces". Even Judge Grey who presided at the Irving-Lipstadt Trial commented that he was surprised the evidence pointing to the Holocaust was "extremely thin". To paraphrase Arthur Butz, "a crime of this magnitude would have left a mountain of evidence" - where is it? There was more hard evidence against OJ Simpson at his trial and he was FOUND INNOCENT!

michael santomauro sa...

Part 4 of My Holocaust Problems:

18) Why has Holocaust Revisionism been criminalized in at least eleven countries - what other historic truth needs the threat of prison or the destruction of one's career to maintain itself. Should someone be sent to prison for expressing skepticism about the official Chinese claim that they suffered thirty-five million dead in World War II.

19) Why do the court historians insist that "denying the Holocaust" is like denying slavery or saying the earth is flat when it is nothing of the sort. The leading Revisionists are first rate scholars who hold advanced degrees from the world's leading universities. Is there anyone comparable among those who say the world is flat or that slavery never existed?

20) Promoters of the Holocaust have expressed concerns about the remembering the holocaust once the last survivors die. Why haven't Civil War historians expressed similar concerns since the last survivor of that conflict died in 1959.

21) Survivors of the holocaust have testified that smoke billowed from the crematoriums as they consumed the bodies of murdered victims - some eyewitnesses even claimed they could detect national origins by the color of the smoke. How can this be reconciled with the fact that properly operating crematoriums do not produce smoke of any color?

22) According to the official version of the Holocaust hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were rounded up in mid 1944 and sent to Auschwitz where most were gassed immediately upon arrival and their bodies were disposed of by burning in huge open air pits using railroad ties and gasoline. Why is that there is no evidence of these huge funerary pyres in the high resolution surveillance photos taken by Allied aircraft who were over flying the camp on a daily basis during this time period. Furthermore, why have no remains been found, since open pit burning, even when gasoline is used, generates insufficient heat to totally consume a body?

23) All of the liberated camps were littered with corpses; is there a single autopsy report or any other forensic evidence that shows that even a single one of these deaths was a consequence of poison gas?

michael santomauro sa...

Part 5 of 5 of My Holocaust Problems:


24) The death toll for the Holocaust relies exclusively on population statistics provided by Jewish sources; has any independent demographic study been produced that shows that approximately six million Jews were "missing" at the end of the war.

25) Why do the wartime inspection reports of camps made by the International Red Cross contain no references to mass executions - it strains credulity that such monumental crimes could be hidden. The only explanations are that either these crimes were not occurring or that the Red Cross was complicit in a cover up.

26) Why has there been no effort to respond to the Leuchter Report?

27) "The Holocaust was technologically possible because it happened ". Why is this intellectually bankrupt argument, which turns scholarship on its head, considered by the promoters of the Holocaust as historical truth, considered a sufficient response to the mounting Revisionist evidence to the contrary?

28) What other historical truths rely to the extent that the holocaust does on so-called "eye witness" testimony - and why have none of these witnesses ever been cross examined?

29) According to the official version of the Holocaust, the Jews remained ignorant of their fate until the very end so skillful were their Nazis murderers in deceiving their victims. How can this ignorance be reconciled with the fact that the Jews have historically been as a group, the most literate and highly informed people on the planet with legendary access to the highest echelons of government.


Peace.
Michael Santomauro
New York City

michael santomauro sa...

Part One Of FIVE of My Holocaust Problems:

Above are the other four parts:

The Holocaust consists of three basic elements: (1) Approximately six million Jews were deliberately killed. (2) These killings were part of a state sponsored program on the part of the Third Reich whose ultimate goal was the total eradication of the Jewish people. (3) The bulk of these murders took place in special death camps where the principal mechanism of execution was the homicidal gas chamber that utilized Zyclon B, a commercial pesticide whose active ingredient was hydrogen cyanide.

That the Third Reich possessed the technological and administrative means to carry out such a vast amount of killing there is little doubt. The Soviet Union with significantly inferior assets in these areas was able to kill far greater numbers of human beings. Furthermore, the armies of the Third Reich succeeded in killing at least ten million of its heavily armed military opponents in the course of World War II. Hence the killing of six million unarmed civilians should not have presented any unique problems to such an industrially advanced and bureaucratically efficient state as Nazi Germany, on the contrary, it would have been far easier.

My doubts about the Holocaust are not centered on whether it could have happened but whether it did happen. In fact many of the doubts that I have are a direct consequence of the fact that I have no doubt that it actually could have happened...but certainly not in the ways that have been described thus far in the "official" literature.

It is part of the Western tradition in legal, scientific and intellectual matters that those asserting something have the burden of proof and that those who disagree are not required to provide evidence. This tradition however has been turned on its head regarding the holocaust since the "historical truth" of the holocaust has been posited in advance. Furthermore, even to express doubts can result in criminal penalties in at least 11 so-called democratic countries and the ruining of lives and careers in numerous others.

Listed below are some of the "problems " I have with the Holocaust. Should these be cleared up it would go a long way toward my accepting it - they are in no particular order.

1) Why did Elie Wiesel and countless other Jews survive the Holocaust if it was the intention of the Third Reich to eliminate every Jew they got there hands on? Elie was a prisoner for several years; other Jews survived even longer. Most of these "survivors" were ordinary people who did not have any unique expertise that the Germans could have exploited for their war effort. There was no logical reason for them to be kept alive. The very existence of more than a million survivors even today, some sixty years later, contradicts one of the basic components of the holocaust i.e. that the Germans had a policy to eliminate every Jew they got their hands on.

2) Why is their no mention of the Holocaust in Churchillâ·s six volume History of the Second World War or the wartime memoirs of either De Gaulle or Eisenhower or any of the other lesser luminaries who wrote about the Second World War. Keep in mind all these were written years after the war ended and thus after the holocaust had been allegedly proven by the Nuremberg Trials? With regard to the Holocaust, the silence of these " cognoscenti " is deafening!

3) What was an inmate infirmary (and a brothel) doing in Auschwitz if in fact it was a death camp?

4) Why would the Germans round up Jews from their far flung empire, thereby tying up large numbers of personnel and rolling stock, while fighting a world war on two fronts to deliver people to "death camps" hundreds of miles away who were then executed upon arrival - wouldn't a bullet on the spot have appealed to legendary German sense of efficiency?


Peace.
Michael Santomauro
New York City

michael santomauro sa...

"...when you have laws against questioning the Holocaust narrative, you are screaming at the other person to stop thinking!!!" ---Mike Santomauro. *Anthony Lawson's Holocaust Video "were the Germans so stupid"... Link:

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2011/03/anthony-lawson-holocaust-hate-speech-were-the-germans-so-stupid/

michael santomauro sa...

Dr. Lindtner wrote

'Who in the world would say that Hitler gave the order "to the Germans"?
What a silly idea!'

What is more serious, than silly, is that you have misquoted me. You have put words in quotation marks in an order that I did not use. My sentence was conditional:

"Had Hitler given the Germans such an order..."

How can you be trusted with regard to any kind of accuracy? You started commenting on what I wrote with a misquotation and followed it up with a classic example of misdirection, often known as moving the goal posts: question the way in which a point is made, rather than the point itself.

Sorry, Doc with an "d" and a "t" but that doesn't cut any ice, with me.

The last time I checked Himmler and Heydrich were Germans, fairly near the top of the Nazi chain of command, and it is certain that had such an order been given, by Der Führer, it would have rapidly filtered down to other Germans. I would also add that it is Germans, in general, who are still getting a lot of stick and being robbed rotten for their parents' and grandparents' alleged part in the so-called Holocaust, so the structure of my statement was quite reasonable.

As you very well know, the point I was making was that had such an order come directly from Hitler it would have been carried out in a very structured, speedy and methodical manner, and modern Germans would not now be strapped with the reparations that they are still paying to help Israel persecute the Palestinians and their other neighbours, because it is unlikely that any Jews would have survived the labour camps at all. As it is, it seems that more Jews survived than allegedly passed through or died in them. But, as I have stated in my video:

"... no matter how they [the Jews] died, each and every one of these deaths was a tragedy, as were the deaths of millions of others during this terrible conflict, but this does not mean that we should be prevented from finding out how and why they died."

None of my research suggests that they died in homicidal gas chambers at the order of Adolph Hitler.

Anthony Lawson

Holocaust Denial is Chutzpah sa...

Hello Mr. Santomauro & Mr. Lawson,

Thanks for your comments.
Please understand that I have to avoid repetitions and prolixity for now.

For evidence of the Hitler order, consult W. Curilla, op.cit, Paderborn 2006, pp. 86-123 ( 284 notes with ref.)

For evidence of gas chambers and gas vans, consult Günter Morsch et al., Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massetötungen durch Giftgas, Berlin 2011, passim. (Also debunks Leuchter, Rudolf etc.)

The basic problem with radical Holocaust denial is that it ignores and/or distorts evidence incompatible with preconceived assumptions about Jews and Germans. It focuses on false witnesses, forgets about the good witnesses, it kicks dead horses, it appeals to the untutored, it misleads the public, and it constantly engages in twistspeak. Occasionally, denial even denies that it denies.

When prominent deniers ask for evidence of orders and gas chambers etc., they must know that is such evidence. But they also know that only few people know where to look for it.

The basic assertion that Hitler was not a mass murderer has no support in the real world of history. It is wishful thinking - somnia tantum.

Holocaust denial thus leaves the sphere of scholarship. It becomes sophistry, or Chutzpah.
Already in late 1939, gassing of burdensome human beings was considered "humane" and sanctioned by Hitler.

Hitler was convinced , in 1942, that even the most severe punishment of the Jews was still too mild (Goebbels, April 27, 1942). Heinz Linge overheard his boss discussing "die Massenvernichtung der Juden" with Himmler (Nolte, Streitpunkte, Berlin 1993, p. 44)

Himmler summed it all up in 1941 and 1944. So, please provide me with your comments to the two quotations.

Thanks!

Chr. Lindtner

Ray sa...

"None of my research suggests that they died in homicidal gas chambers at the order of Adolph Hitler."--Anthony Lawson

One must wonder, where exactly did you do this research? Certainly not in the various archives across Europe (London, Berlin, Oswiecim, Riga, Moscow, etc), nor in other archives located in the USA.

Holocaust Denial is Chutzpah sa...

Ray is right:
You will not find trees growing out in the open sea.
You have to look in the right place.
Thanks for joining!
Chr. Lindtner

Per sa...

Dr Tobens email to me:


"Dear Per Nordin
1. Further to my email to you of 7 November 2011, herewith my response in the form of an item from Sylvia Stolz. I would be interested to have Dr Lindtner’s response to the matter raised therein. See Adelaide Institute Newsletter No 597.
2. Permit me also to comment on Dr Lindtner’s somewhat infantile response to my earlier comments with: ‘That, too, is a nice case of Chutzpah’.
As an academic Dr Lindtner would be aware that such statement has no reality/knowledge content and can be likened to name-calling as, for example, when Holocaust believers label Holocaust questioners: hater – Holocaust denier – antisemite – racist – Nazi – xenophobe – terrorist
3. Perhaps Dr Lindtner needs to be reminded that one of the fundamental aspect of real Holocaust studies is that textual analysis is only a part of the program because the primary focus rests on physical facts, as again emerged in the Schafer trial where the accused made reference to such but the German judiciary ignored honouring basic procedural steps that ascertain the truth-content of statements made, thereby criminalising held opinions instead of testing them for physical truth-content.
4. It appears to me that Dr Lindtner wishes to shift the Holocaust debate away from embarrassing factual evidence and shift it away from Auschwitz to the Eastern Front – that can only be done when the Holocaust believers admit, for example, as van Pelt/Dwork did in 1996 that Auschwitz I-Stammlager was not a homicidal gas chamber but was re-constructed symbolically to represent what happened at Krema II-Birkenau. The deaths reductions also need to be acknowledged before we move to the Eastern Front and the Einsatzgruppen matter.
5. Further, I can well understand why, for example, Prof Butz, Faurisson, Rudolf, et al, could not be bothered to begin a debate with Dr Lindtner. Initially I viewed Lindtner’s attempt to start a meaningful discussion as a sincere attempt, as a morally and intellectually worthy exercise, to seek out the truth of the Holocaust where lies abound. Unfortunately, this was not to be and on account of my having more important things to do than to participate in a language-game exercise I must opt out of anything that is not really a serious attempt at clarification. Name-calling and gloating about finding ‘evidence’ that shows a ‘a nice case of Chutzpah’ is as I indicate above, infantile nonsense, and reluctantly I conclude: That’s really a dumb thing to find because one of the hallmarks of scientific enquiry is NOT to seek confirmation of a theory, which is easy, but to subject it to a falsification process – and this is where, for example, Green, et al, have not come up with the goods on The Rudolf Report. I had falsely assumed that Dr Lindtner’s membership of the Holocaust Committee would have made scientific enquiry a self-evident maxim.
6. Finally, I draw your attention to Adelaide Institute Newsletter No 584 wherein Juergen Graf makes some pertinent comments on Dr Lindtner. Dr Lindtner’s attitude reminds me of those individuals/systems that practice mental and physical apartheid, then consort with an imported slave labour force on whose backs the social order rests. It's a troubling scenario - and I did not expect Dr Lidntner to share such hypocritical attitude of mind. But I remain an eternal optimist because our stay in this world is so fleetingly brief that it is hardly instructive to delve any further in Dr Lindtner's quest.

Sincerely
Fredrick Töben"

Holocaust Denial is Chutzpah sa...

Here we have a plethora of confused personal opinions about assumed mental attitudes etc., but why are there no comments about at least the two decisive quotations from Himmler?
Regards,
Chr. Lindtner

Per sa...

From Dan Hopkins:

"I think Mr. Michael is just as confused as Toben. The claim that “there was no holocaust” is faulty; conventionally speaking it is fine for deniers to speak in these terms, but it is a totally incomplete statement to build a thesis around. As it is defined now, “The Holocaust” is not 6 million Jews being gassed, though the popular consensus (which is always suspect of mild exaggeration) has supported that around this many were gassed & cremated, and so I would ask Mr. Toben if evidence arose which supported that around 8 million Jews were executed by Nazi’s, or that only 3½ million Jews were executed, would he disagree that such events rightly deserve to be named under, however pregnant with religious meaning, a general event of some sort? He may have a reasonable criticism on how the world names and remembers certain events, though this has nothing to do with a high level death order successfully carried out on a massive amount of people. .



Toben asks for one drawing, or proof of a gas chamber. I trust your testimony about the hard to reach documentation (a great shame as always) but I detect more sophistry from Toben as he must know that “chambers”, essentially “rooms”, and “gas” are two things which would not necessarily need to be diagramed. I only say this because it seems that there is evidence that, after experimentation on previous fronts, the simplicity, and lack of a trail, to gassing, led Hoess to this final solution.

Also, pointing to inconsistencies and false testimonies is not enough to overthrow the current view; if we can prove that Thucydides account of a dialog between Athenians and the Melian could not have been an actual conversation, this does not mean that the dialog doesn’t represent the sentiments leading up to war crimes as established by other evidences.

 

All the best!

Dan Hopkins"

Anonym sa...

I think Dr. Lindtner should arrange a big open meeting in Denmark and invite both sides. If it could be covered be media and broadcasted over the Internet, it would reach the whole world.

In this way, Dr. Lindtner would prove that he stands for open discussion, freedom of speech, democrazy and academic honesty. I´m sure the whole world, including jewish groups would agree.

If both sides meet during a week or two, we will see who turns up, who tries to stop it etc. And we will see who turns out to be the winner of the battle. But the best part is that all the people in the whole world will have the opportunity to judge for themselves what is right or what is wrong.

This big gathering would be in line with the UN declaration of human rights, article 19. Live broadcast all over the world through Internet, without cencorship, gives all people and ethnic groups the chance to hear both sides.

So some on, Dr. Lindtner! Show us that you have courage.

/Erik S.

Holocaust Denial is Chutzpah sa...

From this link, translated from swedish to english: http://www.nordisk.nu/showthread.php?t=51911


"Hellish Apostle" wrote:

" 1. "Sämtliche Juden müssen erschossen werden. Judenweiber in die Sümpfe treiben!" (All Jews must be shot. Jewish women must be pushed into the swamps) "

From this source (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IVocHYaCE_IJ:en.wikisource.org/wiki/David_Irving_v_Penguin_Books_and_Deborah_Lipstadt/VI+%22+All+Jews+must+be+shot%22+himmler+evidence&cd=11&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se ), I picked this quote:

"In August 1941 the killing campaign had escalated further to include Jewish women and children. On 1 August 1941 an “explicit order” was issued to SS units who were preparing to sweep the Pripet marshes by Himmler:
“All Jews must be shot. Drive the female Jews into the swamp”.
Browning argued that the reply to those instructions by Obersturmbannfuhrer Magill demonstrates that he well understood the intention which lay behind them, namely that the Jews in question should be killed:
“Driving women and children into the swamps did not have the intended success because the swamps were not so deep that a sinking under could occur”.
Longerich too interpreted the instructions as ordering the death of the Jews in question including the women. But he agreed that they were not of general application but rather were confined to the operation to clear the Prpyat marshes. "

You can read more about Longerich here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Longerich If I interpret the above correctly, Longerich does not link this order to any kind of holocaust at all, but it was rather that, brutally, evacuate the territory in question is that during World War II, according to Wikipedia, served as a haunt of Soviet and Polish partisans. You can think what you will about the whole thing, but an automatic link to the so-called Holocaust, it does not seem to have.


"2. "Es ist gut, dass wir die Härte hatten, die Juden in unserem Bereich auszurotten." (It is good that we had the hardness, to eradicate the Jews in our areas)"

As far as I know, "ausrotten" as not a single obvious meaning, that is, extinction. According to Google Translate, there are two possible meanings in Swedish: "UTROTA" ("exterminate") and "RYCKA UPP MED ROTEN" ("eradicate"). Now I'm no expert regarding the German language and thus can not be sure exactly what Himmler meant by the above quotation. Note that I have not questioned the authenticity of the quotation, it may become relevant later. "




"azsxdcfvs" wrote:


" 1. "Sämtliche Juden müssen erschossen werden. Judenweiber in die Sümpfe treiben!" (All Jews must be shot. Jewish women must be pushed into the swamps) "


The quotation (No. 1) is probably fake alt. Adulterated. Discussed below. Funny that Lindtner from Cotman University do not present the complete references to the German primary sources.

http://www.codoh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?&t=3163 "

Holocaust Denial is Chutzpah sa...

1. Great idea, Erik! I would just love to see such an open meeting take place, and Denmark would be ideal.
But will YOU take care of all the PRACTICAL problems, transport etc.? Will YOU, Erik, fund such a meeting? Will YOU persuade Faurisson, Graf, Töben etc. to attend? Will YOU, Erik, persuade Longerich, Browning etc. to come?
You can count on all my support once YOU have taken care of these matters. Good luck! I look forward to hear from YOU!

2. To "Hellish Apostle":
a) I know the views of Browning and Longerich. Fine.There is much more to say about this order, see most recently Curilla, op.cit., Paderborn 2011, pp. 69-85, "Entscheidung zum Mord". Briefly, some EG/EK and other units got the order to shoot all Jews very early (June/July 1941), other groups got it somewhat later, for various reasons.
Most scholars speak of the summer of 1941 (Gerlach later). It may just be, I think, that we have to go back to September 1939, as suggested by an order from Heydrich," Die kleinen Leute wollen wir schonen, der Adel, die Popen und Juden müssen aber umgebracht werden" (see "Die Truppe des Weltanschauungskrieges, Stuttgart 1981, p. 63.)
b) True, "ausrotten" can have various meanings. So, in this case, the best we can do is to listen to what Himmler himself has to say. See the speech in Himmler´s Geheimreden,Wien 1974, where, on p. 204 (same 1944 speech) he, Himmler, uses the word "umbringen" speaking of the Jewish women and children.
And "umbringen" can only have ONE meaning!

3. To azsxdcfvs.
Oh, Himmler´s "Sämtliche Juden..." probably fake!
Fantastic! What a great pity that azsxdcfvs does not provide the complete references! -
What about quotation # 2 - you forgot that one! Is it also fake? -
And what about Arlt´s reports - are they also fake?
And the Ereignismeldungen UdSSR - are they also fake?
And Karl Jäger´s repoort - also fake?
And Hitler´s Mein Kampf - also fake?
But, all of you, why do you not offer Faurisson and Töben your help?
Chr. Lindtner

Anonym sa...

From Mr Töben:


"Dear Per



1. I would be pleased if you could forward Juergen Graf’s challenge to Christian Lindtner – and perhaps remind Dr Lindtner finally to show or draw, for example, the gas chambers at Auschwitz. I want to know what the murder weapon looked like – apparently tourists in 2011 are still shown the gas chambers there.

2. May I remind Dr Lindtner, and others who are agitating for a Holocaust conference where Revisionists discuss contentious matters, such a conference would be ILLEGAL because there are laws that prohibit an open discussion of such things, unless you follow the Exterminationists’ viewpoint. I, for one, have a gag order from an Australian court –and there are others who face immediate legal persecution were they to attend such a conference.

3. So, I ask myself, what on earth is Christian thinking when he makes such suggestions? Has his mind turned into a PRIME EVIL mind that delights in seeing thinking individuals imprisoned for thought crimes?



Kind regards.

Fredrick Töben"

Holocaust Denial is Chutzpah sa...

As usual, philosopher Töben manages to get things wrong. We Danes have often invited negationists to speak freely.They were never arrested, nor will they be arrested. We took good care of them. It is not illegal to debate these matters in public in Denmark. So I repeat, all of you are welcome!
There is, however, a practical problem that I cannot solve for you. We would like to have the other side represented also. All normal historians that I know of, consider Holocaust deniers to be a sort of madmen not worth talking to. They shake their heads, some laugh, some feel pity for the "revi nega-nuts".
Still, do not forget to let the world have your rational answers to the two quotations from Himmler - not to forget all the other question that still remain unanswered.
Once you have done so, you may be shown a real drawing of a Nazi gas chamber!
Best wishes

Anonym sa...

From Töben:

"Thank you for this Per.

Please advise Lindtner to become serious. If he informed himself, then he would know that the European Arrest Warrant issued at Mannheim, Germany, in my name is still current.

Please also advise him that he is foolish and deceptive when he states: ‘…you may be shown a real drawing of a Nazi gas chamber!’.

Let him publish a photo or a drawing of, for example, Auschwitz’s homicidal gas chamber on the internet and then I shall continue to have a dialogue with him.

Lindtner is playing silly games and thus cannot expect others to go along with his musings.

Sincerely.

Fredrick Töben "

Anonym sa...

From Töben:


"1. I find it extraordinary that Dr Lindtner makes it a conditional matter to show me a drawing or a photo of the gas chamber – what is research about when done in such a way? It indicates there is a closed mindset operating here.



2. I think you are aware that I have a legal gag order that does not permit me to doubt or to question the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, and so I cannot comment on the matter raised by you, i.e. if I do not wish to break the law here in Australia, or even in Germany where the European Arrest Warrant-EAW still awaits me. But let me say that if someone said something and another person said something else, then empirical evidence should settle such a matter. Surely, that is the essence of the scientific method of adducing proof, is it not?



3. Dr Lindtner’s assurance is incorrect that legally in Denmark it is a different matter because both the Schengen Agreement and the EAW are operative in Denmark.



4. I would thus be pleased if Dr Lindtner were to respond to Graf’s challenge and write a book wherein he refutes what Graf has written. These email exchanges do not get us to that point where the argument reaches full development.



5. Let me also remind Dr Lindtner that when in 2000 Dr S J Hayward re-canted his revisionist viewpoint, I asked Hayward to offer a rationale as to why he disowned the results he had presented in his 1993 MA thesis. His reply was silence, and officially he stated ‘I stuffed up’. That is not a good enough reason for changing his mind. If possible, I would like to receive from Dr Lindtner a rationale for his change-of-mind – from Holocaust questioner/skeptic to believer!



6. Finally, I recall having some time ago an exchange of correspondence with Muehlenkamp – and I initially thought he was serious until he became abusive and refused to enter into the critical stage of any scientific debate – presentation of physical evidence. I soon realized that Muehlenkamp enjoyed ridiculing individuals, and so this made him an ideologue devoid of ethics, and thus to me he’s ‘deliriously embracing a form of warfare that’s just short of shooting’. Dr Lindtner may still be a little way off from that stance but he’s well on the way to embracing it, especially by having reduced the Holocaust-Shoah controversy to a slogan: ‘Holocaust denial is chutzpa’. That’s reducing history to a game of name-calling rather than a quest for the truth, and that to me seems to solve none of the pressing problems, as raised in 1. above.



Kindest regards.



Fredrick Töben "

Anonym sa...

From Amelia:

"When the Holocaust “Memorial” Museum opened in NY, they wanted to put a gas chamber in it...Someone from the museum staff went to Germany for one, but there was no gas chamber to be found...



What does Dr. Lindner expect to accomplish except to keep you and other Revisionists tied –up on theoretical findings and suppositions....while the Zionists take over the world with the sanctions of the United Nations which has been a failure in its “peace-keeping role. It even permitted the US to intervene in Vietnam. The facing fact is what is to be done to help awaken the world and inspire the people to do their duty to protect more devotedly that freedom “won” in WWII, in which 58 million died for. Time the world faces up to the essential truths about the real enemy whom we should have fought.



There is, to my knowledge, no country, no organization, that stands opposed to the United Nations at every point of its so-called principles , or to stop the diabolic purposes of Israel which it seems to support. The struggle is not just between Zionism/Communism and Christianity as the evangelical groups consider. But that the Zionists/Communist, and the United Nations are determined to destroy all religions, including any denomination, any sect, or any specific creed, before they can fully control the world through their philosophy composed of atheism, immorality, falsehood, a belief in slavery and the denial of individual responsibility. It accepts treachery, dishonor, murder and cruelty, and every foulness known to man, as perfectly satisfactory means to its sinister ends; and seeks to destroy all the noble traditions, man’s spiritual gains, and acquired ideals and aspirations that Christianity brought into the world, and plan to turn civilization into a world of robot men and women by allowing no motivating forces in human conduct.



A few simple facts that should help enlighten the fact that a Holocaust as they inflict upon the world did not actually exist:



1. Hitler never had more than 3 million “Jews” under his control and a large majority had fled to other countries.

2. Some of the worst killers in the Labor Camps were “Jews”, Heydrich is an example.

3. A very careful study of the records of Auschwitz, which was built as a Labor Camp and not turned into a Detention Camp until the near end of the war, where 4 million “Jews” allegedly were killed, showed that a total of only 600,000 passed through its gates in all the time of its operation.

4. No gas chambers for humans were ever found in camps liberated by the Allies. Even Simon Wiesental admits to this. 50,000 released where permitted to come into the United States, using their camp number tattooed on their arms, as their passport.

5. According to British army medical records, many of the dead found in so-called “death camps” had died of starvation, typhus and other diseases.

6. At least one famous picture of a pile of dead was not of “Jews” gassed at Auschwitz, but of Germans killed in the Allied fire-bombing raid on Dresden.

7. Sadistic guards allowed “Jewish” Communist prisoners in some of the camps to starve, beat, and kill other prisoners, both”Jews” and Gentiles.

8. A member of Israel’s Knesset gave a talk in the body in which he boasted that the Holocaust was the most effective propaganda in Jewish history . It kept the West deep in a guilt complex, and paid off handsomely in billions of dollars in aid and reparations.

9. Many proponents of the Holocaust seek to destroy freedom of speech and academic freedom as they have done with you and many other Revisionists who have been found “guilty” and imprisoned.

10. Most of the “evidence” for the Holocaust comes from the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. These trial were illegal, because they were ex post facto (laws made after the “fact” ) and because German witnesses were tortured and brutalized. "

Anonym sa...

It's interesting that also Kevin Macdonald, is critically of the denial.

"But I do wanna say that I'm not a Holocaust revisionist"

Listen in about 24 min in the radio program: http://reasonradionetwork.com/?p=700