Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: 66 Questions & Answers

66 Questions & Answers 16 Feb 2016 11:50 #1

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16326
  • Likes received: 1708
The Pamphlet
The Institute for Historical Review1
, or IHR, publishes many small pamphlets
designed to misinform people about the Holocaust. One of the most-persistent
has been a pamphlet called "66 Questions And Answers About the Holocaust,"
or simply "66 Q&A."
This pamphlet neatly summarizes many of the most common arguments used
by Holocaust-deniers. Refuting these 66 claims strikes directly at the core of
Holocaust-denial.
Readers of the Usenet newsgroup alt.revisionism will notice claims and
arguments below which may seem familiar. This is because this material, and its
derivatives, have been presented and discussed on Usenet many times before.
These web pages contain more in-depth replies than previous postings,
however, and the links to other information put the technology of the web to good
use.
The pamphlet itself has been put up on the world-wide web by at least two
separate Holocaust-deniers: Greg Raven2
, head of the IHR, and Ernst Zündel
3
,
described by Canada's Security Intelligence Review Committee as "a
Holocaust denier and prolific publisher of hate literature,"4
and the sponsor
and promoter of a "1991 neo-Nazi conference in Germany." Both the IHR's and
Zündel's publishing houses distribute the Q&A in print form.
What follows is a point-by-point refutation of its half-truths and untruths.
The full text of the original pamphlet is included, with the IHR's questions and
answers reproduced unaltered, but if you would like to see their material for
yourself, you may examine Greg Raven's copy on his web site, or Ernst Zündel's
copy on his web site.
Note that the wording of the questions and "answers" may vary slightly from what
we've presented here. The pamphlet has undergone some revisions over the
years, and it appears that both Raven's and Zündel's web sites are presenting
what we call the "revised" version, as opposed to the "original."
Zündel's publishing house, Samisdat, has distributed an earlier version as
recently as November 1995, which we will occasionally refer to as the
"Samisdat" version for lack of a better name. We are currently only in

1
www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/ihr/
2
www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/r/raven-greg/
3
www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/z/zundel-ernst/
4
www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/canadian/sirc/heritage-front/
possession of the first page of this, and it skips quite a few questions, so we
don't know how much we're missing. We are also not sure exactly when it was
written, but its answer to question 22 refers to a united Germany, which places
it in the 1990s. Updates will come as we learn more, of course.
In any case, the various revisions that have been made have rarely made the
pamphlet any more truthful. This is not surprising, because the aim of the
pamphlet is not to educate but to mislead. Where the revisions are
noteworthy, we will comment upon them.
If our treatment seems tedious, consider yourself lucky: in 1983, the IHR
published “120 Questions and Answers About the Holocaust.” We have obtained
a copy, but for now resign ourselves to critiquing the much-abridged,
extensively sanitized version. Remember as you're reading this that there were
54 other questions and answers that were not good enough to make the final
cut!
Finally, for another good antidote to the "66 Q&A," we suggest two
documents put out by the Simon Wiesenthal Center on their web site: their
"Responses to Revisionist Arguments5
," and their " 36 Q&A 6
" (which are
unrelated except for the similarity in format).
The Refusal to Cross-Link the Pamphlet
Nizkor believes that truth has no need for secrecy. We present the material of
the Holocaust-deniers unaltered and completely openly, with links back to their
web sites so that the reader may examine exactly what they say. And if and
when they have a response to our work, we will of course cross-link to it, so that
the reader may examine that response.
On January 5, 1996, Ernst Zündel agreed to put a cross-link from his 66 Q & A
page to this site, and he did so. Zündel also promised that he would "reply to
Nizkor's rebuttal with a rebuttal of our own as soon as time permits." We are still
waiting.
Nizkor has spent a great deal of effort trying to convince Mr. Zündel that crosslinking
is worthwhile, and he has spent a great deal of effort giving reasons why
he might prefer not to participate. We are glad that he ended up making what we
feel is the right choice regardless. You may read about this on our Zündelsite
correspondence page.

5
www.wiesenthal.com/resource/revision.htm
6
www.wiesenthal.com/resource/36qlist1.htm
Greg Raven, though asked many times to establish links between our sites, has
responded to us only once, saying that it would be "illogical" to cross-link to every
site that links to him. Note that he apparently thinks it is logical to link his home
page to other Holocaust-denial sites like Zündel's and Bradley Smith's.
And speaking of Bradley Smith7
: since he is the head of the Committee for Open
Debate on the Holocaust8
, we would hope that he would assist us in our efforts
to "debate" these issues, by encouraging Mr. Raven to cross-link his 66 Q&A
page to our response. His goals and ours happen to coincide in this case --
"open debate" -- so we look forward to his help. We have made contact with him
on this matter, but have not heard back yet.
antisemitism.org.il/webfm_send/40

Btw I have only used that antisemitism website as a source simply because they have bothered to have laid out the questions and answers in a clearer format than other places.
I could have easily have sourced this from a number of other places but the lay out is simply better on this particular webpage imo.
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Last Edit: 16 Feb 2016 12:14 by Frothy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

66 Questions 16 Feb 2016 11:59 #2

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16326
  • Likes received: 1708
1. What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or
deliberately killed six million Jews?
The IHR says (original, Samisdat, and revised versions combined):
None. The only evidence is the postwar testimony of individual
"survivors." This testimony is contradictory, and no "survivor" claims to
have actually witnessed any gassing. There are no contemporaneous
documents and no hard evidence whatsoever: no mounds of ashes, no
crematoria capable of disposing of millions of corpses, no piles of clothes,
no human soap, no lamp shades made of human skin, no records, no
credible demographic statistics.

Nizkor replies:
Lie piled upon lie, with not a shred of proof.
This is as good a place as any to present some detailed evidence which is
consistently ignored, as a sort of primer on Holocaust denial. It will make
this reply much longer than the other sixty-five, but perhaps the reader will
understand the necessity for this.
Let's look at their claims one at a time:
* Supposedly the only evidence, "the postwar testimony of individual
survivors."
First of all, consider the implicit conspiracy theory. Notice how the
testimony of every single inmate of every Nazi camp is automatically
dismissed as unconvincing. This total dismissal of inmates' testimony,

7
www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/s/smith.bradley.r
8
www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/codoh
along with the equally-total dismissal of the Nazis' own testimony (!), is the
largest unspoken assumption of Holocaust-denial.
This assumption, which is not often spelled out, is that the attempted
Jewish genocide never took place, but rather that a secret conspiracy of
Jews, starting around 1941, planted and forged myriad documents to
prove that it did; then, after the war, they rounded up all the camp
survivors and told them what to say.
The conspirators also supposedly managed to torture hundreds of key
Nazis into confessing to crimes which they never committed, or into
framing their fellow Nazis for those crimes, and to plant hundreds of
documents in Nazi files which were never discovered until after the war,
and only then, in many cases, by sheer luck. Goebbels'
9
diary, for
example, was barely rescued from being sold as 7,000 pages of scrap
paper, but buried in the scattered manuscript were several telling entries
(as translated in Lochner, The Goebbels Diaries, 1948, pp. 86, 147-148):
February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his
determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must
be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved
the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will
go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must
hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.
March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to
be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the
Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them
will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for
forced labor.
Michael Shermer has pointed out that the Nazis' own estimate of the
number of European Jews was eleven million10, and sixty percent of
eleven million is 6.6 million. This is fairly close to the actual figure.
(Actually, forty percent was a serious overestimate of the survival rate of
Jews who were captured, but there were many Jews who escaped.)
In any case, most of the diary is quite mundane, and interesting only to
historians. Did the supposed Jewish conspiracy forge seven thousand
pages to insert just a few lines? How did they manage to know Goebbels'
affairs intimately enough to avoid contradictions, e.g. putting him or his
associates in the wrong city at the wrong date?

9
www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/goebbels.joseph
10 www.nizkor.org/hweb/places/germany/wannsee/wannsee-english.html
As even the revisionist David Cole11 has admitted, revisionists have yet to
provide a satisfactory explanation of this document.
Regarding postwar testimony from Nazis, were they all tortured into
confessing to heinous crimes which they supposedly did not commit? This
might be believable if only a few Nazis were captured after the war, or
maybe if some had courageously stood up in court and shouted to the
world about the supposed attempt to silence them. But hundreds testified
regarding the Holocaust, in trials dating from late 1945 until the 1960s.
(For example, see Böck, Hofmann, Hössler, Klein, Münch, and Stark.)
Many of these Nazis testified as witnesses and were not accused of
crimes. What was the basis for their supposed coercion?
Many of these trials were in German courts. Did the Germans torture their
own countrymen? Well, Holocaust-deniers sometimes claim that the Jews
have secretly infiltrated the German government and control everything
about it. They prefer not to talk too much about this theory, however,
because it is clearly on the lunatic fringe.
The main point is that not one of these supposed torture victims -- in fifty
years, not one -- has come forth to support the claim that testimony was
coerced.
On the contrary, confirmation and reconfirmation of their testimony has
continued across the years. What coercion could have convinced Judge
Konrad Morgen to testify to the crimes he witnessed at the International
Nuremberg Trial in 1946, where he was not accused of any crime? And to
later testify at the Auschwitz trial at Frankfurt, Germany, in 1963-65? What
coercion was applied to SS Doctor Johann Kremer to make him testify in
his own defense in 1947, and then, after having been convicted in both
Poland and Germany, emerge after his release to testify again as a
witness at the Frankfurt trial? What coercion was applied to Böck,
Gerhard Hess, Hölblinger, Storch, and Wiebeck, all former SS men, all
witnesses at Frankfurt, none accused of any crime there?
Holocaust-deniers point to small discrepancies in testimonies to try to
discredit them. The assumption, unstated, is that the reader will accept
minor discrepancies as evidence of a vast, over-reaching Jewish
conspiracy. This is clearly ludicrous.
In fact, the discrepancies and minor errors in detail argue against, not for,
the conspiracy theory. Why would the conspirators have given different
information to different Nazis? In fact, if all the testimonies, from the Nazis'

11 www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/c/cole.david
to the inmates', sounded too similar, it is certain that the Holocaustdeniers
would cite that as evidence of a conspiracy.
What supposed coercion could reach across four decades, to force
former SS-Untersturmführer Dr. Hans Münch12 to give an interview,
against the will of his family, on Swedish television13? In the 1981
interview, he talked about Auschwitz:
Interviewer: Isn't the ideology of extermination contrary to a doctor's
ethical values?
Münch: Yes, absolutely. There is no discussion. But I lived in that
environment, and I tried in every possible way to avoid accepting it,
but I had to live with it. What else could I have done? And I wasn't
confronted with it directly until the order came that I and my
superior and another one had to take part in the exterminations
since the camp's doctors were overloaded and couldn't cope with it.
Interviewer: I must ask something. Doubters claim that "special
treatment" could mean anything. It didn't have to be extermination.
Münch: "Special treatment" in the terminology of the concentration
camp means physical extermination. If it was a question of more
than a few people, where nothing else than gassing them was
worthwhile, they were gassed.
Interviewer: "Special treatment" was gassing?
Münch: Yes, absolutely.
And what supposed coercion could reach across four decades, to force
former SS-Unterscharführer Franz Suchomel14 into giving an interview for
the film Shoah? Speaking under (false) promises of anonymity, he told of
the crimes committed at the Treblinka death camp (from the book Shoah,
Claude Lanzmann, 1985, p. 54):
Interviewer: You are a very important eyewitness, and you can
explain what Treblinka was.
Suchomel: But don't use my name.
Interviewer: No, I promised. All right, you've arrived at Treblinka.

12 www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/muench.hans
13 www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/muench.hans/swedish-television-interview
14 www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/s/suchomel.franz
Suchomel: So Stadie, the sarge, showed us the camps from end to
end. Just as we went by, they were opening the gas-chamber
doors, and people fell out like potatoes. Naturally, that horrified and
appalled us. We went back and sat down on our suitcases and
cried like old women.
Each day one hundred Jews were chosen to drag the corpses to
the mass graves. In the evening the Ukrainians drove those Jews
into the gas chambers or shot them. Every day!
Ask the deniers why they shrug off the testimony of Franz Suchomel.
Greg Raven will tell you that "it is not evidence...bring me some evidence,
please." Others will tell you that Suchomel and Münch were crazy, or
hallucinating, or fantasizing.
But the fantasy is obviously in the minds of those who choose to ignore
the mass of evidence and believe instead in a hypothetical conspiracy,
supported by nothing but their imaginations.
That total lack of evidence is why the "conspiracy assumption" almost
always remains an unspoken assumption. To our knowledge, there has
not been one single solitary "revisionist" paper, article, speech, pamphlet,
book, audiotape, videotape, or newsletter which provides any details
about this supposed Jewish/Zionist conspiracy which did all the dirty work.
Not one.
At best, the denial literature makes veiled references to the World Jewish
Congress perpetuating a "hoax" (in Butz15, 1976) -- no details are
provided. Yet the entire case of Holocaust-denial rests on this supposed
conspiracy.
As for the testimony of the survivors, which the "revisionists" claim is the
only evidence, there are indeed numerous testimonies to gassings and
other forms of atrocities, from Jewish inmates who survived the camps,
and also from other inmates like POWs. Many of the prisoners that
testified about the gassing are not Jewish, of course. Look for instance at
the testimony of Polish officer Zenon Rozansky about the first homicidal
gassing in Auschwitz, in which 850 Russian POWs were gassed to death,
in Reitlinger, The Final Solution, p. 154:
Those who were propped against the door leant with a curious
stiffness and then fell right at our feet, striking their faces hard
against the concrete floor. Corpses! Corpses standing bolt upright
and filling the entire corridor of the bunker, till they were packed so
tight that it was impossible for more to fall.

15 www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/butz.arthur
Which of the "revisionists" will deny this? Which of them was there?
Which of them has the authority to tell Rozansky what he did or did not
see?
The statement that "no 'survivor' claims to have actually witnessed any
gassing" is clearly false; this was changed to "few survivors" in later
versions, which is close to the truth.
But we do not need to rely solely on testimony, from the survivors, Nazis,
or otherwise. Many wartime documents, not postwar descriptions,
specifically regarding gassings and other atrocities, were seized by the
U.S. armed forces. Most are in the National Archives in Washington, D.C.;
some are in Germany.
Regarding the gassing vans, precursors to the gas chambers, we find, for
example, a top secret document from SS Untersturmführer Becker to SS
Obersturmbannführer Rauff (from Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression16
,
1946, Vol. I, pp. 999-1001):
If it has rained for instance for only one half hour, the van cannot
be used because it simply skids away. It can only be used in
absolutely dry weather. It is only a question now whether the van
can only be used standing at the place of execution. First the van
has to be brought to that place, which is possible only in good
weather. ...
The application of gas usually is not undertaken correctly. In order
to come to an end as fast as possible, the driver presses the
accelerator to the fullest extent. By doing that the persons to be
executed suffer death from suffocation and not death by dozing off
as was planned. My directions now have proved that by correct
adjustment of the levers death comes faster and the prisoners fall
asleep peacefully.
And Just wrote of the gas vans to Rauff, on June 5, 1942, in a
letter marked both "top secret" and "only copy". This is a horrific
masterpiece of Nazi double-talk, referring to killing as "processing"
and the victims as "subjects" and "the load." (See Kogon, Nazi
Mass Murder, 1993, pp. 228-235.)
Since December 1941, for example, 97,000 were processed using
three vans, without any faults occurring in the vehicles. ...

16 www.nizkor.org:8080/servlet/metaphoria/repository/nca/1/
The normal capacity of the vans is nine to ten per square meter.
The capacity of the larger special Saurer vans is not so great. The
problem is not one of overloading but of off-road maneuverability
on all terrains, which is severely diminished in this van. It would
appear that a reduction in the cargo area is necessary. This can be
achieved by shortening the compartment by about one meter. The
problem cannot be solved by merely reducing the number of
subject treated, as has been done so far. For in this case a longer
running time is required, as the empty space also needs to be filled
with CO [the poison exhaust gas]. ...
Greater protection is needed for the lighting system. The grille
should cover the lamps high enough up to make it impossible to
break the bulbs. It seems that these lamps are hardly ever turned
on, so the users have suggested that they could be done away
with. Experience shows, however, that when the back door is
closed and it gets dark inside, the load pushes hard against the
door. The reason for this is that when it becomes dark inside, the
load rushes toward what little light remains. This hampers the
locking of the door. It has also been noticed that the noise
provoked by the locking of the door is linked to the fear aroused by
the darkness.
Slip-ups occurred in written correspondence regarding the gas chambers
themselves, some of which, fortunately, escaped destruction and were
found after the war. A memo written to SS man Karl Bischoff on
November 27, 1942 describes the gas chamber in Krema II not with the
usual mundane name of "Leichenkeller," but rather as the "Sonderkeller"
"special cellar."
And two months later, on January 29, 1943, Bischoff wrote a memo to
Kammler, referring to that same chamber as the "Vergasungskeller." (See
Gutman, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, 1994, pp. 223, 227.)
"Vergasungskeller" means exactly what it sounds like: "gassing cellar," an
underground gas chamber.
Holocaust-deniers turn to Arthur Butz, who provides a specious
explanation for the Vergasungskeller: "Vergasung," he says, cannot refer
to killing people with gas, but only to the process of converting a solid or
liquid into gas. Therefore, he says the "Vergasungskeller," must have
been a special room where the fuel for the Auschwitz ovens was
converted into gas -- a "gasification cellar."
There are three problems with this explanation. First, "Vergasung"
certainly can refer to killing people with gas; Butz does not speak German
and he should not try to lecture about the language. Second, there is no
room that could possibly serve this function which Butz describes -- years
after writing his book, he admitted this, and helplessly suggested that
there might be another building somewhere in the camp that might house
a gasification cellar. Third, the type of oven used at Auschwitz did not
require any gasification process! The ovens burned solid fuel. (See
Gutman, op. cit., pp. 184-193.)
So what does the term "gassing cellar" refer to? Holocaust-deniers have
yet to offer any believable explanation.
An inventory, again captured after the war, revealed fourteen
showerheads and one gas-tight door listed for the gas chamber in Krema
III. Holocaust-deniers claim that room was a morgue; they do not offer to
explain what use a morgue has for showerheads and a gas-tight door.
(See a photograph of the document, or Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique
and Operation, 1989, pp. 231, 438.)
A memo from the Auschwitz construction office, dated March 31, 1943,
says (Hilberg, Documents of Destruction, 1971, pp. 207-208):
We take this occasion to refer to another order of March 6, 1943,
for the delivery of a gas door 100/192 for Leichenkeller 1 of Krema
III, Bw 30a, which is to be built in the manner and according to the
same measure as the cellar door of the opposite Krema II, with
peep hole of double 8 millimeter glass encased in rubber. This
order is to be viewed as especially urgent....
Why would morgues have urgently needed peepholes made out of a
double layer of third-of-an-inch-thick glass?
The question of whether it can be proved that the cyanide gas was used
in the Auschwitz gas chambers has intruiged the deniers. Their muchheralded
Leuchter Report, for example, expends a great deal of effort on
the question of whether traces of cyanide residue remain there today. But
we do not need to look for chemical traces to confirm cyanide use
(Gutman, op. cit., p. 229):
Letters and telegrams exchanged on February 11 and 12 [1943] between
the Zentralbauleitung and Topf mention a wooden blower for
Leichenkeller 1. This reference confirms the use of the morgue as a gas
chamber: Bischoff and Prüfer thought that the extraction of air mixed with
concentrated prussic acid [cyanide] (20 g per cu m) required a
noncorroding ventilator.
Bischoff and Prüfer turned out to be wrong, and a metal fan ended up
working acceptably well. But the fact that they thought it necessary demonstrates that cyanide was to be routinely used in the rooms which
deniers call morgues. (Cyanide is useless for disinfecting morgues, as it
does not kill bacteria.)
Other captured documents, even if they don't refer directly to some part of
the extermination process, refer to it by implication. A captured memo to
SS-Brigadeführer Kammler reveals that the expected incineration capacity
of the Auschwitz ovens was a combined total of 4,756 corpses per day
(see a photograph of the document or Kogon, op. cit., p. 157).
Deniers often claim that this total could not be achieved in practice (see
question 45). That's not the point. These crematoria were carefully
designed, in 1942, to have sufficient capacity to dispose of 140,000
corpses per month -- in a camp that housed only 125,000. We can
conclude that massive deaths were predicted, indeed planned-for, as
early as mid-1942. A camp designed to incinerate its full capacity of
inmates every four weeks is not merely a detention center.
Finally, apart from the abundant testimonies, confessions, and physical
evidence of the extermination process, there is certainly no want of
evidence of the Nazis' intentions and plans.
Here are just a few examples. Hans Frank's diary (from Nazi Conspiracy
and Aggression, 1946, Vol. I, pp. 992, 994):
But what should be done with the Jews? Do you think they will be
settled down in the 'Ostland' [eastern territories], in [resettlement]
villages? This is what we were told in Berlin: Why all this bother?
We can do nothing with them either in the 'Ostland' nor in the
'Reichkommissariat.' So liquidate them yourself.
Gentlemen, I must ask you to rid yourself of all feeling of pity. We
must annihilate the Jews, wherever we find them and wherever it is
possible, in order to maintain the structure of the Reich as a whole.
...
We cannot shoot or poison these 3,500,000 Jews, but we shall
nevertheless be able to take measures, which will lead, somehow,
to their annihilation....
That we sentence 1,200,000 Jews to die of hunger should be noted
only marginally.
Himmler's speech at Posen on October 4, 1943 was captured on
audiotape (Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1948, Vol. XXIX, p. 145,
trans. by current author):
I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the
Jewish people. This is one of those things that is easily said: "the
Jewish people are being exterminated," says every Party member,
"quite true, it's part of our plans, the elimination of the Jews,
extermination, we're doing it."
The extermination effort was even mentioned in at least one official Nazi
court verdict. In May 1943, a Munich court wrote in its decision against
SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner that:
The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against
the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of
the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused
should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the
duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose,
he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority
to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself.
And Hitler spoke quite clearly in public on no fewer than three occasions.
On January 30, 1939, seven months before Germany invaded Poland, he
spoke publicly to the Reichstag (transcribed from Skeptic magazine, Vol.
2, No. 4, p. 50):
Today I want to be a prophet once more: if international finance
Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in
plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not
be the Bolshevation of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry,
but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.
By the way, this last phrase is, in German, "die Vernichtung der jüdischen
Rasse in Europa," which German-speakers will realize is quite
unambiguous.
In September, 1942:
...if Jewry should plot another world war in order to exterminate the
Aryan peoples in Europe, it would not be the Aryan people which
would be exterminated but Jewry...
On November 8, 1942:
You will recall the session of the Reichstag during which I declared:
if Jewry should imagine that it could bring about an international
world war to exterminate the European races, the result will not be
the extermination of the European races, but the extermination of
Jewry in Europe. People always laughed about me as a prophet.
Of those who laughed then, countless numbers no longer laugh
today, and those who still laugh now will perhaps no longer laugh a
short time from now.
There are many other examples of documents and testimonies that could
be presented.
Keep in mind that the IHR's answer to "what proof exists?" is "none." It
has certainly been demonstrated already that this pat answer is totally
dishonest. And this is the main point we wish to communicate: that
Holocaust-denial is dishonest.
We continue by analyzing the remaining, more-specific, claims about what
evidence supposedly does not exist.
* "No mounds of ashes" is an internal contradiction. In an article in the
journal published by the same IHR that publishes these Q&A, the
Journal's editor reported that a Polish commission in 1946 found human
ash at the Treblinka death camp to a depth of over twenty feet. This
article is available on Greg Raven's web site.
(Apparently some survivors claimed that the corpses were always
thoroughly cremated. Because uncremated human remains were mixed
with the ash, the editor suggested that the testimonies were false.
Amazingly, he had no comment on how a twenty-foot layer of human
ashes came to be there in the first place. Perhaps he felt that to be
unworthy of mention.)
There are also piles of ashes at Maidanek. At Auschwitz-Birkenau, ashes
from cremated corpses were dumped into the rivers and swamps
surrounding the camp, and used as fertilizer for nearby farmers' fields.
* "No crematoria" capable of disposing of millions of corpses? Absolutely
false, the crematoria were more than capable of the job, according to both
the Nazis' own internal memos and the testimony of survivors. Holocaustdeniers
deliberately confuse civilian, funeral-home crematoria with the
huge industrial ovens of the death camps. This is discussed in much detail
in the replies to questions 42 and 45.
* "No piles of clothes"? Apparently, the IHR considers piles of clothes to
be "hard evidence"! This is strange, because they do not deny the other
sorts of piles found at Nazi camps: piles of eyeglasses, piles of shoes (at
Auschwitz, Belzec17, and Maidanek18), piles of gold teeth, piles of burned

17 www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aktion.reinhard/belzec. See also:
www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/israeli/yad-vashem/
corpses, piles of unburned corpses, piles of artificial limbs (see
Swiebocka, Auschwitz: A History in Photographs, 1993, p. 210), piles of
human hair (ibid, p. 211), piles of ransacked luggage (ibid, p. 213), piles of
shaving-brushes (ibid, p. 215), piles of combs (ibid), piles of pots and
pans (ibid), and yes, even the piles of clothes (ibid, p. 214) that the IHR
claims do not exist.
Perhaps the authors of the 66 Q&A realized that it was dangerous for
them to admit that these piles were hard evidence, because then they
would also be forced to admit a number of other things as "hard
evidence." Perhaps this is why they removed this phrase from the revised
66 Q&A.
If items were not generally found in mass quantities, it is only because the
Nazis distributed them to the German population. A memo on this was
captured, revealing that they even redistributed women's underwear.
* "No human soap"? This is true, but misleading19. Though there is some
evidence that soap was made from corpses on a very limited experimental
scale, the rumored "mass production" was never done, and no soap made
from human corpses is known to exist. However, there is sworn testimony,
never refuted, from British POWs and a German army official, stating that
soap experiments were performed, and the recipe for the soap was
captured by the Allies. To state flatly that the Nazis did not make soap
from human beings is incorrect.
* "No lamp shades made of human skin?"20 False -- lampshades and
other human-skin "ornaments" were introduced as evidence in both trials
of Ilse Koch, and were shown to a U.S. Senate investigation committee in
the late 40s. We know they were made of human skin because they bore
tattoos, and because a microscopic forensic analysis of the items was
performed. (A detailed page on this is being prepared.)
* "No records"? This is nonsense (which may explain why this claim was
removed from the "revised" versions of the 66 Q&A). True, extermination
by gassing was always referred to with code-words, and those victims who
arrived at death camps only to be immediately gassed were not recorded
in any books. But there are slip-ups in the code-word usage that reveal
the true meanings, as already described. There are inventories and
requisitions for the Krema which reveal items anomalous with ordinary use
but perfect for mass homicidal gassing. There are deportation train
records which, pieced together, speak clearly. And so on. Several
examples have been given above.

18 www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/maidanek
19 www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/soap-01.html
20 www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/clay-koch-01.html
* "No credible demographic statistics"? This is the second internal
contradiction -- see question 2 and question 15. The Anglo-American
committee who studied the issue estimated the number of Jewish victims
at 5.7 million. This was based on population statistics. Here is the exact
breakdown, country by country:
Germany 195,000
Austria 53,000
Czechoslovakia 255,000
Denmark 1,500
France 140,000
Belgium 57,000
Luxemburg 3,000
Norway 1,000
Holland 120,000
Italy 20,000
Yugoslavia 64,000
Greece 64,000
Bulgaria 5,000
Rumania 530,000
Hungary 200,000
Poland 3,271,000
USSR 1,050,000
Less dispersed refugees (308,000)
Total number of Jews killed 5,721,500
(This estimate was arrived at using population
statistics, and not by adding the number of
casualties at each camp. These are also
available -- for instance, a separate file with the
ruling of a German court regarding the number
of victims in Treblinka is available. The SS kept
rather accurate records, and many of the
documents survived, reinforced by eyewitness
accounts).
Some estimates are lower, some are higher, but this is the magnitude in
question. In an article in CMU's student newspaper, the head of CMU's
History Department, Peter Stearns, is quoted as saying that newly
discovered documents -- especially in the former USSR -- indicate that the
number of victims is higher than six million. Other historians claim not
much over five million. The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust uses 5,596,000
as a minimum and 5,860,000 as a maximum (Gutman, 1990, p. 1799).
*In summary:
"Revisionists" often claim, correctly, that the burden of proof is on historians. The proof, of course, has been a matter of public record since
late 1945, and is available in libraries around the world. The burden has
been met, many, many times over. You've just seen a brief presentation
of some of the highlights of that immense body of proof; much more is
readily available.
To even argue that the Holocaust never happened is ludicrous. To claim
straight-faced that none of this proof even exists is beyond ludicrous, and
it is a clear example of "revisionist" dishonesty.
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Last Edit: 16 Feb 2016 12:13 by Frothy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

66 Questions 16 Feb 2016 13:08 #3

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16326
  • Likes received: 1708
2. What evidence exists that six million Jews were not killed by
the Nazis?
The IHR says:

Extensive forensic, demographic, analytical and comparative evidence
demonstrates the impossibility of such a figure. The widely repeated "six
million" figure is an irresponsible exaggeration.
Nizkor replies:
First of all: in the answer to this question, they claim to have "extensive
evidence" to prove that something did not happen. Yet Holocaust-deniers
often claim that they do not have to prove anything because, as they say,
"it is impossible to prove a negative." Greg Raven has said this at least
twice: once implicitly, and once explicitly:
We also note in passing that they ask me to prove a negative, which is
impossible.
It is possible to prove a negative, of course, but since none of the
"evidence" is given here, it is impossible to respond definitively to this
absurd claim. "Forensic evidence " is probably a reference to the
fraudulent "Leuchter Report," of which a detailed analysis has been
written.
What is this about "demographic evidence"? Didn't they just say in
question 1 that "no credible demographic statistics exist"? Another internal
contradiction.
"Analytical and comparative evidence" could mean anything. We invite
any "revisionist" to explain what this means and to present some of this
evidence, and we promise to address it on this page if they do so.
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

66 Questions 16 Feb 2016 13:12 #4

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16326
  • Likes received: 1708
3. Did Simon Wiesenthal once state in writing that "there were
no extermination camps on German soil"?
The IHR says (original):

Yes. In Books and Bookmen, April, 1975 issue. He claims the "gassings"
of the Jews took place in Poland.
The IHR says (revised):
Yes. The famous "Nazi hunter" wrote this in Stars and Stripes, Jan. 24,
1993. He also claimed that "gassings" of Jews took place only in Poland.
Nizkor replies:
Wiesenthal's 1975 letter to the editor said:
Because there were no extermination camps on German soil the
Neo-Nazis are using this as proof that these crimes did not happen
[...]
How ironic that he was not only correct, but that those very words were
later misused in the manner he described.
Both answers are correct in themselves: Wiesenthal did indeed indicate in
1975 and in 1993 that there were no extermination camps in what is now
Germany. Innocuous as the change seems, it does lead the reader to
assume that the most recent statement is some kind of admission that the
Holocaust was much more limited than has been maintained and that the
truth is finally coming out. Statements like Wiesenthal's are in fact the
basis upon which deniers claim that their pressure is forcing the truth out
of reluctant historians.
The truth is that historians, and others like Wiesenthal, have attempted
repeatedly over the years to dispel several myths about the Holocaust: the
mass production of soap made from human fat is a good example.
Another misconception which they have tried to dispel is that the bulk of
the extermination of the Jews took place within Germany itself -- or, more
properly, within the "Altreich," the prewar boundaries of Germany. While
there were indeed gas chambers and homicidal gassings in the Altreich,
they were on a much smaller scale than the gassings in the camps in
Nazi-occupied Poland, such as Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka,
Kulmhof/Chelmno, Maidanek/Majdanek, and Auschwitz-Birkenau. About
three million people, almost exclusively Jews, were gassed to death in
those camps. Camp gassings in the Altreich probably claimed the lives of
only a few thousand people, almost certainly under ten thousand. Aside
from "small-scale" gassing in places like Dachau, Sachsenhausen,
Stutthof, Neuengamme, and Ravensbrück, it was largely confined to the
"euthanasia" program, which did claim the lives of over a hundred
thousand people, mostly non-Jews.
The Nazis had at least two good reasons for building the death camps
outside of Germany. First, they were easier to conceal from the German
people. Given the chaotic wartime conditions in the territory surrounding
the Altreich, they were easier to conceal in general.
Second, the vast majority of murdered Jews came from conquered
territory to the east and south -- why go to extra trouble to ship them back
into Germany? (See the statistics at the end of question 1.)
What is not given any recognition by the deniers is that the latest
"admission" by Wiesenthal is exactly what respectable historians have
been saying for the past 45 years, starting perhaps with the Munich-based
Institute for Contemporary History in 1950. This selectivity amounts to
nothing less than lying by omission and innuendo.
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Last Edit: 16 Feb 2016 13:12 by Frothy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

66 Questions 16 Feb 2016 13:26 #5

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16326
  • Likes received: 1708
4. If Dachau21 was in Germany and even Simon Wiesenthal says
that it was not an extermination camp, why do thousands of
veterans in America say that it was an extermination camp?
The IHR says:

Because after the Allies captured Dachau, thousands of G.I.s were led
through Dachau and shown buildings alleged to be gas chambers, and
because the mass-media widely, but falsely, stated that Dachau was a
"gassing" camp.
Nizkor replies:
In the sense that tens of thousands of people were starved to death and
sporadically killed in it, yes, Dachau was a death camp. The term
"extermination camp" should probably not be applied to Dachau,

21 www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/dachau/
because that is generally taken to mean one of the large camps in
occupied Poland where mass gassings were performed (see question 3).
What is not in question is that the gas chamber did exist. The Allies
captured the memo sent from Dr. Sigmund Rascher at Dachau to
Himmler, which read (see Kogon et al., Nazi Mass Murder, 1993, p. 202):
As you know, the same facilities [gas chambers] have been built at
the Dachau concentration camp as at Linz [Hartheim]. Whereas the
"invalid transports" end up in certain chambers anyway, I ask
whether we cannot test some of our various combat gases on
specific persons who are involved in the action. Up till now there
have only been animal tests or accounts of accidental deaths in the
manufacture of these gases. Because of this paragraph, I have
sent this letter marked "Secret."
An American reporter made a movie showing the gas chamber very soon
after the camp's capture, showing how it was labelled "Brausebad"
("showers") despite having no shower facilities.
The question of whether the gas chamber can be proved to have been
used has not been definitively answered. Some historians say that there is
no question: it was never used. Some say that the question is still open. It
comes down to two testimonies: that of a British officer named PayneBest
who says he heard Dr. Rascher speak of gassings, and that of Dr.
Franz Blaha, who testified under oath to experimental gassings. For more
information, see Kogon et al., op. cit., pp. 202-204, and Blaha's testimony
in Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1947, vol. V, pp. 167-199. Dr. Charles
Larson, a forensics expert, also examined gassing victims at the camp,
saying "only relatively few of the inmates I personally examined at Dachau
were murdered in this manner."
Holocaust-deniers, of course, only present the point of view which says
that it was never used. They often quote from a 1960 letter written by the
director of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte22 (Institute for Contemporary
History), in Munich (see Die Zeit, August 19, 1960, p. 16):
No Gassing in Dachau
Neither in Dachau nor in 23Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald24
were Jews or other prisoners gassed.
The letter of course confirms that mass gassing did take place in the
larger camps. Holocaust-deniers don't like to mention that part. They also
don't like to mention that, since 1960, the Institut has performed more
research and has come to a new conclusion. They now say:
...a gas chamber was established [in Dachau] in which...a few
experimental gassings were undertaken, as more recent research
has confirmed.
Finally, the "mass media," for the most part, states the facts: that Dachau
was used for gassing on a very small scale. Whether the term "gassing
camp" is appropriate would probably depend on context. If the IHR can
present a cite in which a newspaper or magazine has printed an
inaccuracy, let them do so. It won't be the first time, nor the last, that
something was erroneously printed. If Holocaust-deniers think errors in
newspapers help prove that the Holocaust did not occur, they are
obviously deluded.
.
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

66 Questions 16 Feb 2016 13:39 #6

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16326
  • Likes received: 1708
5. Auschwitz was in Poland, not Germany. Is there any proof that
gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at
or in Auschwitz?

The IHR says:
No. A reward of $50,000 was offered for such proof, the money being held
in trust by a bank, but no one came up with any credible evidence.
Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was extensively modified after the
war and a mortuary was reconstructed to look like a large "gas chamber."
It is now a big tourist attraction for the Communist Polish government.
The IHR says (revised):
No. Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was modified after the war, and a
room was reconstructed to look like a large "gas chamber." After
America's leading expert on gas chamber construction and design, Fred
Leuchter, examined this and other alleged Auschwitz gassing facilities, he
stated that it was an "absurdity" to claim that they were, or could have
been, used for executions.
Nizkor replies:
Regarding the $50,000 reward offer: it was paid, to the last cent (actually
$90,000), to Mel Mermelstein25, an Auschwitz survivor who took the IHR
to court. Here is the statement made by the judge:
The Honorable Thomas T. Johnson, on October 9, 1981, took judicial
notice as follows:
Under Evidence Code Section 452(h), this court does take judicial
notice of the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz
Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944
and
It just simply is a fact that falls within the definition of Evidence
Code Section 452(h). It is not reasonably subject to dispute. And it
is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to
sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. It is simply a fact.
The IHR complains that they were not given a chance to dispute this fact,
but then the American court system is not meant to be a place for people
to try to prove crackpot theories. No "credible evidence" was produced
because there was no call for it -- a courtroom is not the place to rehash
the work of historians over the last half-century.
Besides, "credible evidence" means only what Holocaust-deniers want it
to mean. Michael Shermer, in an open letter, has offered to take the IHR
up on a similar offer, but only if they precisely define ahead of time what
they will accept as evidence. He has received no reply. (In fact, to date,
his letter has not even been printed.)
After this trial, both Mermelstein and the IHR sued each other for libel, but
both decided not to go to court. The Holocaust deniers claim this is a
"stunning victory" which "nullifies the result of the first trial." Nonsense: the
two were unrelated, and the second trial would have had nothing to do
with the gas chambers of Auschwitz.
As with most legal proceedings, the details get quite complicated. Great
detail, including copies of several official documents, is available in the
FTP archives.
Regarding Fred Leuchter's fraudulent "Report," a separate FAQ is
available26
.

25 www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mermelstein.mel
26 www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

66 Questions 16 Feb 2016 13:45 #7

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16326
  • Likes received: 1708
6. If Auschwitz27 wasn't a "death camp," what was its true
purpose?
The IHR says (original):

It was a large-scale manufacturing complex. Synthetic rubber (Buna) was
made there, and its inmates were used as a workforce. The Buna process
was used in the U.S. during WWII.
The IHR says (revised):
It was an internment center and part of a large-scale manufacturing
complex. Synthetic fuel was produced there, and its inmates were used as
a workforce.
Nizkor replies:
True to some extent. Auschwitz was a huge complex; it had ordinary
POW camps (in which British airmen were also held, and they testified of
atrocities in the nearby extermination camp). Auschwitz II, or Birkenau,
was the largest camp, and the gas chambers were there. Auschwitz III, or
Monowitz, was the industrial manufacturing plant.
Many prisoners were indeed used for forced labor in Auschwitz. But the
"unfit" -- meaning the elderly, the children, and most of the women -- were
immediately sent to the gas chambers.
In its revised answer, the IHR states that "synthetic fuel" was produced
there, not Buna. This is more accurate. By war's end, not a single ounce
of rubber had been produced at the Buna camp.
It's a tactical error on their part to admit this, however, because in
question number 40, they state that it was impossible to burn corpses
because there wasn't any fuel. Yet they admit that there was a fuelsynthesis
plant just a few miles away. It did produce fuel, and in fact was
an Allied bombing target for that reason. Another internal contradiction
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Last Edit: 16 Feb 2016 13:46 by Frothy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

66 Questions 16 Feb 2016 17:53 #8

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16326
  • Likes received: 1708
7. Who set up the first concentration camps, and where and
when?
The IHR says:
The first use of concentration camps in the Western world was apparently
in America during the Revolutionary War. The British interned thousands
of Americans, many of whom died of disease and beatings. Andrew
Jackson and his brother -- who died -- were two. Later the British set up
concentration camps in South Africa to hold Afrikaner women and children
during their conquest of that country (the Boer War). Tens of thousands
died in these hell-holes, which were far worse than any German
concentration camp of WWII.
Nizkor replies:
Irrelevant to the issue of the Holocaust, except for the last sentence,
which is an absurdity. Even Holocaust-deniers have to admit that
hundreds of thousands of prisoners died in Nazi camps -- see their
answer to question 36. Another internal contradiction.
The IHR wishes to whitewash the Nazis' crimes by comparing them to
other evils. We will not take part in this moral relativism, but will merely
present the historical facts about the Nazis and let the reader make up his
or her own mind.
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Last Edit: 16 Feb 2016 17:57 by Frothy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

66 Questions 16 Feb 2016 18:04 #9

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16326
  • Likes received: 1708
8. How did German concentration camps differ from American
relocation camps which interned Japanese-, German- and
Italian-Americans during WWII?
The IHR says (original and revised):

Except for the name, the only significant difference was that the Germans
interned persons on the basis of being a real or suspected security threat
to the German war effort, whereas the Americans interned persons on the
basis of race alone.
Nizkor replies:
Irrelevant to the issue of the Holocaust, and untrue. The phrase "the
Germans interned persons on the basis of being a real or suspected
security threat" could be true -- if one were to acknowledge that every Jew
was a suspected security threat simply by virtue of being Jewish.
For example, a 1942 report from Himmler28 to Hitler lists three categories
under "Bandenverdaechtige" -- suspected members of the opposition.
Under "captured," there were 19,000. Under "executed," there were

28 www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/h/himmler.heinrich
14,000. And under "executed Jews," a third of a million. A photograph and
a transcription of this document is available. By the way, that's a third of a
million Jews executed by the Einsatzgruppen in just four months in late
1942.
The claim that there were no significant differences is of course a lie. The
Americans did not starve millions of people to death, did not force their
imates to work under brutal conditions, and did not send them to gas
chambers if they were "unfit" to work
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

66 Questions 17 Feb 2016 14:37 #10

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16326
  • Likes received: 1708
9. Why did the Germans intern Jews in concentration camps?
The IHR says:

Because the Germans considered Jews a direct threat to their national
sovereignty and survival, and because Jews were overwhelmingly
represented in Communist subversion. However, all suspected security
risks -- not only Jews -- were in danger of internment.
The Samisdat version says:
Because the Germans considered Jews a direct threat to their national
sovereignity and survival. Jews were overwhelmingly represented in
Germany in communist subversion. On a per-capita basis, Jews were
over represented in key government and commercial positions and
professions. However, all suspected security risks -- not only Jews -- were
in danger of internment.
Nizkor replies:
All the Jews were Communists or risks to national security? And the Jews
of other countries, such as Poland? And the homosexuals, and the
gypsies? This is Nazi propaganda of the worst kind reincarnated. The
statement about Jews being "overwhelmingly represented" in "Communist
subversion" and in the wrong "professions" is an exact echo of antisemitic
Nazi propaganda.
The fact is that the Nazis used such propaganda to justify the slaughter of
every Jew they found behind the advancing Eastern front, and in every
other country they overran: millions of them, men, women, and children.
Holocaust-deniers, by the way, admit that hundreds of thousands of Jews,
including women and children, were shot in the eastern territories. (See
next question.) The Nazis claimed it was justified because of the wartime
conditions. To find the same justifications turning up again, fifty years
later, is, in our opinion, horrifying.
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

66 Questions 17 Feb 2016 14:43 #11

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16326
  • Likes received: 1708
10. What extensive measure did world Jewry undertake against
Germany as early as 1933?
The IHR says
:
An international boycott of German goods.
The Samisdat version says:
On March 24, 1933, International Jewry declared war against Germany
and ordered a world-wide boycott of German goods simply because the
German government had removed Jews from influential positions and
transferred power back to the German people. The boycott order and the
Jewish "war" against Germany were reported in world media and
broadcast everywhere. Phony stories of German "death camps" circulated
before WWII. The Germans, as a result, had every right to lock up Jews,
as prisoners of war, wherever and whenever they were found between
1933-45!
Nizkor replies:
This boycott happens to be the exact same thing referred to in the next
question, except there it's referred to as "declaring war on Germany."
Why did the IHR describe this single action twice with different words?
Something fishy is going on here.
The boycott of German goods was undertaken in response to various
Nazi atrocities, including a planned Nazi boycott of Jewish goods and
services.
But the IHR just conveniently "forgot" to mention this.
Note the blatant antisemitism in the Samisdat (Ernst Zündel) version.
Never mind the gas chambers and the extermination effort, never mind
that six million died. Just ask yourself if the Nazis had "every right" to send
Jewish infants to camps with little food, no sanitation, and rampant typhus
epidemics, where they died like flies? Were those Jewish babies
"prisoners of war"?
Even "revisionists" must admit that this slaughter occurred. The
Holocaust-denier David Irving describes a 1944 Himmler speech (Skeptic
magazine, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 50):
"If people ask me," said Himmler, "why did you have to kill the
children too, then I can only say I am not such a coward that I leave
for my children something I can do myself." ... I agree, Himmler
said that. He actually said "We're wiping out the Jews. We're
murdering them. We're killing them." ... He is talking about solving
the Jewish problem, about having to kill off women and children
too.

Did a newspaper story in 1933 give the Nazis "every right" to do this?
(Irving claims in that interview that because Himmler had not mentioned
specifically how many Jews were being killed, that therefore it is not
evidence for the Holocaust.)
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Last Edit: 17 Feb 2016 14:51 by Frothy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

66 Questions 17 Feb 2016 14:54 #12

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16326
  • Likes received: 1708
11. Did the Jews of the world "declare war on Germany"?
The IHR says (original)
:
Yes. The world media carried the headlines, "Judea Declares War on
Germany."
The IHR says (revised):
Yes. Newspapers around the world reported this. A front-page headline in
the London Daily Express (March 24, 1933), for example, announced
"Judea Declares War on Germany."
Nizkor replies:
"World media"? "Newspapers around the world"? One British newspaper
is cited, talking about a planned economic boycott.
A transcript of the article is available29. The next paragraphs after the
headline were:
A strange and unfortunate sequel has emerged from the stories of
German Jew-baiting.

29 www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/british/daily-express/judea-declares-war
The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an
economic and financial war on Germany.
Hirtherto the cry has gone up: "Germany is persecuting the Jews."
If the present plans are carried out, the Hitlerite cry will be: "The
Jews are persecuting Germany."
The fact that this "Hitlerite cry" has been echoed four decades later by
Holocaust-deniers should surprise no one. (See question 62 for
information about various deniers' views on Hitler.)
In sum, this question and answer is a cheap trick to make it seem as if
"the Jews of the world" started the "war" against Germany, instead of the
other way around. The word "war" means many things. In this case it
meant planning to apply economic pressure.
But the IHR and Zündel want you to think it was a real declaration of war.
How many divisions of troops did "Judea" have? How many tanks? How
many planes? How many artillery shells?
The fact is that Germany started the real war, World War II, and started it
by overrunning Poland with planes, bombs, tanks, and millions of
infantrymen. To compare this to a planned economic boycott is ludicrous,
but typical of "revisionist" trickery.
Besides, this is an internal contradiction. Their answer to question 54
states that "the Germans maintained cordial relations with the Zionist
leadership." War is not a cordial relation. They should get their story
straight.
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

66 Questions & Answers 29 Feb 2016 08:54 #13

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16326
  • Likes received: 1708
12. Was this before or after the rumors of the "death camps"
began?
The IHR say
s:
Nearly six years BEFORE. Judea declared war on Germany in 1933.
Nizkor replies:
Economic "war," as noted in the reply to question 11.
Here's an internal contradiction: in the answer to question 10, the
Samisdat version claims that the "death camp phony stories" were
"circulating" in 1933.
And here's another internal contradiction: in the answer to question 54,
the IHR states that "the Germans maintained cordial relations with the
Zionist leadership." War is not a cordial relation.
Here are some statements and actions of Nazi leaders, years before the
shooting war broke out in 1939:
1919: Hitler writes in a letter:
... Everything that makes the people strive for greater things, be it
religion, socialism, or democracy, merely serves the Jew as a
means to the satisfaction of his greed and thirst for power....
Rational antisemitism, by contrast [to emotional antisemitism] must
lead to a systematic and legal struggle against, and eradication of,
what privileges the Jews enjoy over other foreigners living among
us. Its final objective, however, must be the total removal of all
Jews from our midst.
1924: Hitler writes Mein Kampf while in prison, regretting that Germany
did not gas influential Jews during World War I.
1932: Hermann Goering speaking on behalf of the Nazi Party (not yet in
power) tells an Italian reporter in an interview that the Nazis need to
defend themselves against the Jews by forbidding intermarriage, expelling
Jews in Germany of Eastern European descent, dismissing native
German Jews from all jobs, honorary position or capacity that the Nazis
deem they might exert their "destructive, antinational or international
influence."
In the same white paper that the Nazis reprinted this interview they said
that they would set the synagogues aflame, close the murderous band of
Jews up in Ghettos and prisons, and hang them from trees (July 13, 1932,
Stellung der NSDAP [NSDAP = Nazi Party.])
1932, summer: Nazi faction in the Prussian (Weimar) Parliament
demands dismissal of actors and artists not of German descent, a ban on
the Jewish ritual method of slaughtering animals for food, and the
expropriation of property belonging to East European Jews residing in
Germany.
1932, July 31: Goebbels writes an article in the newspaper Der Angriff
calling for a pogrom against the Jews.
1933, January 30: Adolf Hitler appointed Chancellor of Germany.
1933, March: Nazi opponents arrested and imprisoned in the first
concentration camps.
1933, March 13: Hitler establishes the Ministry of Information and
Propaganda under Goebbels.
1933, March 23: Hitler signs into law "The Law for Removing the Distress
of People and Reich", giving Hitler the authority to abolish all regional
parliaments within Germany.
1933, March 31: Hans Kerrl, Commissar of the Prussian Ministry of
Justice and Hans Frank, Commissar of the Bavarian Ministry of Justice,
announce that all Jewish judges and prosecutors were to take an
immediate leave and that Jewish lawyers and notaries would no longer be
permitted to work [in their provinces; same dictum spreads to other
provinces shortly thereafter].
The "66 Q&A," and most denier propaganda, always seek to make issues
cut-and-dried. They present one curious fact out of context and hope to
convince the reader that he needs to know no more. But after some of the
context is restored, the curious fact often reveals itself to be no more
curious than anything else happening at the time.
These are just the public, known anti-Jewish actions and writings before
the Jewish boycott in 1933. The actions and writings became more
pronounced and violent as time went on. Hitler became more and more
explicit, until he stated publicly on January 30, 1939:
Today I will once more be a prophet: if the international Jewish
financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the
nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the
bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the
annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!

He repeated this sentiment at least twice more, publicly, during the war,
and he was not alone in doing so.
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Last Edit: 29 Feb 2016 08:55 by Frothy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2019 - May 2020, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 278 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 160 - Raised
( £ 130 GBP )
donation thermometer
47%
Updated
2nd October 2019

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.