It appears the question of the day is: What motivates a "revisionist? The question was initially asked by someone who readily admits they "don't know enough" about holocaust history ... so likewise "they don't know" what is behind the motiviation for all the debate over the Holocaust. One might logically conclude that education is the sole the motivation for Holocaust revisionism, but we all realize there is a much deeper issue lying under the surface.
WAIT! What...?!
QUOTE(simonzelotes @ Oct 1 2007, 04:36 AM) *
...
While I certainly wouldn't call myself a "revisionist" since I don't believe I know enough about the holocaust history to make an attempt to revise, I'm also sure I don't know what motivates a revisionist...I suppose my question regarding the holocaust would not so much be the numbers or even the other groups of people involved ...
There's no question in that quote. At least there was no question about "what motivates a revisionist." Are you sure you know how to read what's written?
If "revisionism" indicates the attempt to explore and understand evidence that things didn't happen according to the official and/or accepted story, then why make thata bad term? That process of course is different than the promoting the "things just don't add up' theory and seeking to explain something without evidence.
I think an example of the latter is provided by the same Ian Brockwell, who makes a lining out of promoting the idea that the official or accepted isnt the truth, often not by presenting evidence that it isn't, but by merely questioning the accepted ideas with "Do you really believe it could have happened this way?" questions, then presenting his own ideas, again without evidence. An example from a discourse my Mr. Brockwell on UFOs...
"Aliens perhaps play a bigger part in our lives that anyone can possibly imagine, let’s take a closer look at life on this planet. It is a popular belief that all life
originated from the sea, but doesn’t it seem strange that this theory of evolution can produce enormous dinosaurs, birds, fish and thousands of other creatures (in
our ancient past), yet humans, the dominant species on our planet, only arrived a couple of million years ago?
How can a new species (humans) just suddenly appear and develop so quickly, unless some “outside force” had some involvement in our present success?
I have my own theory on this, and believe that probably all the creatures on our planet were brought here from other worlds, perhaps planets that faced total
destruction as Earth will one day. Is it so difficult to believe that some very advanced alien race protects primitive creatures like us throughout the
universe? Clearly, if such beings exist, they would have the power to destroy us at any time, but we are still here (despite our continued efforts to destroy
ourselves), so this would suggest we may have friends in high places.
If we continue to speculate on this theory, it also means that should our planet one day encounter an “End of Times”, there is a very good chance that some of us
(not just humans) will be given an opportunity of life on a new world. This possibility and others are explored in the book “Global Warming – The Final Solution”."
My purpose is not to ridicule his theory on aliens (you can make your own judgements on that), but that it seems to be a common thread in his writings to present his theories without evidence. On the holocaust, he spends a lot of time on how those who question the accepted line are persecuted, but no time presenting evidence. His explanation as to what happened seems along the same line as his "I have my own theory on this..."regarding how our Earth was populated by aliens, without presenting any evidence.
Of course, if his theory is right, what have we to fear, as we are all aliens. Of course, i suppose we could be attacked by other aliens wanting to fight us for the planet.
seriously, I find it hard to accept the "revisionism" of someone who makes his living, his bread and butter, by questioning accepted ideas. Not that I am opposed to seeking out the truth and arguing against the accepted explanation when there is evidence to do so. But he apparently automatically has to question the accepted, evidence or not, to make a living.
seriously, I find it hard to accept the "revisionism" of someone who makes his living, his bread and butter, by questioning accepted ideas. Not that I am opposed to seeking out the truth and arguing against the accepted explanation when there is evidence to do so. But he apparently automatically has to question the accepted, evidence or not, to make a living.
or to have a shot at some kind of twisted "moghood" among the history stars..
Maybe guys like Faurrison.. do they think that perhaps, generations in the future, will honor or revere their name, like Galileo?
That's sort of why I stopped respecting the offshoots of TWI. Any ministry that claims to be a "research and teaching ministry" basically finds themselves asking questions for the sole purpose of justifying their existence. Eventually the honest questions are used up and questionable doctrines are sought out and "researched" - of course they can ALWAYS say, "We just discovered this..." (It wasn't really 2 it was 4. Goliath was really hit in his knee and not his forehead...)
It's one thing to question history. It's quite another thing to only look for answers that have not already been provided. It seems that is as dishonest a claim as the revisionists make against those they oppose.
Then to make these claims and have nothing to back them up...
If "revisionism" indicates the attempt to explore and understand evidence that things didn't happen according to the official and/or accepted story, then why make thata bad term? That process of course is different than the promoting the "things just don't add up' theory and seeking to explain something without evidence.
But that's the key, Lifted. Holocaust 'revisionists' don't come from the honest standpoint of considering all the facts. They try to portray it in that light, as tho' they want to get beyond 'the party line' and face the objective truth. But they do't. Know how I know this?
I've gone to many revisionist sites, and talked to quite a few of revisionists, and the one nagging and consistant characteristic that keeps popping up is their distrust and even hatred of the Jews. Not certain Jewish individuals or even the Isreali government; the Jews. Period! They have this deep running theme of either Jews are trying to run the world, or take over the U.S. government, or are heading up all of the world banks, or are running Hollywood, or (from the religious angle) they are the ones who are guilty of killing Christ. Crap like that. And that always pops up sooner or later. They are biased and bigoted against Jewish people, even when they try to deny it. "Some of my best friends are Jews" is one such refrain of denial.
And THAT is what keeps them from being seriously considered as objective historians as regards the Holocaust or anything else related. Whenever WTH talks about Jews, it is *always* with derision and even contempt (except of course if he's talking about certain Jewish 'scholars' who agree with him re: the Holocaust, and even then I imagine he's holding his nose when he does that <_< ).
As a result, they are the ones promoting the "things just don't add up" theory and seeking to explain something without evidence.
If "revisionism" indicates the attempt to explore and understand evidence that things didn't happen according to the official and/or accepted story, then why make that a bad term? That process of course is different than the promoting the "things just don't add up' theory and seeking to explain something without evidence. ...
Oh my, just how wrong can one be? Revisionists DO have scientific and physical evidence to back up their claims. What they have evidence for I have boldfaced below. (The sources are cited in parenthesis.) The truth is, more and more historians and engineers have been challenging the widely accepted Auschwitz story. These "revisionist" scholars do not dispute the fact that large numbers of Jews were deported to the camp, or that many died there, particularly of typhus and other diseases. But the compelling evidence they present shows that Auschwitz was not an extermination center, and that the story of mass killings in "gas chambers" is a myth.
A key Holocaust document is the "confession" of former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss of April 5, 1946. Although "it is still widely cited as solid proof for the Auschwitz extermination story", it is actually a false statement that was obtained by torture. Many years after the war, British military intelligence sergeant Bernard Clarke described how he and five other British soldiers tortured the former commandant to obtain his "confession." Höss himself privately explained his ordeal in these words: "Certainly, I signed a statement that I killed two and half million Jews. I could just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not." (Source: Rupert Butler, Legions of Death (England: 1983), pp. 235; R. Faurisson, The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87, pp. 389-403.)
Even historians who generally accept the Holocaust extermination story now acknowledge that many of the specific statements made in the Höss "affidavit" are simply not true. For one thing, no serious scholar now claims that anything like two and a half or three million people perished in Auschwitz. The Höss "affidavit" further alleges that Jews were already being exterminated by gas in the summer of 1941 at three other camps: Belzec, Treblinka and Wolzek. The "Wolzek" camp mentioned by Höss is a total invention. No such camp existed, and the name is no longer mentioned in Holocaust literature. Moreover, the story these days by those who believe in the Holocaust legend is that gassings of Jews did not begin at Auschwitz, Treblinka, or Belzec until sometime in 1942.
At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. This figure, which was invented by the Soviets, was uncritically accepted for many years. It often appeared in major American newspapers and magazines, for example. (Source: Nuremberg document 008-USSR. IMT blue series, Vol. 39, pp. 241, 261.; NC & A red series, vol. 1, p. 35.; C.L. Sulzberger, "Oswiecim Killings Placed at 4,000,000," New York Times, May 8, 1945, and, New York Times, Jan. 31, 1986, p. A4. )
Today no reputable historian, not even those who generally accept the extermination story, believes this figure. Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer said in 1989 that it is time to finally acknowledge the familiar four million figure is a deliberate myth. In July 1990 the Auschwitz State Museum in Poland, along with Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust Center, suddenly announced that altogether perhaps one million people (both Jews and non-Jews) died there. Neither institution would say how many of these people were killed, nor were any estimates given of the numbers of those supposedly gassed. (Source: Y. Bauer, "Fighting the Distortions," Jerusalem Post (Israel), Sept. 22, 1989; "Auschwitz Deaths Reduced to a Million," Daily Telegraph (London), July 17, 1990; "Poland Reduces Auschwitz Death Toll Estimate to 1 Million," The Washington Times, July 17, 1990.)
It is often claimed that all Jews at Auschwitz who were unable to work were immediately killed. Jews who were too old, young, sick, or weak were supposedly gassed on arrival, and only those who could be worked to death were temporarily kept alive. But the evidence shows that, in fact, a very high percentage of the Jewish inmates were not able to work, and were nevertheless not killed. For example, an internal German telex message dated Sept. 4, 1943, from the chief of the Labor Allocation department of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA), reported that of 25,000 Jewish inmates in Auschwitz, only 3,581 were able to work, and that all of the remaining Jewish inmates -- some 21,500, or about 86 percent -- were unable to work. (Source: Archives of the Jewish Historical Institute of Warsaw, German document No. 128, in: H. Eschwege, ed., Kennzeichen J (East Berlin: 1966), p. 264.)
The Auschwitz gassing story is based in large part on the hearsay statements of former Jewish inmates who did not personally see any evidence of extermination. Their beliefs are understandable, because rumors about gassings at Auschwitz were widespread. Allied planes dropped large numbers of leaflets, written in Polish and German, on Auschwitz and the surrounding areas which claimed that people were being gassed in the camp. The Auschwitz gassing story, which was an important part of the Allied wartime propaganda effort, was also broadcast to Europe by Allied radio stations. (Source: Nuremberg document NI-11696. NMT green series, Vol. 8, p. 606.)
Of course, we also have survivor testimony. Former inmates have confirmed that they saw no evidence of extermination at Auschwitz. An Austrian woman, Maria Vanherwaarden, testified about her camp experiences in a Toronto District Court in March 1988. She was interned in Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1942 for having sexual relations with a Polish forced laborer. On the train trip to the camp, a Gypsy woman told her and the others that they would all be gassed at Auschwitz.
Upon arrival, Maria and the other women were ordered to undress and go into a large concrete room without windows to take a shower. The terrified women were sure that they were about to die. But then, instead of gas, water came out of the shower heads. Auschwitz was no vacation center, Maria confirmed. She witnessed the death of many fellow inmates by disease, particularly typhus, and quite a few committed suicide. But she saw no evidence at all of mass killings, gassings, or of any extermination program. (Source: Testimony in Toronto District Court, March 28, 1988. Toronto Star, March 29, 1988, p. A2.)
America's leading gas chamber expert, Boston engineer Fred A. Leuchter, carefully examined the supposed "gas chambers" in Poland and concluded that the Auschwitz gassing story is absurd and technically impossible. Leuchter is the foremost specialist on the design and installation of gas chambers used in the United States to execute convicted criminals. For example, he designed a gas chamber facility for the Missouri state penitentiary.
In February 1988 he carried out a detailed onsite examination of the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek in Poland, which are either still standing or only partially in ruins. In sworn testimony to a Toronto court and in a technical report, Leuchter described every aspect of his investigation. He concluded by emphatically declaring that the alleged gassing facilities could not possibly have been used to kill people. Among other things, he pointed out that the so-called "gas chambers" were not properly sealed or vented to kill human beings without also killing German camp personnel. (Source: The Leuchter Report: An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek (Toronto: 1988).)
There is plenty of evidence the Holocaust revisionist's have that support their claims. Due to time contraints, I won't take the time to post or list them all, such as: Telltale aerial photos, absurd cremation claims, German Camp regulations, and the fact that [Heinrich Himmler] had ordered that the death rate absolutely must be reduced. As I stated in an earlier post: The only way a bee can escape from a spiders web is when the main threads of that web have been broken. The story of the Holocaust has proven itself to be a web woven from lies and deceit. It's main purpose is to extort only more $$$ from people still caught in it's web.
Today, nearly everyone has heard of Auschwitz, the German wartime concentration camp where many prisoners -- most of them Jewish -- were reportedly exterminated, especially in gas chambers. Auschwitz is still widely regarded as the most terrible Nazi extermination center. The camp's horrific reputation cannot, however, be reconciled with the facts. The Auschwitz extermination story originated as wartime propaganda. Now, more than 40 years after the end of the Second World War, it is time to take another, more objective look at this highly polemicized chapter of history.
The Auschwitz legend is at the core of the Holocaust story.
If hundreds of thousands of Jews were not systematically killed there, as alleged, then one of the great myths of our time collapses.
Artificially maintaining the hatreds and passions of the past only prevents genuine reconciliation and lasting peace.
Holocaust Revisionism promotes historical awareness and International understanding. That is why Holocaust Revisionism is so important, and - it deserves your support - not scorn.
America's leading gas chamber expert, Boston engineer Fred A. Leuchter, carefully examined the supposed "gas chambers" in Poland and concluded that the Auschwitz gassing story is absurd and technically impossible. Leuchter is the foremost specialist on the design and installation of gas chambers used in the United States to execute convicted criminals. For example, he designed a gas chamber facility for the Missouri state penitentiary.
Sorry, he's not an engineer. Doesn't even have an engineering degree. Hasn't done any of the post grad engineering study either.
"Foremost" means "most qualified".
A person has to be "qualified" first.
I've read a few self-help books about plumbing, electrical.. doesn't make me a plumber..
Leuchter has been described by at least one of his "notable" colleagues as a "simpleton"..
These "revisionist" scholars do not dispute the fact that large numbers of Jews were deported to the camp, or that many died there, particularly of typhus and other diseases.
THAT line alone ought to give you cause to think and wonder WHY?...
Auschwitz was not an extermination center, and that the story of mass killings in "gas chambers" is a myth.
Try adding "The earth is flat, and the story of Magellan circumnavigating the globe is a myth" to that. You might as well, as it is consistant with the rest of the insanity you post.
"The exact number of victims at Auschwitz is impossible to fix with certainty. Since Germans destroyed a number of records, immediate efforts to count the dead depended on the testimony of witnesses and the defendants on trial at Nuremberg. While under interrogation Rudolf Höß, commandant of Auschwitz concentration camp from 1940 to 1943, said that two and a half million Jews had been killed in gas chambers and about half a million died "naturally". Later he wrote "I regard two and a half million far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive possibilities". The Auschwitz Death Book, recently uncovered in Soviet archives, is an example of logged records (pertaining only to registered inmates), but other examples of collected figures are scarce.
Communist Soviet and Polish authorities maintained a figure "between 2.5 and 4 million". The figure "4,000,000" was used on the original Auschwitz memorial plaques. The plaques did not specify the ethnicities of victims.
In 1983 , French scholar George Wellers was one of the first to use German data on deportations to estimate the number killed at Auschwitz, arriving at 1.613 million dead, including 1.44 million Jews and 146,000 Catholic Poles. A larger study started around the same time by Franciszek Piper used time tables of train arrivals combined with deportation records to calculate 1.1 million Jewish deaths and 140,000-150,000 ethnic Polish victims, along with 23,000 Roma & Sinti (Gypsies). This number has met with "significant, though not complete" agreement among scholars."
Of course, those are just the figures for Auschwitz-Birkenau, and not ALL the death-camps.
Many of the prisoners were still alive, but many were dying as we arrived and continued to die at the rate of over a hundred a day for about two weeks after our arrival. There were over six hundred troops from the 45th Infantry Division who were in Dachau on the day of liberation, along with some troops from the 42nd Infantry Division. During the month of April, 1945, several hundred other slave labor and death camps were liberated by American, British and Russian soldiers.
Most certainly, there were well over a hundred thousand Allied soldiers who were eyewitnesses to the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust, along with a considerable number of Holocaust survivors. To those sick people in our society who say that it never happened, I say: Tell us who were there that it never happened, instead of trying to disseminate your bigotry and hatred by total revision of the Holocaust history. Your efforts will never prevail.
Several HUNDRED CAMPS!!!!!!! jiminy, there was death, lots of it. Brutal, horrid, and raciall/ ethnically inspired. that's all I need to know. My grandfather arrived at Auschwitz a few weeks after the liberation. He also to his death was shaken by what he had seen.
A key Holocaust document is the "confession" of former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss of April 5, 1946. .........
Even historians who generally accept the Holocaust extermination story now acknowledge that many of the specific statements made in the Höss "affidavit" are simply not true.............
The Höss "affidavit" further alleges that Jews were already being exterminated by gas in the summer of 1941 at three other camps: Belzec, Treblinka and Wolzek. The "Wolzek" camp mentioned by Höss is a total invention. No such camp existed, and the name is no longer mentioned in Holocaust literature.
While the court statement was as cited, Hoess was interrogated prior to this. Below are excerpts from that interrogation, and explanation regarding Wolzek, which likely was actually Sobibor
Before Höß gave his statement to the court, quoted above he was interrogated at length, over two days. The transcript of those interrogations is published in The Holocaust: Selected Documents in Eighteen Volumes, John Mendelson, Ed., 1982, Vol. 12, pp. 56-127.
On p. 75, we see Höß's answers during the interrogation, which of course took place before his court statement. He was asked:
Q. What were these extermination camps? Where were they, and what were their names?
His response was - and this is verbatim, including the spelling mistake of the court reporter:
A. There were three camps: first Treblinka, Belzak near Lemberg and the third one was 40 kilometers in the direction of Kulm. It was past Kulm in an easterly direction.
Note that, despite being explicitly asked for the names of all three, Höß can only come up with two. "Treblinka" is spelled correctly by the transcriber. "Belzak" is Belzec. The missing camp, whose name Höß has forgotten, is - as van Pelt has already pointed out - Sobibor.
Does Sobibor's location fit with the one detail Höß gives? He claims it is 40 km "past Kulm in an easterly direction." The town of Chelm (Kulm, in the German spelling) is bisected by a railway line that runs west toward Lublin and east into the Soviet Union. Forty kilometers east of Chelm is nothing in particular, or at least no known death camps. But he did not say it was due east; he said "in an easterly direction." Coming out of the town, near the city limits, a railway splits off and heads northeast. Exactly forty kilometers as travelled by rail lies the death camp Sobibor: [8]
I remember once questioning the numbers, just based on how much effort that would have taken from the war effort. But it seems all the effort to imprison or exterminate the jews did hurt the war effort for Germany.
But one million or six million seems the same to me, as far as really comprehending that many exterminated. Still I agree there is certain stigma attached if you even doubt any of the numbers ... it is like a sacrilege.
I suppose the genocide "hate crime" aspect makes it most horrible, but what of the other 65 million that died in WW2? 40 million of those were civilians. Are their children all receiving reparations from Germany, Italy, or Japan? 16 million civilians deaths in China, 11 million in the Soviet Union.
Maybe one of the reasons why the Holocaust was so horrible, even beyond the horridness if the 65 million that were killed, was because it was a big part of Hitler's deliberate and purposal goal of exterminating a certain class of people; ie., the Jewish people.
And it isn't because the Jews are better than everybody else; they're not. But when Adolph Hitler is endeavoring to exterminate a certain people due to their religion/culture, and he damn near succeeds (taking out about half of all the Jews in total), ... it exceeds your general horror of war.
Sorry, he's not an engineer. Doesn't even have an engineering degree. Hasn't done any of the post grad engineering study either.
...
After the Leuchter Reports, Fred Leuchter had been viciously attacked for two reasons:
1) He did not have an engineering degree when he wrote his trail-blazing studies, and
2) he was paid by the Zündel Defense and, hence, considered beholden to the Revisionist point of view.
It is true that Leuchter did not have an appropriate degree. One might as well say Jesus Christ didn't have a degree in Christianity. Karl Marx did not have a degree in Marxism.
What Leuchter found can be, and has been, independently verified by engineers who have impeccable degrees.
Walter Lüftl is an Austrian engineer. He was for years president of the Austrian Chamber of Engineers, the representative body of all Austrian engineers. He was a court-approved expert frequently called to testify in engineering matters. He investigated Auschwitz and came to similar conclusions to Leuchter's. The Austrians promptly charged him criminally for stating his best engineering viewpoint - that the Auschwitz "gassing" facilities were fakes. This caused him lots of grief. As a consequence, he resigned his position. The media had a feeding frenzy. After several years, the case was quietly dropped by the state. Even worse fared young Germar Rudolf, a German scientist of the finest qualifications, with not a speck on his credentials and his record. He wrote a magnificent report. (Das Rudolf Gutachten, Cromwell Press, 1993.)
Fred Leuchter was, prior to having his career and reputation ruined by the Holocaust Promotion Lobby, a most sought-after specialist in execution type equipment in America, as per Warden Bill Armontrout, who recommended him. Warden Armontrout testified in the 1988 Zündel Trial that there was only one consultant in the United States that he knew of in the design, operation and maintenance of gas chambers, and that consultant was Fred Leuchter.
Leuchter was a highly competent, well-paid and respected man in his field - until he was ruined financially and in his reputation by the vicious attacks of the Holocaust Promotion Lobby that saw its lucrative racket, netting billions of dollars for years, challenged by the Leuchter findings. Furthermore, Leuchter was qualified by Judge Thomas as an expert witness during the Zündel trial. Any serious researcher could have verified that by checking the Zündel Trial 1988 transcripts pertaining to Leuchter's testimony[/b]. (Leuchter Testimony as summarized in Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst Zündel - 1988, Edited by Barbara Kulaszka, pp. 354-362)
Dr. Hilberg and Dr. Browning were paid by the Government of Canada for their expertise to bolster the Holocaust Promotion Lobby claim. Browning alone got almost $25,000 for testifying against Ernst Zündel - courtesy of the Canadian tax payers. Again, Germar Rudolf, a German scientist of the finest qualifications, with not a speck on his credentials and his record, his life and career are now ruined, while Browning's fortune soared.
The second charge is that Leuchter was paid by the Zündel defense - and, hence, his finding are automatically labeled to be "suspect."
Of course Fred Leuchter was paid by the Zündel defense. He was hired to go to Auschwitz in a highly dramatic, secret mission while Ernst Zündel was on trial in Toronto in 1988, fighting for his freedom and reputation. There was no time or money to scout around for someone else. He was not a "fly-by-night" specialist, as has been repeatedly claimed.
Furthermore, Leuchter stated at the outset to Zündel and his lawyer, before he ever went to Auschwitz, that he [Leuchter] believed the Auschwitz gas chamber claim, and if he found it verified, then he would state so under oath and in his report. Zündel still engaged and sent him because he was sure of his facts and counted on Leuchter's professional integrity. Leuchter went. He saw. He came back a much-enlightened man. Read what he had to say. (Leuchter, Fred A. The Leuchter Report: The How and the Why. Journal of Historical Review 9, (1989): 133-139.)
So Leuchter was paid for his work. So what? Who paid for the Pressac investigation and book? Who paid for the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation? Who paid for the study of the Zündel case condensed in a book called "Hate on Trial"? (Gabriel Weimann and Conrad Winn, Hate on Trial, Mosaic Press, Oakville, 1986)
Do these two facts, that Leuchter was paid, and that Leuchter did not have the necessary "rubber stamps" to do the work he did negate scientific findings that can be double-checked and verified? When Leuchter was asked what stood in the way of someone being paid to malign his (Leuchter's) scientific findings, Leuchter stated simply:
"Anyone who would do that would risk his professional standing."
Will there be highly reputable professionals in the engineering field willing to come forward and replicate what Leuchter did?
We will just have to see. The truth is, revisionist reality is pretty grim. Right now in Germany, if a scientist verifies the Leuchter findings, that scientist loses his job and goes to prison. For this reason alone, you won't see too many people volunteering to tramp to Auschwitz with their own engineering gear.
"With the jury out of the room, the court began to determine Leuchter's qualifications as an expert witness. When the Crown Counsel questioned him about his training in math, chemistry, physics, and toxicology, he acknowledged that his only training in chemistry was "basic ...on the college level." The only physics he had studied likewise consisted of two courses taken when he was sutdying for a bachelor of arts (not sciences) degree at Boston University. Admitting that he was not a toxicologist and had no degree in engineering, he rather cavalierly dismissed the need for it.<36> To this the judge responded sharply:
THE COURT: How do you function as an engineer if you don't have an engineering degree?
THE WITNESS: Well, I would question, Your Honour, what an engineering degree is. I have a Bachelor of Arts degree and I have the required background training both on the college level and in the field to perform my function as an engineer.
THE COURT: Who determines that? You?<37>
Throughout the trial [the judge]made it clear that he was appalled by Leuchter's lack of training as an engineer as well as his depreciation of the need for such training. The judge was particularly taken aback by Leuchter's repeated assertions that anyone who went to college had "the necessary math and science" to be an electrical engineer and to conduct the tests that he conducted at Auschwitz.<38> The judge ruled that Leuchter could not serve as an expert witness on the construction and functioning of the gas chambers. The judge's findings as to Leuchter's suitability to comment on questions of engineering was unequivocal:
THE COURT: I'm not going to have him get into the question of what's in a brick, what's in iron, what is in - he has no expertise in this area. He is an engineer because he has made himself an engineer in a very limited area.<39>
Unknown to the court, Leuchter, who admitted under oath that he had only a bachelor of arts degree, was not being entirely candid regarding his education. Implying that an engineering degree had been unavailable to him, he told the court that when he was a student at Boston University, the school did not offer a degree in engineering. In fact it did, three different kinds.<40> Later in the trial, when the jury returned to the room, Zündel's lawyer and Leuchter obfuscated the paucity of his training:
Q. And you are, I understand, a graduate of Boston University, with a B.A. in a field that entitles you to function as an engineer. Is that right?
A. Yes, sir.<41>
That field was history.
I'd say if anybody "ruined" him, he did it to himself. He had a perfect scam in the US, claiming he was some kind of expert.. to the extent they even let him maintain said equipment once in a while.
Of course, after this publicity, they called him on the credentials. It would be like finding your neurosurgeon was really the janitor at the hospital..
I personally have at least five or six times the amount of classes, training, and experience in mathmatics, chemistry and physics than *mr* leuchter has..
In math, about twenty times.. in electronics, probably about a hundred times as much..
and even with that, I couldn't honestly call myself an engineer either.
They'd run me off the witness stand about ANYTHING toxicological before I could catch my breath..
I'd say if anybody "ruined" him, he did it to himself. He had a perfect scam in the US, claiming he was some kind of expert.. to the extent they even let him maintain said equipment once in a while.
Of course, after this publicity, they called him on the credentials. It would be like finding your neurosurgeon was really the janitor at the hospital..
Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., is the foremost expert on the design and fabrication of hardware, including homicidal gas chambers, used to execute convicted criminals in the United States. After receiving a Bachelor's degree (in history) from Boston University in 1964, Leuchter did postgraduate work at the Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. He holds patents on the design of sextants, surveying instruments and optical encoding equipment.
Leuchter designed and maintained gas chambers for several U.S. penal institutions. He was sent by Ernst Zündel to investigate Auschwitz, Majdanek, Dachau, Hartheim and other alleged "Nazi Death Camps" and "gassing facilities." Author of the devastating series of Leuchter Reports. (I, II, III, IV) and many articles and videotaped presentations that resulted from these investigations.
As was previously stated, [Leuchter] believed the Auschwitz gas chamber claim, and if he found it verified, then he would state so under oath and in his report. Leuchter went. He saw. He came back a much-enlightened man. His conclusions were clear: the evidence was overwhelming that there were no execution gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek and that the alleged gas chambers at these sites could not have been,then or now, utilized or seriously considered to function as execution gas chambers.
Leuchter was blacklisted in the U.S. and hounded by the Holocaust lobby and the world's lapdog media. He was arrested and jailed in Germany while visiting there to appear on a television show. As a result of intense Jewish pressure, Leuchter lost his livelihood. Since making known his findings, he also has been libelled, slandered, and financially ruined.
As was also previously stated: What Leuchter found can be, and has been, independently verified by engineers who have impeccable degrees. I also find H20 will produce water, yet I don't claim to have a degree in Chemistry. Why believe Jesus Christ? He certainly didn't have a degree in Christianity.
Let me put it this way. Will any engineer come forward today to substantiate or discredit any of Fred A. Leuchter's claims? Right now in Germany, if a scientist verifies the Leuchter findings, that scientist loses his job and goes to prison. For this reason alone, you won't see too many people (specifically engineers) volunteering to tramp to Auschwitz with their own engineering gear.
Abstract: Holocaust deniers base some of their arguments on the public's ignorance of history and science. Accurate information, not censorship, is the best antidote to their claims. 1.1 to 1.5 million people, most of them Jews, were murdered at the Auschwitz-Birkenau camps. The predominant weapon of mass murder was Zyklon B, hydrogen cyanide in a solid support. Early forensic analysis, shortly after World War II, supports this fact. Several pseudo-scientific reports, most notably by Leuchter, Lüftl, and Rudolf, have attempted to shed doubt on the facts. A forensic analysis by the Institute for Forensic Research in Cracow confirms the presence of cyanide in the buildings said to have been exposed to it. The arguments made by deniers are distortions of fact. The deniers misrepresent the statistics of the dead, and misinterpret air photo evidence. The properties of hydrogen cyanide from Zyklon B are consistent with its use as an agent of mass murder. The fact that Prussian blue is prevalent in delousing facilities but not in homicidal chambers is not evidence that no gassings occurred. In fact, Prussian-blue formation is extremely sensitive to conditions, and it is quite reasonable that Prussian blue formed in the delousing chambers but not all of the gas chambers used for murder. It is easier to tell a lie than to prove a lie to be incorrect; nevertheless, accurate information and not censorship is the best response.
Leuchter did postgraduate work at the Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. He holds patents on the design of sextants, surveying instruments and optical encoding equipment.
I'd like to see the details of post-grad work..
around here, even a second rate university..
you come in with a degree in psychology, and you want a grad degree in physics..
you MUST.. ABSOLUTELY.. meet MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS of education up to a graduate level.. in physics.
Otherwise, they won't admit you..
"they" will not allow you to circumvent two years of really, really hard work.. and reward you with graduate "opportunities".. unless you, as a "lowly" history major, GO BACK.. and complete practically the same kind of course work that would entitle you to a degree in physics..
I'm in a mathematics curriculum. Believe me.. the third and fourth year classes separate the men from the boys, so to speak..
I really don't have a whole heck of a lot of respect for someone who wants the title.. vainly tries to substitute a curriculum of what they can do vs. what they can't..
*mr* leuchter said he didn't have the opportunity to to acquire a degree in SOME kind of engineering at the school he attended..
and it was a bald faced lie..
they offered three different engineering programs..
sure.. the most prestigious university you can think of is gonna skip the requirements for a guy who has a vested interest in death..
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
28
116
58
24
Popular Days
Jun 23
24
Sep 26
22
Sep 25
20
Sep 21
18
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 28 posts
Ham 116 posts
What The Hey 58 posts
doojable 24 posts
Popular Days
Jun 23 2005
24 posts
Sep 26 2007
22 posts
Sep 25 2007
20 posts
Sep 21 2007
18 posts
Popular Posts
Catcup
Absolutely.
Catcup
This was exactly my experience. I sat in the same meetings and heard Martindale make the same exclamation: That the Jews of today are no more Jews than the Apache Indians. And yes, the Holocaust wa
Catcup
A slippery slope indeed, Tref.
Posted Images
doojable
WAIT! What...?!
There's no question in that quote. At least there was no question about "what motivates a revisionist." Are you sure you know how to read what's written?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
If "revisionism" indicates the attempt to explore and understand evidence that things didn't happen according to the official and/or accepted story, then why make thata bad term? That process of course is different than the promoting the "things just don't add up' theory and seeking to explain something without evidence.
I think an example of the latter is provided by the same Ian Brockwell, who makes a lining out of promoting the idea that the official or accepted isnt the truth, often not by presenting evidence that it isn't, but by merely questioning the accepted ideas with "Do you really believe it could have happened this way?" questions, then presenting his own ideas, again without evidence. An example from a discourse my Mr. Brockwell on UFOs...
"Aliens perhaps play a bigger part in our lives that anyone can possibly imagine, let’s take a closer look at life on this planet. It is a popular belief that all life
originated from the sea, but doesn’t it seem strange that this theory of evolution can produce enormous dinosaurs, birds, fish and thousands of other creatures (in
our ancient past), yet humans, the dominant species on our planet, only arrived a couple of million years ago?
How can a new species (humans) just suddenly appear and develop so quickly, unless some “outside force” had some involvement in our present success?
I have my own theory on this, and believe that probably all the creatures on our planet were brought here from other worlds, perhaps planets that faced total
destruction as Earth will one day. Is it so difficult to believe that some very advanced alien race protects primitive creatures like us throughout the
universe? Clearly, if such beings exist, they would have the power to destroy us at any time, but we are still here (despite our continued efforts to destroy
ourselves), so this would suggest we may have friends in high places.
If we continue to speculate on this theory, it also means that should our planet one day encounter an “End of Times”, there is a very good chance that some of us
(not just humans) will be given an opportunity of life on a new world. This possibility and others are explored in the book “Global Warming – The Final Solution”."
My purpose is not to ridicule his theory on aliens (you can make your own judgements on that), but that it seems to be a common thread in his writings to present his theories without evidence. On the holocaust, he spends a lot of time on how those who question the accepted line are persecuted, but no time presenting evidence. His explanation as to what happened seems along the same line as his "I have my own theory on this..."regarding how our Earth was populated by aliens, without presenting any evidence.
Of course, if his theory is right, what have we to fear, as we are all aliens. Of course, i suppose we could be attacked by other aliens wanting to fight us for the planet.
seriously, I find it hard to accept the "revisionism" of someone who makes his living, his bread and butter, by questioning accepted ideas. Not that I am opposed to seeking out the truth and arguing against the accepted explanation when there is evidence to do so. But he apparently automatically has to question the accepted, evidence or not, to make a living.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
or to have a shot at some kind of twisted "moghood" among the history stars..
Maybe guys like Faurrison.. do they think that perhaps, generations in the future, will honor or revere their name, like Galileo?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Lifted_Up,
That's sort of why I stopped respecting the offshoots of TWI. Any ministry that claims to be a "research and teaching ministry" basically finds themselves asking questions for the sole purpose of justifying their existence. Eventually the honest questions are used up and questionable doctrines are sought out and "researched" - of course they can ALWAYS say, "We just discovered this..." (It wasn't really 2 it was 4. Goliath was really hit in his knee and not his forehead...)
It's one thing to question history. It's quite another thing to only look for answers that have not already been provided. It seems that is as dishonest a claim as the revisionists make against those they oppose.
Then to make these claims and have nothing to back them up...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
But that's the key, Lifted. Holocaust 'revisionists' don't come from the honest standpoint of considering all the facts. They try to portray it in that light, as tho' they want to get beyond 'the party line' and face the objective truth. But they do't. Know how I know this?
I've gone to many revisionist sites, and talked to quite a few of revisionists, and the one nagging and consistant characteristic that keeps popping up is their distrust and even hatred of the Jews. Not certain Jewish individuals or even the Isreali government; the Jews. Period! They have this deep running theme of either Jews are trying to run the world, or take over the U.S. government, or are heading up all of the world banks, or are running Hollywood, or (from the religious angle) they are the ones who are guilty of killing Christ. Crap like that. And that always pops up sooner or later. They are biased and bigoted against Jewish people, even when they try to deny it. "Some of my best friends are Jews" is one such refrain of denial.
And THAT is what keeps them from being seriously considered as objective historians as regards the Holocaust or anything else related. Whenever WTH talks about Jews, it is *always* with derision and even contempt (except of course if he's talking about certain Jewish 'scholars' who agree with him re: the Holocaust, and even then I imagine he's holding his nose when he does that <_< ).
As a result, they are the ones promoting the "things just don't add up" theory and seeking to explain something without evidence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Yep.. next time I hear "some of my best friends are Jews", I'll ask.. "name a few".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Oh my, just how wrong can one be? Revisionists DO have scientific and physical evidence to back up their claims. What they have evidence for I have boldfaced below. (The sources are cited in parenthesis.) The truth is, more and more historians and engineers have been challenging the widely accepted Auschwitz story. These "revisionist" scholars do not dispute the fact that large numbers of Jews were deported to the camp, or that many died there, particularly of typhus and other diseases. But the compelling evidence they present shows that Auschwitz was not an extermination center, and that the story of mass killings in "gas chambers" is a myth.
A key Holocaust document is the "confession" of former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss of April 5, 1946. Although "it is still widely cited as solid proof for the Auschwitz extermination story", it is actually a false statement that was obtained by torture. Many years after the war, British military intelligence sergeant Bernard Clarke described how he and five other British soldiers tortured the former commandant to obtain his "confession." Höss himself privately explained his ordeal in these words: "Certainly, I signed a statement that I killed two and half million Jews. I could just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not." (Source: Rupert Butler, Legions of Death (England: 1983), pp. 235; R. Faurisson, The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87, pp. 389-403.)
Even historians who generally accept the Holocaust extermination story now acknowledge that many of the specific statements made in the Höss "affidavit" are simply not true. For one thing, no serious scholar now claims that anything like two and a half or three million people perished in Auschwitz. The Höss "affidavit" further alleges that Jews were already being exterminated by gas in the summer of 1941 at three other camps: Belzec, Treblinka and Wolzek. The "Wolzek" camp mentioned by Höss is a total invention. No such camp existed, and the name is no longer mentioned in Holocaust literature. Moreover, the story these days by those who believe in the Holocaust legend is that gassings of Jews did not begin at Auschwitz, Treblinka, or Belzec until sometime in 1942.
At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. This figure, which was invented by the Soviets, was uncritically accepted for many years. It often appeared in major American newspapers and magazines, for example. (Source: Nuremberg document 008-USSR. IMT blue series, Vol. 39, pp. 241, 261.; NC & A red series, vol. 1, p. 35.; C.L. Sulzberger, "Oswiecim Killings Placed at 4,000,000," New York Times, May 8, 1945, and, New York Times, Jan. 31, 1986, p. A4. )
Today no reputable historian, not even those who generally accept the extermination story, believes this figure. Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer said in 1989 that it is time to finally acknowledge the familiar four million figure is a deliberate myth. In July 1990 the Auschwitz State Museum in Poland, along with Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust Center, suddenly announced that altogether perhaps one million people (both Jews and non-Jews) died there. Neither institution would say how many of these people were killed, nor were any estimates given of the numbers of those supposedly gassed. (Source: Y. Bauer, "Fighting the Distortions," Jerusalem Post (Israel), Sept. 22, 1989; "Auschwitz Deaths Reduced to a Million," Daily Telegraph (London), July 17, 1990; "Poland Reduces Auschwitz Death Toll Estimate to 1 Million," The Washington Times, July 17, 1990.)
It is often claimed that all Jews at Auschwitz who were unable to work were immediately killed. Jews who were too old, young, sick, or weak were supposedly gassed on arrival, and only those who could be worked to death were temporarily kept alive. But the evidence shows that, in fact, a very high percentage of the Jewish inmates were not able to work, and were nevertheless not killed. For example, an internal German telex message dated Sept. 4, 1943, from the chief of the Labor Allocation department of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA), reported that of 25,000 Jewish inmates in Auschwitz, only 3,581 were able to work, and that all of the remaining Jewish inmates -- some 21,500, or about 86 percent -- were unable to work. (Source: Archives of the Jewish Historical Institute of Warsaw, German document No. 128, in: H. Eschwege, ed., Kennzeichen J (East Berlin: 1966), p. 264.)
The Auschwitz gassing story is based in large part on the hearsay statements of former Jewish inmates who did not personally see any evidence of extermination. Their beliefs are understandable, because rumors about gassings at Auschwitz were widespread. Allied planes dropped large numbers of leaflets, written in Polish and German, on Auschwitz and the surrounding areas which claimed that people were being gassed in the camp. The Auschwitz gassing story, which was an important part of the Allied wartime propaganda effort, was also broadcast to Europe by Allied radio stations. (Source: Nuremberg document NI-11696. NMT green series, Vol. 8, p. 606.)
Of course, we also have survivor testimony. Former inmates have confirmed that they saw no evidence of extermination at Auschwitz. An Austrian woman, Maria Vanherwaarden, testified about her camp experiences in a Toronto District Court in March 1988. She was interned in Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1942 for having sexual relations with a Polish forced laborer. On the train trip to the camp, a Gypsy woman told her and the others that they would all be gassed at Auschwitz.
Upon arrival, Maria and the other women were ordered to undress and go into a large concrete room without windows to take a shower. The terrified women were sure that they were about to die. But then, instead of gas, water came out of the shower heads. Auschwitz was no vacation center, Maria confirmed. She witnessed the death of many fellow inmates by disease, particularly typhus, and quite a few committed suicide. But she saw no evidence at all of mass killings, gassings, or of any extermination program. (Source: Testimony in Toronto District Court, March 28, 1988. Toronto Star, March 29, 1988, p. A2.)
America's leading gas chamber expert, Boston engineer Fred A. Leuchter, carefully examined the supposed "gas chambers" in Poland and concluded that the Auschwitz gassing story is absurd and technically impossible. Leuchter is the foremost specialist on the design and installation of gas chambers used in the United States to execute convicted criminals. For example, he designed a gas chamber facility for the Missouri state penitentiary.
In February 1988 he carried out a detailed onsite examination of the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek in Poland, which are either still standing or only partially in ruins. In sworn testimony to a Toronto court and in a technical report, Leuchter described every aspect of his investigation. He concluded by emphatically declaring that the alleged gassing facilities could not possibly have been used to kill people. Among other things, he pointed out that the so-called "gas chambers" were not properly sealed or vented to kill human beings without also killing German camp personnel. (Source: The Leuchter Report: An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek (Toronto: 1988).)
There is plenty of evidence the Holocaust revisionist's have that support their claims. Due to time contraints, I won't take the time to post or list them all, such as: Telltale aerial photos, absurd cremation claims, German Camp regulations, and the fact that [Heinrich Himmler] had ordered that the death rate absolutely must be reduced. As I stated in an earlier post: The only way a bee can escape from a spiders web is when the main threads of that web have been broken. The story of the Holocaust has proven itself to be a web woven from lies and deceit. It's main purpose is to extort only more $$$ from people still caught in it's web.
Today, nearly everyone has heard of Auschwitz, the German wartime concentration camp where many prisoners -- most of them Jewish -- were reportedly exterminated, especially in gas chambers. Auschwitz is still widely regarded as the most terrible Nazi extermination center. The camp's horrific reputation cannot, however, be reconciled with the facts. The Auschwitz extermination story originated as wartime propaganda. Now, more than 40 years after the end of the Second World War, it is time to take another, more objective look at this highly polemicized chapter of history.
The Auschwitz legend is at the core of the Holocaust story.
If hundreds of thousands of Jews were not systematically killed there, as alleged, then one of the great myths of our time collapses.
Artificially maintaining the hatreds and passions of the past only prevents genuine reconciliation and lasting peace.
Holocaust Revisionism promotes historical awareness and International understanding. That is why Holocaust Revisionism is so important, and - it deserves your support - not scorn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Sorry, he's not an engineer. Doesn't even have an engineering degree. Hasn't done any of the post grad engineering study either.
"Foremost" means "most qualified".
A person has to be "qualified" first.
I've read a few self-help books about plumbing, electrical.. doesn't make me a plumber..
Leuchter has been described by at least one of his "notable" colleagues as a "simpleton"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
THAT line alone ought to give you cause to think and wonder WHY?...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Try adding "The earth is flat, and the story of Magellan circumnavigating the globe is a myth" to that. You might as well, as it is consistant with the rest of the insanity you post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
True.
Large numbers of detainees are admitted to have lost their lives as the result of being detained in that place and time.
Compare that to ANY prison in the US in the 20th century. Someone will drop dead eventually, but LARGE NUMBERS?
Typhus isn't exactly a common disease, either.
Admitting large numbers of people died- but the METHOD of death seems to be obscured.
"They weren't executed-they died of gross neglect."
I also note that all the known executions at the OTHER sites isn't being challenged-
it's as if the Holocaust denier he's quoting only knows the most FAMOUS site.
I never sat down to study their names, for example, and even I can rattle off the name Dachau as well.
Then again, Dachau was a "concentration camp" (designated specifically for imprisonment),
and Auschwitz was an "extermination camp/death camp" (designated specifically for mass executions of prisoners),
and neither was a "forced labour camp" (designated specifically to employ prisoners as workers).
Any of them COULD kill you, but extermination camps had that as their PRIMARY purpose.
The exact numbers of prisoners and executions in Auschwitz-Berkenau (aka "Auschwitz) cannot be reached precisely
due to lack of the original records. (Tinfoil hats, naturally, will say the Allies had the records and destroyed them.)
However, there's been different estimates using different figures, and the numbers given by that commandant were only
one set, with one derivation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp
"The exact number of victims at Auschwitz is impossible to fix with certainty. Since Germans destroyed a number of records, immediate efforts to count the dead depended on the testimony of witnesses and the defendants on trial at Nuremberg. While under interrogation Rudolf Höß, commandant of Auschwitz concentration camp from 1940 to 1943, said that two and a half million Jews had been killed in gas chambers and about half a million died "naturally". Later he wrote "I regard two and a half million far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive possibilities". The Auschwitz Death Book, recently uncovered in Soviet archives, is an example of logged records (pertaining only to registered inmates), but other examples of collected figures are scarce.
Communist Soviet and Polish authorities maintained a figure "between 2.5 and 4 million". The figure "4,000,000" was used on the original Auschwitz memorial plaques. The plaques did not specify the ethnicities of victims.
In 1983 , French scholar George Wellers was one of the first to use German data on deportations to estimate the number killed at Auschwitz, arriving at 1.613 million dead, including 1.44 million Jews and 146,000 Catholic Poles. A larger study started around the same time by Franciszek Piper used time tables of train arrivals combined with deportation records to calculate 1.1 million Jewish deaths and 140,000-150,000 ethnic Polish victims, along with 23,000 Roma & Sinti (Gypsies). This number has met with "significant, though not complete" agreement among scholars."
Of course, those are just the figures for Auschwitz-Birkenau, and not ALL the death-camps.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
My point is - not only did people die from neglect, typhus and other "stuff," ...
WHY DOES IT NOT CAUSE YOU TO WONDER WHY SO MANY JEWS WERE INCARCERATED???
THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS A TELLING FACT.
Unless of course, you've got your trusty rose-colored glasses on...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
As a related story, Brig General Feliz Sparks, commander of the battalion that liberated Dachau died last week. His burial was today.
http://www.cobar.org/tcl/tcl_articles.cfm?ArticleID=1277
and:
http://www.remember.org/witness/sparks.html
Several HUNDRED CAMPS!!!!!!! jiminy, there was death, lots of it. Brutal, horrid, and raciall/ ethnically inspired. that's all I need to know. My grandfather arrived at Auschwitz a few weeks after the liberation. He also to his death was shaken by what he had seen.
~HAP
Edited by HAPe4meLink to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
While the court statement was as cited, Hoess was interrogated prior to this. Below are excerpts from that interrogation, and explanation regarding Wolzek, which likely was actually Sobibor
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/wolzek-paradox/
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I remember once questioning the numbers, just based on how much effort that would have taken from the war effort. But it seems all the effort to imprison or exterminate the jews did hurt the war effort for Germany.
But one million or six million seems the same to me, as far as really comprehending that many exterminated. Still I agree there is certain stigma attached if you even doubt any of the numbers ... it is like a sacrilege.
I suppose the genocide "hate crime" aspect makes it most horrible, but what of the other 65 million that died in WW2? 40 million of those were civilians. Are their children all receiving reparations from Germany, Italy, or Japan? 16 million civilians deaths in China, 11 million in the Soviet Union.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Maybe one of the reasons why the Holocaust was so horrible, even beyond the horridness if the 65 million that were killed, was because it was a big part of Hitler's deliberate and purposal goal of exterminating a certain class of people; ie., the Jewish people.
And it isn't because the Jews are better than everybody else; they're not. But when Adolph Hitler is endeavoring to exterminate a certain people due to their religion/culture, and he damn near succeeds (taking out about half of all the Jews in total), ... it exceeds your general horror of war.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
After the Leuchter Reports, Fred Leuchter had been viciously attacked for two reasons:
1) He did not have an engineering degree when he wrote his trail-blazing studies, and
2) he was paid by the Zündel Defense and, hence, considered beholden to the Revisionist point of view.
It is true that Leuchter did not have an appropriate degree. One might as well say Jesus Christ didn't have a degree in Christianity. Karl Marx did not have a degree in Marxism.
What Leuchter found can be, and has been, independently verified by engineers who have impeccable degrees.
Walter Lüftl is an Austrian engineer. He was for years president of the Austrian Chamber of Engineers, the representative body of all Austrian engineers. He was a court-approved expert frequently called to testify in engineering matters. He investigated Auschwitz and came to similar conclusions to Leuchter's. The Austrians promptly charged him criminally for stating his best engineering viewpoint - that the Auschwitz "gassing" facilities were fakes. This caused him lots of grief. As a consequence, he resigned his position. The media had a feeding frenzy. After several years, the case was quietly dropped by the state. Even worse fared young Germar Rudolf, a German scientist of the finest qualifications, with not a speck on his credentials and his record. He wrote a magnificent report. (Das Rudolf Gutachten, Cromwell Press, 1993.)
Fred Leuchter was, prior to having his career and reputation ruined by the Holocaust Promotion Lobby, a most sought-after specialist in execution type equipment in America, as per Warden Bill Armontrout, who recommended him. Warden Armontrout testified in the 1988 Zündel Trial that there was only one consultant in the United States that he knew of in the design, operation and maintenance of gas chambers, and that consultant was Fred Leuchter.
Leuchter was a highly competent, well-paid and respected man in his field - until he was ruined financially and in his reputation by the vicious attacks of the Holocaust Promotion Lobby that saw its lucrative racket, netting billions of dollars for years, challenged by the Leuchter findings. Furthermore, Leuchter was qualified by Judge Thomas as an expert witness during the Zündel trial. Any serious researcher could have verified that by checking the Zündel Trial 1988 transcripts pertaining to Leuchter's testimony[/b]. (Leuchter Testimony as summarized in Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst Zündel - 1988, Edited by Barbara Kulaszka, pp. 354-362)
Dr. Hilberg and Dr. Browning were paid by the Government of Canada for their expertise to bolster the Holocaust Promotion Lobby claim. Browning alone got almost $25,000 for testifying against Ernst Zündel - courtesy of the Canadian tax payers. Again, Germar Rudolf, a German scientist of the finest qualifications, with not a speck on his credentials and his record, his life and career are now ruined, while Browning's fortune soared.
The second charge is that Leuchter was paid by the Zündel defense - and, hence, his finding are automatically labeled to be "suspect."
Of course Fred Leuchter was paid by the Zündel defense. He was hired to go to Auschwitz in a highly dramatic, secret mission while Ernst Zündel was on trial in Toronto in 1988, fighting for his freedom and reputation. There was no time or money to scout around for someone else. He was not a "fly-by-night" specialist, as has been repeatedly claimed.
Furthermore, Leuchter stated at the outset to Zündel and his lawyer, before he ever went to Auschwitz, that he [Leuchter] believed the Auschwitz gas chamber claim, and if he found it verified, then he would state so under oath and in his report. Zündel still engaged and sent him because he was sure of his facts and counted on Leuchter's professional integrity. Leuchter went. He saw. He came back a much-enlightened man. Read what he had to say. (Leuchter, Fred A. The Leuchter Report: The How and the Why. Journal of Historical Review 9, (1989): 133-139.)
So Leuchter was paid for his work. So what? Who paid for the Pressac investigation and book? Who paid for the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation? Who paid for the study of the Zündel case condensed in a book called "Hate on Trial"? (Gabriel Weimann and Conrad Winn, Hate on Trial, Mosaic Press, Oakville, 1986)
Do these two facts, that Leuchter was paid, and that Leuchter did not have the necessary "rubber stamps" to do the work he did negate scientific findings that can be double-checked and verified? When Leuchter was asked what stood in the way of someone being paid to malign his (Leuchter's) scientific findings, Leuchter stated simply:
"Anyone who would do that would risk his professional standing."
Will there be highly reputable professionals in the engineering field willing to come forward and replicate what Leuchter did?
We will just have to see. The truth is, revisionist reality is pretty grim. Right now in Germany, if a scientist verifies the Leuchter findings, that scientist loses his job and goes to prison. For this reason alone, you won't see too many people volunteering to tramp to Auschwitz with their own engineering gear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/l/leucht...as-witness.html
I'd say if anybody "ruined" him, he did it to himself. He had a perfect scam in the US, claiming he was some kind of expert.. to the extent they even let him maintain said equipment once in a while.
Of course, after this publicity, they called him on the credentials. It would be like finding your neurosurgeon was really the janitor at the hospital..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I personally have at least five or six times the amount of classes, training, and experience in mathmatics, chemistry and physics than *mr* leuchter has..
In math, about twenty times.. in electronics, probably about a hundred times as much..
and even with that, I couldn't honestly call myself an engineer either.
They'd run me off the witness stand about ANYTHING toxicological before I could catch my breath..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., is the foremost expert on the design and fabrication of hardware, including homicidal gas chambers, used to execute convicted criminals in the United States. After receiving a Bachelor's degree (in history) from Boston University in 1964, Leuchter did postgraduate work at the Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. He holds patents on the design of sextants, surveying instruments and optical encoding equipment.
Leuchter designed and maintained gas chambers for several U.S. penal institutions. He was sent by Ernst Zündel to investigate Auschwitz, Majdanek, Dachau, Hartheim and other alleged "Nazi Death Camps" and "gassing facilities." Author of the devastating series of Leuchter Reports. (I, II, III, IV) and many articles and videotaped presentations that resulted from these investigations.
As was previously stated, [Leuchter] believed the Auschwitz gas chamber claim, and if he found it verified, then he would state so under oath and in his report. Leuchter went. He saw. He came back a much-enlightened man. His conclusions were clear: the evidence was overwhelming that there were no execution gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek and that the alleged gas chambers at these sites could not have been, then or now, utilized or seriously considered to function as execution gas chambers.
Leuchter was blacklisted in the U.S. and hounded by the Holocaust lobby and the world's lapdog media. He was arrested and jailed in Germany while visiting there to appear on a television show. As a result of intense Jewish pressure, Leuchter lost his livelihood. Since making known his findings, he also has been libelled, slandered, and financially ruined.
As was also previously stated: What Leuchter found can be, and has been, independently verified by engineers who have impeccable degrees. I also find H20 will produce water, yet I don't claim to have a degree in Chemistry. Why believe Jesus Christ? He certainly didn't have a degree in Christianity.
Let me put it this way. Will any engineer come forward today to substantiate or discredit any of Fred A. Leuchter's claims? Right now in Germany, if a scientist verifies the Leuchter findings, that scientist loses his job and goes to prison. For this reason alone, you won't see too many people (specifically engineers) volunteering to tramp to Auschwitz with their own engineering gear.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Would it seem too imposing of me to ask for some sort of reference for this statement?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I'd like to see the details of post-grad work..
around here, even a second rate university..
you come in with a degree in psychology, and you want a grad degree in physics..
you MUST.. ABSOLUTELY.. meet MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS of education up to a graduate level.. in physics.
Otherwise, they won't admit you..
"they" will not allow you to circumvent two years of really, really hard work.. and reward you with graduate "opportunities".. unless you, as a "lowly" history major, GO BACK.. and complete practically the same kind of course work that would entitle you to a degree in physics..
I'm in a mathematics curriculum. Believe me.. the third and fourth year classes separate the men from the boys, so to speak..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I really don't have a whole heck of a lot of respect for someone who wants the title.. vainly tries to substitute a curriculum of what they can do vs. what they can't..
*mr* leuchter said he didn't have the opportunity to to acquire a degree in SOME kind of engineering at the school he attended..
and it was a bald faced lie..
they offered three different engineering programs..
sure.. the most prestigious university you can think of is gonna skip the requirements for a guy who has a vested interest in death..
doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.