Pseudo-historians

Eriugena

Extreme scepticism is called for when approaching the event known as the holocaust. Holocaust historians are highly selective in their use of sources. For example, it is usual practise to be very selective in what is used from statements and documents. Raul Hilberg the so-called dean of holocaust studies is a prime offender in this regard. It is rare that these people are ever challenged as there are laws in many countries to protect the holocaust story from objective inquiry, what the propagandists slanderously term "holocaust denial". They assert without evidence thatanyone who questions the story in its essentials (the 6 milion and gassing) is a Nazi and/or anti-semite.

Here is a rare moment indeed. Hilberg being cross-examined by Doug Christie QC in the 1985 Toronto trial of Ernst Zundel under an obscure medieval law about "spreading false news" which was subsequently struck from the books.

*****
The topic turns to Rudolf Hoess (not to be confused with Hess) one of the three commandants of Auschwitz. Hoess was tortured by the British military police interogators and signed a statement in a language hje did not understand in which he claims to have oversen the gassing of 2.5 million people. No one on any side of this issue accepts this figure.

On the Hoess question, Hilberg shows himself to be highly selective and ignorant of all the sources:

He wrote a book in which he said he was beaten and tortured by the British, right?, asked Christie.

"I am not aware of his having said that in his book," said Hilberg. "I would be pleased to look at it." (5-955)
Christie produced the book Commandant of Auschwitz: The Autobiography of Rudolf Hoess and quoted from page 174:



At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it. [Footnote: A typewritten document of eight pages, which Hoess signed at 2:30 am on 14 March, 1946. It does not differ substantially from what he later said or wrote in Nuremberg or Cracow.]






"I am not familiar with this edition," said Hilberg. "I have the German edition... It may well be that I kept no immediate recollection of this particular passage in the German edition. I don't dispute what is stated here. It is his allegation. He said he was being beaten and that he signed a record." (5-956)



Christie referred back to the book:



Alcohol and the whip were too much for me. The whip was my own, which by chance had got into my wife's luggage. It had hardly ever touched my horse, far less the prisoners. Nevertheless, one of my interrogators was convinced that I had perpetually used it for flogging the prisoners.



After some days I was taken to Minden-on-the-Weser, the main interrogation centre in the British Zone. There I received further rough treatment at the hands of the English public prosecutor, a major.




"It appears from what you read that he did consider himself to have been beaten with his own whip," said Hilberg.



Right, said Christie. And he didn't understand what he was signing but he signed it anyway.

"That appears what appears to be said there, yes," said Hilberg

.

Hilberg does not dispute it - he even concedes that he may have seen this passage before - yet never for a moment casts doubts upon the value of the Hoess statement in any of his writings. A statement made under coditions of torture and in a language he did not understand. Quite astonishing in one who claims to be a historian, standard procedure for a propagandist however.


On the Pohl allegations see http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Weberb.html

the sources are all given in the notes.

One of the most important and revealing Nuremberg cases is that of Oswald Pohl, the wartime head of the vast SS agency (WVHA) that ran the German concentration camps. After his capture in 1946, he was taken to Nenndorf where British soldiers tied him to a chair and beat him unconscious. He lost two teeth in repeated beatings.89 He was then transferred to Nuremberg, where American military officials intensively interrogated him for more than half a year in sessions that lasted for hours. Altogether there were about 70 such sessions. During this period he had no access to an attorney or any other help. He was never formally charged with anything, nor even told precisely why he was being interrogated.
In a statement written after he was sentenced to death at Nuremberg in November 1947 by the American military court ("Concentration Camp" Case No. 4), Pohl described his treatment.90 He reported that although he was generally not physically mistreated in Nuremberg as he had been at Nenndorf, he was nevertheless subjected to the less noticeable but, as he put it, "in their own way much more brutal emotional tortures."

American interrogators (most of them Jews) accused Pohl of killing 30 million people and of condemning ten million people to death. The interrogators themselves knew very well that such accusations were lies and tricks meant to break down his resistance, Pohl declared. "Because I am not emotionally thick-skinned, these diabolical intimidations were not without effect, and the interrogators achieved what they wanted: not the truth, but rather statements that served their needs," he wrote.

Pohl was forced to sign false and self-incriminating affidavits written by prosecution officials that were later used against him in his own trial. As he recalled:



Whenever genuine documents did not correspond to what the prosecution authorities wanted or were insufficient for the guilty sentences they sought, "affidavits" were put together. The most striking feature of these remarkable trial documents is that the accused often condemned themselves in them. That is understandable only to those who have themselves experienced the technique by which such "affidavits" are obtained.






He and other defendants were "destroyed" with these affidavits, which "contain provable errors of fact regarding essential points," Pohl wrote. Among the false statements signed by Pohl was one that incriminated former Reichsbank President Walter Funk, whom the Nuremberg Tribunal eventually sentenced to life imprisonment.91



American officials also made use of false witnesses at Nuremberg, Pohl wrote:



Whenever these productions [affidavits] were not enough to produce the result sought by the prosecuting authorities, they marched out their so-called 'star witnesses,' or rather, paid witnesses ... A whole string of these shady, wretched characters played their contemptible game at Nuremberg. They included high government officials, generals and intellectuals as well as prisoners, mental defectives and real hardened criminals ... During the WVHA trial [of Pohl] a certain Otto appeared from a mental institution as a "star witness." His previous lifestyle would have been considered exemplary by any hardened criminal. The same is true of prosecution witness Krusial who presented the most spectacular fairy tales to the court under oath, which were naturally believed ...






Pohl also protested that defense attorneys were not allowed free access to the German wartime documents, which the prosecution was able to find and use without hindrance:





For almost two years the prosecution authorities could make whatever use they wanted of the many crates of confiscated documentary and archival material they had at their disposal. But the same access right was refused to the German defendants despite their repeated efforts ... This meant a tremendous or even complete paralysis and hindrance of the defense cases for the accused, for those crates also contained the exonerating material that the prosecution authorities were able to keep from being presented to the court. And that is called "proper" procedure.






Because Pohl held the rank of general in the German armed forces, his treatment by the British and Americans was illegal according to the international agreements on the treatment of prisoners of war.



"As result of the brutal physical mistreatment in Nenndorf and my treatment in Nuremberg, I was emotionally a completely broken man," he wrote. "I was 54 years old. For 33 years I had served by country without dishonor, and I was unconscious of any crime."

Pohl summed up the character of the postwar trials of German leaders:



It was obvious during the Dachau trials, and it also came out unmistakably and only poorly disguised during the Nuremberg trials, that the prosecution authorities, among whom Jews predominated, were driven by blind hatred and obvious lust for revenge. Their goal was not the search for truth but rather the annihilation of as many adversaries as possible.






To an old friend Pohl wrote: "As one of the senior SS leaders I had never expected to be left unmolested. No more, however, did I expect a death sentence. It is a sentence of retribution."92



He was hanged on June 7, 1951. In his final plea to the Nuremberg court, Pohl expressed his faith that one day blind hysteria would give way to just understanding:93

Eriugena

Emil Lachout was a lieutenant in the Military Police Service in Austria in 1948. His job was to accompany the Military Police and members of the Allied War Crimes Commission during the arrests of alleged war criminals to ensure that the suspects were not tortured or abused. Lachout was also involved in the investigation of the Austrian camps, including Mauthausen. (29-7890 to 7895) In 1944, Lachout had been a member of the German Military Police. (29-7948)

The Allied War Crimes Commission was composed of two military police investigators from each country and two Austrian observers, himself and Major Müller. It had been formed as a result of Allied mistreatment of alleged war criminals in such trials as Malmédy where it had been proved that false statements were extracted by torture. The Allies wanted to prevent such things from happening again. (29-7895 to 7897) The Commission was disbanded in 1949, and was reconstituted thereafter only for individual cases. (7901)

Lachout personally saw instances of tortured Allied prisoners. He talked to them privately and had to "break the ice" in order to get statements from them. Sometimes the men didn't dare to speak because they suspected an Allied officer was there as well. On the basis of his observations, Lachout had instructed that the men be examined by doctors; it was clear that the men had been tortured. (29-7960)

The Commission conducted an investigation, in which Lachout was involved, into the allegation that a gas chamber had been used in Mauthausen. It concluded that there were no gas chambers in the camp. In the investigations he was involved in, they found that many of the accusations made, particularly by former concentration camp inmates, were false. (29-7897, 7898)

Although Lachout was not personally involved in the investigations of camps in Germany, his office received documentation from the War Crime Commissions located there, pursuant to which he freed prisoners who had been wrongly accused and imprisoned. (29-7951)

Christie produced a copy of a Circular Letter of the Military Police Service dated October 1, 1948 which Lachout read to the court:





Military Police Service Copy





Circular Letter No. 31/48 Vienna, 1 Oct. 1948 10th dispatch

1. The Allied Commissions of Inquiry have so far established that no people were killed by poison gas in the following concentration camps: Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Flossenbürg, Gross-Rosen, Mauthausen and its satellite camps, Natzweiler, Neuengamme, Niederhagen (Wewelsburg), Ravensbrück, Sachsenhausen, Stutthof, Theresienstadt.

In those cases, it has been possible to prove that confessions had been extracted by tortures and that testimonies were false.

This must be taken into account when conducting investigations and interrogations with respect to war crimes.

The result of this investigation should be brought to the cognizance of former concentration camp inmates who at the time of the hearings testified on the murder of people, especially Jews, with poison gas in those concentration camps. Should they insist on their statements, charges are to be brought against them for making false statements.

2. In the C.L. (Circular Letter) 15/48, item 1 is to be deleted.

The Head of the MPS Müller, Major" Certified true copy: Lachout, Second Lieutenant






Lachout testified that he had drafted this letter for Major Müller's signature and had watched him sign it. He had then had copies made in the office which he certified, signed and stamped. The letter was translated into three languages and confirmed by the controlling officer. Only then was it allowed to be issued. (29-7954, 7957) The letter was circulated to every military Kommando in the Russian zone to keep personnel aware of the state of investigations. No one was ever charged with making false statements because they withdrew their statements as soon as they heard about the letter. (29-7900, 7901)





In September 1987, Lachout was approached by representatives of the President of Austria, shown the original Müller document, and asked if he was the person who signed it. Lachout checked his own records and certified in District Court, Vienna, on October 27, 1987, that the signature on the document was his. (29-7946; Müller letter entered as Exh. 120)

****
And yet Hilberg likes to maintain that he knows nothing about the torture of German prisoners beyond some rumours.

"It is, to me, a little bit inconceivable that by 1947 or 8 prisoners in a war crimes trial under American custody, American military police, would have been tortured in a physical sense."

Lachout's report is dated 1948.
Hilberg contradicts himself:

Christie suggested to Hilberg that these types of documents were not rare and that torture was common; that people such as Franz Ziereis, Rudolf Hoess, Hoettl, Konrad Morgen, Josef Kramer and Erich von Manstein were tortured.
"All the names you have mentioned are familiar to me. The allegation of torture, in most of the cases that you have just indicated, are not familiar to me," said Hilberg.

You haven't looked into just what degree of voluntariness was involved in these statements, correct?, asked Christie.

"No, no. I am, of course, interested in how much a particular affidavit can be trusted. At the very outset I pointed out that my principal reliance was on documents, that my secondary reliance, where the documents do not speak for themselves or sufficiently so, is upon statements. I handle all such statements, whether [delivered] under the freest circumstances or under constraint, with the utmost of care." (5-966)

First he takes a blase attitude towards thse torture reports suggesting that it is all news to him, then he claims to take the upmost care in his handling of these statements. Clearly not! He admits these reports are not familiar to him.

Hilberg considered to be "largely false" the allegations of the booklet that the Nuremberg trials were the result of torture and were based on pre-conceived notions of guilt.

Then how can he make such a claim if he admits that he has not taken up the question of the how these affadavits were extracted?

Emil Lachout was the seventeenth witness called by the defence in the Second Zundel Trial in Toronto. He testified on April 11 and 12, 1988
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/29lachout.html

From these few examples we can see how highly selective this distinguished and much-hailed "historian" of the holocaust shows himself to be.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

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


Emil Lachout was the seventeenth witness called by the defence in the Second Zundel Trial in Toronto. He testified on April 11 and 12, 1988
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/29lachout.html

From these few examples we can see how highly selective this distinguished and much-hailed "historian" of the holocaust shows himself to be.

So what? I am not discussing that. I am asking if you deny people were executed in WWII by the Nazis in an organised way and certain groups were singled out?

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

Extreme scepticism is called for when approaching the event known as the holocaust. [snip]

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

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

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

The Lachout Document
Anatomy of a Forgery
Austrian Resistance Archives, 1990
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/austrian/austrian-resistance-archives/ld-14.html

More on Lachout
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/austrian/austrian-resistance-archives/lachout-document.html

Independently verifiable references to this can be found at :
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/austrian/austrian-resistance-archives/ld-16.html

If you have any problems with the references then please state them.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

So what? I am not discussing that. I am asking if you deny people were executed in WWII by the Nazis in an organised way and certain groups were singled out?

This is the first time you are asking me that question. So are you downgrading the claim from extermination to execution?

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Eriugena wrote:

Extreme scepticism is called for when approaching the event known as the holocaust. [snip]

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

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

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Eriugena wrote:

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

The Lachout Document
Anatomy of a Forgery
Austrian Resistance Archives, 1990
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/austrian/austrian-resistance-archives/ld-14.html

More on Lachout
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/austrian/austrian-resistance-archives/lachout-document.html

Independently verifiable references to this can be found at :
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/austrian/austrian-resistance-archives/ld-16.html

If you have any problems with the references then please state them.

Big problems. Typical Nizkor - they don't tell us that Lachout won damages against the commission in the early 90's after proceedings against him were dropped. They don't update the story after 1990.

This is clearly an unbiased source, yes?
by
Brigitte Bailer-Galanda
Wilhelm Lasek
Wolfgang Neugebauer
Gustav Spann

Financially Supported by
ISAAC ZIERING FOUNDATION

I particularly enjoyed this piece of shameless hypcorisy from Nizkor:

Whenever a new document is discovered, historical methodology demands that the document's authenticity be checked first. This is just as mandatory for contemporary history as it is for older historical periods. In our age of carbon copies or photocopies, a document's genuiness is generally proven by matching it with an authenticated original, or, lacking that, by tracing the path of the document to the issuing authority or institution. Neither method was possible in the case of the Lachout "document".

This is precisley what they never do for documents that suits their story. And when a revisionist syas that they are screamed at and called nazis and antisemites.
For example the infamous Einsatzgruppen reports are all 'certified true copies' yet no one has ever seen the originals. If you trace their source back it leads to the Soviets who claimed to have found them in Getsapo HQ in Berlin. The Soviets are the earliest known source for these. But the Nizwits never for a moment apply the standards they describe above to those.
So I suppose you know what you can do with that Nizkor stuff?

robindch

> are you suggsting there was no Nazi plan to remove jews
> gypsies etc. from society (and I mean through killing them
> off [...]

The standard holocaust-denier/Nazi apologist line on plans for mass-extermination is that:

1. Either the alleged victims didn't exist (and for example, around 90-odd percent of jews in Holland certainly did stop existing during the war; one of the reasons why there's now a provision within Dutch law requiring civil service documents to be destroyed immediately in the event of an invasion)

2. That they were the, er, happy recipients of some public-spirited mass deporartion [...] towards the east, presumably to set up shop on the pleasant banks of the Volga, or perhaps elsewhere.

> Nazi Jewish policy was not as high on the agenda as you like to believe. [...]
> Holocaust historians are highly selective in their use of sources.

Well, lets go back to the words of one Adolf Hitler, lest anybody forget the instigator of WWII and the slaughter which attended it, who is on record from Mein Kampf -- his encomium to hatred, which is as rambling, sick, incoherent, bland and vicious as he was -- with the following few quotes. You'll forgive me if I don't bother to include any more, as I find that reading through this malevolent drivel to be quite nauseating:

• Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little jew who was often blinded by the sudden light. (part 1, chapter 2)
• For the jewish peril will be stamped out the moment the general public come into possession of that book i]'The protocols of Zion', a kak-handed piece of Tsarist propaganda[/i and understand it. (part 1, chap 11)
• The jew is pictured as the incarnation of Satan and the symbol of evil. (part 1, chapter 11)
• The black-haired jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end, satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspicious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from the bosom of her ownpeople (part 1, chapter 11)
• The jews were responsible for bringing negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the jew might dominate. For as long as a people remain racially pure and are conscious of the treasure of their blood, they can never be overcome by the jew. Never in this world can the jew become master of any people except a bastardized people. (part 1, chapter 11)
• In that country i]Russia[/i the jew killed or starved thirty millions of the people, in a bout of savage fanaticism and partly by the employment of inhuman torture. (part 1, chapter 11)
• While the international World-jew is slowly but surely strangling us, our so-called patriots vociferate against a man and his system i]Hitler, of course[/i which have had the courage to liberate themselves from the shackles of jewish Freemasonry at least in one quarter of the globe and to set the forces of national resistance against the international world-poison. (part 2, chapter 6)
• [...] the jew is destroying the racial basis of our existence and thereby annihilating our people. [...] I pray with all my heart: "Lord, preserve us [...] and then we can easily deal with our enemies." (part 2, chapter 10)
• The National Socialist Movement must see to it that at least in our own country the mortal enemy is recognized and that the fight against him may be a beacon light pointing to a new and better period for other nations as well as showing the way of salvation for Aryan humanity in the struggle for its existence. (part 2, chapter 13)

...and so on for several hundred pages of excruciatingly obnoxious and extraordinarily inarticulate gibberish.

- robin.

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

...and so on for several hundred pages of excruciatingly obnoxious and extraordinarily inarticulate gibberish.

- robin.

That pretty much describes your posting activities on these threads. I don't see any proof for the existence of homocidal gas chambers in any of that MK stuff.

Care to address the topic of this thread? No? Didn't think you would.

robindch

> That pretty much describes your posting activities
> on these threads.

Oohhh, miaow! Somebody's in a bad mood this evening

> I don't see any proof for the existence of homocidal
> gas chambers in any of that MK stuff.

Your review of Hitlerite material will no doubt have shown you that Mein Kampf was written before Hitler's administration constructed them. Which means that Main Kampf couldn't have included references to them, since they didn't exist. Furthermore, I've little doubt, should such references have been included by this psycopathic demon in any of his deeply disturbed scratchings, that a hissing cloud of Nazi apologists would appear to dispute the meaning of 'gas', 'chamber', or perhaps, 'anti-semite' or the existence of a strong and binding thread of anti-semitism within in the Nazi party.

> Care to address the topic of this thread?

I addressed the thread topic of "pseudo-historians", with specific reference to your assertion that "it is usual practise to be very selective in what is used from statements and documents", by referencing the writings of Hitler himself and, of course, I apologise if the contents of this particular source document has upset you, as indeed, it would most people.

- robin.

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

> That pretty much describes your posting activities
> on these threads.

Oohhh, miaow! Somebody's in a bad mood this evening

Ah, I couldn't resist it.

> I don't see any proof for the existence of homocidal
> gas chambers in any of that MK stuff.

Your review of Hitlerite material will no doubt have shown you that Mein Kampf was written before Hitler's administration constructed them. Which means that Main Kampf couldn't have included references to them, since they didn't exist.[/QUOTE]And so is hardly relevant to the topic of this thread.

> Care to address the topic of this thread?

I addressed the thread topic of "pseudo-historians", with specific reference to your assertion that "it is usual practise to be very selective in what is used from statements and documents", by referencing the writings of Hitler himself and, of course, I apologise if the contents of this particular source document has upset you, as indeed, it would most people. - robin.

It doesn't upset me in the least. I just don't see Hitler as a historian, pseudo or otherwise, so I wonder why he is here.

robindch

> I just don't see Hitler as a historian, pseudo or
> otherwise, so I wonder why he is here.

Perhaps, then, I should have been a bit less subtle, though heaven knows how.

In your postings, you have consistently rubbished sources, as liars, who provide evidence which undermines your point of view, and instead uncritically accepted whatever your side of the argument produces. You have also said that non-holocaust deniers are selective in their choice of source documents. I've provided you with some of Hitler's ravings which I look forward to hearing you rubbish. Though I don't think that you will, since we've been able to conclude, easily enough, from the previous thread, that you are a Nazi apologist and anti-semite and presumably in awe of Hitler's infantile and homicidal trash prose.

Instead, I expect you to declare that this posting is off topic, despite the thread topic of "pseudo-historians" and my contention that, given both your gross political bias and your total selectivity of sources, that you are a pseudo-historian.

- robin.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

ISAW wrote:

Big problems. Typical Nizkor - [snip]

So I suppose you know what you can do with that Nizkor stuff?

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

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/austrian/austrian-resistance-archives/ld-16.html


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

Readers note: In reference to the History and Philosophy of science there are ontological and epistemological issues here. What is a reference? How do we catagorise knowledge? What is a fair test? These are valid questions. Can we accept one approach to a particular event as valid and ignore it in another instance? Can we say that one mall piece of evidence is valid or invalid but ignore all the other cases? Can we say our interpretation or perception of the facts (history) is the same as the reality itself (the past)?

In the above example the suggestion is made that because some of the references are made by jewish people or by organisations supported by money paid by jews then the WHOLE of the references are not to be accepted. One must ask that if a Catholic voices an opinion on the Crusades whether this opinion is to be seriously considered (particularly when supported by independently verified evidence) or whether we can dismiss it on the basis that the author is a Christian? Do we question for example that Christians were thrown to the Lions. To be consistent in his approach Eriugena would have to suggest that we do consider that the whole idea of Christians being persecuted should be questioned. But one does not witness such strong arguments that the Crusades never happened or that the Romans never executed or persecuted Christians in an orgainised way. Might you be woindering why these arguments are not made to the degree that the denial of the WWII mass organised slaughter of Jews and others is made?

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

This is the first time you are asking me that question. So are you downgrading the claim from extermination to execution?

this is not the first time I asked a question. I am sure you are aware you didnt answer it. Are you? well you are now since I just reminded you.


I am asking you do you believe the Nazis had a hand in the execution of jews gypsies etc? do you believe they organised this extermination? Do you believe that they viewed jews gypsies and others as having less rights than what they called Aryans? they passed laws which said as much. Do you deny these laws were passed in Germany?

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

Ah, I couldn't resist it.

> I don't see any proof for the existence of homocidal
> gas chambers in any of that MK stuff.

Your review of Hitlerite material will no doubt have shown you that Mein Kampf was written before Hitler's administration constructed them. Which means that Main Kampf couldn't have included references to them, since they didn't exist.

And so is hardly relevant to the topic of this thread.


/ I believe you contradict yourself here!

You claimed (and I did not agree with the claim) that one can not seperate the jurisprudence (i.e. the syatem of laws and legal basis) from the "holocaust". But Mein Kampf outl;ined the difference between what Hitler viewed as Aryans and others. this was the Nazis basis for enacting the laws which discriminated between these groups.

I did state it is not necessary to link the two. We live in a world where people claim jews and others are not deserving of the same rights but there are not currently mass execution sites for jews (there are are genocide sites for others though). One does not necessarily have to be considered with the other as you have claimed. Nevertheless you now claim that the prior existence of a purported jurisprudence is NOT relevent to the existance of mass extermination. I would claim it is necessary but not sufficient.

In the validation of whether the act actually happened however it is NOT necessary to consider the underlying motivation. One can go to Heroshima or White Sands and determine an Atomic bomb was detonated there. It is NOT necessary to consider the motivation behind that event in order to determine whether it occurred.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

That pretty much describes your posting activities on these threads. I don't see any proof for the existence of homocidal gas chambers in any of that MK stuff.

Care to address the topic of this thread? No? Didn't think you would.

Wasnt it YOU who CHANGED the topic. You seem to wish to change the topic from whether the WWII holocaust event happened in the past to whether historians of WWII are totally correct. You are mixing up the Map with the territory. The Past is the territory.

Do you deny that the organised mass destruction of jews and others and the discrimination against them was perpretrated by Nazi Germany in and around WWII?

Do you furthrer deny that the Nazis claimed a cohertent political philosophy on which their actions were based?

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

ISAW wrote:

Big problems. Typical Nizkor - they don't tell us that Lachout won damages against the commission in the early 90's after proceedings against him were dropped. They don't update the story after 1990.

Really? Have you a reference for the Lachout damages claim? Where and when was he awarded damages? On what basis? Have you a copy of the judgement or a reference to it?

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

> I just don't see Hitler as a historian, pseudo or
> otherwise, so I wonder why he is here.

Perhaps, then, I should have been a bit less subtle, though heaven knows how.

No one could ever accuse you of subtelty.

In your postings, you have consistently rubbished sources, as liars, who provide evidence which undermines your point of view, and instead uncritically accepted whatever your side of the argument produces.

Hold on now, I have always supported such claims with evduie nce that demonstrates the particular claim. I notice you never have anything to say about that. You have not addressed the question of Hilberg's credibility based on the brief extracts above.

You have also said that non-holocaust deniers are selective in their choice of source documents.

All historians are selective, but it is a different matter when historians are selective in a dishionest way which should be clear to you if your read the Hilberg testimony above.

I've provided you with some of Hitler's ravings which I look forward to hearing you rubbish. Though I don't think that you will, since we've been able to conclude, easily enough, from the previous thread, that you are a Nazi apologist and anti-semite and presumably in awe of Hitler's infantile and homicidal trash prose.

So now you are driven to making silly insulting statements that further undermine your credibility?

Instead, I expect you to declare that this posting is off topic, despite the thread topic of "pseudo-historians" and my contention that, given both your gross political bias and your total selectivity of sources, that you are a pseudo-historian.

It is off topic. I suspect you don't want to deal with the topic because then you might have to review your beliefs and become somewhat sceptical about the holocaust story. Odd that you feel an urge to post to a sceptics group. You should set up another group called Irish Dogmatists.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Eriugena wrote:

Really? Have you a reference for the Lachout damages claim? Where and when was he awarded damages? On what basis? Have you a copy of the judgement or a reference to it?

How's your German?

Go to the end of the article. These sources show that the charges were eventually dropped. They also inform us about how in Austria, anyone who doubts the holy holocaust story is sent for psychiatric assesment. This should remind us of the Soviet Union, where anyone who doubted that it was a socialist paradise on earth was obviously and and sent to a mental hospital. I belive this was the basis of Lachout's claim.
http://www.vho.org/VffG/2003/3/Heyne422-435.html
the matter comes in a summary of Parliamentary questions
http://normative.zusammenhaenge.at/faelle/at/buergerschutz96.html
Info about the damages claim itself was given to me without citeable source, so I am asking the source for info about that. Watch this space.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Wasnt it YOU who CHANGED the topic.

No, this is a new thread about pseudo-historians and why we should be sceptical.

You seem to wish to change the topic from whether the WWII holocaust event happened in the past to whether historians of WWII are totally correct. You are mixing up the Map with the territory. The Past is the territory.

No, this thread is about dishonesty and misrepresentation of evidence.

Do you deny that the organised mass destruction of jews and others and the discrimination against them was perpretrated by Nazi Germany in and around WWII?

There are two separate questions here.
Were some groups deemed undesirable by the Nazis? Yes of course. No one disputes that.
Was there extermination of these groups? This is what is in dispute.

Do you furthrer deny that the Nazis claimed a cohertent political philosophy on which their actions were based?

There is a lot of controversy about whether or not NSDAP had a coherent ideology or not. Some think yes others no. The Nazis were not a homgeneous group all singing from the same hymn sheet. It is known that Hitler thought that Himmler's interest in the revival of Teutonic myths was pretty silly but indulged him on this to keep him happy.
For example, many of them did not subscribe to race theories, others did but denied the 'master race' notion.
This is taken from the testimony of Ohlendorf at the Einsatzgruppen trial:

Q. Very well. He was free of political pressure, and it was he who said that the master race dogma was the emotional founda- [...tion]
http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/04/NMT04-T0280.htm
founda...] tion of the Nazi movement. Do you care to comment on that, do you care to comment on the Herrenvolk, the importance of it to the Nazi movement?

A. If you were to know Gottfried Feder you would assume that he arrived at the idea of the master race from his own vanity. Outside of him and Ley and two other people, there was certainly no logic in the leadership for raising this nonsense of the master race. The office for racial politics dealing with such racial problems never represented this theory.

Many believe that NS ideology was a patchwork quilt of various ideas and influences as opposed to a coherent singular ideology. Ohlendorf's view was that it was underdeveloped and evolving.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

Ah, I couldn't resist it.

> I don't see any proof for the existence of homocidal
> gas chambers in any of that MK stuff.

Your review of Hitlerite material will no doubt have shown you that Mein Kampf was written before Hitler's administration constructed them. Which means that Main Kampf couldn't have included references to them, since they didn't exist.

And so is hardly relevant to the topic of this thread. It doesn't upset me in the least. I just don't see Hitler as a historian, pseudo or otherwise, so I wonder why he is here.[/QUOTE]

You thesis here that Hitler had no pre war plan against jews and others is patently wrong. Hitler did!
Source: 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.

[end quote - Made in the Reichstag Jan 30 1939 BEFORE WWII]

and theres more:

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...

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.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

And so is hardly relevant to the topic of this thread.


/ I believe you contradict yourself here!

You claimed (and I did not agree with the claim) that one can not seperate the jurisprudence (i.e. the syatem of laws and legal basis) from the "holocaust".

That's right, because there was no legal basis to Nuremberg, therefore they could do what they liked There were no rules of evidence for instance. If you want to undertsand the creation of the holocaust story you have to study Nuremberg. Much of the evdinece cited to support the story comes from Nuremberg. Look in the notes of any holocaust history book.

I did state it is not necessary to link the two. We live in a world where people claim jews and others are not deserving of the same rights but there are not currently mass execution sites for jews (there are are genocide sites for others though). One does not necessarily have to be considered with the other as you have claimed. Nevertheless you now claim that the prior existence of a purported jurisprudence is NOT relevent to the existance of mass extermination. I would claim it is necessary but not sufficient.

You are confusing two epochs. You are appealing to the current international law environment when speaking about the pre-1945 situation. That is a major blunder. You should read Eaton's MA thesis on the evolution of Nuremberg. It is not avaliable online at the moment, but if you want to have a look at it, PM me.

In the validation of whether the act actually happened however it is NOT necessary to consider the underlying motivation. One can go to Heroshima or White Sands and determine an Atomic bomb was detonated there. It is NOT necessary to consider the motivation behind that event in order to determine whether it occurred.

Interesting. Hilberg never went to look at the Kremas of Auschwitiz-Birkenau he worked entirely from documents, most of which came from Nuremberg. This is why it vital to study Nuremberg when studying the holocasut story. The two cannot be separated.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

No, this is a new thread about pseudo-historians and why we should be sceptical.

You mean like when Rassinier claims to have interviewed hundreds of Jews in Europe, but actually can't produce most of these interviews.

Or when Leuchter lies in court about his qualifications and experiences as an expert on execution chambers.

Like I said, complete double standard over the burden of proof, because holocaust denial is what you want to believe :rolleyes:

BTW you haven't actually shown Hilberg lied about anything. Or, despite repeated calls to, shown the Nizkor lied about anyting or Lipstad lied about anything.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

And so is hardly relevant to the topic of this thread. It doesn't upset me in the least. I just don't see Hitler as a historian, pseudo or otherwise, so I wonder why he is here.

You thesis here that Hitler had no pre war plan against jews and others is patently wrong. Hitler did!
Source: Skeptic magazine, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 50

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

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.

[end quote - Made in the Reichstag Jan 30 1939 BEFORE WWII]

and theres more:

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...

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.

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

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

You mean like when Rassinier claims to have interviewed hundreds of Jews in Europe, but actually can't produce most of these interviews.

Your evidence for this claim? If Rassinier made the claim you can produce it here and not Lipstadt's claims about Rassinier.

Or when Leuchter lies in court about his qualifications and experiences as an expert on execution chambers.

Similarly for this. If Leuchter lied he would ahve been charged with perjury. This is a canard.

BTW you haven't actually shown Hilberg lied about anything. Or, despite repeated calls to, shown the Nizkor lied about anyting or Lipstad lied about anything.

I didn't say the he lied, I said that he dishonestly misrepresents and is highly selective in a dishonest way. Unlike you, I have actually shown this to be the case. Also, by taking part in Claude Lanzmann's Shoah, he associates himself with proven liars.

I will show you a transcription of document that is falsified and which Nizkor have not corrected despite knowing that a piece of information in it is false.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

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

You claimed just a few posts ago that anti-semetism was not a major policy or practice of Nazi german, a statement that is ridiculous in the extreme.

Now you admit that the Nazi party had a policy to deport all Jews out of Europe.

:rolleyes:

Eriugena wrote:

The final solution was to be the deportation of all Jews out of western Europe. People like Hilberg have to take such documents and come up with elaborate and arcane theories of code langauge and telepathy to make these documents say something else.

Code and language systems that were also used by the Nazi's when discussing other policies, and actually encouraged by Hitler himself after the scandal of the execution of mentally disabled Germans.

It is not a great stretch to see how the Nazi's used codes to describe the real policies of the final solution, because the deportation of millions of Jews did not take place the way the face value descriptions in Nazi documents claim it did, even with out gassing and mass murder. So the documents are still in code whether or not you believe the final solution involved the killing of Jews rather than just the deportation. What is in dispute is what the codes mean, not if they used codes or not

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

Your evidence for this claim? If Rassinier made the claim you can produce it here and not Lipstadt's claims about Rassinier.

Typical holocaust denial tactic... sigh... you are really getting into the spirit of things Eriugena.

Are you claiming Rassinier did not interview any Jews?

Eriugena wrote:

Similarly for this. If Leuchter lied he would ahve been charged with perjury. This is a canard.

Ummm .. by that logic if the holocaust didn't actually happen the courts would have agreed with both Irving and Zundel ...they didn't, therefore the holocaust did happen .. QED :rolleyes:

Eriugena wrote:

I didn't say the he lied, I said that he dishonestly misrepresents and is highly selective in a dishonest way. Unlike you, I have actually shown this to be the case.

Where? You should a transcript of his testmony in Zundels trial where he was attacked by Zundels lawyer over claims made by Hoss in his book. You havent even shown that Hoss's claims are even true, let alone that Hilberg knew they were true and ignored them anyway.

Eriugena wrote:

Also, by taking part in Claude Lanzmann's Shoah, he associates himself with proven liars.

Double standard again ... Zundel is a proven lier, so is Leuchter. So we should disreguard anyone associated with them. Doesn't that include Rudolf as well :rolleyes:

Eriugena wrote:

I will show you a transcription of document that is falsified and which Nizkor have not corrected despite knowing that a piece of information in it is false.

Which was that again?

Eriugena

Kurt Gerstein was a junior SS officer who made statements to the French that he had witnessed gassings at Belzec and Treblinka. There are six manuscripts of his statement in existence. In each of them he gives the dimensions of the gas chamber at Belzec to be 25 sq meters. Leon Poliakov altered this figure to 93 sq meters becasue he surely realsied that 700-800 people cannot fit into such small space. That's 28-32 people per sq meter!
Martin Gibert also falsifies these figures on two different ocassions. First he has 100 sq meters, then in another work he has 93, same as Poliakov.
Poliakov claims thats PS-1553 (Nuremberg designation) is the source while Gilbert claims that PS-2170 is the source. PS-2170 is not avlaible online but PS -1553 is. So you can check and see that Poliakov is misrepresenting it. This is well known and yet Nizkor have not corrected it. They continue to giove the Poliakov version of Gerstein's account when they could simply take 1553 directly from the transcritps of Nuremberg.

What makes Nizkor's treatment of this particulalrly smelly is the way they try to distract attention from the figure distortion to something about partitions instead of just saying that Poliakov has falsified the text.

"700-800 people in 93


[Transcription note: This figure appears to be incorrect. The
original gas chamber consisted of 3 units of 3 units, while
those installed in mid-1942 consisted of 10 units. See
http://nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/is*raeli/yad-vashem/yvs16-03.html and
http://nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/is*raeli/yad-vashem/yvs16-09.html]


square meters"


http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/*people/g/ftp.py?people/g//gers*tein.kurt...

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

PARTIAL TRANSLATION
OF DOCUMENT 1553-PS
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 428


EXTRACT FROM THE FIELD INTERROGATION
OF KURT GERSTEIN. 26 APRIL 1945,
DESCRIBING THE MASS GASSING OF JEWS
AND OTHER "UNDESIRABLES"


Deposition of Kurt Gerstein


". . . 700-800 crushed together on 25 square meters, in 45 cubic
meters"

http://www.mazal.org/archive/n*mt/01/NMT01-T865.htm

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

Typical holocaust denial tactic... sigh... you are really getting into the spirit of things Eriugena.

Are you claiming Rassinier did not interview any Jews?

Look, you have made a claim about Rassinier, now back it up.

Ummm .. by that logic if the holocaust didn't actually happen the courts would have agreed with both Irving and Zundel ...they didn't, therefore the holocaust did happen .. QED :rolleyes:

No, by your logic then the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six should have stayed in prison.

Where? You should a transcript of his testmony in Zundels trial where he was attacked by Zundels lawyer over claims made by Hoss in his book. You havent even shown that Hoss's claims are even true, let alone that Hilberg knew they were true and ignored them anyway.

Huilberg agrees that these claims were made by Hoess but nowhere in his published works does he bother to inform the reader of this and the need for caution. We know the statement was in English, we also know that it makes claims no one supports now, like 2.5 million gassed during his tenure. Hilberg is dishnest in not alerting the reader to the torture reports.

Double standard again ... Zundel is a proven lier, so is Leuchter.

Neither of these statements have been nor can be supported. I would advise you to avoid anything with Lipstadt's name on it or near it.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

You claimed just a few posts ago that anti-semetism was not a major policy or practice of Nazi german, a statement that is ridiculous in the extreme.

Now you admit that the Nazi party had a policy to deport all Jews out of Europe.

So what's your problem now? There is no contradiction between saying that it was not a major feature of policy and there being a deportation plan. The Irish government deports illegal aliens but it is not a major policy issue for them.

Code and language systems that were also used by the Nazi's when discussing other policies, and actually encouraged by Hitler himself after the scandal of the execution of mentally disabled Germans.

Oh really? And your evidence for this is?

It is not a great stretch to see how the Nazi's used codes to describe the real policies of the final solution, because the deportation of millions of Jews did not take place the way the face value descriptions in Nazi documents claim it did, even with out gassing and mass murder.

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

So the documents are still in code whether or not you believe the final solution involved the killing of Jews rather than just the deportation. What is in dispute is what the codes mean, not if they used codes or not

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

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Look at the link

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

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

Eriugena

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- March 4, 1987

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

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

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

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

Eriugena wrote:

Oh really? And your evidence for this is?

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

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

Eriugena wrote:

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

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

Eriugena wrote:

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

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

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

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

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

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

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

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

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

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

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

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

robindch

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

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

> It is off topic.

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

- robin.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

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

Oh dear oh dear.

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

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

Eriugena wrote:

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

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

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

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

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

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

> It is off topic.

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

- robin.

You have decended into being a cheap little slanderer.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

Oh dear oh dear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You presented no evidence, just an assertion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

ISAW wrote:

How's your German?

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

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

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

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

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

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Eriugena wrote:

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

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

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

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Eriugena wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The latter claim is a matter of some controversy.

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

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

ISAW

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

[/QUOTE]

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

Under the heading : Alleged Extermination of the Jews

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

Holocaust

Revisionism /Exterminationism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

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

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

Under the heading : Alleged Extermination of the Jews

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

Holocaust

Revisionism /Exterminationism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you believe in this philosophy?

What philosophy?

Do you subscribe to it?

You would have to tell me what it is first.

What basis do you have that "race" exists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

ISAW wrote:

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

I have a problem with you not answering the question:

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

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

[isaw] what do these numbers signify?


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


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


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

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

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



[snip]

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Eriugena wrote:

I have a problem with you not answering the question:

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

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

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

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

I hope this answers your questions.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Eriugena wrote:

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

[isaw] what do these numbers signify?


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


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


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

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

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



[snip]

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

robindch

> You have decended into being a cheap little slanderer.

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

And 'cheap'? Puuhhleeze!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or, from your latest posting:

> Germany does not have a constitution

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

> the war is technically still on

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

I hope these answers help in your continuing researches!

- robin.