.

.

Wednesday, 21 December 2011

No real evidence for the gas chambers, experts admit




Many of the leading scholars of the Holocaust have stated on record, that
the actual evidence to prove the Nazis operated homicidal gas chambers,
is virtually non-existent. Following are a few of their admissions of this fact:




Professor Arno J. Mayer, whose Jewish family fled Luxembourg
in 1940, wrote in his 1988 book Why Did the Heavens Not Darken:
"Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable." (A)
"Most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity." (B) 
"In the meantime, there is no denying the many contradictions, ambiguities, and errors in the existing sources." (C)

Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The "Final Solution" in History
By Arno J. Mayer.  Pantheon Books (1990 edition) A. p.362, B. p.362/3, C. p.363




Professor Raul Hilberg, author of The Destruction of the European Jews, the "standard work"
on the Holocaust, appeared as an expert witness at the 1985 trial of Revisionist Ernst Zundel,
during which Hilberg had the following exchange with Douglas Christie, Zundel's barrister:
"Can you give me one scientific report that shows the existence of gas chambers anywhere in Nazi-occupied territory?" defence counsel Doug Christie asked Hilberg in a day-long rapid fire of cross-examination. 
"I am at a loss," Hilberg replied. 
"You are (at a loss) because you can't," Christie said.


Professor Raul Hilberg also stated in an interview shortly before his death in 2007:

"there was a Holocaust, which is, by the way,
more easily said than demonstrated."

Is There a New Anti-Semitism? A Conversation with Raul Hilberg
Logos Journal. Volume 6 - Issue one-two




Professor of Architecture (but not an architect) Robert Jan van Pelt, Jewish expert on Auschwitz, and expert witness at the 2000 Irving vs. Penguin & Lipstadt trial, was interviewed for The Toronto Star in December 2009:
(Interviewer:) "By allowing nature to take over the site (Auschwitz-Birkenau), do we run the risk of allowing humanity to forget what happened and set the stage for future questioning of the Holocaust?
(van Pelt:) Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge."
 A Case for Letting Nature Take Back Auschwitz
The Toronto Star - December 27, 2009


Professor Van Pelt wrote in his book The Case for Auschwitz, which was mostly
his report he was commissioned to write for the Irving vs. Lipstadt Trial in 2000:

"My first problem was rather straightforward: the
evidence for Auschwitz was undoubtedly problematic."

Van Pelt, Robert. The Case for Auschwitz. Evidence from the Irving Trial. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis. 2002. p.100.





Professor of Holocaust history Christopher Browning, was an expert defence witness in the Irving vs. Penguin & Lipstadt trial in 2000. In his report for trial he says documentary evidence for the gas chambers is "scant":
"In particular, the documentation of mass killing by shooting in the territories occupied by Germany after June 1941 is quite extensive, while documents relating to gassing in Poland is scant. For gassing, therefore, witness testimony and circumstantial evidence play a much larger role."
Evidence for the Implementation of the Final Solution:
Electronic Edition, by Browning, Christopher R. 
III. Implementation of the Final Solution,  3.2





Justice Gray, the judge at the 2000 Irving vs. Penguin & Lipstadt trial, made numerous
references during the trial and in his judgment, to the lack of evidence for gas chambers:
"The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archaeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eye witness and circumstantial evidence."




Jean Claude-Pressac author of AUSCHWITZ: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers,
admits there is a complete lack of "indisputable" evidence for mass gassings at Auschwitz:
"In the absence of any “direct”, i.e. palpable, indisputable and evident proof (lacking so far as we know at present) such as a photograph of people killed by a toxic gas in an enclosed space that can be perfectly located and identified, or of a label on a Krematorium drawing of a “Gaskammer um Juden zu vergiften / gas chamber for poisoning Jews” an “indirect” proof may suffice and be valid. By “indirect”, proof, I mean a German document that does not state in black and white that a gas chamber is for HOMICIDAL purposes, but one containing evidence that logically it is impossible for it to be anything else."




The French historian Jacques Baynac, who stated:

"For the scientific historian a witness statement does not represent real history"

But nevertheless still believes the Nazis gassed Jews, wrote:

“it is necessary to recognize that the lack of traces involves the inability to
directly establish the reality of the existence of homicidal gas chambers.”





Well, we've still survivor testimony


Justice Gray, the judge at the 2000 Irving vs. Penguin & Lipstadt trial, stated in his judgment:

"The possibility exists that some of these witnesses invented some or even all of the experiences which they describe. Irving suggested the possibility of cross-pollination, by which he meant the possibility that witnesses may have repeated and even embellished the (invented) accounts of other witnesses with the consequence that a corpus of false testimony is built up. Irving pointed out that parts of some of the accounts of some of the witnesses are obviously wrong or (like some of Olère’s drawings) clearly exaggerated. He suggested various motives why witnesses might have given false accounts, such as greed and resentment (in the case of survivors) and fear and the wish to ingratiate themselves with their captors (in the case of camp officials). Van Pelt accepted that these possibilities exist. I agree."




Prussian Jewish historian Samuel Gringauz, himself a camp survivor, and Chairman of the
Council of the Central Committee Of Liberated Jews In The American Zone of German.
Wrote in an 1950 issue of Jewish Social Studies about survivor testimonies:
"most of the memoirs and reports are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks and apologies."



A 1945 report requested by Eisenhower for the US Congress reads::
"Three classes or kinds of evidence were presented to us. (see link for first & second types)... The third kind of evidence was what may be called the common knowledge of the camp, that is to say, evidence of things done in the camp which were not done publicly but which, nevertheless, all prisoners were aware of. This is similar to certain knowledge possessed by prisoners generally in legitimate institutions like State penitentiaries. These prisoners, from custom and experience, from the conversation with the guards and among themselves, and from a very plain and almost mathematical kind of circumstantial evidence, have accurate knowledge of certain things which they have not actually seen with their own eyes. The prisoners at the camps speak about these things as though they had actually seen them. It was the unanimous opinion of our committee after talking to hundreds of prisoners that this third kind of evidence was often as accurate and reliable as the two kinds of direct evidence above referred to. An example of this kind of evidence will be found in that part of our report dealing with the torture chamber at Buchenwald, where no one actually saw the strangulations perpetrated in this chamber, but where the circumstantial evidence of it was so complete and clear as to leave no doubt in the mind of anyone."
Report of the Committee Requested by Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower through the Chief of Staff, Gen. George C. Marshall
to the Congress of the United States Relative to Atrocities and Other Conditions in Concentration Camps in Germany






Gerald Reitlinger, the British Jew who in 1953 published the first in-depth study of the Holocaust, wrote: 
"A certain degree of reserve is necessary in handling all this material, and particularly this applies to the last section ("survivor narratives"). For instance, the evidence concerning the Polish death camps was mainly taken after the war by Polish State Commissions or by the Central Jewish Historical Commission of Poland. The hardy survivors who were examined were seldom educated men. Moreover, the Eastern European Jew is a natural rhetorician, speaking in flowery similes.
Gerald Reitlinger, The Final Solution (London: Sphere books, 1971 edition) p. 581 & also





American Jewish holocaust historian and passionate Zionist, Lucy Dawidowicz,
wrote in her 1976 book A Holocaust Reader of survivor testimonies
"Survivor accounts of critical events are typical of all testimony, that is, they are full of discrepancies. About all matters both trivial and significant, the evidence is nearly always in dispute. In part the unreliability of these accounts derives from imperfect observation and flawed memory, but in larger part from the circumstance that they are not constructed exclusively on the basis of firsthand experience. In order to present a coherent narrative, the author has likely included a large measure of hearsay, gossip, rumor, assumption, speculation, and hypothesis."





Primo Levi Italian Jewish Auschwitz survivor and acclaimed writer, wrote in a 1986: 
"It is natural and obvious that the most substantial material for the reconstruction of truth about the camps is the memories of the survivors. Beyond the pity and indignation these recollections provoke, they should also be read with a critical eye. For knowledge of the Lagers (camps), the Lagers themselves were not always a good observation post: in the inhuman conditions to which they were subjected, the prisoners could barely acquire an overall vision of their universe. The prisoners; above all those who did not understand German, might not even know where in Europe their Lager was situated, having arrived after a slaughterous and tortuous journey in sealed boxcars. They did not know about the existence of other Lagers, even those only a few kilometers away. They did not know for whom they worked. They did not understand the significance of certain sudden changes in conditions, or of the mass transfers. Surrounded by death, the deportee was often in no position to evaluate the extent of the slaughter unfolding before his eyes. The companion who worked beside him today was gone by the morrow: he might be in the but next door, or erased from the world; there was no way to know. In short, the prisoner felt overwhelmed by a massive edifice of violence and menace but could not form for himself a representation of it because his eyes were fixed to the ground by every single minute's needs."





Hannah Arendt, the German-American-Jewish political theorist wrote of the
camp survivors who testified at the 1961 Adolf Eichmann trial in Jerusalem:
"the prosecution called upon a writer, well known on both sides of the Atlantic under the name of K-Zetnik—a slang word for a concentration-camp inmate—as the author of several books on Auschwitz that dealt with brothels, homosexuals, and other "human interest stories." He started off, as he had done at many of his public appearances, with an explanation of his adopted name. It was not a "pen name," he said. "I must carry this name as long as the world will not awaken after the crucifixion of the nation ... as humanity has risen after the crucifixion of one man." He continued with a little excursion into astrology: the star "influencing our fate in the same way as the star of the ashes at Auschwitz is there facing our planet, radiating toward our planet." And when he had arrived at "the unnatural power above Nature" which had sustained him thus far, and now, for the first time, paused to catch his breath, even Mr. Hausner (barrister for the prosecution) felt that something had to be done about this "testimony," and, very timidly, very politely, interrupted: "Could I perhaps put a few questions to you if you will consent?" Whereupon the presiding judge saw his chance as well: "Mr. Dinoor, please, please, listen to Mr. Hausner and to me." In response, the disappointed witness, probably deeply wounded, fainted and answered no more questions."
This, to be sure, was an exception, but if it was an exception that proved the rule of normality, it did not prove the rule of simplicity or of ability to tell a story, let alone of the rare capacity for distinguishing between things that had happened to the story teller more than sixteen, and sometimes twenty, years ago, and what he had read and heard and imagined in the meantime. These difficulties could not be helped, but they were not improved by the predilection of the prosecution for witnesses of some prominence, many of whom had published books about their experiences, and who now told what they had previously written, or what they had told and retold many times."
Arendt, Hannah. Eichamann In Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Penguin, New York. 2006. pp.223-224



Aforementioned French historian Jacques Baynac stated:
"For the scientific historian a witness statement does not represent real history. It is an object of history. A witness statement counts for little, many witnesses' statements count for no more, if there is no solid document to support them. One could say without much exaggeration, the principle of scientific historiography is, No paper(s), no proven facts."
source




Raul Hilberg, the Don of holocaust studies said:

"A great percentage of the mistakes I discovered in
my own work, could be attributed to testimonies."






The much admired, and much despised (by Zionists), Jewish scholar, whose father
survived Auschwitz, and whose mother survived Majdanek; Norman Finkelstein wrote: 
"The postwar German government provided compensation to Jews who had been in ghettos or camps. Many Jews fabricated their pasts to meet this eligibility requirement. "If everyone who claims to be a survivor actually is one," my mother used to exclaim, "who did Hitler kill?" Indeed, many scholars have cast doubt on the reliability of survivor testimony."



14 comments:

  1. This is a work of genius. Thank you for this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have lived through that period and have watched jewish people line up in front of Belgrade railway station to board train to "go to work" in Germany. There were German soldiers around the place, but not guarding them. I was 12 at the time and I asked my father, if we could go to Germany, too, he said to me that it is only for Jewish people, and even they must be professionals of some kind, I am only a carpenter. The time was 1942, around August, and all Jewish people had books studying German language in their hands, as they waited for the train. The reason I was there is because I sold Bulgarian Arda cigarettes,to both Jews and german soldiers, to make some money for food.

    ReplyDelete
  3. you should feel ashamed for saying that the holocaust didn't happen, and that 6 million jews weren't killed you antisemitic bastard. There is more than enough evidence to show that it happened and that they were cremated and bodies stuck in ovens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There is more than enough evidence to show that it happened"

      Don't hesitate to send those numerous evidence to Professor Van Pelt and the other exterminationist historians deseperately looking for them...

      Delete
    2. I have recently stumbled upon the idea that it didn't happen as we have all been led to believe. Truth is truth! If the Nazis didn't gas millions of Jews, then they didn't. That's that. Were the Jews horribly murdered and starved and worked to death?. Absolutely. Was it wrong? Absolutely! Were the numbers staggering? Absolutely! Did 6 million Jews die? Maybe not. Did they use gas chambers to do the lions share? Maybe not. What is true? We may never know. But we can't hate a pursuit of the truth.

      Delete
  4. It drives me mad when people call this "holocaust denial." This in no way is denying the death of millions of people not only Jews but poles and political opponents alike. This piece if research simply aims to disprove the myth of homicidal gas chambers. It is called historical revisionism and it is important in the pursuit of true historical fact. The true holocaust denial is in the supporters of the homicidal gas chambers because they base theories off of evidence that is simply not there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Holocaust Denial" is a communist psychological operations (PSYOP) tactic.
      The Truth is POSITIVE affirm it this way:

      “AFFIRM NOT DENIAL!

      WWII Revisionists,AFTER concluding THEIR OWN Research,AFFIRM that there was NO genocide and NO homicidal gas chambers,and that the “final solution of the Jewish question” consisted Of the removal of the Jews from Europe,by EMIGRATION if possible,And by DEPORTATION if necessary.

      The (Jewish Holocaust) Revisionists STRIVE to ESTABLISH WHAT (actually) HAPPENED; they are positive.

      The Exterminationists doggedly continue to tell us about THINGS WHICH DIDN’T HAPPEN: their work is negative.”

      Professor Robert Faurisson,The Journal of Historical Review,Jan Feb. 1999,p.21

      http://trutube.tv/item/photos/39/6H362G8O1OWX/AFFIRM-NOT-DENIAL-Professor-Robert-Faurisson-Quote

      Delete
  5. Lol Communism founded by Jews and of those who played a big role in Zionism to weaken the Russian Empire which caused in million of deaths.
    Also millions of Russians and others died by Communists (Jewish Work)but nobody brainwash them.
    Its the same for nuking Hiroshima & Nagasaki saying "Invading Japan would have killed far more than both bombs"... What an excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am so sick of this absolute BS. Try being raised by a woman who lived through this...thats all the evidence I need, oh but of course in your minds she was acting and making it all up as part of a huge conspiracy which entitled her to money. LOL. There is iron clad evidence and documented eye witness testimonials. Regardless of how people were murdered, they were murdered by these scum bag low life butchers and not just Jewish people.

    ReplyDelete
  7. History is always under revision, the Holocaust is in dire need of it as it is post war propaganda meant to demonize the Germans who they were attacking. Originally Jews were believed to have been steamed to death and made into lampshades and soap. It won't be long before it is common knowledge that the gas chambers are a hoax as well. It seems obvious that Diana Smay's mother was never gassed to death so her testimony is pretty useless on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You can't make a case for something by saying there is no evidence against it. PROVE your point or admit you don't have one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The onus is on you to prove the celestial teapot (gas chambers) existed.

      Delete
    2. Highlights From the FIRST Ernst Zundle Holocaust Trial
      Raul Hilberg, Jewish leading Holocaust Scholar UNDER OATH testimony!

      NEVER FORGET!

      1/17/85
      Maria Bohuslawsky of the Toronto Sun reports on a cross-examination that took place the day before, in which self-proclaimed Holocaust “expert” and author Raul Hilberg admitted under oath that after 36 years of studying the Holocaust:

      1) he knew of NO documentary (printed) EVIDENCE that the Nazis murdered or planned TO MURDER Jews in gas chambers.

      2) he had identified large parts of the key “confession” of Kurt Gerstein as to the “gassings” as “pure nonsense” and “totally false,”

      3) when presenting the Gerstein “confession” as proof of Nazi misdeeds he had EDITED OUT inconvenient sections in order TO MAKE HIS POINT,

      4) he knew of NO autopsies that showed death by gassing,

      5) he billed himself as (is considered) a Holocaust EXPERT for 18 years before even visiting Auschwitz (he then admitted he spent only ONE DAY there)

      6) he was NOT FAMILIAR with MANY BOOKS on the subject of which he was alleged TO BE THE EXPERT

      7) he knew of NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that even ONE JEW had been gassed. (see the article on the same date by Kirk Makin in the Globe and Mail, and the Sault Star of 1/18/85.)

      Understandably, when called upon to testify again in a later trial, Hilberg begged off.

      TOO Many Memories SEE Link Below:

      http://www.historiography-project.com/misc/calendar.html#top

      Delete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.