Evidence that the Holocaust DIDN'T happen?

Evasion noted.

 

They've run out of arguments, it seems. It's tedious to ask the same salient questions day after day and not receive any answers. I mean, it's not the defenders of the generally accepted Holocaust narrative who insist on bringing this topic up all the time. If they have problems with it you'd think they debate the topic intelligently and vociferously, rather than prove themselves, daily, to have been willfully taken in by anti-Semites who make their livings lying to them.

 

It's actually you that's evading demonstrating that the relevant documents have not been suppressed. And as always you have presented nothing but train schedules.

 

You expect me to prove a negative? Gedouttahere...

Answer the questions I asked, not with empty speculation, but with facts. You can't 'lose' nearly 2 million people, even in wartime.

 

It's perfectly possible to prove a negative. For example if you find forensic evidence of 1 million dead at Treblinka you will have proved they were not transited.

Given Soviet lies we would *expect* them to suppress/destroy relevant papers. So their absence demonstrates little.

 

You're the one claiming Soviet repression of documents, so the onus is on you to provide evidence of such suppression. I've not seen any, and a picture of Stalin isn't cutting it.

 

Your position rests on not having documents of what happened after transfer to Treblinka so you assume 'mass gassing'. That's pretty weak in itself, and greatly more so since the relevant documents would have been in Soviet hands.

In short, no good evidence has been provided.

 

The other evidence, the extensive eye witness testimony posted the other day (did you even watch it?). It's especially damning to the denier case on Treblinka, since his admissions were made AFTER his sentence had been served and he had nothing to lose by telling the truth. None of what he said in that interview contradicts his trial testimony, nor does it differ from other eyewitness trial testimony from the 1960s, by would-be victims and perpetrators alike. Taken in total, it pretty much sinks your ship unless you're able to prove all eyewitnesses were coached to lie or 'tortured' into testifying. Most recently, forensic GPR testing proves that many,many people were murdered in that location.

If those murdered individuals were NOT the +/- 800,000 people whose last known location was Treblinka, who were they then?
Oh... sorry. I didn't mean to ask a simple question germane to the topic. I realise that would amount to 'abuse' by your way of measuring these things.

 

This is one question I'm going to keep asking until someone on the denial side comes up with a plausible answer: where did the 800,000 known inmates of Treblinka go? Deniers can either answer it, or they can continue to twist in the wind.

 

Same place the 9/11 flight passengers went. Cleveland.

 

You mean you don't know?

- - - Updated - - -

The guy in Germany where it's illegal to say otherwise.

GPR demonstrated nothing and this is complete fabrication on your part.

 

Of course I know. They were murdered. By CO gas. Do try to keep up.

Your claim is that they went somewhere other than into burial pits, were exhumed and their bodies burnt to hide the crime. I'd like for you to document where they went and how. 2 million people don't travel from one place to another in a 6 month period without leaving evidence. Present it, or admit you're simply speculating. But if you'd rather just continue twisting in the wind on this one issue, you're not really doing the denial argument much good, are you?

Is it indeed? Perhaps you could cite the relevant passages from the Volksverhetzung where it says a person has to describe the killing process of death camps in such stunning detail. I mean, the guy wasn't being held in custody. He'd already been tried, convicted and served his sentence. He could have simply declined to give the interview, couldn't he?

That evidence has already been posted in this very thread. Forensic testing is still ongoing, but the locations of many burial places on the camp's site have already been pinpointed and human remains still litter the surface of the place, particularly in wet weather. You're just chagrined that the scholars doing the on-site investgations aren't deniers. Speaking of which, your man Krege is nowhere to be found after his much-touted declaration-- made without releasing his 'report'-- that no human remains exist on the site. Either he's a liar, or he's got good reason to keep his head down (and it's not the Volksverhetzung that's keeping him shtumm, I assure you).

 

Mod edit,,,flounder

Its no accident that denialism (regardless of subject) does not require much intelligence, in-depth knowledge of the subject, nor basic analysis skills.

Low level denialists appear to be willing to endure/ignore the ridicule and contempt they generate under the false fleeting feeling of superiority they experience from their crude and transparent baiting.

I have yet to encounter a single one that can offer a cogent, factually substantiated and logical explanation as to why the accepted historical narrative is nothing more than a gigantic global commie/jew conspiracy.

 

I wouldn't even require that, knowing that the accusation is groundless. No, all I'd ask of those who disclaim the generally agreed upon narrative of events of 1933-45 is to present a plausible, internally consistent version of their own-- one that's constructed without ignoring any of the existing evidence. So far I've not seen one.

You'd think that people trying to sell the notion that there's a massive Jewish conspiracy to defraud the whole world would at least have their historical ducks in a row before they tried to float that bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

This denial contingent appears to have gone to ground much earlier than others I've encountered.

Perhaps they've recognised their error and their embarrassment won't permit them to admit it, or maybe they're moiling away at composing an alternative narrative of Holocaust events that takes actual evidence into account.

 

When they are confronted with people like us who actually know far more than they do about holocaust denialism, they can only take our precise debunking, contempt and ridicule for so long.

The last group eventually gave up because they couldn't get anywhere with their jewhating, white power, aryan crap.

 

No evidence for this has been provided.

I don't have evidence of that. My guess is that it was suppressed by the Soviets. I am absolutely speculating. Just like your 'gas chambers' are speculation.

People make all sorts of strange confessions after suffering in prison, especially when their sentences depended on saying what they were expected to say.

'I can see human remains in wet weather.' This is a professional forensic pathologist we are talking about here? What a joke.

 

Of course it has-- eyewitness, forensic and documentary. Just because you choose to wave it away doesn't cancel its existence. Deniers aren't the final arbiters of what constitutes evidence, professional historians are.

That might be the case, if not for the accumulated evidence leading to a single possible conclusion. The ludicrous allegation that all those people simply melted into areas of the Soviet Union the Nazis were unable to over-run is supported by nothing whatever, save the fervent hopes by deniers that it happened that way. Once again, in case you missed it the first several times, explain the fact that absolutely none of those nearly 2 million people took the time, post-war, to get in touch with their friends and families. Explain how that many live people could simply cross an active front line and disappear into the unoccupied Soviet Union in only six months of 1942 without leaving a trace of evidence-- no testimony from these 'survivors', no testimony from anyone in the Red Army, no testimony from local inhabitants and the fact that they had to have made that journey without their possessions, not even the clothes on their backs, having left them behind at Treblinka. Your supposition defies logic.

The taped interview you were shown occurred long after Suchomel's sentence had been served. He could not be tried again for the same crime, so had absolutely no reason not to be truthful. As for his 'suffering', he wasn't mistreated by his jailers and he served only four years of a seven year sentence in a modern German prison. You need to investigate these things before you engage in empty(headed) speculation. Suchomel was perfectly free to recant his trial testimony or just decline to be interviewed. To the unending chagrin of Holocaust deniers, he didn't.

Why is that a joke? Is unearthing evidence of ~800,000 innocent non-combatants, from babes in arms to the aged, having been murdered somehow amusing to you? You must be a riot at parties.

 

just another denialist denying inconvenient evidence.

nothing of substance to see here, other than it being representative of classic denialist behaviour.

 

I had no idea this thread existed! Too bad I missed out on a good debate. Anyway, I happened to come across an interesting article about a person raking in millions from telling a hoax hc-story:

http://rehmat1.com/2014/05/11/holocaust-story-fraud-ordered-to-return-32-4-million/

I wonder how many more such hoax stories are out there.

"Babi Yar" is supposed to be one as well.
read here...

http://www.natallnews.com/story.php?id=3097

 

Here is a 1990 interview with a German General -

Otto Ernst Remer:

In part....

This is not about the holocaust, but shows some facts about Jews one otherwise never hears about.

 

Professional historians are not allowed to publish their findings - they get jailed for their honest efforts!! WHY jail them?

 

Which professional historians have been jailed for publishing their 'findings'? There is a significant amount of disagreement among them, yet no historian of whom I'm aware has spent a day in prison for their historical conclusions. Are you suggesting that secretly they're holding opinions they're unwilling to publish for fear of prison or professional opprobrium?

If that's the case, why haven't we heard any conscience-clearing recantations after their retirements from the profession? Why haven't there been any deathbed confessions? Surely the denial demi-monde would have made hay from such a thing.

Instead, we're offered unreferenced, anecdotal fluff, recalled some forty years after the fact, from life-long Nazis like Remer as being somehow factual. And how does trivia of the sort you've presented undermine the mountain of evidence supporting the Holocaust narrative as understood by thousands of academic researchers and historians? It's not as though the anti-Semitism of a great portion of wartime Ukrainians is a new mystery unfolded. Nor is it unknown that the ethnic Germans on the Deutsche Volksliste viewed the Nazis as 'liberators'.

But more to the point-- since you used the term-- how does any of this prove a 'hoax'? Who, specifically, created this hoax? How is it that the only people privy to the workings of this hoax are a tiny, politically-insignificant coterie of non-historians who weren't there and who, coincidentally, don't appear to like Jews very much?

 

David Irving;
Robert Faurisson;
Arthur R. Butz = The Hoax of the Twentieth Century;

Weber = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlUkTtbnPY ;

David Cole = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3TveySBlkQ -

 

None of whom are bona fide historians of the period in question. They are, however, high profile anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers.

Sorry, I don't do Youtube nonsense that any moron can create to simulate evidence of virtually anything. I rely books-- books of history, written by actual historians. You'll have to do much better than that.