But that's not what revisionists have done. What they did and still do is working through all the evidence and critisizing what they believe to be incorrect. It's commonly thought that revisionists just "dismiss" all evidence and deny everything, while shouting "Heil Hitler" in the process. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's hard to find anything about the Holocaust that revisionists haven't critisized. Obviously, Wiesel decided to lie to make his story more impressive. Does this mean that the Holocaust didn't happen? No, it doesn't, but it sure raises some questions about it. 99.9% of all historians don't want to be confronted with anything that even remotely questions the officials story of the Holocaust, which explains why there are so few refutations of revisionist work. I believe Holocaust historians should change their attitude and respond to the questions raised by the other side. If they don't want to do this, they should not be surprised that some people are going to question the story.
When they can't refute something, they must turn to the lie. Obviously, if the Red Cross was forbidden any part of the camps, they would have mentioned that in their official reports when they reported in effect that they found no evidence of mass killings. In fact, Red Cross officials were not forbidden to go anywhere in the camps, no matter what coerced testimony from Germans after the war might be alleged. It is obvious that the Red Cross would have said, " We were told that there were mass killings there, but the Nazis would not let us inspect these areas." But the official reports show none of this, not even a whiff of this. Numerous International Red Cross inspection teams were completely satisfied that no exterminations were occurring as evidenced by their official records of their visits. The basis of the Nizkor line of argument is completely flawed of course. The International Red Cross could go anywhere they wanted, it was part of the Geneva accords, that's why they were allowed in the first place. No part of the camp was forbidden to them. Furthermore, if the Nizkor report is correct in saying that Jewish prisoners and Auschwitz told them about the gas chambers, why wouldn't the Red Cross ask to go and look at the these alleged places of extermination. there is nothing in the Red Cross report that says the Nazis would not let inspect parts of the camp, which if that would have been the case, of course they would have mentioned it in response to the inquiries of the U.S. government. Instead, they wrote that they investigated the matter and found no evidence of any exterminating facilities. In fact, of course, the Red Cross distributed over a million packages to prisoners and interviewed thousands. You can't keep the killing of thousands of people a day secret in any prison or facility, especially in Concentration camps where people can move about far more freely than in a cell-block kind of prison. If the gassing were truly going on, prisoners would have told them about it and the Red Cross would have investigated and asked to see parts of the camp where the allegations centered. In fact, there was no widespread belief among the prisoners that gassing were occurring. Even Elie Wiesel in his famous autobiography of his long stay at Auschwitz makes not one reference to gas chambers, which is now the one central symbol of the Holocaust Story. In fact, there were a number of competing stories about Nazi extermination, from electrical floors to death by steaming, to diesel engine gassing, all which cannot stand the text of time or any forensic analysis. The overriding point is simply this. The Red Cross did inspect the alleged death camps, including Auschwitz. The Red Cross made the repeated inspections during the height of the alleged Holocaust. The Red Cross could go anywhere they wanted in the camps. The Red Cross specifically investigated the mass extermination rumors. The Red Cross did interview thousands of prisoners. The Red Cross in a formal letter to the U.S. Government in November 1944 in response to the earlier request to investigate the extermination allegations, said it found no evidence of any mass killings of Jews or anyone else. In addition, what does common sense tell us. If the Germans had an enormous, super-secret, mass extermination apparatus and program of killing millions of Jews in Auschwitz and the other concentration camps would they let the Red Cross in at all, or keep them out of the camps just like the Soviets did and the allies did at the end of World War II? The fact of the matter is simple and undeniable. There was a non-German, anti-Nazi international body that went inside the Nazi Concentration camps during the height of the alleged Holocaust. It included Americans, British, French, Swiss and many foreign nationals. They investigated found nothing of the Holocaust as alleged and formally reported that the allied governments. No matter what sophistry the good historians use, this startling fact cannot be ignored or explained away. But.... This is far from everything that's to it. Nizkor quotes proven liars as trustworthy witnesses. Nizkor quotes Dr. Hans Münch as a trustworthy withness: Hans Münch stated in The Auschwitz Declaration dated January 27, 1995: - Utterly impossible, contradicts the laws of physics and chemistry and is a pure invention. This man is just quoting worn out literary precedents. Muench declared: - Problem, the official story says there were no death documents for those allegedly "gassed". Remember, this is a guy who claims to have taken part in 'gassings', but was curiously acquitted. Muench is not an uninterested party with no stakes in the matter. He underwent trial in 1946-47 in Communist Krakow, Poland and whatever he said about his direct experience with the "Auschwitz gas chamber" back then compromises him today. Therefore his reason for re-stating an outdated version of the gas chambers story would simply be an attempt at coherent behaviour on his part, the desire not to be seen as a liar, which he failed to accomplish. I, as an amateur historian, am just asking for the convincing refutation of two (2) arguments. That shouldn't be a problem for Holocaust historians, should it? 1) Wiesel's extreme exaggerations present in his book (See my previous post). 2) The fact that The Red Cross couldn't find any gas chambers. If anyone can refute these, I will stop doubting the Holocaust...
and will continue no matter what. see, i do not want to convince you. not at all. but those who read your posts shall have your words set in perspective.
i would think that most for once had a look at and simply dismissed it. and - maybe that is news for you - the company of these revionists is not, well, what some might call "good" company. except if one has some sympathy for racial glory in general. the revisionists love to picture themselves as galilei's. yet, on each true galilei there are about 1.000 of non-galilei lunatics. so the odds ... and let us not forget: behind revisionism stands the implicit believe that hitler was more or less okay. now, just read mein kampf or other stuff. or listen to the nice an gentle one. http://www.nazi-lauck-nsdapao.com/gerbon.htm if you still think it is alright, get some therapy or have some beer at your local revisionism camp.
just looked at one of these "documents" on the link i posted before. oh my goodness. have fun with it. i will not.
I don't care about what how evil Hitler was or not. That's totally unrelated to the Holocaust religion (which it seems to be for you). The fact that you are unable to refute the 2 arguments I posted sums up your "knowledge" of the Holocaust. You too, have fun in believing something that you can't even prove yourself.
As the old adage goes, " The wheel that squeaks the loudest, gets the most grease". On ET a handful of Zionists have successfully managed to translate that old adage into censorship and deletion of posts that only they themselves seem to deem "offensive". There should be "support" buttons along with the "complain" button below each post. That way the quiet middle who make up most of ET would be able to "voice" their support for posts they'd like to stay around.
you will dismiss whatever i bring up. you will discredit all sources and claim a global conspiracy and cover up by almost all academics, victims, military personnel and so forth. you say the red cross could not be fooled. well i would see there is evidence it was. we can now go back and forth, but this will just cost me time i am not willing to invest. you will not convert, there is not the slightest thing i can do about that. and since i am aware of that it is enough for me to show people that your point of view is known and answered. you dismiss these sources? go ahead, no big deal. those who read this will judge on their own.