New to Studying Revisionist Research: 3 Questions (Sonderkommandos & PPE, Krema Destruction, & Langfus 'Found Diary')

[hermod]

why would they not do that to the alleged gas chambers there?

The alleged gas chambers (morgue 1) of Krema II and Krema III were severely damaged by the blasting of those crematory buildings.

But the alleged gas chambers of Krema II and Krema III were less damaged than the oven rooms of those buildings because morgues were less interesting for atrocity propaganda purposes. Morgues are not impressive facilities with ghoulish ovens and hellish high chimneys. Morgues are just cold rooms for the temporary storage of dead bodies. That was so patently true that the Soviets didn't use those rooms for their propaganda show after Auschwitz had been captured by the Red Army. Soviet propagandists first "reported" (The Auschwitz Murder Factory, by Boris Polevoy, in the Pravda, February 2, 1945) that the notorious Auschwitz gas chambers were located at Monowitz (aka Auschwitz III, "in the eastern part of the camp"), not at Birkenau (aka Auschwitz II, in the western part of the Auschwitz complex), and that those murderous facilities were now rooms restructured by the Nazis for concealment purposes ("were restructured, even little turrets and other architectural embellishments were added, so that they would look like innocent garages"), not rooms blasted by the Nazis for the very same purposes (today's orthodox/exterminationist/antirevisionist narrative).

https://postimg.cc/dLGnxsQr

[hermod]

Like Fred zz I have never seen any convincing evidence either way of who destroyed the various parts of the camp and why they would do so.

Given what we know that Russians did after the war in terms of adding elements like a chimney here and there, removing walls and claiming a standard building was a gas chamber, leads to me to think they destroyed the Kremas.

The thesis that the Soviets were unable to turn the large Birkenau crematoria into anything more useful for propaganda purposes than an unimpressive pile of rubbles and broken slabs, is far-fetched (to say the least)!! Who could believe that the Soviets reconstructed chimneys and ovens only for their propaganda shows but would have failed to use intact large crematoria for those shows?!?

Had the Birkenau crematoria been captured intact by the Red Army in 1945, you can bet that those buildings would have been "improved" by Stalin's propagandists without delay and that they would still be regarded as a must-see super kitsch Disneyland of Supreme Horror today.

It's however also possible that the Soviets had the buildings destroyed, simply because they thought that they are unsuitable for propaganda purposes.

If Krema I (no longer a crematorium when the Red Army captured the camp) was regarded as suitable for propaganda purposes, intact Krema II and Krema III would have been regarded as over-suitable for propaganda purposes.

[Fred zz]

"there" meaning the gas chambers at Majdanek

[Kremawurst]

Hello and welcome, Morimont.

From so-called witnesses, what you'll find is a bunch of laughable nonsense, contradicting stories, impossibilities, and outright lies in testimony of supposed Sonderkommando. I actually cannot find a single credible witness to gassings or pits. The storytelling is just massive.

My process of becoming a Revisionist took a number of months of reading and comparing back and forth, the exterminationist "standard account" side the and the revisionist/skeptic one. Since there is so much information on so many alleged death camps, to make it easier to keep up with a sort through, I decided to focus on the one camp with highest claimed death toll : Auschwitz-Birkenau.

It's basically confessions by torture, false testimony from professional witnesses, plagiarized stories and Communist fabrications.

In the case of Auschwitz-Birkenau, the most prominent and cited "witness" is claimed Sonderkommando Filip Mueller. He died in 2013. I read everything I could of the guy, burrowing like a tick into his past and gathered as many testimonies of his that I could, and it came out worse than I thought. His oft-cited memoir which is used as required reading in holocaust studies courses is more fabrication than reality. What I came across about him was so bad that I began to write about it. It ended up an essay and CODOH kindly published it for me. My essay came out in April of 2009 and in the four years between then and Mueller's death, he had no response. In fact, nobody did. The Holocaust Industry, all their boosters and court historians and the blowhards at the Holocaust-Controversies blog were, and remain, dead quiet. But they still use Mueller as a source, without explanation.

So this is my essay: The Lies, Slips, Bungles and Perjuries of Filip Mueller, Professional Witness of Auschwitz-Birkenau https://codoh.com/library/document/the-lies-slips-bungles-and-perjuries-of-filip/en/

I don't know how to wrap the URL into the script properly. I also lost the pw/email to my original account here, PotPie, and can' t access it, so I had to make this one.

What really bothers me is the lack of physical evidence and the lack of willingness to look for it by exterminationists. We should have done exhumations years ago, in the open, for all to see and verify. Instead we get dodgy nonsense and Revisionists have even been locked out of archival research.

And one of the weirdest damned things I've ever seen is the way in these "testimony" videos of these claimed holocaust survivors is the way they act perfectly calm like they're in a job interview, nobody has tears in their eyes, looks upset. Nothing. It's like an interview with that Chris Watts dude who murdered his wife and daughters. Very, very, strange. And suspicious, of course!

[Hektor]

....

It's however also possible that the Soviets had the buildings destroyed, simply because they thought that they are unsuitable for propaganda purposes.

If Krema I (no longer a crematorium when the Red Army captured the camp) was regarded as suitable for propaganda purposes, intact Krema II and Krema III would have been regarded as over-suitable for propaganda purposes.

Comparing this with Maidanek (Where Showers are decelared to be gas chambers), it seems any building can be considered suitable for propaganda. Even more so, if it it got a lot of technical fittings in it. An oven is ideal and some pipes and showerheads will do as well.

The advantage of crematoria is that they will already have a bad reputation among those that were in the camp. Simply because it is associated with dead people, regardless how they actually died. The fittings the condition of the building are all suitable to grasp people's imagination. Ideal for horror and make belief stories.

Delousing gas chambers... Are also suitable, but the problem is there that people may recall it for the very purpose it had. And there you get 'denial' by camp inmates, which is a problem, if you want to sell the narrative.

Shower-rooms. There you at least have frequent attendance from those in the camp and that means people will have seen others walking to it in large groups. One thing can be that they remember rumors about those buildings. Bored older inmates may have used the opportunity to poke fun at newbies. Telling them that the showers were actually 'gas chambers' and that they'd be thrown in the oven afterwards to be blown through the chimney. This was possibly even a form of sabotage. If you can people get to resist hygiene measures, there is a rationale that this would increase the number of sick people and thereby retarding the German war effort, because more people are sick now. Same applies to any atrocity rumor. Scaring people, frustrating people, getting them to resent work, the more friction one can cause in enemy country or occupied territories, the worse it gets for this enemies war effort. And spreading rumors will be the most efficient way to do that, since they can perpetuate themselves with no additional cost. Word of Mouth is also the best form of advertising (with reputability in reverse of course).

A good question is of course, whether there were Allied efforts to sabotage concentration camps in any way. After all they were also centers of industry. If you can get riots, uprisings, epidemics, etc. going there, you sabotage industrial activity as well. What I recall is that there are reports on 'Allied Agents' trying to spread typhus in residential areas as well as concentration camps. That itself needs of course to be substantiated, whether this ain't story telling or bragging itself:
https://archive.org/details/ReportFromP ... WarTwo1943

I recall more reports, but can't find them at the moment. But there was a description of them getting 'typhus lice' onto people to make them sick. Wonder if I can find that again.

[Waldgänger]

I strongly urge the OP to actually read the holocaust handbooks, especially ones by Mattogno, before posting all these questions. Every single one is answered in his books about the gas chambers, cremation, the central building office, 'eyewitness testimony', et. al.

L. Langfus' account is such obvious Soviet atrocity propaganda that considering it text-critically beyond this is a waste of time.

[Morimont]

I strongly urge the OP to actually read the holocaust handbooks, especially ones by Mattogno, before posting all these questions. Every single one is answered in his books about the gas chambers, cremation, the central building office, 'eyewitness testimony', et. al.

L. Langfus' account is such obvious Soviet atrocity propaganda that considering it text-critically beyond this is a waste of time.

Thank you, I have been reading the Holocaust Handbooks; it's just that I'm on The Chemistry of Auschwitz which is what sparked this thread. Is it really reasonable however, to require everyone to read all the Holocaust Handbooks before even asking questions here? It's quite an endeavor to read them all - and those who need a little help along the way should be encouraged with good discussion as I've found here. I've found a lot of value reading through these posts. So thank you to everyone.

Right now it's a little hard for me to correspond in here because my posts need moderator approval as I'm new.

[hermod]

L. Langfus' account is such obvious Soviet atrocity propaganda that considering it text-critically beyond this is a waste of time.

Such diaries always remind me of the forged diary fabricated to "prove" the corpse-factory hoax during WWI...

https://postimg.cc/VSXbpc7N

https://postimg.cc/7J1XsYWm

Brigadier General John Charteris CMG DSO (1877–1946) was a British Army officer. During World War I he was the Chief of Intelligence at the British Expeditionary Force General Headquarters from 1915 to 1918. In later life he was a Unionist Party Member of Parliament (MP) for Dumfriesshire.

Propaganda
Charteris was also associated with some notable allied propaganda and disinformation successes, such as "the master hoax" of World War I, being the story of the existence of a German corpse factory Kadaververwertungsanstalt, in which the Germans supposedly rendered their own dead soldiers into fats. This story was circulated in several British and international newspapers in 1917. After the war Charteris allegedly claimed in a public speech that he invented it when he deliberately switched captions on two German war pictures: one image showed soldiers killed in battle being taken away for burial, while the other showed horse carcasses being delivered to a processing factory behind German lines. One of his subordinates created a fake diary describing the use of the factory. This was to have been planted on the corpse of a German soldier, to be "found" as proof of the story, but this plan was eventually dropped. Charteris's comments caused a media outcry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Charteris

[Hektor]

I strongly urge the OP to actually read the holocaust handbooks, especially ones by Mattogno, before posting all these questions. Every single one is answered in his books about the gas chambers, cremation, the central building office, 'eyewitness testimony', et. al.

L. Langfus' account is such obvious Soviet atrocity propaganda that considering it text-critically beyond this is a waste of time.

A lot of the Soviet Atrocity propaganda is rather crude. Probably there was no real incentive to be very persuasive with this, given that it could not be challenged in the Soviet Union itself or in the countries they controlled.

As for diaries, I recall that there was a "Hitler Diary" apparently even 'hand written' with all the bells and whistles. This was considered 'genuine' for quite a while as well.

[hermod]

As for diaries, I recall that there was a "Hitler Diary" apparently even 'hand written' with all the bells and whistles. This was considered 'genuine' for quite a while as well.

True. And with a forger more talented than Konrad Kujau, it would probably still be regarded as genuine today. Perhaps orthodox historians wouldn't have dismissed it at all if there had been more explicit references to the Holocaust in it.

https://postimg.cc/Nyg43wR6

[Hektor]

As for diaries, I recall that there was a "Hitler Diary" apparently even 'hand written' with all the bells and whistles. This was considered 'genuine' for quite a while as well.

True. And with a forger more talented than Konrad Kujau, it would probably still be regarded as genuine today. Perhaps orthodox historians wouldn't have dismissed it at all if there had been more explicit references to the Holocaust in it.

https://postimg.cc/Nyg43wR6

And I read the diaries were 60 volumes. Imagine the amount of work that must have gone into this by Konrad Kujau and whoever was helping him.

And yeah, I was wondering what "Hitler" wrote 'about the Holocaust' in the diaries.

I think there were several detectable mistakes with regards to the diary. The font of the letters on the cover for example:


It also demonstrated how quick people will consider something as 'genuine' ... Especially when "Hitler" is involved. It is indeed a bit like relic hunting. And concerning (Catholic) relics there was already a lot of pious frauds in the past. One wonders why people never seem to learn.

Also consider that Kujau, while being quite professional as a forger, probably didn't have the resources that an Intelligence Agency or their wealthy supporters could have. And bear in mind it is sixty pages with handwriting.

It's far easier to exchange one page or two in a folder of type-written pages. Especially when those that have compiled the folder are nobodies and actually confirmed dead.

[Hieldner]

And I read the diaries were 60 volumes

There were 62 volumes, to be exact. It was obvious that all of it is fake and the amount of work was completely in vain from the very beginning, David Irving explains why:

Just like, for example, in the famous case of the Adolf Hitler diaries that were published back in 1983. I was interested in the chemical test of the glue on the string and the ink and the paper, and so on. But there was the big thing that all of us overlooked, I've got to admit. This was the fact that when I saw the diaries -- there was 62 of them stacked up on the table -- all identical Adolf Hitler diaries in his handwriting, apparently authentic. And yet the thing that should have occurred to all of us at that time was obvious. The fact that if there were 62 diaries, all identical, on that table in 1983, meant that back in about 1920 Adolf Hitler had gone into his local stationers and said: "I want 62 diaries please ... I'm going to write a diary!" You see? None of us spotted that. I have to admit that, although I'm rather ashamed to admit it. And so it is with the archives over the water, in London, and here in Washington.

https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p261_Irving.html

[hermod]

It also demonstrated how quick people will consider something as 'genuine' ... Especially when "Hitler" is involved. It is indeed a bit like relic hunting. And concerning (Catholic) relics there was already a lot of pious frauds in the past. One wonders why people never seem to learn.

Most human beings' evidentiary standards are negatively correlated with their most cherished values. In other words, a normie believes that the truth is what makes him/her feel good and a lie is what makes him/her feel bad. Among other things, that's the reason why most people won't even listen to a Holocaust revisionist's arguments.

Also consider that Kujau, while being quite professional as a forger, probably didn't have the resources that an Intelligence Agency or their wealthy supporters could have. And bear in mind it is sixty pages with handwriting.

It's far easier to exchange one page or two in a folder of type-written pages. Especially when those that have compiled the folder are nobodies and actually confirmed dead.

Referring to the transcript of Himmler's notorious Posen speech and/or the Einsatzgruppen reports?

[Hektor]

It also demonstrated how quic...ne wonders why people never seem to learn.

Most human beings' evidentiary standards are negatively correlated with their most cherished values. In other words, a normie believes that the truth is what makes him/her feel good and a lie is what makes him/her feel bad. Among other things, that's the reason why most people won't even listen to a Holocaust revisionist's arguments.

Indeed... You can assume that 90% plus of people will lack the intellect, interest, time, ability and actual sincerity to actually investigate the matter with logic and empirical rigor. Most people just want a 'believably' sounding explanation and of course an awesome story they can believe and memorize.

The mooh-feelings type of arguments also bothered me for a while. When I pointed out that there is no physical evidence for what they claim the immediate response was an outraged:"Are you saying all the witnesses are lying".

Well, that is exactly the point. The vast majority of potential witnesses didn't seem to have noticed anything of what a rather small hand-full of self-proclaimed witnesses alleges. In other words. The Holocaust claims are actually contrary to what the testimony is and not in line with it. Them Causties seem to have indeed thought that testimony is their trump card. It isn't. Quite to the contrary. Testimony is a problem for the Holocaust Narrative! What has however happened is that testimony was cherry-picked and then repeated over and over again creating the impression that the 'testimony for the Holocaust is overwhelmingly'. It is a deception.

There is also other fallacies, like the moralistic fallacy. "If you deny the Holocaust, you White-Wash Hitler" and that is somehow a very wicked thing to do, given that he 's of the throne of 'evil incarnate'. Don't upset the Pantheon or you are a heretic, seems to be the mechanism there.

Referring to the transcript of Himmler's notorious Posen speech and/or the Einsatzgruppen reports?

Not specifically. To met it is just logical. Imagine you had captured 1000s of documents. You realise that it is necessary to spin a narrative there. But the evidence from documents isn't strong. So what you can do is use existing documents and just exchange a page in it. Or make a copy with slightly changing the wording.

If that sounds like a 'crude conspiracy theory', sorry, you need to grow up a little. It is quite plausible that if it is considered necessary, to frame one's enemy... That it will actually be done, given the scope of skills, resources and the opportunity to do so.



Sorry, I meant to say sixty volumes not pages. How many had-written pages Kujau or whomever is behind this wrote, I do not know.

[hermod]

Indeed... You can assume that 90% plus of people will lack the intellect, interest, time, ability and actual sincerity to actually investigate the matter with logic and empirical rigor. Most people just want a 'believably' sounding explanation and of course an awesome story they can believe and memorize.

The mooh-feelings type of arguments also bothered me for a while. When I pointed out that there is no physical evidence for what they claim the immediate response was an outraged:"Are you saying all the witnesses are lying".

Well, that is exactly the point. The vast majority of potential witnesses didn't seem to have noticed anything of what a rather small hand-full of self-proclaimed witnesses alleges. In other words. The Holocaust claims are actually contrary to what the testimony is and not in line with it. Them Causties seem to have indeed thought that testimony is their trump card. It isn't. Quite to the contrary. Testimony is a problem for the Holocaust Narrative! What has however happened is that testimony was cherry-picked and then repeated over and over again creating the impression that the 'testimony for the Holocaust is overwhelmingly'. It is a deception.

There is also other fallacies, like the moralistic fallacy. "If you deny the Holocaust, you White-Wash Hitler" and that is somehow a very wicked thing to do, given that he 's of the throne of 'evil incarnate'. Don't upset the Pantheon or you are a heretic, seems to be the mechanism there.

Anyway, if al the eyewitnesses to Nazi human soap factories, Nazi electrocution death chambers at Belzec and Nazi homicidal gas chambers in western camps such as Dachau and Belsen actually lied (as now conceded by everybody), there's no impossibility in the thesis that all the eyewitnesses to Nazi homicidal gas chambers in eastern camps such as Auschwitz and Treblinka lied too. Not to mention the fact that memory is unreliable and constantly reshaped. Some parts of the numerous Holocaust stories dissimenated by mainstream mass media 24/7 were inevitably inserted into the reshaped memory (cross-pollination) of the late witnesses to Nazi homicidal gas chambers. No expert on human memory would dare to deny that.

Not specifically. To met it is just logical. Imagine you had captured 1000s of documents. You realise that it is necessary to spin a narrative there. But the evidence from documents isn't strong. So what you can do is use existing documents and just exchange a page in it. Or make a copy with slightly changing the wording.

If that sounds like a 'crude conspiracy theory', sorry, you need to grow up a little. It is quite plausible that if it is considered necessary, to frame one's enemy... That it will actually be done, given the scope of skills, resources and the opportunity to do so.

Doesn't sound like a crude conspiracy theory. Even sounds very plausible.

The victors could also produce forged documents with fraudulent photostats devoid of any original document.

https://postimg.cc/Xr12NHTy

Not Guilty at Nuremberg, by Carlos Whitlock Porter:

DOCUMENTS

The standard version of events is that the Allies examined 100,000 documents and chose
1,000 which were introduced into evidence, and that the original documents were then
deposited in the Peace Palace at The Hague. This is rather inexact.

The documents used in evidence at Nuremberg consisted largely of "photocopies" of
"copies". Many of these original documents were written entirely on plain paper without
handwritten markings of any kind, by unknown persons. Occasionally, there is an illegible
initial or signature of a more or less unknown person certifying the document as a 'true copy'.
Sometimes there are German stamps, sometimes not. Many have been 'found' by the
Russians, or 'certified authentic' by Soviet War Crimes Commissions.

The Hague has few, if any, original documents. The Hague has many original postwar
'affidavits', or sworn statements, the Tribunal Commission transcripts, and much valuable
defense material. They have the 'human soap', which has never been tested, and the 'original
human soap recipe' (Document USSR-196), which is a forgery; but apparently no original
wartime German documents. The Hague has negative photostats of these documents, on
extremely brittle paper which has been stapled. To photocopy the photostats, the staples are
removed. When they are re-stapled more holes are made. Most of these documents have not
been photocopied very often, and officials at The Hague say it is very unusual for anyone to
ask to see them.

The National Archives in Washington (see Telford Taylor's Use of Captured German and
Related Documents, A National Archive Conference) claim that the original documents are
in The Hague. The Hague claims the original documents are in the National Archives.
The Stadtarchiv Nürnberg and the Bundesarchiv Koblenz also have no original documents,
and both say the original documents are in Washington. Since the originals are, in most cases,
'copies', there is often no proof that the documents in question ever existed.