Troubling, Common, Holocaust Rebuttals

[SeekingTruth7]

Being new to WW2 revisionism, I have encountered a few things that trouble me deeply as they are used by orthodox holocaust believers to rebuttal revisionist points. I am looking for a more experienced revisionist to tell me how to respond to the following:

"The reason gas chambers don't look like they are capable of gassings is due to the Germans turning them into air raid shelters, after the war, the Soviets had to partly rebuild these to the original state. David Cole misrepresented the holocaust historian, he wrote letters clarifying himself later.
Source - https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/krema-i"

"The Leuchter report has been debunked many times. Sources -
http://auschwitz.org/en/history/holocau ... ter-report
https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/a ... er-report/
https://debunkingdenialism.com/tag/leuchter-report/"

"The Rudolph report has been debunked as well. Sources -
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... e-science/"

Everything here
https://remember.org/ideas/kz

Also, how do I debunk the thousands of testimonies? Did any Jew tell the truth? If so could someone link some testimonies of Jews who told the truth?

Of course, called the best tool to combat is, Himmlers Poznan speech.
Now I have read here that some people want to say that the Poznan speeches are fake, I think that is pretty unlikely as Nazis attended that speech and there is evidence it happened. The other combat is that "Ausrottung" was translated wrong. Why does the dictionary from 1943 have the same meanings as today?

Why did he specify Ausrottung instead of Ausshaltung?

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... er-poznan/

How do I debate all this. I hope we have more solid debates than these. I would appreciated a detailed explanation that I can use. Thank You.

[Archie]

Hi SeekingTruth7,

The gas chamber stories were essentially a mix of urban legend and wartime propaganda. The camps were equipped with delousing facilities as well as crematoria. There was a lot of anxiety about poison gas going back to WWI and the delousing procedure (stripping people down, shaving and showering them, gassing the clothes) naturally lent itself to misinterpretation and rumors. And interested parties were more than happy to spread and amplify such stories, as is commonplace in war, particularly the Zionists who were hoping to get Palestine opened up for Jewish refugees.

Additionally, they have never found a single convincing gas chamber at any of the concentration camps. We have a fraudulent gas chamber at Dachau. We have the crematory at Auschwitz I. We have dynamited crematoria at Birkenau. The facilities at Majdanek are the best preserved but the supposed gas chambers are so unimpressive that they have quietly nudged Majdanek off the stage. Surely it is no coincidence that the amount of backtracking they've had to do is inversely related to how intact the facilities are at the camp. We also have blueprints for some of these buildings and none of them suggest they were gas chambers. So all we are left with is a conspiracy theory about the Germans designing normal buildings, then secretly converting them into gas chambers, then destroying all the evidence. They insist with great insecurity that Leuchter and Rudolf have been debunked but the bottom line is that 1) the gassing procedure described is fundamentally inconsistent with the fast execution time and fast ventilation time described in virtually every account, and 2) the delousing chambers are stained blue and have ample cyanide in the walls whereas the supposed gas chambers have only trace amounts. All they can do is grasp at straws and suggest some imaginary scenario of how it might be possible to have done daily gassings for multiple years and without leaving a trace. We also do not have any remains for the millions of people killed in these camps. In terms of positive physical evidence, they have nothing.

Testimonies (stories and rumors) are the entire basis for the holocaust, supplemented with some selective use of documents. Generally speaking, when you are looking at a testimony, you should ask a series of questions. What is this person actually claiming to know? Is this person claiming direct personal knowledge or is the information secondhand? Was this person in a position to know what they are claiming to know? Is this person a disinterested observer? When was this account first recorded (the earlier the more reliable)? How does this compare to other accounts of the events? Does the account show literary dependence/borrowing from other sources? Does it contradict other accounts? Does it contradict other known evidence or physical reality? Additionally, often a person will sound convincing if left to talk but if questioned carefully the story will begin to fall apart. This is why in court we have adversarial questioning of witnesses. It's rare for a holocaust survivor to be subjected to critical questioning and the few times it's happened have not generally gone well.

In many cases, what you will find if you look at these accounts rigorously is that many of the survivors are telling stories many years after the fact, the stories are highly contradictory, and they usually don't claim any direct knowledge of gas chambers or have any way of knowing how many people died. Often they are making a lot of unstated assumptions, like assuming a relative they've lost track of has been gassed and burned in the ovens. And then many of the stories are outright fabrications like the guy who made up the story about the girl bringing him the apples at the camp fence.

[Archie]

By the way, I doubt anyone is going to take the time to respond point-by-point to all of those links you posted. But if you use the forum search you should find discussion on all of those issues.

You might also be interested in this thread I started a while ago about the general techniques they use to try to prop up their dying myth.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13394&p=97870

[Otium]

Hello. Welcome to the Forum.

I'll provide you some research material on the topics you have brought up. Going into detail will be a long and tedious job, which I just do not have the time for. But I can provide you with all the information you'll need to get started.

I would recommend you take advantage of the CODOH Library: https://codoh.com/search/
and the Inconvenient History Journal: https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/

Okay. The claims:

Regarding Piper. That link you posted doesn't debunk anything, it's just Piper claiming the exact same things he did on the Cole video tape. That the "Gas chamber" was reconstructed "in order to regain the previous appearance.". He provides no evidence that the MOC gas chamber was ever actually a "homicidal gas chamber" in the first place, no chemical analysis, no plans or documents. He relies on eyewitnesses, faulty eyewitnesses I might add.

He cites Höss who isn't a reliable witness, he was tortured brutally by the British, and he was later given to the Soviets before being executed.

By early 1946 British military police had finally located his wife and children in Schleswig-Holstein. They kept her under close surveillance and on March 11 forced her to reveal that her husband working as a farm labourer near Flensburg under the assumed name of ‘Franz Lang’. The posse found Höss at eleven P.M. that night, sleeping on a bunk in the farm’s slaughter-house. Two days earlier he had accidentally broken the phial of cyanide which he possessed; he was unable now to escape the consequences of his ill-starred career. To make doubly sure, he was immediately handcuffed and the cuffs were not removed for the next three weeks. He was dragged off his bunk, stripped naked, dumped onto one of the slaughter tables in the barn and manhandled until a medical officer accompanying the unit murmured, ‘Call them off unless you want to take back a corpse.’ As the car pulled into the British unit’s barracks at Heide, a blizzard was blowing. Höss was marched naked across the parade ground to a cell. For the next three days he was kept awake and repeatedly interrogated in German – he understood no English. Kenneth Jones, a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery, and two other soldiers were detailed to take turns to sit in his cell, armed with pick-axe handles to jab him every time he fell asleep. ‘After three days and nights without sleep,’ said Jones, ‘Höss finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities.’ Höss himself wrote later, ‘At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it. Alcohol and the whip [his own] were too much for me.’ The ‘record’ was an eight-page text typed in German, which Höss signed in the early hours of March 15, having the presence of mind even now to add the time, ‘2:30 A.M.’ after the date. This confession, which subsequently came to be submitted to the Nuremberg tribunal as document NO–1210, had taken three days of torture, as his captor, Sergeant Bernard Clarke himself would describe, to obtain. It contained numerous perhaps deliberate errors, for instance the identification by Höss of an extermination camp at ‘Wolzek near Lublin,’ in addition to those at ‘Belzek’ and ‘Tublinka,’ all spelt thus. Wolzek has never existed; and the other two camps, Belzec and Treblinka, were not in existence at the time that Höss testified to. Having signed this document, Höss was transferred to British Intelligence regional headquarters at Minden-on-the-Weser. ‘There,’ he would later complain, ‘I received further rough treatment at the hands of the English public prosecutor, a major.’ His interlocutor here was Gerald Draper, a thirty-one-year-old lawyer who was chief interrogator of the British War Crimes Group. Höss’ confession would be listed as the high point of his career. This encounter was probably the source of a brief statement, set down in an English (i.e. not American or German) hand, which has survived and which reads in full as follows:

Statement made Voluntarily at [sic] Gaol
by Rudolf Hoess, former Commandant of
Auschwitz Concentration Camp on 16th day of March 1946.
– – – – –
I personally arranged on orders received from Himmler in May 1941
the gassing of two million persons between June/July 1941 and the end of
1943 during which time I was commandant of Auschwitz.
signed.

Höss signed this statement: ‘Rudolf Höss, SS-Ostubaf., fr. Kdt. v. Auschwitz–Birkenau’. He was also interrogated on March 20, 1946 at Minden, but that report is lost or not yet in the public domain. Shackled to another prisoner Höss was driven eleven days later to the American Zone in southern Germany, where he was housed in the Nuremberg jailhouse as a witness. His companion on this road journey was Moritz von Schirmeister, Dr Joseph Goebbels’ former press officer, for whose production Hans Fritzsche had applied as a defence witness. ‘Sure,’ Höss told Schirmeister before they were unshackled, ‘I signed to the effect that I had bumped off two and a half million people. But I could equally well have signed that it was five million. There are methods to get anybody to confess to anything regardless of whether it is true or not.’ Höss would describe the regime imposed on the jailhouse inmates by the American colonel Andrus as a ‘rest-cure’ compared to what he had been through in the British zone.

David Irving, Nuremberg: The Last Battle (Focal Point Publications, 2004), Pp. 349-351

For more regarding Hoess. Read Holocaust Handbook volume 35:
Commandant of Auschwitz—Rudolf Höss, His Torture and His Forced Confessions

http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=35

See some relevant debates with believers on this forum:

Wyatt admits to torture of Hoess; claims he's a reliable source despite "no evidence" for the absurd claims
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12725

More related threads on Hoess:

Auschwitz Commandant Hoess 'confessions' debunked in review
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2429

The Confessions of Rudolf Hoess
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2656


Leuchter has never been debunked. He has only ever been affirmed. Make no mistake, Leutchers report wasn't perfect, but it was essentially correct, even in it's assumptions which have since been thoroughly documented in Rudolf's report. Leuchter, as Rudolf has said, was a pioneer, nobody before him had ever chemically examined the alleged Homicidal Gas Chambers before.

See:
The Leuchter Reports—Critical Edition

http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=16

Also see:
The Leuchter Report Vindicated: A Response to J.-C. Pressac's Critique
https://codoh.com/library/document/the-leuchter-report-vindicated/en/

Kenneth Stern's Critique of The Leuchter Report: A Critical Analysis
https://codoh.com/library/document/kenneth-sterns-critique-of-the-leuchter-report-a/en/

The Leuchter Report, Revisited
https://codoh.com/library/document/the-leuchter-report-revisited/en/

A fraudulent attempt to refute Mr. Death
http://vho.org/GB/c/GR/Fraudulent.html

Richard J. Green never debunked the Rudolf report, he relies on the crackpot Polish Crakow study which purposefully botched it's results. They purposely refused to test for Iron cyanide compounds, then they claimed they had no idea how the Prussian blue could've formed. Green presents many baseless alternatives without evidence.

Rudolf on July 20th has discussed his report in detail here: https://therightstuff.biz/2020/07/20/tds620-the-rudolf-report/

Richard J. Green has been debunked:

See the 4th edition (2020) of Germar Rudolfs report:

The Chemistry of Auschwitz—The Technology and Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas Chambers – A Crime-Scene Investigation

http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=2
Richard Green is dealt with on pages 347-353

And the documentary version: http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=1014

Also see:
Auschwitz Lies—Legends, Lies, and Prejudices on the Holocaust

http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php ... page_id=18

Regarding the Gassings, a user at this forum has created a wonderful infographic that is sure to help explain all the preliminary details you will need to know:



In this wonderful article, Rudolf shreds many of the people who have tried and failed to "debunk" him:
Benjamin Schager – Master of Mental Diarrhea
http://germarrudolf.com/en/2013/02/benjamin-schager-master-of-mental-diarrhea/

By way of a new paper on Inconvenient History this year, it has been shown that the walls of Krematorium I were incredibly thin and thus too weak to hold the panicking Jews allegedly put inside without crumbling to pieces:

The Thin Internal Walls of Krematorium I at Auschwitz A Small Detail with Far-reaching Consequences
https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/12/2/7298

See this article by Historian John Wear regarding Auschwitz Chemistry:

Auschwitz Chemistry: How Science Proves The ‘Final Solution’ Was Systematically Gassing Lice Infested Clothing To Save Lives
https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2018/02/16/auschwitz-chemistry-how-science-proves-the-final-solution-was-systematically-gassing-lice-infested-clothing-to-save-lives/

The Cyanide Chemistry has been debated at this forum before too, see this thread with much information and explanation:

Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4111

An Official Polish Report on the Auschwitz 'Gas Chambers'
https://codoh.com/library/document/an-official-polish-report-on-the-auschwitz-gas/en/

Some considerations about the ›Gas Chambers‹ of Auschwitz and Birkenau
http://vho.org/GB/c/GR/Green.html

Rudolf, beyond Chemistry, shows us that the Alleged Gas Chamber in Birkenau had a swinging door. This point in and of itself disproves the fraudulent Holocaust thesis.

Regarding witness testimony, see:

Auschwitz: Eyewitness Reports and Perpetrator Confessions of the Holocaust—30 Gas-Chamber Witnesses Scrutinized

http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=36

Also see:

Dissecting the Holocaust—The Growing Critique of ‘Truth’ and ‘Memory’

http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=1
For witnesses, see page 129.

In some of your links, particularly on Leutcher, the work of Jean Claude Pressac and Robert Jan Van Pelt are cited. Both of these men have been refuted in detail already, see:

Auschwitz: Plain Facts—A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac

http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=14

and the exhaustive study:

The Real Case for Auschwitz—Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed

http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=22

The biggest pinch test is this. The orthodox narrative claims to know where the bodies of millions of dead Jews are. Yet they have never shown us these mass graves. They do not exist. Hence, the Holocaust did not occur.

The Posen speeches have been dealt with before too:

See my posts with many links:
On the Himmler Posen Speeches
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13199&p=96225#p96225

Posen speech revisited - I'm a native speaker
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10278&p=93916#p93916

David Irving, at his trial in 2000, explained to the court that one of the incriminating pages in the Posen speeches had been tampered with, and only that page. The prosecution did not respond to this, they couldn't argue with it:

Holocaust Controveries: alleged March 15, 1940 Himmler speech about extermination of Poles is most probably a forger
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12397&p=93895#p93895

The October 4 1943 Posen speech also fits perfectly in to the Revisionist view:
https://codoh.com/library/document/heinrich-himmlers-posen-speech-from-04101943/en/

[ServantOfAhuraMazda]

"The reason gas chambers don't look like they are capable of gassings is due to the Germans turning them into air raid shelters, after the war, the Soviets had to partly rebuild these to the original state. David Cole misrepresented the holocaust historian, he wrote letters clarifying himself later."

All "gas chambers" were not converted to air raid shelters; thats just the case of the Krema I gas chamber. No revisionist ever claimed that gassings were impossible because it now lacks a door into the crematoria and whatnot.

Speaking of reconstruction, they claim that they reopened the holes at the original places where the SS men had sealed them. Well, they made a mistake that exposed them.

As explained by Piper, the Auschwitz Museum’s position is that these holes
were “re-made” in the exact locations of the pre-existing, genuine holes,

CURATED LIES: THE AUSCHWITZ MUSEUM’S MISREPRESENTATIONS, DISTORTIONS AND DECEPTION,
page 19

Are my eyes decieving me, or are the holes centered around the present state of the room and not the original one?

This is just the tip of the iceberg; search the forum or preferably read books on this matter at https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.ph ... 40#entries
(You can download pdf versions for free)

"The Leuchter report has been debunked many times. Sources -
http://auschwitz.org/en/history/holocau ... ter-report
https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/a ... er-report/
https://debunkingdenialism.com/tag/leuchter-report/"

"The Rudolph report has been debunked as well. Sources -
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... e-science/"

This is just a blind appeal to authority. Germar Rudolf has addressed these in his books. (You can find them on the mentioned site)

Also, how do I debunk the thousands of testimonies? Did any Jew tell the truth? If so could someone link some testimonies of Jews who told the truth?

We do not have thousnads of testimonies of the gas chambers and whatnot. Tens of thousands of people went through Auschwitz and survived the war. It is only a relatively small group of liars that claim to have seen the gassings, people burned alive, people cooked alive and other fantastical stories. In fact most testimonies tell the truth: That they personally did not see any mass murder operation.

Of course, called the best tool to combat is, Himmlers Poznan speech.
Now I have read here that some people want to say that the Poznan speeches are fake, I think that is pretty unlikely as Nazis attended that speech and there is evidence it happened. The other combat is that "Ausrottung" was translated wrong. Why does the dictionary from 1943 have the same meanings as today?

Nobody claims that there never was a Posen speech, but is the one we have the real one? Himmler's voice was rather high pitched and in my opinion the Posen speech is not him.

Listen to this speech: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... der_SS.ogg

And then to the infamous Posen speech: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... ,_1943.ogg

I think the Posen speech does not sound like true Himmler at all.

[Hannover]

SeekingTruth7:
They key is to address each point. one at time.

i.e.:
- "Eyewitnesses":
Recall there are countless "eyewitnesses" to witchcraft, documented, court testimonies, obviously not factual.
Look at them individually, look at what any "eyewitness' actually says. and you'll see that they often claim what is scientifically impossible, like the alleged 'gas chambers*, or they contradict the very narrative that they pretend to support, as well as contradicting other absurd "eyewitnesses".
It's telling when you challenge a Believer to give you the name and verbatim text of what any so called "eyewitness' actually said that supposedly 'proves' the narrative. The Believer cannot.

* For a thorough demolition of the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers & alleged Auschwitz homicidal gassing process see analysis at: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11143&p=83723&hilit=model+asmarques#p83723

- Another critical point is that it is claimed by "holocaust historians" that the alleged human remains of '6M Jews & 5M others' are buried in huge mass graves and that the locations of those alleged enormous mass graves are in precisely known locations. Yet efforts by Revisionists & even Israeli researchers have failed to find such remains.

In essence the entire fraud falls apart simply based upon those two points alone.

Like the US concentration camps for Japanese-Americans, there certainly was German detention and labor sites for Jews and others. That is not the so called "holocaust".

One more quick point, don't fall for the 'Look at those dead bodies from the camps'.
- They, like even German staff, died of disease, usually typhus which ravaged Europe during the war.
- Illegal Allied strafing of civilian transports of food & medicine to the camps made the situation much, much worse.
- Per autopsies by the Allies, not a single person was ever shown to have died from being gassed. None, zero.

Be sure to look around here, use the search function, all points are covered, explained and easily refuted.

Welcome, Hannover

[Lamprecht]

A lot of other posters may have brought this up but the rules state "one topic per thread" (as best we can). If you browse around you will quickly realize why such a rule is necessary rather than constrictive.

"The reason gas chambers don't look like they are capable of gassings is due to the Germans turning them into air raid shelters, after the war, the Soviets had to partly rebuild these to the original state. David Cole misrepresented the holocaust historian, he wrote letters clarifying himself later.
Source - https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/krema-i"

There are discussions going on right now about David Cole, the search bar will help you with this. Cole was threatened and went the "Holocaust-lite" route. Some have theorized that he was a plant but I'm not quite sure.

Krema I at Auschwitz main camp is the only supposed "Homicidal gas chamber" still visible at this camp, but it is claimed to have been only an experimental gas chamber. The reality is that there is no evidence that anyone was gassed at this building. The alleged Auschwitz gassings are claimed to have taken place mostly at Birkenau, first in two "bunkers" (farmhouses) and then later in Krema 2 and 3 (mostly mirror images of one another) and later 4 and 5.

"The Leuchter report has been debunked many times. Sources -
http://auschwitz.org/en/history/holocau ... ter-report
https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/a ... er-report/
https://debunkingdenialism.com/tag/leuchter-report/"

"The Rudolph report has been debunked as well. Sources -
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... e-science/"

Leuchter's report was hastily done and Leuchter was a pioneer. Presently his report is published as version #5, mostly as a historical document. It was supplanted by Rudolf's expert report. It's pointless really to bring up the Leuchter report in any context beyond its historical role in the debate: he was the first to do what he did.

That exact article that supposedly "debunked" the Rudolf report was specifically addressed by Rudolf in a back-and-forth series between Rudolf and Green. Here is the exact article responding:

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html

The Rudolf Report anyway has since been "Replaced" by "The Chemistry of Auschwitz". You can find this in book form here:

(PDF) The Chemistry of Auschwitz
http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf

There is also the documentary that goes along with it:

[bicthute]https://www.bitchute.com/video/PyFQEZowySfx/[/bitchute]
Mirror & transcript: https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... chwitz/en/

To understand the arguments from chemistry, you must study the topic.

Everything here
https://remember.org/ideas/kz

There are 60 different supposed "lies" here. For this you would have to make a thread for any of the ones you are unsure about. It appears to me that most of these are just quotations (of who?) and supposed "debunkings" that are just a narrative being spun.

Also, how do I debunk the thousands of testimonies? Did any Jew tell the truth? If so could someone link some testimonies of Jews who told the truth?

What is there to debunk? Only a tiny minority of testimonies say anything that truly contradicts what revisionists state. A good book on this is:

[Book] Auschwitz: Eyewitness Reports and Perpetrator Confessions of the Holocaust—30 Gas-Chamber Witnesses Scrutinized
viewtopic.php?t=12621

Of course, called the best tool to combat is, Himmlers Poznan speech.
Now I have read here that some people want to say that the Poznan speeches are fake, I think that is pretty unlikely as Nazis attended that speech and there is evidence it happened. The other combat is that "Ausrottung" was translated wrong. Why does the dictionary from 1943 have the same meanings as today?

Why did he specify Ausrottung instead of Ausshaltung?

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... er-poznan/

Some who were at the damage control pep talk specifically claimed that extermination of Jews was not discussed there. Nobody is claiming that a speech did not happen, some argue that the transcript is not accurate. The critical pages have been retyped according to Irving, so some tampering has taken place.

I suggest:

On the Himmler Posen Speeches
viewtopic.php?t=13199

Jonathan Harrison & Roberto Muehlenkamp ripped on the 'ausrottung' canard
viewtopic.php?t=10708#p91947

[Otium]

Why did he specify Ausrottung instead of Ausshaltung?

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... er-poznan/

How do I debate all this. I hope we have more solid debates than these. I would appreciated a detailed explanation that I can use. Thank You.

Because Ausrottung has many meanings not limited to murder or extermination. Remember, words are not only use literally.

Langenscheidt's Dictionary of 1982 translates ausrotten", when used with respect to a people or a race, as "exterminate", "wipe out", "kill off', and in the more general sense, referring to an evil, as "eradicate', "extirpate", "stamp out", "root out". The term generally implies the use of force and is harsher than the more neutral term "vernichten ". In general usage, the term is frequently applied to the removal of pests or weeds. The word stem is related to the word "-rotten" (to uproot), and so the original meaning is "to remove together with the root" (Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language, 23rd ed. 1993). As used with respect to human beings, I consider the English word "extirpate" to be a better translation than "exterminate", which corresponds more to the German "vernichten."

6.2 Used with respect to a people, the term ausrotten does not necessarily have to mean that all members of this people are killed. The term could also be understood in the sense that the foundations for the existence of the people are destroyed, so that the nation ceases to exist as a nation. However, the term can also be understood as meaning that all members of a nation or the great majority of a nation are killed. The term is used in this second sense by Hitler and leading National Socialists during the Second World War and also in the years preceding the war. I have not yet found a single example of Hitler or Himmler using the term "ausrotten" during the Second World War with respect to human beings or a group of human beings other than in the sense of "to kill in large numbers or to kill all as far as possible"

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/Longerich/glossary/part2.html

And:

The term "wiping out Marxism -- "auszurotten" in Hitler's parlance -- was subsequently adopted by Himmler in his Posen speech. It was used with respect to the Jews in both a botanical sense (uprooting weeds) and a moral sense (uprooting evil).

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Kershaw/Ha'aretz.html

Himmler, an example from his 1943 Posen speech:

I mean the evacuation of the Jews (die Judenevakuierung), the extermination (Ausrottung) of the Jewish race. It’s one of those things it is easy to talk about, ‘The Jewish race is being exterminated [ausgerottet],’ says one Party Member, ‘that’s quite clear, it’s in our program – elimination [Ausschaltung] of the Jews and we’re doing it, extermination [Ausrottung] is what we’re doing.’

Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century (Castle Hill Publishers, 2015), Pp. 254f.

"Ausrottung" in this context cannot possibly be referring to the physical extermination of the Jews, Himmler is referencing the party program, which quite specifically states:

4. None but members of the nation may be citizens of the State. None but those of German blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the nation.

E.T.S. Dugdale trans., The Programme of the NSDAP and its General Conceptions (Frz. Eher Nachf., Munich, 1932) Pp. 18
https://archive.org/details/9-nsdap-gottfried-feder

The program says nothing about exterminating Jews.

Alfred Rosenberg at Nuremberg had a back and forth with Thomas Dodd about this very word, Rosenberg disputed the exterminationist insistence behind the word:

ROSENBERG: I have said already that that word does not have the sense which you attribute to it.

MR. DODD: I will get around to the word and the meaning of it. I am asking you, did you not use the word or the term "extermination of the Jews" in the speech which you were prepared to make in the Sportpalast in December of 1941? Now, you can answer that pretty simply.

ROSENBERG: That may be, but I do not remember. I myself did not read the phrasing of the draft any further. In which form it was expressed I can no longer say.

MR. DODD: Well then, perhaps we can help you on that. I will ask you be shown Document 1517-PS. It becomes Exhibit USA-824.

[Document 1517-PS was submitted to the defendant.]

Now, this is also a memorandum of yours written by you about a discussion you had with Hitler on the 14th of December 1941, and it is quite clear from the first paragraph that you and Hitler were discussing a speech which you were to deliver in the Sportpalast in Berlin, and if you will look at the second paragraph, you will find these words:

"I remarked on the Jewish question that the comments about the New York Jews must perhaps be changed somewhat after

553

17 April 45

the conclusion (of matters ~ the East). I took the standpoint not to speak of the extermination (Ausrottung) of Jewry. The Fuehrer affirmed this view and said that they had laid the burden of war on us and that they had brought the destruction; it is no wonder if the results would strike them first."

Now, you have indicated that you have some difficulty with the meaning of that word, and I am going to ask you about the word "Ausrottung." I am going to ask that you be shown-you are familiar with the standard German-English dictionary, Cassell's, I suppose, are you? Do you know this word, ever heard of it?

ROSENBERG: No.

MR. DODD: This is something you will be interested in. Will you look up and read out to the Tribunal what the definition of "Ausrottung" is?

ROSENBERG: I do not need a foreign dictionary in order to explain the various meanings "Ausrottung" may have in the German language. One can exterminate an idea, an economic system, a social order, and as a final consequence, also a group of human beings, certainly. Those are the many possibilities which are contained in that word. For that I do not need an English-German dictionary. Translations from German into English are so often wrong-and just as in that last document you have submitted to me, I heard again the translation of "Herrenrasse." In the document itself "Herrenrasse" is not even mentioned; however, there is the term "ein falsches Herrenmenschentum" (a false master mankind). Apparently everything is translated here in another sense.

MR. DODD: All right, I am not interested in that. Let us stay on this term of "Ausrottung." I take it then that you agree it does mean to "wipe out" or to "kill off," as it is understood, and that you did use the term in speaking to Hitler.

ROSENBERG: Here I heard again a different translation, which again used new German words, so I cannot determine what you wanted to express in English.

MR. DODD: Are you very serious in pressing this apparent inability of yours to agree with me about this ward or are you trying to kill time? Don't you know that there are plenty of people in this courtroom who speak German and who agree that that word does mean to "wipe out," to "extirpate?"

ROSENBERG: It means "to overcome" on one side and then it is to be used not with respect to individuals but rather to juridical entities, to certain historical traditions. On the other side this word has been used with respect to the German people and we have also not believed that in consequence thereof 60 millions of Germans would be shot.

554

17 April 4G

MR. DODD: I want to remind you that this speech of yours in which you use the term "Ausrottung" was made about 6 months after Himmler told Hoess, whom you heard on this witness stand, to start exterminating the Jews. That is a fact, is it not?

ROSENBERG: No, that is not correct, for Adolf Hitler said in his declaration before the Reichstag: Should a new world war be started by these attacks of the emigrants and their backers, then as a consequence there would be an extermination and an extirpation. That has been understood as a result and as a political threat. Apparently, a similar political threat was also used by me before the war against America broke out. And, when the war had already broken out, I have apparently said that, since it has come to this, there is no use to speak of it at all.

MR. DODD: Well, actually, the Jews were being exterminated in the Eastern Occupied Territories at that time and thereafter, weren't they?

ROSENBERG: Then, may I perhaps ray something about the use of the words here? We are speaking here of extermination of Jewry; there is also still a difference between "Jewry" and "the Jews."

Source: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-17-46.asp

There are also many examples of the word being used in such a way that could not be interpreted as literal physical extermination:

Rudolf Hess on March 14th 1935 stated:

German: »Die nationalsozialistische Gesetzgebung hat gegen die [jüdische] Überfremdung korrigierend eingegriffen. Ich sage korrigierend, denn daß im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland das Judentum nicht etwa rücksichtslos ausgerottet wurde, beweist die Tatsache, daß heute in Industrie und Handwerk 33500, in Handel und Verkehr 98900 Juden allein in Preußen tätig sind -- beweist weiter die Tatsache, daß bei einem Anteil der Juden an der Be-völkerung Deutschlands von 1% noch immer 17,5% aller Rechtsanwälte Juden sind und zum Beispiel in Berlin noch immer fast 50% Nichtarier zur ärztlichen Kassenpraxis zugelassen sind.«

English: "National Socialist legislation has now introduced corrective measures against this over-alienization. I say corrective, because the proof that the Jews are not being ruthlessly rooted out [ausgerottet] is that in Prussia alone 33,500 Jews are working in manufacturing and industry, and 89, 800 are engaged in trade and commerce; and that with only 1 per cent of the population Jewish, 17.5 per cent of our attorneys and in Berlin nearly half the registered doctors are still Jewish."

Source: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Aus ... 40535.html

If "ausgerottet" or "ausrottung" mean't physical extermination, then could it be claimed that the Jews were the victims of genocide in 1935? Surely not. But the funny part is, there is just as much evidence that the Jews were being killed in 1935, than in 1942. So, no evidence at all.

Here are four more examples:

(a) In August 1936 he dictated to his young secretary Christa Schroeder the text of the famous memorandum on the Four Year Plan (printed with commentary by Professor Wilhelm Treue in Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 1955, at pages 184 et seq.; quoted by the plaintiff in THE WAR PATH, at page 50). In this Hitler stated that Germany must be rendered capable of waging War against the Soviet Union because 'a victory by Bolshevism would lead not to a new Versailles treaty but to the final annihilation, indeed the Ausrottung, of the German nation'. Clearly Hitler is not saying that the Bolsheviks would liquidate one hundred million Germans: but that they would subsume the nation, take it over, emasculate it -- the Germans would cease to exist as a sovereign world power.

(b) On November 10, 1938, addressing Nazi editors, he said: 'I have, I must add, often just one misgiving and that is the following: whenever I have a look at these intellectual classes of ours -- sadly, we need them; otherwise one might one day, uh, I dunno, ausrotten them or something' (German Federal Archives file NS.11/28, pages 30--46; and Dr Hildegard von Kotze and Professor Helmut Krausnick (ed.), Es Spricht der Führer, Gütersloh, 1966, at page 281; see too Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 1958, at page 188). Here too, the plaintiff submits, the sense of the verb ausrotten is 'turf them out' because at that time the Nazi blood purges had not begun, apart from Hitler's one murderous fling against the Brownshirts in 1934.

(c) On July 4, 1942 he described over dinner a conversation he had had with the Czech president Emil Hácha about his threat to expel the Czechs from the occupied territories of Bohemia and Moravia. 'The Czech gentlemen had understood this so well,' he said, 'that they had thereafter attuned their future policies explicitly to the principle that all pro-Soviet Benes intrigues and Benes people had to be ausgerottet, and that in the struggle for the preservation of the Czech national characteristics there could no longer be any neutrals, but those who blew neither hot nor cold were also to be spat out.' (Text in Henry Picker, Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier 1941--42 Stuttgart, 1963, at page 435). The context shows that ausgerottet is used by Hitler to denote physical removal and expulsion.

(d) Even Himmler used the word ausrotten on occasions to mean something other than murder. For example replying on February 21, 1944 to a report from Bormann on abuses in the Lublin concentration camp, Himmler wrote: 'The guilty commandant, SS-Sturmbannführer Florstedt, has been under arrest for two months already. The deplorable conditions are being severely ausgerottet and redressed in rigorous court-proceedings' (National Archives microfilm T-175, roll 53, at page 7290).

Source: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Aus ... ument.html

In fact, the primary meaning of the word "Ausrottung" was "uprooting" and "extirpation", the more violent meanings were less common:

According to the standard Langenscheidt 1967 German dictionary, which suggests translations in descending order of likelihood, Judentum is translated only as: '(n.) Judaism,' while Ausrottung has the entry '(f.) uprooting; extirpation, eradication; extermination, pol. a. genocide.'

Ibid.

Irving recommends (see: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Ausrottung/Langenscheidt1974.html) the use of dictionaries from 1930, 1940 or 1950 to asertain the definition of the word as it was most likely to have been used by Hitler et al. See also Irving's reply to the document and photograph forger Eberhard Jäckel: http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/people/Jaeckel/Jaeckel170577.html

In Hitler's case, he never once goes further than talking in the most imprecise manner -- blustering, bloodthirsty, bragging and bullying -- of "the destruction of Jewry" [Vernichtung des Judentums], or "stamping out Jewry in Europe" [Ausrottung des Judentums in Europa] or "moving them away" [entfernen] or "getting rid of them" [beseitigen]. How easy it would have been for this loquacious Führer to have made just one slip of the tongue just once, and to have talked about "liquidate", for example; but he never does.

The words that I quote above, Hitler uses again and again in the loosest contexts -- it would shame you if I listed them all to you, but how about just two lurid uses of the word ausrotten for a start: in his speech to the Nazi editors on 10 November 1938, he announces he is going to "ausrotten" the German intellectuals; in his meeting with Hácha on 15 March 1939, according to Walther Hewel's note, Hitler says: "Wenn im Herbst vorigen Jahres die Tschechoslowakei nicht nachgegeben hätte, so wäre das tschechische Volk ausgerottet worden."

Is this not a precise parallel with the Ausrottung des Judentums, or Ausrottung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa? But you will not seriously suggest that Hitler ever considered liquidating, murdering, the entire Czech nation? Why do we apply the double standards of word-interpretation in the case of the liquidation of the Jews; why the blind spot that afflicts every historian whenever Hitler-and-the-Jews is the subject of research? Why are, suddenly, the normal rules of evidence no longer considered necessary?

Carlo Mattogno here too has pointed out how orthodox historians use the word out of context:

“Heinrich Himmler proves the Holocaust happened.” (p. 190)

This alleged “demonstration” consists of three quotations. The first one dates from January 1937. Himmler spoke of “Roman emperors who exterminated [ausrotteten] the first Christians.” From this, the authors conclude that “ausrotten meant murder” (p. 191) and therefore, whenever Himmler spoke of “Ausrottung” it should be taken to mean assassination. We have here another fine example of the superstition attached to a word removed from its context!

[...]

The third quote is that infamous sentence from the Posen speech, in which the term “Judenevakuierung” (evacuation of Jews) is made the synonym of “Ausrottung” in a section entitled “Die Judenevakuierung” (the evacuation of Jews):[184]

“I am now talking of the evacuation of the Jews, of the extermination of the Jewish people.”

And because Himmler had used the verb “ausrotten” in the sense of “assassinate” in January of 1937, it follows that in October of 1943 “Ausrottung” necessarily meant “assassination”!

Of course none of those self-styled specialists of historiographical method has ever asked themselves, if, by any chance, it might not be just the other way around, with “Ausrottung” standing for “Evakuierung.” Actually, in Hitler‘s speeches examined above the “Vernichtung” or “Ausrottung” of the Jewish people was merely its political extermination by means of deportation or evacuation to eastern non-European areas.

Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/deny ... idence/en/

Very clearly, when Himmler says, "the extermination of the Jewish people", or "Ausrottung" directly after "Judenevakuierung", he cannot possibly be referring to the murder of Jews, but instead, their uprooting and deportation. This is the obvious meaning and context of the word, and it requires no further examination.

[Lamprecht]

This link: https://remember.org/ideas/kz

Is just a partial translation of the 1996 German book:
"In Auschwitz wurde niemand vergast": 60 rechtsradikale Lügen und wie man sie widerlegt
by Markus Tiedemann. (“Nobody was gassed at Auschwitz”: 60 Rightist Lies and How to Counter Them)
Google Books: https://books.google.com/books/about/In ... pnAAAAMAAJ

Only 3 of the "60 Rightist Lies" are translated and posted in your link, and it is nothing really. There are no sources or citations, just allegations. It's merely repeating the standard "Holocaust" story. Regardless, the book in question has been discussed in the following Holocaust Handbook:



Auschwitz Lies: Legends, Lies, and Prejudices on the Holocaust
https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=18
PDF: https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/18-al.pdf
HTML: http://archive.fo/Mq6LO or http://web.archive.org/web/202002190229 ... witz-lies/

See:

In 1996, Markus Tiedemann, a German student of philosophy, published a book intended as a guideline for history teachers to refute revisionist arguments.[33] Tiedemann’s book is full of polemics, innuendoes, unfounded and untrue statements about revisionism, and unsupported and false historical claims.[34] Should any teacher ever try to use this book to refute revisionist arguments, he would quickly suffer total shipwreck if facing a real revisionist. Despite the fact that this book is totally worthless from a historical point of view, it won the German prize “Das politische Buch” (The Political Book) in 1998. Hence, it was praised because of its political usefulness to denigrate and defame revisionism. Due to its success, it was republished by several other publishers under license in 2000[35] and with support of the German Social-Democratic Party,[36] which at that time dominated the German federal government.
...
[33] Markus Tiedemann, “In Auschwitz wurde niemand vergast.” 60 rechtsradikale Lügen und wie man sie widerlegt, Verlag an der Ruhr, Mülheim 1996; it was positively reviewed by Germany’s most respected daily newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Jan. 15, 1997.
[34] See “In Auschwitz wurde niemand vergast” in G. Rudolf, op. cit. (note 14), pp. 261-282.
[35] Goldmann, Munich, and Omnibus, Munich.
[36] Rather: the SPD’s fund raising organization and think tank Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

Citation 34 goes to:

Auschwitz-Lügen—Legenden, Lügen, Vorurteile von Medien, Politikern und Wissenschaftlern über den Holocaust
http://www.holocausthandbuecher.com/ind ... page_id=18
PDF: http://www.holocausthandbuecher.com/dl/18d-al.pdf

Tiedemann is mentioned at least 100 times in the book above which is in German as well.

[Clay]

SeekingTruth7:

Being new to WW2 revisionism, I have encountered a few things that trouble me deeply as they are used by orthodox holocaust believers to rebuttal revisionist points... Also, how do I debunk the thousands of testimonies? Did any Jew tell the truth? If so could someone link some testimonies of Jews who told the truth? ...How do I debate all this. I hope we have more solid debates than these. I would appreciated a detailed explanation that I can use. Thank You.

SeekingTruth7, the debate about mass graves, and therefore all the "testimonies" about them and the alleged "holocausts within the holocaust" at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibior, Treblinka II is over. The true-believers lied themselves into a corner with their criminally fraudulent holocaust archaeology and now have no where to run or hide. The same can be said about the so-called "holocaust by bullets" in the Ukraine. Just those 6 so-called "holocausts within the holocaust" account for more than 3.6 million of the alleged holocausted jews, which is over 60% of the alleged holocaust death toll of jews. Science has destroyed the holohoax lie and it can be used by you or anyone else to debate and destroy the true believers.

All you need to know can be found here:

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

[Clay]

SeekingTruth7:

Being new to WW2 revisionism, I have encountered a few things that trouble me deeply as they are used by orthodox holocaust believers to rebuttal revisionist points.

BTW SeekingTruth7, what are your personal beliefs about the alleged "scientific discoveries" of holocaust mass graves at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor, Treblinka II and in the Ukraine?

[Clay]

SeekingTruth7:

Also, how do I debunk the thousands of testimonies? Did any Jew tell the truth?

SeekingTruth7, could you provide the name of one jew who was telling the truth about the existence of mass graves at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor or Treblinka II during one of their so-called "testimonies" ?

[Clay]

SeekingTruth7:

How do I debate all this. I hope we have more solid debates than these.

SeekingTruth7, what does the fact that you are unable to provide one single truthful "testimony" about mass graves at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II tell you about how solid the true-believers allegations are?