Adolf Hitler Denied the Holocaust

[Otium]

Amazingly, his signature in the "testament" also looks quite different than how it was normally.

https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/sites ... tament.pdf (Page 10) 
 

Does it? One google search for Hitler's signature will show you a plethora of results of identical looking signatures.

Just for an example, one of the first pages I found was discussing a possibly forged postcard. Not of any importance, but it has this image:



These signatures (Letter to an old professor June 30th, 1937 and Hitler's testament of May 2nd, 1938) look pretty much the same as the signature on the 1945 testament. unlike the one on the postcard which does look fake in my unprofessional opinion. Plus if you look through Hitler's letters and notes, you'll observe that Hitler's signature varies. Looks to me that the difference has something to do with the pen, and maybe that Hitler was suffering from Parkinson's.

[zapper]

Just because you don't think the Jews were 'held accountable' doesn't mean Hitler didn't think so. You cannot impugn your ideas onto him, and claim that because what you think makes sense to you is 'true' then that must mean the document is suspicious or fake.

Of course it is possible Hitler was misinformed about the generous treatment of the Jews in German custody. Or perhaps was suffering from a mental breakdown that strained his sanity. In that case of course the document could be authentic, but I don't think this is likely. Leadership was well informed and occupied with these matters, as Goebbels diary attests. Or would you call someone like me, who has gotten basically everything they know off the internet, better informed than the people actually involved in these events? I don't think so.

"I'm not seeing it" or "it's my opinion that..." is not a substitute for evidence. It certainly wouldn't hold up under any scrutiny, because of the circular nature of your reasoning which is essentially "I disagree with this" or "this doesn't make sense to me, and the interpretation I have, therefore this is evidence of fabrication". You applied the same logic to the Goebbels diary in substitution for any actual proof.

I am invalidating these documents based on their contents, which make no sense, clearly violating physical and natural law as well as the historical record. If there was document signed by Hitler saying he had sent Germans into outer space to colonize Mars, would you say, 'hold on, we must wait for actual evidence of fabrication'?

Do you doubt the authenticity of the Posen speech, which exists not only as text but as an aural recording? It can easily be dismissed based on the physical impossibility of the textual claims. I have repeatedly demonstrated that the generous treatment of Jews (a historical FACT) seems to contradict the nature of some of these documents, as well as given other textually based reasons for doubting them.

It seems plausible. The references in his testament to the death of Aryans, and holding the Jews responsible for the war they started seems to align with the sentiments in these speeches.

In regard to Hitler's speeches I believe 2 things are true.

Some of his language is definitely "overwrought", but it was politically expedient for him to be overly harsh with his statements about the Jews. Imagine if you were a German citizen, with knowledge of the terrible crimes being committed against you, your family and friends, by this vicious and hostile people. Would you be out for revenge or at least justice? Governments frequently scapegoat and malign their enemies for short term political purposes. In this case, all their complaints also happened to be true.

The other thing about Hitler's speeches is that he pretty much only talks about the disappearance/annihilation of the Jews from Europe. Never that the Jews were going to be killed or even bodily harmed, but that that their power over Europe was going to be destroyed and they would be physically moved out as well. The problem with tying this to Hitler's "testament" is that post-war the Jews were definitely going to be able to move back into Europe, so this "punishment" really doesn't apply, going forward. Any intelligent observer at the time could well predict that in the post-Hitler/NS Germany world, the Jews would be able to rise to higher than ever before above their host nations, particularly now that they had the perfect "victim card". We all know the atrocity propaganda that was in full force by 1945, Goebbels commented frequently, and they used it effectively, then and now. So yes, I think it's strange to see Hitler all but gloating here about the justice the Jews had received. It is plain to see that they received no justice, that if anything the Germans treated them far better than they deserved.

[Otium]

I am invalidating these documents based on their contents, which make no sense, clearly violating physical and natural law as well as the historical record. If there was document signed by Hitler saying he had sent Germans into outer space to colonize Mars, would you say, 'hold on, we must wait for actual evidence of fabrication'?

We've had conversations like this before. You're invalidating documents because you disagree with the contents, because you think the Jews were treated more humanely. But there is no objective scale on what is or isn't humane. Hitler often spoke about the deportation of Jews, and he also spoke about how it was a question to be solved after the war. There is no evidence that Hitler was informed in detail regarding the final solution or had a hand in its planning and operation process,; we can only speculate about how much Hitler did or didn't know about whatever the "plan" was to do with the Jews at any given state of the unfolding conflict. For you to make rash judgements about Hitler's testament which doesn't even say anything incriminating whatsoever, based on a pre-conceived interpretation and your own opinion of what's considered 'humane' or what it means for the Jews to be 'held accountable' is ridiculous. You haven't proved anything, not even beyond a reasonable doubt.

I could just as well say that if this document was going to be faked, then it'd have been faked better, meaning I'd have included much more lurid remarks concerning the Jews. But that's not what was said, so based on this, how can the document be fake?

Do you see the problem?

It's a matter of opinion as to the degree to which this document can be interpreted in a certain direction. It's not a given any which way. So to arbitrarily decide it's fake on no evidence is completely fallacious. You haven't given any reasons, you've only given opinions.

Many documents and their contents have been wrong, but that doesn't mean they're forged. It just means they're wrong.

None of these documents, the testament, or the March 27th entry in the Goebbels diary you incorrectly think is most certainly a sign of fabrication, contain any specific or technical details. As you admitted in the case of the Goebbels diary entry, it's "vague". We're not dealing with plans, we're not dealing with alleged gas chamber technology or how many Jews were fit into an oven. We're talking about the opinions of those in power during the Third Reich. Goebbels, for his part, could've held the opinion that 60% of Jews would've needed to be liquidated. Whatever, it by no means indicates such a thing was done, or how (if it was real) it was to be done. So it's impossible for you to say it's 'clearly violating physical and natural law' because nothing in the documents you consider to be fabrications require reality itself to be perverted. Hypothetically the opinion of Goebbels is possible - because he never stated "this is happening right now, we have a plan so this is done" or some such nonsense, he said "will have" (to be liquidated) and "can be" (used for labor) not "they are being" (liquidated) and "are being" (used for labor).

[zapper]

None of these documents, the testament, or the March 27th entry in the Goebbels diary you incorrectly think is most certainly a sign of fabrication, contain any specific or technical details. As you admitted in the case of the Goebbels diary entry, it's "vague". We're not dealing with plans, we're not dealing with alleged gas chamber technology or how many Jews were fit into an oven. We're talking about the opinions of those in power during the Third Reich. Goebbels, for his part, could've held the opinion that 60% of Jews would've needed to be liquidated. Whatever, it by no means indicates such a thing was done, or how (if it was real) it was to be done. So it's impossible for you to say it's 'clearly violating physical and natural law' because nothing in the documents you consider to be fabrications require reality itself to be perverted. Hypothetically the opinion of Goebbels is possible - because he never stated "this is happening right now, we have a plan so this is done" or some such nonsense, he said "will have" (to be liquidated) and "can be" (used for labor) not "they are being" (liquidated) and "are being" (used for labor).

Maybe you misunderstand me. Re Goebbels diary, extermination is what is physically and scientifically impossible, therefore any document that suggests extermination over any other hypothesis is automatically suspect to me - unless you can provide a reason why the transfer of Jews to Russia had to be conducted "with considerable circumspection and according to a method that does not attract too much attention". Until then I don't think this interpretation fits with that document.

Hitler's "testament" suggests at the very least suggests Jews suffered heavy loss of life, commensurate with German losses during the war. We have statistics compiled by the SS and Himmler about how many Jews died in these camps. If I remember correctly the number is around 200k, which is about the amount you would expect to die just naturally. So it seems you are claiming Hitler was actually misinformed about what was going on in these camps, which there is absolutely no evidence of. There is evidence of his involvement and interest in the Final Solution and that it was a frequent topic of discussion, at least among him in Goebbels (he is mentioned dozens of times in just the excerpts Dalton provides here: https://dagobertobellucci.wordpress.com ... as-dalton/)

We're not dealing with plans, we're not dealing with alleged gas chamber technology or how many Jews were fit into an oven. We're talking about the opinions of those in power during the Third Reich.

Yes we're dealing with the opinions and observations of those at the highest level of NS Germany. Do you believe Himmler's Posen speech is authentic?

I want to mention another very difficult matter here before you in all frankness. Among ourselves, it ought to be spoken of quite openly for once – yet we shall never speak of it in public . . . We had the moral right, we had the duty to our own people, to kill these people who wanted to kill us.

[Hannover]

Let's simplify and cut to the chase.

Words or alleged words by NSDAP officials which are thought to imply mass murders of Jews (let's not forget the alleged '5M others') are necessarily bogus translations from the German by those who benefit, and / or are words forged into various documents by those who benefit. *

We know because the alleged methods of execution are utterly impossible and there is no human remains to confirm the alleged deeds.
The complete lack confirming human remains (let's not forget the alleged '5M others) is heightened by the fact that such human remains are said to exist in known locations, yet no such remains exist ... as Revisionists have proven repeatedly.

* In addition:
There are also completely forged 'documents' which have been exposed by scholars.

- Hannover

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the 'holocaust' storyline is the message.

[zapper]

Let's simplify and cut to the chase.

Words or alleged words by NSDAP officials which are thought to imply mass murders of Jews (let's not forget the alleged '5M others') are necessarily bogus translations from the German by those who benefit, and / or are words forged into various documents by those who benefit. *

We know because the alleged methods of execution are utterly impossible and there is no human remains to confirm the alleged deeds.
The complete lack confirming human remains (let's not forget the alleged '5M others) is heightened by the fact that such human remains are said to exist in known locations, yet no such remains exist ... as Revisionists have proven repeatedly.

I agree completely Hannover, but I think HMS's point is that the documents we're debating do not imply mass murder or in any way contradict the revisionist view. This is a subject worthy of in-depth discussion. Documents like the Goebbels diary entry have convinced former revisionists like David Irving and Mark Weber; they must be either explained to fit in with the revisionist view or debunked as authentic documents to prevent further nefarious use.

My personal research has led me to find that there many such "questionable" documents in existence that haven't been extensively addressed. If there is interest I will post more about these in the future.

[Moderator]

My personal research has led me to find that there many such "questionable" documents in existence that haven't been extensively addressed. If there is interest I will post more about these in the future.

zapper, by all means, please start a thread for each of those "documents" you mentioned.
Thank you, M1

[LeónOcta]

The whole issue of Hitler's testament and its authenticity can be resolved pretty quickly with this question: Do you really think that the Allies would have forged the testament of him by only altering something as ridiculous and specific at that time as the massacre of Jews but not the repeated times in which he says that he never wanted war but he did want peace? He even mentions a super specific and uncomfortable event for the Allies as an example.

We are talking about a time when the Allied high command considered (and largely executed) a plan to physically punish the Germans (Morgenthau Plan) and where the press praised books that explicitly incited the extermination of Germans ("Germany must perish!" ). If they had been such a jerk, they wouldn't have even faked it, they just would have burned it. Many aspects must be taken into account: they would have been much more severe in their changes.

Sorry for my english.

[JohnDoe1964]

Well said. In perfect English too!

[Otium]

Many aspects must be taken into account: they would have been much more severe in their changes..

Exactly. This goes for the Goebbels diary too. If the Soviets (as it would have to be) were to have read through the 75,000 pages of the diary on the 10,000 or so glass plates, which held like 4 or so pages on each, but only changed one passage to make it vague and non-specific, it would be a pointless effort. Especially when you consider that the diary was only discovered in the early 1990s where David Irving had untied the bands on the microfilm for the first time in 50 years by that point. If you're going to go to the effort of tampering with something like that, which isn't just pieces of paper, you'd surely have removed or altered contradictory entries, and included many more damning ones. But this isn't the case whatsoever. And if you went to all that effort, surely you wouldn't have it hidden away for decades for nobody to actually see.

[zapper]

The whole issue of Hitler's testament and its authenticity can be resolved pretty quickly with this question: Do you really think that the Allies would have forged the testament of him by only altering something as ridiculous and specific at that time as the massacre of Jews but not the repeated times in which he says that he never wanted war but he did want peace? He even mentions a super specific and uncomfortable event for the Allies as an example.

Perhaps I would take this document seriously if anyone here could give a plausible explanation for what Hitler meant by the Jews having properly atoned for single-handedly causing and perpetuating a war that claimed 7 million German lives, set the German economy back 10 years, and destroyed the most exemplary political movement in modern history?

As I said before, the fabricators of these documents are clever and sophisticated. If Hitler had claimed in this document that he was the one responsible for the war he would have been contradicting numerous public speeches where he blamed the Jews, which would have automatically raised red flags about the document, and potentially exposed the entire conspiracy.
 
On the other hand NS policy concerning the atrocity propaganda being leveled against them was wisely to never respond to it, but this left the door open for many “exterminatory” remarks to be concocted and ascribed to them (see Posen speech). Hitler never publicly refuted these allegations, so this document, which was intended for the public, on the face of it features no glaring contradictions. 

As for the "uncomfortable event" (I am supposing you refer to the civilian bombing campaign), the allies to their credit never denied or tried to cover it up, so the inclusion isn't particularly harmful, but serves to make the document "more realistic".

If they had been such a jerk, they wouldn't have even faked it, they just would have burned it. Many aspects must be taken into account: they would have been much more severe in their changes.

And if you went to all that effort, surely you wouldn't have it hidden away for decades for nobody to actually see

FG Report "carbon copy" was discovered 75 years after the fact, Himmler recordings discovered later as well, does that mean they might be authentic? 

How come there is only 1 document that details gassing, which is the key element of the holocaust mythos, but 4 or 5 documents alone that explicitly "evidence" gas vans, a much less crucial aspect? 

Such criticism might cast doubt over the entire notion of an allied campaign of document fabrication. My process is simple. If a document seems to contradict the historically and scientifically irrefutable revisionist position, it is almost certainly a forgery and must be exposed as such so we don't get any more David Irvings or Mark Webers on our hands.  

[Turpitz]

Exactly. This goes for the Goebbels diary too. If the Soviets (as it would have to be) were to have read through the 75,000 pages of the diary on the 10,000 or so glass plates, which held like 4 or so pages on each, but only changed one passage to make it vague and non-specific, it would be a pointless effort. Especially when you consider that the diary was only discovered in the early 1990s where David Irving had untied the bands on the microfilm for the first time in 50 years by that point. If you're going to go to the effort of tampering with something like that, which isn't just pieces of paper, you'd surely have removed or altered contradictory entries, and included many more damning ones. But this isn't the case whatsoever. And if you went to all that effort, surely you wouldn't have it hidden away for decades for nobody to actually see.

I totally disagree with you, once again. This is the very tactic they use, being vague these lying scumbags would never nail their colours to the mast as it wiould reveal them, very quickly. Keeping everything vague means that you never have to prove yourself, constant insinuations and innuendo without the need for evidence. I mean, that is exactly what you are doing right now. Trying to use these vague trifles as evidence of mass murder. I come along and ask you to be more specific. You then reply, and tell me that you cannot as he doesn't mention it. Even though it hasn't stopped you using it as evidence.

They would never dare fake a Hitler order either as they know they would, sooner or later get caught out. It always reminds me of those idiots who reckioned they were on the moon waltzing around, fifty years ago, they left all the stars out of the photo. As they knew if they tried faking them, someone, at sometime was going to spot an error in the star charts. too risky.

I also don't believe they need to go to very much effort at all. They can get away with almost childish lies and diaboliocal attempts at forgery, they know anyone who matters is controlled and the rest are too thick to even notice. Look at those ridiculous 'aerial photos' in Pressac's book, the tampering is diabolical, yet they print them without a care in the world, and get away with it. No, they don't need to go to any effort at all.

[Otium]

I totally disagree with you, once again. This is the very tactic they use, being vague these lying scumbags would never nail their colours to the mast as it wiould reveal them, very quickly. Keeping everything vague means that you never have to prove yourself, constant insinuations and innuendo without the need for evidence. I mean, that is exactly what you are doing right now. Trying to use these vague trifles as evidence of mass murder. I come along and ask you to be more specific. You then reply, and tell me that you cannot as he doesn't mention it. Even though it hasn't stopped you using it as evidence.

I'm haven't used the Goebbels diary as evidence for mass murder. I don't know what you're on about here. I don't recall ever being vague.

They would never dare fake a Hitler order either as they know they would, sooner or later get caught out.

This is just an unfalsifiable assertion. You're also just plain wrong. The establishment pretended that Hitler issued an extermination order until they had to change gears and admit that no order existed (or was ever found), they looked very stupid as a result, and still do. This was them getting caught out. Perhaps one should ask why - if they didn't want to get caught out - they would pretend a document existed when it really didn't? Having a fake Hitler order drawn up that they could step back and declare as a 'fake' would've saved a lot more of their credibility.

I also don't believe they need to go to very much effort at all. They can get away with almost childish lies and diaboliocal attempts at forgery, they know anyone who matters is controlled and the rest are too thick to even notice. Look at those ridiculous 'aerial photos' in Pressac's book, the tampering is diabolical, yet they print them without a care in the world, and get away with it. No, they don't need to go to any effort at all.

In some cases they don't need to go to any effort. But with the Goebbels diary they certainly would have. I don't think you understand. The glass plates of the Goebbels were not individual pages, they were plates containing multiple pages that could only be viewed using a microfilm device, not the naked eye. They were too small to be read that way:

It’s quite an unusual feeling looking at the original Nazi microfiche glass plates in the original Agfa boxes – there are eighteen hundred plates, each with 25 or 40 images on them – a total of 70 or 80 thousand pages of paper. And you know you are the first person to read them since Goebbels, in 1944 and 1945, ordered the stuff to be preserved in case of damage to the originals. No one knows now where his original notebooks are, or what happened to them. They’re probably gone forever. But fortunately they were preserved on glass plates, and I was the first person to study them.

David Irving, Revelations from Goebbels' Diary.

You can make out how small these plates actually were by seeing the Agfa boxes they were stored in:

Microfiches.gif (24.78 KiB) Viewed 1775 times

They look to be maybe as wide as two matchboxes sitting side by side, and another two on top. Not very large in any case. And these plates hold as Irving stated, 25-40 'images' containing the diary pages. Also keep in mind, that the technology used to do this was new at the time, the Soviets wouldn't have had the technology to even view these plates, let alone tamper with them. I guess it depends on when you think the alteration was done. If you think it was later, you'd still need to prove that the technology to alter such things exist. If you or Zapper can furnish an explanation as to how this faking of the glass plate micro film copies was to have been done, then please share it.

Another fact that utterly contradicts the idea of the specific March 27th 1942 entry being a fake, is that we actually seem to have the typed pages for the original (or at least copies of the original made in the late 40s):

Of this, Irving writes:

Goebbels diary, Mar 27, 1942, pages 19-22 (Bundesarchiv file NL.118/42). [...] There is no doubt as to these pages' authenticity: the originals are in the Hoover archives' Goebbels collection at Stanford University; the microfilm of them (now NA film T84, roll 261) was made in New York in 1947; and David Irving also checked the microfiche copy made by the Nazis in 1944, in the Moscow archives where the microfiches have languished since 1945.

Source: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Goebbels/Tgb_270342/diary_270342.html

So, if one wanted to check the credibility of the entry, one would only have to compare the originals held at Standford, and a microfilm copy of the glass plates and look for signs of tampering. You could also check the micro film copy made in 1947, and the German original microfilm for discrepancies. After all, if as Zapper (and yourself it seems) maintains the diary has been tampered with, then that means someone had to do the tampering. If there's no discrepancy between the paper original and the microfilm, then that's definitive proof of there having been no such tampering. From the looks of it, there hasn't been. Despite the fact that tampering with glass plates on such a scale seems next to impossible on the face of it.

[Otium]

Perhaps I would take this document seriously if anyone here could give a plausible explanation for what Hitler meant by the Jews having properly atoned for single-handedly causing and perpetuating a war that claimed 7 million German lives, set the German economy back 10 years, and destroyed the most exemplary political movement in modern history?

Who knows what Hitler meant? It doesn't matter. Any 'plausible explanation' can only be idle speculation, to therefore provide an 'explanation' would be a pointless exercise. That's presuming it even needs explaining. But whatever Hitler meant, in his mind they atoned. The problem here is that you're ascribing meaning that you cannot evidence onto Hitler's words. You seem to be of the belief that proper atonement can only mean genocide (which says more about you than it does about Hitler). There is no reason for that to be the logical conclusion. It doesn't need explaining, and certainly is not proof of tampering.

Your further 'evidence' of tampering is only that the document is so well faked that it doesn't appear faked at all and suffers no 'glaring contradictions'! Thus 'evidence' is created out of nothing.

If there ever was such a good example of confirmation bias and circular reasoning, I haven't seen it.

FG Report "carbon copy" was discovered 75 years after the fact, Himmler recordings discovered later as well, does that mean they might be authentic? 

How come there is only 1 document that details gassing, which is the key element of the holocaust mythos, but 4 or 5 documents alone that explicitly "evidence" gas vans, a much less crucial aspect? 

Such criticism might cast doubt over the entire notion of an allied campaign of document fabrication. My process is simple. If a document seems to contradict the historically and scientifically irrefutable revisionist position, it is almost certainly a forgery and must be exposed as such so we don't get any more David Irvings or Mark Webers on our hands.

These documents, while having been discovered later if what you say is true, doesn't necessarily mean they weren't tampered with from the start. They're not nearly of the same calibre as the Goebbels diary entry, which isn't as explicit as some of these other documents you mentioned, and doesn't outline anything Goebbels says was actually happening. Like I've said before. The diary entry and the testament do not contradict 'the historically and scientifically irrefutable revisionist position' because they're not technical documents. So claiming that on this basis the documents must be fake, is simply unfounded and ridiculous as per your own criteria.

You're not waiting for a forgery to be exposed, you're saying they are forgeries without any proof whatsoever. This is an unfalsifiable position which contradicts the revisionist position of requiring evidence for a claim. You're no better than an exterminationist at this point.

[zapper]

You're not waiting for a forgery to be exposed, you're saying they are forgeries without any proof whatsoever. This is an unfalsifiable position which contradicts the revisionist position of requiring evidence for a claim.

Do you believe the Posen speech is fake? What is your "proof" of that?