Two questions from someone who is somewhat new to Holocaust

[AnonPoster]

Revisionism.

First off, what refutations are given for the Leuchter Report? I've already read over the IFR report out of Krakow, and I can honestly say that it isn't valid... AT ALL. If this is all there is, then the Leuchter Report definitely still stands.

And where can I get statistics for Jewish population prior to and after the war? Looking for figures on Jewish population in the world, Europe, America, and Palestine.

[Laurentz Dahl]

First off, what refutations are given for the Leuchter Report? I've already read over the IFR report out of Krakow, and I can honestly say that it isn't valid... AT ALL. If this is all there is, then the Leuchter Report definitely still stands.

Hello and welcome to the forum.

Most of the basic arguments still stands, but Leuchter made some mistakes in his reports, mainly due to the fact that he was no expert of the gassing allegations when he conducted his research.

There is a critical edition of the Leuchter reports available online which I recommend you to read. In it, Germar Rudolf makes a lot of corrections in footnotes to Leuchters text. Pp.20-23 in this book contains a "brief history of critiques of the Leuchter reports". You can download it online in PDF format here (in case you only have a modem connection - it's 14 MB):

http://vho.org/dl/ENG/tlr.pdf

And where can I get statistics for Jewish population prior to and after the war? Looking for figures on Jewish population in the world, Europe, America, and Palestine.

The demographics issue is one of the most complicated and tangled parts of the story, since there seems to exist a lot of different official figures. If you have not yet read Rudolfs comparative analysis of Benz' Dimension des Völkermords and Sanning's The Dissolution of the Eastern European Jewry I recommend that you read it:

http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndstats.html

[Haldan]

The demographics issue is one of the most complicated and tangled parts of the story, since there seems to exist a lot of different official figures.

I agree, and not only does there exist a whole lot of different figures, but I would imagine most figures on Jewish demographics are very unreliable, because most Jews are atheists. I would also venture to say that if you were a Jew living in a European country at that time you wouldn't exactly brag about it, and infact; it is my experiance that Jews are very secretive about their being Jewish.

It must be incredibly difficult and complicated to compile reliable figures on Jewish demographics. It is surely a issue which needs to be more examined.

I have not read Sanning's work on the issue so I cannot comment on it.

-haldan

[Tom]

The demographics issue is one of the most complicated and tangled parts of
the story, since there seems to exist a lot of different official figures.

Laurentz Dahl,

I certainly agree with that statement.

A Jew can become a member of any religion he wishes. He can claim to
be an atheist, a Christian, a Hindu or any religion he choses.

The reason confusion reigns in this matter is that very few demographic
studies want to note, or have noted that:

No matter what religion he claims to be a member of, a Jew remains a Jew by birth....


Tom

[AnonPoster]

Hello and welcome to the forum.

Hello... and thanks.

http://vho.org/dl/ENG/tlr.pdf

I'll read over it... although I can't say that I'm at all concerned about the original Leuchter report being anything other than definitive. I'm doing a documentary, and I'm just churning through the evidence. I highly doubt that anything is going to successfully refute the LReport, so I'm just looking for rebuttals.

The only "flaw" that I've seen thus far in the LReport is that he tested "chunks" and not scrapes off the surface. The problem with this logic is that if his chunks included material that was unexposed, the sampling method was the same for all samples. Despite the fact that the results would've been diluted, the samples should not have provided lopsided results. The results would've underestimated the contamination across the board... not just in the alleged gas chamber samples.

Outside of that "flaw", I've only seen garbage like "He's an antisemite" and "He doesn't have the credentials"... both bogus statements. It doesn't take a genius to do such a simple test.

I've already disproven the IFR report out of Krakow. I'm going to get a Chemistry PhD on camera to say that it is BS.

I'm just looking for more arguments against the report so that I can show what complete garbage is masqueraded as evidence nowadays.

http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndstats.html

Thanks... I'll look over it. Hopefully, the populations don't differ quite as much as some of you are claiming. I hope to be able to get reliable enough statistics to actually extract something from the data.

[AnonPoster]

And I apologize for making so many requests, but another thing that I was looking for was an English copy of each country's Holocaust Denial Law... I was told that seven countries have such a law, but I only know of Germany and Austria... but I heard France and Canada as well. Is there a list of these countries somewhere and also a place to find copies of these laws?

[Hannover]

AnonPoster:
Indeed, welcome.

My question:

Why do you focus on Leuchter when the later Rudolf Report is much better?
It hints of strawman, rather like claiming weak David Irving as 'The #1 Revisionist', while ignoring the likes of Mattogno, Rudolf, Berg, etc.
see:
http://germarrudolf.com/work/trr/

And yes, you shouldn't address so many points in one thread. Watch out for Mr. Moderator.

- Hannover

[Laurentz Dahl]

Why do you focus on Leuchter when the later Rudolf Report is much better?

I second Hannover's recommendation.

Please read the Rudolf Report.

It can also be downloaded as a PDF file here:

http://vho.org/dl/ENG/trr.pdf

When writing a scholarly paper on something, one should always consider the most up-to-date and exact research on the subject (which of course doesn't mean one should neglect earlier research).

Rudolf's report has a big advantage to Leuchter's - since Rudolf is an educated chemist (he was about to become a doctor in inorganic chemistry at world-reknowned Max Planck Institute when he was dropped like a hot potato by this spineless institution) he has the expertise to properly address the most important question of the stability of HCN compounds.

Rudolf has also blown to bits later attempts to refute his arguments in the book Auschwitz Lies, which come highly recommended:

http://vho.org/dl/ENG/al.pdf

[AnonPoster]

AnonPoster:
Indeed, welcome.

My question:

Why do you focus on Leuchter when the later Rudolf Report is much better?
It hints of strawman, rather like claiming weak David Irving as 'The #1 Revisionist', while ignoring the likes of Mattogno, Rudolf, Berg, etc.
see:
http://germarrudolf.com/work/trr/

And yes, you shouldn't address so many points in one thread. Watch out for Mr. Moderator.

- Hannover

Well, I'd rather contain my inferior knowledge (compared to some of you) to a single thread and not plaster the board with my idiocy.

I will read over the Rudolf report. If it's as good as you claim, I'm sure I'll like it too, but the Leuchter Report is good enough for me thus far.

[AnonPoster]

When writing a scholarly paper on something, one should always consider the most up-to-date and exact research on the subject

Well... that's why I'm here.

My documentary is over all sorts of things, but the Holocaust, despite my knowledge of it (which is far better than that of the average American citizen), is still something that I have a lot to learn a lot about if I'm going to present it correctly... so I'm here to consult the experts. :p

I do appreciate the help, but the Rudolf report isn't 10 pages... it's going to take me a while to read. I am looking for refutations, however... because I want to show that the supporters don't have any ground to stand on... and while I hope the work of Rudolf is better, I can see that their arguments don't hold any water even when only the Leuchter Report is considered.

For instance, all of the criticism given in the "Mr. Death" movie on google videos... they were all ridiculous. Supporters would call Auschwitz the Holiest of Holies, but then go on to say that every brick in there has been moved... that most of the bricks in the camp were never in the camp during the war. Well, it's either one or the other. It's either a holy site or a place where you replace the bricks every 2 weeks. Their arguments are contradictory... and I believe those were two statements that were actually given by the exact same person.

I will read this pdf rile of Rudolf's work though. Give me some time... I'm covering such an incredible amount of material that it takes me a while to get a ton done on one particular subject. I'll probably have it read within 5 days.

[Depth Charge]

There was a video posted here recently (Mr Death) where one of the chemists who examined the Auschwitz samples attempts to refute Leuchters findings. (Note: He only attempted to do this after he found out it was a court case surrounding Zundel, beforehand he was definitive in the opposite direction).

[Laurentz Dahl]

I do appreciate the help, but the Rudolf report isn't 10 pages...

There's a 36 pages long summary of the Rudolf Report that can be found in Dissecting the Holocaust. You can read it as an HTML file here:

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndgcger.html

If you have questions on other issues, please post them in new threads. If you need references to revisionist (or exterminationist) material, just send me a pm. I log in to this forum several times a day and would only be happy to help you out with finding additional sources.

[Tank]

I've read Leucter too, and I find his work very flawed as well. The problem with Leucter is that he has little or no understanding of the natural sciences, being an engineer by training. His only claim to expertise is in designing lethal injection devices for those US states that use them in capital punishment.

Leucter has also been roughly treated in the trails where his reports have been introduced as evidence. Again, he does not qualify as an expert, so he seldom survives the Vior Dire (sp?) process.

Tank

[Tank]

AnonPoster,

As for your second question, for Germany and those territories occupied by Nazi Germany, the National German Archives would be be best place to look. For Soviet occupied Poland and the Western Soviet Union, good luck.

I imagine that books have been published containing the information, but I can't offer you a name.

Tank

[Hannover]

Tank says:

I've read Leucter too, and I find his work very flawed as well. The problem with Leucter is that he has little or no understanding of the natural sciences, being an engineer by training. His only claim to expertise is in designing lethal injection devices for those US states that use them in capital punishment.

I assume then that you accept Robert Jan Van Pelt as very flawed as well. He's considered the top 'Auschwitz expert' and has no knowledge of natural sciences.

You do realize that judeo-supremacist Van Pelt actually describes Auschwitz as the 'holiest of the holies', don't you?

You do realize that The Rudolf Report confirms Leuchter's actual conlusions, don't you?

- Hannover