quotes for no evidence or little evidence of the 'holocaust'

[cold beer]

Hilberg's admission during the Zundel trial that he wasn't aware of a single scientific report supporting the existence of gas chambers is powerful.
I'm looking for the forum to assemble a collection of admissions of the lack of physical or scientific evidence supporting the holohoax. Whether it be statements related to the overall hoax or related to individual camps or specific alleged atrocities.
For contrast it pays to catalog the "mountains of evidence" claims.
Thanks in advance.

[hermod]

Here are some quotes...



"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know [about the Holocaust in Auschwitz-Birkenau] we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove. . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge." (A Case for Letting Nature Take Back Auschwitz , The Toronto Star, December 27, 2009).

“The archives torn from the bowels of the Third Reich, the depositions and accounts of its chiefs permit us to reconstruct in their least detail the birth and the development of its plans for aggression, its military campaigns, and the whole range of processes by which the Nazis intended to reshape the world to their pattern. Only the campaign to exterminate the Jews, as concerns its completion, as well as in many other essential aspects, remains steeped in fog. Psychological inferences and considerations, third- or fourth-hand accounts, allow us to reconstruct the developments with a considerable verisimilitude. Certain details, nevertheless, will remain unknown forever. AS CONCERNS THE CONCEPT PROPER OF THE PLAN FOR TOTAL EXTERMINATION the three or four principal actors are dead. NO DOCUMENTS REMAINS, AND HAS PERHAPS NEVER EXISTED.” – Leon Poliakov, Breviaire de la haine (Breviary of Hate) , Paris, 1979, p. 134.

“it is necessary to recognize that the lack of traces involves the inability to directly establish the reality of the existence of homicidal gas chambers.” – French exterminationist historian Jacques Baynac



“Either we abandon the primacy of archives in favor of testimonies, and in that event we have to disqualify history as science and requalify it immediately as art. Or we maintain the primacy of archives, and in that event we have to concede that the lack of [criminal] traces leads to the inability to ascertain directly the reality of the existence of the [Nazi] homicidal gas chambers.” – Anti-revisionist French historian Jacques Baynac, September 1996 (3 years after the release of Pressac’s book).

“Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable.” – Professor Arno J. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken, 1988.

“Most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity.” – Professor Arno J. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken, 1988.

“The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archaeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eye witness and circumstantial evidence.” Judge Gray, Irving-Lipstadt trial, 2000.

"I recognise the force of many of Irving's comments upon some of those categories. He is right to point out that the contemporaneous documents, such as drawings, plans, correspondence with contractors and the like, yield little clear evidence of the existence of gas chambers designed to kill humans. Such isolated references to the use of gas as are to be found amongst these documents can be explained by the need to fumigate clothes so as to reduce the incidence of diseases such as typhus. The quantities of Zyklon-B delivered to the camp may arguably be explained by the need to fumigate clothes and other objects. It is also correct that one of the most compromising documents, namely Muller's letter of 28 June 1943 setting out the number of cadavers capable of being burnt in the incinerators, has a number of curious features which raise the possibility that it is not authentic. In addition, the photographic evidence for the existence of chimneys protruding through the roof of morgue 1 at crematorium 2 is, I accept, hard to interpret. Similarly Irving had some valid comments to make about the various accounts given by survivors of the camp and by camp officials. Some of those accounts were given in evidence at the post-war trials. The possibility exists that some of these witnesses invented some or even all of the experiences which they describe. Irving suggested the possibility of cross-pollination, by which he meant the possibility that witnesses may have repeated and even embellished the (invented) accounts of other witnesses with the consequence that a corpus of false testimony is built up. Irving pointed out that parts of some of the accounts of some of the witnesses are obviously wrong or (like some of Olere's drawings) clearly exaggerated. He suggested various motives why witnesses might have given false accounts, such as greed and resentment (in the case of survivors) and fear and the wish to ingratiate themselves with their captors (in the case of camp officials). Van Pelt accepted that these possibilities exist. I agree." - Judge Gray, Irving-Lipstadt Trial, 2000.

“For the scientific historian a witness statement does not represent real history. It is an object of history. A witness statement counts for little, many witnesses’ statements count for no more, if there is no solid document to support them. One could say without much exaggeration, the principle of scientific historiography is, No paper(s), no proven facts.” – French historian Jacques Baynac.

“Survivor accounts of critical events are typical of all testimony, that is, they are full of discrepancies. About all matters both trivial and significant, the evidence is nearly always in dispute. In part the unreliability of these accounts derives from imperfect observation and flawed memory, but in larger part from the circumstance that they are not constructed exclusively on the basis of firsthand experience. In order to present a coherent narrative, the author has likely included a large measure of hearsay, gossip, rumor, assumption, speculation, and hypothesis.” – Jewish holocaust historian Lucy Dawidowicz, A Holocaust Reader, 1976.

[Hektor]

Here are some quotes...



"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know [about the Holocaust in Auschwitz-Birkenau] we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove. . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge." (A Case for Letting Nature Take Back Auschwitz , The Toronto Star, December 27, 2009).
.....

Some of it was already discussed on the forum:
viewtopic.php?t=5863

Here the quote can be found on the internet:
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/20 ... hwitz.html

Admissions for the "lack of evidence" are rather rare in debates. Far more common in debates is the assertion that "The Holocaust is the best documented genocide in human history". Only when you delve deeper they'll admit that they either don't know what's in the documents or that those documents are merely records of registration, deportation, internment (including healthcare, entertainment, etc. for those prisoners). If then asked for evidence of a concrete extermination program involving the use of gas chambers, they'll turn to the excuse that "The Nazis destroyed" this evidence.

[Zulu]

When I read recently the number of deaths at the corresponding USHMM page,
I was surprised by the "NOTES ON DOCUMENTATION" after the numbers exposed.

NOTES ON DOCUMENTATION

No single wartime document

There is no single wartime document that contains the above cited estimates of Jewish deaths.
There are three obvious and interrelated reasons for the lack of a single document:
1) Compilation of comprehensive statistics of Jews killed by German and other Axis authorities began in 1942 and 1943. It broke down during the last year and a half of the war.
2) Beginning in 1943, as it became clear that they would lose the war, the Germans and their Axis partners destroyed much of the existing documentation. They also destroyed physical evidence of mass murder.
3) No personnel were available or inclined to count Jewish deaths until the very end of World War II and the Nazi regime. Hence, total estimates are calculated only after the end of the war and are based on demographic loss data and the documents of the perpetrators. Though fragmentary, these sources provide essential figures from which to make calculations.
One centrally directed statistical study of Jews killed by German authorities survived the war. A copy was among the records captured by the US Army in 1945. Likewise, several regional compilations of such gruesome data were among the records captured by US, British, and Soviet forces after World War II. The US, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union have used most of these documents at one time or another as exhibits in criminal or civil proceedings against Nazi offenders

Polish and Soviet civilian figures
With regard to the Polish and Soviet civilian figures, at this time there are not sufficient demographic tools to enable historians to distinguish between:
1) racially targeted individuals
2) persons actually or believed to be active in underground resistance
3) persons killed in reprisal for some actual or perceived resistance activity carried out by someone else
4) losses due to so-called collateral damage in actual military operations
Virtually all deaths of Soviet, Polish, and Serb civilians during the course of military and anti-partisan operations had, however, a racist component. German units conducted those operations with an ideologically driven and willful disregard for civilian life.

USHMM Document Death Toll.pdf

(112.35 KiB) Downloaded 308 times

They also destroyed physical evidence of mass murder.

Despite they don't assume that "ALL" evidences were destroyed, is that an admission that until today we have not much physical evidence to sustain the "extermination plan" and its related number of victims?

[hermod]

Admissions for the "lack of evidence" are rather rare in debates. Far more common in debates is the assertion that "The Holocaust is the best documented genocide in human history". Only when you delve deeper they'll admit that they either don't know what's in the documents or that those documents are merely records of registration, deportation, internment (including healthcare, entertainment, etc. for those prisoners). If then asked for evidence of a concrete extermination program involving the use of gas chambers, they'll turn to the excuse that "The Nazis destroyed" this evidence.

They do that by playing on a very broad definition of the 'Holocaust.' Since they include any Nazi anti-Jewish measure from Kristallnacht in the 'Holocaust,' they can claim that it is a very documented event. And since they pretend to believe naively that collecting testimonies amounts to documenting something, they can claim that the 'Holocaust' is the best documented genocide in human history. Of course, as soon as the 'Holocaust' is not concerned, they concede that collecting testimonies doesn't amount to documenting something and that it is just pseudoscience & pseudohistory only good enough for Ufologists and bigfoot hunters. But their little game of feigned naivety is nevertheless enough to deceive the masses.

[hermod]

When I read recently the number of deaths at the corresponding USHMM page,
I was surprised by the "NOTES ON DOCUMENTATION" after the numbers exposed.

NOTES ON DOCUMENTATION

No single wartime document

There is no single wartime document that contains the above cited estimates of Jewish deaths.
There are three obvious and interrelated reasons for the lack of a single document:
1) Compilation of comprehensive statistics of Jews killed by German and other Axis authorities began in 1942 and 1943. It broke down during the last year and a half of the war.
2) Beginning in 1943, as it became clear that they would lose the war, the Germans and their Axis partners destroyed much of the existing documentation. They also destroyed physical evidence of mass murder.

Despite they don't assume that "ALL" evidences were destroyed, is that an admission that until today we have not much physical evidence to sustain the "extermination plan" and its related number of victims?

Nice find, Zulu !

Alleged destruction of documentary & physical evidence of course proved by nothing. Obviously a pathetic attempt to fill their huge evidentiary gaps.

And they dare to call us conspiracy theorists in spite of that !! To me, THEY look like conspiracy theorists...

[Hektor]

They do that by playing on a very broad definition of the 'Holocaust.' Since they include any Nazi anti-Jewish measure from Kristallnacht in the 'Holocaust,' they can claim that it is a very documented event. And since they pretend to believe naively that collecting testimonies amounts to documenting something, they can claim that the 'Holocaust' is the best documented genocide in human history. Of course, as soon as the 'Holocaust' is not concerned, they concede that collecting testimonies doesn't amount to documenting something and that it is just pseudoscience & pseudohistory only good enough for Ufologists and bigfoot hunters. But their little game of feigned naivety is nevertheless enough to deceive the masses.

I agree. It's kind of a package deal they constructed from all the National Socialist policies remotely relating to Jews in which they inserted then extermination of Jews using gas chambers. That's how con-scams work as well. And it's a dishonest form of communication they apply. We all know that when we talk about Holocaust we're talking about the thesis of industrial style extermination of Jews using Zyklon B or diesel exhaust in gas chambers specifically designed for this purpose. It also includes a number of give or take six million Jews killed.

The other measures aren't generally in dispute, although they appear in a different light, when you look at the context.

And indeed "documented" can also mean a number of things:
- Government having established contemporary records on orders, regulations, reports, etc. for internal use.
- Journalists having recorded what interviewees say. to be used in publications.

[hermod]

I agree. It's kind of a package deal they constructed from all the National Socialist policies remotely relating to Jews in which they inserted then extermination of Jews using gas chambers. That's how con-scams work as well. And it's a dishonest form of communication they apply. We all know that when we talk about Holocaust we're talking about the thesis of industrial style extermination of Jews using Zyklon B or diesel exhaust in gas chambers specifically designed for this purpose. It also includes a number of give or take six million Jews killed.

The other measures aren't generally in dispute, although they appear in a different light, when you look at the context.

And indeed "documented" can also mean a number of things:
- Government having established contemporary records on orders, regulations, reports, etc. for internal use.
- Journalists having recorded what interviewees say. to be used in publications.

The best parallel I can see is the case of guys claiming that UFOs are very documented. Numerous Unidentified Flying Objects were indeed reported in recent decades, especially during the Cold War. But most people think about visitations by extraterrestrial life when they hear the word "UFO," and a number of them would of course believe that visitations by extraterrestrial life have been vastly & credibly proved if they were told that UFOs are very documented, especially from authoritative sources. Not a lie, but a deliberate deception...

[cold beer]

Gentlemen thank you for your replies.
I hope to see these quotes put to use by video makers, it dispells a myth (mountains of evidence) that many holocaust believers blindly accept.
It's clear that it cannot even be established that 6 million jews lost their lives let alone at the hands of Germans using 'industrial methods of extermination'.
It's laughable to see in the links how the USHMM tap dances around this issue, never once able to cite a legitimate source for the number of Jew deaths.

Many of these quotes I was unaware of, several are very powerful and can be used to great effect.
I'm hoping that a collection of 'mountain of evidence' and 'best documented crime' claims can be collected to be exposed these admissions.

[Lothario]

I'd like to add another admission by Raul Hilberg, this time on the role of Hitler himself. Video is part of a David Cole column (http://takimag.com/article/fear_of_a_gr ... z3TxrfJenl). According to him, Hilberg has perjured himself.



[quote added by Moderator]:

"In 1976, I went to a small town in Bavaria, Ludwigsburg, which has the headquarters for investigations of so-called National Socialist crimes, an office maintained by the provinces of the Federal Republic of Germany. About thirty prosecutors were housed in that particular building, and I went there to study court records, various affidavits, and other materials. But one afternoon, they said, “We’re having a party today, would you join us?” Why, yes. They said, “we have one bottle of wine for each person.” (laughter from the audience). And after a while I chanced to talk to the deputy chief of that office, and I said to him this: I’ve been troubled by one question. And I’m afraid that I went into print with something that isn’t entirely accurate. And that is the role of Adolf Hitler himself in the annihilation of the Jewish people in Europe. Now, I know that you are only concerned here with live individuals, and that you do not investigate the dead."

"But still … what do you think?

“Ach,” he said, “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”

[Sannhet]

we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself....then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence .

And what is the most likely reason for this lack of evidence?

[cold beer]

I'd like to add another admission by Raul Hilberg, this time on the role of Hitler himself. Video is part of a David Cole column (http://takimag.com/article/fear_of_a_gr ... z3TxrfJenl). According to him, Hilberg has perjured himself.

That is excellent, thank you.

[hermod]

May I suggest this one about the lack of contemporary intelligence evidence for the 'Holocaust'?

The Blind Watcher: The CIA noticed no mass slaughter of Jews during WW2...

"many Americans did not recognize what we have come to call the Holocaust even after an Allied statement in December 1942 that Nazi Germany was carrying out a policy of mass extermination of Jews. Did American intelligence officials know more, or know earlier? The small office of the Coordinator of Information (COI), and its successor, the new Office of Strategic Services (OSS), both headed by General William J. Donovan, attempted to capture as much information as possible about Nazi Germany, particularly about its military, economic, or sociopolitical weaknesses. As a by-product, the COI and OSS accumulated substantial intelligence about Nazi measures against Jews. In memoirs and other retrospective accounts, however, a number of former OSS officials have disclaimed recognition of the Holocaust at the time." - OSS knowledge of the Holocaust, by [exterminationist historians] Richard Breitman, Norman J. W. Goda, Timothy Naftali, Robert Wolfe, 2005.

[cold beer]

May I suggest this one about the lack of contemporary intelligence evidence for the 'Holocaust'?

The Blind Watcher: The CIA noticed no mass slaughter of Jews during WW2...

"many Americans did not recognize what we have come to call the Holocaust even after an Allied statement in December 1942 that Nazi Germany was carrying out a policy of mass extermination of Jews. Did American intelligence officials know more, or know earlier? The small office of the Coordinator of Information (COI), and its successor, the new Office of Strategic Services (OSS), both headed by General William J. Donovan, attempted to capture as much information as possible about Nazi Germany, particularly about its military, economic, or sociopolitical weaknesses. As a by-product, the COI and OSS accumulated substantial intelligence about Nazi measures against Jews. In memoirs and other retrospective accounts, however, a number of former OSS officials have disclaimed recognition of the Holocaust at the time." - OSS knowledge of the Holocaust, by [exterminationist historians] Richard Breitman, Norman J. W. Goda, Timothy Naftali, Robert Wolfe, 2005.

This has obvious significance and as such seems to be phrased intentionally ambiguous.
It's first stated that the public didn't believe the holocaust stories when first announced by the allies in 1942.
It's not specified through what channel(s) the 'holocaust' claim was first announced.
Then the question as to whether American intelligence knew more and sooner is raised, which inserts an element of confusion as a lead in to saying that "OSS officials disclaimed recognition of the Holocaust at the time".

Rather than naming the channel that released the holocaust claim and then stating directly that the OSS has no such intelligence, they throw a curve by leaving it unclear what "at that time" indicates.
With the way this statement is crafted "at that time" could be argued to mean prior to 1942 as in "did American intelligence know more, or earlier?"
There seems to be no other reason to insert the comment about the public's doubt and whether inteligence agencies knew sooner.

They also seem to be intentionally downplaying the size and therefore the caapability of these agencies.
It may just seem evasive because this is just a brief extract.
I'd like to hear from anyone familiar with this book if the overall tone on this matter is a tap dance like this extract seems to be.

[hermod]

This has obvious significance and as such seems to be phrased intentionally ambiguous.
It's first stated that the public didn't believe the holocaust stories when first announced by the allies in 1942.
It's not specified through what channel(s) the 'holocaust' claim was first announced.
Then the question as to whether American intelligence knew more and sooner is raised, which inserts an element of confusion as a lead in to saying that "OSS officials disclaimed recognition of the Holocaust at the time".

Rather than naming the channel that released the holocaust claim and then stating directly that the OSS has no such intelligence, they throw a curve by leaving it unclear what "at that time" indicates.
With the way this statement is crafted "at that time" could be argued to mean prior to 1942 as in "did American intelligence know more, or earlier?"
There seems to be no other reason to insert the comment about the public's doubt and whether inteligence agencies knew sooner.

The channel was newspaper articles and radio broadcasts reporting the joint declaration of mid-December 1942 by 11 "United Nations" (including the big three - UK, USA and USSR) about Hitler's [alleged] "bestial policy of cold blooded extermination". And the source of the 'info' was the Riegner telegram and 2 or 3 additional 'reports' kindly provided to the Allies by some Zionist in Switzerland (Gerhart Riegner and Richard Lichtheim). The 'info' had been released by the founder of US Zionism himself (rabbi Stephen Wise) around 2 weeks before the UN joint declaration mentioned above. And a paper written by US propagandist William Shirer in 1943 show that most US citizens indeed disbelieved that 'info' because they still hadn't forgotten the big lies told by Allied atrocity propagandists about the Germans during WW1.