Dangerous Enemies

[Hebden]

From Mr. Mattogno's booklet My Banned Holocaust Interview:

Unfortunately, for some years now, several groups of "Naziskins" have appropriated some revisionist positions for their own particular ideological-propagandistic purposes. These are revisionism's most dangerous enemies: first, because, they spread a version of revisionism which has been simplified to the point of banality, giving the impression that revisionist arguments are all nonsense; and secondly, because they provide a justiification for those who claim that revisionism is a Nazi phenomenon; and they provide an alibi for those who advocate the introduction of anti-revisionist legislation here in Italy on the model of what exists in France.

[Hannover]

A big contradiction here.

If these 'Naziskins' (whom I have yet to see anywhere) present arguments which 'give the impression that revisionist arguments are all nonsense', then why would Jews want them silenced?

- Hannover

[steve]

For the last 4 years, I've frequented many sites which would, no doubt, be labeled 'hate sites' by the traditional enemies of the truth.

And, to be fair, I will admit that many of the sites do indeed have a, (I'll be delicate), bias against a certain race.

However, and I'm being quite honest here, I have never seen anything stated on those sites that could be used to show revisionists are making any outright ridiculous claims.

Actually, I do recall reading that the grotesque abe foxman claimed that revisionists would have people believe there were no concentration camps. And, needless to add, I have never seen anyone make that claim.

As I try to explain to many people, probably the biggest reason I realize the H is a big Lie is NOT by what the revisionists say, but by what the defenders of the legend themselves say.

Steve

[Kloker]

What is your point Hebden ?

You are posting a quote by Mattogno, Which I think every intelligent revisionist would agree to. And leaves it uncommented.

Give us a clue, Hebden.

/Regards

[Hannover]

I may be wrong, but perhaps Hebden is in favor of laws which ban Revisionist inquiry and free speech. Or perhaps when his view of events are not completely accepted by others a tantrum follows which cries 'neo-Nazi'. We'll wait for his comments, if he has any.

- Hannover

[steve]

Hebden writes (quoting Mattogno) :
"...first, because, they spread a version of revisionism which has been simplified to the point of banality, giving the impression that revisionist arguments are all nonsense;"

Then Kloker writes:
"You are posting a quote by Mattogno, Which I think every intelligent revisionist would agree to. "

Well, wait one minute here. I do not necessarily go along with that.
I would like to see one example supporting that part of Mattogno's statement. Of course, I am not claiming it to be downright false, I have not read everything on the net after all. But, I do not recall seeing, ever, any claim by 'skins', 'neo-nazis', etc. that was outright ridiculous. (For example, that NO jews were killed, or that there were no camps, etc.)

I do not think I am unreasonable to ask for just one example.

I think people like Mattogno want so desperately to distance themselves from the skinhead types (which I can understand), that they go out of their way, unfairly, to be critical of them. Rudolf, Bradley Smith, even Irving seem to exhibit a similar trait. Thankfully, I've never seen Butz, nor Faurisson, do that sort of thing.

Steve

[Hebden]

I do not think I am unreasonable to ask for just one example.

Being unfamiliar with the contours of America's right wing landscape, we shall have to put off a wider survey until a later date but within five minutes of searching we did come up with this beauty from a Mr. Kevin Strom, apparently someone prominent in the National Allliance:

"Warsaw, Poland (UPI) - Newly released documents confirm that 1.5 million victims died at the Nazi concentration camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau during World War II, not 4 million - as claimed by the former Soviet Union - Jewish and Polish officials said yesterday. Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, a member of the Council for Dialogue between Poles and Jews, said the official account of the number of victims was reduced following verification of archives recently returned by Soviet authorities to Poland. Polish communist authorities used the 4 million figure because it was established by a postwar Soviet commission on Nazi crimes."

2.5 million that were presumed dead actually survived! This is really astounding news, and good news I should think from almost anyone's point of view. Even Jewish authorities on the period concur with this reduction in the death tolls. But why aren't we told in our textbooks and on our televisions that we must now reduce the "official" six million to 3.5 million? Why indeed?

In fact, the situation is even more amazing. The establishment holocaust historian Reitlinger has been forced by recent revelations to revise his estimate of Auschwitz deaths from 4 million down to 600,000. And when the collapsing Soviet Union recently released the captured German records for Auschwitz for 1942 and 1943 (when the alleged extermination program was supposed to be in full swing) to the Red Cross, which meticulously recorded the deaths of inmates, the total was found to be only 70,000, and that was for all causes and for all inmates, not just Jewish ones. Why hasn't this been prominently featured in the media? Why does the now-discredited 6 million figure still rule there?

(http://www.natvan.com/american-dissident-voices/adv072493.html)

Even granted this dates from 1993, when revisionist material was not so widely available, a mistake of this type indicates to us that Mr. Strom was wholly unqualified to be making public pronouncements on the subject.

I think people like Mattogno want so desperately to distance themselves from the skinhead types (which I can understand), that they go out of their way, unfairly, to be critical of them. Rudolf, Bradley Smith, even Irving seem to exhibit a similar trait. Thankfully, I've never seen Butz, nor Faurisson, do that sort of thing.

Steve

If one is not a 'neo-Nazi' and one makes a point of saying so how does this equate to being unfairly critical of these groups? Help us with an example of where Mr. Rudolf made such criticism.

Speaking of Mr. Butz there has not been much sign of activity from him on any front since the 1970s.

[Hannover]

There's the Nazis with the '6,000,000 Jews & gas chambers' and there's the Nazis without the '6,000,000 Jews & gas chambers'.
Revisionist have shown with the greatest ease that the '6,000,000 & gas chambers' are a fraud.

While it would appear Strom meant Pressac, rather than Reitlinger, we should also note that very recently, the German, F. Meyer has further revised the numbers at Auschwitz to ca 200,000-300,000 if I'm not mistaken. Most Revisionists do not accept even these numbers as Meyer places all the alleged 'gassings' outside of the camp grounds which there is no evidence to support in the same manner there is no evidence to support the on-site allegations of 'gassings'. Another thread on this would be appropriate perhaps.

So then, shall we call the believers and enforcers of the 'holocau$t' absurdities 'neo-Communists', or 'neo-Totalitarians'? Or perhaps 'Thought Police'.

- Hannover

[steve]

Hebden wrote:

"...a mistake of this type indicates to us that Mr. Strom was wholly unqualified to be making public pronouncements on the subject."

Just because Strom may not be aware of Pressac, he is still quite eligible to point out that while the death toll at Auschwitz 'officially' dropped from 4 Mil, to 1.5 Mil, the holy 6e6 remains the same. And if, as some claim, that the 6e6 was calculated without the 4e6 from Auschwitz, it is still quite indicative of the nature of the whole story. Lie upon lie. How can one explain a drop from 4e6 to 1.5? I can explain it: It's called LYING.

You know Hebden, your points are so weak, I seriously wonder if you are really Hannover trying to make 'believers' look bad.

I'm looking for an example where a somewhat prominent skinhead, neo-nazi, etc., tries to make a claim similar to what that fat, ugly slob, abe foxman said, i.e., that there are people (referring to revisionism), that would claim there were no camps.

Hebden wrote:

"If one is not a 'neo-Nazi' and one makes a point of saying so how does this equate to being unfairly critical of these groups? Help us with an example of where Mr. Rudolf made such criticism."

I admit I may not have been clear in my comment regarding Smith, Rudolph, etal. I did not mean to imply they ever denounced skins, or neo-nazis, etc. But, they've behaved in a manner I find similar.

For example, Smith gratuitously referring to Hitler as an 'asshole'. Rudolph longing for the days when jews and Germans can work symbiotically again. Cut me a break. Irving speaking favorably towards that lying perjurer Raul Hilberg and other jewish authors.

And all making a point to deny being anti-semitic. After realizing the H is a total sham, what is so wrong, or unexpected, with being anti-semitic?

Hebden:

"Speaking of Mr. Butz there has not been much sign of activity from him on any front since the 1970s."

I've read many articles by him in the IHR Journal. He's still quite the genius.

Steve

[Hebden]

Hebden wrote:

"...a mistake of this type indicates to us that Mr. Strom was wholly unqualified to be making public pronouncements on the subject."

Just because Strom may not be aware of Pressac, he is still quite eligible to point out that while the death toll at Auschwitz 'officially' dropped from 4 Mil, to 1.5 Mil, the holy 6e6 remains the same.

The joke of the matter is that Mr. Reitlinger had already dropped the figure from 4 million down to under one million by 1953:

The world has grown mistrustful of 'rectified coefficients' and the figure of four millions has become ridiculous. Unfortunately Russian arithmetic has blurred the stark and inescapable facts that little less than a million human beings perished in Auschwitz, its gas chambers and its camps. There are probably too many incalculable factors to make a closer estimate of the number of Auschwitz victims possible. The number of camp registrations is only partially a guide to the number of Jews sent, because more than 100,000 of the known 363,000 registrations represent Aryan internees from Poland, Russia and Germany. Moreover, very large groups of Jews in 1944 stayed in the camp without registration, awaiting transfer elsewhere, and they stayed long enough to die of epidemics. Although theoretically not more than 300,000 camp inmates had died by the final evacuation date, January 18th 1945, the number was certainly higher.

As to the total number of Jews brought to the selection place at Auschwitz, it is possible to estimate fairly closely for the Western and Central European countries and the Balkans but not for Poland. There is no real guide to the percentage gassed. It was low before August 1942, and generally low again after August 1944 but in the meantime gassings might vary between fifty and nearly a hundred per cent. The following list makes allowances for a number of French and Greek transports which were sent to Majdanek and 34,000 Dutch Jews who went to Sobibor:

Belgium .........22,600
Croatia ......... 4,500
France .......... 57,000
Greater Reich...25,000 (uncertain)
(including concentration camps and Bohemia, direct transports only)
Greater Reich and Bohemia...32,000
(via Theresienstadt Ghetto)
Greece...........50,000
Holland...........62,000
Hungary..........380,000
(wartime frontiers)
Italy ...................5,000
Luxembourg.........2,000
Norway...................700
Poland and Baltic States...180,000 (uncertain)
Slovakia (1939 borders)..20,000

Total 840,800

Of this total, 550,000 to 600,000 may have been gassed on arrival and to this must be added the unknown portion of the 300,000 or more, missing from the camp, who were 'selected'.

A long quote sufficient to show that Mr. Reitlinger, despite some figures and assumptions one might disagree with, was already on the right track in the early 1950s.

But why spoil the fun, when Mr. Strom can entertain impressionable minds by trotting out the long discarded 4 million nonsense once again?

To our mind one has a duty to try and refute one's opponents' case at its strongest even if that means making their case better than they can themselves.

And if, as some claim, that the 6e6 was calculated without the 4e6 from Auschwitz, it is still quite indicative of the nature of the whole story. Lie upon lie. How can one explain a drop from 4e6 to 1.5? I can explain it: It's called LYING.

More exactly it is called switching from a figment of Soviet propaganda to a figure based on deportation numbers.

You know Hebden, your points are so weak, I seriously wonder if you are really Hannover trying to make 'believers' look bad.

Attempts to provoke us will be looked down upon with amusement.

I'm looking for an example where a somewhat prominent skinhead, neo-nazi, etc., tries to make a claim similar to what that fat, ugly slob, abe foxman said, i.e., that there are people (referring to revisionism), that would claim there were no camps.

Meet Mr. Worzel Gummidge, straw person:

For example, Smith gratuitously referring to Hitler as an 'asshole'. Rudolph longing for the days when jews and Germans can work symbiotically again. Cut me a break. Irving speaking favorably towards that lying perjurer Raul Hilberg and other jewish authors.

And all making a point to deny being anti-semitic. After realizing the H is a total sham, what is so wrong, or unexpected, with being anti-semitic?

It would depend on whether there might be something wrong with being anti-semitic per se.

Hebden:

"Speaking of Mr. Butz there has not been much sign of activity from him on any front since the 1970s."

I've read many articles by him in the IHR Journal. He's still quite the genius.

Steve

Mr. Irving recently celebrated his 65th birthday which in this country entitles him to a state pension and a free travel pass.

When the current generation of revisionists die off will there be anybody left to replace them? Things look bleak.

[Hannover]

One moment Hebden is poo-pooing 'Soviet propaganda', but yet he buys into documents from Communist sources.

And when exactly did the 4,000,000 plaque at Auschwitz come down? And what proof does Hebden have for the currently alleged numbers for Auschwitz? ....which are laughably all over the place. And since when do deportation records equate to millions murdered? Only with the 'holocau$t' can deportation mean 'extermination'.
I notice Hebden dodged the fact that the silly '6,000,000' has not been changed, in spite of his believed in reduced numbers for Auschwitz, now that's the joke.

Ah yes, the holocau$t, where nothing means what it says and documents can only be understood by certain chosen individuals; who are then free to lie to 'impressionable minds'.

I call upon Hebden to cease with his insults as well.

- Hannover

[Hebden]

One moment Hebden is poo-pooing 'Soviet propaganda', but yet he buys into documents from Communist sources.

Everything will have to be considered on a case by case basis. There is no simple solution to the epistemic problem of forgeries or false confessions. Occasionally however one comes across something as blatant as this from the Soviet report on the crimes committed by the German-fascist invaders in Auschwitz:

In 1943, in order to put the unburned bones to industrial use, the Germans began to crush and sell them to the "Strem" company to be used for production of superphosphate. Documents have been found in the camp testifying to the dispatch to the "Strem" company of 112 tons 600 kilograms of crushed bones from human corpses.

And when exactly did the 4,000,000 plaque at Auschwitz come down?

After the fall of the Polish communist regime.

And what proof does Hebden have for the currently alleged numbers for Auschwitz? ....which are laughably all over the place. And since when do deportation records equate to millions murdered?

They don't, but given the lack of evidence as to the fate of the deported Jews who were not registered at Auschwitz, one can hardly blame people who will infer they were murdered in gas chambers within the camp. So you can post a hundred threads including ludicrous nonsense from Jewish witnesses and it won't have the slightest effect.

I notice Hebden dodged the fact that the silly '6,000,000' has not been changed, in spite of his believed in reduced numbers for Auschwitz, now that's the joke.

Firstly the Soviets did not claim that all these 4 million persons were Jews. Secondly, competent Western historians did not include the 4 million figure in their calculations of the Jewish death toll (whether 4.2-4.6 million: Reitlinger; 5.1 million: Hilberg; or 6 million: Poliakov (who counts 2 million Jews for Auschwitz following testimony of Hoess).

I call upon Hebden to cease with his insults as well.

- Hannover

Mr. Worzel Gummidge is not an insult but a strawman, a scarecrow to be precise. A TV character brilliantly portrayed by Mr. Jon Pertwee, who is better known as one of the Dr. Whos.