What a truly revolting piece of rubbish this article is.

Of course freedom of speech is, and always has been, paid lip service to by governments and the brainwashed masses, rather than truly adhered to, except by a few brave and clear souls. And of course full freedom of speech is not only desirable, but one of the worthiest ideals to fight for.

Mr. Bahrawi sounds like a child in tantrum who when confronted with a broken toy seeks to break it further, rather than repairing it.

Oh yes, and of course the "Holocaust" cult seeks what any other superstitious religion does: blind belief and protection from the truth.

Of course religions are no friends of free inquiry, and of course that's valid both for fundamentalist Islam and for the current rising "Holocaust" religion of the West. So what's new?

ASM Marques... What exactly are you getting at? Do you not believe that the Holocaust happened?

Free speech should remain as it is. Nobody has the right to protection from being offended. That would just be absurd. Unfortunately that is exactly what is being planned at Durban II with that disgusting collection of despots. Oh and obviously this means I oppose the idea that Holocaust denial should be illegal. It just adds credibility to the ideas of the loonies

Matty: "What exactly are you getting at? Do you not believe that the Holocaust happened?

Matty, the "Holocaust" happened in exactly the same sense angels dictate books to camel-drivers or make human girls pregnant.

Let's see if we know what we're talking about, to begin with. Has it occurred to you that pretending that a meaningless word standing for a free-form undefined concept is "true" makes no sense at all?

Look at it this way: we can always construe complex sets of events into "single historical facts" and maintain an epistemological validity to our discourse if a clear definition of our meaning exists. Historical narrative would be a desert of intractable minutiae if we didn't do just that. Thus, the Second World War may be called a fact, much like the fact that I entered a comment on this forum or any other simple empirical truth. This is because, in spite of the great complexity of the historical events, we establish definitions and understand them: a "war" is a state of belligerence between states, a "world war" is a war of global world significance, and "the Second World War" is the particular world war that took place between 1939 and 1945.

Similarly, if we are to take the "Holocaust" as an historical fact, rather than a vague set of religious-like beliefs, we should define our meaning. For instance, a biblical holocaust is simply a sacrifice consumed by fire, and "ill-will towards the Jews," "persecution of the Jews," "the shooting of one's Jewish grandfather in Russia" or "some mass killings of Jews" are not "the Holocaust," the one historians are talking about when they capitalise the noun. I presume you will agree that it is impossible to debate the supposedly historical "Holocaust" if -- alone among alleged historical facts -- it is allowed to remain an open concept devoid of meaning and form.

The "Holocaust" then is assumed to be a relatively precise set of events involving an attempted extermination of the Jews, resulting in approximately 6 million of them being murdered, mainly in the German supposedly homicidal gas chambers. I believe anyone who has been around for the last half century, living anywhere but in the deepest Amazonian jungle, is familiar with this.

In this sense then, we are perfectly entitled to claim the "Holocaust" is a fiction, since all the above claims are false: no extermination (real or attempted), no 6 million (not even approximately), and no homicidal gas chambers (not even in the supposed "extermination camp" of Auschwitz-Birkenau where by far the largest part of the presumed gassings is supposed to have taken place). To understand this, however, it is not enough to sit comfortably on your "acquired knowledge." You'll need to actively, and perhaps painfully, search for yourself.

Of course, if we choose to define the "Holocaust" in a different manner, say as a proto-religious teaching based on extreme but vague war propaganda, claiming that undefined, formless but terrible, events, many of them miraculous, happened to Jews in such a manner that they are collectively entitled to financial compensation, as well as the Jewish state of Israel exempted from the basic standards of civilised behaviour, then the "Holocaust" may indeed be considered "a fact" -- though hardly an appropriate subject for any historical debate.

Educate yourself. Try www.codoh.com

Short introduction to the amazing gas chambers here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=976870941610001004

Matty: "Free speech should remain as it is."

Matty: you don't have free speech in most European countries, where they incarcerate you on the very simple ground that you have offended the Jews by telling the truth about the "Holocaust" sham. The situation is no different from those countries where you'll be punished for offending Muslims. On that account Mr. Bahravi is indeed right.

The difference between his opinion and my own is he stands for general prohibition of free speech everywhere in order to protect both the Muslim and the Judeo-Christian myths, and I stand for free speech everywhere and on all subjects, in order to expose the lies and do justice to the truth.

ASM Marques you have copied your argument from that very smug tit who wrote in the Irish Times. Bravo for orginiality.

But don't worry I haven't just written this, it is a fiction it didn't happen. Same goes for my birth!

I pity you and anybody who knows you

Matty, you don't seem to know what an argument is. You're obviously confusing the argument with the previous definition of the premises to be argued. You also exhibit a very childish reaction: tantrums won't lead you to the truth, clear thinking will. Your problem anyway, not mine.

Good luck in your studies, if that's what you're doing.

No, I understand your argument I just thought I'd have some fun because I don't think you are worth arguing with.

All the same I shall say one more thing; your problem lies in that you reject all the evidence that is contrary to your position. Because you believe no Jews were killed you believe everything written that backs up this argument.

As I said I think the crime of 'Holocaust denial' is wrong because it is hypocritical and tarnishes the principle of free speech. It is far better to have an open forum in where such views can be challenged and ridiculed.

Matty: "No, I understand your argument I just thought I'd have some fun because I don't think you are worth arguing with."

That's a very weak argument to start with, Matty. An adult mind should choose either to argue or to retreat into silence, but saying that you won't argue simply because I'm not personally worth it, is a very transparent excuse that exposes the weakness of your position rather than mine.

Matty: "All the same I shall say one more thing; your problem lies in that you reject all the evidence that is contrary to your position. Because you believe no Jews were killed you believe everything written that backs up this argument."

On the contrary, there is no evidence at all that the gigantic conspiracy called the "Holocaust" ever took place. If you know any, please be so kind as to point it out to me. It's you that because you believe the Jews were exterminated (and neved mind their presence and the statistical figures that tell you otherwise), believe everything written that seems to back your position.

Think about it. Do you really believe in a vast German conspiracy to secretly exterminate an entire race in the hope future historians would be at a loss to determine what had happened to it, resulting in approximately 6 million murdered Jews, with no procedural plan, no written orders at any level, no assigned method of mass murder or bureaucratic control, leaving it to the imagination of a whole bunch of telepathic improvisers who came up with mass execution by such methods as steam, electrocution, non-toxic Diesel exhaust and Zyklon B insecticide, not leaving the slightest vestige of such a carnage accessible to forensic examination in any of its precisely located alleged sites? And, of course, leaving survivors galore from such alleged "extermination centers" as Auschwitz to go on exhuberatingly manifesting themselves all over the globe more than 60 years later?

Please note that you're the one who seems to accept unbelievable conspiracies. I believe it was simply a convergence of interests in a common lie, together with the nearly inexhaustible human capacity to believe in fairy tales. My conspiracy requires only a common will to believe in fairy tales, while yours requires a fairy tale proper, complete with devils, ogres, monsters, miracles and saints.

You see, my alternative to your "6 million" oracular wisdom that tumbles down from the clouds is as follows:

1) HARD DATA OF JEWISH ORIGIN:

Whenever it's possible to peek into the Kadosh Hakadashim without having to pass by the censoring high and not-so-high priests, since no other real data exists:

http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/revu/TI97/TI971122.html
[Scroll further down after the Israeli estimate to the commentaries by Faurisson and Nordling.]

2) DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS:

Here are the very few book studies you'll be able to find:

-- The only meticulous book-length study from the viewpoint of population statistics ever done is "The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry" by Walter Sanning (1983). Sanning uses Jewish originated data and estimates at 3.500.000 the total number of Jews in the German sphere of influence for the duration of the War, and at 2.400.000 the number of Jews alive at the end of the War in the countries previously occupied by Germany (with the exclusion of the USSR). His conclusions are confirmed by Carl Nordling -- a Finnish demographer, applying statistical inference to samples of known individual histories -- who places the total of Jewish victims of the concentration camps at between 300.000 and 600.000 (see articles by Nordling below).

-- For your reference, an anthology titled "Dimension des Völkermords" was edited in 1991 for the Institut für Zeitgeschichte by Wolfgang Benz, obviously as an attempt to fill the embarassing vacuum. It's a weak pot-pourri of recycled extermination allegations with no connecting rationale other than the 6 million necessary figure (even though Benz denies this).

-- You'll find an interesting comparison of those two books by Germar Rudolf, who doesn't exactly follow any of them, here (Rudolf was deported from the "land of the brave and the free" where he had taken refuge, and is currently in jail in Germany for crimethought):

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

-- I also found "Richard Korherr and his Reports" by Stephen Challen (1993) quite convincing. It's a translation of, and commentary on, the secret reports sent by Richard Korherr (who had the post of "Inspector of Statistics for the Reichsfuehrer-SS") to Himmler on the Jewish deportations. Challen reaches the following figures: 1.200.000 Jews dead for the whole of Europe during the War, 450.000 of them in parts of European Russia not occupied by the Germans, and 750.000 in the area of German direct or indirect responsibility. According to him, out of 2.300.000 deported Jews, 360.000 died, and a total of 200.000 of those died in the concentration camps. He considers the Jewish losses "heavy", but in proportion to the German or Soviet ones, and no more than about 20 % of what is usually believed.

A few more references:

'The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry': An Exchange
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v05/v05p367_Rubenstein.html

Critique of John S. Conway's Review of Walter Sanning's Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, From The International History Review, August, 1985
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p375_Desjardins.html

John S. Conway's review previously criticised (quoted)
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p379_Conway.html

How Many Jews Were Eliminated by the Nazis?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p-61_Hankins.html

3) STATISTICAL INFERENCE BASED ON RELEVANT SAMPLES:

The Jewish Establishment under Nazi-Threat and Domination 1938-1945
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p195_Nordling.html

How Many Jews Died in the German Concentration Camps?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p335_Nordling.html

Matty: "As I said I think the crime of 'Holocaust denial' is wrong because it is hypocritical and tarnishes the principle of free speech. It is far better to have an open forum in where such views can be challenged and ridiculed."

Did you say "Holocaust" denial was "ridicule"? You mean affirming these alleged events is not?

-- Mass graves expelling geysers of blood [1]

-- Acid or boiling-water baths to produce human skeletons [2]

-- Injections into the eyes of inmates to change their eye color [3]

-- Production of shrunken heads from bodies of inmates [4]

-- Skimming off boiling human fat from open-air cremation fires [5]

-- Out of pity for complete strangers - a Jewish mother and her child - an SS-man leaps into the gas chamber voluntarily at the last second in order to die with them [6]

-- Soap production from human fat, solemn burial of soap [7]

-- Underground mass extermination in enormous rooms, by means of high voltage electricity [8]

-- Killing in vacuum chamber or with steam or chlorine gas [9]

-- Mass graves with hundreds of thousands of bodies, removed without a trace within a few weeks; a true miracle of improvisation on the part of the Germans [10]

-- Gas chambers on wheels in Treblinka, which dumped their victims directly into burning pits; delayed-action poison gas that allowed the victims to leave the gas chambers and walk to the mass graves by themselves [11]

-- Electrical conveyor-belt executions [12]

-- Cremation of bodies in blast furnaces [13]

-- SS bicycle races in the gas chamber of Birkenau [14]

-- Removal of corpses by means of blasting, i.e. blowing them up [15]

-- Blue haze after gassing with hydrocyanic acid (which is colorless) [16]

-- Singing of national anthems and the Internationales by the victims in the gas chamber; evidence for atrocity propaganda of Communist origin [17]

-- Rapid-construction portable gas chamber sheds [18]

-- Killing by drinking a glass of liquid hydrocyanic acid [19]

-- Muscles cut from the legs of executed inmates contract so strongly that it makes the buckets jump about [20]

-- Introduction of Zyklon gas into the gas chambers of Auschwitz through shower heads or from steel bottles [21]

-- The SS made sausage in the crematoria out of human flesh [22]

-- Mummified human thumbs were used as light switches in the house of Ilse Koch, wife of KZ commander Koch (Buchenwald) [23]

-- Breathed through a keyhole in a gas chamber door at Flossburg to stay alive, cursed the SS when they opened the door, then ran away [24]
____________________________________

Sources:

[1] A. Rückerl, op. cit. (note 141), p. 273f.; E. Wiesel, Paroles d'Etranger, Editiondu Seuil, Paris 1982, p. 86; A. Eichmann, in: H. Arendt, op. cit. (note 179), p.184; B. Naumann, op. cit. (note 142), p. 214.
[2] F. Müller, in: H. Langbein, op. cit. (note 151), v. 1, p. 87; witness Wells in the Eichmann Trial, in: F. J. Scheidl, op. cit. (note 74), v. 4, p. 236.
[3] H. Langbein, Menschen in Auschwitz, op. cit. (note 152), pp. 383f.
[4] H. Langbein, ibid., p. 381.
[5] R. Höß, in: M. Broszat (ed.), op. cit. (note 71), p. 130; H. Tauber, in: J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 17), pp. 489f.; F. Müller, Sonderbehandlung, Steinhausen,Munich 1979, pp. 207f., 217ff.; H. Langbein, Menschen in Auschwitz, op. cit.(note 152), p. 148; B. Naumann, op. cit. (note 142), pp. 10, 334f., 443; S. Steinberg, according to: Französisches Büro des Informationsdienstes überKriegsverbrechen (ed.), Konzentrationslager Dokument 321, Reprint 2001, Frankfurt/Main 1993, p. 206; and many more.
[6] E. Bonhoeffer, op. cit. (note 213), pp. 48f.
[7] S. Wiesenthal, Der neue Weg (Vienna), 15/16 & 17/18, 1946; the Soviets wanted to make this one of the charges at the IMT (exhibit USSR-393), but this plan failed due to the other Allies; cf. H. Härtle, Freispruch für Deutschland, Schütz, Göttingen 1965, pp. 126ff.; the Greenwood Cemetery in Atlanta (Georgia, USA) is not the only site to boast a Holocaust-memorial gravestone for 4 bars of "Jewish soap". Cf. also the following corrections: R. Harwood, D. Felderer, JHR 1(2) (1980) pp. 131-139; M. Weber, JHR 11(2) (1991) pp. 217-227.
[8] Aside from C. Mattogno, op. cit. (note 339), cf. esp. S. Szende, Der letzte Jude aus Polen, Europa-Verlag, Zürich 1945; S. Wiesenthal, Der neue Weg (Vienna), 19/20, 1946.
[9] Aside from C. Mattogno, op. cit. (note 339), cf. esp. W. Grossmann, Die Hölle von Treblinka, Verlag für fremdsprachige Literatur, Moscow 1947; The Black Book of Polish Jewry, Roy Publishers, New York 1943.
[10] Aside from note 349, cf. also W. Benz, Dimension des Völkermords, Oldenbourg, Munich 1991; pp. 320, 469, 479, 489, 537ff.
[11] Reports of the Polish underground movement, Archiv der Polnischen Vereinigten Arbeiterpartei, 202/III, v. 7, pp. 120f., quoted in: P. Longerich, op. cit.(note 271), p. 438.
[12] Pravda, Feb. 2, 1945, cf. U. Walendy, Historische Tatsachen No. 31: "Die Befreiung von Auschwitz 1945", Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1987, p. 4.
[13] H. von Moltke, Briefe an Freya 1939-1945, Beck, Munich 1988, p. 420; cf. P. Longerich (ed.), op. cit. (note 271), p. 435; Pravda, Feb. 2, 1945.
[14] Nürnberger Nachrichten, Sept. 11, 1978, report about eyewitness testimony in the jury court trial in Aschaffenburg.
[15] R. Höß, in: M. Broszat (ed.), op. cit. (note 71), pp. 161f.; A. Rückerl, NS-Prozesse, op. cit. (note 127), p. 78; H. Grabitz, NS-Prozesse., op. cit. (note191), p. 28.
[16] R. Böck, Frankfurt Public Prosecutor's Office, Ref. 4 Js 444/59, pp. 6881f.
[17] H. G. Adler, H. Langbein, E. Lingens-Reiner (eds.), Auschwitz - Zeugnisse und Berichte, Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Cologne 1984, p. 76.
[18] R. Aschenauer (ed.), Ich, Adolf Eichmann, Druffel, Leoni 1980, pp. 179f.
[19] Verdict of the Hannover District Court, Ref. 2 Ks 1/60; cf. H. Lichtenstein, op. cit. (note 84), p. 83.
[20] F. Müller, op. cit. (note 345), p. 74.
[21] M. Scheckter and a report of June 4, 1945, written by an officer of the 2nd Armored Division, about Auschwitz; Französisches Büro des Informationsdienstes über Kriegsverbrechen (ed.), op. cit. (note 345), p. 184.
[22] David Olère, in J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 17), p. 554, fourth column, lines 17-22.
[23] Kurt Glass, New York Times, April 10 1995, from: 'Death Was Our Destiny', p.49-50, by Arnold Friedman, Vantage Press, 1972.
[24] Arnold Friedman, Death Was Our Destiny, Vantage Press, 1972, p.49-50

Matty, one more note that may be of help to you: human testimony is the most fragile kind of evidence there is, and human testimony under the conditions that prevailed at the end of the War is very fragile indeed. Witnesses often lie with political or financial gain in mind (do read a couple of "Holocaust" bestselling "true memoirs" with your mind in alert mode to see what I mean), or for the simple purpose of revenge, or they may have a misconstrued perception of the tragic events they lived through under duress.

Its value is very limited and it becomes invalidated if contradictory hard facts exist, or if it falls outside the domain of the possible. If a hundred eyewitnesses swear they have seen you eat an entire truck in a single seating, that means a hundred false witnesses are lying or falling prey to their overactive imaginations, not that you have a strong stomach and were very hungry. Same with the thousands that swear the Virgin Mary made the Sun dance and flower petals rain from the sky over Fatima in 1917, or that smokeless coke cremations produced smoke over Birkenau in 1944. See with your own eyes what you're required to believe:

ONE PICTURE = 1000 WORDS

Perhaps you should get acquainted with the sort of "testimony" paraded -- generally under the form of non-presential affidavits without the slightest chance of cross-examination -- at the Nuremberg show-trials (among other less known trials). Try:

Nuremberg looney tunes:
http://www.cwporter.com/partone.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/parttwo.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/partthre.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/partfour.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/pg368.htm

How about the famous piles of bodies and the walking skeletons photographed from all angles in a very few places (basically Belsen and Dachau where many healthy inmates were also photographed, and Nordhausen where, by the way, many deaths among the inmates were caused by an Allied bombing)?

Well, how would you explain the situation? Did the administrations of the camps where such photos were taken keep them full of walking skeletons starved on purpose and quite unable to work just for the fun of it? And why would they be intent on provoking or allowing epidemics that would put in risk the lives of the SS personnel themselves?

Obviously the situation arising from the unwarranted conditions at camps like Bergen-Belsen in 1945, was an uncalled for result of a catastrophic war. According to the eyewitnesses themselves, in some camps where a complete supply and control breakdown occurred, even the very sick and dying people were taken out of the improvised infirmaries and left naked in the open by stronger inmates who proceeded to take their blankets and clothes from them. It's the sort of thing that occurs under disastrous abnormal conditions, not an extermination by design from mad Germans who enjoyed overseeing nudist camps full of captive living skeletons.

The piles of dead bodies indicate just that: dead people, and not necessarily murdered people, unless you establish the unnatural manner of their death. Not a single one of the autopsies performed on the dead bodies found in the camps by the Americans indicated death by poison gas, i.e. many inmates in 1945 were dying from exactly the same causes they kept dying for weeks or months after the liberation. See:

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/libcamps.shtml

A few readings on the general state of German cities, communications and infrastructure should give you some indication as to the reasons for that. Not to speak of such photos as the ones Victor Gollancz -- one of those "Righteous among the Jews" that might deserve to have trees planted in their name (if my tongue-in-cheek adaptation of the Jewish cliché doesn't offend you as an implicit slur against non-exceptional Jews) -- took of German children equally reduced to the condition of walking skeletons scavenging among the bombed ruins.

Use your head instead of accepting the absurd clichés: do you think the German guards in those last days were intent on having themselves hung for mass murder? If the Commandant of Belsen had had any perception that the Allies would blame him without taking into account the uncontrollable situation that the Allies themselves weren't able to control for months, even with their unlimited supplies and medicines, would he have stayed to meet them and ask for urgent relief? Try:

Bergen-Belsen Camp: The suppressed story
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n3p23_Weber.html

Lessons from Dachau
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p485_Cobden.html

Can you see any obvious explanation for the mass deaths after the liberation? Were the Allies trying to exterminate the Jews? Of course you can, and of course they weren't. Now go back a few weeks. Think about it. Look at the monthly casualty figures at Dachau in the link above, for instance. Was it simply because the Germans thought it was good fun to have thousands of walking skeletons around in the last couple of months of the war? If you look for them you'll find plenty of images of healthy-looking prisoners (from Dachau, for instance), side by side with the naked living skeletons you see all the time, often collected in the infirmaries of the camps for the photos.

See also this interesting movie about the Spanish communists interned in Mauthausen with lots of scenes from the liberation. Some important comments in English here in order for you to understand the relevance of the movie in the light of Paul Rassinier's writings on the inner functioning of the camps (look for them if you can: you'll find them online, at least in French, not sure about English, sorry).

Read any "Holocaust scholar": what he'll be telling you is there no documentation because the alleged extermination was a secret enterprise supposed to be conducted without any paper work at all, in order to avoid leaving any traces that might explain the disappearance of the entire Jewish race. That's what you're supposed to believe: genocide by telepathy and wink-wink nod-nod understanding all the way down the chain of command. As Raul Hilberg puts it:

"But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They [these measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus -- mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy."

See: Genocide By Telepathy, Hilberg Explains
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n1p15_Faurisson.html

Crazy? Well, yes, but then this is the "Holocaust" wonderland where the usual standards of proof and consistency break down, remember?

Well, how about the famous "6 million"? Could it be that they come straight out of the cabalistic night of times? You know, six days to create the World, six-pointed stars, six extermination camps...

Have you noticed this earlier instance of the 6 million figure dating from 1919 (yes, that's nineteen hundred nineteen) in "The American Hebrew," October 31, 1919 (page 582), The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop! by Martin H. Glynn, former Governor of the State of N.Y.?

"From across the sea six million men and women call to us for help, and eight hundred thousand little children cry for bread. These children, these men and women are our fellow-members of the human family, with the same claim on life as we, the same susceptibility to the winter's cold, the same propensity to death before the fangs of hunger. Within them reside the illimitable possibilities for the advancement of the human race as naturally would reside in six million human beings. We may not be their keepers but we ought to be their helpers. In the face of death, in the throes of starvation there is no place for mental distinctions of creed, no place for physical differentiations of race. In this catastrophe, when six million human beings are being whirled toward the grave by a cruel and relentless fate, only the most idealistic promptings of human nature should sway the heart and move the hand. Six million men and women are dying from lack of the necessaries of life; eight hundred thousand children cry for bread. And this fate is upon them through no fault of their own, through no transgression of the laws of God or man; but through the awful tyranny of war and a bigoted lust for Jewish blood. In this threatened holocaust of human life (...)"

Holocaust of human life? Six million calling for help? Bigoted lust for Jewish blood? In 1919? "Crucifixion of Jews" when all sorts of people had starved all over Germany as a result of the Allied post-armistice blockade?

Does that sound familiar or what?

Equally intriguing, how come the figure of 6 million was already known to the US Congress in March 1945, at a time when the war was still on, no German top officials or camp administrators had been captured, and no confessions had been obtained, 3 weeks before the Americans took over Dachau and the British took over Belsen, and 6 weeks before the Soviets released their Special Commission Report on Auschwitz? See the following clip (at 08:45):

Nazi Shrunken Heads
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=631336312738853628

[There is a small error there: the idiotic "atrocity display" we see in the photos was mounted near Buchenwald, not Nuremberg, but the atrocity bric-à -brac itself was indeed presented and accepted as evidence at a variety of trials, including the ones at Dachau and Nuremberg (the exhibited objects probably came from an anthropological museum near Weimar). The short movie on the whole is accurate and perceptive]

Sorry, this comments column doesn't translate html tags and a few links were left out. Here they are:

"ONE PICTURE = 1000 WORDS":
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2651

"See also this interesting movie...":
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4585635582953202062&q=boix
"...about the Spanish communists interned in Mauthausen with lots of scenes from the liberation. Some important comments in English here":
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=28330&highlight=#28330

"Have you noticed this earlier instance of the 6 million figure dating from 1919 (yes, that's nineteen hundred nineteen) in 'The American Hebrew,' October 31, 1919 (page 582), The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop! by Martin H. Glynn, former Governor of the State of N.Y.?"
http://www.historiography-project.com/images/091031crucifixion.gif

I feel sorry for you because you are obviously intelligent and yet you have a serious problem. The reason I said there is no point in arguing with you is because you are in denial and so everything I do here will most likely be in vain.

I shall repeat; you do not believe the Jews (and others) were systematically exterminated by the Nazis and so you use sources that have been thoroughly discredited to back up your position whilst rejecting the mountains of evidence and sound research that point to the contrary.

You even go so far as to claim that there is no documented evidence that there was a Nazi policy to exterminate the Jews. This is a laughable statement. I'd imagine you think that all evidence that does in fact exist is hoax and fabrication.

I'll present you with a couple links to a website with some analysis of documental evidence of the Holocaust. Maybe you have never seen it before so it might be a revelation for you.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/07/documents-about-murderous-purpose-of.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-not-to-read-document-literally.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/08/wehrmacht-complicity-in-holocaust-in.html

Also here is a very good book available online. Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp. The clue is in the title. Read it.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZrU2oS8fP3cC&dq=berenbaum,+Michael+%26+gutman&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=KnBKSAtpv6&sig=UBXSlcOD43Ro3xi85MI30LUwkLg&hl=en&ei=V_3LSav7BKOUjAeJ9MTmCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP1,M1

I'm not going to return to this page so you needn't post anymore links.

Matty, if you think that ASMarques is "obviously intelligent" then you're as much of a lunatic as he is.

**********
[Matty] I feel sorry for you because you are obviously intelligent and yet you have a serious problem. The reason I said there is no point in arguing with you is because you are in denial and so everything I do here will most likely be in vain.
**********

Well, I suppose I could say the same, but that would be a cope-out, woulnd't it? Besides, a civilized argument doesn't have to proceed with name-calling or end up with one side conceding defeat. Arguments can be had for the benefit of third parties, for instance, wouldn't you agree? You yourself said you welcomed open debates where the views I subscribe to could be challenged and ridiculed. Apparently easier said than done, since you then think it more convenient to promptly turn your back and run away than to calmly and effectively demonstrate your point that proving the truth of the "Holocaust" (extermination / 6 million / gas chambers, lest we forget) would be childplay to you.

If I were you, i.e. if I was limited by the small degree of information I presume you have on the subject, I would ponder the fact that denying the "Holocaust" is literally outlawed in most western countries and forbidden in practical terms in the remaining ones. Can you remember anyone ever proposing the imposition of a legal ban on "Flat Earth" or "faked moon walk" speech? Of course you can't. Idiotic falsehoods don't require censorship to be contained, it's the inconvenient truth that emphatically does.

**********
[Matty] I shall repeat; you do not believe the Jews (and others) were systematically exterminated by the Nazis and so you use sources that have been thoroughly discredited to back up your position
**********

I understand how difficult it is to part with convictions you were taught to worship as sacred, but here is how the mechanism of "discredit" functions:

-- The facts:

1) Deniers deny the "Holocaust".
2) Deniers get ruined or jailed for denying the "Holocaust".
3) Deniers get discredited for having being ruined or jailed.
4) Denial of the "Holocaust" gets discredited, not because it has been proven false, but because deniers got discredited.

-- Your conclusion:

5) Therefore the "Holocaust" is true.

If you don't see the perverse absence of logic, I'm afraid I can't do anything for you.

**********
[Matty] whilst rejecting the mountains of evidence and sound research that point to the contrary.
You even go so far as to claim that there is no documented evidence that there was a Nazi policy to exterminate the Jews. This is a laughable statement. I'd imagine you think that all evidence that does in fact exist is hoax and fabrication.
**********

Again, "mountains of evidence" of precisely what?! Are you referring to mountains of shoes and the like? Can't you be more precise? Have you have ever heard anyone in a court of law -- other than during such political show-trials as Nuremberg -- arguing that since a "mountain of evidence" is said to exist we don't need to go into any specifics?

**********
Matty: I'll present you with a couple links to a website with some analysis of documental evidence of the Holocaust. Maybe you have never seen it before so it might be a revelation for you.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/07/documents-about-murderous-purpose-of.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-not-to-read-document-literally.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/08/wehrmacht-complicity-in-holocaust-in.html
**********

Yes, I've been there before. If you want to see a classic example of falsified "gas chamber" testimony you may read my own comments on that blog. Start here, with the case of BBC producer Lawrence Rees, the falsifier that I myself caught in flagrante delicto (a simple case of manipulation similar to many others):
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Auschwitz/Marques_150405.html

Then an interesting exchange followed in the exterminationist blog you mentioned. Warning: you won't be able to understand the (very common) subtle logic of the falsification, and how one alleged gas chamber (the industrial "epicenter" in Krema II, acording to Van Pelt) is magically turned into another (the "small cottage") if you don't read my own messages to the end, in the comments columns:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/when-deniers-are-right.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/i-have-seen-gas-chambers-i-have-seen.html

**********
Matty: Also here is a very good book available online. Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp. The clue is in the title. Read it.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZrU2oS8fP3cC&dq=berenbaum,+Michael+%26+gutman&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=KnBKSAtpv6&sig=UBXSlcOD43Ro3xi85MI30LUwkLg&hl=en&ei=V_3LSav7BKOUjAeJ9MTmCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP1,M1
**********

If you think the clue is in the title (the word "death," I suppose), please ponder if the following data, based on the small sample constituted by Anne Frank's entourage, gives you any further clues. Is this what should have been expected if any systematic extermination had been going on in Auschwitz (notice the dates and the locations)?

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p335_Nordling.html

-- Albert Dussel taken to Auschwitz, later to Neuengamme, died there 1945.
-- Mrs "van Daan" taken to Auschwitz, later to Buchenwald, died there 1945.
-- Peter "van Daan" taken to Auschwitz, later to Mauthausen, died there 1945.
-- Margot Frank taken to Auschwitz, later to Belsen, died there 1945.
-- Anne Frank taken to Auschwitz, later to Belsen, died there 1945.
-- Mrs Frank taken to Auschwitz, later to Belsen, died there 1945.
-- Mr "van Daan" taken to Auschwitz, last seen there in 1945.
-- Mr Frank taken to Auschwitz, survived in camp hospital.

See the kind of scholarship featured on the book you recommend:

-- Franciszek "Oops" Piper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP8eB4oPS0o
[You really have to hear the guy talking to take his measure.]

-- Raul Hilberg:

http://vho.org/GB/Books/Giant/
[The utter demolition of Hilberg's work: don't miss this one.]

-- Jean-Claude Pressac:

May I suggest you read the following analysis by Prof. Robert Faurisson:
"Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (1989) ou bricolage et 'gazouillages' à Auschwitz et à Birkenau selon J.-C. Pressac (1989)":
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/archFaur/1986-1990/RF9011xx21.html
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/archFaur/1986-1990/RF9011xx22.html

Sorry, it's in French. I know of no on-line English tranlation. You may wish to try two short resumés of Pressac's sad demise:
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/anf/Faurisson1.html
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Zundel1/faurisson.htm

Also Faurisson's reply to Pressac's even more awkward second book on the crematories of Auschwitz "Réponse à Jean-Claude Pressac sur le problème des chambres à gaz (1994)":
[French]:
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/archFaur/1991-1994/RF94reponseJCP1.html
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/archFaur/1991-1994/RF94reponseJCP2.html
[English]:
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/anf/Faurisson1.html

-- Robert-Jan Van Pelt:

My all-time favorite.

Matty, let me put a concrete question to you, inspired by Van Pelt: the holes in the ceiling of the Krema II morgue in Birkenau -- the alleged gas chamber and epicenter of the "Holocaust" where at least hundreds of thousands are supposed to have been gassed non-stop -- are not there, and no refilling in their alleged locations can be detected. Even your "Holocaust scholar" Robert Van Pelt (in the Irving vs Lipstadt trial) admitted this:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/controversies/holes/PeltReportExtract.html

"Today, these four small holes that connected the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys cannot be observed in the ruined remains of the concrete slab. Yet does this mean they were never there? We know that after the cessation of the gassings in the fall of 1944 all the gassing equipment was removed, which implies both the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys. What would have remained would have been the four narrow holes and the slab. While there is no certainty in this particular matter, it would have been logical to attach at the location where the columns had been some formwork at the bottom of the gas chamber ceiling, and pour some concrete in the hole and thus restore the slab."

In other words: according to Van Pelt, the alleged Birkenau Krema II holes may have been refilled like the ones drilled after the war in the ceiling of the Auschwitz I alleged gas chamber are now -- after revisionists discovered and publicized the original blueprints -- mumbled by the Museum authorities to have been, but careful close inspection -- not to speak of modern science -- is not deemed capable of finding these odd refilled holes in the concrete slab, even when their precise location is well known!

My question to you is: since the holes are not there and no refilling can be detected, what do you make of the eyewitness stories about the alleged gassings that require the holes in the ceiling for the introduction of the Zyklon B? Are they true or are they false?

Naturally, Van Pelt wasn't conceding the non-existence of the holes as an ordinary fact devoid of contorted metaphysical implications of a religious nature, i.e. he didn't acknowledge the simple straight fact that indeed did prove in a very simple way that the gassing tales were false, as such.

Of course he would never have done that. That's not the way religious belief operates, and definitely not what the sponsors of Deborah Lipstadt, the "Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies" taken to court by David Irving, were paying him £109,000 to say.

What Van Pelt did do, as a true peddler of the "Holocaust" religion, was:

1) To admit that he had gone to Birkenau to see the holes in the alleged gas chamber's roof for himself and not having found them, he had concluded that they must have been filled up by the wicked Germans (before their own blowing-up of the "gas chamber" that fractured but didn't destroy the massive reinforced concrete slab that formed the roof), in some extremely clever way that can no longer be observed, even though the precise locations of the holes are claimed to be known.

2) To allege that this material absence of the holes essential to the "Zyklon B through the roof" tale was not a simple matter of crucial sine qua non evidence that would establish the truth or falsehood of the eyewitness allegations and ought to be investigated by forensic science as normal criminal matters are, but instead that the sacred holes themselves should be promoted to the higher semi-metaphysical heights of "moral certainty" as defined by Bishop John Wilkins in his "Of the Principles and Duties of Natural Religion" (1660).

No, I kid you not.

But, of course, the good Bishop -- also known for his fictional trip to the moon -- was not such a trivial religious thinker as Van Pelt seems to have made him. Wilkins's concept of "moral certainty" meant his certainty having for object, in his own words, "such beings as are less simple, and do more depend upon mixed circumstances" than the ordinary verifiable ones, such as a simple "holes or no holes" matter that would be quite decisive to settle a criminal investigation. What he was driving at was in an altogether different plane: he meant his certainty that a philosophical god existed through the observation of his works and "natural laws," not a method for close investigation of much lesser beings -- such as a few holes in a roof -- in an everyday court of law...

Some terminology for a supposed technical witness debating technical problems in order to establish historical facts in a 20th century court!

No one would ever dream of such an idiotic approach to any alleged historical events other than the "Holocaust" sham. Just imagine a technical witness getting such a fat fee as Van Pelt did, and coming up with something like "I have this moral certainty that Napoleon won (or lost) at Waterloo." Now that wouldn't sound very technical, would it?...

Here are a few excerpts from Van Pelt's own Report for the trial, if you don't believe me. You'll notice the "majority" approach to the truth -- i.e. postulating the "rest of mankind," presumably in possession of a massively added up IQ, in opposition to the stupid revisionists -- so dear to advocates of religion (when in power, naturally):

From Van Pelt's own Report:

*****************
"It will be shown that, in the words of John Wilkins, we may assert as 'moral certainty' the statement that Auschwitz was an extermination camp where the Germans killed around one million people with the help of gas chambers, and where they incinerated their remains in crematoria ovens."
_________________

"These latter people [negationists in good faith] who sincerely believe, in the words of one of the founding [sic] the Royal Society John Wilkins, that 'the rest of Mankind might have combined together to impose upon them by these relations,' will not be able to be convinced by anything. Yet, in turn, I hope that those who maintain an unwarranted skepticism will not be able to convince those who are prepared to consider, with common reason and without prejudice, the evidence. And perhaps they will agree with Wilkins that 'those who will pretend such kind of grounds for their disbelief of any thing, will never be able to perswade others, that the true cause why they do not give their Assent is because they have no reason for it, but because they have no mind to it.' John Wilkins, Of the Principles and Duties of Natural Religion (London: A. Maxwell, 1675), 26."
_________________

"Wilkins's typology of the various levels of certainty provides a useful compass when one undertakes a journey through a landscape of awful historical facts and offensive lies. For Wilkins neither Physical Certainty, based on the direct experience of the senses, nor Mathematical Certainty, obtained through proof, were epistemologically problematical. But in the realm of Moral Certainty the question of evidence became central. 'I call that Moral Certainty, which hath for its object such beings as are less simple, and do more depend upon mixed circumstances. Which though they are not capable of the same kind of Evidence with the former, so as to necessitate every man's assent, though his judgement be never so much prejudiced against them; yet may be so plain, that every man whose judgement is free form prejudice will consent unto them. And though there be no natural necessity, that such things must be so, and that they cannot be possibly otherwise, without implying a Contradiction; yet may they be so certain as not to admit of any reasonable doubt concerning them.' Wilkins, Of the Principles and Duties of Natural Religion, 7f."
_________________

"[...] the following propositions may be asserted with what the seventeenth-century philosopher John Wilkins defined as moral or indubitable certainty -- that is that we may have an assurance which does not admit of any reasonable cause of doubt. This is the certainty about matter of fact and is based on such evidence as excludes the possibility of error for all practical purposes."
_________________

"[Quoting directly from Bishop Wilkins] Things of several kinds may admit and require several sorts of proofs, all which may be good in their kind. The Philosopher has long ago told us [Aristotle, Eth. Lib. 1, cap. 3; Metaph. lib.1, cap ult.], that according to the divers nature of things, so must the Evidences for them be; and that 'tis an argument of an undisciplined wit not to acknowledg this. He that is rational and judicious will expect no other kind of Arguments in any case than the subject-matter will bear....All things are not capable of the same kind of Evidence....And as for matters of fact, concerning Times, Places, Persons, Actions, which depend upon story and the relation of others, these things are not capable of being proved by such scientifical Principles as the others are....From whence I infer this, That it is not, ought not to be, any prejudice to the Truth or Certainty of any thing, that its is not to be made out of such kind of proof, of which the nature of that thing is not capable, provided it be capable of satisfactory proofs of another kind.
John Wilkins, Of the Principles and Duties of Natural Religion"
*****************

So this is what the "Holocaust" hoax is reduced to. To the very simple question "holes or no holes in the reinforced concrete roof that is still there" the authorised "scholar" replies with a 17th century bishop's "moral certainty" on "matters of fact concerning times, places, persons, actions, which depend upon story and the relation of others, these things [...] not capable of being proved by such scientifical principles as the others are," to which number I suppose we are to understand the result of any "holes or no holes" forensic investigation is to be added, in order for us never to be able to reach any truth or certainty...

Wondrous stuff that should open your eyes to the true nature of the "Holocaust" as a religious cult.

**********
Matty: "I'm not going to return to this page so you needn't post any more links.
**********

Okay. I don't leave the field without three suns having set in peace over the corpses, but all seems quiet on this front right now, so I guess I'll be on my way soon...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxIuIxqo2So

Cheers.

ASMarques, it is precisely individuals such as yourselves, who would rather spend hours ranting on a student website over the supposed fine print (e.g. endlessly recycle straw man arguments presented by disreputable "scholars") that have missed the point entirely. Congratulations.

It is interesting to note that throughout your little thesis here you have failed to mention-except dismissively in passing-any of the other groups that faced mass extermination, the Roma and Poles, to name two. I suppose if it ain't Jew, you're back to seeing Blue, huh?

The egg is on everyone's face including my own for even reading past your first comment. Debate the historical record all you want, just quit hiding behind half-baked non-sequitors like the nonsensical morass you kicked things off with. Filling pages upon pages of rants about Zyklon B residue doesn't make you out to be a defender of Free Speech or really seem all that excited by it. In my mind it makes you look a small-minded, racist idiot with an unhealthy level of certainty against a series of events that have essentially been proven as axiomatic as the laws of gravity or evolution at this point.

Speaking freely, of course, I really feel nothing but intense pity for you.

Hi there! My rearguard scout tells me the scavengers that usually arrive when they think the field is safe have begun arriving, so I'm back for a few comments more.

Said Ian White: "...it is precisely individuals such as yoursel[f], who would rather spend hours ranting on a student website..."

No problem at all, Ian. The arguments of the "Holocaust" peddlers are so predictably childish and unimaginative that responding to them is simply a matter of copying & pasting a few standard points. But I cannot agree with your implication that students should be less entitled to know the truth about the "Holocaust" farce than anybody else.

Here is an interesting debate in English between a revisionist (Robert Faurrison) and an exterminationist (Mikkel Andersson), in Copenhagen (2002):
http://member.newsguy.com/~kreiberg/fdebat1.ram
[2h 31m]

Hope you like it. See you.