SCEPCOP Forum

This is a rebuttal of the revisionists and much of the material of the videos FF has posted, suggesting there was more going on as the war progressed:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -disposal/

I'm not saying that is definitive either, it is still a battle of the texts.

In all fairness, some of the treatments in the movies do provide convincing evidence it's implausible for open air pyres to work, etc. That some of the stories have been mythologised and they are being repeated with variations. There is a suggestion that some of the testimonies are in fact quite false. However it is possible the Germans started on a campaign not of deportation but annihilation at some stage, and were building up to larger and larger scale efforts. It's just not clear on an analysis of the various conflicting documents and accounts, and of course it is conveniently murky after several decades have passed to say anything on either side without good corroboration. I think it is unfortunate if survivors are fabricating stories of their experiences.

Certainly I think many of FF's initial premises were quite wrong - hitler is painted as some sort of patriot with limited ambitions for Germany and so on, as Irving portrays. the broader socio-historical context of Prussian militarism and the ambitions of the germans seems to suggest otherwise. so we move on from that to suggest that the Nazis could not have been that inhuman, it's unthinkable -- and yet so was the extent of their professed anti-Semitism and racism by today's standards in their many published remarks. and it appears that they were very happy to dispose of the infirm, the disabled etc to make way for wounded soldiers and to reduce the economic burden on everyone -- even according to posters publicly displayed by the Nazis several years before war had broken out. it was for these disturbing reasons together with rearmament and the invasion of several countries that made other countries in Europe nervous about their goals. so it doesn't seem to be just victor's justice and the victor's version of events here, no smoke without fire.

I reiterate it's probably not a suitable topic for attempted in-depth analysis on this site.

is it possible to address every single part of the alleged hoax with proof of the opposite, then ditto for all the objections, in tabular format?

ProfWag, why shut down or control ANY debate on the issue whether pro or con? I think you, Syd and Freddy bring much to the table. I would like to follow any and all discourse regarding whatever issue you folks decide on.

I think he's joking. FF doesn't do his argument any favours by posting click through links with no preface at all, but some of the arguments do seem to hold water, I have to admit. Interesting that this stuff was done to death in the 70s and 80s, and yet there is little said about it now, and it's still an offence to deny 'the holocaust' in a dozen countries despite evidence tendered in courts of law by chemical experts in the specific area under question that events as described could not have happened.

I just found this but I haven't had time to watch it yet.

"Diesels, Gaswagons & Zyklon-B Part 1 of 6"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pACALht ... _BgDDWQzBz

It looks promising.

Very promising. The point was made in other videos that diesel engines produce very little CO, that wood stoves were in use on cars back then due to petrol shortages in the war that produce 'wood gas' or CO much more efficiently and in large quantities and is also a much simpler mechanism than a full engine, that this would have been known to the Germans of course, that they claimed they dragged a 'captured Soviet sub's diesel engine' 250 km inland (Germany never captured a single Soviet sub, they managed to capture a British one once) just for this purpose -- although of course the CO output would be minimal even if this were true, etc etc. 'Witnesses' claimed they used gas in one place, diesel CO in another, poisoning in another, etc etc.

Here's another one that looks promising.

"Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners by David McCalden"
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... n%20&sm=12

I probably won't have time to watch it till the weekend but I'm posting it anyway so the viewers can see it.

Here's some more evidence that the allies lied about the gas chambers.

"Black Holocaust Lies"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bTzvOm ... 9AA67405E6

Question: Why is Hitler portrayed as the most evil by America, but not other conquerors who did similar things? For example, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Napoleon also killed millions of people during their campaigns. They had prisoners executed too. Yet those three are romanticized as great conquerors whereas Hitler is greatly demonized. Why?

Will Hitler someday be called "Hitler the Great" just as the other three are now called?

Is it because those three are from ancient history and so are more romanticized than villainized?