Monday, July 06, 2009

He's Out

A message has appeared on Germar Rudolf's website

Germar Rudolf free again! He was able to leave the Mannheim prison on Saturday 4th July 2009

24 comments:

Diogo said...

The Catholic pastor Viktor R. Knirsch of Kahlenbergerdorf in Austria has given us some insightful remarks on this subject:

"It is the right and the duty of everyone who seeks the truth to doubt, investigate and consider all available evidence. Wherever this doubting and investigating is forbidden; wherever authorities demand unquestioning belief -- there is evidence of a profane arrogance, which arouses our suspicions. If those whose contentions are questioned had truth on their side, they would patiently answer all questions. Certainly they would not continue to conceal evidence and documents which pertain to the controversy. If those who demand belief are lying, however, they will call for a judge. By this ye shall know them. He who tells the truth is calm and composed, but he who lies demands worldly justice."

Robert86 said...

Father Knirsch is not off the mark actually. By making discussion of something illegal in a public forum, then it not only makes the paranoid, conspiracy theorists among us question but also the ignorant and idealistic as well. If someone has the truth on their side they should not have to infringe on one of the basic right of human beings.

Needless to say I am glad Germar Rudolf is out. Even though he is a quack, as long as does not bring someone physical harm or serious mental harm he should not be jailed for his "scholarly" antics.

Diogo said...

«By making discussion of something illegal in a public forum»?

Illegal? Why illegal?

History is a science. Can't we question?

Robert86 said...

Question sure. Though it is obvious Germar Rudolf is either a conspiraloon or ignorant. Still one should not be put in jail for making ludicrous assertions. Any and all scientific and historical claims should be judged in an academic setting, NOT in a court of law.

Diogo said...

Conspiraloon or ignorant?

What about this:

The Use and Abuse of Holocaust Memory

Bradley Lecture
By Walter Reich
Posted: Monday, November 28, 2005

SPEECHES
AEI Online - American Enterprise Institute
Publication Date: November 14, 2005

(...) A month later, a White House aide urged Carter that, in his executive order creating the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, the permanent successor to the temporary President’s Commission on the Holocaust, he, the president, should “make clear the memorial is to honor the memory of all victims of the Holocaust--six million Jews and some five million other peoples.”[4] Another White House aide pointed out that this definition--eleven million--had been originated by Simon Wiesenthal, “whose Holocaust credentials are as good as anyone else I know.”[5] Elie Wiesel resisted this broad definition of the Holocaust, trying to finesse the matter by separating the “systematic state-sponsored extermination of six million Jews” from “the millions of other Nazi victims.” But in the end Carter refused this wording, and in issuing his executive order establishing the United States Holocaust Memorial Council he referred to eleven million victims.

(...)

From an historical point of view, all of this has a great and strange irony behind it. Where, in fact, does this eleven million number come from? Yes, it came from Simon Wiesenthal, the Nazi hunter. But where did he get it? Yehuda Bauer, the Holocaust historian, was puzzled by this question. As he has written, “The total number of non-Jewish concentration camp victims is about half a million--which is half a million too many, but it is not five million. On the other hand, the total number of dead in World War II has been estimated at thirty-five million. Deduct the nearly six million Jews, and you have many more than Wiesenthal’s five million. Yet there was no premeditated plan to murder all these people--all the members of any group. If you were a Polish peasant or city-dweller and you avoided resistance and other types of opposition, you would have suffered, no doubt, but you would not have been targeted for murder. To call what happened to the non-Jewish victims ‘the Holocaust’ is ‘simply’ false.” So where did Wiesenthal get the number eleven million, including five million non-Jews? In a private conversation, Bauer asked him that very question. And Wiesenthal told Bauer where he had gotten it. He told him that he had “invented” it. That’s right, he had made it up! And why had he invented it? He had invented it, Bauer wrote in 1989, “in order to make the non-Jews feel like they are part of us.”[6] Wiesenthal had already expressed this sentiment to a Washington Post reporter in 1979, when he told him that “Since 1948 I have sought with Jewish leaders not to talk about six million Jewish dead, but rather about eleven million civilians dead, including six million Jews.”[7] What Wiesenthal felt back in 1948 was that the non-Jewish world wouldn’t be interested in the Jewish tragedy unless they understood that non-Jews had been killed, too. So he pointed out that they were. Needing to identify a number, he made one up--5 million. And that’s the capricious number that appeared in President Carter’s executive order and that, as a result, provided the first official federal definition of the Holocaust, merging those killed as part of a unique and racially-motivated industrial genocide with those killed as part of Nazi brutality. That’s the peculiar, even bizarre way that this official and baseless number--and, far worse, this official conflation of historical tragedies, the effect of which is to rob us of a discrete event from which the whole world has much to learn--were created by presidential fiat.

Diogo said...

Here

http://www.aei.org/speech/23492

Robert86 said...

Thanks for that link. I know about many of these problems surrounding the memory of the Holocaust after reading "The Holocaust Industry" by Norman Finkelstein. Sadly, it is inevitable it would become a political issue as it is with Deniers as well.

Diogo said...

Robert86,

We know that the Nazis were determined to exterminate all the jews.

So, how can you explain this:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Belsen.html

Jewish Virtual Library

Bergen-Belsen

By Rebecca Weiner


The camp changed its name to Bergen-Belsen and was converted into a concentration camp in 1943. Jews with foreign passports were kept there to be exchanged for German nationals imprisoned abroad, although very few exchanges were made. About 200 Jews were allowed to immigrate to Palestine and about 1,500 Hungarian Jews were allowed to immigrate to Switzerland, both took place under the rubric of exchanges for German nationals.

Bergen-Belsen mainly served as a holding camp for the Jewish prisoners. The camp was divided into eight sections, a detention camp, two women’s camps, a special camp, neutrals camps, "star" camp (mainly Dutch prisoners who wore a Star of David on their clothing instead of the camp uniform), Hungarian camp and a tent camp. It was designed to hold 10,000 prisoners, however, by the war’s end more than 60,000 prisoners were detained there, due to the large numbers of those evacuated from Auschwitz and other camps from the East. Tens of thousands of prisoners from other camps came to Bergen-Belsen after agonizing death marches.

Conditions in the camp were good by concentration camp standards, and most prisoners were not subjected to forced labor. However, beginning in the spring of 1944 the situation deteriorated rapidly. In March, Belsen was redesignated an Ehrholungslager [Recovery Camp], where prisoners of other camps too sick to work were brought, though none received medical treatment. As the German Army retreated in the face of the advancing Allies, the concentration camps were evacuated and their prisoners sent to Belsen. The facilites in the camp were unable to accommodate the sudden influx of thousands of prisoners and all basic services - food, water and sanitation - collapsed, leading to the outbreak of disease. Anne Frank and her sister, Margot, died of typhus in March 1945, along with other prisoners in a typhus epidemic.

While Bergen-Belsen contained no gas chambers, more than 35,000 people died of starvation, overwork, disease, brutality and sadistic medical experiments. By April 1945, more than 60,000 prisoners were incarcerated in Belsen in two camps located 1.5 miles apart. Camp No. 2 was opened only a few weeks before the liberation on the site of a military hospital and barracks.

(...)


So, if you were determined to exterminate all the jews, why would you redesignate Belsen as an Ehrholungslager [Recovery Camp], where prisoners of other camps too sick to work were brought????

You wanted them killed or not?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

I didn't know Jews were the only prisoners of Nazi concentration camps controlled by the WVHA, or even the largest group of prisoners in such camps.

Maybe Diogo can explain where he got that idea from.

And he also doesn't seem to have read the notes written by Rudolf Höss in Polish captivity following his interrogations by judge Jan Sehn, in which Höss addressed in some details the conflict of interest between the RSHA (which wanted to kill as many Jews as possible) and the WVHA (which wanted a labor force as large as possible), which temporarily led to a relatively sparing treatment of those Jews from transports to Auschwitz-Birkenau that had been selected as able to work and taken as inmates into the camp.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

I quote from Constantine Fitzgibbon's translation of Höss' notes in Commandant at Auschwitz, pages 189 and following; emphases are mine:

"Originally all the Jews transported to Auschwitz on the authority of Eichmann’s office were, in accordance with orders of the Reichsführer SS, to be destroyed without exception. This also applied to the Jews from Upper Silesia, but on the arrival of the first transports of German Jews, the order was given that all those who were able-bodied, whether men or women, were to be segregated and employed on war work. This happened before the construction of the women’s camp, since the need for a women’s camp in Auschwitz only arose as a result of this order.
[...]
The selection of able-bodied Jews was supposed to be made by SS doctors. But it repeatedly happened that officers of the protective custody camp and of the labour department themselves selected the prisoners without my knowledge or even my approval. This was the cause of constant friction between the SS doctors and the officers of the labour department. The divergence of opinion among the officers in Auschwitz was developed and fostered by the contradictory interpretation of the Reichsführer SS’s order by authoritative quarters in Berlin. The Reich Security Head Office (Müller and Eichmann) had, for security reasons, the greatest interest in the destruction of as many Jews as possible. The Reichsarzt SS, who laid down the policy of selection, held the view that only those Jews completely fit and able to work should be selected for employment. The weak and the old and those who were only relatively robust would very soon become incapable of work, which would cause a further deterioration in the general standard of health, and an unnecessary increase in the hospital accommodation, requiring further medical personnel and medicines, and all for no purpose since they would in the end have to be killed.
The Economic Administration Head Office (Pohl and Maurer) was only interested in mustering the largest possible labour force for employment in the armaments industry, regardless of the fact that these people would later on become incapable of working. This conflict of interests was further sharpened by the immensely increased demands for prisoner labour made by the Ministry of Supply and the Todt Organisation. The Reichsführer SS was continuously promising both these department numbers which could never be supplied. Standartenführer Maurer (the head of department DII), was in the difficult position of being able only partially to fulfil the demands of the departments referred to, and consequently he was perpetually harassing the labour office to provide him with the greatest possible number of workers.
It was impossible to get the Reichsführer SS to make a definite decision in this matter."

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Same source, page 192, emphases mine:

"Because of the increasing insistence of the Reichsführer SS on the employment of prisoners in the armaments industry, Obergruppenführer Pohl found himself compelled to resort to Jews who had become unfit for work. The order was given that if the latter could be made fit and employable within six weeks, they were to be given special care and feeding. Up to then all Jews who had become incapable of working were gassed with the next transports, or killed by injection if they happened to be lying ill in the sick block. As far as Auschwitz-Birkenau was concerned, this order was sheer mockery. Everything was lacking. There were practically no medical supplies. The accommodation was such that there was scarcely even room for those who were most seriously ill. The food was completely insufficient, and every month the Food Ministry cut down the supplies still further. But all protests were unavailing and an attempt to carry out the order had to be made. The resultant overcrowding of the healthy prisoners could no longer be avoided. The general standard of health was thereby lowered, and diseases spread like wildfire. As a result of this order the death rate was sent up with a jerk and a tremendous deterioration in the general conditions developed. I do not believe that a single Jew was ever made fit again for work in the armaments industry."

Paul said...

Claims about "Holocaust Deniers" Fact
They deny that Jews were persecuted WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny that Jews were deprived of civil rights WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny that Jews were deported WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny the Jews were herded into ghettos WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny the existence of concentration camps WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny that Jews were put to forced labor WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny the existence of crematoria in concentration camps WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny that Jews died for a great number of reasons: epidemics, malnutrition, diseases, mistreatment WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny that other minorities were also persecuted as well, such as gypsies and political dissenters WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny that the treatment of the Jews was unjust WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny the victims their dignity WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny the victims to be remembered WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny to show compassion for the victims WRONG. They do NOT deny this


They deny that there was a plan to murder all Jews This is what they claim
They deny that Jews were murdered systematically This is what they claim
They deny the existence of gas chambers for mass murder This is what they claim
They deny that six million Jews died in the Holocaust This is what they claim
Learn more about it here

Before he changes it, this is what he posted on his
site:
http://www.germarrudolf.com/Denial.html

Diogo said...

Roberto Muehlenkamp said: «I didn't know Jews were the only prisoners of Nazi concentration camps controlled by the WVHA, or even the largest group of prisoners in such camps. Maybe Diogo can explain where he got that idea from.»

Diogo: I didn´t said that the jews were the only or the largest group in the concentration camps controlled by the WVHA. But in « Jewish Virtual Library
» you can read:

In 1946, Belsen served as the largest DP camp for more than 11,000 Jews; it was the only exclusively Jewish camp in the British zone of Germany


Roberto Muehlenkamp said: «And he also doesn't seem to have read the notes written by Rudolf Höss in Polish captivity following his interrogations by judge Jan Sehn, in which Höss addressed in some details the conflict of interest between the RSHA (which wanted to kill as many Jews as possible) and the WVHA (which wanted a labor force as large as possible), which temporarily led to a relatively sparing treatment of those Jews from transports to Auschwitz-Birkenau that had been selected as able to work and taken as inmates into the camp.»

Diogo:

1 – The notes written by Rudolf Höss in British or Pole captivity are not reliable.

Although Höss changed his testimony at his own trial in 1947 in Poland and stated that a total of around one million persons had been killed at Auschwitz, he had previously testified on April 15, 1946, as a defense witness for Ernst Kaltenbrunner at the Nuremberg IMT, that 2.5 million persons had been exterminated, and 500,000 more had died from disease and starvation during the time that he was the Commandant between June 14, 1940 and December 1, 1943.


2 – «which temporarily led to a relatively sparing treatment of those Jews from transports to Auschwitz-Birkenau that had been selected as able to work and taken as inmates into the camp.»

But many of those Jews were taken from Auschwitz-Birkenau to other concentration camps, like Anne Frank and her sister Margot (to Bergen Belsen, the Recovery Camp).


Roberto Muehlenkamp said: «Up to then all Jews who had become incapable of working were gassed with the next transports, or killed by injection if they happened to be lying ill in the sick block.

Diogo: Interesting! If the Nazis were gassing so many Jews everyday, why were there Jews lying ill in the sick block? Why would the Nazis feed and treat sick Jews when, at the same time, they were gassing so many others?

Diogo said...

About the notes written by Rudolf Höss in Polish captivity:


Wilhelm Stäglich – The Auschwitz Myth

A judge looks At the evidence

Pages 199-200:

Höss does write at the end of his autobiography (op. cit., p. 151): “These writings consist of 114 pages. I have written them voluntarily and without compulsion.” However, in view of those times and conditions, that seems entirely absurd. Actually, this sentence alone is [203] enough to make an unbiased historian leery. In point of fact, nothing could better illustrate the fact that others exerted influence on these writings. After all, who would conclude a personal account of one's own life with such a formula?

Moreover, the autobiography itself furnishes evidence that it was not prepared “voluntarily” in the proper sense of the word. On page 63 of the autobiography —that is to say, in that part which basically concerns his personal development and thus may largely contain Höss's own ideas— he writes that in his present imprisonment he felt the lack of any physical work very much and was thus grateful to do the writing tasks assigned to him, which he found completely absorbing and satisfying.

So Höss was not writing on his own incentive, but these writing tasks were “assigned” (“aufgegeben”) to him! Of what the individual assignments consisted is not known, nor is it likely ever to be.

Robert86 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>Roberto Muehlenkamp said: «I >didn't know Jews were the only >prisoners of Nazi concentration >camps controlled by the WVHA, or >even the largest group of >prisoners in such camps. Maybe >Diogo can explain where he got >that idea from.»

>Diogo: I didn´t said that the jews >were the only or the largest group >in the concentration camps >controlled by the WVHA. But in « >Jewish Virtual Library
>» you can read:

>In 1946, Belsen served as the >largest DP camp for more than >11,000 Jews; it was the only >exclusively Jewish camp in the >British zone of Germany

So what?

>Roberto Muehlenkamp said: «And he >also doesn't seem to have read the >notes written by Rudolf Höss in >Polish captivity following his >interrogations by judge Jan Sehn, >in which Höss addressed in some >details the conflict of interest >between the RSHA (which wanted to >kill as many Jews as possible) and >the WVHA (which wanted a labor >force as large as possible), which >temporarily led to a relatively >sparing treatment of those Jews >from transports to >Auschwitz-Birkenau that had been >selected as able to work and taken >as inmates into the camp.»

>Diogo:

>1 – The notes written by Rudolf >Höss in British or Pole captivity >are not reliable.

Why, because you say so? Give me a better reason.

>“Although Höss changed his >testimony at his own trial in 1947 >in Poland and stated that a total >of around one million persons had >been killed at Auschwitz, he had >previously testified on April 15, >1946, as a defense witness for >Ernst Kaltenbrunner at the >Nuremberg IMT, that 2.5 million >persons had been exterminated, and >500,000 more had died from disease >and starvation during the time >that he was the Commandant between >June 14, 1940 and December 1, >1943.”

And that is supposed to make Höss´ notes in Polish captivity unreliable? Even though his 1 million figure is corroborated by later documentary research? Nonsense.

>2 – «which temporarily led to a >relatively sparing treatment of >those Jews from transports to >Auschwitz-Birkenau that had been >selected as able to work and taken >as inmates into the camp.»

>But many of those Jews were taken >from Auschwitz-Birkenau to other >concentration camps, like Anne >Frank and her sister Margot (to >Bergen Belsen, the Recovery Camp).

How many, when, and what is that supposed to matter?

>Roberto Muehlenkamp said: «Up to >then all Jews who had become >incapable of working were gassed >with the next transports, or >killed by injection if they >happened to be lying ill in the >sick block.

>Diogo: Interesting! If the Nazis >were gassing so many Jews >everyday, why were there Jews >lying ill in the sick block?

Because they had changed their policy into sparing the able-bodied Jews for work instead of killing them right away since the "up to then" time, as you read in the next paragraph of Höss' notes. It´s always a good idea to read before writing.

>Why would the Nazis feed and treat >sick Jews when, at the same time, >they were gassing so many others?

Because those sick Jews had been selected as able to work and it was hoped that they would become able to work again if given some treatment. You really should have read what Höss wrote before hitting the keyboard.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>About the notes written by Rudolf >Höss in Polish captivity:


>Wilhelm Stäglich – The Auschwitz >Myth

>A judge looks At the evidence

>Pages 199-200:

>Höss does write at the end of his >autobiography (op. cit., p. 151): >“These writings consist of 114 >pages. I have written them >voluntarily and without >compulsion.” However, in view of >those times and conditions, that >seems entirely absurd.

What conditions exactly, Willy?

>Actually, this sentence alone is >[203] enough to make an unbiased >historian leery.

No, but it´s enough to make a biased conspiraloon like Willy see ghosts.

>In point of fact, nothing could >better illustrate the fact that >others exerted influence on these >writings. After all, who would >conclude a personal account of >one's own life with such a >formula?

Someone who knows he is going to die and wishes posterity to think more gently of him, Willy. Got nothing better?

>Moreover, the autobiography itself >furnishes evidence that it was not >prepared “voluntarily” in the >proper sense of the word. On page >63 of the autobiography —that is >to say, in that part which >basically concerns his personal >development and thus may largely >contain Höss's own ideas— he >writes that in his present >imprisonment he felt the lack of >any physical work very much and >was thus grateful to do the >writing tasks assigned to him, >which he found completely >absorbing and satisfying.

>So Höss was not writing on his own >incentive, but these writing tasks >were “assigned” (“aufgegeben”) to >him! Of what the individual >assignments consisted is not >known, nor is it likely ever to >be.

He may have been assigned to write down his statements during pre-trial interrogations, if he was actually assigned to do anything and Willy is not quote-mining like "Revisionist" liars like to do. I´ll check the German text of Kommandant in Auschwitz, edited by Martin Broszat, for the context of this "aufgegeben" thing. Poor Willy would be more convincing if, instead of indulging in such feeble conjectures, he could explain why on earth the Poles would have forced Höss to give numbers adding up to just above 1 million people killed at Auschwitz-Birkenau and that higher figures were nonsense, at a time when they were claiming that the death toll was 4 million.
They must have been dumb as shit, those Polish interrogators. Or worse than that, dumb as Willy.

frank said...

Jailing people for being skeptical of the Jewish Holocaust is a Talmudic reaction to the western tradition of displaying a healthy skepticism for all conclusions concerning historical happenings. If you doubt and stand against what the Rabbi says you are anathema.

Robert86 said...

That's quite a simplistic answer Frank. Especially since countries like Germany are not "talmudic" . . . unless you believe in that ZOG crap. It is political correctness, pure and simple. Not to mention that "the West" has not always had a healthy skepticism about everything.

Diogo said...

Muehlenkamp said... «I´ll check the German text of Kommandant in Auschwitz, edited by Martin Broszat, for the context of this "aufgegeben" thing.»


Do that!

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>Do that!

When I have time and feel like it, my friend. I hope you don't mind if I give Carlo Mattogno priority over you.

Ah, and I only take orders from my wife.

Diogo said...

Where can I follow your debate with Carlo Mattogno?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

On this blogspot.

Aspire then Inspire said...

World War II was an horrifying time. Yet one young girl defied the terror around her, and became the enduring symbol for the Holocaust. Who was she, and what was her legacy? Aspire then Inspire (aspiretheninspire.com), a blog dedicated to celebrated genius in young minds everywhere, explains:
Anne Frank wrote a diary. Not just any diary, but arguably the most influential in history. In penning her thoughts, Anne Frank spoke for a dying race and changed the way we perceive the saddest tragedy of the twentieth century–if not all history–before age fifteen.
With Hitler’s rise to power, the Nazi government began seeking out and murdering Jews, who Hitler blamed for Germany’s social and economic difficulties. Nazi police would go door to door, searching homes for Jewish refugees, who would be starved, worked, stripped, whipped,and shot at concentration camps.
Along with another family, the Van Daans, Anne’s family went into hiding. They moved into the attic of a deserted office building, about a third of the size of an ordinary classroom. Eight people feared, fought, and struggled here, knowing that the slightest blunder would lead to death for them all.
Anne’s diary takes us within those hallowed walls. It shows us a world of selfishness: Mr. Van Daan stealing food at night; a world of insanity: a demented old woman in the camp seizes Anne’s rations; and a world of altruism: a non-Jewish family friend sacrifices her meager rations and risks her life to bake a cake for the Franks.
Through Anne’s diary, we come to understand and appreciate her suffering. The Holocaust happened once, but from it, we will never let it occur again. Seventy years ago, Anne Frank died an ordinary fifteen year old girl, who wrote, “I feel the suffering of millions. And yet, when I look up at the sky, I somehow feel that everything will change for the better, that this cruelty too shall end, that peace and tranquility will return once more.” Because of her, we live in that world today.