Friday, September 24, 2010

What "Revisionism" is all about – A Chat with Fredrick Töben (Part 1)

Some days ago the discussion with Michael Santomauro and "Thomas Dalton, Ph.D." on this blog spot caught the attention of one of the "Revisionist" movement's dinosaurs, Dr. Fredrick Töben.



This German-born Australian citizen is known as the founder of the "Revisionist" Adelaide Institute, which in turn is known for, among other "Revisionist" activities, having funded the bumbling and counterproductive attempt of one Richard Craigie, also known as Richard Krege, to demonstrate by ground penetrating radar scanning that the soil of the former Treblinka extermination camp shows no disturbances suggesting the mass graves in which most of the camp's victims were buried, before being exhumed and cremated in a somewhat-less than successful effort to conceal or erase the physical traces of the crime.

Last Monday Mr. Töben asked diligent "Revisionist" messenger Michael Santomauro, who had earlier forwarded messages of "Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.", to post the following message under the blog mentioned at the beginning:

From: Fredrick Toben [mailto:toben@toben.biz]
Sent: Monday, 20 September 2010 12:36 PM

"A discussion with Michael Santomauro and Thomas Dalton, Ph.D."

In his comment Roberto Muehlenkamp offers no new aspect except that his comment reveals he is afflicted by a deeply authoritarian mindset that cannot tolerate another viewpoint.

He is great on personal abuse, and instead of asking the basic question, which is Faurisson's challenge: Show me or draw me the murder weapon, the homicidal gas chamber? - he avoids basic scientific research thinking.

To date Faurisson's challenge remains just that. Why?

Then, another basic question: Where is the written order that allegedly started the systematic extermination process? Any bureaucracy needs a written order before it begins physically to act. Don't tell me that all Germans involved in the alleged extermination process knew that Hitler hated the Jews and that to fulfill his hate-driven plan needed no written order.

The Holocaust is a miracle story that has no reality in space and time, only in memory.


Incorrectly assuming that the author of this message was Mr. Santomauro himself, I responded as follows:

Like Mr. "Dalton", his publisher can offer nothing better than old herrings in a new can.

Authoritarian mindset? Nonsense. I can accept any other viewpoint that is duly substantiated by evidence. Unfortunately "Revisionist" viewpoints are sorely lacking in this respect.

Faurisson's "basic question"? Apart from the fact that homicidal gas chambers are not the "basic murder weapon" (they accounted for little more than half of the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide and mass murder and a much lower percentage of all victims of Nazi crimes), it's not like the homicidal gas chambers cannot be reconstructed in their essential features on the basis of eyewitness testimonies - see for instance the CAD Reconstruction of the Gas Chambers in Treblinka. And even if eyewitness testimonies were not precise enough to allow for such reconstruction, they would still leave no room for reasonable doubt that these devices existed and were used for mass murder. No, they are no longer physically visible because the Nazis destroyed or dismantled them. But then, this also applies to just about all facilities of the Stalin's Gulag labor camps, to mention just one example. Faurisson's "challenge" is bereft of logic.

Basic scientific research thinking? No stranger to me, as it consists in testing a thesis against evidence and determining if and to what extent evidence supports this thesis. "Revisionists" are understandably unwilling to put their theses to that test.

A written order from the Führer? The quest for such order, which would have been almost certainly destroyed if it had been issued, reveals a laughable ignorance of how the Nazi state's decision-making progress functioned at high levels. The Führer hardly ever issued orders, not to mention written ones. He let his paladins know what his policy was and what programs and procedures he accordingly wished them to prepare, whereupon said paladins did what they thought the Führer wanted them to do and submitted it to his approval. Furthermore guys like Himmler and Heydrich were allowed and displayed a great degree of initiative. A book that might help Santomauro overcome his ignorance is Christopher Browning's The Origins of the Final Solution.

A miracle story that has no reality in space and time? That applies not to the amply documented Nazi genocide of the Jews, but to the cloud-cuckoo-land fantasies of Santomauro and his ilk about an all-powerful conspiracy that, among other utterly implausible achievements, is supposed to have induced millions of Jewish non-victims throughout the world into concealing their identity and origins and refrain from compensation claims. Or does Santomauro endorse the even more preposterous "fish tale" lunacy of Mr. "Dalton"?

"Revisionists" projecting their own fallacies onto their opponents is a spectacle well known to who is familiar with these people. Santomauro's rambling is just more of the same.


After realizing that Mr. Santomauro had merely been transmitting the message of Mr. Töben, I added the following:

Oh, I see now that the rambling was authored by Mr. Toben.

I had forgotten that Mr. Santomauro likes to play the messenger for other enlightened spirits from "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land ...


These posts must have hit a raw nerve, judging by Mr. Töben’s apparent hysteria as he spilled out his resentments in a ten-point "brief response", to which he attached a "Short Introduction to the Study of Holocaust Revisionism" by another of the movement's dinosaurs, Arthur R. Butz. Mr. Santomauro laboriously posted (or tried to post) this material in several parts under the aforementioned blog, before deciding to send me the whole thing by e-mail. The contents of this e-mail have been reproduced on the thread "Fredrick Toben responds to Roberto Meuhlenkamp" of the RODOH (Real Open Debate on the Holocaust) discussion forum.

In the following I shall comment Mr. Töben’s "brief response" and Mr. Butz’s writing attached thereto, item by item. So as not to pack too much material into a single blog, the present blog will address Mr. Töben's utterances while those of Mr. Butz will be commented in a second blog.

Fredrick Töben responds: 22 September 2010

1. Roberto Muehlenkamp’s response is typical of those individuals who uncritically believe in the Holocaust narrative and who feel threatened by having to concede that a raging public discussion has been in progress since the late 1960s. Labelling Mr Santomauro as a ‘messenger’ merely reflects Mr Muehlenkamp’s own personal frustrations at not being in control of setting the Holocaust narrative parameters to his likings. Becoming abusive towards those who dissent from his own held beliefs about matters Holocaust indicates Muehlenkamp’s moral and intellectual bankruptcy.


When "Revisionist" ramblers like Mr. Töben go bitching about their opponents, they usually express their wishful thinking and project their own characteristics.

First of all, I don't have to believe in anything, let alone uncritically. All I have to do is follow the known demographic, documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence where it leads, applying nothing other than logic and common sense. "Revisionists" are not in this fortunate situation. With no evidence to support their pet preconceived notions, they can only uphold the same by uncritically believing in utterly baseless, implausible and fantastic conspiracy theories.

Second, if I ironically call Mr. Santomauro a messenger, that's because transmitting messages of other "Revisionists" – first Mr. "Dalton", now Mr. Töben – is what I have mostly seen him doing since I made his acquaintance. Quite unlike Mr. Töben, I have no personal frustrations, whereas his frustrations are obviously related to his and other "Revisionist" propagandists' inability to bend the historical record of Nazi Germany to what they would like it to be, however hard they try to get rid of evidence inconvenient to their articles of faith.

As to becoming "abusive", the tone of Mr. Töben’s response doesn't exactly qualify him to lecture me in this respect, the difference between his abusiveness and mine being that the former is a rhetorical subterfuge to cover up the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of his "Revisionist" beliefs (or a consequence of frustration about that bankruptcy), whereas the latter is just an outspoken person's expression of heartfelt and wholly warranted contempt for those who try to falsify history to serve an ideological agenda.

Töben:
2. Over these past 40 years the Holocaust narrative has changed in detail and re-fabricating itself as Revisionists sift through the rubbish. Revisionists do not deny anything because their task has been to evaluate the details of the official Holocaust narrative, which as stated above, keeps on changing. For example, it was through the Zündel Toronto trials of 1984-5 and 1988 that established the 4 million deaths figure at Auschwitz was a nonsense and the removal and replacement of the official 20 plaques with an inscribed figure of 1.0-1.5 million deaths confirmed this.


Over the past 40 years the historical record of the Nazi genocide of the Jews, commonly known as the Holocaust, has changed as concerns a number of details, just like any historical record of any historical event or series of events is bound to change over time as hitherto unknown evidence is discovered by researchers or existing evidence is subject to new, more sustainable interpretations. This process is known as revisionism and not to be confounded with the "Revisionism" of Töben et all, which consists of nothing other than ignoring, misrepresenting or unreasonably challenging evidence that contradicts a certain pre-established, ideologically motivated belief system.

Notwithstanding such changes in detail, however, the historical record has not changed in its essential aspects as concerns Nazi Germany's crimes against the Jews, summarized by Richard Evans as "the attempt by Nazi Germany, led by Hitler, to exterminate the Jewish population in Europe, which attempt succeeded to the extent of murdering between 5 and 6 million Jews in a variety of ways, including mass gassings in camps built for the purpose".

And notwithstanding their pretensions to the contrary, the contribution of "Revisionists" to corrections of the historical record have been marginal at best. Thus it was not "through the Zündel Toronto trials of 1984-5 and 1988" that the 4 million deaths figure for Auschwitz-Birkenau was shown to be exaggerated. The fact is that this figure, while written in stone behind the Iron Curtain until the same came down, was never taken seriously by western researchers of history, some of whom (like Reitlinger and Hilberg) produced estimates in the order of 1 million dead or less as early as the 1950s and 1960s. After the demise of Communism in Poland, it wasn't long before a Polish historian confirmed what his western predecessors, although being like himself kept by the Cold War from doing detailed documentary research, had long been maintaining or at least suspecting. This evolution is outlined by Robert Jan van Pelt in Part One, section II of the Van Pelt Report, as follows (bolding emphases added and quotes inside the quote put in italics format by RM):

The first post-war attempt to establish within the context of a forensic investigation the total number of dead was undertaken by the "Extraordinary State Committee For the Ascertaining and Investigation of Crimes Committed by the German-fascist Invaders and Their Associates On Crimes Committed by the German-fascist Invaders in the Oswiecim Death Camp." The committee came to the conclusion that four million people had been killed in Auschwitz. Their conclusion was based on an assessment of the capacity of the crematoria. The five crematoria would have been able to burn, at least in theory, 5,121,000 bodies.79 Added to that was the extra capacity provided by the pyres.

Making allowances for possible undercapacity operation of the crematoriums and stoppages, however, the Commission of technical experts established that during the existence of the Oswiecim camp the German executioners killed in it no less than four million citizens of the USSR., Poland, France, Jugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Hungary, Holland, Belgium, and other countries.80

Apart from the engineering approach to the question how many people had died in Auschwitz a second method emerged to establish the number of victims. It was based on an analysis of the number of deportations to the camp. As early as 1946, Nachman Blumental, using this method, came to an informed guess that the number of victims ought to have been somewhere between 1.3 and 1.5 million.81 In the early 1950s, Gerald Reitlinger also tried to make a rough guess of the number of victims on the basis of the number of deportees.

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 sent to Majdanek and 34,000 Dutch Jews who went to Sobibor:
Belgium 22,600
Croatia 4,500
France 57,000
Greater Reich [....direct transports only ]* 25,000
Greater Reich [ via Theresienstadt] 32,000

Greece 50,000
Holland 62,000
Hungary (wartime frontiers) 380,000
Italy 5,000
Luxembourg 2,000
Norway 700
Poland and Baltic States* 180,000
Slovakia (1939 borders) 20,000

840,800
(*uncertain)
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.
82

It is important to note that Reitlinger systematically chose, if confronted with different estimates about the number of victims, the lowest one. The first reason was that exaggeration would serve those who wished to deny the Holocaust.83 The second one must be located in his unusually cheerful disposition vis-a-vis the whole story, which was rooted in his very bleak assessment of human nature: as he wrote the book, he always reminded himself that it could have been worse--a sentiment few have shared.84

Finally there were different assessment made by witnesses. The most important of these was, without doubt, Commandant Rudolf Höss. During his initial interrogations, Höss seems to have confirmed an initial assessment done by his interrogators that three million people had been killed in Auschwitz.85 In Nuremberg, he gave different numbers at different occasions. During his interrogations he gave detailed list of numbers for each nationality that came to over 1.1 million deportees. 86 In his affidavit, however, he stated that "at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated [in Auschwitz ] by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total dead of about 3,000,000."87 He confirmed this number in a conversation with the prison psychologist Dr. Gilbert. "He readily conformed that approximately 2 1/2 million Jews has been exterminated under his direction."88 In a short memorandum which he wrote for Gilbert later in April Höss returned to the lower number. He now stated that the number of 2.5 million referred to the technical potential. "[T]o the best of my knowledge, this number appears to me much too high. If I calculate the total of the mass operations which I still remember, and still make allowance for a certain percentage of error, I arrive, in my calculation, at a total of 1.5 million at the most for the period from the beginning of 1941 to the end of 1944."89 Finally, in Poland, Höss re-affirmed that the number of victims had been most likely less than 1.2 million persons, commenting that "I regard the number of 2.5 million as far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive capabilities."90

Thus, by the beginning of the 1950s, there were basically three estimates of the number of victims, each based on different sources: a high one of 4 million based on the assumed capacity of the crematoria, a low one of around 1 million based on the number of transports and Höss's final assessment given to Dr. Gilbert in Nuremberg and Dr. Jan Sehn in Cracow, and a middle one of around 2.5 million, based on Eichmann's number as related by Höss, and as initially substantiated by Höss in his Nuremberg affidavit.

Until the early 1980s no original scholarship was undertaken to come to a resolution of the unacceptably great range between the lowest and highest estimate. The Cold War was largely to blame: the figure of 4 million had been established by the Soviets, and the figure of 1 million had been first proposed in the West. As relations between the East and West deteriorated, with the largest part of Germany becoming part of NATO and with that country refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the post-war Polish annexation of the former German territories of East Prussia, Pomerania, and Silesia, the issue of the number of victims became an object of politics. The communist rulers of Poland were unwilling to give an inch on their claims against Germany as long as the Bonn government did not recognize the territorial integrity of the People's Republic of Poland, and therefore they continued to maintain, as a matter of policy, that 4 million people had been killed in Auschwitz. In the West, most historians of the Holocaust who, given the political climate, were unable to do original research in the matter tended to accept, with reservations, the middle figure of 2.5 million. Initially only Raul Hilberg, who did important statistical analysis into the number of victims of the Holocaust, supported the lower figure of 1 million. He reasoned--with justification--that given the total number of victims of the Holocaust (5.1 million in his conservative estimate), and given more or less reliable assessments about the number of Jews who died of general privation in the ghettos, who were executed in open-air shootings, and who died in other extermination and concentration camps, the total number of Auschwitz victims could not have been more than 1 million.91

The advent of Solidarity and the election of the Pole Karol Wojtyla as Pope John-Paul II (1978) changed the intellectual climate in Poland. While the government was still committed to the official figure of 4 million victims, Dr.Piper of the Auschwitz Museum, who had been banned until then from researching the issue, began to focus his attention on the question of how many people had died in the camp. A catalyst for his research were new figures produced in France by Georges Wellers, who had come to the conclusion that 1,613,455 persons had been deported to Auschwitz (of whom 1,433,405 were Jews) and that 1,471,595 of them had died (of whom 1,352,980 were Jews).

Piper, brought his work to a first completion in 1986. Given the fact that he largely endorsed the figures that had been proposed in the West by Reitlinger and Hilberg, he decided to proceed carefully--a smart move considering that Poland was in the mid 1980s subjected to military rule. He first subjected his conclusions to a process of internal review within the museum, and then to a thorough external review by the leading Polish research institute on the Nazi era, the Main Commission for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes in Poland. In 1990, after endorsement of his findings (and with the first post-communist government in power), Piper made his new estimate of 1.1 million victims known to the international community. This figure has been endorsed by all serious, professional historians who have studied the complex history of Auschwitz in some detail, and by the Holocaust research institutes at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem and at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C.92


Töben:
3. Then in 1996 the alleged homicidal gas chamber, Krema I, at Auschwitz Stammlager, was de-commissioned by van Pelt/Dwork with the claim that this re-construction was made to symbolically represent what happened at Auschwitz-Birkenau’s Krema II.


Mr. Töben is requested to provide a quote from van Pelt/Dwork’s work supporting his claim, which implies that before 1996 the reconstruction of the gas chamber in Krema I at Auschwitz was claimed to be the original thing. Evidence that this was so is also requested. Once such evidence has been provided, Mr. Töben is requested to tell us what – other than a museum's attempt to present a reconstruction of a certain object as the original object to visitors, big deal – this is supposed to imply, and on what basis he is convinced of such implications.

Töben:
4. In 2002 non-Revisionist news magazine Der Spiegel editor, Fritjof Meyer, stated that there were no gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau, something Gitta Sereny also stated in The Times on 29 August 2001. This effectively removes Auschwitz I-Stammlager and Auschwitz II-Birkenau as gassing/killing centres.


I’m aware that Fritjof Meyer wrote an article in Osteuropa magazine with the title Die Opfer von Auschwitz. Neue Erkenntnisse durch neue Archivfunde, in which he claimed that "only" 510,000 people were killed at Auschwitz-Birkenau, of which 356,000 were gassed. I’m also aware of the controversy unleashed by this claim and of Meyer’s refutation by Piper and by Albrecht Kolthoff, which can be accessed together with Meyer’s own writings on the THHP site. I am not aware, however, of Meyer’s having stated that there were no gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau. It is possible, though, that Mr. Töben is disingenuously trying to make Meyer's claim that gassings took place in the Birkenau "bunkers" but not inside the camp complex proper into a statement that "there were no gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau". If Mr. Töben is not playing this contemptible trick, he'll have to back up his claim lest the conclusion be warranted that he doesn’t know what he is talking about at best.

As to Gitta Sereny, I presume that Mr. Töben is trying to make her statement that Auschwitz-Birkenau was not an extermination camp, quoted for instance on this forum:

"She is puzzled, too, by what she perceives as a reluctance to confront the truth by those who seem to have the most interest in it: "Why on earth have all these people who made Auschwitz into a sacred cow. . . ..It was an almost pathological concentration on this one place. A terrible place -- but it was not an extermination camp." Then she sighs; and suddenly the fierceness leaves her. "The distinctions are important," she says more quietly. "But -- death is death."


into a statement that there were no gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau – an interpretation that stretches intellectual honesty, to say the least. Sereny obviously meant to say that Auschwitz-Birkenau was not a pure extermination camp like Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór and Treblinka, because it also functioned as a plain concentration camp. How this is to imply that there were no homicidal gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau is beyond my understanding. Homicidal gassings also took place, albeit on a comparatively much smaller scale, in camps that were not extermination camps according to definitions of the term broader than Sereny’s, namely the concentration camps Mauthausen, Sachsenhausen, Ravensbrück, Neuengamme, Stutthof and Natzweiler. Gas chambers were also used at the "euthanasia" killing centers. On the other hand, the Janowska concentration camp, which also functioned as an extermination center (as pointed out in the blog Belzec Mass Graves and Archaeology: My Response to Carlo Mattogno (5,2)) had no homicidal gas chambers; mass killing at or near that camp was done by shooting. The claim that an extermination camp necessarily implies gas chambers and vice-versa is mere ignorant rhetoric.

Now, let's assume that Meyer and Sereny stated exactly what Mr. Töben would like them to have stated. What would this mean? It would mean that two comparatively reasonable people said stupid things totally at odds with the evidence on a given occasion, nothing more and nothing less. The fuss that "Revisionists" make about one or the other thing that so-and-so said is only a further demonstration of how desperately bereft of evidentiary support their case is.

Töben:
5. Mr David Brockschmidt wrote to the US Holocaust Museum asking about the gas chambers and on 21 April 1995 Michael Berenbaum responded. Among other things he stated: “1. We do have crematoria ovens in the Museums. We could not bring over gas chambers because there was no original that was available for us to bring to the United States. Instead we made a model of the crematoria and labelled it a model.” This statement speaks for itself.


I'm a bit at loss about what the poet is trying to tell us here. The surviving original gas chambers or remains thereof are part of museum sites that obviously weren't enthusiastic about having them dismantled for exhibition at the USHMM. So what? And even if that possibility had existed and the USHMM had not taken advantage of it, what would this mean other than a failure by the USHMM to add an exhibit of potential instructive value for visitors to its collection? Perhaps Mr. Töben can explain what far-reaching conclusions his fantasy-prone mind derives from the absence of a gas chamber in the USHMM building, if only for the purpose of amusement.

Töben:
6. If the ‘homicidal gas chambers are not the “basic murder weapon”…’, then why has Germar Rudolf’s The Rudolf Report, and its precedent, The Leuchter Report, been criminalized/banned in Germany, for example? Remember how the official 9/11 reports fiddled the scientific data to fit the official narrative, which is exactly what Soviet Union scientists had to do when they had to align their research with Marxist ideology. Of interest is the fact that Rudolf, as a true scientist, stated that his results are not absolute because there is always an element of error in any research. This was taken up by some critics as indicating Rudolf’s work is basically flawed when in fact any body of scientific research admits that results are not absolute. Note how those scientists, who are pushing climate change ideology, are absolute in their assertions, something that is quite un-scientific. In scientific research an element of error is always expected


The first sentence makes me wonder about Mr. Töben's capacity for logical thinking. How is the banning of Rudolf’s and Leuchter’s "reports" in Germany supposed to imply anything about the importance of gas chambers as a murder weapon? The reason for the banning of these reports is that they are considered hate speech under German criminal law, the same applying to pamphlets in which Rudolf and others deny or play down, say, the Einsatzgruppen massacres by shooting in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union.

In their fixation on homicidal gas chambers, Hitler's willing defense attorneys tend to forget the fact that these devices accounted for less than half the Jews murdered by Nazi Germany and a much lower part of all Jews and non-Jews that fell victim to Nazi criminal actions. According to the comparatively conservative estimates in my blog 5 million non-Jewish victims? (Part 2), the Nazis murdered at least about 12,495,000 noncombatants, thereof ca. 5,364,000 Jews (43 %) and 7,131,000 non-Jews (57 %). The dedicated or dual-purpose extermination camps Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór, Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Lublin Majdanek accounted for "only" about 2.5 million of these 12.5 million victims, while the remaining ten million (including about 2.9 million Jews considering Dr. Nick Terry’s estimate referred to in my aforementioned blog) were murdered mostly by shooting or by placing them under conditions that caused them to die like flies from starvation, exposure or disease. As I pointed out in an earlier blog, "Revisionist" concern with mobile killing operations is dwarfed by their obsession with gas chambers (especially those of Auschwitz-Birkenau), and Jewish mass mortality due to privation in ghettos and camps is hardly addressed by them at all. True to the populist nature of "Revisionism", this weighting is, of course, a mirror image of public knowledge of either aspect of the Nazi genocide of the Jews. Nazi crimes against non-Jews are even less well known to the general public than Jewish deaths outside camps wholly or partially dedicated to mass extermination, and accordingly occupy even less space in "Revisionist" attempts to falsify history.

Now to Mr. Rudolf, the "scientist". Contrary to what Mr. Töben tries to make believe, what Rudolf’s critics – especially his professional colleague Dr. Richard Green – have taken issue with is not his having "stated that his results are not absolute because there is always an element of error in any research", but his having done what Mr. Töben claims regarding the "official 9/11 reports", i.e. his having fiddled with scientific data to support a pre-ordained conclusion. Rudolf's approach to science is characterized as follows by Dr. Green, in the expert report submitted in response to a report prepared by Rudolf for David Irving’s appeal in his lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt (emphasis added):

Rudolf writes:
There is no shame in not having understood something. Actually that is the very beginning of science: realizing that one does not understand. Whereas in pre-scientific ages, humans tend to find mystical or religious answers to unsolved questions, in our modern time scientist [sic] take problems they do not understand or can hardly imagine as a challenge to investigate in order to understand. This quest for knowledge is the most important driving force behind modern humanity. So, after such a statement, one would expect that the Poles would now try to find out, whether the blue stains are indeed Iron Blue and how it could have formed.

One would think from Rudolf's pontification that the IFFR had concluded that because they did not understand the origin of the blue staining that there were in fact no blue stains. Rather, they kept in mind their purpose: to examine whether there were traces of exposure to HCN in the homicidal gas chambers. Their methodology makes sense. If the iron blues in fact originated from HCN exposure, a test that includes iron blues is in essence a test for two processes: 1) exposure to HCN 2) efficiency of iron blue formation. Both 1 and 2 must occur for the results to be comparable. The point of their study was to test for exposure to HCN. Unless it can be proved without a shadow of a doubt that Prussian blue must have been formed with equal efficiency in all facilities, then it is incorrect not to exclude iron blue. Not having understood something is the beginning of science. Unfortunately Rudolf, only goes half the distance. Having proposed a mechanism for formation of iron blue in the delousing chambers that is not entirely implausible, he does not take the next step and ask why did iron blue not form efficiently in the homicidal gas chambers. Rather, he assumes that he knows why. He assumes that worldwide historians and eyewitnesses are all liars. A scientist would admit ignorance and ask whether there could be other explanations.


The above also shows that Rudolf did exactly what Mr. Töben accuses his critics of having done, in unscientifically postulating that the absence of iron blue in the homicidal gas chambers of Birkenau was due to no gassings having taken place in those chambers.

Rudolf’s fiddling is also exposed in Dr. Green’s article Chemistry is not the Science, which I presume is what Mr. Töben had in mind when accusing Rudolf’s critics of taking him to task for admitting that his results are not absolute. Perhaps Mr. Töben can quote the statements of Dr. Green that support his accusation, along with those supposedly revealing that Rudolf's critics are unscientifically "absolute in their assertions".

Töben:
7. Muehlenkamp’s mindset is an absolute mindset that cannot tolerate dissent because as new information comes along he would have to revise his views on things. How does he cope with the deaths reduction at Auschwitz – from 4 million to 1.-1.5 million? And yet the overarching six million was not reduced. Why not?


Actually I welcome any new information that is duly supported by evidence, quite unlike Mr. Töben, who doesn't seem likely to accept any evidence that would require him to revise his preconceived notion that there was no such thing as a Nazi genocide of the Jewish population of Europe.

As to the "deaths reduction at Auschwitz" - mantra, this has such a long beard that Mr. Töben's bringing it up gives reason to doubt either his intelligence or his intellectual honesty. For unless he is not a mentally challenged person, Mr. Töben has been long enough in "Revisionism" to know that the 4 million figure for Auschwitz and estimates of the overall Jewish death toll from Nazi persecution, in the order of 5 to 6 million, were never connected to each other. One need only look into the IMT’s judgment at the Nuremberg Trial of the Major War Criminals, one of the first official documents mentioning about 6 million Jewish victims, to see that no reference is made there to the Soviet overestimate of the Auschwitz-Birkenau victims. At the end of this judgment, one reads the following:

Adolf Eichmann, who had been put in charge of this programme by Hitler, has estimated that the policy pursued resulted in the killing of 6,000,000 Jews, of which 4.000.000 were killed in the extermination institutions.


Apart from presenting the figures not as their own findings of fact but as an estimate of Eichmann's, the judges obviously didn’t consider the extermination institutions to be limited to Auschwitz-Birkenau, for earlier in the judgment one reads the following (emphasis added):

The massacres of Rowno and Dubno, of which the German engineer Graebe spoke, were examples of one method, the systematic extermination of Jews in concentration camps, was another Part of the " final solution " was the gathering of Jews from all German occupied Europe in concentration camps. Their physical condition was the test of life or death. All who were fit to work were used as slave labourers in the concentration camps; all who were not fit to work were destroyed in gas chambers and their bodies burnt. Certain concentration camps such as Treblinka and Auschwitz were set aside for this main purpose.


Certain camps such as Treblinka and Auschwitz, Mr. Töben. Not just Auschwitz. Are we asked to believe that you never read the IMT’s judgment?

Whereas the estimate rendered by one of Eichmann’s assistants concerning the extermination institutions was too high – as we have seen above, the combined death toll of the six extermination camps was about 2.5 million – Jewish population losses from Nazi persecution had been established in demographic studies by the time of the IMT's judgment.

The first report detailing Jewish population losses in Europe, "Statistics on Jewish Casualties During Axis Domination", was prepared by the Institute of Jewish Affairs in New York in June 1945. According to the table attached to this report, out of a total population of ca. 9,612,000 Jews living in the listed European countries (including the USSR) before Axis domination, between 3,825,000 and 3,889,000 were still alive, which meant a loss of 5,723,000 to 5,787,000 lives.

The estimated Jewish population in Europe at the end of World War II was also established by an Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry appointed in order to, among other tasks, "examine the position of the Jews in those countries in Europe where they have been the victims of Nazi and Fascist persecution …". In Appendix III to the committee’s report, which was completed in Lausanne/Switzerland in April 1946, the committee listed the Jewish population in 1939 and the current number of survivors, divided into the categories "Native" and "Refugee and displaced", for two groups of European countries, those that had been under Axis domination and those that had not or not wholly (the USSR) been occupied or otherwise dominated by the Axis. In the first group, the committee established a total of 6,015,700 Jewish inhabitants in 1939 vs. 1,153,106 remaining after the war, i.e. a loss of 4,862,594. In the second group, the corresponding subtotals were 3,930,600, 3,071,600 and 859,000. The totals for Europe were 9,946,300 Jews in 1939 and 4,224,700 after the war, the difference being 5,721,600.

Jewish population losses in Europe were also the subject of various later studies, some of which are mentioned in the blog Thomas Dalton responds to Roberto Muehlenkamp and Andrew Mathis (2). None of these studies (including the pre-1990 ones like that of Hilberg, which is the only one to break down deaths by cause) considered 4 million deaths at Auschwitz-Birkenau, or even the 2.5 million that Höss claimed at the Nuremberg trial (and later expressly corrected to about 1 million, as pointed out by Van Pelt – see above quote).

That being so, I’m looking forward to Mr. Töben’s explanation why on earth estimates of the Jewish death toll during World War II should have been lowered when, following the collapse of Communism, the Auschwitz figure of 4 million upheld by the Poles was finally lowered to the order of magnitude assumed by every western historian who had taken a closer look at the matter, which becomes apparent from evidence going back as far as the 1946 statements of camp commandant Rudolf Höss.

Töben:
8. This paragraph reveals Muehlenkamp’s mindset in full flourish:

“A written order from the Führer? The quest for such order, which would have been almost certainly destroyed if it had been issued, reveals a laughable ignorance of how the Nazi state's decision-making progress functioned at high levels. The Führer hardly ever issued orders, not to mention written ones. He let his paladins know what his policy was and what programs and procedures he accordingly wished them to prepare, whereupon said paladins did what they thought the Führer wanted them to do and submitted it to his approval. Furthermore guys like Himmler and Heydrich were allowed and displayed a great degree of initiative. A book that might help Santomauro overcome his ignorance is Christopher Browning's The Origins of the Final Solution.”
Raoul Hilberg in his The Destruction of European Jews stated there were two written Hitler orders that started the Final Solution process. Yet after he had left the witness stand in the Zündel Toronto trial, Hilberg had himself made history by having admitted there were no written orders. Muehlenkamp in this respect is either ignorant of the fact or a blatant liar. No bureaucracy operates without written orders when it entails massive actions such as the alleged extermination of European Jews. Muehlenkamp’s claim that to insist there be a written order: “…reveals a laughable ignorance of how the Nazi state's decision-making progress functioned at high levels.” is pure rubbish. The German war machine was meticulous in record keeping. In his own words, Muehlenkamp’s embrace of this massive conspiracy theory – that Germans exterminated Jews – is behaviour that is “…projecting their own fallacies onto their opponents [and] is a spectacle well known to who is familiar with these people”.


First of all, Mr. Töben – whose rendering of sources doesn't inspire much confidence – is requested to provide a sourced quote showing Hilberg’s supposed claim at the Zündel Toronto trial that there were "two written Hitler orders that started the Final Solution process". I don’t recall any such claim, but then I'm not very acquainted with the records of the Zündel Toronto trial. In reading the 1985 student's edition of The Destruction of the European Jews, I don’t recall having come upon a mention of written Hitler orders, so unless I missed or forgot something Hilberg's supposed statement at the Zündel trial would be in contradiction with his writings.

When Mr. Töben has provided the required backup, he is invited to explain why on earth I should have mentioned Hilberg’s supposed statement in my above-quoted statement (which is based on the later research of Browning and German historian Christian Gerlach) to warrant his hysterical accusation of being "either ignorant of the fact or a blatant liar".

After that, I would like to know what, other than general claims obviously based on nothing other than personal opinion ("No bureaucracy operates without written orders when it entails massive actions such as the alleged extermination of European Jews"; "The German war machine was meticulous in record keeping."), which are not even relevant as concerns top-level decision-making (bureaucrats may have wanted to cover their backs, especially at lower levels of the hierarchy, but Nazi big-wigs like Himmler and Heydrich were no mere bureaucrats carrying out orders – they were decision-makers themselves with a high degree of autonomy, as I pointed out) he has got to offer against the research of Gerlach and Browning, which shows that the decision about the "final solution" was taken in several steps and was an interactive process between Hitler and other high-ranking Nazi politicians also influenced by initiatives from below, like Gauleiter Arthur Greiser's obtaining a special authorization from Himmler to kill 100,000 Jews of the Warthegau. A key moment in this process was Hitler’s meeting with high-ranking party officials on 12 December 1941, in which Hitler made statements that are recorded in Goebbels’ diary entry of the following day and discussed in the blog Thomas Dalton responds to Roberto Muehlenkamp and Andrew Mathis (3). (The aforementioned special permission prior to the Europe-wide go-ahead, by the way, is mentioned in a letter of Greiser's to Himmler partially transcribed in the blog Gauleiter Arthur Greiser. At administrative levels below the Führer incriminating things were sometimes rather clearly expressed in writing, and some such documents survived the Nazis' frantic attempts to destroy the documentary evidence.)

Töben:
9. As an afterthought, I assume Muehlenkamp is aware of the fact that a whole legal fraternity exists that persecutes Revisionists in trials where the matters of fact of the Holocaust are never tested for truth content. This is done because not believing in the Holocaust scandalises certain societies! But he would know that, and hence it explains his abusive and defamatatory tone because through verbal abuse it makes it easier for him to deflect opening his mind to the fact that he has believed in nonsense for decades. No wonder he needs to project his hatred on anyone who demands clarity of thought and physical proof that during World War Two Germans systematically exterminated European Jews in homicidal gas chambers, in particular at Auschwitz concentration camp. That this belief is also pure German hatred need not be canvassed at this stage.


Mr. Töben’s tirade ends as it started, with hysterical rhetoric distinctly colored by wishful thinking and self-projection.

It is a fact that in certain countries "Revisionism" is subject to criminal prosecution (something I disagree with – Mr. Töben is kindly invited to sign my Petition to the German Legislator), because it is (rightly) considered a form of offensive hate speech and certain legislators are (rightly or not) concerned that it may give their country a bad image and/or constitute a threat to the public order (regarding the German legislator’s motivations see the blog Old Herrings in a New Can: Thomas Dalton’s Debating the Holocaust (1)).

The connection that Mr. Töben makes between my knowledge of these facts and my "abusive and defamatatory tone" is somewhat hard to understand, but then Mr. Töben doesn't stand out for the clarity of thought he loudly demands.

Having believed in nonsense for decades is rather Mr. Töben's problem than mine – as I pointed out at the beginning, I don’t need to believe anything but merely have to follow what the evidence and my logical thinking tell me, whereas "Revisionists" have little more than faith to cling to in support of the history they would like to have.

As to my supposed "hatred", Mr. Töben was clearly looking in the mirror, for hatred is what becomes apparent from his tirades. Clarity of thought is the last thing he should lecture anyone about, and if he is really interested in physical proof corroborating documentary and eyewitness evidence for the Nazi genocide of Europe’s Jews (though I doubt he is interested in any evidence that calls his pet beliefs in question), he will find plenty of it referred to on this blog spot – for instance in the blogs that carry the label graves. I wonder if Mr. Töben is equally demanding as concerns evidence for crimes the factuality of which I suppose he doesn’t question, by the way – things like Stalin's purges and penal camps or crimes committed by Red Army soldiers against German civilians. If not, his double standards of evidence would well fit the image he has so far brought across.

As to what Mr. Töben calls "pure German hatred" (I presume he means pure hatred of Germans), it may burst his bubble to know that this supposed "German hater" is a German citizen who has much pride in things and people German, including but not limited to an uncle of his who fought and died on the Eastern Front, one of the millions of worthy Germans who laid down their lives for the most unworthy of conceivable causes while the Nazi REMFs that Mr. Töben speaks for were safe in the rear murdering defenseless women and children.

Töben:
10. My brief response, however, is inadequate and hence I augment it with Professor Arthur Butz’s brief 12-point summary of what Revisionism is all about.


Hence the title of this article. I thank Mr. Töben for having given me this opportunity to once more show our readers what "Revisionism" is all about (to the extent that Mr. Töben's rant didn't do the job on its own), and hereby invite him to continue our discussion on the RODOH thread mentioned at the beginning.

As mentioned before, Mr. Butz’s "brief 12-point summary" will be commented in my next blog. But I can already give Mr. Töben the comfort that his rhetoric is no more inadequate than that of his admired coreligionist.

24 comments:

666isMONEY said...

At Ur link for "CAD Reconstruction of the Gas Chambers in Treblinka," the article mentions a Diesel engine supplying carbon monoxide to the gas chambers.

Diesel exhaust would not asphyxiate people because it contains inert amounts of carbon monoxide.

Jack Martin said...

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote, concerning Fredrick Töben:

"it may burst his bubble to know that this supposed "German hater" is a German citizen who has much pride in things and people German..."

This statement reminds me of what Professor Arthur Butz wrote, with reference to Willy Brandt: "Clearly, a career such as Brandt's postwar career is possible only in a country in which treason has become a normal part of political life, so it is not in the least surprising that the Bonn Government is a defender of the hoax."
("Willi Brandts Nachkriegskarriere war nur möglich in einem Land, in dem Verrat zu einem normalen Vorgang des politischen Lebens geworden ist. Und so ist es nicht überraschend, daß die Bonner Regierung sich hinter den Schwindel stellt.")

The plain fact is that the reason "Holocaust" revisionism persists is that there simply is no credible evidence that anything resembling the "official" claims concerning the "Holocaust" ever occurred at all.

The falsehoods put forward in support of the "Holocaust" are so blatant and so numerous that only a hate-filled bigot or a deliberate liar can continue to support what Professor Butz so aptly termed "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" in his definitive book of that title.

As for the IMT "trials," Butz correctly remarked: "It is a fact that without the evidence generated at these trials, there would be no significant evidence that the program of killing Jews ever existed at all."

Calling Butz a "dinosaur" - instead of responding honestly to his arguments - will not impress anyone whose aim is to uncover the truth - an aim which seems exclusively limited to the historical revisionists.

michael santomauro said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70svPcdwNU

http://www.youtube.com/user/Mr2010Singh#p/f/1/R_WW9gsXVts

===============================

To: diligent "Revisionist" messenger Michael Santomauro
Many thanks, mate Santomauro – that’s a new title for me ‘dinosaur’!
Excellent description of me and my work!
When next I’m in New York we’ll have to toast on that.
Töben

1. I must confess I am now blinded by the many words – I am drowning in a sea of particulars - that came my way as I read through http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-revisionism-is-all-about-chat-with.html I am currently preparing a High Court challenge and do not have the time directly to respond to Mühlenkamp’s material and so that needs to be left for a later date but, for what it’s worth, here’s a quick response.
1.1 Let me briefly comment on what Mühlenkamp says about Richard Krege in the below introduction where he refers to Krege’s research as ‘bumbling and counterproductive attempt’. Krege’s work is groundbreaking, figuratively and literally, because such work had not been done before. It is a simple basic idea that yielded results and had the upholders of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ myth scrambling and re-adjusting their narrative. Some years later the Mythbusters TV series used the same technology in one of their episodes where they attempted to locate a body buried in the ground. Rather than scoff at Krege’s pioneering work, Mühlenkamp should lose his fear of having his pet-belief scrutinized for factual truth content.
1.2 In the Wikipeadi article on Krege that he links to in the below article the penultimate sentence indicates what problems Revisionists face: “However according to British historian Alan Heath, Krege did not have permission from the authorities in Warsaw, Siedlce nor in Treblinka itself ….Krege has not only failed to publish his findings but also has failed to respond to questions as to the actual dates of his alleged visits to Treblinka and Bełżec nor challenges to visit the site with qualified scientists. So, Krege’s sin was to be an independent thinker who produces goods that the guardians have not sanctioned, that an ethics committee has not cleared because it offends those who believe in the “Holocaust-Shoah’ myth. Shame, Mühlenkamp, shame on you!
1.3 I think it is common knowledge that after returning from the Teheran Holocaust Conference Richard Krege was, after almost ten years, dismissed from his government job at Air Services in Canberra, Australia – and Mühlenkamp smirks at Krege’s faced difficulties! Such an attitude of mind as displayed by Mühlenkamp indicates to me he has some deep-seated unresolved personal problems that he needs to project on others. Revisionists are all too familiar with ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ believers who project their own personal psychological and intellectual inadequacies – basic hatred - on to those who refuse to believe in their exaggerations, distortions, fabrications and outright lies.
1.4 Since Krege’s unofficial results have become known it is the official Treblinka narrative that has effectively been demolished – hence the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ narrative has no reality in space and time, only in memory.
1.5 Mühlenkamp operates on a win-lose Marxist/Talmudic dialectic while individuals who seek out the truth of a matter operate on the co-operative win-win Hegelian dialectic. Revisionists don’t need to abuse anyone because they merely seek out the truth of a matter, and some individuals may find this process quite hurtful because it means giving up some beliefs that went deeply into their personal identity. After all, the truth hurts is a maxim that most of us made acquaintance with during our childhood but then left behind as we grew up and realized that sticks and stones may hurt my bones but words never did. However, I must admit when abuse comes my way, I sometimes fail to resist the impulse to respond in kind.

michael santomauro said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70svPcdwNU

http://www.youtube.com/user/Mr2010Singh#p/f/1/R_WW9gsXVts

To: diligent "Revisionist" messenger Michael Santomauro
Many thanks, mate Santomauro – that’s a new title for me ‘dinosaur’!
Excellent description of me and my work!
When next I’m in New York we’ll have to toast on that.
Töben

1. I must confess I am now blinded by the many words – I am drowning in a sea of particulars - that came my way as I read through http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-revisionism-is-all-about-chat-with.html I am currently preparing a High Court challenge and do not have the time directly to respond to Mühlenkamp’s material and so that needs to be left for a later date but, for what it’s worth, here’s a quick response.
1.1 Let me briefly comment on what Mühlenkamp says about Richard Krege in the below introduction where he refers to Krege’s research as ‘bumbling and counterproductive attempt’. Krege’s work is groundbreaking, figuratively and literally, because such work had not been done before. It is a simple basic idea that yielded results and had the upholders of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ myth scrambling and re-adjusting their narrative. Some years later the Mythbusters TV series used the same technology in one of their episodes where they attempted to locate a body buried in the ground. Rather than scoff at Krege’s pioneering work, Mühlenkamp should lose his fear of having his pet-belief scrutinized for factual truth content.
1.2 In the Wikipeadi article on Krege that he links to in the below article the penultimate sentence indicates what problems Revisionists face: “However according to British historian Alan Heath, Krege did not have permission from the authorities in Warsaw, Siedlce nor in Treblinka itself ….Krege has not only failed to publish his findings but also has failed to respond to questions as to the actual dates of his alleged visits to Treblinka and Bełżec nor challenges to visit the site with qualified scientists. So, Krege’s sin was to be an independent thinker who produces goods that the guardians have not sanctioned, that an ethics committee has not cleared because it offends those who believe in the “Holocaust-Shoah’ myth. Shame, Mühlenkamp, shame on you!
1.3 I think it is common knowledge that after returning from the Teheran Holocaust Conference Richard Krege was, after almost ten years, dismissed from his government job at Air Services in Canberra, Australia – and Mühlenkamp smirks at Krege’s faced difficulties! Such an attitude of mind as displayed by Mühlenkamp indicates to me he has some deep-seated unresolved personal problems that he needs to project on others. Revisionists are all too familiar with ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ believers who project their own personal psychological and intellectual inadequacies – basic hatred - on to those who refuse to believe in their exaggerations, distortions, fabrications and outright lies.
1.4 Since Krege’s unofficial results have become known it is the official Treblinka narrative that has effectively been demolished – hence the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ narrative has no reality in space and time, only in memory.
1.5 Mühlenkamp operates on a win-lose Marxist/Talmudic dialectic while individuals who seek out the truth of a matter operate on the co-operative win-win Hegelian dialectic. Revisionists don’t need to abuse anyone because they merely seek out the truth of a matter, and some individuals may find this process quite hurtful because it means giving up some beliefs that went deeply into their personal identity. After all, the truth hurts is a maxim that most of us made acquaintance with during our childhood but then left behind as we grew up and realized that sticks and stones may hurt my bones but words never did. However, I must admit when abuse comes my way, I sometimes fail to resist the impulse to respond in kind.

michael santomauro said...

To: diligent "Revisionist" messenger Michael Santomauro
Many thanks, mate Santomauro – that’s a new title for me ‘dinosaur’!
Excellent description of me and my work!
When next I’m in New York we’ll have to toast on that.
Töben

1. I must confess I am now blinded by the many words – I am drowning in a sea of particulars - that came my way as I read through http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-revisionism-is-all-about-chat-with.html I am currently preparing a High Court challenge and do not have the time directly to respond to Mühlenkamp’s material and so that needs to be left for a later date but, for what it’s worth, here’s a quick response.
1.1 Let me briefly comment on what Mühlenkamp says about Richard Krege in the below introduction where he refers to Krege’s research as ‘bumbling and counterproductive attempt’. Krege’s work is groundbreaking, figuratively and literally, because such work had not been done before. It is a simple basic idea that yielded results and had the upholders of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ myth scrambling and re-adjusting their narrative. Some years later the Mythbusters TV series used the same technology in one of their episodes where they attempted to locate a body buried in the ground. Rather than scoff at Krege’s pioneering work, Mühlenkamp should lose his fear of having his pet-belief scrutinized for factual truth content.
1.2 In the Wikipeadi article on Krege that he links to in the below article the penultimate sentence indicates what problems Revisionists face: “However according to British historian Alan Heath, Krege did not have permission from the authorities in Warsaw, Siedlce nor in Treblinka itself ….Krege has not only failed to publish his findings but also has failed to respond to questions as to the actual dates of his alleged visits to Treblinka and Bełżec nor challenges to visit the site with qualified scientists. So, Krege’s sin was to be an independent thinker who produces goods that the guardians have not sanctioned, that an ethics committee has not cleared because it offends those who believe in the “Holocaust-Shoah’ myth. Shame, Mühlenkamp, shame on you!
1.3 I think it is common knowledge that after returning from the Teheran Holocaust Conference Richard Krege was, after almost ten years, dismissed from his government job at Air Services in Canberra, Australia – and Mühlenkamp smirks at Krege’s faced difficulties! Such an attitude of mind as displayed by Mühlenkamp indicates to me he has some deep-seated unresolved personal problems that he needs to project on others. Revisionists are all too familiar with ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ believers who project their own personal psychological and intellectual inadequacies – basic hatred - on to those who refuse to believe in their exaggerations, distortions, fabrications and outright lies.
1.4 Since Krege’s unofficial results have become known it is the official Treblinka narrative that has effectively been demolished – hence the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ narrative has no reality in space and time, only in memory.
1.5 Mühlenkamp operates on a win-lose Marxist/Talmudic dialectic while individuals who seek out the truth of a matter operate on the co-operative win-win Hegelian dialectic. Revisionists don’t need to abuse anyone because they merely seek out the truth of a matter, and some individuals may find this process quite hurtful because it means giving up some beliefs that went deeply into their personal identity. After all, the truth hurts is a maxim that most of us made acquaintance with during our childhood but then left behind as we grew up and realized that sticks and stones may hurt my bones but words never did. However, I must admit when abuse comes my way, I sometimes fail to resist the impulse to respond in kind.

michael santomauro said...

2. By the tone of his response, and not only by his name, did I sense that Herr Mühlenkamp is German – the anger, more so the fear that he will eventually have to re-think and re-evaluate his belief system, is clearly evident. But while the official ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ conspiracy theory is legally sustained and reinforced he will not have to face any Revisionist illumination. He can even pretend to do combat for them on their behalf, for example to start a petition to decriminalise the Holocaust debate, thereby indirectly testing the temperature about the debate and at the same time collecting more information about individuals who are buckling under the burden of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ lies! But in the meantime he’s flat out defending his belief in the Holocaust-Shoah myth. I recall in my first year of philosophical studies we had a meeting where the Rationalists claimed there is no God and one student screamed out that this is not true, that there is a God. This was the first time that the student, in public, had heard anyone make such a statement, denying the existence of God! It was the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who asked how is it that in western democracies anything can be denied, even the existence of God, but that it is sacrilege to question the Holocaust, to deny it ever happened.

3. Mühlenkamp’s frenzied tone, of course, is further indicative of his fear that he must know that if he only expresses a minute doubt, if he deviates just a little from the official conspiracy theory - from the basic premises of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ dogma/ideology: 1. 6 million, 2. systematic extermination and 3. homicidal gas chambers as a murder weapon, then in a flash he would have a European Arrest Warrant made out in his name! There is a whole legal fraternity out there waiting to service the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ industry because they consider anyone doubting the official narrative is ‘scandalising’ society. Some of the legal supporters to continue to criminalize the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ actually are libertarians who defend free expression at any price – but they have classified ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ matters as ‘hate-speech’, thereby excising it from open debate, i.e. only the official version of events is permitted to be canvassed and not any dissenting view that would question the three pillars on which the myth rests.

4. His unnecessary snide remarks throughout his ‘ramblings’ indicate to me that Mühlenkamp is more interested in debasing a serious discussion rather than rationally finding out the truth of a matter. In the past I’ve had numerous discussions with die-hard Holocaust-Shoah believers that have been productive, and some of these individuals are still about. It seems to me that Mühlenkamp does not wish to understand how the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ documentation has been fabricated, just as many professional historians cannot understand that our knowledge of the Egyptian, Greek and Roman world rests mainly on written documentation produced during the Middle Ages.

michael santomauro said...

5. We only need to look at the making of the most recent world/global myths – WMD of 2003, 9:11 of 2001 – then we can see how the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ has had over 60 years of legal codification and justification. Recently a new book was published wherein the crimes of the Chinese Revolution are detailed. In this regard Carlos Porter asks: Why is it that only ‘official historians’ have had access to the German documentation centre at Arolsen while Revisionists have had to do their research under the most trying conditions? Mühlenkamp does not reference such a one-sided approach to research, and can only debase his own arguments through personal subjective afflictions by smearing individual Revisionists – which indicates to me he has a deep-seated fear of their work.

6. Fortunately for those who uphold the official version of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ myths life will continue to be comfortable. It wasn’t for Dr Wilhelm Stäglich nor for Dr Stuart Hayward [who added Joel to his name in deference to his Jewish heritage that he pulled out when the heat was on him-] with the former having his academic title revoked and the latter recanting his academic work. There are others, of course, who have had worse treatment heaped on them but it has always been a defaming of the person. Still, it doesn’t matter how much written stuff Mühlenkamp gathers up in order to discredit Revisionists’ work, this fact alone indicates that the upholders of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ myth are using any means of power at their disposal with which to silence opposition – and that’s a political matter.

michael santomauro said...

7. I hesitate to reflect on this matter but none of the upholders of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ myth – except for the dissenters who return to the fold after recanting – have been legally pursued. During my October-November 2008 London 50 Days in Gaol a number of public commentators, including Isi Liebler in Jerusalem, indirectly advised the British government not to extradite me to Germany by claiming that ‘Holocaust denial’ should not be criminalized. My matter thereby became a political-legal issue: should British Common Law criminalize so-called ‘Holocaust denial’? Had I been extradited, then this would effectively have criminalized the expressing of opinions, something that is readily done in the European Civil Law countries where it is considered ‘racist’ to question matter ‘Holocaust-Shoah’. What nonsense it is to stifle an historical debate on those grounds! The other argument is that there is a danger of Nazism re-emerging. Anyone with any historical sensitivity knows no event ever returns as an exact copy from the past. What this indicates, however, is the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the current ideological mindset put in place after World War Two that needs again and again make reference for its legitimacy to matters ‘Holocaust-Shoah’.

8. While reading through the many words that Mühlenkamp wrote in reply to my response I was again reminded of the Middle Ages where one contentious issue was: How many angels fit on a pinhead? Although philosophically it illustrates the problem of universals and particulars, a practical effect flowing therefrom was retaining control of ideology. That’s what Mühlenkamp’s response is all about. It is not possible to write a definitive ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ narrative because too many archives are still closed, and as Norman Finkelstein argues, one of the other problems afflicting research is the multi-billion ‘Holocaust industry’, and any dissenting opinion needs to be smashed before it can flourish, even if it contains elements of truth in it. Arthur Schopenhauer’s 3-stage emergence of truth is comforting here: 1. It is ridiculed, then 2. It is violently opposed, and 3. It is accepted as a given. Mühlenkamp seems to have regressed to the first stage, while we are already at the end of the second stage, which came about with the imprisonment of Sylvia Stolz, Ernst Zündel, Horst Mahler, Wolfgang Fröhlich and Gerd Honsik, among others.

Cheers
Fredrick Töben

Jack Martin said...

I find very interesting Roberto Muehlenkamp's effort to ridicule the attempt by Richard Krege to examine the site at Treblinka to test whether mass graves had existed there, by means of ground penetrating radar.

What is particularly interesting is that no proper examination of that camp was ever conducted after the war either by the Allies or by Polish authorities.
They absolutely should have done that.
Their inexplicable failure to do so can only be taken as proof that they had no reason to think they would find actual evidence for what they claimed.

The official version of events at Treblinka is beyond ridiculous; some 800,000 persons gassed by means of Diesel exhaust; then buried; and then disinterred and burnt on open air barbecue pits… all without leaving behind any corroborative evidence of their Herculean labors. Sane people simply do not credit such crap.

The link you supplied for Treblinka mentions as a source the book, ‘One Year in Treblinka,’ by Jankiel Wiernik.

This Wiernik is an obvious liar whose story is preposterous from start to finish. In his book, he relates, inter alia, an incident in which he was shot by a guard… but the bullet - which penetrated his clothing - miraculously stopped upon reaching his skin, leaving only a mark.
The rest of his story is in much the same vein. To actually believe his story, you'd have to be as crazy as Wiernik himself seems to be.

The official Treblinka story is a monumental lie… as are the official stories for virtually all of the so-called "death camps."

Those who believe the in so-called “Holocaust” hoax do so - not because of the evidence - but in spite of it.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Wow, five pages of "Revisionist" waffle in response to my blog. Looks like I caused more than one "Revisionist" freak to freak out.

I don't think I need to respond to all this conundrum of puerile personal attacks, silly and often self-projecting accusations and other rhetorical baloney, which says more about its demented authors than I possibly could. Therefore I'll just filter out what arguments related to the subject matter of the discussion – "Revisionist" challenges to the historical record of the Nazi genocide of the Jews – are contained in all this hot air, and address only those.

«Blogger 666isMONEY said...

At Ur link for "CAD Reconstruction of the Gas Chambers in Treblinka," the article mentions a Diesel engine supplying carbon monoxide to the gas chambers.

Diesel exhaust would not asphyxiate people because it contains inert amounts of carbon monoxide.»


Diesel exhaust would be sufficiently toxic to kill people if the engine was run at a high number of rpm while restricting the air intake, but the casual witnesses who thought the gassing engines were diesel engines were probably wrong in this respect, because the knowledgeable witnesses (those who handled or serviced gassing engines or had helped to install them) spoke about gasoline engines. See the blog Why the "diesel issue" is irrelevant for details.

Now, if witnesses wrongly assumed that the gassing engine had been a diesel engine, this doesn’t necessarily meant that they didn’t get other details right, so there was no reason to ignore them for the CAD Reconstruction of the Gas Chambers in Treblinka. I don’t think the reconstruction means to represent the engine as being necessarily a diesel engine, but even if it did, this would only mean that it is inaccurate regarding this detail, not that its is inaccurate regarding the other details. And that inaccuracy, as mentioned above, would follow not from the inadequacy of diesel engines for gassing, but from the fact that the knowledgeable witnesses mentioned gasoline engines.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Saturday, September 25, 2010 3:22:00 AM
Blogger Jack Martin said...

[Snip off-topic rhetorical blah-blah-blah]

The plain fact is that the reason "Holocaust" revisionism persists is that there simply is no credible evidence that anything resembling the "official" claims concerning the "Holocaust" ever occurred at all.»


No, the plain fact is that the only reason why Holocaust "Revisionism" persists is that there are ideologically motivated imbeciles who cannot face up to certain amply proven facts inconvenient to their articles of faith and therefore keep on babbling about there being "no credible evidence" to such facts.

«The falsehoods put forward in support of the "Holocaust" are so blatant and so numerous that only a hate-filled bigot or a deliberate liar can continue to support what Professor Butz so aptly termed "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" in his definitive book of that title.»

Actually that statement fits "Revisionism" like a glove, for "Revisionism" consists of nothing other than misrepresentation, distortion or unreasonable dismissal of evidence coupled with inane conspiracy theories. But then, it’s nothing new to see "Revisionist" propagandists accuse their opponents of their own fallacies.

« As for the IMT "trials," Butz correctly remarked: "It is a fact that without the evidence generated at these trials, there would be no significant evidence that the program of killing Jews ever existed at all." »

Actually that’s blatant nonsense, for much documentary, eyewitness, demographic and physical evidence has been discovered and assessed a) in the context of a great many criminal investigations and trials other than the IMT and NMT trials, mainly by criminal justice authorities of the German Federal Republic, and b) by historians and archaeologists independently of criminal investigations or trials. But even if Butz were right, if all known evidence had been gathered in the context of the IMT and NMT trials, would this be a minus? Hardly so, for criminal justice authorities have much ampler means than historians to collect and assess evidence, and evidence is nowhere as critically and thoroughly scrutinized as at a fair trial according to the defendant-friendly procedural rules of a constitutional state. If I remember correctly Butz doesn't even question the fairness of the trials he refers to, so he is shooting himself in the foot with his silly remark.

«Calling Butz a "dinosaur" - instead of responding honestly to his arguments - will not impress anyone whose aim is to uncover the truth - an aim which seems exclusively limited to the historical revisionists.»

Hysteria obviously kept Mr. Martin from reading the following parts of my blog:

"So as not to pack too much material into a single blog, the present blog will address Mr. Töben's utterances while those of Mr. Butz will be commented in a second blog."

"As mentioned before, Mr. Butz’s "brief 12-point summary" will be commented in my next blog. But I can already give Mr. Töben the comfort that his rhetoric is no more inadequate than that of his admired coreligionist."

Read before hitting the keyboard next time, Mr. Martin.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Saturday, September 25, 2010 4:29:00 AM
Blogger michael santomauro said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70svPcdwNU

http://www.youtube.com/user/Mr2010Singh#p/f/1/R_WW9gsXVts

To: diligent "Revisionist" messenger Michael Santomauro
Many thanks, mate Santomauro – that’s a new title for me ‘dinosaur’!
Excellent description of me and my work!
When next I’m in New York we’ll have to toast on that.
Töben

1. I must confess I am now blinded by the many words – I am drowning in a sea of particulars - that came my way as I read through http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-revisionism-is-all-about-chat-with.html I am currently preparing a High Court challenge and do not have the time directly to respond to Mühlenkamp’s material and so that needs to be left for a later date but, for what it’s worth, here’s a quick response. [… Good Krege this, bad Muehlenkamp that] »


Mr. Töben’s hysterical rant is a pathetic attempt to make believe that Krege did a great job and to scrounge up the usual lame excuses for the fact that neither Krege nor his bigmouthed sponsor nor any other bigmouthed "Revisionist" published a detailed report about Krege's supposed groundbreaking finds in the seven years (yes, seven years) that went by between Krege’s GPR exercise in 1999 and the 2006 Holocaust Conference in Teheran, where "Fredrick Töben, director of the Adelaide Institute which funded Krege's team, did not present the findings", according to the Wikipedia article. Whatever difficulties poor little Krege had with Australian authorities obviously happened later and cannot have been the reason for the report not having been published, so Mr. Töben’s excuse is somewhat less than convincing (apart from the fact that, if Krege has been kicked out of his job on account of his Treblinka activities as Töben claims, and if he made his way to Ukraine in 2009 as Wikipedia tells us, Krege has nothing to lose anymore by having his report published now).

A more probable reason for Krege’s failure to have his report published is his having realized that through his GPR bumbling he found exactly what he had hoped not to find, i.e. ground disturbances compatible with the presence of huge mass graves in the soil of Treblinka. Speaking for this assumption there are assessments of Krege’s work by people who obviously know something about GPR, including GPR expert Lawrence Conyers. I wrote about this in an earlier blog.

If Krege had really found what he claimed to have found, a detailed report about his finds would be the crown jewel of "Revisionism", ranging far above the Rudolf Report. The silence about Krege’s accomplishments following the initial ballyhoo is further evidence – besides the above-mentioned assessments – that the poor man shot "Revisionism" in the foot.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Anything else worth responding to in Mr. Töben’s ramblings? Let's see …

«Saturday, September 25, 2010 6:38:00 AM
Blogger michael santomauro said...

2.[...]»
Puerile personal attacks, silly and often self-projecting accusations and other rhetorical baloney – not worth responding to.

«3.[...] More of the same.

4.[...]» More of the same.

«Saturday, September 25, 2010 6:41:00 AM
Blogger michael santomauro said...

5.[...]»
More of the same, except perhaps (let's be generous) for this:

«In this regard Carlos Porter asks: Why is it that only ‘official historians’ have had access to the German documentation centre at Arolsen while Revisionists have had to do their research under the most trying conditions?»

Question to Mr. Töben: Are there any archives in the world that would open their doors to people known to have done everything to show that they are mendacious propagandists trying to falsify history in support of an ideological agenda?

Please list all such archives you know about.

«6.[...]» More of the same. The good old "poor persecuted Revisionists are kept from doing proper research" mantra. A lame excuse for the miserable results of "Revisionist research", to say the least. If, among other things, 2.5 million Jews had really been resettled anywhere beyond Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór, Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek, there would be no need for lame "Revisionist" screeds. There would be untold thousands of documents and witnesses concerning the post-transit part of such a resettlement, thousands of the resettled Jews themselves would still be alive today and millions of ancestors of these resettled Jews would testify about their parents', grandparents' and great-grandparents' fates. Ever thought about that, Mr. Töben?

«Saturday, September 25, 2010 6:42:00 AM
Blogger michael santomauro said...

7.[...]»
More pointless pep-talk. Please anybody let me know if you think I missed something, but so far I have just seen Mr. Töben bitching around like a fish-wife on market day without addressing a single one of my comments to his previous "brief response".

8. Still nothing. Good "Revisionists" this, bad Muehlenkamp that. Strictly for the birds. The pathetic sermon of an enraged true believer, full of sound and fury and hollow conjectures and empty claims, signifying nothing.

Come back when you have time and a cool head to produce some arguments addressing the comments in my blog instead of dishing up that beaten "poor Revisionists are persecuted, must be because there’s something to what they say" - mixture of wishful thinking and cry-baby whining, Mr. Töben.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Saturday, September 25, 2010 6:42:00 AM
Blogger Jack Martin said...

I find very interesting Roberto Muehlenkamp's effort to ridicule the attempt by Richard Krege to examine the site at Treblinka to test whether mass graves had existed there, by means of ground penetrating radar.»


I don't ridicule the attempt, Mr. Martin. What amuses me is the reluctance of Mr. Krege in producing a detailed report about his oh-so-groundbreaking results. Especially as there are strong indications that the reason for this reluctance is his having realized that he found exactly what he had hoped not to find and thereby shot "Revisionism" in the foot, as explained above.

«What is particularly interesting is that no proper examination of that camp was ever conducted after the war either by the Allies or by Polish authorities.
They absolutely should have done that.

Their inexplicable failure to do so can only be taken as proof that they had no reason to think they would find actual evidence for what they claimed.»


The Poles did investigate the site, Mr. Martin. And their investigation showed that the physical evidence corroborates what becomes apparent from the documentary and eyewitness evidence about the murder of ca. 800,000 people at Treblinka. See this blog for details.

«The official version of events at Treblinka is beyond ridiculous; some 800,000 persons gassed by means of Diesel exhaust; then buried; and then disinterred and burnt on open air barbecue pits… all without leaving behind any corroborative evidence of their Herculean labors. Sane people simply do not credit such crap.»

Actually there is no such thing as the "official version" you postulate outside your fantasies, my friend. What the evidence shows is that about 800,000 people were murdered at Treblinka, mostly by gassing with exhaust from an engine that was probably not a diesel engine but a gasoline engine (as mentioned by at least two Treblinka eyewitnesses and by every knowledgeable eyewitness from Belzec, Sobibór, Chelmno and mobile gassing operations), that most of the victims were buried before being disinterred and burned on huge grates placed over pits containing gasoline-drenched wood (a method similar to that applied on the Dresden Altmarkt after the bombing on 13/14 February 1945, except that at Dresden they had only one grid that was also much smaller than the ones at Treblinka and could make no pit to shield the fire in the cobble-stoned square), and that the results of this procedure fell far short of not leaving behind any corroborative evidence, for Polish investigators found human ashes and larger human remains scattered over an area of about 2 hectares and buried to a depth of 7.5 meters when they investigated the Treblinka site in 1945. You need to do some reading on the subject, my friend. The HC blogs labeled Treblinka may help you overcome your ignorance.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«The link you supplied for Treblinka mentions as a source the book, ‘One Year in Treblinka,’ by Jankiel Wiernik.

This Wiernik is an obvious liar whose story is preposterous from start to finish. In his book, he relates, inter alia, an incident in which he was shot by a guard… but the bullet - which penetrated his clothing - miraculously stopped upon reaching his skin, leaving only a mark.
The rest of his story is in much the same vein. To actually believe his story, you'd have to be as crazy as Wiernik himself seems to be.»


Your illogical nonsense isn't exactly new, pal. Your coreligionist "denierbud" even made it into a video, which I shredded in the blog Historiography as seen by an ignorant charlatan ….

«The official Treblinka story is a monumental lie… as are the official stories for virtually all of the so-called "death camps."

Those who believe the in so-called “Holocaust” hoax do so - not because of the evidence - but in spite of it.»


Instead of trying to convince yourself by repeating your empty prayers, you should try finding some evidence in support of your "unofficial" story of transit camp Treblinka (or was it a labor camp in your book?). So far all known documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence points to Treblinka having been an extermination camp in which about 800,000 people were murdered, with no evidence supporting a different scenario.

Fooled Once said...

Muehlenkamp's characterization of the postwar proceedings at Nuremberg and elsewhere as "defendant-friendly" and "conducted under the auspices of a constitutional state" bespeak either a profound ignorance of the actual nature of the proceedings or a contemnable gullibility for the Allied propaganda that was put out about them at the time and afterwards.

No state, constitutional or otherwise, HAD jurisdiction over the accuseds (they were never even CALLED defendants, at least not in the English versions). Jurisdiction was asserted on the basis of declarations made by powers then at war with Germany AFTER most of the offending acts were said to have been committed. The four states sponsoring the proceedings (the US, UK, France, and USSR) were indeed constitutional (though the UK has no single constitution), though the "friendliness" of each toward defendants, aside from being irrelevant, was subject to much variation, then as now.

Harlan Fiske Stone, Justice of the US Supreme Court and presumably qualified to comment on such matters, pronounced the war crimes proceedings as "a high-grade lynching party for Germans." Even if that might not satisfy absolutely everyone as conclusive evidence, it satisfies me (having otherwise inquired into the evidence) as a succinct description of them.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Fooled Once (I wonder if he catches the contempt for anonymous writers that is professed by "Revisionist" coryphée Carlo Mattogno, see the blog Mattogno freaks out) is dishing up no herring that hasn't been dished up before.

Whether or not any of the states conducting the IMT and NMT trials had original jurisdiction over the accused (they had such jurisdiction at least insofar as their citizens had become victims of the crimes that the defendants were charged with), this doesn't change the fact that the IMT and NMT trials were conducted according to procedural rules resembling rules applied in the United States, which can be considered defendant-friendly. It is of no relevance in this context what constitution, if any, the states in question had at the time. The term constitutional state was used because, according to one of FO's more intelligent brothers in spirit, an Australian by the name of Michael Mills, this is the English equivalent of the German term Rechtsstaat, which designates a state ruled by law. The states behind the IMT were not necessarily ruled by law, but the procedural rules under which the trial was held were similar to such of a state that is.

As to Harlan Fisk Stone and other discontented polemicists, the fact is that their polemics didn't do justice to the IMT's endeavor to give the defendants a fair trial. In this context I suggest reading my blog Some misconceptions related to the Nuremberg trials … and the sources linked to therein. As concerns the NMT trials, especially the Einsatzgruppen trial, there is this interesting anecdote about the "Penguin rule", mentioned in Yale Edeiken’s article An Introduction to the Einsatzgruppen.

Jack Martin said...

Mr. Muehlenkamp's comments seem calculated to provoke rather than to elucidate and are replete with falshoods.

William McAdoo once said, "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument."

McAdoo, of course, was wrong about that. An ignorant man, if honest, will accept factual evidence when it is presented to him.

If McAdoo had said instead that "It is impossible to defeat a dishonest man in an argument" he would have been correct - since a dishonest man, having no respect for truth, will not be persuaded by it.

And that is evidently the situation that we have here.

Mr. Muehlenkamp will have his "Holocaust" no matter what the verifiable empirical evidence says.
His motto is "damn the torpedoes... full speed ahead!"

Muehlenkamp wrote, inter alia:
"So far all known documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence points to Treblinka having been an extermination camp in which about 800,000 people were murdered, with no evidence supporting a different scenario."

This is arrant nonsense. The so-called "eyewitness" evidence of which he speaks emanates exclusively from liars and lunatics such as Jankiel Wiernik whom he cited. To take Wiernik's claims at face value one would have to be as crazy as Jankiel Wiernik himself obviously is.

Only a deliberate liar or a deranged person would offer - or accept - such material as proof of what allegedly transpired at Treblinka. And the other so-called "eyewitnesses" are hardly better… and the “physical evidence” Muehlenkamp mentions simply does not exist. If it did, this discussion would not even be taking place… and Muehlenkamp would cite chapter and verse instead of making vague unsupported assertions.

Read Wiernik's book ‘One Year in Treblinka,’ the thing speaks for itself. Read the book! or, if that is too much effort, obtain and watch the DVD, "One Third of the Holocaust."
If you then still believe Wiernik's ravings, make an appointment to see a shrink without further delay.

Muehlenkamp wrote further:
“As to Harlan Fisk Stone and other discontented polemicists, the fact is that their polemics didn't do justice to the IMT's endeavor to give the defendants a fair trial.”

The "discontented polemicist" of whom Muehlenkamp speaks just happened to be the Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court at the time in question.

Many other prominent figures of the day, including Allied Military leaders, also spoke out against the so-called war crimes trials.

To quote just one of many... "I may, and do, say that I have always regarded the Nuremberg prosecutions as a step backward in international law, and a precedent that will prove embarrassing, if not disastrous, in the future." -- Honorable Justice Learned Hand

To speak of the IMT's "endeavor to give the defendants a fair trial" is to offer egregious insult to the intelligence of any person expected to believe such outrageous falsehood. One might just as well speak of an "endeavor to give the defendants a fair trial" at the infamous Stalin show trials.

Clausewitz said “war is the continuation of policy by other means.” In more recent times “war crimes trials” were the continuation of war by other means.

They could be more accurately described as trials BY war criminals than as trials OF war criminals.

Jack Martin said...

Mr. Muehlenkamp's comments seem calculated to provoke rather than to elucidate and are replete with falshoods.

William McAdoo once said, "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument."

McAdoo, of course, was wrong about that. An ignorant man, if honest, will accept factual evidence when it is presented to him.

If McAdoo had said instead that "It is impossible to defeat a dishonest man in an argument" he would have been correct - since a dishonest man, having no respect for truth, will not be persuaded by it.

And that is evidently the situation that we have here.

Mr. Muehlenkamp will have his "Holocaust" no matter what the verifiable empirical evidence says.
His motto is "damn the torpedoes... full speed ahead!"

Muehlenkamp wrote, inter alia:
"So far all known documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence points to Treblinka having been an extermination camp in which about 800,000 people were murdered, with no evidence supporting a different scenario."

This is arrant nonsense. The so-called "eyewitness" evidence of which he speaks emanates exclusively from liars and lunatics such as Jankiel Wiernik whom he cited. To take Wiernik's claims at face value one would have to be as crazy as Jankiel Wiernik himself obviously is.

Only a deliberate liar or a deranged person would offer - or accept - such material as proof of what allegedly transpired at Treblinka. And the other so-called "eyewitnesses" are hardly better… and the “physical evidence” Muehlenkamp mentions simply does not exist. If it did, this discussion would not even be taking place… and Muehlenkamp would cite chapter and verse instead of making vague unsupported assertions.

Read Wiernik's book ‘One Year in Treblinka,’ the thing speaks for itself. Read the book! or, if that is too much effort, obtain and watch the DVD, "One Third of the Holocaust."
If you then still believe Wiernik's ravings, make an appointment to see a shrink without further delay.

Muehlenkamp wrote further:
“As to Harlan Fisk Stone and other discontented polemicists, the fact is that their polemics didn't do justice to the IMT's endeavor to give the defendants a fair trial.”

The "discontented polemicist" of whom Muehlenkamp speaks just happened to be the Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court at the time in question.

Many other prominent figures of the day, including Allied Military leaders, also spoke out against the so-called war crimes trials.

To quote just one of many... "I may, and do, say that I have always regarded the Nuremberg prosecutions as a step backward in international law, and a precedent that will prove embarrassing, if not disastrous, in the future." -- Honorable Justice Learned Hand

To speak of the IMT's "endeavor to give the defendants a fair trial" is to offer egregious insult to the intelligence of any person expected to believe such outrageous falsehood. One might just as well speak of an "endeavor to give the defendants a fair trial" at the infamous Stalin show trials.

Clausewitz said “war is the continuation of policy by other means.” In more recent times “war crimes trials” were the continuation of war by other means.

They could be more accurately described as trials BY war criminals than as trials OF war criminals.

Nathaniel said...

Mr. Martin seems to be engaging in the psychological exercise known as projection. That, or he is simply trolling, or even both.

His last offering is full of nothing other than the "Rhetoric, Conjectures, and Falsehoods" Roberto Muehlenkamp once pointed out characterizes "Revisionist" statements.

-
This is arrant nonsense. The so-called "eyewitness" evidence of which he speaks emanates exclusively from liars and lunatics such as Jankiel Wiernik whom he cited. To take Wiernik's claims at face value one would have to be as crazy as Jankiel Wiernik himself obviously is.-

No one takes Wiernik's testimony at face value. That man's testimony is only accepted to the extent of what can be verified by independence evident of his testimony, including other witnesses and even SS men. You also have yet to provide an argument against Wiernik that hasn't been adequately addressed before or isn't an appeal to incredulity. Even then, most of this nonsense is nothing more than a repeat of Jack Martin's previous nonsense, and as such, the only answer is to once again offer RM's link discussing this nonsense.


-Read Wiernik's book ‘One Year in Treblinka,’ the thing speaks for itself. Read the book! or, if that is too much effort, obtain and watch the DVD, "One Third of the Holocaust."
If you then still believe Wiernik's ravings, make an appointment to see a shrink without further delay.-

Expecting a detached, clean account from a man who witnessed his co-religionists being murdered en-masse says a lot about Jack Martin, the Ugly Voice, and the rest of their kind, doesn't it?

Instead of rhetoric like this,
"Revisionists" would do much better to concentrate on providing positive evidence regarding their claims, like Documentary evidence detailing where the Jews of Treblinka were further deported to, or even statements from people to where the Jews of Treblinka were deported to.

Hello? Anyone there? Hello?

-and the “physical evidence” Muehlenkamp mentions simply does not exist. If it did, this discussion would not even be taking place… and Muehlenkamp would cite chapter and verse instead of making vague unsupported assertions.-


If you continue to dismiss physical evidence despite the existence of investigative reports (quoted in an above link), site photographs and a real expert's review of Richard Krege's nonsense, then forget a shrink. Lock yourself in an asylum without further delay.


-The "discontented polemicist" of whom Muehlenkamp speaks just happened to be the Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court at the time in question.

Many other prominent figures of the day, including Allied Military leaders, also spoke out against the so-called war crimes trials.

To quote just one of many... "I may, and do, say that I have always regarded the Nuremberg prosecutions as a step backward in international law, and a precedent that will prove embarrassing, if not disastrous, in the future." -- Honorable Justice Learned Hand-

If only "Revisionists" Like "Fooled Once" and JM would provide factual evidence from the proceedings of the IMT as proof of their claims that IMT was nothing but a show trial, instead of these empty appeals to authority that really impresses no one.

Alas, there is nothing new. With his confidence, one would expect that Mr. Martin is able to show the evidence that would be considered the holy grail of "Revisionism": evidence that the Reinhardt camps were actually transit camps or confessions from the individuals complicit in his so called "hoax". Instead, nothing. Nothing but the bluster, ignorance and mental deficiency that "Revisionists" exhibit so well.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Another poster has unsuccessfully tried to post a response to another of Mr. Martin's desperate attempts to hang on to his delusions, so I'll reproduce that poster's comments as they appeared in my mailbox:

[Part 1]
Sun, October 17, 2010 2:44:16 PM
[Holocaust Controversies] New comment on What "Revisionism" is all about – A Chat with Fred....
...
From:
Nathaniel
...
View Contact
To: cortagravatas@yahoo.com
Nathaniel has left a new comment on the post "What "Revisionism" is all about – A Chat with Fred...":

Mr. Martin seems to be engaging in the psychological exercise known as projection. That, or he is simply trolling, or even both.

His last offering is full of nothing other than the "Rhetoric, Conjectures, and Falsehoods" Roberto Muehlenkamp once pointed out characterizes "Revisionist" statements.

-
This is arrant nonsense. The so-called "eyewitness" evidence of which he speaks emanates exclusively from liars and lunatics such as Jankiel Wiernik whom he cited. To take Wiernik's claims at face value one would have to be as crazy as Jankiel Wiernik himself obviously is.-

No one takes Wiernik's testimony at face value. That man's testimony is only accepted to the extent of what can be verified by independence evident of his testimony, including other witnesses and even SS men. You also have yet to provide an argument against Wiernik that hasn't been adequately addressed before or isn't an appeal to incredulity. Even then, most of this nonsense is nothing more than a repeat of Jack Martin's previous nonsense, and as such, the only answer is to once again offer RM's link discussing this nonsense.


-Read Wiernik's book ‘One Year in Treblinka,’ the thing speaks for itself. Read the book! or, if that is too much effort, obtain and watch the DVD, "One Third of the Holocaust."
If you then still believe Wiernik's ravings, make an appointment to see a shrink without further delay.-

Expecting a detached, clean account from a man who witnessed his co-religionists being murdered en-masse says a lot about Jack Martin, the Ugly Voice, and the rest of their kind, doesn't it?

[t.b.c.]

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

[Part 2]

Instead of rhetoric like this,
"Revisionists" would do much better to concentrate on providing positive evidence regarding their claims, like Documentary evidence detailing where the Jews of Treblinka were further deported to, or even statements from people to where the Jews of Treblinka were deported to.

Hello? Anyone there? Hello?

-and the “physical evidence” Muehlenkamp mentions simply does not exist. If it did, this discussion would not even be taking place… and Muehlenkamp would cite chapter and verse instead of making vague unsupported assertions.-


If you continue to dismiss physical evidence despite the existence of investigative reports (quoted in an above link), site photographs and a real expert's review of Richard Krege's nonsense, then forget a shrink. Lock yourself in an asylum without further delay.


-The "discontented polemicist" of whom Muehlenkamp speaks just happened to be the Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court at the time in question.

Many other prominent figures of the day, including Allied Military leaders, also spoke out against the so-called war crimes trials.

To quote just one of many... "I may, and do, say that I have always regarded the Nuremberg prosecutions as a step backward in international law, and a precedent that will prove embarrassing, if not disastrous, in the future." -- Honorable Justice Learned Hand-

If only "Revisionists" Like "Fooled Once" and JM would provide factual evidence from the proceedings of the IMT as proof of their claims that IMT was nothing but a show trial, instead of these empty appeals to authority that really impresses no one.

Alas, there is nothing new. With his confidence, one would expect that Mr. Martin is able to show the evidence that would be considered the holy grail of "Revisionism": evidence that the Reinhardt camps were actually transit camps or confessions from the individuals complicit in his so called "hoax". Instead, nothing. Nothing but the bluster, ignorance and mental deficiency that "Revisionists" exhibit so well.

Fredrick Toben said...

1. I'm just passing by because I'm placing stuff on my website www.toben.biz, especially the 12-point Butz item, and the AIDS matter, which reminds me of how that fraud established itself into a Ponzi scheme, as did the Holocaust-Shoah decades ago.
2. I like the way Robert Muehlenkamp huffs-and-puffs-and-bluffs his way through responses without realizing that he has to prove his case while Revisionists do not have to prove anything.
3. Unfortunately his sneering at and slandering anyone who disagrees with his opinions reduces his blog to a shouting match - most uncivilized, and I understand why Revisionists will not waste their time in engaging with this kind of uncivilized exchange.
4. It still amazes me how so many Germans went from national Socialism to national masochism, and blindly embraced this rubbish contained in the 'Holocaust-Shoah' narrative.
5. Now Robbo, mate, let me see your response to Butz's 12 points. Should be interesting. And, just for clarification purposes, could you please send me a photo of the homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz?
Thanks mate.
Fredrick

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

1. I'm just passing by because I'm placing stuff on my website www.toben.biz, especially the 12-point Butz item, and the AIDS matter, which reminds me of how that fraud established itself into a Ponzi scheme, as did the Holocaust-Shoah decades ago.

Having new hallucinations, Mr. Töben?

2. I like the way Robert Muehlenkamp huffs-and-puffs-and-bluffs his way through responses without realizing that he has to prove his case while Revisionists do not have to prove anything.

Actually "my" case is not mine and has been proven long ago (Mr. Töben obviously hasn't been paying attention to what historiography and criminal justice have done in the past decades), whereas "Revisionist" charlatans have failed not only to produce substantial challenges to the historical record but also and more importantly to produce an evidence-backed alternative account. The position that they don't have to prove anything is a very comfortable one, but also one that absolutely stinks.

3. Unfortunately his sneering at and slandering anyone who disagrees with his opinions reduces his blog to a shouting match - most uncivilized, and I understand why Revisionists will not waste their time in engaging with this kind of uncivilized exchange.

Pointless whining about what this over-sensitive promoter of hate propaganda (who is obviously too feeble to take hard criticism) lamely calls "sneering" and "slandering", as an excuse for not producing arguments he doesn't have. Where have I seen that before?

i4. It still amazes me how so many Germans went from national Socialism to national masochism, and blindly embraced this rubbish contained in the 'Holocaust-Shoah' narrative.

Blindness is all in the "Revisionist" camp, actually. Understandably so, as they have nothing but faith there to cling to. As to Mr. Töben's "national masochism" remark, I wonder if he applies the same crappy reasoning to inhabitants of the former Soviet Union who are honest about the crimes of Lenin and Stalin, or to US citizens who condemn what people from their country did over Tokio and Hiroshima, at My Lai and at other places of sad memory. Do you, Mr. Töben?

5. Now Robbo, mate, let me see your response to Butz's 12 points. Should be interesting.

Apart from being a prolific producer of hot air and little else, you haven't been paying attention again, Mr. Töben. Look here.

And, just for clarification purposes, could you please send me a photo of the homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz?
Thanks mate.Fredrick


After you have specified which of the homicidal gas chambers at AB you mean (I hope you're not so ignorant as to assume that there was only one) and explained why one should expect such photo to necessarily exist, I might give it a try.

Ah, and I'm not your "mate". I don't remember us having kept pigs together.