tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post503387450209074470..comments2024-03-17T20:28:40.281+00:00Comments on Holocaust Controversies: Roberto in the deniers' den.Nicholas Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-73584349049332270062017-08-20T18:20:18.947+01:002017-08-20T18:20:18.947+01:00A list of my censored CODOH posts between 9 July a...A list of my censored CODOH posts between 9 July and 19 August 2017 (<b>111</b> in total) has been published in <a href="https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2978&p=112769#p112757" rel="nofollow">this RODOH post</a>.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-4758164665851967692017-07-28T14:07:54.864+01:002017-07-28T14:07:54.864+01:00I may be wrong, but it looks to me like "Hann...I may be wrong, but it looks to me like "Hannover" just <a href="https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2978&start=170#p111148" rel="nofollow">fucked up badly</a>.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-53566925241419621542017-07-26T18:17:14.967+01:002017-07-26T18:17:14.967+01:00Rabbit's inability to form a coherent argument...Rabbit's inability to form a coherent argument is legendary by now. The Black Knight of Inle can't show that anyone edited the original picture, he can't show that any of the things he mumbles about are responsible for the missing post, he had to abandon his Mermelstein argument when the obvious retouching that he should have noticed was thrown in his face, and then <a href="https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=2081564#p2081564" rel="nofollow">outright lied</a> about never having accepted the argument seriously in the first place. Clearly the poor beastie is at the end of his wits.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-22297290447575229582017-07-26T18:15:48.626+01:002017-07-26T18:15:48.626+01:00I mean, that courtesy can be expected since you de...I mean, that courtesy can be expected since you decided to appear here after my answer (an appearance which was not compulsory... of course).Gilles Karmasynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08674513064151621351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-47833467670972798102017-07-26T18:14:35.275+01:002017-07-26T18:14:35.275+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Gilles Karmasynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08674513064151621351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-86295358721240821902017-07-26T18:12:23.495+01:002017-07-26T18:12:23.495+01:00Hi BRoI,
Apart from the fact that what you write...Hi BRoI, <br /><br />Apart from the fact that what you write about Sergey is totally NOT understandable, would you be so kind as to at least aknowledge I gave an answer to the points you raised (you know, something like "thank you for taking the time to adress the points I raised"... good faith and fairness would lead me to expect also a "you're right", but let's not be over ambitious)? You know, simple courtesy...Gilles Karmasynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08674513064151621351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-53638225472265008952017-07-26T17:59:31.348+01:002017-07-26T17:59:31.348+01:00Not to be missed is Romanov's tl/dr debunking:...Not to be missed is Romanov's tl/dr debunking:<br /><br />"<a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/rebutting-twitter-denial-most-popular.html#photos" rel="nofollow">Long story short, the New York Times Magazine deleted the standing guy from the picture</a>."<br /><br /><a href="http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/42ba8685d8f6bdd1ddb88f3cc9ba842c.jpg" rel="nofollow">This</a> is not a mischaracterisation of his claim. <br /><br /><br />Romanov has never bothered finding out how the NYT or its Sunday magazine were printed in the 1940s; he's never even heard of hotmetal or rotogravure printing. He didn't even display any awareness that newspapers deteriorate as they age. When it was shown to him that the same photo differs immensely in two different <a href="http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/851bd869de91a9ac0cd958eba4bf6f54.jpg" rel="nofollow">copies of the magazine</a>, he expertly refuted this evidence by writing "fail". lol, that's was really his response, one four letter word!<br /><br />Despite these numerous shortcomings—which some would say shows he doesn't know what the **** he's talking about; if Romanov says an object should be visible and isn't therefore the NYT dun did it, that's as good as money. You can take it to the bank!<br /><br /><br />The Black Rabbit of Inléhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083144769375557650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-55644616273216928612017-07-26T14:26:45.953+01:002017-07-26T14:26:45.953+01:00Poor butthurt Rabbit got conclusively debunked abo...Poor butthurt Rabbit got <a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-denier-logic-at-its-finest-famous.html?m=1" rel="nofollow">conclusively debunked</a> about his conspiracy theory at his embarrassing, now private blog (at which he also used to accept the blood libel, believe it or not), then he <a href="https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=2081564#p2081564" rel="nofollow">got caught lying</a> about his conspiracy theory, so now he is reduced to meta-lying about other people lying (without even trying to demonstrate it). Sad chap.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-60383892630748325892017-07-26T10:32:28.628+01:002017-07-26T10:32:28.628+01:00SR: "BTW, you've been caught lying too.&q...SR: <i>"BTW, you've been caught lying too."</i><br /><br />I'm hardly surprised that an individual peddling <a href="http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/42ba8685d8f6bdd1ddb88f3cc9ba842c.jpg" rel="nofollow">this theory</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVz7KxJJJWw&feature=youtu.be&t=3m13s" rel="nofollow">!?!?!?!</a> attempts to divert scrutiny of it by shamelessly making spurious accusations about other people lying.<br /><br />Remember when one SR invented [aka lied] a publisher, and later: a cover designer, as being the probable culprits for the second doctoring [which SR insists is totally unconnected to the first doctoring]?The Black Rabbit of Inléhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083144769375557650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-22136782116291417372017-07-25T20:33:10.777+01:002017-07-25T20:33:10.777+01:00I should modify a detail about Resnais (but that d...I should modify a detail about Resnais (but that does not impair my previous posts' main these). He said he did *not* know about six millions jews. Well interresting because MIchel and Wormser did "know" (though their knowledge was erroneous) and write about it in 1954, so they must have told Resnais... That he should state in 2006 that he did not "know" in 1955 what he surely did is really food for thought. It nonetheless does not modify the main fact about the "9 millions"...Gilles Karmasynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08674513064151621351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-89846570527617008992017-07-25T19:08:00.836+01:002017-07-25T19:08:00.836+01:00Oh, and by the way, it's Marie GRanet, not &qu...Oh, and by the way, it's Marie GRanet, not "Garnet". <br /><br />Should not have copy/pasted from BRoI's initial post...Gilles Karmasynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08674513064151621351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-58430245650893191042017-07-25T18:28:31.094+01:002017-07-25T18:28:31.094+01:00Oops, the Rabbit will have to visit a surgeon afte...Oops, the Rabbit will have to visit a surgeon after this one.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-3662857960782073102017-07-25T17:26:52.088+01:002017-07-25T17:26:52.088+01:00Part 4/4 (short, promise)
Yes Forges received pri...Part 4/4 (short, promise)<br /><br />Yes Forges received prizes for his book. That is something I'm a little bit ashamed as a french. What was liked about his work I think is that it was SO politically correct and SO well meaning... Sorry, Forges is a non existent name in the Holocaust research world. It's sad. The guy is really nice (I met him once, he loved PHDN!). Maybe today he would be more cautious. Maybe he is. I don't know. Beside beeing an illustration of how deniers can poison even those who think to be working against them, BRoI 's recourse to Forges does not prove his point. The more so that, thanks to him in part, I strenghtened mine.<br /><br />So BRoI, what was your point anyway? <br /><br />That the 9 million figure is not global? That's ridiculous just by watching Nuit et Brouillard! <br /><br />That Faurisson is not a liar? Come on, you know better! <br /><br />That the Auschwitz decreasing death tolls list has any value? Really?<br /><br />That I'm a deceitful fucker? Well, no. I'm not.<br /><br />At least I learned something: you read french. <br /><br />Cheers.<br />Gilles Karmasynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08674513064151621351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-53793319666727481882017-07-25T17:26:11.017+01:002017-07-25T17:26:11.017+01:00Part 3/4
Ok, ok, I'll tell you: Gerstein. Yes...Part 3/4<br /><br />Ok, ok, I'll tell you: Gerstein. Yes, Kurt Gerstein. Don't you know that Colonel Mantout was among the french officers present during the april 1945 Gerstein's interrogation? That Gerstein mentionned 25 million Jews gassed "and others" in one of his french april 1945 report? So what? No mystery, no french exageration mental illness. In august 1945 Mantout just repeated the extravagant figure he had got from Gerstein (plus one million, I guess for "others"). Come on: AUGUST 1945! Your thing does not prove any french mental disease was at work that would make us french people make up extravagant figures (trying to embark Resnais's in the cuckoo's nest ten years later was a mean move, BRoI...).<br /><br />And we are left with Jean-François Forges... Oh my, oh my...<br /><br />Unfortunately the book you quoted is bad, really, REALLY, bad. First it's not really a history book. It's a book about what we call in french "morale" and about teaching, about the "how" and the usefulness of "teaching Auschwitz" and "teaching about Auschwitz", all the social & memory stakes, etc., that bore me to death. Forges has worked only with french sources. He does not know (or quote) any literature in english or german. Its scope is very limited, though it has its moments. Forges's judgment is quite flawed. For example, Forges thinks that Arno Mayer's book about the Holocaust is good. I could just stop here... just kidding.<br /><br />The main problem with Forges is that he is obsessed with Holocaust deniers and has tried to write a book against them, trying to explain how "Auschwitz" should be teached in order not to "repeat it" and not to be permeable to denying propaganda. Unfortunately when I read it I understood that it was Jean-François Forges himself who had been permeable to the denier's literature, in that he would believe uncritically some of their shit (not the main lie about there having been no genocide of course). Only one example is necessary: on page 30 Forges claims that the Auschwitz death toll (meaning the infamous 4 million!) has been divided by four and that, thus, to maintain the total death toll (meaning here obvioulsy the jewish death toll) you would have to increase other figures (Einsatzgruppen, victimes in Russia, in the Balkans etc.)! When I read that twenty years ago I was just astonished: Forges had swallowed the infamous Auschwitz 4 million gambit falsification from deniers hook, line and sinker! I won't insult the HC readers by explaining how grotesque this is. There are more in Forges's book. <br /><br />Forges is so eager to be rigourous against the deniers and scrupulous about standard historiography that he sends undeserved critics to the second one while serving (without beeing conscious that he does so) denying classics! Indeed his book is full of references to deniers' works (not always critical) The problem is that he was too well meaning but had worked (at least in 1997) too little.<br /><br />What he writes about the 9 million figure in Nuit et Brouillard obeys to the same mechanism: Forges has been poisoned by Faurisson's manipulation and serves it uncritically. That's all. He has not done his homework. I'm sad for him, but this quote proves only his gullibility, not at all what Resnais and his team meant in Nuit et Brouillard. By the way: in the very same page, there is a note by Forges quoting french denier Roger Garaudy uncritically, and you know what? The Garaudy's trash bin that Forges quotes from does contain Faurisson's lie about the 9 million in Nuit et Brouillard! <br />Gilles Karmasynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08674513064151621351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-90611454745578686342017-07-25T17:25:18.836+01:002017-07-25T17:25:18.836+01:00Part 2/4
So I'm still right (and even more th...Part 2/4<br /><br />So I'm still right (and even more than before with this new evidence): neither Henri Michel nor Olga Wormser would, could approve of a 9 million figure for Auschwitz alone. Of course 8 (or 9) million is still a mistake for the whole concentration camp system, but it's not the "deception" Faurisson lies about. Interrestingly they also make another mistake when they write that three quarter of that (8 million) figure (6 then) are jews, meaning implicitely that all the jewish victims had been murdered in camps, which we know is false. This is iterresting because it shows how, at that time, the french historiography of the Holocaust was still in its infancy and also because it confirms the good quality of Resnais's memories (as quoted by BRoI himself)!<br /><br />BRoI finds my ellipsis in Resnais's quote "deceitful" but does not care to really explain why and how. Its not deceitful at all, simply because the missing part does NOT alter or contradict the fact that Resnais is clear about the fact that the 9 million figure was GLOBAL (which means of course: for all the camps and not Auschwitz alone). That was the subject about which I wanted to quote Resnais: my ellipsis was neither dishonnest nor superfluous.<br /><br />Now, indeed Resnais does (thanks BRoI for filling the gaps) add that (for him at that time but Resnais seems to still be confused about that matter at the time of his declarations) from those nine millions, six millions were jews: just like (same mistake) Henri Michel and Olga Worsmer in 1954 (with the 8/9 irrelevant difference)! What does that show? That shows that, contrary to BRoI's inuendo, Resnais's memories are quite good and he can be trusted on the meaning of the 9 million figure in Nuit et Brouillard (come on: he was the film maker!). <br /><br />Is that all? No, of course (did I thank you BRoI?). French historian Sylvie Lindeperg has written a very well researched book about the genesis, meaning and legacy of Nuit et Brouillard (« Nuit et brouillard », un film dans l'histoire, Paris: Odile Jacob, 2007). What does she writes on page 92?<br /><br />« Le chiffre de 9 millions de morts n'est pas attribué dans le film au seul camp d'Auschwitz mais à un ensemble vague incluant victimes du système concentrationnaire et Juifs assassinés »<br /><br />My rough translation :<br /><br />« The 9 million death figure is not attributed in the movie to the Auschwitz camp alone but to a vague set including concentration camps' victims and murdered jews »<br /><br />This from the best historian on the Nuit et Brouillard subject.<br /><br />I must say again what I wrote in my french web page about that subject: from watching Nuit et Brouillard ALONE it is obvious that the 9 million figure applies to all concentration camps. The other elements that I provided corroborate that obvious observation with concrete irrefutable converging figures provided by the two historians that worked with Resnais. And no, they cannot be dismissed like BRoI tries to do. They played a key role in the making of Nuit et Brouillard (underlined by Sylvie Lindeperg).<br /><br />Faurisson is, still, a liar and a falsifier (example: Faurisson adds "jewish" to the orginal text from Nuit et Brouillard mentionning only "soap"!).<br /><br />Now, what are we left with from BRoI's arguments (but he was not clear about what he was trying to prove, except that I was deceitful and had "fucked up")?<br /><br />The french "26 million people killed in the camps" figure? Proving what about Nuit et Brouillard? Nothing of course (isolated figures from 1945 do not prove anything about historians and film makers in 1955). But it is funnier than just the fact that it's irrelevant. Come on BRoI! "26 million"? "Colonel Mantout" (yes I displayed you pictures)? How could that not ring a (BIG HEAVY) bell?<br />Gilles Karmasynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08674513064151621351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-57025705136490934632017-07-25T17:24:31.284+01:002017-07-25T17:24:31.284+01:00[long answer, 4 parts, sorry]
Part 1/4
Hi, I wil...[long answer, 4 parts, sorry]<br /><br />Part 1/4<br /><br />Hi, I will try to adress some of the points raised by the Black Rabbit of Inlé (hereafter "BRoI"). <br /><br />First and foremost I have to thank him for pointing out my sloppiness (which you describe as me having "fucked up" -- would there be a kind of Shadenfreude here?) in attributing Marie Garnet's study to Olga Wormser! I will very soon make a correction (while reminding the readers that I previously misattributed the study) and adaptation of my web page about Faurisson and "Nuit et Brouillard".<br /><br />I do know, having thought about it, why I was sloppy (no excuse, but not a perverse evil deceitful dark-side-of-the-force project either).<br /><br />I remember quite well, though it was 15 years ago, when I was sitting in a French national Library (Bibliothèque nationale de France) reading room with this 1954 issue (yes the physical issue, not a jstor file, which did not exist then): I was reading it from cover to cover. It happens so that a long article from Olga Wormser preceded Marie Garnet's and that its last page, with Olga Wormser's name, of that article was on the left page of the issue while on the right page, opposing the left one (wit Olga Wormser's name...), was the first page of Marie Garnet's study, but without her name (wich would appear on the last page), and only the title. So here it is, it was a collision (no doubt helped by the fact that it matched what I was looking for of course), a very sloppy attribution. It's juste an explanation, not an excuse. I do apologize. By the way, today holding the physical issue would be impossible at the BnF because it's only available there on microfiche.<br /><br />So, anyway, conclusion: Faurisson is right of course.<br /><br />Well, I'm joking. No he's not. He just the liar I repeatedly proved him to be, even on this subject.<br /><br />Why? First, because of course my misattribution does not, in the end, weaken my argument, once refined (I did not say "revised", ok?): this 1954 issue of the Revue d’Histoire de la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale was written and published BEFORE Henri Michel (the editor of that journal) and Olga Wormser (the main contributor of that issue because she was the first and main french specialist about concentration camps) worked on Nuit et Brouillard (they did in 1955), and obviously, they had both read and approved of Marie Garnet's study, and its numbers for Auschwitz. So my reasonning holds, holds quite well, I think. <br /><br />And I do have corroborating evidence from Henri Michel and Olga Wormser that the nine millions figure does NOT apply to Auschwitz alone but to the whole concentration system (thanks again, BRoI for having me research that topic anew). In 1954 (BEFORE they worked on Nuit et Brouillard) Henri Michel and Olga Wormser published together a big book about the concentration camps experience, Tragédie de la déportation, Paris: Librairie Hachette (1954). The spirit of that book is a little bit the same as for Nuit et Brouillard (what a surprise!), the whole camp matter is ONE, with almost (thought it is mentionned) nothing so special about the jews. Testimonies from all the camps are cited together, classified by subjects, jewish matters being spread in the whole book. In the end the conclusion (beware the surprise) does give a number for all the concentration camp system: 8 millions (page 507). The reason why, in Resnais's movie, that figure went up to nine is of course both mysterious *and*, for our concern, irrelevant (and here we might look for Jean Cayrol's part...). <br />Gilles Karmasynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08674513064151621351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-77179148360600819192017-07-25T07:20:38.732+01:002017-07-25T07:20:38.732+01:00Good find re: mistaken reference.
Nevertheless th...Good find re: mistaken reference.<br /><br />Nevertheless the bottom line is: the number refers to the camp system as a whole. The film was not about Auschwitz so it made zero sense to give the death toll for Auschwitz at the end.<br /><br />Resnais himself confirmed that the 9m figure referred to the whole.<br /><br />As for lies, I'm not aware of Forges being a systemic liar, whereas I see denier liars every single day. They don't get the benefit of the doubt.<br /><br />BTW, <a href="https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=2081564#p2081564" rel="nofollow">you've been caught lying too</a>.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-46424806422819819012017-07-23T21:50:46.422+01:002017-07-23T21:50:46.422+01:00>>> Forges is clearly not very bright sin...>>> <i>Forges is clearly not very bright since the number refers to the camp system as a whole. The film was not about Auschwitz so it made zero sense to give the death toll for Auschwitz at the end.</i><br />Not going to accuse him of lying in his award-winning book, like you do the deniers who claimed exactly the same thing? <br /><br /><br />>>> <i>The historical advisers for the film believed in much lower figures.</i><br />You didn't check to see whether Gilles was telling the truth about them evidently [detailed below], but even if both Michel and Wormser did then-believe *only* 4,000,000 were killed; that wouldn't prove they had final-say on what went into Resnais' script.<br /><br /><br />>>> <i>And Resnais himself confirmed that the 9m figure referred to the whole.</i><br />He did, but only in 2006 when his documentary was 51 years old, he was 84, Michel and Wormser were long dead, and the film's *nine million* controversy was very well known. <br /><br />In the same 2006 interview Resnais absurdly claimed that it wasn't then-known that six million Jews were supposed to have been killed!<br /><br /><i>"C'est très difficile de parler de ce film parce que je l'ai fait avec beaucoup de malaise. A l'époque, la notion de la Shoah n'existait pas. Pour le commentaire Cayrol, Olga Wormser et Henri Michel se sont interrogés sur le nombre de morts ; celui retenu à l'époque est un chiffre global de neuf millions. Est-ce qu'il fallait détailler le nombre de tziganes, d'homosexuels, de politiques? Nous ne connaissions pas les chiffres. Six millions de Juifs sur neuf millions, nous ne le savions pas."</i><br /><br />Gilles opted to ellipsis-out Resnais' bit r.e. *the then-unknown figure of six million Jews*, maybe because in his preceding footnote [no.6] he cites page 111 of the article "La déportation au procès international de Nuremberg" to *prove* that Wormser estimated c.4 million were killed at Auschwitz, and Hoettl's [org. AE's] 6 million Jews estimate is mentioned on the very same page! <br /><br />Gilles' editorial decisions can easily be backtracked, but aside from being deceitful, he ****ed up, because Wormser didn't write that article, it was written by Marie Garnet! The Black Rabbit of Inléhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083144769375557650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-8615746072296676662017-07-23T14:50:44.308+01:002017-07-23T14:50:44.308+01:00Forges is clearly not very bright since the number...Forges is clearly not very bright since the number refers to the camp system as a whole. The film was not about Auschwitz so it made zero sense to give the death toll for Auschwitz at the end.<br /><br />The historical advisers for the film believed in much lower figures.<br /><br />And Resnais himself confirmed that the 9m figure referred to the whole.<br /><br />https://phdn.org/negation/faurisson/nuitetbrouillard.htmlSergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-51086524963508033702017-07-22T21:08:23.406+01:002017-07-22T21:08:23.406+01:00Gilles Karmasyn said:
The 9 million gambit in Nig...Gilles Karmasyn said:<br /><br /><i>The 9 million gambit in Night and Fog is a pure invention by Faurisson from the beggining of the 1990s, that I have fully debunked in 2002 (in french), here: http://www.phdn.org/negation/faurisson/nuitetbrouillard.htm<br /><br />"Quiconque regarde le film comprend que le paysage dont il est question — qui n’est ni nommé ni identifié — vaut symboliquement pour tout le système concentrationnaire, selon un mode naratif maintes fois employé dans le film et que souligne la désignation de ce paysage comme «observatoire»."</i><br /><br /><br />That's not what the Frenchman Prof. Jean-François Forges believes it means. In his award-winning 1997 book on educating children about the Holocaust, Forges agrees with Faurisson's take on it, although Forges just blames the narrator:<br /><br />"Mais on retombe encore, avec Nuit et Brouillard, sur le problème du nombre des victimes. Sur des images de Birkenau, le commentaire annonce que « neuf millions de morts hantent ce paysage.» Si le nombre des victimes d'Auschwitz est aujourd'hui estimé à environ un million, en 1955, le nombre admis était de quatre millions. À quoi a bien pu penser Jean Cayrol pour ajouter aussi légèrement 5 millions à un nombre déjà effroyable. Quel fut le sens de toutes les exagérations à propos d'Auschwitz? Multiplier sans aucun document historique les millions de morts, ce fut une irresponsabilité macabre. Ceux qui veulent maintenir la mémoire le savent aujourd'hui. Et qu'on n'ait pas l'inconscience de dire qu'après tout 1, 4 ou 9 millions de morts, peu importe puisque le problème est celui d'avoir tué en fonction seulement de l'origine de la victime. Ce sont des raisonnements abstraits insupportables. Un million de morts c'est un bien concret et hallucinant cortège, une somme monstrueuse de souffrances. Il n'est pas permis de parler sans réfléchir de morts par millions, en particulier maintenant, après le travail des historiens."<br /><br />- Jean-François Forges, Éduquer contre Auschwitz, 1997, p.48 [the book was the joint-winner of the 1997 Jacob Buchman Prize for the Memory of the Holocaust, a prize given by the French Judaism Foundation].<br /><br /><br />The French repeatedly outdid the Soviets in terms of exaggerating the death toll of Auschwitz and other camps:<br /><br />On January 29, 1946, Charles Dubost, a French Deputy Chief Prosecutor at the big Nuremberg trial, read from document RF-140:<br /><br /><i>"The first page of Document Number F-140 states—and I quote so as not to have to return to it again—in the fourth paragraph which deals with Auschwitz: 'About seven million persons died in this camp.'"</i><br />http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/01-29-46.asp<br /><br />In France during 1955, anyone who claimed *only* 9 million *in total* were killed in Hitler's camps would have been considered a negationist. In the immediate aftermath of the war French War Crimes investigators had insisted that over 26 million people had been killed in the camps.<br />http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/8448e38f7bbbcab2ed0f7874e58e5a34.jpg<br />https://disjecta.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/wp-image-2118011058png.png?w=924<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The Black Rabbit of Inléhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083144769375557650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-68361338115672797172017-07-14T17:51:05.966+01:002017-07-14T17:51:05.966+01:00- when the revisionists have not even been doing s...- when the revisionists have not even been doing so- Bobby has clearly never heard of either Eric Cunt, or Friedrich Berg. Nor has he heard of The Abuse the Codoh crowd heaped on David Irving whrn the latter dared turn his back on Deniers, or the abuse heaped by Jurgen Graf on Christian Lindtner when he dared do the same. Bobby is either ignorant, or dishonest. <br /><br />- If what somebody posts online or in a book is silly, then simply prove it.-<br />Roberto, Sergey and Giles have done a good job of proving it on this thread. And this is poor Bobby's second post, and he still has nothing in response to their statements or criticisms, instead choosing to whine about "tone". Poor snowflake needs his safe space.<br />Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02660486969581542489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-71792531731263170442017-07-14T17:21:41.443+01:002017-07-14T17:21:41.443+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04998416765435675281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-2899202946487912932017-07-14T16:46:10.030+01:002017-07-14T16:46:10.030+01:00-For God's sake, what kind of adult insults ot...-For God's sake, what kind of adult insults other people for making statements on the internet? -<br />Codoh, apparently. They keep insulting Roberto in the absence of actual rebuttals to his criticism. They also block him because they know they have nothing. <br /><br /><br />- If you assholes want to debunk the people on CODOH, -<br />That's what Roberto's doing. And the Codoh clowns have nothing in response. Neither do you. <br /><br />-they're not the ones who keep making abusive posts on a blog.-<br />They do, actually. Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02660486969581542489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-86924251116815072562017-07-14T11:52:55.340+01:002017-07-14T11:52:55.340+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04998416765435675281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-61382472890669438062017-07-14T05:07:33.096+01:002017-07-14T05:07:33.096+01:00I've taken a look - it's fucking amature h...I've taken a look - it's fucking amature hour over there. These folks are stuck on paleoneolithic denier memes that git debunked in the Nizkor years. Borjastick just earned a spot in my "Dumbest Deniers of All Time" list at SSF. Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03218089864137630577noreply@blogger.com