Here you're described as a "sophisticated man who delivers powerful sermons... a literary scholar with a Cambridge degree who speaks perfect French, German and Spanish".
Yet here you're quoted as saying that "[t]he fact is that the 6 million people who were supposedly gassed represent a huge lie". But this shows that you're not a sophisticated scholar, rather you're a very ignorant and arrogant person of low intellect, since you did not even take a minimal effort to educate yourself about basic facts before opening your filthy mouth about the Jewish tragedy. For no credible historian ever claimed that all 6 million Jews were gassed.
You are a fraud, Williamson. You wrote in an e-mail that 1.3 million Jews deported (in 1942) to Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor and Majdanek were simply transported to the USSR. But they were never transported there for they were never found after the liberation of occupied territories. Ergo, you're a liar. Why don't you crawl under a rock and stay there?
" no credible historian ever claimed that all 6 million Jews were gassed.!"
ReplyDeleteNo you are right it was calculated by "amateurs" from the testimonies of the actual "eyewitness" that were then "revised" by historians who could not consider them as reliable - ie LIES.
Or maybe from Hoess and his claim of 3 million deaths at Auschwitz alone?
Historians believe his confession when he admits to gassing Jews but not when it comes to the actual numbers - an interesting methodology I might add. Usually when a person is caught deliberately lying when providing testimony, they are considered unreliable and none of their evidence is considered admissible without independent cooperation.
So what is the ACTUAL figure then?
Don't even try to change the topic.
ReplyDeleteNo credible historian ever claimed that all 6 million Jews were gassed. That is the truth. From this truth it follows that Williamson is an ignorant, dumb nitwit. Easy enough to comprehend?
> Historians believe his confession when he admits to gassing Jews but not when it comes to the actual numbers - an interesting methodology I might add.
It's _the_ historical methodology, about which you obviously know nothing.
All sources, especially witness testimonies, need to be critically evaluated, and chaff in them needs to be separated from wheat. And most testimonies will contain chaff.
Besides, as you would know if you weren't just another ignorant denier lemming, Hoess' _final_ death toll estimate was about a million, i.e. quite close to what is accepted now.
> So what is the ACTUAL figure then?
From 5 to 6 million dead. The amount of specifically gassed is impossible to determine for a simple reason - even in pure gassing camps, like Treblinka, you have lots of people dying while in trains (sometimes by thousands), and many thousands shot (in so-called "Lazarett").
Check out this report:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rense.com/general62/aauc.htm
Check out this "revisionist" review of that little silly pamphlet:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.codoh.com/review/revacount.html
Wow Sergey, nice to meet you too and I thank you for your critical analysis of myself and my views - unfortunately as you have never met me and are basing your opinion on one post; it unfortuunately says volumes about you.
ReplyDeleteThat said I am happy to politely respond to your post.
>"It's _the_ historical methodology, about which you obviously know nothing.
All sources, especially witness testimonies, need to be critically evaluated, and chaff in them needs to be separated from wheat. And most testimonies will contain chaff."
You have got me there, my training is legal and therefore I am not familiar with a system for evaluating evidence and forming RELIABLE conclusions that involves cherry-picking parts of selected testimonies to suit an argument whilst simultaneously ignoring the obvious contradictions and falsifications within those very testimonies.
But I will trust you that this is "The" way it is done in Historical research.
Of course I don't want to offend you any further with my posts without following "The" methodology in future; so I am sure you won't mind supplying me with some references to assist me with learning the correct methodology of historical research, "The" methodology as you describe.
"Wow Sergey, nice to meet you too and I thank you for your critical analysis of myself and my views - unfortunately as you have never met me and are basing your opinion on one post; it unfortuunately says volumes about you."
ReplyDeleteI base my opinions about you based on your dumb proclamations, which say volumes about you.
"You have got me there, my training is legal and therefore I am not familiar with a system for evaluating evidence and forming RELIABLE conclusions that involves cherry-picking parts of selected testimonies to suit an argument whilst simultaneously ignoring the obvious contradictions and falsifications within those very testimonies."
You're simply erecting a strawman, of course. And you're still clueless about historical methodology.
"Of course I don't want to offend you any further with my posts without following "The" methodology in future; so I am sure you won't mind supplying me with some references to assist me with learning the correct methodology of historical research, "The" methodology as you describe."
Or maybe you can go ... teach yourself.
Let's take your Hoess canard, for example.
ReplyDelete"Or maybe from Hoess and his claim of 3 million deaths at Auschwitz alone?
Historians believe his confession when he admits to gassing Jews but not when it comes to the actual numbers - an interesting methodology I might add."
Is it your contention that because of Hoess' initial figure we should reject all of his subsequent testimonies? If so, then this applies also to his statement which he wrote in Polish prison. But in this statement he actually forcefully rejects the 2.5-3 million death toll and arrives at a much lower toll, saying that high death tolls are but figments of imaginations of former prisoners and even Auschwitz had limits to its extermination capacity.
But how can this last document be rejected on the basis of an earlier claim, if in this very document this claim is corrected and rejected, moreover, contrary to the expectations of his Polish "hosts"?
So Polish statement instantly makes your argument incoherent. For even if we reject Hoess' earlier statements as flawed on the basis of his estimate, we still have his Polish statement. But this statement confirms the particulars of his earlier statements in basically everything but the death toll!
So how on the basis of your incoherent argument you want to overturn historical consensus, which anyway isn't based Hoess as a single witness, but rather on a convergence of facts, testimonies, documents and physical evidence?
You're a typical denier.