Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Roberto in the deniers' den.

This is a comment thread to discuss our Roberto's appearance at CODOH.

There is almost no doubt that he will eventually be censored, but for now let's have some fun and laugh at the silly deniers being destroyed by Roberto.


  1. Silly denier borjastick apparently believes in the denier hoax about the Red Cross numbers, posting the document and asking:


    "I don't really know how you can claim there was never an official figure. Unless you want to throw everything we say into the frying pan that is."

    Of course, the document doesn't show any death tolls and does not come from the Red Cross, the full debunking is at http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/05/rebutting-twitter-denial-most-popular.html#redcrossstats

    Also, he doesn't demonstrate how there can be an "official figure" for something like an Auschwitz death toll.

  2. The ever dumb Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis:


    "[Roberto:] The figure I accept is slightly below one million.

    Yet his very own Nyiszli said 6,000,000 were killed at Auschwitz."

    And what does Nyiszli's alleged acceptance have to do with anything at all? IOW, who cares what death toll Nyiszli accepted?

    "There was no problem in getting Hoess to say whatever the 'Allies wanted, torture works like a charm."

    Of course, dumb Jonnie never proves Hoess was tortured by the Poles, and does not explain why, if he was tortured, he lowered the death toll of 4m accepted by the Commies to about 1 million.

    He then claims: "The 'Hydrokop Report' is a fraud."

    Since the Hydrokop report is real, we know that Jonnie is a liar (but we knew that already).

    Low-IQ Jonnie then posts this: "Roberto is grossly 'uninformed'." - never explaining what Roberto is supposed to be misinformed about. He then cites a denier list of alleged Auschwitz death tolls.

    But the very first entry in the list is a denier hoax! To wit:

    "9,000,000 Cited by the French documentary, Night and Fog, which has been shown to millions of school students worldwide."

    Here is the script:


    Here is the film:


    It obviously tells about the concentration camp system as a whole (using footage from Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdanek, Struthof, Mathausen, Buchenwald) so the 9 million number refers to the whole, not to Auschwitz.

    Deniers just can't stop lying.

  3. This thread is a hoot. Roberto challenged the chimps to name a single name of the millions allegedly transferred to the Russian East through Treblinka etc. (we know of course that it never happened because there is not a trace of those Jews at the alleged point of destination).


    Instead Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis points to the debunked articles by Kues:


    And then, predictably, regurgitates the debunked Rothstein canard:


    Hektor, not known for high intellect either, posts a bunch of names but forgets the little word in Roberto's challenge: "proof".

    Some other chimp brings up Karski, who, however, never was in Belzec, as we know now.

  4. So still not a single name of a transited Jew.

  5. In https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11231 after Roberto easily answers Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis' silly challenge, the intellectually challenged borjastick (who believes in the Red Cross hoax, see above) writes:

    "Roberto shows clearly why debating with him and his ilk is a waste of time. For people to be apparently well educated and of a decent IQ and then display zero critical thinking renders this whole escapade a waste of time. Anyone with a modicum of intellectual process and clear rational thought, and Roberto claims to not be a Zionist or supporter of jews, couldn't possibly accept the holocaust story as claimed. It's simply not possible. Therefore we are once again trying to push water uphill."

    IOW borjastick doesn't have any facts and evidence to refute Roberto, only a statement of faith. Denial is a religion after all.

  6. https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11219

    Here the dumb Jonnie claims that Katyn excavations/publication by the Germans were exemplary and proved something. Actually the so-called expert report (contained in the German book) was written by a non-neutral group (most of the experts were from the German-occupied territories; and those that were not - like the Swiss - knew about the possible danger of a future occupation). The only evidence in the report that was approaching credible by itself was that the latest dates of newspapers, letters, documents on the bodies were in the spring of 1940. Of course you have to trust the experts/those who did the excavations in the first place to accept this as evidence. The information from the corpses themselves did not yield any useful info (some of the experts thought that it did, proposing to be able to date the dates of the killings from certain changes in the skulls - but we now know the method was not scientifically credible).

    It was only later that it was actually proven that the Soviets shots the Poles. The German report by itself did no such thing.

    It's not that this report in itself is bad or anything. It's just that it's no worse or better than the Soviet Extraordinary Commission reports.

    The main and conclusive arguments for the Soviets shooting the Poles is that the Poles do not figure in the internal Soviet documentation starting with the spring of 1940; that the shooting order exists; and that newer exhumations were done proving the Soviet guilt.

    Of course, they are conclusive for normal, sane people, but they cannot be conclusive for the deniers. Deniers routinely dismiss the Holocaust documents as fakes, so it's hard to see on what grounds they would accept the shooting order as authentic. The new exhumations were done by Andrzej Kola, who also did the exhumations at the Nazi extermination camps, which are dismissed by the deniers, so why would the deniers accept Kola's other stuff?

    And the first argument - about the Poles vanishing from the Soviet bureaucracy - mirrors the "where did they go" argument in regard to the Holocaust. Since this argument is also dismissed by the insane chimps, all they have to go on is the German excavation report which doesn't really prove anything (by itself).

  7. I wonder when they would pull out their "Roberto is the son of an SS officer and he also uses drugs" BS again.


  8. 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.html

    I must underline that the famous "decreasing" list of AUschwitz death tolls (that is presented in the codoh thread) is also a Faurisson manipulation (most figures are NOT from historians' studies and have no historical value, they are displayed not in chronological order but in decreasing order in order in order to give the reader the feeling that no serious toll was ever given and that it always went down, sources are willingly given in evasive ways in order to make any verification difficult, if not impossible). The list has evolved and been modified, enriched with time, but it's a big fraud.

    For example, the 8 and 7 million figure stem from the same book, authored by Eugene Aroneanu who, in 1945 gathered in the heat of the war's end some data and testimonies in a simple, not scholar at all, way: Camps de concentration (Office français d'édition, 1945). Aroneanu purports to cite an official report from the O.R.C.G (Office de recherches des crimes de guerre) for the 8 million figure, but that report is nowhere to be found and that figure has never been used by anyone else anywhere else. So NO, it's not the "French War Crime Research Office, doc 31", as the Faurisson's list says, that gives that figure, it's Aroneanu, allegedly from a source that nobody has ever been able to check. The post continues with the 7 million figure also attributed to the "French War Crime Research Office". That's a lie. It's again taken from Eugene Aroneanu's little book. It stems from a witness, Raphaël Feigelson, who is mentionned only once, only there to say that "according to Raphaël Feigelson there were 7 millions victims". So of course, this figure is NOT from the "French War Crime Research Office". In both case deniers fail to cite the proper source (Aroneanu) and do not provide any way to verify (but I did, morons!)

    I can't go into each figure here.

    To my knowledge the six millions figure is NOT in Nyiszli's book (there is the classical 4 million figure though).

    The 5 million figure from Le Monde in 1978 is mentionned in a small insert in an article about the 35th birthday of the Warsaw ghetto uprising. Auschwitz is not even the subject of that insert, the figure is juste given in a sentence without source. It's fast bad journalism and has absolutely NO signification or impact in a real Auschwitz death toll historiography. More than that: the alleged "1,433,00" figure from french newpaper Le Monde in 1989 is a lie. Le Monde never wrote there were 1,433,00 vcitims in Auschwitz. I checked, morons.

    In fact it's easy to see that NONE of the figures above 4 million has any signification or impact. They were never uttered by historians, never used by historians, even never used at all anywhere else, outside the source it's taken from (when it's not a plain falsification, as with the 9 million in night and fog, by Faurisson).

    Figures taken from survivors have of course not much value since they were not in position to know precise numbers, only to guess the scale of the murder. In fact if you take out, witnesses, journalists, non historian figures, what emerges is a very unsurprising distribution between one an two million (with anomalies that are well known and studied from Pressac, Meyer, and the infamous 4 million).

    Very interestingly, the deniers who love Hoess fail to mention his main, most important, most valuable evaluation of the Auschwitz death toll, the one he wrote in his memoirs (from 1946!): 1,13 million.

    Deniers are a bunch of incompetent falsifiers and hypocrites.

  9. Addenda: the 6 millions attributed to Nyiszli is in fact due to his translator (to french) Tibère Kremer, who wrote (without source or even qualification) this number in a preface to the first appearance of Nyiszli's story in french in 1951, in the french periodical, Les Temps Modernes («S.S. Obersturmführer Docteur Mengele. Journal d'un médecin déporté au crématorium d'Auschwitz», Les Temps Modernes, mars 1951, no 65). This number disappears from the first edition as a book, in 1961 (Médecin à Auschwitz: souvenirs d'un médecin déporté, Juillard), even though Kremer provides a preface to that edition as well. Kremer, though he was in the french resistance, had no particular quality to estimate a death toll for Auschwitz. So this figure is like most of the others in the list: it has no significance within the Auschwitz historiography, no impact at all and Nyiszli should of course not be held responsible for it.

  10. Hi everybody,
    Thank you for your comments and the valuable input you have provided.
    Unfortunately I haven’t yet been able to stir up the Cesspit as I would like to because the moderator (guess who) turned on the memory hole machine right away (see the RODOH thread Yet another CODOH Memory Hole Festival, especially my reply to Hannover Lily here). The best I think I have achieved so far was spoiling Hannover’s "Auschwitz ash pond" act by pointing out the both Nyiszli and Höss mentioned disposal of cremation remains into the Vistula. Hannover retaliated by demanding that I produce the 1965 Hydrokop report alleging that it was fraudulent or didn’t exist, to which I responded to proving fraudulence was his business, whereupon my post was disapproved, whereupon I rewrote it stating that I would try to obtain the report from the Auschwitz Museum, whereupon my post was disapproved again – apparently I was supposed to produce on the fly a document that is not in the public domain let alone available on the internet.
    However, and although my CODOH posting time is limited (as access to the Cesspit is blocked by my company network, I have to post from home either throughout the morning on weekdays, which will upset even my very patient boss sooner or later, or in the evening and on weekdays, which even my very patient wife will resent), I intend to continue giving Hannover & Co. some trouble. Next by responding to Hannover’s "AB challenge" BS. Input is welcome, especially regarding the air photo stuff.

  11. I don't mind the Katyn eulogy due to what it implies: if Katyn-style investigation is what it takes to prove mass murder, then Stalin's regime has no more than about 13,500 proven murders (Katyn + Vinnitsa) on its hands, instead of millions, which makes "Hannover" a "Revisionist" on behalf of Stalin as well. I pointed that out in one post which, guess what, never saw the light of day (reproduced here; Hannover’s pretext for disapproving it was "The reported message is off topic. not 'holocaust' related, irrelevant").

    In another disapproval the idiot claimed that Blogger and this blog site were "illegal or pirated software"

    And so on.

  12. Particularly hilarious is the case one post that was initially approved and then, after I pointed out on RODOH that it contained a reference to a previous disapproved post (which Hannover Lily read, of course), was deleted along with all moderation traces of its prior approval. Reproduced here.

    Since then I take screenshots not only of posts about to be sent, but also of the notifications list. And I better start taking screenshots of approved posts as well, lest the asshole changes his mind and deletes them.

  13. The censorship of your posts was only to be expected under Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis' moderation. The "man" cannot bear his own ass handed to him.

    Now, every forum is free to moderate as it sees fit (we sometimes moderate with an iron fist here because this is not, primarily, a discussion forum). But a forum allegedly striving for an "open debate" on the Holocaust is being hypocritical.

  14. The imbecile Borjastick tries to mask his embarrassment with sarcasm:


    Don't fret, Borjastick, you only write under a pseudonym so no one can sniff out that you fell for the stupidest denier hoax - the "Red Cross stats" one. No person who accepts this hoax claim can claim to be intelligent in any way. Mein Beileid.

  15. 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.

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. -For God's sake, what kind of adult insults other people for making statements on the internet? -
    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.

    - If you assholes want to debunk the people on CODOH, -
    That's what Roberto's doing. And the Codoh clowns have nothing in response. Neither do you.

    -they're not the ones who keep making abusive posts on a blog.-
    They do, actually.

  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

  19. - 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.

    - If what somebody posts online or in a book is silly, then simply prove it.-
    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.

  20. Gilles Karmasyn said:

    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

    "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»."

    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:

    "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."

    - 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].

    The French repeatedly outdid the Soviets in terms of exaggerating the death toll of Auschwitz and other camps:

    On January 29, 1946, Charles Dubost, a French Deputy Chief Prosecutor at the big Nuremberg trial, read from document RF-140:

    "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.'"

    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.

  21. 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.

    The historical advisers for the film believed in much lower figures.

    And Resnais himself confirmed that the 9m figure referred to the whole.


  22. >>> 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.
    Not going to accuse him of lying in his award-winning book, like you do the deniers who claimed exactly the same thing?

    >>> The historical advisers for the film believed in much lower figures.
    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.

    >>> And Resnais himself confirmed that the 9m figure referred to the whole.
    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.

    In the same 2006 interview Resnais absurdly claimed that it wasn't then-known that six million Jews were supposed to have been killed!

    "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."

    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!

    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!

  23. Good find re: mistaken reference.

    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.

    Resnais himself confirmed that the 9m figure referred to the whole.

    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.

    BTW, you've been caught lying too.

  24. [long answer, 4 parts, sorry]

    Part 1/4

    Hi, I will try to adress some of the points raised by the Black Rabbit of Inlé (hereafter "BRoI").

    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".

    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).

    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.

    So, anyway, conclusion: Faurisson is right of course.

    Well, I'm joking. No he's not. He just the liar I repeatedly proved him to be, even on this subject.

    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.

    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...).

  25. Part 2/4

    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)!

    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.

    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!).

    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?

    « 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 »

    My rough translation :

    « 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 »

    This from the best historian on the Nuit et Brouillard subject.

    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).

    Faurisson is, still, a liar and a falsifier (example: Faurisson adds "jewish" to the orginal text from Nuit et Brouillard mentionning only "soap"!).

    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")?

    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?

  26. Part 3/4

    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...).

    And we are left with Jean-François Forges... Oh my, oh my...

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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!

  27. Part 4/4 (short, promise)

    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.

    So BRoI, what was your point anyway?

    That the 9 million figure is not global? That's ridiculous just by watching Nuit et Brouillard!

    That Faurisson is not a liar? Come on, you know better!

    That the Auschwitz decreasing death tolls list has any value? Really?

    That I'm a deceitful fucker? Well, no. I'm not.

    At least I learned something: you read french.


  28. Oops, the Rabbit will have to visit a surgeon after this one.

  29. Oh, and by the way, it's Marie GRanet, not "Garnet".

    Should not have copy/pasted from BRoI's initial post...

  30. 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"...

  31. SR: "BTW, you've been caught lying too."

    I'm hardly surprised that an individual peddling this theory !?!?!?! attempts to divert scrutiny of it by shamelessly making spurious accusations about other people lying.

    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]?

  32. Poor butthurt Rabbit got conclusively debunked 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 got caught lying about his conspiracy theory, so now he is reduced to meta-lying about other people lying (without even trying to demonstrate it). Sad chap.

  33. Not to be missed is Romanov's tl/dr debunking:

    "Long story short, the New York Times Magazine deleted the standing guy from the picture."

    This is not a mischaracterisation of his claim.

    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 copies of the magazine, he expertly refuted this evidence by writing "fail". lol, that's was really his response, one four letter word!

    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!

  34. Hi BRoI,

    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...

  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

  36. I mean, that courtesy can be expected since you decided to appear here after my answer (an appearance which was not compulsory... of course).

  37. 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 outright lied about never having accepted the argument seriously in the first place. Clearly the poor beastie is at the end of his wits.

  38. I may be wrong, but it looks to me like "Hannover" just fucked up badly.

  39. A list of my censored CODOH posts between 9 July and 19 August 2017 (111 in total) has been published in this RODOH post.


Please read our Comments Policy