History Books written by the victors are what everyone is taught in school.
Visiting the camps show hair, cloths and no mass graves.
A memorial with names isn't proof. I could have a memorial to the great spaghetti war outside right now with 100 names on it that I made up or are people who died from other causes.
The Bechenwald photos are not proof of a deliberate and systematic extermination of jews but massive deaths due to typhus towards the end of the war due to supply lines being bombed
Heres a photo of a British "liberator" shoveling bodies into a mass grave.
Those mass graves (the only ones found) are from the British dumping dead Typhus victims into.
Anne Frank's Diary's legitimacy is in question
http://www.patriot.dk/nurnberg1.html
http://www.patriot.dk/nurnberg2.html
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres3/CPeng.pdf
So far these proofs have been refuted with no answers, at least none that have been brought to my attention.
A few other questions and things I'd like to mention.
Why did Elie Wiesel and countless other Jews survive the Holocaust if it was the intention of the Third Reich to eliminate every Jew? Elie was a prisoner for several years; other Jews survived even longer. Most of these “survivors” were ordinary people who did not have any unique expertise that the Germans could have exploited. There was no logical reason for them to be kept alive if the goal was extermination. The very existence of more than a million survivors even today, some sixty years later, contradicts one of the basic components of the Holocaust; i.e. that the Germans had a policy to eliminate every Jew.
Why is there no mention of the Holocaust in Churchill’s six volume History of the Second World War, the wartime memoirs of either De Gaulle or Eisenhower, or any of the other lesser luminaries who wrote about the Second World War? Keep in mind all these were written years after the war ended and thus after the Holocaust had been allegedly proven by the Nuremberg Trials. With regard to the Holocaust, the silence of these “cognoscenti” is deafening!
What was an inmate infirmary (and a brothel) doing in Auschwitz if in fact it was a death camp?
Why would the Germans round up Jews from their far-flung empire (thereby tying up large numbers of personnel and rolling stock, while fighting a world war on two fronts) to deliver people to “death camps” hundreds of miles away to simply execute them upon arrival? Wouldn’t a bullet on the spot have appealed to the legendary German sense of efficiency?
Why, after seventy years, have historians been unable to come up with a single German document that points to the Holocaust? Should we believe the likes of Raul Hilberg that in the place of written orders there was an “incredible meeting of the minds” by the literally tens of thousands of people who would have had to coordinate their actions in order to carry out an undertaking of this magnitude?
Why is is still insisted upon that six million Jews were killed when the official Jewish death toll at Auschwitz, the flagship of the Holocaust gulag, has been reduced from an immediate post-war figure of 4 million to a figure of less than 1 million?
All of Germany’s wartime codes were compromised, including the one used to send daily reports from Auschwitz to Berlin. The transcripts of these messages make no mention of mass executions or even remotely suggest a genocidal program in progress. Furthermore, it has been insisted that the Germans used a kind of euphemistic code when discussing their extermination program of the Jews–e.g. “final solution”, special treatment, resettlement, etc. Why was it necessary for them to use such coded euphemisms when talking to one another unless they thought their codes had been cracked by the Allies? And then why would they still use cracked codes?
The water table at Auschwitz lies a mere 18 inches below the surface, which makes claims of huge burning pits for the disposal of tens of thousands of victims untenable.
Initially, claims were made that mass executions in homicidal gas chambers had taken place in camps located within the boundaries of the old Reich (e.g. Dachau, Bergen-Belsen). “Evidence” to that effect was every bit as compelling as what is offered for other camps–located in occupied Poland–yet without explanation in the early sixties we were told that this was not the case and that all the “death camps” were located in the East (i.e. Poland), outside (some would say conveniently) the probing eyes of western scholars.
No one has been able to reconcile the eyewitness accounts that personnel entered the gas chambers after 20 minutes without any protective gear, and the fact that Zyklon B was a “time release” fumigant that would have had a lethal capability for at least another 24 hours. And that even after 24 hours the corpses would have themselves remained sufficiently contaminated by the hydrogen cyanide gas that they would have had the capacity to kill anyone who touched them who was not wearing protective gear.
Why do we no longer hear claims that the Germans manufactured soap, lampshades, and riding britches from the bodies of dead Jews? Could it be that in the light of modem forensics and DNA knowledge these claims are totally untenable?
Why do we no longer hear claims that huge numbers of Jews were exterminated in massive steam chambers or electrocuted on special grids? “Evidence” of this was presented at Nuremberg–evidence that sent men to the gallows.
Elie Wiesel has been described as “the Apostle of Remembrance,” yet in his memoir, Night, which details his stay at Auschwitz, he makes no mention of the now infamous homicidal gas chambers. Isn’t this a bit like one of the Gospels making no mention of the Cross?
Virtually every survivor who was examined at Auschwitz says that he or she was examined by the infamous Dr. Mengele.
According to survivor testimony, hundreds of thousands of Jews were executed at Treblinka and then buried in mass graves in the surrounding area. Why is it that extensive sonar probing of these burial grounds reveals that this alleged final resting place for Holocaust victims has remained undisturbed since at least the last ice age?
“Proof” of the Holocaust rests primarily on survivor testimony. There is little, if any, hard evidence. The best of this has been described by Jean Claude Pressac as merely “criminal traces.” Even Judge Grey who presided at the Irving-Lipstadt Trial commented that he was surprised the evidence pointing to the Holocaust was “extremely thin.” To paraphrase Arthur Butz, “a crime of this magnitude would have left a mountain of evidence.” Where is it? There was more hard evidence against O. J. Simpson at his trial and he was found innocent.
Why has Holocaust revisionism been criminalized in at least eleven countries? What other historic truth needs the threat of prison or the destruction of one’s career to maintain itself? Should someone be sent to prison for expressing skepticism about the official Chinese claim that they suffered 35 million dead in World War II?
Why do the court historians insist that “denying the Holocaust” is like denying slavery or saying the Earth is flat? The leading Revisionists are first rate scholars who hold advanced degrees from the world’s leading universities. Is there anyone comparable among those who say the world is flat or that slavery never existed? Notice again that it is not illegal to say the Earth is flat or that slavery never existed. The truth of these things does not seem to need legal protection.
Promoters of the Holocaust have expressed concerns about remembering the Holocaust once the last survivors die. Why haven’t Civil War historians expressed similar concerns since the last survivor of that conflict died in 1959?
Survivors of the Holocaust have testified that smoke billowed from the crematoriums as they consumed the bodies of murdered victims–some eyewitnesses even claimed they could detect national origins by the color of the smoke. How can this be reconciled with the fact that properly operating crematoriums do not produce smoke of any color?
According to the official version of the Holocaust, hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were rounded up in mid-1944 and sent to Auschwitz, where most were gassed immediately upon arrival and their bodies were disposed of by burning in huge open air pits using railroad ties and gasoline. Why is that there is no evidence of these huge funerary pyres in the high resolution surveillance photos taken by Allied aircraft overflying the camp on a daily basis during this time period? Furthermore, why have no remains been found, since open pit burning, even when gasoline is used, generates insufficient heat to totally consume a body?
All of the liberated camps were littered with corpses; is there a single autopsy report or any other forensic evidence that shows that even a single one of these deaths was a consequence of poison gas?
The death toll for the Holocaust relies exclusively on population statistics provided by Jewish sources; has any independent demographic study been produced that shows that approximately six million Jews were “missing” at the end of the war?
Why do the wartime inspection reports of camps made by the International Red Cross contain no references to mass executions? It strains credulity that such monumental crimes could be hidden. The only explanations are that either these crimes were not occurring or that the Red Cross was complicit in a cover up.
Why has there been no effort to respond to the Leuchter Report?
“The Holocaust was technologically possible because it happened.” Why is this intellectually bankrupt argument, which turns scholarship on its head, considered by the promoters of the Holocaust as historical truth, and considered a sufficient response to the mounting Revisionist evidence to the contrary?
What other historical truths rely to the extent that the Holocaust does on so-called “eyewitness” testimony, and why have none of these witnesses ever been cross-examined?
NOW WAIT JUST A MINUTE BEFORE YOU RESPOND!
I'm not saying I necessarily believe all of this, I'm just saying theres a lot of questions and gaps for some reasonable doubt and making it illegal to ask these questions and criminalizing curiosity does nothing but breed more distrust and a further affirmation that the denier is right. This policy of censorship does absolutely no good to either side of the argument.
Also if a mod wants to move this it's own thread go ahead but I've pretty much said my piece on this.
