im always impressed with your referencing skills sihhi, i think you might have just linked to the worst place on the internet
binka, there may be a few unsavoury people on the forum but remember that it publishes an academic quarterly bulletin. Its sole purpose is for
truth. We should seriously
seek the truth, not simply accept received eyewitness reports and official statements
at face value, the
truth will set us free,
finding the truth is an important task, however
truthseekers are ridiculed by an unholy alliance of establishment judges and new left acolytes who accuse anyone they dislike of antisemitism.
In the spirit of truthseeking, here is the latest issue reviewing the work of architectural historian and Holocaust camp expert Robert Jan van Pelt:
"In the chapter “Intentional Evidence” there is, for example, the witness Janda Weiss. He came to Auschwitz when he was 14 years old and, strangely enough, was not sent to the gas chamber right away, in spite of his young age. Instead, he was put to work as a kitchen helper and took food to the crematorium Sonderkommando to which he would a year later be assigned himself. Like so many other such witnesses, he was spared the fate that allegedly struck this unit regularly, and survived to tell his tale.
For a number of procedural reasons - Weiss made specific allegations and provided specific details - van Pelt agrees with Wilhelm Staeglich, the arch-revisionist, that Weiss should be taken seriously as a witness. So far, so good. But if we examine what Weiss had to say, at least two of the details he provided are so ludicrous as to disqualify him entirely.
There is, first of all, the story of elderly people being carted away from the “ramp” on a dump truck that took them straight to the burning trenches and tipped them into the fire alive. Leaving aside the question of whether it was possible to drive a heavy truck across the swampy ground of Birkenau without getting stuck, we reach a limit when we imagine this truck being carefully backed up to the edge of a trench blazing with fire and then dumping its uncooperative load. This can simply not be done in a matter of seconds and there is thus a serious risk of the truck catching fire or even exploding in the process. Any German soldier foolish enough to undertake such a highly risky and totally useless operation would certainly have been court-martialed for endangering government property, if not for outright sabotage.
There is also the question of what these trenches looked like: either the sides of the trench were banked, in which case the truck could not get close enough to the fire in such an operation, or if the banks were vertical, the tail end of the truck would extend into the flames and the edge of this make-shift trench would eventually crumble with disastrous results."
http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2013/volume_5/number_1/the_case_for_auschwitz.php
Why am I so quick to dismiss these details? Why is there a continuing conspiracy of silence on these matters? Why is the BBC funding outright propaganda and terrorism-by-slander against tortured German leaders who couldn't speak for themselves at their trials with such output as BBC Four's
World War Two and and BBC Two's
Witness to Auschwitz? The BBC with the Jimmy Saville scandal is unable to investigate a repeat child molester in its midsts, so it is hardly surprising that they it does not have the courage to impartially investigate the false allegation crime of the twentieth century. Should I not demand that neighbours and friends support any new investigation of the Holocaust events during the second world war so long as it is run by uncompromised people with a range of opinion including those inclined to disbelieve the official Holocaust discourse? Why or Why not?
